ment to the TYRANNY! of England from which they had escaped,-obliged them to leave so much leaven in the mass, that the greater part has at length fermented into that body of corruption, which we described at length in our first number.

But to return to Mr. Jefferson. His first great employment under the new government was in the embassy to France, at the head of which he was immediately placed by President Washington, purposely to show his gratitude to that government by sending to them one of their own partisans. It was one of the cardinal political maxims of that great statesman, to which he at last fell a victim, to preserve a perfect impartiality towards all parties at home and all countries abroad. This induced him tó send Mr. Jefferson to France, who, during his residence there, associated principally with the democratic leaders; and upon his return on leave of absence after a residence of some years in that country, to appoint him secretary of state for foreign affairs; and to associate with him, as another secretary of state, Mr. E. Randolph, a Virginian lawyer, not highly respected even in his own country, and who was afterwards dismissed for having become, by means of corruption, a secret agent of France*.

These two persons were of Washington's cabinet council, together with two others (of whom the celebrated Colonel Hamilton was one), who were decidedly opposed in opinions and views to the others. So that the two great parties in the state were not only represented in Congress, but absolutely, and nearly upon equal terms in the government. It may well be supposed, that upon this system nothing could go on smoothly. Upon every measure of government the cabinet was divided, and in the heat of contention the members could not be supposed to keep its secrets from their respective partisans. Between secretaries Hamilton and Jefferson in particular, an unappeasable disagreement arose.-The former, though a zealous republican, was the advocate for a government armed with sufficient power to protect itself from the effects of intestine discord or of foreign hostility-the latter found it necessary to his views, both with respect to his own country and France, to pursue an opposite conduct. The first open contest between them was in forming the commercial regulations of the union. One party, with Mr. Jefferson at its head, wished to turn the channel of trade in favour of France by discriminating duties, the other, with Colonel

It is necessary to state, that this is not Mr. I. Randolph, who is said to be now the greatest orator and one of the most upright men in congress; some of whose speeches we have read with great satisfaction.

Hamilton, maintained that discriminations were unjust, and that they amounted to a tax on American agriculture, and a bounty on the navigation and manufactures of a favoured foreign nation. In support of his party, Mr. Jefferson took into his pay a daily paper called the National Gazette; and exhibited to his country the unprecedented and disgraceful example of a secretary of state countenancing, nay, often as it is said, composing libels against the government of which he formed a part. The people however, as usual in such cases, soon settled the question concerning the commercial restrictions; they took the liberty to purchase that which they preferred. To borrow the idea of a celebrated satyrical essayist, "The People of America still liked a shirt to their ruffle;" they still preferred the plain, neat, solid, and durable manufactures of England to the frippery of France, and it was soon found useless to contend with their predilections.

It would be an unnecessary and disgusting task to follow the footsteps of the French party to the final completion of their views. The regular progress from cruel outrage upon the persons of their opponents, (many of whom were maimed, robbed, or tarred and feathered,) to positive insurrection, was religiously observed. But there is one circumstance which we cannot avoid citing, as a valuable precedent for the use of our own democratic assemblies. A meeting at Pittsburgh avowed, that "they thought it their duty to persist in remonstrances to congress, and in every legal measure that may obstruct the operation of the law." If there be any abstract merit in mere originality, it is certainly due to the idea of obstructing law by legal mea

sures.

We pass over the two presidencies of Washington and the inconsistent one of Mr. Adams;-during which the active partizans of the French were busily engaged in gaining over the mob; sometimes with perfect success, at others, as in the case of the French minister Genêt, venturing a little too far, even for a Virginian mob. This minion of Robespierre actually assumed the airs of a rival sovereign, treated president Washington with the greatest insolence, and had it not been for his coolness and patience, who quietly gave the Frenchman rope till (to use a vulgar expression) he had hanged himself, another insurrection would probably have ensued. It is worthy of remark, that this Frenchman, with the assistance of the democratic clubs formed under his auspices, left no exertion untried to drive America into a war with England, in support of the principle that free vessels make free goods, which has been the constant object of contention ever since. And it is still more remarkable, that Mr. Jef

ferson, the very Mr. Jefferson who has since, at the nod of Bo naparte, influenced his country to act upon that outrageous French doctrine, did, in answer to an official letter of M. Genêt's on the subject, maintain and strenuously argue in defence of the opposite principle, and did insist without reservation, or exception, that "BY THE LAW OF NATIONS, THE

·GOODS OF AN ENEMY FOUND IN THE VESSELS OF A FRIEND

WERE LAWFUL PRIZE." We should be glad to know what magic has since altered the law of nations in Mr. Jefferson's opinion. That he did think it, however completely inverted, his whole conduct in the president's chair offers one continued proof.

No sooner was he installed in this high office, than he forthwith dismissed from all official stations the functionaries of the federalist party; openly assigning as his reason, that, “it was necessary for all officers to think with their principal." Having thus new-modelled the machine of government to his will, he threw off every former restraint, and openly avowed himself the advocate of all the pretensions set up by France against the commerce and existence of England, and we think that we cannot afford a better illustration of this career and its results, in the shapes of non-intercourse, permanent embargo, and bankruptcy, than by the following prophetic observations of Mr. Uriah Tracy of Connecticut delivered in congress, on some resolutions of Mr. Madison's against the commerce of England, during General Washington's presidency.

"One would think," said he, "to hear the declarations in this house, that all men were fed at the opening of our hand; and if we shut that hand, the nations starve; and if we but shake the fist after it is shut, they die ;-and yet one accusation against Great Britain, is her prohibiting the importation of bread stuff while under a certain price."

"But there is a very serious aspect in which this subject ought to be viewed. The products of America grow in other soils but hers. The demands for them may be supplied by other countries. Indeed in some instances, articles usually obtained from the United States would be excluded by a fair competition with the same articles furnished by other countries; and it was the discrimination made in their favour by the British government, that enabled them to obtain a preference in the British market. By withholding those which are of the growth of the United States, Great Britain would not lose the article, but America would lose the market; and a formidable rival would be raised up, who would last much longer than the resolutions under consideration." (Memoirs, vol. i. p. 182.)

But we are now beginning to tread upon tender ground;

and

shall therefore proceed to observe in general terms, that from the period at which Mr. Jefferson was firmly seated in the government up to the present moment, the United States have uniformly exhibited the strongest partiality to France, and antipathy to England. "Every act of the British government is viewed by that of America through a distorted medium, and converted if possible into a topic of reproach and invective; while on the other hand the most flagrant acts of injustice on the part of France are either passed over in total silence, or studiously extenuated by those towards whom they are directed.*" This antipathy England has unfortunately shewed no disposition to conquer by conciliatory measures, of a nature that might have been adopted without injuring our real interests. The Americans, all republican as they are, would have been highly pleased to have seen at their seat of government an English ambassador of high rank and distinction. The more sensible and discreet among them would have hailed with satisfaction the arrival of a minister respectable for age, and for tried and acknowledged talents. But the extent to which we have disappointed both these views need not be pointed out.

If the two countries, however, are now disposed to conciliation, it would be wise to dismiss all retrospective views on both sides. They had better contemplate with cooler heads and warmer hearts than have hitherto been employed in the controversy, what each would lose by war, what each would gain by peace. Let America consider her yet limited population, her inadequate establishments, her unprotected ships, her precarious commerce, her infant and insufficient finances. Let England take a prospective view of Canada in danger, the West Indies turbulent, the sea covered with American privateers, and an extensive market lost. Let the Americans again, as an honest and thinking people, reflect, that if England falls, the combined arinies and navies of all Europe, wielded by France for the subjugation of America, will be brought into contact with her shores, and can her population repel the shock? And let them further reflect, that England must fall, if she give up a particle of her maritime rights, in the present state of the

• We have extracted this passage from a pamphlet just published, by the Messrs. Ballantyne of Edinburgh, which was put into our hands after this article was prepared for the press. It is entitled "A View of the State of Parties in the United States of America, being an Attempt to account for the present Ascendancy of the French, or democratic Party, in that Country." We do not agree in all the author's positions, but think his production replete with sound sense, and being the work of a gentleman who has recently visited the United States, it is well worthy of the publie attention.

European continent, and be seriously crippled in her exertions against the common enemy, if the weight of America, and the privation of her custom, are thrown into the scale of hostility. But as the last is the less evil of the two, England must choose it if reduced to the alternative; for she had better die in the trenches, than capitulate with her barbarous and overbearing

enemy.

England, therefore, both for her own sake, and for that of America (when American interests are well considered), cannot give up a particle of her maritime rights. But saving this point, we trust that she will hold out to this irritable people every reasonable and conciliatory proposition, that she will not suffer the cause of morality and good order, and the eventual happiness of the world to be put in jeopardy for a point of national pride, when national honour is not implicated.

If the Virginian party do not appreciate this conduct, the New England party will, and we shall find the advantage, should the French at length prove strong enough to force on hostilities, in spite of proposals on our part founded in reason and justice, and maintained upon the system and principles to be deduced from the preceding pages. For we trust that we shall not be suspected, after what is written in the early part of this article, of counselling the purchase of apparent security by any, even the smallest, dereliction of national honour, or even by any considerable sacrifice of national interests, so far as they are consistent with justice and the law of nations.

We trust that we have now, in some degree, afforded to our readers a clue that will lead them through the intricate labyrinths of misrepresentation, in which the details of our American politics are involved, up to the original causes of the mischief; and that whatever may be the result of the present discussions between the two countries, a dispassionate man will perceive in it the consequence of events, with which he has acquired some familiarity, and upon which he possesses the means of forming something like a fair judgment.

After again and again urging the obvious truth, that the ruin of England must be speedily followed by the subjugation of the United States (for a time at least), by France, we think that the following passage, (which we shall cite in conclusion, from a sensible pamphlet published about three years ago *), will prove that madness only can drive them into war with England, since they must be both immediate and ultimate sufferers by the

Oil without Vinegar, and Dignity without Pride, or British, American, and West Indian Interests considered. By Mr. Medford, 1807.