thought the intimation in General Lee’s letter improper, and were doubtful whether it was a publick or private letter.

37. Question. Do you know of any such intimation contained in an anonymous letter?

Answer. I do not. I neither wrote any such, nor ever heard of any such.

38. Question. Do you know of any letter to the commanding officer here on the subject?

Answer. No. I did not suppose the commanding officer here could execute such an order while the Council of Safety were sitting.

39. Question. Was this the reason that the picked men were sent?

Answer. No. The intention of sending them is already explained.

40. Question, What time did you receive the despatches from Virginia?

Answer. Sunday evening.

41. Question. What time did you send them to Congress?

Answer. Four o’clock Monday morning.

42. Question. Why was not the same despatch used with respect to us?

Answer. We thought it most respectful to appoint a deputation to wait on the Council, and the gentlemen could not go till the morning.

43. Question. Did you know what was contained in the packet to the Congress?

Answer. There was no packet for the Congress. There were two or three private letters; and the letter to Mr. Hancock was in General Lee’s handwriting.

44. Question. In your letter to the gentlemen from Baltimore, why was Captain Smith directed to go to Colonel Fitzhugh’s?

Answer. I did not order him to go there. I expected he would have orders from the Council to go there, in case the Governour had escaped before Captain Smith got to Annapolis.

45. Question. Did you give any directions to Captain Nicholson verbally, or in writing?

Answer. I had conversed with Captain Nicholson on the propriety of sending the tender; he concurred with me, and at my desire ordered the tender to be got ready.

46. Question. Did you see Captain Nicholson’s instructions to his Lieutenant?

Answer. Not till after the return of the officers and tender to Baltimore.

47. Question. Do you know of any intention to seize the Governour at Colonel Fitzhugh’s?

Answer. I gave no such instructions, and know nothing of any such, save what is hinted in Captain Nicholson’s orders to his Lieutenant.

48. Question. If seized at Colonel Fitzhugh’s, why not sent to the Committee of Calvert?

Answer. I have already informed you I gave no such orders to Captain Smith.

49. Question. The instructions are dated on the 14th, and the letter also. How account for it?

Answer. It was a mistake; they ought to have been dated on Monday, the 15th.

50. Question. By your letter to the gentlemen of Baltimore, the tender was to be under their direction; did you expect they were to mix with the Council?

Answer. My letter to the gentlemen of Baltimore will show that was not my intention. I imagined that on so important an affair they would confer with them on the subject.

51. Question. Why was Captain Smith to consult with the gentlemen of Baltimore?

Answer. I referred him to those gentlemen, expecting they would carry him to the Council, under whose direction I expected he would be after his arrival at Annapolis.

52. Question. You say you wrote to your friends that the Council behaved with spirit on the late alarm?

Answer. I am certain I did to several, and observed the happy effects of it in rousing the whole Province.

53. Question —Mr. Carroll. The instructions were got by chance to my certain knowledge.

Answer. I neither gave Captain Smith directions to show his orders, nor forbade him to do it.

54. Question. Did you enclose the packet to Philadelphia in a letter of yours?

Answer. No.

55. Question. Why was so much respect shown to the Council of Safety of Virginia, and not to the President of the Congress?

Answer. A single gentleman was very sufficient to carry a packet to the Congress, and bring back their despatches. It was thought probable the Council of Safety would choose to confer with the Members of the Baltimore Committee on so interesting a subject as that contained in the papers which they carried; and it was to them, not the Council of Virginia, the respect was intended.

56. Question. Did you not cover the letter from the Congress?

Answer. I did; and my reason was, that the packet from Congress being endorsed with Mr. Hancock’s name, and the publick curiosity being at that time great to know what was in agitation, I feared the express, or some other person who might see the packet, would be tempted by curiosity to open it; therefore put it under a new cover, directed to the Council, expecting it would pass as an ordinary packet from the Committee. To obviate all suspicions of my having opened it, which I presume is implied in your question, I could have no temptation to do so base an action. The despatch from Congress to our Committee informed us they had sent orders to the Council to seize the person and papers of Governour Eden and Mr. Alexander Ross.

56. The question asked again.

Answer. Recollected he did.

Mr. Purviance acknowledges the instructions were given by himself, and not by the Committee.

In Council of Safety, Annapolis, April 24, 1776.

The Examination of Mr. WILLIAM LUX, Deputy Chairman of the Committee of Observation for BALTIMORE County.

Question. Who made up and sealed the packet that was sent to Congress?

Answer. I did.

Question. Do you know what letters were contained in that packet?

Answer. The letter of Lord George Germaine; letter, in General Lee’s hand-writing, to John Hancock; and a private letter to a gentleman in Philadelphia, but does not recollect who. The letter from the Council of Safety of Virginia was enclosed in the packet to the Baltimore Committee.

Question. Was the packet to John Hancock very large?

Answer. No; small.

Question. Did you deliver it to the Messenger?

Answer. I delivered it to Mr. Purviance. The letter directed to the Council of Safety was enclosed to us; it had the seal nearly torn off in opening our letter; we desired the gentlemen appointed to wait on you, to explain the cause; we went to Mr. Purviance at one o’clock; the gentleman who was to go messenger to Philadelphia, was in bed, at Mr. Purviance’s, where we left the letter, when I received the packet. I did not open General Lee’s letter to Mr. Purviance.

Question. Did you know of any verbal or written instructions given to Captain Nicholson?

Answer. No. The first I heard of it was at Annopolis.

Question. Have not the powers of seizing the Governour been assumed by persons other than the Council of Safety?

Answer. Not by the Committee of Observation for Baltimore County.

Question. Have they not been assumed generally?

Answer. They have.

Question. Have the Committee of Baltimore any right to accuse the Council of Safety of timidity, inactivity, or neglect of duty?

Answer. No. The Committee think your conduct meritorious.

Question. Had the gentlemen of the Baltimore Committee, who were delegated to wait on us, any other commands or instructions than the delivery of the letter to the Council of Safety?

Answer. None. They thought the delegation the most respectful mode of proceeding.