The Inseparable Trio ; a Sermon delivered before His Excellency, George N. Briggs, &c. &c. &c., at the Annual Election, &c. By Edward Hitchcock, Ď. D., LL. D., &c. Boston. 1850. 8vo. pp. 45.

The Church and the World; a Lecture delivered by the Right Rev. John Hughes, D. D., Bishop of New York. New York. 1850. 8vo. pp. 31. Farewell: a Sermon preached to the First Church, on resigning its Pastoral Charge, Sunday, March 10, 1850. By N. L. Frothingham. Printed by Request. Boston. 1850. 8vo. pp. 26.

An Essay on the Opium Trade, Including a Sketch of its History, Extent, Effects, &c. &c. By Nathan Allen, M. D. Boston. 1850. 8vo. pp. 68. Parallels between the Constitutions and Constitutional History of England and Hungary. By J. Toulmin Smith, Esq., &c. &c. Boston. 1850. 8vo. pp. 64.

The Joys of Toil; a Poem, pronounced on the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Mechanic Apprentices' Library Association, February 22, 1850, by George Coolidge, &c. &c. &c. Boston. 1850. 8vo. pp. 16.

The Union of the Human Race; a Lecture delivered before the Quincy Lyceum, in Quincy, Mass., Feb. 7, 1850. By William P. Lunt. Boston. 1850. 8vo. pp. 37.

A Lecture Introductory to the Course on Surgery, delivered at the Massachusetts Medical College, in Boston. By Henry J. Bigelow, M. D., &c. Boston. 1850. 8vo. pp. 24.

Substance of the Speech made by Gerrit Smith, in the Capitol of the State of New York, March 11 and 12, 1850. Albany. 1850. 8vo. pp. 30.

Speech of the Hon. Daniel Webster, upon the subject of Slavery; delivered in the United States Senate, on Thursday, March 7, 1850; as revised and corrected by himself. Boston. 1850. 8vo. pp. 39.

Review of Webster's Speech on Slavery. By Wendell Phillips. Boston. 1850. 8vo. pp. 44.

New Dangers to Freedom, and new Duties for its Defenders; a Letter by the Hon. Horace Mann, to his Constituents. May 3, 1850. Boston. 1850. 8vo. pp. 32.

Theodore Parker's Review of Webster. Speech of Theodore Parker, &c., &c. March 25, 1850. Boston. 1850. 8vo.

Pp. 26.

Slavery and the Constitution. Both Sides of the Question. By Francis E. Brewster. Philadelphia. 1850. 8vo. pp. 24.

A Latter-Day Pamphlet. Christ and the Pharisees upon the Sabbath. By a Student of Divinity; some time Student of Law, &c. Boston. 1850. 8vo. pp. 71.

Remarks on the Comparative Value of different Anesthetic Agents. By George Hayward, M. D., &c. Boston. 1850. 8vo. pp. 11.

Illegality of the Trial of John W. Webster. By Lysander Spooner. Boston. 1850. 8vo. pp. 16.

MASSACHUSETTS QUARTERLY REVIEW.

NO. XII.-SEPTEMBER, 1850.

ART. I.-SENATORIAL OPINIONS ON THE RIGHT OF PETITION.

THE right of petition, as it was secured by the American people in the constitution, and as they still understand it, they should hold very dear. Indeed, to permit unrebuked its repeated violation, especially if no effort be made to reëstablish the right, and make it more widely known and better appreciated, amounts to a virtual surrender of it. If we mistake not, such a course can be shown to lead to an entire prostration of the spirit of the government; and if this sentiment be not gathered from the remarks that follow, the writer will widely have missed one of his chief aims.

The governments of the old world have, generally, been founded by the superior energy of a few; and those who administer them have been supposed to possess independent rights rights inconsistent with the welfare of the people. The ignorance in which the latter were kept their not knowing what was due to them, frequently induced an acknowledg ment, on their part, that these pretensions were well founded. The frequent revolutions in Europe, particularly of late, have arisen from the pressure of these pretensions, on what the people believed to be their own rights; and, both parties thinking that they were right, the controversy becomes very sanguinary. The preservation of the form by which power was secured to the rulers, was to them, so far as government was concerned, the chief interest; and, as grievances were thought to be felt, first of all, by them, it was supposed that they would redress them. Government being deemed superior to the people, its acts were mainly for those concerned in carrying it on; if the people were incidentally benefited, so much the better. In 55

NO. XII.

these governments-even in the least illiberal of them there was some restriction, if it did not amount to an entire prohibition, of the assembling of the people, and of their petitioning for a redress of grievances. This, if it does not prevail up to this time, prevailed to a great extent at the time our constitution was made.

But, in the formation of our government, besides the changes that were made in many other things, elsewhere deemed indispensable, this relation of the government and the people was to be completely reversed. Here, the scabbard was not to be more important than the sword it protected. The people were to be superior to the government which they formed. They were to be viewed as making the government solely for their own convenience and benefit, and as delegating to others their power to administer it. Indeed, they were looked on so much as the substance of all government, that it was formally acknowledged they had the right to change the form of it whenever they chose. The people were considered as the soul-those who administer the government, as the body; the first may always live; the last may die, or give place to something better. This delegation by the people, made those, to whom they entrusted their rights, generally honorable; and, as they never wish any thing done for them without fully paying for it, they gave their delegates, themselves, the right to say, what the honest discharge of their duties was worth, empowering them at the same time to take the amount from the treasury, as they earned it; but they never intended their delegates, as such, to acquire any powers or rights separate from those of the people.

It is quite clear that the people of this country meant to do something in regard to the right of petition; something they had not done before; something, perhaps, which had never been done before. The Turkish Sultan, we are told, rarely goes abroad, even to take an airing, without having multitudes of petitions presented to him. They are all received with great complaisance, and, as he has the power of taking life at his discretion, they are, no doubt, respectfully worded. But they relate, we suppose, to private or individual griefs, re

*The writer was told in 1840, by an intelligent Frenchman, then directly from Paris, and having his residence in that city, that large popular meetings could not be held in France, without the permission of the government first obtained. Probably, the late meeting of the Peace Society in Paris, verified this, notwithstanding the change in the government.

quiring no act of ordinary legislation, for no such act is performed there, to redress or alleviate them; and they very probably have but slight connection, if any, with what we understand as "grievances." Grievances, no doubt, include individual cases, but we commonly mean by them that more than one, indeed that a good many, are affected or endangered; that they can be removed or lightened by an act of legisla tion, such as Congress is competent to pass, and that the public interest will be somewhat retarded or hindered, should they not be redressed. Now, to say that Congress, the very body to be addressed, have the authority to determine what petitions shall be addressed to them, is, in effect, to say that nothing, at least, to any purpose, has been done for a congress could do this before the Revolution. They could always have had petitions, such as they would choose to receive, relating to topics on which they might wish to legislate. But to do this was plainly only permitted to the people. They had no Right. If there was any right in the matter, Congress had it. But we have just seen that to secure the right to Congress, would, really, have been doing nothingand there is the constitutional provision, which we are not to suppose was inserted for no purpose. If, then, it was put in for some purpose, and if it was unnecessary for Congress, and if there is only one other party, we are driven to conclude, if language do not totally contradict us, that it was meant for the other party

THE PEOPLE.

It ought, also, to be borne in mind that, after the convention had formed the constitution, and closed their labors; after having inserted into that instrument all they thought necessary, and submitted it to the people for their ratification, this omission was regarded as so material that it was not only made a part of the constitution, but, ultimately, the first amendment or addition to it. The foregoing consideration shows that, in popular estimation at least, this right, though necessarily, at first, a minority right as we expect to show in the progress of these remarks more at large-was considered of great value. That the people thought they had secured it—indeed, that they did as well they could there can be no doubt. But has it not practically fared with this right, as it has with most others where "every body's business is nobody's?" While men slept, under the belief that there was no danger, their servants, the legislative powers, have been more wakeful and eager to take it from them. Has this right-there being no one