Grahame (History of the United States, iv., 360) following Ramsey, and, generally, in his n«- vredited words, repeated the slander which that early writer insinuated. Leake (Memoir of General Lamb, 97) regarded the Vote as unpatriotic and " an important ministerial triumph." Lo3sing (Field Book of the Revolution, ii., 793) made " fifteen of the twenty-four Members of the Assembly, 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 hiBtory (Histoi-y of the United States, original edition, iv., 207-210 ; the same, centenary edition, iv., 454-45fi) 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 Assembly, the timidity of the Colonists themselves, and prejudice against lawyers and Presbyterians, combined, which produced that notable Vote. The servility of the Assembly to the Ministry, singularly enough, produced it, if the acute and untruBt worthy John C. Hamilton (History of the Republic, i., 79), is to be believed. Lodge (History of the English Colonies, 491,) one of the latest specimens of Massachusetts dilettanteism, sneeringly refers to the Assembly of New York as "the close corporation known as the Assembly," as if the General Court of Massachusetts, locked in its Chamber, was not quite as " close ' ' a body, while it was in session, as even he could find. Others, including Frothingham (Rise oftfie Republic, 398) told only of the rejection of Colonel Ten Broeck's Resolution, and, by the suppression of much of the truth concerning the subject, left their less informed readei's to infer, if the latter are not directly told so, that the Assembly was influenced, in that action, by an antagonism to the popular cause.