1 Gordon (HMnryof Americnn RerohitMii, i., 471) led off, in the work of detraction, by saying " The Massacluisetts Congress were displeased with "the proceedings of tlie General Assemlily of New York," for this Vote, among others, as if the approval of any merely insurrectionary body were necessary to ensure th^ respectability, in history, of any General Assembly, legally elected, legally convened, and acting in conformity with law. Ramsay {Hv^torij of the Americnn Ih-vvhifu'tt, i., 14.3) insinuated, in the absence of s\ifficient authority to assert, that " the party for " Koyal GovernuuMit," -- although there was not a member of that party witliin tbe -Assembly, and although the Colonial Government was confes.sedly without influence enough to be made acquainted with its intentions-- led the Assembly to reject the Resolution. Grahame (History of the Viiiled .Slates, iv., 3Gi)) following Ramsey, and, generally, in his iincreilited words, repeated the slander w hich that early writer insinuated. Leake (Memoir of General I.ninb, 97) regarded the Vote as unpatriotic and " an important ministerial triumph.'' Lossing (Field Book of the Revolittioii, ii., 79:i) made "fifteen of the twenty-four Members of the As- " sembly. Loyalists ; " and he attributed the Vote to that unduly assumed cause, although, in fact, every member professed to have been equally loyal to the Sovereign. Bancroft, also, as far as his fragmentary paragraphs may be regarded as history (HUtory of the Vnited States^ original edition, iv., 207-21U ; the same, centenary edition, iv., 454-4.511) insinuated what he.would have been glad to have asserted, had he possessed even a shadow of evidence to support him, that it was the influence of the Government and that of the Established Church, the venality of the Representatives in the .\ssembly, the timidity of the Colonists themselves, and prejudice against lawyei-s and Presbyterians, combined, which produced that notable Vote.