Porcupine's political censor, for December, 1796. Containing remarks on the debates in Congress, particularly on the timidity of the language held towards France. : Also, a letter to the infamous Tom Paine, in answer to his brutal attack on the Federal Constitution, and on the conduct and character of General Washington. — Porcupine's political censor. 1796 Dec.

Porcupine's political censor, for December, 1796. Containing remarks on the debates in Congress, particularly on the timidity of the language held towards France. : Also, a letter to the infamous Tom Paine, in answer to his brutal attack on the Federal Constitution, and on the conduct and character of General Washington. — Porcupine's political censor. 1796 Dec.

Table of contents

Title page

§

Title page

REMARKS ON THE DEBATES IN CONGRESS, During the Sessions, begun on the 5th of December, 1796.

5th DECEMBER.

7th DECEMBER. The President went to the Representatives' chamber, in the usual manner, where, the two Houses being assembled, he delivered the following address.

12th DECEMBER. The Senate presented to the President the following answer to his address of the 7th.

16th DECEMBER.

A LETTER TO THE INFAMOUS TOM PAINE, IN ANSWER TO HIS LETTER TO GENERAL WASHINGTON.

PROPOSALS, By William Cobbett, Book-Seller, of Philadelphia, FOR PUBLISHING A NEWS-PAPER, TO BE ENTITLED, Porcupine's Gazette AND DAILY ADVERTISER.

BOOKS PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM COBBETT, OPPOSITE CHRIST CHURCH.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

PORCUPINE's POLITICAL CENSOR, For DECEMBER, 1796.

CONTAINING, REMARKS ON THE DEBATES IN CONGRESS, PARTICULARLY ON THE TIMIDITY OF THE LANGUAGE HELD TOWARDS FRANCE. ALSO, A LETTER TO THE INFAMOUS TOM PAINE, In answer to his brutal attack on the Federal Constitution, and on the conduct and character of General Washington.

PHILADELPHIA: PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM COBBETT, OPPOSITE CHRIST CHURCH.

Price, One Quarter of a Dollar.

§

§

[Page]

N. B. The title and table of contents, on the opposite page, are intended for the convenience of such gentlemen as have been constant purchasers of the Censor, and as may think them worth preserving in a volume.

§

§

[Page]

PORCUPINE's POLITICAL CENSOR.

VOL. I.

CONTAINING:

1. The Censor for March 1796:

2. The Censor for April, embellished with a striking likeness of a political sinner, endeavouring to stop the wheels of government.

3. The Censor for May.

4. The Scare-Crow.

5. The Life of P. Porcupine.

6. The Censor for September, with the Life of Tom Paine,

7. The Censor for November, replying to the insolent and seditious Notes of the French Minister, Adet.

8. The Censor for December with a letter to the infamous Paine, in answer to his Letter to Gen. Washington.

PHILADELPHIA: PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM COBBETT, OPPOSITE CHRIST CHURCH.

REMARKS ON THE DEBATES IN CONGRESS, During the Sessions, begun on the 5th of December, 1796.

[Page]

5th DECEMBER.

THIS day the Congress met, and, a quorum being formed, it was agreed, on the 6th, to inform the President that the two Houses were ready to receive such communications as he might have to make to them.

7th DECEMBER.
The President went to the Representatives' chamber, in the usual manner, where, the two Houses being assembled, he delivered the following address.

Fellow Citizens of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives,

IN recurring to the internal situation of our country since I had last the pleasure to address you, I find ample reason for a renewed expression of that gratitude to the [Page] Ruler of the Universe, which a continued series of prosperity has so often and so justly called forth.

The acts of the last session, which required special arrangements, have been, as far as circumstances would admit, carried into operation.

Measures calculated to ensure a continuance of the friendship of the Indians, and to preserve peace along the extent of our interior frontier, have been digested and adopted. In the framing of these, care has been taken to guard on the one hand, our advanced settlements from the predatory incursions of those unruly individuals, who cannot be restrained by their tribes; and on the other hand, to protect the rights secured to the Indians by treaty; to draw them nearer to the civilized state; and inspire them with correct conceptions of the power, as well as justice of the government.

The meeting of the deputies from the Creek nation at Coleraine, in the State of Georgia, which had for a principal object the purchase of a parcel of their land by that State, broke up without its being accomplished; the nation having, previous to their departure, instructed them against making any sale; the occasion however has been improved, to confirm by a new treaty with the Creeks, their pre-existing engagements with the United States; and to obtain their consent to the establishment of trading houses, and military posts within their boundary; by means of which their friendship and the general peace may be more effectually secured.

The period during the late session, at which the appropriation was passed, for carrying into effect the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, between the United States and his Britannic Majesty, necessarily procrastinated the reception of the posts stipulated to be delivered, beyond the date assigned for that event.

As soon however as the Governor General of Canada could be addressed with propriety on the subject, arrangements were cordially and promptly concluded for their [Page] evacuation, and the United States took possession of the principal of them, comprehending Oswego, Niagara, Detroit, Michilimackinac and Fort Miami, where such repairs and additions have been ordered to be made as appeared indispensable.

The commissioners appointed on the part of the United States and of Great Britain, to determine which is the river St. Croix, mentioned in the treaty of peace of 1783, agreed in the choice of Egbert Benson, Esq of New-York, for the third commissioner. The whole met at St. Andrew's, in Passamaquody Bay, in the beginning of October, and directed surveys to be made of the rivers in dispute; but deeming it impracticable to have these surveys completed before the next year, they adjourned, to meet at Boston in August 1797, for the final decision of the question.

Other commissioners appointed on the part of the United States, agreeably to the seventh article of the treaty with Great-Britain, relative to captures and condemnation of vessels and other property, met the commissioners of his Britannic majesty in London, in August last, when John Trumbull, Esq was chosen by lot, for the fifth commissioner. In October following, the board were to proceed to business. As yet, there has been no communication of commissioners on the part of Great-Britain, to unite with those who have been appointed on the part of the United States, for carrying into effect the sixth article of the treaty.

The treaty with Spain required that the commissioners for running the boundary line between the territory of the United States, and his Catholic Majesty's provinces of East and West Florida, should meet at the Natchez before the expiration of sixth months after the exchange of the ratifications, which was effected at Aranjuez on the twenty-fifth day of April; and the troops of his Catholic Majesty, occupying any posts within the limits of the United States, were within the same period to be withdrawn.— The commissioner of the United States, therefore, commenced his journey for the Natchez in September, and [Page] troops were ordered to occupy the posts from which the Spanish garrisons should be withdrawn. Information has been recently received of the appointment of a commissioner on the part of his Catholic Majesty, for running the boundary line; but none of any appointment for the adjustment of the claims of our citizens, whose vessels were captured by the armed vessels of Spain.

In pursuance of the act of Congress passed in the last session, for the protection and relief of American seamen, agents were appointed, one to reside in Great Britain, and the other in the West-Indies. The effects of the agency in the West-Indies are not yet fully ascertained; but those which have been communicated afford grounds to believe the measure will be beneficial. The agent destined to reside in Great-Britain declining to accept the appointment, the business has consequently devolved on the minister of the United States, in London, and will command his attention, until a new agent shall be appointed.

After many delays and disappointments arising out of the European war, the final arrangements for fulfilling the engagements made to the Dey and Regency of Algiers, will, in all present appearance, be crowned with success; but under great, though inevitable disadvantages in the pecuniary transactions, occasioned by that war▪ which will render a further provision necessary. The actual liberation of all our citizens who were prisoners in Algiers, while it gratifies every feeling heart, is itself an earnest of a satisfactory termination of the whole negociation. Measures are in operation for effecting treaties with the Regencies of Tunis and Tripoli.

To an active external commerce, the protection of a naval force is indispensable. This is manifest with regard to wars in which a state is itself a party. But besides this, it is in our own experience, that the most sincere neutrality is not a sufficient guard against the depredations of nations at war. To secure respect to a neutral flag, requires a naval force, organized and ready to vindicate it from insult or aggression. This may even prevent the necessity of going to war, by discouraging belligerent powers from [Page] committing such violations of the rights of the neutral party, as may, first or last, leave no other option. From the best information I have been able to obtain, it would seem as if our trade to the Mediterranean, without a protecting force, will always be insecure; and our citizens exposed to the calamities from which numbers of them have but just been relieved.

These considerations invite the United States to look to the means, and to set about the gradual creation of a navy. The increasing progress of their navigation promises them, at no distant period, the requisite supply of seamen; and their means, in other respects, favour the undertaking. It is an encouragement likewise, that their particular situation will give weight and influence to a moderate naval force in their hands. Will it not then be advisable to begin without delay to provide and lay up the materials for the building and equipping of ships of war; and to proceed in the work by degrees, in proportion as our resources shall render it practicable without inconvenience; so that a future war of Europe may not find our commerce in the same unprotected state in which it was found by the present?

Congress have repeatedly, and not without success, directed their attention to the encouragement of manufactures. The object is of too much consequence not to ensure a continuance of their efforts in every way which shall appear eligible. As a general rule, manufactures on public account are inexpedient. But where the state of things in a country leaves little hope that certain branches of manufacture will for a great length of time obtain; when these are of a nature essential to the furnishing and equipping of the public force in time of war; are not establishments for procuring them on public account, to the extent of the ordinary demand for the public service, recommended by strong considerations of national policy, as an exception to the general rule? Ought our country to remain in such cases dependent on foreign supply, precarious, because liable to be interrupted?

[Page]If the necessary articles should in this mode cost more in time of peace, will not the security and independence thence arising, form an ample compensation? Establishments of this sort, commensurate only with the calls of the public service in time of peace, will, in time of war▪ easily be extended in proportion to the exigencies of the government; and may even perhaps be made to yield a surplus for the supply of our citizens at large, so as to mitigate the privations from the interruptions of their trade. If adopted, the plan ought to exclude all those branches which are already, or likely soon to be established in the country; in order that there may be no danger of interference with pursuits of individual industry.

It will not be doubted, that with reference either to individual or national welfare, agriculture is of primary importance. In proportion as nations advance in population, and other circumstances of maturity, this truth becomes more apparent; and renders the cultivation of the soil more and more an object of public patronage. Institutions for promoting it, grow up supported by the public purse: and to what object can it be dedicated with greater propriety? Among the means which have been employed to this end, none have been attended with greater success, than the establishment of Boards, composed of proper characters, charged with collecting and diffusing information, and enabled, by premiums and small pecuniary aids, to encourage and assist a spirit of discovery and improvement.— This species of establishment contributes doubly to the increase of improvement; by stimulating to enterprize and experiment; and by drawing to a common centre the results every where of individual skill and observation, and spreading them thence over the whole nation. Experience accordingly has shewn, that they are very cheap instruments of immense national benefits.

I have heretofore proposed to the consideration of Congress, the expediency of establishing a National University; and also a Military Academy. The desirableness of both these institutions, has so constantly increased with every new view I have taken of the subject, that I cannot [Page] omit the opportunity of once for all, recalling your attention to them.

The assembly to which I address myself, is too enlightened not to be fully sensible how much a flourishing state of the arts and sciences contributes to national prosperity and reputation. True it is, that our country, much to its honor, contains many seminaries of learning highly respectable and useful; but the funds upon which they rest, are too narrow to command the ablest professors in the different departments of liberal knowledge, for the institution contemplated: though they would be excellent auxiliaries.

Amongst the motives to such an institution, the assimilation of the principles, opinions and manners of our countrymen, by the common education of a portion of our youth from every quarter, well deserves attention. The more homogeneous our citizens can be made in these particulars, the greater will be our prospect of permanent union; and a primary object of such a national institution should be, the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing on its legislature, than to patronise a plan for communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?

The institution of a military academy, is also recommended by cogent reasons. However pacific the general policy of a nation may be, it ought never to be without an adequate stock of military knowledge for emergencies. The first would impair the energy of its character, and both would hazard its safety, or expose it to greater evils when war could not be avoided. Besides, that war might often not depend upon its own choice. In proportion as the observance of pacific maxims might exempt a nation from the necessity of practising the rules of the military art, ought to be its care in preserving and transmitting by proper establishments, the knowledge of that art. Whatever argument may be drawn from particular examples, superficially viewed, a thorough examination of the subject will evince, that the art of war is at once comprehensive [Page] and complicated; that it demands much previous study; and that the possession of it, in its most improved and perfect state, is always of great moment to the security of a nation. This, therefore, ought to be a serious care of every government; and for this purpose, an academy, where a regular course of instruction is given, is an obvious expedient, which different nations have successfully employed.

The compensations to the officers of the United States, in various instances, and in none more than in respect to the most important stations, appear to call for legislative revision. The consequences of a defective provision are of serious import to the government. If private wealth is to supply the defect of public retribution, it will greatly contract the sphere within which the selection of character for office is to be made; and will proportionally diminish the probability of a choice of men, able as well as upright. Besides that it would be repugnant to the vital principles of our government, virtually to exclude from public trusts, talents and virtue, unless accompanied by wealth.

While in our external relations, some serious inconveniencies and embarrassments have been overcome, and others lessened, it is with much pain, and deep regret, I mention, that circumstances of a very unwelcome nature have lately occurred. Our trade has suffered, and is suffering extensive injuries in the West-Indies, from the cruizers and agents of the French republic; and communications have been received from its minister here, which indicate the danger of a further disturbance of our commerce by its authority; and which are, in other respects, far from agreeable.

It has been my constant, sincere and earnest wish, in conformity with that of our nation, to maintain cordial harmony, and a perfectly friendly understanding with that republic. This wish remains unabated; and I shall persevere in the endeavour to fulfil it, to the utmost extent of what shall be consistent with a just, and indispensable regard to the rights and honour of our country: nor will I easily cease to cherish the expectation, that a spirit of justice, [Page] candor and friendship, on the part of the republic, will eventually ensure success.

In pursuing this course, however, I cannot forget what is due to the character of our government and nation; or to a full and entire confidence in the good sense, patriotism, self-respect and fortitude of my countrymen.

I reserve for a special message, a more particular communication on this interesting subject.

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives,

I have directed an estimate of the appropriations necessary for the service of the ensuing year, to be submitted from the proper department; with a view of the public receipts and expenditures to the latest period to which an account can be prepared.

It is with satisfaction I am able to inform you, that the revenues of the United States continue in a state of progressive improvement.

A reinforcement of the existing provisions for discharging our public debt, was mentioned in my address at the opening of the last session. Some preliminary steps were taken towards it, the maturing of which will, no doubt, engage your zealous attention during the present. I will only add, that it will afford me a heartfelt satisfaction to concur in such further measures, as will ascertain to our country the prospect of a speedy extinguishment of the debt. Posterity may have cause to regret, if from any motive, intervals of tranquillity are left unimproved for accelerating this valuable end.

Gentlemen of the Senate and of the House of Representatives,

My solicitude to see the militia of the United States placed on an efficient establishment, has been so often, and so ardently expressed, that I shall but barely recall the subject to your view on the present occasion; at the same time that I shall submit to your inquiry, whether our harbours are yet sufficiently secured.

[Page]The situation in which I now stand, for the last time, in the midst of the representatives of the people of the United States, naturally recalls the period when the administration of the present form of government commenced: and I cannot omit the occasion to congratulate you, and my country, on the success of the experiment; nor to repeat my supplication to the Supreme Ruler of the universe, and Sovereign Arbiter of nations, that his providential care may still be extended to the United States; that the virtue and happiness of the people may be preserved; and that the government, which they have instituted for the protection of their liberties, may be perpetual.

12th DECEMBER.
The Senate presented to the President the following answer to his address of the 7th.

WE thank you, Sir, for your faithful and detailed exposure of the existing situation of our country: and we sincerely join in sentiments of gratitude to an over-ruling Providence, for the distinguished share of public prosperity, and private happiness, which the people of the United States so peculiarly enjoy.

We are fully sensible of the advantages that have resulted from the adoption of measures (which you have successfully carried into effect) to preserve peace, cultivate friendship, and promote civilization, among the Indian tribes, on the western frontiers;—feelings of humanity, and the most solid political principles, equally encourage the continuance of this system.

We observe with pleasure, that the delivery of the military posts, lately occupied by the British forces, within the territory of the United States, was made with cordiality, and promptitude, as soon as circumstances would admit; and that the other provisions of our treaties with Great-Britain and Spain, that were objects of eventual [Page] arrangement, are about being carried into effect, with entire harmony and good faith.

The unfortunate, but unavoidable difficulties that opposed a timely compliance with the terms of the Algerine treaty, are much to be lamented; as they may occasion a temporary suspension of the advantages to be derived from a solid peace with that power, and a perfect security from its predatory warfare; at the same time, the lively impressions that affected the public mind, on the redemption of our captive fellow-citizens, afford the most laudable incentive to our exertions, to remove the remaining obstacles.

We perfectly coincide with you in opinion that the importance of our commerce demands a naval force for its protection against foreign insult and depredation, and our solicitude to attain that object will be always proportionate to its magnitude.

The necessity of accelerating the establishment of certain useful manufactures, by the intervention of legislative aid and protection, and the encouragement due to agriculture, by the creation of Boards, (composed of intelligent individuals) to patronize this primary pursuit of society, are subjects which will readily engage our most serious attention.

A national university may be converted to the most useful purposes—the science of legislation, being so essentially dependent on the endowments of the mind, the public interest must receive effectual aid from the general diffusion of knowledge; and the United States will assune a more dignified station, among the nations of the earth, by the successful cultivation of the higher branches of literature.

A military academy may be likewise rendered equally important. To aid and direct the physical force of the nation, by cherishhing a military spirit, enforcing a proper sense of discipline, and inculcating a scientific system of tactics, is consonant to the soundest maxims of public policy: connected with, and supported by such an establishment, [Page] a well regulated militia, constituting the national defence of the country, would prove the most effectual, as well as economical, preservative of peace.

We cannot but consider, with serious apprehensions, the inadequate compensations of public officers, especially of those in the more important stations. It is not only a violation of the spirit of a public contract, but is an evil so extensive in its operation, and so destructive in its consequences, that we trust it will receive the most pointed legislative attention.

We sincerely lament, that whilst the conduct of the United States has been uniformly impressed with the character of equity, moderation, and love of peace, in the maintainance of all their foreign relationships, our trade should be so harrassed by the cruisers and agents of the republic of France, throughout the extensive departments of the West-Indies.

Whilst we are confident that no cause of complaint exists, that could authorise an interruption of our tranquillity, or disengage that republic from the bonds of amity, cemented by the faith of treaties, we cannot but express our deepest regrets, that official communications have been made to you, indicating a more serious disturbance of our commerce. Although we cherish the expectation, that a sense of justice, and a consideration of our mutual interests will moderate their councils; we are not unmindful of the situation in which events may place us, nor unprepared to adopt that system of conduct, which, compatible with the dignity of a respectable nation, necessity may compel us to pursue.

We cordially acquiesce in the reflection, that the United States, under the operation of the federal government, have experienced a most rapid aggrandizement and prosperity, as well political, as commercial.

Whilst contemplating the causes that produce this auspicious result, we much acknowledge the excellence of the constitutional system, and the wisdom of the legislative [Page] provisions;—but we should be deficient in gratitude and justice, did we not attribute a great portion of these advantages, to the virtue, firmness and talents of your administration; which have been conspicuously displayed in the most trying times, and on the most critical occasions. It is, therefore, with the sincerest regret, that we now receive an official notification of your intentions to retire from the public employments of your country.

When we review the various scenes of your public life, so long and so successfully devoted to the most arduous services, civil and military,—as well during the struggles of the American revolution, as the convulsive periods of a recent date, we cannot look forward to your retirement, without our warmest affections and most anxious regards accompanying you; and without mingling with our fellow citizens at large, the sincerest wishes for your personal happiness, that sensibility and attachment can express.

The most effectual consolation that can offer for the loss we are about to sustain, arises from the animating reflection, that the influence of your example will extend to your successors, and the United States thus continue to enjoy, an able, upright, and energetic administration.

16th DECEMBER.

The following answer of the House of Representatives was presented to the President.

§

SIR,

THE House of Representatives have attended to your communication respecting the state of our country, with all the sensibility that the contemplation of the subject, and a sense of duty can inspire.

We are gratified by the information, that measures calculated to ensure a continuance of the friendship of the Indians, and to maintain the tranquillity of the western frontier, have been adopted; and we indulge the hope [Page] that these, by impressing the Indian tribes with more correct conceptions of the justice, as well as power of the United States, will be attended with success.

While we notice, with satisfaction, the steps that you have taken in pursuance of the late treaties with several foreign nations, the liberation of our citizens, who were prisoners at Algiers, is a subject of peculiar felicitation. We shall cheerfully co-operate in any further measures that shall appear, on consideration, to be requisite.

We have ever concurred with you in the most sincere and uniform disposition to preserve our neutral relations inviolate, and it is, of course, with anxiety and deep regret we hear that any interruption of our harmony with the French Republic has occurred: for we feel with you and with our constituents, the cordial and unabated wish to maintain a perfectly friendly understanding with that nation. Your endeavours to fulfil that wish, and by all honourable means to preserve peace and to restore that harmony and affection which have heretofore so happily subsisted between the French Republic and the United States, cannot fail, therefore, to interest our attention. And while we participate in the full reliance you have expressed on the patriotism, self-respect and fortitude of our countrymen, we cherish the pleasing hope, that a mutual spirit of justice and moderation will ensure the success of your perseverance.

The various subjects of your communication will, respectively, meet with the attention that is due to their importance.

When we advert to the internal situation of the United States, we deem it equally natural and becoming to compare the present period with that immediately antecedent to the operation of the government, and to contrast it with the calamities in which the state of war still involves several of the European nations, as the reflections deduced from both tend to justify as well as to excite, a warmer admiration of our free constitution, and to exalt our minds to a more fervent and grateful sense of piety towards Almighty [Page] God for the beneficence of his providence, by which its administration has been hitherto so remarkably distinguished.

And while we entertain a grateful conviction that your wise, firm and patriotic administration has been signally conducive to the success of the present form of government, we cannot forbear to express the deep sensations of regret with which we contemplate your intended retirement from office.

As no other suitable occasion may occur, we cannot suffer the present to pass without attempting to disclose some of the emotions which it cannot fail to awaken.

The gratitude and admiration of your countrymen are still drawn to the recollection of those resplendent virtues and talents which were so eminently instrumental to the atchievement of the revolution, and of which that glorious event will ever be the memorial. Your obedience to the voice of duty and your country, when you quitted reluctantly, a second time, the retreat you had chosen, and first accepted the presidency, afforded a new proof of the devotedness of your zeal in its service, and an earnest of the patriotism and success which have characterized your administration. As the grateful confidence of the citizens in the virtues of their chief magistrate, has essentially contributed to that success, we persuade ourselves that the millions whom we represent, participate with us in the anxious solicitudes of the present occasion.

Yet we cannot be unmindful that your moderation and magnanimity, twice displayed by retiring from your exalted stations, afford examples no less rare and instructive to mankind, than valuable to a republic.

Although we are sensible that this event, of itself, completes the lustre of a character already conspicuously unrivalled by the coincidence of virtue, talents, success and public estimation; yet we conceive we owe it to you, Sir, and still more emphatically to ourselves and to our nation, (of the language of whose hearts we presume to think [Page] ourselves at this moment the faithful interpreters) to express the sentiments with which it is contemplated.

The spectacle of a free and enlightened nation offering by its representatives the tribute of unfeigned approbation to its first citizen, however novel and interesting it may be, derives all its lustre (a lustre which accident or enthusiasm could not bestow, and which adulation would tarnish) from the transcendent merit of which it is the voluntary testimony.

May you long enjoy that liberty which is so dear to you, and to which your name will ever be so dear: May your own virtues and a nation's prayers obtain the happiest sun-shine for the decline of your days and the choicest of future blessings. For our country's sake, for the sake of republican liberty, it is our earnest wish that your example may be the guide of your successors, and thus, after being the ornament and safeguard of the present age, become the patrimony of our descendants.

This answer, on which there was a pretty long and warm debate, is somewhat different from that which was first proposed by the committee appointed to draw it up. Some members were opposed to almost every part of it, but their opposition was more directly levelled against three particular points; the compliment to the President, the paragraph respecting the misunderstanding with the French Republic, and the expression of the free and enlightened state of the American people.

That a compliment to the President, or rather a faint acknowledgement of his virtues and services (for on this subject any acknowledgement must be faint,) should be opposed in the Congress of the United States, would be cause of great mortification to every generous and grateful mind, [Page] were it not accompanied with the consoling reflection, that Mr. Giles was at the head of the opposition. There are certain persons, whose applause we shun with as much solicitude as we seek for that of others, and I must confess, there are few men in the world whose praises I should dread more than those of the Virginian Giles, and I dare say the President is very happy to think that he has escaped them.

The answer expresses a grateful conviction of the President's wise, firm, and patriotic administration, and regrets his departure from office. To all this the virtuous and upright Mr. Giles objected. He said, that ‘the President's administration had been neither wise nor firm; and as to his departure from office, he felt not the least regret on account of it. He hoped he would retire to his country seat, and live comfortably there. He believed the government of the United States would go on without him. The people were competent to their own government. That for those, who had opposed some of the principal measures of the President, to vote for the answer in its present form, would be writing scoundrel on their foreheads.’

It would be useless to take up mine and my reader's time in a justification of the compliment to which Mr. Giles was opposed. The people of the United States, from one end of the Union to the other, have unequivocally expressed, what this gentleman is afraid to express, lest thereby he should write scoundrel on his forehead. If the reader will look back to the Censor for April last, he will find this same patriot declaring, that he adored the voice of the people, and yet he has [Page] now the temerity to doubt its infallibility, to refuse obedience to it, even to mutiny against and offer resistance to its awful commands. If ever I derived an extraordinary degree of satisfaction from the embarrassment of others, it was on seeing Mr. Giles and his brother patriots, the votaries of the popular voice, reduced to take the unpopular side of a question. The leader seems to have been sensible of the awkwardness of his situation, when he said that ‘the people are competent to their own government.’ This was a kind of palliative, it was shifting the ground of opposition, it was a poor miserable attempt to preserve consistency, and betrayed either a total want of discernment in the speaker, or a consummate contempt for the understandings of the people: for, if the people are competent to their own government, they are certainly competent to form a judgment of the conduct of the President, and as they have declared his administration to be wise, firm and patriotic, how dared their zealous and pious adorer to say they are mistaken?

As to writing scoundrel on his front, of which Mr. Giles seemed to entertain such unnecessary fears, if the approving of the compliment in question would produce this effect, all the members of the state legislatures, and nine-tenths of their constituents, had already taken the hideous inscription. What a scoundrelly god, then, does Mr. Giles adore? If an obstinate opposition to all the most important measures of an administration, which the answer approves of in the aggregate, was calculated to imprint the terrific word, voting for the answer could do no more than render legible what was already written; as characters in certain liquids remain imperceptible till [Page] drawn forth by the fire. Mr. Giles and his fellow labourers prudently shrank from the ordeal; but they will excuse us, if our imaginations should supply its place. Read we assuredly shall, and it will be nothing very extraordinary if we should extend the signification of every term that we think we perceive.

The next subject of opposition was the paragraph which speaks of the misunderstanding with the bloody Gallican Republic. In the reported answer it stood thus: ‘We have ever concurred with you in the most sincere and uniform disposition to preserve our mutual relations inviolate, and it is, of course, with anxiety and deep regret we hear that any interruption of our harmony with the French Republic has occurred: for we feel with you, and with our constituents, the cordial and unabated wish, to maintain a perfectly friendly understanding with that nation. Your endeavours to fulfil that wish cannot fail therefore to interest our attention. And while we participate in the full reliance you have expressed on the patriotism, self-respect and fortitude of our countrymen, we cherish the pleasing hope, that a spirit of justice and moderation will ensure the success of your perseverance.’

This was certainly tame enough, after all the outrages and insults of France. The desire to re-establish harmony is expressed, as Mr. Ames observed, with little less ardour than the requests of a supplicating lover; and the confidence in the spirit of the country, in case of an appeal to arms, is disguised with as much care, as if it were a crime to be courageous in opposing the violence and resenting [Page] the indignities of a horde of base-born grovelling tyrants.

How different from this hesitating tone was that of the Senate: "We are," say they, ‘not unmindful of the situation in which events may place us, nor unprepared to adopt that system of conduct, which, compatible with the dignity of a respectable nation, necessity may compel us to pursue.’ This manly answer does infinite honour to the man who penned it, and let the insolent convention recollect, that it was approved of by him with whom they will in future be obliged to treat.

The answer of the Senate was all that could be wished, but it should have been surpassed in warmth by those who call themselves the immediate representatives of the people. Language that may be extremely proper, at such a crisis, from cool and dispassionate Senators, whose business is rather to check than to encourage the ardour of the public spirit, may be poor and cold when coming from the Representatives. Every sentence from them should have smoked with indignation at the insupportable insolence of the French; they should have declared, that they were ready with their lives to defend that independence, which had been so openly attacked, and to support the government in every energetic measure it should take to obtain satisfaction for the indignities that had been heaped on it. Yet, so far from this was the conduct of the House, that even the paragraph above quoted was not humble enough for them: not content with expressing their anxiety and deep regret at the interruption of harmony, and their unabated wish to maintain a perfectly friendly understanding, with the nation who had [Page] robbed, despised, and openly insulted them and their country, they must needs add another sentence, wishing for the restoration of that harmony and affection, which had hitherto so happily subsisted. Not content with amplifying their tremulous accents till the quaver had lost the sound of manhood, they must needs begin da Capo and repeat the faltering tune. Nay, the last sentence of the paragraph, which speaks of a spirit of justice and moderation, could not pass without being crammed with the word mutual. Mr. Giles, indeed, wished to tack another phrase; viz. "on the part of the Republic," to the end of this word mutual. He seemed to think that the answer would be incomplete without a little nonsense.— ‘That a mutual spirit of justice and moderation on the part of the Republic will ensure the success of your perseverance.’—If you can go to the Sunday-Schools round the city, and find me a boy out of his primer, stupid and illiterate enough to compose a sentence like this, I will be bound to find you men in Virginia, who shall vote him into Congress.— "The Republic," too. What Republic? Is not America a Republic as well as France? The French King forbade his subjects to address him, or speak of him, under any other name than simply that of the King, as if there were but one king in the world; just as we speak of the Sun or the Moon. The despots who have cut his throat, seem to have taken possession of his vanity as well as of his houses, his gardens, his coaches and his jewels. They call their poor beggared enslaved country the Republic. But other kingdoms never observed this style of eminence towards the French monarch, nor will it be observed towards the French Republic, I trust, by any other Republic, or any other mortal except Mr. Giles. It [Page] would seem that the gentleman forgot where he was, and looked upon himself as a representative of the swarthy French, instead of the more humane and more enlightened, though sooty, citizens of the ancient dominion.

The imagination of this man, and of all those who voted with him, appears to have been upon the rack to find out terms expressive of their dependence on the generosity and magnanimity of the insulting foe, and of their want of confidence in the people of this country. Was this what the President expected, when he complained to them of the aggressions of the French, and of the threats he had received from their minister? Was this what the people expected, when that insolent minister appealed to them from their government? No; they expected no such milk-sop tautology. They expected a good, plain, and resolute tone, calculated to convince the treacherous French, that their independence was not a mere name, and that, while a desire of peace dwelt in their breasts, fear of a war found no place there.

It was said by those who opposed the introduction of that redundancy of affection, which now dishonours the answer, that the first draught was dictated by a spirit of accommodation; and, indeed, this was evidently the case, for no one who knows Messrs. Ames and Sitgreaves, and reads their animated speeches in the debate, will believe that this draught was dictated by their feelings. My complaisance, however, would not have carried me so far; I would have stood alone in the House; I would have opposed every sentence, every word, and every syllable, that savoured [Page] of tameness, that indicated a reliance on the justice and moderation of the French, or a fear of encountering their displeasure.

The third subject of opposition was, that sentence in the answer which styles the people of America ‘the freest and most enlightened in the world;’ and who could help being surprised that the adorer of the people should take the lead here also! One would imagine, that to be proper objects of adoration, they should at least be the most free and enlightened in the world; unless we suppose that Mr. Giles adored them for their purity and virtue, which there is very little reason to do.

These words were at last changed for, ‘a free and enlightened people.’ The cause of this (with shame be it spoken) was, fear of offending the French Convention, an assembly that every worthy American longs to spit upon; an assembly whose approbation is a mark of dishonour ten thousand times greater than standing in the pillory or being burnt in the hand. Talk of writing scoundrel in the forehead! I would sooner bear the word scoundrel as a motto round the pupils of my eyes, than be blasted with the approving grin of a gang of assassins.

That the cause of the opposition was what I have stated it, must be clear to every one who recollects the language of the members who took a part in it, on other occasions. There is hardly a people in Europe, except the French, whom they have not, at different times, since the present war, represented as buried in slavery and brutal ignorance. They insisted that the House [Page] had no right to cast reflections on foreign nations; what right had Mr. Giles, then, to cast reflections on the government and parliament of Britain? What right had another member to call the Empress of Russia a she-bear, another, the King of Great Britain a robber, and another, all kings in general a herd of crowned monsters? "The fact may be true," said they, ‘but we have no right to step beyond the boundaries of our own country to contrast it with any other.’ Now, what did the pretty Mr. Livingston, who was one of these inoffensive and modest gentlemen, do last session.?—‘Great Britain, was once free; but now Great Britain, and all Europe, France excepted, is in chains!’—Was this stepping beyond the boundary line? This was not being content with eulogium on America, but was openly insulting every nation of Europe, except the French, the free and enlightened heroes of the Bloody Buoy. But, why need we go back to past sessions, when in the present one, and even in this debate, and on this very question, we hear the delicate Mr. Parker exclaim: ‘Kingcraft and priestcraft have too long governed the world with an iron rod: more enlightened times, I trust, are approaching, and I hope ere long republicanism will cover the earth.’—Like the universal deluge I suppose.

It is pretty clear from this sally of Mr. Parker, that no nations were to be excepted but those who are, or call themselves, republics. This might have done very well, and the answer might have been thus amended with some little consistency, but poor Mr. Parker has a short memory, and being pressed hard by Mr. William Smith, who truly asserted that fear of giving umbrage to the [Page] French, was at the bottom of the opposition, he tacked short about, and ran headlong into the most monstrous contradiction that ever bemired a poor orator.—"No;" said he, ‘I have not the French republic, or any other nation in view; the Swiss Cantons have shown themselves more enlightened than we.’—All was well yet, but Mr. Parker, like most other eloquent men, is very fond of enumeration, and he unfortunately added the Danes and the Swedes. These nations also, he said, were more enlightened than the people of America, though, in the same speech, he declared that King-craft had too long governed the world with an iron rod, and hoped that more enlightened times were at hand, and that republicanism would soon cover the earth! He could not be so very ignorant, or at least I should suppose so, as not to know that Denmark and Sweden are governed by kings; but he was hemmed up in a corner, and did not know where to look for more enlightened republics than his own, except France.—A legislator should always understand geography and astronomy, and then "his eye in a fine fit of frenzy rolling," might, as Doctor Ruth says Rittenhouse did, find out republics in the moon. However, a very little study of the former science, might have led Mr. Parker, in his jump from Switzerland to Denmark, to perceive the dear sister republic of Batavia. Here he might have found a triumphant comparison. Republicanism has enlightened the Dutch with a vengeance. The sans-culottes have worn them down till you may read a newspaper through their ribs. Geneva too, which was so near him when he was got among the Swiss, might, one would have thought, have claimed a [Page] preference to Denmark and Sweden; particularly as the cheering rays of republicanism have been communicated to it by the great luminary which seems to be the sole object of his admiration.

Mr. Parker moved for striking out the words, "freest and most enlightened." This Mr. Christie proposed to amend, by inserting, ‘free-est, and amongst the most enlightened;’ but still Mr. Swanwick thought the word "amongst" should come before, instead of after ‘free-est; because nothing could tend more to preserve the peace of the country, than treating others with respect;’ and in this opinion he was joined by Messrs. Coit and Dayton, the latter of whom most humbly thought, that ‘the amendment very much softened the terms, and rendered them more palatable.’—At last, after these four words had undergone just as many changes as can be rung upon four bells, the peal was closed with, "free and enlightened people."

Gracious heaven! and have I lived to hear the American Congress, men whose brow I had been taught to believe independence had made its chosen seat, haggling three whole days about four words of compliment to their country, and at last expunge them, lest they should give offence to a foreign nation! Mr. Livingston and the news-monger Brown may dun us as long as they please about the slavery of Britons, but if a member of their House of Commons were timid enough to express his sears at calling his nation the free-est and most enlightened in the world, I flatter myself he would never dare show his face again in that assembly. For a nation, which dares not pass on itself whatever compliment or encomium [Page] it pleases, to call itself free and independent, is an abuse of words that nothing can be a sufficient punishment for, except the consciousness of being, and of being thought, exactly the contrary of what it strives to appear.

That the amendment should be adopted at all, is a circumstance in itself sufficiently humiliating; but, when we consider that it was adopted for fear of giving umbrage to France; when we consider that the representatives of the people thought it unfitting to declare them more free and enlightened than the base, the willing slaves, the brutishly ignorant and illiterate wretches left in the French territory, we feel our superiority insulted, and despise the man who would shrink from the declaration.

In that free country, France, the parent dares not yield protection to his child, nor the child to his parent, without the previous consent of some petty understrapping despot. Man possesses nothing; his property belongs to a mob of tyrants, who call themselves the nation, who hold his labour and his very carcass in a state of requisition. If his griefs break out into complaint, he is dragged to a tribunal, where no evidence is required. A shrug, a look, a tear, or a sigh, betrays him. To repine at the cruelty of his fate is to be suspected, and to be suspected is death.

We need not stretch our view across the Atlantic for specimens of French liberty; we may see enough without quitting our own country, or even our houses. The cockade proclamation of Citizen Adet is at once an insult to the United States, and an act of abominable tyranny on the [Page] unfortunate French who have taken a refuge in them. They must not only suffer shame for their country, but must bear about them the sign of its disgrace, the livery of the infamous Orleans. They must not only be despoiled of their wealth, and driven from their homes and their families, but must drag their chains into distant lands. It is not enough that they should be branded with the name of slave; they must wear the symbol of their slavery, and that, too, exactly where other men wear the symbol of courage and of honour!— Will not the people of America blush to think, that their representatives were afraid to assert, that they enjoyed a degree of freedom superior to this?

Of the enlightened people, now called the French nation, not one out of five hundred can spell his own name. As to religion, four years ago they were seen kneeling with their faces prone to the earth, blubbering out their sins, and beseeching absolution from the men whom, in a year afterwards, they degraded, insulted, mutilated and murdered. After changing the catholic worship, at the command of one gang of tyrants, for a worship that was neither catholic nor protestant; at the command of another, they abandoned all worship whatsoever, and publicly rejoiced that ‘the soul of man was like that of the beast.’ A third gang orders them to believe that there is a god: instantly the submissive brutes acknowledge his existence, and fall on their knees at the sight of Robespierre, proclaiming the decree, with as much devotion as they formerly did at the elevation of the sacred host.

[Page]Politically considered, they are equally enlightened. Every successive faction has been the object of their huzzas, in the day of its power, and of their execrations in that of its fall. They crowded to the bar of the Convention to felicitate Robespierre on his escape from the poignard of a woman; and, in less than six weeks afterwards, danced round his scaffold, and mocked his dying groans.—First they approve of a constitution with a hereditary monarch, whose person they declare inviolable and sacred, and swear to defend him with their lives. Next they murder this monarch, and declare themselves a republic, to be governed by a single chamber of delegates. This second constitution they destroy, and frame a third, with two chambers and five co-equal kings.—After having spent five years in making war, in the name of liberty and equality, upon arms, stars, garters, crosses, and every other exterior sign of superiority of rank, they very peaceably and tamely suffer their masters to dub themselves with what titles they please, and exclusively to assume garbs and badges of distinction far more numerous than those which formerly existed in France.

But, the circumstance best calculated to give a just idea of their baseness of spirit and swinish ignorance, is, their sanctioning a constitution, which declares that they shall elect the members of their assemblies, and then submitting to a decree, obliging them to choose two-thirds of the number out of the Convention. Nor was this all; the Convention, not content with ensuring the re-election of these two-thirds, reserved to itself the power of rejecting such members of the other third as it might not approve of!—And yet [Page] the wise Mr. Parker calls the French "a free and enlightened people," and very piously wishes that King-craft may be done away, and that republicanism may enlighten the whole earth!—The House of Representatives were afraid even to hint that this nation of poor, cajoled, cozened, bullied, bamboozled devils, were less enlightened than the people of America!

There is not a true American, and I love to believe that a very great majority of the people of these states are of that description, who does not reject with scorn the idea of being upon a level with the regenerated French; not only in understanding, but in any respect whatever. Their very friends, the Democrats, nay their best paid hirelings, despise them in their hearts, as much as a prostitute despises her cully.

After having contemplated the modest and humble tone of the Antifederal members towards France, it may not be amiss to contrast it with their language towards Great Britain, on an occasion somewhat similar.—It was reported, that His Britannic Majesty had issued instructions for seizing American vessels, contrary to the law of nations. It was, indeed, well known that many vessels were seized; but it was not known that the seizure was authorised by these instructions. They were equivocal, and therefore left room to hope that they were misconstrued, by interested individuals, and that an indemnification would be obtained by a manly and temperate representation of the injury. This hope, which was then entertained by the friends of the federal government, has since been completely realized. But, what was the tone of Mr. Madison, Mr. Clarke, [Page] Mr. Dayton, and all those who are now for softening their language towards France, till it surpasses in effeminacy the pipe of a sickly girl? What were the measures they then proposed? Lay a double duty on their goods, said one; Prohibit all trade with them, said another; and Mr. Dayton offered a resolution for ‘sequestrating all debts due from the citizens of the United States to the subjects of the king of Great Britain.’— Thus, without waiting a moment to inquire whether the king's instructions were misinterpreted, or whether an indemnification was likely to be obtained, the seizure was to be regarded as a commencement of hostilities; reprisals were immediately to be made, and that, too, in a mode that every honourable and honest man turns from with scorn.—Was this very "palatable," Mr. Dayton?

It was during this memorable debate, that Mr. Smith from Maryland, modestly exclaimed:— ‘Let us adopt the resolution. It will arrest twenty millions of dollars in our hands, as a fund to reimburse the three or four millions, which we have been stripped of by that piratical nation, Great Britain, according to the instructions of that king of sea-robbers, that Leviathan who aims at swallowing up all that swims on the ocean, that monster, whose only law is power, and who respects neither the rights of nations, nor the property of individuals.’— Was this decent and honest speech very "palatable?"—These political cooks seem to be very skilful in distinguishing the difference between the palates of Britons and that of the soupe-maigre, frog-eating French, who can relish nothing that is notbien cuit, or coddled to [Page] mummy, except the flesh and blood of aristocrats.

Striking as this contrast is, it is not seen in its proper light, till accompanied with a comparative view of the injuries received from the two nations. The British, when they were called pirates, sea-robbers, and monsters, by a member of Congress, had unlawfully seized on American property, to the amount of ‘three or four millions of dollars.’ The French, even at that time, were guilty of the same aggressions, and of this the Congress could not plead ignorance, as it was stated to them by order of the President, in the same report that complains of the conduct of the British. At the present epoch it is acknowledged that the depredations of the French are double in amount to those of the British, before any indemnification was obtained. But, to avoid all dispute on this subject, let us suppose that the loss from both nations to be of exactly the same amount, and confine our remarks to the vast difference in their anterior situation and subsequent conduct with respect to this country. Great Britain had no treaty, either of amity or commerce, with America; her conduct towards us, therefore, was subject to no rule but that prescribed by the general law of nations, the principles of which, often leaving room for misinterpretation, give a scope to an abuse of power, that does not, if reparation be demanded and obtained, fix the stigma of cowardice or dependence on the injured nation. The situation of the French was quite different. The depredations committed by them are in direct violation of a solemn contract, voluntarily entered into with America. Great Britain excused herself by [Page] declaring (whether truly or not is no matter) that her orders had been misconstrued, that she was ready to make restitution, and it is well known that she has made good this declaration, by paying the full value of the cargoes and vessels illegally seized. But, the conduct of the French leaves no room for an excuse. They cannot plead a misconstruction of their orders, their spoliations have not taken place under an ambiguous instruction, but are warranted by a decree of their tyrannical assembly; and, to deprive America of the hope of indemnification, and even of the appearance of maintaining her rights, they have hurled this decree in our teeth. The British unlawfully seized on the property of Americans, or, if you will, in the polite language of Maryland Mr. Smith, that nation of "monsters" robbed them; but the minister of these "monsters" did not proclaim the plundering order in this country, and insult the people whom they had robbed, by telling them that it was the fault of their own Executive. The French have done all this and ten times more: they have trampled upon the independence of Americans, braved them, scoffed at them; they have done every thing but kick the President from his chair and take possession of the government: and yet Mr. Dayton, the energetic Mr. Dayton, says not a word about sequestration; he is even afraid to compliment his constituents on their freedom and understanding, lest it should be unpalatable to this insidious, treacherous and insolent nation. Not a word do we now hear about ‘pirates and sea-robbers, and leviathans, and monsters:’ all breathes a desire to cultivate ‘harmony, perfect friendship, and affection.’ In speaking of the depredations of the [Page] British, "nothing," it was said, ‘was to be expected from the justice of a nation who had robbed us;’ but now, behold, every thing is to be left to the "justice and moderation" of the French, after we are not only well assured that their robberies have far surpassed those of the British, but after their minister as contemptuously told us, that those robberies are sanctioned by his government; that it has given orders for violating the treaty, and is determined to continue in the violation. Thus, one nation is spoken of with approbation, esteem and affection; is even flattered and caressed, after loading us with injuries a thousand times greater than those which drew down on another nation the indecent and opprobrious terms of "pirates and monsters." Is this a proof of the candour or of the obstinate prejudice, of the wisdom or folly, of the House of Representatives? Is it a proof of the independence of America on Great Britain, or of its abject dependence on France?

To what are we to ascribe the immeasurable difference between the daring and insulting tone formerly assumed towards Britain, and the poor, piping, pusillanimous language, that is now held towards France. Is it because one is a monarchy, and the other calls itself a republic? I have heard, or read, of a fellow that was so accustomed to be kicked, that he could distinguish, by the feel, the sort of leather that assailed his posteriors. Are our buttocks arrived at this perfection of sensibility? And do we really find that a republican shoe wounds our honour less than a monarchical one? Is an injury from a nation on whom we heaped every term of abuse, and for whose annihilation we, and even some of our parsons, devoutly [Page] prayed, less calculated to rouse our feelings, than the accumulated injuries and insults of another nation, whom we distinguished by every sign of partiality, for whose misfortunes we put on mourning, and for whose victories we mocked and insulted heaven with thanksgiving? Is a single slap on the cheek from a power, with whom we had no connection, less offensive than reiterated blows from an ally? Finally, is the commerce of Britain less necessary to America than that of France, or is the power of the latter more to be dreaded than that of the former?—This last question is the only one that requires to be examined: the rest, I trust, are already answered in the mind of the reader.

The necessity of a commercial connection between Great Britain and America, is so loudly and unequivocally asserted by the unerring voice of experience, that nothing but the blindest ignorance, or the most unconquerable prejudice, could possibly have called it in question. Immediately after the suspension of this commerce, caused by the revolutionary war, it was on both sides resumed with more ardour than ever, notwithstanding all the arts that France and her partizans employed to prevent it. In vain did poor Louis issue edicts to encourage his people to supplant their rivals, in vain did he take off his duties and offer premiums; in vain did friend Brissot coax the Quakers, and citizen Madison speechify the Congress: in spite of all their fine promises, cajoling, and wheedling; in spite of the mortification of Britain, and the more powerful prejudice of America, no sooner was the obstacle removed by the return of peace, than, without a treaty of friendship or commerce, without any [Page] other stimulus than mutual interest, confidence and inclination, the two countries rushed together like congenial waters that had been separated by an artificial dyke.

It is this natural connection with Britain, the British capital, which a confidence in the stability of the government invites hither, together with the credit that the merchants of that country give to those of this, a credit which British merchants alone are either willing or able to give, that forms the great source of American wealth. Mr. Smith from Maryland, the polite Mr. Smith, who called the British "sea-robbers and monsters," incautiously acknowledged, in the same breath, that these "monsters" gave a stationary credit to this country amounting to twenty millions of dollars. Grateful gentleman!—A very great part of this credit is given for a twelve-month at least; so that the simple interest on it amounts to one million two hundred thousand dollars annually; an advantage to this country that might have merited in return something "more palatable" than "sea-robbers and "monsters."

If America could obtain what she stands in need of (which she cannot) from any other country than Britain, from what country on earth could she obtain them on terms like these? The capacity of France, in the brightest days of her commercial prosperity, was fairly tried. Correspondencies were opened with her merchants; but what was the result? The total ruin of them and of all those who were concerned with them. They are no more; they are forgotten. Their trade could be equalled in shortness of duration by nothing but the wear of their merchandise.

[Page]To say, as some of the French faction have done, that America does not want the manufactures of Britain, is an insult on the national discernment little short of the Blunderbuss of my old friend Citizen Adet. Let any man take a view of his dress (when he is dressed like a man), from head to foot, from the garments that he wears to sea, to plough, to market or to church, down to those with which he steps into bed; let him look round his shop, and round the shops of his neighbours; let him examine his library, his bed-chamber, his parlour and his kitchen, and then let him say how great a part of all he sees, of all that is indispensable, useful or convenient; let him say how great a part of all this comes from Great Britain, and how small a one from France or any other country; and then, if he be fool enough, let him say with the Gallican faction, that we stand in no need of the manufactures of Britain.

The commercial connection between this country and Great Britain is full as necessary as that between the baker and miller, while the connection between America and France may be compared to one between the baker and the milliner or toyman. France may furnish us with looking glasses; but without the aid of Britain we shall be ashamed to see ourselves in them, unless the sansculottes can persuade us that thread-bare beggary is a beauty. France may deck the heads of our wives and daughters (but by the bye, she shan't those of mine) with ribbons, gauze, and powder, their ears with bobs, their cheeks with paint, and their heels with gaudy party-coloured silk, as rotten as the hearts of the manufacturers; but Great Britain must cover their and our bodies. When the rain pours down and washes the rose [Page] from the cheek; when the bleak north-wester blows through the gauze, then it is that we know our friends. Great Britain must wrap us up warm, and keep us all decent, snug and comfortable, from the child in swaddling cloths to its tottering grandsire. France may send us cockades, as she does (or has done) in abundance; but Great Britain must send us hats to stick them in. France may furnish the ruffle, but Great Britain must send us the shirt; and the commerce of the latter nation is just as much more necessary to this country than that of the former, as a good decent shirt is more necessary than a paltry dishclout of a ruffle.

As, then, the importance of a trade, with any nation, must be the standard whereby to measure the embarrassment and distress that its suspension would produce, it is evident that a war with Great Britain would, in this respect, have been productive of infinite calamities to America, while a war with France would hardly be felt. The dangers, therefore, to be apprehended from military operations only, remain to be considered.

By going back to the epoch when the hostile tone was assumed towards Great Britain, I could represent her as in possession of the Western Posts, and consequently as in a situation to arm and support the Indians, to harrass that frontier, and by those means find employment for an army of the United States, and that a very expensive one too. But, I shall decline this advantage, shall consider things in their present state; I shall even suppose all inroads from Canada impossible, shall turn my eyes to the sea only, and there take a view of [Page] what might be reasonably feared from a war with Great Britain, and what from a war with France.

The mighty difference in the maritime power, skill and courage of the two nations, is so universally known, and has undergone so many and so convincing proofs during the present war, that any comparison in this respect would be superfluous. The hirelings of France, do, however, pretend that she could eat us up alive, crack us as a squirrel does a nut, while we could boldly bid defiance to her rival. I shall not suppose it possible for Great Britain to bombard our towns and burn our shipping, I shall look upon all our harbours as completely defended; I shall even suppose it impossible for her to make a landing on any part of our coast, to carry off a single sack of flour or head of cattle; and only insist, that, with thirty detached frigates and a squadron of twenty ships of the line, she could completely block up every principal port in the United States, in defiance of the French and their new allies, Holland and Spain. If I am told to look back to what she was able to do, in this way, last war; I reply, that the commerce, the foreign relationships, of this country, are not now what they were then, nor would the species of war, carried on by Britain, be the same. Then she had armies on the land, on which the operations of her fleet were dependent. It had garrisons to supply, convoys to escort, and transports to conduct from one state to another. Those who look to France and her allies for relief, forget that during this war France has lost thirty-nine ships of the line, with a proportionate number of frigates; that the remnant of her shattered fleet is now blocked up in her own ports, and that her petty armaments skulk [Page] about from harbour to harbour, as if their only object was to keep out of sight. They forget that the Dutch dare not peep out of the Texel, and that the Spaniards, after mustering their all together, are stationed before a place of refuge in the Mediterranean. In this situation of things nothing could prevent Great Britain from totally cutting off the commerce of America, exports as well as imports, trebling the price of every article of foreign manufacture, and rendering the produce of the land a drug; destroying the revenue of the country at the very moment that a tenfold augmentation of it would be necessary.

From the French and their allies, on the contrary, America has little, nay nothing to fear. When we are told about their demolishing our towns and invading our country, it seems to be forgotten that they must cross the sea to come to us. Fear seems to have deranged the trembling wretches who hold this language. They talk and think about the prowess of the barbarian armies, till they imagine us divided from them by a river only, or that it is as easy for a hundred thousand of them to be shipped off and landed in America, as for them to cross the Rhine; they imagine that a fleet of three hundred transports and fifty ships of the line as easily erected as a bridge of boats. And, during this terrific reverie, it never once strikes them that Great Britain is at war with the French, or that her fleets would blow them to atoms, before they could approach our coast. Mr. Giles, and all those who talk about the danger of incurring the displeasure of the French, delight in representing her as ready to make an attack on us in conjunction with the Spaniards. This is true, and we are informed that they have [Page] already set these their "natural allies," to seize and confiscate our vessels *. There is no doubt but both nations would willingly co-operate in such an enterprize; but I would ask Mr. Giles seriously, whether he thinks America would stand singly in the war; whether he thinks the government or the people so incorrigibly blind and stupid, as, while they see the French calling in all hell to their aid, to refuse the only assistance capable of repulsing the infernal host.—Oh, Lord! says Mr. Giles, what are you talking about! ‘I dislike extremely any intimate connection betwixt this country and Britain, notwithstanding pecuniary advantages may arise from it†.’—So says Citizen Adet, and so says every Frenchman as well as Mr. Giles. Yes; this is what they "dislike," this is the thing, and the only thing, they are afraid of, and it is for that very reason that it ought to take place.

But, I should be glad to know on what Mr. Giles founds his "dislike" to this connection, in case of a war. He acknowledges its "pecuniary advantages," and that is one great point gained; for you well know, Mr. Giles, that in connections[Page]with foreign nations nothing goes on cheerly without money. What, then, can be the objection? Because America is a Republic and Britain a Monarchy? This was the old objection to the treaty of amity and commerce with Great Britain; but it very luckily happened that, just before that treaty was concluded, the Republic of France had made a similar treaty with the king of Prussia; and now, as if on purpose to give us a second example, she has concluded a treaty offensive and defensive with the king of Spain, and has called that nation her "natural allies."—Now, Mr. Giles, rub that forehead of yours a little, and tell me sincerely, without any quibbling or subterfuge, whether you think the Spaniards are more naturally allied to the French than the Americans are to the British.

Surely no nation was ever so completely duped as America has been by the French and their partizans! By a sincere and hearty alliance with Great Britain, she would not only place herself in a situation to make a peremptory demand of indemnification from France, but, in case of refusal, would be able to strip both France and Spain of every inch of territory they possess in this hemisphere. There is no danger of any other nation taking umbrage at this. America and Great Britain might bid defiance to the world. The map of this continent and its islands lies open before them: they might cut and carve for themselves, and sit down in the quiet enjoyment of their conquests. The very mention of such an alliance would scare the Dons at the bottom of their mines, and would make the seven hundred and five tyrants tremble on their thrones. Yet the hirelings of France tell us that this alliance [Page] must not be formed, because, forsooth, Britain is a monarchy! Poor, paltry objection! France avails herself of all the rascally aid she can rake together; she forms treaties with all the monarchies she can find base enough to join her, and calls them her natural allies; but, if America makes a treaty with a monarchy, be it merely for the purposes of adjusting disputes and regulating trade, France, "terrible France," takes offence at it, calls it an unnatural connection, seizes our vessels as a punishment for it, and (with shame be it spoken!) is justified by some of those who are chosen to preserve the honour and independence of the country!—All the world are the natural allies of France; republics, aristocracies, monarchies and despotisms; Dutch, Genoese, Spaniards, Turks and Devils; but poor America has no natural ally at all, except France herself; and if she chooses, with the aid of her allies, to rob and insult her, America must accept of no one's assistance, but must stand and be pillaged and kicked till the by-standers cry shame.—Honourable Independence! "Glorious Revolution." —If this must be the case, let us hear no more boastings and rejoicings. Let the fourth of July be changed from a festival to a fast, or rather, let it be effaced for ever from the calendar.

Notes

*

It is pretended by France, that our treaty with Britain contravenes that with her; and for that reason she seizes our vessels. Groundless and insolent as this pretext is, it is worth noticing now that the Spaniards have begun to imitate her. We had no treaty with them, when that with Great Britain was formed, and therefore, I presume, that the "magnanimous Spanish monarch," as Mr. Swanwick called him, will allege that our treaty with him was contravened before it was made; nor should I much wonder, if members in Congress were to be found, courageous and patriotic enough to attempt to support the charge.—This is all that is wanted to fill up the measure of our humiliation.

↵

†

See his speech in this debate.

↵

A LETTER TO THE INFAMOUS TOM PAINE, IN ANSWER TO HIS LETTER TO GENERAL WASHINGTON.

[Page]

‘CEREMONY, and even silence, from whatever motive they may arise, have a hurtful tendency, when they give the least degree of countenance to base and wicked performances.’ With this maxim, Tom, you begin your remarks on one of your then Sovereign's speeches to his parliament, and during which remarks you pay a very high, though just, compliment, to the talents and virtues of General Washington; the very man whom you now attempt to strip of every talent and every virtue, public as well as private. Complain not, therefore, if your maxim be adopted on the present occasion; if your brutal [Page] attack on this illustrious character has got the better of silence, and drawn forth an answer, and if this answer be conducted with very little ceremony.

Your letter professes to treat of ‘affairs public and private.’ From this adjunct to the title, we might have expected from the Great Tom Paine, the prince of demagogues, something like a review of the President's administration and a developement of diplomatic and cabinet secrets. It was not being over sanguine to expect this much from a member of the "illuminated and illuminating Assembly of France," and a maker of constitutions besides. But, alas! how have we been disappointed! That part of your letter, which treats of what you call "public affairs," is no more than a repetition of one or two passages of Citizen Adet's insolent notes, which had been sentenced to general execration a month before you letter appeared. Your "private affairs," were long ago public. Every one knew, and every honest heart rejoiced, that you had found a Bastile in the purlieus of your ‘palace of freedom;’ that your filthy carcass was wasting in chains, instead of wallowing in the plunder you had promoted.

In the minds of the people of this country, therefore, none of the assertions contained in your letter require to be refuted. The public voice has pronounced them as false and foul as the heart from which they proceeded. But, it is not enough that such are our sentiments; it is necessary, to preserve us from the shame of passing for your dupes, that these sentiments should be known: and, as the world has a right to be informed [Page] of the reasons on which they are founded, it is in compliance with that claim, and not in complaisance to the inhabitant of a dungeon, that I proceed to observe on what you have had the impudence to assert: viz. 1. That our treaty with Britain justifies the seizure of our vessels by the French. 2. That the President was guilty of a neglect of duty, in not demanding your enlargement from the cells of one of the thousand Bastiles of your free and happy republic. 3. That our Federal constitution is an ‘inconsistent instrument,’ which, if you live to return to America, you will have altered. 4. That all which General Washington did in the American revolution, might have been done by any other man as well as by him, and that he has neither talents nor virtues, either as a statesman or a general.

The first of these assertions; to wit, That our treaty with Britain justifies the seizure of our vessels by the French, you attempt to support by a most barefaced misconstruction of the second article of our treaty with France. This article says, that the contracting parties engage mutually, not to grant any particular favour to other nations, in respect to commerce and navigation, that shall not immediately become common to the other party. ‘Therefore, say you, all the concessions made to England by Jay's treaty, are, through the medium of this second article, made to France, and can be exercised by her as a matter of right.’ This is a truth, but, like all the truths you have ever committed to paper, it is advanced with the malicious intention of leading your readers into a falsehood.

[Page]Having said, that all the commercial favours, or concessions, granted by America to England, are, by the pre-existing treaty, granted to France also (all which we knew while you were safe in your den), you proceed to number among those concessions, the acknowledgment of Great Britain's right to seize contraband articles and enemies goods, found on board neutral vessels, which is just no concession at all. Great Britain had, prior to the treaty, as she still has, a right to seize all such articles and enemies goods, so found. No stipulation in a treaty was necessary to the recognition of this right. It is established by the universal law of nations, and is, and ever has been, rigorously maintained, when not surrendered by particular convention. It could be no concession on the part of America to acknowledge that Great Britain possessed a right which she did possess, and which she exercised too, before the treaty was formed; and if this was no concession, how can the second article of the treaty with France be in anywise applicable to the case?

I shall not here prove that the regulations, respecting seizures, adopted in the treaty between Britain and America, are consonant to the principles of the modern law of nations, and are moreover sanctioned by the practice of France. Neither shall I enter into an explanation of the true meaning of the stipulation for equal favour, nor attempt to expose the absurdity of applying it to what every independent nation enjoys as a right. All this I have done, and I hope to the satisfaction of every unprejudiced mind, in my answer to the insolent and seditious Notes of Citizen Adet, to which I would refer you, Tom, were I not well assured, that you are guided by villainy, and not [Page] misguided by ignorance or error. I shall not avail myself of the advantage to be derived from a repetition of these proofs. I shall admit your assertion in its fullest extent, and convict you on your own words.

You say, that the treaty with Britain, as far as it relates to seizures, ‘is now become engrafted into that with France, and can be exercised by her as matter of right.’—Now, then, let us turn to what the British treaty says on this head. ‘Where vessels shall be captured or detained on just suspicion of having on board enemies property, or of carrying to the enemy any of the articles which are contraband of war; the said vessel shall be brought to the nearest and most convenient port; and if any property of an enemy shall be found on board of such vessel, that part only which belongs to the enemy shall be made prize, and the vessel shall be at liberty to proceed with the remainder without any impediment.’—Compare this with your justification of the present conduct of the French. Are they content with seizing only articles contraband of war, or the property of enemies? And do they suffer the vessel to proceed with the rest of her cargo? No; they seize all vessels bound to the ports of the enemy, whether they have on board contraband articles, or enemies property, or not! They seize and confiscate both vessel and cargo, and put the captains and seamen in chains.

You will say that Great Britain stopped all our vessels bound to her enemy's ports, some of which she also condemned; but this was before the treaty with her was made, and therefore cannot be [Page] attributed to that instrument, by which, on the contrary, she acknowledges the illegality of all such seizures, and engages to make full compensation for the losses thereby sustained.—Take, then, the treaty with England, let it be the law to judge your Harlequin masters by, and we shall soon have the pleasure to hear that they have shared the fate they long ago merited, and which their servant has often so miraculously escaped.

You were informed of the piratical orders they had issued, and were commanded to prepare a justification. In compliance with this command you rummaged about the treaty, as Milton rummaged the bible to find a justification for the murder of his king. Your baleful eyes at last fixed on the eighth article. Here, you say, the treaty ‘makes a concession to England of other articles in American ships. These articles are all other articles, and none but an ignoramus, or something worse, would have put such a phrase into a treaty.’ Do you think that we have never read this treaty? And, if we had not, do you think there is a man among us fool enough to believe that it contains such a concession? If you do, your opinion of the people of your ‘beloved America’ must be much changed.

This article, out of which you have culled two, and only two words, runs thus: ‘And whereas the difficulty of agreeing on the precise cases in which alone provisions and other articles, not generally contraband, may be regarded as such, renders it expedient to provide against the misunderstandings which might thence arise: It is agreed, that, whenever any such articles, so becoming contraband, according to the existing law [Page]of nations, shall for that reason be seized, the same shall not be confiscated, but the owners thereof shall be speedily and completely indemnified.’—So that, you see, your all other articles are reduced to such articles only as are contraband of war, according to the modern, the existing law of nations.

Playfair calls you ‘the clumsy advocate of insurrection,’ and you are certainly as clumsy an advocate of piracy. Poor Citizen Adet is a lame hand enough, but you are still worse; he did flounce about and made a noise before he sunk; but you just make a bubble, and go to the bottom at once, like a stone or a lump of lead.

I now come to your charge against the President respecting your detention in prison. You insist that you were still a citizen of America, and that therefore it was his duty to demand your enlargement.—You perceived that you had lost all claim to citizenship here, in virtue of the article which extends that deprivation to all those ‘who shall accept of any title or office under any foreign king, prince, or state.’ To get rid of this you have recourse to a curious quibble: you pretend that this provision did not embrace your case, because France, at the time you joined the legislative mob was neither a kingdom, principality nor state, but a people in a state of revolution.

That France was not worthy of the name of state I am very ready to allow. The French were then, what they are now, a horde of savages, engaged in the work of destruction. But, be this as it might, France was acknowledged as a state by America, and even you, I presume, will not have [Page] the impudence to deny, that she was declared to be a republic too, the very first day that you took your seat in the convention, and, if a republic, she was certainly a state. Admitting your own doctrine, then, to have preserved your claim to American citizenship, you should have abdicated your seat, the instant this declaration took place.

You contend that a man may lend a hand to form a constitution for a nation who has none, without forfeiting his citizenship in his own country. This may be so: it is nonsense, and therefore not worth disputing about. But why did you not retire as soon as your job was done. You continued your seat after you had made and sworn to and made every one else swear to your silly work. You had tasted the sweets of plunder, and you hung to it like a leech, till Robespierre changed you from a legislator to a jail-bird.

You wish to persuade us, that the being a delegate to aid in forming a constitution was not filling any office at all.—Now suppose that I should allow this, did you exercise no other functions than those of a constitution maker? Was not the convention every thing, legislative, executive and diplomatic; judicial, military and ecclesiastic? Were not some of you watching the armies, others superintending the guillotine, and others preaching sermons of atheism? Was this filling no office? And were you not at all times as liable and as ready and fit to be thus employed as any of the gang? Nay, did you not preside as judge ("ah! righteous rascally judge!") on the trial of Louis the XVIth? And did not your swinish voice pronounce on him the sentence of banishment? Was this filling no office?

[Page]But, whether you were an officer or not, or whether you had legally forfeited your American citizenship, what a poor mean-spirited miscreant must you be to make a complaint that your release was not requested by the President, the man whom you call an apostate or an impostor! What! old Common Sense, who was at all times ‘ready to fight a hundred tories;’ the great Rights of Man, who "proudly scorned to triumph or to yield;" is it this hero in the cause of French liberty, who boldly defied the gallows of Old England, that now trembles at the thoughts of the French guillotine!—‘To such a pitch of rage and suspicion was Robespierre and his committee arrived that it seemed as if they feared to leave a man alive. No man could count upon his life for twenty hours. * One hundred and sixty-nine prisoners were taken out of the Luxembourg in one night, and one hundred and sixty of them guillotined. In the next list I have good reason to believe I was included.’—Well, and what then? Why should you not be included as well as the thousands you assisted in sentencing to death? What a poor whimpering story is here! After all your boasting of the greatness and dignity of the "democratic floor," you have not discovered a zeal nearly equal to that of Lord Stanhope, one of "that class of equivocal generation, called aristocracy."†

‘Lord Stanhope. What are all the executions and what is all the blood, about which we hear such pitiful tales? The cause of France is the [Page] cause of freedom, of mankind. Who would hesitate to be executed in such a cause? I would cheerfully be hanged in her cause.’

‘Lord Abingdon. My lords, his lordship wishes you to hang him. I beseech your lordships to give the [...] peer rope enough and he will hang himself.’

Are you not ashamed, Tom, to be surpassed by a lord? Instead of coming forth from your den, a volunteer martyr in this glorious cause, and crying, Vive la Republique! with your neck under the national razor, you tremble even now at the thoughts of your danger. Instead of dancing to the music of your republican chains, you pine and peak and cry for liberty: as if it were possible for a man to want liberty in France!

I cannot help observing here how harmoniously you chime in with the cant of the enslaved French and the American democrats. ‘During the tyranny of Robespierre—the orders of Robespierre— the cruelty of Robespierre.’ Just as if the whole mob of tyrants, who passed the bloody decrees, were not as guilty as he who proposed them? But the rest, or the greatest part of them, are alive and in power, and Robespierre is dead.

You are obliged, however, to confess that the convention itself refused to release you at the request of some silly Americans: but here again, to avoid offending your despotic masters, you throw the blame on the president for the time being, and he, poor cut-throat, "has since absconded." If he had been present you would not have dared even to do this.

[Page]The committees, you acknowledge, did order your arrest; but then, as some of them are alive, and even on the throne, you add: ‘the committees, of which Robespierre was Dictator.’ Thus you qualify your tone, kneel, creep and cringe to those who have held you in chains, and brought you to the foot of the scaffold. Nay you do more. Carnot, one of the five fellows now called the Directory, was a member of these committees, he was Robespierre's right-hand man, the jackall that brought provision for the guillotine. This is he who signs the decree for seizing the vessels of your "beloved America," and this measure your pen, your poor old double-turned antithesises, are now employed to defend. It is thus that you support "the dignity of man," that "dignity compared to which that of lords, dukes and kings dwindles into nothingness."

If Robespierre were still living, you would be as much his flatterer and slave as you are the flatterer and slave of Carnot. You were made for a French republican; the baseness which they have constantly discovered, is in your nature. While the tyrant is alive, he is a God; when dead, he is a devil. An ignominious death, the awful avenger of crimes, and, with other men, the oblivion of injuries, with you unlocks the faculties of reproach, and changes your praises into execrations. You are like tame carrion-crows: you flutter in flocks from the presence of the kite, but when he is wounded by the hunter and lies gasping on the earth, you attack his prostrate carcass, and pick out his eyes that are closing in death.

[Page]Now, Tom, for your attack on the Federal Constitution. On this head I shall be very concise.— You must recollect, if your memory is not as treacherous as your heart, that, in your "Rights of Man," you every where coupled this constitution with that of France, which your book professed to defend; and that, you held the Federal Constitution, in particular, up for the imitation of the English.—Let us therefore contrast what you then said of this constitution, with what you say of it now.

Letter to Gen. Washington.

I declare myself opposed to several matters in the constitution, particularly to the manner in which, what is called the Executive, is formed, and to the long duration of the Senate; and if I live to return to America I will use all my endeavours to have them altered.

It was only to the absolute necessity of establishing some federal authority, extending equally over all the states, that an instrument, so inconsistent as the present federal constitution is, obtained a suffrage.

[Page]As the federal constitution is a copy, not quite so base as the original, of the form of the British government, an imitation of its vices was naturally to be expected.

Rights of Man, Part 2d.

The whole expense of the federal government of America, founded, as I have already said, on the system of representation, and extending over a country nearly ten times as large as England, is but six hundred thousand dollars, or one hundred and thirty-five thousand pounds sterling.

The government of America, which is wholly on the system of representation, is the only real republic in character and in practice, that now exists. Its government has no other object than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic.

[Page]It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. It has fixed the form by a scale parallel in all cases to the extent of the principle. What Athens was in miniature, America will be in magnitude. The one was the wonder of the ancient world; the other is becoming the admiration and model of the present.

There is a pretty little posey for you, Thomas! What a vile wretch must you be! That which was becoming the ‘admiration and model of the world,’ is now ‘a copy, not quite so base as the original, of the British government;’ and you were exhausting all the hell of sophistry to persuade the English to change their constitution for another, from which the vices of their own were "naturally to be expected."—Never, surely never, was a poor demagogue so completely detected. Your letter will do good in this country; but in England it will be a national blessing. Your sincerity will now be seen to the bottom. Those whom you had the address to deceive will now blush at their folly: they will see the pit you had prepared for them, and will bless the hand that saved them from destruction. For my own part, what I owe to this performance in common with every American and every Englishman, I have particular acknowledgments to make. It has flattered my vanity as a political writer; a species [Page] of vanity which you know, Tom, is none of the weakest,—witness your Second Part of the ‘Rights of Man.’ I long ago declared that all who were the enemies ‘of the British Government, would be found to be the enemies of the General Government of America.’ And no longer since than the September Censor, which contains your infamous life, I said: ‘I sincerely believe that he (meaning you, Tom,) hated, and that he still hates, the general government of the United States, as much as the Government of Great Britain. But it was necessary that he should find out something to hold up to the imitation of the English; no matter what, so that it differed from what they possessed.’

Among the good effects that your letter will have, one is, and that not of the least importance, it will tend to complete the reconciliation between America and Britain. Your intention and that of your employers was quite different; but you have overstepped your mark. When the people of this country first read your "Rights of Man," they were naturally flattered with your compliments to their wisdom. To have formed a government, ‘the admiration and model of the world,’ and to be held up to the imitation of their rivals in freedom, merited a return of applause; and they were astonished and offended to find, that the English refused to be instructed. Hence the appellations of "British tyrant," and "willing slaves;" and all the acrimonious and disdainful language that was for a long time held towards that nation. But now, when they perceive that their flatterer is become an assailant, and that their ‘admiration and model of the world,’ is no more than a mere ‘copy, not [Page] quite so base as the original, of the British Government,’ they will begin to think that the people of England were not so foolish; that they still are free men, and worthy of their friendship and affection.

In a successive attack on all that is fair and excellent, the conduct and character of General Washington naturally follows the Federal Constitution.

I will not cast a slur on this illustrious man by attempting to defend him against the shafts of Tom Paine, but I will make you, Tom, defend him against yourself.

Letter to Gen. Washington.

When we speak of military character, something more is to be understood than constancy; and something more ought to be understood than the Fabian system of doing nothing. The nothing part can be done by any body. Old Mrs. Thompson, the housekeeper of head-quarters, (who threatened to make the sun and the wind shine through Rivington of New York) could have done it as well as Mr. Washington. Deborah would have been as good as Barak. The successful skirmishes at the close of one campaign matters that would scarcely be noticed in a better state of things, make the brilliant [Page] exploits of Gen. Washington's seven campaigns.— No wonder we see so much pusillanimity in the President when we see so little enterprise in the General.

Elevated to the chair of the Presidency you assumed the merit of every thing to yourself, and the natural ingratitude of your constitution began to appear. You commenced your Presidential carreer by encouraging and swallowing the grossest adulation, and you travelled America from one end—to the other, to put yourself in the way of receiving it. You have as many addresses in your chest as James the II. Monopolies of every kind marked your administration almost in the moment of its commencement. The lands obtained by the revolution were lavished upon partizans; the interest of the disbanded soldier was sold to the speculator; injustice was acted under the pretence of faith; and the chief of the army became the patron of the fraud.

[Page]And as to you, sir, treacherous in private friendship, and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be puzzled to decide, whether you are an apostate or an impostor; whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any?

Common Sense.

Voltaire has remarked that King William never appeared to full advantage but in difficulties and in action; the same remark may be made on General Washington, for the character sits him. There is a natural firmness in some minds which cannot be unlocked by trifles, but which, when unlocked, discovers a cabinet of fortitude; and I reckon it among those kind of public blessings, which we do not immediately see, that GOD hath blest him with uninterrupted health, and given him a mind that can even flourish upon care.

[Page]

Rights of Man, Part 2d.

I presume, that no man in his sober senses, will compare the character of any of the kings of Europe with that of General Washington.

As soon as nine states had concurred, (and the rest followed in the order their conventions were elected) the old fabric of the federal government was taken down, and the new one erected, of which General Washington is president.— In this place I cannot help remarking, that the character and services of this gentleman are sufficient to put all those men called kings to shame. While they are receiving from the sweat and labours of mankind, a prodigality of pay, to which neither their abilities nor their services can entitle them, he is rendering every service in his power, and refusing every pecuniary reward. He accepted no pay as commander in chief; he accepts none as president of the United States.

[Page]

Dedication to the 1st part of the Rights of Man.

SIR,

I present you a small treatise in defence of those principles of freedom which your exemplary virtue has so eminently contributed to establish. That the Rights of Man may become as universal as your benevolence can wish, and that you may enjoy the happiness of seeing the new world regenerate the old, is the prayer of,

Sir,

Your most obliged, and Obedient humble servt. THOMAS PAINE.

Now, atrocious, infamous miscreant, ‘look on this picture, and on this.’ I would call on you to blush, but the rust of villainy has eaten your cheek to the bone, and dried up the source of suffusion. Are these the proofs of your disinterestedness and consistency? In it thus that you are always the same, and that you ‘preserve through life the right-angled character of MAN?’

The object of your masters, in having recourse to you on this occasion, is evident to every one. Your letter was written at the time they were passing the decree for authorizing the violation of their treaty with America. To prevent the people here from resenting the injury, it was necessary to persuade them that it was owing [Page] to the mal-administration of their own government, and this could not be done without undermining the character of him who presided over it. It was thought that you yet possessed influence enough to effect this, and therefore the prostituted pen of the revolutionary ruffian was put in a state of requisition.

Your tyrants are completely baffled. The effects of your letter are exactly the contrary to what it was intended to produce. There is but one thing on earth nearer to the hearts of all true Americans than their constitution, and that is, the spotless character of their chief. Your brutal attempt to blacken this character was all that was wanted to crown his honour and your infamy. You never before sunk to a level with the damned, but now you are plunged beneath them. The vile democrats, nay even Franklin Bache, with whom you boast of being in close correspondence, can say not a word in its defence. All the apology for you, is, that you wrote at the instigation of the despots of Paris. Thus the great Rights of Man, the sworn foe of corruption, and the reformer of nations, winds up his patriotic career: his being bribed is pleaded as an alleviation of his crimes.

THE END.

Notes

*

This confession is valuable. The democrats will not now deny what I have ever said about French liberty.

↵

†

See Woodfall's Parliamentary Reports.

↵

PROPOSALS, By William Cobbett, Book-Seller, of Philadelphia, FOR PUBLISHING A NEWS-PAPER, TO BE ENTITLED, Porcupine's Gazette AND DAILY ADVERTISER.

[Page]

METHINKS I hear the reader exclaim: ‘What! have we not Gazettes enough already?’ Yes, and far too many: but those that we have, are, in general, conducted in such a manner that their great number, instead of rendering mine unnecessary, is the only cause that calls for its establishment.

The gazettes in this country have done it more real injury than all its open enemies ever did or can do. They mislead the people at home and misrepresent them abroad. It was these vehicles of sedition and discord that encouraged the counties in the West to rebel; it was they that gave rise to the depredations of Britain, by exciting the people to such acts of violence against that nation, as left her no room to doubt that we were determined on war; and it was they, when an accommodation had been happily effected, that stirred up an opposition to it such as has seldom been witnessed, and which was overcome by mere chance. These gazettes it was, that, by misrepresenting the dispositions of the people, encouraged the French to proceed from one degree of [Page] insolence to another, till at last their minister braves the President in his chair, and a bullying commander comes and tells us that his only business is to seize our vessels, in violation of a treaty, by virtue of which alone he claims a right to enter our ports: and it is these gazettes that now have the impudence to defend what their falsehood and malice have produced.

I shall be told, that the people are to blame; that they are not obliged to read these abominable publications. But they do read them; and thousands who read them, read nothing else. To suppress them is impossible; they will vomit forth their poison; it is a privilege of their natures, that no law can abridge; and therefore the only mode left, is, to counteract its effects.

This must be done, too, in their own way. Books, or periodical publications in the form of books, may be of some service, but are by no means a match for their flying folios. A falsehood that remains uncontradicted for a month, begins to be looked upon as a truth, and when the detection at last makes its appearance, it is often as useless as that of the doctor who finds his patient expired.

The only method of opposition, then, is to meet them on their own ground; to set foot to foot; dispute every inch and every hair's breadth; fight them at their own weapons, and return them two blows for one.

A gazette of this stamp is what I have long wished to see, but I have wished and expected it in vain. Indignation at the supineness of others [Page] has at last got the better of all diffidence in my own capacity, and has determined me to encounter the task.

CONDITIONS.

I. PORCUPINE'S GAZETTE shall be of the usual size, and the subscription Eight Dollars a year, to be paid at the expiration of each half year.

II. Advertisements will be inserted at half the usual price, which will always be required in ready money.

III. The Censor, containing those pieces from the gazette that may appear worth preserving in a more portable form, with such amplifications and amendments as time may give rise to, shall be published monthly, and each subscriber shall be entitled to a copy, delivered with his paper at the end of the month.

IV. If a sufficient number of subscribers be obtained, the first number of the gazette shall appear on, or before, the 5th of March next.

N. B. A subscription-book is now open at my shop, opposite Christ Church, whither gentlemen in the country, who wish to subscribe, are requested to send their names.

[Page] Subscriptions are taken at Boston, by Mr. James White, book-seller; at Salem, by Mr. Delany, post-master; at New Haven, by Mr. Beers, book-seller; at Newbury Port, by Mr. E. Blunt, book-seller; at New York, by Mr. S. Campbell, book-seller; at Baltimore, by Mr. G. Hill, book-seller; at Chester Town (Maryland) by Mr. James Arthur, post-master; at Easton, do. by Mr. Greenbury Neale; at Frederick Town, do. by Messrs. Isaac and John Mentz; at Richmond, Virginia, by Messrs. Pritchard and Davidson; at Norfolk, by Messrs. Rainbow and Hannah; and at Charleston, by Mr. Young, book-seller.

BOOKS PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM COBBETT, OPPOSITE CHRIST CHURCH.

[Page]

ADAMS'S DEFENCE

Is now in the Press, and will appear on, or before, the 15th of February next.—The liberal encouragement the publisher has received, has enabled him to meet the wishes of the Subscribers, by embellishing this invaluable work with a portrait of the author.—Subscriptions will be received till the tenth of February.

THE HISTORY OF JACOBINISM,

A most excellent work for country libraries, particularly in places where the poison of French liberty and equality has begun to operate. Once reading of this work will set all to rights again.

THE BLOODY BUOY.

If the dose be too strong, or has been swallowed too long, to be overcome by the History of Jacobinism, recourse must be had to the Bloody Buoy. But this remedy ought never to be applied unless the patient be of a very robust constitution.

Information about this book

Title statement

Porcupine's political censor, for December, 1796. Containing remarks on the debates in Congress, particularly on the timidity of the language held towards France. : Also, a letter to the infamous Tom Paine, in answer to his brutal attack on the Federal Constitution, and on the conduct and character of General Washington.Porcupine's political censor. 1796 Dec.

Cobbett, William, 1763-1835.

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI :

Date

2011-05.

ID [DLPS]

N22884

ID [TCP]

N22884

ID [STC]

Evans 30227

ID [NOTIS]

APY0702

ID [IMAGE-SET]

30227

ID [EVANS-CITATION]

99027759

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early American Imprints, 1639-1800 ; no. 30227.

Notes

(Evans-TCP ; no. N22884)

Transcribed from: (Readex Archive of Americana ; Early American Imprints, series I ; image set 30227)

Images scanned from Readex microprint and microform: (Early American imprints. First series ; no. 30227)

Source

— Porcupine's political censor, for December, 1796. Containing remarks on the debates in Congress, particularly on the timidity of the language held towards France. : Also, a letter to the infamous Tom Paine, in answer to his brutal attack on the Federal Constitution, and on the conduct and character of General Washington., Porcupine's political censor. 1796 Dec., Cobbett, William, 1763-1835., Cobbett, William, 1763-1835 Letter to the infamous Tom Paine..

Extent

47, [1], 18, [6] p. ; 23 cm. (8vo)

Published by William Cobbett, opposite Christ Church. Price, one quarter of a dollar.,. Philadelphia: :: [1797]. (With an added title page ('Porcupine's political censor. Vol. I. ...') "intended for the convenience of such gentlemen as have been constant purchasers of the Censor, and as may think them worth preserving in a volume.") (Dated [1796] by Evans; [1797] by Gaines.) (Two states of gathering C noted (Gaines 26a-b; q.v.).) ("Proposals, by William Cobbett ... for publishing a news-paper, to be entitled Porcupine's gazette and daily advertiser."--p. [19-22], 2nd count.) ("Books published by William Cobbett ..."--p. [23], 2nd count.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.