It is a reasonable case, in such instances as those cited and in those of the earlier historians of the American Revolution who lived and wrote in Europe, that no more than the rejection, by the Parliament, of the two papers which were sent to that legislature by the General Assembly of New York, was mentioned in the writings of those gentlemen ; but there is no valid excuse for those, in America, who have exhausted all their resources of misrepresentation and abuse on that General Assembly, charging it with having been everything which was detrimental to the honor or the integrity or the interests of the Colonies, and closing their respective narratives, on the subject of that Assembly, by reciting no more than the facts, stated in the text -- that its Memorial and Remonstrance had been rejected by the two Houses of Parliament, without having been read -- without having pretended to explain how it were possible that so bad an Assembly as they had described, could, by any possibility, have been, the author and publisher of such papers as, because of their peculiarly republican averments, the Home Government and the Parliament would not allow to be even read in their presence.

Bancroft, after having consolidated the Remonstrance and the Memorial, making them one paper, obliged Uurke to offer both, on the same day, and in the same House, all of which were described in the narrow compass of four lines, without even a hint how such an Assembly as he had previously described, could have produced such a paper -- his silence serving to screen his unfaithfulness, as a historian, both in a falsification and in a suppression of the truth. (History of the United States, original edition, iv., 280 ; the same, centenary edition, iv., 516.) John C.