k a
controversy with Burges, or, as they more graphically expressed it, not
to "get into the talons of the bald-headed eagle of Rhode Island." The
threatened danger, however, had not deterred him from exposing the
absurdities into which even eagles fall when they use their pinions for
writing and not for flying. Not even did he have the fear of the
Historical Society itself before his eyes. In 1850 he took occasion to
pay his respects to that body. He was then bringing out a revised
edition of his novels. In the preface to "The Red Rover," he mentioned
the stone tower at Newport, and referred to the way in which he had been
assailed for his irreverence in calling it a mill. He repeated this
assertion as to its character. He expressed his belief that the building
was more probably built upon arches to defend grain from mice than men
from savages. "We trust," he added, "this denial of the accuracy of what
may be a favorite local theory will not draw upon us any new evidence of
the high displeasure of the Rhode Island Historical Society, an
institution which displayed such a magnanimous sense of the right, so
much impartiality, and so profound an understanding of the laws of
nature and of the facts of the day, on a former occasion when we (p. 227)
incurred its displeasure, that we really dread a second encounter with
its philosophy, its historical knowledge, its wit, and its signal love
of justice. Little institutions, like little men, very naturally have a
desire to get on stilts; a circumstance that may possibly explain the
theory of this extraordinary and very useless fortification. We prefer
the truth and common sense to any other mode of reasoning, not having
the honor to be an Historical Society at all." No reply, at least no
public reply, came from that quarter during his life, to the views he
had expressed. It was only when he was unable to defend himself that he
was again assailed. In February, 1852, an account of the battle of Lake
Erie was delivered before the Rhode Island Historical Society by Usher
Parsons, who had been assistant surgeon on board the Lawrence. His
testimony had been somewhat severely criticised by Cooper. Now that the
latter was in his grave he took occasion to cast imputations upon the
motives of the historian, and asperse the honesty of his statements.
Parsons added nothing new of moment to the discussion, for what he said
was merely a rehash, made in a very bungling way, of the old facts an