and the descendant of a Scotch family who emigrated to Massachusetts Bay about 1650. Young Adams is also said to have prosecuted, for several years, the same business; until, by the advice of his uncle, who was a village schoolmaster, he applied himself to the study of letters, and relinquished the occupation of Crispin. In the year 1755 he taught a school near Braintree, and continued in this sphere of life for several years. At what period he commenced the study of law is uncertain....we only know that on the 5th of March, 1770, he advocated the cause of monarchy at Boston, in the case of Captain Preston, who barbarously put to death several citizens of that town. Dr. Morse, in a short biography which he has given of Mr. Adams, has the following particulars respecting this trial: "The cause of Captain Preston was most unpopular. The whole town had been in a state: of irritation on account of the conduct of Governor Hutchinson, and the troops which were stationed in it....their resentment now burst into a flame...but he felt the cause to be a just one; and the danger of incurring the displeasure of his countrymen could not deter him from undertaking it. He conducted the cause with great address, by keeping off the trial till the passions of the people had time to subside. The trial at length commenced, and lasted several days, during which, he displayed the most extensive knowledge of the laws of his country, and of humanity; and, at the conclusion, he had the satisfaction of proving to Great-Britain

herself, that the citizens of Massachusetts would be just and humane to their enemies, amidst the grossest insults and provocations." Captain Preston was acquitted.

Mr. Adams was afterwards elected a member of the first Congress, in 1774, and certainly assisted at bringing about the memorable resolution of the 4th of July, 1776, which declared the American Colonies free, sovereign, and independent States.

Having been, for a considerable length of time, one of the commissioners of the War-department, and a principal suggestor of the terms to be offered to France, for forming a treaty of alliance and commerce, he was sent to the court of Versailles, along with Franklin and Lee, as Ministers Plenipotentiaries of the United States, to consummate that important business. On his return from France, he was called upon by Massachusetts to assist in forming a plan of government; and this State is, without doubt, indebted to Mr. Adams, both for the excellencies as well as imperfections of its present constitution.

When this business was completed, he returned to Europe, vested with full powers from Congress, to assist at any conference which might be opened for the establishment of peace; and he soon after received other powers to negociate a Joan of money for the use of the United States; and to represent them as their Minister Plenipotentiary, to their High Mightinesses the States General of the United Provinces.

While in Europe, Mr. Adams published his Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America. To ascertain the political creed of Mr. Adams, it is only necessary to consider a few passages in the preface to this elaborate compilation. According to Mr. Adams, a monarchy, limited by an aristocratical and a democrat-/ ical power in the constitution, is the most perfect government of any. "The English," he says, "by blending together the feudal institutions with those of Greece and Rome, have made that noble composition which avoids the inconveniencies and retains the advantages of both; and that it would be the height of folly to go back to the institutions of Woden and Thor and of the ancient Germans, after knowing the History of England." Hume and Robertson, he asserts, have given such admirable accounts of the feudal institutions, and their consequences, that it would have been, perhaps, more discreet in him to have referred to them, without saying any thing upon the subject.

As the principles of Mr. Adams respecting government, are erected upon the feudal system, and as the theory which he has adopted concerning that system, appears, by his own confession, to be drawn from Hume and Robertson, it is only necessary, in order to expose the fallacy of the political structure which Mr. Adams has raised, to detect a few ofthe leading errors of these writers.

Hume and Robertson, it is well known, were the slaves of a faction, and that they meanly pros

tituted their talents to vindicate tyranny, and destroy the rights of their nation....they dwell on what they term the aristocratical genius of ancient times....they take a pleasure in painting the power of the Saxon nobles, and in displaying the abjectness of the people of ancient Britain. From a view of paying a compliment to royalty, they affect to consider the Norman invasion as the proper æra of the British constitution; and William the Robber, as the founder of English liberty. Mr. Hume says "none of the feudal governments in Europe had such institutions as the county courts, which the great authority of the Conqueror still retained from the Saxon customs....all the freeholders of the county, even the greatest barons, were obliged to attend the sheriffs in these courts, and to assist them in the administration of justice."

In every feudal kingdom, however, notwithstanding this strong affirmation, the comes was known and the comitatus. The comitatus, or county, was the territory or estate of the comes; and the court he held, and in which he presided, was the county court, to which the freeholders and feudators were called, and acted as assessors or Judges.'

Mr. Hume says in another place, "that the great authority of the Conqueror retained the county courts from the Saxon customs." He thus infers that these courts were favorable to the royal authority. The fact, however, is exactly the reverse.

• Dr. Gilbert Stuart's View of Society in Europe.

'

The greater jurisdiction there is in the nobles and the people, the more limited is the prerogative of princes. The county courts were eminent and formidable supports of the liberty of the subject; and instead of giving them encouragement, it was the interest of the Conqueror to employ his great authority in their suppression.

Mr. Hume, notwithstanding a variety of authorities which oppose his assertions, expresses himself to the following purpose. (Appendix 2d, to the History of England.) "The great similarity among all the feudal governments of Europe is well known to every man that has any acquaintance with ancient history; and the antiquaries of all foreign countries, where the question was never embarrassed by party disputes, have allowed, that the commons were very late in being admitted to a share in the legislative power."

The learned work of Archbishop Hincmar, De Ordine Palatii, places this matter in a very different light; and the Abbe Mably, who copies and comments upon it, acknowledges the supreme power of the assemblies of the ancient Germans and Saxons, selects examples of it, and of the interference and consideration of the people. In fact, nothing of any moment or value, in peace or in war, could be done without their approbation. Their assemblies, however, were very different from the Etats Generaux of after times, when the rights of the people were insulted, and the legislative power came to reside in the sovereign....yet it is not uncom