thousands who have since bestowed pity on their weakness, could be ascertained to possess any fair portion of their strength, -strength, we mean, to lay hold on important principles, and to suffer with a martyr's firmness in the cause of them. Such men as Baxter and Hume and Calamy had few equals in their day, either in learning or in the judgment of affairs.'

We cannot pass entirely over the name of Sydney. His condemnation alone would suffice to disgrace the reign of Charles. His career, like that of his greater predecessor, Cato, is calculated to strike the imaginations of men, though it may reasonably be doubted whether such persons ever effect any great practical results for their generation. The human race may sometimes be coaxed, but cannot be driven. It will not answer for one of them to set up for himself so rigid a rule of action that nobody can follow it, and then cry out because nobody does. Such a man may gain general respect, but he will never acquire any permanent or useful influence. Sydney could speculate upon a perfect republic, but he could neither check the ambitious designs of Cromwell, nor avert the unlimited settlement of the crown upon Charles. He seems either not to have had any influence, or at least, if he had, not to have used it to much purpose. Yet there is a moral lesson, to be drawn from the inhuman mode in which he was condemned, which may be beneficial to all posterity. A noble mind, struggling with adversity, according to an ancient writer, is a sight worthy of the gods. When that adversity is occasioned by the misdeeds of fellow mortals, something more than passive observation would seem requisite. There is hardly a stronger practical satire upon human justice, than the slow but sure destruction of a noble nature in the process of a court of law. Jeffries judging Algernon Sydney, Socrates condemned by the Tribunal at Athens, and we might add a still greater, if he had been a mortal example, guide a generous mind with more unerring certainty to the conviction of a future Their sufferings were not lost, for cases like theirs call most forcibly for the exercise in another world of those most splendid attributes which all men, who believe in a Supreme Being, love to ascribe to him.

state.

We regret our inability to pursue more fully the author's history of the two last Stuarts. The non-conformists, it is true, had ceased to occupy the principal place in the nation, but their influence became at last of great importance in turn

ing the scale. And to their credit be it said, that influence was exerted in favor of principle against their immediate interests. The established church, in order to sustain itself as well against a Catholic monarch on one side as against the Dissenters on the other, became more and more exclusive and intolerant,— while James endeavored to conciliate all who were dissatisfied, for the purpose of combining their force in support of his favorite schemes. At a period when private and public morals were almost universally corrupt, when the character of nearly every political party was too much in unison with the profligacy reigning in society, it is to the credit of the non-conformists that they at least adhered to their duty. But for a more detailed account of events, we must refer our readers to Mr. Vaughan's book, of which we now take leave by recommending it generally as a moderate and candid exposition of a momentous period in history, made on genuine foundations of principle, and though favorable to one side, not unjust to any.

The point we desire to establish is, that public conduct should in every state be placed upon the firm basis of private morality, and there is no guarantee for morality like that of religion. It is in this view, that we attach much importance to works, in which the motives and conduct of religious and conscientious men and parties are not uniformly depreciated. The close of the last century brought forward writers, who have done much injury to the world. Most of them were distinguished for arbitrary political doctrines or religious infidelity, and not unfrequently for both together,-Gibbon and Voltaire attacked the foundations of the faith of the Christian world,-Hume labored in defence of English tyranny,and Mitford attempted to raise up the monarchs of Persia and Macedon at the expense of a State, whose history is the history of the intellect of man. It is quite too bad that the lessons of experience should be twisted into arguments for rotten boroughs and a system of sinecures on one side, or Utopian infidel republics and Agrarian laws on the other. Let us hope that men are becoming wiser,-that we are not to lose sight entirely of the land-marks that time has preserved, while we derive advantage from the valuable practical instruction to be drawn from the annals of mankind.

ART. VII.-The Union and the States.

1. The Speeches of Messrs. Calhoun, Webster, and Poindexter in the Senate of the United States on the Revenue Collection Bill. Washington. 1833.

2. A Review of the Proclamation of President Jackson of the 10th of December, 1832, in a Series of Numbers, originally published in the Norfolk and Portsmouth Herald, under the Signature of a Virginian. Norfolk. 1833.

In our number for January last, we discussed at some length the great question of the relations between the States and the Union, as it was presented by the pretension of South Carolina, to annul the Tariff laws. At that moment, it appeared to be doubtful whether the time for useful discussion had not already passed away, and whether it was not too late to employ with advantage, on either side, any other argument than that which has been significantly called the last reason of kings. South Carolina, through the organ of an extraordinary convention of the people, had published an act, declaring null and void some of the most important laws of the United States, and solemnly pledging herself to renounce her connexion with the Union, if any attempt should be made to carry them into effect by force. Her Legislature was engaged in maturing the measures required for the further prosecution of this course of policy. On the other hand, the President of the United States had pledged himself not less unequivocally, and in a tone, if possible, still more energetic and decisive, to execute the laws, if necessary, by actual force. The quarrel was thus brought to a direct issue, which could only be tried by the bayonet, and from which there seemed to be no escape; for it hardly occurred to any one, as a possible contingency, that Congress, after devoting the whole preceding session to an investigation of the Tariff, and finally adopting, on the principle of compromise, a law, which had not yet gone into operation, would make any new arrangement of the question, in season to be useful, or even were there more time, would make to a State actually in arms against the Government, such concessions as would prove satisfactory. An appeal to force was therefore, to all appearance, inevitable. The minds of good men throughout the country were accord

ingly overwhelmed with gloomy forebodings, and although we expressed at the time a confident hope and expectation, that the ultimate result of the crisis would be favorable, we certainly did not anticipate that this favorable result would be obtained without a good deal of intestine discord, confusion, and perhaps actual bloodshed.

A few months only have passed away, and all these gloomy signs have, for the moment at least, entirely disappeared. At no period, since the establishment of the Government, has the country been more profoundly tranquil, more generally prosperous, or, as respects any immediate cause of apprehension, more entirely secure from dangers of all kinds than it is at present. On the means by which this change in our position and prospects, in itself so propitious, has been brought about, it is not our intention to enlarge, on the present occasion. Others more appropriate and convenient for this purpose, will probably occur hereafter. We will not now inquire, whether it was consistent with the honor or the well understood interest of the country to make concessions to a State in arms against the Government;--whether it was right to sacrifice great and acknowledged principles of national policy to considerations of merely temporary expediency;-whether the question of the relative pretensions of the Union and the State Governments,-which at one time or another must in all probability be settled by the sword, could ever have been brought to this fearful test, under circumstances more propitious to a correct decision of it, than those which attended the recent crisis. Whatever may be the inclination of our private opinion upon these points, which the reader will easily collect from our mode of stating them, we can hardly bring ourselves to regret that the evil day of confusion and carnage,-supposing even that it must come at last,-is deferred. There is at least a chance that it may forever be avoided. This commonwealth, at all events, having firmly resisted the measures in question, by the vigorous and united action of her whole delegation in both Houses of Congress, by the expression of the almost unanimous opinion of her State Legislature, and by the most imposing declarations of public sentiment in various other forms, may fairly consider herself as exempt from all direct responsibility for their consequences, and may enjoy with the less scruple and the higher satisfaction, the immediate advantages which their adoption. has conferred upon us in common with the whole Union.

The most unpleasant occurrences are commonly attended with some more or less agreeable results. The keen and searching inquiry into the theory of our Government, in some of its most important points, which grew out of the late proceedings of South Carolina, can hardly fail to be of great use, and may perhaps have considerable effect in preventing a recurrence of similar scenes. The moment for drawing the proper conclusions from this inquiry, has, of course, not yet arrived but the speeches and documents elicited by it will remain on record, and will be turned to excellent account by future historians and political philosophers. It is in the hope of contributing our humble share to this stock of useful materials, and not with any idle pretension to settle questions upon which the most powerful minds in the country are divided, that we now propose to complete the imperfect sketch of the controversy, which we commenced in the article alluded to above. On that occasion we examined the doctrine of nullification, as it was stated in the Correspondence between Mr. Calhoun and Governor Hamilton, previously to the holding of the Carolina Convention. We shall now inquire whether any new light has been thrown upon the subject, by the debates in Congress during the last session, and, as far as our limits will admit, shall make allusions to the principles professed in the President's Proclamation, and in some other productions of no inconsiderable authority.

Mr. Calhoun, as our readers are aware, resigned the VicePresidency of the United States just before the opening of the late session of Congress, and was immediately appointed by the Legislature of Carolina, to fill the vacancy in the Senate, occasioned by the election of General Hayne to the post of Governor of the State. It was generally understood and expected that the Ex-Vice-President would appear in the Senate, prepared to explain and defend on that high theatre, to the satisfaction not merely of the members, but of a whole attentive people, the principles of a party of which he is the acknowledged leader. Public expectation was accordingly not disappointed, when soon after the report from the Judiciary Committee of the bill commonly called the Revenue Collection Bill, intended to enforce the execution of the Tariff Laws in South Carolina, Mr. Calhoun laid upon the table of the Senate a series of resolutions, embodying the leading points of his political creed. Although the principal debate did not take