I set out for Newport, on purpose to send you this. I write you fully, it being scarcely possible to escape discovery. I am out of place here, by choice, and therefore out of pay, and determined so to be unless something is offered in my way. I wish you could contrive to write me freely in cipher, by the way of Newport, addressed to Thomas Richards, merchant. Enclose it in a cover to me, intimating that 1 am a perfect stranger to you; but being recommended to you as a gentleman of honour, you took the liberty of enclosing that letter, entreating me to deliver it as directed; the person, as you are informed, being at Cambridge. Sign some fictitious name. This you may send to some confidential friend at Newport, to be delivered to me at Watertown. Make use of every precaution, or I perish.”

“This is a true copy of Dr. Church’s letter, as deciphered by the Rev. Mr. West, and acknowledged by the Doctor to be truly deciphered.

“JOSEPH REED, Secretary.”

“At a Council of War held at Head-Quarters, Cambridge, October 3, 1775, present:

“His Excellency General Washington; Major-Generals Ward, Lee, and Putnam; Brigadier-Generals Spencer, Heath, Sullivan, Greene, and Thomas; Adjutant-General Gates.

“The General communicated to the Board a discovery of a correspondence carried on with the enemy by Dr. Church, by Letter in characters, which was deciphered by the Rev. Mr. West, and laid the said Letter before the Members of this Council.

“After considering and discussing the matter, it was determined to adjourn till to-morrow, and then that Dr. Church be examined.

“October 4 —The Council of War met. Present as before.

“Dr. Church being sent for, and shown the Letter in characters, was asked, whether the said Letter was written by him; to which he answered, he believed it was. He was then shown the explanation of said Letter, as deciphered, and asked whether it was a true one; to which he answered in the affirmative. Dr. Church then explained his intention in writing said Letter, as calculated to impress the enemy with a strong idea of our strength and situation, in order to prevent an attack at a time when the Continental Army was in a great want of ammunition, and in hopes of effecting some speedy accommodation of the present dispute, and concluded with solemn asseverations of his innocence.

“The General then asked the opinion of the Council, severally, whether it did not appear that Dr. Church had carried on a criminal correspondence with the enemy; to which they unanimously answered in the affirmative.

“The question was then proposed, and discussed, what were the proper steps to be taken with respect to him; and, after examining the regulations of the Continental Army, and particularly the articles twenty-eight and fifty-one, it was determined, from the enormity of the crime, and the

tongue has been clamorous against me; is it not strange, Sir, that no proof has been exhibited against mo of such correspondence, but in this very letter, which is crowded with fallacy, and obviously designed to deceive? The idea of the man being discovered, but escaped, ‘the letter being, ’ &c., was suggested by the affair of Doctor——, who was taken, as reported, going into Boston; was searched, but no letter found. I heard of the matter upon my return from Philadelphia, and that the letter was so concealed; which was idly reported to be the reason of its not being detected. The other two attempts are mentioned in a subsequent paragraph: ‘Twice have I been to Salem,’ &.c. This idea was started by the following incident: About a week before I sat out on my journey, Major Bigelow informed me he had received intelligence that provisions and other matters were conveyed into Boston, by the Custom-House boat, from Salem; which ought to be immediately prevented. I instantly laid the matter before the Committee of Safety, and they determined to take measures immediately to prevent her passing into Boston. I solemnly declare, Sir, I never wrote one letter into Boston since I left it. I solemnly declare, I have never been to the Town of Salem these seven years past.”

“‘I went by the way of Providence, to visit mother.’ This passage. I think, Sir, confirms my declaration that the letter was designed for my brother, and not for Major Cane. I should hardly have acquainted the Major of my going to visit my mother, and surely I should not have neglected to affix the relative my to the substantive, were not the letter addressed to a relative character. The next paragraph is, ‘the Committee for warlike stores, ’ ending at ‘Bunker’s Hill.’ Here, may it please your Honour, is a capital omission, which leads to a suspicion of my having written before. In the original copy, I remember perfectly well, after the words ‘haying taken a previous resolution to make the offer to General Ward, ’ were added ‘for the purpose of fortifying Bunker’s Hill.’; This part of the sentence was either inadvertently left out by myself in copying the letter into ciphers, or omitted by the person who deciphered the letter; this accounts for the reference below, ‘as I before hinted, ’ and reconciles this passage with the first paragraph, that ‘I had made three attempts to write him without success, ’. The true state of the fact is as follows: The taking and fortifying Dorchester-Hill was the first object in contemplation when I left the camp. I was sensible we had not heavy artillery. When at Providence, being informed that they had a considerable number there, I applied to the Hon. Mr. Ward, who resided then at Providence, and was a member of the Committee of War, for such of them as they could spare. Mr. Ward called the Commit, tee together, when they generously granted them, and they were sent down. The application was made spontaneously by me, and I wrote a letter of apology to General Ward for my officiousness in this matter. The reason of my covering this transaction in my letter must be obvious. There was a constant communication between Newport and Boston. There was no doubt but they would have accounts of this transaction, Did I not account for it in a way to conceal my being active in the matter, I should have been defeated in my intentions in writing.”

Here I was interrupted, and the House voted to adjourn to three o’clock, I was ordered to make such corrections in the interim as to make it correspond with the original draught. I was then, by the order of the honourable House, conducted by my guard, under custody of the messenger of the House, to Coolidge’s Tavern, where, at the publick expense, I was regaled with half a mug of flip and the wing of a chicken, and was then reconveyed to the House, in the manner I came from thence. When arrived at the door of the House, the messenger communicated my arrival. He was directed to detain the prisoner at the door till called for, I was continued in the cold, on a bleak eminence, for the space of half an hour—which, after a month’s close confinement, was not very eligible—and during the whole time surrounded by my guards, with additional mobility, digito monstrari et dicier hic est; during which time a solemn vote was passed to invite the honourable His Majesty’s Council for this Colony, and sundry military gentlemen, to be present at the trial; and when their Honours had taken their seats, orders were given to admit the prisoner, I was then introduced to the bar of the House; The Speaker, addressing himself to me, informed me the House were ready to hear me, and ordered me to proceed. I began as follows:” May it please your Honour, to the patient attention, the apparent candour, and generous humanity of the honourable House, I feel myself deeply indebted, I shall now proceed, by their continued indulgence, to some further observations on the letter; not doubting, from the approved justice and benignity of this honourable Assembly, a full acquittance from the groundless charges levelled against me.

“The next paragraph is, ‘which, together with the cowardice of the clumsy Colonel Gerrish,’ &c. to ‘defeat.’ There is a mistake in the word lucky in this sentence; the original was unlucky, the negative being marked by an additional stroke in the l. Here I cannot but observe, Sir, that, notwithstanding the apparent labour and design, throughout the whole, to maintain the character of a tory, yet, in this paragraph, I have inadvertently betrayed myself; having mentioned Colonel Gerrish and Colonel Scammons in terms of reproach and indignation, for not engaging the King’s troops. After giving an account, in; the next paragraph, of the number of our killed and wounded in the battle of Bunker’s Hill, which greatly falls short of truth, and an oblique sarcasm upon them for their extravagant calculation in this matter, I proceed, in several succeeding paragraphs, in the most exaggerated terms possible, to alarm him with a very formidable account of the spirit, supplies, resources, industry, union, and resolution of the Colonies, all confirmed by ocular demonstration, beginning with ‘the people of Connecticut, ’ and continued as far. as ‘are readily exchanged for cash.’ As far as my contracted reading and observation extends, may it please your Honour, it has been the policy of those we heretofore deemed our enemies to speak in contemptuous terms of the courage, strength, union, and resources of these Colonies; they have, I apprehend, Sir, constantly endeavoured to discourage us, and encourage the enemy, by remonstrating, in the warmest manner, the impossibility of our making any effectual resistance against them. If I am condemned for a representation perfectly the reverse of this, I would ask, Sir, who are your friends? Is it criminal and injurious to you to say we able and determined to. withstand the power of Britain? Is. it criminal, Sir, to alarm them with a parade of our strength and preparation? Is it bad policy, or a proof of enmity, when under the most alarming apprehensions of Instant ruin from their attack, by an innocent stratagem to divert them from such a ruinous enterprise?

“The next matter most strenuously urged and insisted upon, is an immediate accommodation, or the Colonies are disjoined from Britain forever. See from ‘add to this’ to ‘for God’s sake; prevent it, by a speedy accommodation. ‘Here, may it please your Honour, the plot is unravelled; the scope and design of the letter is here fully explained—to effect the reconciliation so vehemently urged, so repeatedly recommended. For what cause have I worn the garb of a friend to Government throughout this letter? For what cause have I repeated fallacy upon fallacy? For what cause have I exaggerated your force, but to effect a union, to disarm a parricide, to restore peace to my distracted Country? If this is the work of an enemy, where are we to look for a friend? There are two or three passages which, from being misunderstood, have been greatly exaggerated, which I shall explain hereafter.

“The next paragraph, beginning at ‘writing this’ to ‘discovery, ’ is totally futile and apocryphal. The next passage, ‘I am not in place here, ’ &c, is in answer to his request, in his letter, not to take on arms against the King, and to quiet the fears of a sister, as well as to carry on the deception; but even here, through haste and inattention, I have committed a blunder which should have been avoided. I have mentioned a readiness to take up with an appointment in my own way, not considering that in the capacity of a physician or surgeon I should be deemed aiding and assisting, and equally obnoxious with those who were actually in arms. The concluding paragraph contains particular directions for his writing me; from hence, I think, Sir, the following conclusions are fairly deducible: First, my endeavours to appear so zealous a friend to Government, and so seemingly open and communicative, were to engage him to a full and free communication on his part, for purposes very obvious. Again, Sir, I think it is indisputably