In the publick Advertiser, printed in London, the 28th of April last, I have seen a paper called, the Case of Capt. Thomas Preston: It was published in his name, tho' not wholly his own draft; as he declared to a committee of this town, who waited upon him for an explanation of some passages in it,1 which were notoriously false, and grosly reflecting upon some of the magistrates, as well as the people of the town and province. I may hereafter particularly consider this paper, which has had its run thro' Britain and America; and point out the many "faults of partiality" which are contain'd in it: The only reason why I have not already done it, was, because I agreed in the general sentiment of the inhabitants of this town, that nothing of this kind should be publish'd, at so critical a juncture, lest it might be tho't to prejudice the minds of Jurors on a trial for life.2- It may be perhaps more easy, and of full as much importance to the publick, to ascertain the person, who several times alter'd the state of the case; and, as Capt. Preston himself declared, even after it finally came out of his hands, as it would be, to ascertain the person in a red cloke; which the writer in Draper's paper has been so often in vain called upon to do, in fulfillment of his voluntary promise. - In this paper, Capt. Preston, or his friend in his behalf, says, "he sent a non- commission'd officer and twelve men, and very soon follow'd himself:" The witnesses in court, on both sides declared, that Capt. Preston himself came down with the party. Again he says, he followed, "lest the officer and soldiers should be thrown off their guard, and commit some rash act": But, did he restrain them from commiting so rash an act, as firing upon the multitude? - He surely must have observ'd the violent temper which the soldiers discover'd, as "they rushed thro' the people" according to his own account; "upon the trot, in a threatning manner, damning the people and pushing them with their bayonets", as Mr. Knox and others swore in court: He knew their guns were charg'd with ball; he declar'd it at the time, and on the spot, as Mr. Palmes testified: Should he not then, at the very instant, when he must if ever, have been apprehensive, that they would commit some rash act, at least have caution'd them, not to fire, till he himself should give the orders? Instead of this, by his own, or his friend's account, publish'd as his own, we find no such prudent directions to the men under his command; who by the rules of the army, would have been liable to suffer death, if they had disobey'd! What single step did he take, to prevent their committing a rash act, for the sake of which alone, he tells us, he followed down? Not one according to the state of his case, till after they began to fire: "Upon my asking the men, says he, why they fired without orders, they said, they heard the word, fire, and suppos'd it come from me": It seems, it was the