The Rolls of Col. Sherburn's Regiment are very deficient; the whole of this regiment did not belong to Rhode Island, and of the officers and men which did, the Roll is imperfect; all we have is as follows:

Another Convention of the New England States and New York, was called to be holden at Hartford this year on the twentieth of October. The questions to be discussed at this convention were very important, and they occupied the attention of the council of war, who on the second of October,

appointed Stephen Hopkins and Charles Holden delegates. from Rhode Island to attend it. The council of war also instructed the delegates that they "should demand all restrictions on the land trade to be taken off." The council of war also instructed their delegates that they "should recommend to the delegates of each of the States the affair of the loan of twenty millions, and to devise some way to raise it." Instructions were also given "to agree upon some plan to regulate the prices of the necessaries of life." These were all important subjects. The restrictions on the inland trade caused great inconvenience to the inhabitants of this State, especially during the invasion. In consequence of the decrease of population, and consequently that of husbandry, as stated by the Governor in his letter to our delegates in Congress, there was a great deficiency in supplies both for the inhabitants and troops; and under these restrictions no provisions could be purchased in Connecticut, and brought to Rhode Island, without permission of the Governor of that State; and during the invasion, committees had often been appointed to wait on the Governor of Connecticut to obtain his permission for that purpose. The latter instructions relative to the agreement on some plan to regulate by law the "prices of the necessaries of life," was a vain attempt, as such things must always be left to the natural course of trade. In all such cases, fraud, and the evasions of the law are the consequence. Neither the buyer nor seller will be bound by them, but by mutual consent agree to violate the law.

At the same sitting of the council of war, Mr. John Brown, and Col. Joseph Nightingale were appointed a committee to "wait on the General Court of Massachusetts, and to use their efforts to have the land embargo removed, as far as respects this State." Rhode Island had suffered from this measure of Massachusetts, in the same manner she had from the restrictions on the inland trade in Connecticut.

About the middle of October, there were demonstrations which showed pretty conclusively that the enemy were preparing to evacuate Newport and the Island, and the Governor

was requested by the council of war to issue his proclamation, "forbidding all privateers and armed boats and others, from landing on Rhode Island and Canonicut, to molest the inhabitants, or to take or destroy their property," under heavy penalties. At length the happy day arrived, and on the 27th day of October, the British evacuated, and carried off with them a vast amount of property, a great number of tories, and what was very provoking, through their influence in all probability, the records of the towns of Newport and Middletown. The tories had been advised, that by holding on to the records of land evidence, some compromise could be made relative to their estates, which of course had all been confiscated. But it was all to no purpose, for on the 11th of November, the council of war ordered the estates, real and personal, of fortyseven persons, naming them, who had gone off with the enemy, to be seized by the sheriff of the county, and the sheriff was ordered to make return of his doings to the General Assembly. The council of war also requested his excellency the Governor "to write to General Washington, requesting him to use his utmost influence with General Clinton to have the records returned as soon as may be." The records were returned, but not very soon. The tories, however, derived no benefit from their seizure and abduction.

Soon after the enemy left there were many persons who were in the habit of committing depredations on property, so much so, that General Cornell was requested by the council of war to arrest all such persons and have them confined until the sitting of the Supreme Court. He was requested also, to arrest all persons "who had taken an active part with the enemy, and shown themselves inimical to the liberty and independence of the United States."

Newport, after the evacuation, was but a shadow of what it was before the war. It contained, before that event, upwards of ten thousand inhabitants, and was among the first cities in this country for wealth and enterprise. It was the head-quarters of foreign intelligence, as much so as New York or Boston are at the present day. But the enemy left it

shorn of its principal advantages, and in a state of great depression. The beautiful State House, then among the handsomest and most costly in the country, was left in ruins. The British turned it into barracks, and used it for that purpose. The churches were all desecrated, and made use of by the troops. Upwards of five hundred buildings, of all descriptions were, destroyed, as the writer has been credibly informed by a very respectable person now living. And in fact, not only Newport, but the whole Island still wears the vandal marks of the brutal outrages of a savage foe. But notwithstanding all this there is no spot on earth that can compare in luxuriance and beauty with this sea-girt Isle. Truly has it been denominated the "Paradise of America."

SECTION VI.

[1780.]

It would, perhaps, be impossible to pen an adequate description of the joy and the gratitude which every patriotic heart experienced and felt at some of the events which took place this year in Rhode Island. Before, however, we proceed in detail, we will dwell a few moments on the motives and objects of the "allies," on the other side of the water, for the part they took in our struggle for Independence.

We have been often asked the question, why it was that the French nation should step forward to aid us in throwing off our allegiance to our king, and setting up a form of government so essentially different from its own? The king of France was an absolute monarch-his power was hereditary, and independent of the people, and this power was unlimited, except by his own will. What predominant motive could such

a ruler have to build up a republic?-to aid in establishing such a theory, and such political principles, as were set forth in the Declaration of Independence; principles which, if acknowledged in France to have been correct, would jeopardize his own power, and perhaps have hurled him from the throne? Why was it that such a monarch should sympathize in such a cause?-why extend a helping hand to support and maintain it? There can be two answers given to this question;-the one drawn from hatred to an old enemy, and blind ambitionthe other from a lofty desire of promoting the cause of human rights, independent of all selfish considerations. We believe the latter to have been the prominent motive in the mind of the king.

Louis XVI. was a simple-hearted, honest man—not above mediocrity in talents, but amiable, sincere, and easily led by those in whom he reposed confidence. Nor, perhaps, did it ever once enter his thoughts for a moment, that, by lending his friendship, and the military power of his kingdom, to build up a republic on this side of the water, he was sapping and undermining his own absolute power at home. But "fiat Justicia ruat cœlum" appears to have been his sole motto as respected the American contest.

Marie Antoinette,* his young queen, says one of her biographers, was his "Prime Minister." She had beauty, learning, wit, and every accomplishment that could adorn a throne. Indeed, so overwhelming were her charms, that the distinguished Edmund Burke, one of the most successful opponents of Lord North's policy in the British House of Commons, thus speaks of this fascinating woman, and we here give his description of her. He saw her, says he, at Versailles, in 1773, then dauphiness.. Seventeen years after this visit, (1790,) the impression she made still being fresh in his recollection, he burst forth in the following strain of admiration :

"It is now sixteen years since I saw the queen of France, then the dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely never lighted

Marie Antoinette was born Nov. 2, 1755-married in May, 1770-was beheaded Oct. 25, 1793.