a Republic; besides, there would then be, in some sense, a privilege granted to the truly scrupulous and to those who should falsely profess scruples, and "All men are equal in the sight of the law"; the Society neither recognises any sects, as such, but views only Citizens and inhabitants; and not only art. 7, but also art. 1, 2, and 18, of the Rights, ought to be remembered.

Hardly any man, I think, can for a moment suppose that a majority can have a right to demand the obedience of the individuals to every possible act which the majority shall think fit to command. Suppose a majority, void of all proper feelings, should, in an extreme case, command sons to kill their parents above 70 years old, as useless consumers of food; who would consider himself bound to obey and commit the most shocking act imaginable? And yet, those who sincerely believe all killing of a fellow-man to be forbidden by the Creator, or who sincerely consider it murder to kill in any war but a war in their view evidently defensive and necessary, must look upon the going forth to commit what they consider the murder of a brother, a neighbour, with the same horrour. Shall Society attempt to compel these, and cause many of them to die as martyrs? Shall Society attempt to compel those who doubt whether the required act be murder? Or, if such compulsion be acknowledged to be horrible, shall there be no equality with respect to a most momentous point, but the heads of families who make a declaration, enjoy safety, liberty, &c. and a prospect of safety for their children,—and the others not?—The Rights of man settle these questions, and show the limits of the power of the Society over each equal member.

These few observations were written on the supposition, of defensive war, in certain cases, being not forbidden by the Creator; now, leaving these most important subjects to abler hands, I would entreat those who acknowledge that the Holy Scriptures contain a revelation from God, which ought to be the rule of our belief and practice, to try to make (or to make again) an impartial and not superficial inquiry respecting the lawfulness or unlawfulness, for

those that acknowledge the Holy Scriptures, of taking any part in warfare. By searching the Scriptures we will certainly find, that we ought to love all men, with a love of good will; to pray for all men; to bless them that curse us; to love our enemies; &c. &c. &c. and to hearken unto God more than unto men. (See Acts IV. 1-20, and 31; Acts V. 17-29, and 40-42.) Whatever be the result in our minds with respect to the main question, such a search will not be fruitless. And might also the subject of taking any oath (see Matthew V. 33-37; James V. 12.) be investigated impartially by professors of different denominations; and might all who feel even the least doubt, (and of course cannot take an oath in faith, in full confidence of the taking of oaths being not forbidden,) declare their having scruples, and affirm what they know with full certainty to be the truth, when required!-These moral queries stand quite unconnected with other tenets of the Friends.

I admire the circumstance that the taking of no oath is prescribed in the French constitution of 1793. (79)

(79) Among the late publications containing most important res marks connected with the subject of war, I would mention :

Letters addressed to Caleb Strong, Esq. late governor of Massachusetts, &c.

War inconsistent with the religion of J. C. &c.

A solemn review of the custoin of war, &c.

The Friend of Peace, &c.

All the above sold at the book store of Dodge and Sayre, No. 86 Broadway, New-York.

The Lawfulness of war for Christians, examined. &c. Sold by S. Wood and Sons, No. 357 Pearl-street, New-York.

And well calculated to give some idea of the horrours of war, and to promote a detestation of the same, are the accounts entitled:

The Distresses in Germany, &c. Sold by Collins and Co. No. 189 Pearl-street, New-York.

As to the taking of any oath, might especially those who know they are saved, investigate whether that act, as new commonly understood, can be consistent in them; or rather whether they must not, in affirming by oath, intend to do an act essentially different from that which, generally, the jury, &c. considers to be done by the person who takes an oath. I am inclined to think that under the former dispensation, those belonging to the Jewish Nation bad a right to expect consequences in this life connected with that kind of appeal to God then authorised. This certainly was so in one case; see Numbers V. 19-22, and 27, 28.

TRANSLATED EXTRACT

FROM A DUTCH MANUSCRIPT CONTAINING

OBSERVATIONS

Upon several articles of the French Constitution of 1793. [Compare the 70th, 78th, and 86th note.]

However, that the Sovereign should assemble often, is, generally speaking, very important, and has a powerful tendency towards the preservation of liberty. The designs of the friends of Democracy, stable liberty, and the true hap piness of the People, would perhaps be best attained by the following institution: That four times in a year, on days and hours invariably fixed, and in the known and appropriated buildings, the sovereign People assemble in primary assemblies without any further convocation, and exercise their power, not only performing the necessary elections, but also voting, by yeas and nays, on every draught of a law which there may be proposed by the legislative body since the last assembly of the People, and voting in the same manner, by yeas and nays, on every proposal, (to repeal a law in part or in whole, or whatsoever other proposal it be,) which a fixed number of Citizens, within a îxed period, (for instance during fourteen days, not earlier than four weeks, nor later than two weeks, previous to the day on which the whole People assemble,)(80) shall have declared to the legislative body that they wish to be decided by the vote of the whole People.(†)—And that two days

(80) The design of this clause appears only to be, that this period should be considered as one day,-the memorials received within that period as one simultaneous application and demand.

(†) Every Citizen then who only takes care to be constantly present, during this fortnight, at the sittings of the legislative body which are always public, can know with certainty what subjects ought to be de

EXTRACT FROM A MANUSCRIPT.

75

previous to the assembling of the People, on each building appropriated for a primary assembly, [or within the same, as these places ought never to be locked up,] a notification be posted up, declaring which subjects are to be voted upon [, by stating literally the questions that are to be put to the vote]; and that in the very same manner, at a fixed time afterwards, notice be given respecting the issue of the vote on each subject in every primary assembly throughout the Land, the number of yeas and nays in every assembly being expressedly mentioned in this notification, that every Citizen may obtain information respecting the prevailing opinions and spirit in the different places and sections of the Country, and that deception respecting the issue of the vote, by falsified accounts, be prevented also.-The number of yeas and nays throughout the Land, and not the number of primary assemblies whose majorities have voted for or against, is to be counted in order to know the will of the People.

The above mentioned institution existing, the government should have always the power to convene the People extraordinarily, and be bound so to convene the same whenever a considerable number of Citizens (the number fixed by law) demand this; to vote on such questions as these Citizens shall have prescribed.

cided by the voice of the People, seeing a sufficient number of Citizens are demanding it.

The notifications, especially the second ones, would indeed cause some trouble, and some expense to the State; but a proper regulation would help much, and in France, which is so very populous, about 10,000 copies would suffice.

L

T

EXTRACTS

FROM THE WORK ENTITLED : AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF

PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL RIGHT.

Translated from the French of John James Rousseau.-London: printed for G. G. J. and J. Robinson, Paternoster

row.

1791.

BOOK THE FIRST; CHAPTER IV.

Thus, in whatever light we view things, the right of slavery is found to be null; not only because it is illegal, but because it can have no existence; for the terms slavery and right contradict and exclude each other: and be it from man to man, or from a man to a Nation, it would be equally nonsensical to say—I make a covenant with you entirely at your expense, and for my benefit; I will observe it as far as my inclination leads me, and you shall observe it as far as I please.

BOOK THE SECOND; CHAP. I.

That the Sovereignty is inalienable.

The first and most important consequence of the principles already established is, that the general will can only direct the forces of the state agreeably to the end of its institution, which is the general good: for if the clashing of private interest has rendered the establishing of Societies necessary, the accordance of the same interests has made such establishments possible. It is this common agreement between the different interests that forms the social bond; and if there was not some point in which they all unanimously centered, no Societies could exist for they are formed and maintained by this common interest, and by it alone they must be governed. I say, therefore, that the

: