Volume Two—Chapter Five.

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 theme be politics or dollars—they must do something, and, like children, if they cannot do anything else, they will do mischief—their curiosity is unbounded, and they are very capricious. Acting upon impulse, they are very 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 their general character, independent of the demoralising effects of their institutions, which renders it so anomalous.The American author, Mr Sanderson, very truly observes of his countrymen, that, “they have grown vicious without the refinements and distractions of the fine arts and liberal amusements.” The Americans have few amusements; they are too busy. Athletic sports they are indifferent to; they look only to those entertainments which feed their passion for excitement. The theatre is almost their only resort, and even that is not so well attended as it might be, considering their means. 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 Americanstockactors, as they term those who are not considered asstars, are better than our own; but were the theatres to depend upon stock actors they would be deserted—the love of novelty is the chief inducement of the Americans to frequent the theatre, and they look for importations of star actors from this country as regularly as they do for our manufactured goods, or the fashions from Paris. In most of the large cities they have two theatres; one for legitimate drama, and the other for melodrama, as the Bowery Theatre at New York, and the Walnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia; these latter are seldom visited by the aristocratical 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 of support, was a failure. It has since been taken by Mr James Wallack, in opposition to the Park Theatre. The two first seasons its success was indifferent; the Park having the advantage in situation, as well as of a long-standing reputation. But, latterly, from the well-known talent and superior management of Mr Wallack, and from his unwearied exertions in providing novelties for the American public, it has been very successful; so much so, that it is said this last year to have decidedly obtained the superiority over its rival. I have seen some splendid representations in the National Theatre, with a propriety in scenery and costume which is seldom exceeded even in our great theatres.Indeed, in three seasons, Mr Wallack has done much to improve the national taste; and from his exertions, the theatres in general in America may be said to have been much benefited. But there is one objection to this rivalry between the Park and National; which is, that thestarsgo out too fast, and they will soon be all expended. Formerly things went on very regularly: Mr Price sent out to Mr Simpson, duly invoiced, a certain portion of talent for every season; and Mr Simpson, who is a very clever manager, first worked it up at New York, and then dispatched it to Boston, Philadelphia, and the other theatres in the Union. But, now, if Mr Simpson has two stars sent to him, James Wallack comes home, and takes out three; whereupon, Mr Price sends out a bigger star; and so they go on; working up the stars so fast, that the supply will never equal the demand. There are not more than two or three actors of eminence in England, who have not already made their appearance on the American boards; and next season will probably use them up. It is true, that some actors can return there again and again; as Power, who is most deservedly a favourite with them, and Ellen Tree, who is equally so. Celeste has realised a large fortune. Mrs Wood, and the Keeleys, were also very great favourites; but there are not many actors who can venture there a second time; at least, not until a certain interval has elapsed for the Americans to forget them. When there are no longer any stars, the theatres will not be so well attended; as, indeed, is the case every where. To prove how fond the Americans are of anything that excites them, I will mention a representation which I one day went to see—that of the “Infernal Regions.” There were two or three of these shewn in the different cities in the States. I saw the remnants of another, myself; but, as the museum-keeper very appropriately observed to me, “It was a fine thing 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 of caverns in the interior of the earth, and a molten lake in the distance. In the foreground were the most horrible monsters that could be invented—bears with men’s heads, growling—snakes darting in and out, hissing—here a man lying murdered, with a knife in his heart; there—a suicide, hanging by the neck—skeletons lying about in all directions, and some walking up and down in muslin shrouds. The machinery was very perfect. At one side was the figure of a man sitting down, with a horrible 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 a tongue, I entered into conversation with him. The representation wound up with showers of fire, rattling of bones, thunder, screams, and a regular cascade of the d—d, pouring into the molten lake. When it was first shewn, they had an electric battery communicating with the iron railing; and whoever put his hand on it, or went too near, received a smart electric shock. But the alarm created by this addition was found to be attended with serious consequences, and it had been discontinued.The love of excitement must of course produce a love of gambling, which may be considered as one of the American amusements: it is, however, carried on very quietly in the cities. In the South, and on the Mississippi, it is as open as the noon day; and the gamblers may be said to have there become a professional people. I have already mentioned them, 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 combine with gambling the professions of forgery, and uttering of base money. If they lose, they only lose forged notes. There is no part of the world where forgery is carried on to such an extent as it is in the United States; chiefly in the Western country. The American banks are particularly careful to guard against this evil, but the ingenuity of these miscreants is surprising, and they will imitate so closely as almost to escape detection at the banks themselves. Bank-note engraving is certainly carried to the highest state of perfection in the United States, but almost in vain. I have myself read a notice, posted up at Boston, which may appear strange to us. “Bank notes made here to any pattern.” But the Eastern banks are seldom forged upon. Counterfeit money is also very plentiful. When I was in the West, I had occasion to pay 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 were counterfeits?” I apologised, and offered to replace them, “Oh! no,” replied he; “it’s of no consequence. I gave them in payment to my people, who told me that theywerecounterfeit; but they said it was of no consequence, as they could easily pass them.” In some of the States lotteries have been abolished, in others they are still permitted. 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 it proceeds simply from their love of change, or from their embracing professions at so early a period, that they have not discovered the line in which from natural talents they are best calculated to succeed. I have heard it said, that it is seldom that an American succeeds in the profession which he had first taken up at the commencement of his career. An American will set up as a lawyer; quit, and go to sea for a year 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 to travel; then apply himself to something else, and begin to amass money. It is of very little consequence what he does, the American is really a jack of all trades, and master of any to which he feels at last inclined to apply himself.In Mrs Butler’s clever journal there is one remark which really surprised me. She says, “The absolute absence of imagination is of course the absolute absence of humour. An American can no more understand a fanciful jest than a poetical idea; and in society and conversation thestrictest matter of factprevails,” etcetera.If there was nothing but “matter of fact” in society and conversation in America or elsewhere, I imagine that there would not be many words used: but I refer to the passage, because she says that the Americans are not imaginative; whereas, I think that there is not a more imaginative people existing. It is true that they prefer broad humour, and delight in the hyperbole, but this is to be expected in a young nation; especially as their education is, generally speaking, not of a kind to make them sensible to very refined wit, which, I acknowledge, is thrown away upon the majority. What is termed the under current of humour, as delicate raillery, for instance, is certainly not understood. When they read Sam Slick, they did not perceive that the author was laughing at them; and the letters of Major Jack Downing are much more appreciated in this country than they are in America. But as for saying that they are not imaginative, is a great error, and I have no doubt that Mrs B has discovered it by this time.Miss Martineau says, and very truly, “The Americans appear to me an eminently imaginative people.” Indeed, it is only necessary to read the newspapers to be convinced it is the case. The hyperbole is their principal forte, but what is lying but imagination? and why do you find that a child of promising talent is so prone to lying? because it is the first effort of a strong imagination. Wit requires refinement, which the Americans have not; but they have excessive humour, although it is generally speaking coarse.An American, talking of an ugly woman with a very large mouth, said to me, “Why, sir, when she yawns, you can see right down to her garters;” and another, speaking of his being very sea-sick, declared, “That he threw every thing up, down to his knee-pans.”If there required any proof of the dishonest feeling so prevalent in the United 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 an instance of great ingenuity, and very little principle. So many have been told already, that I hesitate to illustrate my observation, from fear of being accused of uttering stale jokes. Nevertheless I will venture upon one or two.“An American (Down East, of course), when his father died, found his patrimony to consist of several hundred dozen of boxes of ointment for the cure of a certain complaint, said (by us) to be more common in the North than in England. He made up his pack, and took a round of nearly a hundred miles, going from town to town and from village to village, offering his remedy for sale. But unfortunately for him no one was afflicted with the complaint, and they would not purchase on the chance of any future occasion for it. He returned back to his inn, and having reflected a little, he went out, inquired where he could find the disease, and having succeeded, inoculated himself with it. When he was convinced that he had it with sufficient virulence, he again set forth making the same round; and taking advantage of the American custom which is so prevalent, he shook hands with everybody whom he had spoken to on his former visit, declaring he was ‘’tarnal glad to see them again.’ Thus he went on till his circuit was completed, when he repaired to the first town again, and found that his ointment, as he expected, was now in great request; and he continued his route as before, selling every box that he possessed.”There is a story of a Yankee clock-maker’s ingenuity, that I have not seen in print. He also “made a circuit, having a hundred clocks when he started; they were all very bad, which he well knew; but by ‘soft sawder and human natur,’ as Sam Slick says, he contrived to sell ninety-nine of them, and reserve the last for his intended ‘ruse.’ He went to the house where he had sold the first clock, and said, ‘Well, now, how does your 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. You see, 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 I found 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 I have asked here and there, everywhere almost, how my clocks went, and they all said that “they actually regulated the sun.” But I was determined to find out who had the bad clock, and I am most particular glad that I have done it at last. Now, you see I have but one clock left, a very superior article, worth a matter of ten dollars more than the others, and I must give it you in change, and I’ll only charge you five dollars difference, as you have been annoyed with the bad article.’ The man who had the bad clock thought it better to pay five dollars more 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, how does your clock go? very well, I guess.’ The same answer—the same story repeated—and another five dollars received in exchange. And thus did he go round, exchanging clock for clock, until he had received an extra five dollars for every one which he had sold.”Logic.—“A Yankee went into the bar of an inn in a country town: ‘Pray what’s the price of a pint of shrub?’ ‘Half a dollar,’ was the reply of the man at the bar. ‘Well, then, give it me.’ The shrub was poured out, when the bell rang for dinner. ‘Is that your dinner-bell?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘What may you charge for dinner?’ ‘Half a dollar.’ ‘Well, then, I think 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, and when 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; I took the dinner instead of the shrub.’ ‘But, massa, you not pay for the shrub.’ ‘Well, I did not have the shrub, did I, you nigger?’ said the Yankee, walking away. The negro scratched his head; he knew that something was wrong, as he had got no money; but he could not make it out till the Yankee was out of sight.”I do not think thatdemocracyis marked upon the features of the lower classes in the United States; there is no arrogant bearing in them, as might be supposed from the despotism of the majority; on the contrary, I should say that their lower classes are much more civil than our own. I had aslapof equality on my first landing at New York. I had hired a truck-man to take up my luggage from the wharf; I went a-head, and missed him when I came to the corner of the street where I had engaged apartments, and was looking round for him in one direction, when I was saluted with a slap on the shoulder, which was certainly given with good-will. I turned, and beheld my carman, who had taken the liberty to draw 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 went on.This civil bearing is peculiar, as when they are excited by politics, or other causes, they are most insolent and overbearing. In his usual demeanour, the citizen born is quiet and obliging. The insolence you meet with is chiefly from the emigrant classes. I have before observed, that the Americans are a good-tempered people; and to this good temper I ascribe their civil bearing. But why are they good-tempered? It appears to me to be one of the few virtues springing from democracy. When the grades of society are distinct, as they are in the older institutions, when difference of rank is acknowledged and submitted to without murmur, it is evident that if people are obliged to control their tempers in presence of their superiors or equals, they can also yield to them with their inferiors; and it is this yielding to our tempers which enables them to master us. But under institutions where all are equal, where no one admits the superiority of another, even if he really be so, where the man with the spade in his hand will beard the millionaire, and where you are compelled to submit to the caprice and insolence of a domestic, or lose his services, it is evident that every man must from boyhood have learnt to control his temper, as no ebullition will be submitted to, or unfollowed by its consequences. I consider that it is this habitual control, forced upon the Americans by the nature of their institutions, which occasions them to be so good-tempered, when not in a state of excitement. The Americans are in one point, as a mob, very much like the English; make them laugh, and they 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 refuse their titles to their superiors. Miss Martineau mentions one circumstance, of which I very often met with similar instances. “I once was with a gentleman who was building a large house; he went to see how the men were getting on; but they had all disappeared but one. ‘Where are the people?’ inquired he. ‘Thegentlemenbe all gone toliquor,’ was the reply.”I bought one of the small newspapers just as I was setting off in a steam-boat from New York to Albany. The boy had no change, and went to fetch it. He did not come back himself, but another party made his appearance. “Are you themanwho bought the newspaper?” “Yes,” replied I. “Theyoung gentlemanwho sold it to you has sent me to pay you 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 find him, and when he had succeeded he addressed him, “I say, Mister, yourwomanwants you; but I telled theyoung lady of the houseto fetch her a glass of water.”There was no insolence intended in this; it is a peculiarity to be accounted for by their love of title and distinction.It is singular to observe human nature peeping out in the Americans, and how tacitly they acknowledge by their conduct how uncomfortable a feeling there is in perfect equality. The respect they pay to a title is much greater than that which is paid to it in England; and naturally so; we set a higher value upon that which we cannot obtain. I have been often amused at the variance on this point between their words and their feelings, which is shewn in their eagerness for rank of some sort among themselves. Every man who has served in the militia carries his title until the day of his death. There is no end to generals, and colonels, and judges; they keep taverns and grog shops, especially in the Western State; 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 New York, had sent to have the chimney of his house raised. The morning afterwards he saw a labourer mixing mortar before the door. “Well,” said the Englishman, “when is the chimney to be finished?” “I’m sure I don’t know, you had better ask the colonel.” “The colonel? What colonel?” “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 the first democrat in heaven, but as soon as he was dismissed to his abode below, if Milton be correct, he assumed his title.

The character of the Americans is that of a restless, uneasy people—they cannot sit still, they cannot listen attentively, unless the theme be politics or dollars—they must do something, and, like children, if they cannot do anything else, they will do mischief—their curiosity is unbounded, and they are very capricious. Acting upon impulse, they are very 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 their general character, independent of the demoralising effects of their institutions, which renders it so anomalous.

The American author, Mr Sanderson, very truly observes of his countrymen, that, “they have grown vicious without the refinements and distractions of the fine arts and liberal amusements.” The Americans have few amusements; they are too busy. Athletic sports they are indifferent to; they look only to those entertainments which feed their passion for excitement. The theatre is almost their only resort, and even that is not so well attended as it might be, considering their means. 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 Americanstockactors, as they term those who are not considered asstars, are better than our own; but were the theatres to depend upon stock actors they would be deserted—the love of novelty is the chief inducement of the Americans to frequent the theatre, and they look for importations of star actors from this country as regularly as they do for our manufactured goods, or the fashions from Paris. In most of the large cities they have two theatres; one for legitimate drama, and the other for melodrama, as the Bowery Theatre at New York, and the Walnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia; these latter are seldom visited by the aristocratical 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 of support, was a failure. It has since been taken by Mr James Wallack, in opposition to the Park Theatre. The two first seasons its success was indifferent; the Park having the advantage in situation, as well as of a long-standing reputation. But, latterly, from the well-known talent and superior management of Mr Wallack, and from his unwearied exertions in providing novelties for the American public, it has been very successful; so much so, that it is said this last year to have decidedly obtained the superiority over its rival. I have seen some splendid representations in the National Theatre, with a propriety in scenery and costume which is seldom exceeded even in our great theatres.

Indeed, in three seasons, Mr Wallack has done much to improve the national taste; and from his exertions, the theatres in general in America may be said to have been much benefited. But there is one objection to this rivalry between the Park and National; which is, that thestarsgo out too fast, and they will soon be all expended. Formerly things went on very regularly: Mr Price sent out to Mr Simpson, duly invoiced, a certain portion of talent for every season; and Mr Simpson, who is a very clever manager, first worked it up at New York, and then dispatched it to Boston, Philadelphia, and the other theatres in the Union. But, now, if Mr Simpson has two stars sent to him, James Wallack comes home, and takes out three; whereupon, Mr Price sends out a bigger star; and so they go on; working up the stars so fast, that the supply will never equal the demand. There are not more than two or three actors of eminence in England, who have not already made their appearance on the American boards; and next season will probably use them up. It is true, that some actors can return there again and again; as Power, who is most deservedly a favourite with them, and Ellen Tree, who is equally so. Celeste has realised a large fortune. Mrs Wood, and the Keeleys, were also very great favourites; but there are not many actors who can venture there a second time; at least, not until a certain interval has elapsed for the Americans to forget them. When there are no longer any stars, the theatres will not be so well attended; as, indeed, is the case every where. To prove how fond the Americans are of anything that excites them, I will mention a representation which I one day went to see—that of the “Infernal Regions.” There were two or three of these shewn in the different cities in the States. I saw the remnants of another, myself; but, as the museum-keeper very appropriately observed to me, “It was a fine thing 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 of caverns in the interior of the earth, and a molten lake in the distance. In the foreground were the most horrible monsters that could be invented—bears with men’s heads, growling—snakes darting in and out, hissing—here a man lying murdered, with a knife in his heart; there—a suicide, hanging by the neck—skeletons lying about in all directions, and some walking up and down in muslin shrouds. The machinery was very perfect. At one side was the figure of a man sitting down, with a horrible 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 a tongue, I entered into conversation with him. The representation wound up with showers of fire, rattling of bones, thunder, screams, and a regular cascade of the d—d, pouring into the molten lake. When it was first shewn, they had an electric battery communicating with the iron railing; and whoever put his hand on it, or went too near, received a smart electric shock. But the alarm created by this addition was found to be attended with serious consequences, and it had been discontinued.

The love of excitement must of course produce a love of gambling, which may be considered as one of the American amusements: it is, however, carried on very quietly in the cities. In the South, and on the Mississippi, it is as open as the noon day; and the gamblers may be said to have there become a professional people. I have already mentioned them, 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 combine with gambling the professions of forgery, and uttering of base money. If they lose, they only lose forged notes. There is no part of the world where forgery is carried on to such an extent as it is in the United States; chiefly in the Western country. The American banks are particularly careful to guard against this evil, but the ingenuity of these miscreants is surprising, and they will imitate so closely as almost to escape detection at the banks themselves. Bank-note engraving is certainly carried to the highest state of perfection in the United States, but almost in vain. I have myself read a notice, posted up at Boston, which may appear strange to us. “Bank notes made here to any pattern.” But the Eastern banks are seldom forged upon. Counterfeit money is also very plentiful. When I was in the West, I had occasion to pay 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 were counterfeits?” I apologised, and offered to replace them, “Oh! no,” replied he; “it’s of no consequence. I gave them in payment to my people, who told me that theywerecounterfeit; but they said it was of no consequence, as they could easily pass them.” In some of the States lotteries have been abolished, in others they are still permitted. 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 it proceeds simply from their love of change, or from their embracing professions at so early a period, that they have not discovered the line in which from natural talents they are best calculated to succeed. I have heard it said, that it is seldom that an American succeeds in the profession which he had first taken up at the commencement of his career. An American will set up as a lawyer; quit, and go to sea for a year 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 to travel; then apply himself to something else, and begin to amass money. It is of very little consequence what he does, the American is really a jack of all trades, and master of any to which he feels at last inclined to apply himself.

In Mrs Butler’s clever journal there is one remark which really surprised me. She says, “The absolute absence of imagination is of course the absolute absence of humour. An American can no more understand a fanciful jest than a poetical idea; and in society and conversation thestrictest matter of factprevails,” etcetera.

If there was nothing but “matter of fact” in society and conversation in America or elsewhere, I imagine that there would not be many words used: but I refer to the passage, because she says that the Americans are not imaginative; whereas, I think that there is not a more imaginative people existing. It is true that they prefer broad humour, and delight in the hyperbole, but this is to be expected in a young nation; especially as their education is, generally speaking, not of a kind to make them sensible to very refined wit, which, I acknowledge, is thrown away upon the majority. What is termed the under current of humour, as delicate raillery, for instance, is certainly not understood. When they read Sam Slick, they did not perceive that the author was laughing at them; and the letters of Major Jack Downing are much more appreciated in this country than they are in America. But as for saying that they are not imaginative, is a great error, and I have no doubt that Mrs B has discovered it by this time.

Miss Martineau says, and very truly, “The Americans appear to me an eminently imaginative people.” Indeed, it is only necessary to read the newspapers to be convinced it is the case. The hyperbole is their principal forte, but what is lying but imagination? and why do you find that a child of promising talent is so prone to lying? because it is the first effort of a strong imagination. Wit requires refinement, which the Americans have not; but they have excessive humour, although it is generally speaking coarse.

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

If there required any proof of the dishonest feeling so prevalent in the United 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 an instance of great ingenuity, and very little principle. So many have been told already, that I hesitate to illustrate my observation, from fear of being accused of uttering stale jokes. Nevertheless I will venture upon one or two.

“An American (Down East, of course), when his father died, found his patrimony to consist of several hundred dozen of boxes of ointment for the cure of a certain complaint, said (by us) to be more common in the North than in England. He made up his pack, and took a round of nearly a hundred miles, going from town to town and from village to village, offering his remedy for sale. But unfortunately for him no one was afflicted with the complaint, and they would not purchase on the chance of any future occasion for it. He returned back to his inn, and having reflected a little, he went out, inquired where he could find the disease, and having succeeded, inoculated himself with it. When he was convinced that he had it with sufficient virulence, he again set forth making the same round; and taking advantage of the American custom which is so prevalent, he shook hands with everybody whom he had spoken to on his former visit, declaring he was ‘’tarnal glad to see them again.’ Thus he went on till his circuit was completed, when he repaired to the first town again, and found that his ointment, as he expected, was now in great request; and he continued his route as before, selling every box that he possessed.”

There is a story of a Yankee clock-maker’s ingenuity, that I have not seen in print. He also “made a circuit, having a hundred clocks when he started; they were all very bad, which he well knew; but by ‘soft sawder and human natur,’ as Sam Slick says, he contrived to sell ninety-nine of them, and reserve the last for his intended ‘ruse.’ He went to the house where he had sold the first clock, and said, ‘Well, now, how does your 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. You see, 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 I found 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 I have asked here and there, everywhere almost, how my clocks went, and they all said that “they actually regulated the sun.” But I was determined to find out who had the bad clock, and I am most particular glad that I have done it at last. Now, you see I have but one clock left, a very superior article, worth a matter of ten dollars more than the others, and I must give it you in change, and I’ll only charge you five dollars difference, as you have been annoyed with the bad article.’ The man who had the bad clock thought it better to pay five dollars more 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, how does your clock go? very well, I guess.’ The same answer—the same story repeated—and another five dollars received in exchange. And thus did he go round, exchanging clock for clock, until he had received an extra five dollars for every one which he had sold.”

Logic.—“A Yankee went into the bar of an inn in a country town: ‘Pray what’s the price of a pint of shrub?’ ‘Half a dollar,’ was the reply of the man at the bar. ‘Well, then, give it me.’ The shrub was poured out, when the bell rang for dinner. ‘Is that your dinner-bell?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘What may you charge for dinner?’ ‘Half a dollar.’ ‘Well, then, I think 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, and when 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; I took the dinner instead of the shrub.’ ‘But, massa, you not pay for the shrub.’ ‘Well, I did not have the shrub, did I, you nigger?’ said the Yankee, walking away. The negro scratched his head; he knew that something was wrong, as he had got no money; but he could not make it out till the Yankee was out of sight.”

I do not think thatdemocracyis marked upon the features of the lower classes in the United States; there is no arrogant bearing in them, as might be supposed from the despotism of the majority; on the contrary, I should say that their lower classes are much more civil than our own. I had aslapof equality on my first landing at New York. I had hired a truck-man to take up my luggage from the wharf; I went a-head, and missed him when I came to the corner of the street where I had engaged apartments, and was looking round for him in one direction, when I was saluted with a slap on the shoulder, which was certainly given with good-will. I turned, and beheld my carman, who had taken the liberty to draw 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 went on.

This civil bearing is peculiar, as when they are excited by politics, or other causes, they are most insolent and overbearing. In his usual demeanour, the citizen born is quiet and obliging. The insolence you meet with is chiefly from the emigrant classes. I have before observed, that the Americans are a good-tempered people; and to this good temper I ascribe their civil bearing. But why are they good-tempered? It appears to me to be one of the few virtues springing from democracy. When the grades of society are distinct, as they are in the older institutions, when difference of rank is acknowledged and submitted to without murmur, it is evident that if people are obliged to control their tempers in presence of their superiors or equals, they can also yield to them with their inferiors; and it is this yielding to our tempers which enables them to master us. But under institutions where all are equal, where no one admits the superiority of another, even if he really be so, where the man with the spade in his hand will beard the millionaire, and where you are compelled to submit to the caprice and insolence of a domestic, or lose his services, it is evident that every man must from boyhood have learnt to control his temper, as no ebullition will be submitted to, or unfollowed by its consequences. I consider that it is this habitual control, forced upon the Americans by the nature of their institutions, which occasions them to be so good-tempered, when not in a state of excitement. The Americans are in one point, as a mob, very much like the English; make them laugh, and they 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 refuse their titles to their superiors. Miss Martineau mentions one circumstance, of which I very often met with similar instances. “I once was with a gentleman who was building a large house; he went to see how the men were getting on; but they had all disappeared but one. ‘Where are the people?’ inquired he. ‘Thegentlemenbe all gone toliquor,’ was the reply.”

I bought one of the small newspapers just as I was setting off in a steam-boat from New York to Albany. The boy had no change, and went to fetch it. He did not come back himself, but another party made his appearance. “Are you themanwho bought the newspaper?” “Yes,” replied I. “Theyoung gentlemanwho sold it to you has sent me to pay you 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 find him, and when he had succeeded he addressed him, “I say, Mister, yourwomanwants you; but I telled theyoung lady of the houseto fetch her a glass of water.”

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

It is singular to observe human nature peeping out in the Americans, and how tacitly they acknowledge by their conduct how uncomfortable a feeling there is in perfect equality. The respect they pay to a title is much greater than that which is paid to it in England; and naturally so; we set a higher value upon that which we cannot obtain. I have been often amused at the variance on this point between their words and their feelings, which is shewn in their eagerness for rank of some sort among themselves. Every man who has served in the militia carries his title until the day of his death. There is no end to generals, and colonels, and judges; they keep taverns and grog shops, especially in the Western State; 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 New York, had sent to have the chimney of his house raised. The morning afterwards he saw a labourer mixing mortar before the door. “Well,” said the Englishman, “when is the chimney to be finished?” “I’m sure I don’t know, you had better ask the colonel.” “The colonel? What colonel?” “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 the first democrat in heaven, but as soon as he was dismissed to his abode below, 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 the contents of this chapter they will be mistaken; I have considered well the duty of and pondered over it. I would not libel an individual, much less a whole nation; but I must speak the truth, and upon due examination, and calling to my mind all that I have collected from observation and otherwise, I consider that at this present time the standard of morality is lower in America than in any other portion of the civilised globe. I say at this present time, for it was not so even twenty years ago, and possibly may not be so twenty years hence. There is a change constantly going on in every thing below, and I believe, for many reasons, that a change for the better will soon take place in America. There are even now many thousands of virtuous, honourable, and enlightened people in the United States, but at present virtue is passive, while vice is active.The Americans possess courage, presence of mind, perseverance, and energy, but these may be considered rather as endowments than as virtues. They are propelling powers which will advance them as a people, and, were they regulated and tempered by religious and moral feeling, would make them great and good, but without these adjuncts they can only become great and vicious.I have observed in my preface that the virtues and vices of a nation are to 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 of the 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 most injurious: as I shall hereafter prove, it is insatiable in its ambition, regardless of its faith, and corrupt to the highest degree. This example I consider as the first cause of the demoralisation of the Americans. The errors incident to the voluntary system of religion are the second: the power of the clergy is destroyed, and the tyranny of the laity has produced the effect of the outward form having been substituted for the real feeling, and hypocrisy has been but too often substituted for religion.To the evil of bad example from the government is superadded the natural tendency of a democratic form of government, to excite ambition without having the power to gratify it morally or virtuously; and the debasing influence of the pursuit of gain is everywhere apparent. It shews itself in the fact that money is in America everything, and everything else nothing; it is the only sure possession, for character can at any time be taken from you, and therefore becomes less valuable than in other countries, except so far as mercantile transactions are concerned. Mr Cooper says—not once, but many times—that in America all the local affections, indeed everything, is sacrificed to the spirit of gain. Dr Charming constantly laments it, and he very truly asserts, “A people that deems the possession of riches its highest source of distinction, admits one of the most degrading of all influences to preside over its opinions. At no time should money be ever ranked as more than a means, and he who lives as if the acquisition of property were the sole end of his existence, betrays the dominion of the most sordid, base, and grovelling motive that life offers;” and ascribing it to the institutions, he says, “In one respect our institutions havedisappointed us all: they have not wrought out for us that elevation of character which is the most precious, and, in truth, the only substantial blessing of liberty.”I have before observed, that whatever society permits, men will do and not consider to be wrong, and if the government considers a breach of trust towards it as not of any importance, and defaulters are permitted to escape, it will of course become no crime in the eyes of the majority. Mr Cooper observes, “An evidentdishonestyof sentiment pervades thepublicitself, which is beginning to regard acts of private delinquency with a dangerous indifference; acts too that are inseparably connected with the character, security, and right administration of the state.”Such is unfortunately the case at present; it may be said to have commenced with the Jackson dynasty, and it is but a few years since this dreadful demoralisation has become so apparent and so shamelessly avowed. In another work the American author above quoted observes,—“We see the effects of this baneful influence in the openness and audacity with which men avow improper motives and improper acts, trusting to find support in a popular feeling, for while vicious influences are perhaps more admitted in other countries than in America, in none are they so openly avowed.” Surely there is sufficient of American authority to satisfy 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 most evident and palpable. Captain Hamilton says, “I have heard conduct praised in conversation at a public table, which, in England, would be attended, if not with a voyage to Botany Bay, at least with total loss of character. It is impossible to pass an hour in the bar of the hotel, without struck with the tone of callous selfishness which pervades the conversation, and the absence of all pretension to pure and lofty principle.”It may indeed be fairly said, that nothing is disgraceful with the majority 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 lost for ever, but keep out and you are as good as your neighbour. Now one thing is certain, that where honesty is absolutely necessary, honesty is to be found, as for example among the New York merchants, who are, as a body, highly honourable men. When, therefore, the Americans will have moral courage sufficient to drive away vice, and not allow virtue to be in bondage, as she at present is, the morals of society will be instantly restored—and how and when will this be effected? I have said that the people of time United States, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, were perhaps the most moral people existing, and I now assert that they are the least so; to what cause can this change be ascribed? Certainly not wholly to the spirit of gain, for it exists every where, although perhaps nowhere so strongly developed as it is under a form of government which admits of no other claim to superiority. I consider that it arises from the total extinction, or if not extinction absolute bondage, of the aristocracy of the country, both politically as well as socially. There was an aristocracy at the time of the Independence—not an aristocracy of title, but a much superior one; an aristocracy of great, powerful, and leading men, who were looked up to and imitated; there was, politically speaking, an aristocracy in the senate which was elected by those who were then independent of the popular will; but although a portion of it remains, it may be said to have been almost altogether smothered, and in society it no longer exists. It is the want of this aristocracy that has so lowered the standard of morals in America, and it is the revival of it that must restore to the people of the United States the morality they have lost. The loss of the aristocracy has sunk the Republic into a democracy—the renewal of it will again restore them to their former condition. Let not the Americans start at this idea. An aristocracy is not only not incompatible, but absolutely necessary for the duration of a democratic form of government. It is the third estate, so necessary to preserve the balance of power between the executive and the people, and which has unfortunately disappeared. An aristocracy is as necessary for the morals as for the government of a nation. Society must have a head to lead it, and without that head there will be no fixed standard of morality, and things must remain in the chaotic state in which they are at present.Some author has described the English nation as resembling their own beer-froth at the top, dregs at the bottom, and in the middle excellent. There is point in this observation, and it has been received without criticism, and quoted without contradiction: but it is in itself false; it may be said that the facts are directly the reverse, there being more morality among the lower class than in the middling, and still more in the higher than in the lower. We have been designated as a nation of shopkeepers, a term certainly more applicable to the Americans, where all are engaged in commerce and the pursuit of gain, and who have no distinctions or hereditary titles. Trade demoralises; there are so many petty arts and frauds necessary to be resorted to by every class in trade, to enable them to compete with each other; so many lies told, as a matter of business, to tempt a purchaser, that almost insensibly and by degrees the shopkeeper becomes dishonest. These demoralising practices must be resorted to, even by those who would fain avoid them, or they have no chance of competing with their rivals in business. It is not the honest tradesman who makes a rapid fortune; indeed, it is doubtful whether he could carry on his business; and yet, from assuetude and not being taxed with dishonesty, the shopkeeper scarcely ever feels that he is dishonest. Now, this is the worst state of demoralisation, where you are blind to your errors and conscience is never awakened, and in this state may be considered, with few exceptions, every class of traders, whether in England, America, or elsewhere.Among the lower classes, the morals of the manufacturing districts, and of the frequenters of cities, will naturally be at a low ebb, for men when closely packed demoralise each other; but if we examine the agricultural classes, which are by far the most numerous, we shall find that there is much virtue and goodness in the humble cottage; we shall there find piety and resignation, honesty, industry, and content, more universal than would be imagined, and the Bible pored over, instead of the day-book or ledger.But it is by the higher classes of the English nation, by the nobility and gentry of England, that the high tone of virtue and morality is upheld. Foreigners, especially Americans, are too continually pointing out, and with evident satisfaction, the scandal arising from the conduct of some few individuals in these classes as a proof of the conduct of the whole; but they mistake the exceptions for the rule. If they were to pay attention, they would perceive that these accusations are only confined to some few out of a class comprehending many many thousands in our wealthy isle, and that the very circumstance of their rank being no shield against the attacks made upon them, is a proof that they are exceptions, whose conduct is universally held up to public ridicule or indignation. Acrim. con. in English high life is exulted over by the Americans; they point to it, and exclaim, “See what your aristocracy are!” forgetting that the crime is committed by one out of thousands, and that it meets with the disgrace which it deserves, and that this crime is, to a certain degree, encouraged by our laws relative to divorce. Do the Americans imagine that there is nocrim. con. perpetrated in the United States? many instances of suspicion, and some of actual discovery, came to my knowledge even during my short residence there, but they were invariably, and perhaps judiciously, hushed up, for the sake of the families and the national credit. I do not wish, nor would it be possible, to draw any parallel between the two nations on this point; I shall only observe that in England we have not considered the vice to have become so prevalent as to think it necessary to form societies for the prevention of it, as they have done in the United States.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, most religious, and most honourable classes that can be found not only in our country, but in any other country in the world, and such they certainly ought fromcircumstancesto be.Possessed of competence, they have no incentives to behave dishonestly. They are well-educated, the finest race of men and women that can be produced, and the men are brought up to athletic and healthy amusements. They have to support the honour of an ancient family, and to hand down the name untarnished to their posterity. They have every inducement to noble deeds, and are, generally speaking, above the necessities which induce men to go wrong. If the Americans would assert that luxury produces vice, I can only say that luxury infers idleness and inactivity, and on this point the women of the aristocracy in this country have the advantage over the American women, who cannot, from the peculiarity of the climate, take time exercise so universally resorted to by our higher classes. I admit that some go wrong, but is error confined to the nobility alone; are there no spendthrifts, no dissolute young men, or ill brought up young women, among other classes? Are there none in America? Moreover, there are some descriptions of vice which are meaner than others and more debasing to the mind, and it is among the middling and lower classes that these vices are principally to be found.The higher classes invariably take the lead, and give the tone to society. If the court be moral, so are the morals of the nation improved by example, as in the time of George the Third. If the court be dissolute, as in the time of Charles the Second, the nation will plunge into vice. Now, in America there is no one to take the lead; morals, like religion, are the concern of nobody, and therefore it is that the standard of morality is so low. I have heard it argued that allowing one party to have a very low standard of morality and to act up to that standard, and another to have a high standard of morality and not to act up to it, that the former is the really moral man, as he does act up to his principles such as they are. This may hold good when we examine into the virtues and vices of nations: that the American Indian who 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 enlightened nations, both Christian and having the Bible as their guide—between those who have neither of them any pretence to lower the standard of morality, as they both know better. M. Tocqueville observes, speaking of the difference between aristocratical and democratical governments—“In aristocratic governments the individuals who are placed at 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 rarely accessible to corruption, and have very little craving for money; whilst the reverse is the case in democratic nations.”This is true, and may be fairly applied to the American democracy: as long as you will not allow the good and enlightened to rule, you will be governed by those who will flatter and cheat you, and demoralise society. When you allowyouraristocracy to take the reins, you will be better governed, and your morals will improve by example. What is the situation of America at present? the aristocracy of the country are either in retirement or have migrated, and if the power of the majority should continue as it now does its despotic rule, you will have still farther emigration. At present there are many hundreds of Americans who have retired to the Old Continent, that they may receive that return for their wealth which they cannot in their own country; and if not flattered, they are at least not insulted and degraded.Mr Sanderson, in his “Sketches from Paris,” says—“The American society at Paris, taken altogether, is of a good composition. It consists of several hundred persons, of families of fortune, and young men of liberal instruction. Here are lords of cotton from Carolina, and of sugar-cane from the Mississippi,millionairesfrom all the Canadas, and pursers from all the navies; and their social qualities, from a sense of mutual dependence or partnership in absence, or some such causes, are more active abroad than at home.“They form a little republic apart, and when a stranger arrives he finds himself at home; he finds himself also under the censorial inspection of a public opinion, a salutary restraint not always the luck of those who travel into foreign countries. One thing only is to be blamed: it becomes every day more the fashion for theéliteof our cities to settle themselves herepermanently. We cannot but deplore this exportation of the precious metals, since our country is drained of what the supply is not too abundant. They who have resided here a few years, having fortune and leisure, do not choose, as I perceive, to reside anywhere else.”This is the fact; and as the wealth of America increases every day, so will those who possess it swarm off as fast as they can to other countries, if there is not a change in the present society, and a return to something like order and rank. Who would remain in a country where there is no freedom of thought or action, and where you cannot even spend your money as you please? Mr Butler the other day built a house at Philadelphia with aporte-cochere, and the consequence was that they called him an aristocrat, and would not vote for him. In short, will enlightened and refined people live to be dictated to by a savage and ignorant majority, who will neither allow your character nor your domestic privacy to be safe!The Americans, in their fear of their institutions giving way, and their careful guard against any encroachments upon the liberty of the people, have fallen into the error of sacrificing the most virtuous portion of the community, and driving a large portion of them out of the country. This will eventually be found to be a serious evil; absenteeism will daily increase, and will be as sorely felt as it is in Ireland at the present hour. The Americans used to tell me with exultation, that they never could have an Aristocracy in their country, from the law of entail having been abolished. They often asserted, and with some truth, that in that country property never accumulated beyond two generations, and that the grandson of amillionairewasinvariablya pauper. This they ascribe to the working of their institutions, and argue that it will always be impossible for any family to be raised above the mass by a descent of property. Now the very circumstance of this having been invariably the case, induces me to look for the real cause of it, as there is none to be found in their institutions why all the grandsons ofmillionairesshould be paupers. It is not owing to their institutions, but to moral causes, which, although they have existed until now, will not exist for ever. In the principal and wealthiest cities in the Union, it is difficult to spend more than twelve or fifteen thousand dollars per annum, as with such an expenditure you are on a par with the highest, and you can be no more. What is the consequence? a young American succeeds to fifty or sixty thousand dollars a year, the surplus is useless to him; there is no one to vie with—no one who can reciprocate—he must stand alone. He naturally feels careless about what he finds to be of no use to him. Again, all his friends and acquaintances are actively employed during the whole of the day in their several occupations; he is a man of leisure, and must either remain alone or associate with other men of leisure; and who are the majority of men of leisure in the towns of the United States? Blacklegs of genteel exterior and fashionable appearance, with whom he associates, into whose snares he falls, and to whom he eventually loses property about which he is indifferent. To be an idle man when every body else is busy, is not only a great unhappiness, but a situation of great peril. Had the sons ofmillionaires, who remained in the States and left their children paupers, come over to the old Continent, as many have done, they would have stood a better chance of retaining their property.All I can say is, that if they cannot have an aristocracy, the worse for them; I am not of the opinion, that they will not have one, although they are supported by the strong authority of M. Tocqueville, who says—“I do not think a single people can be quoted, since human society began to exist, which has, by its own free-will and by its own exertions, created an aristocracy within its own bosom. All the aristocracies of the Middle Ages were founded by military conquest: the conqueror was the noble, the vanquished became the serf. Inequality was then imposed by force; and after it had been introduced into the manners of the country, it maintained its own authority, and was sanctioned by the legislation. Communities have existed which were aristocratic from their earliest origin, owing to circumstances anterior to that event, and which became more democratic in each succeeding age. Such was the destiny of the Romans, and of the barbarians after them. But a people, having taken its rise in civilisation and democracy, which should gradually establish an inequality of conditions, until it arrived at inviolable privileges and exclusive castes, would be a novelty in the world and nothing intimates that America is likely to furnish so singular an example.”I grant that no single people has by its own free-will created an aristocracy, but circumstances will make one in spite of the people; and if there is no aristocracy who have power to check, a despotism may be the evil arising from the want of it. At present America is thinly peopled, but let them look forward to the time when the population shall become denser; what will then be the effect? why a division between the rich and the poor will naturally take place; and what is that but the foundation if not the formation of an aristocracy. An American cannot entail his estate, but he can leave the whole of it to his eldest son if he pleases; and in a few years, the lands which have been purchased for a trifle, will become the foundation of noble fortunes (see Note 2) but even now their law of non-entail does not work as they would wish.M. Tocqueville says—“The laws of the United States are extremely favourable to the division of property; but a cause which is more powerful than the laws prevents property from being divided to excess. (See Note 3.) This is very perceptible in the States which are beginning to be thickly peopled; Massachusetts is the most populous part of the Union, but it contains only eighty inhabitants to the square mile, which is much less than in France, where a hundred and sixty-two are reckoned to the same extent of country. But in Massachusetts estates are very rarely divided; the eldest son takes the land, and the others go to seek their fortune in the desert. The law has abolished the rights of primogeniture, but circumstances have concurred to re-establish it under a form of which none can complain, and by which no just rights are impaired.”And Chancellor Kent, in his “Treatise upon American Law,” observes—“It cannot be doubted that the division of landed estates must produce great evils when it is carried to such excess as that each parcel of land is insufficient to support a family but these disadvantages have never been felt in the United States, andmany generations must elapsebefore they can be felt. The extent of our inhabited territory, the abundance of adjacent land, and the continual stream of emigration flowing from the shores of the Atlantic towards the interior of the country, suffice as yet, and will long suffice, topreventthe parcelling out of estates.”There is, therefore, no want of preparation for an aristocracy in America, and, although at present the rich are so much in the minority that they cannot coalesce, such will not be the case, perhaps, in twenty or thirty years; they have but to rally and make a stand when they become more numerous and powerful, and they have every chance of success. The fact is that an aristocracy is absolutely necessary for America, both politically and morally, if the Americans wish their institutions to hold together, for if some stop is not put to the rapidly advancing power of the people, anarchy must be the result. I do not mean an aristocracy of title; I mean such an aristocracy of talent and power which wealth will give—an aristocracy which shall lead society and purify it. How is this to be obtained in a democracy?—simply by purchase. In a country where the suffrage is confined to certain classes, as in England, such purchase is not to be obtained, as the people who have the right of suffrage are not poor enough to be bought; but in a country like America, where the suffrage is universal, the people will eventually sell their birth-right; and if by such means an aristocratical government is elected, it will be able to amend the constitution, 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 be done now, how much more easily will it be accomplished when the population has quadrupled, and the division commences between the rich and the poor. I say it has been done already, for it was done at the last New York election. The democratic party made sure of success: but a large sum of money was brought into play, and the whole of thecommitteesof the democratic party were bought over, and the Whigs carried the day.The greatest security for the duration of the present institutions of the United States is the establishment of an aristocracy. It is the third power which was intended to act, but which has been destroyed and is now wanting. Let the senate be aristocratical—let the congress be partially so, and then what would be the American government of president, senate, and congress, butmutato nomine, king, lords, and commons?I cannot perhaps find a better opportunity than here of pointing out what ought to be made known to the English, as it has done more harm to the American aristocracy than may be imagined. I refer to the carelessness and facility with which letters of introduction to this country are given, and particularly by the American authorities. I have drawn the character of Bennett, the editor of the Morning Herald of New York, and there is not a respectable American but will acknowledge that my sketch of him is correct; will it not surprise the English readers when I inform them that this man obtained admittance to Westminster Hall at the Coronation, and was seated among the proudest and purest of our nobility!! Such was the fact. But it will be as well to revert back a little 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 as carriers of merchandise under the neutral flag; but they were rapidly advancing in importance and wealth. At the conclusion of the last American war, during which, by their resolute and occasionally successful struggles, they had drawn the eyes of Europe towards them, and had advanced many degrees in the general estimation of their importance as a nation, the Americans occasionally made their appearance as travellers, both on the Continent and in England; but they found that they were not so well received as their own ideas of their importance induced them to imagine they were entitled to be; especially on the Continent.The first great personage who shewed liberality in this respect, was George the Fourth. Hearing that some American ladies of good family had complained that, having no titles, no standing in society, they did not meet with that civility to which, from descent and education, they were entitled, he received them at Court most graciously, and those very ladies are now classed among the peeresses of Great Britain. Still the difficulty remained, as it was almost impossible for the aristocracy, abroad or at home, to ascertain the justness of the claims which were made by those of a nation who professed the equality of all classes, and of whom many of the pretenders to be well received did not by their appearance warrant the supposition that their claims were valid. It being impossible to give any other rank but that of office, the American Government hit upon a plan which was attended with very evil consequences. They granted supernumerary attaché-ships to those Americans who wished to travel; and as, on the Old Continent, the very circumstance of being anattachéto a foreign minister warranted the respectability of the party, those who obtained this distinction were well received, and, unfortunately, sometimes did no credit to their appointments. The fact was that these favours were granted without discrimination, and all who received them being put down as specimens of American gentlemen, the character of the Americans lost ground by the very efforts made to establish it. The true American gentlemen who travelled (and there is no lack of them) were supposed to be English, while the spurious were put down as samples of the gentility of the United States.That the principles of equality were one great cause of the indiscriminate distribution of those marks of distinction by the highest quarters in the Union, and of the facility of obtaining letters of recommendation from them there is no doubt; but the principal and still existing causes, are the extended and domineering power of the press, and the high state of excitement of the political parties. Those in power are positively afraid to refuse literary men, or those who have assisted them in their political career; they have not the moral courage to do so, however undeserving the parties may really be. But, as is generally the case, they really do not know the parties; it is sufficient that the favour, considered trifling, is demanded, and it is instantly granted. Now, as at the accession of General Jackson, and the subsequent raising of Mr Van Buren to the presidency, the democratical, or Loco Foco party came into power, it is to their friends and supporters, the least respectable portion of the American community, to whom these favours have been granted; which of course has not assisted the claims of the Americans to respectability. An instance of this sort occurred to me after I had been a few months in America. One of the most gentleman-like and well-informed men in New York, requested that I would give a letter of introduction to a friend of his who was going to England. Taking it for granted that such a request would not be made without the party deserving the recommendation, I immediately assented. The party who obtained my letters (an editor of a paper, as I afterwards discovered), on his arrival in England, considering that he was not treated with that attention to which, in his own vain-gloriousness, he thought himself entitled, actually sent a hostile letter to one of the gentlemen to whom he had been introduced, and otherwise proved himself by his conduct to be a most improper person. I was informed of this by letters from England; and immediately went to the gentleman who had requested the introduction from me, and stated the conduct of the party. “I really am very sorry,” said he, “butIknew nothing of him.” “Knew nothing of him?” replied I. “No, indeed; but my friend Mr C, of Philadelphia, introduced him by letter, and requested me to ask for introductions for him.” “Then you will oblige me by writing to your friend Mr C, and ask him why he did so, as I find myself very much compromised by this affair.” He wrote to Mr C, of Philadelphia, who replied that he was very sorry, but that reallyheknew nothing of him. He had been introduced to him by letter, by Mr O, and that he was astaunch supporterof their party. Now, how many grades this person had climbed up by letters of introduction it is impossible to say, but this is sufficient to prove that letters of introduction which are, you may say,demanded, and not refused from the fear of offending a political agent or penny-a-liner, must ever be received with due caution; and it is equally certain, that those from the President himself are the most easy to be obtained.I have entered freely into this question, as it is important that it should be known, not only to the English, but to the Americans themselves. A letter of introduction from a gentleman of Carolina, Virginia, or Boston, I should be infinitely more induced to take notice of than from the President of the United States, unless the President stated that he was personally acquainted with the party who delivered it; and I make this statement injusticeto the American gentlemen, and not with the slightest wish to check that intercourse which will every day increase, and, I trust, to the advantage of both nations. See note 4.Indeed, now that such rapid communication has taken place between the two countries, since the Atlantic has been traversed by steam, it becomes more imperative that these facts should be known. Every fortnight a hundred and sixty passengers will arrive by the Great Western, or some other steamer. Most of them are American citizens, armed with their letters of recommendation, and the situation of the American 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 which I have described; and there is not one of these parties who does not expect as much attention as if the American minister had nothing else to do but to be at his command. They leave their cards with him; if the cards are not returned in two or three days, they send a letter to know why he has not called upon them? and if the visit is returned, send a letter to know whether the minister calledin person, ornot? With a stipend from his own government, quite inadequate to the purpose, he is expected, to the great detriment of his private fortune, to receive and entertain all these people. I have it from the best authority, that some of these parties have called and inquired whether the minister was at home; being answered in the negative, they have gone into a room, taken a chair, and declared their determination not to leave the house until they had seen him. Most of them expect him to obtain admittance for them into the Houses of Lords and Commons, and to present them at Court. In some instances, when the minister has stated the necessity of aCourt dress, they have remonstrated, thinking it an expense wholly unnecessary. “They were Americancitizens, and would be introduced as such; they had nothing to do with Court dresses, and all that nonsense.” And thus, since the steam-vessels have increased the communication between the two countries, has the American minister been in a state of annoyance, to which it is impossible that he, or any other who may be appointed in his place, can possibly submit.Let the Americans understand, that those only go to Court in this country who have claims, as the nobility, the oldest commoners, people in office, the army and navy, and other liberal professions. There are thousands 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 who comes over here with four or five introductions in his pocket must, forsooth, be presented. If the minister refuses, why then there is an attack upon him in the American prints, and his name and his supposed misdemeanors 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 the American representative. One man says, “I understand I can have a Court dress at a Jew’s.” “Yes, you can, I believe.” “Well, now, suppose we step down together; you maycheapenit a bit for me, may be.” These facts are known to the respectable and gentleman-like Americans, who, after the samples which have come over, and have obtained admission into society and gone to Court, will not shew themselves, but prefer to stay at home.All this is wrong, and a remedy must soon be found, as the evil increases every day. The Americans cannot take the English Court by storm, or force us to acknowledge their equality in this country. There are but certain classes in this country who have any pretension to be received at Court; and unless the Americans can prove that they are by their situation, or descent, of a sufficient rank to qualify them to be admitted, they must be content to be excluded, as the major portion of our countrymen are. Even an American being a member of Congress does not qualify him, although being a member of the Senate certainlyshould. The members of the American Congress are not in the mass equal by any means in respectability to the members of the English House of Commons; and there have been many members of the English House of Commons, since the passing of the Reform Bill, who could not, and cannot, gain admittance into society.If the harmony and good feeling between the two countries is to continue uninterrupted, and our intercourse to be extended, as there is every probability that it will be, it appears to me that there is more importance to be attached to this question than at the first view of it might be supposed. The Americans are more ambitious of birth and aristocracy than any other nation, which is very natural, if it were only from the simple fact that we always most desire what is out of our reach. Since the Americans have come over in such numbers to this country, our Herald’s Office has actually beenbesiegedby them, in their anxiety to take out the arms and achievements of their presumed forefathers; this is also very natural and very proper, although it may be at variance with their institutions. The determination to have an aristocracy in America gains head every day: a conflict must ensue, when the increase of wealth in the country adds sufficiently to the strength of the party. But some line must be drawn in this country, as to the admission of Americans to the English Court, or, if not drawn, it will end in a total, and therefore unjust exclusion. As but few of the Americans can claim any right to aristocracy in their own country from acknowledged descent, I should not be surprised if in a few years, now that the two countries are becoming so intimately connected, a reception at the English Court of this country be considered as an establishment of their claim. If so, it will be a curious anomaly in the history of a republic, that, fifty years after it was established, the republicans should apply to the mother country whose institutions they had abjured, to obtain from her a patent of superiority, so as to raise themselves above that hated equality which, by their own institutions, they profess.Note 1. English Capital Invested.—It is butfairto give the English who have invested their money in American securities, some idea of what their chance of receiving their principal or receiving their interest may be. Aslongas it depends upon the faith of those who have contracted the debt, their money is safe, but as soon as the power is taken out of their hands, and vested in the majority, they may consider their money as gone. I will explain this—at present the English have vested their capital in canals, railroads, and other public improvements. The returns of these undertakings are at present honourably employed in paying interest to the lenders of the capital, and if the returns are not sufficient, more money is borrowed to meet the demands of the creditor; but there is a certain point at which credit fails, and at which no more money can be borrowed; if then no more 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 the population to meet the deficiency, and support the credit of the nation. Here is the question:— will the majority in America consent to be taxed? I say, No—if they do, I shall be surprised, and be most happy to recant, but it is my opinion that they will not, and if so the English capital will be lost; and if the reader will call to mind what I have pointed out as to the probable effect of the power of America working to the westward, and the direct importation which in a few years must take place, he will see that there is every prospect of a rapid decrease in the value of all their securities, and that the only ultimate chance of their recovering the money is by this country compelling payment of it by the Federal Government.Note 2. “At the time of the first settlement of the English in Virginia, when land was to be had for little or nothing, some provident persons having obtained large grants of it, and being desirous of maintaining the splendour of their families, entailed their property upon their descendants. The transmission of these estates from generation to generation, to men who bore the same name, had the effect of raising up a distinct class of families, who, possessing by law the privilege of perpetuating their wealth, formed by these means a sort of patrician order, distinguished by the grandeur and luxury of their establishments. From this order it was that the king usually chose his councillors of state.“In the United States, the principal clauses of the English law respecting descent have been universally rejected. The first rule that we follow, says Mr Kent, touching inheritance, is the following:— If a man dies intestate, his property goes to his heirs in a direct line. If he has but one heir or heiress, he or she succeeds to the whole. If there are several heirs of the same degree, they divide the inheritance equally amongst them, without distinction of sex.“This rule was prescribed for the first time in the State of New York by a statute of the 23rd of February, 1786. (See Revised Statutes, volume III,Appendix, page 48.) It has since then been adopted in the revised statutes of the same State. At the present day this law holds good throughout the whole of the United States, with the exception of the 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 American legislation on the subject of entail; by this we learn that previous to the revolution the colonies followed the English law of entail. Estates tail were abolished in Virginia in 1776, on a motion of Mr Jefferson. They were suppressed in New York in 1786; and have since been abolished in North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and Missouri. In Vermont, Indiana, Illinois, South Carolina, and Louisiana, entail was never introduced. Those States which thought proper to preserve the English law of entail, modified it in such a way as to deprive it of its most aristocratic tendencies. ‘Our general principles on the subject of government,’ says Mr Kent, ‘tend to favour the free circulation of property.’“It cannot fail to strike the French reader who studies the law of inheritance, that on these questions the French legislation is infinitely more democratic even than the American.“The American law makes an equal division of the father’s property, but only in the case of his will not being known; ‘for every man,’ says the law, ‘in the State of New York, (Revised Statutes, volume III,Appendix, page 51), has entire liberty, power, and authority, to dispose of his property by will, to leave it entire, or divided in favour of any persons he choses as his heirs, provided he do not leave it to a political body or any corporation.’ The French law obliges the testator to divide his property equally, or nearly so, among his heirs.“Most of the American republics still admit of entails, under certain restrictions; but the French law prohibits entail in all cases.“If the social condition of the Americans is more democratic than that of the French, the laws of the latter are the most democratic of the two. This may be explained more easily than at first appears to be the case. In France, democracy is still occupied in the work of destruction; in America, it reigns quietly over the ruins it has made.”—Democracy in America, by A De Tocqueville.Note 3. In New England the estates are exceedingly small, but they are rarely subjected to further division.Note 4. It may also be here observed, that the Americans have little opportunity of judging favourably of the English by the usualimportationsto their country. They all call themselves EnglishGentlemen, 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 or an English merchant, and the parties mostly proved to be nothing but travellers, bagsmen, or even worse. If the sterling Americans stay at home, and send the bad ones to us, and we do the same, neither party will be likely to form a very favourable opinion of the other for some time to come.

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

The Americans possess courage, presence of mind, perseverance, and energy, but these may be considered rather as endowments than as virtues. They are propelling powers which will advance them as a people, and, were they regulated and tempered by religious and moral feeling, would make them great and good, but without these adjuncts they can only become great and vicious.

I have observed in my preface that the virtues and vices of a nation are to 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 of the 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 most injurious: as I shall hereafter prove, it is insatiable in its ambition, regardless of its faith, and corrupt to the highest degree. This example I consider as the first cause of the demoralisation of the Americans. The errors incident to the voluntary system of religion are the second: the power of the clergy is destroyed, and the tyranny of the laity has produced the effect of the outward form having been substituted for the real feeling, and hypocrisy has been but too often substituted for religion.

To the evil of bad example from the government is superadded the natural tendency of a democratic form of government, to excite ambition without having the power to gratify it morally or virtuously; and the debasing influence of the pursuit of gain is everywhere apparent. It shews itself in the fact that money is in America everything, and everything else nothing; it is the only sure possession, for character can at any time be taken from you, and therefore becomes less valuable than in other countries, except so far as mercantile transactions are concerned. Mr Cooper says—not once, but many times—that in America all the local affections, indeed everything, is sacrificed to the spirit of gain. Dr Charming constantly laments it, and he very truly asserts, “A people that deems the possession of riches its highest source of distinction, admits one of the most degrading of all influences to preside over its opinions. At no time should money be ever ranked as more than a means, and he who lives as if the acquisition of property were the sole end of his existence, betrays the dominion of the most sordid, base, and grovelling motive that life offers;” and ascribing it to the institutions, he says, “In one respect our institutions havedisappointed us all: they have not wrought out for us that elevation of character which is the most precious, and, in truth, the only substantial blessing of liberty.”

I have before observed, that whatever society permits, men will do and not consider to be wrong, and if the government considers a breach of trust towards it as not of any importance, and defaulters are permitted to escape, it will of course become no crime in the eyes of the majority. Mr Cooper observes, “An evidentdishonestyof sentiment pervades thepublicitself, which is beginning to regard acts of private delinquency with a dangerous indifference; acts too that are inseparably connected with the character, security, and right administration of the state.”

Such is unfortunately the case at present; it may be said to have commenced with the Jackson dynasty, and it is but a few years since this dreadful demoralisation has become so apparent and so shamelessly avowed. In another work the American author above quoted observes,—“We see the effects of this baneful influence in the openness and audacity with which men avow improper motives and improper acts, trusting to find support in a popular feeling, for while vicious influences are perhaps more admitted in other countries than in America, in none are they so openly avowed.” Surely there is sufficient of American authority to satisfy 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 most evident and palpable. Captain Hamilton says, “I have heard conduct praised in conversation at a public table, which, in England, would be attended, if not with a voyage to Botany Bay, at least with total loss of character. It is impossible to pass an hour in the bar of the hotel, without struck with the tone of callous selfishness which pervades the conversation, and the absence of all pretension to pure and lofty principle.”

It may indeed be fairly said, that nothing is disgraceful with the majority 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 lost for ever, but keep out and you are as good as your neighbour. Now one thing is certain, that where honesty is absolutely necessary, honesty is to be found, as for example among the New York merchants, who are, as a body, highly honourable men. When, therefore, the Americans will have moral courage sufficient to drive away vice, and not allow virtue to be in bondage, as she at present is, the morals of society will be instantly restored—and how and when will this be effected? I have said that the people of time United States, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, were perhaps the most moral people existing, and I now assert that they are the least so; to what cause can this change be ascribed? Certainly not wholly to the spirit of gain, for it exists every where, although perhaps nowhere so strongly developed as it is under a form of government which admits of no other claim to superiority. I consider that it arises from the total extinction, or if not extinction absolute bondage, of the aristocracy of the country, both politically as well as socially. There was an aristocracy at the time of the Independence—not an aristocracy of title, but a much superior one; an aristocracy of great, powerful, and leading men, who were looked up to and imitated; there was, politically speaking, an aristocracy in the senate which was elected by those who were then independent of the popular will; but although a portion of it remains, it may be said to have been almost altogether smothered, and in society it no longer exists. It is the want of this aristocracy that has so lowered the standard of morals in America, and it is the revival of it that must restore to the people of the United States the morality they have lost. The loss of the aristocracy has sunk the Republic into a democracy—the renewal of it will again restore them to their former condition. Let not the Americans start at this idea. An aristocracy is not only not incompatible, but absolutely necessary for the duration of a democratic form of government. It is the third estate, so necessary to preserve the balance of power between the executive and the people, and which has unfortunately disappeared. An aristocracy is as necessary for the morals as for the government of a nation. Society must have a head to lead it, and without that head there will be no fixed standard of morality, and things must remain in the chaotic state in which they are at present.

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

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

But it is by the higher classes of the English nation, by the nobility and gentry of England, that the high tone of virtue and morality is upheld. Foreigners, especially Americans, are too continually pointing out, and with evident satisfaction, the scandal arising from the conduct of some few individuals in these classes as a proof of the conduct of the whole; but they mistake the exceptions for the rule. If they were to pay attention, they would perceive that these accusations are only confined to some few out of a class comprehending many many thousands in our wealthy isle, and that the very circumstance of their rank being no shield against the attacks made upon them, is a proof that they are exceptions, whose conduct is universally held up to public ridicule or indignation. Acrim. con. in English high life is exulted over by the Americans; they point to it, and exclaim, “See what your aristocracy are!” forgetting that the crime is committed by one out of thousands, and that it meets with the disgrace which it deserves, and that this crime is, to a certain degree, encouraged by our laws relative to divorce. Do the Americans imagine that there is nocrim. con. perpetrated in the United States? many instances of suspicion, and some of actual discovery, came to my knowledge even during my short residence there, but they were invariably, and perhaps judiciously, hushed up, for the sake of the families and the national credit. I do not wish, nor would it be possible, to draw any parallel between the two nations on this point; I shall only observe that in England we have not considered the vice to have become so prevalent as to think it necessary to form societies for the prevention of it, as they have done in the United States.

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, most religious, and most honourable classes that can be found not only in our country, but in any other country in the world, and such they certainly ought fromcircumstancesto be.

Possessed of competence, they have no incentives to behave dishonestly. They are well-educated, the finest race of men and women that can be produced, and the men are brought up to athletic and healthy amusements. They have to support the honour of an ancient family, and to hand down the name untarnished to their posterity. They have every inducement to noble deeds, and are, generally speaking, above the necessities which induce men to go wrong. If the Americans would assert that luxury produces vice, I can only say that luxury infers idleness and inactivity, and on this point the women of the aristocracy in this country have the advantage over the American women, who cannot, from the peculiarity of the climate, take time exercise so universally resorted to by our higher classes. I admit that some go wrong, but is error confined to the nobility alone; are there no spendthrifts, no dissolute young men, or ill brought up young women, among other classes? Are there none in America? Moreover, there are some descriptions of vice which are meaner than others and more debasing to the mind, and it is among the middling and lower classes that these vices are principally to be found.

The higher classes invariably take the lead, and give the tone to society. If the court be moral, so are the morals of the nation improved by example, as in the time of George the Third. If the court be dissolute, as in the time of Charles the Second, the nation will plunge into vice. Now, in America there is no one to take the lead; morals, like religion, are the concern of nobody, and therefore it is that the standard of morality is so low. I have heard it argued that allowing one party to have a very low standard of morality and to act up to that standard, and another to have a high standard of morality and not to act up to it, that the former is the really moral man, as he does act up to his principles such as they are. This may hold good when we examine into the virtues and vices of nations: that the American Indian who 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 enlightened nations, both Christian and having the Bible as their guide—between those who have neither of them any pretence to lower the standard of morality, as they both know better. M. Tocqueville observes, speaking of the difference between aristocratical and democratical governments—“In aristocratic governments the individuals who are placed at 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 rarely accessible to corruption, and have very little craving for money; whilst the reverse is the case in democratic nations.”

This is true, and may be fairly applied to the American democracy: as long as you will not allow the good and enlightened to rule, you will be governed by those who will flatter and cheat you, and demoralise society. When you allowyouraristocracy to take the reins, you will be better governed, and your morals will improve by example. What is the situation of America at present? the aristocracy of the country are either in retirement or have migrated, and if the power of the majority should continue as it now does its despotic rule, you will have still farther emigration. At present there are many hundreds of Americans who have retired to the Old Continent, that they may receive that return for their wealth which they cannot in their own country; and if not flattered, they are at least not insulted and degraded.

Mr Sanderson, in his “Sketches from Paris,” says—“The American society at Paris, taken altogether, is of a good composition. It consists of several hundred persons, of families of fortune, and young men of liberal instruction. Here are lords of cotton from Carolina, and of sugar-cane from the Mississippi,millionairesfrom all the Canadas, and pursers from all the navies; and their social qualities, from a sense of mutual dependence or partnership in absence, or some such causes, are more active abroad than at home.

“They form a little republic apart, and when a stranger arrives he finds himself at home; he finds himself also under the censorial inspection of a public opinion, a salutary restraint not always the luck of those who travel into foreign countries. One thing only is to be blamed: it becomes every day more the fashion for theéliteof our cities to settle themselves herepermanently. We cannot but deplore this exportation of the precious metals, since our country is drained of what the supply is not too abundant. They who have resided here a few years, having fortune and leisure, do not choose, as I perceive, to reside anywhere else.”

This is the fact; and as the wealth of America increases every day, so will those who possess it swarm off as fast as they can to other countries, if there is not a change in the present society, and a return to something like order and rank. Who would remain in a country where there is no freedom of thought or action, and where you cannot even spend your money as you please? Mr Butler the other day built a house at Philadelphia with aporte-cochere, and the consequence was that they called him an aristocrat, and would not vote for him. In short, will enlightened and refined people live to be dictated to by a savage and ignorant majority, who will neither allow your character nor your domestic privacy to be safe!

The Americans, in their fear of their institutions giving way, and their careful guard against any encroachments upon the liberty of the people, have fallen into the error of sacrificing the most virtuous portion of the community, and driving a large portion of them out of the country. This will eventually be found to be a serious evil; absenteeism will daily increase, and will be as sorely felt as it is in Ireland at the present hour. The Americans used to tell me with exultation, that they never could have an Aristocracy in their country, from the law of entail having been abolished. They often asserted, and with some truth, that in that country property never accumulated beyond two generations, and that the grandson of amillionairewasinvariablya pauper. This they ascribe to the working of their institutions, and argue that it will always be impossible for any family to be raised above the mass by a descent of property. Now the very circumstance of this having been invariably the case, induces me to look for the real cause of it, as there is none to be found in their institutions why all the grandsons ofmillionairesshould be paupers. It is not owing to their institutions, but to moral causes, which, although they have existed until now, will not exist for ever. In the principal and wealthiest cities in the Union, it is difficult to spend more than twelve or fifteen thousand dollars per annum, as with such an expenditure you are on a par with the highest, and you can be no more. What is the consequence? a young American succeeds to fifty or sixty thousand dollars a year, the surplus is useless to him; there is no one to vie with—no one who can reciprocate—he must stand alone. He naturally feels careless about what he finds to be of no use to him. Again, all his friends and acquaintances are actively employed during the whole of the day in their several occupations; he is a man of leisure, and must either remain alone or associate with other men of leisure; and who are the majority of men of leisure in the towns of the United States? Blacklegs of genteel exterior and fashionable appearance, with whom he associates, into whose snares he falls, and to whom he eventually loses property about which he is indifferent. To be an idle man when every body else is busy, is not only a great unhappiness, but a situation of great peril. Had the sons ofmillionaires, who remained in the States and left their children paupers, come over to the old Continent, as many have done, they would have stood a better chance of retaining their property.

All I can say is, that if they cannot have an aristocracy, the worse for them; I am not of the opinion, that they will not have one, although they are supported by the strong authority of M. Tocqueville, who says—“I do not think a single people can be quoted, since human society began to exist, which has, by its own free-will and by its own exertions, created an aristocracy within its own bosom. All the aristocracies of the Middle Ages were founded by military conquest: the conqueror was the noble, the vanquished became the serf. Inequality was then imposed by force; and after it had been introduced into the manners of the country, it maintained its own authority, and was sanctioned by the legislation. Communities have existed which were aristocratic from their earliest origin, owing to circumstances anterior to that event, and which became more democratic in each succeeding age. Such was the destiny of the Romans, and of the barbarians after them. But a people, having taken its rise in civilisation and democracy, which should gradually establish an inequality of conditions, until it arrived at inviolable privileges and exclusive castes, would be a novelty in the world and nothing intimates that America is likely to furnish so singular an example.”

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

M. Tocqueville says—“The laws of the United States are extremely favourable to the division of property; but a cause which is more powerful than the laws prevents property from being divided to excess. (See Note 3.) This is very perceptible in the States which are beginning to be thickly peopled; Massachusetts is the most populous part of the Union, but it contains only eighty inhabitants to the square mile, which is much less than in France, where a hundred and sixty-two are reckoned to the same extent of country. But in Massachusetts estates are very rarely divided; the eldest son takes the land, and the others go to seek their fortune in the desert. The law has abolished the rights of primogeniture, but circumstances have concurred to re-establish it under a form of which none can complain, and by which no just rights are impaired.”

And Chancellor Kent, in his “Treatise upon American Law,” observes—“It cannot be doubted that the division of landed estates must produce great evils when it is carried to such excess as that each parcel of land is insufficient to support a family but these disadvantages have never been felt in the United States, andmany generations must elapsebefore they can be felt. The extent of our inhabited territory, the abundance of adjacent land, and the continual stream of emigration flowing from the shores of the Atlantic towards the interior of the country, suffice as yet, and will long suffice, topreventthe parcelling out of estates.”

There is, therefore, no want of preparation for an aristocracy in America, and, although at present the rich are so much in the minority that they cannot coalesce, such will not be the case, perhaps, in twenty or thirty years; they have but to rally and make a stand when they become more numerous and powerful, and they have every chance of success. The fact is that an aristocracy is absolutely necessary for America, both politically and morally, if the Americans wish their institutions to hold together, for if some stop is not put to the rapidly advancing power of the people, anarchy must be the result. I do not mean an aristocracy of title; I mean such an aristocracy of talent and power which wealth will give—an aristocracy which shall lead society and purify it. How is this to be obtained in a democracy?—simply by purchase. In a country where the suffrage is confined to certain classes, as in England, such purchase is not to be obtained, as the people who have the right of suffrage are not poor enough to be bought; but in a country like America, where the suffrage is universal, the people will eventually sell their birth-right; and if by such means an aristocratical government is elected, it will be able to amend the constitution, 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 be done now, how much more easily will it be accomplished when the population has quadrupled, and the division commences between the rich and the poor. I say it has been done already, for it was done at the last New York election. The democratic party made sure of success: but a large sum of money was brought into play, and the whole of thecommitteesof the democratic party were bought over, and the Whigs carried the day.

The greatest security for the duration of the present institutions of the United States is the establishment of an aristocracy. It is the third power which was intended to act, but which has been destroyed and is now wanting. Let the senate be aristocratical—let the congress be partially so, and then what would be the American government of president, senate, and congress, butmutato nomine, king, lords, and commons?

I cannot perhaps find a better opportunity than here of pointing out what ought to be made known to the English, as it has done more harm to the American aristocracy than may be imagined. I refer to the carelessness and facility with which letters of introduction to this country are given, and particularly by the American authorities. I have drawn the character of Bennett, the editor of the Morning Herald of New York, and there is not a respectable American but will acknowledge that my sketch of him is correct; will it not surprise the English readers when I inform them that this man obtained admittance to Westminster Hall at the Coronation, and was seated among the proudest and purest of our nobility!! Such was the fact. But it will be as well to revert back a little 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 as carriers of merchandise under the neutral flag; but they were rapidly advancing in importance and wealth. At the conclusion of the last American war, during which, by their resolute and occasionally successful struggles, they had drawn the eyes of Europe towards them, and had advanced many degrees in the general estimation of their importance as a nation, the Americans occasionally made their appearance as travellers, both on the Continent and in England; but they found that they were not so well received as their own ideas of their importance induced them to imagine they were entitled to be; especially on the Continent.

The first great personage who shewed liberality in this respect, was George the Fourth. Hearing that some American ladies of good family had complained that, having no titles, no standing in society, they did not meet with that civility to which, from descent and education, they were entitled, he received them at Court most graciously, and those very ladies are now classed among the peeresses of Great Britain. Still the difficulty remained, as it was almost impossible for the aristocracy, abroad or at home, to ascertain the justness of the claims which were made by those of a nation who professed the equality of all classes, and of whom many of the pretenders to be well received did not by their appearance warrant the supposition that their claims were valid. It being impossible to give any other rank but that of office, the American Government hit upon a plan which was attended with very evil consequences. They granted supernumerary attaché-ships to those Americans who wished to travel; and as, on the Old Continent, the very circumstance of being anattachéto a foreign minister warranted the respectability of the party, those who obtained this distinction were well received, and, unfortunately, sometimes did no credit to their appointments. The fact was that these favours were granted without discrimination, and all who received them being put down as specimens of American gentlemen, the character of the Americans lost ground by the very efforts made to establish it. The true American gentlemen who travelled (and there is no lack of them) were supposed to be English, while the spurious were put down as samples of the gentility of the United States.

That the principles of equality were one great cause of the indiscriminate distribution of those marks of distinction by the highest quarters in the Union, and of the facility of obtaining letters of recommendation from them there is no doubt; but the principal and still existing causes, are the extended and domineering power of the press, and the high state of excitement of the political parties. Those in power are positively afraid to refuse literary men, or those who have assisted them in their political career; they have not the moral courage to do so, however undeserving the parties may really be. But, as is generally the case, they really do not know the parties; it is sufficient that the favour, considered trifling, is demanded, and it is instantly granted. Now, as at the accession of General Jackson, and the subsequent raising of Mr Van Buren to the presidency, the democratical, or Loco Foco party came into power, it is to their friends and supporters, the least respectable portion of the American community, to whom these favours have been granted; which of course has not assisted the claims of the Americans to respectability. An instance of this sort occurred to me after I had been a few months in America. One of the most gentleman-like and well-informed men in New York, requested that I would give a letter of introduction to a friend of his who was going to England. Taking it for granted that such a request would not be made without the party deserving the recommendation, I immediately assented. The party who obtained my letters (an editor of a paper, as I afterwards discovered), on his arrival in England, considering that he was not treated with that attention to which, in his own vain-gloriousness, he thought himself entitled, actually sent a hostile letter to one of the gentlemen to whom he had been introduced, and otherwise proved himself by his conduct to be a most improper person. I was informed of this by letters from England; and immediately went to the gentleman who had requested the introduction from me, and stated the conduct of the party. “I really am very sorry,” said he, “butIknew nothing of him.” “Knew nothing of him?” replied I. “No, indeed; but my friend Mr C, of Philadelphia, introduced him by letter, and requested me to ask for introductions for him.” “Then you will oblige me by writing to your friend Mr C, and ask him why he did so, as I find myself very much compromised by this affair.” He wrote to Mr C, of Philadelphia, who replied that he was very sorry, but that reallyheknew nothing of him. He had been introduced to him by letter, by Mr O, and that he was astaunch supporterof their party. Now, how many grades this person had climbed up by letters of introduction it is impossible to say, but this is sufficient to prove that letters of introduction which are, you may say,demanded, and not refused from the fear of offending a political agent or penny-a-liner, must ever be received with due caution; and it is equally certain, that those from the President himself are the most easy to be obtained.

I have entered freely into this question, as it is important that it should be known, not only to the English, but to the Americans themselves. A letter of introduction from a gentleman of Carolina, Virginia, or Boston, I should be infinitely more induced to take notice of than from the President of the United States, unless the President stated that he was personally acquainted with the party who delivered it; and I make this statement injusticeto the American gentlemen, and not with the slightest wish to check that intercourse which will every day increase, and, I trust, to the advantage of both nations. See note 4.

Indeed, now that such rapid communication has taken place between the two countries, since the Atlantic has been traversed by steam, it becomes more imperative that these facts should be known. Every fortnight a hundred and sixty passengers will arrive by the Great Western, or some other steamer. Most of them are American citizens, armed with their letters of recommendation, and the situation of the American 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 which I have described; and there is not one of these parties who does not expect as much attention as if the American minister had nothing else to do but to be at his command. They leave their cards with him; if the cards are not returned in two or three days, they send a letter to know why he has not called upon them? and if the visit is returned, send a letter to know whether the minister calledin person, ornot? With a stipend from his own government, quite inadequate to the purpose, he is expected, to the great detriment of his private fortune, to receive and entertain all these people. I have it from the best authority, that some of these parties have called and inquired whether the minister was at home; being answered in the negative, they have gone into a room, taken a chair, and declared their determination not to leave the house until they had seen him. Most of them expect him to obtain admittance for them into the Houses of Lords and Commons, and to present them at Court. In some instances, when the minister has stated the necessity of aCourt dress, they have remonstrated, thinking it an expense wholly unnecessary. “They were Americancitizens, and would be introduced as such; they had nothing to do with Court dresses, and all that nonsense.” And thus, since the steam-vessels have increased the communication between the two countries, has the American minister been in a state of annoyance, to which it is impossible that he, or any other who may be appointed in his place, can possibly submit.

Let the Americans understand, that those only go to Court in this country who have claims, as the nobility, the oldest commoners, people in office, the army and navy, and other liberal professions. There are thousands 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 who comes over here with four or five introductions in his pocket must, forsooth, be presented. If the minister refuses, why then there is an attack upon him in the American prints, and his name and his supposed misdemeanors 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 the American representative. One man says, “I understand I can have a Court dress at a Jew’s.” “Yes, you can, I believe.” “Well, now, suppose we step down together; you maycheapenit a bit for me, may be.” These facts are known to the respectable and gentleman-like Americans, who, after the samples which have come over, and have obtained admission into society and gone to Court, will not shew themselves, but prefer to stay at home.

All this is wrong, and a remedy must soon be found, as the evil increases every day. The Americans cannot take the English Court by storm, or force us to acknowledge their equality in this country. There are but certain classes in this country who have any pretension to be received at Court; and unless the Americans can prove that they are by their situation, or descent, of a sufficient rank to qualify them to be admitted, they must be content to be excluded, as the major portion of our countrymen are. Even an American being a member of Congress does not qualify him, although being a member of the Senate certainlyshould. The members of the American Congress are not in the mass equal by any means in respectability to the members of the English House of Commons; and there have been many members of the English House of Commons, since the passing of the Reform Bill, who could not, and cannot, gain admittance into society.

If the harmony and good feeling between the two countries is to continue uninterrupted, and our intercourse to be extended, as there is every probability that it will be, it appears to me that there is more importance to be attached to this question than at the first view of it might be supposed. The Americans are more ambitious of birth and aristocracy than any other nation, which is very natural, if it were only from the simple fact that we always most desire what is out of our reach. Since the Americans have come over in such numbers to this country, our Herald’s Office has actually beenbesiegedby them, in their anxiety to take out the arms and achievements of their presumed forefathers; this is also very natural and very proper, although it may be at variance with their institutions. The determination to have an aristocracy in America gains head every day: a conflict must ensue, when the increase of wealth in the country adds sufficiently to the strength of the party. But some line must be drawn in this country, as to the admission of Americans to the English Court, or, if not drawn, it will end in a total, and therefore unjust exclusion. As but few of the Americans can claim any right to aristocracy in their own country from acknowledged descent, I should not be surprised if in a few years, now that the two countries are becoming so intimately connected, a reception at the English Court of this country be considered as an establishment of their claim. If so, it will be a curious anomaly in the history of a republic, that, fifty years after it was established, the republicans should apply to the mother country whose institutions they had abjured, to obtain from her a patent of superiority, so as to raise themselves above that hated equality which, by their own institutions, they profess.

Note 1. English Capital Invested.—It is butfairto give the English who have invested their money in American securities, some idea of what their chance of receiving their principal or receiving their interest may be. Aslongas it depends upon the faith of those who have contracted the debt, their money is safe, but as soon as the power is taken out of their hands, and vested in the majority, they may consider their money as gone. I will explain this—at present the English have vested their capital in canals, railroads, and other public improvements. The returns of these undertakings are at present honourably employed in paying interest to the lenders of the capital, and if the returns are not sufficient, more money is borrowed to meet the demands of the creditor; but there is a certain point at which credit fails, and at which no more money can be borrowed; if then no more 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 the population to meet the deficiency, and support the credit of the nation. Here is the question:— will the majority in America consent to be taxed? I say, No—if they do, I shall be surprised, and be most happy to recant, but it is my opinion that they will not, and if so the English capital will be lost; and if the reader will call to mind what I have pointed out as to the probable effect of the power of America working to the westward, and the direct importation which in a few years must take place, he will see that there is every prospect of a rapid decrease in the value of all their securities, and that the only ultimate chance of their recovering the money is by this country compelling payment of it by the Federal Government.

Note 2. “At the time of the first settlement of the English in Virginia, when land was to be had for little or nothing, some provident persons having obtained large grants of it, and being desirous of maintaining the splendour of their families, entailed their property upon their descendants. The transmission of these estates from generation to generation, to men who bore the same name, had the effect of raising up a distinct class of families, who, possessing by law the privilege of perpetuating their wealth, formed by these means a sort of patrician order, distinguished by the grandeur and luxury of their establishments. From this order it was that the king usually chose his councillors of state.

“In the United States, the principal clauses of the English law respecting descent have been universally rejected. The first rule that we follow, says Mr Kent, touching inheritance, is the following:— If a man dies intestate, his property goes to his heirs in a direct line. If he has but one heir or heiress, he or she succeeds to the whole. If there are several heirs of the same degree, they divide the inheritance equally amongst them, without distinction of sex.

“This rule was prescribed for the first time in the State of New York by a statute of the 23rd of February, 1786. (See Revised Statutes, volume III,Appendix, page 48.) It has since then been adopted in the revised statutes of the same State. At the present day this law holds good throughout the whole of the United States, with the exception of the 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 American legislation on the subject of entail; by this we learn that previous to the revolution the colonies followed the English law of entail. Estates tail were abolished in Virginia in 1776, on a motion of Mr Jefferson. They were suppressed in New York in 1786; and have since been abolished in North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and Missouri. In Vermont, Indiana, Illinois, South Carolina, and Louisiana, entail was never introduced. Those States which thought proper to preserve the English law of entail, modified it in such a way as to deprive it of its most aristocratic tendencies. ‘Our general principles on the subject of government,’ says Mr Kent, ‘tend to favour the free circulation of property.’

“It cannot fail to strike the French reader who studies the law of inheritance, that on these questions the French legislation is infinitely more democratic even than the American.

“The American law makes an equal division of the father’s property, but only in the case of his will not being known; ‘for every man,’ says the law, ‘in the State of New York, (Revised Statutes, volume III,Appendix, page 51), has entire liberty, power, and authority, to dispose of his property by will, to leave it entire, or divided in favour of any persons he choses as his heirs, provided he do not leave it to a political body or any corporation.’ The French law obliges the testator to divide his property equally, or nearly so, among his heirs.

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

“If the social condition of the Americans is more democratic than that of the French, the laws of the latter are the most democratic of the two. This may be explained more easily than at first appears to be the case. In France, democracy is still occupied in the work of destruction; in America, it reigns quietly over the ruins it has made.”—Democracy in America, by A De Tocqueville.

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

Note 4. It may also be here observed, that the Americans have little opportunity of judging favourably of the English by the usualimportationsto their country. They all call themselves EnglishGentlemen, 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 or an English merchant, and the parties mostly proved to be nothing but travellers, bagsmen, or even worse. If the sterling Americans stay at home, and send the bad ones to us, and we do the same, neither party will be likely to form a very favourable opinion of the other for some time to come.

Back to IndexNext