and to be collected from it, seem to borrow much authority from the weighty difcuffion of that cafe by all the Judges. If the principles therefore contained in it be correct, they go far to invalidate the authority of De Gaillon v. L'Aigle; for if being a foreigner was the only ground of that determination, there being no averment to that effect in the pleadings, (as has been before intimated,) the cafe seems unfupported. And indeed it does not appear, that Buller relied much on that circumstance; for he feems to state, as the reason of his opinion, that "the wife having traded, as a feme fole, had obtained credit as fuch, and ought to be liable for her debts." It ought also to be remembered, that Buller had, on various occafions, appeared strongly to support the cafe of Corbett v. Poelnitz, and had been of opinion, that a separate maintenance was (as in that cafe,) a fufficient reason to make a feme covert perfonally liable; a doctrine, which has fince been overthrown by a folemn decifion, to which it does not appear, that Buller fubfcribed. How far, indeed, the doctrine with refpect to foreigners would be now acquiefced in, is for the diligent ftudent to determine. In Franks v. De Pienne, Efp. N. P. C. 587, Lord Kenyon ruled in favour of it; and he, in delivering judgment in the cafe of Marshall v. Rutton, faid, "that no authority could be found (except cafes by that decifion overruled,) that a woman may be fued, as a feme fole, while the relation of marriage subfists, and she and her husband are living in this kingdom." Lord Eldon's reasoning in Marsh v. Hutchinson will, perhaps, be thought to throw fome doubt on the doctrine, as broadly laid down in the cafes above with respect to foreigners. IL. The fecond class of cases alluded to, consist of cafes decided upon the principle of separate maintenance, and feparation of hufband and wife. The leading cafes on this head, are Ringstead v. Lanesborough, Barwell v. Brooks, and Corbett v. Poelnitz. 1 T. R. 5, in which it was decided, that a feme covert living apart from her husband, and having a feparate maintenance, may contract and be fued, as a feme Vol. II. No. 9. pp fole, whether her husband be in or out of the kingdom. See replication. 3 Went. 93. Attempts were made in fubfequent cafes, to extend the principle; but they were all uniformly rejected. In Gilchrift v. Brown. 4 T. R. 766, it was determined, that a feme covert living in adultery, and separate from her husband, cannot be fued as a feme fole, if fhe have no feparate maintenance. And though Buller in Cox v. Kitchin, doubted the doctrine, (1 Bof. 338;) yet it appears established by what fell from Lord Kenyon in Marshall v. Rutton, where he faid no cafe had decided the woman liable; though in Govier v. Hancock, it was adjudged, that in cafe of the wife committing adultery, the hufband was not liable even for neceffaries. 6 T. R. 603. See plea and replication. 3 Went 91, 93. In Ellah v. Leigh. 5 T. R. 679, it was decided, that a replication alleging, that alimony was allowed by the ecclefiaftical court pending a fuit there, and that the Defendant obtained credit, and made the promises, as a feme fole, and not on the credit of her husband, was bad. In Clayton v. Adams. 6 T. R. 604. it was decided, that a replication to a plea of coverture, that the wife lived apart from the husband, and carried on a feparate trade, that the credit was given to her, and that the promifes were made by her, was bad. See replication. 3 W. 93. The doctrine in Corbett v. Poelnitz, expressly contravened the opinion of the court in Hatchell v. Baddeley. 2 Bl. Rep. 1079; and was in turn doubted in Compton v. Collinfon. 2 Bro. Ch. Caf. 377. 1 H. Bl. 334, and in Legard v. Johnson. 3 Vef. jun. 358, and Hyde v. Price. 3 Vef. 444, and in Ellah v. Leigh, (above cited ;) and subsequently in Beard v. Webb. 2 Bof. 93, and was finally, after two arguments before all the Judges, folemnly overthrown, in the celebrated case of Marshali v. Rutton. And the law is now fettled, that a feme covert cannot contract without her husband, and that a feparate maintenance, and living apart from her husband, will not render her liable as a feme fole. These dissertations appear to be an attempt to do what the judges in England call "bringing the cases together," and, according to our recollection, the authorities are in the above instance well recited, and the inferences fairly drawn. This is one of Mr. Story's best efforts in this work. But we cannot imagine, that even the younger part of the profession can be much instructed by this essay. Few young men would consider themselves flattered in being told, that from a perusal of the same authorities they could make reflexions and deductions as wise and as pertinent. Such book making as this is an art of little difficulty; and the exercise of it would do neither good nor hurt, if it did not encourage indolence, and induce men to part with their money without sufficient consideration. We allow to the author of this book the merit of an industrious, and as far as we can judge, a fair compiler. In this world of ours, where the air we breathe seems to inspire sloth, and where indolence is more contagious and more fatal than the pestilence, the praise of diligence is no modcrate praise. For the honour of American taste and literature, we wish, that the author had exhibited more modesty, than in applying to his work the words, which Lord Coke applies to some of his Reports. "Illud a docto Lectore peto, vel ut corrigat sicubi erratum invenerit, vel saltem ne partem aliquam reprehendat, donec totum studiosè perlegerit, unde fortè fiet, ut pauciora criminetur." The language of great men should be sacred to great occasions. But experience proves, that it is much more easy to adopt the language, than to rival the merit of that illustrious Judge, whose works will ever preserve to themselves that rank among lawyers, which the Iliad holds among the poets. ART. 62. A summary, historical, and political review of the revolution, the constitution, and government, of the United States: an oration, delivered at Sheffield, July 4, 1805, by the Hon. Barnabas Bidwell, Esq. Pittsfield, Allen. 8vo. On the fourth of July, 1795, Barnabas Bidwell, Esq. delivered an oration at Stockbridge upon the celebration of American independence; an oration remarkable for its zealous federalism, but the object of which was to prove, that the people of these United States were the only wise, virtuous, and happy nation upon earth; and that all the rest of mankind were fools and villains, tyrants and slaves. On the fourth of July, 1805, THE HONOURABLE BARNABAS BIDWELL, Esq. delivered at Sheffield, upon the celebration of American independence, the oration with the pompous title at the head of this article. In the course of the ten years, which elapsed between these two productions, the author's political creed has undergone considerable changes; and as Lewis XII. never avenged the injuries of the Duke of Orleans, the Honourable Barnabas Bidwell holds in utter contempt the doctrines of plain Barnabas Bidwell, Esq. This Honourable man has discovered, that, at the very period of consummate felicity when he spoke his first ora tion, the American people, whom he then pronounced to be surrounded by such a radiance of bliss, were in truth deep in the dungeons of darkness; governed by an administration, whose only object was to enslave them; and yet so blind,as not to see the fetters forging for them. As the nature of human discovery is generally progressive, we may reasonably hope, that the increase of brightness and glory in this gentleman's imagination will keep pace with every successive change of administration; and that, by the time he comes to be His Excellency, the joyous extacies of the present period will become as insipid to him, as are now the raptures, in which his humblest days delighted. To those,who are fond of speculating on the nature of man and the character of governments, a comparison between these two. discourses and a philosophical estimation of the sources, whence the important difference between the sentiments they respectively promulgate may be traced, will prove at once an instructive and amusing employment. With all the zeal of a convert, Mr. B. not only condemns now all that he admired in 1795, but he imputes the most invidious motives to those, who then thought like him. He passes sentence upon himself and gives up his own opinions to reprobation. We shall, in confirmation of this remark, extract a passage from the first oration, respecting democracy, and contrast it with certain passages in the second, relative to the same subject. In 1795, speaking of the French, Mr. Bidwell says, From the rigours of unlimited monarchy it was natural for them to deviate into the extreme of democracy. Though they have not gone to the fame extent as the ancient republicks of Greece and Rome in their democratick days, but have admitted the great modern doctrine of representation, without which indeed no community of magnitude, fufficient to be denominated a nation, can govern themselves at all; yet they have adopted the fundamental errour of a concentration of powers in a fingle affembly, poffeffing in itself or by fubordinate communications, the whole national authority, legislative, executive and judicial, and in effect the fovereign prerogative of modelling their own conftitution. In the exercife of fuch a political omnipotence, unassisted by experience, uncontroled by a paramount conftitution, without the needful balance of a fecond branch deliberating by themfelves, and equally entitled to a negative vote, and without the check of a well conflituted executive, they have exhibited friends of liberty will in all countries a fucceffion of tragedies, at which the blufh, while her enemies exult in the acquifition of new arguments to fupport their favourite opinions, that Republicanifm, however beautiful in theory, cannot ftand the test of actual experiment. We may safely challenge the whole host of anti-democracy to produce a passage in any writer where democracy is more cavalierly treated....not merely original and primary, democracy, for that Mr.Bidwell will not allow to be any government at all for a nation, though practised by the republicks of Greece and Rome in their democratick days....no, it is representative democracy, without the balance of a second legislative branch and the check of a well constituted executive, upon which he pronounces his anathema and to which he attributes all the successive and disgraceful tragedies of the French revolu tion. What says Mr. Bidwell in compound legislative with an in1805 ? Two rival fyftems of government have long divided the attachment of the world. For the fake of diftinction they may be called democratic and anti-democratic. Democracy is a compound term derived from original Greek words, and fignifying a government of the people. Such is that of the United States, and of this commonwealth. The very first words of the federal conftitution "We the people of the United States" indicate its democratick character; and the conftitution of Massachusetts in exprefs terms declares that the people of this Commonwealth have the fole and exclufive right of governing themselves. It is not therefore, as has been pretended, a mere cant phrafe, but the plain, unequivocal language of the constitution, that the people govern themselves. Our government then is a government of the people, a Democracy in the common and proper fenfe of the term, the only fenfe in which there is a demo crat in the United States. We cannot, without too much transgressing our limits, continue this extract through the pages where Mr. Bidwell considers the compound theory of three independent orders in government, as constituting the principal anti-democratick system of government. Now this is the identical system, for the want of which Mr. Bidwell in 1795 charged the French nation with all the horrours of their revolution. We say the identical system, because Mr. Bidwell knows full well, that the real speculative difference between the political parties in this country has no more relation to an hereditary executive or a permanent senate of nobles, than to original and primary democracy. The real question, he knows full well, is between supreme power in a single representative assembly, and a limited power in a dependent executive and a paramount written constitution. This is the system of Mr. Adams. This is the system which Mr. B. so warmly favoured in 1795, and which he now unequivocally condemns. For a mere change of opinion, though upon the fundamental principles of government, no imputation ought to be cast upon a man's heart. A publick recantation of sentiments, publickly avowed, is far from being answerable. It is the mark of a fair and ingenuous mind. Had Mr. B. contented himself with professing at this period of his career his devotion to that very democracy which he had formerly reprobated, we should, without following him in his wanderings, have been willing to pay a just tribute to his candour; but when we see him sophistically changing the state of the question, to charge his former friends with advocating monarchy and aristocracy; when we find him whistling up all the hounds of party slander to fall upon those, with whom he so lately herded, we have no difficulty in discerning his purpose, and we justly estimate at once the extent of his mental powers and the complexion of his heart. In describing the state of things under the federal administration.... that state of things which he once thought the consummation of bliss upon earth,....Mr. B. now dips his pen in the very gall of party malignity, and among the numerous crimes, with which he charges the federalists, is their dislike of democracy. "Democrats were reproachfully stigmatised, and democracy, the essen, tial principle of our national and state constitutions, was charged with all the crimes of anarchy and atheism." Now, gentle reader, please to read over again the extract we have given you from Mr. B.'s Stockbridge oration, and tell us, whether the lines we have there underscored were pointed specially against it or not. We have never believed, that any one federalist ever intended the ruin of his country or the destruction of her freedom. Yet we know not how to resist the force of Mr. Bidwell's evidence against himself. We are sorry to see him prove so much against his own intentions; but we still hope, that in this last instance he speaks rather from consciousnes, than from participation, and that what may be admitted as confession will have very little weight as testimony. a broad mantle of charity "over the petty animosities, which have too long divided us ;" and after pouring the whole sink of defamation upon the party, whence he deserted, he talks of "grateful acknowledgments to the God of our fathers for past interpositions, and a humble reliance on his grace through the saviour for future blessings." We are far however from thinking Mr. B. chargeable with inconsistency of purpose. The anti-democracy of 1795 and the democracy of 1805, may easily be traced to one uniform and undeviating principle. There is a good old song, in which a personage as pious as Mr. B. gives a history of his own political variations, where in the midst of similar and often repeated diversities, there is yet one thing of which he says, And This is law I will maintain If Mr. B. should ever republish his two orations, we think these two lines, or others from the same song, would furnish him a suita ble and appropriate motto. ART. 63. An oration, delivered at Biddeford He on the fourth of July, 1805. By Joseph Bartlett. Saco, Wm. Weeks. 8vo. pp. 16. Mr. B.'s style is just such as might be expected from the author of two such orations, cold and languid; never sinking far below and never rising above the level of mediocrity. He sometimes labours for ornament, but his simplicity is too heavy to admit an alliance with the graces. The figure, in which he principally deals, is insinuation. speaks of every thing as if he foresaw the possible future necesstty of explaining away his meaning, and is prepared accordingly. His great aim seems to be the union of political inveteracy with the smile of candour, and the effusions of rancorous malevolence with the holiness of christian piety. Hence, after collecting and reissuing a compendium of ten years calumny against the federalists, he finally proposes to spread DR. JOHNSON Somewhere remarks on certain poems, that he knows not whence they came, nor whither they are going. We have rather more knowledge of this oration, than Dr. J. had of those poems, for it certainly came from Biddeford; and we believe, that it is going with commendable rapidity to the land of forgetfulness, |