Thus, Mercy AVarren {Hinlonj of American lievohilion ;) "Paul Allen" {Hittory of American Rerohdion ;) Thacher {MilUarij Journal ;) Morse (AnnnU of the American RetoMion ;) Pitkin (Hitlonj of the United Stales ;) Frothingham (Rise of the Republic;) Lodge (Short Hitlnrij of English Colonies ;) and a multitude of othei's, make no mention whatever of the subject of the opposition in Xew York ; and Rincroft, in the octavo edition of his Hislnry of the I'nited Stales, after alluding, in a dozen words, to the storm w hich hail driven the Xew York tea-ship to the West Indies, very conveniently said no more on the subject -- a suppression of the truth which he shabbily attempted to mitif>Rte, in his centenary and "thoroughly revised" edition of that work, by an interpolation of five lines, nearly two of which have no relation whatever to the subject of Xew York's opposition to the tax ; and nearly two others state, in connection with the .Vniicy, what every novice in the history of those times knows is entirely untrue, in one of its only two statements concerning her.

Strange to say, Lossing, a Xew York writer, with all the original material within his reach and perfectly accessible, in his Seventeen hundred and sfcenlij sif (jiage 111,1 stated that the .Vniic;/ was returned to Europe, only "because no one could be found that would venture to receive the "tea," without an allusion to her having been stopped at Sandy-hook, and returned, thence, to Europe ; and, also, without the slightest allusion to the London and to what became of her tea. In his History of the I'niledSlates, (page 22U all that appears, concerning either the Xancy or the London is that (A?;/ " returned to England with their cargoes '' ; although the Xancy was the only one which thus returned, and then only because she was conii>el!eil to return.