If, however, it be asked, where oceanic communication took its rise,

unquestionably that honour belongs to Bristol and the "Great Western," a

steamer of 210 feet in length, 1240 tons, fitted with two engines of 210

horse-power each. This vessel started on the 8th of March, 1838, under

the command of Captain Hosken, reached New York in thirteen days ten

hours, and made the return passage in fifteen days. Since that date

ocean steamers and steam companies have risen up like mushrooms. England

and America have established a kind of weekly Derby, Cunard entering one

horse and Collins the other. Unquestionably the Americans have been

pioneers in improving the build, and a rivalry has sprung up which is as

useful as it is honourable.

The English boats adhere to a greater proportion of sail, in case of

accidents to the engine; the Americans carry less sail than we do, for

the sake of increasing the speed. As to relative comfort on board the

two boats, an American gentleman, who had made several voyages, told me

the only difference he ever discovered was, the same as exists between

the hotels of the respective countries.--To return to litigation.

Another claim frequently set up in America is the invention of the

telegraph. Even in the Census Report--which I suppose may be considered

a Government work--I read the following:--"It is to American ingenuity

that we owe the practical application of the telegraph. While the honour

is due to Professor Morse for the practical application and successful

prosecution of the telegraph, it is mainly owing to the researches and

discoveries of Professor Henry, and other scientific Americans, that he

was enabled to perfect so valuable an invention." It is difficult to

conceive a more unblushing piece of effrontery than the foregoing

sentence, which proclaims throughout the Union that the electric

telegraph in its practical working is the invention of one American, and

in its scientific details the invention of other Americans, neither of

which assertions has truth for its basis, and consequently the

superstructure is a fiction--the only available excuse for which would

be, that the writer had never heard of what was going on in Europe. Had

he taken the least trouble to inquire into the subject before he wrote,

he never would--it is to be hoped--have so grossly deceived his

countrymen.

He might have easily ascertained that such men as Oersted, Ampère,

Arago, Sturgeon, had mastered in detail the various scientific

difficulties that stood in the way of the accomplishment of the

long-desired object; and he might also have known that Cooke in England

and Stienhiel in Germany had both overcome the practical difficulties

before Professor Morse had enlightened the Republic with his system,

which--like Bain's--is simply another method of producing the same

result--i.e., telegraphic communication.

Mr. Cooke took out his patent in conjunction with Professor Wheatstone,

whose attention had long been turned to this subject, and whose name has

been so much before the public, that not a few persons attribute the

telegraph to him exclusively. There was, indeed, some dispute between

them as to their respective claims, and the matter was referred to Sir

I. Brunel and Professor Daniell for arbitration. The burden of their

decision was, that Mr. Cooke was entitled to stand alone as the

gentleman to whom Great Britain is indebted for having practically

introduced and carried out the telegraph as a useful undertaking;

Professor Wheatstone's profound and successful researches having already

prepared the public to receive it.--So much for the justice of the

American claim to the invention, which, like steam, has been the produce

of many heads, and was brought into practical use first by Cooke, then

by Stienhiel in Germany, and lastly by Morse in America.

Another invention of which the public have heard no little discussion

lately is the reaping machine. To the American nation doubtless belongs

the credit of forcing it into notice and into use; but as for any claim

to the invention, it is equally certain they have none. That honour is

due solely to the Rev. Patrick Bell, a Scotch minister in the presbytery

of Arbroath. He first tried his reaping machine in August, 1828, at his

father's farm on Lord Airlie's estate, where it has been in yearly use

ever since; and in October he exhibited it at the Highland Society's

meeting at Glasgow. The principle upon which his first machine was made

differs in nothing from those making at this hour; and, as some of the

people employed on his father's farm migrated to America, it is only

reasonable to suppose they carried sufficient information with them to

explain the machine. American ingenuity soon copied, and American energy

soon gave an impulse to, Mr. Bell's machine, for which, though denying

them the invention, we ought not to deny them our thanks.

But while I thus explain the unwarrantable claims which Americans have

set forth, I must not allow John Bull to lay the flattering unction to

his soul that none of his claimed discoveries are disputed on the other

side of the Atlantic, I have seen a _Book of Facts_ printed in America,

which charges us with more than one geographical robbery in the Arctic

Seas, in which regions, it is well known, American enterprise and

sympathy have been most nobly employed. As I am incapable of balancing

the respective claims, I leave that subject to the Hydrographer's office

of the two countries.

The citizens of the Republic have but little idea of the injurious

effects which the putting forward unwarrantable claims has upon their

just claims. I have now before me a letter from a seafaring man who has

spent a quarter of a century upon the borders of the United States; he

is writing on the subject of their claims to the invention of steam, and

he winds up in these words:--"They are with this, as they are with

every other thing to which either merit or virtue is attached--the sole

and only proprietors and originators, and say both the one and the other

are unknown out of the universal Yankee nation." I do not endorse the

sentiment, but I quote it to show the effect produced on some minds by

the unfounded claims they have put forward.

They have ingenuity and invention enough legitimately belonging to them

for any nation to be justly proud of, without plucking peacock's

feathers from others, and sending them throughout the length and breadth

of the Republic as the plumage of the American eagle. How many useful

inventions have they not made in machinery for working wood? Is not

England daily importing some new improvement therein from the American

shores? Look again at their perfect and beautiful invention for the

manufacture of seamless bags, by Mr. Cyrus Baldwin, and which he has at

work at the Stark Mills. There are 126 looms in operation, all

self-acting and each one making 47 bags daily; the bags are a little

more than three and a half feet long, and chiefly used, I believe, for

flour and grain. When they are finished, sewing-machines are at hand,

which can hem at the rate of 650 bags each daily. This same gentleman

has also adapted his looms to the making hoses for water, of which he

can complete 1000 feet a day by the experimental loom now in use, and it

is more than probable these hoses will entirely supersede the use of the

leather ones, being little more than one-tenth the price, and not

requiring any expense to keep in order.

Another and very important purpose to which their ingenuity has applied

machinery is, the manufacture of fire-arms. It has long been a matter of

surprise to me, why so obvious and useful an application of machinery

was neglected by the Government at home. The advantages of being able to

transfer all screws, springs, nipples, hammers, &c., from one musket to

another, are so manifest to the most infantine comprehension, that I

suppose they considered it beneath their notice; nor can I make out that

they have duly inquired into the various breech-loading systems used in

the States, some of which they have been testing in their Navy for

years. As, however, we are beginning to copy their application of

machinery, I dare say the next generation will take up the question of

breech-loading arms.

A few observations on the Militia appear to follow naturally after

remarks on fire-arms. According to the most reliable information which I

have been able to obtain, every able-bodied male between 18 and 40 years

of age is liable to militia service. Those who do not serve are subject

to a fine, varying in different States, from 3s. upwards; which sum

helps to pay those who do duty. The pay of a private while on duty is

about 10s. a-day, and that of officers in proportion. Formerly, they

only turned out two days in the year; now I believe, they generally turn

out ten, and in some of the cities twenty, days annually. The persons

excused from militia service, are the clergy, medical men, fire

companies, and those who have held a commission for three years. Each

regiment settles its own uniform; and it is a strange sight to see

companies in French, German, and Highland uniforms, all marching gaily

through the streets.

The day of firing at a mark is quite a fête; they parade the town, with

the target untouched, on their road to the ground: there they commence

firing, at 100 yards; if the bull's-eye be not sufficiently riddled,

they get closer and closer, until, perforated and in shreds, it scarce

hangs together as they return through the town bearing it aloft in

triumph, and followed by all the washed, half-washed, and unwashed

aspirants to military glory.

I believe the good sense of the people is endeavouring to break through

the system of nationalizing the companies into French, German, Highland,

&c., believing that keeping up such distinctions is more calculated to

produce discord than harmony. How long it will be before they succeed in

eradicating these separate nationalities, I cannot pretend to say.

With respect to their numbers, I cannot give any accurate information.

_The American Almanack_--generally a very useful source of

information--puts them down at 2,202,113; which is evidently a little

bit of Buncombe, as those figures represent very nearly the whole

able-bodied men in the Republic between the ages of 18 and 40. As they

are liable to be called on, the _Almanack_ puts them down as though

regularly enrolled; their real numbers I leave to the fertility of the

imagination. In the same authority, I find the officers calculated at

76,920, of which 765 are generals. These numbers, I imagine, must also go

through a powerful process of subtraction before the exact truth would

be arrived at, although I believe there are twice 765 citizens who enjoy

the titular honour.

One fact, however, is beyond doubt; they have a large militia,

accustomed to, and fond of, using fire-arms; and those who feel disposed

to approach their shores with hostile intentions, will find the old

Scotch motto applicable to them in its fullest sense,--

"Nemo me impune lacessit."

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote CI: The Marquis de Jouffroy is said to have worked a boat by

steam on the Seine in 1781; but the Revolution breaking out, he appears

to have been unable to complete his invention.]

[Footnote CJ: The foregoing details are essentially extracted from a

work by Mr. Woodcroft, professor of machinery at University College,

London; who, after proving that the previous inventions of his

countrymen were combined together, for the first time, in the boat

engined by Symington, thus clearly and summarily disposes of the

pretensions put forward in favour of Fulton:--"In fact, if these

inventions separately, or as a combination, were removed out of Fulton's

boat, nothing would be left but the hull; and if the hull could then be

divested of that peculiarity of form, admitted to have been derived from

Colonel Beaufoy's experiments, _all that would remain would be the hull

of a boat of ordinary construction."_]

CHAPTER XXX.

_Adverse Influences._

I now come to the consideration of the annual celebration of the 4th

July, an event which presents itself to my mind under two opposite

aspects, the one beneficial, the other injurious. If contemplated as a

nation's grateful acknowledgment to Providence for the successful

termination of an arduous struggle for independence, it assumes an

aspect at once dignified and Christian; but if into its celebration

other elements enter which are calculated to nourish hostile feelings

towards those who have long ceased to reciprocate such unworthy

sentiments, in that case I think its aspect may be fairly termed both

injurious and unchristian.

Let me then call your attention to the method of celebration. It

consists of three parts:--First, the reading of the Declaration of

Independence; secondly, an oration on the subject; lastly, procession

and jollification.

Now what is the Declaration of Independence? It is a document which

details their views of the oppression and injustice which justified

their rebellion against the mother country. The clauses are too numerous

to quote in full, but I subjoin a few, that the reader may form his own

opinion. Speaking of the sovereign of Great Britain, they say he has

protected "armed troops among us, by a mock trial, from punishment for

any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these States.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and

destroyed the lives of our people. He is, at this time, transporting

large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death,

desolation, and tyranny, already begun, with circumstances of cruelty

and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally

unworthy the head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our

fellow-citizens taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against

their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren,

or to fall themselves by their hands. He has excited domestic

insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the

inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known

rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes,

and conditions. In every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned

for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been

answered only by repeated injury. A prince whose character is thus

marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler

of a free people."

I pause not to ask if any of these charges are correct or not: grant

them accuracy in every statement, nay more, admit that they were

eminently calculated to stir up the feelings of the colonists, and to

inflame that spirit which was requisite to make their struggle for

independence justifiable and successful, and that they were therefore

called for by the emergencies of the day;--but nearly eighty years have

rolled over since that Declaration was penned; there is no success

sought for now which renders such appeals necessary, and surely it is

not for the purpose of justifying their rebellion that they are made.

Where then is the good to be derived from such declarations? Is there

any misgiving in the Republic as to sentiments of patriotism or pluck?

Surely none. But who can help seeing the evil to which they lead? These

annual recapitulations of old grievances, buried beneath nearly a

century, must tend to excite hostile feelings towards England. Conceive

for one moment France reading annually a declaration of independence

from British arms on the anniversary of their recapture of Calais, and

engrossing in that document every injustice or atrocity which the

English perpetrated during their rule; not to mention the undignified

nature of such a course, who can doubt that it would be pre-eminently

calculated to generate those hostile feelings which it is the bounden

duty of all civilized States to allay? In short, what does it so much

resemble as the system by which, in barbarous days long since past, the

Highland clans used to perpetuate their feuds. If a Christian community

cannot glory in and commemorate national independence without such

adjuncts, such a ceremony would, in my humble opinion, be more honoured

in the breach than in the observance.

Among other pernicious influences, I should mention that the Irish

celebrate the battle of the Boyne annually in order to prevent their

national angry passions from subsiding. Not the least curious features

in these same Paddies is the fact that, while cursing England for her

treatment of Ireland, they all unite as one man in favour of Slavery.

Mr. Mitchell, the escaped convict, is said to have expressed his opinion

that a plantation on the Alabama river with fifty sleek slaves, was the

_beau idéal_ of a terrestrial paradise. If he be a bachelor, and still

entertain the same sentiments, I would recommend him to take "The

stewardess of the Lady Franklin" as the sharer of his joys.

With regard to the orations pronounced, the one I heard at Geneseo had

nothing that struck me as in any way lending itself to those feelings I

have so freely censured; but it is not always so. I have before me now

an epitome of a speech made by the Honourable D.S. Dickenson, at

Syracuse, on July 4th, 1853. Being an honourable, it is not unfair to

suppose him--mind, I say to suppose him--a man of superior attainment,

selected by a well-educated people. The epitome is headed "Vigorous

Discussion and Patriotic Sentiments." I only quote one passage, which I

could almost fancy Matthew Ward, the hero of the Louisville school-room,

had written; it runs thus--"The eloquent orator then went on for nearly

half an hour in a strain of withering sarcasm and invective, exposing

the shameless and wicked oppressions of England in her collieries, in

her factories, in her oppression of Ireland; denouncing her as a nation

whose history was written in oppression and blood (_great

applause_.)"--It is difficult to believe that the chosen representative

of an intelligent community should thus speak of that nation to which

his own country is indebted for nearly every valuable institution she

possesses; but when such ridiculous vituperation is received with shouts

of applause from the gaping rowdies who throng around him, does it not

clearly demonstrate the truth of my previous statements as to the

effects which the celebration of the 4th of July, as now observed, may

naturally lead to? I say, may lead to, because I would fain hope, for

the sake of the credit and dignity of the Republic, that such

disreputable orations are rare exceptions.

But that such feelings of aversion to the mother country are generated

among the masses, is proved indirectly in another quarter--viz.,

Congress. During the debate on the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, a Mr. Douglas,

to whom I have before alluded, and who may be considered as the

representative of the rabid and rowdy portion of the community, thus

expresses himself with regard to England: "It is impossible she can love

us,--I do not blame her for not loving us,--sir, we have wounded her

vanity and humbled her pride,--she can never forgive us. But for us, she

would be the first Power on the face of the earth,--but for us, she

would have the prospect of maintaining that proud position which she

held for so long a period. We are in her way. She is jealous of us; and

jealousy forbids the idea of friendship. England does not love us; she

cannot love us, and we cannot love her either. We have some things in

the past to remember that are not agreeable. She has more in the present

to humiliate her that she cannot forgive."--After which expressions, the

poor little man, as though he had not the slightest conception of the

meaning of the words he was using, adds the following sentence,

deprecating all he had previously uttered: "I do not wish to administer

to the feeling of jealousy and rivalry that exists between us and

England. I wish to soften and smooth it down as much as possible."

On a subsequent occasion, Mr. Butler, senator for South Carolina, who

honestly did deprecate such language as the foregoing, referred, by way

of contrast, to the many constitutional principles the Republic had

derived from England, and also to the valuable literature which she had

produced, and by which the Republic had benefited. Upon which, poor Mr.

Douglas got furious, and asserted, that "Every English book circulated

contains lurking and insidious slanders and libels upon the character of

our people and the institutions and policy of our Government."--He then

discovered that abolitionism began, in England, and that "she keeps her

missionaries perambulating this country, delivering lectures and

scattering abroad incendiary publications, designed to excite

prejudices, hate, and strife between the different sections of the

Union."--He then, with Illinois truthfulness, hints at _Uncle Tom's

Cabin_, as though it were English literature, and which, he says, "is

designed to stir up treason and insurrection around his--Mr.

Butler's--fireside," &c.--He returns to the charge, and asserts, with

equal accuracy, "Millions are being expended to distribute _Uncle Tom's

Cabin_ throughout the world, with the view of combining the fanaticism,

ignorance, and hatred of all the nations of the earth in a common

crusade against the peculiar institutions of the State and section of

this Union represented by the senator from South Carolina." One might

almost imagine that the copy of Webster's Dictionary, which Mr. Douglas

has in his library--if he possess such a thing--has omitted an old

English word, spelt T R U T H.

But the point I wish to call the reader's especial attention to, is,

that the little senator's rabid rhapsody was received with shouts of

gallery applause, which, as I have before observed, is an exhibition of

sentiment not allowed in the Senate to either members of Congress or

gallery. Yet, so thoroughly had he expressed the feelings of the said

rowdies, that they could not resist the unlawful burst of approval. Mr.

Butler of course replied to his absurd arguments; but my object is not

discussion. I only allude to the subject at all for the purpose of

proving my previous assertion, that within the walls of Congress itself,

elements calculated to engender feelings of animosity towards Great

Britain are to be found at work. It is this deep-seated consciousness of

guilt that makes that portion of the citizens of the Republic so

sensitive with regard to the observations which proceed from this

country. Americans like Mr. Butler, who maintain the dignity of their

country without descending to paltry popularity-hunting calumny, can

afford to read any criticisms which may come from across the water with

as much calmness as American remarks are read here. Such men have no

accusing conscience gnawing at their vitals. If the population of the

two countries were fed upon Judge Douglas's venomous diet, ere long,

like the Kilkenny cats, nothing but the tails would be left.

I have felt it imperative to make these remarks, that my countrymen may

understand why they so constantly find the strongest symptoms of

hostility to England in a certain class of American writers. Even in the

text-books for children, you can detect the same animus working. Miss

Willard, in her _History of the United States_, narrates that six Indian

chiefs came to Colonel Washington, the grandfather of the founder of

the Republic, to treat for peace. The treachery to, and cold-blooded

murder of, these poor Indians she disposes of thus:--"He _wrongfully_

put them to death." General Clinton's conduct, in the prosecution of his

duties to his country, which never displayed any such revolting act, she

describes as reviving in a civilized age "_barbarous atrocities_."--Take

another instance of amiable sentiments towards England, as exhibited by

the Common Council of New York, who voted 200l. to entertain John

Mitchell, the convict who had escaped from custody. The Mayor addresses

him in the following terms:--"When, sir, you were silenced by restraint,

overpowered by brutal force, and foreign bayonets were employed on your

own soil to suppress truth and to bind upon your limbs and mind the

shackles of slavery, we sympathized with you in your adversity. We hated

the tyrant and loved the victim. And when, sir, after the semblance of a

trial, you were condemned and hurried as a felon from your home, your

country, and your friends, to a distant land, we were filled with

indignation, and pledged a deeper hatred towards the enemies of

man."--Mr. Mitchell, in reply, confesses himself from earliest youth a

traitor to his country, and honours the British Government with the

following epithets: "I say to them that they are not a government at

all, but a gang of conspirators, of robbers, of murderers." These

sentiments were received by the multitude around with "great applause."

Considering how many causes for exciting ill-will exist, the only wonder

is that, when so large a portion of the Republicans are utterly ignorant

of the truth as regards England, the feeling is not more hostile.

It is needless to assert, that the feelings of jealousy and animosity

ascribed to England by Mr. Douglas, exist only in the disordered

imagination of his own brain and of those of the deluded gulls who

follow in his train: for I am proud to say no similar undignified and

antagonistic elements are at work here; and, if any attempt were made to

introduce them, the good sense of the country would unite with one voice

to cry them down. I defy all the educated, ignorant, or rabid population

of the Republic to bring forward any instance where, either in the

celebration of any ceremony, the orations of any senator, or the

meetings of any corporation, such unworthy and contemptible animosity

towards the United States has ever been shadowed forth.

I must not, however, allow the reader to understand from the foregoing

remark that there is an universal national antipathy to England;

although, whenever she is brought into juxtaposition with the Republic,

it may appear very strongly developed. The most erroneous impressions

were at the time this was written, abroad among my countrymen, in

respect of American sympathies with Russia. Filibusteros, rabid

annexationists, inveterate Slaveholders, and Rowdies of every class, to

which might have been added a few ignoble minds who made the grave of

conscience a "stump" from which to pour forth Buncombe speeches to catch

ephemeral popularity, constituted the body in America who sympathised

with Russia. All the intelligence of the North, and a great portion of

that of the South, felt the deepest interest in our success, not merely

as descendants of the mother country, but also because they recognised

the war in which we were engaged as a struggle in the cause of liberty.

We could not suffer ourselves to be deceived by the Filibustero Press,

nor by the accounts we read of vessels laden with arms carrying them to

Russia. Those were no more proofs of the national feeling, than the

building of slave-clippers every year at Baltimore is a proof that the

nation wishes to encourage the slave-trade. The true feeling of a nation

must be sought for far deeper than in the superficial clamour of

political demagogues, backed though it be by the applause of gaping

crowds whose worst passions are pandered to for the sake of a transient

breath of popularity.

CHAPTER XXXI.

_Olla Podrida._

The preceding observations lead naturally to a few observations upon

American character in a national point of view; for in treating of so

exceedingly varied a community, combining as it does nearly every nation

of the Old World, it would be beyond the limits of a work like this to

enter into details on so complicated a subject.

As I prefer commencing with the objectionable points, and winding up

with the more favourable, I shall first name Vanity as a great national

feature. The fulsome adulation with which the Press bespatters its

readers, throughout the length and breadth of the Union, wherever any

comparisons are drawn with other nations, is so great that the masses

have become perfectly deluded; and being so far removed from the nations

of the Old World, and knowing, consequently, nothing of them except

through the columns of a vanity-feeding Press, they receive the most

exaggerated statements as though they were Gospel truths--little aware

how supremely ridiculous the vaunting which they read with delight makes

them appear in the eyes of other people.

I insert the following extract from the Press, as one instance among

many of the vain and ridiculous style of some of their editorial

leaders. It is taken from the _New York Herald_--one of the most

widely-circulated papers in the Union, but one which, I am bound in

justice to say, is held in contempt[CK] by the more intelligent portion

of the community. Speaking of Mrs. B. Stowe's reception in England, he

says:--"She proves herself quite an American in her intercourse with the

English aristocracy. Her self-possession, ease, and independence of

manner were quite undisturbed in the presence of the proud duchesses

and fraughty dames of the titled English nobility. They expected

timidity and fear, and reverence for their titles, in an untitled

person, and they found themselves disappointed. Mrs. Stowe felt herself

their equal in social life, and acted among them as she felt. This,

above all other things, has caused a great astonishment in the higher

circles in favour of American women, for in fact it is a quality

peculiarly distinguishing an American woman, that she can be and is a

duchess among duchesses."

Even in the simple article of diplomatic dress we see the same feature

peeping out. Vanity may be discovered as readily in singularity, however

simple, as in the naked savage who struts about as proud as a peacock,

with no covering but a gold-laced cocked hat on his head and a

brass-mounted sword at his side. When civilized society agrees upon some

distinctive uniform for diplomatic service, who can fail to observe the

lurking vanity that dictated the abolition of it by the Republic?--not

to mention the absurdity of wearing a sword in plain clothes. The only

parallel it has among bipeds, that I know of, is a master-at-arms on

board a ship, with a cane by his side; but then he carries a weapon

which he is supposed to use. The Minister of the Republic carries a

weapon for ornament only. In quadruped life, it reminds me of a poodle

closely shaved all over, except a little tuft at the end of his tail,

the sword and the tuft recalling to mind the fact that the respective

possessors have been shorn of something.

Firmly convinced, from my earliest schoolboy days, of the intimate

connexion which exists between boasting and bullying, I had long blushed

to feel how pre-eminent my own country was in the ignoble practice; but

a more intimate acquaintance with the United States has thoroughly

satisfied me that that pre-eminence justly belongs to the great

Republic. But it is not merely in national matters that this feeling

exhibits itself; you observe it in ordinary life as well, by the intense

love shown for titles; nobody is contented until he obtain some rank. I

am aware this is a feature inseparable from democracy. Everybody you

meet is Captain, Colonel, General, Honourable, Judge, or something; and

if they cannot obtain it legitimately, they obtain it by courtesy, or

sometimes facetiously, like a gentleman I have before alluded to, who

obtained the rank of judge because he was a connoisseur in wine. In

these, and a thousand other ways, the love of vanity stands nationally

revealed.

I do not think Americans are aware what injustice they do themselves by

this love of high-sounding titles.[CL] For instance, in a paper before

me, I see a Deputy Sheriff calling on the mob to resist the law; I see

Governor Bigler authorizing General King to call out the military, one

naturally supposes to keep order; but observe he calls Mr. Walker, of

Erie, a traitor and a scoundrel; of the directors and managers of the

railroad, he says, "We will whip them, will whip them, will bury them so

deep electricity can't reach them--we will whip them--we will whip the

g--ts out of them!" &c.--Now, judging of these people by their titles,

as recognised by the rest of the civilized world, what a disgrace to the

higher classes of Americans is the foregoing! But anybody who really

knows the title system of the Republic will at once see that the orator

was a mere rowdy. Thus they suffer for their vanity. It pervades every

class of the whole community, from the rowdy, who talks of "whipping

creation," to the pulpit orator, who often heralds forth past success to

feed the insatiable appetite: in short, it has become a national

disease; and were it not for the safety-valve formed by the unmeasured

terms of mutual vituperation they heap upon each other on occasions of

domestic squabbles, their fate would assuredly be that of the frog in

the fable.

In the medical world, it is said no one has a cold without fever; and I

think it may with equal truth be asserted of the national world, no

nations are vain without being afflicted with sensitiveness: at all

events, it is true as regards the United States. No maiden in her teens

is so ticklishly sensitive as the Americans. I do not refer merely to

that portion of the community of which I have selected Mr. Douglas, of

Illinois, as the type; I allude also to the far higher order of

intelligence with which the Republic abounds. There is a touchiness

about them all with respect to national and local questions which I

never saw equalled: in fact, the few sheets of their Press which reach

this country are alone sufficient to convince any one on that point; for

in a free country the Press may always be fairly considered, to a

certain extent, as the reflex of the public mind. I suppose it is with

nations as with individuals, and that each are alike blind to their own

failings. In no other way can I account for the Republic overlooking so

entirely the sensitiveness of others. Take for instance the appointment

of M. Soulé--a Frenchman naturalized in America--as minister to the

court of Spain. I do not say that he was a Filibustero, but he was

universally supposed to be identified with that party; and if he were

not so identified, he showed a puerile ignorance of the requirements of

a Minister, quite beyond conception, when he received a serenade of five

thousand people at New York, who came in procession, bearing aloft the

accompanying transparencies, he being at the time accredited to his new

ministry.

On the first transparency was the following motto:--

A STAR. PIERCE.

SOULÉ. CUBA.

On the second banner:--

YOUNG AMERICA AND YOUNG CUBA.

Free thought and free speech for the Cubans.

'Tis no flight of fancy, for

Cuba must be, and 'tis

Written by fate, an isle

Great and free.

O pray, ye doomed tyrants,

Your fate's not far:

A dread Order now watches you,--

It is the Lone Star.

On the third banner:--

Cuba must and shall be free.

The Antilles Flower,

The true Key of the Gulf,

Must be plucked from the Crown

Of the Old Spanish Wolf.

Monumental representation--a tomb and a weeping willow. On the tomb were

the words--

LOPEZ AND CRITTENDEN,

AGUERO AND ARMATERO.

They and their companions are not forgotten.

M. Soulé accepts the compliment, and makes a speech, in which he informs

his audience that he cannot believe "that this mighty nation can be

chained now within the narrow limits which fettered the young Republic

of America," &c.

Change the scene, and let any American judge in the following supposed

and parallel case. Imagine expeditions fitted out in England, in spite

of Government, to free the slaves in the Southern States; imagine a

Lopez termination to the affair, and the rowdy blood of England forming

other Filibustero expeditions; then imagine the Hon. Mr. Tenderheart

identifying himself with them, and receiving an appointment as minister

to Washington; after which, imagine him serenaded at St. James's by

thousands of people bearing transparencies, the first representing a

naked woman under the slave-driver's lash; the second, containing some

such verses as "The Antilles Flower," &c.; for instance:--

"The slaves must be plucked

From the chains that now gall 'em,

Though American wolves

An inferior race call 'em."

Let the minister accept the serenade, and address the multitude,

declaring "that this mighty nation can no longer be chained down to

passive interference," &c. Let me ask any American how the Hon. Mr.

Tenderheart would be received at Washington, particularly if a few days

after he took a shot at his French colleague because another person

insulted him in that gentleman's house?--I ask, what would Americans say

if such a line of conduct were to be pursued towards them? I might go

further, and suppose that a conclave of English Ministers met at Quebec,

and discussed the question as to how far the flourishing town of

Buffalo, so close on the frontier, was calculated to endanger the peace

and prosperity of Canada, and then imagine them winding up their report

with this clause--If it be so--"then by every law, human and divine, we

shall be justified in wresting it from its present owners." The American

who penned that sentence must possess a copy of the Scriptures unknown

to the rest of the world. Surely America must imagine she has the

monopoly of all the sensitiveness in the world, or she would never have

acted by Spain as she has done. How humiliated must she feel while

contemplating the contrast between her act in appointing the minister,

and Spain's demeanour in her silent and dignified reception of him!

This same sensitiveness peeps out in small things as well as great,

especially where England is concerned: thus, one writer discovers that

the Americans speak French better than the English; probably he infers

it from having met a London Cit who had run over to Paris for a quiet

Sunday, and who asked him "_Moosyere, savvay voo oo ey lay Toolureeze?"_

Another discovers that American society is much more sought after than

English; that Americans are more agreeable, more intelligent, more

liberal, &c.; but the comparison is always with England or the English.

And why all this? Simply because it feeds the morbid appetite of many

Republican citizens, which the pure truth would not.

This sensitiveness also shows itself in the way they watch the opinions

of their country expressed by _The Times_, or by any largely circulating

paper. I remember an American colonel who had been through the whole

Mexican war, saying to me one day, "I assure you the Mexican troops are

the most contemptible soldiers in the world; I would rather a thousand

to one face them than half the number of Camanche Indians."--The object

of this remark was to show on what slight and insufficient grounds _The

Times_ had spoken of the United States as a great military nation since

the Mexican war. An article giving them due credit for a successful

campaign was easily magnified beyond its intended proportions, and my

gallant friend was modestly disclaiming so high-sounding an appellation;

but such evidently was the construction which he felt his countrymen had

put upon it.

I turn now for a few moments to the question of Morals; and here, again,

it is of course only in a wholesale manner I can treat of the subject.

As far as my inquiries enable me to judge, I find the same elements

producing the same results here as in England. Wherever masses are

clustered together most largely, there vice runs as rampant as in

England; nay, I have the authority of a lecture delivered at the

Maryland Institute, for saying that it is even worse in many places.

After describing various instances of lawless conduct, the lecturer

continues thus: "Such lawlessness as I have described is not tolerated

in any other part of the world, and would not be tolerated here for a

moment, but for the criminal apathy of our citizens generally, and the

truckling, on the part of our politicians and public officers, for the

votes of the very men whom they know to be violating and trampling on

the laws."--In illustration, he states, "In every part of Europe in

which I have travelled,--in England, Holland, France, Germany,

Switzerland, and Italy; under all the different systems of religion and

forms of government; in the large cities, and the small towns and

villages; in the highways and byways,--I found better public order, more

decorum, where bodies of men were assembled together, and less tendency

to rowdyism, pugilism, and violence, than there is in most parts of this

country. In this general statement of the fact, all unprejudiced

travellers will, I suppose concur."--Further on, he draws a comparison

favourable to London; and, with regard to the Police in our metropolis,

he says, "A more respectable and finer-looking body of men it would be

difficult to find in any country. A stranger may apply to one for

information, with a certainty of receiving a polite and intelligent

answer," &c.--I only quote the last paragraph, in case Mr. Matt. Ward

should see these pages, and that he may know how the Police behave

towards those who know how to conduct themselves.[CM]

The lecturer goes on to complain of the depravity of youth. He then

attacks the dispensation of the law, pointing out many instances of

their mal-administration. He then proceeds to attack the fire companies;

he admits their courage and daring, but points out at the same time

their lawlessness. He says--speaking of Philadelphia--"Almost every

company has its war-song, breathing the most barbarous and bloodthirsty

sentiments towards some rival association, and describing the glory of

the fireman to the destruction of his enemy's apparatus, or worse yet,

his life."--He gives the following list of the terrific names of the

companies: "Hornets, Snappers, Blood-reds, Bed-bugs, Rock-boys,

Buffaloes, Skimmers, Scrougers, Revengers, Knockers, Black-hawks,

Pirate-boys, Kill-devils." After which he gives the following specimen,

of their songs, written by a "Bluffer and Red-devil:"--

"INDEPENDENT HOSE SONG.

"We're the saucy Hyena-boys of George's-street, as all knows; We can

whip the Penn and Globe, likewise the Carroll Hose; We'll whip the

three together, the Bed-bugs and South Penn throw in for ease; We do

run our carriage among our foes, and run her where we please.

"You'd better hush your blowing, Globe, if you know when you are well;

For if we take your engine again, we'll smash her all to hell. Here is

luck to the Bluffers, and all honest boys of that name; Here is to the

Hyenas and Red-devils, that no one can tame."

He subsequently points out the evils of allowing political passions to

guide citizens in the selection of officers, and declares, "that persons

are elected to, and now fill, important offices in Baltimore, to whom no

responsible trust in private life would be confided by the very men who

voted for them."[CN] With regard to the actual commission of crime, and

the due punishment of the offenders, he draws the following comparison

between London and Baltimore: "The population of the former is 13 times

greater than that of the latter; but the number of arrests is as 1 to

7,--in other words, the commission of crime, in proportion to numbers,

was 46 per cent. greater than in London. Then, to show the inefficiency

of the law, he proceeds to state, that the commitments for trial were

only 29 per cent. greater, and that, even of those committed, many

escaped just punishment. Of course, the large cities in America are the

only places in which any comparison can be made with this country; but,

while doing so, the tide of emigration, which helps to fill up their

numbers, must not be lost sight of, or we should judge them unfairly.

With regard to the masses that are spread over the length and breadth of

the land, I certainly have never seen nor heard anything that need make

England ashamed of the comparison. It would not be equitable to judge by

mere numbers,--you must also bring into the balance the comparative

state of affluence and independence of the respective parties; for who

can doubt that distress is one of the great causes of crime? Even in the

wealthy State of New York, I find an account of the following outrage,

committed upon a Mr. Lawrence, when serving a summons upon his

aggressor, Mr. Deitz: "He found Mr. Deitz near the house, and handed him

the papers. Deitz took them and read them, when he threw them on the

ground,--seized Lawrence by the throat, calling him a d----d scoundrel,

for coming to serve papers on him. He then called to his family to blow

a horn, when a man, named Hollenbeck, who was at work for Deitz as a

mason, interceded for Lawrence, who managed to get away, and started off

on a run. Deitz followed in pursuit, knocked Lawrence down, and held him

until four men in disguise made their appearance. They then tied his

hands behind him, and took him to a small piece of bush near by,--then

tore off his coat, vest, and cravat, and with a jack-knife cut off his

hair, occasionally cutting his scalp,--and, remarking that they had a

plaster that would heal it up, they tarred his head and body, and poured

tar into his boots. After exhausting all their ingenuity this way, each

cut a stick, and whipped him until they got tired. They then tied his

hands before him, and started him for the house, each of them kicking

him at every step. They made him take the papers back, but took them

away again;--when, after knocking him down again, they left him, and he

succeeded in reaching the residence of George Beckers last evening. His

legs, hands, arms, and face are badly bruised."--If we travel West and

South, we shall doubtless find that morality is far more lax than in

England; but what can you expect where gentlemen, even senators for

States, go out to fight bloody duels with rifles at twenty paces, while

crowds of spectators are looking on?

Where the Americans have the advantage over our population is, first and

foremost, in possessing a boundless extent of territory which gives a

rich return for comparatively little labour, and where, if labour is

wanted, the scarcity of the article insures its commanding a high price.

Compare England for one moment with two of the oldest American States,

and therefore the most thickly populated:--

Square Miles. Inhabitants.

England contains 50,000 17,923,000

New York " 46,000 3,097,000

Pennsylvania " 46,000 2,311,786

We here see, that if we take the most populous States in the Union, the

proportion is nearly 6 to 1 in favour of America; but, if we mass the

whole, we shall find--

Square Miles. Inhabitants.

Great Britain and Ireland contain 120,000 27,400,000

United States 3,500,000 23,192,000

This would bring the proportion of population to extent of territory, in

rough numbers:--

Great Britain and Ireland 228 inhabitants to the square mile.

United States 7 " " "

In other words, Great Britain is 32 times as thickly populated as the

Republic. If these facts are borne in mind, I confess that the

commission of crime in Great Britain appears to me proportionally far

smaller than in the States, notwithstanding all the advantages of the

free and liberal education which is within their reach.

I cannot but think that the general system of training youth in the

Republic has a most prejudicial effect, in many instances, on their

after-life. In their noble zeal for the education of the brain, they

appear to me to lose sight almost entirely of the necessity of

disciplining the mind to that obedience to authority, which lays the

foundation of self-control and respect for the laws of the land.

Nationally speaking, there is scarcely such a thing as a lad in the

whole Union. A boy in the States hardly gets over the novelty of that

portion of his dress which marks the difference of sex, ere his motto

is: "I don't care; I shall do what I best please:" in short, he is made

a man before he ceases to be a boy; he consequently becomes unable to

exercise that restraint which better discipline might have taught him,

and the acts of his after-life are thus more likely to be influenced by

passion and self-will than by reason or reflection. I find in the

lecture from which I have already quoted, the following paragraph,

which, as I consider it illustrative of my last observation, I insert at

length.

"But the most alarming feature in the condition of things, not only in

the city, but elsewhere throughout the country, is the lawlessness of

the youth. The most striking illustration of this which I have seen is

taken from a Cincinnati paper of last January. It seems that in the

course of a few days one hundred applications had been made by parents

in that city to have their own children sent to the House of Refuge.

The particulars of one case, which happened a short time before, are

given:--a boy, twelve years of age, was brought before the Mayor's

Court by his father, who stated that the family were absolutely afraid

the youth would take their lives, and that he had purchased a pistol

for the purpose of shooting the housekeeper. A double-barrelled pistol

was produced in court, which the police-officer had taken from the

boy, who avowed that he had bought it for the purpose stated. The

mayor sent the boy to the House of Refuge."

I now pass on to the question of Liberty in the United States. If by

liberty be understood the will of the greater number ruling the State or

regulating its laws, certainly they have more liberty than England; but

if by liberty be understood that balance of power and adaptation of the

laws to the various interests of the whole community, combined with the

due execution, of them against offenders of whatever class, then I

consider that there is unquestionably more liberty in England, in spite

of the restrictions by which the franchise is limited--nay, rather I

should say, in consequence of those very restrictions; for I believe

they tend to secure the services of more liberal, high-minded, and

independent representatives than any country--however highly educated

its population may be--would return under a system of universal

suffrage. I do not intend to convey in the foregoing observation, any

opinion as to how far it is desirable, or otherwise, to modify the

restrictions at present existing in England; it is obvious they should

keep pace with the growing intelligence of the community, inasmuch as,

if they do not, popular agitation is readily excited, and violent

changes are forced by ignorant passion, going far beyond those which

educated prudence and a sense of justice ought to have brought

forward.--Prevention is better than cure.

Mr. Everett, in a letter dated July 25, 1853, after observing that it

has long been the boast of England that she is the great city of refuge

for the rest of Europe, adds, "it is the prouder boast of the United

States, that they are, and ever have been, an asylum for the rest of the

world, including Great Britain herself:" he then goes on to say, "no

citizen has ever been driven into banishment."--This is bravely said by

an able son of the "Land of Liberty;" but when he penned it, he appears

to have forgotten that there are upwards of three millions of his own

fellow-creatures held in the galling shackles of hopeless slavery by the

citizens of that land of which he makes so proud a boast; and that from

one to two thousand of the wretched victims escape annually to the

British colony adjoining, which is their sole city of refuge on the

whole North American continent. Doubtless Mr. Everett's countrymen do

not sufficiently know this startling point of difference, or they would

hesitate in accepting such a boast. So ignorant are some of his

countrymen of the real truth as regards the citizens of Great Britain,

that a friend of mine was asked by a well-educated and otherwise

intelligent son of the Republic, "Is it really true that all the land in

England belongs to the Queen?"

While on the subject of liberty, it is well to observe one or two

curious ways in which it may be said to be controlled in America. If

any gentleman wished to set up a marked livery for his servants, he

could not do so without being the subject of animadversions in the rowdy

Press, styling him a would-be aristocrat. But perhaps the most

extraordinary vagary is the Yankee notion that service is degrading; the

consequence of which is that you very rarely see a Yankee servant; and

if by chance you find one on a farm, he insists on living and eating

with the overseer. So jealous are they of the appearance of service,

that on many of the railways there was considerable difficulty in

getting the guard, or conductor, to wear a riband on his hat designating

his office, and none of the people attached to the railway station will

put on any livery or uniform by which they can be known. I wonder if it

ever occurs to these sons of the Republic, that in thus acting they are

striking at the very root of their vaunted equal rights of man, and

spreading a broader base of aristocracy than even the Old World can

produce. Servants, of course, there must be in every community, and it

is ridiculous to suppose that American gentlemen ever did, or ever will,

live with their housemaids, cooks, and button-boys; and if this be so,

and that Americans consider such service as degrading, is it not

perfectly clear that the sons of the soil set themselves up as nobles,

and look upon the emigrants--on whom the duties of service chiefly

devolve--in the light of serfs?

I may, while discussing service, as well touch upon the subject of

strikes. The Press in America is very ready to pass strictures on the

low rate of wages in this country, such as the three-ha'penny

shirt-makers, and a host of other ill-paid and hard-worked poor. Every

humane man must regret to see the pressure of competition producing such

disgraceful results; but my American friends, if they look carefully

into their own country, will see that they act in precisely the same

way, as far as they are able; in short, that they get labour as cheap as

they can. Fortunately for the poor emigrant, the want of hands is so

great, that they can insure a decent remuneration for their work; but

the proof that the Anglo-Saxon in America is no better than the rest of

the world in this respect, is to be found in the fact that strikes for

higher wages also take place among them. I remember once reading in the

same paper of the strike of three different interests; one of which was

that indispensable body, the hotel-waiters. The negroes even joined with

the whites, and they gained their point; they knew the true theory of

strikes, and made their move "when the market was rising." The hotels

were increasing their charges, and they merely wanted their share of the

prosperity.

I now propose to consider one of the brightest features in the national

character--Intelligence. Irresistible testimony is borne to their

appreciation of the value of education, not merely by the multitudes of

schools of all kinds, and by the numbers that attend them, but also by

that arrangement of which they may be so justly proud, and which opens

the door to every branch of study to their poorest citizens free of

expense. No praise is too high for such a noble national institution as

the school system of the Republic. How far it may be advisable to bring

all the various classes of the community together at that early age when

habits which affect after-life are so readily acquired, is another

question. Though the roughness of the many may derive advantage from

contact with the polish of the few, it appears to me more than probable

that the polish of the few will be influenced far more considerably by

the roughness of the many. I cannot, therefore, but imagine that the

universal admixture of all classes of society in early infancy must

operate prejudicially to that advancement in the refinements of

civilization which tends to give a superior tone to the society of every

country. It must not, however, be imagined that the intelligence

obtained at these schools is confined to those subjects which are

requisite for making dollars and cents. People of this country, judging

of the Republicans by the general accounts given of them through the

Press, can have little idea of the extent to which the old standard

works of the mother-country are read; but there is an intelligent

portion of our own nation to be found among the booksellers, who can

enlighten them on this point. I have been told by several of them, not

only that old editions of our best authors are rapidly being bought up

by citizens of the United States, but that in making their purchases

they exhibit an intimate acquaintance with them far greater than they

find generally among Englishmen, and which proves how thoroughly they

are appreciated by them.

Then again, with reference to their own country; it is impossible for

any one to travel among them without being struck with the universal

intelligence they possess as to its constitution, its politics, its

laws, and all general subjects connected with its prosperity or its

requirements; and if they do not always convey their information in the

most classical language, at all events they convey it in clear and

unmistakeable terms. The Constitution of their country is regularly

taught at their schools; and doubtless it is owing to this early insight

into the latent springs by which the machinery of Government is worked,

that their future appetite for more minute details becomes whetted. I

question very much if every boy, on leaving a high school in the United

States, does not know far more of the institutions of his country than

nine-tenths of the members of the British House of Commons do of theirs.

At the same time it should not be forgotten, that the complications

which have grown up with a nationality of centuries render the study far

more difficult in this country, than it possibly can, be in the giant

Republic of yesterday. And in the same way taxation in England, of which

30,000,000l. is due as interest on debt before the State receives one

farthing for its disbursements, is one of the most intricate questions

to be understood even by enlarged minds; whereas in the United States,

scarcely any taxation exists, and the little that does, creates a

surplus revenue which they often appear at a loss to know how to get rid

of.

Doubtless, the intelligence of the community sometimes exhibits itself

in a 'cuteness which I am not prepared to defend. A clear apprehension

of their immediate material interests has produced repudiation of

legitimate obligations; but those days are, nationally speaking, I hope,

gone by, and many of their merchants stand as high in the estimation of

the commercial world as it is possible to desire. At the same time, it

is equally true that the spirit of commercial gambling has risen to a

point in the States far above what it ever has in this country,--except,

perhaps, during the Railway epidemic; and the number of failures is

lamentably great.

With their intelligence they combine an enterprise that knows no

national parallel. This quality, aided by their law of limited

liability, has doubtless tended to urge forward many works and schemes

from which the Union is deriving, and has derived, great wealth and

advantage; at the same time it has opened the door for the unscrupulous

and the shrewd to come in and play high stakes with small capital--in

playing which reckless game, while some become millionaires others

become bankrupts. This latter state is a matter of comparative

unimportance in a country like the Republic, where the field is so

great, and a livelihood easily attainable until some opening occurs,

when they are as ready to rush into it again as if they had been foaled

at Niagara, and had sucked in the impetuosity of its cataract.

There is one shape that their enterprise takes which it would indeed be

well for us to imitate, and that is early rising. I quite blush for my

country when I think what a "Castle of Indolence" we are in that

respect, especially those who have not the slightest excuse for it. On

what principle the classes of society in England who are masters of

their own time, turn night into day, waste millions yearly in oil and

wax, and sleep away the most fresh and healthy hours of the morning, for

no other visible purpose but to enable themselves to pass the night in

the most stuffy and unhealthy atmosphere, is beyond my comprehension.

One thing is certain: it has a tendency to enervate both body and mind,

and were it not for the revivifying effects produced by a winter

residence in the country, where gentlemen take to field sports, and

ladies to razeed dresses, sensible shoes, and constitutional walks, the

mortality among our "upper ten thousand" would, I believe, be frightful.

In America, the "boys" get up so early, that it is said they frequently

"catch the birds by their tails as they are going to roost;" and it is

no doubt owing to this that they are so 'cute. Talk about "catching a

weasel asleep," let me see any of my metropolitan drone friends who can

catch a Yankee boy asleep!

It is not, however, merely to early rising that they owe their

'cuteness. A total absence of idleness, and the fact of being constantly

thrown on their own resources in cases of minor difficulty, aid

materially in sharpening their wits. You may see these latter influences

operating in the difference between soldiers and sailors, when placed in

situations where they have to shift for themselves. Some of their

anecdotes bearing upon 'cuteness are amusing enough. I will give one as

an illustration.--Owing to some unknown cause, there was a great dearth

of eggs in one of the New England States, and they consequently rose

considerably in price. It immediately occurred to a farmer's wife, that,

if she could in any way increase the produce of her hens, it would be a

source of great gain to her; she accordingly fitted the bottom of each

laying hen's bed with a spring, and fixed a basin underneath, capable of

holding two eggs. In due time, the hens laid; but as each hen, after

laying, missed the warmth of the precious deposit, she got up to look if

it was all right. To her astonishment, no egg was to be seen. "Bless my

soul!" says the hen, "well, I declare I thought I had laid an egg. I

suppose I must be mistaken;" and down she went to fulfil her duties

again. Once more she rose to verify her success. No egg was there.

"Well, I vow," quoth Mrs. Hen, "they must be playing me some trick: I'll

have one more shot, and, if I don't succeed, I shall give it up." Again

she returned to her labours, and the two eggs that had passed into the

basin below supporting the base of her bed, success crowned her efforts,

and she exclaimed, "Well, I have done it this time at all events!" The

'cute wife kept her counsel, and said nothing, either to the hens or to

her neighbours, and thus realized a comfortable little bag of

dollars.--I give the anecdote as narrated to me, and I must confess I

never saw the operation, or heard the remarks of the outwitted hens. I

insert it lest in these days of agricultural distress (?) any farmer's

wife be disposed to make a trial of a similar experiment.[CO]

I proceed to consider the energy of the Republicans, a quality in which

they may challenge comparison with the world. No enterprise is too great

for them to undertake, and no hardship too severe for them to endure.

A Yankee will start off with his household gods, and seek a new home in

the wilderness, with less fuss than a Cockney would make about packing

up a basket of grub to go and pic-nic in Richmond Park. It is the spirit

of adventure that has enabled them to cover a whole continent in the

incredible manner which the map of the United States shows. The great

drawback to this phase of their energy is the total absence it exhibits

of those ties of home to which we so fondly cling in the old country. If

we were a nation of Yankees, I feel persuaded that in five years we

should not have ten millions of inhabitants. No Yankee can exist without

elbow-room, except it be the more degraded and rowdy portion of the

community, who find a more congenial atmosphere in those sinks of vice

inseparable from large towns. This migratory spirit has caused them to

exhibit their energy and enterprise in those countless miles of rail and

telegraph, which bring the citizens of the most distant States into easy

communication with Washington and the Eastern cities. The difficulty of

procuring labour is no doubt one cause of the very inefficient way in

which many of these works are performed; and it also disables them for

executing gigantic works with the speed and certainty that such

operations are completed in England. The miniature Crystal Palace at New

York afforded a convincing proof of what I have stated; for although it

was little more than a quarter of the size of the one in Hyde Park, they

were utterly foiled in their endeavours to prepare it in time. In

revenge for that failure, the Press tried to console the natives by

enlarging on the superior attraction of hippodromes, ice-saloons, and

penny shows, with which it was surrounded, and contrasting them with the

"gloomy grandeur" of the palace in London. Gloomy grandeur is, I

suppose, the Yankee way of expressing the finest park in any city in the

world.

Among other remarks on Americans, I have heard many of my countrymen

say, "Look how they run after lords!"--It is quite true; a live lord is

a comparative novelty, and they run after him in the same way as people

in England run after an Indian prince, or any pretentious Oriental: it

is an Anglo-Saxon mania. Not very long ago, a friend of mine found a

Syrian swaggering about town, _fêted_ everywhere, as though he were the

greatest man of the day; and who should the Syrian nabob turn out to be,

but a man he had employed as a servant in the East, and whom he had been

obliged to get bastinadoed for petty theft. In England we run after we

know not whom; in America, if a lord be run after, there is at all

events a strong presumption in favour of his being at least a gentleman.

We toady our Indian swells, and they toady their English swells; and I

trust, for our sake, that in so doing they have a decided advantage over

us.

I have also heard some of my countrymen observe, as to their

hospitality, "Oh! it's very well; but if you went there as often as I

do, you would see how soon their hospitality wears off." Who on earth

ever heard such an unreasonable remark! Because a man, in the fulness of

hospitality, dedicates his time, his money, and his convenience to

welcome a stranger, of whose character and of whose sociability he knows

nothing whatever, is he therefore bound to be saddled with that

acquaintance as often as the traveller chooses to visit the American

Continent? Is not the very idea preposterous? No man in the world is

more ready to welcome the stranger than the American; but if the

stranger revisit the same places, the courtesy and hospitality he

receives must, in justice, depend upon the impression which his company

has left on those upon whom he inflicted it. No doubt the scanty number

of travellers enables Americans to exercise more universal hospitality

than they could do if the country were filled with strangers in the same

way as Great Britain is. The increased travelling of late years has

necessarily made a marked difference on that point among ourselves, and

doubtless it may hereafter act upon the United States; but the man who

does not admit hospitality to be a most distinctive feature of the

Republic, at the present time, must indeed be rotten in the brain or the

heart.

With regard to the political character of the Union, it is very much in

the same state as that of England. The two original parties were Whig

and Democrat, the former being synonymous with the Tory party in this

country--i.e., an honest body of men, who, in their earnest endeavours

to keep the coach straight, put the drag on so often that the horses get

restive sometimes, and start off at score when they feel the wheel

clogged. The Democrats are more nearly represented by a compound of

Whig and Radical--i.e., a body of men who, in their energetic

exertions to make the coach go, don't trouble themselves much about the

road, and look upon the drag as a piece of antiquated humbug. Sometimes

this carelessness also leads to the team-bolting; but in the States

there is so much open country that they may run away for miles without

an upset; whereas in England, when this difficulty occurs, the ribands

are generally handed over to the Jarvey of the opposite party. This old

state of affairs is entirely changed in both hemispheres; each party is

more or less broken up, and in neither country is there at present any

distinct body sufficiently numerous to form a strong government.

In consequence of these disruptions, it may be imagined how difficult it

would be to give any accurate description of the different pieces of

crockery that constitute the political "service." Formerly, the two

cries of "Protection to Home Manufacture" and "Free Trade" were the

distinct rallying points. At present there are Slaveholders, Slavery

Extension, Free-soil, Abolitionist, Annexationist, and Heaven alone

knows how many more parties, on the question of Slavery alone, into

which the Democratic or dominant party is divided, independent of those

other general political divisions which must necessarily exist in so

large and varied a community. From the foregoing you will observe that,

to say a man is a Democrat conveys no distinct idea of his politics

except that he is not a Whig; and the Whigs also have their divisions on

the Slave question.

But there is a party lately come into the field, and called the

Know-nothings, which requires a special notice. Their ostensible

principles have been published in the leading journals of this country,

and carry a certain degree of reason upon the face of them, the leading

features being that they are a secret society banded together for the

purpose of opposing the priestly influence of the Humanists in political

matters: for prolonging the period requisite to obtain the rights of

citizenship; and for the support of the native-born American in

opposition to all other candidates for any public situation that may be

contested. Such is the substance of their manifesto. Their opponents say

that they are sheer humbugs, and brought into life by a few old

political hacks for their own selfish ends. Owing to the factions in

the old Whig and Democratic parties, their opponents believe they may

succeed for a year or two, but they prophesy their speedy and total

disruption. Time will show--I am no prophet. There is one point in their

charter, however, that I cannot believe will ever succeed--viz.,

naturalization or citizenship. Congress would be loth to pass any law

that might tend to turn the stream of emigration into another channel,

such as Australia or Canada; and individual States would be equally loth

to pass such a local law for the same reason, inasmuch as if they did,

the emigrants would move on to those States where they obtained most

speedily the rights of citizens. The crusade against the Romanists is

also so opposed to the spirit of a constitution which professes the

principle of the equal rights of man, that it is more than probable they

may ere long divide upon the unsolvable question of how to draw the line

of demarcation between the influence of the priest and the opinion of

his flock. As far, therefore, as I am capable of judging, I do not

believe they have a sufficiently broad and distinct basis to stand upon,

and I think also that the fact of their being a secret society will

rather hasten their end than otherwise.

The last point I shall allude to is the future prospects of the

Republic; a question which doubtless is veiled in much obscurity. The

black cloud of the South hangs perpetually over their heads, ever from

time to time threatening to burst upon them. In the Free States many

feel strongly the degradation of being forced to aid in the capture of

the fugitive slave; and the aversion to the repulsive task is increasing

rather than decreasing. The citizens have on many occasions risen in

masses against those who were executing the law, and the military have

been brought into collision with them in defending the authorities. The

dread of breaking up the Union alone prevents that clause being struck

out from the Constitution, by which they are compelled not merely to

restore but to hunt up the fugitive. The "Freesoilers" also feel

indignant at seeing their nation turning virgin soil into a land of

Slavery; the Nebraska Bill has strengthened that feeling considerably.

The Abolitionists are subject to constant fits of rabidity which

increase intensity with each successive attack. Thousands and thousands

of Northerns, who writhe under the feeling that their star-spangled

banner is crossed with the stripes of the slave, turn back to the

history of their country, and recalling to mind the glorious deeds that

their ancestors have accomplished under that flag, their hearts

respond--"The Union for ever!"

But perhaps the strongest feeling in the Republic which tends to keep

things quiet, is that the intelligence of the community of the North,

who are opposed both to slavery and to the fugitive law, foresee that if

those objects are only to be obtained at the price of separation from

the South, greater evils would probably accrue than those they are

anxious to remove. However peaceably a separation might be made in

appearance, it could never take place without the most bitter feelings

of animosity. Junius describes the intensity of the feeling, by saying,

"He hated me as much as if he had once been my friend;" and so it would

assuredly prove. Squabbles would breed quarrels, and quarrels would grow

into wars; the comparative harmony of a continent would be broken up,

and standing armies and fleets become as necessary in the New World as

they unfortunately are in the Old. If the South are determined to

perpetuate Slavery, the only way it will ever cease to stain the Union

is by the force of public opinion, and by the immigration of the white

man gradually driving the negro southwards from State to State. As his

value decreases, breeding for the market will gradually cease; and he

may eventually die out if the millennium does not interfere with the

process.

Another, possible cause for division in the Union may come from

California, in which State a feeble cry has already been heard of--"a

Western Republic." The facility of intercourse afforded by railroads

seems likely to stop the swelling of that cry; but if California did

separate, it would not be attended with those evils which a disruption

of the Southern States would inevitably produce. The only other chance

of a division in the Republic which I can conceive possible is, in the

event of a long war with any great maritime power, for ends which only

affected one particular portion of the States; in which case the

irresistible influence of the all mighty dollar might come into powerful

action. The wealth of America is her commerce; whatever checks that,

checks the pulsations of her vitality; and unless her honour was

thoroughly compromised in the struggle, neither North nor South would be

disposed to prolong a ruinous struggle for the sole benefit of the

other. The prospects of such a contingency may, I trust, be deemed

visionary. France is not likely to come in contact with the Union; and

the only other maritime nation is Great Britain, whose interests are so

identified with peace, that it is hardly possible she should encourage

any other than the most friendly relations. Neither party could gain

anything by a war, and both parties would inevitably suffer immensely;

and although I fear there is but too strong evidence, that many ignoble

minds in the Republic make blustering speeches, and strive to excite

hostile feelings, the real intelligence and wealth of the States

repudiate the unworthy sentiment, and deprecate any acts that could

possibly lead to a collision between the two countries. Besides all

which, there is that strong affinity between _£. s. d._ and dollars and

cents, whereby so strong an influence is exercised over that commercial

body which constitutes no unimportant portion of the wealth and

intelligence of both nations.

If the views I have taken be correct, it is indeed impossible to

foreshadow the future of the United States; centuries must elapse ere it

can become sufficiently peopled to test the adaptation of its present

form of government to a thickly populated country; in the meantime,

there seems scarcely a limit to her increase in wealth and prosperity.

Her present gigantic stride among the nations of the world appears but

an invisible atom, if compared with the boundless resources she

encircles within her borders, not the least important of which is that

mass of energy and intelligence she is, year by year, sowing broadcast

throughout the length and breadth of the land, the Church and the School

ever following in the train, and reproducing those elements to which she

owes her present proud position.

My task is now done. I have endeavoured, in the preceding pages, to

convey some general idea of the places I visited, and of the objects

which appeared to me most worthy of notice. I have touched but lightly

on Cuba, and I have not dwelt at any great length on the prosperous and

rising colony of Canada. My remarks have been chiefly on the United

States, which, differing in so many points from, the country of her

birth, and occupying so conspicuous a place among the nations, presented

the most extended field for observation and comment. I have on all

occasions stated plainly the impressions produced upon my mind. I have

freely remarked upon all those topics which, being public, I conceive to

be the legitimate field for a traveller's criticism; where I have

praised, or where I have condemned, I have equally endeavoured to

explain my reasons. I have called attention to facts and opinions

connected with my own country, where I thought similar points in the

Republic might help to throw light upon them. Lastly, I have endeavoured

to explain the various causes by which hostile feelings towards this

country are engendered and spread abroad among a certain portion of the

community; and I have stated my firm conviction, that the majority of

the highest order of intelligence and character entertain a sincere

desire to perpetuate our present friendly relations.

In conclusion, I would observe, that the opinions and feelings of a

nation should not be hastily drawn from the writings of a passing

traveller, or from the casual leaders of a Free Press. Man is ever prone

to find fault with his neighbour, because the so doing involves a latent

claim to superior intelligence in himself; but a man may condemn many

things in a nation, while holding the nation itself in high esteem. The

world is a large society,--a traveller is but one of the company, who

converses through the Press; and as, in the smaller circles,

conversation would die or freeze if nothing were stated but what could

be mathematically proved, so would volumes of travels come to an

untimely end, if they never passed beyond the dull boundary of facts. In

both cases, opinions are the life of conversation; because, as no two

people agree, they provoke discussion, through the openings of which, as

truth oozes out, wise men catch it, leaving the refuse to the

unreflecting.

The late Lord Holland, who was equally remarkable for his kindness and

his intelligence, is said to have observed, "I never met a man so great

a fool, but what I could learn something from him." Reader, I am bound

to confess his Lordship never met me; but I cannot take my leave without

expressing a hope, that you will not be less fortunate than that

amiable Peer.

And now, farewell, thou Giant Republic! I have long since left thy

shores; but I have brought with me, and fondly cherish, the recollection

of the many pleasant days I spent within thy borders, and of all those

friends whose unceasing hospitality and kindness tracked my path without

intermission. I care not for the Filibusteros and Russian sympathizers;

I know that the heart of the intelligence of thy people beats with

friendly pulsations, to which that of my own countrymen readily

responds. All we should, and I trust all we do, mutually desire, is, to

encourage an honourable and increasing rivalry in arts, science,

commerce, and good-will. He who would disturb our amicable relations, be

he Briton or American, is unworthy of the name of a man; for he is a foe

to Liberty--Humanity--and Christianity.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote CK: The _New York Herald_ is edited by two renegade British

subjects, one of whom was, I am told, formerly a writer in a scurrilous

publication in this country.]

[Footnote CL: It has been cited as an example of their fondness for

grand-sounding titles, that while, by the Census of Great Britain, there

were only 2,328 physicians to 15,163 surgeons, in the United States

there were 40,564 physicians to only 191 surgeons.]

[Footnote CM: _Vide_ chapter entitled "America's Press and England's

Censor."]

[Footnote CN: One of the few cases in which perhaps there is an

advantage in the masses voting, is where a question of public advantage

is brought forward, to which many and powerful local interests or

monopolies are opposed. Take, for instance, the supply of London with

good water, which the most utter dunderhead must admit to be most

desirable; yet the influence of vested interests is so strong that its

two millions of inhabitants seem destined to be poisoned for centuries,

and the lanes and courts will, in all probability, continue as arid as

the desert during the same period.--London, look at New York and blush!]

[Footnote CO: While on the subject of eggs, I would ask my reader, did

you ever, while eating the said article, find your patience sorely tried

as each mouthful was being taken from its shell, and dipped carefully

into the salt? If you have ever felt the inconvenience of this tedious

process, let me suggest to you a simple remedy. After opening the egg,

and taking out one spoonful, put in enough salt for the whole, and then

on the top thereof pour a few drops of water; the saline liquid will

pervade the whole nutritious substance, and thus render unnecessary

those annoying transits above named, which make an egg as great a

nuisance at the breakfast-table as a bore in society. Who first took out

a patent for this dodge I cannot say, but I suppose it must have been a

New Englander.]

NOTES.

NOTE I.

_Extent of Telegraph in the United Kingdom._

Miles. Miles of Wire.

ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

5,070 Under ground 5,000

Above ground 20,700

MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

1,740 Under ground 6,180

Above ground 4,076

SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

400 Under ground 2,740

Above ground --

BRITISH TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

1,000[CP] Under ground 2,755

Above ground 3,218

IRISH TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

88 Under ground 176

Above ground --

---- ----

Total 8,298 Total 44,845

Of the foregoing, 534 miles are submarine, employing 1100 miles of wire.

The cost of putting up a telegraph was originally 105l. per mile for

two wires. Experience now enables it to be done for 50l., and that in

a far more durable and efficient manner than is practised in the United

States. The cost of laying down a submarine telegraph is stated to be

about 230l. per mile for six wires, and 110l. for single wires.

One feature in which the telegraphs of Great Britain differ materially

from those of America and all other countries, is, the great extent of

underground lines. There are nearly 17,000 miles of wire placed

underground in England, the cost of which is six times greater than that

of overground lines; but it has the inestimable advantage of being never

interrupted by changes of weather or by accidents, while the cost of its

maintenance is extremely small. This fact must be borne in mind, when

we come to consider the relative expense of the transmission of messages

in England and the States.

In the foregoing lines we have shown, that England possesses, miles of

line, 8,298; miles of wire, 44,845; the United States possesses, miles

of lines, 16,735; miles of wire, 23,281.

We thus see, that the telegraph in the United States extends over more

than twice as much ground as the British lines; while on the other hand

the system of telegraph in England is so much more fully developed, that

nearly double the quantity of wire is in actual use. On the English

lines, which are in the hands of three companies only, from 25,000 to

30,000 miles are worked on Cook and Wheatstone's system; 10,000 on the

magnetic system--without batteries;--3000 on Bain's chemical

principle--which is rapidly extending;--and the remainder on Morse's

plan.

The price of the transmission of messages is less in America than in

England, especially if we regard the distance of transmission. In

America a message is limited to ten words; in England to twenty words;

and the message is delivered free within a certain distance from the

station.

In both countries the names and addresses of the sender and receiver are

sent free of charge. The average cost of transmission from London to

every station in Great Britain is 13/10 of a penny per word per 100

miles. The average cost from Washington to all the principal towns in

America is about 6/10 of a penny per word per 100 miles. The ordinary

scale of charges for twenty words in England is 1s. for fifty miles

and under; 2s. 6d. between fifty miles and 100 miles; all distances

beyond that, 5s. with a few exceptions, where there is great

competition. Having received the foregoing statement from a most

competent authority, its accuracy may be confidently relied upon.

In conclusion, I would observe that the competition which is gradually

growing up in this country must eventually compel a reduction of the

present charges; but even before that desirable opposition arrives, the

companies would, in my humble opinion, exercise a wise and profitable

discretion by modifying their present system of charges. Originally the

addresses of both parties were included in the number of words allowed;

that absurdity is now given up, but one scarcely less ridiculous still

remains--viz., twenty words being the shortest message upon which their

charges are based. A merchant in New York can send a message to New

Orleans, a distance of 2000 miles, and transact important business in

ten words--say "Buy me a thousand bales of cotton--ship to Liverpool;"

but if I want to telegraph from Windsor to London a distance of twenty

miles, "Send me my portmanteau," I must pay for twenty words. Surely

telegraph companies would show a sound discretion by lowering the scale

to ten words, and charging two-thirds of the present price for twenty.

Opposition would soon compel such a manifestly useful change; but,

independent of all coercion, I believe those companies that strive the

most to meet the reasonable demands of the public will always show the

best balance-sheet at the end of the year.--Thirteenpence is more than

one shilling.

NOTE II.

_A short Sketch of the Progress of Fire-arms._

The first clear notice which we have of rifles is in the year 1498,

nearly 120 years after the invention of gunpowder was known to Europe.

The Chinese, I believe, claim the invention 3000 years before the

Creation. The first rifle-maker was one Zugler, in Germany, and his

original object appears to have been merely to make the balls more

ragged, so as to inflict more serious wounds; a result produced before

that time by biting and hacking the balls. This appears clearly to have

been the intention, inasmuch as the cuts were made perfectly straight in

the first instance. The accurate dates of the introduction of the

various twists I have not been able to ascertain.

I can find no mention of breech-loading arms before the reign of Henry

VIII., since which time they have been constantly used in China and

other parts of the East. In 1839, they were, I understand, extensively

used in Norway. A breech-loading carbine, lately brought across to this

country from America as the invention of Mr. Sharpe, was patented by a

Mr. Melville, of London, as far back as 1838. I understand Mr. Sharpe's

carbine was tried at Woolwich not long ago, and found to clog, owing to

the expansion of the metal from consecutive firing. Nor has any

breech-loading weapon hitherto introduced been able to make its way into

extensive practical use, although the Americans have constantly used

them in their navy for some years past. To return to ancient

times.--There is a matchlock in the Tower of London with one barrel and

a revolving breech cylinder which was made in the fifteenth century, and

there is a pistol on a similar plan, and dating from Henry VIII., which

may be seen in the Rotunda at Woolwich. The cylinders of both of these

weapons were worked by hand.

The old matchlock, invented in 1471, gave way to a substitute scarcely

less clumsy, and known by the initiated as the wheel-lock, the ignition

taking place by the motion of the steel wheel against a fixed flint

placed in the midst of the priming. This crude idea originated in 1530,

and reigned undisputed until the invention of the common old flint and

steel, about the year 1692, when this latter became lord paramount,

which it still remains with some infatuated old gentlemen, in spite of

the beautiful discovery of the application of fulminating powder, as a

means of producing the discharge.

Mr. Forsyth patented this invention in 1807, but, whether from prejudice

or want of perfection in its application, no general use was made of the

copper cap until it was introduced among sportsmen by Mr. Egg, in 1818,

and subsequently Mr. J. Manton patented his percussion tubes for a

similar purpose. The use of the copper cap in the army dates 1842, or

nearly a quarter of a century after its manifest advantages had been

apparent to the rest of the community.

Previous to this invention it was impossible to make revolving weapons

practically available for general use.

The public are indebted to Mr. Jones for the ingenious mechanism by

which continuous pressure on the trigger causes both the revolution of

the barrels and the discharge of the piece; this patent goes back to

1829-1830. Colonel Colt first endeavoured to make a number of barrels

revolve by raising the hammer, but the weight of the barrels suggested a

return to the old rotatory cylinder, for which he took out a patent in

1835; and in 1836 he took out another patent for obtaining the rotatory

motion by drawing back the trigger, and he subsequently introduced the

addition of a lever ramrod fixed on to the barrel. Col. Colt came to the

conclusion that the hammer-revolving cylinder was the more useful

article, inasmuch as it enabled the person using it to take a more

steady aim than with the other, which, revolving and firing by the

action of the trigger, the moment of explosion could not be depended

upon. To Col. Colt belongs the honour of so combining obsolete and

modern inventions, and superadding such improvements of his own, as to

produce the first practical and really serviceable weapon.

Since then Messrs. Dean and Adams, in 1852, revived the old invention of

the trigger-revolving cylinder, which has the advantage of only

requiring one hand to fire, but which is immeasurably inferior where

accuracy of aim is wanted. Mr. Tranter, in 1853, patented a new

invention, which, by employing a double trigger, combines the advantages

of Colt and avoids the drawbacks of Dean and Adams. By a side-wind he

has also adapted that invaluable application of Colt's--a fixed lever

ramrod. Many other patents are springing up daily, too numerous to

mention, and too similar to admit of easy definition.

To return to rifles.--It is well known that the ordinary rifle in use

until late years was the seven-grooved, with a spherical ball, and the

two-grooved, with a zone bullet; the latter an invention known as the

Brunswick rifle; and imported from Berlin about 1836. It was upon this

weapon Mr. Lancaster proceeded to make some very ingenious experiments,

widening the grooves gradually until at last they met, and an elliptic

bore rifle was produced, for which he obtained a patent in July, 1850;

but upon investigation it would be proved that Mr. Lancaster's patent

was invalid, inasmuch as the elliptical bore rifle is of so ancient a

date that it is mentioned in _Scloppetaria_--a work printed in 1808--as

even then obsolete; the details, methods, and instruments for their

fabrication are fully described therein; and I have seen a rifle of this

kind, made by "Dumazin, à Paris," which is at least a century old; it is

now in the possession of the Duke of Athole. Mr. Lancaster is entitled

to the credit of bringing into practical use what others had thrown on

one side as valueless.

From rifles I turn to balls, in which the chief feature of improvement

is the introduction of the conical shape. The question of a conical ball

with a saucer base is fully discussed in _Scloppetaria_, but no

practical result seems to have been before the public until Monsieur

Delvigue, in 1828, employed a solid conical ball, which, resting on the

breech clear of the powder, he expanded by several blows with the ramrod

sufficiently to make it take the grooves. Colonel Thouvenin introduced a

steel spire into the breech, upon which the ball being forced, it

expanded more readily. This spire is called the "tige." Colonel Tamisier

cut three rings into the cylindrical surface of the bullet, to

facilitate the expansion and improve its flight. These three

combinations constitute the _Carabine à Tige_ now in general use in the

French army. Captain Minié--in, I believe, 1850--dispensed with the

tige, and employed a conical hollow in the ball; into which, introducing

an iron cup, the explosion of the powder produced the expansion

requisite. As Captain Minié has made no change in the rifle, except

removing a tige which was only lately introduced, it is certainly an

extraordinary Irishism to call his conical ball a Minié rifle; it was

partially adopted in England as early as 1851. Why his invention has not

been taken up in France, I cannot say.

Miraculous to remark, the British Government for once appear to have

appreciated a useful invention, and various experiments with the Minié

ball were carried on with an energy so unusual as to be startling. It

being discovered that the iron cup had various disadvantages, besides

being a compound article, a tornado of inventions rushed in upon the

Government with every variety of modification. The successful competitor

of this countless host was Mr. Pritchett, who, while dispensing with the

cup entirely, produced the most satisfactory results with a simple

conical bullet imperceptibly saucered out in the base, and which is now

the generally adopted bullet in Her Majesty's service. The reader will

recognise in Mr. Pritchett's bullet a small modification of the conical

ball alluded to in _Scloppetaria_ nearly fifty years ago.

Through the kindness of a friend, I have been able to get some

information as to the vexed question of the Minié ball, which militates

against some of the claims of the French captain, if invention be one.

The character of the friend through whom I have been put in

correspondence with the gentleman named below, I feel to be a sufficient

guarantee for the truthfulness of the statements which I here subjoin.

[Illustration]

Mr. Stanton, a proprietor of collieries at Newcastle-on-Tyne, conceived

the idea that if a bullet were made to receive the projectile force in

the interior of the bullet, but beyond the centre of gravity, it would

continue its flight without deviation. Having satisfied himself of the

truth of this theory, he sent the mould to the Board of Ordnance on the

20th of January, 1797, and received a reply the following month, stating

that upon trial it was found to be less accurate in its flight and less

powerful in its penetration than the round bullet then in use. They also

informed Mr. Stanton that there were some conical balls in the

repository which had been deposited there by the late Lieutenant-General

Parker, and which, having more solidity, were superior to those sent by

Mr. Stanton, thus proving that the idea of a conical expanding ball is

of very ancient date. The mould sent to the Ordnance by Mr. Stanton was

taken from a wooden model, of which the accompanying is an exact

diagram, and which is in the possession of Mr. Stanton, solicitor, at

Newcastle, the son of the originator. Evidence is afforded that Mr. Boyd

a banker, and Mr. Stanton, sen., both tried the ball with very different

success to that obtained at Woolwich; but this need excite no

astonishment, as every sportsman is aware of the wonderful difference in

the accuracy with which smooth-bored fire-arms carry balls, and for

which no satisfactory reason has ever been advanced. Mr. Kell was

subsequently present when his friend Mr. Stanton, jun., had balls made

on his father's principle for a pair of Wogden's pistols thirty years

ago; the result is reported as satisfactory.

In 1829, Mr. Kell conceived the idea of applying the principle to

rifles, for which purpose he had a mould made by Mr. Thomas Bulcraig.

Mr. Kell altered the original ball in two points; he made the sides

stronger, and he formed the front of the ball conoidical instead of

hemispherical. I have the ball made from that mould now lying before me,

and it is precisely the same as the Minié ball without the iron cup,

which we have shown in the preceding pages is totally unnecessary. This

ball has been constantly in use by Mr. Kell and others until the present

day; it is the first application of a conical expanding ball to rifles

that I can find on record, and whatever credit is due to the person who

transferred the expanding ball from a smooth bore wherein it was

useless, to a rifle wherein it is now proved to be invaluable, belongs,

as far as I can trace the application back, to Mr. Kell, A.D. 1829.

In 1830, Mr. Kell employed Mr. Greener, then a gunmaker at Newcastle, to

make him a mould for a double pea rifle, and he left in Mr. Greener's

hands one of the balls made for the Wogden pistol, and one of those made

by Mr. Bulcraig, to assist him in so doing. It appears that Mr. Greener

must have been satisfied with the success attending Mr. Kell's

application of the conical ball to a rifle, for some years after, in

August, 1836, he applied to the Ordnance for permission to have a trial

of the conical ball made; this was granted, and the experiment was

conducted under Major Walcott of the Royal Artillery, on the sands near

Tynemouth Castle, the firing party consisting of a company of the 60th

Rifles. Mr. Greener having failed to bring a target, to test the

superior penetrating power of his balls, the ordinary Artillery target

was used. Mr. Greener's ball had a conical plug of lead in the hollow,

for the purpose of producing the expansion when driven home by the force

of the powder. After firing several rounds at two hundred yards, only

one ball of Mr. Greener's, which had struck the target, was found to

have the plug driven home, the others had all lost their plugs. The same

effect was produced when firing into a sand-bank. A trial was then made

at 350 yards; the spherical balls and the conical balls both went home

to the target, but only one of the latter penetrated.

The objections pointed out to the conical ball were: the frequent loss

of the plug, by which its weight was diminished; the inconvenience of

having a hall composed of two separate parts; the difficulty of loading

if the plug was not placed accurately in the centre; and the danger of

the plug losing its place in consequence of being put in loosely,

especially when carried about for any length of time in a

cartridge.--Mr. Greener loaded the rifles during the trial with the ball

and powder separate, not in cartridge.--The advantage admitted was,

merely, rapidity of loading if the plug was fairly placed: no

superiority of range appears to have been produced over the rifles used

by the 60th Regiment. Mr. Greener solicited another trial, but after

the report of Major Walcott, the Select Committee considering the ball

"useless and chimerical," no further trial was accorded. The conical

ball question was thus once more doomed to oblivion.

In process of time the fabulous ranges of the "_Carabine à Tige_" were

heard of, and when it was ascertained that the French riflemen potted

the gunners on the ramparts of Rome with such rapidity that they could

not stand to their guns before a rifle nearly a mile distant, the cone

shape once more turned up, and Captain Minié came forward as the

champion of the old expanding ball. The toscin of war was sounded in the

East; the public were crying aloud for British arms to be put upon an

equality with those of foreign armies; the veterans who had earned their

laurels under poor old "Brown Bess" stuck faithfully to her in her

death-struggle, and dropped a tear over the triumph of new-fangled

notions.

In the middle of last century Lieutenant-General Parker's ball was

thrown aside; at the end of the century, Mr. Stanton's shared the same

fate; Mr. Greener's followed in 1836 with equal ill success; Captain

Minié's had a short reign, and was in turn superseded by the more solid

and superior ball now in use, and for which the country is indebted to

the experimental perseverance of Mr. Pritchett; and if ever things

obtain their right names, the weapon of the British army will be called

the Pritchett ball and not the Minié rifle; but as the world persists in

calling the Missouri the Mississippi, I suppose the British public will

behave equally shabbily by Mr. Pritchett. The reader will judge for

himself of the respective credit due to the various persons through

whose ingenuity we have at length succeeded in obtaining the present

efficient ball, the wounds from which are more frightful than pen can

portray.

There is, however, one lesson which we should learn from the great

opposition there has been to the introduction of the conical ball, and

that is, the advantage of remodelling the department to which such

inventions are referred. The foregoing remarks appear to me conclusive

evidence that the testing of fire-arms should not be left to age and

experience alone. Prejudice is all but inseparable from age--young and

fresh blood is a powerful auxiliary. What I would suggest is, that there

should be a special examination to qualify officers of the engineers and

artillery to sit in judgment on so important a subject as arms and

missiles; and I would then propose that two officers of the former

corps, and five of the latter, be selected from those below the rank of

field-officer, to form a separate and junior Board, and that each Board

should send in its own report. The method of selection which I would

suggest is by ballot or vote of those Officers of the same rank in their

respective corps; for I feel sure that those who live most together are

the best acquainted with one another's talents. If two Boards are

objectionable, form one Board, of which one-half shall be of the junior

rank; and if they be equally divided in opinion, let the higher

authority appoint an umpire and order a second trial.

Remember how long the now all-but-forgotten "Brown Bess" kept the field

against the adversary which has since proved her immeasurable superior;

and let the future prove that past experience has not been entirely

thrown away. Trials may be troublesome, but officers are paid for taking

trouble; and the ingenuity of inventors will always be quickened in

proportion to the conviction that their inventions will receive a full

and unprejudiced trial; and that, if their first shot at the target of

Success be an outside ringer, they will not be denied a chance of

throwing another in the Bull's-eye.

Since the foregoing remarks went to press, it appears that the Pritchett

ball has been found wanting, both in England and in the Crimea; its

flight is said to be irregular, and the deposit of lead in the barrel so

great that after thirty rounds the charge cannot be got down. If this be

so, it is only one more proof of the necessity for some improvement in

the Board appointed to judge of and superintend warlike missiles.

When Mr. Pritchett had perfected his ball, it was tried in the

three-groove rifle, for which it was intended, with the most

satisfactory results, and was fired an indefinite number of times

without the slightest difficulty. It appears, however, that this

successful trial was not sufficient to satisfy the new-born zeal of the

authorities. Accordingly, a conclave of gunmakers was consulted previous

to the order for manufacturing being sent to Enfield; but with a depth

of wisdom far beyond human penetration, they never asked the opinion of

Mr. Pritchett, who had made the rifle which had carried the ball so

satisfactorily.

The wise men decided that it would be an improvement if the grooves were

deepened--a strange decision, when all the experience of the day tends

to prove that the shallower the groove the better. Down went the order;

the improved rifles were made as fast as possible, and in the month of

March they went to the seat of war. May is hardly passed by, and the sad

fact discovered in the Crimea is echoed back on our shores, that after

thirty rounds the soldiers may right about face or trust to cold steel.

I think my youngest boy--if I had one--would have suggested testing the

improvement before indulging the army with the weapon. Perhaps the

authorities went on the principle that a rifle is a rifle, and a ball is

a ball, and therefore that it must be all right. It might as well be

said a chancellor is a chancellor, and a black dose is a black dose;

therefore, because an able Aesculapius had prescribed a draught which

had proved eminently useful to bilious Benjamin, it must agree equally

well with lymphatic William.--Never mind, my dear John Bull, sixpence

more in the pound Income-tax will remedy the little oversight.

Three years have elapsed since these observations were penned, and

behold a giant competitor has entered the field, threatening utter

annihilation to the three-groove (or Enfield) rifle and the Pritchett

ball. Mr. Whitworth (whose mechanical powers have realized an accuracy

almost fabulous), after a long course of experiments made at the

Government's expence, has produced a rifle with an hexagonal box and

ball, the correctness of which, at 1100 yards, has proved nearly equal

to that of the Enfield at 500 yards, and possessing a penetrating power

of wonderful superiority; the Enfield rifle ball scarcely penetrated 13

half-inch Elm planks. Whitworth's hexagonal ball penetrated 33, and

buried itself in the solid block of wood behind. It remains to be seen

whether this formidable weapon can be made at such a price as to render

it available for military purposes. The hexagonal bore is not a new

invention, some of the Russians having used it in the late Baltic

campaign; but it is doubtless Mr. Whitworth's wonderful accuracy of

construction that is destined to give it celebrity, by arming it with a

power and correctness it wanted before.[CQ] An explosive ball has also

been introduced by Colonel Jacob of Eastern celebrity, which from its

greater flight will prove, when perfected, a more deadly arm than the

old spherical explosive ball invented and forgotten years ago. With the

daily improvements in science, we may soon expect to see Colonel Jacob's

in general use, unless the same principle applied to Whitworth's

hexagonal ball should be found preferable.

* * * * *

To those who are amateurs of the rifle, I would recommend a pamphlet,

written by Chapman, and published in New York; it is chiefly intended

for those who delight in the infantine or octogenarian amusement of

peppering a target, but it also contains many points of interest. Among

other subjects discussed are the following:--The quantity of twist

requisite in a rifle barrel--the gaining twist, as opposed to Mr.

Greener, and the decreasing twist--the size of ball best suited to

different distances--the swedge, by which a ball, being cast rather

larger than requisite, is compressed into a more solid mass--the powder

to use, decreasing in size of the grain in proportion to the diminishing

length of barrel--the loading muzzle, by which the lips of the grooves

are preserved as sharp as a razor, &c. The pamphlet can easily be

procured through Messrs. Appleton, of New York and London.

THE END.

[Illustration]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote CP: The miles of distance may not be quite exact, but the

miles of wire may be depended upon.]

[Footnote CQ: The trial between the Enfield and the Whitworth rifles

cannot be yet considered conclusive, as there was a difference in the

bore of the rifles, and also Mr. Whitworth used a different kind of ball

for penetration to that used for long range.]

End of Project Gutenberg's Lands of the Slave and the Free, by Henry A. Murray