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 predi lections. 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 government 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; and 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 engendering an influence which, unchecked, would be deeply injurious to American liberty and order. To counteract this tendency, he published in the Boston

T

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

-independence not only politically, but in manufactures and in commerce.

On the 25th of April, 1793, Washington issued a proclamation, announcing the neutrality of the United States between the belligerent nations of Europe. This proclamation was not issued until after Mr. Adams' articles urging this course had been before the public for some time. It is an honorable testimony to the sagacity of his views, that Washington, and the eminent men composing his cabinet, adopted a policy which coincided so perfectly with opinions he had formed purely from the strength of his own convictions. The proclamation pleased neither of the belligerent nations in Europe. It aroused the enmity of both; and laid open our commerce to the depredations of all parties, on the plea that the American government was inimical to their interests.

While in the practice of law in Boston, Mr. Adams was not well satisfied with his condition or prospects. That he was laudably ambitious to arise to distinction in some honorable line is quite certain. But, singular as it may appear at this day, in view of his early life, and his acknowledged talents, he was not looking for, nor expecting, political preferment. These facts appear in the following passages from his diary, written at that time; and which, moreover, will be found to contain certain rules of action for life, which the young men of our country should studiously seek to imitate.