be too slight to withstand the centrifugal action of "the separate sovereignties;" and the same generation that permits the national government to be shorn of the salutary and rightful powers it now exercises, will live to witness the separation of its elements, and the extinction of the fairest and most hopeful system upon which the sun ever shone.

There is, it seems, great danger to our liberties from the exercise of the power of cutting canals and constructing turnpike roads by the general government! These, we are told, by a happy congruity of metaphor, are the highways upon which we shall travel into the vortex of consolidation. The process of reasoning by which turnpike roads are to be made the instruments of oppression, is not very clear to our faculties. We had supposed that whatever advanced the intelligence and elevated the character of the people, rendered them more anxious and able to sustain their freedom; and that, on the other hand, the encroachments of power were always made with more certainty of success, when the people, by reason of the want of internal communications, were unenlightened in political matters, and unable to act together in opposition to the government. In all ages, however, partisans have made use of some sounding phrase, which, if it be sufficiently polysyllabic and euphonous, is found of great service in occupying the place, or covering the retreat, of defeated arguments. In the present contest, the goodly word consolidation has been employed by Professor Cooper and the partisans of the same school, to produce an impression, which we think their logic would have failed to effect. Unfortunately, the same attempt was made at the period of the formation of the constitution, and signally failed. The terror of the alarmists of that day gave rise to some of the happiest pieces of pleasantry which our countrymen have produced. Those who are acquainted with the political writings of 1788-9, must remember the ،، New Roof, " written by Francis Hopkinson, in which, under the guise of an allegory, he successfully ridiculed the apprehensions of a consolidated government, which the opponents of the constitution professed to entertain. This witty paper is so applicable to the present time, that we are induced to extract a part of it. Among the objections to the "new roof," he enumerates the following, which seem to have furnished the "President of the South Carolina College" with the materials of his Essay.

"5thly. It was urged that the thirteen rafters would be so strongly braced together, that the individual and separate strength of each rafter would be lost in the compounded and united strength of the whole; and so this roof might be considered as one solid mass of timber, and not as composed of distinct rafters like the old roof.

6thly. That according to the proposed plan, the several parts of the roof were so framed as to mutually strengthen and support each other; and therefore there was great reason to fear that the whole might stand independent of the walls;

and that in time the walls might moulder away, and the roof remain suspended in the air, threatening destruction to all who should come under it."

To which the architect replied:

"5thly. To the fifth objection, he answered: that the intention really was to make a firm and substantial roof, by uniting the strength of the thirteen rafters; but this was so far from annihilating the several rafters and rendering them of no use individually, that it was manifest, from a bare inspection of the plan, that the strength of each contributed to the strength of the whole, and that the existence of each and all was essential to the existence of the fabric as a roof.

6thly, And lastly, he said, that the roof was in truth so framed as that the parts should mutually support and check each other. But it was absolutely absurd and contrary to the known laws of nature, to infer from thence that the whole frame could stand self-supported in the air. For, however its component parts might be combined with respect to each other, the whole must necessarily rest upon and be supported by the walls: that the walls might indeed stand for a few years in a ruinous and uninhabitable condition, without any roof; but the roof could not for a moment stand without the support of the walls: and finally, that of all dangers and apprehensions, this of the roof's remaining after the walls are gone, was the most absurd and impossible."

To return to our author, from whom we have been separated too long. His examination of the features and tendency of the constitution, which is in the main judicious and liberal, is followed by a sketch of the principal actors in the contest respecting that instrument, among whom he particularizes president Madison and general Hamilton. To the former he pays a brief but just tribute, which we have great pleasure in extracting:

"President Madison is the person who will probably be ultimately recog nised, as far as the title can be given with propriety to any individual, as the author of the federal constitution. It would give me pleasure to do full justice, according to the extent of my power, to his services; and to dwell at length upon the beautiful union of high intellectual qualities and accomplishments, with all the most amiable private virtues and graces, that have marked, throughout, the career of this eminent statesman. But the respect due to living characters prevents me from enlarging on the subject. Long may this objection continue to operate! long may this illustrious sage and patriot continue to enjoy, in his elegant and learned retirement, the cheerful recollection of a glorious and useful life, and the affectionate respect of his grateful countrymen!"`

A more extended and elaborate view of the services of Hamilton is then given; and those services, and the genius of that great man, are highly appreciated.

Chap. IV. treats of the "Internal Situation and Policy of the United States."

"Next in interest to the constitution or form of government,' says the author, "are the great subjects of making and executing the laws, that is, of applying the theory of the government to practice;" and this, or in other words the policy of the country, divides itself into the two great branches of foreign and domestic. In respect to the latter, he thinks that "the genius of our government must necessarily be to leave the greatest possible latitude to individual action." In support of this position, our

* Works of Francis Hopkinson, Vol. II. p. 304. 308.

worthy author quotes, for the ten thousandth time, the answer of the French merchants to Colbert, "Laissez nous faire," which has formed the text of so many commonplaces, and served, for lack of argument, as the weapon of those who set themselves against all kinds of national encouragement of domestic industry. This famous saying, we take the occasion to observe, has been sadly perverted and misapplied. Where a particular interest, whether it be the mercantile, commercial, or agricultural, is satisfied with its condition, it may be very well for its members to exclaim "laissez nous faire," and it may be well for the government to follow their advice. But the case is quite different when a certain interest, which has arrived at man's estate, and with the protecting aid of the government become sturdy and prosperous, interferes to prevent the same measure of protection being dealt out to its younger brethren, and calls out lustily, "let them alone," when it is proposed to support them against foreign competition. In such case, we humbly conceive, that a legislator, in whose ear this maxim was so frequently exclaimed, might, with perfect respect to Adam Smith, Malthus, and the other shining lights of political economy, venture to suggest, that governments were established for the very reverse of what is implied by the saying "Laissez faire;" and that the general application of it would soon reduce society to its original elements. In fact, if there be any one business and duty of legislation especially obvious, it is, we conceive, that of administering to the domestic industry, whether that industry be exercised on agriculture, manufactures, or commerce, such wholesome protection as may enable it to withstand the competition of foreigners. The arguments in favour of this policy, which go to prove that both the agricultural and mercantile interests of this country are the gainers by the protection afforded to domestic manufactures, appear to us irresistible, and will, we opine, continue to weigh with our statesmen, notwithstanding the authority of Adam Smith, and the sudden conversion of the British government to the doctrines of free trade.

In conformity with this self-denying principle of legislation, our author lays it down, that the principal objects of domestic policy ought to be, "the preservation of the public peace, the administration of justice civil and criminal, and the collection of the revenue." (p. 125) It is perhaps hardly worth while to stop for the purpose of adverting to the strange inaccuracy of the phraseology, which makes three objects of policy where in fact there is but one, the first and second being evidently the same thing, and the third, or the collection of the revenue, being merely the means by which the persons engaged in the execution of the first are to be supported; since, according to the laisseznous-faire doctrine, it is not right to apply the funds arising

from the collection of the revenue to any other purpose. But we dissent altogether from this contracted view of the rights and duties of legislation. Government, we hold, was instituted, in the words of the constitution of the United States, "to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty" to its constituents and their posterity. That unwise laws have been made on the subject of national wealth, and injudicious restrictions imposed on internal industry, is certainly no more to be used as an argument against legislation on those subjects, than the fact that the penal code of some countries has been unjust, is to prevent the adoption of any criminal law. In truth, our author seems evidently to be conscious of the results to which an adherence to the "liberal" system, as it is the fashion to call it, will inevitably lead, since he gives up almost every thing before he gets to the end of the chapter. In the first place, he concedes that education is a proper subject of legislative care; which, we humbly think, is a virtual abandonment of the stronghold of the doctrine; for, surely, if there be any thing which can be safely left to individual exertion, it is this. But, in the next place, he admits, that there is an exception to the rule, which in most countries admits of an application not much less extensive than the rule itself." And this is, that where there have formerly been injudicious attempts at restriction, it is necessary to remedy by legislation the evils that have arisen from them. Not merely, he adds, are governments bound to repeal such inconvenient laws, having a due regard for vested rights and interests, but it may be necessary to enact others, "in order to open the old channels, and dam up the new ones, which the existing law has created." "Thus," he proceeds, "if a government had been so unwise as to prohibit its subjects from owning ships, and had thus thrown the whole commerce and navigation into the hands of foreigners, it might be expedient, upon the adoption of a better system, not merely to repeal the old prohibition, but to counteract its consequences, either by prohibiting entirely the entry of foreign vessels, or by levying upon them and their cargoes a heavy tonnage and discriminating duty; and so of other analogous cases."-" All which," as Hamlet says, "we do most powerfully and potently believe, although we hold it not meet to have it thus set down;" since, to our poor apprehension, the distinction is so thin between the right to counteract the injudicious legislation of your predecessors and that of foreigners, as to avail nothing for the purposes of our author's argument. We find the same concessions made with respect to manufactures. Their slow progress with us, compared to that of agriculture and commerce, he attributes to the prohibitory system enforced upon us, while colonies, by the mother country;

and, although the old restrictions have long ceased to exist, yet, "as the habits generated by them still remain, and are found too inveterate to be conquered by the mere healthy action of natural causes, it may be necessary and politic to counteract them by positive measures, which would otherwise, and considered in themselves, be at variance with just principles and with the rights of individuals." He then proceeds to consider the subject in detail, through several pages, in which, we think, may be perceived a struggle between the author's ambition to be ranked among the savants of the liberal school, and his conviction that the true doctrines, after all, are those old-fashioned ones, which consider the interests of our own country as paramount, and its domestic industry the surest foundation of national wealth. Accordingly, we give him the full benefit of his abstract reasoning upon the laissez-faire policy, and are quite willing that he should chant hosannas to Mr. Huskisson, so long as he accompanies his theory with such facts and statements as the following, which sufficiently vindicate the expediency of maintaining home industry by protecting duties:

་

"We find, that, within the last five or six years, manufactures have advanced with astonishing rapidity, in all the northern part of the Union, and especially in New-England, which will probably be, in the end, their principal seat. Upon returning lately to this country, after an absence of five years, I was not less astonished than delighted to witness the visible signs of this progress, and to find flourishing villages and even considerable towns springing up, as if by enchantment, on spots that were recently uninhabited. At Lowell, in Massachusetts, where there were not, if I am rightly informed, more than one or two dwelling houses in 1820, I found in the spring of 1825 a population of fifteen hundred souls, wholly engaged in manufactures; and it was the opinion of persons, who had the means of judging correctly, that ten years would add another cypher to the number. Similar results may be observed at Weare, Springfield, Dover, Somersworth, and various other places; and, in short, the spirit that produced them is active through the whole country. The skill and judgment with which the establishment at Waltham has been conducted, and the large profits that have been constantly obtained there, have done much and in the best way, to encourage this spirit, and give it a proper direction. The founders of that establishment, though governed, no doubt, immediately by an enlightened regard to their own interest, may well be considered as public benefactors."

"The home market is, in general, fixed and certain. Its extent may be cal culated, and the probable increase or diminution of demand foretold with sufficient exactness. Nor is it materially affected by political accidents. Foreign commerce, on the contrary, is a sort of game in which fortune exercises at least as much influence as prudence and skill. All calculations connected with it, are not only more or less uncertain at the time of their inception, but are continually liable to be defeated by events that may intervene before their results can be realized. The whole capital invested in this pursuit, and with it the happiness of its owners and their families, lies at the mercy of political events, or in other words, of the caprice and violence of foreign powers. We cast our bread upon the waters, but whether in this case it ever returns again after many days, is a matter of chance. When we have covered the sea with our products, a wanton belligerant (and some war is always going on in one quarter or another) issues a decree, and sweeps the whole into his own coffers. We remonstrate-negotiate-go to war perhaps-possibly, after the lapse of twenty or thirty years, ob