The fate of Rome is now decided; she has changed her master, and all these may appear idle speculations;-but under one point of view, they become important. There has been, throughout the political tragedy, which has been performed in Europe during the last ten years, a great propensity to excuse the violent usurpations which have succeeded each other, by alleging the weak, or vitious organization, of the former governments. The book before us has probably been quoted, and will be so again, to prove, that a change was necessary to the well-being of the Roman territory, and that a thorough regeneration (for that was the classical term) was indispensable.

At the time the materials for this volume were collected, Rome had once passed through this process of regeneration. We have somewhere heard an anecdote of the naïveté of a Frenchman, who happened to have an ugly sister, and who tried to palliate it to a stranger, by saying, "Hé bien! avant la révolution, elle étoit jolie.' This term, "avant la révolution," exists also at Rome. "Prima della republica," as they express it, is an epoch at which they describe every thing to have been prosperous and flourishing. If a stranger were now to visit that city, we do not doubt but that he would find the inhabitants referring to the epoch, which is spoken of in this volume, as to a comparative state of bliss. As our author succeeds so well in painting scenes of misery, let him now revisit Rome, and we err greatly, if he does not find much better food for his pencil. We were resident in that city, when the great wave of oppression swept over from Lombardy to the Pope's dominions, so that we had an opportunity of judging of the comparative degrees of its political prosperity. We could only exclaim in a strain of indignation with Tibaldeo,

Scorno eterno a l' Italico paese,

Quando fia letto, che un regno si forte
Contra Francesi non si tenne un mese!

or of pity with Filicaja,

Deh fossi tu men bella, ò almen più forte.

We then saw realized what our author asserts to be characteristic of the Roman, "that you could scarcely glance your eye at him in the streets, without his raising his hat or his hand to beg of you*."-For two years previous to the invasion of the

"Besides the mendicants by profession, one half of the inhabitants of Rome do not hesitate to ask alms, wherever they hope to get them. A stranger cannot fix his eye upon an individual in the streets, without causing him to present his hat or his hand for charity."

French army, the treasury at Rome had been taxed for the support of the troops, that occasionally passed through the papal territory, to an amount equal to the annual revenue. It is impossible to conceive, without having been an eye-witness of such a revolution, the confusion and dismay, the distress and stupor of despair, which ensues, when a court of the nature of that of the supreme pontiff is broken up. The splendours of royalty, and consequently the sources of idleness, were there subdivided; as each of the cardinals, relying themselves on the existence of the pontifical dignity, had a long train of dependents, who looked up to them for a subsistence. All of these saw the channel in which their incomes flowed, suddenly stopped, and were deprived of bread, without having ever been instructed in the means of procuring it by their personal industry.

We are far from wishing to defend the papal government. We believe, that if ever the regenerating hand of wisdom was necessary, it was at Rome; but we deny that any sincere wish ever animated the invader of Italy, or that any sincere endeavour was ever made by him, to ameliorate the situa tion of any people. His purpose is mere subjugation, his means are violence and terror; and we can never think that any person, not even the instruments of that oppression, (among whom, by a strange fatality, are enrolled many wise and many good men,) ever for a moment seriously imagined, or attempted to prove, that the most distant good ever could result, from this systematic plunder and degradation of the world. There is a specious brilliancy, a glare of success surrounding the extraordinary fortunes of the individual, which cannot fail to attract the admiration of the weak and unthinking; nay, it may, for a time, fascinate the good, and excite some of the nobler passions of the human breast; but the enthusiasm it may for a moment raise, will be soon rejected by every virtuous mind, as a vitious feeling.

If the subject were not so serious, and the consequences so dreadful, a smile would often be excited by the palpable contradiction, in the reasons brought forward, by some of the affected apologists of this system, to prove, that the successive overthrows of the various nations, which have fallen victims to it, were naturally to be expected. The powers of Europe seem to labour under an infatuation, similar to that of the inhabitants of an unhealthy tract of country, who attribute the death of their friends, daily dropping round them, the victims of the climate, to some particular vice or immediate imprudence, while the same pestilential air is gradually, but sensibly, undermining their own health. Thus the political deaths of the various crowned heads of Europe are attributed, by the other powers, to some individual rashness, or to

some radical defect in their forms of government, while the same active and general cause, is sapping the foundations of their own constitutions. The king of Prussia was too tame a calculator; the king of Sweden, on the contrary, a Quixotic madman. The Dutch were too pliant, and the Neapolitans too stubborn;-the Genevans, the republics of Italy, the Venetians, and, lastly, the Valezans were too free, and the Spaniards too much enslaved. The Romans were too completely under the influence of priestcraft and religion-and, whenever occasion may serve, the Turks will be found to have no claim to pity, because they are wanting in that religion.-The melancholy result of all this false reasoning is, that a single colossal empire stands on the continent. of Europe, like a political Upas, surrounded by the prostrate remains of its credulous governments. Wherever her branching arms extend, reign the silence of despair and the apathy of slavery; while nations yet to be ravaged look on with indifference, under the fatal illusion, that the rank and mephitic blasts of oppression and tyranny, like those of the poisonous vegetable, shed their baneful venom only within a definite circle; each vainly imagining, until too late, that they are removed from the danger of its influence, by some peculiar local or moral cause.

2.

137

An Argument on the Right of the Constituent to instruct his Representative in Congress.

THE question has been of late frequently agitated in this country, whether the members of our congress, particularly the senators, are not bound to obey the instructions of their constituents. The affirmative of the proposition, although at war both with reason and authority, has been stoutly maintained in many parts of the Union, and seems to have gained pretty general credit. We touched slightly upon this topic in our third number, and, as it is of great importance in a constitutional point of view, had resolved to give it a deliberate and thorough examination, at some future period. We have, however, the good fortune to be relieved, from the necessity of executing this task ourselves, in being enabled to lay before our readers an argument from another hand, establishing the same opinions, as those we should have endeavoured to uphold, but framed with much greater force and ingenuity, than we could have hoped

to attain.

It may be recollected, that when the renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States, was under discussion in Congress, the legislature of Virginia undertook to direct their senators to oppose the renewal, and that the instruction so given was boldly, and, in our opinion, most wisely, disobeyed, by one senator, while the right of giving it, was peremptorily denied, by the other. In consequence of this proceeding, it was proposed, in the Virginia house of delegates, at the session held during the last winter, to assert legislatively the disputed right, and to pass a vote of censure on the recusants. On the other hand, the following resolution, "That it is the opinion of this assembly, that no state legislature has a right to instruct a senator of the United States," was tendered by Charles Fenton Mercer, Esq. an eminent federal member, and supported by the preamble which we are about to publish. Those who are acquainted with the influence of partyzeal over all our public deliberations, and with the composition of our state legislatures generally, will not be surprised when they are told, that the reasoning of Mr. Mercer, clear and decisive as it is, was of no avail, and that his proposition was rejected by so great a majority as 103 to 13 votes.

The elaborate introduction to the dictatorial resolutions

The third was as follows:-Resolved, that after this solemn expression of the opinion of the general assembly, on the right of instruction, and the duty of obedience thereto, no man ought henceforth to accept the appointVOL. IV.

S

actually adopted on the occasion, is, we think, more than commonly remarkable, for the flimsiness of the sophistry of which it consists, and for the boldness with which the authorities cited, are warped to the purposes of the writer. We could not well have imagined, before we had seen it done in this instance, that the name of Mr. Burke would have been adduced, by one pretending to be conversant with his writings, to support the right of instructions, however "soberly and deliberately given." If the passages which Mr. Mercer has quoted from the works of this great statesman, could leave the shadow of a doubt, with respect to the decisiveness and singleness of his opinions on the subject, the ensuing must be deemed sufficient, to put the matter beyond all controversy. In the "Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs," Mr. Burke speaks thus of himself, in the third person: "He was the first man, who, on the hustings, at a popular election, rejected the authority of instructions from constituents; or who, in any place, has argued so fully against it. Perhaps the discredit into which that doctrine of compulsive instructions under our constitution is since fallen, may be due, in a great degree, to his opposing himself to it in that manner, and on that occasion."

In his speech to the electors of Bristol, he discusses the point in the following unanswerable language.

"Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative, to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and, above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But, his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

"My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and, what ment of a senator of the United States from Virginia, who doth not hold himself bound to obey such instructions.