Massachusetts, being then more powerful and less exposed than the other colonies, refused its contributions to the general defense. In consequence of this, the common council remonstrated against the council of Massachusetts. This altercation terminated in the dissolution of their union. From this brief account of a system perfectly resembling our present one, we may easily divine the inevitable consequences of a longer adherence to the latter.

If we take experience for our guide, we shall find still more instructive direction on this subject. The weakness of the existing articles of the Union showed itself during the war. It has manifested itself, since the peace, to such a degree as admits of no doubt to a rational, intelligent, and unbiased mind, of the necessity of alteration; nay, this necessity is obvious to all America; it has forced itself on the minds of the people. The committee has been informed that the Confederation was not completed till the year 1781, when a great portion of the war was ended; consequently no part of the merit of the antecedent operations of the war could justly be attributed to that system. Its debility was perceived almost as soon as it was put in operation. A recapitulation of the proofs which have been experienced of its inefficacy is unnecessary. It is most notorious that feebleness. universally marked its character. Shall we be safe in another war in the same situation? That instrument required the voluntary contributions of the States, and thereby sacrificed some of our best privileges. The most intolerable and unwarrantable oppressions were committed on the people during the late war. The gross enormity of those oppressions might have produced the most serious consequences were it not for the spirit of liberty which preponderated against every consideration.

A scene of injustice, partiality, and oppression may bring heavenly vengeance on any people. We are now, by our suffering, expiating the crimes of the otherwise glorious revolution. Is it not known to every member of this committee that the great principles of a free government were reversed through the whole progress of that scene? Was not every State harassed? Was not every individual oppressed and subjected to repeated distresses? Was this right? Was it a proper form of government that warranted, authorized, or overlooked the most wanton deprivation of property? Had the government been vested with complete power to procure a regular and adequate supply of

revenue, those oppressive measures would have been unnecessary. But, sir, can it be supposed that a repetition of such measures would ever be acquiesced in? Can a government that stands in need of such measures secure the liberty or promote the happiness or glory of any country? If we do not change this system, consequences must ensue that gentlemen do not now apprehend. If other testimony were necessary, I might appeal to that which I am sure is very weighty, but which I mention with reluctance. At the conclusion of the war, the man who had the most extensive acquaintance with the nature of the country, who well understood its interests, and who had given the most unequivocal and most brilliant proofs of attachment to its welfare, when he laid down the arms wherewith he had so nobly and successfully defended his country, publicly testified his disapprobation of the present system and suggested that some alteration was necessary to render it adequate to the security of our happiness. I did not introduce that great name to bias any gentleman here. Much as I admire and revere the man, I consider these members as not to be actuated by the influence of any man; but I introduce him as a respectable witness to prove that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate and that we must resort to something else. His modesty did not point out what ought to be done, but said that some great change was necessary. But, sir, testimony, if wished for, may be found in abundance, and numerous conclusive reasons urged for this change. Experience was daily producing such irresistible proofs of the defects of this system, that this Commonwealth was induced to exert her influence to meliorate it; she began that noble work, in which I hope she will persist; she proposed to revise it; her proposition met with that concurrence which that of a respectable party will always meet. I am sure, if demonstration were necessary on the part of this commonwealth, reasons have been abundantly heard, in the course of this debate, manifold and cogent enough, not only to operate conviction, but to disgust an attentive hearer. Recollect the resolution of the year 1784. It was then found that the whole burden of the Union was sustained by a few States. This State was likely to be saddled with a very disproportionate share. That expedient was proposed (to obviate this inconvenience) which has been placed in its true light. It has been painted in sufficient horrors by the honorable gentleman who spoke last.

I agree with the honorable gentleman [Mr. Henry] that national splendor and glory are not our objects; but does he distinguish between what will render us secure and happy at home, and what will render us respectable abroad? If we be free and happy at home, we shall be respectable abroad.

The Confederation is so notoriously feeble that foreign nations are unwilling to form any treaties with us; they are apprised that our General Government cannot perform any of its engagements, but that they may be violated at pleasure by any of the States. Our violation of treaties already entered into proves this truth unequivocally. No nation will, therefore, make any stipulations with Congress, conceding any advantages of importance to us; they will be the more adverse to entering into engagements with us, as the imbecility of our government enables them to derive many advantages from our trade, without granting us any return. But were this country united by proper bands, in addition to other great advantages, we could form very beneficial treaties with foreign States. But this can never happen without a change in our system. Were we not laughed at by the minister of that nation from which we may be able yet to extort some of the most salutary measures for this country? Were we not told that it was necessary to temporize till our government acquired consistency? Will any nation relinquish national advantages to us? You will be greatly disappointed if you expect any such good effects from this contemptible system. Let us recollect our conduct to that country from which we have received the most friendly aid. How have we dealt with that benevolent ally? Have we complied with our most sacred obligations to that nation? Have we paid the interest punctually from year to year? Is not the interest accumulating while not a shilling is discharged of the principal? The magnanimity and forbearance. of that ally are so great that she has not called upon us for her claims, even in her own distress and necessity. This, sir, is an additional motive to increase our exertions. At this moment of time a very considerable amount is due from us to that country and others.

We have been obliged to borrow money even to pay the interest of our debts. This is a ruinous and most disgraceful expedient. Is this a situation on which America can rely for security and happiness? How are we to extricate ourselves? The honorable member told us we might rely on the punctuality

and friendship of the States, and that they will discharge their quotas for the future. The contributions of the States have been found inadequate from the beginning, and are diminishing instead of increasing. From the month of June 1787 till June 1788, they have paid only $276,641 into the Federal Treasury for the purposes of supporting the National Government and discharging the interest of the national debts-a sum so very insufficient that it must greatly alarm the friends of their country. Suggestions and strong assertions dissipate before these facts.

HENRY EDWARD, CARDINAL MANNING

(1808-1892)

HE address on the two thousand six hundred and fifteenth anniversary of the foundation of Rome probably did more than any other single discourse to give Cardinal Manning his promotion, and it no doubt expresses more fully than any other the feeling which had influenced him in leaving the Church of England for that of Rome.

His At

Manning was born at Totteridge, England, July 15th, 1808. father, a wealthy East India merchant, educated him carefully. Oxford where he graduated, he had Gladstone as a companion and Charles Wordsworth as a tutor. Entering the Church of England, he was made Archdeacon of Chichester in 1840. Ten years later he resigned, and leaving the Church of England was ordained a Roman Catholic priest. He was steadily advanced by the Pope, who made him Archbishop of Westminster in 1865 and Cardinal in 1875. He died January 14th, 1892. His published sermons, addresses, and other works are numerous. As a writer and public speaker, he illustrates the best traditions of the English language, in purity of diction, in directness of movement, and in strength of construction.

"ROME THE ETERNAL»

(From a Discourse Delivered before the Accademia Quiriti, in Rome, on the Two Thousand Six Hundred and Fifteenth Anniversary of the City, April 21st, 1863)

KNOW of no point of view in which the glory of Rome is more conspicuous than in its civil mission to the races of the world. When the seat of empire was translated from Rome to Constantinople, all the culture and civilization of Italy seemed to be carried away to enrich and to adorn the East. It seemed as if God had decreed to reveal to the world what his Church could do without the world, and what the world could not do without the Church. A more melancholy history than that of the Byzantine Empire is nowhere to be read. It is one long narrative of the usurpation and insolent dominion of the world over the