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

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

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

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

The two great causes of the present lawless state of society in the South are a mistaken notion of physical courage, and a total want of moral courage. Fiery and choleric in his disposition, intemperate in his habits, and worked upon by the peculiarity of the climate, the Southerner is always ready to enter into a quarrel, and prepared with pistol and Bowie-knife to defend himself. For the latter he cannot well be blamed, for in the present state of things, it is only being prepared in self-defence; but at the same time, the weapons being at hand, is one great cause of such frequent bloodshed. To give the lie, or to use opprobrious language, is considered sufficient justification for using the knife; and as public opinion is on the side of the party who thus retaliates on an affront, there is no appeal to law, as if there was, the majority would never permit the law to be put in force: the consequence is, that if a man is occasionally tried for murder, if any witness will come forward to prove that the party murdered made use of an offensive epithet to the prisoner, (and there are always to be found plenty of people to do this act of kindness,) he is invariably acquitted. The law therefore being impotent, is hardly ever resorted to; every man takes the law into his own hands, and upon the least affront, blood is certain to be shed. Strange to say, I have heard the system of the South defended by very respectable individuals. They say that, taking summary measures at the time that the blood is up, is much preferable to the general custom of fighting a duel the next day, which is murder in cold blood; that this idea is supported by the laws of England is certain, as it resolves murder into manslaughter. But, unfortunately, the argument is not borne out, from the simple fact, that the quarrels do not [go away] with the cooling down of the blood, and if not settled on the spot, they remain as feuds between the parties, and revenge takes the place of anger; years will sometimes pass away, and the insult or injury is never forgotten; and deliberate, cold-blooded murder is the result; for there is no warning given.

When I was in Kentucky, a man walked up to Mr Prentice, the talented editor of the Louisville Journal, and without a word passing, fired a pistol at his head. Fortunately the ball missed him; no notice was taken of this attempt to murder. But I have had many other examples of this kind, for if you quarrel with a person and the affair is not decided at once, it is considered perfectly justifiable to take your revenge whenever you meet him, and in any way you can. An American gentleman told me that he happened to arrive at a town in Georgia with a friend of his, who went with him to the post-office for letters. This person had had a quarrel with another who resided in the town; but they had not met with each other for seven years. The town resident was looking out of his window, when they went to the post-office on the opposite side of the street; he recognised his enemy, and closing his shutters that he might not be seen, passed the muzzle of his rifle between them, and shot him dead, as he was with his back to him paying for his letters.

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

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

I have observed that there is a total want of moral courage on the part of the more respectable population, who will quietly express their horror and disgust at such scenes, but who will never interfere, if the most barbarous murder is committed close to where they are standing. I spoke to many gentlemen on this subject, expressing my surprise; the invariable answer was, "If we interfered we should only hurt ourselves, and do no good; in all probability we should have the quarrel fixed upon ourselves, and risk our own lives, for a man whom we neither know nor care about."

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

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

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

"A MOST DISGRACEFUL AFFAIR.

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

"Three days had elapsed before the constituted authorities took any notice of this terrible, this murderous deed, and not even then until a relation of the murdered Anthony had demanded a warrant for the apprehension of Wilson. Several days then elapsed before he was brought before an examining court; he then, in a carriage and four, came to the place appointed for his trial. Four or five days were employed in the examination of witnesses, and never was a clearer case of murder proved than on that occasion. Notwithstanding, the court (Justice Brown dissenting) admitted Wilson to bail, and positively refused that the prosecuting attorney for the State should introduce the law, to show that it was not a bailable case, or even to hear an argument from him, and the counsel associated with him to prosecute Wilson for the murder.

"At the time appointed for the session of the Circuit Court, Wilson appeared agreeably to his recognisance; a motion was made by Wilson's counsel for a change of venue, founded on the affidavits of Wilson and two other men. One stated in his affidavit, that 'nine-tenths of the people of Pulaski had made up and expressed their opinions, and that therefore it would be unsafe for Wilson to be tried in Pulaski;' and the other, that, 'from the repeated occurrence of similar acts within the last four or five years in this country, the people were disposed to act rigidly, and that it would be unsafe for Wilson to be tried in Pulaski.' The court thereupon removed Wilson to Saline county, and ordered the sheriff to take Wilson into custody, and deliver him over to the sheriff of Saline county.

"The sheriff of Pulaski never confined Wilson one minute, but permitted him to go where he pleased, without a guard or any restraint imposed upon him whatever. On his way to Saline he entertained him freely at his own house, and the next day delivered him over to the sheriff of that county, who conducted the prisoner to the debtors' room in the jail and gave him the key, so that everybody else had free egress and ingress at all times. Wilson invited everybody to call on him, and he wished to see his friends, and his room was crowded with visitors, who called to drink grog and laugh and talk with him. But this theatre was not sufficiently large for this purpose; he afterwards visited the dram-shops, where he freely treated all that would partake with him, and went fishing and hunting with others at pleasure, and entirely without restraint; he also ate at the same table with the judge while on trial.

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

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

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

To quote the numerous instances of violation of all law and justice in these new States would require volumes. I will, however, support my evidence with that of Miss Martineau, who, speaking of the State of Alabama, says—"It is certainly the place to become rich in, but the state of society is fearful. One of my hosts, a man of great good-nature, as he shows in the treatment of his slaves and in his family relations, had been stabbed in the back, in the reading-room of the town, two years before, and no prosecution was instituted. Another of my hosts carried loaded pistols for a fortnight, just before I arrived, knowing that he was lain in wait for by persons against whose illegal practices he had given information to a magistrate, whose carriage was therefore broken in pieces and thrown into the river. A lawyer, with whom we were in company one afternoon, was sent to take the deposition of a dying man, who had been sitting with his family in the shade, when he received three balls in the back from three men who took aim at him from behind trees. The tales of jail-breaking and rescue were numberless; and a lady of Montgomery told me, that she had lived there four years, during which time no day, she believed, had passed without some one's life having been attempted either by duelling or assassination."

The rapid increase of population in the Far West, and the many respectable people who have lately migrated there, together with the Texas having now become the refuge of those whose presence even the Southern States will no longer tolerate, promise very soon to produce a change. The cities have already set the example by purifying themselves. Natchez, the lower town of which was a Pandemonium, has cleansed herself to a very great extent. Vicksburg has, by its salutary Lynch law, relieved herself of the infamous gamblers, and New Orleans, in whose streets murders were daily occurring, is now one of the safest towns in the Union.

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

He was put in prison, tried and condemned. Every effort was made to save him, both by force and perseverance, but in vain. Finding that he must really suffer the penalty of the law, his friends, to avoid the disgrace of a public execution, provided him with the means; and he destroyed himself in the prison the night before his execution. So unexpected was this act of justice, that it created the greatest sensation; it was looked upon as a legal murder; his body, being made over to his relations, was escorted to his home with great parade; the militia were turned out to receive it with military honours, and General —, who set up for the governorship of Louisiana, pronounced the funeral eulogy!!

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

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

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

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

In the Eastern States the use of the knife was opposed to general feeling, as it is, or as I regret to say, as it used to be in this country. I was passing down Broadway in New York, when a scoundrel of a carman flogged with his whip a young Southern who had a lady under his protection. Justly irritated, and no match for the sturdy ruffian in physical strength, the young man was so imprudent as to draw his knife, and throw it Indian fashion; and for so doing, he was with difficulty saved from the indignation of the people.

Ohio is chiefly populated by Eastern people; yet to my surprise when at Cincinnati, a row took place in the theatre, Bowie-knives were drawn by several. I never had an idea that there was such a weapon worn there; but as I afterwards discovered, they were worn in self defence, because the Southerners carried them. The same may be said of the States of Virginia and Kentucky, which are really now in many portions of them civilised States; but the regular inroad of the Southerners every year keeps up a system, which would before this have very probably become obsolete; but as it is, the duel at sight, and the knife, is resorted to in these States, as well as in the Mississippi. This lamentable state of society must exist for some time yet, as civilisation progresses but slowly in some of the slave States. Some improvement has of late been made, as I have pointed out; but it is chiefly the lower class of miscreants who have been rooted out, not the gentleman assassins; for I can give them no other title.

The women of the south appear to have their passions equally violent with the men. When I was at Louisville, a married lady, for some fancied affront, insisted upon her husband whipping another gentlemen. The husband not wishing to get a broken head, expostulated, upon which she replied, that, if he did not, she would find some other gentleman to do it for her. The husband, who probably was aware that these services are not without their reward, went accordingly, and had a turn-up in obedience to the lady's wishes.

It appears to me, that it is the Southern ladies, and the ladies alone, who can affect any reformation in these points. They have great sway, and if they were to form an association, and declare that they would not marry, or admit into their company, any man who carried a Bowie-knife or other weapons, that they would prevail, when nothing else will. This would be a glorious achievement, and I am convinced from the chivalry towards women shown by the Southerners on every occasion, that they might be prevailed upon by them to leave off customs so disgraceful, so demoralising, and so incompatible with the true principles of honour and Christianity.

————————————————————————————————————

Note 1. "Jackson, Mississippi, Oct. 18.

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



VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER ONE.

SOCIETY—WOMEN.

The women of America are unquestionably, physically, as far as beauty is concerned, and morally, of a higher standard than the men; nevertheless they have not that influence which they ought to possess. In my former remarks upon the women of America I have said, that they are the prettiest in the world, and I have put the word prettiest in italics, as I considered it a term peculiarly appropriate to the American women. In many points the Americans have, to a certain degree, arrived at that equality which they profess to covet; and in no one, perhaps, more than in the fair distribution of good looks among the women. This is easily accounted for: there is not to be found, on the one hand, that squalid wretchedness, that half-starved growing up, that disease and misery, nor on the other, that hereditary refinement, that inoculation of the beautiful, from the constant association with the fine arts, that careful nurture, and constant attention to health and exercise, which exist in the dense population of the cities of the Old World; and occasion those variations from extreme plainness to the perfection of beauty which are to be seen, particularly in the metropolis of England. In the United States, where neither the excess of misery nor of luxury and refinement are known, you have, therefore, a more equal distribution of good looks, and, although you often meet with beautiful women, it is but rarely that you find one that may be termed ill favoured. The coup-d'oeil is, therefore, more pleasing in America—enter society, and turn your eyes in any direction, you will everywhere find cause for pleasure, although seldom any of annoyance. The climate is not, however, favourable to beauty, which, compared to the English, is very transitory, especially in the Eastern States; and when a female arrives at the age of thirty, its reign is, generally speaking, over.

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

Generally speaking, but a small interval elapses between the period of American girls leaving school and their entering upon their duties as wives; but during that period, whatever it may be, they are allowed more liberty than the young people in our country; walking out without chaperons, and visiting their friends as they please. There is a reason for this: the matrons are compelled, from the insufficiency of their domestics, to attend personally to all the various duties of housekeeping; their fathers and brothers are all employed in their respective money-making transactions, and a servant cannot be spared from American establishments; if, therefore, they are to walk out and take exercise, it must be alone, and this can be done in the United States with more security than elsewhere, from the circumstance of everybody being actively employed, and there being no people at leisure who are strolling or idling about. I think that the portion of time which elapses between the period of a young girl leaving school and being married, is the happiest of her existence. I have already remarked upon the attention and gallantry shewn by the Americans to the women, especially to the unmarried. This is carried to an extent which, in England, would be considered by our young women as no compliment; to a certain degree it pervades every class, and even the sable damsels have no reason to complain of not being treated with the excess of politeness; but in my opinion, (and I believe the majority of the American women will admit the correctness of it,) they do not consider themselves flattered by a species of homage which is paying no compliment to their good sense, and after which the usual attentions of an Englishman to the sex are by some considered as amounting to hauteur and neglect.

Be it as it may, the American women are not spoiled by this universal adulation which they receive previous to their marriage. It is not that one is selected for her wealth or extreme beauty to the exception of all others; in such a case it might prove dangerous; but it is a flattery paid to the whole sex, given to all, and received as a matter of course by all, and therefore it does no mischief. It does, however, prove what I have observed at the commencement of this chapter, which is, that the women have not that influence which they are entitled to, and which, for the sake of morality, it is to be lamented that they have not; when men respect women they do not attempt to make fools of them, but treat them as rational and immortal beings, and this general adulation is cheating them with the shadow, while they withhold from them the substance.

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

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

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

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

All the men in America are busy; their whole time is engrossed by their accumulation of money; they breakfast early and repair to their stores or counting-houses; the majority of them do not go home to dinner, but eat at the nearest tavern or oyster-cellar, for they generally live at a considerable distance from the business part of the town, and time is too precious to be thrown away. It would be supposed that they would be home to an early tea; many are, but the majority are not. After fagging, they require recreation, and the recreations of most Americans are politics and news, besides the chance of doing a little more business, all of which, with drink, are to be obtained at the bars of the principal commercial hotels in the city. The consequence is, that the major portion of them come home late, tired, and go to bed; early the next morning they are off to their business again. Here it is evident that the women do not have much of their husband's society; nor do I consider this arising from any want of inclination on the part of the husbands, as there is an absolute necessity that they should work as hard as others if they wish to do well, and what one does, the other must do. Even frequenting the bar is almost a necessity, for it is there that they obtain all the information of the day. But the result is that the married women are left alone; their husbands are not their companions, and if they could be, still the majority of the husbands would not be suitable companions for the following reasons. An American starts into life at so early an age that what he has gained at school, with the exception of that portion brought into use from his business, is lost. He has no time for reading, except the newspaper; all his thoughts and ideas are centred in his employment; he becomes perfect in that, acquires a great deal of practical knowledge useful for making money, but for little else. This he must do if he would succeed, and the major portion confine themselves to such knowledge alone. But with the women it is different; their education is much more extended than that of the men, because they are more docile, and easier to control in their youth; and when they are married, although their duties are much more onerous than with us, still, during the long days and evenings, during which they wait for the return of their husbands, they have time to finish, I may say, their own educations and improve their minds by reading. The consequence of this, with other adjuncts, is, that their minds become, and really are, much more cultivated and refined than those of their husbands; and when the universal practice of using tobacco and drinking among the latter is borne in mind, it will be readily admitted that they are also much more refined in their persons.

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

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

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

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

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

It is, therefore, as I have before observed, fortunate that the marriages in America are more decided by prudence than by affection; for nothing could be more mortifying to a woman of sense and feeling, than to awake from her dream of love, and discover that the object upon which she has bestowed her affection, is indifferent to the sacrifice which she has made.

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

That the American women have their peculiarities, and in some respects they might be improved, is certain. Their principal fault in society is, that they do not sufficiently modulate their voices. Those faults arising from association, and to which both sexes are equally prone, are a total indifference to, or rather a love of change, "shifting right away," without the least regret, from one portion of the Union to another; a remarkable apathy as to the sufferings of others, an indifference to loss of life, a fondness for politics, all of which are unfeminine; and lastly, a passion for dress carried to too great an extent; but this latter is easily accounted for, and is inseparable from a society where all would be equal. But, on the other hand, the American women have a virtue which the men have not, which is moral courage, and one also which is not common with the sex, physical courage. The independence and spirit of an American woman, if left a widow without resources, is immediately shewn; she does not sit and lament, but applies herself to some employment, so that she may maintain herself and her children, and seldom fails in so doing. Here are faults and virtues, both proceeding from the same origin.

I have already in my Diary referred to another great error in a portion of the American women. Lady Blessington, in one of her delightful works, very truly observes, "I turn with disgust from that affected prudery, arising, if not from a participation, at least from a knowledge of evil, which induces certain ladies to cast down their eyes, look grave, and shew the extent of their knowledge, or the pruriency of their imaginations, by discovering in a harmless jest nothing to alarm their experienced feelings. I respect that woman whose innate purity prevents those around her from uttering aught that can arouse it, much more than her whose sensitive prudery continually reminds one, that she is au fait of every possible interpretation which a word of doubtful meaning admits."

The remarks of Miss Martineau upon the women of America are all very ungracious, and some of them very unjust. That she met with affectation and folly in America, is very probable—where do you not? There is no occasion to go to the United States to witness it. As for the charge of carrying in their hands seventy-dollar pocket-handkerchiefs, I am afraid it is but too true: but when there is little distinction, except by dress, ladies will be very expensive. I do not know why, but the American ladies have a custom of carrying their pocket-handkerchiefs in their hands, either in a room, or walking out, or travelling; and moreover, they have a custom of marking their names in the corner, at full length, and when in a steamboat or rail-car, I have, by a little watching, obtained the names of ladies sitting near me, in consequence of this custom, which of course will be ascribed by Miss Martineau to a wish to give information to strangers.

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

"If a test of civilisation be sought, none can be so sure as the condition of that half of society over which the other half has power,— from the exercise of the right of the strongest. Tried by this test, the American civilisation appears to be of a lower order than might have been expected from some other symptoms of its social state. The Americans have, in the treatment of women, fallen below, not only their own democratic principles, but the practice of some parts of the Old World.

"The unconsciousness of both parties as to the injuries suffered by women at the hands of those who hold the power, is a sufficient proof of the low degree of civilisation in this important particular at which they rest, while woman's intellect is confined, her morals crushed, her health ruined, her weaknesses encouraged, and her strength punished, she is told that her lot is cast in the paradise of women: and there is no country in the world where there is so much boasting of the 'chivalrous' treatment she enjoys. That is to say,—she has the best place in stage-coaches: when there are not chairs enough for everybody, the gentlemen stand she hears oratorical flourishes on public occasions about wives and home, and apostrophes to woman: her husband's hair stands on end at the idea of her working, and he toils to indulge her with money: she has liberty to get her brain turned by religious excitements, that her attention may be diverted from morals, politics, and philosophy; and, especially, her morals are guarded by the strictest observance of propriety in her presence. In short, indulgence is given her as a substitute for justice."

If Miss Martineau had stopped here, she had done well; but she follows this up by claiming for her sex all the privileges of our own, and seems to be highly indignant, that they are not permitted to take their due share of the government of the country, and hold the most important situations. To follow up her ideas, we should have a "teeming" prime minister, and the Lord Chancellor obliged to leave the woolsack to nurse his baby; Miss M forgets that her prayer has been half granted already, for we never yet had a ministry without a certain proportion of old women in it; and we can, therefore dispense with her services.

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

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

Miss Martineau is a lady; and, therefore, it is difficult to use the language which I would, if a man had made such an assertion. I shall only state, that it is one of the greatest libels that ever was put into print: for Miss Martineau implies that it is a general habit, among the American women; so far from it, the American women are so abstemious that they do not drink sufficient for their health. They can take very little exercise, and did they take a little more wine, they would not suffer from dyspepsia, as they now do, as wine would assist their digestion. The origin of this slander I know well, and the only ground for it is, that there are two or three ladies of a certain city, who having been worked upon by some of the Evangelical Revival Ministers, have had their minds crushed by the continual excitement to which they have been subjected. The mind affects the body, and they have required, and have applied to, stimulus, and if you will inquire into the moral state of any woman among the higher classes, either in America or England, who has fallen into the vice alluded to, nine times out of ten you will find that it has been brought about by religious excitement. Fanaticism and gin are remarkable good friends all over the world. It is surprising to me that, when Miss Martineau claims for her sex the same privilege as ours, she should have overlooked one simple fact which ought to convince her that they are the weaker vessels. I refer to what she acknowledges to be true, which is, that the evangelical preachers invariably apply to women for proselytes, instead of men; not only in America but everywhere else; and that for one male, they may reckon at least twenty females among their flocks. According to Miss Martineau's published opinions, there can be no greater weakness than the above.

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

Miss Martineau mentions a divorce having been granted to a wife, upon the plea of her husband being a gambler; and I was myself told of an instance in which a divorce was granted upon the plea of the husband being such an "awful swearer;" and really, if any one heard the swearing in some parts of the Western country, he would not be surprised at a religious woman requesting to be separated. I was once on board of a steam-boat on the Mississippi, when a man let off such a volley of execrations, that it was quite painful to hear him. An American who stood by me, as soon as the man had finished, observed, "Well, I'm glad that fellow has nothing to do with the engines: I reckon he'd burst the biler."

Miss Martineau observes, "In no country I believe are the marriage laws so iniquitous as in England, and the conjugal relation, in consequence, so impaired. Whatever may be thought of the principles which are to enter into laws of divorce, whether it be held that pleas for divorce should be one, (as narrow interpreters of the New Testament would have it;) or two, (as the law of England has it;) or several, (as the Continental and United States' laws in many instances allow,) nobody, I believe, defends the arrangement by which, in England, divorce is obtainable only by the very rich. The barbarism of granting that as a privilege to the extremely wealthy, to which money bears no relation whatever, and in which all married persons whatever have an equal interest, needs no exposure beyond the mere statement of the fact. It will be seen at a glance how such an arrangement tends to vitiate marriage: how it offers impunity to adventurers, and encouragement to every kind of mercenary marriages; how absolute is its oppression of the injured party; and how, by vitiating marriage, it originates and aggravates licentiousness to an incalculable extent. To England alone belongs the disgrace of such a method of legislation. I believe that, while there is little to be said for the legislation of any part of the world on this head, it is nowhere so vicious as in England."

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

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

All the great errors, all the various schisms in the Christian church, have arisen from not taking the holy writings as a great moral code, (as I should imagine they were intended to be,) which legislates upon broad principles, but selecting particular passages from them upon which to pin your faith. And it certainly appears to me to be reasonable to suppose that those laws by which the imperfection of our natures were fairly met, and which tended to diminish the aggregate of crime, must be more acceptable to our Divine Master than any which, however they might be in spirit more rigidly conformable to his precepts, were found in their working not to succeed. And here I cannot help observing, that the heads of the Church of England appear not to have duly weighed this matter, when an attempt was lately made to legislate upon it. Do the English bishops mean to assert, that they know better than the heads of all the other Protestant communities in the world—that they are more accurate expounders of the gospel, and have a more intimate knowledge of God's will? Did it never occur to them, that when so many good and virtuous ecclesiastics of the same persuasion in other countries have decided upon the propriety of divorce, so as to leave them in a very small minority, that it might be possible that they might be wrong, or do they intend to set up and claim the infallibility of the Papistical hierarchy?

Any legislation to prevent crime, which produces more crime, must be bad and unsound, whatever may be its basis: witness the bastardy clause, in the New Poor Law Bill. That the former arrangements were defective is undeniable, for by them there was a premium for illegitimate children. This required amendment: but the remedy has proved infinitely worse than the disease. For what has been the result? That there have been many thousands fewer illegitimate children born, it is true; but, has the progress of immorality been checked? On the contrary, crime has increased, for to the former crime has been added one much greater, that of infanticide, or producing abortion. Such has been the effect of attempting to legislate for the affections; for in most cases a woman falls a sacrifice to her better feelings, not to her appetite.

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

Is it right that this vow should be made? A man deserts his wife for another, treats her cruelly, separates her from her children. Can a woman love, or honour, or cherish such a man—nevertheless, she has vowed before God that she will. Take the reverse of the picture when the fault is on the woman's side, and the evil is the same; can either party control their affections? surely not, and therefore it would be better that such vows should not be demanded.

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

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

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

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

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

The Americans claim excessive purity for their women, and taunt us with the exposees occasionally made in our newspapers. In the first place—which shews the highest regard for morality, a country where any deviation from virtue is immediately made known, and held up to public indignation? or one which, from national vanity, and a wish that all should appear to be correct, instead of publishing, conceals the facts, and permits the guilty parties to escape without censure, for what they consider the honour of the nation?

To suppose that there is no conjugal infidelity in the United States, is to suppose that human nature is not the same every where. That it never, to my knowledge, was made public, but invariably hushed up when discovered, I believe; so is suicide. But one instance came to my knowledge, during the time that I was in the States, which will give a very fair idea of American feeling on this subject. It was supposed that an intrigue had been discovered, or, it had actually been discovered, I cannot say which, between a foreigner and the wife of an English gentleman. It was immediately seized upon with ecstasy, circulated in all the papers with every American embellishment, and was really the subject of congratulation among them, as if they had gained some victory over this country. It so happened that an American called upon the lady, and among other questions put to her, inquired in what part of England she was born. She replied, "that she was not an English-woman, but was born in the States, and brought up in an American city."

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

The fact is that human nature is the same every where, and I cannot help observing, that if their community is so much more moral, as they pretend that it is, why is it, that they have considered it necessary to form societies on such an extensive scale, for the prevention of a crime, from which they declare themselves (comparatively with us, and other nations,) to be exempt? I once had an argument on this subject with an elderly American gentleman, and as I took down the minutes of it after we parted, I think it will be as well to give it to my readers, as it will shew the American feeling upon it—

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

"I have no reason to deny either one assertion or the other, as far as I am acquainted with your men and women; but still I do not judge from the surface, as many have done who have visited you. Because there are no crim. cons. in your papers, it does not prove that conjugal infidelity does not exist. There are no suicides of people of any station in society ever published in your newspapers, and yet there is no country where suicide is more common.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Am I then to understand, captain, that you consider the American ladies as not virtuous?"

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

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

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

"That's all I want, captain—never mind the buts."

"But you must have the buts. Recollect, I did not say that your society was more moral, although I said that there was in my opinion less infidelity."

"Well, how can that be?"

"Because, in the first place, conjugal infidelity is not the only crime which exists in society; and, secondly, because there are causes which prevent its being common. That this vice should be common, two things are requisite—time and opportunity; neither of which is to be found in a society like yours. You have no men of leisure, every man is occupied the whole day with his business. Now, suppose one man was to stay away from his business for merely one day, would he not be missed, and inquiries made after him; and if it were proved that he stayed away to pass his time with his neighbour's wife, would not the scandal be circulated all over the city before night? I recollect a very plain woman accusing a very pretty one of indiscretion; the reply of the latter, when the former vaunted her own purity, was, 'Were you ever asked?' Thus it is in America; there is neither time nor opportunity, and your women are in consequence seldom or ever tempted. I do not mean to say that if they were tempted they would fall; all I say is, that no parallel can in this instance be drawn between the women of the two countries, as their situations are so very different. I am ready to do every justice to your women; but I will not suffer you to remain in the error, that you are more moral than we are."

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

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

"Where?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Carey appears to have lost sight of this fact when he so triumphantly points at the difference between the working classes of both nations, and quotes the Report of our Poor Law Commissioners to prove the wretchedness and misery of ours. I cannot, however, allow his assertions to pass without observation, especially as English and French travellers have been equally content to admit without due examination the claims of the Americans; I refer more particularly to the large manufactory at Lowell, in Massachusetts, which from its asserted purity has been one of the boasts of America. Mr Carey says:—

"The following passage from a statement, furnished by the manager of one of the principal establishments in Lowell, shows a very gratifying state of things:—'There have only occurred three instances in which any apparently improper connection or intimacy had taken place, and in all those cases the parties were married on the discovery, and several months prior to the birth of their children; so that, in a legal point of view, no illegitimate birth has taken place among the females employed in the mills under my direction. Nor have I known of but one case among all the females employed in Lowell. I have said known—I should say heard of one case. I am just informed, that that was a case where the female had been employed but a few days in any mill, and was forthwith rejected from the corporation, and sent to her friends. In point of female chastity, I believe that Lowell is as free from reproach as any place of an equal population in the United States or the world.'"

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

"The effect upon morals of this state of things, is of the most gratifying character. The number of illegitimate children born in the United States is small; so small, that we should suppose one in fifty to be a high estimate. In the great factories of the Eastern States there prevails a high degree of morality, presenting a most extraordinary contrast to the immorality represented to exist in a large portion of those of England."

Next follows Miss Martineau, who says—"The morals of the female factory population may be expected to be good when it is considered of what class it is composed. Many of the girls are in the factories because they have too much pride for domestic service. Girls who are too proud for domestic service as it is in America, can hardly be low enough for any gross immorality, or to need watching, or not to be trusted to avoid the contagion of evil example. To a stranger, their pride seems to have taken a mistaken direction, and they appear to deprive themselves of a respectable home and station, and many benefits, by their dislike of service; but this is altogether their own affair, they must choose for themselves their way of life. But the reasons of their choice indicate a state of mind superior to the grossest dangers of their position."

And the Reverend Mr Reid also echoes the praise of the factory girls given by others, although he admits that their dress was above their state and condition, and that he was surprised to see them appear "in silks, with scarfs, veils, and parasols."

Here is a mass of evidence opposed to me, but the American evidence must be received with all due caution; and as for the English, I consider it rather favourable to my side of the question than otherwise. Miss Martineau says that "the girls have too much pride for domestic service," and, therefore, argues that they will not be immoral; now, the two great causes of women falling off from virtue, are poverty and false pride. What difference there is between receiving money for watching a spinning-jenny, and doing household work, I do not see; in either case it is servitude, although the former may be preferred, as being less under control, and leaving more time at your own disposal. I consider the pride, therefore, which Miss Martineau upholds, to be false pride, which will actuate them in other points; and when we find the factory girls vying with each other in silks and laces, it becomes a query whether the passion for dress, so universal in America, may not have its effect there as well as elsewhere. I must confess that I went to Lowell doubting all I had heard—it was so contrary to human nature that five hundred girls should live among a population of fifteen hundred, or more, all pure and virtuous, and all dressed in silks and satin.

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

Mr Carey compels me to make a remark which I would gladly have avoided, but as he brings forward his comparative statements of the number of illegitimate children born in the two countries as a proof of the superior morality of America, I must point out to him what I suspect he is not aware of. Public opinion acts as law in America; appearances are there substituted for the reality, and provided appearances are kept up, whether it be in religion or morality, it is sufficient; but should an exposure take place, there is no mercy for the offender. As those who have really the least virtue in themselves are always the loudest to cry out at any lapse which may be discovered in others, so does society in America pour out its anathemas in the inverse ratio of its real purity. Now, although the authority I speak from is undoubted, at the same time I wish to say as little as possible. That there are fewer illegitimate children born in the United States is very true. But why so? because public opinion there acts as the bastardy clause in the new poor law bill has done in this country; and if Mr Carey will only inquire in his own city, he will find that I should be justified if I said twice as much, as I have been compelled in defence of my own country to say, upon so unpleasant a subject.

————————————————————————————————————

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

————————————————————————————————————

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



VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER TWO.

PUBLIC OPINION, OR THE MAJORITY.

The majority are always in the right, so says Miss Martineau, and so have said greater people than even Miss Martineau; to be sure Miss Martineau qualifies her expression afterwards, when she declares that they always will be right in the end. What she means by that I do not exactly comprehend; the end of a majority is its subsiding into a minority, and a minority is generally right. But I rather think that she would imply that they will repent and see their folly when the consequences fall heavily upon them. The great question is, what is a majority? must it be a whole nation, or a portion of a nation, or a portion of the population of a city; or, in fact, any plus against any minus, be they small or be they large. For instance, two against one are a majority, and, if so, any two scoundrels may murder an honest man and be in the right; or it may be the majority in any city, as in Baltimore, where they rose and murdered an unfortunate minority [see note 1]; or it may be a majority on the Canada frontier, when a set of miscreants defied their own government, and invaded the colony of a nation with whom they were at peace—all which is of course right. But there are other opinions on this question besides those of Miss Martineau, and we shall quote them as occasion serves.

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

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

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

"Among men of reflection few will be found, I believe, who are not beginning to think that our system is better in theory than in practice, and that notwithstanding the boasted virtue of America, it is more than probable we shall exhibit the last melancholy proof, that mankind are incompetent to their own government without the means of coercion in the sovereign." [Washington's letter to Chief Justice Jay, 10th March, 1787.]

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

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

It was not, however, until the presidency of General Jackson, that the democratic party may be said to have made any serious inroads upon the constitution. Their previous advances were indeed sure, but they were, comparatively speaking, slow; but, raised as he was to the office of President by the mob, the demagogues who led the mob obtained the offices under government, to the total exclusion of the aristocratic party, whose doom was then sealed. Within these last ten years the advance of the people has been like a torrent, sweeping and levelling all before it, and the will of the majority has become not only absolute with the government, but it defies the government itself, which is too weak to oppose it.

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

M. Tocqueville says, "Custom, however, has done even more than laws. A proceeding which will in the end set all the guarantees of representative government at nought, is becoming more and more general in the United States: it frequently happens that the electors who choose a delegate, point out a certain line of conduct to him, and impose upon him a certain number of positive obligations, which he is pledged to fulfil. With the exception of the tumult, this comes to the same thing as if the majority of the populace held its deliberations in the market-place."

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

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

1st. As to the mass of the people themselves. It is clear, if the people not only legislate, but, when in a state of irritation or excitement, they defy even legislation, that they are not to be compared to restricted sovereigns, but to despots, whose will and caprice are law. The vices of the court of a despot are, therefore, practised upon the people; for the people become as it were the court, to whom those in authority, or those who would be in authority, submissively bend the knee. A despot is not likely ever to hear the truth, for moral courage fails where there is no law to protect it, and where honest advice may be rewarded by summary punishment. The people, therefore, like the despot, are never told the truth; on the contrary, they receive and expect the most abject submission from their courtiers, to wit, those in office, or expectants.

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

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

First, he humbly acknowledges their power.

"A national bank," he tells them, "would impair the rightful supremacy of the popular will."

And this he follows up with that most delicate species of flattery, that of praising them for the very virtue which they are most deficient in; telling them that they are "a people to whom the truth, however unpromising, can always be told with safety."

At the very time when they were defying all law and all government, he says, "It was reserved for the American Union to test the advantage of a government entirely dependent on the continual exercise of the popular will, and our experience has shewn, that it is as beneficent in practice, as well as it is just in theory."

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

This is quite enough; Mr Van Buren's motives are to be re-elected as president. That is very natural on his part; but how can you expect a people to improve who never hear the truth?

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

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

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

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

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

Again, "At the present day the most affluent classes of society are so entirely removed from the direction of political affairs in the United States, that wealth, far from conferring a right to the exercise of power, is rather an obstacle than a means of attaining to it. The wealthy members of the community abandon the lists, through unwillingness to contend, and frequently to contend in vain, against the poorest classes of their fellow-citizens. They concentrate all their enjoyments in the privacy of their homes, where they occupy a rank which cannot be assumed in public, and they constitute a private society in the State which has its own tastes and its own pleasures. They submit to this state of things as an irremediable evil, but they are careful not to shew that they are galled by its continuance. It is even not uncommon to hear them laud the delights of a republican government, and the advantages of democratic institutions, when they are in public. Next to hating their enemies, men are most inclined to flatter them. But beneath this artificial enthusiasm, and these obsequious attentions to the preponderating power, it is easy to perceive that the wealthy members of the community entertain a hearty distaste to the democratic institutions of their country. The populace is at once the object of their scorn and of their fears. If the maladministration of the democracy ever brings about a revolutionary crisis, and if monarchial constitutions ever become practicable in the United States, the truth of what I advance will become obvious."

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

Captain Hamilton, speaking to one of the federalist, or aristocratical party, received the following reply. I have received similar ones in more than fifty instances. "My opinions, and I believe those of the party to which I belonged, are unchanged; and the course of events in this country has been such as to impress only a deeper and more thorough conviction of their wisdom; but, in the present state of public feeling, we dare not express them. An individual professing such opinions would not only find himself excluded from every office of public trust within the scope of his reasonable ambition, but he would be regarded by his neighbours and fellow-citizens with an evil eye. His words and actions would become the objects of jealous and malignant scrutiny, and he would have to sustain the unceasing attacks of a host of unscrupulous and ferocious assailants."

Mr Cooper says, "The besetting, the degrading vice of America is the moral cowardice by which men are led to truckle to what is called public opinion, though nine times in ten these are mere engines set in motion by opinions the most corrupt and least respectable portion of the community, for the most unworthy purposes. The English are a more respectable and constant [unconstant?] nation than the Americans, as relates to this peculiarity."

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

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

The power has fallen into the hands of the lower orders, the offices under government have been chiefly filled up by their favourites, either being poor and needy men from their own class, or base and dishonest men, who have sacrificed their principles and consciences for place. I shall enter more fully into this subject hereafter; it is quite sufficient at present to say, that during Mr Adams' presidency, a Mr Benjamin Walker was a defaulter to the amount of 18,000 dollars, and was in consequence incarcerated for two years. Since the democratic party have come into power, the quantity of defaulters, and the sums which have been embezzled of government money, are enormous, and no punishment of any kind has been attempted. They say it is only a breach of trust, and that a breach of trust is not punishable, except by a civil action; which certainly in the United States is of little avail, as the payment of the money can always be evaded. The consequence is that you meet with defaulters in, I will not say the very best society generally, but in the very best society of some portions of the United States. I have myself sat down to a dinner party to which I had been invited, with a defaulter to government on each side of me. I knew one that was setting up for Congress, and, strange to say, his delinquency was not considered by the people as an objection. An American author [Voice from America] states, "On the 17th June, 1838, the United States treasurer reported to Congress sixty-three defaulters; the total sums embezzled amounting to one million, twenty thousand and odd dollars."