whatever is directly connected with their occupa tion; a fair proof that they once had minds capable of discernment. Therefore they ought not to be classed, by naturalists, as a distinct species, though they are generally considered such, by certain politicians.

As you know not who your company are, you may be as likely to dine with a pick pocket as a saint. One day, after a genteel person, whose conversation was very intelligent, had retired from table, I was asked, "If I knew him?" Answering in the negative, I was informed, he was a reputed highwayman. This will probably surprise you, but it ought not. In such a city as this, and in such a country, where, if a man is willing to brave suspicion, the law waits upon him until he affords full proof, a person may possibly pass the greater part of his life, a highwayman, and parade the public walks every day, and even affect the highest style of splendour, under the strongest suspicions, yet no one will venture to arrest him, or dare charge him with his crimes. Although a thousand witnesses should testify they were robbed, and could almost testify they were robbed by the prisoner, yet they must more than almost identify his person, which is extremely difficult, on account of his mask; otherwise, he would assuredly be acquitted. Our own criminal

A a

laws are similar. The same person who informed me of this reputed highwayman, observed, "Most of them were well known to the Bowstreet Runners, * that they frequently assembled together at known public houses, like other associated bodies, and that the Bowstreet Runners were on tolerable civil terms with them." For instance, if one of these Runners should demand admittance to their assemblies, which is frequently the case, he would be admitted, though treated in the most laconic style. Thus; "Who do you want?" The Runner names the person if he sees him, who replies, " He will wait on him directly." If the Runner says the person whom he wants is not there," Well then, off and be damned." All those of their society whom they lose, they call Flats.

* Officers of justice employed to pursue suspected persons.

66

Adieu.

LETTER XXVII.

LONDON, MAY 8th.

I

PROPOSE in this letter to answer your important question respecting the constitution of the United States; and to render the subject less tedious, I shall introduce the English system by way of comparison.

The constitution of England is said to be the strongest form of government which the world has witnessed. This is too general: a government may be very strong in its political operations, and very weak in duration. A strong government supposes stability as well as energy. Otherwise, an absolute monarchy is the strongest of all the three original forms. Age, and not energy and dispatch, is the mark of a strong government: still, duration is not a sure sign of its excellence.

It will be worth the labour to prove the government of the United States as strong as that of England. I shall go further, and reasoning on the causes of revolution from the natural bias of man's mind, satisfy you, I believe, from analogy, from reflective and future probability, that the constitution

of the United States is even stronger, than that of

England.

The constitution of England is one hundred and

eleven years old, dating from 1692. An Englishman will probably date from the reign of King John but with whatever triumph he should appeal to Magna Charta, the successive tyrannies, which the nation has experienced, down to the time of James the First, were still more ignominious, if England really had a free constitution to which to appeal. What check had Henry the Eighth, or with what reference did Elizabeth govern England? Her authority was a perfect despotism, confessedly mild, but undefined and uncontrouled, which frowned down all opposition into disaffection and treason. James the First, though personally weak as the Emperor Claudius, felt himself not less absolute and Charles the Second, had he been less a buffoon, might have revived the days of Henry the Eighth.

The English would be wise to appeal to history only, in support of one dubious point; which, if true, to be sure, is worthy of proud remark. "If we were once slaves, we are now free :" most people are tied down to the sorry reflection, "If we were once free, we are now slaves."

But allowing the constitution of England to be as old as Magna Charta, which myself would allow, could I find a single reason for so doing, it unfortunately proves too much; for the repeated revolutions England has undergone since that period, argue a weakness which totally destroys every pretence to stability.

The constitution of England, then, is one hundred and eleven years old: that of the United States only fourteen. This excellency obtains with both.

A change of public officers may happen in either country, without a revolution, or to speak more precisely, without affecting the constitution. That this total change should occur in England, there is scarcely a remote possibility, because the King himself, agreeably to Mr. Burke's position, enjoying the fee simple of the British empire, and his own consent being necessary to effect such change, it cannot be expected a king of Great Britain will surrender his family inheritance. This change has already happened in the United States, and successive changes will more firmly establish the constitution. The sovereign people, perceiving how easily a change may be wrought, when the government is either weakly or corruptly administered, will not be disposed to proceed to those violences, necessary in England, if the original compact be