arrived, to make the community sensible of the propriety of the measures he might incline to pursue. Though it be probable, that, as he approached the moment when the public were, by a new election, to signify their sense of his conduct, his confidence, and with it his firmness, would decline; yet both the one and the other would derive support from the opportunities which his previous continuance in the station had afforded him, of establishing himself in the esteem and good-will of his constituents. He might, then, hazard with safety, in proportion to the proofs he had given of his wisdom and integrity, and to the title he had acquired to the respect and attachment of his fellow-citizens. As on the one hand, a duration of four years will contribute to the firmness of the Executive in a sufficient degree to render it a very valuable ingredient in the composition, so on the other, it is not enough to justify any alarm for the public liberty. If a British House of Commons, from the most feeble beginnings, from the mere power of assenting or disagreeing to the imposition of a new tax, have, by rapid strides, reduced the prerogatives of the Crown and the privileges of the nobility within the limits they conceived to be compatible with the principles of a free Government, while they raised themselves to the rank and consequence of a coequal branch of the Legislature; if they have been able, in one instance, to abolish both the royalty and the aristocracy, and to overturn all the ancient establishments, as well in the Church as State; if they have been able, on a recent occasion, to make the Monarch tremble at the prospect of an innovation[1] attempted by them; what would be to be feared from an elective Magistrate of four years' duration, with the confined authorities of a President of the United
