We doubtless, should allow too much to this remark by calling it indisputable. The original charaters granted to the American colonists, far from being dictated by the prejudices, passions, ambition and avarice of kings, were congenial with the pure spirit of the British constitution. Nor do the Americans appear to have complained of their primitive nature and views, but of their subsequent violation. K.
Greece enjoyed the advantage of a supreme council, composed of delegates (from the principal cities) who were called Amphictiones, after Amphiction, the son of Deucalion, and king of Athens, who instituted this memorable assembly † ; framed and gave the force of laws to its respective statutes; marked out the nature and extension of its powers, and appointed the cities which were to send to it their several representatives. At the expiration of one hundred and forty years from the establishment of this institution, Acrisins, the son of Abas, and king of Argos, increased the privileges of the Amphictiones, augmented the number of the cities impowered to elect deputies, and somewhat altered the constitution and form of this assembly. Under these different epochs, several writers have made a distinction of two kinds of Amphictiones; the ancient Amphictiones, established by Amphiction, and the new Amphictiones, instituted by Acrisins. But, in fact, the King of Argos only matured into perfection the less accomplished plans of the king of Athens. Authors of the best authority (and, amongst these, Strabo and Fausanias) mention twelve of these Amphictionic elective bodies. Æschines, indeed, confines the number to eleven, completing which were the Thessalians, the Beotians, the Dorians, the Ionians, the Pyreubeans, the Magnesians, the Locrians, the Oerians, the Phriotes, the Maleans and the Phoceans. Probably, the name of one of these people may have been lost through the negligence of the transcribers; nor is it unnatural to presume that, in this list, the Dolpes were included. It is, at least, certain, from the testimonies of the ancients, that the Dolopes enjoyed the rights and privileges of the Amphictiones. A modern author * imagines (and, not without some tolerable foundation) that, during the infancy of this establishment, and even for a considerable time beyond it, the Delphians and their neighbours alone enjoyed the privilege of sitting within the assembly of the Amphictiones, to the exclusion of all the other more remote people of Greece; that then only the twelve Cities, named by the ancient writers, were intitled to aspire to this dignity; but that, afterwards, the extreme need in which all the Greeks stood of mutual assistance brought each into the equal and full attainment of this honor; and that such was the intention of the founder, who instituted this assembly with the view of creating and inviolably preserving a firm union amongst all the Greeks; and of thus rendering the welfare and the security of Greece durable for ages. It appears from a decree of the Amphictiones (as handed down to us by Demosthenes, that this company was stiled the “ Common Tribunal of all the the Greeks: ” and, in fact, it was the General Assembly of Greece † . Each city, invested with Amphictonic rights, elected and sent two delegates to the States-General. Of these, one was commissioned to watch over the interests of religion; for, the Amphictiones were, likewise, the protectors of the Oracle of Delphos, and the guardians of the great treasures of the temple. The other, acted as the orator deputed to Pylæ, or Thermopylæ. Frequently, a delegation from each of the confederated bodies amounted to three or four persons; but, how numerous soever they might have been, even the whole did not enjoy more than two deliberate voices in the assembly. The Phoceans were excluded from it, because, following the examples of their chiefs, Onomarchus and Phayllus, they had pillaged the temple of Delphos. Philip, the father of Alexander, became the instrument of the vengeance of the Greeks against the people of Phocis, during the progress of the sacred war. He insisted that, as a recompence of gratitude, they should make over to him and to his descendants the vacant seat; nor could the Amphictiones summon up the virtuous intrepidity to oppose the unjustifiable pretensions of a monarch, whom the extent and magnitude of conquest had raised into the object of universal apprehension. In the sequel, the Phoceans obliterated the turpitude of their degradation, by preserving the temple of Delphos from the ravages of the Gauls, who, under the command of Brennus, had marched into the States of Greece. This act of religion proved the means of re-instating the Phoceans in the seat of which their sacrilege had deprived them; and they, again, composed a part of the aggregate body of the nation. This supreme tribunal of Greece, the representative body of the States General, assembled twice during the course of the year; in autumn, at Thermopylæ, within a temple consecrated to Ceres, in the midst of an extensive plain, near the banks of the river Asopus; and, in spring, in the temple of Delphos, sacred to Apollo. This tribunal may be said to have collected all the Greeks into one representative body; to have united the republics (independent, except on this account, of each other) for the advancement of the same object: the truly virtuous and exalted object of preserving, with unsullied firmness, a state of mutual peace, and of defending their liberty against the encroachments of the Barbarians; and to have enjoyed the power of concerting, of resolving and ordaining the execution of those matters which might, in their opinion, appear likely to advance the welfare of the common cause. The Amphictiones bound themselves, by a solemn oath, to aim at the advancement of the public welfare of Greece, and to preserve from all injury, profanation and dishonor the temple of Delphos. Whilst this body subsisted, each member, admitted to a seat, took the following oath, in full assembly.
“ I swear never to destroy any of these cities which are honoured with Amphictionic rites; and not to turn the course of their rivers, in times either of peace or war. Should any people attempt to execute an enterprise of this flagitious nature, lengage myself, under the most sacred conditions, to invade with all the violence of hostilities, their several domains; to reduce their towns and villages to ashes, and to treat them, in every respect, as my implacable and cruel enemies. Should any man become so impious as to dare to steal any of the rich offerings consecrated at Delphos, within the temple of Apollo, or even to facilitate the measures of another in the commission of this abominable crime, whether by lending him the least succour, or only by advising him, I will use my feet, my hands, and all my powers, to bring down vengeance upon the head of so sacrilegious an offender. Should any person or persons endeavour to compel me to violate the oath which I have taken, whether this outrage proceed from a particular individual, or from a city, or from a nation, may this particular individual, or this city, or this nation be, thenceforward, considered as execrable; and, under this predicament, may they feel the avenging rage of Apollo, of Diana, of Latona, and of Minerva the Provident! May their land continue perpetually barren! May their women, instead of bringing forth children the images of their fathers, bear only monsters! And may even the animals, ceasing to produce the young of their species, each engender the most unnatural and frightful fœtus! May these sacrilegious miscreants feel the bitterness of calamity attendant upon all their fruitless undertakings! Should they engage in any war, may they become plunged in irrecoverable captivity! May the conquerors raze their dwellings even to the ground, and put them, their wives, their children, their families and all their connexions to the sword! If, perchance, a single one should escape from this destruction, may he never offer, with acceptance, a sacrifice either to Apollo, or to Latona, or to Minerva the Provident! And may these divinities look with horrer and disdain upon their prayers and their oblations * ! ” In some respects, the General Diet of Germany bears a resemblance to these ancient States General of Greece. In the United Provinces of the Low-Countries, and in the Helvetic Body, we may trace a still stronger similitude to the perpetual confederation of the Achæans. K.
Fifteen hundred and nineteen years previous to the commencement of the Christian æra; and six hundred and six years before the foundation of Rome.
See “ Dissertation sur les Amphyctions, ” in the third volume of “ L’Histoire de l’Academie des Belles-Lettres de Paris, ” from the hundred and ninety-first to the two hundred and twenty-seventh page. This part is written by Valois.
Cicero, in his second Book, “ De Inventione, ” calls it “ Commune
See “ Science du Gouvernement, ” by M. De Real.
The trial by juries is, certainly, a great Palladium of our liberty; yet, not to this alone, but to other flourishing and totally unviolated principles of our constitution are we obliged for (what the Abbé de Mably appears inclined to call the remnant of our) freedom; freedom, which is, perhaps, safer from the reflexion, natural to despotic minds, that the birthrights of others have not been stricken at with impunity. In this, as in all other countries, numbers of the great and rich will sell themselves to kings and ministers; but it is not their strong arm which can pull down the fabric, or even shake the pillars of the constitution. The attempt is equally beyond what any set of tyrants in England would dare to prosecute, or the majority of its inhabitants would suffer. Courage may, indeed, prove one of the ultimate (and successful) resources of the latter; but, it must start up more as the effect than cause; as the fruit of an impassioned, practical and invincible regard for public virtue! Let the collective body of the people cultivate this; or, rather, let them unite it with all the private excellencies of the heart, and no despotism shall ever shake them. They shall become truly greater, although the dismembered portion of a once-extended empire, than they could justly call themselves in all their former plenitude of power. K.
The inflexible resolution with which the plebeians opposed a most atrocious set of tyrants, and, in some measure, secured their privileges from invasions which were calculated, ultimately, to destroy them, appears to merit even a more favourable description. Of the shameful inequality which prevailed in the division of lands between the patricians and the plebeians, and of the monopolizing avarice of the former, we have a striking picture in the words of Livy * . “Auderentne postulare ut quum bina jugera agri plebi dividerenter ipsis plus quinquaginta jugera habere liceret? Ut finguli propè trecentoram civium possiderent agros, plebeio homini vix ad tectum necessarium, aut locum sepulturæ suus pateret ager!” The English and the American reader will, doubtless, feel a painful motion of surprise, should they discover that Montesquieu (of whom the late Earl of Chesterfield has finely remarked, that “his works will illustrate his name, and survive him, as long as right reason, moral obligation and the true Spirit of Laws shall be understood, respected and maintained) experienced the shameful “ difficulty of determining ” (to use his own words) “ whether the insolence with which the plebeians made their demands, or the easy condescension with which the senate granted them was the greatest! ” K.
See the sixth book.
A cool and ample investigation concerning this subject (of which, however, the narrow limits of a note will not admit) might, perhaps, prove that the generality of the almost unqualified encomiums so bountifully lavished upon the Romans spring rather from the strong impulse of literary fashion than the mature decisions of impartial criticism. The country which, after serious reflexion, could console itself on a resemblance to the Romans in their criminal characteristics, provided that the similitude held equally between them with respect to those actions which bore the marks of greatness, of wisdom and of magnanimity, must be detestably ambitious, and (with an equal share of turpitude and ignorance) content to sacrifice the best emotions of the human heart for the fallacious splendor of a name. Were the Romans happy? Was it fortunate to live at Rome? These are important questions. And some (though not the multitude amongst the more discerning) writers have answered in the negative. Amidst their infant state, were not the Romans, almost perpetually, ambitious in their projects, fierce in their modes of government and ferocious in their manners? What examples to the contrary arose, from the æra of the assassination of Camillus to the proscriptions of Sylla? Were not the succeeding epochs marked by famines, contagions and miseries of every kind? Did not war become desirable? Or, rather (to borrow the fine expression of a modern author) could the tears of the people have been dried up, until the streams of human blood began to flow? Saint Augustin, granting that, perhaps, these continual wars were necessary to the aggrandisement of the Romans, pertinently asks: what individual would wish to acquire a gigantic stature at the expence of his health * ? Look at the revolutions during the time of the Gracchi, of Marius, and of Sylla. Then, did the Romans enjoy a measure of felicity sufficient to make their condition envied and their forms of government admired? What shall we think concerning the sacrifice in war of more than two millions of men, throughout a term of years not far exceeding the usual length of life? Is it possible to reflect without horror on the execution of nineteen thousand criminals at the Lacus Fucinus † ? Can we avoid shuddering at the idea that out of forty-two emperors who filled up the interval between Julius Cæsar and Charlemagne, thirty, at least, have died a violent death; and that, amongst these, four committed suicide, and six perished through the intrigues of their favorites, their brothers, their wives and their children? This picture is not overcharged: and groups, disgusting groups remain to fill it up. But, we refer the reader to the description of the manners of the Romans, by Ammianus Marcellinus, in the sixth chapter of his fourteenth book. He will then see how far “ even in the moments when their excesses were carried to extremes, their passions were accustomed to associate themselves with justice and with moderation! ” K.
De civitate Dei. lib. 3. cap. 10.
Suetenius observes that when these miserable victims passed by Claudius, they cried out: “Ave! Imperator! morituri te salutant!” and that the emperor answering, from absence of mind, “Avete vos!” they understood this expression to mean a pardon, and would not engage, until compelled by threats and intreaties . . . It cannot be denied that a generally established custom required that all fugitive slaves should be exposed to wild beasts.
“ The bouse of representatives of the freemen of this common wealth shall consist of persons most noted for wisdom and virtue. ”
“No person shall be elected until he has resided in the city or county for which he shall be chosen, two years immediately before the said election.”
“ Every freeman of the full age of twenty-one years, having resided in this state for the space of one whole year next before the day of election for representatives, and paid public taxes, during that time, shall enjoy the right of an elector. ”
See Constitution of Pennsylvania; chap. 1. sect. 16.
See chap. 2. sect. 6.
Constitution of Pennsylvania; chap. 2. sect. 12.
The votes and proceedings of the general assembly shall be “ printed weekly during their sitting. ”
“ To the end that laws, before they are enacted, may be more maturely considered, and the inconvenience of hasty determinations as much as possible prevented, all bills of a public nature shall be printed for the consideration of the people before they are read, in general assembly, the last time, for debate and amendment; and, except on occasions of sudden necessity, shall not be passed into laws until the next session of assembly; and for the more perfect satisfaction of the public, the reason and motives for making such laws shall be fully and clearly expressed in the preamble. ”
The whole of that passage of the section to which the remarks of Abbé de Mably particularly point is introduced in the body of the work; but (what ought to be an object, as much as possible, in all books) to save the curious reader the trouble of a reference, we have increased the quotation, so as to bring the section intirely, and as a test of either the strength or the futility of the argument in question, under one point of view.
“ By this mode of election and continual rotation, more men will be trained to public business; there will, in every subsequent year, be found in the council, a number of persons acquainted with the proceedings of the foregoing years, whereby the business will be more consistently conducted, and, moreever, the danger of establishing an inconvenient aristocracy will be effectually prevented. All vacancies in the council that may happen by death, resignation or otherwise, shall be filled at the next general election for representatives in general assembly, unless a particular election for that purpose shall be sooner appointed by the president and council. No member of the general assembly, or delegate in congress, shall be chosen a member of the council. Any person, having served as a counsellor for three successive years, shall be incapable of holding that office for four years afterwards. Every member of the council shall be a justice of the peace for the whole commonwealth, by virtue of his office. ”
“ In case new additional counties shall hereafter be erected in this state, such county or counties shall elect a counseller, and such county or counties shall be annexed to the next neighbouring counties, and shall take rotation with such counties.
“ The council shall meet annually, at the same time and place with the general assembly. ”
“ The treasurer of the state, trustees of the loan office, naval officers, collectors of customs or excise, judge of the admiralty, attornies general, sheriffs and prothonotaries shall not be capable of a seat in the general assembly, executive council, or continental congress. ”
See Constitution of Pennsylvania: chap. 2 sect: 19.
I have translated this passage literally from the original. The section to which (if I have not examined the American codes of laws too inattentively) it appears to refer, runs, as follows:
“ And this convention doth further, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of this state, ordain, determine and declare that the senate of the state of New York shall consist of twenty-four freeholders to be chosenout of the body of freeholders; and that they be chosen by the freeholders of this state, possessed of freeholds of the value of one hundred pounds, over and above all debts charged thereon. ”
“ That the members of the senate be elected for four years, and, immediately after the first election, that they be divided by lot into four closses; six in each class, and numbered one, two, three, and four; that the seats of the members of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the first year, the second class the second year, and so on continually; to the end that the fourth part of the senate, as nearly as possible, may be annually chosen. ”
Are not these pictures rather overcharged? In England (not a republic) is not this prererogative indispensably requisite? And would not the annihilation of it tear up any monarchy by the roots? We know how seldom the royal power of refusing an assent to bills passed by both houses of parliament has been exercised. A melancholy experience has taught our princes (and the lesson will descend to posterity!) wisely and cautiously to consider it as a feather more likely, when extended, to impede than aid their flight; and, therefore, interwoven with the plumage of the wing, for constant ornament; but, not for general use. K.
“No person shall be capable of being elected as a senator, who is not seized, in his own right, of a freehold, within the commonwealth, of the value of three hundred pounds, at least, or possessed of personal estate to the value of fix hundred pounds, at least, or of both to the amount of the same sum.”
“Every member of the house of representatives shall have been seized in his own right, of the value of one hundred pounds within the town he shall have been chosen to represent, or any rateable estate to the value of four hundred pounds.”
Constitution of Massachusets; chap. 2. sect. 3. art.
Taking place on the laft Wednesday in May.
“The great seal of the state shall have the following device: on one side a scroll, whereon shall be engraved: “ The Constitution of the State of Georgia, ” and the motto, “ Probono publico: ” on the other side, an elegant house and other buildings, fields of corn, and meadows covered with sheep and cattle; a river running through the same, with a ship under full sail, and the motto, “ Deus nobis bæc olia fecit. ”
“The port and town of Savannah shall be allowed four members to represent their trade.”
“The port and town of Sunbury shall be allowed two members to represent their trade.”
A note will not admit of a digression, including arguments, supported by the sanction of the most discerning and unesceptionable writers, to prove that, in general, the evils of commerce (commerce, not, indeed, to be regarded as the chief object and end of a flourishing state!) are but as feathers in the balance against its blessings. Surely, still more from accompanying commerce than from mere agriculture and the confined domestic arts, may nations (as the poet beautifully observes)
“The wide felicities of labor learn!”
This captivating picture, from the glowing pencil of Abbé de Mably, is in the richest spirit of Areadian, or, rather, of Utopian simplicity. Yet, it appears most powerfully contrasted by his own remarks * : “It would prove a miracle of the first class and magnitude, should a people, who laboriously cultivate the earth in order to acquire riches, and who will soon have large workshops and artisans, to bring to perfection all which is previously necessary to assist agriculture and to accelerate its progress, possess the power of not suffering themselves to be drawn aside by those sentiments and ideas which must affect them.”
See the preceding page 89.
During the sitting of the assembly, the whole of the executive council shall attend, unless prevented by sickness, or some other urgent necessity; and, in that case, a majority of the council shall make a board to examine the laws and ordinances sent them by the house of assembly; and all the laws and ordinances sent to the council shall be returned in five days after, with their remarks thereupon.
A committee from the council sent with any proposed amendments to any law or ordinances shall deliver their reasons for such proposed amendment, sitting and covered; the whole house, at that time, except the speaker, uncovered.
These last excellent remarks from the Abbé de Mably preclude the necessity of a single comment upon the order of Cincinnati, in America! K.
Constitution of Maffachusets; chap. 5. sect. 2. The encouragement of literature. . . . The whole passage, at once intitled to our attention and applause, runs thus: “Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them, especially the university of Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns, to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, c. c.
The reader, having examined the whole passage to which this observation is a reference, will more clearly draw his own conclusions respecting the validity of the opinions of Abbè de Mably. (K.) “As the public good requires that the governor should not be under the undue influence of the members of the general court, by a dependence on them for his support—that he should, in all cases, act with freedom for the benefit of the public—that he should not have his attention necessarily diverted from that object to his private concerns—and that he should maintain the dignity of the commonwealth in the character of its chief magistrate—it is necessary that he should have an honorable stated salary, of a fixed and permanent value, amply sufficient for those purposes, and established by standing laws: and it shall be among the first acts of the general court, after the commencement of this constitution, to establish such salary by law, accordingly.”
In England, where the most important dignities are (perhaps, too generally) conserred upon the chiefs of great and opulent families, the powerful heads of parties, and men of large landed property and extensive interest, the people would, in such cases, rejoice to see the abolition, or, rather (for, voluntary public virtue may claim and must receive the blessings of the multitude!) the patriotic and spontaneous refusal of all salary whatsoever. But, a commonwealth should draw out valuable integrity and excentric talents from the humble, and even the poor, obscurity of their situation, providing for them such compensations as (to borrow the language of the Americans) will support a line of action “ with freedom for the benefit of the public. ” The colonies may produce their Walsinghams and Andrew Marvels. Nor must such characters be permitted to remain either without employment or without salaries. K.
A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry and frugality are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and keep a government free.
Laws for the encouragement of virtue and prevention of vice and immorality shall be made and constantly kept in force; and provision shall be made for their due execution.
“ In order that the freedom of this commonwealth may be preserved inviolate for ever, there shall be chosen by ballot, by the freemen in each city and county respectively, on the second Tuesday in October, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, and on the second Tuesday in October, in every seventh year thereafter, two persons in each city and county of this state, to be called the council of censors; who shall meet together on the second Monday in November, next ensuing their election; the majority of whom shall be a quorum in every case, except as to calling a convention, in which two thirds of the whole number elected shall agree; and whose duty it shall be to enquire whether the constitution has been preserved inviolate in every part? And whether the legislative and executive branches of government have performed their duty as guardians of the people, or assumed to themselves, or exercised other or greater powers than they are entitled to by the constitution? They are also to enquire whether the public taxes have been justly laid and collected in all parts of this commonwealth, in what manner the public monies have been disposed of, and, whether the laws have been duly executed? For these purposes, they shall have power to send for persons, papers and records; they shall have authority to pass public censures, to order impeachments, and to recommend to the legislature the repealing such laws as appear to them to have been enacted contrary to the principles of the constitution. These powers they shall continue to have, for and during the space of one year from the day of their election and no longer. The said council of censors shall also have power to call a convention to meet within two years after their sitting, if there appear to them an absolute necessity of amending any article of the constitution which may be defective, explaining such as may be thought not clearly expressed, and of adding such as are necessary for the preservation of the rights and happiness of the people: but the articles to be amended, and the amendments proposed, and such articles as are proposed to be added or abolished, shall be promulgated at least fix months before the day appointed for the election of such convention, for the previous consideration of the people, that they may have an opportunity of instructing their delegates on the subject. ”
The liberal and virtuous reader will exercise his own judgment upon the question (a question too important for a short discussion) whether Abbé de Mably, in this and the following pages, yielding to the dread with which he looks upon the evils which may, in his opinion, result from toleration, does not too rashly recommend a spirit of intolerance; that spirit, the horrid history of the progress of which should be written in letters of blood? K.
More incontestable than his arguments against toleration is the opinion of the Abbé de Mably, that the clergy should enjoy the right of voting at elections. K.
See the appendix.
Constitution of Pennsylvania; chap. 1. art. 2.
Perhaps, toleration may extinguish the spirit of controversy. Let the reader peruse the following liberal extracts, and judge for himself. K.
“And whereas we are required by the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance, wherewith the bigotry and ambition of wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind: this convention doth farther, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this state, ordain, determine and declare, that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall for ever hereafter be allowed in this state to all mankind. Provided that the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.”
“No authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner controul the right of conscience in the exercise of religious worship.”
“All men have a natural and unalienable right to worship ALMIGHTY GOD according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings; and no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner controul the right of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship.”
“All men have a natural and unalienable right to worship ALMIGHTY GOD according to the dictates of their own conscience.”
The Constitutions of Massachusets, South Carolina, Georgia, contain clauses all dictated by the same discerning and charitable spirit.
See the appendix.
The advocates for the freedom of the press (and these compose a part of the most enlightened, spirited and virtuous of the human race) will, probably, think that too high a passion for intolerance has dictated the remarks in this, and some of the succeeding pages. K.
If it be amongst the prejudices of England to maintain inviolate the constitutional liberty of the press, the warm and (we, indeed, believe) sincere attachment of the Abbé de Mably to his friends, the Americans, should have induced him to reverse his wish, and hope, with more than usual fervor, that they would not, at any moment, break loose from this particular prejudice of England. It requires more than nice discernment; a liberal spirit, and a splendid impulse of enlightened magnanimity must co-operate to forge a chain (of law) which shall impede the movements of licentiousness, yet not admit one single link that could despotically bind the bold, correcting, virtuous career of freedom. To this, the genuine spirit of the English form of government is equal; and, if a love and reverence for such a spirit, together with an invincible determination to shield it (as it has been shielded) by force of arms, and at the price of life, from all tyrannical encroachments, deserve to be regarded as the prejudices of England, to these it is not possible that either the Americans, or any state upon the surface of the whole earth, can prove “ too much familiarised. ” Abbé de Mably is too accurately versed in the constitutional history of nations coolly and seriously to suppose that the laws of England do not place all proper restraints upon the press; restraints obvious to every enquirer; and, therefore, neither wanting nor admitting, during the short course of these natural remarks, the least enumeration. Such salutary restraints (which do not wound the trunk; nor branch; nor ’twig; nor even hurt the leaf; but, only cut away the dangerous excrescence) demand, and actually receive the full obedience of our well-intentioned fellow-subjects. To these do we submit; and, perhaps, partly, in order to indulge, with less restraint, the necessary exercise of our freedom:
“ Ideo, legibus servimus, ut liberi simus * .”
Abbé de Mably appears desirous to exclude from the press all, except “the learned who study the secrets of nature; who seek for truth amidst the shattered fragments of antiquity and the obscurity of modern times; and who write concerning the laws, the regulations, the decrees and the particular arrangements of the systems of politics and of administration.” May not the executive servants of the state, and numberless individuals, enjoying too large a share of power and of influence, at some particular period, display a marked propensity to violate the rights and privileges of their fellow-citizens? On such occasions, must no warning voice be lifted up, in time, to crush the evil at its outset? May not . . . . . .
But, it is needless to croud question upon question to prove the impolicy (too soft a term) of the recommended restrictions of our author upon the freedom of the press.
It seems extraordinary that the states of New York and New Jersey * should (unless I have overlooked the passage) maintain, in their new constitutions, a profound silence respecting this important subject. The other governments are extremely pointed on the occasion:
“The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in a commonwealth.”
“The people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments; therefore, the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained.”
“The printing presses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the legislature, or any part of government.”
“The liberty of the press ought to be inviolably preserved.”
“The liberty of the press ought to be inviolably preserved.”
“The freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and, therefore, ought not to be restrained.”
“That the liberty of the press be inviolably preserved.”
Cicero.
I have not seen the laws of the province of New Jersey, contained in the edition lately published by Mr. Allinson, which are to remain in full force, until altered by the legislature of the colony (such only excepted as are incompatible with its constitution) but, probably, one of these laws points to the preservation of the liberty of the press.
The Abbé de Mably may have imparted brilliancy (but non-strength) to his arguments against the liberty of the press, when pleading for the policy of restraining it, because the plebeians of Rome were not suffered to meddle with the Sybilline books! and because Timotheus was driven out of Sparta for putting a tenth chord to his lyre! K.
We must again declare (and, scarcely, without indignation) that restraints upon the freedom of the press cannot fall under any part of the description of “ a pure government and salutay laws. ” If either Abbé de Mably, or the political writers of any country, have already prepared, for the acceptance of the Americans, codes of laws which come violently home to this arbitrary point of prohibition, it is a friendly voice that exclaims to them:
“ Time Danaos: et dona ferentes.! ” K.
Such are the sentiments of Abbé de Mably! . . . . Doctor Brown (at once an object of pity and of admiration; the manners and the habits of whose life (and we will drop in friendly silence all mention of his untimely death) were not congenial with the sternly-reprobating spirit of his “Estimate”) remarked that the British nation “ stood aghast at its own misfortunes; but, like a man starting suddenly from sleep, by the noise of some approaching ruin, know neither whence it came, nor how to avoid it. It was in answer to this Estimate that a Mr. Wallace drew up his “ Characteristics of the political State of Great Britain * .” The favorable reception which they met with was like the thanks offered by the Romans, at a more alarming period, to their consul, “ quod de republicâ non desperasset. ” If we look back upon the national events which terminated the career of the last reign, and threw such lustre over the beginning of the present reign, we may at once discover in which of the mirrors presented to them, by Doctor Brown and Mr. Wallace, the people of England saw their own likeness. The work of the last author becomes scarce; but, it is not his chêf d’œuvre. For that, we may refer to his “ System of the Laws of Scotland: ” the offspring of deep thought and indefatigable labor; which must have fixed his reputation, although only the digressive parts of it had been attended to; and, amongst these parts, his charitable remarks concerning the servitude of our negroes. I cannot conclude this note without introducing an opposite quotation from a work † in which the author, although modestly appearing to aim no higher than the art of pleasing, in a simple narrative of curirious facts, steals imperceptibly upon the mind, and, by his observations, never leaves it worse, but often (we should hope) much better than he found it.
“In this celebrated Estimate we meet with great inequalities; amidst many bright thoughts and just observations, delivered in a very copious and animated stile, we shall find a great propensity to novelty and paradox. Did solidity of judgment keep pace with the rapidity of his fancy, we should do nothing but admire. His despair of the public, from his viewing the dark side of the question, and his misrepresenting of objects, sometimes throws him into the most gloomy and melancholy reflections. What can we say of the following postulatum?
“ But, if, in any nation, the number of these superior minds be daily decreasing, from the growing manners of the times, what can a nation so circumstanced have more to fear, than that, in another age, a general cloud of ignorance may overshadow it?!!”
It has been remarked that Doctor Brown “had a soul full of gratitude; ” and that “his honor and integrity were unquestioned by all who knew him.” For these uncommon virtues, we bury faults, and even vices, in oblivion. . . The panegyric is a laurel, over his grave, which will not wither. K.
The elegent and entertainingly-instructive author of the Biographia Dramatics observes that the “ Estimate ” was “run down by popular clamor, but not answered. ” We will not dispute his assertion in the first point; but, may take the liberty of inferring that he appears mistaken in the second.
Life of Carrick, by Mr. Davies.
The validity of these remarks appears much lessened by the consideration that the judges are removable only upon conviction (of misbehavior) in a court of law.
The superior legislatorial talents of Abbé de Mably may frame edicts more unexceptionable than the following, which, if they do not operate as a refutation of his arguments, are, at least, proofs of the sound policy of the lawgivers from whom they have proceeded.
“The independency and uprightness of judges are essential to the impartial administration of justice; and a great security to the rights and liberties of the people; wherefore the chancellor and judges ought to hold commissions during good behaviour; and the said chancellor and judges shall be removed for misbehaviour, on conviction in a court of law; and may be removed by the governor upon the address of the general assembly, provided that two thirds of all the members of each house concur in such address. ”
“That the chancellor, all judges, the attorney general, clerks of the general court, the clerks of the county courts, the registers of the land office and the registers of wills shall hold their commissions during good behaviour, removable only for misbehaviour, on conviction in a court of Law. ”
“The president and general assembly shall, by joint ballot, appoint three justices of the supreme court for the state, one of whom shall be chief justice, and a judge of admiralty, and also four justices of the courts of common pleas and orphans courts for each county, one of whom in each court shall be stiled chief justice, to be commissioned by the president under the great seal, who shall continue in office during good behaviour. ”
“The judges of the supreme court shall continue in office, for seven years; the judges of the inferior court of common pleas in the several counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the supreme court, clerks of the inferior court of common pleas and quarter sessions, the attorney-general and provincial secretary shall continue in office for five years; and the provincial treasurer shall continue in office for one year; and that they shall be severally appointed by the council and assembly in manner aforesaid, and commissioned by the governor, or, in his absence, the vice president of the council. Provided always that the said officers severally shall be capable of being re-appointed at the end of the terms severally before limited; and that any of the said officers shall be liable to be dismissed, when adjudged guilty of misbehaviour, by the council, on an impeachment of the assembly.”
“The judges of the supreme court of judicature shall have fixed salaries, be commissioned for seven years only, though capable of re-appointment at the end of that term, but removable for misbehavior, at any time, by the general assembly. ”
The last three clauses, not absolutely securing to the judges their places during good behaviour, may afford a gleam of comfort to Abbè de Mably. K.
Constitution of Massachusets; part 1. chap. 17.
Abbé de Mably, though right in point of argument, appears to have set out upon a wrong principle. Surely, to declare that the military power shall always be holden in exact subordination to the civil authority and governed by it, is a provision equally and pointedly allusive to times of war and peace. And, strictly, in the same meaning, are the following clauses:
“The military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.”
“A well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.”
“Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up without the consent of the legislature.”
“In all cases, and at all times, the military ought to be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
“No soldier ought to be quartered in any house, in time of peace, without the consent of the owner; and, in time of war, in such manner only as the legislator shall direct. ”
“ In time of war, quarters (for soldiers) ought not to be made but by the civil magistrate, in a manner ordained by the legislator. ”
Three clauses in the constitution of Maryland contain exactly the same words as the foregoing.
And almost literatim with these is another clause in the declaration of rights by the North Carolinians. Even a smaller quantity of plain and sterling sense would have proved sufficient to overthrow the paradox in question. K.
Constitution of New York; art. 40.
Constitution of Pennsylvania; chap. 2. sect. 5.
Estates shall not be entailed; and when a person dies intestate, his, or her estate shall be divided, according to the act of distribution, made in the reign of Charles the second, unless otherwise altered by any future act of the legislature.
Abbé de Mably appears to have overlooked the following clause:
“The future legislature of this state shall regulate entails in such a manner as to prevent perpetuities.”
The government of Switzerland has been expressively stiled by Mellarede, a minister of Savoy, “ Confusio divinitus conservata: ” and Chapelle (author of the letters from an Helvetian to a Frenchman) with equal felicity of description, applies to it the terms in which Horace mentions the universe: “ Rerum concordia discors. ” What, indeed (to borrow the idea of a discerning statesman) can prove more a paradox in politics, than thirteen republics, having different religions, different alliances, different maxims and different forms of government; thirteen republics which do not depend at all upon each other; and yet form but one body, of which the members are independent and without a chief: a body which has subjects and allies who are not those of the members; members having subjects and allies who are not those of the body? Such is this fantastical constitution, which has existed beyond the space of four centuries, without fortresses, and without standing armies. K.
That with a most barbarous insensibility concerning either the justice or the injustice of the cause, they have fought, as mercenaries (mercenaries to a proverb!) under the standard of foreign powers in a foul speck, which much obscures the brilliancy of all their public and all their private virtues. The term “ carcase butchers, ” howsoever coarse, is gentle in the scale of justice, when applicable to the German princes, who let their subjects out to any tyrants that have drawn the sword against their injured fellow creatures! . . . . And it behoves the Swiss to take especial care! for, most judiciously has the author of “ La Science du Gouvernement ” observed that one of the future principles of the destruction of the Helvetic body may be the influence preserved within it by those nations in whose service the people of Switzerland employ their troops. The subsidies which foreign princes pay to these cantons, and (what is infinitely more dangerous to a republic) the pensions which they either openly or secretly allow to many particular individuals, secures for them their suffrages in the deliberations of the Helvetic body. The unprincipled shares in such corrupting stipends direct (whensoever they have any authority in managing the affairs of government) the public councils as much as possible towards the end which those powers, who are their paymasters, have, chiefly, in their view. K.
It is, perhaps, needless to inform the historical reader that the canton of Berne had opened for itself an admission into America, under the auspices of the English, and obtained from the late king, in the year 1734, the liberty of sounding a city in Carolina; but this colony (to which the miserable adventurers were allured by the prospect of high advantages) became the grave of those Switzerlanders who chose it for their settlement. They all died of want. Had they lived, succeeded and flourished, Abbé de Mably might, probably, at this day, have observed one of his favorite constitutions, pouring down the sources of public happiness upon his favorite friends! K.
We apprehend (but, with submission to the political superiority of his judgment) that Abbé de Mably displays an inclination to invest the Congress with too large a share of power. Even when resident in the highest bodies, whether amidst republics, or under monarchies, a barrier should be fixed, beyond the scite of which it never ought to pass. Granting (and such lunatics are upon record!) that the Congress, thus more approximated to the omnipotence of a parliament, should become infected with the madness of engaging in a conspiracy against the rights and liberties of the people, the price of bringing them to their senses (by the militia of thirteen republics opposed in battle to their garrisons and armies!) is, probably, the horrible effusion of rivers of human blood! Better were it to avoid the risk. The general infirmities and vices of human nature can scarcely bring within the bounds of credibility the position that not a single member of a numerous national assembly would feel his patriotism give way to the seduction of any criminal ambition which might, with ease, be gratified. The remark is not totally unjustifiable, because, in this, and subsequent parts of the work, Abbé de Mably appears prodigal in his recommendations of an increase for the authority of the continental Congress. K.
At the mention of savages, upon whose vigorously-perceptive minds the principles of humanity are deeply engraven, I should be led to plead in favor of the abolition of the slave-trade; a trade in which these savages (a name too often more merited by Europeans, and civilized countries! ) are the objects, or, rather, the miserable victims, of sale and purchase: but, Mr. Day, whose highly-cultivated understanding is accompanied, in its brilliant progress, by the best feelings of the heart, has spared me the attempt, and gone extremely far beyond my feeble powers of argument, when asking the colonist ( once our fellow-subject) “ with what face can be who has never respected therights of nature in another, pretend to claim them in his own favor? How dare the inhabitants of the southern colonies speak of privileges and justice? Is money of so much more importance than life? Or, have the Americans shared the dispensing power of St. Peter’s successors, to excuse their own observance of those rules which they impose on others? If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves. ”
If the reader has not properly made up his mind, after the perusal of this argumentative and glowing passage, let him read Mr. Ramsay’s truly liberal, pious and conclusive “Essay on the Treatment and Conversion of African Slaves in the British Sugar Colonies.”
Estimates of the Manners and Principles of the Times. . . Third edition, page 157, c.
Thus far, the extracts from Doctor Brown: nor shall we quit them without adding (for, even at this period, the passage much concerns ourselves; and, perhaps, ought not to prove a matter of indifference to the Americans) that the same author having asked “whether the lessening this exorbitant trade and wealth would bring back manners and principles, and restore the nation’s strength?” first answers that he very much questions the event:” and then subjoins:
“But, whatever the consequences might be at home, those abroad would certainly be fatal. The French are every day gaining ground upon us in commerce; and, if our’s should lessen, their’s would INCREASE TO OUR DESTRUCTION!”
“Thus are we fallen into a kind of dilemma: if our commerce be maintained or increased, its effects bid fair to destroy us: if commerce be discouraged and lessened, the growing power of our enemy threatens the same consequence. ”
“There seems, then, no other expedient than this: that commerce and wealth be not discouraged in their growth; but checked and controuled in their effects.
“And even in attempting this, care must be had, left in controuling the effects of commerce, we should destroy commerce itself.”
Although it may, in some degree, prove foreign to the subject, it does not seem absolutely improper to introduce an observation, intitled to the notice of the reader, and which appears to have escaped the attention of most writers, Professor Smith † (a politician of equal depth and judgment, to whom society owes many obligations) and Mr. Hume excepted: Mr. Hume, who, mingling poisons with his wholesome works, has execrably dared to cancel all the favors which he might, otherwise, have conferred upon his fellow-creatures. . . . . . . “Commerce and manufactures gradually introduce order and good government; and, with them, the liberty and security of individuals, among the inhabitants of the country, who had before lived almost in a continual state of war with their neighbors, and of servile dependency upon their superiors. This (though it has been the least observed) is by far the most important of all their effects. ” K.
See “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.”
The reader, who feels a proper veneration for public and for private virtue, will not disdain to look again with pleasure upon the whole of this enlightened clause, however frequently it may have proved the man of his attention. K.
“Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, dissused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education, in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences and all seminaries of them; especially the university (at Cambridge) public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humour, and all social affections and generous sentiments among the people”.
Sweden was, in one of the noblest senses of the word, a republic, being, at a former period (to borrow the language of a celebrated writer) a country where even a king proved but a senator in the council; and but a conful when with the army. The tyrants whom Gustavus drove away were a debauched (and, consequently, unfeeling) prince, together with a proud and barbarous priest. Christian, the second, of Denmark, and Troll, caused the whole senate to be massacred at an entertainment, and drenched all Sweden in blood. Gustavus, expelling the despot and the inquisitor, established civil and religious liberty; and, thus, founded the prosperity of a people in whose fate all other nations ought to have interested themselves, because they were brave without cruelty, and warlike without ambition. Such was Sweden, until (as in another place I have observed) a young and criminally-aspiring monarch effected a revolution in his kingdom, by measures as secretly and artfully concerted as they were rapidly executed. In one moment, to renounce, with all the public solemnity of oaths, every claim to arbitrary power, and, nearly in the very next moment, to acquire the most absolute authority, is a master-stroke in politics (or, rather, an audacious refinement in the abandoned art of regal dissimulation) for which it would be difficult to name a precedent. To what future glorious excesses must the patriotism of this man be carried before he can atone for such an act of perfidy! It does not yet appear that he has made much progress towards an expiation. Sweden, however, is in a state of quiet. What quiet? That on which it is scarcely possible to reflect without breaking out into admiration at the fine excuse of the illustrions Polander * to the troubles which he had brought upon his country: “ Infinitely do I prefer a dangerous state of freedom to calm and passive slavery! ” And, at least equal, in sterling brilliancy, to this spirited idea, when taken in its proper seuse, is the glowing exclamation of Rousseau: “Let tyrants act as they will, the man who knows how to die is always free”! K.
See Histoire de Sobiesky: ” or “ La voix libre du citoyen. ”
Geneva seems hastening to her last plunge: a rivetted dependance upon (her protector!) France. Too generally, when sovereign states become protectors, the strict meaning of the phrase is: sharers of the spoil! Perhaps, Mr. D’lvernois (the author of “An historical and political View of the Constitution and Revolutions of Geneva, in the eighteenth Century”) has truth upon his side, when, in his dedication to the French king, he observes that, had his fellow-citizens been once left to themselves; and had ambition remained destitute of any hope, from the intervention of foreign succor, a variety of mutual sacrifices must ultimately have contributed to the restoration of peace. . . . . But, the great causes of the misfortunes, which pressed so bitterly upon the Genevese, appear to have been painted with a decisive pencil, by Rousseau, whose transgressions against an aristocracy (and not his singularities) exposed him to such a virulence of persecution that, in the heat and terrors of the passions, he dreaded it from those who cherished, loved and honoured him. This zealous champion of political equality describes the citizens of Geneva, as having perpetually sacrificed too much to appearances and too little to essentials; as having suffered their over-anxious solicitude, in favor of a general council, to damp and to diminish a necessary zeal in their attachment to its members; and as having looked rather to the maintenance of authority than the immovable establishment of freedom! K.
“The United States, in Congress assembled, shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting, or that hereafter may arise, between two or more states, concerning the boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever.
“All controversies concerning the private right of soil, claimed under different grants of two or more states, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the states which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants, or either of them, being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall, on the petition of either party to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined.”
“For the more convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed, in such manner as the legislature of each state shall direct, to meet in Congress, on the first Monday in November of every year, with a power reserved to each state to recal its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year. ”
Perhaps, as a reformer in England, Abbé de Mably would fight only half of our political battles. We should perceive him spiritedly contending for an equality of representation, but, dropping the point of his argument, were the necessity for the introduction of annual parliaments the case in question. Yet, his own words, at the commencement of the book † might be wrested into a different implication: “Representatives . . . . . . will stand in awe of the public opinion; and, perpetually, recollect that they must become accountable for their proceedings to their constituents. Even their mistakes will prove, at worst, a transient evil, because their election is but annual. ” Again: “ Your magistracy is but annual, and cannot, consequently, prove dargerous to the cause of freedom. ” K.
See pages 19, 20.