hath been twice changed through the cunning of former Proprietors; surely the people, whose right, power, and property is greater than that of any single man, may make such alterations in their mode of Government as the change of times and things require. Cato is exceedingly fond of impressing us with the importance of our “chartered Constitution.” Alas! we are not now, sir, to be led away by the jingle of a phrase. Had we framed our conduct by the contents of the present Charters, we had, ere now, been in a state of helpless misery. That very Assembly you mention hath broken it, and been obliged to break it, in almost every instance of their proceedings. Hold it up to the publick, and it is transparent with holes—pierced with as many deadly wounds as the body of Macleod. Disturb not its remains, Cato, nor dishonour it with another funeral oration.

There is nothing in Cato’s first letter worthy of notice but the following insinuating falsehood: “Grievous as the least restraint of the Press must always be, to a people entitled to freedom, it must be the more so, when it is not only unwarranted by those to whom they have committed the care of their liberties, but cannot be warranted by them, consistent with liberty itself.”

The rude and unscholastical confusion of persons in the above paragraph, though it throws an obscurity on the meaning, still leaves it discoverable. Who, sir, hath laid any restraint on the liberty of the Press? I know of no instance in which the Press hath been even the object of notice, in this Province, except on account of the Tory letter from Kent County, which was published last spring in the Pennsylvania Ledger, and which it was the duty of every good man to detect, because the honesty of the Press is as great an object to society as the freedom of it. If this is the restraint you complain of, we know your true character at once; and that it is so, appears evident from the expression which immediately follows the above quotation: Your words are, “Nevertheless, we readily submitted to it, while the least colourable pretence could be offered for requiring such a submission.” Who submitted, Cato?—we Whigs, or we Tories? Until you clear up this, sir, you must content yourself with being ranked among the rankest of the writing Tories; because no other body of men can have any pretence to complain of want of freedom of the Press. It is not your throwing out, now and then, a little popular phrase, which can protect you from suspicion; they are only the gildings under which the poison is conveyed, and without which you dared not to renew your attempts on the virtue of the people.

Cato’s second letter, or the greatest part thereof, is taken up with the reverence due from us to the persons and authority of the Commissioners; whom Cato vainly and ridiculously styles “Ambassadors coming to negotiate a peace.” How came Cato not to be let a little better into the secret? The act of Parliament which describes the powers of these men, hath been in this city upwards of a month, and in the hands, too, of Cato’s friends. No, sir, they are not the ambassadors of peace, but the distributors of pardons, mischief, and insult. Cato discovers a gross ignorance of the British Constitution, in supposing that these men can be empowered to act as Ambassadors. To prevent his future errors, I will set him right. The present war differs from every other in this instance, viz: that it is not carried on under the prerogative of the Crown, as other wars have always been, but under the authority of the whole Legislative power united; and as the barriers which stand in the way of a negotiation are not Proclamations, but Acts of Parliament; it evidently follows, that were even the King of England here in person, he could not ratify the terms or conditions of a reconciliation; because, in the single character of King, he could not stipulate for the repeal of any acts of Parliament; neither can the Parliament stipulate for him. There is no body of men more jealous of their privileges than the Commons; because they sell them. Mark that, Cato.

I have not the least doubt upon me but that their business (exclusive of granting us pardons) is downright bribery and corruption. It is the machine by which they effect all their plans. We ought to view them as enemies of a most dangerous species; and he who means not to be corrupted by them, will enter his protest in time. Are they not the very men who are paid for voting in every measure against us? and ought we not to suspect their designs? Can we view the barbarians as friends? Would it be prudent to trust the viper in our very bosoms? Or to suffer them to ramble at large among us, while such doubtful characters as Cato have a being upon the Continent? Yet let their persons be safe from injury and outrage—but trust them not. Our business with them is short and explicit, viz: we are desirous of peace, gentlemen; we are ready to ratify the terms, and will virtuously fulfil the conditions thereof; but we should deserve all and every misery which tyranny can inflict, were we, after suffering such a repetition of savage barbarities, to come under your Government again.

Cato, by way of stealing into credit, says, that “the contest we are engaged in is founded on the most noble and virtuous principles which can animate the mind of man. We are contending (says he) against an arbitrary Ministry, for the rights of Englishmen.” No, Cato, we are now contending against an arbitrary King, to get clear of his tyranny. While the dispute rested in words only, it might be called “contending with the Ministry;” but since it is broken out into open war, it is high time to have done with such silly and water-gruel definitions. But it suits not Cato to speak the truth. It is his interest to dress up the sceptered savage in the mildest colours. Cato’s patent for a large tract of land is yet unsigned. Alas, poor Cato!

Cato proceeds very importantly to tell us, “that the eyes of all Europe are upon us.” This stale and hackneyed phrase hath had a regular descent from many of the King’s speeches down to several of the speeches in Parliament; from thence it took a turn among the little wits and bucks of St. James’s; till, after suffering all the torture of senseless repetition, and being reduced to a state of vagrancy, it was charitably picked up to embellish the second letter of Cato. It is truly of the bugbear kind; contains no meaning, and the very using it discovers a barrenness of invention. It signifies nothing to tell us “that the eyes of all Europe are upon us,” unless he had likewise told us what they are looking at us for; which, as he hath not done, I will: They are looking at us, Cato, in hopes of seeing a final separation between Britain and the Colonies, that they (the lookers on) may partake of a free and uninterrupted trade with the whole Continent of America. Cato! thou reasonest wrong.

For the present, sir, farewell. I have seen thy soliloquy, and despise it. Remember, thou hast thrown me the glove, Cato, and either thee or I must tire. I fear not the field of fair debate; but thou hast stepped aside, and made it personal. Thou hast tauntingly called on me by name. And if I cease to hunt thee from every lane and lurking hole of mischief, and bring thee not a trembling culprit before the publick bar, then brand me with reproach, by naming me in the list of your confederates.

THE FORESTER.

GERMANTOWN (PENNSYLVANIA) COMMITTEE.

In Committee, Germantown, March 28, 1776.

Whereas complaints have been made to this Committee, that divers persons of this Township, retailers of Salt, and other articles, are inclined to take advantage of our distressed situation, by holding some articles at an exorbitant price, especially that most necessary article of Salt, notwithstanding the reasonable regulations so lately made by the Committee of the City of Philadelphia, who have found the scarcity of many articles to be artificial, and therefore have rated them accordingly, viz: Lisbon Salt, at four shillings per single bushel, or greater quantity, and Liverpool blond Salt at five shillings per bushel:

Resolved, therefore, That the venders of Salt within this Township ought to advance only three pence per bushel on the above prices, to defray the carriage thereof. And as many poor people are under a necessity of buying their Salt by small quantities, in such cases, we recommend it to be sold at the rate of nine pence per half-peck.

Should this Committee receive any more such disagreeable complaints for the future, the persons occasioning the same need not be surprised to see their names published to their distressed country.