It is true that Sir Henry Clinton effected what he states to have been his principal object,—­the safety of his baggage.  But when it is recollected that the American officers had decided against hazarding an action, that this advice must have trammeled the conduct, and circumscribed the views of the Commander-in-chief, he will be admitted to have effected no inconsiderable object in giving the American arms that appearance of superiority which was certainly acquired by this engagement.

Independent of the loss sustained in the action, the British army was considerably weakened in its march from Philadelphia to New York.  About one hundred prisoners were made, and near one thousand soldiers, chiefly foreigners, deserted while passing through Jersey.

The conduct of Lee was generally disapproved.  As however he had possessed a large share of the confidence and good opinion of the Commander-in-chief, it is probable that explanations might have been made which would have rescued him from the imputations that were cast on him, and have restored him to the esteem of the army, could his haughty temper have brooked the indignity he believed to have been offered him on the field of battle.  General Washington had taken no measures in consequence of the events of that day, and would probably have come to no resolution concerning them without an amicable explanation, when he received from Lee a letter expressed in very unbecoming terms, in which he, in the tone of a superior, required reparation for the injury sustained “from the very singular expressions” said to have been used on the day of the action by the Commander-in-chief.

[Sidenote:  June 30.]

[Sidenote:  General Lee arrested for his behavior in this action, and afterwards to the commander-in-chief.]

This letter was answered by an assurance that, so soon as circumstances would admit of an inquiry, he should have an opportunity of justifying himself, to the army, to America, and to the world in general; or of convincing them that he had been guilty of disobedience of orders, and misbehaviour before the enemy.  On his expressing a wish for a speedy investigation of his conduct, and for a court-martial rather than a court of inquiry, he was arrested.

First.  For disobedience of orders in not attacking the enemy on the 28th of June, agreeably to repeated instructions.

Secondly.  For misbehaviour before the enemy on the same day, in making an unnecessary, disorderly, and shameful retreat.

Thirdly.  For disrespect to the Commander-in-chief in two letters.

[Sidenote:  Court-martial appointed to try him.  Sentenced to be suspended for one year.]