TO MR. JAMES RANKIN, ONE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE COUNTY OF YORK, IN THE PROVINCE OF PENNSYLVANIA.

In the Pennsylvania Evening Post, No. 216, you have addressed the worthy inhabitants of the County of York, and attempted not only to excuse, but to justify your conduct in endeavouring to procure signers to the insidious, poisonous, and destructive paper called the Remonstrance. I shall, through the same channel, appeal to the understandings of those worthy men, (whose just rights you have shown a strong inclination to betray, though you will most certainly be disappointed,) whether you are a trusty watchman; whether you are disposed to speak truth, or are entitled to any confidence from a free and sensible people in future. In your publication you say the Committee of the City of Philadelphia had taken upon them to determine two points in their Protest against the authority of the House of which you were chosen a member, viz: first, that the Congress “had absolutely enjoined the taking up and establishing new Governments through all the Colonies;” and, secondly, “that they (the said Committee) had a right, in exclusion of the Assembly, to call a conference of Committees, who were to deliberate what changes in our Government, or whether any, were necessary; but taking that for granted, they were to devise means for choosing a Convention to establish a new form.”

Charity inclines me to view every man in the most favourable light, and therefore I have supposed (as I have no acquaintance with you, nor have ever seen you) that some of those under whose banner you have inlisted, and who are accustomed to misrepresentations, have written this address for you; otherwise I must think you a bold man to publish in the newspapers in the City of Philadelphia, “that the Committee of the City of Philadelphia had taken upon them to determine two points in their Protest;” when it is notorious to every man who has seen the Protest, and can read, or was present on the 20th of May, and could hear, that the Protest was then signed by order of divers inhabitants of this Province, in behalf of themselves and others, and not by the Committee of the City. I am told you saw the numbers; you must at least have heard that they could not be many less than five thousand.

In the next paragraph, you quote partially the resolve of Congress of the 15th of May, and assert “that it was the general sense of the House, confirmed by your own Delegates, that where Assemblies could actually sit as the Representatives of the people, the Congress had them expressly in view in the execution of their resolve, and did not point out; any particular changes as necessary, except so far as regards the usual oaths and affirmations, which they considered as standing in the way of our just opposition to the oppressive measures of the British Parliament.” I say you have quoted the said resolve partially, and with an intention to deceive; for in the preamble to that resolve are these words: “And it is necessary that the exercise of every kind of authority under the said Crown should be totally suppressed, and all the powers of Government exerted under the authority of the people of the Colonies, for the preservation of internal peace, virtue, and good order,” &c. Now, if this part of the resolve is attended to, will you, by being absolved from your allegiance, preserve internal peace, virtue, and good order in Pennsylvania? If all authority under the Crown ought to be totally suppressed, by what authority can the Judges, Justices of the Peace, and other officers in Pennsylvania, execute the laws? Is it not to be taken for granted that a new Government is necessary to be established? You are called upon to answer these questions. I flatter myself that your House of Assembly (as you are pleased to call it, though you know that no Representative can by law vote in the House of Assembly, or sit there during any debate, after the Speaker is chosen, until he shall make and subscribe the declarations of allegiance, &c.) do not apprehend that they can continue the exercise of all powers of Government, legislative, executive, and judicial; and that no new Government is necessary, though it may be the wish of Mr. Rankin. You have next cited some of the proceedings of the Convention of Maryland, and asserted that New-York, Connecticut, and Rhode-Island, have made no further alterations than respecting the oaths, &c., as your Assembly have done. What you say respecting the Convention of Maryland is true, and it is denied by one “that the people of every Province have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof;” but you should have mentioned that the Convention of Maryland has resolved that the prayer for success to the British King against all his enemies, &c., should be no longer read by the clergy of that Province, and that your Assembly have not done the same. But what you have said respecting New-York, Connecticut, and Rhode-Island, is notoriously untrue; for the former proposed a method for establishing a new Government, Connecticut denies all authority under the Crown, and Rhode-Island, by a most solemn act of the Governour, Council and Assembly thereof, has anticipated the Congress resolve in all its parts, and has no more connection with the British King and Parliament than with the Empire of China. You next have recourse to the Charter Constitution of Pennsylvania. for which you express your love. I would hope you do not allude to the 20th section, which declares that no taxes shall be imposed on the people without their consent, or by act of Parliament in England. Poor man ! Can you imagine you can frighten freemen, possessed of the least share of understanding, into the servile condition you wish to place them, by bellowing, The Charter, the Constitution is in danger? We know that a full and fair representation of this Province, and the suppression of all authority under the King of Great Britain, are the only changes desired, and that the charter and laws of the Province in every other respect will remain inviolate.

You seem exceeding angry that you cannot obtain the sentiments of your constituents for the direction of your conduct, and with the Committee of your County for having prevented your letters reaching them for that purpose; and you have given a specimen of your candid desire of collecting the unbiased sense of the good people of the County of York, in the letter to Henry Wolfe, which you have published at length. You say, “the friends of the present Constitution of Pennsylvania think it absolutely necessary at this time to use their utmost endeavours,” &c., and afterwards, “as many persons as possible should be procured to sign the Address and Remonstrance.” And you tell Mr. Wolfe, that by getting as many signers as possible he will oblige you his friend, &c. What must every man think of your character, after seeing this letter published by yourself? You must certainly have been drawn into it by some cunning false friend, who wished to ruin you. Is this the language, is this the conduct of an honest man, who sincerely sought the sentiments of his constituents, to press them to sign a paper forwarded by himself with as much earnestness as if his salvation depended upon it; and at the same time asserting this most wicked falsehood, “that it was to prevent the attempts that are making in the City of Philadelphia to destroy the Assembly, and consequently the charter-rights of the Province?” Did you not know that the Protest was only against the authority and qualification of the House for framing a new Government, and that it contains these words, (mentioning the House:) “We mean not to object against its exercising the proper powers it has hitherto been accustomed to use for the safety and convenience of the Province?” How, then, could you dare to say to Mr. Wolfe, and through him to the people of York County, “that attempts were making in Philadelphia to destroy the Assembly?” If you had possessed the least inclination to consult the sense of your constituents, you would have sent as well the Protest as the Remonstrance to them, without any comment on either, and requested their opinion respecting them. I should be glad to know whom you meant by the friends of the present Constitution of Pennsylvania, and what you meant by the present Constitution, as they are terms of doubtful import; also, your reasons for omitting to acquaint your constituents what has been done respecting new Governments in the four Southern Provinces, as well as in New-Hampshire and Massachusetts-Bay, besides those I have already mentioned. Likewise that your House, “thinking it convenient and for the safety of the Province,” have instituted a Court of Admiralty, and appointed a Collector of the port of Philadelphia, but that it is their opinion that they have not a right to frame a new Government in all its parts.* I will conclude with giving

* You have told your constituents, in a note, that the names to the Remonstrance at the time of your writing, amounted to about six thousand. You must excuse me in saying I do not believe it; first, because you have