terror of the civilized world, had, from its commencement, been viewed
in America with the deepest interest. In its first stage, but one
sentiment respecting it prevailed; and that was a belief, accompanied
with an ardent wish, that it would improve the condition of France,
extend the blessings of liberty, and promote the happiness of the
human race. When the labours of the convention had terminated in a
written constitution, this unanimity of opinion was in some degree
impaired. By a few who had thought deeply on the science of
government, and who, if not more intelligent, certainly judged more
dispassionately than their fellow citizens, that instrument was
believed to contain the principles of self destruction. It was feared
that a system so ill balanced could not be permanent. A deep
impression was made on the same persons by the influence of the
galleries over the legislature, and of mobs over the executive; by the
tumultuous assemblages of the people, and their licentious excesses
during the short and sickly existence of the regal authority. These
did not appear to be the symptoms of a healthy constitution, or of
genuine freedom. Persuaded that the present state of things could not
last, they doubted, and they feared for the future.

In total opposition to this sentiment was that of the public. There
seems to be something infectious in the example of a powerful and
enlightened nation verging towards democracy, which imposes on the
human mind, and leads human reason in fetters. Novelties, introduced
by such a nation, are stripped of the objections which had been
preconceived against them; and long settled opinions yield to the
overwhelming weight of such dazzling authority. It wears the semblance
of being the sense of mankind, breaking loose from the shackles which
had been imposed by artifice, and asserting the freedom, and the
dignity, of his nature.

The constitution of France, therefore, was generally received with
unqualified plaudits. The establishment of a legislature consisting of
a single body, was defended not only as being adapted to the
particular situation of that country, but as being right in itself.
Certain anonymous writers, who supported the theory of a balanced
government, were branded as the advocates of royalty, and of
aristocracy. To question the duration of the present order of things
was thought to evidence an attachment to unlimited monarchy, or a
blind prejudice in favour of British ins