LETTER I. SIR,

YOU have lately written, pronounced and publiſhed an oration, which you denominate "Connecticut Republicaniſm." How well it deſerves this title, will be clearly ſeen in the following pages.

Perhaps you may feel flattered, (if Mr. Biſhop be ſuſceptible of flattery) that this oration has been the ſubject of ſo much notoriety; but you will pleaſe to recollect that great and good productions frequently excite leſs attention than thoſe which are miſchievous and monſtrous. This is true in the natural, as well as the moral and political world. A rattle-ſnake, or an African tyger would doubtleſs be an object of as much curioſity, in the city of New-Haven, as the moſt beautiful bird, or an elegant Arabian horſe; and an ourang-outang would draw together more ſpectators, than the moſt finiſhed of our race.

Nor ought you to take much pride from the conſideration that you have already felt one "rod for the fool's back," from a diſtinguiſhed citizen of New-Haven, and that others will probably ſucceed to open the wounds afreſh. Remember, Sir, that the learned Biſhop Watſon addreſſed ſeveral letters to your fellow-labourer, Thomas Paine; and if thoſe who attack you may not equal that pious divine, yet they do not fall farther below him, than you do, in talents, below that ſtrolling preacher of Jacobiniſm—that blaſphemer againſt religion and its divine author.

If a Bedlamite looſed from his fetters ſhould attempt to fire our buildings by night, he need take no conſolation to himſelf that wiſe and great men were engaged to ſtop his career of madneſs, and to chain him to a ſpot where his capacity of doing miſchief, might be ended.

With theſe views I beg you to feel as little elevation of ſpirit at the notice taken of you as the caſe will warrant; and I apprehend you will find no more juſt cauſe of boaſting, than your brother Holt has for being publicly noticed, tried, fined and impriſoned for libelling the government of his country.

One great object of your Oration appears to be to effectuate a thorough change of men and meaſures in our general and particular governments; and to produce a total reformation among the people of this peaceful and happy ſtate, in managing their important political concerns. I am then to conſider you, Abraham Biſhop, Eſq as ſetting yourſelf up as a reformer—a reformer of the manners of Connecticut.—I am indeed ſmitten with the thought: but A. Biſhop, Eſq has indeed aſſumed this great and arduous duty. He has indeed kindly offered himſelf as the guide of the deluded citizens of Connecticut: And this is offered gratis too; no fee is demanded. You inſtruct, adviſe, counſel, and exhort gratis.—Never before, I believe, was you found laboring for the good of your neighbours, without reward or expectation of reward: whether you are now ſo found, I will hereafter enquire.

But, Mr. Republican, I wiſh to know what premtenſions you have to commence a reformer? You do not prefeſs to be the agent of others—you appear in your proper perſon, and hold up Abraham Biſhop, Eſq of New-Haven, as a REFORMER. This being the caſe I am conſtrained to tell you that ſeveral qualities will be certainly uſeful, which you certainly do not poſſeſs, unleſs you have received them ſince I laſt ſaw you.

Firſt. A reformer ſhould poſſeſs good talenis. Men will not be induced to relinquiſh all their ancient habits and remove their confidence from all thoſe in power, except from preſſing neceſſity, or unleſs, ſwayed and diverted by ſuperior ſkill. Now, ſir, no perſon ever deemed you a man of ſolid, uſeful good ſenſe. You, ſometimes amuſe with flaſhes of wit and brilliancy; but they are tranſient, and anſwer the purpoſe of a "dim taper in a diſmal cavern, viz. to increaſe the horrors of the darkneſs." Such a man never will be ſought as a guide.—Sober people will never leave old and tried counſellors and adhere to ſuch viſionaries. As well might you expect that the traveller would reject the plain and beaten road, enlightened by the ſun, and enter a diſmal ſwamp to follow a Jack-with-a-lantern.

Secondly. Stability and uniformity are eſſential characteriſtics of a wiſe man—a man to be confided in as a reformer. Your inſtability and deſtitution of uniformity, except in one or two particulars which I will directly mention, have, long ſince, been proverbial. About twenty years ſince you began to exhibt yourſelf on the theatre of life as a writer in a public office. From that period to this, you have aſſumed and attempted to perform all the characters of a lawyer—a traveller—a pedagogue—a lecturer on morality—an inſtructor in oratory—a church PrieſtThis was only an attempt for you could not get orders. —a clerk of courts—a county furveyor—a ſpeculator in various kinds of land—a gardner, and now a preacher of ſedition. Nor have your political opinions been more fixed. About ten years ſince you wrote, publiſhed, and preached wherever you could get hearers, againſt the new conſtitution. For this Wm. Hillhouſe, jun. Eſq adminiſtered to you a public chaſtiſement, which, I fancy, you yet feel. For ſeveral ſucceeding years, you was conſtantly whining and murmuring againſt government in all its departments. In 1798, being in queſt of an office, you explicitly and publicly changed your ſentiments; and thus became clerk of the Superior Court.

The exceptions to this part of your character are, that for ten or twelve years paſt, you have been unceaſingly employed in pouring all manner of abuſe on the Clergy and on the leading doctrines of Chriſtianity. For this purpoſe, about ten years ſince, you appeared ſeveral times on public ſtages, exhibiting the mountebank tricks of a juggler, and propagating ſentiments tending to deſtroy the confidence of the people in the miniſters of the goſpel.

You have alſo been uniform in your abuſe of all men in power—all lawyers—all merchants, and all the clergy, with the exception of one, to whom you have too often given the fraternal embrace for his own honor, and for the peace and harmony of his ſociety.

What inſtance can be produced of your applauſe of an individual? Of whom have you ſpoken, at any time, except to tarniſh his fame with your calumniating and peſtilential breath? What neighbour—what fellow-citizen have you not attempted to ridicule and blackguard? And it is a remmarkable fact that in an oration of 64 pages, with a preface, notes and an appendix, you ſhould have charged the groſſeſt crimes on our merchants—our men of property—our lawyers—our officers from the higheſt to the loweſt—our Clergy with all who adhere to them; and that in this vaſt collection of ſlanderous things, not one word of applauſe—nay not one word of excuſe or palliation for their conduct or motives, ſhould have eſcaped your lips, except that you have ſelected about ten democrats with Mr. Jefferſon at their head, and paid them a ſmall compliment in a note.

Thirdly. To be a ſucceſsful reformer you ought to poſſeſs the confidence of the people. To this you have no claim. Never have you holden any office by the ſuffrages of your fellow citizens—never did you receive any appointment except in conſequence of the character and ſtation of your father, as I will demonſtrate in another place.

Thus ſituated, Mr. Biſhop, how could you expect to make one proſelyte by your Oration? With this weight on your character, and without any weight of character, you might rationally have anticipated that chagrin which now unfits you for buſineſs; but could hope for no other elevation than to make you "a fixed figure for the hand of ſcorn to point his ſlow and moving finger at."

The manner, Sir, in which this Oration was uſhered upon the public, demands conſideration. A ſociety of Yale-College, inſtituted for the promotion of friendſhip and ſcience, elected you their anniverſary orator. They were entirely ignorant that when you was Preſident of that ſociety, a committee was appointed to ſolicit you to reſign the office, on account of your profanity; and that you yielded to the ſolicitation, rather than hazard an expulſion. They were alſo without a ſuſpicion, that you were ſo faithleſs as to pronounce an Oration at their requeſt, directly attacking all the venerable inſtitutions of Connecticut, and in pointed oppoſition to principles which they deemed ſacred. Much leſs could they have conjectured that you could have cauſed it to be printed without their ſanction. Perceiving that your effrontery had over-leaped all the bounds of decency, they met and voted to diſpenſe with the Oration. Still you perſiſted in declaiming: and thus you palmed on the world this heterogeneous production.

Reflect alſo, Sir, that for ſeveral years paſt the ſtudents of Yale-College have occupied the evening preceding the commencement, by public ſpeaking in the brick meeting-houſe.—That on this occaſion the members and officers of that univerſity —the literary gentlemen—the friends and connections of the ſcholars with a brilliant and reſpectable audience, aſſemble. All this you knew. How extremely uncivil—how ungentlemanly was it then for you to attempt to interrupt thoſe ſtated and beneficial exerciſes by your rant and nonſenſe? Suppoſe, Sir, when an audience is aſſembled to celebrate the 4th of July—to lament the death of Gen. Waſhington, or to commemorate any other great event, a quack in medicine, ſhould erect a ſtage contiguous to ſuch a congregation, and there deal out his noſtrums and preſcriptions, with the vain glory, common to Empirics—what would decent and ſober men ſay of ſuch a Quack? How would they ſpurn at his ribaldry? How would they deſpiſe ſuch a low, ill-bred, indecorous mountebank? And yet where lies the difference between a Quack in medicine and a Quack in politics—between a juggling pretender to cure all diſeaſes of the human body, and a juggling projector of cures for the body politic.

I proceed now to the Oration.—It is extremely obvious that all your aſſertions and comments on facts, with your various rhapſodical prophecies, ejaculations and lamentations, are idle and ſenſeleſs, unleſs that political deluſion exiſts on which you have profeſſedly built. Now, Sir, what proof have you offered of this deluſion? The good people of the United States, and particularly of Connecticut, are earneſty ſolicited to believe (and threatened with heavy curſes in caſe of their unbelief) that all thoſe who acquieſce in the adminiſtration of our government are poor, miſguided, deluded wretches, rapidly approaching to a ſtate of idiocy or diſtraction: and the teſtimony adduced in ſupport of the idea is, that A. Biſhop, Eſq a reſtleſs, chagrined and ambitious declaimer, aſſures them that this is their condition. The people, Sir, will requite more evidence. The force of tropes and figures—of rant and railing, will be inſufficient to unſettle the public mind, and to deſtroy that ſtate of things which reſts on experience, reflection and conviction. As well might you expect to compel a Chriſtian to exchange his ideas of the pure joys of heaven for the groſs impurities of a Mahometan paradiſe, as that an open oppoſer of principles ſupported by the ſanction of ages, ſhould produce aſſent to his wild reveries in politics—his motley and mongrel ſyſtems of government. Inſtead, Sir, of writing, ſpeakhig and diſperſing this oration, you might have arrayed yourſelf in the Harlequin dreſs of an ancient truſader in religion, or a modern Quixotte in chivalry, and at midnight, have gone through the ſtreets of New-Haven, with lighted matches in your hands, attempting to ſet on fire the houſes of the citizens leſt they ſhould fall and bury in ruins the families which inhabit them.—Methinks, I ſee you thus equipped, enter the dwelling of your neighbour, and I hear you thus addreſs the family, "I am come as your friend, to ſet on fire this building.—I know that it appears ſtrong, neat and elegant, but I have diſcovered, by my own genius and the aid of other incendiaries, that this appearance is all deluſion, and that it will ſoon fall and cruſh every individual to death.—Know ye not, ye children and domeſtics, that one Alexander Hamilton, a chief architect in erecting this houſe, deſigned it for a priſon.—Know ye not that he with all your great, wiſe and rich neighbours, have been conſtantly contriving ſchemes, ſince the foundation ſtone was firſt laid in 1777,The time of the adoption of the New Conſtitution. to deſtroy your liver and liberties—to overthrow the houſe, or elſe to chain you to the timbers in the garret?—I am come therefore to burn this building and free you from theſe mighty evils.—Think not that the houſe will be plundered while it is on fire—no—Your liberty is all that is aimed at."—The father replies, "Why, Mr. Biſhop, this ſtrange attack on my peace and happineſs? Does not this houſe ſhelter me from inclement ſeaſons and render me and my family comfortable? Am I not contented—nay delighted with my ſituation?—My children are all cheerful, virtuous and happy. My ſons and daughters are receiving their educations; they obey, with peaſure, the orders of us their parents; we indulge them in dreſs ſuited to their rank; and they reſort to places of innocent amuſement. On very ſabbath they follow u to church, and we verily believe that we are becoming wiſer and better. No complaint hath yet been heard within theſe walls, we are reſtrained of no rational liberty and we fear no miſchief. Pray, Mr. Biſhop leave us to ourſelves,—if we are indeed deluded, we are happy in the deluſion."—You, with an inflamed countenance, go on, "Children and ſervants, "theſe are delution's handy works."—I am bound by the love and fraternity I bear you, to declare that this your father and maſter, who has juſt now ſpoken, is one of this combination to deſtroy you. Know ye not that when he purchaſed this place he became indebted to the amount of nearly a one hundredth part of its value—that it is now "ſurveyed and mortgaged" for this money andSee Preface. that for part, he is paying 6 per cent. for part 3 per cent. and that though the reſt is deferred, yet it muſt be paid, and do you not ſee in this debt the foundation of ſlavery?—Nay, my dear creatures, already has your father begun to plan this houſe for a priſon—already is he looking out for a King-poſt for the pretended ſecurity of the timbers, but in reality, to convert it into a cruel baſtile. What young ſapling in the "arms" of yonder nodding, waving foreſt, is to he this King poſt, no democrat can tell; but rely on it, that ſoon it will be fixed, and then you will be chained here to all eternity, or this houſe, timbers, ſtone, bricks and planks, will fall with a tremendous craſh, on your dear—dear heads—And then—Oh! and then! "ThunderingSee page 18. noiſes muſt drown the cries of your brethren and children in the agonies of death.—No father to watch the ſymptoms of decaying life! No mother to drop a tear over a dying ſon! No ſifter to ſtretch out the hand of faithful affection and to ſoften the pillow in the moment of diſſolving nature!" And now, my dear creatures, after ſuch amazing pathos, let me touch my match to a bunch of ſwingling me and burn up your houſe, and you will be freed from theſe dreadful calamities."

LETTER II.

BUT, Sir, I will not deal with you ſimply in general obſervations. I will ſurvey your beloved, though miſs-ſhapen and ill-begotten child, in all its features and point outYou will obſerve I treat it as maſculine, not from its ſtrength but becauſe I would not inſult the ladies by calling it feminine. his predominant characteriſtics.

In your preface you aſſert, in paragraph 4th, that it is well known that, in 1787, a number of our leading men were holding meetings to eſtabliſh a confederated monarchy.—That the ſpeech of Gen. Hamilton in the convention, favoured the ſame object.—That our leading men avow that this country can never be governed without an hereditary monarch.—That appropriate plans, of monarchy are adopted by adminiſtration. That our federal papers are filled with reflections on liberty and republicaniſm, and that Fenno is the mouth piece of federaliſm.—Now, ſir, theſe are naked aſſections. I, in reply, ſay that each of them is falſe. It belongs to you to prove them; and if truth had been your aim you would have furniſhed that proof, or have omitted them. One of your aſſertions, viz. that, reſpecting federal papers, I agree, is to ſtand or fall, by recurring to thoſe papers. And here, ſir, I challenge you to produce a newſpaper publiſhed in New-England or to the ſouthward of New-England, excepting Fenno's and Porcupine's, (which you know have not been for years either read or patronized by federaliſts generally) which contains a reflection on liberty or republicaniſm, or a ſyllable in favour of monarchy. I aſſert that no ſuch paper can be found.

In the 2d, page of this preface, after having ſaid that a monarchy is decidedly before us, and having mentioned the reaſons for the aſſertion, you have the following obſervation, "The men now in place, have been the contrivers or advocates of theſe meaſures." This is a plain declaration that all men now holding offices in the national or ſtate governments, are either the contrivers or advocates of monarchy. You know; you knew, when you penned that ſentence, that it was not only falſe, but an infamous falſhood. Theſe men have all ſworn ſo ſupport a republican government—you then charge them with perjury—with treaſon! with contriving to deſtroy that conſtitution under which they live and to which they have bound themſelves by an appeal to heaven. Think, ſir, what it is for A. Biſhop, to charge all the men in office in the United States, with theſe flagitious crimes!

In the 6th paragraph of this preface you tell us of the wonder with which our ſouthern brethren view the ariſtocracy of Connecticut and aſcribe this ariſtocracy to what you term "federal policy" and refer us to your appendixSee 7th page of appendix. for the proof.

On this paragraph I remark, firſt that your propoſition reſpectiong your ſouthern brethren is not quite accurately ſteted. It ſhould read thus, "Our fellow labourers in the great buſineſs of deſtroying order and religion, behold with fear and anger that happy ſtate of ſociety which prevails in Connecticut, and which has erected ſuch impregnable bulwarks againſt our attacks on all the venerable inſtitutions in the United States." Such a reading is much more conſonant to the real ſtate of things; and is conformable to they ideas of all ſober people.

I remark ſecondly, How could your evil genius lead you to aſcribe the uniformity and ſtability of our elections to "federal policy?" Know you not, that the practice of placing counſellors on the nomination liſt, according to ſeniority and without regard to the number of votes, provided they are of the firſt twenty, has been uniformly adhered to, ever ſince the firſt ſettlement of the ſtate? And do you not alſo know that this rule is never applied to the nomination for Congreſs? Why then term it "federal policy?" Why but to miſlead, confuſe and enſnare; which appears to be the great buſineſs of your life?

In the 8th paragraph of this preface you ſay, "For eleven years freedom of the preſs and of opinion have been reſtrained?" What do you mean? Within this period you and others have been permitted to ſpeak, write, and publiſh all the abuſive things which malignant hearts could invent, or noiſy tongues utter, on every ſubject which you and they choſe to diſcuſs; and hitherto there hath been but one proſecution in this ſtate, though I confeſs there ought to have been many. Nay is not the promulgation of your Oration, irreſiſtible proof that, not only liberty, but alarming licentiouſueſs of ſpeech and of the preſs, exiſts? What farther indulgence does a good man wiſh than to ſpeak the truth—what greater do you wiſh than to charge every great and good man with the moſt baſe and deteſtible crimes? If you would have more ſlander abound, you muſt have a ſecond apoſtacy, at leaſt as great as the firſt, and a new dictionary of abuſive words.

In your redoubtable attack on our commercial ſyſtem, you appear to have two objects in view, viz. firſt to deſtroy the reputation of merchants; and ſecondly to beggar them and all thoſe immediately connected with them.

To effect the firſt object you ſay pages 3d, and 9th, that commerce cannot ſupport itſelf—that it is not worth what it coſts—that our merchants know this, but that they are lending their aid to the propagation and belief of a forged ſtory, becauſe it is beneficial to them; and that this their aid is afforded upon the ſame principle that a gang of counterfeiters give currency to a "well counterfeited bill 'till by accident the deceit is diſcovered, by which time the counterfeiter has gained all his ends."—You had before charged "men in place" with perjury and treaſon: Here you charge merchants, "every well informed merchant," with giving that ſpecies of aid to a falſe and forged ſtory, "becauſe it is beneficial to him," which forgers and counterfeiters give to a falſe and forged bank note. And is it indeed true that gentlemen who have ſuſtained irreproachable characters through life—gentlemen, who have never before been ſuſpected of want of integrity—gentlemen who retain an elevated rank in ſociety for their fairneſs, punctuality, and honor, ſhould be arraigned, in a body, before the tribunal of the public, and there charged with ſuch infamous conduct? Merchants are indeed attached to the government of their country; but are they, on this account, to ſuller ſuch calumny?

Another object with you is to beggar theſe merchants and all thoſe dependent on commerce. And why? Becauſe you think commerce uſeleſs and deſtructive. On this part of the ſubject you have been ſufficiently anſwered by the Pamphlet to which I have already alluded.—I will add that it has been an object with theſe ſtates, for more than a century, to encourage and protect commerce. Great, wiſe, and good men, of all parties, with few exceptions, have concurred in opinion on this ſubject, and it is rather too late, for a fool or a mad-man to perſuade the United States to abandon this ſource of greatneſs, wealth, and reſpectability. But your ſyſtem of oppoſition to commerce is built on the propoſition that foreign nations will come to our ports, bring us their produce and take ours, on equally good terms with thoſe now afforded by our merchants. And are you indeed ſo ſtupid as not to ſee that thoſe nations either in their purchaſes of us, or ſales to us, will make us pay for protecting this trade? And may we not pay our own farmers, mechanics, ſeament and merchants as well as thoſe of other nations? Mr. Biſhop pray attend to thoſe things with which you are converſant.—The people of New-Haven will certainly prefer the opinion of ſuch men as Iſaac Beers and Elias Shipman on this ſubject to yours, although they may allow you, as County Surveyor, to meaſure their Wad with your "four rod chain."

Again, you ſay, in pages 6th, and 7th, extenſive commerce makes a great buſtle of wealth—ſome large fortunes—many bankruptcies—and you add with a view to inflame the public mind, that farmers looſe their debts by theſe bankruptcies—that mortgages abound more on our records—and that the people, "including public and private indebtedneſs," are more deeply involved, than at any ſeaſon before.

Reſpecting "public indebtedneſs" to the United States, if Mr. Secretary Wolcott is to be credited before Albert Gallatin and his puffer A. Biſhop, Eſq and I fancy that thoſe who know the characters will judge accurately, the debt is reduced, in eleven years, almoſt four millions of dollars: and this too, notwithſtanding, millions have been expended in ſuppreſſing an inſurrection which Mr. Gallatin contributed to produce, and in protecting our commerce from the ravages of that nation, whoſe praiſes, you and he, are inceſſantly chaunting.

It may be further remarked that Connecticut was then indebted to an amount of nearly two millions of dollars, from which ſhe is now diſcharged, excepting about twelve thouſand dollars; and has, in her treaſury, almoſt two millions: and this mighty change has been effected by certain "operations of federal policy," ſuch as the funding ſyſtem, the aſſumption of ſtate debts, &c. &c.—Thus far of your "public indebtedneſs."

Reſpecting "private indebtedneſs" you have made ſeveral ſhameleſs aſſertions.—Do our farmers ſuffer by the bankruptcies of merchants? You know that the farmers, either give ſhort credit or receive the caſh.—They will juſtify me in ſaying, that at no former period could they obtain ſuck advantageous ſales of their produce, and receive ſuch ſatiſfactory payments.

But you ſay "mortgages abound."—If, I here admit that you ſpeak the truth, what follows? If in conſequence of the immenſe ſpeculations, a degree of diſtruſt is created and mete are therefore more cautious in taking ſecurity, is it certain that there is more indebtedneſs? Or if more indebtedneſs, are the people impoveriſhing? Do you think New-York, Hartford and New-Haven are more oppulent now than at the beginning of this century? You muſt ſay, yes—but mortgages more abound, and there is far more indebtedneſs.—Induſtry, enterpriſe and exertion will produce great commercial operations—indebtedneſs, to a certain extent, will be the conſequence, but this is no argument of poverty, or a decline in wealth.—Aſk the lawyers and judges of courts and look at your own records and ſay, if you can do it without a bluſh, what is the difference in the number of ſuits now inſtituted for debt in one year, and in the years 1786 and 1787.—You know that the compariſon will ſhow that you "have erred and loved to err."—Then, the people could not pay—officers could not collect—conſequently ſuits were multiplied to an alarming degree. In 1786 more ſuits were inſtituted for debt in the counties of Hartford and New-Haven, and I preſume in the other counties, than in the three laſt years.

Again. Our farmers are now full of money—their produce every where commands caſh. The face of the country—public and private buildings—the dreſs of the citizens—roads and bridges and every other object preſents marks of growing wealth and proſperity.

But here I muſt meet your logical reaſoning. You ſeem to admit in page 6th that there is this thrift—theſe evidences of wealth; but then you ſay "Individuals appear to the world moſt thrifty when they are moſt thriftily expending their mortgaged eſtates." What does this reaſoning prove? The inference is clear, if a country exhibits every poſſible proof of riches, depend on it that country is rapidly declining. If the eye of the benevolent traveller meets, in every village, ſpacious fields well fenced, good houſes—elegant public buildings, handſome carriages and well dreſſed inhabitants, he heaves a deep ſigh, drops a tear and exclaims, "Oh what marks of poverty and wretchedneſs! Poor deluded people—rapidly going to deſtruction! OH DELUSION!—DELUSION OH"!! This ſame traveller, in another country, beholds a race of people houſeleſs, or in log-huts—pennyleſs and in rags, ſhivering with the cold and preſenting meagre faces, and ſings "Oh my country—MY country. —This is indeed Boon—Boon—Oh the See page 6th and 4th line from the top. length and depth of Mr. Biſhop's oration"!!

This is your logic, Sir, and I only wiſh to enquire whether you learned it in your travels through France?

I omit here to notice the groſs charges which you bring againſt all bank directors in the note to your 5th page, becauſe to deſignate particularly the objects of your abuſe, would be to ſpeak of every man and character which you notice, democrats, jacobins and infidels excepted.

In your remarks on the commercial ſyſtem, you have with an air of malicious triumph mentioned the tribute which the United States pay to the Dey of Algiers. Did you not know, Sir, that this is the only method by which any nation can procure peace with thoſe lawleſs pirates?—Did you not know that your brother democrats conſtantly poured contempt on the government, 'till this tribute was paid: and that appeals, through every Jacobin paper, were made to the compaſſion of our citizens, in favor of fathers, huſbands and ſons, ſuffering cruel bondage in that country? Do you, Sir, now inſult your nation for reſcuing from chains of enduring ſervitude, Americans in Algiers?

You alſo clamour greatly, becauſe our houſes and lands are mortgaged to pay our debts. Were not our houſes and lands always thus mortgaged? Is not every man's property ſacredly pledged, by laws paramount to thoſe which govern mortgages, for the payment of what he owes? And will any but rogues ever complain that their property is thus pledged?

Your attack on the naval and military ſyſtems, contains nothing but what has been repeatedly ſaild (and much better ſaid too) by your brothers Calender, Holt, Duane, and Sam. Morſe. I cannot ſay how your attempt at the pathos, in the 18th, page, ſucceeded; but I preſume one little vegetable,An Onion. would have produced more tears with fair leſs noiſe.

Your tragi-commic ſcene of the "Kings being ſhot at" in pages 24 and 25, ſounds well, and contains a good ſhare of humour and ſatire:—but it really appeared better in the London paper from which you borrowed it. And here I would juſt hint whether you have been quite civil in uſing the language of others ſo repeatedly, without giving credit?

In the 21ſt page you commence an attack on the gentlemen of the law, and purſue it, for a conſidetable time, with great anger. In this excurſion of abuſe, there is ſome palliation for your conduct. You doubtleſs recollect having read law—having taken the oath and having attempted to obtain a ſubſiſtane by the practice of it. You alſo recollect that you did not ſuccceed.—That induſtry, perſeverance and talents were quite convenient accompaniments to a lawyer, you diſcovered; and relinquiſhed the profeſſion without having a ſight at the "Page 21 at bottom. keys of St. Peter." In this ſituation it is no matter of ſurpriſe that you feel a little chagrin, and much envy. You have ſeen thoſe of your age, and thoſe much younger, riſe to eminence in the profeſſion and have

Eyed them aſkance with jealous 〈◊〉 Malign: and to yourſelf 〈…〉 Sight hateful! ſight tormenting!"Milton's Paradiſe Loſt.

You poſitively aſſert page 22d, that "lawyers are found aſcending and deſcending the ladder of promotion like the angels of God in Jacob's viſion." Now, I preſume, no one will diſpute the fact with you, for your ſituntion has been admirably good to aſcertain the truth, having always ſtood exactly at the bottom of the ladder, looking earneſtly up, and never being able to mount a ſingle round.

You then call lawyers "excellent ſtuff for tranſportation to foreign courts." Here, Sir, I doubt your capacity of knowing, for you will not be deemed a competent judge of what lawyers will ſuit in foreign countries from an experiment made on the ſample, which the ſhip carried, which tranſported A. Biſhop, Eſq

In page 25th you attempt to point out the agents in this deluſion, by which the people are duped. On this part of the ſubject, Sir, you have ſhewed a ſpirit of ſlander and wickedneſs, which is without a parallel in any publication which has fallen under my eye. You have alledged that all our officers—all our lawyers—all our merchants and the whole body of the clergy, are combined to deceive, enſlave and deſtroy their fellow-citizens. Your have written thus, "A queſtion is often propoſed how is it poſſible that our greateſt and moſt pious men ſhould betray us?" And you have anſwered it thus "I anſwer becauſe you have every thing to looſe and they have every thing to gain."—You have told mankind that "greatneſs, wiſdom and riches" are the means of propagating this deluſion. You have explicitly accuſed our clergyPage 4 line 10th, from top. with thanking God for war—a war produced to gratify the pride, avarice, and ambition of theſe great men. You have ſaid that "great political arrangements are like ſo many armaments againſt religion" and yet you charge the clergy with aiding in theſe arrangements. And, not to pain the refined and delicate ear with more particulars of your blackguardiſm, you have uſed every artifice to convince your hearers and readers that they ſhould withdraw all confidence from the clergy—from men of wealth, wiſdom and greatneſs, and treat them as corrupt, depraved, and vicious tyrants. In page 21ſt, in a note (not written by you) there is a faint attempt to reſcue thoſe few clergymen who are democrats, or who expreſs no anxiety to reſiſt Jacobiniſm, from that odium, with which you attempt to cover, a large and reſpectable majority of them.

The language of your oration is analogus to that which the infamous Robertſpierre adopted, in the national convention years ago, viz. that it was the duty of the poor to arm againſt the rich and deſtroy them—nay you go farther—you attempt to arm vice, contempt and infamy againſt virtue, greatneſs, and worth.—To be born of reſpectable parents—to be learned in the law, or in theology—to poſſeſs the confidence of men—to acquire by honeſty, induſtry, and labor, an ample eſtate, and to be elevated to the firſt ſtations in importance and dignity are with you vices of great magnitude. Well earned fame ſhould be ſignalized only with ſuperior abuſe and contempt, and a wreath of honor ſhould be converted into a halter.

In page 29th, purſuing the ſame train of ideas, you rank among the ſelfiſh and debaſed, all directors of banks, judges of courts, generals of armies and captains of ſhips.

Now, Mr. Biſhop, why this rout about baſe-born and noblemen? Is there any ſuch diſtinction known in Connecticut? Look through the ſtate and ſay if men are promoted to offices, or acquire peculiar reſpect, on account of their parentage? The only idea, which offers any ſupport to this opinion, is, that you once alledged, as a reaſon why you ſhould obtain the office of clerk of the county court at New-Haven, that you was town born.

Again.—Is a man deſpiſed for his poverty? You know that virtue and worth are reſpected wherever found.—You alſo know that in Connecticut there is as fair a chance for talents to meet all that reward which Connecticut can beſtow, as in any place on earth.—You alſo know that among theſe merchants and civilians whom you have baſely attempted to revile, are many men of great candor, probity, integrity, and virtue—that their intercourſe with ſociety is kind and benevolent, and that they are juſtly eſteemed valuable members of community. It is alſo well known that our clergy as a body, are dſcreet, amiable, pious men, faithfully and ſteadily purſuing the great duties of their profeſſion, and diffuſing peace and happineſs among the people. While preparing your envenomed ſhafts for their vitals, you ſhould have aſked theſe queſtions—Did not the clergy of Connecticut unite cordially in producing the American revolution? Have they not uniformly attempted to promote good order in ſociety? Have not their prayers, ſermons, and example, had ſome influence in reſtraining the licentious and unprincipled? Do not many individuals rejoice in their fervor and piety? And is it kind, in me, to repreſent them as entirely unworthy of confidence? Shall I promote the felicity of my fellow citizens by attempting to deſtroy their affection for the clergy? If I ſhould convert our churches into temples of reaſon, and guillotine the miniſters of religion, ſhould I render any eſſential good to mankind, or commend myſelf to the favor of God? If the ſabbath were aboliſhed and the people of Connecticut, inſtead of aſſembling, once in ſeven days to worſhip their Creator, ſhould celebrate the decade, and proſtrate themſelves before the goddeſs of liberty, would they be better huſbands—better wives—better parents——better children—better neighbours—better citizens or better rulers? Should I render any benefit to the old man of eighty, were I to convince him that the belief in "twenty Gods—no God—or one living and true God" is perfectly immaterial? Should I do him no injury by unſettling his faith, and driving him from that conſidence in chriſtianity which has been to him "an anchor to the ſoul," into that doubt and perplexity which preſents nothing but the gloomy valley of the ſhadow of death?

If you had made ſome ſuch enquiries, with the leaſt candor, you might have ſaved yourſelf from ſome portion of that infamy which now aſſuredly awaits you.

I will now reply to ſome of your obſervations as they occur with as little regard to order, if poſſible, as you have ſhewn in making them.

In a note in page 31ſt. you ſay "The Republican" (meaning the Democratic) "intereſt is firmly atached to the conſtitution." This, Sir, comes with an ill grace indeed from you.—You who preached on all occaſions and in all companies, and with all manner of abuſe, againſt that conſtitution—you, who explicitly decry all commerce, an object of immenſe importance in that conſtitution.—You, who have curſed every meaſure of the adminiſtration (except when ſeeking an office) you now faintly applaud it in a cowardly note. Do you apprehend that you can delude any body by ſuch a ſnare? The truth is, you now hate and always have hated that conſtitution, and this pretended affection of yours is like the perfidious kiſs of Judas.

In page 36, you ſay you are "willing to be governed by men greater, wiſer, and richer than yourſelf." This is the firſt ſentiment, on which I have had occaſion to congratulate you. It is fortunate that you have come to this concluſion; for if there ſhould ever be a time when you were not willing to be governed by men "greater and wiſer" than yourſelf, you would find your inclinations cruelly thwarted. Indeed, ſo highly does your prejudice againſt great and wiſe men, riſe, that you ſay, in the ſame page, that "we have already a number of men too great for a Republic:" and, like an honeſt and good ſubject, you are determined never to add to their number, and therefore are aſſiduouſly laboring to belittle yourſelf: but I aſſure you that your exertions have already been ſucceſsful, and you have attained your object, beyond the poſſibility of a defeat.

In page 42 you rage vehemently againſt the ariſtocracy of Connecticut, in appointments of office. The pamphlet, to which I have once and again alluded, has pointed out the abſurdity of your whining on this ſubject. You hold four offices—one of thoſe your father gave you—two of the others, you received from the Court in which he preſides—the fourth was procured by the recommendation of his friends. And do you really believe that if you had reſted on the ſuffrages of the freemen of Connecticut, that you could have obtained either of them? I leave this queſtion with you and your acquaintance; and thus diſmiſs your rant about ariſtocracy.

In a note to page 42, you aim a compliment to Preſident Adams. It is rather ſingular that your applauſe ſhould all come in notes, but it is prefectly characteriſtic of you and your Oration. It is ſtill more ſingular that you ſhould utter a ſyllable in favour of Mr. Adams; for it has ever appeared to your acquaintance, that if there were any degrees in your malevolence towards great and good men, the Preſident was the object of your moſt deliberate hatred.

In page 46 you have unluckily hit upon the ſimile of the "Box of Glaſs" with a "Keep this ſide up."—Do you remember your recantation of your ſentiments when you ſolicited the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court?See Rod for fool's back. Do you recollect what you then ſaid and did, and wrote? Where Mr. Changling, is that COCKADE which you wore in 1798, as a badge of federaliſm? "Keep this ſide up"—Your "box of glaſs" is marked on every ſide with a "keep this ſide up;" and it will therefore probably be broken as all good men wiſh it may be.

In page 48, you pay a compliment, in a note again, to a number of democrats. But this is an expenſive compliment to your party in New-England. Is there no democrat, north of New-York, worthy to be mentioned with thoſe choſen few, except Mr. Samuel Adams? What, no pious Prieſtly in New-England to diſſeminate his pure and uſeful truths among this deluded people? No Monroe to negotiate treaties with great Republics? No Gallatin, directly from Geneva, to teach our citizens how to make an inſurrection againſt the government of their Country? Oh ill-fated New-England!—And now Mr. Biſhop, what do you think "Paul of Tarſus" would ſay to theſe choſen few, if lie knew their characters as well as you and I do?I mean not here to include either Maddiſon, Dickinſon or Adams. The firſt I reſpect—the others I do not know.

In pages 49 and 50 you have endeavoured to amuſe your audience with ſeveral federal toaſts. Perhaps thoſe drank at Mr. Jefferſon's dinner, on Sunday, at Frederickſburgh in Virginia, in May 1798, would have been more congenial to your feelings. On that day and on that occaſion, your "diſtinguiſhed citizen," joined in a ſet of toaſts calculated to contemn, in the ſevereſt manner, the Preſident and the government of the United States.

In page 60, you ſay "it may be well for you (addreſſing your audience) to know that the ſupport of your government coſts you 42,000 dollars a day,"—and I ſay, it may be well for them and you, to know that here you have made a ſlight error of 14,000 dollars; and it may be very well for them and you to know that in your appendix, to which you here refer, you have made a blunder of five millions of dollars in the eſtimate of 15,000,000 for expenditures for the year 1800. Now a reformer ſhould certainly be more correct—a financier ſhould underſtand the four firtſt rules in Arithmetic.

In page 36, there is quite a novel doctrine advanced. Your words are "but never let it be forgotten that the argument drawn from the coincidence of great, and wiſe and holy politicians in public meaſures is, of all others the moſt alarming. Theſe are the only men whom you have to fear. If ſome are apparently more holy than their neighbours, then if they meddle with your politics, they are moſt capable of deceiving you: their holineſs may recommend them to heaven, but is no GUARANTEE FOR THEIR POLITICAL RECTITUDE." Here is a ſpecies of reaſoning which I think will unfold your true character, and will diſplay the deſign and tendency of your oration. Here, Sir, is a ſolemn caution againſt appointing "great and wiſe and holy" men to manage political concerns: and a plain inference is, that little and fooliſh and unholy men are to be ſubſtituted in their ſtead. Were not the ſubject too ſerious, I ſhould ſay this is electioneering for yourſelf, with great addreſs. Here you avow that "holineſs" is no "guarantee for political rectitude." What ſecurity then have we for "political rectitude?" It would have been extremely kind for you to have told your "liſtening audience" what characters are ſuited to govern mankind: Or did you avoid it leaſt you ſhould be charged with ſpeaking of yourſelf?

But, Mr. Biſhop, to be more ſerious with you, Do you not mean, by the ſentiments juſt quoted, to deny that a principle of holineſs does exiſt? Do you not repreſent that the diſtinctions between wiſdom and folly, virtue and vice, piety and impiety, are idle and uſeleſs, mere creatures of the imagination and reſt on no ſolid foundation?—You mean this preciſely, or you mean that which is ſtill more horrid, viz. That vice, folly and impiety are more excellent qualities than virtue, wiſdom and holineſs, eſpecially in a ruler.—Aſk Chriſtians what they think of ſuch ſentiments? Aſk all who poſſeſs any remains of morality, if the prevalence of ſuch opinions would not ſoon convert this world into a dreary waſte of wretchedneſs and woe? Aſk theſe queſtions, and then read that ſolemn declaration of the living God contained in 2d Samuel xxiii. chap. 3d verſe. "The God of Iſrael ſaid—the Rock of Iſrael ſpake to me, He that ruleth over men muſt be juſt ruling in the fear of God."

The paſſages which I have juſt quoted are introductory to your unqualified praiſe of Mr. Jefferſon, to ſubſerve whoſe election to the Preſidency, you have laboured, with a zeal which deſerved a better cauſe, and in a manner which would diſgrace any cauſe.

Of this gentleman, you have indeed ſpoken favorably, and to prove him worthy of the confidence of the people of Connecticut, you have diſcanted on his learning, greatneſs and goodneſs. But is he not too "great a man for a Republic?" Muſt you not take his "altitudeSee page 36. with a quadrant?" You have through a tedious oration of 64 pages, laboured to convince your readers, that wiſdom and grantneſs were noxious qualities in a ruler: —Here your favorite is exalted to the heavens by the profuſion of them!—Strange contradictions! You have forgotten "Keep this ſide up."

But, Sir, I agree with you Mr. Jefferſon is a learned man—an ingenious man—a Philoſopher.—I know not but that he is honeſt in his intercourſe with ſociety and amiable in private life; there is however ſtrong reaſon to believe that he is an obſtinate infidel.—Adam Smith, the celebrated author of the Wealth of Nations, characteriſing David Hume, obſerved that he approached nearer to divinity than any man he ever knew.—Yet how bitter an enemy to Chriſtianity was David Hume?

You ſay Mr. J. ſupports a miniſter of the goſpel at his own expenſe.—If this be true, I think it would be honorable to religion and its miniſter if he would attend his miniſtrations and not confine them to his ſervants. But, Sir, it is a well eſtabliſhed fact that Mr. J. never has attended public worſhip during a reſidence of ſeveral years in New-York and Philadelphia. Why not? His friends pretend that it was becauſe the clergy abuſed him for his political ſentiments.—This is untrue—but if true, is it an anſwer? Would a lover of the worſhip of God neglect it for ſuch a reaſon? Would Daniel—would "Paul of Tarſus" have thus conducted?

Again. You ſay in your laſt page and confirm it in your laſt note, that he ſpoke "reverently of God." So has Thomas Paine, Godwin, Rouſſeau, Hume, Bollingbroke and Gibbon with almoſt every other avowed enemy of Chriſtianity. The greateſt and moſt malignant ſcoffers at religion, frequantly ſpeak, in the moſt exalted terms, of the Supreme Being; but when they define his attributes or ſpeak of his moral government, then, their impiety and monſtrous abſurdities, riſe into view.

Theſe champions in the cauſe of infidelity, without a ſingle exception, and your oration is a ſignal proof of the propoſition, level their artillery againſt the miniſters and profeſſors of religion, and thus aim the "dagger of death" at its vitals. If any perſon will read Paine's Age of Reaſon and compare his abuſe of miniſters and Chriſtians with your jeers and ridicule at the ſame objects, he will perceive as near a coincidence, as ſituation and climate will permit.

Let me now examine the paſſage from Jefferſon's notes quoted in your appendix, to vindicate him from the charge of infidelity, firſt remarking that the introduction to that quotation is borrowed.

The ſentiment ſo often commented upon, is in theſe words, "But it does me no injury for my neighbour to ſay there are twenty Gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Here Mr. J. is attempting to ſhow the impropriety of legiſlative interference in matters of religion. If he had ſaid that faith was not a ſubject of legiſlation I would ſubſcribe to the opinion; but he unqueſtionably means that it is not injurious to individuals or ſociety for a man to declare that there are twenty Gods, or that there is no God, and conſequently that there ſhould be no law againſt blaſphemy and therefore clearly, none againſt profanity of any kind, becauſe thoſe vices do neither "pick pockets nor break legs." But wiſe legiſlators have thought different on this ſubject. In this ſtate there is a ſtatute againſt blaſphemy, ſanctioned with ſevere penalties—there is alſo a law againſt profane ſwearing. This is the caſe in the country whence we emigrated and I believe in all the ſtates of New-England, perhaps in many others.—Nay, all well regulated communities puniſh men for ſlandering individuals, and for reviling the government of their country. This is not complained of here or in Virginia. On what principle do theſe laws reſt? Doubtleſs on this; that the peace of ſociety ſhall not be diſturbed nor the confidence of people in their rulers, be deſtroyed by falſehood and calumny.—But alas! the religion of the bible—the Saviour of ſinners—the God of the univerſe, may be profaned, derided or blaſphemed, with impunity!

And is it indeed no injury to me, as an individual, or as a member of ſociety, that our ſtreets ſhould reſound with oaths and curſings?—That children ſhould hear, in every lane and alley, the name and attributes of God contemned? Will not the prevalence of ſuch practices, efface the fear and reverence of God from the young and tender mind, and produce that contempt for every thing ſacred, which leaves the heart a prey to every corrupt propenſity? Parents and Chriſtians will think of theſe things and regret that Mr. Jefferſon ſhould have been the author of ſuch ſentiments; and that our temples ſhould be theatres to recommend them.

In another part of this quotation Mr. J. ſpeaking of New-York and Pennſylvania, ſays, " religion is well ſupported, of various kinds indeed; but ALL GOOD ENOUGH; all ſufficient to preſerve peace and order." Two things are inferable from this paſſage; firſt that the only benefit reſulting from religion, is the preſervation of the peace and order of ſociety, and ſecondly that, for this purpoſe, all the various religions in thoſe ſtates were equally good. A ſtrange ſentiment for a Chriſtian! for a Chriſtian did I ſay? No Chriſtian, unleſs deluded, could utter it. We are here taught that religion is confined in its benefits to this world—that it is ſimply deſigned to make men peaceable and orderly, and that any kind of religion is good enough for the attainment of this end. And now, Sir, let me aſk whether if the "Biſhop of Epheſus" had been in the pulpit of that houſe, which you profaned, he would have addrreſſed his "liſtening audience" thus? "Men and brethren.—It is of no conſequence whether men ſay there are twenty Gods or no God—all the various kinds of religion, Jewiſh and Roman catholic, and all others are good enough for the purpoſes of ſociety, and beyond that they are of no importance.—Greatneſs, wiſdom and holineſs are injurious qualities in a ruler.—Miniſters of religion and profeſſors, ſhould be ſhunned and avoided as the peſts of ſociety. Holineſs of heart is no guarantee for political rectitude: and wiſdom and virtue are combined to deſtroy you; and finally, let me exhort you to uſe all means to elect Mr. Jefferſon Preſident of the United States."

Or if "Paul of Tarſus" had been one of your "liſtening audience," do you think he would have thought it proper, as a preacher of righteouſneſs, to have applauded your oration with ſmiles and geſtures of peculiar approbation? It is much more probable to me that he would have roſe and, with that Chriſtian intrepidity, for which he was celebrated, have addreſſed you, as he formerly did Elymas the ſorcerer, who ſought to turn away Sergius Paulus from the faith, and as Biſhop Watſon did Thomas Paine, "O full of all ſubtilty and all miſchief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteouſneſs, wilt thou not ceaſe to pervert the right ways of the Lord?"

LETTER III.

I WILL now examine your conduct in attempting to influence the election which took place on the Monday after the oration was ſpoken, and contraſt it with ſome ſentiments which you have there uttered.

In the town of Hamden your efforts were conſpicuous. You went there ſeveral times in the dead of night—diſtributed nominations for aſſiſtants, and directed the men to be voted for in the delegation to Congreſs; and to aid and promote the changes which you deſired to effect, you propagated the moſt palpable falſehoods: and, to finiſh your infamy, on your return to New-Haven, you boaſted that you had revolutionized Hamden.

With the ſame views and, by the ſame baſe and foul means, you intrigued in Eaſt-Haven, Weſt-Haven, and North-Haven.

On the Friday night before freemen's meeting, you went to Wallingford—diſſeminated your orations—repeated, to a collection of people ſome of the moſt inflamatory paſſages, and wrote and diſperſed a great number of nominations, leaving no artifice untried to effect your vile purpoſes.

By your own confeſſions your labors in New-Haven are known. You have confeſſed, Sir, that New-Haven was divided by the Democrats into diſtricts—that men were appointed to operate in theſe diſtricts, and to enlighten the freemen and influence their votes—that liſts were made out, containing the names of the Federaliſts, the doubtful, and the Democrats, and that eſtabliſhed Democrats were appointed to convince and confirm the wavering. You have pointed out the boundaries of the diſtrict over which you preſided—acknowledged that you roſe early, on the morning of the election, went towards Dragon bridge, found nine of your men on the ſpot, diſpatched thoſe nine to others, and finally that you collected all your men except one, and had them all in town, by nine in the morning, you yourſelf "bringing up the rear." And to exhibit the extent of your iniquity, you confeſſed to reſpectable people, the night after the election, "that the object of the Democrats was to get into office." I omit here to mention the vigilance with which, for weeks, you ſought every opportunity to inflame the paſſions of the people, by all the ſlander of which you were maſter, againſt men whoſe talents and virtue will forever look you into contempt. I omit to mention that this nomination was, by you, given to many who knew nothing of the characters—who did not know Roſwell Judſon, Eſq from George Penroſe or Henry H. Childs.See appendix page 7.—I omit to enumerate the acts of your party—that Hezekiah Biſſell, Eſq whoſe name was on that nomination, carried it to Windham and there attempted to give it currency—that this ſame Roſwell Judſon promoted it in Stratford while his father was engaged in the ſame buſineſs in Huntington and Trumbull.—But I cannot omit to aſk you, what you now think of "unbiaſſed elections," of a new election's opening to republicans a new and moſt deſirable proſpect?"—of "federal policy?" "of opportunities to expreſs opinions, on federal men and meaſures?" What do you think "of the people's BEING LEFT to exerciſe FREE AND UNBIASSED ELECTIONS?" Of the "deluſions which have attended paſt elections?" Of the "trump of a new election?" What do you think of a new election's having "exactly all the influence" of men in places? What ſay you to the "Election Ball" at which "republicans bleed at every pore?"—What think you, now, of, "ladies and gentlemen this is Republicaniſm?" What do you think of the people's being "hauled about by a federal windlaſs?" Of "conſidence in the people, the only baſis, on which a republic can reſt?" Of the "outs and ins and that the outs wiſh to be in?" What ſay you, to "rational freedom's being turned into ſlavery unchangeable, by deluſive meaſures?" Of the "Sovereignty of the people WHICH ALWAYS RESTS ON UNBIASSED ELECTIONS!!!" What ſay you to "ANOTHER ELECTIONEERING DELUSION"?!!!See preface—alſo pages 37—38— 42—43—44—46—50—52—53—54. Oh thou pure difintereſted lover of liberty! thou preacher againſt imfluence—thou orator of the people—thou REFORMER of elections in Connecticut!!! Thou eſſence of CONNECTICUT REPUBLICANISM!!! How amiable—how great—how wiſe are your "HANDY WORKS?"

When, Sir, I reflect on your conduct as it reſpects the peace of ſociety—when I view you exerting every "Lilliputian power" of your ſoul, to corrupt the morals of the citizens, and deſtroy all purity of elections—When I view you boaſting that you revolutionized Hamden—that you drove the freemen of New-Haven before you as your creatures—When I ſee you in North-Haven, Eaſt-Haven and Wallingford attempting every baſe art of electioneering—When I hear ſober people in thoſe towns exclaim that they were peaceable till A. Biſhop came among them—When I reflect on theſe things, I feel, alternately, the emotions of pity and contempt—of anger and indignation—I feel that ſociety ſhould arm againſt ſuch a deadly foe to the deareſt intereſts of freemen.

But theſe feelings are ſpeedily converted into thoſe of an oppoſite character, when I reflect how little you can effect—how little you have effected—how uniformly your ſchemes, through life, have proved abortive. Then I am ready to ſmile at your folly and inſignificance—to view you, on theſe electioneering excurſions, and on the ſtage, as the harmleſs ſucceſſor of Dr. Willoughby,A noted quack in medicine who has travelled thro' Litchf Hartford and New-Haven counties, peddling out for all diſeaſes, his golden gout ointment. when returning from peddling out his golden gout ointment as a ſpecific for all diſeaſes. Indeed ſo ſtriking is the reſemblance that it is poſſible you may hereafter obtain the name of Dr. Willoughby, on the ſame principle that we call any great Philoſopher a Newton: and that every company which you enter, will ſay "there's Dr. Willoughby"—and that his golden gout ointment, and your oration on political deluſion, will, hereafter mutually bring each other to the mind.

And when my mind is thus quiet, I am really diſpoſed that you ſhould receive ſome honorable marks of notice, as a compenſation for your unwearied labors; and for this purpoſe I ſubmit the following project to you and the public.—If the "American palace and dark vault"See Preface. which you mention, in your preface, ſhould, inſtead of being the "tomb of American liberties," become a democratic hall, I propoſe, as a ſplendid decoration, that ſhould be ornamented with the portraits of Bartholomew Burges;A quack in aſtronomy who predicted a comet in 1789. Abraham Bishop an Thomas Paine. And, in future times, ſtrangers will enter this hall, and be conducted from one curioſity to another, till at length, they will arrive to this venerable group of characters.—Their guide will then ſtop, and with a phiz and a voice not unlike thoſe lately ſeen and heard on the ſubject of freedom of elections, he will thus begin, "There, ladies and gentlemen, is A. Biſhop, Eſq county ſurveyor of New-Haven county, and author of an oration on political deluſion, entitled "Connecticut Republicaniſm."—That is Bartholomew Burges, who in 1789 projected a new ſyſtem for the revolution of the heavenly bodies and predicted an approaching comet.—The other, the ſuperior of both in talents, is Thomas Paine, who boldly publiſhed his "age of reaſon," and thus attacked ancient ſyſtems of divinity. Theſe three worthies were cotemporaries at the cloſe of the 18th century: and becauſe the one diſcovered an approaching monarchy and informed the people of their deluſion in defiance of all the great and good men of his day—the other proclaimed the appearance of a comet in 1789—the third, about the ſame period, diſcovered that the bible was a forgery, and that the "age of reaſon" was at hand, therefore theſe venerable men are thus honorably diſtinguiſhed, and their names and virtues tranſmitted to poſterity, with a particular requeſt that all who handle there portraits, would remember to "KEEP THIS SIDE UP."

Oct. 1, 1800.