consideration of their misfortunes a philosophical and dispassionate examination of its cause. In this case, the general tendency was to contrast the poverty generally felt with the large incomes received by lawyers. There was a complaint that the senate was composed of men of means; and the amount received by the governor of the state was likewise the cause of much discontent. Another ground of dissatisfaction was the refusal to meet the popular demand for the issue of paper money, and that direct taxes had been imposed to meet the expenses of government.

Agitators had inflamed the popular excitement, for there are always to be found men with whom a public grievance is the source of private emolument. Those who were discontented had also before them the example by which the state government could be overwhelmed, the revolutionary proceedings by which the power of Great Britain had been prostrated. Why not follow the example?

Difficulties of the same character had been experienced in New Hampshire; an armed mob had surrounded the legislature, calling for a remission of taxes and an issue of paper money. The movement had, however, been suppressed without loss of life.

Bowdoin, the governor of Massachusetts, in this emergency called a meeting of the general council. Acts were passed diminishing legal costs in collection of debts, the payment in produce, of taxes and debts, was made legal. The agitation, however, continued. The militia was being constantly called out, and the habeas corpus suspended; and a strong proclamation was issued against the disorderly proceedings, which remained unabated.

These disturbances created anxiety in congress. Under pretence of raising troops for operations in the north-west against the Indians, authority was obtained to enlist 1,300 men, the object being to prevent the seizure of the federal arsenal at Springfield, and generally to give support to Massachusetts. The services of this force were not necessary, for previous to their enrolment, on the 5th of December, one

1782]

EXTRICATION FROM DIFFICULTIES.

329

Shay, with a mob of armed men, took possession of Worcester and prevented the sessions of the supreme court being held. The militia force, to the number of 4,000 men, was called out and placed under the command of Lincoln, while means to sustain the troops were obtained by loan at Boston. Shay had been a captain in the revolutionary army. As he held that it was necessary to arm the men clustered around him, he attempted to take possession of the federal arsenal at Springfield. The commandant fired upon the insurgents, killing three and wounding one, upon which the assailants made a precipitate retreat. They were followed by Lincoln with the militia that had been called out. Cowed by this rapidity of movement, Shay's mob offered to separate, on promise of pardon. Lincoln, however, was without power to grant any conditions. The malcontents again retreated; but Lincoln's activity in their pursuit so disheartened them that the greater part dispersed, seeking their safety as they were best able. Several were arrested, and the movement had ceased by the end of January. No one was executed.

The suppression of this abortive attempt at rebellion did not remove the anxiety felt, or restore assurance of quiet times. On all sides there was depression, and accompanying it an absence of public confidence, and what is often attendant upon this condition of feeling, a distrust of the rich, with the desire for present relief by any means. For a few months it seemed as if independence of the rule of the mother country had been gained to lead to bankruptcy and anarchy. No passage in the history of the United States reflects more to their renown than their extrication from this deplorable condition. The experience obtained from the system of government, of the old provinces as separate and independent colonies, worked its influence. The first minds in political life were awakened to the necessity of establishing a strong central government, which should secure internal peace at home, exact consideration from foreign powers, and establish that common confidence in the ordinary affairs of life which is the basis of prosperity and order.

In 1786 Virginia proposed that a convention should be held at Annapolis, to determine the future form of government. Five states responded. Hamilton drew up an address, somewhat modified in accordance with the views of Randolph, in which the call was made for a second convention to meet at Philadelphia, in 1787, to consider the general obligations and conditions on which confederation should be effected. It was this convention which established the constitution of the United States.

The meeting took place on the 25th of May. It is strange that the anniversary of this meeting obtains little consideration in modern times. It is far more worthy of public regard than the 4th of July, which commemorates the separation from the mother country, on assumed causes which do not bear the inspection of history. The prominent actors from the beginning desired to be set adrift on a separate nationality. Their feeling of discontent is traceable to impatience of authority, not always wisely exercised by the home government, as we have experienced in our history, and mainly to the desire of a field being gained for individual ambition. There came a period in the contest when one side or the other must be taken by all who fell within its influence; and thousands were forced against their will to join the side of revolt. On the other hand thousands opposed it, to sacrifice all that gives value to life. A protest must also be entered against the mode in which the 4th of July has been kept for a century. As a rule, it has been characterized by the bitterest calumnies against the mother country. The really great minds of the United States recognise all they owe to the benignity and beneficence of the parent state. Errors, miscalculations, unwise arbitrariness, want of appreciation of circumstance, too frequently are traceable in the record of the old imperial rule. Why should these alone be remembered? Why should the aid, the support, the protection which made independence possible, be forgotten? The principles of political liberty and of personal individual freedom now possessed are the heritage derived from the political mother,

1787]

THE NEW CONSTITUTION (U.S.)

331

including religion, laws, language, the noblest literature of Europe, and the sense of historical manhood which passes across the most ignoble mind as the deeds of our common sires are read on either continent.

The true origin and starting point of the United States is not the 4th of July, 1776, but the 25th of May, 1787.

Seven states were then represented, each state to possess one vote; seven states to form a quorum. The committees were appointed by ballot. The doors were closed, an injunction of secrecy regarding the character of the debate was enforced, which has been generally well kept even to the last few years. Finally, cleven states were represented by fifty delegates. Rhode Island had refused to send delegates.

Randolph, representing the sentiment of Virginia, proposed a national legislature, with representatives apportioned in accordance with the numbers of the free population, or the amount of taxation paid by a state, with a second chamber, and a national judiciary. The less important states in the matter of territory and population regarded the principle with distrust, as a blow at state sovereignty. They desired to retain the right possessed under confederation, that of equal voting. A point was raised with regard to the authority possessed by the convention; it was met by the condition that whatever was determined would be submitted for ratification to the several states.

The larger states had determined that the election of representatives should be regulated by the population; on this point there was a great difference of opinion. Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina and Georgia supported the vote according to population; six votes. Five were recorded against it, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and as the majority from New York was in this direction, that state was included in the

I cannot forbear to repeat the words of Macaulay in his essay on Milton, for they cannot be too often brought to attention--"the idiomatic powers of the English tongue to which every ancient and every modern language has contributed something of grace, of energy or of music."

vote. The delegates of New Hampshire were absent. Rhode Island was unrepresented. Had they been present, the modern opinion appears to be that there would have been great difficulty in the determination of the question, and that a settled plan of government at the time might have proved impracticable.

Although opposition was experienced in carrying out the principle of making the number of representatives dependent on population, eventually it obtained recognition, three years' life being given to the lower house and seven to the upper. The election to the senate was left with the state legislatures, the same principle of population governing the number. The national legislature was to possess authority to pass the laws for which the state authority was insufficient; likewise to possess the right of negativing state laws not in accord with the articles of union or inconsistent with foreign treaties. The executive to consist of a single person, elected for seven years, ineligible for a second term. The national judiciary to consist of a supreme court; the judges to hold office during good behaviour, appointed by the second branch.

This plan was subsequently modified, the lower house was elected for two years, the senate for six, one-third to retire biennially, each state being equally represented in the senate. The president was elected for four years, with the right of election.

Perfectly free trade was declared to exist between the states. Any amendment to the constitution could be effected only by two-thirds of both houses of congress, and by the vote of two-thirds of the states as obtained in the legislatures.

The president was given the power of veto, but it ceased to be effective if set aside by a two-third vote of the senate. The consent of the senate was also made necessary to the passage of treaties with foreign powers, and to official appointments of the first class.

In this arrangement adherence to British practice was observed as strictly as possible. Two essential departures