But there were two amendments, proposed by Colonel Nathaniel WoodhuII and George Clinton respectively, which were rejected, although the the motions for amemlment were supported, in each instance, by several members of the ma^iority, as well as by the full force of the minority ; but because the principle involved in each of the proposed Amendments was distinctly declared in another of the Resolutions, the rejection of the proposition to repeat it, possessed no political significance whatever.

'^Joiiniid of the House, "Die 3Iercurij, 10 ho., A.M., the 8th JIurch, " 1775." 6 Ilnd.

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, 1774-1783.

as those of earlier periods, have always been unlike those of any other Colony, or State, or Country ; and in the matter of these declaratory Resolutions, the spirit and terms of which were quite as radical in their character as could have been desired by the most advanced republican who was not an anarchist, the well-established reputation of those politicians was amply sustained -- every member of the majority of the Assembly, including James DeLancey, John Cruger, Benjamin Kissam, Crean Brush, Isaac Wilkins, and Frederic Phili])se, except John Coe, of Orangecounty, and Dirck Brinckerhoff', of Duchess-county, voted in favor of the adoption of them and, of course, in favor of the embodiment of their terms in an Address to the King ; while every member of the minority of the House, with Coe and Brinckerhoff of the majority, voted in opposition to the adoption of them. Factional and partisan bitterness, very often, produces such remarkable instances of the inconsistency, if not of the incomprehensibility, of mere politicians ; but history aflbrds few, if any, such examples, among those who were really patriotic, as were afforded by John Thomas and Pierre Van Cortlandt, by Peter R. Livingston and Nathaniel Woodhull, by George Clinton and Philip Schuyler, in the instance under consideration, when they voted against the Resolutions which have been fully described and, consequently, against the great political principles which were asserted and maintained therein, for no other reason which is now discoverable than the peculiar fact that those Resolutions had proceeded from and were, then, supported by the majority of the Assembly, by that faction of the great party ofthe Opposition of which all were equally members, to which they -- those who have been named and those who were with them -- did not belong.'