that in the conduct of war Congress possessed no 'exclusive' power, and that the colonies (or States) retained, and actually asserted, their own sovereign right and power as to that matter. And not as to that matter alone, for New-Hampshire established post offices. The words of our author may, indeed, import that the power of Congress over the subject of war was exclusive only as to such military and naval operations as he considers national, that is, such as were undertaken by the joint power of all the colonies; and if so, he is correct. But the comma after the word 'national,' suggests a different interpretation. At all events, the facts which I have mentioned prove that Congress exercised no power which was considered as abridging the absolute sovereignty and independence of the States.

"Many of those powers which, for greater convenience, were entrusted exclusively to Congress, could not be effectually exerted except by the aid of the State authorities. The troops required by Congress were raised by the States, and the commissions of their officers were countersigned by the Governors of the States. Congress were allowed to issue bills of credit, but they could not make them a legal tender, nor punish the counterfeiter of them. Neither could they bind the States to redeem them, nor raise by their own authority the necessary funds for that purpose. Congress received ambassadors and other public ministers, yet they had no power to extend to them that protection which they receive from the government of every sovereign nation. A man by the name of De Longchamps entered the house of the French Minister Plenipotentiary in Philadelphia, and there threatened violence to the person of Francis Barbe Marbois, Secretary of the French Legation, Consul General of France, and Consul for the State of Pennsylvania; he afterwards assaulted and beat him in the public street. For this offence he was indicted and tried in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Philadelphia and punished under its sentence. The case turned chiefly upon the law of nations, with reference to the protection which it secures to Foreign Ministers. A question was made, whether the authorities of Pennsylvania should not deliver up De Longchamps to the French government to be dealt with at their pleasure. It does not appear that the Federal government was considered to possess any power over the subject, or that it was deemed proper to invoke its counsel or authority in any form. This case occurred in 1784, after the adoption of the articles of confederation; but if the powers of the Federal government were less under those articles than before, it only proves that, however great its previous powers may have been, they were held at the will of the States, and were actually recalled by the articles of confederation. Thus it appears that in the important functions of raising an army, of providing a public revenue, of paying public debts, and giving security to the persons of Foreign Ministers, the boasted 'sovereignty' of the Federal government was merely nominal, and owed its entire efficiency to the co-operation and aid of the State governments. Congress had no power to coerce these governments; nor could it direct any authority over their individual citizens.

"Although the powers actually assumed and exercised by Congress were certainly very great, they were not always acquiesced in,

or allowed by the States. Thus, the power to lay an embargo was earnestly desired by them, but was denied by the States. And, in order the more clearly to indicate that many of their powers were exercised merely by sufferance, and at the same time to lend a sanction to their authority so far as they chose to allow it, it was deemed necessary, by at least one of the States, to pass laws indemnifying those who might act in obedience to the resolutions of that_body.** pp. 30-33.

Our introductory remarks, which we cannot prevail on ourselves to retrench, have been so unexpectedly extended, and our extracts have been necessarily so long, that we have no room to accompany the author in his discussion of other questions, which arise between him and Judge Story. But, in truth, the root of the matter is in the first point, (the oneness of the United States.) If Judge Story is right in this, he is right throughout; and, if constrained to concede this one point, we would hardly think it worth while to dispute any of the rest, or, indeed, to question or strive against any power he might claim for his overshadowing colossus of Centralism.

The interest we take in this question must be our excuse for offering one remark of our own, in aid of the arguments of the able writer, whom we are recommending to the favorable attention of the public.

The writers of the "Federalist" were among the framers of the Constitution, they undertook to expound and advocate it. They were the most extreme Centralists of their day, and their authority against Centralism should be conclusive.

In arguing in favor of the Constitution, they recommend it, not only for the good that was in it, but for the evil that was to be avoided. What was that evil? It is not worth while to cite particular passages. The work may be quoted passim, for passages, in which the consequences of rejecting the proposed Constitution are vividly depicted. What are these? Are the people ever told, that the whole population of the continent would tumble together into one confused and unsocial mass, in which all, who wish to establish again the dominion of law and order, would have to seek out associates, like-minded with themselves, and form new bodies politic, of which the local habitation, the boundaries and the name were yet to be ascertained? No such thing. They say, distinctly, that Virginia would be Virginia still, and

* This was done by Pennsylvania.-See 2 Dallas' Col. L. of Penn. 3.

Massachusetts, Massachusetts still; and then discuss the probability whether New-York, and Pennsylvania, and Maryland would league themselves together, against their neighbors, both on the South and on the North, or seek to ally themselves with the one or the other. How could these things be so, if these States owed their political existence (as they then existed) to the confederation or to the Constitution, or to any imaginable exercise of the common will of the universal and comprehensive body politic? Yet, they were either the creatures of the Constitution or its creators. Which were they?

On the whole, we venture to recommend this work to the attentive perusal of all; and especially to the favorable regard of Anti-Central or States' Rights men, into whatever party they may have fallen, during the late political struggles. If they will study it diligently, they will see that the fundamental principle of their creed is common to them all, and should hold them all together. That is not divided any more than "Christ is divided;" and he who says "I am of Paul," and he who says "I am of Apollos," alike betrays his cause. He who upholds the sovereignty of the States, is on our side. He who assails this, is against us-even though, the moment before, we had fought, shoulder to shoulder, against a common enemy.

ART. VIII.-The Novels of CHARLES DICKENS.

1. Sketches, by Boz, illustrative of Every Day Life and Every Day People.

2. The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club.

3. Oliver Twist.

4. The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickelby. 5. The Old Curiosity Shop, and other Tales.

6. Barnaby Rudge.

VOLTAIRE entertained the singular opinion, that men of wit, learning, and deep understanding, were too numerous in his day-that the number exceeded the demands of society; and that a wholesome restriction and proper pruning of their pretensions in the literary circles, would prove beneficial to the world, and advantageous to the literati

themselves. This sentiment was not uttered in the early period of his career, but after he had run the gauntlet of the world's applause and censure, when the experiences of the literary life had been impressed upon him by stern lessons of participation in all its vexations, ills, and troublesome anxieties. He then gave as a reason for his opinion, “that numbers diminished the respect due to learning as well as to its cultivators." The celebrated Duke of Orleans coincided with the poet; for, when importuned, whilst he was Regent of France, to grant a pension to the poor but captivating poet, and ingenious fabulist, La Motte, he remarked, that every author of high literary merit, deserved government patronage-but that he could scarcely select the most deserving, while the scant coffers of the treasury forbade his recompensing all according to their public pretensions, suggesting at the same time, that public utility demanded a diminution of the number of youth classically educated,― that their abilities might be rendered profitable to themselves and serviceable to the community, were they directed to the more active employments of life. The world rejected the advice, and from that age to the present, France has been deluged with authors. The Universities, affording continual encouragement, have filled every pursuit in England, which demands the aids of genius, science and wit, with the votaries of learning; and Germany, from a third rank in the literary world at that period, by the diligent cultivation of the fine arts, literature and science, has elevated her beer-drinking lords of the revel, into a nation of philosophers and deep thinkers. Yet, in all this advancement of learning and mental exaltation, we perceive that wonderful productions of genius, and the most effective exertions of human capability, have emanated from individuals untrained in collegiate pursuits. This furnishes evidence of the fact, that nature has not blocked up her paths, and that the gentle murmurings of her voice are not lost amidst the busy hum and artificial activity of life. True to the spirit of humanity-fruitful as correct chroniclers of the language of life, have been many in every age, who, catching the popular idea, have been so happy in delineating life, that the world has honored their works, if not in their day, yet at some period not far remote. Such was Cervantes, when the pastoral hills of Spain resounded with the merriment and glee of jocose happiness-and such too was Goldsmith,

who painted nature from a pallette, whose colors were those of reality. The world now bestows on both the just reward of fame; and he who writhed beneath the censorious sneers of the pompous Johnson, but was ever mindful of the high aims of life, sang his life song, true to the destiny and final end of man, with a sweetness, which will be henceforward cherished by every admirer of classic elegance. The petted critic found no great difficulty in crushing the young Irish aspirant, and in stifling tones in his age, which are just now re-echoing throughout the world.

Divinity, Law and Medicine have all furnished avenues to the liberally educated in England, yielding to these branches of learning solid remuneration and influence, whilst every other channel of literary adventure has generally proved unprofitable.

This may be attributed to the circumstance that literary merit in England is appreciated as falsely as in all other countries and its possession gives no certainty of honest dealing on the part of the literary powers who affect to decide what the nation is to read and admire. All the available talent of the land being absorbed in political parties, and literary ability being taxed to yield the greatest influence to their respective creeds, and thus chained to the ruling edicts of partizanship, support is naturally yielded to none but those who are willing to clog the pure fires of the intellect with the shackles of party slavery. Hence we see the Great Wizard of the North, bowing before tory influence, to introduce himself among the tinsel ornaments that hang round a court; and, following close on his heels, the exquisite author of Pelham,-the profound delineator of the mysteries of the human heart and intellect-the restorer by his magic wand of entombed Pompeii-the evoker from the shades of Athenian glory of the brilliant scenes of antiquity; he too is struggling, among the whig leaders of England, for the paltry honors which he supposes in the gift of power. Besides these, how many have been led away from the walks of literature, by bright dreams of affluence, influence, and that ambition which delights in pomp and homage.

This drove Byron from the sweet fields of poetic inspiration to struggle in the halls of Parliament: and the younger D'Israeli, at a later day, bartered fair fame, in the world of fiction, for the melancholy failure and disgraceful defeat of a debater on the floor of the House of Commons. Such