Kitabı oxu: «A Collection of Essays and Fugitiv Writings»

SUBSCRIBERS

The honorable John Adams, Esq. Vice President of the United States, 2 copies.

The hon. Pierce Butler, Esq. – Senators in Congress.

The hon. Charles Carrol, Esq.

The hon. William Few, Esq.

The hon. Benjamin Hawkins, Esq.

The hon. John Henry, Esq.

The hon. Ralph Izard, Esq.

The hon. William Samuel Johnson, Esq.

The hon. Samuel Johnston, Esq.

The hon. Rufus King, Esq.

The hon. Robert Morris, Esq.

The hon. George Read, Esq.

Hon. Jonathan Trumbull, Esq. – Representativs in Congress.

Jeremiah Wadsworth, Esq.

A.

Nathaniel W. Appleton, Physician, Boston.

John Allen, Esq. Attorney at Law, Litchfield.

B.

Isaac Baldwin, Esq. Clerk of Court, Litchfield.

Isaac Baldwin, jun. Esq. Attorney, do.

Mrs. Ruthy Barlow, Greenfield.

Mr. Jesse Benedict, Fairfield.

Mr. Isaac Bronson, Hartford.

Mr. Caleb Bull, do.

Mr. James Burr, do.

Jonathan Brace, Esq. Attorney, Glanstenbury.

David Burr, Esq. Attorney, Fairfield.

Barna Bidwell, Esq. Attorney, New Haven.

John Bird, Esq. Attorney, Salisbury.

C.

Peter Colt, Esq. Treasurer of Connecticut, Hartford.

Mr. John M'Curdy, Merchant, do.

Richard M'Curdy, Esq. Attorney, Lyme.

John Caldwell, Esq. Alderman of the City of Hartford.

Mr. John Chenevard, jun. Hartford.

Hon. John Chester, Esq. Judge of the County Court, Wethersfield.

Thomas Chester, Esq. Attorney, Wethersfield.

Edward Carrington, Physician, Milford.

Reverend Henry Channing, New London.

Joshua Coit, Esq. Attorney, do.

Mr. Lynde M'Curdy, Merchant, Norwich.

Messieurs Coit and Lathrop, Merchants, do.

Mason F. Cogswell, Physician and Surgeon, Hartford.

Reverend John Clarke, Boston.

D.

Samuel W. Dana, Esq. Attorney, Middleton.

David Daggett, Esq. Attorney, New Haven.

Mr. Benadam Dennison, Norwich.

E.

Pierpont Edwards, Esq. Attorney for Connecticut District, New Haven.

F.

Mr. Thomas Fanning, Norwich.

G.

William Greenleaf, Esq. Boston.

Chauncey Goodrich, Esq. Attorney, Hartford.

Elizur Goodrich, Esq. Attorney, New Haven.

Gideon Granger, jun. Esq. Attorney, Suffield.

Gaylord Griswold, Esq. Attorney, Windsor.

H.

His Excellency Samuel Huntington, Esq. Governor of Connecticut.

Lemuel Hopkins, Physician, Hartford.

Mr. Asa Hopkins, Druggist, do.

Uriel Holmes, Esq. Attorney, New Hartford.

Colonel Ebenezer Huntington, Merchant, Norwich.

Mr. Joseph Howland, do.

Mr. Andrew Huntington, Merchant, do.

Mr. Levi Huntington, do.

David Hull, Physician, Fairfield.

William Hillhouse, Esq. Attorney, New Haven.

Captain Pliny Hillyer, Granby.

Samuel Henshaw, Esq. Northampton.

I.

Jonathan Ingersoll, Esq. Attorney, New Haven.

J.

William Judd, Esq. Attorney, Farmington, 2 copies.

John Coffin Jones, Esq. Boston.

K.

Mr. Isaac Kibby, Merchant, Enfield.

Ephraim Kirby, Esq. Attorney, Litchfield.

Mr. Joshua King, Ridgefield.

L.

Lynde Lord, Esq. Sheriff of Litchfield County, Litchfield.

M.

Reverend Jedidiah Morse, Charlestown.

William Moseley, Esq. Attorney, Hartford.

Samuel Marsh, Esq. Attorney, Litchfield.

Mr. John Morgan, Merchant, Hartford.

Mr. William Marsh, do.

Eneas Munson, jun. Physician, New Haven.

Ashur Miller, Esq. Attorney, Middleton.

George R. Minot, Esq. Attorney, Boston.

N.

Hon. Roger Newberry, Esq. Judge of the County Court, Windsor.

O.

Mr. Jacob Ogden, Merchant, Hartford.

Harrison Gray Otis, Esq. Attorney, Boston.

P.

Ralph Pomeroy, Esq. Controller of the Treasury, Hartford.

Enoch Perkins, Esq. Attorney, Hartford.

Mr. Nathaniel Patten, Merchant, Hartford, 3 copies.

Colonel Joshua Porter, Judge of the County Court, Salisbury.

Jonas Prentice, jun. Esq. New Haven.

Colonel Noah Phelps, Symsbury.

Giles Pettibone, Esq. Norfolk.

R.

Hon. Jesse Root, Esq. Judge of the Superior Court, Hartford.

Nathaniel Rosseter, Esq. Guilford.

Ephraim Root, Esq. Attorney, Hartford.

Tapping Reeve, Esq. Attorney, Litchfield.

S.

Reverend Nathan Strong, Hartford.

Thomas Y. Seymour, Esq. Attorney, do.

Mr. Isaac Sanford, Goldsmith, do.

Reuben Smith, Esq. Litchfield.

Daniel Sherman, Esq. Chief Judge of County Court, Woodbury.

General Heman Swift, Cornwall.

Lewis B. Sturgis, Esq. Attorney, Fairfield.

Mr. James Smedley, do.

Zephaniah Swift, Esq. Windham.

T.

John Trumbull, Esq. State Attorney for Hartford County.

Uriah Tracy, Esq. Attorney, Litchfield.

Nathaniel Terry, jun. Esq. Attorney, Enfield.

Mr. Thomas Tisdale, Merchant, Hartford.

W.

The Hon. Oliver Walcott, Esq. Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut, Litchfield.

John Williams, Esq. Attorney, Wethersfield.

William Williston, Esq. Attorney, Symsbury.

Mr. Joseph Williams, Norwich.

Mr. Ashbel Wells, Merchant, Hartford.

Alexander Wolcott, Esq. Attorney, Windsor.

Mr. Thomas Walley, Merchant, Boston.

Thomas Welsh, Physician, Boston.

TO

The PRESIDENT,

The VICE PRESIDENT,

The SENATORS, and

The REPRESENTATIVS

OF THE

UNITED STATES of AMERICA,

The following PUBLICATION,

Designed to

Aid the Principles of the Revolution,

TO

Suppress Political Discord,

AND TO

Diffuse a Spirit of Enquiry,

Favorable to Morals, to Science, and Truth,

Is most humbly inscribed,

As a Tribute of Respect for their Karacters,

Of Gratitude for their Public Services,

And a Pledge of Attachment

TO THE

Present CONSTITUTION

OF THE

AMERICAN REPUBLIC,

BY THEIR MOST OBEDIENT,

AND MOST HUMBLE SERVANT,

The Author.

Hartford, June, 1790.

PREFACE

The following Collection consists of Essays and Fugitiv Peeces, ritten at various times, and on different occasions, az wil appeer by their dates and subjects. Many of them were dictated at the moment, by the impulse of impressions made by important political events, and abound with a correspondent warmth of expression. This freedom of language wil be excused by the frends of the revolution and of good guvernment, who wil recollect the sensations they hav experienced, amidst the anarky and distraction which succeeded the cloze of the war. On such occasions a riter wil naturally giv himself up to hiz feelings, and hiz manner of riting wil flow from hiz manner of thinking.

Most of thoze peeces, which hav appeered before in periodical papers and Magazeens, were published with fictitious signatures; for I very erly discuvered, that altho the name of an old and respectable karacter givs credit and consequence to hiz ritings, yet the name of a yung man iz often prejudicial to hiz performances. By conceeling my name, the opinions of men hav been prezerved from an undu bias arizing from personal prejudices, the faults of the ritings hav been detected, and their merit in public estimation ascertained.

The favorable reception given to a number of theze Essays by an indulgent public, induced me to publish them in a volum, with such alterations and emendations, az I had heerd suggested by frends or indifferent reeders, together with some manuscripts, that my own wishes led me to hope might be useful.

During the course of ten or twelv yeers, I hav been laboring to correct popular errors, and to assist my yung brethren in the road to truth and virtue; my publications for theze purposes hav been numerous; much time haz been spent, which I do not regret, and much censure incurred, which my hart tells me I do not dezerv. The influence of a yung writer cannot be so powerful or extensiv az that of an established karacter; but I hav ever thot a man's usefulness depends more on exertion than on talents. I am attached to America by berth, education and habit; but abuv all, by a philosophical view of her situation, and the superior advantages she enjoys, for augmenting the sum of social happiness.

I should hav added another volum, had not recent experience convinced me, that few large publications in this country wil pay a printer, much less an author. Should the Essays here presented to the public, proov undezerving of notice, I shal, with cheerfulness, resign my other papers to oblivion.

The reeder wil obzerv that the orthography of the volum iz not uniform. The reezon iz, that many of the essays hav been published before, in the common orthography, and it would hav been a laborious task to copy the whole, for the sake of changing the spelling.

In the essays, ritten within the last year, a considerable change of spelling iz introduced by way of experiment. This liberty waz taken by the writers before the age of queen Elizabeth, and to this we are indeted for the preference of modern spelling over that of Gower and Chaucer. The man who admits that the change of housbonde, mynde, ygone, moneth into husband, mind, gone, month, iz an improovment, must acknowlege also the riting of helth, breth, rong, tung, munth, to be an improovment. There iz no alternativ. Every possible reezon that could ever be offered for altering the spelling of wurds, stil exists in full force; and if a gradual reform should not be made in our language, it wil proov that we are less under the influence of reezon than our ancestors.

Hartford, June, 1790.

A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS

No. I

NEW YORK, 1788.

On the EDUCATION of YOUTH in AMERICA

The Education of youth is, in all governments, an object of the first consequence. The impressions received in early life, usually form the characters of individuals; a union of which forms the general character of a nation.

The mode of Education and the arts taught to youth, have, in every nation, been adapted to its particular stage of society or local circumstances.

In the martial ages of Greece, the principal study of its Legislators was, to acquaint the young men with the use of arms, to inspire them with an undaunted courage, and to form in the hearts of both sexes, an invincible attachment to their country. Such was the effect of their regulations for these purposes, that the very women of Sparta and Athens, would reproach their own sons, for surviving their companions who fell in the field of battle.

Among the warlike Scythians, every male was not only taught to use arms for attack and defence; but was obliged to sleep in the field, to carry heavy burthens, and to climb rocks and precipices, in order to habituate himself to hardships, fatigue and danger.

In Persia, during the flourishing reign of the great Cyrus, the Education of youth, according to Xenophon, formed a principal branch of the regulations of the empire. The young men were divided into classes, each of which had some particular duties to perform, for which they were qualified by previous instructions and exercise.

While nations are in a barbarous state, they have few wants, and consequently few arts. Their principal objects are, defence and subsistence; the Education of a savage therefore extends little farther, than to enable him to use, with dexterity, a bow and a tomahawk.

But in the progress of manners and of arts, war ceases to be the employment of whole nations; it becomes the business of a few, who are paid for defending their country. Artificial wants multiply the number of occupations; and these require a great diversity in the mode of Education. Every youth must be instructed in the business by which he is to procure subsistence. Even the civilities of behavior, in polished society, become a science; a bow and a curtesy are taught with as much care and precision, as the elements of Mathematics. Education proceeds therefore, by gradual advances, from simplicity to corruption. Its first object, among rude nations, is safety; its next, utility; it afterwards extends to convenience; and among the opulent part of civilized nations, it is directed principally to show and amusement.

In despotic states, Education, like religion, is made subservient to government. In some of the vast empires of Asia, children are always instructed in the occupation of their parents; thus the same arts are always continued in the same families. Such an institution cramps genius, and limits the progress of national improvement; at the same time it is an almost immoveable barrier against the introduction of vice, luxury, faction and changes in government. This is one of the principal causes, which have operated in combining numerous millions of the human race under one form of government, and preserving national tranquillity for incredible periods of time. The empire of China, whose government was founded on the patriarchical discipline, has not suffered a revolution in laws, manners or language, for many thousand years.

In the complicated systems of government which are established among the civilized nations of Europe, Education has less influence in forming a national character; but there is no state, in which it has not an inseparable connection with morals, and a consequential influence upon the peace and happiness of society.

Education is a subject which has been exhausted by the ablest writers, both among the ancients and moderns. I am not vain enough to suppose I can suggest any new ideas upon so trite a theme as Education in general; but perhaps the manner of conducting the youth in America may be capable of some improvement. Our constitutions of civil government are not yet firmly established; our national character is not yet formed; and it is an object of vast magnitude that systems of Education should be adopted and pursued, which may not only diffuse a knowlege of the sciences, but may implant, in the minds of the American youth, the principles of virtue and of liberty; and inspire them with just and liberal ideas of government, and with an inviolable attachment to their own country. It now becomes every American to examin the modes of Education in Europe, to see how far they are applicable in this country, and whether it is not possible to make some valuable alterations, adapted to our local and political circumstances. Let us examin the subject in two views. First, as it respects arts and sciences. Secondly, as it is connected with morals and government. In each of these articles, let us see what errors may be found, and what improvements suggested, in our present practice.

The first error that I would mention, is, a too general attention to the dead languages, with a neglect of our own.

This practice proceeds probably from the common use of the Greek and Roman tongues, before the English was brought to perfection. There was a long period of time, when these languages were almost the only repositories of science in Europe. Men, who had a taste for learning, were under a necessity of recurring to the sources, the Greek and Roman authors. These will ever be held in the highest estimation both for stile and sentiment; but the most valuable of them have English translations, which, if they do not contain all the elegance, communicate all the ideas of the originals. The English language, perhaps, at this moment, is the repository of as much learning, as one half the languages of Europe. In copiousness it exceeds all modern tongues; and though inferior to the Greek and French in softness and harmony, yet it exceeds the French in variety; it almost equals the Greek and Roman in energy, and falls very little short of any language in the regularity of its construction.¹

In deliberating upon any plan of instruction, we should be attentive to its future influence and probable advantages. What advantage does a merchant, a mechanic, a farmer, derive from an acquaintance with the Greek and Roman tongues? It is true, the etymology of words cannot be well understood, without a knowlege of the original languages of which ours is composed. But a very accurate knowlege of the meaning of words and of the true construction of sentences, may be obtained by the help of Dictionaries and good English writers; and this is all that is necessary in the common occupations of life. But suppose there is some advantage to be derived from an acquaintance with the dead languages, will this compensate for the loss of five or perhaps seven years of valuable time? Life is short, and every hour should be employed to good purposes. If there are no studies of more consequence to boys, than those of Latin and Greek, let these languages employ their time; for idleness is the bane of youth. But when we have an elegant and copious language of our own, with innumerable writers upon ethics, geography, history, commerce and government; subjects immediately interesting to every man; how can a parent be justified in keeping his son several years over rules of Syntax, which he forgets when he shuts his book; or which, if remembered, can be of little or no use in any branch of business? This absurdity is the subject of common complaint; men see and feel the impropriety of the usual practice; and yet no arguments that have hitherto been used, have been sufficient to change the system; or to place an English school on a footing with a Latin one, in point of reputation.

It is not my wish to discountenance totally the study of the dead languages. On the other hand I should urge a more close attention to them, among young men who are designed for the learned professions. The poets, the orators, the philosophers and the historians of Greece and Rome, furnish the most excellent models of Stile, and the richest treasures of Science. The slight attention given to a few of these authors, in our usual course of Education, is rather calculated to make pedants than scholars; and the time employed in gaining superficial knowlege is really wasted.²

 
"A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring."
 

But my meaning is, that the dead languages are not necessary for men of business, merchants, mechanics, planters, &c. nor of utility sufficient to indemnify them for the expense of time and money which is requisite to acquire a tolerable acquaintance with the Greek and Roman authors. Merchants often have occasion for a knowlege of some foreign living language, as, the French, the Italian, the Spanish, or the German; but men, whose business is wholly domestic, have little or no use for any language but their own; much less, for languages known only in books.

There is one very necessary use of the Latin language, which will always prevent it from falling into neglect; which is, that it serves as a common interpreter among the learned of all nations and ages. Epitaphs, inscriptions on monuments and medals, treaties, &c. designed for perpetuity, are written in Latin, which is every where understood by the learned, and being a dead language is liable to no change.

But the high estimation in which the learned languages have been held, has discouraged a due attention to our own. People find themselves able without much study to write and speak the English intelligibly, and thus have been led to think rules of no utility. This opinion has produced various and arbitrary practices, in the use of the language, even among men of the most information and accuracy; and this diversity has produced another opinion, both false and injurious to the language, that there are no rules or principles on which the pronunciation and construction can be settled.

This neglect is so general, that there is scarcely an institution to be found in the country, where the English tongue is taught regularly, from its elements to its true and elegant construction, in prose and verse. Perhaps in most schools, boys are taught the definition of the parts of speech, and a few hard names which they do not understand, and which the teacher seldom attempts to explain; this is called learning grammar. This practice of learning questions and answers without acquiring any ideas, has given rise to a common remark, that grammar is a dry study; and so is every other study which is prosecuted without improving the head or the heart. The study of geography is equally dry, when the subject is not understood. But when grammar is taught by the help of visible objects; when children perceive that differences of words arise from differences in things, which they may learn at a very early period of life, the study becomes entertaining, as well as improving. In general, when a study of any kind is tiresome to a person, it is a presumptive evidence that he does not make any proficiency in knowlege, and this is almost always the fault of the instructor.

In a few instances perhaps the study of English is thought an object of consequence; but here also there is a great error in the common practice; for the study of English is preceded by several years attention to Latin and Greek. Nay, there are men, who contend that the best way to become acquainted with English, is to learn Latin first. Common sense may justly smile at such an opinion; but experience proves it to be false.

If language is to be taught mechanically, or by rote, it is a matter of little consequence whether the rules are in English, Latin or Greek: But if children are to acquire ideas, it is certainly easier to obtain them in a language which they understand, than in a foreign tongue. The distinctions between the principal parts of speech are founded in nature, and are within the capacity of a school boy. These distinctions should be explained in English, and when well understood, will facilitate the acquisition of other languages. Without some preparation of this kind, boys will often find a foreign language extremely difficult, and sometimes be discouraged. We often see young persons of both sexes, puzzling their heads with French, when they can hardly write two sentences of good English. They plod on for some months with much fatigue, little improvement, and less pleasure, and then relinquish the attempt.

The principles of any science afford pleasure to the student who comprehends them. In order to render the study of language agreeable, the distinctions between words should be illustrated by the differences in visible objects. Examples should be presented to the senses, which are the inlets of all our knowlege. That nouns are the names of things, and that adjectives express their qualities, are abstract definitions, which a boy may repeat five years without comprehending the meaning. But that table is the name of an article, and hard or square is its property, is a distinction obvious to the senses, and consequently within a child's capacity.

There is one general practice in schools, which I censure with diffidence; not because I doubt the propriety of the censure, but because it is opposed to deep rooted prejudices: This practice is the use of the Bible as a school book. There are two reasons why this practice has so generally prevailed: The first is, that families in the country are not generally supplied with any other book: The second, an opinion that the reading of the scriptures will impress, upon the minds of youth, the important truths of religion and morality. The first may be easily removed; and the purpose of the last is counteracted by the practice itself.

If people design the doctrines of the Bible as a system of religion, ought they to appropriate the book to purposes foreign to this design? Will not a familiarity, contracted by a careless disrespectful reading of the sacred volume, weaken the influence of its precepts upon the heart?

Let us attend to the effect of familiarity in other things.

The rigid Puritans, who first settled the New England States, often chose their burying ground in the center of their settlements. Convenience might have been a motive for the choice; but it is probable that a stronger reason was, the influence which they supposed the frequent burials and constant sight of the tombs would have upon the lives of men. The choice, however, for the latter purpose, was extremely injudicious; for it may be laid down as a general rule, that those who live in a constant view of death, will become hardened to its terrors.

No person has less sensibility than the Surgeon, who has been accustomed to the amputation of limbs. No person thinks less of death, than the Soldier, who has frequently walked over the carcasses of his slain comrades; or the Sexton, who lives among the tombs.

Objects that affect the mind strongly, whether the sensations they excite are painful or pleasureable, always lose their effect by a frequent repetition of their impressions.³ Those parts of the scripture, therefore, which are calculated to strike terror to the mind, lose their influence by being too frequently brought into view. The same objection will not apply to the history and morality of the Bible; select passages of which may be read in schools to great advantage. In some countries, the common people are not permitted to read the Bible at all: In ours, it is as common as a newspaper, and in schools, is read with nearly the same degree of respect. Both these practices appear to be extremes. My wish is not to see the Bible excluded from schools, but to see it used as a system of religion and morality.

These remarks suggest another error which is often committed in our inferior schools: I mean that of putting boys into difficult sciences, while they are too young to exercise their reason upon abstract subjects. For example; boys are often put to the study of mathematics, at the age of eight or ten years; and before they can either read or write. In order to show the impropriety of such a practice, it is necessary to repeat what was just now observed, that our senses are the avenues of knowlege. This fact proves that the most natural course of Education is that which employs, first the senses or powers of the body, or those faculties of the mind which first acquire strength; and then proceeds to those studies which depend on the power of comparing and combining ideas. The art of writing is mechanical and imitative; this may therefore employ boys, as soon as their fingers have strength sufficient to command a pen. A knowledge of letters requires the exercise of a mental power, memory; but this is coeval almost with the first operations of the human mind; and with respect to objects of sense, is almost perfect even in childhood. Children may therefore be taught reading, as soon as their organs of speech have acquired strength sufficient to articulate the sounds of words.⁴

But those sciences, a knowlege of which is acquired principally by the reasoning faculties, should be postponed to a more advanced period of life. In the course of an English Education, mathematics should be perhaps the last study of youth in schools. Years of valuable time are sometimes thrown away, in a fruitless application to sciences, the principles of which are above the comprehension of the students.

There is no particular age, at which every boy is qualified to enter upon mathematics to advantage. The proper time can be best determined by the instructors, who are acquainted with the different capacities of their pupils.

Another error, which is frequent in America, is that a master undertakes to teach many different branches in the same school. In new settlements, where people are poor, and live in scattered situations, the practice is often unavoidable: But in populous towns, it must be considered as a defective plan of Education. For suppose the teacher to be equally master of all the branches which he attempts to teach, which seldom happens, yet his attention must be distracted with a multiplicity of objects, and consequently painful to himself and not useful to the pupils. Add to this the continual interruptions which the students of one branch suffer from those of another, which must retard the progress of the whole school. It is a much more eligible plan to appropriate an apartment to each branch of Education, with a teacher who makes that branch his sole employment. The principal academies in Europe and America are on this plan, which both reason and experience prove to be the most useful.

With respect to literary institutions of the first rank, it appears to me that their local situations are an object of importance. It is a subject of controversy, whether a large city or a country village is the most eligible situation for a college or university. But the arguments in favor of the latter, appear to me decisive. Large cities are always scenes of dissipation and amusement, which have a tendency to corrupt the hearts of youth and divert their minds from their literary pursuits. Reason teaches this doctrine, and experience has uniformly confirmed the truth of it.

Strict discipline is essential to the prosperity of a public seminary of science; and this is established with more facility, and supported with more uniformity, in a small village, where there are no great objects of curiosity to interrupt the studies of youth or to call their attention from the orders of the society.

That the morals of young men, as well as their application to science, depend much on retirement, will be generally acknowleged; but it will be said also, that the company in large towns will improve their manners. The question then is, which shall be sacrificed; the advantage of an uncorrupted heart and an improved head; or of polished manners. But this question supposes that the virtues of the heart and the polish of the gentleman are incompatible with each other; which is by no means true. The gentleman and the scholar are often united in the same person. But both are not formed by the same means. The improvement of the head requires close application to books; the refinement of manners rather attends some degree of dissipation, or at least a relaxation of the mind. To preserve the purity of the heart, it is sometimes necessary, and always useful, to place a youth beyond the reach of bad examples; whereas a general knowlege of the world, of all kinds of company, is requisite to teach a universal propriety of behavior.

But youth is the time to form both the head and the heart. The understanding is indeed ever enlarging; but the seeds of knowlege should be planted in the mind, while it is young and susceptible; and if the mind is not kept untainted in youth, there is little probability that the moral character of the man will be unblemished. A genteel address, on the other hand, may be acquired at any time of life, and must be acquired, if ever, by mingling with good company. But were the cultivation of the understanding and of the heart, inconsistent with genteel manners, still no rational person could hesitate which to prefer. The goodness of a heart is of infinitely more consequence to society, than an elegance of manners; nor will any superficial accomplishments repair the want of principle in the mind. It is always better to be vulgarly right, than politely wrong.

With respect to novels, so much admired by the young, and so generally condemned by the old, what shall I say? Perhaps it may be said with truth, that some of them are useful, many of them pernicious, and most of them trifling. A hundred volumes of modern novels may be read, without acquiring a new idea. Some of them contain entertaining stories, and where the descriptions are drawn from nature, and from characters and events in themselves innocent, the perusal of them may be harmless.

Were novels written with a view to exhibit only one side of human nature, to paint the social virtues, the world would condemn them as defective: But I should think them more perfect. Young people, especially females, should not see the vicious part of mankind. At best novels may be considered as the toys of youth; the rattle boxes of sixteen. The mechanic gets his pence for his toys, and the novel writer, for his books; and it would be happy for society, if the latter were in all cases as innocent play things as the former.

In the large towns in America, music, drawing and dancing, constitute a part of female education. They, however, hold a subordinate rank; for my fair friends will pardon me, when I declare, that no man ever marries a woman for her performance on a harpsichord, or her figure in a minuet. However ambitious a woman may be to command admiration abroad, her real merit is known only at home. Admiration is useless, when it is not supported by domestic worth. But real honor and permanent esteem, are always secured by those who preside over their own families with dignity.¹⁵

Before I quit this subject, I beg leave to make some remarks on a practice which appears to be attended with important consequences; I mean that of sending boys to Europe for an education, or sending to Europe for teachers. This was right before the revolution; at least so far as national attachments where concerned; but the propriety of it ceased with our political relation to Great Britain.

In the first place, our honor as an independent nation is concerned in the establishment of literary institutions, adequate to all our own purposes; without sending our youth abroad, or depending on other nations for books and instructors. It is very little to the reputation of America to have it said abroad, that after the heroic atchievements of the late war, these independent people are obliged to send to Europe for men and books to teach their children A B C.

But in another point of view, a foreign education is directly opposite to our political interests, and ought to be discountenanced, if not prohibited.

Every person of common observation will grant, that most men prefer the manners and the government of that country where they are educated. Let ten American youths be sent, each to a different European kingdom, and live there from the age of twelve to twenty, and each will give the preference to the country where he has resided.

The period from twelve to twenty is the most important in life. The impressions made before that period are commonly effaced; those that are made during that period always remain for many years; and generally thro life.

Ninety nine persons of a hundred who pass that period in England or France, will prefer the people, their manners, their laws, and their government, to those of their nativ country. Such attachments are injurious, both to the happiness of the men, and to the political interests of their own country. As to private happiness, it is universally known how much pain a man suffers by a change of habits in living. The customs of Europe are and ought to be different from ours; but when a man has been bred in one country, his attachments to its manners make them, in a great measure, necessary to his happiness. On changing his residence, he must therefore break his former habits, which is always a painful sacrifice; or the discordance between the manners of his own country, and his habits, must give him incessant uneasiness; or he must introduce, into a circle of his friends, the manners in which he was educated. These consequences may follow, and the last, which is inevitable, is a public injury. The refinement of manners in every country should keep pace exactly with the increase of its wealth; and perhaps the greatest evil America now feels is, an improvement of taste and manners which its wealth cannot support.

A foreign education is the very source of this evil; it gives young gentlemen of fortune a relish for manners and amusements which are not suited to this country; which however, when introduced by this class of people, will always become fashionable.

But a corruption of manners is not the sole objection to a foreign education: An attachment to a foreign government, or rather a want of attachment to our own, is the natural effect of a residence abroad, during the period of youth. It is recorded of one of the Greek cities, that in a treaty with their conquerors, it was required that they should give a certain number of male children as hostages for the fulfilment of their engagements. The Greeks absolutely refused, on the principle that these children would imbibe the ideas and embrace the manners of foreigners, or lose their love for their own country: But they offered the same number of old men, without hesitation. This anecdote is full of good sense. A man should always form his habits and attachments in the country where he is to reside for life. When these habits are formed, young men may travel without danger of losing their patriotism. A boy who lives in England from twelve to twenty, will be an Englishman in his manners and his feelings; but let him remain at home till he is twenty, and form his attachments, he may then be several years abroad, and still be an American.¹⁶ There may be exceptions to this observation; but living examples may be mentioned to prove the truth of the general principle here advanced, respecting the influence of habit.

It may be said that foreign universities furnish much better opportunities of improvement in the sciences than the American. This may be true, and yet will not justify the practice of sending young lads from their own country. There are some branches of science which may be studied to much greater advantage in Europe than in America, particularly chymistry. When these are to be acquired, young gentlemen ought to spare no pains to attend the best professors. It may, therefore, be useful, in some cases, for students to cross the atlantic to complete a course of studies; but it is not necessary for them to go early in life, nor to continue a long time. Such instances need not be frequent even now; and the necessity for them will diminish in proportion to the future advancement of literature in America.

It is, however, much questioned, whether, in the ordinary course of study, a young man can enjoy greater advantages in Europe than in America. Experience inclines me to raise a doubt, whether the danger to which a youth must be exposed among the sons of dissipation abroad, will not turn the scale in favor of our American colleges. Certain it is, that four fifths of the great literary characters in America never crossed the atlantic.

But if our universities and schools are not so good as the English or Scotch, it is the business of our rulers to improve them, not to endow them merely; for endowments alone will never make a flourishing seminary; but to furnish them with professors of the first abilities and most assiduous application, and with a complete apparatus for establishing theories by experiments. Nature has been profuse to the Americans, in genius, and in the advantages of climate and soil. If this country, therefore, should long be indebted to Europe for opportunities of acquiring any branch of science in perfection, it must be by means of a criminal neglect of its inhabitants.

The difference in the nature of the American and European governments, is another objection to a foreign education. Men form modes of reasoning, or habits of thinking on political subjects, in the country where they are bred; these modes of reasoning may be founded on fact in all countries; but the same principles will not apply in all governments, because of the infinite variety of national opinions and habits. Before a man can be a good Legislator, he must be intimately acquainted with the temper of the people to be governed. No man can be thus acquainted with a people, without residing amongst them and mingling with all companies. For want of this acquaintance, a Turgot and a Price may reason most absurdly upon the Constitutions of the American states; and when any person has been long accustomed to believe in the propriety or impropriety of certain maxims or regulations of government, it is very difficult to change his opinions, or to persuade him to adapt his reasoning to new and different circumstances.

One half the European Protestants will now contend that the Roman Catholic religion is subversive of civil government. Tradition, books, education, have concurred to fix this belief in their minds; and they will not resign their opinions, even in America, where some of the highest civil offices are in the hands of Roman Catholics.

It is therefore of infinite importance that those who direct the councils of a nation, should be educated in that nation. Not that they should restrict their personal acquaintance to their own country, but their first ideas, attachments and habits should be acquired in the country which they are to govern and defend. When a knowlege of their own country is obtained, and an attachment to its laws and interests deeply fixed in their hearts, then young gentlemen may travel with infinite advantage and perfect safety. I wish not therefore to discourage travelling, but, if possible, to render it more useful to individuals and to the community. My meaning is, that men should travel, and not boys.

It is time for the Americans to change their usual route, and travel thro a country which they never think of, or think beneeth their notice: I mean the United States.

While these States were a part of the British Empire, our interest, our feelings, were those of Englishmen; our dependence led us to respect and imitate their manners, and to look up to them for our opinions. We little thought of any national interest in America; and while our commerce and governments were in the hands of our parent country, and we had no common interest, we little thought of improving our acquaintance with each other, or of removing prejudices, and reconciling the discordant feelings of the inhabitants of different Provinces. But independence and union render it necessary that the citizens of different States should know each others characters and circumstances; that all jealousies should be removed; that mutual respect and confidence should succeed, and a harmony of views and interests be cultivated by a friendly intercourse.

A tour thro the United States ought now to be considered as a necessary part of a liberal education. Instead of sending young gentlemen to Europe to view curiosities and learn vices and follies, let them spend twelve or eighteen months in examining the local situation of the different States; the rivers, the soil, the population, the improvements and commercial advantages of the whole; with an attention to the spirit and manners of the inhabitants, their laws, local customs and institutions. Such a tour should at least precede a tour to Europe; for nothing can be more ridiculous than a man travelling in a foreign country for information, when he can give no account of his own. When, therefore, young gentlemen have finished an academic education, let them travel thro America, and afterwards to Europe, if their time and fortunes will permit. But if they cannot make a tour thro both, that in America is certainly to be preferred; for the people of America, with all their information, are yet extremely ignorant of the geography, policy and manners of their neighbouring States. Except a few gentlemen whose public employments in the army and in Congress, have extended their knowlege of America, the people in this country, even of the higher classes, have not so correct information respecting the United States, as they have respecting England or France. Such ignorance is not only disgraceful, but is materially prejudicial to our political friendship and federal operations.

Americans, unshackle your minds, and act like independent beings. You have been children long enough, subject to the control, and subservient to the interest of a haughty parent. You have now an interest of your own to augment and defend: You have an empire to raise and support by your exertions, and a national character to establish and extend by your wisdom and virtues. To effect these great objects, it is necessary to frame a liberal plan of policy, and build it on a broad system of education. Before this system can be formed and embraced, the Americans must believe, and act from the belief, that it is dishonorable to waste life in mimicking the follies of other nations and basking in the sunshine of foreign glory.

No. II

 NEW YORK, 1788.

PRINCIPLES of GOVERNMENT and COMMERCE

All mankind are, by nature, free, and have a right to enjoy life, liberty and property.

One person has no right to take from another his life, health, peace, or good name; to take away or lessen his freedom of thinking and acting, or to injure his estate in the smallest degree.

A collection of individuals forms a society; and every society must have government, to prevent one man from hurting another, and to punish such as commit crimes. Every person's safety requires that he should submit to be governed; for if one man may do harm without suffering punishment, every man has the same right, and no person can be safe.

It is necessary therefore that there should be laws to control every man. Laws should be made by consent or concurrence of the greatest part of the society.

The whole body of people in society is the sovereign power or state; which is called, the body politic. Every man forms a part of this state, and so has a share in the sovereignty; at the same time, as an individual, he is a subject of the state.

When a society is large, the whole state cannot meet together for the purpose of making laws; the people therefore agree to appoint deputies, or representativs, to act for them. When these agents are chosen and met together, they represent the whole state, and act as the sovereign power. The people resign their own authority to their representativs; the acts of these deputies are in effect the acts of the people; and the people have no right to refuse obedience.

It is as wrong to refuse obedience to the laws made by our representativs, as it would be to break laws made by ourselves. If a law is bad and produces general harm, the people may appoint new deputies to repeal it; but while it is a law, it is the act and will of the sovereign power, and ought to be obeyed.

The people in free governments, make their own laws by agents or representativs, and appoint the executiv officers. An executiv officer is armed with the authority of the whole state and cannot be resisted. He cannot do wrong, unless he goes beyond the bounds of the laws.

An executiv officer can hardly be too arbitrary; for if the laws are good, they should be strictly executed and religiously obeyed: If they are bad, the people can alter or repeal them; or if the officer goes beyond his powers, he is accountable to those who appoint him. A neglect of good and wholesome laws is the bane of society.

Judges and all executiv officers should be made as much as possible, independent of the will of the people at large. They should be chosen by the representativs of the people and answerable to them only: For if they are elected by the people, they are apt to be swayed by fear and affection; they may dispense with the laws, to favor their friends, or secure their office. Besides, their election is apt to occasion party spirit, cabals, bribery and public disorder. These are great evils in a state, and defeat the purposes of government.

The people have a right to advise their representativs in certain cases, in which they may be well informed. But this right cannot often be exercised with propriety or safety: Nor should their instructions be binding on their representativs: For the people, most of whom live remote from each other, cannot always be acquainted with the general interest of the state; they cannot know all the reasons and arguments which may be offered for, or against a measure, by people in distant parts of the state; they cannot tell at home, how they themselves would think and act, in a general assembly of all the citizens.

In this situation, if the people of a certain district, bind their representativ to vote in a particular manner, they may bind him to do wrong. They make up their minds, upon a partial view of facts, and form a resolution, which they themselves, on a fair state of all the facts, in the general assembly, might see reasons to change. There have been instances, in which these binding, positiv instructions, have obliged a representativ to give his vote, contrary to the conviction of his own mind and what he thought the good of the state; consequently his vote was a violation of his oath.

But the opinions of the people should, if possible, be collected; for the general sense of a nation is commonly right. When people are well informed, their general opinion is perhaps always right. But they may be uninformed or misinformed and consequently their measures may be repugnant to their own interest. This is often the case, with particular districts of people; and hence the bad policy of giving binding instructions to representativs. The sense of a nation is collected by the opinions of people in particular districts; but as some of these opinions may be wrong, a representativ should be left with discretionary powers to act for the good of the state.

Representativs are chosen by the inhabitants of certain districts, because this is most convenient: But when they act as lawgivers, they act for the whole state. When a man is considering the propriety of a general measure, he is not to be influenced by the interest of a single district or part of a state; but by the collectiv interest of the whole state. A good lawgiver will not ask solely what is my interest, or the interest of my town or constituents? but, what will promote the interest of the community; 'what will produce the greatest possible good, to the greatest number of people?'

When a legislativ body makes laws, it acts for itself only, and can alter or repeal the laws when they become inconvenient. But when it makes grants or contracts, it act as a party, and cannot take back its grant, or change the nature of its contracts, without the consent of the other party. A state has no more right to neglect or refuse to fulfil its engagements, than an individual. There may be an exception in the case of a grant, for if a state has made a grant, which, contrary to its expectations, clearly endangers the safety of the community, it may resume that grant. The public safety is a consideration superior to all others. But the danger must be great and obvious; it must be generally seen and felt, before the state can be justified in recalling its grant. To take back a gift, or break a contract, for small causes or slight inconveniencies, is a most wanton abuse of power. Bargains, conveyances, and voluntary grants, where two parties are concerned, are sacred things; they are the supports of social confidence and security; they ought not to be sported with, because one party is stronger than the other; they should be religiously observed.

As the state has no right to break its own promises, so it has no right to alter the promises of individuals. When one man has engaged to pay his debt in wheat, and his creditor expects the promise to be fulfiled, the legislature has no right to say, the debt shall be paid in flax or horses. Such an act saps all the supports of good faith between man and man; it is the worst kind of tyranny.

For this reason, all tender laws, which oblige a creditor to take, for his debt, some article which he never intended nor engaged to take, are highly unjust and tyrannical. The intention of the contracting parties should be strictly regarded; the state may enforce that intention, but can never have a right to interfere and defeat it. A legislature has no right to put a bargain on any footing, but that on which the parties have placed it or are willing to place it.

If a state is poor, and people owe more money than can be procured, a legislature may perhaps go so far as to suspend the collection of debts; or to ordain that a certain part only of the debts shall be recoverable immediately, and the payment of the remainder suspended. This may ease the debtors; but can be justified in extreme cases only, when the people are generally and greatly involved.

A people should not generally be in debt: The consumers of goods should not get credit. Heavy and numerous debts are great evils to a state. If the people will giv and take extensiv credit, the state should check their imprudence, by putting debts out of the protection of law. When it becomes a practice to collect debts by law, it is a proof of corruption and degeneracy among the people. Laws and courts are necessary to settle controverted points between man and man; but a man should pay an acknowledged debt, not because there is a law to oblige him, but because it is just and honest, and because he has PROMISED to pay it.

Money, or a medium in trade, is necessary in all great states; but too much is a greater evil than too little. When people can get money without labor, they neglect business and become idle, prodigal and vicious; and when they have nothing but money, they are poor indeed. Spain was ruined by its mines of gold and silver in South America. That kingdom possessed all the money in Europe, and yet was the poorest; it will never be rich and flourishing, till its mines are exhausted. The discovery of rich mines in this country, would be the greatest misfortune, that can befall the United States.

Money is a mere representativ of property; it is the change which facilitates trade. But the wealth of a country is its produce; and its strength consists in the number of its industrious inhabitants. A man cannot become rich, unless he earns more than he spends. It is the same with a country. The labouring men are the support of a nation.

The value of money depends on the quantity in circulation. A medium of trade respects all commercial nations; and like water, it will find its level. Money will go where it is wanted, if the people have any thing to purchase it. If one state or country has more money than another, it is a proof that the people are more industrious or saving. It would be happy for the world, if no more money could be made: There is already too much. Silver is become very burdensome, merely because there is too much in the world. If there were but one quarter of the money which now circulates, one quarter of a dollar would buy as much as a dollar will now.

Hence the mistaken policy of those people who attempt to increase the medium of trade by coinage or by a paper currency. They can add to the quantity, as much as they please; but not to the value. If America were shut out from all intercourse with other nations, and ten millions of dollars were circulating in the country, every article of life would have a certain price. If in this case, wheat should be one dollar a bushel, let the money be instantly doubled, the price of wheat would then be two dollars, and the price of every article would rise in the same proportion. So that twenty millions of dollars would be worth no more than ten, because they would buy no more of the useful commodities: America would be no richer in the one case than in the other.

But as there is a communication with other nations, a million of dollars, added to the circulating specie, does not increase the permanent medium in quantity; for just so much money as is added, will leave the country. If there is too much money in a country, the price of labor will rise, and the produce cannot find market abroad without a loss. This was the case with American produce, at the close of the war. If money is scarce in a country, the price of labor will be low, and consequently the produce of that country will be cheap at home, and a great profit will be made on the exportation. This profit will be returned, partly in goods and partly in money, and the country is enriched.

But the great principle, which should constitute the corner stone of government, is public justice. The fountain head should be pure, or the streams will be foul indeed. That Legislatures, or bodies politic, should make laws, annex penalties for disobedience, institute courts for deciding controversies and trying offenders, and execute punishments on those that are convicted; yet at the same time neglect to do justice themselves by paying their own debts; this is of all absurdities the most glaring. To compel individuals to perform contracts and yet break their own solemn promises; to punish individuals for neglect, and yet set a general example of delinquency, is to undermine the foundation of social confidence, and shake every principle of commutativ justice.

These are general principles in government and trade, and ought to be deeply impressed upon the minds of every American.

No. III

 NEW YORK, 1788.

BILLS of RIGHTS

One of the principal objections to the new Federal Constitution, is, that it contains no Bill of Rights. This objection, I presume to assert, is founded on ideas of government that are totally false. Men seem determined to adhere to old prejudices, and reason wrong, because our ancestors reasoned right. A Bill of Rights against the encroachments of Kings and Barons, or against any power independent of the people, is perfectly intelligible; but a Bill of Rights against the encroachments of an electiv Legislature, that is, against our own encroachments on ourselves, is a curiosity in government.

The English nation, from which we descended, have been gaining their liberties, inch by inch, by forcing concessions from the crown and the Barons, during the course of six centuries.¹⁷ Magna Charta, which is called the palladium of English liberty, was dated in 1215, and the people of England were not represented in Parliament till the year 1265. Magna Charta established the rights of the Barons and clergy against the encroachments of royal perogativ; but the commons or people were hardly noticed in that deed. There was but one clause in their favor, which stipulated, that "no villain or rustic should, by any fine, be bereaved of his carts, plows and instruments of husbandry." As for the rest, they were considered as a part of the property belonging to an estate, and were transferred, as other moveables, at the will of their owners. In the succeeding reign, they were permitted to send Representativs to Parliament; and from that time have been gradually assuming their proper degree of consequence in the British Legislature. In such a nation, every law or statute that defines the powers of the crown, and circumscribes them within determinate limits, must be considered as a barrier to guard popular liberty. Every acquisition of freedom must be established as a right, and solemnly recognized by the supreme power of the nation; lest it should be again resumed by the crown under pretence of ancient prerogativ: For this reason, the habeas corpus act passed in the reign of Charles 2d, the statute of the 2d of William and Mary, and many others which are declaratory of certain privileges, are justly considered as the pillars of English freedom.

These statutes are however not esteemed because they are unalterable; for the same power that enacted them, can at any moment repeal them; but they are esteemed, because they are barriers erected by the Representativs of the nation, against a power that exists independent of their own choice.

But the same reasons for such declaratory constitutions do not exist in America, where the supreme power is the people in their Representativs. The Bills of Rights, prefixed to several of the constitutions of the United States, if considered as assigning the reasons of our separation from a foreign government, or as solemn declarations of right against the encroachments of a foreign jurisdiction, are perfectly rational, and were doubtless necessary. But if they are considered as barriers against the encroachments of our own Legislatures, or as constitutions unalterable by posterity, I venture to pronounce them nugatory, and to the last degree, absurd.

In our governments, there is no power of legislation, independent of the people; no power that has an interest detached from that of the public; consequently there is no power existing against which it is necessary to guard. While our Legislatures therefore remain electiv, and the rulers have the same interest in the laws, as the subjects have, the rights of the people will be perfectly secure without any declaration in their favor.

But this is not the principal point. I undertake to prove that a standing Bill of Rights is absurd, because no constitutions, in a free government, can be unalterable. The present generation have indeed a right to declare what they deem a privilege; but they have no right to say what the next generation shall deem a privilege. A state is a supreme corporate body that never dies. Its powers, when it acts for itself, are at all times equally extensiv; and it has the same right to repeal a law this year, as it had to make it the last. If therefore our posterity are bound by our constitutions, and can neither amend nor annul them, they are to all intents and purposes our slaves.

But it will be enquired, have we then no right to say, that trial by jury, the liberty of the press, the habeas corpus writ, and other invaluable privileges, shall never be infringed nor destroyed? By no means. We have the same right to say that lands shall descend in a particular mode to the heirs of the deceased proprietor, and that such a mode shall never be altered by future generations, as we have to pass a law that the trial by jury shall never be abridged. The right of Jury trial, which we deem invaluable, may in future cease to be a privilege; or other modes of trial more satisfactory to the people, may be devised. Such an event is neither impossible nor improbable. Have we then a right to say that our posterity shall not be judges of their own circumstances? The very attempt to make perpetual constitutions, is the assumption of a right to control the opinions of future generations; and to legislate for those over whom we have as little authority as we have over a nation in Asia. Nay we have as little right to say that trial by jury shall be perpetual, as the English, in the reign of Edward the Confessor, had, to bind their posterity forever to decide causes by fiery Ordeal, or single combat. There are perhaps many laws and regulations, which from their consonance to the eternal rules of justice, will always be good and conformable to the sense of a nation. But most institutions in society, by reason of an unceasing change of circumstances, either become altogether improper, or require amendment; and every nation has at all times, the right of judging of its circumstances and determining on the propriety of changing its laws.

The English writers talk much of the omnipotence of Parliament; and yet they seem to entertain some scruples about their right to change particular parts of their constitution. I question much whether Parliament would not hesitate to change, on any occasion, an article of Magna Charta. Mr. Pitt, a few years ago, attempted to reform the mode of representation in Parliament. Immediately an uproar was raised against the measure, as unconstitutional. The representation of the kingdom, when first established, was doubtless equal and wise; but by the increase of some cities and boroughs, and the depopulation of others, it has become extremely unequal. In some boroughs there is scarcely an elector left to enjoy its privileges. If the nation feels no great inconvenience from this change of circumstances, under the old mode of representation, a reform is unnecessary. But if such a change has produced any national evils of magnitude enough to be felt, the present form of electing the Representativs of the nation, however constitutional, and venerable for its antiquity, may at any time be amended, if it should be the sense of Parliament. The expediency of the alteration must always be a matter of opinion; but all scruples as to the right of making it are totally groundless.

Magna Charta may be considered as a contract between two parties, the King and the Barons, and no contract can be altered but by the consent of both parties. But whenever any article of that deed or contract shall become inconvenient or oppressiv, the King, Lords and Commons may either amend or annul it at pleasure.

The same reasoning applies to each of the United States, and to the Federal Republic in general. But an important question will arise from the foregoing remarks, which must be the subject of another paper.

No. IV

 NEW YORK, 1788.

On GOVERNMENT

The important question I proposed to discuss in this number, is this: "Whether, in a free State, there ought to be any distinction between the powers of the people, or electors, and the powers of the Representativs in the Legislature." Or in other words, "whether the legislativ body is not, or ought not to be, a standing convention, invested with the whole power of their constituents."

In supporting the affirmativ of this question, I must face the opinions and prejudices of my countrymen; yet if we attend closely to the merits of the question, stripped of all its specious covering, we shall perhaps find more arguments in favor of the opinion, than we at first suspect.

In the first place, a Legislature must be the supreme power, whose decisions are laws binding upon the whole State. Unless the Legislature is the supreme power, and invested with all the authority of the State, its acts are not laws, obligatory upon the whole State.¹⁸ I am sensible that it is a favorite idea in this country, bandied about from one demagogue to another, that rulers are the servants of the people. So far as their business is laborious and embarrassing, it implies a degree of servitude; but in any other view, the opinion is totally false. The people ought at least to place their rulers, who are generally men of the first abilities and integrity, on a level with themselves; for that is an odd kind of government indeed, in which, servants govern their masters. The truth is, a Representativ, as an individual, is on a footing with other people; as a Representativ of a State, he is invested with a share of the sovereign authority, and is so far a governor of the people. In short, the collectiv body of the Representativs, is the collectiv sense and authority of the people; and so far are the members from being the servants of the people, that they are just as much masters, rulers, governors, whatever appellation we give them, as the people would be themselves in a convention of the whole State.

But in the second place, the public good or safety requires that the powers of a Legislature should be coextensiv with those of the people. That a Legislature should be competent to pass any law that the public safety and interest may require, is a position that no man will controvert. If therefore it can be proved that the reservation of any power in the hands of the people, may at times interfere with the power of the Legislature to consult the public interest, and prevent its exercise, it must be acknowleged, that such a reservation is not only impolitic, but unjust. That a Legislature should have unlimited power to do right, is unquestionable; but such a power they cannot have, unless they have all the power of the State; which implies an unlimited power to do wrong. For instance, suppose the constitution of any state to declare, that no standing army shall be kept up in time of peace; then the Legislature cannot raise and maintain a single soldier to guard our frontiers, without violating the constitution. To say that new enlistments every year will save the constitution, is idle; for if a body of troops raised for thirty years is a standing army, then a body raised for twenty years, or for six months, is a standing army; and the power to raise troops for a year, is a power to raise them at any time and maintain them forever; but with the addition of much trouble and a load of expense. Since therefore there never was, and probably never will be a time, till the millenium shall arrive, when troops will not be necessary to guard the frontiers of States, a clause in a constitution, restricting a Legislature from maintaining troops in time of peace, will unavoidably disable them from guarding the public interest. That a power to raise and equip troops at pleasure, may be abused, is certain; but that the public safety cannot be established without that power, is equally certain. The liberty of a people does not rest on any reservation of power in their hands paramount to their Legislature; it rests singly on this principle, a union of interests between the governors and governed. While a Legislator himself, his family and his property, are all liable to the consequences of the laws which he makes for the State, the rights of the people are as safe from the invasion of power, as they can be on this side heaven. This union of interest depends partly on the laws of property; but mostly on the freedom of election. The right of electing rulers is the people's prerogativ; and while this remains unabridged, it is a sufficient barrier to guard all their other rights. This prerogativ should be kept sacred; and if the people ever suffer any abridgment of this privilege, it must be their own folly and an irrecoverable loss.

Still further, I maintain that a people have no right to say, that any civil or political regulation shall be perpetual, because they have no right to make laws for those who are not in existence. This will be admitted; but still the people contend that they have a right to prescribe rules for their Legislature, rules which shall not be changed but by the people in a convention. But what is a convention? Why a body of men chosen by the people in the manner they choose the members of the Legislature, and commonly composed of the same men; but at any rate they are neither wiser nor better. The sense of the people is no better known in a convention, than in the Legislature.¹⁹

But admit the right of establishing certain rules or principles which an ordinary Legislature cannot change, and what is the consequence? It is this, a change of circumstances must supersede the propriety of such rules, or render alterations necessary to the safety or freedom of the State; yet there is no power existing, but in the people at large, to make the necessary alterations. A convention then must be called to transact a business, which an ordinary Legislature can transact just as well; a convention differing from the Legislature merely in name, and in a few formalities of their proceedings. But when people have enjoyed a tolerable share of happiness under a government, they will not readily step out of the common road of proceeding; and evils insensibly increase to an enormous degree, before the people can be persuaded to a change. The reservation therefore of certain powers may, by an imperceptible change of circumstances, prove highly pernicious to a State. For example: When the Commons of England were first admitted to a share in the legislation of that kingdom, which was probably in the reign of Henry III, in 1265,²⁰ the representation was tolerably equal. But the changes in the population of different parts of the kingdom have destroyed all equality. The mode of election therefore should be reformed. But how shall it be done? If there is a constitution in that kingdom, which settles the mode of election, and that constitution is an act of the people, paramount to the power of the Parliament, and unchangeable by them, a convention of the people must be called to make an alteration which would be as well made in Parliament. This would occasion infinite trouble and expense.

But the danger is, that as an evil of this kind increases, so will the lethargy of the people, and their habits of vice and negligence. Thus the disease acquires force, for want of an early remedy, and a dissolution ensues. But a Legislature, which is always watching the public safety, will more early discover the approaches of disorders, and more speedily apply a remedy. This is not precisely the case with the British constitution; for it was not committed at once to parchment and ratified by the people. It consists rather of practice, or common law, with some statutes of Parliament. But the English have been too jealous of changing their practice, even for the better. All the writers on the English constitution agree, that any Parliament can change or amend every part of it; yet in practice, the idea of an unalterable constitution has had too much influence in preventing a reform in their representation.

But we have an example nearer home directly in point. The charter of Connecticut declares that each town shall have liberty to send one or two deputies to the General Court; and the constant practice has been to send two. While the towns were few, the number of Representativs was not inconvenient; but since the complete settlement of the State, and the multiplication of the towns, the number has swelled the Legislature to an unwieldly and expensive size. The house of Representativs consists of about 170 members: An attempt has been made, at several sessions, to lessen the representation, by limiting each town to one Deputy. A question arises, have the Assembly a right to lessen the representation? In most States, it would be decided in the negativ. Yet in that State it is no question at all; for there is a standing law expressly delegating the whole power of all the freemen to the Legislature. But I bring this instance to prove the possibility of changes in any system of government, which will require material alterations in its fundamental principles; and the Legislature should always be competent to make the necessary amendments, or they have not an unlimited power to do right.²¹

The distinction between the Legislature and a Convention is, for the first time, introduced into Connecticut, by the recommendation of the late convention of States, in order to adopt the new constitution. The Legislature of the State, without adverting to laws or practice, immediately recommended a convention for that purpose. Yet a distinction between a Convention and a Legislature is, in that State, a palpable absurdity, even by their own laws; for there is no constitution in the State, except its laws, which are always repealable by an ordinary Legislature; and the laws and uniform practice, from the first organization of the government, declare that the Legislature has all the power of all the people. A convention therefore can have no more power, and differs no more from an ordinary Legislature, than one Legislature does from another. Or rather it is no more than a Legislature chosen for one particular purpose of supremacy; whereas an ordinary Legislature is competent to all purposes of supremacy. But had the Legislature of that State ratified or rejected the new constitution, without consulting their constituents, their act would have been valid and binding. This is the excellence of the constitution of Connecticut, that the Legislature is considered as the body of the people; and the people have not been taught to make a distinction which should never exist, and consider themselves as masters of their rulers, and their power as paramount to the laws. To this excellence in her frame of government, that State is indebted for uniformity and stability in public measures, during a period of one hundred and fifty years; a period of unparalleled tranquillity, never once disturbed by a violent obstruction of justice, or any popular commotion or rebellion. Wretched indeed would be the people of that State, should they adopt the vulgar maxim, that their rulers are their servants. We then may expect that the laws of those servants will be treated with the same contempt, as they are in some other States.²²

But from the manner in which government is constituted, it is evident that there is no power residing in the State at large, which does not reside in the legislature. I know it is said that government originates in compact; but I am very confident, that if this is true, the compact is different from any other kind of compact that is known among men. In all other compacts, agreements or covenants, the assent of every person concerned, or who is to be bound by the compact, is requisite to render it valid and obligatory upon such person. But I very much question whether this ever takes place in any constitution of government.

Perhaps so far there is an implied compact in government, that every man consents to be bound by the opinion of a majority; but this is all a supposition; for the consent of a hundredth part of a society is never obtained.

The truth is, government originates in necessity and utility; and whether there is an implied compact or not, the opinions of the few must be overruled, and submit to the opinions of the many. But the opinions of a majority cannot be known, but in an Assembly of the whole society; and no part of the society has a right to decide upon a measure which equally affects the whole, without a consultation with the whole, to hear their arguments and objections. It is said that all power resides in the people; but it must be remembered, that let the supreme power be where it will, it can be exercised only in an Assembly of the whole State, or in an Assembly of the Representativs of the whole State.

Suppose the power to reside in the people, yet they cannot, and they have no right to exercise it in their scattered districts, and the reason is very obvious; it is impossible that the propriety of a measure can be ascertained, without the best general information, and a full knowlege of the opinions of the men on whom it is to operate.

By opinions here I would not be understood to mean, the various opinions formed on a view of a particular interest, for these opinions may be obtained by sending to each district, and collecting instructions; but I mean the opinions of the whole society, formed on the information and debates of the whole society. These opinions can be formed no where but in a Convention of the whole State, or of their Representativs. So far therefore are the people from having a power paramount to that of their Representativs in Convention, that they can exercise no act of supremacy or legislation at all, but in a Convention of the whole State by Representativs.²³ Unless therefore, it can be proved that a Convention, so called, which is composed mostly of the same men as a Legislature, possesses some wisdom, power or qualifications, which a Legislature does not and cannot, then the distinction is useless and trifling. A Legislature is supposed to consist of men whom the people judge best qualified to superintend their interests; a convention cannot be composed of better men; and in fact we find it generally composed of the same men. If therefore no act of sovereignty can be exercised but in an Assembly of Representativs, of what consequence is it, whether we call it a Convention or a Legislature? or why is not the Assembly of Representativs of a people, at all times a Convention, as well as a Legislature?

To me it appears that a distinction is made without a difference; but a distinction that will often prevent good measures, perpetuate evils in government, and by creating a pretended power paramount to the Legislature, tend to bring laws into contempt.

POSTSCRIPT.– This reasoning applies solely to the individual States, and not to the United States, before they were formed into a federal body. An important distinction must be observed between the Constitution of a sovereign State, and of thirteen distinct sovereignties. In a sovereign State, whatever they may suggest to the contrary, the voices of a majority are binding upon the minority, even in framing the first plan of government. In general, a majority of the votes of the Representativs in Legislature or Convention have been admitted as obligatory upon every member of the State, in forming and establishing a Constitution: But when the Constitution has been submitted to the people, as it is called, in town meetings or other small assemblies, the assent of every individual could not be expressly obtained; and the dissent of any number, less than half the freemen present, who might not be one half the whole number in the State, could not prevent the establishment of the government, nor invalidate the obligation of every man to submit peaceably to its operation. The members of a state or community, cannot from necessity, be considered as parties to a contract, where the assent of every man is necessary to bind him to a performance of the engagement. But the several States, enter into a negociation like contracting parties; they agree that the assent of every individual State, shall be requisite to bind that State; and the frame of government, so agreed upon, is considered as a compact between independent sovereignties, which derives its binding force from the mutual and unanimous consent of the parties, and not merely from a necessity that the major part of the people should compel the rest to submission.

But in this very compact, the States have resigned their independent sovereignty, and become a single body or state, as to certain purposes; for they have solemnly contracted with each other, that three fourths of their number may alter and amend the first compact. They are therefore no longer separate individuals and contracting parties; but they form a single State or body politic; and a majority of three fourths can exert every act of sovereignty, except in two or three particulars, expressly reserved in the compact.

No. V

 NEW YORK, 1788.

On GOVERNMENT

The constitution of Virginia, like that of Connecticut, stands on the true principles of a Republican Representativ Government. It is not shackled with a Bill of Rights, and every part of it, is at any time, alterable by an ordinary Legislature. When I say every part of the constitution is alterable, I would except the right of elections, for the Representativs have not power to prolong the period of their own delegation. This is not numbered among the rights of legislation, and deserves a separate consideration. This right is not vested in the Legislature; it is in the people at large; it cannot be alienated without changing the form of government. Nay the right of election is not only the basis, but the whole frame or essence of a republican constitution; it is not merely one, but it is the only legislativ or constitutional act, which the people at large can with propriety exercise.

The simple principle for which I contend is this, "That in a representativ democracy, the delegates chosen for Legislators ought, at all times, to be competent to every possible act of legislation under that form of government; but not to change that form." Besides it is contrary to all our ideas of deputation or agency for others, that the person acting should have the power of extending the period of agency beyond the time specified in his commission. The Representativ of a people is, as to his powers, in the situation of an Attorney, whose letters commission him to do every thing which his constituent would do, where he on the spot; but for a limited time only. At the expiration of that time his powers cease; and a Representativ has no more right to extend that period, than a plenipotentiary has to renew his commission. The British Parliament, by prolonging the period of their existence from one to three, and from three to seven years, committed an unjust act; an act however which has been confirmed by the acquiescence of the nation, and thus received the highest constitutional sanction. I am sensible that the Americans are much concerned for the liberties of the British nation; and the act for making Parliaments septennial is often mentioned as an arbitrary, oppressiv act, destructiv of English liberty.²⁴ The English are doubtless obliged to us for our tender concern for their happiness; yet for myself I entertain no such ideas: The English have generally understood and advocated their rights as well as any nation, and I am confident that the nation enjoys as much happiness and freedom, and much more tranquillity, under septennial Parliaments, than they would with annual elections. Corruption to obtain offices will ever attend wealth; it is generated with it, grows up with it, and will always fill a country with violent factions and illegal practices. Such are the habits of the people, that money will have a principal influence in carrying elections; and such vast sums are necessary for the purpose, that if elections were annual, none but a few of the wealthiest men could defray the expense; the landholders of moderate estates would not offer themselves as candidates; and thus in fact annual elections, with the present habits of the people, would actually diminish the influence of the Commons, by throwing the advantage into the hands of a corrupt ministry, and a few overgrown nabobs. Before annual elections would be a blessing to the English, their habits must be changed; but this cannot be effected by human force. I wish my countrymen would believe that other nations understand and can guard their privileges, without any lamentable outcries from this side of the Atlantic. Government will always take its complexion from the habits of the people; habits are continually changing from age to age; a body of Legislators taken from the people, will generally represent these habits at the time when they are chosen: Hence these two important conclusions, 1st, That a legislativ body should be frequently renewed and always taken from the people: 2d, That a government which is perpetual, or incapable of being accommodated to every change of national habits, must in time become a bad government.

With this view of the subject, I cannot suppress my surprise at the reasoning of Mr. Jefferson on this very point.²⁵ He considers it as a defect in the constitution of Virginia, that it can be altered by an ordinary Legislature. He observes that the Convention which framed the present constitution of that State, "received no powers in their creation which were not given to every Legislature before and since. So far and no farther authorised, they organized the government by the ordinance entitled a Constitution or form of government. It pretends to no higher authority than the other ordinances of the same session; it does not say, that it shall be perpetual; that it shall be unalterable by other Legislatures; that it shall be transcendant above the powers of those, who they knew would have equal powers with themselves."

But suppose the framers of this ordinance had said, that it should be perpetual and unalterable; such a declaration would have been void. Nay, altho the people themselves had individually and unanimously declared the ordinance perpetual, the declaration would have been invalid. One Assembly cannot pass an act, binding upon a subsequent Assembly of equal authority;²⁶ and the people in 1776, had no authority, and consequently could delegate none, to pass a single act which the people in 1777, could not repeal and annul. And Mr. Jefferson himself, in the very next sentence, assigns a reason, which is an unanswerable argument in favor of my position, and a complete refutation of his own. These are his words. "Not only the silence of the instrument is a proof they thought it would be alterable, but their own practice also: For this very Convention, meeting as a House of Delegates in General Assembly with the new Senate in the autumn of that year, passed acts of Assembly in contradiction to their ordinance of government; and every Assembly from that time to this, has done the same."

Did Mr. Jefferson reflect upon the inference that would be justly drawn from these facts? Did he not consider that he was furnishing his opponents with the most effectual weapons against himself? The acts passed by every subsequent Assembly in contradiction to the first ordinance, prove that all the Assemblies were fallible men; and consequently not competent to make perpetual Constitutions for future generations. To give Mr. Jefferson, and the other advocates for unchangeable Constitutions, the fullest latitude in their argument, I will suppose every freeman of Virginia, could have been assembled to deliberate upon a form of government, and that the present form, or even one more perfect, had been the result of their Councils; and that they had declared it unalterable. What would have been the consequence? Experience would probably have discovered, what is the fact; and what forever will be the case; that Conventions are not possessed of infinite wisdom; that the wisest men cannot devise a perfect system of government. After all this solemn national transaction, and a formal declaration that their proceedings should be unalterable, suppose a single article of the Constitution should be found to interfere with some national benefit, some material advantage; where would be the power to change or reform that article? In the same general Assembly of all the people, and in no other body. But must a State be put to this inconvenience, to find a remedy for every defect of constitution?

Suppose, however, the Convention had been empowered to declare the form of government unalterable: What would have been the consequence? Mr. Jefferson himself has related the consequence. Every succeeding Assembly has found errors or defects in that frame of government, and has happily applied a remedy. But had not every Legislature had power to make these alterations, Virginia must have gone thro the farce, and the trouble of calling an extraordinary Legislature, to do that which an ordinary Legislature could do just as well, in their annual session; or those errors must have remained in the constitution, to the injury of the State.

The whole argument for Bills of Rights and unalterable Constitutions rests on two suppositions, viz. that the Convention which frames the government, is infallible; and that future Legislatures will be less honest, less wise, and less attentiv to the interest of the State, than a present Convention: The first supposition is always false, and the last is generally so. A declaration of perpetuity, annexed to a form of government, implies a supposition of perfect wisdom and probity in the framers; which is both arrogant and impudent; and it implies a supposed power in them, to abridge the power of a succeeding Convention, and of the future state or body of people. The last supposition is, in every possible instance of legislation, false; and an attempt to exercise such a power, a high handed act of tyranny. But setting aside the argument, grounded on a want of power in one Assembly to abridge the power of another, what occasion have we to be so jealous of future Legislatures? Why should we be so anxious to guard the future rights of a nation? Why should we not distrust the people and the Representativs of the present age, as well as those of future ages, in whose acts we have not the smallest interest? For my part, I believe that the peeple and their Representativs, two or three centuries hence, will be as honest, as wise, as faithful to themselves, and will understand their rights as well, and be as able to defend them, as the people are at this period. The contrary supposition is absurd.

I know it is said, that other nations have lost their liberties by the ambitious designs of their rulers, and we may do the same. The experience of other nations, furnishes the ground of all the arguments used in favor of an unalterable constitution. The advocates seem determined that posterity shall not lose their liberty, even if they should be willing and desirous to surrender it. If a few declarations on parchment, will secure a single blessing to posterity, which they would otherwise lose, I resign the argument, and will receive a thousand declarations. Yet so thoroughly convinced am I of the opposite tendency and effect of such unalterable declarations, that, were it possible to render them valid, I should deem every article an infringement of civil and political liberty. I should consider every article as a restriction which might impose some duty which in time might cease to be useful and necessary, while the obligation of performing it might remain; or which in its operation might prove pernicious, by producing effects which were not expected, and could not be foreseen. There is no one single right, no privilege, which is commonly deemed fundamental, which may not, by an unalterable establishment, preclude some amendment, some improvement in future administration of government. And unless the advocates for unalterable constitutions of government, can prevent all changes in the wants, the inclinations, the habits, and the circumstances of people, they will find it difficult, even with all their declarations of unalterable rights, to prevent changes in government. A paper declaration is a very feeble barrier against the force of national habits, and inclinations.

The loss of liberty, as it is called, in the kingdoms of Europe, has, in several instances, been a mere change of government, effected by a change of habits, and in some instances this change has been favorable to liberty. The government of Denmark, was changed from a mixed form, like that of England, to an absolute monarchy, by a solemn deliberate act of the people or States. Was this a loss of liberty? So far from it, that the change removed the oppressions of faction, restored liberty to the subject and tranquillity to the kingdom. The change was a blessing to the people. It indeed lodged a power in the Prince to dispose of life and property; but at the same time it lodged in him a power to defend both; a power which before was lodged no where; and it is infinitely better that such a power should be vested in a single hand, than that it should not exist at all. The monarchy of France has grown out of a number of petty states and lordships; yet it is a fact, proved by history and experience, that the subjects of that kingdom have acquired liberty, peace and happiness, in proportion to the diminution of the powers of the petty sovereignties, and the extension of the prerogativs of the Monarch. It is said that Spain lost her liberties under the reign of Charles Vth; but I question the truth of the assertion; it is probable that the subject has gained as much by an abridgement of the powers of the nobility, as he lost by an annihilation of the Cortez. The United Netherlands fought with more bravery and perseverance to preserve their rights, than any other people since the days of Leonidas; and yet no sooner established a government, so jealously guarded as to defeat its own designs, and prevent the good effects of government, than they neglected its principles; the freemen resigned the privilege of election, and committed their liberties to a rich aristocracy. There was no compulsion, no external force in producing this revolution; but the form of government, which had been established on paper, and solemnly ratified, was not suited to the genius of the subjects. The burghers had the right of electing their rulers; but they neglected it voluntarily; and a bill of rights, a perpetual constitution on parchment, guaranteeing that right, was a useless form of words, because opposed to the temper of the people. The government assumed a complexion, more correspondent to their habits, and tho in theory no constitution is more cautiously guarded against an infringement of popular privileges, yet in practice it is a real aristocracy.

The progress of government in England has been the reverse: The people have been gaining freedom by intrenching upon the powers of the nobles and the royal prerogativs. These changes in government do not proceed from bills of rights, unalterable forms and perpetual establishments; liberty is never secured by such paper declarations, nor lost for want of them. The truth is, Government originates in necessity, and takes its form and structure from the genius and habits of the people; and if on paper a form is not accommodated to those habits, it will assume a new form, in spite of all the formal sanctions of the supreme authority of a State. Were the monarchy of France to be dissolved, and the wisest system of republican government ever invented, solemnly declared, by the King and his council, to be the constitution of the kingdom; the people with their present habits, would refuse to receive it; and resign their privileges to their beloved sovereign. But so opposite are the habits of the Americans, that an attempt to erect a monarchy or an aristocracy over the United States, would expose the authors to the loss of their heads.²⁷ The truth is, the people of Europe, since they have become civilized, have, in no kingdom, possessed all the true principles of liberty. They could not therefore lose what they never possessed. There have been, from time immemorial, some rights of government, some prerogativs vested in some man or body of men, independent of the suffrages of the body of the subjects. This circumstance distinguishes the governments of Europe and of all the world, from those of America. There has been in the free nations of Europe an incessant struggle between freedom or national rights, and hereditary prerogativs. The contest has ended variously in different kingdoms; but generally in depressing the power of the nobility; ascertaining and limiting the prerogativs of the crown, and extending the privileges of the people. The Americans have seen the records of their struggles; and without considering that the objects of the contest do not exist in this country; they are laboring to guard rights which there is no party to attack. They are as jealous of their rights, as if there existed here a King's prerogativs, or the powers of nobles, independent of their own will and choice, and ever eager to swallow up their liberties. But there is no man in America, who claims any rights but what are common to every man; there is no man who has an interest in invading popular privileges, because his attempt to curtail another's rights, would expose his own to the same abridgement. The jealousy of people in this country has no proper object against which it can rationally arm them; it is therefore directed against themselves, or against an invasion which they imagine may happen in future ages. The contest for perpetual bills of rights against a future tyranny, resembles Don Quixote's fighting windmills; and I never can reflect on the declamation about an unalterable constitution to guard certain rights, without wishing to add another article, as necessary as those that are generally mentioned, viz. "that no future Convention or Legislature shall cut their own throats, or those of their constituents." While the habits of the Americans remain as they are, the people will choose their Legislature from their own body; that Legislature will have an interest inseparable from that of the people, and therefore an act to restrain their power in any article of legislation, is as unnecessary as an act to prevent them from committing suicide.

Mr. Jefferson, in answer to those who maintain that the form of government in Virginia is unalterable, because it is called a constitution, which, ex vi termini, means an act above the power of the ordinary Legislature, asserts that constitution, statute, law and ordinance, are synonymous terms, and convertible as they are used by writers on government. Constitutio dicitur jus quod a principe conditur. Constitutum, quod ab imperatoribus rescriptum statutumve est. Statutum, idem quod lex.²⁸ Here the words constitution, statute and law, are defined by each other; they were used as convertible terms by all former writers, whether Roman or British; and before the terms of the civil law were introduced, our Saxon ancestors used the correspondent English words, bid and set.²⁹ From hence he concludes that no inference can be drawn from the meaning of the word, that a constitution has a higher authority than a law or statute. This conclusion of Mr. Jefferson is just.

He quotes Lord Coke also to prove that any parliament can abridge, suspend or qualify the acts of a preceding Parliament. It is a maxim in their laws, that "Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant." After having fully proved that constitution, statute, law and ordinance, are words of similar import, and that the constitution of Virginia is at any time alterable by the ordinary Legislature, he proceeds to prove the danger to which the rights of the people are exposed, for want of an unalterable form of government. The first proof of this danger he mentions, is, the power which the Assembly exercises of determining its own quorum. The British Parliament fixes its own quorum: The former Assemblies of Virginia did the same. During the war the Legislature determined that forty members should be a quorum to proceed to business, altho not a fourth part of the whole house. The danger of delay, it was judged, would warrant the measure. This precedent, our writer supposes, is subversive of the principles of the government, and dangerous to liberty.

It is a dictate of natural law that a majority should govern; and the principle is universally received and established in all societies, where no other mode has been arbitrarily fixed. This natural right cannot be alienated in perpetuum; for altho a Legislature, or even the body of the people, may resign the powers of government to forty, or to four men, when they please, yet they may likewise resume them at pleasure.

The people may, if they please, create a dictator on an emergency in war, but his creation would not destroy, but merely suspend the natural right of the Lex majoris partis. Thus forty members, a minority of the Legislature of Virginia, were empowered during a dangerous invasion, to legislate for the State; but any subsequent Assembly might have divested them of that power. During the operation of the law, vesting them with this power, their acts were binding upon the State; because their power was derived from the general sense of the State; it was actually derived from a legal majority. But that majority could, at any moment, resume the power and practice on their natural right.

It is a standing law of Connecticut, that forty men shall be a quorum of the House of Representativs, which consists of about 170 members. This law, I am confident, never excited a murmur, or a suspicion that the liberties of the people were in danger; yet this law creates an oligarchy; it is an infringement of natural right; it subjects the State to the possibility, and even the probability of being governed at times by a minority. The acquiescence of the State, in the existence of the law, gives validity, and even the sanction of a majority, to the acts of that minority; but the majority may at any time resume their natural right, and make the assent of more than half of the members, necessary to give validity to their determinations.

The danger therefore arising from a power in the Assembly to determine their own quorum, is merely ideal, for no law can be perpetual; the authority of a majority of the people, or of their Representativs, is always competent to repeal any act that is found unjust or inconvenient. The acquiescence however of the people of the States mentioned, and that in one of them for a long course of years, under an oligarchy; or their submission to the power of a minority, is an incontestible proof of what I have before observed, that theories and forms of government are empty things; that the spirit of a government springs immediately from the temper of the people, and the exercise of it will generally take its tone from their feelings. It proves likewise that a union of interests between the rulers and the people, which union will always coexist with free elections, is not only the best, but the only security for their liberties which they can wish for and demand. The Government of Connecticut is a solid proof of these truths. The Assembly of that State, have always had power to abolish trial by jury, to restrain the liberty of the press, to suspend the habeas corpus act, to maintain a standing army, in short to command every engine of despotism; yet by some means or other, it happens that the rights of the people are not invaded, and the subjects have generally been better satisfied with the laws, than the people of any other State. The reason is, the Legislature is a part of the people, and has the same interest. If a law should prove bad, the Legislature can repeal it; but in the unalterable bills of rights in some of the States, if an article should prove wrong and oppressiv, an ordinary Legislature cannot repeal or amend it; and the State will hardly think of calling a special Convention for so trifling a purpose. There are some articles, in several of the State Constitutions, which are glaring infractions of the first rights of freemen; yet they affect not a majority of the community; and centuries may elapse before the evil can be redressed, and a respectable class of men restored to the enjoyment of their rights.³⁰

To prove the want of an unalterable Constitution in Virginia, Mr. Jefferson informs us that in 1776, during the distressed circumstances of the State, a proposition was made in the House of Delegates to create a Dictator, invested with every power, legislativ, executiv and judicial, civil and military. In June, 1781, under a great calamity, the proposition was repeated, and was near being passed. By the warmth he discovers in reprobating this proposal, one must suppose that the creation of a Dictator even for a few months, would have buried every remain of freedom. Yet he seems to allow that the step would have been justified, had there existed an irresistible necessity.

Altho it is possible that a case may happen, in which the creation of a Dictator might be the only resort to save life, liberty, property and the State, as it happened in Rome more than once; yet I should dread his power as much as any man, were I not convinced that the same men that appointed him, could, in a moment, strip him of his tremendous authority. A Dictator, with an army superior to the strength of the State, would be a despot; but Mr. Jefferson's fears seem grounded on the authority derived from the Legislature. A concession of power from the Legislature, or the people, is a voluntary suspension of a natural unalienable right; and is resumeable at the expiration of the period specified, or the moment it is abused. A State can never alienate a natural right; for it cannot legislate for those who are not in existence. It may consent to suspend that right for great and temporary purposes; but were every freeman in Virginia to assent to the creation of a perpetual Dictator, the act in itself would be void. The expedient of creating a Dictator is dangerous, and no free people would willingly resort to it; but there may be times when this expedient is necessary to save a State from ruin, and when every man in a State would cheerfully give his suffrage for adopting it. At the same time, a temporary investiture of unlimited powers in one man, may be abused; it may be an influential precedent; and the continuance of it, may furnish the Dictator with the means of perpetuating his office. The distress of a people must be extreme, before a serious thought of a Dictator can be justifiable. But the people who create, can annihilate a Dictator; their right to govern themselves cannot be resigned by any act whatever, altho extreme cases may vindicate them in suspending the exercise of it. Even prescription cannot exist against this right; and every nation in Europe has a natural right to depose its King, and take the government into its own hands; altho it may forever be inexpedient for any of them to exercise the right.

No. VI

 NEW YORK, 1788.

On GOVERNMENT

I have said,³¹ "that the people ought not to give binding instructions to Representativs." "That they cannot exercise any act of supremacy or legislation at all but in a Convention of the whole State, or of the Representativs of the whole State." And "That the right of election is the only constitutional right which they can with propriety exercise." That these positions, however repugnant to the received opinions of the present age, are capable of political demonstration, is to me unquestionable. They all convey nearly the same idea, and if true, they contravene, in some measure, a fundamental maxim of American politics, which is, that "the sovereign power resides in the people."

I am not desirous of subverting this favorite maxim; but I am very desirous it should be properly qualified and understood; for the abuse of it is capable of shaking any government; and I have no doubt that the mistakes which this maxim has introduced, have been the principal sources of rebellion, tumult and disorder in several of the American States.

It is doubtless true, that the individuals who compose a political society or State, have a sovereign right to establish what form of government they please in their own territories. But in order to deliberate upon the subject, they must all convene together, as in Rome and Athens; or must send deputies, vested with powers to act for them, as is the practice in England and America. If they adopt the first method, then the Supreme Legislativ power resides, to all intents and purposes, in the whole body of the people. If, from the local circumstances of the people, the whole body cannot meet for deliberation, then the Legislativ powers do not reside in the people at large, but in an assembly of men delegated by the whole body.

To prove this last position, it is necessary to enquire, what is the object of law, and on what principles ought it to be founded? A law, if I understand the term, is an act of the whole State, operating upon the whole State, either by command or prohibition: It is thus distinguished from a resolve which more properly respects an individual or a part of the State.³² The object of a law is to prevent positiv evil or produce positiv good to the whole State; not merely to a particular part. The principle therefore on which all laws should be founded, is, a regard to the greatest good which can be produced to the greatest number of individuals in the State. The principle is so obvious, that I presume it will not be controverted. Permit me then to enquire, whether the people of any district, county or town, in their local meetings, are competent to judge of this general good? A law, which is, in its operation general, must be founded on the best general information: The people themselves have no right to consent to a law, without this general information: They have no right to consent to a law, on a view of a local interest; nor without hearing the objections and arguments, and examining the amendments, suggested by every part of the community, which is to be affected by that law. To maintain the contrary is to defend the most glaring contradictions. But can the inhabitants, in detached associations, be acquainted with these objections and arguments? Can they know the minds of their brethren at the distance of three or five hundred miles? If they cannot, they do not possess the right of legislation. Little will it avail to say, that the people acquire the necessary information by newspapers, or other periodical publications: There are not more than two States in the thirteen, where one half the freemen read the public papers. But if every freeman read the papers, this would not give him the information necessary to qualify him for a Legislator; for but a small part of the intelligence they contain is official, which alone can be the ground of law; nor can the collectiv sense of a nation or state be gathered from newspapers. The whole body of people, or Representativs of the whole body, are the only vehicles of information which can be trusted, in forming a judgement of the true interest of the whole State.

If the collectiv sense of a State is the basis of law, and that sense can be known officially no where but in an Assembly of all the people or of their Representativs; or in other words, if there can be no such thing as a collection of sentiments made in any other manner, than by a Convention of the whole people or their Delegates, where is the right of instructing Representativs? The sense of the people, taken in small meetings, without a general knowlege of the objections, and reasonings of the whole State, ought not to be considered as the true sense of the State; for not being possessed of the best general information, the people often form wrong opinions of their own interest. Had I the journals of the several Legislatures in America, I would prove to every man's satisfaction, that most of the schemes for paper money, tender laws, suspension of laws for the recovery of debts, and most of the destructiv measures which have been pursued by the States, have originated in towns and counties, and been carried by positiv instructions from constituents to Representativs. The freemen, in these cases, have wrong ideas of their own interest; their error, in the first instance, is ascribeable merely to ignorance, or a want of that just information, which they themselves would obtain in a General Assembly.³³ The right therefore of prescribing rules to govern the votes of Representativs, which is so often assumed, frequently amounts to a right of doing infinite mischief, with the best intentions. There is perhaps no case in which the people at large are so capable of knowing and pursuing their own interest, as their Delegates are when assembled for consultation and debate. But the practice of giving binding instructions to Representativs, if it has any foundation, is built on this maxim, that the constituents, on a view of their local interests, and either with none, or very imperfect information, are better judges of the propriety of a law, and of the general good, than the most judicious men are (for such generally are the Representativs) after attending to the best official information from every quarter, and after a full discussion of the subject in an Assembly, where clashing interests conspire to detect error, and suggest improvements. This maxim is obviously false; and a practice built on it, cannot fail to produce laws, inaccurate, contradictory, capricious and subversive of the first rights of men. Perhaps no country, except America, ever experienced the fatal effects of this practice, and I blush to remark, what candor itself must avow, that few arbitrary governments, have in so short a period, exhibited so many legal infractions of sacred right; so many public invasions of private property; so many wanton abuses of legislativ powers! Yet the people are generally honest; and as well informed as the people of any country. Their errors proceed from ignorance; from false maxims of governments. The people attempt to legislate without the necessary qualifications for lawgivers; yes, they legislate at home! and while this practice subsists, our public measures will be often weak, imperfect, and changeable; and sometimes extremely iniquitous. From these considerations, it appears that the powers of a Representativ should be wholly discretionary when he acts as a Legislator; but as an agent for a town or small society, he may have positiv instructions. His constituents, in the last case, are competent to instruct him, because they are the whole body concerned; but in the first instance, they are but a part of the State, and not competent to judge fully of the interest of the whole.

To place the matter in the strongest point of light, let us suppose a small State, in which the whole body of people meet for the purpose of making laws. Suppose in this democracy, the people of a town or other district should desire a particular act, for instance, a tender law. Would the inhabitants of this town, have a right to meet a few weeks before the General Assembly, where they all would expect to be present, to debate and vote; and in this town meeting take an oath, or otherwise bind themselves to vote for the act? Would they have a right to shut their ears against argument; to lay a restraint upon their own minds; to exclude the possibility of conviction, and solemnly swear to vote in a certain manner, whether right or wrong! If in this case, the people of a district have no right to lay a restraint upon themselves before they enter the General Assembly, neither have they a right, in representativ democracies, to lay such a restraint upon their Delegates. The very reason why they are incompetent to direct their Deputies, is that they cannot determine how to act themselves, till they come into the Assembly. The very doctrine of representation in government excludes the right of giving binding instructions to Deputies. The design of choosing Representativs is to collect the wisdom of the State; the Deputies are to unite their Councils; to meet and consult for the public safety: But positiv instructions prevent this effect; they are dictated by local interests, or opinions formed on an imperfect view of facts and arguments; in short they totally counteract the good effects of public deliberations, and prevent those salutary measures which may result from united Councils. They make the opinions of a small part of the State a rule for the whole; they imply a decision of a question, before it is heard; they reduce a Representativ to a mere machine, by restraining the exercise of his reason; they subvert the very principles of republican government.

But let us attend to the inconsistency of the practice. The oath required of a Representativ, before he takes his seat, binds him to vote or act from a regard to the public good, according to his judgement and the best of his abilities. Some of the Constitutions contain an oath that binds a Representativ, not to assent to, or vote for, any act that he shall deem injurious to the people. But what opinion, what judgement can a man exercise, who is under the restraint of positiv instructions? Suppose a man so instructed should in conscience believe that a bill, if enacted, would be prejudicial to his constituents, yet his orders bind him to vote for it; how would he act between his oath and his instructions? In his oath he has sworn to act according to his judgment, and for the good of the people; his instructions forbid him to use his judgment, and bind him to vote for a law which he is convinced will injure his constituents. He must then either abandon his orders or his oath; perjury or disobedience is his only alternativ.

This is no imaginary situation; I presume that many men have experienced it. One very worthy member of the Legislature in this State³⁴ a few years since, was in that very predicament; and I heard him express great anxiety upon the occasion.

How noble was the conduct of that gentleman in Sandwich (Mass.) who, being chosen to represent the town in the late Convention, and instructed to vote against the Constitution, at all events; notwithstanding any thing that might be said in favor of it; rather than submit to be fettered in this manner, resigned his appointment. The name of this gentleman, Thomas Bourn, Esq. ought to be held in veneration by every true friend to his country, and his address to the electors on that occasion, ought to be written in letters of gold. It is recorded in these words: "Fellow Townsmen—The line of conduct which has appeared to me right, I have ever wished to pursue. In the decline of life, when a few revolving suns at most will bring me to the bar of impartial justice, I am unwilling to adopt a different, and less honest mode of acting. It is true, my sentiments at present are not in favor of the Constitution; open however to conviction, they may be very different, when the subject is fairly discussed by able and upright men. To place myself in a situation, where conviction could be followed only by a bigotted persistence in error, would be extremely disagreeable to me. Under the restrictions with which your Delegates are fettered, the greatest ideot may answer your purpose as well as the greatest man. The suffrages of our fellow men, when they neither repose confidence in our integrity, nor pay a tribute of respect to our abilities, can never be agreeable. I am therefore induced positivly to decline accepting a seat in Convention, whilst I sincerely wish you, gentlemen, and my countrymen, every blessing which a wise and virtuous administration of a free government can secure."

Such a bold and honest independence of mind are the marks of a good Legislator. With such men as Mr. Bourn, in the legislativ department, our lives, liberties and properties are safe. Such a genius, rising amidst the obscurity of errors and false maxims, like a star emerging from chaos, spreads the rays of truth and illuminates the surrounding hemisphere. Considering the circumstances in which this gentleman was then placed, I had rather be the author of that short address, than of all the labored dissertations which have been written upon the proposed constitution.

Another error, which is connected with the practice of instructing Representativs, and may perhaps be one cause of it, is the opinion that a Deputy chosen by a certain number of freemen, is their Representativ only or particularly: It seems to be believed that a Representativ is bound to attend to the particular interest of the men who elect him, rather than to the general interest. If this were true, it would obviate, in some measure, the objections against instructions. But with respect to every general act, the opinion is clearly false. The reason why men are chosen by small societies of freemen, and not by the whole body, is, that the whole body cannot be well acquainted with the most able men in the different parts of the State. It is the best expedient to correct the defects of government, or rather, it is the best practicable mode of election. To render the mode perfect, the whole body of freemen should be at liberty to choose their Delegates from the whole body. This would destroy, in a great measure, the local views and attachments which now embarrass government; every Representativ would be chosen by the whole body; and the interest of the whole number of constituents would be his object.

This mode is either impracticable or hazardous; notwithstanding this, when a Delegate is elected by a part of the State, he is really the Representativ of the whole, as much as if he were elected by the whole. The constituents of every Representativ are not solely those who voted for him, but the whole State, and the man that acts from a local interest, and attends merely to the wishes of those men who elected him, violates his oath, and abuses his trust. Hence the absurdity of instructions, which are generally dictated by a partial interest, and can perhaps in no case be the sole rule of a Legislator's conduct. When therefore a Representativ says, such is the wish of my constituents; such are their directions; his declaration is but partially true; for his instructions are the wishes of a part only of his constituents. His constituents, whom he actually represents, and whose greatest interest is the sole rule of his conduct, are the whole body of freemen. This is an important truth, and I must repeat it; the man who is deputed to make laws for a State, and suffers a local interest to influence his conduct, abuses a sacred trust; and the Representativ who obeys his instructions, in opposition to the conviction of his own mind, arising from a general view of public good, is guilty of a species of perjury.

Such are the opinions, which after long deliberation, I have formed respecting the principles of a republican government. I feel a diffidence in publishing sentiments so repugnant to the principles received by my countrymen and recognized by some of the State Constitutions. But a strong persuasion of the truth of these opinions, acquired by reasoning, and confirmed by several years observations, forbids me to suppress them.

A summary of the truths, deduced from the foregoing reasoning, is this: That the power of a State is at all times equal; that neither the people themselves, nor a Convention of their Delegates, have either the power or the right to make an unalterable Constitution; that the power of creating a legislativ body, or the sovereign right of election, is solely in the people; but the sovereign power of making laws is solely in an Assembly of their Representativs; that the people have no right to give binding instructions to their Representativs; consequently a distinction between a Convention and a Legislature, can be merely a difference of forms; that Representativs have no right to prolong the period of their delegation; that being taken from the mass of the people, and having a common interest with them, they will be influenced, even by private interest, to promote the public good; and that such a government, which is a novelty on earth, is perhaps the best that can be framed, and the only form which will always have for its object, the general good.

No. VII

 PHILADELPHIA, 1787.

REMARKS on the MANNERS, GOVERNMENT, and DEBT of the United States

Since the declaration and establishment of a general peace, and since this country has had an opportunity to experience the effects of her independence, events have taken place, which were little expected by the friends of the revolution. It was expected, that on the ratification of peace, by the belligerent powers, America would enjoy perfect political tranquillity. The statesman in his closet, and the divine in his addresses to heaven, predicted and anticipated the happy period, when every man would rest, unmolested, under his own vine and his own fig tree. The merchant foresaw, in vision, the ports of all nations open to his ships, and the returns of a favorable commerce pouring wealth into his coffers. The honest laborer, in the shop and the field, was told that independence and peace would forever remove the fears of oppression, would lighten his burthen, and give him legal security for the uninterrupted possession of his rights. This flattering prospect inspired an irresistible enthusiasm in war. The contention for freedom was long and arduous; the prize was obtained; the delusion vanished, and America is surprized at the disappointment.

Instead of general tranquillity, one State has been involved in a civil war, and most of them are torn with factions, which weaken or destroy the energy of government. Instead of a free commerce with all the world, our trade is every where fettered with restraints and impositions, dictated by foreign interest; and instead of pouring wealth into our country, its present tendency is, to impoverish both the merchant and the public. Instead of legal security of rights under governments of our own choice, and under our own control, we find property at least unsafe, even in our best toned government. Our charters may be wrested from us without a fault, our contracts may be changed or set aside without our consent, by the breath of a popular Legislature. Instead of a dimunition of taxes, our public charges are multiplied; and to the weight of accumulating debts, we are perpetually making accessions by expensiv follies. Instead of a union of States and measures, essential to the welfare of a great nation, each State is jealous of its neighbor, and struggling for the superiority in wealth and importance, at the hazard even of our federal existence.

This is the dark side of our public affairs; but such are the facts. The public and private embarrassments, which are both seen and felt, are the topics of incessant declamation. The rhapsodies of orators, and the publications in gazettes, from the northern to the southern extremity of the United States, concur in deprecating the present state of this country, and communicate the intelligence of our distresses to the whole civilized world. Nor are newspapers the only heralds of our calamities. The contempt of government among one class of men, the silent murmurs of poverty in the peaceful cottage, and numerous bankrupts in every quarter, are irresistible evidence to a thinking mind, that something is wrong.

But declamation is idle, and murmurs fruitless. Time has been when the minds of people were alarmed at the approaches of despotism: Then harangues roused attention; then mobs raised the temple of freedom, and declared themselves ready to be sacrificed upon her altar. But violent passions in the public as well as in the human body, are always transitory. That enthusiasm which was called public spirit, heroic virtue, and love of country, has long ago subsided, and is absorbed in the general steady principle, private interest. That enthusiasm is not to be rekindled. The expostulations of our rulers and patriotic writers, have no more effect in reviving public spirit, than the attraction of a meteor in raising a tide.

Men, who embraced revolution principles, because independence might save a few shillings in taxes, or extend the imaginary sphere of freedom; who expected that peace would place them in a paradise of blessings, where they might riot without the fatigue of exertion; such men had narrow views of the consequence of detaching America from a transatlantic jurisdiction. They viewed but a small part of the great event: They are, they ought to be disappointed. Such men expect effects without causes, and are ready to despond, or commence enemies to a glorious event, because miracles are not wrought to verify their ill founded predictions.

In this view, this insect view of things, the revolution ought to be considered as extremely unfortunate; for to the present generation, it must certainly prove so.

But on the general scale of human happiness, every man of reflection must rejoice at the illustrious event. Even the propriety of the independence of these States, is so obviously dictated by their local situation, that a generous European ought to have consented to the measure on this single principle. But taking into consideration the vast field which is here opened for improvements in science, in government, in religion, and in morals; the philosopher will felicitate himself with the prospect of discoveries favorable to arts and happiness; the statesman will rejoice that there is a retreat from the vassalage of Europe; the divine will bless God that a place has been reserved for an uncorrupted church; and the philanthropist, who compares the yeomanry of America with the peasantry of Europe, will congratulate himself on an event which has removed millions of people from the ambition of princes, and from a participation of the vices, which mark the decline of nations.

The revolution of America, whatever may be the present effects, must, on the universal scale of policy, prove fortunate, not only for the parties, but for mankind in general. The period, however, when this country will realize the happy consequences of her separation, must be remote; probably beyond the lives of the present generation.

It is worth our curiosity to inquire into the causes of our present political evils; not the more obvious causes, which every man sees and laments, but those radical causes which lie hid from common observation; whose operations are imperceptible, but whose effects are visible, even to a vulgar eye.

A fundamental mistake of the Americans has been, that they considered the revolution as completed, when it was but just begun. Having raised the pillars of the building, they ceased to exert themselves, and seemed to forget that the whole superstructure was then to be erected. This country is independent in government; but totally dependent in manners, which are the basis of government. Men seem not to attend to the difference between Europe and America, in point of age and improvement; and are disposed to rush, with heedless emulation, into an imitation of manners, for which we are not prepared.

Every person tolerably well versed in history, knows that nations are often compared to individuals and to vegetables, in their progress from their origin to maturity and decay. The resemblance is striking and just. This progress is as certain in nations as in vegetables; it is as obvious, and its causes more easily understood; in proportion as the secret springs of action in government are more easily explained, than the mechanical principles of vegetation.

This progress therefore being assumed as a conceded fact, suggests a forcible argument against the introduction of European manners into America. The business of men in society is, first, to secure their persons and estates by arms and wholesome laws; then to procure the conveniences of life by arts and labor; but it is in the last stages only of national improvement, when luxury and amusements become public benefits, by dissipating accumulations of wealth, and furnishing employment and food for the poor. And luxury then is not beneficial, except when the wealth of a nation is wasted within itself. It is perhaps always true, that an old civilized nation cannot, with propriety, be the model for an infant nation, either in morals, in manners or fashions, in literature or in government.

The present ambition of Americans is, to introduce as fast as possible, the fashionable amusements of the European courts. Considering the former dependence of America on England, her descent, her connexion and present intercourse, this ambition cannot surprise us. But it must check this ambition to reflect on the consequences. It will not be denied, that there are vices predominant in the most polite cities in Europe, which are not only unknown, but are seldom mentioned in America; and vices that are infamous beyond conception. I presume it will not be denied that there must be an amazing depravation of mind in a nation, where a farce is a publication of more consequence than Milton's Poem; and where an opera dancer, or an Italian singer, receives a salary equal to that of an Ambassador. The facts being known and acknowleged, I presume the consequence will not be denied. Not that this charge is good against every individual; even in the worst times, there will be found many exceptions to the general character of a nation.

If these vices and the depravation of mind do actually exist, it is a proof of a gradual corruption; for there was a time when they did not exist. There was a time when decency was a virtue, even at Venice. The progress is also slow, unless hastened by some external circumstances. It was more than two thousand years from the building of Rome to the pontificate of Alexander the VIth whose naked revelings filled the measure of public vice, and strike the human mind with horror.

A constant increase of wealth is ever followed by a multiplication of vices: This seems to be the destiny of human affairs; wisdom, therefore, directs us to retard, if possible, and not to accelerate the progress of corruption. But an introduction of the fashionable diversions of Europe into America, is an acceleration of the growth of vices which are yet in their infancy, and an introduction of new ones too infamous to be mentioned. A dancing school among the Tuscaroras, is not a greater absurdity than a masquerade in America. A theater, under the best regulations, is not essential to our public and private happiness. It may afford entertainment to individuals; but it is at the expense of private taste and public morals. The great misfortune of all exhibitions of this kind is this; that they reduce all taste to a level. Not only the vices of all classes of people are brought into view, but of all ages and nations. The intrigues of a nobleman, and the scurrility of shoe blacks, are presented to the view of both sexes, of all ages; the vices of the age of Elizabeth and of Charles IId are recorded by the masterly pens of a Shakespeare and a Congreve, and by repeated representation, they are "hung on high," as the poet expresses it, "to poison half mankind." The fact is, that all characters must be presented upon a theater, because all characters are spectators; and a nobleman and a sailor, a dutchess and a washer woman, that attend constantly on the exhibitions of vice, become equally depraved; their tastes will be nearly alike as to vice; the one is as prepared for a crime as the other. It is for this reason, that many of the amusements of nations more depraved than ourselves, are highly pernicious in this country. They carry us forward by hasty strides, to the last stages of corruption; a period that every benevolent man will deprecate and endeavor to retard. This circumstance, the difference in the stages of our political existence, should make us shun the vices which may be politic and even necessary in older states; and endeavor to preserve our manners by being our own standards. By attaching ourselves to foreign manners, we counteract the good effects of the revolution, or rather render them incomplete. A revolution in the form of government, is but a revolution in name; unless attended with a change of principles and manners, which are the springs of government.

This leads me to treat more particularly of the influence of fashions on the interests of these States; an article in which the ladies are deeply interested.

Fashion in itself is a matter of indifference, as affecting neither morals nor politeness. It is of no consequence whether a lady is clad with a gown or a frock; or whether a gentleman appears in public with a cap or a wig. But there may be times and situations in which the most trifling things become important. The practice of imitating foreign modes of dress, cannot cost America less than 100,000l. a year. I speak not of the necessary articles of dress; but merely of changes of fashions.

I cannot close these remarks without observing how much this country owes to particular classes of people for the practice of the commercial virtues. To the Friends, the Germans and the Dutch, this country is indebted for that industry and provident economy, which enables them to subsist without anxiety, and to be honest and punctual, without embarrassment.

Happy would it be for this country, if these virtues were more generally practised. Paper money and foreign credit are mere temporary expedients to keep up the appearance of wealth and splendor; but they are miserable substitutes for solid property. The only way to become rich at home and respectable abroad, is to become industrious, and to throw off our slavish dependence on foreign manners, which obliges us to sacrifice our opinions, our taste, and our interest, to the policy and aggrandizement of other nations.

No. VIII

ON PAPER MONEY

[Published at Baltimore, August 9, 1785.]

Messrs. Printers,

I observed a paragraph of intelligence in your Journal, of the 26th of July, respecting the circulation of paper currency in North Carolina. I am not disposed to dispute the truth of the fact, that paper currency passes in that State at par with specie; but I should be very sorry to see it drawn into a precedent for other States.

The scarcity of cash is a general complaint, and superficial observers impute the evil to a wrong cause, while shallow reasoners would remedy it by an emission of paper credit.

The real state of our commerce is this; since the ratification of peace, the quantity of goods imported into the United States has been much greater than what was necessary for the consumption of the inhabitants. Perhaps I shall not be wide of the truth, when I suppose that one third of the importations would supply the demands of people. The consequence is, the other two thirds continue on hand as a superfluity. The merchant finds no market for his goods, and erroneously imputes the evil to a scarcity of cash. But the real truth is, people do not want his goods; they purchase what they want, and find cash or produce to make payment; but the surplus remains in store.

In every trading nation, there ought to be a due proportion between the commercial interest, the agricultural and the manufacturing. Whenever the farmers and manufacturers are too numerous for the merchants, produce and manufactures will be plentiful and cheap; trade will of course be lucrativ. Whenever the merchants are too numerous for the laborers, the importations of the former will exceed the wants of the latter; of course goods will not find vent; and the merchant who owes nothing may lie and sleep in indolence, while the merchant who deals on credit must fail. The experience of almost every day proves the truth of this reasoning. I will suppose that the number of merchants, and the quantity of goods in Baltimore, are double to what they were two years ago; and the market for goods is nearly the same. The effect will be, that the same profit of business will be divided among double the number of men, while, at the same time, rents and the price of provision in market will be double. The clear profit of the merchant will therefore be reduced to one fourth part of what it was two years ago. I submit to the inhabitants of this flourishing town, whether this is a mere supposition, or a moderate state of facts; and whether this reasoning will not, in a greater or less degree, apply to every commercial town in the United States.

But is not money scarce? With respect to the quantity of goods in store, money is very scarce: With respect to the produce of the country, there is money enough. Almost every article of home produce will command cash; but the merchant cannot get cash for his goods. Money is the representativ of goods bought and sold. I will suppose, for the sake of argument, that two years ago there was cash enough in the country to purchase all the goods in market at the usual advance. I will suppose that the quantity of goods has been trebled since that time. In this case, had the quantity of money continued the same, there would have been cash enough to purchase just one third of the goods. But suppose what is true, that at the time the quantity of goods increases in this proportion, the quantity of money in circulation diminishes in the same proportion. In this case there will be but one third of the cash to purchase three times the goods. Thus but one sixth part of the goods can be purchased by the circulating cash. The merchant must then lower the price of his goods to one sixth of their value, or keep them on hand. This reasoning, however mathematical, is just, and applies to all commercial countries. It is a fair state of facts in America. But though the quantity of money is greatly diminished, yet there is sufficient to represent the produce of the country, which in quantity continues the same. The price is however lowered by the diminution of the quantity of circulating cash.

Whether the quantity of cash is diminished, and the quantity of goods increased in the exact proportion above stated, is not material, the foregoing reasoning being sufficient to illustrate the principle. The probability is, that the disproportion between the goods in market and the cash in circulation, is greater than I have supposed.

The following propositions, I venture to assert, are generally, if not universally, true:

1. That the imports of a country should never exceed its exports. In other words, the value of the goods imported should never exceed the value of the superfluous produce, or that part of the produce which the inhabitants do not want for their own consumption.

2. That too great a quantity of cash in circulation, is a much greater evil than too small a quantity.

3. That too much money in a commercial country will inevitably produce a scarcity.

4. That the wealth of a country does not consist in cash, but in the produce of industry, viz. in agriculture and manufactures.

5. That in a commercial country, where people are industrious, there can never be, for any long time, a want of cash sufficient for a medium.

The first proposition is universally acknowleged to be true.

The second is less obvious, but equally true. Too much money raises the price of labor and of its effects; deprives us consequently of a foreign market; produces indolence and dissipation; than which greater evils cannot happen to a State. The sudden increase of money, by large emissions of paper credit, at the beginning of the late war, produced more luxury, indolence, corruption of morals, and other fatal effects, than all other causes that ever took place in America. We feel these evils to this moment. On the other hand, a scarcity of cash, tho it cramps commerce for a moment, always checks the evils before mentioned, lowers the price of labor, and produce will of course find a profitable market; it produces economy and industry, and consequently preserves the morals of the people; for industry goes further in preserving purity of morals, than all the sermons that were ever preached.

This leads to an illustration of the third proposition. If too much money in a country raises the price of labor and of produce, the consequence is, that people will go abroad for articles, because they are cheaper in foreign markets, and they will purchase as long as they can get cash. Importations will be multiplied till the country is drained of cash, and then business will return to a new channel. The history of trade in America, the last two years, is an illustration of this proposition.

The fourth proposition, also, is illustrated by facts. I will suppose that ten millions of dollars are sufficient for a medium in America: Let that sum be instantaneously augmented to twenty millions, and the country is not a farthing richer, for the price of goods will be immediately doubled. Two dollars, in the latter case, purchase no more than one in the former. People ignorantly suppose that goods rise in value; when the fact is, money falls in value. Continental currency was a proof of this. There was cash enough for a medium in the country before the war; and the addition of two hundred millions of dollars did not increase the wealth of the country one farthing; nor would the whole purchase more than the ten millions of specie which circulated before the war. Had the paper all been Spanish milled dollars, the effect would have been the same, had they continued in the country, and not been hoarded.

The fifth proposition depends on this simple fact, that money is a fluid in the commercial world, rolling from hand to hand wherever it is wanted, and there is any thing to purchase it. Let the produce of a country excel, in the least degree, the consumption, and it will never want money.

Admitting the foregoing observations to be true, both the necessity and policy of emitting paper, vanish at once. Supposing paper currency to preserve its credit, still so far from increasing the medium of trade, that in a few months it will drive all the specie from the country. Bank notes and bills of exchange are useful in facilitating a change or conveyance of property; but to issue paper credit, merely with a view to increase the circulating medium, in a country where the people may have just as much gold and silver as they are pleased to work for, is the height of folly. If people are indolent, or extravagant, all the paper currency under heaven will not make them rich, or supply their wants of cash. If people are industrious and frugal, and purchase no more foreign goods than they can pay for in superfluous produce, they will ever have cash enough. Their whole system of commerce stands on these single facts.

If the merchants bring more goods than people want, business must be dull; money with them must be scarce. At the close of the war, cash was plentiful and goods scarce. This made business lively, till people had procured a supply. Remittances were made in cash, so long as it could be obtained. That period is past, and the merchant must now look for remittances where alone they ought ever to be found, in the produce of the country. Business is just now returning into its proper channel, from which it had been diverted by the violence of war, and the fluctuations of paper credit. The rapid population of a country is an agreeable circumstance; but every profession ought to increase in a due proportion. Supposing ten thousand carpenters were to land in Baltimore at once, would they have business? Or would they not exclaim, business is dull, money is scarce? Every one might have a trifle of business, but they could not all make fortunes.

An event similar to this has taken place in Baltimore. The reputation for business which Baltimore had acquired just at the close of the war, brought merchants here from every part of the world, and almost one half of the town has been built within two years. How, in the name of common sense, do the merchants expect to find business? The people who come to this market, multiply gradually, and double in about thirty years. But the merchants who supply the goods have doubled, if not trebled, in numbers and stock, within three years. There is, however, an expedient which will yet enable them all to liv by trade. Let every merchant send abroad to Ireland or Germany, and bring over his hundred able industrious farmers, and fix them on the fertile lands of Maryland, which now lie useless and uncultivated in the hands of the Nabobs: Or let three fourths of the traders quit the business. Either of these expedients will make cash plentiful; and one of them must take place.

I will just make one further remark; the want of a proper union among the States, will always render our commerce fluctuating and unprofitable. We may do as much business as we please; but if the duties and restrictions on our trade remain, and the flag of the United States is insulted as it has been, and each State is laying duties on the trade of its neighbor, our commerce cannot be reduced to a system, and our profits must be uncertain. The want of a Continental Power to guard the honor of the whole body, and reduce our measures to one uniform system, is the great source of endless calamities. We shall feel national abuse, till Congress are vested with powers sufficient to govern and protect us; and till that period, foreigners, like so many harpies, will prey upon our commerce, and disappoint the exertions of our industry.

No. IX

On REDRESS of GRIEVANCES

 NEWBURY PORT, 1786.

By some resolves of the discontented people of this State, (Massachusetts) it appears that the true cause of public grievances is mistaken, and consequently the mode of redress will be mistaken. It is laughable enough to hear the people gravely resolving, that the sitting of the general court at Boston is a grievance, when every body may recollect that about twelve years ago, the removal of the Legislature to Cambridge, was a grievance; an unconstitutional stretch of power, that threw the province into a bustle. A great change, since Hutchinson's time! Boston then was the only proper seat of the Legislature.

Lawyers, too, are squeezed into the catalogue of grievances. Why, sir, lawyers are a consequence; not a cause of public evils. They grow out of the laziness, dilatoriness in payment of debts, breaches of contract, and other vices of the people; just as mushrooms grow out of dunghills after a shower, or as distilleries spring out of the taste for New England rum. The sober, industrious, frugal Dutch, in New York, and the Quakers and Germans in Pensylvania, have no occasion for lawyers; a collector never calls upon them twice, and they feel no grievances. Before the war, there was, in Orange county, New York, but one action of debt tried in eighteen years. O happy people! happy times! no grievances.

Mr. Printer, I saw a man the other day, carrying a bushel or two of flaxseed. Flaxseed is a cash article, and cash pays taxes. The man wanted cash to pay his taxes; he must have cash; but, Mr. Printer, half an hour afterwards, I saw him half drunk, and his saddle bags filled with coffee. But, sir, coffee pays no taxes.

Another, a few days ago, brought a lamb to market. Lambs command cash, and cash pays taxes; but the good countryman went to a store, and bought a feather; five shillings for a feather, Mr. Printer, and feathers pay no taxes. Is it not a grievance, sir, that feathers and ribbands, and coffee and new rum, will not pay taxes?

Now, Mr. Printer, in my humble opinion, there are but two effectual methods of redressing grievances; one depends on the people as individuals, and the other on the Supreme Executiv authority.

As to the first, let every person, whether farmer, mechanic, lawyer, or doctor, provide a small box, (a small box will be big enough) with a hole in the lid. When he receives a shilling, let him put six pence into the box, and use the other six pence in providing for his family; not rum or feathers, but good bread and meat. Let this box remain untouched, until the collector shall call. Then let it be opened, the tax paid, and the overplus of cash may be expended on gauze, ribbands, tea, and New England rum. Let the box then be put into its place again, to receive pence for the next collector. This method, Mr. Printer, will redress all grievances, without the trouble, noise and expense of town meetings, conventions and mobs.

As to the other method, sir, I can only say, were I at the head of the Executiv authority, I should soon put the question to a decisiv issue. It should be determined, on the first insurrection, whether our lives and our properties shall be secure under the law and the constitution of the State, or whether they must depend on the mad resolves of illegal meetings. Honest men then would know whether they may rest in safety at home, or whether they must seek for tranquillity in some distant country.

No. X

The DEVIL is in you.³⁹

 PROVIDENCE, 1786.

That the political body, like the animal, is liable to violent diseases, which, for a time, baffle the healing art, is a truth which we all acknowlege, and which most of us lament. But as most of the disorders, incident to the human frame, are the consequence of an intemperate indulgence of its appetites, or of neglecting the most obvious means of safety; so most of the popular tumults, which disturb government, arise from an abuse of its blessings, or an inattention to its principles. A man of a robust constitution, relying on its strength, riots in gratifications which weaken the stamina vitæ; the surfeiting pleasures of a few years destroy the power of enjoyment; and the full fed voloptuary feels a rapid transition to the meagre valetudinarian. Thus people who enjoy an uncommon share of political privileges, often carry their freedom to licentiousness, and put it out of their power to enjoy society by destroying its support.

Too much health is a disease, which often requires a very strict regimen; too much liberty is the worst of tyranny; and wealth may be accumulated to such a degree as to impoverish a State. If all men attempt to become masters, the most of them would necessarily become slaves in the attempt; and could every man on earth possess millions of joes, every man would be poorer than any man is now, and infinitely more wretched, because they could not procure the necessaries of life.

My countrymen, it is a common saying now, that the devil is in you. I question the influence of the devil, however, in these affairs. Divines and politicians agree in this, to father all evil upon the devil; but the effects ascribed to this prince of evil spirits, both in the moral and political world, I ascribe to the wickedness and ignorance of the human heart. Taking the word Devil in this sense, he is in you, and among you, in a variety of shapes.

In the first place, the weakness of our federal government is the devil. It prevents the adoption of any measures that are requisit for us, as a nation; it keeps us from paying our honest debts; it also throws out of our power all the profits of commerce, and this drains us of cash. Is not this the devil? Yes, my countrymen, an empty purse is the devil.

You say you are jealous of your rights, and dare not trust Congress. Well, that jealousy is an evil spirit, and all evil spirits are devils. So far the devil is in you. You act, in this particular, just like the crew of a ship, who would not trust the helm with one of their number, because he might possibly run her ashore, when by leaving her without a pilot, they were certain of shipwreck. You act just like men, who in raising a building, would not have a master workman, because he might give out wrong orders. You will be masters yourselves; and as you are not all ready to lift at the same time, one labors at a stick of timber, then another, then a third; you are then vexed that it is not raised; why let a master order thirteen of you to take hold together, and you will lift it at once. Every family has a master (or a mistress—I beg the ladies' pardon.) When a ship or a house is to be built, there is a master; when highways are repairing, there is a master; every little school has a master; the continent is a great school; the boys are numerous, and full of roguish tricks, and there is no master. The boys in this great school play truant, and there is no person to chastise them. Do you think, my countrymen, that America is more easily governed than a school? You do very well in small matters; extend your reason to great ones. Would you not laugh at a farmer who would fasten a cable to a plough, and yet attempt to draw a house with a cobweb? "And Nathan said unto David, thou art the man." You think a master necessary to govern a few harmless children in a school or family; yet leave thousands of great rogues to be governed by good advice. Believe me, my friends, for I am serious; you lose rights, because you will not giv your magistrates authority to protect them. Your liberty is despotism, because it has no control; your power is nothing, because it is not united.

But further, luxury rages among you, and luxury is the devil. The war has sent this evil demon to impoverish people, and embarrass the public. The articles of rum and tea alone, which are drank in this country, would pay all its taxes. But when we add, sugar, coffee, feathers, and the whole list of baubles and trinkets, what an enormous expense? No wonder you want paper currency. My countrymen are all grown very tasty! Feathers and jordans must all be imported! Certainly gentlemen, the devil is among you. A Hampshire man, who drinks forty shillings worth of rum in a year, and never thinks of the expense, will raise a mob to reduce the governor's salary, which does not amount to three pence a man per annum. Is not this the devil?

My countrymen—A writer appeared, not long ago, informing you how to redress grievances.⁴⁰ He givs excellent advice. Let every man make a little box, and put into it four pence every day. This in a year will amount to six pounds one shilling and eight pence, a sum more than sufficient to pay any poor man's tax. Any man can pay three or four pence a day, though no poor man can, at the end of a year, pay six pounds. Take my advice, every man of you, and you will hardly feel your taxes.

But further, a tender law is the devil. When I trust a man a sum of money, I expect he will return the full value. That Legislature which says my debtor may pay me with one third of the value he received, commits a deliberate act of villany; an act for which an individual, in any government, would be honored with a whipping post, and in most governments, with a gallows. When a man makes dollars, one third of which only is silver, and passes them for good coin, he must lose his ears, &c.

But Legislatures can, with the solemn face of rulers, and guardians of justice, boldly give currency to an adulterated coin, enjoin it upon debtors to cheat their creditors, and enforce their systematic knavery with legal penalties. The differences between the man who makes and passes counterfeit money, and the man who tenders his creditor one third of the value of the debt, and demands a discharge, is the same as between a thief and a robber. The first cheats his neighbor in the dark, and takes his property without his knowlege: The last boldly meets him at noon day, tells him he is a rascal, and demands his purse.

My countrymen, the devil is among you. Make paper as much as you please; make it a tender in all future contracts, or let it rest on its own bottom: But remember that past contracts are sacred things; that Legislatures have no right to interfere with them; they have no right to say, a debt shall be paid at a discount, or in any manner which the parties never intended. It is the business of justice to fulfil the intention of parties in contracts, not to defeat them. To pay bona fide contracts for cash, in paper of little value, or in old horses, would be a dishonest attempt in an individual; but for Legislatures to frame laws to support and encourage such detestable villany, is like a judge who should inscribe the arms of a rogue over the feat of justice, or clergymen who should convert into bawdy-houses the temples of Jehovah. My countrymen, the world says, the devil is in you: Mankind detest you as they would a nest of robbers.

But lastly, mobs and conventions are devils. Good men love law and legal measures. Knaves only fear law, and try to destroy it. My countrymen, if a constitutional Legislature cannot redress a grievance, a mob never can. Laws are the security of life and property; nay, what is more, of liberty. The man who encourages a mob to prevent the operation of law, ceases to be free or safe; for the same principle which leads a man to put a bayonet to the breast of a judge, will lead him to take property where he can find it; and when the judge dare not act, where is the loser's remedy? Alas, my friends, too much liberty is no liberty at all. Giv me any thing but mobs; for mobs are the devil in his worst shape. I would shoot the leader of a mob, sooner than a midnight ruffian. People may have grievances, perhaps, and no man would more readily hold up his hand to redress them than myself; but mobs rebel against laws of their own, and rebellion is a crime which admits of no palliation.

My countrymen, I am a private, peaceable man. I have nothing to win or to lose by the game of paper currency; but I revere justice. I would sooner pick oakum all my life, than stain my reputation, or pay my creditor one farthing less than his honest demands.

While you attempt to trade to advantage, without a head to combine all the States into systematic, uniform measures, the world will laugh at you for fools. While merchants take and giv credit, the world will call them idiots, and laugh at their ruin. While farmers get credit, borrow money, and mortgage their farms, the world will call them fools, and laugh at their embarrassments. While all men liv beyond their income, and are harrassed with duns and sheriffs, no man will pity them, or giv them relief. But when mobs and conventions oppose the courts of justice, and Legislatures make paper or old horses a legal tender in all cases, the world will exclaim with one voice—Ye are rogues, and the devil is in you!

No. XI

 NEW LONDON, OCTOBER, 1786.

DESULTORY THOUGHTS

No government has preserved more general and uninterrupted tranquillity for a long period, than that of Connecticut. This is a strong proof of the force of habit, and the danger that ever attends great alterations of government or a suspension of law. Every system of civil policy must take its complexion from the spirit and manners of the people.

Whatever political constitutions may be formed on paper, or in the philosopher's closet, those only can be permanent which arise out of the genius of the people.

A jealous uneasy temper has sometimes appeared, among the people of this State; but as this has always proceeded from restless, ambitious men, whose designs have been reprobated as soon as detected, this uneasiness has always subsided without any violence to the Constitution. We do not advert to the time when the course of law has been forcibly obstructed in Connecticut.

In the middle and southern States the corrupt English mode of elections has been adopted: We see men meanly stoop to advertise for an office, or beg the votes of their countrymen. In those States elections are often mere riots; almost always attended with disputes and bloody noses, and sometimes with greater violence. In Connecticut, a man never advertises for an office, nor do we know that a man ever solicited a vote for himself. We cannot name the election that produced a dispute, even in words.

It belongs to the unprincipled of other States and countries to deride religion and its preachers. It belongs to the coxcombs of courts, the productions of dancing schools and playhouses, to ridicule our bashful deportment and simplicity of manners. We revere the ancient institutions of schools and churches in this State. We revere the discipline which has given such a mild complexion to the manners of its inhabitants, and secured private satisfaction and public tranquillity.

Paper money is the present hobby horse of the States, and every State has more or less of the paper madness. What a pity it is mankind will not discern their right hands from their left. Cash is scarce, is the general cry. Well, this proves nothing more than that the balance of trade is against us, and that we eat, drink, and wear more foreign commodities than we can pay for in produce: That is, we spend more than we earn; or in other words, we are poor.

But nothing shows the folly of people more, than their attempts to remedy the evil by a paper currency. This is ignorance, it is absurdity in the extreme. Do not people know that the addition of millions and millions of money does not increase the value of a circulating medium one farthing. Do they not know that the value of a medium ought not to be increased beyond a certain ratio, even if it could be? and that to increase the circulating cash of one State beyond the circulating cash of other States, is a material injury to it. These propositions are as demonstrable as any problem in Euclid. Ten millions of dollars in specie were supposed to be the medium in America before the war. Congress issued at first five millions in bills. As these came into circulation, specie went out; consequently they held their nominal and real value on par, for the nominal value of the medium was not much increased. Congress sent out another sum in bills; the nominal value of the medium was doubled, the bills sunk one half, and the real value of the medium remained the same. This was the subsequent progress; every emission sunk the real value of bills, and two hundred millions of dollars were, in the end, worth just ten millions in specie, and no more. Towards the close of the war, the specie in America was more than doubled; it sunk to less than half its former value, and the paper bills sunk in the same proportion; from forty to eighty for one, nearly. We had too much specie in the country, in the years 1782 and 1783; it ruined hundreds of merchants, and injured the community.

But it is said, we want a circulating medium. This is not true; we have too much in circulation. The specie and paper now circulating in America, amounts to fifty or sixty millions of dollars; whereas we want not more than ten or fifteen millions. The paper is therefore sunk in real value, so as to reduce the real value of the whole medium to that sum which is wanted. We may make millions of paper if we please; but we shall not add one farthing to the property of the State. Money is not wealth in a State, but the representativ of wealth. A paper currency may answer a temporary purpose of enabling people to pay debts; but it is not an advantage even to the debtor, unless it is depreciated; and in this case it is an injury to the creditor. If the paper retains its value, the debtor must sooner or later purchase it with the produce of his labor; and if it depreciates, it is the tool of knaves while it circulates; it ruins thousands of honest unsuspecting people; it gives the game to the idle speculator, who is a nuisance to the State; it stabs public credit and private confidence; and what is worse than all, it unhinges the obligations which unite mankind. A fluctuation of medium in a State makes more fatal ravages among the morals of people, than a pestilence among their lives. O America! happy would it have been for thy peace, thy morals, thy industry, if, instead of a depreciation of paper bills and securities, stamped with public faith, millions of infernal spirits had been let loose among thy inhabitants! Never, never wilt thou experience the return of industry, economy, private confidence and public content, till every species of depreciated and fluctuating medium shall be annihilated; till Legislatures learn to revere justice, and dread a breach of faith more than the vengeance of vindictiv heaven!

Americans! you talk of a scarcity of cash. Well, the only remedy is, to enable Congress to place our commerce on a footing with the trade of other nations. Foreign States have nothing to do with Massachusetts or New York. They must make treaties with United America, or not make them at all. And while we boast of the independence of particular States, we lose all the benefits of independence. For fear that Congress would abuse their powers and enrich themselves, we, like the dog in the manger, will not even enrich ourselves. We complain of poverty, and yet giv the profits of our trade to foreign nations. Infatuated men! We have one truth to learn—That nothing but the absolute power of regulating our commerce, vested in some federal head, can ever restore to us cash, or turn the balance of trade in our favor. New York alone, by its advantageous situation, is growing rich upon the spoils of her neighbors, and impoverishing the continent to fill her own treasury.

Lawyers, you say, O deluded Americans! are an evil. Will you always be fools? Why lawyers are as good men as others: I venture to say further, that lawyers in this country have devised and brought about the wisest public measures that any State has adopted. My countrymen, the expense of supporting a hundred lawyers is a very great and a very needless expense. You pay to lawyers and courts every year thirty or forty thousand pounds. A great expense, indeed! But courts and lawyers are not to be blamed. The people are the cause of the evil, and they alone, as individuals, are able to remedy it. And yet the remedy is very simple. Cease to run in debt, or pay your debts punctually; then lawyers will cease to exist, and court houses will be shut. If you wish or expect any other remedy than this, you certainly will be disappointed. A man, who purposely rushes down a precipice and breaks his arm, has no right to say, that surgeons are an evil in society. A Legislature may unjustly limit the surgeon's fee; but the broken arm must be healed, and a surgeon is the only man to do it.

My friends, learn wisdom. You are peaceable yet, and let the distractions of your neighbors teach you to preserve your tranquillity.

Spend less money than you earn, and you will every day grow richer. Never run in debt, and lawyers will become farmers. Never make paper money, and you will not cheat your citizens, nor have it to redeem. Above all, pay your public debts, for independence and the confederation require it.

No. XII

 NEW HAVEN, DECEMBER, 1786.

ADVICE to CONNECTICUT FOLKS

my friends,

Times are hard; money is scarce; taxes are high, and private debts push us. What shall we do? Why, hear a few facts, stubborn facts, and then take a bit of advice.

In the year 1637, our good forefathers declared an offensiv war against the Pequot Indians. Their troops were ninety men. Weathersfield was ordered to furnish a hog for this army, Windsor a ram goat, and Hartford a hogshead of beer, and four or five gallons of strong water.⁴¹

This was ancient simplicity! Let us make a little estimation of the expenses annually incurred in Connecticut. (I say incurred, for we can contract debts, though we cannot pay them.)

I will just make a distinction between necessary and unnecessary expenses.

Now comes RUM, my friends.

Ninety nine hundredths unnecessary.

This is a fact: Deny it if you can, good folks. Now, say not a word about taxes, judges, lawyers, courts, and women's extravagance. Your government, your courts, your lawyers, your clergymen, your schools, and your poor, do not all cost you so much as one paltry article, which does you little or no good, but is as destructiv of your lives as fire and brimstone.

But let us proceed.

The whole settlement will stand thus:

Now, good people, I have a word of advice for you. I will tell you how to pay your taxes and debts, without feeling them.

1st. Fee no lawyers.

You say lawyers have too high fees. I say they have not. They cost me not one farthing. Do as I have always done, and lawyers' fees will be no trouble at all. If I want a new coat, or my wife wants a new gown, we have agreed to wear the old ones until we have got cash or produce to pay for them. When we buy, we pay in hand; we get things cheaper than our neighbors; merchants never dun us, and we have no lawyers' fees to pay. When we see sheriffs and duns knocking at the doors of our neighbors, we laugh at their folly. Besides, I keep a little drawer in my desk, with money enough in it to pay the next tax; and I never touch a farthing until the collector calls. Now, good folks, if you will take the same method, you will save out of lawyers' fees and court charges, on the most moderate calculations, 20,000l. a year.

2dly. I allow my family but two gallons of rum a year. This is enough for any family, and too much for most of them. I drink cyder and beer of my own manufacture; and my wife makes excellent beer, I assure you. I advise you all to do the same. I am astonished at you, good folks. Not a mechanic or a laborer goes to work for a merchant, but he carries home a bottle of rum. Not a load of wood comes to town, but a gallon bottle is tied to the cart stake to be filled with rum. Scarcely a woman comes to town with tow cloth, but she has a wooden gallon bottle in one side of her saddle bags, to fill with rum. A stranger would think you to be a nation of Indians by your thirst for this paltry liquor. Take a bit of advice from a good friend of yours. Get two gallons of rum in a year; have two or three frolics of innocent mirth; keep a little spirit for a medicine, and let your common drink be the produce or manufacture of this country. This will make a saving of almost 400,000 gallons of rum, or 80,000l. a year.

3dly. Never buy any useless clothing.

Keep a good suit for Sundays and other public days; but let your common wearing apparel be good substantial cloths, and linens of your own manufacture. Let your wives and daughters lay aside their plumes. Feathers and fripperies suit the Cherokees or the wench in your kitchen; but they little become the fair daughters of America.⁴² Out of the dry goods imported, you may save 50,000l. a year.

These savings amount to 150,000l. a year. This is more than enough to pay the interest of all our public debts.

My countrymen, I am not trifling with you: I am serious. You feel the facts I state; you know you are poor, and ought to know, the fault is all your own. Are you not satisfied with the food and drink which this country affords? The beef, the pork, the wheat, the corn, the butter, the cheese, the cyder, the beer, those luxuries which are heaped in profusion upon your tables? If not, you must expect to be poor. In vain do you wish for mines of gold and silver. A mine would be the greatest curse that could befal this country. There is gold and silver enough in the world, and if you have not enough of it, it is because you consume all you earn in useless food and drink. In vain do you wish to increase the quantity of cash by a mint, or by paper emissions. Should it rain millions of joes into your chimnies, on your present system of expenses, you would still have no money. It would leave the country in streams. Trifle not with serious subjects, nor spend your breath in empty wishes. Reform; economize. This is the whole of your political duty. You may reason, speculate, complain, raise mobs, spend life in railing at Congress and your rulers; but unless you import less than you export, unless you spend less than you earn, you will eternally be poor.

No. XIII

 NEW YORK, DECEMBER, 1787.

To the DISSENTING MEMBERS of the late Convention of Pennsylvania

gentlemen,

Your long and elaborate publication, assigning the reasons for your refusing to subscribe the ratification of the new Federal Constitution, has made its appearance in the public papers, and, I flatter myself, will be read throughout the United States. It will feed the flame of opposition among the weak, the wicked, the designing, and the factious; but it will make many new converts to the proposed government, and furnish the old friends of it with new weapons of defence. The very attempt to excite uneasiness and disturbance in a State, about a measure legally and constitutionally adopted, after a long and ample discussion in a convention of the people's delegates, will create suspicions of the goodness of your cause. My address to you will not be so lengthy as your publication; your arguments are few, altho your harangue is long and insidious.

You begin with telling the world, that no defect was discovered in the present confederation, till after the war. Why did you not publish the truth? You know, gentlemen, that during six years of the war, we had no confederation at all. You know that the war commenced in April, 1775, and that we had no confederation till March, 1781. You know (for some of you are men of abilities and reading) or ought to know, a principle of fear, in time of war, operates more powerfully in binding together the States which have a common interest, than all the parchment compacts on earth. Could we, then, discover the defects of our present confederation, with two years' experience only, and an enemy in our country? You know we could not.

I will not undertake to detect the falsehood of every assertion, or the fallacy of all your reasoning on each article. In the most of them the public will anticipate any thing I could say, and confute your arguments as fast as they read them. But, gentlemen, your reasoning against the new Constitution resembles that of Mr. Hume on miracles. You begin with some gratis dicta, which are denied; you assume premises which are totally false, and then reason on them with great address. Your whole reasoning, and that of all the opposers of the federal government, is built on this false principle, that the federal Legislature will be a body distinct from and independent of the people. Unless your opposition is grounded on that principle, it stands on nothing; and on any other supposition, your arguments are but declamatory nonsense.

But the principle is false. The Congress, under the proposed constitution, will have the same interest as the people; they are a part of the people; their interest is inseparable from that of the people; and this union of interest will eternally remain, while the right of election shall continue in the people. Over this right Congress will have no control: The time and manner of exercising that right are very wisely vested in Congress; otherwise a delinquent State might embarrass the measures of the Union. The safety of the public requires that the federal body should prevent any particular delinquency; but the right of election is above their control; it must remain in the people, and be exercised once in two, four or six years. A body thus organized, with thirteen Legislatures watching their measures, and several millions of jealous eyes inspecting their conduct, would not be apt to betray their constituents. Yet this is not the best ground of safety. The first and almost only principle that governs men, is interest. Love of our country is a powerful auxiliary motiv to patriotic actions; but rarely or never operates against private interest. The only requisit to secure liberty, is to connect the interest of the governors with that of the governed. Blend these interests; make them inseparable, and both are safe from voluntary invasion. How shall this union be formed? This question is answered. The union is formed by the equal principles on which the people of these States hold their property and their rights. But how shall this union of interests be perpetuated? The answer is easy; bar all perpetuities of estates; prevent any exclusiv rights; preserve all preferment dependent on the choice of the people; suffer no power to exist independent of the people or their representativs. While there exists no power in a State, which is independent of the will of the electors, the rights of the people are secure. The only barrier against tyranny, that is necessary in any State, is the election of legislators by the yeomanry of that State. Preserve that, and every privilege is safe. The legislators thus chosen to represent the people, should have all the power that the people would have, were they assembled in one body to deliberate upon public measures. The distinction between the powers of the people and of their representativs in the Legislature, is as absurd in theory, as it proves pernicious in practice. A distinction, which has already countenanced and supported one rebellion in America; has prevented many good measures; has produced many bad; has created animosities in many States, and embarrassments in all.⁴³ It has taught the people a lesson, which, if they continue to practise, will bring laws into contempt, and frequently mark our country with blood.

You object, gentlemen, to the powers vested in Congress. Permit me, to ask you, where will you limit their powers? What bounds will you prescribe? You will reply—we will reserve certain rights, which we deem invaluable, and restrain our rulers from abridging them. But, gentlemen, let me ask you, how will you define these rights? would you say, the liberty of the press shall not be restrained? Well, what is this liberty of the press? Is it an unlimited licence to publish any thing and every thing with impunity? If so, the author and printer of any treatise, however obscene and blasphemous, will be screened from punishment. You know, gentlemen, that there are books extant, so shockingly and infamously obscene and so daringly blasphemous, that no society on earth would be vindicable in suffering the publishers to pass unpunished. You certainly know that such cases have happened, and may happen again: Nay, you know that they are probable. Would not that indefinite expression, the liberty of the press, extend to the justification of every possible publication? Yes, gentlemen, you know, that under such a general license, a man who should publish a treatise to prove his Maker a knave, must be screened from legal punishment. I shudder at the thought! But the truth must not be concealed. The constitutions of several States guarantee that very license.

But if you attempt to define the liberty of the press, and ascertain what cases shall fall within that privilege, during the course of centuries, where will you begin? Or rather, where will you end? Here, gentlemen, you will be puzzled. Some publications certainly may be a breach of civil law: You will not have the effrontery to deny a truth so obvious and intuitivly evident. Admit that principle; and unless you can define precisely the cases, which are, and are not a breach of law, you have no right to say, the liberty of the press shall not be restrained; for such a license would warrant any breach of law. Rather than hazard such an abuse of privilege, is it not better to leave the right altogether with your rulers and your posterity? No attempts have ever been made by a legislativ body in America, to abridge that privilege; and in this free enlightened country, no attempts could succeed, unless the public should be convinced that an abuse of it would warrant the restriction. Should this ever be the case, you have no right to say, that a future Legislature, or that posterity shall not abridge the privilege, or punish its abuses.

But you say, that trial by jury is an unalienable right, that ought not to be trusted with our rulers. Why not? If it is such a darling privilege, will not Congress be as fond of it, as their constituents? An elevation into that council, does not render a man insensible to his privileges, nor place him beyond the necessity of securing them. A member of Congress is liable to all the operations of law, except during his attendance on public business; and should he consent to a law, annihilating any right whatever, he deprives himself, his family and estate, of the benefit resulting from that right, as well as his constituents. This circumstance alone, is a sufficient security.

But, why this outcry about juries? If the people esteem them so highly, why do they ever neglect them, and suffer the trial by them to go into disuse? In some States, Courts of Admiralty have no juries, nor Courts of Chancery at all. In the City Courts of some States, juries are rarely or never called, altho the parties may demand them; and one State, at least, has lately passed an act, empowering the parties to submit both law and fact to the court. It is found, that the judgment of a court gives as much satisfaction, as the verdict of a jury; for the court are as good judges of fact, as juries, and much better judges of law. I have no desire to abolish trials by jury, altho the original design and excellence of them, is in many cases superseded. While the people remain attached to this mode of deciding causes, I am confident, that no Congress can wrest the privilege from them.

But, gentlemen, our legal proceedings want a reform. Involved in all the mazes of perplexity, which the chicanery of lawyers could invent, in the course of five hundred years, our road to justice and redressis tedious, fatiguing and expensiv. Our judicial proceedings are capable of being simplified, and improved in almost every particular. For mercy's sake, gentlemen, do not shut the door against improvement. If the people of America, should ever spurn the shackles of opinion, and venture to leave the road, which is so overgrown with briers and thorns, as to strip a man's clothes from his back as he passes, I am certain they can devise a more easy, safe, and expeditious mode of administering the laws, than that which harasses every poor mortal, that is wretched enough to want legal justice. In States where very respectable merchants, have repeatedly told me, they had rather lose a debt of fifty pounds, than attempt to recover it by a legal process, one would think that men, who value liberty and property, would not restrain any government from suggesting a remedy for such disorders.

Another right, which you would place beyond the reach of Congress, is the writ of habeas corpus. Will you say that this right may not be suspended in any case? You dare not. If it may be suspended in any case, and the Congress are to judge of the necessity, what security have you in a declaration in its favor? You had much better say nothing upon the subject.

But you are frightened at a standing army. I beg you, gentlemen, to define a standing army. If you would refuse to giv Congress power to raise troops, to guard our frontiers, and garrison forts, or in short, to enlist men for any purpose, then we understand you; you tie the hands of your rulers, so that they cannot defend you against any invasion. This is protection, indeed! But if Congress can raise a body of troops for a year, they can raise them for a hundred years, and your declaration against standing armies can have no other effect, than to prevent Congress from denominating their troops, a standing army. You would only introduce into this country the English farce of mechanically passing an annual bill for the support of troops which are never disbanded.

You object to the indefinite power of taxation in Congress. You must then limit the exercise of that power by the sums of money to be raised; or leaving the sums indefinite, must prescribe the particular mode in which, and the articles on which the money is to be raised. But the sums cannot be ascertained, because the necessities of the States cannot be foreseen nor defined. It is beyond even your wisdom and profound knowlege, gentlemen, to ascertain the public exigencies, and reduce them to the provisions of a constitution. And if you would prescribe the mode of raising money, you will meet with equal difficulty. The different States have different modes of taxation, and I question much whether even your skill, gentlemen, could invent a uniform system that would fit easy upon every State. It must therefore be left to experiment, with a power that can correct the errors of a system, and suit it to the habits of the people. And if no uniform mode will answer this purpose, it will be in the power of Congress to lay taxes in each State, according to its particular practice.

You know that requisitions on the States are ineffectual; that they cannot be rendered effectual, but by a compulsory power in Congress; that without an efficient power to raise money, government cannot secure person, property or justice; that such power is as safely lodged in your Representativs in Congress, as it is in your Representativs in your distinct Legislatures.

You would likewise restrain Congress from requiring excessiv bail or imposing excessiv fines and unusual punishment. But unless you can, in every possible instance, previously define the words excessiv and unusual; if you leave the discretion of Congress to define them on occasion, any restriction of their power by a general indefinit expression, is a nullity—mere formal nonsense. What consummate arrogance must you possess, to presume you can now make better provision for the government of these States, during the course of ages and centuries, than the future Legislatures can, on the spur of the occasion! Yet your whole reasoning on the subject implies this arrogance, and a presumption that you have a right to legislate for posterity!

But to complete the list of unalienable rights, you would insert a clause in your declaration, that every body shall, in good weather, hunt on his own land, and catch fish in rivers that are public property. Here, gentlemen, you must have exerted the whole force of your genius! Not even the all important subject of legislating for a world, can restrain my laughter at this clause! As a supplement to that article of your bill of rights, I would suggest the following restriction:—"That Congress shall never restrain any inhabitant of America from eating and drinking, at seasonable times, or prevent his lying on his left side, in a long winter's night, or even on his back, when he is fatigued by lying on his right." This article is of just as much consequence as the eighth clause of your proposed bill of rights.

But to be more serious, gentlemen, you must have had in idea the forest laws in Europe, when you inserted that article; for no circumstance that ever took place in America, could have suggested the thought of a declaration in favor of hunting and fishing. Will you forever persist in error? Do you not reflect that the state of property in America, is directly the reverse of what it is in Europe? Do you not consider, that the forest laws in Europe originated in feudal tyranny, of which not a trace is to be found in America? Do you not know that in this country almost every farmer is lord of his own soil? That instead of suffering under the oppression of a monarch and nobles, a class of haughty masters, totally independent of the people, almost every man in America is a lord himself, enjoying his property in fee? Where then the necessity of laws to secure hunting and fishing? You may just as well ask for a clause, giving license for every man to till his own land, or milk his own cows. The barons in Europe procured forest laws to secure the right of hunting on their own land, from the intrusion of those who had no property in lands. But the distribution of land in America, not only supersedes the necessity of any laws upon this subject, but renders them absolutely trifling. The same laws which secure the property in land, secure to the owner the right of using it as he pleases.

But you are frightened at the prospect of a consolidation of the States. I differ from you very widely. I am afraid, after all our attempts to unite the States, that contending interests, and the pride of State sovereignties, will either prevent our union, or render our federal government weak, slow and inefficient. The danger is all on this side. If any thing under heaven now endangers our liberties and independence, it is that single circumstance.

You harp upon that clause of the new constitution, which declares, that the laws of the United States, &c. shall be the supreme law of the land; when you know that the powers of the Congress are defined, to extend only to those matters which are in their nature and effects, general. You know, the Congress cannot meddle with the internal police of any State, or abridge its sovereignty. And you know, at the same time, that in all general concerns, the laws of Congress must be supreme, or they must be nothing.

No. XIV

 PHILADELPHIA, MARCH, 1787.

On TEST LAWS, OATHS of ALLEGIANCE and ABJURATION, and PARTIAL EXCLUSIONS from OFFICE

To change the current of opinion, is a most difficult task, and the attempt is often ridiculed. For this reason, I expect the following remarks will be passed over with a slight reading, and all attention to them cease with a hum.

The revisal of the test law has at length passed by a respectable majority of the Representativs of this State. This is a prelude to wiser measures; people are just awaking from delusion. The time will come (and may the day be near!) when all test laws, oaths of allegiance, abjuration, and partial exclusions from civil offices, will be proscribed from this land of freedom.

Americans! what was the origin of these discriminations? What is their use?

They originated in savage ignorance, and they are the instruments of slavery. Emperors and generals, who wished to attach their subjects to their persons and government; who wished to exercise despotic sway over them, or prosecute villanous wars, (for mankind have always been butchering each other) found the solemnity of oaths had an excellent effect on poor superstitious soldiers and vassals; oracles, demons, eclipses; all the terrifying phenomena of nature, have at times had remarkable effects in securing the obedience of men to tyrants. Oaths of fealty, and farcical ceremonies of homage, were very necessary to rivet the chains of feudal vassals; for the whole system of European tenures was erected on usurpation, and is supported solely by ignorance, superstition, artifice, or military force. Oaths of allegiance may possibly be still necessary in Europe, where there are so many contending powers contiguous to each other: But what is their use in America? To secure fidelity to the State, it will be answered. But where is the danger of defection? Will the inhabitants join the British in Nova Scotia or Canada? Will they rebel? Will they join the savages, and overthrow the State? No; all these are visionary dangers. My countrymen, if a State has any thing to fear from its inhabitants, the constitution or the laws must be wrong. Danger cannot possibly arise from any other cause.

Permit me to offer a few ideas to your minds; and let them be the subject of more than one hour's reflection.

An oath creates no new obligation. A witness, who swears to tell the whole truth, is under no new obligation to tell the whole truth. An oath reminds him of his duty; he swears to do as he ought to do; that is, he adds an express promise to an implied one. A moral obligation is not capable of addition or diminution.

When a man steps his foot into a State, he becomes subject to its general laws. When he joins it as a member, he is subject to all its laws. The act of entering into society, binds him to submit to its laws, and to promote its interest. Every man, who livs under a government, is under allegiance to that government. Ten thousand oaths do not increase the obligation upon him to be a faithful subject.

But, it will be asked, how shall we distinguish between the friends and enemies of the government? I answer, by annihilating all distinctions. A good constitution, and good laws, make good subjects. I challenge the history of mankind to produce an instance of bad subjects under a good government. The test law in Pensylvania has produced more disorder, by making enemies in this State, than have cursed all the union besides. During the war, every thing gave way to force; but the feelings and principles of war ought to be forgotten in peace.

Abjuration! a badge of folly, borrowed from the dark ages of bigotry. If the government of Pensylvania is better than that of Great Britain, the subjects will prefer it, and abjuration is perfectly nugatory. If not, the subject will have his partialities in spite of any solemn renunciation of a foreign power.

But what right has even the Legislature to deprive any class of citizens of the benefits and emoluments of civil government? If any men have forfeited their lives or estates, they are no longer subjects; they ought to be banished or hung. If not, no law ought to exclude them from civil emoluments. If any have committed public crimes, they are punishable; if any have been guilty, and have not been detected, the oath, as it now stands, obliges them to confess their guilt. To take the oath, is an implicit acknowlegement of innocence; to refuse it, is an implicit confession that the person has aided and abetted the enemy. This is rank despotism. The inquisition can do no more than force confession from the accused.

I pray God to enlighten the minds of the Americans. I wish they would shake off every badge of tyranny. Americans!—The best way to make men honest, is to let them enjoy equal rights and privileges; never suspect a set of men will be rogues, and make laws proclaiming that suspicion. Leave force to govern the wretched vassals of European nabobs, and reconcile subjects to your own constitutions by their excellent nature and beneficial effects. No man will commence enemy to a government which givs him as many privileges as his neighbors enjoy.

No. XV

SKETCHES of the RISE, PROGRESS and CONSEQUENCES of the late REVOLUTION

Written in the years 1787, 1788, and 1789; now republished, with material corrections, and a Letter from the late Commander in Chief, explaining the Circumstances and Proceedings, preparatory to the Capture of Lord Cornwallis.

America was originally peopled by uncivilized nations, which lived mostly by hunting and fishing. The Europeans, who first visited these shores, treating the nativs as wild beasts of the forest, which have no property in the woods where they roam, planted the standard of their respectiv masters where they first landed, and in their names claimed the country by right of discovery.⁴⁴ Prior to any settlement in North America numerous titles of this kind were acquired by the English, French, Spanish, and Dutch navigators, who came hither for the purposes of fishing and trading with the nativs. Slight as such titles were, they were afterwards the causes of contention between the European nations. The subjects of different princes often laid claim to the same tract of country, because both had discovered the same river or promontary; or because the extent of their respectiv claims was indeterminate.

While the settlements in this vast uncultivated country were inconsiderable and scattered, and the trade of it confined to the bartering of a few trinkets for furs, a trade carried on by a few adventurers, the interfering of claims produced no important controversy among the settlers or the nations of Europe. But in proportion to the progress of population, and the growth of the American trade, the jealousies of the nations, which had made early discoveries and settlements on this coast, were alarmed; ancient claims were revived; and each power took measures to extend and secure its own possessions at the expense of a rival.

By the treaty of Utrecht in 1713, the English claimed a right of cutting logwood in the Bay of Campeachy, in South America. In the exercise of this right, the English merchants had frequent opportunities of carrying on a contraband trade with the Spanish settlements on the continent. To remedy this evil, the Spaniards resolved to annihilate a claim, which, though often acknowleged, had never been clearly ascertained. To effect this design, they captured the English vessels, which they found along the Spanish Main, and many of the British subjects were doomed to work in the mines of Potosi.

Repeated severities of this kind at length (1739) produced a war between England and Spain. Porto Bello was taken from the Spaniards, by Admiral Vernon. Commodore Anson, with a squadron of ships, sailed to the South Seas, distressed the Spanish settlements on the western shore of America, and took a galleon, laden with immense riches. But in 1741 a formidable armament, destined to attack Carthagena, under the command of Lord Cathcart, returned unsuccessful, with the loss of upwards of twelve thousand British soldiers and seamen; and the defeat of the expedition, raised a clamor against the minister, Sir Robert Walpole, which produced a change in the administration. This change removed the scene of war to Europe, so that America was not immediately affected by the subsequent transactions; except that Louisburgh, the principal fortress of Cape Breton, was taken from the French by General Pepperell, assisted by Commodore Warren and a body of New England troops.

This war was ended in 1748 by the treaty of peace signed at Aix la Chapelle, by which restitution was made on both sides of all places taken during the war.

Peace, however, was of short duration. The French possessed Canada, and had made considerable settlements in Florida, claiming the country on both sides of the Missisippi, by right of discovery. To secure and extend their claims, they established a line of forts, on the English possessions, from Canada to Florida. They had secured the important pass at Niagara, and erected a fort at the junction of the Allegany and Monongahela rivers, called Fort Du Quesne. They took pains to secure the friendship and assistance of the nativs, encroachments were made upon the English possessions, and mutual injuries succeeded. The disputes among the settlers in America, and the measures taken by the French to command all the trade of the St. Lawrence river on the north, and of the Missisippi on the south, excited a jealousy in the English nation, which soon broke forth in open war.

In 1756, four expeditions were undertaken in America against the French. One was conducted by General Monckton, who had orders to drive the French from the encroachments on the province of Nova Scotia. This expedition was attended with success. General Johnson was ordered, with a body of troops, to take possession of Crown Point, but he did not succeed. General Shirley commanded an expedition against the fort at Niagara, but lost the season by delay. General Braddock marched against fort Du Quesne, but in penetrating through the wilderness, he incautiously fell into an ambuscade and suffered a total defeat. General Braddock was killed, but a part of his troops were saved by the prudence and bravery of General Washington, at this time a Colonel, who then began to exhibit proofs of those military talents, by which he afterwards conducted the armies of America to victory, and his country to independence. The ill success of these expeditions left the English settlements in America exposed to the depredations of both the French and Indians. But the war now raged in Europe and the East Indies, and engaged the attention of both nations in those quarters.

It was not until the campaign in 1758, that affairs assumed a more favorable aspect in America. But upon a change of administration, Mr. Pitt was appointed Prime Minister, and the operations of war became more vigorous and successful. General Amherst was sent to take possession of Cape Breton; and after a warm siege, the garrison of Louisburgh surrendered by capitulation. General Forbes was successful in taking possession of fort Du Quesne, which the French thought fit to abandon. But General Abercrombie, who commanded the troops destined to act against the French at Crown Point and Ticonderoga, attacked the lines at Ticonderoga, where the enemy were strongly entrenched, and was defeated with a terrible slaughter of his troops. After his defeat, he returned to his camp at Lake George.

The next year, more effectual measures were taken to subdue the French in America. General Prideaux and Sir William Johnson began the operations of the campaign by taking the French fort near Niagara.⁴⁵ General Amherst took possession of the forts at Crown Point and Ticonderoga, which the French had abandoned.

But the decisiv blow, which proved fatal to the French interests in America, was the defeat of the French army, and the taking of Quebec, by the brave general Wolfe. This hero was slain in the beginning of the action, on the plains of Abram, and Monsieur Montcalm, the French commander, likewise lost his life. The loss of Quebec was soon followed by the capture of Montreal, by General Amherst, and Canada has remained ever since in possession of the English.

Colonel Grant, in 1761, defeated the Cherokees in Carolina, and obliged them to sue for peace. The next year, Martinico was taken by Admiral Rodney and General Monkton; and also the islands of Grenada, St. Vincents, and others. The capture of these was soon followed by the surrender of the Havanna, the capital of the island of Cuba.

In 1763, a definitiv treaty of peace was concluded at Paris, between Great Britain, France and Spain, by which the English ceded to the French several islands in the West Indies, but were confirmed in the possession of all North America on this side the Missisippi, except New Orleans, and a small district of the neighboring country.

But this war, however brilliant the success, and glorious the event, proved the cause of great and unexpected misfortunes to Great Britain. Engaged with the combined powers of France and Spain, during several years, her exertions were surprising, and her expense immense. To discharge the debts of the nation, the parliament was obliged to have recourse to new expedients for raising money. Previous to the last treaty in 1763, the parliament had been satisfied to raise a revenue from the American Colonies by monopoly of their trade.

At the beginning of the last war with France, commissioners from many of the colonies had assembled at Albany, and proposed that a great council should be formed by deputies from the several colonies, which, with a general Governor to be appointed by the crown, should be empowered to take measures for the common safety, and to raise money for the execution of their designs. This proposal was not relished by the British ministry; but in place of this plan, it was proposed, that the Governors of the colonies, with the assistance of one or two of their council, should assemble and concert measures for the general defence; erect forts, levy troops, and draw on the treasury of England for monies that should be wanted; but the treasury to be reimbursed by a tax on the colonies, to be laid by the English parliament. To this plan, which would imply an avowal of the right of parliament to tax the colonies, the provincial assemblies objected with unshaken firmness. It seems, therefore, that the British parliament, before the war, had it in contemplation to exercise the right they claimed of taxing the colonies at pleasure, without permitting them to be represented. Indeed it is obvious that they laid hold of the alarming situation of the colonies about the year 1754, and 1755, to force them into an acknowlegement of the right, or to the adoption of measures that might afterwards be drawn into precedent. The colonies however, with an uncommon foresight and firmness, defeated all their attempts. The war was carried on by requisitions on the colonies for supplies of men and money, or by voluntary contributions.

But no sooner was peace concluded, than the English parliament resumed the plan of taxing the colonies; and to justify their attempts, said, that the money to be raised, was to be appropriated to defray the expense of defending them in the late war.

The first attempt to raise a revenue in America appeared in the memorable stamp act, passed March 22, 1765; by which it was enacted that certain instruments of writing, as bills, bonds, &c. should not be valid in law, unless drawn on stamped paper, on which a duty was laid. No sooner was this act published in America, than it raised a general alarm. The people were filled with apprehensions at an act which they supposed an attack on their constitutional rights. The colonies petitioned the king and parliament for a redress of the grievance, and formed associations for the purpose of preventing the importation and use of British manufactures, until the act should be repealed. This spirited and unanimous opposition of the Americans produced the desired effect; and on the 18th of March, 1766, the stamp act was repealed. The news of the repeal was received in the colonies with universal joy, and the trade between them and Great Britain was renewed on the most liberal footing.

The parliament, by repealing this act, so obnoxious to their American brethren, did not intend to lay aside the scheme of raising a revenue in the colonies, but merely to change the mode. Accordingly the next year, they passed an act, laying a certain duty on glass, tea, paper, and painters' colors; articles which were much wanted, and not manufactured, in America. This act kindled the resentment of the Americans, and excited a general opposition to the measure; so that parliament thought proper in 1770, to take off these duties, except three pence a pound on tea. Yet this duty, however trifling, kept alive the jealousy of the colonists, and their opposition to parliamentary taxation continued and increased.

But it must be remembered that the inconvenience of paying the duty was not the sole, nor principal cause of the opposition, it was the principle which, once admitted, would have subjected the colonies to unlimitted parliamentary taxation, without the privilege of being represented. The right, abstractly considered, was denied; and the smallest attempt to establish the claim by precedent, was uniformly resisted. The Americans could not be deceived as to the views of parliament; for the repeal of the stamp act was accompanied with an unequivocal declaration, "that the parliament had a right to make laws of sufficient validity to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever."

The colonies therefore entered into measures to encourage their own manufactures, and home productions, and to retrench the use of foreign superfluities; while the importation of tea was prohibited. In the royal and proprietary governments, the Governors and people were in a state of continual warfare. Assemblies were repeatedly called, and suddenly dissolved. While sitting, the assemblies employed the time in dating grievances and framing remonstrances. To inflame these discontents, an act of parliament was passed, ordaining that the Governors and Judges should receive their salaries of the crown; thus making them independent of the provincial assemblies, and removeable only at the pleasure of the king.

These arbitrary proceedings, with many others not here mentioned, could not fail of producing a rupture. The first act of violence, was the massacre at Boston, on the evening of the fifth of March, 1770. A body of British troops had been stationed in Boston to awe the inhabitants, and enforce the measures of parliament. On the fatal day, when blood was to be shed, as a preclude to more tragic scenes, a riot was raised among some soldiers and boys; the former aggressing by throwing snow balls at the latter. The bickerings and jealousies between the inhabitants and soldiers, which had been frequent before, now became serious. A multitude was soon collected, and the controversy became so warm, that to disperse the people, the troops were embodied and ordered to fire upon the inhabitants. This fatal order was executed, and several persons fell a sacrifice. The people restrained their vengeance at the time; but this wanton act of cruelty and military despotism fanned the flame of liberty; a flame that was not to be extinguished but by a total separation of the colonies from their oppressiv and hostile parent.

In 1773, the spirit of the Americans broke out into open violence. The Gaspee, an armed schooner, belonging to his Britannic Majesty, had been stationed at Providence, in Rhode Island, to prevent smuggling. The vigilance of the commander irritated the inhabitants to that degree, that about two hundred armed men entered the vessel at night, compelled the officers and men to go on shore, and set fire to the schooner. A reward of five hundred pounds, offered by government for apprehending any of the persons concerned in this daring act, produced no effectual discovery.

About this time, the discovery and publication of some private confidential letters, written by the royal officers in Boston, to persons in office in England, served to confirm the apprehensions of the Americans, with respect to the designs of the British government. It was now made obvious that more effectual measures would be taken to establish the supremacy of the British parliament over the colonies. The letters recommended decisiv measures, and the writers were charged, by the exasperated Americans, with betraying their trust and the people they governed.

As the resolutions of the colonies not to import or consume tea, had, in a great measure, deprived the English government of a revenue from this quarter, the parliament formed a scheme of introducing tea into America, under cover of the East India company. For this purpose an act was passed, enabling the company to export all sorts of teas, duty free, to any place whatever. The company departed from their usual mode of business and became their own exporters. Several ships were freighted with teas, and sent to the American colonies, and factors were appointed to receive and dispose of their cargoes.

The Americans, determined to oppose the revenue system of the English parliament in every possible shape, considered the attempt of the East India company to evade the resolutions of the colonies, and dispose of teas in America, as an indirect mode of taxation, sanctioned by the authority of parliament. The people assembled in various places, and in the large commercial towns, took measures to prevent the landing of the teas. Committees were appointed, and armed with extensiv powers to inspect merchants' books, to propose tests, and make use of other expedients to frustrate the designs of the East India company. The same spirit pervaded the people from New Hampshire to Georgia. In some places, the consignees of the teas were intimidated so far as to relinquish their appointments, or to enter into engagements not to act in that capacity. The cargo sent to South Carolina was stored, the consignees being restrained from offering the tea for sale. In other provinces, the ships were sent back without discharging their cargoes.

But in Boston the tea shared a more violent fate. Sensible that no local measures could prevent its being landed, and that if once landed, it would be disposed of; a number of men in disguise, on the 18th of December 1773, entered the ships and threw overboard three hundred and forty chests of it, which was the proportion belonging to the East India company. No sooner did the news of this destruction of the tea reach Great Britain, than the parliament determined to punish that devoted town. On the king's laying the American papers before them, a bill was brought in and passed, "to discontinue the landing and discharging, lading and shipping of goods, wares and merchandizes at the town of Boston, or within the harbor."

This act, passed March 25, 1774, called the Boston port bill, threw the inhabitants of Massachusetts into the greatest consternation. The town of Boston passed a resolution, expressing their sense of this oppressiv measure, and a desire that all the colonies would concur to stop all importation from Great Britain. Most of the colonies entered into spirited resolutions, on this occasion, to unite with Massachusetts in a firm opposition to the unconstitutional measures of the parliament. The first of June, the day on which the port bill was to take place, was appointed to be kept as a day of humiliation, fasting and prayer throughout the colonies, to seek the divine direction and aid, in that critical and gloomy juncture of affairs.

During the height of the consternation and confusion which the Boston port bill occasioned; at the very time when a town meeting was sitting to consider of it, General Gage, who had been appointed to the government of Massachusetts, arrived in the harbor. His arrival however did not allay the popular ferment, or check the progress of the measures then taking, to unite the colonies in opposition to the oppressiv act of parliament.

But the port bill was not the only act that alarmed the apprehensions of the Americans. Determined to compel the province of Massachusetts to submit to their laws, parliament passed an act for "the better regulating government in the province of Massachusetts Bay." The object of this act was to alter the government, as it stood on the charter of king William, to take the appointment of the executiv out of the hands of the people, and place it in the crown; thus making even the judges and sheriffs dependent on the king, and removeable only at his pleasure.

This act was soon followed by another, which ordained that any person, indicted for murder, or other capital offence, committed in aiding the magistrates in executing the laws, might be sent by the governor either to another colony, or to Great Britain for his trial.

This was soon followed by the Quebec bill; which extended the bounds of that province, and granted many privileges to the Roman Catholics. The object of this bill was, to secure the attachment of that province to the crown of England, and prevent its joining the colonies in their resistance to the laws of parliament.

But these measures did not intimidate the Americans. On the other hand they served to confirm their former apprehensions of the evil designs of government, and to unite the colonies in their opposition. A correspondence of opinion with respect to the unconstitutional acts of parliament, produced a uniformity of proceedings in the colonies. The people generally concurred in a proposition for holding a Congress by deputation from the several colonies, in order to concert measures for the preservation of their rights. Deputies were accordingly appointed, and met at Philadelphia, on the 26th of October, 1774.

In this first Congress, the proceedings were cool, deliberate and loyal; but marked with unanimity and firmness. Their first act was a declaration, or state of their claims as to the enjoyment of all the rights of British subjects, and particularly that of taxing themselves exclusivly, and of regulating the internal police of the colonies. They also drew up a petition to the king, complaining of their grievances and praying for a repeal of the unconstitutional and oppressiv acts of parliament. They signed an association to suspend the importation of British goods, and the exportation of American produce, until their grievances should be redressed. They sent an address to the inhabitants of Great Britain, and another to the people of America; in the former of which they enumerated the oppressiv steps of parliament, and called on their British brethren not to aid the ministry in enslaving their American subjects; and in the latter, they endeavored to confirm the people in a spirited and unanimous determination to defend their constitutional rights.

In the mean time, every thing in Massachusetts wore the appearance of opposition by force. A new council for the Governor had been appointed by the crown. New judges were appointed, and attempted to proceed in the execution of their office. But the juries refused to be sworn under them; in some counties, the people assembled to prevent the courts from proceeding to business; and in Berkshire they succeeded, setting an example of resistance that has since been followed, in violation of the laws of the State.

In this situation of affairs, the day for the annual muster of the militia approached. General Gage, apprehensiv of some violence, had the precaution to seize the magazines of ammunition and stores at Cambridge and Charlestown, and lodged them in Boston. This measure, with the fortifying of that neck of land which joins Boston to the main land at Roxbury, caused a universal alarm and ferment. Several thousand people assembled, and it was with difficulty they could be restrained from falling upon the British troops.

On this occasion, an assembly of delegates from all the towns in Suffolk county, was called; and several spirited resolutions were agreed to. These resolutions were prefaced with a declaration of allegiance; but they breathed a spirit of freedom that does honor to the delegates. They declared that the late acts of parliament and the proceedings of General Gage, were glaring infractions of their rights and liberties, which their duty called them to defend by all lawful means.

This assembly remonstrated against the fortification of Boston neck, and against the Quebec bill; and resolved upon a suspension of commerce, and encouragement of arts and manufactures, the holding of a provincial Congress, and a submission to the measures which should be recommended by the Continental Congress. They recommended that the collectors of taxes should not pay any money into the treasury, without further orders; they also recommended peace and good order, as they meant to act merely upon the defensiv.

In answer to their remonstrance, General Gage assured them that he had no intention to prevent the free egress and regress of the inhabitants to and from the town of Boston, and that he would not suffer any person under his command to injure the person or property of any of his majesty's subjects.

Previous to this, a General Assembly had been summoned to meet; and notwithstanding the writs had been countermanded by the Governor's proclamation, on account of the violence of the times and the resignation of several of the new counsellors, yet representativs were chosen by the people, who met at Salem, resolved themselves into a provincial Congress, and adjourned to Concord.

This Congress addressed the Governor with a rehearsal of their distresses, and took the necessary steps for defending their rights. They regulated the militia, made provision for supplying the treasury, and furnishing the people with arms; and such was the enthusiasm and union of the people, that the recommendations of the provincial Congress had the force of laws.

In the midst of these calamities, a proposition was made in 1785, in the house of delegates, in Virginia, to appoint commissioners, to meet such as might be appointed in the other States, who should form a system of commercial regulations for the United States, and recommend it to the several Legislatures for adoption. Commissioners were accordingly appointed and a request was made to the Legislatures of the other States to accede to the proposition. Accordingly several of the States appointed commissioners, who met at Annapolis in the summer of 1786, to consult what measures should be taken to unite the States in some general and efficient commercial system. But as the States were not all represented, and the powers of the commissioners were, in their opinion, too limited to propose a system of regulations adequate to the purposes of government, they agreed to recommend a general convention to be held at Philadelphia the next year, with powers to frame a general plan of government for the United States. This measure appeared to the commissioners absolutely necessary. The old confederation was essentially defectiv. It was destitute of almost every principle necessary to giv effect to legislation.

It was defectiv in the article of legislating over States, instead of individuals. All history testifies that recommendations will not operate as laws, and compulsion cannot be exercised over States, without violence, war and anarchy. The confederation was also destitute of a sanction to its laws. When resolutions were passed in Congress, there was no power to compel obedience by fine, by suspension of privileges or other means. It was also destitute of a guarantee for the State governments. Had one State been invaded by its neighbor, the union was not constitutionally bound to assist in repelling the invasion, and supporting the constitution of the invaded State. The confederation was further deficient in the principle of apportioning the quotas of money to be furnished by each State; in a want of power to form commercial laws, and to raise troops for the defence and security of the union; in the equal suffrage of the States, which placed Rhode Island on a footing in Congress with Virginia; and to crown all the defects, we may add the want of a judiciary power, to define the laws of the union, and to reconcile the contradictory decisions of a number of independent judicatories.

These and many inferior defects were obvious to the commissioners, and therefore they urged a general convention, with powers to form and offer to the consideration of the States, a system of general government that should be less exceptionable. Accordingly in May, 1787, delegates from all the States, except Rhode Island, assembled at Philadelphia; and chose General Washington for their president. After four months deliberation, in which the clashing interests of the several States, appeared in all their force, the convention agreed to recommend a plan of federal government, &c.

As soon as the plan of the federal constitution was submitted to the Legislatures of the several States, they proceeded to take measures for collecting the sense of the people upon the propriety of adopting it. In the small State of Delaware, a convention was called in November, which, after a few days deliberation, ratified the constitution, without a dissenting voice.

In the convention of Pensylvania, held the same month, there was a spirited opposition to the new form of government. The debates were long and interesting. Great abilities and firmness were displayed on both sides; but, on the 13th of December, the constitution was received by two thirds of the members. The minority were dissatisfied, and with an obstinacy that ill became the representativs of a free people, published their reasons of dissent, which were calculated to inflame a party already violent, and which, in fact, produced some disturbances in the western parts of the State. But the opposition has since subsided.

In New Jersey, the convention which met in December, were unanimous in adopting the constitution; as was likewise that of Georgia.

In Connecticut there was some opposition; but the constitution was, on the 9th of January, 1788, ratified by three fourths of the votes in convention, and the minority peaceably acquiesced in the decision.

In Massachusetts, the opposition was large and respectable. The convention, consisting of more than three hundred delegates, were assembled in January, and continued their debates, with great candor and liberality, about five weeks. At length the question was carried for the constitution by a small majority, and the minority, with that manly condescension which becomes great minds, submitted to the measure, and united to support the government.

In New Hampshire, the federal cause was, for some time doubtful. The greatest number of the delegates in convention, were at first on the side of the opposition; and some, who might have had their objections removed by the discussion of the subject, instructed to reject the constitution. Altho the instructions of constituents cannot, on the true principles of representation, be binding upon a deputy, in any legislativ assembly, because his constituents are but a part of the State, and have not heard the arguments and objections of the whole; whereas, his act is to affect the whole State, and therefore is to be directed by the sense or wisdom of the whole, collected in the legislativ assembly; yet the delegates in the New Hampshire convention conceived, very erroneously, that the sense of the freemen in the towns, those little districts, where no act of legislation can be performed, imposed a restraint upon their own wills.⁴⁹ An adjournment was therefore moved, and carried. This gave the people opportunity to gain a farther knowlege of the merits of the constitution, and at the second meeting of the convention, it was ratified by a respectable majority.

In Maryland, several men of abilities appeared in the opposition, and were unremitted in their endeavors to persuade the people, that the proposed plan of government was artfully calculated to deprive them of their dearest rights; yet in convention it appeared that five sixths of the voices were in favor of it.

In South Carolina, the opposition was respectable; but two thirds of the convention appeared to advocate and vote for the constitution.

In Virginia, many of the principal characters opposed the ratification of the constitution with great abilities and industry. But after a full discussion of the subject, a small majority, of a numerous convention, appeared for its adoption.

In New York, two thirds of the delegates in convention were, at their first meeting, determined to reject the constitution. Here, therefore, the debates were the most interesting, and the event extremely doubtful. The argument was managed with uncommon address and abilities on both sides of the question. But during the session, the ninth and tenth States had acceded to the proposed plan, so that by the constitution, Congress were empowered to issue an ordinance for organizing the new government. This event placed the opposition on new ground; and the expediency of uniting with the other States; the generous motivs of conciliating all differences, and the danger of a rejection, influenced a respectable number, who were originally opposed to the constitution, to join the federal interest. The constitution was accordingly ratified by a small majority; but the ratification was accompanied here, as in Virginia, with a bill of rights, declaratory of the sense of the convention, as to certain great principles, and with a catalogue of amendments, which were to be recommended to the consideration of the new Congress, and the several State Legislatures.

North Carolina met in convention in July, to deliberate on the new constitution. After a short session they rejected it, by a majority of one hundred and seventy six, against seventy six.

Rhode Island was doomed to be the sport of a blind and singular policy. The Legislature, in consistency with the measures which had been before pursued, did not call a convention, to collect the sense of the State upon the proposed constitution; but in an unconstitutional and absurd manner, submitted the plan of government to the consideration of the people. Accordingly it was brought before town meetings, and in most of them rejected. In some of the large towns, particularly in Newport and Providence, the people collected and resolved, with great propriety, that they could not take up the subject; and that the proposition for embracing or rejecting the federal constitution, could come before no tribunal but that of the State in convention or legislature.

From the moment the proceedings of the general convention at Philadelphia transpired, the public mind was exceedingly agitated, and suspended between hope and fear, until nine States had ratified the plan of a federal government. Indeed, the anxiety continued until Virginia and New York had acceded to the system. But this did not prevent the demonstrations of joy, on the accession of each State.

On the ratification in Massachusetts, the citizens of Boston, in the elevation of their joy, formed a procession in honor of the happy event, which was novel, splendid and magnificent. This example was afterwards followed, and in some instances improved upon, in Baltimore, Charleston, Philadelphia, New Haven, Portsmouth and New York, successivly. Nothing could equal the beauty and grandeur of these exhibitions. A ship was mounted upon wheels, and drawn thro the streets; mechanics erected stages, and exhibited specimens of labor in their several occupations, as they moved along the road; flags with emblems, descriptiv of all the arts and of the federal union, were invented and displayed in honor of the government; multitudes of all ranks in life assembled to view the majestic scenes; while sobriety, joy and harmony marked the brilliant exhibitions, by which the Americans celebrated the establishment of their empire.

In March, 1789, the delegates from the eleven ratifying States, convened in New York, where convenient and elegant accommodations had been furnished by the citizens. On opening the ballots for President, it appeared that the late Commander in Chief of our armies was unanimously elected to the dignified office. This event diffused universal joy among the friends to the union.

The deliberations of the first American Legislature were marked with wisdom, spirit, and generally with candor. The establishment of a revenue and judiciary system, with other national measures; the wise appointments to offices; the promptness and energy of the executiv, with a growing popular attachment to the general government, open the fairest prospect of peace, union and prosperity to these States; a prospect that is brightened by the accession of North Carolina to the government in November, 1789.

No. XVI

REMARKS on the Method of burying the DEAD among the Nativs of this Country; compared with that among the ancient Britons

Being an Extract of a Letter to the Rev. Dr. Stiles, President of Yale College, dated New York, January 20, 1788

[Note. I had embraced the idea, that the remarkable fortifications on the Muskingum, might be justly ascribed to the Spaniards, under Ferdinand de Soto, who penetrated into Florida, about the year 1540; which opinion I endeavored to maintain as probably well founded, and wrote three or four letters on the subject, to Dr. Stiles, which were published in 1789. It is now very clear that my opinion was not well founded; but that Chicaca, which I had supposed to be Muskingum, ought to have been written Chicaça, with a cedilla, as it is in the original Spanish; and pronounced Chikesaw. This determins the place of Soto's winter quarters, the second year after landing, to be in the territories of the present Chikesaws. Those letters, therefore, are not worth republishing; but the following extract, on a different subject, may be considered as worthy of preservation.]

But how shall we account for the mounts, caves, graves, &c. and for the contents, which evince the existence of the custom of burning the dead or their bones; can these be ascribed to the Spaniards? I presume, Sir, you will be of opinion they cannot. Capt. Heart says,⁵⁰ these graves are small mounts of earth, from some of which human bones have been taken; in one were found bones in the natural position of a man, buried nearly east and west, and a quantity of ising glass on his breast; in the other graves, the bones were irregular, some calcined by fire, others burnt only to a certain degree, so as to render them more durable; in others the mouldered bones retain their shape, without any substance; others are partly rotten and partly the remains of decayed bones; in most of the graves were found stones evidently burnt, pieces of charcoal, Indian arrows and pieces of earthen ware, which appeared to be a composition of shells and cement.

That these mounts and graves are the works of the nativ Indians, is very evident, for such small mounts are scattered over every part of North America. "It was customary with the Indians of the West Jersey," says Mr. Smith, page 137, "when they buried the dead, to put family utensils, bows and arrows, and sometimes wampum into the grave, as tokens of their affection. When a person of note died far from the place of his own residence, they would carry his bones to be buried there. They washed and perfumed the dead, painted the face, and followed singly; left the dead in a fitting posture, and covered the grave pyramidically. They were very curious in preserving and repairing the graves of their dead, and pensivly visited them."

It is said by the English, who are best acquainted with the manners of the nativs, that they had a custom of collecting, at certain stated periods, all the bones of their deceased friends, and burying them in some common grave. Over these cemetaries or general repositories of the dead, were erected those vast heaps of earth or mounts, similar to those which are called in England barrows, and which are discovered in every part of the United States.

The Indians seem to have had two methods of burying the dead; one was, to deposit one body (or at most but a small number of bodies) in a place, and cover it with stones, thrown together in a careless manner. The pile thus formed would naturally be nearly circular, but those piles that are discovered are something oval. In the neighborhood of my father's house, about seven miles from Hartford, on the public road to Farmington, there is one of those Carrnedds or heaps of stone. I often passed by it in the early part of my youth, but never measured its circumference or examined its contents. My present opinion is, that its circumference is about twenty five feet. The inhabitants in the neighborhood report, as a tradition received from the nativs, that an Indian was buried there, and that it is the custom for every Indian that passes by to cast a stone upon the heap. This custom I have never seen practised, but have no doubt of its existence; as it is confirmed by the general testimony of the first American settlers.⁵¹

The other mode of burying the dead, was to deposit a vast number of bodies, or the bones which were taken from the single scattered graves, in a common cemetary, and over them raise vast tumuli or barrows, such as the mount at Muskingum, which is 390 feet in circumference, and 50 feet high. The best account of these cemetaries may be found in Mr. Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, which will appear the most satisfactory to the reader in his own words.

"I know of no such thing existing as an Indian monument, for I would not honor with that name, arrow points, stone hatchets, stone pipes, and half shapen images. Of labor on the large scale, I think there are no remains as respectable as would be a common ditch for the draining of lands, unless it be the barrows, of which many are to be found all over this country. These are of different sizes, some of them constructed of earth, and some of loose stones. That they were repositories of the dead has been obvious to all; but on what particular occasion constructed, was matter of doubt. Some have thought they covered the bones of those who have fallen in battles, fought on the spot of interment. Some ascribe them to the custom, said to prevail among the Indians, of collecting at certain periods the bones of all their dead, wherever deposited at the time of death. Others again supposed them the general sepulchre for towns, conjectured to have been on or near these grounds, and this opinion was supported by the quality of the lands in which they are found, (those constructed of earth being generally in the softest and most fertile meadow grounds on river sides) and by a tradition said to be handed down from the aboriginal Indians, that when they settled in a town, the first person who died was placed erect, and earth put about him so as to cover and support him; that when another died, a narrow passage was dug to the first, the second reclined against him, and the cover of earth replaced, and so on. There being one of these in my neighborhood, I wished to satisfy myself whether any, and which of these opinions were just; for this purpose I determined to open and examin it thoroughly. It was situated on the low grounds of the Rivanna, about two miles above its principal fork, and opposit to some hills on which had been an Indian town. It was of a spheroidical form, of about forty feet diameter at the base, and had been of about twelve feet altitude, tho now reduced by the plow to seven and a half; having been under cultivation about a dozen years.

"Before this, it was covered with trees of twelve inches diameter, and round the base was an excavation of five feet depth and width, from whence the earth had been taken, of which the hillock was formed. I first dug superficially in several parts of it, and came to collections of human bones at different depths, from six inches to three feet, below the surface. These were lying in the utmost confusion; some vertical, some oblique, some horizontal, and directed to every point of the compass, entangled and held together in clusters by the earth. Bones of the most distant parts were found together; as for instance, the small bones of the foot in the hollow of a scull; many sculls were sometimes in contact, lying on the face, on the side, on the back, top or bottom, so as on the whole, to giv the idea of bones emptied promiscuously from a bag or basket, and covered over with earth, without any attention to their order. The bones, of which the greatest numbers remained, were sculls, jaw bones, teeth, the bones of the arms, thighs, legs, feet and hands. A few ribs remained, some vertibræ of the neck and spine, without their processes, and one instance only of the bone which serves as the base to the vertebral column (the os sacrum)."

After making some remarks on the state of putrefaction in which the bones appeared, and on the discovery of the bones of infants, Mr. Jefferson goes on, "I proceeded then to make a perpendicular cut thro the body of the barrow, that I might examin its internal structure. This passed about three feet from its center, was opened to the former surface of earth, and was wide enough for a man to walk thro and examin its sides.

"At the bottom, that is on the level of the circumjacent plain, I found bones; above these a few stones brought from a cliff, a quarter of a mile off, and from the river one eighth of a mile off. Then a large interval of earth, then a stratum of bones, and so on. At one end of the section, were four strata of bones plainly distinguishable; at the other, three; the strata in one part not ranging with those in another. The bones nearest the surface were least decayed. No holes were discovered in any of them, as if made with bullets, arrows or other weapons. I conjectured that in this barrow might have been a thousand skeletons. Every one will readily seize the circumstances above related, which militate against the opinion, that it covered the bones only of persons fallen in battle; and against the tradition also which would make it the common sepulchre of a town, in which the bodies were placed upright, and touching each other. Appearances certainly indicate, that it has derived both origin and growth from the accustomary collection of bones and deposition of them together; that the first collection had been deposited on the common surface of the earth, that a few stones were put over it, and then a covering of earth, that the second had been laid on this, had covered more or less of it in proportion to the number of bones, and was then also covered with earth, and so on. The following are the particular circumstances, which giv it this aspect. 1 The number of bones. 2 The strata in one part having no correspondence with those in another. 3 The different states of decay in these strata, which seem to indicate a difference in the time of inhumation. 4 The existence of infant bones among them.

"But on whatever occasion they may have been made, they are of considerable notoriety among the Indians; for a party passing about thirty years ago, thro the part of the country where this barrow is, went thro the woods directly to it, without any instructions or inquiry, and having staid about it some time, with expressions which were construed to be those of sorrow, they returned to the high road which they had left about half a dozen miles, to pay this visit, and pursued their journey. There is another barrow, much resembling this, in the low grounds of the south branch of the Shenandoah, where it is crossed by the road leading from the Rockfish Gap to Staunton. Both of these have within these dozen years, been cleared of their trees and put under cultivation, are much reduced in their height, and spread in width, by the plow, and will probably disappear in time. There is another on a hill in the blue ridge of mountains, a few miles north of Wood's Gap, which is made up of small stones thrown together. This has been opened, and found to contain human bones, as the others do. There are also others in other parts of the country."

From this account of Mr. Jefferson, to whose industry and talents the sciences and his country will ever be indebted, we may fairly conclude that the mounts at Muskingum are the work of the nativ Indians. It is however necessary to notice two or three particulars, in the appearance of those at Muskingum, which are not discovered (or not mentioned by Mr. Jefferson) in the structure of that which he examined. These are the ising glass, the earthen ware, the charcoal, and the calcination of the bones by fire. As to the first it is well known that the ising glass is found only in particular parts of America, and the savages in other parts could not obtain it. Mr. Jefferson mentions no discovery of earthen ware, but it was used by the Indians in every part of America. The piece you once shewed me, sir, is a specimen of what is found wherever there has been an Indian town. Pieces of it are dug up frequently in the meadows on Connecticut river. It appears to be formed of pure clay, or of shells and cement, hardened by fire, and as we might naturally suppose, without glazing. By sections of vessels which remain, it is evident they were wrought with great ingenuity, and into beautiful and convenient forms.

The charcoal and calcination of some bones are a proof that there has existed, among the savages of America, a custom of burning the dead, or their bones, after the dissolution of the flesh. It does not appear that this custom was general, but it is not at all surprising to find that such a practice has existed in this country; since it has been frequent among the uncivilized nations on the eastern continent.

I am sensible, sir, that you have entertained an opinion that the story of Madoc, the Welch Prince, may be true, and that it is possible the fortifications at Muskingum may be the work of his colony. Of the truth of this conclusion there is perhaps no direct evidence, and yet collateral evidence may be obtained, that it is not chimerical. There is such a surprising affinity between the Indian mounts and the barrows or cemetaries which are remaining in England, but particularly in Wales and Anglesey, the last retreat of the original Britons, that we can hardly resolve it into a common principle of analogy that subsists between nations in the same stage of society; but incredulity itself will acknowlege the probability, that the primitiv inhabitants of Britain and America had a common stock from which they were derived, long since the age of the first parent: Not that I believe North America to be peopled so late as the twelfth century, the period of Madoc's migration, but supposing America to have been settled two or three thousand years before that period, a subsequent colony might pass the Atlantic and bring the Roman improvements in fortification.

Waving further conjectures, I beg leave to describe the analogy between the barrows in England and Wales, and in America. This will be striking, and cannot fail to entertain a curious reader, because it is attended with positiv proofs.

In England, Scotland, Wales, and the island Anglesey, there are numbers of monuments erected by the ancients; but the most remarkable are generally found in the two latter, whither the old Britons retreated from their Roman and Saxon conquerors; and Anglesey, the ancient Mona, is supposed to have been the chief seat of the Druids. The remains of most consequence are the cromlechs, the tumuli, and the cumuli or carrnedds. Cromlech, if the word is derived from the British roots krom laech, signifies a bending stone.⁵² This is the common opinion, as Rowland observes.⁵³ If we trace the origin to the Hebrew, the root of the old British,⁵⁴ we shall find it not less significativ; for cærem luach signify devoted stone, or altar. These cromlechs consist of large stones, pitched on end in the earth, as supporters, upon which is laid a broad stone of a vast size. The supporters stand in a bending posture, and are from three to seven feet high. The top stone is often found to be of twenty or thirty tons weight, and remains to this day on the pillars. Numbers of these are found in Wales and Anglesey; but none is more remarkable than that in Wiltshire, called stone henge, for a full description of which I must beg leave to refer you to Camden's Britannia, vol. I, page 119. These cromlechs are doubtless works of great antiquity; but for what purpose they were erected, at such an immense expense of time and labor as would be necessary to convey stones of thirty tons weight a considerable distance, and raise them several feet, is not easily determined. The probability is that they were altars for sacrifice, as pieces of burnt bones and ashes are found near them. They might also be used in other ceremonies, under the druidical system, as the ratification of covenants, &c. As this kind of monuments is not found in America, I will wave a further consideration of it; observing only, that it was an ancient practice among the eastern nations, to raise heaps of stones, as witnesses of agreements, and sacrifice upon them, as a solemn ratification of the act of the parties. Many instances of this ceremony are mentioned in the old testament. The covenant between Jacob and Laban was witnessed by a heap of stones, which served also as a boundary between their respectiv claims. "And Jacob offered sacrifice upon the mount, that is, the heap, and called his brethren to eat bread." Gen. xxxi, 54. A similar custom seems to have prevailed among the primitiv Britons.

But the tumuli, barrows or mounts of earth, which remain in multitudes in England and Wales, are constructed exactly in the manner of the barrows, described by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Heart. One of these in Wiltshire, Camden thus describes.⁵⁵ "Here Selbury, a round hill, rises to a considerable height, and seems by the fashion of it, and the sliding down of the earth about it, to have been cast up by mens hands. Of this fort there are many in this country, round and copped, which are called burrows or barrows; perhaps raised in memory of the soldiers slain there. For bones are found in them, and I have read, it was a custom among the northern people, that every soldier who survived a battle, should bring a helmet full of earth towards the raising of monuments for their slain fellows."

This is said to be the largest and most uniform barrow in the country, and perhaps in England; and I regret that the height and circumference are not mentioned. I am however informed verbally by a gentleman who has visited England, that some of these tumuli appear to have been nearly one hundred feet high.⁵⁶ There are also in the same country several kinds of barrows of different sizes; some surrounded with trenches; others not; some with stones set round them, others without any; the general figure of them is nearly circular, but a little oval.

In Penbrokeshire, in Wales, Camden informs us⁵⁷ "there are divers ancient tumuli, or artificial mounts for urn burial, whereof the most notable I have seen, are those four, called krigeu kemaes, or the burrows of kemeas. One of these a gentlemen of the neighborhood, out of curiosity, and for the satisfaction of some friends, caused lately to be dug; and discovered therein five urns, which contained a considerable quantity of burnt bones and ashes." If there is any difference between these barrows, and those at Muskingum, it is this, that in Wales the bones were lodged in urns; probably this was the fate of the bodies of eminent men only, or it proves a greater degree of improvement in Britain than appears among the American savages.

In Caermardhinshire, there is a barrow of a singular kind. It is called, krig y dyrn (probably the king's barrow.⁵⁸) The circumference at bottom is sixty paces, and its height about six yards. It rises by an easy ascent to the top, which is hollow. This is a heap of earth, raised over a carrnedd or pile of stones. In the center of the cavity on the top, there is a large flat stone, about nine feet by five; beneath this was found a kist vaen, a kind of stone chest, four feet and a half by three, and made up of stones, and within and about it were found a few pieces of brick and stones. This might have been the tomb of a druid, or prince.

The cumuli of stones or caernedds, as they are called by the Welsh, from keren nedh, a coped heap, are scattered over the west of England and Wales, and appear to have been raised in the manner of our Indian heaps, and for the same purpose, viz. to preserve the memory of the dead. Every Indian in this country that passes one of these heaps, throws a stone upon it. Rowland remarks that the same custom exists among the vulgar Welch to this day; and if I mistake not, Camden takes notice of the same practice. Rowland says, "in these coel ceithic, (certain festivals) people use, even to this day, to throw and offer each one his stone, tho they know not the reason. The common tradition is, that these heaps cover the graves of men, signal either for eminent virtues, or notorious villanies, on which every person looked on himself obliged as he passed by, to bestow a stone, in veneration of his good life, or in detestation of his vileness." This practice now prevails in Wales and Anglesey, merely as a mark of contempt.

The carrnedds in America answer exactly the description of those in Wales, and the practice of throwing upon the heap each man his stone as he passes by, exists among the Indians, in its purity; that is, as a mark of respect.

It is said by authors that mounts and piles of stones, are found likewise in Denmark and Sweden; but in construction they differ from those found in Britain. Yet from the foregoing descriptions, taken from authentic testimony, it appears, that between the barrows in England and America, the manner of constructing them in both, and the purposes to which they were applied, there is an analogy, rarely to be traced in works of such consequence, among nations whose intercourse ceased at Babel; an analogy that we could hardly suppose would exist among nations descended from different stocks. This analogy however, without better evidence, will not demonstrate the direct descent of the Indians from the ancient Celts or Britons. But as all the primitiv inhabitants of the west of Europe were evidently of the same stock, it is natural to suppose they might pass from Norway to Iceland, from Iceland to Greenland, and from thence to Labrador; and thus the North American savages may claim a common origin with the primitiv Britons and Celts. This supposition has some foundation, and is by no means obviated by Cook's late discoveries in the Pacific ocean.⁵⁹

These are however but conjectures. Future discoveries may throw more light upon these subjects. At present, a few facts only can be collected to amuse a contemplativ mind, and perhaps lead to inquiries which will result in a satisfactory account of the first peopling of America, and of the few remains of antiquity which it affords.

No. XVII

 NEW YORK, FEBRUARY, 1788.

On the REGULARITY of the City of PHILADELPHIA

"Well, how do you like Boston?" said an American to a Londoner, who had just arrived, and walked thro the town. "Extremely," replied the Englishman; "it resembles London in the crookedness and narrowness of the streets; I am always pleased with a careless irregularity and variety."

"How do you like Boston," says a nativ of the town to a Philadelphian. "I am much pleased with the people," replies the gentleman; "but the streets are so crooked, narrow and irregular, that I have good luck to find my way, and keep my stockings clean."

An Englishman and a Bostonian, walking together in Philadelphia, were heard to say, "how fatiguing it is to pass thro this town! such a sameness in the whole! no variety! when you have seen one street, you have seen the whole town!"

These remarks, which are heard every day, illustrate most strikingly the force of habit and tradition. The influence of habit is every where known and felt; any prepossessions therefore in favor of our nativ town, is not a matter of surprise. But that a traditionary remark or opinion should be handed from one generation to another, and lead nations into error, without a detection of its falsity, is a fact as astonishing as it is real. Such is the opinion of the writers on the fine arts; "that variety is pleasing;" an opinion embraced without exception, and applied promiscuously to the works of nature and of art. I have rarely met with a person, not an inhabitant of Philadelphia, who would not say he was disgusted with its regularity; and I am confident that the opinion must proceed from that common place remark, that variety is pleasing; otherwise men could not so unanimously condemn what constitutes its greatest beauty.

That in the productions of nature, variety constitutes a principal part of beauty, and a fruitful source of pleasure, will not be denied: But the beauty and agreeableness of works of art depend on another principle, viz. utility or convenience. The design of the work, or the end proposed by it, must be attentivly considered before we are qualified to judge of its beauty.

This kind of beauty is called by Lord Kaim,⁶⁰ relativ beauty. He observes very justly, that "intrinsic beauty is a perception of sense merely; for to perceive the beauty of a spreading oak, or of a flowing river, no more is required but singly an act of vision. Relativ beauty is accompanied with an act of understanding and reflection; for of a fine instrument or engine, we perceive not the relativ beauty, until we are made acquainted with its use and destination." A plow has not the least intrinsic beauty; but when we attend to its use, we are constrained to consider it as a beautiful instrument, and such a view of it furnishes us with agreeable sensations.

The single question therefore, with respect to a town or city, is this: Is it planned and constructed for the greatest possible convenience? If so, it is completely beautiful. If wide and regular streets are more useful and convenient than those that are narrow and crooked, then a city constructed upon a regular plan is the most beautiful, however uniform the streets in their directions and appearance.

I have often heard a comparison made between the level roads of Holland and the uniform streets of Philadelphia. A dull sameness is said to render both disagreeable. Yet if a person will attentivly consider the difference, I am persuaded he will be convinced that his taste is but half correct; that is, that a just remark with respect to a level open country, is improperly applied to a commercial city. Variety in the works of nature is pleasing; but never in the productions of art, unless in copies of nature, or when that variety does not interfere with utility. A level champaign country is rarely convenient or useful; on the other hand, it is generally more barren than a country diversified with hills and vales. There is not generally any advantage to be derived from a wide extended plain; the principle of utility, therefore does not oppose and supersede the taste for variety, and a tedious sameness is left to have its full effect upon the mind of a spectator. This is the fact with respect to the roads in Holland.

But it is otherwise in a city, which is built for the express purpose of accommodating men in business. We do not consider it as we do a landscape, an imitation of a natural scene, and designed to please the eye; but we attend to its uses in artificial society, and if it appears to be calculated for the convenience of all classes of citizens, the plan and construction must certainly be beautiful, and afford us agreeable sensations.

The regularly built towns in America are Philadelphia, Charleston, in South Carolina, and New Haven. All these may be esteemed beautiful, tho not perfectly so. Philadelphia wants a public square or place of resort for men of business, with a spacious building for an exchange. This should be near Market street, in the center of business. The gardens at the State House are too small for a public walk in that large city. The whole line of bank houses⁶¹ is the effect of ill timed parsimony. The houses are inconvenient, and therefore not pleasing to the eye; at the same time they render Water street too narrow.

But whatever faults may be found in the construction or plan of the city, its general appearance is agreeable, and its regularity is its greatest beauty. Whenever I hear a person exclaim against the uniformity that pervades that city, I suppose him the dupe of a common place remark, or that he believes a city built merely to please the eye of a spectator.

Charleston is situated upon low ground; but just above high water mark. The soil is sand, which, with a scarcity of stone, has prevented the streets from being paved. The plan of the city is regular, but some of the streets are too narrow. As it is almost surrounded with water and low marshy ground, it was necessary to attend to every circumstance that should contribute to preserve a pure air. For this purpose, it was the original design of the citizens, to prevent any buildings from being erected on the wharves, in front of the town; thus leaving a principal street, called the bay, open to the sea breezes. Since the revolution, this design has been partially dispensed with; and some buildings erected on the water side of the bay, and particularly one in front of the Exchange, which stands at the head of Broad street, and commands an extensiv view of the town on one side, and of the harbor on the other. Should stores and warehouses be raised on the wharves, to such a height as to intercept a view of the harbor from the bay, they would diminish the beauty of the town, and in some degree prevent the agreeable effect of the cool breezes from the sea.

New Haven was laid out on a most beautiful plan, which has however suffered in the execution. The streets cross each other at right angles, as in Philadelphia; and divide the city into convenient squares. But in the center is a large public square, the sides of which are more than three hundred yards in length, and adorned with rows of trees. Thro the center of this square runs a line of elegant public buildings, viz. the state house, two churches and a school house. This square is a capital ornament to the town; but is liable to two exceptions. First, it is too large for the populousness of the city, which contains about 500 buildings. In so small a town, it must generally be empty, and consequently givs the town an appearance of solitude or dullness. In the second place, that half of the square which lies west of the public buildings, is occupied mostly by the church yard, which is enclosed with a circular fence. This reduces the public ground on the opposit side to a paralellogram, which is a less beautiful figure than a square; and annihilates the beauty of the western division which it occupies. Notwithstanding these circumstances, the green or public ground in the center of New Haven, renders it perhaps the most beautiful small settlement in America.

No. XVIII

 NEW YORK, MAY, 1788.

A DISSERTATION concerning the INFLUENCE of LANGUAGE on OPINIONS, and of OPINIONS on LANGUAGE.⁶²

The design of this dissertation is to show how far truth and accuracy of thinking are concerned in a clear understanding of words. I am sensible that in the eye of prejudice and ignorance, grammatical researches are the business of school boys; and hence we may deduce the reason why philosophers have generally been so inattentiv to this subject. But if it can be proved that the mere use of words has led nations into error, and still continues the delusion, we cannot hesitate a moment to conclude, that grammatical enquiries are worthy of the labor of men.

The Greek name of the Supreme Being, Theos, is derived from Theo, to run, or move one's self. Hence we discover the ideas which the Greeks originally entertained of God, viz. that he was the great principle of motion. The same word, it is said, was primarily appropriated to the stars, as moving bodies; and it is probable that, in the early ages of Greece, the heavenly bodies might be esteemed Deities, and denominated Theoi, moving bodies or principles. The Latin word Deus was used to denote those inferior beings which we call spirits or angels, or perhaps one God among several. To giv the true idea of Deus in French and English, the word should be rendered le Dieu, the God. This at least may be said of the word, in its true original sense; however it may have been used in the later ages of Rome.

The English word God, is merely the old Saxon adjectiv god, now spelt and pronounced good.

The German Gott is from the same root. The words God and good therefore are synonimous. The derivation of the word leads us to the notions which our ancestors entertained of the Supreme Being; supposing him to be the principle or author of good, they called him, by way of eminence, Good, or the Good. By long use and the progress of knowlege, the word is become the name of the great Creator, and we have added to it ideas of other attributes, as justice, power, immutability, &c. Had our heathen ancestors entertained different ideas of the Deity; had they, for instance, supposed justice to have been his leading attribute, if I may use the term, they would have called him the just; and this appellation, by being uniformly appropriated to a certain invisible being, or supposed cause of certain events, would in time have lost the article the, and just would have become the name of the Deity. Such is the influence of opinion in the formation of language.

Let us now compare the names of the Deity in the three languages; the Greek, Theos, denoting a moving being, or the principle of action, evinces to us that the Greeks gave the name to the cause of events, without having very clear ideas of the nature or attributes of that cause. They supposed the great operations of nature to have each its cause; and hence the plurality of causes, theoi, or moving principles.

The Romans borrowed the same word, Deus, and used it to denote the celestial agents or gods which they supposed to exist, and to superintend the affairs of the universe.

Our northern ancestors had an idea that all favorable events must have an efficient cause; and to this cause they gave the name of God or good. Hence we observe that the English and German words God and Got do not convey precisely the same idea, as the Theos and Deus of the Greeks and Romans. The former cannot be used in the plural number; as they are the names of a single indivisible being; the latter were used as names common to a number of beings.

The word Demon, in Greek, was used to signify subordinate deities, both good and evil. The Jews, who had more perfect ideas of the Supreme Being, supposed there could be but one good Deity, and consequently that all the demons of the Greeks must be evil beings or devils. In this sense alone they used the word, and this restricted sense has been communicated thro Christian countries in modern ages. The opinion of the Jews, therefore, has had a material effect upon language, and would lead us into an error respecting the Greek mythology; unless we should trace the word demon to its primitiv signification.

The word devil, in English, is merely a corruption of the evil, occasioned by a rapid pronunciation. This will not appear improbable to those who know, that in some of the Saxon dialects, the character which we write th is almost invariably written and pronounced d. Hence we learn, the notion which our ancestors entertained of the cause of evil, or of unfortunate events. They probably ascribed such events to a malignant principle, or being, which they called, by way of eminence, the evil; and these words, corrupted by common use, have given name to the being or principle.

I would only observe here that the etymology of these two words, God and devil, proves that the Manichean doctrine of a good and evil principle prevailed among our northern ancestors. It has prevailed over most of the eastern countries in all ages, and Christianity admits the doctrine, with this improvement only, that it supposes the evil principle to be subordinate to the good. The supreme cause of events, Christians believe to be good or God, for the words are radically the same; the cause of evil they believe to be subordinate; yet, strange as it may seem, they suppose the subordinate evil principle to be the most prevalent.

We are informed by Ludolph, that the Ethiopeans, having but one word for nature and person, could not understand the controversy about Christ's two natures. This is not surprising; nations, in a savage state, or which have not been accustomed to metaphysical disquisitions, have no terms to communicate abstract ideas, which they never entertained; and hence the absurdity of attempting to christianize savages. Before men can be Christians they must be civilized; nay, they must be philosophers. It is probable that many who are called Christians, are in the state of the Ethiopians, with respect to the same doctrin; and that they pass thro life, without ever having any clear ideas of the different natures of Christ. Yet the distinction is constantly made in words; and that distinction passes for a difference of ideas. Such is the influence of language on opinion.

The words soul, mind and spirit, are constantly used by people, and probably the difference of words has given rise to an opinion that there is an actual difference of things. Yet I very much question whether the persons who use these words every day, annex any distinct ideas to them; or if they do, whether they could explain the difference.

The Greeks believed in the doctrin of transmigration. They had observed the metamorphosis of the caterpillar, and supposing the same soul to animate the different bodies, and believing the soul to be perpetual or immortal, they made the butterfly the hieroglyphic of the soul: Hence the Greek word for soul, psuke, came to signify also a butterfly.

For want of attending to the true etymology of the word glory, false opinions have gained an establishment in the world, and it may be hazardous to dispute them. It is said that the glory of God does not depend on his creatures, and that the glory of the good man depends not on the opinion of others. But what is glory? The Greek word doxe explains it. It is derived from dokeo, to think; and signifies the good opinion of others. This is its true original meaning; a man's glory therefore consists in having the good opinion of men, and this cannot generally be obtained, but by meritorious actions. The glory of God consists in the exalted ideas which his creatures entertain of his being and perfections. His glory therefore depends wholly on his creatures. The word is indeed often used to signify the greatness, splendor or excellence of the divine character. In this sense the divine glory may be independent of created beings; but it is not the primitiv sense of the word, nor the sense which answers to the original meaning of the Greek doxe, and the Latin gloria.

No right in England and America is so much celebrated as that of trial by peers; by which is commonly understood, trial by equals. The right is valuable, but is not derived from the primitiv custom of trial by equals; on the contrary, it is very questionable whether such a custom existed prior to Alfred. Yet the trial by peers existed long before, and can be traced back to the date of the Christian era. The truth is, the word peer is not derived from the Latin par, equal; but from the German, or Teutonic bar or par, which signified a landholder, freeman or judge. The bars were that class of men who held the fees or property in estates; and from whom the word baron and the attendant privileges are derived. We have the same root in baron, baronet, parliament, parish, and many other words, all implying some degree of authority, eminence or jurisdiction. From the same word bar or par, (for B and P are convertible letters) the word peer is derived, as it is used in the common expressions house of peers, trial by peers. It signified originally, not equals, but judges or barons. The house of peers in England derives its appellation and its jurisdiction from the ancient mode of trial by bars or barons; for it is the final resort in all judicial cases. Yet the ancient English lawyers, supposing the word to be from the Latin par, equal, have explained it in that sense, and multiplied encomiums without end upon the excellence of the privilege. The privilege is valuable, but its excellence, if it consists in a trial by equals, is modern, compared with the original custom, which was a trial by barons, or principal landholders.

It is probable that our modern writers, misunderstanding the term voluptas, have passed too severe censures upon epicures. The true primitiv meaning of voluptas was that of pleasurable sensations arising from innocent gratifications. Our modern word voluptuousness carries with it a much stronger idea, and hence we are led into an error reflecting the doctrine of Epicurus, who might confine his ideas of pleasure to innocent gratifications.

We have been accustomed from childhood to hear the expressions, the dew falls; the dews of heaven; and it is probable that nine people out of ten, have never suspected the inaccuracy of the phrases. But dew is merely the perspiration of the earth; it rises instead of falling, and rises during the night.⁶³

It was also supposed that manna in the eastern countries, came from above, and it is called in scripture bread from heaven. Yet manna is a gum, exuding from plants, trees and bushes, when pierced by certain insects. The truth of this fact was not discovered, till the middle of the sixteenth century.

Every man knows, when the prices of goods rise, it is said they become dear; yet when the prices rise in consequence of an overflowing sum of money in circulation, the fact is that the value of money falls, and the value of goods remains the same. This erroneous opinion had an amazing effect in raising popular clamor, at the commencement of the late revolution.

I will name but one other instance, which has a material influence upon our moral and religious opinions. It is said in scripture that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. How? Was there a miracle in the case? By no means. The manner of speaking leads us into the mistake. The first cause is mentioned, and not the intermediate cause or causes. So we should say, that General Washington attacked the British troops at Monmouth; altho he was at a great distance when the attack was commenced, and only ordered the attack. I suspect that similar modes of speaking in scripture often lead superficial minds into mistakes, and in some instances, giv occasion to infidels to scoff at passages, which, if rightly understood, would silence all objections.

This is a fruitful theme, and would lead an ingenious inquirer into a wide field of investigation. But I have neither time nor talents to do it justice; the few hints here suggested may have some effect in convincing my readers of the importance and utility of all candid researches into the origin and structure of speech; and pave the way for further investigations, which may assist us in correcting our ideas and ascertaining the force and beauty of our own language.

No. XIX

 PHILADELPHIA, 1787.

On VOCAL MUSIC

The establishment of schools for teaching psalmody in this city is a pleasing institution; but people seem not to understand the design, or rather are not aware of the advantages which may result from it, if properly conducted and encouraged. Most people consider music merely as a source of pleasure; not attending to its influence on the human mind, and its consequent effects on society. But it should be regarded as an article of education, useful as well as ornamental.

The human mind is formed for activity; and will ever be employed in business or diversions. Children are perpetually in motion, and all the ingenuity of their parents and guardians should be exerted to devise methods for restraining this activ principle, and directing it to some useful object, or to harmless trifles. If this is not done, their propensity to action, even without a vicious motiv, will hurry them into follies and crimes. Every thing innocent, that attracts the attention of children, and will employ their minds in leisure hours, when idleness might otherwise open the way to vice, must be considered as a valuable employment. Of this kind is vocal music. There were instances of youth, the last winter, who voluntarily attended a singing school in preference to the theatre. It is but reasonable to suppose, that if they would neglect a theatre for singing, they would neglect a thousand amusements, less engaging, and more pernicious.

Instrumental music is generally prefered to vocal, and considered as an elegant accomplishment. It is indeed a pleasing accomplishment; but the preference given to it, is a species of the same false taste, which places a son under the tuition of a drunken clown, to make him a gentleman of strict morals.

Instrumental music may exceed vocal in some nice touches and distinctions of sound; but when regarded as to its effects upon the mind and upon society, it is as inferior to vocal, as sound is inferior to sense. It is very easy for a spruce beau to display a contempt for vocal music, and to say that human invention has gone beyond the works of God Almighty. But till the system of creation shall be new modelled, the human voice properly cultivated will be capable of making the most perfect music. It is neglected; sol faing is unfashionable, and that is enough to damn it: But people who have not been acquainted with the perfection of psalmody, are incapable of making a suitable comparison between vocal and instrumental music. I have often heard the best vocal concerts in America, and the best instrumental concerts; and can declare, that the music of the latter is as inferior to that of the former, as the merit of a band box macaroni is to that of a Cato.

Instrumental music affords an agreeable amusement; and as an amusement it ought to be cultivated. But the advantage is private and limited; it pleases the ear, but leaves no impression upon the heart.

The design of music is to awaken the passions, to soften the heart for the reception of sentiment. To awaken passion is within the power of instruments, and this may afford a temporary pleasure; but society derives no advantage from it, unless some useful sentiment is left upon the heart.

Instruments are secondary in their use; they were invented originally, not to supercede, but to assist the voice. The first histories of all nations were written in verse, and sung by their bards. In later ages, the oaten reed, the harp and the lyre, were found to improve the pleasures of music; but the neglect of the voice and of sentiment was reserved for modern corruption. Ignorant indeed is the man, and possessed of a wretched taste, who can seriously despise the humble pleasures of vocal music, and prefer the bare harmony of sounds. Sentiment should ever accompany music; the sounds should ever correspond with the ideas, otherwise music loses all its force. Union of sentiment, with harmony of sounds, is the perfection of music. Every string of the human heart may be touched; every passion roused by the different kinds of sounds; the courage of the warrior; the cruelty of the tyrant; anger; grief; love, with all its sensibilities, are subject to the influence of music. Even brutes acknowlege its effects; but while they in common with man feel the effects of a harmony of mere sounds, man enjoys the superior felicity of receiving sentiment; and while he relishes the pleasures of chords in sound, he imbibes a disposition to communicate happiness to society.

Seldom indeed do men reflect on the connexion between the chords of music and the social affections. Morality is to immorality, what harmony is to discord. Society detests vice, and the ear is offended with discordant sounds. Society is pleased and happified with virtue, and the ear is delighted with harmony. This beautiful analogy points out the utility of cultivating music as a science. Harsh discordant sounds excite the peevish malevolent passions; harmonious sounds correct and soften the rougher passions.

Every person will acknowlege, that love refines the heart, and renders it more susceptible, and more capable of social virtue. It is for this reason that men who have particular attachments to women, or associate much with ladies of delicacy, are more disposed to do acts of kindness, in every sphere of life, than those who seldom frequent ladies company. On the other hand, anger, jealousy, envy, are dissocial passions; and even when they are excited by a single object, they poison the heart, and disqualify it for exciting the social affections towards any of the human race. Every institution, therefore, calculated to prepare the human heart for exerting the social virtues, and to suppress or check the malignant passions, must be highly beneficial to society; and such I consider establishments in favor of vocal music. Happy, indeed, should I feel, could I see youth devoted every where to the refinement of their voices and morals; to see them prefer moral or religious pieces to the indecent songs or low diversions which taint the mind in early life, and diffuse their pernicious influence through society.

If the poison of the tarantula may be counteracted by music; if the Spanish ladies are won by nocturnal serenades; if the soldier is inspired with courage by the martial sounds of the trumpet, and the Christian impressed with devout sentiments by the solemn tones of the organ; what advantage may society derive from the softening harmony of choirs of voices, celebrating the praises of social virtue! Happy days! when false taste and false opinions shall vanish before the progress of truth; when princes shall resume their ancient and honorable task of teaching the young to be good and great; when an Addison shall be preferred to a Chesterfield; when the wealth of nations shall be no longer lavished upon fiddlers and dancers; when the characters of a Benezet and a Washington shall obscure the glories of a Cæsar; and when no man shall be ashamed to be good, because it is unfashionable.

No. XX

 NEW YORK, JUNE, 1788.

On MORALITY

"The principles of morality are little understood among savages," says Lord Kaimes, "and if they arrive to maturity among enlightened nations, it is by slow degrees."

With submission to that writer, I would advance another position equally true, "that the principles of eating and drinking are little understood by savages, and if they arrive to maturity among civilized nations, it is by slow degrees."

The truth is, morality consists in discharging the social duties of life; and so far as the state of savages requires an intercourse of duties, the moral principles seem to be as perfect in them as in more enlightened nations. Savages in a perfectly rude state have little or no commerce; the transactions between man and man are confined to very few objects, and consequently the laws which regulate their intercourse and distribute justice, must be few and simple.⁶⁴ But the crime of murder is as severely punished by savages, as by civilized nations. Nay, I question whether it is possible to name the barbarous tribe, which suffers an individual to take the life of another, upon as easy terms as the modern feudal Barons in Europe may do that of a vassal; or with the same impunity that a planter in the West Indies takes the life of a slave. I speak of a time of peace, and of the conduct of savages towards their own tribes. As to war, every nation of savages has its arbitrary customs, and so has every civilized nation. Savages are generally partial and capricious in the treatment of their prisoners; some they treat with a singular humanity; and others they put to death with the severest cruelty. Well, do not civilized people the same? Did a savage ever endure greater torments, than thousands of prisoners during the late war? But not to mention the practice of a single nation, at a single period; let us advert to a general rule among civilized nations; that it is lawful to put to death prisoners taken in a garrison by storm. The practice grounded on this rule, is as direct and as enormous a violation of the laws of morality, as the slow deliberate tortures exercised by the most barbarous savages on earth.

Well, what are the ideas of savages respecting theft? How do they differ from those of an enlightened people? Many things are possessed in common, as provisions taken in hunting, corn, &c. Ferdinand de Soto relates, that the tribes (and he visited hundreds in Florida) had public granaries of corn laid up for winter, which was distributed by authority to each family, according to its number. But for an individual to take from this common stock without license, was considered as a criminal defrauding of the public. And with regard to the few articles, in which individuals acquire private property, the savages have as correct ideas of meum and tuum, of theft, trespass, &c. and are as careful to guard private property from invasion, by laws and penalties, as any civilized people. The laws of the Creeks, the Cherokees, the Six Nations, &c. with regard to these and many other crimes, in point of reason and equity, stand on a footing with those of the most civilized nations; and in point of execution and observance, their administration would do honor to any government. Among most savage nations there is a kind of monarchy which is efficient in administration; and among those tribes which have had no intercourse with civilized nations, and which have not been deceived by the tricks of traders; the common arts of cheating, by which millions of enlightened people get a living or a fortune, are wholly unknown. This is an incontrovertible fact. I lately became acquainted with a lad of about twelve years old, who was taken captiv by the Indians in 1778, while a child, and had continued with them till about ten years old. He had no recollection of the time when he was taken, and consequently his mind could not have been corrupted among the English. When he was restored, agreeable to the treaty, he was a perfect savage; but what I relate the circumstance for, is this; the lad was not addicted to a single vice. He was instant and cheerful in obeying commands; having not even a disposition to refuse or evade a compliance. He had no inclination to lie or steal; on the other hand, he was always surprised to find a person saying one thing and meaning another. In short, he knew not any thing but honesty and undisguised frankness and integrity. A single instance does not indeed establish a general rule; but those who are acquainted with the nativs of America can testify that this is the general character of savages who are not corrupted by the vices of civilized nations.

But it is said savages are revengeful; their hatred is hereditary and perpetual. How does this differ from the hatred of civilized nations? I question much whether the principle of revenge is not as perfect in enlightened nations, as in savages. The difference is this; a savage hunts the man who has offended him, like a wild beast, and assassinates him wherever he finds him; the gentleman pursues his enemy or his rival with as much rancor as a savage, and even stoops to notice little affronts, that a savage would overlook; but he does not stab him privately; he hazards his own life with that of his enemy, and one or both are very honorably murdered. The principle of revenge is equally activ in both cases; but its operation is regulated by certain arbitrary customs. A savage is open and avows his revenge, and kills privately; the polite and well bred take revenge in a more honorable way, when life is to be the price of satisfaction; but in cases of small affronts, they are content with privately stabbing the reputation or ruining the fortunes of their enemies. In short, the passions of a savage are under no restraint; the passions of enlightened people are restrained and regulated by a thousand civil laws and accidental circumstances of society.

But it will be objected, if savages understood principles of morality, they would lay such passions under restraint. Not at all: Civil and political regulations are not made, because the things prohibited are in their own nature wrong; but because they produce inconveniencies to society. The most enlightened nations do not found their laws and penalties on an abstract regard to wrong; nor has government any concern with that which has no influence on the peace and safety of society. If savages, therefore, leave every man to take his own revenge, it is a proof that they judge it the best mode of preventing the necessity of it; that is, they think their society and government safer under such a license, than under regulations which should control the passions of individuals. They may have their ideas of the nature of revenge independent of society; but it will be extremely difficult to prove, that, abstracted from a regard to a Deity and to society, there is such a thing as right and wrong. I consider morality merely as it respects society; for if we superadd the obligations of a divine command, we blend it with religion; an article in which Christians have an infinit advantage over savages.

Considering moral duties as founded solely on the constitution of society, and as having for their sole end the happiness of social beings, many of them will vary in their nature and extent, according to the particular state and circumstances of any society.

Among the ancient Britons, a singular custom prevailed; which was, a community of wives by common consent. Every man married one woman; but a number, perhaps ten or twelve, relations or neighbors, agreed to possess their wives in common. Every woman's children were accounted the children of her husband; but every man had a share in the common defence and care of this little community.⁶⁵ Was this any breach of morality? Not in the least. A British woman, in the time of Severus, having become intimate with Julia Augusta, and other ladies, at the court of Rome, had observed what passed behind the curtain; and being one day reproached for this custom of the Britons, as infamous in the women, and barbarous in the men; she replied, "We do that openly with the best of our men, which you do privately with the worst of yours." This custom, so far from being infamous or barbarous, originated in public and private convenience. It prevented jealousy and the injuries of adultery, in a state where private wrongs could not easily be prevented or redressed. It might be an excellent substitute for penal laws and a regular administration of justice. But there is a better reason for the custom, which writers seem to have overlooked; and this is, that a community multiplied the chances of subsistence and security. In a savage life, subsistence is precarious, for it depends on contingent supplies by hunting and fishing. If every individual, therefore, should depend solely on his own good luck, and fail of success, his family must starve. But in a community of twelve, the probability that some one would procure provisions is increased as twelve to one. Hence the community of provisions among most savage nations.⁶⁶

The Britons, when the Romans first visited their island, did not attend much to the cultivation of the earth. "Interiores plerique," says Cæsar, "frumenta non serunt, sed lacte et carne vivunt." By establishing a community of goods, they secured themselves against the hazard of want; and by a community of wives and offspring, they confirmed the obligations of each to superintend the whole; or rather, changed into a natural obligation what might otherwise depend on the feebler force of positiv compact. Besides, it is very possible that personal safety from the invasion of tribes or individuals, might be another motiv for establishing these singular communities. At any rate, we must suppose that the Britons had good civil or political reasons for this custom; for even savages do not act without reason. And if they found society more safe and happy, with such a custom than without it, it was most undoubtedly right.

Should it be said, that a community is prohibited by divine command; I would answer that it is not presumable that the old Britons had any positiv revelation; and I do not know that the law of nature will decide against their practice. The commands given to the Jews were positiv injunctions; but they by no means extend to all nations, farther than as they are founded on immutable principles of right and wrong in all societies. Many of the Mosaic precepts are of this kind; they are unlimited in their extent, because they stand on principles which are unlimited in their operation.

Adultery is forbidden in the Jewish laws; and so it is in the codes of other nations. But adultery may be defined differently by different nations; and the criminality of it depends on the particular positiv institutions, or accidental circumstances of a nation. The same reasons that would render a similar custom in civilized modern nations highly criminal, might render it innocent and even necessary among the old Britons. A prohibition to gather sticks on the Sabbath, under a penalty of death for disobedience, might be founded on good reasons among the ancient Jews; but it would be hard to prove that a modern law of the same kind, would be warrantable in any nation.

No. XXI

 NEW YORK, JUNE, 1788.

A LETTER from a LADY, with REMARKS

sir,

As you have, in your writings, discovered that you take a particular interest in the happiness of ladies, I hope you will not deem it a deviation from delicacy, if one of them offers you her grateful acknowlegements, and requests you to giv your sentiments upon what will be here related.

About four years ago, I was visited by a gentleman who professed an unalterable attachment for me. He being a genteel, sensible and handsome man, I thought myself justifiable in treating him with complacency. After I was convinced by his constant attention and frequent professions, that I was a favorite, he used frequently to upbraid me, for being so silent and reserved: It shewed, he said, a want of confidence in him; for I must be sensible he derived the greatest pleasure imaginable in my conversation, and why would I then deprive him of the greatest happiness by absenting myself, when he paid a visit, refusing to chat with my usual freedom. Tho he professed himself to be an admirer of candor, and a strict adherer to the rules of honor, still I could not but doubt his sincerity from the extravagance of his expressions. This he considered as an affront, saying that no man of honor would express sentiments that were not genuine. I found myself unwilling to say any thing that should be disagreeable, and disposed to make him understand by an attention that I supposed him entitled to, that he was prefered to any other person. He continued his visits in this manner for about eighteen months, conducting himself with the greatest delicacy, affection and respect. During this time, he never expressed a wish to be united, which made me uneasy, as I knew that all my friends thought us engaged. At last I told him his attention was too particular; I knew not what construction to put upon it. He replied that I was too particular in my ideas; it was a convincing proof to him, with my resenting trifling liberties, that I had not an affection for him, and that he was not the man I wished to be connected with; therefore he would not trouble me any longer with his company, and wished me a good night.

This, Sir, you must suppose, distressed me greatly; I viewed myself injured and trifled with, but knew not how to obtain redress. My attachment and pride were so great that I would not allow my friends to call him to an account for his behavior; tho I now despise his conduct, and would refuse him the hand of which he has proved himself unworthy, still I feel hurt at the treatment I have received. You, Sir, as a friend to our sex, and one who wishes to preserve the peace of mind of unsuspecting girls, will do them an essential service, by your animadversions on these facts, and guarding our sex from similar impositions.

These circumstances would not have been related, were I not rendered discontented and wretched at home, in consequence of refusing the offers of three other gentlemen; either of whom would doubtless have been acceptable, had not my affections been preengaged to one who has proved himself worthless. Their characters and situations in life are equal to my wishes; but I cannot do them so much injustice and myself so much injury, as to giv my hand unaccompanied with my heart. In consulting my own inclinations I have incurred the displeasure of all my family; they treat me with great inattention, and are continually reflecting on my want of spirit and resolution. I am confident, Sir, that every generous mind will pity your unhappy and distressed friend,

CONSTANTIA.

To CONSTANTIA

While I acknowlege myself honored by your correspondence, and happy in an opportunity of rendering you or your sex the least service, permit me, in compliance with your request, which shall be to me a sacred law, to offer my sentiments with a frankness, corresponding with that which marks the relation of your misfortunes. For altho I feel the warmest indignation at every species of deception, and particularly at that long continued inexplicitness which is deliberate deception, and which is the cause of your wretchedness, candor and truth require that censure should fall where it is due.

If the slightest blame can fall on you, it is that you indulged the visits of a gentleman for eighteen months without an explicit and honorable declaration of his intention. A delicate, affectionate and respectful attention to a lady, for one quarter of that period, is sufficient to make an impression on her mind, and decide her choice: At the same time, it might not render an attachment on her part, so strong as to make a separation very painful; it might not giv the world an opinion that an engagement exists, or subject the lady to the necessity of dismissing other suitors. It is therefore prudent at least for a lady to conduct herself in such a manner as to bring her admirer to an explicit declaration of his designs. A man of real honor and principle would not wait for a stratagem on the part of the lady, or for a frank demand of an explanation of his conduct. A tolerable acquaintance with the human heart would enable him to discover when a declaration would be agreeable to the lady, and after this discovery, he would not keep her a moment in suspense. A man of generous feelings, who has a lively attachment, looks with anxiety for some proof that his addresses are agreeable, and that a declaration of his intentions will be well received. No sooner does he find this proof, than he hastens to unbosom himself to the dear object of his wishes, and communicate the happiness he so ardently desires to receive. When therefore a man neglects such a declaration, after he has had convincing proofs that his offers would be well received, it may and should be taken for granted that his intentions are not honorable, and the lady should treat him accordingly. If therefore, my unhappy friend, you deserve the least degree of censure, it is because you delayed too long to take measures for undeceiving yourself. Yet this delay is a proof of your unsuspecting confidence and sincere attachment; and faults, proceeding from such amiable causes, are almost changed to virtues; in your sex, they entitle the sufferer to forgivness and to love.

You inform me, Constantia, that the man who has injured you, professed to adhere to the rules of honor. Never, Constantia, trust a man who deals largely in that hackneyed virtue, honor. Honor, in the fashionable sense of the word, is but another name for villany. The man of honor would not be guilty of the least impropriety in public company; he would not for the world neglect the least punctilio of the customary etiquette, but he would, without hesitation or remorse, blow out the brains of a friend, for treading on his toe, or rob an amiable woman of her reputation and happiness to gratify his vanity.

If a man talks too much of his honor, he is to be avoided, like the midnight ruffian. He that really possesses a virtue never boasts of it, for he does not suspect the world think him destitute of it. Numerous professions are commonly mere substitutes for what is professed.

The man, who has given you so much uneasiness, never deserved the confidence he won; he must be destitute of principle, of virtue, and of attachment to you. His deliberate ill usage proves him to be callous to every tender emotion, and to deserve your contempt. Will not a generous pride and detestation expel the least sentiment of respect for him from your breast? Can you not forget that you have been misled, and will not your innocence buoy you above misfortunes? That you have refused good offers, is to be regretted; but your friends, if they know the reason, as they ought, will not pain you by disingenuous reflections. On the other hand, they will assist you in finding objects to amuse you and dissipate your own melancholy reflections. Smile away the anxiety that shuts your heart against other impressions. Base as men are, there may be some found who despise the character of him who has given even an hour's pain; there may be one who knows your worth, and may be disposed to reward your constancy.

It is a mortifying reflection to an honest mind, that bad hearts are so often suffered to giv pain to the good; that the trifling and the base of our sex are not constrained, by necessity, to associate only with the trifling and the base of yours, and that the good, the generous and the constant should be exposed to the abuses of the fickle and designing. But such is the constitution of society, and for the evils of it, we have no remedy, but cautious circumspection to prevent, or patient fortitude to support the adverse events of our conditions.

No man can entertain a more cordial detestation of the smallest disposition to annoy the peace of mind and disturb the tranquillity of mankind, than myself; the design of existence here is to sooth the evils, and multiply the felicities of each other, and he must be a villain indeed, who can deliberately attempt to poison the sources of pleasure, by crossing and disappointing the social passions.

To your sex, Constantia, permit me to giv a word of caution; never to make any inquiries about a man's family, fortune or accomplishments, till you know whether he is a man of principle. By principle, I mean, a disposition of heart to conduct with strict propriety, both as a moral being and as a member of civil society; that is, a disposition to increase the happiness of all around him. If he appears to wish for his own gratification, at the expense even of a servant's happiness, he is an unsocial being, he is not a fit associate for men, much less for amiable women. If he is a man of principle, then proceed to inquire into his standing in life. With principle he may make a woman happy in almost any circumstances; without it, birth, fortune and education serve but to render his worthlessness the more conspicuous. With sentiments of esteem, I am your obliged friend, and humble servant,

E.

No. XXII

 NEW YORK, JULY, 1788.

A LETTER to the AUTHOR, with REMARKS

sir,

I beg leave to relate to you a few circumstances respecting the conduct of a young friend of mine in this city, and to request your own remarks and advice on the occasion. Should any other person similarly situated, be disposed to receive benefit from the advice, I shall be much gratified, and my design more than answered.

This young friend to whom I allude, has been till within a few years, under the watchful eyes of very attentiv parents; from whom he received much better advice and much more of it, than the generality of parents in this city are wont to bestow on their children; they taught him to regard truth with a steady attachment; in short his education, till their deaths, was such as might with propriety have been called rigidly virtuous. Since that instructiv period, he has been under the guidance of no one but himself; his former associates with whom he grew up, and for whom he still feels a degree of schoolmate attachment, are almost universally debauched characters. The force of example is great, and let it be mentioned to his honor, that in general he has had sufficient virtue to resist their importunities, and to follow a line of conduct directly contrary to the one they would gladly have marked out for his pursuance. He possesses many of the social virtues, and is warmly attached to the amiable part of the female world. This attachment has preserved him from the fashionable vices of the age, and given him a relish for domestic happiness, which I think he will never lose. A young gentleman so capable of making himself agreeable to good and virtuous characters, ought not, in my opinion, to indulge himself in any practices, that shall tend in the least to depreciate his general merit. The practices I would mention, are few and not very considerable; still I think he should dismiss them entirely, or at least not indulge them to his disadvantage. He sings a good song, and he knows it tolerably well; he is often urged into company on that account; he can make himself agreeable withal, and is really a musical companion; he pays so much attention to learning and singing songs, that he has but little leisure time on his hands; he reads part of the day, but he reads principally novels or song books. I would not be understood to consider singing songs as criminal; far from it; I am often delighted with a song from him; but the query with me is, whether he ought not to devote part of the time which he now employs about what may be called genteel trifling, to the improvement of his mind in a manner that may be of lasting benefit to him; I wish you to giv him your advice, and direct him what books to read. He has another fault, which, altho it originates in the benevolence of his disposition, may still be called a fault. He has a very susceptible heart, and opens it with a generous freedom, so much so that he sometimes forgets himself, and opens it where he ought not to do. A stranger with a specious outside might easily impose on him. I just throw out these hints, that he may be on his guard against those whose business it is to deceive. There are several smaller faults dependant upon, or rather consequent to, those I have mentioned, which I at first intended to have enumerated, but if the first are amended, the others will forsake him of course.

The ANSWER

sir,

By the description you have given of your young friend, it appears that he is rather trifling and inconsiderate than profligate. His faults are, his spending too much time in learning and singing songs; and too much frankness of heart, which exposes him to impositions. But you have not, Sir, informed me whether he was bred to business; and by his character, I judge that he was not. He has had good precepts indeed; but of how little weight are precepts to young people! Advice to the young sometimes does good; but perhaps never, except good habits have been previously formed by correct discipline in manners, or by a mechanical attention to honest employments. The truth is, advice or serious council is commonly lavished where it does no good, upon the young, the gay, the thoughtless; whose passions are strong, before reason begins to have the smallest influence. I am young myself, but from the observations I have hitherto made, I venture to affirm, that grave advice never yet conquered a passion, and rarely has restrained one so as to render a sprightly youth, in any degree serious. How should it? Instructions are transient; they seldom touch the heart, and they generally oppose passions that are vigorous, and which are incessantly urging for indulgence.

I have ever thought that advice to the young, unaccompanied by the routine of honest employments, is like an attempt to make a shrub grow in a certain direction, by blowing it with a bellows. The way to regulate the growth of a vegetable is to confine it to the proposed direction. The only effectual method perhaps is to keep young persons from childhood busy in some employment of use and reputation. It is very immaterial what that employment is; the mind will grow in the direction given it at first; it will bend and attach itself to the business, and will not easily lose that bent or attachment afterwards: The mind will attach itself to something; its natural disposition is to pleasure and amusement. This disposition may be changed or overcome by keeping the mind, from early life, busy in some useful occupation, and perhaps by nothing else. Advice will not produce the effect.

I suspect, Sir, that your young friend has been bred a trifler; that he has had money to support him without the labor of acquiring it; that he has never been anxious about his future subsistence. If so, his education must be pronounced erroneous. Whether worth twenty pounds or twenty thousand, it should make no difference in his attention to business while young. We are the creatures of habit; a habit of acquiring property should always precede the use of it, otherwise it will not be used with credit and advantage. Besides, business is almost the only security we have for moral rectitude and for consequence in society. It keeps a young person out of vicious company; it operates as a constant check upon the passions, and while it does not destroy them, it restrains their intemperance; it strengthens the mind by exercise, and puts a young person upon exerting his reasoning faculties. In short, a man bred to business loves society, and feels the importance of the principles that support it. On the other hand, mankind respect him; and whatever your young friend may think of the assertion, it is true that the ladies uniformly despise a man who is always dangling at their apron strings, and whose principal excellence consists in singing a good song.

If, Sir, your friend is still so young, as to undergo the discipline of a professional or other employment, his habits of trifling may be changed by this means; but if he is so far the gentleman as to disdain business, his friends have only to whistle advice in his ears, and wait till old age, experience, and the death of his passions, shall change the man.

Accept of my thanks, Sir, for this communication, and be assured that my opinion on any subject of this kind will always be at your service.

E.

No. XXIII

 BOSTON, MARCH, 1789.

An Enquiry into the Origin of the Words DOMESDAY, PARISH, PARLIAMENT, PEER, BARON; with Remarks, New and Interesting

In the course of my etymological investigations, I hav been led to suspect that all the writers on the laws and constitution of England, hav mistaken the origin and primitiv signification of several words of high antiquity, and in consequence of the mistake, hav adopted some erroneous opinions, respecting the history of parliaments and trial by peers. Whether my own opinions are wel supported by history and etymology, must be hereafter decided by able and impartial judges of this subject.

Dome book, or domesday book, iz a word wel understood by English lawyers. Dome book, or dom bec, az it waz formerly spelt, waz the name given to the Saxon code of laws compiled by Alfred. Some other codes of local customs or laws were also denominated dom becs, but theze are all lost. After the conquest, a general survey of all the lands in England, except a few counties, waz made by order of William, and recorded in a volum which iz stil extant, and called domesday. This survey waz begun by five justices assigned for the purpose in each county, in the year 1081 and completed 1086.

Our pious ancestors were not a little frightened at the name of this book, which iz usually pronounced doomsday; supposing it to hav some reference to the final doom, or day of judgement. In order to quiet such apprehensions, lawyers of less credulity undertook to refute the common opinion. Jacob, after Cowel, very gravely asserts, that the termination day in this word does not allude to the general judgement. "The addition of day to this dome book, waz not ment with any allusion to the final day of judgement, az most persons hav conceeved, but waz to strengthen and confirm it, and signifieth the judicial decisiv record, or book of dooming judgement and justice."⁶⁷ The same author defines domesmen to be judges, or men appointed to doom.

Cowel, a compiler of considerable authority, says, "day or dey," (for dey iz the true spelling) "does not augment the sense, but only doubles and confirms the same meening. It does not, in this composition, really signify the mesure of time, but the administration of justice; so that domesday iz more emphatically the judicial decisiv record, the book of dooming judgement."⁶⁸ According to this author, then, domesday iz a judgement of judgements, for he quotes Dr. Hammond to proov that day, dies, ημερα, in all idioms, signifies judgement. However tru this may be, I beleev our Saxon forefathers could find a better name for a code of laws, than a judgement of judgements.

"Domesday," says Coke, "dies judicii," day of judgement.⁶⁹ Such is the influence of sounds upon credulous, superstitious minds.

The truth seems to be this; domesday is a compound of dom, judgement, decree or authority; and dey, a law or rule.⁷⁰ Or domes, in the plural, may signify judges. The name of the book then will signify, ether the rules of judging, or deciding, in questions relating to the real property of England; or what is more probable, the rules and determinations of the judges who surveyed the lands in the kingdom.

That dom had the signification here explained iz capable of proof. The homager's oath, in the black book of Hereford, fol. 46, ends thus, "So helpe me God at his holy dome (judgement) and by my trowthe," (troth, that is truth.)⁷¹ This explanation coincides with the meening of the same syllable in other languages, and confirms the hypothesis of the common origin of the languages of Europe, laid down in the Notes to my Dissertations on the English Tung. We see the syllable in the Greek δαμαω, the Latin dominus, (domo) and in the English word tame; az also in doom, deem, king dom.⁷² In all theze words we observe one primitiv and several derivativ significations. Its primitiv sense is that of power or authority, az in Greek and Latin. In English, it stands for jurisdiction, a judge, or a sentence. In deem, it denotes the act of the mind in judging, or forming its determinations.

The other syllable dey iz probably the same word az ley, law, with a different prepositiv article; for etymologists tel us, that the radical syllable waz often found in the muther tung ey. Cowel informs us it waz not day, but dey; and another author writes it d'ey. The word daysman, or az it ought to be spelt deysman, stil used both in England and America, is composed of dey and man, and signifies an arbitrator or judge, appointed to reconcile differences. In this country I hav often heerd it applied to our Savior, az mediator between God and man.

The ancient lawyers translate the Saxon dom bec and domesdey by liber judicialis; words which seem not to convey the ful meening of the original. I should translate them, liber judicum, the Judges book; or lex judicum, the Judges law or rule.

The old Saxon word ley, before mentioned, waz, in different dialects, or at different periods, written ley, lah, lage, laga. It iz doubtless from the same root az the Latin lex, lege; and it is remarkable, that the same word anciently signified peeple; and from this are derived lay and laity, the peeple as opposed to the clergy.⁷³ It iz probable that the primitiv sense of the word, in remote antiquity, waz people; and az the peeple made the laws in general assembly, so their orders or decrees came to be called by the same name. This conjecture iz not groundless, and is no trifling proof of the ancient freedom of our Gothic ancestors. Tacitus says expressly of the Germans, "De minoribus rebus principes consultant; de majoribus omnes." De Mor Germ. 11. The princes deliberate upon small matters, or perhaps decide private controverses of small moment; but laws of general concern are enacted in an assembly of all the peeple.

The origin of Parishes haz puzzled all the lawyers and antiquaries of the English nation. Johnson, after his usual manner, recurs to the Greek, and derives the word from παροικια, accolarum conventus, an assemblage or collection of peeple in a naborhood. Others content themselves with deriving it from the Latin parochia or French paroisse. These etymologies do not satisfy me. It is improbable that our ancestors went to the Greek for names of places or divisions of territory, that existed in England az erly az the Heptarchy; especially az the Greek word before mentioned waz never used in the sense of parish. Parochia cannot be the origin of parish; for it waz not a Roman word; on the other hand, it is merely a Gothic or Saxon word latinized by the erly writers on law; and to derive parish from the French paroisse is trifling; for we might as well derive paroisse from parish, which iz at leest az ancient.

"It iz uncertain at what time England waz divided into parishes," say most of the law writers. Camden, in hiz Britannia, page 104, says, the kingdom waz first divided into parishes by Honorius, archbishop of Canterbury, in 636. This opinion iz controverted. Sir Henry Hobart thinks parishes were erected by the council of Lateran, in 1179. Selden, followed by Blackstone, supposes both to be rong, and shows that the clergy lived in common, without any distinction of parishes, long after the time mentioned by Camden; and it appeers by the Saxon laws, that parishes were known long before the council of Lateran.⁷⁴

The truth probably iz, the kingdom was not divided into parishes at any one time, but the original ecclesiastical division grew, in a great measure, out of a prior civil division. Parish iz the most ancient division of the ecclesiastical state, and originally denoted the jurisdiction of a bishop, or what iz now called a diocese. For this opinion, we hav the authority of the Saxon laws and charters. "Ego Cealwulfus, dei gratia rex Merciorum, rogatus a Werfritho, Episcopo Hwicciorum, istam libertatem donavi, ut tota parochia Hwicciorum a pastu equorum, regis et eorum qui eos ducunt, libera sit, &c." Charta Cealwulfi regis, Anno 872. "Episcopus, congregatis omnibus clericis totius parochiæ, &c." in a passage quoted by Cowel tit. parish. Here the bishoprick iz explicitly called a parish, parochia; and Blackstone remarks, "it is agreed on all hands, that in the erly ages of christianity in this island, parishes were unknown, or at leest signified the same az a diocese does now." Com. Vol. I. 112.

This, being a settled point, wil perhaps furnish a clue by which we may find the true origin of the word and of the division.

It iz certain that there waz an ancient word among the Gothic nations, and probably among the Celtic, which signified originally a man, afterwards a freeman, or landholder, in opposition to that class of men who had no real property. This word waz spelt by the Romans vir, and signified a man, by way of eminence, az distinguished from homo; az also a husband or householder. It answered to the ανηρ of the Greeks, az distinguished from ανθροπος, a word denoting the human race in general. The same word in the Gothic or ancient German waz spelt bar;⁷⁵ and probably in some dialects par, for the convertibility of b with p iz obvious to every etymologist.⁷⁶ In the Erse language, az Mc Pherson testifies, bar signifies a man. The word iz also pronounced fer or fear, which approaches nearer to the Latin vir: Fergus or Ferguth signifies a man of word or command. In modern Welsh, which iz the purest relict of the old Celtic, bar is a son, and barn a judge. In the ancient Irish, brehon or barhon, which iz merely baron with an aspirate, signified a judge. See Lhuyd, Mc Pherson, Ossian, p. 4. and Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. I.

This word iz the root of the modern word baron; for in ancient manuscripts, it iz sometimes spelt viron, denoting its derivation from vir. For this we hav the authority of Camden and Du Cange under the word baron.

So far we tred on sure ground. That theze words hav existed or do stil exist in the sense above explained, wil not be denied; and it iz almost certain that they all had a common origin.

The word Baron iz evidently derived from the German bar or par, and under the feudal system, came to signify the proprietors of large tracts of land, or thoze vassals of the Lord Paramount, who held lands by honorable service.⁷⁷

I shall hereafter attempt to proov that several modern words are derived from the same root; at present I confine my remarks to the word parish, which, I conjecture, iz a compound of par, a landholder, and rick or rich, which haz been explained, az denoting territory or jurisdiction: Parick or parich, the jurisdiction of a par or baron. It iz true the words baron and parliament seem not to hav been used among the Saxons before the conquest; but they were used by most of the nations of the same original, on the continent; az in Germany, Burgundy, Sweden and Normandy: And the use of the word parochia in England, before the conquest, or at leest by the first lawyers and translators of the Saxon laws, iz to me the strongest proof that some such word az parick existed among the erly Saxons, or which waz latinized by thoze writers. Even if we suppose the word borrowed from nations on the continent, my supposition of the existence of such a word iz equally wel founded, for they all spoke dialects of the same tung.

The first knowlege we hav of the word parish or rather parochia, iz in the Saxon laws, copied and translated into Latin by thoze erly writers, Bracton, Britlon, Fleta, or others of an erlier date. In that erly period, parochia waz a diocese or bishoprick.

I suspect the jurisdiction of the bishop waz originally limited by an erldom, county shire, or territory of a great lord. This waz probably the general division; for sometimes a clergyman or bishop, in the zerude ages, had cure of souls in two or more adjoining lordships; and it often happened that a lord had much waste land on hiz demesne, which waz not comprehended in the original parish, and thus came, in later times, to be called extraparochial. But whatever particular exceptions there might be, the remark az a general one, will hold true, with respect to the original jurisdiction of a bishop.

The number of counties in England iz at present forty, and that of the dioceses, twenty four; but the number of counties haz been different at different times; and some changes, both in the civil and ecclesiastical state, hav doubtless, in a course of a thousand years, destroyed the primitiv division. It iz however some proof of my hypothesis, that most of the bishops in England are stil called by the names of counties, or of cities which are shires of themselves; az the bishop of Durham, of Worcester, of London, of Norwich, &c. or by the names of the cheef towns in counties; az bishop of Winchester, of Chichester, &c.

Selden's account of the ancient divisions of the kingdom, confirms this opinion. See Bacon's Selden, ch. 11. The province or jurisdiction of an archbishop, waz prior to the origin of diocesses or parishes. Selden haz given an account of a division of diocesses by archbishop Theodore in the seventh century; by which it appears, that in some instances, a diocese or parish waz one shire or county; and in others, a parochia covered two, three, or more shires: But in almost every instance, the limits of a parish were the limits of a shire or shires. And however strange the reader may think it, the word church and shire are radically the same. The Saxon word waz cyrick or cyrk;⁷⁸ and the Scotch pronounce and write it kirk. It iz, like shire, derived from the Saxon Sciran, cir, or seyre, to divide. The church or kirk waz the ecclesiastical division, answering to shire, and come to signify the jurisdiction of the cathedral church; the primaria ecclesia or mother church; and hence the Saxon term cyrick sceate, church scot or fees, paid by the whole diocese.

In later times, the original parochia or diocese was divided or extended by the Mickle-mote, Witenagemote or national assembly, by advice of the bishops, nobles, and cheef men.

From all I can collect respecting this subject, it appeers probable, that on the first conversion of the Saxons to christianity, each earle, earlederman, or erl, whoze manor or jurisdiction waz the origin of a county, had hiz clergyman or chaplain to perform divine service. Hiz residence waz probably in the vicinity of the erl; and this waz the origin of the cathedral, or mother church, primaria ecclesia, to which the tenants of the whole district or erldom afterwards paid tithes. On the first establishment of theze churches, the tenants paid tithes where they choze; but fraud or delay on the part of the tenant, and the encreasing power of the clergy, occasioned a law of king Edgar, about the year 970, commanding all the tithes to be paid to the mother church, to which the parish belonged.⁷⁹ This must hav augmented the welth of the cathedral churches, and given them a superior rank in the ecclesiastical state.

Previous, however, to this period, the thanes or inferior lords, had their chaplains and private chapels; and it waz a rule, that if such chapel had a consecrated cemetery or burying ground belonging to it, the lord might appropriate one third of the tithes to the support of hiz private chaplain. The clerks or bishops who belonged to the cathedral churches, and were the officiating ministers of the erls or princes, at that time the first ranks of noblemen, acquired an influence in proportion to their property and the extent of their jurisdictions. Hence the powers of modern bishops in superintending the clergy of their dioceses. In later times, they acquired large tracts of land, ether by purchase, gift or devise, and in right of their baronies gained a seet among the lords of the kingdom in parliament.

The inferior clergy were multiplied in proportion az the peeple wanted or could support them, and the jurisdiction of an earl's chaplain, being limited originally by his cure of souls, and being founded on a parrick or territory of a lord, afterwards gave name to all the jurisdictions of the inferior clergy. Hence the name of parish, as denoting the extent of a parson's⁸⁰ ecclesiastical authority.

The jurisdiction of a bishop lost the name of parish, parochia, at a very erly period; but stil the subordinate divisions of the ecclesiastical state continued to be regulated by prior civil divisions. For this assertion, we hav an indisputable authority, which confirms my opinion respecting the origin of parishes. "It seems pretty clear and certain," says the learned and elegant Blackstone, Com. vol. I, 114, "that the boundaries of parishes were originally ascertained by thoze of a manor or manors; since it very seldom happens that a manor extends itself over more parishes than one, tho there are often many manors in one parish." This iz the present state of facts, for originally the parish, like the modern diocese, covered many manors, or estates of the inferior feudatories.

Parliament iz said to be derived from the French, parlement, which iz composed of parler, to speak, and ment or mens, mind. Cowel tit. Parliament.

"Parliament," says Johnson, "parliamentuns, law Latin; parlement, French." Dict. fol. Edit.

"It is called parliament," says Coke Litt. p. 110. Ed. Lond. 1778, "because every member of that court should sincerely and discretely parler le ment," (speek hiz mind) "for the general good of the commonwelth; which name it also hath in Scotland; and this name before the conquest waz uzed in the time of Edward the Confessor, William the Conqueror, &c. It waz anciently, before the conquest, called michel-sinath,⁸¹ michel-gemote; ealla, witena-gemote; that is to say, the great court or meeting of the king and all the wisemen; sometimes of the king, with the counsel of hiz bishops, nobles and wisest of hiz peeple. This court, the French men call les estates; or l'assemble des estates. In Germany it is called a diet. For thoze other courts in France that are called parliaments, they are but ordinary courts of justice, and az Paulus Jovius affirmeth, were first established with us."

The late editor of Cokes Institutes, remarks, in a note on this passage, that the latter part of this etymology iz justly exploded, and apologizes for hiz author by saying, "it iz to be found in preceding authors of eminence." He discards the ment, and considers it, not az an essential, but an adventitious part of the word; deeming it sufficient to derive the word from parler, to speak. This opinion he receives from Lambard.

Such a definition, with great deference to theze venerable authorities, iz a disgrace to etymology. Coke waz a great lawyer, and Johnson a good Latin and Greek scholar; but neether of them waz versed in the Teutonic language and institutions, where alone we should look for the origin of our laws and the English constitution. Johnson indeed waz a mere compiler of other mens etymologies, and Cowel, Selden, Junius and others from whom he copied, tho deeply lerned, sometimes fell into very whimsical mistakes. I am bold to assert that the English derivation of parliament, or parlement from the French parler, haz no better authority than a mere whim or notion of theze writers. We might az well derive parler from parliament, and both from a parcel of gossips, because they are loquacious.

The true etymology of the word iz par, or bar, a landholder or baron, and le mote, the meeting. I say mote, for this waz the Saxon spelling of the word, after the prepositiv ge waz dropped. It waz originally gemote, az in witena-gemote; afterwards the ge waz disused, az in falk-mote. What the original French orthography waz, I am not certain; but the word came to England from France, and we find the French article prefixed, par-le-ment; a meeting of the barons. The same sound waz used in Germany, Burgundy, and other parts of Europe, and in all, it had the same meening, which it, in some mesure, retains in France to this day.

The commune concilium of England, before the conquest, consisted of the witena, or wise men. It retained the name of witena-gemote, til after the Norman invasion. It iz perhaps impossible, at this distance of time, to ascertain exactly the manner of summoning this national assembly, or whether the commons or lesser nobility were entitled to a seet. In old charters, the king iz said to hav passed laws by advice of the archbishops, bishops, abbots, erls and wise men of the relm; seniorum sapientium populi. But we are not able to determin whether theze seniores sapientes were admitted on account of their age and wisdom; or whether possession of real estate waz a requisit qualification. So much iz certain, that in France and Germany, where we first heer of parliaments, all the barons, that iz, all the nobility, were entitled to a seet in the national council, in right of their baronys; and this iz asserted to hav been the case in England.⁸² This fact, so well attested in history az to be undeniable, ought long ago to hav led the critical enquirer to the true origin of the French word, parlement. The name of parliament took its rise under the feudal system, when the assembly of men, so called, consisted solely of barons or bars. It iz from this circumstance that the provincial assemblies of France are properly denominated parliaments. The erly Norman princes, who introduced the name into England, summoned none to their council but the clergy and nobility, and sometimes a few only of the greater barons. The house of lords iz strictly a parliament, according to the original of the word, altho since the commons hav made a part of the legislature, the name iz extended to the whole body.

The word peer iz said to be derived from the Latin par equal; and this circumstance haz been the occasion of innumerable encomiums on the English trial by peers. So far az equality in the condition of judges and parties, iz an excellence in any judicial system, the present practice of trial by jury iz esteemable among a free peeple; for whatever may be the origin of the word peer, a trial by men of the naborhood may often proov a capital security against a court devoted to party. But it iz at least doubtful whether peers, az used for jurors, came from the Latin par; for it iz almost certain that the word peer, az used for nobles, iz derived from the German par, a landholder, and this iz undoubtedly the tru primitiv sense of the word. That there waz such a word in ancient Germany, iz unquestionable; and paramount, which signifies the lord of highest rank, iz from the same root; par-amount, the par or baron above the rest. The jurists on the continent latinized the word, calling the lords pares; and this, in later ages, waz mistaken for the plural of the Latin par.

I think the whole relm of England waz, by William the conqueror, divided into baronies,¹³⁹ however the distinctions may hav been long since worn out; but in Ireland they still remain, and every county there iz divided into so many baronies, which seem to hav been the shares of the first barons. And such as theze great proprietors of land, composed, in all the north west regions (of Europe) one part of the states (estates general) of the country or kingdom."

Sir William Temple proceeds then to giv hiz conjectures respecting the origin of the word baron. He remarks that Guagini, in hiz description of Sarmatia, printed in 1581, calls all thoze persons who were cheef possessors of lands and dignities, next to the prince, duke or palatine, in the vast empire of Muscovy, by the common appellation of boiarons, now contracted into boiars. From this he supposes baron to be derived. It iz however much more probable that baron and boiaron had a common root in some period of remote antiquity; which afterwards spread into all parts of Europe.

With respect to trial by jury, Sir William remarks, Vol. III. 130, that this waz undoutedly of Saxon institution, and continued thro all the revolutions in England. He says there are some traces of it in the first institutions of Odin, the first great leeder of the Asiatic Goths or Getæ into Europe. He mentions the council of twelv, established by Odin, and thinks it probable theze twelv men were at first both judges and jurors; that iz, they were a court of arbitrators or referees, az we should now style them, empowered to decide all causes according to equitable principles and the circumstances of each case; and their determinations afterwards grew into precedent for their successors. In process of time and multiplicity of business, the matter of fact continued to be tried by twelv men of the naborhood; but the adjudgement of punishment and the sentence waz committed to one or two persons of lerning or knowlege in the ancient customs, records and traditions. Thus, he observes, in the Saxon reigns, causes were adjudged by the aldermen and bishop of the several shires, with the assistance of twelv men of the same county, who are said to hav been judges or assistants. He allows, the terms jury and verdict were introduced by the Normans; but asserts very justly that trials by twelv men, with that circumstance of their unanimous agreement, were used not only among the Saxons and Normans, but are known to hav been az ancient in Sweden, az any records or traditions in the kingdom; and the practice remained in some provinces of that country, til the late revolution.

POSTSCRIPT

On further examination of this subject, I am led to subjoin the following remarks, which are supported by the indisputable authority of Glanville and Bracton.

I hav before suggested that the Saxons, prior to the conquest, conducted most of their important affairs in the county or sheriffs court, where all the free tenants were bound to attend. Theze free tenants consisted of the lesser barons, the knights and fokemen, or foccage tenants who had freehold estates. Theze freeholders, were, by the nature of their estates, the pares curtis; they were the proper and sole judges of all causes triable at the county court, which included almost all civil actions, and they were denominated in Saxon, lahmen, lawmen. The county court, thus composed of all the freeholders in the shire, waz a tribunal of great consequence, and inferior only to the witena-gemote, or national assembly. The Latin riters called theze freemen pares curtis and sectatores, peers of court and suitors. Curtis iz a Saxon word latinized,¹⁴⁰ like warrantizo murdrum, and hundreds of other law terms; and there iz little dout that pares iz a word of similar origin.

But what places the point I would establish, beyond controversy, iz, the pares curtis were in fact of different ranks. The knights or lesser barons, az well az the common foccage tenants, were included in the term pares curtis; for they were bound to do suit and service in the court of the lord paramount. Another fact, iz of equal weight in the argument: Theze pares, in the county court, tried all real actions between the nobility. In the cause of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, and archbishop Lanfranc, in the reign of William the conqueror, the king directed totum Comitatum considere. Many similar instances might be cited, were it necessary. Theze noblemen were tried by the pares curtis, the peers of the county court; but who ever said they were tried by their equals?

The Norman princes attempted to discountenance theze shire motes of the Saxons, and substitute the trial of facts by twelv juratores, men sworn to speek the truth. In the reign of Henry II, the trial by jurors had become common, if not general. Questions of seisin were tried by twelv common freeholders; but questions of right were tried by twelv knights; the sheriff summoning four knights who elected the twelv.

I would here remark that the principal original reezon for summoning freeholders of the vicinage, waz that of their supposed personal knowlege of the fact in dispute. The jurors were properly the witnesses. This iz evident from circumstances and from the positiv testimony of the erly law-riters. The first mention of a proper jury, in any public act, iz in the constitutions of Clarendon, 1164, where the sheriff iz directed, quòd faciat jurare duodecim legales homines de vicineto, seu de villa, quòd inde veritatem secundum conscientiam suam manifestabunt. It iz said in old writers that the jury must speek the truth, if they know it. If the twelv men first summoned knew the truth, they were compelled to declare it, under the penalty of perjury. If some knew the facts and others did not, the latter were dismissed and others summoned, till twelv were found who knew the facts, ether by what they had seen and heerd themselves, or from such testimony of their fathers and others, az gained full credit.

Without attending to juries in this light, the laws respecting them appeer beyond measure absurd and tyrannical. Their being sworn to speek the truth, would be absurd on any other ground; for had they judged of facts on testimony, they would hav been sworn to declare their opinion, and not the truth. Their verdict, vere dictum, derives its name and propriety from the same circumstance; and the present practice of swearing them to "a tru verdict giv," when they judge of facts only by the perhaps contradictory testimony of several witnesses, iz, strictly speeking, absurd.

The keeping juries, without meet, drink or fire, can be accounted for only on the same idea; it waz a method to compel an agreement among men, who were acquainted with facts, some of whom might at times be obstinate, and not willing to disclose them. But how ridiculous would it be to punish men for not agreeing in opinion, about what others testified!

All this iz still more evident from the manner in which many questions respecting real estates were ascertained and determined. It waz customary for the jurors, after they were chosen, to go upon the land to find the tru state of the fact in question, and then deliver their verdict. Hence the propriety of the expression in closing issues; and this he prays may be enquired of by the country.

I would observe further, that the reezon, why appeels from the verdict of a jury were not allowed, iz simply this, that the jurors were supposed to hav decided from their own knowlege. It waz certainly a wise provision that the solemn declaration of men under oath, living in the naborhood, and eye or eer witnesses of the recent transactions between the parties, should not be overthrown by other testimony; for all other evidence must hav necessarily been of an inferior nature. But the reezon haz ceesed, and there iz now nothing more sacred in the verdict of a jury, given on the testimony of others, than there iz in the opinions of arbitrators, referees or auditors under oath. The laws respecting juries are all founded on the idea that the men were acquainted with the facts in dispute. Their verdict waz formerly a declaration of facts; it iz now a mere matter of opinion. In short, the original design of the institution iz totally changed, and mostly superseded. Since juries rely on testimony, they need not be collected from the vicinage; it iz even safer to hav men who are strangers to both plaintiff and defendant. Jurors cannot be punished for perjury, for how can a man perjure himself in giving hiz opinion? They cannot be starved to deth, nor carted about town for disagreement; for how iz it possible for twelv men always to think alike, when they hav to form their opinions on clashing testimonies? In short, juries do not now answer one of the purposes for which they were at first instituted; and however necessary they may be deemed to the preservation of civil liberty, it appeers to me they are, in a great measure, useless.

I cannot leev this subject without remarking the influence of habit, in maintaining forms, when the substance no longer exists. This iz neerly the case with the whole institution of juries; but particularly in the manner of administering the oath to them. The practice of swearing the foreman and the other jurors separately, still exists in some of theze states, altho the reezon no longer remains. It originated in the manner of delivering the verdict, which waz, for every juror separately to answer the interrogatories of the judge. While this practice remained, it waz very proper that eech juror should take a separate oath; altho this formality iz dispensed with, in administering the oath to witnesses, in modern courts; the words, "you and eech of you swear," being substituted for a separate administration of the oath.

No. XXIV

 HARTFORD, SEPTEMBER, 1789.

The INJUSTICE, ABSURDITY, and BAD POLICY of LAWS against USURY

Usury, in the primitiv sense of the word, signifies any compensation given for the use of money; but in modern legal acceptation, it iz the taking an exorbitant sum for the use of money; or a sum beyond what iz permitted by law. The municipal laws of different states and kingdoms hav fixed different rates of interest; so that what iz usury in one country or state, iz legal interest in another. The propriety of such laws iz here called in question.

1. It iz presumed that such laws are unjust. Money iz a species of commercial property, in which a man haz az complete ownership, az in any other chattel interest. He haz therefore the same natural right to exercise every act of ownership upon money, az upon any other personal estate; and it iz contended, he ought to hav the same civil and political right. He ought to hav the same right to trade with money az with goods; to sell, to loan and exchange it to any advantage whatever, provided there iz no fraud in the business, and the minds of the parties meet in the contracts. The legislature haz no right to interfere with private contracts, and say that a man shall make no more than a certain profit per cent. on the sale of hiz goods, or limit the rent of hiz house to the annual sum of forty pounds. This position iz admitted for self evident, az it respects every thing but money; and it must extend to money also, unless it can be proved that the privilege of using money in trade or otherwise without restraint, and making what profit a man iz able by fair contract, with gold and silver, az well az with houses and lands, will produce some great public inconvenience, which will warrant the state in laying the use of such gold and silver under certain restrictions.¹⁴¹

The only reezon commonly given for limiting the interest of money by law, iz, that monied men will otherwise take advantage of the distresses of the poor and needy, to extort from them exorbitant interest. Admit the proposition in its utmost latitude, and it furnishes no argument in favor of the restraint, because the restraint iz no remedy for the evil. On the other hand, it generally increases the evil; for when the law forbids a man to take more than six per cent. for the use of hiz money, it, at the same time, leevs him the right of withholding hiz money from hiz distressed nabor, and actually lays before him the strongest motivs for withholding it. The law tuches the pride of a man, by restraining what he deems an unalienable right, and this consideration, added to a certainty of employing hiz money to greater advantage, impels the man to turn a deef eer to hiz nabors calamities, when he would be otherwise disposed to afford relief. The law therefore, so far from furnishing a remedy, actually doubles the evil.

To proov this assertion more cleerly, let me call the attention of my reeders to facts within their knowlege. Every man knows that there are persons in every state, who, thro imprudence, idleness or misfortune, become involved, and unable to pay their dets when du. Theze persons seldom make provision for discharging their dets, till they are pressed by their creditors. When they are urged by just demands or legal process, they are under a necessity of raising money immediately: But money iz scarce; it iz in a few men's hands, who will not pay the full valu of lands or personal estate. The poor detor iz then obliged to sell hiz farm or hiz cattle, or both, at private sale or at auction, for any price they will fetch, which iz commonly but a small part of the valu. Now, if the detor could hav borrowed a sum of money, at ten, fifteen, or even twenty per cent. he might hav been a gainer by the loan; for by being prohibited by law from borrowing money, at a high interest, he haz been obliged to sacrifice twenty, perhaps fifty or a hundred per cent. Laws against usury do not help such men; on the contrary they oppress them. Could such men get money even at twenty per cent. they would often be benefited by the loan; they might save their estates and avoid misery and ruin. A prohibition of high interest only compels the distressed to seek releef by sacrificing property in a way not guarded against by law. Nay, I beg leev to assert that such laws are the very meens of producing, supporting and enriching a host of oppressors in every state in America. There are a few men, in every state, who are what iz called beforehand; theze men will not loan money at legal interest, for this very good reezon, they can do better with it, az they say; and no man can blame another for making the most profitable use of hiz money. Theze men therefore keep their money, till their distressed nabor iz forced by det to sell hiz farm; then iz the time to lay out their money; they get the farm at their own price, which iz generally less than half its valu. In most states, lands are sold at auction, where they are sacrificed; and the poor owner haz all the charges of a legal suit to pay, az wel az the det; and the land sold for a small part of its valu. This iz the common practice, authorized by law; so that laws against usury only create an evil in one way, by endevoring to prevent it in another.

The evil and hardships of this law, of selling real estate on execution, hav been so great, az to giv rise to a different mode of satisfying executions in Connecticut. In this state, a man's person and estate are both liable for det; but if the personal estate iz insufficient, the creditor haz hiz election, ether to confine the dettor in prison, or take hiz lands. But the law, which iz so far in favor of the creditor, here steps in to prevent a sacrifice of the real property at public sale; and ordains that the creditor shall take it at a value, which shall be apprized by three indifferent freeholders. This law does injustice to the creditor; for it interferes with the contract, and obliges him to take that for pay which he did not engage to receev. But it favors the dettor, in a state where money iz scarce and cannot be eezily raized on an emergency. So far one law, by doing injustice to creditors, corrects some of the ill effects of the law against high interest in Connecticut; but the remedy iz partial, for men in distress for money, generally sell their estates at private sale, for one half their valu; and a few monied men and rich farmers are constantly taking advantage of their nabors calamities, to enrich themselves. Such men make more than fifty per cent. per ann. on their money by theze speculations, and no law can wholly prevent them. Now laws against usury create this very evil: They drive money from a country; they create a necessity for it; and then a few welthy men enrich themselves, not by loaning at fifteen or twenty per cent. but by purchasing lands at half price, which are sold to keep men from jail, who, if they could hav got money for a few months, at twenty per cent. might hav sold their estates to advantage, or otherwise paid their dets. In general then we may obzerv, when a man iz reduced to the necessity of asking money at twenty per cent., hiz situation iz such that it iz better to giv that interest, than to risk a sale of property on a sudden to raize the money. Laws against usury do not save such men; it iz idle to suppose it; on the contrary, they multiply instances of oppression, az all America can witness.

But the argument, if good, proovs too much. If legislators hav a right to fix the profit on money at interest, to prevent exorbitant demands from injuring the necessitous, wil not the same reezon warrant a restriction on the profits of every commodity in market? If my rulers hav a right to say, my annual profit on money loaned, shal be but six per cent. hav they not a right to say the advance on my wheet shal be but six per cent.? Where iz the difference? A poor man may indeed be distressed by a demand of high interest, and so he may by the high price of flour; and I beg leev to say, that distresses from the last cause are infinitely the most numerous, and the most deserving of legislativ remedies. It wil perhaps be said that the price of bred, in all cities, iz fixed by law—tru; but if the price of wheet iz not likewise fixed, there are times of scarcity when the law must vary the price, or the baker must be ruined, and the poor be destitute of bred. In an extensiv fertile country, like America, such cases may not happen frequently; but the actual existence of the fact proovs that such laws rather follow the state of the market, than regulate it. And indeed it iz a question, whether in this country, the citizens of our large towns would not be supplied with bred at a cheeper rate, without any regulations at all.

2. But the absurdity and bad policy of laws against usury, are so obvious, that it iz surprizing scarcely an attempt haz been made to abolish them in any country. Such laws are absurd and impolitic, because they actually and always produce and multiply the distresses they are designed to remedy. It iz impossible it should be otherwise: The very laws of nature and commerce require that such restraints should necessarily counteract their own design. It iz necessary that commodities should be sometimes plenty and sometimes scarce; and it iz equally necessary that money, the representativ of all commodities, should be liable to the same fluctuations. In the commercial world, money and commodities wil always flow to that country, where they are most wanted and wil command the most profit. The consequence iz that a high price soon produces a low price, and vice versa.

Let us apply the principle to the present question. When money can bear its own profit, its profit or the interest arising on loans, wil be in proportion to the profit made in commercial transactions. If a man can make twelv per cent. on hiz stock, in any kind of trade or speculation, he wil not convert that stock into cash, and loan it at six per cent. While therefore commerce or speculation wil afford a man greater profits, than the law affords him on hiz loans of cash, he wil hav no money to lend. The consequence iz, while the law fixes the rate of interest lower than the annual profits of other business, a country wil be destitute of money.

This iz precisely the case in America. Our remittances to Europe and the East Indies require considerable sums in specie to be exported; and the merchant wil not import specie, except to facilitate the purchase of hiz cargoes in America. He will not import it for the purpose of loaning, because hiz stock in trade affords a better profit. The few landholders who hav a little cash abuv their annual expenditures, wil not loan it; for they can make twelv, fifteen, eighteen per cent. on their money by the purchase of certificates, and more on the purchase of lands. There are therefore no motivs, no inducements, for the welthy citizens to loan money, and consequently when a man iz distressed to make a payment, he iz compelled to sacrifice property to perhaps five times the valu of the det; because the law will not permit hiz nabor to take twelv or fifteen per cent. per ann. for the loan of money, a few months; when he haz the money, and would gladly releev hiz frend, if he could receev an adequate compensation.

Thus laws against usury drive cash from a country. They really and continually create a scarcity of an article, and then restrain men from raizing the price, in proportion to that scarcity. They create distresses of the poor, and at the same time, create an impossibility of releef. Were money left, like all kinds of commodities, to command its own price in market; whenever its price should rize abuv the usual cleer profit of other business, men would import specie, or turn their stock into cash, and loan it on good security; for no man would submit to the drudgery of business, if he could make money az fast by lying stil, with hiz money at interest. Had money been permitted to bear its own price according to the demand for it in America since the war, it would hav been kept in the country, or introduced til the rate of interest had fallen, even below the legal standard. Limit the profit on any article of life, and set the price so low that peeple can make more by deeling in other articles, and the articles so fixed wil become scarce and deer. Were the legislatures of the several states to say that our traders should make but one per cent. on salt, they would not bring cargoes of it to the country. It would be az scarce az money iz now. Let the price of wheet be fixed at half a dollar a bushel, and in two years we should not hav a bushel in market. It iz the same case with money. The low profits on the use of money, expel it from the country, and none can be obtained at the legal price. Let the interest rize to any sum which can be obtained, and in two years, it would be az eezy to borrow money at a low interest, az it iz now difficult to command it at any price. The laws of nature wil continue to opperate, in spite of the feeble opposition of human power.

Another consideration demands our notice. The laws against usury increase the distresses of the needy, by enhancing the risk, and consequently the insurance on loans.¹⁴² It iz fruitless to attempt to prevent loans of money. When men are pressed for money, they can always find persons to supply them, upon some terms. But az a loan of money at a higher rate of interest than iz allowed by law, exposes the lender to a loss of the money, and a fine or forfiture besides, hiz demand for the use of hiz money wil rize in proportion to that risk. This haz always been one of the most pernicious effects of such laws. So that the law, not only creates a scarcity in the first instance, but actually raizes the demand of interest much abuv the natural demand required by that scarcity. In short, insted of releeving the detter, it multiplies hiz distresses four fold.

Besides, such laws, like all national restrictions on trade, tend to make men dishonest, in particular things, and thus weeken the powers of the moral faculty. There are ten thousand ways of evading such laws, and slight evasions gradually produce a habit of violating law, and harden the mind against the feer of its penalties. Indeed, such laws tend to undermine that confidence which iz the basis of social intercourse. Laws which encourage informations, should be enacted with caution. Such are laws against usury. A man haz often the strongest temptation to be a treecherous rascal, by inducing hiz frend to loan him money, on illegal interest, and then betraying him. This species of villany waz lately carried so far in Massachusetts, az to induce the legislature to repeel a clauze of their law against usury. And a man of morality must shudder, while he reeds the legal prosecutions and adjudications in England upon their statutes of usury.

The absurdity of attempting to fix the valu of money iz another objection to it of no small consequence. The valu of it depends wholly on the quantity in circulation and the demand. In this respect it resembles all other articles of trade; and who ever thought of fixing the price of goods by law?¹⁴³ It iz almost impossible for a legislature to ascertain exactly the valu of money at any one time; and utterly impossible to say that the valu when ascertained, shall continu the same for six months. Nay, two slates adjoining eech other may estimate the use of money very differently at the same period. In New York the legal interest iz seven per cent. in New England but six. A man may therefore do that legally in one state, which in the others would expoze him to a severe penalty.

In ancient Rome, the interest waz twelv per cent. The emperor Justinian reduced it to four, but allowed higher interest to be taken of merchants, on account of the risk. In Holland, when Grotius wrote, the common interest waz eight per cent.; but twelv to merchants. In England, the statute 37th, Henry VIII, confined interest to ten per cent. By the 21st James I, it waz reduced to eight; by the 12th Charles II, to six; and by 12th Ann, to five, the present legal interest in that country.¹⁴⁴

Postlethwaite remarks very justly that theze laws hav not ascertained the real valu or interest of money; for when the legal interest haz been six per cent. the real interest haz sometimes been four; and when the legal interest haz been five, the real interest haz sometimes been seven. Indeed the interest of money depends on such a combination of circumstances, az the scarcity of money, the demand in market, and the hazard, that an attempt to find and fix a permanent rate, iz one of the most visionary schemes that a public body can undertake. To proov the impossibility of such a scheme, I would only mention the continual practice of violating laws against usury; which would not be the case, if the real valu of money had been ascertained and fixed.¹⁴⁵ If legislatures had found the tru valu of the use of money, there would hav been fewer violations of their laws: If they hav, in any case, fixed a rate of interest lower than the real valu, they hav violated the rights of their subjects. This iz a serious consideration; and perhaps in no instance are the laws of England and America more strongly marked with the traces of ancient prejudice and barbarity, than in the prohibition which prevents a man from using hiz money az he pleezes, while he may demand any sum whatever for the use of hiz other property.

The only power, I conceev, a legislature haz to determin what interest shall arize on the use of money, or property, iz where the parties hav not determined it by agreement. Thus when a man haz taken up goods upon credit, or where, by any other legal meens, a man becomes possessed of anothers money or estate, without a specific stipulation for interest, the law very properly steps in and ascertains the sum which the detter shall pay for the use of that money. But to make a law that a man shall not take but six per cent. for the use of money, when the borrower iz willing to giv more, and the lender cannot part with hiz money at that rate of interest, iz a daring violation of private rights, an injury often to both parties, and productiv of innumerable embarrassments to commerce.

We are told that such laws are necessary to guard men from the oppression of the rich. What an error! Waz a monied man ever compelled to assist a distressed nabor, by the forfitures incurred by such laws? Iz not hiz money hiz own? Wil he lend it all, if it should not be for hiz benefit? Besides, cannot a man in necessity alienate hiz property for one fourth of its valu? Are not such bona fide contracts made every day to raize money to answer a temporary purpose? Nay, hav not the laws of all commercial states authorized sales by auction, where any man may part with hiz property for a fourth of its valu? Iz there any remedy in law against such a sacrifice of a man's estate? Wherein then consists the security of laws against usury? In the name of common sense and common equity, let legislators be consistent. If men are improvident, lazy and careless, a loss of property wil be their punishment, and no mezures of government wil prevent it.

To what then shall we ascribe the severe laws against high interest, which hav been and stil are existing in most commercial countries? I presume the cause may be easily assigned. The Jewish prohibition, not to take interest, except of strangers, first gave rise to douts in the minds of our pious christian forefathers, with respect to the legality of any interest at all. This produced, in the dark ages, severe ecclesiastical laws against taking any thing for the use of money; and theze laws originated a general prejudice against it, thro the Christian world.

In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, commerce began to revive; but az there waz but little money, and trade waz lucrativ, because in few hands, money bore a very high interest. In some parts of Europe, the interest waz forty per cent. Even with this interest, certain Italian traders could make an annual profit, and therefore it waz for their benefit to giv it. It however rendered them very unpopular.¹⁴⁶