United States performs an act-the removal of the public treasure from its legal place of deposite-which, in the fact itself, and the mode of performing it, a majority of the Senate, nearly one half of the House of Representatives, and a vast majority of the whole people of the United States, so far as by petition or address they have pronounced any opinion, deny to be within the legal and constitutional function of the president. The President deliberately, elaborately, and upon a review of the whole matter, asserts the entire legality and constitutionality of the act, in a solemn Protest addressed to the Senate.

Setting out of view all consideration of the consequences of the removal of the deposites, and the merits or demerits of the measure on the score of public expediency, the question arising upon that, and upon the Protest, is clearly a question of the extent of the executive power. So it is admitted on all hands in debate, so it is expressly assumed and argued throughout the Protest. The President claims that the custody of the public property, the "public money" included, "always has been, and always must be, unless the Constitution be changed, intrusted to the Executive Department;" that "Congress cannot, therefore, take out of the hands of the Executive Department the custody of the public property or money, without an assumption of executive power, and a subversion of the first principles of the Constitution ;" that in him is vested "the WHOLE executive power;" that all officers of government, except judges, are his "agents," for whose acts he is responsible;" that the power to remove all such officers is "an original executive power," which is left unchecked by the Constitution;" and that "the President is the direct representative of the American people." All these propositions, and others, which might be cited from the Protest, are novel assertions of executive power, no where set down in the Constitution, and never claimed or uttered before in any state-paper or other writing published in the United States. The President undertakes to deduce these things from the Constitution by construction; his adherents maintain that it is true construction, his opponents, that it is false construction; whether true or false, it is, on the one side, an ascription of certain powers to the executive, and, on the other, a denial of certain powers to the executive.

Now, following in point of time upon the removal of the deposites, and, as the Opposition say, having that for its main cause, came a most disastrous shock to the commercial exchanges of the whole country, spreading dismay and ruin from Maine to Louisiana. Thereupon, thousands of freemen, in various parts of the Union, setting forth the extreme and universal distress of the commercial and industrious classes, petitioned the President or Congress to interpose for the common relief, by restoring the public deposites to their former place of custody; and some, but comparatively few in number, addressed Congress in approbation of the act of the President. Under these circumstances, the name of Whig, all at once, came into use, to designate the petitioners for relief; and that of Tory, to designate the addressers, who denied the public distress, and defended the conduct of the executive. And, it may be added, as a passing memorandum, that this new application of the old party-names of the Revolution was first suggested in the Salem Gazette, a newspaper published in the State of Massachusetts.

And it is a coincidence, worthy to be noted, that the word Tory has obtained currency at the present time, under circumstances strikingly similar to those attending its original application. The facts are narrated substantially to the same effect, by all the historians. We copy them from the pages of Hume, partly because he is the standard historian of his country; partly because he is the Tory historian of his country, and cannot be called a partial witness, biassed in favor of Whigs.

*

"Notwithstanding several marks of displeasure, and even a menacing proclamation from the King, petitions came from all parts, earnestly insisting on a session of Parliament. Tumultuous petitioning was one of the chief artifices by which the malecontents, in the last reign, had attacked the Crown; and though the manner of subscribing and delivering petitions was now somewhat regulated by act of Parliament, the thing itself still remained, and was an admirable expedient for infesting the court, for spreading discontent, and for uniting the nation in any popular clamor. As the King found no law, by which he could punish those importunate, and, as he deemed them, undutiful solicitations, he was obliged to encounter them by popular application of a contrary tendency. Whenever the church and court party prescribed, addresses were passed, containing expressions of the highest regard to his majesty, the most entire acquiescence in his wisdom, the most dutiful submission to his prerogative, and the deepest abhorrence of those who endeavored to encroach upon it, by prescribing to him any time for assembling the Parliament. Thus the nation came to be distinguished into PETITIONERS and ABHORRERS. Factions, indeed, were at this time extremely animated against each other. The very names, by which each party denominated its antagonist, discover the virulence and rancor which prevailed. For, besides petitioners and abhorrers, appellations which were soon forgotten, this year (1680) is remarkable for being the epoch of the well-known epithets of WHIG and TORY, by which, and sometimes without any material difference, this island has been so long divided. The court party reproached their antagonists with their affinity to the fanatical conventiclers in Scotland, who were known by the name of Whigs: the country party found a resemblance between the courtiers and the Popish banditti in Ireland, to whom the appellation of Tory was affixed."

Thus far Hume. Each of these appellations, it will be perceived, was originally a term of reproach. That of Tory clung to the high prerogative party, in spite, says Defoe, of all their efforts to shake it off. That of Whig, being soon afterwards immortalized in the expulsion of James Stuart, effected by the men who bore it, came to be admitted by the anti-prerogative party, as implying their identity with the friends of liberty and just government, and as, therefore, a term of honor rather than offence. And although, in subsequent times, each of the parties occasionally found itself in a false position, yet, in the main, they represented settled differences of opinion, growing out of "the diversities of condition and of moral temperament generally subsisting among mankind." The Tories of 1680, like the Tories of 1776, and the Tories of 1834, were, as a Tory himself describes it, they who professed "the highest regard" for the Executive, "the most entire acquiescence in his wisdom, the most dutiful submission to his prerogative, and the deepest abhorrence of those who endeavored to encroach upon it;" whilst the Whigs were they, who distrusted the Executive, and at all times relied upon the Legislature as the means of checking and balancing his power. This distinction is, also, pointedly stated by Hallam, who says,

"The Whig had a natural tendency to political improvement; the Tory an aversion to it. The one loved to descant on liberty and the rights of mankind,

the other on the mischief of sedition and the rights of kings. Though both, as I have said, admitted a common principle, the maintenance of the constitution, yet this made the privileges of the subject, that the crown's prerogative, his peculiar

care."

And in his Essays, Hume still more frankly discloses the peculiar traits of a Tory, as distinguished from a Whig. His words are:

"When we compare the parties of WHIG and TORY, to those of ROUNDHEAD and CAVALIER, the most obvious difference, which appears between them, consists in the principles of passive obedience and indefeasible right, which were but little heard of among the CAVALIERS, but became the universal doctrine, and were esteemed the true characteristic of a TORY."

To the same effect, is the writer of the article Tories, in Rees's Cyclopædia, who says,—

"During the unhappy war, which brought King Charles to the scaffold, the adherents of the king were called Cavaliers, and those of the Parliament Roundheads; which two names were afterwards changed into those of Tories and Whigs.

# *

The Cavaliers, or Tories, then, had principally in view the political interests of the King, the Crown, and the Church of England; and the Roundheads, or Whigs, proposed, chiefly, the maintaining of the rights and interests of the People, and of Protestantism."

In Bissett's George III. there is another pertinent representation of the same subject.

"The tyrannical proceedings of Charles formed the opponents of his pretensions into a firm, well-compacted, and powerful body. By promulgating the doctrines of passive obedience, so contrary to the rights and liberties of Englishmen, to common sense and common feeling, the King united the supporters of opposite sentiments under the appellation of Whigs."

# *

It needs not, however, to multiply citations on the original meaning of these words, and the class of opinions to which they were severally attached; because the nature of the distinction is evinced by undisputed facts and authority. And the use of the words at the epoch of our revolution, while it has consecrated the name of Whig, and endeared it to the memory of every freeman and patriot in America, has rendered that of Tory as universally odious.

The

Yet, recurring to the abstract questions involved in the removal of the deposites, and arising on the face of the Protest, it is impossible to deny the perfect historical accuracy of the present application of the names of Whig and Tory, as representing the opponents and the advocates of the extravagant executive pretensions of the President. administration and its hireling supporters may wince, and cower, and fret, and grind their teeth, and lash themselves into a foaming rage, under the application of the name of Tory; but its admirable fitness renders the name, and the stigma it infers, alike impossible to escape. The poisoned shirt is upon them; it is eating into their flesh; and their party cannot rend it off but with the very extinction of its vitality. And their ludicrous endeavors to mend the matter by mis-spelling the word Whig, while it tends to confirm the use of the name, exhibits the miserable baldness and barrenness of their wit, and manifests their desperate conviction of the fitness of this appellation also, as applied to the whole opposition.

The party appellation of Whig, then, as it is a great and glorious one, so is it eminently just. It designates all those, who prefer the

interests and welfare of the people, to the President's pride of opinion and wilful persistence in a mad and wild experiment on the currency and the public patience; all those, who, in a question of construction, lean towards the rights of the country rather than the prerogatives of power; all those, whom the wickedness and misgovernment of the administration have associated in opposition to the President. So, also, the party appellation of Tory, insupportable as it may be, is eminently just as now applied. In Congress, it designates those, who sacrifice the interests of their constituents and the welfare of the people, in slavish subservience to the will of the Executive. Out of Congress, it aptly designates those, who, whatever the President may do, defend it; who are always filled to overflowing with admiration of his wisdom; who inculcate dutiful submission to his arbitrary pretensions; who loudly express their abhorrence of the Senate, because it will not, like the House, meanly truckle to the dispenser of office; who, in every controversy between the wilfulness or wrongheadedness of the President and the sufferings of the nation, are clamorous in behalf of the President. These are genuine Tories; and they have their reward, in that gold, which is the god of their present idolatry, the price of their patriotism, and the recompense of their blind devotion to the executive. C.

LINES ON WATCHING WITH A SICK FRIEND.

'Twas night; a glorious night. The bright moon sat
Enthroned in her fair halls of cloudless blue.

O had my earthly lot been cast mid those,
On whose benighted minds the glorious sun
Of our divine religion ne'er had shone,
How would my inmost soul have worshiped thee,
Thou beauteous Queen of planet-peopled skies!
'T was night, the time of rest; but not to rest
My form composed itself; for I had gone
To watch beside the couch of feeble age;
And, as I sat within that silent house,
The breath of summer wafted to my ear
The soothing sound of music, suiting well
The stillness and the beauty of the hour.
Gently the strains arose, then died away,
And Silence held her empire o'er the scene.
Through the thick tracery of the leafy vine,
That veiled the windows of that dim abode,
The placid moonbeams fell imperfectly.
Upon her lowly couch was laid the form
Of one, who, in her youth, had filled a place
In spheres of elegance and ease; and fame
Has said, that beauty dwelt upon that brow,
So deeply furrowed now by time and care.
How changed her lot! for once, beneath this roof

Her friends were welcomed oft with cheerful warmth.

And here the happy band of sisters dwelt.

That band is severed now. Alone she stands

Within her father's halls, the last, the last.

M.

AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MATHEW CAREY.

LETTER XXI.

SOME of my readers may probably object to the introduction of such a portion of Irish History as I have presented in a former letter, and am about to offer in my present one, as somewhat foreign from the biographical sketch I undertook to publish. I therefore crave permission to state the reasons that have led me to adopt this course. Whether or not they are valid, must be left to the decision of the reader. Let them pass for what they are worth.

The publication of the Vindicia Hibernica was among the most important operations of my life-and one that affords me as much heart-felt satisfaction as any thing I have ever done, not excepting the defence of the Protecting System, and the publication of the Olive Branch. I therefore felt desirous of presenting a brief view of the leading features of a work, in which I undertook to put down some of the most atrocious libels that ever disgraced and dishonored the sacred name of history. One of those miserable libels, the charge of the conspiracy of 1641, had never, I repeat, been controverted by any preceding writer, not even Lingard, a Roman Catholic, notwithstanding it carries palpable fraud, imposture, and perjury, distinctly stamped on its brazen front in the most legible characters.

For if the most irrefragable evidence, drawn from the calumniators themselves, and the judgement of some of the most competent persons to decide on the evidence I have adduced, be allowed proper weight, I may venture to hope that I have placed that odious calumny on the same shelf with the adventures of Sinbad the Sailor and Baron Munchausen.

The testimony, on which this conspiracy rests, would not, at the present day, be received in the lowest court in this state against the most abject member of society.

In addition to this motive, which alone would be sufficient to induce me to pursue the course I have taken, there was another consideration, which had some influence-I thought this historical matter would break in upon the monotonous tone of the biography of a man, whose life presented none of those stirring scenes that give a zest to the memoirs of individuals who have moved in conspicuous situations and in public life. And, moreover, I had so good an opinion of my readers, as to believe, that they would not be dissatisfied to spend a few minutes in reading the attempt to remove the injurious stains from the character of the most calumniated nation on the habitable globe; and, should the attempt prove successful, that it would be grateful to them to eradicate from their minds the erroneous impressions they may have had of the subject from their earliest days.

After this preface, I proceed to examine the question of the number of persons asserted to have been massacred in the insurrection in question.

Let me first assume as a postulate, that when a witness is convicted of gross, deliberate, and heartless falsehood, to serve the purposes of his malice, his avarice, or his revenge, his testimony is unworthy of attention, on other points, where detection may be more difficult and