and opened the way for the accession of the present Royal family. These were all Congresses, formed on the same principles and the same necessities as the late American Congress.

Thirdly. The supposition would condemn the very meeting whose publication we are considering. It is called a meeting of Representatives from New-Jersey and Pennsylvania. By what authority did these Representatives meet? The discussion of political questions is no part of the discipline or system of a Religious Society, nor comprised within the jurisdiction of any meeting among Friends, which only affect religious concerns, or the economical affairs of the Society. An extraordinary occasion produced an extraordinary meeting, but not an illegal one; because there is no law which prohibits the King’s subjects from meeting to discuss any political questions. In this case it was a laudable one, as its intention must have been to make a timely provision against those irregularities and tumults which publick commotions often create.

Fourthly. That the present Congresses and Committees were not meant, appears from the conduct of the worthy Friend whose name is to the publication, who has been present in such Assemblies, and took an active part in the choice of the Committee last summer; measures which could not have had his concurrence, if included under any of the descriptions of a riot, rout, illegal combination, or assembly. I might add, that several respectable members of this Society have not only served on former Committees of this kind, and acquiesced in the present measures, but have returned their thanks to the Committee of this City, for an alteration made in disposing or storing their Goods imported under the Association of the late Congress—procedures wholly inconsistent with the idea of its being an illegal assembly.

Upon the whole, it is presumed enough has been offered to show that this Testimony could not be intended to cast any disrespect upon the cause of publick liberty, much less to create division or discord. Taken in its true and proper light, it is calculated to point out those rocks of licentiousness and outrage, which often lay concealed under the smooth surface of the fairest pretensions, and have proved fatal to the best of causes. It is, indeed, to be wished it could have derived more respect and authority from the numbers and weight of the representation. But the intention certainly has merit, however it may be thought to fall short in the execution.

B. L.

Philadelphia, March 8, 1775.

When those who think themselves entitled to write for the publick proceed with openness, ingenuity, and candour, if they do not merit the publick attention and approbation, they certainly deserve their indulgence. But when any man undertakes to give the publick advice, and to call upon them in the warmest and most passionate terms, to follow his directions, every degree of deceit, hypocrisy, or unfair proceeding, is so far from meriting approbation, that the man who attempts it deserves to be treated with the utmost indignation, and to meet with the fate of the worst of villains.

The person who takes an active part in any controversy carried on in the publick Papers, and desires to enter the lists as a champion on either side, should be possessed of that degree of candour and honesty which obliges a man to enter into the real merits of the cause, and to give a full, fair, and impartial state of the controversy, in order to entitle him to a place in any Paper of reputation. When he has done this, he ought to have full liberty to use every argument with which reason and truth could supply him; but the instant he attempted to impose on the publick by unfair representations, lies, or assertions without argument, he should be packed off to the common receptacle of all such materials.

In our present contest with Great Britain, the question is, Whether the Parliament of Great Britain has a right to make Statutes which shall bind us in all cases whatever? Now, if any one, without ever bringing this question in view, or attempting discuss it, will undertake, by hard names, to frighten us into a submission, I think he wants that candour and ingenuity which alone can entitle him to a place in a Paper of character, and his manner of proceeding gives the Printer thereof a just right to refuse his lucubrations.

I believe I may appeal even to our adversaries, whether the writers in favour of our cause have not always begun by stating the case, as far as they intended to touch upon it, in the fairest and fullest manner, and then discussed it by arguments drawn from the nature of God and man, and the well-known and fundamental principles of the British Constitution. Had their opponents acted with equal ingenuity, it would have saved much trouble, wholly prevented all that heat and acrimony which has appeared at one time or another, and saved the pains of replying to many productions against which nothing but the fear of their affecting weak minds could ever induce any friend to his Country to take up the pen. Of this kind is the piece signed Phileirene, which contains nothing but bold assertions, couched in strong language, and most of them notorious falsehoods. Since this writer, at the request of A Friend to the Constitution, has been indulged with a republication in a reputable and extensively circulating Paper, I would beg leave to select a few of his assertions, and request the Friend to the Constitution to support them by the facts he refers to.

1. “That a submission to the laws and authority of Great Britain, in the cases we complain of, would alone make us a free, wealthy, and happy people.” In order to make this assertion good, it will be necessary to prove that submission to laws neither made by ourselves, nor by our Representatives, and to be taxed by men who have no interest in our affairs, constitute true British freedom; that taking our Money from us without our consent will increase our wealth; that to be deprived of Trial by Jury will enlarge and confirm personal security; that our happiness consists in submitting to become the slaves of the worst sort of tyrants, viz: of such, that every alleviation of their own misery must be obtained by a proportional increase of ours; and that to be removed for trial to Great Britain is preferable to being tried by a Jury of the vicinity. And as all our Assemblies, from the one end of the Continent to the other, have petitioned against these Laws as infringements of their rights and privileges, it may not be amiss to point out to them the errour of their proceedings, and to prove that they are not intended by the Constitution for Legislators. For, if the British Parliament has a right to bind us in all cases whatever, it is impossible for them to have the same right—the one right necessarily destroying the other.

2. “That we are arrived to such a pitch of infatuation, as to be unwilling to confine ourselves within the bounds, or to submit to the Laws prescribed by the Government to which we are subjects; that our conduct has justly merited punishment and contempt, and must inevitably sink us in infamy and obscurity; that our wickedness and folly is such, that we set about a reformation of a Government already the envy of every other Nation, and are determined to accomplish our views, or perish in the attempt; and that not the united misery of all our fellowmen, nor the destruction of the peace and good order of the world, will ever deter us from our desperate undertaking; but that rather than fail in our enterprise, we will exult to introduce anarchy and confusion into the State, and glory to riot upon the miseries of mankind in private life.” That masterly pen which drew a finished character of the most consummate villain that ever breathed on the earth, fell greatly short of this picture, and, had he lived to this day, must have obtained some master strokes from Phileirene. But Cataline himself never equalled this. How Phileirene could attempt to fix such a character upon a people whose most violent struggle to preserve themselves from a ten years’ perseverance in oppressive measures has been a Non-Importation Agreement, is yet more extraordinary than the celerity and cheerfulness with which he asserts such infamous lies. I beg pardon for the expression; I forgot that the truth of it can be proved by facts.

3. “That we aim at an independency, replete with the most distressing calamities, destructive mischiefs, and aggravated miseries; and that the darling object of our wishes is an. Independent Republic.” In supporting this, it will be necessary to prove that the Congress, which spoke the sentiments of all those whose conduct Phileirene condemns, and whose measures every Colony in America has adopted, mistook its own intentions, when it absolutely denied the charge in the strongest terms, and defied its most