University of Virginia Library

That the country is in a situation of unexampled distress and danger, is a truth which is at length acknowledged by those, whose inconsistent, irresolute, and iniquitous conduct, has been the principal cause of our national misfortunes. See the speeches of Campbell, Jackson, and others of the Jeffersonian junto.

Every mortal, in this land of liberty, who is in any way connected with the administration of the government, or the organization of the courts of justice, is as much entitled to the honourable appellation of esquire, as was the king of the island of Barataria, the redoubtable Sancho Panza, esquire. As it is the only species of title or order of nobility allowed by the constitution, it may be claimed by all featherless bipeds of the above description, from the President of the United States, to the door keeper of the House of Representatives; from the Chief Justice in the Federal Supreme Court, to the beadle or common executioner.

Strange as it may seem, some of our leading demagogues have not blushed to assert, that moral honesty and political honesty, were not necessarily connected, or rather that no such virtue as political honesty ought to be expected, or would ever be found in publick men of any party—That in the struggle for power any fraud may be conscientiously adopted, which promises to promote the particular interests of the parties to the struggle—That the people must calculate on such data, and when they perceive that those to whom they have delegated the power of managing their publick concerns have conducted foolishly, dishonestly, and treacherously, it does not follow that they are to be dismissed from office, because such failures are to be expected as infallibly incident to human nature.

But if the measure of crime is its consequences to the community, as laid down by the best writers, the dishonest politician is deeper in guilt by millions of degrees, than the person who is only guilty of private aberrations from the path of rectitude. The former may ruin a nation, and his example may extend a deleterious influence over mankind which may be felt for ages, while the injury caused by the latter is, of necessity, confined to the limited circle in which he moves in society.

That the moon was always the head quarters of mischief, may be learned from the works both of ancient and modern writers. Necromancers, soothsayers, conjurors, witches, and enchanters, whether in Egypt, Thessaly, Lapland, Great Britain, or America, ever had recourse to her in all their spells and incantations. That Virgil had a contemptible opinion of the moon may be gathered from the following lines.

Ibant obscure sola sub nocte per umbram,
Perque domos Ditis vacuas, et inania regna.
Quale, per incertum lunam sub luce malignâ,
Est iter in Sylvia.—

That among other eccentricities she sometimes descends to play pranks in propria personâ among her favourites on terra firma, appears from Hudibras, who, in his dialogue with Sidrophel, informs us that

and give us a concise sketch of her juggling artifices by which she imposes on her liege subjects in our quarter of creation. That she has by no means mended her manners since the days of Butler, will be fully shown in the progress of this poem.

The bill, which was considered as the ne plus ultra of lunar inspiration, till the embargo-forcing acts exhibited still stronger specimens of the force of folly, received the sanction of our Solomons in 1806. The pains and penalties to which the poor, passively obedient, and non resisting entities, our armed merchant vessels, were subjected by this despotick, and till that time unheard of act of legislative oppression, are set forth in the second section as follows.

“And be it further enacted, that if any armed merchant vessel, shall make or commit any depredation, outrage, unlawful assault or violence, against any vessel, or territory of a nation in amity with the United States, or against any of the citizens or subjects of such nation, or make any other unlawful use of the arms on board such vessel; if such depredation, outrage, unlawful assault or violence shall be made or committed as if made and committed under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, would be murder or felony, the same shall be murder or felony, as the case shall be: and the principals and accessories concerned therein shall be punished as they would respectively be in other cases of murder and felony by the laws of the United States,” &c.

No doubt we have here a remnant of the old superstition, of desecrating deodands for having been instrumental in depriving a rational being of life.

We would not insinuate that a gun boat well manned and her single great gun loaded with mustard seed shot, and directed by an able engineer, would not be competent to cope with all the musquitoes in the Jerseys. Indeed, we have the opinions of the late commodore Preble, of commodore Truxtum, and other gentlemen, skilled in naval tacticks, in favour of their employment in certain services. They may, no doubt, be tolerable auxiliaries, but would be wretched principals, either for defensive or offensive operations. We say they are not only feeble but noxious, and this we will prove or suffer ourselves to be punished for scandalum magnatum.

In the first place, they are not good sea boats, and as was observed by a writer in the New York Weekly Inspector.

“Each gun boat is kind of gin
To catch and drown poor sailors in,
Contrived as if with vile intention,
For noyades of a new invention.”

Secondly, We conceive that a broken reed to lean upon is worse than no support, as it may not only let you fall but pierce your hand. It is better to do nothing by way of of hostility than nothing to the purpose, and half way measures are worse than no measures, inasmuch as every inefficient effort not only fails to annoy our enemy, but injures ourselves.

The folly of the gun boat system of oppugnation is rendered so evident by the following examination of the subject, that we cannot refrain from republishing it.

I have examined the gun boats of the latest construction, which, I presume, are considered by government as built upon the most approved plan—They are of the following description, viz.

Length . . . . . . . 50 feet.

Breadth . . . . . . . 13

Height between decks for the accommodation of the crews, 4 feet nearly.

They are to be schooner rigged, and to carry, each, one heavy gun, working on a circle between the two masts.—Each boat to be manned with fifty men, officers included.

Fifty of these boats are considered by the President the United States as adequate to the protection of this harbour, the sound, and the coast, as far as Cape Cod; and two hundred, he regards, as sufficient to the defence of the entire coast of the union.

We will consider first, the efficiency of the system.

The usual mode of estimating the relative importance of artillery, is to compare the weight of shot which can be thrown in a given time. A heavy gun cannot be loaded and discharged with the same celerity as a light one, and, therefore, the ratio of power does not correspond with the size of the calibre. I will, however, consider the fifty thirty-two pounders, on which we are to rely for safety, as capable of discharging in an hour, as great a weight of balls, as the eighty guns which are born by what is usually called a seventy-four gun ship;—and this will be considered by every artillerist as a large concession.

The essential damage which can be done to vessels of war is in a great degree confined to the water line and near it. Ships have fought until four part-holes have been beaten into one, and yet have not been taken or sunk, but have returned into port. Shot between wind and water, as it is usually called, or on the water line, are more dangerous.

The seventy-four gun ship, in the extreme length of her broadside, exposes a water line less than two hundred feet. Supposing the fifty gun boats in action with her, to lie bow on, the shortest possible water line, exposed by each, is eighteen feet, amounting in the whole to nine hundred feet, and whenever they present their broadsides, as they sometimes must, their water line amounts to two thousand five hundred feet.

The disproportion in the relative strength of the two machines, is obviously much greater than that of the size of their guns. A twelve pound shot will more easily penetrate a gun boat, than a thirty-two pound shot will a ship of the line.

In a calm, I allow, that gun boats, possessing the power, in some measure, of choosing their position by means of oars, will have the advantage of a heavy ship; in deep water this advantage might sometimes prove irresistible; but in harbour, where a ship would anchor with springs on her cables, it would be trifling.

In a breeze, the seventy-four gun ship will outsail the gun boats, and, unless they take shelter in shallow water, will have no difficulty in running down a squadron of them, than a ship of three hundred tons would have in running down a fleet of birch canoes.

It results then, that in point of efficiency, the fifty gun-boats in a calm, may be considered as equal to one ship of seventy-four guns; but in rough water, or a fresh breeze, utterly inferiour.

I ought, however, to state one further consideration, which gives to the ship, in every circumstance, an immense advantage; it is, that her force is compact, her crew disciplined—and under the eye and absolute command of one man: whereas, the fifty gun boats must have fifty commanders, a number which can never be expected to act in concert, even if there existed the best discipline on board each boat.

Let us next consider the economy of the gun boat system, with respect to human life, a consideration which ought not to have escaped the friends of the people.

A seventy-four gun ship, in the British service, is considered as fully manned with six hundred men.

The fifty gun boats with which we are to oppose her, require two hundred five hundred.

The six hundred men on board the seventy four, are sheltered in a great measure from the enemy's fire.

The two thousand five hundred men on board the fifty gun boats, must all be upon deck in action, and completely exposed; the waist of the boat not being either high enough, or strong enough to shelter even their legs. The boats must of course never approach within the reach of musketry or grape. And, in addition to this humane exposure of lives and limbs, no provision is made on board for the comfort of the wounded.—So much for the humanity of the system.

Next let us consider the economy of the expense.

Each boat, of the dimensions before described, has cost in this port, three thousand dollars for the naked hull; to rig and equip her for sea, I am informed, by experienced men, will cost four thousand dollars more, making a total for each gun that is water born, of seven thousand dollars, or one thousand five hundred and seventy-five pounds sterling.

In the British service, the estimate some years ago, was one thousand pounds a gun, for ships of the line: allowing a rise of fifty per cent, in the expense of ship building, then the first cost of their ships per gun, will be equal to that of ours.

But the expense of a navy does not arise so much from the first cost of the machinery, as from the annual expense of manning and victualling. And here the wisdom of our legislators shines with splendid superiority; for while, in the British service, eight men to a gun are considered a full compliment, for distant expeditions, we economically employ fifty men to a gun, for harbour duty.

So that the two hundred gun boats which, by the transcendent wisdom of our rulers, are destined to guard this happy land, will require to man them, ten thousand men.

While in the British service, ten thousand men would be a large complement for fifteen ships of eighty guns each.

I will not calculate the immense disparity of expense of the wages of officers in the two systems—I will merely state their number, which must stand nearly thus:

IN THE GUN BOATS,

For six Flotillas, each one,

• 6 com.

200 boats, captains, each one,

• 200 capt.

Lieutenants, each two,

• 400 lieut.

Total commissioned officers,

• 606

IN THE BRITISH SERVICE.

For fifteen eighty gun ships, admirals,

• 3

Captains, each one,

• 15

Lieutenants, each four,

• 60

Total commissioned officers,

• 78

The economist then, in order to put afloat two hundred guns, will employ six hundred and six commissioned officers, and nine thousand three hundred and ninety-four petty officers and men.

While the prodigal Britons, in fifteen ships of eighty guns each, put afloat twelve hundred guns, and employ seventy-eight commissioned officers, and nine thousand nine hundred and thirty-two petty officers and men.

Thus, the annual expense of our two hundred guns, which are destined to lurk in mud-holes, will be equal to twelve hundred British cannon, a force sufficient to command the respect of mankind in every quarter of the ocean; for it is conceded in that model of naval, military, and economical wisdom, the late presidential message on the subject of gun boats, that “this species of naval armament can have effect little towards protecting our commerce in the open seas, even upon our own coasts.”

But I am answered, that it is not intended to man all the boats except in case of war;—doubtless. Neither are the British ships manned, except in case of war: but when manned, and in whatever extent, both officers and men must be paid, and must eat; and the disparity of expense in the two systems, will be in the same proportion.

I presume that the same sublime strain of wisdom will pervade the whole system, and be displayed in the means of procuring men with the same splendour, as in the devising and building of the machines. The law which was passed some years since, will render useless the old fashioned and exploded forms of enlistment, and guard the liberties of the people from the abomination of impressment. According to that law, when danger menaces any harbour, or any foreign ship behaves naughty; somebody is to inform the governour, and the governour is to desire the marshall to call upon the militia general or colonel in the neighbourhood, to call upon the captains, to call upon the drummers (those gentlemen, who, we are informed, from high military authority, are all important in the day of battle) to beat to arms, and call the militia men together; and from these men are to be draughted (not impressed) a sufficient number to go on board the gun boats, and drive the naughty stranger away, unless he should have taken himself off during this long ceremonial.

My friends of the militia must permit me to describe the accommodation which they will find on board:—as the height between decks is not quite four feet, they will not only not be able to stand upright under cover, but cannot sit upright, unless they squat upon the floor like puppies in a dog kennel; a most elegant situation, in which we are all liable in turn to be placed by those admirable friends of the people, our sagacious rulers.

Such is the gun boat system. Yet there are legislators who call this prodigality, this wasteful imbecility, by the name of economy; and men in the community who, from want of reflection, suffer themselves to be duped by this palpable falsehood and nonsense.

“Allow that it affects Great Britain; and I am not disposed to deny that in some respects it does; though I believe at the same time, that in others it compensates her again. For if her manufactories suffer, yet her shipping interests prosper by it: seeing as we must, that whatever navigation is carried on upon the ocean is exclusively her own. But allowing that the embargo injures her, she knows that it injures ourselves much more. And if the party who suffers most is to give out soonest, and that is the position of the supporters of the embargo, she has much greater cause to calculate on our yielding first, than we have that she will. So that whether we now repeal the embargo or not, she will always calculate that sooner or later we must, and therefore she will continue to stand upon the ground she has taken. I conclude therefore, that the embargo will never bring her to our terms; and I am not disposed to put out both my eyes for the purpose of putting out one of my adversary's.”

Mr. Gardenier's speech on the non-intercourse bill.

In this unnatural and silly contest of trying which shall “do the most harm” by the embargo and non-intercourse (if, indeed, all things taken into consideration, Great Britain received any harm from these self-murdering measures) we may apply what the Earl of Chatham observed in Parliament in the beginning of our revolutionary contest.—“France is watching your conduct, and waiting for the maturity of your errours.”

By the statement in my hand, lately received, and which is of unquestionable authority, I find that at one Insurance office in Boston 43 policies have been written on vessels, engaged in foreign voyages since the first of January 1808. Of these

Five were undetermined.

One vessel (the Neutrality) bound from Marseilles to Boston, captured and condemned at Gibralter, for violating the blockade declared by the British orders in council.

Thirty-seven arrived safely, in all forty-three.

It is stated that there were three policies on the Neutrality; and that possibly there might be more than one policy on one vessel among the thirty-seven safe arrivals.

At another office in Boston, out of seventy-five risks, principally to the West Indies,

Three vessels were captured by the French, of which the British recaptured two.

One captured by the British, supposed to be French property.

Ten—About this number are undetermined; and the rest, about fifty-five, have ended safely. In all seventy-five,” &c.

Mr. Pickering's speech on Mr. Hillhouse's resolution for repealing the embargo.

It likewise appears from the same speech, that out of somewhat more than 100 risks, four vessels were captured by the British, and two by the French. That the premiums of insurance have been about eleven per cent. to and from the West Indies for the whole voyage, seven per cent. from the West Indies with cargo, nine to ten per cent. from Europe, if not violating the British orders, four to five per cent. from Europe against French capture only. That twenty-two vessels sailed from Salem, by the president's permission, between the fifth of April and the 10th of August, one to Sumatra, one to Senegal, and the rest to the West Indies, of which thirteen had returned, and nine remained undetermined; the insurance on the Sumatra voyage out and home 22 per cent.

From the same speech it appears, that notwithstanding the British orders in council, we have left open to us all the ports which are open to the British, and that we might now enjoy, if our commerce were not shackled by our own government, an export trade exceeding by more than eleven millions what would be allowed us in case of a peace between the two great belligerents.

“I ask this house, is there no control to its authority, is there no limit to the power of this national legislature? I hope I shall offend no man when I insinuate that two limits exist: NATURE AND THE CONSTITUTION. Should this house undertake to declare that this atmosphere shall no longer surround us; that water should cease to flow; that gravity should not hereafter operate; that the needle should not vibrate to the pole; I do suppose, Mr. Chairman—sir, I mean no disrespect to the authority of this house; I know the high notions some gentlemen entertain on this subject;—I do suppose, sir, I hope I shall not offend; I think I may venture to affirm, that such a law to the contrary notwithstanding, the air would continue to circulate; the Mississippi, the Hudson, and the Potomack, would roll their floods to the ocean; heavy bodies continue to descend; and the mysterious magnet hold on its course to its celestial cynosure.”

Mr. Quincy, on repealing the embargo.

“Your committee can perceive no other alternative but abject and degrading submission—a war with both nations, or a continuance and enforcement of the present suspension of our commerce.” Report of the committee to whom was referred so much of the president's message as relates to our foreign relations.

“We are about to declare a non-intercourse with two nations; with one of which it must produce a destructive war, while the other enemy, if it be proper so to style her, who furnishes the root of the system, chuckles at the measures we adopt, ostensibly to annoy her—praises our embargo, and speaks in the most recent and official communications of her government, of us, as joined in a common cause with her, and publickly declares “that the allies of France and the United States, sacrifice with a resolution equally generous, their private conveniences in repelling from all points the English commerce, and employing the means calculated to promote that end.”

Mr. Lloyd's speech on the non-intercourse bill.

“If, as it has more generally been represented by the government of the United States, the embargo is only an innocent, municipal regulation, which affects none but the United States themselves, and with which no foreign state has any concern: viewed in this light, his majesty does not conceive that he has the right, or the pretension to make any complaint of it, and he has made none. But in this light, there appears not only no reciprocity, but no assignable relation, between the repeal, by the United States, of a measure of voluntary self restriction, and the surrender, by his majesty, of his right of retaliation against his enemies.”

Again.

“His majesty would not hesitate to contribute, in any manner in his power, to restore to the commerce of the United States its wonted activity; and if it were possible to make any sacrifice for the repeal of the embargo, without appearing to deprecate it as a measure of hostility, he would gladly have facilitated its removal, as a measure of inconvenient restriction upon the American people.”

Mr. Canning's letter to Mr. Pinckney, Sept. 23, 1808.

Our democratick conjurors have discovered a sneer in this letter, which they say is very cutting. It is, however, at worst, nothing more than a distant allusion to a truth which one would suppose to be as obvious as it is important. It cannot be for the interest of Great Britain to injure the United States, neither does she wish us any injury. Her best statesmen from the earl of Chatham to lord Melville, have been ready to exclaim with the latter, who, in a late debate in parliament, declared that “He was no advocate for prejudicing America. God forbid that he should ever consider that the adversity of America was the prosperity of Great Britain; on the contrary he thought that the prosperity of the one was now and would be for a long while, highly conducive to the welfare of the other. If all Asia and Africa, and all Europe, this kingdom excepted, were with America, add this country against her, it would not be so advantageous a situation for her, and all the rest of the globe opposed to her; and he hoped she would so far understand her true interests, and show her correct views of them by her future conduct towards us. Never was there a period more favourable to a close union between Great Britain and the American states than the present.”

There is a union of interests between the two nations, and a union of affections would be the consequence, were not the flame of discord kept perpetually alive, like fire in the temple of Vesta, by the votaries of faction, and fanned by an “invisible hand.”

“Gentlemen say that by captures at sea we shall be immediately involved in war. Well—do not gentlemen tell us that we are now at war. Was not this one of their war measures—part of their great system of coercion? And yet to avoid this war in which we are actually involved, we are to do—what? Show our hands to the enemy, and our indignant fronts to our own helpless citizens. It is high time that the vigour of this government (if any it have and he believed that it had more than any in the world)—should be displayed on some other theatre than our own country, and on some other objects than our own citizens. It was, indeed, time that this vigour should be husbanded for the aggressors on our own rights, and not that the whole vial of our wrath should be poured on the heads of our own unoffending people. Had they no pity? No compassion upon the distresses of those people, and in fact, upon the privations and sufferings of the whole mass of society? Was all our force and energy to be exerted only upon ourselves. Or shall we determine that inasmuch as foreign nations will not do us justice—to the best of our abilities, so help us God! we will do justice to ourselves.”

Mr. Randolph's speech.

“Canada has also been mentioned [as an object of hostility for the United States.] But the season for striking a blow there has certainly passed away during the embargo. The spirit of hostility which existed between the northern parts of the union and Canada is diminished. The boundary line is imaginary, passed daily by those who are in the habit of performing offices of friendship towards each other, or of transacting business; and thus the spirit of hostility is allayed; and, however once the inhabitants of Canada might have wished to have been under the government of the United States, that wish has ceased. For however much we may extol the protection of the embargo, those who a year since, perhaps, were friendly to you, would not now accept of your protection; for whilst they pay but small or no taxes there, and enjoy various privileges as freemen, they will not take your taxes and receive no privilege with them. If you wish to go to war now you would find that the zeal of the inhabitants of the United States, as to marching into Canada, is very much diminished. And, sir, when we come to consider the subject, the idea of marching to attack a foreign territory is not congenial with the habits of this country. How much would the invasion of Canada cost you? You would want an operating army of at least 25,000 men. Are you ready to appropriate 10 millions of dollars for raising and supporting troops? With respect to marching the militia into Canada, you might order them, but I do not believe they will go, because I do not believe that the militia can be constitutionally required to march beyond the frontier.”

Mr. Dana's speech on raising the embargo, and authorizing letters of marque and reprisal.

Witness their attempts to bully, break down, and destroy the influence, or murder in duels, Messrs. Gardenies, Quincy, and Lloyd. If they proceed in this way, our grand council of the nation will soon become another Polish diet, and it will be necessary for congressional combatants to make use of arguments similar to those described by Milton as having given a temporary success to fallen angels in their contest for superiority in heaven.

A ship has arrived from Charleston (says a London paper) which place in common with every trading town of America, feels sensibly the mischiefs arising from the embargo. The commercial people here have been much surprised by the arrival, within these two or three days, of no fewer than twenty-three ships from America, laden with cotton, grain, &c. and giving us a reasonable supply of many other valuable commodities. On inquiry, we find that all these are consigned to the house of sir Francis Baring and co. and that they come, not like their precursors, with the stigma of violating the embargo, but under the license and authority of the republican government. It is well known, that the mercantile house just alluded to, is the agent of the United States for the payment of the demands of claimants in this country on the American funds. It has become necessary to the credit of the republick, that these demands should be satisfied, and the difficulty was, under the circumstances of the embargo, and non-intercourse acts, to discover the means by which such payments should be made here. There is no doubt it will be found, that Messrs. Barings have undertaken to discharge the accruing debt to the American stock, and that the consignment of these cargoes and others, is the mode provided for their re-payment.

The truth is, our Solomons to the contrary notwithstanding, that the West Indians will suffer less by want of intercourse with the United States than will our own citizens. They take little from us but lumber and provisions, and that from convenience and habit rather than necessity. This is evident by a glance at the natural productions of those islands. Their timbers in Jamaica, according to Edwards, are lignum vitæ, logwood, iron wood, pigeon wood, green heart, brazilletto and bully trees, &c. most of which sink in water, and are of a hardness and compactness inconceivable by a European workman. Of softer kinds for boards and shingles, the species are innumerable; and there are many beautiful varieties adapted to cabinet work; among others the bread nut, the wild lemon, and the well known Mahogany.

Maize produces two crops a year and sometimes three; guinea corn one crop a year, various kinds of calavances, a species of peas are cultivated and very productive.

“One thing,” says the editor of the New York Evening Post, “is laid down by a collector as law to day, and a merchant in consequence plans a voyage, and loads his vessel; but when he goes to the custom house for a clearance, he is told, with all imaginable sang froid, the collector has altered his opinion, it is no longer law, and no clearance can be had. He answers that it may prove his ruin; the reply is, the law is not the same it was yesterday.”

“Simon Snyder is a man of very ordinary talents and shallow judgment (if he possesses any) only calculated to move in the back ground of a political bustle, and swell the list of yeas and nays on any bill or motion. We have never witnessed or heard that he ever spoke five minutes on any question—all his rhetorick was directed towards election district, and wingdam bills, and seconding motions—nay, he almost as frequently seconded as John Goodman brought forward motions. So extremely ignorant was this would-be governour of Pennsylvania, that in the session of 1801–2, he was endeavouring to acquire a knowledge of the English language from Murray's grammar abridged.”

Tickler for August, 1808.

“Simon frequently carried his stupid and puerile pranks so far, as to take pockets full of cherry-stones to the chamber of the house of representatives, and amuse himself during the hours of business, with popping at Udree's cheek. If this evinces either respect for the people, or attention to publick affairs, the editor confesses it is the first time he has heard of legislation being carried on by the means of cherry stones.”

Tickler.

“His honesty, about which democrats make such boast, is not altogether unimpeached. The editor is authorized to state, that Simon Snyder was detected by the prothonotary of Northumberland county in an attempt to purloin certain papers, material to the defence, and belonging to the orphan children of his deceased brother, (against whom he has instituted a suit) from the publick offices in that county.

“He is further enabled to assert and vouch for the authenticity of the following transaction. Several years since, when Simon Snyder was a justice of the peace, an inhabitant of Berks county, placed a note the drawer of which resided in Northumberland county, into his hands for recovery. Judgment was obtained with the usual legal stay of execution. When the term of stay of execution had expired, the plaintiff waited on Snyder to inquire whether the money had been paid. Simon assured him that it was not paid: adding, that the bail on the note lived near him, and he would send the constable to him, and perhaps he would satisfy the judgment. The plaintiff called according to Snyder's appointment, who told him that he had sent the constable agreeably to promise, but he had not found the bail at home. The plaintiff then told Snyder that he would call on him again in about three months, and urged him to obtain the money by that time. His road home lay only two or three miles from the defendant's dwelling: and as he wished to avoid the trouble and expense of another ride into Northumberland county, he called on him, and offered his an abatement if he would pay the cast. The defendant was astonished, and assured the plaintiff, that he had long since paid the money into Simon Snyder's hands. They then agreed to go to Snyder's; and when this righteous magistrate, this paragon of honesty, saw both parties before him, so that he could no longer equivocate or deceive, he blushed and—paid the money.”

Tickler of Sept. 14, 1808.

The history of the infamous transaction here alluded to is too long and too well known to be given at large in this place. We shall merely state that it appears from documents in the supreme court of Pennsylvania that George Leib, father to our immaculate doctor, was intrusted by his friend penrose while on his death bed with 6000 dollars, in loan office certificates, to be held by Leib for the benefit of the heirs. Leib the elder denied having received them, and Leib the younger obtained cash for them, which he conscientiously attempted to convert to his own use.

Yet this orphan-robber now “caps the climax” of the jacobin faction in the good state Pennsyvlania, and it is said will be their candidate for governour at the next election! If such be the sages, the elders, the political leaders, what sort of stuff must compose the commonality?

The following account of this leading democrat has been published in a newspaper in this city, and as we have never seen it contradicted, we have no reason to doubt of its accuracy.

Mr. Binns is one of those whom we justly call a scape gallows: he went to England from his dear native sod, the climate of which, a la Napoleon, was rather, hot for him; but he commenced his mal-practices so soon after his arrival, and possessed so little ability in the line of life which he had entered into, that in a short time he was committed to the common prison for malefactors, robbers, &c. and somehow or other, another man's name being discovered on his shirts different from that which he went under, he was discharged from “durance vile,” and once more made his appearance outside the walls of a prison. Like all the rakings and scrapings of the Emerald Isle, this man will be ready to tell you that his crime was pat-riot-ism, that he was persecuted by the British minister, being suspected [Lord bless the mark] of holding a correspondence with the French emperour, and all that: but his vanity does not stop here. He will tell you, and without asking too, that he was examined before the privy council, and repeat the patriarch (for all is patriotism with him) answers he gave, “and to their teeth,” as he himself says, most wonderfully courageous! but not a word will escape him respecting his transportation, nor who paid his passage. To give the devil his due, we must say the man has always had a great itch for scribbling, and has mostly been so fortunate as to procure somebody, who pitied his ignorance, to “wash his dirty linen.” By this and such honourable practices, he got admittance into the society of garret authors, by whom he was considered as a new planet in the literary word, as they, poor souls, had never seen the letters of Junius, nor been at Dublin, they could not discover the plagiarisms of our hero. Where he landed among us, or what spot of ground was first disgraced by the mark of his colossal hoofs, is not very important; he, however, found means to carry himself, i. e. “on shanks' mare,” as far as Northumberland county in this state, where he found it necessary to stop, and there he did stop. His talents were exactly suited to the meridian of his majesty, the king of Ignorance, whose daughter happening to strike his fancy, was to be the reward of his exertions in favour of his majesty's election; it seems, however, that she did not like the bargain; but notwithstanding, our hero did not give up the pursuit of the golden prize, and such was the manner in which he plied her with his native slang, delivered in the sweet cadence of an inhabitant of the mountains of Munterlony, that she was on the point of striking, when she discovered the points of his elbows making their congress through the sleeves of his coat, and he himself was obliged to acknowledge that his waistcoat pockets were in the last stage of a desperate consumption; when she (as I am informed) discharged him, with the approbation of her father, from the house, bestowing upon him the well applied epithet of Irish hog; he was of course obliged to decamp, and put up with humbler fare—but on this subject we can go no farther. His characteristick ingratitude was displayed in so vile a manner, and toward the man who had taken him into the bosom of his family, naked and hungry, that we forbear tinging the cheek of modesty with the blush of shame by the recital. We will only observe, that he was driven with indignation from the house of his benefactor and his friend. “Where he next laid his guilty head, or whether it was before or after this circumstance, that he displayed his gratitude to Mr. Kennedy, the editor of the federal paper in Northumberland, we have not learnt—of his conduct to this gentleman, it is also fit the publick should be no longer ignorant. When he was shunned alike by friend and foe, and in a fair way for having his name entered on the township list, Mr. K. employed him to write for his paper, which he did—whether any of his precious morceaus were published or not, we do not know; but he was for the time an intimate and particular friend of Mr. K's—he drank his wine, and eat his roast beef, when he could get them no where else, and when his old acquaintance would no longer let him spunge upon them. His gratitude was in this instance, as the event will show, more infamous and dishonourable than on any former occasion. His fame began to spread far and wide. He was a man exactly suited to the king of Ignorance, and his partisans, for he was faithless and deceitful, and they completely succeeded, which indeed was no hard matter, in making a tool of him for the promotion of their detestable purposes. Two motives actuated the jacobin faction: first, they were fearful, if not properly encouraged, that he would continue in the ranks of the federal party, who really despised him, and were glad of the opportunity of shaking him off; and second, that if they did not put him in some way of gaining an honest livelihood, he might become a dangerous neighbour! That faction therefore procured him a press, and a stocking ful of old types, and set him a going; and, to cap the climax of infamy, if he had not capped it before, he the said Binns, published a proposal for the establishment of a newspaper, wherein he stated, that it would be his peculiar care to frustrate and detect the falsehoods that appeared in the paper of his former patron and friend! Falsehoods, if they were such, that he himself had probably penned. Now, reader, if such a man as I have here described, deserves support or even countenance in society, then may the most hardened ruffian, the most villainous seducer, and the basest monster of ingratitude, have claims on your generosity. The plain simple facts I have above stated require no comment. His friends [for the most worthless will have their followers] know them to be true, and he himself dare not deny them. I will, therefore, with his, and your leave, Mr. Tickler, postpone the recital of his subsequent adventures, particularly in Philadelphia, where he played such “fantastick tricks,” till next week, when I promise to regale your readers with something they may not be generally acquainted with.

DETECTOR.

The weekly paper entitled “The Tickler,” (which we have several times quoted) promises to be of essential service to society in hunting down the fry of democracy. In that paper of October 5, 1808, we have a sketch of the characters of the demagogues who composed the “French Tory Ticket,” which may be amusing to those who delight to dwell on the dark side of human nature. For our part, nothing but an imperious sense of duty induces us to take the trouble of lashing any of the culprits, and we are happy to find that Mr. Tickler amuses himself by switching this ignobile pecus: for “scoundrel hunting” though a disagreeable and sometimes dangerous, yet is a useful employment, and indispensably necessary in order to maintain a free government.

Editor of the Tickler.

Chevy Chase.

Hercules cleansed the old Augean stable by making use of the river Alpheus, about the size of the Schuylkill. But a more than Augean stable is here; and we have our doubts whether the flood of Deucalion or even that of Noah would thoroughly cleanse the Jacobin sink.

Vulcan was nine days in coming from heaven upon earth, and he fell upon the island of Lemnos, where, according to Lucan, the inhabitants, seeing him in the air, caught him in their arms. He, however, broke his leg by the fall, and was ever after lame of one foot. Apollo, likewise, felt the fury of Jove's great toe, and after a tumble from the skies, hired himself to one Admetus, a Yorkshire farmer. Vide the Ancients—passim.

Since Apollo, who, to be sure, serves as prompter of our poetical effusions, was never celebrated for his legal knowledge, and would be, in fact, as apt to decide right as wrong in this puzzling case, we have thought proper to dismiss his godship from any further attention to this particular subject, while we plod along in a plain matter of fact manner, through the mazes of the labyrinth in which the Lancaster sages have been so wretchedly bewildered.

It appears by the history of the proceedings in this case, taken from documents on record, and lately published, that in the early part of the war between the United States and Great Britain, Gideon Olmsted and others, who had been captured by the British, were employed as part of the crew of the sloop Active, bound from Jamaica to New York, and laden with a cargo for the use of the British army in that place. On the voyage they seized the vessel, confined the captain, and sailed for Egg Harbour. In sight of that place the Active was captured by the Convention, belonging to the state of Pennsylvania; brought into port; libelled, and condemned as a prize to the captors. Gideon Olmsted and others, who claimed the vessel and cargo, appealed to the court of appeals, established by congress; by which tribunal the sentence of condemnation was reversed; the Active and her cargo condemned as prize to the claimants, and process directed to be issued, commanding the marshal of that court to sell the vessel and cargo, and pay the net proceeds to the claimants.

The mandate of the appellate court was produced in the inferiour court, who denied the power of the former to control the verdict of a jury; refused obedience; and directed the marshal to make the sale and bring the net avails into court.

The claimants applied to the appellate court for an injunction to prohibit the marshal from paying the money arising from the sales into the court below, which was granted, and in contempt of which the money was paid and the receipt acknowledged; and

George Ross, judge of the court of admiralty, delilivered to David Rittenhouse, then treasurer of the state of Pennsylvania, the sum of 11,496l. 9s. 9d. in loan office certificates, the money to which the state would have been entitled, had his sentence remained in force, and took a bond of indemnity, in which the latter engaged to repay the same to George Ross if he should be compelled to repay the same by the decree of the court of appeals.

Mr. Rittenhouse made a memorandum, stating, that the certificates would be the property of the state of Pennsylvania, provided that he was indemnified by the state from the bond abovementioned. The state did not release David Rittenhouse from the bond, and these certificates remained in his possession, and he drew the interest on them, during his life, and after his death they remained in possession of his representatives.

A libel was filed in May 1802, by Gideon Olmsted and others, in the district court of the United States for the state of Pennsylvania, and the honourable Richard Peters decreed that the “certificates be transferred and delivered and the interest moneys paid over by the respondents to the libellants in execution of the judgments and decree of the court of appeals.”

After the decree of the district court in favour of the libellants, no application was made to enforce the decree till the year 1807. In the interval, Mr. Olmsted, who had centered in himself the claims of all the libellants, had ineffectually applied to the legislature for relief. He was about to resort to compulsory measures, when a suggestion was filed by Elizabeth Sergeant and Esther Waters, surviving executors of David Rittenhouse, stating that they had been required by the legislature of Pennsylvania to pay into the treasury of the state, the money received by David Rittenhouse as before stated.

After this suggestion no motion was made for a considerable period for process against the respondents. When process was demanded it was refused. The motives to this refusal were assigned by the district judge in his return to the mandamus, issued by the supreme court of the United States, enjoining him to issue process for enforcing his decree. These motives appear to have originated in a laudable reluctance against embroiling the government of the United States and that of Pennsylvania.

At the February sessions 1809, of the supreme court of the United States, that court, after giving an opinion in writing, from which the following is an extract, ordered a peremptory mandamus.

“With great attention and with serious concern the court have considered the return made by the judge for the district of Pennsylvania to the mandamus directing him to execute the sentence pronounced by him in this case, or to show cause for not so doing. The cause shown is an act of the legislature of Pennsylvania passed subsequent to the rendition of this sentence. This act authorizes and requires the governour to demand for the use of the state of Pennsylvania the money which had been decreed to Gideon Olmsted and others, and which was in the hands of the executors of David Rittenhouse; and in default of payment to direct the attorney general to institute a suit for the recovery thereof. This act further authorizes and requires the governour to use any further means he may think necessary for the protection of what it denominates “the just rights of the state,” and also to protect the persons and properties of the said executors of David Rittenhouse, deceased, against any process whatever issued out of any federal court in consequence of their obedience to the requisition of the said act.

“If the legislatures of the several states may at will annul the judgments of the courts of the United States and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery, and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals. So fatal a result must be deprecated by all; and the people of Pennsylvania, not less than the citizens of every other state, must feel a deep interest in resisting principles so destructive of the union, and in averting consequences so fatal to themselves.

“The act in question does not in terms assert the universal right of the state to interpose in every case whatever, but assigns as a motive for its interposition in this particuar case, that the sentence, the execution of which it prohibits, was rendered in a cause over which the federal courts have no jurisdiction.

“If the ultimate right to determine the jurisdiction of the courts of the union is placed by the constitution in several state legislatures, then this act concludes the subject; but if that power necessarily resides in the supreme judicial tribunal of the nation, then the jurisdiction of the district court of Pennsylvania over the case in which that jurisdiction was exercised ought to be most deliberately examined; and the act of Pennsylvania, with whatever respect it may be considered, cannot be permitted to prejudice the question.”

A suit commenced in the name of Ross's executors for the use of Olmsted and others versus Rittenhouse, which was a branch of this case, was determined against the plaintiffs. This suit was brought in the court of common pleas, in Lancaster county, and the judges decided on the ground of the court having no jurisdiction of the cause. The opinion, however, of judge Shippen it is material to advert to, as it thoroughly confutes the reasoning of those who maintain that the court of appeals was not competent to decide contrary to the verdict of a jury.

“I own I am not convinced, that the sovereign power of the nation, vested by the joint and common consent of the people and states of the union, with the exclusive rights of war and peace, and with the consequent, and necessary powers, of judging in the last resort of the legality of captures on the ocean, can, either in reason or sound law, be precluded from deciding an appeal, both of facts and law, arising in cases of prize, merely because they had recommended to the states to pass laws to establish courts of admiralty, for the trial of prize causes, in which the facts were, in the first instance, to be tried by jury, according to the causes of the common law. 1st, Because, in the nature of things, and according to the course and practice of all civil law courts, all decisions in the courts in the last resort, upon appeals, are made upon a view and full consideration of both fact and law. 2nd, Because, otherwise, no steady and uniform rules of decision could be established, and foreign nations could never know, or confide in, the grounds of our decisions; and it does not appear to me material, that, in the present instance, all the parties were American citizens. And lastly, because, in the present case, congress has explicitly reserved the power of final decisions upon appeal in all cases.”

These proceedings will probably terminate in a civil war, and a dissolution of the federal compact, or the good state of Pennsylvania, after an expense of eighty thousand dollars more or less will have liberty to withdraw her hostility to the general government, with all the access of reputation to which she is entitled on account of this her third rebellion against the laws of the union.

Since writing the above we have seen the very able decision of chief justice Tilghman on the writ of habeas corpus for producing Mrs. Sergeant, and although we have no intention of converting our work into a volume of reports, we cannot deny ourselves the pleasure of quoting a passage which we would recommend to be committed to memory by the King of Ignorance, Esq. and the barons bold, who compose the troops of the palace.

“The state of Pennsylvania having ratified the present constitution, did thereby virtually invest the courts of the United States with power to decide this controversy. They have decided it, and being clearly within their jurisdiction, I am not at liberty to consider it as now open to discussion. The supreme court of the United States has more than once decided, that the old court of appeals had the power to reverse, the verdicts of juries, notwithstanding the law of any state to the contrary. From the establishment of this principle, it irresistibly results, that Gideon Olmsted and his associates, were entitled to the whole proceeds of the Active and her cargo, and may pursue them into whatever hands they may have fallen, unless, indeed, they may have fallen into the hands of persons, not subject to an action in the courts of the United States.”

See a pamphlet entitled The Whole Proceedings in the case of Olmsted and others, versus Rittenhouse's executrices, &c. by Richard Peters, jun. Esq.

The following extract from the works of the American Burke, speaks volumes on this subject, and when we reflect that this opinion was the result of integrity and intellect inducing a decision against the interest of the writer, we shall hardly know which most to admire, the head or the heart of that deceased but immortal patriot.

“When it is considered that all the means of Great Britain to annoy, exhaust, and subdue her antagonist, and finally to prescribe a peace on terms compatible with her safety are naval means, it seems to ensue as a consequence, that she has a right, while in a state of war, to use them to the utmost extent that may be necessary for her preservation. Certainly she has a better right to exist than neutrals have to trade. Self preservation is the paramount law of states as well as individuals. If, therefore, the rights of neutrals happen to interfere with this superiour right of the belligerent, they must yield and be exercised only so far as may consist with it.

“Necessity, I shall be told, is the tyrant's plea. I reply: When that truly exists, it is a good one, and for that reason tyrants resort to it when it does not exist.” Again,

“Suppose Great Britain with a power to hinder has no right to hinder the exportation of the products of the French colonies to any neutral port—of what use or efficacy is her navy in the prosecution of the war, so far as the colonies of her enemy are concerned? America, now independent, full of enterprise and capital, with a million tons of shipping, can buy in the islands, store in the United States, and transport to neutral ports in Europe convenient for the supply of France herself, every hogshead of sugar, and every bag of coffee that can be furnished by the plantations, on such terms that the French colonies shall not feel the war.

“The French colonist would, ultimately, if not immediately, command a price for his crops, the more advantageous by reason of the cheap and safe navigation of American vessels; he would prosper in full peace, while the British colonies would feel the effects of war on his profits. His only market would be England, because he would be undersold on the continent. The seamen withdrawn from the French colonial commerce would be, as in fact they are, on board their men of war, or in their armies; and the resources of the colonies would be steadily and without diminution by capture, drawn by France into her own territory, and employed to equip flotillas and array armies of invasion against England.”

Works of Fisher Ames. p. 492. 3, 4.

The writer was a proprietor to the amount of one third of his personal property in an office, whose interest was believed to be extremely injured by the principle asserted by the admiralty courts; but his honest heart compelled him to reason against his interest.

“It appears to be generally supposed, that the rule respecting the colonial trade adopted by Great Britain, usually called the rule of 1756, which it seems she has considered as “the ancient and established principle of maritime law,” was peculiar to Great Britain; and Mr. Madison says: “It is well known that Great Britain in the only nation that has acted upon or otherwise given a sanction to it.” He also mentions this rule as having been introduced, for the first time, in the war of 1736; as having been in operation only a few years in that war; and not afterwards acted upon until 1793. Let us examine the subject.

“In Valin's celebrated work on Maritime law (a book in the secretary of state's office) is a regulation of Louis the fourteenth in 1704, from which I will recite some passages.

“The title of the regulation is remarkable: it is” concerning prizes made at sea, to secure the navigation of neutral states and allies during war: implying that this regulation was intended to abate the rigour of maritime law before that time practised towards neutral commerce.

“After observing that propositions had been made to him by the deputies of the council of commerce, the French king expresses his approbation of them “seeing he finds in them the means which he has always sought of procuring equally the advantages of the subjects of neutral princes and French cruisers.” He adds, “The subjects of neutral princes will thus find the care which his majesty has thus taken to preserve for them the same extent and the same liberty of commerce which they have been accustomed to enjoy during peace.”

“I will now read such of the articles of this French regulation as relate to the question under examination.

“Art. 1. His majesty forbids French privateers to stop or bring into the ports of his kingdom, vessels belonging to subjects of neutral princes, going from the ports of their dominion, and laden on account of the owners or other subjects of the said neutral princes, with merchandise of the growth or manufacture of their own country, to carry the same directly into any other states whatsoever, even those with which his majesty is at war: provided nevertheless, that there be not in the said vessels any contraband goods.

“Art. 2. They are in like manner forbidden to stop vessels belonging to subjects of neutral princes, going from the ports of any state whatsoever, even of those with which his majesty is at war, and laden on account of the owners or other subjects of the said neutral princes, with merchandise which they shall have received in the same country or state whence they shall have departed, to return directly into the ports of the dominion of their sovereign.

“Art. 3. He also forbids them to stop vessels belonging to the subjects of neutral princes, departing from the ports of one of the states neutral or allied to his majesty, to go into another state alike neutral or allied to his majesty; provided they are not laden with merchandise of the growth or manufacture of his enemies: in which case the merchandise shall be good prize, and the vessels shall be released.

“Art. 4. In like manner his majesty forbids privateers to stop vessels belonging to subjects of neutral princes departing from a state allied to his majesty or neutral to go to a state, the enemy of his majesty; provided there be not on board said vessel any merchandise contraband, nor of the growth or manufacture of the enemies of his majesty; in which cases the merchandise shall be good prize, and the vessel shall be released.

“Art. 6. Vessels belonging to subjects of neutral states which shall depart from the ports of a state the enemy of his majesty, and there have taken their lading in whole or in part, to go to the states of any other prince than their own, whether allied to his majesty, neutral or enemy, may be stopped and brought into his kingdom, and shall be declared good prize with their lading, even although laden on account of the subjects of his majesty, or of an allied or neutral state.”

“This regulation of Louis XIV. in 1704 (he being then at war with England and Holland) was re-enacted by Louis XV. in 1744 (France being again at war with England) with some exceptions in regard to those neutral nations with whom France had formed treaty-stipulations incompatible with that regulation.

“In these five articles we have, if I mistake not, the whole doctrine of the British rule of 1736. The direct trade to and from neutral ports and the enemy's ports, being permitted; but not the trade to and from the ports of one allied or neutral state, to and from the ports of another allied or neutral state; if the lading of the neutral vessels consist of merchandise the production of the enemy's country: much less to carry the same from one port of the enemy, to another port of the enemy.”

Mr. Pickering's speech on the repeal of the embargo.

Mr. Madison's letter of March 25, 1808, to Mr. Erskine.

Same letter.

Idem.

“Our administration, so far from maintaining an impartial and dignified course of conduct towards the belligerent nations, has sought for apologies for the atrocious violations of our rights on the part of France, and has seem disposed to put the most unfavourable constructions upon the conduct of the British cabinet, but to compel that nation to an open declaration of war, or in failure of that plan, to rouse the passions of the American people in such a manner as to make them desire, and demand a declaration of war on our part against Great Britain.

“This partiality, and this project, have been evident from the following facts established by this analysis:—

“First. That early in 1807, the government of the United States chose to put a favourable interpretation on the French Berlin decree—an interpretation directly opposed to its positive and explicit terms:—that it accepted as an explanation of that decree, an informal, unauthorized, and inexplicit declaration of a subordinate officer, in which it appears by subsequent papers, the government in truth placed no serious reliance, but considered that a positive confirmation on the part of the emperour was absolutely necessary.

“Secondly. That such a favourable explanation of the Berlin decree has never been obtained; but on the contrary, the only opinions expressed by proper authority in France have been in favour of its literal execution.

“Thirdly. That although no evidence existed as proved by the foregoing positions, that France had determined to relax the rigour of her decree as to us, but by the confession of our government it was from its date enforced in the West Indies, in all the tributary states, and very particularly in neutral and sovereign countries, by French arms; yet no formal remonstrance was ever made by our submissive rulers, until general Armstrong's letter of November 12th, 1807, one day after the date of the British orders, retaliating those of Berlin.

“Fourthly. The government of the United States, as far from remonstrating against the French decree, have apologized for it on two grounds:—

“First. That it was merely municipal and therefore lawful. This we have disproved by showing that it was enforced in neutral and independent countries, where, though the French arms were predominant, yet the local sovereignty was still acknowledged, and therefore France was precluded from considering them as conquered countries: We allude to Hamburgh and Tuscany.

“Secondly. Mr. Madison has apologized for the French decrees on the ground of their being retaliatory on British former usurpations. To this objection, or apology, it has been replied: 1st. That Britain has set up no doctrines not recognized either by the law of nations or the example of France, in which latter case it was contended that France could find no fault. 2dly. That had such cases of British usurpation existed (which is denied) they must have been such as existed prior to our treaty with France, and that treaty merged or destroyed all pre-existing causes of complaint. It is not competent now for France to urge as a ground of her vengeance against us, any principles or facts which existed prior to that treaty, in which we gave up to her twenty millions of just claims.

“The fifth general inference from these despatches is that the language, the tone, and temper, adopted towards Great Britain and France, demonstrate the most humble submission to the latter and a fixed determination to affront and quarrel with the former.

“Sixthly. While there is a pretended impartiality in the offers to Great Britain and France, it appears that to the latter the positive offer was that of an alliance in the war as a condition of the repeal of her decrees; but to Great Britain, the insulting and barren offer of a repeal of the embargo was the only proffered inducement; an offer which we proved to be destitute of reciprocity, affrontive, mean, inconsistent, and hypocritical.

“Seventhly. We have shown that neither of the offers was in fact sincere, though that to France was made with the perfect approbation of the emperour.

“The offer of war to France was absurd, because it was on the condition of the non-repeal of British Orders, when it was perfectly certain that Great Britain would repeal those orders as soon as the decrees of France should be removed.

“The offer to Great Britain was equally insincere, because it was morally certain that she could never repeal her orders until the French decrees were removed.

“Because her orders were avowedly grounded on the French decrees, and it would blast her reputation for sincerity should she withdraw them without the repeal of the avowed causes.

“Because it would humble her before her enemy.

“Because it would degrade her before us, and would be an admission that we could at any moment starve her into any concession of her just rights.

“Because, in fine, our offer was coupled with conditions affrontive to her cabinet, and while we continued our interdiction of her publick ships, which was of itself a barrier to all negotiation.

Analysis of the Correspondence, &c. p. 49.

The operations of the politicians of the French revolution were organized in the beginning of the revolutionary proceedings, when the plan was digested, which has since been pursued with little if any variation. Burke denominates these politicians a sect. But more on this subject hereafter.

Vulgarly called the man in the moon.

To pluck the mask of deception from the brow of the hypocrite and expose the “man of sin” who has assumed the garb of a saint, in his native deformity, is not to subvert but to subserve the interests of true religion. The canting hypocrite, who by pharisaical professions and wailing exhortations “leads captive silly women” is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and a greater foe to true religion than the profane publican who does not pretend to stand within the pale of Christianity.

The amorous divine to whom we have alluded was guilty of a crim. con. connexion of a most atrocious kind. “He was a popular preacher to a large congregation in this city, and had a wife and family, but “he foresakes the wife of his youth; visits at any hour, a widow, whose purse is stocked with gold; he takes charge of her interest, acts as master of the house and purse: his wife grows jealous; pursues his footsteps; finds him at the still hour of midnight with the widow.” The parson orders her to be taken into the custody of the watch, and otherwise abuses her, thus leaving a bright example of conjugal virtue for the edification of his flock.

“Tell it not in Gath.” Notwithstanding the circumstances stated in the preceding note were authenticated beyond the possibility of a doubt, the modest and exemplary parson not only undertook to brave the voice of publick censure, but made use of every engine which impudence, cunning, and depravity, could furnish to continue his charge, and it is said some goats among the flock, supported his pretensions.

“It is said that in a general impressment like that of admiral Keppel, it cost the nation in cutters, luggers, press gangs, and it might have been added, in nanny houses, and rendezvous of debauchery and corruption, an hundred pounds for every man they obtained. Letter on the inadmissible principles of the king's proclamation of Oct. 22, 1807.

The doctor it should seem is a votary of Venus as well as light fingered Mercury, and being a pure patriot would wish to become, without a metaphor, a father to the people. There were some circumstances, however, attending the doctor's management in tearing the poor little pledge of patriotism from the arms of its mother, and refusing to permit her to see it, which would have justified the forsaken fair in a strain of sublime expostulation, like that of the Tyrian lady we read about in Virgil.

Perfide, sed duris genuit te cautibus horrens
Caucasus, Hyrcanæque admorunt ubera tigres.
Anglice: Wretch! thou wast hewed from marble block,
Or old Tom Leiper's Crum creek rock,
Some wild cat, wolf, or prairie chuck,
Unfortunately gave thee suck.

A shower of stones lately fell in Connecticut, which some philosophers tell us came from the moon.

Mr. Huddesford, a celebrated English poet introduces old England inquiring of “French politick Doctors,” what remedy she should use for the surfeit, with which they assured her she was affected.

“Ah what panacea so grand,
Can my old constitution repair?
Why dame on your head you must stand
And kick up your heels in the air;
Then your health will be equal and good,
Nothing else can from ruin preserve ye,
For EQUALITY, well understood,
Means to turn all the world topsy turvy.”

In the commencement of the French revolution, the leading conspirators formed a band of propaganda or political missionaries of both sexes, whose business it was to explore every part of the world, insinuate themselves into the courts of princes, if possible worm their way into the first offices, and exert all their influence with all classes to inspire a partiality for France and French measures. Among these poor propagands may be numbered Haugwitz, prime minister to his Prussian majesty, and the infamous Godoy in Spain, and Talleyrand, J---n, Genet, and others in this country. To them may we trace the “invisible hand” which has led our country to the brink of destruction. See Baruel, Burke, Anti-Jacobin Examiner, Pursuits of Literature, History of the Court and Cabinet of St. Cloud, Democracy Unveiled, Dr. Morse's Thanksgiving Sermon, Marmontel's Memoirs, and indeed almost every author of reputation who has treated on the French revolution or subjects in any way connected with it. Indeed, it is owing to a most unaccountable stupidity or wilful blindness that the “hand” of which Mr. Gardenier complains is “invisible;” for it has gone near to crush us to the earth, and its operations may be traced in the eastern continent in the blood of slaughtered millions and the slavery of half the civilized world.

Since writing the above we perceive that the “invisible hand” has reached China, as appears by the following, which is taken from the Political and Commercial Register, and which we are assured is authentick.

“You have no doubt, already heard of the surprising conversion of the emperour of China and his family to the Roman Catholick Religion. (Some mention is made of it in the London Times of Feb. 20th.) As the principal mandarins are imitating the example of their sovereign, many persons here expect, that the mass of the people will hasten to adopt the creed of their superiours, and that political innovations will soon follow this religious alteration. Missionaries, members of the Propaganda, instituted by Napoleon in 1802, after the publication of the Concordat, have been the instrument in the hand of Providence of effecting this conversion. Already reports are circulating of his Chinese majesty having consented to admit into his empire, French political as well as commercial agents, and that two principal mandarins are on their passage to France in an American vessel, to compliment Napoleon, and to offer homage, in the name of their prince to the sovereign pontiff.”

The Abbe Barruel, says the author of the Pursuits of Literature, has done a publick service to Europe, by his eloquent and perspicuous delineation of the history of Jacobinism, in his work entitled Memoires pour servir à l'histoire du Jacobinisme. He has discovered and traced from the very source, the original cabal and its impious infamous leaders; and he has laid down their scheme and disposed the proofs from their own authentick writings and works, in a convincing, orderly, and logical arrangement. It is the best historical and critical commentary extant (except the events themselves) on Mr. Burke's first work, called “Reflections on the Revolution of France.” Yet strange to tell, although this conspiracy has been in a great measure carried into effect, and the world in consequence bleeding at every pore, many of those who lay claim to the character of enlightened, believe or pretend to believe that it never had existence!

In the revolution in France, two sorts of men were principally concerned in giving a character and termination to its pursuits, the philosophers and the politicians. The former were mere tools of the latter, and were taught to believe that the revolutionary struggles would terminate in a sort of new edition of the golden age of the poets. That Mr. Jefferson was inspired with such a belief is evident from his relying on justice, proclamations, gun-boats, and friendship. Prior, however, to his seduction and prostitution to the purposes of the above mentioned politicians, Mr. Jefferson, in his “Notes on Virginia,” had recommended an efficient navy, built in the old fashioned style, and invited us to secure respect by commanding it.

The following statement is from an excellent paper published in New York, entitled the Spirit of Seventy-six.

“Perhaps the most extraordinary instance of the duplicity of Mr. Jefferson's administration is to be found in a contrast of their principles and practice, in relation to the appropriations for the naval department.

“During Mr. Adams's administration, an act was passed directing six ships of not less than 74 guns each, to be built within the United States. This act was understood by all parties, as a solemn determination of the government to build a navy.

“Mr. Stodart, who was then secretary of the navy, believing that the act directing these ships to be built implied a grant of all powers requisite for carrying it into execution, and that the publick interest would be thereby promoted, purchased six scites for building and repairing ships of war, namely, at Portsmouth, Charleston, New York, Gosport, and the city of Washington.

“The expenditures for all these scites amounted to 136,000 dollars.

“The grounds purchased at Charleston or New York are separately of greater value at the present time, than the whole expenditures before mentioned.

“It was a principal topick of complaint by Mr. Giles and his associates, that the purchase of navy yards was unlawful, without an express authority from congress, and a specifick appropriation.

“Now mark the practice of Mr. Jefferson's administration, and compare it with the strict principles by which they attempted to control the conduct of their predecessors.

“It appears from the publick accounts that the following sums have been expended and charged to the “appropriation for building the six 74 gun ships, and for completing navy yards, docks, and wharves.

In 1801,

• 304,605.76

In 1802,

• 240,575

In 1803,

• 174,701.63

In 1804,

• 7,000

In 1805,

• 195,000

In 1806,

• 60,000

In 1807,

• 60,000

Amounting to dolls.

• 931,882.79

“Almost the whole of this money has been expended at Washington, for objects utterly worthless. Nothing of consequence has been expended at Charleston or New-York. Not a single stick of timber has been applied for building a 74 gun ship. The materials which had been collected during Mr. Adams's administration have in a great measure been applied to other purposes—some of them have been degraded by a conversion into gun boats. The whole fund has been applied to purposes which in respect to a small part were declared to be unlawful.

“But the effect of Mr. Jefferson's economy is peculiarly visible in its general results, in respect to the navy department. During the last eight years, the expenditure has exceeded the preceding period of eight years at least two millions of dollars. During the first period a navy was built, magazines were provided, and effective services were performed. During the last period effective services were also performed, whenever our officers and men have been permitted their bravery: but the ships have decayed, the stores have been consumed, and little remains to be exhibited, for an expenditure of about eleven millions of dollars, but the navy yard at Washington and gun-boats.”

It might have been added that most of the thirty-six armed vessels built and purchased by the Federal administration, sold at auction for sums much beneath their value.

The manner in which the French faction contrived to manage commodore Truxtun out of his rank in the navy, is a notable display of that low cunning, of which the great as well as little vulgar can be guilty.

The commodore was appointed to the command of a flag ship destined to the Mediterranean. He was denied the privilege of retaining a captain to serve under him, according to the practice of administration in other similar cases. Commodore Truxtun declined serving in that particular expedition, if thus restricted, but still retained his commission, and justly thought himself still entitled to his rank in the navy. The administration, however, chose to consider the commodore's declining an expedition under such circumstances to the Mediterranean as a final resignation, and submitted it to the captains of the navy to know whether they would willingly submit to his reinstatement to a rank which he had surrendered.

This, as was well observed by a writer in the Norfolk Ledger of June 23, 1806, to which we would refer the reader for further information, was saying “Gentlemen, there is a man, who four years ago resigned his commission in the navy, and now wants to be reinstated in his command, and to be placed over your heads; we are satisfied that he does not hold any rank in the navy; are you willing to yield your rank in his favour?”

“If the resignation of commodore Truxtun was conclusive, it was insulting to leave it to the captains. If not conclusive, the government wished to shrink from the responsibility.”

Commodore Dale had captain Barron allowed him.

We have observed that the democratick lists for candidates for office contain British, as well as French tories, and yet they pretend to be exclusive whigs. See Democracy Unveiled, canto 3.

“His majesty saw the system of usurpation advance every day; he saw a circle continually becoming narrower, drawn round him, and even the right of moving within it beginning to be disputed with him; for a sweeping resolution forbade the passage of any foreign troops, armed or not armed, through the states of the confederation. This was to cut off, contrary to the rights of nations, the connexion between the Hessian provinces.”

King of Prussia's Manifesto.

We allude here to the unprincipled and time-serving conduct of the king of Prussia in attempting to seize upon Hanover, when every dictate of honour, and even of self preservation, should have taught him not to violate the territory of a powerful ally, whose interest and his were “one and indivisible.”

See “The exposition of Cevallos” which ought to be in every body's hands, and to excite universal abhorrence against the actors in the most flagitious proceeding recorded in history. But precious democrats undertake to justify their favourite monster the republican emperour of France on the ground that this atrocious usurpation is only a change of tyrants, and the condition of Spain will on the whole be meliorated by the proceeding. As well might they affirm that a rich farmer may oust his poor neighbour of house and home because the former would be able to cultivate the land to better advantage.—As well might they justify Ahab in murdering Naboth for the sake of his vineyard.

“It is not true,” said Mr. Madison, “that the U. States have acquiesced in an illegal operation of the French decree: nor is it even true, that at the date of the British orders of November 11, a single application of that decree to the commerce of the United States, on the high seas, can be presumed to have been known to the British government.

“I state, sir, on undeniable authority, that the first instance, in which that decree was put in force against the neutral rights of the United States, was that of the Horizon, an American ship bound from Great Britain to Lima, wrecked within the territorial jurisdiction of France, but condemned under an exposition of the decree extending to the high seas its operation against neutrals.”

Mr. Madison's Letter.

A very able exposition of the falsehood of this assertion may be found in the United States' Gazette, of the 20th of July, 1808.

By this it appears, notwithstanding what has been affirmed to the contrary by Mr. Madison, the Washington Monitor, Mr. Brougham, Mr. Baring, Mr. Nicholas, and others, that “the French decree of Berlin, executed against us for twelve months without opposition, occasioned the orders in council, which led to further acts of aggression on the part of France, and ended in the tame surrender of all our rights upon the ocean; rights which we might to this day have enjoyed with honour and profit to ourselves, had a firm and manly opposition been made by our government to that insulting outrage, by which Buonaparte took upon himself to regulate our commerce for us, by insolently declaring with whom and in what manner we might be permitted to carry it on.”

The above was written previous to Mr. Madison's accession to the high office he now enjoys. His prompt and honourable conduct, since that period, has merited the approbation of every well wisher to his country.

Mr. Dennie, in the Prospectus to the new series of the Port Folio, informs us that

“Hitherto the success of the Port Folio has been of no brilliant complexion. Commenced at a sinister epoch, and pushed through all the thorns of perplexity, exposed to all the cavils of party, though pure of any but honest purposes, and neglected in consequence of the bad health and misfortunes of the editor, ill supported and worse paid, still he makes it a point of honour never to abandon it ingloriously.”

The Port Folio is the only periodical publication devoted to literature and science which has not been blighted almost in the bud; and if the observation of an elegant writer be correct, that “the want of publick spirit in matters of taste is a sure sign of national decay” we apprehend that “Young Columbia” is in the last stage of a decline.

We allude here to the controversy with Doctor Caustick, see note in the preface.

Those who undertake to palliate and excuse the practice of starving authors in America, or at least forcing them to turn their attention to pursuits of a more lucrative nature, frequently plead the example of Great Britain. They will tell you of Spencer, Otway, Butler, Chatterton, Dryden, Goldsmith, Dermody, &c. But whatever might have been, formerly the lack of publick patronage for authors of acknowledged merit in England, that defect no longer exists. A meritorious author is respected and his labours rewarded.

“Men of Genius,” says an English writer, “instead of being unproductive, as inclinated by a popular writer, are the most productive of all the classes of mankind. Their inventions not only fix and realise themselves in some subject, and for some time, but they direct the mode of storing and setting in motion future industry; and instead of perishing in the performance, they are renovated in every renewed action of a similar nature, and endure forever in some permanent habit, regulating the conduct, shortening the labour, and multiplying the comforts of mankind.

“Who fixed the grand pillars of society, who diffused the ideas of mine and thine the true principle of property? and who regulated political constitutions, and general morals on those ideas? Philosophers and men of letters. Who can calculate the effects on numerous ages, of the sublimity and dignity of Pluto, on the solidity and precision of Aristotle?

“The very age of Homer is the subject of inquiry, only on the account of the splendour of his name, which the utility of his sentiments will bear down to eternity.

“It seems,” says the same writer, “to be a stale maxim to neglect a literary friend, and buy up an enemy; to let the one go on and do all the service in his power, without so much as a love token in return; but to bribe a determined foe exactly in proportion to the mischief he has done and is able to do.” Is there any party in America which has adopted this British state maxim!

“British authors are,” he continues, “in the times before us, by no means a collection of paupers—notwithstanding a certain generous, though perhaps imprudent negligence in money concerns, they are from the honourable produce of their literary exertions, not only enabled to train up their families to utility and to every virtuous attainment, but also to become themselves contributors to publick benevolence.”

As it is our intention, if possible, to possess the good wishes of all classes of our readers, and to furnish food for every literary palate, which is not vitally vitiated, we will in this place give a specimen (rather above proof we acknowledge) of the kind of writing which we expect will be thought by our fashionable folk as entitled to the finest double-superlative Greek epithets in our language. Those who refuse to admire obstreperously and outrageously, the specimen of alliteration driven nolens volens, ideas or no ideas, from A to Z below presented, we shall pronounce most un-bon-ton-ish personages.

Courteous Criticks and the Polite Publick,

We are not apt to be by any means arrogant, or anyways assuming, and above all things always abhor and absolutely abominate any angry allusions to, or animadversions on, any body of men, or any thing which is allied to altercation with any author though he may be as addle pated as an apple-dumplin which had become acid by the action of the atmosphere.

We would by all means anxiously avoid the attacking of any awfully abominable and altogether atrocious administration which the annals of ages have annunciated to astonished Americans or their astounded antipodes.

We never assaulted any man nor any body of men with arms like those of an Alcides, an Achilles, an Aristomenes, an Alexander, an Attila, or an Armadea, nor attempted to allure our adversaries into an ambush like the American aborigines.

We never led any man astray by the arts of an Alcibiades, or an able editor, who has about the same amplitude of abilities as an aged apple-woman, who, according to Anacharsis, overset her apple cart and annihilated her apples.

But your bellowing boors, your blattering bumpkins, your bickering bullies, your blustering braggadocios, the biggest boobies, blockheads, and blunderbusses that ever broke bread instead of bedizzening with butterfly ballads, we have beaten with the bone-cracking beetle of Butler.

We shall never undertake to coerce a congress, conquer a continent, nor cudgel a comet, nor cope with a candid, clever critick, but as a candidate for common-place civility are not easily cowed, and care not a candle-wick's end for a cold, callous, clod-pated, carping, cruel, crabbed, canting, coddle-headed, cowardly, creeping, cross grained carricature of a censor, who, closeted in his cockloft, like the cut-throat Cacus in his cellar, contrives from his covered way to cut down a candidate for (literary) consequence with as little conscience as the cruellest cannibal of Congo.

If we do drag one of those death-doing dagger men from the den in which, like a Duane or a Drances, he delivers his dole of daily defamation, we will drug him with a dose as drastick as the dregs of destruction, and he will wish he had been doomed to damnation with the drivelling dotards of the Dunciad.

But we are easy to be entreated and as yielding as eider down, and may perhaps suffer the effusions of these envious earwigs to evaporate in eccentrick and empty exacerbations.

Still one ought to be flogged for fatuity if he suffers himself to be foiled by the frivolity of a fautor of flummery as foolish as the frippery of a fop of a Frenchman, or a fiddler that is fuddled, whom you might fell with the furbelow of a fair one of fashion.

If a genuine genius throws a gauntlet at geese to silence their gabbling, it is granted that generally the gang becomes the more garrulous.

However, we will not be hampered and hunted like a hare or a hind hereafter, but keep a hawk's eye on every harassing, higgling, literary huckster, and be as hostile as a hedge-hog to such humbugging, headstrong, Hottentots, and send them hand over hand to keep holiday with old Harry.

Innocent idiots may indeed be as injurious as imps without intentional injury, and we will institute an inquiry into the intellects of intruding impostors, who intend to be inrolled among the intelligent although they ought to be isolated for ignorance.

The jabber of a Jefferson, who has juggled us out of our judges, and who, although he is a genuine jolt-head would out juggle a Jew, shall cause no more jangling on this side Japan.

But know that kindness shall increase with the progress of knowledge, and our knowing men shall be knit together in spite of the knight of the legion of honour.

There are many liberty loving loons, who, like Loib, cannot draw a line between licentiousness and liberty, nor will they learn that the latter without law will be likely to lead us into the limbos. If some of these lantern-jawed, lilly-livered, lick-spittle louts, your lumber-headed levellers, long-visaged and lank-sided lechers, should be lockjawed for life, I should ask leave not to linger in lamentation longer than a lustrum.

The mincing, milk and water measures of our late administration, whenever I mention them to Miss Muse (I mean Melpomene) give her the megrims; and if they do not make her as mad as a march hare when she meditates on their mischievous and marring mode of murdering mankind, as it were, en masse, she will at least fall into a moping mania. It will not, therefore, be malice if she mauls their malignities with the might of a mammoth or a megalonyx.

No nation was ever before so much nosed by noodles and ninny-hammers, and it is a pity that the necks of certain noddies were not noosed and their noddles nipped.

If we were not as stupid as owls, as passive as oysters, and as patient as oxen, we should by our open opposition, have driven these oafs to the bottom of Ontario.

But our pretended patriots are a pack of poor, puny, pimping, parasitical, paltry, penny wise, pound foolish, poltroons, who, instead of being panegyrized by a poet, ought to be pounded to an impalpable powder by a Polyphemus.

Such queer, querulous, quarrelsome, quizzes, should be quartered and quashed, by way of a quietus:

Though rough, ranting, raving, roaring, rash, ragamuffin-roysters, they are not fit to regulate the roost of a rookry.

You cannot but be sensible that our should-be sages are no Solomons, but some of them are as savage as Saracens and as simple as sapheads, and instead of being saddled with such simpletons, we ought to send them to the centre of the salt mountain.

But we seem to be such timid, time-serving, “titty-boy,” two-penny trash, that to try to traverse by the aid of such tiny tinkers, their teasing, tantalizing, terapin theories, is tantamount to tilting with a terrible tempest, or tampering with a tremendous torrent.

It is utterly a useless and uphill work to undertake with underlings to upset our upstarts, who are upholden by an ultramarine usurper.

There are a parce of vain, villainous, vitious, vagabond vampires, who have been preying on the vitals of our country, and they are vincible only by vigour, and are not to be vanquished by your vaunting, vain-glorious vox et preterea nihil.

We seem to be witched as it were by the wand of a wizard, or we should wake and look at the world as it wags. If we wind along in our usual way, we shall soon find our freedom, which we have wantonly wasted, will be worth but a whiffle, and we can only preserve it by winning our way into the western wilderness.

We beg you to examine the premises, and if you find them exact, let the measures which they recommend be carried into execution. This will require, however, rather the prudence of a Xenophon than the rage of a Xantippe.

Then may we hope that our country will speedily arrive at the zenith of prosperity and glow resplendent as the stars of the zodiac, &c. &c. &c.

We beg leave in this place, to express our approbation of the plan, and so far as we have been able to judge of it, the execution of a work, entitled Select Reviews and Spirit of the Foreign Magazines, by E. Bronson and others. This work may be of great use by giving us the essence of the ponderous masses of matter under which the foreign presses groan.

The names of the masters or misses alluded to above, shall be nameless, for ninety nine valid reasons, one among others, that they are unknown to us. The obnoxious sentiments, however, may be found in the preface or introduction to a volume of translations and poems published in New York, and are occasionally to be met with in our periodical publications.

These four lines are the production of one of the Connecticut poets, whom the two-penny scribblers above mentioned would doom to oblivion.

For further information respecting this dreadful combat we would refer the reader to Notes on Virginia.

Mr. Windham declared in the House of Commons, that Cobbett deserved to have a statue of gold for services rendered Great Britain in this country.

Mr. M. Clay is a gentleman member of Congress from Georgia. His great classical knowledge was displayed in a speech, in which he informed the honourable house, that possibly Cesar was not Alexander, but that those fighting chaps, together with one—Pompey, Esq. (authors are not agreed upon his christian name) all lived near the same time and in the same neighbourhood.

Vide U. S. Gazette, Feb. 1808.

“Suppose the warfare be on the land; in what manner, let me ask, would these belligerents, each hostile to the other, array their forces for action, and conduct the battle? Would it be in the form of a triangle, each firing alternately, first on the enemy and then on the other?”

Hillhouse on the repeal of the embargo.

It has been said by some criticks that in this piece we have imitated some of the imitations of Gray, a fact of which we were not conscious. If so, they will please to style it parody on parody.

A certain imported editor has declared that Mr. J---n dare as well be d---d as affront him!

Mr. Quincy's Speech.