Diary in America--Series Two, by Captain Marryat. 

________________________________________________________________________In the late 1830s Captain Marryat, already a famous literary figure inNorth America, visited the United States and Canada, writing hisobservations in two Series of volumes, each containing three books. 

These were published in Britain as the six books, but were published inAmerica as two books with small print and thin paper, thus enabling theDiary to be published as two books only. It is from first editions ofthe American version that we have worked, though we do possess three ofthe British first edition of six volumes. 

While some of the observations are trivial, and some even possiblymisleading, there is a great deal of useful fact in these books, makingthem well worth looking at. There are some tables that may notreproduce well in the PDA version of these books. 

Marryat used his knowledge of America to write a novel based in themore southerly part, especially California and Texas. 

________________________________________________________________________DIARY IN AMERICA--SERIES TWO, BY CAPTAIN MARRYAT. 

VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER ONE. 

TRAVELLING. 

I believe that the remarks of a traveller in any country not his own, let his work be ever so trifling or badly written, will point out somepeculiarity which will have escaped the notice of those who were bornand reside in that country, unless they happen to be natives of thatportion of it in which the circumstance alluded to was observed. It isa fact that no one knows his own country; from assuetude and, perhaps, from the feelings of regard which we naturally have for our native land, we pass over what nevertheless does not escape the eye of a foreigner. Indeed, from the consciousness that we can always see such and suchobjects of interest whenever we please, we very often procrastinateuntil we never see them at all. I knew an old gentleman who havingalways resided in London, every year declared his intention of seeingthe Tower of London with its Curiosities. He renewed this declarationevery year, put it off until the next, and has since left the worldwithout having ever put his intention into execution. 

That the Americans would cavil at portions of the first part of my work, I was fully convinced, and as there are many observations quite new tomost of them, they are by them considered to be false; but the UnitedStates, as I have before observed, comprehend an immense extent ofterritory, with a population running from a state of refinement down toone of positive barbarism; and although the Americans travel much, theytravel the well beaten paths, in which that which is peculiar is not solikely to meet the eye or even the ear. It does not, therefore, followthat because what I remark is new to many of them, that therefore it isfalse. The inhabitants of the cities in the United States, (and it isthose who principally visit this country), know as little of what ispassing in Arkansas and Alabama as a cockney does of the manners andcustoms of Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man. 

The other day, one American lady observed that, "it was too bad ofCaptain Marryat to assert that ladies in America carried pigtail intheir work-boxes to present to the gentlemen;" adding, "I never heard orsaw such a thing in all my life. " Very possible; and had I stated thatat New York, Philadelphia, Boston, or Charleston, such was the practice, she then might have been justifiably indignant. But I have been veryparticular in my localities, both in justice to myself and theAmericans, and if they will be content to confine their animadversionsto the observations upon the State to which they belong, or my generalobservations upon the country and government, I shall then be content;if, on the contrary, their natural vanity will not allow any remarks tobe made upon the peculiarities of one portion of society withoutconsidering them as a reflection upon the whole of the Union, all I cansay is that they must, and will be annoyed. 

The answer made to the lady who was "wrathy" about the pigtail was, "Captain M has stated it to be a custom in one State. Have you everbeen in that State?"

"No, I have not, " replied the lady, "but I have never heard of it. " Sothen, on a vast continent, extending almost from the Poles to theEquator, because one individual, one mere mite of creation among themillions (who are but a fraction of the population which the countrywill support), has not heard of what passes thousands of miles from herabode, therefore it cannot be true! Instead of cavilling, let theAmerican read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest all that I have alreadysaid, and all that I intend to say in these volumes; and although thework was not written for them, but for my own countrymen, they will findthat I have done them friendly service. 

There is much comprehended in the simple word "travelling" which headsthis chapter, and it is by no means an unimportant subject, as thedegree of civilisation of a country, and many important peculiarities, bearing strongly upon the state of society, are to be gathered from thehigh road, and the variety of entertainment for man and horse; and Ithink that my remarks on this subject will throw as much light uponAmerican society as will be found in any chapter which I have written. 

In a country abounding as America does with rivers and railroads, andwhere locomotion by steam, wherever it can be applied, supersedes everyother means of conveyance, it is not to be expected that the roads willbe remarkably good; they are, however, in consequence of the excellentarrangements of the townships and counties, in the Eastern States, asgood, and much better, than could be expected. The great objection tothem is that they are not levelled, but follow the undulations of thecountry, so that you have a variety of short, steep ascents and descentswhich are very trying to the carriage-springs and very fatiguing to thetraveller. Of course in a new country you must expect to fall in withthe delightful varieties of _Corduroy_, etcetera, but wherever thecountry is settled, and the population sufficient to pay the expense, the roads in America may be said to be as good as under circumstancescould possibly be expected. There are one or two roads, I believe, notmore, which are government roads; but, in general, the expense of theroads is defrayed by the States. 

But, before I enter into any remarks upon the various modes oftravelling in America, it may be as well to say a few words upon thehorses, which are remarkably good in the United States: they appear tobe more hardy, and have much better hoofs, than ours in England;throwing a shoe therefore is not of the same consequence as it is withus, for a horse will go twenty miles afterwards with little injury. InVirginia and Kentucky the horses are almost all thorough-bred, and fromthe best English stock. --The distances run in racing are much longerthan ours, and speed without bottom is useless. 

The Americans are very fond of fast trotting horses; I do not refer torackers, as they term horses that trot before and gallop behind, butfair trotters, and they certainly have a description of horse that wecould not easily match in England. At New York, the Third Avenue, asthey term it, is the general rendezvous, I once went out there mountedupon Paul Pry, who was once considered the fastest horse in America; athis full speed he performed a mile in two minutes and thirty seconds, equal to twenty-four miles per hour. He took me at this devil of a paceas far as Hell Gate; not wishing "to intrude, " I pulled up there, andwent home again. A pair of horses in harness were pointed out to me whocould perform the mile in two minutes fifty seconds. They use herelight four-wheeled vehicles which they call wagons, with a seat in thefront for two persons and room for your luggage behind; and in thesewagons, with a pair of horses, they think nothing of trotting themseventy or eighty miles in a day, at the speed of twelve miles an hour;I have seen the horses come in, and they did not appear to suffer fromthe fatigue. You seldom see a horse bent forward, but they are alldaisy cutters. 

The gentlemen of New York give very high prices for fast horses; 1, 000dollars is not by any means an uncommon price. In a country where timeis every thing, they put a proportionate value upon speed. Paul Pry isa tall grey horse (now thirteen years old); to look at, he would notfetch 10 pounds, --the English omnibuses would refuse him. 

Talking about omnibuses, those of New York, and the other cities inAmerica, are as good and as well regulated as those of Paris; the largerones have four horses. Not only their omnibuses, but their hackneycoaches are very superior to those in London; the latter are as clean asprivate carriages; and with the former there is no swearing, nodislocating the arms of poor females, hauling them from one omnibus tothe other, --but civility without servility. 

The American stage-coaches are such as experience has found out to bemost suitable to the American roads, and you have not ridden in themfive miles before you long for the delightful springing of four horsesupon the level roads of England. They are something between an Englishstage [see note 1] and a French diligence, built with all the panelsopen, on account of the excessive heat of the summer months. In wetweather these panels are covered with leather aprons, which are fixed onwith battons, a very insufficient protection in the winter, as the windblows through the intermediate spaces, whistling into your ears, andrendering it more piercing than if all was open. Moreover, they are noprotection against the rain or snow, both of which find their way in toyou. The coach has three seats, to receive nine passengers; those onthe middle seat leaning back upon a strong and broad leather brace, which runs across. This is very disagreeable, as the centre passengers, when the panels are closed, deprive the others of the light and air fromthe windows. But the most disagreeable feeling arises from the body ofthe coach not being upon springs, but hung upon leather braces runningunder it and supporting it on each side; and when the roads are bad, oryou ascend or rapidly descend the pitches (as they term short hills) themotion is very similar to that of being tossed in a blanket, oftenthrowing you up to the top of the coach, so as to flatten your hat--ifnot your head. 

The drivers are very skilful, although they are generally young men--indeed often mere boys--for they soon better themselves as they advancein life. Very often they drive six in hand; and if you are upset, it isgenerally more the fault of the road than of the driver. I was upsettwice in one half hour when I was travelling in the winter time; but thesnow was very deep at the time, and no one thinks anything of an upsetin America. More serious accidents do, however, sometimes happen. WhenI was in New Hampshire, a neglected bridge broke down, and precipitatedcoach, horses, and passengers into a torrent which flowed into theConnecticut river. Some of the passengers were drowned. Those who weresaved, sued the township and recovered damages; but these mischancesmust be expected in a new country. The great annoyance of these publicconveyances is, that neither the proprietor or driver considerthemselves the servants of the public; a stage-coach is a speculation bywhich as much money is to be made as possible by the proprietors; and asthe driver never expects or demands a fee from the passengers, they ortheir comforts are no concern of his. The proprietors do not considerthat they are bound to keep faith with the public, nor do they careabout any complaints. 

The stages which run from Cincinnati to the eastward are very muchinterfered with when the Ohio river is full of water, as the travellersprefer the steam-boats; but the very moment that the water is so low onthe Ohio that the steam-boats cannot ascend the river up to Wheeling, double the price is demanded by the proprietors of the coaches. Theyare quite regardless as to the opinion or good-will of the public; theydo not care for either, all they want is their money, and they areperfectly indifferent whether you break your neck or not. The greatevil arising from this state of hostility, as you may almost call it, isthe disregard of life which renders travelling so dangerous in America. You are completely at the mercy of the drivers, who are, generallyspeaking, very good-tempered, but sometimes quite the contrary; and Ihave often been amused with the scenes which have taken place betweenthem and the passengers. As for myself, when the weather permitted it, I invariably went outside, which the Americans seldom do, and was alwaysvery good friends with the drivers. They are full of local information, and often very amusing. There is, however, a great difference in thebehaviour of the drivers of the mails, and coaches which are _timed_ bythe post-office, and others which are not. If beyond his time, thedriver is mulcted by the proprietors; and when dollars are in thequestion, there is an end to all urbanity and civility. 

A gentleman of my acquaintance was in a mail which was behind time, andthe driver was proceeding at such a furious pace that one jerk threw alady to the top of the coach, and the teeth of her comb entering herhead, she fainted with pain. The passengers called out to the driver tostop. "What for?" "That last jerk has struck the lady, and she hasfainted. " "Oh, that's all! Well, I reckon I'll give her another jerk, which will bring her to again. " Strange to say, he prophesied right;the next jerk was very violent, and the lady recovered her senses. 

Mr E, an employe of the American government, was travelling in thestate of Indiana--the passengers had slept at an inn, and the coach wasready at the door, but Mr E had not quite finished his toilet; thedriver dispatched the bar-keeper for him, and Mr E sent word he wouldbe down immediately. 

"What is he about?" said the driver impatiently to the bar-keeper whenhe came down again. 

"Cleaning his teeth. "

"_Cleaning his teeth_!" roared the driver, indignantly; "by the --, " andaway went the horses at a gallop, leaving Mr E behind. 

The other passengers remonstrated, but without avail; they told him thatMr E was charged with government despatches--he didn't care; at last, one of them offered him a dollar if he would go back. They hadproceeded more than a mile before the offer was made; the manimmediately wheeled his horses round, and returned to the inn. 

The Rev Mr Reid gives an anecdote very characteristic of Americanstage-coach travelling, and proving how little the convenience of thepublic is cared for. 

"When we stopped at Lowell to change horses, a female wished to secure aplace onward. We were already, as the phrase is, more than full; we hadnine persons, and two children, which are made to go for nothing, exceptin the way-bill. Our saucy driver opened the door, and addressing twomen, who, with us, would have been outside passengers--`now, I say, Iwant one of you to ride with me, and let a lady have your seat. ' Themen felt they were addressed by a superior, but kept their places. `Come, I say, ' he continued, `you shall have a good buffalo and_umbrel_, and nothing will hurt you. ' Still they kept their places, andrefused him. His lordship was offended, and ready to lay hands on oneof them; but, checking himself, exclaimed, `Well, if I can't get youout, hang it if I'll take you on till one of you gets out. ' And therewe stood for some time; and he gained his point at last, and in civillerterms, by persuading the persons on the middle seat to receive the lady;so that we had now twelve inside. "

I once myself was in a stage-coach, and found that the window glasseshad been taken out; I mentioned this to the driver, as it rained in veryfast--"Well, now, " replied he, "I reckon you'd better ax theproprietors; my business is to drive the coach. " And that was all thecomfort I could procure. As for speaking to them about stopping, ordriving slow, it is considered as an unwarrantable interference. 

I recollect an Englishman at New York telling me, that when in theEastern States, he had expressed a wish to go a little faster--"Oh, "said the driver, "you do, do you; well, wait a moment, and I'll gofaster than you like. " The fellow drove very slow where the road wasgood; but as soon as he came to a bad piece, he put his horses to thegallop, and, as my friend said, they were so tossed and tumbled about, that they hardly knew where they were. "Is that fast enough, Mister, "said the driver, leering in at the couch window. 

As for stopping, they will stop to talk to any one on the road about theprice of the markets, the news, or any thing else; and the sameaccommodation is cheerfully given to any passenger who has any businessto transact on the way. The Americans are accustomed to it, and thepassengers never raise any objections. There is a spirit ofaccommodation, arising from their natural good temper (note 2). 

I was once in a coach when the driver pulled up, and entered a smallhouse on the road side; after he had been there some time, as it was notan inn, I expressed my wonder what he was about. "I guess I can tellyou, " said a man who was standing by the coach, and overheard me;"there's a pretty girl in that house, and he's doing a bit of courting, I expect. " Such was the fact: the passengers laughed, and waited forhim very patiently. He remained about three-quarters of an hour, andthen came out. The time was no doubt to him very short; but to us itappeared rather tedious. 

Mrs Jamieson, in her last work, says: "One dark night, I remember, asthe sleet and rain were falling fast, and our Extra was slowly draggedby wretched brutes of horses through what seemed to me `Sloughs ofDespond, ' some package ill stowed on the roof, which in the Americanstages presents no resting-place for man or box, fell off. The driveralighted to fish it out of the mud. As there was some delay, agentleman seated opposite to me put his head out of window to inquirethe cause; to whom the driver's voice replied, in an angry tone, `I say, you mister, don't you sit jabbering there; but lend a hand to heavethese things aboard!' To my surprise, the gentleman did not appearstruck by the insolence of this summons, but immediately jumped out andrendered his assistance. This is merely the _manner_ of the people. The driver intended no insolence, nor was it taken as such; and myfellow-travellers could not help laughing at my surprise. "

I have mentioned these little anecdotes, as they may amuse the reader;but it must be understood that, generally speaking, the drivers are verygood-natured and obliging, and the passengers very accommodating to eachother, and submitting with a good grace to what cannot be ameliorated. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. Miss Martineau in her work speaks of that most _delightful_ ofall conveyances--an American stage-coach; but Miss M is so very peculiarin her ideas, that I am surprised at nothing that she says. I will, however, quote the Reverend Mr Reid against her:--

"I had no sooner begun to enter the coach than splash went my foot inmud and water. I exclaimed with surprise. `Soon be dry, sir, ' was thereply; while he withdrew the light; that I might not explore the causeof complaint. The fact was, that the vehicle, like the hotel andsteam-boat, was not water-tight, and the rain had found an entrance. There was, indeed, in this coach, as in most others, a provision in thebottom, of holes, to let off both water and dirt; but here the dirt hadbecome mud, and thickened about the orifices, so as to prevent escape. I found I was the only passenger; the morning was damp and chilly; thestate of the coach added to the sensation; and I eagerly looked aboutfor some means of protection. I drew up the wooden windows; out of fivesmall panes of glass in the sashes three were broken. I endeavoured tosecure the curtains; two of them had most of the ties broken, andflapped in one's face. There was no help in the coach, so I looked tomyself. I made the best use I could of my garments, and put myself assnugly as I could in the corner of a stage meant to accommodate ninepersons. My situation just then was not among the most cheerful. Icould see nothing; every where I could feel the wind drawn in upon me;and as for sounds I had the calls of the driver, the screeching of thewheels, and the song of the bull-frog for my entertainment. "--Rev MrReid's Tour, vol. I, page 100. --Very delightful, indeed!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 2. This spirit of accommodation produces what would at firstappear to be rudeness, but is not intended for it. When you travel, orindeed when walking the streets in the Western country, if you have acigar in your mouth, a man will come up--"Beg pardon, stranger, " andwhips your cigar out of your mouth, lights his own, and then returnsyours. I thought it rather cool at first, but as I found it was thepractice, I invariably did the same whenever I needed a light. 

VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER TWO. 

TRAVELLING. 

In making my observations upon the rail-road and steam-boat travellingin the United States, I shall point out some facts with which the readermust be made acquainted. The Americans are a restless, locomotivepeople: whether for business or pleasure, they are ever on the move intheir own country, and they move in masses. There is but oneconveyance, it may be said, for every class of people, the coach, rail-road, or steam-boat, as well as most of the hotels, being open toall; the consequence is that the society is very much mixed--themillionaire, the well-educated woman of the highest rank, the senator, the member of Congress, the farmer, the emigrant, the swindler, and thepick-pocket, are all liable to meet together in the same vehicle ofconveyance. Some conventional rules were therefore necessary, and thoserules have been made by public opinion--a power to which all must submitin America. The one most important, and without which it would beimpossible to travel in such a gregarious way, is an universal deferenceand civility shewn to the women, who may in consequence travel withoutprotection all over the United States without the least chance ofannoyance or insult. This deference paid to the sex is highlycreditable to the Americans; it exists from one end of the Union to theother; indeed, in the Southern and more lawless States, it is even morechivalric than in the more settled. Let a female be ever soindifferently clad, whatever her appearance may be, still it issufficient that she is a female; she has the first accommodation, anduntil she has it, no man will think of himself. But this deference isnot only shewn in travelling, but in every instance. An English ladytold me, that wishing to be present at the inauguration of Mr VanBuren, by some mistake, she and her daughters alighted from the carriageat the wrong entrance, and in attempting to force their way through adense crowd were nearly crushed to death. This was perceived, and theword was given--`make room for the ladies. ' The whole crowd, as if byone simultaneous effort, compressed itself to the right and left, locking themselves together to meet the enormous pressure, and made awide lane, through which they passed with ease and comfort. "Itreminded me of the Israelites passing through the Red Sea with the wallof waters on each side of them, " observed the lady. "In any othercountry we must have been crushed to death. "

When I was on board one of the steam-boats, an American asked one of theladies to what she would like to be helped. She replied, to someturkey, which was within reach, and off of which a passenger had justcut the wing and transferred it to his own plate. The American who hadreceived the lady's wishes, immediately pounced with his fork upon thewing of the turkey and carried it off to the young lady's plate; theonly explanation given, "a _lady, Sir_!" was immediately admitted assufficient. 

The authority of the captain of a steam-boat is never disputed; if itwere, the offender would be landed on the beach. I was on board of asteam-boat when, at tea time, a young man sat down with his hat on. 

"_You_ are in the company of ladies, sir, " observed the captain verycivilly, "and I must request you to take your hat off. "

"Are you the captain of the boat?" observed the young man, in a sulkytone. 

"Yes, sir, I am. "

"Well, then, I suppose I must, " growled the passenger, as he obeyed. 

But if the stewards, who are men of colour, were to attempt to enforcethe order, they would meet with such a rebuff as I have myself heardgiven. 

"If it's the captain's orders, let the captain come and give them. I'mnot going to obey a _Nigger_ like you. "

Perhaps it is owing to this deference to the sex that you will observethat the Americans almost invariably put on their best clothes when theytravel; such is the case whatever may be the cause; and the ladies inAmerica, travelling or not, are always well, if not expensively dressed. They don't all swap bonnets as the two young ladies did in thestage-coach in Vermont. 

But, notwithstanding the decorum so well preserved as I have mentioned, there are some annoyances to be met with from gregarious travelling. One is, that occasionally a family of interesting young citizens who aresuffering from the whooping-cough, small-pox, or any other complaint, are brought on board, in consequence of the medical gentlemen havingrecommended change of air. Of course the other children, or evenadults, may take the infection, but they are not refused admittance uponsuch trifling grounds; the profits of the steam boat must not beinterfered with. 

Of all travelling, I think that by railroad the most intriguing, especially in America. After a certain time the constant coughing ofthe locomotive, the dazzling of the vision from the rapidity with whichobjects are passed, the sparks and ashes which fly in your face and onyour clothes become very annoying; your only consolation is the speedwith which you are passing over the ground. 

The railroads in America are not so well made as in England, and aretherefore more dangerous; but it must be remembered that at presentnothing is made in America but to last a certain time; they go to theexact expense considered necessary and no further, they know that intwenty years they will be better able to spend twenty dollars than onenow. The great object is to obtain quick returns for the outlay, and, except in few instances, durability or permanency is not thought of. One great cause of disasters is, that the railroads are not fenced onthe sides, so as to keep the cattle off them, and it appears as if thecattle who range the woods are very partial to take their naps on theroads, probably from their being drier than the other portions of thesoil. It is impossible to say how many cows have been cut into atoms bythe trains in America, but the frequent accidents arising from thesecauses has occasioned the Americans to invent a sort of shovel, attachedto the front of the locomotive, which takes up a cow, tossing her offright or left. At every fifteen miles of the rail-roads there arerefreshment rooms; the cars stop, all the doors are thrown open, and outrush the passengers like boys out of school, and crowd round the tablesto solace themselves with pies, patties, cakes, hard-boiled eggs, ham, custards, and a variety of railroad luxuries, too numerous to mention. The bell rings for departure, in they all hurry with their hands andmouths full, and off they go again, until the next stopping placeinduces them to relieve the monotony of the journey by masticatingwithout being hungry. 

The Utica railroad is the best in the United States. The generalaverage of speed is from fourteen to sixteen miles an hour; but on theUtica they go much faster. [See note 1. ] A gentleman narrated to me asingular specimen of the ruling passion which he witnessed on anoccasion when the rail-cars were thrown off the road, and nearly onehundred people killed, or injured in a greater or less degree. 

On the side of the road lay a man with his leg so severely fractured, that the bone had been forced through the skin, and projected outsidehis trowsers. Over him hung his wife, with the utmost solicitude, theblood running down from a severe cut received on her head, and kneelingby his side was his sister, who was also much injured. The poor womenwere lamenting over him, and thinking nothing of their own hurts; andhe, it appears, was also thinking nothing about his injury, but onlylamenting the delay which would be occasioned by it. 

"Oh! my dear, dear Isaac, what can be done with your leg?" exclaimed thewife in the deepest distress. 

"What will become of my leg!" cried the man. "What's to become of mybusiness, I should like to know?"

"Oh! dear brother, " said the other female, "don't think about yourbusiness now; think of getting cured. "

"Think of getting cured--I must think how the bills are to be met, and Inot there to take them up. They will be presented as sure as I liehere. "

"Oh! never mind the bills, dear husband--think of your precious leg. "

"Not mind the bills! but I must mind the bills--my credit will beruined. "

"Not when they know what has happened, brother. Oh! dear, dear--thatleg, that leg. "

"D---n the leg; what's to become of my business, " groaned the man, falling on his back from excess of pain. 

Now this was a specimen of true commercial spirit. If this man had notbeen nailed to the desk, he might have been a hero. 

I shall conclude this chapter with an extract from an American author, which will give some idea of the indifference as to loss of life in theUnited States. 

"Every now and then is a tale of railroad disaster in some part of thecountry, at inclined planes, or intersecting points, or by running offthe track, making splinters of the cars, and of men's bones; andlocomotives have been known to encounter, head to head, like two ramsfighting. A little while previous to the writing of these lines, alocomotive and tender shot down the inclined plain at Philadelphia, likea falling star. A woman, with two legs broken by this accident, was putinto an omnibus, to be carried to the hospital, but the driver, in hisspeculations, coolly replied to a man, who asked why he did not go on?--that he was waiting for a _full load_. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. The railroads finished in America in 1835 amounted in length to1, 600 miles; those in progress, and not yet complete, to 1, 270 milesmore. The canals completed were in length 2, 500 miles, unfinished 687miles. 

VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER THREE. 

TRAVELLING. 

The most general, the most rapid, the most agreeable, and, at the sametime, the most dangerous, of American travelling is by steam boats. Itwill be as well to give the reader an idea of the extent of thisnavigation by putting before him the lengths of some of the principalrivers in the United States. 

+=====================================================+======+Ý ÝMiles. Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝMissouri and Mississippi Ý 4490Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝDo. To its junction with the Mississippi Ý 3181Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝMississippi proper, to its junction with the MissouriÝ 1600Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝDo. To the Gulf of Mexico Ý 2910Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝArkansas River, a branch of the Mississippi Ý 2170Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝSt Lawrence River, including the Lakes Ý 2075Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝPlatte River, a branch of the Missouri Ý 1600Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝRed River, a branch of the Mississippi Ý 1500Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝOhio River, Do. Do. Ý 1372Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝColumbia River, empties into the Pacific Ocean, Ý 1315Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝKansas River, a branch of the Missouri Ý 1200Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝYellowstone Do. Do. Ý 1100Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝTennessee Do. Ohio Ý 756Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝAlabama River, empties into the Gulf of Mexico Ý 575Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝCumberland River, a branch of the Ohio Ý 570Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝSusquehanna River, empties into Chesapeake Bay Ý 460Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝIllinois River, a branch of the Mississippi Ý 430Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝAppalachicola River, empties into the Gulf of Mexico Ý 425Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝSt John's River, New Brunswick, rises in Maine Ý 415Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝConnecticut River, empties into Long Island Sound Ý 410Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝWabash River, a branch of the Ohio Ý 360Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝDelaware River, empties into the Atlantic Ocean Ý 355Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝJames River, empties into Chesapeake Bay Ý 350Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝRoanoke River, empties into Albemarle Sound Ý 350Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝGreat Pedee River, empties into Atlantic Ocean Ý 350Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝSantee River, empties into Atlantic Ocean Ý 340Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝPotomac River, empties into Chesapeake Bay Ý 335Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝHudson River, empties into Atlantic Ocean Ý 320Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝAltamaha River, empties into Atlantic Ocean Ý 300Ý+-----------------------------------------------------+------+ÝSavannah River, empties into Atlantic Ocean Ý 290Ý+=====================================================+======+

Voice from America. 

Many of the largest of these rivers are at present running throughdeserts--others possess but a scanty population on their banks; but, asthe west fills up, they will be teeming with life, and the harvest ofindustry will freight many more hundreds of vessels than those which atpresent disturb their waters. 

The Americans have an idea that they are very far ahead of us in steamnavigation, a great error which I could not persuade them of. In thefirst place, their machinery is not by any means equal to ours; in thenext, they have no sea-going steam vessels, which after all is the greatdesideratum of steam navigation. Even in the number and tonnage oftheir mercantile steam vessels they are not equal to us, as I shallpresently show, nor have they yet arrived to that security in steamnavigation which we have. 

The return of vessels belonging to the Mercantile Steam Marine of GreatBritain, made by the Commissioners on the Report of steam-vesselaccidents in 1839, is, number of vessels, 810; tonnage, 157, 840; horsepower, 63, 250. 

Mr Levi Woodbury's Report to Congress in December, 1838, states thenumber of American steam vessels to be 800, and the tonnage to be155, 473; horse power, 57, 019. 

It is but fair to state, that the Americans have the credit of havingsent the first steam vessel across the Atlantic. In 1819, a steamvessel, built at New York, crossed from Savannah to Liverpool intwenty-six days. 

The number of _sea-going_ steam vessels in England is _two hundred andeighty-two_, while in the United States they have not more than ten atthe outside calculation. In the size of our vessels also we are farsuperior to them. I here insert a table, shewing the dimensions of ourlargest vessels, as given in the Report to the House of Commons, andanother of the largest American vessels collected from the Report of MrLevi Woodbury to Congress. 

_Table shewing some of the Dimensions of the Hull and Machinery of thefive largest ships yet built or building_. 

[Table to be added in a later edition. ]

But the point on which we are so vastly superior to the Americans, is inour steam vessels of war. They have but one in the United States, namedthe Fulton the Second. The following is a list of those belonging tothe Government of Great Britain, with their tonnage:--

+=========+=====+=========+=====+===========+=====+Ý ÝTons. Ý ÝTons. Ý ÝTons. Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝAcheron Ý 722ÝFearless Ý 165ÝMyrtle Ý 116Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝAdder Ý 237ÝFirebrandÝ 495ÝOtter Ý 237Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝAdvice Ý 475ÝFire Fly Ý 550ÝPhoenix Ý 809Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝAfrican Ý 295ÝFlamer Ý 496ÝPigmy Ý 230Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝAlban Ý 294ÝFury Ý 166ÝPike Ý 112Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝAriel Ý 149ÝGleaner Ý 306ÝPluto Ý 365Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝAsp Ý 112ÝGorgon Ý 1111ÝProspero Ý 244Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝAvon Ý 361ÝHecate Ý 815ÝRedwing Ý 139Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝBeaver Ý 128ÝHecla Ý 815ÝRadamanthusÝ 813Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝBlazer Ý 527ÝHermes Ý 716ÝSalamander Ý 818Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝBoxer Ý 159ÝHydra Ý 818ÝShearwater Ý 343Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝCarron Ý 294ÝJasper Ý 230ÝSpitfire Ý 553Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝCharon Ý 125ÝKite Ý 300ÝSprightly Ý 234Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝColumbia Ý 360ÝLightningÝ 296ÝStrombolo Ý 966Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝComet Ý 238ÝLucifer Ý 387ÝSwallow Ý 133Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝConfianceÝ 295ÝMedea Ý 835ÝTartarus Ý 523Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝCuckoo Ý 234ÝMedusa Ý 889ÝUrgent Ý 583Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝCyclops Ý 1190ÝMegaera Ý 717ÝVesuvius Ý 966Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝDasher Ý 260ÝMerlin Ý 889ÝVolcano Ý 720Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝDee Ý 704ÝMessengerÝ 733ÝWidgeon Ý 164Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝDoterel Ý 723ÝMeteor Ý 296ÝWildfire Ý 186Ý+---------+-----+---------+-----+-----------+-----+ÝEcho Ý 298ÝMonkey Ý 211ÝZephyr Ý 237Ý+=========+=====+=========+=====+===========+=====+

_Government Steam Vessels Building_. 

+======+====+======+===+==========+===+ÝAlectoÝ 799ÝLizardÝ282ÝPolyphemusÝ799Ý+------+----+------+---+----------+---+ÝArdentÝ 799ÝLocustÝ282ÝPrometheusÝ799Ý+------+----+------+---+----------+---+ÝDover ÝIronÝMedinaÝ889Ý Ý Ý+======+====+======+===+==========+===+

I trust that the above statement will satisfy the Americans that we areahead of them in steam navigation. In consequence of their isolation, and having no means of comparison with other countries, the Americanssee only their own progress, and seem to have forgotten that othernations advance as well as themselves. They appear to imagine thatwhile they are going ahead all others are standing still: forgettingthat England with her immense resources is much more likely to surpassthem than to be left behind. 

We must now examine the question of the proportionate security in steamboat travelling in the two countries. The following table, extractedfrom the Report of the Commissioners on Steam boat Accidents, will showthe casualties which have occurred in this country in _ten_ years. 

Abstract of ninety-two Accidents. Table not included. 

The principal portion of this loss of life has been occasioned byvessels having been built for _sale_, and not sea-worthy; an occurrencetoo common, I am afraid, in both countries. 

The author of "A Voice from America" states the list of steamboatdisasters, on the waters of the United States, for _twelve months_ outof the years 1837-38, by bursting of boilers, burning, wrecks, etcetera, besides numerous others of less consequence, comprehends the total lossof eight vessels and _one thousand and eighty lives_. 

So that we have in England, loss in ten years, 634; one year, 63. 

In America, loss in one year, 1, 080. 

The report of Mr Woodbury to Congress is imperfect, which is not to bewondered at, as it is almost impossible to arrive at the truth; thereis, however, much to be gleaned from it. He states that, since theemployment of steam vessels in the United States, 1, 300 have been built, and of them _two hundred and sixty_ have been lost by accidents. 

The greatest loss of life by collision and sinking, was in the Monmouth, (Indians transporting to the West), in 1837, by which three hundredlives were lost; Oronoka, by explosion, by which one hundred and thirtyor more lives were lost and Moselle, at Cincinnati, by which from onehundred to one hundred and twenty lives were lost. 

The greatest loss by shipwreck was in the case of the Home, on the coastof South Carolina, when one hundred lives were lost; the greatest byfire, the Ben Sherrod, in 1837, by which one hundred and thirtyperished. 

The three great casualties which occurred during my stay in America, were those of the Ben Sherrod, by fire; the Home, by wreck; and theMoselle, by explosion: and as I have authentic details of them, byAmericans who were on board, or eye-witnesses, I shall lay them beforemy readers. The reader will observe that there is a great difference inthe loss of life mentioned in Mr Woodbury's report and in thestatements of those who were present. I shall hereafter state why Iconsider the latter as the more correct. 

LOSS OF THE BEN SHERROD, BY A PASSENGER. 

"On Sunday morning, the 6th of May 1837, the steam-boat Ben Sherrod, under the command of Captain Castleman, was preparing to leave the leveeat New Orleans. She was thronged with passengers. Many a beautiful andinteresting woman that morning was busy in arranging the little thingsincident to travelling, and they all looked forward with high andcertain hope to the end of their journey. Little innocent childrenplayed about in the cabin, and would run to the guards--the _guards_ ofan American steam-boat are an extension of the deck on each side, beyondthe paddle boxes, which gives great width for stowage--now and then, towonder, in infantine language, at the next boat, or the water, orsomething else that drew their attention. "Oh, look here, Henry--Idon't like that boat, Lexington. "--"I wish I was going by her, " saidHenry, musingly. The men too were urgent in their arrangements of thetrunks, and getting on board sundry articles which a ten days' passagerendered necessary. In fine all seemed hope, and joy, and certainty. 

"The cabin of the Ben Sherrod was on the upper deck, but narrow inproportion to her build, for she was what is technically called aTennessee cotton boat. To those who have never seen a cotton boatloaded, it is a wondrous sight. The bales are piled up from the lowerguards wherever there is a cranny until they reach above the seconddeck, room being merely left for passengers to walk outside the cabin. You have regular alleys left amid the cotton in order to pass about onthe first deck. Such is a cotton boat carrying from 1, 500 to 2, 000bales. 

"The Ben's finish and accommodation of the cabin was by no means such aswould begin to compare with the regular passenger boats. It being latein the season, and but few large steamers being in port in consequenceof the severity of the times, the Ben Sherrod got an undue number ofpassengers, otherwise she would have been avoided, for heraccommodations were not enticing. She had a heavy freight on board, andseveral horses and carriages on the forecastle. The build of the BenSherrod was heavy, her timbers being of the largest size. 

"The morning was clear and sultry--so much so, that umbrellas werenecessary to ward off the sun. It was a curious sight to see thehundreds of citizens hurrying on board to leave letters, and to see themcoming away. When a steam-boat is going off on the Southern and Westernwaters, the excitement is fully equal to that attendant upon thedeparture of a Liverpool packet. About ten o'clock AM the ill-fatedsteamer pushed off upon the turbid current of the Mississippi, as a swanupon the waters. In a few minutes she was under way, tossing high inair, bright and snowy clouds of steam at every half revolution of herengine. Talk not of your northern steam-boats! A Mississippi steamerof seven hundred tons burthen, with adequate machinery, is one of thesublimities of poetry. For thousands of miles that great body forcesits way through a desolate country, against an almost restless current, and all the evidence you have of the immense power exerted, is broughthome to your senses by the everlasting and majestic burst of exertionfrom her escapement pipe, and the ceaseless stroke of the paddle wheels. In the dead of night, when amid the swamps on either side, your noblevessel winds her upward way--when not a soul is seen on board but theofficer on deck--when nought is heard but the clang of the fire-doorsamid the hoarse coughing of the engine, imagination yields to thevastness of the ideas thus excited in your mind, and if you have a soulthat makes you a man, you cannot help feeling strongly alive to themightiness of art in contrast with the mightiness of nature. Such ascene, and hundreds such have I realised, with an intensity that cannotbe described, always made me a better man than before. I never couldtire of the steam-boat navigation of the Mississippi. 

"On Tuesday evening, the 9th of May 1837, the steam-boat Prairie, on herway to St Louis, bore hard upon the Sherrod. It was necessary for thelatter to stop at Fort Adams, during which the Prairie passed her. Great vexation was manifested by some of the passengers, that thePrairie should get to Natchez first. This subject formed the theme ofconversation for two or three hours, the captain assuring them that hewould beat her _any how_. The Prairie is a very fast boat, and underequal chances could have beaten the Sherrod. So soon as the businesswas transacted at Fort Adams, for which she stopped, orders were givento the men to keep up their fires to the extent. It was now a littleafter 11 p. M. The captain retired to his berth, with his clothes on, and left the deck in charge of an officer. During the evening a barrelof whisky had been turned out, and permission given to the hands to doas they pleased. As may be supposed, they drew upon the barrel quiteliberally. It is the custom on all boats to furnish the firemen withliquor, though a difference exists as to the mode. But it is due to themany worthy captains now on the Mississippi, to state that the practiceof furnishing spirits is gradually dying away, and where they are given, it is only done in moderation. 

"As the Sherrod passed on above Fort Adams towards the mouth of theHomochitta, the wood piled up in the front of the furnaces several timescaught fire, and was once or twice imperfectly extinguished by thedrunken hands. It must be understood by those of my readers who havenever seen a western steamboat, that the boilers are entirely above thefirst deck, and that when the fires are well kept up for any length oftime, the heat is almost insupportable. Were it not for the draftoccasioned by the speed of the boat it would be very difficult to attendthe fires. As the boat was booming along through the water closein-shore, for, in ascending the river, boats go as close as they can toavoid the current, a negro on the beach called out to the fireman thatthe wood was on fire. The reply was, "Go to h---l, and mind your ownbusiness, " from some half intoxicated hand. "Oh, massa, " answered thenegro, "if you don't take care, you will be in h---l before I will. "On, on, on went the boat at a tremendous rate, quivering and tremblingin all her length at every revolution of the wheels. The steam washeated so fast, that it continued to escape through the safety valve, and by its sharp singing, told a tale that every prudent captain wouldhave understood. As the vessel rounded the bar that makes off from theHomochitta, being compelled to stand out into the middle of the river inconsequence, the fire was discovered. It was about one o'clock in themorning. A passenger had got up previously, and was standing on theboiler deck, when to his astonishment, the fire broke out from the pileof wood. A little presence of mind, and a set of men unintoxicated, could have saved the boat. The passenger seized a bucket, and was aboutto plunge it overboard for water, when he found it locked. An instantmore, and the fire increased in volumes. The captain was now awaked. He saw that the fire had seized the deck. He ran aft, and announced theill-tidings. No sooner were the words out of his mouth, than theshrieks of mothers, sisters, and babes, resounded through the hithertosilent cabin in the wildest confusion. Men were aroused from theirdreaming cots to experience the hot air of the approaching fire. Thepilot, being elevated on the hurricane deck, at the instant ofperceiving the flames, put the head of the boat shoreward. She hadscarcely got under good way in that direction, than the tiller ropeswere burnt asunder. Two miles at least, from the land, the vessel tooka sheer, and, borne upon by the current, made several revolutions, untilshe struck off across the river. A [sand] bar brought her up for themoment. 

"The flames had now extended fore and aft. At the first alarm severaldeck passengers had got in the yawl that hung suspended by the davits. A cabin passenger, endowed with some degree of courage and presence ofmind, expostulated with them, and did all he could to save the boats forthe ladies. 'Twas useless. One got out his knife and cut away theforward tackle. The next instant and they were all, to the number oftwenty or more, launched onto the angry waters. They were seen no more. 

"The boat being lowered from the other end, filled and was useless. Nowcame the trying moment. Hundreds leaped from the burning wreck into thewaters. Mothers were seen standing on the guards with hair dishevelled, praying for help. The dear little innocents clung to the side of theirmothers and with their tiny hands beat away the burning flames. Sisterscalling out to their brothers in unearthly voices--`Save me, oh save me, brother!'--wives crying to their husbands to save their children, intotal forgetfulness of themselves, --every second or two a desperateplunge of some poor victim falling on the appalled ear, --the dashing toand fro of the horses on the forecastle, groaning audibly from pain ofthe devouring element--the continued puffing of the engine, for it stillcontinued to go, the screaming mother who had leaped overboard in thedesperation of the moment with her only child, --the flames mounting tothe sky with the rapidity of lightning, --shall I ever forget thatscene--that hour of horror and alarm! Never, were I to live till thememory should forget all else that ever came to the senses. The shorthalf hour that separated and plunged into eternity two human beings hasbeen so burnt into the memory that even now I think of it more than halfthe day. 

"I was swimming to the shore with all my might, endeavoured to sustain amother and her child. She sank twice, and yet I bore her on. Mystrength failed me. The babe was nothing--a mere cork. `Go, go, ' saidthe brave mother, `save my child, save my--' and she sank, to rise nomore. Nerved by the resolution of that woman, I reached the shore insafety. The babe I saved. Ere I had reached the beach, the Sherrod hadswung off the bar, and was floating down, the engine having ceasedrunning. In every direction heads dotted the surface of the river. Theburning wreck now wore a new, and still more awful appearance. Motherswere seen clinging, with the last hope to the blazing timbers, anddropping off one by one. The screams had ceased. A sullen silencerested over the devoted vessel. The flames became tired of theirdestructive work. 

"While I sat dripping and overcome upon the beach, a steam boat, theColumbus, came in sight, and bore for the wreck. It seemed like onelast ray of hope gleaming across the dead gloom of that night. Severalwretches were saved. And still another, the Statesman, came in sight. More, more were saved. 

"A moment _to me_ had only elapsed, when high in the heavens the cindersflew, and the country was lighted all round. Still another boat camebooming on. I was happy that more help had come. After an exchange ofwords with the Columbus, the captain continued on his way under fullsteam. Oh, how my heart sank within me! The waves created by his boatsent many a poor mortal to his long, long home. A being by the name ofDougherty was the captain of that merciless boat. Long may he beremembered!

"My hands were burnt, and now I began to experience severe pain. Thescene before me--the loss of my two sisters and brother, whom I hadmissed in the confusion, all had steeled my heart. I could not weep--Icould not sigh. The cries of the babe at my side were nothing to me. 

"Again--another explosion! and the waters closed slowly and sullenlyover the scene of disaster and death. Darkness resumed her sway, andthe stillness was only interrupted by the distant efforts of theColumbus and Statesman in their laudable exertions to save human life. 

"Captain Castleman lost, I believe, a father and child. Some argue, this is punishment enough. No, it is not. He had the lives of hundredsunder his charge. He was careless of his trust; he was guilty of acrime that nothing will ever wipe out. The bodies of two hundredvictims are crying out from the depth of the father of waters forvengeance. Neither society nor law will give it. His punishment is yetto come. May I never meet him!

"I could tell of scenes of horror that would rouse the indignation of astoic; but I have done. As to myself, I could tell you much to exciteyour interest. It was more than three weeks after the occurrence beforeI ever shed a tear. All the fountains of sympathy had been dried up, and my heart was as stone. As I lay on my bed the twenty-fourth dayafter, tears, salt tears, came to my relief, and I felt the loss of mysisters and brother more deeply than ever. Peace be to their spirits!they found a watery grave. 

"In the course of all human events, scenes of misery will occur. Butwhere they rise from sheer carelessness, it requires more than christianfortitude to forgive the being who is in fault. I repeat, may I nevermeet Captain Castleman or Captain Dougherty!

"I shall follow this tale of woe by some strictures on the mode ofbuilding steam-boats in the west, and show that human life has beenjeopardised by the demoniac spirit of speculation, cheating and roguery. The fate of the Ben Sherrod shall be my text. "

It will be seen from this narrative, that the loss of the vessel wasoccasioned by racing with another boat, a frequent practice on theMississippi. That people should run such risk, will appear strange butif any of my readers had ever been on board of a steam vessel in a race, they would not be surprised; the excitement produced by it is the mostpowerful that can be conceived--I have myself experienced it, and cananswer for the truth of it. At first, the feeling of dangerpredominates, and many of the passengers beg the captain to desist: buthe cannot bear to be passed by, and left astern. As the race continues, so do they all warm up, until even those who, most aware of the danger, were at first most afraid, are to be seen standing over the veryboilers, shouting, huzzaing, and stimulating the fireman to blow themup; the very danger gives an unwonted interest to the scene; andfemales, as well as men, would never be persuaded to cry out, "Hold, enough!"

Another proof of the disregard of human life is here given in the factof one steam-boat passing by and rendering no assistance to the drowningwretches; nay, it was positively related to me by one who was in thewater, that the blows of the paddles of this steam-boat sent down manywho otherwise might have been saved. 

When I was on the Lakes, the wood which was piled close to thefire-place caught fire. It was of no consequence, as it happened, forit being a well-regulated boat, the fire was soon extinguished; but Imention it to show the indifference of one of the men on board. Abouthalf an hour afterwards, one of his companions roused him from hisberth, shaking him by the shoulder to wake him, saying, "Get up, thewood's a-fire--quick. " "Well, I knew that 'fore I turn'd in, " repliedthe man, yawning. 

The loss of the Home occasioned many of the first families in the statesto go into deep mourning, for the major portion of the passengers werehighly respectable. I was at New York when she started. I had had anhour's conversation with Professor Nott and his amiable wife, and hadmade arrangements with them to meet them in South Carolina. We nevermet again, for they were in the list of those who perished. 

LOSS OF THE HOME. 

"The steam-packet Home, commanded by Capt. White, left New York, forCharleston, South Carolina, at four o'clock, p. M. , on Saturday, the 7thOct. 1837, having on board between eighty and ninety passengers, andforty-three of the boat's crew, including officers, making in all aboutone hundred and thirty persons. The weather at this time was verypleasant, and all on board appeared to enjoy, in anticipation, adelightful and prosperous passage. On leaving the wharf, cheerfulnessappeared to fill the hearts and enliven the countenances of thisfloating community. Already had conjectures been hazarded, as to thetime of their arrival at the destined port, and high hopes wereentertained of an expeditious and pleasant voyage. Before sixo'clock, --a check to these delusive expectations was experienced, by theboat being run aground on the Romer Shoal, near Sandy Hook. It beingebb tide, it was found impossible to get off before the next flood;consequently, the fires were allowed to burn out, and the boat remaineduntil the flood tide took her off, which was between ten and eleveno'clock at night, making the time of detention about four or five hours. As the weather was perfectly calm, it cannot, reasonably, be supposedthat the boat could have received any material injury from thisaccident; for, during the time that it remained aground, it had no othermotion than an occasional roll on the keel from side to side. The nightcontinued pleasant. The next morning, (Sunday, ) a moderate breezeprevailed from the north-east. The sails were spread before the wind, and the speed of the boat, already rapid, was much accelerated. Allwent on pleasantly till about noon, when the wind had increased, and thesea became rough. At sunset, the wind blew heavily, and continued toincrease during the night; at daylight, on Monday, it had become a gale. During the night, much complaint was made that the water came into theberths, and before the usual time of rising, some of the passengers hadabandoned them on that account. 

"The sea, from the violence of the gale, raged frightfully, and caused ageneral anxiety amongst the passengers; but still, they appeared to relyon the skill and judgment of the captain and officers, --supposing, thatevery exertion would be used, on their part, for the preservation of somany valuable lives as were then entrusted to those who had the chargeof this frail boat. Early on Monday, land was discovered, nearly ahead, which, by many, was supposed to be False Cape, on the northern part ofHatteras. Soon after this discovery, the course of the boat was changedfrom southerly to south-easterly, which was the general course throughthe day, though with some occasional changes. The condition of the boatwas now truly alarming; it bent and twisted, when struck by a sea, as ifthe next would rend it asunder: the panels of the ceiling were fallingfrom their places; and the hull, as if united by hinges, was bendingagainst the feet of the braces. Throughout the day, the rolling andpitching were so great, that no cooking could be done on board. 

"It has already been stated, that the general course of the boat was, during the day, south-easterly, and consequently in what is called thetrough of the sea, as the wind was from the north-east. Late in theafternoon, the boat was reported to be in twenty-three fathoms of water, when the course was changed to a south-westerly. Soon after this, itwas observed that the course was again changed, to north-westerly; whenthe awful truth burst upon us, that the boat must be filling; for wecould imagine no other cause for this sudden change. This was but amomentary suspense; for within a few minutes, all the passengers werecalled on to bale, in order to prevent the boat from sinking. Immediately, all were employed, but with little effect; for, notwithstanding the greatest exertion on the part of the passengers, including even many of the ladies, the water was rapidly increasing, andgave most conclusive evidence, that, unless we reached the shore withina few hours, the boat must sink at sea, and probably not a soul be leftto communicate the heart-rending intelligence to bereaved anddisconsolate friends. Soon after the boat was headed towards the land, the water had increased so much, as to reach the fire under the boilers, which was soon extinguished. Gloomy indeed was the prospect before us. With one hundred and thirty persons in a sinking boat, far out at sea, in a dark and tempestuous night, with no other dependence for reachingthe shore than a few small and tattered sails, our condition might beconsidered truly awful. But, with all these dishearteningcircumstances, hope, delusive hope, still supported us. Although it wasevident that we must soon sink, and our progress towards the land wasvery slow, still we cherished the expectation that the boat wouldfinally be run on shore, and thus most of us be delivered from a waterygrave. Early in the afternoon, the ladies had been provided with stripsof blankets, that they might be lashed to such parts of the boat aswould afford the greatest probability of safety. 

"In this condition, and with these expectations, we gradually, but witha motion nearly imperceptible, approached, what to many of us was anuntried, and almost an unknown shore. At about eleven o'clock, thosewho had been employed in baling were compelled to leave the cabin, asthe boat had sunk until the deck was nearly level with the water, and itappeared too probable that all would soon be swallowed up by the foamingwaves. The heaving of the lead indicated an approach to the shore. Soon was the cheering intelligence of `Land! land!' announced by thoseon the look-out. This, for a moment, aroused the sinking energies ofall, when a general bustle ensued, in the hasty, but trifling, preparations that could be made for safety, as soon as the boat shouldstrike. But what were the feelings of an anxious multitude, when, instead of land, a range of angry breakers were visible just ahead; andland, if it could be seen at all, was but half perceptible in thedistance far beyond. 

"As every particular is a matter of interest, especially to those whohad friends and relatives on board, --it may not be improper to state, that one individual urged the propriety of lowering the small boats, andputting the ladies and children into them for safety, with suitablepersons to manage them, before we struck the breakers. By thisarrangement, had it been effected, it is believed that the boats mighthave rode out the gale during the night, and have been rescued in themorning by passing vessels, and thus all, or nearly all, have beensaved. But few supported this proposition, and it could not be donewithout the prompt interference of those who had authority to command, and who would be obeyed. 

"Immediately before we struck, one or two passengers, by the aid of someof the seamen, attempted to seek safety in one of the bouts at thequarter, when a breaker struck it, swept it from the davits, and carriedwith it a seaman, who was instantly lost. A similar attempt was made tolaunch the long-boat from the upper deck, by the chief mate Mr Mathews, and others. It was filled with several passengers, and some of thecrew; but, as we were already within the verge of the breakers, thisboat shared the fate of the other, and all on board (about ten innumber) perished. 

"Now commenced the most heart-rending scene. Wives clinging tohusbands, --children to parents, --and women who were without protectors, seeking aid from the arm of the stranger, all awaiting the results of amoment, which would bring with it either life or death. Though anintense feeling of anxiety must, at this time, have filled every breast, yet not a shriek was heard, nor was there any extraordinary exclamationof excitement or alarm. A slight agitation was, however, apparent inthe general circle. Some few hurried from one part of the boat toanother, as if seeking place of greater safety; yet most, andparticularly those who had the melancholy charge of wives and children, remained quiet and calm observers of the scene before them. 

"The boat, at length, strikes; it stops, as motionless as a bar of lead. A momentary pause follows, as if the angel of death shrunk from sodreadful a work of slaughter. But soon the work of destructioncommenced. A breaker with a deafening crash, swept over the boat, carrying its unfortunate victims into the deep. At the same time, asimultaneous rush was made towards the bows of the boat. The forwarddeck was covered. Another breaker came, with irresistible force, andall within its sweep disappeared. Our numbers were now frightfullyreduced. The roaring of the waters, together with the dreadful crash ofbreaking timbers, surpasses the power of description. Some of theremaining passengers sought shelter from the encroaching dangers, byretreating to the passage, on the lee side of the boat, that leads fromthe after to the forward deck, as if to be as far as possible from thegrasp of death. It may not be improper here to remark, that thedestruction of the boat, and loss of life, was, doubtless, much morerapid than it otherwise would have been, from the circumstance of theboat heeling to windward, and the deck, which was nearly level with thewater, forming, in consequence, an inclined plane, upon which the wavesbroke with their full force. 

"A large proportion of those who rushed into this passage, were ladiesand children, with a few gentlemen who had charge of them. The crowdwas so dense, that many were in danger of being crushed by theirresistible pressure. Here were perhaps some of the most painfulsights ever beheld. Before introducing any of the closing scenes ofindividuals, which the writer witnessed, or which he has gathered fromhis fellow passengers, he would beg to be understood, that it is not forthe gratification of the idle curiosity of the careless and indifferentreader, or to pierce afresh the bleeding wounds of surviving friends, but to furnish such facts as may be interesting, and which, perhaps, might never be attained through any other channel. 

"As the immediate connections of the writer are already informed of theparticulars relating to his own unhappy bereavement, there is nonecessity for entering in a minute detail of this melancholy event. 

"This passage contained perhaps thirty or more persons, consisting ofmen, women and children, with no apparent possibility of escape;enclosed within a narrow aperture, over which was the deck, and bothends of which were completely closed by the fragments of the boat andthe rushing of the waves. While thus shut up, death appearedinevitable. Already were both decks swept of everything that was onthem. The dining cabin was entirely gone, and everything belonging tothe quarter-deck was completely stripped off, leaving not even astanchion or particle of the bulwarks; and all this was the work ofabout five minutes. 

"The starboard wheel-house, and everything about it, was soon entirelydemolished. As much of the ceiling forward of the starboard wheel had, during the day, fallen from its place, the waves soon found their waythrough all that remained to oppose them, and were in a few minutes'time forcing into the last retreat of those who had taken shelter in thepassage already mentioned. 

"Every wave made a frightful encroachment on our narrow limits, andseemed to threaten us with immediate death. Hopeless as was thecondition of those thus hemmed in, yet not a shriek was heard from them. One lady, unknown to the writer, begged earnestly for some one to saveher. In a time of such alarm, it is not strange that a helpless femaleshould plead with earnestness for assistance from those who were abouther, or even offer them money for that aid which the least reflectionwould have convinced her it was not possible to render. Another scene, witnessed at this trying hour, was still more painful. A little boy waspleading with his father to save him. `Father, ' said the boy, `you willsave me, won't you? you can swim ashore with me, can't you, father?'But the unhappy father was too deeply absorbed in the other charges thatleant on him, even to notice the imploring accents of his helplesschild. For at that time, as near as the writer can judge, from thedarkness of the place they were in, his wife hung upon one arm, and hisdaughter of seventeen upon the other. He had one daughter besides, nearthe age of this little boy, but whether she was at that time living ornot, is uncertain. 

"After remaining here some minutes, the deck overhead was split open bythe violence of the waves, which allowed the writer an opportunity ofclimbing out. This he instantly did, and assisted his wife through thesame opening. As he had now left those below, he is unable to say howthey were finally lost; but, as that part of the boat was very sooncompletely destroyed, their further sufferings could not have been muchprolonged. We were now in a situation which, from the time the boatstruck, we had considered as the most safe, and had endeavoured toattain. Here we resolved to await our uncertain fate. From this placewe could see the encroachment of the devouring waves, every one of whichreduced our thinned numbers, and swept with it parts of our crumblingboat. For several hours previously, the gale had been sensibly abating;and, for a moment, the pale moon broke through the dispersing clouds, asif to witness this scene of terror and destruction, and to show to thehorror-stricken victims the fate that awaited them. How few were nowleft, of the many who, but a little before, inhabited our bark! Whilethe moon yet shone, three men were seen to rush from the middle to thestern of the boat. A wave came rushing on. It passed over the deck. One only, of the three, was left. He attempted to gain his formerposition. Another wave came. He had barely time to reach a largetimber, to which he clung, when this wave struck him, and he too wasmissing. As the wave passed away, the heads of two of these men wereseen above the water; but they appeared to make no effort to swim. Theprobability is, that the violence with which they were hurled into thesea disabled them. They sunk to rise no more. 

"During this time, Mr Lovegreen, of Charleston, continued to ring theboat's bell, which added if possible to the gloom. It sounded, indeed, like the funeral knell over the departed dead. Never before, perhaps, was a bell tolled at such a funeral as this. While in this situation, and reflecting on the necessity of being always prepared for therealities of eternity, our attention was arrested by the appearance of alady, climbing upon the outside of the boat, abaft the wheel near wherewe were. Her head was barely above the deck on which we stood, and shewas holding to it, in a most perilous manner. She implored help, without which she must soon have fallen into the deep beneath, andshared the fate of the many who had already gone. The writer ran to heraid, but was unable to raise her to the deck. Mr Woodburn, of NewYork, now came, and, with his assistance, the lady was rescued; she wasthen lashed to a large piece of timber, by the side of another lady, theonly remaining place that afforded any prospect of safety. The formerlady (Mrs Shroeder) was washed ashore on this piece of wreck, one ofthe two who survived. The writer having relinquished to this lady theplace he had occupied, was compelled to get upon a large piece of theboat, that lay near, under the lee of the wheel; this was almostimmediately driven from its place into the breakers, which instantlyswept him from it, and plunged him deep into the water. With somedifficulty he regained his raft. He continued to cling to thisfragment, as well as he could, but was repeatedly washed from it. Sometimes when plunged deep into the water, he came up under it. Afterencountering all the difficulties that seemed possible to be borne, hewas at length thrown on shore, in an exhausted state. At the time thewriter was driven from the boat, there were but few left. Of these, four survived, _viz_. Mrs Shroeder and Mr Lovegreen, of Charleston;Mr Cohen, of Columbia; and Mr Vanderzee, of New York. 

"On reaching the beach, there was no appearance of inhabitants; butafter wandering some distance, a light was discovered, which proved tobe from Ocracoke lighthouse, about six miles south-west of the placewhere the boat was wrecked. The inhabitants of the island, generally, treated us with great kindness, and, so far as their circumstances, would allow, assisted in properly disposing the numerous bodies thrownupon the shore. 

"The survivors, after remaining on the island till Thursday afternoon, separated, some returning to New York, others proceeding on toCharleston. Acknowledgment is due to the inhabitants of Washington, Newbern, and Wilmington, as well as of other places through which wepassed, for the kind hospitality we received, and the generous offersmade to us. Long will these favours be gratefully remembered by thesurvivors of the unfortunate Home. "

Even if the captain of the Home was intoxicated, it is certain that theloss of the vessel was not occasioned by that circumstance, but by thevessel not having been built sea-worthy. 

The narrative of the loss of the Moselle is the last which I shall giveto the reader. It is written by Judge Hall, one of the best of theAmerican writers. 

LOSS OF THE MOSELLE. 

"The recent explosion of the steam-boat Moselle, at Cincinnati, affordsa most awful illustration of the danger of steam navigation, whenconducted by ignorant or careless men: and fully sustains the remarkmade in the preceding pages, that, `the accidents are almost whollyconfined to insufficient or badly managed boats. '

"The Moselle was a new boat, intended to ply regularly betweenCincinnati and St Louis. She had made but two or three trips, but hadalready established a high reputation for speed; and, as is usual insuch cases, those by whom she was owned and commanded, became ambitiousto have her rated as a `crack boat, ' and spared no pains to exalt hercharacter. The newspapers noticed the _quick trips_ of the Moselle, andpassengers chose to embark in this boat in preference to others. Hercaptain was an enterprising young man, without much experience, bentupon gaining for his boat, at all hazards, the distinction of being thefastest upon the river, and not fully aware, perhaps, of the inevitabledanger which attended this rash experiment. 

"On Wednesday the 25th of April, between four and five o'clock in theafternoon, this shocking catastrophe occurred. The boat was crowdedwith passengers; and, as is usually the case on our western rivers, inregard to vessels passing westerly, the largest proportion wereemigrants. They were mostly deck passengers, many of whom were poorGermans, ignorant of any language but their own, and the larger portionconsisted of families, comprising persons of all ages. Although not alarge boat, there were eighty-five passengers in the cabin, which was amuch larger number than could be comfortably accommodated; the number ofdeck passengers is not exactly known, but, as is estimated, at betweenone hundred and twenty and one hundred and fifty; and the officers andcrew amounted to thirty, making in all about two hundred and sixtysouls. 

"It was a pleasant afternoon, and the boat, with steam raised, delayedat the wharf, to increase the number--already too great--of herpassengers, who continued to crowd in, singly or in companies, allanxious to hurry onwards in the first boat, or eager to take passage inthe _fast-running_ Moselle. They were of all conditions--the militaryofficer hastening to Florida to take command of his regiment--themerchant bound to St Louis--the youth seeking a field on which tocommence the career of life--and the indigent emigrant with his wife andchildren, already exhausted in purse and spirits, but still pushingonward to the distant frontier. 

"On leaving the wharf, the boat ran up the river about a mile, to takein some families and freight, and having touched at the shore for thatpurpose, for a few minutes, was about to lay her course down the river. The spot at which she thus landed was at a suburb of the city, calledFulton, and a number of persons had stopped to witness her departure, several of whom remarked, from the peculiar sound of the steam, that ithad been raised to an unusual height. The crowd thus attracted--thehigh repute of the Moselle--and certain vague rumours which began tocirculate, that the captain had determined, at every risk, to beatanother boat which had just departed--all these circumstances gave anunusual eclat to the departure of this ill-fated vessel. 

"The landing completed, the bow of the boat was shoved from the shore, when an explosion took place, by which the whole of the forepart of thevessel was literally blown up. The passengers were unhappily in themost exposed positions on the deck, and particularly on the forwardpart, sharing the excitement of the spectators on shore, andanticipating the pleasure of darting rapidly past the city in the swiftMoselle. The power of the explosion was unprecedented in the history ofsteam; its effect was like that of a mine of gunpowder. All theboilers, four in number, were simultaneously burst; the deck was blowninto the air, and the human beings who crowded it hurried into instantdestruction. Fragments of the boilers, and of human bodies, were thrownboth to the Kentucky and the Ohio shore; and as the boat lay near thelatter, some of these helpless victims must have been thrown a quarterof a mile. The body of Captain Perry, the master, was found dreadfullymangled, on the nearest shore. A man was hurled with such force, thathis head, with half his body, penetrated the roof of a house, distantmore than a hundred yards from the boat. Of the number who had crowdedthis beautiful boat a few minutes before, nearly all were hurled intothe air, or plunged into the water. A few, in the after part of thevessel, who were uninjured by the explosion, jumped overboard. Aneye-witness says that he saw sixty or seventy in the water at one time, of whom not a dozen reached the shore. 

"The news or this awful catastrophe spread rapidly through the city, thousands rushed to the spot, and the most benevolent aid was promptlyextended to the sufferers--to such, we should rather say, as were withinthe reach of human assistance--for the majority had perished. 

"The writer was among those who hastened to the neighbourhood of thewreck, and witnessed a scene so sad that no language can depict it withfidelity. On the shore lay twenty or thirty mangled and still bleedingcorpses, while others were in the act of being dragged from the wreck orthe water. There were men carrying away the wounded, and othersgathering the trunks, and articles of wearing apparel, that strewed thebeach. 

"The survivors of this awful tragedy presented the most touching objectsof distress. Death had torn asunder the most tender ties; but therupture had been so sudden and violent, that as yet none knew certainlywho had been taken, nor who had been spared. Fathers were inquiring forchildren, children for parents, husbands and wives for each other. Oneman had saved a son, but lost a wife and five children. A father, partially deranged, lay with a wounded child on one side, a deaddaughter on the other, and his wife, wounded, at his feet. Onegentleman sought his wife and children, who were as eagerly seeking himin the same crowd--they met, and were re-united. 

"A female deck passenger, that had been saved, seemed inconsolable forthe loss of her relations. To every question put to her, she wouldexclaim, `Oh my father! my mother! my sisters!' A little boy, aboutfour or five years of age, whose head was much bruised, appeared to beregardless of his wounds, but cried continually for a lost father; whileanother lad, a little older, was weeping for his whole family. 

"One venerable looking man wept a wife and five children; another wasbereft of nine members of his family. A touching display of maternalaffection was evinced by a lady who, on being brought to the shore, clasped her hands and exclaimed, `Thank God, I am safe!' but instantlyrecollecting herself, ejaculated in a voice of piercing agony, `where ismy child!' The infant, which had been saved, was brought to her, andshe fainted at the sight of it. 

"A public meeting was called in Cincinnati, at which the mayor presided, when the facts of this melancholy occurrence were discussed, and amongother resolutions passed, was one deprecating `the great and increasingcarelessness in the navigation of steam vessels, ' and urging thissubject upon the consideration of Congress. No one denied that this sadevent, which had filled our city with consternation, sympathy, andsorrow, was the result of a reckless and criminal inattention to theirduty, on the part of those having the care of the Moselle, nor did anyone attempt to palliate their conduct. Committees were appointed toseek out the sufferers, and perform the various duties which humanitydictated. Through the exertions of the gentlemen appointed on thisoccasion, lists were obtained and published, showing the names of thepassengers as far as could be obtained, and giving the followingresult:--"

+=============+===+ÝKilled Ý 81Ý+-------------+---+ÝBadly woundedÝ 18Ý+-------------+---+ÝMissing Ý 55Ý+-------------+---+ÝSaved Ý117Ý+-------------+---+Ý Ý266Ý+=============+===+

"As many strangers entered the boat but a few minutes before itsdeparture, whose names were not registered, it is probable that thewhole number of souls on board was not less than _two hundred andeighty_. Of the missing, many dead bodies have since been found, butvery few have been added to the list of _saved_. The actual number oflives lost, therefore, does not vary much from _one hundred and fifty_. "

The following observations are made in the Report of the Committee, relative to the tremendous force of the steam:

"Of the immense force exerted in this explosion, there is abundantevidence: still in this extraordinary occurrence in the history ofsteam, I deem it important to be particular in noting the facts, and forthat purpose I have made some measurements and calculations. The boatwas one hundred and sixteen feet from the water's edge, one hundred andninety-two from the top of the bank, which was forty-three feet inperpendicular height above the water. The situations of projectedbodies ascertained were as follows: Part of the body of a man, thrownnearly horizontally into a skiff at the water's edge, one hundred andsixteen feet. The body of the captain thrown nearly to the top of thebank, two hundred feet. The body of a man thrown through the roof of ahouse, at the distance of one hundred and twelve feet, and fifty-ninefeet above the water's edge. A portion of the boiler, containing aboutsixty square feet, and weighing about four hundred and fifty pounds, thrown one hundred and seventy feet, and about two-thirds of the way upthe bank. A second portion of the boiler, of about thirty-five squarefeet, and weighing about two hundred and forty-five pounds, thrown fourhundred and fifty feet on the hill side, and seventy feet in altitude. A third portion of the boiler, twenty-one square feet, one hundred andforty-seven pounds, thrown three hundred and thirty feet into atan-yard. A fourth portion, of forty-eight square feet, and weighingthree hundred and thirty-six pounds, thrown four hundred and eighty feetinto the garret of a back shop of a tan-yard; having broken down theroof and driven out the gable-end. The last portion must have beenthrown to a very great height, as it had entered the roof of [sic] anangle of at least sixty degrees. A fifth portion, weighing two hundredand thirty-six pounds, went obliquely up the river eight hundred feet, and passing over the houses, landed on the side walk, the bricks ofwhich had been broken and driven deeply into the ground by it. Thisportion had encountered some individual in its course, as it camestained with blood. Such was the situation of the houses that it musthave fallen at an angle as high as forty-five degrees. It has beenstated, that bodies of persons were projected quite across the riverinto Kentucky. I can find no evidence of the truth of this: on thecontrary, Mr Kerr informs me that he made inquiries of the people onthe opposite shore, and could not learn that anything was seen to fallfarther than half way across the river, which is at that place aboutsixteen hundred feet wide. "

I was at Cincinnati some time after the explosion, and examined thewreck which still lay on the Ohio shore. After the report was drawn upit was discovered that the force of the explosion had been even greaterthan was supposed, and that portions of the engine and boilers had beenthrown to a much greater distance. It is to be remarked, that MrWoodbury's report to Congress states from one hundred to one hundred andtwenty persons as having been killed. Judge Hall, in the report of thecommittee, estimates it at one hundred and fifty; but there is reason tobelieve that the loss on this occasion, as well as in many others, wasgreater than even in the report of the committee. The fact is, it isalmost impossible to state the loss on these occasions; the only data togo upon are the books in which the passengers' names are taken down whenthe fare is paid, and this is destroyed. In a country like America, there are thousands of people unknown to anybody, migrating here andthere, seeking the Far West to settle in; they come and go, and nobodyknows anything of them; there might have been one hundred more of themon board the Moselle at the time that she exploded; and as I heard fromCaptain Pearce, the harbour-master, and others, it is believed that suchwas the case, and that many more were destroyed than was at firstsupposed. 

The American steam-boats are very different from ours in appearance, inconsequence of the engines being invariably on deck. The decks also arecarried out many feet wider on each side than the hull of the vessel, togive space; these additions to the deck aye called guards. The enginebeing on the first deck, there is a second deck for the passengers, state-rooms, and saloons; and above this deck there is another, coveredwith a white awning. They have something the appearance of two-deckers, and when filled with company, the variety of colours worn by the ladieshave a very novel and pleasing effect. The boats which run from NewYork to Boston, and up the Hudson river to Albany, are very splendidvessels; they have low-pressure engines, are well commanded, and I neverheard of any accident of any importance taking place; their engines arealso very superior--one on board of the Narangassett, with a horizontalstroke, was one of the finest I ever saw. On the Mississippi, Ohio, andtheir tributary rivers, the high-pressure engine is invariably used;they have tried the low-pressure, but have found that it will notanswer, in consequence of the great quantity of mud contained insolution on the waters of the Mississippi, which destroys all the valvesand leathers; and this is the principal cause of the many accidentswhich take place. At the same time it must be remembered, that there isa recklessness--an indifference to life--shown throughout all America;which is rather a singular feature, inasmuch as it extends East as wellas West. It can only be accounted for by the insatiate pursuit of gainamong a people who consider that time is money, and who are blinded bytheir eagerness in the race for it, added to that venturous spirit sonaturally imbibed in a new country, at the commencement of itsoccupation. It is communicated to the other sex, who appear equallyindifferent. The Moselle had not been blown up two hours, before theother steamboats were crowded with women, who followed their relationson business or pleasure, up and down the river. "Go a-head, " is themotto of the country; both sexes join in the cry; and they do goa-head--that's a fact!

I was amused with a story told me by an American gentleman: a steamboatcaught fire on the Mississippi, and the passengers had to jump overboardand save themselves by swimming. One of those reckless characters, agambler, who, was on board, having apparently a very good idea of hisown merits, went aft, and before he leapt overboard, cried out, "Now, gallows, claim your own!"

The attention of the American legislature has at length been directed tothe want of security in steam navigation; and in July, 1838, an act waspassed to provide for the better security of the passengers. Many ofthe clauses are judicious, especially as far as the inspecting of themis regulated; but that of iron chains or rods for tiller ropes is notpracticable on a winding river, and will be the occasion of manydisasters. Had they ordered the boats to be provided with iron chainsor rods, to be used as preventive wheel-ropes, it would have answeredthe purpose. In case of fire they could easily be hooked on; but tosteer with them in tide-ways and rapid turns is almost impossible. Thelast clause, No. 13, (page 170, Report) is too harsh, as a flue maycollapse at any time, without any want of care or skill on the part ofthe builders or those on board. 

It is to be hoped that some good effects will be produced by this act ofthe legislature. At present, it certainly is more dangerous to travelone week in America than to cross the Atlantic a dozen times. Thenumber of lives lost in one year by accidents in steam boats, rail-roads, and coaches, was estimated, in a periodical which I read inAmerica, at _one thousand seven hundred and fifty_. 

VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER FOUR. 

TRAVELLING. 

To one who has been accustomed to the extortion of the inns and hotelsin England, and the old continent, nothing at first is more remarkablethan to find that there are more remains of the former American purityof manners and primitive simplicity to be observed in theirestablishments for the entertainment of man and horse, than in anyportion of public or private life. Such is the case, and the causes ofthe anomaly are to be explained. 

I presume that the origin of hotels and inns has been much the same inall countries. At first the solitary traveller is received, welcomed, and hospitably entertained; but, as the wayfarers multiply, what was atfirst a pleasure becomes a tax. For instance, let us take WesternVirginia, through which the first irruption to the Far West may be saidto have taken place. At first every one was received and accommodatedby those who had settled there; but as this gradually becameinconvenient, not only from interfering with their domestic privacy, butfrom their not being prepared to meet the wants of the travellers, theinhabitants of any small settlement met together and agreed upon one ofthem keeping the house of reception; this was not done with a view ofprofit, the travellers being only charged the actual value of thearticles consumed. Such is still the case in many places in the FarWest; a friend of mine told me that he put up at the house of a widowwoman; he supped, slept, had his breakfast, and his horse was also wellsupplied. When he was leaving, he inquired what he had to pay, thewoman replied--, "Well, if I don't charge something, I suppose you willbe affronted. Give me a shilling;" a sum not sufficient to pay for thehorse's corn. 

The American innkeeper, therefore, is still looked upon in the light ofyour host; he and his wife sit at the head of the _table-d'hote_ at mealtimes; when you arrive he greets you with a welcome, shaking your hand;if you arrive in company with those who know him, you are introduced tohim; he is considered on a level with you; you meet him in the mostrespectable companies, and it is but justice to say that, in mostinstances, they are a very respectable portion of society. Of course, his authority, like that of the captains of the steam-boats, isundisputed; indeed the captains of these boats may be partly consideredas classed under the same head. 

This is one of the most pleasing features in American society, and Ithink it is likely to last longer than most others in this land ofchange, because it is upheld by public opinion, which is so despotic. The mania for travelling, among the people of the United States, rendersit most important that every thing connected with locomotion should bewell arranged; society demands it, public opinion enforces it, andtherefore, with few exceptions, it is so. The respect shown to themaster of a hotel induces people of the highest character to embark inthe profession; the continual streams of travellers which pours throughthe country, gives sufficient support by moderate profits, to enable theinnkeeper to abstain from excessive charges; the price of every thing isknown by all, and no more is charged to the President of the UnitedStates than to other people. Every one knows his expenses; there is nosurcharge, and fees to waiters are voluntary, and never asked for. Atfirst I used to examine the bill when presented, but latterly I lookedonly at the sum total at the bottom and paid it at once, reserving theexamination of it for my leisure, and never in one instance found that Ihad been imposed upon. This is very remarkable, and shows the force ofpublic opinion in America; for it can produce, when required, a veryscarce article all over the world, and still more scarce in theprofession referred to, Honesty. Of course there will be exceptions, but they are very few, and chiefly confined to the cities. I shallrefer to them afterwards, and at the same time to some peculiarities, which I must not omit to point out, as they affect society. Let mefirst describe the interior arrangements of a first-rate American hotel. 

The building is very spacious, as may be imagined when I state that inthe busy times, from one hundred and fifty to two, or even threehundred, generally sit down at the dinner-table. The upper storiescontain an immense number of bed-rooms, with their doors opening uponlong corridors, with little variety in their furniture and arrangement, except that some are provided with large beds for married people, andothers with single beds. The basement of the building contains thedinner-room, of ample dimensions, to receive the guests, who at thesound of a gong rush in, and in a few minutes have finished theirrepast. The same room is appropriated to breakfast and supper. In mosthotels there is but one dining-room, to which ladies and gentlemen bothrepair, but in the more considerable, there is a smaller dining-room forthe ladies and their connexions who escort them. The ladies have also alarge parlour to retire to; the gentlemen have the reading-room, containing some of the principal newspapers, and the _Bar_, of whichhereafter. If a gentleman wants to give a dinner to a private party inany of these large hotels, he can do it; or if a certain number offamilies join together, they may also eat in a separate room (this isfrequently done at Washington;) but if a traveller wishes to secludehimself _a l'Anglaise_, and dine in his own room, he must make up hismind to fare very badly, and, moreover, if he is a foreigner, he willgive great offence, and be pointed out as an aristocrat--almost asserious a charge with the majority in the United States, as it was inFrance during the Revolution. 

The largest hotels in the United States are Astor House, New York;Tremont House, Boston; Mansion house, Philadelphia; the hotels at WestPoint, and at Buffalo; but it is unnecessary to enumerate them all. Thetwo pleasantest, are the one at West Point, which was kept by MrCozens, and that belonging to Mr Head, the Mansion House atPhiladelphia; but the latter can scarcely be considered as a hotel, notonly because Mr Head is, and always was, a gentleman with whom it is apleasure to associate, but because he is very particular in whom hereceives, and only gentlemen are admitted. It is more like a privateclub than any thing else I can compare it to, and I passed some of mypleasantest time in America at his establishment, and never bid farewellto him or his sons, or the company, without regret. There are somehotels in New York upon the English system: the Globe is the best, and Ialways frequented it; and there is an excellent French restaurateur's(Delmonico's). 

Of course, where the population and traffic are great, and thetravellers who pass through numerous, the hotels are large and good;where, on the contrary, the road is less and less frequented, so do theydecrease in importance, size, and respectability, until you arrive atthe farm-house entertainment of Virginia and Kentucky; the grocery, ormere grog-shop, or the log-house of the Far West. The way-side inns areremarkable for their uniformity; the furniture of the bar-room isinvariably the same: a wooden clock, map of the United States, map ofthe State, the Declaration of Independence, a looking-glass, with ahair-brush and comb hanging to it by strings, _pro bono publico_;sometimes with the extra embellishment of one or two miserable pictures, such as General Jackson scrambling upon a horse, with fire or steamcoming out of his nostrils, going to the battle of New Orleans, etcetera, etcetera. 

He who is of the silver-fork school, will not find much comfort out ofthe American cities and large towns. There are no neat, quiet littleinns, as in England. It is all the "rough and tumble" system, and whenyou stop at humble inns you must expect to eat peas with a two-prongedfork, and to sit down to meals with people whose exterior is any thingbut agreeable, to attend upon yourself, and to sleep in a room in whichthere are three or four other beds; (I have slept in one with nearlytwenty, ) most of them carrying double, even if you do not have acompanion in your own. 

A New York friend of mine travelling in an Extra with his family, toldme that at a western inn he had particularly requested that he might nothave a bed-fellow, and was promised that he should not. On hisretiring, he found his bed already occupied, and he went down to thelandlady, and expostulated. "Well, " replied she, "it's only your own_driver_; I thought you wouldn't mind him. "

Another gentleman told me, that having arrived at a place called Snake'sHollow, on the Mississippi, the bed was made on the kitchen-floor, andthe whole family and travellers, amounting in all to seventeen, of allages and both sexes, turned into the same bed altogether. Of coursethis must be expected in a new country, and is a source of amusement, rather than of annoyance. 

I must now enter into a very important question, which is that of eatingand drinking. Mr Cooper, in his remarks upon his own countrymen, says, very ill-naturedly--"The Americans are the grossest feeders of anycivilised nation known. As a nation, their food is heavy, coarse, andindigestible, while it is taken in the least artificial forms thatcookery will allow. The predominance of grease in the American kitchen, coupled with the habits of hearty eating, and of constant expectoration, are the causes of the diseases of the stomach which are so common inAmerica. "

This is not correct. The cookery in the United States is exactly whatit is and must be every where else--in a ratio with the degree ofrefinement of the population. In the principal cities, you will meetwith as good cookery in private houses as you will in London, or evenParis; indeed, considering the great difficulty which the Americans haveto contend with, from the almost impossibility of obtaining goodservants, I have often been surprised that it is so good as it is. AtDelmonico's, and the Globe Hotel at New York, where you dine from theCarte, you have excellent French cookery; so you have at Astor House, particularly at private parties; and, generally speaking, the cooking atall the large hotels may be said to be good; indeed, when it isconsidered that the American table-d'hote has to provide for so manypeople, it is quite surprising how well it is done. The daily dinner, at these large hotels, is infinitely superior to any I have ever satdown to at the _public_ entertainments given at the Free-Masons' Tavern, and others in London, and the company is usually more numerous. Thebill of fare of the table-d'hote of the Astor House is _printed everyday_. I have one with me which I shall here insert, to prove that theeating is not so bad in America as described by Mr Cooper. 

+=======================================+ÝAstor House, Wednesday, March 21, 1838. Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝTable-d'Hote Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝVermicelli Soup Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝBoiled Cod Fish and Oysters Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝDo. Corn'd Beef Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝDo. Ham Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝDo. Tongue Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝDo. Turkey and Oysters Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝDo. Chickens and Pork Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝDo. Leg of Mutton Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝOyster Pie Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝCuisse de Poulet Sauce Tomate Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝPoitrine de Veau au Blanc Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝBallon de Mouton au Tomate Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝTete de Veau en Marinade Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝSalade de Volaille Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝCasserolle de Pomme de Terre garnie Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝCompote de Pigeon Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝRolleau de Veau a la Jardiniere Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝCotelettes de Veau Saute Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝFilet de Mouton Pique aux Ognons Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝRonde de Boeuf Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝFricandeau de Veau aux Epinards Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝCotelettes de Mouton Panee Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝMacaroni au Parmesan Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝRoast Beef Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝDo. Pig Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝDo. Veal Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝDo. Leg of Mutton Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝRoast Goose Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝDo. Turkey Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝRoast Chickens Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝDo. Wild Ducks Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝDo. Wild Goose Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝDo. Guinea Fowl Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝRoast Brandt Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝQueen Pudding Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝMince Pie Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝCream Puffs Ý+---------------------------------------+ÝDessert. Ý+=======================================+

There are some trifling points relative to eating which I shall notremark upon until I speak of society, as they will there be betterplaced. Of course, as you advance into the country, and populationrecedes, you run through all the scale of cookery until you come to the"_corn bread, and common doings_, " (i. E. Bread made of Indian meal, andfat pork, ) in the Far West. In a new country, pork is more easilyraised than any other meat, and the Americans eat a great deal of pork, which renders the cooking in the small taverns very greasy; with theexception of the Virginian farm taverns, where they fry chickens withoutgrease in a way which would be admired by Ude himself; but this is aState receipt, handed down from generation to generation, and called_chicken fixings_. The meat in America is equal to the best in England;Miss Martineau does indeed say that she never ate good beef during thewhole time she was in this country; but she also says that an Americanstage-coach is the most delightful of all conveyances, and a great manyother things, which I may hereafter quote, to prove the idiosyncracy ofthe lady's disposition; so we will let that pass, with the observationthat there is no accounting for taste. The American markets in thecities are well supplied. I have been in the game market, at New York, and seen at one time nearly three hundred head of deer, with quantitiesof bear, racoons, wild turkeys, geese, ducks, and every variety of birdin countless profusion. Bear I abominate; racoon is pretty good. Thewild turkey is excellent; but the great delicacies in America are theterrapin, and the canvas-back ducks. To like the first I consider asrather an acquired taste. I decidedly prefer the turtle, which are tobe had in plenty, all the year round; but the canvas-back duck iscertainly well worthy of its reputation. Fish is well supplied. Theyhave the sheep's head, shad, and one or two others, which we have not. Their salmon is not equal to ours, and they have no turbot. Pine-apples, and almost all the tropical fruits, are hawked about incarts in the Eastern cities; but I consider the fruit of the temperatezone, such as grapes, peaches, etcetera, inferior to the English. Oysters are very plentiful, very large, and, to an English palate, rather insipid. As the Americans assert that the English and Frenchoysters taste of copper, and that therefore they cannot eat them, Ipresume they do; and that's the reason why we do not like the Americanoysters, copper being better than no flavour at all. 

I think, after this statement, that the English will agree with me thatthere are plenty of good things for the table in America; but the oldproverb says, "God sends meat, and the devil sends cooks;" and such is, and unfortunately must be, the case for a long while, in most of thehouses in America, owing to the difficulty of obtaining, or keepingservants. But I must quit the subject of eating, for one of much moreimportance in America, which is that of drinking. 

I always did consider that the English and the Swiss were the twonations who most indulged in potations; but on my arrival in the UnitedStates, I found that our descendants, in this point most assuredly, asthey fain would be thought to do in all others, surpassed us altogether. 

Impartiality compels me to acknowledge the truth; we must, in thisinstance, submit to a national defeat. There are many causes for this:first, the heat of the climate, next the coldness of the climate, thenthe changeableness of the climate; add to these, the cheapness of liquorin general, the early disfranchisement of the youth from all parentalcontrol, the temptation arising from the bar and association, and, lastly, the pleasantness, amenity, and variety of the potations. 

Reasons, therefore, are as plentiful as blackberries, and habit becomessecond nature. 

To run up the whole catalogue of the indigenous compounds in America, from "iced water" to a "stone fence, " or "streak of lightning, " wouldfill a volume; I shall first speak of foreign importations. 

The Port in America is seldom good; the climate appears not to agreewith the wine. The quantity of Champagne drunk is enormous, and wouldabsorb all the vintage of France, were it not that many hundred thousandbottles are consumed more than are imported. 

The small state of New Jersey has the credit of supplying the _American_Champagne, which is said to be concocted out of turnip juice, mixed withbrandy and honey. It is a pleasant and harmless drink, a very goodimitation, and may be purchased at six or seven dollars a dozen. I donot know what we shall do when America fills up, if the demand forChampagne should increase in proportion to the population; we had betterdrink all we can now. 

Claret, and the other French wines, do very well in America, but wherethe Americans beat us out of the field is in their Madeira, whichcertainly is of a quality which we cannot procure in England. This isowing to the extreme heat and cold of the climate, which ripens thiswine; indeed, I may almost say, that I never tasted good Madeira, untilI arrived in the United States. The price of wines, generally speaking, is very high, considering what a trifling duty is paid, but the price ofgood Madeira is surprising. There are certain brands, which if exposedto public auction, will be certain to fetch from twelve to twenty, and Ihave been told even forty dollars a bottle. I insert a list of thewines at Astor House, to prove that there is no exaggeration in what Ihave asserted. Even in this list of a tavern, the reader will find thatthe best Madeira is as high as twelve dollars a bottle, and the list iscurious from the variety which it offers. 

But the Americans do not confine themselves to foreign wines or liquors;they have every variety at home, in the shape of compounds, such asmint-julep and its varieties; slings in all their varieties; cocktails, but I really cannot remember, or if I could, it would occupy too muchtime to mention the whole battle array against one's brains. I must, however, descant a little upon the mint-julep; as it is, with thethermometer at 100 degrees, one of the most delightful and insinuatingpotations that ever was invented, and may be drank with equalsatisfaction when the thermometer is as low as 70 degrees. There aremany varieties, such as those composed of Claret, Madeira, etcetera; butthe ingredients of the real mint-julep are as follows. I learnt how tomake them, and succeeded pretty well. Put into a tumbler about a dozensprigs of the tender shoots of mint, upon them put a spoonful of whitesugar, and equal proportions of peach and common brandy, so as to fillit up one third, or perhaps a little less. Then take rasped or poundedice, and fill up the tumbler. Epicures rub the lips of the tumbler witha piece of fresh pine-apple, and the tumbler itself is very oftenincrusted outside with stalactites of ice. As the ice melts, you drink. I once overheard two ladies talking in the next room to me, and one ofthem said, "Well, we have a weakness for any one thing, it is for amint-julep--" a very amiable weakness, and proving her good sense andgood taste. They are, in fact, like the American ladies, irresistible. 

The Virginians claim the merit of having invented this superb compound, but I must dispute it for my own country, although it has been forgottenof late. In the times of Charles the First and Second it must have beenknown, for Milton expressly refers to it in his Comus:--

 "Behold the cordial julep--here Which flames and dances in its crystal bounds With spirits of _balm_ and _fragrant syrups_ mixed. Not that Nepenthes, which the wife of Thone In Egypt gave to Jove-born Helena Is of such power to stir up joy like this, To life so friendly, or so _cool to thirst_. "

If that don't mean mint-julep, I don't know the English language. 

The following lines, however, which I found in an American newspaper, dates its origin very far back, even to the period when the heathen godswere not at a discount as they are now. 

ORIGIN OF MINT-JULEP. 

 'Tis said that the gods, on Olympus of old, (And who, the bright legend profanes, with a doubt, ) One night, 'mid their revels, by Bacchus were told That his last butt of nectar had somewhat run out!

 But determined to send round the goblet once more, They sued to the fairer immortals--for aid In composing a draught which, till drinking were o'er, Should cast every wine ever drank in the shade. 

 Grave Cerce herself blithely yielded her corn, And the spirit that lives in each amber-hued grain, And which first had its birth from the dews of the morn, Was taught to steal out in bright dew drops again. 

 Pomona, whose choicest of fruits on the board, Were scattered profusely in every one's reach, When called on a tribute to cull from the board, Expressed the mild juice of the delicate peach. 

 The liquids were mingled while Venus looked on With glances so fraught with sweet-magical power, That the honey of Ilybla, e'en when they were gone, Has never been missed in the draught from that hour. 

 Flora, then, from her bosom of fragrance shook, And with roseate fingers pressed down in the bowl, As dripping and fresh as it came from the brook, The herb whose aroma should flavour the whole. 

 The draught was delicious, each god did exclaim, Though something yet wanting they all did bewail, But Julep the drink of immortals became, When Jove himself added a handful of hail. 

I have mentioned the principal causes to which must be assigned thepropensity to drink, so universal in America. This is an undeniablefact, asserted by every other writer, acknowledged by the Americansthemselves in print, and proved by the labours of their TemperanceSocieties. It is not confined to the lower classes, but pervades thewhole mass: of course, where there is most refinement, there is lessintoxication, and in the Southern and Western States, it is that thecustom of drinking is most prevalent. 

I have said that in the American hotels there is a parlour for theladies to retire to: there is not one for the gentlemen, who have onlythe reading-room, where they stand and read the papers, which are laidout on desks, or the bar. 

The bar of an American hotel is generally a very large room on thebasement, fitted up very much like our gin palaces in London, not soelegant in its decorations indeed, but on the same system. A longcounter runs across it, behind which stand two or three bar-keepers towait upon the customers, and distribute the various potations, compounded from the contents of several rows of bottles behind them. Here the eye reposes on masses of pure crystal ice, large bunches ofmint, decanters of every sort of wine, every variety of spirits, lemons, sugar, bitters, cigars and tobacco; it really makes one feel thirsty, even the going into a bar. [See Note 3. ] Here you meet every body andevery body meets you. Here the senator, the member of Congress, themerchant, the store-keeper, travellers from the Far West, and everyother part of the country, who have come to purchase goods, allcongregate. 

Most of them have a cigar in their mouth, some are transacting business, others conversing, some sitting down together whispering confidentially. Here you obtain all the news, all the scandal, all the politics, andall the fun; it is this dangerous propinquity, which occasions so muchintemperance. Mr Head has no bar at the Mansion-house in Philadelphia, and the consequence is, that there is no drinking, except wine atdinner; but in all the other hotels, it would appear as if theypurposely allowed the frequenters no room to retire to, so that theymust be driven to the bar, which is by far the most profitable part ofthe concern. 

The consequence of the bar being the place of general resort, is, thatthere is an unceasing pouring out, and amalgamation of alcohol, andother compounds, from morning to late at night. To drink with a friendwhen you meet him is good fellowship, to drink with a stranger ispoliteness, and a proof of wishing to be better acquainted. 

Mr A is standing at the bar, enter B. "My dear B, how areyou?"--"Quite well, and you?"--"Well, what shall it be?"--"Well, I don'tcare--a gin sling. "--"Two gin slings, Bar-keeper. " Touch glasses, anddrink. Mr A has hardly swallowed his gin sling, and replaced hiscigar, when, in comes Mr D. "A, how are you?"--"Ah! D, how goes it onwith you?"--"Well, I thankey--what shall we have?"--"Well, I don't care;I say brandy cocktail. "--"Give me another, " both drink, and the shillingis thrown down on the counter. 

Then B comes up again. "A, you must allow me to introduce my friendC. "--"Mr A"--shake hands--"Most happy to make the acquaintance. Itrust I shall have the pleasure of drinking--something with you?"--"Withgreat pleasure, Mr A, I will take a julep. "--"Two juleps, Bar-keeper. "--"Mr C, your good health"--"Mr A, yours; if you shouldcome our way, most happy to see you, "--drink. 

Now, I will appeal to the Americans themselves, if this is not a fairsample of a bar-room. 

They say that the English cannot settle any thing properly, without adinner. I am sure the Americans can fix nothing, without a drink. Ifyou meet, you drink; if you part, you drink; if you make acquaintance, you drink; if you close a bargain you drink; they quarrel in theirdrink, and they make it up with a drink. They drink, because it is hot;they drink because it is cold. If successful in elections, they drinkand rejoice; if not, they drink and swear; they begin to drink early inthe morning, they leave off late at night; they commence it early inlife, and they continue it, until they soon drop into the grave. To usetheir own expression, the way they drink, is "quite a caution" [See Note4. ] As for water, what the man said, when asked to belong to theTemperance Society, appears to be the general opinion, "it's very goodfor navigation. "

So much has it become the habit to cement all friendship, and commenceacquaintance by drinking, that it is a cause of serious offence torefuse, especially in a foreigner, as the Americans like to call theEnglish. I was always willing to accommodate the Americans in thisparticular, as far as I could; (there at least, they will do mejustice;) that at times I drank much more than I wished is certain, yetstill I gave most serious offence, especially in the West, because Iwould not drink early in the morning, or before dinner, which is ageneral custom in the States, although much more prevalent in the Southand West, where it is literally, "Stranger, will you drink or fight?"This refusal on my part, or rather excusing myself from drinking withall those who were introduced to me, was eventually the occasion of muchdisturbance and of great animosity towards me--certainly, mostunreasonably, as I was introduced to at least twenty every forenoon; andhad I drunk with them all, I should have been in the same state as manyof them were--that is, not really sober for three or four weeks at atime. 

That the constitutions of the Americans must suffer from this habit iscertain; they do not, however, appear to suffer so much as we should. They say that you may always know the grave of a Virginian; as from thequantity of juleps he has drunk, mint invariably springs up where he hasbeen buried. But the Virginians are not the greatest drinkers, by anymeans. I was once looking for an American, and asked a friend of his, where I should find him. "Why, " replied he, pointing to an hotelopposite, "that is his _licking place_, (a term borrowed from deerresorting to lick the salt:) we will see if he is there. " He was not;the bar-keeper said he had left about ten minutes. "Well, then, you hadbetter remain here, he is certain to be back in ten more--if notsooner. " The American judged his friend rightly; in five minutes he wasback again, and we had a drink together, of course. 

I did not see it myself, but I was told that somewhere in Missouri, orthereabouts, west of the Mississippi, all the bars have what they term a_kicking-board_, it being the custom with the people who live there, instead of touching glasses when they drink together, to kick sharplywith the side of the foot against the board, and that after thisceremony you are sworn friends. I have had it mentioned to me by morethan one person, therefore I presume it is the case. What the origin ofit is I know not, unless it intends to imply, "I'm your's to the _lastkick_. "

Before I finish this article on hotels, I may as well observe here thatthere is a custom in the United States, which I consider verydemoralising to the women, which is that of taking up permanentresidence in large hotels. 

There are several reasons for this: one is, that people marry so veryearly that they cannot afford to take a house with the attendantexpenses, for in America it is cheaper to live in a large hotel than tokeep a house of your own; another is, the difficulty of obtainingservants, and, perhaps, the unwillingness of the women to have thefatigue and annoyance which is really occasioned by an establishment inthat country: added to which is the want of society, arising from theirhusbands being from morning to night plodding at their variousavocations. At some of the principal hotels you will find theapartments of the lodgers so permanently taken, that the plate withtheir name engraved on it is fixed on the door. I could almost tellwhether a lady in America kept own establishment or lived at an hotel, the difference of manners are so marked; and, what is worse, it ischiefly the young married couples who are to be found there. MissMartineau makes some very just comments upon this practice:--

"The uncertainty about domestic service is so great, and the economy ofboarding-house life so tempting to people who have not providedthemselves with house and furniture, that it is not to be wondered atthat many young married people use the accommodation provided. But nosensible husband, who could beforehand become acquainted with theliabilities incurred, would willingly expose his domestic peace to thefearful risk. I saw enough when I saw the elegantly dressed ladiesrepair to the windows of the common drawing-room, on their husbands'departure to the counting-house after breakfast. 

"I have been assured that there is no end to the difficulties in whichgentlemen have been involved, both as to their commercial and domesticaffairs, by the indiscretion of their thoughtless young wives, amidstthe idleness and levities of boarding-house life. As for the gentlemen, they are much to be pitied. Public meals, a noisy house, confinement toone or two private rooms, with the absence of all gratifications oftheir own peculiar convenience and taste, are but a poor solace to theman of business, after the toils and cares of the day. When to theseare added the snares to which their wives are exposed, it may beimagined that men of sense and refinement would rather bear with anydomestic inconvenience from the uncertainty and bad quality of help, than give up housekeeping. "

If such is the case in boarding-houses, what must it be in hotels, wherethe male company is ever changing. It is one constant life of scandal, flirting, eating, drinking, and living in public; the sense of delicacyis destroyed, and the women remind you of the flowers that have beenbreathed upon till they have lost their perfume. 

Miss M observes:--

"I can only say, that I unavoidably knew of more eases of lapse inhighly respectable families in one State than ever came to my knowledgeat home; and that they were got over with a disgrace far more temporaryand superficial than they could have been visited with in England. "

If this observation is correct, it must, in my opinion, be considered asreferring to that portion of the sex who live in _hotels_, certainly notto the mass, for reasons which I shall hereafter point out. 

Indeed, what I have seen at some of the large hotels fully bears out herassertion. Miss M talks of young ladies being _taken_ to the piano in apromiscuous company. I have seen them go to the piano without beingtaken there, sit down and sing with all the energy of peacocks, beforetotal strangers, and very often without accompaniment. In the hotels, the private apartments of the boarders seldom consist of more than alarge bed-room, and although company are admitted into it, still it isnatural that the major portion of the women's time should be passed downbelow in the general receiving room. In the evening, especially in thelarge western cities, they have balls almost every night; indeed it is alife of idleness and vacuity of outward pretence, but of no real goodfeeling. 

Scandal rages--every one is busy with watching her neighbour's affairs;those who have boarded there longest take the lead, and every newcomeror stranger is canvassed with the most severe scrutiny; their historiesare ascertained, and they are very often sent to Coventry, for littlebetter reason than the will of those who, as residents, lay down thelaw. 

Indeed, I never witnessed a more ridiculous compound of pretendedmodesty, and real want of delicacy, than is to be found with this classof sojourners on the highway. Should any of their own sex arrive, ofwhom some little scandal has been afloat, they are up in arms, and downthey plump in their rocking-chairs; and although the hotel may covernearly an acre of ground, so afraid are they of contamination, that theydeclare they will not go down to dinner, or eat another meal in thehotel, until the obnoxious parties "clear out. " The proprietors aresummoned, husbands are bullied, and, rather than indignant virtue shouldstarve in her rocking-chair, a committee is formed, and the libelledparties, guilty or not guilty, are requested to leave the hotel. Assoon as this purification is announced, virtue, appeased, recovers herappetite, and they all eat drink, talk scandal, flirt, and sing withoutinvitation as before. 

I have been severe upon this class of society in America, not onlybecause I consider that it deserves it, but because I wish to point outthat Miss Martineau's observations must be considered as referring toit, and not to the general character of the American woman. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. The Americans are apt to boast that they have not to pay forcivility, as we do in England, by facing waiters, coachmen, etcetera. In some respects this is true, but in the cities the custom has becomevery prevalent. A man who attends a large dinner-table, will of coursepay more attention to those who give him something, than to those who donot; one gives him something, and another, if he wishes for attentionand civility, is obliged to do the same thing. In some of the hotels atNew York, and in the principal cities, you not only must fee, but youmust fee much higher than you do in England, if you want to becomfortable. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 2. If I am rightly informed; there are very unpleasant cutaneousdiseases to which the Americans are subject, from the continual use ofthe same brush and comb, and from sleeping together, etcetera, but it isa general custom. At Philadelphia, a large ball was given, (called, Ithink, the Fireman's Ball, ) and at which about 1, 500 people werepresent, all the fashion of Philadelphia; yet even here there were sixcombs, and six brushes, placed in a room with six looking-glasses forthe use of _all_ the gentlemen. An American has come into my room inNew York, and _sans ceremonie_ taken up my hair-brush, and amusedhimself with brushing his head. They are certainly very unrefined inthe toilet as yet. When I was travelling, on my arrival at a city Iopened my dressing case, and a man passing by my room when the door wasopen, attracted by the glitter, I presume, came in and looked at theapparatus which is usually contained in such articles--"Pray, Sir, " saidhe, "are you a _dentist_?"

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 3. Every steam-boat has its bar. The theatres, all places ofpublic amusement, and even the capitol itself; as I have observed in myDiary. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 4. It was not a bad idea of a man who, generally speaking, wasvery low-spirited, on being asked the cause, replied, that he did notknow, but he thought "that he had been born with _three drinks toolittle_ in him. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 5. In a chapter which follows this, I have said that the women ofAmerica are physically superior to the men. This may appearcontradictory, as of course they could not be born so; nor are they, forI have often remarked how very fine the American male children are, especially those lads who have grown up to the age of fourteen orsixteen. One could hardly believe it possible that the men are the sameyouths, advanced in life. How is this to be accounted for? I can onlysuppose that it is from their plunging too early into life as men, having thrown off parental control, and commencing the usual excesses ofyoung men in every country at too tender an age. The constant stimulusof drink must, of course, be another powerful cause; not that theAmericans often become intoxicated, on the contrary, you will see manymore in this condition every day in this country than you will inAmerica. But occasional intoxication is not so injurious to theconstitution as that continual application of spirits, which mustenfeeble the stomach, and, with the assistance of tobacco, destroy itsenergies. The Americans are a _drinking_ but not a _drunken_, nation, and, as I have before observed, the climate operates upon them verypowerfully. 

VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER FIVE. 

EMIGRATION AND MIGRATION. 

In this chapter I shall confine myself to the emigration to the UnitedStates, reserving that to Canada until I remark upon that colony. Indiscussing this question I have no statistics to refer to, and must, therefore, confine myself to general observations. 

What the amount of emigration from the Old Continent to the UnitedStates may be at present I do not think the Americans themselves cantell, as many who arrive at New York go on to the Canadas. Theemigrants are, however, principally English, Irish, and German;latterly, the emigration to New South Wales, New Zealand, andparticularly Texas, has reduced the influx of emigrants to the UnitedStates. 

It ought to be pointed out, that among the emigrants are to be found theportion of the people in the United States the most disaffected and themost violent against England and its monarchical institutions; and whoassist very much to keep up the feelings of dislike and ill-will whichexist towards us. Nor is this to be wondered at; the happy and thewealthy do not go into exile; they are mostly disappointed and unhappymen, who attribute their misfortunes, often occasioned by their ownimprudence, to any cause but the true one, and hate their own countryand its institutions because they have been unfortunate in it. Theyform Utopian ideas of liberty and prosperity to be obtained byemigration; they discover that they have been deceived, and wouldwillingly, if possible, return to the country they have abjured, and thefriends they have left behind. This produces an increase of irritationand ill-will, and they become the more violent vituperative inproportion as they feel the change. [See Note 1. ]

I have had many conversations with English emigrants in the UnitedStates, and I never yet found one at all respectable, who did notconfess to me that he repented of emigration. One great cause of thisis honourable to them; they feel that in common plain-dealing they areno match for the keen-witted, and I must add unprincipled, portion ofthe population with which they are thrown in contact. They must eithersacrifice their principle or not succeed. 

Many have used the same expression to me. "It is no use, sir, you musteither turn regular Yankee and do as they do, or you have no chance ofgetting on in this country. "

These people are much to be pitied; I used to listen to them withfeelings of deep compassion. Having torn themselves away from oldassociations, and broken the links which should have bound them to theirnative soil, with the expectation of finding liberty, equality, andcompetence in a new country, they have discovered when too late thatthey have not a fraction of the liberty which is enjoyed in the countrywhich they have left; that they have severed themselves from theirfriends to live amongst those with whom they do not like to associate;that they must now labour with their own hands, instead of employingothers; and that the competence they expected, if it is to be obtained, must be so by a sacrifice of those principles of honesty andfair-dealing imbibed in their youth, adhered to in their manhood, butwhich now that they have transplanted themselves, are gradually, although unwillingly, yielded up to the circumstances of their position. 

I was once conversing with an Irishman; he was not very well pleasedwith his change; I laughed at him, and said, "But here you are free, Paddy. "--"Free?" replied he, "and pray who the devil was to buy or sellme when I was in Ireland? Free! och! that's all talk; you're free towork as hard as a horse, and get but little for so doing. "

The German emigrants are by far the most contented and well-behaved. They trouble themselves less about politics, associate with one anotheras much as possible, and when they take a farm, always, if they possiblycan, get it in the neighbourhood of their own countrymen. 

The emigrants most troublesome, but, at the same time, the most valuableto the United States, are the Irish. Without this class of people theAmericans would not have been able to complete the canals andrail-roads, and many other important works. They are, in fact, theprincipal labourers of the country, for the poor Germans who come outprefer being employed in any other way than in agriculture, until theyamass sufficient to obtain farms of their own. As for the Irish, thereare not many of them who possess land in the United States, the majorportion of them remain labourers, and die very little better off thanwhen they went out. Some of them set up groceries (these are the mostcalculating and intelligent, )--and by allowing their countrymen to runin debt for liquor, etcetera, they obtain control over them, and makecontracts with the government agents, or other speculators (veryadvantageous to themselves, ) to supply so many men for public works; bythese means a few acquire a great deal of money, while the many remainin comparative indigence. 

We have been accustomed to ascribe the turbulence of the Irish lowerclasses to ill-treatment and a sense of their wrongs, but thisdisposition appears to follow them every where. It would be supposedthat, having emigrated to America and obtained the rights of citizens, they would have amalgamated and fraternised to a certain degree with thepeople: but such is not the case; they hold themselves completely apartand distinct, living with their families in the same quarter of thecity, and adhering to their own manners and customs. They are just aslittle pleased with the institutions of the United States as they arewith the government at home; the fact is, that they would prefer nogovernment at all, if (as Paddy himself would say) they knew where tofind it. They are the leaders in all the political rows and commotions, and very powerful as a party in all elections, not only on account oftheir numbers (if I recollect rightly, they muster 40, 000 at New York, )but by their violence preventing other people from coming to the poll;and, farther, by multiplying themselves, so as greatly to increase theirforce, by voting several times over, which they do by going from oneward to another. I was told by one of them that, on the last electionhe had voted _seven_ times. [See Note 2. ]

An American once said to me that the lower Irish ruled the UnitedStates, and he attempted to prove his assertion as follows:

The New York election is carried by the Irish; now the New York electionhas great influence upon the other elections, and often carries theState. The State of New York has great influence upon the elections ofother States, and therefore the Irish of New York govern the country. --QED. 

The Irish, in one point, appear to improve in the United States--theybecome much more provident, and many of them hoard their money. Theyput it into the Savings Banks, and when they have put in the sum allowedby law to one person, they deposite in other names. 

A captain of one of the steam-boats told me an anecdote or two relativeto the Irish emigrants, by which it would appear that they are moresaving of their money than is quite consistent with honesty. 

He constantly received them on board, and said that sometimes, if theywere very few, they would declare at the end of the trip that they hadno money, although when detained they never failed to produce it; ifthey were very numerous they would attempt to fight their way withoutpaying. In one instance, an Irishman declared that he had no money, when the captain, to punish him, seized his old jacket, and insistedupon retaining it for payment. The Irishman suffered it to be takenoff, expecting, it is to be presumed, that it would be returned to himas valueless, when the captain jerked it overboard. "Oh! murder!--captain, drop the boat, " cried Paddy; "pick my jacket up, or I'm aruined man. _All_ my _money's_ in it. " The jacket was fortunatelypicked up before it sank, and, on ripping it up, it was found tocontain, sewed up in it, upwards of fifty sovereigns and gold eagles. The same captain narrated to me the particulars of one instance in whichabout one hundred Irish were on board, who when asked for payment, commenced an attack upon the captain and crew with their bludgeons; but, having before experienced such attempts, he was prepared for them, andreceiving assistance from the shore, the Irishmen were worsted, and thenevery man paid his fare. The truth is that they are very turbulent, andthe lower orders of the Americans are very much enraged against them. On the 4th of July there were several bodies of Americans, who were outon the look-out for the Irish, after dark, and many of the latter wereseverely beaten, if not murdered; the Irish, however, have to thankthemselves for it. 

The spirit of the institutions of the States is so opposed to servitude, that it is chiefly from the emigrants that the Americans obtain theirsupply of domestics; the men servants in the private houses may be saidto be, with few exceptions, either emigrants or free people of colour. Amongst other points upon which the Americans are to be pitied, and forwhich the most perfect of theoretical governments could nevercompensate, is the misery and annoyance to which they are exposed fromtheir domestics. They are absolutely slaves to them, especially in thewestern free States; there are no regulations to control them. At anyfancied affront they leave the house without a moment's warning, puttingon their hats or bonnets, and walking out of the street-door, leavingtheir masters and mistresses to get on how they can. I remember when Iwas staying with a gentleman in the west, that, on the first day of myarrival, he apologised to me for not having a man servant, the fellowhaving then been drunk for a week; a woman had been hired to help for aportion of the day, but most of the labour fell upon his wife, whom Ifound one morning cleaning my room. The fellow remained ten days drunk, and then (all his money being spent) sent to his master to say that hewould come back on condition that he would give him a little moreliquor. To this proposition the gentleman was compelled to assent, andthe man returned as if he had conferred a favour. The next day, atdinner, there being no porter up, the lady said to her husband, "Don'tsend for it, but go _yourself_, my dear; he is so very cross again thatI fear he will leave the house. " A lady of my acquaintance in New Yorktold her coachman that she should give him warning; the reply from thebox was--"I reckon I have been too long in the woods to be scared withan owl. " Had she noticed this insolence, he would probably have gotdown from the box, and have left her to drive her own cattle. Thecoloured servants are, generally speaking, the most civil; after themthe Germans; the Irish and English are very bad. At the hotels, etcetera, you very often find Americans in subordinate situations, andit is remarkable that when they are so, they are much more civil thanthe imported servants. Few of the American servants, even in the largecities, understand their business, but it must be remembered that few ofthem have ever learnt it, and, moreover, they are expected to do threetimes as much as a servant would do in an English house. The Americanhouses are much too large for the number of servants employed, which isanother cause for service being so much disliked. 

It is singular that I have not found in any one book, written byEnglish, French, or German travellers, any remarks made upon a customwhich the Americans have of almost entirely living, I may say, in thebasement of their houses; and which is occasioned by their difficultiesin housekeeping with their insufficient domestic establishments. I saycustom of the Americans, as it is the case in nine houses out of ten;only the more wealthy travelled, and refined portion of the community intheir cities deviating from the general practice. 

I have before observed that, from the wish of display, the Americanhouses are generally speaking, too large for the proprietors and for thedomestics which are employed. Vying with each other in appearance, their receiving rooms are splendidly furnished, but they do not live inthem. 

The basement in the front area, which with us is usually appropriated tothe housekeeper's-room and offices, is in most of their houses fitted upas a dining-room; by no means a bad plan, as it is cool in summer, warmin winter, and saves much trouble to the servants. The dinner is servedup in it, direct from the kitchen, with which it communicates. Themaster of the house, unless he dines late, which is seldom the case inAmerican cities, does not often come home to dinner, and thepreparations for the family are of course not very troublesome. Butalthough they go on very well in their daily routine, to give a dinneris to the majority of the Americans really an effort, not from thedisinclination to give one, but from the indifference and ignorance ofthe servants; and they may be excused without being taxed with want ofhospitality. It is a very common custom, therefore, for the Americansto invite you to come and "_take wine_" with them, that is to come afterdinner, when you will find cakes, ices, wine, and company, alreadyprepared. But there is something unpleasant in this arrangement; it istoo much like the bar of the tavern in the west, with--"Stranger, willyou drink?" It must, however, be recollected that there are manyexceptions to what I have above stated as the general practice. Thereare houses in the principal cities of the States where you will sit downto as well-arranged and elegant a dinner as you will find in the bestcircles of London and Paris; but the proprietors are men of wealth, whohave in all probability been on the old continent, and have imbibed ataste for luxury and refinement generally unknown and unfelt in the newhemisphere. 

I once had an instance of what has been repeatedly observed by othertravellers of the dislike to be considered as servants in this land ofequality. 

I was on board of a steam-boat from Detroit to Buffalo, and entered intoconversation with a young woman who was leaning over the taffrail. Shehad been in service, and was returning home. 

"You say you lived with Mr W. ?"

"No, I didn't, " replied she, rather tartly; "I said I lived with _Mrs_. W. "

"Oh, I understand. In what situation did you live?"

"I lived in the house. "

"Of course you did, but what as?"

"What as? As a _gal_ should live. "

"I mean what did you do?"

"I helped Mrs W. "

"And now you are tired of helping others?"

"Guess I am. "

"Who is your father?"

"He's a doctor. "

"A doctor! and he allows you to go out?"

"He said I might please myself. "

"Will he be pleased at your coming home again?"

"I went out to please myself, and I come home to please myself. Costhim nothing for four months; that's more than all gals can say. "

"And now you're going home to spend your money?"

"Don't want to go home for that, it's all gone. "

I have been much amused with the awkwardness and nonchalant manners ofthe servants in America. Two American ladies who had just returned fromEurope, told me that shortly after their arrival at Boston, a young manhad been sent to them from Vermont to do the duty of footman. He hadbeen a day or two in the house, when they rang the bell and ordered himto bring up two glasses of lemonade. He made his appearance with thelemonade, which had been prepared and given to him on a tray by a femaleservant, but the ladies, who were sitting one at each end of a sofa andconversing, not being ready for it just then, said to him--"We'll takeit presently, John. "--"Guess I can wait, " replied the man, deliberatelytaking his seat on the sofa between them, and placing the tray on hisknees. 

When I was at Tremont House, I was very intimate with a family who werestaying there. One morning we had been pasting something, and the bellwas rung by one of the daughters, a very fair girl with flaxen hair, whowanted some water to wash her hands. An Irish waiter answered the bell. "Did you ring, ma'am?"--"Yes, Peter, I want a little warm water. "--"Isit to _shave with_, miss?" inquired Paddy, very gravely. 

But the emigration from the old continent is of little importancecompared to the migration which takes place in the country itself. 

As I have before observed, all America is working west. In the north, the emigration by the lakes is calculated at 100, 000 per annum, of whichabout 30, 000, are foreigners; the others are the natives of New Englandand the other eastern States, who are exchanging from a sterile soil toone "flowing with milk and honey. " But those who migrate are not all ofthem agriculturalists; the western States are supplied from thenorth-eastern with their merchants, doctors, schoolmasters, lawyers, and, I may add, with their members of congress, senators, and governors. New England is a _school_, a sort of manufactory of variousprofessions, fitted for all purposes--a talent bazaar, where you haveevery thing at choice; in fact, what Mr Tocqueville says is very true, and the States fully deserve the compliment. 

"The civilisation of New England has been like a beacon lit upon a hill, which, after it has diffused its warmth around, tinges the distanthorizon with its glory. "

From the great extent of this emigration to the west, it is said thatthe female population in the New England states is greater than themale. In the last returns of Massachusetts the total population wasgiven, but males and females were not given separately, an omissionwhich induces one to believe that such was the truth. [See note 3. ]

But it is not only from the above States that the migration takes place;the fondness for "shifting right away, " the eagerness for speculation, and the by no means exaggerated reports of the richness of the westerncountry, induce many who are really well settled in the States of NewYork, Pennsylvania, and other fertile States, to sell all and turn tothe west. The State of Ohio alone is supposed to have added many morethan a million to her population since the last census. An extensivemigration of white population takes place from North and South Carolinaand the adjacent States, while from the eastern Slave States, there isone continual stream of black population pouring in, frequently thecavalcade headed by the masters of their families. 

As the numerous tributary streams pour their waters into theMississippi, so do rivers of men from every direction continually andunceasingly flow into the west. It is indeed the promised land, andthat the whites should have been detained in the eastern States so longwithout a knowledge of the fertile soil beyond the Alleghanines, remindsyou of the tarrying of the Jewish nation in the wilderness before theywere permitted to take possession of their inheritance. 

Here there is matter for deep reflection. I have already given myopinion upon the chances of the separation of the northern and SouthernStates upon the question of slavery; but it appears to me, that whilethe eyes of their legislators have been directed with so much interestto the prospects arising from the above question, that their backs havebeen turned to a danger much more imminent, and which may be attended byno less consequences than a convulsion of the whole Union. 

The Southern and Northern States may separate on the question ofslavery, and yet be in reality better friends than they were before: butwhat will be the consequence, when the Western States become, as theyassuredly will, so populous and powerful, as to control the Union; fornot only population, but power and wealth, are fast working their way tothe west. New Orleans will be the first maritime port in the universe, and Cincinnati will not only be the Queen of the West, but Queen of theWestern World. Then will come the real clashing of interests, and theEastern States must be content to succumb and resign their presentpower, or the Western will throw them off, as an useless appendage toher might. This may at present appear chimerical to some, and would beconsidered by many others as too far distant; but be it remembered, thatten years in America, is as a century; and even allowing the prosperityof the United States to be checked, as very probably it may soon be, byany quarrel with a foreign nation, the Western States will not be thosewho will suffer. Far removed from strife, the population hardlyinterfered with, when the Eastern resources are draining, they willcontinue to advance in population, and to increase in wealth. I refernot to the Slave States bordering on the Mississippi, although Iconsider that they would suffer little from a war, as neither England, nor any other nation, will ever be so unwise in future as to attack in aquarter, where she would have extended the olive branch, even if it werenot immediately accepted. Whether America is engaged in war, therefore, or remains in peace, the Western States must, and will soon be thearbiters, and dictate as they please to the Eastern. 

At present, they may be considered as infants, not yet of age, and theEastern States are their guardians; the profits of their produce aredivided between them and the merchants of the Eastern cities, whoreceive at least thirty per cent. As their share. This must be the caseat present, when the advances of the Eastern capitalists are required bythe cotton growers, who are precisely in the same position with theEastern States, as the West India planters used to be with the merchantsof London and Liverpool, to whom they consigned their cargoes foradvances received. But the Western States (to follow up the metaphor)will soon be of age, and no longer under control: even last year, vessels were freighted direct from England to Vicksburg, on theMississippi; in a few years, there will be large importing houses in theFar West, who will have their goods direct from England at one half theprice which they now pay for them, when forwarded from New York, bycanal, and other conveyances. [See Note 4. ] Indeed, a very littleinquiry will prove, that the prosperity of the Eastern free Statesdepends in a great measure upon the Western and Southern. The EasternStates are the receivers and transporters of goods, and the carriers ofmost of the produce of the Union. They advance money on the crops, andcharge high interest, commissions, etcetera. The transport andtravelling between the Eastern, Southern, and Western States, are onegreat source of this prosperity, from the employment on the canals, railroads, and steam boats. 

All these are heavy charges to the Western States, and can be avoided byshipping direct from, and sending their produce direct to, the OldContinent. As the Western States advance in wealth, so will theyadvance in power, and in proportion as they so do, will the EasternStates recede, until they will be left in a small minority, and willeventually have little voice in the Union. 

Here, then, is a risk of convulsion; for the clashing of interests, nextto a war, is the greatest danger to which a democracy can be exposed. In a democracy, every one legislates, and every one legislates for hisown interests. The Eastern States will still be wealthy and formidable, from their population; but the commerce of the principal Eastern citieswill decrease, and they will have little or no staple produce to returnto England, or elsewhere, whereas the Western States can produce everything that the heart of man can desire, and can be wholly independent ofthem. They have, in the West, every variety of coal and mineral, to aboundless extent; a rich alluvial soil, hardly to be exhausted by badcultivation, and wonderful facilities of transport; independent of thestaple produce of cotton, they might supply the whole world with grain;sugar they already cultivate; the olive flourishes; wine is alreadyproduced on the banks of the Ohio, and the prospect of raising silk isbeyond calculation. In a few days, the manufactures of the Old Worldcan find their way from the mouth of the Mississippi by its thousandtributary streams, which run like veins through every portion of thecountry, to the confines of Arkansas and Missouri, to the head ofnavigation at St Peter's, on again to Wisconsin, Michigan, and to theNorthern lakes, at a _much cheaper rate_ than they are supplied atpresent. 

One really is lost in admiration when one surveys this great andglorious Western country, and contemplates the splendour and riches towhich it must ultimately arrive. 

As soon as the Eastern States are no longer permitted to remain thefactors of the Western, they must be content to become manufacturingstates, and probably will compete with England. The Western States, providentially, I may say, are not likely to be manufacturers to anygreat extent, since they have not _water_ powers; the valley of theMississippi is an alluvial flat, and although the Missouri andMississippi are swift streams, in general the rivers are sluggish, and, at all events, they have not the precipitate falls of water necessaryfor machinery, and which abound in the North-eastern States; indeed, ifthe Western States were to attempt to manufacture, as well as toproduce, they would spoil the market for their own produce. Whatevermay be the result, whether the Eastern States submit quietly to be shornof their greatness, (a change which must take place, ) or to contest thepoint until it ends in a separation, this is certain, that the focus ofAmerican wealth and power will eventually be firmly established in theFree States on the other side of the Alleghany mountains. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. I was once conversing with one who was formerly very popularwith the democrats, but who was likely to be outset by anotherdemagogue, who "went the whole hog, " down to the Agrarian system. "Captain, " said he, with his fist clenched, "I'm the verypersonification of democracy, but I'm out-Heroded by this fellow. Theemigrants are a pack of visionaries, who don't know what they want. Theborn Americans I can deal with, but with these newcomers democracy isnot sufficient; they want a mobocracy, and I suppose we must haveit. "--"You have it now, " replied I. --"Well, captain, I believe you'reright. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 2. I don't know why, but there is no scrutiny of the votes inAmerican elections, or if there be, I never heard of one being made. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 3. "The young men of New England migrate in large numbers to thewest, leaving an over proportion of female population, the amount ofwhich I never could learn. Statements were made to me, but soincredible that I withhold them. Suffice it, that there were more womenthan men in from six to nine States in the Union. "--Miss Martineau. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 4. To give the reader some idea of the price of European articlesin the Western country, I will mention cloth. A coat which costs 4pounds in England, is charged 7 pounds 10 shillings at New York; and atCincinnati, in the West, upwards of 10 pounds. 

VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER SIX. 

NEWSPAPER PRESS. 

Mr Tocqueville observes, "that not a single individual of the twelvemillions who inhabit the territory of the United States has as yet daredto propose any restrictions upon the liberty of the press. " This istrue, and all the respectable Americans acknowledge that this libertyhas degenerated into a licentiousness which threatens the most alarmingresults; as it has assumed a power, which awes not only individuals, butthe government itself. A due liberty allowed to the press, may force agovernment to do right, but a licentiousness may compel it into error. The American author, Mr Cooper, very justly remarks: "It may be takenas a rule, that _without_ the liberty of the press there can be no_popular liberty_ in a nation, and without its licentiousness, neither_public honesty, justice_, or a proper regard for _character_. Of thetwo, perhaps, that people is the happiest which is deprived altogetherof a free press, as private honesty and a healthful tone of the publicmind are not incompatible with narrow institutions, though neither canexist under the corrupting action of a licentiousness press. "

And again--"As the press of this country now exists, it would seem to beexpressly devised by the great agent of mischief, to depress and destroyall that is good, and to elevate and advance all that is evil in thenation. The little truth which is urged, is usually urged coarsely, weakened and rendered vicious by personalities, while those who live byfalsehoods, fallacies, enmities, partialities, and the schemes of thedesigning, find the press the very instrument that devils would inventto effect their designs. "

A witty, but unprincipled statesman of our own times, has said, that"speech was bestowed on man to conceal his thoughts;" judging from itspresent condition, he might have added--"the press, in America, to_pervert truth_. "

But were I to quote the volumes of authority from American and Englishwriters, they would tire the reader. The above are for the presentquite sufficient to establish the fact, that the press in the UnitedStates is licentious to the highest possible degree, and defies control;my object is to point out the effect of this despotism upon society, andto show how injurious it is in every way to the cause of morality andvirtue. 

Of course, the newspaper press is the most mischievous, in consequenceof its daily circulation, the violence of political animosity, and thewant of respectability in a large proportion of the editors. The numberof papers published and circulated in Great Britain, among a populationof twenty-six millions, is calculated at about three hundred andseventy. The number published in the United States, among thirteenmillions, are supposed to vary between _nine and ten thousand_. Now thevalue of newspapers may be fairly calculated by the capital expendedupon them; and not only is not one-quarter of the sum expended inEngland, upon three hundred and seventy newspapers, expended upon thenine or ten thousand in America; but I really believe that the expenseof the `_Times_' newspaper alone, is equal to at least five _thousand_of the _minor_ papers in the United States, which are edited by peopleof no literary pretension, and at an expense so trifling as would appearto us not only ridiculous, but impossible. As to the capabilities ofthe majority of the editors, let the Americans speak for themselves. 

"Every wretch who can write an English paragraph (and many who cannot, )every pettifogger without practice, every one whose poverty or crimeshave just left him cash or credit enough to procure a press and types, sets up a newspaper. "

Again--"If you be puzzled what to do with your son, if he be a borndunce, if reading and writing be all the accomplishments he can acquire, if he be horribly ignorant and depraved, if he be indolent and anincorrigible liar, lost to all shame and decency, and incurablydishonest, make a newspaper editor of him. Look around you, and see athousand successful proofs that no excellence or acquirement, moral orintellectual, is requisite to conduct a press. The more defective aneditor is, the better he succeeds. We could give a thousandinstances. "--_Boston News_. 

These are the assertions of the Americans, not my own; that in manyinstances they are true, I have no doubt. In a country so chequered asthe United States, such must be expected; but I can also assert, thatthere are many very highly respectable and clever editors in the UnitedStates. The New York papers are most of them very well conducted, andvery well written. The New York Courier and Enquirer, Colonel Webb; theEvening Star, by Noah; the Albion, by Doctor Birtlett; Spirit of theTimes, and many others, which are too numerous to quote, are equal tomany of the English newspapers. The best written paper in the States, and the happiest in its sarcasm and wit, is the Louisville Gazette, conducted by Mr Prentice of Kentucky; indeed, the western papers, are, generally speaking, more amusing and witty than the eastern; the NewOrleans Picayune, by Kendall, is perhaps, after Prentice's, the mostamusing; but there are many more, which are too numerous to mention, which do great credit to American talent. Still the majority aredisgraceful not only from their vulgarity, but from their odiouspersonalities and disregard to truth. The bombast and ignorance shownin some of these is very amusing. Here is an extract or two from thesmall newspapers published in the less populous countries. An editordown East, speaking of his own merits, thus concludes--"I'm a realcatastrophe--a small creation; Mount Vesuvius at the top, with red hotlava pouring out of the crater, and routing nations--my fists are rockymountains--arms, whig liberty poles, with iron springs. Every step Itake is an earthquake--every blow I strike is a clap of thunder--andevery breath I breathe is a tornado. My disposition is Dupont's best, and goes off at a flash--when I blast there'll be nothing left but ahole three feet in circumference and no end to its depth. "

Another writes the account of a storm as follows:--

"On Monday afternoon, while the haymakers were all out gathering in thehay, in anticipation of a shower from the small cloud that was seenhanging over the hilly regions towards the south-east, a tremendousstorm suddenly burst upon them, and forced them to seek shelter from itsviolence. The wind whistled outrageously through the old elms, scattering the beautiful foliage, and then going down into the meadow, where the men had just abruptly left their work unfinished, andoverturning the half-made ricks, whisked them into the air, and filledthe _whole afternoon_ full of hay. "

I copied the following from a western paper:--

"Yes, my countrymen, a dawn begins to open upon us; the crepusculousrays of returning republicanism are fast extending over the darkness ofour political horizon, and before their brightness, those myrmidonsshall slink away to the abode of the demons who have generated them, inthe hollow caves of darkness. "

Again--"Many who have acquired great fame and celebrity in the world, began their career as printers. Sir William Blackstone, the learnedEnglish commentator of laws, was a printer by trade. _King Charles theThird_ was a printer, and not unfrequently worked at the trade after heascended the throne of England. "

Who Charles the Third of England was I do not know, as he is not yetmentioned in any of our histories. 

The most remarkable newspaper for its obscenity, and total disregard forall decency and truth in its personal attacks, is the Morning Herald ofNew York, published by a person of the name of Bennett, and beingpublished in so large a city, it affords a convincing proof with whatimpunity the most licentious attacks upon private characters arepermitted. But Mr Bennett is _sui generis_; and demands particularnotice. He is indeed a remarkable man, a species of philosopher, whoacts up to his tenets with a moral courage not often to be met with inthe United States. His maxim appears to be this--"Money will find meevery thing in this world, and money I will have, at any risk, exceptthat of my life, as, if I lost that, the money would be useless. "Acting upon this creed, he has lent his paper to the basest and mostmalignant purposes, to the hatred of all that is respectable and good, defaming and inventing lies against every honest man, attacking thepeace and happiness of private families by the most injurious and basecalumny. As may be supposed, he has been horse-whipped, kicked, troddenunder foot, and spat upon, and degraded in every possible way; but allthis he courts, because it brings money. Horse-whip him, and he willbend his back to the lash, and thank you, as every blow is worth so manydollars. Kick him, and he will remove his coat tails, that you may havea better mark, and he courts the application of the toe, while he countsthe total of the damages which he may obtain. Spit upon him, and heprizes it as precious ointment, for it brings him the sovereign remedyfor his disease, a fever for specie. 

The day after the punishment, he publishes a full and particular accountof how many kicks, tweaks of the nose, or lashes he may have received. He prostitutes his pen, his talent, every thing for money. His gloryis, that he has passed the rubicon of shame; and all he regrets is, thatthe public is at last coming to the unanimous opinion, that he is toocontemptible, too degraded, to be even touched. The other, and morerespectable editors of newspapers, avoid him, on account of the filthwhich he pours forth; like a polecat, he may be hunted down; but no dogwill ever attempt to worry him, as soon as he pours out the contents ofhis foetid bag. 

It is a convincing proof of the ardent love of defamation in thiscountry, that this modern Thersites, who throws the former of that nameso immeasurably into the background, has still great sway over men inoffice; every one almost, who has a character, is afraid of him, andwill purchase his silence, if they cannot his good will. 

During the crash at New York, when even the suspicion of insolvency wasfatal, this miscreant published some of the most respectable persons ofNew York as bankrupts, and yet received no punishment. His paper isclever, that is certain; but I very much doubt if Bennett is the cleverman--and my reason is this, Bennett was for some time in England, andduring that time the paper, so far from falling off, was better writtenthan before. I myself, before I had been six weeks in the country, wasattacked by this wretch, and, at the same time, the paper was sent to mewith this small note on the margin:--"Send twenty dollars, and it shallbe stopped. "--"I only wish you may get it, " said I to myself. [See Note1. ]

Captain Hamilton, speaking of the newspaper press in America, says--

"In order to form a fair estimate of their merit, I read newspapers fromall parts of the union, and found them utterly contemptible, in point oftalent, and dealing in abuse so virulent, as to excite a feeling ofdisgust, --not only with the writers, but with the public which affordedthem support. Tried by this standard--and I know not how it can beobjected to--the moral feeling of this people must be estimated lowerthan in any deductions from other circumstances I have ventured to rateit. "

In the following remarks, also, I most cordially agree with him. "Ournewspaper and periodical press is bad enough. Its sins againstpropriety cannot be justified, and ought not to be defended. But itsviolence is meekness, its liberty restraint, and even its atrocities arevirtues, when compared with that system of _brutal and ferociousoutrage_ which distinguishes the press in America. In England, even aninsinuation against personal honour is intolerable. A hint--a breath--the contemplation even of a possibility of tarnish--such things aresufficient to poison the tranquillity, and, unless met by promptvindication, to ruin the character of a public man; but in America, itis thought necessary to have recourse to other weapons. The strongestepithets of a ruffian vocabulary are put in requisition. "

It may be asked, how is it possible that an "enlightened nation" canpermit such atrocity. It must be remembered, that newspapers are vendedat a very low price throughout the States, and that the support of themajor portion of them is derived from the ignorant and lower classes. Every man in America reads his newspaper, and hardly any thing else; andwhile he considers that he is assisting to govern the nation, he is infact, the dupe of those who pull the strings in secret, and byflattering his vanity, and exciting his worst feelings, make him a poortool in their hands. People are too apt to imagine that the newspapersecho their own feelings; when the fact is, that by taking in a paper, which upholds certain opinions, the readers are, by daily repetition, become so impressed with these opinions, that they have become slaves tothem. I have before observed, that learning to read and write is noteducation, and but too often is the occasion of the demoralisation ofthose, who might have been more virtuous and more happy in theirignorance. The other day when I was in a steam-vessel, going down toGravesend, I observed a foot-boy sitting on one of the benches--he wasprobably ten or eleven years old, and was deeply engaged in reading acheap periodical, mostly confined to the lower orders of this countrycalled the Penny Paul Pry. Surely it had been a blessing to the lad, ifhe had never learnt to read or write, if he confined his studies, asprobably too many do, from want of farther leisure, to such an immoraland disgusting publication. 

In a country where every man is a politician, and flatters himself thathe is assisting to govern the country, political animosities must ofcourse be carried to the greatest lengths, and the press is the vehiclefor party violence; but Captain Hamilton's remarks are so forcible, andso correct, that I prefer them to any I could make myself. 

"The opponents of a candidate for office, are generally not content withdenouncing his principles, or deducing from the tenor of his politicallife, grounds for questioning the purity of his motives. They accusehim boldly of _burglary_ or _arson_, or at the very least, of pettylarceny. _Time, place and circumstances_, are all stated. Thecandidate for Congress or the Presidency, is broadly asserted to have_picked pockets_, or pocketed silver spoons, or to have been guilty ofsomething equally mean and contemptible. Two instances of this, occurat this moment to my memory. In one newspaper, a member of Congress wasdenounced as having feloniously broken open a scrutoire, and havingthence stolen certain bills and banknotes; another was charged withselling franks at twopence a piece, and thus coppering his pockets atthe expense of the public. "

But let me add the authority of Americans. Mr Webster, in hiscelebrated speech on the public lands, observes in that powerful andnervous language for which he is so celebrated:--"It is one of thethousand calumnies with which the press teemed, during an excitedpolitical canvass. It was a charge, of which there was not only noproof or probability, but which was, in itself, wholly impossible to betrue. No man of common information ever believed a syllable of it. Yetit was of that class of falsehoods, which by continued repetition, through all the organs of detraction and abuse, are capable ofmisleading those who are already far misled, and of farther fanningpassion, already kindled into flame. Doubtless, it served in its day, and, in greater or less degree, the end designed by it. Having donethat, it has sunk into the general mass of stale and loathed calumnies. It is the very cast-off slough of a _polluted_ and _shameless_ press. "And Mr Cooper observes--"Every honest man appears to admit that thepress in America is fast getting to be _intolerable_. In escaping fromthe tyranny of foreign aristocrats, we have created in our bosoms a_tyranny of a character_ so _insupportable_, that a change of some sortis getting indispensable to peace. "

Indeed, the spirit of defamation, so rife in America, is so intimatelyconnected with its principal channel, the press, that it is impossibleto mention one, without the other, and I shall, therefore, at once enterinto the question. 

Defamation is the greatest curse in the United States, and its effectsupon society I shall presently point out. It appears to be inseparablefrom a democratic form of government, and must continue to flourish init, until it pleases the Supreme to change the hearts of men. WhenAristides inquired of the countryman, who requested him to write downhis own name on the oyster-shell, what cause of complaint he had againstAristides; the reply given was, "I have none; except, that I do not liketo hear him always called the _Just_. " So it is with the free andenlightened citizens of America. Let any man rise above his fellows bysuperior talent, let him hold a consistent, honest career, and he isexalted only into a pillory, to be pelted at, and be defiled withordure. False accusations, the basest insinuations, are industriouslycirculated, his public and private character are equally aspersed, truthis wholly disregarded: even those who have assisted to raise him to hispedestal, as soon as they perceive that he has risen too high abovethem, are equally industrious and eager to drag him down again. Defamation exists all over the world, but it is incredible to what anextent this vice is carried in America. It is a disease which pervadesthe land; which renders every man suspicious and cautious of hisneighbour, creates eye-service and hypocrisy, fosters the bitterest andmost malignant passions, and unceasingly irritates the morbidsensibility, so remarkable among all classes of the American people. 

Captain Hamilton, speaking of the political contests, says, "From oneextremity of the Union to the other, the political war slogan issounded. No quarter is given on either side; every printing press inthe United States is engaged in the conflict. Reason, justice, andcharity; the claims of age and of past services, of high talents andunspotted integrity, are forgotten. No lie is too malignant to beemployed in this unhallowed contest, if it can but serve the purpose ofdeluding, even for a moment, the most ignorant of mankind. Noinsinuation is too base, no equivocation too mean, no artifice toopaltry. The world affords no parallel to the scene of politicaldepravity exhibited periodically in this free country. "

Governor Clinton, in his address to the legislature in 1828, says--"Party spirit has entered the recesses of retirement, violated thesanctity of female character, invaded the tranquillity of private life, and visited with severe inflictions the peace of families. Neitherelevation nor humility has been spared, nor the charities of life, nordistinguished public services, --nor the fire-side, nor the altar, beenleft free from attack; but a licentious and destroying spirit has goneforth, regardless of everything, but the gratification of malignantfeelings and unworthy aspirations. " And in the New York AnnualRegister, quoted by Captain Hamilton, we have the following remarks: "Inconducting the political discussions which followed the adjournment ofCongress, both truth and propriety were set at defiance. The decenciesof private life were disregarded; conversations and correspondence whichshould have been confidential, were brought before the public eye; theruthless warfare was carried into the bosom of private life; neither agenor sex were spared, the daily press teemed with ribaldry and falsehood;and even the tomb was not held sacred from the rancorous hostility whichdistinguished the presidential election of 1828. "

I have considered it necessary thus to heap authority upon authority, asthe subject is one of the most vital importance; and I must first provethe extent of this vice, without the chance of the shadow ofcontradiction, before I point out its fatal consequences. 

That the political animosities arising from a free and enlightenedpeople governing themselves, have principally engendered and fosteredthis vice, is most certain; and it would be some satisfaction, if, afterthe hostile feelings had subsided, the hydra also sank to repose. 

But this cannot be the case. A vice, like detraction, so congenial toour imperfect natures, is not to be confined to one channel, and onlyresorted to, as a political weapon, when required. It is a vice whichwhen once called into action, and unchecked by the fear of punishment orshame, must exist and be fed. It becomes a confirmed habit, and theeffect upon society is dreadful. If it cannot aim its shafts at thosewho are in high places, if there is no noble quarry for its weapons, itwill seek its food amongst smaller game, for it never tires. Theconsequence is, that it pervades and feeds upon society--private life isembittered; and, as Mr Cooper most justly observes, "_rendering menindifferent to character, and indeed rendering character of littleavail_. "

Indeed, from the prevalence of this vice, society in America appears tobe in a state of constant warfare--Indian warfare, as every one iscrouched, concealed, watching for an opportunity to scalp the reputationof his neighbour! They exist in fear and trembling, afraid to speak, afraid to act, or follow their own will, for in America there is no freewill. When I have asked why they do not this or that, the reply hasinvariably been, that they dare not. In fact, to keep their station insociety, they must be slaves--not merely slaves, for we are all so farslaves, that if we do that which is not right, we must be expelled fromit; but abject and cowardly slaves, who dare not do that which isinnocent, lest they should be misrepresented. This is the cause bythere is such an attention to the _outward_ forms of religion in theUnited States, and which has induced some travellers to suppose them areligious people, as if it were possible that any real religion couldexist, where morality is at so low an ebb. When I first went to Boston, I did not go to church on the following day. An elderly gentlemancalled upon and pointed out to me that I had omitted this duty; "but, "continued he, "I have had it put into one of the newspapers that youattended divine service at such a church, so all is right. " All wasright; yes, all was right, according to the American's ideas of "all wasright. " But I thought at the time, that my sin of omission was muchmore venial than his of commission. 

When at Detroit, I was attacked in the papers because I returned a fewcalls on a Sunday. I mention this, not because I was justified in sodoing, but because I wish to show the censorship exercised in this verymoral country. 

The prevalence of this evil acts most unfortunately upon society inother ways. It is the occasion of your hardly ever knowing whom youmay, or whom you may not, be on terms of intimacy with, and of theintroduction of many people into society, who ought to be whollyexcluded. Where slander is so general, when in the space of fiveminutes you will be informed by one party, that Mr So and So is anexcellent person, and by another that he is a great scoundrel, just ashe may happen to be on their side or the opposite, in politics, or fromany other cause, it is certain that you must be embarrassed as to theperson's real character; and as a really good man may be vituperated, sothe reports against one who is unworthy, are as little credited: thefact is, you never know who you are in company with. 

Almost all the duels which are so frequent in America, and I may add allthe assassinations in the western country, arise principally fromdefamation. The law gives no redress, and there is no other way ofchecking slander, than calling the parties to account for it. Every manis therefore ready and armed against his fellow. 

Inadvertently affront any party, wound his self-love, and he willimmediately coin some malignant report, which is sure to beindustriously circulated. You are at the mercy of the meanest wretch inthe country; for although praise is received with due caution, slanderis everywhere welcomed. An instance occurred with respect to myself. Iwas at Lexington, and received great kindness and civility from MrClay. One day I dined at his table; there was a large party, and at thefurther end, at a distance where he could not possibly have heard whatpassed between Mr Clay and me, there sat a young man, whose name is notworth mentioning. When he returned to Louisville, he spread a reportthat I had grossly insulted Mr Clay at his own table. Now thecatalogue of enormities circulated against me was already so extensive, that I was not in very good odour; but Mr Clay is so deservedly theidol of this State, and indeed of almost the whole Union, that therecould not be a more serious charge against me--even those who were mostfriendly avoided me, saying, they could forgive me what I had formerlydone, but to insult Mr Clay was too bad. So high was the feeling, andso industriously was the calumny circulated, that at last I wascompelled to write to Mr Clay on the subject, and I received in returna most handsome letter, acquitting me of the malicious charge. This Ishowed to some, and they were satisfied; and they advised me to printit, that it might be better known. This was a compliment I did notchoose to pay them; and the impression of the majority still is that Iinsulted Mr Clay. The affair being one of the many connected withmyself, I should not have mentioned it, except to prove how lightly sucha practice is estimated. 

Whatever society permits, people will do, and moreover, will not thinkthat they are wrong in so doing. In England, had a person been guiltyof a deliberate and odious lie, he would have been scouted from society, his best friends would have cut him; but how was this person treated forhis conduct? When I showed Mr Clay's letter, one said, "Well now, thatwas very wrong of A. "--Another, "I did not believe that A would havedone so. "--A third, "that A ought to be ashamed of himself;" but theydid not one of them, on account of this falsehood, think it necessary toavoid him. On the contrary, he was walking arm-in-arm with the men, dancing and flirting with the women just as before, although hisslander, and the refutation of it, were both well known. 

The reader will now perceive the great moral evil arising from thisvice, which is, that it habituates people to falsehood. The lie ofslander is the basest of all lies; and the practice of it, the mostdemoralising to the human heart. Those who will descend to suchdeliberate and malignant falsehood, will not scruple at any otherdescription. The consequence is, that what the Americans have been sooften taxed with, is but too prevalent, "a disregard to _truth_. "

To what must we ascribe the great prevalence of this demoralising habitin the United States? That the licentiousness of the press feeds it, itis true; but I am rather inclined to imagine that the real source of itis to be found in the peculiarity of their institutions. Under ademocracy, there are but two means by which a man can rise above hisfellows--wealth and character; and when all are equal, and each isstruggling to rise above the other, it is to the principle that if youcannot rise above another by your own merit, you can at least so farequalise your condition by pulling him down to your own level, that thisinordinate appetite for defamation must be ascribed. It is a state ofungenerous warfare, arising from there being no gradation, no scale, nodiscipline, if I may use the term, in society. Every one asserts hisequality, and at the same time wishes to rise above his fellows; andsociety is in a state of perpetual and disgraceful scuffle. MrTocqueville says, "There exists in the human heart a depraved taste forequality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful totheir own level, and induces men to prefer equality in slavery toinequality with freedom. "

In politics, especially, character becomes of much more importance thanwealth, and if a man in public life can once be rendered odious, or bemade suspected, he loses his supporters, and there is one antagonistremoved in the race for pre-eminence. Such is one of the lamentabledefects arising from a democratical form of Government. How differentfrom England, and the settled nations of the old world, where it may besaid that everything and everybody is, comparatively speaking, in hisplace!

Although many will, and may justifiably, attempt to rise beyond hiscircumstances and birth, still there is order and regularity; each partyknows the precise round in the ladder on which he stands, and themajority are content with their position. 

It is lamentable to observe how many bad feelings, how many evilpassions, are constantly in a state of activity from this unfortunatechaotical want of gradation and discipline, where all would be first, and every one considers himself as good as his neighbour. 

The above-mentioned author observes--"The surface of American societyis, if I may use the expression, covered with a layer of democracy, frombeneath which the aristocratic colours sometimes peep. "

In a moral sense, this is also true, the nobler virtues which arechiefly produced in the fertile field of aristocracy do occasionallyappear; but the whole surface is covered with a layer of democracy, which like the lava which the volcano continually belches forth, hasgradually poured down, and reduced the country round it to barrennessand sterility. [See Note 2. ]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. _Some_ of the _invented calumnies_ against me found their wayto this country. I consider the contents of this chapter to be asufficient refutation, not only of what has been, but of what will inall probability be hereafter asserted against me by the American press. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 2. This chapter was in the press, when a paragraph, cut out of theBaltimore Chronicle, was received from an anonymous hand at New York. Whether with a friendly intention or otherwise, I am equally obliged tothe party, as it enables me to further prove, if it were necessary, thevituperation of the American press. 

"Many persons in our country had an opportunity of becoming acquaintedwith the Captain. The fast-anchored isle never gave birth to a _moreunmitigated blackguard_. His awkward, unwieldy misshapen body, was buta fair lodging for a low, depraved, licentious soul. Although liberallyeducated, he seemed insensible to any other enjoyments than those ofsense. No human being could in his desires or habits approach more nearto the animal than him. No gentleman ever sat down with him an hourwithout a sensation of loathing and disgust. `What kind of man isCaptain Marryat?' was once asked in our presence of a distinguishedmember of Congress, who had sojourned with him at the White SulphurSprings. `He is no man at all, ' was the reply, `he is a beast. '"

This is really "going the whole hog" himself, and making me go it too. Now, if I receive such abuse for my first three volumes, in which I wentinto little or no analysis, what am I to expect for those which areabout to appear? To the editor of the Baltimore Chronicle I feelindebted: but I suspect that the _respectable_ portion of the Americancommunity will be very much annoyed at my thus giving his remarks moreextensive circulation than he anticipated. 

VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER SEVEN. 

AUTHORS, ETC. 

The best specimens of American writing are to be found in theirpolitical articles, which are, generally speaking, clear, argumentative, and well arranged. The President's annual message is always masterly incomposition, although disgraced by its servile adulation of themajority. If we were to judge of the degrees of enlightenment of thetwo countries, America and England, by the President's message and theKing's speech, we should be left immeasurably in the back-ground--themessage, generally speaking, being a model of composition, while thespeech is but too often a farrago of bad English. This is very strange, as those who concoct the speech are of usually much higher classicalattainments than those who write the message. The only way to accountfor it, is, that in the attempt to condense the speech, they pare andpare away till the sense of it is almost gone; his Majesty's ministersperfectly understanding what they mean themselves, but forgetting thatit is necessary that others should do the same. But in almost allbranches of literature the Americans have no cause to be displeased withthe labours of their writers, considering that they have thedisadvantage of America looking almost entirely to the teeming press ofEngland for their regular supply, and nowhere in that country can besaid at present to be men of leisure and able to devote themselves tothe pursuit. An author by profession would gain but a sorry livelihoodin the United States, unless he happened to be as deservedly successfulas Washington Irving or Cooper. He not only has to compete against thebest English authors, but as almost all the English works are publishedwithout any sum being paid for the copyright, it is evident that he mustsell his work at a higher price if he is to obtain any profit. AnEnglish work of fiction, for instance, is sold at a dollar and aquarter, while an American one costs two dollars. 

This circumstance would alone break down the American literature if itwere not for the generosity of England in granting their authors acopyright in this country; indeed, the American public pay that tacitcompliment to us that they will hardly look at a work by one of theirown citizens, until it has first been published in England, and receivedthe stamp of approbation. Those American authors who have obtained areputation, look, therefore chiefly to the English copyright forremuneration; and if it were not for this liberality on our part, theAmerican literature would not receive sufficient support from its owncountry to make it worth the while of any one to engage in it. Thenumber of English works republished in America is very great, but thenumber of each work sold is much smaller than people here imagined. 

The periodical literature of the United States is highly creditable. The American Quarterly Review; the New York Mirror, by George P Morris;the Knickerbocker, by Clarke; and the Monthly Magazine; all published atNew York, are very good; so, indeed, are the magazines published atPhiladelphia, and many others. It may be said that, upon the whole, theperiodical press of America is pretty well on a par with that of thiscountry. Periodical literature suits the genius of the Americans, andit is better supported by them than any other description. 

The Americans are jealous of our literature, as they are, indeed, ofeverything connected with this country; but they do themselves injusticein this respect, as I consider that they have a very fair proportion ofgood writers. In history, and the heavier branches of literature, theyhave the names of Sparks, Prescott, Bancroft, Schoolcraft, Butler, Carey, Pitkin, etcetera. In general literature, they have WashingtonIrving, Fay, Hall, Willis, Sanderson, Sedgwick, Leslie, Stephens, Childand Neal. In fiction, they have Cooper, Paulding, Bird, Kennedy, Thomas, Ingraham, and many others. They have, notwithstanding themosquitoes, produced some very good poets: Bryant, Halleck, Sigourney, Drake, etcetera; and have they not, with a host of polemical writers, Dr Channing, one of their greatest men, and from his moral courage inpointing out their errors, the best friend to his country that Americahas ever produced! Indeed, to these names we might fairly add theirlegal writers--Chancellor Kent and Judge Story, as well as Webster, Clay, Everett, Cass, and others, who are better known from their greatpolitical reputations than from their writings. Considering that theyhave but half our population, and not a quarter of the time to sparethat we have in this country, the Americans have no want of goodwriters, although there are few of them well known to the Britishpublic. It must be pointed out that the American writers are underanother disadvantage which we are not subject to in this country, whichis, that freedom of opinion is not permitted to them; the majority willnot allow it, except on points of religion, and in them they mayspeculate as much as they please, and publish their opinions, whetherDeistical, Atheistical, or worse, if they can find worse out. It istrue than an author may, and some will, publish what they please, but ifhe does not wish to lose his popularity, and thereby lose his profits, he must not only not offend, but he must conciliate and flatter thenation: and such is the practice with the majority of American authors. Whether it be a work of fiction or one of history his countrymen must bepraised, and, if it be possible to introduce it, there must be someabuse of England. This fact will account for the waning popularity ofMr Cooper; he has ventured to tell his countrymen the truth in morethan [one] of his later works, and now the majority are against him. The work, which I have often quoted in these pages, called "TheDemocrat, " fell dead from the press. I think it fortunate for MrCooper that it did, as people have been lynched who have not said halfso much as he did in that work. His "Naval History" will reinstate him, and I suspect it has been taken up with that view, for, although MrCooper has shown a good deal of moral courage, he has not remainedconsistent. At one moment he publishes "The Democrat, " and gives hiscountrymen a good _whipping_, and then he publishes his "Naval History, "and _soft sawders_ them. But, with the exception of Dr Channing, healmost stands alone in this particular. 

One of the best authors of America is Judge Hall; he proves himself byhis writings to be a shrewd, intelligent man, and yet in his "Statisticsof the West" I was surprised to find the following paragraph, thesubstance of which was more than once repeated in the work. Speaking ofthe Indian hostilities, he says:--

"The mother country (England) never ceased to indulge in the hope ofreuniting the colonies (that is the United States) to her empire, untilthe _war of eighteen hundred and twelve_ crushed the last vestige of herdelusive anticipations. "

Such is his preposterous assertion, the absurdity of which will make anEnglishman laugh; but the corollaries drawn from it are serious, as theyare intended to feed the hostile feeling still existing against thiscountry; for he attempts to prove that from the time the Independencewas ratified by George the Third, that we have ever been trying toreduce America again to our sway; and that all the hostile attempts ofthe various Indian tribes, all the murders of women and children, andscalping, since that date, were wholly to be ascribed to the agency andbribes of England, who hoped by such means to drive the Americans backto the sea coast, where they could be assailed by her navy. 

A little reflection might satisfy any reasonable American, that whenthey wrestled by main force, and without regard to justice, those landsfrom the Indians which they had hunted over for so many generations, andwhich were their own property, it was very natural that the Indiansshould not surrender them without a struggle. But the wish of JudgeHall was to satisfy his countrymen that their exterminating wars againstthe Indians have been those of _self defence_, and not of _unpardonableaggression_. At that period there were many white men who had eitherjoined, or, having been captured, had been adopted into, the Indiantribes. All these Judge Hall would make out to be English emissaries, especially one whom he very correctly designates as the "infamousGirty. " Unfortunately for Judge Hall the infamous Girty was anAmerican, and born in Philadelphia, as is proved by American authority. 

This obligation to write for their own countrymen, and for them alone, has very much injured the sale of American works in England, forpublishers having read them find so many offensive and untrue remarksupon this country, that they will not print them. But it does moreharm, as it cramps genius, harrows their ideas, and instead of leadingin the advance, and the people looking up to them, they follow in therear, and look up to the people, whom they flatter to obtain popularity;and thus the pen in America, as a moral weapon, is at present"_niddering_. "

The remarks of Miss Martineau on American literature are, as all herother remarks, to be received with great caution. Where she obtainedher information I know very well, and certain it is that she has beenmost egregiously deceived. An American critic observes very truly:--

"It is the misfortune of professed book writers, when they arrive in theUnited States, to fall into the hands of certain cliques in ourprincipal cities and town, who make themselves the medium ofinterpretation--their own modes of life, the representation of those ofthe _elite_ of the country; their own opinions, the infallible criterionby which all others must be estimated. They surround the traveller withan atmosphere of their own, and hope to shine through it on the futurepages of the grateful guest. 

"This accounts satisfactorily for many things which are to be found inMiss Martineau's work, for her numerous misapprehensions as to thecharacter, taste, and occupations of the American women. 

"She evidently mistakes the character of our merchants, and does ourliterature but meagre justice. To hold up some obscure publicationsfrom the pens of mere literary adventurers as the best works she hasseen, and at the same time pronounce Mr Cooper's much regrettedfailure, is a stretch of boldness, quite unwarranted by anything MissMartineau has yet achieved in the republic of letters. "

Such was really the case; Miss Martineau fell into what was termed theStockbridge clique, and pinned her faith upon the oracles which theypoured into her ears. She says that in America, Hannah More is bestknown; on the contrary, Hannah More is hardly known in the UnitedStates. 

She says that Wordsworth is much read. Mr Wordsworth has never even inthis country been appreciated as he ought to be. In America it mayalmost be said that he has not been read; and she adds to this, thatByron is _little known_; this is really too bold an assertion. MissMartineau was everywhere in the best society in America; and I believethat in nine drawing-rooms out of ten, she must have seen a copy ofByron lying on the table. 

She says Mr Cooper is a failure. With the exception of WashingtonIrving, there never was an American writer so justly popular in Americaas Cooper. It is true that latterly he has displeased the majority, bypointing out to them their faults, and that he is not _always_ in a goodhumour when he writes about England. But to state the author of suchworks as "_The Pilot_", "_The Last of the Mohicans_", and "_ThePrairie_", a failure, is really too absurd. The cause of this remark issaid to be that Mr Cooper had a quarrel with Miss Martineau'sparticular friend Mr S---. There is only one remark in the whole ofher observations which is in itself true. She says Bulwer is much read. Here she is correct: but the cause which she gives for his being somuch read, is not the real one. She asserts it is on account of hisliberal opinions; it is not on that account, it is from the interest ofhis stories, and the beauty of his writing. 

But the assertion that seemed to me the most strange in Miss Martineau'swork, was, that Mr Carlisle, the author of "_Sartor Resartus_", was themost read of any English author. Without intending to depreciate theworks of Mr Carlisle, I felt convinced from my own knowledge, that thiscould not be a fact, for Mr Carlisle's works are not suited to theAmericans. I, therefore, determined to ascertain how far it wascorrect. I went to the publishers, and inquired how many of MrCarlisle's works had been printed. They replied that they had printedone edition of six hundred copies, which they had nearly sold; and wereconsidering whether it would be worth their while to print a second; andin consequence of Miss Martineau's assertion, that Byron was littleknown, I applied to the largest publishers in New York and Philadelphia, to ascertain, if I could, how many copies of Byron had been published. The reply was, that it was impossible to say exactly, as there had beenso many editions issued, by so many different publishers, but that theyconsidered that from one hundred and fifty to two hundred thousandcopies, must have been sold! so much for the accuracy of Miss Martineau. [See Note 1. ]

I am afraid, that notwithstanding the eloquent and energetic exertionsof the author of "_Ion_, " we shall never be able to make the publicbelieve that the creations of a man's brain are his own property, oreffect any arrangement with foreign countries, so as to secure acopyright to the English author. As on my arrival in America it wasreported in the newspapers that I had come out to ascertain what couldbe done in that respect, and to follow up the petition of the Englishauthors. The subject was, therefore, constantly introduced andcanvassed; and I naturally took an interest in it. Every one almost wasfor granting it; but, at the same time, every one told me that we shouldnot obtain it. 

The petition of the English authors to Congress was warmly espoused byMr Clay, who invariably leads the van in everything which is liberaland gentlemanlike. A select committee, of which Mr Clay was chairman, was formed to consider upon it, and the following was the result oftheir inquiry, and a bill was brought in, upon the report of thecommittee:--

"_In Senate of the United States, Feb_. 16, 1837. 

"Mr Clay made the following report:--

"The select committee to whom was referred the address of certainBritish and the petition of certain American authors, have, according toorder, had the same under consideration, and beg leave now to report:--

"That, by the act of Congress of 1831, being the law now in forceregulating copyrights, the benefits of the act are restricted tocitizens or residents of the United States; so that no foreigner, residing abroad, can secure a copyright in the United States for anywork of which he is the author, however important or valuable it may be. The object of the address and petition, therefore, is to remove thisrestriction as to British authors, and to allow them to enjoy thebenefits of our law. 

"That authors and inventors have, according to the practice amongcivilised nations, a property in the respective productions of theirgenius is incontestible; and that this property should be protected aseffectually as any other property is, by law, follows as a legitimateconsequence. Authors and inventors are among the greatest benefactorsof mankind. They are often dependent, exclusively, upon their ownmental labours for the means of subsistence; and are frequently, fromthe nature of their pursuits, or the constitutions of their minds, incapable of applying that provident care to worldly affairs which otherclasses of society are in the habit of bestowing. These considerationsgive additional strength to their just title to the protection of thelaw. 

"It being established that literary property is entitled to legalprotection, it results that this protection ought to be affordedwherever the property is situated. A British merchant brings ortransmits to the United States a bale of merchandise, and the moment itcomes within the jurisdiction of our laws they throw around it effectualsecurity. But if the work of a British author is brought to the UnitedStates, it may be appropriated by any resident here, and republished, without any compensation whatever being made to the author. We shouldbe all shocked if the law tolerated the least invasion of the rights ofproperty, in the case of the merchandise, whilst those which justlybelong to the works of authors are exposed to daily violation, withoutthe possibility of their invoking the aid of the laws. 

"The committee think that this distinction in the condition of the twodescriptions of property is not just; and that it ought to be remediedby some safe and cautious amendment of the law. Already the principlehas been adopted in the patent laws, of extending their benefits toforeign inventions and improvements. It is but carrying out the sameprinciple to extend the benefit of our copyright laws to foreignauthors. In relation to the subject of Great Britain and France, itwill be but a measure of reciprocal justice; for, in both of thosecountries, our authors may enjoy that protection of their laws forliterary property which is denied to their subjects here. 

"Entertaining these views, the committee have been anxious to devisesome measure which, without too great a disturbance of interests oraffecting too seriously arrangements which have grown out of the presentstate of things, may, without hazard, be subjected to the test ofpractical experience. Of the works which have heretofore issued fromthe foreign press, many have already been republished in the UnitedStates; others are in a progress of republication, and some probablyhave been stereotyped. A copyright law which should embrace any ofthese works, might injuriously affect American publishers, and lead tocollision and litigation between them and foreign authors. 

"Acting, then, on the principles of prudence and caution, by which thecommittee have thought it best to be governed, the bill which thecommittee intend proposing provides that the protection which it securesshall extend to those works only which shall be published after itspassage. It is also limited to the subjects of Great Britain andFrance; among other reasons, because the committee have informationthat, by their laws, American authors can obtain there protection fortheir productions; but they have no information that such is the case inany other foreign country. But, in principle, the committee perceive noobjection to considering the republic of letters as one great community, and adopting a system of protection for literary property which shouldbe common to all parts of it. The bill also provides that an Americanedition of the foreign work for which an American copyright has beenobtained, shall be published within reasonable time. 

"If the bill should pass, its operation in this country would be toleave the public, without any charge for copyright, in the undisturbedpossession of all scientific and literary works published prior to itspassage--in other words, the great mass of the science and literature ofthe world; and to entitle the British or French author only to thebenefit of every copyright in respect to works which may be publishedsubsequent to the passage of the law. 

"The committee cannot anticipate any reasonable or just objection to ameasure thus guarded and restricted. It may, indeed, be contended, andit is possible that a new work, when charged with the expense incidentto the copyright, may come into the hands of the purchaser at a smalladvance beyond what would be its price, if there were no such charge;but this is by no means certain. It is, on the contrary, highlyprobable that, when the American publisher has adequate time to issuecarefully an edition of the foreign work, without incurring theextraordinary expense which he now has to sustain to make a hurriedpublication of it, and to guard himself against dangerous competition, he will be able to bring it into the market as cheaply as if the billwere not to pass. But, if that should not prove to be the case, and ifthe American reader should have to pay a few cents to compensate theauthor for composing a work which he is instructed and profited, wouldit not be just in itself? Has any reader a right to the use, withoutremuneration, of intellectual productions which have not yet beenbrought into existence, but lie buried in the mind of genius? Thecommittee think not; and they believe that no American citizen would notfeel it quite as unjust, in reference to future publications, toappropriate to himself their use, without any consideration being paidto their foreign proprietors, as he would to take the bale ofmerchandise, in the case stated, without paying for it; and he would themore readily make this trifling contribution, when it secured to him, instead of the imperfect and slovenly book now often issued, a neat andvaluable work, worthy of preservation. 

"With respect to the constitutional power to pass the proposed bill, thecommittee entertain no doubt, and Congress, as before stated, has actedon it. The constitution authorises Congress to promote the progress ofscience and useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors andinventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings anddiscoveries. There is no limitation of the power to natives orresidents of this country. Such a limitation would have been hostile tothe object of the power granted. That object was to _promote_ theprogress of science and useful arts. They belong to no particularcountry, but to mankind generally. And it cannot be doubted that thestimulus which it was intended to give to mind and genius, in otherwords, the promotion of the progress of science and the arts, will beincreased by the motives which the bill offers to the inhabitants ofGreat Britain and France. 

"The committee conclude by asking leave to introduce the bill whichaccompanies this report. "

Let it not, however, be supposed that Mr Clay was unreported by theAmerican press; on the contrary, a large portion of it espoused thecause of the English author in the most liberal manner, indeed the boonitself, if granted, would in reality be of more advantage to Americathan to us; as many of them argued. The New York Daily Expressobserves, "But another great evil resulting from the present law is, that most of the writers of our own country are utterly precluded fromadvancing our native literature, since they can derive no emolument orcompensation for their labours; and it is idle to urge that the devoteesof literature, any more than the ingenious artisan or mechanic, can beindifferent to the ultimate advantages which should result alike to bothfrom the diligent use and studious application of their mental energies. We patronise and read the works of foreign writers, but it is at theexpense of our own, the books of the English author being procured freeof all cost, supersede those which would otherwise be produced by ourown countrymen, --thus the foreigner is wronged, while the same wrongacts again as a tariff upon our American author and all this manifestinjury is perpetuated without its being qualified by the most remoteadvantage to any of the parties concerned. "

The Boston Atlas responded to this observation in almost the samelanguage. 

"This systematic, legalised depredation on English authors, is perfectlyruinous to all native literature. What writer can devote himself to aliterary work, which he must offer on its completion, in competitionwith a work of the same description, perhaps, furnishing _printed copy_to the compositors, and to be had for the expense of a single Londoncopy. What publisher would give its worth for a novel, in manuscript, supposing it to be equal to Bulwer's best, when he would get a novel ofBulwer himself, for a few shillings--with an English reputation at theback of it? This is the great reason that we have so few worksillustrative of our own history--whether of fact or fiction. Ourbooksellers are supplied for nothing. "

I extract the following from a very excellent article on the subject, inthe North American Review. 

Another bad consequence of the existing state of things is, that thechoice of books, which shall be offered us, is in the wrong hands. Ourpublishers have, to no small extent, the direction of our reading, inasmuch as they make the selection of books for reprinting. They, ofcourse, will choose those works which will command the readiest and mostextensive sale; but it must be remembered, that in so doing, while theyanswer the demand of the most numerous class of readers, they neglectthe wants of the more cultivated and intelligent class. Besides his, there are many admirable works, which might come into general use ifthey were presented to our reading public, but which are left unnoticedby the publishers, because their success is doubtful. SupposingAbbott's `Young Christian, ' for instance, a book which has had a moreextensive circulation than any work of the present times, had been firstpublished in England at the same moment that a good novel appeared, theAmerican publishers would have given us immediately a horrid reprint ofthe novel; but we should have heard nothing of Abbott's book, till itssuccess had been abundantly tried abroad; nor even then, if someephemeral novel had started up which promised to sell better. 

"Nor is it certain that the price of books would be seriously augmentedby the passage of the copyright law. It must be remembered, that agreat number of writers would thus be called into the field at once, English as well as American writers; for, if English authors could enjoythis benefit, they would soon begin to write expressly for America; andthe competition would become so great, as to regulate the prices ofbooks to a proper standard. But, even supposing the price to beconsiderably raised, it would certainly be better to pay two dollars fora handsome volume, which is worth keeping, and worth reading again, thanto pay only one dollar for a book, which in five years will be worth nomore than the same amount of brown paper. And, finally, there is theconsideration of a native literature, which will, we presume, be placedby all reasonable and intelligent persons above that of cheap books. "

Nevertheless, a large portion of the press took up the other side of thequestion, as may be inferred from a reply which I have inserted in thenote beneath. [See note 2. ]

The bill brought in was lost. Strange to say, the Southerner votedagainst, on the grounds that they would not give a copyright to MissMartineau, to propagate her abolition doctrines in that country--forgetting, that as a copyright would increase the price of a work, itwould be the means of checking its circulation, rather than of extendingit. 

When I arrived at Washington, I thought it would be worth while toascertain the opinion of any of the members of Congress I might meet;and one fine morning, I put the question to one of the Loco focodelegates; when the following conversation took place:--

"Why, Captain, there is much to be said on this subject. Your authorshave petitioned our Congress, I perceive. The petition was read lastsession. "

(Many of the Americans appeared to be highly gratified at the idea of anEnglish petition having been sent to Congress. )

"I believe it was. "

"Well, now, you see, Captain--you will ask us to let you have yourcopyright in this country, as you allow our authors their copyright inyours; and I suppose you mean to say that if we do not, that our authorsshall have no copyright in your country. We'll allow that, but still Iconsider you ask too much, as the balance is on our side mostconsiderably. Your authors are very numerous--ours are not. It is verytrue, that you can steal our copyrights, as well as we can yours. Butif you steal ten, we steal a hundred. Don't you perceive that you askus to give up the advantage?"

"Oh, certainly, " replied I, "I have nothing more to say on the subject. I'm only glad of one thing. "

"And what may that be, Captain?"

"That I did not sign the petition. "

"No, we observed that your name was not down, which rather surprisedus. "

To this cogent argument of the honourable member, I had no reply; andthis was the first and last time that I broached the subject when atWashington; but after many conversations with American gentleman on thesubject, and examination into the real merits of the case, came to theconclusion, that the English authors never would obtain a copyright inthe United States, and as long as the present party are in power. 

Their principal argument raised against the copyright, is as follows:--

"It is only by the enlightening and education of the people, that we canexpect our institutions to hold together. You ask us to tax ourselves, to check the circulation of cheap literature, so essential to ourwelfare for the benefit of a few English authors? Are the interests ofthirteen millions of people to be sacrificed? the foundation of ourgovernment and institutions to be shaken for such trivial advantages aswould be derived by a few foreign authors. Your claim has the show ofjustice we admit, but when the sacrifice to justice must be attendedwith such serious consequences, must we not adhere to expediency?"

Now, it so happens that the very reverse of this argument has alwaysproved to be the case from the denial of copyright. The enlightening ofa people can only be produced by their hearing the truth, which theycannot, and do not, under existing regulations, receive from their ownauthors, as I have already pointed out; and the effects of their refusalof the copyright to English authors, is, that the American publisherswill only send forth such works as are likely to have an immediate sale, such as the novels of the day, which may be said at present to comprisenearly the whole of American rending. Such works as might enlighten theAmericans are not so rapidly saleable as to induce an American publisherto risk publishing when there is such competition. What is theconsequence that the Americans are amused, but not instructed orenlightened?

According to the present system of publication in America, the grant ofcopyright would prove to be of advantage only to a few authors--ofcourse, I refer to the most popular. I had free admission to the booksof one of the largest publishing houses in the United States, and Iextracted from them the profits received by this house for works of acertain reputation. It will be perceived, that the editions publishedare not large. The profits of the American houses chiefly resultingfrom the number of works published, each of these yielding a moderateprofit, which when collected together, swell into a large sum total. 

+=========================+==============+===========+================+Ý Ýcopies printedÝTrade priceÝ Ý+-------------------------+--------------+-----------+----------------+ÝFielding Ý 2, 500Ý104 cents Ýmany left unsoldÝ+-------------------------+--------------+-----------+----------------+ÝPrior's Life of GoldsmithÝ 750Ý200 cents Ýsold Ý+-------------------------+--------------+-----------+----------------+ÝArethusa Ý 1, 250Ý70 cents Ýall sold Ý+-------------------------+--------------+-----------+----------------+ÝAbel Allnut Ý 1, 250Ý52 cents Ýalmost all sold Ý+-------------------------+--------------+-----------+----------------+ÝFellow Commoner Ý 2, 000Ý70 cents Ýmany on hand Ý+-------------------------+--------------+-----------+----------------+ÝRifle Brigade Ý 2, 000Ý37 cents Ýmany on hand Ý+-------------------------+--------------+-----------+----------------+ÝSharpe's Essays Ý 1, 000Ý54 cents Ýone half sold Ý+=========================+==============+===========+================+

Now, as there are one hundred cents to a dollar, and the expenses ofprinting, paper, and advertising have to be deducted, as well as thecopies left on hand, it will be evident, that the profit on each of theabove works, would be too small to allow the publishers in America togive even 20 pounds for the copyright, the consequence of a copyrightwould therefore be, that the major portion of the works printed wouldnot be published at all, and better works would be substituted. Ofcourse, such authors as Walter Scott, Byron, Bulwer, etcetera, have amost extensive sale; and the profits are in proportion, but then it mustbe remembered that a great many booksellers publish editions, and theprofits are divided accordingly. Could Sir Walter Scott have obtained acopyright in the United States, it would have bean worth to him by thistime at least 100, 000 pounds. 

The Americans talk so much about their being the most enlightened nationin the world, that it has been generally received to be the case. Ihave already stated my ideas on this subject, and I think that the smalleditions usually published, of works not standard or elementary, prove, that with the exception of newspapers, they are not a _reading_ nation. The fact is, they have no time to read; they are all at work; and ifthey get through their daily newspaper, is quite as much as most of themcan effect. Previous to my arrival in the United States, and even forsome time afterwards, I had an idea that there was a much largercirculation of every class of writing in America, than there really is. It is only the most popular English authors, as Walter Scott, or themost fashionable, as Byron, which have any extensive circulation; theworks which at present the Americans like best, are those of fiction inwhich there is anything to excite or amuse them, which is very natural, considering how actively they are employed during the major portion oftheir existence, and the consequent necessity of occasional relaxation. When we consider the extreme cheapness of books in the United States, and the enormous price of them in this country, the facilities ofreading them there, and the difficulty attending it here from the abovecause, I have no hesitation in saying, that as a _reading nation_, theUnited States cannot enter into comparison with us. 

As I am upon this subject, I cannot refrain from making a few remarksupon it, as connected with this country. The price of a book nowpublished is enormous, when the prime cost of paper and printing isconsidered; the actual value of each three volumes of a moderateedition, which are sold at a guinea and a half, being about fourshillings and sixpence, and when the edition is large, as the outlay forputting up the type is the same in both, of course it is even less; butthe author must be paid, and upon the present small editions he addsconsiderably to the price charged upon every volume; then comes theexpense of advertising, which is very heavy; the profits of thepublisher, and the profits of the trade in general; for every book forwhich the public pay a guinea and a half, is delivered by the publisherto the trade, that is, to the booksellers, at 1 pound 1 shillings 3pence. The allowance to the trade, therefore, is the heaviest tax ofall; but it is impossible for booksellers to keep establishments, clerks, etcetera, without having indemnification. In all the aboveitems, which so swells up the price of the book, there cannot well beany deduction made. 

Let us examine into the division of profits. I am only making anapproximation, but it is quite near enough for the purpose. 

An edition of 1, 000 copies at 1 pound 11 shillings 6 pence will give1, 575 pounds. 

POSITIVE EXPENSES TO PUBLISHER. 

Trade allowance of 10 shillings. 3 pence per copy: 512 pounds 10shillings. 

Extra allowance. 25 for 24-40 copies: 63 pounds. 

Printing and paper, 4 shillings 6 pence per copy: 225 pounds 0shillings. 

Advertising, equal to 2 shillings per copy: 100 pounds 0 shillings. 

Presentations to Universities and Reviewers, say 30 copies: 47 pounds 5shillings. 

The author if he is well known, may be said to receive 7 shillings percopy: 250 pounds 0 shillings. 

Leaving for the publisher: 277 pounds 0 shillings. 

Total 1, 575 pounds 0 shillings. 

All the first expenses being positive, it follows that the struggle isbetween the publisher and the author, as to what division shall be madeof the remainder. The publisher points out the risk he incurs, and theauthor his time and necessities; and when it is considered that manyauthors take more than a year to write a book, it must be acknowledgedthat the sum paid to them, as I have put it down, is not too great. Therisk, however, is with the publisher, and the great profits with thetrade, which is perhaps the reason why booksellers often make fortunes, and publishers as often become bankrupts. Generally speaking, however, the two are combined, the sure gain of the bookseller being as a set offagainst the speculation of the publisher. 

But one thing is certain, the price of books in this country is much toohigh, and what are the consequences? First, that instead of purchasingbooks, and putting them into their libraries, people have now formedthemselves into societies and book-clubs, or trust entirely to obtainingthem from circulating libraries. Without a book is very popular, it isknown by the publisher what the sale is likely to be, within perhapsfifty copies; for the book-clubs and libraries will, and must have it, and hardly anybody else will; for who will pay a guinea and a half for abook which may, after all, prove not worth reading! Secondly, it hasthe effect of the works being reprinted abroad, and sent over to thiscountry; which, of course, decreases the sale of the English edition. At the Custom-House, they now admit English works printed in Paris, at asmall duty, when brought over in a person's luggage for private reading;and these foreign editions are smuggled, and are to be openly purchasedat most of the towns along the coast. This cannot be prevented--and asfor any international copyright being granted by France or Belgium, I donot think that it ever will be; and if it were, it would be of no avail, for the pirating would then be carried on a little further off in thesmall German States; and if you drove it to China, it would take placethere. We are running after a Will-o'-the-wisp in that expectation. The fault lies in ourselves; the books are too dear, and the questionnow is, cannot they be made cheaper?

There is a luxury in printing, to which the English have been so longaccustomed, that it would not do to deprive them of it. Besides, badpaper and bad type would make but little difference in the expense ofthe book, as my calculation will show; but if a three volume work [seeNote 3] could be delivered to the public at ten shillings, instead of aguinea and a half, it would not only put a stop to piracy abroad, butthe reduced price would induce many hundreds to put it into theirlibrary, and be independent of the hurried reading against time, andoften against inclination, to which they are subject by book-clubs andcirculating libraries; and that this is not the case, is the fault ofthe public itself, and not of the author, publisher, or any other party. 

It is evident that the only way by which books may be made cheap, is byan extended sale--and "_Nicholas Nickleby_", and other works of thatdescription, have proved that a cheap work will have an extended sale--always provided it is a really good one. 

But it is impossible to break through the present arrangements whichconfine the sale of books, unless the public themselves will take it inhand--if they choose to exert themselves, the low prices may be firmlyestablished with equal benefit to all parties, and with an immenseincrease in the consumption of paper. To prove that any attempt on thepart of an author or publisher will not succeed unaided, it was but afew months ago, that Mr Bentley made the trial, and published the threevolumes at one guinea; but he did not sell one copy more--the clubs andlibraries took the usual number, and he was compelled to raise hisprice. The rapid sale of the Standard Novels, which have been read overand over again, when published at the price of five shillings, isanother proof that the public has no objection to purchase when theprice is within its means. 

I can see but one way by which this great desideratum is to be effected;which is, by the public insuring by subscription any publisher orbookseller from loss, provided he delivers the works at the reducedprice. At present, one copy of a book may be said to serve for thirtypeople at least; but say that it serves for ten, or rather say that youcould obtain five thousand, or even a less number, of people to put downtheir names as subscribers to all new works written by certain namedauthors, which should be published at the reduced price of ten shillingsper copy. Let us see the result. 

A ten shilling work under such auspices would be delivered to the tradeat eight shillings. 

The value of the five thousand copies to the publisher would be 2, 000shillings 0 shillings. 

The expenses of printing and paper would be reduced to about 3 shillingsa copy, which would be 750 pounds. 

Advertising, as before, 100 pounds. 

Extra 1 shilling 3 pence, 4 shillings, 5 shillings, about 16 pounds, subtotal 866 pounds. 

Leaving a profit for author and publisher of 1, 134 pounds 0 shillings. 

Whereas, in the printing of a thousand copies, the profits of author 350pounds, and of publisher 277 pounds 5 shillings, equalled only 627pounds 5 shillings. 

Extra profit to author and publisher 506 pounds 15 shillings. 

Here the public would gain, the author would gain, and the publisherwould gain; nor would any party lose; the profits of the trade would notbe quite so great, being 500 pounds, instead of 575 pounds; but it mustbe remembered, that there are many who, not being subscribers, wouldpurchase the book as soon as they found that it was approved of--indeed, there is no saying to what extent the sale might prove to be. 

If any one publisher sold books at this price, the effect would be ofreducing the price of all publications, for either the authors mustapply to the cheap publisher, or the other publishers sell at the samerate, or they would not sell at all. Book-clubs and circulatinglibraries would then rapidly break up, and we should obtain the greatdesideratum of cheap literature. 

And now that I have made my statement, what will be the consequence?Why, people will say, "that's all very well, all very true"--and nobodywill take the trouble--the consequence is, that the public will go on, paying through the nose as before--and if so, let it not grumble; as ithas no one to thank but itself for it. [See Note 4. ]

The paper and printing in America is, generally speaking, so veryinferior, that the books are really not worth binding, and are torn upor thrown away after they are read--not that they cannot print well; forat Boston particularly they turn out very excellent workmanship. MrPrescott's "_Ferdinand and Isabella_", is a very good specimen, and soare many of the Bibles and Prayer books. In consequence of their ownbad printing, and the tax upon English books, there are very fewlibraries in America: and in this point, the American government shouldmake some alteration, as it will be beneficial to both countries. TheEnglish editions, if sent over, would not interfere with the sale oftheir cheap editions, and it would enable the American gentlemen tocollect libraries. The duty, at present, is twenty-six cents per pound, on books in boards, and thirty cents upon bound-books. 

Now, with the exception of school books, upon which the duty should beretained, this duty should be very much reduced. 

At present, all books published prior to 1775, are admitted upon areduced duty of five cents. This date should be extended to 1810, or1815, and illustrated works should also be admitted upon the reducedduty. It would be a bonus to the Americans who wish to have libraries, and some advantage to the English booksellers. 

I cannot dismiss this subject without pointing out a most dishonestpractice, which has latterly been resorted to in the United States, andwhich a copyright only, I am afraid, can prevent the continuance of. Works which have become standard authority in England, on account of thepurity of their Christian principles, are republished in America withwhole pages altered, advantage being taken of the great reputation ofthe orthodox writers, to disseminate Unitarian and Socinian principles. A friend of mine, residing in Halifax, Nova Scotia, sent to a religiousbook society at New York for a number of works, as presents to thechildren attending the Sunday school. He did not examine them, havingbefore read the works in England, and well knowing what ought to havebeen the contents of each. 

To his surprise, the parents came to him a few days afterwards to returnthe books, stating that they presumed that he could not be aware of thenature of their contents; and on examination, he found that he had beencirculating Unitarian principles among the children, instead of thosewhich he had wished to inculcate. [See Note 5. ]

The press of America, as I have described it, is all powerful; but stillit must be borne in mind, that it is but the slave of the majority;which, in its turn, it dare not oppose. 

Such is its tyranny, that it is the dread of the whole community. Noone can--no one dare--oppose it; whosoever falls under its displeasure, be he as innocent and as pure as man can be, his doom is sealed. Butthis power is only delegated by the will of the majority, for let anyauthor in America oppose that will, and he is denounced. You mustdrink, you must write, not according to your own opinions, or your ownthoughts, but as the majority will. [See Note 6. ]

Mr Tocqueville observes, "I know no country in which there is so littletrue independence of mind, and freedom of discussion, as in America. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. Miss Martineau talks of Dr Follett as one of the greatest menin America. I was surprised at this, as I never heard of his name, so Iinquired--"Who is Dr Follett?"--"I don't know. "--"Do you know DrFollett?"--"Never heard of him. "--"Do you?"--"No. " I asked so manypeople that at last I became quite tired; at last I found a man who knewhim, his answer was--"Oh, yes; he's an _Abolitionist_!" As the Americancritic justly observes, "He shines in the future pages of his gratefulguest. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 2. The International Copyright Question. 

One of the most important questions, upon principle, that ever wasmooted, has for some time placed in juxtaposition the various editors ofthe corps critical, accordingly as their interests or feelings have beenworked upon. Our chief object in these remarks is to hold up to thescorn and derision that it richly merits, the assumption of an editor, that an author has no right to the emanations of his own mind--to theproductions of his own pen. We do not mean to answer the many and grossabsurdities--which this talented gentleman's sophistry has palmed uponthe public, --it would be a work of supererogation, inasmuch as his `airyvision' has already been completely `dissolved' by the breath of thateminent gentleman, well known to us, who has so completely annihilatedthe wrong which he is so anxious to continue. But the shamefulassumption that a writer, universally allowed to be the worst paidartist in creation, should not have--is not entitled to have, by everyprinciple--of courtesy and honour, a sole and undivided right to, andin, his own productions--is so monstrous, that every editor imbued withthose feelings, which through life, should be the rule of his conduct, is in duty bound to come forward and express his dissent from such adoctrine, and his abhorrence of a principle so flagitious. 

"We avail ourselves of the opportunity this number affords of upholdingthe poor author's right, of censuring the greedy spoliation ofpublishing tribe, who would live, batten, and fatten upon the despoiledlabours of those whom their piracy starves--snatching the scanty crustfrom their needy mouths to pamper their own insatiate maws. 

"This matter lies between the publisher and the author. The authorclaims a right to his own productions, wherever they may be. Thepublishers, like the Cornwall wreckers, say no, the moment your labourstouch our fatal shore they are ours; you have no right to them, no titlein them. Good heavens! shall such a cruel despoliation be permitted!The publishers, with consummate cunning, turn to the public, andvirtually say, support us in our theft, and we will share the spoil withyou; we will give you standard works at a price immeasurably below theirvalue. As well might a thief, brought before the honest and worthyrecorder say: If your honour will wink at the crime, you will make me apublic benefactor, for whilst I rob one man of an hundred watches, I cansell them to an hundred persons for one-third of their prime cost; andthus injure one and benefit a hundred, you shall have one very cheap. What would this recorder say? He would say, the crime is apparent, andI spurn with indignation and contempt your offer to part with to me thatwhich is not your own. And should not this be the reply of the publicto the publishers? Yes, and it will be too. And the vampires who haveso long lived upon the spirits of authors, will have tax their own toyield themselves support. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 3. I ought here to remark, that the authors are much injured bythe present system. It having been satisfactorily proved, that athree-volume work is the only one that can be published at the minimumof expense, and the magnum of profits, no publisher likes to publish anyother. There is the same expense in advertising, etcetera, a twovolume, or a one octavo book, as a three. The author, therefore, has tospin out to three volumes, whether he has matter or not; and that is thereason why the second volume, like the fourth act of a five act play, is, generally speaking, so very heavy. Publishers, now-a-days, measureworks with a foot-rule, as the critic did in Sterne. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 4. The members of the peerage and baronetage of Great Britain, themembers of the untitled aristocracy--the staff officers of the army andnavy--the members of the different clubs--are each of them sufficientlynumerous to effect this object; and if any subscription was opened, itcould not fail of being filled up. 

Note 5. One of those works was Abbot's `Young Christian', or some otherwork by that author. 

Note 6. Indeed, one cannot help being reminded of what Beaumarchaismakes Figaro say upon the liberty of the press in another country. "Onme dit que pendant ma retraite economique il s'est etabli dans Madrid unsysteme de liberte sur la vente des productions, qui s'etend meme acelles de la presse; et, pourvu que je parle dans mes ecrits, ni del'autorite, ni du culte, ni de la politique, ni de la morale, ni desgens en place, ni des corps en credit, ni de l'opera, ni des autresspectacles, ni de personne qui tient a quelque chose, je puis toutimprimer _librement_; sous l'inspection de _deux ou trois censeurs_. "

VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER EIGHT. 

THE MISSISSIPPI. 

I have headed this chapter with the name of the river which flowsbetween the principal States in which the society I am about to depictis to be found; but, at the same time, there are other southern States, such as Alabama and Georgia, which must be included. I shall attempt todraw the line as clearly as I can, for although the territorycomprehended is enormous, the population is not one-third of that of theUnited States, and it would be a great injustice if the description ofthe society I am about to enter into should be supposed to refer to thatof the States in general. It is indeed most peculiar, and arising frowcircumstances which will induce me to refer back, that the causes may beexplained to the reader. Never, perhaps, in the records of nations wasthere an instance of a century of such unvarying and unmitigated crimeas is to be collected from the history of the turbulent andblood-stained Mississippi. The stream itself appears as if appropriatefor the deeds which have been committed. It is not like most rivers, beautiful to the sight, bestowing fertility in its course; not one thatthe eye loves to dwell upon as it sweeps along, nor can you wander onits bank, or trust yourself without danger to its stream. It is afurious, rapid, desolating torrent, loaded with alluvial soil; and fewof those who are received into its waters ever rise again, or cansupport themselves long on its surface without assistance from somefriendly log. It contains the coarsest and most uneatable of fish, suchas the cat-fish and such genus, and, as you descend, its banks areoccupied with the fetid alligator, while the panther basks at its edgein the cane-brakes, almost impervious to man. Pouring its impetuouswaters through wild tracks, covered with trees of little value exceptfor firewood, it sweeps down whole forests in its course, whichdisappear in tumultuous confusion, whirled away by the stream now loadedwith the masses of soil which nourished their roots, often blocking upand changing for a time the channel of the river, which, as if in angerat its being opposed, inundates and devastates the whole country round;and as soon as it forces its way through its former channel, plants inevery direction the uprooted monarchs of the forest (upon whose branchesthe bird will never again perch, or the racoon, the opossum or thesquirrel, climb) as traps to the adventurous navigators of its waters bysteam, who, borne down upon these concealed dangers which pierce throughthe planks, very often have not time to steer for and gain the shorebefore they sink to the bottom. There are no pleasing associationsconnected with the great common sewer of the western America, whichpours out its mud into the Mexican Gulf, polluting the clear blue seafor many miles beyond its mouth. It is a river of desolation; andinstead of reminding you, like other beautiful rivers, of an angel whichhas descended for the benefit of man, you imagine it a devil, whoseenergies have been only overcome by the wonderful power of steam. 

The early history of the Mississippi is one of piracy and buccaneering;its mouths were frequented by these marauders, as in the bayous andcreeks they found protection and concealment for themselves and theirill-gotten wealth. Even until after the war of 1814 these sea-robbersstill to a certain extent flourished, and the name of Lafitte, the lastof their leaders, is deservedly renowned for courage and for crime; hisvessels were usually secreted in the land-locked bay of Barataria, tothe westward of the mouth of the river. They were, however, soonextirpated by the American government. The language of the adjacentStates is still adulterated with the slang of those scoundrels, provinghow short a period it is since they disappeared, and how they must havemixed up with the reckless population, whose head-quarters were then atthe mouth of the river. 

But as the hunting-grounds of Western Virginia, Kentucky, and thenorthern banks of the Ohio, were gradually wrested from the ShawneeIndians, the population became more dense, and the Mississippi itselfbecame the means of communication and of barter with the more northerntribes. Then another race of men made their appearance, and flourishedfor half a century, varying indeed in employment, but in other respectslittle better than the buccaneers and pirates, in whose ranks they wereprobably first enlisted. These were the boatmen of the Mississippi, whowith incredible fatigue forced their "keels" with poles against thecurrent, working against the stream with the cargoes entrusted to theircare by the merchants of New Orleans, labouring for many months beforethey arrive at their destination, and returning with the rapid currentin as many days as it required weeks for them to ascend. This was aservice of great danger and difficulty, requiring men of iron frame andundaunted resolution: they had to contend not only with the stream, but, when they ascended the Ohio, with the Indians, who, taking up the mostfavourable positions, either poured down the contents of their riflesinto the boat as she passed; or, taking advantage of the dense fog, boarded them in their canoes, indiscriminate slaughter being theinvariable result of the boatmen having allowed themselves to besurprised. In these men was to be found, as there often is in the mostunprincipled, one redeeming quality (independent of courage andperseverance), which was, that they were, generally speaking, unscrupulously honest to their employers, although they made littleceremony of appropriating to their own use the property, or, ifnecessary, of taking the life any other parties. Wild, indeed, are thestories which are still remembered of the deeds of courage, and also ofthe fearful crimes committed by these men, on a river which never givesup its dead. I say still remembered, for in a new country they readilyforget the past, and only look forward to the future, whereas in an oldcountry the case is nearly the reverse--we love to recur to tradition, and luxuriate in the dim records of history. 

The following description of the employment of this class of people isfrom the pen of an anonymous American author:--

"There is something inexplicable in the fact, there could be men found, for ordinary wages, who would abandon the systematic but not laboriouspursuits of agriculture to follow a life, of all others except that ofthe soldier, distinguished by the greatest exposure and privation. Theoccupation of a boatman was more calculated to destroy the constitutionand to shorten life than any other business. In ascending the river itwas a continued series of toil, rendered more irksome by the snail-likerate at which they moved. The boat was propelled by poles, againstwhich the shoulder was placed, and the whole strength and skill of theindividual were applied in this manner. As the boatmen moved along therunning board, with their heads nearly touching the plank on which theywalked, the effect produced on the mind of an observer was similar tothat on beholding the ox rocking before an overloaded cart. Theirbodies, naked to their waist for the purpose of moving with greater easeand of enjoying the breeze of the river, were exposed to the burningsuns of summer and to the rains of autumn. After a hard day's push theywould take their `fillee, ' or ration of whisky, and, having swallowed amiserable supper of meat half burnt, and of bread half baked, stretchedthemselves, without covering, on the deck, and slumber till thesteersman's call invited them to the morning `fillee. ' Notwithstandingthis, the boatman's life had charms as irresistible as those presentedby the splendid illusions of the stage. Sons abandoned the comfortablefarms of their fathers, and apprentices fled from the service of theirmasters. There was a captivation in the idea of `going down the river, 'and the `youthful boatman who had pushed a keel' from New Orleans feltall the pride of a young merchant after his first voyage to an Englishsea-port. From an exclusive association together they had formed a kindof slang peculiar to themselves; and from the constant exercise of witwith the squatters on shore, and crews of other boats, they acquired aquickness and smartness of vulgar retort that was quite amusing. Thefrequent battles they were engaged in with the boatmen of differentparts of the river, and with the less civilised inhabitants of the lowerOhio and Mississippi, invested them with that furious reputation whichhas made them spoken of throughout Europe. 

"On board of the boats thus navigated our merchants entrusted valuablecargoes, without insurance, and with no other guarantee than the receiptof the steersman, who possessed no property but his boat; and theconfidence so reposed was seldom abused. "

Every class of men has its hero, as those always will be, who, fromenergy of character and natural endowment, are superior to theirfellows. The most remarkable person among these people was one _MikeFink_, who was their acknowledged leader for many years. His fame wasestablished from New Orleans to Pittsburg. He was endowed with giganticstrength, courage, and presence of mind--his rifle was unerring, and hisconscience never troubled his repose. Every one was afraid of him;every one was anxious to be on good terms with him, for he was a regularfreebooter; and although he spared his friends, he gave no quarter tothe lives or properties of others. Mike Fink was not originally aboatmen: at an early age he had enlisted in the company of scouts, another variety of employment produced by circumstances--a species ofsolitary rangers employed by the American government, and acting asspies, to watch the motions of the Indians on the frontiers. Thispeculiar service is thus described by the author I have before quoted:--

"At that time, Pittsburg was on the extreme verge of white population, and the spies, who were constantly employed, generally extended their_reconnaissance_ forty or fifty miles to the west of this post. Theywent out singly, lived as did the Indian, and in every respect becameperfectly assimilated in habits, taste, and feeling, with the red men ofthe desert. A kind of border warfare was kept up, and the scout thoughtit as praiseworthy to bring in the scalp of a Shawnee, as the skin of apanther. He would remain in the woods for weeks together, using parchedcorn for bread, and depending on his rifle for his meat--and slept atnight in perfect comfort, rolled in his blanket. "

In this service Mike Fink acquired a great reputation for coolness andcourage, and many are the stories told of his adventures with theIndians. It has been incontestably proved, that the white man, whenaccustomed to the woods, is much more acute than the Indian himself inthat woodcraft of every species, in which the Indian is supposed to besuch an adept; such as discovering a trail by the print of a mocassin, by the breaking of twigs, laying of the grass, etcetera, and in thepractice of the rifle he is very superior. As a proof of Fink'sdexterity with his rifle, he is said one day, as they were descendingthe Ohio in their boat, to have laid a wager, and won it, that he wouldfrom mid-stream with his rifle balls cut off at the stumps the tails offive pigs which were feeding on the banks. One story relative to MikeFink, when he was employed as a scout, will be interesting to thereader. 

"As he was creeping along one morning, with the stealthy tread of a cat, his eye fell upon a beautiful buck browsing on the edge of a barrenspot, three hundred yards distant. The temptation was too strong forthe woodsman, and he resolved to have a shot at every hazard. Repriminghis gun, and picking his flint, he made his approaches in the usualnoiseless manner. But the moment he reached the spot from which hemeant to take his aim, he observed a large savage, intent upon the sameobject, advancing from a direction a little different from his own. Mike shrunk behind a tree with the quickness of thought, and keeping hiseye fixed on the hunter, waited the result with patience. In a fewmoments the Indian halted within fifty paces, and levelled his piece atthe deer. In the meanwhile Mike presented his rifle at the body of thesavage, and at the moment the smoke issued from the gun of the latter, the bullet of Fink passed through the red man's breast. He uttered ayell, and fell dead at the same instant with the deer. Mike re-loadedhis rifle, and remained in his covert for some minutes to ascertainwhether there were more enemies at hand. He then stepped up to theprostrate savage, and having satisfied himself that life wasextinguished, turned his attention to the buck, and took from thecarcase those pieces suited to the process of jerking. "

As the country filled up the Indians retreated, and the corps of scoutswas abolished: but after a life of excitement in the woods, they wereunfitted for a settled occupation. Some of them joined the Indians, others, and among them Mike Finn, enrolled themselves among thefraternity of boatmen on the Mississippi. 

The death of Mike Fink was befitting his life. One of his very commonexploits with his rifle was hitting for a wager, at thirty yardsdistance, a small tin pot, used by the boatmen, which was put on thehead of another man. Such was his reputation, that no one hardlyobjected to being placed in this precarious situation. It is even saidthat his wife, that is, his _Mississippi_ wife, was accustomed to standthe fire; this feat was always performed for a wager of a quart ofspirits, made by some stranger, and was a source of obtaining thenecessary supplies. One day the wager was made as usual, and a man withwhom Mike had at one time been at variance (although the feud was nowsupposed to have been forgotten) was the party who consented that thepot should be placed on his head. Whether it was that Mike was notquite sober, or that he retained his ill-will towards the man, certainit is, that in this instance, instead of his hitting the mark, hisbullet went below it and through the brain of the man, who instantlyfell dead; but his brother, who was standing by, and probably suspectingtreachery, had his loaded rifle in his hand, levelled, fired, and in asecond the soul of Mike was despatched after that of his victim. 

Here ended the history of Mike Fink, Esq. 

The invention of the steam-engine, and its application to nauticalpurposes, deprived the boatmen of employment; they were again thrownupon their own resources, and as it may be supposed, did not much assistin the amelioration of Mississippi society. The country graduallyincreased its population, but as a majority of those who migrated wereof the worst description, being composed of those who had fled from themore settled States to escape the punishment due to their crimes, it maybe said, that so far from improving, the morals of the Mississippibecame worse, as the mean and paltry knave, the swindler, and the forgerwere now mingled up with the more daring spirits, producing a morecomplicated and varied class of crime than before. The steam-boats weresoon crowded by a description of people who were termed gamblers, assuch was their ostensible profession, although they were ready for anycrime which might offer an advantage to them, [see note 1] and theincrease of commerce and constant inpouring of populations daily offerto them some new dupe for their villainy. The state of society was muchworse than before--the knife was substituted for the rifle, and theriver buried many a secret of atrocious murder. To prove the extent towhich these deeds of horror were perpetrated, I shall give to theEnglish reader, in as succinct a form as I can, the history of JohnMurel, the land pirate, as he was termed. There is an octavo volume, published in the United States, giving a whole statement of the affair;it was not until the year 1833 that it was exposed, and Murel sent tothe Penitentiary. Murel was at the head of a large band, who had joinedunder his directions, for the purposes of stealing horses and negroes inthe southern States, and of passing counterfeit money. He appears tohave been a most dexterous as well as consummate villain. When hetravelled, his usual disguise was that of an itinerant preacher; and itis said that his discourses were very "soul moving"--interesting thehearers so much that they forgot to look after their horses, which werecarried away by his confederates while he was preaching. But thestealing of horses in one State, and selling them in another, was but asmall portion of their business; the most lucrative was the enticingslaves to run away from their masters, that they might sell them in someother quarter. This was arranged as follows; they would tell a negrothat if he would run away from his master, and allow them to sell him, he should receive a portion of the money paid for him, and that upon hisreturn to them a second time they would send him to a free State, wherehe would be safe. The poor wretches complied with this request, hopingto obtain money and freedom; they would be sold to another master, andrun away again to their employers; sometimes they would be sold in thismanner three or four times until they had realised three or fourthousand dollars by them; but as, after this, there was fear ofdetection, the usual custom was to get rid of the only witness thatcould be produced against them, which was the negro himself, bymurdering him, and throwing his body into the Mississippi. Even if itwas established that they had stolen a negro before he was murdered, they were always prepared to evade punishment, for they concealed thenegro who had run away until he was advertised, and a reward offered toany man who would catch him. An advertisement of this kind warrants theperson to take the property, if found, and then the negro becomes aproperty in trust. When, therefore, they sold the negro, it only becamea breach of trust, not stealing; and for a breach of trust, the owner ofthe property can only have redress by a civil action, which was useless, as the damages were never paid. It may be inquired, how it was thatMurel escaped Lynch law under such circumstances? This will be easilyunderstood when it is stated that he had more than a thousand swornconfederates, all ready at a moment's notice to support any of the gangwho might be in trouble. The names of all the principal confederates ofMurel were obtained from himself, in a manner which I shall presentlyexplain. The gang was composed of two classes: the heads or council, asthey were called, who planned and concerted but seldom acted; theyamounted to about four hundred. The other class were the active agents, and were termed Strikers, and amounted to about six hundred and fifty. These were the tools in the hands of the others; they ran all the risk, and received but a small proportion of the money; they were in the powerof the leaders of the gang, who would sacrifice them at any time byhanding them over to justice, or sinking their bodies in theMississippi. The general rendezvous of this gang of miscreants was onthe Arkansaw side of the river, where they concealed their negroes inthe morasses and cane-brakes. 

The depredations of this extensive combination were severely felt: butso well were their plans arranged, that although Murel, who was alwaysactive, was everywhere suspected, there was no proof to be obtained. Itso happened, however, that a young man of the name of Stewart, who waslooking after two slaves which Murel had decoyed away, fell in with himand obtained his confidence, took the oath, and was admitted into thegang as one of the general council. By this means all was discovered;for Stewart turned traitor, although he had taken the oath, and, havingobtained every information, exposed the whole concern, the names of allthe parties, and finally succeeded in bringing home sufficient evidenceagainst Murel, to procure his conviction and sentence to thePenitentiary; where he now is. (Murel was sentenced to fourteen years'imprisonment, but as he will, upon the expiration of his time, beimmediately prosecuted and sentenced again for similar deeds in otherStates, he will remain imprisoned for life). So many people who weresupposed to be honest, and bore a respectable name in the differentStates, were found to be among the list of the Grand Council aspublished by Stewart, that every attempt was made to throw discreditupon his assertions--his character was vilified, and more than oneattempt was made to assassinate him. He was obliged to quit theSouthern States in consequence. It is, however, now well ascertained tohave been all true; and although some blame Mr Stewart for havingviolated his oath, they no longer attempt to deny that his revelationswere not correct. To understand, to the full amount, the enormitiescommitted by this miscreant and his gang, the reader must read the wholeaccount published at New York; I will however just quote one or twoportions of Murel's confessions to Mr Stewart, made to him when theywere journeying together. I ought to have observed, that the ultimateintentions of Murel and his associates were by his own account on a veryextended scale; having no less an object in view than raising the blacksagainst the whites, taking possession of, and plundering New Orleans, and making themselves possessors of the territory. The following are afew extracts from the published work:--

"I collected all my friends about New Orleans at one of our friend'shouses in that place, and we sat in council three days before we got allour plans to our notion; we then determined to undertake the rebellionat every hazard, and make as many friends as we could for that purpose. Every man's business being assigned him, I started to Natchez on foot, having sold my horse in New Orleans, with the intention of stealinganother after I started: I walked four days, and no opportunity offeredfor me to get a horse. The fifth day, about twelve, I had become tired, and stopped at a creek to get some water and rest a little. While I wassitting on a log, looking down the road the way that I had come, a mancame in sight riding on a good-looking horse. The very moment I sawhim, I was determined to have his horse, if he was in the garb of atraveller. He rode up, and I saw from his equipage that he was atraveller. I arose from a seat, and drew an elegant rifle pistol on himand ordered him to dismount. He did so, and I took his horse by thebridle and pointed down the creek, and ordered him to walk before me. He went a few hundred yards and stopped. I hitched his horse, and thenmade him undress himself, all to his shirt and drawers, and ordered himto turn his back to me. He said, "If you are determined to kill me, letme have time to pray before I die. " I told him I had no time to hearhim pray. He turned round and dropped on his knees, and I shot himthrough the back of the head. I ripped open his belly and took out hisentrails, and sunk him in the creek. I then searched his pockets, andfound four hundred dollars and thirty-seven cents, and a number ofpapers that I did not take time to examine. I sunk the pocket-book andpapers, and his hat, in the creek. His boots were brand new, and fittedme genteelly; and I put them on and sunk my old shoes in the creek, toatone for them. I rolled up his clothes and put them into hisportmanteau, as they were brand new cloth of the best quality. Imounted as fine a horse as ever I straddled, and directed my course forNatchez in much better style than I had been for the last five days. 

"Myself and a fellow by the name of Crenshaw gathered four good horsesand started for Georgia. We got in company with a young South Carolinajust before we got to Cumberland mountain, and Crenshaw soon knew allabout his business. He had been to Tennessee to buy a drove of hogs, but when he got there pork was dearer than he had calculated, and hedeclined purchasing. We concluded he was a prize. Crenshaw winked atme; I understood his idea. Crenshaw had travelled the road before, butI never had. We had travelled several miles on the mountain, when hepassed near a great precipice; just before we passed it Crenshaw askedme for my whip, which had a pound of lead in the butt; I handed it tohim, and he rode up by the side of the South Carolinian, and gave him ablow on the side of the head and tumbled him from his horse; we lit fromour horses and fingered his pockets; we got twelve hundred and sixty-twodollars. Crenshaw said he knew of a place to hide him, and he gatheredhim under his arms, and I by his feet, and conveyed him to a deepcrevice in the brow of the precipice, and tumbled him into it, he wentout of sight; we then tumbled in his saddle, and took his horse with us, which was worth two hundred dollars. 

"We were detained a few days, and during that time our friend went to alittle village in the neighbourhood and saw the negro advertised, and adescription of the two men of whom he had been purchased, and giving hissuspicions of the men. It was rather squally times, but any port in astorm: we took the negro that night on the bank of a creek which runs bythe farm of our friend, and Crenshaw shot him through the head. We tookout his entrails and sunk him in the creek. 

"He sold him the third time on Arkansaw river for five hundred dollars;and then stole him and delivered him into the hand of his friend, whoconducted him to a swamp, and veiled the tragic scene and got the lastgleanings and sacred pledge of secrecy, as a game of that kind will notdo unless it ends in a mystery to all but the fraternity. He sold thatnegro for two thousand dollars, and then put him for ever out of thereach of all pursuers; and they can never graze him unless they can findthe negro; and that they cannot do, for his carcass has fed many atortoise and cat-fish before this time, and the frogs have sung thismany a long day to the silent repose of his skeleton. "

It will be observed that in the account of his murders, by thecold-blooded villain, whenever he conceals his victim in the water, hetakes out the entrails. This is because when the entrails are removed, the body will not rise again to the surface from the generation of gas, occasioned by putrefaction. 

As it is but five years since the conviction of Murel, it may besupposed that society cannot be much improved in so short a period. Butfive years is a long period, as I have before observed in Americanhistory; and some improvement has already taken place, as I shallhereafter show; still the state of things at present is most lamentable, as the reader will acknowledge, when he has heard the facts which I havecollected. 

The two great causes of the present lawless state of society in theSouth are a mistaken notion of physical courage, and a total want ofmoral courage. Fiery and choleric in his disposition, intemperate inhis habits, and worked upon by the peculiarity of the climate, theSoutherner is always ready to enter into a quarrel, and prepared withpistol and Bowie-knife to defend himself. For the latter he cannot wellbe blamed, for in the present state of things, it is only being preparedin self-defence; but at the same time, the weapons being at hand, is onegreat cause of such frequent bloodshed. To give the lie, or to useopprobrious language, is considered sufficient justification for usingthe knife; and as public opinion is on the side of the party who thusretaliates on an affront, there is no appeal to law, as if there was, the majority would never permit the law to be put in force: theconsequence is, that if a man is occasionally tried for murder, if anywitness will come forward to prove that the party murdered made use ofan offensive epithet to the prisoner, (and there are always to be foundplenty of people to do this act of kindness, ) he is invariablyacquitted. The law therefore being impotent, is hardly ever resortedto; every man takes the law into his own hands, and upon the leastaffront, blood is certain to be shed. Strange to say, I have heard thesystem of the South defended by very respectable individuals. They saythat, taking summary measures at the time that the blood is up, is muchpreferable to the general custom of fighting a duel the next day, whichis murder in cold blood; that this idea is supported by the laws ofEngland is certain, as it resolves murder into manslaughter. But, unfortunately, the argument is not borne out, from the simple fact, thatthe quarrels do not [go away] with the cooling down of the blood, and ifnot settled on the spot, they remain as feuds between the parties, andrevenge takes the place of anger; years will sometimes pass away, andthe insult or injury is never forgotten; and deliberate, cold-bloodedmurder is the result; for there is no warning given. 

When I was in Kentucky, a man walked up to Mr Prentice, the talentededitor of the Louisville Journal, and without a word passing, fired apistol at his head. Fortunately the ball missed him; no notice wastaken of this attempt to murder. But I have had many other examples ofthis kind, for if you quarrel with a person and the affair is notdecided at once, it is considered perfectly justifiable to take yourrevenge whenever you meet him, and in any way you can. An Americangentleman told me that he happened to arrive at a town in Georgia with afriend of his, who went with him to the post-office for letters. Thisperson had had a quarrel with another who resided in the town; but theyhad not met with each other for seven years. The town resident waslooking out of his window, when they went to the post-office on theopposite side of the street; he recognised his enemy, and closing hisshutters that he might not be seen, passed the muzzle of his riflebetween them, and shot him dead, as he was with his back to him payingfor his letters. 

But a more curious instance of this custom was narrated to me by aneye-witness; a certain general had a feud with another person, and itwas perfectly understood that they were to fight when they met. It sohappened, that the general had agreed to dine at the public table of theprincipal hotel in the town with some friends. When the gong sounded, and they all hastened in, as they do, to take their places, he found hisantagonist seated with a party of his own friends directly opposite tohim. Both their pistols were out in a moment, and were presented. "Would you prefer dining first?" said the general, who was remarkablefor coolness and presence of mind. "I have no objection, " replied theother, and the pistols were withdrawn. Some observation, however, occasioned the pistols to be again produced before the dinner was over;and then the friends interfered, each party removing so many feet aboveand below, so as to separate them. 

A day or two afterwards they again met at the corner of a street, andthe weapons were produced; but the general, who had some importantbusiness to transact, said, "I believe, sir, I can, and you know I can, cock a pistol as soon as any man. I give you your choice; shall it benow, or at some future meeting?"--"At some future meeting then, " repliedhis antagonist, "for, to confess the truth, general, I should like to_have you at an advantage_; that is to say, I should like to shoot you, when your back is turned. "

I have observed that there is a total want of moral courage on the partof the more respectable population, who will quietly express theirhorror and disgust at such scenes, but who will never interfere, if themost barbarous murder is committed close to where they are standing. Ispoke to many gentlemen on this subject, expressing my surprise; theinvariable answer was, "If we interfered we should only hurt ourselves, and do no good; in all probability we should have the quarrel fixed uponourselves, and risk our own lives, for a man whom we neither know norcare about. "

In one case only, the Southerners hang together, which is, if thequarrel is with a stranger. Should the stranger have the best of it, all the worse for him; for, by their own understanding, the strangermust be _whipped_. (Whipping is the term for being conquered, whetherthe contest is with or without weapons. ) No stranger can thereforeescape, if he gets into a quarrel; although they fight with each other, on this point the Southerners are all agreed, and there is no chance ofescape. 

A striking proof of indifference to human life shown by the authoritiestook place when I was in the West. Colonel C, returning with hisregiment from Florida, passed through a town in the State of Tennessee. In a quarrel, one of his soldiers murdered a citizen; and the colonel, who respected the laws, immediately sent the soldier as a prisoner, witha corporal's guard, to be handed over to the authorities. Theauthorities returned their thanks to the colonel for his kind attention, were "very much obliged to him: but as for the man, _they did not wanthim_, " so the soldier marched off with the rest of the detachment. 

It must not be supposed that in this representation of society, Ichiefly refer to the humbler classes. I refer to those who areconsidered as [gentlemen], and who, if wealth, and public employment maybe said to constitute gentility, are the gentlemen of the Statesbordering on the Mississippi. My readers may perhaps recollect acircumstance which occurred but a short time ago, when a member of theHouse of Legislature in the State of Arkansas, who had a feud with theSpeaker of the House, upon his entering the hall, was rushed upon by theSpeaker, and stabbed to the heart with a Bowie-knife. What was theresult? What steps were taken on the committal of such a foul murder inthe very hall of legislature! such a precedent of example shown to theState, by one of its most important members? The following Americanaccount, will show what law, what justice, and what a jury is to befound in this region of unprecedented barbarism!

"A MOST DISGRACEFUL AFFAIR. 

"Our readers will perhaps recollect the circumstance which occurred inthe legislature of Arkansas, when a member was killed by the Speaker. The Little Rock Gazette gives the following picture of the state ofpublic feeling in that most civilised country:--

"Three days had elapsed before the constituted authorities took anynotice of this terrible, this murderous deed, and not even then until arelation of the murdered Anthony had demanded a warrant for theapprehension of Wilson. Several days then elapsed before he was broughtbefore an examining court; he then, in a carriage and four, came to theplace appointed for his trial. Four or five days were employed in theexamination of witnesses, and never was a clearer case of murder provedthan on that occasion. Notwithstanding, the court (Justice Browndissenting) admitted Wilson to bail, and positively refused that theprosecuting attorney for the State should introduce the law, to showthat it was not a bailable case, or even to hear an argument from him, and the counsel associated with him to prosecute Wilson for the murder. 

"At the time appointed for the session of the Circuit Court, Wilsonappeared agreeably to his recognisance; a motion was made by Wilson'scounsel for a change of _venue_, founded on the affidavits of Wilson andtwo other men. One stated in his affidavit, that `nine-tenths of thepeople of Pulaski had made up and expressed their opinions, and thattherefore it would be unsafe for Wilson to be tried in Pulaski;' and theother, that, `from the repeated occurrence of similar acts within thelast four or five years in this country, the people were disposed to actrigidly, and that it would be unsafe for Wilson to be tried in Pulaski. 'The court thereupon removed Wilson to Saline county, and ordered thesheriff to take Wilson into custody, and deliver him over to the sheriffof Saline county. 

"The sheriff of Pulaski never confined Wilson one minute, but permittedhim to go where he pleased, without a guard or any restraint imposedupon him whatever. On his way to Saline he entertained him freely athis own house, and the next day delivered him over to the sheriff ofthat county, who conducted the prisoner to the debtors' room in the jailand gave him the key, so that everybody else had free egress and ingressat all times. Wilson invited everybody to call on him, and he wished tosee his friends, and his room was crowded with visitors, who called todrink grog and laugh and talk with him. But this theatre was notsufficiently large for this purpose; he afterwards visited thedram-shops, where he freely treated all that would partake with him, andwent fishing and hunting with others at pleasure, and entirely withoutrestraint; he also ate at the same table with the judge while on trial. 

"When the court met at Saline, Wilson was put on his trial. Severaldays were occupied in examining witnesses in the case; after theexamination was closed, while Colonel Taylor was engaged in a very able, lucid, and argumentative speech on the part of the prosecution, some mancollected a parcel of the rabble, and came within a few yards of thecourt-house door, and bawled, in a loud voice, `Part them! part them!'Everybody supposed there was an affray, and ran to the door and windowsto see, and behold there was nothing more than the man and the rabble hehad collected round him for the purpose of annoying Colonel Taylor whilespeaking. A few minutes afterwards this same person brought a horsenear the court-house door, and commenced crying the horse, as though hewere for sale, and continued for ten or fifteen minutes to ride beforethe court-house door, crying the horse in a loud and boisterous tone ofvoice. The judge sat as a silent listener to the indignity thus offeredthe court and counsel by this man, without interposing his authority. 

"To show the depravity of the times and the people, after the verdicthad been delivered by the jury, and the court informed Wilson that hewas discharged, there was a rush towards him; some seized him by thehand, some by the arm, and there was great and loud rejoicing andexultation directly in the presence of the court, and Wilson told thesheriff to take the jury to a grocery that he might treat them, andinvited every body that chose to go. The house was soon filled tooverflowing, and it is much to be regretted that some men who have helda good standing in society followed the crowd to the grocery and partookof Wilson's treat. The rejoicing was kept up till near supper time;but, to cap the climax, soon after supper was over a majority of thejury, together with many others, went to the room that had been occupiedfor several days by the friend and relation of the murdered Anthony, andcommenced a scene of the most ridiculous dancing (as it is believed) intriumph for Wilson, and as a triumph over the feelings of the relationof the departed Anthony. The scene did not end here. The party retiredto a dram-shop, and continued their rejoicings until about half afterten o'clock. They then collected a parcel of horns, trumpets, etcetera, and marched through the streets blowing them till near day, when one ofthe company rode his horse into the porch adjoining the room which wasoccupied by the relation of the deceased. 

"These are some of the facts that took place during the progress of thetrial, and after its close. The whole proceedings have been conductedmore like a farce than anything else, and it is a disgrace to thecountry in which this fatal, this horrible massacre has happened, thatthere should be in it men so lost to every virtue, of feeling andhumanity, to sanction and give countenance to such a bloody deed. Wilson's hand is now stained with the blood of a worthy and unoffendingman. The seal of disapprobation must for ever rest upon him in theestimation of the honest, well-meaning portion of the community. Humanity shudders at the bloody deed, and ages cannot wipe away thestain which he has brought upon his country. Arkansas, therefore, themock of the other States on account of the frequent murders andassassinations which have marked her character, has now to be brandedwith the stain of this horrible, this murderous deed, rendered stillmore odious from the circumstance that a jury of twelve men should haverendered a verdict of acquittal contrary to law and evidence. "

To quote the numerous instances of violation of all law and justice inthese new States would require volumes. I will, however, support myevidence with that of Miss Martineau, who, speaking of the State ofAlabama, says--"It is certainly the place to become rich in, but thestate of society is fearful. One of my hosts, a man of greatgood-nature, as he shows in the treatment of his slaves and in hisfamily relations, had been stabbed in the back, in the reading-room ofthe town, two years before, and no prosecution was instituted. Anotherof my hosts carried loaded pistols for a fortnight, just before Iarrived, knowing that he was lain in wait for by persons against whoseillegal practices he had given information to a magistrate, whosecarriage was therefore broken in pieces and thrown into the river. Alawyer, with whom we were in company one afternoon, was sent to take thedeposition of a dying man, who had been sitting with his family in theshade, when he received three balls in the back from three men who tookaim at him from behind trees. The tales of jail-breaking and rescuewere numberless; and a lady of Montgomery told me, that she had livedthere four years, during which time no day, she believed, had passedwithout some one's life having been attempted either by duelling orassassination. "

The rapid increase of population in the Far West, and the manyrespectable people who have lately migrated there, together with theTexas having now become the refuge of those whose presence even theSouthern States will no longer tolerate, promise very soon to produce achange. The cities have already set the example by purifyingthemselves. Natchez, the lower town of which was a Pandemonium, hascleansed herself to a very great extent. Vicksburg has, by its salutaryLynch law, relieved herself of the infamous gamblers, and New Orleans, in whose streets murders were daily occurring, is now one of the safesttowns in the Union. 

This regeneration in New Orleans was principally brought about by theexertions of the English and American merchants from the Eastern States, who established an effectual police, and having been promised support bythe State legislature, determined to make an example of the very firstparty who should commit a murder. It so happened, that the first personwho was guilty, was a Colonel or Mr Whittaker of Louisiana, a personwell connected, and of a wealthy family. In a state of intoxication heentered the bar of an hotel, and affronted at the bar-keeper not payingimmediate attention to his wishes, he rushed upon the unfortunate man, and literally cut him to pieces with his heavy Bowie knife. 

He was put in prison, tried and condemned. Every effort was made tosave him, both by force and perseverance, but in vain. Finding that hemust really suffer the penalty of the law, his friends, to avoid thedisgrace of a public execution, provided him with the means; and hedestroyed himself in the prison the night before his execution. Sounexpected was this act of justice, that it created the greatestsensation; it was looked upon as a legal murder; his body, being madeover to his relations, was escorted to his home with great parade; themilitia were turned out to receive it with military honours, and General--, who set up for the governorship of Louisiana, pronounced the funeraleulogy!!

But this decided and judicious step was attended with the best results;and now that there is an active police, and it is known that a murdererwill be executed, you may safely walk the streets of New Orleans on thedarkest nights. 

To show, however, how difficult it is to eradicate bad habits, agentleman told me that it being the custom when the Quadroon balls weregiven at New Orleans, for the police to search every person on entering, and taking away his Bowie-knife, the young man would resort to thefollowing contrivance. The knives of a dozen, perhaps, were confided toone, who remained outside; the others entered, and being searched werepassed; they then opened one of the ball-room windows, and let down astring, to which the party left outside fastened all their knives aswell as his own; they were hauled up, he then entered himself, and eachperson regained his knife. The reason for these precautions being takenby the police was, that the women being all of colour, their evidencewas not admissible in a court of justice; and no evidence could beobtained from the young men, should a murder have been committed. 

But although some of the towns have, as I have pointed out, effected agreat reformation, the state of society in general in these States isstill most lamentable; and there is little or no security for life andproperty; and what is to be much deplored, the evil extends to otherStates which otherwise would much sooner become civilised. 

This arises from the Southern habits of migrating to the other Statesduring the unhealthy months. During the rest of the year they remain ontheir properties, living perhaps in a miserable log-house, and almost ina state of nature, laying up dollars and attending carefully to theirbusiness. But as soon as the autumn comes, it is the time for holiday, they dress themselves in their best clothes, and set off to amusethemselves; spend their money and pass off for gentlemen. Their resortsare chiefly the State of Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio; where thesprings, Cincinnati, Louisville, and other towns are crowded with them;they pass their time in constant revelling, many of them being seldomfree from the effects of liquor; and I must say, that I never in my lifeheard such awful swearing as many of them are guilty of. Every sentenceis commenced with some tremendous oath, which really horrifies you; infact, although in the dress of gentlemen, in no other point can they layany pretensions to the title. Of course, I am now speaking of the mass;there are many exceptions, but even these go with the stream, and makeno efforts to resist it. Content with not practising these vicesthemselves, they have not the courage to protest against them in others. 

In the Eastern States the use of the knife was opposed to generalfeeling, as it is, or as I regret to say, as it _used_ to be in thiscountry. I was passing down Broadway in New York, when a scoundrel of acarman flogged with his whip a young Southern who had a lady under hisprotection. Justly irritated, and no match for the sturdy ruffian inphysical strength, the young man was so imprudent as to draw his knife, and throw it Indian fashion; and for so doing, he was with difficultysaved from the indignation of the people. 

Ohio is chiefly populated by Eastern people; yet to my surprise when atCincinnati, a row took place in the theatre, Bowie-knives were drawn byseveral. I never had an idea that there was such a weapon worn there;but as I afterwards discovered, they were worn in self defence, becausethe Southerners carried them. The same may be said of the States ofVirginia and Kentucky, which are really now in many portions of themcivilised States; but the regular inroad of the Southerners every yearkeeps up a system, which would before this have very probably becomeobsolete; but as it is, the duel at sight, and the knife, is resorted toin these States, as well as in the Mississippi. This lamentable stateof society must exist for some time yet, as civilisation progresses butslowly in some of the slave States. Some improvement has of late beenmade, as I have pointed out; but it is chiefly the lower class ofmiscreants who have been rooted out, not the _gentleman assassins_; forI can give them no other title. 

The women of the south appear to have their passions equally violentwith the men. When I was at Louisville, a married lady, for somefancied affront, insisted upon her husband _whipping_ another gentlemen. The husband not wishing to get a broken head, expostulated, upon whichshe replied, that, if he did not, she would find some other gentleman todo it for her. The husband, who probably was aware that these servicesare not without their reward, went accordingly, and had a turn-up inobedience to the lady's wishes. 

It appears to me, that it is the Southern ladies, and the ladies alone, who can affect any reformation in these points. They have great sway, and if they were to form an association, and declare that they would notmarry, or admit into their company, any man who carried a Bowie-knife orother weapons, that they would prevail, when nothing else will. Thiswould be a glorious achievement, and I am convinced from the chivalrytowards women shown by the Southerners on every occasion, that theymight be prevailed upon by them to leave off customs so disgraceful, sodemoralising, and so incompatible with the true principles of honour andChristianity. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. "_Jackson, Mississippi, Oct_. 18. 

"Postscript. --_By yesterday evening's northern mail_, we learn from theArgus of 9th inst. , that during the last week the gamblers in Columbus, Mississippi, have kept the town in great excitement. Armed men paradedthe streets, and were stationed at corners, with double-barrelled guns, Bowie knives, etcetera; and every day a general fight was anticipated. The gamblers put law and public indignation at defiance. The militiawere called out to aid the civil authority in preserving peace. "--Sun. 

VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER ONE. 

SOCIETY--WOMEN. 

The women of America are unquestionably, physically, as far as beauty isconcerned, and morally, of a higher standard than the men; neverthelessthey have not that influence which they ought to possess. In my formerremarks upon the women of America I have said, that they are theprettiest in the world, and I have put the word _prettiest_ in italics, as I considered it a term peculiarly appropriate to the American women. In many points the Americans have, to a certain degree, arrived at thatequality which they profess to covet; and in no one, perhaps, more thanin the fair distribution of good looks among the women. This is easilyaccounted for: there is not to be found, on the one hand, that squalidwretchedness, that half-starved growing up, that disease and misery, noron the other, that hereditary refinement, that inoculation of thebeautiful, from the constant association with the fine arts, thatcareful nurture, and constant attention to health and exercise, whichexist in the dense population of the cities of the Old World; andoccasion those variations from extreme plainness to the perfection ofbeauty which are to be seen, particularly in the metropolis of England. In the United States, where neither the excess of misery nor of luxuryand refinement are known, you have, therefore, a more equal distributionof good looks, and, although you often meet with beautiful women, it isbut rarely that you find one that may be termed ill favoured. The_coup-d'oeil_ is, therefore, more pleasing in America--enter society, and turn your eyes in any direction, you will everywhere find cause forpleasure, although seldom any of annoyance. The climate is not, however, favourable to beauty, which, compared to the English, is verytransitory, especially in the Eastern States; and when a female arrivesat the age of thirty, its reign is, generally speaking, over. 

The climate of the Western States appears, however, more favourable toit, and I think I saw more handsome women at Cincinnati than in anyother city of the Union; their figures were more perfect, and they werefiner grown, not receiving the sudden checks to which the Eastern womenare exposed. 

Generally speaking, but a small interval elapses between the period ofAmerican girls leaving school and their entering upon their duties aswives; but during that period, whatever it may be, they are allowed moreliberty than the young people in our country; walking out without_chaperons_, and visiting their friends as they please. There is areason for this: the matrons are compelled, from the insufficiency oftheir domestics, to attend personally to all the various duties ofhousekeeping; their fathers and brothers are all employed in theirrespective money-making transactions, and a servant cannot be sparedfrom American establishments; if, therefore, they are to walk out andtake exercise, it must be alone, and this can be done in the UnitedStates with more security than elsewhere, from the circumstance ofeverybody being actively employed, and there being no people at leisurewho are strolling or idling about. I think that the portion of timewhich elapses between the period of a young girl leaving school andbeing married, is the happiest of her existence. I have alreadyremarked upon the attention and gallantry shewn by the Americans to thewomen, especially to the unmarried. This is carried to an extent which, in England, would be considered by our young women as no compliment; toa certain degree it pervades every class, and even the sable damselshave no reason to complain of not being treated with the excess ofpoliteness; but in my opinion, (and I believe the majority of theAmerican women will admit the correctness of it, ) they do not considerthemselves flattered by a species of homage which is paying nocompliment to their good sense, and after which the usual attentions ofan Englishman to the sex are by some considered as amounting to hauteurand neglect. 

Be it as it may, the American women are not spoiled by this universaladulation which they receive previous to their marriage. It is not thatone is selected for her wealth or extreme beauty to the exception of allothers; in such a case it might prove dangerous; but it is a flatterypaid to the whole sex, given to all, and received as a matter of courseby all, and therefore it does no mischief. It does, however, prove whatI have observed at the commencement of this chapter, which is, that thewomen have not that influence which they are entitled to, and which, forthe sake of morality, it is to be lamented that they have not; when men_respect_ women they do not attempt to make fools of them, but treatthem as rational and immortal beings, and this general adulation ischeating them with the shadow, while they withhold from them thesubstance. 

I have said that the period between her emancipation from school and hermarriage is the happiest portion of an American woman's existence;indeed it has reminded me of the fetes and amusements given in aCatholic country to a young girl previous to her taking the veil, andbeing immured from the world; for the duties of a wife in America arefrom circumstances very onerous, and I consider her existence after thatperiod as but one of negative enjoyment. And yet she appears anxious toabridge even this small portion of freedom and happiness, for marriageis considered almost as a business, or, I should say, a duty, an ideaprobably handed down by the first settlers, to whom an increase ofpopulation was of such vital importance. Note 1. 

However much the Americans may wish to deny it, I am inclined to thinkthat there are more marriages of _convenance_ in the United States thanin most other countries. The men begin to calculate long before theyare of an age to marry, and it is not very likely that they wouldcalculate so well upon all other points, and not upon the value of adowry; moreover, the old people "calculate some, " and the girls acceptan offer, without their hearts being seriously compromised. Of coursethere are exceptions: but I do not think that there are many _love_matches made in America, and one reason for my holding this opinion is, my having discovered how quietly matches are broken off and newengagements entered into; and it is, perhaps, from a knowledge of thisfact, arising from the calculating spirit of the gentlemen, who are aptto consider 20, 000 dollars as preferable to 10, 000, that the Americangirls are not too hasty in surrendering their hearts. 

I knew a young lady who was engaged to an acquaintance of mine; on myreturn to their city a short time afterwards, I found that the match wasbroken off, and that she was engaged to another, and nothing was thoughtof it. I do not argue from this simple instance, but because I found, on talking about it, that it was a very common circumstance, andbecause, where scandal is so rife, no remarks were made. If a younglady behaves in a way so as to give offence to the gentleman she isengaged to, and sufficiently indecorous to warrant his breaking off thematch, he is gallant to the very last, for he writes to her, and begsthat she will dismiss _him_. This I knew to be done by a party I wasacquainted with; he told me that it was considered _good taste_, and Iagreed with him. On the whole, I hold it very fortunate that inAmerican marriages there is, generally speaking, more prudence than loveon both sides, for from the peculiar habits and customs of the country, a woman who loved without prudence would not feel very happy as a wife. 

Let us enter into an examination of the married life in the UnitedStates. 

All the men in America are busy; their whole time is engrossed by theiraccumulation of money; they breakfast early and repair to their storesor counting-houses; the majority of them do not go home to dinner, buteat at the nearest tavern or oyster-cellar, for they generally live at aconsiderable distance from the business part of the town, and time istoo precious to be thrown away. It would be supposed that they would behome to an early tea; many are, but the majority are not. Afterfagging, they require recreation, and the recreations of most Americansare politics and news, besides the chance of doing a little morebusiness, all of which, with drink, are to be obtained at the bars ofthe principal commercial hotels in the city. The consequence is, thatthe major portion of them come home late, tired, and go to bed; earlythe next morning they are off to their business again. Here it isevident that the women do not have much of their husband's society; nordo I consider this arising from any want of inclination on the part ofthe husbands, as there is an absolute necessity that they should work ashard as others if they wish to do well, and what one does, the othermust do. Even frequenting the bar is almost a necessity, for it isthere that they obtain all the information of the day. But the resultis that the married women are left alone; their husbands are not theircompanions, and if they could be, still the majority of the husbandswould not be suitable companions for the following reasons. An Americanstarts into life at so early an age that what he has gained at school, with the exception of that portion brought into use from his business, is lost. He has no time for reading, except the newspaper; all histhoughts and ideas are centred in his employment; he becomes perfect inthat, acquires a great deal of practical knowledge useful for makingmoney, but for little else. This he must do if he would succeed, andthe major portion confine themselves to such knowledge alone. But withthe women it is different; their education is much more extended thanthat of the men, because they are more docile, and easier to control intheir youth; and when they are married, although their duties are muchmore onerous than with us, still, during the long days and evenings, during which they wait for the return of their husbands, they have timeto finish, I may say, their own educations and improve their minds byreading. The consequence of this, with other adjuncts, is, that theirminds become, and really are, much more cultivated and refined thanthose of their husbands; and when the universal practice of usingtobacco and drinking among the latter is borne in mind, it will bereadily admitted that they are also much more refined in their persons. 

These are the causes why the American women are so universally admiredby the English and other nations, while they do not consider the men asequal to them either in manners or personal appearance. Let it be bornein mind that I am now speaking of the majority, and that the exceptionsare very numerous; for instance, you may except one whole profession, that of the lawyers, among whom you will find no want of gentlemen ormen of highly cultivated minds; indeed, the same may be said withrespect to most of the liberal professions, but only so because theirprofession allows that time for improving themselves which the Americanin general, in his struggle on the race for wealth, cannot afford tospare. 

As I have before observed, the ambition of the American is fromcircumstances mostly directed to but one object--that of rapidly raisinghimself above his fellows by the accumulation of a fortune; to this onegreat desideratum all his energies are directed, all his thoughts arebent, and by it all his ideas are engrossed. When I first arrived inAmerica, as I walked down Broadway, it appeared strange to me that thereshould be such a remarkable family likeness among the people. Every manI met seemed to me by his features, to be a brother or a connection ofthe last man who had passed me; I could not at first comprehend this, but the mystery was soon revealed. It was that they were all intent andengrossed with the same object; all were, as they passed, calculatingand reflecting; this produced a similar contraction of the brow, knitting of the eye-brows, and compression of the lips--a similarity offeeling had produced a similarity of expression, from the same musclesbeing called into action. Even their hurried walk assisted the error;it is a saying in the United States, "that a New York merchant alwayswalks as if he had a good dinner before him, and a bailiff behind him, "and the metaphor is not inapt. 

Now, a man so wholly engrossed in business cannot be a very goodcompanion if he were at home; his thoughts would be elsewhere, andtherefore perhaps it is better that things should remain as they are. But the great evil arising from this is, that the children are leftwholly to the management of their mothers, and the want of paternalcontrol I have already commented upon. The Americans have reason to beproud of their women, for they are really good wives--much _too good_for them; I have no hesitation in asserting this, and should there beany unfortunate difference between any married couple in America, allthe lady has to say is, "The fact is, Sir, I'm much too good for you, and Captain Marryat says so. " (I flatter myself there's a littlemischief in that last sentence. )

It appears, then, that the American woman has little of her husband'ssociety, and that in education and refinement she is much his superior, notwithstanding which she is a domestic slave. For this the Americansare not to blame, as it is the effect of circumstances, over which theycannot be said to have any control. But the Americans are to blame inone point, which is, that they do not properly appreciate or value theirwives, who have not half the influence which wives have in England, orone quarter that legitimate influence to which they are entitled. Thatthey are proud of them, flatter them, and are kind to them after theirown fashion, I grant, but female influence extends no farther. Someauthors have said, that by the morals of the women you can judge of themorals of a country; generally speaking, this is true, but America is anexception, for the women are more moral, more educated, and more refinedthan the men, and yet have at present no influence whatever in society. 

What is the cause of this? It can only be ascribed to the one greatruling passion which is so strong that it will admit of no check, orobstacles being thrown in its way, and will listen to no argument orentreaty; and because, in a country when every thing is decided bypublic opinion, the women are as great slaves to it as the men. Theirposition at present appears to be that the men will not raise themselvesto the standard of the women, and the women will not lower themselves tothe standard of the men; they apparently move in different spheres, although they repose on the same bed. 

It is, therefore, as I have before observed, fortunate that themarriages in America are more decided by prudence than by affection; fornothing could be more mortifying to a woman of sense and feeling, thanto awake from her dream of love, and discover that the object upon whichshe has bestowed her affection, is indifferent to the sacrifice whichshe has made. 

If the American women had their due influence, it would be fortunate;they might save their country, by checking the tide of vice andimmorality, and raising the men to their own standard. Whether theyever will effect this, or whether they will continue as at present, tokeep up the line of demarcation, or gradually sink down to the level ofthe other sex, is a question which remains to be solved. 

That the American women have their peculiarities, and in some respectsthey might be improved, is certain. Their principal fault in societyis, that they do not sufficiently modulate their voices. Those faultsarising from association, and to which both sexes are equally prone, area total indifference to, or rather a love of change, "shifting rightaway, " without the least regret, from one portion of the Union toanother; a remarkable apathy as to the sufferings of others, anindifference to loss of life, a fondness for politics, all of which areunfeminine; and lastly, a passion for dress carried to too great anextent; but this latter is easily accounted for, and is inseparable froma society where all would be equal. But, on the other hand, theAmerican women have a virtue which the men have not, which is moralcourage, and one also which is not common with the sex, physicalcourage. The independence and spirit of an American woman, if left awidow without resources, is immediately shewn; she does not sit andlament, but applies herself to some employment, so that she may maintainherself and her children, and seldom fails in so doing. Here are faultsand virtues, both proceeding from the same origin. 

I have already in my Diary referred to another great error in a portionof the American women. Lady Blessington, in one of her delightfulworks, very truly observes, "I turn with disgust from that affectedprudery, arising, if not from a participation, at least from a knowledgeof evil, which induces certain ladies to cast down their eyes, lookgrave, and shew the extent of their knowledge, or the pruriency of theirimaginations, by discovering in a harmless jest nothing to alarm theirexperienced feelings. I respect that woman whose innate purity preventsthose around her from uttering aught that can arouse it, much more thanher whose sensitive prudery continually reminds one, that she is _aufait_ of every possible interpretation which a word of doubtful meaningadmits. "

The remarks of Miss Martineau upon the women of America are all veryungracious, and some of them very unjust. That she met with affectationand folly in America, is very probable--where do you not? There is nooccasion to go to the United States to witness it. As for the charge ofcarrying in their hands seventy-dollar pocket-handkerchiefs, I am afraidit is but too true: but when there is little distinction, except bydress, ladies will be very expensive. I do not know why, but theAmerican ladies have a custom of carrying their pocket-handkerchiefs intheir hands, either in a room, or walking out, or travelling; andmoreover, they have a custom of marking their names in the corner, atfull length, and when in a steamboat or rail-car, I have, by a littlewatching, obtained the names of ladies sitting near me, in consequenceof this custom, which of course will be ascribed by Miss Martineau to awish to give information to strangers. 

The remark upon the Washington belles, [note 2] I am afraid is too true, as I have already pointed out that the indifference to human life inAmerica extends to the softer sex; and I perfectly well remember, uponmy coming into a room at New York with the first intelligence of thewreck of the `Home, ' and the dreadful loss of life attending it, that mynews was received with a "dear me!" from two or three of the ladies, andthere the matter dropped. There is, however, much truth in what MissMartineau says, relative to the manner in which the women are treated bytheir lords and masters, in this new country. The following quotationfrom the work is highly deserving of attention:--

"If a test of civilisation be sought, none can be so sure as thecondition of that half of society over which the other half has power, --from the exercise of the right of the strongest. Tried by this test, the American civilisation appears to be of a lower order than might havebeen expected from some other symptoms of its social state. TheAmericans have, in the treatment of women, fallen below, not only theirown democratic principles, but the practice of some parts of the OldWorld. 

"The unconsciousness of both parties as to the injuries suffered bywomen at the hands of those who hold the power, is a sufficient proof ofthe low degree of civilisation in this important particular at whichthey rest, while woman's intellect is confined, her morals crushed, herhealth ruined, her weaknesses encouraged, and her strength punished, sheis told that her lot is cast in the paradise of women: and there is nocountry in the world where there is so much boasting of the `chivalrous'treatment she enjoys. That is to say, --she has the best place instage-coaches: when there are not chairs enough for everybody, thegentlemen stand she hears oratorical flourishes on public occasionsabout wives and home, and apostrophes to woman: her husband's hairstands on end at the idea of her working, and he toils to indulge herwith money: she has liberty to get her brain turned by religiousexcitements, that her attention may be diverted from morals, politics, and philosophy; and, especially, her morals are guarded by the strictestobservance of propriety in her presence. In short, indulgence is givenher as a substitute for justice. "

If Miss Martineau had stopped here, she had done well; but she followsthis up by claiming for her sex all the privileges of our own, and seemsto be highly indignant, that they are not permitted to take their dueshare of the government of the country, and hold the most importantsituations. To follow up her ideas, we should have a "teeming" primeminister, and the Lord Chancellor obliged to leave the woolsack to nursehis baby; Miss M forgets that her prayer has been half granted already, for we never yet had a ministry without a certain proportion of _oldwomen_ in it; and we can, therefore dispense with her services. 

There is, however, one remark of Miss Martineau's which I cannot passover without expressing indignation; I will quote the passage. 

"It is no secret on the spot, that the habit of intemperance is notinfrequent among women of station and education in the most enlightenedparts of the country. I witnessed some instances, and heard of more. It does not seem to me to be regarded with all the dismay which such asymptom ought to excite. To the stranger, a novelty so horrible, aspectacle so fearful, suggests wide and deep subjects of investigation. If women, in a region professing religion more strenuously than anyother, living in the deepest external peace, surrounded by prosperity, and outwardly honoured more conspicuously than in any other country, canever so far cast off self-restraint, shame, domestic affection, and thedeep prejudices of education, as to plunge into the living hell ofintemperance, there must be something fearfully wrong in theirposition. "

Miss Martineau is a lady; and, therefore, it is difficult to use thelanguage which I would, if a man had made such an assertion. I shallonly state, that it is one of the greatest libels that ever was put intoprint: for Miss Martineau implies that it is a general habit, among theAmerican women; so far from it, the American women are so abstemiousthat they do not drink sufficient for their health. They can take verylittle exercise, and did they take a little more wine, they would notsuffer from _dyspepsia_, as they now do, as wine would assist theirdigestion. The origin of this slander I know well, and the only groundfor it is, that there are two or three ladies of a certain city, whohaving been worked upon by some of the Evangelical Revival Ministers, have had their minds crushed by the continual excitement to which theyhave been subjected. The mind affects the body, and they have required, and have applied to, stimulus, and if you will inquire into the moralstate of any woman among the higher classes, either in America orEngland, who has fallen into the vice alluded to, nine times out of tenyou will find that it has been brought about by religious excitement. Fanaticism and gin are remarkable good friends all over the world. Itis surprising to me that, when Miss Martineau claims for her sex thesame privilege as ours, she should have overlooked one simple fact whichought to convince _her_ that they are the weaker vessels. I refer towhat she acknowledges to be true, which is, that the evangelicalpreachers invariably apply to women for proselytes, instead of men; notonly in America but everywhere else; and that for one male, they mayreckon at least twenty females among their flocks. According to MissMartineau's published opinions, there can be no greater weakness thanthe above. 

In the United States, divorces are obtained without expense, and withoutit being necessary to commit crime, as in England. The party pleads in_forma pauperis_, to the State Legislation, and a divorce is grantedupon any grounds which may be considered as just and reasonable. 

Miss Martineau mentions a divorce having been granted to a wife, uponthe plea of her husband being a gambler; and I was myself told of aninstance in which a divorce was granted upon the plea of the husbandbeing such an "_awful swearer_;" and really, if any one heard theswearing in some parts of the Western country, he would not be surprisedat a religious woman requesting to be separated. I was once on board ofa steam-boat on the Mississippi, when a man let off such a volley ofexecrations, that it was quite painful to hear him. An American whostood by me, as soon as the man had finished, observed, "Well, I'm gladthat fellow has nothing to do with the engines: I reckon he'd burst the_biler_. "

Miss Martineau observes, "In no country I believe are the marriage lawsso iniquitous as in England, and the conjugal relation, in consequence, so impaired. Whatever may be thought of the principles which are toenter into laws of divorce, whether it be held that pleas for divorceshould be one, (as narrow interpreters of the New Testament would haveit;) or two, (as the law of England has it;) or several, (as theContinental and United States' laws in many instances allow, ) nobody, Ibelieve, defends the arrangement by which, in England, divorce isobtainable only by the very rich. The barbarism of granting that as aprivilege to the extremely wealthy, to which money bears no relationwhatever, and in which all married persons whatever have an equalinterest, needs no exposure beyond the mere statement of the fact. Itwill be seen at a glance how such an arrangement tends to vitiatemarriage: how it offers impunity to adventurers, and encouragement toevery kind of mercenary marriages; how absolute is its oppression of theinjured party; and how, by vitiating marriage, it originates andaggravates licentiousness to an incalculable extent. To England alonebelongs the disgrace of such a method of legislation. I believe that, while there is little to be said for the legislation of any part of theworld on this head, it is nowhere so vicious as in England. "

I am afraid that these remarks are but too true; and it is the moresingular, as not only in the United States, but in every otherProtestant community that I have ever heard of, divorce can be obtainedupon what are considered just and legitimate grounds. It has beensupposed, that should the marriage tie be loosened, that divorceswithout number would take place. It was considered so, and so argued, at the time that Zurich (the only Protestant canton in Switzerland thatdid not permit divorce, except for adultery alone, ) passed laws similarto those of the other cantons; but so far from such being the case, onlyone divorce took place, within a year after the laws were amended. Whatis the reason of this? It can, in my opinion, only be ascribed to thechain being worn more lightly, when you know that if it oppresses you, it may be removed. Men are naturally tyrants, and they bear down uponthe woman who cannot escape from their thraldom; but, with the knowledgethat she can appeal against them, they soften their rigour. On theother hand, the woman, when unable to escape, frets with the feelingthat she must submit, and that there is no help or hope in prospect; butonce aware that she has her rights, and an appeal, she bears with more, and feels less than otherwise she would. You may bind, and fromassuetude and time, (putting the better feelings out of the question, )the ties are worn without complaint; but if you bind too tight, you cutinto the flesh, and after a time the pain becomes insupportable. InSwitzerland, Germany, and I believe all the Protestant communities ofthe old world, the grounds upon which divorce is admissible are asfollows:--adultery, condemnation of either party to punishmentconsidered as infamous, madness, contagious chronic diseases, desertion, and incompatibility of temper. 

The last will be considered by most people as no ground for divorce. Whether it is or not, I shall not pretend to decide, but this iscertain, that it is the cause of the most unhappiness, and ultimately ofthe most crime. 

All the great errors, all the various schisms in the Christian church, have arisen from not taking the holy writings as a great moral code, (asI should imagine they were intended to be, ) which legislates upon broadprinciples, but selecting particular passages from them upon which topin your faith. And it certainly appears to me to be reasonable tosuppose that those laws by which the imperfection of our natures werefairly met, and which tended to diminish the aggregate of crime, must bemore acceptable to our Divine Master than any which, however they mightbe in spirit more rigidly conformable to his precepts, were found intheir working not to succeed. And here I cannot help observing, thatthe heads of the Church of England appear not to have duly weighed thismatter, when an attempt was lately made to legislate upon it. Do theEnglish bishops mean to assert, that they know better than the heads ofall the other Protestant communities in the world--that they are moreaccurate expounders of the gospel, and have a more intimate knowledge ofGod's will? Did it never occur to them, that when so many good andvirtuous ecclesiastics of the same persuasion in other countries havedecided upon the propriety of divorce, so as to leave them in a verysmall minority, that it might be possible that they might be wrong, ordo they intend to set up and claim the infallibility of the Papisticalhierarchy?

Any legislation to prevent crime, which produces more crime, must be badand unsound, whatever may be its basis: witness the bastardy clause, inthe New Poor Law Bill. That the former arrangements were defective isundeniable, for by them there was a premium for illegitimate children. This required amendment: but the remedy has proved infinitely worse thanthe disease. For what has been the result? That there have been manythousands fewer illegitimate children _born_, it is true; but, has theprogress of immorality been checked? On the contrary, crime hasincreased, for to the former crime has been added one much greater, thatof infanticide, or producing abortion. Such has been the effect ofattempting to legislate for the affections; for in most cases a womanfalls a sacrifice to her better feelings, not to her appetite. 

In every point connected with marriage, has this injurious plan beenpersevered in; the marriage ceremony is a remarkable instance of this, for, beautiful as it is as a service, it is certainly liable to thisobjection, that of making people vow before God that which it is not inhuman nature to control. The woman vows to love, and to honour, and tocherish; the man to love and cherish, until death doth them part. 

Is it right that this vow should be made? A man deserts his wife foranother, treats her cruelly, separates her from her children. Can awoman love, or honour, or cherish such a man--nevertheless, she hasvowed before God that she will. Take the reverse of the picture whenthe fault is on the woman's side, and the evil is the same; can eitherparty control their affections? surely not, and therefore it would bebetter that such vows should not be demanded. 

There is another evil arising from one crime being the only allowablecause of divorce, which is that the possession of one negative virtue onthe part of the woman, is occasionally made an excuse for the practiceof vice, and a total disregard of her duties as a wife. I say negativevirtue, for chastity very often proceeds from temperament, and as oftenfrom not being tempted. 

A woman may neglect her duties of every kind--but she is chaste; she maymake her husband miserable by indulgence of her ill-temper--but she ischaste; she may squander his money, ruin him by expense--but she ischaste; she may, in short, drive him to drunkenness and suicide--butstill she is chaste; and chastity, like charity, covers the wholemultitude of sins, and is the scape-goat for every other crime, andviolation of the marriage vow. 

It must, however, be admitted, that although the faults may occasionallybe found on the side of the woman, in nine times out of ten it is thereverse; and that the defects of our marriage laws have rendered Englishwomen liable to treatment which ought not to be shewn towards theveriest slaves in existence. 

I must now enter into a question, which I should have had more pleasurein passing over lightly, had it not been for the constant attacks of theAmericans upon this subject, during the time that I was in the country, and the remarks of Mr Carey in his work, in which he claims for theAmericans pre-eminence in this point, as well as upon all others. 

Miss Martineau says, "The ultimate, and very strong impression on themind of a stranger, pondering on the morals of society in America, isthat human nature is much the same every where. " Surely Miss Martineauneed not have crossed the Atlantic to make this discovery; however Iquote it, as it will serve as a text to what is to follow. 

The Americans claim excessive purity for their women, and taunt us withthe _exposees_ occasionally made in our newspapers. In the firstplace--which shews the highest regard for morality, a country where anydeviation from virtue is immediately made known, and held up to publicindignation? or one which, from national vanity, and a wish that allshould _appear_ to be correct, instead of publishing, conceals thefacts, and permits the guilty parties to escape without censure, forwhat they consider the honour of the nation?

To suppose that there is no conjugal infidelity in the United States, isto suppose that human nature is not the same every where. That itnever, to my knowledge, was made public, but invariably hushed up whendiscovered, I believe; so is suicide. But _one_ instance came to myknowledge, during the time that I was in the States, which will give avery fair idea of American feeling on this subject. It was supposedthat an intrigue had been discovered, or, it had actually beendiscovered, I cannot say which, between a foreigner and the wife of anEnglish gentleman. It was immediately seized upon with ecstasy, circulated in all the papers with every American embellishment, and wasreally the subject of congratulation among them, as if they had gainedsome victory over this country. It so happened that an American calledupon the lady, and among other questions put to her, inquired in whatpart of England she was born. She replied, "that she was not anEnglish-woman, but was born in the States, and brought up in an Americancity. "

It is impossible to imagine how this mere trifling fact, affected theAmericans. She was then an American--they were aghast--and I amconvinced that they would have made any sacrifice, to have been able tohave recalled all that they had done, and have hushed up the matter. 

The fact is that human nature _is_ the same every where, and I cannothelp observing, that if their community is so much more moral, as theypretend that it is, why is it, that they have considered it necessary toform societies on such an extensive scale, for the prevention of acrime, from which they declare themselves (comparatively with us, andother nations, ) to be exempt? I once had an argument on this subjectwith an elderly American gentleman, and as I took down the minutes of itafter we parted, I think it will be as well to give it to my readers, asit will shew the American feeling upon it--

"Why, Captain M, you must bear in mind that we are not so vicious andcontaminated here, as you are in the old country. You don't see ournewspapers filled, as your's are, with crim. Cons, in high life. No, sir, our institutions are favourable to virtue and morality, and ourwomen are as virtuous as our men are brave. "

"I have no reason to deny either one assertion or the other, as far as Iam acquainted with your men and women; but still I do not judge from thesurface, as many have done who have visited you. Because there are nocrim. Cons. In your papers, it does not prove that conjugal infidelitydoes not exist. There are no suicides of people of any station insociety ever published in your newspapers, and yet there is no countrywhere suicide is more common. 

"I grant that, occasionally, the coroner does bring in a verdict so asto save the feelings of the family. "

"That is more than a coroner would venture to do in England, let therank of the party be of the highest. But, if you hush up suicides, mayyou not also hush up other offences, to save the feelings of families?I have already made up my mind upon one point, which is that you arecontent to substitute the appearance for the reality in your moralcode--the fact is, you fear one another--you fear society, but, you donot fear God. "

"I should imagine, captain, that when you have conversed, and mixed upwith us a little more, you will be inclined to retract, and acknowledgewhat I have said to be correct. I have lived all my life in the States, and I have no hesitation in saying, that we are a very moral people. Recollect that you have principally confined yourself to our cities, during your stay with us; yet even there we may proudly challengecomparison. "

"My opinion is, that unless you can shew just cause _why_ you should bemore moral than other nations, you are, whether in cities or in thecountry, much the same as we are. I do not require to examine on thispoint, as I consider it to be a rule-of-three calculation. Give me theextent of the population, and I can estimate the degree of purity. Mankind demoralise each other by collision; and the larger the numberscrowded together, the greater will be the demoralisation, and this rulewill hold good, whether in England or the United States, the Old Worldor the New. "

"That argument would hold good if it were not for our institutions, which are favourable to morality and virtue. "

"I consider them quite the contrary. Your institutions are beautiful intheory, but in practice do not work well. I suspect that your societyhas a very similar defect. "

"Am I then to understand, captain, that you consider the American ladiesas _not_ virtuous?"

"I have already said that I have had no proofs to the contrary; all Iwish is to defend my own country, and I say that I consider the Englishwomen at all events quite as moral as the Americans. "

"I reckon that's no compliment, captain. Now, then, do you mean to saythat you think there is as much conjugal infidelity in New York, inproportion to the population, as there is in London? Now, captain, ifyou please, we will stick to that point. "

"I answer you at once. No, I do not believe that there is; but--"

"That's all I want, captain--never mind the _buts_. "

"_But_ you must have the _buts_. Recollect, I did not say that yoursociety was more moral, although I said that there was in my opinionless infidelity. "

"Well, how can that be?"

"Because, in the first place, conjugal infidelity is not the only crimewhich exists in society; and, secondly, because there are causes whichprevent its being common. That this vice should be common, two thingsare requisite--time and opportunity; neither of which is to be found ina society like yours. You have no men of leisure, every man is occupiedthe whole day with his business. Now, suppose one man was to stay awayfrom his business for merely one day, would he not be missed, andinquiries made after him; and if it were proved that he stayed away topass his time with his neighbour's wife, would not the scandal becirculated all over the city before night? I recollect a very plainwoman accusing a very pretty one of indiscretion; the reply of thelatter, when the former vaunted her own purity, was, `Were you everasked?' Thus it is in America; there is neither time nor opportunity, and your women are in consequence seldom or ever tempted. I do not meanto say that if they were tempted they would fall; all I say is, that noparallel can in this instance be drawn between the women of the twocountries, as their situations are so very different. I am ready to doevery justice to your women; but I will not suffer you to remain in theerror, that you are more moral than we are. "

"Why, you have admitted that we are from circumstances, if not fromprinciple. "

"In one point only, and in that you _appear_ to be, and I have given youa reason why you really should be so; but we can draw no inference ofany value from what we know relative to your better classes of society. If we would examine and calculate the standard of morality in a country, we must look elsewhere. "

"Where?"

"To the lower class of society, and not to the highest. I presume youare aware that there is a greater proportion of unfortunate females inNew York, taking the extent of the populations, than in London or Paris?I have it from American authority, and I have every reason to believethat it is true. "

"I am surprised that any American should have made such an admission, captain; but for the sake of argument let it be so. But first recollectthat we have a constant influx of people from the Old Country, from allthe other States in America, and that we are a sea-port town, with ourwharfs crowded with shipping. "

"I admit it all, and that is the reason why you have so many. Thesupply in all countries is usually commensurate with the demand; but thenumbers have nothing to do with the argument. "

"Then I cannot see what you are driving at; for allow me to say that, admitting the class to be as numerous as you state from Americanauthority, still they are very orderly and well behaved. You never seethem drunk in the streets; you never hear swearing or abusive language;and you do in London and your seaports. There is a decorum and sense ofpropriety about them which, you must admit, speaks well, even for thoseunfortunate persons, and shews some sense of morality and decency evenin our most abandoned. "

"You have brought forward the very facts which I was about to state, andit is from these facts that I draw quite contrary conclusions. If yourargument is good, it must follow that the women of Paris are much morevirtuous than the women of London. Now, I consider that these factsprove that the standard of morality is lower in America and France thanit is in England. A French woman who has fallen never drinks, or usesbad language; she follows her profession, and seldom sinks, but rises init. The grisette eventually keeps her carriage, and retires withsufficient to support her in her old age, if she does not marry. TheAmerican women of this class appear to me to be precisely the samedescription of people; whereas, in England, a woman who falls, fallsnever to rise again--sinking down by degrees from bad to worse, untilshe ends her days in rags and misery. But why so? because, as you say, they become reckless and intemperate--they _do_ feel their degradation, and cannot bear up against it--they attempt to drown conscience, and diefrom the vain attempts. Now, the French and the American women of thisclass apparently do not feel this, and, therefore, they behave and dobetter. This is one reason why I argue that the standard of morality isnot so high in your country as with us, although, from circumstances, conjugal infidelity may be less frequent. "

"Then, captain, you mean to say that cursing, swearing, and drinking, isa proof of morality in your country?"

"It is a proof, not of the morality of the party, but of the highestimation in which virtue is held, shewn by the indifference anddisregard to everything else after virtue is once lost. "

This is a specimen of many arguments held with the Americans upon thatquestion, and when examining into it, it should be borne in mind thatthere is much less excuse for vice in America than in the Old Countries. Poverty is but too often the mother of crime, and in America it may besaid that there is no poverty to offer up in extenuation. 

Mr Carey appears to have lost sight of this fact when he sotriumphantly points at the difference between the working classes ofboth nations, and quotes the Report of our Poor Law Commissioners toprove the wretchedness and misery of ours. I cannot, however, allow hisassertions to pass without observation, especially as English and Frenchtravellers have been equally content to admit without due examinationthe claims of the Americans; I refer more particularly to the largemanufactory at Lowell, in Massachusetts, which from its asserted purityhas been one of the boasts of America. Mr Carey says:--

"The following passage from a statement, furnished by the manager of oneof the principal establishments in Lowell, shows a very gratifying stateof things:--`There have only occurred three instances in which anyapparently improper connection or intimacy had taken place, and in allthose cases the parties were married on the discovery, and severalmonths prior to the birth of their children; so that, in a legal pointof view, no illegitimate birth has taken place among the femalesemployed in the mills under my direction. Nor have I known of but onecase among all the females employed in Lowell. I have said known--Ishould say heard of one case. I am just informed, that that was a casewhere the female had been employed but a few days in any mill, and wasforthwith rejected from the corporation, and sent to her friends. Inpoint of female chastity, I believe that Lowell is as free from reproachas any place of an equal population in the United States or the world. '"

And he winds up his chapter with the following remark:--

"The effect upon morals of this state of things, is of the mostgratifying character. The number of illegitimate children born in theUnited States is small; so small, that we should suppose one in fifty tobe a high estimate. In the great factories of the Eastern States thereprevails a high degree of morality, presenting a most extraordinarycontrast to the immorality represented to exist in a large portion ofthose of England. "

Next follows Miss Martineau, who says--"The morals of the female factorypopulation may be expected to be good when it is considered of whatclass it is composed. Many of the girls are in the factories becausethey have too much pride for domestic service. Girls who are too proudfor domestic service as it is in America, can hardly be low enough forany gross immorality, or to need watching, or not to be trusted to avoidthe contagion of evil example. To a stranger, their pride seems to havetaken a mistaken direction, and they appear to deprive themselves of arespectable home and station, and many benefits, by their dislike ofservice; but this is altogether their own affair, they must choose forthemselves their way of life. But the reasons of their choice indicatea state of mind superior to the grossest dangers of their position. "

And the Reverend Mr Reid also echoes the praise of the factory girlsgiven by others, although he admits that their dress was above theirstate and condition, and that he was surprised to see them appear "in_silks_, with _scarfs, veils_, and _parasols_. "

Here is a mass of evidence opposed to me, but the American evidence mustbe received with all due caution; and as for the English, I consider itrather favourable to my side of the question than otherwise. MissMartineau says that "the girls have too much pride for domesticservice, " and, therefore, argues that they will not be immoral; now, thetwo great causes of women falling off from virtue, are poverty and falsepride. What difference there is between receiving money for watching aspinning-jenny, and doing household work, I do not see; in either caseit is servitude, although the former may be preferred, as being lessunder control, and leaving more time at your own disposal. I considerthe pride, therefore, which Miss Martineau upholds, to be _false_ pride, which will actuate them in other points; and when we find the factorygirls vying with each other in silks and laces, it becomes a querywhether the passion for dress, so universal in America, may not have itseffect there as well as elsewhere. I must confess that I went to Lowelldoubting all I had heard--it was so contrary to human nature that fivehundred girls should live among a population of fifteen hundred, ormore, all pure and virtuous, and all dressed in silks and satin. 

When I went to Lowell I travelled with an American gentleman, who will, I have no doubt, corroborate my statement, and I must say that, howeverpure Lowell may have been at the time when the encomiums were passedupon it, I have every reason to believe, from American authority as wellas my own observation, that a great alteration has taken place, and thatthe manufactories have retrograded with the whole mass of Americansociety. In the first place, I never heard a more accomplished swearer, east of the Alleghanies, than one young lady who addressed me and myAmerican friend, and as it was the _only instance_ of swearing on thepart of a female that I ever met with in the United States, it was themore remarkable. I shall only observe, that two days at Lowellconvinced me that "human nature was the same every where, " and thus Idismiss the subject. 

Mr Carey compels me to make a remark which I would gladly have avoided, but as he brings forward his comparative statements of the number ofillegitimate children born in the two countries as a proof of thesuperior morality of America, I must point out to him what I suspect heis not aware of. Public opinion acts as _law_ in America; appearancesare there substituted for the reality, and provided appearances are keptup, whether it be in religion or morality, it is sufficient; but shouldan exposure take place, there is no mercy for the offender. As thosewho have really the least virtue in themselves are always the loudest tocry out at any lapse which may be discovered in others, so does societyin America pour out its anathemas in the inverse ratio of its realpurity. Now, although the authority I speak from is undoubted, at thesame time I wish to say as little as possible. That there are fewerillegitimate children _born_ in the United States is very true. But whyso? because public opinion there acts as the bastardy clause in the newpoor law bill has done in this country; and if Mr Carey will onlyinquire in his own city, he will find that I should be justified if Isaid twice as much, as I have been compelled in defence of my owncountry to say, upon so unpleasant a subject. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. Bigamy is not uncommon in the United States from the womenbeing in too great a hurry to marry, and not obtaining sufficientinformation relative to their suitors. The punishment is chipping stonein Sing Sing for a few years. It must, however, be admitted, that whena foreigner is the party, it is rather difficult to ascertain whetherthe gentleman has or has not left an old wife or two in the Old World. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 2. A Washington belle related to me the sad story of the death ofa young man who fell from a small boat into the Potomac in the night, --it is supposed in his sleep. She told me where and how his body wasfound; and what relations he had left; and finished with "he will bemuch missed at parties. "

VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER TWO. 

PUBLIC OPINION, OR THE MAJORITY. 

The majority are always in the _right_, so says Miss Martineau, and sohave said greater people than even Miss Martineau; to be sure MissMartineau qualifies her expression afterwards, when she declares thatthey always will be right in the _end_. What she means by that I do notexactly comprehend; the end of a majority is its subsiding into aminority, and a minority is generally right. But I rather think thatshe would imply that they will repent and see their folly when theconsequences fall heavily upon them. The great question is, what is amajority? must it be a whole nation, or a portion of a nation, or aportion of the population of a city; or, in fact, any _plus_ against any_minus_, be they small or be they large. For instance, two against oneare a majority, and, if so, any two scoundrels may murder an honest manand be in the right; or it may be the majority in any city, as inBaltimore, where they rose and murdered an unfortunate minority [seenote 1]; or it may be a majority on the Canada frontier, when a set ofmiscreants defied their own government, and invaded the colony of anation with whom they were at peace--all which is of course right. Butthere are other opinions on this question besides those of MissMartineau, and we shall quote them as occasion serves. 

I have before observed, that Washington left America a republic; andthat in the short space of fifty years it has sunk into a democracy. 

The barrier intended to be raised against the encroachments of thepeople has been swept away; the senate (which was intended, by thearrangements for its election, to have served as the aristocracy of thelegislature, as a deliberative check to the impetus of the majority, like our House of Lords), having latterly become virtually nothing morethan a second congress, receiving instructions, and submissive to them, like a pledged representative. This is what Washington did not foresee. 

Washington was himself an aristocrat; he shewed it in every way. He wasdifficult of access, except to the higher classes. He carried state inhis outward show, always wearing his uniform as General of the Forces, and attended by a guard of honour. Indeed, one letter of Washington'sproves that he was rather doubtful as to the working of the newgovernment shortly after it had been constituted. He says:--

"Among men of reflection few will be found, I believe, who are not_beginning_ to think that our system is better in _theory_ than in_practice_, and that notwithstanding the _boasted virtue_ of America, itis more than probable we shall exhibit the _last melancholy proof_, thatmankind are incompetent to their own government without _the means ofcoercion in the sovereign_. " [Washington's letter to Chief Justice Jay, 10th March, 1787. ]

This is a pretty fair admission from such high authority; and fiftyyears have proved the wisdom and foresight of the observation. Gradually as the aristocracy of the country wore out (for there was anaristocracy at that time in America), and the people became less andless enlightened, so did they encroach upon the constitution. Presidentafter president gradually laid down the insignia and outward appearanceof rank, the senate became less and less respectable, and the peoplemore and more authoritative. 

M. Tocqueville says, "When the American revolution broke out, distinguished political characters arose in great numbers; for publicopinion then served, not to tyrannise over, but to direct the exertionsof individuals. Those celebrated men took a full part in the generalagitation of mind common at that period, and they attained a high degreeof personal fame, which was reflected back upon the nation, but whichwas by no means borrowed from it. "

It was not, however, until the presidency of General Jackson, that thedemocratic party may be said to have made any serious inroads upon theconstitution. Their previous advances were indeed sure, but they were, comparatively speaking, slow; but, raised as he was to the office ofPresident by the mob, the demagogues who led the mob obtained theoffices under government, to the total exclusion of the aristocraticparty, whose doom was then sealed. Within these last ten years theadvance of the people has been like a torrent, sweeping and levellingall before it, and the will of the majority has become not only absolutewith the government, but it defies the government itself, which is tooweak to oppose it. 

Is it not strange, and even ridiculous, that under a governmentestablished little more than fifty years, a government which was to be a_lesson_ to the whole world, we should find political writers making useof language such as this: "We are for _reform, sound, progressivereform_, not subversion and destruction. " Yet such is an extract fromone of the best written American periodicals of the day. This is thelanguage that may be expected to be used in a country like England, which still legislates under a government of eight hundred years old;but what a failure must that government be, which in fifty years callsforth even from its advocates such an admission!!

M. Tocqueville says, "Custom, however, has done even more than laws. Aproceeding which will in the end set all the guarantees ofrepresentative government at nought, is becoming more and more generalin the United States: it frequently happens that the electors who choosea delegate, point out a certain line of conduct to him, and impose uponhim a certain number of positive obligations, which he is pledged tofulfil. With the exception of the tumult, this comes to the same thingas if the majority of the populace held its deliberations in themarket-place. "

Speaking of the majority as the popular will, he says, "no obstaclesexist which can impede, or so much as retard its progress, or which caninduce it to heed the complaints of those whom it crushes upon its path. This state of things is fatal in itself, and dangerous for the future. "

My object in this chapter is to inquire what effect has been producedupon the morals of the American people by this acknowledged dominion ofthe majority?

1st. As to the mass of the people themselves. It is clear, if thepeople not only legislate, but, when in a state of irritation orexcitement, they defy even legislation, that they are not to be comparedto _restricted_ sovereigns, but to despots, whose will and caprice arelaw. The vices of the court of a despot are, therefore, practised uponthe people; for the people become as it were the court, to whom those inauthority, or those who would be in authority, submissively bend theknee. A despot is not likely ever to hear the truth, for moral couragefails where there is no law to protect it, and where honest advice maybe rewarded by summary punishment. The people, therefore, like thedespot, are never told the truth; on the contrary, they receive andexpect the most abject submission from their courtiers, to wit, those inoffice, or expectants. 

Now, the President of the United States may be considered the PrimeMinister of an enlightened public, who govern themselves, and hiscommunication with them is in his annual message. 

Let us examine what Mr Van Buren says in his last message. 

First, he humbly acknowledges their power. 

"A national bank, " he tells them, "would impair the rightful _supremacy_of the popular _will_. "

And this he follows up with that most delicate species of flattery, thatof praising them for the very virtue which they are most deficient in;telling them that they are "a people to whom the _truth_, howeverunpromising, can _always_ be told with _safety_. "

At the very time when they were defying all law and all government, hesays, "It was reserved for the American Union to test the advantage of agovernment entirely dependent on the continual exercise of the popularwill, and our experience has shewn, that it is as _beneficent_ in_practice_, as well as it is just in _theory_. "

At the very time that nearly the whole Union were assisting theinsurrection in Canada with men and money, he tells them "thattemptations to interfere in the intestine commotions of neighbouringcountries have been thus far successfully resisted. "

This is quite enough; Mr Van Buren's motives are to be re-elected aspresident. That is very natural on his part; but how can you expect apeople to improve who _never hear the truth_?

Mr Cooper observes, "Monarchs have incurred more hazards from folliesof their own that have grown up under the adulation of parasites, thanfrom the machinations of their enemies; and in a democracy, the delusionthat still would elsewhere be poured into the ears of the prince, ispoured into those of the people. "

The same system is pursued by all those who would arrive at, or remainin place and power: and what must be the consequence? that thestraight-forward, honourable, upright man is rejected by the people, while the parasite, the adulator, the demagogue, who flatters theiropinions, asserts their supremacy, and yields to their arbitrarydemands, is the one selected by them for place and power. Thus do theydemoralise each other; and it is not until a man has, by his abjectsubmission to their will, in contradiction to his own judgment andknowledge, proved that he is unworthy of the selection which he courts, that he is permitted to obtain it. Thus it is that the most able andconscientious men in the States are almost unanimously rejected. 

M. Tocqueville says, "It is a well-authenticated fact, that at thepresent day the most talented men in the United States are very rarelyplaced at the head of affairs; and it must be acknowledged that such hasbeen the result in proportion as democracy has outstepped all its formerlimits: the race of American statesmen has evidently dwindled mostremarkably in the course of the last fifty years. "

Indeed, no high-minded consistent man will now offer himself, and thisis one cause among many why Englishmen and foreigners have not done realjustice to the people of the United States. The scum is uppermost, andthey do not see below it. The prudent, the enlightened, the wise, andthe good, have all retired into the shade, preferring to pass a life ofquiet retirement, rather than submit to the insolence and dictation of amob. 

M. Tocqueville says, "Whilst the natural propensities of democracyinduce the people to reject the most distinguished citizens as itsrulers, these individuals are no less apt to retire from a politicalcareer, in which it is almost impossible to retain their independence, or to advance without degrading themselves. "

Again, "At the present day the most affluent classes of society are soentirely removed from the direction of political affairs in the UnitedStates, that wealth, far from conferring a right to the exercise ofpower, is rather an obstacle than a means of attaining to it. Thewealthy members of the community abandon the lists, throughunwillingness to contend, and frequently to contend in vain, against thepoorest classes of their fellow-citizens. They concentrate all theirenjoyments in the privacy of their homes, where they occupy a rank whichcannot be assumed in public, and they constitute a private society inthe State which has its own tastes and its own pleasures. They submitto this state of things as an irremediable evil, but they are carefulnot to shew that they are galled by its continuance. It is even notuncommon to hear them laud the delights of a republican government, andthe advantages of democratic institutions, when they are in public. Next to hating their enemies, men are most inclined to flatter them. But beneath this artificial enthusiasm, and these obsequious attentionsto the preponderating power, it is easy to perceive that the wealthymembers of the community entertain a hearty distaste to the democraticinstitutions of their country. The populace is at once the object oftheir scorn and of their fears. If the maladministration of thedemocracy ever brings about a revolutionary crisis, and if monarchialconstitutions ever become practicable in the United States, the truth ofwhat I advance will become obvious. "

It appears, then, that the more respectable portion of its citizens haveretired, leaving the arena open to those who are least worthy: that themajority dictate, and scarcely any one ventures to oppose them; if anyone does, he is immediately sacrificed; the press, obdient to itsmasters, pours out its virulence, and it is incredible how rapidly aman, unless he be of a superior mind, falls into nothingness in theUnited States, when once he has dared to oppose the popular will. He ismorally bemired, bespattered, and trod under foot, until he remains alifeless carcase. He falls, never to rise again, unhonoured andunremembered. 

Captain Hamilton, speaking to one of the federalist, or aristocraticalparty, received the following reply. I have received similar ones inmore than fifty instances. "My opinions, and I believe those of theparty to which I belonged, are unchanged; and the course of events inthis country has been such as to impress only a deeper and more thoroughconviction of their wisdom; but, in the present state of public feeling, we _dare not_ express them. An individual professing such opinionswould not only find himself excluded from every office of public trustwithin the scope of his reasonable ambition, but he would be regarded byhis neighbours and fellow-citizens with an evil eye. His words andactions would become the objects of jealous and malignant scrutiny, andhe would have to sustain the unceasing attacks of a host of unscrupulousand ferocious assailants. "

Mr Cooper says, "The besetting, the _degrading vice_ of America is themoral cowardice by which men are led to truckle to what is called publicopinion, though nine times in ten these are mere engines set in motionby opinions the most corrupt and least respectable portion of thecommunity, for the most unworthy purposes. The English are a morerespectable and constant [unconstant?] nation than the Americans, asrelates to this peculiarity. "

To be popular with the majority in America, to be a favourite with thepeople, you must first divest yourself of all freedom of opinion; youmust throw off all dignity; you must shake hands and drink with everyman you meet; you must be, in fact, slovenly and dirty in yourappearance, or you will be put down as an aristocrat. I recollect oncean American candidate asked me if I would walk out with him? I agreed;but he requested leave to change his coat, which was a decent one, forone very shabby; "for, " says he, "I intend to look in upon some of myconstituents, and if they ever saw me in that other coat, I should losemy election. " This cannot but remind the reader of the custom ofcandidates in former democracies--standing up in the market-place assuppliants in tattered garments, to solicit the "voices" of the people. 

That the morals of the nation have retrograded from the totaldestruction of the aristocracy, both in the government and in society, which has taken place within the last ten years, is most certain. 

The power has fallen into the hands of the lower orders, the officesunder government have been chiefly filled up by their favourites, eitherbeing poor and needy men from their own class, or base and dishonestmen, who have sacrificed their principles and consciences for place. Ishall enter more fully into this subject hereafter; it is quitesufficient at present to say, that during Mr Adams' presidency, a MrBenjamin Walker was a defaulter to the amount of 18, 000 dollars, and wasin consequence incarcerated for two years. Since the democratic partyhave come into power, the quantity of defaulters, and the sums whichhave been embezzled of government money, are enormous, and no punishmentof any kind has been attempted. They say it is only a breach of trust, and that a breach of trust is not punishable, except by a civil action;which certainly in the United States is of little avail, as the paymentof the money can always be evaded. The consequence is that you meetwith defaulters in, I will not say the very best society generally, butin the very best society of some portions of the United States. I havemyself sat down to a dinner party to which I had been invited, with adefaulter to government on each side of me. I knew one that was settingup for Congress, and, strange to say, his delinquency was not consideredby the people as an objection. An American author [Voice from America]states, "On the 17th June, 1838, the United States treasurer reported toCongress _sixty-three_ defaulters; the total sums embezzled amounting toone million, twenty thousand and odd dollars. "

The tyranny of the majority has completely destroyed the moral courageof the American people, and without moral courage what chance is thereof any fixed standard of morality?

M. Tocqueville observes, "Democratic republics extend the practice ofcurrying favour with the many, and they introduce it into a greaternumber of classes at once: this is one of the most serious reproachesthat can be addressed to them. In democratic States organised on theprinciples of the American republics this is more especially the case, where the authority of the majority is so absolute and irresistible, that a man must give up his rights as a citizen, and almost abjure hisquality as a human being, if he intends to stray from the track which itlays down. 

"In that immense crowd which throngs the avenues to power in the UnitedStates, I found very few men who displayed any of that manly candour, and that masculine independence of opinion, which frequentlydistinguished the Americans in former times, and which constitutes theleading feature in distinguished characters wheresoever they may befound. It seems, at first sight, as if all the minds of the Americanswere formed upon one model, so accurately do they correspond in theirmanner of judging. A stranger does, indeed, sometimes meet withAmericans who dissent from these rigorous formularies; with men whodeplore the defects of the laws; the mutability and the ignorance ofdemocracy; who even go so far as to observe the evil tendencies whichimpair the national character, and to point out such remedies as itmight be possible to apply; but no one is there to hear these thingsbeside yourself, and you, to whom these secret reflections are confided, are a stranger and a bird of passage. They are very ready tocommunicate truths which are useless to you, but they continue to hold adifferent language in public. " See note 2. 

There are a few exceptions--Clay and Webster are men of such power as tobe able, to a certain degree, to hold their independence. Dr Channinghas proved himself an honour to his country and to the world. MrCooper has also great merit in this point and no man has certainly shewnmore moral courage, let his case be good or not, than Garrison, theleader of the abolition party. 

But with these few and remarkable exceptions, moral courage is almostprostrate in the United States. The most decided specimen I met with tothe contrary was at Cincinnati, when a large portion of the principalinhabitants ventured to express their opinion, contrary to the will ofthe majority, in my defence, and boldly proclaimed their opinions byinviting me to a public dinner. I told them my opinion of theirbehaviour, and I gave them my thanks. I repeat my opinion and my thanksnow; they had much to contend with, but they resisted boldly; and notonly from that remarkable instance of daring to oppose public opinionwhen all others quailed, but from many other circumstances, I have anidea that Cincinnati will one day take an important lead, as much fromthe spirit and courage of her citizens, as from her peculiarly fortunateposition. I had a striking instance to the contrary at St Louis, whenthey paraded me in effigy through the streets. Certain youngBostonians, who would have been glad enough to have seized my hand whenin the Eastern States, before I had happened to affront the majority, kept aloof, or shuffled away, so as not to be obliged to recognise me. Such have been the demoralising effects of the tyranny of public opinionin the short space of fifty years, and I will now wind up this chapterby submitting to the reader extracts from the two French authors, one ofwhom describes America in 1782, and the other in 1835. 

AMERICA IN 1782. 

"Je vais, disais-je, mettre a la voile aujour-d'hui; je m'eloigne avecun regret infini d'un pays ou l'on est, sans obstacle et sansinconvenient, ce qu'on devrait etre partout, sincere et libre. "--"On ypense, on y dit, on y fait ce qu'on veut. Rien ne vous oblige d'y etreni faux, ni bas, ni flatteur. Personne ne se choque de la singularitede vos manieres ni de vos gouts. "--_Memoires ou Souvenirs de Monsieur deSegur_, volume I, page 409. 

AMERICA IN 1835. 

"L'Amerique est donc un pays de liberte, ou pour ne blesser personne, onne doit parler librement, ni des gouvernans, ni des gouvernes, ni deseutreprises publiques, ni des entreprises privees; de rien, enfin, de cequ'on y rencontre si non peut-etre du climat et du sol; encoretrouve-t-on des Americains prets a defendre l'un et l'autre, comme s'ilsavaient concouru a les former. "--_Monsieur de Tocqueville sur laDemocratie aux Etats Unis de l'Amerique_, volume II, page 118. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. A striking instance of the excesses which may be occasioned bythe despotism of the majority, occurred at Baltimore in 1812. At thattime the war was very popular in Baltimore. A journal, which had takenthe other side of the question, excited the indignation of theinhabitants by its opposition. The populace assembled, broke theprinting-presses, and attacked the houses of the newspaper editors. Themilitia was called out, but no one obeyed the call, and the only meansof saving the poor wretches, who were threatened by the frenzy of themob, were to throw them into prison as common malefactors. But eventhis precaution was ineffectual; the mob collected again during thenight, the magistrates again made a vain attempt to call out themilitia, the prison was forced, one of the newspaper editors was killedupon the spot, and the others were left for dead when the guilty partieswere brought to trial, they were _acquitted_ by the jury. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 2. Mr Carey in his introduction says, "_Freedom_ of _discussion_is highly promotive of the power of protection. The _free expressionsof opinion_ in relation to matters of public interest is indispensableto security. "

He denies that we have it in England, and would prove that this existsin America: and how?

1st. By the permission of every man to be of any religion he pleases!!

2nd. By the _freedom_ of the press in the United States!!

VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER THREE. 

PATRIOTISM. 

This is a word of very doubtful meaning; and until we have the power toanalyse the secret springs of action, it is impossible to say who is orwho is not a patriot. The Chartist, the White Boy, may really bepatriots in their hearts, although they are attempting revolution, andare looked upon as the enemies of good order. Joseph Hume _may_ be apatriot, so may O'Connell, so may --; but never mind; I consider that ifin most cases, in all countries the word egotism were substituted itwould be more correct, and particularly so in America. 

M. Tocqueville says, "The inhabitants of the United States talk a greatdeal of their attachment to their country; but I confess that I do notrely upon that calculating patriotism which is founded upon interest, and which a change in the interests at stake may obliterate. "

The fact is, that the American is aware that what affects the generalprosperity must affect the individual, and he therefore is anxious forthe general prosperity; he also considers that he assists to legislatefor the country, and is therefore equally interested in such legislaturebeing prosperous; if, therefore, you attack his country, you attack himpersonally--you wound his vanity and self-love. 

In America it is not our rulers who have done wrong or right; it is we(or rather I) who have done wrong or right, and the consequence is, thatthe American is _rather_ irritable on the subject, as every attack istaken as personal. It is quite ridiculous to observe how some of thevery best of the Americans are tickled when you praise their country andinstitutions; how they will wince at any qualification in your praise, and actually writhe under any positive disparagement. They _will_ putquestions, even if they anticipate an unfavourable answer; they cannothelp it. What is the reason of this? Simply their better sensewrestling with the errors of education and long-cherished fallacies. They feel that their institutions do not work as they would wish; thatthe theory is not borne out by the practice, and they want supportagainst their own convictions. They cannot bear to eradicatedeep-rooted prejudices, which have been from their earliest days asource of pride and vain-glory; and to acknowledge that what they haveconsidered as most perfect, what they have boasted of as a _lesson_ toother nations, what they have suffered so much to uphold, insurrendering their liberty of speech, of action, and of opinion, hasafter all proved to be a miserable failure, and instead of a lesson toother nations--a warning. 

Yet such are the doubts, the misgivings which fluctuate in, and irritatethe minds of a very large proportion of the Americans; and such is thedecided conviction of a portion who retire into obscurity and aresilent; and every year adds to the number of both these parties. Theyremind one of a husband who, having married for love, and supposed hiswife to be perfection, gradually finds out that she is full of faults, and renders him anything but happy; but his pride will not allow him toacknowledge that he has committed an error in his choice, and hecontinues before the world to descant upon her virtues, and to concealher errors, while he feels that his home is miserable. 

It is because it is more egotistical that the patriotism of the Americanis more easily roused and more easily affronted. He has been educatedto despise all other countries, and to look upon his own as the first inthe world; he has been taught that all other nations are slaves todespots, and that the American citizen only is free, and this is nevercontradicted. For although thousands may in their own hearts feel thefalsehood of their assertions, there is not one who will venture toexpress his opinion. The government sets the example, the press followsit, and the people receive the incense of flattery, which in othercountries is offered to the court alone; and if it were not for theoccasional compunctions and doubts, which his real good sense willsometimes visit him with, the more enlightened American would be ashappy in his own delusions, as the majority most certainly may be saidto be. 

M. Tocqueville says, "For the last fifty years no pains have beenspared to convince the inhabitants of the United States that theyconstitute the only religious, enlightened, and free people. Theyperceive that, for the present, their own democratic institutionssucceed, while those of other countries fall; hence they conceive anoverweening opinion of their superiority, and they are not very remotefrom believing themselves to belong to a distinct race of mankind. "

There are, however, other causes which assist this delusion on the partof the majority of the Americans; the principal of which is the want ofcomparison. The Americans are too far removed from the Old Continent, and are too much occupied even if they were not, to have time to visitit, and make the comparison between the settled countries and their own. America is so vast, that if they travel in it, their ideas of their ownimportance become magnified. The only comparisons they are able to makeare only as to the quantity of square acres in each country, which, ofcourse, is vastly in their favour. 

Mr Sanderson, the American, in his clever Sketches of Paris, observes, "It is certainly of much value in the life of an American gentleman tovisit these old countries, if it were only to form a just estimate ofhis own, which he is continually liable to mistake, and always tooverrate without objects of comparison; `_nimium se aestimet necesseest, qui se nemini comparat_. ' He will always think himself wise whosees nobody wiser; and to know the customs and institutions of foreigncountries, which one cannot know well without residing there, iscertainly the complement of a good education. "

After all, is there not a happiness in this delusion on the part of theAmerican majority, and is not the feeling of admiration of their owncountry borrowed from ourselves? The feeling may be more strong withthe Americans, because it is more egotistical; but it certainly is the_English_ feeling transplanted, and growing in a ranker soil. We mayaccuse the Americans of conceit, of wilful blindness, of obstinacy; butthere is after all a great good in being contented with yourself andyours. The English shew it differently; but the English are not sogood-tempered as the Americans. They grumble at everything; they knowthe faults of their institutions, but at the same time they will allowof no interference. Grumbling is a luxury so great, that an Englishmanwill permit it only to himself. The Englishman grumbles at hisgovernment, under which he enjoys more rational liberty than theindividual of any other nation in the world. The American, ruled by thedespotism of the majority, and without liberty of opinion or speech, praises his institutions to the skies. The Englishman grumbles at hisclimate, which, if we were to judge from the vigour and perfection ofthe inhabitants, is, notwithstanding its humidity, one of the best inthe world. The American vaunts his above all others, and even thinks itnecessary to apologise for a bad day, although the climate, from itssudden extremes, withers up beauty, and destroys the nervous system. Ineverything connected with, and relating to, America, the American hasthe same feeling. Calculating, wholly matter-of-fact and utilitarian inhis ideas, without a poetic sense of his own, he is annoyed if astranger does not express that rapture at their rivers, waterfalls, andwoodland scenery, which he himself does not feel. As far as America isconcerned, everything is for the best in this best of all possiblecountries. It is laughable, yet praiseworthy, to observe how the wholenation will stoop down to fan the slightest spark which is elicited ofnative genius--like the London citizen, who is enraptured with his ownstunted cucumbers, which he has raised at ten times the expense whichwould have purchased fine ones in the market. It were almost a pitythat the American should be awakened from his dream, if it were not thatthe arrogance and conceit arising from it may eventually plunge him intodifficulty. 

But let us be fair; America is the country of enthusiasm and hope, andwe must not be too severe upon what from a virgin soil has, sprung uptoo luxuriantly. It is but the English _amor patriae_ carried to toogreat an excess. The Americans are great boasters; but are we farbehind them? One of our most popular songs runs as follows:--

 "We ne'er see our foes, but we wish them to stay; They never see us, but they wish us away. "

What can be more bragging, or more untrue, than the words of theselines? In the same way in England the common people hold it as aproverb, that, "one Englishman can beat three Frenchmen, " but there arenot many Englishmen who would succeed in the attempt. Nor is italtogether wrong to encourage these feelings; although arrogance is afault in an individual, in a national point of view, it often becomesthe incentive to great actions, and, if not excessive, insures thesuccess inspired by confidence. As by giving people credit for a virtuewhich they have not, you very often produce that virtue in them, I thinkit not unwise to implant this feeling in the hearts of the lowerclasses, who if they firmly believe that they can beat three Frenchmen, will at all events attempt to do it. That too great success isdangerous, and that the feeling of arrogance produced by it may lead usinto the error of despising our enemy, we ourselves showed an example ofin our first contest with America during the last war. In that pointAmerica and England have now changed positions, and from falseeducation, want of comparison, and unexpected success in their strugglewith us, they are now much more arrogant than we were when most flushedwith victory. They are blind to their own faults and to the merits ofothers, and while they are so it is clear that they will offendstrangers, and never improve themselves. I have often laughed at thefalse estimate held by the majority in America as to England. One toldme, with a patronising air, that, "in a short time, England would onlybe known as having been the mother of America. "

"When you go into our interior, Captain, " said a New York gentleman tome, "you will see plants, such as rhododendrons, magnolias, and hundredsof others, such as they have no conception of in your own country. "

One of Jim Crow's verses in America is a fair copy from us--

 "Englishman he beat Two French or Portugee; Yankee-doodle come down, Whip them all three. "

But an excellent specimen of the effect of American education was giventhe other day in this country, by an American lad of fourteen or fifteenyears old. He was at a dinner party, and after dinner the conversationturned upon the merits of the Duke of Wellington. After hearing thejust encomiums for some time with fidgetty impatience, the lad rose fromhis chair, "You talk about your Duke of Wellington, what do you say toWashington; do you pretend to compare Wellington to Washington? Now, I'll just tell you, if Washington could be standing here now, and theDuke of Wellington was only to look him in the face, why, Sir, Wellington would drop down dead in an instant. " This I was told by thegentleman at whose table it occurred. 

Even when they can use their eyes, they will not. I overheard aconversation on the deck of a steam-boat between a man who had justarrived from England and another. "Have they much trade at Liverpool?"inquired the latter. "Yes, they've some. " "And at London?" "Not muchthere, I reckon. New York, Sir, is the emporium of the whole world. "

This national vanity is fed in every possible way. At one of themuseums, I asked the subject of a picture representing a navalengagement; the man (supposing I was an American, I presume) replied, "That ship there, " pointing to one twice as big as the other, "is theMacedonian English frigate, and that other frigate, " pointing to thesmall one, "is the Constitution American frigate, which captured her inless than five minutes. " Indeed, so great has this feeling become fromindulgence, that they will not allow anything to stand in its way, andwill sacrifice anybody or anything to support it. It was not until Iarrived in the United States that I was informed by several people thatCaptain Lawrence, who commanded the Chesapeake, was drunk when he wentinto action. Speaking of the action, one man shook his head, and said, "Pity poor Lawrence had his failing; he was otherwise a good officer. "I was often told the same thing, and a greater libel was never uttered;but thus was a gallant officer's character sacrificed to sooth thenational vanity. I hardly need observe, that the American navalofficers are as much disgusted with the assertion as I was myself. ThatLawrence fought under disadvantages--that many of his ship's company, hastily collected together from leave, were not sober, and that therewas a want of organisation from just coming out of harbour, --is true, and quite sufficient to account for his defeat; but I have the evidenceof those who walked with him down to his boat, that he was perfectlysober, cool, and collected, as he always had proved himself to be. Butthere is no gratitude in a democracy, and to be unfortunate is to beguilty. 

There is a great deal of patriotism of one sort or the other in theAmerican women. I recollect once, when conversing with a highlycultivated and beautiful American woman, I inquired if she knew a ladywho had been some time in England, and who was a great favourite ofmine. She replied, "Yes. " "Don't you like her?" "To confess thetruth, I do not, " replied she; "she is _too English_ for me. " "That isto say, she likes England and the English. " "That is what I mean. " Ireplied, that, "had she been in England, she would probably have become_too English_ also; for, with her cultivated and elegant ideas, she mustnaturally have been pleased with the refinement, luxury, and establishedgrades in society, which it had taken eight hundred years to produce. ""If that is to be the case, I hope I may never go to England. "

Now, this was _true_ patriotism, and there is much true patriotism amongthe higher classes of the American women; with them there is no alloy ofegotism. 

Indeed, all the women in America are very _patriotic_; but I do not givethem all the same credit. In the first place, they are controlled bypublic opinion as much as the men are; and without assumed patriotismthey would have no chance of getting husbands. As you descend in thescale, so are they the more noisy; and, I imagine, for that very reasonthe less sincere. 

Among what may be termed the middling classes, I have been very muchamused with the compound of vanity and ignorance which I have met with. Among this class they can read and write; but almost all their knowledgeis confined to their own country, especially in geography, which I soondiscovered. It was hard to beat them on American ground, but as soon asyou got them off that they were defeated. I wish the reader tounderstand particularly, that I am not speaking now of the well-bredAmericans, but of that portion which would with us be considered as on apar with the middle class of shop-keepers; for I had a very extensiveacquaintance. My amusement was, to make some comparison between the twocountries, which I knew would immediately bring on the conflict Idesired; and not without danger, for I sometimes expected, in the ardourof their patriotism, to meet with the fate of Orpheus. 

I soon found that the more I granted, the more they demanded; and thatthe best way was never to grant any thing. I was once in a room full ofthe softer sex, chiefly girls, of all ages; when the mamma of a portionof them, who was sitting on the sofa, as we mentioned steam, said, "Wellnow, Captain, you will allow that we are a-head of you there. "

"No, " replied I, "quite the contrary. Our steam-boats go all over theworld--your's are afraid to leave the rivers. "

"Well now, Captain, I suppose you'll allow America is a bit biggercountry than England?"

"It's rather broader--but, if I recollect right, it's not quite solong. "

"Why, Captain!"

"Well, only look at the map. "

"Why, isn't the Mississippi a bigger river than you have in England?"

"Bigger? Pooh! haven't we got the Thames?"

"The Thames? why that's no river at all. "

"Isn't it? Just look at the map, and measure them. "

"Well, now, Captain, I tell you what, you call your Britain, theMistress of the seas, yet we whipped you well, and you know that. "

"Oh! yes--you refer to the Shannon and Chesapeake, don't you?"

"No! not that time, because Lawrence was drunk, they say; but didn't we_whip_ you well at New Orleans?"

"No, you didn't. "

"No? oh, Captain!"

"I say you did not. --If your people had come out from behind theircotton bales and sugar casks, we'd have knocked you all into a cockedhat; but they wouldn't come out, so we walked away in disgust. "

"Now, Captain, that's romancing--that won't do. " Here the little onesjoined in the cry, "We did beat you, and you know it. " And, hauling meinto the centre of the room, they joined hands in a circle, and dancedround me, singing:

 "Yankee doodle is a tune, Which is nation handy. All the British ran away At Yankee doodle dandy. "

I shall conclude by stating that this feeling, call it patriotism, orwhat you please, is so strongly implanted in the bosom of the Americanby education and association, that wherever, or whenever, the nationalhonour or character is called into question, there is no sacrifice whichthey will not make to keep up appearances. It is this which inducesthem to acquit murderers, to hush up suicides, or any other offencewhich may reflect upon their asserted morality. I would put noconfidence even in an official document from the government, for I havealready ascertained how they will invariably be twisted, so as to giveno offence to the majority; and the base adulation of the government tothe people is such, that it dare not tell them the truth, or publish anything which might wound its self-esteem. 

I shall conclude with two extracts from a work of Mr Cooper, theAmerican:--

"We are almost entirely wanting in national pride, though abundantlysupplied with an _irritable vanity_, which might rise to pride had wegreater confidence in our facts. "

"We have the sensitiveness of provincials, increased by theconsciousness of having our spurs to earn on all matters of glory andrenown, and _our jealousy extends even to the reputations of the catsand dogs_. "

VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER FOUR. 

ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES. 

Captain Hamilton has, in his work, expressed his opinion that theAmericans have no feeling of ill-will against this country. If CaptainHamilton had stated that the _gentlemen_ and more respectable portion ofthe Americans, such as the New York merchants, etcetera, had no feelingagainst this country, and were most anxious to keep on good terms withus, he would have been much more correct. You will find all therespectable portion of the daily press using their best endeavours toreconcile any animosities, and there is nothing which an Americangentleman is more eloquent upon, when he falls in with an Englishman, than in trying to convince him that there is no hostile feeling againstthis country. [See note 1. ] I had not been a week at New York before Ihad this assurance given me at least twenty times, and I felt inclinedat first to believe it: but I soon discovered that this feeling was onlyconfined to a small minority, and that the feelings towards England ofthe majority, or democratic party, were of _deep irreconcilable hatred_. I am sorry to assert this; but it is better be known, that we may notbe misled by any pretended good-will on the part of the government, orthe partial good-will of a few enlightened individuals. Even those whohave a feeling of regard and admiration for our country do not ventureto make it known, and it would place them in so very unpleasant asituation, that they can scarcely be blamed for keeping their opinionsto themselves. With the English they express it warmly, and I believethem to be sincere; but not being openly avowed by a few, it is notcommunicated or spread by kindling similar warmth in the hearts ofothers. Indeed it is not surprising, when we consider the nationalcharacter, that there should be an ill feeling towards England; it wouldbe much more strange if the feeling did not exist. That the Americansshould, after their struggle for independence, have felt irritatedagainst the mother country, is natural; they had been oppressed--theyhad successfully resented the oppression, and emancipated themselves. But still the feeling at that time was different from the one which atpresent exists. Then it might be compared to the feeling in the heartof a younger son of an ancient house, who had been compelled by harshtreatment to disunite from the head of the family, and provide forhimself--still proud of his origin, yet resentful at the remembrance ofinjury--at times vindictive, at others full of tenderness and respect. The aristocratical and the democratical impulses by turns gaining theascendant it was then a manly, fine feeling. The war of 1814, the mostfatal event in the short American history, would not have been attendedwith any increase of ill-will, as the Americans were satisfied withtheir successful repulse of our attempts to invade the country, andtheir unexpected good fortune in their naval conflicts. They felt thatthey had consideration and respect in the eyes of other nations, and, what was to them still gratifying, the respect of England herself. Inevery point they were fortunate, for a peace was concluded uponhonourable terms just as they were beginning to feel the bitterconsequences of the war. But the effect of this war was to imbue thepeople with a strong idea of their military prowess, and the nationalglory became their favourite theme. Their hero, General was raised tothe presidency by the democratical party, and ever since the Americanshave been ready to bully or quarrel with anybody and about everything. 

This feeling becomes stronger every day. They want to _whip_ the wholeworld. The wise and prudent perceive the folly of this, and try allthey can to produce a better feeling; but the majority are nowirresistible, and their fiat will decide upon war or peace. Thegovernment is powerless in opposition to it; all it can do is to give alegal appearance to any act of violence. 

This idea of their own prowess will be one cause of danger to theirinstitutions, for war must ever be fatal to democracy. In this country, during peace, we became more and more democratic; but whenever we areagain forced into war, the reins will be again tightened from necessity, and thus war must ever interfere with free institutions. A convincingproof of the idea the Americans have of their own prowess was whenGeneral Jackson made the claim for compensation from the French. Through the intermediation of England the claim was adjusted, and peacepreserved; and the Americans are little aware what a debt of gratitudethey owe to this country for its interference. They were totallyignorant of the power and resources of France. They had an idea, and Iwas told so fifty times, that France paid the money from _fear_, andthat if she had not, they would have "_whipped_ her into the little endof nothing. "

I do not doubt that the Americans would have tried their best; but I amof opinion, (not withstanding the Americans would have been partially, from their acknowledged bravery, successful) that in two years France, with her means, which are well known to, and appreciated by, theEnglish, would (to use their own terms again, ) have made "an everlastingsmash" of the United States, and the Americans would have had toconclude an ignominious peace. I am aware that this idea will bescouted in America as absurd; but still I am well persuaded that anyprotracted war would not only be their ruin in a pecuniary point ofview, but fatal to their institutions. But to return. 

There are many reasons why the Americans have an inveterate dislike tothis country. In the first place, they are educated to dislike us andour monarchical institutions; their short history points out to themthat we have been their only oppressor in the first instance, and theiropponent ever since. Their annual celebration of the independence is anopportunity for vituperation of this country which is never lost sightof. Their national vanity is hurt by feeling what they would fainbelieve, that they are not the "greatest nation on earth;" that they areindebted to us, and the credit we give them, for their prosperity andrapid advance; that they must still look to us for their literature andthe fine arts, and that, in short, they are still dependent uponEngland. I have before observed, that this hostile spirit against us isfanned by discontented emigrants, and by those authors who, to becomepopular with the majority, laud their own country and defame England;but the great cause of this increase of hostility against us is thedemocratical party having come into power, and who consider it necessaryto excite animosity against this country. When ever it is requisite tothrow a tub to the whale, the press is immediately full of abuse;everything is attributed to England, and the machinations of England;she is, by their accounts, here, there, and everywhere, plottingmischief and injury, from the Gulf of Florida to the Rocky Mountains. If we are to believe the democratic press, England is the cause ofeverything offensive to the majority--if money is scarce, it is Englandthat has occasioned it--if credit is bad, it is England--if eggs are notfresh or beef is tough, it is, it must be, England. They remind you ofthe parody upon Fitzgerald in Smith's humorous and witty `RejectedAddresses, ' when he is supposed to write against Buonaparte:

 Who made the quartern loaf and Luddites rise, Who fills the butchers' shops with large blue flies With a foul earthquake ravaged the Carraccas, And raised the price of dry goods and tobaccos?

Why, England. And all this the majority do steadfastly believe, becausethey wish to believe it. 

How, then, is it possible that the lower classes in the United States, (and the lower and unenlightened principally compose the majority, ) canhave other than feelings of ill-will towards this country? and of whatavail is it to us that the high-minded and sensible portion thinkotherwise, when they are in such a trifling minority, and afraid toexpress their sentiments? When we talk about a nation, we look to themass, and that the mass are hostile, and inveterately hostile to thiscountry, is a most undeniable fact. 

There is another cause of hostility which I have not adverted to, theremarks upon them by travellers in their country, such as I am nowmaking; but as the Americans never hear the truth from their owncountrymen, it is only from foreigners [see note 2] that they can. Ofcourse, after having been accustomed to flattery from their earliestdays, the truth, when it does come, falls more heavily, and the injuryand insult which they consider they have received is never forgotten. 

Among the American authors who have increased the ill-will of hiscountrymen towards this country, Mr Cooper stands pre-eminent. MrBulwer has observed that the character and opinions of an author may bepretty fairly estimated by his writings. This is true, but they may bemuch better estimated by one species of writing than by another. Inworks of invention or imagination, it is but now and then, by anincidental remark, that we can obtain a clue to the author's feelings. Carried away by the interest of the story, and the vivid scene presentedto the imagination, we are apt to form a better opinion of the authorthan he deserves, because we feel kindly and grateful towards him forthe amusement which he has afforded us; but when a writer puts off theholiday dress of fiction, and appears before us in his every daycostume, giving us his thoughts and feelings upon matters of fact, thenit is that we can appreciate the real character of the author. MrCooper's character is not to be gained by reading his `Pilot, ' but itmay be fairly estimated by reading his `Travels in Switzerland, ' and hisremarks upon England. If, then, we are to judge of Mr Cooper by theabove works, I have no hesitation in asserting that he appears to be adisappointed democrat, with a determined hostility to England and theEnglish. This hostility on the part of Mr Cooper cannot proceed fromany want of attention shewn him in this country, or want ofacknowledgment of his merits as an author. It must be sought forelsewhere. The attacks upon the English in a work professed to bewritten upon Switzerland, prove how rancorous this feeling is on hispart; and not all the works published by English travellers upon Americahave added so much to the hostile feeling against us, as Mr Cooper hasdone by his writings alone. Mr Cooper would appear to wish to detachhis countrymen, not only from us, but from the whole European Continent. He tells them in his work on Switzerland, that they are not liked oresteemed any where, and that to acknowledge yourself an American isquite sufficient to make those recoil who were intending to advance. Mr Cooper is, in my opinion, very much mistaken in this point;--thepeople of the Continent do not as yet know enough of the Americans todecide upon their national character. He observes very truly, that noone appears to think any thing about the twelve millions; why so?because in Switzerland, Germany, and other nations in the heart of theContinent, they have no interest about a nation so widely separated fromthem, and from intercourse with which they receive neither profit norloss. Neither do they think about the millions in South America, andnot caring or hearing about them they can have formed no ideas of theircharacter as a nation. If, then, the Americans are shunned (which I donot believe they are, for they are generally supposed to be a variety ofEnglishmen), it must be from the conduct of those individuals of theAmerican nation who have travelled there, and not because, as Mr Cooperwould imply, they have a democratic form of government. Have not theSwiss something similar, and are they shunned? Who cares what may bethe form of government of a country divided from them by three or fourthousand miles of water, and of whom they have only read? Every nation, as well as every individual, makes its own character; but Mr Cooperwould prove that the dislike shewn to the Americans abroad is owing tothe slander of them by the English, and he points out that in the bookscontaining the names of travellers, he no less than twenty-five timesobserved offensive remarks written beneath the names of those whoacknowledged themselves Americans. These books were at differentplaces, places to which all tourists in Switzerland naturally repair. Did it never occur to Mr Cooper that one young fool of an Englishman, during his tour, might have been the author of all these obnoxiousremarks, and is the folly of one insignificant individual to be gravelycommented upon in a widely disseminated work, so as to occasion orincrease the national ill-will? Surely there is little wisdom and muchcaptiousness in this feeling. 

How blinded by his ill-will must Mr Cooper be, to enter into a longdiscussion in the work I refer to, to prove that England deserves thetitle, among other national characteristics, of a _blackguardingnation_! founding his assertion upon the language of our daily press. If the English, judged by the _press_, are a blackguarding nation, whatare the Americans, if they are to be judged by the same standard? wemust be indebted to the Americans themselves for an epithet. To windup, he more than once pronounced the English to be _parvenus_. There isan old proverb which says, "A man whose house is built of glass shouldnot be the first to throw stones;" and that these last two chargesshould be brought against us by an American, is certainly somewhatsingular and unfortunate. 

That there should be a hostile feeling when English men go over toAmerica to compete with them in business or in any profession, isnatural; it would be the same everywhere; this feeling, however, in theUnited States is usually shewn by an attack upon the character of theparty, so as to influence the public against him. There was an Americanpractising phrenology, when a phrenologist arrived from England. Asthis opposition was not agreeable, the American immediately circulated areport that the English phrenologist had asserted that he had examinedthe skulls of many Americans, and that he had never fallen in with such_thick-headed fellows_ in his life. This was quite sufficient--theEnglish operator was obliged to _clear out_ as fast as he could, and tryhis fortune elsewhere. 

The two following placards were given me; they were pasted all over thecity. What the offence was I never heard, but they are very amusingdocuments. It is the first time, I believe, that public singers weredescribed as _aristocrats_, and Englishmen of the first _stamp_. 

"Americans:--

"It remains with you to say whether or not you will be imposed upon bythese base aristocrats, who come from England to America, in order togain a livelihood, and despise the land that gives them bread. 

"Some few years since there came to this country three `gentlemenplayers, ' who were received with open arms by the Americans, and treatedmore as brothers than strangers; when their pockets were full, inrequital to our best endeavours to raise them to their merit, theungrateful dogs turned round and abused us. It is useless, at present, to give the names of two of those _gentlemen_, as they are not nowcandidates for public favour; but there is one, Mr Hodges, who is atpresent engaged at the Pavilion Theatre. This _thing_ has said publiclythat the Americans were all `a parcel of ignoramuses, ' and that `theyankee players' were `perfect fools, not possessing the least particleof talent, ' etcetera. We must be brief--should we repeat all we haveheard it would fill a page of the News. 

"Will the Americans be abused in this way without retaliation? We arealways willing to bestow that respect which is due to strangers; butwhen our kindness is treated with contempt, and in return receive baseepithets and abuse, let us `block the game. '

"Once for all--will you permit this thing in pantaloons and whiskers, this brainless, un-ideaed _cub_, whom a thousand years will not sufficeto lick into a bear, longer to impose upon your good-natures? If so, weshall conclude you have lost all of that spirit so characteristic oftrue born Americans. 

"A word to Mr (?) Hodges. --When these meet your eye, a _dignifiedcontempt_ will most opportunely swell your breast--such is ever the casewith the _coward_! In affected scorn, you will seek a shelter from thedanger you _dare_ not brave, but we warn you that one day must overtakeyou. 

"Several Americans. "

"AMERICANS ATTEND!

"Americans:--If there is a spark of that spirit in your blood with whichyour forefathers bequeathed you, I hope you will shew it when men comeamong us from a foreign shore to get a living, and while here to speakin terms towards our country and ourselves, derogatory to the feelingsof an American to listen to. These men that I speak of are Mr Hodgesand Mr Corri, Englishmen of the _first stamp_, who declare that theYankees, (as we are all termed, and proud of the name I dare say, ) `area parcel of ignoramuses--cannibals--don't know how to appreciatetalent'--they possess very little I am certain. However, the thingstands thus: they have slandered our country, they have slandered _us_;and if they are permitted to play upon the boards of the _EagleTheatre_, I shall conclude that we have lost all that spunk socharacteristic in a True Born American. "

There certainly is no good feeling in the _majority_ towards England, and this is continually shewn in a variety of instances, particularly ifthere is any excitement from distress or other causes. At the time thatthe great commercial distress took place, the abuse of England wasbeyond all bounds; and in a public meeting of democrats at Philadelphia, the first resolution passed was, "that they did not owe England onefarthing, " and this is the general outcry of the lower orders when anything was wrong. I have often argued with them on this subject, andnever could convince them. This country has now _fifty-five millionssterling_ invested in American securities, which is a large sum, and the_majority_ consider that a war will spunge out this debt. Theirargument which they constantly urged against me, has more soundness init than would be supposed:--"If you declare war with us, what is thefirst thing you do, you seize all American vessels and all Americanproperty that you can lay hold of, which have entered into your ports onthe faith of peace between the two countries. Now, why have we not anequal right to seize all English property whenever we can find it inthis country?" But this, as I have observed, is the language of thedemocrats and locofocos. There are thousands of honourable men inAmerica, not only as merchants, but in every other class, who are mostanxious to keep on good terms with us, and have the kindest feelingstowards England. Unfortunately they are but few compared to themajority, and much as they may regret the hostile feelings towards us, Iam afraid that it is wholly out of their power to prevent theirincrease, which will be in exact proportion with the increase of thepopular sway. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. Soon after I arrived at New York, the naval officers verykindly sent me a diploma xxx member of their Lyceum, over at Brooklyn. I went over to visit the Lyceum, and, among the portraits in the mostconspicuous part of the room was that of William the Fourth, with the"Sailor King" written underneath it in large capitals. As for thepresent Queen, her health has been repeatedly drank in my presence;indeed her accession to our throne appeared to have put a large portionof the Americans in good humour with monarchy. Up to the present shehas been quite a pet of theirs, and they are continually askingquestions concerning her. The fact is, that the Americans shew suchoutward deference to the other sex, that I do not think they would haveany objection themselves to be governed by it; and if ever a monarchywere attempted in the United States, the first reigning sovereign oughtto be a _very pretty woman_. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 2. A proof that the feeling against England is increasing, is thesingular fact that latterly they insist upon calling the English_foreigners_, a term which they formerly applied to all other nations, but not to _ourselves_. 

VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER FIVE. 

SOCIETY. --GENERAL CHARACTER, ETCETERA. 

The character of the Americans is that of a restless, uneasy people--they cannot sit still, they cannot listen attentively, unless the themebe politics or dollars--they must do something, and, like children, ifthey cannot do anything else, they will do mischief--their curiosity isunbounded, and they are very capricious. Acting upon impulse, they arevery generous at one moment, and without a spark of charity the next. They are good-tempered, and possess great energy, ingenuity, bravery, and presence of mind. Such is the estimate I have formed of theirgeneral character, independent of the demoralising effects of theirinstitutions, which renders it so anomalous. 

The American author, Mr Sanderson, very truly observes of hiscountrymen, that, "they have grown vicious without the refinements anddistractions of the fine arts and liberal amusements. " The Americanshave few amusements; they are too busy. Athletic sports they areindifferent to; they look only to those entertainments which feed theirpassion for excitement. The theatre is almost their only resort, andeven that is not so well attended as it might be, considering theirmeans. There are some very good and well-conducted theatres in America:the best are the Park and National at New York, the Tremont at Boston, and the Chesnut Street Theatre at Philadelphia. The American _stock_actors, as they term those who are not considered as _stars_, are betterthan our own; but were the theatres to depend upon stock actors theywould be deserted--the love of novelty is the chief inducement of theAmericans to frequent the theatre, and they look for importations ofstar actors from this country as regularly as they do for ourmanufactured goods, or the fashions from Paris. In most of the largecities they have two theatres; one for legitimate drama, and the otherfor melodrama, as the Bowery Theatre at New York, and the Walnut StreetTheatre in Philadelphia; these latter are seldom visited by thearistocratical portion of the citizens. 

The National Theatre at New York was originally built as an opera house, and the company procured from the Havannah; but the opera, from want ofsupport, was a failure. It has since been taken by Mr James Wallack, in opposition to the Park Theatre. The two first seasons its successwas indifferent; the Park having the advantage in situation, as well asof a long-standing reputation. But, latterly, from the well-knowntalent and superior management of Mr Wallack, and from his unweariedexertions in providing novelties for the American public, it has beenvery successful; so much so, that it is said this last year to havedecidedly obtained the superiority over its rival. I have seen somesplendid representations in the National Theatre, with a propriety inscenery and costume which is seldom exceeded even in our great theatres. 

Indeed, in three seasons, Mr Wallack has done much to improve thenational taste; and from his exertions, the theatres in general inAmerica may be said to have been much benefited. But there is oneobjection to this rivalry between the Park and National; which is, thatthe _stars_ go out too fast, and they will soon be all expended. Formerly things went on very regularly: Mr Price sent out to MrSimpson, duly invoiced, a certain portion of talent for every season;and Mr Simpson, who is a very clever manager, first worked it up at NewYork, and then dispatched it to Boston, Philadelphia, and the othertheatres in the Union. But, now, if Mr Simpson has two stars sent tohim, James Wallack comes home, and takes out three; whereupon, Mr Pricesends out a bigger star; and so they go on; working up the stars sofast, that the supply will never equal the demand. There are not morethan two or three actors of eminence in England, who have not alreadymade their appearance on the American boards; and next season willprobably use them up. It is true, that some actors can return thereagain and again; as Power, who is most deservedly a favourite with them, and Ellen Tree, who is equally so. Celeste has realised a largefortune. Mrs Wood, and the Keeleys, were also very great favourites;but there are not many actors who can venture there a second time; atleast, not until a certain interval has elapsed for the Americans toforget them. When there are no longer any stars, the theatres will notbe so well attended; as, indeed, is the case every where. To prove howfond the Americans are of anything that excites them, I will mention arepresentation which I one day went to see--that of the "InfernalRegions. " There were two or three of these shewn in the differentcities in the States. I saw the remnants of another, myself; but, asthe museum-keeper very appropriately observed to me, "It was a finething once, but now it had all gone to hell. " You entered a dark room;where, railed off with iron railings, you beheld a long perspective ofcaverns in the interior of the earth, and a molten lake in the distance. In the foreground were the most horrible monsters that could beinvented--bears with men's heads, growling--snakes darting in and out, hissing--here a man lying murdered, with a knife in his heart; there--asuicide, hanging by the neck--skeletons lying about in all directions, and some walking up and down in muslin shrouds. The machinery was veryperfect. At one side was the figure of a man sitting down, with ahorrible face; boar's tusks protruding from his mouth, his eyes rolling, and horns on his head; I thought it was mechanism as well as the rest;and was not a little surprised when it addressed me in a hollow voice:"We've been waiting some time for you, captain. " As I found he had atongue, I entered into conversation with him. The representation woundup with showers of fire, rattling of bones, thunder, screams, and aregular cascade of the d---d, pouring into the molten lake. When it wasfirst shewn, they had an electric battery communicating with the ironrailing; and whoever put his hand on it, or went too near, received asmart electric shock. But the alarm created by this addition was foundto be attended with serious consequences, and it had been discontinued. 

The love of excitement must of course produce a love of gambling, whichmay be considered as one of the American amusements: it is, however, carried on very quietly in the cities. In the South, and on theMississippi, it is as open as the noon day; and the gamblers may be saidto have there become a professional people. I have already mentionedthem, and the attempts which have been made to get rid of them. Indeed, they are not only gamesters who practice on the unwary, but they combinewith gambling the professions of forgery, and uttering of base money. If they lose, they only lose forged notes. There is no part of theworld where forgery is carried on to such an extent as it is in theUnited States; chiefly in the Western country. The American banks areparticularly careful to guard against this evil, but the ingenuity ofthese miscreants is surprising, and they will imitate so closely asalmost to escape detection at the banks themselves. Bank-note engravingis certainly carried to the highest state of perfection in the UnitedStates, but almost in vain. I have myself read a notice, posted up atBoston, which may appear strange to us. "Bank notes made here to anypattern. " But the Eastern banks are seldom forged upon. Counterfeitmoney is also very plentiful. When I was in the West, I had occasion topay a few dollars to a friend: when I saw him a day or two afterwards, he said to me, "Do you know that three dollars you gave me werecounterfeits?" I apologised, and offered to replace them, "Oh! no, "replied he; "it's of no consequence. I gave them in payment to mypeople, who told me that they _were_ counterfeit; but they said it wasof no consequence, as they could easily pass them. " In some of theStates lotteries have been abolished, in others they are stillpermitted. They are upon the French principle, and are very popular. 

There is one very remarkable point in the American character, which is, that they constantly change their professions. I know not whether itproceeds simply from their love of change, or from their embracingprofessions at so early a period, that they have not discovered the linein which from natural talents they are best calculated to succeed. Ihave heard it said, that it is seldom that an American succeeds in theprofession which he had first taken up at the commencement of hiscareer. An American will set up as a lawyer; quit, and go to sea for ayear or two; come back, set up in another profession; get tired again, go as clerk or steward in a steam-boat, merely because he wishes totravel; then apply himself to something else, and begin to amass money. It is of very little consequence what he does, the American is really ajack of all trades, and master of any to which he feels at last inclinedto apply himself. 

In Mrs Butler's clever journal there is one remark which reallysurprised me. She says, "The absolute absence of imagination is ofcourse the absolute absence of humour. An American can no moreunderstand a fanciful jest than a poetical idea; and in society andconversation the _strictest matter of fact_ prevails, " etcetera. 

If there was nothing but "_matter of fact_" in society and conversationin America or elsewhere, I imagine that there would not be many wordsused: but I refer to the passage, because she says that the Americansare not imaginative; whereas, I think that there is not a moreimaginative people existing. It is true that they prefer broad humour, and delight in the hyperbole, but this is to be expected in a youngnation; especially as their education is, generally speaking, not of akind to make them sensible to very refined wit, which, I acknowledge, isthrown away upon the majority. What is termed the under current ofhumour, as delicate raillery, for instance, is certainly not understood. When they read Sam Slick, they did not perceive that the author waslaughing at them; and the letters of Major Jack Downing are much moreappreciated in this country than they are in America. But as for sayingthat they are not imaginative, is a great error, and I have no doubtthat Mrs B has discovered it by this time. 

Miss Martineau says, and very truly, "The Americans appear to me aneminently imaginative people. " Indeed, it is only necessary to read thenewspapers to be convinced it is the case. The hyperbole is theirprincipal forte, but what is lying but imagination? and why do you findthat a child of promising talent is so prone to lying? because it is thefirst effort of a strong imagination. Wit requires refinement, whichthe Americans have not; but they have excessive humour, although it isgenerally speaking coarse. 

An American, talking of an ugly woman with a very large mouth, said tome, "Why, sir, when she yawns, you can see right down to her garters;"and another, speaking of his being very sea-sick, declared, "That hethrew every thing up, down to his knee-pans. "

If there required any proof of the dishonest feeling so prevalent in theUnited States arising from the desire of gain, it would be in the fact, that almost every good story which you hear of an American is aninstance of great ingenuity, and very little principle. So many havebeen told already, that I hesitate to illustrate my observation, fromfear of being accused of uttering stale jokes. Nevertheless I willventure upon one or two. 

"An American (Down East, of course), when his father died, found hispatrimony to consist of several hundred dozen of boxes of ointment forthe cure of a certain complaint, said (by us) to be more common in theNorth than in England. He made up his pack, and took a round of nearlya hundred miles, going from town to town and from village to village, offering his remedy for sale. But unfortunately for him no one wasafflicted with the complaint, and they would not purchase on the chanceof any future occasion for it. He returned back to his inn, and havingreflected a little, he went out, inquired where he could find thedisease, and having succeeded, inoculated himself with it. When he wasconvinced that he had it with sufficient virulence, he again set forthmaking the same round; and taking advantage of the American custom whichis so prevalent, he shook hands with everybody whom he had spoken to onhis former visit, declaring he was `'tarnal glad to see them again. 'Thus he went on till his circuit was completed, when he repaired to thefirst town again, and found that his ointment, as he expected, was nowin great request; and he continued his route as before, selling everybox that he possessed. "

There is a story of a Yankee clock-maker's ingenuity, that I have notseen in print. He also "made a circuit, having a hundred clocks when hestarted; they were all very bad, which he well knew; but by `soft sawderand human natur, ' as Sam Slick says, he contrived to sell ninety-nine ofthem, and reserve the last for his intended `_ruse_. ' He went to thehouse where he had sold the first clock, and said, `Well, now, how doesyour clock go? very well, I guess. ' The answer was as he anticipated, `No, very bad. ' `Indeed! Well, now, I've found it out at last. Yousee, I had one clock which was I know a bad one, and I said to my boy, "you'll put that clock aside, for it won't do to sell such an article. "Well, the boy didn't mind, and left the clock with the others; and Ifound out afterwards that it had been sold somewhere. Mighty mad I was, I can tell you, for I'm not a little particular about my credit; so Ihave asked here and there, everywhere almost, how my clocks went, andthey all said that "they actually regulated the sun. " But I wasdetermined to find out who had the bad clock, and I am most particularglad that I have done it at last. Now, you see I have but one clockleft, a very superior article, worth a matter of ten dollars more thanthe others, and I must give it you in change, and I'll only charge youfive dollars difference, as you have been annoyed with the bad article. 'The man who had the bad clock thought it better to pay five dollarsmore to have a good one; so the exchange was made, and then the Yankee, proceeding with the clock, returned to the next house. `Well, now, howdoes your clock go? very well, I guess. ' The same answer--the samestory repeated--and another five dollars received in exchange. And thusdid he go round, exchanging clock for clock, until he had received anextra five dollars for every one which he had sold. "

Logic. --"A Yankee went into the bar of an inn in a country town: `Praywhat's the price of a pint of shrub?' `Half a dollar, ' was the reply ofthe man at the bar. `Well, then, give it me. ' The shrub was pouredout, when the bell rang for dinner. `Is that your dinner-bell?' `Yes. '`What may you charge for dinner?' `Half a dollar. ' `Well, then, Ithink I had better not take the shrub, but have some dinner instead. 'This was consented to. The Yankee went in, sat down to his dinner, andwhen it was over, was going out of the door without paying. `Massa, 'said the negro waiter, `you not paid for your dinner. ' `I know that; Itook the dinner instead of the shrub. ' `But, massa, you not pay for theshrub. ' `Well, I did not have the shrub, did I, you nigger?' said theYankee, walking away. The negro scratched his head; he knew thatsomething was wrong, as he had got no money; but he could not make itout till the Yankee was out of sight. "

I do not think that _democracy_ is marked upon the features of the lowerclasses in the United States; there is no arrogant bearing in them, asmight be supposed from the despotism of the majority; on the contrary, Ishould say that their lower classes are much more civil than our own. Ihad a _slap_ of equality on my first landing at New York. I had hired atruck-man to take up my luggage from the wharf; I went a-head, andmissed him when I came to the corner of the street where I had engagedapartments, and was looking round for him in one direction, when I wassaluted with a slap on the shoulder, which was certainly given withgood-will. I turned, and beheld my carman, who had taken the liberty todraw my attention in this forcible manner. He was a man of few words;he pointed to his truck where it stood with the baggage, and then wenton. 

This civil bearing is peculiar, as when they are excited by politics, orother causes, they are most insolent and overbearing. In his usualdemeanour, the citizen born is quiet and obliging. The insolence youmeet with is chiefly from the emigrant classes. I have before observed, that the Americans are a good-tempered people; and to this good temper Iascribe their civil bearing. But why are they good-tempered? Itappears to me to be one of the few virtues springing from democracy. When the grades of society are distinct, as they are in the olderinstitutions, when difference of rank is acknowledged and submitted towithout murmur, it is evident that if people are obliged to controltheir tempers in presence of their superiors or equals, they can alsoyield to them with their inferiors; and it is this yielding to ourtempers which enables them to master us. But under institutions whereall are equal, where no one admits the superiority of another, even ifhe really be so, where the man with the spade in his hand will beard themillionaire, and where you are compelled to submit to the caprice andinsolence of a domestic, or lose his services, it is evident that everyman must from boyhood have learnt to control his temper, as noebullition will be submitted to, or unfollowed by its consequences. Iconsider that it is this habitual control, forced upon the Americans bythe nature of their institutions, which occasions them to be sogood-tempered, when not in a state of excitement. The Americans are inone point, as a mob, very much like the English; make them laugh, andthey forget all their animosity immediately. 

One of the most singular points about the lower classes in America is, that they will call themselves ladies and gentlemen, and yet refusetheir titles to their superiors. Miss Martineau mentions onecircumstance, of which I very often met with similar instances. "I oncewas with a gentleman who was building a large house; he went to see howthe men were getting on; but they had all disappeared but one. `Whereare the people?' inquired he. `The _gentlemen_ be all gone to_liquor_, ' was the reply. "

I bought one of the small newspapers just as I was setting off in asteam-boat from New York to Albany. The boy had no change, and went tofetch it. He did not come back himself, but another party made hisappearance. "Are you the _man_ who bought the newspaper?" "Yes, "replied I. "The _young gentleman_ who sold it to you has sent me to payyou four cents. "

A gentleman was travelling with his wife, they had stopped at an inn, and during the gentleman's momentary absence the lady was taken ill. The lady wishing for her husband, a man very good-naturedly went to findhim, and when he had succeeded he addressed him, "I say, Mister, your_woman_ wants you; but I telled the _young lady of the house_ to fetchher a glass of water. "

There was no insolence intended in this; it is a peculiarity to beaccounted for by their love of title and distinction. 

It is singular to observe human nature peeping out in the Americans, andhow tacitly they acknowledge by their conduct how uncomfortable afeeling there is in perfect equality. The respect they pay to a titleis much greater than that which is paid to it in England; and naturallyso; we set a higher value upon that which we cannot obtain. I have beenoften amused at the variance on this point between their words and theirfeelings, which is shewn in their eagerness for rank of some sort amongthemselves. Every man who has served in the militia carries his titleuntil the day of his death. There is no end to generals, and colonels, and judges; they keep taverns and grog shops, especially in the WesternState; indeed, there are very few who have not brevet rank of some kind;and I being only a captain, was looked upon as a very small personage, as far as rank went. An Englishman, who was living in the State of NewYork, had sent to have the chimney of his house raised. The morningafterwards he saw a labourer mixing mortar before the door. "Well, "said the Englishman, "when is the chimney to be finished?" "I'm sure Idon't know, you had better ask the colonel. " "The colonel? Whatcolonel?" "Why, I reckon that's the colonel upon the top of the house, working away at the chimney. "

After all, this fondness for rank, even in a democracy, is very natural, and the Americans have a precedent for it. His Satanic Majesty was thefirst democrat in heaven, but as soon as he was dismissed to his abodebelow, if Milton be correct, he assumed his title. 

VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER SIX. 

ARISTOCRACY. 

If the Americans should imagine that I have any pleasure in writing thecontents of this chapter they will be mistaken; I have considered wellthe duty of and pondered over it. I would not libel an individual, muchless a whole nation; but I must speak the truth, and upon dueexamination, and calling to my mind all that I have collected fromobservation and otherwise, I consider that at this present time thestandard of morality is lower in America than in any other portion ofthe civilised globe. I say at this present time, for it was not so eventwenty years ago, and possibly may not be so twenty years hence. Thereis a change constantly going on in every thing below, and I believe, formany reasons, that a change for the better will soon take place inAmerica. There are even now many thousands of virtuous, honourable, andenlightened people in the United States, but at present virtue ispassive, while vice is active. 

The Americans possess courage, presence of mind, perseverance, andenergy, but these may be considered rather as endowments than asvirtues. They are propelling powers which will advance them as apeople, and, were they regulated and tempered by religious and moralfeeling, would make them great and good, but without these adjuncts theycan only become great and vicious. 

I have observed in my preface that the virtues and vices of a nation areto be traced to the form of government, the climate, and circumstances, and it will be easy to shew that to the above may be ascribed much ofthe merit as well as the demerits of the people of the United States. 

In the first place, I consider the example set by the government as mostinjurious: as I shall hereafter prove, it is insatiable in its ambition, regardless of its faith, and corrupt to the highest degree. Thisexample I consider as the first cause of the demoralisation of theAmericans. The errors incident to the voluntary system of religion arethe second: the power of the clergy is destroyed, and the tyranny of thelaity has produced the effect of the outward form having beensubstituted for the real feeling, and hypocrisy has been but too oftensubstituted for religion. 

To the evil of bad example from the government is superadded the naturaltendency of a democratic form of government, to excite ambition withouthaving the power to gratify it morally or virtuously; and the debasinginfluence of the pursuit of gain is everywhere apparent. It shewsitself in the fact that money is in America everything, and everythingelse nothing; it is the only sure possession, for character can at anytime be taken from you, and therefore becomes less valuable than inother countries, except so far as mercantile transactions are concerned. Mr Cooper says--not once, but many times--that in America all thelocal affections, indeed everything, is sacrificed to the spirit ofgain. Dr Charming constantly laments it, and he very truly asserts, "Apeople that deems the possession of riches its highest source ofdistinction, admits one of the most degrading of all influences topreside over its opinions. At no time should money be ever ranked asmore than a means, and he who lives as if the acquisition of propertywere the sole end of his existence, betrays the dominion of the mostsordid, base, and grovelling motive that life offers;" and ascribing itto the institutions, he says, "In one respect our institutions have_disappointed us all_: they have not wrought out for us that elevationof character which is the most precious, and, in truth, the onlysubstantial blessing of liberty. "

I have before observed, that whatever society permits, men will do andnot consider to be wrong, and if the government considers a breach oftrust towards it as not of any importance, and defaulters are permittedto escape, it will of course become no crime in the eyes of themajority. Mr Cooper observes, "An evident _dishonesty_ of sentimentpervades the _public_ itself, which is beginning to regard acts ofprivate delinquency with a dangerous indifference; acts too that areinseparably connected with the character, security, and rightadministration of the state. "

Such is unfortunately the case at present; it may be said to havecommenced with the Jackson dynasty, and it is but a few years since thisdreadful demoralisation has become so apparent and so shamelesslyavowed. In another work the American author above quoted observes, --"Wesee the effects of this baneful influence in the openness and audacitywith which men avow improper motives and improper acts, trusting to findsupport in a popular feeling, for while vicious influences are perhapsmore admitted in other countries than in America, in none are they soopenly avowed. " Surely there is sufficient of American authority tosatisfy any reader that I am not guilty of exaggeration in my remarks. Nor am I the only traveller who has observed upon what is indeed mostevident and palpable. Captain Hamilton says, "I have heard conductpraised in conversation at a public table, which, in England, would beattended, if not with a voyage to Botany Bay, at least with total lossof character. It is impossible to pass an hour in the bar of the hotel, without struck with the tone of callous selfishness which pervades theconversation, and the absence of all pretension to pure and loftyprinciple. "

It may indeed be fairly said, that nothing is disgraceful with themajority in America, which the law cannot lay hold of. [See Note 1. ]You are either in or out of the Penitentiary: if once in, you are lostfor ever, but keep out and you are as good as your neighbour. Now onething is certain, that where honesty is absolutely necessary, honesty isto be found, as for example among the New York merchants, who are, as abody, highly honourable men. When, therefore, the Americans will havemoral courage sufficient to drive away vice, and not allow virtue to bein bondage, as she at present is, the morals of society will beinstantly restored--and how and when will this be effected? I have saidthat the people of time United States, at the time of the Declaration ofIndependence, were perhaps the most moral people existing, and I nowassert that they are the least so; to what cause can this change beascribed? Certainly not wholly to the spirit of gain, for it existsevery where, although perhaps nowhere so strongly developed as it isunder a form of government which admits of no other claim tosuperiority. I consider that it arises from the total extinction, or ifnot extinction absolute bondage, of the aristocracy of the country, bothpolitically as well as socially. There was an aristocracy at the timeof the Independence--not an aristocracy of title, but a much superiorone; an aristocracy of great, powerful, and leading men, who were lookedup to and imitated; there was, politically speaking, an aristocracy inthe senate which was elected by those who were then independent of thepopular will; but although a portion of it remains, it may be said tohave been almost altogether smothered, and in society it no longerexists. It is the want of this aristocracy that has so lowered thestandard of morals in America, and it is the revival of it that mustrestore to the people of the United States the morality they have lost. The loss of the aristocracy has sunk the Republic into a democracy--therenewal of it will again restore them to their former condition. Letnot the Americans start at this idea. An aristocracy is not only notincompatible, but absolutely necessary for the duration of a democraticform of government. It is the third estate, so necessary to preservethe balance of power between the executive and the people, and which hasunfortunately disappeared. An aristocracy is as necessary for themorals as for the government of a nation. Society must have a head tolead it, and without that head there will be no fixed standard ofmorality, and things must remain in the chaotic state in which they areat present. 

Some author has described the English nation as resembling their ownbeer-froth at the top, dregs at the bottom, and in the middle excellent. There is point in this observation, and it has been received withoutcriticism, and quoted without contradiction: but it is in itself false;it may be said that the facts are directly the reverse, there being moremorality among the lower class than in the middling, and still more inthe higher than in the lower. We have been designated as a nation ofshopkeepers, a term certainly more applicable to the Americans, whereall are engaged in commerce and the pursuit of gain, and who have nodistinctions or hereditary titles. Trade demoralises; there are so manypetty arts and frauds necessary to be resorted to by every class intrade, to enable them to compete with each other; so many lies told, asa matter of business, to tempt a purchaser, that almost insensibly andby degrees the shopkeeper becomes dishonest. These demoralisingpractices must be resorted to, even by those who would fain avoid them, or they have no chance of competing with their rivals in business. Itis not the honest tradesman who makes a rapid fortune; indeed, it isdoubtful whether he could carry on his business; and yet, from assuetudeand not being taxed with dishonesty, the shopkeeper scarcely ever feelsthat he is dishonest. Now, this is the worst state of demoralisation, where you are blind to your errors and conscience is never awakened, andin this state may be considered, with few exceptions, every class oftraders, whether in England, America, or elsewhere. 

Among the lower classes, the morals of the manufacturing districts, andof the frequenters of cities, will naturally be at a low ebb, for menwhen closely packed demoralise each other; but if we examine theagricultural classes, which are by far the most numerous, we shall findthat there is much virtue and goodness in the humble cottage; we shallthere find piety and resignation, honesty, industry, and content, moreuniversal than would be imagined, and the Bible pored over, instead ofthe day-book or ledger. 

But it is by the higher classes of the English nation, by the nobilityand gentry of England, that the high tone of virtue and morality isupheld. Foreigners, especially Americans, are too continually pointingout, and with evident satisfaction, the scandal arising from the conductof some few individuals in these classes as a proof of the conduct ofthe whole; but they mistake the exceptions for the rule. If they wereto pay attention, they would perceive that these accusations are onlyconfined to some few out of a class comprehending many many thousands inour wealthy isle, and that the very circumstance of their rank being noshield against the attacks made upon them, is a proof that they areexceptions, whose conduct is universally held up to public ridicule orindignation. A _crim. Con_. In English high life is exulted over by theAmericans; they point to it, and exclaim, "See what your aristocracyare!" forgetting that the crime is committed by one out of thousands, and that it meets with the disgrace which it deserves, and that thiscrime is, to a certain degree, encouraged by our laws relative todivorce. Do the Americans imagine that there is no _crim. Con_. Perpetrated in the United States? many instances of suspicion, and someof actual discovery, came to my knowledge even during my short residencethere, but they were invariably, and perhaps judiciously, hushed up, forthe sake of the families and the national credit. I do not wish, norwould it be possible, to draw any parallel between the two nations onthis point; I shall only observe that in England we have not consideredthe vice to have become so prevalent as to think it necessary to formsocieties for the prevention of it, as they have done in the UnitedStates. 

It has been acknowledged by other nations, and I believe it to be true, that the nobility and gentry of England are the most moral, mostreligious, and most honourable classes that can be found not only in ourcountry, but in any other country in the world, and such they certainlyought from _circumstances_ to be. 

Possessed of competence, they have no incentives to behave dishonestly. They are well-educated, the finest race of men and women that can beproduced, and the men are brought up to athletic and healthy amusements. They have to support the honour of an ancient family, and to hand downthe name untarnished to their posterity. They have every inducement tonoble deeds, and are, generally speaking, above the necessities whichinduce men to go wrong. If the Americans would assert that luxuryproduces vice, I can only say that luxury infers idleness andinactivity, and on this point the women of the aristocracy in thiscountry have the advantage over the American women, who cannot, from thepeculiarity of the climate, take time exercise so universally resortedto by our higher classes. I admit that some go wrong, but is errorconfined to the nobility alone; are there no spendthrifts, no dissoluteyoung men, or ill brought up young women, among other classes? Arethere none in America? Moreover, there are some descriptions of vicewhich are meaner than others and more debasing to the mind, and it isamong the middling and lower classes that these vices are principally tobe found. 

The higher classes invariably take the lead, and give the tone tosociety. If the court be moral, so are the morals of the nationimproved by example, as in the time of George the Third. If the courtbe dissolute, as in the time of Charles the Second, the nation willplunge into vice. Now, in America there is no one to take the lead;morals, like religion, are the concern of nobody, and therefore it isthat the standard of morality is so low. I have heard it argued thatallowing one party to have a very low standard of morality and to act upto that standard, and another to have a high standard of morality andnot to act up to it, that the former is the really moral man, as he doesact up to his principles such as they are. This may hold good when weexamine into the virtues and vices of nations: that the American Indianwho acts up to his own code and belief, both in morality and religion, may be more worthy than a Christian who neglects his duty, may be true;but the question now is upon the respective morality of two enlightenednations, both Christian and having the Bible as their guide--betweenthose who have neither of them any pretence to lower the standard ofmorality, as they both know better. M. Tocqueville observes, speakingof the difference between aristocratical and democraticalgovernments--"In aristocratic governments the individuals who are placedat the head of affairs are rich men, who are solely desirous of power. In democracies statesmen are poor, and they have their fortunes to make. The consequence is, that in aristocratic States the rulers are rarelyaccessible to corruption, and have very little craving for money; whilstthe reverse is the case in democratic nations. "

This is true, and may be fairly applied to the American democracy: aslong as you will not allow the good and enlightened to rule, you will begoverned by those who will flatter and cheat you, and demoralisesociety. When you allow _your_ aristocracy to take the reins, you willbe better governed, and your morals will improve by example. What isthe situation of America at present? the aristocracy of the country areeither in retirement or have migrated, and if the power of the majorityshould continue as it now does its despotic rule, you will have stillfarther emigration. At present there are many hundreds of Americans whohave retired to the Old Continent, that they may receive that return fortheir wealth which they cannot in their own country; and if notflattered, they are at least not insulted and degraded. 

Mr Sanderson, in his "Sketches from Paris, " says--"The American societyat Paris, taken altogether, is of a good composition. It consists ofseveral hundred persons, of families of fortune, and young men ofliberal instruction. Here are lords of cotton from Carolina, and ofsugar-cane from the Mississippi, _millionaires_ from all the Canadas, and pursers from all the navies; and their social qualities, from asense of mutual dependence or partnership in absence, or some suchcauses, are more active abroad than at home. 

"They form a little republic apart, and when a stranger arrives he findshimself at home; he finds himself also under the censorial inspection ofa public opinion, a salutary restraint not always the luck of those whotravel into foreign countries. One thing only is to be blamed: itbecomes every day more the fashion for the _elite_ of our cities tosettle themselves here _permanently_. We cannot but deplore thisexportation of the precious metals, since our country is drained of whatthe supply is not too abundant. They who have resided here a few years, having fortune and leisure, do not choose, as I perceive, to resideanywhere else. "

This is the fact; and as the wealth of America increases every day, sowill those who possess it swarm off as fast as they can to othercountries, if there is not a change in the present society, and a returnto something like order and rank. Who would remain in a country wherethere is no freedom of thought or action, and where you cannot evenspend your money as you please? Mr Butler the other day built a houseat Philadelphia with a _porte-cochere_, and the consequence was thatthey called him an aristocrat, and would not vote for him. In short, will enlightened and refined people live to be dictated to by a savageand ignorant majority, who will neither allow your character nor yourdomestic privacy to be safe!

The Americans, in their fear of their institutions giving way, and theircareful guard against any encroachments upon the liberty of the people, have fallen into the error of sacrificing the most virtuous portion ofthe community, and driving a large portion of them out of the country. This will eventually be found to be a serious evil; absenteeism willdaily increase, and will be as sorely felt as it is in Ireland at thepresent hour. The Americans used to tell me with exultation, that theynever could have an Aristocracy in their country, from the law of entailhaving been abolished. They often asserted, and with some truth, thatin that country property never accumulated beyond two generations, andthat the grandson of a _millionaire_ was _invariably_ a pauper. Thisthey ascribe to the working of their institutions, and argue that itwill always be impossible for any family to be raised above the mass bya descent of property. Now the very circumstance of this having beeninvariably the case, induces me to look for the real cause of it, asthere is none to be found in their institutions why all the grandsons of_millionaires_ should be paupers. It is not owing to theirinstitutions, but to moral causes, which, although they have existeduntil now, will not exist for ever. In the principal and wealthiestcities in the Union, it is difficult to spend more than twelve orfifteen thousand dollars per annum, as with such an expenditure you areon a par with the highest, and you can be no more. What is theconsequence? a young American succeeds to fifty or sixty thousanddollars a year, the surplus is useless to him; there is no one to viewith--no one who can reciprocate--he must stand alone. He naturallyfeels careless about what he finds to be of no use to him. Again, allhis friends and acquaintances are actively employed during the whole ofthe day in their several occupations; he is a man of leisure, and musteither remain alone or associate with other men of leisure; and who arethe majority of men of leisure in the towns of the United States?Blacklegs of genteel exterior and fashionable appearance, with whom heassociates, into whose snares he falls, and to whom he eventually losesproperty about which he is indifferent. To be an idle man when everybody else is busy, is not only a great unhappiness, but a situation ofgreat peril. Had the sons of _millionaires_, who remained in the Statesand left their children paupers, come over to the old Continent, as manyhave done, they would have stood a better chance of retaining theirproperty. 

All I can say is, that if they cannot have an aristocracy, the worse forthem; I am not of the opinion, that they will not have one, althoughthey are supported by the strong authority of M. Tocqueville, whosays--"I do not think a single people can be quoted, since human societybegan to exist, which has, by its own free-will and by its ownexertions, created an aristocracy within its own bosom. All thearistocracies of the Middle Ages were founded by military conquest: theconqueror was the noble, the vanquished became the serf. Inequality wasthen imposed by force; and after it had been introduced into the mannersof the country, it maintained its own authority, and was sanctioned bythe legislation. Communities have existed which were aristocratic fromtheir earliest origin, owing to circumstances anterior to that event, and which became more democratic in each succeeding age. Such was thedestiny of the Romans, and of the barbarians after them. But a people, having taken its rise in civilisation and democracy, which shouldgradually establish an inequality of conditions, until it arrived atinviolable privileges and exclusive castes, would be a novelty in theworld and nothing intimates that America is likely to furnish sosingular an example. "

I grant that no single people has by its own free-will created anaristocracy, but circumstances will make one in spite of the people; andif there is no aristocracy who have power to check, a despotism may bethe evil arising from the want of it. At present America is thinlypeopled, but let them look forward to the time when the population shallbecome denser; what will then be the effect? why a division between therich and the poor will naturally take place; and what is that but thefoundation if not the formation of an aristocracy. An American cannotentail his estate, but he can leave the whole of it to his eldest son ifhe pleases; and in a few years, the lands which have been purchased fora trifle, will become the foundation of noble fortunes [see Note 2] buteven now their law of non-entail does not work as they would wish. 

M. Tocqueville says--"The laws of the United States are extremelyfavourable to the division of property; but a cause which is morepowerful than the laws prevents property from being divided to excess. [See Note 3. ] This is very perceptible in the States which are beginningto be thickly peopled; Massachusetts is the most populous part of theUnion, but it contains only eighty inhabitants to the square mile, whichis much less than in France, where a hundred and sixty-two are reckonedto the same extent of country. But in Massachusetts estates are veryrarely divided; the eldest son takes the land, and the others go to seektheir fortune in the desert. The law has abolished the rights ofprimogeniture, but circumstances have concurred to re-establish it undera form of which none can complain, and by which no just rights areimpaired. "

And Chancellor Kent, in his "Treatise upon American Law, " observes--"Itcannot be doubted that the division of landed estates must produce greatevils when it is carried to such excess as that each parcel of land isinsufficient to support a family but these disadvantages have never beenfelt in the United States, and _many generations must elapse_ beforethey can be felt. The extent of our inhabited territory, the abundanceof adjacent land, and the continual stream of emigration flowing fromthe shores of the Atlantic towards the interior of the country, sufficeas yet, and will long suffice, to _prevent_ the parcelling out ofestates. "

There is, therefore, no want of preparation for an aristocracy inAmerica, and, although at present the rich are so much in the minoritythat they cannot coalesce, such will not be the case, perhaps, in twentyor thirty years; they have but to rally and make a stand when theybecome more numerous and powerful, and they have every chance ofsuccess. The fact is that an aristocracy is absolutely necessary forAmerica, both politically and morally, if the Americans wish theirinstitutions to hold together, for if some stop is not put to therapidly advancing power of the people, anarchy must be the result. I donot mean an aristocracy of title; I mean such an aristocracy of talentand power which wealth will give--an aristocracy which shall leadsociety and purify it. How is this to be obtained in a democracy?--simply by purchase. In a country where the suffrage is confined tocertain classes, as in England, such purchase is not to be obtained, asthe people who have the right of suffrage are not poor enough to bebought; but in a country like America, where the suffrage is universal, the people will eventually sell their birth-right; and if by such meansan aristocratical government is elected, it will be able to amend theconstitution, and pass what laws it pleases. This may appear visionary, but it has been proved already that it can be done, and if it can bedone now, how much more easily will it be accomplished when thepopulation has quadrupled, and the division commences between the richand the poor. I say it has been done already, for it was done at thelast New York election. The democratic party made sure of success: buta large sum of money was brought into play, and the whole of the_committees_ of the democratic party were bought over, and the Whigscarried the day. 

The greatest security for the duration of the present institutions ofthe United States is the establishment of an aristocracy. It is thethird power which was intended to act, but which has been destroyed andis now wanting. Let the senate be aristocratical--let the congress bepartially so, and then what would be the American government ofpresident, senate, and congress, but _mutato nomine_, king, lords, andcommons?

I cannot perhaps find a better opportunity than here of pointing outwhat ought to be made known to the English, as it has done more harm tothe American aristocracy than may be imagined. I refer to thecarelessness and facility with which letters of introduction to thiscountry are given, and particularly by the American authorities. I havedrawn the character of Bennett, the editor of the Morning Herald of NewYork, and there is not a respectable American but will acknowledge thatmy sketch of him is correct; will it not surprise the English readerswhen I inform them that this man obtained admittance to Westminster Hallat the Coronation, and was seated among the proudest and purest of ournobility!! Such was the fact. But it will be as well to revert back alittle to what has passed. 

During the time that England was at war with nearly the whole of Europe, the Americans were to a great degree isolated and unknown, except ascarriers of merchandise under the neutral flag; but they were rapidlyadvancing in importance and wealth. At the conclusion of the lastAmerican war, during which, by their resolute and occasionallysuccessful struggles, they had drawn the eyes of Europe towards them, and had advanced many degrees in the general estimation of theirimportance as a nation, the Americans occasionally made their appearanceas travellers, both on the Continent and in England; but they found thatthey were not so well received as their own ideas of their importanceinduced them to imagine they were entitled to be; especially on theContinent. 

The first great personage who shewed liberality in this respect, wasGeorge the Fourth. Hearing that some American ladies of good family hadcomplained that, having no titles, no standing in society, they did notmeet with that civility to which, from descent and education, they wereentitled, he received them at Court most graciously, and those veryladies are now classed among the peeresses of Great Britain. Still thedifficulty remained, as it was almost impossible for the aristocracy, abroad or at home, to ascertain the justness of the claims which weremade by those of a nation who professed the equality of all classes, andof whom many of the pretenders to be well received did not by theirappearance warrant the supposition that their claims were valid. Itbeing impossible to give any other rank but that of office, the AmericanGovernment hit upon a plan which was attended with very evilconsequences. They granted supernumerary attache-ships to thoseAmericans who wished to travel; and as, on the Old Continent, the verycircumstance of being an _attache_ to a foreign minister warranted therespectability of the party, those who obtained this distinction werewell received, and, unfortunately, sometimes did no credit to theirappointments. The fact was that these favours were granted withoutdiscrimination, and all who received them being put down as specimens ofAmerican gentlemen, the character of the Americans lost ground by thevery efforts made to establish it. The true American gentlemen whotravelled (and there is no lack of them) were supposed to be English, while the spurious were put down as samples of the gentility of theUnited States. 

That the principles of equality were one great cause of theindiscriminate distribution of those marks of distinction by the highestquarters in the Union, and of the facility of obtaining letters ofrecommendation from them there is no doubt; but the principal and stillexisting causes, are the extended and domineering power of the press, and the high state of excitement of the political parties. Those inpower are positively afraid to refuse literary men, or those who haveassisted them in their political career; they have not the moral courageto do so, however undeserving the parties may really be. But, as isgenerally the case, they really do not know the parties; it issufficient that the favour, considered trifling, is demanded, and it isinstantly granted. Now, as at the accession of General Jackson, and thesubsequent raising of Mr Van Buren to the presidency, the democratical, or Loco Foco party came into power, it is to their friends andsupporters, the least respectable portion of the American community, towhom these favours have been granted; which of course has not assistedthe claims of the Americans to respectability. An instance of this sortoccurred to me after I had been a few months in America. One of themost gentleman-like and well-informed men in New York, requested that Iwould give a letter of introduction to a friend of his who was going toEngland. Taking it for granted that such a request would not be madewithout the party deserving the recommendation, I immediately assented. The party who obtained my letters (an editor of a paper, as I afterwardsdiscovered), on his arrival in England, considering that he was nottreated with that attention to which, in his own vain-gloriousness, hethought himself entitled, actually sent a hostile letter to one of thegentlemen to whom he had been introduced, and otherwise proved himselfby his conduct to be a most improper person. I was informed of this byletters from England; and immediately went to the gentleman who hadrequested the introduction from me, and stated the conduct of the party. "I really am very sorry, " said he, "but _I_ knew nothing of him. ""Knew nothing of him?" replied I. "No, indeed; but my friend Mr C, ofPhiladelphia, introduced him by letter, and requested me to ask forintroductions for him. " "Then you will oblige me by writing to yourfriend Mr C, and ask him why he did so, as I find myself very muchcompromised by this affair. " He wrote to Mr C, of Philadelphia, whoreplied that he was very sorry, but that really _he_ knew nothing ofhim. He had been introduced to him by letter, by Mr O, and that he wasa _staunch supporter_ of their party. Now, how many grades this personhad climbed up by letters of introduction it is impossible to say, butthis is sufficient to prove that letters of introduction which are, youmay say, _demanded_, and not refused from the fear of offending apolitical agent or penny-a-liner, must ever be received with duecaution; and it is equally certain, that those from the Presidenthimself are the most easy to be obtained. 

I have entered freely into this question, as it is important that itshould be known, not only to the English, but to the Americansthemselves. A letter of introduction from a gentleman of Carolina, Virginia, or Boston, I should be infinitely more induced to take noticeof than from the President of the United States, unless the Presidentstated that he was personally acquainted with the party who deliveredit; and I make this statement in _justice_ to the American gentlemen, and not with the slightest wish to check that intercourse which willevery day increase, and, I trust, to the advantage of both nations. Seenote 4. 

Indeed, now that such rapid communication has taken place between thetwo countries, since the Atlantic has been traversed by steam, itbecomes more imperative that these facts should be known. Everyfortnight a hundred and sixty passengers will arrive by the GreatWestern, or some other steamer. Most of them are American citizens, armed with their letters of recommendation, and the situation of theAmerican minister has become one of peculiar difficulty. 

By one steam-packet alone he has had seventy-five people, or families, with letters of introduction to him, mostly obtained by the means whichI have described; and there is not one of these parties who does notexpect as much attention as if the American minister had nothing else todo but to be at his command. They leave their cards with him; if thecards are not returned in two or three days, they send a letter to knowwhy he has not called upon them? and if the visit is returned, send aletter to know whether the minister called _in person_, or _not_? Witha stipend from his own government, quite inadequate to the purpose, heis expected, to the great detriment of his private fortune, to receiveand entertain all these people. I have it from the best authority, thatsome of these parties have called and inquired whether the minister wasat home; being answered in the negative, they have gone into a room, taken a chair, and declared their determination not to leave the houseuntil they had seen him. Most of them expect him to obtain admittancefor them into the Houses of Lords and Commons, and to present them atCourt. In some instances, when the minister has stated the necessity ofa _Court dress_, they have remonstrated, thinking it an expense whollyunnecessary. "They were American _citizens_, and would be introduced assuch; they had nothing to do with Court dresses, and all that nonsense. "And thus, since the steam-vessels have increased the communicationbetween the two countries, has the American minister been in a state ofannoyance, to which it is impossible that he, or any other who may beappointed in his place, can possibly submit. 

Let the Americans understand, that those only go to Court in thiscountry who have claims, as the nobility, the oldest commoners, peoplein office, the army and navy, and other liberal professions. There arethousands of families in England, by descent, fortune, and education, very superior to those of America, who never think of going to Court, being aware that such is not their sphere; and yet every American whocomes over here with four or five introductions in his pocket must, forsooth, be presented. If the minister refuses, why then there is anattack upon him in the American prints, and his name and his supposedmisdemeanors are bandied about from one end of the Union to the other. It is hardly credible to what a state of slavery they would reduce theAmerican representative. One man says, "I understand I can have a Courtdress at a Jew's. " "Yes, you can, I believe. " "Well, now, suppose westep down together; you may _cheapen_ it a bit for me, may be. " Thesefacts are known to the respectable and gentleman-like Americans, who, after the samples which have come over, and have obtained admission intosociety and gone to Court, will not shew themselves, but prefer to stayat home. 

All this is wrong, and a remedy must soon be found, as the evilincreases every day. The Americans cannot take the English Court bystorm, or force us to acknowledge their equality in this country. Thereare but certain classes in this country who have any pretension to bereceived at Court; and unless the Americans can prove that they are bytheir situation, or descent, of a sufficient rank to qualify them to beadmitted, they must be content to be excluded, as the major portion ofour countrymen are. Even an American being a member of Congress doesnot qualify him, although being a member of the Senate certainly_should_. The members of the American Congress are not in the massequal by any means in respectability to the members of the English Houseof Commons; and there have been many members of the English House ofCommons, since the passing of the Reform Bill, who could not, andcannot, gain admittance into society. 

If the harmony and good feeling between the two countries is to continueuninterrupted, and our intercourse to be extended, as there is everyprobability that it will be, it appears to me that there is moreimportance to be attached to this question than at the first view of itmight be supposed. The Americans are more ambitious of birth andaristocracy than any other nation, which is very natural, if it wereonly from the simple fact that we always most desire what is out of ourreach. Since the Americans have come over in such numbers to thiscountry, our Herald's Office has actually been _besieged_ by them, intheir anxiety to take out the arms and achievements of their presumedforefathers; this is also very natural and very proper, although it maybe at variance with their institutions. The determination to have anaristocracy in America gains head every day: a conflict must ensue, whenthe increase of wealth in the country adds sufficiently to the strengthof the party. But some line must be drawn in this country, as to theadmission of Americans to the English Court, or, if not drawn, it willend in a total, and therefore unjust exclusion. As but few of theAmericans can claim any right to aristocracy in their own country fromacknowledged descent, I should not be surprised if in a few years, nowthat the two countries are becoming so intimately connected, a receptionat the English Court of this country be considered as an establishmentof their claim. If so, it will be a curious anomaly in the history of arepublic, that, fifty years after it was established, the republicansshould apply to the mother country whose institutions they had abjured, to obtain from her a patent of superiority, so as to raise themselvesabove that hated equality which, by their own institutions, theyprofess. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. English Capital Invested. --It is but _fair_ to give the Englishwho have invested their money in American securities, some idea of whattheir chance of receiving their principal or receiving their interestmay be. As _long_ as it depends upon the faith of those who havecontracted the debt, their money is safe, but as soon as the power istaken out of their hands, and vested in the majority, they may considertheir money as gone. I will explain this--at present the English havevested their capital in canals, railroads, and other publicimprovements. The returns of these undertakings are at presenthonourably employed in paying interest to the lenders of the capital, and if the returns are not sufficient, more money is borrowed to meetthe demands of the creditor; but there is a certain point at whichcredit fails, and at which no more money can be borrowed; if then nomore money can be borrowed, and the returns of their railroads, canals, and other securities fail off, where is the deficiency to be made good?In this country it would be made good by a tax being imposed upon thepopulation to meet the deficiency, and support the credit of the nation. Here is the question:--will the majority in America consent to betaxed? I say, No--if they do, I shall be surprised, and be most happyto recant, but it is my opinion that they will not, and if so theEnglish capital will be lost; and if the reader will call to mind what Ihave pointed out as to the probable effect of the power of Americaworking to the westward, and the direct importation which in a few yearsmust take place, he will see that there is every prospect of a rapiddecrease in the value of all their securities, and that the onlyultimate chance of their recovering the money is by this countrycompelling payment of it by the Federal Government. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 2. "At the time of the first settlement of the English inVirginia, when land was to be had for little or nothing, some providentpersons having obtained large grants of it, and being desirous ofmaintaining the splendour of their families, entailed their propertyupon their descendants. The transmission of these estates fromgeneration to generation, to men who bore the same name, had the effectof raising up a distinct class of families, who, possessing by law theprivilege of perpetuating their wealth, formed by these means a sort ofpatrician order, distinguished by the grandeur and luxury of theirestablishments. From this order it was that the king usually chose hiscouncillors of state. 

"In the United States, the principal clauses of the English lawrespecting descent have been universally rejected. The first rule thatwe follow, says Mr Kent, touching inheritance, is the following:--If aman dies intestate, his property goes to his heirs in a direct line. Ifhe has but one heir or heiress, he or she succeeds to the whole. Ifthere are several heirs of the same degree, they divide the inheritanceequally amongst them, without distinction of sex. 

"This rule was prescribed for the first time in the State of New York bya statute of the 23rd of February, 1786. (_See Revised Statutes_, volume III, _Appendix_, page 48. ) It has since then been adopted in therevised statutes of the same State. At the present day this law holdsgood throughout the whole of the United States, with the exception ofthe State of Vermont, where the male heir inherits a double portion:Kent's Commentaries, volume IV, page 370. Mr Kent, in the same work, volume IV, pages 1-22, gives an historical account of Americanlegislation on the subject of entail; by this we learn that previous tothe revolution the colonies followed the English law of entail. Estatestail were abolished in Virginia in 1776, on a motion of Mr Jefferson. They were suppressed in New York in 1786; and have since been abolishedin North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and Missouri. InVermont, Indiana, Illinois, South Carolina, and Louisiana, entail wasnever introduced. Those States which thought proper to preserve theEnglish law of entail, modified it in such a way as to deprive it of itsmost aristocratic tendencies. `Our general principles on the subject ofgovernment, ' says Mr Kent, `tend to favour the free circulation ofproperty. '

"It cannot fail to strike the French reader who studies the law ofinheritance, that on these questions the French legislation isinfinitely more democratic even than the American. 

"The American law makes an equal division of the father's property, butonly in the case of his will not being known; `for every man, ' says thelaw, `in the State of New York, (_Revised Statutes_, volume III, _Appendix_, page 51), has entire liberty, power, and authority, todispose of his property by will, to leave it entire, or divided infavour of any persons he choses as his heirs, provided he do not leaveit to a political body or any corporation. ' The French law obliges thetestator to divide his property equally, or nearly so, among his heirs. 

"Most of the American republics still admit of entails, under certainrestrictions; but the French law prohibits entail in all cases. 

"If the social condition of the Americans is more democratic than thatof the French, the laws of the latter are the most democratic of thetwo. This may be explained more easily than at first appears to be thecase. In France, democracy is still occupied in the work ofdestruction; in America, it reigns quietly over the ruins it hasmade. "--_Democracy in America, by A De Tocqueville_. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 3. In New England the estates are exceedingly small, but they arerarely subjected to further division. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 4. It may also be here observed, that the Americans have littleopportunity of judging favourably of the English by the usual_importations_ to their country. They all call themselves English_Gentlemen_, and are too often supposed to be, and are received as such. I have often been told that I should meet with an English gentleman oran English merchant, and the parties mostly proved to be nothing buttravellers, bagsmen, or even worse. If the sterling Americans stay athome, and send the bad ones to us, and we do the same, neither partywill be likely to form a very favourable opinion of the other for sometime to come. 

VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER SEVEN. 

GOVERNMENT. 

It is not my intention to enter into a lengthened examination of theAmerican form of government. I have said that, as a government, "withall its imperfections, it is the best suited to _the present conditionof America_, in _so far as_ it is the one under which the country hasmade, and will continue to make, the most rapid strides;" but I have notsaid that it was a better form of government than others. Its veryweakness is favourable to the advance of the country; it may be comparedto a vessel which, from her masts not being wedged, and her timbersbeing loose, sails faster than one more securely fastened. Consideredmerely as governments for the preservation of order and the equalisationof pressure upon the people, I believe that few governments are bad, asthere are always some correcting influences, moral or otherwise, whichstrengthen those portions which are the weakest. A despot, forinstance, although his power is acknowledged and submitted to, will notexercise tyranny too far, from the fear of assassination. 

I have inserted in an Appendix the Form of the American Constitution, and if my readers wish to examine more closely into it, I must referthem to M. Tocqueville's excellent work. The first point which muststrike the reader who examines into it is, that it is extremelycomplicated. It is, and it is not. It is so far complicated that avariety of wheels are at work; but it is not complicated, from thecircumstance that the _same principle_ prevails throughout, from theTownship to the Federal Head, and that it is put in motion by one greatand universal propelling power. It may be compared to a cotton-threadmanufactory, in which thousands and thousands of reels and spindles areall at work, the labour of so many smaller reels turned over to larger, which in their turn yield up their produce, until the whole is collectedinto one mass. The principle of the American Government is good; thepower that puts it in motion is enormous, and therefore, like thecomplicated machinery I have compared it to, it requires constantattention, and proper regulation of the propelling power, that it maynot become out of order. The propelling power is the sovereignty of thepeople, otherwise the will of the majority. The motion of allpropelling powers must be regulated by a fly-wheel, or corrective check, if not, the motion will gradually accelerate, until the machinery isdestroyed by the increase of friction. But there are other causes bywhich the machinery may be deranged; as, although the smaller portionsof the machine, if defective, may at any time be taken out and repairedwithout its being necessary for the machine to stop; yet if the largerwheels are by any chance thrown out of their equilibrium, the machinerymay be destroyed just as it would be by a too rapid motion, occasionedby the excess of propelling power. Further, there are external causeswhich may endanger it: any machine may be thrown out of its level by aconvulsion, or shock, which will cause it to cease working, if even itdoes not break it into fragments. 

Now, the dangers which _threaten_ the United States are, the FederalGovernment being still weaker than it is at present, or its becoming, asit may from circumstances, too powerful. 

The _present_ situation of the American Government is that thefly-wheel, or regulator of the propelling power (that is to say thearistocracy, or power of the senate, ) has been nearly destroyed, and theconsequences are that the motion is at this moment too much accelerated, and threatens in a few years to increase its rapidity, at the risk ofthe destruction of the whole machinery. 

But, although it will be necessary to point out the weakness of theFederal Government, when opposed to the States or the majority, inasmuchas the morality of the people is seriously affected by this weakness, myobject is not to enter into the merits of the government of the UnitedStates as a _working_ government, but to inquire how far the Americansare correct in their boast of its being a model for other countries. 

Let us consider what is the best form of government. Certainly thatwhich most contributes to security of life and property, and rendersthose happy and moral who are submitted to it. This I believe will begenerally acknowledged, and it is upon these grounds that the governmentof the United States must be tested. They abjured our monarchy, andleft their country for a distant land, to obtain _freedom_. They railedat the vices and imperfections of continental rule, and proposed tothemselves a government which should be perfect, under which every manshould have his due weight in the representation, and prove to the worldthat a people could govern themselves. Disgusted with the immorality ofthe age and the disregard to religion, they anticipated an amendment inthe state of society. This new, and supposed perfect, machinery hasbeen working for upwards of sixty years, and let us now examine how farthe theory has been supported and borne out by the practical result. 

I must first remind the reader that I have already shewn the weakness ofthe Federal Government upon one most important point, which is, thatthere is not sufficient security for person and property. When such isthe case, there cannot be that adequate punishment for vice so necessaryto uphold the morals of a people. I will now proceed to prove theweakness of the Federal Government whenever it has to combat with theseveral States, or with the will of the majority. 

It will be perceived, by an examination into the Constitution of theUnited States, that the States have reserved for themselves all the realpower, and that the Federal Union exists but upon their sufferance. Each State still insists upon its right to withdraw itself from theUnion whenever it pleases, and the consequence of this right is, that inevery conflict with a State, the Federal Government has invariably tosuccumb. M. Tocqueville observes, "If the sovereignty of the Unionwere to engage in a struggle with that of the States, at the presentday, its defeat may be confidently predicted; and it is not probablethat such a struggle would be seriously undertaken. As often as asteady resistance is offered to the Federal Government, it will be foundto yield. Experience has hitherto shewn that whenever a State hasdemanded any thing with perseverance and resolution, it has invariablysucceeded; and that if a separate government has distinctly refused toact, it was left to do as it thought fit. See Note 1. 

"But even if the government of the Union had any strength inherent initself, the physical situation of the country would render the excise ofthat strength very difficult. [See Note 2. ] The United States cover animmense territory; they were separated from each other by greatdistances; and the population is disseminated over the surface of acountry which is still half a wilderness. If the Union were toundertake to enforce the allegiance of the confederate States bymilitary means, it would be in a position very analagous to that ofEngland at the time of the War of Independence. "

The Federal Government never displayed more weakness than in thequestion of the tariff put upon English goods to support themanufacturers of the Northern States. The Southern States, as producersand exporters, complained of this as prejudicial to their interests. South Carolina, one of the smallest States, led the van, and the stormrose. This State passed an act by convention, _annulling_ the FederalAct of the tariff, armed her militia, and prepared for war. Theconsequence was that the Federal Government abandoned the principle ofthe tariff, but at the same time, to save the disgrace of its defeat, itpassed an act warranting the President to _put down resistance byforce_, or, in other words, making the Union _compulsory_. SouthCarolina _annulled_ this law of the Federal Government, but as the Stategained its point by the Federal Government having abandoned theprinciple of the tariff, the matter ended. 

Another instance in which the Federal Government showed its weaknesswhen opposed to a State, was in its conflict with Georgia. The FederalGovernment had entered into a solemn, and what ought to have been aninviolable treaty, with the Cherokee Indians, securing to them theremnant of their lands in the State of Georgia. The seventh Article ofthat treaty says, "The United States _solemnly_ guarantee to theCherokee nation all their lands not hitherto ceded. " The State ofGeorgia, when its population increased, did not like the Indians toremain, and insisted upon their removal. What was the result?--that theFederal Government, in violation of a solemn treaty and the nationalhonour, submitted to the dictation of Georgia, and the Indians wereremoved to the other side of the Mississippi. 

These instances are sufficient to prove the weakness of the FederalGovernment when opposed to the States; it is still weaker when opposedto the will of the majority. I have already quoted many instances ofthe exercise of this uncontrolled will. I do not refer to Lynch law, orthe reckless murders in the Southern States, but to the riots in themost civilised cities, such as Boston, New York, and Baltimore, in whichoutrages and murders have been committed without the Government everpresuming to punish the perpetrators; but the strongest evidence of thehelplessness of the Government, when opposed to the majority, has beenin the late Canadian troubles, which, I fear, have only for the seasonsubsided. If many have doubts of the sincerity of the President of theUnited States in his attempts to prevent the interference of theAmericans, there can be no doubt but that General Scott, Major Worth, and the other American officers sent to the frontiers, did their utmostto prevent the excesses which were committed, and to allay theexcitement; and every one is aware how unavailing were their efforts. The magazines were broken open, the field-pieces and muskets takenpossession of; large subscriptions of money poured in from everyquarter; farmers sent waggon-loads of pigs, corn, and buffalos, tosupport the insurgents. No one would, indeed no one could, act againstthe will of the majority, and these officers found themselves left totheir individual and useless exertions. 

The militia at Detroit were ordered out: they could not refuse to obeythe summons, as they were individually liable to fine and imprisonment;but as they said, very truly, "You may call us out, but when we comeinto action we will point our muskets in which direction we please. "Indeed, they did assist the insurgents and fire at our people; and whenthe insurgents were defeated, one of the drums which they had with them, and which was captured by our troops, was marked with the name of themilitia corps which had been called out to repel them. 

When the people are thus above the law, it is of very little consequencewhether the law is more or less weak; at present the Federal Governmentis a mere cypher when opposed by the majority. Have, then, theAmericans improved upon us in this point? It is generally admitted thata strong and vigorous government, which can act when it is necessary torestrain the passions of men under excitement, is most favourable tosocial order and happiness; but, on the contrary, when the dormant powerof the executive should be brought into action, all that the FederalGovernment can do is to become a passive spectator or a disregardedsuppliant. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. See the conduct of the Northern States in the war of 1812. "During that war, " says Jefferson in a letter to General Lafayette, "four of the Eastern States were only attached to the Union, like somany inanimate bodies to living men. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 2. The profound peace of the Union affords no pretext for astanding army; and without a standing army a Government is not preparedto profit by a favourable opportunity to conquer resistance, and takethe sovereign power by surprise. 

VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER EIGHT. 

The next question to be examined into is, has this government of theUnited States set an example of honour, good faith, and moral principle, to those who are subjected to it?--has it, by so behaving, actedfavourably upon the morals of the people, and corrected the vices anderrors of the monarchical institutions which the Americans hold up tosuch detestation?

The Americans may be said to have had, till within the last twentyyears, little or no relation with other countries. They have had fewtreaties to make, and very little diplomatic arrangements with the oldContinent. But even if they had had, they must not be judged by them; acertain degree of national honour is necessary to every nation, if theywould have the respect of others, and a dread of the consequences wouldalways compel them to adhere to any treaty made with great and powerfulcountries. The question is, has the Federal Government adhered to itstreaties and promises made with and to those who have been too weak todefend themselves? Has it not repeatedly, in the short period of theirexistence as a nation, violated the national honour whenever withoutbeing in fear of retaliation or exposure it has been able to do so. Letthis question be answered by an examination into their conduct towardsthe unhappy Indians, _who_, to use their own expression, are "nowmelting away like snow before the white men. " We are not to estimatethe morality of a government by its strict adherence to its compactswith the powerful, but by its strict moral sense of justice towards theweak and defenceless; and it should be borne in mind, that one exampleof a breach of faith on the part of a democratic government, is moreinjurious to the morals of the people tinder that government than athousand instances of breach of faith which may occur in society; for apeople who have no aristocracy to set the example, must naturally lookto the conduct of their rulers and to their decisions, as a standard fortheir guidance. To enumerate the multiplied breaches of faith towardsthe Indians would swell out this work to an extra volume. It was abitter sarcasm of the Seminole chief, who, referring to the terms usedin the treaties, told the Indian agents that the white man's "_forever_" did not _last long enough_. Even in its payment of the triflingsums for the lands sold by the Indians and resold at an enormous profit, the American Government has not been willing to adhere to its agreement;and two years ago, when the Indians came for their money, the AmericanGovernment told them, like an Israelite dealer, that they must take halfmoney and half goods. The Indians remonstrated; the chiefs replied, "Our young men have purchased upon credit, as they are wont to do; theyrequire the dollars, to pay honestly what they owe. "

"Is our great father so poor?" said one chief to the Indian agent; "Iwill lend him some money;" and he ordered several thousand dollars to bebrought, and offered them to the agent. 

In the Florida war, to which I shall again refer, the same want of faithhas been exercised. Unable to drive the Indians out of their swamps andmorasses, they have persuaded them to come into a council, under a flagof truce. This flag of truce has been violated, and the Indians havebeen thrown into prison until they could be sent away to the Far West, that is, if they survived their captivity, which the gallant Osceolacould not. Let it not be supposed that the officers employed are theparties to blame in these acts; it is, generally speaking, the Indianagents who are employed in these nefarious transactions. Among theseagents there are many honourable men, but a corrupt government willalways find people corrupt enough to do anything it may wish. But anylanguage that I can use as to the conduct of the American Governmenttowards the Indians would be light, compared to the comments made in mypresence by the _officers_ and other American _gentlemen_ upon thissubject. Indeed, the indignation expressed is so general, that itproves there is less morality in the Government than there is in thenation. 

With the exception of the Florida war, which still continues, the lastcontest which the American Government had with the Indians was with theSacs and Foxes, commanded by the celebrated chief, Black Hawk. The Sacsand Foxes at that period held a large tract of land on Rock river, inthe territory of Ioway, on the east side of the Mississippi, which theGovernment wished, perforce, to take from them. The following is BlackHawk's account of the means by which this land was obtained. The warwas occasioned by Black Hawk disowning the treaty and attempting torepossess the territory. 

"Some moons after this young chief (Lieutenant Pike) descended theMississippi, one of our people killed an American, and was confined inthe prison at St Louis for the offence. We held a council at ourvillage to see what could be done for him, which determined thatQuash-qua-me, Pa-she-pa-ho, Ou-che-qua-ha, and Ha-she-quar-hi-qua, should go down to St Louis, and see our American father, and do allthey could to have our friend released; by paying for the person killed, thus covering the blood and satisfying the relations of the manmurdered! This being the only means with us of saving a person who hadkilled another, and we _then_ thought it was the same way with thewhites. 

"The party started with the good wishes of the whole nation, hoping theywould accomplish the object of their mission. The relations of theprisoner blacked their faces and fasted, hoping the Great Spirit wouldtake pity on them, and return the husband and the father to his wife andchildren. 

"Quash-qua-me and party remained a long time absent. They at lengthreturned, and encamped a short distance below the village, but did notcome up that day, nor did any person approach their camp. They appearedto be dressed in fine coats and had medals. From these circumstances, we were in hopes they had brought us good news. Early the next morning, the council lodge was crowded; Quash-qua-me and party came up, and gaveus the following account of their mission:--

"On their arrival at St Louis, they met their American father, andexplained to him their business, and urged the release of their friend. The American chief told them he wanted land, and they agreed to give himsome on the west side of the Mississippi, and some on the Illinois side, opposite the Jeffreon. When the business was all arranged, theyexpected to have their friend released to come home with them. Butabout the time they were ready to start, their friend, who was led outof prison, ran a short distance, and was _shot dead_. This is all theycould recollect of what was said and done. They had _been drunk_ thegreater part of the time they were in St Louis. 

"This is all myself or nation knew of the _treaty of_ 1804. It has beenexplained to me since. I find by that treaty, all our country east ofthe Mississippi, and south of the Jeffreon, was ceded to the UnitedStates for one thousand dollars a year! I will leave it to the peopleof the United States to say, whether our nation was properly representedin this treaty? or whether we received a fair compensation for theextent of country ceded by those four individuals. I could say muchmere about this treaty, but I will not at this time. It has been theorigin of all our difficulties. "

Indeed, I have reason to believe that the major portion of the landobtained from the Indians has been ceded by parties who had no power tosell it, and the treaties with these parties have been enforced by theFederal Government. 

In a Report for the protection of the Western Frontier, submitted toCongress by the Secretary of War, we have a very fair expose of theconduct and intentions of the American Government towards the Indians. Although the Indians continue to style the President of the UnitedStates as their Great Father, yet, in this report, the Indian feelingwhich really exists towards the American people is honestly avowed; itsays in its preamble--

"As yet no community of feeling, except of _deep and lasting hatred_ tothe white man, and particularly to the _Anglo-Americans_, exists amongthem, and, unless they coalesce, no serious difficulty need beapprehended from them. Not so, however, should they be induced to unitefor purposes offensive and defensive; their strength would then becomeapparent, create confidence, and in all probability induce them to givevent to their long-suppressed desire to _revenge past wrongs_, which isrestrained, as they openly and freely confess, by fear alone. "

And speaking of the feuds between the tribes, as in the case of theSioux and Chippeways, which, as I have observed in my Journal, theAmerican Government _pretended_ to be anxious to make up; it appearsthat this anxiety is not so very great, for the Report says--

"Should it however prove otherwise, the United States will, wheneverthey choose, be able to bring the whole of the Sioux force (thehereditary and irreclaimable enemy to every other Indian) to bearagainst the hostiles; or _vice versa_, should our difficulty be with theSioux nation. And the suggestion is made, whether prudence does notrequire, that _those hereditary feelings_ should not rather be_maintained_ than destroyed by efforts to cultivate a closer reunionbetween them. "

This Report also very delicately points out, when speaking of thenecessity of a larger force on the frontier, that, "it is merelyadverted to in connexion with the heavy obligations which rest upon theGovernment, and which have been probably contracted from time to timewithout any _very nice calculation_ of the means which would benecessary to a _faithful discharge_ of them. "

I doubt whether this Report would have been presented by Congress hadthere been any idea of its finding its way to the Old Country. By-and-by I shall refer to it again. I have made these few extractsmerely to shew that expediency, and not moral feeling, is the principlealone which guides the Federal Government of the United States. 

The next instance which I shall bring forward to prove the want ofprinciple of the Federal Government is its permitting, and it may besaid tacitly acquiescing, in the seizure of the province of Texas, andallowing it to be ravished from the Mexican Government, with whom theywere on terms of amity, but who was unfortunately too weak to helpherself. In this instance the American Government had no excuse, as itactually had an army on the frontier, and could have compelled theinsurgents to go back; but no; it perceived that the Texas, if in itshands, or if independent of Mexico, would become a mart for their extraslave population, that it was the finest country in the world forproducing cotton, and that it would be an immense addition of valuableterritory. Dr Channing's letter to Mr Clay is so forcible on thisquestion, enters so fully into the merits of the case, and points out soclearly the nefariousness of the transaction, that I shall now quote afew passages from this best of American authority. Indeed, I considerthat this letter of Dr Channing is the principal cause why the AmericanGovernment have not as yet admitted Texas into the Union. The effortsof the Northern States would not have prevented it, but it has actuallybeen shamed by Dr Channing, who says--

"The United States have not been just to Mexico. Our citizens did notsteal singly, silently, in disguise, into that land. Their purpose ofdismembering Mexico, and attaching her distant province to this country, was not wrapt in mystery. It was proclaimed in our public prints. Expeditions were openly fitted out within our borders for the Texan war. Troops were organised, equipped, and marched for the scene of action. Advertisements for volunteers, to be enrolled and conducted to Texas atthe expense of that territory, were inserted in our newspapers. TheGovernment, indeed, issued its proclamation, forbidding these hostilepreparations; but this was a dead letter. Military companies, withofficers and standards, in defiance of proclamations, and in the face ofday, directed their steps to the revolted province. We had, indeed, anarmy near the frontiers of Mexico. Did it turn back these invaders of aland with which we were at peace? On the contrary, did not its presencegive confidence to the revolters? After this, what construction of ourconduct shall we force on the world, if we proceed, especially at thismoment, to receive into our Union the territory, which, through ourneglect, has fallen a prey to lawless invasion? Are we willing to takeour place among robber-states? As a people have we no self-respect?Have we no reverence for national morality? Have we no feeling ofresponsibility to other nations, and to Him by whom the fates of nationsare disposed?"

Dr Channing then proceeds:--

"Some crimes by their magnitude have a touch of the sublime; and to thisdignity the seizure of Texas by our citizens is entitled. Modern timesfurnish no example of individual rapine on so grand a scale. It isnothing less than the robbery of a realm. The pirate seizes a ship. The colonists and their coadjutors can satisfy themselves with nothingshort of an empire. They have left their Anglo-Saxon ancestors behindthem. Those barbarians conformed to the maxims of their age, to therude code of nations in time of thickest heathen darkness. They invadedEngland under their sovereigns, and with the sanction of the gloomyreligion of the North. But it is in a civilised age, and amidstrefinements of manners; it is amidst the lights of science and theteachings of Christianity; amidst expositions of the law of nations andenforcements of the law of universal love; amidst institutions ofreligion, learning, and humanity, that the robbery of Texas has foundits instruments. It is from a free, well-ordered, enlightened Christiancountry, that hordes have gone forth in open day, to perpetrate _thismighty wrong_. "

I shall conclude my remarks upon this point with one more extract fromthe same writer. 

"A nation, provoking war by cupidity, by encroachment, and, above all, by efforts to propagate the curse of slavery, is alike false to itself, to God, and to the human race. "

Having now shewn how far the Federal Government may be considered asupholding the purity of its institutions by the example of its conducttowards others, let us examine whether in its domestic management itsets a proper example to the nation. It cries out against the briberyand corruption of England. Is it itself free from this imputation?

The author of a `Voice from America' observes, "In such an unauthorised, unconstitutional, and loose state of things, millions of the publicmoney may be appropriated to electioneering and party purposes, and tobuy up friends of the administration, without being open to proof orliable to account. It is a simple _matter of fact_, that all the publicfunds lost in this way, have actually gone to buy up friends to thegovernment, whether the defalcations were matters of understandingbetween the powers at Washington and these parties, or not. The moneyis gone, and is going; and it goes to friends. So much is true, whatever else is false. And what has already been used up in this way, according to official report, is sufficient to buy the votes of a largefraction of the population of the United States, --that is to say, sufficient to produce an influence adequate to secure them. On the 17thof January, 1838, the United States treasurer reported to Congress_sixty-three_ defalcators (individuals), in all to the amount of upwardsof a _million_ of dollars, without touching the vast amounts lost in thelocal banks, --a mere beginning of the end. "

As I have before observed, when Mr Adams was President, a Mr B Walkerwas thrown into prison for being a defaulter to the extent of eighteenthousand dollars. Why are none of these defaulters to the amount ofupwards a million of dollars punished? If the government thinks properto allow them to remain at liberty, does it not virtually wink at theirdishonesty. Neither the defaulters nor their securities are touched. It would appear as if it were an understood arrangement; the governmenttelling these parties, who have assisted them, "we cannot actually payyou money down for your services; but we will put money under yourcontrol, and you may, if you please, _help_ yourself. " What has beenthe result of this conduct upon society?--that as the government doesnot consider a breach of faith as deserving of punishment, society doesnot think so either; and thus are the people demoralised, not only bythe example of government in its foreign relations, but by its leniencytowards those individuals who are as regardless of faith as thegovernment has proved to be itself. 

Indeed, it may be boldly asserted, that in every measure taken by theFederal Government, the moral effect of that measure upon the people hasnever been thought worthy of a moment's consideration. 

VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER NINE. 

We must now examine into one or two other points. The Americansconsider that they are the only people on earth who govern themselves. They assert that _we_ have not a free and perfect representation. Wewill not dispute that point; the question is, not what the case inEngland may be, but what America may have gained. This is certain, thatif they have not a free impartial representation, they do _not_, as theysuppose, govern themselves. Have they, with universal suffrage, obtained a representation free from bribery and corruption? If theyhave, they certainly have gained their point; if they have not, theyhave sacrificed much, and have obtained nothing. 

By a calculation which I made at the time I was in the United States ofall the various elections which took place annually, biennially, and atlonger dates, including those for the Federal Government, the separategovernments of each State, and many other elective offices, there areabout two thousand five hundred elections of different descriptionsevery year; and if I were to add the civic elections, which are equallypolitical, I do not know what amount they would arrive at. In thiscountry we have on an average about two hundred elections per annum, sothat, in America, for thirteen millions, they have two thousand fivehundred elections, and in England for twenty-seven millions, twohundred, on the average, during the year. 

It must, however, be admitted, that the major portion of these electionsin the United States pass off quietly, probably from the comparativewant of interest excited by them, and the continual repetition whichtakes place; but when the important elections are in progress the caseis very different; the excitement then becomes universal; the comingelection is the theme of every tongue, the all-engrossing topic, andnothing else is listened or paid attention to. 

It must be remembered, that the struggle in America is for place, notfor principle; for whichever party obtains power, their principle ofacting is much the same. Occasionally a question of moment will comeforward and nearly convulse the Union, but this is very rare; thegeneral course of legislation is in a very narrow compass, and is seldommore than a mere routine of business. With the majority, who lead aparty, (particularly the one at present in power), the contest is not, therefore, for principle, but, it may almost be said, for bread; andthis is one great cause of the virulence accompanying their electionstruggles. The election of the President is of course the mostimportant. M. Tocqueville has well described it, "For a long whilebefore the appointed time is at hand, the election becomes the mostimportant and the all-engrossing topic of discussion. The ardour offaction is redoubled; and all the artificial passions which theimagination can create in the bosom of a happy and peaceful land are andbrought to light. The President, on the other hand, is absorbed by thecares of self-defence. He no longer governs for the interest of theState, but for that of his re-election; he does homage to the majority, and instead of checking its passions, as his duty commands him to do, hefrequently courts its worst caprices. As the election draws near, theactivity of intrigue and the agitation of the populace increase; thecitizens are divided into hostile camps, each of which assumes the nameof its favourite candidate; the whole nation glows with feverishexcitement; the election is the daily theme of the public papers, thesubject of private conversation, the end of every thought and everyaction, the sole interest of the present. "

Of course the elections in the large cities are those which next occupythe public attention. I have before stated, that at the last electionin New York the committees of the opposite party were bought over by theWhigs, and that by this bribery the election was gained; but I will nowquote from the Americans themselves, and let the reader then decide inwhich country, England or America, there is most purity of election. 

"On the 9th, 10th, and 11th instant, a local election for mayor andcharter-offices was held in this city. It resulted in the defeat of theWhig party. The Loco-focos had a majority of about one thousand andfifty for their mayor. Last April the Whigs had a majority of aboutfive hundred. There are seventeen wards, and seventeen polls wereopened. The out, or suburb, wards presented _the most disgracefulscenes of riot, fraud, corruption, and perjury_, that were everwitnessed in this or any other country on a similar occasion. The wholenumber of votes polled was forty-one thousand three hundred. It is anotorious fact, that there are not forty thousand legal voters residingin the city. In the abstract this election is but of little importance. Its moral influence on other sections of the country remains to beseen. Generally, the effect of such a triumph is unfavourable to thedefeated party in other places; and it would be so in the presentinstance, if the contest had been an ordinary contest, but thecircumstances to which I have referred of fraud, corruption, andperjury, may, or may not, re-act upon the alleged authors of theseshameless proceedings. "

Again, "The moderate and thinking men of both parties--indeed, we maysay every honourable man who has been a spectator of recent events--feelshocked at the frauds, perjury, and corruption, which too evidentlyenabled the administration party to poll so powerful a vote. What arewe coming to in this country? A peaceable contest at the polls is apeaceable test of party--it is to ascertain the opinions and views ofcitizens entitled to vote--it is a fair and honourable party appeal tothe ballot-box. We are all Americans--living under the sameconstitution and laws; each boasting of his freedom and equal rights--our political differences are, after all, the differences betweenmembers of the same national family. What, therefore, is to become ofour freedom and rights, _our morals, safety, and religion_, if theadministration of our government is permitted to embark in such open, avowed, palpable schemes of fraud and corruption as those recentlyexhibited in this city? More than _five thousand_ strangers, having nointerest and no domicile, are introduced by the partisans of theadministration into the city, and brought up to the polls to decide whoshall make our municipal laws. More than four hundred votes over andabove the ascertained votes of a ward, are polled in such ward. Menmoved from ward to ward to sleep one night as an evasive qualification. More than two hundred sailors, from United States' vessels of war, brought over to the city to vote--sloops and small craft, trading downthe north and east rivers, each known never to have more than threebands, turning out thirty or forty voters from each vessel. Men turnedfrom the polls for want of legal qualifications, brought back byadministration partisans and made to _swear_ in their vote. Hundredswith the red clay of New Jersey adhering to their thick-soled shoes, presenting themselves to vote as citizens of New York, and all thisfraud and perjury set on foot and justified to enable Mr Van Buren tosay, `I have recovered the city. ' But he has been signally defeated, ashe ought to be, notwithstanding all his mighty efforts. There is thisday a clearly ascertained Whig majority in this city of five thousand. 

"It is, therefore, a mockery to call a contest with persons from otherStates, hired for the occasion, an election. _We must have a registryof votes_, in order to sweep away this vast system _of perjury andfraud_; and every man who has an interest at stake in his person, hischildren, or his property, must demand it of the legislature, as theonly means of coming to a fair decision on all such matters. Thischarter election should open the eyes of the honourable of all partiesto the dangers that menace us, and a redress provided in time. "

Again, "_The Atlas, Monday Morning, April_ 16, 1838. --(_TriumphantResult of the Election to New York_). --We have rarely known an electionwhich, during its continuance, has excited so lively a degree ofinterest as has been felt in regard to the contest just terminated inNew York. From numerous quarters we have received letters requesting usto transmit the earliest intelligence of the result, and an anxiety hasbeen evinced among the Whigs of the country, which we have hardly seensurpassed. The tremendous onset of the Loco-focos upon the first dayincreased this anxiety, and fears began to be entertained that theunparalleled and unscrupulous efforts of our opponents--their shamelessresort to every species of fraud, violence, and corruption--theirimportation of foreign, perjured voters, and the _lavish distribution ofthe public money_--might possibly overpower the legitimate voice of themajority of the citizens of New York. But gloriously have these fearsbeen dispelled. Nobly have the Whigs of the great metropolis done theirduty. Gladly does old Massachusetts respond to their paeans of triumph. 

"We learn from the New York papers that there was considerableuneasiness in that city on Friday among the Whigs with regard to theresult. Never was the struggle of the administration party so desperateand convulsive. Hordes of aliens and illegal voters were driven intothe city--

 "`In multitudes, like which the populace North Poured never from her frozen loins, to pass Rhine or the Danube. '

"The most reasonable calculation admits that there must have been atleast four thousand illegal votes polled at the different wards. Squatters and loafers from the Croton Water-Works, from Brooklyn andLong Island, and from Troy to Sing Sing, took up their line of march forthe doubtful wards, to dragoon the city into submission to Mr VanBuren. Some of the wards threw from four hundred to six hundred morevotes than there were known to be residents in them. Double voting waspractised to a great extent. The Express says, the whole spirit of thenaturalisation laws was defied, and an utter mockery was made of thesacred right of suffrage. What party is likely to be most guilty ofthese things, may be judged from the fact, that the Loco-foco party_resist every proposition for a registry law, or any other law that willgive the people a fair and honest and constitutional system of voting_. "

When I was one day with one of the most influential of the Whig party atNew York, he was talking about their success in the contest--"We beatthem, sir, literally with their own weapons. " "How so, " replied I. "Why, sir, we bought over all their bludgeon men at so many dollars ahead, and the very sticks intended to be used to keep us from the pollwere employed upon the heads of the Loco-focos!" So much for _purity ofelection_. 

Another point which is worthy of inquiry is, how far is the governmentof the United States a cheap government; that is, not as to the amountof money expended in that country as compared to the amount of moneypaid in England or France, but cheap as to the work done for the moneypaid? And, viewing it in this light, I rather think it will be found avery expensive one. It is true that the salaries are low, and thehighest officers are the worst paid, but it should be recollected thatevery body is paid. [See Note 1. ] The expenses of the FederalGovernment, shown up to the world as a proof of cheap government, is buta portion of the real expenses which are paid by the several States. Thus the government will promulgate to the world that they have asurplus revenue of so many millions, but at the same time it will befound that the States themselves are borrowing money and are deeply indebt. The money that disappears is enormous; I never could understandwhat has become of the boasted surplus revenue which was lodged in thepet banks, as they were termed. The paid officers in the several Statesare very numerous; take, for instance, the _State of New York_ alone. An American newspaper has the following article:--

"THE STANDING ARMY. "

The following is given in the _Madisonian_ as the rank and file of theexecutive standing army of office-holders in the State of New York. Howhardly can the freedom of elections be maintained against the naturalenemies of that freedom, when their efforts are seconded by the assaultsof such an army of placemen, whose daily bread, under the rule and reignof the spoilers, is dependent on their partisan exertions!

 "1880 Postmasters. 217 Mail Contractors. 59 Clerks in the New York Post-office. 25 Lighthouse Keepers. 500 Custom-House Officers. 

"These, " says the Madisonian, "constitute a regiment of the King's own, well drilled in the system of terrorism and seduction, and of dragooningvoters!"

And it should be remarked, that in the United States, upon any one partylosing an election, the whole of that party in office, even down to thelamplighters, are turned out, and replaced by partisans of thesuccessful party; _capability_ for office is never considered, the onlyobject is to reward political services. That the work cannot be wellcarried on when there are such constant changes, attended with ignoranceof the duties imposed, is most certain. The long list of defaultersproves that the party at present in power is supported by needy andunprincipled men; indeed, there is a waste of money in almost everydepartment which would be considered monstrous in this country. Theexpenses of the Florida war are a proof of this. The best writtenaccounts from America are those written by a party who signs himself "AGenevese Traveller, " and whose letters very often appear in the _Times_newspaper. I have invariably observed the correctness not only of hisstatements of facts, but of the opinions drawn from them. Speaking ofthe Florida war, he has the following observations:--

"As to the expenditure, it is yet more astounding. Not less than20, 000, 000 dollars have already been lavished upon favourites, orplundered from the treasury by marauders, whose profligacy and injusticecaused the war. Army contractors, government agents, etcetera, arewallowing in wealth obtained by the worst means; and these are the menthat condemn a peace, and will do all in their power to produce and keepup an excitement. But unless they can reach the treasury of the UnitedStates, their sympathy for the murdered inhabitants will soon evaporate. I hope, however, and believe that the war for the present is at an end. But the peace will only be temporary, for the rapacity of theavaricious land speculator will not be satisfied until the red man isdeprived of every acre of land. "

To enter into any estimate of expense would be impossible; all I assertis, that there is a much greater waste of public money in the UnitedStates than in other countries, and that for the work done they pay verydearly. I shall therefore conclude with an extract from M. Tocqueville, who attempts in vain to come to any approximation. 

"Wherever the poor direct public affairs, and dispose of the nationalresources, it appears certain, that as they profit by the expenditure ofthe State, they are apt to augment that expenditure. 

"I conclude, therefore, without having recourse to inaccuratecomputations, and without hazarding a comparison which might prove incorrect, that the democratic government of the Americans is _not a cheapgovernment_, as is sometimes asserted; and I have no hesitation inpredicting, that if the people of the United States are ever involved inserious difficulties, its taxation will speedily be increased to therate of that which prevails in the greater part of the aristocracies andthe monarchies of Europe. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. I cannot here refrain from making an extract from M. Tocqueville's clever work, well worthy the attention of those who rulein this country, as probably they may not be aware of what they aredoing: "When a _democratic_ republic renders offices which had formerlybeen remunerated _gratuitous_, it may safely be believed that the Stateis advancing to _monarchical_ institutions; and when a monarchy beginsto _remunerate_ such officers as had hitherto been _unpaid_, it is asure sign that it is approaching towards a despotic or a _republican_form of government. The substitution of paid for unpaid functionaries, is of itself, in my opinion, sufficient to constitute a seriousrevolution. "

VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER TEN. 

The Americans, and with justice, hold up Washington as one of the firstof men; if so, why will they not pay attention to his opinions? becausethe first of men must not interfere with their prejudices, or, if hedoes, he immediately in their eyes becomes the _last_. Nevertheless, Washington proved his ability when he made the following observation, inhis letter to Chief Justice Jay, dated 10th of March, 1787; even at thatearly period he perceived that the institutions of America, although atthe time much less democratical than at present, would not stand. Hearthe words of Washington, for they were a _prophecy_:--

"Among men of reflection, few will be found, I believe, who are notbeginning to think that our system is better in _theory_ than in_practice_ and that, notwithstanding the boasted virtue of America, itis more than probable that we shall exhibit the last melancholy proof, that mankind are incompetent to their own government _without the meansof coercion in the sovereign_. "

Now, if you were to put this extract into the hands of an American, hisadmiration of Washington would immediately fall down below zero, and inall probability he would say, as they do of poor Captain Lawrence--"Why, sir, Washington was a great man, but great men have their failings. Iguess he wrote that letter _after_ dinner. "

But Washington has been supported in this opinion by a modern Americanpatriot, Dr Charming, who, asserting that, "Our institutions havedisappointed us all, " has pointed out the real effects of democracy uponthe morals of the nation; and there are many other good and honest menin America who will occasionally tell the truth, although they seldomventure to put their names to what they write. In a manifesto, published when I was in the States, the following bitter pills for thedemocrats were inserted. Speaking of dependence on the virtue andintelligence of the people, the manifesto says:--

"A form of government which has no better corrective of public disordersthan this, is a burlesque on the reason and intelligence of men; it isas incompatible with wisdom as it is with public prosperity andhappiness. 

"The people are, by principle and the Constitution, guarded against thetyranny of kings, but not against their own passions, and ignorance, anddelusions. "

The necessity of relying on some other power than the people istherefore enforced:

"Such facts have induced nations to abandon the practice of electingtheir chief magistrate; preferring to receive that officer by hereditarysuccession. Men have found that the chances of having a good chiefmagistrate by _birth_, are about equal to the chances of obtaining oneby _popular election_. And, boast as we will, that the superiorintelligence of our citizens may render this government an exception, time will show that this is a mistake. No nation can be an exception, till the Almighty shall change the whole character of man. 

"It is a solemn truth, that when executive officers are dependent fortheir offices on _annual or frequent elections_, there will be noimpartial or efficient administration of the laws. 

"It is in vain that men attempt to disguise the truth; the fact, beyondall debate, is that the disorders in our political affairs are thegenuine and natural consequences of _defects in the Constitution_, andof the false and visionary opinions which Mr Jefferson and hisdisciples have been proclaiming for forty years. 

"The _mass of the people_ seem not to consider that the affairs of agreat commercial nation require for their correct management talents ofthe first order. 

"Of all this, _the mass of our population_ appear to know little ornothing. 

"The _mass of the people_, seduced and disciplined by their leaders, arestill farther deceived, by being taught that our public disorders are tobe ascribed to other causes than the ignorance and perversity of theirparty. 

"And yet our citizens are constantly boasting of the _intelligence ofthe people_! Intelligence! The history of nations cannot present anexample of such total _want of intelligence_ as _our country_ nowexhibit: and what is more, a _want of integrity_ is equally surprising. "

This is strong language to use in a republic, but let us examine alittle. 

The great desideratum to be attended to in the formation of a governmentis to guard against man preying upon his fellow-creature. Call agovernment by any name you will, prescribe what forms you may, the onegreat point to be adhered to, is such a code of laws as will put it outof the power of any one individual, or any one party, from oppressinganother. The despot may trifle with the lives of his people; anaristocracy may crush the poorer classes into a state of bondage, andthe poorer classes being invariably the most numerous, may resort totheir physical force to control those who are wealthy, and despoil themof their possessions. Correctly speaking, the struggle is between theplebeian and the patrician, the poor and the rich, and it is thereforethat a third power has, by long experience, been considered as necessary(an apex, or head to the pyramid of society), to prevent and check thedisorders which may arise from struggles of ambition among the upperclasses. 

Wherever this apex has been wanting, there has been a continual attemptto possess it; whenever it has been elective, troubles have invariablyensued; experience has, therefore, shewn that, for the benefit of allclasses, and the maintenance of order, the wisest plan was to make ithereditary. It is not to be denied that despotism, when it falls intogood hands, has rendered a nation flourishing and happy, that anoligarchy has occasionally, but more rarely, governed with mildness anda regard to justice; but there never yet was a case of a people havingseized upon the power, but the result has been one of rapacity andviolence, until a master-spirit has sprung up and controlled them bydespotic rule. But, although one despot, or one oligarchy may governwell, they are exceptions to the general rule; and, therefore, inframing a government, the rule by which you must be guided, is on thesupposition that each class will encroach, and the laws must be soconstituted as to guard against the vices and passions of mankind. 

To suppose that a people can govern themselves, that is to say directly, is absurd. History has disproved it. They may govern themselvesindirectly, by selecting from the mass the more enlightened andintelligent, binding themselves to adhere to their decisions, and, atthe same time, putting that due and necessary check to the powerinvested in their delegates, which shall prevent their making animproper use of it. The great point to arrive at, is the exact measureand weight of their controlling influences, so as to arrive at the justequipoise; nor can these proportions be always the same, but must becontinually added to or reduced, according to the invariableprogressions or recessions which must ever take place in this world, where nothing stands still. 

The history of nations will shew, that although the just balance hasoften been lost, that if either the aristocracy or the ruling powergained any advantage, the evil, if too oppressive, was capable of beingcorrected; but any advance gained by the democratic party, has neverbeen retraced, and that it has been by the preponderance of power beingthrown into its hands that nations have fallen. Of all the attempts atrepublics, that of the Spartan, perhaps, is the most worthy ofexamination, as Lycurgus went to work radically, and his laws were suchas to obtain that equality so much extolled. How far the term republicwas applicable to the Spartan form of government I will not pretend tosay, but when Lycurgus was called upon to re-construct its legislation, his first act was to make the necessary third power, and he appointed asenate. 

But Lycurgus was wise enough to perceive that he must amend the moralsof his countrymen, and that to preserve an equality of condition he musttake away all incentives to ambition, or to the acquisition of wealth. He first divided the lands into equal portions, compelled all classes, from the kings downwards, to eat at the same table, brought up all thechildren in the same hardy manner, and obliged every citizen after acertain age to carry arms. But more sacrifices were necessary; Lycurguswell knew:

 Quid leges sine moribus vanae profleunt. _Horace_, _Ode_ 24, _lib_. 3. 

To guard against the contagion of corruption, he prohibited _navigationand commerce_; he permitted no intercourse with _foreigners_; heabolished the gold and silver coin as current money, that every stimulusto any one individual to exalt himself above his neighbour should beremoved. If ever there was a system calculated to produce equality, itwas that planned by the wisdom of Lycurgus; but I doubt if the Americanswould like to follow in his footsteps. 

What occasioned the breaking up and the downfall of this republic? Anincrease of power given to the democratic party, by the creation out oftheir ranks of the magistrates, termed Ephori, which threw an undueweight and preponderance into the hands of the people. By this breachin the constitution, faction and corruption were let in and fomented. Plutarch, indeed, denies this, but both Polybius and Aristotle are of adifferent opinion; the latter says, that the power of the Ephori was sogreat as to amount to a perfect tyranny; the kings themselves werenecessitated to court their favour by such methods as greatly to hurtthe constitution, which from an aristocracy degenerated into an absolutedemocracy. Solon was called in to re-model the constitution of theAthenian republic. He had a more difficult task than Lycurgus, and didnot so well succeed. He left too much power in the hands of thedemocracy, the decisions of the superior courts being liable to appeal, and to be _rescinded_ by the _mass of the people_. Anacharsis, theScythian philosopher, when he heard some points first debated in theSenate, and afterwards debated in the Assembly of the people, veryproperly observed, that at Athens "Wise men debated, but fools decided. "The whole history of the Athenian republic is, therefore, one ofoutrageous bribery and corruption among the higher class; tyranny, despotism, and injustice on the part of the lower, or majority. 

The downfall of the Roman empire may equally be traced to the undueweight obtained by the people by the appointment of the tribunes, and soit will be proved in almost every instance: the reason why the excess ofpower is more destructive when in the hands of the people is, thateither they, by retaining the power in their own hands, exercise ademoralising despotism, or if they have become sufficient venal, theysell themselves to be tyrannised over in their turn. 

I have made these remarks, because I wish to corroborate my opinion, that, "power once gained by the people is never to be recovered, exceptby bribery and corruption, " and that until then, every grant is only theforerunner of an extension; and that although the undue balance of powerof the higher classes occasionally _may be_, that in the hands of thepeople _is_ invariably attended by the downfall of the institution. 

At the same time, I do not intend to deny the right of the people toclaim an extension of their privileges, in proportion as they rise byeducation to the right of governing themselves; unfortunately theseprivileges have been given, or taken, previous to their being qualified. A republic is certainly, in theory, the most just form of government, but, up to the present day, history has proved that no people have yetbeen prepared to receive it. 

That there is something very imposing in the present rapid advance ofthe United States, I grant, but this grandeur is not ascribed by theAmericans to its true source: it is the magnificent and extendedcountry, not their government and institutions, which has been the causeof their prosperity. The Americans think otherwise, and, as I havebefore observed, they are happy in their own delusions--they do not makea distinction between what they have gained by their country, and whatthey have gained by their institutions. Everything is on a vast andmagnificent scale, which at first startles you; but if you examineclosely and reflect, you are convinced that there is at present moreshow than substance, and that the Americans are actually existing (anduntil they have sufficient labourers to sow and reap, and gather up theriches of their land, must continue to exist) upon the credit andcapital of England. 

The American republic was commenced very differently from any other, andwith what were real advantages, if she had not been too ambitious andtoo precipitate in seizing upon them. A republic has generally beenconsidered the most primitive form of rule; it is, on the contrary, thevery last pitch of refinement in government, and the cause of itsfailure up to the present has been, that no people have as yet beensufficiently enlightened to govern themselves. Republics, generallyspeaking, have at their commencement been confined to small portions ofterritory having been formed by the extension of townships after theinhabitants had become wealthy and ambitious. In America, on thecontrary, the republic commenced with unbounded territory--a vast fieldfor ambition and enterprise, that has acted as a safety-valve to carryoff the excess of disappointed ambition, which, like steam, iscontinually generating under such a form of government. And, certainly, if ever a people were in a situation, as far as education, knowledge, precepts and lessons for guidance and purity of manners could enablethem, to govern themselves, those were so who first established theAmerican independence. 

Fifty years have passed away, and the present state of America I havealready shown. From purity of manners, her moral code has sunk belowthat of most other nations. She has attempted to govern herself--she isdictated to by the worst of tyrannies. She has planted the tree ofliberty; instead of its flourishing, she has neither freedom of speechnor of action. She has railed against the vices of monarchical forms ofgovernment, and every vice against which she has raised up her voice, isstill more prevalent under her own. She has cried out againstcorruption--she is still more corrupt: against bribery--her people areto be bought and sold: against tyranny--she is in fetters. She hasproved to the world that, with every advantage on her side, the attemptat a republic has been a miserable failure, and that the time is not yetcome when mankind can govern themselves. Will it ever come? In myopinion, never!

Although the horizon may be clear at present, yet I consider that theprospect of the United States is anything but cheering. It is true thatfor a time the States may hold together, that they may each year rapidlyincrease in prosperity and power, but each year will also add to theirdemoralisation and to their danger. It is impossible to say from whatquarter of the compass the clouds may first rise, or which of theseveral dangers that threaten them they will have first to meet and tooppose by their energies. At present, the people, or majority, have anundue power, which will yearly increase, and their despotism will bemore severe in proportion. If they sell their birthright (which theywill not do until the population is much increased, and the higherclasses are sufficiently wealthy to purchase, although their freedomwill be lost) they will have a better chance of happiness and socialorder. But a protracted war would be the most fatal to theirinstitutions, as it would, in all probability, end in the dismembermentof the Union, and the wresting of their power from the people by thebayonets of a dictator. 

The removal of the power and population to the West, the rapid increaseof the coloured population, are other causes of alarm and dread; but, allowing that all these dangers are steered clear of, there is one (amore remote one indeed, but more certain), from which it has no escape--that is, the period when, from the increase of population, the divisionshall take place between the poor and the rich, which no law againstentail will ever prevent, and which must be fatal to a democracy. 

Mr Sanderson, in his "Sketches of Paris, " observes--"If we can retainour democracy when our back woodlands are filled up; when New York andPhiladelphia have become a London and Paris; when the land shall becovered with its multitudes, struggling for a scanty living, or withpassions excited by luxurious habits and appetites. If we can thenmaintain our universal suffrage and our liberty, it will be fair andreasonable enough in us to set ourselves up for the imitation of others. Liberty, as far as we yet know her, is not fitted to the condition ofthese populous and luxurious countries. Her household gods are of clay, and her dwelling where the icy gales of Alleghany sing through thecrevices of her hut. "

I have observed, in my introduction to the first three volumes of thiswork, that our virtues and our vices are mainly to be traced to the formof government, climate, and circumstances, and I think I can show thatthe vices of the Americans are chiefly to be attributed to their presentform of government. 

The example of the Executive is most injurious. It is insatiable in itsambition, regardless of its faith, corrupt in the highest degree; neverlegislating for morality, but always for expediency. This is the firstcause of the low standard of morals; the second is the want of anaristocracy, to set an example and give the tone to society. These arefollowed by the errors incident to the voluntary system of religion, anda democratical education. To these must be superadded the want of moralcourage, arising from the dread of public opinion, and the naturaltendency of a democratic form of government to excite the spirit ofgain, as the main-spring of action, and the _summum bonum_ of existence. 

Dr Channing observes--"Our present civilisation is characterised andtainted by a devouring greediness of wealth; and a cause which assertsright against wealth, must stir up bitter opposition, especially incities where this divinity is most adored. " "The passion for gain isevery where sapping pure and generous feeling, and every where raises upbitter foes against any reform which may threaten to turn aside a streamof wealth. I sometimes feel as if a great social revolution werenecessary to break up our present mercenary civilisation, in order thatChristianity, now repelled by the almost universal worldliness, may comeinto new contact with the soul, and may reconstruct society after itsown pure and disinterested principles. " Channing's Letter to Birney, 1837. 

All the above evils may be traced to the nature of their institutions;and I hold it as an axiom, that the chief end of government is thehappiness, social order, and morality of the people; that no government, however perfect in theory, can be _good_ which in practice _demoralisesthose who are subjected to it_. Never was there a nation whichcommenced with brighter prospects; the experiment has been made and ithas failed; this is not their fault. They still retain all thequalities to constitute a great nation, and a great nation, orassemblage of nations, they will eventually become. At present, all ishidden in a futurity much too deep for any human eye to penetrate; theyprogress fast in wealth and power, and as their weight increases, sowill their speed be accelerated, until their own rapid motion willoccasion them to split into fragments, each fragment sufficiently largeto compose a nation of itself. What may be the eventual result of thisconvulsion, what may be the destruction, the loss of life, the chaoticscenes of strife and contention, before the portions may again berestored to order under new institutions, it is as impossible to foreseeas it is to decide upon the period at which it may take place; but onething is certain, that come it will, and that every hour of increase ofgreatness and prosperity only adds to the more rapid approach of thedanger, and to the important lesson which the world will receive. 

I have not written this book for the Americans; they have hardly enteredmy thoughts during the whole time that I have been employed upon it, andI am perfectly indifferent either to their censure or their praise. Iwent over to America well-inclined towards the people, and anxious toascertain the truth among so many conflicting opinions. I did expect tofind them a people more virtuous and moral than our own, but I confesson other points I had formed no opinions; the results of my observationsI have now laid before the English public, for whom only they have beenwritten down. Within these last few years, that is, since the passingof the Reform Bill, we have made rapid strides towards democracy, andthe cry of the multitude is still for more power, which our presentrulers appear but too willing to give them. I consider that the peopleof England have already as much power as is consistent with theirhappiness and with true liberty, and that any increase of privilegewould be detrimental to both. My object in writing these pages is, topoint out the effects of a democracy upon the morals, the happiness, andthe due apportionment of liberty to all classes; to shew that if, in thebalance of rights and privileges, the scale should turn on one side orthe other, as it invariably must in this world, how much safer it is, how much more equitable I may add, it is that it should preponderate infavour of the intelligent and enlightened portion of the nation. I wishthat the contents of these pages may render those who are led away bygenerous feelings and abstract ideas of right, to pause before theyconsent to grant to those below them what may appear to be a boon, butwill in reality prove a source of misery and danger to all parties--thatthey may confirm the opinions of those who are wavering, and supportthose who have true ideas as to the nature of government. If I havesucceeded in the most trifling degree in effecting these ends, which Iconsider vitally important to the future welfare of this country--if Ihave any way assisted the cause of Conservatism--I am content, and shallconsider that my time and labour have not been thrown away. 

VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER ELEVEN. 

APPENDIX. CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfectunion, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for thecommon defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings ofliberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish thisConstitution for the United States of America. 

ARTICLE 1. --SECTION 1. 

1. All legislative powers herein granted, shall be vested in a Congressof the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House ofRepresentatives. 

SECTION 2. 

I. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosenevery second year by the people of the several States; and the electorsin each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors ofthe most numerous branch of the State legislature. 

2. No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained tothe age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of theUnited States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of thatState in which he shall be chosen. 

3. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among theseveral States which may be included within this Union, according totheir respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to thewhole number of free persons, including those bound to service for aterm of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of allother persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three yearsafter the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and withinevery subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by lawdirect. The number of representatives shall not exceed one for everythirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one representative;and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshireshall be entitled to choose three; Massachusetts eight; Rhode Island andProvidence Plantations one; Connecticut five; New York six; New Jerseyfour; Pennsylvania eight; Delaware one; Maryland six; Virginia ten;North Carolina five; South Carolina five; and Georgia three. 

4. When vacancies happen in the representation from any State, theexecutive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill upsuch vacancies. 

5. The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and otherofficers, and shall have the sole power of impeachment. 

SECTION 3. 

1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senatorsfrom each State, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; andeach senator shall have one vote. 

2. Immediately after they shall be first assembled, in consequence ofthe first election, they shall be divided, as equally as may be, intothree classes. The seats of the senators of the first class shall bevacated at the expiration of the second year; of the second class, atthe expiration of the fourth year; and of the third class, at theexpiration of the sixth year; so that one-third may be chosen everysecond year; and if vacancies happen, by resignation or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any State, the executive thereofmay make temporary appointment until the next meeting of thelegislature, which shall then fill such vacancies. 

3. No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the ageof thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, andwho shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which heshall be chosen. 

4. The Vice-President of the United States shall be President of theSenate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. 

5. The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President, _pro tempore_, in the absence of the Vice-President, or when he shallexercise the office of President of the United States. 

6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. Whensitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. Whenthe President of the United States is tried, the chief justice shallpreside; and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence oftwo-thirds of the members present. 

7. Judgment, in case of impeachment, shall not extend further than toremoval from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any officeof honour, trust, or profit, under the United States; but the partyconvicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law. 

SECTION 4. 

1. The times, places, and manners of holding elections for senators andrepresentatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislaturethereof, but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter suchregulations, except as to the places of choosing senators. 

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and suchmeeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall bylaw appoint a different day. 

SECTION 5. 

1. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, andqualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shallconstitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjournfrom day to day, and may be authorised to compel the attendance ofabsent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each Housemay provide. 

2. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish itsmembers for disorderly behaviour, and, with the concurrence oftwo-thirds, expel a member. 

3. Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time totime publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgmentrequire secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House, on any question, shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, beentered on the journal. 

4. Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without theconsent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any otherplace than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. 

SECTION 6. 

1. The senators and representatives shall receive a compensation fortheir services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasuryof the United States. They shall, in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during theirattendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to orreturning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. 

2. No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he waselected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of theUnited States which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereofshall have been increased, during such time; and no person holding anyoffice under the United States shall be a member of either House duringhis continuance in office. 

SECTION 7. 

1. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House ofRepresentatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as on other bills. 

2. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives andthe Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the Presidentof the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, heshall return it, with his objections, to that House in which it shallhave originated, who shall enter the objection at large on theirjournal, and proceed to re-consider it. If, after suchre-consideration, two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, bywhich it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirdsof that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases, the votesof both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names ofthe persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on thejournal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returnedby the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall havebeen presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if hehad signed it, unless the Congress, by their adjournment, prevent itsreturn, in which case it shall not be a law. 

3. Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of theSenate and House of Representatives may be necessary, (except on aquestion of adjournment, ) shall be presented to the President of theUnited States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approvedby him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds ofthe Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules andlimitations prescribed in the case of a bill. 

SECTION 8. 

The Congress shall have power--

1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; to pay thedebts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of theUnited States; but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniformthroughout the United States. 

2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States. 

3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the severalStates, and with the Indian tribes. 

4. To establish a uniform rule of naturalisation, and uniform laws onthe subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States. 

5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof; and of foreign coin, andfix the standard of weights and measures. 

6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities andcurrent coin of the United States. 

7. To establish post-offices and post-roads. 

8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, forlimited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to theirrespective writings and discoveries. 

9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court: to define andpunish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offencesagainst the law of nations. 

10. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and makerules concerning captures on land and water. 

11. To raise and support armies; but no appropriation of money to thatuse shall be for a longer term than two years. 

12. To provide and maintain a navy. 

13. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land andnaval forces. 

14. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of theUnion, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. 

15. To provide for organising, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service ofthe United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointmentof the officers, and the authority of training the militia according tothe discipline prescribed by Congress. 

16. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over suchdistrict (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession ofparticular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat ofgovernment of the United States, and to exercise like authority over allplaces purchased, by the consent of the legislature of the State inwhich the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings; and, 17. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carryinginto execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by thisconstitution in the Government of the United States, or in anydepartment or officer thereof. 

SECTION 9. 

1. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the Statesnow existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by theCongress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but atax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding tendollars for each person. 

2. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety mayrequire it. 

3. No bill of attainder, or _ex post facto_ law, shall be passed. 

4. No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless inproportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to betaken. 

5. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State. No preference shall be given to any regulation of commerce or revenue tothe ports of one State over those of another: nor shall vessels bound toor from one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another. 

6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence ofappropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of thereceipts and expenditure of all public money shall be published fromtime to time. 

7. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, and noperson holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, withoutthe consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. 

SECTION 10. 

1. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit;make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;pass any bill of attainder, _ex post facto_ law, or law impairing theobligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility. 

2. No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any impostsor duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessaryfor executing its inspection laws; and the neat produce of all dutiesand imposts, laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for theuse of the treasury of the United States, and all such laws shall besubject to the revision and control of the Congress. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops orships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact withanother State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unlessactually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. 

ARTICLE 2. --SECTION 1. 

1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the UnitedStates of America. He shall hold his office during the term of fouryears, and, together with the Vice-President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows:

2. Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereofmay direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of senatorsand representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress;but no senator or representative, or person holding any office of trustor profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. 

3. The electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote byballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitantof the same State with themselves. And they shall make a list of allthe persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which listthey shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of theGovernment of the United States, directed to the President of theSenate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of theSenate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and thevotes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number ofvotes shall be President, if such number be a majority of the wholenumber of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who havesuch a majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House ofRepresentatives shall immediately choose, by ballot, one of them forPresident; and if no person have a majority, then, from the five higheston the list, the said House shall, in like manner, choose the President. But, in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, therepresentation from each State having one vote; a quorum for thispurpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of theStates, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having thegreatest number of votes of the electors, shall be the Vice-President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senateshall choose from them, by ballot, the Vice-President. 

4. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, andthe day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be thesame throughout the United States. 

5. No person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the UnitedStates at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall beeligible to the office of President: neither shall any person beeligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age ofthirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the UnitedStates. 

6. In case of the removal of the President from office, or of hisdeath, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties ofthe said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice-President, and theCongress may, by law, provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice-President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officershall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a Presidentshall be elected. 

7. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services acompensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during theperiod for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receivewithin that period any other emolument from the United States, or any ofthem. 

8. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take thefollowing oath or affirmation:--

9. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute theoffice of President of the United States, and will to the best of myability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the UnitedStates. "

SECTION 2. 

1. The President shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy ofthe United States, and of the militia of the several States, when calledinto the actual service of the United States; he may require theopinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executivedepartments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respectiveoffices; and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons foroffences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. 

2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of theSenate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators presentconcur: and he shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consentof the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers andconsuls, judges of the supreme court, and all other officers of theUnited States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. But the Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, inthe President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads ofdepartments. 

3. The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that mayhappen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions whichshall expire at the end of their next session. 

SECTION 3. 

1. He shall, from time to time, give to the Congress information of thestate of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measuresas he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may on extraordinaryoccasions convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case ofdisagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, hemay adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receiveambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the lawsbe faithfully executed; and shall commission all the officers of theUnited States. 

SECTION 4. 

1. The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the UnitedStates, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and convictionof, treason, bribery, or other crimes and misdemeanors. 

ARTICLE 3. --SECTION 1. 

1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in onesupreme court, and in such inferior courts, as the Congress may fromtime to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme andinferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour; andshall at stated times receive for their services a compensation, whichshall not be diminished during their continuance in office. 

SECTION 2. 

1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, andtreaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to allcases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to allcases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to whichthe United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or moreStates; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizensof different States; between citizens of the same State claiming landsunder grants of different States; and between a State or the citizensthereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects. 

2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers andconsuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the supreme courtshall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases beforementioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both asto law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, asthe Congress shall make. 

3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be byjury, and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimesshall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, thetrial shall be at such places as the Congress may by law have directed. 

SECTION 3. 

1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying waragainst them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid andcomfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on thetestimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession inopen court. 

2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason;but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, orforfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted. 

ARTICLE 4. --SECTION 1. 

1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the publicacts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And theCongress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect thereof. 

SECTION 2. 

1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges andimmunities of citizens in the several States. 

2. A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, ondemand of the executive authority of the State from which he has fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of thecrime. 

3. No person held to service or labour in one State under the lawsthereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law orregulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour; but shallbe delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such service or labourmay be due. 

SECTION 3. 

1. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but nonew State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of anyother State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or moreStates, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures ofthe States concerned, as well as of the Congress. 

2. The Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needfulrules and regulations respecting, the territory or other propertybelonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shallbe so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or ofany particular State. 

SECTION 4. 

1. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union arepublican form of Government, and shall protect each of them againstinvasion; and, on application of the legislature, or of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. 

ARTICLE 5. 

1. The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem itnecessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution; or, on theapplication of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of thisConstitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of theseveral States, or by conventions of three-fourths thereof, as the oneor the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year onethousand eight hundred and eight, shall in any manner affect the firstand fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article: that andno State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffragein the Senate. 

ARTICLE 6. 

1. All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before theadoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the UnitedStates under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. 

2. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall bemade in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall bemade, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme lawof the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrarynotwithstanding. 

3. The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the membersof the several State legislature, and all executive and judicialofficers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall bebound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution: but noreligious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any officeor public trust under the United States. 

ARTICLE 7. 

1. The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall besufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the Statesso ratifying the same. 

Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present, theseventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand sevenhundred and eighty-seven, and of the Independence of the United Statesof America, the twelfth. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribedour names. 

George Washington, _President and Deputy from Virginia_

New Hampshire. John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman. 

Massachusetts. Nathaniel Gorman, Rufus King. 

Connecticut. William Samuel Johnson, Roger Sherman. 

New York. Alexander Hamilton. 

New Jersey. William Livingston, David Bearly, William Paterson, Jonathan Dayton. 

Pennsylvania. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Mafflin, Robert Morris, GeorgeClymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, GoverneurMorris. 

Delaware. George Read, Gunning Bedford, Jun. John Dickenson, RichardBassett, Jacob Broom. 

Maryland. James McHenry, Daniel of St Tho. Jenifer, Daniel Carrol. 

Virginia. John Blair, James Madison, jun. 

North Carolina. William Blount, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Hugh Williamson. 

South Carolina. John Rutledge, Chas. Cotesworth Pinckney, CharlesPinckney, Pierce Butler. 

Georgia. William Few, Abraham Baldwin. 

(_Attest_, ) William Jackson. 

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. 

Art. 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofreligion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging thefreedom of speech or of the press; or the right, of the people peaceablyto assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Art. 2. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of afree State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not beinfringed. 

Art. 3. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any housewithout the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a mannerprescribed by law. 

Art. 4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shallnot be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the placeto be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

Art. 5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwiseinfamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war or public danger; nor shall anyperson be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy oflife or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be awitness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken forpublic use, without just compensation. 

Art. 6. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the rightto a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State anddistrict wherein the crime shall have been committed, which districtshall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of thenature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnessesagainst him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in hisfavour; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence. 

Art. 7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shallexceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved;and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any courtof the United States, than according to the rules of common law. 

Art. 8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive finesimposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 

Art. 9. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall notbe construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 

Art. 10. The powers not delegated to the United States by theConstitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to theStates respectively, or to the people. 

Art. 11. The judicial power of the United States shall not be construedto extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted againstone of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens orsubjects of any foreign State. 

Art. 12. 1. The electors shall meet in their respective States, andvote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves; they shallname in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinctballots the person voted for as Vice-president; and they shall makedistinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all personsvoted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, whichlists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat ofthe Government of the United States, directed to the President of theSenate; the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senateand House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votesshall then be counted; the person having the greatest number of votesfor President shall be the President, if such of the number be amajority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no personhave such a majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list of those voted for as President, theHouse of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, thePresident. But, in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken byStates, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum forthis purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of theStates, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a Presidentwhenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourthday of March next following, the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death, or other constitutional disability of thePresident. 

2. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the wholenumber of electors appointed; and if no person have a majority, thenfrom the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose theVice-President: a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds ofthe whole number of senators, and a majority of the whole number shallbe necessary to a choice. 

3. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office ofPresident, shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the UnitedStates. 

END OF VOL. II. 

VOLUME THREE, CHAPTER ONE. 

CANADA. 

Of what advantage are the Canadas to England?

This question has been put to me, at least one hundred times since myreturn from America. It is argued that the Canadas produce and exportnothing except timber, and that the protecting duty given to Canadatimber is not only very severely felt by the mother-country, but veryinjurious to her foreign relations. These observations are undeniable;and I admit that, as a mere colony compelled to add to the wealth ofEngland, (sending to her all her produce, and receiving from her all hersupplies), Canada has been worth less than nothing. But, admitting thisfor the present, we will now examine whether there are no other groundsfor the retention of the Canadas under our control. 

Colonies are of value to the mother-country in two ways. The first isalready mentioned, and in that way, the present advantage of the Canadasas colonies is abandoned. The other great importance of colonies is, that they may be considered as outports, as stepping-stones, as it were, over the whole world; and for the present I shall examine into the valueof these possessions merely in this point of view. We have many islandsor colonies under our subjection which are in themselves not onlyvalueless, but, moreover, extremely expensive to us; and if every colonyor island is to be valued merely according to the produce and advantagederived from it by the mother-country, we must abandon Heligoland, Ascension, St Helena, Malta, and, even Gibraltar itself. All these, and some others, are, in point of commerce, valueless; yet they add muchto the security of the country and to our dominion of the seas. Thiswill be admitted, and we must therefore now examine how far the Canadasmay be considered as valuable under this second point of view. 

I have already shewn that the ambition for territory is one of thediseases, if I may use the term, of the American people. On that pointthey are insatiable, and that they covet the Canadas is undeniable. Letus inquire into the reasons why the Americans are so anxious to possessthe Canadas. 

There are many. In the first place, they do not like to have a peoplesubjected to a monarchial form of government as their neighbours; theydo not like that security of person and property, and a justadministration of the law, should be found in a thinly-peopled province, while they cannot obtain those advantages under their own institutions. It is a reproach to them. They continually taunt the Canadians thatthey are the only portion of the New World who have not thrown off theyoke--the only portion who are not yet free; and this taunt has not beenwithout its effect upon the unthinking portion of the community. Whatis the cause of this unusual sympathy? The question is alreadyanswered. 

Another important reason which the Americans have for the possession ofthe Canadas is, that they are the means of easy retaliation on the partof England in case of aggression. They render them weak and assailablein case of war. Had they possession of the Canadas, and our otherprovinces, the United States would be almost invulnerable. As it is, they become defenceless to the north, and are moreover exposed to theattack of all the tribes of Indians concentrated on the westernfrontier. Indeed, they never will consider their territory as complete"in a ring fence, " as long as we have possession of the mouths of theSt Lawrence. They wish to be able to boast of an inland navigationfrom nearly the Equator to the Pole--from the entrance of theMississippi to the exit of the St Lawrence. Our possession of theCanadas is a check to their pride and ambition, which are both asboundless as the territory which they covet. 

But there are other reasons equally important. It is their anxiety tobecome a manufacturing as well as a producing nation. Their object is, that the north should manufacture what the south produces; and that, instead of commercial relations with England, as at present, thatAmerican cotton-manufactures should be borne in American bottoms overall the world. This they consider is the great ultimatum to be arrivedat, and they look forward to it as the source of immense wealth andincreased security to the Union, and of their wresting from England thesceptre and dominion of the seas. 

It may be said that the United States, if they want to become amanufacturing nation, have _now_ the power; but such is not the case. Until they can completely shut out English manufactures, they have not. The price of labour is too dear. Should they increase the tariff, orduty, upon English goods, the Canadas and our other provinces willrender their efforts useless, as we have a line of coast of upwards of2, 000 miles, by which we can introduce English goods to any amount bysmuggling, and which it is impossible for the Americans to guardagainst; and as the West fills up, this importation of English goodswould every year increase. As long, therefore, as we hold the Canadas, the Americans must be content to be a very inferior manufacturing nationto ourselves; and it may be added that _now_ or _never_ is the time forthe Americans to possess themselves of the Canadas. They perceive this;for when once the Western States gain the preponderance in wealth andpower, which they will in a few years, the cause of the Eastern, ormanufacturing States will be lost. The Western States will not quarrelwith England on account of the Eastern, but will import our goods directin exchange for their produce. They themselves cannot manufacture andthey will go to market where they can purchase cheapest. 

But do the views of the Americans extend no further? Would they besatisfied if they obtained the Canadas? Most assuredly not. They aretoo vast in their ideas--too ambitious in their views. If Canada fell, Nova Scotia would fall, and they would obtain what they most covet--theharbour of Halifax. New Brunswick would fall, and they would have thendriven us out of our Continental possessions. Would they stop then?No; they never would stop until they had driven the English to the otherside of the Atlantic. Newfoundland and its fisheries would be theirnext prey; for it, as well as our other possessions, would then bedefenceless. They would not leave us the West-Indies, although uselessto them. Such is their object and their earnest desire--an increase ofterritory and power for themselves, and the humiliation of England. Thevery eagerness with which the Americans bring up this question onpurpose that they may disavow their wishes, is one of the strongestproofs of their anxiety to blind us on the subject; but they will neverlose sight of it; and if they thought they had any chance of success, there is no expense which they would not cheerfully incur, no war intowhich they would not enter. Let not the English be deceived by theirasseverations. What I have now asserted is _the fact_. The same spiritwhich has actuated them in dispossessing the Indians of territorieswhich they cannot themselves populate, which prompted the "high-handedtheft" of the Texas from Mexico, will induce them to adopt any pretext, as soon as they think they have a chance, to seize upon the Canadas andour other transatlantic possessions. 

If what I have stated be correct, and I am convinced of its truthmyself, it will be evident that the Canadas, independent of every otherconsideration, become a _most important outpost_ which we must defendand hold possession of. Let it be remembered that every loss to us, isan increase to the power of America--an increase to her security and toher maritime strength; that whatever her assertions may be, she isdeadly hostile to us, from the very circumstance that she considers thatwe prevent her aggrandisement and prosperity. America can only rise tothe zenith, which she would attain, by the fall of England, and everydisaster to this country is to her a source of exultation. That thereare many Americans of a contrary opinion I grant; that the city of NewYork would prefer the present amicable relations is certain; but I havehere expressed the feelings of the _majority_, and it must be rememberedthat in America it is the majority who decide all questions. 

To prove that I am not too severe upon the Americans in the aboveremarks, let me refer to their own printed documents. 

The reader must be informed that the Canadian rebels, with theirAmerican auxiliaries, made incursions into our territory near theboundary-line, burnt the houses, took away the cattle, and leftdestitute those parties who were considered as loyal and well affected, or, in fact, those who refused to arm and join the rebels. When pursuedby the militia, or other forces, the rebel parties hastened over theboundary-line, where they were secure under the American protection. This system of protection naturally irritated the loyal Canadians, whothreatened to cross the boundary and attack the Americans in return. Itwas, however, only a _threat_, never being put in execution; but uponthe strength of this threat, application was made to the Governor in theState of Vermont, requesting that the arms in the American arsenalsmight be supplied to the citizens for their protection. The Governorvery properly refused, and issued a proclamation warning the citizens ofVermont not to interfere. This offended the _majority_, who forthwithcalled a meeting at St Albans, the results of which were ordered to beprinted and circulated. I have a copy of these reports and resolutions, from which I shall now give some extracts. Let it be observed thatthese are not the resolutions of a few lawless and undisciplined people, bordering on the lakes, as the sympathisers are stated to have been. The title of Honorable denotes that the parties are either Members ofthe State or Federal Governments; and, indeed, the parties whose namesappear on the committee, are all of the first respectability in theState. 

"_Meeting of the Freemen at St Albans_. 

"Agreeable to a notice circulated throughout the county, aboutforty-eight hours previous to the meeting, two thousand of the freemenfrom the different towns in the county assembled to take intoconsideration a recent proclamation of the Governor, and anextraordinary letter accompanying the same, and also to express theirsentiments on Canadian affairs, especially such as have recentlytranspired in the neighbourhood of latitude forty-five degrees. 

"Jeptha Bradley, Esquire, of St Albans, was called to the chair, and, agreeable to a resolve of the meeting, appointed the _Hon_. SS Brown, _Hon_. Timothy Foster, and GW Kendall, Esquire, a committee to nominateofficers. 

"The following gentlemen were nominated and appointed:--

"_Hon_. Austin Fuller, of Enosburgh, _President_. 

"_Vice Presidents_. "

+=======================+============+ÝColonel SB Hazeltine, ÝBakersfield. Ý+-----------------------+------------+ÝHON. Horace Eaton, ÝEnosburgh. Ý+-----------------------+------------+ÝDoctor IS Webster, ÝBerkshire. Ý+-----------------------+------------+ÝWilliam Green, Esquire, ÝSheldon. Ý+-----------------------+------------+ÝMartin Wires, Esquire, ÝCambridge. Ý+-----------------------+------------+ÝHON. Timothy Foster, ÝSwanton. Ý+=======================+============+

_Secretaries_. 

+===============+========+ÝJJ Beardsley, ÝSheldon. Ý+---------------+--------+ÝZoroaster Fisk, ÝSwanton. Ý+===============+========+

"The following gentlemen were appointed a committee to prepare a reportand resolutions for the meeting:--"

+========================+===========+ÝHenry Adams, Esquire, ÝSt Albans. Ý+------------------------+-----------+ÝNL Whittemore, Esquire, ÝSwanton. Ý+------------------------+-----------+ÝRA Shattuck, Esquire, ÝSheldon. Ý+------------------------+-----------+ÝBradley Barlow, Esquire, ÝFairfield. Ý+------------------------+-----------+ÝIB Bowdish, Esquire, ÝSwanton. Ý+========================+===========+

"The letter of certain citizens of Burlington, and the proclamation ofhis Excellency, Silas H. Jennison, were then read by the Secretary, JJBeardsley, Esquire After the reading of the letter and the proclamationthe meeting was addressed by several gentlemen, in an eloquent andimpressive manner, and their remarks severally called forth greatapplause. 

"The committee, on resolutions by Henry Adams, Esquire, chairman, thenpresented the following report and resolutions, which were _unanimouslyadopted_. "

After having in the report stated that threats have been made, they thenattack the legality of the Governor's proclamation and conduct, asfollows:--

"The committee have no evidence to show that the execution of thethreats above-mentioned, or that any invasion of the rights of Americancitizens, would knowingly be permitted by the existing government inCanada, or approved of by a majority of the citizens in the Canadiantownships; but when they bear in mind that civil law is suspended inCanada, and in its place are substituted the summary proceedings ofmilitary courts and the capricious wills of petty military officers;when they consider the excited and embittered feelings which prevailalong the frontier, and which some have studied to inflame, and also thecharacter of a portion of the population which borders upon ourterritory, they deem it not improbable that acts of violence might beattempted, and even that a gang of marauders might be gathered together, and led to make some petty invasion into our territory, disturbing thepublic peace, and committing acts of outrage. If this be deemedimprobable, still a state of suspense and doubt is not to be endured. Every family on the frontier should live in a state of undisturbedrepose. The ability not only to resist aggression, but to redressinjuries with summary justice, furnishes a certain, if not the onlyguarantee of perfect quiet. 

"With these views, at recent meetings of the people, a committee wasappointed to wait upon the Governor and request the use of a part of thearms in the State arsenal. This request has been denied; and the reasonassigned by his Excellency is, that he has doubts whether by law he canloan out the arms of the State to be used by the people of the State fortheir own defence. Without commenting on the technicalities which somuch embarrass his Excellency, or inquiring into the wisdom of thatconstruction of the law which infers, that because the State arms _areto be kept fit for use_, therefore _they are not to be used_, thecommittee would beg leave respectfully to suggest to the people that, inasmuch as they are to receive no aid from the State, it is their dutyat once to arm themselves, and to rely upon themselves. 

"While the governor has thus declined furnishing any aid for thesecurity of the frontier, he has issued a proclamation enjoining uponthe citizens of this State the observance of a strict neutrality betweenthe hostile parties in Canada. The propriety of our Governor's issuinga proclamation on an occasion like the present, merely advisory, maywell be questioned. It neither creates any new obligations, nor addsforce to those already resting on our citizens. When it is consideredthat our relations with foreign powers are solely confided to thegeneral government, and that if the people of this State should boldlybreak the obligations of neutrality, the governor of the State has nopower to restrain at to punish. It must be admitted, that aproclamation of neutrality issuing from our State executive seems to beover-stepping the proprieties of the office, and should be exercised, ifat all, only in case of a general and glaring violation of the laws ofnations; and even then it may reasonably be questioned whether theordinary process of law would not be sufficient, and whether gratuitousadvice to the people on the one hand, and gratuitous interference withthe exclusive functions of the general government on the other, wouldbecome pertinent by being stamped with the official Seal of State. Weare not aware of any express authority in our constitution or laws forthe exercise of this novel mode of addressing the people; and it canonly be justified on the ground, that the chief magistrate has somethingof fact or doctrine of importance to communicate, of which the peopleare supposed to be ignorant. In neither point of view is there anything striking in this otherwise extraordinary document. 

"No facts are set forth before unknown to the public, except that arepresentation has been made to his Excellency that `_hostile forces hadbeen organised within this State_, ' of which organisation our citizensare _profoundly ignorant_. 

"To the doctrine of this proclamation, --that the declaration of martiallaw, by Lord Gosford, changes the relations between the United Statesand Canada, we cannot assent. Our relations with Great Britain and hercolonies rest upon treaties, and the general law of nations, which, itis believed, her Majesty's Governor in Chief of Lower Canada can neitherenlarge nor restrict. 

"To assume that our citizens are ignorant of their rights andobligations as members of a neutral independent power, is to take forgranted that they have forgotten the repeated infractions of thoserights which have so often agitated our country since the adoption ofFederal Constitution, which led to the late war with Great Britain, andwhich have given rise to claims of indemnity that are still due fromvarious powers of Europe. Every page of the history of our countryportrays violations of her neutral rights by the despotic and haughtypowers of Europe, among whom _England has ever been foremost_. Yourcommittee do not deem it necessary to enlarge upon this subject. "

After the report came the resolutions, a portion of which I subjoin:--

"Resolved--That the safety of the people is the supreme law, and werecommend to our citizens to arm themselves for the maintenance of thislaw. 

"Resolved--That the proclamation of martial law in Canada, and placingarms in the hands of people unaccustomed to their use, hostile to ourinstitutions, and heated by intestine dissensions, have a directtendency to disturb the peace of our citizens, and demands the immediateinterference of the general government. 

"Resolved--That our government ought to take immediate measures toobtain redress for the injuries and insults perpetrated on our citizensby the people of Canada. 

"Resolved--That as friends of human liberty and human rights, we cannotrestrain the expression of our sympathy, when we behold an _oppressedand heroic people unfurl the banner of freedom_. 

"Resolved--That we hope that time will soon come when the bayonet shallfail to sustain the _last relic of royalty_ which now lingers on thewestern continent. 

"Resolved--That we concur in the opinions which have been fully andfreely expressed in the British parliament by eminent _Englishstatesmen_; that `in the ordinary course of things, Canada must soon beseparated from the mother country. '

"Resolved--That it is the duty of every independent American to aid inevery possible manner, consistent with our laws, the exertions of thepatriots in Lower Canada, against the _tyranny, oppression, and misruleof a despotic government_. "

VOLUME THREE, CHAPTER TWO. 

THE CANADAS, CONTINUED. 

The next question to be considered is, whether, independent of theirbeing important to us as an outpost to defend our transatlanticpossessions, the Canadas are likely to be useful to us, as a colony, ina commercial point of view. This requires much consideration. 

It must be admitted that, up to the present, we may consider the Canadasto have been a heavy burden to this country. From what I am now goingto state, there are many, who agreeing with me in most other points, will be likely to dissent. That I cannot help; I may be in error, but, at all events, I shall not be in error from a too hasty decision. 

That it is wise and proper for a mother country to assist and supporther colonies in their infancy is undoubted. In so doing, the mothercountry taxes herself for the advantages to be hereafter derived fromthe colony; but it may occur that the tax imposed upon the people of theanother country may be too onerous, at the same time that no advantagesat all commensurate are derived from the colony. When such is the case, the tax is not fair; and the colony for whose benefit that tax has beenimposed, is looked upon with ill-will. This is the precise situation ofthe Canadas, and this is the cause why there is so strong an outcryagainst our retaining possession of these provinces. 

The bonus of forty-five shillings on a load of timber, which is given tothe Canadas by our present duties, is much too great; and has pressedtoo heavily on the people of the mother country. It has, in fact, created a monopoly; and when it is considered how important andnecessary an article timber is in this country, --how this enormous bonuson Canadian timber affects the shipping, house-building, andagricultural interests--it is no wonder that people wish to get rid ofthe Canadas and the tax at one and the same time. It is also injuriousto us in our commercial relations with the northern countries, whorefuse our manufactures because we have laid so heavy a duty upon theirproduce. This tax for the benefit of the Canadian produce was put onduring the war, without any intention that it should remain permanent:and I think I shall be able satisfactorily to establish, that, not onlyis it unjust towards our own people, but that, instead of benefiting, itwill be, now that the Canadas are fast increasing in population, aninjury to the Canadas themselves. 

Up to the present period, timber has been the only article of exportfrom Canada: we certainly have had the advantage of a large carryingtrade, and the employment of many thousand tons of shipping; but, withthis exception, the timber trade has been injurious, not only to themother country, but to the colony itself, as it has prevented her realprosperity, which must ever depend upon the culture of the land and theincrease of population. The first point to which the attention of acolony should be directed, is its own support, the competence and supplyof all the necessaries of life to its inhabitants; it is not until afterthis object has been obtained, that it must direct its attention to thegain which may accrue from any surplus produce. In what way has thetimber trade benefited the Canadas? Has it thrown any wealth into theprovinces? most certainly not; the timber has been cut down, either bythose Canadians who would have been much better employed in tilling theland, for every acre cleared is real wealth; or by Americans who havecome over to cut down the timber and have returned to their own countryto spend the money. That the profits of the timber trade have beengreat is certain; but have these profits remained in the Canadas?--havethe sums realised been expended there?--no; they have been realised in, or brought over to England, shared among a few persons of influence whohave, to a certain degree, obtained a monopoly by the bonus granted, butthe Canadas have benefited little or none, and the mother-country hasreceived serious injury. That the parties connected with the Canadatimber trade will deny this, and endeavour to ridicule my arguments, Iam aware; and that they are an influential party I well know; but Itrust before I have concluded, to prove to every disinterested person, that I am correct in my view of the case, and that the prosperity of theCanadas is a very different question from the prosperity of the Canadiantimber merchants, or even the proprietors on the Ottawa. 

When the protecting duty was first imposed, there was no idea of itsbeing a permanent duty: it was intended as an encouragement for ships togo to Canada for timber, when it could not be got in the Baltic. Itwas, in fact, a war measure, which should have been removed upon thereturn to peace. The reason why it was not, is, the plea broughtforward, that the taking off the protecting duty would be a serious lossto the emigrant settler, who would have no means of disposing of histimber after he had felled it, and that the emigrant looked to histimber as his first profits; moreover, that it gave employment to theemigrant in the long winters. That those who have never been in thecountry were led away by this assertion I can easily imagine, but I mustsay that a more barefaced falsehood was never uttered. There arevarieties of emigrants, and those with capital speculate in timber aswell as other articles; but let us examine into the proceedings of theemigrant settler, that is, the man who purchases an allotment andcommences as a farmer--for this is the party to whom the supposedphilanthropy was to extend. He builds his cottage and clears two orthree acres, that is, he fells the trees; as soon as he has done this, if the weather permit, he burns them where they lie, the branches andsmaller limbs being collected round the trunks as fuel to consume them. This he is compelled to do, for the land having been so long smotheredby the want of air and sunshine, arising from the denseness of theforest, has a degree of _acidity_ in it, which the alkali of the woodand ashes are required to correct, previous to his obtaining a crop. Ido not believe that a settler ever sold a tree when he was clearing, although if water-carriage was convenient, he may afterwards, when hewas in competent circumstances, have done so. Having raised his cropfrom the first year's clearing, what is his employment during thewinter, --cutting down timber on the Ottawa for the English market? no;cutting down timber on his own property as fast as he can, so as to haveit ready for burning in the early spring, and having a crop off this, his second clearing. And so he continues, with full employment on hisown farm, until he has cleared sufficient for the growing of his cornand the pasture for his cattle. When he has become independent andcomfortable, and has a few thousand dollars to spare, then he will erecta saw-mill, and work up his own trees into lumber for sale, but by thattime he must be considered as a rich man for a settler. The _timber_trade, therefore, is hurtful to the Canadas, in so much as it preventsthem from clearing land and becoming independent people, who by othermeans would become so. The timber which is cut down for exportation, ischiefly from the forests on or near the Ottawa river, and the emigrantsettler has neither interest or concern in it. 

It may be argued that, as settlers do, as soon as they are in bettercircumstances, erect saw-mills, and work up their trees into _lumber_, that it would be unfair to deprive them of that advantage. I will grantthat; but the fact is, that you will not do so; for of the quantity oftimber and lumber exported from the Canadas, it is only one-half whichis sent to the British market, the other half is divided between theWest Indies, the United States, and their own consumption; and thedemand of the United States will so rapidly increase, that, in a fewyears, the Canadians will care little for sending their timber toEngland, even if the present duty were kept on. I consider that thisbounty upon cutting timber is very injurious to the American provinces, as it distracts their attention from the real source of wealth, whichmust consist in clearing the country; for, to show how great adifference this makes to them, it must be observed, that a farm whichwas only worth two dollars an acre when the settler first came to it, will, as soon as others have cleared around him, rise to twenty orthirty dollars per acre. Every man, therefore, who settles and clearsland, not only benefits himself, but increases the value of the propertyof those all around him; while the feller of timber on the Ottawa onlyputs a few dollars into his own pocket, and does no good to theprovince, as the timber-dealers in England reap all the harvest. 

It would appear very strange that the ship-owners should have joined theCanadian timber merchants in persuading the government to continue theseduties, were it not from the fact that the ship owners appear, invariably, to oppose any measure advantageous to their own interests. That the carrying trade to the Canadas is of importance is certain; butof how much more importance to the ship owner is the reduction ofexpense in building his ship, which must ensue if the timber duties werereduced. The ship owner complains that he cannot sail his ship at aslow a rate as foreigners; that he must be protected, or that he cannotcompete with them in any way; and yet he opposes the very measure whichwould materially assist him in so doing. But the fact is, that, as Ishall eventually show, the carrying trade with Canada would not be lost, though the cargo would not be the same; and there is every reason tosuppose that the employment of the shipping would very soon amount tothe same tonnage as at present. 

The next consideration is, to what should the duty be reduced, so as notto affect our revenue? This is a question easily answered. 

In the Report on Timber Duties, Appendix Number 10, we have. In roundnumbers, for the year 1833:--

+==========================================+========+==========+Ý ÝLoads. ÝDuty paid. Ý+------------------------------------------+--------+----------+Ý Ý Ý (pounds) Ý+------------------------------------------+--------+----------+ÝTimber exported from Canada and American Ý Ý Ý+------------------------------------------+--------+----------+Ýprovinces, calculated in loads Ý 719, 000Ý 300, 000Ý+------------------------------------------+--------+----------+ÝTimber from the north of Europe, in ditto. Ý 444, 000Ý 985, 000Ý+------------------------------------------+--------+----------+Ý Ý1463, 000Ý 1, 285, 000Ý+==========================================+========+==========+

Now it is certain that, wherever the timber may come from, the samequantity will be required; we have, therefore, to fix a duty upon timbercoming from all parts of the world, by which the revenue will notsuffer. A duty of 25 shillings per load will give, upon the wholeimportation, a revenue of 1, 453, 000 pounds, not only an increase ofrevenue upon the timber at present imported; but there is every reasonto suppose that it would occasion a much greater consumption of timber, and of course a great increase of revenue. I do not consider that itwould be advisable to make this reduction immediately. There is a largetonnage, employed in the Canada trade, which might as well wear out init; and it would be but fair to allow those who have embarked theircapital in the trade, to have time to withdraw it. As the Canadas arenot yet prepared to send other produce to the market, we can, with greatpropriety, confer this boon upon the present timber trade. Thereduction of the duty should be gradual, and extended over ten years, atwhich period the final reduction to 25 shillings per load should takeplace; by which time, if Canada be cherished, she will have otherproduce for the market. 

The more I consider the question, the more I am convinced that thisalteration would be a benefit to all parties. We then should be able tobuild ships at a moderate price; we should have a fall in house-rent;and, indeed, it would be of advantage to every class in this country;and, however interested people may argue, the removal of this protectingduty would be the greatest boon and kindness which we could confer onour transatlantic possessions. 

Let us now inquire what are likely to be made the future prospects andproduce of the Canadas as the population increases, and the resources ofthe country will be developed. 

Lower Canada is a sterile country; not that the land is in itself bad, but from the severity and length of the winters. The climate of LowerCanada is precisely the same as that of Russia, and so might be itsproduce. The winters are tedious, but not unhealthy, as they are dry. The summers, like all the summers in the northern regions, althoughshort, are excessively hot. It is owing to this excessive heat of thesummer that the maize, or Indian corn, which will not ripen in thiscountry, can be grown in Lower Canada, and it is the principal cornwhich is raised. The French Canadians who inhabit Lower Canada are butindifferent and careless farmers, yet still they contrive to live inapparent comfort: but the question is not whether the inhabitants ofLower Canada can support themselves, but whether they are likely to beable to produce any thing which might become an article of export toEngland. I should say yes: they may produce _tar_ and _hemp_, two veryimportant articles, and for which we are almost wholly dependent uponRussia. Tar they can most assuredly produce; and, with the same climateas Russia, why not hemp? Hemp will grow in any climate, and almost inany soil, except very stiff clay, and I consider the soil of LowerCanada admirably adapted to it. Up to the present time the FrenchCanadians have merely vegetated, but as the country fills up, and theygradually amalgamate with the other settlers, there is no doubt thatthey will rapidly improve. 

Upper Canada has been, and is still, but little known. At the close ofthe war, there was not a population of 40, 000 upon the whole province:even now there is but 400, 000 upon a territory capable of receiving andsupporting many millions. It is, without exception, the most favouredspot in North America, having all the fertility of the southern andWestern States, without being subject to the many and fatal diseaseswhich are a drawback upon the latter. Although so far north, itsclimate is peculiarly mild, from its being so wholly surrounded withwater, which has the effect of softening down both the cold of thewinter and the heat of the summer. It abounds with the most splendidtimber; is well watered; the land is of the richest quality; the produceis very great, and the crops are almost certain. I particularly noticethis as I consider Upper Canada to be the finest _corn country_ in theworld. 

At present the resources of the Canadas are unknown; the country has notbeen explored; it is without capital, and I may add without credit, butits prospects are very favourable. The timber trade to England will ina few years, even allowing the present bonus to be continued, be oflittle advantage to Upper Canada; they will find a much better market asthe Western States fill up, as then there will be a great demand forlumber, which will be obtained cheaper from Canada than from any portionof the United States. Even now lumber is sent over from Upper Canada tothose portions of the United States bordering on the lakes. I havepointed out the want of timber in the Western States, that is, of timberfit for building; they have some in the State of Wisconsin, which willsoon be absorbed, and then the Canada timber and lumber will be indemand, and I have no doubt that there will be a very extensiveexportation of it. 

The next article of produce to which the Canadians should direct theirattention is the fisheries on the lake, which may be carried on to anyextent and with great profit. The trout and white fish, both verysuperior to the Newfoundland cod, are to be taken with the greatestease, and in vast quantities. I have mentioned that the Americans havealready commenced this fishery, and the demand is rapidly increasing. As the West fills up, the supply would hardly keep pace with the demand;besides that it would also be an article of exportation to this country. 

There are millions and millions of acres to the north and about LakeSuperior, fit for little else than the increase of the animals whosefurs we obtain, and which will probably never be brought intocultivation; yet these lands are rich in one point, which is, that themaple-tree grows there, and any quantity of sugar may be collected fromit, as soon as the population is thick enough to spare hands for itscollection. A maple-tree, carefully tapped, will yield for forty years, and give six or seven pounds of sugar, fully equal to the bestEast-India produce, and refining well. A few tons are collected atpresent, but it may become a large article of export. 

The United States appear to be rich in most metals, but particularly inlead and iron; [note 1] the metal which they are most deficient in iscopper. It is said that the copper mines in New Jersey are good; thosein the West have not yet proved to be worth working. Canada, as I havebefore said, is as yet unexplored, but I have every reason to believethat it will be found rich in minerals, especially copper. I argue, first, from its analogy with Russia, which abounds in that metal; andsecondly, because there is at this time, on the shores of Lake Superior, a mass of native copper weighing many tons, a specimen of which I havehad in my hand. We must not forget to reckon, among the other productsand expected resources of Canada, the furs obtained by the Hudson BayCompany. Of course, if the Canadas are wrested from us, we shall haveto depend upon the Americans for our supply of this necessary article. The value in Canada of the furs exported to this country, by thecompany, amounts, as I have observed in my Diary, to about a million anda half of dollars. 

I now come to what I consider will be the most important export from theCanadas. I have stated it to be my opinion that Upper Canada will bethe first corn country in the world, and in a very few years we mayexpect that she will export largely into this country; already havinghad a surplus which has been sold to the Americans. It must berecollected that America, who used to supply the West-Indies and otherparts of the world with her flour, has, for these last few years, in hermania for speculating, neglected her crops, and it is only during theselast two years that she has redirected her attention to the tillage ofher land. She will now no longer require assistance from Upper Canada, and the yearly increasing corn-produce of that province must find amarket elsewhere. After supplying the wants of Nova Scotia and NewBrunswick, this surplus will find its way into this country. As thepopulation of Upper Canada increases, so will of course her growth ofwheat be greater, and in a very few years, we have reason to expect thatthere will be not only a constant, but even a more than requisite, exportation of corn to this country. Now what will be the effect? Cornfrom Canada is admitted at a fixed duty of 5 shillings per quarter, therefore as soon as the supply from thence, is sufficient, the cornlaws will be _virtually_ repealed, that is to say, they will beexchanged for a permanent duty of 5 shillings per quarter. 

I think that the remarks I have made will incline the reader to agreewith me, that the reduction of the duties on timber will be a real boonto all parties: to the Canadians, because at the same time that thesupplies of lumber to the West Indies and elsewhere will give a certainprofit, they will no longer have the true interested of the colonysacrificed for the benefit of parties at home; to the mother country, because it will relieve the expenses of the builder, lessen house-rentand agricultural expenses, and at the same time increase the revenue;--to the ship-owner, as it will enable him to build much cheaper, and tocompete more successfully with foreign vessels, with the prospect alsoof the carrying trade soon reviving, and the freight of the corn provingan indemnification to him for the loss of that on the timber. That afew interested individuals would complain is undoubted, but it is hightime that a monopoly so injurious in every point, should be removed; andthe profits of a few speculators are not to be for a moment considered, when opposed both to the interests of the colony and of the nation. 

I may as well here remark that it would only be an act of justice to theprovinces, and no less so to ourselves, to take off the prohibitions atpresent in force against the importation of goods from France and othercountries. The boon itself would be small, but still it would be astimulus to enterprise, and the time has gone by for England to imposesuch restrictions on her colonies. I say that we should lose nothing, because all these articles are imported by the Americans; and if theCanadians wish to procure them, they can obtain them immediately atBuffalo, and other American towns bordering on the lakes. At present, therefore, all the profits arising from these importations go into thepockets of the Americans, who are the only parties benefited by ourrestrictive laws. We should therefore remove them. 

I shall now support the arguments in this chapter, touching the relativevalue of the corn and the timber trade to the Canadas, by some extractsfrom the evidence given in the Report of the Committee on the TimberDuties. 

_Q_. "Have you ever formed an opinion of what rate per quarter wheatcould be exported to this country, so as to yield a profit to theexporter?"--_A_. "I cannot call it to mind accurately, but I think theestimate I once made was between 40 shillings and 50 shillings. "

_Q_. "Would it not follow that, unless the price of wheat in thiscountry were to rise to 40 shillings or 50 shillings per quarter, thepopulation that your former answer would transfer front the timber tradeto the agricultural would not be able advantageously to employthemselves?"--_A_. "No; I do not think it follows necessarily. If allour population were devoted to agriculture, our settlements would bemore dense, and their roads more perfect; in fact, all the socialoffices more perfectly fulfilled; which would enable them to bring theirwheat to market at a more moderate price, and thus they might obtain alarger profit even with a lower price. We should bear in mind, inrelation to their agricultural produce, that the farmer of course firstfeeds his own family, and that price affects him so far as it relates tohis surplus produce, and that price rather affects his luxuries than hismeans of subsistence. I am not aware that the present prices wouldprevent a farmer obtaining that return which would enable him topurchase at least all his necessaries. "

_Q_. "What do you suppose is the average expense of the conveyance ofwheat from the remote parts of Canada to Montreal?"--_A_. "I believethe cost of bringing wheat from Niagara to Montreal was about 15 pencecolonial currency, but I am not certain; it is not now lower. I oncemade a table showing the cost of taking produce of all kinds from threepoints on Lake Ontario and on Lake Erie, and sending up articles to thesame places. "

_Q_. "What is the freight from Quebec to England?"--_A_. "The ordinaryrate has been from 8 shillings to 8 shillings 6 pence a quarter forwheat. "

_Q_. "Do you know the price of wheat in this country?"--_A_. "Ibelieve the last average was 40 shillings. "

_Q_. "If at 40 shillings you would probably allow 10 shillings aquarter, by your present statement, as a fair deduction for the expenseof bringing it into this market?"--_A_. "I should think so. "

_Q_. "Do you think the price of 30 shillings would pay the agriculturalproducer in Canada for the production of wheat; would afford a returnfor the investment of capital in the production of wheat inCanada?"--_A_. "I should be loth to speak to a point on which I havenot sufficient knowledge. "

_Q_. "Is it not indispensable to form an opinion upon that point tojustify the opinion you have already given?"--_A_. "I think not. Ihave that feeling, that the consequence of their not having the timbertrade would be, that they would produce other articles, and that theircondition would not be deteriorated. I am led to that conclusion byseeing the present condition of the State of New York, which oncedepended on the timber trade; I look also to Vermont; and when every mantells me that he laments and has lamented that he ever meddled with thetimber trade, I think that I am justified in my opinion, for no one willpretend to state that the land of Vermont, or even of New York, equalsthat of Canada. While speaking of the soil of Canada, I would observethat Jacobs has estimated the average return for wheat on the Continentat four to one, of Great Britain seven to one, and Gourlay has estimatedthe return of Upper Canada at _twenty to one_. Many state that UpperCanada is _unrivalled_ in comparison with any other piece of land ofequal extent. "

_Q_. "Are you aware of the extent of exportation of agriculturalproduce from Canada?"--_A_. "I am; I can state it from memory. Thelargest quantity of wheat exported in any year was in 1831, and I thinkamounted to 1, 300, 000 bushels. "

_Q_. "Can you make the same statement with reference to corn andprovisions as to other articles?"--_A_. "Canada exports a great deal ofcorn. "

_Q_. "Which Canada?"--_A_. "Both Upper and Lower Canada. "

_Q_. "Does Lower Canada grow corn enough for her ownconsumption?"--_A_. "I should think Lower Canada did, and more. "

_Q_. "Does Upper Canada?"--_A_. "Upper Canada a great deal more. "

_Q_. "Have you the amount of the exports?"--_A_. "I have the exportsof 1833; the two Canadas exported 650, 000 bushels of wheat. "

_Q_. "How much flour?"--_A_. "About 91, 000 barrels. "

_Q_. "Have you any account of the imports of flour from the UnitedStates into Lower Canada?"--_A_. "I have not with me but can give itvery nearly. "

_Q_. "Do those exports of which you have spoken just now comprehend theUnited States flour?"--_A_. "No, they are exclusive of Colonialproduction. "

_Q_. "Is not Lower Canada, as well as Upper Canada, in the habit ofsupplying herself, to a certain degree, with American flour and wheat, and exporting her own produce, on account of the state of the corn lawslast year?"--_A_. "Yes, it is done to a certain extent. I have someindication as to the quantity which comes from the United States intoUpper and Lower Canada being small. In the returns of the traffic lastyear through our Welland Canal, about 265, 000 bushels of wheat passedthrough, of which 18, 000 British and 22, 000 American only went toMontreal. All the rest went to Oswego, for the New York market: but thedestination in future will probably depend upon whether the internalcommunication is improved in those colonies, and on the state of themarket in New York and in the Canadas. "

_Q_. "If there is sufficient capital, is there any reason to suppose itwould not be beneficial to engage in both?"--_A_. "I do not think it isa question concerning the abundance of capital, but the good to bederived from the preservation of the Canada timber trade by enormousprotecting duties. I am confident that _the timber trade is inimical_to _the best interests of the Canadas_; it would be possible to make thetimber trade more beneficial than any other pursuit in the country, andthe way to render it so would be to give immense protecting duties tothe timber trade of Canada, allowing all other articles of produce to beopen to general competition; but, by such a course, England would not bebenefiting _Canada_. "

_Q_. "Can you state the average prices of wheat at Quebec the last fouror five years?"--_A_. "I think 5 shillings or 6 shillings. Canadiancurrency; the latter rate is equal to 5 shillings sterling, which is 40shillings a quarter; but I do not suppose an average of several yearswould be over 4 shillings, 2 pence, that would be 33 shillings, 4 pence. There are peculiar circumstances that attended the last three or fouryears. "

_Q_. "Has it been higher the last three or four years than the three orfour years previously? _A_. Considerably higher than the ten yearspreviously. "

_Q_. "Do you think 30 shillings a quarter would have been the averageof the ten years preceding?"--_A_. "I should think so, but I cannot nowspeak positively. "

_Q_. "Are the committee to understand it to be your opinion, that ifthe timber establishments were broken up and no more timber exportedfrom Canada, there would be no loss to that country?"--_A_. "Theremight be an immediate loss, and a _very great subsequent gain_. I thinkthere would be an immediate loss attending on the mills, possibly150, 000 pounds to 200, 000 pounds. "

_Q_. "Has it not been the fact that there has been a constant andgradual increase of tonnage into Quebec for the last fifteenyears?"--_A_. "Yes. "

_Q_. "Presuming that those establishments were to be broken up and nomore timber exported, do you think that gradual increase would stillcontinue?"--_A_. "No; the first consequence, I think, very possiblywould be a very material decrease. "

_Q_. "Subsequently the _same tonnage_ would be required for the_carriage of corn_ as at present?"--_A_. "Some years hence, for cornand other articles. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. The following description of the iron mines at Marmora areworthy the attention of the reader. It is from the engineer who wassent to survey them. 

"To Isaac Fraser, Esquire

"The water power at Marmora, and its sufficiency for all hydraulicpurposes, may be better imagined than explained to you by me, from thefact, that the falls occur upon the Crow River, at the foot of untoldlakes falling into Crow Lake, the deepest inland lake in the province, and just below the junction of the Beaver River, which latter has itssource in the Ottawa or Grand River, or the waters flowing paralleltherewith, and by the outlet at the Marmora Falls: these head waters, onthe confluence with the waters of the Otonabee, and Rice Lake in CrowBay, six miles below the works, form the great River Trent, second inimportance and magnitude only to the St Lawrence. It is sufficient forme to add, that I deem the water power at the works abundantly equal toall the purposes of machinery and manufacture, which can for centuriesbe established there. 

"Immediately adjoining the works there is an ore bed, from the partialdevelopment of which, and from the opinions I have received of itssuperior quality, it would appear to be of the purest kind of iron ore, except native iron, in the same veins with which is an admixture of redpaint and yellow ochre, and in separate veins and beds at this locality, those paints occur in some quantities, several barrels of which, especially the red paint, Mr Hayes disposed of at 25 shillings perbarrel, at the works, and it seems probable they would become profitablearticles of commerce. Here also there is a bed of purely white marble, not seemingly stratified, but in large blocks; and a quarry of superiorstone for lithographic purposes, the quality of which has been testedand reported favourably upon. This ore bed would be from its situationwithin any wall constructed for the custody of the convicts, but fromthe great jumble of mineral substances, which the careless opening ofthose veins has occasioned, it is not possible to hazard an opinion asto the probable extent of minerals here, but from, if I may judge byappearances and from geological analogy, the few acres surrounding, itis probable they are sufficiently extensive to be an object ofconsideration--several hundred tons of ore have already been taken outfor the furnaces. There is at this place a well-built bridge and awharf at which the ore brought from the lake ore beds is landed, andfrom thence carted or wheeled up to the ore bank. 

"_At a distance of four miles by water, that is at the Crow Lake, in thetownship of Belmont, Newcastle District, the principal ore bed occurs_. I may confine my observations respecting this ore bed to the qualitiesand varieties of the ores to be found there, and of the extent of thedeposit give you an idea, by fancying my feelings when I first saw themountain. My surprise was great, and _my first conclusion was, that itwould be more than sufficient to supply the world with iron for ever_. The ore here is in great variety of magnetic ore, easily quarried and, in fact, it can be quarried, loaded, and transported to the works, roasted on the ore bank, broken up into particles, and put upon thefurnace, at an expense not exceeding 2 shillings 0 pence per ton; as Iobserved it is strongly magnetic, and although mixed considerably withsulphur, it is easily freed from that deleterious mineral by exposure tothe atmosphere, and to the action of air and frost, and by this speciesof evaporation, a new and valuable commodity could be procured in greatquantities, namely, the copperas of commerce. 

"With a boat of fifty tons burthen--and there is depth of water enoughfor a 74 gun ship from the wharf at the works, to this mountain of ore--navigated by four men, 150 tons of ore could be brought down in twodays--so readily is it quarried, and so handily put on board. Intermediate to this bed and the works, several other deposites of ironare discovered--one of a superior quality, surpassing in magnetic powerany other ore yet discovered, possessing what mineralogists callpolarity--and near to this, meadow and bog ore, not a mile distant fromthe works, is to be found in great quantities. The works are to thenorth-north-east and eastward, surrounded by beds of ore, of which fivehave been tried and brought into use--but as they are inland, andconsequently more expensively procured, they merit but this passingobservation, that in quantity and quality they are valuable. 

"For the present I am, Sir, "Your obedient servant, --_Engineer_"

VOLUME THREE, CHAPTER THREE. 

THE CANADAS, CONTINUED. 

To one who has a general knowledge of the various English colonies, towhich emigration is constantly taking place, it appears very strangethat people should emigrate to such countries as New South Wales, VanDieman's Land, and New Zealand, when Upper Canada is comparatively sonear to them, and affording every advantage which a settler could wish. Of course the persuasion of interested parties, and their own ignorance, prevent them from ascertaining the truth. Indeed, the reports uponUpper Canada are occasionally as highly coloured as those relative toother colonies, and nothing but an examination of the country, I may saya certain period of residence in it, can enable you to ascertain thereal merits of the case. I have neither land nor interest in UpperCanada, and, therefore, my evidence on the question may be considered asimpartial; and I do not hesitate to assert that Upper Canada promisesmore advantages to the settler than any other English colony, or anyportion whatever of the United States. 

I shall now make a few remarks upon emigration to that province, andpoint out what the settler will have to expect. I have read many worksupon the subject; they are very inaccurate, and hold out to the emigrantbrilliant prospects, which are seldom or never realised. The best work, independently of its merits as a novel, is "Laurie Todd, " by Mr Galt. And first, I address myself to the poor man who goes out with onlytwenty or thirty pounds in his pocket. 

If he credit the works written to induce people to emigrate, all that hehas to do is to build his log-hut, clear his land, and in three years bean independent man. 

It is true that he can purchase fifty acres of land for one hundreddollars, or twenty-five pounds; that he has only to pay one-tenth partof the sum down, which is two pounds ten shillings sterling. It is truethat he will collect a _Bee_, as it is termed, or a gathering ofneighbours to run up the frame of his house; but, nevertheless, possessing his fifty acres of land and his log-house, he will in allprobability be starved out the very first year, especially if he has afamily. 

To a poor man, a family is _eventually_ of immense value. As soon as hehas fairly settled, the more children he has the faster he will becomerich; but on his first arrival, they will, if not able to work forthemselves, be a heavy burthen. If, however, they can do any thing, soas to pay for their board and lodging, he will not be at any expense forthem, as there is employment for every body, even for children. 

The only article I should recommend him to take out from England is agood supply of coarse clothing for his family; if he would take out aventure, let it be _second-hand clothes_, and he will double his moneyif he sells them by auction, for clothes are the most expensive articlein Canada. I once saw some cast-off clothes sold by an acquaintance ofmine in Upper Canada; a Jew in England would not have given five poundsfor the lot, yet, sold at auction, they cleared twenty-five pounds, allexpenses paid. He cannot, therefore, take out too much clothing, butthe coarser and more common it is the better. Let him supply himselffrom the old clothes shops, or the cheap stores. New clothes will soonbecome old when he works hard. Having made this provision, let him buynothing else; but change his money into sovereigns and keep it in hispocket. 

As soon as he arrives at Quebec, he must lose no time in taking thesteamboat up the St Lawrence, and landing near to where he has decidedupon locating. If he has made no decision, at all events let him leavethe city immediately, and get into the country, for there he will getwork and spend less money. Instead of thinking of making a purchase ofland, let him _give up all thoughts of it for a year or two_; but hirehimself out, and his wife and children also, if he can. If he is a goodman, he will receive four pounds a month, or forty-eight pounds a year, with his board and lodging. The major part of this he will be able tolay by. If his wife must stay at home to take care of the children, still let her work; work is always to be found, and she may not onlysupport herself and children, but assist his fund. By the time that hehas been eighteen months or two years in the country, he will have hiseyes open, know the value of every thing, and will not be imposed uponas he would have been had he taken a farm immediately upon his arrival. He will have laid by a sufficient sum for him to begin with, and he willhave become acquainted with the mode of farming in the country, which isvery different from what he has been used to in the old. He may then goon and prosper. 

The next description of emigrant settler to which I shall address myselfis he who comes out with a small capital, say from two hundred to fivehundred pounds; a sum sufficient to enable him to commence farming atonce, but not sufficient to allow him to purchase or stock a farm whichhas a portion of the land already cleared. The government lands fetchat auction about ten shillings an acre, and they are paid for byinstalments, one-tenth down, and one-tenth every year, with interest, until the whole be paid; of course, he may pay it all at once, if hepleases, and save the interest. He must not purchase more than fourhundred acres. He can always procure more if he is successful. Hisfirst instalment to government for the purchase of four hundred acreswill be eighty dollars. 

His next object is to have a certain portion of his land cleared forhim. The price varies according to the size and quantity of theportion; but you may say, at the highest, it will cost about sixteendollars an acre. Let him clear ten acres, and then build his house andbarns. I will make two estimates, between which he may decide accordingto his means. 

_Estimate_ 1. 

+====================================+========+Ý ÝDollars. Ý+------------------------------------+--------+ÝInstalment to Government Ý 80Ý+------------------------------------+--------+ÝShingle-house Ý 400Ý+------------------------------------+--------+ÝFurniture Ý 100Ý+------------------------------------+--------+ÝBarns and sheds Ý 400Ý+------------------------------------+--------+ÝTen acres clearing Ý 160Ý+------------------------------------+--------+ÝOxen Ý 80Ý+------------------------------------+--------+ÝCow Ý 20Ý+------------------------------------+--------+ÝPigs and poultry Ý 20Ý+------------------------------------+--------+ÝPlough, harrow, etcetera. Ý 20Ý+------------------------------------+--------+ÝSeed Ý 50Ý+------------------------------------+--------+ÝHorse and wagon Ý 100Ý+------------------------------------+--------+ÝAbout 300 pounds Ý 1, 430Ý+------------------------------------+--------+ÝTo this (if you have no family Ý Ý+------------------------------------+--------+Ýable to work) for a man and his wifeÝ 300Ý+------------------------------------+--------+ÝExpenses of living the first year Ý 200Ý+------------------------------------+--------+Ý400 pounds Ý 1930Ý+====================================+========+

_Estimate_ 2. 

+=========================+=======+Ý ÝDollarsÝ+-------------------------+-------+ÝInstalment to Government Ý 80Ý+-------------------------+-------+ÝLog-house and furniture Ý 100Ý+-------------------------+-------+ÝBarn Ý 60Ý+-------------------------+-------+ÝClearing Ý 160Ý+-------------------------+-------+ÝOxen Ý 80Ý+-------------------------+-------+ÝCow Ý 20Ý+-------------------------+-------+ÝPigs and poultry Ý 20Ý+-------------------------+-------+ÝPlough, harrow, etcetera. Ý 20Ý+-------------------------+-------+ÝSeed Ý 50Ý+-------------------------+-------+ÝHorse and wagon Ý 100Ý+-------------------------+-------+Ý150 pounds Ý 690Ý+=========================+=======+

But choosing between these two estimates, according to his means, thatis, by reserving, if possible, one hundred pounds for contingencies, hehas every chance of doing well. He must bear in mind, that althoughevery year his means will increase, he must not cripple himself by anoutlay of all his money at first starting. After the first year, hewill be able to support himself and family from the farm. I have putevery thing at the _outside expense_, that he may not be deceived; buthe must not expend all his capital at once; his horse or oxen may die--his crops may partially fail--he may have severe illness--all thesecontingencies must be provided against. 

But the settler who goes out under the most favourable circumstances, isthe one who has one thousand pounds or more, and who can, therefore, purchase a farm of from two hundred to four hundred acres, with aportion cleared, and a house and offices ready built. These are alwaysto be had, for there are people in the Canadas, as in America, who havepleasure in selling their cleared land, and going again into the bush. These farms are often to be purchased at the rate of from five to tendollars per acre for the whole, cleared and uncleared. In this case allthe difficulties have been smoothed away for him, and all that he has todo is, to be industrious and sober. 

When I was at London, on the river Thames, (in Upper Canada I mean), Imight have purchased a farm, lying on the banks of that river, of fourhundred acres, seventy of them cleared, and the rest covered with thefinest oak timber, with a fine water-power, and a saw-mill in full work, a good house, barn, and out-buildings and kitchen garden, for sixhundred pounds. In ten years this property will be worth more than sixthousand pounds; and in twenty more, if the country improves as fast asit does now, at least fifteen thousand pounds. 

In looking out for a property in Canada, always try to obtain awater-power, or the means of erecting one, by damming up any swiftstream; its value will, in a few years, be very great; and neverconsider a few dollars an acre more, if you have transport by water, orare close to a good market. You must look forward to what the country_will be_, not to what it is at present. 

Half-pay officers settle in Upper Canada with great advantages, arisingfrom the circumstance, that their annual pay is always a resource tofill back upon. A very small capital is sufficient in this case; and, if prudent, they gradually rise to independence, if not to wealth. There are, however, one or two cautions to be given to these gentlemen. _Never go into the bush_ if you can help it: accustomed to society, youwill find the total loss of it too serious. If you have a wife andlarge family, they may partially compensate for the loss, but even thenit is better to locate yourself near a small town. If you are a singleman and sit down in the bush, you are lost. Hundreds have done so, andthe result has been, that they have resorted to _intemperance_, and havedied ruined men. 

But the settlers most required in Upper Canada, and those who would reapthe most golden harvest, are men of capital; when I say capital, I meanthose who possess a sum of four or five thousand pounds--a sum veryinadequate to support a person in England who has been born and bred asa gentleman; but in Canada, with such a sum, he can not only farm, butspeculate to great advantage. At present the Americans go over thereevery year, and realise large sums of money. Indeed, capital is so muchrequired in Upper Canada, and may be employed to such advantage, that Iwonder people, with what may be considered as small capitals here, donot go over. The only caution to give them is, not to be in a hurry; inthe course of a year or two they will understand what they are about, and then they will soon become wealthy. 

When I arrived at Toronto, I was called upon by an old friend who hadoften shot with me in Norfolk. His father had once set him up inbusiness, but the house failed. He resolved to go out to Canada, andhis father gave him a _thousand pounds_ as a start, and allowed him twohundred pounds a year afterwards. He had been in the country sevenyears when we met again. I accepted his invitation to dine and sleep athis house, which was about seven miles from the town. He sent handsomesaddle horses over for three of us. I found him located on a beautifulfarm of about four hundred acres, the major portion of it cleared; hishouse was a very elegantly built cottage ornee, every thing had theappearance of a handsome English country residence; he had married abeautiful woman of one of the first families. We sat down to anexcellent dinner, and, in every respect, the whole set-out was equal towhat you generally meet with in good society in England. He was reallyliving in luxury. We returned the next day, in a handsome carriage andas fine a pair of horses as one would wish to see. 

I could hardly credit that all this could have been accumulated in sevenyears--yet such was the case, and it was not a singular one; for thewhole road from his farm to Toronto was lined with similar farms andhandsome houses, belonging to gentlemen who had emigrated, forming amongthemselves, a very extensive and most delightful society. 

Although they do not go ahead as fast as some of the American cities, (for instance, Buffalo, ) still Upper Canada has, within the last ten orfifteen years, taken a surprising start, and will now, if judiciouslygoverned, increase in wealth almost as fast as any of the AmericanStates. About Toronto, most of the gentlemen have incomes of from sevenhundred to fifteen hundred pounds per annum, and keep handsomeequipages; but there are many other towns which have lately risen upvery rapidly. Peterborough is an instance of this. "Peterborough in1825 contained but one miserable dwelling; now, in 1838, may be seennearly four hundred houses, many of them large and handsome, inhabitedby about fifteen hundred persons; a very neat stone church, capable ofaccommodating eight hundred or nine hundred persons, [see Note 1] aPresbyterian church of stone, two dissenting places of worship, and aRoman Catholic church in progress. The town has in or near it, twogrist, and seven saw-mills, five distilleries, two breweries, twotanneries, eighteen or twenty shops (called stores), carriage, sleigh, wagon, chair, harness, and cabinet-makers and most other useful trades. Stages run all the year, bringing mails five times a week and steamboatswhilst the navigation is open; there is one good tavern (White's), andtwo inferior ones. Families may now find houses of any sizes to suitthem, at moderate rents. The roads in this neighbourhood are beinggreatly improved. The towns of Cobourg, Port Hope, Colborne, Grafton, Brighton, River Trent, and Beaumont in the Newcastle district, are allequally prosperous, and, like Peterborough, are surrounded by genteelfamilies from the United Kingdom; in short, the advancement of thisdistrict is almost incredible. "

But there is one important subject relative to emigration which must beconsidered; if it be, as I trust my readers will be inclined to thinkwith me, a national question, it is highly expedient that it should benot only assisted, but controlled by government. At present themortality is tremendous; and I very much question whether there are notmore lives sacrificed in the _transport_ of the emigrants, thansubsequently fall a prey to disease in the western States, bordering onthe Mississippi. With those who would emigrate to the United States, wehave nothing to do, neither do they so much require our sympathy. TheAmerican packets are good vessels, and they suffer little; and when theyland at New York, Baltimore and Philadelphia, the charity of theAmericans is always ready for their relief. But with the poor emigrantswho would settle in Canada, the case is very different. It must beunderstood, that the Quebec trade is chiefly composed of worn-out andunseaworthy vessels, which cannot find employment elsewhere; for avessel which is in such a state that a cargo of dry goods could not beentrusted to her, is still sufficiently serviceable for the timbertrade--as, `allowing her bottom to be out' with a cargo of timber she ofcourse cannot founder. But if these vessels are sufficiently safe tobring timber home, they are not sufficiently good vessels to receivethree or four hundred emigrants on board. Leaky, bad sailers, ill-found, the voyage is often protracted, and the sufferings of thepoor people on board are dreadful. Fever and other diseases break outamong them, and they often arrive at Quebec with sixty or seventy peoplewho are carried to the hospital independently of those who have died andbeen thrown overboard. 

Sometimes their provisions do not last out the voyage, and they areobliged to purchase of the captain or others on board, (who haveprepared for the exigence, ) and thus their little savings to recommencelife with, are all swallowed up to support existence. I believe thatwhat they suffer is dreadful; and if ever there was a case which wouldcall forth patriotism and sympathy, it is the hardships of these poorpeople. Allowing emigration not to be a national question, still it isa question for national humanity, and all this suffering might bealleviated at comparatively a very trifling expense. 

If two or three of our smaller line-of-battle ships now lying at theirmoorings, were to be jury-rigged, without any guns on board, and mannedwith a sloop's ship's company, they would not decay faster by runningbetween Quebec and this country than if they remained in harbour. Oneof those vessels would carry out 2, 500 men, women, and children. Letthe emigrants take their provisions on board, and should theirprovisions fail them, let there be a surplus for their supply at thecost price. Under this arrangement, you would have that order, cleanliness, and ventilation which would insure them against disease, and proper medical attendance if it should be required; you would savethousands of lives, and the emigrant, as he left the ship, would feelgrateful for the benefit conferred. But the assistance of governmentmust not end here: the emigrant, on his arrival, is adrift; he knows notwhere to go; he has no resting-place; he is a perfect stranger to thecountry and to every thing; he exhausts his means before he can findemployment or settle: other arrangements are therefore necessary, if thework of charity is to be completed. Indeed, the want of thesearrangements is the cause of a very large proportion of the Canadianemigrants leaving our provinces and settling in the United States, wherethey can immediately find employment; and Americans, agents of the landspeculators, are continually on the look-out in Canada, persuading theemigrants, by all sorts of promises and inducements, to leave theprovinces and to take lands in the States, belonging to their employers. Every emigrant lost to us is a gain to America; and upon the increaseof the English population depends the prosperity of the Canadas, and ourbest chance of retaining them in our possession. 

Both Upper and Lower Canada have one great advantage over most of theother territories of the United States, which is, that they are so veryhealthy; the winters in both provinces are dry, and, in Upper Canada, they are not severe; and the summers are cool, compared with those ofthe United States. Indeed, in point of climate, they cannot besurpassed; and I rather think, independently of its fine soil, whichenables it to grow every thing (for even tobacco grows well in UpperCanada), that in mineral richness it is not to be exceeded. It aboundsin water-power, and has several splendid rivers. As soon as the roadsare made (for that is the present desideratum in the Upper Province), Ihave no hesitation in asserting, that it will be, of all others, themost favourable spot for emigration. It is a man's own fault if, withcommon industry, he does not, in a few years, secure competence and thehappiness arising from independence, when it is accompanied by thatgreatest of all blessings--health. 

There has been so strange and continued a system of misrule on the partof the mother-country with respect to these provinces, that I am notsurprised at any thing which takes place; but it is certain that theemigration to the Canadas has been very much checked by the Governmentitself. 

The price of land in the United States is fixed at a dollar and aquarter per acre; be it of the best quality, full of minerals, or withany other important advantages, the price is still the same. The set-upprice in Canada is two dollars per acre. If no more is offered it issold at that sum, but at no less. Now, whatever the Government mayimagine, I can assure them that this difference in the price isconsidered very important by those who emigrate, and that thousands whowould have settled in Canada, have, in consequence, repaired to theUnited States, much to our disadvantage; and this appears socontradictory, as the Government have very unwisely parted with enormoustracts of the best land, selling them to a Company at a price which, with facilities for payment, reduces the price paid per acre by thisCompany, to, I think, about one shilling and three-pence, and for whichthe Company now charge the same price as the Government; thus giving abonus to speculators which they refuse to those who wish to become _bonafide_ settlers. I never could comprehend the grounds upon which theywere persuaded to so unwise an act as that. The lands were sold to theCompany before the present Government were in power, but why the priceof the land still in possession of the Crown should be raised higherthan in the United States I cannot imagine. Sound policy would reduceit lower, for the increase of wealth in the province must ever consistin the increase of its population. 

There are in Upper Canada several villages of free negroes, who haveescaped from the United States, and should it be considered at any timeadvisable to remove any of the West Indian population, it would be verywise to give them land on the Upper Canada frontiers. The negroesthrive there uncommonly well, and have acquired habits of industry; and, as may be supposed, are most inveterate against the Americans, as wasproved in the late disturbances, when they could hardly be controlled. They imagine (and very truly) that if the Americans were to obtainpossession of Canada, that they would return to slavery, and it iscertain that they are not only brave, but would die rather than be takenprisoners. This is a question worth consideration, as out of an idleand useless race in the West Indies may be formed, at very littleexpense, a most valuable frontier population to these provinces. I amhappy to perceive that, in the Report of Lord Durham, the importance ofthese provinces to the mother country is fully acknowledged. 

"These interests are indeed of great magnitude; and on the course whichyour Majesty and your Parliament may adopt, with respect to the NorthAmerican colonies, will depend the future destinies, not only of themillion and a half of your Majesty's subjects who at present inhabitthose provinces, but of that vast population which those ample andfertile territories are fit and destined hereafter to support. Noportion of the American continent possesses greater natural resourcesfor the maintenance of large and flourishing communities. An almostboundless range of the richest soil still remains unsettled, and may berendered available for the purposes of agriculture. The wealth ofinexhaustible forests of the best timber in America, and of extensiveregions of the most valuable minerals, have as yet been scarcelytouched. Along the whole line of sea-coast, around each island, and inevery river, are to be found the greatest and richest fisheries in theworld. The best fuel and the most abundant water-power are availablefor the coarser manufactures, for which an easy and certain market willbe found. Trade with other continents is favoured by the possession ofa large number of safe and spacious harbours; long, deep, and numerousrivers, and vast inland seas, supply the means of easy intercourse; andthe structure of the country generally affords the utmost facility forevery species of communication by land. Unbounded materials ofagricultural, commercial and manufacturing industry are there; itdepends upon the present decision of the Imperial Legislature todetermine for whose benefit they are to be rendered available. Thecountry which has founded and maintained these colonies at a vastexpense of blood and treasure, may justly expect its compensation inturning their unappropriated resources to the account of its ownredundant population: they are the rightful patrimony of the Englishpeople, the ample appanage which God and Nature have set aside in theNew World for those whose lot has assigned them but insufficient portionin the Old. Under wise and free institutions, these great advantagesmay yet be secured to your Majesty's subjects; and a connexion, securedby the link of kindred origin and mutual benefits, may continue to bindto the British Empire the ample territories of its North Americanprovinces, and the large and flourishing population by which they willassuredly be filled. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. The building of this Church was undertaken by the inhabitantsof Peterborough and its vicinity, belonging to the church of England. In 1835 it was commenced, and, by great exertions, opened for Divineworship in December 1836, though not altogether finished. Nine hundredpounds was raised by voluntary contributions, not one farthing havingbeen given by any public body to it. The gentlemen composing thebuilding committee are responsible for the remainder due, being fivehundred pounds. An advertisement for subscriptions to liquidate thisdebt has been for some weeks past inserted in a London newspaper. 

VOLUME THREE, CHAPTER FOUR. 

THE CANADAS, CONTINUED. 

Previous to my entering into a further examination of the Canadaquestion, it will perhaps be better to recapitulate, in as few words aspossible, what has already occurred, and the principal causes of thelate insurrection. 

When the Canadian provinces were reduced by the British arms, theinhabitants, being entirely French, were permitted to retain their ownlaws, their own language in Courts and public offices, and all theirvested rights which had been granted to them by the French government. It was a generous, but, as it has been proved, an unwise policy. Theform of government, as an English colony, was proposed, and acceded toby the French population, who, gratified by the liberality of their newrulers, cheerfully took the oath of allegiance. For many years, indeedit may be said until the close of the war of 1814, the populationremained almost entirely French. England had been so long engaged inwar, and the annual expenditure of life in her armies and her navies wasso great, that she could not permit, much less encourage, emigration. 

At the close of the war of 1814, the census of the population in the twoCanadian provinces was as follows:--In Lower Canada, between three andfour hundred thousand; in Upper Canada, from thirty to forty thousand, of which nineteen-twentieths were of French extraction. But theemigration during the last twenty-five years of peace has made aconsiderable change. The population of Lower Canada has increased tosix hundred thousand, and that of Upper Canada now amounts to upwards offour hundred thousand. As the emigration has been almost wholly fromthe British dominions, it may be now fairly assumed that, taking the twoprovinces together, the English and French population are now on a paras to numbers; the English preponderate in the Upper province as much asthe French do in the Lower. But if we are to consider the two nationsof settlers as to their respective value as emigrants to the provinces, on the point of capital, industry, and enterprise, the scale willdescend immediately in favour of the English population. The French areinactive, adverse to speculation, or even improvement. Every _habitant_is content with his farm as handed down to him by his progenitor, andthe higher classes who hold the seigneuries are satisfied with theirseignorial rights and the means of exaction which they afford to them. The privileges of these seigneurs, or lords of the manor, in LowerCanada, are very extensive, and a bar to all improvement or advance. They hold the exclusive right of hunting and fishing; all the waterprivileges, such as the erection of saw-mills, etcetera, are insured tothem. The _habitant_ is even compelled to send his flour to be groundat the mill of the lord of the manor. At the sale of every property, the lord of the manor receives one-twelfth of the proceeds. Thus, if afarm worth a few hundred pounds was to fall into the hands of anenterprising man, and he was to raise it to the value of thousands, morethan the prime-cost would be deducted for the lord of the manor if hewere compelled to part with it. This, with the other impediments toenterprise, has left Lower Canada in a state of quiescence, and theemigrants who have gone over have passed it by that they might settle onthe more fertile and free province of Upper Canada. One of the writersin the daily press of New York has very truly remarked:--

"When the British first obtained the Canadas, its commerce consisted ofa few peltries, conveyed to France by the vessels which brought out thetroops and carried back the disbanded regiments. The lumber trade wasunknown. The importations were a nonentity. While at present manyhundreds of vessels are engaged in the direct timber trade, and morethan one hundred and fifty vessels have been frequently counted on theriver St Lawrence. These, it must be remembered, are almostexclusively owned by British merchants; while the French Canadians ownthe land in the same proportion as the English do the trade. "

It was the knowledge of these facts, and that the English were everyyear rising in importance, (for they had not only secured the wholetrade, but were gradually occupying the more fertile land of the Upperprovince, ) which has created the jealousy and ill-will, and has beensuch a source of irritation to the French inhabitants of the Lowerprovince. I have dwelt upon these facts because there is a very generalopinion (which has most unfortunately been acted upon by ourGovernment), that the legislature of the province should be guided bythe interests of the majority, and this they have considered to be infavour of the French population; whereas in numbers they are aboutequal, and in point of wealth and importance, the English population aremost decidedly in the advance; besides that, the former population wouldwillingly separate themselves from the mother-country, and thereforedeserve but little favour, while the latter are loyal and attached toit. The French having the ascendancy of five to one in the Lowerprovince, have done all they can to check improvement. Public workswhich have cost large sums, have remained uncompleted, because the Houseof Assembly in the Lower province has refused to allow them to becarried on. Indeed, had the Lower province been allowed to continue inher career of opposition, she would have eventually rendered difficultall communication between the Upper province and the mother-country. 

This is acknowledged in Lord Durham's report, which says:--

"Without going so far as to accuse the Assembly of a deliberate designto check the settlement and improvement of Lower Canada, it cannot bedenied that they looked with considerable jealousy and dislike on theincrease and prosperity of what they regarded as a foreign and hostilerace; they looked on the province as the patrimony of their own race;they viewed it not as a country to be settled, but as one alreadysettled; and instead of legislating in the American spirit, and firstproviding for the future population of the province, their primary carewas, in the spirit of legislation which prevails in the old world, toguard the interests and feelings of the present race of inhabitants, towhom they considered the newcomers as subordinate; they refused toincrease the burthens of the country by imposing taxes to meet theexpenditure required for improvement, and they also refused to direct tothat object any of the funds previously devoted to other purposes. Theimprovement of the harbour of Montreal was suspended, from a politicalantipathy to a leading English merchant who had been the most active ofthe commissioners, and by whom it had been conducted with the mostadmirable success. It is but just to say, that some of the works whichthe Assembly authorised and encouraged, were undertaken on a scale ofdue moderation, and satisfactorily perfected and brought into operation. Others, especially the great communications which I have mentionedabove, the Assembly showed a great reluctance to promote or even topermit. It is true that there was considerable foundation for theirobjections to the plan on which the Legislature of Upper Canada hadcommenced some of these works, and to the mode in which it had carriedthem on; but the English complained that, instead of profiting by theexperience which they might have derived from this source, the Assemblyseemed only to make its objections a pretext for doing nothing. Theapplications for banks, railroads, and canals were laid on one sideuntil some general measures could be adopted with regard to suchundertakings; but the general measures thus promised were never passed, and the particular enterprises in question were prevented. The adoptionof a registry was refused, on the alleged ground of its inconsistencywith the French institutions of the province, and no measure to attainthis desirable end in a less obnoxious mode, was prepared by the leadersof the Assembly. The feudal tenure was supported, as a mild and justprovision for the settlement of a new country; a kind of assurance givenby a committee of the Assembly, that some steps should be taken toremove the most injurious incidents of the seignorial tenure, producedno practical results; and the enterprises of the English were stillthwarted by the obnoxious laws of the country. In all these decisionsof the Assembly, in its discussions, and in the apparent motives of itsconduct, the English population perceived traces of a desire to repressthe influx and the success of their race. A measure for imposing a taxon emigrants, though recommended by the Home Government, and warrantedby the policy of those neighbouring States which give the greatestencouragement to emigration, was argued on such grounds in the Assembly, that it was not unjustly regarded as indicative of an intention toexclude any further accession to the English population; and theindustry of the English was thus retarded by this conduct of theAssembly. Some districts, particularly that of the Eastern Townships, where the French race have no footing, were seriously injured by therefusal of necessary improvements; and the English inhabitants generallyregarded the policy of; the Assembly as a plan for preventing anyfurther emigration to the province, of stopping the growth of Englishwealth, and of rendering precarious the English property alreadyinvested or acquired in Lower Canada. "

It may be said, that latterly the French party, by the inconsiderateyielding of the Government at home, legislate for both provinces; andfinding that they never could compete with the English in other points, their object has been to crush them as much as possible. [See Note 1. ]The policy pursued by M. Papineau and his adherents, has therefore beento keep the Lower Province entirely in the hands of the French, and withthis view they have as much as possible, prevented British settlers fromobtaining land in Lower Canada; and that their rule might be absolute, over the French population, they have prevented their education, so thatthey might blindly follow those who guided them. These two assertionswill be fully borne out by an examination into the public records. 

The land being almost wholly in the possession of the French, M. Papineau's first object was, to make the possession of _landed property_the tenure by which any employment of the trust under government couldbe held; and in this great object he succeeded. It must at once beperceived that, by this regulation alone, all British residents wereexcluded, and that if possessed of capital to any amount, whatever theirstake in the colony might be, they were ruled and dictated to by theFrench party. No person could be an officer in the militia unless hewas a landowner. The wealthy English merchant had to fall into theranks, and be ordered about by an ignorant French farmer, a man whocould not write or read, but made his cross to any paper presented tohim for his signature. 

By another enactment the grand juries were to be selected from those whowere land-owners, and the consequence was, that in two grand juriesselected in two succeeding years, there was only one man who could writeor read out of the whole number, and the others fixed their cross to thebills found. 

What was still more absurd was, that the office of trustee for theschools could only be held by the same tenure, and in the Act passed, itis provided, that the trustees for national education may be permittedto affix their _cross_ to the school reports, a more convincing proof ofthe state of ignorance in which the Canadian French population have beenheld and acknowledged to be so by the French party, by the making such aproviso in the statute. I had a convincing proof myself of theignorance of the French population during the rebellion in Lower Canada. I handed a printed circular to about four hundred prisoners who werecollected, for one of them to read aloud to the rest, and there was notone who could read _print_. 

Having secured the party in the province, the next object of M. Papineau and his adherents was, to blind the Government at home: theysent home a list of grievances which required redress, and in this theywere joined by the English republican party. Among other demands, theyinsisted upon the right to the Lower Assembly having the control of thecolonial revenues. So earnest was the Government at home to satisfythem, that every concession was made, and even the last great questionof controlling their own expenditure was consented to, upon the solecondition that the civil list, for the payment of the salary of thegovernor and other state officers, was secured. 

What was the conduct of M. Papineau and his party as soon as they hadgained their point? They immediately broke their faith with theGovernment at home, and refused to vote the sum for the civil list. 

For three years, the governor and all the public officers were withouttheir salaries, which were at last provided for by a vote of the EnglishParliament at home. This nefarious conduct of the French Party had onegood effect, it created a disunion with the English republican party, who, although they wished for reform, would be no participators in sucha breach of honour. 

That for many years there has been sad mismanagement on the part of theGovernment at home, cannot be denied, but the error has been thecontinual yielding to French clamour and misrepresentation, and theGovernment having lost sight of the fact that the English populationwere rapidly increasing, and had an equal right to the protection of themother-country. It is the English population who have had real cause ofcomplaint, and who are justified in demanding redress. The French havebeen only too well treated, and their demands became more imperious inproportion to the facility with which the Government yielded to them intheir earnest, but mistaken, desire to put an end to the agitation of M. Papineau and his party. Mistaking the forbearance of the Englishgovernment for weakness, M. Papineau issued his inflammatory appeals;the people were incited to rebellion; but even this conduct did not seemto rouse the Government at home, who had probably formed the idea thatthe French Canadian was too peaceful to have recourse to arms. Emboldened by the conduct on the part of the Government, which wasascribed to fear, and finding themselves supported by Mr Joseph Humeand Mr Roebuck at home, the republican party in Upper Canada openlydeclared itself, and a portion of the Canadian press issued the mosttreasonable articles without molestation. The Americans were not idlein fomenting this ill-will towards the mother country in the UpperProvince, and the Papineau party proceeded to more active measures. Arrangements were made for a general rising of the Lower Province; themeeting of St Charles took place, and resolutions were passed of anature which could no longer be overlooked by the Provincial Government. For many months previous to the meeting at St Charles, the ProvincialGovernment had been aroused and aware of the danger, and Lord Gosfordperceived the necessity of acting contrary to the orders received fromhome. Proofs had been obtained against those who were most active inthe intended rebellion, and at last warrants were issued by theAttorney-General for their apprehension. It was this sudden andunexpected issue of the warrants which may be said to have saved theprovinces. It defeated all the plans of the conspirators, who had notintended to have flown to arms until the _next Spring_, when theirarrangements would have been fully made and organised. This fact I hadfrom Bouchette, and three or four of the ringleaders, whom I visited inprison. They intended to have had the leaf on the tree, and the coldweather over, before they commenced operations; and had they waited tillthen the result might have been very serious, but the issue of thewarrants for the apprehension of the leaders placed them in the awkwarddilemma of either being deprived of them, or of having recourse to armsbefore their plans were fully matured. The latter was the alternativepreferred; and the results of this unsuccessful attempt are welldescribed in Lord Durham's report:--

"The treasonable attempt of the French party to carry its politicalobjects into effect by an appeal to arms, brought these hostile racesinto general and armed collision. I will not dwell on the melancholyscenes exhibited in the progress of the contest, or the fierce passionswhich held an unchecked sway during the insurrection, or immediatelyafter its suppression. It is not difficult to conceive how greatly theevils, which I have described as previously existing, have beenaggravated by the war; how terror and revenge nourished, in each portionof the population, a bitter and irreconcilable hatred to each other, andto the institutions of the country. The French population, who had forsome time exercised a great and increasing power through the medium ofthe House of Assembly, found their hopes unexpectedly prostrated in thedust. The physical force which they had vaunted was called into action, and proved to be utterly inefficient. The hope of recovering theirprevious ascendancy under a constitution similar to that suspended, almost ceased to exist. Removed from all actual share in the governmentof their smaller country, they brood in silence over the memory of theirfallen countrymen, of their burnt villages, of their ruined property, oftheir extinguished ascendancy, and of their humbled nationality. To theGovernment and the English they ascribe these wrongs, and nourishagainst both an indiscriminating and eternal animosity. Nor have theEnglish inhabitants forgotten in their triumph, the terror with whichthey suddenly saw themselves surrounded by an insurgent majority, andthe incidents which alone appeared to save them from the uncheckeddomination of their antagonists. They find themselves still a minorityin the midst of a hostile and organised people; apprehensions of secretconspiracies and sanguinary designs haunt them unceasingly, and theironly hope of safety is supposed to rest on systematically terrifying anddisabling the French, and in preventing a majority of that race fromever and again being predominant in any portion of the legislature ofthe province. I describe in strong terms the feelings which appear tome to animate each portion of the population; and the picture which Idraw represents a state of things so little familiar to the personalexperience of the people of this country, that many will probably regardit as the work of mere imagination; but I feel confident that theaccuracy and moderation of my description will be acknowledged by allwho have seen the state of society in Lower Canada during the last year. Nor do I exaggerate the inevitable constancy, any more than theintensity of this animosity. Never again will the present generation ofFrench Canadians yield a loyal submission to a British Government; neveragain will the English population tolerate the authority of a House ofAssembly in which the French shall possess or even approximate to amajority. "

Although M. Papineau and his party were very willing to fraternise withthe discontented party in Upper Canada, and to call forth the sympathyand the assistance of the Americans, their real intentions and wisheswere to have made the Canadas an independent French province, in strictalliance with France. [See Note 2. ] The assistance of the Upper Canadaparty would have been accepted until they were no longer required, andthen there would have been an attempt, and very probably a successfulone, to drive away by every means in their power the English settlers inUpper Canada to the United States. The Americans, on the other hand, cared nothing about the French or English grievances; their sympathyarose from nothing less than a wish to add the Canadas to their alreadyvast territories, and to drive the English from their last possessionsin America; but they also knew how to wear the cloak as well as M. Papineau, and had the insurrection been successful, both French andEnglish would by this time have been subjected to their control, and M. Papineau would have found that he had only been a tool in the hands ofthe more astute and ambitious Americans. Such is my conviction: butthis is certain, that whatever may have been the result of the formerinsurrection, or whatever may be the result of any future one (for thetroubles are not yet over), the English in Upper Canada must fall asacrifice to either one party or the other, unless they can succeed(which, with their present numbers and situation, will be difficult) inoverpowering them both. 

It may be inquired, what were the causes of discontent which occasionedthe partial rising in Upper Canada. Strange to say, although Mackenzieand his party were in concert and correspondence with M. Papineau, thechief cause of discontent arose from the partiality shown by the Englishgovernment to the French Canadians in Lower Canada; their grievanceswere their own, and they had no fellow-feeling with the FrenchCanadians. If they had any prepossession at all, it was in favour ofjoining the American States, and to this they were instigated by thenumber of Americans who had settled in Upper Canada. There were severalminor causes of discontent: the Scotch emigrants were displeased becausethe Government had decided that the clergy revenues were to be allottedonly for the support of the Episcopal church, and not for thePresbyterian. But the great discontent was because the English settlersconsidered that they had been unfairly treated, and sacrificed by thegovernment at home. But although discontent was general, a wish torebel was not so, and here it was that Mackenzie found himself in error, and M. Papineau was deceived; instead of being joined by thousands, asthey expected, from the Upper Province, they could only muster a fewhundreds, who were easily dispersed: the feelings of loyalty prevailed, and those whom the rebel-leaders expected would have joined the standardof insurrection, enrolled themselves to trample it tinder foot. Thebehaviour of the settlers in Upper Canada was worthy of all praise; theyhad just grounds of complaint; they had been opposed and sacrificed to amalevolent and ungrateful French party in the Lower Province; yet whenthe question arose as to whether they should assist, or put down theinsurrection, they immediately forgot their own wrongs, and proved theirloyalty to their country. 

The party who adhered to Mackenzie may well be considered as an Americanparty; for Upper Canada had been so neglected and uncared for, that theAmericans had already obtained great influence there. Indeed, when itis stated that Mathews and Lount, the two _members of the Upper House ofAssembly_ who were executed for treason, were both _Americans_, it isevident that the Americans had even obtained a share in the legislationof the province. When I passed through the Upper Province, I remarkedthat, independently of some of the best land being held by Americans, the landlords of the inns, the contractors for transporting the mails, and drivers of coaches, were almost without exception, Americans. 

One cause of the Americans wishing that the Canadas should be wrestedfrom the English was that, by an Act of the Legislature, they were notable to hold lands in the province. It is true that they could purchasethem, but if they wished to sell them, the title was not valid. ColonelPrince, whose name was so conspicuous during the late troubles, broughtin a bill to allow Americans to hold land in Upper Canada, but the billwas thrown out. It scarcely need be observed that Colonel Prince is nowas violent an opponent to the bill. See Note 3. He has had quiteenough of Americans in Upper Canada. 

It was fortunate for the country that there was such a man as Sir JohnColborne, and aided by Sir Francis Head, at that period in the commandof the two provinces. Of the first it is not necessary that I shouldadd my tribute of admiration to that which Sir John Colborne has alreadyso unanimously received. Sir Francis Head has not been quite sofortunate, and has been accused (most unjustly) of rashness and want ofdue precaution. Now the only grounds upon which this charge can bepreferred is, his sending down to Sir John Colborne all the regulartroops, when he was requested if possible so to do. I was at thisperiod at Toronto, and as I had the pleasure of being intimate with SirFrancis, I had fell knowledge of the causes of this decision. SirFrancis said, "I have but two hundred regular troops; they will be ofgreat service in the Lower Province, when added to those which Sir JohnColborne already has under his command. Here they are not sufficient tostem an insurrection if it be formidable. I do not know what may be thestrength of the rebels until they show themselves, but I think I do knowthe number who will support me. Should the rebels prove in great three, these two companies of regular troops will be overwhelmed, and what Iconsider is, not any partial success of the rebel party, but the moraleffect which success over regular troops will create. There are, I amsure, thousands who are at present undecided, who, if they heard thatthe _regular troops_, of whom they have such dread, were overcome, wouldjoin the rebel cause. This is what I fear; as for any advantage gainedover me, when I have only _militia_ to oppose to them, that is of littleconsequence. When Sir John Colborne has defeated them in Lower Canada, he can then come up here, with the regular troops. "

I believe these to be the very words used by Sir Francis Head when heasked my opinion on the subject, and I agreed with him most cordially;but if any one is inclined to suppose, from the light, playful, and Imust say, undiplomatic style of Sir Francis's despatches, that he hadnot calculated every chance, and made every disposition which prudenceand foresight could suggest, they are very much mistaken. The mostperfect confidence was reposed in him by all parties; and the eventproved that he was not out in his calculations, for with the militiaalone he put down the rebellion. During the short time from Sir FrancisHead's going out, until he requested to be recalled, he did more good tothat province, and more to secure the English dominion than could beimagined, and had he not been governor of the province for some timeprevious to the rebellion, I strongly surmise that it would have beenlost to this country. 

The events of the rebellion are too fresh in the reader's memory to bementioned here. It is, however, necessary to examine into the presentstate of affairs, for it must not be supposed that the troubles have yetceased. 

First, as to the French Canadian party. If I am not very much mistaken, this may be considered as broken up; the severe lesson received from theEnglish troops, and the want of confidence in their leaders from theircowardice and inability, will prevent the French Canadians from againtaking up arms. They are naturally a peaceable, inoffensive, good-tempered people, and nothing but the earnest instigation of aportion of their priests, the notaries, and the doctors, (the threeparties who most mix with the _habitants_), would have ever roused themto rebellion. As it is, I consider that they are efficiently quelled, and will be quiet, at least for one generation, if the measures of thegovernment at home are judicious. The cause of the great influenceobtained by the people I have specified over the _habitants_ is wellexplained in Lord Durham's Report. Speaking of the public seminaries, he says:--

"The education given in these establishments greatly resembles the kindgiven in the English public schools, though it is rather more varied. It is entirely in the hands of the Catholic clergy. The number ofpupils in these establishments is estimated altogether at about athousand; and they turn out every year, as far as I could ascertain, between two and three hundred young men thus educated. Almost all ofthese are members of the family of some habitant, whom the possession ofgreater quickness than his brothers has induced the father or the curateof the parish to select and send to the seminary. These young men, possessing a degree of information immeasurably superior to that oftheir families, are naturally averse to what they regard as descendingto the humble occupations of their parents. A few become priests; butas the military and naval professions are closed against the colonist, the greater part can only find a position suited to their notions oftheir own qualifications in the learned professions of advocate, notary, and surgeon. As from this cause these professions are greatlyoverstocked, we find every village in Lower Canada filled with notariesand surgeons, with little practice to occupy their attention, and livingamong their own families, or at any rate among exactly the same class. Thus the persons of most education in every village belong to the samefamilies, and the same original station in life, as the illiterate_habitants_ whom I have described. They are connected with them by allthe associations of early youth, and the ties of blood. The mostperfect equality always marks their intercourse, and the superior ineducation is separated by no barrier of manners, or pride, or distinctinterests, from the singularly ignorant peasantry by which he issurrounded. He combines, therefore, the influences of superiorknowledge, and social equality, and wields a power over the mass, whichI do not believe that the educated class of any other portion of theworld possess. "

The second party, which are the discontented, yet loyal English of UpperCanada, are entitled to, and it is hoped will receive the justice theyclaim they well deserve it. It is the duty, as well as the interest ofthe mother country to foster loyalty, enterprise, and activity, and itis chiefly in Upper Canada that it is to be found. One great advantagehas arisen from the late troubles, which is, that they have driven mostof the Americans out of the province, and have created such a feeling ofindignation and hatred towards them in the breasts of the UpperCanadians, that there is no chance of their fraternising for at leastanother half century. Nothing could have proved more unfortunate to theAmerican desire of obtaining the Canadas than the result of the laterebellions. Should the Upper Canadians, from any continued injusticeand misrule on the part of the mother country, be determined toseparate, at all events it will not be to ally themselves with theAmericans. In Lord Durham's Report we have the following remarks:--

"I have, in despatches of a later date than that to which I have hadoccasion so frequently to refer, called the attention of the HomeGovernment to the growth of this alarming state of feeling among theEnglish population. The course of the late troubles, and the assistancewhich the French insurgents derived from some citizens of the UnitedStates, have caused a most intense exasperation among the Canadianloyalists against the American government and people. Their papers haveteemed with the most unmeasured denunciations of the good faith of theauthorities, of the character and morality of the people, and of thepolitical institutions of the United States. Yet, under this surface ofhostility, it is easy to detect a strong under-current of an exactlycontrary feeling. As the general opinion of the American people becamemore and more apparent during the course of the last year, the Englishof Lower Canada were surprised to find how strong, in spite of the firstburst of sympathy, with a people supposed to be struggling forindependence, was the real sympathy of their republican neighbours withthe great objects of the minority. Without abandoning their attachmentto their mother country, they have begun, as men in a state ofuncertainty are apt to do, to calculate the probable consequences of aseparation, if it should unfortunately occur, and be followed by anincorporation with the United States. In spite of the shock which itwould occasion their feelings, they undoubtedly think that they shouldfind some compensation in the promotion of their interests; they believethat the influx of American emigration would speedily place the Englishrace in a majority; they talk frequently and loudly of what has occurredin Louisiana, where, by means which they utterly misrepresent, the endnevertheless of securing an English predominance over a Frenchpopulation has undoubtedly been attained; they assert very confidently, that the Americans would make a very speedy and decisive settlement ofthe pretensions of the French; and they believe that, after the firstshock of an entirely new political state had been got over, they andtheir posterity would share in that amazing progress, and that greatmaterial prosperity, which every day's experience shows them is the lotof the people of the United States. I do not believe that such afeeling has yet sapped their strong allegiance to the British empire;but their allegiance is founded on their deep-rooted attachment toBritish, as distinguished from French institutions. And if they findthat that authority which they have maintained against its recentassailants, is to be exerted in such a manner as to subject them to whatthey call a French dominion, I feel perfectly confident that they wouldattempt to avert the result, by courting, on any terms, an union with anAnglo-Saxon people. "

Here I do not agree with his lordship. That such was the feelingprevious to the insurrection I believe, and notwithstanding the defeatof the insurgents, would have remained so, had it not been for thepiratical attacks of the Americans, which their own government could notcontrol. This was a lesson to the Upper Canadians. They perceived thatthere was no security for life or property--no law to check outrage--andthey felt severely the consequences of this state of things in thedestruction of their property and the attempts upon their lives by anation professing to be in amity with them. Fraternise with theAmericans the Upper Canadians will not. They may be subdued by them ifthey throw off the allegiance and protection of the mother-country, asthey would be hemmed in between two hostile parties, and find it almostimpossible, with their present population, to withstand their unitedefforts. But should a conflict of this kind take place, and the UpperCanadians be allowed but a short period of repose, or could they holdthe Americans in check for a time, they would sweep the whole race ofthe Lower Canadians from the face of the earth. Their feelings towardsthe Lower Canadians are well explained in Lord Durham's Report:--

"In the despatch above referred to I also described the state of feelingamong the English population, nor can I encourage a hope that thatportion of the community is at all more inclined to any settlement ofthe present quarrel that would leave any share of power to the hostilerace. Circumstances having thrown the English into the ranks of thegovernment, and the folly of their opponents having placed them, on theother hand, in a state of permanent collision with it, the formerpossess the advantage of having the force of government, and theauthority of the laws on their side in the present state of the contest. Their exertions during the recent troubles have contributed to maintainthe supremacy of the law, and the continuance of the connexion withGreat Britain; but it would, in my opinion, be dangerous to rely on thecontinuance of such a state of feeling, as now prevails among them, inthe event of a different policy being adopted by the Imperialgovernment. Indeed the prevalent sentiment among them is one of anything but satisfaction with the course which has been long pursued, withreference td Lower Canada, by the British legislature and executive. The calmer view, which distant spectators are enabled to take of theconduct of the two parties, and the disposition which is evinced to makea fair adjustment of the contending claims, appear iniquitous andinjurious in the eyes of men who think that they alone have any claim tothe favour of that government, by which they alone have stood fast. They complain loudly and bitterly of the whole course pursued by theImperial Government, with respect to the quarrel of the two races, ashaving been rounded on an utter ignorance of, or disregard to the realquestion at issue, as having fostered the mischievous pretensions ofFrench nationality, and as having, by the vacillation and inconsistencywhich marked it, discouraged loyalty and fomented rebellion. Everymeasure of clemency, or even justice, towards their opponents, theyregard with jealousy, as indicating a disposition towards thatconciliatory policy which is the subject of their angry recollection;for they feel that being a minority, any return to the due course ofconstitutional government would again subject them to a French majority:and to this I am persuaded they would never peaceably submit. They donot hesitate to say that they will not tolerate much longer the beingmade the sport of parties at home, and that if the mother countryforgets what is due to the loyal and enterprising men of her own race, they must protect themselves. In the significant language of one oftheir own ablest advocates, they assert that `Lower Canada must be_English_, at the expense, if necessary, of not being _British_. '"

The third party, which is the American, is the only one at presentinclined to move, and in all probability they will commence as soon asthe winter sets in; for however opposed to this shameful violation ofthe laws of nations the President, officers, and respectable portion ofthe American Union may be, it is certain that the _majority_ arerepresented by these marauders, and the removal of our troops would be asignal for immediate aggression. 

The Americans will tell you that the sympathy, as they term it, onlyexists on the borders of the lakes; that it extends no further, and thatthey are all opposed to it, etcetera. Such is not the case. Thegreatest excitement which was shown any where was perhaps at Albany, thecapital of the State of New York, on the Hudson river, and two hundredmiles at least from the boundary; but not only there, but even on theMississippi the feeling was the same; in fact, it was the feeling of themajority. In a letter I received the other day from a friend in NewYork, there is the following remark:--

"Bill Johnson (the pirate on lake Ontario) _held his levees_ here duringthe winter. They were _thronged_ with all the _best people_ of thecity. "

Now, the quarter from whence I received this intelligence is to berelied upon; and that it was the case I have no doubt. And why shouldthey feel such interest about a pirate like Bill Johnson? Simplybecause he had assailed the English. This may appear a trifle; but astraw thrown up shows in what direction the wind blows. 

At present there is no want of troops to defend the Canadas against aforeign attack, and little inclination to rebel in the provincesthemselves. That now required is, that the legislature should beimproved so as to do justice to all parties, and such an encouragementgiven to enterprise and industry as to induce a more extendedemigration. 

Lord Durham has very correctly observed, that it is not now a conflictof principles between the English and French, but a conflict of the tworaces. He says:--

"I expected to find a contest between a government and a people: I foundtwo nations warring in the bosom of a single state: I found a struggle, not of principles, but of races; and I perceived that it would be idleto attempt any amelioration of laws or institutions until we could firstsucceed in terminating a deadly animosity that now separates theinhabitants of Lower Canada into the hostile divisions of French andEnglish. "

But why should this conflict between the two races have taken place?Firstly, because the French, by the injudicious generosity of ourGovernment in allowing them to retain their language in public affairs, with all their customs and usages, were allowed to remain a Frenchcolony, instead of amalgamating them with the English, as might havebeen done. Subsequently, because the interests of the English colonistshave been sacrificed to the French, who, nevertheless, becamedisaffected, and would have thrown off the English dominion. LordDurham very correctly adds:--

"Such is the lamentable and hazardous state of things produced by theconflict of races which has so long divided the province of LowerCanada, and which has assumed the formidable and irreconcilablecharacter which I have depicted. In describing the nature of thisconflict, I have specified the causes in which it originated; and thoughI have mentioned the conduct and constitution of the colonialgovernment, as modifying the character of the struggle, I have notattributed to political causes a state of things which would, I believe, tinder any political institutions have resulted from the verycomposition of society. A jealousy between two races, so longhabituated to regard each other with hereditary enmity, and so differingin habits, in language, and in laws, would have been inevitable underany form of government. That liberal institutions and prudent policymight have changed the character of the struggle, I have no doubt; butthey could not have prevented it; they could only have softened itscharacter, and brought it more speedily to a more decisive and peacefulconclusion. Unhappily, however, the system of government pursued inLower Canada has been based on the policy of perpetuating that veryseparation of the races, and encouraging these very notions ofconflicting nationalities which it ought to have been the first andchief care of Government to check and extinguish. From the period ofthe conquest to the present time, the conduct has aggravated the evil, and the origin of the present extreme disorder may be found in theinstitutions by which the character of the colony was determined. "

We have, therefore, to legislate between the two parties, and let us, previous to entering upon the question, examine into their respectivemerits. On the one hand we have a French population who, after havingreceived every favour which could be granted with a due regard tofreedom, have insisted upon, and have obtained much more, and who inreturn for all the kindness heaped upon them, excited by envy andjealousy of an energy and enterprise of which they were incapable, haverisen in rebellion, with the hopes of making themselves an independentnation. 

On the other hand we have a generous, high-spirited race of our ownblood, and migrating from our own soil, who having been unfairlytreated, and _having just grounds_ of complaint against themother-country, have nevertheless forgotten their own wrongs, and, to amail, flown to arms, willing to shed their blood in defence of themother-country. 

Add to this, we have the French inhabiting a comparatively sterilecountry, without activity or enterprise; the English, in a countryfertile to excess, possessing most of the capital, and the only portionof the colonists to whom we can safely confide the defence of that whichI trust I have proved to the reader to be the most important outpost inthe English dominions. Bearing all this in mind, and also rememberingthat if the emigration to Upper Canada again revive, that this latterpopulation will in a few years be an immense majority, and willultimately wholly swallow up all the former, we may now proceed toconsider what should be the policy of the mother-country. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. It was not long after the conquest, that another and largerclass of English settlers began to enter the province. English capitalwas attracted to Canada by the vast quantity and valuable nature of theexportable produce of the country, and the great facilities forcommerce, presented by the natural means of internal intercourse. Theancient trade of the country was conducted on a much larger and moreprofitable scale; and new branches of industry were explored. Theactive and regular habits of the English capitalist drove out of all themore profitable kinds of industry their inert and careless competitorsof the French race; but in respect of the greater part (almost thewhole) of the commerce and manufactures of the country, the Englishcannot be said to have encroached on the French; for, in fact, theycreated employments and profits which had not previously existed. A fewof the ancient race smarted under the loss occasioned by the success ofEnglish competition; but all felt yet more acutely the gradual increaseof a class of strangers in whose hands the wealth of the countryappeared to centre, and whose expenditure and influence eclipsed thoseof the class which had previously occupied the first position in thecountry. Nor was the intrusion of the English limited to commercialenterprises. By degrees, large portions of land were occupied by them;nor did they confine themselves to the unsettled and distant country ofthe townships. The wealthy capitalist invested his money in thepurchase of seignorial properties; and it is estimated, that at thepresent moment full half of the more valuable seignories are actuallyowned by English proprietors. The seignorial tenure is one so littleadapted to our notions of proprietary rights, that the new seigneur, without any consciousness or intention to injustice, in many instancesexercised his rights in a manner which would appear perfectly fair inthis country, but which the Canadian settler reasonably regarded asoppressive. The English purchaser found an equally unexpected and justcause of complaint in that uncertainty of the laws, which rendered hispossession of property precarious, and in those incidents of the tenurewhich rendered its alienation or improvement difficult. But anirritation, greater than that occasioned by the transfer of the largeproperties, was caused by the competition of the English with the Frenchfarmer. The English farmer carried with him the experience and habitsof the most improved agriculture in the world. He settled himself inthe townships bordering on the seignories, and brought a fresh soil andimproved cultivation to compete with the worn-out and slovenly farm ofthe _habitant_. He often took the very farm which the Canadian settlerhad abandoned, and, by superior management, made that a source of profitwhich had only impoverished his predecessor. The ascendancy which anunjust favouritism had contributed to give to the English race in thegovernment and the legal profession, their own superior energy, skilland capital secured to them in every branch of industry. They havedeveloped the resources of the country; they have constructed orimproved its means of communication; they have created its internal andforeign commerce. The entire wholesale, and a large portion of theretail trade of the province, with the most profitable and flourishingfarms, are now in the hands of this numerical minority of thepopulation. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 2. "Nor does there appear to be the slightest chance of putting anend to this animosity during the present generation. Passions inflamedduring so long a period, cannot speedily be calmed. The state ofeducation which I have previously described as placing the peasantryentirely at the mercy of agitators, the total absence of any class ofpersons, or any organisation of authority that could counteract thismischievous influence, and the serious decline in the district ofMontreal of the influence of the clergy, concur in rendering itabsolutely impossible for the Government to produce any better state offeeling among the French population. It is even impossible to impresson a people so circumstanced the salutary dread of the power of GreatBritain, which the presence of a large military force in the provincemight be expected to produce. I have been informed, by witnesses sonumerous and trustworthy that I cannot doubt the correctness of theirstatements, that the peasantry were generally ignorant of the largeamount of force which was sent into their country last year. Thenewspapers that circulate among them had informed them that GreatBritain had no troops to send out; that in order to produce animpression on the minds of the country-people, the same regiments weremarched backwards and forwards in different directions, and representedas additional arrivals from home. This explanation was promulgatedamong the people by the agitators of each village; and I have no doubtthat the mass of the inhabitants really believed that the government wasendeavouring to impose on them by this species of fraud. It is apopulation with whom authority has no means of contact or explanation. It is difficult even to ascertain what amount of influence the ancientleaders of the French party continue to possess. [The name of M. Papineau is still cherished by the people; and the idea is current that, at the appointed time, he will return, at the head of an immense army, and re-establish "La Nation Canadienne. "] But there is great reason todoubt whether his name be not used as a mere watchword; whether thepeople are not in fact running entirely counter to his councils andpolicy; and whether they are not really under the guidance of separatepetty agitators, who have no plan but that of a senseless and recklessdetermination to show in every way their hostility to the BritishGovernment and English race. Their ultimate designs and hopes areequally unintelligible. Some vague expectation of absolute independencestill seems to delude them. The national vanity, which is a remarkableingredient in their character, induces many to flatter themselves withthe idea of a Canadian Republic; the sounder information of others hasled them to perceive that a separation from Great Britain must befollowed by a junction with the great confederation on their southernfrontier. But they seem apparently reckless of the consequences, provided they can wreak their vengeance on the English. There is nopeople against which early associations and every conceivable differenceof manners and opinions have implanted in the Canadian mind a moreancient and rooted national antipathy than that which they feel againstthe people of the United States. Their more discerning leaders feelthat their chances of preserving their nationality would be greatlydiminished by an incorporation with the United States; and recentsymptoms of Anti-Catholic feeling in New England, well known to theCanadian population, have generated a very general belief that theirreligion, which even they do not accuse the British party of assailing, would find little favour or respect from their neighbours. Yet noneeven of these considerations weigh against their present all-absorbinghatred of the English; and I am persuaded that they would purchasevengeance and a momentary triumph by the aid of any enemies, orsubmission to any yoke. This provisional but complete cessation oftheir ancient antipathy to the Americans, is now admitted even by thosewho most strongly denied it during the last spring, and who thenasserted that an American war would as completely unite the wholepopulation against the common enemy, as it did in 1813. My subsequentexperience leaves no doubt in my mind that the views which werecontained in my despatch on the 9th of August are perfectly correct; andthat an invading American army might rely on the co-operation of almostthe entire French population of Lower Canada. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 3. Colonel Prince is the gentleman who took with his own handsGeneral Sutherland and his aide-de-camp, and who ordered the Yankeepirates to be shot. Mr Hume has thought proper to make a motion in theHouse of Commons, reprobating this act as one of murder. I believethere is little difference whether a man breaks into your house, andsteals your money; or burns your house, and robs you of your cattle andother property. One is as much a case of burglary as the other. In thefirst instance you are justified in taking the robber's life, and whynot in the second? Those people who attacked the inhabitants of acountry with whom they were in profound peace, were disowned by theirown government, consequently they were outlaws and pirates, and it is apity that Sutherland and every other prisoner taken had not beenimmediately shot. Mr Hume may flare up in the House of Commons, but Ishould like to know what Mr Hume's opinion would be if he was the partywho had all his property stolen and his house burnt over his head, inthe depth of a Canadian winter. I suspect he would say a very differentsay, as he has no small respect for the _meum_; indeed, I should besorry to be the party to be sentenced by Mr Hume, if I had stolen a fewducks out of the honourable gentleman's duck decoys near Yarmouth. 

VOLUME THREE, CHAPTER FIVE. 

THE CANADAS, CONTINUED. 

In the last chapter I pointed out that in our future legislation forthese provinces, we had to decide between the English and Frenchinhabitants; up to the present the French have been in power, and havebeen invariably favoured by the Government, much to the injury of theEnglish population. Before I offer any opinion on this question, let usinquire what has been the conduct of the French in their exercise oftheir rights as a Legislative Assembly, and what security they offer us, to incline us again to put confidence in them. In examining into thisquestion, I prefer, as a basis, the Report of Lord Durham, made to theEnglish Parliament. His lordship, adverting to the state of hostilitybetween the representative and executive powers in our colonies, prefaces with a remark relative to our own country, which I think lateevents do not fully bear out; he says:--

"However partial the monarch might be to particular ministers, orhowever he might have personally committed himself to their policy, hehas been _invariably_ constrained to abandon both, as soon as theopinion of the people has been irrevocably pronounced against them, through the medium of the House of Commons. "

This he repeats in an after part of the Report:--

"When a ministry ceases to command a majority in Parliament on greatquestions of policy, its doom is immediately sealed; and it would appearto us as strange to attempt, for any time, to carry on a Government bymeans of ministers perpetually in a minority, as it would be to passlaws with a majority of votes against them. "

If such be an essential part of our constitution, as his lordshipasserts, surely we have suffered an inroad into it lately. 

That the system of Colonial Government is defective, I grant, but it isnot so much from the check which the Legislative Council puts upon theRepresentative Assembly, as from the secrecy of the acts and decisionsof that council. This, indeed, his lordship admits in some cases, and Ithink that I can fully establish that, without this salutary check, theLegislative Assembly of Lower Canada would have soon voted themselvesFree and Independent States. Lord Durham observes:--

"I am far from concurring in the censure which the Assembly and itsadvocates have attempted to cast on the acts of the Legislative Council. I have no hesitation in saying that many of the bills which it is mostseverely blamed for rejecting, were bills which it could not have passedwithout a dereliction of its duty to the constitution, the connexionwith Great Britain, and the whole English population of the colony. Ifthere is any censure to be passed on its general conduct, it is forhaving confined itself to the merely negative and defensive duties of alegislative body; for having too frequently contented itself with merelydefeating objectionable methods of obtaining desirable ends, withoutcompleting its duty by proposing measures, which would have achieved thegood in view without the mixture of evil. The national animositieswhich pervaded the legislation of the Assembly, and its thorough want oflegislative skill or respect for constitutional principles, renderedalmost all its bills obnoxious to the objections made by the LegislativeCouncil; and the serious evil which their enactment would haveoccasioned, convinces me that the colony has reason to congratulateitself on the existence of an institution which possessed and used thepower of stopping a course of legislation that, if successful, wouldhave _sacrificed every British interest_, and _overthrown everyguarantee of order and national liberty_. "

Again:--

"One glaring attempt which was made directly and openly to _subvert theconstitution of the country, was_, by passing a bill for the formalrepeal of those parts of the 31 Geo. 3, c. 31, commonly called theConstitutional Act, by which the constitution and powers of theLegislative Council were established. It can hardly be supposed thatthe framers of this bill were unaware, or hoped to make any concealmentof the obvious illegality of a measure, which, commencing as allCanadian Acts do, by a recital of the 31 Geo. 3, as the foundation ofthe legislative authority of the Assembly, proceeded immediately toinfringe some of the most important provisions of that very statute; norcan it be supposed that the Assembly hoped really to carry into effect, this extraordinary assumption of power, inasmuch as the bill couldderive no legal effect from passing the Lower House, unless it shouldsubsequently receive the assent of the very body which it purported toannihilate. "

Take again the following observations of his lordship:--

"But the evils resulting from such open attempts to dispense with theconstitution were small, in comparison with the disturbance of theregular course of legislation by systematic abuse of constitutionalforms, for the purpose of depriving the other branches of thelegislature of all real legislative authority. 

"It remained, however, for the Assembly of Lower Canada to reduce thepractice to a regular system, in order that it might have the mostimportant institutions of the province periodically at its mercy, anduse the necessities of the government and the community for the purposeof extorting the concession of whatever demands it might choose to make. Objectionable in itself, on account of the uncertainty and continualchanges which it tended to introduce into legislation, this system oftemporary laws derived its worst character from the facilities which itafforded to the practice of `tacking' together various legislativemeasures. 

"A singular instance of this occurred in 1836, with respect to therenewal of the jury law, to which the Assembly attached greatimportance, and to which the Legislative Council felt a strongrepugnance, on account of its having in effect placed the juriesentirely in the hands of the French portion of the population. In orderto secure the renewal of this law, the Assembly coupled it in the samebill by which it renewed the tolls of the Lachine Canal, calculating onthe Council not venturing to defeat a measure of so much importance tothe revenue as the latter by resisting the former. The council, however, rejected the bill; and thus the canal remained toll-free for awhole season, because the two Houses differed about a jury law. "

So much for their attempts to subvert the constitution. Now let usinquire how far these patriots were disinterested in their enactments. First, as to grants for local improvements, how were they applied? Hislordship observes:--

The great business of the Assemblies is, literally, parish business; themaking parish roads and parish bridges. There are in none of theseprovinces any local bodies possessing authority to impose localassessments, for the management of local affairs. To do these things isthe business of the Assembly; and to induce the Assembly to attend tothe particular interests of each county, is the especial business of itscounty member. The surplus revenue of the province is swelled to aslarge an amount as possible, by cutting down the payment of publicservices to as low a scale as possible; and the real duties ofgovernment are, sometimes, insufficiently provided for, in order thatmore may be left to be divided among the constituent bodies. `When wewant a bridge, we take a judge to build it, ' was the quaint and forcibleway in which a member of a provincial legislature described the tendencyto retrench, in the most necessary departments of the public service, inorder to satisfy the demands for local works. This fund is voted by theAssembly on the motion of its members; the necessity of obtaining theprevious consent of the Crown to money votes never having been adoptedby the Colonial Legislatures from the practice of the British House ofCommons. There is a perfect scramble among the whole body to get asmuch as possible of this fund for their respective constituents; cabalsare formed, by which the different members mutually play into eachother's hands; general politics are made to bear on private business, and private business on general politics; and at the close of theParliament, the member who has succeeded in securing the largest portionof the prize for his constituents, renders an easy account of hisstewardship, with confident assurance of his re-election. 

"Not only did the leaders of the Lower Canadian Assembly availthemselves of the patronage thus afforded, by the large surplus revenueof the province, but they turned this system to much greater account, by_using it to obtain influence over the constituencies_. 

"The majority of the Assembly of Lower Canada is accused by itsopponents of having, in the most systematic and persevering manner, employed this means of corrupting the electoral bodies. The adherentsof M. Papineau are said to have been lavish in their promises of thebenefits which they could obtain from the Assembly for the county, whosesuffrages they solicited. By such representations, the return ofmembers of opposition politics is asserted, in many instances, to havebeen secured; and obstinate counties are alleged to have been sometimesstarved into submission, by an entire withdrawal of grants, until theyreturned members favourable to the majority. Some of the Englishmembers who voted with M. Papineau, excused themselves to theircountrymen by alleging that they were compelled to do so, in order toget a road or a bridge, which their constituents desired. Whether it betrue or false, that the abuse was ever carried to such a pitch, it isobviously one, which might have been easily and safely perpetrated by aperson possessing M. Papineau's influence in the Assembly. "

Next for the grants for public education. 

"But the most bold and extensive attempt for erecting a system ofpatronage, wholly independent of the Government, was that which was, forsome time, carried into effect by the grants for education made by theAssembly, and regulated by the Act, which the Legislative Council hasbeen most bitterly reproached with refusing to renew. It has beenstated, as a proof of the deliberate intention of the LegislativeCouncil to crush every attempt to civilise and elevate the great mass ofthe people, that it thus stopped at once the working of about 1, 000schools, and deprived of education no less than 40, 000 scholars, whowere actually profiting by the means of instruction thus placed withintheir reach. But the reasons which induced, or rather compelled, theLegislative Council to stop this system, are clearly stated in theReport of that body, which contains the most unanswerable justificationof the course which it pursued. By that it appears, that the wholesuperintendence and patronage of these schools had, by the expired law, been vested in the hands of the county members; and they had beenallowed to manage the funds, without even the semblance of sufficientaccountability. The Members of the Assembly had thus a patronage, inthis single department, of about 25, 000 pounds per annum, an amountequal to half of the whole ordinary civil expenditure of the Province. They were not slow in profiting by the occasion thus placed in theirhands; and as there existed in the Province no sufficient supply ofcompetent schoolmasters and mistresses, they nevertheless immediatelyfilled up the appointments with persons who were _utterly and obviouslyincompetent. A great proportion of the teachers could neither readnor write_. The gentleman whom I directed to inquire into the state ofeducation in the Province, showed me a petition from certainschoolmasters, which had come into his hands; and the majority of thesignatures were those of _marks-men_. These ignorant teachers couldconvey no useful instruction to their pupils; the utmost amount whichthey taught them was to say the Catechism by rote. Even within sevenmiles of Montreal, there was a schoolmistress thus unqualified. Theseappointments were, as might have been expected, jobbed by the membersamong the political partisans; nor were the funds _very honestly_managed. In many cases the members were suspected, or accused, ofmisapplying them to their own use; and in the case of Beauharnois, wherethe seigneur, Mr Ellice, has, in the same spirit of judiciousliberality by which his whole management of that extensive property hasbeen marked, contributed most largely towards the education of histenants, the school funds were proved to have been misappropriated bythe county member. The whole system was a gross political abuse; and, however laudable we must hold the exertions of those who really labouredto relieve their country from the reproach of being the least furnishedwith the means of education of any on the North American continent, themore severely must we condemn those who sacrificed this noble end, andperverted ample means to serve the purposes of party. "

We will now claim the support of his lordship upon another question, which is, how far is it likely that the law will be duly administered ifthe power is to remain in the hands of the French Canadian population?Speaking of the Commissioners of Small Causes, his lordship observes:--

"I shall only add, that some time previous to my leaving the Province, Iwas very warmly and forcibly urged, by the highest legal authorities inthe country, to abolish all these tribunals at once, on the ground thata great many of them, being composed entirely of disaffected FrenchCanadians, were busily occupied in harassing loyal subjects, byentertaining actions against them on account of the part they had takenin the late insurrection. There is no appeal from their decision; andit was stated that they had in the most barefaced manner given damagesagainst loyal persons for acts done in the discharge of their duty, andjudgments by default against persons who were absent, as volunteers inthe service of the Queen, and enforced their judgment by levyingdistresses on their property. "

Relative to the greatest prerogative of an Englishman, the trial byjury, his lordship observes:--

"But the most serious mischief in the administration of criminaljustice, arises from the entire perversion of the institution of juries, by the political and national prejudices of the people. The trial byjury was introduced with the rest of the English criminal law. For along time the composition of both grand and petit juries was settled bythe governor, and they were at first taken from the cities, which werethe _chefs lieux_ of the district. Complaints were made that this gavean undue preponderance to the British in those cities; though, from theproportions of the population, it is not very obvious how they couldthereby obtain more than an equal share. In consequence, however, ofthese complaints, an order was issued under the government of Sir JamesKempt, directing the sheriffs to take the juries not only from thecities, but from the adjacent country, for fifteen leagues in everydirection. An Act was subsequently passed, commonly called `Mr Viger'sJury Act, ' extending these limits to those of the district. Theprinciple of taking the jury from the whole district to which thejurisdiction of the court extended, is, undoubtedly, in conformity withthe principles of English law; and Mr Viger's Act, adopting the otherregulations of the English jury law, provided a fair selection ofjuries. But if we consider the hostility and proportions of the tworaces, the practical effect of this law was to give the French an entirepreponderance in the juries. This Act was one of the temporary Acts ofthe Assembly, and, having expired in 1836, the Legislative Councilrefused to renew it. Since that period, there has been no jury lawwhatever. The composition of the juries has been altogether in thehands of the Government: private instructions, however, have been givento the sheriff to act in conformity with Sir James Kempt's ordinance;but though he has always done so, the public have had no security forany fairness in the selection of the juries. There was no visible checkon the sheriff; the public knew that he could pack a jury whenever hepleased, and supposed, as a matter of course, that an officer, holding alucrative appointment at the pleasure of Government, would be ready tocarry into effect those unfair designs which they were always ready toattribute to the Government. When I arrived in the Province, the publicwere expecting the trials of the persons accused of participation in thelate insurrection. I was, on the one hand, informed by the law officersof the Crown, and the highest judicial authorities, that not theslightest chance existed, under any fair system of getting a jury, thatwould convict any of these men, however clear the evidence of theirguilt might be; and, on the other side, I was given to understand, thatthe prisoners and their friends supposed that, as a matter of course, they would be tried by packed juries, and that even the most clearlyinnocent of them would be convicted. 

"It is, indeed, a lamentable fact which must not be concealed, thatthere does not exist in the minds of the people of this Province theslightest confidence in the administration of criminal justice; nor werethe complaints, or the apparent grounds for them, confined to one party. 

"The trial by jury is, therefore, at the present moment, not onlyproductive in Lower Canada of no confidence in the honest administrationof the laws, but also provides impunity for every political offence. "

I have made these long quotations from Lord Durham's Report as hislordship's authority, he having been sent out as Lord High Commissionerto the Province, to make the necessary inquiries, must carry more weightwith the public than any observations of mine. All I can do is toassert that his lordship is very accurate; and, having made thisassertion, I ask, what chance, therefore, is there of good government, if the power, or any portion of the power, be left in the hands of thosewho have in every way proved themselves so adverse to good government, and who have wound up such conduct by open rebellion. 

The position of the Executive in Canada has, for a long while, been justwhat our position in this country would be if the House of Commons werecomposed of Chartist leaders. Every act brought forward by them wouldtend to revolution, and be an infringement of the Constitution, and allthat the House of Lords would have to do, would be firmly to rejectevery bill carried to the Upper House. If our House of Commons werefilled with rebels and traitors, the Government must stand still, andsuch has been for these ten years the situation of the Canadiangovernment; and, fortunate it is, that the outbreak has now put us in aposition that will enable us to retrieve our error, and re-model theconstitution of these Provinces. The questions which must therefore besettled previous to any fresh attempts at legislation for theseCanadians, are, --are, or are not, the French population to have anyshare in it? Can they be trusted? Are they in any way deserving of it?In few words, are the Canadas to be hereafter considered as a French oran English colony?

When we legislate, unless we intend to change, we must look to futurity. The question, then, is not, who are the majority of to-day, but whowill hereafter be the majority in the Canadian Provinces; for all agreeupon one point, which is, that we must legislate for the majority. Atpresent, the population is nearly equal, but every year increases thepreponderance of the English; and it is to be trusted that, by goodmanagement, and the encouragement of emigration, in half a century theFrench population will be so swallowed up by the English, as to beremembered but on record. If, again, we put the claims of Britishloyalty against the treason of the French--the English energy, activity, and capital, in opposition to the supineness, ignorance, and incapacityof the French population, --it is evident, that not only in justice andgratitude, but with a due regard to our own interests, the FrenchCanadians must now be _wholly deprived_ of any share of that power whichthey have abused, and that confidence of which they have provedthemselves so unworthy. I am much pleased to find that Lord Durham hasexpressed the same opinion, in the following remarks; and I trust theirimportance will excuse to the reader the length of the quotation. 

"The English have already in their hands the majority of the largermasses of property in the country; they have the decided superiority ofintelligence on their side; they have the certainty that colonisationmust swell their numbers to a majority; and they belong to the racewhich wields the Imperial Government, and predominates on the Americancontinent. If we now leave them in a minority, they will never abandonthe assurance of being a majority hereafter, and never cease to continuethe present contest with all the fierceness with which it now rages. Insuch a contest, they will rely on the sympathy of their countrymen athome; and if that is denied them, they feel very confident of being ableto awaken the sympathy of their neighbours of kindred origin. They feelthat if the British Government intends to maintain its hold of theCanadas, it can rely on the English population alone; that if itabandons its colonial possessions, they must become a portion of thatgreat Union which will speedily send forth its swarms of settlers, and, by force of numbers and activity, quickly master every other race. TheFrench Canadians, on the other hand, are but the remains of an ancientcolonisation, and are and ever must be isolated in the midst of anAnglo-Saxon world. Whatever may happen, whatever government shall beestablished over them, British or American, they can see no hope fortheir nationality. They can only sever themselves from the Britishempire by waiting till some general cause of dissatisfaction alienatesthem, together with the surrounding colonies, and leaves them part of anEnglish confederacy; or, if they are able, by effecting a separationsingly, and so either merging in the American Union, or keeping up for afew years a wretched semblance of feeble independence, which wouldexpose them more than ever to the intrusion of the surroundingpopulation. I am far from wishing to encourage, indiscriminately, thesepretensions to superiority on the part of any particular race; but whilethe greater part of every portion of the American continent is stilluncleared and unoccupied, and while the English exhibit such constantand marked activity in colonisation, so long will it be idle to imaginethat there is any portion of that continent into which that race willnot penetrate, or in which, when it has penetrated, it will notpredominate. It is but a question of time and mode; it is but todetermine whether the small number of French who now inhabit LowerCanada shall be made English, under a government which can protect them, or whether the process shall be delayed until a much larger number shallhave to undergo, at the rude hands of its uncontrolled rivals, theextinction of a nationality strengthened and embittered by continuance. 

"And is this French Canadian nationality one which, for the good merelyof that people, we ought to strive to perpetuate, even if it werepossible? I know of no national distinctions marking and continuing amore hopeless inferiority. The language, the laws, the character of theNorth American Continent are English; and every race but the English (Iapply this to all who speak the English language) appears there in acondition of inferiority. It is to elevate them from that inferioritythat I desire to give to the Canadians our English character. I desireit for the sake of the educated classes, whom the distinction oflanguage and manners keeps apart from the great empire to which theybelong. At the best, the fate of the educated and aspiring colonist is, at present, one of little hope, and little activity; but the FrenchCanadian is cast still further into the shade, by a language and habitsforeign to those of the Imperial Government. A spirit of exclusion hasclosed the higher professions on the educated classes of the FrenchCanadians, more, perhaps, than was absolutely necessary; but it isimpossible for the utmost liberality on the part of the BritishGovernment to give an equal position in the general competition of itsvast population to those who speak a foreign language. I desire theamalgamation still more for the sake of the humbler classes. Theirpresent state of rude and equal plenty is fast deteriorating under thepressure of population in the narrow limits to which they are confined. If they attempt to better their condition, by extending themselves overthe neighbouring country, they will necessarily get more and moremingled with an English population; if they prefer remaining stationary, the greater part of them must be labourers in the employ of Englishcapitalists. In either case it would appear, that the great mass of theFrench Canadians are doomed, in some measure, to occupy an inferiorposition, and to be dependent on the English for employment. The evilsof poverty and dependence would merely be aggravated in a ten-folddegree, by a spirit of jealous and resentful nationality, which shouldseparate the working class of the community from the possessors ofwealth and employers of labour. 

"I will not here enter into the question of the effect of the mode oflife and division of property among the French Canadians, on thehappiness of the people. I will admit, for the moment, that it is asproductive of well-being as its admirers assert. But, be it good orbad, the period in which it is practicable, is past; for there is notenough unoccupied land left in that portion of the country in whichEnglish are not already settled, to admit of the present Frenchpopulation possessing farms sufficient to supply them with their presentmeans of comfort, under their present system of husbandry. Nopopulation has increased by mere births so rapidly as that of the FrenchCanadians has since the conquest. At that period their number wasestimated at 60, 000: it is now supposed to amount to more than seventimes as many. There has been no proportional increase of cultivation, or of produce from the land already under cultivation; and the increasedpopulation has been in a great measure provided for by mere continuedsubdivision of estates. In a Report from a Committee of the Assembly in1826, of which Mr Andrew Steuart was chairman, it is stated, that since1784 the population of the seignories had quadrupled, while the numberof cattle had only doubled, and the quantity of land in cultivation hadonly increased one-third. Complaints of distress are constant, and thedeterioration of the condition of a great part of the populationadmitted on all hands. A people so circumstanced must alter their modeof life. If they wish to maintain the same kind of rude, butwell-provided agricultural existence, it must be by removing into thoseparts of the country in which the English are settled; or if they clingto their present residence, they can only obtain a livelihood bydeserting their present employment, and working for wages on farms, oron commercial occupations under English capitalists. But their presentproprietary and inactive condition is one which no politicalarrangements can perpetuate. Were the French Canadians to be guardedfrom the influx of any other population, their condition in a few yearswould be similar to that of the poorest of the Irish peasantry. 

"There can hardly be conceived a nationality more destitute of all thatcan invigorate and elevate a people, than that which is exhibited by thedescendants of the French in Lower Canada, owing to their retainingtheir peculiar language and manners. They are a people with no history, and no literature. The literature of England is written in a languagewhich is not theirs; and the only literature which their languagerenders familiar to them, is that of a nation from which they have beenseparated by eighty years of a foreign rule, and still more by thosechanges which the Revolution and its consequences have wrought in thewhole political, moral, and social state of France. Yet it is on apeople whom recent history, manners, and modes of thought, so entirelyseparate from them, that the French Canadians are wholly dependent foralmost all the instruction and amusement derived from books: it is onthis essentially foreign literature, which is conversant about events, opinions and habits of life, perfectly strange and unintelligible tothem, that they are compelled to be dependent. Their newspapers aremostly written by natives of France, who have either come to try theirfortunes in the province, or been brought into it by the party leaders, in order to supply the dearth of literary talent available for thepolitical press. In the same way their nationality operates to deprivethem of the enjoyments and civilising influence of the arts. Thoughdescended from the people in the world that most generally love, andhave most successfully cultivated the drama--though living on acontinent, in which almost every town, great or small, has an Englishtheatre, the French population of Lower Canada, cut off from everypeople that speak its own language, can support no national stage. 

"In these circumstances, I should be indeed surprised if the morereflecting part of the French Canadians entertained at present any hopeof continuing to preserve their nationality. Much as they struggleagainst it, it is obvious that the process of assimilation to Englishhabits is already commencing. The English language is gaining ground, as the language of the rich and of the employers of labour naturallywill. It appeared by some of the few returns, which had been receivedby the Commissioner of Inquiry into the state of education, that thereare about ten times the number of French children in Quebec learningEnglish, as compared with the English children who learn French. Aconsiderable time must, of course, elapse before the change of alanguage can spread over a whole people; and justice and policy alikerequire, that while the people continue to use the French language, their government should take no such means to force the English languageupon them as would, in fact, deprive the great mass of the community ofthe protection of the laws. But, I repeat, that the alteration of thecharacter of the province ought to be immediately entered on, andfirmly, though cautiously, followed up; that in any plan, which may beadopted for the future management of Lower Canada, the first objectought to be that of making it an English province; and that, with thisend in view, the ascendancy should never again be placed in any handsbut those of an English population. Indeed, at the present moment, thisis obviously necessary: in the state of mind in which I have describedthe French Canadian population, as not only now being, but as likely fora long while to remain, the trusting them with an entire control overthis province would be, in fact, only facilitating a rebellion. LowerCanada must be governed now, as it must be hereafter, by an Englishpopulation; and thus the policy, which the necessities of the momentforce on us, is in accordance with that suggested by a comprehensiveview of the future and permanent improvement of the province. "

VOLUME THREE, CHAPTER SIX. 

THE CANADAS, CONTINUED. 

I have quoted largely from Lord Durham's Report, as in most pointsrelative to _Lower Canada_, especially as to the causes which producedthe rebellion, the unwarrantable conduct of the Legislative Assembly, and his opinions as to the character of the French Canadians, I considerthat the remarks are correct: they are corroborated by my own opinionsand observations: but I think that the information he has receivedrelative to _Upper Canada_ is not only very imperfect, but certainlyderived from parties who were not to be trusted: take one simpleinstance. His lordship says in his Report, that the petitioners infavour of Mathews and Lount, who were executed, amounted to 30, 000, whereas it is established, that the whole number of six natures onlyamounted to 4, 574. Those who deceive his lordship in one point woulddeceive him in another; indeed his lordship had a task of peculiardifficulty, going out as he did, vested with such powers, and theintents of his mission being so well known. It is not those who are inhigh office that are likely to ascertain the truth, which is much morelikely to be communicated to a humble individual like myself, whotravels through a country and hears what is said on both sides. Thecauses stated by his lordship for discontent in Upper Canada are notcorrect. I have before said, and I repeat it, that they may almost bereduced to the following: the check put upon their enterprise andindustry by the acts of the Lower Canadian Assembly; and the favourshewn to the French by the Colonial Office, aided by the machinations ofthe American party, who fomented any appearance of discontent. 

There is in his lordship's Report, an apparent leaning towards theUnited States, and its institutions, at which I confess that I amsurprised. Why his lordship, after shewing that the representativegovernment did all they possibly could to overthrow the constitution, should propose an increase of power to that representative government, unless, indeed, he would establish a democracy in the provinces, I am ata loss to imagine. 

That a representative body similar to that which attempted to overturnthe constitution in Lower Canada can work well, and even usefully reformwhen in the hands of loyal English subjects, is acknowledged by hislordship, who says, "the course of the Parliamentary contest in UpperCanada has not been marked by that singular neglect of the great dutiesof a legislative body, which I have remarked in the proceedings of theParliament of Lower Canada. The statute book of the Upper Provinceabounds with useful and well-constructed measures of reform, andpresents an honourable contrast to that of the Lower Province. "

Indeed, unless I have misunderstood his lordship he appears to beinconsistent, for in one portion he claims the extension of the power ofthe representative, and in another he complains of the want of vigorousadministration of the royal prerogative, for he says:--

"The defective system of administration in Lower Canada, commences atthe very _source_ of power; and the efficiency of the public service isimpaired throughout by the entire want in the colony of any vigorousadministration of the prerogative of the crown. "

To increase the power of the representative is to increase the power ofthe people, in fact to make them the _source_ of power; and yet hislordship in this sentence acknowledges that the crown is the _source_ ofpower, and that a more vigorous administration of its prerogative isrequired. 

There are other points commented upon in his lordship's Report, whichclaim earnest consideration: one is, that of the propriety of municipalinstitutions. Local improvements, when left in the hands ofrepresentative assemblies, are seldom judicious or impartial, and shouldtherefore be made over either to the inhabitants or executive. Thesystem of townships has certainly been one great cause of the prosperityof the United States, each township taxing itself for its ownimprovement. Although the great roads extending through the whole ofthe Union are in the hands of the Federal Government, and the StatesGovernment take up the improvement on an extensive scale in the Statesthemselves, the townships, knowing exactly what they require, taxthemselves for their minor advantages. The system in England is muchthe same, although perhaps not so well regulated as in America. Arenot, however, municipal institutions valuable in another point of view?Do they not prepare the people for legislating? are they not therudiments of legislation by which a free people learn to tax themselves?And indeed, it may also be asked, would not the petty influence andauthority confided to those who are ambitious by their townsmen satisfytheir ambition, and prevent them from becoming demagogues and disturbingthe country?

Whatever may be the future arrangements for ruling these provinces, itappears to me that there are two great evils in the present system; oneis, that the governors of the provinces have not sufficientdiscretionary power, and the other, that they are so often removed. Theevils arising from the first cause have been pointed out in LordDurham's Report:--

"The complete and unavoidable ignorance in which the British public, andeven the great body of its legislators, are with respect to the realinterests of distant communities, so entirely different from their own, produces a general indifference, which nothing but so me great colonialcrisis ever dispels; and responsibility to Parliament, or to the publicopinion of Great Britain, would, except on these great and rareoccasions, be positively mischievous, if it were not impossible. Therepeated changes caused by political events at home having no connexionwith colonial affairs, have left, to most of the various representativesof the Colonial Department in Parliament, too little time to acquireeven an elementary knowledge of the condition of those numerous andheterogeneous communities for which they have had both to administer andlegislate. The persons with whom the real management of these affairshas or ought to have rested, have been the permanent but utterlyirresponsible members of the office. Thus the real government of thecolony has been entirely dissevered from the slight nominalresponsibility which exists. Apart even from this great and primaryevil of the system, the presence of multifarious business thus thrown onthe Colonial Office, and the repeated changes of its ostensibledirectors, have produced disorders in the management of public businesswhich have occasioned serious mischief, and very great irritation. Thisis not my own opinion merely; for I do but repeat that of a selectcommittee of the House of Assembly in Upper Canada, who, in a Reportdated February 8, 1838, say, `It appears to your committee, that one ofthe chief causes of dissatisfaction with the administration of colonialaffairs arises from the frequent changes in the office of secretary ofstate, to whom the Colonial department is intrusted. Since the time thelate Lord Bathurst retired from that charge, in 1827, your committeebelieve there has not been less than eight colonial ministers, and thatthe policy of each successive statesman has been more or less marked bya difference from that of his predecessor. This frequency of change initself almost necessarily entails two evils; _first_, an imperfectknowledge of the affairs of the colonies on the part of the chiefsecretary, and the consequent necessity of submitting important detailsto the subordinate officers of the department; and, _second_, the wantof stability and firmness in the general policy of the Government, andwhich, of course, creates much uneasiness on the part of the Governors, and other officers of the colonies, as to what measures may be approved. 

"`But undoubtedly (continues the Report) by far the greatest objectionto the system is the impossibility it occasions of any colonialminister, unaided by persons possessing local knowledge, becomingacquainted with the wants, wishes, feelings, and prejudices of theinhabitants of the colonies, during his temporary continuance in office, and of deciding satisfactorily upon the conflicting statements andclaims that are brought before him. A firm, unflinching resolution toadhere to the principles of the constitution, and to maintain the justand necessary powers of the crown, would do much towards supplying thewant of local information. But it would be performing more than can bereasonably expected from human sagacity, if any man, or set of men, should always decide in an unexceptionable manner on subjects that havetheir origin thousands of miles from the seat of the ImperialGovernment, where they reside, and of which they have no personalknowledge whatever; and therefore wrong may be often done toindividuals, or a false view taken of some important political question, that in the end may throw a whole community into difficulty anddissension, not from the absence of the most anxious desire to do right, but from an imperfect knowledge of facts upon which to form anopinion. '"

This is all very true. There is nothing so difficult as to legislatefor a colony from home. The very best theory is useless; it requiresthat you should be on the spot, and adapt your measures to thecircumstances and the growing wants of the country. I may add that itis wrong for the Home Government to consider the government given to thecolony as permanent. All that the mother-country can do is to give itone which, in theory, appears best adapted to secure the true freedomand happiness of the people; but leaving that form of government to beoccasionally modified, so as to meet the changes which the colony mayrequire, and to conform with its wants and its rising interests: all ofwhich being unforeseen could not be provided for by the prescience ofman. The governor, therefore, of a colony should be invested with morediscretionary power. 

The constant removal of the governor from the colony is also much to bedeprecated. On his first arrival, he can only have formed theoreticalviews, which, in all probability, he will have to discard in a fewmonths. He finds himself surrounded by people in office, interested intheir own peculiar policy, and viewing things through their own medium. In all colonies you will usually find an oligarchy, cemented by mutualinterest and family connection, and so bound up together as to becomeformidable if opposed to the Government. Into the hands of these peoplea governor must, to a certain degree, fall; and must remain in themuntil he has had time to see clearly and to judge for himself. But bythe time that he has just disenthralled himself, he is removed, andanother appointed in his place, and the work has to commence _de novo_. 

Lord Durham has proposed that the Canadas should be united, and therecertainly are some benefits which would arise _could_ their union takeplace. He asserts most positively that the French party must beannihilated. He says:--"It must henceforth be the first and steadypurpose of the British Government to establish an English population, with English laws and language in this province, and to trust itsgovernment to none but a decidedly English legislature. " This is plainand clear; but how is it to be effected? The land of Lower Canada isstill in the hands of the French, and nearly five hundred thousand outof six hundred thousand of the population are French. 

How, then, are we to make the Lower Canadas English? We may buy up theseigneuries; we may insist upon the English language being used in theAssembly and courts of law, in public documents, etcetera; we may alterthe laws to correspond with those of the mother-country; but will thatmake the province English? We may even insist that none butEnglish-born subjects, or Canadian-born English, shall be elected to theHouse of Assembly, or hold any public office; but will that make theprovince English? Certainly not. There is no want of English-borndemagogues, as well as French, in the province. The elections of theLower province are decided by the Canadian French, who are in themajority, and they would find no difficulty in obtaining representativeswho would continue the former system of controlling the executive andadvocating rebellion. Is it, then, by altogether taking away from theCanadian French the elective franchise and giving it entirely into thehands of the English, that the province is to be made English? If so, although I admit the French have proved themselves undeserving, and haveby their rebellion forfeited their birth-right, you then place them inthe situation of an injured, oppressed, and sacrificed people; reducingthem to a state of slavery which, notwithstanding their offences, wouldstill be odious to the present age. By what means, therefore, does hislordship intend that the province shall become English--by immigration?That requires time; and before the immigration necessary can take placethe Canadas may be again thrown into a rebellion by the Frenchmachinations. In our future legislation for the Canadas, we must alwaysbear in mind that the French population will be opposed to theGovernment and to the mother-country; and that there is no chance of abetter state of feeling in the Lower province until they shall becomeamalgamated and swallowed up by British immigration. Until that takesplace, the union of the Canadas will only create a conflict between thetwo races, as opposed to each other as fire and water, and nearly equalin numbers. It will be an immense cauldron, bubbling, steaming, andboiling over--an incessant scene of strife and irritation--a source ofanxiety and expense to the mother-country, and, so far from goinga-head, I should not be surprised if, in twenty years hence, the Englishpopulation should be found to be smaller than it now is. Politicaldissensions would paralyse enterprise, frighten away capital, and, inall probability, involve us in a conflict with the United States. Until, therefore, I understand how the Lower Province is to becomeBritish, I cannot think a union between the Canadas advisable. 

Whether his lordship is aware of it or not, I cannot say; but thereappears to me to be a strong inclination to democracy in all hisproposed plans, and an evident leaning towards the institutions of theUnited States. He wishes to make the Executive Government responsibleto the people; he would make one Federal Union of all our provinces, andinstitute the Supreme Court of Appeal which they have in the UnitedStates. In short, change but the word governor for president, and weshould have the American constitution, and a "free and enlightenedpeople;"--that is to say, the French Canadians, who can _neither readnor write_, governing themselves. 

So far from a Federal union between all our transatlantic possessionsbeing advisable, I should think, from their contiguity with theAmericans, that it would be advisable to keep them separate. I am ofthe same opinion respecting the Canadas. I consider that, even as twoprovinces, they are too vast in territory already. Whether it be awoman looking after her servants and household affairs, or a captaincommanding a ship, or a governor ruling over a province, large or smallas may be the scale of operation, one of the most important points ingood legislation, is the _eye_. A governor of a vast province cannotpossibly be aware of the wants of the various portions of the province. He is obliged to take the reports of others, and consequently very oftenlegislates unadvisedly. 

That the two provinces cannot remain in their present state isacknowledged by all. The question therefore is, can we rationallyexpect any improvement from their union? Perhaps it may appearpresumptuous in me to venture to differ from Lord Durham, who is astatesman born and bred--for this is not a party question in which adifference of politics may bias one: it is a question as to thewell-governing of a most important colony, and no one will for a momentdoubt that his lordship is as anxious as the Duke of Wellington, andevery other well-wisher to his country, to decide upon that which heconsiders honestly and honourably to be the best. It is really, therefore, with great deference that I submit to him, whether anotherarrangement should not be well considered, before the union of the twoprovinces is finally decided upon. 

His lordship has very truly observed, that in legislating, we are tolegislate for futurity; if not, we must be prepared for change. Actingupon this sound principle, we are to legislate upon the supposition thatthe whole country of Upper and Lower Canada _is_ well peopled. We arenot to legislate for the present population, but for the future. Andhow is this to be done in the present condition of the provinces? Mostassuredly by legislating for territory--for the amount of square acreswhich will eventually be filled up by emigration. I perfectly agreewith his lordship in the remark that, "if the Canadians are to bedeprived of their representative government, it would be better to do itin a straightforward way;" but I submit that it would be done in astraightforward way by the plan I am about to submit to him, and Iconsider it more advisable than that of convulsing the two provinces bybringing together two races so inveterate against each other. Insteadof a union of the two provinces, I should think it more advisable toseparate the Canadas into three: Upper, Lower, and Middle Canada, --theline of demarcation, and the capitals of each Province appearing alreadyto be marked out. The Lower province would have Quebec, and beseparated from the Middle province by the Ottawa river. The Middleprovince would have Montreal, and would extend to a line drawn from LakeSimcoe to Lake Ontario, throwing into it _all the townships on theAmerican side of the St Lawrence_, which would do away with the greatobjection of the Upper province being dependent upon the Lower for thetransport of goods up the river, and the necessity of dividing betweenthe provinces the custom-house revenues. Under any circumstances, itwould be very advantageous to have sport of entry and a custom-house, inor nearer to the Gulf of St Lawrence, as ships would then be able tomake an extra voyage every year. I should say that about Gaspe would bethe spot. This bay being on the American side of the river St Lawrencewould become the entry port for the Upper and Middle provinces, rendering them wholly independent of the Lower. The Upper provincewould comprehend all the rest of the territory west of the line, drawnfrom Lake Superior, and have Toronto for its capital. This would be apretty fair division of territory, and each province would be more thansufficient for the eye of the most active governor. Let each provincehave its separate sub-governor and House of Assembly; but let the UpperHouse, or Senate, be selected of _equal numbers_ from _each_ province, and assemble at Quebec, to decide, with the _Governor-in-chief of theprovinces_, upon the passing or rejecting of the bills of the threerespective Lower Houses. This, although perfectly fair, would at oncegive in the _Senate_ the preponderance to the English of the Upper andMiddle provinces. It would still leave to the Lower Canadians theirfranchise; and their House of Assembly would be a species ofsafety-valve for the demagogues to give vent to their opinions, (withouttheir being capable of injuring the interests of the provinces, ) untilthey gradually amalgamated with the British immigration. I merely offerthis plan as a suggestion to his lordship, and, of course, enter into nofurther detail. 

There are, however, one or two other points which appear to me to beworthy of consideration. If the Canadas are of that importance which Ithink them, there are no means which we should not use to attach them tothe mother country--to make them partial to monarchical institutions--and to _identify_ them with the British empire. We should makesacrifices for them that we would not for other colonies; and thereforeit is that I venture my opinion, that it would not only be politic, butjust, to such an extensive territory--and what will eventually be, suchan extensive population--to permit each of the three provinces, (provided they are ever divided into three, ) to select one of theirsenate to represent them in the British House of Commons. I consider itbut an act of justice as well as of policy. This step would, as I saidbefore, _identify_ these valuable provinces with ourselves. They thenwould feel that they were not merely ruled by, but that they were partand portion of, and assisted in, the government of the British empire. And to draw the line as strictly as possible between them and theirdemocratic neighbours, and to attach them still closer to monarchicalinstitutions, it should be proposed to the Sovereign of these realmsthat an Order of knighthood and an Order of merit expressly Canadianshould be instituted. These last may be considered by many to be, andperhaps in themselves are, trifles; but they are no trifles when youconsider that they must militate against those democratic feelings ofequality which have been so industriously and so injuriously circulatedin the provinces by our transatlantic descendants. I cannot betterconclude these observations than by quoting the opinion of sointelligent a nobleman as Lord Durham, who asserts most positively that, "England, if she loses her North American colonies, must sink into asecond-rate power. "

VOLUME THREE, CHAPTER SEVEN. 

INDIANS. 

There was no subject of higher interest to me during my travels in NorthAmerica, than the past and present condition of the Indian tribes. WereI to enter into the history of the past, I could easily fill three orfour volumes with matter which I think would be found very well worthperusing. It is to be lamented that there has been no correct historyof the Indian tribes yet published. There are many authors in Americawell calculated to undertake the task; and the only reason which I cangive for its not having been already done, is that, probably, theAmerican Government are not very willing to open the archives of theIndian department even to their own countrymen; and, at the same thattime, an American author, who would adhere to the truth, would notbecome very popular by exposing the system of rapine and injustice whichwas commenced by the English who first landed, and has been continued upto the present day by the Federal Government of the United States. Nevertheless, it is to be lamented, now that the race is so fastdisappearing, that a good historical account of them is not published. There is no want of material for the purpose, even if the Governmentrefuse their aid; but at present, it is either scattered in variousworks, or when attempted to be collected together, the author has notbeen equal to the task. 

There is a question which has been raised by almost every traveller inAmerica, and that is--from whom are the American Indians descended? andI think, from the many works I have consulted, that the general opinionis, that they are descended from the lost tribes of Israel. We havenever discovered any other nation of savages, if we may apply such aterm to the American Indians, who have not been idolators; the AmericanIndian is the only one who worships the one living God. In a discourse, which was delivered by Mr Noah, one of the most intelligent of theJewish nation that I ever had the pleasure of being acquainted with, there is much deep research, and a collection of the various opinionsupon this subject. To quote from it would not do it justice, and I havetherefore preferred, as it is not long, giving the whole of it in the

Appendix, as it is not (though should be more) generally known. In thesecond volume I have given a map of North America, in which I have laiddown, as correctly as I can, and sufficiently so for the purpose, thesupposed locations of the various tribes, at the period that the whiteman first put his foot on shore in America. I have said "as correctlyas I can, " for it would be as difficult to trace the outer edges of ashifting sand-bank under water, as to lay down the exact portion ofterritory occupied by tribes who were continually at war, and whoadvanced or retreated according as they were victorious or vanquished. Indeed, many tribes were totally annihilated, or their remnantsincorporated into others, living far away from their originalterritories: the Tuscororas, for instance, were driven out of Carolinaand admitted into the Mohawk confederacy, which originally came downfrom the upper shores of the river St Lawrence. The Winnebagoes, also, were driven from the south and settled on the river Wisconsin. The Sacsand Foxes fought their way from the river St Lawrence to the Fox river, in Wisconsin, and were driven from thence, by the Menomonies andChippewas, to the territory of Rock river, on the river Mississippi, where they remained, until deprived of their territory by the FederalGovernment, and sent away to the west of the river. I make theseobservations that the map may not be cavilled at by some hyper critic, who has thought that he has discovered a mare's nest; it is as accurateas I can make it, and I profess to do no more. 

Notwithstanding the vicissitudes which continually occurred, the tribesof North American Indians may be classed as follows:--

The Algonquin stock of the North--under which are comprehended theChippewas, Ottawas, Menomonies, Hurons, etcetera. 

The Southern tribes, who are also descended from one stock, and compriseCreeks, Cherokees, Choctaws, Catawbaws, Chickasaws, etcetera. 

The _Horse_ Indians of the West, as the Pawnees, Osages, Sioux, Kansas, Comanches, etcetera. 

The Indians of the Rocky Mountains, as Crows, Snakes, and Blackfeet. 

All the above races were composed of numerous tribes, who acknowledgedthemselves as blood relations, but did not enter into any confederacyfor mutual support; on the contrary, often warred they with each other. There were other powerful tribes, which resided between the lakes andthe Ohio, bordering on the hunting grounds of Kentucky and Tenessee, which portion appeared to be set aside, by general consent, not only forhunting but for war. There were Delawares, or Lenni-Lenape, theShawnees, Wyandots, Illinois, Peoria, and some others. 

The _confederate_ tribes, and with which the early settlers had tocontend, were as follows:--

The Powhatan confederacy, comprising the Monacans, Monahoacs, andPowhatans, occupying the present state of Virginia from the sea-coast tothe Alleghany mountains. 

The New England confederacy, who resided in the present States of NewEngland, composed of the Pequots, Narangassets, Pawtuckets, Pokanokets, and Massachusetts tribes. 

And lastly, the confederacy of the five nations, or Mohawks, calledMingos by the other Indians, and Iroquois by the French. Thisconfederacy was composed of the Mohawks, Oneidas, Caguyas, Onandagas, and Senecas. The Tuscaroras were afterwards admitted as a sixth. 

I will make a few brief observations upon the various tribes, in theorder I have set them down. 

The Algonquin stock has suffered less than any other, simply becausethey have been located so far north, and their lands have not beenrequired. The Chippewas are at present the most numerous tribe ofIndians. The most celebrated chief of this stock was Pontiac, anOttawa. After the Canadas were given up to the English, he proved amost formidable enemy; he attempted and, to a certain degree, succeeded, in uniting the tribes against us, and had not his plot been discovered, would, in all probability, have wrested from us Detroit, and every otherpost in our possession on the lakes. But Pontiac could not keep up astanding army, which was so contrary to the habits of the Indians; oneby one the tribes deserted him, and sued for peace. Pontiac would notlisten to any negotiations: he retired to Illinois, and was murdered bya Peoria Indian. The Ottawas, Chippewas, and Pottawatamies, who foughtunder him, avenged his death by the extermination of nearly the wholetribe of Peorias. Pontiac was one of the greatest Indians in history. 

Of the Southern tribes there are not any records sufficiently prominentfor so short a notice. 

The Horse Indians of the West and those of the Rocky Mountains arescarcely known. 

The Midland tribes produced some great men. The Delawares were at oneperiod the most celebrated. The Shawanees, or Shawnees, do not appearto have been opposed to the Whites, until Boone and his adventurerscrossed the Alleghanies, and took possession of the valley of Kentucky. But the Shawnees have to boast of Tecumseh, a chief, as great in renownas Pontiac; he also attempted to confederate all the tribes and driveaway the Whites; his history is highly interesting. He fell in battlefighting for the English, in the war of 1814. 

The _confederate tribes_ on the eastern coast, were those with which thefirst settlers were embroiled. The history of Virginia is remarkablefor one of the most singular romances in real life which ever occurred:I allude to Pocahontas, the daughter of the king of the Powhatans, whosaved the life of the enterprising Captain Smith, at the imminent riskof her own. The romance was not, however, wound up by their marriage, Captain Smith not being a marrying man; but she afterwards married ayoung Englishman, of the name of Randolph, was brought to England, received at court, and paid much attention to by Queen Anne. Some ofthe first families in Virginia proudly and justly claim their descentfrom this noble girl. 

The New England Confederacy was opposed to the pilgrim fathers and theirdescendants. The chief tribe, the Wampanoags, have to boast of thethird great chief among the Indian tribes--King Philip. His history iswell known; I have already referred to it in my Diary. 

If the reader will consult the histories of Philip, Pontiac andTecumseh, who may fairly be said to have been "great men, " he willperceive that in each case, these chiefs were the life and soul ofenterprise and action, and that it was by their talents, bravery, andactivity, that the tribes were confederated and led against the Whites. As soon as they were gone, there were none who could succeed them orfill up their places, and the confederacies were immediately broken up. But this was not the case with the celebrated five nations, or Mohawks, who, like the Romans of former days, spread their conquests until theirname was a terror wherever it was mentioned. Philip, Pontiac andTecumseh were great men, but the Mohawks' confederacy was a nation ofgreat men. When the French settled in Canada in 1603, the Mohawks, orIroquois as they called them, were living near to where Montreal nowstands. They were at war with the Adirondacks, a very numerous andpowerful nation, and were beaten down towards the Lakes; but theyrecovered themselves, and their opponents were in their turn beaten downto Quebec. The war between the Adirondacks and the Iroquois is full ofthe most interesting details of courage on both sides. The Iroquoishaving subdued, and, indeed, exterminated the Adirondacks, turned theirarms against several other tribes, whom they vanquished; they thenattacked the Ottawas and Hurons, and drove them to the other side of theMississippi. The Illinois were next subdued, then the Miamies andShawnees were driven back for the time. Finally, they conquered theVirginian tribes, and warred against the Cherokees, Catawbas, and othernations of the South. Although it was impossible for them to hold thevast extent of country which they had overrun, still it is certain thattheir very name was so terrible that, from New England to theMississippi, every town and village would be deserted at their approach. 

The chief portion of the Mohawks, under their celebrated leader Brandt, served on the British side in the war of Independence, and at the closeof the war, they settled in lands given them by the English, on thebanks of Grand river in Canada in the year 1783. At the time they tookpossession of their land, their numbers amounted to nearly 8, 000; but, as is every where the case where the Indians are settled and confined onreserved lands, they have now decreased to about 2, 500. A portion ofthe tribe of Senecas, one of the Mohawk confederacy, joined theAmericans; the remnants of them are still located a few miles fromBuffalo, in the State of New York. Their chief, Red-jacket, diedlately; he was a great warrior and still greater orator. 

The most formidable opponents to the five nations were the Delawares, orLenni Lenape, who lived in Pennsylvania. The Delawares joined theBritish in the war of Independence. 

In the succeeding chapter, I shall give the reader a census of theAmerican Indian tribes which still remain. It will be perceived thatthey are chiefly comprised of tribes which inhabited the Far-West, andwere until lately, almost unknown. Of the New England and Virginianconfederacies, once so powerful, not a vestige remains; of theDelawares, 826 still exist west of the Mississippi; of the Shawanees, orShawnees, once so terrible on the banks of the Ohio, 1, 272. In fact, all those Indians whose territory bounded the coast first takenpossession of by the white men, have been annihilated. I have oftenheard it argued, when I was in the United States, that the Indians couldnot be considered as having any claim to the land, as they did notsettle or cultivate it, and it is a general opinion that they livedalmost entirely by the proceeds of the chase: but this is not a fact;indeed it is disproved by the early settlers themselves, who acknowledgethat if they had not been supplied with corn by the Indians they musthave starved. That the Indians did not grow more than was sufficientfor their own consumption is very probable, but that they did cultivatethe land is most certain; indeed, when the country and soil werefavourable, they appear to have cultivated to a great extent. WhenGeneral Wayne destroyed the settlements of the Miamies and Wyandots, onthe Miami river, in 1794, he says in his despatch, "never have I beheldsuch immense fields of corn in any part of America as possessed by theseIndians. " The chase was considered by the Indians as a preparatoryschool for warriors, and was followed accordingly; indeed, a huntingparty and a war party were often one and the same thing, as the huntinggrounds were common, and when tribes who were at variance fell in witheach other, a conflict invariably ensued. My limits will not permit meto enter into the subject more fully; my object has been, in as fewpages as possible, to assist the map in giving the reader some idea ofthe location of the Aborigines of America. If he would know more ofthis interesting people, there are many very excellent works concerningthem written by Americans, which, were they collected together, wouldform a most valuable and important history. 

VOLUME THREE, CHAPTER EIGHT. 

INDIANS. 

I will now enter into a short examination of the present position of theremaining Indian tribes. The plan of the American Government has beento compel them to sell their lands and remove west of the Mississippi, to lands of which I doubt that the Americans have any right to claim anacre. That the removal of them is expedient I grant, and that is allthat can be said on the subject. That the Indians were fated to meltaway before the white men, like snow before the sun, is true; still, itis painful to consider what has taken place from the period of our firstlanding, when we were received hospitably--saved from starvation by thegenerous sacrifice of their small stores of grain--permitted to settleupon a small tract of land humbly solicited--and that from the time thatthe white men once gained a footing on their shores, the Indians havebeen hunted like wild beasts from hill to hill, from river to river, andfrom country to country, until nearly the whole of the vast continentmay be said to have been wrested from them. This system is stillcontinued, one tribe being forced back westward upon another, till theycome into conflict with, and destroy, each other; but the buffalo andother animals, upon which they depend for food, recede with them andgradually disappear. As Christians, we must lament that the track forthe advance of Christianity is cleared away by a series of rapine, cruelty, and injustice, at which every one must shudder. 

The following is the Report to the American Government, of the varioustribes of Indians remaining in the year 1837. It is divided into threeparts. 

Statement showing the number of Indians now east of the Mississippi; ofthose that have emigrated from the east to the west of that river; andthose within striking distance of the Western frontier. 

_1. --Name and number of the tribes now east of the Mississippi_. 

1. --Under treaty stipulations to remove west of the Mississippi. 

+==================================================+======+ÝWinnehagoes Ý 4, 500Ý+--------------------------------------------------+------+ÝOttawas of Ohio Ý 100Ý+--------------------------------------------------+------+ÝPottawatamies of Indiana Ý 2, 950Ý+--------------------------------------------------+------+ÝChippewas, Ottawas, and Pottawatamies Ý 1, 500Ý+--------------------------------------------------+------+ÝCherokees Ý14, 000Ý+--------------------------------------------------+------+ÝCreeks Ý 1, 000Ý+--------------------------------------------------+------+ÝChickasaws Ý 1, 000Ý+--------------------------------------------------+------+ÝSeminoles Ý 5, 000Ý+--------------------------------------------------+------+ÝAppalachicolas Ý 400Ý+--------------------------------------------------+------+ÝOttawas and Chippewas in the Peninsula of MichiganÝ 6, 500Ý+--------------------------------------------------+------+Ý -Ý36, 950Ý+==================================================+======+

2. --_Not under treaty stipulations to remove_. 

+==================================+======+ÝNew York Indians Ý 4, 176Ý+----------------------------------+------+ÝWyandots Ý 575Ý+----------------------------------+------+ÝMiamies Ý 1, 100Ý+----------------------------------+------+ÝMenomonies Ý 4, 000Ý+----------------------------------+------+ÝOttawas and Chippewas of the lakesÝ 2, 564Ý+----------------------------------+------+Ý -Ý12, 415Ý+----------------------------------+------+Ý -Ý49, 365Ý+==================================+======+

2. --_Number of Indians who have emigrated from the east to the west ofthe Mississippi_. 

+======================================+======+ÝChickasaws Ý 549Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝChippewas, Ottawas, and Pottawatamies, Ý 2, 191Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝChoctaws Ý15, 000Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝQuapaws Ý 476Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝCreeks Ý20, 437Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝSeminoles Ý 407Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝAppalachicolas Ý 265Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝCherokees Ý 7, 911Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝKickapoos Ý 588Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝDelawares Ý 826Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝShawnees Ý 1, 272Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝOttawas Ý 374Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝWeas Ý 222Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝPiankeshaws Ý 162Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝPeorias and Kaskaskias Ý 132Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝPottawatamies of Indians Ý 53Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝSenecas Ý 251Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝSenecas and Shawnees Ý 211Ý+--------------------------------------+------+ÝTotal Ý51, 327Ý+======================================+======+

_3. --Number of the Indigenous Tribes within striking distance of theWestern frontier_. 

+=====================+=======+ÝSioux Ý 21, 600Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝIowas Ý 1, 500Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝSacs Ý 4, 800Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝFoxes Ý 1, 600Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝSacs of the Missouri Ý 500Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝOsages Ý 5, 120Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝKansas Ý 1, 606Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝOmahas Ý 1, 600Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝOttoes and MissouriasÝ 1, 000Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝPawnees Ý 12, 500Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝComanches Ý 19, 200Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝKioways Ý 1, 800Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝMandans Ý 3, 200Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝQuapaws Ý 450Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝMinatarees Ý 2, 000Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝPagans Ý 30, 000Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝAssinaboins Ý 15, 000Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝAppaches Ý 20, 280Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝCrees Ý 3, 000Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝArrepahas Ý 3, 000Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝGros-Ventres Ý 16, 800Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝEutaws Ý 19, 200Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝCrows Ý 7, 200Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝCaddoes Ý 2, 000Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝPoncas Ý 900Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝArickarees Ý 2, 750Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝCheyennes Ý 3, 200Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝBlackfeet Ý 30, 000Ý+---------------------+-------+ÝTotal Ý231, 806Ý+=====================+=======+

RECAPITULATION. 

Number of Indians now east of the Mississippi 49, 365

Number of Indians who have emigrated from east to west side 51, 327

Number of indigenous tribes 231, 806

Aggregate 332, 498

_Estimated number of warriors_. 

Whole number of Indians 332, 498

Assuming that every fifth one may be considered a warrior (and this isbelieved to be a reasonable supposition), the number of warriors will be66, 499

War Department, Office of Indian Affairs, November 22, 1837. 

CA Harris, Commissioner. 

This force of the Indians, if ever they combined, would be veryformidable, and they might certainly sweep away the whole whitepopulation west of the Mississippi. That there will hereafter be anattempt of that kind is very probable, as hunger must eventually drivethem to it; but any success in their attempt must depend very much upontheir leaders, and the possibility of combination. It certainly_appears_ to have been an oversight on the part of the AmericanGovernment, to concentrate the whole of the Indians upon their frontiersin the way which they have done; still they could not well have actedotherwise. The removal of the Cherokees has been the most hazardouspart of their proceeding, as they are very superior people; and shouldthe other tribes put themselves under their directions, they would beformidable enemies. There is another circumstance which may render theIndians more serious enemies, which is, that they, having been locatedon the prairie country, have become Horse Indians, instead of what istermed Wood Indians, and they have a vast country behind them to retreatto in case of necessity. I do not think, however, that there is, atpresent, much fear to be felt relative to the Indians, although theCherokees, the Sioux, and some other powerful tribes openly declaretheir hostile intentions as soon as an opportunity offers for carryingthem into execution. That opportunity will not offer unless America isplunged into war with France or this country, and then I am prettyconfident that there will be a general rising of the Indians; when, whether they act in concert or not, they will give the Americans moreoccupation than will be agreeable. The American Government have notbeen insensible to the danger to which they are exposed from thisquarter, and, in 1837, the reports of military men were sent intoCongress as to the best plan of protecting their frontier. Whetherthose reports are intended to be acted upon I know not; but if so, thepresent regular army of the United States will not be sufficient for thepurpose, the lowest estimation for the garrisons of the proposed fortsbeing 7, 000 rank and file, while at present their rank and file on thearmy-list only amounts to 5, 600. 

The American forts opposed to the Indians are, at present:--

Fort Gratiot, River St Clare. 

Mackinaw Island Fort. 

Fort Brady, St Marie, Lake Superior. 

Fort Howard, Green Bay. 

Fort Winnebago, Wisconsin. 

Fort Crawford. Prairie des Chiens. 

Fort Snelling, St Peters. 

Fort Leavenworth, Missouri. 

Fort Madison, Des Moines River. 

Jefferson Barracks, Missouri. 

_Advanced Ports_. 

Fort Towson, Red River. 

Fort Gibson, Arkansas and Grand Junction River. 

Fort Adams, Baton Rouge. 

There are one or two outposts also on the Arkansas River. If all theseforts were properly garrisoned, they would take every disposable musketin the regular army of the United States; whilst at present they have, in consequence of the protracted Florida war, scarcely sufficient men todo the duty. 

In the report of the acting quarter-master general, the followinggarrisons are proposed for the western frontier:--

+=========================================+========+ÝFort Snelling Ý300 men. Ý+-----------------------------------------+--------+ÝFort Crawford Ý 300Ý+-----------------------------------------+--------+ÝUpper forks of the Des Moines Ý 400Ý+-----------------------------------------+--------+ÝFort Leavenworth Ý 1, 200Ý+-----------------------------------------+--------+ÝFort Gibson Ý 1, 500Ý+-----------------------------------------+--------+ÝFort Towson Ý 800Ý+-----------------------------------------+--------+ÝThe eight posts of refuge proposed Ý 800Ý+-----------------------------------------+--------+ÝThe protection of the four depots Ý 200Ý+-----------------------------------------+--------+ÝJefferson barracks, as a corps of reserveÝ 1, 500Ý+-----------------------------------------+--------+ÝTotal Ý 7, 000Ý+=========================================+========+

To which must be added, for the garrisons of the five Lakes forts, 1, 500at least, making the force necessary for the protection of theboundaries, to amount to 8, 500 men. Colonel Gratiot, in his report, computes the force necessary at 12, 910 men. 

The letter of Mr Poinsett to Congress will throw much light upon thissubject, and I shall therefore insert it. 

"Department of War, "December 30, 1837. 

"Sir:--In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives, inrelation to the protection of the western frontiers of the UnitedStates, I have the honour to transmit the accompanying reports of thechief engineer and the acting quarter-master general, together with areport of the commissioner of Indian affairs. That expected fromGeneral Gaines will be sent as soon as it is received. 

"In presenting these documents, which are ably drawn up, and containfull and satisfactory information on all the topics embraced by theresolution, I might have considered my duty fully discharged, had notother plans been previously recommended, which I regard as entirelyinefficient, but which have received, in some measure, the sanction ofCongress. A survey has been directed to determine the line of a road, which, it is contemplated, shall extend from some point of the UpperMississippi to Red River, passing west of Missouri and Arkansas; and itis proposed to place a cordon of temporary posts of ordinaryconstruction along it, as a sufficient measure for the defence of thatpart of the country. In pursuance of the orders of Congress, officershave been appointed to perform that duty, and, upon their report beingreceived, measures will be taken to carry into effect the intentions ofCongress, unless, upon a deliberate review of the whole matter, somemore eligible plan of defence shall be adopted. My own opinion hasbeen, from the time I first considered the subject, that such a chain ofposts, strung along the best road that can be constructed, furnishedwith all the means to operate, and with competent garrisons to occupythem, is not calculated to afford that protection which the borderStates have a right to expect from the Government, nor to redeem itspledge to protect the emigrant tribes from the savage and warlike peoplethat surround them. The only possible use of such a road would be tofacilitate occasional communications between the posts in time of peace. Supplies would not be transported along it, for they must be broughtfrom the interior. Succours could not reach the posts by thatdirection, for they would be furnished by the militia within the line;and any attempt to concentrate the forces composing the garrisons in theevent of an outbreak, would probably be attended with disastrousconsequences; for the troops, whose route must be well known, would beexposed to be attacked and destroyed in detail. The enemy, havingnothing to dread on their flanks or rear, might approach this roadwithout risk, and attack the detachments on their line of march, beforethey could concentrate their forces so as to offer an effectualresistance. 

"After mature reflection, I am of opinion that military posts ought tobe established and kept up within the Indian territory, in suchpositions as to maintain peace among the Indians, and protect theemigrant and feebler tribes against the stronger and more warlikenations that surround them; which the United States are bound to do bytreaty stipulations. To withdraw those which now exist there, would beto violate our faith, as there is reason to apprehend that it would bethe signal of war. Persons well acquainted with that country assure usthat war would break out among the Indians, `just so soon as the troopsare removed from those posts, ' and all accounts from that quarterconfirm that impression. 

"Independently of the military protection which the existence of theseposts in the interior of the Indian country afford to the emigratingtribes, and the good they are calculated to effect by the beneficialinfluence the officers are enabled to exert over the surroundingIndians, they more effectually cover and protect the frontier than tentimes the number of fortresses, strung along in one line, could do. 

"With the very limited knowledge of that country as yet in possession ofthis department, it appears to me that six or seven permanent exteriorposts would be sufficient to preserve the peace of that frontier. Itwill be necessary, at the same time, to establish, at convenient points, an interior line of posts, to serve as places of refuge for theinhabitants in periods of danger and alarm, until the militia can marchto their succour from the interior, and the troops be put in motion uponthe rear of the invaders. Eight of these would be amply sufficient, from which patrols might be kept up along the frontier to enforce theintercourse laws. Both descriptions of forts should be so constructedas to be defended by a small garrison, and in a manner that each partmay be successfully maintained against a very superior force, bothduring the time the whole is being completed, and in the event of anyportion of it being burnt or destroyed. This arrangement would requirethe establishment of a few depots of arms and supplies, from whichcommunications should be opened to the posts. The accompanying skeletonmap presents a view of the relative positions of the posts and depots, and of the communications from them to the line of defence for thespeedy transportation of succours and supplies. A regular force of fivethousand men would be sufficient to garrison these posts, and, with acompetent reserve at Jefferson barracks, and an effective force at BatonRouge, would, I think, both ensure the safety of the western frontier, and enable the Government to fulfil all its treaty stipulations, andpreserve its faith with the Indians. I would recommend, as an importantauxiliary to this system of defence, the organisation of an efficientvolunteer force, to be raised in each of the frontier States; the men tobe mustered into service for a certain term of time, the officers to beappointed according to their State laws, and to be instructed a certainnumber of days in each year by the regular officers of the United Statesarmy at the posts within the States, and to receive pay during thatperiod. In this manner an efficient corps of officers may be created, and a body of volunteers be at hand to march to the succour of theborder settlers and repel the invaders, whenever they are called upon bythe proper authority. 

"I venture to hope, if these measures are adopted by Congress, andcarried into effect at an early day, so as to anticipate any hostilemovement of the Indians, peace will be preserved on our Western borders;but if they should, unfortunately, be delayed until the discontent whichexists among many of the tribes breaks out into open hostility, and thefirst movements of that wild and warlike people prove successful, asthey infallibly would do in our present unprepared state, it mightrequire double the force and quadruple the means I have here indicatedto restore and preserve peace along that extended frontier. All whichis respectfully submitted. 

"JR Poinsett. 

"Honourable James K Polk, "Speaker of the House of Representatives. "

The acting quarter-master-general, in his report, makes the followingobservation:--

"The obligations of the Government in reference to the Western frontierare of a very peculiar character. It is first bound, by a common duty, to protect its own border settlements, extending along a line of onethousand miles, against the incursions of numerous savage tribes, separated from those settlements by mere imaginary lines; and it is nextbound, by the solemn treaty stipulations, with such of those tribes ashave emigrated to that frontier, `to protect them at their newresidences against all interruptions or disturbances from any othertribes or nations of Indians, or _from_ any other person or personswhatsoever. '

"If these obligations are to be scrupulously fulfilled in good faith, which would seem to be due to our character as a nation professing apaternal care over these people, a military force of _thirty thousandmen_ on the Western frontier would scarcely be adequate to enable theGovernment to discharge its duties to its own citizens, and redeem thesepledges of protection to the Indians. 

"It is not my intention, however, to propose such a force. Politicalexpediency, I presume, would not tolerate it, however it might bejustified by military considerations. It is merely adverted to here inconnexion with the _heavy obligations_ which rest upon Government, andwhich have probably been contracted from time to time, without any verynice calculation of the means that would be necessary to a _faithfuldischarge of them_. I will, therefore, without enlarging upon thispoint, proceed to state the _minimum_ force that is deemed necessary togive protection to the border settlements, and assist in preservingpeace among them and their Indian neighbours along the line of thefrontier. These are great and important objects of themselves, withoutsuperadding the yet more difficult task of protecting the emigranttribes, whom our policy has placed beyond the frontier, from the wildand warlike Indians of the Far-West. "

And Colonel Gratiot, in his report, makes the following admission. Speaking of the second, or middle, section, he says:--

"_Second, or Middle Section_. --The country beyond this line is mostlyelevated and free from marshy ground; is abundantly watered, thinlywooded, healthy, and has been assigned for the permanent residence ofthe tribes which have been, or are to be, removed from the States andterritories east of the Mississippi, and is still occupied by theAborigines originally found within its limits. In numbers they count, according to some estimates, 131, 000, and can send to the field 26, 200warriors. As yet, no community of feeling except of deep and lastinghatred to the white man, and more particularly to the Anglo-Americans, exists among them; and, unless they coalesce, no serious difficulty needbe apprehended from them. Not so, however, should they be induced tounite for purposes offensive and defensive: their strength would thenbecome apparent, create confidence, and, in all probability, induce themto give vent to their long-suppressed desire to revenge past wrongs, which is restrained, as they openly and freely declare, by fear alone. That such a union will be formed at no distant day, we have every reasonto believe; and the period may be accelerated by their growing wants, and the policy of Mexico to annoy Texas, and raise an impenetrablebarrier in the direction of her frontier. "

That at present the Western frontier is defenceless is undeniable, andthe Florida war does not appear to be at all nearer to a conclusion thanit was two or three years ago. That the Indians to the west of theMississippi are not ignorant of what is going on is very certain; andthe moral effect arising from the protracted defence of the Seminolesmay eventually prove most serious, and be attended with enormous expenseto the United States. 

The Federal Government takes every precaution to impress the Indianswith an idea of the impossibility of their opposing the white men. Theagents persuade the chiefs to go down to Washington to see their greatfather, the President. On these occasions they are accompanied by theIndian agent and interpreter, and, of course, all their expenses arepaid. They are lodged at the hotels, taken to all places of publicamusement, and provided with conveyances. But the policy of theGovernment is to cause them to make a circuit through all the mostpopulous cities, as the crowds attracted by the appearance of theIndians give them an extraordinary and incorrect idea of the Americanpopulation. Wherever they go they are in a crowd. If they are at thewindows of an hotel, still the crowds are immense; and this is what theGovernment is anxious should take place. I was at Boston when the twodeputations of the Sioux and Sacs and Foxes tribes arrived. The twonations being at enmity, the Sioux were conducted there first, and leftthe town on the arrival of the Sacs and Foxes, or there would probablyhave been a fight. The Governor received the latter in the Town-hall, and made a speech; I was present. I thought at the time that it was nota speech that I would have made to them, and if I mistook not, itbrought up recollections not very agreeable to the chiefs, although theywere too politic to express their feelings. But a few years before, their lands east of the Mississippi had been wrested from them in themost unfair way, as I have mentioned in my remarks upon the treatment ofthe Indians by the American Government. 

Governor Everett commenced his speech as follows:--

"Chiefs and warriors of the confederated Sacs and Foxes, you are welcometo our Hall of Council. You have come a far way, from your red friendsof the West, to visit your white brethren of the East. We are glad totake you by the hand. We have heard before of the Sac and the Foxtribes: we have heard much of their chiefs, warriors, and great men: weare now glad to see them here. We are of Massachusets: the red men onceresided here: their wigwams were on yonder hill: and their CouncilChamber was here. When our fathers came over the great waters, theywere a small band, and you were powerful: the red man stood on the rockby the seaside, and looked at them with friendly eyes: he might havepushed them into the water, but took them by the hand, and said welcome, white man. Our fathers were hungry, and the red man gave them corn andvenison. Our fathers were cold, and the red man spread his blanket overthem and made them warm. We are now great and powerful, but we _willremember_ in our prosperity the benefits bestowed by our red brethren inour adversity. "

Up to the present, they certainly have forgotten them!!

But the fate of the red man appears to be nearly decided. What betweentheir wars with each other, the use of spirituous liquors, and thediseases imported by the whites, they dwindle away every day. The mostfatal disease to them is the small-pox. The following account, which Ihave extracted from one of the American papers, was confirmed to me by aletter from Fort Snelling:--

_Appalling destruction of North-west Indians by Small-pox_. 

"We gave yesterday an account of the origin of this epidemic by means ofa steam-boat trading on the Missouri. Today we subjoin, from the StLouis bulletin slip of March 3rd, a detailed account of its ravages. The disease had reached the remote band of the Blackfeet, and thousandsof them had fallen victims. They do not blame the traders. 

"The Pipe Stem, a chief of great influence, when dying, called hispeople around him, and his last request was, that they would love theirtraders, and be always governed by their advice. `I may, ' says one ofthe traders, `be blamed for not using measures to arrest the progress ofthe disease, but without resort to arms on the arrival of the boat withsupplies, the Indians could not have been driven from the fort. '

"An express went two days a-head of the boat, but it was of no usepreaching to the Indians to fly--they flocked down to the boat as usualwhen she arrived. The peltry trade in that quarter is ruined for years. The company agent at Fort Union, writes, Nov. 30, that all theirprospects on the Upper Missouri are totally prostrated. The epidemicspread into the most distant part of the Assinaboin country, and thistribe were dying by fifties and hundreds a day. The disease appeared tobe of a peculiarly malignant cast; some, a few moments after severeattacks of pain in the head and loins, fell down dead, and the bodiesturned black immediately after, and swelled to three times their naturalsize. The companies erected hospitals, but they were of no use. Thecarts were constantly employed burying the dead in holes; afterwards, when the earth was frozen, they were consigned to the water. Many ofthe squaws are left in a miserable condition. The disease has notreached the Sioux, many of whom have being vaccinated. 

"The Mandans, numbering 1, 600, living in permanent villages 1, 600 milesabove St Louis, have all died but thirty-one. 

"The Minatarees, or Gros Ventres, living near the Mandans, numberingabout 1, 000, were, by our last accounts, about one half dead, and thedisease still raging. 

"The Arickarees, amounting to 3, 000, who but lately abandoned awandering life, and joined the Mandans, were about half dead, and thedisease still among them. It is probable they have been reduced inproportion to the Mandans. 

"The Assinaboins, a powerful tribe, about 9, 000 strong, living entirelyby the chase, and ranging north of the Missouri, in the plains below theRocky Mountains, down towards the Hudson's Bay Company, on the north RedRiver, are _literally annihilated_. Their principal trade was at FortUnion, mouth of the Yellow Stone. 

"The Crees, living in the same region, numbering 3, 000, are nearly alldestroyed. The great nation called Blackfeet, who wander and live bythe chase, ranging through all the region of the Rocky Mountains, divided into bands--Piegans, Gros Ventres, Blood Indians, and Blackfeet, amounting in all to 50, 000 or 60, 000, have deeply suffered. Onethousand lodges or families have been destroyed, and the disease wasrapidly spreading among the different bands. "

The average number in a lodge is from six to eight persons. 

"The boat that brought up the small-pox made her voyage last summer, andthe ravages of the distemper appear to have been greatest in October. It broke out among the Mandans, July 15th. Many of the handsomeArickarees who had recovered, seeing the disfiguration of theirfeatures, committed suicide; some by throwing themselves from rocks, others by stabbing, shooting, etcetera. The prairie has become a graveyard; its wild flowers bloom over the sepulchres of Indians. Theatmosphere for miles is poisoned by the stench of hundreds of carcasesunburied. The women and children are wandering in groups without food, or howling over the dead. The men are flying in every direction. Theproud, warlike, and noble looking Blackfeet are no more. The desertedlodges are seen on the hills, but no smoke issues from them. No soundbut the raven's croak, and the wolf's long howl, breaks the awfulstillness. The wolves fatten on the dead carcases. The scene ofdesolation is described as appalling beyond the powers of imagination toconceive. "

That they may give the Americans much trouble, however, previous totheir final extermination, is true, and that they are very anxious torevenge themselves, is equally certain. The greatest misfortune whichcould happen to the United States would be a union or mixture of thenegroes with the Indian tribes. If this were to take place, thepopulation would, in all probability, rapidly increase, instead offalling away as it now does; as then the negro population would till theground sufficiently for the support of themselves and the Indians, asthey now do among the Creek and Seminole tribes, who have plenty ofcattle and corn. The American Indian in his natural state suffers muchfrom hunger, and this is one cause of the non-increase of theirpopulation. What might be effected by the bands now concentrated on theAmerican frontier, if at any future time they should become amalgamatedwith the negroes, will be fairly estimated by the reader when he hasread the account I am about to lay before him of the war in Florida. 

VOLUME THREE, CHAPTER NINE. 

CAUSES OF THE FLORIDA WAR. 

Most of my countrymen are aware that the Americans have been carrying ona war against the Florida Indians for the last two or three years; thedetails, however, are not so well known; and as this Florida war oughtto be a lesson to the Americans, and may, as a precedent to the otherIndians, prove of great importance, I shall enter into the particularsof it. I am moved, indeed, so to do, as it will afford the reader avery fair specimen of the general policy and mode of treatment shewn tothe Indians by the American Government. Florida was ceded by Spain tothe United States as a set-off against 500, 000 dollars, claimed by theAmericans for spoliations committed on her commerce. The whitepopulation of Florida is not very numerous even now; the census of 1830gave 18, 000 whites and 16, 000 slaves, independent of the FloridaIndians, or Seminoles. Seminoles is a term for runaways or wanderers;the Indian tribes in Florida being a compound of the old FloridaIndians, two varieties of Creeks, who quitted their tribe previous totheir removal west of the Mississippi, and Africans who are slaves tothe Indians. Their numbers at the commencement of the war wereestimated as follows:--

The Mico-sukee Indians, of which Osseola, or Asseola, was one of theprincipal chiefs, 400 warriors. 

Creek and Spanish Indians, 850 warriors. 

Negroes, 600 to 700 warriors. 

In all about 1900 warriors. 

The chief of the whole Seminole nation is Mic-e-no-pah, and next to himin consequence, as orator of the nation, is an Indian of the name ofJumper. It must be observed that these Indians, having slaves, cultivated the ground and had large stocks of cattle. Florida, like allthe confines of the United States, had a white population not verycreditable to any country, and many of these people went there more witha view of robbing the Indians of their negroes and cattle, and sellingthem in the Western States, than with any intention of permanentlysettling in the country. 

As soon as the Floridas were ceded by the Spanish, the AmericanGovernment perceived the expediency of removing the Indians from theterritories, and, on the 18th of September 1823, a treaty was enteredinto with the Indians, by which the Indians, on their part, agreed toremove to the westward after _twenty years_ from that date, that is onSeptember 18th, 1843. By the same treaty the American Governmentsecured to the Indians a tract of land in Florida, containing fivemillions of acres, for their subsistence during the time that theyremained in that State; and agreed to pay the Indians certain advances, in consequence of their surrendering all title to the rest of theFlorida country, and engaging to confine themselves to the limits of theterritory allotted to them. 

Nothing could be more plain or simple than the terms of this treaty, which, in consequence of the council being held at this spot, wasdenominated the treaty of Camp Moultrie. 

The third article in the treaty of Camp Moultrie runs as follows:--"TheUnited States will take the Florida Indians under their care andpatronage, and _will afford them protection against all personswhatsoever_. "

One of the great errors committed by the American Government was inbinding itself to perform what was not in its power. It could no moreprotect these Indians against the white marauders than it could preventthe insurgents from attacking Upper Canada. The arm of the FederalGovernment is too weak to reach its own confines, as will hereafter beshewn by its own acknowledgment. The consequence was that, very soonafter the treaty of Camp Moultrie had been signed, the Indians wererobbed and plundered by the miscreants who hovered near them for thatpurpose. 

An American author states that two men, Robinson and Wilburn, belongingto Georgia, contrived to steal from one chief twenty slaves, to thevalue of 15, 000 dollars, and carried them to New Orleans. I willhowever quote a portion of the work. 

"Another influential chief, Emachitochustern, commonly called JohnWalker, was robbed of a number of slaves in a somewhat similar manner. After making an appeal to the government agent, without the least chanceof redress, he says: `I don't like to make any trouble or to have anyquarrel with white people, but, if they will trespass on my lands andrights, I must defend myself the best way I can, and if they do comeagain they must bear the consequences. But is there no civil law toprotect me? Are the negroes belonging to me to be stolen away publiclyin the face of all law and justice? carried off and sold to fill thepockets of these land pirates? Douglass and his company have hired aman, who has two large trained dogs for the purpose, to come here andtake off others. He is from Mobile, and follows catching negroes. '

"Colonel John Blount, another estimable chief, was inhumanly beaten by aparty of white men, who robbed him of several hundred dollars; he madeapplication to the authorities, but the villains were allowed to escape. 

"These facts show how mild and forbearing the Seminoles have acted underthe most trying circumstances; and even when their property has beenassailed in this way, they have, in numerous instances, refrained frommaking resistance; their hands were bound, as the severest punishmentawaited any attack they might make upon the intruders, even thoughcircumstances justified it. But as the Indian's evidence could not bereceived in a court of justice, the white man's oath would condemn himto the most torturing punishment. "

But in every way were the poor Indians the prey of the white men. Thesame author says, among many other cases brought forward, "A man, by thename of Floyd, was employed by an Indian woman to recover some negroesfor her, and instead of presenting a mere power of attorney for hersignature, she found, alas! it was a bill of sale for all her negroes!Another individual was requested by Miconopy, governor of the Seminoles, to draw a piece of writing for him, to which, without suspicion of itscharacter, he attached his name; it was soon after discovered to be aconveyance of a large tract of land!"

Another source of profit to these scoundrels was the obtaining byfraudulent means from the Indians, orders upon the American Governmentfor the payment of portions of their annuity granted in return for thecession of the territory. "One of the government agents was adelinquent to them for a considerable amount. He robbed the principalinterpreter of the nation, a very influential black chief by the name ofAbraham, of several hundred dollars, by getting a receipt from himwithout paying the money, under the plea that it was necessary to sendthe receipt to Washington, where it was filed to the credit of theagent. Several other Indians of influence were robbed in a similarmanner; and when they demanded the money from the succeeding agent, theywere told that the government would not pay them. Is not this anunsound principle to adopt in our intercourse with the Indians? Is itjust or honourable for us to send our own agents among them, withouttheir approval, and not hold ourselves responsible for their conduct?If we were indebted to a nation, and the funds are sent through an agentto pay over, and he neglects to do so, are we not still liable, andwould not a civilised power still hold us responsible?"

I have mentioned these facts to show that the Indians were justified intheir want of faith in the white men: they were robbed and pillaged andhad no redress; nay, they were imprisoned as thieves for taking awaytheir own cattle which had been stolen from them, although they showedtheir own marks and brands upon them. Whether the American Governmentsuffered all this spoliation with a view to disgust the Indians andincline them to remove to the westward, the reader will be better ableto judge for himself when he has read a few pages more. 

The Florida people were now subjected to retaliation, on the part of theIndians, who, finding that they could obtain no redress, naturally tookthe law into their own hands, and loss of life on both sides was theconsequence. This produced petition after petition from the Floridawhite population to the government, requesting that the Indians might bemoved west prior to 1843, the period agreed upon by the treaty of CampMoultrie. Colonel Gadsden, a citizen of Florida, was appointedcommissioner to treat with the Indians, and on the 8th of April 1832, had an interview with Mic-e-no-pah, and a few other chiefs. The Indiansrequested thirty days to collect the opinions of the absent chiefs, andon the 8th of May 1832, they met the commissioner, according toappointment, at Payne's Landing. The commissioner had a great deal ofdifficulty in obtaining their consent to the removal, which wasultimately given upon certain conditions. 

By this treaty, the Indians agreed to remove west upon being paid acertain sum for the reserved land; an annuity for a certain number ofyears; and other advantages, which would occupy too much space toparticularise here. The treaty was signed by Mic-e-no-pah, the headchief, Jumper, and thirteen more. 

But the treaty was assented to upon one condition, which was, that theSeminoles were _satisfied_ with the lands apportioned to them west ofthe Mississippi. This is acknowledged by Colonel Gadsden, in his letterto the Secretary of War, who says--"There is a condition prefixed to theagreement, without assenting to which the Florida Indians mostpositively refused to negotiate for their removal west of theMississippi. Even with the condition annexed, there was a reluctance(which with some difficulty was overcome) on the part of the Indians, tobind themselves by any stipulations before a knowledge of facts andcircumstances would enable them to judge of the advantages ordisadvantages of the disposition the government of the United Stateswished to make of them. They were finally induced, however, to assentto the agreement. " "The final ratification of the treaty will dependupon the opinion of the seven chiefs selected to explore the countrywest of the Mississippi river. If that corresponds to the descriptiongiven, or is equal to the expectations formed of it, there will be nodifficulty on the part of the Seminoles. "

There was a very unwise delay on the part of the American governmentafter the signing of this second treaty. More than two years werepermitted to elapse before any appropriation of land was made for theIndians, who became dissatisfied, and the treaty was by them pronouncedto be "a white man's treaty, " which they did not any longer consider tobe binding. 

But there were other reasons why the Seminoles did not consider thetreaty as binding; they did _not_ like the lands allotted to them. Adeputation of seven was sent west of the Mississippi: the land theyacknowledged was good land, but they found that they were close to thePawnee territory, and that that tribe was proverbially famous forstealing cattle and horses. It was also the determination of theAmerican Government, as they were considered as a portion of the Creeknation, to settle them near to and incorporate them with that nation. This did not suit them; the Creeks had claimed many of their slaves, andthey knew that they had no chance with so superior a force as that ofthe Creek nation, who would have taken all their slaves from them. As, therefore, the Pawnees would have stolen all their cattle, and theCreeks have taken all their slaves, they considered that utterdestitution would be the consequence of the removal as proposed by theAmerican Government. To get over the latter difficulty, the governmentproposed that the Seminoles should sell their slaves previous to theirremoving, but this they objected to. The American author I have quotedsays:--

"It was then suggested to them that, by a sale of these negroes beforethey left Florida, they would augment their resources, and could go intotheir new country without the dread of exciting the cupidity of theCreeks. But these Indians have always evinced great reluctance toparting with slaves: indeed the Indian loves his negro as much as one ofhis own children, and the sternest necessity alone would drive him tothe parting: this recommendation was, therefore, viewed with evidentalarm, and as the right of retaining possession of them was guaranteedby the commissioner, strong doubts were raised as to the sincerity ofthe pledge. 

"The Seminole Indians are poor agriculturists and husbandmen, and withaltoo indolent to till the ground, and, without their negroes, wouldliterally starve: besides, should they dispose of them they could not bereplenished in a new country. Again: the opposition of the slavesthemselves to being sold to the whites would excite all their energiesto prevent emigration, for they dread the idea of being transferred tosugar and cotton plantations, where they must be subject to thesurveillance of the overseer. The life of a slave among the Indians, compared with that of negroes under overseers, is one of luxury andease; the demands upon him are very trifling, scarcely ever exceedingeight or ten bushels from the crop, the remainder being applied to hisown profit: they live separate, and often remote, from their owners, andenjoy an equal share of liberty. The negro is also much more providentand ambitious than his master, and the peculiar localities of thecountry eminently facilitate him in furnishing the Indian with rum andtobacco, which gives him a controlling influence over the latter, and atthe same time affords him an immense profit; so that it can be easilyimagined that the negroes would in no manner be benefited by thechange. "

On the 23rd of October, 1834, being two years and a half after thesigning of the second treaty at Payne's Landing, a council of Indianswas again summoned by the agent, who informed them that all they had nowto answer were the following questions:--

Will you incorporate yourselves with the Creek nation in the Far-West?

Will you have money for your cattle which you leave here on your arrivalthere, or will you have cattle in return?

Will you go by water, or by land?

Will you have your next annuity paid in money or in goods?

Upon this, the chiefs retired and held a private council. It is saidthat Asseola, the principal chief of the tribe of Micosukees, persuadedthem strongly to resist going, and declared that he would consider ashis enemy any one who agreed to go. Asseola had not signed the treaty. The next day the council was resumed, and the chiefs made the followingreplies to the agent. 

The first who spoke was Holata Mico, principal war chief. He expressedhis wish that there should be no quarrelling, at the same time that hegave his evidence as to the truth of the first book of Moses. 

"_Holata Mico_ then rose, and said:--`God made all of us, and we allcame from one woman, sucked one bubby; we hope we shall not quarrel;that we will talk until we get through. '

"_Miconopy_ then said--`When we were at Camp Moultrie we made a treaty, and we were to be paid our annuity for twenty years. That is all I havegot to say. '

"_Jumper_ said--`At Camp Moultrie they told us all difficulties shouldbe buried for twenty years, from the date of the treaty made there; thatafter this we held a treaty at Payne's Landing, before the twenty yearswere out; and they told us we might go and see the country, but that wewere not obliged to remove. The land is very good, I saw it, and wasglad to see it; the neighbours there are bad people; I do not like thembad Indians, the Pawnees. I went and saw the place; I told the agentthat I was a rogue; that he had brought me to the place here alongside, and among the rogues, the bad Pawnees, because I am a rogue. I went tosee the land, and the commissioners said that the Seminoles must havethat land. When we went west to see the land, we had not sold our landhere, and we were told only to go and see it. The Indians there stealhorses, and take packs on their horses; they all steal horses from thedifferent tribes; I do not want to go among such people; your talk seemsalways good, but we don't feel disposed to go west. '

"_Charley Amathia_ then rose, and said--`The speakers of the nation areall dead; but I recollect some of their words when they had the meetingat Camp Moultrie. I was not there, but heard that we would be at peace, and that we would have our annuity paid to us for twenty years. _Whitepeople have told me that the treaty at Camp Moultrie, which was made bygreat men, and not to be broken, had secured them for twenty years; thatseven years of that treaty are still unexpired_. I am no half breed, and do not lean on one side. If they tell me to go after the sevenyears, I say nothing. As to the proposition made us by the agent aboutremoving, I do not say I will not go; but I think that, until the sevenyears are out, I give no answer. My family I love dearly and sacredly. I do not think it right to take them right off. Our father has oftensaid to me that he loves his children--and they love him. When a man isat home, and got his stock about him, he looks upon it as thesubsistence of himself and family. Then when they go off, they reflectand think more seriously than when quiet at home. I do not complain ofthe agent's talk. My young men and family are all around me. Should Igo west, I should lose many on the path. As to the country west, Ilooked at it; a weak man cannot get there, the fatigue would be sogreat; it requires a strong man. '"

This talk made the agent very angry; he told them that they should standby the treaty at Payne's Landing; he desired them to retire, and whenthey came again to act like chiefs and honourable men. 

"October 25, 1834. The council convened at 11 o'clock. Interpreters asyesterday. 

"The _agent_ said to the council, `I am ready to receive your answers tothe questions which I submitted to you. '

"_Holato Mico_. --`I have only to repeat what I said yesterday, and tosay that the twenty years from the treaty at Moultrie has not yetexpired. I never gave my consent to go west; the whites may say so, butI never gave my consent. '

"_Jumper_. --`We are not satisfied to go until the end of twenty years, according to the treaty at Camp Moultrie. We were called upon to go tothe west, beyond the Mississippi. It is a good country; this is a poorcountry, we know. We had a good deal of trouble to get there; whatwould it be for all our tribe. '

"_Miconopy_. --`I say, what I said yesterday, I did not sign the treaty. '

"_Agent_. --`Abraham, tell Miconopy that I say _he lies_; he did sign thetreaty, for here is his name. '"

Miconopy here asserts that he did not sign the treaty, which certainlyappears to be a falsehood: but it should be remembered that, by theagent's own admission, it was only a conditional signature by a portionof the chiefs, provided that they liked the location offered to them;and as they objected to this, the treaty was certainly, in my opinion, null and void. Indeed, the agent had no right to demand the signatureswhen such an important reservation was attached to the treaty. I do notgive the whole of the agent's reply, as there is so much repetition; thefollowing are extracts:--

"I have told you that you must stand to your bargain. My talk is stillthe same. You must go west. Your father, the President, who is yourfriend, will compel you to go. Therefore, be not deluded by any hope orexpectation that you will be permitted to remain here. You haveexpressed a wish to hear my views and opinion upon the whole matter. Asa man, and your friend, I will this day deign to reason with you; for Iwant to show you that your talk of today is the foolish talk of a child. 

"Jumper says, they agreed at Payne's Landing to go and examine thecountry west, but they were not bound to remove to it until the nationshould agree to do so, after the return of the delegation; and he adds, what others of you have said, that the treaty at Camp Moultrie was tostand for twenty years. Such a talk from Jumper surprises me, for he isa man of sense. He understands the treaty at Payne's Landing, which hesigned; he was the first named in that treaty, of the delegationappointed to go west; he knows that that treaty gave him and the membersof the delegation authority to decide whether the nation should removeor not. 

"The Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws and Cherokees, who live in the States, are moving west of the Mississippi river, because they cannot live underthe white people's laws; they are gone and going, and the Seminolenation are a small handful to their number. Two governments cannotexist under the same boundary of territory. Where Indians remain withinthe limits of a state or territory until the jurisdiction of a state orterritory shall be extended over them, the Indian government, laws andchiefships, are for ever done away--the Indians are subject to the whiteman's law. The Indian must be tried, whether for debt or crime, in thewhite man's court; the Indian's law is not to be known there; theIndian's evidence is not to be admitted there; the Indian will, in everything, be subject to the control of the white man. It is this view ofthe subject which induces your father, the President, to settle his redchildren beyond the limits of the states and territories where the whiteman's law is never to reach you, and where you and your children are topossess the land, while the grass grows and the water runs. He feelsfor his red children as a father should feel. It is, therefore, that hemade the treaty with you at Payne's Landing, and for the same reason hewill compel you to comply with your bargain. But let us look a littlemore closely into your own situation. Suppose (what is howeverimpossible) that you could be permitted so remain here a few yearslonger, what would be your condition? _This land will soon besurveyed, sold to, and settled by, the whites. There is now a surveyorin the country; the jurisdiction of the territory will soon be extendedover this country. Your laws will be set aside, your chiefs will ceaseto be chiefs; claims for debt and for your negroes would be set upagainst you by bad white men, or you would perhaps be charged withcrimes affecting life; you would be hauled before the white man's court;the claims against you for debt, for your negroes or other property, andthe charges of crime preferred against you, would be decided by thewhite man's law. White men would be witnesses against you; Indianswould not be permitted to give evidence; your condition, in a very fewyears, would be hopeless wretchedness_. "

What an admission from their father, the President, after having, in thethird article of the treaty of Camp Moultrie, declared that the UnitedStates will afford the Florida Indians _protection against all personswhatsoever_!!

"Thus, you may see, that were it possible for you to remain here a fewyears longer, you would be reduced to hopeless poverty, and when urgedby hunger to ask, perhaps, of the man who thus would have ruined you(and is, perhaps, now tampering with you for the purpose of getting yourproperty) for a crust of bread, you might be called an Indian dog, andbe ordered to clear out. [Here _Asseola_, who was seated by Miconopy, urged him to be firm in his resolution. ] Your father, the President, sees all these evils, and will save you from them by removing you west;and I will stand up for the last time to tell you, that you must go; andif not willingly, you will be compelled to go. I should have told youthat no more annuity will be paid to you here. [_Asseola_ replied, thathe did not care whether any more was ever paid. ] I hope you will, onmore mature reflection, act like honest men, and not compel me to reportyou to your father, the President, as faithless to your engagements. "

"_Asseola_ said, the decision of the chiefs was given; that they did notintend to give any other answer. 

"_Miconopy_ said--`I do not intend to remove. '

"_The Agent_. --`I am now fully satisfied that you are wilfully disposedto be entirely dishonest in regard to your engagements with thePresident, and regret that I must so report you. The talk which I havemade to you must and will stand. '"

Thus, indeed, the council and the parties separated. The Americangovernment was supine, thinking, probably, that the Indians would notresist much longer; but the Indians, on the other hand, laid up largestores of powder and lead. Six months elapsed, and then the Indianswere informed that they were to hear the _last_ talk of the father, thePresident on _this side_ of the Mississippi. On the 22nd of April, 1835, the Indians assembled, and had the following communication fromGeneral Jackson:--

"_To the Chiefs and Warriors of the Seminole Indians in Florida_. 

"My Children: I am sorry to have heard that you have been listening tobad counsels. You know me, and you know that I would not deceive, noradvise you to do any thing that was unjust or injurious. Open your earsand attend to what I shall now say to you. They are the words of afriend, and the words of truth. 

"The white people are settling around you. The game has disappearedfrom your country. Your people are poor and hungry. All this you haveperceived for some time. And nearly three years ago, you made anagreement with your friend, Colonel Gadsden, acting on the part of theUnited States, by which you agreed to cede your lands in Florida, and toremove and join your brothers, the Creeks, in the country west of theMississippi. You annexed a condition to this agreement, that certainchiefs, named therein, in whom you placed confidence, should proceed tothe western country, and examine whether it was suitable to your wantsand habits; and whether the Creeks residing there were willing to permityou to unite with them as one people, and if the persons thus sent, weresatisfied on these heads, then the agreement made with Colonel Gadsdenwas to be in full force. 

"In conformity with these provisions, the chiefs named by you proceededto that country, and having examined it, and having become satisfiedrespecting its character and the favourable disposition of the Creeks, they entered into an agreement with commissioners on the part of theUnited States, by which they signified their satisfaction on thesesubjects, and finally ratified the agreement made with Colonel Gadsden. 

"I now learn that you refuse to carry into effect the solemn promisesthus made by you, and that you have stated to the officers of the UnitedStates, sent among you, that you will not remove to the western country. 

"My children: I have never deceived, nor will I ever deceive, any of thered people. I tell you that you must go, and that you will go. Even ifyou had a right to stay, how could you live where you now are? You havesold all your country. You have not a piece as large as a blanket tosit down upon. What is to support yourselves, your women and children?The tract you have ceded will soon be surveyed and sold, and immediatelyafterwards will be occupied by a white population. You will soon be ina state of starvation. You will commit depredations upon the propertyof our citizens. You will be resisted, punished, perhaps killed. Now, is it not better peaceably to remove to a fine, fertile country, occupied by your own kindred, and where you can raise all thenecessaries of life, and where game is yet abundant? The annuitiespayable to you, and the other stipulations made in your favour, willmake your situation comfortable, and will enable you to increase andimprove. If, therefore, you had a right to stay where you now are, still every true friend would advise you to remove. But you have noright to stay, and you must go. I am very desirous that you should gopeaceably and voluntarily. You shall be comfortably taken care of andkindly treated on the road, and when you arrive in your new country, provisions will be issued to you for a year, so that you can have ampletime to provide for your future support. 

"But lest some of your rash young men should forcibly oppose yourarrangements for removal, I have ordered a large military force to besent among you. I have directed the commanding officer, and likewisethe agent, your friend, General Thompson, that every reasonableindulgence be held out to you. But I have also directed that one-thirdof your people, as provided for in the treaty, be removed during thepresent season. If you listen to the voice of friendship and truth, youwill go quietly and voluntarily. But should you listen to the bad birdsthat are always flying about you, and refuse to remove, I have thendirected the commanding officer to remove you by force. This will bedone. I pray the Great Spirit, therefore, to incline you to do what isright. 

"Your friend, "A Jackson. 

"_Washington, February 16_, 1835. "

Several of the Indian chiefs replied, wishing for amity but unwilling toquit; but the council was broken up by the agent, who informed them thathe had been sent there to enforce the treaty: he had warriors enough todo it, and he would do it. It was the question now whether they wouldgo of their own accord, or by force?

This determination on the part of the agent induced some of the chiefsto waver, and eventually eight principal chiefs and eight sub-chiefssigned the articles agreeing to remove; but Miconopy, the chief of thewhole tribes, Jumper, the second in consequence, and three otherpowerful chiefs, refused. Upon this, the agent took upon himself themost unwarrantable responsibility, by saying, Miconopy was no longerchief of the nation, and that his name and the other opposing chiefswere now struck out of the council of the nation. 

That such an act as this was the cause of the greatest irritation to theSeminoles there can be no doubt; and the conduct of the agent wasreproved by the Secretary of War, who, in his letter, observes:--

"It is not necessary for me to enter into much detail on the subjectpresented by you. I understand from Mr Harris, that he communicated toyou the President's views on the subject of the chiefs whom you declinedto recognise in all questions connected with the removal of theSeminoles. I understand that the President deemed this course anincorrect one; and it seems to me obviously liable to strong objections. We do not assume the right of determining who shall be the chiefs inthe various Indian tribes; this is a matter of internal policy whichmust necessarily be left to themselves. And if, when we have a gravematter for adjustment with one of the tribes, we undertake to say _itshall be_ determined by a particular class of individuals, we certainlyshould render ourselves obnoxious to censure. It appears to me theproper course, upon important questions, is to treat directly with thetribe itself; and if they depute their chiefs, or any other individualto act for them, we must either recognise such authority or abandon theobject in view. "

In June 1835, Asseola, the chief of Micosukees, who did not appear atthe council, but who was the most determined opponent of the treaty, came in to complain of the treatment his people had received from somewhite men, one of them having been wounded. He received no redress, andsaying something offensive to the agent, he was thrown into prison. Toobtain his release he promised to sign the treaty, at least, so it issaid, and that he did sign it; but this must be considered only as anIndian stratagem: he had been imprisoned without any cause, and it is tobe presumed that he thought himself justified in escaping by acorresponding fraud on his own part. The month after this occurrence, some of the tribe of Asseola murdered a government mail-carrier. 

The Indians made one more effort: they called a council, and offered toremove to the west of the Mississippi, provided they had lands and anagent for themselves; but this was sternly refused by the government, who sent back as an answer, that their great father, General Jackson, had been "made very angry. " The attacks and depredations upon theIndians were now more frequent, and the majority of them determined uponresistance. Only six chiefs, out of all who had signed the treaty, acted to their word and brought in their cattle, etcetera, for thegovernment agent, to be sold previous to their migration. Five of theirchiefs removed to the protection of Brooke's Fort, as they feared thatthe Seminoles would punish them for their revolt. One of them, CharleyAmathla, was preparing to follow the others, when Asseola and two otherchiefs went to his house and insisted that he should not remove hispeople. Charley Amathla replied that he had already pledged his wordthat he would abide by the promise which he made to their great father, and that if his life paid the forfeit, he felt bound to adhere to thatpromise. He said he had lived to see his nation a ruined and degradedpeople, and he believed that their only salvation was in removing to theWest: that he had made arrangements for his people to go, and haddelivered to the agent all their cattle, so that he had no excuse nowfor not complying with his engagements. One of the chiefs then informedhim that the crisis was come: he must either join them in theiropposition, or suffer death, and that two hours would be allowed him toconsult his people and declare his determination. He replied, that hismind was unalterable, and his people could not make him break his word;that if he must die he hoped they would grant him time enough to makesome arrangements for the good of his people. At this moment Asseolaraised his rifle and was about to fire, when Abraham arrested themurderous aim, and requested them all to retire for a council with theother chiefs. Asseola, with a small party, however, separatedthemselves from the main body of the Indians, and returned to CharleyAmathla's, and shot him. Thirteen of Amathla's people immediatelyescaped to Fort King, while the others, deterred by their fears, remained until the return of the principal band, when they joined thehostile party. 

This was a fine trait in the Indian, and proves that the Seminoles arenot the faithless people they are represented to be by the governmentagents. The death of this noble Indian was the signal for thecommencement of hostilities; the Indians immediately abandoned all theirtowns, and, concealing their trail, removed their families to a place ofsafety, which has ever since baffled all conjecture as to itswhereabout, and its secrecy been a subject of the greatest astonishment. 

VOLUME THREE, CHAPTER TEN. 

FLORIDA WAR. 

It is naturally conjectured that the Seminoles retreated to some portionof the vast swamps which surround the Ouithlacoochee river; but certainit is that since the commencement of the war, in December 1835, up tothe present time, their retreat has never been discovered. Maraudingparties now commenced on the part of the Indians, who took summaryvengeance on those who had robbed and maltreated them. The wholecountry from Fort Brooke to Fort King was in a state of conflagration, and the whites were compelled to abandon everything, and seek protectionunder the forts. At the outbreak of hostilities the American force inthe department did not amount to five hundred men. The militia werecalled out, but military stores were not at hand, and it was decidedthat the troops must wait for reinforcements before any attack could bemade upon the Indians; the great object was to throw a reinforcementinto Fort King. 

General Clinch, who commanded at Fort Brooke, having been reinforcedwith thirty-nine men from Key West, no time was lost in preparing twocompanies for the above service. On the 24th of December 1835, a forceof one hundred men, and eight officers, with a field-piece, under thecommand of Major Dade, commenced their march. 

On the morning of the 28th, when it had proceeded four miles from theencampment of the previous night, this force was attacked by theIndians, whose first volley was very destructive, Major Dade, withalmost every man of the advanced guard, falling dead. The Indians wererepelled by the troops under Captain Gardner, upon whom the command thendevolved, and the Americans proceeded to throw up breastworks; butbefore they could raise them high enough for efficient protection, theIndians attacked them again. The Americans brought their field-pieceinto play, but the breastworks not being high enough, the Indians shotdown every man who attempted to work the gun. All the officers, andmore than two-thirds of the American troops had fallen, when thesurvivors found that all their ammunition was expended. The Indians, perceiving this, rushed in, and, with the exception of two men, who, although severely wounded, contrived to conceal themselves, andultimately to make their escape, not one of the whole detachment wasspared. 

The force of the Indians is supposed to have been about three hundredand fifty or four hundred. The contest lasted six hours; and it must beadmitted that nothing could be more gallant than the defence made by thetroops against such a superior force. 

On the afternoon of the same day, the Americans had to lament the lossof General Thompson, the Indian agent at Fort King. Imprudentlystrolling out about three hundred yards from the fort, he was attackedby the Indians, who waited in ambush for him, and, with Lieutenant Smithand three other people belonging to the fort, was shot dead. This partyof Indians was headed by Asseola, who had warned General Thompson thatthe white men should suffer for their treatment of him. His peculiarand shrill war-yell was given as the Indian party retreated, to let thewhites know to whom they were indebted for the massacre. 

General Clinch having been reinforced at Fort Brooke, (where he had twohundred regular troops, ) with five hundred volunteers under the commandof General Call, now moved with the whole force of seven hundred men. 

On the 30th of December, as they were passing the Ouithlacoochee river, the Indians watched their opportunity, and, when a portion only of thetroops had gained the opposite side, commenced an attack, which wasvigorously and successfully resisted; the Indians, in little more thanan hour, were beaten off. The battle was, however, severe, and theAmericans sustained a loss of sixty-three killed and wounded. TheIndian force is supposed to have amounted to seven hundred men. 

But independently of these conflicts with the militia and regulars, theravages of the Indians over the whole country are stated to have beenmost fearful. Women and children were murdered, and the hearth madedesolate in every portion of the country. In the more settled partsnear St Augustine, the sugar-cane plantations, with the expensive worksattached to them, were destroyed, and in many cases the slaves who wereon the plantations were either carried off, or, voluntarily joining theIndians, increased the strength of the enemy. More than a hundredestates were thus laid waste, the average loss upon each estate beingcomputed, independently of the loss of the negroes, at fifty thousanddollars. 

The intelligence of this havoc, and the massacre of Major Dade and hiswhole party, soon reached the neighbouring States, and a requisition forassistance made by General Clinch, was promptly responded to. Meetingswere organised at Augusta, Savannah, Darien, and Charleston, and in afew days nearly two thousand volunteers were ready to march to thetheatre of war. Indeed, the cause now became the cause of all theslave-holding States, and was taken up with the usual energy of theAmericans. 

In Louisiana the same spirit was shewn. General Gaines was at that timeon a tour of inspection, and had received orders to take charge of thetroops assembling on the Mexican frontier; but, at the request of thevolunteers, he took the command of _them_ until he could receive furtherorders from Washington. The assistance of the American naval forceswere demanded and obtained, and General Gaines having receivedintelligence that Fort Brooke was invested by the Indians, sent anexpress to General Clinch at Fort King, to say that he would join himwith his forces to relieve the post. The Seminole Indians who hadagreed to the treaty, remained firm to their word, and took up armsagainst their brethren, and a large force was now marching from alldirections to the succour of the whites. I ought here to observe, thatnot only at the commencement, but ever since the war has continued, thedifficulty and expense of forwarding supplies have been very great, andthe American troops have undergone the severest privations, as well asgreat mortality from sickness and disease. 

On the 13th February 1836, General Gaines, having arrived at FortBrooke, reviewed his force, which amounted to between eleven hundred andtwelve hundred men, and commenced his march to relieve Fort King, atwhich post he arrived on the 2nd February, without falling in with anyof the Indians. The general then made a detour in pursuit of the enemy. On the 27th, when the force was crossing the Ouithlacoochee River, itwas assailed by the Indians, who retired after a skirmish ofthree-quarters of an hour, the loss of the Americans being verytrifling. On the 28th, when again fording the river, the Indians madeanother attack, which was continued for nearly four hours, and theAmericans had to lament the loss of Major Izard, who was killed, and twoother officers were wounded. On the 29th, the Indians again attacked, with a force of at least a thousand men, with a view of forcing theAmerican troops from the breastwork which they had thrown up; theIndians, after about two hours' fighting, set fire to the high grass;but, unfortunately for them, the wind suddenly changed, and, instead ofburning out the American troops, all their own concealed positions wereburnt up and exposed, and they were compelled to retire. The loss onthe Indian side was not known, but was supposed to be heavy; that on thepart of the Americans amounted to thirty-two killed and wounded. General Gaines, finding that the Indians were so near him, nowdespatched expresses for a supply of ammunition, being resolved, ifpossible, to bring them to a general action. The sufferings of theAmerican troops were very severe, and they were killing their horses forsubsistence; but the camp was secure, in consequence of the Indianshaving burnt down all the means of concealment so necessary in theirmode of warfare. Notwithstanding which, on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ofMarch, the camp was vigorously assailed. On the evening of the 5th, theIndian interpreter came in from the Seminoles, stating that they wishedto hold a council, and did not want any more fighting. On the 6th, atruce was held, when Asseola and other chiefs made their appearance, saying, that if the Americans would not cross the river, they wouldremain on their own side of it, and not commit any more ravages. Thiswas, in fact, nothing but the original proposal of the Indians, thatthey should remain upon the land which had been assigned to them by thetreaty of Camp Moultrie. The reply of General Gaines was, that he wasnot authorised to make a treaty with them; their arms must be given up, and they must remain on the other side of the river, until the AmericanGovernment sent them away west of the Mississippi. While thisnegotiation was pending, General Clinch arrived with the succour andreinforcements, much to the joy of the American troops, who were halfstarved. General Gaines, who had heard that General Scott had beenappointed to the command in Florida, now resigned that authority toGeneral Clarke, and on the 11th, the troops arrived at Fort Drane. Ithardly need be observed, that the treating with the Indians ended innothing. General Scott having assumed the command, arrived at FortDrane on the 13th March 1836. He had had previously to contend withheavy rains and almost impracticable roads, and was encumbered with aheavy baggage train; his whole force amounted to nearly 5, 000 men. Thishe divided into a centre and two wings, with a view to scour the wholecountry, and force the Indians from their retreats; but in vain. TheIndians being on the flanks of each division, occasional skirmishes tookplace; but when the troops arrived to where the Indians were supposed tobe, not a man was to be seen, nor could they discover the retreat oftheir families. Occasionally the Indians attacked the outposts withgreat vigour, and were bravely repulsed; but the whole army, of 5, 000men, did not kill and capture more than twenty Indians. As far as I canjudge, nothing could be better than the arrangements of General Scott, but the nature of the country, to which the Indians had retreated, rendered it almost impossible for troops to act. The swamps extendedover a great surface of ground; here and there was an island on whichthe Indians could remain; while to attack them, the troops would have towade up to their necks for miles, and as soon as they arrived theIndians were gone. 

It is not my intention to follow up all the details of the petty warfarewhich has continued to the present time. General Scott resigned thecommand, and was succeeded by General Jessopp. On the 20th October1837, after nearly a year's skirmishing, Asseola was persuaded to comein, to a council. The flags of truce were hoisted by the Americans, andAsseola, carrying a flag of truce in his hand, and accompanied by otherchiefs and about 50 warriors, came in to talk. On their arrival, theywere surrounded by bayonets, and made prisoners by the orders of theFederal Government, who, despairing of subduing the Indians, hadrecourse to this shameful breach of faith. The proud spirit of Asseolacould not endure confinement: he died in prison. Other chiefs werekidnapped in the same traitorous manner; but, severe as the loss musthave been to the Indians, it did not appear to discourage them. The warwas still carried on by those who were left, and, indeed, is stillcontinued; for the ranks of the Indians are said to be filled up byrunaway slaves, and some of the Creek Indians who have not yet quittedGeorgia. On the 25th of December 1837, a severe battle was foughtbetween the Indians and the American troops, at a spot between PeaseCreek and the Big Cypress Swamps; on this occasion the Americans lostColonels Thompson and Guntry, with twenty-eight killed, and one hundredand eleven wounded. Since that I am not aware that any important combathas taken place; but it is certain that the Seminoles, notwithstandingthe loss of their leaders, still hold out and defy the whole power ofthe United States. 

It is asserted in the American papers that the loss of lives on theAmerican side, from the enemy and from disease, amounts to between twoand three thousand men, and that the expenses of the war are nowestimated at 30, 000, 000 of dollars. How far these calculations may becorrect I cannot pretend to say, but it is notorious that a handful ofIndians, estimated, at the commencement of the war, at about 1, 900, havecontended against armies of four or five times their number, commandedby gallant and able officers; that this small band of Indians, notwithstanding their losses from the weapons of the enemy, and theirstill greater losses from breach of faith, have now for four years heldout against the American Government, and have contrived to _subsist_during that period; and that the retreat of their wives and families hasnever been discovered, notwithstanding the Americans have a friendlyportion of the Seminoles acting with them. Indeed, if we are to believethe American statements, the war is almost as far from its conclusionnow as it was at its commencement. See note 1. 

I have hastily narrated the causes and principal events of the war, asthey are little known in England. The Americans, even if they expendtwice as much money, must persevere, until they have extirpated everyIndian, and settled the territory with white people; if they do not, theFlorida swamps will become the resort of runaway slaves, and theprecedent of what can be done, will encourage a general rising of theslaves in the adjoining States, who will only have to retire to thebanks of the Ouithlacoochee and defend themselves. So fatal is theclimate to the European, that America even now will probably have tosacrifice life and treasure to a much greater extent before she obtainspossession of the territory. I shall conclude by quoting a portion of aletter from the Genevese Traveller which appeared in the _Times_newspaper. 

"The war was unrighteous in its commencement, and has been continued foryears under circumstances the most profligate. There has not been asingle campaign in which the army has not reaped a plentiful harvest ofmortification and disgrace. When brought into action both officers andmen fought valiantly, but the character of the country, its deepmorasses and swamps, and the ignorance of the troops of Indian warfare, have uniformly tended to produce the most disastrous defeats. 

"There is not to be found on the page of history, in any country, aninstance of a scattered remnant of a tribe, so few in number, defendingthemselves against the assaults of a disciplined and numerous army, withthe same heroism and triumphant results with those of the Seminoles inresisting the American troops. In every campaign the invaders have beenat least ten to one against the invaded. At no period have the Indiansbeen able to muster more than 700 or 800 warriors, and it is doubtfulwhether they have ever had more than half that number, while theAmerican army, when in the field, has uniformly amounted to from 6, 000to 10, 000 men. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. Although the Federal Government has set its face against theIndians making war with each other (or at least pretends so to do), itwould appear by the following notice, that, in their necessity, theyhave not adhered to the following resolutions:--

_Extract of a Letter, date_:--

"Fort Brooke, Florida, June 14. 

"The Cherokees and Choctaws are soon expected in this country, whenthere will be a war of extermination and no quarter shown. The affairshere are just the same as two years ago. The war is no nearer ended. But we do hope that the offer of ten dollars for each Seminole scalpwill be a great inducement for the Cherokees and Choctaws to cut andslash among them. "

VOLUME THREE, CHAPTER ELEVEN. 

REPLY TO THE EDINBURGH REVIEW. 

The art of reviewing may be compared to French cookery; it has nomedium--it must either be first-rate or it is worth nothing: nay, thecomparison goes much further, as the attempt at either not only spoilsthe meat, but half poisons the guests. The fact is, good reviewing isof the highest order of literature, for a good reviewer ought to besuperior to the party whose writings he reviews. Such men as Southey, Croker, and Lockhart on the one side, Brougham, Fontblanque, and Rintoulon the other, will always command respect in their vocations, howevermuch they may be influenced by political feelings, or however little youmay coincide with them in opinion. But, passing over these, and threeor four more _cordons bleus_, what are reviewers in general? men of adegree of talent below that of the author whose works they presume todecide upon; the major portion of whom, having failed as authors, arepossessed with but one feeling in their disappointment, which is to dragothers down to their own debased level. To effect this, you havemalevolence substituted for wit, and high-sounding words for sense;every paltry advantage is taken that can be derived from an intentionalmisrepresentation of your meaning, and (what is the great secret of all)from unfair quotations of one or two lines, carefully omitting thecontext--an act of unpardonable dishonesty towards the author, and buttoo often successful in misleading the reader of the Review. By actingupon this last-mentioned system, there is no book, whatever its meritsmay be, which cannot be misrepresented to the public: a work espousingatheism may be made to appear wholly moral; or, the Holy Scripturesthemselves condemned as licentious and indecent. If such reviewing isfair, a jury may, upon a similar principle, decide upon a case by theevidence in favour of the prosecution; and beauty or deformity inarchitecture be pronounced upon by the examination of a few bricks takenout from different portions of a building. 

That, latterly, the public have been more inclined to judge forthemselves, than to pin their faith upon reviews, is certain;nevertheless, when what is termed a "_slashing article_" upon a popularwork makes its appearance, the public are too apt to receive it withoutscrutiny. Satisfied with the general effect, as with that produced in atheatrical representation, they do not bear in mind that that which hasthe appearance of gold, would prove upon examination to be nothing morethan tinsel. 

Were all reviewers to be reviewed by authors as well as all authors byreviewers, the authors would have the best of it in the _melee_. Again, were reviewers obliged to put their names to their several articles, there would be a great difference in their style; but, secure in their_incognito_ from the disgrace of exposure, they make no scruple toassert what they well know to be false, and, coward-like, to assailthose who have seldom an opportunity, whatever may be their power, todefend themselves. Never, perhaps, was there a better proof of thetruth of the foregoing observations than is afforded by the article inthe Edinburgh Review upon the first portion of my work on America; andas I have some pages to spare, I shall now take the unusual liberty ofreviewing the Reviewer. 

First, let me introduce to the public the writer of the article--MissHarriet Martineau. My readers may inquire how I can so positively makethis assertion? I reply that it is owing to my "craft. " A person whohas long dealt in pictures will, without hesitation, tell you the nameof the painter of any given work: a shepherd with a flock of three orfour hundred sheep under his charge, will know every one of themindividually, although to people in general, one sheep is but thecounterpart of the others. Thus, there are little varieties of style, manner, and handling of the pen, which become evident to practisedwriters, although they are not always so to readers. But even if thesepeculiarities were not sufficient, the manner in which the article ismanaged (the remarks of Miss Martineau upon the merits of MissMartineau) in my mind establishes to conviction, that the major portionof the article, if not the whole, has proceeded from her pen. This is amatter of no consequence, and I only mention it that my readers mayunderstand why Miss Martineau, who forms so prominent a feature in theEdinburgh article, will also occasionally appear in mine. My reply, however, is not addressed to her, but to the Edinburgh Reviewer. 

I have no doubt the Reviewer will most positively deny that MissMartineau had any thing to do with the Review of my work: that ofcourse. With his permission, I will relate a little anecdote. "Whenthe Royal George went down at Spithead, an old gentleman, who had a sonon board, was bewailing his loss. His friends came to console him. `Ithought, ' observed one of them, `that you had received aletter?'--`Yes, ' replied the old gentleman, `but it was from _Jackhimself_. '--`Well, what more would you have?'--`Ah, ' replied the oldgentleman, `had it been from the captain, or from one of his messmates, or, indeed, from anybody else, it would have consoled me; but Jack, --heis such _an incorrigible liar_, that his _very assertion_ that he issafe, convinces me that he has gone to the bottom. '"

Now my opinion of the veracity of the Edinburgh Review may be estimatedby the above anecdote; the very circumstance of its denial would, withme, be sufficient to establish the fact. But to proceed. 

The Review has pronounced the first portion of my work to be light andtrifling, and full of errors; it asserts that I have been hoaxed by theAmericans; that I am incapable of sound reasoning; cannot estimate humannature; and, finally, requests as a favour that I will write no more. Such are the general heads of the Review. 

Now here we have a strange inconsistency, for why should the EdinburghReview, if the work be really what he asserts it to be, "light andtrifling, " etcetera, waste so much powder and shot upon a tomtit? Whyhas he dedicated twenty-seven pages of ponderous verbosity to so lightand trifling a work? How seldom is it that the pages of the Quarterlyor Edinburgh condescend to notice even the very best of lightliterature! Do they not, in their majesty, consider it _infra dig_. Toreview such works, and have not two or three pages bestowed upon thembeen considered as an immense favour on their part, and a highcompliment to the authors? Notwithstanding which, we have here_twenty-seven pages of virulent attack_ upon my light and trifling work. Does not the Edinburgh reviewer at once shew that the work is not lightand trifling? does he not contradict his own assertions, by the labourand space bestowed upon it? nay, more, is it not strange that he shouldthink it necessary to take the unfair advantage of reviewing a workbefore it is half finished, and pounce upon the first portion, with thehopes of neutralising the effects which he evidently dreads from thesecond. 

I will answer the question for him. He indulges in his precipitate andunmeasured attacks, because he feels that the work is written in a stylethat will induce every one to read it; because he feels assured that theoccasional, and apparently careless hits at democracy, are onlypreparatory to others more severe, and that these will come out in thesecond part, which will be read with as much avidity as the first. Heperceives the drift of the work; he feels that it has been purposelymade amusing, and that it will be more injurious to the cause which theEdinburgh Review upholds than a more laboured treatise; that those whowould not look at a more serious work will read this, and that theopinions it contains will be widely disseminated, and impressed withoutthe readers being aware of it; moreover, that it will descend to a classof readers who have hitherto been uninformed upon the subject: in short, he apprehends the greater danger to his cause from the work having, as Ihave said, been made amusing, and from its being in appearance, althoughnot in reality, "light and trifling. "

I candidly acknowledge that the Reviewer is right in his supposition: mygreat object has been to do serious injury to the cause of democracy. To effect this, it was necessary that I should write a book which shouldbe universally read--not merely by the highly educated portion of thecommunity, for they are able to judge for themselves; but _read by everytradesman and mechanic_; pored over even by milliners' girls, and boysbehind the counter, and thumbed to pieces in every petty circulatinglibrary. I wrote the work with this object, and I wrote accordingly. Light and trifling as it may appear to be, every page of it (as I havestated) has been the subject of examination and deliberation: it hasgiven me more trouble than any work I ever wrote; and, my labour havingbeen so far crowned with success, I trust that I shall have "done theState some service. " [See Note 1. ] The review in the Edinburgh willneither defeat nor obstruct my purpose, as that publication circulateschiefly among those classes who have already formed their opinions; andI have this advantage over it, that, as for one that reads the EdinburghReview, fifty will read my work, so will fifty read my reply who willnever trouble themselves about the article in the Edinburgh Review. 

And now let us enter a little into detail. The Reviewer finds greatfault with my introduction, as being wholly irrevelant to the Diarywhich follows it. I admit, that if it were an introduction to the Diaryalone, there then would be some justice in his remark. But such is notthe case: an introduction is, I believe, generally understood to referto the _whole_ of the work, not a portion of it; and now that the workis complete, I leave it to the public to decide whether the introductionis suitable or not, as bearing upon the whole. I believe, also, it isthe general custom to place an introduction at the commencement of awork; I never heard of one being introduced into the middle or at theend of it. The fault, therefore, of its imputed irrelevancy is notmine: it is the Reviewer's, who has thought proper to review the workbefore it was complete. He quotes me, as saying, "_Captain Marryat'sobject was to examine and ascertain what were the effects of ademocratic form of government upon a people which, with all its foreignadmixture, may still be considered as English_;" and then, withoutwaiting till I have completed my task, he says, that the present work"has nothing, or next to nothing, to do with such an avowal. " Whethersuch an assertion has any thing to do with the work now that it iscompleted, I leave the public to decide. The Reviewer has no excuse forthis illiberal conduct, for I have said, in my Introduction, "In thearrangement of this work, I have considered it advisable to present tothe reader first, those portions of my Diary which may be interesting, and in which are recorded _traits_ and _incidents_ which will _bearstrongly upon the commentaries I shall subsequently make_;"notwithstanding which the reviewer has the mendacity to assert that, "not until the last paragraph of the last volume, does he learn for thefirst time that the work is not complete. " I will be content withquoting his own words against him--"_An habitual story teller_ prefers_invention_ to description. "

The next instance of the Reviewer's dishonesty is, his quoting a portionof a paragraph and rejecting the context. He quotes, "I had not beenthree weeks in the country before I decided upon accepting no moreinvitations, charily as they were made, " and upon this quotation hefounds an argument that, as I did not enter into society, I could ofcourse have no means of gaining any knowledge of American character orthe American institutions. Now, if the reviewer had had the commonhonesty to finish the paragraph, the reason why I refused theinvitations would have been apparent; "because I found that, althoughinvited, my presence was a restraint upon the company, and every one_was afraid to speak_. " Perhaps the sagacity of the Reviewer willexplain what information I was likely to gain from people who would notopen their mouths. Had he any knowledge of the Americans, he wouldadmit that they never will venture to give their opinions _in thepresence of each other_; it was not that they were afraid of _me_, butof each other, as Monsieur de Tocqueville has very truly pointed out inhis work. Moreover, I have now, for the first time, to learn that thebest way of arriving at the truth is to meet people who are on theirguard, and whose object is to deceive. 

There is a malevolent feeling in the assertion, that I have treated_all_ other previous writers on America with contempt; and here again heintentionally quotes falsely. My words are "the _majority_ of those whohave preceded me. " As nearly as I can reckon, there have been aboutfifty works published on America, out of which there are not _ten_ whichdeserve attention; and the ample quotations I have made from Monsieur deTocqueville, Captain Hamilton, and others, in corroboration of my ownopinions, fully evince the respect I have for their writings. In fact, the whole article is a tissue of falsehood and misrepresentation, and soweak that hardly one of its positions is tenable. Can any thing be moreabsurd, or more shallow, than to quote the Mississippi scheme and MrLaw as a proof that the French are, as well as the English andAmericans, a _speculative nation_: one solitary instance of a portion ofthe French having, about sixty or seventy years ago, been induced toembark their capital, is brought forward, while the abject supineness ofthe French population of Lower Canada, in juxta-position with the energyand enterprise of the Americans, has for half a century stared us in theface. 

The Reviewer has the kindness repeatedly to inform me that I have beenhoaxed by the Americans, and, most unfortunately for himself, he hasbrought forward the "Original Draft of the Declaration of Independence"as a proof of it. That he would be very glad to prove it to be a hoax, I believe; as it is a sad discovery, and one which the Americandemocrats should have kept secret. That the Americans did hoax MissMartineau, and that they would have hoaxed me if they could, I admit, but even the Reviewer must acknowledge that they would not _hoax_themselves. Now it so happens, that this document, which has not longbeen discovered, is in the splendid public library of Philadelphia: ithas been carefully preserved in a double plate-glass frame, so as to beread on both sides without handling; it is expensively mounted, andshewn to every visitor as a great curiosity, as it certainly is, theauthenticity of it being undeniable, and acknowledged by the Americans. The paragraph which was expunged is verbatim as I gave it--a paragraphwhich affords more proof, if further proof were necessary, thatJefferson was one of the most unprincipled men who ever existed. TheReviewer recommends my perusal of the works of this "_great and goodman_, " as Miss Martineau calls him. I suspect that I have read more ofMr Jefferson and other American authors than ever the Reviewer has; andI consider the writings of this Father of Democracy, opposed to hisprivate life, to be a remarkable _type_ of democracy in _theory_ and in_practice_. To borrow a term from the Reviewer, those writings are"_brave words_" to proceed from an infidel, who proved his ardent loveof liberty by allowing his own children to be put up to auction at hisdeath, and wear away their existence in misery and bondage. I cannothelp here observing a _trifling inconsistency_ on the part of theReviewer. After lauding the Father of Democracy, and recommending me toread his works; after sneering at our aristocracy by observing, "that no_kind_ of virtue that we have heard of can suffer much from the loss ofa _court_ and of an _hereditary nobility_;" after, in short, defendingand upholding democracy in every page, all of a sudden the Reviewerturns round and says, "_We are no general admirers of democracy_. "Indeed! if not general, you certainly appear to be _particular_admirers; and if neither general nor particular, may I inquire what theEdinburgh Review has been frothing, fizzing, hissing, and bubblingabout, like a tea-kettle in a passion, for these last twenty years?

Never was there a more convincing proof of the boldness and arrogancewhich Reviewers (trusting to the irresponsibility arising from theirconcealment) assume, than is afforded by the following passage in theEdinburgh article:--

"_An ardent pursuit of wealth and deep religious feelings go very welltogether_. "

It is not for me to reply to the Reviewer in this instance; I must handhim over to higher authority. I must oppose the everlasting doctrinesof inspiration to the cold, heartless, and arrogant philosophy of anEdinburgh reviewer. In vain are we again and again forewarned in theScriptures against the love of money; in vain has our Saviour denouncedit; in vain have the apostles followed in his steps. Let the Reviewer, if he ever has looked into the Bible, refer to the epistles to theColossians and to the Ephesians. St Paul declares that covetousness is_idolatry_. Hear also what he sayeth to Timothy:--

"But they that _wish to be rich_ fall into temptation and a snare, andinto many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction andperdition. " "For the _love of money is the root of all evil_. "

Our Divine Master is even more explicit, for he says--"No servant canserve two masters; for either he will _hate_ the one, and _love_ theother; or else he will _hold_ to the one, and _despise_ the other. Yecannot serve _God_ and _Mammon_. " Thus says our Lord--now hear theEdinburgh Reviewer. --"An ardent _pursuit of wealth_ and _deep religiousfeelings_ go very well together. "

Here the Edinburgh Reviewer has placed himself on the horns of adilemma. The Holy Writings assert most positively and repeatedly onething, while he asserts another. If, therefore, he acknowledge theScriptures, he must at the same time acknowledge his own grievous error, and, I may add, his deep sin: if, on the contrary, he still hold to hisown opinion, hath he not denied his faith, and is he not worse than aninfidel?

The reviewer sneers at my observation, that "Washington had no power tocontrol the nature of man. " It may be, as he observes, a very _simple_remark; but, at all events, it has one advantage over his own, which is, that it is a very _true_ one. Miss Martineau makes an observation inher book, which is quite as great a truism as mine; for she also saysthat "Human nature is the same everywhere. "

How far I have succeeded in my analysis of human nature it is not for meto decide; but that it is the same every where I will now venture tosupport by something more than _assertion_ on the part of MissMartineau. 

When I was at Boston, in company with some of the young ladies, theconversation turned upon Miss Martineau, with whom they stated that theyhad been intimate. Naturally anxious to know more of so celebrated apersonage, I asked many questions. I was told much to interest me, and, among other little anecdotes, they said that Miss Martineau used to sitdown surrounded by the young ladies, and amuse them with all thehistories of her former loves. She would detail to them "how Jacksighed and squeezed her hand; how Tom went down on his knees; how Dickswore and Sam vowed; and how--she was still Miss Martineau. " And thuswould she narrate and they listen until the sun went down, and thefirefly danced, while the frogs lifted up their voices in full concert. 

And I said to myself, "Who would have supposed that this Solon inpetticoats would ever have dwelt upon her former days of enthusiasm andhope, or have cherished the reminiscences of love? How true it is that_human nature is the same everywhere_. "

Once more:--

I was conversing with a lady at New York, who informed me that she hadseen a letter from Miss M, written to a friend of hers, after her returnto England, in which Miss M declared that her door was so besieged withthe carriages of the nobility, that it was quite uncomfortable, and thatshe hardly knew what to do. 

Thinks I to myself, I recollect an old story. 

"Oh! Grandmother, " cried Tom, running in, out of breath, "there's atleast a thousand cats in our garden. "--"No, no, Tom, " quickly replied, the old lady; "not a thousand, Tom. "--"Well I'm sure there's fivehundred. "--"No, nor five hundred, " replied the old lady, not taking hereyes off her knitting. --"Well, then, grandmother, I'm sure there'sfifty. "--"I don't think there _are_ fifty, Tom. "--"Well, at all events, there's _our cat and another_. "--"Ah! Tom, " replied the old lady, "that_may_ be. "

I believe that the carriage of Lord Brougham is occasionally to be seenat the door of Miss Martineau. 

But when I heard this I was pleased, for I said to myself, "So, then, this champion of democracy, this scorner of rank and title, is flatteredby the carriages of the nobility crowding at her door;" and, again Isaid to myself, "_human nature is the same everywhere_. "

But the Reviewer, in his virulence, has not been satisfied withattacking me; he has thought it necessary to libel the whole professionto which I have the honour to belong. He has had the folly andimpertinence to make the following remark: "No landsmen can have been onboard of a ship a week, without coming to the conclusion that a_sensible house dog_ is more like the people he has left at home thanmost of his new companions, and that it (the house dog) would be nearlyas _capable_ of solving problems on national character. "

Indeed!!

Is it possible that the Reviewer should still remain the dupe of such avulgar error? That at one time it was the custom to send to sea _thefool of the family_, is certain, and had the Reviewer flourished inthose days, he would probably have been the one devoted to the service--but _tempora mutantur_. Is the Reviewer aware that one-half, andcertainly the most successful half, of English diplomacy, is now carriedon by the admirals and captains, not only in the Mediterranean, but allover the world. Is he aware that when the Foreign Office wishes to doits work cheaply and well, it demands a vessel from the Admiralty, whichis made over to that office, and is set down as employed on "particularservice:" that during that service the captain acts from instructionsgiven by the Foreign Office alone, and has his cabin piled withvoluminous documents; and that, like the unpaid magistracy of England, we sailors do all the best of the work, and have nothing but our troublefor our pains. Nay, even the humble individual who pens thisremonstrance was for months on this very service, and, when it wascompleted, the Foreign Office expressed to the Admiralty itssatisfaction at his conduct during his short diplomatic career. 

_House dogs_! Hear this, ye public of England! A sensible house dog isto be preferred to St Vincent, Nelson, Collingwood, Exmouth, and allthose great men who have aided their country as much with their pen aswith their sword; as much by their acuteness and firmness in diplomacy, as by their courage and conduct in action. 

Now, Mr Reviewer, don't you feel a little ashamed of yourself? Wouldyou really like to give up your name as the author of this bare-facedlibel? Would you like openly to assert that such is your opinion, andthat you will stand by it?

No liberal, high-minded man, whatever his politics may have been, hasever refused to do justice to a service which has been the bulwark ofEngland. Lord Brougham has lately published a work containing the livesof celebrated persons in the reign of George the Third. I will justquote a few passages from his life of Lord St Vincent. 

"The present sketches would be imperfect if Lord St Vincent were passedover in silence, for he was almost as _distinguished_ among the_statesmen_, as the _warriors_ of the age. 

"A _statesman_ of profound views and of penetration, hardly _equalled_by any other man of his time. 

"But the consummate vigour and wisdom of his proceedings during thedreadful period of the mutiny, are no less a theme of wonder and ofpraise. 

"When the Addington ministry was formed, he was placed at the head ofthe Admiralty; and now shone forth in all its lustre that great capacityfor affairs with which he was endowed by nature, and which ampleexperience of men, habits of command, and an extended life of deepreflection, had matured. 

"The _capacity of a statesman_ and the valour of the hero, outshone bythe magnanimous heart which beats only to the measures of generosity andjustice. "

Here, again, the Reviewer is in what the Yankees would call an"everlasting awkward fix;" for he contradicts Lord Brougham, the patronand sole supporter of his fast-waning review, without the aid of whoseadmirable pen, it would long ago have gone to its proper place. He mustnow either admit that he is himself wrong, or that it is Lord Broughamwho is in error. He has but to choose. 

I have but one more remark to make upon the review itself. At the closeof it, the Reviewer observes, that my remarks upon the marine areinteresting and useful. How does he know? Upon his own argument, if wehouse dogs are not competent upon shore matters, he must be equallyignorant of anything connected with our profession; and I thereforeconsider it a piece of unpardonable presumption on the part of a _landlubber_ like him to offer any opinion on the subject. 

The Reviewer, whoever it may be, has proved himself wholly incompetentto his task; he has attacked, but has yet to learn the art of parrying, as has been proved by his laying himself so open. His blows have beenstopped, and, without giving, he has received severe punishment. I amthe more surprised at this, as I really considered that there was acertain tact in the Edinburgh Review, which enabled it to know where todirect the blow, so as to make it tell; a species of professionalknowledge proper to executioners, reviewers, and cab-drivers, and whichmay be summed up in the following axiom: "The great art of flogging is, to know where to find a bit of _raw_. "

So little have I felt the castigation intended, that I have had somecompunction in administering this discipline to the Reviewer in return. Surely the _Edinburgh Review_ can put a better head on, when it takesnotice of this second portion of my work? I will give it an anecdote. 

A lady of my acquaintance was blessed with a son, then about three yearsold. She was very indulgent, and he was very much spoiled. At last hebecame so unmanageable that she felt it was her imperative duty tocorrect him. She would as soon have cut off her right arm, but thatwould not have mended the matter, nor the child. So one day, when theyoung gentleman had been more than usually uproarious, she pulled up hispetticoats and administered what _she_ considered a most severeinfliction. Having so done, with a palpitating heart she sat down torecover herself, miserable that she had been compelled to punish, butattempting to console herself with the reflection that she had done herduty. What then was her surprise to have her reveries interrupted bythe young urchin, who, appearing only to have been _tickled_, came up toher, and laying down his head on her lap, pulled up his coats, andcried, "More whipping, Ma; please, more whipping. " So weak has been thewrist, whether it be feminine or not, that has applied the punishment, that I also feel inclined to exclaim with the child, "More whipping, (Miss Martineau?) please, more whipping. "

The Reviewer has pronounced that "_no author is cleverer than hisworks_. " If no author be cleverer than his works, it is equally certainthat _no reviewer is cleverer than his review_. Does the Reviewerrecollect the fable of the jackass who put on the lion's skin? Why didhe not take warning from the fabled folly of his ancestor and _hold histongue_? He might still have walked about and have been supposed to bea Reviewer. 

He asserts that I am not capable of serious reflection: he is mistaken. I have seldom cut the leaves of the _Edinburgh_, having been satisfiedwith looking at its outside, and thinking how very appropriate itscolours of _blue and yellow_ were to the opinions which it advocates. But at times I have been more serious. I have communed with myself asit lay before me, and I have mentally exclaimed:--Here is a work writtenby men whom the Almighty has endowed with talents, and who will, ifthere be truth in Scripture, have to answer for the talents committed totheir keeping, --yet these men, like madmen, throw about fire, and cry itis only in sport; they uphold doctrines as pernicious as, unfortunately, they are popular; disseminate error under the most specious guise; wagewar against the happiness of their fellow-creatures, unhinging society, breeding discontent, waving the banner of infidelity and rebellion, andinviting to anarchy and bloodshed. To such prostitution of talent tothis work of the devil, they are stimulated by their pride and theirdesire of gain! And I have surmised that hereafter they _will have_their reward; but, remembering that we are forbid to judge, I havechecked my thoughts as they have turned upon what might hereafter be theportion below of--an Edinburgh Reviewer. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. A very acute reviewer has observed of my first portion, thatthere always appeared as if there was something _left behind and nottold_. He was right; I have entered into every subject just as deeplyas I dared to venture, without wearying the class of readers for whom, although not avowedly, yet in reality, the work has chiefly beenwritten. The second portion will therefore be found almost as light andtrifling as the first. 

VOLUME THREE, CHAPTER TWELVE. 

DISCOURSE ON THE EVIDENCES OF THE AMERICAN INDIANS BEING THE DESCENDANTSOF THE LOST TRIBES OF ISRAEL. 

Those who study the Scriptures, either as a matter of duty or pleasure--who seek in them divine revelations, or search for the records ofhistory, cannot be ignorant of the fact that the Jewish nation, at anearly period, was divided into twelve tribes, and occupied their ancientheritage under geographical divisions, during the most splendid periodsunder the kingdoms of Judah and of Israel. 

Their early history--the rise, progress, and downfall of the nation--theproud distinction of being the chosen people--their laws, government, and wars--their sovereigns, judges, and temples--their sufferings, dispersions, and the various prophecies concerning this ancient andextraordinary people, cannot be unknown to you all. For their historyis the foundation of religion, their vicissitudes the result ofprophecy, their restoration the fulfilment of that great promise made tothe Patriarch Abraham, almost I may say in the infancy of nature. 

It is also known to you that the Jewish nation was finally overpowered, and nine and a half of the tribes were carried captives to Samaria; twoand a half, to wit: Judah, Benjamin, and half Menassah, remained inJudea or in the transjordani cities. 

The question before us for consideration is, what has become of themissing or dispersed tribes--to what quarter of the world did theydirect their footsteps, and what are the evidences of their existence atthis day?

An earthquake may shake and overturn the foundations of a city--theavalanche may overwhelm the hamlet--and the crater of a volcano may pourits lava over fertile plains and populous villages--but a whole nationcannot vanish from the sight of the world, without leaving some tracesof its existence, some marks of habits and customs. 

It is a singular fact that history is exceedingly confused, or rather, Imay say, _dark_, respecting the ultimate dispersion of the tribes amongthe cities of the Medes. The last notice we have of them is from thesecond Book of Esdras, which runs thus:

"Whereas thou sawest another peaceable multitude: these are the tentribes which were carried away prisoners out of their own land in thetime of Osea, whom Salmanazar, king of Assyria, led away captive, and hecarried them over the waters, so they came unto another land. 

"They took this counsel among themselves that they would leave themultitude of the _heathen_, and go into a further country wherein _nevermankind dwelt_, that they might there keep their statutes, which theynever kept in their own land (Assyria), and there was a great way to go, namely, a year and a half. "

Esdras, however, has been deemed apocryphal. Much has been saidconcerning the doubtful character of that writer. He wrote in the firstcentury of the Christian church, and Tertullian, St Ereneus, ClemensAlexandrius, Pico di Mirandola, and many learned and pious men, hadgreat confidence in his writings. Part of them have been adopted byProtestants, and all considered orthodox by Catholics. With all his oldJewish attachments to the prophecies and traditions, Esdras wasnevertheless a convert to Christianity. He was not an inspired writeror a prophet, although he assumed to be one, and followed the course aswell as the manner of Daniel. 

The Book of Esdras, however, is of great antiquity, and as an historicalrecord is doubtless entitled to great respect. 

The precise number which left Babylon and other cities, and took to thedesert, cannot be accurately known; but they were exceedingly numerous, for the edict of Ahasherus, which decreed their destruction, embraced127 provinces, and reached from Ethiopia to the Indies. Benjamin ofTudela, who travelled in the eleventh century through Persia, mentionsthat in some of the provinces, at the time of that decree, the Jewsoccupied forty cities, two hundred boroughs, one hundred castles, whichcontained 300, 000 people. I incline to the opinion that 300, 000 of thetribes left Persia. 

There is no doubt that, in the march from the Euphrates to thenorth-east coast of Asia, many of the tribes hesitated in pursuing thejourney: some remained in Tartary, many went into China. Alverez statesin his History of China, that the Jews had been living in that kingdomfor more than six hundred years. He might with great probability havesaid 1, 600 years. He speaks of their being very numerous in some of theprovinces, and having synagogues in many of the great cities, especiallyin that of Hinan and in its metropolis Kai-tong-fu, where he representsthem to have a magnificent place of worship, and a repository, the HolyVolume, adorned with richly embroidered curtains, in which they preservean ancient Hebrew manuscript roll. 

They know but little of the Mosaic law, and only repeat the names ofDavid, Abraham, Isaiah, and Jacob. In a Hebrew letter written by theJews of Cochin-China to their brethren at Amsterdam, they give as thedate of their retiring into India, the period when the Romans conqueredthe Holy Land. 

It is clearly evident, therefore, that the tribes, in their progress toa new and undiscovered country, left many of their numbers in China andTartary, and finally reached the Straits of Behring, where no difficultyprevented their crossing to the north-west coast of America, a distanceless than thirty miles, interspersed with the Copper Islands, probablyfrozen over; and reaching our continent, spread themselves in the courseof two thousand years to Cape Horn, the more hardy keeping to the north, to Labrador, Hudson's Bay, and Greenland; the more cultivated fixingtheir residence in the beautiful climate and rich possessions of CentralAmerica, Mexico, and Peru. 

But it may here be asked, could the scattered remnants of Israel havehad the courage to penetrate through unknown regions, and encounter thehardships and privations of that inhospitable country? Could they havehad the fortitude, the decision, the power, to venture on a drearypilgrimage of eighteen months, the time mentioned by Esdras as theperiod of their journey? Could they not? What obstacles had hithertoimpeded their progress, that had broken down their energies, or impairedtheir constancy and fidelity?

They knew that their brethren had severed the chains of Egyptianbondage; had crossed in safety the arm of the Red Sea; had sojourned foryears in the wilderness; had encamped near Mount Sinai, and hadpossessed themselves of the Holy Land. 

They remembered the kingdoms of Judah and Israel in all their glory;they had witnessed the erection and destruction of their Temple; theyhad fought and conquered with the Medes, the Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans. They had encountered sufferings uponsufferings unmoved; had bowed their necks submissively to the yoke. 

Kings, conquerors, nations, Christians, Mahometans, and Heathens, allhad united in the design of destroying the nation; but they neverdespaired--they knew they were the elect and chosen of the Lord. Theoath, that He never would abandon his people, had been fulfilled 3, 500years, and, therefore, with the cloud by day and the pillar of fire bynight, they abandoned the Heathens and the Persian territory, passed theconfines of Tartary and China, and, no doubt, through great sufferings, reached the north-eastern coast of Asia, and came in sight of thatcontinent, wherein, as they had reason to believe, "mankind never beforehad dwelt. "

On the discovery of America by Columbus, and the discoveries subsequentto his time, various tribes of Indians or savages were found to inhabitthis our continent, whose origin was unknown. 

It is, perhaps, difficult for the human mind to decide on the characterand condition of an extreme savage state. We can readily believe thatchildren abandoned in infancy in a savage country, and surviving thisabandonment, to grow up in a state of nature, living on herbs andfruits, and sustaining existence as other wild animals, would be stupid, without language, without intellect, and with no greater instinct thanthat which governs the brute creation. We can conceive nothing reducedto a more savage condition; with cannibal propensities, an ungovernableferocity, or a timid apprehension, there can be but a link thatseparates them from other classes of animal creation. So with herds ofmen in a savage state, like herds of buffalo or wild horses on ourprairies, they are kept together by sounds common amongst themselves, and are utterly unacquainted with the landmarks of civilisation. 

This, however, was not the condition of the American Indians when firstdiscovered. They were a singular race of men, with enlarged views oflife, religion, courage, constancy, humanity, policy, eloquence, love oftheir families; with a proud and gallant bearing, fierce in war, and, like the ancients, relentless in victory. Their hospitality might bequoted as examples among the most liberal of the present day. Thesewere not wild men--these were a different class from those found on theSandwich and Feegee Islands. The red men of America, bearing as they dothe strongest marks of Asiatic origin, have, for more than two thousandyears (and divided as they are in upwards of three hundred differentnations) been remarkable for their intellectual superiority, theirbravery in war, their good faith in peace, and all the simplicity andvirtues of their patriarchal fathers, until civilisation, as it iscalled, had rendered them familiar with all the vices which distinguishthe present era, without being able to enforce any of the virtues whichare the boast of our present enlightened times. 

It is, however, in the religious belief and ceremonies of the Indiansthat I propose showing some of the evidences of their being, as it isbelieved, the descendants of the dispersed tribes. The opinion isfounded--

1st. In their belief in one God. 

2nd. In the computation of time by their ceremonies of the new moon. 

3rd. In their divisions of the year in four seasons, answering to theJewish festivals of the feast of flowers, the day of atonement, thefeast of the tabernacle, and other religious holidays. 

4th. In the erection of a temple after the manner of our temple, andhaving an ark of the covenant, and also the erection of altars. 

5th. By the divisions of the nation into tribes, with a chief, or grandsachem at their head. 

6th. By their laws of sacrifices, ablutions, marriages; ceremonies inwar and peace, the prohibitions of eating certain things, fully carryingout the Mosaic institutions;--by their traditions, history, character, appearance, affinity of their language to the Hebrew, and finally, bythat everlasting covenant of heirship exhibited in a perpetualtransmission of its seal in their flesh. 

If I shall be able to satisfy your doubts and curiosity on these points, you will certainly rejoice with me in discovering that the dispersed ofthe chosen people are not the lost ones--that the promises held out tothem have been thus far realised, and that all the prophecies relativeto their future destination will in due time be strictly fulfilled. 

It has been the general impression, as before mentioned, that greatresemblance existed between some of the religious rites of the Jews, andthe peculiar ceremonies of the Indians; and the belief in one GreatSpirit has tended to strengthen the impression; yet this mereresemblance only extended so far as to admit of the belief, that theypossibly may have descended from the dispersed tribes, or may have beenof Tartar or Malay origin. 

It was, however, a vague and unsatisfactory suspicion, which, having notangible evidence, has been rejected, or thrown aside as a meresupposition. All the missionaries and travellers among the Indiantribes since the discovery of America--Adair, Heckwelder, Charliveux, Mckenzie, Bartram, Beltrami, Smith, Penn, Mrs Simon, who has written avery interesting work on this subject, etcetera, have expressed opinionsin favour of their being of Jewish origin--the difficulty, however, under which they all laboured was simply this; they were familiar withthe religious rites, ceremonies, traditions, and belief of the Indians, but they were not sufficiently conversant with the Jewish rites andceremonies to show the analogy. It is precisely this link in the chainof evidence that I propose to supply. 

It has been said that the Indians, believing in one great Spirit andFountain of Life, like the Jews, does not prove their descent from themissing tribes, because in a savage state their very ignorance andsuperstition lead them to confide in the works of some divine superiorbeing. But savages are apt to be idolaters, and personate the deity bysome carved figure or image to whom they pay their adoration, and not, like the Indians, having a clear and definite idea of one great Ruler ofthe universe, one great Spirit, whose attributes are as well known tothem as to us. 

But if the continued unerring worship of one God like the Jews provenothing, where did they acquire the same Hebrew name and appellation ofthat deity? If tradition had not handed down to them the ineffable nameas also preserved by the Jews, how did they acquire it in a wildernesswhere the word of the Lord was never known?

Adair, in whom I repose great confidence, and who resided _forty_ yearsamong them, in his work published in 1775, says, "The ancient heathensworshipped a plurality of gods, but these Indians pay their devoirs to_Lo-ak_ (Light) _Ish-ta-koola-aba_, distinctly Hebrew, which means thegreat supreme beneficent holy Spirit of Fire who resides above. "

"They are, " says Adair, "utter strangers to all the gestures practisedby the Pagans in their religious rites--they kiss no idols, nor wouldthey kiss their hands in tokens of reverence or willing obedience. "

"These tribes, " says Adair, "so far from being Atheists, use the greatand dreadful name of God, which describes his divine essence, and bywhich he manifested himself to Moses! and are firmly persuaded that theynow live under the immediate government of the Almighty Ruler. Theirappellative for God is _Isto-hoolo_, the Hebrew of _Esh-Eshys_, from_Ishto, Great_, but they have another appellative, which with them, aswith us, is the mysterious essential name of God, which they nevermention in common speech, and only when performing their most sacredreligious rites, and then they most solemnly divide it in syllables, with intermediate words, so as not to pronounce the ineffable name atonce. "

Thus, in their sacred dances at their feast of the first-fruits, theysing _Aleluyah_ and _Mesheha_, from the Hebrew of _Masheach_, Messiah, the anointed one. 

"Yo mesheha", "_He_ mesheha", "_Wah_ meshehah, " thus making the_Alleluyah_, the Meshiah, the Yehovah. 

Can we, for a moment, believe that these sacred well-known Hebrew wordsfound their way by _accident_ to the wilderness? Or can it be doubtedthat, like the fire of the burning bush, which never is extinguished, those words of religious adoration are the sacred relics of tradition, handed down to them from generation to generation? "In the samemanner, " says Adair, "they sing on certain other religious celebrations, _ailyo ailyo_, which is the Hebrew _el_ for God, by his attribute ofomnipotence. " They likewise sing _hewah, hewah_, He chyra, the"immortal soul. " Those words sung at their religious rejoicings arenever uttered at any other time, which must have occasioned the loss oftheir divine hymns. They on some occasions sing _Shilu yo_--_Shiluhe_--_Shilu wah_. The three terminations make up in their order thefour lettered divine name in Hebrew. _Shilu_ is evidently _Shaleach_, _Shiloth_, the messenger, "the peace maker. "

The number of Hebrew words used in their religious services isincredible; thus, in chiding anyone for levity during a solemn worship, they say, _Che hakeet Kana_, "you resemble those reproved in Canaan, "and, to convey the idea of criminality, they say _Hackset Canaha_, "thesinners of Canaan. " They call lightning _eloah_, and the rumbling ofthunder _rowah_, from the Hebrew _ruach_, "spirit. "

Like the Israelites, they divide the year into four seasons, with thesame festivals; they calculate by moons, and celebrate, as the Jews do, the _berachah halebana_, the blessing for the new moon. 

The Indians have their prophets and high-priests, the same as the Jewshad; not hastily selected, but chosen with caution from the most wiseand discreet, and they ordain their high-priests by anointing and have amost holy place in their sanctuaries, like the Holy of Holies in thetemple. The archimagus, or high-priest, wears, in resemblance to theancient breast-plate, a white conch-shell ornamented so as to resemblethe precious stones on the _Urim_, and instead of the golden plate wornby the Levite on his forehead, bearing the inscription _KodishLadonaye_, the Indian binds his brows with a wreath of swan's feathers, and wears a tuft of white feathers, which he calls _Yatira_. 

The Indians have their ark, which they invariably carry with them tobattle, well guarded. In speaking of the Indian places of refuge, Adairsays, "I observed that if a captive taken, by the reputed power of theholy things of their ark, should be able to make his escape into one ofthese towns, or even into the winter house of the _Archima gun_, he isdelivered from the fiery torture, otherwise inevitable. This, whentaken in connection with the many other faint images of Mosaic customs, seems to point at the mercy-seat of the sanctuary. It is also worthy ofnotice, that they never place the ark on the ground. On hilly ground, where large stones are plenty, they rest it thereon, but on levelprairies, upon short logs, where they also seat themselves. And when weconsider, " continues Adair, "in what a surprising manner the Indianscopy after the ceremonial law of the Hebrews, and their strict purity inthe war camps; that _opae_, "the leader, " obliges all during the firstcampaign which they have made with the beloved ark, to stand every day, they are not engaged in warfare, from sunrise to sunset, and after afatiguing day's march and scanty allowance, to drink warm waterembittered with rattle-snake root very plentifully, in order topurification; that they have also as strong a faith in the power oftheir ark as ever the Israelites had in theirs, ascribing the success ofone party to their stricter adherence to the law, than the other, wehave strong reason to conclude them of Hebrew origin. The Indians havean old tradition, that when they left their own native land, theybrought with them a _sanctified rod_, by order of an oracle, which theyfixed every evening in the ground, and were to remove from place toplace on the continent, towards the sun rising, till it budded in onenight's time. I have seen other Indians, " says the same writer, "whorelated the same thing. " Instead of the miraculous direction to whichthey limit it, in their western banishment, it appears more likely thatthey refer to the ancient circumstance of the rod of Aaron, which, inorder to check the murmur of those who conspired against him, was, inhis favour, made to bud blossoms and yield almonds at one and the sametime. It is a well attested fact, and is here corroborated by Adair, that in taking female captives, the Indians have often protected them, but never despoiled them of honour. 

This statement of Adair, in relation to the ark, is corroborated byseveral travellers. Major Long, a more recent traveller, in hisexpedition to the Rocky Mountains, says, in relation to the ark, "It isplaced upon a stand, and is never suffered to touch the earth. Noperson dare open all the coverings. Tradition informs them thatcuriosity induced three different persons to examine the mysteriousshell, who were immediately punished for their profanation by instantblindness. " This is the Jewish punishment pronounced for looking on theholy of holies--even now for looking on the descendants of the highpriest who alone have the privilege of blessing the people. 

The most sacred fast day uniformly kept by the Jews is the day ofatonement, usually falling in the month of September or early inOctober. This is deemed in every part of the world a most solemn fast, and great preparations are made for its celebration. It is in thenature of expiation of sin, of full confession, penitence, and prayer;and is preceded by ablution and preparation of morning prayer for sometime. 

It is a very sacred fast, which lasts from sunset on one day until thenew moon is seen on the succeeding evening. It is not in the nature ofa gloomy desponding penance, but rather a day of solemn rejoicing, ofhope and confidence, and is respected by those most indifferent to allother festivals throughout the year. 

Precisely such a fast, with similar motives, and nearly at the sameperiod of the year, is kept by the Indian natives generally. 

Adair, after stating the strict manner in which the Indians observe therevolutions of the moon, and describing the feast of the harvest, andthe first offerings of the fruits, gives a long account of thepreparations in putting their temple in proper order for the great dayof atonement, which he fixes at the time when the corn is full-eared andripe, generally in the latter end of September. He then proceeds:

"Now one of the waiters proclaims with a loud voice, for all thewarriors and beloved men whom the purity of their law admits, to comeand enter the beloved square and observe the fast. He also exhorts thewomen and children, with those who have not been initiated in war, tokeep apart according to the law. 

"Four sentinels are now placed one at each corner of the holy square, tokeep out every living creature as impure, except the religious order, and the warriors who are not known to have violated the law of the firstfruit-offering, and that of marriage, since the last year's expiation. They observe the fast till the rising of the second sun; and be theyever so hungry in the sacred interval, the healthy warriors deem theduty so awful, and disobedience so inexpressibly vicious, that notemptation would induce them to violate it. They at the same time drinkplentifully of a decoction of the button snake root, in order to vomitand dense their sinful bodies. "

"In the general fast, the children and men of weak constitutions, areallowed to eat, as soon as they are certain that the sun has begun todecline from his meridian altitude. 

"Now every thing is hushed. Nothing but silence all around. The greatbeloved man, and his beloved waiter, rising up with a reverend carriage, steady countenance and composed behaviour, go into the beloved place, orholiest, to bring them out the beloved fire. The former takes a pieceof dry poplar, willow, or white oak, and having cut a hole, but not sodeep as to reach through it; he then sharpens another piece, and placingthat in the hole, and both between his knees, he drills it briskly forseveral minutes, till it begins to smoke--or by rubbing two piecestogether for a quarter of an hour, he collects by friction the hiddenfire, which they all consider as proceeding from the holy spirit offire. 

"The great beloved man, or high priest, addresses the warriors andwomen; giving all the particular, positive injunctions and negativeprecepts they yet retain of the ancient law. He uses very sharplanguage to the women. He then addresses the whole multitude. Heenumerates the crimes they have committed, great and small, and bidsthem look at the _holy fire_ which has forgiven them. He presses on hisaudience, by the great motives of temporal good and the fear of temporalevil, the necessity of a careful observance of the ancient law, assuringthem that the _holy fire_ will enable their prophets, the rain makers, to procure them plentiful harvests, and give their war leaders victoryover their enemies. He then orders some of the fire to be laid downoutside of the holy ground, for all the houses of the various associatedtowns, which sometimes lay several miles apart. "

Mr Bartram, who visited the southern Indians in 1778, gives an accountof the same feast, but in another nation. He says, "that the feast offirst-fruits is the principal festival. This seems to end the old andbegin the new ecclesiastical year. It commences when their new cropsare arrived to maturity. This is their most solemn celebration. "

With respect to the sacrifices, we have had none since the destructionof the temple, but it was customary among the Jews, in the olden time, to sacrifice daily a part of a lamb. This ceremony is strictly observedby the Indians. The hunter, when leaving his wigwam for the chase, putsup a prayer that the great spirit will aid his endeavours to procurefood for his wife and children, and when he returns with the red deer, whatever may be the cravings of hunger, he allows none to taste until hehas cut part of the flesh, which he throws in the fire as a sacrifice, accompanied with prayer. All travellers speak of this practice amongthe Indians, so clearly Hebrew in its origin. 

The bathings, anointings, ablutions, in the coldest weather, are neverneglected by the Indians, and, like the Jews of old, they anointthemselves with bear's oil. 

The Mosaic prohibition of eating unclean animals, and their enumeration, are known to you all. It would be supposed that, amidst the uncertaintyof an Indian life, all kinds of food would be equally acceptable. Notso: for, in strict conformity with the Mosaic law, they abstain fromeating the blood of any animal, they abominate swine flesh, they do noteat fish without scales, the eel, the turtle or sea-cow: and they deemmany animals and birds to be impure. These facts are noticed by allwriters, and particularly by Edwards in his History of the West-Indies. The latter able historian, in noticing the close analogy between thereligious rites of the Jews and Indians, says, "that the strikingconformity of the prejudices and customs of the Caribbee Indians, to thepractices of the Jews, has not escaped the notice of such historians asGamella, Da Tertre, and others;" and Edwards also states, that theIndians on the Oroonoke, punished their women caught in adultery, bystoning them to death before the assembly of the people. 

Among the Mosaical laws is the obligation of one brother to marry hisbrother's widow, if he die without issue. Major Long says, "if thedeceased has left a brother, he takes the widow to his lodge after aproper interval and considers her as his wife. "

This is also confirmed by Charliveux. 

It would occupy a greater space of time than I can afford, to trace asimilitude between all the Indian rites and religious ceremonies, andthose of the Jewish nation. In their births, in their separation afterthe births of their children, in their daily prayers and sacrifices, intheir festivals, in their burials, in the employment of mourners, and intheir general belief, I see a close analogy and intimate connection, with all the ceremonies and laws which are observed by the Jewishpeople; making a due allowance for what has been lost, andmisunderstood, in the course of upwards of 2, 000 years. 

A general belief exists among most travellers, that the Indians are thedescendants of the missing tribes. 

Menassah Ten Israel wrote his celebrated treatise to prove this fact, onthe discovery of America. 

William Penn, who always acted righteously to wards the Indians, and hadnever suspected that they had descended from the missing tribes, says, in a letter to his friends in England, "I found them with likecountenances to the Hebrew race. I consider these people under a darknight, yet they believe in God and immortality, without the aid ofmetaphysics. They reckon by moons, they offer their first ripe fruits, they have a kind of feast of tabernacles, they are said to lay theiraltars with twelve stones, they mourn a year, and observe the Mosaic lawwith regard to separation. "

Emanuel de Moraez, in his history of Brazil, declares that America hasbeen peopled by the Carthaginians and Israelites, and as to theIsraelites he says, nothing is wanting but circumcision, to constitute aperfect resemblance between them and the Brazilians. 

The Reverend Mr Beatty, a very worthy missionary, says, "I have oftenbefore hinted, that I have taken great pains to search into the usagesand customs of the Indians, in order to see what ground there was farsupposing them to be part of the ten tribes, and I must own, to my nosmall surprise, that a number of their customs appear so much toresemble those of the Jews, that it is a great question with me, whetherwe can expect to find among the ten tribes, wherever they are at thisday, all things considered more of the footsteps of their ancestors thanamong the different Indian tribes. "

Monsieur de Guignes, an old French historian, in speaking of thediscoveries made in America, before the time of Columbus, says, "Theseresearches, which of themselves give us great insight into the origin ofthe Americans, lead to the determination of the route of the coloniessent to the continent;" and he proceeds to give reasons for his belief, that the greater part of them passed thither "by the most easternextremities of Asia, where the two continents are only separated by anarrow strait, easy to cross. "

Beltrami, in his discovery of the sources of the Mississippi, after afull and interesting account of the Indians, says, "Different authorshave brought them hither from all parts of the world. I was at firstinduced to join with those who derived them from the Hebrews. It seemedimpossible for me to doubt that, by so doing, I should be building on animpregnable foundation. " He then proceeds to prove their Asiatic originby many interesting facts. 

The late Earl of Crawford and Lindsay, published his travels in America, in 1801. "It is curious and pleasing, " says he, "in reading the travelsof those who have been among these people, to find how their customscomport with the laws of Moses;" and after describing at length theirreligious rites and ceremonies, his lordship emphatically observes, "Itis a sound truth, that the Indians _are_ descended from the ten tribes;and time and investigation will more and more enforce itsacknowledgment. "

It is, however, in Mexico and Peru, that we must look for the mostenlightened and the most wealthy of the Indian race. On therepresentations of Montesini, who travelled in South America, thelearned Rabbi Menassah Ten Israel, as I have said before, wrote hisfamous work _La Esperanza de Israel_, which he published in Amsterdam, in _1650_, endeavouring with great zeal to prove, that the Indians inNorth and South America were the descendants of the missing tribes; andCromwell, to whom the work was dedicated, was greatly interested in theevidences produced on that occasion. Montesini, travelling through theprovince of _Quif_ found that his Indian guide was a Jew, and pursuinghis inquiries, discovered that immense numbers lived behind theCordilleras. Francis, the name of his guide, admitted to Montesini, that his God was called _Adonal_, and that he acknowledged Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as his ancestors, and they claimed to have descendedfrom the tribe of Reuben. 

Acosta contends that they have a tradition relative to the deluge; thatthey preserve the rite of circumcision; they offer the first-fruits, andin Peru they eat the Paschal Lamb; they believe in the resurrection, andclothe the dead with the richest equipage. Lopez de Gomara says, thatsome of them, and not all, are circumcised. Acosta continues, "theMexicans point out the various stations as their ancestors advanced intotheir country, and it is precisely the route which they must have held, had they been emigrants from Asia. "

Menassah Ten Israel declares, that the Indians of Mexico had atradition, that their magnificent place of worship had been built by apeople who wore their beards, and were more ancient than their Incas. In the Universal History of 1748, it is affirmed, that the Mexicans andother American Indians rend their garments, in order the moreeffectually to express grief--the Hebrew custom at this day. 

Lopez de Gomara states, that the Mexicans offer sacrifices of thefirst-fruits, and, when Cortez approached Mexico, Montezuma shut himselfup for the space of eight days in fasting and prayer. Emanuel de Moreasand Acosta say, that the Brazilians marry in their own tribes andfamilies; and Escorbatus affirms, that he frequently heard the southerntribes repeat the sacred notes _Ha-le-lu-yah_. Malvenda states, thatseveral tomb-stones were found in St Michael's, with ancient Hebrewcharacters. 

When the Spaniards invaded Mexico, the Cholula was considered a holycity by the natives, with magnificent temples, in which the High PriestQuetza-colt preached to man, and would permit no other offerings to theMaster of Life than the first-fruits of the harvest. "We know by ourtraditions, " said the venerable Prince Montezuma to the Spanish GeneralCortez, "that we who inhabit this country are not the natives butstrangers who come from a great distance. "

Don Alonzo Erecella, in his history of Chili, says, the Araucaniansacknowledge one Supreme Being, and believe in the immortality of thesoul; and the Abbe Clavigero declares, that they have a tradition of thegreat deluge. The laws and ceremonies of the Peruvians and Mexicanshave, no doubt, been corrupted in the course of many ages, both in theirsacrifices and worship. 

Their great and magnificent temple, evidently in imitation of thaterected by Solomon, was founded by Mango Capac, or rather by the IncaVupanque, who endowed it with great wealth. Clavagero and De Vega, intheir very interesting account of this temple say, "what we called thealtar was on the east side of the temple. There were many doors to thetemple, all of which were plated with gold, and the four walls the wholeway round were crowned with a rich golden garland, more than an ell inwidth. Round the temple were five square pavilions, whose tops were inthe form of pyramids. The fifth was lined entirely with gold, and wasfor the use of the Royal High-Priest of sacrifices, and in which all thedeliberations concerning the temple were held. Some of the doors led tothe schools where the Incas listen to the debates of the philosophers, sometimes themselves explaining the laws and ordinances. "

Mexico and Central America abound in curiosities, exemplifying the factof the Asiatic origin of the inhabitants; and it is not many years ago, that the ruins of a whole city, with a wall nearly seven miles incircumference, with castles, palaces, and temples, evidently of Hebrewor Phoenician architecture, was found on the river Palenque. Thethirty-fifth number of the Foreign Quarterly Review contains aninteresting account of those antiquities. 

The ruins of this city of Guatemala, in Central America, as described byDel Rio in 1782, when taken in conjunction with the extraordinary, I maysay, wonderful antiquities spread over the entire surface of thatcountry, awaken recollections in the specimens of architecture whichcarry us back to the early pages of history, and prove beyond the shadowof doubt, that we who imagined ourselves to be the natives of a newworld, but recently discovered, inhabit a continent which rivalled thesplendour of Egypt and Syria, and was peopled by a powerful and highlycultivated nation from the old world. When we speak of what is calledMexican antiquities, we must not confound the rude labours of moderntimes, with the splendid perfections which distinguished the efforts ofthose who reared the Egyptian pyramids, and built the temples of Thebesand Memphis. It is not Mexican antiquities, but the antiquities ofTultecan; and in addition to the ruins of Palenque, on this _our_continent, there are pyramids larger than those of Sachara in Egypt, atCholula, Otamba, Paxaca, Mitlan, Tlascola, and on the mountains ofTescoca, together with hieroglyphics, planispheres and zodiacs, asymbolic and Photenic alphabet; papyrus, metopes, triglyphs, and templesand buildings of immense grandeur; military roads, aqueducts, viaducts, posting stations and distances; bridges of great grandeur and massivecharacter, all presenting the most positive evidences of the existenceof a powerful enterprising nation, which must have flourished twothousand years before the Spanish conquest. Take, for example, thedescription of the temple at Palenque, which Lord Kingsborough, in histravels, not only declares _was_ built by the Jews, and is a copy ofSolomon's temple, but which, no doubt, is precisely the model of thetemple described by Ezekiel. Travellers speak of it in the followingterms:

"It may be appropriately called an ecclesiastical city, rather than atemple. Within its vast precincts there appear to be contained (asindeed was, in some measure, the case with the area that embraced thevarious buildings of Solomon's temple) a pyramidal tower, varioussanctuaries, sepulchres; a small and a large quadrangular court, onesurrounded, as we have said, by cloisters; subterranean initiatorygalleries beneath; oracles, courts of justice, high places, and cells ordwellings for the various orders of priests. The whole combination ofthe buildings is encircled by a quadrilateral pilastered portico, embracing a quadrangular area, and resting on a terraced platform. Thisplatform exhibits the same architectural model, which we have describedas characterising the single temples. It is composed of three graduatedstuccoed terraces, sloping inwards, at an angle of about seventydegrees, in the form of a truncated pyramid. Four central staircases(one facing each of the cardinal points) ascend these terraces in themiddle of each lateral facade of the quadrangle; and four gates frontingthe same cardinal points, conduct from the top of each staircase intothe body of the building, or into the great court. The great entrance, through a pilastered gateway, fronts the east, and descends by a secondflight of steps into the cloistered court. On the various pilasters ofthe upper terrace are the metopes, with singular sculptures. Ondescending the second staircase into the cloistered court, on one side, appears the triple pyramidal tower, which may be inferred, from thecurious distribution of little cells which surround the central room ofeach story, to have been employed as a place of royal or privatesepulture. It would be pronounced a striking and tasteful structure, according to any architectural rule. On another side of the samecloistered court is the detached temple of the chief god, to whom thewhole religious building appears to have been devoted, who appears tohave been the great and only god of the nations who worshipped in thistemple. Beneath the cloisters, entered by staircases from above, arewhat we believe to be the initiatory galleries. These opened intorooms, one of which has a stone couch in it, and others aredistinguished by unintelligible apparatus carved in stone. The onlysymbol described as found within these sacred haunts is, however, perfectly Asiatic, and perfectly intelligible; we mean two contendingserpents. The remnant of an sitar, or high place, occupies the centreof the cloistered quadrangle. The rest of the edifice is taken up withcourts, palaces, detached temples, open divans, baths, and streets ofpriestly cells, or houses, in a greater or less degree of dilapidation. "

. .. 

"It is perfectly clear, from the few records of their religious riteswhich have come down to us, and which are principally derived from theextraordinary rolls of American papyrus, [formed of prepared fibres ofthe Maguery] on which their beautiful hieroglyphical system is preserved(there is one of considerable extent in the Dresden Museum), that theywere as simple, perhaps we may add with propriety, as innocent. Notonly does it appear that they had no human sacrifices, but no animalsacrifices. Flowers and fruits were the only offerings made to thepresiding divinity of their temples. "

But who were the Tultequans and Azeteques, the founders of this empirein America; who built the pyramids of Cholula and city of Palenque?_Not the Jews_. 

Here we have a most singular diversion from the path on which weoriginally set out--another extraordinary discovery, marked, too, byevents no less extraordinary than amazing. 

They were the Canaanites, the scriptural Titans, who, according to thesacred historian, built with walls and towers reaching to the heavens. The builders of the Tower of Babel, the family of the shepherd kings whoconquered Egypt, and built the pyramids, and were driven from Syria byJoshua. The men who finally founded Tyre and Carthage, navigated roundthe continent of Africa, and sailed in their small craft across theAtlantic, and landed in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The _Phoenicians_ were the founders of Palenque, Mitlan, Papantla. Quemada, Cholula, Chila, and Antiquerra. 

When I studied the history of these people, on the ruins of Carthage, itwas said by antiquarians present, that the Carthaginians had a colony ata considerable distance, which they secretly maintained; and when I wasat Tangiers, the Mauritania Tangitania of the ancients, I was shown thespot where the pillar was erected, and was standing at the time of Ibnu, the Moorish historian, on which was inscribed, in the Phoenicianlanguage, "We are the Canaanites who fled from Joshua, the son of Nun, that notorious robber. " From that spot, then . .. The pillars ofHercules, now known as the Straits of Gibraltar, they crossed to ourcontinent, and founded a great empire of the Ophite worship, with Syrianand Egyptian symbols. Now, mark the issue. Fifteen hundred years afterthe expulsion of the Canaanites by Joshua, the ten tribes pass over theStraits of Behring to the continent of America, and poured down uponthese people like the Goths and Vandals. The descendants of Joshua a_second_ time fell on the Canaanites on another continent, knowing themwell as such, and burn their temples, and destroy their gigantic towersand cities. 

When Columbus discovered America, he found an innocent people in ademi-savage state, with Jewish traditions, and the only reference toearly times was a vague impression that the ruins they saw were built bygiants, and a people called wandering masons. 

I have the most settled conviction of this theory. The magnificentruins which are to be seen at this day in Mexico and Central America, were the works of the Phoenicians, and the irruption of the wanderingtribes from the north-west coast of America swept that nation away, andhave ever since maintained possession of this country, until white menhave thinned their ranks, and gradually encroached upon, and usurped agreat part of their territory. 

The only opposition made to the general declaration of travellers, thatthe Indians are of Jewish descent, is, that they are red men, and arebeardless. Now, take the olive complexion of the Jews in Syria, passthe nation over the Euphrates into a warmer climate, let them minglewith Tartars and Chinese, and after several generations reach thiscontinent, their complexion would undergo some shades of hue and colour;and as to beards, they cannot grow while they are continually plucked, as is the Indian custom. The colour proves nothing against theirorigin. Take our fellow-citizens on our eastern borders, and comparetheir florid colour with the sickly hue and sallow complexions of thoseliving on the southern shores, in the palmettoes and everglades, and weshall see a marked distinction, and yet they are members of the samefamily. 

Du Pratz, speaking of the traditions of the Natches tribe, relates thatin answer to the question, "Whence come you?" their reply was, "All thatwe know is that our fathers, to come hither, followed the sun, and camefrom the place where he rises. They were long in their journey; theywere nearly perishing; and were brought to this wilderness of the sunsetting without seeking it. " Souard says of the Indians of Surinam, onthe authority of Nasci, a learned Jew residing there, that the dialectof those Indians common in Guinana is soft, agreeable, and regular, andtheir substantives are Hebrew. "Their language, in the roots, idioms, and particular construction, has the genius of the Hebrew language, astheir orations have the bold, laconic, and figurative style of theHebrew prophets. "

The Reverend Mr Chapman says of the Osages, "it is their universalpractice to salute the dawn of every morning with their devotion. " Acustom always prevailing among pious Jews. 

Malvenda and Acosta both affirm, that the natives had a tradition of ajubilee, according to the jubilee of Israel. 

Dr Beatty, in speaking of the festival of the first-fruits by theIndians west of the Ohio, says, "at this ceremony _twelve_ of their oldmen divide a deer into twelve parts, and these men hold up the venisonand fruits with their faces to the east, acknowledging the bounty of Godto them. A singular and close imitation of the ceremonies andsacrifices of the temple. " The doctor further says, "they have anotherfeast which looks like the Passover. "

Sir Alexander Mackenzie, in his tour to the north-west coast, says, that"the Chepewyan Indians have a tradition among them, that they originallycame from another country, inhabited by very wicked people, and hadtraversed a great lake which was in one place narrow and shallow, andfull of islands, where they had suffered great misery; and a furthertradition has it that nine parts of their nation out of ten passed overthe river. The Mexicans affirm, that seven tribes or houses passed fromthe east to the wilderness. "

Beltrami says, that the skeletons of the mammoths found in Kentucky andMissouri, and other parts of America, have been ascertained to resembleprecisely those which have been found in Siberia and the eastern part ofAsia, showing the facility of communication between the two coasts. Andhere it may be well to state a fact, which is strongly corroborative ofthe view we have taken, not only of the possibility of passing from onecontinent to the other, but of the actual and probably constantcommunication between them. Charlevoix, says, he knew a Catholicpriest, called Father Grilion, in Canada, who was recalled to Parisafter his mission had been ended, and who was subsequently appointed toa similar mission in China. One day in Tartary, he suddenly encountereda Huron woman with whom he had been well acquainted in Canada, and whoinformed him that she had been captured, and passed from nation tonation, until she reached the north-west coast, when she crossed intoTartary. 

Since delivering the present lecture, I have received a letter from MrCatlin, the celebrated painter, who for the last five years has beenresiding among the Indians. Mr Catlin says:

"The first thing that strikes the traveller in an Indian country asevidence of their being of Jewish origin, (and it is certainly a veryforcible one, ) is the striking resemblance which they generally bear incontour, and expression of head, to those people. In their modes andcustoms, there are many striking resemblances, and perhaps as proof, they go much further than mere personal resemblance. Amongst thosecustoms, I shall mention several that have attracted my attention, though probably they have never before been used for the same purpose;and others I may name, which are familiar _to you_, and which it may notbe amiss to mention, as I have seen them practised while in theircountry. 

"The universal custom among them of burying their dead with feet to theeast, I could conceive to have no other meaning or object than a journeyto the east after death--like the Jews who expected to travel underground after death to the land of Canaan. On inquiry, I found thatthough they were all going towards the `setting sun, ' during theirlife-times, they expected to travel to the east after death. 

"Amongst the tribes, the women are not allowed to enter the medicinelodge; as they were not allowed in Judea to enter the court of Israel. Like the Jewish custom also, they are not allowed to mingle in worshipwith the men; and at meals, are always separated. 

"In their modes, fastings, feastings, or sacrifices, they have also amost striking resemblance. Amongst all the western tribes, who have notbeen persuaded from those forms by white men, they are still foundscrupulously and religiously adhering to, and practising them to theletter. The very many times and modes of sacrificing, remind usforcibly of the customs of the Israelites; and the one in particular, which has been seen amongst several of the tribes, though I did notwitness it myself, wherein, like the manner of the `peace-offering, ' thefirstling and that of the male is offered, and `_no bone is to bebroken_. ' Such circumstances afford the strongest kind of proofs. Allthe tribes have a great feast at the dawn of spring, and at those feaststheir various sacrifices are made. At the approach of the season ofgreen corn, a feast of the first ears are sacrificed with greatsolemnity, followed by feasting and dancing: so at the ripening ofdifferent kinds of fruit. The first and best piece that is cut from abuffalo is always _Deo Dante_. 

"Over the medicine lodge, and also over the lodges of the mostdistinguished chiefs, are hung on high poles large quantities of finecloth, white buffalo robes, or other most costly articles which can beprocured, there to decay, an offering to the Great Spirit. 

"The bunch of willow boughs with which each dancer is supplied, in theMandan religious ceremonies, the sacrificing and other forms thereinobserved, certainly render it somewhat analogous to the Israelitishfeast of tabernacles. 

"The universal practice of `_solus cam solo_' of the women, ablution andanointing with bear's grease, is strikingly similar to the Jewishcustom. Every family has a small lodge expressly for this purpose, andwhen any one of the family are ready for it, it is erected within a fewrods, and meat is carried to her, where she dwells, and cooks and eatsby herself, an object of superstitious dread to every person in thevillage. 

"The absence of every species of idolatry amongst the North AmericanIndians, affords also a striking proof of the ceremonial law, and stampsthem at once, in one respect, at all events, differing from all othersavage tribes of which we have any knowledge. "

What are, I may ask, the characters of these people? On the discoveryof America by Columbus, nearly 2, 000 years after the dispersion of theHebrew tribes, the whole continent is found peopled, not with a race ofwild men, of cannibals, of savages, but with a race of intellectual, moral, innocent persons, divided into many hundred nations, and spreadover 8, 000 miles of territory. "I swear to your majesties, " saidColumbus, writing to Ferdinand and Isabella, "that there is not a betterpeople in the world than these; more affectionate or mild. They lovetheir neighbours as themselves; their language is the sweetest, thesoftest and the most cheerful, for they always speak smilingly. " MajorLong says, "they are the genuine sons of nature; they have all thevirtues nature can give, without the vices of civilisation. They areartless, fearless, and live in constant exercise of moral and Christianvirtues, though they know it not. "

Charlevoix gives his testimony in their behalf. "They manifest, " sayshe, "much stability in their engagements, patience in affliction, andsubmissive acquiescence in what they apprehend the will of Providence. In all this they display a nobleness of soul and constancy of mind, atwhich _we_ rarely arrive, with all our philosophy and religion. "

Du Pratz contends that they have a greater degree of prudence, faithfulness, and generosity than those who would be offended with acomparison with them. "No people, " says he, "are more hospitable andfree. "

Bartram, who lived many years in the Creek nation, says, "Joy, contentment, love and friendship without guile or affectation, seeminherent in them, or predominant in their vital principle, for it leavesthem but with their breath. They are, " says he, "just, honest, liberaland hospitable to strangers considerate and affectionate to their wives, children, and relations; frugal and persevering, charitable andforbearing. "

_Who are they_? Men do not grow up like stones or trees or rocks; theyare not found in herds like wild animals. God, that made man in his ownimage, gave to the Indians an origin and parentage, like unto the restof the great family of mankind, the work of his own almighty hand. Fromwhom, then, did our red brethren, the rightful owners of this continent, descend?

There seems to be no difference of opinion that they are of Asiaticorigin, and not indigenous to our soil. Nearly all writers andhistorians concur on this point--they _are_ Asiatic--they crossed to thecontinent of America from Asia; but who are they, and from whom havethey descended?

Eldad, who wrote learnedly of the twelve tribes, in 1300, contends, thatthe tribe of Dan went into Ethiopia, and pretends that the tribes ofNaphtali, Gad, and Asher, followed. That they had a king of their own, and could muster 120, 000 horse and 100, 000 foot. In relation to part ofthese three tribes, there might have been some truth in it, for TiglethPelieser did compel them to go into Ethiopia. Issachar, he contends, remained with the Medes and Persians. Zebulon extended from themountains of Pharan to the Euphrates. Reuben dwelt behind Pharan, andspoke Arabic. Ephraim and half Manasseh were thrown on the southerncoast. Benjamin of Tudela places Dan, Asher, Naphtali, and Zebulon onthe banks of the river Gozan. In the midst of all these contradictoryand vague statements, two opinions prevail among Jews and Christians, inearly and late periods. One is, that the ten tribes went into Tartary, where they remained; the other, that from Tartary they penetrated intoAmerica. 

Manasseh Ten Israel, the most learned of the nation, declares that theypassed into America. Lescarbot believes that the Indians are theposterity of Ham, expelled by Joshua, and who passed out of theMediterranean, and were driven by storms to the American coast. Grotiuscontends, that the inhabitants of the new world were originally fromGreenland; and while Basnage frankly admits, that manifest tracts ofJudaism are to be found in America, he contends, that the tribes couldnot have overcome the warlike Scythians and penetrated to thiscontinent, and that they remained in Halak and Heber, and in the citiesof the Medes. 

Truth, no doubt, lies between these opinions. Many of the tribes passedinto Egypt and Ethiopia, many remained in Persia and Tartary; all didnot make for the north-west coast, nor was it necessary that all shoulddo so. There were degrees of piety and condition then as now. RestoreJerusalem tomorrow, and all the Jews will not return there. Rabbi Akibacontends, that all the noble families remained in Persia. A number, aconsiderable number, no doubt, impressed with a solemn belief that ifthey remained in Persia they would in time become idolators, and loseall the landmarks of their ancient faith, resolved, like those who wentout of Egypt, to remain no longer in bondage, and, as Esdrass says, theydeparted for a country "wherein mankind never before had dwelt"--and theresolution was perfectly feasible. It was a thickly populated country, and by keeping on the borders of China, they would, within the timeprescribed, namely, eighteen months, have reached our continent. Atthis day there is a constant intercourse between the continents, and atrip to the Rocky Mountains, once so terrifying, is now a mere summer'sjourney. 

If the Indians of America are not the descendants of the missing tribes, again I ask, from whom _are_ they descended? From the Egyptians?Wherein, in their belief, is there the least resemblance to the worshipof Isis and Osiris, or the Hieroglyphics or historical reminiscences ofthat very ancient people? Are they a part of the fierce Scythians?Their warlike propensities would prove them to be so; but where amongthose barbarians do we discover the belief in one Great Spirit, togetherwith the softer virtues, the purity and talents of the Indians? Arethey of the Tartar race? Their complexion, "the shadowed livery of theburning sun, " might be offered in evidence; they have not the flat head, the angular and twinkling eye, nor the diminutive figure of the Chineseor Tartars. 

The Indians have distinct Jewish features, and neither in mind, manners, nor religion, bear any affinity to the Tartar race. I have endeavouredto show this by their traditions, by their religion, by theirceremonies, which retain so much of the ancient worship. But there isone proof more, which, in my mind, removes all doubt. Sir AlexanderMacKenzie, in his journal of a tour to the north-west continent ofAmerica, declares from his own observation, that the Chippewa Indianspractise circumcision, which fact is corroborated by several othertravellers amongst the various tribes. 

It will scarcely be necessary for me to refer you to the many propheticwarnings relative to the sins, the denunciations, the promises, thedispersion and redemption of the Jewish people, which we find throughoutthe Bible. With that good book you all are or should be familiar--it isa delightful book, view it in any manner you please. Let the unbelieversneer and the philosopher doubt, it is certain that the most importantevents predicted by the prophets _have_ come to pass, giving anassurance which is stripped of all doubt, that what remains to befulfilled, _will_ be fulfilled. In what direction are we to look forthe missing tribes according to the prophets? From Jeremiah we learnthat they are to come from a country north and west from Judea. FromIsaiah, "it is a country far from Judea, " and answering also "from theends of the earth. "

In Zachariah we are told, it must be in the western regions, or thecountry of the going down of the sun; and according to the historian, Esdras, it must be a land wherein mankind never before had dwelt, and, of course, free from the residence of the heathen. 

Our prophet Isaiah has a noble reference to the dispersed tribes andtheir redemption, which may be here appropriately quoted. I use hislanguage, the Hebrew, which from its peculiar associations should bealways interesting to you. 

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his handthe _second_ time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall beleft from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, andfrom Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of thesea. 

And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble theoutcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah, from thefour corners of the earth. 

"And there shall be a highway for the remnant of his people, which shallbe left from Assyria, like as it was to Israel, in the day that he cameup out of the land of Egypt. "

May I not with propriety refer, among other evidences, to the cruelpersecutions which have uniformly been practised towards the Indians ofthis continent, not unlike those which the chosen people have sufferedfor the last eighteen centuries?

"What makes you so melancholy?" said General Knox to the chief of anIndian deputation, that he was entertaining in this city, at the closeof the revolutionary war. "I'll tell you, brother, " said the agedchief; "I have been looking at your beautiful city--the great water fullof ships, the fine country, and see how prosperous you all are. But, then, I could not help thinking that this fine country _was ours_. Ourancestors lived here. They enjoyed it as their own in peace. _It wasthe gift of the Great Spirit to them and their children_. At last, white men came in a great canoe. They only asked to let them tie it toa tree, lest the water should carry it away. We consented. They thensaid some of their people were sick, and they asked permission to landthem, and put them under the shade of the trees. The ice then came, andthey could not go away. They then begged a piece of land to buildwigwams for the winter. We granted it to them. They then asked forcorn to keep them from starving. We furnished it out of our own scantysupply. They promised to go away when the ice melted. When thishappened, they, instead of going, pointed to the big guns round thewigwams, and said, `we shall stay here. ' Afterwards came more: theybrought intoxicating drinks, of which the Indians became fond. Theypersuaded them to sell their land, and, finally, have driven us back, from time to time, to the wilderness, far from the water, the fish, andthe oysters. They have scared away our game--my people are wastingaway. We live in the want of all things, while you are enjoyingabundance in our fine and beautiful country. This makes me sorry, brother, and I cannot help it. "

These persecutions and repeated acts of cruelty and injustice appear tohave no termination--the work of destruction, commenced with theNarragansetts, will extend to the Ceminoles, and gradually to the bluewaters of the Pacific. Look even now at the contest maintained by ahandful of Indians in the everglades of Florida. Do they war againstunequal numbers for a crown--for a part of that immense surplus whichoverflows from the coffers of a country which was once their own? No--they fight for the privilege of dying where the bones of their ancestorslie buried: and yet we, Christians as we call ourselves, deny them thatboon, and drive the lords of the soil into the den of the otter. 

In referring to the splendid specimens of Indian oratory, where, I wouldask, can you find such wisdom, such lofty and pure eloquence, among theChinese and Tartars, even at this day?

The Indians, like the Hebrews, speak in parables. Of their dialects, there is no doubt that the Algonquins and Huron are the parents of fivehundred Indian tongues--they are copious, rich, regular, forcible, andcomprehensive; and although here and there strong Hebrew analogies maybe found, yet it is reasonable to suppose, that the Indian languages area compound of all those tongues belonging to the various Asiatic nationsthrough which they passed during their pilgrimage. 

Firmly as I believe the American Indian to have been descended from thetribes of Israel, and that our continent is full of the mostextraordinary vestiges of antiquity, there is one point, a religious aswell as an historical point, in which you may possibly continue todoubt, amidst almost convincing evidences. 

If these are the remnants of the nine and a half tribes which werecarried into Assyria, and if we are to believe in all the promises ofthe restoration, and the fulfilment of the prophecies, respecting thefinal advent of the Jewish nation, what is to become of these our redbrethren, whom we are driving before us so rapidly, that a century morewill find them lingering on the borders of the Pacific Ocean?

Possibly the restoration may be near enough to include even a portion ofthose interesting people. Our learned Rabbis have always deemed itsinful to compute the period of the restoration; they believe that whenthe sins of the nation were atoned for, the miracle of their redemptionwould be manifested. My faith does not rest wholly in miracles--Providence disposes of events, human agency must carry them out. Thatbenign and supreme power which the children of Israel had neverforsaken, has protected the chosen people amidst the most appallingdangers, has saved them from the uplifted sword of the Egyptians, theAssyrians, the Medes, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans, andwhile the most powerful nations of antiquity have crumbled to pieces, wehave been preserved, united, and unbroken, the same now as we were inthe days of the patriarchs--brought from darkness to light, from theearly and rude periods of learning to the bright reality ofcivilisation, of arts, of education and of science. 

The Jewish people must now do something for themselves; they must moveonward to the accomplishment of that great event long foretold--longpromised--long expected; and when they _do_ move, that mighty powerwhich has for thousands of years rebuked the proscription andintolerance shown to the Jews, by a benign protection of the _whole_nation, will still cover them with his invincible standard. 

My belief is, that Syria will revert to the Jewish nation by _purchase_, and that the facility exhibited in the accumulation of wealth, has beena providential and peculiar gift to enable them, at a proper time, tore-occupy their ancient possessions by the purse--string instead of thesword. 

We live in a remarkable age, and political events are producingextraordinary changes among the nations of the earth. 

Russia, with its gigantic power, continues to press hard on Turkey. ThePacha of Egypt, taking advantage of the improvements and inventions ofmen of genius, is extending his territory and influence to the straitsof Babelmandel on the Red Sea, and to the borders of the Russian empire;and the combined force of Russia, Turkey, Persia, and Egypt, seriouslythreaten the safety of British possessions in the East Indies. Animmediate and balancing power is required to check this thirst ofconquest and territorial possession, and to keep in check the advancesof Russia in Turkey and Persia, and the ambition and love of conquest ofEgypt. This can be done by restoring Syria to its rightful owners, notby revolution or blood, but as I have said, by the purchase of thatterritory from the Pacha of Egypt, for a sum of money too tempting inits amount for him to refuse, in the present reduced state of hiscoffers. Twelve or thirteen millions of dollars have been spoken of inreference to the cession of that interesting territory, a sum of noconsideration to the Jews, for the good-will and peaceable possession ofa land, which to them is above all price. Under the co-operation andprotection of England and France, this re-occupation of Syria within itsold territorial limits is at once reasonable and practicable. 

By opening the ports of Damascus, Tripoli, Joppa, Acre, etcetera, thewhole of the commerce of Turkey, Egypt, and the Mediterranean will be inthe hands of those, who, even now in part, control the commerce ofEurope. From the Danube, the Dneister, the Ukraine, Wallachia, andMoldavia, the best of agriculturists would revive the former fertilityof Palestine. Manufacturers from Germany and Holland; an army ofexperience and bravery from France and Italy; ingenuity, intelligence, activity, energy, and enterprise from all parts of the world, would, under a just, a tolerant, and a liberal government, present a formidablebarrier to the encroachments of surrounding powers, and be a bulwark tothe interests of England and France, as well as the rising liberties ofGreece. 

Once again unfurl the standard of Judah on Mount Zion, the four cornersof the earth will give up the chosen people as the sea will give up itsdead, at the sound of the last trumpet. Let the cry be `Jerusalem, ' asit was in the days of the Saracen and the lion-hearted Richard ofEngland, and the rags and wretchedness which have for eighteen centuriesenveloped the persons of the Jews, crushed as they were by persecutionand injustice, will fall to the earth; and they will stand forth. Therichest, the most powerful, the most intelligent nation on the face ofthe globe, with incalculable wealth, and holding in pledge the crownsand sceptres of kings. Placed in possession of their ancient heritageby and with the consent and co-operation of their Christian brethren, establishing a government of peace and good-will on earth, it may thenbe said, behold the fulfilment of prediction and prophecy: behold thechosen and favoured people of Almighty God, who, in defence of his unityand omnipotence, have been the outcast and proscribed of all nations, and who, for thousands of years, have patiently endured the severest ofhuman sufferings, in the hope of that great advent of which they neverhave despaired;--and then, when taking their rank once more among thenations of the earth, with the good wishes and affectionate regards ofthe great family of mankind, they may by their tolerance, their goodfaith, their charity, and enlarged liberal views, merit what has beensaid in their behalf by inspired writers, "Blessed are they who blessIsrael. "

THE END.