LETTER VIII. LONDON, SEPTEMBER 25th THE English have not that esteem for the citizens of the United States, which might naturally be expected from the various relations which obtain between them: in truth, they are partial to nobody. They hate all whom they do not despise, while the latter can only render hatred for contempt. Machiavel would probably think it a national virtue, to hate or despise all other people: but the English have improved on this. They undervalue their own fellow subjects, as much as they do foreigners. A poor Scotchman, who is necessitated to take the main road to England, because Sir John Sinclair has deprived him of the means of subsistence, by converting thirty six small farms into one, in order to try an experiment in raising sheep,* is thought to be a very selfish fellow, if he comes to London, to shun the curse of Scotland. The Irishman too, tired at home of sour buttermilk and potatoes, is considered a poor vagabond, the moment * Since writing the above, I observe Sir John has vindicated this measure, and the Reviewers think the vindication an able one. I hope Sir John's tenants are of the same opinion. he crosses the channel in search of roast beef and plumb pudding.-Had the United States continued under the British government, we should have been the most contemptible of mankind. The English would have been the first to despise us at present, they regard the United States with a sentiment far more honourable, than that of contempt. It is very easy for these people to tell you what they do not respect; on the contrary, what they do respect, is not so evident. They differ wonderfully from the Scotch, in one particular: a Scot is partial to his fellow-Scotchmen, with very little fondness for Scotland: an Englishman is still more partial to England, with very little fondness for Englishmen-One might suppose such a people must be insufferably haughty; yet he would greatly mistake their character. I have never seen a haughty Englishman. They could not live within a mile of each other, were they both proud and haughty : but being only proud, they mutually respect each other; whereas, it is the property of haughtiness to be arrogant. Now the English admit not such claims. He who is haughty will inevitably render himself ridiculous to all who despise his airs: I do not recollect an instance of having seen an Englishman ridiculous on this account; hence, though their characters are extremely angular, they are rather defensively, than offensively, proud. Nor are they more vain, than haughty they dress, conduct, think as they please, and set every body at defiance. At the same time, if they know you esteem them, and feel conscious they have not demeaned themselves in obtaining your estimation, none can be more happy in possessing your good opinion. This carelessness of the opinion of other people shows itself among all ranks, especially the lowest. The swing of the arm, the incautious step, the rolling of the body, tell you plainly "They care for nobody, no not they :" but this, in part, may be owing to a desperate majesty which they assume; for which the very lowest of the English are remarkable. Those, who are more immediately dependent on others for a livelihood, have a mixed character of servility. and independence. They cherish the estimation of those on whom they are dependent; but seem utterly regardless of the good opinion of other people. The middling ranks follow their own inclinations, and are the original of their own manners; hence they form a motley picture, diversified, from quaker simplicity, to an appearance of studied artifice: but this appearance seldom arises from affectation, they are above that, but rather from whim. The nobility, judging at a distance, appear to me to build their characters much more on the populace, than do the populace build theirs on the nobility. But I am disposed to believe it policy and affectation which so frequently induce the nobility to dress more meanly, than many among the lower orders: policy, to conciliate; affectation, of seeming to attach no consequence to their rank. The king is liable to the same remark; he has much more of the external appearance of John Bull, than of the German; he is frequently seen not better dressed than one of our farmers, with an old hat not worth sixpence-But I was speaking of the nationality of this people. It is a happy circumstance that this attachment is so deeply rooted in the great mass of the English. It serves a substitute for real patriotism. The rich, in every country, if they retain those sentiments for which an honest man ought to blush, may be tolerably happy, whether they happen to live at Constantinople, Venice or Madrid: but by far the greater part of every nation in Europe, and that part, to which a nation looks for support in the moment of emergency, is fortunately retained in the wizard spell of prejudice. I will give you one or two instances of this nation. al partiality, which have already passed under my notice. At an ordinary, the other day, I heard two politicians, one friendly, the other inimical to Mr. Pitt's administration, advance their different sentiments. You observe I do not term one of them whig and the other tory. There is no such distinction now, I believe, in England. Dr. Johnson was the last of the latter family.-The one contended "That the constitution of 1692 was no longer the boast of Englishmen; that it was a mere prejudice to support longer a form of government, which had evaporated to theory, and which could not support itself on first principles: that Mr. Pitt had told the whole world, that a chancellor of the exchequer had it in his power to guide the parliament at pleasure, whereby the democratic branch of the constitution was become a dead letter." The other opposed him on the grounds of expediency, popular disaffection and the latitude of ministerial prerogative. A few days afterward, I observed the former gentleman at the same place, and suspecting his every-day politics were assumed, urged a conversation, first giving him to understand, I was not a subject of his Majesty, in order to touch more nearly his national pride. Otherwise it would have been impolitic: for, the moment an Englishman discovers you to be a foreigner, he assumes a different aspect, not in the least conciliating. I observed, after a few minutes of disconnected conversation, "That England had in a great measure lost that proud preeminence, which H |