by proof. Candid and liberal men therefore who, not having duly weighed the testimony, have been persuaded to adopt the views of our libellers in the Quarterly Review, cannot but be favourably influenced by an appeal of this character. And as reproaches that are felt to be not entirely groundless, irritate the most deeplywe shall feel less susceptibility hereafter to the reiteration of obloquy which we have become convinced is perfectly undeserved.

It is from these considerations we infer that the appeal, besides its vindicatory effect on the continent of Europe will have a pacific tendency even as regards the literary intercourse between Great Britain and the United States. But even should the reverse prove to its consequence-if ill will should be aggravated, and the renewal of pacific relations further postponed-we must recollect the warfare was commenced on the other side, and its sin lies not at our door, but at theirs who wantonly provoked it. If our defence prove a battery as well as a rampart, it is obvious that it could not well be one without acting also as the other, and as on our side hostilities began late and are carried on with reluctance, whenever our assailants are willing to lay down the inamicable pen we shall no doubt cheerfully adopt the amnesty and faithfully observe its

terms.

We have been accustomed so long to read, in English publications, of the debate in congress upon declaring the United States to be the most enlightened nation in the world, without any contradiction on our part, that to many among us, as well as to most in Europe it will be matter of some surprise to learn that the national archives show the circumstances on which the story has been founded were not such as can fairly support any charge of national vanity. Mr. Walsh has thus elucidated this hitherto unpleasant subject:

Mr.

'We have seen that the Edinburgh Review talks of "the ludicrous proposition of the American congress to declare herself the most enlightened nation on the globe.' The Quarterly Review also, in the critique of Inchiquin's letters, descants scoffingly on this supposed proposition, and avers that it was withdrawn, "only through fear of giving umbrage to the French convention." Alexander Baring refers to it, in his pamphlet on the Orders in Council, saying, that "the Americans gravely debated once in congress, whether they should style themselves the most enlightened people in the world," but he tempers the pungency of the allusion, by relating how a distinguished member of the house of commons, Mr. Wilberforce, seriously declared in his place, and was no doubt as seriously believed, " that Great Britain was too honest to have any political connexions with the continent of Europe." By a natural progression, or diversity of reading, the story now goes, as the British critic has it" that the Americans debated during three successive days, whether they were not the greatest, wisest,

bravest, most ingenious, and most learned of mankind!" This is the shape in which it will, doubtless, be embalmed by the British his

torians.

'Let us attend now to the facts of the case, as they are apparent upon the face of the printed debate, and remain notorious to all who followed the course of our public affairs at the time.

"The French revolution had divided the American people into two great parties; the one disposed for an intimate alliance with France; the other averse from any connexion with the new republic, and more amicably affected to Great Britain. General Washington, by adopting and maintaining the policy of neutrality between the belligerent powers of Europe, and by giving his countenance and official sanction to Jay's treaty, so called, of 1795, with Great Britain, had rendered himself obnoxious to the leaders of that division of our politicians who favoured her enemy, and would have renounced her trade. Their antagonists in congress were fortified in their dislike and dread of the French republic, and their predilection for the most friendly political intercourse and free commercial relations, with Great Britain, by the ill-judged machinations and intemperate language of the French representatives in this country, and the open support which the French government lent to the most insulting trespasses upon our national sovereignty.

'General Washington having announced his resolution to retire into private life, an election for a successor to the chief magistracy took place in 1796, and gave new animation to the feelings and plans just mentioned. At the close of the year, while this election was raging, if I may be allowed the term, Washington delivered his farewell address to the federal legislature, and in the house of representatives a committee composed of five members, three of whom were friends of his administration, was appointed to prepare an answer to his speech. The draught of an answer which this committee reported, contained the following paragraph. "The spectacle of a whole nation, the freest and most enlightened in the world, offering, by its representatives, the tribute of unfeigned approbation to its first citizen, however novel and interesting it may be, derives its lustre from the transcendant merit of which," &c. The phrase which I have put in italics found its way into the draught, from the desire of the committee to place Washington at the highest elevation possible, in opposition to the designs of some zealots of party in congress, who aimed at diminishing the lustre of his personal reputation, and the credit of his system of politics. Moreover, France had not long before asserted for herself the pre-eminence over all nations in freedom and political intelligence; and the authors of the draught, with those of the same side in congress, were eager to countervail this, as well as every other overweening pretension, which might enhance her influence in the United States.

'Mr. Sitgreaves, one of the most distinguished members of the anti-gallican party, explained to the house that "the light spoken of was political light, and had no reference to arts, science, or literature; that it was intended to make the compliment stronger to general Washington, and was to be regarded as a matter entirely domestic, and not as a public act for foreign nations."

'The answer at large brought into view the main political questions which agitated the country, and expressed an unqualified approval of Washington's official career. A debate arose upon the general strain of it, which lasted two days. It turned chiefly upon the point of "the wisdom and firmness" of his administration, in reference to England and France, and embraced the investigation of all our relations with the latter power. Objection had been immediately made to the phrase which has furnished so much sport to the British wits, not only by the opposition, but by several of the most decided federal members. One of these, Mr. Thatcher, finding that it interfered with the principal purpose of obtaining an appearance of unanimity in the homage to Washington and his course of policy, moved, at length, after it had been discussed with some copiousness, though incidentally, that the words "spectacle of a whole nation the freest and most enlightened," should be amended so as to read "the spectacle of a free and enlightened nation,”—which was carried without a division. In the course of the debate, a suggestion was, indeed, made, in the way of exception, that the use of the superlative would give umbrage to France; but this consideration must have proved the reverse of dissuasive for the majority, in the state of their feelings towards that power, with whom they so soon afterwards came to open war. They concurred in the amendment with such readiness, from the two-fold motive of facilitating the adoption of the material parts of the answer, and avoiding what might have the air of national arrogance.

Thus we see that the famed "proposition of congress to declare America the freest and most enlightened nation on the globe,"the "act of congress by which the Americans established that they are the most enlightened people of the world,"-was no more than an occasional phrase, hazarded by a committee in the draught of a domestic paper, for purposes distinct from that of glorifying the nation; which phrase, though equally suited to favourite aims of the majority of congress, was disavowed and rejected by that majority, chiefly because it savoured of presumption, and seemed to infringe upon strict national decorum. The transaction argues, on the whole, in the congress, sentiments opposite to those which it has furnished the English writers occasion to impute; and, when we advert to the nature of the dispositions towards England, which were mingled with its origin, we must find their representations still more ungracious and illiberal. An instance of the same scrupulousness is certainly not to be found in the annals of the British parliament. I refer to the answers of that body to the speeches

from the throne, and to the votes of thanks as presented by the speaker, particularly the last, Mr. Abbot,-to the public servants whom it has distinguished, for self-applause and claims of national superiority, beyond which, no intoxication of pride, or reason of state can ever, in the civilized world, carry national pretensions. This reference from an American will, perhaps, be thought a very deficient measure of recrimination; but it is to be borne in mind, that, however transcendant may be the British nation, in all respects, in the comparison with her "kinsmen of the west," her pre-eminence, in valour and science at least, over the other nations of Europe, is not so far incontrovertible and notorious, as that, while constantly asserting it herself, she can, without inconsistency or assurance, make a standing jest of the single example of exaltedness which she charges upon the American congress.

'The obnoxious phrase in the draught of the American committee was, in fact, warrantable in itself, and might have been adopted, as it was meant, with perfect propriety. The committee had in view civil and religious freedom combined, and the diffusiveness of political light, and elementary knowledge-points in which I think it hardly possible to contest the supremacy of the United States. For proclaiming this supremacy, there were strong motives derived from the peculiar situation of the country in regard to France, at the juncture. The confidence of a part of the American people in their own institutions and political wisdom, seemed to be shaken in some degree by the pretensions of French democracy, and to stand in need of such confirmation as the body of their representatives could furnish, for their protection against the most mischievous delusions.

'Although I may appear to have allotted already too much space to this topic, I must claim permission to introduce the observations which were made by Fisher Ames, in congress, on the occasion. They belong, in strictness, to its history.

'Mr. Ames said-" If a man were to call himself more free and enlightened than his fellows, it would be considered as arrogant self-praise. His very declaration would prove that he wanted sense as well as modesty; but a nation might be called so by a citizen of that nation, without impropriety, because in doing so, he bestows no praise of superiority on himself; he may be in fact, sensible that he is less enlightened than the wise of other nations. This sort of national eulogium may, no doubt, be fostered by vanity and grounded in mistake: it is sometimes just; it is certainly common, and not always either ridiculous or offensive. It did not say that either France or England had not been remarkable for enlightened men; their literati are more numerous and distinguished than

our own.

"The general character with respect to this country, was strictly true. Our countrymen, almost universally, possess some property and some portion of learning,-two distinctions so re

markably in their favour as to vindicate the expression objected to. But go through France, Germany, and most countries of Europe, and it would be found that out of fifty millions of people, not more than two or three had any pretensions to knowledge, the rest being, comparatively with Americans, ignorant. In France, which contains twenty-five millions of people, only one was calculated to be in any respect enlightened, and perhaps under the old system there was not a greater proportion possessed of property; whilst in America, out of four millions of people, scarcely any part of them could be placed upon the same ground with the rabble of Europe.

"That class called vulgar, canaille, rabble, so numerous there, does not exist here as a class, though our towns have individuals of it. Look at the Lazzaroni of Naples: there are 20,000 or more houseless people, wretched and in want! He asked whether where men wanted every thing, and were in the proportion of twenty-nine to one, it was possible that they could be trusted with power? Wanting wisdom and morals, how could they use it? It was therefore that the iron hand of despotism was called in by the few who had any thing, to preserve any kind of control over the many. This evil, as it truly was, rendered real liberty hopeless.

"In America, out of four millions of people, the proportion of those who cannot read and write, and who, having nothing, are interested in plunder and confusion, and disposed for both, is exceedingly small. In the southern states he knew there were people well informed; he disclaimed all design of invidious comparison; the members from the south would be more capable of doing justice. to their constituents; but, in the eastern states, he was more particularly conversant, and knew the people in them could universally read and write, and were well informed as to public affairs. In such a country, liberty is likely to be permanent. It is possible to plant it in such a soil, and reasonable to hope, that it will take root and flourish long, as we see it does. But can liberty, such as we understand and enjoy, exist in societies where the few only have property, and the many are both ignorant and licentious?

""Was there any impropriety, then, in saying what was a fact? As it regards government, the declaration is useful. It is respectful to the people to speak of them with the justice due to them, as eminently formed for liberty and worthy of it. If they are free and enlightened, let us say so. Congress ought not only to say this because it was true, but because their saying so would have the effect to produce that self-respect which was the best guard of liberty; and most conducive to the happiness of society. It was useful to show where our hopes and the true safety of our freedom are reposed. It procured in return from the citizens a just confidence; it cherished a spirit of patriotism unmixed with foreign alloy, and the courage to defend a constitution which a people really enlightened knows to be worthy of its efforts."