therefore not taken notice of here. After those gentlemen had entertained and provided for the officers a considerable time, they found it very inconvenient, and requested their removal. The officers took great pains to provide themselves with lodgings and accommodations, but without success. The gentleman with whom they were first placed, at length absolutely refused to provide for them any longer, and applied to the Committee to relieve them. The officers in this situation likewise addressed the Committee, representing the difficulties they were subjected to, every moment in expectation of being turned out of doors, and having notice that no more provisions would be dressed for them. To gentlemen in that delicate situation, though enemies, we could not avoid rendering every service in our power. We made interest with some of the inhabitants to afford them private lodgings, with firewood and candles, at their private houses, where they lodged and breakfasted, attended by their own servants; and as it was inconvenient for private families to dress dinners and suppers for them, we prevailed upon Mr. John Jordan (whose demand is the most considerable) to mess them at his house; and though we did not absolutely engage for the payment of their demands, yet we assured them of our influence in procuring them satisfaction, in case the officers should be unable to pay them. We have the greatest reason to believe these assurances from us were their principal inducement to entertain those gentlemen. They now resort to us, and we must look up to the honourable the Congress.

We must do that justice to the officers of the Seventh Regiment, to mention that none of these demands relate to that corps, except the trifling sum of six pounds ten shillings due Michael Bartgis, and part of the demand of Weit-zell and Moore, for Captain Newmarch and Lieutenant Hughes, and that the residue is entirely for the lodgings and accommodations of the Twenty-Sixth Regiment and Emigrants.

The Committee have been highly honoured, and very happy in the testimonials they have received of the approbation of Congress, respecting their former conduct towards the officers and soldiers prisoners here. We could not be idle spectators of the distresses these gentlemen were reduced to. We could not, as a Committee, avoid taking notice of their application; neither could we place them in a situation which would have been less expensive, without treating them in a manner different from that recommended to us by the honourable the Congress, who, we hope, will suffer our conduct in the present case to pass without censure, and order in what manner these people’s demands are to be satisfied.

We beg leave to ask if the former resolve of Congress, permitting the officers to come at times from their places of residence to Lancaster, for the purpose of settling with and paying their men, and giving the necessary receipts for their rations, is to be deemed still in force; and whether, upon application of the soldiers for shoes, or any necessary clothing, (those applications now becoming frequent,) this Committee shall provide them at the Continental expense.

We shall steadily persist in carrying into execution every resolve of the honourable the Congress, and be strictly attentive to their directions and recommendations.

We are, gentlemen, with the greatest respect, your most obedient and very humble servants,

J. YEATES, Chairman.

To the Honourable John Hancock, Esq.

State of the demands of sundry persons in LANCASTER, who have Accounts against the Officers of the SEVENTH and TWENTY-SIXTH Regiments, ROYAL EMIGRANTS, and Captain CHACE, of the Navy, late prisoners at LANCASTER, now removed to YORK and CARLISLE; referred to in the Letter from the Committee of LANCASTER County to the honourable the Continental Congress, of APRIL 11, 1776:

Certified by order of the Committee:

J. YEATES, Chairman.

COMMISSION FOR A PRIVATEER.

IN CONGRESS.— The Delegates of the United Colonies of NEW-HAMPSHIRE, MASSACHUSETTS-BAY, RHODE-ISLAND, CONNECTICUT, NEW-YORK, NEW-JERSEY, PENNSYLVANIA, the Counties of NEW-CASTLE, KENT and SUSSEX on DELAWARE, MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, NORTH-CAROLINA, SOUTH-CAROLINA, and GEORGIA:

To all to whom these presents shall come, send greeting:

Know ye,

That we have granted, and by these presents do grant, license and authority to John Adams, Mariner, commander of the sloop called Chance, of the burden of forty-five tons, or thereabouts, belonging to Joseph Dean, Philip Moore & Co., of Philadelphia, in the County of Philadelphia, mounting four guns, and navigated with forty-five men, to fit out and set forth the said sloop, in a warlike manner, and by and with the said sloop, and the crew thereof, by force of arms, to attack, seize, and take the ships and other vessels belonging to the inhabitants of Great Britain, or any of them, with their tackle, apparel, furniture, and loading, on the high seas, or between high water and low water mark, and to bring the same into some convenient Ports in the Colonies, in order that the Courts, which are or shall be appointed to hear and determine causes, civil and maritime, may proceed in due form to condemn the said captures, if they be judged lawful prizes; the said Joseph Dean & Co. having given bond, with sufficient security, that nothing be done by said commander, or any of the officers, mariners, or company thereof, contrary to, or inconsistent with the usage and customs of civilized nations, and the instructions, (a copy of which is herewith delivered to him.) And we will and require all our officers whatever to give succour and assistance to the said commander in the premises. This commission shall continue in force until the Congress shall issue orders to the contrary.

Dated at Philadelphia, April 11, 1776.

By order of Congress:

TO THE PEOPLE OF PENNSYLVANIA.—LETTER VII.

Philadelphia, April 11, 1776.

The author of Common Sense does not trust wholly to his Scripture doctrines for the demolition of Monarchical Government; and, indeed, how could he? For he seems only to have begun his study of the Bible “since the fatal 19th of April, 1775.” Before that period, as he eloquently tells us, “no man was a warmer wisher to reconciliation (with Monarchical Government) than himself.” It may be proper, then, to take some notice of what he offers by way of argument against Monarchy, and particularly the hereditary kind.

“If hereditary successions,” says he, (meaning succession to Monarchical Government,) “did insure a race of good men, it would have the seal of Divine authority.” Thus