the law of self-defence remains in force, the shooting of the Bourbon duke must be acknowledged to be right and just, under the circumstances stated, and in perfect harmony with the laws of all civilized nations.

A fourth charge against Napoleon is, that he was no legislator, and did not merit the encomiums which were granted him on account of his laws. In the midst of all the bustle of war and efforts at assassination, a new Code of Laws appeared in France under the title of "Code Napoleon." This Code has only served to irritate Dr. Channing, who unfortunately can view nothing effected by Napoleon but through a false medium. With reference to other subjects and characters the Doctor is, upon the whole, candid and impartial; but the moment Napoleon's name is mentioned, his eye becomes jaundiced and his heart overflows with bile. We shall, however, tell him, because we have facts to sup. port us, that Napoleon first suggested the Code; that he appointed the learned civilians who were to draw it up; that he assisted at their sittings as often as possible; that he did more to perfect it by his comprehensive views and pressing logic than all the other gentlemen together; and that, therefore, it is justly named the "Code Napoleon." We view it as infinitely superior either to the English or American codes of jurisprudence,both as it regards the correctness of its principles and the clearness and simplicity of its diction. There may be defects in it, for no human work is free from imperfection, but there are none that need disturb the repose of the American divine. When he can shew us one equal to it either in Europe or America, we shall listen to his philippics, but till then we advise him to look at home.

A fifth charge against Napoleon is, that of being an usurper. The urging of this by a royalist is natural enough, and what might have been expected; but it seems very strange from the pen of an American divine and republican. We reply, however, that he was not an usurper, but the legitimate Sovereign of the French people. He was their work; they raised him to the throne and made him their Emperor. The solemn vote of a nation respecting the appointment of their chief magistrate, under whatever title they may appoint him, is legitimate, and the person so elected and elevated is a legitimate sovereign. We observe farther, that the Bourbous are usurpers, because they have not been raised to the throne by the people, but

were brought to Paris in the baggage of the enemy, and succeeded in their nefarious purposes by means of nearly a million of foreign bayonets in direct opposition to the people, of whom they pretend to be the legitimate sovereigns. The people are the source of power, and though they delegate it to any person or family for the advantage of the nation, they have still an inalienable right of recalling it, and recurring to first principles when the sovereign abuses his power, violates the laws of his country, or acts in opposition to the wishes of the people whom he governs. Upon these principles the British acted when they expelled the Stuarts and called in the Brunswick family; and they did right. If the doctrine of legitimacy, as now advocated by the partisans of the misnamed Holy Alliance, be correct, it follows that the present reigning family of this country are usurpers, and that the Stuarts are our legitimate sovereigns. A sixth charge against Napoleon is, that he was ambitious. We acknow. ledge that he was so; but if this be a crime, then every person possessing mental energies, from the lowest peasant or mechanic up to the highest personages in any country, are equally guilty. All are and ought to be ambitious to excel in their respective vocations and situations; and we are much mistaken if ambition did not form a principal ingredient in the mind of Dr. Channing when he pen ned his far-famed Analysis. It is this feeling which often inspires the farmer to be superior in agriculture; the engineer to make improvements in the arts aud sciences; the philosopher to analyze; and the prince to govern. He who is without ambition, is a mere drone in society, and not worthy of the name of

man.

But it has been said that Napoleon's ambition was boundless and inordinate. If his ambition were bound. less, which is not true, it arose from the vast superiority of his mental energies to those of other men, and the circumstances in which he was placed. If his ambition were inordinate, which we de ny, who fanned it? Who furnished food for its operations? The very men who have all along declaimed against his ambition. Unjustly attacked as he was on every side by hostile coalitions, trai tors, libellists, and assassins, he must have been more than man to have remained quiet and allowed himself and his country to be sacrificed either by the fury of Jacobinical rage, or the coldblooded but eternal implacability of Bourbon royalism.

A seventh charge against Napoleon is, that he was an enemy to the liberty of the press. None can esteem the press more than ourselves, because we duly appreciate its advantages to society. But the press, like other blessings, has been often wickedly applied. It has as frequently been employed in offering incense to tyrants on the one hand, and encouraging licentiousness among the people on the other, as it has been engaged in the diffusion of genuine truth and moral excellence. It has been the organ of abominable libels, of the basest of calumuies, and of the greatest of errors, both religious and political. When, therefore, gentlemen talk of the liberty of the press, we ask, What is the signification of the phrase? Do they mean that the press should be free to publish falsehoods, to promote the intrigues of tyrants and the designs of factious and restless demagogues, as well as to state real truth? If so, we differ from them; for this is not the liberty but the licen. tiousuess of the press. Oh, but it must not be meddled with! Though it blow up the flame of discord, and arm factions against each other under the old cries of liberty, equality, usurper, despot, and many other party terms, still it must be free! Presume to keep it within the bounds of truth and decency, and the cry is, Behold the tyrant! the ene my of the liberty of the press! So found Napoleon. When the reins of government were placed in his hands, he found Frauce assailed by enemies without and factions within. He succeeded in repelling foreign invasion, reconciling many hostile parties, restoring order out of confusion, and in giving confidence and stability to the government. One of the means which he adopted to effect these things was, by putting a proper restraint upon the licentiousness of the press. The libellists of France could no longer calumniate their sovereign, nor could the factious rekindle the fires of La Vendee, and re-erect revolutionary tribunals. Hence they never forgave him; they never will. The bitter invectives, the inflammatory spirit, and the misrepresentations which abound in the Analysis, are sufficient to satisfy us that the press is often very licentious, and requires strong curbs to keep it within the bounds of real liberty.

An eighth charge against Napoleon is, that he did no good, and that all his exertions and sacrifices were without results. He certainly did not effect the good he intended, because of the destruction of his fleets, the burning of

Moscow, and the unexampled severity of a Russian winter. These things prevented him from accomplishing his glorious designs with respect to the nations of Europe. He was more than twice upon the point of succeeding: had he done so, he would have been hailed as the liberator of the world; but because he failed, he has been represented as the worst of men. Such is the way of the world. Still he did much good. Wherever he marched, religious tyranny and persecution fled before him. He sowed the seeds of civil liberty in most European States, the germs of which still appear, and will, we trust, grow up to a glorious maturity. With regard to France, the good he did was immense. He reconciled hostile factions, restored the deluded and wretched emigrants, encouraged agriculture in all its branches, promoted the arts and sciences, made roads, canals, bridges, quays, harbours, adorned and enriched the capital, founded schools for the education of youth, and gave the French people enlightened and liberal laws. We well recollect the astonishment of foreigners upon the invasion of France in 1814. .They expected to find the country poor and exhausted; but they were strangely surprised to find it rich and flourishing. Look at France at present. Her debt is small and decreasing; her institutions are liberal; and her people are not burdened with excessive taxation. We hesitate not to say that France is now the most free and happy country in Europe, and that all this is owing to Napoleon. His name, his memory, his actions, will ever be dear to the French people.

A comparison has often been made between Napoleon and Washington, the latter of whom has been considered greater than the former, and termed the Fabius of the West. We admire Washington, and we are sure that his name will ever be dear to the real friends of liberty in every country. Napoleon admired him also, and on the 9th of February, 1800, when he heard of his death, he addressed the army by the following order of the day: "Washington is dead! That great man has fought against tyranny; he has consolidated the liberty of his country. His memory will always be dear to the French people, as well as to all liberal men of both worlds, and especially to the French soldiers, who, like him and the American soldiers, have fought for equality and liberty." In addition to this honourable testimony, he farther ordered that, during ten days, black crapes should be sus

pended to all the flags and standards of the Republic. But Washington, it has been said, succeeded-Napoleon failed. True; but this is no proof of Washington's superiority or even equality; and even Dr. Channing admits that he did not possess "transcendent talent." Napoleon had to cope with the whole of Europe, all in arms and all skilled in the art of war; but Washington had only to struggle with a few British troops; the enemies of Napoleon were united and acted in concert, but the British generals commanding in America were disunited and jealous of each other; Napoleon's enemies had easy communications, and when beaten could immediately fall back upon their resources, but Washington's opponents were in a strange country abounding with large swamps and immense forests, and had an ocean of nearly 3000 miles to cross, in order to obtain the necessary supplies of men, horses, military stores, &c.; the French Revolutionists had torn each other to pieces, had become sickened by their reciprocal fury, and loudly called for a counter revolution; but the Americans, being out of the influence of European intrigues, had committed no excesses and remained attached to republicau principles. Admitting, then, that Washington were equal to Napoleon, which he was not, and that they had changed places, Washington must have been crowned at Paris because the nation called for it, and Napoleon could have been only President of the United States because the latter decided for republicanism. Had Washington failed, and he was more than once upon the very point of failing, his memory would have been held in execration; he fortunately succeeded, and has, therefore, been hailed as the father of his country. When Dr. Channing speaks of the greatness of the American people, and of the country being "all heart" during that momentous struggle, he excites our smiles. It is true that they fought well at Brede or Bunker's Hill, but that was nearly the grave of their valour. Their subsequent cowardice in several actions roused the indignation of Washington, and filled him with fear and grief. Had it not been for the jealousy of the British generals, the great distance from England, the local obstacles upon the theatre of war, the naval action between Count de Grasse and Lord Rodney, which, if not decisive, neutralized the influence of the British fleet, and the courage of French soldiers under La Fayette, we have reason to think that America, though ALL

HEART, Would have had to wait nearly another fifty years before she could proclaim her independence, and cause it to be acknowledged by the mother country.

SIR,

Co-operation.

LETTER II.

To the Editor.

W.

THE object of this letter is to point out how the principles of Co-operation might be acted upon by Unitarian societies.

Co-operation is less adapted to societies existing in crowded cities, and whose members are very unequal in point of wealth. It is more suited to those existing in small towns or villages, and these are the places where something of the kind is most wanted. When the principles of the subject have been examined and approved of, the society should be at once formed, beginning with a small weekly subscription towards the common capital. This subscription may be as low as threepence, for the Brighton West-Street Society began with one penny, which was only increased to threepence at the end of about nine months, and is to be increased to sixpence at Christmas. Sixpence a week is enough to insure success. It would be desirable that all the members of the congregation should be members of the society, but this would be a question of prudence and management. The society would meet once a week for business and discussion of principles. The value and importance of knowledge would appear in a new light, a library of useful books would be formed, and classes for acquiring knowledge would immediately be formed. In all this the minister of the congregation would be eminently useful. He would give his time and assistance to the department of knowledge. He would teach classes himself, and pay particular attention to those members who were capable of becoming teachers to others. Having once acquired a knowledge of theology, as far as it concerned his flock to understand it, he would find it a more pleasing and valuable employment to spend less time in the knotty and abstruse studies of the closet, and more in the delightful task of developing the human heart and faculties, and of couverting the dogmatic sectariau into a living Christian.

The richer members of the congrega

tion should be members of the society, whether they ever appealed to its future provisions or not. But they should have no more share or right in the property or management than any other member; all should be upon a perfect equality, excepting so far as superior knowledge and character carry with them superior influence. The formation of a common capital, for the employment of members, should be the great object aimed at, and the direction of that capital would be the subject of discussion and management. The richer members of the society or congregation might make any donations they pleased to the common capital, which, when once made, would be irrevocable. Besides this, when the society was consolidated and the members sufficiently acquainted with the principles and management, loaus might be lent to the common capital, either with or without interest.

The employment of the capital would become an immediate subject of discussion, and here the first step is obviously to have a shop and a room for meeting and instruction. An agent must be appointed to conduct the shop. He must be active and intelligent, well acquainted with the principles, and somewhat accustomed to business. While the dealings of the shop are small, some one might be found, of public and Christian spirit enough, to act gratis, and as the dealings increased, their amount would determine the salary and the size of the premises.

And here the advantage of the subject being taken up by a congregation would be immediately apparent. They would direct their expenses to their own shop, and thus augment rapidly the trade and profits of the society. The profits might be reckoned at ten per cent., according to the experience in West Street. But the amount of profit is the least important circumstance the chief one is the principle of a common capital to employ labour for its own advantage.

The capital required in a shop is limited to its trade. After a time, therefore, the shop would be supplied with a sufficient capital, and an overplus one would begin to be accumulated. The society would then have to consider how they would employ this surplus. Here would begin the real and visible action of the society. It would employ one of its members to manufacture. The kind of manufacture would be a local consideration; the workmen would be paid the usual wages, and the profits go to the society. The members of the society

and congregation would again afford a certain market.

The advantage of a country society would here appear in the facility of producing food, the first necessary of life, and of consuming it on the spot, instead of incurring the expense of carriage to market, and various other circuitous routes of arriving at the consumer. The modern method of dealing, which reduces all transactions into money, though the effect of high civilization and the accumulation of great individual capital, is perhaps the worst suited to general comfort and happiness. The man who makes a loaf of bread and receives the value of his labour in money, goes to a shop and purchases, perhaps, the identical loaf at several times the value which he got for making it.

A society able to supply its members with food, could employ all its other members, not producing food, in useful trades, producing necessary conveniences for themselves, and selling the surplus to increase their common capital.

Should any congregation take up the subject of Co-operation, they would in a few years find that united labour and capital would employ and support all their poorer brethren, and give them ample funds for all religious purposes, instead of compelling them to appeal to other congregations for pecuniary aid. It would also afford them the means of supporting their members in sickness and old age, far better than the common Benefit Societies. The minister of the congregation would be supported by the congregation and the society, as before; and his support would be much more easily procured. Should the time arrive when a congregation should be entirely Co-operative, the support of the minister would be reduced to a mere trifle. At present most country labourers have a garden: the society would at least have a common garden. Many a minister finds his quiet garden the best place for exercise, relaxation, and meditation. This portion of his time spent in the common garden would contribute to increase the common produce, and afford him a daily opportunity, by quiet personal conversa.. tion, of improving the minds of his flock, and inculcatiug practical lessons of the purest benevolence and piety, united with a zealous activity and a noble public or co-operative spirit.

In such a society, too, the minister would find a secure asylum for the education and independence of his children. At present the worldly prospects of the families of the ministers of religion are

too often clouded with uncertainty and embittered by anxiety. Ministers are no longer monks, and the exercise of the family affections is a school for the most valuable knowledge of human nature. The marriage state is as necessary for their spiritual usefulness as for their private happiness, but the meditations of the closet must be distracted by pecuniary anxieties. A man wishes his children to inherit his own rank, but this is too often impossible. Trade and labour are at present considered a degradation; but should Productive Societies, with a common capital, ever be established, labour will lose its stigma; it will be rendered less laborious by the judicious application of capital; and to be received into a society as a minister, will be to secure an independence for a family.

ADELPHOS.

"True Worshipers" at Wareham. To the Editor.

Newport, Isle of Wight,

SIR, Feb. 10, 1829. WELL knowing your unwillingness to permit the pages of the Repository to be occupied by the generally unprofitable details of congregational disputes, I should have passed unnoticed the statement of Mr. James Brown in your last number; but coming from the minister of the congregation to which his observations refer, they claim a degree of attention to which neither their importance nor their accuracy would otherwise entitle them.

The circumstances, also, which led to the separation of many of the oldest and most respected members of the Ware ham congregation, though painful in themselves, are highly instructive, as they tend to shew that even kindness and forbearance may be carried to a danger ous excess, as they frequently enable those who consider that in the promotion of religious opinious the means are sanctified by the end, to take advantage of that charity which thinketh no ill, covertly to advance, and at length openly to avow, purposes which, in the first instance, they could not be suspected of entertaining.

The Wareham congregation was long ranked under the denomination of Presbyterian. The members generally were believers in the uurivalled supremacy of the one God the Father, and though as to the pre-existence of Christ considerable difference of opinion prevailed, the majority, probably, inclined to the affirmation side of that question. Mr. Hill,

the former minister, was what is commonly called an Arian; and Mr. Thomas, his successor, though he seldom preached on doctrinal subjects, was considered as holding the same opinions: thus much is certain, that he shewed himself friendly to Unitarianism by attending the meetings of the various Unitarian Societies which were held in his neighbourhood, though, like many of the ministers of his class, he would probably have been offended at being considered as favouring some of the opinions which those societies were formed to promote.

In this state of things, a young man, who, though he had usually attended Calvinistic preaching, was not considered as very fixed in his opinions, settled at Wareham, and married a lady of Mr. Thomas's congregation. He expressed himself much pleased with that gentleman's preaching, and stated in the hearing of the present writer, that he never met with any one whose opinions so completely coincided with his own.

Such conduct threw our friends at Wareham off their guard; in an evil hour, at his repeated solicitation, the individual in question was admitted as a trustee to the chapel. He now became very active, alarming the minds of the young and inexperienced as to the danger of religious error; circulated tracts among them of a Calvinistic tendency; invited Calvinist ministers to his house; and, when an opportunity offered, introduced them to the pulpit, taking care afterwards to contrast their style of preaching with that of the stated minis

ter.

Things being thus prepared, he personally insulted Mr. Thomas, and that in so gross a manner, that he felt himself compelled to resign his office. By inducing many small subscribers to enter their names on the books, a majority was obtained, and the appointment of a Calvinistic minister carried, who, though he at first professed much moderation, and shewed some degree of respect for the persons of those who differed from him, soon felt it his duty to brand their opinions as unscriptural, and, as E. K. remarks," to deny the Christian name to those who refuse to worship Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit."

I will not tire your readers with an enumeration of the consequences which followed; suffice it to say, that Calvinism by these means gained a complete ascendancy. At the annual meeting for busiuess, the trustee who held the chapel deeds was requested to produce them: without knowing the motives of the re