« ForrigeFortsæt »
to enable them to promote the improvement of their lands, and thus advance the great agricultural interest of the country. In fact, these important benefits have been already derived from some of the inland banks, to a considerable extent: and, notwithstanding there may have been abuses of the banking interest, in consequence of an injudicious administration of some of the country banks, it may be reasonably hoped, that in future all the banks in the interior of the country will be made eminently conducive to the interests of the agriculturist and the landed proprietor. These being primary interests of the community,and, at the same time, intimately connected with those of commerce and manufactures; there can be little doubt that they will be duly attended to by prudent, intelligent, and public-spirited men, in directing the operations of our numerous banking institutions. For, as the author of the “ Characteristic8," before quoted, has well observed," it is of no consequence, though landed men mortgage part of their estates for bank notes, and may be said to coin their lands and to bring them into market. On the contrary, the more the lands of any country are locked ufi, the country must be less improved: and the more easily lands can be transferred and exchanged in commerce, industry, trade, and manufactures will be more speedily and successfully promoted."
The foregoing observations on the funding and banking systems of paper-credit, sufficiently expose the fallacies of Mr. Tay. lor's principles and reasoning on these subjects. Yet, how great are his prejudices, and how extreme is his infatuation, in respect to every thing in the shape of corporate or chartered rights,-this passage from his “ Inquiry" will abundantly testify:
“ What! exclaims both the friend and the foe to public good, shall we have no corporations, no colleges, no turnpikes, no canals,-because they are separate interests? Do not charter and privilege strew the face of a country with palaces and plenty? Yes," (peevishly, and without being supported by reason, responds our author, to this second query,) " and with huts and penury.”— (p. 327.)
We think this writer, though often plausible and ingenious, has, in many instances, manifested a large portion of illiberality. His dogmatical manner of treating some of the principles maintained by Mr. Adams, in his “ Defence," &c., without, however, as we conceive, invalidating the force of that author's principles, is apparent in every chapter of the “ Inquiry." But Mr. Taylor has treated with even less delicacy, another eminent statesman, by name, and by an implied reference, two of his associates in the production of that justly celebrated work, “ The Federalist.”His spleen, it would seem, was much roused by what he conceives to have been a political apostacy.
Mr. Jay, in an address to the American people, penned by him while president of congress in September, 1779, had spoken of the British government in strong terms of censure,-entertaining, as he did in common with every patriotic American, at that period, those sentiments which are naturally engendered by a state of hostility: and yet he eulogized the same government in the “ Federalist," written so long after the termination of the war between that government and our own, as to allow the prejudices raised and fostered by it, even in minds the least liberal, to subside; and to have their place occupied by the dictates of dispassionate reason. The object of the “ Addre88" was political. It was, as Mr. Taylor admits, designed to inspire the United States with perseverance in the prosecution of the war, by representing the British monarchy as being the tyrant, and the American republic, (such as the feeble confederation of the states then was,) as the servant of the people.
Such, then, having been the obvious and acknowledged design of that “ Address," it was calculated to meet the prejudices and feelings of the people, the source of power and national strength, in their irritation against a government then engaged in hostility with them. “ The Federalist," says Mr. Taylor,"contains an eulogy on the English form of government, infinitely transcending the compliment paid to it by Mr. Adams, and incapable of being augmented: by an ingenious use of Montesquieu, it exalts that form of government to the station among others, which Homer occupies among poets.”
Here was the political sin of Mr. Jay, that has drawn down upon im, and upon his colleagues, the keen censure of our author. If, says he, the invective on the British form of government in Mr. Jay's “ Address," and the eulogy on it in “ The Fe. deralist,” flowed from the same pen, the subjection of the human mind, in its highest perfection and utmost maturity, to circumstances, is here deinonstrated; and in this demonstration is 'exhibited the folly of expecting to find a steady patriot in a slave to uncontrollable events."
The writers of “ The Federalist,” it is generally known, were Messrs. Jay, Hamilton and Madison: much the greater part of the papers were furnished by Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Madison. Without impeaching the sincerity of these distinguished statesmen, it must be taken for granted, that the principles maintained in that work, received the unequivocal sanction of each of its writers. Our author styles “ The Federalist” a fortunate composition, and is obliged to admit, that fidelity to our national constitution was mutually allowed to it by opposite parties. Nevertheless, he asserts that integrity, talents and elegance of style, were unable for a moment to retain, against the force of new circumstances, the adherence of only three political doctors to their own prescription. “ The Federalist," in short, was guilty, in the eyes of Mr. Taylor, of the inexpiable sin of eulogising a form of government, upon which many enlightened politicians, practical as well as theoretical-antecedently to either Mr. Adams or the writers of “ The Federalist”-had also pronounced eulogiums. But as Mr. Madison was one of the “political doctors,” (as our author chooses to style these writers,) he wishes to withdraw that gentleman from the censure cast upon his associates. With this view, he says," I believe that one of the supposed authors, at least, does not approve of all its doctrines.”—Is, then, Mr. Taylor aware, that by this awkward apology for what he conceives to have been a monstrous political heresy in Mr. Madison, he implicates him in the same unjust censure which he had passed on Mr. Jay!-When this gentleman wrote his essays, he held in high estimation certain principles interwoven with the forms of the British government;ma government, which, some years before, and in the midst of our war with it, he strongly reprobated. Consequently, his sentiments on some of the principles of government theoretically imbibed at the commencement of the revolution, were radically changed, after having been tried by the ineffica
cious system of the first confederation: and it is not probable he has not swerved from those political principles which he and his colleagues maintained, when composing “ The Federalist," for the support of our present system of national government.
Mr. Madison, we are bound to presume, then held the same opinions on the subject of government. But it is intimated by our author, as a suggestion of his own belief, that Mr. Madison “ does not"-mark, reader, it is not said did not approve of all its (« The Federalist's") doctrines.- What, then, is the inference? Why, that he, as well as Mr. Jay, has changed his political opinions. Will our author, therefore, undertake to pronounce in this case, as he has done, without hesitation, in the case of Mr. Jay's change of opinion,--that " in this demonstration is exhibited the folly of expecting to find a steady patriot in a slave to uncontrollable events?-No; we believe Mr. Taylor was very far from designing to extend to Mr. Madison the imputation he meant to cast upon Mr. Jay. He has done so, however, in fact, by the inferences fairly deducible from his premises.
Such is one instance, among multitudes of the strange inconsistencies, into which men of prejudiced understandings and heated imaginations are ever driven by these fruitful sources of error!
That portion of Mr. Taylor's “ Inquiry," which follows the sections on " Funding" and Banking, makes up about a third part of the book. It is treated under four distinct heads or titles: but the subject matter of these different sections is, in its principal features, so much of a piece with the contents of those which precede them, that we can hardly imagine why the author should have thus arranged it. He does little more, in reality, than ring a great variety of changes upon the same set of political bells, from the beginning to the end of the volume. Accordingly, we find in this latter part of the work, as we do in the first five sections, a considerable share of very reprehensible personal insinuations. Thus, for instance, in the section under the head of « Au. thority,”-after noticing the contrariety of some of the political opinions entertained by Mr. Adams, in the earlier and later periods of his life, makes this reflection on the circumstance:-" The force of the difference between a struggle for liberty, and an enjoyment of a rich executive office, only remains to account for the different appearance of the same principles and the same words, to the same mind, at different times.”
Illiberal and disingenuous, however, as such remarks as these are, their personal application can have little weight, even upon minds unduly biassed by prejudice,-when it is considered, that the author has little or no confidence in the political honesty of any man: for, according to his creed, “almost every eminent man who has appeared in governments tinctured with liberty, might be quoted as an authority against the opinions by which he was raised." P. 517.
To whatever political sect Mr. Taylor may profess to belong, we must do him the justice to acknowledge, that he is not unsparing of his censures upon both of the great political parties in this country. He lays it down as an axiom, p. 587, that “ The evil moral qualities of human nature, are as natural to parties, as to man.” And, in p. 515, he says—" The republican and federal parties in the United States are evidently clambering towards the system for consigning a nation to the constant spoliation of a successive authority, more aggravating to vicious passions, because more unsettled than monarchy itself.”-Further, in p. 653, we are told, with truth, that “ The two parties called republican and federal, have hitherto undergone but one revolution.
Yet each, when in power, preached Filmer's old doctrine of passive obedience, in a new form, with considerable success; and each, out of power, strenuously controverted it.”—In like manner, formidable as monarchical and aristocratical governments appear to this writer-into whatever form they may be moulded, he is not less adverse to democratical governments. In proof of this assertion, we quote from his “ Inquiry" the following paragraph:-“ Democracy is not less calculated to excite evil moral qualities of one kind, than monarchy and aristocracy of another.” Turbulence, instability, injustice, suspicion, ingratitude, and excess of gratitude, are among the evil moral qualities, which this form of government has a tendency to excite. Democracy, therefore, is a form of government founded in evil moral qualities.” P. 79. It is to be observed, however, that Mr. Taylor does not admit of the government of the United States being, in any degree, democratical: for, in the same page, he says; “ De