1st. The inconsistency of fitting out privateers at a great expence to intercept ships laden with provisions for the enemy and at the same time recommending it to each particular sea port town to furnish, at least not to prevent them from furnishing the men of war with all provision and necessaries, is so manifest that it would be idle to dwell upon it.

2nd. If it be said that it is prudent by this act of compliance to save the towns from cannonade, it may be answered, the men of war will certainly make further demands, and on the same principles their demands must be complied with.

3d. Is it not reasonable to suppose when the ministerial instruments reap such fruits from their menaces that they will [point out to their masters the] weak parts of America, and consequently that they will be encouraged to persist in [their plan?]

4th. Is it not probable, or almost certain, [if one] town bids them defiance, that the rest would be ashamed not to follow the example! and vice versa, if the sanction of the congress is given to any degree of compliance and submission to their terms, is it not probable that some one town will avail its self of the sa[nc]tion, and extend their complacency in proportion to the magnitude of their threats? that another and another will plead precedent, and thus ultimately the enemy will be enabled by our own assistance to continue the war to our destruction.

5th. Is it not certain that if once the spirit prevails of denying every kind of refreshment to the ships of war, they cannot possibly keep their station, that disease and desertions of the crews wou'd in a short time unman the fleet, and consequently the distresses of America be brought to a speedy issue? but if it becomes an established rule to furnish the ships with necessaries, may not the war and distresses of America be prolonged ad infinitum.

6th. Is it in fact a clear case that ships of war can, with so great facility, destroy sea port towns? if indeed they have force sufficient to land they may effect this destruction.* but those who suppose it can be done by dint of cannonade, must be very little acquainted with the effect of cannon.^# Cannon make a formidable noise to ears unused to the sound, but towns will receive inconsiderable damage from the utmost fury of any ships of war which can come into our harbours.

But, in our present circumstances (taking it for granted that ships and cannon can work all this mischief) is it not necessary to inculcate the principle of making partial sacrifices for the general good? for if this principle is not established, could a poor defenceless town be censured for submission to any terms which their lords may chuse to dictate?

Would any circumstance so effectually reduce the ministry to despair, as shewing an indifference about the existence or destruction of our towns?

*They effected the burning of Falmouth, a wooden Town, partly by landing Marines.

^#[This is d]emonstrated by the little damage ge[nerally sustai]ned by cities during a seige, and the [small] proportion of buildings burnt when the siege [is ov]er.