CHAPTER I.

WHEN the rulers of a free people presume to overleap the bounds of law; when they im­pose upon the credulity of honest men who have not, some, the capacity, others, the means, of information; when every stratagem of knavery and cunning is spread to ensnare the weal of simple innocence; when the gorgeous fabrick of civil and religious liberty, which has been reared upon the bones, cemented with the blood of patriots, is tottering to its fall, his must be sure a cold or coward heart, which swells not as with aspick's tongues. Let rogues and sycophants indulge themselves in the unhallowed rites of base idolatry, worshipping the mimic godhead greatness which they have fashioned; but let the hardy, true republican raise up a warning voice to the misguided multitude, that they defile them­selves [Page 2]no more with vile pollutions. For me, I shall not hesitate to develope principles however veiled beneath the mask of power: and for the unblushing tribe of upstart courtiers, whether swollen with the poison of ambition, or basely ducking to the lordly brow, I hold their anger as my sport: I execrate the wretch who treads upon the helpless neck of innocence, I scorn the worm that crawls beneath his feet: and, while they cower to the scourge of satire, let them re­joce, since they commute for this the tree of infamy they have deserved.

The British faction in America having thrown the republic into a state of civil animosity and disunion at home, and peril from the hostility of long established friendship abroad, and the treaty of amity and commerce with Great Britain be­ing the pestilent source of these disorders, it is a natural suggestion that we should attempt to rid ourselves of this detested box of evils, returning it with loathing to the Pandora of this latter age.

Assuming it as a datum that the treaty is a de­testable instrument, nor shall I strive to illumin­ate a sun-beam, let us proceed to the examination of such principles as may present themselves, and which would authorize a republican congress to spurn this instrument in the dust.

By the constitution, the congress is vested with the power of regulating commerce: by this pow­er they have an opportunity of interrupting our intercourse with Britain, and springing a mine under the very basis of the treaty; thereby ren­dering us respectable to the British monarchy, [Page 3]and once more dear to the French republick. That it is just to contravene the treaty I shall first endeavour to establish; afterwards that it is expedient: and in speaking of the expediency of the measure, I shall make some necessary remarks upon the late measures of the government of France.

First of the justice of the proposed measure: and in the course of this discussion I shall, as much as may be, adhere to the authority of a writer, to whom the ministry have, in their reasonings, constantly discovered a decided preference.

But before we resort to any other authority, let us appeal to that of the constitution itself, no militation with which, it is apprehended, will be adventured even by those hardy champions who have set at nought the proudest bulwarks of truth, and have made incursions upon the con­fines of common sense itself.

I shall say nothing of those infractions of the constitution, which were made by the adoption of the treaty, as the law of the land, without the consent of the house or representatives. Of this kind were, first, the assumed powers of re­gulating commerce; second, of establishing a rule of naturalization; third, of making all laws necessary for carrying into execution any powers vested by the constitution in the general govern­ment. Of this kind too is the assumed power of granting appropriations of money which more­over makes room for the power to establish new federal courts to be paid by congress. All these points have been ably discussed elsewhere.

[Page 4] But even in the preamble itself to this illegal instrument, it is asserted, that the senate had ad­vised and consented to the appointment of Mr. Jay to the negotiation of the same. This pre­vious measure, which was never taken, was in­deed directed by the constitution; an Mr. Jay's acting without it, was not only and infraction thereof, but such a one as Britain, had she not so much reason to be pleased with the treaty, would not have hesitated at pleasure to have made her plea for a violation of the compact.

Congress have powers to define and punish pi­racies, but not by any other mean than what is prescribed by the constitution; namely, a trial by jury. But by the 21st article of the treaty, the British are allowed to punish an American ci­tizen for piracy, in any mode they shall think proper. Of the woful influence which this ar­ticle has had upon the politicks of the French we shall speak hereafter.

Moreover congress are not in possession of any powers not expressly granted by the constitution; they had therefore no right to prohibit a citizen from expatriating himself at pleasure; they might indeed refuse to readmit him as a citizen when so expatriated; but to detain him against his will, or punish him for the freedom of his actions abroad, was a species of tyranny not ex­ceeded by the usurped domination of an Eastern despot: It was nothing less than to cut him off from the last resort of an indignant hero, who should exclaim with Sidney,

[Page 5]Besides it is expressly declared (in the 7th article of the amendment to the constitution) that no person shall beheld to answer for a capital or other­wise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment by a grand jury, except in cases ari­sing in the land or naval forces, or in the mili­tia, while in actual service, in time of war or pub­lic danger; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due course of law. Now a man who has expatriated himself, and conse­quently is no longer a citizen of the country he chooses to abandon forever, is not only unjustly deprived of his liberty in the first instance, but of his life if he attempt to regain his liberty (that is to indulge his will by entering into a fo­reign service) and all this too without the due course of law.

It has been denied (and I have not seen it pro­ved) that congress has a legal right to alienate its powers. Congress we know is vested with the power of regulating trade, and may there­fore co-operate with the executive in the fabri­cation of a treaty. But because this may be done in instances which particularly affect the interests of the nation, and to the extent that the negotiation of treaties usually demands, does it follow, that it is consistent with the con­stitution, in those momentous instances which touch the very vitals of the government? Does it follow, that because one congress, by virtue of its authority in regulating trade, has passed laws for the purpose of creating a treaty, ano­ther congress, under circumstances of imperious [Page 6]necessity too, shall not, by virtue of the same authority to regulate trade, now devolved upon them, be at liberty to repeal these pernicious acts? A writer, above alluded to, cites some expres­sions of Mr. Maddison (used, I believe, in the convention of Virginia, for the purpose of re­conciling the audience to the treaty making pow­er). They are to this effect: That the treaty making power was never intended to warrant any part of the legislature in an act for dismem­bering any part of the empire, or alienating any essential right; and that the whole legislative au­thority possess not this power. The exercise of the power (says he) must be consistent with the object of the delegation.—Now one object of the delegation of the treaty making power, was the improvement of commerce; but it certainly never was designed that commerce should be erected upon the ruins of legislation, much less that partial commercial advantages should be purchased at so dear a rate.

Vattel says (and we should have known it had he not said it) that whenever a minister ex­ceeds the instructions of his sovereign, a treaty is void. He says, moreover, if I mistake not, that the violation of a single important article of a treaty abrogates the whole.

Now the sovereign of a free government is the people; and the instructions of this sove­reign are contained in the constitution they have caused to be composed: but we have seen above, that these instructions have been exceeded in several important particulars; and had they [Page 7]been exceeded only in the solitary instance, in which Mr. Jay has made a treaty without the previous advice of the senate; it is evident, that this delusive preamble, itself, would have been sufficient to annihilate every article of the treaty which accompanies it, although each had been modelled as correctly, and as scrupulously, by the dictates of the constitution, as they are in many instances most impudently forged in evident defiance and contempt of its authority.

CHAPTER II.

SUCH reasonings, as the foregoing, it is ap­prehended are sufficient, and even super­fluous, to the purpose of convincing the ene­mies of the British treaty, that it is unwarrant­ed by the constitution: and we have long since experienced, that the friends of British politicks are impracticable to all the arguments of a re­publican. To such men it would be vain to urge, that in the construction of an article of the constitution, when an ambiguity occurs, that meaning should prevail, which is most fa­vorable to the interests of a republican govern­ment. But were we even to admit the consti­tutionality of the instrument, principles could still be found, which would militate as power­fully against its claim to our esteem.

It is declared by the mischievous fabricators of the treaty, which we have entered into with our enemies, against the interests of our aban­doned [Page 8]friends, that America had it not in her choice, at that time, by any other means, to ob­viate a war with Britain. This treaty then, with our brother and good ally, king George the IIId, who had already cut the throats of an hundred thousand of our fathers and brothers, this treaty of true and sincere friendship was made, we see, under the muzzles of his guns, and at the points of his bayonets. Whether an instrument so executed, be binding or not upon the weaker party, is a question by no means wor­thy a consideration to men who love a sceptred ruffian; but it surely will not fail to give some pause to those, who love much more the freedom, the happiness, and the innocence of their coun­try.

Vattel (p. 180, large octavo) expresses him­self thus, "Though the simple injury, or some disadvantage in a treaty, is not sufficient to ren­der it invalid, the case is not the same with those inconveniences which lead to the ruin of a state. Since every treaty ought to be made with a suf­ficient power, a treaty pernicious to the state is null, and not at all obligatory; no conductor of the nation having the power to enter into en­gagements to do such things as are capable of de­stroying the state, for the safety of which the empire is entrusted to him. The nation itself being necessarily obliged to perform every thing required for its preservation and safety, it can­not enter into engagements contrary to its in­dispensible obligations. In the year 1506, the states general of the kingdom of France, assem­bled [Page 9]at Tours, engaged Lewis XI to break the treaty he had concluded with the emperor Max­imilian, and the archduke Philip, his son; be­cause that treaty was pernicious to the kingdom. They also found, that neither the treaty, nor the oath that had accompanied it, could oblige the king to alienate the dominions of the crown."

Now if a treaty, which has for its object the impoverishment of a country, by the imposition of the hardest conditions; if a treaty (entered into by a monarchy with a republick) which evidently tends by the unqualified, unalterable intercourse established thereby, to the utter ex­tirpation of republican principles, if a treaty of monopoly and foreign influence may be said to lead to the ruin of such a government, the prin­ciples laid down by Vattel give ample warrant to a rejection of the British treaty; nor will any zealous commonwealth's man, any man whose blood has chilled with horror at the mar­tyrdom of Sydney, or boiled with indignation at the intemperate claims of a Stuart, or Bruns­wick, one moment hesitate to pronounce that deed a cursed compact for his country's down­fal. I will even venture to ask any sensible and candid man, how great soever his zeal in British politicks, whether he seriously believes the king and parliament of England would not tear into a thousand pieces any instrument, signed under the pressure of the occasion, if they saw each article operating to their injury; and whether they would even give the question but a second thought, when they had foreseen this instrument would probably introduce into their dominions, the [Page 10]principles of republican government. Let those who know the object of the present bloody and expensive war with the French republick, deny this doctrine if they can.

How entirely different from the maxims of British policy, are the principles laid down by Vattel, in the business of constructing treaties. After speaking of the propriety of preserving a reciprocity of advantage in such contracts, he adds, "I see those pretended great politicians smile, who place all their subtilty in circumven­ting those with whom they treat; and regula­ting the conditions of the treaty in such a man­ner, that all the advantage shall accrue to their masters. Far from blushing at a conduct so con­trary to equity, to rectitude, and natural honor, they make it their glory, and pretend to merit the name of great negociators. How do men in a public character glory in what would disho­nor an individual? The private man, if he is without conscience, also laughs at the rules of morality and justice; but he laughs in secret; it would be dangerous and prejudicial to him, publickly to make a mock of them. The pow­erful abandon more openly the honest for the useful. But it frequently happens, for the hap­piness of the human race, that this pretended utility becomes fatal to them, and even among sovereigns candour and rectitude are found to be their safest politicks. All the subtilties, all the shufflings of a famous minister, on occasion of a very interesting treaty with respect to Spain, turned at length to his confusion, and the da­mage of his master; while the good faith, the generosity of England, towards her allies, pro­cured [Page 11]her an immense credit, and raised her to the highest point of influence and respect."

The compliment to Britain, which closes this passage, we know, by bitter experience, how long she has ceased to deserve; and against it the reason of every American republican must revolt, whether he reflects on the hellish conspiracy a­gainst the precious rights of human nature, which was formed by the combined powers, or whether he looks back upon a few of the latter pages of English history, and contemplates there atrocities against his countrymen, compared to which, the crimes of Roberspierre himself would turn to whiteness. It is evident, indeed, from the boasts of Mr. Pitt himself in parliament, that he piqued himself upon his insidious artifices, and that instead of relaxing the oppressive bonds, which bind our hands, it was his design to slight no opportunity to draw the stricture tighter.

CHAPTER III.

ONLY into existing treaties need we cast our eyes, to know how liberal and friendly were the wishes and designs of that nation, against which the tools and incendiaries of British poli­cy in America, are endeavouring, with unex­ampled acrimony and industry, to kindle our resentment. The following are the words of the second article of the treaty of alliance even­tual and defensive with France:

"The essential and direct end of the present defensive alliance is to maintain effectually the liberty, sovereignty, and independence, absolute [Page 12]and unlimited of the said United States, as well in matters of government as of commerce."

The following is article the 9th:

"The contracting parties declare that, being resolved to fulfil, each on its own part, the clau­ses and conditions in the present treaty of alliance, according to its own powers and circumstances, there shall be no after claim of compensation, on one side or the other, whatever may be the event of the war.

"The most christian king renounces forever the possession of the island of Bermuda, as well as of any part of the continent of North-Ame­rica, which, before the treaty of Paris, in 1763, or in virtue of that treaty, were acknowledged to belong to the crown of Great Britain, or to the United States, heretofore called British co­lonies, or which are at this time, or have late­ly been under the power of Great-Britain."

Thus do we see that we were to lose nothing, and might gain immensely by the French alli­ance, the direct purpose thereof being the esta­blishment of the independence of America, while the manifest, unequivocal, systematick, design of the British treaty is its destruction. When, after all these instances of service, a French minister applied to your secretary at war for the loan of arms for their defence, what was his reply? that "the French government would not be supplied with so much as a single pistol." Would not the British government, un­der such circumstances, and in the insolence of monarchy have demanded instantly, that we should join their arms, that we should not car­ry grain into an enemy's port, but should bring [Page 13]it to their own? Nay, did she not do this at last, and will she not do it again, if ever another foolish and wicked hope is entertained that France can be starved? Does any man of honor say he doubts this? No not one. Whether we were right in giving no assistance to France shall not be discussed here; but at least let not this boasted neutrality of the treaty administration be applauded by us, because an enraged party in the British house of commons, wishing to exalt American policy at the expence of Mr. Pitt, thought proper to applaud it. Mr. Fox and Mr. Sheridan applauded what would serve their country: they deprecated a war with America. Did these gentlemen arraign the policy of the American government, when, in its infatuated and most mischievous devotion to Britain, an ig­nominious treaty was executed with that power, which prostrated at her feet the honor and in­terests of America, the interests of France, and put at hazard the future services of so firm a friend, with the evident peril of converting her, by this act, into a most virulent, as she would, of course, be a most powerful foe? Certainly they did not. By the neutrality Britain was to prosper, and they were pleased of course; but when they found we had meanly deserted the French, and thrown ourselves into the arms of Britain, they knew they would prosper more, and were therefore still better pleased.

But it may be said the French, whatever they have been, are no longer our friends, and that it has become our duty as patriots, and men of honor, to enter into a conflict with them. Let us look into this business and then we will return [Page 14]to the British, and the tendency of their treaty, and their politicks.

Three charges are brought against the French government: 1st, That it has plundered our trade. 2d, That it has refused to receive our minister. 3d, That it has resolved, in imita­tion of the British, to treat as a pirate, every American seaman that shall be found aboard of the enemy's ships.

For the first of these charges it has been false from first to last; the spoliations committed both in Europe and America never having, as we have any reason to believe, been authorized by the executive of France. This point, so far as relates to Europe, is proved by Cossin's letter to the directory, demanding permission for the French merchants to cruise against the Ame­rican trade. What at last has the directory done to embarrass your commerce? They have allowed their armed vessels to bring in neutral ships suspected of containing enemy's property, and have ordered, that as soon as the condemned property is disembarked, the vessel shall be al­lowed to depart with full compensation for freight and detention. This, I apprehend, is the ge­neral state of the business, encumbered, no doubt, with some inconvenient regulations. Compare this with the plunder of the British, and it will appear but as the teazing of a fly, compared with the ravening of a tiger.

The second charge which is to reconcile us to a war with men who so long continued to love us, is, that, because they thought we loved them no more, they said to our minister, "Depart; you are not our friend, you give us no substan­tial [Page 15]proofs of affection; you give us words in­deed, but words are air; you wish to give us more words, but our enemies you uphold with deeds; nay us you have agreed to starve." This charge is frivolous: it is disgusting to unravel the woof of passion; to break a spider's web is not the task of manhood.

We come now to the most weighty, the most momentous charge of all; the directory have ordered your seamen, taken in arms against them, while the two nations are at peace, to be treated as pirates. In this what do they but imitate the example of the British, authorized by yourselves in a treaty, which, intimidated, as it is confessed on all hands, by the influence of the British na­tion, in an evil hour, your rulers debased them­selves by forming. After all then, what is the purpose of the French government in the adop­tion of the very worst of the measures we com­plain of? Self-defence; the very purpose for which it is declared we took those previous steps which led to these.

Let us but retrace the ground we have trod­den, and the French will do the same, and we shall both regain the post we have lost—the post of amity and peace.

Be it however admitted for a moment, that the French have been to blame; yet let not the censure fall upon the nation, but upon the di­rectory, the political agents of the nation. Every people, be the form of its governments what it may, must, on some occasions, experience the evils of an intemperate, or an unwise, ad­ministration. The pride or weakness of the treaty administration brought this country into [Page 16]those embarassments, which so puzzle the will in the election of the lesser evil. To quarrel with a nation on account of its ruling adminis­tration (unless the form of the government al­lows no change to the aggrieved citizens) is to encourage one bad administration to provoke another for insidious purposes, which very thing (supposing that of the French had been a bad one) would appear to have been done in several late American transactions; more especially in the late laboured mischief of Mr. Secretary Pickering. If the rulers have been faulty, let it not be said as of old, ‘Dum delirant reges plectunter achivi.’ But even supposing the nation of France itself to be opposed to us, even this is not a sufficient warrant to the cool, deliberate judgment for us to become their enemies who have been so long their friends, or (which to the heart of grati­tude is more) we to whom they have so long been friends. First, without more information than falls to the share of the million, the French people might easily fall into the error of believ­ing the American people were their enemies, since our government has given the fullest testi­mony of a rooted hate. Secondly, in publick, as in private, friendship, he is most a hero who forbears the most. Between long established friends, as Americans and Frenchmen, forbear­ance leads to reconciliation; between long esta­blished foes, as Americans and Britons, forbear­ance leads to arrogance in one, to meanness in the other. Which is best, to yield something to a long tried friend, or be the shallow dupe of an inveterate national enemy, and her vile or wicked [Page 17]agents, and adherents, in the very heart of your government.

But after all what is it the French desire that you should do? To abandon certain articles of a treaty, which has been made in despight of the mandates of your constitution, and which there­fore it ought to be your most ardent wish, and unalterable purpose, immediately to abandon in toto. Will it be said that we should hesitate to take this step, lest we should incur the imputa­tion of timidity? If we have not already incur­red this imputation, by a most ignoble submission in the adoption of the British treaty, are we likely now to do so by a reasonable and honora­ble compromise with disgusted friends? In pri­vate life does a man of honor hesitate to ac­knowledge an offence, if he has offended? or to repair an injury if he has injured? And does he not these things with the greater readiness, in proportion to the establishment of his reputation? Do Americans feel themselves suspected? Will not the character of their valour afford an apo­logy? Will not their achievements in the revo­lution war, bear them out of a dispute without a battle? Is it not evident, that by the confes­sion of error, we shall most effectually assert our national honor? Let the treaty be abandoned, as it ought, upon the principle of national in­terest; let the measure be declared necessary to the legal administration of the government, and the independence of the republick; then it sure­ly will be no objection to this act that it will be agreeable to the French. Rid yourselves of your thraldom, not because the French wish it, but because it becomes you as men of spirit. Would [Page 18]you do a wrong thing, merely because the French have hoped you would do a right one? Had we acted rightly in the first instance, we should not have been called to do so now. Nay, if after the rejection of one minister, the recep­tion of another should become a question, even this would be no objection to the abandonment of the treaty. If violations of the constitution are tolerated in cases which militate against the publick weal, how familiar will the violations become in cases which present some partial good? And how soon shall we have no constitution at all? It has been matter of curiosity to see in governments, where liberty has been yielded up in despair, how insurrections have taken place from the most trifling impositions; as when a king of Spain attempted to regulate the dress of his sub­jects; or a king of France, or England, to de­prive the citizens of a publick walk: yet even in those states, which are eminently free, the ga­ping multitude can gaze with silent inactivity, when designs, which cannot be mistaken, against their most precious rights, are in daily progress and maturation. Philip would have met with more prompt and formidable opposition from the people of Athens, had he threatened to suppress their favorite spectacles, than he did when he advanced to subvert the republick.

CHAPTER IV.

BUT the truth is, that we are now brought into a position in which we can no longer temporize, but must take up some part, either [Page 19]much more abject than any played even in the treaty drama, or much more manly and decisive than the wretched actors in those wretched scenes, ever hoped to see us execute. We must, forthwith, accommodate ourselves to one of three things: 1st, To see our seamen pressed by the English government, and then hanged by the French: or 2dly, we must fight the nation of France: or 3dly, we must abandon the British treaty. By this last measure, I apprehend, we shall be in no danger of being oppressed by, or fighting, either.

Now after all that has been said, about the hu­miliation of being under the influence of French politicks, in any degree, even the smallest, (for we have seen that very little has been attempted, and that in their own defence, and to no de­triment of ours,) let me ask, is there any weak nation, that is not, in some measure, under the guidance of its stronger neighbour? There seems scarcely an instance to the contrary, but in the little republick of St. Marino, which is perched like an eagle's nest amidst the clouds. And indeed it is remarkable, that as the French are anxious, in all instances, to propagate the principles of republican government, or in other words, as will be believed by all but the British faction among us, the principles of permanent freedom, so in the instance even of the unim­portant establishment we speak of, they did not disdain to pause, amidst their great career, to speak their kindness. But let me ask; does not your treaty with Great Britain, now rule your politicks with a rod of iron? France wishes you to consult her views, in one instance, wherein [Page 20]it is your evident interest and glory to comply; England, that you should truckle to her will, in every instance, which now, or ever may exist: yet you are indignant at the attempt of a nation so long your friend, to break those bonds. No man deprecates, more fervently than I, the prevalence of foreign influence; yet, where a certain portion is inevitably to be sustained, surely that is to be preferred, which, from the habitual attachments, and character of the go­vernment, may be expected to act with superior mildness. France, we see, is powerful, and loves republican governments; while England, if she is powerful, is also inimical to republicks; and should she be a republick tomorrow, and prior claims of the French upon our services stood not in the way, most willingly ought we to forget all the animosities which prevail under the monarchy, and join our friendly hands. As to the point of accommodation with a superior nation, it ought to be remembered, that not­withstanding the distance of our country from the republick of France, the condition of the peasantry of the southern states, renders one half of the union extremely feeble, and this weak­ness is encreased by the complexion of French politicks in this particular. Were every man in America a freeman, we might encounter France with some prospect of success; but where a con­flict is evidently hopeless, it is not fear, but rea­son, which should decline it; it is not valour, but madness, which should attempt it. The British navy, if it remains (and whether it will long survive the palsy of the bank of England may very well be questioned) may injure us in [Page 21]the spoil of such property as we may choose to venture on the seas, (for the meanest tool of Britain thinks her not capable of a second terrene war;) but the potency of myriads of heroes, flushed with unexampled victories, who shall attempt to calculate. Does not every man of sense see too, that, since their late successes a­gainst the emperor and the Italian states, the French shortly "must sheath their swords for lack of argument;" then, should the directory be covetous of glory, as their enemies assert, where can they wave their banners with greater gain of territory than on the western shores of the Atlantic; and while they are disbanding one half of their army in the East, who shall declare, that if we become their enemies, they will not, with the other half, attempt to plant another empire in the west? In such a case who doubts that they would delight in an opportunity of crippling the trade of Britain in America, upon the same principles of self-preservation which carried them into the territory of Italy. Who then shall fight your battles? The western pea­santry are out of the attraction of British policy, and love the French. While such are the pur­suits of the French, be it also our part, in like manner, to adopt the principles of self-preserva­tion, founded too, as they surely are, upon the principles of national honor and dignity. The British, we see manifestly, cannot subdue the French; but what if the French subdue the Bri­tish, the preciousally of the treaty administration? What, under such circumstances of imbecility, as above described, will be the situation of the southern states, more especially, sunk as they [Page 22]will be by the combined oppressions of disap­pointment, ingratitude, and despair? Let the French land when they will in the southern states, whether before or after the conquest of England, whether before or after the attainment of the Floridas, at that ill-fated hour those states will be dismembered from those of the north, and east, and west. Then will the northern states, if not likewise subdued by the French, sink, without hope of resurrection, into the deep abyss of British politicks; for the influence of it is baleful and universal as its reach; like the dog­star, it falls with indiscriminate rage upon every nation in all the regions of the habitable globe, and upon every tribe. But of this more here­after.

CHAPTER V.

IF, as has been urged, the British treaty is un­constitutional, (and this is a point not con­tested, that I know of, even by its patrons) and if it is at variance with the laws of nations, it will surely not be objected to the abandonment thereof, that our national faith will be violated. On the contrary, this happy consequence will result from the measure; it will put intriguing nations upon their guard, in future, that they make no compact with flagitious rulers in Ame­rica, when her laws do not uphold their acts. And what, let me ask, shall we abandon in the treaty? The greatest curse (formed by a com­plication of curses,) that ever visited an incau­tious, oppressed, dishonored nation. It is not [Page 23]misfortune, but ruin; nay it is worse, it is an­nihilation. The treaty is not one of many evils which like congregating streams fill up a mighty torrent to burst upon its hapless neighbours; it is an earthquake, which with wide and wasteful bane, yawns to engorge the nation. Why did we surrender our birthright to those haughty lordlings, even while their kingdom was totter­ing to its fall? Nor did we gain a mess of pot­tage in return. Instead of drawing tighter the bonds of union, we should have rent asunder the ignominious mischief, like Sampson in his strength, and not have suffered this British trea­ty to enslave our limbs. By acts of alienation, and not by ties of friendship, have we four times been rescued from the grasp of Britain: in two instances by the non-importation agreements which followed the stamp and tea acts; in two others by the declaration of independence, and the treaty of alliance with France; which two instruments established our empire. Have we not formed a league with our implacable foe, as monstrous as between a tyger and a lamb? for the character of monarchy, of Britain above all monarchies, is bloody and ravening; the character of representative government is peace­ful and unoffending. The laws of nations, themselves, even when a legal treaty is formed, between a monarchy and a republick, give the former immense advantages over the latter. Vattel makes a distinction between a personal and a real alliance; the former, he says, "ex­pires with him who contracted it;" the latter "is affixed to the body of the state, and sub­sists as long as the state; if the time of its du­ration [Page 24]is not limitted. He then subjoins, "eve­ry alliance made by a republick is in its own na­ture real, for it relates only to the body of the state. When a free people, a popular state, or an aristocratical republick, concludes a treaty, it is the state itself that contracts; and its en­gagements do not depend on the lives of those who were only the instruments: the members of the people, or of the regency, change and suc­ceed each other; but the state is always the same." If then republicks always remain bound, while monarchies may, in some cases, be let off from their engagements, it is evident that such treaties should not, but in cases of inevitable necessity, to be entered into. The same writer adds, "when kings make treaties, and it is doubtful whether they be real or personal, they should be supposed to be only personal, if ex­tremely burdensome to one party." But burden­some as this treaty is to the people, though light as the gossamer to the administration which have given it birth, yet, because our government is a republick, we, had it been a legal act, must still have born the weight forever, though we should have groaned like Atlas beneath the world; whereas a treaty which had been found an encumbrance to Britain, might, in many in­stances, have been got rid of as a personal one, by her, by the death of a prince. In monar­chies too we find there is no publick faith but what is founded on convenience; we ought not to have made a treaty with the French monarchy, but that it seemed the only mean by which to hope for the establishment of our freedom. We have now, on the contrary, entered into a trea­ty [Page 25]which will make us slaves. The confidence which men of observation place in monarchs is so small, that the only reason why we could hope to avoid the evils of a par [...] treaty, between George the IIId and Lewis XVIth was, that Lewis must have known, that, in that event we should have chosen the master we were to obey, and that habit, the milder maxims of the Bri­tish government of that day, and indignation at such treachery, would have decided in favor of George. When, too, we have seen kings, and the ministers of kings, bowing their humbled heads beneath the laurels of Rome and Paris, and when nothing but the preservation of our principles is needful to the same ascension, shall we meanly seek relation to these the meanest, and most hate­ful of mankind, the foolish, and the wicked? What security have we from a government which has been faithless to its own citizens? A while the liberty, as well as the property, or an indi­vidual Englishman was left inviolate, to mask the assassins of the publick weal. The French re­volution, it was feared, would redeem the liber­ty and the property of the citizens, both publick and private; private liberty has therefore been invaded in the persons of some daring patriots; and the like will be the fate of private property, as soon as the exigencies of the state, and the fe­licities of opportunity, shall present themselves together. If thus they treat the citizens of their own immediate government, their friends and brethren, what shall we expect? We whom they view but as refractory subjects? Certainly that they will keep no terms with such. Do we not know that a flagrant violation of faith hap­pened [Page 26]after the capitulation of Charleston, when they said they would not fulfil compacts made with rebels? What though they since have ac­knowledged the independence of the govern­ment? That would assuredly but weigh with them as lightly as any other principle of honor or good faith: they would allege, that they made their compact through necessity: a necessity ari­sing out of their designs upon our liberty; and they would deride our claims accordingly. Who doubts the readiness of Spain to resume the long relinquished sovereignty of Holland? To what end are even the laws of nations resorted to by princes, when the laws of nature have been vi­olated? Is it not, as Satan quotes scripture for his purpose? Camillus, to obtain our favor for the treaty, points out some arrogant demands which Britain had forborn in consequence of the treaty. And will the treaty make this spoiler modest? It will as soon transmute Corinthian brass to gold, or die with virgin blushes the ghastly, pallid cheek of veteran guilt. The same writer tells us the treaty was made to secure us from a war. Great care might have been expected to be taken in this treaty to secure us from a war, when the best se­curity from that grievous burden, and no incon­siderable fund for its support, were surrendered by the treaty; But who shall secure us from a war with perfidy? Can honor agree with infamy? Humanity with barbarism? Are not political e­normities even familiar to that government? Have we forgot already the dungeons and prison ships of the revolution? Cruelties committed where there was no retaliation, and (mean as atrocious!) be­cause there was no retaliation. If then it was [Page 27]likely we must have a war at last, and that we could only repose ourselves in peace and infamy, better had it been to have had this war at first: then should we not only have preserved those re­sources in wealth which are spoken of above, but we should also have preserved the attachment of our friends, and probably been included by their good offices in that peace which Britain is about to sue for at the feet of France. Whether such acts of friendship are still to be expected from them, should we require and deserve them, will not admit of doubt. How much better had it been to have braved the fury of this British lion, or this British shark? Would not the memory of former miscarriages have checked the ravings even of British arrogance? Surely no nation, baffled and confounded as Britain has been in her attempts to crush the germs of liberty, both in America and France, had ever better reason, in­stead of expecting an advantageous treaty from America, to dread her smiting hand, and to ex­claim with the vanquished Trojan: ‘Non aea vis animo, nec tanta superbia victis.’ Yet this must be her language still.

CHAPTER VI.

IN some of the foregoing reasonings, we have enquired, whether it would be honorable, and (if we wish to preserve the purity of re­publican principles) whether it would be pru­dent to quarrel with an old friend, against whom we feel a sudden disgust, and to connect our­selves with a long established foe. We did not [Page 28]then enter into the question, whether this foe could, or could not afford us the support which we once received from the friend we have lately lost.

In familiar discourse, when we are disposed to mark an immense disproportion between two objects, we are apt to say there is no comparison between them. Upon this principle we will forbear to speak of the respective achievements of the two military nations, between whom it may become necessary that we should make an election, for the purpose of a defensive alliance.

Within twenty years the British government has twice been engaged in war; and the unques­tionable object of either contest, has been the extinguishment of republicanism, and the fall of liberty. In these unhallowed attempts Britain has expended two hundred millions sterling; and her national bank has at last stopped payment; a calamity, which, until it was felt, was depreca­ted as the surest source of universal ruin. The two modes, by which the expences of the pub­lic business of Britain are defrayed, are these: Taxation and loans; but taxes are paid in bank notes, and so is the interest of loans. Now if the value of bank notes is lost, what will be the value of taxes? and who will lend money to government?

But as some doubt may be entertained, whe­ther, notwithstanding an occasional stoppage of payment, the bank may not yet be in a flourish­ing condition, let us advert to some late trans­actions of the British government, relative to the business we now speak of.

[Page 29] By an order of council, absolute and uncon­stitutional, advocated by the plea of sad neces­sity, the bank of England is suddenly forbidden to issue specie. What is the immediate conse­quence? The credit of the bank is impaired, the notes depreciate. Do the directors of the bank hereupon remonstrate with the council, and demand permission to change their notes as usual, that they may restore their credit? No: they do no more than tell the people, in ge­neral terms, that the bank remains in a state of prosperity. Do the people believe the tale? Ignorance itself, made drunk, would not believe it.

What scene of this inimitable farce comes next? The minister proposes, that a committee of the house of commons be appointed to exa­mine into the causes of the late measure of coun­cil, and to ascertain the stability of public credit. Well; this committee are to return into the house of commons, and, that the minds of men may be set at rest about the public credit, the committee are to report what they have seen at the bank; are they not? Nothing like it, good citizen of England; the minister tells you, you are satisfied already; and does not he know best? Do but hear his words: "When this commit­tee was appointed, it would be evident that it was not for the purpose of ascertaining, what indeed had already been ascertained by publick opinion, the solidity of the bank of England; but to confirm that impression by the most in­disputable evidence." Would not any one sup­pose, that this man was, to the very last hour, picking the pockets of the publick, and, at the [Page 30]same time, like the man who promised to jump into a quart bottle, meditating his escape with the plunder? This new principle of confirming, by new evidence, what was not before believed, is perhaps the strangest that has ever been adopt­ed, even by the brazen hardihood of a British minister; and it well may be so, for the occa­sion itself is without an example. But who are these disciples of Mr. Pitt, who are thus to give more faith to unbelievers? They are, in the first instance, the creatures of his hand; next, they are a committee of secrecy; and even they themselves, "may not go into the more minute and delicate branches of the company's transac­tions, provided they certify the grounds of the necessity, which justified the late measure." This, I think, is looking up the bible, and in­viting good christians to believe. Besides, let us suppose the committee "shall certify the grounds of the necessity which justified the late measure," Does this establish the truth of the so­lidity of the bank? The best ground for stop­ping the emission of specie, I apprehend, is the want of it.

After these notable transactions, we may sup­pose the curtain will drop upon the catastrophe of this tragi-comedy, and there remain, perhaps, till it shall rise again upon a tragedy, wherein not one scene of comedy will be introduced.

An attempt has been made to hoodwink reason, by comparing former calamities to that which embarrasses the English bank at the present crisis. The run on the bank at the time of the Scotch invasion was a case entirely distinguished from the present: payment was then made, though [Page 31]slowly; besides, as the cause was sudden and of short duration, so also was the effect. But the causes of the present mischief are the the im­mense expenditures of specie abroad, and per­haps the consequent alarm of the monied men, who chose to secure in time what cash they might collect. By what means the travelling guineas will return to England we know not, unless the French shall bring them to support their armies; and we are then to learn how their dismayed foe is to support his own. As to the hidden treasure which has sunk into the caskets of the subject, the man who sent it there is not likely to conjure it up again. As to the plan talked of to restore credit by a mortgage of real property, both rea­son and passion will revolt at the idea: monied men have been supported by the despotism of the British government, and they have given their support in turn, till they are like to sink beneath its weight: warned by this example, and safe in their safe possession, the men who hold the soil will not put it to hazard to soothe a tyrant's breast; but start up in their now unrivalled strength, and brave the sceptre.

Another instance of the stoppage of the bank, which took place in the time of William III. is as little in point. There was, at that time, no immense emission of bills to answer the pur­poses of guineas; a fair acknowledgment of the present government, that there is no intention to issue any considerable number of guineas: besides, the termination of a war put a period to the pa­nick of avarice.

The natural consequence of a bank's stopping payment is one of these; if it remain shut, [Page 32]notes will depreciate, we know not to what degree. If specie be again sent out, demands, of course, are made much greater than those which helped to cause the suspension of its circulation.

It may perhaps be urged, that a peace may turn the resources of Britain into a lucrative channel, and fill the bank once more. But does any man of observation believe, that the French will make such a peace, as will leave the British marine in a state to preserve entire the influence of their military and commercial power? Such a peace as will keep in after check, perhaps in annihilation, the navy and the trade of France?

If it be urged, that the business of a nation has before this time been sustained in its opera­tions by a paper currency, let it be remembered, that the money of the American revolution (which by the way did not depreciate, it is said, for the first year, while bank notes have depre­ciated the first day of their emission,) was sent forth by degrees, and was employed to defend us against a distant foe, who fought at a very unequal expence; and it would not at last have established our empire without the aid of France: for it had perished before the fall of Yorktown under the arms of the allies; which event put a period to the contest with Britain. The French assignats depreciated also with great ra­pidity, and the government was obliged to have recourse to their immense resources of eighty millions of specie. Besides, the battles of France have been chiefly carried into the territories of their enemies; an advantage well known to mi­litary men. But the British have issued, in ad­dition to their former enormous emissions, four­teen [Page 33]millions, with no resources of treasure, that we know of, in reserve. This paper me­dium is, perhaps intended to carry on a naval war, which yields no commercial spoil to an enemy, with a power, which only a tempest could frustrate in his design to cast the crown of Ireland beneath the peoples feet; a power, which will shortly set his foot upon the British throne, and spurn it to the dust.

"But (say the advocates of the British fac­tion) we admit the probability of the dissolu­tion of the bank; many thousands will be ruined, yet will England rise up in her strength, unen­cumbered by her weight of debt." This case is similar to the old case of Antaeus, who was the son of the earth, from which he received new vigor at every fall; 'till Hercules, impatient at the contest, upraised him in the air, and scat­tered his brains in the winds. The fate of Eng­land may not, perhaps, be more auspicious. If any reasonings may be called fanciful, they surely are such as these. When a convulsion shall have terminated, shall a physician promise health to the weary patient? But England's resurrection, if ever she shall rise again from the ruins of the bank, must be in the form of a republick. The monied men, who shall tumble with the monar­chy, will favor those plans of economy which suit the state of an empoverished man: the whole mass of the needy million will do the same. The dissenters will associate themselves with ar­dor, with those men who will extinguish their disabilities, and give them power, wealth, civil and religious freedom. If then, this republick is to be a liberal one, we have nothing thence [Page 34]to dread, if we shall have acted upon the prin­ciples of republicans: if it shall not be liberal, we must have reason to repent the connexion we have formed with the existing monarchy. Besides, if the present system is not doomed to stand, the English administration must make their new arrangements under the eye of France; must manoeuvre in the presence of an enemy, who will take advantage of her confusion, and has long sought so precious an occasion to crush that power, which bound his hands so long. Away then forever with these English ministers! these men in iron masks, whom no one but their keeper knows, and knows them for their mis­chiefs. For the mean nodding trifler, who dreams of British faith and power, let him still slumber in his paradise of fools, 'till with a fu­ry's scourge the parricide shall wake to anguish.

CHAPTER VII.

IT is a matter of notoriety, that the clamours of the commercial citizens of America, more especially those of Philadelphia, had no inconsiderable weight in the origination of the treaty. The appropriations for carrying it into effect had been negatived in a committee of the federal house of representatives by a majority of twenty, and in a few days after, without any change of circumstances, but the increased im­patience of those citizens, the appropriations were granted in the house itself. It is very na­tural for trading men to wish for a connexion with a power, which they fancy to be capable [Page 35]of protecting them in their commercial relations, and of offering to their election the great and va­ried objects of commerce. But let not the true in­terests of America be made a sacrifice to party; nor let liberty be given in barter for the unex­hausted, or inexhaustible mines, of the south. Too long did the late abject and wicked admini­stration rest their feeble system upon the crutch of avarice; but let the indignant yeoman kick down at length the faithless prop, and plant the tree of liberty where it stood. In the com­mencement of our revolution war, the cities of London and Bristol recommended to the British parliament, that the most vigorous measures should be pursued, and they would give them the fullest support. In a year or two after, when they discovered that England had not the character of omnipotence, and that their com­merce was interrupted and desolated by the war, they presented their second petitions, praying for an immediate peace. In like manner the commercial faction in America, deprecated at first, nothing so much as a war with Britain, but if the credit of the bank of England shall run its mortal course, it is to be expected that these gentlemen, as eagerly as the most stern republi­can, will demand the termination of our British connexions.

From this so coveted commerce with Great Britain, has sprung the arch terror, the British treaty; and this monster shall be the mother of others, as multitudinous as the vipers of A­frica. But when we shall feel these reptiles' sting, where shall we seek the remedy? Will Britain minister it? Britain will minister nou­rishment [Page 36]to the serpent. Kill then the present monster 'ere she breed. Cut off, or reduce that pernicious intimacy which gluts the pride of Bri­tain, while it breaks the spirit, while it cor­rupts the morals of America. Can any inter­course be more unnatural, than that which en­riches a foe, provokes a friend, and drains from us the means of resisting the attacks of either?

This brings us to the discussion of a subject, which seems hitherto to have occupied much too small a share of the concern and attention of the publick. It is well known that the fop­peries of Europe, and of England in particular, are poured into the republican states of Ameri­ca, to an extent that has affected the principles and the manners of the people; to an extent which has excited the wonder, and the contempt of discerning foreigners. This influx of trans­atlantick commodities, co-operating with the funding system, has converted into misers the men of business; and the idle gentry into fasti­dious triflers. Break at once these bonds, which like a felon's chains disgrace our hands, and re­strain our actions! Promote the culture of those articles which are in demand in Europe; but bring not back returns which sink or unnerve the character. Promote, at home, the prosper­ity of those manufactures which render the country, in all sufficient measure, independent of the aid of others; and in exchange for pro­duce receive so much specie, as coming in sup­port of freedom, forms the best support of your independence.

We have just seen the British nation thrown into the utmost consternation, and threatened [Page 37]with present ruin, by the absence of those cus­tomary supplies of specie, which have been exhausted by a war. And does any man doubt that Britain, so long as the 14th and 15th arti­cles of the treaty remain, will perpetually inun­date us with good, first to enrich herself; se­condly to keep the balance of trade against us, or so little in our favor as to drain us of the cur­rent coin. Trade, in its present vast extent, is injurious in the extreme, more particularly as it is conducted with Britain; which perhaps has more the advantage of us, in the conveniencies arising from the balance of trade, than all the powers of Europe taken together: and were such duties laid upon the commodities of the whole, as would answer the purposes we speak of, the measure would probably be misunder­stood by the people, and be considered as an in­tollerable burden, and enormous grievance. By unrestrained commerce, we know that the great­est mass of wealth may be accumulated; but specie is the most useful wealth, next to the ne­cessaries of life, and is even requisite to the de­fence of those necessaries. Great manufacturing countries, with great resources in specie, have nevertheless rendered their manufactures extreme­ly beneficial to them, as the means of prevent­ing the exportation of specie in great foreign wars. A war has cost Great Britain several times the amount of its whole circulating specie; yet this money did not go out and return in large sums; the circulating specie, therefore, could not be the support of the war; but manufactures, and bills purchased therewith. (Adam Smith, b. 4, chap. 1.) What then would be our resources, [Page 38]not only in a foreign war, but a war of defence, since we have neither specie nor manufactures, and who, it is admitted, ought not, with such tracts of uncultivated land, to carry manufac­tures to a great extent, except in those instances wherein facilities are formed by machinery, which older states reject, to give employment to their population. The Spartans, it is true, de­fended themselves without the precious metals; but our plans of government and social habits are of characters utterly distinct from theirs, which we know were eminently rigid, self-deny­ing, and parsimonious. Since then circumstan­ces are not likely to change in the present, or perhaps in any other state of philosophical im­provement, let us at least not add to the evils of avarice the evils of paper money; more especi­ally because these last do, in a very observable manner, conduce to the propagation of the first. Besides the Spartans were sometimes reduced to the necessity of borrowing specie from monarchs, a measure greatly to be deprecated, for reasons which will be suggested by what has gone before.

There is a great error in supposing that wealth ought to be the first consideration in the plans of every government; and yet this error seems to prevail in a most pernicious degree. When wealth is the first consideration, liberty is not allowed to be the second; for wealth engrosses the whole man. Thus has fallen the democracy of England. So when different species of wealth present themselves to our election,—that which upholds the freedom of the government—and that which enriches and enfeebles it—let us not hesitate to prefer the first.

[Page 39] Adam Smith complains, that money only is apt to be considered as wealth. Whatever com­mercial arrangements have been made upon this principle, were undoubtedly wrong; for money, correctly speaking, is but the current represen­tative of wealth, and is of no use without it. But whatever was intended to encourage ex­portation, and restrain importation, so far as might be necessary to the admission of a circu­lating medium, in exchange for the products of the country, seems evidently to be right. The wealth which has been accumulated by the Bri­tish nation, under all the disadvantages of a ve­ry profligate, and most lavish government, shews sufficiently the wisdom of their commercial ar­rangements; the two principal of which Mr. Smith admits, have been encouragements to ex­portation, and restraints upon importation. Theories it is to be apprehended, unless self evi­dent, or enforced by reasonings of mathemati­cal certainty, ought ever to be rejected in favor of experience. Whatever mistakes Britain may have made about the relative value of specie, it is evident that her maxims and pursuits have at different times introduced immense treasures into her government. That these treasures re­main no more, is a disgrace which is not to be imputed to her commercial arrangements, but to two other causes, well worth the observa­tion of a younger state; the one is, the unpa­rallelled profusion of licentious rulers; the other, that paper system of finance, which our ministers have had the audacity to adopt, which has already sapped the basis of liberty, and will ever poison the streams of publick opulence: [Page 40]that system of wickedness and ruin, which no­thing but the use of specie can banish from our land. A rich country, without secure money, is in the same condition with a rich merchant, who has no monied capital; and even the pro­perty of the country, however great (as will shortly be proved in England) is no convenient subject of taxation.

Certain goods however, as those of India, though purchased with specie, might, agreeably to the reasonings of Adam Smith, set on foot a trade, which would conduce to the vigor of a government. The goods so purchased, being sold in a foreign-market, might have brought more than was given for them, and a surplus of cash might have returned to America. The British minister however, perhaps foreseeing this advantage, pursued the wonted policy of Britain, and poorly stipulated, in article 13, of the treaty, that all goods brought from British ports in India, should be landed in no place but America, after which there should be regula­tions adopted by both parties. Now should it even be agreed upon by Britain, that such ar­ticles shall be re-shipped, it is evident that the expence would be a great objection: so that the money which goes to India, is likely to remain there by virtue of the treaty.

In B. 4, Chap. 1. Smith asserts that "the quantity of every commodity, which human industry can either purchase or produce, natu­rally regulates itself in every country according to the effectual demand, or according to the de­mand of those who are willing to pay the whole [Page 41]rent, labour, and profit, which must be paid, in order to prepare and bring it to market."

Here he seems to overlook this circumstance; that a country may have occasion for a commo­dity, and yet not possess the means of effectual demand, and this too, not by reason of its na­tural want of means "to pay the whole rent, labour, and profit, which must be paid in order to prepare and bring it to market," but by rea­son of its resources being swallowed up by the purchase of other commodities. Upon the same principle he seems to be wrong, when he says (b. 4, chap. 1) "No complaint is more com­mon than that of a scarcity of money. Money, like wine, must always be scarce with those who have neither wherewithal to buy, nor credit to borrow it. Those who have either, will seldom be in want, either of the money, or of the wine they have occasion for." This, as well as what went before, he adduces to prove, that no care need be taken to provide a country with specie. Money, like wine, will not only be scarce with those who have neither wherewithal to buy, nor credit to borrow it; but it will also be scarce with those who direct the whole of their resour­ces into other channels. In some of the states of America, wine, and other articles of impor­tation, are abundant; because the produce of the soil is given in exchange for them: if, on the contrary, the produce of the soil were given for money only, wine and other imports must, of course, be as scarce as specie is at present.

Smith says, moreover, (b. 1, chap. 9, part 3) "Gold and silver, like other commodities, na­turally seek the market where the best price is [Page 42]given for them, and the best price is commonly given for every thing in the country which can best afford it."

But in South-Carolina, before the revolution, a great price was given for specie: 100 weight of rice for seven shillings; yet were not gold and silver very abundant. To what could this be owing, but the excess of the imports above the exports, and the productions of the country be­ing paid for, not in specie, but in the manufac­tures of Europe? A country may indeed grow richer, as has happened to America, though its imports every year exceed its exports. This year it may export £. 500,000, and import £. 550,000; the next year it may export £. 550,000, and import £. 600,000, it has therefore advanced £. 50,000 in its productions, and its capital has become greater in proportion to this advancement. This accession of wealth may happen either by the importation of labour­ers, the propagation thereof, or improvements in agriculture and manufactures, &c. at home. Yet, under these circumstances, may a country feel most sensibly the want of current coin.

Smith observes, that the trade of a nation ought not necessarily to be discouraged, merely because the balance is in its favor, it is only to be done in the aggregate. If by this it is meant, that the general average balance, all nations consi­dered, is to be retained in our favor, let it be repeated that Britain almost monopolizes the trade of America; consequently, care ought to be taken by us, to keep in our own hands the ba­lance of trade against that particular nation, [Page 43]which, as was said above, holds more of it than perhaps all other nations taken together.

As to the extent to which encouragement should be given to the importation of specie; and the prosperity of manufactures (both as the means of excluding those from abroad which prevent the influx of specie in peace, and as the means of rendering us independent of foreigners in time of war) if the principle were admitted, the regulations would follow of course.

This chapter shall be closed with this remark; that could a paper currency be ever so well se­cured, even in time of war (which is impossible) this evil will ever attend at in time of peace; the expensive plans of policy, to which it never fails to lead, accumulate a mountain of publick debt; and this debt paralyses government, and confirms abuses, by the dread which is excited in monied men, the nation's creditors, lest in­novation should shake the interests of the funds. This principle has supported the war against France; and prevented hitherto a reform in the parliamentary representation of Great Britain.

CHAPTER VIII.

IN the foregoing discussions, I have omitted much matter, which I originally intended to bring against the treaty with Britain. I feared to fatigue the attention with what I believed to be unnecessary, and indispose it to the consider­ation of topicks which I believed to be necessary in the extreme.

There are two main points, however, upon [Page 44]which some of the promoters of the treaty attempt to ground their defence, and I shall remark upon them in few words.

They say we first violated the treaty of peace; and that the British, in the act of taking away American property, during the war, did not violate it. The violations, on our part, were extremely unimportant in their consequences, and were evidently converted into a pretext for embarrassing us in a variety of particulars; a­mong the rest, in the detention of the western posts. It was well known that their predatory conduct upon the seas, was more than a balance for our imputed infractions. The real motive of the detention of the western posts, was the power of involving us in an Indian war; and this power the British employed, as they ever do their mischiefs, with most wicked speed. Yet do the British faction, in America, in con­formity to the rest of their principles, and pro­ceedings, presume to advocate the perfidy of carrying off American property. Let us exa­mine the article: "All hostilities, both by sea and land, shall from henceforth cease: all pri­soners, on both sides, shall be set at liberty; and his Britannick majesty shall, with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any negroes, or other property, of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons and fleets from the said United States, and from every port, place, or harbour, within the same." All hostilities between A­merica and Britain we see were to cease; if then, in future, any American property should be ta­ken, it would be a matter of course that it should [Page 45]be delivered up; what need then for any pro­vision that it should be done? and what the purpose of the stipulation for "causing no de­struction, and carrying away no negroes, or other property, of the American inhabitants?" Surely the purpose was to prevent the removal of what was actually in the hands of the British, and which we are told by Vattel, had become the property of the sovereign: What was not in their power could not be carried away, with­out a violation of the agreement, that "all ho­stilities should cease:" and in conformity to this additional stipulation, with regard to private property, we find a similar one relative to pub­lick property also. "It is agreed, that the British shall leave in all fortifications, the artil­lery that may be therein, and moreover they shall cause, or order, all archives, records, deeds, and papers, belonging to any of the said states, or their citizens, which, in the course of the war, may have fallen into the hands of the of­ficers, to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper states, and persons, to whom they belong—"If then the British violated the treaty, in this instance, it is evident, that, even supposing the interruption of the re­covery of British claims to have been an infrac­tion of the treaty, it was justifiable as an act of reprisal, and did not warrant the detention of the western posts, and other measures; attended as they were with advantages to the British so vast and disproportionate, and to us, with pro­portionate losses in men and money; sustained too in a cruel war with savages, fomented, as is now well known, by the merciless government of England.

[Page 46] Vattel (page 240) says, "When a case arises in which it would be too prejudicial to any one to take a law, or a promise, according to the rigour of the terms, a restrictive interpretation is also then used, and we except the case agreea­bly to the intention of the legislature, or of him who made the promise. For the legislature only requires what is just and equitable, and in the contract no one can engage, in favor of another, in such a manner as to be essentially wanting to himself. It is therefore to be presumed, that neither the legislature, nor the contracting pow­ers, have intended to extend their regulations to cases of this nature, and that they, themselves, would have excepted them, had these cases pre­sented themselves."

Now, in the two most important cases urged against us, as infractions of the treaty, namely the laws of Virginia and South-Carolina, to pre­vent the recovery of British claims, the most ruinous consequences must have ensued upon the operation of such suits. It is a matter of noto­riety, that when the restraints upon the courts of law were removed, the British creditors, while they spared the estates of their own fac­tion, tore to pieces, without hesitation, or re­morse, all those which belonged to the friends of America: and the business of issuing writs, brought into lucrative practice, the most ob­scure in the profession of the law: and, for want of purchasers, so cheaply would property have sold, at the first passing of the instalment law in South-Carolina, that, even the British creditors themselves would have suffered exceedingly, had they immediately enforced their claims. [Page 47]But who can hear with patience the defence of British infractions, in consequence of trifles im­puted to ourselves, which affected but a small proportion of British subjects, when the whole body of American seamen, in violation of eve­ry principle of morals and humanity, in con­tempt of the rights, and honour of America, had perpetually been seized like beasts, and after­wards made to fight against friends, or brethren. When too no compensation, or future security, was insisted on by the American negociators. We are told by Camillus, that American seamen spoke the language of Englishmen, and there­fore could not be distinguished from such. Does Camillus believe, the British government would submit to a plea thus ruinous to their trade, and naval strength, and degrading to their honour, were we to attempt to press their seamen?

It is to be observed, moreover, that most of the infractions complained of, took place from the disjointed, unorganized state of the old fe­deral government. Let any candid, sensible man, judge, whether any power ought to be treated with in a second instance, which, in the first, acting as in derision of all maxims of ho­nour, and the laws of nations, had taken advan­tage of over-sights, and unavoidable circumstan­ces. Thus, because, in a pacifick disposition, we had stipulated more than we found ourselves able to perform, and because we did not ulti­mately perform what was not in the power of the general government, this friendly state of Britain is justified in all its acts of infidelity, de­liberate treachery, oppression, and robbery: all of which were trebly advantageous to itself, as [Page 48]they were moreover eminently pernicious to our­selves, and to that people who first enabled us to take our rank among the nations of the earth.

This then is the ally with which we have connected ourselves, to the great disgust of long known, faithful friends. In our transactions with the British, I have observed above, that we have repeatedly felt the advantage of acts of alienati­on from the English government, and never surely was there a time when such acts more powerfully pressed themselves upon our adoption. Never, too, were we in a condition which so fully could establish the prudence of such mea­sures. America, in her former attempts to rid herself of British influence, was in the situation of a man who strives to amass wealth without a capital to work with. The success, in both in­stances, must be the result of great internal re­sources. The natural and political advantages of America, however, have increased exceed­ingly since the declaration of independence. Her wealth is perhaps doubled, and her popula­tion more than doubled. Who shall tell the force, collected into mass, which the combining republicks of America, France, and Holland, if it should be found necessary to combine, shall hurl against the drooping head of Britain? Who shall calculate the exploits of three republicks, each of which has triumphed in its turn in the cause of freedom, and one of which has brought to utter ruin the noblest armies of Europe, and overrun the continent? Will any man set bounds to the potency of three free nations of armies, linked together for the purpose of breaking the bending pride of Britain? With what unequal­led [Page 49]might will this triple giant dash vengeance upon a sinking foe? Where shall Britain, with an exhausted treasury, ruined, divided councils, and empoverished rebellious subjects, find means, once more, to hurl around the thunders of the deep? Who shall calculate the resources and achievements of population, soil, and climate, so various and so vast, all acting in concert for the greatest of purposes, under the immediate guid­ance, and the animating shouts of enthusiastick liberty? All the proud advantages of commerce, wealth, naval power, and conquest, which so long marked Britain as the champion of the uni­verse, whence came they, but from the liberal hand of freedom? Shall America, who in her infancy shrunk not from the uplifted arm of Bri­tain in her fullest might, now decline the con­test in her puberty; and dare not, with power­ful associates in the fight, to brave a feeble, aged, warrior, and send with ignominy, and sorrow, to the grave, those hairs which have grown grey in wickedness and strife? What is the very pur­pose of this British treaty? Is it not to break the energy of a republick, which the decaying strength of Britain dreads? So, when Charles IId of England was a helpless wanderer, the monarchy of France restored him to his throne, to cripple the growing might of the republick which they feared. What are the miscreant principles which bind us to this fallen bully, Bri­tain? Fear and disaffection. But let the cool, deliberate republican remember, that Britain cannot hurt him now; and that she will never do him good. The experience which we our­selves, and the French nation, have had of the [Page 50]British government, both hated for our love of liberty, warrant the conclusion, that, upon all occasions which shall present themselves, it will not fail to consult its interests, indulging to the utmost its lust of domination. England is not simply unfriendly to us in a negative sense; it is positively and warmly inimical, as a haughty fasti­dious despotism: and France was, before the treaty, and may be made again, positively and warmly our unfeigned friend. The British have often shed our blood; the French have often shed their own in our defence. We have tried too long the friendship of the British govern­ment, but let us now, at length, once more con­vince this proud intruder, that it has deemed falsely of that spirit it once knew to dread, and that, like a little wanton boy, it has rashly wa­ked a sleeping lion.

CHAPTER IX.

BUT let us endeavour to improve our judg­ment upon the question, whether the con­nexion which has been formed between America and Britain, by the treaty, is likely to be at­tended with advantage to the republick. One mean of effecting our purpose, will be by exa­mining into the characters of those men in pow­er, who, during the late administration, suc­ceeded by unexampled pertinacity in every art of flattery and arrogance, meanness and impu­dence, in procuring the execution of this treaty of amity and commerce.

Before the contrivers of this odious deed con­sented [Page 51]to forget their mutual sentiments of ha­tred or contempt, before these personal enemies combined, as political friends, in one general hell­born league, against the people; before these atrocious parricides had held their daggers to the breast of liberty, bidding her wear their chains, rushing upon our sphere, like a comet, which brings dismay, and threatens ruin to the nations, her temple seemed to stand upon a rock of ada­mant, firm, inaccessible, and sublime. They be­guiled the thoughtless multitude, by babbling idle tales about the needful energy of govern­ment; And in what at length have their perni­cious errors and designs terminated? In what but the energy of rushing into the gulph of mi­sery and infamy? in submission to long, repeated, unprovoked injuries of the past, and a free con­sent, on our part, in our treaty of redress, to submit to more, or greater, which may be of­fered in future? After triumphing over the arms of Britain, these sorry statesmen have degraded us like a conquered country. America is the Carthage of the present hour, which has lately passed beneath the yoke of Britain. To bring about these flagitious purposes, these daring ruf­fians have not hesitated to shake to the very basis the fabrick of the federal union; while they accused the republicans of disorganizing the government, they encouraged a mob to defy the immediate representatives of the general mass of the people in the federal house of representatives, by whom, amidst menaces and every species of outrage, the treaty was finally and reluctantly carried into execution. The gigantick form of America was found in slumber by the administra­tion, [Page 52]and they, with their little hands, have bound her, like Prometheus, with indissoluble chains, that vultures may feed upon her tortured vitals, till time shall be no more. Now can any man who reflects upon the labours of the revolution, more especially if he can say Quorum pars minima fui; can such a man, without a stoick's apathy, forbear to rage at the view of schemes, which avarice or ambition, or the pernicious pride of selfish aristocracy has devised to make such la­bours fruitless?

After all, bad as this treaty must be admitted to be, can we but succeed in ridding ourselves of so great a bane, this eventual good will at last have attended its adoption; it has had an in­fluence in pointing the eyes of the people, with some degree of attention, to the measures of their rulers. We should know therefore, under that circumstance, that wasps having used their stings have parted with them, that those serpents which have injected their poison can destroy no more. Yet, after sins, which the tongues of angels cannot tell; after crimes, which the fiends who prompted cannot recount, these men, who in their cells of midnight darkness, have undone their country, have the matchless effrontery to come forth in the glare of day, and to avow their guilt. The face of consummate profligacy, formed of no penetrable stuff, has given to these men the sacred privilege of innocence, nulla pallescere culpa. Since then, this abandoned crew are so little ashamed of ignominy, let us proceed to look into those previous steps by which they strove to alienate the minds of the citizens from those principles which might frustrate the [Page 53]execution of their designs upon the freedom, and upon the very existence of the republick.

One of the earliest artifices, by which it was attempted to strip the nation of its rights, was, an attack upon the liberty of speech, and of the press. The men who were associated for the purpose of watching over the movements of our rulers, and expressing their opinions to the pub­lick, were industriously represented as the very pests of the community. The printers of free discussions upon public measures, were treated with scorn and abhorrence; and a halter, en­closed in a box, has been sent to one of them, to intimidate the whole fraternity. In future, it is to be hoped, that both writers and printers, by the freedom of their animadversions, will shew the decadence of all such pernicious influ­ence, and that they will unite in an active use of a privilege, which it has been attempted to wrest from their hands; a privilege, which while it remains, will be the palladium of the rest, and gives us good hope, that the spoilers, who strove to grasp it, may be forced, in their own despight, to quit in dismay those posts they have held so long in infamy. But for the pre­servation of the freedom of the press, we might again have been told, we must not ‘"Prate of state affairs;"’ But let us in our turn, acquaint these puny lord­lings, that the rulers of a republican nation, can obtain the obedience of the citizens, by no means so certain as the exercise of republican maxims; without which they deserve not to be obeyed; let us tell them that the most artful, sel­fish demagogue, will ever find it hard to shake [Page 54]an administration, in a representative republick, so long as it performs its duties. Virtue, so dan­gerous to publick officers in bad governments, in such as are good is celestial panoply. Let not the violators of the publick rights expect forever to escape impunity, notwithstanding the lenity they have undeservedly experienced, during the late administration. And what was the return the people found for their moderation to the promoters of the shameful and illegal treaty? Was not every man, who disliked this treaty, nay, were not the sages and heroes of the revolu­tion, whose hoary hairs were twined with ivy, or with laurel; were not this veteran band of patriots branded with every mark of contume­ly and disgrace, by the most nefarious faction that ever insulted the sacred ears of virtue—a faction which are now striving to bring these vene­rable seniors into their designs against the French: But shall these faithful servants of our country's cause, forget that they were stigmatized as de­ceivers, antifederalists, jacobins and disorgani­zers? Deceivers they were called, because they strove to undeceive; antifederalists, because they strove to preserve the constitution and bles­sings of the federal government; jacobins, be­cause they wished to avert the miseries of civil war, and mutual slaughter, which even now this treaty threatens, nay has already commen­ced in a brother's blood; disorganizers, because they wished to keep in sound condition the or­gans of the nation's liberty. When men, whose heads had whitened with the cares of government, and the toils of war—whose hearts remained still spotless and unsophisticated with [Page 55]the foppery of courts, the corruptions of spe­culation, or the fever of ambition; when such citizens as these, are censured as the deluders of the people, to whom, beside, shall we apply for counsel and consolation? Shall we look to those upstarts, who have amassed inestimable treasures by the sale of honor? Shall we look to men who but yesterday were the deadly foes to the champions of assaulted freedom? Shall we look to that government, which through ten long years of toil, and woe, and carnage, laboured to enslave whom they had not murder­ed? Shall we link in fond embrace, our hands with hands of fell assassins, clotted with the blood of brethren, who died for our salvation? Or with the hands of selfish dastard slaves, who set them on? Or with the hands of a furious, unrelenting, consuming tyrant, who pointed them to their task of death, and at whom even folly looks with derision, and guilt with horror? Oh, call to your remembrance those who freed you from that dependence on a despot, which this treaty would renew! They were simple, sensible, incorruptible men: men, who if they were poor, still continued poor, that they might not be wicked: men, who were the firm, and I hope, in general immutable friends to that nation, which with ingratitude, commensurate with congenial baseness, the treaty invited us to abandon: to abandon too for distresses which happily they felt not. Who shall confide in such foul flagitious counsellors? Who shall again ad­minister to our aid, under circumstances of such complicated guilt and folly? England is perfi­dious and France is wise: the first, if she has [Page 56]power, will oppress us, because she knows the last will sport with our well deserved calamity, and scorn all commerce with the base: thus shall we be even stript of the sacred dignity of mis­fortune.

Among the topicks of calumny employed by the administration, it has been asserted, that their enemies have wished them removed from selfish or ambitious views, and that the treaty was made the pretext. Selfish and ambitious men there doubtless will be found in every opposition: the reasoning of these however deserve to be heard, and if, upon a scrutiny, the argument be acknowledged to be good, and the character worthless, accept the advice, and let the advi­ser be rejected; for it must be admitted by all parties, that a bad man will make a worse officer. As to the administration, and the promoters of the treaty, every man who loves the principles of republican government, which, as far as in them lies they have destroyed, cannot choose but wish them out. But how miserably negligent, or ignorant of their interests, must that nation be, whom nothing but this damning instrument can rouse? How deep that sleep whence bursting thun­ders only can awake?

It is said too, that the republicans are unfriendly to the treaty, because enemies to the British. If by the British is meant the British nation, the charge is false; were Britons republicans we could freely make them brethren; but in being enemies to the British government, we are ene­mies to perfidy, which regards no treaties; to ambition, which grasps at the dominion of our country; to tyranny, which delights in cruelty. [Page 57]Could we, with any prudence, put confidence in a state, which at the very moment it was fra­ming a treaty of amity with one free people, was engaged in the abominable attempt to deprive another of its freedom, or its being?

CHAPTER X.

THAT the arrogance, meanness, duplicity, and baseness of our rulers should have been such as we have found them, ought not to be a subject of surprise, since these men have not scru­pled, some to profess, others to prove, themselves votaries to monarchy, which bears these igno­minous symbols on its front. Nor need we mar­vel, that those who vilely truckle to a prince's nod, should seek their graceless retribution in the peo­ple's wrongs. A patient slave proves an unfeel­ing tyrant; so pride and meanness strut or creep by turns, and mark the Proteus form or selfish despotism. Such men as were employed in the fabrication of the British treaty were, if not morally, at least politically, disqualified for the task of forming an alliance for the prosperity of a republick. Nor is it to be wondered at, that such men have toiled, with wasteful hands, to bring to wreck all principles of freedom, which had but yesterday been launched upon the sea of politicks. In the unhallowed strife no means were left untried; neither the guile of Satan, the fallacies of Belial, nor the rage of Moloch. This treaty, which holds up an olive branch to our eyes, veils a scourge of scorpions for our backs, and, like a wily Dalilah, will yield us, [Page 58]sunk in soft langours, shorn of strength, into the unsparing hands of Britain. Oh let us not for­get the blessings we possess, but grasp them now, as with the convulsive pangs of dying liberty! The American government, as it lingers now, is founded upon a full, and free, and equal re­presentation, in every branch of legislation, of the whole body of the people which gave it be­ing; the first government, of this species, which the world could boast, and the only species of free government which gives, or could give, a credible prospect of duration. Too long did monarchies affright the shuddering world with deeds of horror, in ever-during conflicts for the powers of mischief. Never will mankind be freed from wo and slaughter, till republicks shall bear down the scale of power, and keep all con­querors in awe. Then, and not till then, shall we see the Saturnian reign of order, peace, and justice. Nor does the warlike character of France invalidate this doctrine at all. France fights in her defence, and does but drive back into the countries of her enemies those wars which would consume her own. But when the work of liberty shall be complete, free republicans will direct their eyes to more inviting scenes, nor will appoint such rulers as will with­draw them from repose. In monarchies, on the contrary, the subject is constrained to con­tent himself, as he can, with the wretch who rules, whether a coward, who deserts him in the day of peril, or a conqueror, who impels him to the field of blood. Let us render our­selves dear to those nations which have striven with us the fight of freedom; let us love, and we [Page 59]shall be loved again by that astonishing nation, whose enthusiasm is upheld by their magnanimity, whose magnanimity by their vigour, whose vi­gour hurls them like thunderbolts upon their foes. This is the character of the French re­publick; while feeble Britain, like a broken reed, shall sink beneath your weight, or pierce your side. Her weakness only can restore her innocence; a frozen serpent, or a toothless savage.

What difficulties may be thrown in the way of conciliation with France, by the treaty ma­kers of the senate, it is impossible to foresee: but let those apostates to the faith of freedom remember the fate of delinquents in the revo­lution congress. Let such recreants to good be warned by the fall of Bolinbroke, or strive too late, in vain, to cool the fever of ambition, with the unpalatable cup of cold philosophy,

Even these men, if they love themselves— if they wish to be remembered without execra­tion, when grey hairs shall give them warning to quit the stage of public life—if they wish to escape that bed of thorns, which goads the faithless ruler, should use their utmost efforts to redeem their country.

As to those members of the house of repre­sentatives, from whom the pressure of the time extorted reluctant co-operation, let them feel no repugnance against the measure of countervail­ing mischief; more especially mischief which themselves have done. The publick confidence must be resumed by confession and renunciation, not by pertinacity in error.

For the president of the United States, he has held up a beacon, by which each mariner, [Page 60]in our turbulent sea, may steer his course. He came into office at a crisis, and in a situation. more than any to be coveted. He found an or­der of things, and a body of courtiers, the very worst a free representative government could ever dread to know. This order of things, and this body of courtiers, he has resolved to fix. His country looked up to him for wisdom, for candour, for decision, for salvation, and what would have been the glory of that man, who should have redeemed his country a second time from slavery and perdition.

How widely this giddy ruler has wandered from the path of rectitude, how madly he is in hostility with the principles of the republick which has employed him, we see with sorrow; but we see it not with wonder, since he is the work of British hands. All that has been left undone, by others, to effect our ruin, he has striven to complete. Of the country, over which, in an evil hour, he was called to preside, he speaks with exultation for her prosperity, when some angel's hand should be employed to snatch her from despair. He speaks of peace, and while his breath is still warm with the word, it is employed again to sound the charge to bat­tle. Can we admit the sincerity of such a ma­gistrate? If we acquit his heart we must des­pise his head; if we acquit his head we must abominate his heart. As to his wretched gas­conade, upon the subject of American arms (to say nothing of the silence which his party observed upon the insolence of Britain) let me add to what has gone before, that the peasants of the northern states, who alone can be de­pended [Page 61]upon for their strength, would soon be deprived, by their allies the British, of all self respect, and even that independence which must give efficiency to strength; and for the marine of America, a naval war would be a mine of gold to the French nation, while we should not reap the advantages even of a mine of lead. The means by which alone we can hope to grasp our object, is by holding up the greatest good to friendly nations; the treaty, on the contrary, has rewarded aggression; and not only the French, but the Dutch also, and perhaps every other nation, make the same complaint. The minister at the Hague, indeed, tells you, the Dutch complain, because they are instructed so to do by France; but needs a man a prompter to discern his enemy? Had the French insulted us as grossly as has been declared, and found their policy in the policy of Britain, what, who, let me ask, first spurned into the dust this pride of ours, placing it under the feet of every wanton passenger to crush it down at pleasure? What but the treaty with Britain? Who, but the Bri­tish faction in America? Yet does your president tell you we are not to throw ourselves into ei­ther scale of European politicks. Has not the treaty done this now? Would not mr. Pitt smile with triumph, to hear the first magistrate of the United States boast of such a neutrality? A neutrality, which if not an armed, is at least a hostile neutrality. When the obnoxious articles of the treaty shall have been done away, when the articles which are at defiance, not only with France, but every power on earth, are done away, then, then indeed, will there be a neutrality in [Page 62]fact and not in words, not in thin air, not in any nothing. Far different will be the opera­tions of such a measure, from that of measures formed by men, who while they steered the bark of state, were not possessed of skill to foresee a storm of slaughter, or a shower of blood; or watched like cloud-veiled fiends but to betray; and tempted to destroy!

Hear further what you are told by this new­born monarch of a republick; and from his rant should the character of America be too rashly estimated, she would be judged an infant of un­timely stature, which, in its mental weakness, believed itself a man.

In remarking upon the speech of the president of the directory to mr. Munroe, upon his de­parture, he says, "the speech of the president discloses sentiments more alarming than the re­fusal of a minister, because more dangerous to our independence and union; and, at the same time, studiously marked with indignities towards the government of the United States. It evin­ces a disposition to separate the people from the government: to persuade them that they have different affections, principles, and interests from those of their fellow citizens, whom they, them­selves, have chosen to manage their common con­cerns; and thus to produce divisions fatal to our peace. Such attempts ought to be repelled with a decision which shall convince France and the world, that we are not a divided people; hu­miliated under a colonial spirit of fear, and sense of inferiority, fitted to be the miserable instru­ments of foreign influence, and regardless of na­tional honor, character, and interest."

[Page 63] This speech of the president of the directory, it seems, was delivered in the warmth of his at­tachment to Mr. Munroe, as a republican. Whe­ther it would have excited so much indignation in the feeling bosom of Mr. Adams, had it been delivered by the secretary of an European mo­narch, to an aristocratick minister, expressing similar disapprobation of a republican adminis­tration in America, I shall leave to the decision even of the aristocracy itself. But, so far as the speech has a tendency to persuade the people that "their rulers have different affections, prin­ciples, and interests, from those of their fellow­citizens, whom they, themselves, have chosen to manage their common concerns;" so far as this doctrine goes, no republican of common infor­mation, whether in America or France, will find it possible to conceive even the embryo of a doubt: and no man who was not conscious of the truth of this distinction of affections, prin­ciples, and interests, would so warmly resent the explanation. Mr. Adams could not but know, or he knows not enough to qualify him for a much inferior office to that which he has been called upon to disgrace, that the pursuits of the governors, as discriminated from those of the governed, have, in all states, been the primal source of tyranny in the first, and vassaliage in the last. An endeavour, therefore, on the part of the president of the United States, to close the eyes of the unwary multitude upon their concerns, and to persuade them to resign, with sottish apathy, and infatuation, their dearest rights and interests, into the unresponsible hands of any set of rulers, much more into the hands of [Page 64]avowed enemies to republican government, is an act of treason against the majesty of the American people. How far the French were wrong in declaring their belief of an existing difference between the sentiments of the people, and the rulers of America, we will not determine, but simply remark, that if it did not exist, the promulgation of the opinion of the directory was not likely to originate this difference; and this we will add, (and who shall deny it?) that it was very fortunate the directory so long had one opinion of an administration which so little deserved a good one, and another of a people which it was so much our interest they should love. For the present administration, if they are wise, they will not delay to shew, not only to the French, but to all the world beside, that they deserve not to be stamped with any marks which shall distinguish them from their fellow­citizen; but that they are as good, and attends as assiduously to the interests of the republick as the nation itself, which they have the high honor to serve.

Much stress is laid upon the desire indicated by the French to cripple the commerce of Great Britain; and upon their attempt to get English vessels excluded from the ports of Denmark, Hamburgh, and I know not what. It is inti­mated that they are ambitious, and are desirous to build their greatness upon the ruin of Britain. That any nation should strive to build their greatness upon that foundation which alone can bear it, is surely no customary subject of com­plaint, in those instances wherein it is not pre­tended [Page 65]that any scruples have been observable in the proceedings of the party which is to suffer.

Denmark, Hamburgh, America, and every maritime nation upon the globe, no doubt, are ambitious to obtain a portion of those commer­cial advantages, which have so long rendered Britain the tyrant of the seas. While tyrants prosper, subjects must remain in poverty. Let them perish all, whether upon the water, or up­on the land! The struggle is not between A­merica and France; it is between kings and freemen. Our die will soon be thrown, and it is an awful cast.