the long series of bloody wars, which, with little intermission, convulsed Europe for nearly a quarter of a century, and ceased only when the rock of St. Helena received its lonely exile.

In the meantime affairs at home had attained to a critical juncture. The Constitution had been adopted. The new government had been set in operation under the supervision of Washington, as the first President of the Republic. The people, influenced by certain "elective affinities," had become sundered into two great political parties-Conservative and Progressive, or Federal and Democratic. Both were distrustful of the Constitution. The former believed it too weak to consolidate a government capable of protecting its subjects in the peaceful enjoyment of their rights, from discord within, and attacks from without. The latter apprehended that it might easily be transformed, by some ambitious Napoleon, into an instrument of oppression more fearful even than the limited monarchy from which they had but recently escaped, at an expense of so much blood and treasure. Each of these parties are entitled to the credit of equal sincerity and honesty of

purpose.

Washington, with a loftiness of purpose truly characteristic of a great and good mind, refused to identify himself with either party. In forming his first cabinet, moved with a desire to heal the dissensions which distracted the country, he selected its members equally from the adverse factions. Hamilton and Knox rep

resented the Federal party, and Jefferson and Randolph the opposite. During his entire administration, "the Father of his country" steadily aimed to keep himself clear from all party entanglements. He was emphatically the President of the whole people, and not of a faction. His magnanimous spirit would not stoop to party favoritism, nor allow him to exercise the power entrusted him, to promote the interests of any political clique. In all his measures his great object was to advance the welfare of the nation, without regard to their influence on conflicting parties. In these things he left behind him a pure and noble example, richly worthy the imitation of his successors in that high station.

The Revolution in France, and the measures adopted by the Allied Sovereigns to arrest its progress, excited the liveliest interest among the people of the United States. But their sympathies ran in different channels, and very naturally took the hue of their party predilections. The Democrats, believing the French Revolution to be the up-springing of the same principles which had triumphed here-a lawful attempt of an oppressed people to secure the exercise of inalienable rights—although shuddering at the excesses which had been perpetrated, still felt it to be our own cause, and insisted that we were in honor and duty bound to render all the assistance in our power, even to a resort to arms, if need be. The Federalists, on the other hand, were alarmed at the anarchical tendencies in

France. They were fearful that law, order, government, and society itself, would be utterly and speedily swept away, unless the revolutionary movement was arrested. Cherishing these apprehensions, they were disposed to favor the views of Great Britain and other European powers, and were anxious that the gern ment of the United States should adopt some active measures to assist in checking what they could not but view as rapid strides to political and social anarchy. However the two parties differed as to the measures proper to be adopted in this crisis, they were united in the conviction that our government should take some part as a belligerant, in these European struggles; ana exerted each its influence to bring about such an interference as would be in accordance with their conflicting views of duty and expediency.

There was residing, at this period, in Boston, a young and nearly briefless lawyer, whose views on these important matters differed materially from those entertained by both parties. It was John Quincy Adams. While he could not countenance the attempts of the Allied Powers to destroy the French Republic, and reestablish a monarchy, he was equally far from favoring the turn which affairs were clearly taking in that unhappy country. He evidently foresaw the French Revolution would prove a failure; and that it was enge.dering an influence which, unchecked, would be deeply injurious to American liberty and order. To counteract this tendency, he published in the Boston

Centinel, in 1791, a series of articles, signed "Publicola,' in which he discussed with great ability, the wild vagaries engendered among political writers in France, and which had been caught up by many in our own country. These articles attracted much attention, both at home and abroad. They were re-published in England, as an answer to several points in Paine's "Rights of Man." So profound was the political sagacity they displayed, and so great the familiarity with public affairs, that they were, by general consent, attributed to the elder Adams. On this subject, John Adams writes his wife as follows, from Philadelphia, on the 5th December, 1793 :

"The Viscount Noailles called on me. **** He seemed very critical in his inquiries concerning the letters printed as mine in England. I told him candidly that I did not write them, and as frankly, in confidence, who did. He says they made a great impression upon the people of England; that he heard Mr. Windham and Mr. Fox speak of them as the best thing that had been written, and as one of the best pieces of reasoning and style they had ever read."

The younger Adams, in surveying the condition of the country at this critical period, became convinced it would be a fatal step for the new government to take sides with either of the great parties in Europe, who were engaged in the settlement of their difficulties by the arbitrement of arms. However strongly our sympathies were elicited in behalf of the French Republic-however we may have been bound in gratitude for the assistance rendered us during our Revolution

ary struggle, to co-operate with France in her defence of popular institutions-still, self-preservation is the first law of nature. Mr. Adams saw, that to throw ourselves into the melee of European conflicts, would prostrate the interests of the country, and peril the very existence of the government.

These views he embodied in a series of articles, which he published in the Boston Centinel, in 1793, under the signature of "Marcellus." He insisted it was alike the dictate of duty and policy, that the United States should remain strictly neutral between France and her enemies. These papers attracted general attention throughout the Union, and made a marked impression on the public mind. They were read by Washington, with expressions of the highest satisfaction; and he made particular inquiries respecting the author.

The position of Mr. Adams on neutrality was new, and in opposition to the opinions of the great mass of the country. To him, it is believed, belongs the honor of first publicly advocating this line of policy, which afterwards became a settled principle of the American government. Non-interference with foreign affairs, is a principle to which the Union has rigidly adhered to the present hour. In these articles too, Mr. Adams developed the political creed which governed him through life in regard to two great principles-union at home, and independence of all foreign alliances or entanglements

C