As the messenger to carry this letter has been waiting some time with impatience, I must conclude, by subscribing myself, gentlemen, your most obedient humble servant,

J. BROWN.

I am this minute informed that Mr. Carleton has ordered that no Wheat go out of the River until further order; the design is obvious.

LANCASTER COUNTY (PENNSYLVANIA) COMMITTEE.

At a Meeting of the Committee of Observation for Lancaster County, at Lancaster, on the 30th of March, 1775:

The Committee took into consideration, amongst other things, the conduct of George Ross, Esquire, one of the Representatives of this County, in the late interesting debate in the House of Assembly of this Province, respecting an answer to his Honour the Governour’s Message, recommending a separate Petition from the Assembly to His Majesty for redress of grievances, and do unanimously approve of the active part taken by the said Mr. Ross in opposition to the measures proposed, as the same would tend to introduce a disunion amongst the different Colonies, and defeat the salutary regulations of the Continental Congress. And it being put to vote, it is

Resolved, nemine contradicente, That the thanks of this Committee be rendered to Mr. Ross and the other worthy Members of the honourable House, who have evinced their steady attention and virtuous adherence to the true welfare of their Country, by pursuing the only probable means of redress; in supporting and preserving entire the union of the Colonies, so absolutely necessary for the common safety of America.

EBERHART MICHAEL, Clerk pro tem.

New-York, March 30, 1775.

The chiefs of the Six Nations, who, during the course of the winter, held several Congresses with Colonel Guy Johnson, the Superintendent, are, we hear, at present with him in consultation respecting the conduct of the several tribes to the Southward, and the steps to be further taken for preventing future quarrels in that quarter; to which end it is said they propose to use every means in their power for collecting their scattered people from amongst the several Nations, and fixing them in a place where they will be more immediately under the direction of their proper confederacy. And we are likewise informed that Colonel Johnson, who was greatly indisposed through cold he caught attending on one of the conferences, is now much better.

TO THE INHABITANTS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS-BAY. NO. VII.

Boston, March 30, 1775.

My Friends and Countrymen:

Without any introduction, preface, or apology, I shall reassume the paper which was the subject of our examination in my last, beginning where we then ended. This last column of our writer is curious enough. I can hardly determine whether profound silence, smiling neglect, or a serious refutation would be its best answer.

When he tells us, with the air of an argument, “if allegiance be due to the person of the King, (he might have added, or to the British Crown,) he then appears in a new capacity, as King of America, or rather, in several new capacities, as King of Massachusetts, of Rhode-Island, of Connecticut, &c, &c.” He might have still added, and if these Colonies are three thousand miles from the King’s palace, from Kew, or his place of residence, wherever it be, he must govern them by Deputies or Viceroys. And what does all this amount to? Where is the difficulty? What is his inference? Is it to the point?

But if our connection with Great Britain, by the Parliament, be dissolved, the Colonies will have none among themselves, their having one and the same person for their Sovereign being no union at all; as he must govern each State by it own Parliament, which would pursue its own particular interest, notwithstanding any possible efforts of the King for the general good. Admitting all this, and as much more of the kind as our wanderer pleases, to be true, it is no evidence of our connection with the Parent State. They may be good reasons why we should, by some means or other, especially at the present day, consolidate into a closer union among the Colonies, that a common interest might govern the whole. We might therefore pass it by as nothing to the purpose. But let us attend a moment to the state of facts. The only way to govern States, and direct their movements, is by the edict of a Monarch, or the laws of a Legislative Assembly. Such is the Constitution of Government in most of the British Colonies, that no law can be passed but by the consent of the King’s representative, who, as he is appointed by His Majesty, and holds his office during his pleasure, observes such a line of conduct as is pointed out by his Royal master, or the mandate of his Minister. In all the Colonies, unless Connecticut is an exception, their laws are sent home and laid before His Majesty for his approbation, who has it in his power, within a limited time, entirely to disannul them. Considering this, and that the appointment of all executive officers is either mediately or immediately in the Crown, excepting in one or two of the Colonies; it is scarcely supposable that any one could pursue its own interest to the detriment of another; or that a course of conduct could be adopted inconsistent with the best welfare of the Parent State, so long, as the powers of the Crown, and the checks of prerogatives are directed by constitutional motives.

The next argument of our substantial reasoner is, I believe, entirely new, and would have been so a thousand years hence, had not he, in the labours of invention, stumbled upon it; it is all his own; no one will envy him the honour of this mighty discovery: “If the King of Great Britain has really these new capacities, they ought to be added to his titles; and another difficulty will arise—the prerogatives of these new Crowns have never been defined or limited. Is the monarchical part of the several Provincial Constitutions to be nearer, or more remote from absolute monarchy, in an inverted ratio to each one’s approaching to or receding from a Republick?” The Royal title is, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c.” Where, then, will this titular argument carry us? What mighty revolutions, junctions, and disjunctions will it accomplish? If it proves anything in the application of its inventor, it proves that all the Kings of England, from Henry the Sixth to the reigning Prince, were Kings of France. That Ireland and Great Britain are distinct States, in a different sense from what the Colonies are; and that Henry the Eighth and King George the Third (God bless him) were both Defenders of the Faith, though the one a Papist, and the other a Protestant. The prerogatives of the Crown are defined, and limited with convenient certainty by our several Charters, the ends of Government being confined within the circle of doing good. Prerogatives are not, nor ever will be defined with mathematical nicety, “or inverted ratios; ” humanity itself forbids it. The dividing line between day and night, light and darkness, has never been drawn, nor can it be. You may therefore as well argue from the want of such a line, the non-existence of light and darkness, as from indefinite prerogatives, the coalition of States.

But, says our pleasant amuser, if we are not subject to the supreme authority of the Mother Country, “where shall we find the British Constitution, that, we all agree, we are entitled to? We shall seek for it in vain in our Provincial Assemblies. Charter Governments have no more power than what is expressly granted by their several Charters. The first Charter granted to this Province did not empower the Assembly to tax the people at all. Our Council Boards are destitute of the authority of the House of Lords, and its members of the splendid appendages of peerage. Thus the supposition of our being independent States, or exempt from the authority of Parliament, destroys the very idea of our having a British Constitution.” And further, “the argument drawn from the first principle of our being entitled to English liberties, destroys the principle itself; it deprives us of the Bill of Rights, and all the benefits resulting from the Revolution, of “English Laws and the British Constitution.” Our patriots, says he, have been so intent upon building up American rights, that they have overlooked the rights of Great Britain and our own interest, and instead of proving that we are entitled to the same privileges that a subject in Great Britain

*