of Bolingbroke. The advice of his uncle: "the straightest road is always the best and surest," is worth pondering. It led him to the conquest of the English throne. A Parliament was elected which required Richard to abdicate, and made Henry king. It was a novelty in the age of feudalism and primogeniture; the people had a ruler of their own choice. It is not remarkable that in his reign, which was an able and wise one, the House of Commons secured the right of freedom of debate, the right to vote money, the right to legislate, and the right to appropriate funds.

Henry V. was at once the King of France and England, and bequeathed both kingdoms to his infant son. His constitution was scrotulous, and great pains were taken in his boyhood to strengthen it by field-sports, from which arose the merry fictions of his early levity. He was almost feminine in his appearance, silent and thoughtful, and expressed his ideas with clearness and brevity. During the last years of the life of his father, prematurely old with the cres of governing, he exercised much of the regal authority. A little while there had been an ill understanding between the two, but it was reconciled. The ate of the Second Edward and the Second Richard had warned him against er errors. He was always popular. Paying the last rites to his deceased father, he also rendered the same honors to the murdered Richard II. He next lighted the fires of religious persecution, one of the most conspicuous examples of his zeal being the heyday companion of his earlier manhood, Sir John Oldcastle, won Shakspeare afterward transferred into the obese Falstaff. He was hanged by a chain round his waist, and burned to ashes by fire kindled beneath. Henry also devoted himself to restraining the influence of the papal court in English politics. He next began the conquest of France. The history of that campaign is familiar to all the students of history. In this volume it reads like romance. Though his army was devastated by pestilence, from Harfleur to Agincourt it won victories. Only four thousand men survived to accompany their monarch to England. A subsequent campaign was terminated by his marriage, a love affair, to Katharine, the daughter of Charles VI. The diplomacy, the secresy, and the way in which this was consummated surpass the delineations of a novel. On the morning after the nuptials he resumed the corselet, for France had been half reconquered. This was the queen whose subsequent marriage with Owain Tudor was the foundation of a new royal family. At her instance James I., of Scotland, was delivered from captivity, and married to Johanna Beaufort, the niece of the English king.

Again, the exigencies of war summoned the chivalric Henry to France, and he left England for the last time, charging his queen not to give birth to her child in Windsor Castle. An astrologer had told him that the prince born there would lose the heritage of the House of Lancaster. Katharine disobeyed him; and the hopeless Henry VI. first saw light in that fatal place. She then joined her husband, now suffering from wasted disease. In August, 1422, he died at Vincennes, in the flower of his years. No king had been more popular, or fastened absolutism more firmly upon the people.

This work of Mr. Towle will be a favorite among students of history. It may accidently glaze over the despotic acts of the sovereigns of whom it treats; but the general effect for variety and the attractive style will be to almost every reader abundant compensation.

Letters of Life. By Mrs. L. H. Sigourney. New York: D APPLETON & Co.,

1866.

Mrs. Sigourney is a familiar name in American households, and her productions have but recently ceased to fill the "Poet's Corner" in newspapers. It must, however, be acknowledged, from a hasty examination of these "Letters of Life," that her gift as a correspondent fully equalled her poetic inspiration. In this volume we have almost her biography, sketched out by herself, and about it nothing ary or tedious. She possessed great power of writing extemporaneously upon passing subjects at call; and as is usual when a woman steps somewhat from the accustomed circle, she was often beset for an immense number of literary contributions, such as poems for albums, letters giving information of the best boarding schools, marriage odes, reading manuscripts to see whether they should be published, obtaining teachers, writing epitaphs and puffs for an author to make his reputation by, preparing a list of female poets, punctuating manuscript, drafting a constitution for a literary society, acting as umpire to a baby show, correcting poetry, versifying a love story, etc. "If there is any kitchen in Parnassus," she declares," my muse has surely officiated there as a woman of all work, and an aproned waiter." Her literary course had its origin in impulse, but finally became a form of subsistence. Yet she received little pecuniary advantage from it in New England. Her benefactors were principally from New York and Pennsylvania. Letters of appreciation, however, came from others, as from the King of Prussia, the Empress of Russia, and the late Queen of France.

We have glanced over the collection with interest. Each chapter is beautiful and attractive from the first-" Home and its Inhabitants"-till the last, "Good Bye." Her description of her Garden equals that of Gail Hamilton, besides Laving a better moral. In short, she verified her own testimony:

"I never wrote for fame

The pay.nent seemed not to be with the toil;
But wheresoever the kind affections sought
To mix themselves by music with the mind,
That was my inspiration and delight."

NOTE TO ARTICLE "HOW TO RESUME SPECIE PAYMENTS.”

Since this article was sent to the press, my attention has been directed to a small volume entitled "A Critical Examination of Our Financial Policy,' by Simon Newcomb, in which some of the questions that I have adverted to are very clearly and forcibly presented.

Professor John E. Cairnes in a paper read before the Dublin Statististical Society, "On the Best Means of Raising the Supplies for a War Expenditure," has also treate l that subject with his usual ability. R. G. HAZARD.

THE

MERCHANTS' MAGAZINE

AND

COMMERCIAL REVIEW. .

MAY, 18 6 6.

END OF THE INSURRECTION-SOME OF ITS TENDENCIES.

THE official announcement that the process of national pacification is now completed, the condition of insurrection ended, and the late insurgent section restored to the exercise of its normal state functions, is cause for congratulation. An insurrection, and especially an unsuccessful one, is always fraught with danger to the liberties of the people; nor is the case otherwise when the outbreak happens under the government of a Republic. Extraordinary emergencies call forth large assumptions of authority; extra constitutional powers are necessarily exercised; civil law is superseded by military authority; the rights of the citizen are summarily dealt with, and every interest is held subordinate to the creation of an overwhelming military power. In short, whenever a country engages in a war, and especially in civil war, it necessarily, to a large extent, surrenders itself to a condition in which law and liberty are subordinated to force.

Thus it has been in our own case. The Administration and Congress have been driven to the adoption of measures inconsistent in toto with the spirit of republican institutions, and justifiable upon no other ground than that they were designed to save from destruction a grand embodiment of those institutions. Many of the jealous conservators of liberty have been alarmed at the sweeping assumption of power and in their zeal for freedom have at times appeared to be opposed to some of the measures of the Administration. If, however, they have shown less earnestness than we desired in behalf of what were deemed necessary acts, we should not forget that they have at least done good service in checking the liability to tamper with the public liberties, and have demonstrated to the world that amid the demoralizing influences of an internecine struggle we can trust to a portion of the people to keep vigilant watch upon the bulwarks of constitutional freedom.

The President's proclamation, announcing the end of the insurrection, consummates the refutation of the predictions of foreign critics who, regarding the war as putting" democracy on its trial," exultingly foretold an ignominous failure of our form of Government to sustain itself against internal outbreaks. The Union which, according to these judges, was irreparably shattered, is still "one and inseparable." That very element of vox populi which it was confidently affirmed would prove the source of weakness and failure, has turned out to be the rock of our strength. The proclamation proves not only that no patriotism is truer than that of a free people, no military power stronger than that of citizen soldiers, no exchequer richer than that of a people voluntarily defending their own interests, but also that a conquered faction within a republic can loyally submit when subdued, and the Government knows how to receive that submission. If the outbreak of hostilities demonstrated that popular governments, in common with more absolute forms of rule, are liable to civil disruptions, yet results have proved that under a republic such outbreaks can be vigorously repressed and the disaffection rapidly healed.

The work of restoration having been completed, the next great business of the country is to eradicate any arbitrary tendencies in legislation which may have grown out of war measures. History abundantly sus tains the assertain that the most oppressive of laws have been adopted either during a state of war or immediately subsequent. Nor can our legislation, since 1861, be quoted as an exception to this rule. Military necessity has produced a partial disregard for individual liberty; to meet promptly a pressing emergency we have copied the measures of European governments; the expedients have been found to work well, and what has proved successful during a period of national peril we are now too apt to regard as good in itself and worthy of conservation. We should remember, however, that the temper and measures suited to a time of war are most dangerous and inimical in times of peace. Probably the country will suffer for years to come from measures enacted, during the last four years, not always necessary for war purposes, but which have received an infection of arbitrariness from legislation of a more specifically warlike purpose. Congress having been of necessity driven to hold individual rights in abeyance for temporary military objects, has too readily acquired a habit of treating the freedom of the citizen lightly in other matters; and this vicious tendency appears to us to taint some of the recent and current legislation.

Nothing could be more unwise than this. Is it reasonable that, after the people have so triumphantly vindicated their ability to take care of themselves under the severest and most critical of national emergencies, that Congress should enact a series of laws taking from them individual and local control, placing them under government tutelage and binding their action by uniform central regulations? In a country with such an infinite diversity of interests, few of which are fully developed and all of which are constantly changing in their requirements and modes of operation, is it to be supposed that federal laws, attempting to minutely regulate them, can operate otherwise than as an embargo upon their business? Legislators mistake their mission when they undertake to define in a set of laws the whole duty of man. The constitution of the United States approximates more closely to the laisser faire principle of

government than to any other model; but the tendency of the times is to enact laws based upon the doctrine that the government should inter vene for the regulation of the whole action of the citizen. It is high time this dangerous policy were checked. We say dangerous, for public harmony and the paramount interests of commerce are alike threatened by this tendency. The laws which may be harmless to one section may seriously embarrass the commerce of others, and if persistently kept on the statute book, how could they result otherwise than in grave sectional animosities? Until the war, the federal authority was confined within such narrow and harmless limits that, although really protected by an invincible government, we were scarcely conscious of its control. If the policy necessary during the war is to be perpetuated, we must henceforth be trammelled by federal regulations in every action, and hindered at every step by a government official.

Upon these considerations, we sincerely belive that our representatives will perceive that, the insurrection being declared ended, the time has come when Congress should assume no control which cannot be better exercised by it than by the States, the local organizations or the individual. We have cited no particular legislation as objectionable; for when we hear on every side that the central 'government should enact general insurance laws; inaugurate educational bureaus; perpetuate government interference with currency; increase the patronage of the President and the departments; and in our zeal to serve the freedman, endanger the rights of all our citizens; special instances appear to us unnecessary. Slavery, thanks to a kind Providence, is at an end in this country; we trust that the contest which has resulted in so great good, will not be the instrument for depriving us of our inherited freedom.

THE BALANCE OF TRADE AND PROTECTION.

BY RICHARD SULLEY.

In the February number of the Magazine there is an article headed the "Balance of Trade," by Charles H. Carroll; the conclusions of which are, in the main, no doubt correct, but there is one point which seems not to be in general accordance with the facts. We must, however, before noticing that part of the subject, address ourselves to the main question at issue. If the advocates of the balance of trade, and the other kindred part of the subject (protection), had not systematically closed their eyes to truth, there would have been no occasion at the present day to attempt the refutation of so absurd a theory.

A very little reflection would have served to convince them, if they could not have learned it from any other source, that no man pursues a trade or calling, for any period of time, that is unprofitable to him; for if he was ever so careless or disinterested in the matter, it is quite impossible that he should do so, as nature has made it imperative that he should eat, and have wherewithal to be clothed. And what is true of an indi vidual, must be true of the mass. A nation cannot go on continually, year after year, exporting more in value than it imports, any more than an individual can continue to work at a calling without profit.

Two or three hundred years ago it was the practice to endeavor to pre