and protest against, the present plan of taking up Government, for the following reasons: First. That the vote of the Continental Congress countenancing the same, was obtained by the unwearied importunity (both within door and without) of our Delegates there, as appears by their letter. Second. That the said vote does not appear to have been unanimous, but we have reason to think very otherwise. Third. Because the Colonies of New-York and Virginia —which are in similar circumstances with us, are much larger, and more opulent, and, we presume, much wiser, (to whom we would pay all due deference,)—have not attempted any thing of the kind, nor, as we can learn, ever desired it. Fourth. Because we have no ground on which to pretend to make a Council, as our neighbours of the Massachusetts, who act by Charter never vacated on any legal trial. Fifth. Because it appears assuming, for so small and inconsiderable a Colony, to take the lead in a matter of so great importance. Sixth. Because our constituents never expected us to make a new form of Government, but only to set the Judicial and Executive wheels in motion. Seventh. Because the Congress, as such, could have done what was necessary, and their power could not be enlarged by any act of their own. Eighth. Because the expense of the Colony is greatly augmented thereby. Ninth. Because it appears to us too much like setting up an Independency on the mother country.

“NORTH HILL, Newington.
“LEVI DEARBORN, Newington.
“RICHARD DOWNING, Portsmouth.
“SAMUEL SHERBURNE, Dover.
“STEPHEN EVANS, Portsmouth.
“PIERCE LONG, Rye.
“NATHAN GOSS, Dover.
“OTIS BAKER, Kensington.
“EZEKIEL WORTHEN, Stratham.
“BENJAMIN BARKER, Rochester.
“JAMES KNOWLES, Sandwich and Moultonborough.
“DANIEL BEEDE, Lee.
“HERCULES MOONEY, Lee.

“January 10, 1776.”

A Committee from the Town of Portsmouth brought into the House a request from the Town of Portsmouth; which was read, and is as follows, viz:

“Colony of New-Hampshire.

“At a Town-Meeting held at Portsmouth, this 12th day of January, 1776, Voted unanimously, That Ammi B. Cutter, Esq., George King, Esquire, and Captain George Wentworth, be a Committee to write a Letter to the Congress, requesting to be favoured with the original of an anonymous Letter read in Congress this day.

“The said Committee accordingly returned with the following draft; which was voted to be forthwith sent to the Congress, and is as follows:

“Portsmouth, January 12, 1776.

“To the Honourable Congress at EXETER:

“MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOURS: The Committee appointed to prefer the Petition of this Town, of the 10th instant, having acquainted us that, after they had preferred the same, and had retired, they were informed that a letter, subscribed Veritas, was read before your Honours, purporting that it was voted at a very thin meeting, with other assertions utterly false, scandalous, and derogatory to the honour of the town; it is our duty to acquaint your Honours, that there were upwards of two hundred persons present, who unanimously voted therefor; and we earnestly request that your Honours will indulge us with a sight of the original letter, of which that was a copy, in order that the author who has been guilty of this scandalous falsehood, may receive the reward of his just demerit.”

“A true copy. Attest:

“JOHN PENHALLOW, Town Clerk.”

The Petition of the principal Inhabitants of Southampton, relating to the Estates of Elijah Brown and Moses Brown, praying that this House would make some effectual act, or lay some bar, so that they may not squander away their Estates without the knowledge of the town, &c., being read,

Ordered, That it lay for further consideration.

The Committee to draw a plan for providing Fire-Arms for a Colony stock, report as follows, viz:

That for every good Fire-Arm manufactured in this Colony, made after the following manner, viz: A barrel three feet nine inches long, to carry an ounce ball, a good bayonet with blade eighteen inches long, iron ramrod, with a spring to retain the same, the maker’s name engraved on the lock, which shall be delivered at Exeter, to Nicholas Gilman, Esq., Receiver-General, on or before the 1st of May next, the owner of such fire-arms receive three pounds for each, of said Receiver-General, after having tried said gun in the presence of the said Receiver-General with four inches and a half of powder, well wadded, at the owner’s own risk. And that there be appointed one good man, well approved, in each County, to receive any fire-arms so made in said County, on the same condition, (as before-mentioned for the Receiver-General to receive them,) and the persons so appointed to receive the money for the number of guns so delivered.

Which Report being read and considered,

Voted, That the same be received and established as a resolve of this House.

And, Voted, That Colonel Evans, for the County of Strafford; Samuel Emerson, for the County of Grafton; Major John Bellows, for the County of Cheshire; and Deacon Nahum Baldwin, for the County of Hillsborough, be Receivers of Fire-Arms, according to the aforesaid Resolve.

The Memorial and Remonstrance of the Freeholders of the Town of Portsmouth, being brought into the House, was read, and is as follows:

“Colony of New-Hampshire, Portsmouth, January 10, 1776.

“To the Honourable body now sitting at Exeter, in and for said Colony:

“The Memorial and Remonstrance of the Freeholders, and other Inhabitants of the Town of Portsmouth, in legal town-meeting convened, humbly shews:

“That your Memorialists are greatly alarmed by the information of their Delegates, that they, together with other Delegates of the several towns in said Colony, were about to dissolve their existence as a Congress, and assume that of a House of Representatives, and to proceed to an election of twelve Counsellors, who are to act as another branch of legislation, for the future government of this Colony; which measure your Memorialists, with all decency, tenderness, and respect, beg leave to remonstrate against, for the following weighty reasons:

“First. As we are of opinion that the inhabitants of the Colony do not generally approve of this measure, we could therefore have wished to have had the minds of the people fully taken on such a momentous concernment, and to have known the plan before it was adopted and carried into execution, which is their inherent right.

“Secondly. We humbly conceive that such a measure is an open declaration of independency, which we can by no means countenance, until we shall know the sentiments of the British nation in general. We have hitherto viewed the controversy as with the Ministry and Parliament only; and our enemies are styled the Ministerial Army and Navy, and we have considered them as acting contrary to the voice of the nation. We have just received certain advices that our friends in Great Britain are at this time exerting themselves, and uniting in their petitions for a redress of our grievances, and, in all probability, will make a powerful diversion in our favour, and will finally prevail, if it is once fully believed that we are not aiming at independency. But when they perceive we are setting up new forms of Government, they will be exasperated against us; and, losing sight of their former friendship and affection, will be filled with resentment, and charge us with duplicity.

“Thirdly. We have the highest opinion of the upright disposition of the Congress, and that what they have done is intended for the general good; but at the same time we must beg leave to suggest our apprehensions that this measure will have a tendency to disunite us, which is a most alarming consideration, as being a circumstance which we are well informed our enemies greatly expect, and would be rejoiced to hear of. We would be cautious of prolixity in addressing your Honours, but must beg leave to repeat that the Ministry, among other deceptions, have asserted that the rebellious war (as they term it) now levied, is become more general, and is manifestly carried on for the purpose of