vision was not only uninjured, but opened fully upon the magnificent features of that beautiful region, and the character of its frank-spirited and generous people. "The narrow bends or reaches also of the magnificent Ohio, just at this spot, covered over with steam boats and rafts, and fringed with noble forests and numberless villas, added greatly to the enchantment of the scenery at this most interesting section of all the backwoods. I need hardly say that our letters of introduction soon brought troops of friends to our service, who, as in every other part of this hospitable country, were anxious to make our stay agreeable and profitable."

In the celebrated "Memoir" of Talleyrand, he thus states the result of his personal observation: "Identity of language is a fundamental relation, on whose influence one cannot too deeply meditate. This identity, places between the men of England and of America a common character, which will make them always take to and recognise each other. But an insurmountable barrier is raised up beween people of a different language, who cannot utter a word without recollecting that they do not belong to the same country; betwixt whom every transmission of thought is an irksome labour, and not an enjoyment; who never come to understand each other thoroughly; and with whom the result of conversation, after the fatigue of unavailing efforts, is to find themselves mutually ridiculous. "Nor should one be astonished to find this assimilation to. wards England in a country, the distinguishing features of whose form of Government, whether in the Federal Union, or in the separate States are impressed with so strong a resemblance to the great lineaments of the English Constitution. Upon what does individual liberty rest at this day in America? Upon the same foundation as English Liberty, upon the Habeas Corpus and the Trial by Jury. Assist at the Sittings of Congress, and of those of the Legislatures of the separate States. Whence are taken their quotations, their analogies, their examples? From the English Laws-from the customs of Great Britain-from the rules of Parliament. Enter into the Courts of Justice, what authorities do they cite? The Statutes, the Judgments, the Decisions, of the English Courts. Doubtless, if such men have not an inclination towards Great Britain, we must renounce all knowledge of the

influence of laws upon man, and deny the modifications which he receives from all that surrounds him."

We will consent to use, on such a subject, the testimony of Lieutenant De Roos; "Nothing can be more unfounded than the notion which is generally entertained, that a feeling of rancour and animosity against England and Englishmen, pervades the United States." "Though vilified in our Journals, and ridiculed upon our Stage, they will be found, upon nearer inspection, to be brave, intelligent, kind-hearted, and unprejudiced; though impressed with an ardent, perhaps an exaggerated, admiration of their own country, they speak of others without envy, malignity, or detraction." "One introduction is sufficient to secure to an Englishman a general and cordial welcome." "At New York the character of an Englishman is a passport, and it was to this circumstance that we owed the facility of our entrance and the kindness of our reception." At a table d'hôte, “We were, however, treated with the greatest civility by the promiscuous party who drank the King's health, out of compliment to our nation."

Mr. Stanley, a Member of Parliament, who recently travelled in the United States, held in the House of Commons, the following language. "So strong were the ties of a common origin that an English gentleman travelling in that Great Republic is sure to meet with the most hospitable reception, as he well knew by personal experience. That great country was proud to acknowledge its relationship to England, and to recognise the love and attachment it yet felt to the mother country, and would feel for ages."

Would it not, indeed, be most extraordinary, if any such disparaging sentiment, as Captain Hall represents, should be found generally to prevail amongst a grave and thoughtful people, when all the forms and institutions which concern them most nearly, are on their very face of a purely derivative character? Not a controversy, in any part of the Union, about an acre of land or a barrel of cod-fish, can be settled without asking what has been ́ said at Westminster Hall, on the principles involved in it. Even as to matters touching personal liberty and security, we lately saw, that when an English fugitive was violently taken from Savannah to New York, and there laid hold of by civil process he was

Now

discharged, because by the Common Law of England which is equally in force in New York, the process was tainted by the impurity of the proceeding, which brought him within its reach. Lord Holt had so decided. Captain Hall was surprised to see a bust of Lord Eldon over a bookseller's shop in New York; and on going into the Supreme Court, he says, it was "curious to hear one of the lawyer's quote a recent English decision." does he think it possible, that persons who as jurymen, parties, or spectators, have this daily before their eyes-who find their own property, or that of their neighbours, passing on principles illustrated by Lord Coke, or Lord Raymond, or Lord Eldon, or Lord Tenterden-who recently saw Professors for a University anxiously sought for in England, even by the proud State of Virginia-are not prone to exaggerate, rather than to undervalue the advantages derived by the Mother Country, from her greater wealth and her maturer age?

Before we proceed to notice the remarks which Captain Hall has offered on the subject of the American Government, it may be well to advert, for a moment, to the qualifications which he brought with him to the task of criticism. The object of the more ambitious part of his book, is to institute a comparison between the political and judicial establishments of Great Britain, and those of the United States. The extent of his acquaintance with the former becomes, of course, an important preliminary enquiry.

It would seem, from what is dropped in various parts of the work, that he was sent to sea at a very early age; so early, indeed, that he represents himself, it is presumed by a figure of speech, to have been at no time stationary. "I have been all my life at sea, or have been knocking about, in various parts of the globe, without ever having had leisure to read books written professedly on those topics, or even to take steps for making myself acquainted with what is the orthodox philosophy concerning them." He speaks, it is true, of "a little classical knowledge," picked up in his "juvenile days," but his fear of having lost it is expressed in such a way, that we are reminded of Dr. Johnson's well known reply to the young gentleman, who complained of an actual loss of the same description. Often as he

vaunts, in his conversations, of the necessity in England of a "certain amount of classical knowledge," as the "indispensable mark of a gentleman," he forthwith evades any further pursuit of the subject, or any friendly comparison of notes, by hastily adding, "always excepting, as you very well know, naval captains and country squires." In short-taking these circumstances in connection with a reference which is made to the seductive influence of Robinson Crusoe, in "luring incorrigible runnagates to sea"-it is probable that the expression which he uses, as to the early commencement of his rambles, is not very far from being literally true. In no other way is it possible to account for the utter ignorance which he betrays of some of the most familiar principles of the British Constitution, an ignorance of which any landsman would surely be ashamed. Thus with regard to the King, it is said by Blackstone, (vol. 1. p. 246.) "The King can do no wrong. Which ancient and fundamental maxim, &c." And again (vol. 3. p. 255.) "That the King can do no wrong is a necessary and fundamental principle of the English Constitution." But mark the truly sailor-like style in which Captain Hall refers to this "necessary and fundamental principle of the English Constitution," and the foundation on which he supposes it to rest! "In England there is a well known saying, The King can do no wrong;" thus resting this great principle on the same footing as 66 a Cat may look at a King," or any other equally well known saying," touching the regal office. Would Captain Hall declare it "a well known saying" in England, that a member of Parliament cannot be questioned elsewhere for what he utters in the House? Surely not. And the strange ignorance he has betrayed, however, it may be palliated by his roving Robinson Crusoe habits, cannot well be excused in one who has reached a respectable rank in the British Navy.

With regard to the Judicial establishments of the two countries he is perpetually referring, in the language of taunt, to the superior firmness of the tenure of office in England. It is plain from every word he utters, that he is under a complete delusion as to the real state of the fact. In England, the Judges can be removed by a bare majority of the legislature, without any form of trial, or even an allegation of their having committed any offence. Paley states

this with his usual correctness, (Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy). "As protection against every illegal attack upon the rights of the subject by the servants of the Crown is to be sought for from these tribunals, the Judges of the Land become not unfrequently the arbitrators between the King and the People, on which account they ought to be independent of either; or what is the same thing, equally dependent on both; that is, if they be appointed by the one, they should be removable only by the other. This was the policy which dictated that memorable improvement in our Constitution, by which the Judges, who before the RevoJution held their offices during the pleasure of the King, can now be deprived of them only by an address from both Houses of Parliament; as the most regular, solemn and authentic way by which the dissatisfaction of the People can be expressed. Mr. Hallam in his Constitutional History, (vol. 1. p. 245,) remarks "No Judge can be dismissed from office, except in consequence of a conviction for some offence, or the address of both Houses of Parliament, which is, tantamount to an act of Legislature." And thus the matter rests at the present day. The same casting vote which suffices to pass a law may dismiss the Judge whose interpretation of it is not acceptable. This is not the case in any part of the United States. The Judges of the National Courts cannot be reached by address at all. They may defy the President and both Houses of Congress. In the States where this English provision has been copied, it has been rendered comparatively harmless by requiring the concurrence of two-thirds of each branch of the Legislature in order to effect the removal.

Let us suppose, for the sake of illustration, a question to arise on the Emancipation Bill, as it is called of last Session. The most strenuous supporters of that Bill, admitted it to be a violation of what they designated as the Constitution of 1688. In Mr. Peel's speech, less than a year before, he declared "If the Constitution was to be considered to be the King, Lords, aud Commons, it would be subverting that Constitution to admit Roman Catholics to the privileges they sought; it would be an important change in the State of the Constitution as established at the Revolution." (Speech in May, 1828.) Lord Tenterden, the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, in resisting in the House of Lords,