forcible and direct, mitigating nothing and modifying nothing, either to disarm censure or secure applause. In public and in private he expressed his real opinions in the plainest terms. He would no more have thought of seeking the vote or approbation of another, by leaving him in error or in doubt as to his own views or purposes, than he would of obtaining the property of his neighbor by false pretences.

He was a neighbor and friend of Daniel Webster, by whom he was held in high estimation for his intelligence and moral qualities. He was a Whig of the old school, and thoroughly conservative. He had read much of history and seen something of human weakness, and he thought that we should be slow to change a system under which we had reaped more of the fruits of good government than have ever fallen to the lot of man during an equal period.

He lived to do good, and he did it from the impulses of a kindly and generous nature, guided by a sense of duty. In rendering assistance he preferred those modes which were unostentatious, and would at the same time preserve the self-respect and stimulate the exertions of his beneficiaries. And to this end he aided largely in establishing and sustaining young men and others in business. His advances for this purpose may be reckoned by tens of thousands, and equaled a large proportion of his whole fortune. No man more uniformly sacrificed his own wishes and comfort to others. He was indeed remarkable for his unwillingness to subject any one, whether equal or dependent, to labor or inconvenience. His servants left him only from necessity-they clung to him as a friend, and served him with grateful alacrity. In everything that related to his personal wants or wishes, whether in sickness or in health, the question with them was not how far they were commanded, but how far they could be permitted to minister to him.

His personal friends were numerous and devoted, and although he sometimes experienced the ingratitude of those to whom he had been a benefactor, yet it never chilled or checked for a moment the warm current of his benevolence or his charities. He was grieved by it, not because it deprived him of the return to which he was entitled, but from the new and painful insight which it gave him into human nature.

His last disease was a lingering one. Week after week, and month after month, he felt the withering of his strength and the body's decay, and saw the gradual but sure approach of death. He was fully impressed with its solemnity, and, to use his own words, was "sober but not melancholy." He looked to a future life with a calm and strong Christian faith. But he had too much real humility and thoughtfulness to deem it a light matter to enter the untried scenes of eternity, and he contemplated it with deep religious awe. In reviewing his past life, his truthful intelligence must have told him that it had been well spent He approached and entered the dark valley with solemn, calm serenity, at peace with the world, at peace with himself, and at peace with his God.

Art. VI-THE EVILS OF COMMERCIAL SUPREMACY.

FREEMAN HUNT, Esq., Editor of the Merchants' Magazine, etc :—

DEAR SIR-In the January number of your Magazine I find an able article on Commerce. With the general views of the writer I agree. There is, however, one subject about which we disagree. Speaking of the progress of commercial empire westward, and northward, he uses the following language:

"Southern civilization was always in danger from Northern irruption, and frequently fell a prey to its overwhelming force. Northern civilization, uniting strength with the arts, need fear no foreign violence, and the causes which will accomplish its downfall, if at length it must meet the fate of all things human, are deep hidden in the womb of time."

On this statement we join issue. He assumes that a commercial nation of the North is impregnable; or, at least, that history furnishes no precedent which would argue the disastrous decay of such; and beside, if the time of such decay ever come, it must be brought about by some as yet unknown agency. He also asserts that Southern civilization was always in danger from Northern irruption. In this assumption, also, I conceive that the writer of that article is mistaken, and I shall proceed to show that I am right in both instances.

Now I hold that civilization, whether Northern or Southern, is in equal danger of decay, and that such decay proceeds from the corruptions, the riches, the luxuries, and the very growth of commerce itself. Such is the verdict of all past history, and by consulting its pages we can readily discover what will eventually occasion the downfall of our own commercial prosperity, without having to search for causes "as yet hidden in the womb of time." Tyre and Sidon, and all the cities of the Phoenicians, were first debauched with every species of luxurious dissipation, before it was possible for them to be destroyed. For what says Ezekiel :-"By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned."

The same may be said of Alexandria, and the other cities of the kings of Egypt. They were all sunk in the lowest possible corruptions, brought about by this very "multitude of their merchandise," before they were finally destroyed. So too of Greece and Rome, and Constantinople, with all the empire of the Saracens; and so, likewise, fell those famous Italian republics, Pisa, Florence, Venice, and Genoa. So, too, was the scepter of the seas wrenched from Spain and the Portuguese. But "let us turn to more northern climes, which have given to commerce its last, and probably its final development." And what is the result? We find that in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Hanseatic League, embracing Lubec, Brunswick, Bremen, Hamburg, Dantzic, and Cologne, flourished and prospered like another Tyre or Sidon. And in the fourteenth century, Flanders was so celebrated for its commerce and manufactures, that even England was for a long time but a follower and pupil of the Dutch. Was not here an empire of commerce, having its seat in a northern latitudea latitude further north than the extreme northern verge of our own territory, and yet where is it now? Where are the merchant princes of Bruges, who, coming from seventeen different kingdoms, are said to have

erected there their Lores and Penates, their counting-rooms, and mammoth warehouses?

They fell not before a "Northern irruption." They were not rendered effeminate from the temperature of their climate; for the rugged Northern pine, the icy breath of winter, the storms of snow and ice, are all there yet as they were in the days gone by. The secret of their downfall is known to all mankind. Grown debauched and effeminate by reason of their great wealth, no sturdiness of race, or icy wintriness of clime, could preserve them from a similar fate to that which befell more Southern nations; and to-day they rank by the side of Old Spain and the lazy denizens of Venice.

And Old England, too, does she not begin to show symptoms of decay? Is not the story of her shameful career in the Baltic and the Crimea even now circulating in every land? The same causes are daily producing their effects upon the hardy Briton which they produced on the citizens of Old Tyre near three thousand years ago. Nor need we flatter ourselves that we will be exempt from their influence. Notwithstanding our national freedom, our manifest destiny, and our great natural advantages, unless our citizens prove themselves proof against the fascination of luxurious ease induced by too great commercial prosperity, we will as surely, in time, end as the other commercial empires have ended before us, as the world stands. Indeed, the leaven of decay already begins to work in our midst. Even now in our infancy, and while, like the youthful Hercules, we are successfully strangling those two hydra-headed monsters, Anarchy on the one hand, and Despotism on the other, we find that the insidious poison is beginning its work, rendering weak the knees of our Young America, and making false the stout heart of oak that nerved our patriot sires. Already we have our merchant princes, seeking alliances with foreign despots, running after the strange gods of the old nations beyond the seas, and squandering their millions on "trifles light as air," whilst the unemployed poor are knocking vainly at their doors for bread-even the crumbs which fall from their tables, and have to resort to the thinnest of public homeopathic soups, in order to keep the breath in their bodies. Already do we learn to smile on gilded vice, to frown on virtue when clothed in rags; to discriminate between Huntingtonian follies and the petty thefts of simple poverty, that must either steal or starve. If such things happen in the green tree, what may we not expect in the dry? If so soon we have learned to worship the Golden Calf, because of our "multitude of merchandise," how long, think you, will our "Northern civilization, uniting strength with the arts," continue? I opine, not long; for our greatness had not its origin in degrees of latitude or of longitude, but in the virtue and manhood of our fathers; and when these props are removed, be assured, even though we had built up our commerce on the shores of the Polar Seas, all our greatness and commercial prosperity will come to naught. At all events, let us not put too much confidence in the impregnability of our mere geographical advantages, but let us remember, on the contrary, that

JOURNAL OF MERCANTILE LAW.

CONTRACT FOR FUTURE DELIVERY OF FLOUR-THE POSITION OF BROKERS.
MONTREAL, January 1, 1857.

TO FREEMAN HUNT, Editor of the Merchants' Magazine :

DEAR SIR-I send the report of a decision in an important commercial suit. The transaction from which it arose was this:-The plaintiff purchased, through his broker, of the managing clerk of the defendant, one thousand barrels of flour for future delivery. The defendant subsequently repudiated the contract. As the case, in all its bearings, is one of no common character, and one which I believe has not frequently come before the courts for adjudication, as it throws considerable light on the position which brokers hold in law, and imparts information not generally entertained, and is applicable to cases of a similar nature in the United States, as well as in Canada, I have ventured to send it to you for insertion in the Merchants' Magazine, should you deem it worthy of the honor.

We cheerfully give place to the decision and the opinions of the three judges. We regret, however, that our esteemed correspondent has not reported the court in which the trial of the case occurred:

Symes rs. Heward. MONDELET, J.-This was an action to recover damages caused by the non-delivery of a quantity of flour alleged to have been sold through Messrs. Esdailes, the brokers, upon the arthority of the defendants, and for him to the plaintiff. The declaration of the plaintiff stated the transaction in a variety of ways; and no objection had been taken to the varying accounts. But though no objection had been taken by the parties, he thought the court ought to see if a judgment could be rendered on a declaration in which three several histories were given, so unlike one another that they could not refer to the same thing. If he were correct in his opinion, no judgment could be based on such a declaration; because there was no notice of the particular count on which the plaintiff relied. However, the majority of the court was against him. The question which arose in the first place after the one he had alluded to, was whether the defendant's clerk was authorized by him to sell flour to be delivered to a person of the name of the plaintiff. The court thought he was not. Even if he were authorized to make sales on the spot and for cash, they did not believe that the powers given him, nor his habits, would justify them in coming to that conclusion as to speculative sales. The next question was whether, supposing defendant's clerk was thus authorized, he was at the time of the alleged sale in a fit state to transact business. Now, it appeared that, on that day, between two and five o'clock in the afternoon, this person was under the influence of liquor, and unfit to do any business. There had been some contradiction on this point, and the Messrs. Esdailes said that the clerk was not intoxicated. Now, he had no wish to say anything to reflect on the high character of these gentlemen, and they asserted that they had a discharge from any personal responsibility. The discharge, however, could not be found to produce, and there was a moral doubt besides resting on their evidence. Indeed, their character was at stake in this way. It was said that Heward, knowing the habits of his clerk, should not have employed him; but, on the other hand, the Messrs. Esdailes, knowing the habits, should not have transacted business with him. There would then be a reflection upon them, if it were shown that this person was not in a fit state for the transaction of business, and their testimony on the point must be received with caution. The evidence of Sharpley, who had no interest, and who took a note of

the circumstance, was conclusive as to the state of the clerk on the day of the sale. It seemed, indeed, that when Sir Geo. Simpson came into the office, the clerk had recovered momentarily; but there was nothing to show that he had really recovered. Sharpley said that the clerk spoke to him about a sale corresponding in its particulars with the one in question; but there was a difficulty about the precise time when that took place. At any rate, Mr. John Esdailes had himself said, that if the clerk was in the state alleged at two o'clock, be could not have been able to make a transaction like this at half-past five o'clock. Another question raised, was whether the defendant had not ratified the bargain. The court thought, instead of ratifying, he had repudiated it. A farther question arose, whether the broker, by signing his sold or bought note, could bind both parties. He thought brokers had not the position here which they held in France and England, and that they could not bind both parties. But supposing that a broker, when employed by two parties, was the agent of both, in this case there was nothing to show that he was the agent of either. Again; a question was raised whether a contract was valid without a contract-note signed by the parties intended to be charged, or by their agents, and the court thought that it was not. The note in this case was signed only by the party who acted as broker. He concluded by saying that the state in which defendant's clerk was on the day of the contract, was conclusively established by Messrs. Lantier, Charlebois, and another.

BADGELY, J., differed from the majority. The action was brought on a contract made by a broker, and the declaration was made our in the usual way, setting up the contract in various forms. He thought that was not objectionable, and believed the declaration would be good if any count would hold. The pleas of the defendant would virtually set up that he was a broker and not a commission merchant; that he never authorized the Messrs. Esdailes, nor any other persons, to sell flour for him; that his clerk was intoxicated at the time of the transaction, and this to the knowledge of the plaintiff, as well as of Messrs. Esdailes; and finally, that his clerk made no contract. Defendant's absence from Montreal at the time of the sale was also alleged. The plaintiff replied that this statement was incorrect; that Heward's clerk was his agent, having received a power of attorney previous to Heward's departure, to act for him in all commercial business. It was said, too, that Heward knew what the habits of his clerk were, and was therefore responsible for his acts. Finally, that the clerk was not intoxicated at the time he made the bargain. The written evidence consisted of the bought-note of the brokers; of the protest and tender made when the contract should have been carried out; of the procuration of the clerk; and of its cancelation after the action was brought. The broker's note sets out the names of the parties; the protest and tender were of the price agreed on; the procuration authorized the clerk to transact all the defendant's business. Finally, the plaintiff called on defendant to produce the telegraphic messages between him and his clerk relative to these transactions. The facts as they appeared to him were a little different from the aspect they assumed in the eyes of his colleagues. It seemed to him that defendant was a broker and commission merchant; that he made sales with or without the intervention of brokers, either on the spot or to arrive; and that such sales were a part of his general business. Further, it appeared that Heward's intimacy with his clerk had been lasting; that he had continued him as his clerk from 1845 till after the action had been brought; that he had adopted his clerk's previous sales; had appointed the clerk his general manager, which authority included the power to make sales to arrive. The question now came up as to the clerk's capacity of mind at the time of the contract. He thought that he had been proved to be of agreeing mind by the two Esdailes, by Thomas, and by other witnesses, and that their statements were not contradicted by Charlebois nor Lantier. Sharpley, indeed, stated that the clerk rushed into the office, threw himself on the sola, and covered his face with a newspaper. But it appeared also that when Sir George Simpson came in, he went out of the office, speaking to Sir George as he went. John Esdailes stated that this person was sober at the time, and capable of contracting; that he knew the terms of the