.^^c IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) 1 ^^ A // ^V A ^ ^ 1.0 I.I ■tt|21 125 ti& 12.0 118 lit 11-25 III 1.4 I 1.6 Hiotographic Sciences Corporalion 23 WBT MAIN STRHT WiBSTIR.N.Y. 145M (7I«) 172-4303 ^^^\^\^ ^ %^^ ^^^' '^ * CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/iCIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microraproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques <\ Technical and Bibliographic fdotas/Notas tachniquas at bibliographiquaa The Instituta hat attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction, or which may significantly changa the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagte Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ et/ou pellicula I — I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I — I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur . Bound with other material/ iLl Relii avac d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutAes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas AtA filmAes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmantairas; L'Institut a microfilm* le mcilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a *ti possible de se procurer. Les dAtaiis de cet exemplaire qui sent peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mAthoda normale de f ilmage sent indiquAs ci-dessous. r~~| Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagtes □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurtes et/ou pellicuMes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicolortes. tachat^es oj piqui Pages dicolortes. tachat^es oj piquies Pages Pages dAtachias Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir QualitA inigala de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du matiriai supplAmentaira I I Pages detached/ r~Z\ Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ Tl to Tl P< o fi b« th Si( ot fii sii or D D Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un fauillet d'erreta. une pelure. etc., ont M filmAes A nouveau de fa^on A obtenir la meilleure image possible. •n sh Tl wl Mi d\\ en be rig rei mi This Item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 28X 30X >/ 12X 10X aox a4x 28X 32X Hi The copy filmed h«ro hat b««n reproduced thank* to the generoeity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire f ilmA f ut reproduit grAce A la g^nAroait* de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The imagea appearing here ere the beet queilty poeaible coneidering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contrect speclficetione. Original copiea in printed peper covere are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the ieat page with a printed or lliuatratad imprea- alon, or the beck cover when appropriate. All other originel copiee are filmed beginning on the firat page with a printed or illuetrated impree- aion, and ending on the laat page with a printed or iiiuatreted impreaaion. Lea imegea auiv&nte* ont §t6 reproduitea avac le plu* grand soin, compte tenu de le condition et de la nettet* de l'exemplaire film*, et en conformity avec lea conditiona du contrat de filmage. Lea exempiairea originaux dont ia couverture en pepler eat imprimie aont filmto en commen^ant par le premier plat et en terminant aoit par la derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impreaaion ou d'illustration, soit par le aecond plat, aelon ie caa. Tous lea autre* exempiairea originaux aont filmte en commen9ant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impreeaion ou d'illuatration et en terminant par ia darnlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The laat recorded frame on each microfiche ahaii contain the aymbol — ^> (moening "CON- TINUED"), or the aymbol y (meening "END"), whichever appiiaa. Un dee aymboiea auivanta apparaftra aur la dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, aelon le caa: le aymboie — »> aignifie "A SUIVRE", le aymbole ▼ aignifie "FIN". IVIepa, platea, charta, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratioa. Thoae too large to bo entirely included in one expoeure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, aa many framea aa required. The following diegrama llluatrate the method: Lea cartea, pianchea, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre film6a A dea taux de reduction different*. Loraqua ia document eat trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un aeul clichA, il eat filmA A partir de I'angle aupArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en baa, en prenant le nombre d'Imegea nAceaaaire. Lea diagramme* auivants illuatrent le mAthode. 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 MIRROR IN AMERICA. BY LORD ROBERT MONTAGU, M.P. " Lcs Revolutions qui arrivcnt dnns ics grands etats ne sont point un cffet du hasard, ni du caprice des peuples." — Uttlly. " Ez prsetcritis prsesentia aestimantur." " Lea Bottittes des p^rcs sont perduea pour lea enfanta." " They who can read the political sky, will see a hurricane in a cloud no bigger than a hand, at the very edge of the horizon." — Burke. "All this is done upon their favourite principle of disunioi., of sowing jealousies amongst the different orders of the State, and of disjointing the natural strength of the kingdom ; that it may be rendered incapable of resisting the sinister designs of wicked men, who have engrossed the royal power." — Surke : Cause qf the Present Discontent*. " Hoc Tero ooonltom, intcstinum, domesticum malum, non modo uon ezistit, venun etiam opprimit, antequam perspioere atque ezplorare potueris." — Cieero. LONDON : SAUNDERS, OTLEY, & CO., 66, BROOK STREET, HANOVER SQUARE. 1861. raiNTBD BT JOHN EDWAttD TAYLOB, HTTLB QtTEEN STRKBT, LINCOLN'S INN FIELDS- ■ 'i i . :-. i-ll HI '; ♦ liliv/ ;- , . : iM bitr. lAum /•|vr«>'to J'UJOjf 'Jill Ml A MIRROK IN AMERICA. :-.^ I.. > ,1 Great lessons are to be learnt from great events. Erroneous theories and prevalent fallacies always ex- pose themselves, by their results, to those who care to connect effects with their causes. There is a Nemesis in the affairs of states as well as in the lives of men. It is therefore an act of needless folly to regard events as merely the fortuitous footfalls of chance. Events are the hieroglyphics of God. He does not speak with human voice, but traces His will in his- tory. Events must be truly known to be interpreted ; and interpreted to be truly known. There are three ways of considering every event. First, in a shallow, frivolous spirit, without making any attempt to discover causes and to connect them with effects ; but merely for the sake of amusement, and in order to beguile the tedium of a listless hour. Secondly, with the eye of faction, with the intention to wrest and twist it to some preconceived purpose or design. Thirdly, it may be judged according to the standard of right and wrong which is implanted in the heart of every man. I trust that no preconceived notions, no party prejudices, no mere idle desire for A 2 amusement may be allowed to come between us and the subject under our consideration, to darken and obscure the lesson which we should learn, or to make us shrink from applying it in our own case and to the circumstances of our own time. It is not my intention to enlarge upon the opposition in character between the Northerns and the Southerns in the United States of America ; nor to dilate upon their differences in blood, in habits, in traditions, and in associations. All these may aggravate the symptoms, but do not seem to me to be the cause of the disorder. Races of most opposite character have at all times and in various places continued to live together in peace and harmony, whenever they have retained their local administration. Those identical materials, which are now jarring and discordant, ex- isted in America before the United States were dreamt of; it was they who, of their own accord, brought about the Union. * , . , ^ . ; For similar reasons, I cannot ascribe these convul- sions in America to the circumstances and conditions of trade. I am quite aware that our trade with the South passes, in a great degree, through the North ; and that often the British trade-marks are fraudulently stamped upon inferior ai'ticles which have been manu- factured in the North, and that these inferior manu- factures are then sold at the prices of British goods to the Southerns. I am also aware that two-thirds of all the exports from the United States come from the South, and that this trade has been hampered by the n * I have purposely made that proviso, and asserted that harmony has been preserved whenever they have retained their local administra- tion ; for intimate union has otherwise generally occasioned a clashing of interests, and provoked disorder and animosity. ' w> ,4 » < i i i u 1 1 / < unjust restrictions imposed by the North. These may serve as an aggravation of the symptoms ; but are not sufficient to be accounted as the origin of the disease. The assumption that slavery is the cause of the conflict is, I believe, equally unfounded and fallacious. As this charge, however, has been seriously advanced, and not frivolously hazarded, it deserves a somewhat stricter investigation. 1. In the Northern States, the negro iis treated with a personal repugnance and loathing never witnessed in the Southern States. However indui^ trious, however respectable, however worthy a man may be, yet if he has the slightest " taint " of negro blood in his veins, although this " taint " be so slight that the unpractised eye of a European could never discover it, he will be avoided and shunned with disgust, throughout all the Northern States. Would such a feeling be consistent with a war for emancipation 1 Can such a pretence be ever believed and accepted? Mr. Lerapriere states that Indiana, Illinois, Oregon, Minnesota, Missouri, and other Northern States, prohibit the immigration of blacks, who are always avoided in great disgust. Thus in Philadelphia there are 20,000 negroes, of whom 5,000 are paupers, and the rest can gain no respectable livelihood. And Mr. Lempriere continues, " The same state of things I have witnessed in Boston and New York. ... In the Northern States, the fact is indispu- table that the negro is not cared for, and has no estate or provision recognized by law or in society ; but is forced into degradation and want, without chance or hope of escape." Can the Northenis be said to act upon that Declai*ation of American Independence which began with the words, " All men are equal"? ■i. 6 Then still less can we believe that they are going to war in support of that principle. '■ ■ 2. It is a regular practice to send pauper children from New York to the West, and to "bind them out" to farmers for a term of years ; where their treatment is such that it has been said, that " while the South- ems have black slaves, the Northerns have white ones." This, also, casts discredit on the pretence that the war which is now being waged is a war for emancipation. 3. The Northerns, when it suits their purpose, pro- fess a righteous horror at the injustice of enslaving fellow-creatures. If they really entertain that love for right and justice which they profess, they would hardly proceed to rob the Southerns of their property. They would rather imitate the example which we set them, and pay for the emancipation of slaves, than wage a fratricidal war, in order to wrest from the Southerns their property. 4. At one time slavery extended throughout the whole of the United States. In the Northern States slavery was subsequently abolished ; not through any philanthropical feeling, — not even for political reasons, — but simply because it was found that it "did not pay." Slave labour does not answer for the kind of work which has to be performed in the Northern States. As soon as this fact was established, the States of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota, passed laws for- bidding any person of negro blood to set foot on their territory. In the " Report of the Joint Committee of the General Assembly of Virginia, Januaiy 26th, 1860," we find the following statement : — " In the more northern members of Confederation, the in- stitution of slavery was recognized and protected by i the laws of all the colonies. Experience had sho^vn that the African race were not adapted to high northern latitudes, and that slave labour could not compete successfully with free white labour, in those pursuits to which the industry of the North was di- rected. This discovery having been made, the peo- ple of the North, at an early day, began to dispose of their slaves, by sale, to citizens of the Southern States." 5. In the year 1850 there arose a warm discussion on the organization of the new territories of Utah and Mexico. The question at last assumed a threatening aspect. The quarrel was, however, eventually settled in the following manner : Mr. Clay's proposition of " squatter sovereignty," (that is to say, the rule that the settlers shall in every case choose their own con- stitution) was accepted; and the North agreed to pass the ' Fugitive Slave Law.' This law did, in fact, merely declare a right which was granted by the ori- ginal constitution of 1787 ; it gave great facilities for capturing slaves throughout the whole Union, and, in fact, proclaimed all the United States to be in favour of slavery.* 6. The Southern States are exceedingly profitable to the North, in a commercial sense. The trade of seven hundred thousand square miles of land in the Southern States passes, to a considerable extent, through the North ; a trade which must be enormous, for more than two-thirds of the exports from the whole United States are produced in the South. Is it to be supposed that the Northerns, (who, it has been said, would abandon every principle, and sacrifice : 111, ;■' 1 Ji! * The admission of Missouri and Arkansas was one of the conditions of the compromise. every tie, for the sake of the " almighty dollar/') would be >yilling to retain the vast cotton-fields, and yet ruin all the greatness of the produce by the abo- lition of slave labour ? 7. Most of the vessels which have been employed in that nefarious slave-trade, have been prepared and fitted out in New York and Boston. Moreover, it is said, that whenever the Yankees capture a slaver, they sell her, so that her owners in the North may purchase her again, and start her on another voyage. 8. The Northerns did never even pretend to under- take a crusade for the liberation of slaves. The ques- tion of slavery was brought forward in Congress in the year 1790, and a resolution was passed unani- mously by the whole Congress. It was this, — " That Congress have no authority to interfere in the eman- cipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them in any of the States, it remaining with the several States alone to provide rules and regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require." Daniel Webster, in 1830, said, with regard to this resolution, — " The House agreed to insert these reso- lutions in its journal, and from that day to this it has never been maintained or contended that Congress had any authority to regulate or interfere with the condition of slaves in the several States." There is not even a word about abolition of slavery in Presi- dent Lincoln's message to Congress. On the con- trary, the Federal Government have sanctioned sla- very, and declared that they " do not wish to meddle with the peculiar institutions of the South." 7 mi!? President Lincoln (Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861) said: — "I have no purpose, directly or indi- rectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in 9 the States where it exists ; I believe I have no lawful ri^ht to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. . . . The clause 1 now read is as plainly writton in the Constitution as any other of its provisions : ' No per- son held to sei-vice or labour in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in conso- (luence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.' " Again, after President Lincoln's accession, the Fe- deral Government offered to guarantee to the Southern States a full possession of their slaves, and even pro- posed to give additional securities for the capture of fugitive slaves. A few days ago. General Fremont declared that the slaves of all insurgent proprietors should be liberated. He, the most consistent abolitionist of that whole party, thereby acknowledged the right of all, except allowed insurgents, to hold slaves. President Lincoln, liowever, and the Federal Government would not go so far even as this, but repudiated General Fremont's declaration, ordered him to withdraw it altogether, and subsequently dismissed him from his governor- ship. Any candid inquirer would conclude from the above-mentioned facts, that the Northerns generally entertain no sincere desire for the emancipation of slaves. It is equally manifest that the resistance of the Southerns does not proceed from any suspicion that the Northerns are favourable to emancipation. In Maiyland, for instance, there are hardly any slaves. If then emancipation were the real question at issue, the tendency of this State would be on the side of the I 'i.ll: I 10 Federal Government. Yet what is the real state of the case 1 The elections in that State took place in the presence of a large number of Federal forces, and in the absence of all influence from the Confederates. The Legislature which was returned was, however, so hostile to the Federal Government of Washing- ton, that the elected members were hurried off to prisqn before they had made a speech or recorded a vote. It will, moreover, be seen, from Governor Hicks's proclamation, that the Carolinians themselves refer the origin of their grievances to a period of time as far back as the year 1833. In the address of Gover- nor Hicks, of Maryland, we find these words : — " We are told by the leading spirits of the South Carolina Convention, that neither the election of Mr. Lincoln, nor the non-execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, nor both combined, constitute their grievance. They de- clare that the real cause of their discontent dates so far back as 1833." Furthermore, the event of the year 1833, to which reference is here made, was but the crisis of a discontent which had long been in- creasing. Lastly, John Brown (of Harper's Ferry notoriety) was hung on the 2nd of December, 1859. He was an honest, bluff, New-England Puritan ; he was like one of Cromwell's " Fear-God-and-keep-your-powder- diy " Ironsides. The crime for which he was arraigned and hung was high treason. Yet the only act of which he was guilty, was an open attempt to liberate slaves in the South. If the Northerns now fight for the liberation of slaves, tuey acknowledge the justice of John Brown's act, and are proclaiming that he was judicially murdered by them, and that his blood, like 11 !.! that of Abel, cries out from the ground against them.* The question of slavery may therefore be dismissed from our investigation into the cause of the present secession of the Southern States. It will, however, be necessary, in the first place, to revert to the struggle for American Independence, and calmly to consider, at this distance of time, the steps which led to the secession of the American colonies from the empire of Great Britain. Let it not be hastily assumed that that revolution proceeded from any eager partiality for certain notions, or theo- ries of government. The courage and heroism which must have been required for such a small part of the population to resist the weight of a great and well- organized empire, prove that something gi*eater must have moved them, and something nobler must have sustained them. It was in defence of law and right that they took up arms against tyranny and the un- comtitutional imtrpation of poiver. Such an asser- tion as this must be supported by evidence. Lord Chatham (May 27, 1774), after recounting the fact that the ancestors of our American colonists had left their own country and " encountered the innumerable difficulties of the unexplored region," rather than suflbr oppression, continued, "And shall we wonder, my lords, if the descendants of such illustrious characters D l:i': if K J" : I 1'* 'i 1 i' * The whole force with which John Brown attempted to hberate the slaves throughout seven hundred thousand square miles, consisted of twenty-two men, of whom five were blacks. Yet he convulsed that whole quarter of the globe. In like manuer, the isolated attempt of Orsiui, — a single, unsupported man, — shook the whole continent of luiropc, and altered the polity of a great empire. What, in these days of perplexity, cannot even one man perform even in the way of con- fusion! .( .nl.t - : • . ■ 12 spurn, with contempt, the hand of unconstitutional power that would snatch from them such dear-bought privileges as they now contend for." Then, after speaking of the loyal and affectionate spirit of the American colonists, he said : " But the moment they perceived your intention was renewed to tax them under a pretence of serving the East India Company, their resentment got the ascendant of their moderation, and hurried them into actions contrary to law, which in their cooler hours they would have thought on with horror ; for I sincerely believe the destroying of the tea was the effect of despair." And likewise Burke said (April 19, 1774), "That for the Parliament in England by its own authority to raise a revenue in the colonies^ appeared to the American colonists 'in the light of a great innova- tion.'' " He then continued, " She has the image of the British Constitution. She has the substance. She is taxed by her own representatives. She chooses most of her own magistrates. She pays them all. She has in effect the sole disposal of her own internal go- vernment." The feelings of the Americans themselves is testi- fied by Lord Chatham ; who, in unfolding the con- stitutional law upon this subject, quoted (May 27, 1774) from an American pamphlet, with the strong- est approval. — " ' The High Court of Parliament (said he) is the supreme legislative power over the whole empire ; in all free states the Constitution is fixed ; and as the supreme legislature derives its power and authority from the Constitution, it cannot over- leap the bounds of it, without destroying its own foundation. The Constitution ascertains and limits both sovereignty and allegiance; and therefore his 13 Majesty's subjects, who acknowledge themselves bound by the ties of allegiance have an equitable claim to the full enjoyment c ihe fundamental rules of the English Constitution ; and that it is an essen- tial unalterable right in nature, engrafted into the British Constitution as a fundamental law, and ever held sacred and irrevocable by the subjects within this realm — that what a man has honestly acquired, is absolutely his own ; which he may freely give, but which cannot be taken from him without his con- sent' This, my Lords, though no new doctrine, has always beeu my received and unalterable opinion, and I will carry it to my grave, that this country had no right under heaven to tax America." On this subject there was no difference of opinion ; concerning the constitutional law there was no ques- tion. The unconstitutional acts of the Government proceeded, not from ignorance of the law, but from motives which they could hardly dare to avow. On this point, also. Lord Chatham has borne his testi- mony (May 27, 1774) : " But, my Lords, from the com- plexion of the whole proceedings, I think that the Administration has purposely irritated them into those late violent acts, for which they now so severely smart; purposely to he revenged on them for the victory they (the Americans) gained by the repeal of the Stamp Act; a measure to which they (the Administration) seemingly acquiesced, but at the bottom they were its real enemies." Burke, on the other hand, reveals the method which was devised for effecting the purpose. He said (April 19, 1774), "At the close of last war a scheme of government, new in many things, seems to have been adopted." He then explained that Minis- 14 ters had contrived to establish the necessity "of keeping up no less than twenty new regiments, with twenty colonels capable of seats in this House. . . . When this huge increase of militaiy establishment was resolved on, a revenue was to be found to sup- port so great a burden." The resolutions which were subsequently moved in the House of Commons fully bear out these state- ments. Mr. Burke, in moving his resolutions for " re- conciliation with the colonies" (March 22, 1775), after alluding to the fact that the discontents arose from the desire of the Parliament arhitrarily to impose taxes^ asserted that no shadow of liberty could exist unless the people have the power of granting their own money ; and stated that the Americans were under the impression that they shared these common principles with us. He then proceeds : " They were further confirmed in this pleasing error by the form of their provincial legislative assemblies This share of the people in their ordinary government never fails to inspire them with lofty sentiments, and with strong aversion from whatever tends to deprive them of their chief importance." . . . He then sarcastically added, " Perhaps a more smooth and accommodating spirit of freedom in them would be more acceptable to us. Perhaps ideas of liberty might be desired more re- concileable with an arbitrary and boundless authority. Perhaps we might wish the colonists to be persuaded that their liberty is more secure when held in trust for them by us (as their guardians during a perpetual minority), than with any part of it in their own hands." And after remarking that the Ministry had " resolved that none but an obedient assembly should sit," he said, " Pursuing the same plan of punishing by the by "of 3, with Lse. . . . shment to sup- loved in le statc- for " re- 5), after ose from J impose aid exist ing their ans were common hey were the form [his share lever fails ith strong m of their lly added, ing spirit ible to us. d more re- authority. persuaded Id in trust \ perpetual )wn hands." i " resolved ,uld sit," he ling by the 15 denial of the exercise of government to still greater lengths, we wholly abrogated the ancient government of Massachusetts." One of the resolutions was as follows : — " That it was unwarrantable, of dangerous consequence, and a high breach of the privilege of this House of Com- mons, for any person in the administration to promise the interposition or influence of the King, or his ser- vants, with the House, in order to a repeal of acts, etc." This resolution pointed more especially at an act which had been committed by the Ministry in the year 1769. In that year the Cabinet had sent over to the British Governors in America a positive pro- mise that, on certain conditions, the odious taxing acts should be repealed. Such an act amounted to an assumption, on the part of the Cabinet, of absolute and sovereign power. In this light Mr. Burke re- gaided it. For, in reference to " Lord Hillsborough's Circular Letter to the Colonies " (which, he said, was penned and concocted by Lord North and the Cabinet), Mr. Burke said (April 19, 1774),— "The very first news that a British Parliament heard of what it was to do with the duties which it had given and gi-anted to the King, was by the publication of the votes of American assemblies. It was in America that your resolutions were predeclared. It was from thence that we (House of Commons) knew to a certainty how much exactly, and not a scruple more or less, we were to repeal. We were unworthy to be let into the secret of our own conduct. The assemblies had confidential communications from his Majesty's confi- dential servants. We were nothing but instruments. . . . This House, the ground and pillar of freedom. lin llV '•'.,' %'^V^ : '■ ■■|| m I }. ii 16 f: is itself held up only by the treacherous underpinning and clumsy buttresses of arbitrary power.'' In accordance with this promise taxes were re- pealed ; and a duty on tea only was retained. This was insisted on, ostensibly in justice to the East India Company ; the true object, however, was " to preserve the right to tax the colonies." Mr. Burke asserted (May 8, 1770) that this small tax was maintained " in order to secure the sovereignty of Government ; which (he said) means only, — doing something to save the honour of Ministers." The Government gained the victory over their opponents by the usual expedient ; namely, by passing off a word for a thing ; by induc- ing people to repeat the phrase which they had heard, but had not cared to understand. False terms are more effective than powerful armies. To induce a nation to give words a wrong meaning will produce a greater and more lasting eifect than the completest subjuga- tion by cannon-balls. Fallacies are more fatal than defeats. Fashionable gentlemen courteously explained to their friends that it was done in order " to secure sovereignty."* This they supposed to be the enuncia- tion of a principle ; it was only a proposition. No one thought of inquiring, — " What does this mean \ what is sovereignty % and what has sovereignty to do with taxation?" The sovereignty of the King was nevrr meant; for the Colonies acknowledged him, and entertained the strongest feelings of loyalty and affection towards him. They even appealed to the King against the minister, who was in fact not the minister appointed of the Crown, and narrowly watched by the House of Commons ; but the nominee * In this day it would be called " necessary in order to carry on the Qiieen's Government." , n ,, i ) 17 unmng ere re- . This 8t India preserve asserted Ined " in t ; which save the ined the pedient ; 3y indue- ad heard, , are more I a nation a greater subjuga^ :atal than [explained to secure enuncia- ttion. No is mean^ ;nty to do King was Idged him, oyalty and ,ed to the it not the narrowly lc nominee cftrtt on the of the majority in the House of Commons itself. No ! through the currency of this phrase ^he minister could use the name of the Crown, in order to cover an act of tyranny of the Cabinet. They meant " to secure the sovereignty" of Parliament ; or rather, the usurped sovereignty of a Ministry who were using the Parlia- ment to accomplish their selfish objects. This is why Lord North himself used those remarkable words: ^^ Those are much mistaken who suppose this is a ques- Hon of the Prerogatives of the Croion." It was there- fore to resist the encroachments of Parliament (the tool and weapon of an ambitious minister), that the United Colonies at length flew to arms. They said, as it were, " Acts of Parliament that invade rights which are inherent in the constitution are not law;" and they fought for Law against Parliament. Such a question has frequently to this day been cropping up through our history. In the days when the King himself appointed his own ministers, when ministers were the servants of the Crown, and knew that their acts would therefore be narrowly scrutinized by a fearless and honest Llouse of Commons, then these usiu-pations appeared as questions of the "Prerogatives of the Crown." Since Walpole's time, however, mat- ters have gradually changed ; ministers now are vir- tually the nominees of Parliament; their acts are therefore not even investigated, far less are they judged and punished by a time-ser^ing House of Commons. Ministers who are nominally servants of the House of Commons thus become really its lords. Yet the usurpations of an ambitious Ministry are still called, whenever the Parliament proves restive, " the usurpations of the Crown." " Prerogative of the Crown" now always stands for "Prerogative of a minister." b 18 WJI m Burke saw clearly that this unconstitutional act of Lord North's was of the same nature as the usurpations recorded in history. For he said (April 19, 1774), in the debate on American Taxation, — " Could anything be a subject of more just alarm to America than to see you go out of the plain high road of finance, and give up your most cer- tain revenues, and your clearest interest, merely for the sake of insulting your colonies'? The feelings of your colonies were formerly the feelings of Great Britain. Theirs were formerly the feelings of Mr. Hampden, when called upon for the payment of twenty shillings. Would twenty shillings have ruined Mr. Hampden's fortune? No! but the pay- ment of half twenty shillings, on the principle it was demanded, would have made him a slave." Lord Chatham (January 20, 1775) said, — "The spirit which now resists your taxation in America is the same which formerly opposed loans, benevolences, and ship-money in England ; the same spirit which called all England on its legs, and, by the Bill of Rights, vindicated the English Constitution The country superintends and controls their trade and navigation ; but they tax themselves. This dis- tinction between external and internal control is sacred and insurmountable ; it is involved in the ab* stract nature of things." Again, at a subsequent period. Lord Chatham (Nov. 18, 1777) said, — " And who is the minister, where is the minister, that has dared to suggest to the Throne the unconstitutional language this day delivered from it ? The accustomed language from the Throne has been application to Parliament for advice, and a reliance on its constitutional advice and assistance; as it is the I act ,8 the ^ April ion, — alarm ! plain ►st cer- rely fov . . The feelings feelings jayment gs have the pay- j\e it was " Lord • le spirit ca is the jvolences, lit which e BUI of on leir trade This dis- Icontrol is in the ah* 19 right of Parliament to give, so it is the duty of the Crown to ask it. But on this day, and in this ex- treme momentous exigency, no reliance is reposed on our constitutional counsels ! no advice is asked from the sober and enlightened care of Parliament ! But the Crown from itself, and by itself, declares an unal- terable determination to pursue measures, — the mea- sures that have produced the imminent perils that threaten us. . . . Your dearesi interests, your own liberties^ the Constitution itself totters to the founda- tion." A few days later (Dec. 5, 1777) he spoke of "the system which had been introduced within the last fifteen years ... of extinguishing all public and private principle. A few men have got an ascendancy where no man should have a personal ascendancy; hy the executive powers of the State being at their com- jnand, they have been furnished with the means of creating divisions. This brings pliable men, not ca- pable men, into the highest and most responsible situations ; and to such men is tJw Government of this once glorious empire now entrusted ! The spirit of de- lusion has gone forth! The Ministers have imposed on the People ! Parliament has been induced to sane- tify the imposition .'" Lord North himself confessed as much when, in his speech on the Address, he said (Nov. 27, 1781), — " It was not the Prerogative of the Crown, but the claims of Parliament which America had resisted." He who sits on the throne is not always the ruler. Power is not dependent on place. The Opposition had taunted him with the trite and vulgar charge that his repressive measures against the colonies were prompted by a desire to extend the power and pre- rogative of the Crown. His answer was as follows B 2 ml ... .1 ! I " 'I 20 (Debate on the Address, Nov. 27, 1781):- -" Had that been their object, they had thrown away and rejected the opportunity. It was not the prerogative of the Crown, but the claims of Parliament that America had resisted. It was therefore to preserve the supre- macy of Parliament, and to maintain its just rights and privileges, that they had engaged in the war, and forborne the offer of advancing one branch of the Legislature to the dominion of America, indepen- dent of the other two." Hence he was actually re- sisting the offer of the Americans to maintain the prerogative of the Crown, and cared only to extend his unjust pretensions to power as leader of the Par- liament. He alluded to the appeal made by the colonies to the Crown, against the Parliament ; and said that it was a question of " advancing the Crown to the dominion of America, against the will of the Lords and Commons." He knew his audience would never reflect that the Lords had nothing to do ^vith the money-bill, which was the immediate cause of the rebellion ; nor consider that he was merely using the majority of the House of Commons (which had nomi- nated him) as a tool to unmake the Crown. He was seeking, by plunging us into this war with our fellow- subjects, to render the office of Secretary of State irresponsible, his power irresistible, and his usurpa- tion supreme. To Lord North, Mr. Burke replied (Nov. 27, 1781), — " The noble Lord at this moment comes do\vn and tells the Parliament of the nation, insolently tells them, that we are fighting for a right. I say inso- lently, for it is an insult upon the patience of the Parliament. But I beg pardon; 1 agree with an honourable gentleman (Mr. Thos. Pitt) that there is no I that jected ^f the nerica supre- rights ar, and of the idepen- lally re- ;aiti the extend the Pav- by the jnt; and ,e Crown LI of the cc wouhl > do with se of the using the lad nomi- He was 111- fellow- of State is usurpa- 27,1781), down and ently tells ^ say inso- ice of the ;e with an there is no 21 Parliament^ no people^ or else such langunffr, at such a day, would not be hazarded, much less suffered. But this is like all the rest ; it is only a fresh attempt on the part of Ministers to impose^ to delude^ to draw on the people The noble Lord deals in cheats and delusions ; they are the daily traffic of his inven- tion He will continue to play off his cheats and delusions on the House as long as he thinks it necessary, and has money enough at command to bribe gentlemen to pretend they believe them." Lord North, by his scheme for establishing minis- terial irresponsibility, not only plunged the nation into a disastrous war, which saddled posterity with a debt of a hundred millions sterling ; out of which arose another war that cost us five hundred millions more ; and further prepared the way for the actual occurrences, in the United States, which now engage our attention ; and the fatal effects of which we are doomed, in our own persons, to endure. Claims to contemporary fame are titles to posthumous infamy. There are several other points of importance con- nected with the immediate circumstances out of which the war arose. In thus following out the thread which guided us through the dark labyrinth of events which preceded those disastrous days, in unravelling the carefully veiled project of ambition which was enter- tained by the Prime Minister, it was necessary to pass on rapidly and leave many minor facts unnoticed. We must now revert to them. When the Act was passed which imposed, in America, a small impoH duty on tea, instead of the larger export duty which had been levied in the English ports, the American colonists refused to permit tlit landing of the tea. The Ministry in Eng- land determined to force the tea on shore, and fixed on > ^1 4r 'il 'ti 5* ■\'- ' ;1 Boston as the place where they would " try the ques- tion." It was then that the flame of civil war was lighted. The Governor of Boston (Hutchinson) was rewarded for his achievement. " Nobilitas, opes, ges- tique honores, pro crimine ; et ob virtutes ccrtissimum exitium." Then the " Boston Port Bill " was brought in.* The object of this Bill was to alter the consti- tution of the province of Massachusetts (which had been granted hj charter, in the reign of William III); to take the executive power out of the hands of the people, and to vest the nomination of all officers, whether municipal or judicial, in the hands of the Crown (that is to say, in the Cabinet), and to make them "removeable at the pleasure of the Crown" (that is to say, " at the pleasure of the Ministry "). This Bill was, in fact, a means of coercion put into the hands of the Cabinet. " Prerogative of the Crown " is merely a euphemism for " Prerogative of the Ministry." The next step was to put down the Houses of Assembly, or Local Parliaments, of Boston and New York. An unenslaved Parliament is always " inconve- nient "t to an ambitious Minister. The dissolution of these deliberative assemblies was ordered, for the rea- son that they had thought fit rather to deliberate than to " debate." They had refused to accept certain pro- positions, with only a formal and objectless " debate," where each ma^^'s cue was given, and each man's vote already determined ; instead of previously making an anxious examination of facts, and a careful sifting- ci" evidence, and forming a decision after indepeixdout • Passed in the .year 1774. ' ■ >':*") ■i\\\i\.>y.-v) t Lord WodehoTse, Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, looked on the House of Coninioriv as " an uninstructed and inconvenient mass." (See his evidence befoi-f the T>iplomatic Committee, 1861.) Lord Derby seems to have cuter^uiMed .iiu-h the sr.me opinion in February, 1855. 23 ' was ) was »,ge8- imum ought [jonsti- h liad a HI); of the officers, of the o make a" (that |. This into the Crown " of the Houses and New inconvc- ution of the rea- rate than L-tain pro- debate," lan's vote laking an siftin?: of OT, looked on enient mass. Lord Derby ruary» 1855. deliberation. In a colony the " inconvenient " desire for such freedom of thought and action might perhaps be put dow^ with a high hand ; instead of having to wait for obtaining the same result 1 y the sure but slower process of making divisions, and iii^ ng up fac- tions, until people, through very weariness, were will- ing to be deluded and deceived. Therefore, in the colonies of Boston and New York, troops were (i gar- tered upon the colonists without their sanction, and the " incon^ (m i iei\t" Parliaments were suppressed. Ar- mies i^cre mtiiciied against rights which they could not deny, to resist consequences which they could not en<'nire. In those days (.'abinets had already acquired tli(^ valuable art of using the Liberty of the Press for enslaving the nation. Thus Burke said, in the debate on the Boston Port Bill (March 25th, 1774)— "Per- sons who oppose this Bill are immediately put to the wame kind of punishment, in the public papers, which offenders in America are." It is the anonymous cha- racter of the Press which shrouds it in mystery, and gives it such power. If the writers of the articles could be seen and spoken to, if their names only were known, their opinions would be scorned, their wri- tings would remain unread. " Omne ignotum pro mag- nifico" is the fallacy which enables a free Press to tyrannize over a spell-bound people. From the Life of Chatham, the same information may be gathered : — " Upon this occasion (of landing the teas at Boston) thr Ministry resorted to the same methods to deceive the nation, which had been so suc- cessfully practised by their predecessors, and during the administration of the Earl of Bute, viz. — hiring a number of writers, hiring a number of newspapers, and printing an immense number of pamphlets. . . . Ad- «■■■'■ i'^< 24 dresses highly flattering to Ministers, in their contest with America, were also procured from every venal bo- rough and town." * These were the " drummers and trumpeters of faction," hired to drown any voice, in their clamour and din. The ends of the Ministry were ignoble ; their means unscrupulous. In this same year the Quebec Bill was passed. Lord Chatham's words on that occasion leave little room for doubt, and still less for false excuses and apologetic untruths (June 17, 1774): — "It will involve a large province in a thousand difficulties, and in the worst of despotism^ and put the whole people under arbitrary power; it is a most cruel, oppressive, and odious measure, tearing up justice and every good principle by the roots ; by abolishing the trial by Jury^ together with tlie Haheas Corpus^ I suppose that theframers of the Bill think this mode of proceeding the most satisfao- tory ; but every true Englishman is ready to lay down his life sooner than lose those two bulwarks of his personal security." . > t - )^^ ! iuu The evil which Chatham and Burke tried to resist was therefore the unconstitutional assumption of arbi- trary power by the first Minister; the lesson which they laboured to enforce was that it is impossible that absolute power cnn thrive when local administrations are maintained throughout a country. When the people govern themselves, it is impossible that they should suffer from either the oppression of a grasping cabinet, or the tyranny of a passionate mob. The first care of an ambitious Minister is, therefore, to abolish local institutions; to gather together all the power and all the administration into offices which shall be constantly under his thumb. Thus, in Mr. Burke's * Life of Chatham, 1810, vol. i, page 245. 1 « ontest lal bo- irs and >ice, in ;inistry . Lord 3om for )logetic a large worst of trhitrary , odious principle together •amers of satisfcu)' lay down ks of his to resist ,n of arbi- ,on which jsible that listrations Vhen the that they a grasping The first to abolish the power h shall be Ir. Burke's 25 opposition to these Bills, the principle which he fights for, but fails to establish, is that the American colo- nies " should be allowed to govern themselves by their own internal policy f which he calls "the vital prin- ciple of English liberty." * Lord Chatham (January 20th, 1775) drew the same lesson from these occurrences : — " Let the sacredness of their (the Americans') property remain inviolate ; let it be taxable only by their own consent, given in their provincial assemblies. . . . Kesistance to your acts was necessary as it was just; and your vain declaror tions of the omnipotence of Parliament, and your im- perious doctrines of the necessity of submission, will be found equally impotent to convince or to enslave your fellow-subjects in America; who feel that tyranny, wliether ambitioned by an individual, by part of the legislature, or by the bodies who compose it, is equally intolerable to British subjects." Mr. Burke, (March 22nd, 1775,) in the same year, enlarged still more upon this subject: — "My idea is this : that an empire is the aggregate of many states under one common head : whether this head be a monarch or a presiding republic. It does in such constitutions frequently happen (and nothing but the dismal, cold, dead unifonnity of servitude can prevent it happening), that tlie subordinate parts have many local privileges and immunities. . . . Now in such unfortu- nate quarrels among the component parts of a great political union of communities, I can scarcely conceive anything more completely imprudent than for the head of the empire to insist, that, if any privilege is pleaded against his will or his acts, his whole authority is denied : instantly to proclaim rebellion, to beat to ♦ Debate on " Boston Port Bill," March 25th, 1774. mm ;u I 26 -^ '^ arms, and to put the offending provinces under the ban." He then proceeds to show " the absolute neces- sity of keeping up the concord of this empire by a unity of spirit, though in a diversity of operations." The Resolutions which Mr. Burke was proposing to the House of Commons in this speech, consisted merely in a recognition of the ric/ht of the Colonies to govern themselves, or to use his own words : he wished to " guard the privileges of Local Legisla- ture, and secure to the colonies a fair and unbiassed judicature." Again, Mr. Burke (March 22nd, 1775) said:--" It is said indeed that this power of granting, vested in American Assemblies, would dissolve the unity of the empire. . . . Truly I do not know what this uniti/ means ; nor has it ever been heard of that I know in the constitutional policy of this country. The very notion of subordination of parts excludes this notion of simple and undivided unity.'' '^"' '•(^ ' This is con'oborated by the Americans themselves. The historian Curtis writes (" History of the Con- stitution") concerning the revolt of our American colonies: "It was a war begun and prosecuted for the express purpose of obtaining and securing for the people who undertook it, the right of self government." The " declaration of immediate causes which induce and justify the secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union " contains the following words : — " The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 2nd day of April, a.d. 1852, de- clared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reseiTed rights of the States, fully justified this State in their withdrawal 27 ler the neces- :e by a »> ns. oposing insisted >lonies rds: he Legisla- nbiassed id:— "It nested in \ty of the tiis unify know in The very notion of lemselves. the Con- American scuted for ing for the tvernrnent" ich induce a from the Ids -.-"The from the Federal Union ; but, in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slave-holding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right In the year 1765 that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued." Some years afterwards Burke complains of the novel invention of a Cabinet, which is indeed the element of the mischievous system which he opposed. He said (March 8, 1782), "The Ministers are all exactly in the same tone, and play into each other's hands with extreme dexterity : if a motion censures the American Secretary, he is defended by the Secre- tary at "War ; if the Secretary at War is censured, the American Secretary thinks it his duty to defend him 1 and if the noble Lord in the blue ribbon is accused, then both the others cry out, ' Would you remove a man who is at the head of your affairs at this critical period f " Is not the history of the events which brought about the American Revolution an example, and a commentary on the maxim which the great Burleigh bequeathed, and which Lord Bolingbroke adopted? That maxim was gi^'en as a lamp and guide for all British statesmen and historians : " England can never be undone but by a Parliament." Blackstone has given a similar warning in his Commentaries ; for he said that " when the legislative and executive poAvers are united, there can be no public liberty." Of this theme, the words of Bolingbroke liimself are the fittest exposition : — " Parliaments are the true guardians of liberty ; for this principally they were instituted ; and 'm % 28 I'm IM I'ir i this is the principal article of that great and noble trust which the collective body of the people of Bri- tain reposes in the representative. But tlien no sla- very can be so effectually brought and fixed upon us as Parliamentary slavery. By the corruption of Parliament^ and the absolute influence of a King, or his Minister^ on the two Houses, we return into that state, to deliver or secure us from which Parliaments were instituted, and are really governed by the arbitary will of one man ; our whole Constitution is at once dissolved. . . . That noble fabric, the pride of Britain, the envy of her neighbours, raised by the labour of so many cen- turies, repaired at the expense of so many millions, and cemented by such a profusion of blood ; that no- ble fabric, I say, Avhich was able to resist the united efforts of so many races of giants, may be demolished by a race of pigmies. The integrity of Parliament is a kind of palladium, a tutelary goddess, who pro- tects our state ; when she is once removed, we may become the prey of any enemies. No Agamemnon, no Achilles, will be wanted to take our city ; Ther- sites himself will be sufficient for such a conquest. . . . That arbitrary will may be made the sole rule of government, even whilst the names and forms of a free constitution are preserved; that for a prince or kis minister to become our tyrant, there is no need to abolish Parliaments ; there is no need that he who is master of one part of the liCgislature, should endeavour to abolish the other two, when he can use, upon e\ery occasion, the united strength of the whole ; there is no need he should be a tyrant in the gross, when he can be so in detail ; nor in name, when he can be so in effect ; that for Parliaments to establish tyranny, there is no need therefore to repeal Magna m noble Df Bri- no slor nus (M lament., Unister^ deliver jtituted, of one \ved. . • • envy of any cen- millions, that no- le united molislied irliament who pro- , we may .memnon, ;y ; Ther- conquest. le rule of of a free Lce or Ms to aholiah ) is master eavour to pon e\evy ; there is ■OSS, when en he can establish eal Magna 29 Charta, or any other of the great supports of our li- berty. It is enough if they put themselves corruptly and servilely under the influence of such a prince or such a minister. On the whole, I conclude that, in the possible case heron us; wc 'he struggle lies was pre- LC war with k^ersailles, in 1763; that with our colonies was terminated by the Treaty of Paris, in 1783. The former treaty took Canada from France and gave it to us; the latter took the New England colonies from us and gave to them their independence. In the former war, the New England colonies assisted us in gaining Canada from the French ; in the latter war, the Canadians fought under our banner against the Americans and French. Before the former war, the French had treated their Canadian colonists with haughtiness, had set at nought their Constitution, and despised their rights ; Canada was therefore taken from them and given to a worthier possessor. In that same war (of 1763) our successes against France established our maritime supremacy and secured our Indian Empire. These successes rendered us haughty, proud, and confident in our o>vn strength ; we then despised and made Hght of the constitutional rights of our American colonists. America was therefore taken away from us and more worthily bestowed. When Canada was surrendered to us in 1763, the right of self-govern- ment, the preservation of their internal liberty, of their customs, and of their religion, were stipulated. We fulfilled our engagements and abstained from in- terference ; Canada was thus preserved to us when it was invaded in 1812. For the Canadians themselves, to the number of eighty thousand men, flew to arms against the United States, and against their adherents in Canada who rebelled against us. Hence France lost her colonies from that very cause which rent our colonies from us ; namely, from despising their rights of self-government and infringing their Constitution. A contrarv course of action retained Canada for us in the day of temptation and peril. At the evacuation ;■ J €'' ■ r ■ 1 I i; ..iHi 32 of Dunkerque, a Frenchman tauntingly said to an Englishman, " "When do you expect to return 1" The English soldier's answer is the moral to be derived from all history : " When the measure of your iniquity shall have exceeded ours."* It is impossible to conclude the consideration of this part of the subject, without remarking the inju- rious diplomatic action which Russia maintained throughout this period, and ihe manner *n which she sought to raise herself through the humiliation of England. She fanned the flames of discord, and, under a friendly disguise, she sought her own profit in our disgrace. It appears, from the Malmesbury correspondence, that Fox offered to give up the right of search, in accordance with the pressing and long- continued entreaties of the Empress Catherine, on condition that Russia should discontinue Iter diploma' tic intrigues against us in Amierica. In the same vo- lume,t it will be seen that Sir James Harris, on Sep- tember 9, 1779, wrote the intelligence that the Empress Catherine, after discoursing with him concerning our hostilities with France and Spain, then alluded to the American war, " and hinted at the possibility of [her] restoring peace (i. e. between England, France, and Spain), by our renouncing our struggle with our Colo- nies. I asked her. If they belonged to her, and a foreign power was to propose peace on such terms, whether she would accept it? She replied with great vehemence, ' J'aimerais mieux perdre ma tete!' " He then informs the British minister, that "hf; * The above paragraph is taken, although not verbatim, from " Eng- land in the Western Hemisphere;" by D. Urquhart. (Maynard, London, 1844.) i .. .>' .i ;^',: .. t Correspondence of Lord Malmesbury, vol. i. iisl/" * to an r The derived iniquity ation of he inju- dntained rhich she iation of )rd, and, ivn proiit dmesbury the right and long- lerine, on f dipl(y>na- e same vo- s, on Sep- le Empress grning our ided to the Lty of [her] iance, and h our Colo- her, and a mch terms, splied with e ma tete! that "hf! im,from"£ng- rt. (^Aaynard, 33 asked no more at the hands of Eussia than we had granted unsolicited," viz. " general good offices," and " holding a proper language to courts, etc." In a note it is stated that Catherine "was not sorry to see Great Britain engaged in a war which occupied and weakened herself, France, and Spain, whilst she, Ca- therine, matured her projects on Turkey." In 1780, he wrote that the Russian Cabinet " hold out the necessity of humbling us ; that we are too great, too enterprising ; that we are sea-tyrants, etc." And then, on '": mber 'U, 1780, he wrote that Prince Potemkin had " given him clearly to under- stand, that the only cession which would induce the Empress to become our ally was that of Minorca." In a note the following intelligence is given : — " Lord Stormont, in a despatch dated October 28, 1780, di- rects Sir James Harris to discover whether we can hold out to Her Imperial Majesty some object worthy of her ambition, some cession of a nature to increase her commerce and naval strength, and that would en- gage the Empress to conclude with His Majesty an alliance, making the present war the casus fmleris, and assisting us, totis viribus, against France, Spain, and our revolted colonies. These two despatches crossed each other on the road, and Sir J. Harris had antici- pated his wishes." It appears from a foregoing page,* that the subject had before been entertained ; and that Russia's terms at that time were, that we should assist her in her plans against Turkey. There are some points in the policy of England, with regard to the American colonies of Spain, which should not be passed by; because their circumstances * Malmesbury Correspondence, vol. i. p. 193. C B1 , "h \ ■ Xl« .k m ^'1, '* V III li 34 may possibly furnish a close analogy with the impend- ing condition of the Confederate States of America. As the revolt of the New England States from us forms an historical parallel with secession of the Southern States from New England; so the speedy recognition by America of the revolted Spanish colonies, and the refusal of such recognition on the part of England, may be a parallel with the intended recognition by England of the Confederate States, and the non-re- cognition of them by some neighbouring European power. AVhen the Spanish colonies revolted from the mother-countiy, the Americans were in such a hurry to give them every advantage, that they recognized the independence of those colonies, and sent consuls, even before the Spanish troops had quitted the country. Mr. Canning, on the other hand, stood out for many years, and firmly persisted in withholding eveiy re- cognition on the part of Great Britain. All the while that Spain possessed those immense colonies in America, she watched them with a most jealous eye, and would not allow England to hold any communication, or carry on any trade Avith them. Yet when they had revolted the intelligence was not hailed with any satis- faction or joy in England. We furnished the rebels with no assistance ; we yielded them no encourage- ment ; although allured to do so by interests so strong, and an advantage so manifest. In those days our re- spect for law was more strong than a desire for com- mercial greatness ; we esteemed what is right more than we cared for wealth. We therefore gave the in- surgents neither open assistance nor secret encourage- ment, although for a period of fifteen years the most tempting opportunities had presented themselves. In 1810 Spain asked for the mediation of England, but npcnd- merica. ls forms 3utlicni Ignition and the England, ition by J non-re- lluropean from the I a hurry rnized the Lsuls, even ; country, for many every re- . the while n America, and would ica.ion, or 1 they had h any satis- the rebels encourage- ts so strong, [lays our re- ire for corn- right more gave the in- it encourage- ars the most imselves. ^^ England, hut 35 subsequently changed her mind. Two years after- wards our friendly offer to mediate was refused. In 1814 we pledged ourselves to prevent all British sub- jects from rendering assistance to the rebels. In 1819 an Act was passed to prevent British subjects from semng in the ranks of the Spanish colonists. It was not until three years after this period that we urged on Spain the necessity of putting an end to this hopeless war, and announced to her that we could no longer refrain from recognizing those de facto independent States. We did not, however, act upon this announce- ment. In 1823 we assented to the French invasion of Spain, only on the express condition that France should not interfere between Spain and her colonies. In the next year Mr. Canning, in his despatch to Sir W. A'Court (Jan. 30,1824), wrote: "Those limitations (?'. e. the conditions on which we proffered our media- tion) have imiformly excluded the employment of force or menace against the colonies, on the part of any mediating power, and have uniformly required the previous statement by Spain of some definite and in- telligible proposition.*' In the debate on the Address, he said, " His Majesty had declined overtures for any joint consideration of this subject." On the 4th of March, Lord Liverpool said, " A formal acknowledgment of independence could pro- perly be made only by the power who claimed domi- nion over another ; and, in the strict sense of the word, we had no right either to acknowledge or dispute their independence."* Hence Lord Liverpool declared that no nation may interfere between portions of a State which are at war ; * See Portfolio, vol. iii. p. 560. c 2 I I \\ * 111 U I'lll \\ 80 i m 1 and that every recof^iiition of independence, which extends beyond the mere admission of the fact, is criminal. The mercantile workl luid pressed for a formal recognition. 'J'he great Powers of Europe had desired a conjoint interference in those affairs of Spain. The English Government, however, did boldly that which was right ; they stood alone, resisting both the pressure of the British people and the urgent demands of other powers. Thus Mr. Canning, on June 15, 1824, after saying that His Majesty's Go- vernment had thought it just and generous to sus- pend any decision respecting the Spanish colonies of America, until Spain had had a full opportunity of arranging matters, then said, " A uecond application had been made to the Government of His Britannic Majesty, to become parties to the conference about to assemble [for the settlement of tlie affairs of Spanisli America], which application, though pressed with urgent entreaties, had been again steadfastly refused." Next year, in the debate on the Address (1825), Mr. (/anning discussed the question whethar it would be lawful and right now to admit those " independent States to the rights of nations ;" and proposed to do so " by a course so strictly guarded that no principle should be violated, and no offence should be given." He also stated that not a single secret despatch liad been written relative to this matter ; but that Spain and the other Powers had received a copy of every document. Thus, to use the words of an eminent writer, " It was not till fourteen years after the first appeal for mediation had been made ; it was not till after the powerlessness of Spain to regain her ascendancy had been proved and confirmed ; it was not till after the 87 ik .. which •act, w for a ipe had airs of , boldly ig both urgent ling, on ty's Go- to SUB- Lonies of tunity of plication I3ritannic about to Spanish sed with refused." 825), Mr. would be ependent )sed to do principle be given." ipatch had that Spain ,y of every - v\ ■ r. svriter, " It appeal for a after the ndancy had II after the growth of extensive commercial relations wijh the colonies, sanctioned hy Sjiain, had imposed the noc<*f^ sity of international relationnwiHi tlM»in, that Kngland took the first step of a formal and diidoinutic kind, — that was, simply the appointing of consular agents."* Russia and America had sedulously promoted the meeting of a Congress at Tacuboya, for the settlement of the question. Mr. Canning, however, wisely re- fused his concurrence and steadily opposed the meet- ing of any Congress. He thus thwarted the intrigues of Russia ; and this was the meaning of his exclama- tion, " I have called a New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old." How short a time it is since the only subject or debate in our houses of I legislature used to be the question, in each case : " What is lawful and right V It is not long since we steadily refused, through- out a period of nearly fifteen years, to intervene, of interfere, or protocolize away, at a European Congress, the legitimate rights of independent States. At that time "non-intervention" did not hang as a mere phrase on men's lips, while their " hands were full of blood," which had been shed in intervention. In these days the cry of non-intervention proceeds alone from avarice and love of money. C(dumbia, Buenos Ay res, and Mexico, were the colonies which seceded from Spain. The indepen- dence of Mexico was recognized in 1825 ; and the fortification of Texas, a province of Mexico on the side of the United States, was provided for. The United States, however, lost no time in stirring up a rebellion in Texas, against the authority of the Re- public of Mexico. The rebels declared their Inde- uiU I'Mijii iii? * Portfolio, vol. i. p. 560. m 38 '^i: c'l pendence on December 16, 1826, under the title of the "Republic of Frcdonia." American intrigues were, however, as yet unsuccessful. This sub-rebellion, — or " hypodichotomy in petty schisms" (to borrow a term from Milton), was speedily subdued. Ten years afterwards, these lawless intrigues were more adroitly conducted ; for Texas declared her independence in March, 1836. She was recognized by the United States before that year had elapsed ; the United States making the public statement that " they did not think it necessary to wait until the chances of war had been decided." So eager were they to secure a prize which had already eluded their ambitious grasp ! In accomplishing that object, we aided and abetted the United States. Texas was made free under British protection. A treaty was signed be- tween Great Britain and Texas, on November 14, 1840, which was to wipe off the obligations of Texas to Mexico, and of Mexico to England. For, on con- dition that peace should be concluded between Texas and Mexico within thirty days, the former was to take upon herself a debt of one million sterling which was due to English bondholders. Within the stipulated time this peace had been established, by means of English intervention, in favour of the insurgents. This is apparent from the proclamation of the President of Texas. Another treaty was concluded between Texas and England. This treaty permitted an existing obligation against slavery to fall into abeyance ; although it acknow- ledged the right of visit by both British and Texan men-of-war. This obligation had been established by treaties in 1826, when we recognized the inde- pendence of the Spanish colonies in America. An 39 article in each of those treaties bound the respective governments to extirpate slavery from their soil. In the treaty with Texas this question was wilfully shunned. This is proved by the protest of Mexico against England's recognition of Texas : — " The Go- vernment of Mexico ratifies the protest of its Charge d'AfFaires to Lord Palmerston, adding, that the ac- knowledgment of a faction of adventurers, as an inde- pendent nation, is contrary to the principles which Lord Palmerston, conjointly with the four Powers, has maintained in Europe on the Turco-Egyptian question, in which no adventurer, but an illustrious Prince, a native born of the country, endeavoured to withdraw himself from the country of the Grand Siguier of Constantinople. That the conduct of Lord Palmerston was a breach of the harmony and good faith, which was considered also by the Spanish Ame- rican States to be characteristic of the British Govern- ment, so that it was impossible to conceive, in the face of existing Treaties of alliance and friendship between Great Britain and Mexico, by which the integrity of the Mexican territory is acknowledged, that Texas should be recognized as a sovereign people. Not a fraction of the same territory and its primitive inhabitants, but a handful of adventurers, who, in the sight of all the world, have entered upon the Mexican territory, is acknowledged, bringing slaves with them to re-esta- blish slavery in a country in which by law slavery was abolished. That in the Treaty between Lord Pal- merston and the agent for Texas, there is no provision for the abolition of slavery, a condition which the Eng- lish Government has exacted from all the Spanish Ame- rican Govermnents. That the territory of Texas is mortgaged for the foreign debt of Mexico, and to per- 'A ill I !fi m i ! 40 mit the alienation of a property so sacred, against the will of its owner, and encouraging the desires of its aggressors with the moral force of the recognition of their independence, is to attack every principle of justice and international right. In consequence, the Mexican Government, firm in the justice of its cause, and resolved to protect the integrity of its territory, will commit to force the execution of the national >vill, whose energy is daily displayed in the resources voluntarily proffered by all the citizens, and in the progressive amelioration of the revenues of the State. And the English people will render justice to Mexico when it is seen that the anomalous conduct of the British Minister does not prevent her from fulfilling the obligations which she has contracted, and will see besides that the Mexican nation knows how to distinguish between the British People and their Go- vernment." . i i' ,! The Treaty for the annexafmi of Texas to the United States was signed on the 12th of April, 1844. Then, of course, slavery became the rule, and was no longer a forbidden practice. Thus our interference, instead of conferring the blessings of freedom, only extended the sphere of an institution for which we profess an abhorrence. What could have induced our Government to sanction and assist in such a ne- gotiation % Before the annexation there was a debt on Texas of between four and five million of dollars.* But on the annexation of Texas, the United States engaged to pay us ten millions, and mortgaged the land to England for that amount. As half of this sum was not really due, this transaction was, in fact, holding out a bribe to recognize the annexation. * See Eeport of Texan Government, 1841. .!tiiJ<'a f:ii! nst the s of its ition of jiple of ace, the ;s cause, erritory, national •esources i in the he State. Mexico ct of the fulfilling and will vs how to their Go- as to the pril, 1844. nd was no erfeience, -dom, only which we VG induced such a ne- was a debt of dollars.* lited States tgaged the half of this was, in fii^^t, annexation. 41 And, as it was the Texan land wlxich was thus mort- gaged, Texas was really bought by the United States with Texan money. The lawless ambition of the United States induced them, in the first place, to foment, encourage, and support the revolt of Mexico against Spain, under the pretence of an honest preference for republican over monarchical institutions. The same ambition soon prompted them to put forward a new pretext, whilst continuing the same intrigue ; and they abolished a free republic in order to establish the institution of slavery. This is apparent in a despatch from Wash- ington, dated January 16, 1844, to the President of Texas, urging the annexation of Texas. The American Government says, speaking of slavery : " I have com- mented upon this topic in the despatch to Mr, Everett (Minister at Ijondon). I will only add, that if Texas should not be attached to the United States, she could not maintain that institution ten years, and probably not half that time." There were not wanting those who, at the time, warned their country against the commission of such acts as these. Thus Mr. Clay said : — " I con- sider the annexation of Texas at this time, with- out the assent of Mexico, as a measure compro- mising the national character, involving us certainly in a war with Mexico, probably with other foreign Powers, dangerous to the integrity of tlie Union, inexpedient in the present financial condition of the country, and not called for by any general ex- pression of public opinion." Dr. Channing, in par- ticular, tried to arrest the spirit of violence and the lust for annexation which he saw to be rampant in his country. He regarded such a deed as the annex- ^11' •4f 1 i i: ^' ,'1 r-' 1^. 42 I ation of Texas as the result of national depravity, and the degradation of moral feeling. He could, there- fore, not help seeing that this act was the beginning of a series of acts of violence and freebooting, and the signal of a coming disaster. This feeling he had long entertained, and being honest, he did not shrink from openly denouncing the acts of his Government. Tliese are the words which he wrote to Mr. Clay : — " Must we of the North buckle on our armour to fight the battles of slavery X to fight for a possession which our moral principles and just jealousy forbid us to incor- porate with our confederacy X . . . . Great armies will require great revenues, and raise up great chieftains. Is the republic bent on dying by its own hands ? Does not every man feel that, with war for our habit, our institutions cannot be preserved ? .... A country has no right to adopt a policy, however gainful, which, as it may foresee, will determine it to a career of war. A nation, like an indi^idual, is bound to seek, even by sacrifices, a position which will favour peace, jus- tice, and the exercise of a beneficent influence on the world. A nation provoking war by cupidity, by en- croachment, and above all, by efforts to propagate the curse of slavery, is alike false to itself, to God, and to the human race." Mr. Webster regarded it from a purely political point of view, and foresaw that this deed would cause the very punishment which has now overtaken them. He wrote as follows : — " It is not to be doubted that the continuance of the Ame- rican Union, and its prosperity and success, under its present form of government, is a matter of high mo- ment to all mankind And he is a bolder reasoner than I am who has satisfied himself that this govern- ment may be extended indefinitely, either to the 43 north or to the south, without endangering its sta- bility and duration It certainly may be very well questioned with how much of mutual intelligence, and how much of a spirit of conciliation and harmony, those who live on the St. Lawrence and the St. John might be expected, ordinarily, to unite in the choice of a President with the inhabitants of the banks of the Rio Grande del Norte and the Colorado." He then pronounces his "judgment as decidedly unfa- vourable to the annexation of Texas." This act was also a direct breach of the Constitu- tion, for the President had negotiated and signed the Treaty of Annexation before he had referred the matter to the Senate. He then presented it to them for debate. Deliberation, therefore, there could not be ; for the deed was already done. In the Report of the Committee on Federal Rela- tions, it is stated that — " The Constitution vests in the President the power to make treaties, by and with the advice of the Senate." The consent of the Senate is requisite both for the negotiation and ratification of a treaty. To do either without that consent is a gross usurpation of power, and breach of the Constitution. Yet this is what the President did in regard to the Texan Treaty. Where- upon Mr. Clay said : — " Assuming that the annexation of Texas is war with Mexico, is it competent to the treaty-making Power to plunge this country into war, not only without the concurrence of, but without deigning to consult Congress, to which, by the Con- stitution, belongs exclusively the power of declaring war r Here, again, an unconstitutional act earned its doom along with it. The hour of retribution has now VP >» ; 1", nS I 44 t '!l ■I i( ' come. These same Southern States are now a tliom in the side, and a punishment for crime. The piece of new cloth has at length made a rent in tlie old garment. Before passing on to that part of the subject, how- ever, it is necessaiy to direct attention 1 1 the presence of Russia's hand in the revolt of the Spanish colonicH. On the 30th of January, 1824, Mr. Canning wrot(; in a despatch, that the English Government refuncul to interfere without the expressed desire of Spain. The same despatch informs us that Austria, PrusHia, Portugal, the Netherlands, and the United States had proposed, in conjunction with Russia, to interfere b(;- tween Spain and her colonies ; in which case (Can- ning said) England would resist the attempt by takhig part with the colonies." Lord Brougham explained the scheme more fully on February 3rd, when he said: — "Ferdinand has been expressly assured by the Emperor Alexander, that, upon the destruction of the constitutional si/stem^ he would assist him to recover his dominions ; so that (continues Lord Brougham) these countries would again be brought under the iron rule of the mother- country." And yet the United States hatl been per- suaded that Russia would back them in obtaining th(5 independence of those same colonies. For President Adams, in his message of the year 1826, deplores the dsath of the Emperor Alexander, who had maintained such a " candid and confidential intercourse of s(»nti- ment with the United States upon the affairs of South America." He proceeds to say, that the Emperor Ni- cholas had given assurances that the same line of policy should be pursued, so that the governments of Euro])c will thereby be constrained to "recognize the inde- pendence of the Spanish colonies." 45 thorn piece le old , how- Dscnce lonieH. wrote •efuwul Spain, 'rusfiia, tcM had fere hc;- ,e (Can- ^ takuig Russia had evidently been following the policy re- commended by Macchiavelli in his ' Principe ;' I mean the maxim that a State should always try to set its rivals by the ears, in order that itself might grow strong by their impoverishment and weakness; and that every question furnishes means for raising dis- turbances in individual States, or else for using one State against another to the destruction of both. It would obviously here be out of place to discuss \\ hother the several States have a legal light to secede. Tlie New Englanders rebelled against England ; they promoted the revolt of the Spanish Colonies from the mother-country ; they brought about the separation of Texas from Mexico. Now they refuse to accept a just retribution, and will not accede to the secession of the Southern States from them. The Northerns, morever, deny the rigb^ of secession from the Vnion^ but recognize jthe secession of a county from a State. h\ Virginia, for instance, a convocation met to con- sider means for counteracting the Government of the State. They deliberated whether the Western coun- ties of Virginia should or should not secede from tlie State ; and at last decided upon constituting them- selves the regular Government of the State, and super- seding the real authorities. This " Wheeling govern- ment" was at once recognized by President Lincoln. The same thing has since happened, it appears, at Hat- teras, in North Carolina. This has been allowed (al- though the essential unity of each State within itself has never been questioned) by the very statesmen who deny to independent States a right which has been frequently asserted by themselves. \re, then, the seceding States rebellious 1 On the other hand, if there be necessarily and in- 46 m ■ 1 ^ i ! I herently in every people a right to secede, — if govern- ment rests solely on the consent of the people, — then every town and eveiy village has the same right of secession. We are then driven to the follo\/ing dilemma. There must either be empire (that is, compulsory powers exercised over the whole State, — whether those powers be exercised by a single despot, as it is in Russia ; or by an oligarchy, as it is in Eng- land; or by a majority, as it is in America); or else the right of governing themselves, and local adminis- trations must be fully maintained. Lord Russell has asserted that the North is fighting for empire ; while the South is struggling for the Independence or sacred right to govern themselves, which was vindicated in 1787. Every citizen in America has so jealously guarded his " theory of consent," that it is a matter of wonder that they should deny the right to resist any absolute authority; especially when the ruler who possesses that authority departs from the strict laws of the Con- stitution. For the Constitution is the original con- tract or agreement, under which the rulers have the right to govern, and the subjects are pledged to ren- der obedience. Immediately after President Lincoln's election, Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State, repudiated a " war policy," on the ground that " the subjection of a re- cusant State is against the principles of the American Constitution ; that it is the last appeal of monarchies, but against the very idea of a republic." It is need- less to enter into the question whether an indepen- dent sovereignty has been distinctly secured to each of the several States by the Constitution (a doctrine which is strenuously supported by many eminent au- 47 govern- ^ — then right of allowing I (that is, State, — e despot, ; in Eng- I ; or else adminis- issell has re; while I or sacred iicated in ^y guarded I of wonder ,y absolute ) possesses )f the Con- iginal con- 's have the ged to ren- ection, Mr. ed a " war on of a re- e American monarchies, It is need- an indepen- red to each (a doctrine eminent au- thorities in America). It would not be any advantage, in the present investigation, to rehearse the many occasions on which this sovt^reign right has been as- serted and maintained by many differ^ nt States. It is difficult, however, to see in what other manner a go- vernment can be said to " rest on the consent of the governed" (if the unity of the whole State is to be secured), except in the free exercise of local adminis- trations in the various parishes, municipalities, coun- ties, and provinces, such as that which has been pro- vided by the ancient Constitution of England. A complete system of local administrations, or else one of the forms of despotism, seem to be the only alter- natives. When our cole lists in America chose a government for themselves, they maintained unbroken their former loyalty to the Constitution of England ; they adopted the laws and forms of this country ; but chose a Pre- sident instead of receiving a King. They have a " Supreme Court,'' or court of law, which is indepen- dent of the Administration, above the Executive, and the sole interpreter of the Constitution. By this court all international and diplomatic questions are dis- cussed before any action is taken or negotiation com- menced. Public right is thus not left to the caprice of a minister, nor confided to the heedless vehemence of a faction. The Senate has control over all foreign transactions. Its office is, however, limited to sanc- tioning acts which have been done, ratifying treaties, and giving advice as to the instructions which should be given to the President previously to opening a ne- gotiation.* * See Despatch of Sir C. Vaughan, July, 1833, in the ' Papers on the North-East Boundary.' 'm ( \n \^ m 48 »! In the Congress of the United States they have a " Committee on Foreign Relations ;" and a " Chair- man," who answers to our "Secretary of the Com- mittee of the Council of State for Foreign Affairs," (the post now occupied by Lord Russell). The busi- siness of this committee is to examine international transactions. All these institutions were borrowed from the mother-country. We are at once reminded of our Council of State, or Privy Council. This is a body which, according to the laio of the land, is still existing ; or to speak more correctly, the Crown, by inalienable prerogative, has the right to summon any one whatsoever, of whatsoever rank or opinions, to be sworn, and then give counsel to the Sovereign, in the presence of the other councillors. For many years, however, the advice of the Council has not been asked. In former days the wisest of the land, independently of their political opinions, used to be summoned to gve advice to the Crown. By these means the Crown received counsel apart from fac- tion, and from those motives which prevail in par- liamentary bodies, and which so often sway the judg- ment. Above all, he was secured as well against the mistakes, as against the ambition and intrigues of the first minister of the Crown. This Council was distinct from the Parliament. The ministry were the secretaries and officers of this Council; and the duty of the House of Parliament was to control both the Council and the Administration, by means of the power of impeachment which they possessed. The Council had neither executive authority nor legislative power. Hence its members could have no aim nor interest, except to give their sovereign unimpeachable advice. It had necessarily prior in- h !l have a " Chair- I le Com- Affah-s," "he busi- rnational bon-owed reminded This is a id, is still ^rown, hy nmon any nnions, to Sovereign, For many il has not ■ the land, ised to be By these from fac- ail in par- y the judg- ell against d intrigues lis Covmcil inistry were )uncil; and to control 1, by means ly possessed, thority nor could have XX sovereign ily prior in- 49 formation of all ministerial or executive acts ; and no affair of moment could be transacted without its know- ledge. With a like wisdom the Constitution of tiic United States provides that no step of foreign policy should be taken without the consent of the Senate, lest the President should be induced to sell his acts. Thus Hamilton, one of the chief composers of the American Constitution, said in the Convention at which the Constitution was discussed : " To the proper adjustment of checks, the British owe the ex- cellence of their Constitution." The President is, however, nothing but a temporary king ; he has no permanent interest in the Government, and there is nothing to prevent him from selling his inaction. The Federal Government regulates trade, levies war, imposes general taxes, etc. It may not, however, interfere with the internal administration of each in- dividual State. It was always a boast of the Ameri- cans that the States are independent on all internal affairs. The States arrange the organization of their government ; determine the qualifications of electors ; ordain the civil and criminal law ; prescribe the bank- ing system, etc. With none of these State regulations may the Federal Government interfere. On the 29th of December, 1860, the Commissioners for South Carolina announced to the President that their State " resumed the powers which she had dele- gated to the United States," and " declared her per- fect sovereignty and independence." Virginia passed a resolution in favoui* of dissolving her connection with the Union, by a majority of 150,000. North Curolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, joined the movement within one month. In a short time Arkansas and Tennessee ^^' :l| Hf ;-■» i' I! 7, ■ 50 seceded ; while Kentucky, Maryland, antl Missouri re- fused to aid in coercinj? the S(»ceding States. The ground of their refusal was the independent sove- reignty of each State. Northern statesmen had for a long time taken ev^ry opportunity for sketching out plans and schemes for the complete subjugation of the South. And the South perceived that they must resist, or lose their independence for ever. The Fugitive Slave Law was the result of a victory after one such struggle. Clay, Webster, and others foresaw that disruption was immi- nent ; and acknowledged the justice of the resistance which the South offered to the undisguised oppression of the North. Mr. Lempriere states, in his book, that the real struggle arose from the Northerns trying to overiide the South "by an nnconstitutional exercise of power," and the assertion of " an unconstitutional supremacy over their equals in the Confederated Union." This position is fully proved by a speech of Mr. D. Webster, one of the greatest of American statesmen. The occasion of our quarrel with our American colonies was the attempt, on the part of the English Government, to impose on them, in violation of con- stitutional rights, a tax, not for the sake of revenue, but for the assertion of sovereignty. Now the Federal Government is permitted, by the Americ;m Constitu- tion, to lay taxes on the scvr lal States, for the sake of revenue only. Calhoun * tariflp, however, was imposed for the protection of tb«t Northern manufacturers, and not for revenue. This evU was increased in 1824 ; and made still more opj]rn?ssive by the "black tariff" of 1828. Then Mr. Calho tu again came forward, and said, as it were, "The Central Government is now m fi re- 'I'lie bove- takcn icmes id the theiv .w was Clay, J immi- istance ircsaion )k, that :yingto exercise tational ^derated 3eech of merican merican English u of con- revenue, [^ Federal Constitn- he sake of s imposed ifacturers, in 1824; U5k tariff" ward, and nt is now M strong ; the States are weak ; state-rights are being merged into an overshadowing power ; let u;; ])roceed to recognize again tlie state-riglits." South Carolina supported him; and Mr. Henry Clay's tariff of 1832 was passed, as a sort of sop or compromise. Before ten years had elapsed, the Northerns began to return to their vomit again, and resumed a system which tliey had repudiated. On this subject Mr. Toulmin Smith states, in the 'Parliamentary Kemembrancer' of November, 18G1, that "At a meeting held in Columbia, South Carolina, on the 2nd of July, 1827, the Go- vernor of the State being in the chair, it was, among other things, resolved : That the meeting * utterly de- nies the right of Congress to pass taxation laws for the purpose of fostering and aiding any one branch of national industry at the expense of all the rest. . . . Proceedings such as these we complain of, — so ma- nifestly unjust, so plainly calculated to make one sec- tion of the Union tributary to another, and to sa- crifice without remorse the interest of the minority whenever it suits the majority to do so, — are but too well calculated to bring on tl lo dangerous inquiry, — In what manner are the Southern States benefited by the Union ] ' Those >* teo are really familiar with the history of the Unit^l States know very well that their language is the iey to the tone and temper of South Carolina ever since; which has only culmi- nated, after many ye^irs, in actual secession." If the tea-duty, in 1763, justified the Americans' rebellion against us, then what can now be said of the monopolies of the North ; of the differential duties and protective duties imposed by them ; of the high tonnage dues levied in the Southern ports, in order to drive British ships away and secure the trade for the D 2 *4 I* ' I ■■:. . ■ Mr: I n ,':■!* .Ml ;. .11 "It ■■1 ; I' (:i =ili 52 North ? These acts have all been committed in viola- tion of the Constitution; and they have not stood alone ; they have paved the way for other unconsti- tutional acts to follow. Of the North the watchword is " Union." Union is a misnomer. Currency has here again been given to a false term, in order to delude, and thus influence men's acts. Lord North attained his ends by a false use of the word " Sovereignty." The Northerners make a similar attempt, by getting up a cry for " Union." In each case the people never cared to think of the term they were in the habit of blindly using. Inhere is not, nor ever has been, union among themselves. There has been a multitude of various factions under the crushing despotism of a mob. By union they mean "Empire," the notion of one great dominant power throughout the continent of America. This notion was embodied in the Monroe doctrine, and now, its destructive nature, its tendency to division, recoils upon the heads of its promoters. Yet empire they are, in one way, obtaining fast enough; the power of the President has been vastly increased. The Americans used to glory in a supposed weakness of the executive. They see it now unmasked, and find a despotism. Simulated weakness is the best strata- gem for the acquisition of power. A reputed feeble- ness is sure to hoodwink and cozen the unthinking public. When " feebleness of the Government " be- comes a phrase in vogue, then liberty is in peril. The old proverb says that if a dog receives a bad name, he is thenceforth reputed worthless. False terms in a man's mouth, blind his eyes to the things themselves ; and prevent him from seeing, except through a dis- torting haze of opinions and prejudices. 53 Mr. Helper, (author of "The Land of Gold," quoted by Lempriere, pa^e 99,) thus expresses the feelings of the North Carolinians : — " Too long have we yielded a submissive obedience to the tyrannical domination of an inflated oligarchy, etc." Mr. Helper's book was endorsed and ratified by the signatures of Mr. Seward and of nearly seventy other members of the House of Representatives. The letter from Washington, dated September 6th (in the Times), says : — President Lincoln " has reduced his Cabinet to ... a Board of Heads of Departments, who may be asked their opinions of any matter by the President, or who may be put aside, as he pleases." The intention of President Lincoln is revealed in his inaugural address of March 4th, 1861. He wants to free himself from the restraints of the Supreme Court (just as our Ministers have freed themselves from a Privy Council). Of course " public convenience " is his only object. These are his words : — " At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon the vital questions aft'ecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the de- cision of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own masters, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." In Congress, they have ere now complained of the oppression by Government officers. In Washington they already bow under a Provost-Marshal. Habeas Corpus has been suspended by the arbitrary fiat of the President. Arrests of persons on suspicion have been frequent. Fort Lafayette is their Bastille. Trial by jury is suppressed. The liberty of the press suspended. Property confiscated. The odious passport system m ■|i: i m 54 established in all its rigour. The President wields prerogative with a high hand, putting the liberty of the citizen at his disposal, and the Constitution at his feet. Yet Congress alone has the legal authority to suspend Habeas Corpus. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decided, in the Merriman case, that the President has no right to suspend it. The Judges of the Supreme Court, therefore, continue to issue writs of Habeas ; and the President continues to direct disobedience to be shown to the laws of the land. This has happened in the vaunted land of liberty. Democracy is teaching, by example, the opposite of what it inculcates by precept. People never can be induced to see themselves as others sec them ; there- fore hardly a voice has been raised in remonstrance. The few who have tried to do so have found that it is now too late. They have been overwhelmed in a storm of obloquy. Their voices have been drowned in the foul washes of public opinion. Chancellor Kent wrote : " The progress and impulse of public opinion is ra- pidly destroying every constitutional check." These words, which Chancellor Kent then wrote in his Com- mentaries, may now be written in their history. Mr. Breckenridge* made a strong speech, declaring cer- tain acts of President Lincoln to be " unconstitutional usurpations of power. The country (he said) is rush- ing with rapid strides from constitutional government to a military despotism. Yet so great is the passion of the hour, and so astonishing the stupid amazement of the people, that these things are taken as natural and right." Chief Justice Taney, in Baltimore, asserted that the President, by sanctioning the arrest of Merriman, and • See letter from New York, July 17th, in the Times. 55 refusing to deliver him up on a writ of Habeas Coi-pus from the Judicature, has " trampled the laws of the country under foot." (Lempriere.) The other day, a writ of Habeas Corpus was served upon a Colonel by an Attorney. The Colonel, by the President's directions, instantly imprisoned the attor- ney, and clapped sentries over the door of the judge who had issued the writ. Generals have taken pos- session of whole districts, even in States which have not seceded, and have superseded the legal authorities. The Government constituted itself the organ of the pas- sions of the many, (which have been called by the collec- tive term of " public opinion"), and has become a mili- tary despotism. In the hour of danger the Government resorted to the old expedient ; they proposed an un- lawful war, in order to draw off public opinion from their despotic -cv ^achments, and unconstitutional de- signs. They U >^od thus to stifle, under the outcry of passion, the voices of those who desire to preserve consti- tutional freedom. This proclamation appeared in the New York journals towards the end of the summer. Of course it was " inspired : " — " Instead of shedding the blood of our fellow-men, let us, North and South, unite to resent the threatened interference of England, . . . and proceed directly to drive the British power out of Canada. We have the strength, why not the wilH" This is a well-known trick of Governments; one that is constantly re-appearing in every country. It is generally successful; therefore it is never observed. The plan has however, this time, seemed to fail. Yet the unconstitutional encroachments continue. The Democratic llepublic, with the small army of 15,000 men, has already become a military despotism. While the President's army turn out, in a quaint soldatesque ' '4 1 H 'I H 'M _ f It •I 56 style, to attack the Confederates by land, his navy is ordered, in violation of the Constitution, to blockade the harbours of the Southern States. On this subject judgment has already been delivered. Daniel Webster said, in a similar case thirty years ago : — " I, for one, protest in advant against such remedies as I have heard hinted. Tae Administration itself keeps a pro- found silence, but its friends have spoken for it. We are told. Sir, that the President will immediately em- ploy the military force, and at once blockade Charles- ton ! A military remedy, a remedy by direct belli- gerent operation has been suggested, and nothing else has been suggested, ay the intended means of preserv- ing the Union. Sir, there is no little reason to think this suggestion is true. We cannot be altogether un- mindful of the past; and therefore we cannot be altogether unapprehensive for the future. For one. Sir, I raise my voice beforehand against the unautho- rized employment of military power, and against super- seding the authority of the laws by an armed force, under pretence of putting do\vn Nullification. The President has no authority to blockade Charleston ; the President has no authority to employ military force till he shall be duly required so to do by law, and by the civil authorities. His duty is to cause the laws to be executed. His duty is to support the civil authority." All these acts, which I have enu- merated, were flagrant violations of the Constitution. Some of them were perpetrated out of lust for power; while others were committed for the sake of trade, and out of lust for gain. What is the result ? The only kind of business which thrives now, is that of army contractors, gunsmiths, and the other myrmidons of war. All other trades are nearly at a 57 «5' lavy is ockade subject iTebster for one, I have is a pro- it. "We tely em- Cbarles- ct belli- tiing else ' preserv- to think ether un- innot be For one, unautho- nst super- ned force, ion. The larleston ; military do by law, to cause ipport the have enu- )nstitution. for power; 3 of trade. lit I ves now, is the other nearly at a standstill. The productive powers of the country are nearly annihilated, while the waste has vastly increased. The Russian war added about thirty millions to our debt. Even the nine years of our American war added only one hundred and four millions to our debt. The civil war in America is costing the North about sixty millions a year ; while their ordinary expenditure was only fifteen millions. Where then is their boasted peace uiid economy ? overwhelmed by a whirlwind of passion in a gulf of war and reckless expenditure. Yet ths increase of expenditure is not the result merely of the overpowering excitement of the day. It has long been rampant in that vaunted land. The Chicago Manifesto contains the following assertion : " The people justly view with alarm the reckless ex- travagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government ; a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable, to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favoured partisans." Bolingbroke quotes, with indignation, a case far brighter with hope than this of America. " Two Consuls were chosen annually at Eome, and the Pro- consular power in the government of provinces was limited to a year, — several inconveniences arose, no doubt, from the strict observation of this institution, —some appear very plain in history; and we may assure ourselves that many arguments of conveniency, of expediency, of preser\ing the tranquillity of the city, and of giving strength and weight to the arms and counsels of the commonwealth, were urged to prevail on the people to dispense with these institutions in favour of Pompey and of Caesar. What was the con- sequence? the pirates were extirpated, the price of corn was reduced, Spain w'as held in subjection, Gaul »., 'it '■ in 'I t ::i 58 was conquered, the Germans were repulsed, Home tri- umphed, her Government flourished ; but her consti- tution was destroyed, her liberty was lost." * If that was the case with the greatest city of an- cient Europe, what fate can we foresee for America 1 Many other flagrant breaches of the Constitution be- sides these have be^ committed. United States troops were quartered in ..♦iaryland, ostensibly with the ob- ject of protecting the route of raw levies. Soon even this thin disguise of a constitutional pui^pose was cast aside ; and it became apparent that a State, which had not rebelled, had yet sufiered military occupation, merely in order to strike terror into a majority who were suspected to be favourable to secession. Mem- bers of the liCgislature were incarcerated, without form of trial, as soon as they had been elected. 'I'lie military commander seized the pclice commissioners of Baltimore on suspicion, and imprisoned them iu the prisons of another State, after having treated the writs of Habeas Corpus with contempt. Other com- missioners were then appointed, without tlie least re- gard to the State itself, and in direct violation of tho Federal compact. Military force has thus usurped all power, in defiance of the Constitution. Congress then were induced to ratify these acts ; that is to any, they were led by the nose to endorse a breach of the Constitution, and set at nought the prixileges and rights of an independent State. This they contamiVAl to do, although the President refused, on the plea of *' inconvenience to public interests," to lay upon the table of the House any papers in explanaticm of his acts. Yet it was the Constitution which gave them the right to sit at all. Hence, to break the (Jonstitu* • Bolingbroke on Parties, page 133. '!(( tfl) fol- - 50 %' > tion, was to deny their own authority, and to cut awny the ground from under their feet. Lately, Colonel Taylor set at defiance the whole bench of Judges. By order of the President he treated their writs with scorn and contempt. Yec the greatest of all the violations of the Con- stitution has been the gradual and unperceived destruction of local administrations and the right of goveiiiing themselves. As soon as ever the National Convention was organized there arose two great parties : one of which desired to strengthen the cen- tral authority, while the other sought to main- tain state-independence; the former sought radical change, the latter was conservative, and wished to main- tain the existing order of things. The latter party said they objected to be " put at the mercy of great communities, whose policy might overshadow, and whose power might destroy them." Mr. Clay saw that this question was a rock on which the Union would split ; because that this violation of the Con- stitution involved all the others. He said (May 21, 1850), " I am afraid that this Union, for all the high and noble purposes for which our fathers formed it, will not be preserved. Mr. Douglas said the real ob- ject and true intent was to re-organize in the Territories the great princijyle of self-government, in obedience to which the people of each State and Territoi7 coming into the Union should decide for themselves what kind of institutions and laws are best adapted to their condition and welfare. It was in obedience to this great principle, in defence of which the battles of the revolvr tion were fought, — the principle for the preservation of which tlie Constitution of the United States was adopted, — for the preservation of this great principle it was '■i!» ?'1 I »■-■ m eo that the Washington and Nebraska Bills were passed in the form in which they now appear on the statute- book." General Jackson, Governor of Missouri, in his pro- clamation, dated June 12, 1861, used these words : — "It is equally my duty to advise you that your Jlrst allegiance is due to your own State^ and that you are under no obligation whatever to obey the unconstitutional edicts of the military despotism which has introduced itself at Washington, nor submit to the infamous and degrading sway of its wicked minions in this State." This is also put forward by President Davis as the cause of the secession. And in his address (June 21, 1861) he said: "We may well rejoice that we have for ever severed our connection with a government that thus tramples upon all principles of constitutional liberty, and with a people in whose presence such avowals could be paraded." Stability and power are often confounded. A con- centrated force is always vanquished when beaten. A force (wrote Machiavelli) which is spread and ex- tended, may easily be beaten, but can never be van- quished. It is impossible to say whether the hand of Kus- sian diplomacy has been active in these transactions, in the same way as it was thrust into the afore- mentioned disturbances which took place in the same quarter of the globe. It is, however, impossible to refrain from quoting a prediction which was printed eight or nine years ago, and which has now been fulfilled: "That Russia should form any plan for the convulsion or partition of the United States will, of course, appear so preposterous as to be set down V ,1 •e passed I statute- i his pro- words : — hat your aud that obey the I'sin which submit to ed minions avis as the J (June 21, at we have Tovernment mtitutioml isence such d. A con- beaten. A ad and ex- 5ver be van- ind of Kus- jansactions, the afore- in the same jpossible to was printed now been tny plan for States will, |be set down 61 to the score of insanity. I content myself, there- fore, with merely asserting that such is her interest, such her system, that she has brought greater ad- ventures to a happy termination, and that every scheme of hers has been equally set down as in- sane until she has shown it to be rational. But at least she will not neglect any opportunity afforded to her by internal causes or external events for bringing about a political condition which will prove unfavour- able to production. There is no country upon which her eye has been more intently fixed, there is no countiy against which her animosity more fiercely burns. The rivalry of manufacturing countries is no- thing to the rivalry of countries producing raw mate- rials. In all other cases that rivalry is vague, popular, unpractical, and unmeaning ; but Eussia pursues her interests in another spirit, and as she uses commerce as an instrument of diplomacy, so does she use the command which she exercises through her diplomacy to advance her commercial ends." * The Northern and Western States supply Europe, to a great extent, with grain. Russia does the same. They are rivals. If the productive power of either were destroyed (by convulsion or otherwise), the other would have a monopoly of the breadstuffs, which she could withhold, or supply at famine prices. Europe would be in her power. The Southern States, however, are no rivals to Eussia in her trade. Again ; it is not the interest of Russia that England should be weakened by distress in the manufacturing districts. The edge of the tool must not be turned, its power must remain unimpaired. England's power forwards her ends, without endangering her name. * From " Eecent Evente/' by D. Urqubart, reprinted in 1854, • 1] . . ; II I'l'i m 'U 62 Another end will be gained by the war which is just threatening : a project, which has been cherished for nearly a century, would be accomplished. The Right of Search, — which the Empress Catherine tried to in- duce Fox to abolish, in return for the most magnificent advantages, — to abolish which the Armed Neutrality was formed, — will be for ever done away with, and England's maritime power, her most effectual weapon of offence, will be taken out of her liands. After the war of Independence, the Americans borrowed the form of their Constitution from us. But in their administration, they have popularized the theories of Sydney, Milton, and Locke. Since that time they have "gone a-head;" they have "pro- gressed." And what have they arrived at 1 What is the result of their experiment 1 A contradiction ; an inconsistency. If the people arc- really the source of power, what is the good of balancing " State Rights" and "Federal Rights"? By accepting the theory that the people are the source of all power, they have already cut away the ground from under their feet. Thus the Northerns, by holding a false theory, have " progressed " to a revulsion, and now appear, — equally distant from the truth on the other side, — as the assertors of legitimacy, against revolu- tion. " That splendid fabric, the Union," say they, " has a legitimate right to your allegiance ; it is sinful to subvert its power !" Thus have their Lockian theo- ries brought them to a dead lock. How much more true was the assertion of Cicero : " Rite ab eo dicendi principia capiamus, quem unum omnium deorum et hominum regem esse omnes docti indoctique uno ore consentiunt. . . . Est igitur res publica res populi; populus autefli non omnis hominum cgetus quoque 03 motlo congregatus, scd coDtus multitudinis juiis con- sensu et utilitatis communione sociatus. . . . Brevi, multitudo dispersa atquc vaga, concordia civitas facta erat."* Compare the above with the following words of Ikirke : " The King is the representative of the peo- ple ; so are the I^ords ; so are the Judges. They are all trustees for the people, as well as the Commons ; because no power is given for the sole sake of the holder ; and although Government is certainly an in- stitution of dimne authority^ yet its fonns^ and the persons who admiiiister it, all originate from the people." The only legitimate despot is, not a prince, not a Parliament, not the people ; but Justice, or Keason itself. Every other power is unreasonable and unjust, whjther in piince or in people. • The people are not the source of all power; Go- vernment does not rest only on the consent of the govenied ; unless indeed these terms be so far limited and restricted in meaning, as to imply only the con- sent which the nation originally gave to the condi- tions on which it would submit to be governed. The conditions which were agreed to between the governors and the governed, which were imposed on the rulers by the rest of the nation, and on the nation by the nilers, is simply the constitution of the country. This constitution or solemn concordat is supreme over both rulers and people. It lays both governors and governed under an equal obligation and restraint. It is the expression of the nation's idea of Justice. When those common phVases are taken in this sense, then they imply a truth; from which there follows, as a corollaiy, * Cic. de Rep., 1. i., c. xxv., xxxvi. ; and see Aug. Ep. cxxxviii. 10. t 'i t' i 1:' I tl 1! f ■ ■'■■( C4 that the people are as guilty, when they violate tho Constitution, as the Sovereign would be if he wore to infringe it. Thus Bolingbroke wrote in his " Essays on Parties" : — " The settlements, by virtue of whicli he (the Sovereign) governs, are plainly original con- tracts, — his institution is plainly conditional ; and he may forfeit his right to allegiance, as undeniably and effectually, as the subject may forfeit his right to pro- tection The laws of the land are known, and they are sole springs from whence the prince can de- rive his pretensions, and the people theirs."* And again he says : " Thus, if a Parliament should persist in abetting mal-administration, or any way gi^ e up those liberties which they were entrusted to main- tain, no doubt can be made but that the people would be in the same case ; since their representatives have no more right to betray them, than their kings have to usurp upon them ; and by consequence they would acquire the same right of appealing to Heaven, if our Constitution had not provided a remedy against this evil, which could not be provided against the other ; but our Constitution hath provided such a remedy in the frequent succession of new Parliaments, by which there is not time sufficient given to form a majority of the representatives of the people into a ministerial cabal; or by which, if this should happen, such a cabal must be soon broken." f De Tocqueville wrote a book to show the evils that result from a despotism by the people, and the contradictions which are necessarily involved in the common acceptation of the phrases : " The people are the source of all power," and " Government must rest on the consent of the governed." Mariana, in • P. 103. t Ibid. p. 129. » < 1 ■ u I u' te the I were Kssays which il con- ancl he )ly and to pro- vn, and can de- shouhl vay give to main- le would ves have igs have 2y would in, if our linst this le other; gmedy in »y which majority inisterial , such a 65 his De Rege et Regis ListUutione, demands only a single postulate, namely, the sovereignty of the people. From that premise he evolved the right of any indivi- dual to assassinate his king. Sovereignty of the people is merely a euphenil^m for despotism by the many. And despotism means brute force. On the other hand, let us ask ourselves what we mean by the term Government. What is government I How does government rest on tlie consent of the governed ] Ty- ranny cannot be called government. When a single man, who has great power and great means, employs thut power and those means, and uses all the people within his reach, merely to gratify his caj)rice, no one will say, when speaking with caution and propriety, that the exercise of power in such a manner is government. From the idea of government caprice is excludcKl. So, also, if a mob has power, and uses it merely to gratify the passions and whims of the moment, this is not government. From the idea of government all pas- sion, as well as all caprice, is excluded. Law is in- herent in government. The Rulers, as well as the GoveiTied, must obey some Law. As all passion and all caprice is excluded, this law is not the " might of the stronger;" it must be the Law of reason or of Conscience. Plato asserted and proved that Right^^otir',- ness is the essence and foundation of government. Cicero said that the State can stand on Justice alone. Justice is a Latin term, of which the old English equi- valent was rightwise-ness. The standard of Right is the essence of government. Caprice, or the gratifica- tion of passion, is lawlessness, or the contrary of Law. The Law, which constitutes government, the Law which is Supreme — over rulers as well as ruled, is known by Conscience. E !l||. 66 m Look at this in another light. Government is a a method. A mere harum-scarum scramble after the whim of the hour is not government. No more can a mere dogged, passive, unmoving resistance be called government. Government is method. The word Method denotes the passage to some predetermined end, by progressive steps. The end of government must be the utmost good : " ultimate good" or the " summum bonum " of the ancients. The progressive work of government consists in applying the Supreme I^aw to cases as they arise. To manufacture " laws " is ca- price; it is serving the notion of the hour, or gratify- ing the passion of the day. This is lawlessness ; it is the very contrary of government. I^egislation con- sists in asserting the Supreme Law (the Law which rulers and ruled must equally obey), and declaring the application of it to certain cases. To govern is, in fact, to administer the Law. There may be different ways of carrying this out, — different methods, — different means for attaining the end; although the end must be, in every case, the same. In other words, there may be various ^^ forms of government." The question then arises : How is this matter to be determined 1 To answer this ques- tion, let us first consider what right one man has to govern others. '^ > declare the Law which is over all, is the function r •: Season or the conscience. The re- sult must the same for all who exercise their reason. To apply the Law in the different cases which arise is similarly the work of Reason. So far no man has a better right than any other man to govern the rest. Most men, however, do not consult their reason ; most men entertain opinion; most men are influenced by passion. Those alone can rightly govern who are 67 themselves subject entirely to reason or conscience ; and therefore do not entertain opinions, and are not swayed by any passion. As no one, however, is free from passion and unfettered by opinion, the only thing which can be done is to frame certain rules, which shall, as far as possible, check, if not exclude, the baneful operations and influences of men's blind- ing passions and conflicting opinions. Again, as those who are not entirely guided by reason have no inherent right to govern others, there- fore those others must come to certain terms, and give their consent to be governed, on certain conditions, by those who are men of like passions with them- selves ; those conditions being this, — that the rulers should govern according to prescribed forms, and be subject to certain rules, which shall exclude the ope- ration of their passions, and the influence of their private opinions. The object of this is that reason might have as much sway as possible in the State ; or, in other words, that the whole nation should, as far as possible, be subject to that Supreme Law which is over all. This agreement (/. e., these forms which have been fixed upon, these rules of government to which all have given their consent) is called the Constitution. The object of the Constitution is, therefore, to exclude the influence of private passions and opinions, and to cause all national acts to be in accordance with the Supreme Law, which is implanted in every man, and which every man can perceive, if he wil? but think. The Constitution embodies the nation's idea of Justice. The rulers must therefore govern according to the Constitution; that is to say, they have only to administer E 2 34; i i I I ■mh t« .'!; 68 the Laws. The legislative body which has been framed under the Constitution (of whatever form that body be) has merely to declare and apply the Law, but may not manufacture "laws" (i. e. alter the Con- stitution). For it is by the Constitution alone that the Legislature has any right or authority to govern (?'. e. to apply and declare Law). For the Legisla- ture, or the Administration to alter, or annul, or even disregard the Constitution is to annihilate its own authority ; to break a solemn agreement ; to deny and abjure its right to govern; to commit the greatest of crimes ; to erect a tyranny. In this sense alone, it seems to me, can government be said to rest on the consent of the governed. If any more immediate consent be assumed as necessary, surely the Southern States have a right to refuse their consent to the Fe- deral Government, and secede from the Union. And if States may secede from the Union, may not coun- ties, by the same rule, secede from States 1 If such a theory be accepted, then when decomposition begins no one can put a limit to its progress. The notion of severance will spring up wherever local interests arc at variance with general policy. Once the right has been admitted, it never can consistently be denied. We are thus driven to accept either a despotism, or else a complete and irresistible decomposition and dissolution, if any consent apart from the original constitution be assuined as necessary. If the Northerns were however to succee 1 in subju- gating the Southerns, where would be their own vaunted constitutional freedom 1 If a huge army, flushed with recent victory, boiling over with passion, enamoured of plunder and excesses, is to hold a great Poland in subjection, where will then be the sense of "equa- been I that Law, I Con- 3 that rovern egisla- >r even ts own o deny Tveatcst ilone, it on the mediate ;outhem » the Fe- n. And Lot conn- [f snch a n begins notion of n-ests arc light has denied, otism, or lition and original in snbju- ki vaunted Ished with Inamoured Ipoland in of " equa- 69 lity 1" Where will be all legal rights "? Even if we were to suppose that the North has a more legitimate right to sovereignty than a King of Naples, yet, if the North ever be ^detorious, free government will be a less likely phenomenon in America than it would be in the kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Verily, those who invoke the "prerogative of the people" are some- what baser traitors, and greater hypocrites ; they err a little more meanly, and have to stoop somewhat lower than those who bow before "the right divine of kings to govern wrong." For whilst democracies have just the same passions as despots, we may on the other hand ask, in the words of Cicero, " Quid quseso interest inter unum et plures, si justitia est in pluribusT' The forms (or rather the accidents) of Government matter very little. America has had enlightenment, education, unlimited territory, free- dom, " civilization," wealth, and all those phantoms which are supposed to render a people great and wise. Yet all these shadows have been impotent to hold her back from littleness and folly. But a year ago — nay, less than a year — what views did we in England take of that vaunted "popular form of government " in America 1 We allowed that the Americans might be infected with trade notions somewhat sordid ; we confessed that their " standard of morality " was low ; yet we ascribed to their form of government all the virtues of peace and retrench- ment ; we eulogized them for being repugnant to a standing army ; we said that they would resist the slightest encroachments of a Ministry upon the li- berty of the citizen. All these good qualities we attributed to their "popular form of government." 3^o«>, we are called upon to witness all the horrors 11 1 1 tfiffi lw-lH^Rn ' «'■ ■' ifS '' 11 ill IH:'i?BI ' ^ ^fjl' ' ! flBn^K*fl '?M\ '■^WKBm^ 1 1 W >ni K 1 nl ?! i^^^KHiHlBi 1 1 ^B^H A ■^JK ''I^^^H 'V i ^^B^H :li||M ■BijBB '^'V plc in lo way :oviaiiH' ; they luxury, 73 the widest and most extended suffrage, is no more a guarantee and safeguard for the liberties of the na- tion than it is the well-spring of all those other vir- tues of patriotism, peace, and economy, which have so often been erroneously ascribed to it. The people tliemselves must be citizens; they must each and all I «!nl the duty of citizens; they must inquire and watch for themselves, and set their faces against all lawlessness and wrong-doing on the part of their repre- sentatives. The old panacea has at last most signally failed. Therefore let us try another elixir of life ; that namely which all the greatest statesmen and political philosophers of old recommended. Let the people themselves become just, honest, and vigilant; and let them look after their own affairs. Cicero's words may have some weight on this point: — "Sed hoc verissimum esse, sine summa justitia rem publi- cam geri nullo modo posse." (Cic. de Repub. lib. ii. c. xliv. : this is rehearsed by St. Augustine in Civ. Dei, ii. 21, who there continues thus concerning the third book of the Republic of Cicero, which has been lost:) "Tum Leelius, rogantibus omnibus, justitiam defendere adgressus est, adservitque quantum potuit, liiliil tam inimicum (piam injustitiam civitati, nee omuino nisi magna justitia geri aut stare posse rem publicam. . . . Docet deinde quanta sit in disputando definitionis utilitas: atque ex illis suis definitionibus coUigit, tunc esse rem publicam, id est rem populi, cum bene ac juste geritur, sive ab uno rege, sive a paucis optimatibus, sive ab universo populo. Cum vero injustus est rex, quem tyrannum, more Graeco appellavit; aut injusti optimates, quorum consensum dixit esse factionem; aut injustus ipse populus, cui if H 1''' H I \ '^■i^^ 111 1' ;■ , ■% t IHJ I m 't ii •!.«.' Hit 74 nomen usitatum non repent, nisi ut ipsum tyraimum vocaret; non vitiosam, . . . sed . . . omnino nullam esse rem publicam." If people will but think, they will " know of their own selves " what is right and just and honest in the administration of the affairs of the State, as well as in the management of their own households. The charge which was brought against a people in such a " controversy " as that which is now being [earned on in America was this: — "My people will not con- sider." Let us however also ask ourselves whether we in England do not likewise applaud lawless acts which have been perpetrated by our rulers abroad; whether we have not, in fact, erected a temple like that on Acro-Corinth, dedicated to "Necessity and Violence." Have we not assumed, as our principle in politics, that " might is right " 1 Are not we also getting careless about our Constitution at home, and ignoring the fact, that, when once the breach is made, then all is lost and our only hope is gone. " Except we repent, we shall all likewise perish." I cannot refrain from quoting the words of one of our great statesmen in the House of Commons (Windham, February 8, 1808):— "What! shall we be told th.-t we are to give ourselves up to hatred and dishonour and reproach in perpetuity, for the sake of avoiding the comparatively little contingencies of next sum- mer 1 These dangers would continue, or be partially lulled, till new dangers ripened and burst upon us. The routine of affairs might seem to go on as before, but not so the policy ; not so the character of the country ! What shall we think when we find that we have created the hatred of nations for generations to 75 come, who will constantly remember our misdeeds when they behold the monuments of our ravages, — when they point at the sad memorials of their de- struction, — when they see the remains of their public edifices ; of that beautiful church, which was the pride of their capital, an awful ruin ; when the re- collection of our bombciument is rendered per- petual by the melancholy sentiment inspired by the eternity of the toiiib? .... The value of our gain will be soon gone ; but our loss, I fear, is per- petual : time will teach some of the young members of this House, by her awful lessons, the importance of jus- tice, and the punishments that await its violation." In fact, the form of government matters very little, if the object of a government be not attained. Why moreover should governments be always classi- fied according to their forms (or rather, accidents), and not according to their essence 1 Monarchy, aris- tocracy, republic, are only " accidents " of the life of a people, and do not relate to the elementary condi- tion of society. There are, in fact, (as M. Odilon Barrot has well said,) " only two forms of govern- ment; that which absorbs individual energies, and that which leaves them a free expansion ; a govern- ment which tries to govern in everything, and that which leaves things to individual spontaneity ; cen- tralization, and local administration." The accidental character of government matters little, if only the object of government be attained. The end of all government is to make men better, — to promote jus- tice and harmony. That end has not been attained in America ; there is contention, rivalry, lawlessness. Yet the civil war is but a little evil ; for it is only the external result. It is a passing evil ; for it is seen. U ^'' 'I ': Hi i' ■ 't I M I ^1 I '>1 ''All 76 The moral evil is of much more moment; for it is the cause. This spiritual evil is infinitCiy worse ; for it is not seen. It is thoroforc, also, ignored. General Jackson, speaking thirty years ago, of the growing corruptions of his countiy, predicted that these cor- ruptions would lead to contention and strife, to a disturbance of the peace, and a breaking up of the Union.* This corruption of the moral sense has produced discord ; the eagerness for riches has destroyed the sense of justice. The following is from a letter, dated October 9, 1860, from Mr. Edwards Pierrepont, one of the Judges of the Superior Court of New York, to Mr. E. D. Morgan, President of the State. He is tender- ing his resignation, and stating his reasons for taking this step :t — " We are all madly hastening to be rich, leaving justice^ order, and government to take care of themselves, or to be cared for by those who will trample them in the dust. . . . Bad government and false notions of what is worthy, always go together, and act and react upon each other, as they do here. Hence this unpromising feature in our civilization glaringly presents itself, namely, the insane passion for outward grandeur and meretricious display which everywhere prevails. . . . The young man of good character, making his toilsome way up through the thorny road to honourable distinction in this great wilderness of men, cannot many, because society im- poses upon him expenses which he cannot meet ; his pride revolts at alliance which deprives him of manly independence or degrades his position among men. * See his Mesaages and Notes to Congress. t From J. P. Cobbett's ' Causes of the Civil War in the United States.' September, 1861. 77 ■< \ it 18 ; for meral owing e cov- , to a of the . . . If our wise and good, rich, intelligent, and honest citi/ons think these things of no moment, they will let them alone, as they have heretofore done ; but they may rely upon it that these things will not let them alone." It has been acknowledged on all hands that there is a great disregard of Law and Right in the United States. Self-will, and not the rule of Law, is always the prevailing motive with them. Individual license is the very essence of their acts, and the staple of their politics. This therefore causes the lawless and unjust acts of their rulers. Yet they have lately complained of having such a weak executive ; they lately have said in an oV)jurgatory tone " that they have no Government." Of course not. Laws in themselves have no power. I^aws can effect nothing unless the people have a respect for law and right. Therefore a government can have no influence (unless bt/ mere brute force)^ except there be a moral feeling, a sense of justice, in the people. Hence it must be the object of every government to foster this feeling. However, according to the Ame- rican theory, the only duty and end of government is to afford " protection to persons and property." The spread of such a theory is a greater disaster than the dissolution of the Union. Why should persons and property be preserved t — the State would become no poorer if property were to change hands, and no weaker if a few lives were lost. To the following answer we must arrive by one route or another : that persons and property must be preserved in order to avoid the anarchy which would otherwise ensue, and the disregard of all justice which would be engen- dered. So, then, this protection is but a means to 78 1 effect a moral end. Such must be the end of government, unless the only object in life is to be- come rich, by fair means or by foul. To deny a moral end in government is to deny government itself; for you thus take away the only ground on which the obedience of rational creatures can rest. You set law at nought, you become either the infidel apostle of anarchy, or the caterer and pander to the tyranny of brute force. Another theory which has been hastily taken up, in order to avoid being driven to the right conclusion, is that trade is the bond which unites communities ; that commerce is the olive-branch of peace and har- mony, and the very foundation of society. How often must the same farce be acted before our very eyes, ere we shall acknowledge that trade has failed over and over again to produce peace and harmony ; that it is generally only the forerunner and cause of discord and injustice at home, of war and bloodshed abroad? Two forays; millions of money; and oceans of blood, form the hecatomb when commerce chooses to step over to China. Maori murders are the foot- steps of " civilization " at the antipodes. There is no knowing what power Trade and the Funds may not have to sprinkle blood on Mexico, Tartary, or Japan. This commercial cinlization is more like a Dahomey than a Jerusalem. Cicero said the same ; as for in- stance, — "Est autem maritimis urbibus etiam qua- dam corruptela ac mutatio morum : pdmiscentur enim novis sermonibus ac disciplinis, et importantur non merces solum adventitite sed etiam mores, ut nihil possit in patriis institutis manere integrum. Jam qui incolunt eas urbes, non haerent in suis sedibus, sed volucri semper spe et cogitatione rapiuntur k domo 79 longius: atque ctiam cum manent corporc, animo tamen cxcurrimt et vagantur. Nor vcro ulla res niagis labcfactatam diu ct ( 'arthagiiicm ot Corinthum pervertit aliquando, quam hie tMTor ac dissipatio civium, quod mcrcandi cupiditate et navigandi, et agrorum et armorum cultum icli(iuerant. Multa enim ad luxuriam invitamenta perniciosa civitatibus sub- peditantur mari, quue vel capiuntur vel iniportantur " (Cicero de Repub. lib. ii. cap. iv.). And these are the words of a well-known writer: — " It is not by the accumulation of wealth, or extension of dominion, — it is not by the possession of armies or of navies that greatness is attained or tranquillity secured. Tliese things, important and valuable as they are, yet are not the sources of power. There is a possession beyond them, by which these are created, without which they are useless, — national character. A na- tion's destinies are in its mind ; its circumstances flow from its qualities ; its strength lies not in its political institutions, but in its individual character. Where- cver men are just and prudent, tlie nation will live and prosper. . . . We read in history of the fall of nations through the decay of their institutions; but if history really were the handmaid of philosophy, we should learn that the decay of institutions is an effect and not a cause; and that things which men's opinions create, interpret, and apply, have no existence, — what- ever the form they wear, whatever the name by which they are known, — save in the spirit of the age. What- ever produces unworthy desires or ignoble subser- viency in the people of a country, exposes to hazard the politic body, because the parts have been cor^ rupted ; renders feeble and valueless its forms of go- vernment, because principles of honour and a sense of II 1 ! m IliL 80 '^n ■'■'■li dignity are wanting in the men. Implant in a people an object of policy which is not just, — cause it to submit to an act which is dishonourable, — and you instantly sink the value of each individual of which it is composed, and lower at once institutions, power, and character ; diminish the value of possessions and of existence, — for whatever detracts from the morality of a people, diminishes its happiness."* This temporary disaster in the United States will be a blessing if it gets rid of the more enduring evil of these godless theories and faithless notions. If these criticisms be true, then thoy will be laughed at. When a man is afflicted with moral blindness, he cannot see the state he is in. When his conscience is callous, he cannot feel the touch of shame. And not seeing, he will not believe, but will laugh out- right. " Populus vult decipi, et decipiatur." Yet is it not true that they (and we too) look upon a fall in the funds as something worse than the less percep- tible fall in morals \ — that they consider the greatness of a nation to consist in material welfare and com- merce; even when the people have lost their con- science by inventing for themselves a standard of " political morality" ? The greater the blindness, the nearer the danger, tlie less always will it be believed. In Rome corruption was rampant ; and all sense of right, and all aspiration for what is good, all love for what is pure and honourable was gone, whilst the Emperors were reigning in magnificence and power, and the peopio passed their lives in a sense of secu- rity and splendour. This has been enlarged upon by many writers. But Michelet has shown that this cor- ruption and decline began at the time when Rome * Urquhart'g ' Exposition of the Boundary Differeno«a/ 1839. 81 thought herself greatest and freest. Her ruin and de- cadence had begun a century before the battle of Phar- salia ; but it was unobserved, ignored, and discredited. How grovelling were the people before the Flood ! They went on marrying and feasting, and gossiping, as if there were real enjoyment in their daily life ; they knew not that they had sunk so low that nothing short of a deluge could purge the world. Such was their apathy! such their indifference! such ignoring of their guilt, and making liglit of their crimes ! The nobles of Babylon were feasting while the arms of the Medes were clanging at the very gates. The Jews were torn by faction, while Titus surrounded their walls, and was crucifying all whom he could catch. None of these would make the effort to think ; or if they did, it was merely for the pleasure of languid excitement, and not for the more momentous duty of knowing what they were. So also the Athenians were careless and light-hearted, when the battle of Chseronea was being lost. " The guilt of some, the heedlessness of all Bent the great eity to its fate and fall ; Till gold at last made safe the traitor's way, And bowed all hearts in bondage and decay." It has been said by Americans themselves that this civil war has been brought about by " unexampled progress, and the rapid advance of civilization ;" that the great cities which have been raised up by civili- zation, as the centres of commerce, are but the hot- beds of iniquity ; that their progress has been towards evil, not towards a summuni honum. The ' Atlantic Monthly' says that the misfortune of the United States is that government has always been the prize of those men who take up politics merely as \ 'V i.', t II j ■ r- ':'■■ ■ \l i:; lY.^ K IF :.■}'■ i.k 82 a " speculation,'' rather than as a duty which each citi- zen owes to the State ; and that thus has arisen that scepticism and want of principle in their statesmen which always proves so dangerous in times of ex- citement ; so despicable and base in times of tran- quillity. Their representatives in fact abdicate the functions of statesmen, in deference to public opi- nion ; while the Press manufactures public opinion for the statesmen, by writing for an " ignorant mass" who are certain to receive every unfounded notion which they find in print. Such statesmen drift help- lessly before the misty notions of those whom they ought to guide. This is bad enough in itself. It also reacts on the people themselves; for no one in America has a chance of election who does not incessantly flatter the electors, and tell them they are a most enlightened people, and live under the best institutions in the world. He must not only ac- custom himself to utter this falsehood, but he must also be prepared to act upon it, and obey the impulses of the majority. The noble mind which would lead public opinion, has there no chance against some adroit adventurer or submissive tool. No great man can stoop to sycophancy ; and the many cannot ap- preciate the high standard of morality of a just man. Thus the Senate has become the playhouse of pas- sions. Of statesmen there are none; all are poli- ticians. What is the result % The many goTern not only their representatives, but also rule the minority with the iron hand of a despot. People talk of the "Slave-holding despotism' of the South ; but he Procrustean-uniformity des- potism of the North is much more grinding. <-.... A letter from America, in the '* Times,' informs us MM 83 ij If Ki that " there is no liberty, nor even freedom of opinion. . . . Expression of opinion may cause instant death on the spot. The most cniel and atrocious acts are per- petrated by the rabble, who style themselves citizens. Every stranger is watched ; every word is noted ; espio- nage commands every key-hole and every letter-box." And Frederic Kapp writes from New York, in 1860, that " the spirit of despotism in America, that is, irresponsible power, is exercised over men's bodies, and even over their opinions."'* The omnipotence of a majority is despotism ; and wherever there is not complete anarchy, it is sure to he accompanied by an administrative despotism, or bureaucracy. Wherever there is a despotism, — whe- ther it be despotism by a majority, or by an oligarchy, or by a crowned head, — there must necessarily be a bureaucracy, or a " centralizing system." Centraliza- tion, is absolute power. The only escape from a bu- reaucratic, centralizing system, is in rebellion: the only safeguard against such a despotism, is in local administrations. This is the only safeguard ; whe- ther the form of the state-government be a mo- narchy, or a republic. All dead and inert rules and restrictions are utterly useless against the en- croachments of power. Any law, which stands in the way, will be broken through ; any constitution will be violated. There must be restraints in living forces which are always at work. Each locality must govern itself, and thus be a barrier to the growing and over-ruling despotism of a majority, or of an oli- ^archv, or of a single tyrant. Last year. Lord Grey asserted, in the House of liOrds, that all the barriers against democracy, which the statesmen of the Ame- • ' Demokratische Studieu.' F 2 m I. '■•H 'III II ' ''WS- .-'^^Hffil 4 Hi Im rican Revolution had set up (i.e. the Constitution), had been swept away. Mr. Everett undertook the defence of his country, and repHed, that the greatest constitutional check of this kind, viz. the independent rights of each State, had not been swept away ; but had been jealously preserved and maintained. This was said a year ago. He can say so no longer. Lord Grey's words might then have been premature ; now they are true. Democracy rules by the same brute force as imperial power. Obedience is exacted by the point of the bayonet, or by fear of the dungeon and of persecution, in the one case as much as in the other. Thus, as Lord Russell said, the Northerns are fighting for empire, and the Southerns for indepen- dence or self-government. ! Let it however be borne in mind, that the country has not jumped suddenly under this crushing des- potism. In such a case they would be fully aware of their position, and would not bear it with such apathy and indifference. They have been brought to it gradually. They have been for years learning to bear the despotism which j)arties exercise over thoiv members, before they could be brought to bow tlie neck under this yoke. " Ambitiosi, — privatim dege- neres, in publicum exitiosi, — nihil spei nisi per dis- cordias habent." Faction has already been substituted for principles. Mr. ( 'obbett says : — " The A mericans have committed the care of tlieir rights to party. Party has had at its command the aid of a spurious credit, and, by the means of that destructive engin'* of power, legislative bribery, official abuKf% and social corruption have been inevitable. . . . Their chief ground for objecting to the practice of tariffs and mo- nopolies has been, that it was the means of putting 85 large sums into the possession of men in office, and of thereby jeopardizing the State. Their maxim was substantially that of the old-fashioned Tory, Lord Bolingbroke : ' Better much prerogative and little money, than much money and little prerogative.' . . We recollect the letter written in May last by Mr. Everett ; Mr. Everett, who gave to the anti-American speech of liOrd Grey an answer which has found no reply from the noble liOrd. Well, the letter of my own correspondent, of the same date as Mr. Everett's, says nearly the same : — ' This war had its origin in faction. Its aim was, and is, plunder. It continues to be ?i factious stuggle, and plunder is the sole object of the strife. The defunct Administration held power a long while, and the party in power then had rich s])oils in executive patronage, under the Federal, State, county, city, and town governments, which, though exceedingly large, were never large enough to be quite satisfactory. Still, these were too good to he quietly replenished, and too well worth having not to excite the " Outs" to a desperate struggle for po'^ses- sion. Hence the Negro qut^sti m ; and this question well served the end of furnishing a pretext for a fight. The "Ins," feeling sure of defeat for themselves, turned to and robbed the treasury, and left an empty box and war to their successors.' "* The ' Atlantic Monthly.' in unfolding the causes of the civil war, remarks that wlien a new party comes into office, in America, the officials are all changed. Then a regular revolution is effected by another party attaining to povv'er (this is merely the principle of party government carried out to its legitimate conclu- '" CHuaes of the Civil War in the United States. (Hardwicke, Sep- tember, 1861.) s T H : " 6 \tm WiWi I J m^wM' m t'^i ws-'-y'^ ^li >;i 1. 11 H*p.ijygi il la r :'if 86 sion). It then continues to remark that by these con- stant changes all notion of stability, all love of per- manence, has been destroyed. People have become familiarized with such revolutionary changes ; and the officials have come to feel that they owe their duty and allegiance to their party and not to the Union. The Northern Government, for instance, in increas- ing its fleet, has, it is said, been swayed by corrupt motives ; it has not bought the best vessels, but bought vessok from the best supporters ; it purchases stor(^K from party motives ; it gives offices of trust and com- mand for party motives. " Commands " over the *'• swift-footed warriors " of Bull's Kun were distri- buted from truly party motives. \ii\ Daniel Webster said, at Buffalo, New York, in May, 1851 : — " Can we preserve tlie union of tliesc States ? not by coercion, not by military power, not by angry controversies. . . . Gentlemen, I believe in party distinctions. I am a party man. There are questions belonging to party in which I am concerned, and theie are opinions entertained by other parties which I repudiate. But what of all that ? If a houm he divided against itself , it will fall and crush evevjilfody in it. . . . We must see that we uphold the constitu- tion, and ive must do so without regard to party ^ » Frederic Kapp wiites from New York, that " living in American society is like shimming in a whirlpool ; each one is struggling against every oi- j else ; and any one who does not struggle will be pushed down and sink. They think only of the present moment. Politics suffer with their morality, and consists in each one get- ting as much as he can for himself;" and (he conti- nues) " to attain his end he gives up his freedom of action and hecom£sthe slave of a party. WJiat absolute K 87 Governments call the 'necessities of State' or ' reasons of State,' are here ' the interests of the party.' His highest ambition is merely to follow. . . . His political morality is that of a shop-keeper ; his statesmanship consists in the advance of manufactnres ; for the sake of which he, ever since the national independence, has sacrificed all great principles by compromises. . . . This loss of conscience, so heedless of the necessary conseqnences, has given the Americans the greatest political advantages for the moment ; bnt has begun to undermine the very basis of the Eepublic."* Mr. Lempriere says " that Sewai " s cry of one policy (i.e. abolition) for all States, has no practical force or meaning, beyond its use as a means of irri- tating the popular mind, in order to turn votes to the party, on the strength of that exasperation." And Frederick Kapp writes as follows, from New York, in 1860 : — "In a country where party government is carried out to the extent that it is here, truth is made subordinate to the ends . .' party. In the secret re- cesses of party-life, a truth may sometimes be whis- pered; openly it is never professed. Hence it is that in every-day life a disinterested truth is never uttered. ' How can we (the party) turn it to profit, or how can we damage our opponents T is the only light in which every fact is considered." f The message of Franklin Pierce, President of the United States, (December "^nd, 1856,) contains these words : — " They endeavour to prepare the people of the United States for civil war by doing everything in their power to deprive the constitution and the laws of moral authority, and to undermine the fabric of the Union b^ appeals to passions and sectional prejudice, })u\{\pj ♦ ' DemokratiBohe Studien,' 1861. f ^bid. iP:'! rkB'Ji I; Hk.e%j i1 88 ■m by indoctnnating its jteople with reciprocal hatred, and educating them to stand face to face as enemies, rather than shoulder to shoulder as friends. . . . But they have entered a path which leads nowhere, unless it be to civil war and to disunion, and which has no other possible outlet ; . . . the succjssi\e stages of their pro- gress have consisted of a series of secondary issues, each o£ which professed to be conjincd within constitu- tional and peaceful limits, but which attempted indi- rectly what few men were willing to do directly, — that is, to act aggressively against the constitutional rights of nearly one-half of the thirty-one States." , ,^ Washington, in his farewell address (1796), gives this warning : — "• There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the admi- nistration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This, within certain liniifs^ is probably true ; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favour, upon the sjnrit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natiual tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that sjjirit for every salutary purpose. And there be- ing constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it." And again : " All obstructions to the execution of the laws ; all combinations and associations, under whatever jjlansible character, with the real design to direct, con- trol, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction ; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force ; to put in the place of the 89 delegated wUl of the nation^ the will of a party, often but a small, but artful and enterprising minority of the community ; and according to tlte alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the jmhlic ad- ministration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incon- grumts projects of faction, rather than the organs of consistent and 'wholesome plans, digested hy ciimmon COUNCILS, and modified by mutual interest. IIf)wever combinaticms or associations of the above descrii)tion may now and then answer popular ends, tlu^ arc likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines hj which cunning, ambitious, and un- principled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usuui' for themselves the heinhop GOVERNMENT, destroying afterivards the very engines ivhich had lifted them to nnjiist dominion.'' '" The great Franklin said, of the result of party goveiTiment : " Of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable pre-eminence through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of c haracters \ It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passi(>ns and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will th'ust themselves into your government, and be your rulers." * The wars of party are wars for office. The cause of faction is the lust of power ; and hatred is its cement and bond. Faction is itself the result of previous legislation. When the only safeguard of liberty, the security against despotism, is broken * Franklin's Works, (Boston,) vol. v. p. 145: quoted in "Parlia- mentary Eemembrancer," Nov. 1861. '• I 1 'J ^ll 1)0 through, then the first symptom of the coming change is the birth of farti( i. A nation becomes divided into parties or factions, in the administration of tloir duties as citizens, when the separate action of diiRi- ent localities is superseded by a general legislation for the whole. Then great parties are formed. Then every citizen joins himself to some party. No one takes interest in that which his party does not take up. Each one struggles for the objects of his party. He makes this the "cause" for which he fights. Then he looks with suspicious eye upon his oppo- nents ; soon he regards his fellow-citizens us his foes. For he judges events, not in a national point of view, but by the standard of faction. If his political oppo- nents have committed some atrocious acts abroad, he rejoices, and gloats over liis country's shame, because it furnishes him with the means of damaging the other faction. These tlunjiti* ^'-t and react upon each other. Dis- regard of the Constitution gives birth to faction ; and party-spirit increases the neglect of the Constitution. When laws are altered instead of being administered, the country will be divided against itself in dispute about those alterations ; and those who are inflamed with animosity against their fellow-citizens will try to make laws to subserve their own purposes, instead of being content to serve the laws which exist. The Constitution is always lost sight of when parties arise. The party in power cares not to administer the J iaw ; it seeks to usurp new powers. They violate that original agreement from which they derive their authority, and which contains the terms on which the governed engage to yield obedience. Parties cannot govern ; they tyrannize. Let us remember what uu- 91 constitutional acts have occasioned in Canada ; \vt ua recall the enormous losses and direful suffering which unconstitutional acts occasioned in England ; let us learn from the mournful effects of unconstitutional acts in the United States. Let us hear in mind that a Nemesis is ever vigilant to follow the nation which has committed acts of injustice and tyranny; let us never forget the truth so strongly n-^^ 'h\ hy the greatest philosopher of Greece, and by the greatest statesman in the lloman Em 1 ., justice is the only foundation of States. I have not indulged in sj)(»culations as to what might take place. I have hut recounted that which has actu- ally occurred, and tried to analyze the facts which have heen presented. 15ut if speculations may he hazarded, let us c(msider what will niosf likely be the upshot of this secession ] 'i he Soutli will not submit, and can- not be subdued. The States must then be divided. Between the North and South there will be feelings of implacable hatred, jealousy, and suspicion. Garri- sons must be formed to protect the frontier. There must be standing-armies, army-estimates, and heavy taxation ; and the whole institutions of the country must be changed. For when peace is established through weariness in war, the army must be main- tained for the sake of security. The very forms of liberty must then be abandoned for the sake of a " strong government." If this takes place in the Northern division, the other must do the same ; or else be content to see a strong neighbour menacing her doors. Thus the United States, who were so ready to seek lawless means of aggrandizement, will find that those aggrandizements have worked for her a retribution. The South will be curbed by the i IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) 1.0 t^ 1^ !!!! II 11.25 ,^1^ ■ 2.2 Its KS la |40 I 2.0 HiotDgraphic Sciences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STRHT WetSTIR.N.Y. I4SM (7I6)172-4S03 V \\ 4!^ O^ s ^ rs ^^' ^ ^'^ 92 North ; the North will be held in check by the South, — as a wraith for the annexation of Texas. One of the reasons given by Ellison against secession, is as follows : — " The free States, hemmed in by Canada on the north, and the Slave Confederacy on the south, would have no room for expansion The sickly Republics of Central America would be protected by England and France, and Cuba be lost for ever to the South." The partners in guilt have quarrelled, and will lie in wait, and watch each other, with the anxi- ous eye of jealousy. Power always increases as long as it is used only in the cause of justice ; but when power becomes the servant of ambition or greed, it is destroyed by the very service which it renders. When- ever power is abused, the command echoes through the world, " Take it from him who has proved un£a,ith« ful, and give it to him who was faithful over ten cities." The United States have often said, " Is not this the Great BabyVm which I have built by the might of my power, and for the honour of my ma- jesty?" With this thought they grew overbearing and aggressive and unjust. Their self-will usurped the throne of justice ; and now a Nemesis has tracked them to their overthrow. < jno /kdI I will conclude with a quotation from Captain Mar- ry att's ' Letters on Canada,' printed in 1846 : — "It was in 1756 that the French, being in possession of the Provinces, attempted to wrest from us those portions of America which we occupied. What was the re- sult? After a war which, for cruelty and atrocity, is perhaps unequalled in history, both parties employ- ing savages, by whom the French and Ehglish were alternately tortured and burnt to deatli/ France, in attempting to obtain all, lost all, and was. compelled, 98 he South, One of don, is as )y Canada the south, rhe sickly Dtected by 3ver to the relied, and 1 the anxi- Lses as long ; but when greed, it is ers. When- ,es through ved unfeith- il over ten aid, " Is not milt by the : of my ma^ overbearing vill usurped has tracked laptain Mar- .6:— ''It was lession of the tose portions was the re- tnd atrocity, -tie* employ- Lglish were y France, itt ,i compelled, in 1760, to Biirrender its own provinces to Great Bri- tain. . . . Again : At no period was England more pros- perous, or more respected by foreign nations, than at the close of the war. Her prosperity made her arro- gant and unjust. She wronged her colonies. She tliought tliat they dared not resist her imperious will. . . . These same tea duties, etc., induced them to rise in rebellion against what they considered injustice, and eventually to assert their independence. . . . Ob- Hcrve again : The Aiaerican colonists gained their in- dei)endence, which in all probability they would not have done had they not been assisted by the nume- rous army and fleet of France, who, irritated at the loss of the Canadas, wished to humiliate England by the loss of her own American possessions. But little (lid the French king and his noblesse imagine, that in upholding the principles of the Americans, and al- lowing the French armies and navies, (I may say, the people of France en masse^) to be imbued with the same principles of equality, that they were sowing the Keeds of a revolution in their own countiy, which was to bring the king, as well as the major part of the nobility, to the scaffold. There again events did not turn out according to expectation ; and you will ob- seiTC that in every attempt made by either party, the result was, that the blow fell upon their own heads, and not upon that of the party which it was intended to crush. . . . The question now is, as two of the par- ties, France and England, have proved so short-sighted, whether the Americans, having thrown off their alle- giance, have not been equally so in their choice of a (leniocratical government? How far a modern de- mocracy nttiy Bucceed, I am not prepared to say ; but this! 4o I know, that in ancient times their duration was generally very short, and continually changing to (■''I I: m I -I t 94 fl *ip: oligarchy and tyranny. One thing is certain, that there is no form of government under which the people become so rapidly vicious, or where those who benefit them are treated with such ingratitude. There are two principal causes. One is that, where all men are declared to be equal (which man never will per- mit his fellow to be if he can prevent it), the only source of distinction is wealth ; and thus the desire of wealth becomes the ruling passion of the whole body ; and there is no passion so demoralizing. The other is, that where the people, or, more properly speaking, the mob govern, they must be conciliated by flat- tery and servility on the part of those who would be- come their idols. Now flattery is lying, and a habit equally demoralizing to the party who gives and to the party who receives it. Depend upon it, there is no government so contemptible or so unpleasant for an honest man to live under as a democracy. How far the Americans may disprove such an opinion, re- mains to be seen; but this is certain, that they have commenced their new form of government with an act of such gross injust' as to warrant the assump- tion that all their boaste .rtues are pretence. I refer to their not liberating their slaves. They have given the lie to their own assertions in their Declaration of Independence, in which they have been bom free ; and we cannot e:ii pect the Divine blessing upon those who, when they emancipated themselves, were so unjust as to hold their fellow-creatures in bondage. The time will come, I have no doubt, although perhaps not any of us here present may see the day, when the retri- bution will fall upon their heads, or rather upon the heads of their offspring. For the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children, even to the third and fourth generation." I >'< 95 APPENDIX. 1.- -i As what has been called my " new nostrum of Government without Party" has met with many sneers in the public prints, I may be pardoned for intro- ducing a few quotations to prove that a method, which I hold to be the only one by which this Empire can escape ruin, has been held, by the highest authorities, as the only one consonant with right reason. 1' " When corruption (says Davenant) has seized upon the re- presentatives of the people it is like a chronical disease, hardly to be rooted out. When servile compliance and flattery come to predominate, things proceed from bad to worse, till at last the government is quite dissolved. Absolute monarchies are in danger of great convulsions when one man, their prince, happens to be weak or wicked j but commonwealths or mixed constitutions are safe till the chief part of the leading men are debauched in principles. However, monarchy has this advan- tage, that the one man, their prince, is mortal, and, if bad. he may be succeeded by a better ; but a people thoroughly cot' rvpted never returns to right reason; and we see that the depravity of manners, which began in Bome presently after the second Punic war among the nobility and gentry, became every year worse, till at last Ctesar destroyed the Common- wealth. And after this time, under the succeeding emperors, every Senate grew more abject and complying than the other; till in process of time the old Koman spirit was utterly extin- guished, and then that empire by degrees became a prey to bar- barous nations." — Political Disquisitions, 1774, vol. i. p. 376. M 1' .(*.■', I'll ■' I M 4. I. > y < 96 <'; :■ :i t fl " A wise and brave people will neither be cozened nor bul- lied out of their liberty ; but a wise and brave people may cease to be such. They may degenerate ; they may sink into sloth and luxury ; they may resign themselves to a treacher- ous conduct, or abet the enemies of the Constitution, under a notion of supporting the friends of the Government ; they may want the f'Cnse to discern their danger in time, or the courage to resist, when it stares them in the face. The Tarquins were expelled, and Rome resumed her liberty; Caesar was mur- dered, and all his race extinct, but Rome remained in bondage. From whence this difference? Machiavel shall account for it : In the days of Tarquin the people of Rome were not yet corrupted ; in the days of Caesar they were most corrupt." — BoUngbroke on Parties. " The event that created much astonishment, indignation, or terror in prospect, creates less and less as it approaches; and by the time it happens men have familiarized themselves with it. If the Romans had been told, in the d.tys of Augustus, that an Emperor would succeed, in whose reign a horae should be made Consul, they would have been extremely surprised. 1 believe they were not so much sur- prised when the thing happened ; when the horse was Consul and Caligula Emperor." — BoUngbroke on Parties. *' The people at large, when they lose their Constitutional guard, are like a rope of sand, easily divided asunder ; and therefore, when the acting parts of the Constitution shall abuse their trust, and counteract the end for which they were established, there is no way of obtaining redress but by asso- ciating together, in order to form a new chain of union and strength in defence of their Constitutional rights. But in- stead of uniting for their common interest, the people have suffered themselves to be divided and split into factions and 'j-r: 97 parties to auch a degree, that every man liAili rose up iii enmity against his neighbour; by which thoy have brought themselves under the fatal curse of a kingdont divided against itself, which cannot stand." — Political DitijuitiUiom, p. 4}i9. ■' " There is no complaint which hath bcoii more constantly in the mouths, no grief hath lain more heavily at the hearts of all good men, than those about our national divisiotis ; about the spirit of Party ^ which inspires animosity and breeds ran- cour ; which hath so often destroyed our inward peace, weak- ened our national strength, nnd sullied our glory abroad. It is time, therefore, that all who desire to be pstecmed good men, and to procure the peace, the strength, and the glory of their country, by the only means by which they can be pro- cured effectually, should join their efforts to heal our national divisions, and to change the narrow spirit of Party into a diffu- sive spirit of public beucvolence." — Bolingbroh on Parties. 'It) «'(Jib OxU .:". . / " On the other hand, to divide or to maintain and renew the divisions of Parties in a State, u system of ticdnction and fraud is necessary to be carried on. The divided are so far from being accessory to the guilt tliat they would not be divided if they were not first deceived."^ — nolinybroke on Parties. " I return, therefore, and observe that when the spirit of Party failed King Charles, and the corruption he employed proved ineffectual, he resolved to govern, for a time, without Parliaments, and to employ that time, ai soon as he had checked the spirit of one Party, by inflaming that of another, in garbling corporations. He had found l)y oxperienee that it W88 impossible to corrupt the stream in any groat degree, as iong as >'• < ''rhj m!-j Mr. Pulteney, House of Commons, 1739, on "Placemen being in the House of Commons :" — ,., !,,rw,. •"'It is this sort of ruin. Sir, we have chiefly to apprehend, and this sort of ruin we may step by step be led into without our being sensible of the several steps. We shall certainly be led into it, if we trust any longer the guardianship of our li- berties to those whose foresight is dimmed by the places they enjoy, or expect. If a Minister were to propose a law for giving the Crown a power of sending to every county, city, and borough in the kingdom, such a coriffe d'elire for the choice of members of Parliament as is now sent to a dean and chap- ter for the choice of a bishop, I believe very few gentleman of family or fortune would, for the sake of any place, agree to it. But an equivalent power may be got by multiplying penal laws, and increasing the number and power of officers ; and a gentle- man of fortune, family, character, and interest iu his country may, by a good place, be induced to believe that such a law, or such an increase of the number and power of officers, is neces- sary for preventing fraudulent practices, or the like; and may 101 therefore agree to it, without feeling the clanger our constitu- tion may be thereby exposed to. Thus by degrees he may be made to agree to such propositions, one after another, till he has thereby established in the Crown the absolute direction of most of the elections in the kingdom. This, Sir, would have l)oen the certain consequence of the late excise scheme ; and yet there were many gentlemen of family and fortune that ap- proved of it. . . . Ministers will from thence see that they must grasp at this power by little and little, which they will certainly do, and as certainly at last accomplish, unless wc take care to exclude from this House most of those who, by the places they enjoy, are induced to have a better opinion of Ministers than any man ought to have, that is intrusted with the guardianship of the con- stitution and liberties of his country. . . The question, therefore, now before us is, whether a gentleman's eyes may not, by a lu- crative and honourable post or employment, be so overclouded asto prevent his seeing through the plausible pretencesthat may, from time to time, be made use of, by an artful Minister, for getting into his hands, or into the hands of the Crown, such an uncontrollable power as I have mentioned. . . Corruption, Sir, is not the effect but the cause of a general depravity of manners among the people of any country, and has in all coun- tries, as well as this, been first practised and encouraged by ministers and courtiers. It would therefore be ridiculous in us to think of restoring virtue among the people, till we have once made it impossible for ministers and courtiers to cor- rupt them ; and I am sure it would be still more ridiculous in us to think of removing an evil councillor from about the throne, till we have once removed his creatures and tools out of this House. ... If an ambitious Minister should once get a majority of his creatures and tools into this house, can toe suppose they ivould consent to impeach or remove him from the throne ? But if ever this selfish spirit should get into Parliament, our Constitution will be undone ; and to prevent this is the design of the bill now moved for. If no man could, by being a member of Parliament, propose to get any place, or office, or any advantage to himself, the mercenary and selfish would seldom endeavour to get I ■It I' M ■ '> I is I •11 IV li I'; i'r. U! I - I ■> I 102 ttiemtelves chosen, at least they vrould never be at any ex. penttc for tliis purpose ; and as such men have seldom a great natural interest in any part of the kingdom there would always bo such a small number of thorn in Parliament, that their opposition could never obstruct or retard anything that •ccmcd necessary for the just ends of government, or for the preservation and happiness of society. The public good would then be the only aim of Ministers, as well as members, l)ecause neither of them could hope for success in any other : and as men of good sense and strict honour are the best judges and the most ready to agree upon what is necessary for the public good, it would then be as much the business of Ministers get such men chosen, as it is now their business to get such members chosen as are men of mercenary tempers, or shallow understandings ; for all Ministers will have jobs to do in Par- liament as long as they have any hopes of success, and the weak or mercenary will always be the most proper for this purpose For this reason. Sir, as I have a greater regard for the security of the Royal family than I have for that of our present Ministers, or of any set of Minis- ters that shall ever get into the management of our public affairs, I shall be for putting it out of the power of any future Minister to overturn our Constitution, by getting a majority of placemen and pensioners into this House. This, I think, is now become absolutely necessary for preventing our being brought under one of the worst sort of tyrannical governments that was ever contrived or established." — Political Disquisi- tions, \774<, vol. ii. p. 233. Lord Sandwich, on this occasion (second reading of the " Place Bill," Pari. Debates, Lords viii. 107), speaks as fol- lows : — " In ancient times, my Lords, — nay, I may say, till after the Restoration, — we had no occasion for such bills. The Crown had but a few lucrative employments to bestow, and many of those it had at its disposal were such as were generally granted for life ; consequently no Minister could hope by such means to 108 I '* it any ex- ni a great ere would noent, that thing that or for the iblic good ) members, any other : best judges ary for the >f Ministers to get mch , or shallow } do in Par- iS8, and the »per for this e a greater lan I have st of Minis- f our public any future g a majority [lis, I think, ig our being governments ml Disquisi- ading of the speaks as fol- till after the The Crown and many of jrally granted ;uch means to gain, much less to preserve, a corrupt majority in either house of Parliament, and the impossibility of success prcvc.'utcd their making any such attempt. W( had then no mercenary stund- iug army, nor had the Crown any lucrative military comnus- sions to dispone of. If an army was at any time raised for foreign service, no officer employed in that army could look upon his post as an estate for life ; therefore, though a com- mission in the army was considered an honour, it was never looked upon as a favour ; but, on the contrary, those landed gentlemen who had acquired a character in their country for conduct, courage, and military knowledge, were often solicited to accept of commissions in the array which was to be raised, and when the service was over they returned to live upon their estates in the country, without being at any further expense to the public. We had then, my Lords, but very few customs and no excises ; consequently a Minister could iiot spread his excisemen over the whole kingdom to influence elections in counties, or to govern them in most of our inland boroughs. . . . Parliaments, we know, are designed to he a check upon Mi- nisters; we likewise know that almost every post in the dis- posal of the Crown is left to the arbitrary disposal of Minis- ters J and we also know that no Minister ever did or ever will give a lucrative |)ost or employment to a man who opposes his measures in Parliament. From late experience we know that some of the highest officers in the kingdom have been dis- missed for no other reason but because tlu y disapproved of the measures pursued by our Ministers, and had honour enough to declare their disapprobation in Parliament. Can we then ex- pect, my Lords, that the other House will be a check upon the conduct of our Ministers, as long as there is a majority in that House who enjoy, or expect, lucrative and honourable employ- ments from the benevolence of these very Ministers ? I shall not say that in such a case the members would all be corrupt in their determinations, but I will say that in many cases they would be biassed in their judgments, and thereby induced to approve of what, in duty to their country, they ought to have disapproved of, or to put a negative upon what, in duty to their country, they ought to have given their consent to. . . . No inconvenience, but great benefit, has accrued from that n •■\\ I V 104 law which disables corhmissioners and officers of our customs or excise from being members of the other house. . . . Expe- rience must therefore give a favourable opinion of this bill. Can it be said that in the year 1693 we were influenced by any factious discontents ? And yet in that year such a bill as this, which was intituled ' A Bill touching free and impar- tial proceedings in Parliament/ passed both houses, but by the advice of the Ministers was refused the Royal assent, — as several others had been during the beginning of that reign. Can it be supposed that in the year 1701 we were governed by any factious discontents? and yet, in he Act then passed, there was an expressed clause for excluding all placemen from having seats in the House of Commons after the settlement then established should take place, which clause met with the approbation not only of both Houses of Parliament, but of the Crown itself. And surely no man will derogate so much from the known courage of King William as to say that he would have allowed himself to be bubbled by any faction or party into a regulation which he thought would strike at the root of our Constitution." — Political Disquisitions, 1774; vol. ii. 242. " Your Lordships [says the Earl of Chesterfield, in the de- bate on a bill for making officers independent of the Ministry, A.D. 1734,] are, I am sure, all convinced that the happi- ness, the essence of our Constitution, does not depend upon outward forms, but upon realities. Our Constitution does not depend upon our having always a Parliament, but upon that Parliament's being independent of the Administration ; upon its being in the power of Parliament to examine severely, and judge impartially, the conduct and the measures of those cm- ployed in the Administration, to represent the grievances, and to watch over the liberties and the properties of the people of this nation, and to take away evil councillors from before the King." (Lords' Debates, iv. 199.) — Political Disquisitions, vol. ii. p. 60. " Whilst a real difference of principles and designs supported -1 r 105 li the distinction^ we were divided into national parties; and this was misfortune enough. It was lamented as a great one at the time by every good man of every party. But if the distinction should remain when the difference subsists no longer, the misfortune would be still greater, because they who maintained the distinction in this case would cease to be a party and would become a faction,— national interests would be no longer concerned, at least, on one side ; they would be sometimes sacrificed, and always made subordinate to personal interests, and that I think is the true characteristic of faction. . . . When the Court fomented our national divisions, the very worst designs were carried on ; for to divide can never be an expedient for good purposes any more than to corrupt, since the peace and prosperity of a nation will always depend on uniting, as far as possible, the heads, hearts, and hands of the whole people, and on improving, not debauching, their morals. ' Divide et impera ' is a maxim often quoted ; how are we to apply it ? There is no place for it in arbitrary governments, for in them the interest of the governors requires that a ser- vile union — if it may be called an union — should be main- tained by the weight of power, like that of slaves in a galley, who are united by their chains, and who tug the oar together at the sound of a whistle. In free governments it can have place as little, whilst they who are at the head intend the maintenance of liberty. To what case, then, can it be ap- plied ? There is but one, and that is the case of those who aspire to more power than a free constitution of government gives them. Such governors must divide and incense parties one against another, that they may be always able to bribe the pas- sions of one side, and so usurp on both. . . . There are indeed circumstances wherein it may suit the interest of a Minister. Till the sword of civil war be drawn, a Prince can scarce be- come irreconcileable with his people, and be reduced, for want of national strength, to support his power and dignity by the force of faction. But a Minister may fall easily and soon into this desperate state ; and after fomenting, as long as he could, the divisions of parties, he may have no refuge but in faction. There may be such a conduct as no national party will bear, or at least will justify ; but faction hath no regard to national i ^■i 'k 106 i ■■»' interests. Faction therefore will bear anything, share in any- thing, justify anything. If the Minister who takes this me- thod to support himself hath any art, he will endeavour to dis- guise his faction under the name and appearance of a national party ; but even this disguise will soon fall off, — the best of those who were engaged in the party will quit the faction, and then the latter must stand confessed to public view. . . . Incapa- city often begets sufficiency, and yet a consciousness of inca- pacity often begets a jealousy of power, grounded on a sense of the superior merit of other men. The Minister who grows less by his elevation, like a little statue placed on a mighty pedestal, will always have this jealousy strong about him. He must of course select a faction to himself, and this faction must be composed, to answer his purposes, of men servilely obsequious, or extremely inferior to him by their talents. Whenever this happens, the reign of venality, of prostitution, of ignorance, of futility, and of dulness commences. The Minister will dread to see the persons employed whom he secretly esteems, for this very reason, — because he esteems them. Abilities to serve the commonwealth will be an objection sufficient to out- weigh the strongest proofs of attachment to the person of the Prince and of zeal for his government ; nay, even the merit of a whole life spent in giving these proofs. In short, the very reasons that should determine the Prince to employ men, will determine the Minister to proscribe them. Dislike or con- tempt of him will pass with his master for disaffection to the government ; and under this pompous name of Government, will nothing but the paltry interest or humour of the Minister be couched." — Bolingbroke on Parties. "But whatever Ministers may govern, whatever factions may arise, let the friends of Liberty lay aside the groundless distinctions which are employed to amuse and betray them ; let them continue to coalite ; let them hold fast their inte- grity, and support with spirit and perseverance the cause of their country, and they will confirm the good, reclaim the bad, vanquish the incorrigible, and make the British Con- 107 •e in any- i this me- >ur to dis- a national he best of iction, and . . Incapa- gs of inca- on a sense grows less ty pedestal, He must of on must be obsequious, henever this gnorance, of sr will dread esteems, for Abilities to icient to out- person of the 1 the merit of lort, the very loy men, will ialike or con- fection to the Government, I the Minister stifution triumph, even over corruption." — Bolingbroke on } ties. tever factions he groundless betray them ; ast their inte- the cause of , reclaim the British Con- rr Party is the madness of many for the gain of a few. There never was any party, faction, sect, or cabal whatsoever, in which the most ignorant were not the most violent j for a Ixjc is not a busier animal than a blockhead. However, such instruments are necessary to politicians ; and perhaps it may be with States as with clocks, which must have some dead weight hanging at them, to help and regulate the motion of the finer and more useful parts." — Thoughts of Pope and Swift. "This has been the great scheme of power in our time. Tliey who will not conform their conduct to the public good, and cannot support it by the prerogative of the Crown, have adopted a new plan. They have totally abandoned the shat- tered and old-fashioned fortress of prerogative, and made a lodgment in the stronghold of Parliament itself. If they have any evil design to which there is no ordinary legal power com- mensurate, they bring it into Parliament. In Parliament the whole is executed from the beginning to the end. In Parlia- ment the power of obtaining their object is absolute, and the safety in the proceeding perfect : no rules to confine, no after- reckonings to terrify. Parliament cannot, with any great pro- priety, punish others for things in which they themselves have been accomplices. Thus the control of Parliament upon the executory power is lost ; because Parliament is made to par- take in every considerable act of Government. Impeachment, that great guardian of the purity of the Constitution, is in danger of being lost, even to the idea of it. By this plan several important ends are answered to the cabal. If the authority of Parliament supports itself, the credit of every act of Government, which they r^ontrive, is saved ; but if the act be so very odious that the whole strength of Parliament is insufficient to recommend it, then Parliament is itself discre- dited ; and this discredit increases more and more that indif- \4 ''•M 'i i sJ-'. f . I ■l">'.l [I ti 108 ference to the Constitution, which it is the constant aim of its enemies, by their abuse of Parliamentary powers, to render general among the people. Whenever Parliament is persuaded to assume the ofices of executive goiernment, it will lose all the confidence, love, and veneration which it has ever enjoyed whilst it was supposed the corrective and control of the acting powers of the State. This would be the event, though its conduct in such a perversion of its functions should be toler- ably just and moderate ; but if it should be iniquitous, violent, full of passion, and full of faction, it would be considered as the most intolerable of all the modes of tyranny." — Burke, Thoughts on the Cau^e of the Present Discontents. 'I " The distempers of monarchy were the great subjects of apprehension and redress in the last century ; in this, the dis- tempers of Parliament." — Burke, Cause of the Present Dis- contents. TovTo epyov ahiKia^ filao^ ifiwoielv otrov Siv ivfj. — Plato, Pol. 'Eai/ eV evl iyyiviirai dBixla, fi&v fit) aTroXel rrjv dvTrj