It is however some comfort to reflect, that, upon the whole, the quantity of industry and prudence among mankind exceeds the quantity of idleness and foily.Hence the increase of good buildings, farms cultivated, and populous cities filled with wealth, all over Europe, which a few years since were only to be found on the coasts of the Mediterranean; and this notwithstanding the mad wars continually raging, by which are often destroyed in one year the works of many years peace. So that we may hope, the luxury of a few merchants on the coast will not be the ruin of America.

One reflection more, and I will end this long rambling letter. Almost all the parts of our bodies require some expence. The feet demand shoes; the legs stockings; the rest of the body clothing; and the belly a good deal of victuals. Our eyes, tho' exceedingly use. ful, ask, when reasonable, only the cheap assistance of spectacles, which could not much impair our finances. But the eyes of other people are the eyes that ruin us. If all but myself were blind, I should want neither fine clothes, fine houses, nor fine furniture.

ON THE SLAVE TRADE.

READING in the newspapers the speech of Mr. Jackson in congress, against meddling with the affair of slavery, or attempting to mend the condition of slaves, it put me in mind of a similar speech, made about an hundred years since, by Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim, a member of the divan of Algiers, which may be seen in Martin's account of his consulship, 1687. It was against granting the petition of the sect called Erika or Purists, who prayed for the abolition of piracy and sla very, as being unjust.-Mr. Jackson does not quote it; perhaps he has not seen it. If therefore, some of its reasoning are to be found in his eloquent speech, it may only shew that men's interests operate and are

operated on, whith surprising similarity, in all countries and climates, whenever they are under similar circum-stances. The African speech, as translated, is as follows:

“Alla Bismillah, &c. God is great, and Mahomet is his prophet.

"Have these Erika considered the consequences of granting their petition? If we cease our cruises against the Christians, how shall we be furnished with the commodities their countries produce, and which are so necessary for us? If we forbear to make slaves of their people, who, in this hot climate, are to cultivate our lands? Who are to perform the common labours ofour city, and of our families? Must we not then be our own slaves? And is there not more compassion and more favour due to us Mussulmen, than to those Christian dogs?-We have now about fifty thousand slaves in and near Algiers. This number, if not kept up by fresh supplies, will soon diminish, and be gradually annihilated. If, then, we cease taking and plundering the infidel ships, and making slaves of the seamen and passengers, our lands will become of no value, for want of cultivation; the rents of houses will sink one half; and the revenues of government, arising from the share of prizes, must be totally destroyed. And for what? To gratify the whim of a whimsical sect, who would have us not only forbear making more slaves, but even manumit those we have. But who is to indemnify their masters for the loss? Will the state do it? Is oùr treasury sufficient? Will the Erika do it? Can they do it? Or would they, to do what they think justice to the slaves, do a greater injustice to the owners? And if we set our slaves free, what is to be done with them? Few of them will return to their native countries; they know too well the great hardships they must there be subject to. They will not embrace our holy religion: they will not adopt our manners; our people will not pollute themselves by intermarrying with them. Must we maintain them as beggars in our streets; or suffer ous

properties to be the prey of their pillage? For men accustomed to slavery, will not work for a livelihood, when not compelled. And what is there so pitiable in their present condition? Were they not slaves in their own countries? Are not Spain, Portugal, France, and the Italian states, governed by despots, who hold all their subjects in slavery, without exception.Even England treats her sailors as slaves, for they are, whenever the government pleases, seized, and confined in ships of war, condemned, not only to work, but to fight for small wages, or a mere subsistence, not better than our slaves are allowed by us. Is their condition then made worse by their falling into our hands? No, they have only exchanged one slavery for another; and I may say a better, for hence they are brought into a land where the sun of Islamism gives forth its light, and shines in full splendor, and they have an op portunity of making themselves acquainted with the true doctrine, and thereby saving their immortal souls. Those who remain at home, have not that happiness.Sending the slaves home, then, would be sending them out of light into darkness.

I repeat the question, what is to be done with them? I have heard it suggested, that they may be planted in the wilderness, where there is plenty of land for them to subsist on, and where they may flourish as a free state. But they are, I doubt, too little disposed to labour without compulsion, as well as too ignorant to establish good government: and the wild Arabs would soon molest and destroy, or again enslave them. While serving us, we take care to provide them with every thing; and they are treated with humanity. The labourers in their own countries, are, as I am informed, worse fed, lodged and clothed. The condition of most of them is therefore already mended, and requires no farther improvement. Here their lives are in safety. They are not liable to be impressed for soldiers, and forced to cut one another's Christian throats, as in the wars of their own countries. If some of the religi

ous mad bigots who now tease us with their silly petiti ons, have, in a fit of blind zeal, freed their slaves, it was uot generosity, it was not humanity, that moved them to the action; it was from the conscious burthen of a load of sins, and hope, from the supposed merits of so good a work, to be exempted from damnation. How grossly are they mistaken, in imagining slavery to be disavowed by the Alcoran! Are not the two precepts, to puote no more, "Masters, treat your slaves with kindness-Slaves serve your masters with cheerfulness and fidelity," clear proofs to the contrary? Nor can the plundering of infidels be in that sacred book forbidden; since it is well known from it, that God has giv en the world, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it, of right as fast as they can conquer it. Let us then hear no more of this detestable proposition, the manumission of Christian slaves, the adoption of which would, by depreciating our lands and houses, and thereby depriving so many good citi zens of their properties, create universal discontent, and provoke insurrections, to the endangering of government, and producing general confusion. I have, there fore, no doubt that this wise council will prefer the comfort and happiness of a whole nation ot true believers, to the whim of a few Erika, and dismiss their petition."

The result was, 'as Martin tells us, that the Divan came to this resolution; "That the doctrine, that the plundering and enslaving the Christians is unjust, is at best problematical; but that it is the interest of this state to continue the practice, is clear; therefore, let the petition be rejected."-And it was rejected accordingly.

And since like motives are apt to produce, in the minds of men, like opinions and resolutions, may we not venture to predict, from this account, that the petitions to the parliament of England for abolishing the slave trade, to say nothing of other legislatures, and the debates upon them, will have a similar conclusion. HISTORICUS

March 23, 1790.

OBSERVATIONS ON WAR.

Br the original law of nations, war and extirpation were the punishment of injury. Humanizing by de grees, it adinitted slavery instead of death: a farther step was the exchange of prisoners instead of slavery: another, to respect more the property of private persons under conquest, and be content with acquired dominion. Why should not this law of nations go on improving? Ages have intervened between its several steps; but as knowledge of late increases rapidly, why should not those steps be quickened? Why should it not be agreed to, as the future law of nations, that in any war hereafter the following description of men should be undisturbed, have the protection of both sides, and be permitted to follow their employmente in security?-viz.

1. Cultivators of the earth, because they labour for the subsistence of mankind.

2. Fishermen, for the same reason.

3. Merchants and traders in unarmed ships, whe accommodate different nations by communicating and exchanging the necessaries and conveniences of life. 4. Artists and mechanics, inhabiting and working open towns.

in

It is hardly necessary to add, that the hospitals of enemies should be unmolested-they ought to be assist ed. It is for the interest of humanity in general, that the occasions of war, and the inducements to it, should be diminished. If rapine be abolished, one of the en couragements to war is taken away; and peace there fore more likely to continue and be lasting.

The practice of robbing merchants on the high seas -a remnant of ancient piracy-though it may be accidentally beneficial to particular persotis, is far from being profitable to all engaged in it, or to the nation that authorises it. In the beginning of a wa, some rich ships are surprised and taken. This encourages the first adventurers to fit out more armed vessels; and many others to do the same. But the enemy at the same time become more careful; arm their merchant,