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 of _naïveté_ and 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 would _build_ and 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 the _arm_ instead of the
_hand_, 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 our
_doctrinaires_, the king of England _does_ exercise 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
of _our king’s being constrained to part with all his confidential
friends, and his own personal servants_ in 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 two _gentlemen_, 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 a _school_ book, 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 the _armed population_ to
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 a _great_ nation; 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 that Mr. 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 a _captain
in his majesty’s navy_ is a better judge in these matters than a
mere _German_ Duke! 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 this _diplomatic agent_ deem 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 the _longing_, 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 the _nonchalance_ of 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.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.
Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added,
when a predominant preference was found in the original book.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained; for example,
“cooly” and “coolly” are both valid variants and have been left
unchanged in the etext.
Catalog: ‘o. Virginia’ replaced by ‘of Virginia’.
Pg 13: ‘Lansdown, Grey, and’ replaced by ‘Lansdowne, Grey, and’.
Pg 31: ‘lath and stuccoe’ replaced by ‘lath and stucco’.
Pg 34: ‘like Stawberry Hill’ replaced by ‘like Strawberry Hill’.
Pg 38: ‘is their no analogy’ replaced by ‘is there no analogy’.
Pg 40: the heading ‘LETTER XVIII.’ replaced by ‘LETTER XVII.’.
Pg 42: ‘arbritrary selection’ replaced by ‘arbitrary selection’.
Pg 46: ‘the the truth even, in’ replaced by
‘that the truth, even in’.
Pg 48: ‘hast the merit’ replaced by ‘has the merit’.
Pg 54: ‘nervous, fidgetty’ replaced by ‘nervous, fidgety’.
Pg 60: ‘have postively no’ replaced by ‘have positively no’.
Pg 62: ‘atwhart the cables’ replaced by ‘athwart the cables’.
Pg 82: ‘adapting both both to’ replaced by ‘adapting both to’.
Pg 88: ‘scarcely recal’ replaced by ‘scarcely recall’.
Pg 95, 96: ‘are dependant on’ replaced by ‘are dependent on’.
Pg 109: ‘Sir James M‘Intosh’ replaced by ‘Sir James Macintosh’.
Pg 111: ‘these mistatements’ replaced by ‘these misstatements’.
Pg 119: ‘etherial essence’ replaced by ‘ethereal essence’.
Pg 121: ‘recal that passage’ replaced by ‘recall that passage’.
Pg 124: ‘in dicussion, and’ replaced by ‘in discussion, and’.
Pg 138: ‘one by by one’ replaced by ‘one by one’.
Pg 173: ‘from her workships’ replaced by ‘from her workshops’.
Pg 175: ‘results dependant’ replaced by ‘results dependent’.
Pg 177: ‘are incompatable’ replaced by ‘are incompatible’.
Pg 192: ‘particularily active, they they have’ replaced by
‘particularly active, they have’.
Pg 207: ‘to corrobate the’ replaced by ‘to corroborate the’.
Pg 210: ‘is dependant on’ replaced by ‘is dependent on’.
Pg 214: ‘El Derado’ replaced by ‘El Dorado’.
Pg 229: ‘than dependant, to’ replaced by ‘than dependent, to’.
Pg 232: ‘children often die.’ replaced by ‘children often do.’.
Pg 239: ‘in Regent street’ replaced by ‘in Regent’s street’.
Pg 242: ‘of the Himilayas’ replaced by ‘of the Himalayas’.
Pg 253: ‘home, I asscribe’ replaced by ‘home, I ascribe’.
Pg 257: ‘than elesewhere’ replaced by ‘than elsewhere’.
Footnote 14: ‘Mr. Cobbet said’ replaced by ‘Mr. Cobbett said’.