F.

LETTER III.

LONDON, JULY 9th.

My attention was arrested, soon after my arrival, by a most humourous object, a chariot and eight; but to do justice to the horses, four of the appendages to the chariot were not of their species: they were four stout fellows, such as Hannibal would have chosen for his companions through the Alps. Three of these gentlemen had their station behind, and so dignifiedly did they carry themselves, with so much lace were they puffed off, and so elegantly trimmed were their cocked hats, one might easily in the hurry of novelty have mistaken them for men of high rank, who were disposed to amuse the populace; especially as the English are famous for whim. I was soon undeceived, for I observed on many of the gayest carriages four supporters, or holders, for the servants.

An Englishman, accustomed to see such things daily, may probably have but one reflection on such an exhibition-" The owner of that chariot must be very rich;" and possibly, this is the only reflection he ought to make. What purpose can it serve to

reason, when our best conclusions tend only to discover a situation which we cannot remedy? Slaves ought to have but one sense, that of hearing, and but one idea, that of obedience.

It is the part of a man of judgment, Rousseau somewhere observes, when surprised by novelty, to ask its use. This is natural, and is exemplified by the aboriginals of our own country. They wondered at the stupidity of the man who carried about with him a chaise, which would not stir a step without a horse. But the first man on horseback, whom they saw, they believed to be one animal, and pronounced it an excellent contrivance: for, strength, swiftness, hunting and swimming, savage attributes and faculties of prime consequence, were answered in an eminent degree. But had they seen these three stout fellows behind the chariot, they would have perceived little congruity between them and the carriage.

I am strongly impressed that either these useless beings suppose a great degree of misery, or a great degree of servitude in the nation. If their situation be eligible, it supposes such a degree of misery that they are obliged to fill the humblest offices for bread: if they seek these situations, and fill them in preference to others, it supposes the loss of all sense of human dignity. These are not the only evils; these

drones are a tax on the industrious poor, and eat that bread for which others are suffering, and raise the price of that which they do not consume. Howev

er,

all this is necessary in a monarchy; the grandeur of the nobles is a part of the constitution, and must be supported:* in other words, poverty is a necessary part of monarchy. If this evil cannot be remedied, kind fortune is daily counteracting it, by humbling the great, and exalting the humble: otherwise Europe would soon become a sad spectacle of ty, rants and slaves. So true is it, as Beccaria ob, serves; "In every human society there is an effort continually tending to confer on one part the height of power and happiness, and to reduce the other to the extreme of weakness and misery."

There are two powerful reasons, why the United States will not for these hundreds of years afford such a sight as those chariot-appendages. The proud principles of the constitution will teach the humblest to fly the distinctions of master and servant. The other is a more practical cause, and is operating daily. I mean the extensive territory of the United States. If a man be born poor, he is not born to poverty; or if born to labour, he is not born to servitude. He has only to emigrate an hundred or two miles, and in the course of a few years, he proudly

* Vide Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws. Book 5. Chap. 9.

looks around him and

says,

"This farm is my own,

and my children will inherit it after me."

However, I do not wish you to believe the English populace are in general so little respectable as those four easy fellows. One could not stand two hours in the street without attaining to one of the first principles of the English constitution. The chimney sweeper knows very well his standing in society, and without seeming to feel for those who think cleanliness one of the conveniences of life, he wraps himself up in his sooty consequence, and all who would pass by him must either hazard the evil of contact, or walk in the mud, until they are out of the reach of his influence. The porter too, though his burden should be an impediment to every one, keeps the footway; and no one presumes to request him to walk in one part of the street, rather than in another. I am not certain if I am correct, in attributing this to the democratic branch of the constitution. I am more inclined to attribute it to the common law.* The influence of the democratic branch of the constitution is too distant from the people to affect them very strongly but that part of the common law which places the person of the peer and plebeian on equal. ity, being known to every one, comes home to

* The Common Law is a part, and in my opinion, the best part of the Eng. lish Constitution.

their feelings, and operates most visibly on the lowest. If all people are presumed to know enough of the laws of their country to answer for their infraction, it would be singular, if they should be ignorant of those laws whence they derive all their consequence.

Preserve the entirety of common law, and I believe the people would scarcely miss the constitution: but every good has its attendant evil. The common law is in continual danger of that terrier of parliament, statute law: so that the English may one day find themselves buried under a mass of statutes.

Adieu.