cidental consequence, and under those improved forms of society to which we seem in many respects tending, cities may be found to favour some virtues as much as the country favours others. In making the estimate of their comparative advantages, it is not easy for one to make just allowance for his peculiar tastes, by which he is led to overrate or underrate particular virtues and manners. Thus the forms of social intercourse, which custom introduces in cities, will offend some by their seeming insincerity, and will be recommended to others by their fitness for the intercourse of those who are strangers to each other, or who are made over-sensitive by refinement. Extreme politeness is not required for the blunt feelings of the rustic, but is a necessary safeguard for the delicate sensibility of a highly cultivated mind, as the defences against the inclemency of the seasons, which are indispensable to the civilized man, are not needed by the savage. These forms are, it is true, in part compounded of dissimulation, but in this instance dissimulation loses its character of vice in its utility. One clown may tell another that he is ugly and awkward, is foolish or disagreeable, without giving mortal offence, or making the other seriously unhappy. But after an individual has become refined by mental cultivation, and the constant chafing of society, he would be as effectually restrained from these offensive acts by benevolence and sympathy, as by a bypocritical and interested desire of pleasing; and should the former qualities be wanting, and the latter motive alone prevail, this must be regarded as a less evil than that he should mortify the feelings of others without any benefit to himself.

But the advocates for the superior purity of rural life may say that though the excessive delicacy and sensitiveness which cities may make dissimulation the least of two evils, yet they should be held responsible for that lesser evil, as they create its cause. Let this be conceded, and still it may be questioned whether there is a greater sum of virtue in the country than in town. If some vices find a more congenial soil in the cities, do not others find it in the country? Do not the former present as favourable a theatre for generosity and charity and disinterest

edness and philanthropy-all the virtues, in short, which arise from a delicate sympathy, or for the exercise of the severer virtues of fortitude, bravery, justice and self-denial? The dif ference in this respect is probably inconsiderable. Cities certainly appear to afford more opportunity for the growth of virtue and vice-as weeds and flowers shoot with equal vigour in the same hot-bed; and according as an individual is there placed in circumstances which favour the one or the other, will he be more virtuous or vicious than if he were placed in the country. Here then we accordingly find the extremes not only of poverty and wealth, but of virtue and depravity. Here we meet with the most thorough misers, and the dispensers of princely munificence-here the self-devoted patriot and the degenerate coward-here with the blood-thirsty assassin, the untiring visiter of the sick, the generous reliever of the necessitous, and even the kind consoler of criminals. And if we do not see such instances of the utter destitution of moral feeling in the country, neither do we see there such striking examples of exalted virtue.

In making the comparison our imagination deceives us. We see the country gentleman dispensing his unbought hospitality with a cordiality and a freedom which have no example in cities. But we forget that this virtue is the more easily practised, in proportion as the occasions of it are more rare; and that if the host appears to be the party on whom the favour is conferred, that this is sometimes really the fact; for he is relieved from his wearisome sameness, and he gladly exchanges a small portion of that which he has in abundance for the pleasures of society, and of hearing the news; for the means of improving the manners and minds of his children; and possibly for the gratification of displaying his hospitality, and of conferring a favour. Let, however, the visit be continued or repeated, so as to produce inconvenience, and he probably will show the same unamiable selfishness as the townsman, who, his regular habits being broken upon, had felt the inconvenience from the first. Does the resident of the country show more forbearance to his neighbour, more readiness to yield up his own interest for the benefit of another? Let the disputes about roads, and mill-ponds, and dividing fences, VOL. II-10

and the depredations of cattle answer this question. How often do we see their resentment excited by the most trifling injuries, and their pride keep these animosities rankling for years, and even transmitted to the next generation! It may be safely asserted that Mr. Jefferson did not experience more rancorous hostility from the most bigotted of his political adversaries in Philadelphia, than from some of his neighbours in Albemarle, though he lived in as much harmony with them, and had more and warmer friends than falls to the lot of most men. And as to party feuds, if they exhibit the same rancour and bitterness every where, they are more lasting in the country. Thus, while Antimasonry maintained its ground in the western parts of New York, parties changed their name and character perhaps half a dozen times in the city. Upon the whole, then, it seems as if we may console ourselves with the reflection that the growth of cities, which naturally keeps pace with the growing density of population, is not necessarily unfriendly to morality or happi

ness.

In the same letter Mr. Jefferson speaks of the hostility of the clergy towards him, and imputes to them hopes that the infraction of the constitution in the sedition law would pave the way to a law abridging the freedom of religion, and establishing a particular form of christianity in the United States. "The returning good sense of our country," he adds, "threatens abortion to their hopes, and they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

At the presidential election which took place in November, the parties tried their strength before the nation, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr being the candidates of the republicans, and John Adams and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of the federalists, when the two former obtained each 73 out of the 138 votes; Mr. Adams 65 votes; General Pinckney 64 votes; and Mr. Jay 1 vote. The vote of South Carolina had long been in suspense, each party being sanguine of obtaining it, as accord

ing to the known distribution of the other votes, it would decide the election. It was eventually given to Jefferson and Burr,* and it is not improbable that it would have been obtained by the federal party, if Alexander Hamilton had not written a pamphlet to prove Mr. Adams's unfitness for the office. But while General Hamilton wished to defeat Mr. Adams's election, he was desirous of promoting General Pinckney's: if so, his object was only half attained. It is said that his course was dictated by resentment, in consequence of Mr. Adams having resisted the wishes of his cabinet to give the second appointment in the provisional army to Hamilton.

In the month of December, when the issue of the election was ascertained, Mr. Jefferson, not anticipating that equality of votes between Colonel Burr and himself, which would carry the election to the House of Representatives, began to look about for the formation of his cabinet, and having concurred with the general voice of the nation in selecting Mr. Madison for the department of state, and Mr. Gallatin for the treasury, he wrote to Mr. Robert R. Livingston to offer him the place of secretary of the navy. He spoke of the importance of having persons of talent, integrity, and who were known to the people, in the administration, now that the government was to be restored to its true republican principles, instead of continuing what the French had termed it, a monarchie masqué.

Congress met in Washington, the new seat of government, on the 17th of November, and then ascertained that all differences had been settled with France. By a recent revolution of the political wheel, the executive power of that country had lately passed into new hands, and was chiefly directed by him whose will governed the destinies of France for fifteen years afterwards. The most extraordinary man of his age, whether we re

* The votes given to Jefferson and Burr were as follows: New York, 12; Pennsylvania, 8 out of 15; Maryland, 5 out of 10; Virginia, 21; Kentucky, 4; North Carolina, 8 out of 12; Tennessee, 3; South Carolina, 8; and Georgia, 4. The republicans received the unanimous votes of seven states, the federalists of six. Those of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and North Carolina were divided between them.

gard the fitness of his talents and energy of purpose to the country and circumstances in which he was placed, the singular success which rewarded them, or that total reverse of fortune which left him nothing but his matchless fame. When Napoleon Bonaparte first appeared above the horizon, in the stormy night of the revolution, it was as the friendly star which lights the tempest-tost mariner to safety. While this new luminary rapidly ascended and increased in brightness, the admiring world was in doubt whether it betokened good or evil; but when it had culminated to the zenith, it appeared a baleful meteor, casting a disastrous twilight on the surrounding gloom, and portending despotism to France and subjugation to the rest of Europe, until, descending yet more rapidly than it rose, it left a long track of glory in the heavens which the world now relieved from its fears, has not yet ceased to regard with wonder, curiosity, and delight.

On the 15th of December, when a precise return of the votes had not been received, Mr. Jefferson wrote to Colonel Burr, and informed him of the reports in circulation that he had received a smaller number of votes than himself in some of the states, yet still enough to put him before Mr. Adams. He at the same time expressed his regret that he should lose the benefit of Colonel Burr's talents in the cabinet. The language used on this occasion has been thought inconsistent with a remark made in his diary, that Colonel's Burr's conduct had, very soon after their acquaintance, "inspired him with distrust."* The passage in this letter runs thus: "I feel most sensibly the loss we sustain of your aid in our new administration. It leaves a chasm in my arrangements, which cannot be adequately fitted up. I had endeavoured to compose an administration whose talents, integrity, names and dispositions, should at once inspire unbounded confidence in the public mind, and insure a perfect harmony in the conduct of the public business. I lose you from the list, and am not sure of all the others. Should the gentlemen who possess the public confidence decline

* Jeff. Corr., Vol. IV. p. 520.