An hereditary monarchy is both dangerous and absurd. And an absolute monarchy, where an individual is endowed with both legislative and executive authority, is still much more to be feared. He that is not accountable to anybody for his conduct, should be intrusted by nobody, Besides, hereditary monarchy, in any form, runs an equal risk to have a fool as a wise man for a governor; and more so, considering the effects of limited intermarriages.

An aristocracy may secure to the counsels of state a larger fund of information; but at the same time, it places the people under many tyrants instead of one. Besides, as they must also be hereditary, and be supported by entailed property, they are disqualified for legislative and executive, and even for judicial trust, inasmuch as the law of nature is violated in their very raising. They have become unnatural brothers, who consider their brethren as beings of an inferior grade and rank to themselves and of course, from the spirit of their education, they are contaminated with prejudices and partiality, which wholly disqualify them to judge with equity and humanity agreeable to the law of nature.

:

Democracy, in small and petty societies, may apply and answer many valuable purposes to mankind, as in days of old, where the whole voice of the people could be obtained, or at least all of those concerned. But in a large and extensive country, it would become too unweildy. But as the law of nature on social principles makes them equally interested and entitled to a voice in the formation of those prudential rules made for the regulation of the whole, a representative form of government presents itself as most appropriate to answer every purpose. By this method the voice of the people is made over to their representative. And hence, there is a personal and social compact, agreeable to the law of nature; which may be made to suit the greatest nation. And provided the world of mankind were more enlightened, it might forever exclude the necessity of an appeal to war. Wars are neither more nor less than national quarrels; and when both parties are sick and tired of the contest, they settle their differences through the medium of a convention of delegates. Why not take this course in the first instance, and spare human blood?

This mode of government will best guard the people against tyrannical imposition of both church and state. The representation being only for a limited time, and the delegate then returning to his former sphere, and becoming a private citizen, he of course feels the effect of his own legis. lation as a member of society. This exchange of public for private life, like the ebbing and flowing of the sea, will tend to keep things pure, so that the affairs of the nation may at all times bear investigation. More. over, it stimulates people of all classes to search after truth and to communicate knowledge. And the interest of the commonwealth is made secure, whilst the rights of individuals are safely guarantied, and sacredly kept by chosen men in trust, who, as faithful executors, must give

account.

RIGHT OF PROPERTY HELD UNDER MONARCHS.

In monarchical governments, in cases of rebellion or treason, the real estates are forfeited to the monarch, and the widow and fatherless child are turned out of doors, and the poor culprit himself suffers death. Now, considering the punishment to be proportioned to the crime, the conclusion

must be, that the land properly belongs to the monarch; otherwise why disinherit the wife and children, seeing there is no natural justice in making the innocent suffer for the guilty? But as real estates are made hereditary in a particular branch of the family, and subject to forfeiture to the crown in cases of rebellion or treason, it is manifest that they must have been derived from the government, and are only held during good behavior. Of course all lands originally were considered crown lands, no doubt made so by conquest or usurpation, and then parcelled out to a few, who should hold them as tenants to the crown. These tenants had their tenants also-and thus the whole was dependent on the will and pleasure of one individual.

OF REPRESENTATION.

All men being considered free and independent in their individual capacity, but dependent in their social capacity, the rights of each are equal. The first, by virtue of existence; the latter, by virtue of being a member of society. Our personal and social rights being equal, neither of them can be taken from us but by our own consent, without infringing upon natural justice, except only when forfeited to society by some misdemeanor, or taken by the laws of the Creator who gave them. Our rights being equal, so are our privileges-of course our rights, privileges, duties and obligations are the same in each and all. Therefore, the neglect of the right of suffrage in any individual is a violation of social duty -that is, a breach of one of the obligations we owe to society. By neg lecting our social duties, we involve ourselves in a violation of natural justice, which requires a proper use and improvement of those social blessings, conferred upon us by the Supreme Governor of the world, who will hold us accountable for the neglect of every relative duty. These are considerations not sufficiently weighed by many. All are deeply interested in them, though many remain ignorant of it. And to excuse ourselves by concluding that these things do not concern us, though our well-being is deeply concerned, is all of a piece with the supposition, that the will of a tyrant is the order of Providence and the delegated power of God.

As individuals and as members of society, we have a right to claim a voice in all public deliberations, and to see to it that we have justice done us; because our social rights grow out of our personal rights. Our own power as individuals, not being equal to our wants and necessities, we exchange a part of our personal rights for social rights, by casting a part into the common stock by delegation; and hence our power and will are made over to our representative, and we take the arm of society of which we are a part for our protection, in addition to our own. So that society grants us nothing; but we draw on the capital as a matter of right. Hence, it is self-evident that social or civil distinctions can be founded only on public utility, agreeable to the rules of equity.

NATURE AND DESIGN, AND ENACTION OF LAW.

Social rights when protected by general rules and applied to a nation or people as a body, are called political; but when applied to individuals, are called civil. Hence the distinction between political and civil law.

The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man; and these rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression. The people are essentially the source of all sovereignty. Nor can any individual or body of men be entitled to any authority which is not expressly derived from them. Civil liberty consists in doing whatever does not injure another. And the law is an expression of the will of the community for individual instruction.

The law of course ought to prohibit such actions only as are hurtful to society, and to impose no penalties, but such as are absolutely and manifestly necessary for the welfare of society.

And all citizens have a right to concur, either personally or by their representative, in the formation of those general rules, which might be properly enough called the law of prudence.

The general rule, or the law of prudence, should be the same to all, whether to punish or protect. All being equal in rights, are equally eligible to all honors, places, and employments, according to their different abilities, without any other distinction than that created by their virtue and talents.

OF THE LAW OF NATIONS.

Here it is proper to remark, that there is frequently a misapplication of terms, which gives improper conceptions, leading the reader or hearer to ascribe effects to causes which could never produce them. And so setting out in error, they must forever continue to be wrong. Thus, says one, "Reason teacheth me this or that," when the information was derived through the channel of tradition. Again, "Nature works" so and so, when there is no principle in nature to operate it; but is wholly the ef fect of art, or the works of nature's God.

To ascribe that to nature which belongs to art is certainly wrong, and leads to confusion! Every effect should be ascribed to its original and proper cause, in order to come at the true knowledge of things as they are, or as they should be in a relative point of view.

Islands, for example, may originate three ways. First, From nature's God; Secondly, From nature herself; Thirdly, From art. Thus, the island of Great Britain was formed by nature's God, at the creation. The island of New Orleans, near two hundred miles in length and about twelve in breadth, was formed by nature; the flood-wood and mud washing down from the Missouri and other rivers into the Mississippi, having formed this island, and divided the water that was once an arm of the sea, making Lake Ponchartrain and Tuckepaw Bay. And an artificial island is formed at New York for the erection of a battery, at the junction of the two rivers.

I have now hinted at our rights, as existing by the law of nature, established primarily by our Creator, as we individually stand related to each. other; and also at the law of nations, which is improperly called the law of nature, and is evidently the effect of art; and such as prudence dictates as necessary for general rules, for the regulation of the whole, and may with greater propriety be called the law of prudence. These last being received in some degree among the nations, are therefore called the law of nations. And indeed it might be well if they were received more generally among the human family.

RECAPITULATION.

We have derived from the God of nature certain inalienable rights. It is necessary to have those rights guarantied against an usurper.

Civil government is therefore necessary. Prudence dictates the propriety of delegating to suitable persons so much of those rights as may be necessary for the formation and execution of that political machine which is called government.

Government, when formed, is under obligations to act only for the public good and general welfare. And the principles of natural justice and moral obligation will sanction the same, when considered in relation to the moral Governor of the world.

By way of explanation, from what hath been observed, as one of the whole, I have certain personal rights which cannot be taken from me on the principles of natural justice, without my consent. I am naturally interested in their security, and of course prudence requires my consent. I give it, and by virtue thereof I have a right to expect and claim, in conjunction with others, certain privileges at the hand of my government—that is my bounty, viz. protection of my person, character, and property, and peaceably to enjoy without interruption the use of my liberty, and the privilege of seeking happiness in an innocent way: that is, where no man's right is invaded, nor the public peace disturbed. I have also the right and privilege of private judgment in matters of opinion and moral duty in the things of God and eternity-things which can concern no one but myself.

A CONTRAST.

Let the foregoing reflection be contrasted with the present state of the world, and we shall distinctly see that all things are not right in the world, and of course that there is need of a great and general reform before the head and heart, the motives and conduct of men will correspond with the moral law, the law of nature, and the rule of practice. And it will be well to remember that all men are accountable to the Supreme Governor of the world, not only for their motives and conduct towards each other, but for their disposition of heart towards him, whether they be rulers, subjects, or citizens, if they would meet the approbation of God upon their souls. Let them therefore take heed how they suffer considerations of interest or popularity to lead them astray, lest they sell their eternal peace for a transitory object. Upstart governments may take heed and tremble, and so may all oppressors and workers of iniquity, seeing their eternity is at stake!

OF PUNISHMENTS.

It is the certainty of punishment, more than the severity of it, that will have the greatest effect upon mankind. Vigorous laws, properly apportioned to the nature of crimes, and well and faithfully executed, are best for the well-being of society. But as the degrees of punishment must bear some analogy to the circumstances of the crime, so the heinousness of the offence, with its magnitude, must be taken into the account, to judge propeily what degree of chastisement shall be inflicted in any case. Very few, if any, persons should be punished with death, because it is taking

that which cannot be restored.. And to take that from another, which we did not bestow, and which cannot be restored, is running near to the precipice of doing unnatural justice.

An innocent person being suddenly cut off, is injured irreparably beyond all possible calculation; for his eternity may depend upon it. But the variations of crimes are so great and numerous, that a variety of punishments is necessary to meet every case; hence the penitentiary system presents to view, as proper for the subject, by admitting of degrees, both of time and solitude.

The institution is humane, both in its nature and consequences. The culprit is prevented from further injury to society, and has opportunity for reflection-and by learning or improving some trade, he may become a useful member of society-and if innocent of the charge, may yet be restored to his privileges, which has been exemplified in several cases.

In many cases, the judge or jury, from strong presumptive proof, may believe a man accused to be guilty of the charge, and, as a dangerous man to society and to his neighborhood, would feel free to send him to the penitentiary, when neither the crime nor the evidence would justify them to take his life. Hence, under sanguinary laws many offenders would escape through humanity.

A few plain rules, properly enforced, will prove of more consequence than tyrannical barbarity or despotic cruelty. This is self-evident, to those who reflect on the various modes of family government.

Those parents who threaten much, and perform but little, and promise some and do nothing; but, by fits and starts, deal out blows without rule or reason, and then only when in a pet or passion; have children who have no confidence in what they say. For their inconsistencies they are cordially despised by their children, who wish to get from under their government. And such children become mere pests to society. On the other hand, such parents as use few words, and are firm, who act deliber. ately, perform their promises or threats, are generally blest with obedient children, who afterwards are a blessing to the community.

The design of punishment is,-1st, to reform the person who suffers it2dly, to prevent the perpetration of crimes, by deterring others-3dly, to remove those persons from society, who have manifested by their tempers and crimes that they are unfit to live in it.

The reformation of a criminal can never be effected by a public punishment, for the following reasons:

First-As it is always connected with infamy, it destroys in him the sense of shame, which is one of the strongest outposts of virtue.

Secondly-It is generally of such short duration, as to produce none of those changes in body or mind, which are absolutely necessary to reform obstinate habits of vice.

Thirdly-Experience proves, that public punishments have increased propensities to crimes. A man who has lost his character at a public whipping-post, hath nothing valuable left to lose in society.

Pain has begotten insensibility to the whip, and shame to infamy; there, added to his old habits of vice, probably beget a spirit of revenge against the whole community, whose laws have inflicted his punishment upon him, and hence he is stimulated to add to the number and enormity of his outrages upon society.