would have maintained the first Duke of Marlborough a week, we were dismissed into the hands of the keeper of the park, who finished his official duties with another demand.-Here I had another opportunity of observing how nearly, sometimes, the height of greatness is allied to the lowest meanness.

I should despise that man, in the United States, who would condescend to raise a revenue on the curiosity, either of his own countrymen, or of strangers.

This system of exaction runs down from the royal palace to the waiter at the coffee house, or more humble ordinary. It cannot be supposed that their Majesties, or the Duke of Marlborough, lease out these lucrative offices: but in the lower ranks of society, they are objects of speculation. One of the waiters, at a London coffee house, informed me he paid a weekly salary of eight shillings sterling to his master, for his place! This needs no comment. I just add, that with a few exceptions, you find, in England, but two sorts of people, beggars by privilege, and their co-relatives, beggars from necessity, Adieu.

LETTER XXXV.

LONDON, JULY 29th.

You request a sketch of the state of society

in England. The few hundred miles which I have travelled, westerly from London, will hardly warrant my speaking generally; beside, society here is so diversified, if you would speak generally, you are in danger of falling into an exception, and if you would speak particularly, you must enter into every body's kitchen. Hence, it is as difficult to describe the state of society, as it is to draw the characters of the English-Though they are slaves to the opinions, which obtain among people of their own description, yet they despise to be exactly like their neighbours. Hence, no Dutch fashions which last an hundred years, no blind attachment to an idol Lama, no uniform Spanish state of indifference: in short, England is in a continual circumstance of various experiment hence, every thing is inconsistent; the nobleman frequently forgets his peerage, and the plebeian frequently imagines himself a nobleman. You find a singular compound of liberty and slavery, of dignity and servility, some little

degree of equality, yet every one despising those below himself. Not an individual in the nation knows the form of government, or knows what it may be three months hence: for, under the mere form of law, and of freedom, it is a perfect political despotism; and though the people may protest otherwise, they have no representatives in parliament. The people, indeed, are fully persuaded they ought to be free, and the parliament is willing to persuade them they are so, fearful lest they should resort to first principles. Hence, while most other governments are supported by main force or passive consent, the English system is conducted by mutual concession.

The king is nothing, except at the beginning and conclusion of a war: yet he does not lose his dignity in time of peace, though he may be little more, than a king log. The private history of this people is equally a subject for the philosopher and the buffoon. Their public history is a little more consistent, and offers more uniformity, though less honesty. You perceive the same spirit streaming down from Jack Cade and Wat Tyler, to John Hampden and William Beckford, though Cade and Tyler do not rank in history with the latter, merely because they were not gentlemen of education. But the public history of a powerful people is no

criterion of domestic happiness. Like certain beautiful and majestic women, such a people will show best at a distance, and possibly be most envied when least known.

The few notices which I am enabled to offer on the present state of society, will be partly drawn from my own observation, and partly from as good intelligence as I have been able to procure, without seeming to seek it directly-for the English have one very great foible; if they are ever disposed to deceive, it is in order to gain a stranger's good opinion-Yet, all of a sudden, they are perfectly indifferent, if you are unwilling to admit their pretensions. So that, if they do not pay, they do not exact, deference.

I shall lay down a few data, from which you may draw a passably correct inference, with the help of a little imagination. The land in England is either possessed by the nobility, or, in a great measure, monopolized by private individuals: hence, all the miseries of the feudal system; hence, you will readily conclude the tenancy of England to be in a state of slavery. The issues of industry do not go to cheer the domestic firehearth; and although the English peasantry are not cerfs, their condition is little less enviable; every change of master would serve only to render them less respectable and more

distressed. It is the interest of the landlord to retain his peasantry in a condition just above absolute want, and to discourage their removing from one master to another. Should they be permitted to attain a competency, the landlords would be ruined: the next generation would lower the price of leases: the third would be capable of purchasing fees, and unless the lands were sold, they would lie uncultivated-The contemplation of this state of things would burst the blood vessel of New England: but I am only a spectator, and can write with moderation.

The aspect of commerce will afford another insight into the state of society. Rapid acquisition of fortune, pomp and luxury, attend commerce; but she carries in her train, misery in a thousand shapes. Commerce is not so odious in monarchies, where aristocracy is essential; but in small republics it is destructive, and in great republics it is an evil, unless its spirit be fully counteracted by agriculture. But without commerce, England would be nothing in the scale of nations, therefore if it be an evil, it is a necessary evil. Beside, I think it doubtful, if the people be not happier in having the alternative of gleaning in the fields of their landlords, or becoming the drudges of merchants. Yet one misfortune allies itself to commerce without any possible reme