Chapter V: Part 5

That great effects will be produced is beyond question: and these will show themselves in the increasing prosperity of the country. Among the advantages that will follow from the developement of the mines, is the encouragement they give to agriculture, in the withdrawal of some of its surplus labour, and giving it new employment. They will create home markets for the surplus products of the farmer; and this will encourage him to improve his farm, and increase the productiveness of his lands. As yet, this influence has not been much felt; but a close observer may see that the improvement has commenced, though it will not be generally perceptible until the division of labour more fully takes place between the farmer and the miner. Mining and farming are two very different pursuits; and farmers will soon see that it is prudent for them to stick to the plough, and sell or let the auriferous veins to the miner.

An important change will also take place (at a very distant period) in the staples of the gold country; cotton will be less and less cultivated in the mining districts; while the bread stuff, farinaceous, succulent vegetables—and stock, will claim the chief attention. This change in the staples of the agriculturist, will in itself produce important results. The opening of the mines, and the prospect of profitable employment, will in some degree check that spirit of emigration which has been carrying off so many enterprising and useful citizens, and will bring into the country men of wealth intelligence, business habits, and general enterprise.

The opening of the mines has been attended with one primary and bad effect; that of creating a mania for speculation. The usually attendant failures and mishaps will co-operate with other causes, to throw the mines into the hands of a distinct class of men, who, having a knowledge of the business, and having capital at command, will eventually conduct all the mining operations in the country.

Whether the effects be good or bad, their influence will not be confined to North Carolina. It will be felt in Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia,—the people in the upper parts of these states having far more interest in the mines than is generally supposed.

When the cheapness of obtaining the timber necessary for machinery, the certainty of labour, and the security of property under such a government as that of the United States, are deeply considered; these mines might be far more worth the attention of an English company than many a scheme in which English capital is already embarked. Applications to government for charters will most probably be more numerous in every succeeding year. The capital required to form a company would not, I was informed, exceed 40,000_l_. or 50,000_l_.

* * * * *

No one can visit the United States without hearing of President Jackson’s celebrated “veto” on internal improvements, and every disinterested individual would, I humbly think, be ready to admit that the sentiments it contains are just and valuable, because they display a solid attachment to the letter of the constitution. By the articles of the constitution, the powers of the federal government, with reference to its expenditure of the national funds upon internal improvements in the Union, are confined to the establishment of post-offices and post-roads. On the 27th May, 1830, in the firm persuasion that the words ‘post-roads’ could apply only to those which might prove of general benefit to the citizens of the Union, and not to those which conferred an advantage only upon the inhabitants of any particular state, a bill entitled “An Act authorising a subscription of stock in the Maysville, Washington, Paris, and Lexington turnpike road Company,” was returned by the President to the house of representatives, without having received his signature. In the veto by which it was accompanied, he shows that “grants for internal improvements from the national treasury, have been made professedly under the control of the general principle, that the works which might be thus aided should be of a general, not local—national, not state character; and that a disregard of this distinction would of necessity lead to the subversion of the federal system. The road in question had no regard to any general system of improvements, and was exclusively without the limits of the state; starting at a point on the Ohio river, and running out sixty miles to an interior town, and even as far as that state was concerned, of partial, not general advantage.” In another part of the veto he adds, “that if it be the desire of the people, that the agency of the federal government should be confined to the appropriation of money in aid of such undertakings in virtue of state authority; then the occasion, the manner, and the extent of the appropriations, should be made the subject of constitutional regulation.” In about three years, the national debt of the United States will be paid off, and the government will find itself in possession of a surplus revenue of ten or twelve millions of dollars. To divide it amongst the states, will be unconstitutional, because it will render the states too dependent on the favour of the federal government; and as it is collected chiefly by means of the tariff, it cannot cease to exist so long as the tariff remains in force.

Without a limited and defining authority, arising from a constitutional adjustment of this power of distribution upon equitable principles, it is beyond a doubt that neither Mr. Clay, nor any other person who may be president, could give any thing like universal satisfaction amid the “scramble for appropriations,”—as the veto has it,—which could not but ensue upon the conflicting and uncontrollable variety of interest that is annually increasing in the American community.

* * * * *

The progress of reform in England, and in Europe generally, is watched with the most intense interest by the Americans. A deep feeling of regard and sympathy for the mother country, as they term it, is still general, and I think increasing; and though most of the Americans believe their own country is the first in the world, they are still reasonable enough to assign to Great Britain the second place in the scale of nations. Those airs which it must be admitted so frequently render an Englishman ridiculous, when travelling on the old continent, would be entirely thrown away in the United States. All pretentions to importance are disregarded, even without being canvassed, as they might be in Europe; but so long as an Englishman behaves with propriety, the Americans will entertain more respect for his name and character, than they care to avow openly. They wish us well through our troubles, and watch with sincere pity what they consider to be the approaching downfal of our constitution: but at the same time their national vanity receives something very like gratification from the belief, that we shall be forced to adopt a form of government similar to their own. That the American form of government is admirably adapted to a new country, that that country has astonishing resources, and that the Americans lose no time in making the most of them, (I speak of America as a country, not of the Union, for America must thrive come what will to the government) that it has thriven under its institutions, and is at present enjoying an exemption from many evils incidental to older countries, it would be an absurdity to deny. But the natural causes of prosperity which the Americans so pre-eminently enjoy, must not be mistaken, as they most fondly and frequently are, for the positive effects, and little more than the positive effects, of a good government, however good and well adapted that government may be. The American constitution has never been tried. That it was nearly a bankrupt at the close of the last war, was a trial of the resources of the country, not of its institutions. Forty years is no time to test the strength of a government like that of the United States, when civilization is extended over so small a proportion of them. The good is perceived at present; the evils are latent, and comparatively little felt. But there are among the institutions of the Union, the seeds of discord and confusion, whose growth is only stifled by the bustle of commercial pursuits, and that panacea for every political disease, a fine country abounding in resources, and of small population in comparison to its extent. It is possible that the mischief will not be felt, so long as there is no real motive for disaffection; so long in fact as the people are not in want, which may not be the case while ground yet remains to be cultivated.

In England and America universal suffrage would be alike only in name. In America it is true, that almost every one can vote; but then it is equally true, that excepting in the larger cities in which may be always found, even in America, a certain proportion of persons without any ostensible means of getting a livelihood, every one has at least a prospective certainty of the acquisition of property. The poor, comparatively speaking, are so few, that universal suffrage is, at present, but a mere hydra in embryo. Were the present course of improvement to proceed without interruption, from what the political economists call the disturbing causes,—were luxury to be kept at a distance, and a forced equality and contentment to be preserved by a strong and universal exertion of the democratic principle,—it would be demonstrable, that the American constitution would last for centuries; or in other words, till the country became so thickly peopled as to be subject to the evils resulting to England, and the older dynasties of Europe. If a democracy be essentially the best form of government, it would follow that a surplus population, that unhappy proof of its excellence, would but be called the sooner into existence. Then will come the real moment of trial, whether a democracy can exist under the pressure of want—whether those that have any thing to lose, would not be at the mercy of those that have not—whether an equality of condition would not be considered as conferring a title to a community of goods—whether, when such a state of things is apprehended, a standing armed force, be it called by what name it may, would not be necessary, not to repress foreign invasion, but to put down domestic commotions—whether taxes must not be levied for its support—and whether those taxes would not be found exceedingly troublesome. In an article in the American Quarterly Review, (July 1831), evidently written in a wantonness of spirit that savours of ambition, or disappointment, or of both, and in which we are kindly told the easiest road to ruin, it is remarked that “our forefathers were habituated to the European system, but they built up the republican colonies with infinite ease.” But may it not be here remarked, that as it is the boast, and justly the boast, of the Americans, and of the New Englanders in particular, that the tone of liberty which pervades their institutions is derived through the blood of the Puritans, who did build up the colonies with infinite ease, and whose descendants are still living; so it must not be forgotten that the Hampdens, the Hazelrigs, the Cromwells, and others, who were prevented from embarking for America by the order of their obstinate and ill-fated monarch, were men of the same opinions as the “forefathers” mentioned above; that they did remain behind—that they did fight against the monarchy of England—that they did obtain the victory—that they did enjoy the ascendancy to their hearts’ content—and that they did establish a commonwealth in England, not to flourish for ever as an example to the world, but to be overthrown by a military force, which brought back the son of the last king amid the acclamations of every rank of society.

Supposing the blood to be shed, and the horrors to be passed through, that must be shed and passed through before the experiment of a commonwealth could be again tried in England, is it possible that it could exist, situated as Great Britain is with reference to the other powers of Europe, without an unemployed standing army? and then again, is it possible that it could exist with one? Where in the annals of the world can the compatibility of the one and the other be pointed to? England is but paying the penalty necessarily consequent on her career of prosperity. Her constitution can no more be blamed for the existence of a standing army, than for a superabundant population, or the enormous size of London.

By what then is it probable that the career of the Union will be disturbed? Are not wealth and luxury to have their due weight? It is to the credit of the Americans, that individual wealth has never yet been employed for any unconstitutional purpose; but it is nevertheless true, that an aristocracy is most undeniably springing up in every city of the Union. In the course of time many large fortunes will be amassed, and opulent families will be distributed throughout the country. It will be but in the spirit of human nature, that a person in possession of what in common American would be termed “an elegant location,” should wish to have upon it a better house than his neighbours, and that another should wish to have a still better; and is it to be believed that the head of a rich and ambitious family will be for ever, as now, restrained by the voice of public opinion from doing his utmost to prevent a fine place from going out of his family? Can the inclination remain in thraldom, and the man be said to enjoy liberty? Will not one example be followed as a precedent by five hundred others? and will not an hereditary aristocracy be produced in this manner?

The system of entails in England is considered by the Americans as highly pernicious; but their idea of its extent is far beyond the truth. On this head I have heard great ignorance displayed by them. Some think that an entailed estate cannot be destroyed at all; but that an entailed estate cannot, in any case, be destroyed without the consent of the eldest son, is the more common error; one which is prevalent with the uninitiated even in England, and is, of course, still more so among the Americans, who are but little aware that an estate cannot, in any case, be rendered unalienable for more than one generation; or, technically speaking, for more than a life or lives in being, and twenty-one years afterwards. This rule has been a favourite with English lawyers, because, on the one hand, it prevents landed property from being unavailable for commercial purposes for a longer period than one generation; and, on the other, it makes reasonable allowance for the English policy of keeping up the families of our nobility and gentry. From whence then does the vulgar error principally arise? From this circumstance: under the usual form of settlement, the father has the present enjoyment of the estate, and the son has the inheritance in tail in expectancy; and in this case the father and son, as soon as the latter is of age, may do what they please with the estate; and it is a very common arrangement for them to agree to make a fresh settlement, which ties up the estate for another generation. But this is only an exercise of their absolute power of disposal, which they might, if they pleased, exercise by selling the estate, or otherwise getting rid of it. If no fresh settlement has been made, and the son outlives the father, he alone may do what he pleases with the estate, without asking the consent of his eldest son or of any other person. The Americans are little aware that there is not a nobleman’s estate in the country, with the exception of Blenheim, Strathfieldsay, and perhaps half a dozen others, where the reversion is in the crown under some very old grant, which could not be absolutely disposed of, _once, at least_, in every generation. That there is a power of making unalienable entails in Scotland, (with irritant and resolutive clauses, as the Scotch lawyers have it), where the person making them is not indebted at the time, is a truth which I do not conceive could have given rise to the error respecting those in England.

* * * * *

The proceedings at the next session of congress will be of the utmost importance, and before this work be out of the press, the tariff question will probably have given rise to as much angry discussion as has ever been heard within the walls of the capitol.

The tariff, that is to say, the principle of effectual protection to domestic industry, is supported by about two-thirds of the American people. Manufactures sprung up during the late war, and millions of dollars have since been invested in them on the faith of the tariff. After the conclusion of hostilities, the war duties were repealed generally; but some of them were continued for the protection of domestic industry. This was effected in 1816, and by the influence of the southern votes; and, strange as it may appear, was especially supported by the members of South Carolina; whilst the northern members were not generally partial to the measure. The southern states at that period, were averse to the expense of a naval establishment: they disliked foreign commerce, because it tended to embroil the country in disputes with the European powers, and they were therefore friendly to a moderate tariff. In 1824, additional protection was given to manufactures. It was opposed by New England and the south, and supported by the middle and western states. In 1828, still further protection was given, notwithstanding a violent opposition from the southern states, who now felt the error they had been guilty of.

The tariff question, then, is simply this. The northern states are manufacturers; the southern states are cotton growers. The southern states have never objected to such duties on imported foreign manufactures, as would be sufficient for the purposes of a revenue equal to the government expenditure; but beyond what is necessary for the attainment of that object, they are entirely averse to the tariff, because Great Britain does not buy so much of their cotton as she would if her manufactured goods were not excluded from the markets of the United States, by means of the protecting duties. The inhabitants of South Carolina are most violently opposed to the tariff. One-third of them would, if they could, secede from the Union immediately.

In the year 1823, the crop of cotton amounted to 420,000 bales. In the year 1831, the crop has been ascertained to be 1,070,000 bales, of which, 165,000 are consumed in the home manufactories, and the remainder is exported, chiefly to England.

Certainly, if ever there was a country upon earth where the principles of free trade could be allowed an existence, that country is the states of North America, so long as they remain united. When we contemplate their unbounded resources, and their endless extent, we must admit that they afford scope for a species of energy altogether without present parallel in the old continent; and it is difficult to believe, that free trade should not be a part of their system, not only because it would correspond with the boasted freedom of their institutions, but on account of the certainty of benefit they would ultimately derive from it. But from the entirely different sources of wealth of the northern and southern states, there emanates a disparity of interests, which, with reference to the enormously increasing influence of the new cotton states, are, it is plain, but partially developed at present. The settlement of disputes arising from the differences of soil and climate, in themselves uncontrollable by legislative interference, must be a subject far more difficult to grapple with, than that which merely relates to internal improvements, which may be assisted by an alteration of the constitution. Many Americans will probably tell you as they have told me, that the Union is becoming stronger and stronger; they will assure you that there is a growing conviction, that the complaints of the southern states are without foundation, that their sufferings are chiefly imaginary, and that their citizens will, sooner or later, come to the same opinion; that four-fifths of all the articles that are taxed, either heavily or lightly, are consumed in the northern, western, and the tariff states, while at the same time a home market exists for from 150,000 to 200,000 bales of the best cotton of the southern states, at the best prices: that the party war which rages in newspapers throughout the Union, means nothing at all; and that, to use the quotation so well applied by Mr. Adams in his last 4th of July oration, delivered at Quincey, near Boston, “We angry lovers mean not half we say.” It is probable that some part of what is said by an American country newspaper on the subject of party, may be nonsense; but one cannot help being a little less sceptical, when higher authorities, and the proceedings of public meetings, are consulted, which, if we are to judge by the excitement they occasion, are not quite a farce, whatever county meetings may be in England.

The report of the committee read at the anti-tariff convention, which took place at Philadelphia on the 5th of October, 1831, contains amongst others, the following strongly worded passage, speaking of “that feeling of resentment which is goaded into activity by a sense of oppression, and embittered by the recollection, that it is the hand of a brother that inflicts it,” it proceeds, “do you doubt its existence, its nature, or degree; look to the character of this assembly, and the circumstances under which it is convened: give your attention to the history of the past, and be admonished by the novel and extraordinary spectacle which is presented to your view—do not close your eyes altogether to the fact, that this assembly is without parallel in the annals of the government; that we are freemen, and the representatives of freemen, who speak to you of our violated rights; that we have come from different, and distant parts of the Union, to join in demanding their restoration; that a consciousness of strength is the offspring of united counsel; and that our purpose is not the less firm, because it is announced to you peaceably, and in the spirit of conciliation.”

The reports of the different committees of investigation, appointed by the opposition or tariff convention, which commenced its sittings at New York on the 26th of October, had not appeared in print when I quitted America.

Mr. Adams, a strong tariff man, and residing in the heart of the tariff, states, in his last 4th of July oration, speaking of the doctrine of “nullification,” which, he says, “contains within itself an absurdity, importing a pretended right of one state in this Union, by virtue of her sovereignty, to make that null and void which it pre-supposes to be null and void before,” proceeds, by saying, “that it is a principle under which the pillars of the Union are tottering while he is speaking.” On the other side, Mr. Calhoun, at the head of the anti-tariff party, and one of the cleverest men in America, in his “sentiments upon the subject of state rights and the tariff,” says, that “whatever diversity of opinion may exist in relation to the principle, or the effect on the productive industry of the country of the present, or any other tariff of protection, there are certain political consequences flowing from the present which none can doubt, and all must deplore. It would be in vain to attempt to conceal, that it has divided the country into two great geographical divisions, and arrayed them against each other, in opinion at least if not in interest also, on some of the most vital of political subjects—on its finance, its commerce, and its industry—subjects calculated above all others, in time of peace, to produce excitement, and in relation to which the tariff has placed the sections in question in deep and dangerous conflict. If there be any point on which the (I was going to say southern section, but to avoid, as far as possible, the painful feelings such discussions are calculated to excite, I shall say) weaker of the two sections is unanimous, it is that its prosperity depends in a great measure on free trade, light taxes, economical and, as far as possible, equal disbursements of the public revenue, and an unshackled industry; leaving them to pursue whatever may appear most advantageous to their interests. From the Potomac to the Mississippi there are few, indeed, however divided on other points, who would not, if dependent on their volition, and if they regarded the interest of their particular section only, remove from commerce and interest every shackle, reduce the revenue to the lowest point that the wants of the government fairly required, and restrict the appropriations to the most moderate scale, consistent with the peace, the security, and the engagements of the public; and who do not believe that the opposite system is calculated to throw on them an unequal burthen, to repress their prosperity, and to encroach on their enjoyment. On all these deeply important measures the opposite opinion prevails, if not with equal unanimity, with at least a greatly preponderating majority in the other and stronger section, so much so that no two distinct nations ever entertained more opposite views of policy than these two sections do on all the important points to which I have referred,” &c. &c. “The system,” he adds in a note, “if continued, must end, not only in subjecting the industry and property of the weaker section to the control of the stronger, but in proscription and political disfranchisement. It must finally control elections and appointments to offices, as well as acts of legislation, to the great increase of the feelings of animosity, and of the fatal tendency to a complete alienation between the sections.”

The remedy proposed by Mr. Calhoun appears exceedingly reasonable. In three years the national debt of the United States will be paid off, and the government will find itself in possession of a surplus revenue of 10,000,000 or 12,000,000 of dollars, chiefly arising from the tariff duties. The applications from the different states for its appropriation under the internal improvement system will be innumerable, and it will be impossible to grant them without adding a stimulus to old causes of jealousy, and giving birth to new ones. To adopt the system of dividing the money between the different states is admitted, on all hands, to be unconstitutional, not only because no such power is given by the articles of the constitution, but because the exercise of it would tend to render the individual states too dependent on the favour of the general government. Mr. Calhoun recommends, that the money should be left in the pockets of the people, and affirms that there is but one “effectual cure—an honest reduction of the duties to a fair system of revenue, adapted to the just and constitutional wants of the government, and that nothing short of this will restore the country to peace, harmony, and mutual affection.”

The example of good citizenship displayed by Massachusetts during the existence of the embargo in 1807, is now referred to as worthy of imitation by the southern states; a total stagnation of the trade of that state was the consequence of the Berlin decree, and the retaliatory orders in council of the British government; and in the opinion that the embargo was unconstitutional, the question was tried before the supreme court of the United States, who decided in favour of the authority of the general government. Massachusetts behaved with the best grace imaginable, conscious that there was no medium between submission and separation,—no alternative but acquiescence or disunion. Her behaviour might be imitated, but under very different circumstances. In the case of Massachusetts, the cause of the evil was understood: it was external: it could be removed; or rather would some day cease as a matter of course; but with South Carolina, the disease is internal, existing in the time of peace, increasing, and most likely, beyond the reach of any but a temporary remedy.

The first intimation I had of the existence of the tariff was likely to have been a disagreeable one. When I landed at New York, I had with me an excellent double-barreled fowling-piece; and I was told that I must either pay thirty per cent. on its full value, or I could deposit it in safe-keeping at the custom-house till my return; and in the mean time I could purchase an American gun cheap; I was indebted to the liberality of the gentleman presiding at the head of the custom-house, who, upon hearing from a friend that I had not brought it to sell, but merely for my pleasure, politely and immediately gave me an order for it.

The climate of Washington has undergone a considerable alteration within the memory of those who have known it for the last forty years. Its healthiness has by no means increased as the forest has disappeared; on the contrary, the reverse effect has rather been produced. The real nature of a climate cannot be known till it has been rendered fit for the habitation of man; and no land can be said to be in that condition, till it has been partially cleared and cultivated. The process in some places renders the climate warmer, and in others it has the effect of producing more cold; so that it does not always follow that clearing is productive of beneficial results. Since the forests of the Pyrenees have been gradually cut down and destroyed, the south of France is not nearly so desirable a residence for invalids as it was formerly. In Germany, a good effect has been produced; but not so at Washington. The summer is still excessively hot, (the thermometer ranging above ninety in the shade), and the winter very cold: originally these two seasons almost divided the year between them; but now, the weather exhibits far more of the variableness of the climate of England. The vicissitudes of temperature are often painful, and frequently and rapidly produced by the most violent and piercing gusts of wind from the north-west. The cold of winter, although still very severe, has been much mitigated of late years. In 1780, the bay of the Chesapeake was solid ice from its head to the mouth of the Potomac; and in some places, at Annapolis for instance, from five to seven inches thick. In 1772, the snow in the district of Washington was nearly three feet deep, and in some places it drifted to the depth of ten or twelve. The length and severity of the winters have much abated; but still the climate, as I was informed by a gentleman perfectly acquainted with the subject, has not become more healthy. In the year 1829, the average number of deaths for the last ten years, has been one in every fifty-three. The greatest mortality prevails in the month of August, and the cases are chiefly those of fever. It is owing to the malignity and greater variety of diseases, accidents, and privations, to which the poorer inhabitants of the more thickly peopled cities are liable, that the annual mortality at New York is calculated as one to fifty; and at Baltimore as one to forty-nine. In Charleston, South Carolina, it is as one to forty: the situation being more southerly, it is not so healthy as that of Washington.

Every part of the United States is said to be more or less unhealthy during the summer months; but the inhabitants of the northern and middle states, and of the high lands and ridges, excepting in the vicinity of water, enjoy a much purer air than that breathed by the inhabitants of the southern states, and the lower districts of the country. An American writer remarks, that “The intermitting fever which is confined to particular spots, seems to originate from the exhalations of marshes, and borders of stagnant waters, though it is a curious fact and worthy the attention of physicians, that families who live in the neighbourhood of these places enjoy good health, while others who inhabit the summit of the adjacent hill, are victims to this annually returning malady. When marshy places become dry, fish, insects, and decaying vegetable substances exposed to the action of a burning sun, generate those gaseous miasms which, absorbed by the body, produce weakness, sickness, and death. Ascending by their lightness they are probably carried by the winds to a neighbouring eminence, where settling, they form a sickly and noxious atmosphere.” I have more than once heard it remarked, that the Americans of the present day are not such men as their fathers, the soldiers of the war of Independence. They can take as true an aim with a rifle, but cannot undergo the same fatigue, and are not so long lived, generally. The inhabitants of the more northern states of New England, are perhaps, exceptions; but in any given number of the inhabitants of Georgia, and the Carolinas for instance, there are not so many persons to be found of ninety years old and upwards, as among the same number of persons living in the country in England. I heard this from a gentleman on whose information I believed that I could rely: yet it is singular, that according to the census of 1830, the number of persons of a hundred years old and upwards, should be larger in the southern than in the northern states. The middle states could boast of a larger number of whites of a hundred years old and upwards, than any other. New York in a population of 1,913,508 containing fifty-three, and Pennsylvania fifty-seven in a population of 1,347,672: the total number in the United States was 2654. The largest number in any one state was in Virginia, 479, but by far the greatest proportion of these are blacks. Mungo Park affirms that the negroes in Africa are not a long-lived race. Speaking of the Mandingoes, the general name for the inhabitants of the country watered by the Gambia, he says, “They seldom attain extreme old age. At forty, many of them become grey haired, and covered with wrinkles, but few of them survive the age of fifty-five or fifty.” It is singular that they should attain a greater age in the United States. By the table which shows the number of persons of one hundred years old and upwards, it will be seen that the proportion of blacks of that age greatly exceeds that of the whites; but it may be remarked, that the ages of the blacks are not so well known as those of the whites; and the accuracy therefore of the census, as it respects the ages of this class, is less to be relied on. It may be remarked, that Dr. Ramsay, the historian of South Carolina, asserts, that those individuals who have been born and brought up in the northern states, and who have afterwards migrated to the south, are usually more robust, more capable of withstanding the climate, and are longer lived than the natives of the south. Certain it is, that the Americans in general have not the healthy look of the Englishman. The men are often tall, very powerful, particularly in Kentucky, and well proportioned; but their complexions are not unfrequently sallow, and climate-worn, with a countenance resembling that of a person just recovered from an illness. This is partly the consequence of the climate, partly of their mode of living and their love of ardent spirits, still fatally prevalent. I am speaking of traveller’s fare when I say, that the tavern tables are always well and plentifully supplied; but no viands are thought so palatable as those that are swimming in melted butter. A beef steak that would be excellent if cooked _au naturel_, is almost invariably placed at the head of the table, and in this manner almost invariably spoiled. At breakfast the bread and cakes cannot be too new, or too hot; and fresh supplies arrive during the meal, which is usually despatched with the most extraordinary rapidity. At New York I once had the tablecloth whisked from under my plate by the impatient servants. The natural consequence is, an extreme prevalence of dyspepsia in all parts of the United States, which is not lessened by the incredible quantity of soda water, sweetened with different syrups, which is consumed by the Americans during the hot weather. At Baltimore I have drank, I think, the finest soda water I ever tasted.

The inns, or taverns, as they are called, which I met with were generally good, particularly in the towns; those in the country, however, were sometimes exceedingly dirty and disagreeable. I have almost always found the greatest disposition on the part of the landlord to render them as comfortable as possible, and have very seldom failed in my application for a room with a single bed, some of them containing as many as four or five. The Americans think nothing of this. Upon one occasion, in Kentucky, where I had secured a single-bedded room, the landlord who appeared to have been surprised, and thought I must be ill, came up to me shortly afterwards, and most good-naturedly told me, that my room was ready: “As you’re unwell, sir, I guessed you’d like to retire directly.” The expense of living at the best inns in the United States varies from two to three dollars a day. For this sum a person is provided with a bed, and four meals at stated hours. A coffee-room in the hotel for eating and drinking at one’s own time, is a luxury the Americans have not yet attained to; at least I do not remember to have seen one anywhere. I did not find the regular hours so troublesome as I expected, as the great heat rendered it impossible for weeks together to take any thing like severe exercise, excepting at a very early hour of the morning, or after six o’clock in the evening. I would instance Mr. Head’s table at Philadelphia, as the best in the United States. There was a quiet gentlemanlike style about it, that I never saw surpassed, or hardly equalled, by a table d’hôte in any country. I wish I could speak as well of the bed-rooms in that respect; I much prefer those at Mr. Barnum’s at Baltimore, and Mr. Gadsby’s at Washington. Take it altogether, the Tremont at Boston, is by far the best hotel in the States. Ice is to be had in the greatest plenty in all parts of the United States; I have even found it as a luxury at my toilette. On the subject of eating ices, I found that nobody would touch a water ice, and that in general cream ices only were to be met with, even at the best shops.

The most fearful enemy of health is ardent spirits, which, by those who drink them at all, are taken at all hours, from four in the morning till twelve at night, and swallowed under the various and subdued appellations of bitters, egg-nogg, mint-julep, and many others; all sounding watery enough to have captivated Sangrado himself. The Temperance Societies are an honour to the country. There are about 1000 of them in the United States, composed of 1,200,000 members, and affecting about 2,000,000 of individuals directly or indirectly. They have caused the suppression of 1000 distilleries, and 3000 retail stores. The members solemnly promise that they will not touch a drop of any kind of spirits: of course, the rules of the society are sometimes broken, particularly as they allow wine and brandy when ordered by the doctor. I have heard it observed by those who are unfriendly to these associations, that an individual who cannot abstain from spirits without belonging to a temperance society, will not refrain when he becomes a member; but there is a vast difference between the strength of a resolution made to oneself, and known only to oneself, and a promise solemnly and publicly given, where fulfilment is demanded by honour, the fear of shame, and the duty of example. It is always observed, that when a member of the society has once relapsed into his old habits, his course is one of recklessness and desperation. That the societies have done good is undeniable, by their influence on the wholesale trade in spirits at New York.

END OF VOL. I.

Manning and Smithson, Printers, London-house Yard, St. Paul’s.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.

Inconsistent hyphenations have been left as is.

Page 50. “fifty cents. per annum” replaced by “fifty cents per annum”.
Page 58. “fashionble” replaced by “fashionable”.
Page 85. “cerous virginianus” replaced by “cervus virginianus”.
Page 113. “enojoyment” replaced by “enojoyment”.
Page 201. “represensatives” replaced by “representatives”.
Page 205. “choise” replaced by “choice”.
Page 208. ‘“the Cherokee case;’ replaced by ‘“the Cherokee case;”’.
Page 240. “40,000l,” replaced by “40,000l.”.
Page 252. Removed duplicated the across page boundary.
Page 274. “neighbonrhood” replaced by “neighbourhood”.