THE ſeceſſion of ſo conſiderable a part of the Britiſh Empire, as now conſtitutes the United States, and the general acknowledgement of their independence by the powers of Europe, muſt point out a very important aera in the hiſtory of mankind.

The cauſes that led to this great revolution, and the operations that inſured it ſucceſs, will hereafter afford abundant matter for the pen of ſome able hiſtorian.

The immediate effects that it muſt have on the Syſtem of European Politics, form a very ſerious ſubject of preſent enquiry and contemplation; eſpecially, as nations begin to be convinced of the futility of becoming great by conqueſt, and more inclined to abandon the cruel ſyſtem of war, in order effectually to enrich themſelves by purſuing the peaceful line of commerce.

The United States, ſtretching through ſuch a variety of climates, abounding in ſuch various productions, and affording ſuch a vaſt field for the conſumption of European manufactures, muſt naturally have a very intimate and active commerce with the different States of Europe.

From adventitious circumſtances, peculiarly favorable to Great Britain, no nation poſſeſſes opportunities of ſo effectually promoting this connection; and from her dependence on commerce, for the ſupport of her power and importance, 〈◊〉 nation is ſo pointedly intereſted in the improvement of theſe advantages.

She has already brought her affairs to the brink of 〈◊〉 , from continuing too long a ſlave to impoſture and deluſion. It is time to recover her from her lethargy; this perhaps may prove a difficult taſk, as ignorant and intereſted writers are ſtill endeavouring to impoſe their ill-digeſted and pernicious ſyſtems on the public mind, and to impreſs ſentiments, which, if adopted into the politics of this country, would be entirely ſubverſive of a commercial connection betwixt Great Britain and the United States of America.

I ſhall ſubmit my opinions on this 〈…〉 your conſideration, and have little doubt of a coincidence of ſ •••• ment.

You muſt remember that after the concluſion of the war, a Bill was introduced into the Houſe of Commons, by Mr. Pitt, (then Chancellor of the Exchequer) in order to ſerve as a temporary regulation for the trade of the United States. In perfect conformity with the ſpirit of this Bill, it was expected a permanent connection betwixt the two Countries, would be formed by treaty; it had in view a ſyſtem of liberal intercourſe, and was received in America with univerſal approbation, as the harbinger of returning affections.

Under a firm perſuaſion that Great Britain would perſevere in the line of conduct, that this Bill preſcribed, the United States opened all their ports to Britiſh ſhipping, and received them, without any other reſtrictions than thoſe, which veſſels belonging to their own citizens, were expoſed to.

A change of miniſtry ſoon after took place, and likewiſe a change of meaſures; the advocates for the American war compoſed a part of it; the effects were ſoon viſible: a Proclamation, virtually reſtraining all intercourſe betwixt the United States and the Weſt Indies, except in Britiſh ſhipping, made its appearance.

This measure was in every reſpect impolitic and unwiſe, as it was natural to imagine that it would make unfavourable impreſſions in regard to the views of Great Britain, that would remain long, and affect deeply; and would have a tendency to convince the United States that the ſame ſyſtem of infatuated councils, that ſevered the two countries aſunder, ſtill had an aſcendency in the Britiſh Cabinet, and was likely to continue an inſuperable barrier to a free and unreſtrained connection.

Much about the ſame time Lord Sheffield publiſhed a pamphlet, which was intended to juſtify the prudent precaution of ſuch meaſures, as eſſentially neceſſary to the future wealth and power of Great Britain; it is ſaid to have had a very ſerious effect on the minds of the people in England, the majority of whom, as in all countries, are more prone to receive the opinions of others, than be at the trouble of furniſhing arguments for themſelves.

However, it will not be difficult to prove, that his reaſoning is extremely flimſy and fallacious; entirely remote from the principles of commercial legiſlation, and ſupported on a ſyſtem of acknowledged error.

Previous to entering on a refutation of his doctrine, it will be neceſſary to premiſe ſome few reflections, on the advantages that the Weſt India Iſlands will derive, from being indulged in an intercourſe with the United States, from which the adoption of Lord Sheffield's ſyſtem would entirely exclude them.

The ſoil, the climate, and conſequently the productions of the United States, are ſo various, that they can furniſh almoſt every article that they can furniſh almoſt every article that the wants and conveniences of the iſlands can require; and from circumſtances of local ſituation, can ſupply them more abundantly, more expeditiouſly on better terms, and leſs ſubject to contingencies, than they can be procured from Europe; inſomuch, that the Weſt India Planters have always regarded a commercial connection with the United States as eſſential to the well-being and improvement of the iſlands, and have deprecated the loſs of it, as a moſt fatal bl • w to their flouriſhing exiſtence.

The articles which the Coloniſt indiſpenſably ſtands in need of, are flour, biſcuit, Indian corn, rice, beans, peas, potatoes, ſalt beef, pork, cheeſe, butter, beer, cod and other kinds of ſalt fiſh, whale oil, candies, tallow, ſoap, tobacco, naval ſtores, horſes, poultry, live cattle, bar iron, building wood of all kinds, frames of houſes, maſts, ſpars, hogſhead ſlaves, heading, ſhingles, plank both pine and oak, &c.

The United States can, not only abundantly, and at all times, ſupply theſe articles, but can furniſh them on far more moderate terms, than they can be imported from Europe.

Experience has proved, that no food is ſo cheap and nouriſhing to the ſlaves as Indian corn, of which there muſt neceſſarily be a regular and frequent ſupply, as it will not keep but a ſhort time, expoſed to the extreme warmth of the climate. Small veſſels are generally employed in furniſhing theſe ſupplies, as well as live ſtock and other articles of proviſions, which could not afford to navigate with cargoes of ſuch little value if it was not for the quickneſs of the voyage, and the certainty of a return freight of Weſt India produce. Theſe are not objects of ſufficient importance for European veſſels; for large quantities would frequently overſtock the market, and conſequently be expoſed to periſh in the hands of the importer.

But there are particular times when the dependence of the Weſt Indies on the United States, is more pointedly obſervable. After a hurricane, that awful and tremendous convulſion of nature, that ſo frequently happens in the tropical climates, that levels with the ground all the buildings and improvements of a plantation, deſtroys the proviſions, and exhibits throughout the whole country, the wildeſt marks of ruin and devaſtation: Where is the affrighted planter to look for ſuccour and aſſiſtance? How is he to repair his loſſes, promptly and effectually?

He muſt give himſelf up to deſpair, if his only reliance is on European ſupplies: but he feels a conſolation when he conſiders his vicinity to America, which, though but a foſter mother, acting like a natural parent, flies to his relief.

After theſe terrible calamities, which have threatened all the miſeries of famine, he has often found, from experience, that ſhe has poured in ſuch abundance, as to have reduced the prices of proviſions, much lower than they even were previous to his misfortunes.

The advantages which this commerce preſents are founded on the broad baſis of reciprocal intereſts, and a mutual exchange of neceſſary commodities.

The United States, in return for the ſupplies they furniſh the iſlands, will receive their productions, ſeveral of which, ſuch as rum and molaſſes, may be called the excreſcences of their exports, and without recourſe to American conſumption, would be in very feeble demand for the European market.

But ſhould no encouragement be given to the planter, to aid the natural vigour of the ſoil, by the facility with which he may procure his proviſions; and ſhould the iſlands be deprived of the advantages which their local ſituation affords, by having the channel through which their ſupplies are to be procured, ſtopped up, or confined in too narrow bounds, they will not only individually ſuffer, by being often expoſed to a calamitous ſcarcity; but the Mother Country muſt finally be ſenſible of the pernicious effects of ſuch reſtrictions. For the body politic, like the human body, has a ſenſe of feeling, in its remoteſt extremities. Nothing ſuffers ſingly by itſelf—there is a conſent of the parts in the ſyſtem of both, and the partial evil grows into univerſal miſchief For in an exact ratio, with the rate of proviſions, and other neceſſaries of life will the demand for labour keep pace, and the price of Weſt India produce, and its relative quantity, will riſe or fall by theſe proportions, The planter conſequently cannot afford his productions ſo low, as to be placed in competition with the French at a foreign market, except he procures his neceſſaries on the beſt of terms.

On the contrary, ſhould the iſlands flouriſh under a State of eaſe and plenty, the Mother Country will be proportionably benefited; for it is an invariable rule in commercial polity, that riches always centre in the Metropolis: their diffuſive influence may be compared to the circulation of the blood, which is diſperſed over the whole ſyſtem, but always returns back to the heart, the ſeat of life, and is only ſent back by new pulſations.

Should therefore this monopolizing ſpirit which is a mockery on the induſtry of a country, give way to more liberal ideas, the active ſtimulus of the planter will no longer be depreſſed. By being furniſhed with neceſſaries on more moderate and eaſy terms, he will employ leſs of his revenue, to defray the expences of his eſtate; he will conſequently have a reſidue left to appropriate to the the extenſion of his ſettlements, clearing and breaking up new grounds, which when brought into culture, will furniſh additional quantities of produce, to ſupply the increaſing demand.

In the courſe of attaining theſe profits to the planter, the State will greatly benefit in an increaſe of her revenues, by the duties laid on the ſurplus quantity of produce: by the employment of a more extenſive commerce and navigation, which muſt keep pace with the improving condition of her iſlands: and by fixing the balance of trade in her favour in proportion to the augmentation of her exports.

Another advantage of conſpicuous character offers itſelf; which is their increaſing conſumption of manufactures, which improving eſtabliſhments naturally occaſion; and an increaſe of manufactures is always accompanied by a proportional increaſe of population.

Moulded by habit to a particular mode of thinking in regard to the commercial legiſlation of the iſlands, I know it will be difficult, and will require every effort of ſound reaſoning, to break through the ſyſtem of prohibitory laws. eſtabliſhed by the Britiſh Government. But, when an increaſe of population and of revenue, progreſſive opulence and ſtrength, are to be derived from the effects of abandoning this jealous ſelf-obſtructing policy; it is to be expected that the ſpirit of ſuch contracted eſtabliſhments will not be inveterate, and on mature conſideration, will no longer be adhered to.

But it is aſſerted by Lord Sheffield, that regular ſupplies of proviſions and neceſſaries may, with proper encouragement, be obtained from the remainder of the Britiſh Colonies on the continent.

Theſe viſionary ſuggeſtions are almoſt too ludicrous to be combated, and ſeem intended as a political artifice, to blind the eyes of the too credulous people, and deceive them into a belief, that their remaining territories in America are of conſiderable value.

It is well known, that the intenſeneſs of the climate of Canada, with the difficulty of its navigation will ſcarcely admit of more than one voyage in the year to the Weſt Indies, which require a regular and continued ſupply of proviſions.

As for the inhoſpitable regions of Nava Scotia, it will be matter of wonder, and a ſolace to humanity, if by the unceaſing induſtry of its inhabitants, it will be able to produce a ſufficiency, for their ſuſtenance and ſupport.

The United States muſt therefore continue to be, what they always have been, the granary of the Britiſh Weſt Indies; and if direct importations into them are not admitted of, recourſe will be had to indirect ſupplies, through the medium of the neutral iſlands. All the additional expence of this circuitous route, incurred for charges of double inſurance, freight, commiſſion, &c. will fall on the Coloniſt, as the comſumer, without very materially injuring the American merchant, who will naturally inſure to himſelf a ſaving profit on his exports.

Beſides, the Britiſh Government muſt eſtabliſh a number of guarda coſtas, well armed and appointed, to prevent the clandeſtine trade that will immediately commence betwixt the United States and their iſlands. A trade, that will find a ſupport and protection, in every planter of the country, whoſe intereſt will be ſo immediately connected with its encouragement, will not eaſily be ſuppreſſed.

Even under the vigorous authority of military government in the French Weſt Indies, not all the weight of power, exerted for the purpoſe, could formerly prevent this ſpecies of traffic; much leſs can it be expected to ſucceed, where the reigns of government are relatively ſo relaxed, as in the hands of the Britiſh Governors.

Beſides, Great Britain has learned, by fatal dear-bought experience, impreſſed in ſuch ſtrong characters, as not to be ſoon and eaſily effaced, that the true art of governing is not to govern too much; and how difficult it is to rule a people by laws, that it is their intereſt to reſiſt, and render nugatory.

But to counteract the force of the foregoing obſervations, it is aſſerted by Lord Sheffield, and what is much more ſtrange, that people are ſo infatuated as to believe, that notwithſtanding the abſolute prohibition on the part of Great Britain, of admiſſion of American veſſels into her iſlands, ſtill that the United States will open their ports to Britiſh ſhipping, and freely indulge them with the liberty of carrying off their produce.

But he muſt have a poor opinion of the force of his own arguments, which he has ſo abundantly furniſhed to Great Britain, in favour of this ſelfiſh ſyſtem of monopolizing the carrying trade, if he does not believe, that they will operate ſo effectually on the minds of the Americans, as to induce them, deprived of an equalization of privilege, to adopt the ſame plan; admitting that their ſagacious clear-ſighted politicians had not already diſcovered them.

His premiſes therefore are not admiſſible — the idea they convey is an inſult on common ſenſe.

I expected that in forming an eſtimate of the American character, the Engliſh had been fully perſuaded, from a view of the progreſs of their political affairs, that they were conducted by a people who ſeldom have ſo widely wandered from their intereſts.

Habituated to the reſiſtance of every oppreſſive meaſure, more vigilant over their national concerns, more intent on connecting the ſcience of politics, with the elements of commerce, as forming the moſt important object of the ſtateſman's attention — than perhaps any other nation exiſting, is it to be expected, they will acquieſce in a ſyſtem, ſo derogatory to the honour, degrading to the ſpirit, and injurious to the intereſts of a great people?

A moment's reflection muſt convince every diſpaſſionate enquirer, that our legiſlators are better guardians of the public concerns, than to ſubmit to ſo pernicious an intercourſe; eſpecially when it is conſidered, that they are ſelected from theſe, who are the beſt verſed in the intereſts of the States, as relative to thoſe of other commercial powers, and who will embrace every advantage that nature has given, or art can procure, to the improvement thereof.

He may continue to cheriſh the deluſive idea, but I will tell him in prophetic language, what will be the conſequence.

The States from a ſenſe of common danger, and common intereſt, will more cloſely unite together, and form one general ſyſtem of excluſive navigation, in regard to Great Britain, eſtabliſhed on clear, equal and determinate principles of commercial retaliation, which will rapidly pervade the whole Union. Already has a generous competition began to take place, betwixt them, which ſhall moſt cheerfully adopt, and carry into effect, thoſe wiſe and ſalutary meaſures, recommended by the grand council of the country, in order to make their foederal union reſpectable, and the United States, as proſperous in Peace, as they have been glorious in War.

I acknowledge, that ſuch public ſpirited arrangements will, for a time, expoſe ſome of the States, to temporary inconvenience and diſtreſs; but after all the ſacrifices they have already made, will it be ſurprizing that they ſhould exert this ſelf-denying virtue; eſpecially as it will eventually become one of the greateſt ſources of their future wealth and importance.

Such prohibitions, therefore, on the part of Great Britain, will operate like a charm throughout the country; they will act like a ſpur on the induſtry of the inhabitants, and compel them to turn their attention more immediately to the conſtruction of ſhips, and the increaſe of their ſeamen. The eaſtern and middle States, which from circumſtances of local ſituation and character, are more peculiarly calculated for theſe purpoſes, will, by vigorous exertion, by great and increaſing encouragement, in a ſhort time, be enabled to furniſh a ſufficient ſupply. Many of their trading inhabitants will be induced to reſide in, and become citizens of the ſouthern States, and form eſtabliſhments therein, in order to devote themſelves to the buſineſs of furniſhing the neceſſary ſhipping, for the tranſportation of their bulky produce.

Such circumſtances, fortunately combining in favour of the general intereſt of the republic will operate as a bond of union amongſt them by occaſioning their reſpective citizens to continue to mix freely and intimately together.

And by making them mutually dependent on each other for reciprocal ſervices, will diveſt them of local attachments, and will irreſiſtibly impel them to become friends, to the rights and intereſts of confederated America. For as the propagation of mankind depends on the intercourſe of perſons of different ſexes, ſo do political connections thrive only betwixt ſuch countries, as furniſh different materials for their mutual exchange, and who ſoon become, from a ſenſe of each others wants mutually endeared to each other. Yet this ſhrewd p • litcian infers, that the States will oppoſe each other, becauſe their ſtaples and their climate are different—forgetting the truth of that political maxim, that intereſt unites, from the ſame cauſe that it divides.

Therefore this ſelfiſh arrangement which appears to predominate, in the Britiſh Cabinet, and which is ſuppoſed to be an emanation from the ſame ill fated ſtar, which in your political ſyſtem has been ſo long looked up to as your polar direction, will eventually become a great advantage to the United States; for I am well convinced, that they never will arrive to any eminence as a naval power, until their inhabitants are reduced to the neceſſity of being the excluſive carriers of their own productions, thereby encouraging mercantile navigation, ſo as to make it become a nurſery of ſeaman. I ſay forced, for the aſſertion of Lord Sheffield, that our veſſels navigate cheaper than thoſe of Great Britain, is not founded on fact; for when their ſpeedy decay, comparatively with thoſe of the Britiſh, with the ſcarcity of ſeamen, the much higher price of wages, and the neceſſity of importing moſt of the building materials from Europe, are taken into conſideration, it will clearly be inferred, that the latter can afford their freights, at a much eaſier rate.

But ſhould the United States be compelled to adopt a navigation act, the proſpect will then change, the demands for ſeamen will greatly increaſe, their wages will be encouraging, and it will not be poſſible to prevent their paſſing into the American ſervice; for this claſs of people, as wavering and inconſtant as the element that wafts them, are attached to change of climate, and are eaſily allured by the proſpect of greater wages, or kinder treatment.

Under the influence of the above cauſes it muſt be clearly evident, that the fears of our competition in the carrying trade of the Weſt Indies, are entirely groundleſs. Beſides, it is not probable that the Americans will ſeek in foreign countries for freights, when they have not perhaps above one fourth part of the neceſſary ſhipping to ſupply their own demands, for tranſporting their produce to market: How abſurd and contradictory then are Lord Sheffield's apprehenſions! for it is, from a preſumption of their ſcarcity of ſhippiing, that he affirms that the Americans will not refuſe their produce to the offers of Britiſh veſſels: he acknowledges likewiſe, that the French underſell the Britiſh ſugars at foreign markets; there can conſequently be but little danger of the Americans being deſirous of carrying them to foreign ports; for where will be the inducement?

In arguing againſt this ſelfiſh contracted ſyſtem, founded on extreme cupidity, and in favour of a free unreſtrained commerce betwixt the two countries, I have no view of conſulting the advantages of the United States to the excluſion of thoſe of Great Britain.

I know it would be folly to expect that ſhe would make ſacrifices of her intereſts, to accommodate the views of the Americans.

But it ſo happens, that ſhe cannot favour the United States with an indulgence, for which they are not able to furniſh more than a reciprocal benefit.

It is expedient however to examine ſtill more fully, what the grand leading argument that Lord Sheffield adduces in favour of the neceſſity of totally excluding them from a participation in the Britiſh Weſt India trade, amounts to. He is fearful that they will thereby become the carriers of the produce of the iſlands to the place of its conſumption, which will create an interference of foreign veſſels, thereby leſſening the number of ſeamen, and conſequently the naval force of the country.

But, if in addition to all that I have already ſaid, I anſwer, that in return for this accommodation which he may call indulgent, but which I have clearly evinced to be the intereſt of Great Britain, conſulting the welfare of her iſlands, to grant.

I ſay, if in return for this accommodation, her ſubjects may be admitted to a free ingreſs and egreſs to and from the ports of the United States—What reply will the advocates for this ſyſtem make? — What will become of Lord Sheffield' reaſoning, when weighed in the ſcale of comparative proportion? I only wiſh them to comprehend the magnitude of the advantage. Men of weak or limited underſtandings, will be incapable of extending their ideas, ſo as to embrace the vaſt field it opens to an enlightened mind.

In the firſt place, they will not aſſuredly deny, that the productions of the United States, to the tranſportation of which, from the propoſed arrangement, they are 〈◊〉 to be admitted, will furniſh twice the quantity of bulky materials, that the exports of the Weſt Indies do, and will conſequently employ twice the quantity of ſhipping. — To ſtamp conviction in regard to the truth of this aſſertion, let them take a view of the rice, indigo, and lumber of Georgia and South Carolina; — the naval ſtores, lumber, and tobacco of North Carolina; — the tobacco wheat, Indian corn, &c. of Virginia and Maryland; — the flour, lumber corn, and various proviſions of Pennſylvania, Delaware, Jerſey and New-York; — the fiſh, lumber, live ſtock, &c. of the New England States.

Admit the fact to be aſcertained with ſatisfactory preciſion, will it not be confeſſed, that an arrangement, by which both countries are freely admitted to a participation of each other's trade, will be highly advantageous to Great Britain.

This is a poſition, as clear as any mathematical axiom.—Beſides, the advantages of Great Britain may be deemed increaſing, as the exportation of the bulky produce of the United States, in which her veſſels will be employed, will augment, in proportion to the population of the country;— a population, that will probably be productive beyond all examples of former ages, — multiplying like the ſeeds of the harveſt.

Whereas, on her part, there is but little room for extenſion of improvement; — on this point her moſt ſanguine friends would compound, for her being fixed and ſtationary.

But Lord Sheffield argues, that it would be folly to grant the Americans any particular privileges and conceſſions, as the treaties with France, and the United Provinces, in direct terms forbid the Britiſh being put on a better footing than the inhabitants of thoſe countries.

The faculties of this writer muſt be ſtrangely perverted, — or his deſign muſt evidently be to delude the public mind, by giving ſo falſe a conſtruction to this part of the treaties.

Can it be imagined, on the principles of common ſenſe, that if the French and Dutch exclude the Americans from a ſhare of their Weſt India trade, the United States will grant to the inhabitants of thoſe countries, the ſame free admiſſion into their ports, as to thoſe of Great Britain, who may permit an unreſtrained participation in their commerce? In every contract, there is a quid pro quo — openly expreſſed, or tacitly implied; — and it is not to be preſumed, that the moſt favoured nation can require a benefit, without granting a reciprocal return; — it is contrary to the avowed policy of nations, which, it is well underſtood, is founded on the broad baſis, of intereſt and convenience.

The ſame reaſons will tend to fruſtrate the hopes of Ruſſia, who cannot, like the United States, give an equitable equivalent to Great Britain, in return for ſuch great conceſſions.

France has hitherto, invariably, by her own internal reſources, ſupplied her iſlands abundantly, with many of the neceſſaries they ſtand in need of, and is ſtill in a capacity to do the ſame.

With reſpect to other articles, (the produce of the United States,) that do not interfere with her own exports, ſhe has given free admiſſion to them all into her Weſt India poſſeſſions; — and in order to gain the advantages of the rum trade, which the Britiſh hitherto have excluſively propoſed, ſhe has ceded particular diſtricts in her iſlands, for the accommodation of the Americans, who may chuſe to erect diſtilleries thereon, which, for their great encouragement, are to be exempt from taxes, for a certain number of years. — The conſummate policy of her councils was never more eminently diſplayed, than in this meaſure.

See Proclamation of the General of Martinico, publiſhed in the Public Advertiſer.

The aſtoniſhed planter, in viewing the reſpective arrangements of the two countries, will wonder where the genius of Britain, ſo famed for her commercial knowledge, has retired.

After having already made it appear that it is the intereſt of Great Britain (independent of all other conſiderations) to adopt the plan of an open communication between the iſlands and the United States, and that it is in the power of the latter to grant more than they receive; — I will now have recourſe to an argument, that perhaps will have a ſalutary effect on thoſe, who are the moſt difficult to be perſuaded; — I mean, the relative ſituation of the two countries, which makes it the intereſt of Great Britain, more than that of any other European power, to be pointedly connected with the American States.

Let a moment's attention be paid to this ſubject, and let the inference be fairly and diſpaſſionately drawn.

Great Britain, by the ſuperior ſkill and induſtry of her inhabitants and ſome adventitious circumſtances, has carried many of her manufactures to a degree of perfection and cheapneſs, which no other country in Europe has arrived at.

Conſidering the inferior ſtate of her population, compared with ſome of her rival nations, and the very limited extent of her territory, it muſt be confeſſed, that a conſiderable part of her revenues, to ſupport the immenſe load of debt ſhe has incured, muſt be drawn from this ſource — from the induſtry of her people.

The United State at preſent offer three millions of inhabitants. rapidly increaſing to numbers, all of whom conſume more or leſs of Britiſh manufactures, — the productions of art and induſtry, — in return for which, they give the raw materials — the produce of agriculture, in their native ſtate.

How ſufatueted muſt the councils of your country be, which could rend but for a moment, to diſturb ſo beneficial an intercourſe; or ſuſpend the ſweets of ſo lucrative a commerce!

The United States have as yet laid no impoſitions on the importation of Britiſh manufactures, that can have any tendency to reſtrain the conſumption of them;—and many reaſons of conſpicuous weight and importance continually offer, in favour of eſtabliſhing ſuch duties; — for by operating as a ſumptuary law, ſuch a meaſure would be of conſiderable ſervice to a young country by repreſſing the deſire of foreign luxuries, which have already been poured into America, in ſuch abundance, that the States begin to ſuffer, from not having ſufficient produce to remit in payment; — which turns the balance of trade greatly againſt them. • mdash; Beſides, ſuch reſtrictions wiſely impoſed, tend to ſtimulate and encourage a ſpirit of induſtry amongſt the people, to aim at ſimilar improvements. — December 16th. 1783.

But ſhould the impolitic conduct of Great Britain precipitate the adoption of this meaſure by the reſpective States, where are her growing reſources to counteract the effects of this failure of internal induſtry? — for it is univerſally agreed, that no country is more dependent on foreign demand, for the ſuperfluous produce of art and induſtry; — and that the luxury and extravagance of her inhabitants, have already advanced to the ultimate point of abuſe, and cannot be ſo increaſed, as to augment the home conſumption, in proportion to the decreaſe that will take place on a diminution of foreign trade.

What then will become of all thoſe uſeful hands, that were employed in ſupplying the great demand?

Recollect the cries of ſuffering thouſands, at the time of the non-importation agreement;— theſe people, in their own defence, will emigrate to America.

Such a ſyſtem of conduct perſevered in, will operate in favour of the United States, as effectually, as the revocation of the edict of Nantes did in behalf of the proteſtant countries of Europe — by holding up America, as the moſt deſirable refuge for the property, arts, and manufactures of Great Britain to retire to; — a country, where civil and religious liberty are upheld in all their purity,— where, by the exertion of a few years of noneſt induſtry, an emigrant is morally ſure, of being furniſhed with the means of becoming an independent freeholder; — a country, that has laid no impolitic reſtraints on naturalization;— whoſe yoke is eaſy, and whoſe burthen's light; and which indulgently holds out its arms for the reception of the weary and heavy laden of all nations; and which, notwithſtanding the attempts of Great Britain to enſlave it, would generouſly offer an aſylum for her perſecuted ſons, who impreſſed with a ſenſe of gratitude, may bluſh to think their fathers were its foes.

But Lord Sheffield exultingly advances, that the Americans cannot forego the Britiſh manufactures; — and that ſo far from the neceſſity of courting their cuſtom, not all the interdicts of Congreſs, and of the ſeveral States, during the war, could prevent their conſumption.

To deduce important inferences, from ſuch faulty premiſes, would be "leaning on a broken reed," There may be at preſent ſome partiality in the States, for Britiſh manufactures;— yet this predilection ariſes from cradle prejudices, and has greatly decreaſed during the war;— and it would be unwiſe in Great Britain to place any reliance on a continuation of it: — for the manufactures of other countries, if equally good, and afforded cheaper, will, by a continued competition, be eventually preferred: eſpecially, as there will be a conſtant ſucceſſion of emigrants from different parts of Europe, who have no decided preference in favour of the faſhion or quality of Britiſh manufactures, and who, by mixing with the maſs of the people, will gradually effect a change in their taſte.—Already do the Americans begin to complain, that the Britiſh manufactures are ſlighted, and inferior in quality to their uſual ſtandard; — and it is well known, that many of the coarſe kinds of ſtuffs, made at Norwich, Coventry, Spitalfields, and other factories, are ſhamefully deficient in length, whilſt the Dutch, Flemiſh, and French, uſually give a generous ſurplus in their meaſures.

But if the aſſertions of Lord Sheffield were founded on truth, what ſhould be the conduct of Great Britain?

Surely no circumſtance can be more favourable to the aggrandizing a nation of induſtry, than the poſſeſſion of a foreign trade with a country, which does not ſupply its own wants, and in which, the conſumers of manufactures, that ſhe furniſhes, are continually increaſing.

Surrounded by rival nations, whoſe intereſts are oppoſed to hers, does ſhe conſider the duties that ariſe out of ſuch a connection? They ſhould prompt her to facilitate, by every method in her power the means of making remittances, in return for the manufactures ſhe furniſhed; not by prohibiting the ſale of American veſſels which are ſent to England for the payment of Britiſh debts; — by opening her ports for the importation of American produce free of duty; — not by laying ſuch heavy impoſitions thereon, as to oblige the merchant to ſeek a more friendly market? and by cultivating an intercourſe, pointedly intimate, with that country; — for this is the vernal ſeaſon, when the ſeeds of future connection and intimacy with America are to be ſown and cultivated;—not by ſhowing evident marks of pleaſure and ſatisfaction at every fabricated account of the diſtreſſes of America.

It would be unneceſſary to follow Lord Sheffield through the tedious detail of articles that he has enumerated, as conſtituting the wants of the Americans, the greateſt part of which, he aſſerts, they muſt abſolutely procure from England; — the fallacy of this account can only be diſcovered by a perſon who is acquainted with the nature of the American trade, and the relative quality and price of foreign manufactures.

To oppoſe aſſertion to aſſertion, would not be ſufficient to operate conviction on the public mind; — but ſurely, one who can ſeriouſly place the articles of ſilk, laces, and ſalt, amongſt the number of theſe which Great Britain can enter into competition with other countries in ſupplying America with, muſt either be very ignorant of his ſubject, or extremely partial to his own country.

On a fair and candid conſideration of the foregoing reflections, I think you will be perſuaded, that the beautiful proſpect that Lord Sheffield has painted to the eyes of his enraptured countrymen, of the increaſing conſequence of Great Britain, from his pleaſing Arcadian plans will without great care taken to prevent it, and by purſuing a ſyſtem diametrically oppoſite to what he has formed, diſappear, like the dancing viſion of a miſty evening.

He reaſons, as if the trade of America muſt irreſiſtbly be confined to its former channel; whereas I can aſſure him, that freed from the con • roul of your Navigation Act, and all the fetters of commercial reſtraint it will expand itſelf, as far as ſeas can carry, or winds can waft it.

He forgets the energy of this young Country, that he is devoting to ſuch humiliation reſtrictions; — he forgets, that it exhibited, whilſt in it • cradle, ſuch marks of firmneſs and vigour of conſtitution, as like young Hercules to cruſh the ſerpent, that wantonly attacked it.

He does not recollect, that it is in the power of the United States, if provoked to it, to have recourſe to recrimination and mutually ill offices, and to eſtabliſh reſtrictions ſimilar to thoſe Great Britain may impoſe, which will be relatively far more prejudicial to her trade and commerce.

An impartial diſpaſſionate Engliſhman, fully weighing the reaſons alled • ed againſt the adoption of Lord Sheffield's reſtraining ſyſtem, and cordially attached to the intereſt of Great Britain, will deprecate the fatal meaſure.

An American, in the ſame temper of mind, looking forward to the future proſperity and power of his country, and contemplating the tendency of this ſyſtem towards ſtrengthening the union of the States, and making it indiſſoluble, will not heſitate to acquieſce without a murmur, to the exiſtence of theſe reſtraining regulations:— the only objections that can ariſe, will come from thoſe, who, too attentive to temporary inconveniences, do not conſider and contraſt them, with the many advantages their country will eventually derive; — who do not conſider, that the more trade and intercourſe the United States will have with Great Britain, the greater will be the importation of Britiſh manufactures, and the more it will tend to impoveriſh and weaken them, and in the ſame proportion, contribute to her aggrandizement and power.

RAISE a feather in the air, and it will be impoſſible to determine where it ſhall light ſo it is with a newly raiſed political ſentiment only gran • ing that there are a few intereſted, both for and againſt it, to give it a circulation.

When the letter of Phocion, firſt made its appearance the doctrines contained in it ſtood ſo oppoſed to common underſtanding, that I was very far from ſuppoſing that any conſequences ariſing from them, would make a reply to the letter in the ſmalleſt degree neceſſary; ſo far from it, I judged a reply would carry with it, the appearance of wantonly ſeizing an occaſion to introduce the author upon the ſtage of politics; but experience has taught me that paſſion, pomp, and plauſibility, may paſs even upon an enlightened people, for argument and truth.

This author, while he declaims againſt "heated ſpirits." and "inflammatory" publications, gives us a ſtriking proof that he has, in an eminent degree, that great diſqualification for a ſtateſman an uncontroulable warmth of temper. This letter affords us an inſtance of the frailty of human nature. It gives us the picture of a ſtrong and tolerably well informed mind, which, perhaps having been flattered by ſucceſs in the early ſtage of life, has acquired too much reſpect for its own capacity, too much contempt for that of others, and too much vanity to conceal theſe effects.

A ſtateſman ſhould be well informed of the nature of that kind of evidence, which given political opinion; he would then ſee the poſſibility of others having materials to reaſon from, which the haſtineſs of his mind may have overlooked. This would teach him the uſe of holding in decent reſpect the opinion of others, and of his being a diſpaſſionate enquirer into the means which produced them, I can ſuppoſe that Phocion believed himſelf poſſeſſed of an honeſt warmth; but want of charity and want of modeſty, in one who offers himſelf for public inſpection, will never fail to raiſe ſome bile againſt him.

But my buſineſs is with the political part of Phocion's Letter, not that which paints the author, and I would apologize for ſaying this much, if I was not ſo ſtrongly courted to it by his illiberality. For in writing and acting, I would wiſh forever to ſeparate the ſtateſman or politician, and the man.

The little regard which Phocion had to method in the arrangement of his arguments, muſt be my excuſe for adopting the ſame plan. I muſt take him where the weight of his arguments ſeem to reſt.

Firſt, then to his conſtruction of the treaty? (which as his pamphlets are in the hands of moſt of the people, I will not trouble them with a long extract of it here) I beg leave to oppoſe to it the conſtruction in one of the publications, under the ſignature of Guſtavus, and leave the public to judge which is faireſt.

In the 6th article of the treaty it is provided, that no one ſhall ſuffer in his perſon, liberty, or property, on account of the part he may have taken in the war. The 5th article deſcribes the perſons provided for, and diſtinguiſhes them into three claſſes: Firſt, thoſe that are real Britiſh ſubjects. The ſecond, thoſe that were within their lines, and had not taken arms againſt the country. The third claſs are deſcribed by the proviſion that is made for them, viz. They ſhall have liberty to go into any part of the United States, for twelve months, to ſolicit a reſtoration of their eſtates that may have been confiſcated. This claſs muſt be thoſe, who, belonging to America, have taken arms againſt their country. The firſt and ſecond claſs, it is agreed, that Congreſs ſhall recommend to the ſtates, a reſtoration of their property. The third it ſeems were too infamous for the Engliſh miniſter to aſk any conſideration for, except the wretched privilege of aſking it for themſelves. But I can find no where, even a requeſt, and that only implied, that any of the three claſſes may dwell among us, and enjoy the immunities and privileges of citizens; for the firſt claſs are conſidered as former ſubjects, the ſecond and third as acquired ſubjects of England.

But Phocion ſtarts another difficulty: He ſays, to imagine, that by eſpouſing the cauſe of Great Britain, they become aliens, is to admit, that ſubjects may, at pleaſure, renounce their allegiance to the ſtate of which they were members, and devote themſelves to a foreign juriſdiction; a principle, he adds, contrary to law, and ſubverſive of government."

To this I reply, that it there was nothing more in the caſe than their adhering to the then enemies of our country, I would readily join Phocion in opinion, that this action ſimply, ſhould not be conſtrued to amount to alienation; but it ſhould be conſtrued to amount to treaſon. So, inſtead of aliens, I would render them traitors, and as ſuch, put the penal laws in force againſt them.

But it is by treaty, that they become aliens or ſubjects of England. By the treaty England adopted them as ſubjects, and by ratifying that treaty, the ſtates, and this ſtate, from the ſhare ſhe had in it, conſented to that adoption. And this is the great benefit of the treaty to them, which Phocion ſays, we would violate; whereas it appears that we, who he dubs heated and deſigning men, are the real ſupporters of it.

Graining them to be aliens, Phocion continues, they cannot hold real property under our government, their real eſtates then muſt be conſidered as belonging to the public, this is confiſcation, and thereby the treaty is violated. I anſwer, that they are aliens, but aliens ſtipulated for. If in doing this, our miniſters have exceeded the powers given them, and Congreſs alſo, by acceding to what they have done; or, if they agreed to an article in the treaty, which wars with the nature of government or with the particular genius of ours, let it be ſo declared, and alſo the conſequence of the blunder; then we may take up the ſubject in another point of view. But till then we muſt conſider it as it is, and take it for granted that it is right.

But for my own part, I cannot ſee the inconſiſtency of it. Suppoſe the Britiſh Eaſt India company had claims to certain lands in America, before her ſeparation from England, and by an article of the treaty it ſhould be agreed, that they ſhould have the privilege of ſelling it, ſome might doubt the juſtice of it, but I think none could doubt the right.

To make it appear, that in removing a number of theſe people, proſecutions of ſome kind or other would be neceſſary, and which are forbid by the treaty, ſeems to be a chief deſign of Phocion. Beſide others which have been obſerved, he ſtarts this: How will it be determined, but by proſecution, who have ſo adhered to the enemy, as in a legal ſenſe to amount to a crime? I anſwer, in the firſt place, that no queſtion of law ariſes on the ſubject.

It is by treaty, and not by law, that we are to judge of them; for the ratification of that has, in effect, repealed all the laws that ſtood in force againſt them. If the treaty have not this power, then have we played the cheat, not only with England, but with every power that was repreſented in that Congreſs, which ſettled the terms of pence. In the ſecond place, that the treaty itſelf makes the diſtinction that otherwiſe would be wanting; and all that is neceſſary for the legiſlature in this particular is, by an act of grace to make a diſtinction of a very different kind; to diſtinguiſh and reſtore to citizenſhip, the deſerving of thoſe who are by treaty made ſubjects of England.

I preſume it muſt by this time clearly appear, that the people we are ſpeaking of are the ſubjects of England. It then remains to ſee, what neceſſity demands, and what juſtice and honour will allow to be done with them; and in this inveſtigation, let us throw aſide every paſſion, but that which is concerned for the ſafety and true intereſt of the ſtate.

Before I proceed, permit me to lay it down as a maxim, that it is a principle coincident with the very nature of ſociety, that there be a power veſted in it, in ſome form or other, adequate to the purpoſe, not only of correcting any preſent evil in it, but to prevent a probable future one.

Though I abhor all reaſonings which tend to make leſs heinous the dreadful ſin of taking arms againſt our country, both as it regards the eternal law of juſtice, and alſo good policy; yet as the country has agreed by a ſolemn compact, not to take vengeance of thoſe of this character in America, both our honour and intereſt are concerned to preſerve this compact inviolate, ſo upon this occaſion I ſhall diſmiſs all that paſſion ariſing from a lively recollection of what this country has ſuſtained from them, would dictate, and ſpeak of them only as they reſpect our political ſafety, as a morbid humour in our political body, which requires healthy remedies to expel.

After a former has prepared his ground, would he mix cockle with his ſeed-wheat to grow up with, and contaminate the wholeſome grain? In eſtabliſhing a young empire, ſhould we leave the principle of ſedition in its foundation? But Phocion will tell us that this is a bug-bear danger. Make it their intereſt and they will be good ſubjects. God forbid, the government ſhould make it their intereſt to be its friends; for to do this, would be to bring the principles of the government to ſuit them, not them to ſuit it, The tory principle, where it has been long entertained, and where it has long beat uniſon with the paſſions, is more fixed and immoveable than the beſt eſtabliſhed government. I ſpeak of thoſe who have been much concerned in government ſpeculation. Of political opinions, thoſe which reſpect monarchical and republican governments, are moſt oppoſed of courſe moſt irreconcileable; they beget a contempt for each other, in the members of the two governments.

To ſhow that our fears for the well-being of our government on this occaſion, are founded in reaſon, and not ideal, beſide what has been already ſaid, let us conſider the number and quality of the people, who, I am aſhamed to ſay, are the ſubjects of diſpute, and the difference between the government which their principles contend for, and ours.

In a monarchical government, I grant the doctrine of Phocion may obtain. There fear might make it their intereſt to be good ſubjects; the fear of offending againſt the government. But, in a republican government, the people are their own governors. A republican government muſt take its ſhape from the opinion of the people, and is variable, as the opinions of its component parts may vary; hence the neceſſity of correcting that evil, which may ſpring from a corruption of opinion, and though it may be confined to a few at firſt, it may communicate to the overturning of the government. The number of thoſe who are in reality malcontents in America, are not ſo ſmall as may be imagined; nor are their views and hopes ſo humble as many ſuppoſe.

I have ſaid that government has a right to anticipate probable evils. The tory principle cortains in it a mortal and irreconcileable hatred to our government. That this principle will be communicated, is too probable, when we conſider the wealth, the art, the perſeverance and faſhion of many of its preſent poſſeſſors.

On the other hand, let us conſider the indigence which the ravages of a long and accurſed war have created in the other party, which muſt cauſe them aſſiduouſly to attend torneir own orivate concerns. For though ſome of them ſtill preſerve a lively attention to the government, yet in many the effect which I have mentioned, has been wrought; and in a little time the laſt ſpaſms of he republican ſpirit will be over, the meager ghoſt of poverty with all her train of evils, being conſtantly before them, • very to her conſideration will yield to the ſpur of neceſſity. In the m •• n while, the mal-contents are left with the means, and can afford the leiſure to get into adminiſtration. Tais, fellow citizens is the condition of affairs; — I bluſh to proclaim it, to which the writings and ſayings of whigs tend to bring you! — For Phocion tells you, that he has been an eminent ſervant of the republic in eſtabliſhing her independency. If a revolution is effected in the manner above ſtated, however infamous the means, yet • nen the revolution is compleated, it is a juſt one, becauſe it muſt be ſuppoſed that a majority of opinions are for it. Therefore I ſay, it is importantly the duty of the preſent government to anticipate ſuch an evil, by removing the cauſes of pravity of opinion. But ſhort of a revolution, a perverſion of the principles of our government, which is more eaſily wrought, may be as wounding to the upright republican.

With regard to England's renewing her claim to the country, on the ſuppoſition that ill policy abroad, and anar •• y at home, ſhould invite her to it, I am clearly of opinion it would not be her intereſt to do it; for, if ſhe ſhould ſucceed, the extent and rapid growth of the country would prevent its being long tributary to that diſtant iſland. I am alſo fully convinced, that the late and preſent miniſtry of England did not, and do not, with for the re-union of the country upon any other terms than as a farm, from which ſhe is to derive ſubſtantial revenue, without allowing the tenant any vote in the diſpoſition of it. But we are not to calculate what is only the real intereſt of a nation, whoſe monarch has the right of making peace and war. Suppoſe the inclination of the preſent king ſhould not lead him to reclaim the country; yet, his ſon, when he comes to the throne, may be ambitious for the glory of recovering the loſt dominion of his father. And as to the difficulty of obtaining money from parliament to carry on an unreaſonable war, the rapid corruption of that people will probably ſoon remove it.

There is no other way of preventing this probable corruption of opinion, but by removing the cauſe, which I have aſie ••• d to be the mal-contents of America. Having, as we preſume, ſhewn the neceſſity, let us now, as propoſed, enquire if honour and equity will conſent to the meaſure.

The treaty which juſtice and honour forbid us to violate, does not, even upon ſo liberal a conſtruction, as I believe Phocion himſelf would give it, debar the ſtates from making laws that may be ſalutary to the government, and advantageous to the people, though in their conſequences they may operate againſt the intereſt of the ſubjects of England. Suppoſe a line to be drawn, and the deſerving of thoſe, who by treaty are made ſubjects of England, ſhould be re-adopted, and inveſted with all the privileges of citizens; and, after this, laws ſhould be paſſed, giving the citizens the excluſive benents of trade. This law would operate no more againſt the ſubjects of England that are here, than againſt thoſe who are at home, except in this, the effect of the law in one caſe, ſends theſe home, and in the other caſe, keeps them there, or rather prevents their coming here as traders.

There was a time when the people of England conſidered themſelves in danger from a corruption of opinion of another kind — I mean of religious opinion. Few proteſtants complained of it as unjuſt or diſhonourable, that the government enacted laws to ſuppreſs the growth of the Roman Catholic religion.

A government has a clearer right to interfere in checking the promulgation of depravity in political, than in religious opinion. If the tory principle ſhould be repreſſed in this way, it is a remedy uſed for the health and preſervation of the body politic, and as ſuch no one, not even the tories, can complain of it as unjuſt, though they may deprecate the hardſhip of the meaſure as applied to themſelves.

In the firſt caſe, that is againſt laws for excluſive trade, it has been objected, that by removing theſe people we remove a great part of the ſilver, and gold out of the ſtate. With as much propriety it may be argued againſt the meaſure, that we ſhould remove a great part of the writing paper out of the ſtate.

Money is a conveniency, not an article of trade; being ſuch, wherever trade centers money will. The importance of this city, as a place of trade, is not owing to the quantity of money that is now in it, or that ever was in it, at any one time. It is with effects that we trade, and the mercantile conſequence of this town ariſes from its being central to the effects of this and the adjoining ſtates, and the conveniency of its water communication. Suppoſe this city traded only with the effects of this ſtate, then its quantity of trade would be in exact proportion to the annual produce of the ſtate, though there ſhould not be an ounce of ſilver or gold in the place to-morrow.

Another objection ſtill more futile has been made againſt a law for excluſive trade. That we prevent the merchants of England from coming over and ſettling with us, and their ſhips from viſiting us, which would be a dreadful misfortune to the trading intereſt of the ſtate. "Open your arms, or ports," (I do not remember which) ſaid the writer of a hand bill, "to the ſhips of foreign nations."

Unleſs Congreſs ſhould have in contemplation to give ſome particular privileges to the French nation, and to which I ſhall have no objection, I declare I have not a wiſh ever to ſee a foreign veſſel, or a foreign merchant, viſit this continent, except as a traveller. I would not be underſtood to wiſh a prohibition of foreign veſſels to our harbours; but I wiſh they may be diſcouraged, by encouraging ſhip-building here. With us, who have it in our power to make veſſels and naval ſtores, articles of export; and who want articles of export ſo much, would it be to our intereſt to carry on our trade in foreign bottoms? — With regard to foreign merchants, it is well known that there are, at preſent, more adventurers in trade, in America, than there is trade to ſupport, that is, the ſpirit of trade is more than in proportion to its quantity. When foreign merchants migrate to the two Americas, it is generally with a view to mend or make their fortunes, and to return home and enjoy them. Can ſuch men feel themſelves intereſted in the welfare of our government? Is it not more probable that they will ſtill conſider themſelves of the nation which they left; and as far as they have influence in the government, uſe it for the intereſt of their own nation, to which they ſtill feel themſelves belonging? Would it then be ſo eſſentially our duty to encourage ſuch ſettlers to ſupplant our own traders; and who, if they acquire fortunes, is it probable they will be uſed to the benefit of our government?

There is a kind of ſettlers that I could wiſh might be encouraged from all countries; theſe are huſbandmen and manufacturers. When theſe migrate, they do it with a view to remain where they ſettle. Beſide theſe, ſcientific men of all kinds ſhould be encouraged to viſit us. For, whether they become permanent reſidents or not, they are uſeful while they do ſtay.

I would encourage huſbandmen and manufacturers to come to the country, and diſcourage traders, for the ſame reaſon that I would encourage articles of export, and diſcourage articles of import, by holding out bounties on the one ſide, and impoſts on the other.

So general is the cry of the balance of trade being againſt America, that the blockhead who wants ſkill to balance his cane, will put on the face o buſineſs, and tell me, "the balance of trade is againſt us." Will importing foreign merchants into the country tend to place this balance in its favour. The truth is, a balance of trade cannot exiſt againſt a country longer than a year or two. For if the imports of this year exceed the exports, the balance muſt be paid the next year. If the articles of export ſhould not be ſo increaſed, as by the next year to make up the balance, then the articles of import will be proportionably diminiſhed. A balance cannot be always due. The imports and exports muſt, in the long run, bear an exact proportion to each other. If our exports are ſmall, our imports muſt conſequently be ſmall.

The nation then cannot abound in foreign productions; they cannot be in a ſtate of affluence.

This teaches us a plain and ſimple truth, viz. That the riches of a nation are derived from the cultivation of its land, and its manufacturies. Merchants are the agents of the farmers and manufacturers, to exchange their commodities for thoſe of other countries, which this will not produce.

This is a ſimple ſtate of the caſe; I wiſh I had leiſure to enter more fully into it.

To increaſe the wealth of our ſtate then, we ſhould invite huſhandmen and manufacturers into the country, and look coldly on traders, for that part of our community is already too numerous, and will probably cauſe the temporary inconvenience which I have mentioned, of placing the balance of trade againſt us for a time, which muſt create a ſcarcity of foreign commodities for ſome time after. Unleſs greater exertions in cultivating the land ſhould immediately ſucceed it and make up the balance.

Phocion's letter being eſſentially, though not minutely anſwered, ſome of his arguments which are not noticed, depending upon principles which have been diſproved, ſome not applying at all to the caſe in queſtion, and ſome in reality unexceptionable, I will take leave of my reader, after obſerving, that I do not wiſh the policy of the ſtate to take into conſideration the ſmall ſinner from the ignorant. Our government is in no danger: It is the bell-weathers of the flock that we ſhould guard againſt.

There is no form of government ſo delicate in its nature, and which requires ſo much attention to preſerve, as that which exiſts in the minds of the people. While corruption is kept out of it, there is no form of government ſo honourable to men, and ſo happy to the partaker of it; and when corrupted, there is no government ſo much to be deteſted and avoided. Conſidering things in this point of view, and conſidering what it has coſt us to eſtabliſh this government, what it would have coſt us if we had failed in it, I am not willing to uiſle with the acquiſition. To riſque it from a falſe notion of generoſity, or becauſe it is eaſy for Phocion and others to beſtow the epithet of vindictive on the ſalutary meaſures that may be propoſed for its preſervation.

We did at the commencement of the war, and have in the whole courſe of it, kept it in view as a debt which we owed to poſterity, to bequeath to them that liberty which we recived from our anceſtors. Having got this in our power by an hazardous and dreadful conflict, to ſuffer the ineſtimable acquiſition to periſh by neglect, would be not only to betray them but ourſelves.

THE little haſty production, under the ſignature of PHOCION, has met with a more favourable reception from the public, than was expected. The force of plain truth has carried it along againſt the ſtream of prejudice; and the principles, it holds out, have gained ground, in ſpite of the oppoſition of thoſe, who were either too angry, or too much intereſted to be convinced. Men of this deſcription, have, till lately, contented themſelves with virulent invectives againſt the Writer, without attempting to anſwer his arguments; but alarmed at the progreſs of the ſentiments advocated by him, one of them has at laſt come forward with an anſwer; with what degree of ſucceſs, let thoſe, who are moſt partial to his opinion, determine.

To ſay, that the anſwer of Mentor is a feeble attempt, would be no derogation from his abilities; for, in fact, the cauſe he eſpouſes, admits of nothing ſolid; and, as one of its partizans, he is only to be blamed for not knowing its weak ſides better, than to have been tempted to expoſe it to the experiment of a defence.

BUT, before I enter farther into the ſubject, I ſhall take occaſion to acknowledge, with regret, the injudicious appearance of warmth in my former letter; calculated, with many minds, to raiſe prejudices againſt the truths it contains, and liable to be miſrepreſented into a general cenſure on that part of the community, whoſe zeal, ſacrifices and ſufferings muſt ever render them reſpectable to the true friends of the revolution. I ſhall only obſerve in apology (as is truly the caſe) that whatever ſeverity of animadverſion may have been indulged, was wholly directed againſt a very ſmall number of men, who are manifeſtly aiming at nothing, but the acquiſition of power and profit to themſelves; and w •• , to gratify their avidity for theſe objects, would trample upon every thing ſacred in ſociety, and overturn the foundations of public and private ſecurity. It is difficult for a man, conſcious of a pure attachment to the public weal, who ſees it invaded and endangered by ſuch men, under ſpecious but falſe pretences, either to think, or to ſpeak of their conduct, without indignation. It is equally difficult for one, who in queſtions that affect the community, regards principles only, and not men, to look with indifference on attempts to make the great principles of ſocial right, juſtice and honour, the victims of perſonal animoſity or party intrigue.

MORE tenderneſs is indeed due to the miſtakes of thoſe, who have ſuffered too much to reaſon with impartiality, whoſe honeſt prejudices, grown into habits by the impreſſions of an eight years war, cannot at once accommodate themſelves to that ſyſtem which the public good requires, and whoſe ſituations are leſs favourable to diſtinguiſhing between doctrines invented to ſerve the turn of a revolution, and thoſe which muſt give permanent proſperity to the ſtate.

THESE obſervations I have thought proper to premiſe, in juſtice to my own intentions, and I ſhall now proceed, as conciſely as poſſible, to examine the ſuggeſtions of Mentor, interſperſing as I go along, ſome remarks on objections which though omitted by him, have been urged in other ſhapes againſt the principles of Phocion.

MENTOR propoſes to treat the ſentiments of Phocion as a political novelty, but if he is ſerious, it is a proof that he is not even "tolerably well informed." They are as old as any regular notions of free government among mankind, and are to be met with, not only in every ſpeculative Writer, on theſe ſubjects, but are interwoven in the theory and practice of that code, which conſtitutes the law of the land. They ſpeak the common language of this country at the beginning of the revolution, and are eſſential to its future happineſs and reſpectability.

THE principles of all the arguments I have uſed or ſhall uſe, lie within the compaſs of a few ſimple propoſitions, which, to be aſſented to, need only to be ſtated.

FIRST, That no man can forfeit or be juſtly deprived, without his conſent, of any right, to which as a member of the community he is entitled, but for ſome crime incurring the forfeiture.

SECONDLY, That no man ought to be condemned unheard, or puniſhed for ſuppoſed offences, without having an opportunity of making his defence. See Addreſs of Congreſs to the people of Great Britain, September 5, 1774.

THIRDLY, That a crime is an act committed or omitted, in violation of a public law, either forbidding or commanding it. — Blackſtone, Vol. IV. page 5.

FOURTHLY, That a proſecution is in its moſt preciſe ſignification, an inquiry or mode of aſcertaining, whether a particular person has committed, or omitted ſuch act.

FIFTHLY, That duties and rights as applied to ſubjects are reciprocal; or in other words, that a man cannot be a citizen for the purpoſe of puniſhment, and not a citizen for the purpoſe of privilege.

THESE propoſitions will hardly be controverted by any man profeſſing to be a friend to civil liberty. The application of them will more fully appear hereafter.

BY the declaration of Independence on the 4th of July, in the year 1776, acceded to by our Convention on the ninth, the late colony of New-York became an independent ſtate. All the inhabitants, who were ſubjects under the former government, and who did not withdraw themſelves upon the change which took place, were to be conſidered as citizens, owing allegiance to the new government, This, at leaſt, is the legal preſumption; and this was the principle, in fact, upon which all the meaſures of our public councils have been grounded. Duties have been exacted, and puniſhments inflicted according to this rule. If any exceptions to it were to be admitted, they could only flow from the indulgence of the ſtate to ſuch individuals, as from peculiar circumſtances might deſire to be permitted to ſtand upon a different footing.

THE inhabitants of the ſouthern diſtrict, before they fell under the power of the Britiſh army, were as much citizens of the ſtate as the inhabitants of other parts of it. They muſt, therefore, continue to be ſuch, unleſs they have been divided of that character by ſome poſterior circumſtance. This circumſtance muſt, either be

—THEIR having, by the fortune of war, fallen under the power of the Britiſh army.—

—THEIR having forfeited their claim by their own miſconduct.

—THEIR having been left out of the compact by ſome ſubſequent aſſociation of the body of the ſtate, or

—THEIR having been diſmembered by treaty.

THE firſt of theſe circumſtances according to the fundamental principles of government, and the conſtant practice of nations could have no effect in working a forfeiture of their citizenſhip.

To allow it ſuch an effect, would be to convert misfortune into guilt; it would be in many inſtances, to make the negligence of the ſociety, in not providing adequate means of defence for the ſeveral parts, the crime of thoſe parts which were the immediate ſufferers by that negligence. It would tend to the diſſolution of ſociety, by looſening the ties which bind the different parts together, and juſtifying theſe who ſhould for a moment fall under the power of a conqueror, not merely in yielding ſuch a ſubmiſſion as was exacted from them, but in taking a willing, intereſted and deciſive part with him.

IT was the policy of the revolution, to inculcate upon every citizen the obligation of renouncing his habitation, property, and every private concern for the ſervice of his country, and many of us have ſcarcely ye learned to conſider it as leſs than 〈◊〉 to have acted in a different manner, But it is time we ſhould correct the exuberances of opinions propagated through policy, 〈…〉 from enthuſiaſm; and while we admit, that 〈◊〉 who did act ſo diſintereſted and noble a part, deſerve the applauſe and, wherever they can be beſtowed with propriety the rewards of their country, we ſhould ceaſe to impute indiſcriminate guilt to thoſe, who, ſubmitting to the accidents of war, remained with their habitions and property. We ſhould learn, that this conduct is tolerated by the general ſenſe of mankind; and that according to that ſenſe, whenever the ſtate recovers the poſſeſſion of ſuch parts as were for a time ſubdued, the citizens return at once to all the rights, to which they were formerly entitled.

As to the ſecond head of forfeiture by miſconduct, there is is no doubt, that all ſuch as remaining within the Britiſh lines, did not merely yield an obedience, which they could not refuſe, without ruin; but took a voluntary and intereſted part with the enemy, in carrying on the war, became ſubject to the penalties of treaſon. They could not however, by that conduct, make themſelves aliens, becauſe though they were bound to pay a temporary and qualified obedience to the conqueror, they could not transfer their eventual allegiance from the ſtate to a foreign power. By becoming aliens too, they would have ceaſed to be traitors; and all the laws of the ſtate paſſed during the revolution, by which they are conſidered and puniſhed as ſubjects, would have been, by that conſtruction, unintelligence and unjuſt. The idea indeed of citizens transforming themſelves into aliens, by taking part againſt the ſtate, to which they belong, is altogether of new-invention, unknown and inadmiſſible in law, and contrary to the nature of the ſocial compact.

BUT were this not the caſe, an inſurmountable difficulty would ſtill remain, for how ſhall we aſcertain who are aliens or traitors, let us call them which we will. It has been ſeen that the boundaries of the Britiſh lines cannot determine the queſtion; for this would be to ſay, that the merely falling under the power of the Britiſh army, conſtituted every man a traitor or an alien. It would be to confound one third of the citizens of the ſtate in promiſcuous guilt and degradation, without evidence, or enquiry. It would be to make crime, which are in their nature perſonal and individual, aggregate and territorial. Shall we go into a enquiry to aſcertain the crime of each perſon? This would be a proſecution; [See propoſition 4th.] and the treaty forbids all future proſecutions. 〈◊〉 . Legiſlature take the map and make a geographical delineation of the rights and diſqualifications of its citizens? This would be to meaſure innocence and guilt, by latitude and longitude—It would be condemn and puniſh, not one man, but thouſands for ſuppoſed effences, without giving them an opportunity of making their defence. God forbid that ſuch an act of barefaced tyranny ſhould ever diſgrace our hiſtory! God forbid that 〈◊〉 body of the people ſhould be corrupt enough to wiſh it, or 〈◊〉 ſubmitted it!

BUT here we are informed by Mentor, that the treaty, inſtead of offering any obſtacle to the views of thoſe, who wiſh to metamorphoſe their fellow citizens into aliens, is preciſely the thing which removes the difficulty. Mentor is thus far right; that if they are aliens at all, it muſt be by ſome ſtipulation in the treaty, but it requires not a little dexterity to ſhew, that ſuch a ſtipulation exiſts. If it exiſts at all, it muſt be collected from the 5th and 6th articles. Let us, by analyzing theſe articles, try if we can find it out.

THE fifth article ſpeaks in the firſt clauſe of real Britiſh ſubjects whoſe eſtates had been confiſcated, and ſtipulates that Congreſs ſhall recommend a reſtitution.

IN the ſecond clauſe it ſpeaks of perſons reſident in diſtricts in the poſſeſſion of the Britiſh forces, who had not borne arms againſt the United States of whoſe eſtates, alſo confiſcated, Congreſs are in like manner to recommend a reſtitution.

IN the third clauſe, perſons of every other deſcription are comprehended, who are to be permitted to remain twelve months unmoleſted, in any of the ſtates, to ſolicit a reſtoration of their property, which had been confiſcated; Congreſs recommending, even with reſpect to them, a reſtitution, on condition of their refunding to the preſent poſſeſſors, where there had been a ſale, the bona fiac price given by them for the eſtates in their poſſeſſion.

IT is apparent from the diſſection of the article, that the inhabitants in the Southern diſtrict, poſſeſſed by the Britiſh army, are not confounded in one general maſs of alieniſm, as has been aſſerted. We find the expreſs words of deſcripition are real Britiſh ſubjects, and as contradiſtinguiſhed from them, perſons reſident in diſtricts within the poſſeſſion of the Britiſh arms. Theſe laſt, by the letter as well as the ſpirit of the article are deemed not Britiſh ſubjects.

THERE is no intelligible medium, between a real Britiſh ſubject, and one that is not Britiſh ſubject at all. A man either is or is not the ſubject of a country. The word real, as applied to the affirmative, is a redundancy. Its natural contraſts are fictitious or pretended. If we ſhould call the perſons of other deſcriptions in the article fictitious or pretended Britiſh ſubjects, inſtead of juſtifying, it would exclude the conſtruction given by Mentor. For if they were only fictitious or pretended Britiſh ſubjects, they muſt be real American ſubjects; or in other words, if they were not real Britiſh ſubjects, which by neceſſary implication they are declared not to be, they muſt of neceſſity be American ſubjects.

THE phraſe real Britiſh ſubjects, ſtrictly conſidered, is innaccurate; but its practical import, with the help of a little candor, is eaſily fixed. It is well known that in this and other ſtates, the property of perſons, who had never been ſubjects of this country, before or after the revolution, but who had truly been ſubjects of Great-Britain, had in many inſtances been confiſcated. Sir Henry Clinton, the late Governor Tryon, Lord Dunmore, are examples among us of the real Britiſh ſubjects in the contemplation of the treaty. All the reſt are of courſe American ſubjects.

To underſtand the fifth and ſixth articles relatively, it is neceſſary to remark, that all the different claſſes deſcribed in the fifth article agree in one common quality; they are all perſons whoſe property had been already confiſcated. I have placed this fact in a pointed view; becauſe it ſhews inconteſtibly, that the perſons who are the objects of the fifth article, and thoſe who are the objects of the ſixth, are totally different. The one relates to perſons whoſe property had been confiſcated, and aims at reſtitution; the other relates to thoſe whoſe property had not yet been confiſcated, who were not actually ſuffering the ſentence of the law, and has for object to prevent future proſecutions, confiſcations, or injuries to individuals on account to their conduct in the war.

THIS diſtinction ſolves the ſeeming contradiction between the fifth and ſixth articles; the former providing for the future reſidence of perſons of a particular deſcription within the ſtate for a twevle month; the other prohibiting all future injury or damage to perſons, liberty or property. At firſt ſight, the great extent of the latter proviſion appears to ſuperſede, and render abſurd, the former; but the two articles are reconciled, by conſidering thoſe, who had already ſuffered the ſentence of the law, as not within the purview of the ſixth article, to arreſt or remit that ſentence; while all others againſt whom ſentence had not paſſed, are within the protection of the ſixth article. It does not operate with a retroſpective and reſtorative influence, but looks forward and ſtops the futre current of proſecution and puniſhment.

To illuſtrate, in a more ſtriking manner, the fallacy of Mentor's comment upon the treaty, I ſhall give a recital of it, with ſome explanatory additions, the fairneſs of which I think will not be diſputed.

"IN the ſixth article (ſays he) it is provided that no one ſhall "ſuffer in his perſon, liberty, or property, on account of the part he many have taken in the war;" and yet though no one, conſiſtently with the treaty, can hereafter ſuffer in either of thoſe reſpects, yet many, conſiſtently with the treaty, may be declared aliens, may be ſtripped of the moſt valuable rights of citizenſhip, and may be baniſhed from the ſtate, without injury to perſon, liberty, or property, "The fifth article," though it ſpeaks of none but thoſe who have already had their eſtates confiſcated, "deſcribes the perſons provided for by the ſixth," which indeed ſays, that there ſhall be no future proſecutions, nor confiſcations, nor injury to perſon, liberty, or porperty; but this only means, that there ſhall be no future proſecutions commenced againſt thoſe, who have been already attainted and baniſhed, nor confiſcations made of the eſtates of thoſe whoſe eſtates have been already confiſcated, nor injuries done to the perſons, liberty, and property, of thoſe, who are already to be eſteemed dead in law by attainder and exile; but with reſpect to all thoſe who have not been already attainted, baniſhed, and ſubjected to confiſcation, (the only perſons comprehended in the fifth article and provided for in the ſixth) we may proſecute, baniſh, confiſcate, disfranchiſe, and do whatever elſe we think proper. The fifth article ſtipulates the good offices of Congreſs for thoſe, who have been already ruined, and the ſixth benignly takes care that they ſhall not be ruined a ſecond time; but leaves all others to their deſtiny and our mercy. The fifth article, diſtinguiſhes, the perſons who are the objects of it, into three claſſes— Firſt, thoſe who are real Britiſh ſubjects — The ſecond, thoſe (meaning Britiſh ſubjects who were not real Britiſh ſubjects, deſcribed by the appellation of perſons reſident in diſtricts in the poſſeſſion of the Britiſh forces) who had not taken arms againſt the country— The third claſs are deſcribed by the proviſion that is made for them, viz. They ſhall have liberty to go into any part of the United States for twelve months to ſolicit a reſtoration of their eſtates, that may have been confiſcated. This claſs muſt be thoſe who belonging to America, have taken arms againſt their country. The firſt and ſecond claſs it is agreed, that Congreſs ſhall recommend to the ſtates a reſtoration of their property. The third it ſeems were too infamous for the Engliſh miniſter to aſk any conſideration for, except the wretched privilege of aſking it for themſelves, though in fact, with reſpect even to them, it is expreſſly ſtipulated, that Congreſs ſhall recommend a reſtoration of their eſtates, rights and properties, on paying to the preſent poſſeſſors the bona fide price given for them, where there has been an actual ſale. But (continues he) I can find no where even a requeſt, and that only implied, that any of the three claſſes may dwell among us, and enjoy the immunities and privileges of citizens; for the firſt claſs are conſidered as former ſubjects; the ſecond and third as acquired ſubjects of England, acquired but not real.

THUS we ſee, by taking the out-lines of Mentor's conſtruction, and filing up the canvaſs in a manner ſuited to the deſign, the whole is a groupe of abſurdities; or in other words by connecting the conſequences with the principles of his comment, on the treaty, the reſult is too ridiculous not to ſtrike the meaneſt underſtanding.

IT muſt appear by this time manifeſt, that there is nothing in the terms of the treaty, which countenances the ſuppoſition, that thoſe who have been within the Britiſh lines are conſidered and ſtipulated for as aliens. One ground, upon which this idea has been originally adopted, was that it would have been improper to have ſtipulated for them at all, if they were not aliens; but I have ſhown in my former letter, that a ſtipulation for ſubjects, in ſimilar circumſtances, has been far from unprecedented.

A good criterion by which to determine the meaning of the treaty, in this reſpect, is to recur to the impreſſions that it made, on its firſt appearance; before there had been time to contrive and ſubſtitute an artificial to the natural and obvious ſenſe of the words. Every man, by appealing to his own boſom, will recollect, that he was at firſt ſtruck with an opinion that the diſaffected were ſecured from every future deprivation and injury whatever; and however many may have been chagrined at the idea, that they ſhould be admitted to a parity of privileges with thoſe who had ſupported the revolution, none doubted that this was the ſenſe of the treaty. Indeed the principal doubt ſeemed to be, in the firſt inſtance, whether the ſixth article was not ſo broad, as to protect even thoſe, who had been attainted, from perſonal injury, in caſe of their return within the ſtate.

I ſhall not, in this place, revive the queſtion of the power of Congreſs to make this ſtipulation; not only becauſe Mentor appears to have conceded this point, and to acknowledge our obligation to a faithful obſervance of the treaty; but becauſe what has been offered in my former letter on this head, muſt continue to appear to me to be abſolutely concluſive; until ſome ſatisfactory limits can be aſſigned to the powers of war, peace and treaty, veſted in Congreſs, other than thoſe I have mentioned,— the public ſafety and the fundamental conſtitutions of the ſociety.

WHEN any different and intelligible line ſhall be drawn— I will give up the queſtion, if I cannot ſhew it is inadmiſſible in practice.

THE common intereſts of humanity, and the general tranquility of the world, require that the power of making peace, wherever lodged, ſhould be conſtrued and exerciſed liberally; and even in caſes where its extent may be doubtful, it is the policy of all wiſe nations to give it latitude rather than confine it. The exigencies of a community, in time of war, are ſo various and often ſo critical, that it would be extremely dangerous to preſcribe narrow bounds to that power, by which it is to be reſtored. The conſequence might frequently be a diffidence of our engagements, and a prolongation of the calamities of war.

IT may not be improper, in this place, to anſwer an objection which has been made to a poſition contained in my former letter. It is there laid down as a rule, that the breach of a ſingle article of a treaty annuls the whole. The reaſon of this rule is, that every article is to be regarded as the conſideration of ſome other article.

THIS has given occaſion to obſerve, that a breach of the treaty on the part of the Britiſh, in ſending away a great number of negroes, has upon my principles long ſince annihilated the treaty, and left us at perfect liberty to deſert the ſtipulation, on our part.

THIS admits of an eaſy and ſolid anſwer. The breach of one article annuls the whole; if the ſide injured by it chooſes to take advantage of it to diſſolve the treaty; [Vatel page 130 Section 48.] but if its intereſt dictates a different conduct it may wave the breach and let the obligation of the treaty continue. The power of determining whether the treaty has been broken properly belongs to that body who made it. Congreſs have wiſely taken a different courſe, and inſtead of reviving the ſtate of hoſtility by declaring the treaty void, have proceeded upon the preſumption of its continuing in force; and by ſubſequent acts have given it additional validity and ſtrength. The definitive treaty has been ſince concluded, and proclaimed with a remarkable ſolemnity and energy for the obſervance of the citizens of the United States.

THE third mode mentioned, by which the inhabitants of the ſouthern diſtrict may have loſt their rights of citizenſhip, is their having been left out of the compact by ſome ſubſequent aſſociation of the body of the ſtate. The fact however is directly the reverſe; for not only the conſtitution makes proviſion for the repreſentation of the people of the ſouthern diſtrict in the Legiſlature, but during the whole war, by an ordinance of the Convention, who framed the conſtitution, an actual repreſentation has been kept up in a manner, the regularity of which (whatever might have been the expedience of it) was more than queſtionable; as all elections were ſuſpended in that part of the ſtate This circumſtance of a conſtant repreſentation of the inhabitants of the Southern diſtrict in the Legiſlature, during the war, is in a rational as well as a legal light a concluſive refutation of the pretended alieniſm of thoſe inhabitants by any event of the war, or by any other matter that applies to them in a collective view antecedent to the treaty of peace. To this it may be added, that a variety of the laws of the ſtate, in the courſe of the war, ſuppoſe and treat the inhabitants of the Southern diſtrict as ſubjects; owing allegiance to the ſtate, and conſequently having the rights which ſubjects in general enjoy under the government. [See Poſition 5th]

THE argument is ſtill ſtronger when we attend to what has been done by the government ſince the reſtoration of its juriſdiction in the Southern diſtrict. We did not wait till a bill of naturalization was paſſed, to remove the diſabilities of the inhabitants, before we proceeded to elections. We did not confine thoſe elections to ſuch perſons only, as had reſided without the Britiſh lines, but left them open to all deſcriptions of perſons, who would chooſe to take the oath preſcribed for that purpoſe, by the Council. Few indeed in this city, beſides thoſe who had been abſent, did in fact vote at the elections: but a conſiderable number did in the counties. And if we ſhould admit the doctrine of the general alieniſm of the inhabitants of the Southern diſtrict, either before, or in conſequence of the treaty of peace, a curious queſtion not eaſy to be ſolved, would ariſe as to the validity of the election of many individuals now holding ſeats in Senate and Aſſembly. So far as an act of government can decide the point in controverſy, it is already decided. The Council for the temporary government of the Southern diſtrict in appointing the mode of election — the conduct of the legiſlature ſince in admitting the members elected in that mode, are unconſtitutional; or the inhabitants at large of the Southern diſtrict, either by the treaty, or any antecedent circumſtance, are not aliens.

I have dwelt the more largely on this head, not only becauſe the idea of a general alieniſm of the inhabitants of the Southern diſtrict is the ground Mentor has taken; but becauſe ſome perſons who have it in their power to make a miſchievous uſe of it, are endeavouring to give it circulation, where, if it could prevail, it might lead to pernicious conſequences. Preſſed by the difficulty of diſcrimination thoſe, who may have forfeited the rights of citizenſhip from thoſe who have not, without a manifeſt violation as well of the conſtitution, as of the treaty of peace, they are willing if poſſible to deviſe ſome general expedient to evade both; and the one they have hit upon is, to declare all thoſe aliens, who lived within the Britiſh lines during the war, on the miſerable pretence that they are made ſuch by the treaty.

THUS we have another example how eaſy it is for men to change their principles with their ſituations — to be zealous advocates for the rights of the citizens when they are invaded by others, and as ſoon as they have it in their power, to become the invaders themſelves — to reſiſt the encroachments of power, when it is in the hands of others, and the moment they get it into their own to make bolder ſtrides than thoſe they have reſiſted. — Are ſuch men to be ſanctified with the hallowed name of patriots? Are they not rather to be branded as men who make their paſſions, prejudices and intereſts the ſole meaſure of their own and others rights?

THE hiſtory of mankind is too full of theſe melancholy inſtances of human contradiction.

HAVING mentioned the oath directed to be preſcribed to electors in the Southern diſtrict, by the Council for the temporary government; I ſhall take occaſion, in this place, with freedom, but with reſpect, to examine the propriety of that meaſure.

THIS meaſure as founded upon an act of the legiſlature of of this ſtate paſſed in ſome year declaring, that perſons who had been guilty of certain matters particularized in that act, ſhould be forever after diſqualified from voting at all public elections. I confine myſelf for the ſake of brevity to the general idea of the act. The embarraſſment with the Council, no doubt, was, how to aſcertain the perſons who had incurred the diſability. As the matters, to which that diſability related, were of a ſpecific nature, it was neceſſary, they ſhould be ſpecifically aſcertained before the law could have its effect.

THE Council, therefore, could not ſatisfy that law, by declaring all thoſe diſqualified, who had reſided within the Britiſh lines during the war. They would not leave the operation of it to a courſe of judicial inveſtigation and deciſion, becauſe this would be to fly in the ſave of the treaty, and appearances were to be preſerved. This conſideration was ſtrengthened by another. The courſe of the law muſt have been dilatory. The elections were to be entered upon. It was deemed inexpedient, that the voice of the citizens at large (which muſt have been the caſe if the act of the legiſlature, in queſtion, had been left to its natural courſe) ſhould govern theſe elections. If the returning citizens were not at this juncture gratified, tumults were by ſome apprehended.

THIS was a plauſible ſtep, and on that account the more dangerous. If we examine it with an unprejudiced eye, we muſt acknowledge not only that it was an evaſion of the treaty, but a ſubverſion of one great principle of ſocial ſecurity, to wit, that every man ſhall be preſumed innocent until he is proved guilty: This was to invert the order of things; and inſtead of obliging the ſtate to prove the guilt, in order to inflict the penalty, it was to oblige the citizen to eſtabliſh his own innocence, to avoid the penalty. It was to excite ſcruples in the honeſt and conſcientious, and to hold out a bribe to perjury.

THAT this was an evaſion of the treaty, the fourth propoſition already laid down will illuſtrate. It was a mode of inquiry who had committed any of thoſe crimes to which the penalty of diſqualification was annexed, with this aggravation, that it deprived the citizen of the benefit of that advantage which he would have enjoyed by leaving, as as in all other caſes, the burthen of the proof upon the proſecutor.

To place this matter in a ſtill clearer light, let it be ſuppoſed, that inſtead of the mode of indictment and trial by jury, the legiſlature was to declare that every citizen who did not ſwear he had never adhered to the King of Great-Britain, ſhould incur all the penalties which our treaſon laws preſcribe. Would this not be a palpable evaſion of the treaty, and a direct infringement of the conſtitution? The principle is the ſame in both caſes, with only this difference in the conſequences; that in the inſtance already acted upon, the citizen forfeits a part of his rights,—in the one ſuppoſed he would forfeit the whole. The degree of puniſhment is all that diſtinguiſhes the caſes. In either juſtly conſidered, it is ſubſtituting a new and arbitrary mode of proſecution to that antient and highly eſteemed one, recognized by the laws and the conſtitution of the ſtate; I mean the trial by jury.

LET us not forget that the conſtitution declares that trial by jury in all caſes in which it has been formerly uſed, ſhould remain inviolate forever, and that the legiſlature ſhould at no time, erect any new juriſdiction which ſhould not proceed, according to the courſe of the common law. Nothing can be more repugnant to the true genius of the common law, than ſuch an inquiſition as has been mentioned into the conſciencies of men.

A ſhare in the ſovereignty of the ſtate, which is exerciſed by the citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the moſt important rights of the ſubject, and in a republic ought to ſtand foremoſt in the eſtimation of the law. It is that right, by which we exiſt a free people; and it certainly therefore will never be admitted that leſs ceremony ought to be uſed in diveſting any citizen of that right, than in depriving him of his property. Such a doctrine would 〈◊〉 ſuit the principles of the revolution, which taught the inhabitants of this country to riſk their lives and fortunes in aſſerting their liberty; or in other words, their right to a ſhare in the government. That portion of the ſovereignty, to which each individual is entitled, can never be too highly prized. It is that for which we have fought and bled; and we ſhould cautiouſly guard againſt any precedents, however they may be immediately directed againſt thoſe we hate, which may in their conſequences render our title to this great privilege, precarious. Here we may find the criterion to diſtinguiſh the genuine from the pretended whig—The man that would attack that right, in whatever ſhape, is an enemy to whiggiſm.

IF any oath, with retroſpect to paſt conduct, were to be made the condition, on which individuals, who have reſided within the Britiſh lines, ſhould hold their eſtates; we ſhould immediately ſee, that this proceeding would be tyrannical, and a violation of the treaty, and yet when the ſame mode is employed to divert that right, which ought to be deemed ſtill more ſacred, many of us are ſo infatuated as to overlook the miſchief.

To ſay that the perſons, who will be affected by it, have previouſly forfeited that right, and that therefore nothing is taken away from them, is a begging of the queſtion. How do we know who are the perſons in this ſituation? If it be anſwered, this is the mode taken to aſcertain it, the objection returns, 'tis an improper mode, becaus;e it puts the moſt eſſential intereſts of the citizen upon a worſe footing, than we ſhould be willing to tolerate where inferior intereſts were concerned; and becauſe to elude the treaty it ſubſtitutes to the eſtabliſhed and legal mode of iveſtigating crimes, and inflicting forfeitures, one that is unknown to the conſtitution, and repugnant to the genius of our law.

MUCH ſtreſs has been laid upon a couple of unmeaning words in the act, to enforce the penalties of which, the oath was inventted. It is declared, that the perſons, who have done the ſeveral things enumerated in the act, ſhall be ipſo facto diſqualified. Theſe words of potent sound, but of little ſubſtance, have been ſuppoſed to include wonderful effects. Let us ſee if we can give them any definite meaning. If a man commits murder, by the very act ipſo facto, he incurs the penalty of death; but before he can be hanged, we muſt enquire whether he has certainly committed the fact. If a man has done any of thoſe things which are declared ſufficient to diſqualify him from voting, though by the very act, ipſo facto he incurs the penalty of the law, yet before he can be actually diſqualified, we muſt enquire whether he has really done the act. From this we perceive the word ipſo facto are mere expletives, which add nothing to the force or efficacy of the law.

IT has been ſaid too, that an oath to determine the qualifications of electors, is an uſual precaution in free governments; but we may challenge thoſe who make the aſſertion, to ſhow that retroſpective oaths have ever been adminiſtered, requiring electors to ſwear that they have not been guilty of paſt offences. In all the violence of party which has at different periods agitated Great Britain, nothing of this kind has ever been adopted; but even where religious fanaticiſm has given an edge to political oppoſition, and in an undecided con •• ſt for the crown, they have never gone further than to preſcribe oaths for te •• ing preſent dispoſitions towards the government on general principles, without retroſpection to particular inſtances of paſt mal-conduct The practical notions of legal liberty eſtabliſhed in that country by a ſeries of time would make ſuch an experiment too odious to be attempted by the government.

••• men have thought • oat even there, they have carried the buſineſs of oaths to an exceptionable length; but we who pretend a purer zeal for liberty, in a decided conteſt, after a formal renunciation claims by the adverſe party, are for carrying the matter to a ſtill more blameable extreme.

Men, whoſe judgements and intentions I reſpect, were promoters of the meaſure, which has occaſioned this digreſſion; ſome from the contagion of popular opinion; others from the too ſtrong impreſſions of momentary expedience, and a third claſs from the inſenſible bias of ſome favourite purſuit.

As to the fourth method in which the inhabitants of the Southern diſtrict may have loſt their rights of citizenſhip, a diſmemberment by treaty, I have naturally been drawn, under the third head, into a diſcuſſion of this, and I truſt have ſhown to the full ſatisfaction of all candid men, that there is not a ſhadow of foundation to ſuppoſe that ſuch a diſmemberment, is in the contemplation of the treaty. A few ſhort remarks ſhall conclude what I interd to ſay on this article.

IT is a caſe, without precedent, that a nation in ſurrendering its acquiſitions in war, to the ſtate from which thoſe acquiſitions were made, ſhould ſtipulate for the inhabitants of the country given up as for its own ſubjects. To do it would be both uſeleſs and abſurd; uſeleſs, becauſe the country being ſurrendered, no reaſonable advantage could be derived from retaining the allegiance of its inhabitants; abſurd, becauſe the diſtrict of territory ſurrendered being given up as a part of the ſtate, to which the ſurrender is made, it would be contradictory, by the ſame act, to acknowledge the right of that ſtate to the part given up, and yet to hold up a claim to the allegiance of its inhabitants.

THE ſurrender (for the queſtion does not relate to original ceſſions) carries in itſelf a deciſive implication, that the inhabitants of the country ſurrendered, are the ſubjects of the power to which the ſurrender is made; and the preſumption in this caſe is ſo ſtrong that nothing but the moſt poſitive and unequivocal exceptions in the treaty would be ſufficient to defeat it. Laboured conſtructions to give the treaty that complexion are inadmiſſible; for if there were room to doubt, the doubt, in juſt reaſoning, ſhould be interpreted againſt the poſition, that the inhabitants of the country ſurrendered were the ſubjects of the power by which the ſurrender was made.

THE only additional remark I ſhall make on this head is this: — Though we are under great obligations to our miniſters for the ſubſtance of the treaty, which comprehends all the eſſential intereſts of this country; we muſt acknowledge that the language of it is, in many reſpects, defective and obſcure. The true rule in this caſe is, not to have recourſe to artificial and far-fetched interpretation; but to admit ſuch meanings as the ſimple and and popular import of the words conveys. When therefore it is ſaid in the ſixth article. "that there ſhall be no future proſecutions commenced, nor confiſcations made, nor damage done to perſon, liberty, or property, of any perſon or perſons, on account of the part taken by them in the war," as the natural and obvious ſcope of the words preſents a full amneſty and indemnity for the future; we ſhould not torture our imaginations to pervert them to a different ſenſe.

IT has been urged, in ſupport of the doctrines under conſideration, that every government has a right to take precautions for its own ſecurity, and to preſcribe the terms on which its rights ſhall be enjoyed.

ALL this is true when underſtood with proper limitations; but when rightly underſtood will not be found to juſtify the concluſion, which have been drawn from the premiſes.

In the firſt formation of a government the ſociety may multiply its precautions as much, and annex as many conditions to the enjoyment of its rights, as it ſhall judge expedient; but when it has once adopted a conſtitution, that conſtitution muſt be the meaſure of its diſcretion, in providing for its own ſafety, and in preſcribing the conditions upon which its privileges are to be enjoyed. If the conſtitution declares that perſons poſſeſſing certain qualifications ſhall be entitled to certain rights, while that conſtitution remains in force, the government which is the mere creature of the conſtitution, can diveſt no citizen, who has the requiſite qualifications, of his correſponding rights. It may indeed enact laws and annex to the breach of them the penalty of forfeiture; but before that penalty can operate, the exiſtence of the fact, upon which it is to take place, moſt be aſcertained in that mode which the conſtitution and the fundamental laws have provided. If trial by jury is the mode known and eſtabliſhed by that conſtitution and thoſe laws, the perſons who adminiſter the government in deviating from that courſe will be guilty of uſurpation. If the conſtitution declares that the legiſlative power of the ſtate ſhall be veſted in one ſet of men and the judiciary power in another; and thoſe who are appointed to act in a legiſlative capacity undertake the office of judges, if, inſtead of confining themſelves to paſſing laws, with proper functions to enforce their obſervance, they go out of their province to decide who are the violators of thoſe laws, they ſubvert the conſtitution and erect a tyranny.

If the conſtitution were even ſilent on particular points thoſe who are incruſted with its power, would be bound in exerciſing their diſcretion to conſult and purſue its ſpirit, and to conform to the dictates of reaſon and equity; if, inſtead of this, they ſhould undertake to declare whole claſſes of citizens disfranchiſed and excluded from the common rights of the ſociety, without hearing, trial, examination or proof; if, inſtead of waiting to take away the rights of citizenſhip from individuals, till the ſtate has convicted them of crimes, by which they are to loſe them, before the ordinary and regular tribunal, they inſtitute an inquiſition into mens conſciences, and oblige them to give up their privileges, or undertake to interpret the law at the hazard of perjury; they expoſe themſelves to the imputation of injuſtice and oppreſſion.

THE right of a government to preſcribe the conditions on which its privileges ſhall be enjoyed, is bounded with reſpect to thoſe who are already included in the compact, by its original conditions; in admitting ſtrangers it may add new ones; but it cannot without a breach of the ſocial compact deprive thoſe, who have been once admitted of their rights, unleſs for ſome declared cauſe of forfeiture authenticated with the ſolemnities required by the ſubſiſting compact.

THE rights too of a republican government are to be modified and regulated by the principles of ſuch a government. Theſe principles dictate, that no man ſhall loſe his rights without a hearing and conviction, before the proper tribunal; that previous to his disfranchiſement, he ſhall have the full benefit of the laws to make his defence; and that his innocence ſhall be preſumed till his guilt has been proved. Theſe with many other maxims, never to be forgotten in any but tyrannical governments, oppoſe the aims of thoſe who quarrel with the principles of Phocion.

CASES indeed of extreme neceſſity are exceptions to all general rules; but theſe only exiſt, when it is manifeſt the ſafety of the community is in imminent danger. Speculations of poſſible danger never can be juſtifying cauſes of departures from principles on which in the ordinary courſe of things all private ſecurity depends — from principles which conſtitute the eſſential diſtinction between free and arbitrary governments.

WHEN the advocates for legiſlative diſcriminations are driven from one ſubterfuge to another, their laſt reſting place is — that this is a new caſe, the caſe of a revolution. Your principles are all right ſay they, in the ordinary courſe of ſociety, but they do not apply to a ſituation like ours. This is opening a wilderneſs, through all the labyrinths of which, it is impoſſible to purſue them: The anſwer to this muſt be, that there are principles eternally true and which apply to all ſituations; ſuch as thoſe that have been already enumerated — that we are not now in the midſt of a revolution but have happily brought it to a ſuccesful iſſue—that we have a conſtitution formed as a rule of conduct — that the frame of our government is determined and the general principles of its ſettled— that we have taken our ſtation among nations have claimed the benefit of the laws which regulate them, and muſt in our turn be bound by the ſame laws — that thoſe eternal principles of ſocial juſtice forbid the inflicting puniſhment upon citizens, by an abridgement of rights, or in any other manner, without conviction of ſome ſpecific offence by regular trial and condemnation — that the conſtitution we have formed makes the trial by jury the only proper mode of aſcertaining the del •• quences of individuals — that legiſlative diſcriminations, to ſuperſede the neceſſity of inquiry and proof, would be an uſurpation on the judiciary powers of the government, and a renunciation of all the maxims of civil liberty — that by the laws of nations and the rules of juſtice, we are bound to obſerve the engagements entered into on our behalf, by that power which is inveſted with the conſtitutional prerogative of treaty — and that the treaty we have made in its genuine ſenſe, ties up the hards of government from any ſpecies of future proſecution or puniſhment, on account of the part taken by individuals in the war.

AMONG the extravagancies with which theſe prolific times abound, we hear it often ſaid, that the conſtitution being the creature of the people, their ſenſe with reſpect to any meaſure, if it even ſtand in oppoſition to the conſtitution, will ſanctify and make it right.

HAPPILY, for us, in this country, the poſition is not to be controverted; that the conſtitution is the creature of the people; but it does not follow that they are not bound by it, while they ſuffer it to continue in force; nor does it follow, that the legiſlature, which is, on the other hand, a creature of the conſtitution, can depart from it, on any preſumption of the contrary ſenſe of the people.

THE conſtitution is the compact made between the ſociety at large and each individual. The ſociety therefore, cannot without breach of faith and injuſtice, refuſe to any individual, a ſingle advantage which he derives under that compact, no more than one man can refuſe to perform his agreement with another. If the community have good reaſons for abrogating the old compact, and eſtabliſhing a new one, it undoubtedly has a right to do it; but until the compact is diſſolved with the ſame ſolemnity and certainty with which it was made, the ſociety, as well as individuals, are bound by it.

ALL the authority of the legiſlature is delegated to them under the conſtitution; their rights and powers are there defined; if they exceed them, 'tis a treaſonable uſurpation upon the power and majeſty of the people; and by the ſame rule that they may take away from a ſingle individual the rights he claims under the conſtitution, they may erect themſelves into perpetual dictators. The ſenſe of the people, if urged in juſtification of the meaſure, muſt be conſidered as a mere pretext; for that ſenſe cannot appear to them in a form ſo explicit and authoritative, as the conſtitution under which they act: and if it could appear with equal authenticity, it could only bind, when it had been preceded by a declared change in the form of government.

THE contrary doctrine ſerves to undermine all thoſe rules, by which individuals can know their duties and their rights, and to covert the government into a government of will not of laws.

THERE is only one light on Mentor's plan in which the ſubject remains to be conſidered — the danger to the government, from ſuffering perſons to reſide among us, who have an averſion to our conſtitution; either by their becoming auxiliaries to future attempts of the Britiſh nation to recover their loſt authority; or by their contributing to corrupt the principles and change the form of our government.

MY obſervations on this ſubject, in my former letter, I believe remain unſhaken, by what Mentor has oppoſed to them. I ſhall however add a few others.

THE reſtoration of Britiſh authority in this country, is too chimerical to be believed even by Mentor himſelf; though he makes ſome ſaint eſſays to induce the ſuppoſition,

WHY did Great Britain make peace with America? Becauſe the neceſſity of her affairs compelled her to it. In what did this neceſſity conſiſt? In every ſpecies of embarraſſment and diſorder, that a nation could experience. Her public debt had almoſt arrived at that point, when the expences of a peace eſtabliſhment were nearly equal to all the revenues they were able to extract from exhauſting the ſources of taxation. Had they carried on the war, 'till they had exceeded this point, a bankruptcy would have been the inevitable conſequence. We perceive, as it is, the great difficulties that are acknowedged by every ſucceſſion of miniſters, in deviſing means to retrieve the affairs of the nation.

THE diſtractions of the government, ariſing from thoſe embarraſſments, are ſcarcely paralleled in any period of Britiſh hiſtory. Almoſt every ſitting of parliament is a ſignal of a change of miniſtry. The King at variance with his miniſters — the miniſters unſupported by parliament — the lords diſagreeing with the commons; the nation execrating the King, miniſter, lords and commons; all theſe are ſymptoms of a vital malady in 'the preſent ſtate of the nation,

EXTERNALLY the ſcene is not brighter: The affairs of the Eaſt India ſettlements are in the moſt perplexing confuſion, and Ireland ſeems to be ready to diſmember itſelf from the Britiſh empire.

IT may be ſaid that theſe are temporary miſchiefs, which may be ſucceeded by greater tranquility, proſperity and power. The future ſituation of Great Britain is a problem which the wiſed man cannot ſolve. In all appearance, it will be a conſiderable time, before ſhe can recover from the preſſure of the evils under which ſhe now labours, to be in a condition to form enterprizes againſt others: When that period may arrive our ſtrength and reſources will have greatly increaſed — the habits of men attached to her will have worn out — and it is viſionary to ſuppoſe that ſhe will then entertain a diſpoſition to renew her attempts upon a country, increaſed in ſtrength and reſources, exerting its forces under an eſtabliſhed conſtitution, fortified by foreign alliances, which her acknowledged independence will at all times command; when ſhe reflects that that country, in the tumolt of a revolution, and in a ſtate of comparative impotence, baffled all her efforts, in the zenith of her power.

To an enlightened mind it will be ſufficient to ſay, upon this ſubject, that independent of our own means of repelling enterpriſes againſt us. Europe has been taught by this revolution to eſtimate the danger to itſelf c • an union of the two countries, under the ſame government, in too ſtriking a manner, ever to permit the re-union, or tolerate the attempts of Great Britain towards it.

THE danger, from a corruption of the principles of our government, is more plauſible, butr not more ſolid — It is an axiom that governments form manners, as well as as manners form governments. The body of te people of this ſtate are too firmly mumber to give a different tone to that ſpirit. The preſent law of inheritance making an equal diviſion among the children, of the parents property, will ſoon melt down thoſe great eſtates, which if they continued, might favour the power of the ſew. The number of the diſaffected, who are ſo, from ſpeculative notions of government, is ſmall: The great majority of thoſe, who took part againſt us, did it from accident, from the dread of the Britiſh power, and from the influence of others to whom they had been accuſtomed to look up. Moſt of the men, who had that kind of influence are already gone: The reſidue and their adherents muſt be carried along by the torrent; and with very few exceptions, if the government is mild and juſt, will ſoon come to view it with approbation and attachment.

Either the number of mal-contents in the ſtate is ſmall or it is conſiderable. If ſmall, there can be no room for apprehensions; if great, then oppoſition to the government is only to be overcome by making it their intereſt to be its friends, or by extirpating them from the community. A middle line which will betray a ſpirit of perſecution in the government, but will only extend its operation to a ſmall number, will anſwer no other purpoſe than to diſable a few, and inflame and river the prejudices of the reſt; by exhibiting the temper of government in a harſh and unconciliating light. We ſhall then in truth have a conſiderable faction in the ſtate ready for all innotations.

THE impracticability of ſuch a general extinpation ſuggeſts the oppoſite conduct as the only proper one.

THERE is a bigotry in politics, as well as in religions, equally pernicious in both— The zealors, of either deſcription, are ignorant of the advantage of a ſpirit of toleration: It was a long time before the kingdoms of Europe were convinced of the folly of perſecution, with reſpect to thoſe, who were ſchiſmatics from the eſtabliſhed church. The cry was, theſe men will be equally the diſturbers of the hierarchy and of the ſtate, While ſome kingdoms were impoveriſhing and depopulating themſelves, by their ſeverities to the non-conformiſ •• , their wiſer neighbours were reaping the fruits of their f • lly, and augmenting their own numbers, induſtry and wealth, by receiving with open arms the perſecuted fugitives. Time and experience have taught a different leſſon; and there is not an enlightened nation, which does not now acknowledge the force of this truth, that whatever ſpeculative notions of religion may be entertained, men will not on that account, be enemies to a government, that affords them protection and ſecurity. The ſame ſpirit of toleration in politics, and for the ſame reaſons, has made great progreſs among mankind, of which the hiſtory of moſt modern revolutions is a proof. Unhappily for this ſtate, there are ſome among us, who poſſeſs too much influence, that have motives of personal ambition and intereſt to ſhut their minds againſt the entrance of that moderation, which the real welfare of the community reaches.

Our nerghbours ſeem to be in a diſpoſition to benefit by our miſtakes: and the time will not be very remote, if the ſchemes of ſome men can prevail, when we ſhall be aſhamed of our own blindneſs, and heap infamy upon its promoters.

IT is remarkable, though not extraordinary, that thoſe characters, throughout the ſtates, who have been principally inſtrumental in the revolation, are the moſt oppoſed to perſecuting meaſures. Were it proper, I might trace the truth of this remark from that character, which has been the firſt in conſpicuouſneſs, through the ſeveral gradations of thoſe, with very few exceptions, who either in the civil or military line have borne a diſtinguiſhed part. On the other hand I might point out men who were reluctantly dragged into taking a part in the revolution; others who were furious zealots in the commencement of the diſpute, that were not heard of to any public purpoſe, during the progreſs of it, and others who were fluctuating, according to the tide of good or ill-fortune, all of whom now join in the cry with a third claſs, more imprudent but much more reſpectable, and endeavour by the loudneſs of their clamours to atone for their paſt delinquencies.

As to Mentor's commercial reveries, I ſhall decline beſtowing many remarks upon them, not only becauſe they are not immediately connected with the general ſubject, but becauſe there is little danger of their making any proſelytes; while men are convinced that the proſperity of the national commerce depends as much upon the extent of its capital as that of an individal— that to confine trade to any particular deſcription of men, in excluſion of others who have better means of carrying it on, would be, if practicable, to make the people at large tributary to the avarice of a ſmall number, who were to have the benefit of the monopoly — that in the preſent ſituation of things, a very ſmall proportion of thoſe, intended to be benefited, who have the means to avail themſelves of the advantage, would reap all its fruits even at the expence and to the prejudice of the greater part of thoſe who were meant to be favoured— that the fewer hands trade is confined to the leſs will be its activity, and the leſs the degree of emplovment affordes to other claſſes of the community; and, in ſhort, that all monopolies, excluſions and diſcriminations, in matters of traffick, are pernicious and abſurd.

SINCE writing the foregoing, I have learned, that a bill is depending before the Houſe of Aſſembly, for putting various deſcriptions of perſons out of the protection of government. I have too much reſpect for the wiſdom and virtue of that body to ſuppoſe a meaſure of this nature can brain the ſanction of the majority — What is the plain language of the propoſal? There are certain perſons, who are obnoxious to public reſentment. The treaty forbids us to proceed againſt them in a legal way. Let us therefore by an unconſtitutional exertion of power evade the creaty, however dangerous the precedent to the liberty of the ſubject, and however derogatory to the honour of the nation. By the treaty we ſtipulate, that no perſon or perſons ſhall ſuffer on account of the part they may have taken in the war, any damage to person, liberty, or property; and yet by taking away the protection of government, which they would enjoy under the ſubſiſting laws, we leave them to ſuffer whatever injury to erther, the raſhneſs of individuals who are the ſubjects of the ſtate, may think proper to inflict. What would this be but to imitate the conduct of a certain General, who having premiſed that he would not ſpill the blood of ſome priſoners, who were about to ſurrender by capitolation, after he had them in his power, had them all ſtrangled to death? Words in every contract are to be conſtrued so as to give them a reaſonable effect. When it is ſtipulated, that a man ſhall not ſuffer in perſon, liberty, or property, it does not merely mean, that the ſtate will not inflict any poſitive puniſhment upon him; but alſo that it will afford him protection and ſecurity from injury. The very letter as well as the ſpirit of the ſtipulation imports this— He ſhall not ſuffer any damage, are the words of the treaty.

The ſcheme of putting men out of the protection of the law, is calculated to transfer the ſcepter from the hands of government to thoſe of individuals — it is to arm one part of the community againſt another; it is to enact a civil war, If unhappily for the ſtate, this plan could ſucceed, no man can foreſee the end of it. But the guardians of the rights of the community will certainly, on mature deliberation reject it.

〈◊〉 for the honour of the ſtate, if expulſions muſt take place, if the conſtitution and the faith of the United States, muſt be ſacrificed to a ſuppoſed political expedience. I had much rather ſee an open avowal of the principles upon which we acted, than that we ſhould cloth the deſign with a vile of artifice and diſguiſe, too thin not to be penetrated by the moſt ordinary eye.

I SHALL now with a few general reflections conclude.

THOSE, who are at preſent entruſted with power, in all theſe infant republics, hold the moſt ſacred depoſit that ever was confided to human hands. 'Tis with governments as with individuals, firſt impreſſions and early habits give a laſting bias to the temper and character. Our governments hitherto have no habits. How important to the happineſs not of America alone, but of mankind, that they ſhould acquire good ones.

IF we ſet out with juſtice, moderation, liberality, and a ſcrupulous regard to the conſtitution, the government will acquire a ſpirit and tone, productive of permanent bleſſings to the community. If on the contrary, the public councils are guided by humour, paſſion and prejudice; if from reſentment to individuals, or a dread of partial inconveniencies, the conſtitution is ſlighted or explained away, upon every frivolous pretext, the future ſpirit of government will be feeble, diſtracted and arbitrary. The rights of the ſubject will be the ſport of every party viciſſitude. There will be no ſettled rule of conduct, but every thing will fluctuate with the alternate prevalency of contending factions.

THE world has its eye upon America. The noble ſtruggle we have made in the cauſe of liberty, has occaſioned a kind of revolution in human ſentiment. The influence of our example has penetrated the gloomy regions of deſpotiſm, and has pointed the way to inquiries, which may ſhake it to its deepeſt foundations. Men begin to aſk every where, who is this tyrant, that dares to build his greatneſs on our miſery and degradation? What commiſſion has he to ſacrifice millions to the wanton appetites of himſelf and the few minions that ſurround his throne?

To ripen inquiry into action, it remains for us to juſtify the revolution by its fruits.

IF the conſequences prove, that we really have aſſerted the cauſe of human happineſs, what may not be expected from ſo illuſtrious an example? — In a greater or leſs degree, the world will bleſs and imitate?

BUT if experience, in this inſtance, verifies the leſſon long taught by the enemies of liberty; — that the bulk of mankind are not fit to govern themſelves, that they muſt have a maſtter, and were only made for the rein and the ſpur: We ſhall then ſee the final triumph of deſpotiſm over liberty — The advocates of the latter muſt acknowledge it to be an ignis fatuus, and abandon the purſuit. With the greateſt advantages for promoting it, that ever a people had, we ſhall have betrayed the cauſe of human nature.

LET thoſe in whoſe hands it is placed, pauſe for a moment, and contemplate with an eye of reverence, the vaſt truſt committed to them. Let them retire into their own boſoms and examine the motives which there prevail. Let them aſk themſelves this ſolemn queſtion — Is the ſacrifice of a few miſtaken, or criminal individuals, an object worthy of the ſhifts to which we are reduced to evade the conſtitution and the national engagements? Then let them review the arguments that have been offered with diſpaſſionate candour; and if they even doubt the propriety of the meaſures. they may be about to adopt, let them remember, that in a doubtful caſe, the conſtitution ought never to be hazarded, without extreme neceſſity.