IT is impoſſible for any honeſt man to contemplate the preſent ſituation of publick affairs in this ſtate without being ſincerely affected at the ſcene. The baneful influence of an intereſted and deſigning faction enters ſo deeply into many of our meaſures that inſenſibility itſelf muſt ſoon be awakened with the conſequences. Hardly warm in the ſeat we already feel ourſelves goaded with many of the vices and infirmities of the oldeſt governments. To what infatuation or fatality this has fallen to be our lot it has become the duty, as it is evidently the intereſt, of every good citizen to inquire. In ſuch a reſearch philoſophy and the deepeſt political ſkill, acting by ſcientifick rules at a diſtance, would confeſs themſelves at a loſs; for as (according to Blackſtone) democracies contain more the principles of publick virtue and goodneſs of intention than other forms of government, we ought, by the rules of theory, in our infant ſtate at leaſt, to be freeſt from the evils now complained of; and this makes it obvious it is not in the nature of the ſyſtem, (that having confeſſedly the preference to all others) but in the venality and corruption of ſome individuals among us, that the diſtemper lies.

For ſome years paſt it has been the unfortunate doom of Georgia, more perhaps than any other ſtate, to be ſplit into factions. After having undergone a variety of mutations, theſe differences have at length terminated in two parties, whoſe preponderance will juſt depend upon the prevalence of right or wrong. On the one hand we behold a moſt powerful combination of individuals zealouſly embarked in the ſcheme of advancing their private fortunes on the ruins of every thing that is dear and valuable to the community. On the other we obſerve a more virtuous, though a leſs active ſet of citizens, oppoſing ſuch views, and counteracting knavery and vociferation with reaſon and argument. It is an old remark, that the wicked are infinitely more keen in the purſuit of bad actions than the good in oppoſing them. The former claſs having plunged themſelves into an abyſs of debt, now conceive, on the very principles of Catiline, that nothing leſs than an internal revolution can extricate them. To this diabolical end are all their meaſures indubitably directed, the moſt injurious falſehoods are diſſeminated, and whatever ſeems beſt calculated to create diſtruſt and jealouſy againſt thoſe whoſe fortunes offer a ſecurity for confidence, and whoſe private characters command reſpect and eſteem, is moſt induſtriouſly propagated. To be a man of either reputed honeſty or unembarraſſed circumſtances is at once to be at enmity with this confederacy of citizens. Governed themſelves by no conſiderations but thoſe of lucre, they, with an effrontery peculiar to the wicked, concluded all other men acted on the ſame principles; they were bold enough to ſuppoſe that a ſimilarity of intereſt would at all times inſpire a ſimilarity of ſentiment: But how egregiouſly have they been deceived, when they now find that every man of honour, virtue, or property, has withdrawn from them, and they ſtand the ſole champion of their own diſgraceful undertaking.

It has been for a long time artfully inſinuated that the diſputes in this ſtate lay between the purchaſers of confiſcated property and thoſe who did not purchaſe: But in truth the conteſt lies between thoſe who have purchaſed without any intention or means of paying and others of the ſame complexion, and thoſe who may or may not have purchaſed, but who nevertheleſs mean the thing that is juſt and right towards the publick. It is notorious that ſome very conſiderable purchaſers are always to be found voting and acting on the ſide that evidently conſult common good without any view to their private emolument. It is equally notorious that ſuch gentlemen have in general paid up their bonds as far as the law allowed in certificates, and that they are able and willing to pay the remainder when it ſhall become due. Some of them indeed may contend for the reaſonableneſs and juſtice of being allowed to pay the whole in certificates, by way of diſcount, if they can procure liquidated demands againſt the publick for that purpoſe: And I confeſs there are ſtrong reaſons in favour of ſuch a mode being adopted now, which could not be allowed to operate at the time the law paſſed, making a diſtinction between certificates and ſpecie. At that period the Legiſlature had not a preciſe knowledge of the demands againſt the publick, and therefore could not judge whether the means in hand were adequate to the end of a full payment, or whether it would be neceſſary to make a ſort of compoſition and pay by inſtallments: But when it came to be aſcertained that the amount ſales of our confiſcated property, with the aids already provided, would be ſufficient to ſink all the debts of the ſtate, and leave a very conſiderable balance behind, every reaſon for a diſcrimination ceaſed to exiſt. But, even were ſuch a diſcrimination to continue, it could not affect the honeſt and ſolvent purchaſer; for, as the fund is diſcovered by compariſon to be better than was apprehended, in the ſame proportion muſt the certificates or draughts upon it appreciate. Beſides it is well known that any man holding a certificate, ever and above what he was allowed to pay upon his bond, might, with very little trouble and at no coſt, make the ſame in every reſpect equal to ſpecie, by throwing it into a particular fund of the ſtate. In regard to officers demands, there never was, and indeed never can be, any objection againſt conſidering them as ſpecie; whenever they come to be properly liquidated and certified, they will anſwer as well, by the reſolves of Congreſs, in payments from this ſtate to the Continent, as gold or ſilver: It is true the time limited by act of Aſſembly for bringing them in has elapſed, but I think there is hardly a doubt a longer indulgence will be granted when the Legiſlature meet.

Having drawn a line of diſtinction between the purchaſers of confiſcated property, I ſhall only obſerve, that, in a general way, the men who make moſt noiſe and pother againſt the law, becauſe it does not allow them to pay the whole of their bonds in certificates, are thoſe who have not paid the half they might have done in that way, although the time allowed for ſuch purpoſe has run out. Men of ſo ſcandalous a conduct are little better than peſts to ſociety; their motions ought to be narrowly watched, for it is demonſtrable that, whatever may be the oſtenſible plea or pretence, ambition, avarice, and dark deſign, lurk at the bottom, and give a certain ſuſpicious caſt to all their proceedings.

The two principal heroes of this confederacy are ſaid to be men remarkably well aſſociated—the one in the full and indiſputed poſſeſſion of that kind of ſubtle midnight cunning which formed a Miſſiſippi ſcheme, or a South Sea bubble, more the reſult of a bad heart, and a plodding temper, than the characteriſtick of genius—is never ſo guarded as when he pretends moſt to vaunt himſelf upon his candour;— the other, verſed in all the little tricks of life, having paſſed through the different gradations from the loweſt mechanick to the higheſt law officer, finds it as eaſy to explain away a forgery as to aſſaſſinate a character. The former of theſe feels no qualms of conſcience in atteſting, and thereby procuring to be audited, an account againſt the publick for a conſiderable crop which he neither planted or reaped, and was only in poſſeſſion of during the time Count d'Eſtaing lay before the lines of Savannah: The latter with amazing facility can extract a legacy from the dead which the living never thought of, and, by the magick of law language, in order to elude an act of Aſſembly highly favoured by him in every other reſpect, clearly evince, that, "if A. bequeaths a legacy to B. his next heir and neareſt of kin, if B. afterwards takes poſſeſſion of the property, and becomes attainted and baniſhed, that in that caſe B. being dead in law, ſhall be conſidered as having never lived, and the legacy being lapſed ſhall fall to the next of kin, who has married a friend to the Revolution;" and of which laſt circumſtance who is ſo fit a judge as the expounder of the laws? Under ſo just and equitable a law caſe as this, it is no ſecret that fifty-three very valuable ſlaves have paſſed from the funds of the ſtate to the plantation and pocket of the C—J—. Whether at a future day, when this buſineſs comes to be inquired into, the 13th ſection of the Confiſcation Act, which declares ſuch embezzlements and converſions to be felony, may not have ſome operation, is not for me to determine.

This redoubtable duumvirate lately, under the ſignature of Brutus, (two in one, like man and wife) made a moſt angry attack upon the conduct of the preſent Adminiſtration. They had read, or been told, this was the uſual mode of introduction with the young orators of Rome; but the ſeveral grounds upon which they raiſed their battery having failed them, the only product of their labours has been an addition to the infamy of their characters. In reſpect to thoſe againſt whom the envenomed ſhafts were pointed, they, as became the dignity of their ſtations, and the fortitude of mind inſeparably attached to an upright demeanour, treated their adverſaries with ſilent contempt; they had wiſely implanted in their breaſts, and now called in to their aid, the maxim of Lord Bacon, that "to ſuffer ſcandal is a tax which every perſon of rank pays to the publick, and the man who has no virtue in himſelf ever envies virtue in others."

We are now upon the eve of a new election of officers; it is therefore a more than ordinary duty, for every man who has a vote to give, to make himſelf well acquainted with characters. The principle of jealouſy being the ſoul of liberty, when properly underſtood and liberally applied, is juſt and right; but, if we permit this laudable jealouſy to become ſynonimous with mean ſuſpicion, we ſhall do ourſelves a material injury. Can we expect any man of honour or ſpirit will ſerve us, when he is certain, that, to accept an office in the ſtate is to begin his journey on the high road of cenſure and abuſe? The perpetual clamours and impeachments in Athens, againſt the beſt citizens of the commonwealth, at length produced a general backwardneſs among good men to engage in publick affairs, and left the way open for the ambitious and the deſigning. And we read, in the Hiſtory of Syracuſe, that, when the Petaliſm was erected there, in imitation of the Oſtraciſm at Athens, (and perhaps not unlike the Toryiſm of Brutus and his junto in Georgia) it was ſo notoriouſly levelled againſt all who had fortune or merit to recommend them, that whoever poſſeſſed either withdrew from the city, and would have no concern in the adminiſtration of government; ſo that the people themſelves were forced to abrogate it for fear of bringing all things into confuſion.

In every free ſtate the evil to be avoided is tyranny. That all government originates with the people is an axiom as uncontrovertible as neceſſary to liberty, but that the people themſelves at large ought not to adminiſter that government, further than by a delegation of power to their repreſentatives and officers, is alſo an essential point in the charter of freedom. The dominatio plebis, or the dominion of the mob, is the worſt of all governments. In holy writ we find the raging of the ſea and the madneſs of the people are claſſed together, and it is God alone who can ſay to either, hitherto ſhalt thou paſs and no further. Moſt of the convulſions of government in Greece and Rome began with the tyranny of the people, but they generally concluded in that of a ſingle perſon. The leſſon I wiſh to inculcate from this is, that, although the maſs of the people is the body wherein naturally and originally reſides that abſolute and unlimited power, which in every government is neceſſarily ſuppoſed to be ſomewhere, yet the only uſe a wiſe people will make of ſuch power is, at certain ſtated periods, to elect or appoint fit perſons for their rulers; after ſuch appointment, to inveſt them with a confidence equal to the truſt they are charged with; to protect them againſt the tongue of ſlander, and the arts of deſigning men, when they do right; and to puniſh them, in a regular and conſtitutional way, if they do wrong. When this comes uniformly to be our rule and maxim, we ſhall be a happy and a flouriſhing people; till then we may lay our account to be the dupes of every factious demagogue who wants a ſtep ladder to climb into conſequence, or feels a luſt of being richer than his neighbour.

The great article of arranging our finances has been but little attended to in this ſtate; it is chiefly, though not altogether, owing to this, that our political, as well as commercial importance, are ſo far behind hand in compariſon with ſome other ſtates. There cannot exiſt a doubt but that we poſſeſs a country which, for fertility of foil, conveniency of water carriage, and every agrarian or other advantage whatever, yields to none on the continent: But yet, to all theſe bounties of nature it is neceſſary that we add the refinements of art, and, by a due cultivation of the moral, learn rationally to enjoy the phyſical bleſſings of life. We may aſſure ourſelves, that money is not more the ſinews of war than the pillars of peace, and if we ſuffer ourſelves to be ſeduced into an idea that any modern government can maintain its dignity and ſafety, or diſcharge its ordinary functions, without taxes, we ſhall find ourſelves woefully deceived, and ere long diſcover our miſtake and our puniſhment together. We have a large ſum as our quota of the ſeveral requiſitions and debts to pay to Congreſs. This money muſt be raiſed, and an act of Aſſembly, paſſed on the 29th July, 1783, has declared it ſhall be raiſed, and paid out of the confiſcated property. But what proſpect is there of this, whilſt, on the one hand, it is part of a ſyſtem with ſome not to pay without being ſued, and, on the other, we have for our C— J— a man who is himſelf among the deepeſt in the publick books? This ſingle conſideration furniſhes the beſt anſwer that could be given to the ſixth preſentment of the Grand Jury of Chatham county, and is partly the cauſe and partly the effect of the evils complained of in the ſeventh. Our Conſtitution, and all the laws paſſed ſince the Revolution, in reſpect to the Judiciary Department, have had for their object a cheap and a ſpeedy courſe of juſtice; but how clearly is law convicted of being a mere dead letter, when we ſee a bill of coſts, for two or three trifling motions and arguments about an adminiſtration, taxed at 22l. 17s. 6d. ſterling, and are told that ſuits, eſpecially where the poor publick is plaintiff, ſeldom come to an iſſue under two years after their commencement. I have heard of an eminent lawyer who boaſted he would defy any Parliament to make a law that he could not drive a coach and ſix through. It is very poſſible our Lord Coke may not be able to gild the pill ſo well as that lawyer; but I will venture to anſwer for him, that, if he cannot leap the fence, he will break it down in purſuit of his prey. Can any words be ſtronger or plainer than theſe: "All the coſts attending any action in the Superior Court ſhall not exceed the ſum of three pounds, and that no cauſe be allowed to depend in the Superior Court longer than two terms?" 48th ſection of the Conſtitution. By the 4th clauſe of the Superior Court Law, paſſed on the 1ſt March, 1778, the three pounds are thus apportioned: To the Chief Juſtice, £. 0 15 0 To the Attorney, 1 0 0 To the Clerk of the Court, 0 15 0 To the Sheriff, 0 10 0   £. 3 0 0

Let us contraſt this with the bill before mentioned: To the Chief Juſtice, £. 7 5 0 inſtead of £. 0 15 Overch. £. 6 10 0 To the Attorney, 6 16 0 Ditto 1 0 Ditto 5 16 0 To the Clerk of the Court, 2 13 5 Ditto 0 15 Ditto 1 18 5 To the Sheriff, 2 0 0 Ditto 0 10 Ditto 1 10 0   18 14 5   3 0   15 14 5 To the Chief Juſtice, &c. 4 3 1 inſtead of 0 0 Overch. 4 3 1   £. 22 17 6   £. 3 0   £. 19 17 6

Here we ſee there is not only an error in the aggregate ſum, but alſo that the proportion of its parts is entirely inverted; for whereas the Conſtitution and the law intended that the Attorney ſhould be allowed moſt, as having the greateſt ſhare of trouble, and that the Chief Juſtice and the Clerk ſhould be upon a footing, in this bill we find the Chief Juſtice has taken the lead, and taxed nearly as much for himſelf as for the other two put together. It was thought a very great point in England gained by the people, when, after the Revolution, the Judges were made partly independent of the Crown; the completion of that independence has been almoſt the only popular thing afforded to Britain in the reign of George the Third. Would to God our Judges were more independent of their intereſt than they are, and that the laws would act in uniſon with the petition taught by our Saviour, Lead us not into temptation.

It may poſſibly be objected, that a hearing in regard to an adminiſtration is not in nature of a ſuit, and therefore does not come within the words of the Conſtitution; if ſo, I ſhall anſwer, 1ſtly, That it is evident this hearing was conſidered, in the eye of the law, infinitely loſs, both in point of expence and conſequence, than a regular ſuit, for the laſt clauſe but two of the Superior Court Act allows either party to appeal therefrom to a jury, in manner pointed out by the 40th ſection of the Conſtitution; and the whole coſts upon this ſecond trial, with all the formality of proceſs, and ſo forth, were not to exceed 3l. but, 2dly, there is no neceſſity to confine ourſelves to one bill of coſts, when there is ſo great a choice; there are fifty ready to be produced, wherein the coſts, on a trial by proceſs and jury, in the uſual way, are taxed at upwards of twenty pounds. I need not inſtance them, becauſe they are known to every body, and felt by a great many. My reaſon for ſelecting this caſe of the adminiſtration was, becauſe it had been taken up by a Grand Jury, and alſo becauſe there are other circumſtances of aggravation in it beſides the exorbitancy of the fees. I am well informed, that, after the hearing was had, the C— J— arbitrarily ſtruck out the name of one of the defendants, and inſerted in its room the name of the Attorney who had appeared in the cauſe, a gentleman who had never laid claim to any part of the ſubject in diſpute, and who had left the ſtate on publick buſineſs at the time this happened. I am alſo well informed, that only one of the defendants was taken into cuſtody on the attachment of contempt, and he illegally detained by order of the C— J— until he had paid the fees of all. I ſhall, after a few remarks, leave it to the lawyers (as perhaps they may have an opportunity at ſome future day) to determine how far an attachment of contempt was a legal proceſs in this caſe; if it was, then there is nothing but the crime of extortion, with the oppreſſive conduct before mentioned, to be imputed to the C— J—; if it was not, then either a groſs ignorance or palpable violation of the law muſt make an additional charge againſt him. It would be a great misfortune to a country if a Judge ſhould conſider himſelf as a planet in oppoſition to the Conſtitution, inſomuch as that ſtrictly to be influenced by the latter ſhould be deemed a contempt to him: However, waving all apprehenſions of this ſort, I venture to pronounce, that a writ of contempt, in the caſe alluded to, was juſt as regular as it would be for the coſts upon a verdict or nonſuit in any other caſe. I know very well that Attornies, or other officers of the Court, and even parties themſelves, are ſometimes liable to theſe kinds of writs for diſobedience to a rule or order made in the progreſs of a cauſe, or by non-payment of coſts awarded by the Court upon a motion or the like; but theſe are always upon matters ariſing in the courſe of a ſuit, and not at all attached to or connected with its iſſue, which determines who ſhall pay the coſts, and gives a remedy for them. Beſides, theſe writs are always awarded in Court, for a contempt to Court, and not at Chambers, where the power of Judges is much circumſcribed in compariſon to their curial ſituation. I muſt here take occaſion to mention, that I obſerve moſt of the modern rules are dated from Chambers. Surely a Judge muſt be ſtrangely ignorant of law who ſuppoſes an order made in his own houſe in vacation time can carry the ſame weight and authority that a rule made in open Court, with all the ſolemnity of a by-law, does: But, as an eminent writer juſtly obſerves, it is a ſingular happineſs to mankind that Providence ſeldom beſtows great talents on wicked men; the ignorance of the head is oftentimes a uſeful clog upon the depravity of the heart.

Let us however act the fair part, and hear the J—e in vindication of himſelf. I cauſed full fees to be paid, in order to prevent delays and trifling in future. The term full we are, I preſume, to underſtand in contra diſtinction to legal; for it would be charging his H—r with an abſurdity to take them both in one ſenſe. There are evidently two things implied: 1ſt, a difference between what the party did pay as a tax for his trifling and delay, and what he might only have paid if he had not offended the J—e; and, 2dly, a diſcretion in the J—e to make that difference. Now, it is extremely clear that the Conſtitution having determined the party ſhould pay 3l. as the legal fees for trying his cauſe, the diſcretion of the J—e roſe upon that, and determined he ſhould pay 19l. 17s. 6d. more, as the full fees for trifling with his H—r's precious time. It was ſurely merciful to ſtop where he did, for, as the Gauls told the Romans, Vae victis! in the hands of ſuch judicial omnipotence. In fact this excuſe is little better than that of a highway man, who ſhould pretend he robbed a traveller of his purſe of gold, in order to teach him more wit than to have carried it about him.

The vindication publiſhed in the newſpaper alſo aſſerts, that the bill in queſtion was taxed agreeably to act of Aſſembly. If by it be meant the act paſſed in February laſt, for the regulation of officers fees, I aſſert that ſeveral of the charges are not warranted by that law; but, even were they, a Judge ought to know (and upon any other occaſion this gentleman would have told us) a law directly in the teeth and againſt the expreſs words of the Conſtitution is void. We ſeem, however, to live under a moſt pliable Conſtitution; like Lord Peter's wine-mutton-brown-loaf in Swift's Tale of a Tub, it is one thing, it is another thing, it is any thing or nothing, as ſuits conveniency, or promotes intereſt. One day we are informed, that, let a judgment be obtained when it will in the courſe of the year, yet, that, by the 47th ſection of the Conſtitution, no execution can iſſue to levy for the money till the firſt Monday in March following; the next day we find this rule relaxed, and a judgment obtained, and an eſtate ſold in the courſe of a ſummer. Again, we read in the ſecond article of the Conſtitution, "And the Repreſentatives ſo elected ſhall meet the firſt Tueſday in January following, at Savannah, or any other place or places where the Houſe of Aſſembly for the time being ſhall direct;" but are told in a Chief Juſtice's Charge, that, by theſe words, we are not to underſtand that the firſt meeting after the election of a new Houſe is to be in Savannah, but in Auguſta, and for this reaſon, that the preceding Houſe intended to meet at the latter place in July laſt. It would have been but candid to mention alſo, that ſuch of the Members (18 in number) as did meet in Auguſta in July preſented a paper (now to be ſeen of record in the Journals of Aſſembly) to the Executive Authority, recommending that the Houſe ſhould be called to meet thereafter at ſuch time and place as the Governor and Council ſhould deem proper; and that, in conſequence thereof, on the preſſure of publick buſineſs, the Houſe were called, by proclamation, to meet in Savannah, on the firſt Wedneſday in October; but that ſummons, like the adjournment, alſo failing of its end, left Savannah, and not Auguſta, as the laſt place mentioned in the Journals of the State for the intended meeting of the Legiſlature. I muſt make a ſmall digreſſion from the inconſiſtencies of the C—f, whilſt I take a nearer view of this ſo much talked of queſtion, viz. the proper place for the next meeting of the Aſſembly; but I promiſe to return to the ſubject again as ſoon as poſſible: To me it is of all things the moſt unaccountable, how any man, who has read the Conſtitution, and taken an oath to ſupport it, can aſſent to the conſtruction which the C— J— contends for. Without doubt there is the ſame reaſon why the Executive Authority ſhould have the power of altering the place, as of ſhortening the period, of adjournment; and the 20th ſection of the Conſtitution ſeems clearly to imply ſo: The Governor and Council are to ſhorten the time of adjournment upon any emergency: Surely they may alter the place upon any unforeſeen caſualty, ſuch, for inſtance, as the town falling into the hands of an enemy; the plague, or even the ſmallpox, breaking out in it, or the like. But if theſe arguments have any weight, when applied to the Houſe who actually made the adjournment, how much more forcible are they when applied to a new Houſe, who cannot be ſaid to be in being until they meet, qualify, and take their ſeats in Savannah? It is ridiculous to ſuppoſe a former Houſe of Aſſembly can bind a ſucceeding one, by a mere order, calculated for, and confined altogether to itſelf; indeed ſuch an opinion is not only contrary to the 3d ſection of the Conſtitution, which declares every Aſſembly ſhall politically periſh on the day preceding the new election; and to the 7th, which declares each Houſe ſhall ſettle its own rules of proceeding; but is alſo flatly contradicted by the practice of every new Houſe in drawing up rules for itſelf before the Members go upon buſineſs. Now, ſurely, if theſe rules do not ſurvive the body which made them, the reſolve of adjournment, which is no more than a rule of the Houſe, cannot in the nature of things; beſides, it is not unworthy of remark, that the Legiſlature, when they adjourned on 26th February laſt, did not then, or at any time previous thereto in the courſe of that ſeſſion, (as they had ſometimes before done) reſolve that the next meeting of Aſſembly (whenever that might happen) ſhould be in Auguſta, but concluded with theſe words, "The Houſe then adjourned, to meet at Auguſta the firſt Monday in July next."

The Aſſembly may be conſidered as executing the will of the Convention; but why the Houſe of 1784 ſhould alſo have the power of making a will before their death, and appointing the Houſe of 1785 the mere executors thereof, is what I cannot comprehend. It was evidently the intention of the framers of our Conſtitution, that, although, in the courſe of the year, the Legiſlature might ſhift about from place to place, to ſuit the conveniency of all parts of the ſtate, yet that, at the beginning of every new Houſe, they ſhould take their departure and ſet out from one fixed meridian to wit, that of Savannah: And this was certainly acting in conformity to the ſentiments of the ableſt writers, who hold that all free ſtates require that their government ſhould be brought back to its true and original principles every now and then; upon which very foundation our annual elections, and the other periodical changes provided for, are grounded: But I have dwelt too long upon ſo plain a caſe, and will now return to my ſtrictures upon ſome other parts of the C—'s conduct.

To form the character of a great Judge there ought to be a happy commixture of the amiable with the admirable qualities. Although the attainment of the firſt claſs in either of theſe deſcriptions may be beyond the reach of ordinary men, yet one would think caution and pride, the uſual companions of little ſouls, would guard againſt ſuch glaring inconſiſtencies as the following: "Many cogent reaſons concurred to induce me to ſuggeſt to the Grand Juries in the counties through which I have already rode the expediency of reviſing our Conſtitution: As I ſpeak to men of intelligence it is ſufficient only to mention it—if with harmony and temper you can go into the conſideration of a ſubject ſo truly important to us all, I heſitate not to recommend it to you." C— J—'s Charge to the Grand Jury of Richmond county, March 1784. "The Conſtitution of our country contains the principles of liberty, which by attention may be improved into a baſis on which the happineſs of the community may reſt with ſecurity—the time however for any kind of alteration is not yet arrived." Same C— J—'s Charge to the Grand Jury of Wilkes county, November 1784. He alſo, in his Charge in Liberty county in March laſt, after giving reaſons why there was no time to be loſt before the Conſtitution ſhould be reviſed and altered, goes on to tell the Grand Jury, as a ſpur to their induſtry, that "people in the counties lying on Savannah river are promoting petitions for that end, and I ſubmit the example to your diſcretion and judgment." Whether the people on Savannah river were promoting petitions I know not, but, even were it otherwiſe, it ſhews the enthuſiaſm of the Judge in the buſineſs propoſed, and is at leaſt as praiſe-worthy as the ſpeech of one of our Governors, who, in the year 1779, told the Aſſembly, by way of comfort, "that he had received authentick accounts that Sweden and Denmark had become additional pillars, by acknowledging the Independence of America."

It has never been my wiſh, and, however provoked, never ſhall be my endeavour, to develope the conduct of any man in office, further than I think the good of ſociety requires; with this profeſſion, then, I hope I ſhall not be charged with a deſire to gratify private ſpleen, or miniſter to the paſſions or prejudices of party, if I make a candid ſcrutiny into ſome late deciſions in Court. I ſhall begin with the caſe of a Mr. Fox, a native and citizen of Georgia, who ſtood charged with murder.

On the arraignment of this perſon, it ſeems, he offered for his plea, "that he was not bound by any law of this ſtate previous to the Definitive Treaty of Peace." The Court, without farther ceremony, on motion of the priſoner's Council, admitted him to bail. This defence, which was more properly in nature of a ſpecial plea in bar, than to the juriſdiction of the Court, could not be uſed as an argument for indulgence to the priſoner. Surely every evidence to ſhew his plea to be good, which he could ever obtain, was now to be had; and if, inſtead of reſting on the 6th Article of the Treaty, and ſetting up a plea of pardon, he choſe to riſque his life upon this iſſue, whether there was any law of the land againſt murder binding upon him prior to the Definitive Treaty of Peace, there was every reaſon for the Judges to ſettle the point without loſs of time, leſt ſo fatal a doctrine, ſubverſive of the firſt principles of freedom, which will not ſuppoſe the law to be in the hands of any maſter, ſhould impoſe itſelf upon others. The nice reaſoning upon the allegiance due to the ſovereignty de facto, and that de jure, and the diſtinctions admitted, or not admitted, between the two, did not at all enter into this buſineſs. The ſimple point would have been, whether an uſurpation virtually and ipſo facto ſuſpends the operation of all laws, as well thoſe againſt offences mala in ſe as thoſe only mala prohibita: And I think, without recurring to the laws or adjudications in the reign of Henry VII. when the diſputes between the Houſes of York and Lancaſter came to be terminated, or to thoſe of Charles II. after the Reſtoration, the very article itſelf in the Treaty of Peace is, by the ſtrongeſt implication imaginable, a deadly wound to ſuch a plea as this; for, ſurely, if no crime had been committed, no pardon would have been neceſſary. Thus circumſtanced, the priſoner's defence reſolved itſelf into a confeſſion of the fact, but a denial of its criminality ſo far as reſpected him. Some centuries ago, in a Roman Catholick country, when men carried diſpenſations in their pockets, ſuch a plea might have been ſanctioned by authority; but, at this period of time, and before ſo haughty a tribunal as ours, it is a little aſtoniſhing that it could even be attended to; nay, more, that it ſhould actually produce its intended effect, and, by a baſe ſacrifice of law and common ſenſe, conſult the mere ſafety and conveniency of a ſuppoſed offender againſt the community. I wiſh to avoid ſaying any thing that can in the moſt diſtant point of view go to the merits of this unfortunate man's caſe—let God and the Country be his judges—My obſervations are all meant to be confined to the conduct of the Court upon his buſineſs, and that I am free to pronounce highly cenſurable. Under the Habeas Corpus Act, (the principles whereof are incorporated into, and, by the 60th ſection, made a part of our Conſtitution) had the priſoner demanded his trial in the firſt week of the term, or on the firſt day of the ſeſſions, and had the Attorney General omitted to get the witneſſes for the ſtate when he might have done ſo, I grant that, in ſuch caſes, even murderers have ſometimes, by the Superior Courts, (to whom we confided great powers, and from whom is expected great prudence) been admitted to bail: But I believe this is the firſt inſtance wherein a man, againſt whom was found a bill of indictment for murder, has ever been ordered out upon bail where the proſecutors preſſed for trial, where the party himſelf had put his fate upon an iſſue that could neither require or admit witneſſes, and where ſuch indulgence was not pretended to be craved on the foot of any ſuppoſed hardſhip inflicted by the other party. If it be ſaid, it was on account of the perplexed ſtate the Court was thrown into, when this new and unexpected plea made its appearance, that the cauſe was adjourned over, I reply, that is impoſſible, for, if the Judges had ever read (and I will not ſuppoſe the contrary) the caſes of Townly, M'Donald, Storey, and a number of others, in Foſter's Crown Law, they would have found the ſubject ſo copiouſly and clearly handled, that, to be perfectly ſtupid; and to be at a loſs in the buſineſs, would be the ſame thing.

Did any man in the world believe this lenity aroſe from a ſpirit of forbearance and mercy, or that there was the leaſt particle of the milk of human nature in the compoſition of its author, Chriſtian charity would induce forgiveneſs, and we ſhould perhaps be won over to loſe ſight of the fault in a tenderneſs for the motive; but, when it is beyond contradiction, that the gentle uſage this priſoner met with ſprung entirely from the part his connexions, and their connexions again, have acted, and continue to act, on the little ſcale of politicks, it is too much for any man of ſpirit, ſenſe, or juſtice, to tolerate it in a free country.

There is one other tranſaction of the laſt Court which I muſt take the liberty of ſaying a few words upon: I ſhall, I expect, be anticipated, in being ſuppoſed to allude to the caſe between an Indian and a Jew; God forbid I ſhould feel, or be ſuſpected of recommending, the moſt diſtant enmity on a religious ſcore againſt either of theſe people; I mean to regulate my obſervations by the rules of policy, as the affair reſpects the publick, and by the eternal laws of juſtice and truth, as it concerns the parties themſelves. It ſeems a half-breed man, deſcended of a white father (who is alſo ſuppoſed to be of the race of Jacob) and a free Indian mother, had brought a ſuit againſt a full-blooded Jew; the Jew, ever upon the watch, took an exception againſt the right of the plaintiff to ſue. There was really ſomething ſo peculiarly droll, in a conteſt about privilege between two men of this deſcription in a Chriſtian country, that, when I firſt heard of it, I could not help repeating a very vulgar ſaying of the pot to the kettle; however, the matter being referred to the Court, two againſt one decided in favour of the Iſraelite, and the poor Creekite was ordered to imparl until he could prove red was white. This naturally led me to inquire what were the rights of a free Indian, and what were thoſe of a Jew, in this ſtate. As it appeared to be at leaſt a diverting ſpeculation, I devoted ſome time to the inquiry, and, if the reader feels the ſame curioſity I did, he will not grudge a few minutes extraordinary in peruſing their reſpective claims. And now to the point: By the common law of the land the Indian ſeems to me to enjoy every privilege which the Jew does; and by the local Conſtitutions, or acts of Aſſembly, he certainly enjoys ſeveral which the Jew does not. To elucidate the former part of this poſition, it will be neceſſary to ſhew in what light theſe people reſpectively ſtood, and to conſider whether there was any diſcrimination between them in England at the time our country was colonized from that kingdom, for I conceive that to be the common law of this land (indeed our Legiſlature hath declared ſo) which was the law of England at the time our charter is dated, to wit, on the 9th day of June, 1732. When a free people (ſay the writers on this head) migrate to a new ſoil, with intent to ſettle the ſame, they carry with them as their birthright all the laws of their mother country then in force, at leaſt ſo much thereof as may be applicable to their own ſituation and the condition of an infant colony. This being acknowledged as a poſtulatum, let us now ſee what that law was.

Judge Blackſtone, in his Commentaries, (vol 1, page 425.) ſpeaking of the protection granted in England even to Negroes who run away from their maſters in America, thus expreſſes himſelf: "The law of England acts upon general and extenſive principles—it gives liberty rightly underſtood, that is, protection to a Jew, a Turk, or a Heathen, as well as to thoſe who profeſs the true religion of Chriſt." So that we ſee the Jew ſtands upon a level with the African ſlave who deſerts the employment of his maſter. Now, ſurely, we will not ſuppoſe a free Indian to be in a ſituation worſe than a man of this deſcription, but rather in a better; and by ſo much as his ſituation is better than that of the Negro, in the ſame ratio does he, from the words of Mr. Blackſtone, riſe above the Jew. The only difficulty with me is, whether we ought not to conſider the Indians within our ſtate, and who are the aborigines of the ſoil, rather in the light of citizens than aliens. There is no moral obſtacle to ſuch a determination in reſpect to theſe people, as there is to the Jews, who are not at preſent conſidered as citizens in any part of the world but by the ſpecial favour and operation of ſome particular law. And this carries me to the ſecond part of my poſition, viz. a view of the local Conſtitutions or acts of Aſſembly in favour of the Indians: Theſe will be found to countenance very much the idea of citizenſhip which I have before advanced. An act, paſſed 25th March, 1765, in the firſt clauſe, expreſsly ſecures every right and privilege to the Indians in amity with us, which they ever enjoyed. In the 13th and 14th ſections of the ſame law it is clearly implied, that, in the opinion of the then Legiſlature, theſe people were at all times, and upon all occaſions, to be eſteemed as being preciſely upon the ſame footing with Mulattoes or Meztizoes (or Jews or Turks) actually naturalized by a ſpecial act of Aſſembly. And it is well known that Indians, and the deſcendants of Indian women, have, in a variety of inſtances, both under the preſent and former government, had grants of lands to them and their heirs, which is of itſelf concluſive evidence they were acknowledged to be citizens. But, even ſhould we admit they were not citizens, they certainly are entitled to the rights of free aliens: What thoſe rights are no man who has read Wood's Inſtitutes, or turned over Jacob's Law Dictionary, can be ignorant of; but I ſhall make no comments, nor detain the reader further than whilſt I tranſcribe one or two paſſages out of one or two very common books: "An alien may bring an action concerning perſonal property, and may make a will and diſpoſe of his perſonal eſtate: This is to be underſtood of alien friends only, or ſuch whoſe countries are in peace with ours." 1 Black. 372. Here we ſee, if the Indians are merely in peace it is ſufficient; but they are more, they are actually in alliance with us, and therefore a judicial opinion incapacitating them from the right of ſuit is neither law or juſtice. "All perſonal actions he (an alien) may ſue as on a bond, ſo likewiſe for words, for the common law, according to the laws of nations, protects trade and traffick; and not to have the benefit of the law in ſuch caſes is to deny trade." Yelv. 198. Moore, 431. "An alien enemy commorant (or tarrying) in England by the King's licenſe, and under his protection, may maintain actions of debt upon bond, although he came not with ſafe conduct." Lord Raymond, 282. Here we ſee, if the Indians were actually at war with us, yet, by the common law of England, (which we have adopted as the law of our land) if we permit any one of them to tarry among us, he is not diſabled from bringing ſuit even againſt a Chriſtian citizen. But I ſhall now quit my Creek friend, and proceed to conſider the caſe of the Jews, a people whoſe increaſe in any country is at once a compliment and a reflection upon it; a compliment upon its natural advantages, but an implied cenſure upon its moral ſyſtem or adminiſtration of government. An ancient writer obſerves, the Jews always inſinuate themſelves moſt into favour among thoſe nations who remain in darkneſs and in the ſhadows of death. I ſhall not waſte my own time, or treſpaſs on the reader's patience, in demonſtrating whether theſe people ought moſt to be tolerated in a republick or in a monarchy. In truth the Jews now-a-days enter very little into politicks further than to favour that ſyſtem which is moſt promotive of their pecuniary intereſt, the principle of lucre being the life and ſoul of all their actions. If indeed they have any choice as to governments, it muſt be in favour of a monarchy, for there are no people ſo wedded to their old inſtitutions as the Jews, and we all know that, from the earlieſt accounts, they have been accuſtomed to an arbitrary, though not always to an hereditary government. At firſt the fathers of families, and the eldeſt ſons after them, exerciſed unlimited power, both civil and eccleſiaſtical, as kings and prieſts, over the reſt; they had authority to bleſs, curſe, caſt out, diſinherit, or puniſh with death, as they thought proper, in their own houſes. In Moſes's time the civil juriſdiction came to be ſevered from the eccleſiaſtical, but with no abatement of power or rigour in either; for whilſt Moſes, and after him Joſhua, were abſolute leaders, Aaron and his poſterity were high prieſts, more arbitrary than ſubſequent popes. After theſe came judges, who, when once elected into office, were as deſpotic as dictators; and the ſanhedrim, who filled up the chaſm between judge and judge, had alſo very great powers conferred on them. The whole concluded in a monarchy, beginning with Saul, and continuing until the Captivity. They were after that event for a long time bandied about under the Perſian monarchs, and the ten captains of Alexander the Great. At length the ſceptre was entirely removed from the Houſe of Judah, and came to be veſted in King Herod, who was of a branch no ways deſcended from the holy stock. At what particular time they came into England is not aſcertained; however they certainly were there in the time of William the Conqueror, for we find in hiſtory that that monarch, for a large ſum of money, granted the Jews the privilege of living in a certain part of England as his mere vaſſals, their perſons and goods to be conſidered as his alone, and they were to diſpoſe of neither without his licenſe. They continued in ſuch ſituation, with the addition of ſome few privileges, never as citizens, but, according to Molloy, (vol. 2d, pages 293 and 294,) "as moſt abſolute bond ſlaves and exquiſite villains, obliged to wear a badge and table on their outmoſt garment, as well females as males, to diſtinguiſh them from Chriſtians, and not privileged to ſue but by ſpecial licenſe of the king," until their inſolence, oppreſſions, and uſury, notwithſtanding all theſe reſtraints, had riſen to ſuch a heighth as to become a grievance to the nation. Then it was that Edward I. in the 18th year of his reign, at the earneſt ſolicitation of his Commons, publiſhed an edict in Parliament for the total and abſolute baniſhment of all Jews from every part of his dominions, and if, after a limited time, any of them were found within the ſame, they were to be hanged. The accounts of theſe times tell us, they had proceeded ſo far in their ſuperſtitious wickedneſs, that it became a cuſtom among them, on a Good Friday, to ſteal a Chriſtian child, and privately to crucify him in deriſion of his religion. From that time the Jews ſtood baniſhed the dominions of England until the great civil war in the reign of Charles I. During the confuſions of that period, they, by ſome means or other, with the help of long purſes, found an opportunity of reintroducing themſelves; they remained, however, extremely limited in their privileges, up to the time out charter was granted; nay, it was not until the commencement of the preſent century that they were admitted to the common privilege of benefit of clergy in any caſe whatever. (See Foſter's Crown Law, 306.)

Thus I have travelled with the Jews through a wilderneſs of hiſtory, from the time of their patriarchs down to the ſettlement of Georgia; if I have been particular or lengthy, the reader will excuſe it, when he reflects it was neceſſary to ſhew in what light the Jews ſtood in England when our firſt ſettlers emigrated from that country, in order to aſcertain the privileges they are now entitled to in Georgia; for I do not know that a ſingle law has ever been paſſed by our own Legiſlature in their favour, either before or ſince the Revolution. As to the 56th article of our Conſtitution, it ſays no more for them than it does for the Bramins of China, or the Muſſulmen of Turkey, they ſhall have the free exerciſe of their religion, provided it be not repugnant to the peace and ſafety of the ſtate. Whether this proviſo, applied to the Jews, does not abrogate the preceeding words, I refer to the opinion of others; at all events, there is nothing in it that promiſes them any more than a more religious privilege; not a word in the whole clauſe, by the moſt forced conſtruction, can be made to ſignify a grant of any civil right whatever. I am aware theſe people have hitherto laid great ſtreſs on the ſtatutes of 13th and 20th Geo. II. and 2d Geo. III. which make two years ſervice in a military capacity, or ſeven years conſtant reſidence in America, work a naturalization in any Jew; but a moment's reflection will convince us theſe ſtatutes are rather againſt the Jews than for them, as matters now ſtand; they evidently imply and prove, that, by the common or other laws of force, previous to the 13th Geo. II. there was ſome moral obſtacle in the way of a Jew's acquiring the rights of citizenſhip in America which could only be removed by the authority of Parliament. Now, this being admitted, the only queſtion will be, whether theſe ſtatutes are of force in Georgia or not. This is a queſtion that turns upon the ſame hinge that the Stamp Act, the Tea Act, and all the other acts which we declared unconſtitutional, did; the criterion was not the expediency of theſe laws, but the right in the makers to bind us by them. The people of Georgia ceaſed to be repreſented in the Britiſh Parliament in the 5th year of the reign of George II. when they migrated to this new ſoil; the firſt of theſe Jew Acts was paſſed eight years afterwards; then ſurely, upon the very principles of our Revolution, it cannot be conſidered as of force here without having been adopted by our own Legiſlature; that never having been done, the concluſion in the breaſt of every Revolutioniſt inevitably is, that the Jews in Georgia at preſent ſtand upon the ſame footing they did in England in the year 1732; what that footing was I have already ſhewn to be that of aliens, who never can become citizens but by the aid of the Legiſlature. Indeed every man knows that at this day no Jew becomes a citizen in England but by virtue of a ſpecial act of Parliament for naturalizing him. There is ſcarcely a ſeſſion but ſeveral of theſe laws paſs, which are ſaid to coſt, one way or other, near 500l. each. The terms of naturalization even then amount to this, that the Jew ſhall renounce his errors and turn Chriſtian, which he is obliged to evidence by taking the ſacrament, as required by ſtat. 7th James I. There was, in the 16th year of George II. an attempt made, and an act actually paſſed, for diſpenſing with the teſt of the ſacrament in reſpect to Jews before they were naturalized, but the clamours of the people roſe ſo high that the Parliament were compelled, after a very few months trial, to repeal this law, and leave the Jews where they were before.

After having ſaid ſo much againſt the Jews, it may probably be ſuſpected I am not only an enemy, but that I wiſh to ſtir up a ſpirit of intolerance againſt that diſperſed and unhappy people. Let me tell the reader, I am as far removed from being a votary of friend to perſecution as any man upon earth. Had the Jews in this ſtate but conducted themſelves with common modeſty and decorum, I ſhould have been the laſt perſon to point out their diſabilities; on the contrary, I ſhould have been happy to give my voice for ſectling every juſt and reaſonable privilege upon them, or even to have gone farther, and permitted them to enjoy by curteſy ſome which it would be impoſſible to concede of right in any Chriſtian country. But, when we ſee theſe people eternally obtruding themſelves as volunteers upon every publick occaſion, one day aſſuming the lead at an election, the next taking upon them to direct the police of the town, and the third daring to paſs as jurors upon the life and death of a free man, what are we to expect but to have Chriſtianity enacted into a capital hereſy, the ſynagogue become the eſtabliſhed church, and the mildneſs of the New Teſtament compelled to give place to the rigour and ſeverity of the Old? The moſt diſtant apprehenſion of which evils is ſufficient to rouſe any man into action who values either his civil or religious liberty.

It may poſſibly be ſaid that no people can be blamed for puſhing their pretenſions as far as they are permitted, that it is in the nature of man to thirſt after privilege and pre-eminence as much as it is after money, and that therefore it is not to the Jews, but to our Chriſtian officers, we ought to impute the blame. All this I will in ſome meaſure grant, but, at the ſame time, deſire leave to remind theſe people they ſtand exceedingly in their own light, when they venture ſo far under the auſpices of any one man, eſpecially an officer whoſe office, and in all probability whoſe conſequence, will expire with the year.

The Jews are a race of men well acquainted with the ſcorns and perſecution of all the reſt of the world: Surely, then, it was a moſt forward, not to ſay unguarded action, in one of theſe, whoſe religious ſituation makes him the moſt vulnerable man on earth, to endeavour to disfranchiſe an Indian of a privilege which he himſelf held by the ſlender tenure of good-will; indeed, if we believe Mr. Adair, in his Hiſtory of the Indians, we might go farther, and call it a moſt injudaic action, for that writer ſtrongly inſiſts the Creek Indians and the Jews are very nearly allied; he hazards a conjecture that the former are really and truly one of the Tribes of Jacob, who came, by ſome means or other, to be loſt in the wilds of America.

I cannot take my leave of the Jews without ſaying a word more as a tribute to juſtice, and I do no more than this, when I acknowledge there is one whole family (and perhaps to theſe might be added two or three other individuals) whoſe long reſidence, upright demeanour, and inoffenſive conduct, in this ſtate, have always claimed, and now procure for them, the countenance and eſteem of every honeſt Chriſtian; the only badge I ever wiſh to ſee any of this houſe, or their connexions, (eſpecially the females, who are by far the largeſt part) wear, is what they have always carried, "the approbation of the good." It is really remarkable that, in the bittereſt moods againſt this ſingular people, there ſhould always occur a remnant to be ſaved.

Were I diſpoſed, as I really am not, to canvaſs every act of the Judiciary that appeared liable to reprehenſion, I could fill volumes inſtead of a ſingle pamphlet; but I confeſs myſelf already tired with a ſubject which exhibits nothing but memorials on the dark ſide of human nature. As far as lies with the Head of this Department, it is obvious to all that the end of one ridiculous ſituation is only the beginning of another. Had this gentleman any feeling, he muſt be convinced his conduct is not approved of by the country: the very common compliment of thanks for his charge is withhold in all the •• ſt preſentments that I have ſeen; and no wonder, when the main ſcope of ſuch charges was to ſtir up parties and diſſenſions throughout the land; inſtead of being a preſerver of the peace, as his oath and duty require of him, it is evidently his object to diſturb the repoſe, and thereby impede the welfare of the community. The Grand Jury of Chatham county gave but an inkling of the light in which they viewed him; and why an opportunity was not afforded to the people of Effingham to convey their ſenſe, in the form of preſentments, is a matter that the Repreſentatives of that county will no doubt demand an explanation of.

It was my intention to have ſaid ſomething on the famous adjudication reſpecting our trade; but as that point has been already diſcuſſed by others, and as I have exceeded the limits I had preſcribed for myſelf. I ſhall leave ſo unfounded a theſis to periſh by its own abſurdity and impolicy. The idea of a Treaty of Commerce being neceſſary to entitle a foreigner to ſue for a debt is too puerile to deſerve a ſerious refutation. If this were law, we could have no trade with Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ruſſia, and half the other powers of Europe, together with all thoſe of Aſia and Africa.

Were it an article of our political creed that the freedom of a people depended on the emptineſs of their Treaſury, there could not be more backwardneſs than there is in the payment of publick debts. In February laſt, an act paſſed, laying an impoſt upon ſhipping, and a duty on goods imported. This would prove ſome aid to our Treaſury, were the monies collected, but unfortunately a clauſe, granting four months indulgence to all who ſhould deſire it, was annexed to the law, and the conſequence has been, that, when the duties came once to be bonded, the parties either conſidered the debt as paid, or procured drafts upon the Treaſury ſufficient to balance the account by the time it became due. In either caſe no caſh is brought into the Treaſury: And here I muſt obſerve, that I conſider theſe circulating Treaſury notes as big with evil conſequences; at beſt they are mere expedients, generated by the ſpur of the occaſion, and all expedients in government imply a defect in the organization or conduct of the machine. Every draft is an anticipation of ſo much of our funds; and, if we go on without knowing or determining preciſely how far we may afford to anticipate, the conſequence may be, that the expenditures of one year will mortgage the revenue of ten.

The general account of our fiſcal concerns for the preſent year, not yet being laid before the publick, I am unable to ſay any thing about them. I ſhould however imagine that our expences, with the utmoſt frugality, and although we have had but one ſeſſion of Aſſembly, cannot full ſhort of 6000l. In this ſum I do not include one ſixpence of what we owe on the federal ſcore. It would aſtoniſh nine tenths of the people to hear, if my information is juſt, what a bagatelle has been as yet brought into the Treaſury to oppoſe to this ſum. The laſt year had no ſuch difficulties to ſtruggle with as the preſent, for although the taxes were trifling, yet the amercements and caſh ſales were very conſiderable. I have been told, that, in the year 1783, the amercements collected amounted to 4186l. 5s. 6d. and that the caſh ſales of confiſcated property are credited at 5250l. 10½d. Theſe reſources being entirely exhauſted before the commencement of the current year, the Duty Bill was intended to ſupply their place; but how far ſhort it has fallen of general expectation I leave to the candid deciſion of every honeſt member of the community.

I ſhall not at preſent make any particular remarks on the fund ariſing from our confiſcated property. The amount ſales were indeed prodigious, but what will be the neat balance after payment of the debts of theſe proſcribed perſons I can form no probable gueſs. I have heard that, when the Aſſembly laſt ſat, the bonds in the Treaſury on that account amounted to 288,253l. 19s. 8d. how many more have been brought in ſince I know not.

There are, I believe, many and great demands ſtill remaining againſt theſe eſtates; what channel they will next be thrown into for liquidation and ſettlement I am unapprized of; in my judgment there can be none ſo proper, or conducive to publick good, as that of the Auditor. Could the gentleman who has nearly gone through the Herculean taſk of auditing and arranging the other 〈…〉 of the ſtate be prevailed upon to undertake this, I am perſuaded it would diffuſe general pleaſure. To the honour of this Officer let me bear teſtimony, as far as I have had an opportunity of obſerving, that, even under the diſadvantage of an infirm ſtate of health, the effects of his zeal, fidelity, and abilities, have been conſpicuous: Whilſt on the one hand, he has done ample juſtice, under the article of ſavings, to his country, on the other, he has had the ſingular fortune to render ſatisfaction to the individuals concerned. For him it was reſerved to bring forth order from confuſion, and to reduce a chaos of claims into a ſyſtem of accounts.

Having now waded through the drudgery of a retroſpective examination, I ſhall take my leave of the publick, without any apology for the plain garb in which my obſervations appear. Written as they were in haſte, and on a ſubject rather dry, it was impoſſible I could be ſtudious of the ornaments of ſtyle; if they carry the beauties of truth and juſtice, it is all I cover, or deſire any credit for. In reſpect to any who may ſuppoſe themſelves levelled at, I can only ſay, that I have endeavoured to avoid perſonalities as far as the man could be ſeparated from the actor. I have always ſtrove to keep in view Sergeant Glynn's principle, in his defence of Woodfall, for publiſhing Junius's Letters, that, "though to ſpeak ill of individuals is deſerving of reprehenſion, yet all publick acts ought to lie open to publick examination, and it is a ſervice done to the ſtate to canvaſs them freely."