shown that Englishmen do not degenerate in the soil of America; for they have compelled the meteor-flag of England, which had waved in triumph on the ocean for a thousand years, to lower its ancient ensign beneath the new-born standard of her child; they have driven back from before their hardy yeomanry the conquerors of France, the deliverers of Portugal, the liberators of Spain, the emancipators of Europe; they have twined round their victorious brows wreaths of naval and of military glory, which will flourish in eternal verdure, long as the everlasting hills shall rest upon their foundations, and the stars of Heaven continue to shed their light.

In the turmoil of battle, and in the pursuits of peace, the Americans effect more by a given number of people than the population of any other country can effect. At present, indeed, the European land tactics are impracticable in the United States: huge masses of cavalry, numerous parks of artillery, and solid columns of infantry, cannot act in a country overgrown with trees, and bushes, and underwood, which afford means and shelter for the deadly musketry and riflemen of America, to destroy their enemy at their own leisure themselves unseen and inaccessible. The United States must wait till their country is more cleared of its forests, particularly on their borders, before they can exhibit any military conflicts on a large and comprehensive scale. Meanwhile the ocean is open, and will, ere long, have its waters deeply died with American and British blood, contending for the exclusive dominion of that element, which is, emphatically, the cradle and the home of the mariners of both nations.

From the commencement of the French revolution, in the year 1789, to the close of the late war between America and England, in 1815, the political parties in the United States were opposed to each other with exceeding bitterness. Party spirit used to prevent social intercourse, and poison domestic peace. The tyranny of faction was much greater in this country than it ever has been in Britain, where it neither disturbs the harmony of families, nor trenches upon the decorum of

society, either among the leaders or followers of the two great contending parties which divide, agitate, and govern that kingdom.-See the "Resources of the British Empire," pp. 351-376, for the facts and reasons to prove, that no free government can be carried on but by the agency of contending parties; and that no dan ger is to be apprehended either to the ministry or the people from the prevalence of party spirit. Since the peace of 1815, Mr. Monroe's tour, aided by the circumstances of the country and the times, has considerably abated the acrimony of faction in the United States, and democrats and federalists now dine at the same table without any fear of reciprocal offence.

Some of the wisest and best men of America, parti- / cularly Washington, Hamilton, and Ames, laboured to convince their fellow citizens of the necessity of extinguishing parties in our popular and elective government. President Washington's "Farewell Address" to the people of the United States, General Hamilton's Essays in the Federalist, and Mr. Fisher Ames's lucubrations scattered over all his works, contain most forcible and eloquent arguments against the mischiefs of faction. But, after all that can be said or written on the subject, a country must either be governed by the bayonet, and be enslaved; or governed by party, and be free. Parties in the United States are substantially like those in England. Two great rival sections of the people contend with each other for the exclusive administration of the government, not because they think themselves always right, and their opponents always wrong, but because, on the whole, they think they could manage the government better than their antagonists. They differ more about the means than the end: they both wish to exalt their country, and render her prosperous at home, and respectable abroad, however they may disagree as to the measures by which this common object can be best attained.

Indeed, now, the federalists and democrats do not differ, even as to the means; they both wish to exalt their country the same means. For more than twenty

years, truly, they varied most essentially in their notions respecting the best mode of administering the government; the democrats denouncing foreign commerce, foreign diplomacy, internal taxation, a national bank, a regular army, and a fighting navy, as being all extremely anti-republican. But for the last two or three years they seem to have outgrown these theories, and to have begun, like other people, to take experience and fact as the best foundation, and safest guides of political economy.

The United States are so very favourably circumstanced for a rapid growth in wealth, and population, and national strength, that it requires only the exercise of a little common sense to administer the home government, and permit the laws and institutions, which are generally most propitious to the establishment and furtherance of popular liberty, to take their due course. It requires, however, considerable sagacity and prudence so to conduct our foreign affairs as to secure the friendship and respect of other potentates. But there is no occasion to enter into any detail on this point, seeing that General Washington has left a bright example of all that a wise and upright administration of government can accomplish, for the welfare of the country; and our future presidents have only to follow faithfully in his foot-tracks, in order to ensure, under Providence, the internal prosperity, and the external respectability of America.

In one, and that the most important department of foreign policy, namely, diplomacy, the American government, under all its administrations, has exhibited great talents and skill. In the United States there is no corps of regularly bred statesmen, as in Europe; but our politicians generally, and more especially our diplomatists, are taken from the class of practising lawyers, who, being men of business, shrewd observers, and well acquainted with mankind, have always been a match, and often an overmatch, for the European ambassadors, and plenipotentiaries, who have been systematically ained in the routine of office, amidst all the forms and

THEIR SKILFUL DIPLOMACY.

253

devices of the closet. During the last fifty years, American diplomacy has signalized itself in every court and cabinet of Europe; and the names of Jay, Adams, Morris, King, Jefferson, Marshal, Monroe, Pinkney, and the Commissioners at Ghent, will deservedly rank as high as those of any diplomatic characters which have adorned other countries. The peace concluded with England in 1793, by Mr. Jay, Mr. Adams, and Dr. Franklin, and the commercial treaty made with England in 1794, by Mr. Jay, are evidences of consummate diplomatic wisdom and skill. A very slight perusal of the American State papers, lately published at Boston, will show that the American diplomatists, invariably, wield a more pointed and powerful pen than their European antagonists; that they press their arguments with more force, place them in a greater variety of lights, and defeat, or evade, or parry, the strokes of their opponents with more adroitness and effect. The Marquis of Wellesley, in April 1815, said in his place on the floor of the House of Lords, when discussing the negociation between the United States and Britain, respecting peace, "that the American commissioners had shown the most astonishing superiority over the British during the whole of the correspondence. The noble Earl (Liverpool) opposite, probably felt sore at this observation, as no doubt the British papers were communicated from the common fund of ministers in England."

The American commissioners at Ghent were Mr. Gallatin, late Secretary of the United States Treasury, and now Ambassador to France; Mr. John Quincy Adams, a Massachusetts lawyer, formerly minister to the courts of Berlin, Petersburgh, and London, now Secretary of State; Mr. Bayard, a Delaware lawyer, and a senator of the United States; Mr. Clay, a Kentucky lawyer, and Speaker of the House of Representatives in Congress; and Mr. Jonathan Russel, formerly a merchant in New York.

Considering that diplomacy is much more effectual to permanently aggrandize a nation than war and conquest, it is astonishing that so few governments, in the history

of the world, have availed themselves of its aid. Unless we admit the United States within the circle, there are only three nations that have successfully seconded their efforts at extension and power by diplomatic skill; namely, ancient Rome, modern France, and Russia. The reasons why British diplomacy has been for the last five hundred years, in general, so deplorably defective, are detailed at length in the Resources of the British Empire," pp. 333, 344.

Now, the only sound policy of every nation is to secure its independence, to augment its power, to elevate its rank. Neither of these three great objects can be pursued singly; they are inseparably interwoven with one another. The national independence of a state can only be secured by an unremitted progression in positive power, of which a greater relative rank is the neces sary consequence. It is as much the duty of states as of individuals constantly to use all honourable means of advancing themselves in wealth, character, influence, authority, and power. All nations begin to decline from the moment they cease to rise. Non progedi est regredi is the great political axiom of human affairs. As soon as a man ceases to improve his mind by observation, study, and reflection, his intellect begins to lose ground in acuteness, strength, splendour, and comprehension. The ambition, avarice, and ignorance of individuals allow to nations no intervals of stationary quiet, or drowsy security.

In modern times, however, the only European governments that seem to have acted on any digested system of national aggrandizement, are, that of France, since the accession of Louis the 14th, in 1643; and that of Russia, since the commencement of Peter's reign, in 1696. These two great monarchs felt the internal strength, and appreciated the immense natural resources of their respective empires. Although Louis did not in his own person succeed in the ultimate object of acquiring a universal French monarchy, he yet fixed the ascendency of France over the other European powers on a broad and permanent basis. When he ascended