dependence of the nation on foreign countries. The idea of a nation's being so independent, as to flourish without foreign supplies, is one agreeable to patriotic feeling; but a little examination may convince us of the folly of entertaining it. The landed interest in England insisted much on it, when the famous corn bill, which has been productive of such melancholy results, was in agitation. The farmers in particular were to profit by it; yet there has been more agricultural distress since it was passed than was the case before. The freer the intercourse between the different nations in the world, the greater must be their common benefit and improvement. If China permitted a free intercourse with foreign countries, she would soon begin to emerge from her present degraded mental condition. That the American manufacturers might experience a temporary improvement is highly probable; but that the country at large would find any benefits, or the manufacturers themselves for a permanence, is by no means clear. England, after a trial of two centuries of the exclusive system, is at length giving it up, and certainly with great prospects of advantage to the country.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.

THE English common law is of authority in all the States originally English. In Pennsylvania, it is true, an act was passed many years ago declaring it of no authority, but like many other acts it is not regarded, the decisions of our courts being cited as frequently in the courts of that State as of the other States, and as much weight being attached to them. It is worth remarking, that the Americans, who profess to pay no regard to precedent in respect to the powers of government, are guided chiefly by precedent in their judicatories. Whatever credit therefore may be due to them for their improvements in government, I can see little they can claim in jurisprudence. Some of their statutes are doubtless more worthy of the age, than those antiquated laws relative to capital crimes which disgrace the statute-book of England; but the Americans have not effected such a change in the system of law proceedings, as their separation from England, and the superior intelligence of the age require. Not one of the States has yet had its So

lon, Justinian or Napoleon. The lawyers have found it so much to their interest and advantage to support the anomalies of English law, that few of them have been removed. Even in the framing of acts, they have retained all that useless and nonsensical repetition of words and phrases which, under the pretence of preventing mis-construction, is as often the cause of it, rendering such instruments unfit for their purpose, as blindness or lameness disqualify for guidance. Written laws ought to be so clear that he who runs may read; but they are commonly as obscure as a distant object in a cloudy day.

Though I cannot praise the Americans for their improvements of law as a science, yet I acknowledge that they have shown a great readiness to remove some of the most objectionable parts of old English law. In few of the States are crimes short of murder punished with death; in none, I believe, is that terrible punishment inflicted for crimes so small as in England: yet property and tranquillity are on the whole not badly secured, though the expense of such security is much less. It is remarkable however, that notwithstanding the alterations they have made, they still retain in most of the States, the laws against usury, and in some, the assize of bread.

A bill to establish a limitation to the interest of money, passed the legislature of Louisiana, but the Governor very properly refused to affix his signature to it, so that it was relinquished. Louisiana, it must be remembered, was not originally an English colony.

There is one remarkable difference between the laws of the two countries on the subject of insolvency. The punishment of imprisonment for that offence, has been abolished in several of the States, conformably with the Code Napoleon. How far this may be found beneficial to the common interest, has not yet been satisfactorily determined. Though the propriety of the measure has been much eulogised by some writers and speakers amongst them, I heard great dissatisfaction expressed by numbers.

One very striking feature in the American judicatories, is the reception of testimony without the sanction of an oath; not that oaths are abolished in any of the States, but because it is optional with a witness to take them. This option was doubtless at first given, in compliance with the conscientious scruples of the Society of Friends; but numbers amongst the Baptists and other religionists avail themselves of it; and

what deserves remembrance, no inconvenience that I could learn, has ever resulted from it. The opinion is so established in England, that juratory evidence is more worthy of credence than that which is simply affirmative, that I suppose the experience and example of America will have little effect at present: yet it is worth while to endeavour to ascertain if the opinion is well grounded. Oaths must have originated in a barbarous age, and most probably from superstition. As men become civilized and enlightened, the necessity of them, supposing they are ever necessary, soon ceases. The tendering of an oath to a person who has never been convicted of falsehood, is at variance with justice and good sense. Like the ordeals used to detect witchcraft, or the appeals to Heaven's justice by the knights of single combat, it is ill adapted to the sentiments of those who have taught themselves to believe, that reason and probability must decide in doubtful matters. Amongst the advocates for the utility of oaths, are there many who would believe a person on his oath, whose deliberate and solemn affirmation they would distrust? I suspect not; for who does not perceive, that the man who shudders not at mendacity, would be likely to be guilty of perjury? The security for obtaining truth in judicial cases, is to be found in the

E E