Page images
PDF
EPUB

straints? and how will merely voluntary restraints be maintain. ed? How long will sovereigns, as the people are made to fancy they are, insist more upon checks than prerogatives? Ask Mr. *** and judge Chase

Besides, in political reasoning it is generally overlooked, that, if the existence of morals should encourage a people to prefer a democratick system, the operation of that system is sure to destroy their morals. Power in such a society cannot long have any regular control; and, without control, it is itself a vice. Is there in human affairs an occasion of profligacy more shameless or more contagious than a general election? Every spring gives birth and gives wings to this epidemick mischief. Then begins a sort of tillage that turns up to the sun and air the most noxious weeds in the kindliest soil; or to speak still more seriously, it is a mortal pestilence, that begins with rottenness in the marrow. A democratick society will soon find its morals the incumbrance of its race, the surly companion of its licentious joys. It will encourage its demagogues to impeach and persecute the magistra cy till it is no longer disquieted. In a word, there will not be morals without justice; and though justice might possibly, support a democracy, yet a democracy cannot possibly support justice.

Rome was never weary of making laws for that end, and failed. France has had nearly as many laws as soldiers, yet never had justice or liberty for one day. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt, that the ruling faction has often desired to perpetuate its authority by establishing justice. The difficulties however, lie in the nature of the thing; for indemocratick states there are ever more volunteers to destroy than to build; and nothing that is restraint can be erected, without being odious, nor maintained, if it is. Justice herself must be built on a loose foundation, and every villain's hand is, of course, busy to pluck out the underpinning. Instead of being the awful power that is to control the popular passions, she descends from the height of her temple, and becomes the cruel and vindictive instrument of them.

Federalism was, therefore, manifestly founded on a mistake, on the supposed existence of sufficient political virtue, and on the permanency and authority of the publick morals.

'The party now in power committed no such mistake. They afted on the knowledge of what men actually are, not what they

ought to be. Instead of enlightening the popular understanding, their business was to bewilder it. They knew that the vicious, on whom society makes war, would join them in their attack upon government, They inflamed the ignorant; they flattered the vain; they offered novelty to the restless; and promised plunder to the base. The envious were assured, that the great should fall; and the ambitious, that they should become great. The federal power, propped by nothing but opinion, fell, not because it deserved its fall, but because its principles of action were more exalted and pure than the people could support.

It is now undeniable, that the federal administration was blameless. It has stood the scrutiny of time, and passed unharmed through the ordeal of its enemies. With all the evidence of its conduct in their possession, and with servile majorities at their command, it has not been in their power, much as they desired it, to fix any reproach on their predecessors.

It is the opinion of a few, but a very groundless opinion, that the cause of order will be re-established by the splitting of the reigning jacobins; or, if that should not take place soon, the union will be divided, and the northern confederacy compelled to provide for its own liberty. Why, it is said, should we expect, that the union of the bad will be perfect, when that of the Washington party, though liberty and property are at stake, has been broken? And why should it be supposed, that the northern states, who possess so prodigious a preponderance of white population, of industry, commerce, and civilization over the Southern, will remain subject to Virginia? Popular delusion cannot last, and as soon as the opposition of the federalists ceases to be feared, the conquerors will divide into new factions, and either the federalists will be called again into power, or the un ion will be severed into two empires."

RULE OF WAR AGAIN.

FROM THE EDINBURGH REVIEW..

"It is contended, that England, has a right to prohibit the neutrals from carrying on any trade during war, which was not open to them during peace. But why should not the same rule extend to a trade of which the neutrals, though permitted by

law, did in fact not partake before the war? It is owing to our hostilities, that the Americans carry wines from Bourdeaux to Amsterdam; they came into this traffick in order to shelter the French and Dutch traders from our cruizers; we have as good a right to prohibit it, as to stop their trade in sugar and coffee. In like manner, the French used to import American produce in their own vessels; now they only receive it in American ships. Instead of a part, therefore, the Americans have the whole of this trade, and England has a right to confine them to their former share of it; but as this is utterly impossible, without stopping it altogether, she may exercise her belligerent rights in the only way practicable, and cut off the Americans from all intercourse whatever with her enemies. This is exactly what the French government has threatened us with; and it must be admitted to follow clearly, from the principles of the rule of the war of 1756. Accordingly some politicians recommend it to England. Now, let us see what follows. We are desired to cut off all intercourse between America and our enemies; this will no doubt injure our enemies, but it will hurt America still more. For we are unfortunately at war with about ten different nations, each of whom will thus lose its American trade: but America will lose its trade with each of them; and will suffer, perhaps, ten times as much as any of them.* Being at war with almost the whole world ourselves, we shall in revenge, monopolize the whole trade of a neutral and friendly power, and indemnify ourselves at its expence. But shall we, in fact, be benefiting ourselves by so singular a conduct? We may call it monopolizing the trade of America, but, in truth, it is equally giving her the monopoly of our own trade; it is confining the Americans to intercourse with ourselves, and ourselves to intercourse with them; for, the keenest advocates of the rule of 1756 admit, ex

* The learned and ingenious author of War in Disguise, (p. 37, 5th edit.) treats with fome contempt the assertion that neutrals suffer hardship in not being allowed to supply themselves with colonial produce in the enemy's island's during war; a hardship, he observes, which they suffer equally during peace. But surely, if one belligerent interdicts all colony trade except her own, the neutrals, instead of having the market for produce open in all the mother countries, are confined to the market of that of one belligerent. If America is prevented from buying French produce, and our market can, not supply her, she suffers as much as France does by the prohibition. And even if she can get a supply from us, she suffers a much greater restriction in her trade than if she were still an English colony.

plicitly, that we have not a shadow of right to partake, under any pretexts, in a trade which we shut against the neutrals. If then we cannot cut off our enemy's commerce, without injuring the Americans a great deal more, so neither can we injure the Americans without hurting ourselves equally; and such, in a few words, is the benefit to be derived, from the complete assertion of our pretended rights towards neutrals.

The progress of the demands which have been made by the assertors of these rights, is exceedingly instructive as to their real views. The transports of produce from the enemy's colonies to the mother country direct, in neutral vessels, is first required to be stopped. The neutral then carries it to his own ports, and from thence to the enemy's. We are required to consider this as one voyage, and an evasion of the first prohibition. A second prohibition is therefore demanded; the produce must be fairly landed and pay duties; and it must not be reexported in the same vessel which brought it. Under all these restrictions however, the neutral can afford to continue the trade; and the produce still finds its way to the enemy, though at very advanced prices. We are now desired, therefore, to enforce the rule of the war of 1756, and to prevent the produce from entering our enemy's ports at all, in neutral bottoms, because, in time of peace, that commerce was interdicted by him. Suppose we again comply, and that the neutrals yield-they will carry the produce to some neutral European port, from which it may find its way to the market; that is, to our enemies. A new demand is therefore necessary. We are required absolutely to prohibit all traffick in colonial produce which came originally from the enemy's colony. Even this would be evaded; for, how is such produce to be distinguished from the very produce sold by ourselves to those neutrals, according to the strict letter of our own navigation law? We must therefore, interdict absolutely, all carriage of colonial produce in any vessels not being British. But this, though sufficient to outrage all publick law, would still be inadequate to prevent smuggling, so long as any traffick remained between our enemies and the neutrals. There is but one other step to take, therefore. We must go to war with the neutrals, and put their ships upon the same footing with those of our enemy, whose places in trade they are now filling. By this chain it is, Vol. I.

B B B

that we are driven on from prohibition to prohibition, till we find that the prohibition of neutrality itself is our only remedy; and that we can only trust to the vigilance of our cruizers for the security of our colonial monopoly, and the interruption of our enemy's trade. The case is therefore short and plain. If all nations will not go to war with France, when we choose to do so, we must go to war with them also. There is no other way of vexing our enemy and protecting our mercantile profits."

STELLA.

WE frequently alluded to Stella, a German drama of a most pernicious tendency, in our notes to 'the Rovers, or Double Arrangement,' which we published in the hope of ridiculing the absurdities of such productions. The following account of that celebrated German monster may gratify those of our readers who cannot have recourse to the original.

"Ferdinand, a young nobleman, for something, or for nothing,' thinks proper to leave his home, his wife, (Cecilia), and an only daughter. He then attaches himself to Stella, the heroine of the drama, who abandons her connections, and the prospect of a good estate, to follow this child of inconstancy and ennui. But Stella is as little able to fix the wanderer as Cecilia, and Ferdinand forsakes his mistress with the same sang-froid as he had before quitted his wife: he enters into foreign service, and after three years returns to the spot where Stella resided. Hither, also, his wife, reduced to distress, had just arrived with her daughter, who was engaged as an attendant in Stella's family. They recognize each other, and Ferdinand agrees to return to his duty: but how to disengage himself from Stella? The following scene, in which the distress seems to be at the height, will fhew the result of that determination. It is a bonne bouche, and breathes the very spirit and essence of German tragedy.

"STELLA. You terrify me, Ferdinand! You look wildly!

FERDINAND. Stella-I am a wretch and a coward! I lose all my powers when I am with you-I have not the resolution to strike the dagger into your heart, and yet secretly meditate slow poison! Oh Stella! Stella.

STELLA. For heaven's sake!

FERDINAND. (With bitterness and passion.) And only not to see your sorrow! not to hear you despair! To fly !

STELLA. (In a faint voice.) I can support myself no longer. (She is sinking, but holds by him.)

FERDINAND. Stella! whom I hold in my arms! Stella! thou who art all to me! Stella! (Coldly.) I leave thee!

« PreviousContinue »