touching the necessity of crippling the commerce of this country, lest its rivalry should become still more dangerous than at present-when we reflect upon the proceedings in respect to the West India trade, and the style and sentiments of Mr. Canning's recent letters to Mr. Gallatin on that subject, we must confess our apprehension that the political organ of our worthy mother was not perfectly sincere in his professions at the Liverpool dinner. Indeed, the very line chosen by our author as his motto, "matre pulchra filia pulchrior," might suggest to him reasons against the continuance of a very hearty intimacy between these respectable kindred.

The death of the emperor Alexander is considered by the author as forming another of the important and operative events of the last five years, and gives occasion for an eulogium upon that prince, of great breadth and very strong colouring. We must acknowledge that we have little relish for the encomiums, which have on other occasions, as well as in this book, been bestowed upon the czar. He was a powerful monarch, with dispositions, and perhaps talents and accomplishments, rather higher than the generality of his political class; but he finally exerted all his powers for the worst of purposes.

In Chapter III. we return to our own country, and are presented with a view of "the form and spirit of our political institutions." Several papers are devoted to an examination of the theory of the federal constitution, and to a comparison between it and the frames of government in ancient and modern times. The secret of our success, the author thinks, lies in the application to government of two principles, the representative and the federal, "neither of which had ever before been distinctly perceived or successfully practised." These principles, and their operation on the motions of our government, are treated at considerable length, and generally with judgment and discretion. His anticipations with respect to the future destinies of the federal government, are of the most sanguine and hopeful character; and we echo his wish of "Esto perpetua," from the utmost depths of our hearts. We consider him generally right, in supposing that the foundations of the government are laid sufficiently wide and strong to admit of the pressure which an increasing population and extended territory are yearly laying upon them. When he denies, however, that there are any dangers to be apprehended from an opposition by the state sovereignties to the measures of the general government, and professes to regard the federal judiciary as a sufficient stay and barrier of its legitimate powers, we must be permitted to enter our caveat against too strong a reliance upon this support. It is our deliberate opinion, that the union of the states, in its existing form, has much more to apprehend from the state governments than from any en

establish a constitution similar to that of France; and that the arrangement was defeated by the influence and intrigues of the Spanish clergy. This supposition appears to us too refined for probability. We question, too, whether any portion of the French ministry really desired liberal institutions in Spain. Some excuse, however, was to be given for the war; and accordingly we find the author of Atala alleging in his speech in the House of Deputies, that it was necessary to commence hostilities, because the existing state of things injured the trade in mules between the border provinces of the two kingdoms!

While the result of the invasion of Spain has been, according to the present work, the reduction of France to the rank of a secondary power, and to the condition of a dependant upon Russia, the policy of Great Britain in reference to South American independence, has thrown into the opposite scale an overpowering weight of influence and strength. The death of lord Castlereagh, fortunate, as our author thinks, for the interests of freedom, happened at a critical juncture; brought Mr. Canning into office, and produced a revolution in the foreign policy of England. Of these eminent statesmen the author gives us parallel portraits, which, though well wrought, we have not room to copy. His work appears to have been written previous to the delivery of Mr. Canning's famous speech on the conduct of Spain towards Portugal; and it is therefore worthy of remark, that he has described that minister as governed by views precisely such as he has avowed in almost the same language:

"He (Mr. Canning) saw the fearful and growing power of despotism in his neighbourhood, and felt that the only way in which England could avoid becoming a victim to it, was to attach her fate at once to the rising empire of freedom in America. Satisfied of this, and conscious of his ability to strike out a new course for himself and the country, he broke off abruptly his connection with the continent, and, like another Columbus, turned his hopes and views to the world embosomed in our western ocean." "By the adoption of this policy, Great Britain seems to have lost her hold on the other world in which she is situated, and to have become an American rather than an European state.”

33

Following out his idea, our author seems to suppose that a virtual alliance already exists between the United States and Great Britain, for the support of liberal principles and free institutions in this quarter of the globe. Captivated by a civil speech of Mr. Canning at Liverpool, to our countryman Mr. Hughes, he expatiates with becoming cordiality on the happy prospect of the sociable intercourse between "the mother and the daughter;" and in a subsequent part of the book, recurs with great complacency to the edifying spectacle which such harmony between near relatives is calculated to exhibit. We hope that his vision may be realised, and that the advent of this millenium may be at hand. Nevertheless, when we call to mind certain recent declarations in Parliament, of Mr. Canning's favourite colleague, Mr. Huskisson,

touching the necessity of crippling the commerce of this country, lest its rivalry should become still more dangerous than at present-when we reflect upon the proceedings in respect to the West India trade, and the style and sentiments of Mr. Canning's recent letters to Mr. Gallatin on that subject, we must confess our apprehension that the political organ of our worthy mother was not perfectly sincere in his professions at the Liverpool dinner. Indeed, the very line chosen by our author as his motto, "matre pulchra filia pulchrior," might suggest to him reasons against the continuance of a very hearty intimacy between these respectable kindred.

The death of the emperor Alexander is considered by the author as forming another of the important and operative events of the last five years, and gives occasion for an eulogium upon that prince, of great breadth and very strong colouring. We must acknowledge that we have little relish for the encomiums, which have on other occasions, as well as in this book, been bestowed upon the czar. He was a powerful monarch, with dispositions, and perhaps talents and accomplishments, rather higher than the generality of his political class; but he finally exerted all his powers for the worst of purposes.

In Chapter III. we return to our own country, and are presented with a view of "the form and spirit of our political institutions." Several papers are devoted to an examination of the theory of the federal constitution, and to a comparison between it and the frames of government in ancient and modern times. The secret of our success, the author thinks, lies in the application to government of two principles, the representative and the federal, "neither of which had ever before been distinctly perceived or successfully practised." These principles, and their operation on the motions of our government, are treated at considerable length, and generally with judgment and discretion. His anticipations with respect to the future destinies of the federal government, are of the most sanguine and hopeful character; and we echo his wish of "Esto perpetua," from the utmost depths of our hearts. We consider him generally right, in supposing that the foundations of the government are laid sufficiently wide and strong to admit of the pressure which an increasing population and extended territory are yearly laying upon them. When he denies, however, that there are any dangers to be apprehended from an opposition by the state sovereignties to the measures of the general government, and professes to regard the federal judiciary as a sufficient stay and barrier of its legitimate powers, we must be permitted to enter our caveat against too strong a reliance upon this support. It is our deliberate opinion, that the union of the states, in its existing form, has much more to apprehend from the state governments than from any en

croachment by the confederation. It would lead us too far from our subject, and engross too many of the pages allotted to us, to state our reasons for this conviction as fully as we would wish. It may be sufficient to suggest to our author, that he has not given their due weight, to the great and rapidly increasing strength of some of the states, to their organized power for good or evil, and to the comparative intensity of the popular attachment to the state authorities. These are incidents to our federative position, which seem to require of all men who love freedom, and duly prize our inestimable constitution, that they should labour without ceasing to discourage theoretic jealousies of the general government, and to render its ordinary operations as palatable as they are salutary.

Nothing, it appears to us, can be worse, either as a matter of policy or taste,-nothing can be more pernicious for the present or the future, than the perpetual hostility waged in some of the states, of which we wish to speak with all possible respect, against the exercise of almost every power confided to the general government. It might be thought, that this "central power," which originates from the bosom of the people, and is constantly under their inspection and control, was some mighty and fearful creation, with the capacity and disposition to do all manner of evil, and requiring a perpetual watch and ward against its encroachments. Such, at least, was not the image that presented itself to the minds of the venerable men who formed our present constitution, and who were as keenly sensitive to political encroachments, and as sturdy champions of state rights, as any of the present day. Their theory, and we humbly conceive the true theory of our political system, supposes, that it is necessary to the safety of the individual states, that the general government should not only possess extensive powers, but be paramount in the exercise of those powers: "Made by sad experience wise," they laboured incessantly to effect the happy exchange of the slight and shadowy confederation, for the existing national government, whose rays emanate directly from the people, and whose blessings and benefits ought to be exercised immediately upon them, without the intervention of any other

medium.

Strange, however, as it may appear, there are persons among us, and some indeed of no small reputation, who deny to the general government any other attributes than those of a confederation, and who, insensible to the mighty benefits it has conferred upon the community, would reduce it to the meagre and powerless condition it exhibited in 1787.

We have now lying before us, a pamphlet "On the Constitution of the United States," announced to be the substance of some lectures intended to be delivered to the students of South

Carolina College, "by Thomas Cooper, M. D." president of that institution;-which, we fear, if it is to be considered their political text-book, will produce very unhappy effects upon the rising generation in that distinguished state. With the opinions of president Cooper touching the policy of the present administration of the national government, we have nothing here to do; nor is this the place to make any remark upon the manner in which those public functionaries are mentioned; but we do protest against the doctrines announced ex cathedra in this work, in relation to the federal constitution. We did suppose, that if there was any thing settled or admitted in our system, it was its popular or national character, as contra-distinguished from the federative principle of the system it succeeded, and which all parties, after experience of the benefits of the constitution of 1789, united in reprobating. The first words of the constitution recognise its emanation from, and direct application to, the people; all its functionaries, with the single exception of the senate, derive their origin from the same source, and are elected independently of the state governments; all its operations are directed immediately to the people, and are exercised for their immediate advantage. In fact, there is not a line of that noble instrument which does not distinctly exhibit features totally incompatible with the idea of a mere confederation, acting only upon states as such in their corporate character. And yet, here is a writer of mature years, and entitled from his official situation to some authority, maintaining, with apparent seriousness, that the constitution was not the work of the people; that the convention of 1788, and the confederation of 1777, were synonymous terms; and that "the separate sovereignty of each state in the union never was at any moment conceded or in any manner renounced."

It is of course perfectly in character for him to deny to the national government the right to establish a national bank; to construct the Cumberland road, and other internal improvements; to impose duties on foreign manufactures, for the purpose of encouraging our domestic industry; or even to erect national fortifications. The feeble pageant which he and a few other such politicians would set up, in place of the admirable government under whose protecting wing all parts of the Union are now prospering, would soon render us a by-word and scorn among the nations. Possessing no internal vigour, and commanding no resources of its own, it would be the mere creature and puppet of each of the twenty-four sovereignties at whose pleasure it existed; and whose various and clashing interests would render any thing like unity of design or action, for the public good, utterly hopeless. It is quite impossible that if once established, such a government could be of long continuance. The principle of cohesion would