The  British  Government,  immediately  after  being  advised  of  the  con-
flagration, publicly  thanked  the  officers  concerned  in  it;  and  on  being
subsequently  informed  of  the  death  of  General  Soss,  who  was  killed,  the
day  after  the  conflagration,  in  the  abortive  march  to  Baltimore,  erected
a  monument  in  Westminster  Abbey  to  his  memory. But  before  long  it
was  discovered  that  the  burning  of  Washington  was  as  impolitic  as  it
was  in  violation  of  the  law  of  nations. The  sentiment  of  condemnation
that  then  sprung  up  is  exhibited  in  a  speech  of  Sir  James  Mackintosh  in
tiie  House  of  Commons  on  April  11, 1815,  in  an  address  to  the  Prince  Be-
KCDt  on  the  treaty  of  peace. It  was  argued  by  him  that  '*  the  cul  pable  de  •
lay  of  the  ministry  in  opening  the  negotiations  of  peace  could  be  ex-
plained only  on  the  miserable  policy  of  protracting  the  war  for  the  sake  of
striking  a  blow  against  America. The  disgrace  of  the  naval  war,  of  bal-
aaced  success  between  the  British  navy  and  the  new-born  marineof  Amer-
ica,  was  to  be  redeemed  by  protmcted  warfare,  and  by  pouring  our  victo-
noQsarmies  upon  the  American  continent. That  opportunity,  fatally  for
OS,  arose. If  the  congress  had  opened  in  June,  it  was  impossible  that
we  should  have  sent  out  orders  for  the  attack  on  Washington. We
should  have  been  saved  from  that  success,  which  he  considered  a  thousand
times  more  disgraceful  and  disastrous  than  the  worst  defeat. •    •    •
It  was  a  success  which  had  made  our  naval  power  hateful  and  alarming
to  all  Europe. It  was  a  success  which  gave  the  hearts  of  the  American
people  to  every  enemy  who  might  rise  against  England. It  was  an  enter-
prise which  most  exasperated  a  people  and  least  weakened  a  government
of  any  recorded  in  the  annals  of  war. For  every  justifiable  purpose  of
present  warfare,  it  was  almost  impotent. To  every  wise  object  of  retro-
spective policy,  it  was  hostile. It  was  an  attack,  not  against  the  strength
or  resources  of  a  state,  butagainstthe  national  honorand  public  affections
of  a  people. 