to consult about their own affairs! This is the crime of omission laid to their charge; that of commission consists in their having thought fit, amongst other unwarrantable things, (no other unwarrantable acts, are mentioned,) to resolve “to meet again on the 10th of May.” What power is there lodged in any branch of our legislature which can control and hinder a body of men from assembling in order to consider of the most effectual methods for alleviating their own distresses? If neither of the branches of the Legislature are vested with such a power, the Congress in September was not assembled unlawfully; and if it was not unlawfully assembled, by what authority, besides that of impudence, shall any of the King’s Ministers prevent a meeting not forbidden by the laws of the land? Lord Dartmouth may be an excellent divine but he is a miserable politician; Mr. Whitfield may have qualified him for a field preacher, but as for his politicks they are of the Butean cast, and therefore detestable.

The Secretary goes on, and says: “Unless redress for certain pretended grievances be obtained, the Delegates are to meet on the,10th of May.” This would be the style of every Secretary to every arbitrary tyrant in Europe. Pretended grievances! What, are we fallen so low as to be told we cannot feel, or if we can, that we are not competent judges of the oppression? This is what all tyrants aim at; this hath been accomplished in the several Monarchies of the world; and this doctrine is intended to be inculcated in England and America. The meaning of the words in Lord Dartmouth’s letter is that though the Americans feel, yet shall they not dare to complain, or endeavour by legal measures to obtain alleviation or redress; this is adding cruelties and insult to injuries intolerable. When a man is by oppression wilfully tormented, to in crease his pain because his sensations are exquisite and his complaints loud, would characterize a being worse even than what our imaginations can form in idea; yet this character the pious, the preaching, the saint-like Lord Dartmouth assumes throughout his whole letter! Is it necessary in becoming a Minister to cease to feel as a man? And must every tender sensation be obliterated because a man holds an office, the exercise of the functions of which are supposed to be directed to publick utility?

Let us next observe the style of Lord Dartmouth’s letter: “I am commanded by the King to signify to you his pleasure, that you do your utmost to prevent any such appointment of Deputies within the Colony under your Government.”

We have had too much reason to perceive, that publick utility has given little pleasure, and therefore all meetings to promote that must occasion great displeasure. The Governours, however, though willing to execute the orders, will find themselves incapable to effect what is commanded so imperatively by this Minister of Christian meekness. In a meeting held for the preservation of civil liberty, nothing can be unwarrantable, unless the defeat of despotism, in which all good men, who understand the dispute, and are well-wishers to their species, must wish the Americans success. Those who can dream of an English Parliament having a right to take the money out of the pockets of the Americans, are but ill-instructed in the principles of our Constitution, which forbid that any man should be taxed by an assembly wherein he is not represented. A ministerial champion has inculcated the reverse of the doctrine; but when it is known that he is retained for the purpose, little regard will be paid to any argument such a writer advances. Sir William Meredith and his wand, Doctor Johnson and his pension, are alike beneath the notice of independent men.

We are next to consider the design of Lord Dartmouth’s letter, which is to destroy the Constitution in America, and to institute a mode of arbitrary Government like that in Canada, of a Governour and Council. When that is accomplished, the people will be under the immediate subjection of the Crown, and thus the vast extension of kingly power must obliterate every remaining vestige or trace of liberty. An establishment of this kind once effected, will produce more evils than can be at present foreseen, though the consequences of those evils may be deduced from comparison and analogy. Such of the Americans as are at present strenuous asserters of liberty, may, from a corruption of manners, or out of resentment of our ill treatment in suffering them to be enslaved, join the conspirators against the Constitution, and thus destroy what has been the envy and the admiration of the. European world.

The Secretary for America we have been taught to look on as a zealous, pious, and devout disciple of Christ; yet we see this man of holiness, not having the fear of God before his eyes, joining With his coadjutors in an attempt to enslave our fellow-subjects in America! Who that regarded the welfare of human kind would aid in an attempt to set up the power of any part of the Legislature over the Constitution? But to talk of good Government, civil justice, or liberty, whilst Tories are at the helm, would be like talking of righteousness in the dominions of Satan.

IGNOTUS.

New-York, March 28, 1775.

Mr. RIVINGTON: AS your paper has hitherto supported the character of an impartial one, I send the enclosed for publication; if you cannot insert it, return it by the bearer. But while a Junius can attack a Prime Minister, and a Tribunus the King, I hope it will not be deemed treason for an Englishman or an American to attack the petty tyrants to whom this is with deference and respect most humbly dedicated by the author.

TO THE COMMITTEE OF CORREPONDENCE PHIEA-DELPHIA.

GENTLEMEN: You appear in a publick character, and if the reins of Government are not devolved, on you by common consent, you have at least usurped the legislative authority. I shall not, then, deem it any violation of the liberty of the Press, in this publick manner personally to address you, and to animadvert on the contents of your letter (dated February 16) to the Committee of this City, lately published—an epistle which I could not peruse without a mixture of indignation and astonishment.

The body from whence you derive your authority emboldens and warrants me freely to canvass all matters on the administration of Government; and if the liberty of the Press be not denied me, as an Englishman I will claim the privilege, and undaunted by your frowns, your threats, or your inquisition, will boldly pass such strictures on your conduct as I conceive it merits. Your names, gentlemen, are well known; they are, I believe, respectable, and would give weight to your assertions, were they not contradicted by, the most notorious and the most obstinate facts. Pardon me if in this address I should take the liberty to relate a few truths, truths which I well know will sound ungrateful in your ears.

Your ridiculous argument of holding up an union, cannot justify your allegations, for such an union does not exist. It would have afforded me signal pleasure to observe men of characters, dignified as yours are, enrolled as Committee men, and delegated by the rest, for the special purpose of communicating intelligence to your neighbours, disposed to exhibit a state of things founded on the strictest truth. But your letter to our Committee is replete with misrepresentation and deception, calculated rather to hoodwink the people of this Province, than to give them a just state of publick affairs; you present us with, a prison to peep through, to give a glare to every object we behold.

You tell us you have seen frequent publications from this City, containing false representations, and holding up ideas of dissensions among you, which you have the assurance to say do not exist.

How can you, in the face of the world, make this bold assertion? You must know that it is totally destitute of foundation; and I will venture to tell you that you must all have had better information!

No dissensions among you! Have not the loyal Friends in your and the adjacent Province published their dissent [January 24, 1775] from the mad independent Resolves of your Republican Congress, and all your illegal and unwarrantable combinations?

Is not this Society very numerous throughout your Province, and at least as respectable as any other?

Some of your Committee have idly pretended that this was the act of a very few, and disapproved of by the Society in general. This is a shameful reflection on the character of the gentleman who subscribed their protest on behalf of the whole Society.