PUBLISHED WEDNESDAYS AND SATURDAYS BY JOHN FENNO, No . 6 9 , HIGH.STREET, BETWEEN' SECOND AND 7 HIRD STREETS, PHH A DEI PHT A [No. 24, of Vol. lII.] FROM THE (BOSTON) COLUMBIAN CENTINEL. Mr. RUSSELL, IVTR- PAINE has undertaken to compare the -L A English and French constitutions, upon the ai ticle of reprefentacion. He ha\ of course ad mired the latter, and censured the former. This is unquestionably the molt defective part of the English constitution—but even the uioit ellcntial of those defedls appear to flow from the natural order of things which a revolution in go vernment could not reform ; from a Hate of lo ciety, where every principle of* 1 religion or of morality has loft itsinfluence, and where the on ly shadow of virtue, public or private, remain ing among a great majority of the people, is founded upon an imaginary point of honor, the relicfl of the exploded age of chivalry. Such at piefent is the situation of the national character both in England and in France. To attempt to govern a nation like this, under the form of a democracy, to pretend to«ftabli(h overfuch be ings a government, which according to Rousseau I js calculated only for a republick of Gods, and which requires the continual exercise of virtues beyond the reach of human infirmity, even in its belt it may poflibly be among the dreams ot Mr. Paine, but is what even the Na tional Aflembly have not ventured to do; their system will avoid some of the defetfls, which the decays ot time and the mutability of human af fairs have introduced into that of the English, but I do not helitate to affirm that they have de parted much farther from theeflential principles of popular representation ; and that however their attachment to republican principles may have been celebrated, die theory of their Na tional Allembly is remote from the spirit of democracy than the practice of the Englifb House of Commons. 1 he grounds upon which Mr. Paine acknow ledges his approbation of the French constitution are that they have limitted the number of their i eprefentatives, in proportion to the numbers of citizens who pay a tax of 60 sous per annum, and the duration of the aflembly to two years. It is certainly eflential to the principles of represen tation that there should be a frequent recurrence to the constituent body for election, because it is the only security of the conftitueiu for the fi delity of the agent : It is the only practical re fponllbility by which the representative is bound. The term of seven years for which the House of Commons is elected, weakens the refponlibiliry too much, and is a proper fubjetft of constitu tional reform ; but by the French constitution, there is no responsibility at all; no connexion between the representative and his constituent: The people have not even once in seven years an opportunity to dismiss a servant who may have dilpleafed them, or to re-eleifl another who may have given them fatisfatfion. 7 here is upon the French system less dependence of the repre sentative upon his constituent than in England, and the mode of election renders the biennial return of the choice almost wholly nugatory. It is not true that the French constitution allows he privilege of voting for a representative in the National Aflembly to every man who pays a tax of 6c sous per annum. Mr. Paine has mis taken the tact, for u is impossible that he should have intentionally misrepresented it ; though it differs a!molt as much from his principles as from those of a real popular representation I. is as follows. Every Frenchman born or natu ralized, of 25 years of age, who pays a tax equal to three day s labour, is not a hired servant, nor a bankrupt, nor the son of a deceased bankrupt (a very unjufl qualification) fliall be allowed To A ' e P re '" eilta tive to the Nati onal Aflembly ?_By 110 means. Yet one would think the exclusions fufficiently severe, for a Go vernment founded upon the equal rights of ail men ; but he fliall vote for members of a certain aflembly : This aflembly is allowed to choose, not the representatives of the nation, but ano ther body of electors, who are to be the imme diate constituents of the legislative afTembly. Thus the supreme legislative council of the na tion, are to be the representatives of a repre sentative body, whose constituents are the re prefentaiives of the people ; and at every ftae;e ot this complicated representation, the free citi zens ot the state, are excluded from their natu ral rights, by additional qualifications in point. Wednesday, July 20, 1791. of property.—Yet this is the system which we are told is to abolifli aristocracy. In the formation of the legislative body, the National Aflembly, contemplated three different objects of representation, the perfoiu of the peo ple, their property, and the territory which they inhabit .- They have endeavoured to eftablifli a proportion compounded from the three, but in the refinement of theft- metaphysics and mathe matics, they have loft the primary objecft itfelf, and the people are not represented. But setting aside their calculations, what is the ejfential principle upon which the represent ation of the people in the legiflalure is ground ed ? it is, that a Freeman, /hall never be bound by any law unless he has consented to it. It is impossible, except in a very small slate, that eve ry individual lhould personally give his voice, and therefore this practice of voting by repre sentation was invented. In its moll perf'cdt state it cannot folly anfvier the purpose of its institu tion, because every representative is actuated by several powerful motives, which could not ope rate upon his constituents. It is an artificial de mocracy, which can never perform completely the funiftions of the natural democracy ; but imperfect as it always mult b», no other con trivance has been hitherto which could so effectually give their operation to the opini ons of the people. In the theory of representa tion it is a personal trust, by which a thousand individuals may authorise one man to express their sentiments upon every law which may be enacfled for the benefit of the whole people : And therefore in theory every representative ought to be elected by the unanimous vote of his constituents ; for how can a man be said to have been consulted in the formation of a law, when the agent authorised to express his opinion was not the man ofhis choice ? every pecuniary qualification imposed either on the electors or as a condition of eligibility, is an additional restric tion upon the natural democracy, and weakens the original purpose of the institution. Thus far the people of America have submitted to ne cefTlty in the constitution of their popular afiem blies. But when the principle is abandoned so completely, the individual citizen, even in the pretended exercise of his infinitefimal frag ment of sovereignty cannot possibly form an o pinion, who will be the cletfor of the repre sentative that is to be the depofirory ofhis opi nion in the acfts of legislation. The aflembjy thus formed may indeed afTume the name of a democracy, but it will no more be entitled to the appellation than an ill drawn miniature portrait, to that of the animated original which it may profefs to represent. It is obvious that the reafoji why the National Aflembly have chosen to refine their representa tion through so many (trainers was to avoid the violence, the tumults, the riots which render al most all the populous towns in England a scene of war and blood at the period of Parliamentary -Elections. Time alone will inform us what the success of their system will be, even in this parti cular. Their elections however must be ex tremely expensive, and mult open a thonfand a venues to every fort of intrigue and venality. The National Aflembly as a body, will be in theory an aristocracy without refponflbility. This aristocracy thus constituted are to podefs the supreme power of the nation, limitted only by a priuted constitution, fubje Almanack, made lor New-England/soy Mr. Pmci, manner — and then the Pfalras, newly turned imo metre. 93 PUBLICOLA fyfl'oo [Whole No. 252.] fOR THE GAZETTE OF THE Uh'fTEl) STATES. MR. FENNO, ' I ' HE nioft i'lgrmous authors are apt to involve themfcNf in A contraaifliom, when they afTume principles winch aic refu table. Th us it has happened that Mr. Paine, after laboring haid to prove that the English nation have no conltituuon, incautiouSy throws himfelf off his guard, and makes the following ob'ferva'- tions : " The laws of evei y country niuft be analagous to some common principle. In England, no parent or mailer, nor all the authority of Parliament, omnipotent as it has called itfeif (and as Mr. Paine himfelf has called it, for he fays it can change what in England it called their Constitution) can bind or controul the personal freedom even of an individual, beyond the age of twenty one years." Admitting this alTertion to be true, whence antes the do£lrine, if not from the constitution of England ? Wt'.v can't a parent controul the personal freedom of his foil, or a master of his servant, after they have attained the age of twenty-one, unless they bereftraincd by the conftitmion ? Is there any law in that countiy which impofesfuch a restrain; ? I know of none—perhaps Mr. Paine does. But what is very extraordinary, why cannot the omnipotent power of Parliament, which some writers have said can do every thing, except make a man a woman, bind or controul ihe personal freedom of any individual of the age of twenty-one ? I suppose Mr. Pa ne would answer, beeaufe (he laws of every country mufl be analagous to some common principle; and this is a common principle in England. As I deny the truth of this position, which is nothing more than a fanciful theory, un wari anted by fa ft, and difptoved bv the hiflory of many coun tries, I (hould answer, because it makes a part of the conllitution, acknowledged from time immemorial, engrafted in the breasts of Englishmen, and which the Parliament dare not therefore vio late. What is meant by a common principle, to which the laws of every country mull be analagous ? I confefs I have no clearer conception of it than of Mr. Burke's ttnbought grace of life, which Mr. Paine could form no idea of. I i ave no idea of a principle paramount to the legislature of a nation, unless it be a covkitutional principle—where is this common principle to be found ? Does it exist merely in the minds of the people -or is it recorded on parchment? Whence is it derived ? If it be found in every coun try, then I should wi!h to enquire, what is a common principle "1 Algiers, m Turkey, or in AbyiTinia ? Whether it is a religious as well as a political principle in some countries, or whether it is merely political ? Whether the despots of Asia are always re drained by this principle in their decrees ? And whether the laws of ever) country are ipfofatto null and void when they oppugn this common principle > And finally, who arc to judge whether they are null and void ? Unless these queries are fatisfaftorily an swered, I Hull continue to believe that this tranfeendent common principle exist* only in the imaginations of theoretical politicians. Brit before I dismiss ihis fubjefl, I with to be informed with what truth theaficrtion is made that the Parliament of Great-Bri :»in cannot bind or controul the perform! freedom of any individual of the age of twenty-one. The alkrtion is a very broad one. and includts a great number of cafcs which 1 am fatisfied Mr. Paine had not in view, viz.—the cale of debtors, lunatics, and many others, which mull readilv occur to persons acquainted with En glilh jurisprudence. Believing lhat he stated or meant to Hate a modified proposition, but at a loss totfeertain the nature and ex tent of the modification, I beg leave to recall to his rcolleftion the power of each house of Parliament to commit to prison thofc who have infringed their privileges, even their own members, who of courfc mufl be twenty-one vears of age. Now I have no other mode of reconciling this fact with Mr. Paine's afTertion, but fuo po.ing that imprifonmrnt in England is not binding or controll ing one's personal freedom, as it is in other countries. To com ment a little further upon this flrange text, what magic is there in 'he age . tuevty-one, that a parent or master, or the omnipotent Parliament, cannot controul the personal freedom of any indivi dual who has attained that age, but have liberty to do what they pifale i! he wants a month ot it ? Unless this particular period of life be definedby some conditional principle, there will be some difficulty in deducing its origin. Why Mr. Paine's common principle fhouid exaQly fix on the age of twenty-one as the period of free agency, he alone can. I fancy, explain. This is certain, that this common principle is not common to all countries, for m fomr, majority takes place only at the age of twenty-five. I (hall be told that the common principle of England has fixed that par ticular age, and that the laws mufl conform thereto. Common principle is then only another appellation for constitutional prin ciple ; and Mr. Paine admits that England has a conllitution, but under another name. The whole difputc is then about words. Here is admitted by Mr. Paine to exist a certain principle, call it what you plcafe, which the Parliament ot Great-Britain mufl con form to. Is not this alTertion dire£lly inconsistent with his other afTertion of the power of Parliament, to do what they please, un controuled and uncontroulable, unlimited by any constitution, and fully competent to change the form 6t government as often as their capricc shall dittate? Paragraph from an old ncufpaper, printed above 90 years ago foolilh young Men have lately v> brought aboute a new Change in Falhione— They have begun to faften their Shoes and Knee Bands withe Buckles, inflead of Ribbandii,whcre wuhe their forefathers were well content, and moreover found them more en(y and convenient, and surely every reasonable Man will own they were more decente and tnodefle, than those new fangled, unfecmly Clajps, or Buckles, as they call them, which will gall and vex the bones of these vain Coxcombes beyonde fufFerance, and make them repent of their Pride and Folly. We hope all grave and honourable perl'ons will withholde their countenance from such effeminate and im modede ornament*. It belongeth to the reve rend/? Clergy to tell these thoughtlefle Youths in a folemne manner, that such things are for bidden in Scripture. gracch us. rßojlon Cazette."]