[30.] A committee of the house reported a letter to Lord _Hillsborough_, setting forth the several votes and resolutions which passed in the last house of representatives, relating to the circular letter; and showing that the whole of these matters was transacted in the height of the cession in a full house, and by a large majority. The letter was approved of by 93 out of 105 members present, and ordered to be transmitted to his lordship. The house agreed also upon a message to the governor, in which they said, “It is to us incomprehensible that we should be required, on the peril of a dissolution of the general court, to rescind a resolution of a former house, when it is evident, that that resolution has no existence but as a mere historical fact. Your excellency must know, that the resolution is, to speak in the language of the common law, not now executory, but to all intents and purposes executed. If, as is most probable, by the word rescinding is intended the passing a vote, in direct and express disapprobation of the measure taken by the former house as illegal, inflammatory, and tending to promote unjustifiable combinations against his majesty’s peace, crown and dignity, we must take the liberty to testify and publicly declare, that we take it to be the native, inherent, and indefeasible right of the subject, jointly or severally, to petition the king for the redress of grievances; provided alway, that the same be done in a decent, dutiful, loyal and constitutional way, without tumult, disorder and confusion.—If the votes of the house are to be controuled by the direction of a minister, we have left us but a vain semblance of liberty.—We have now only to inform you, that this house have voted _not to rescind_, and that on a division on the question, there were ninety-two nays, and seventeen yeas.” The message was firm, patriotic, and spirited; and in some parts allusively severe upon the governor, but every where decently expressed. The rescinders were governmental receivers or expectants. They had, or looked for a reward for their crouching compliance. The next day [July 1.] the governor passed some necessary acts, and then dissolved the assembly. It is scarce conceivable how a new assembly of representatives could think themselves capable of being more grossly insulted, than by being made accountable for the proceedings of a dissolved and dead one, and by being punished with immediate destruction for not declaring themselves of opposite sentiments to their predecessors. Mr. _Otis_, in his speech against rescinding, said, “When Lord Hillsborough knows that we will not rescind our acts, he should apply to parliament to rescind theirs. _Let Britain rescind their measures or they are lost for ever._” His speech, by the patriotic enthusiasts was extolled to the skies; and by the governmental ones, was declared to be the most violent, insolent, abusive, treasonable declamation, that perhaps ever was delivered. While the