soon afterwards. Hume the historian, in narrating the events of Charles the First's reign, in the year 1637, states that," the Puritans, restrained in England, shipped themselves off for America, and laid there the foundations of a government, which possessed all the liberty, both civil and religious, of which they found themselves bereaved in their native country. But their enemies, unwilling that they should any where enjoy ease and contentment, and dreading perhaps the dangerous consequences of so disaffected a colony, prevailed on the king to issue a proclamation, debarring these devotees access even into those inhospitable deserts. Eight ships lying in the Thames, and ready to sail, were detained by order of council, and in these were: Sir Arthur Hazelrig, John Hambden, John Pym, and Oliver Cromwell, who had resolved for ever to abandon their native country." Hume quaintly observes, "The king had afterwards full leisure to repent this exercise of his authority." But the fact deserves more serious consideration, as one of those remarkable passages in history, which prove on what apparently trivial circumstances the most momentous results depend. The detention of those vessels by an arbitrary mandate, ultimately led to civil war and rebellion,-to the execution of the king himself,-to the overthrow of the monarchy, to Cromwell's usurpation, and to the manifold and important consequences which arose out of those memorable events.

The progress of emigration was not effectually checked by the order in council, for in the following year three thousand persons embarked for New England. The British government allowed the New England colonies to enjoy a large share of political independence, either under governors or chartered companies, or laws framed in general conformity with those of England, administered by themselves, under the protection of the mother

country. The rights of personal liberty, trial by jury, the voting of taxes by the people, and their intervention in public affairs, were recognized by the laws of New England. The great uniformity in opinions, and the near approach to equality in condition, which existed in those colonies, prepared them for democratic institutions. Their governors and other public functionaries were chosen by the people, and the elective franchise was given in some of the states to the whole of the citizens, and in all of them it was very extensively conferred. Each town was a little republic, although the supremacy of the mother country and the authority of the British sovereign were acknowledged. But the colonists were accustomed to believe that their local assemblies stood in the same relation to them as the British parliament did to the parent state. In several branches of useful legislation, those colonies were in advance of all the states of Europe at that day. Their regulations for the relief of the poor, for public registers, for the maintenance of roads, and above all for education, were excellent. Schools were established in every township, and in the more populous districts; and the inhabitants were required, under a penalty, to support them. The language of their enactments denotes the serious and devout spirit in which they were framed; with reference to which M. De Tocqueville remarks: "In America religion was the road to knowledge, and the observance of the divine laws led man to civil freedom."

New York, originally a Dutch settlement and founded about the year 1614, was afterwards taken and established by the English. New Jersey was founded about fifty years later. South Carolina was founded in 1669, by Governor Sayle; Pennsylvania in 1682, by Wm. Penn, and other members of the Society of Friends; North Carolina, about the year 1728; Georgia, in

1732; Kentucky, in 1773; Vermont, about 1764, by emigrants from Connecticut and other parts of New England. The states of New England are six in number. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine. The union now consists of twenty-six states.

Our commerce and navigation were soon greatly benefited by these noble colonies; and by their rapid growth and prosperity they were adding continually to the strength and resources of the empire. At that auspicious period of their common history, the government of the mother country attempted to tax the colonies without the intervention of their local legislatures, on the ground of sovereignty alone -a sovereignty exercised by the British crown and by the parliament in which the people of those remote settlements were not represented by a single member chosen by themselves. The obnoxious laws which the Americans resolved to resist as tyrannical, were a stamp act, a tea tax, a bill for closing the port of Boston, another for altering the constitution of Massachusetts, and a third for removing if necessary the trial of capital offenders to Great Britain. These unwise measures were at first popular in England; and it was a common opinion that the Americans, on the pretext of seeking a redress of grievances, contemplated absolute independence. The Americans, on the other hand, too hastily concluded that the arbitrary acts of the government were the commencement of a system of tyranny. views were erroneous. If the wise counsels of Lord Chatham and Mr. Burke, so strenuously urged by them with powerful reasoning and energetic eloquence, had prevailed at an early period of the dispute, the breach might have been healed. But the concessions of the British cabinet all came too late, were in themselves insufficient, and consequently they were unavailing. The vicious principle of taxing the unrepresented

Both

colonies was never conceded. In 1775 civil war began at Lexington. Yet even then, if the Americans had been promptly restored to their rights as British subjects, a final separation might have been avoided. But the unwise endeavour to compel three millions of freemen of British origin to submit to injustice, by subduing the American continent, was persisted in, and in July, 1776, they declared their independence. For more than a century they had grown up under the fostering wing of the parent state, whose mistaken policy, during two years, was the means of casting them off for ever.

It might have been too flattering to our pride and ambition to retain the sovereignty of the best portion of the New World in addition to the other vast and

important dominions of the British crown. And by the American declaration of independence that high trust, that growing power and responsibility, and that immense empire, were wrested from England.* At the distance of sixty-six years we can better estimate the magnitude of the loss.

Henceforth each nation must pursue its separate career: but their language and literature are one; many British emigrants are annually added to the number of American citizens, and not less than thirty thousand British seamen man the vessels of the United States. With so many ties of kindred, of liberty, of language, of literature, of commerce, and of religion, to bind us in unity and concord, it were deplorable indeed, if the recollection of ancient grievances, if more recent and

* Mr. Webster, in his speech at Boston, in September, 1842, said, "In case of a war between England and the United States, the only eminent advantage with either party would be found in the rectitude of her cause. With right on our side we are a match for England-with right on her side she is a match for us or any nation." That opinion was warranted by history.

more trivial differences, if low, unkind, and ungenerous prejudices should perpetuate former alienation and antipathy. The star of peace is now in the ascendantmay it herald the dawn of a happier day. Long may both nations continue in friendly relationship. Strong in their amity, England and America might consecrate and combine their energies to prevent tyranny and war, and might pursue together the glorious career of civilization, dispensing the highest blessings to mankind in both hemispheres.

The political system of the United States was formed by recasting the institutions of our common ancestors in a republican mould. It is proposed to consider the American constitution by comparing it, in the most essential points, with that of Great Britain, as the most interesting and instructive light in which it can be viewed by Englishmen.

The Americans generally evince an almost exclusive partiality for their country and its institutions; and an Englishman may, with equal reason be allowed to regard Great Britain and its constitution with preference and attachment. It is perhaps scarcely possible for either an American or an Englishman, who loves his country, to view the institutions of both nations from a strictly neutral position. It is not however the object of the following enquiry to draw a comparison, either flattering or adverse to the one or to the other great nation. I have endeavoured, at least, to treat the subject with impartiality.

In preparing these papers, I have chiefly had recourse to the well-known French work, "De la Democratie en Amerique," by M. De Tocqueville,* the most

* A few of the quotations are taken from Mr. Reeves's excellent translation, which I did not meet with until after having read the original work.