council at the same time. There are four secretaries of state, namely, one for the foreign department,, one for the home department, one for the exchequer or financial department, and one for the ecclesiastical department. All the affairs of government (except the diplomatic or foreign relations, and the immediate command of the army and navy) shall be submitted to the consideration and decision of the King, assisted by at least three members, exclusive of the acting secretary, which number is required to constitute a council of state for the transaction of business. A minute shall be made of all the proceedings of the council: every member present shall be unconditionally bound to give his advice, but the privilege of deciding is vested in the King, who, by virtue of his prerogative, may assent or dissent from any measure, in opposition to the votes or opinions of ALL the members. But in the possible event of the decision of his Majesty being repugnant to the constitution and laws, the members are required by the most solemn obligation to remonstrate,and in case any member's opinion shall not be duly recorded, such member shall be deemed guilty of counselling and abetting the King in his unconstitutional decision.

§9 to 13.-Before any appeal can be made to the King in council, it must be submitted to the secretary of state, and a council specially appointed for hearing it. Ministerial or political affairs are to be considered and decided by the King, who, in the exercise of his prerogative, must take the advice of his minister of state for foreign affairs, and the chancellor of the council, who are responsible for their advice. The King may conclude treaties with foreign powers, after consulting the said minister of state and chancellor. The King, previous to his declaring war or concluding peace, must state to the council his motive for so doing, and the members shall give their opinion on the subject under their own responsibility.

§13 to 15.-The supreme command of the navy and army is vested in the King; as also the ultimate decision in all matters relative thereto, assisted by the minister of state for either service, who shall be responsible for their advice.

§ 16. The King cannot deprive, or cause any subject to be deprived, of his life, liberty, honour, or property, without trial and judgment, nor can he har

rass or persecute any person for his religious opinions, provided the promul gation of them, or the exercise of his religion, be not injurious to the community.

§ 16 to 27.-Relate to the constitution of a council of justice, which is to con sist of six noblemen and six commoners, who are to decide in judicial affairs. The King has also two votes, and may pardon criminals, and mitigate or com mute punishments.

§ 72 to 31.-The King in the council of state, is to appoint persons to civil and military offices; as also the arch bishop and bishops in the manner formerly done.

§ 52.-Ambassadors, envoys, &c. to foreign courts, are to be nominated by the King, in the presence of the minister of state for foreign affairs, and the chancellor of the court.

§ 32 to 35.-Describe the manner of appointing civil and military officers, and what officers holding situations of ostensible trust and confidence, may be removed at the pleasure of the King, having previously signified his pleasure to the council.

§ 35 to 38.-The King cannot remove a judge from his office, except for just cause, and on proof of criminality. The King is to have the privilege of creating noblemen, whose eldest sons and heirs only are to inherit the family title. All decrees must be countersigned by a secretary of state.

§ 38 to 40.-The King shall not quit the kingdom without consulting the council, who, in the event of his depar ture, is to govern in his absence.

§ 40 to 48.-Declare, that the Prince or King shall be of age at 21, and on his not having heirs male, the diet shall be assembled and choose a successor. No prince of the blood can marry without the King's consent: neither the crown prince, nor the other princes, can hold any hereditary office. The King appoints all his officers of the court and household.

§ 49. The states of the kingdom are to be assembled every 5th year at Stockholm.

4

$49 to 90.-Regulate the mode of electing members of the diet.-The King cannot impose any taxes without the consent of the diet, and the bank is under the immediate controul of the states of the kingdom.-The King cannot negociate loans within the kingdom, nor

in foreign countries; nor can he sell, dispose of, or alienate, any province belonging to the kingdom, nor alter the value of the current coin.

§ 90 to 94.-Provide, That if the King continue absent more than a twelve month, the diet must be assembled, and the King be informed thereof. That when the successor is not of age, the diet must be assembled, and appoint a regency to govern during his minority. When the King is eighteen years of age, he is to attend the several courts of justice, without, however, taking any part in the decisions.

§ 94 to 107.-Explain what is to be done, should the members of the council neglect assembling the diet, or act contrary to their duty; and enjoins, that at each diet, a committee shall be appointed for inquiring into the conduct of the ministers, council, and secretaries

of state.

§ 108. Regards a committee for superintending the liberty of the press.

§ 108 to 114.-State, that no diet can be of longer duration than three months, except business shall require it. No man, while a member of the diet, can be accused, or deprived of his liberty, for his actions or expressions in his respective state, unless the particular state to which he belong shall demand it. No officer of the crown must influence, by his authority, the election of a member of the diet, &c.

ON THE RIGHTS OF NEUTRALS.

As some intelligence which has been lately received from Paris, has given rise to an apprehension that America has at last determined to join in the continental confederacy against Britain, for the purpose of establishing what is called the free dom of the seas-and as the questions at present agitated between the neutral and belligerent states, are so intimately connected with the peace and prosperity of mankind, we have thought it necessary to submit to our readers the following observations on the merits of this important controversy.

In defence of the privileges of the belligerent, it is maintained, that a

nation at war has a right to attack and destroy its enemy's trade and navigation; and that if any power, with a view of cluding the maritime hostility of its adversary, consigns its commerce to neutral traders, it may be there pursued and attacked

that a belligerent, in short, has a right to seize enemy's property wherever found, and even to exclude the neutral trader, during war, from those branches of trade from which he was excluded during peace. On the other hand, it is insisted, that the neutral trader, so long as he takes no direct share in the hostilititled to all the privileges of neutra ties of the contending powers, is inlity; and upon this principle, a free trade with either of the belligerents is claimed, not as an indulgence, but as a right.

After the commencement of the war in 1793, it was agreed to compromise these claims, and América, the great neutral trader of the present day, consented to wave her right to an entire freedom of trade with the enemy, provided Great Britain would modify her claim of exclu ding the neutral trader during war, from those branches of trade from which he was excluded during peace. America was accordingly permitted to import in her own ships, the produce of the enemies colonies, although prohibited from such a trade during peace; which produce being landed and sold, was allowed to be transported to any part of Europe. The only effect of this regulation was to prevent America from trading directly between the enemy's colonies and the mother country. The same trade was carried on, however, by a round about voyage; the pro duce of the French colonies being first trasported to America, and from thence reaching the mother country as regularly and plentifully as be fore. Against this trade a violent clamour has been raised in this country. The voyage from the ene

my's colonies to America-the landing, sale, and re-shipment of the cargo in a different vessel-are all declared to be fraudulent transactions;--the property, it is insisted, is not American, but French; and, therefore, liable to seizure. This, however, appears to be a very immaterial point; for is it not evident, that sooner than relinquish so valuable a trade, the Americans will purchase the property from the colonial merchant, and transport it by a round about voyage to the mother country. The folly of the whole arrangement consists in this, that while our object was totally to destroy the enemy's colonial trade, we sanctioned it under certain conditions, which, imposing only a trifling inconvenience, were readily complied with. It surely did not require much sagacity to foresee, that such would be the consequence of our regulations. Could it be for a moment imagined, that trading countries bound together by the strong ties of interest and necessity, would so easily yield up a connection, without which they must be ruined? or that the French colonial planters would rather allow their produce to rot, than embrace so simple an expedient of sending it to market? It is evident that mere violence, however powerfully exerted, is not a match for perseverance and ingenuity; but when it is wasted in half measures, it has not even a chance of success. It is now quite clear, that we have no other method of interrupting the enemy's trade with his colonies, but by an unmitigated proscription of all trade. The question has now come to this issue: either we must admit the entire freedom of maritime commerce, or we must proclaim its utter extinction. And we ought to remember, that in embracing the latter alternative, we are immediately involved in a war with every neutral power.

Now surely we may confidently

appeal to every man of common re flection, whether, for the sake of a little paltry annoyance of our enemy's trade, it is worth while to incur so dreadful an evil. It is by no means clear that Britain ought, in any case, to injure the trade of her enemies. There is no doubt that the continent of Europe affords an immense market for our manufac tures; and it is quite certain, that by ruining its trade we destroy this market. We injure our enemics undoubtedly, if that be any advantage; but we injure ourselves much more. To suppose, then, that this country, which owes every thing to com merce, has any interest in destroying commerce, and in thus drying up the source of its own prosperity, is too palpable an absurdity to require any commentary.

From all these considerations, it appears to be the obvious policy of Britain, to abandon these useless privileges; to admit in its fullest extent the sanction of the neutral flag and henceforth to direct her hostility, not against the trade, but against the shipping of her enemies.

By those who are convinced of the inutility of these claims, it is still insisted, that it is not consistent with our dignity to make concessions under a threat of hostility. The dignity of a great state consists, we should imagine; in a temperate use of its power. Its dignity can never be at war with its policy. To refuse under any pretext, to abandon an unreasonable claim, merely because we have the power of enforcing it, savours more of insolence than of, dignity. We shall conclude our observations on this subject, with the words of a great statesman, when he was replying to the same argu ment urged in defence of the Ameri can war, for that, too, was a war for the dignity of the country:—“ I know not how it happens, (said Mr. Burke), but this dignity of yours is a terrible incumbrance to you; for

it has of late been ever at war with your interest, your equity, and every idea of your policy. Shew the thing you contend for to be reason; shew it to be common sense; shew it to be the means of attaining some useful end; and then I am content to allow it what dignity you please. But what dignity is derived from the perseverance in absurdity, is more than ever I could discern."

THE INJUSTICE AND INIQUITY

OF PRIVATEERING.

[Extract of a Letter written by the late Dr. Franklin, in the year 1785.]

It is said by those who know Europe generally, that there are more thefts committed and punished annually in England, than in all the other nations put together. If this be so, there must be a cause or causes for such depravity in our common people. May not one be the deficiency of justice and morality in our national government, manifested in our oppressive conduct to subjects, and unjust wars on our neighbours? View the long persisted in, unjust, monopolizing treatment of Ireland, at length acknowledged! View the plundering government exercised by our merchants in the Indies; the confiscating war made upon the American colonies; and, to say nothing of those upon France and Spain, view the late war upon Holland, which was seen by impartial Europe in no other light than that of a war of rapine and pillage; the hopes of an immense and easy prey being its only apparent, and probably its true and real motive and encouragement. Justice is as strictly due between neighbour nations, as neighbour citizens. A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang, as when single; and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang! After employing your people in robbing

the Dutch, is it strange that, being put out of that employ by peace, they still continue robbing, and rob one another? Piraterie, as the French call it, or privateering, is the universal bent of the English nation, at home and abroad, wherever settled! No less than seven hun dred privateers were, it is said, commissioned in the last war! These were fitted out by merchants, to prey upon other merchants, who had never done them any injury. Is there probably any one of those privateering merchants of London, who were so ready to rob the merchants of Amsterdam, that would not as readily plunder another London merchant, of the next street, if he could do it with the same impunity? The avidity, the alieni appetens is the same; it is the fear alone of the gal lows that makes the difference. How then can a nation, which, among the honestest of its people, has so many thieves by inclination, and whose government encouraged and commissioned no less than seven hundred gangs of robbers; how can such a nation have the face to condemn the crime in individuals, and hang up twenty of them in a morning! It naturally puts one in mind of a Newgate anecdote. One of the prisoners complained, that in the night somebody had taken his buckles out of his shoes. "What the devil!" says another, "have we then thieves

amongst us? It must not be suf "fered. Let us search out the rogue, "and pump him to death!"

'There is, however, one late instance of an English merchant who will not profit by such ill-gotten gain. He was, it seems, part owner of a ship, which the other owners thought fit to employ as a letter of marque, and which took a number of French prizes. The booty being shared, he has now an agent here enquiring, by an advertisement in the Gazette, for those who suffered the loss, in order to make them, as

66

far as in him lies, restitution. This conscientious man is a quaker. The Scotch presbyterians were formerly as tender; for there is still extant an ordinance of the town council of Edinburgh, made soon after the reformation, "forbidding the pur"chase of prize goods, under pain "of losing the freedom of the burgh "for ever, with other punishment at the will of the magistrate; the practice of making prizes being contrary to good conscience, and "the rule of treating christian bre"thren as we would wish to be trea"ted; and such goods are not to be "sold by any godly men within this "burgh." The race of these godly men in Scotland is probably extinct, or their principles abandoned, since, as far as that nation, had a hand in promoting the war against the colonies, prizes and confiscations are believed to have been a considerable motive.

It has been for some time a generally received opinion, that a military man is not to enquire whether a war be just or unjust; he is to execute his orders. All princes who are disposed to become tyrants, must probably approve of this opinion, and be willing to establish it: but is it not a dangerous one? since, on that principle, if the tyrant commands his army to attack and destroy, not only an unoffending neighbour nation, but even his own sub'jects, the army is bound to obey. A negro slave, in our colonies, being commanded by his master to rob or murder a neighbour, or do any other immoral act, may refuse; and the magistrate will protect him in his refusal. The slavery then of a soldier is worse than that of a negro! A conscientious officer, if not restrained by the apprehension of its being imputed to another cause, may indeed resign, rather than be employed in an unjust war; but the private men are slaves for life; and they are perhaps incapable of

VOL. VI.

We can

judging for themselves. only lament their fate, and still more that of a sailor, who is often dragged by force from his honest occupation, and compelled to imbrue his hands in perhaps innocent blood. But, methinks, it well behoves merchants (men more enlightened by their education, and perfectly free from any such force or obligation) to consider well of the justice of a war, before they voluntarily engage a gang of ruffians to attack their fellow merchants of a neighbouring nation, to plunder them of their property, and perhaps ruin them and their families, if they yield it; or to wound, maim, and murder them, if they endeavour to defend it. Yet these things are done by christian merchants, whether a war be just or unjust; and it can hardly be just on both sides. They are done by English and American merchants, who, nevertheless, complain of private theft, and hang by dozens the thieves they have taught by their own example!

It is high time, for the sake of humanity, that a stop were put to this enormity. The United States of America, though better situated than any European nation to make profit by privateering (most of the trade of Europe, with the West-Indies, passing before their doors,) are, as far as in them lies, endeavouring to abolish the practice, by offering, in all their treaties with other powers, an article, engaging solemnly, that, in case of future war, no privateer shall be commissioned on either side; and that unarmed merchant-ships, on both sides, shall pursue their voyages unmolested.* This will be a happy improvement of the law of nations. The humane and the just cannot but wish general success to the proposition.

*This offer having been accepted by the late king of Prussia, a treaty of amity and commerce was concluded between that monarch and the United

3 H