nothing; or that our mortified pride takes some delight in blustering and threatening Great Britain, while France empties. her vessels of honour on our heads; or that evils in prospect for the next year have no terrours to the politicians, who never look so far; whatever it may be owing to, the fact is, we behave on the question, whether we shall have any trade, even more strangely careless than the Dutch do, in respect to the matter of having a French king or a republick. It seems as if our rulers had reason to be bold, when they are preparing to make us suffer, by our defiance of their power to make us think-Says Moses to the vicar, "the corpse can't take cold." Our indifference may not be a shield of defence, but it is opium against our dread of blows.

IF our indifference did not surpass belief, the subject would have been long ago eagerly discussed. We should have scrutinized, much more closely than Mr. Nicholson is capable of doing, the grounds of our assumed opinion, that Great Britain has such great reason to be afraid of us; and, probably, we should have found occasion to suspect, that party has deceived our expectations on this question, as on almost every other. Every body knows, that Mr. Jefferson dare not go to war: the federalists are the only enemies whom he ventures to defy; and even their accusations are not to be encountered in close fight. He cannot fight Spain without first asking leave of France; of course, a Spanish war is out of the question.

To fight Great Britain, is equally so; yet, as great complaint is made of captures, and as Buonaparte will be soothed by a shew of hostility against England, the shew is resolved upon. But be it noted, the shew may lead to the thing itself! He begins to bully. Great Britain scorns to yield to his paper bullets. New acts must be passed, still more angry than Nicholson's. Popular rage grows out of commercial distress, and war follows. If this course be only forescen, will Mr. Jefferson's admirers stick to him? Certainly not.

THE federalists say, and really believe, that Mr. Nicholson's act is a feeble measure. Suppose, on trial, it proves feeble,

what is to be done? Is some new act to be passed, that will not be feeble? What act, short of war or reprisals, can it be?

WISE nations, foreseeing the ordinary progress of such hostile acts, will stop short, and compute their force, before they resort to them. Pride and passion once up, interest weighs little; and our threats will raise either British resentment or contempt. If we put them on their mettle, they will, no doubt, shew how little they regard their commercial profits, even if we could seriously diminish them. Mr. Nicholson's act is avowedly of the nature of compulsion; and we know how the attempt at compulsion will affect a government, which, we choose to say, has, at least, as much pride as power.

If any body in America cared about the consequences of this commercial warfare, which does not seem to be the case, it would be proper to point out the futility of the system adopted by our Solomon in council. The two countries are, no doubt, in a condition to do each other a good deal of harm. We forbear to enter at length on the inquiry, which can do the most. Let our Southern wiseacres consider carefully what would be the consequence, if Great Britain, in retaliation for Mr. Nicholson's act, should prohibit, after December next, the importation into Great Britain of American rice, cotton, and tobacco. They will, no doubt, say, these articles are a monopoly; they cannot get them elsewhere. It is easy to say sobut is it true? Bluster, gentlemen, but, before it be too late, try likewise to think.

LESSONS FROM HISTORY.

N°. I.

First published in the Repertory, October, 1806.

CHARLES II, king of Great Britain, was secretly a catholick; and his subjects were, ninety nine out of a hundred, protestants. He was fond of arbitrary power; and his people passionately fond of liberty. The times required a close appli cation to publick business; and his temper drove him headlong into licentious pleasures. His revenue had narrow limits; and his prodigality no limits at all.

He was one of the most pleasant gentlemen in England, and as much of a scholar, as our Mr. Jefferson, though less of a pedant, and a quidnunc. Yet, after being possessed of unbounded popularity, he lost it all, and deserved to lose it, because in every thing, as a king, he acted in the meanest subserviency to his prejudices and pleasures as a man.

ACCORDINGLY, through his whole disgraceful reign, the English nation suffered much, and apprehended every thing, from his corrupt and treacherous policy; treacherous, because he pursued an interest of his own, separate from the general interest. Indeed, that nation still suffers from his misconduct. For Charles basely accepted a pension from Louis XIV. the Buonaparte of the seventeenth century, in consideration of which he not only forbore to act against the schemes of universal empire, that Louis XIV. had then begun to pursue, but he hindered the parliament from disturbing the conquering career of France: nay, to the astonishment of all Europe, he joined Louis in attacking the Dutch. It was then in the power of England to have prevented the aggrandizement of France; and such was the desire of the English parliament and nation, such was their true policy.

By neglecting that opportunity, oceans of blood have since been shed in vain. In 1672, the renewal of the triple alliance, negotiated by sir William Temple, would have confined

France to her ancient limits, probably without a war. But, though it would have been easy to prevent her from growing great, it has proved hard, indeed impossible, after she had become great, to reduce her to her former size. The errours of 1672 are visited on the heads of Englishmen in 1806.

EVERY democrat will exclaim, kings are base creatures, who have no interest in the good of the people. This vile example is not to our purpose.

A KING can be nothing else but a king: when he loses his throne, he cannot expect to preserve his life. But a magistrate chosen to play the part of a king for four years, may have, and, if he feels a low ambition, will certainly think he has, an interest as a man, very little connected with the temporary splendour of his office. He is to the full as unwilling to be dethroned, as any other king; and, therefore, he will think much of the popularity, that will secure his re-election at the end of four years, and very little of the publick evils, that will lie hidden from the eyes of the people for the next seven.

It would be childish, to think a demagogue will be a disinterested patriot. It would be absurd, to expect that any body, but a patriot of the loftiest elevation of soul, would prefer the publick to himself, and would turn himself out of office by doing thankless and unpopular acts of duty.

A DEMAGOGUE, then, if, for the punishment of the sins of our nation, any future president should prove to be such, would certainly dismantle our ships, and leave the forts of our harbours to crumble into ruins. He would disband our feeble regular regiments, and make haste to repeal taxes, that he may grow rich in popularity, while the government is ostentatiously made to decline in resources. He will bluster to shew the spirit, that he does not possess; and pay tribute to hide the insults and wrongs, that he dare not revenge. In this way, his own shame will be exposed three or four years the later; and the publick evils will happen, at last, with all the aggravation that improvidence and folly can bring.

We make no comparisons-we leave the reader to apply facts, as he may think them applicable. But, we must con

fess, the spirit of party has found our countrymen base, or has made them so, if they can behold the all-conquering progress of French ambition, and then think, with any temper, that our country has not only been left, but for five years artificially and systematically made, defenceless, as if it was intended for a prey.

LESSONS FROM HISTORY.

No. II.

THE Stuart family kept possession of the English throne from 1603, when queen Elizabeth died, to 1688, when James II. abdicated the government, a period of eighty five years. Though not very bad men, they were bad kings. Their notions of government were such as have been since called tory. They were sincere in their principles of arbitrary power, which were, no doubt, utterly inconsistent with English liberty. We would not be understood to justify all the conduct of the parliament against Charles I. nevertheless, we hold the English in grateful respect for their spirit and good sense, by which they nobly asserted their own liberty, the ever-glorious, fundamental principles of which our ancestors, God bless their memory! brought over to New-England.

BUT the ambition and hypocrisy of the parliamentary leaders, and the tyranny which inevitably grew out of their democracy, produced an abhorrence of levelling notions, and an attachment to the church and monarchy, which gave rise, or, at least, credit and currency to the doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance; doctrines subversive of all liberty.

HENCE it was, that, when the infatuation of James II. had assisted William, prince of Orange, to dethrone him, (and the folly of James did more towards it than the arms of William) the English parliament cautiously and timidly admitted the principles of the revolution. To unmake kings, seemed to them a work, that might be repeated successively with less and less necessity, and at length licentiousness, such as fol