were produced by the old leaven, the Republicans, urging the necessity of an Army to be immediately raised. The matter was recommended to a Committee, consisting of the most inflammatory and the truest malignant men, who openly declare for independence. After two days they produced a Report, as follows:

“That a Major General and two Brigadier Generals be appointed; that ten thousand bushels of Wheat, two thousand barrels of Pork, three thousand stands of Arms with Bayonets, be provided; and the Assembly emit Bills to the amount of Thirty Thousand Pounds, lawful money.”

This was craftily concerted; for had the Bill succeeded, of course a subsequent one must have passed to raise a number of Troops to eat the provisions. But Heaven be praised, by this time the eyes of the most respectable Members were opened; they saw that all the old firebrands were the promoters of these destructive measures; and to the eternal honour of many Members who spoke and acted on behalf of the Constitution, a majority of the House was roused, and they then proceeded to vote by paragraph upon the Bill. They allowed the creation of General Officers, but all the rest were thrown out of the House; and, instead of the destructive measure concerted by the Cromwellites, a vote was passed by a great majority to petition his Majesty for a redress of such American grievances as should be enumerated by a Committee then appointed by the House to compose and report it for their approbation.

This Assembly was a special one, called for the express purpose of raising, &c., six thousand men. And notwithstanding the Secretary and Squire Wyllys, who went to Cambridge to consult the Provincial Congress, assured the House that the Congress then met at Cambridge, on mature deliberation, wanted not assistance from this Colony, they being sufficiently able to fight all the Troops General Gage had then at Boston, our warm sons of ——insisted on raising an Army in this Province, and, at any rate, drive the King’s General out of this religious land.

A Letter, carrying with it, in effect, a Petition, was sent down to the Lower House from the Upper House, addressed to Lord Dartmouth. The Wasp immediately seized, and clumsily attacked those parts of it which were calculated to conciliate and restore harmony between Great Britain and America; but he was overruled, and returned home grievously disappointed.

LETTER FROM A GENTLEMAN IN CONNECTICUT TO MR. HOLT, NEW-YORK, DATED MARCH 29, 1775.

Mr. James Rivington has often been animadverted on in a publick manner, and sundry Resolves have been passed in the different Colonies, respecting his conduct as a Printer; not only as being partial, but as publishing falsehoods tending to disunite them in their great struggle to support constitutional liberty, destroy their mutual confidence, and render abortive that system of conduct recommended by the Congress as the most certain and advisable expedient for obtaining a redress of our grievances. Mr. Rivington, or his partisans, have represented this as an attempt to destroy the liberty of the press. But shall a press disgorge calumny and falsehood with impunity? Shall the most innocent actions of a community be traversed, and the most reputable characters, even Legislative bodies, be traduced with passive tameness? This would be a tacit acknowledgment of the charge. Is it not notorious, that he, while America is anxiously struggling to preserve her constitutional liberties, like an invidious spy, watches every motion towards the grand point, and strives to frustrate every design, by disseminating distrust and falsehood among the people, in order to intimidate or divide them, thereby rendering his press an engine of tyranny, as well as a sink of the most impure productions. An instance of this we have, in his “uninfluenced” paper of last week, termed “Extract of a Letter from Connecticut.”

It is evident, from the whole strain of this epistle, that the writer attempts to set the General Assembly of this Colony in a disadvantageous point of light, villify and disgrace some of its most worthy members, and create a distrust of them among the Colonies, as though they had changed measures, which is wide of the truth, as I shall show anon. He says—

“Our Assembly met on the second of March, and the two first days were spent in examining the conduct of Captain Glover and the Ridgfield Representatives, which had declared against the measures of the Congress.” Here be stumbles at the very threshold; I am very certain nothing of that matter was debated the first day. His account of the Committee is very confused; if it is intelligible, he means the Committee were appointed to superintend the examination of the. Representatives; but while the House spent two days in examining them, how could any Committee superintend? Did they appoint a Committee to superintend themselves? He says a Committee were appointed to superintend the business, and make report in May. The meaning (if any) is obscure, at best. If he intends such a Committee were appointed to superintend the examination of the first two days, or while the examination lasted, it is not true.

He next observes: “The debates of a week’s duration upon the matter cost the Colony One Hundred and Seventy-Five Pounds.” Here, again, he needs a comment. If he is intelligible, he must mean a week was spent in debating such matters as he had before mentioned, i.e. examining the Representatives; but this is not true. At first he speaks of but two days himself, and I before observed on the first day none of his matters were agitated; now he seems to assign a whole week to that business, for he can’t be supposed so silly as to accuse the Assembly of sitting a week on matters at large. His design was doubtless to insinuate that the House spent a week about a trifling examination, which cost the Colony One Hundred and Seventy-Five Pounds. This might raise a clamour, and this, I charitably believe, was his design.

The next clause is remarkable; he says, “In the next, many long and learned arguments were produced by the old leaven, the Republicans, urging the necessity of an Army to be immediately raised; the matter was recommended to a Committee, consisting of the most inflammatory, who openly declare for independence.” Such a high charge against the Committee ought to be supported by the strongest evidence; but the whole weight rests on the mere ipse dixit of an anonymous author. Should this dirty performance gain any credit, what idea must the community entertain of the Committee, and Assembly that appointed them? He says, “They were Republicans, who openly declare for independence, i.e. such as disavow Monarchy, and admit no King to preside in the. State.” Is this true? I ask this vile calumniator whether he ever heard any such doctrine advanced in that Assembly, or by the Members of it? If so, let him support the charge, and give us his name; otherwise he will be accounted a malicious defamer. Is a Printer to be tolerated who charges the Representatives of a Colony with treasonable principles from an anonymous scribbler? He ought to publish the name of his correspondent, or take the blame of this scurrilous accusation to himself. But I must inform him that the Committee consisted of gentlemen of the first character, for ability as well as loyalty, and firm attachment to the British Constitution.

The Report of the Committee, and vote for a Petition to His Majesty, which next occur, I shall remark on hereafter. He then proceeds: “This Assembly was a special one, called for the express purpose of raising six thousand men.” How he obtained this intelligence I cannot conjecture. Did the Governour mention it in his speech, or was it ever declared in the Upper or Lower House of Assembly? I am confident he never heard it from the first or the last, and cannot suppose him a Member of the second; whence, then, did he derive his intelligence of the express purpose? I presume it was a creature of his own morbid imagination. He next acquaints us, “Two gentlemen went to Cambridge to consult the Provincial Congress.” This, I conceive, was mentioned with a malevolent design towards them, in order to asperse their characters. That they were there is conceded; but whether with a design to consult the Congress or not, is, I believe, mere conjecture. If that was really their errand, where is the crime? Is not America engaged in supporting the Town of Boston? Is it then a crime to consult them in affairs of common concern?

He proceeds: “Our warm sons of ——insisted on raising an Army in this Province, and, at any rate, drive the King’s General out of this “religious land.” This is