We have already shown that the first flag spoken of in both the above accounts (Flag No. 3) in our Table, bore certain mottoes; and not being precise in the description of the flag, which for months had been displayed before their eyes, we may expect inaccuracies in the description of a flag newly presented to them, and which, even to an officer on Charlestown Heights, who, as appears, was at some pains to describe it, appeared to be _two_ flags; and remembering that this flag was supposed to be displayed on the receipt of the king's speech, the following account of the colors of British regiments explains why it was especially regarded by the British as a token of submission. "The kings, or _first_ color of every regiment, is to be the Great Union throughout. "The _second_ color is to be the color of the facing of the regiment, with the Union in the upper canton, except those regiments which are faced with red, white, or black. "The first standard, Guidon, or color of regiments of the line, is not to be carried by any guard but that of the King, Queen, Prince of Wales, Commander-in-chief, or Admiral of the Fleet, being of the royal family; and, except in those cases, it is always to remain with the regiment."[46] [46] King's Regulations for the British Army, Colors, &c. From the above we see that, to the mind of a British officer, the Union flag, supposed to have been displayed in connection with the receipt of the king's speech, above a flag with thirteen stripes, would indicate an acknowledgment of the supremacy of the king over the United Colonies, supposed to be represented in the thirteen stripes. Without further proof, therefore, we may conclude that the "Union" flag, displayed by General Washington, was the union of the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew, with thirteen stripes through the field of the flag. (See Fig. 2, Plate II.) On the evacuation of Boston by the British, this standard was, on the entrance of the American army into Boston, carried by Ensign Richards.[47] [47] American Archives, 4th series, vol. v. p. 423.