of government; and that this is a right which is not and cannot be controlled by any constitutional compact or provision. The obvious fallacy of which, as it seems to me, consists in confounding the original right to form such a constitution as the majority might elect when entering into the contract, with the assumed right of subsequently violating and breaking it at pleasure,- forgetting that, in morals as well as in the law, although it may be optional whether or not to enter into a compact, no right exists, after its formation, to disregard or violate its obligations.

"This doctrine, thus boldly announced and vindicated, if sound, leads directly and obviously to the conclusion, that the whole or any part of our present constitution or feature of goverment may be changed at pleasure, by a mere expression of the will of a majority of the people, however announced or ascertained; and that a despotism, an aristocracy, an oligarchy, or a pure democracy, in which every citizen votes upon all public measures and appointments, may be at any time substituted for our republican form of government; and that these changes may be made from one to any other, whenever and as often as such majority may see fit to will them. And, however improbable we may imagine such changes to be under existing circumstances, their mere possibility is a true test of the soundness of the doctrine; and their probability, however remote, would be vastly increased, should the public mind become demoralized by the prevalence of such an opinion.

"Under the existing constitution, and the powers of the Legislature, which are wholly derived from it, I perceive no more right in the Senate and House to call or organize a convention of the people for altering the constitution, than exists in any other body of individuals, gathered together for any other purpose, or in any that may choose to unite for that end. And any attempt at such alteration, excepting in the manner provided by the constitution itself, seems to me nothing short of actual revolution,- it being in principle the same thing, whether such change be made by force of arms, or by any other action of the majority coercing an unwilling minority into a surrender of their constitutional rights.

"Our national constitution, and those of many, if not of all, the other States, contain some qualification or restriction of the power of a mere majority of the people to alter their provisions; and are intended for the obvious purpose, among others, of protecting the minority. They are restrictions which the majority have agreed to impose upon them

selves for the common safety of all, that we may live under governments of law, and not of men; and, unless they are sacredly regarded and obeyed, there can be no such thing as constitutional liberty or protection; and every man holds his life, freedom and property, upon no safer tenure than the arbitrary will of a bare majority of the people, acting, as it often has been, and often again may be, under wild delusion, or the influences of corrupt factions."

Mr. Loring said of Hon. Judge Hubbard, in addressing the members of the Suffolk bar, on his decease, that he had the pleasure of completing his studies under his guidance, and entered the forensic arena under his auspices, as his associate in the profession; and how grateful and refreshing will ever be that recollection of the kind manners, the honest love of truth, and gentleness of spirit, with which he exercised his high powers! and, in directing his address to Chief Justice Shaw, so long the compeer of Judge Hubbard, he described them both as the Achilles and Hector of the forum.

Mr. Loring is one of the profoundest advocates of the Suffolk bar, remarkable for persevering energy,-one who throws his whole soul in his profession, to which he is intensely devoted, and of whom it cannot be said,

"I have been a truant in the law,

And never yet could frame my will to it,

And therefore frame the law to my will."

A competitor at the bar thus characterized Mr. Loring, for the earnestness he ever infuses into his arguments, by the conviction he seems to entertain, for the occasion, that the cause he happens to sustain is founded in truth and in right, whatever that cause may be. "Indeed, I know," continues his rival, "that Mr. Loring would not engage in one, unless he were satisfied that it had two honest sides; and whatever that cause may be, I know that my friend will lend his whole soul to the work. I know that he acquires a deep conviction, or something that passes for a conviction with others, and probably for the time being amounts to it in his own mind,- that there will be great injustice, alarming injustice, irretrievable injustice, unless the rights of his clients, as he understands them, are maintained." His faithfulness to his cause, and his ability, are proverbial. Mr. Loring is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and of the New England Genealogic and Historical Society.

GERRY FAIRBANKS.

JULY 4, 1821. FOR THE WASHINGTON SOCIETY.

WAS born at Dedham, in 1782; was a hatter, on Washington-street, in Boston, and one of the directors of the New England Society for the promotion of Arts and Manufactures. In 1822 Mr. Fairbanks was one of the petitioners of Boston to the State Legislature for a city charter. In 1827 he was an engineer of the city fire department. In 1829 he was president of the Boston Debating Society. He was commander of the Independent Fusileers, and colonel of the Boston regiCol. Fairbanks married Mary Sumner. He was an amiable man, of great public spirit. He died in Boston, December, 1829.

ment.

JOHN CHIPMAN GRAY.

JULY 4, 1822. FOR THE CITY AUTHORITIES.

WAS born at Salem, Dec. 26, 1793, and a son of Lieutenant-governor William Gray. He married Elizabeth F., daughter of Samuel P. Gardner, Esq., of Boston; was a counsellor-at-law, and of the city Council five years, from 1824; and was eminent for his financial sagacity when in the municipal government, and a most efficient member. He has been a representative, a senator, and of the executive council. While in the Legislature, his keen eye was ever watchful for the interests of his constituents. In 1821 Mr. Gray was the orator for the Phi Beta Kappa Society. In 1834 he delivered an address for the Massachusetts Horticultural Society. He graduated at Harvard College in 1811, on which occasion his subject was on the Diversity of Talents among Mankind; and, on an exhibition day, his part was an essay on the Effect of the Passion for Novelty on the Character of English Composition.

In the oration of Mr. Gray, at the head of this article, which is a polished model from the marble quarry, we find a passage relating to

the municipal form of government recently adopted in Boston: "It is no wonder that we should fondly cling to a form of government dear to our honest prejudices,-if, indeed, they do not deserve a better name, -alike from its venerable antiquity, from its similarity to the municipal institutions of our country brethren, and from a recollection of the virtues of those ancestors by whom it was established and preserved. We were at length taught, by a thorough experience, that the administration of our town affairs in person was rendered impracticable by our overflowing population. The frequency of our town-meetings became a heavy and embarrassing burden, and a general attendance upon them was utterly incompatible with a proper regard to our private duties. Our ordinary municipal concerns were naturally managed, and our by-laws enacted, by a small proportion of our whole number; and we had no alternative left but to determine whether that proportion should be an ever-changing assemblage, collected almost wholly by accident, or a body of responsible delegates, chosen by the deliberate suffrages of the majority. Convinced that either the municipal constitution which our ancestors had left us must be changed, or that the good order and good principles which it was the sole object of that constitution to cherish must be impaired, or hazarded, we felt ourselves bound, by a regard not merely to our own good, but to their memory, to sacrifice the means to the end, and to establish, under the sanction of the Legislature, a government of representatives. This has been framed with an accuracy and caution which will appear superfluous to none who rightly estimate the importance of city laws. They are those, of all others, which touch us most nearly. We feel their influence every hour. The neatness and beauty of our streets, our public places, and public edifices, our general health, the quiet pursuit of our business, the enjoyment of our innocent recreations, our daily comforts and nightly repose,- are all materially dependent on wise and wellexecuted municipal regulations. Such regulations, by their effect upon our condition, contribute materially, though indirectly, to the formation of our character,- for who does not know how much character is affected by situation, how forcibly our minds and hearts are influenced by our physical circumstances? Still more may the government of every city control and guide the conduct of its inhabitants, by that vigilant and internal police which checks vice at its very spring, and prevents the deeper guilt which more general laws can, at best, only punish. Without such a police among ourselves, the wisest enactments

of our Congress or our Legislatures could do but little to render us a flourishing and happy municipality. This great end, we devoutly trust, will be materially promoted by our new form of government. But let every citizen seriously reflect, that it is still a government of the people, and that the talents and fidelity of our municipal officers can avail us nothing, unless seconded by the prompt obedience and liberal approbation of the inhabitants in general. What, indeed, let us inquire for a moment, is the origin, and what the nature, not only of municipal, but of all public institutions? They are valuable only as instruments for promoting the happiness and virtue of the community where they exist. They spring from the character of the people, and are powerfully effectual in strengthening and improving that character, by their reäction."

CHARLES PELHAM CURTIS.

JULY 4, 1823. FOR THE CITY AUTHORITIES.

IN the eloquent performance of our orator, among other topics, we have a review of what would have been the probable condition of this republic, had the British arms subdued our resistance: "Among the privileges of which we should have been bereft, that of freely possessing fire-arms should be included. One of the first acts of the victors would have been to disarm the vanquished. Monarchs are too jealous of their subjects to intrust them with arms, except under the strictest inspection; and the rebellious conduct of the Americans would have brought upon them a severer chastisement than the utmost rigor of this rule of policy could inflict. Instead of our militia,-the great, the ultimate guarantee of our liberties, electing their own commanders, and performing an easy and honorable service for a few days in the year, our young men would be embodied under officers selected by the crown, subjected to the severity of regular discipline, and compelled to assist the regular troops in fortifying the garrisons, or in overawing the other provinces.

"And let us not imagine, that while Great Britain was pouring forth her resources to support the war, while she was accumulating