bunal; but with the other charge of rebellion the British commander could have nothing to do."

I am particularly struck with another example of disingenuousness and exaggeration on the part of our friends of the opposition, which I have now before me in a speech of Earl Grey, at the New Castle Fox dinner of the 31st. of December, 1818. This nobleman stands, with Lord Grenville, at the head of the old whigs; he was trained by the side of Fox, and deserved to be called the Diomedes of the band who waged so powerful a war in the House of Commons under that leader. His zeal for parliamentary reform even surpassed that of his colleagues; but, on his ascension to the House of Lords, his feelings and views on this subject underwent a material change; although he still continued inseparable in other questions from his first associations, and, in his American politics, ranked with the most strenuous antagonists of the ministerial system. As the imagination of a large proportion of the British politicians has been particularly affected with the extensive emigrations, that of his lordship is disturbed in an especial manner, with the cry for universal suffrage and annual parliaments; and he probably feels the more anxious to discredit these innovations, from having himself taken the lead in the House of Commons in arraigning the constitution of the British legislature. The example of America, as to the point of representation, seemed naturally to interfere with his object, and was therefore to be invalidated, not merely by being shown to have no application to the circumstances of Great Britain, but by being exhibited as of a most malignant and revolting character in itself. To this design I ascribe the use which he made, on the occasion above mentioned, of Fearon's "Sketches of America," and the character which he gave of the book and its author. I shall make the case better understood by transcribing that portion of the speech to which I allude, before I give, as I intend, some glimpses of the true light in which the Sketches are to be viewed, and must have been viewed,

in fact, by the noble Earl. After drawing a frightful picture of the state of England, he proceeded thus:

"But there is even a more dreadful instance than ours to be found in the history of a country whose popular constitution must furnish matter of much interesting observation to every lover of freedom. The constitution of America is free and popular in the largest sense. Now, what is the case in America? A gentleman was deputed by thirty-nine families, who had been driven by the necessities of the times to think of emigration—a melancholy proof of our present condition. On his report they were to depend, for the spirit of the country, and the inducements it might hold out to them. The gentleman's name is Fearon. He has published the report which he made to these persons, and his book is full of the most valuable information, and is distinguished by the marks not only of an inquiring, observing, and intelligent mind, but of the greatest fairness and impartiality. What does Mr. Fearon say of the operation of their laws and of this boasted constitution?"

His lordship then adduced, as decisive revelation, what Fearon has written concerning the process of election and the distribution of offices in America; and he concludes in these words-"This is Mr. Fearon's statement, and I should observe to you, that he is by no means a willing witness on the subject. Why do I repeat these things? Is it that I may depreciate the value of popular rights in your estimation? Far from it; I wish merely to show you that, under a system which may appear more perfect, similar, or even greater abuses, may still exist than in England."

We must conclude that the orator had actually read the work on which and its author, he pronounced so lofty a panegyric; which he thus held out to the world as the source of the most authentic information concerning American affairs. He has, in fact, by the latitude and emphasis of his recommendation, become the sponsor of the whole. It is a serious accountability; and I must confess that I am surprised at the boldness of the proceeding.

In the first place, as to the point of our elections and the distribution of public trusts, Fearon's allegations are confined to the affairs of two states only, New York and Pennsylvania, and the choice of one federal officer, the

chief magistrate. It happens that those are precisely and notoriously the parts of the union, in which the game of state politics, a comparatively insignificant one, bears the worst character and appearance. In them, there is more perhaps, of what, as long as human nature is not perfect with us, must exist in a certain measure, in the rest, I mean paltry intrigue for petty offices, and interested effort to influence votes. Cases of some enormity may occur in the first line of abuse, and suffrages be sometimes given from mere party subserviency; but it is as absurd to compare what happens here in these respects, with what prevails in England, as it would be to compare the amount and description of the mendicity in our streets, or of the criminal delinquency on our calendars, with those of which we read in Colquhoun's Treatises and the late Parliamentary Reports.

Whoever talks of a degree of bribery and corruption, and undue influence in America, like that of the neighbourhood of the treasury of London, and the theatres of English suffrage, whether the shires or boroughs, deals in the most extravagant hyperbole. Fearon only repeats on this subject, what he pretends to have heard from two persons of his own country, Mr. Cobbett and Mr. Hulme, both of whom, be it remarked, peremptorily disclaim the language which he imputes to them, and accuse him of an impudent imposture. He might, perhaps, have read it in some of the wild declamations, which are published among us during the heat of a contested election, and from the exaggerating spirit of party recrimination. But, nothing that has ever happened in this country, furnishes the least foundation for asserting broadly, that votes and places are bought and sold. Throughout the states, the right of suffrage is exercised, in general, with independence and integrity, by freeholders jealous of their prerogative, strangers to the want and very idea of a largess, and too proud to submit to any dictation. The elections in New England, for instance, are marked by a strictness of decorum, probity of spirit, and universal intelligence of action, such, as an European accustomed to view the

people every where as populace, would not be capable of imagining.*

On this subject, moreover, it is not what may be done or said in some of the large cities on the Atlantic coast, that furnishes a test of the practice among the mass of this

nation.

With respect to disorder and corruption in the system of voting and appointing to office, under the general government, the oracle of Lord Grey says no more, from himself, than that "he became acquainted with facts in Washington which no man could have induced him to believe without personal observation." With more than common discretion, he abstains from telling what those facts are, but proceeds to give an account of what he there heard respecting the "appointment" of the president by the caucus of congress, which he represents, indeed, as a mandate issued to the electors in the different states, and never disobeyed. But Lord Grey could not have been so ignorant of the letter and whole analogy of our institutions, as to have understood this to be more, in form or fact, than a recommendation from a certain number of members of congress assembled extra-officially, to the people at large, to vote for a particular individual as their chief magistrate. The proceeding is, certainly, an irregularity, and unsafe as a precedent; yet, so far, it cannot be said, to have been of practical injury, or of any real

* "I have lived long in New England," said Dr. Dwight, the late distinguished president of Yale College, "and have never yet known a single shilling given to purchase a vote." This is the testimony of one than whom no person could have had better opportunities of knowledge. He describes thus the manner of a New England election.

"In New England, on the morning of an election day, the electors assemble either in a church or a town house, in the centre of the township, of which they are inhabitants.

The business of the day is sometimes introduced by a sermon, and very often by public prayer. A moderator is chosen: the votes are given in with strict decency; without a single debate; without noise, or disorder, or drink; and with not a little of the sobriety, seen in religious assemblies. The meeting is then dissolved; the inhabitants return quietly to their homes, and have neither battles nor disputes. I do not believe that a single woman, bound or free, ever appeared at an election in New England since the colonization of the country. It would be as much as her character was worth."

Reply to the Quarterly Reviewers, 1815.

significance. I believe it is not doubted by any one, but that the personages who have been elected in succession to the office of president, and particularly the one who now fills it, would have succeeded equally with the people, without the forward counsel of such an assembly; and, it seems to me, no less certain, that it is not in the power of any cabal of whatever composition, to impose any man upon the people as their chief magistrate; to effect the adoption of one to whom the preference would not be given spontaneously.*

On the whole, all that is found in Fearon's book, touching these matters, does not, when fairly examined, implicate in general, "the laws and boasted constitution" of America; for, there is nothing that calls in question the conformity of the representation in congress, with the theory of those laws and that constitution. The "case in America" admitted of application to the project of parliamentary reform in England, only so far as it could be shewn, that the right of suffrage was not exercised honestly and independently in the election of congress; that this body was not free from corrupt dealings towards the people and within itself; and did not fully and fairly represent the nation. No accusations of the kind are hazarded by Fearon, and I am sure that whosoever might utter, would find it impossible to sustain them, in the opinion of impartial minds.

It may be worth while to obtain an idea of the general doctrines, concerning this country, of the book to which Earl Grey has so formally put his authoritative seal. I take at random, by way of specimen of that

* "We know," say the Edinburgh Reviewers, in their number for December, 1818, (article on Universal Suffrage) "that the leaders of the democratic party who now predominate in their caucus or committee at Washington, do, in effect, nominate to all the important offices in North America." It is inconceiv able how such an assertion as this, could have been risqued in a publication likely to find its way into the United States. I scarcely need add that no one in this country ever before heard of a standing committee of the kind, and that no such nomination takes place, beyond the occasional recommendation to the president, by members of congress, or others, in their individual capacity, of persons who are soliciting offices, or on whom it is thought desirable that they should be conferred.