times taken from the plough, sometimes from the counting-house, but more frequently from the lawshop. An Englishman, I know, must smile at this, and imagine our members would bring their professions with them to Congress, and prove, illustrate, and embellish their positions from the farm yard, the warehouse, or the attorney's office. But it is worthy of remark, that our members of Congress have most of them been in business, consequently know more of human life, than the English peers; and though they may at first be deficient in forms and precedents, they are likely to bring more mind to the public service. As they are considerably adyanced in life, and have already discovered their abilities before they are delegated, their former agricultural, commercial and legal pursuits, coalescing, serve to equalise the laws, before they receive their sanction. Plus pollere multorum ingenia consiliaque.*

These considerations give our members a decided superiority over the English peers: I mean there will be more capacity in the one body, than in the other, notwithstanding there will ever be a few preeminent members in the House of Lords of recent creation. This does not apply to the House of Commons: for though there are many rotten bor

P

* Livy.

oughs and no little ministerial influence at elections, yet this does not proscribe any ability from the House, for the minister will naturally seek the man of greatest capacity. Hence, you find Windham, Laurence, Canning and others in the House, who would be very loath to be questioned respecting the Hustings.

The happy days, which we have experienced under the constitution of the United States, have scarcely offered, since its adoption, two important occasions of calling forth the abilities of Congress. The question of the Judiciary gave rise to the most spirited and well contested debate which was ever witnessed in a deliberative assembly: while the dignity and moderation, with which it was conducted, proved the empire of reason over passion and personality. Had such a question, a question which called forth the whole force of political feeling in every individual of the legislature, been agitated in the House of Commons, you might have heard Mr. Fox pant across the Thames; Mr. Pitt would have forgotten his usual senatorial dignity; Dr. Laurence would have frothed at the mouth; Mr. Windham, forgetting the point in question, would have hurled Greek at his opponents from the philippics of Demosthenes; and Mr. Erskine would have been carried out.

Not less surprised were the members of Congress, than their fellow citizens, at this unexpected display of close argument, arrayed in the most brilliant eloquence. The public mind was immediately convinced, when Breckenridge spoke to his motion, and supported it with a force and simplicity, destitute of the least appeal to popular sentiment. But when Morris rose, his wild eloquence threw a mist before the eyes of every one, and served to keep in agitation, a question supposed to be settled. Yet Mason, with a steady, piercing eye, saw through the labyrinth of party coloured rhetoric, and, reverting to first principles, brought back the question to its former state. These great efforts in the Senate, roused all the ability of the House, and called forth faculties, which had either slept for years, or were not supposed to exist. The modest Hemphill, with the simplicity of his sect, supported his opinion, with a dignity peculiar to himself; while Giles and Bayard, veterans in debate, knowing each other, and conscious of the public expectation, reserved themselves to the last, and came prepared with a sort of sobriety, to the arduous conflict.

Adieu.

LETTER XVII.

LONDON, FEBRUARY 18th.

A GOVERNMENT which owes its greatness to the vicious passions, and whose stability is founded on an artificial basis, should endeavour, as much as possible, to substitute for real patriotism, ideal glory; and should call the attention of the people to the consideration of what their fathers have been, not to what themselves are. For a ruined country, like a ruined woman, may support itself a certain time on the credit of its former reputation.

Fortunately for England, she has many objects to engage the affections of her subjects, which serve the purpose of a sort of bastard patriotism. This bias to our country, when principle is wanting, is absolutely necessary, otherwise the people will be beggared with a standing army.

In the advantage of external attachments, England stands preeminent over all nations. In the first place, she is small in territory, in the next, she is an island. Such circumstances may operate on a people without their knowledge: but England has food for her pride, which is the strongest trait in her

character.. It is a property of the human mind, in its most miserable state, to rest with a degree of complacency either on some object, or, if that fails, on some delusion. If a nation be no longer great, they console themselves on past greatness, if no longer brave, they are ready to appeal to their an

cestors.

Great men, great victories, magnificent public buildings, stupendous monuments, pompous equipages, nay, a long line of kings and nobles, secretly operate in Europe instead of greater force, and produce a counterfeit patriotism. I say counterfeit for most of those, who are emphatically styled great men, have been public burdens. Great victories have usually originated a second war, while the first originated in a spirit of plunder, or what more frequently happens in our days, a spirit of commerce. Magnificent public buildings are a sure mark of slavery and oppression: the pyramids do no honour to Egypt. Stupendous monuments not unfrequently rise in honour of the tyrant, and at the expense of slaves; are an incentive to false ambition, and perpetuate and sanction the principle to which they were reared. Kings* and

* Monarchy doubtless originated in the infancy and weakness of society, when an able, bold, popular man was elected to protect and unite the discordant interests of his own tribe or clan. Thus, though simple monarchy may boast an elder origin than republics, all hereditary authority is founded in usurpation, and is a continued usurpation.-I might easily demonstrate this, so could Lord Thurlow.