Francis's; and made no allusion to the Meeting at the Coffee-house, where it " was chosen." Doctor Gordon, ( KiA(o/-y o/ American Revohttion, London : 178S, i., 3C1, 362,) said the Caucus was called by Sears, McDougal, and others of the popularparty, so called ; that " the Tories," or governmental party, opposed them, in the Caucus ; that Sears secured the appointment of a fifty-second member of the Committee ; and that the whole suliject was disposed of by the Caucus. He made the minority of the Caucus, the victoi-s ; and did not allude to the Meeting at the Coffee-house. Doctor Ramsay, {History of the Amei-ican Revolution, London : 1791, i., 114,) said "the Whigs and Tories were so nearly balanced '• in New- York, that nothing more was agreed to at the first meeting of "the inhabitants," [after the receipt of the Boston Poit-bill] "than a " recommendation to call a Congress," although, in truth, the subject of a Congress was not even alluded to, at either the Caucus or the Coffeehouse. "Paul .Mien," {History of the American Revolution, i., 186) said, " At New York, there was a considerable struggle between the friends " of .\dministration and the friends of Liberty ; but the latter at length " prevailed, by the influence and management of two individuals, who "had, on several occasions, manifested great activity and zeal, in their " opposition to the obnoxious measures of the Ministry," although, in trutii, the friends of the Government took no part whatever in the politics of that particular period ; and the conflict was only between rival factions of the same party of the Opposition to the Government, each contending for the control of that particular party, while both professed to be squally opposed to the Government. It is also true that those to whom this author referred, as the prevailing faction, were the minority, were outvoted and in every other respect were entirely defeated.