the partial or total destruction of one of our sea-port Towns; but the inhabitants of it are ready to see it sacrificed when the general good requires it. They are conscious of the importance of a noble and spirited stand. They also, as well as every true friend to America, must be conscious, that it is not for the accumulation of wealth, nor even for the preservation of more of that which we already possess, than is consistent with the good of the whole, that we are struggling. Cut if we can retain only a small share of our property, secure our future safety, and maintain our liberties inviolate, we shall think ourselves rich, fortunate, and happy indeed. Let me again tell you, that any further delay is dangerous, is criminal. Behold how they arc fortifying and strengthening themselves in their own abominable wickedness! While we can, with the loss of the lives of but few of our countrymen, and with the destruction of only part of the property of a few others, let us sacrifice the whole infernal crew to the guardian deities of American liberty, and to those of Virginian chastity. Their sacred rights have of late been so horridly profaned, so daringly violated, that they require some propitiatory sacrifice to be immediately made.

PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS TO GENERAL WOOSTER.

Philadelphia, October 19, 1775.

SIR: General Schuyler, having by letter informed the Congress, that he believed he should have no occasion to employ the troops under your command, I am desired by the Congress to direct that you immediately proceed, with the troops under your command, to the batteries erecting on the Highlands on North River, and there leave as many of your troops as, in the opinion of the conductor, will be necessary for expediting the completion of the works there; and that you repair with the remainder of the troops to New-York, and there continue until further orders from the Congress. But in case you should have any orders from General Schuyler previous to the receipt of this, to join the Army under his command, or in any way to be aiding to his expedition, you are wholly to conform yourself to his directions, the above orders of Congress notwithstanding. I am, &c.,

JOHN HANCOCK, President.

To Brigadier-General Wooster, at Albany.

COMMITTEE OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS TO NEW-HAMPSHIRE COMMITTEE OF SAFETY.

[Circular.]

Philadelphia, October 19, 1775.

SIR: The Continental Congress having been pleased to appoint us a Committee for collecting an account of the hostilities committed by the Ministerial Troops and Navy in America, since last March, with proper evidence of the truth of the facts related, the number and value of the buildings destroyed, and of the vessels inward and outward bound seized by them, as nearly as can be ascertained, and, also, the stock taken by them from different parts of the Continent, as you may see by the enclosed resolve, we entreat the assistance of your Convention, that we may be enabled to perform what is required of us, and to report our proceedings in the manner and with the expedition the Congress expects; and, to that end, that you will be pleased to furnish us with the necessary materials, sending to us clear, distinct, full, and circumstantial details of the hostile and destructive acts, and the captures or seizures, and depredations in your Colony, and accurate estimates of the loss and damage, with the solemn examinations of witnesses, and other papers and documents, officially authenticated.

We are, Sir, your obedient, humble servants,

ALLEGIANCE TO CROWNED HEADS UPON THE BRITISH THRONE.

New-York, October 19, 1775.

The word Allegiance is derived from the Latin verb alligo, or alligare, which signifies the binding of one thing or person to another: when it is spoken of a subject with relation to his Sovereign, it means the obligation the former is under to submit to and obey the latter in all things lawful; so that it is the legal faith and obedience which every subject owes to his Sovereign, immediately upon his being placed upon the throne, with the royal crown upon his bead, accompanied with his coronation oath.

Sovereign rulers, seated upon the throne of Great Britain, are bound by their coronation oath to govern the realm according to the fundamental laws of the Stale, contained in Magna Charta, which is the basis of all the English laws and liberties that can be justified; which laws the subject is under indispensable obligations to obey, so soon as he sustains the relation of a subject to his Sovereign. But the obligation is very much confirmed by his taking the oath of allegiance. For he promises and solemnly swears, that he will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Sovereign upon the throne, governing according to the fundamental laws of the Kingdom.

This oath of allegiance, taken by the subject to the Sovereign, may be considered as the counterpart of the coronation oath, taken by the Sovereign to the subject; and both together constitute the nature of a covenant between Prince and people; for as the King or Queen is bound by oath to govern the people according to the fundamental laws of Magna Charta, so the people are bound by the oath of allegiance to obey all the laws of the Administration that are conformable to that great charter.

But if the British Legislature enact laws subversive of the fundamental Constitution—laws that stretch the prerogative beyond its limited bounds, and violate the liberties of the subject, the Sovereign adding his sanction to them, and thereby violating his coronation oath; the people in such case are absolved, ipso facto, from their obligations of obedience to the King. So far, in this case, is it from being a virtue and matter of duty for the people tamely to surrender their natural and constitutional rights and privileges, that it is their duty to insist upon them, and not submit to the cruel arm of despotism.

Every measure, indeed, expressive of suitable deference to crowned heads, should be taken, by petitions, remonstrances, and addresses to the Throne. But if all these are rejected and prove ineffectual, the subject has a right to defend his liberties by resistance, even unto blood, in case the Administration endeavour to carry their unconstitutional acts of despotism into execution by the sword. The law of God, the law of nature, and the gospel of Jesus Christ, will justify them in so doing.

But may we rebel against the King? Is he not "the Lord’s anointed?" No ! the King of England is not " the Lord’s anointed," in the sense that Saul, David, and other Kings of Israel were, who were made Kings by the special appointment and nomination of God himself.

The Government of the Jews, before God gave them a King, was theocratical. God himself was their King and their lawgiver, as an absolute Sovereign. And when the form of their Government was changed, he pointed out their Kings, who by divine direction were solemnly anointed with oil. God retaining his legislative superintendency, as supreme monarch, their Kings had only the administration of Government committed to their trust; in which they were under indispensable obligations to be observant of his laws, in every step of their administration.

But we have no such Kings in England, nor ever had. Not one of them ever was pointed out by God, in that extraordinary way, nor anointed as those Kings of Israel were. Our Kings are made so by compact, as is apparent in the coronation oath and oath of allegiance. The rule of the Administration is the law, or laws made by the Lords and Commons, agreeable to Magna Charta; and the King is as much bound by that Constitution as the subject.

Therefore, if the King gives his sanction to acts of Parliament, subversive of that grand charter by which he holds his crown, and endeavours to carry them into execution by force of arms, the people have a right to repel force by force, in vindication of their lives, their rights and privileges. And if they do, it cannot with any propriety be called rebellion; for rebellion is a traitorous taking up of arms against the King, in the regular discharge of his important trust, as King of Great Britain, &c.

But when the King of Great Britain violates the Constitution,