PUBLISHED WEDNESDAYS AND SATURDAYS BY JOHN FEN NO, No. 6 9 , HIG H- STREE T, BETWEEN SECOND AND 'riURD STREETS, PHILADELPHIA [No. 25, of Vol. lII.] FROM DUNLAP's AMERICAN DAILY ADVERTISER IN the course of human events, nothing can be more grateful to the philanthropiil, to the friends of the rights of man, than the progreflive increase of liberty in the world. To fee the gi gantic image of despotism prostrate itfelf before the genius of ileedom ; to know that twenty-four millions of men have escaped from the hated fiaftile of Slavery, and broken the pha ns with which they were bound—that they have aliened, with glorious ef fect, theii inherent and unalienable rights; that they are reftorr-d to themselves, to their country. to their rights and to their hber ty ; —are circumstances which mud pour an overflowing tide of joy upon the hearts of all the friends of human nature. The eman cipation of so great a number of our fellow creatures, is a suitable, and it is a dignified fubjeft of congratulation—the late gl 01 ious ievolution in France presents this grand fubjett of joy to the feel ings of humanity. The regeneration of so great and powerful a kingdom—the renovation of its rights, and the exaltation of its slaves to the high and dignified ehara&cr of citizens, are events so analagous to the experience of Ihefe United States, that true Ame ricans cannot hear of them without taking a deep interefl in their benefits, and bestowing the benevolent wish of 44 Efto per petua" to the newly risen glory of ranee, and the newly acquir ed liberty of their citizens ! —This revolution is on many accounts unexpected and astonishing ; but its leading reasons may be found among the causes of all revolutions. For it is not the Prince alone, fupremc as he k, that forms the genius of an empire, it iv the gradual change of opinion and evolution of sentiment in the people; which, though flow in its progress, is generally irreiift able and permanent in its duration. And it is this change of opi nion and this evolution of sentiment in the people of France, that has produced a regeneration of their government. It is not, however, a matter of wonder that the progress of civil and poli tical liberty should find enemies in the friends of ariflocracy -nor that the principles of any fyflem of freedom whatever should meet with enemies in the courts of kings, arcd the friends of mo narchial government and hereditary succession. But it is more truly astonishing, and yet more unaccountable, that the unquesti onable Rights of Man, and the principles of liberty and free go vernment ihould find an enemy in the liflofthofe who have rank ed high as American Patriots. The late revolution in France has given rife to much political diffcntion in Europe. Mr. Burke, formerly the friend of liberty, but now the metamorphosed flatterer of kings, lias led the way. With all thetu?ious zeal of ariftocratical fanaticifm, he has plead the c.aufe of the kißg of Great-Britain. Mr. Paine, the author of Common Sense, has, in the bold stile of a F recto an, advoca ted thecaufeoi the people of England, and of the world—the rights of men, and fully answered Mr. Burke. It is worthy of remark, that the three principal points for which Mr. Burke contends, are—that the nation of England have no rtght m lit. To chufe their own governors. 2d. To cashier them for mifconduft. 3d. To frame a government for thcmfclvcs. _ And he asserts with confidence, that they utterly disclaim those lights, ani that they will refill the pratlical assertion of them witti their lives and fortunes—Mr. Paine has particularly replied to and refuted this spurious and heretical doarine. Pained at the prostration of Mr. Buike's argument, solicitous for the progress of British principles in America, and with heart felt anxiety regarding the tottering reputation of hereditary fuc ceflion, Pubhcola, f-orn the town of Bolton, has blown the trumpet of aristocracy, and is now echoing the kntiments of Mr -Burke in America. I T h e °kjeftof Publicola is by no means doubtful. I have Joughtfor his polar principle, and I think I have not fought in vain. Could he < ffeft a change of sentiment in the people of these .States m favor of monarchy and hereditary fucceffinn, his pur pose wouldl be answered. He knows that this change, if ever made, must be gradually made; and he also knows, that the continual diffufiotis of his anftocratical principles are the only rrlTp ° purpofr. Americans then ought to read Publicola with a jealous caution. Publicola, previous to entering into a consideration of Mr. Paine s arguments, has given us a (hort character of the pc, form ,£ir f , , 8S thou S ht proper to oppose. It may not be mils for me, m like manner, before I notice any of the arguments »,mh jY° g, / e a , br r' e ' defcri P tio " of work to the fourth M P , ", darive ' f " r thefc a,e »H I have seen. As he has ftiled .I ft , s WO , ma y h '-'. with equal propriety.be ftiled, historical, political, miscellaneous, satirical and panegyrical ' It .s an encomium upon the Engl .lb government, it is an h.f one'ft; "It I." A Col " mema, 7 on government, inferring queft.onable deduflions f. om queft.onable principles ; in this.e fpeitroo, ,t ,s miscellaneous, and it is fatrrical in the enquiry Aether a conftuution, like a deed, must be written on paper or parchment, or whether it has a larger latitude and may be en graved on stone, or carved on wood." However queft.onable any of the deductions of Mr. Paine may he, Pub icola acknowledges the principles from which he infers those deductions to beunqueftionable. If his principles be true and they are admitted to be so, why does Publico'a contest those very principles under the assumed veil of opposing the inferences deduced from them, and which only hi; considers questionable ? And yet, however unaccountable it [is, Publicola is in this verv predicament. Mr. Paine, in treating of the Rights of a Nation To chufe their own governors. To cashier them for tnifconduft, and Io frame a government for themselves lays down this prwpofi tion with refpeft to that right, * That which a whole nation chooses to do, it has a right todo.' But Publicola, uncandidly abftraftinz irns position from the reasoning with which it Hands connected n Mr. Paine's book,fays " that it cannot,in any sense whatever,be ad mitted as true " Were Ito contemplate the fame position in the lame abltraded point of view, I would decide on it by affirm ing, " that the eternal and immutable laws of juflice and of mo rality are paramount to all human legislation," and that though the violation of those l-aws is certainly in the power, yet it is not among ihe Rights of Nations." But the statement which Publicoia has made of this principle is by no means ingenuous Does not Mr. Paine qualify this principle by a confined relation to the fubjeft of which he is treating ?He docs—Was he writing * treatise on metaphysics, or on the abftraft principles of morality or was it a treatise on the Rights of Man ? What is the amount of his argument ? He brings into view, plain, simple, incontro vertible principles, which Publicola himfelf acknowledges— prov ing uriqucftionabiy and cxclufively, that when a whole nation Saturday, July 25, 1791- chooses to have a particular form of government, it has a right to have it. J his is undoubtedly his meaning—and the ahftra£led ground upon which Publicola has thought proper to conGder this propofi ion, proves iuconteftibly his want of candor, and a perversion of meaning intentionally designed to destroy the whole force of Mr. P'lioe's reasoning. Having, I think, fufficiently shewn, that the manner of the atemem of this principle, by Publicola, isuncandid and unge neious, and that he has given it a conftru&itir which it does not ir will be obvious that the long train of ufeiences which he draws from tuch hi s own mis-dated, and ihcrefore, falfe pre mises,will, \\*ith the reasoning from which lie has deduced them, fall to the ground. I theiefore shall rake no notice of them, but proceed biiefly to consider a few of his arguments to prove the existence of a British eonftuutio-n, It will, however, be proper hore to premise, that it is now of 110 importance to free and independent America, whether Great-Britain has or has not a constitution—or, if they nave one, whether it be a constitution of principles or a constitu tion of articles, or whether it be composed of the common law, 01 of the great body of the statute law, or, in ihort, whether it be an usurpation itfolf. In all these concerns we stand wholly inde pendent of them. It is fuflficient for us to know that they have a government competent to the execution of their treaties, without enquiring what the cflence of that government is, or whether it has arisen out of the people or over the people. But since Publi cola, like Mr. Burke, contends against the rights of the people of England to chule their own governors, to cashier them for mif condutt, and to frame a government for themselves, and as the arguments which he uses for this purpose have a correspondent force against the like rights of the citizens of America, it will be proper to make a few remarks upon them. Publicola asserts, " that the common law of England is the con- | ftnutionof Great-Biitain, and that the constitution of a country is not the paper or parchment upon which the compact is written, that it is the system of fundamental rules by which the people have consented to be governed, which is alwavs iuppofed to be impressed upon the mind of every individual, and of which the written or printed copies are nothing more than the evidence." u That in this sense the British nation have a constitution." Again —" It is composed of a venerable system of unwritten or cus tomary laws, handed down from time immemorial, and fan&i oned by the accumulated experience of ages, and of a body of statutes enafled by an authority lawfully competent to that pur pose." And again—" The constitution of Great-Britain is a con stitution of principles, not of articles." Why will not Publicola, on this fubjeft, to the fourcc of things ? Docs he mean by this definition thai a constitution is a compafl antecedent to all government, and from which free go vernment results ? Or docs he mean tHt it is a fvftem of juris ' prudence, ordained by a government after its inrtitution ? This is a point necefTary to be fettled, for there is a striking difference bet ween the of constituting a government, and the acts of a governmenr after it is constituted. If he means that the latter is the constitution of Great-Britain, he will find no opposition to the fentunent, but if the lonner, I deny its existence. In this sense the people of England have no constitution—and with this meaning I defy Publicola to produce the evidence that they have one. How then will his reasoning, on the fubjecfc of a social com ■ Daft, which he pretends now exists, apply to destroy the inherent rights of the people of England. As it has never yet been made appear that the government of England originated in the people, they yet have these rights inherent in themfeWes in their original chara&er—lf therefore, they have not these rights at this day, they never had them—but the uncontroulable rights of sovereignty residing in the people antecedent to government, they therefore have these rights. The right of a people to form a government, and the power of a government after it is formed, are two diftinft things—but Pnblicoia has artfully confounded them together, so as to obfeure the generous principles of freedom. Why not, in this refpeft, preserve the diftinflion between rights and power ? Liberty is a bold principle, it is an irrefiftable principle—it in vites enquiry, nor does it leek the fubterfuges of sophistry for protection. It avows itfclf to the world, and it declares, that all lawful, alljuft authority, both legislative and executive, origi nates fiom the people. That the power and sovereignty of the people are like light in the fun, original and inherent, and unli mited by any thing human. That in those who are governors, it is the refle£ted rays ot that light, borrowed, delegated and li mited by the sovereign power of the psople. In the sense in which I admit that Great-Britain has a consti tution, it is certainly a constitution of principles ; and on the Tame ground, every country under Heaven, has a constitution of p inciples. But what are these principles ? not the principles of a government arising out of the people, but of a government aris ing over the people. Consequently, it is the arbitrary will of go vernment, and such, unquellionably, is the government of Great- Britain. Americans know that it is the omnipotence of Parlia ment. Why, therefore, in the name of Common Sense, IJkou/d have said Arijlocracy, did not the federal convention of 1787 adopt such a glorious " Constitution of Principles," instead of a con stitution of written articles ? And why did not Publicola then step forward, and like the honcft. Norman mentioned by Mr. Paine, represent, that " as the Americans had difmifTed or sent away their King, they would want another," and generously of fer to be their foveriegn Lord and Master. Mr. Paine observes, " that a government on the principles on which constitutional government, arising out of society, are esta blished, cannot have the right of altering itftlf ; for if it had, it would be arbitrary." But this, fays Publicola, is not fufficient. I think it is. But why is it not ? Why, truly, replies Publicola, " because a nation in forming a social compatt, may delegate the whole of their collective powers to ordinary legifiator# in perpe tual succession." In reply to this I contend, that a nation has no right to form a compact to obligate any but the parties contract ing, it must therefore ccafe on an infraction of the terms by ei ther party, and must be void as to all future generations, unless they revive it for themselves. In compafls we determine and promise for ourselves only—and not for posterity. The jura sum mi impe r 11, or the rights of sovereignty reside in every ge neration of men in their original character; and Mr. Paine well observes, that every generation is equal in rights to the one that preceded it.—How, then, has a nation a right to delegate in per petual ruccejffion ? There is a cruel principle of injullice in the doctrine of perpetual fucceflion ; it is an enfla'ving principle ; it is a black ariflocratical do&rine, that absorbs every ray of the fun of freedom, and swallows up all the rights -of the people to the end of time. This is the inevitable confequencc of the doctrine 97 ~ o [Whole No. 255.] of perpetual fucceflion ; it is unjust in theory ; it is tyrannical in practice ; it is a subversion of the " eternal and immutable laws )f justice and morality ;" because it is founded on the principle of A's willing to B. the property of C.—and this I deny that any nation has a right to do.—For although a whole nation should be mad enough to adopt such a form of government, yet as thev could have no property in posterity, a future generation would have an undoubted right not meiely to alter, but entirely to abo lish it ; and for the very reason because 41 the consent of that posterity would be neceflary before they could be bound by tbofe laws;" and I maintain further, that the fame people who conftU tute a government, have a right to change or totally annihilate it, whenever they choose so to do, even if it should have answered all the purposes for which it was originally instituted. This is a principle inseparable from the rights of sovereignty, originally re sident in the people, and from all authority emanating from them. Government is nothing else but power, and the power of a free government is nothing but the delegation of a trufi. It is a mere authority of agency, which the constituents may resume at plea lure. But the resumption of this right is one thing, and the ex pediency o>f it another : and it is hardly to be supposed that a nation will diflolve the bands of the social compact, unless they find it expedient so to do. Publicola however, confounds the right and expediency together, and from this sophistical jumble of ideas, he bewilders the fubjeft he attempts to explain, and clearly evinces that the pursuit of truth is not his only object, or the way to truth must lie throngh the mazy labyrinths of fophiU try. I have heard of a man (perhaps Publicola knows him) who pof fcfled theefteem and confidence of a free, generous, patriotic peo ple; who partook liberally o{ their bounty, and was raised by their general voice, to an office of high dignity and trust in their government ; whose pride it ought to have been, and whose duty it was to have fupportedthe principles,and to have contributed to the welfare of that government to the utmoftof his abilities, or to have rejeftcd the office. The latter, however, he did not do; but under a fi&itious name, employed his whole force of art, of genius and erudition in collecting and pouring forth floods of heretical, ariftocratical dottrines in direst opposition to the free and equal principle of the very government which he administered.— Strange iriconfiftency ! Let those who sigh for monarchy and pant after aristocracy, court the munificence of princes and prop the tottering thrones ot Kings. Let them weep over the dying image of royalty—but let the independent son« of America blow the trumpet of freedom, and proclaim to the world their liberty and happiness. The un- Ihaken faith of these, is, that all [iower is originally inherent in the people, and that whatever governments are not founded oil their authority alone, and instituted by them for their peace, fafety and happiness, are not free but ufurped,and that they therefore have and in * contempt* of Kings, Princes, and the whole group of Ariftocrates, will, exercise the right of establishing and of al tenng, reforming or abolishing government in such manner or form as they may think proper for securing the bleflings of free dom. AGRICOLA. Philadelphia, July 1, 1791 CONSTANTINOPLE, March 19 ASANTON (a kind of religious Muflulman) was lately impaled here for having the au dacity to prophecy that the\capital of the Otto man empire would ere long change its mailer. The impriidence of the crew of a Venetian ftlip had laiely nearly caused the death of their Captain. In firing the usual salute, on passing the walls of the Seraglio, the crew forgot that the guns were loaded with balls, which not only alarmed those within the walls, but also damaged some of the buildings. The Sultan was so exas perated, that he demanded the head of the Cap tain, and, but for the interposition of the Dra goman, who is a great friend to the Venetian Ambassador, the Captain would have been be headed. However the matter having been ex plained, he was pardoned ; but on condition of remaining under an arrest for some time in th» Ambaflador's hotel. BERLIN, April i£. The Gommandeur Great Cross of the Order of the Sword, Sir Sidney Smith, an officer of the Royal Navy of England, arrived at Potsdam last week, and was immediately admitted to a pri vate conference with the King, to which he "was introduced by the British Minifler. P A R I S, April 28. M. de la Fayette has at length yielded to the reiterated solicitations of his fellow-citizens, and resumed his former station of commander in chief of the National Guards. On Monday morning all the battalions appear ed under arms, and waited on tlieir General to teftify their joy and their gratitude ; these fen ments were manifefted in a particular manner, when M. de la Fayette appeared at the Place de Greve, clothed in his uniform, and surrounded by a guard. Men, women, children, old men, all the croud surrounded him, seemed eager to embrace, and actually clasped him in their arms ! At halt past one o clock on the fame day, n grand dcputatiou ol the national guards, without any didinclion of rank or military regulation as to coin panics, marched lix a-breaft to wait on his Majesty. Being arrived at the Tliuilleries, they
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers