FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[1]The present Duke of Sutherland.[2]In speaking of personal peculiarities, the writer thinks he has had sufficient care not to wound the parties. His knowledge of Mrs. Siddons does not extend farther than an evening’s observation of her mere exterior, but she is removed beyond the reach of his opinion, did it apply to things more essential. Of the persons collected around the table of Mr. Rogers, on the day in question, Sir Walter Scott, Miss Scott, Sir James Macintosh, Mr. Sharp, and Mr. Jekyll, are, also, already dead![3]The recent improvements in this part of the town, have caused the house to be pulled down, and it is probable the new avenue, which leads from the new London bridge to the Royal Exchange, and which, in 1833, promised to make this one of the finest parts of the town, will have obliterated every sign of its site.[4]The Examiner, since 1828, has passed into new hands, and, although little accustomed to see the paper itself, the writer was in the constant habit of reading extracts from it, in Galignani’s Messenger. Taking these as specimens of its merit, he is of opinion that for vigour, consistency, truth, and distinctness of thought, and for pungent and manly reasoning, this journal stands at the very head of this species of literature.[5]In the reign of Queen Anne, out of a little more than twenty dukes in the empire, six were descended in the direct male line from the natural sons of King Charles II, viz.: the Dukes of Richmond, Grafton, Cleveland, Northumberland, St. Albans, and Buccleugh. The dukedoms of Northumberland and Cleveland, are extinct, though the titles have been revived in other families; but those of Richmond, St. Albans, Grafton, and Buccleugh, are still enjoyed by the descendants of Charles. George I., did not hesitate to ennoble his mistress, whom he made Duchess of Kendal, and George II., had also his Countess of Yarmouth. These two women were made peeresses, because they were the king’s mistresses, but no natural child was ennobled. George III. was still more guarded in his amours, and although he is said to have had several natural children, they were not publicly recognised. The same is true with George IV., though his manner of life was less guarded. The power of the aristocracy had now become so great, that it repudiated such admissions into their ranks. A struggle, however, occurred in 1831, between the different castes of the state, and the king rose in importance. In order to conciliate him, the whigs immediately gave a peerage to the eldest of his natural children by Mrs. Jordan, and ennobled all the others![6]Proofs ofnaïvetéand ignorance of the world, are afforded by most of our travellers, who are the dupes of their own national conceit, and the more exaggerated forms of Europe. As a people, I believe, we are in favour in no part of Europe. I could give much proof on this point, and a good deal will be incidentally introduced into these letters, but a single anecdote must suffice here. There is one man who is much visited and flattered by Americans, now living in England, and divers interesting accounts of his kindness and philanthropy are published by our tourists annually. Within a month, conversing with a countryman just returned from a long visit in Europe, he tells me that an acquaintance of his visited this person, while he remained at an inn, where he dined with a near relation of the great man. In the course of conversation, my acquaintance expressed his apprehension that the visit of —— would annoy ——. “Not at all,” said the other, who believed his companion to be an Englishman, “my —— rather likes ——,for an American.” There are two things that every American should understand. In associating with the English, if he betray the least of the toad-eater, he is despised for the meanness; this is human nature; if he manifest self-respect, and a determination to have all the rights of a gentleman, he is hated for presuming to be an Englishman’s equal.[7]It is not yet ten years, since this opinion was given. Were the money that the United States this year distributes among the several states, as returned revenue, (near 8,000,000 sterling,) appropriated to a navy, it wouldbuildand keep at sea for a twelvemonth, fifty sail of the line. It is “too bad” that a nation, with such means, should be so much under the dominion of a false feeling, as to allow another people to occupy an island like Bermuda, at its threshold, with no other view than to its own annoyance. The internal legislation of this country is practically among the best in the world, while its foreign interests seem to be conducted pretty much on the Mahometan doctrine of fatalism.[8]The German Prince speaks of giving thearminstead of thehand, as an English usage. The writer passed five winters in Paris, and never saw any thing but the arm given.[9]I am quite aware that it will be affirmed by some of ourdoctrinaires, the king of Englanddoesexercise the prerogatives of his office. It would be easy to produce proof enough to the contrary, but take a single case. It is notorious that he wishes a tory ministry, at this very moment, and it is equally notorious that he cannot appoint one, on account of parliament. Now his right to name his ministers is almost the only undisputed prerogative, that is left him in theory even, for a minister is made responsible for all the other executive acts. But hear what a witness, whose loyalty will not be questioned says. “It has affected me very much to hear ofour king’s being constrained to part with all his confidential friends, and his own personal servantsin the late general sweep.Out of a hundred stories, I will only tell you one, which concerns your old acquaintance Lord Bateman; he went to the king, as usual, over night, to ask if his majesty would please to hunt the next day: yes, my lord! replied the king, but I find,with great grief, that I am not to have the satisfaction of your company! This was the first intimation he had had of the loss of his place; and I really think the contest with France and America might have been settled,though the buck hounds had retained their old master.” See, letter of Hannah Moore to her sister, London, 1782. The Plantagenets were not treated in this fashion, and yet England was said to be governed, even in their day, by King, Lords, and Commons![10]One of the most ludicrous instances I know of the manner in which terms are abused, in America, was related to me lately, by Judge ——, of Louisiana. A constable came into court, leading two knaves, and addressed him, by saying—“Please your Honour, these are the twogentlemen, who stole Col. D——’s horses.”[11]That the reader may understand the nature and extent of the prejudices that are inculcated in England, against this country, I extract a sentence from aschoolbook, of a good deal of reputation,written by a clergyman. The edition is of 1830. “The women every where possess, in the highest degree, the domestic virtues; they have more sweetness, more goodness,perhaps as much courage, and more sensibility and liberality, than the men.” Prejudice must have taken deep root, indeed, in England, where the bad taste of a sneer on the courage of America, was not self-evident. One of the best informed men I met in that country, told me, that no event, in his time, had produced so deep a sensation in England, as the unexpected and bloody resistance of thearmed populationto the British troops, at Bunker Hill. One of the principal causes of the errors of all Europe, as respects us, is owing to the tact, that their writers, anxious to attract, deal with exceptions instead of with the rules. The whole article of “America,” in the book I have just quoted, betrays this fault. Among other absurdities, it says, “there are scarcely in the country, twenty native Americans, (meaning whites, of course,) in the state of domestic servants.” There are, beyond question, tens of thousands, including both sexes, and all ages.[12]While this work is going through the press, Tucker’s Jefferson has appeared. In allusion to the principles of a memorial written by himself, Mr. Jefferson’s language is quoted to the following effect. “The leap I then proposed was too long, as yet, for the mass of our citizens.” Nearly seventy years have since passed by; we have become a nation; numerically and physically agreatnation; and yet in how many things that affect the supremacy of English opinion and English theories, is “the leap” still “too long” for the “mass of our citizens!” “It is these long leaps,” notwithstanding, that make the difference between men.[13]The intelligence of the death of this gentleman has reached America, while this book is printing. John Loudon McAdam was a native of Scotland, of the proscribed family of McGregor. He was in the line of descent to a small estate called Waterhead; but being cut off from his natural claims, by the act of attainder, he came early to America, as the adopted son and successor of an uncle, who had married and established himself in New York. Here he received his education, and continued seventeen years, or down to the period of the peace of 1783. Returning to Great Britain, he established himself at Bristol, near which town he commenced his experiments in roads, more as an amateur, than with any serious views of devoting himself to the occupation. Meeting with unlooked for success, he gradually extended his operations, until he finally transformed most of the highways of the island, into the best of the known world. For the last five-and-twenty years, his whole time, and all his studies were directed to this one end.Mr. McAdam was twice offered knighthood, and once a baronetcy; distinctions that he declined. His second son, however, has recently received the former honour, and is the present Sir James McAdam. As this gentleman is much employed about London, he is usually mistaken for the father.Mr. McAdam was twice married. His first wife was a daughter of William Nicoll, proprietor of the great manor of Islip, Suffolk county, Long Island, the collateral representative of Col. Nicoll, who took the colony from the Dutch, in 1663, and its first English governor; his second wife was the eldest daughter of John Peter De Lancey, of Mamaroneck, West Chester, New York.Mr. McAdam was a man of a singularly calm and contemplative mind, mingled with an unusual degree of practical energy and skill. Quiet, modest, intelligent, and upright, few men were more esteemed in private life; and while few men have conferred more actual benefit on Great Britain, scarcely any man has been less rewarded. Conscientious and proud, he was superior to accepting favours that were beneath his claims, or to soliciting those which were his due.[14]A proof of this truth, is to be found in the law emancipating the slaves of the islands, a step which is the certain forerunner of their loss. It is well known to all near observers, that this measure was dictated to parliament by the sympathies of a public, to which momentary causes had given an influence it never before possessed. Mr. Cobbett, however, openly affirmed it was owing to a wish to convulse America, by re-acting on public opinion here! One is not obliged to believe all thatMr. Cobbett said, but such a surmise, even, proves something.[15]Captain Hall says, that the houses of America struck him as being only half furnished. On the other hand, the Duke Bernard, of Saxe Weimar, who landed in Boston, coming from England, says that he thought the houses appeared better furnished than those he had just left in Great Britain. On this testimony, the Quarterly joins issue, insinuating that no one can hesitate to believe that acaptain in his majesty’s navyis a better judge in these matters than a mereGermanDuke! The exquisite twaddle of such reasoning exposes itself, and yet, in his main fact, Captain Hall is unquestionably right. So far as we go, our furniture is generally handsomer than that of England, and Duke Bernard has possibly formed his opinion from particular houses, but nothing is truer than that the American houses appear naked to one coming from either France or England.[16]Quite lately, the writer got into a rail-road car at Bordenton, at a place where the company have since erected a large warehouse or shed; some one, observing the signs of a building around the car, inquired what they meant. The writer, who sat by a window, was about to say, “They have laid the foundations of a large house here,” when a fellow-traveller, who occupied the other window, anticipated him, by saying that, “Judging by external symptoms, they have commenced the construction of an edifice of considerable magnitude, calculated, most likely, to facilitate the objects of the rail-road company.” One would not wish to lose the cause of this disposition to the grandiose, but it is to be regretted that sublimity is getting to be so common.[17]One may form some notion of the condition of the foreign policy of the country, by a fact that has come to the knowledge of the writer, under circumstances that leave no doubt, in his mind, of its authenticity. An American was at Washington applying for some diplomatic appointment, at the moment Congress had the subject of the French reprisals, as recommended by the President, before them. Of so much greater importance did thisdiplomatic agentdeem foreign than native support, that he is said to have written letters to Paris assuring his friends there, that neither the nation nor congress would sustain the president in his proposition! One or more of these letters came into American hands, and were returned to Washington. In two instances, while in Europe, the writer found Englishmen employed in the legations at low salaries; and, of course, the secrets of the government were put at the disposal of foreign mercenaries.[18]When General Jackson was running alone, in opposition to Mr. Adams, the English, under the impressions alluded to, above, and probably on account of ancient grudges, betrayed a strong disinclination to his success. Still, Mr. Adams was disliked, for he was believed to be unfriendly to England, and favourable to the system of protecting duties. Suddenly, the press of London, altered its tone in reference to the former, and from lavishing the usual scurrility, it began to speak of him in terms of respect. It is said that the English agents in America, notified their government that they were quarrelling with their bread and butter, and that the change of policy took place in consequence. These little occurrences should teach every American, how to appreciate praise, or censure, that comes from sources so venal. Mr. Adams probably understood the true foreign policy of the government, better than any political man who has been in power since the days of Jefferson. The protective system, the congress of Panama, though defeated in its objects by hostile influence, and the protest of the administration of Mr. Monroe, which is understood to have originated with Mr. Adams, are three of the most elevated, far sighted, and statesman-like measures, America ever undertook. The former, though run down by English influence, will quite likely be called for by the very states that now most oppose it, within the next five-and-twenty years. Nothing is more probable, than that the Constitution will be amended, solely with a view to this end, and that the cotton-growing states will first move in the matter. But for the redeeming act of the president, in recommending reprisals against France, the writer, a near looker on for most of the time, should say, that the character of the nation abroad, suffered much less during the administration of Mr. Adams, than during that of his successor, though the diplomatic tone was not what it ought to have been, under either administration. We boast a great deal of the dexterity with which the nation has got out of a difficulty, while we entirely overlook the capital fault by which it got into it. So far from the truculent spirit of democracy, inducing the government to rush into wars, the craven and temporising spirit of trade, the only concentrated interest of much available power in ordinary cases, has prevented it from maintaining the true interests of the country, in a dozen distinct instances, within the last twenty years.[19]When the writer went to Europe, it was so unusual to hear any thing against the system of America, that disaffection may be said to have become extinct. On his return, however, after an absence of less than eight years, he was astonished to hear monarchical sentiments openly declared, and he believes that it will be generally admitted by all candid observers, that their avowal is now more open and more frequent, than they have been at any time, within the present century. This is not the place to discuss the reasons, but this explanation is due from the writer, on his own account, as, without it, a change that has actually taken place among others, may be ascribed to himself. No one need be ashamed of having honestly altered his opinions, for good cause, and after mature examination; but since the publication of these letters has commenced, the writer has been openly accused of changes that, in point of fact, have occurred among other people. Another occasion may offer to examine this point.[20]Exaggerated as this may appear, the writer has actually been driven away, by strangers leaning over him, in this manner, no less than eleven times, at the Astor House, within the last twelvemonths.[21]Mrs. Butler, in her shrewd work on America, has given many good hits at this love for the grandiose. Whenever this lady has gone out of her particular sphere, or that of her sex, her remarks are such as might have been anticipated from a young English woman, visiting America with all her political prejudices about her, and almost as a matter of course, necessarily ignorant of the true machinery and action of governments. Even in this writer, the expectation, not to say thelonging, for a dissolution of the Union, that has been so often mentioned in these pages, is sufficiently apparent, she, also, has fallen into the very common error of ascribing things to the institutions, such for instance as thenonchalanceof the trades people, and the noisy, screeching, hoydenish romps of the sexes, which it suits the caprices of certain people to term society, when they ought to be referred, one to the personal independence of a country prosperous beyond example, and the other to the unsettled condition of towns, that double their population every twenty years, and their wealth in ten.Mrs. Butler has made many other mistakes, beyond a question, for she has written under erroneous impressions at starting. Of this class are all the misconceptions connected with those usages that are thought to be tending daily towards aristocracy. Any one who knows the country well, knows that in all the ordinary appliances of this nature, America has been gradually receding from such forms, for the last forty years. Thus footmen, liveries, hatchments, coats of arms, &c. &c., are all much less common now, than at the commencement of the century. Mrs. Butler has mistaken the twilight, for the dawn; the shadows of the past for those of coming events. This is a common misapprehension of the English, and it arises from a disposition to see things in their own way.The treatment that this lady has received, cannot be too loudly condemned. She has been derided, caricatured, almost, if not positively, slandered, because she has presumed to speak the truth about us! Mrs. Trollope has met with similar denunciations, though with a greater show of reason, for Mrs. Trollope has calumniated her own sex in America. Besides, one sees, in the book of Mrs. Trollope, a malignant feeling, and calculations of profit; while the work of Mrs. Butler is as honest as it is fearless. The latter has designated persons too plainly, perhaps, as coupled with unpleasant remarks; but all these faults may be overlooked, as the whims of a very young female.In one thing Mrs. Butler is singularly mistaken. She says that neither England, nor France, manifests any sensibility on the subject of the comments of travellers! The French do not, ordinarily, understand the comments of the English, or the English those of the French. Neither nation reads nor knows any thing about the comments of the Americans at all. Nothing is easier than to manifest indifference to things of which we are totally ignorant. As respects the English, however, one has only to name Pillet, d’ Haussez, and Puckler-Muskau, in order to show how much abuse and calumny they can heap on those whose opinions displease them. The stories circulated in English society, concerning the latter, by way of retaliation for his book, were quite on a level with the Trollopeana of America. Both are a disgrace to civilization.

[1]The present Duke of Sutherland.

[2]In speaking of personal peculiarities, the writer thinks he has had sufficient care not to wound the parties. His knowledge of Mrs. Siddons does not extend farther than an evening’s observation of her mere exterior, but she is removed beyond the reach of his opinion, did it apply to things more essential. Of the persons collected around the table of Mr. Rogers, on the day in question, Sir Walter Scott, Miss Scott, Sir James Macintosh, Mr. Sharp, and Mr. Jekyll, are, also, already dead!

[3]The recent improvements in this part of the town, have caused the house to be pulled down, and it is probable the new avenue, which leads from the new London bridge to the Royal Exchange, and which, in 1833, promised to make this one of the finest parts of the town, will have obliterated every sign of its site.

[4]The Examiner, since 1828, has passed into new hands, and, although little accustomed to see the paper itself, the writer was in the constant habit of reading extracts from it, in Galignani’s Messenger. Taking these as specimens of its merit, he is of opinion that for vigour, consistency, truth, and distinctness of thought, and for pungent and manly reasoning, this journal stands at the very head of this species of literature.

[5]In the reign of Queen Anne, out of a little more than twenty dukes in the empire, six were descended in the direct male line from the natural sons of King Charles II, viz.: the Dukes of Richmond, Grafton, Cleveland, Northumberland, St. Albans, and Buccleugh. The dukedoms of Northumberland and Cleveland, are extinct, though the titles have been revived in other families; but those of Richmond, St. Albans, Grafton, and Buccleugh, are still enjoyed by the descendants of Charles. George I., did not hesitate to ennoble his mistress, whom he made Duchess of Kendal, and George II., had also his Countess of Yarmouth. These two women were made peeresses, because they were the king’s mistresses, but no natural child was ennobled. George III. was still more guarded in his amours, and although he is said to have had several natural children, they were not publicly recognised. The same is true with George IV., though his manner of life was less guarded. The power of the aristocracy had now become so great, that it repudiated such admissions into their ranks. A struggle, however, occurred in 1831, between the different castes of the state, and the king rose in importance. In order to conciliate him, the whigs immediately gave a peerage to the eldest of his natural children by Mrs. Jordan, and ennobled all the others!

[6]Proofs ofnaïvetéand ignorance of the world, are afforded by most of our travellers, who are the dupes of their own national conceit, and the more exaggerated forms of Europe. As a people, I believe, we are in favour in no part of Europe. I could give much proof on this point, and a good deal will be incidentally introduced into these letters, but a single anecdote must suffice here. There is one man who is much visited and flattered by Americans, now living in England, and divers interesting accounts of his kindness and philanthropy are published by our tourists annually. Within a month, conversing with a countryman just returned from a long visit in Europe, he tells me that an acquaintance of his visited this person, while he remained at an inn, where he dined with a near relation of the great man. In the course of conversation, my acquaintance expressed his apprehension that the visit of —— would annoy ——. “Not at all,” said the other, who believed his companion to be an Englishman, “my —— rather likes ——,for an American.” There are two things that every American should understand. In associating with the English, if he betray the least of the toad-eater, he is despised for the meanness; this is human nature; if he manifest self-respect, and a determination to have all the rights of a gentleman, he is hated for presuming to be an Englishman’s equal.

[7]It is not yet ten years, since this opinion was given. Were the money that the United States this year distributes among the several states, as returned revenue, (near 8,000,000 sterling,) appropriated to a navy, it wouldbuildand keep at sea for a twelvemonth, fifty sail of the line. It is “too bad” that a nation, with such means, should be so much under the dominion of a false feeling, as to allow another people to occupy an island like Bermuda, at its threshold, with no other view than to its own annoyance. The internal legislation of this country is practically among the best in the world, while its foreign interests seem to be conducted pretty much on the Mahometan doctrine of fatalism.

[8]The German Prince speaks of giving thearminstead of thehand, as an English usage. The writer passed five winters in Paris, and never saw any thing but the arm given.

[9]I am quite aware that it will be affirmed by some of ourdoctrinaires, the king of Englanddoesexercise the prerogatives of his office. It would be easy to produce proof enough to the contrary, but take a single case. It is notorious that he wishes a tory ministry, at this very moment, and it is equally notorious that he cannot appoint one, on account of parliament. Now his right to name his ministers is almost the only undisputed prerogative, that is left him in theory even, for a minister is made responsible for all the other executive acts. But hear what a witness, whose loyalty will not be questioned says. “It has affected me very much to hear ofour king’s being constrained to part with all his confidential friends, and his own personal servantsin the late general sweep.Out of a hundred stories, I will only tell you one, which concerns your old acquaintance Lord Bateman; he went to the king, as usual, over night, to ask if his majesty would please to hunt the next day: yes, my lord! replied the king, but I find,with great grief, that I am not to have the satisfaction of your company! This was the first intimation he had had of the loss of his place; and I really think the contest with France and America might have been settled,though the buck hounds had retained their old master.” See, letter of Hannah Moore to her sister, London, 1782. The Plantagenets were not treated in this fashion, and yet England was said to be governed, even in their day, by King, Lords, and Commons!

[10]One of the most ludicrous instances I know of the manner in which terms are abused, in America, was related to me lately, by Judge ——, of Louisiana. A constable came into court, leading two knaves, and addressed him, by saying—“Please your Honour, these are the twogentlemen, who stole Col. D——’s horses.”

[11]That the reader may understand the nature and extent of the prejudices that are inculcated in England, against this country, I extract a sentence from aschoolbook, of a good deal of reputation,written by a clergyman. The edition is of 1830. “The women every where possess, in the highest degree, the domestic virtues; they have more sweetness, more goodness,perhaps as much courage, and more sensibility and liberality, than the men.” Prejudice must have taken deep root, indeed, in England, where the bad taste of a sneer on the courage of America, was not self-evident. One of the best informed men I met in that country, told me, that no event, in his time, had produced so deep a sensation in England, as the unexpected and bloody resistance of thearmed populationto the British troops, at Bunker Hill. One of the principal causes of the errors of all Europe, as respects us, is owing to the tact, that their writers, anxious to attract, deal with exceptions instead of with the rules. The whole article of “America,” in the book I have just quoted, betrays this fault. Among other absurdities, it says, “there are scarcely in the country, twenty native Americans, (meaning whites, of course,) in the state of domestic servants.” There are, beyond question, tens of thousands, including both sexes, and all ages.

[12]While this work is going through the press, Tucker’s Jefferson has appeared. In allusion to the principles of a memorial written by himself, Mr. Jefferson’s language is quoted to the following effect. “The leap I then proposed was too long, as yet, for the mass of our citizens.” Nearly seventy years have since passed by; we have become a nation; numerically and physically agreatnation; and yet in how many things that affect the supremacy of English opinion and English theories, is “the leap” still “too long” for the “mass of our citizens!” “It is these long leaps,” notwithstanding, that make the difference between men.

[13]The intelligence of the death of this gentleman has reached America, while this book is printing. John Loudon McAdam was a native of Scotland, of the proscribed family of McGregor. He was in the line of descent to a small estate called Waterhead; but being cut off from his natural claims, by the act of attainder, he came early to America, as the adopted son and successor of an uncle, who had married and established himself in New York. Here he received his education, and continued seventeen years, or down to the period of the peace of 1783. Returning to Great Britain, he established himself at Bristol, near which town he commenced his experiments in roads, more as an amateur, than with any serious views of devoting himself to the occupation. Meeting with unlooked for success, he gradually extended his operations, until he finally transformed most of the highways of the island, into the best of the known world. For the last five-and-twenty years, his whole time, and all his studies were directed to this one end.Mr. McAdam was twice offered knighthood, and once a baronetcy; distinctions that he declined. His second son, however, has recently received the former honour, and is the present Sir James McAdam. As this gentleman is much employed about London, he is usually mistaken for the father.Mr. McAdam was twice married. His first wife was a daughter of William Nicoll, proprietor of the great manor of Islip, Suffolk county, Long Island, the collateral representative of Col. Nicoll, who took the colony from the Dutch, in 1663, and its first English governor; his second wife was the eldest daughter of John Peter De Lancey, of Mamaroneck, West Chester, New York.Mr. McAdam was a man of a singularly calm and contemplative mind, mingled with an unusual degree of practical energy and skill. Quiet, modest, intelligent, and upright, few men were more esteemed in private life; and while few men have conferred more actual benefit on Great Britain, scarcely any man has been less rewarded. Conscientious and proud, he was superior to accepting favours that were beneath his claims, or to soliciting those which were his due.

Mr. McAdam was twice offered knighthood, and once a baronetcy; distinctions that he declined. His second son, however, has recently received the former honour, and is the present Sir James McAdam. As this gentleman is much employed about London, he is usually mistaken for the father.

Mr. McAdam was twice married. His first wife was a daughter of William Nicoll, proprietor of the great manor of Islip, Suffolk county, Long Island, the collateral representative of Col. Nicoll, who took the colony from the Dutch, in 1663, and its first English governor; his second wife was the eldest daughter of John Peter De Lancey, of Mamaroneck, West Chester, New York.

Mr. McAdam was a man of a singularly calm and contemplative mind, mingled with an unusual degree of practical energy and skill. Quiet, modest, intelligent, and upright, few men were more esteemed in private life; and while few men have conferred more actual benefit on Great Britain, scarcely any man has been less rewarded. Conscientious and proud, he was superior to accepting favours that were beneath his claims, or to soliciting those which were his due.

[14]A proof of this truth, is to be found in the law emancipating the slaves of the islands, a step which is the certain forerunner of their loss. It is well known to all near observers, that this measure was dictated to parliament by the sympathies of a public, to which momentary causes had given an influence it never before possessed. Mr. Cobbett, however, openly affirmed it was owing to a wish to convulse America, by re-acting on public opinion here! One is not obliged to believe all thatMr. Cobbett said, but such a surmise, even, proves something.

[15]Captain Hall says, that the houses of America struck him as being only half furnished. On the other hand, the Duke Bernard, of Saxe Weimar, who landed in Boston, coming from England, says that he thought the houses appeared better furnished than those he had just left in Great Britain. On this testimony, the Quarterly joins issue, insinuating that no one can hesitate to believe that acaptain in his majesty’s navyis a better judge in these matters than a mereGermanDuke! The exquisite twaddle of such reasoning exposes itself, and yet, in his main fact, Captain Hall is unquestionably right. So far as we go, our furniture is generally handsomer than that of England, and Duke Bernard has possibly formed his opinion from particular houses, but nothing is truer than that the American houses appear naked to one coming from either France or England.

[16]Quite lately, the writer got into a rail-road car at Bordenton, at a place where the company have since erected a large warehouse or shed; some one, observing the signs of a building around the car, inquired what they meant. The writer, who sat by a window, was about to say, “They have laid the foundations of a large house here,” when a fellow-traveller, who occupied the other window, anticipated him, by saying that, “Judging by external symptoms, they have commenced the construction of an edifice of considerable magnitude, calculated, most likely, to facilitate the objects of the rail-road company.” One would not wish to lose the cause of this disposition to the grandiose, but it is to be regretted that sublimity is getting to be so common.

[17]One may form some notion of the condition of the foreign policy of the country, by a fact that has come to the knowledge of the writer, under circumstances that leave no doubt, in his mind, of its authenticity. An American was at Washington applying for some diplomatic appointment, at the moment Congress had the subject of the French reprisals, as recommended by the President, before them. Of so much greater importance did thisdiplomatic agentdeem foreign than native support, that he is said to have written letters to Paris assuring his friends there, that neither the nation nor congress would sustain the president in his proposition! One or more of these letters came into American hands, and were returned to Washington. In two instances, while in Europe, the writer found Englishmen employed in the legations at low salaries; and, of course, the secrets of the government were put at the disposal of foreign mercenaries.

[18]When General Jackson was running alone, in opposition to Mr. Adams, the English, under the impressions alluded to, above, and probably on account of ancient grudges, betrayed a strong disinclination to his success. Still, Mr. Adams was disliked, for he was believed to be unfriendly to England, and favourable to the system of protecting duties. Suddenly, the press of London, altered its tone in reference to the former, and from lavishing the usual scurrility, it began to speak of him in terms of respect. It is said that the English agents in America, notified their government that they were quarrelling with their bread and butter, and that the change of policy took place in consequence. These little occurrences should teach every American, how to appreciate praise, or censure, that comes from sources so venal. Mr. Adams probably understood the true foreign policy of the government, better than any political man who has been in power since the days of Jefferson. The protective system, the congress of Panama, though defeated in its objects by hostile influence, and the protest of the administration of Mr. Monroe, which is understood to have originated with Mr. Adams, are three of the most elevated, far sighted, and statesman-like measures, America ever undertook. The former, though run down by English influence, will quite likely be called for by the very states that now most oppose it, within the next five-and-twenty years. Nothing is more probable, than that the Constitution will be amended, solely with a view to this end, and that the cotton-growing states will first move in the matter. But for the redeeming act of the president, in recommending reprisals against France, the writer, a near looker on for most of the time, should say, that the character of the nation abroad, suffered much less during the administration of Mr. Adams, than during that of his successor, though the diplomatic tone was not what it ought to have been, under either administration. We boast a great deal of the dexterity with which the nation has got out of a difficulty, while we entirely overlook the capital fault by which it got into it. So far from the truculent spirit of democracy, inducing the government to rush into wars, the craven and temporising spirit of trade, the only concentrated interest of much available power in ordinary cases, has prevented it from maintaining the true interests of the country, in a dozen distinct instances, within the last twenty years.

[19]When the writer went to Europe, it was so unusual to hear any thing against the system of America, that disaffection may be said to have become extinct. On his return, however, after an absence of less than eight years, he was astonished to hear monarchical sentiments openly declared, and he believes that it will be generally admitted by all candid observers, that their avowal is now more open and more frequent, than they have been at any time, within the present century. This is not the place to discuss the reasons, but this explanation is due from the writer, on his own account, as, without it, a change that has actually taken place among others, may be ascribed to himself. No one need be ashamed of having honestly altered his opinions, for good cause, and after mature examination; but since the publication of these letters has commenced, the writer has been openly accused of changes that, in point of fact, have occurred among other people. Another occasion may offer to examine this point.

[20]Exaggerated as this may appear, the writer has actually been driven away, by strangers leaning over him, in this manner, no less than eleven times, at the Astor House, within the last twelvemonths.

[21]Mrs. Butler, in her shrewd work on America, has given many good hits at this love for the grandiose. Whenever this lady has gone out of her particular sphere, or that of her sex, her remarks are such as might have been anticipated from a young English woman, visiting America with all her political prejudices about her, and almost as a matter of course, necessarily ignorant of the true machinery and action of governments. Even in this writer, the expectation, not to say thelonging, for a dissolution of the Union, that has been so often mentioned in these pages, is sufficiently apparent, she, also, has fallen into the very common error of ascribing things to the institutions, such for instance as thenonchalanceof the trades people, and the noisy, screeching, hoydenish romps of the sexes, which it suits the caprices of certain people to term society, when they ought to be referred, one to the personal independence of a country prosperous beyond example, and the other to the unsettled condition of towns, that double their population every twenty years, and their wealth in ten.Mrs. Butler has made many other mistakes, beyond a question, for she has written under erroneous impressions at starting. Of this class are all the misconceptions connected with those usages that are thought to be tending daily towards aristocracy. Any one who knows the country well, knows that in all the ordinary appliances of this nature, America has been gradually receding from such forms, for the last forty years. Thus footmen, liveries, hatchments, coats of arms, &c. &c., are all much less common now, than at the commencement of the century. Mrs. Butler has mistaken the twilight, for the dawn; the shadows of the past for those of coming events. This is a common misapprehension of the English, and it arises from a disposition to see things in their own way.The treatment that this lady has received, cannot be too loudly condemned. She has been derided, caricatured, almost, if not positively, slandered, because she has presumed to speak the truth about us! Mrs. Trollope has met with similar denunciations, though with a greater show of reason, for Mrs. Trollope has calumniated her own sex in America. Besides, one sees, in the book of Mrs. Trollope, a malignant feeling, and calculations of profit; while the work of Mrs. Butler is as honest as it is fearless. The latter has designated persons too plainly, perhaps, as coupled with unpleasant remarks; but all these faults may be overlooked, as the whims of a very young female.In one thing Mrs. Butler is singularly mistaken. She says that neither England, nor France, manifests any sensibility on the subject of the comments of travellers! The French do not, ordinarily, understand the comments of the English, or the English those of the French. Neither nation reads nor knows any thing about the comments of the Americans at all. Nothing is easier than to manifest indifference to things of which we are totally ignorant. As respects the English, however, one has only to name Pillet, d’ Haussez, and Puckler-Muskau, in order to show how much abuse and calumny they can heap on those whose opinions displease them. The stories circulated in English society, concerning the latter, by way of retaliation for his book, were quite on a level with the Trollopeana of America. Both are a disgrace to civilization.

Mrs. Butler has made many other mistakes, beyond a question, for she has written under erroneous impressions at starting. Of this class are all the misconceptions connected with those usages that are thought to be tending daily towards aristocracy. Any one who knows the country well, knows that in all the ordinary appliances of this nature, America has been gradually receding from such forms, for the last forty years. Thus footmen, liveries, hatchments, coats of arms, &c. &c., are all much less common now, than at the commencement of the century. Mrs. Butler has mistaken the twilight, for the dawn; the shadows of the past for those of coming events. This is a common misapprehension of the English, and it arises from a disposition to see things in their own way.

The treatment that this lady has received, cannot be too loudly condemned. She has been derided, caricatured, almost, if not positively, slandered, because she has presumed to speak the truth about us! Mrs. Trollope has met with similar denunciations, though with a greater show of reason, for Mrs. Trollope has calumniated her own sex in America. Besides, one sees, in the book of Mrs. Trollope, a malignant feeling, and calculations of profit; while the work of Mrs. Butler is as honest as it is fearless. The latter has designated persons too plainly, perhaps, as coupled with unpleasant remarks; but all these faults may be overlooked, as the whims of a very young female.

In one thing Mrs. Butler is singularly mistaken. She says that neither England, nor France, manifests any sensibility on the subject of the comments of travellers! The French do not, ordinarily, understand the comments of the English, or the English those of the French. Neither nation reads nor knows any thing about the comments of the Americans at all. Nothing is easier than to manifest indifference to things of which we are totally ignorant. As respects the English, however, one has only to name Pillet, d’ Haussez, and Puckler-Muskau, in order to show how much abuse and calumny they can heap on those whose opinions displease them. The stories circulated in English society, concerning the latter, by way of retaliation for his book, were quite on a level with the Trollopeana of America. Both are a disgrace to civilization.

Back to Index Next