The meeting was considered of sufficient importance to occupy daily several columns of one of the New York leading journals, and to employ a special reporter. It is thus headed—"MEETING OF PHILOSOPHERS, THEOLOGIANS, THINKERS, STRONG-MINDED WOMEN, SPIRITUAL RAPPERS, ATHEISTS, AND NEGROES." Details of this Convention would be too tedious; I propose only giving a few of their resolutions. Resolved—"That the Bible, in some parts of the Old and New Testament, sanctions injustice, concubinage, prostitution, oppression, war, plunder, and wholesale murder, and, therefore, that the Bible as a whole, originated,^[CG] is false, and injurious to the social and spiritual growth of man." After which the chairman goes on to prove (?) it is purely human, &c. Another resolution reiterates the former, and adds that "the time has come to declare its untruthfulness, and to unmask those who are guilty of its imposture." Then follows a resolution for the especial consideration of slave-owners:—"Resolved—That it is the climax of audacity and impiety for this nation to receive the Bible as the inspired Word of God, and then to make it a penal offence to give it to any of the millions who are held as chattel slaves on its soil, thus conspiring to make them miserable here and hereafter." Then follows a charitable resolution, declaring their belief that all the clergy "would readily burn the Bible to-morrow if public sentiment demanded it." One of the orators brings the Bible to the bar of geology, and there condemns it, and recommends "that the Hindoos should establish a mission to enlighten Christians of this and other countries. He believed that the priesthood and the Bible were opposed to all liberty and progress, and the deadliest enemies of mankind."

Another member of this blasphemous band becomes highly indignant because the orthodox clergymen—who probably remembered that "evil communications corrupt good manners"—would not meet them on their infidel platform, and he presents a resolution declaring that "by their absence, they had openly declared their infidelity to their professions of theological faith, and had thus confessed the weakness and folly of their arrogant assumptions, and proved that they loved popular favour more than common good; and they are therefore moral cowards, pharisees of this nineteenth century, seeking to enslave more and more the mind of man," &c. Another orator then proposes a resolution, to the effect that the spirit and genius of Bible religion is not a system of salvation from sin and its effects, but a system of damnation into sin and its effects; that it is the friend of moral and spiritual slavery, and therefore "the foe of human mental and spiritual liberty." Subsequently a strong-minded woman, called Mrs. Rose, appeared on the platform amid considerable uproar, followed by extinguishing the gas and singing songs. After a severe struggle, the lady managed to express her sentiments in these mild and Christian terms:—"The Church is upon your neck. Do you want to be free? Then trample the Church, the priest, and the Bible under your feet."—The last day's proceeding closed by a row in the gallery, owing to a fight, in which a dirk had been drawn; and then the Convention adjourned till the following year.

The reader must not imagine that I state this as an indication of the tone of religious feeling in the New England States,—far from it; but it appears to me a fact worth noticing, that a Convention of such a nature and magnitude, and considered of sufficient importance to employ the special reporter of a leading journal of New York, should by any possibility assemble for days and days together, and give vent to such blasphemous sentiments among a people so liberally educated and so amply supplied with means of religious instruction. I only hope that the infidelity of the whole Republic was gathered into that one assembly, and that having met in so uncongenial an atmosphere, they all returned to their homes impregnated with some of the purer atmosphere of the great majority of the people.

The subject of Education naturally follows the Church; but, on this point, any attempt at accuracy is hopeless. Whether it be from the variety of school systems in the different States, or from some innate defect in the measures taken to obtain information, I cannot pretend to say; but the discrepancies between the statements made are so great, that I can only pretend to give a moderate approximation to the truth, which is the more to be regretted, as the means provided for education throughout the length and breadth of the Republic constitute one of its noblest features. In rough numbers, they may be thus stated:—

Of the above colleges, theology claims 44, medicine 37, law 16.

Among the expenses of the various colleges, which I can refer to, I find University College, Virginia—the terms of which occupy 44 weeks—is the most expensive. The annual charges for a student are the following:—College expenses, 40l.; board, 22l.; washing, fuel, and lights, 4l.—in all, 70l. It is obvious that no provision is here made for champagne suppers, hunters, tandems, and other "necessaries," of our University students, including a few "auxiliaries," in the shape of I O U's, for red coats, top-boots, Hudson's regalias, and mysterious jewellery bills for articles that men don't wear. Doubtless some papas would prefer the Virginian bill of fare; but then, they must remember that the republican lads go to college to learn something, whereas many papas send their first-born hopes to Oxford and Cambridge to save themselves trouble, and to keep the youths out of mischief during the awkward period of life yclept "hobbledehoyhood." How they succeed is pretty well known to themselves, and probably their bankers have some idea also; yet, with all these drawbacks, who will deny that those seats of learning turn out annually some of the most manly and high-minded, and some of the best educated and most industrious, young men in the country?

Having entered into some of the details of education at various places during my travels, I shall not trespass on the reader's patience by dwelling further on the subject, except to call attention to the following important regulation with regard to children in factories; and I most sincerely hope it may reach the eye of Lord Shaftesbury, or some other of his coadjutors in the noble work of the protection and education of helpless youth. The regulation exists in some shape or other in many States. I subjoin the wording of it from that of Massachusetts:—

"No child under the age of fifteen years shall be employed in any manufacturing establishment, unless such child shall have attended some public or private day-school, where instruction is given by a teacher qualified according to law to teach orthography, reading, writing, English grammar, geography, arithmetic, and good behaviour, at least one term of eleven weeks of the twelve months next preceding the time of such employment, and for the same period during any and every twelve months in which such child shall be so employed."

Although my salt-fish friends are probably very familiar with sea-lawyers, the general reader may be astonished to see any allusion to law made by a sea-captain. I therefore beg to inform him, that the following observations on a most interesting point are furnished me by a friend who is legitimately at home in that complicated business, and who devoted much attention to the study of the method by which land is conveyed in the United States with so much ease and so little expense:—

"In America all conveyances of land, whether absolute or by way of mortgage only, are, with the exception of some chattel interests, required to be registered within a fixed or a reasonable time after their execution. Registration is constructive notice to all the world; if not registered, a deed is only valid against the parties to it and the heirs and devisees of the grantor. Generally, however, notice obtained by a purchaser previous to his purchase, will, if clearly proved, prevent his taking the advantage, though he may have been beforehand in registering his own title.

"By the old laws of Massachusetts, all deeds of conveyance were required to be recorded, 'that neither creditors might be defrauded, nor courts troubled with vexatious suits and endless contentions.' In consequence of the number of registers established in each county—and the excellence of their arrangements, no inconvenience results from the accumulation of deeds, notwithstanding the early period to which they go back. In register for Suffolk county, Massachusetts, are to be seen copies of deeds from 1640 down to the present time. They are bound up in 640 volumes, and do not as yet take up much space. They have lately multiplied in an increasing ratio, the volumes having risen from 250 to their present number in the last 25 years.

"The register for Philadelphia county, Pennsylvania, contains within a moderate compass deeds from 1683 downwards. They are referred to by indices on the following plan: All deeds made within a certain time, and in which the name of the grantor commences with the same letter of the alphabet, are bound up in one volume; thus, a volume marked "H 1820-1847," contains all deeds executed between those years by grantors whose names begin with H. One index volume contains the names of all grantors between those years in alphabetical order, another that of all grantees, and both refer to volume and page of the books of deeds. A third index gives the names of grantors and grantees, arranged chronologically, according to the year in which the deed they were parties to was executed.

"The original deed remain in the possession of the proprietors, but are of secondary importance. They are written in a plain, legible hand on paper, parchment being seldom used. The signatures of the parties are of course requisite; but the seal, which is essential to a deed in England, is in many States dispensed with. The custom of registering obviates the necessity for those long recitals that so swell out an English conveyance, and the shortest possible forms of covenants are preferred. The American conveyance only witnesses that the grantor conveys the property therein described, which, or part of which, was conveyed to him by such a one by a deed of such a date, and a marginal note states the volume and page where the deed thus mentioned is to be seen.

"The advantages of registration are,—greater security of title, and brevity and economy in conveyances. The example of the United States shows that there is nothing in the Anglo-Saxon laws of real property to render such a system impracticable. Several of the most eminent lawyers in Boston declared, that their registration was found to work easily and safely; the only change desired was by a few, who expressed a wish that more registers should be established, as, one for every district, instead of for every county. They all expressed their astonishment that a similar plan had not long ago been adopted in England. They admitted that dealings with property were more simple in America, where strict settlements are either not allowed, or not generally in use, but maintained that the real obstacles to a registration in this country lie not so much in the difficulty of carrying it out, as in the prejudices of landowners, the self-interest of lawyers, and the superstitious dread entertained by John Bull generally of anything to which he is unaccustomed."^[CH]

I am no lawyer, as I observed before, and therefore I do not pretend to pass an opinion on the details of the foregoing remarks; but of the results produced by their system, I certainly can speak, for I have seen property transferred without the slightest trouble, and for a few shillings, which, owing to the amount involved, and the complications connected with it, would, if transferred in this country, have kept the firm of Screw, Skinflint, and Stickem hard at work for mouths, and when finished, would have required a week to make up the bill of costs, &c.

FOOTNOTES:

[CG]

[CH]

The first I shall mention is with reference to Fulton and steam. Mr. Charles King, the President of Columbia College, in a lecture delivered before the Mechanics' Institute, Broadway, New York, in December, 1851, claims for Fulton "the application of a known force in a new manner, and to new and before unthought-of purposes." Now what are the real facts? James Watt, in 1769, patented the double-acting engine, which was the first step by which the steam-engine was made capable of being used to propel a vessel. In 1780, James Pickard patented what is no other than the present connecting rod and crank, and a fly-wheel, the second and last great improvement in the steam-engine, which enabled it to be of service in propelling vessels.^[CI] In 1785, William Symington took out a patent, by which he obtained, with economy of fuel, a more perfect method of condensation of steam and a more perfect vacuum.

In 1787, Mr. Miller, of Dalswinton, a gentleman who had spent a fortune of nearly 30,000l. in ship-building experiments, was urged by Mr. Taylor to try and apply the power of steam to vessels. William Symington was applied to, with the view of knowing if he could apply his engine to one of Mr. Miller's boats, which he accordingly did, and propelled a little pleasure vessel on the lake at Dalswinton, at the rate of five miles an hour, on the 14th November, 1788. In the following year, Mr. Symington made a double engine for a boat to be tried upon the Forth and Clyde Canal; and in the month of December, 1789, this trial-vessel was propelled at the rate of six and a half miles an hour. Lord Dundas, who was a large proprietor in the Forth and Clyde Canal, employed Symington to make experiments in 1801. The result of these trials was the construction of the "Charlotte Dundas," the first practical steam-boat ever built. The engines of this vessel combined the patents before mentioned of Watt, Pickard, and Symington, which combinations—made by the latter patentee—constitute the present system of steam navigation. The "Charlotte Dundas" made her trial trip in March, 1802, and so satisfactory was the trial, that the Duke of Bridgewater ordered eight boats of Symington, for the purpose of running on his canal. The Duke of Bridgewater died immediately after; and the Forth and Clyde proprietors, owing to the injury caused to the banks, discontinued the use of the boat. The foregoing observations prove that if any one individual can claim the merit of inventing the steam-engine, that man is William Symington, who, combining previous inventions with his own patent, constructed the engine as at present in use. At the same time, every credit is due to Mr. Miller, who first afforded Symington the opportunity of putting his ingenuity to the test.

HUDSON RIVER STEAMER.

HUDSON RIVER STEAMER.

Let us now look at Mr. Fulton's part in the transaction. In 1801 he visited Scotland, and was present at one of the experiments making by Symington on the canal, and from him he obtained permission to make full sketches and notes of both boat and apparatus. The fact is sworn to on oath of the presence of an American gentleman, who called himself Mr. Fulton, during the experiments; and further evidence is found in the fact that the engines he ordered of Messrs. Boulton and Watt for the "Clermont" were precisely of the same dimensions as those in the "Charlotte Dundas," with the exception of two inches more diameter in the piston; and the patent of Fulton dates from 1809—twenty years after Symington had propelled a boat by steam on Lake Dalswinton, and eight years after he had himself taken sketches of Symington's engines in the Forth and Clyde canal-boat.

Beyond the foregoing evidence, there is the testimony of Mr. Bell that, at Fulton's request, he sent him information, plans, &c., of Mr. Miller's first experiments. The long and the short of the story is clearly this:—Mr. Fulton was a shrewd and clever engineer. He came to England, copied the steam-engine which Symington had combined—one can hardly say invented—and then returned to his own country, and applied it successfully, for which the Republic ought to be thankful to him, and to honour his name; but, for a president of a college lecturing before a mechanics' society, to call Fulton the inventor "of applying a known force in a new manner and to new and before unthought-of purposes," exhibits an ignorance or an assurance, for neither of which the slightest excuse can be made.^[CJ]

With equal accuracy Mr. King informs the mechanics that "Colonel John Stevens had clearly worked out in his own mind, long before any locomotive was constructed in Europe, the theory of such an application of steam, and the actual form in which it could be advantageously made, as well as the cost of constructing and working a railway for the use of locomotives." If this were true, how does it happen that the son of the Colonel, an able and ingenious mechanician, came over to George Stephenson, at Liverpool, to learn what he was doing, and to order engines from him; but Mr. King out-herods Herod, for he claims on behalf of the Colonel, the working of Steam expansively in 1815, for which Watt had taken out a patent thirty-five years before. If presidents of colleges in America cannot in their lectures deal more closely with facts, the instruction given within the walls of the college will come under very unfavourable suspicions.

In conclusion, I will only add a few remarks as to ocean steamers, on which subject, as on the invention of the engine, there is considerable difficulty in awarding the honours to any single individual. The Americans were the first to employ steamers along the coast, and the "Savannah," built by them in 1819, was the first vessel that crossed the ocean employing steam in any way as an assistant. But in her the steam was a very small auxiliary power, and upon the sails the vessel mainly depended. She cannot, therefore, fairly be called an ocean steamer. The "Enterprise," a vessel of 500 tons burden, with two 120 horse-power engines, started from London for Calcutta, touching at the Cape of Good Hope, about the year 1826; and may be fairly considered as the first vessel that made an ocean journey essentially dependent on steam. Subsequently the "Royal William," built at Quebec, after running between that port and Halifax from 1831 to 1833, started in the fall of the latter year for Falmouth; and to her belongs the honour of being the first bonâ fide paddle-wheel steamer that crossed the Atlantic. She was afterwards sold to the Portuguese government, and fitted up as a man-of-war steamer, under the name of the "Doña Isabella."

If, however, it be asked, where oceanic communication took its rise, unquestionably that honour belongs to Bristol and the "Great Western," a steamer of 210 feet in length, 1240 tons, fitted with two engines of 210 horse-power each. This vessel started on the 8th of March, 1838, under the command of Captain Hosken, reached New York in thirteen days ten hours, and made the return passage in fifteen days. Since that date ocean steamers and steam companies have risen up like mushrooms. England and America have established a kind of weekly Derby, Cunard entering one horse and Collins the other. Unquestionably the Americans have been pioneers in improving the build, and a rivalry has sprung up which is as useful as it is honourable.

The English boats adhere to a greater proportion of sail, in case of accidents to the engine; the Americans carry less sail than we do, for the sake of increasing the speed. As to relative comfort on board the two boats, an American gentleman, who had made several voyages, told me the only difference he ever discovered was, the same as exists between the hotels of the respective countries.—To return to litigation.

Another claim frequently set up in America is the invention of the telegraph. Even in the Census Report—which I suppose may be considered a Government work—I read the following:—"It is to American ingenuity that we owe the practical application of the telegraph. While the honour is due to Professor Morse for the practical application and successful prosecution of the telegraph, it is mainly owing to the researches and discoveries of Professor Henry, and other scientific Americans, that he was enabled to perfect so valuable an invention." It is difficult to conceive a more unblushing piece of effrontery than the foregoing sentence, which proclaims throughout the Union that the electric telegraph in its practical working is the invention of one American, and in its scientific details the invention of other Americans, neither of which assertions has truth for its basis, and consequently the superstructure is a fiction—the only available excuse for which would be, that the writer had never heard of what was going on in Europe. Had he taken the least trouble to inquire into the subject before he wrote, he never would—it is to be hoped—have so grossly deceived his countrymen.

He might have easily ascertained that such men as Oersted, Ampère, Arago, Sturgeon, had mastered in detail the various scientific difficulties that stood in the way of the accomplishment of the long-desired object; and he might also have known that Cooke in England and Stienhiel in Germany had both overcome the practical difficulties before Professor Morse had enlightened the Republic with his system, which—like Bain's—is simply another method of producing the same result—i.e., telegraphic communication.

Mr. Cooke took out his patent in conjunction with Professor Wheatstone, whose attention had long been turned to this subject, and whose name has been so much before the public, that not a few persons attribute the telegraph to him exclusively. There was, indeed, some dispute between them as to their respective claims, and the matter was referred to Sir I. Brunel and Professor Daniell for arbitration. The burden of their decision was, that Mr. Cooke was entitled to stand alone as the gentleman to whom Great Britain is indebted for having practically introduced and carried out the telegraph as a useful undertaking; Professor Wheatstone's profound and successful researches having already prepared the public to receive it.—So much for the justice of the American claim to the invention, which, like steam, has been the produce of many heads, and was brought into practical use first by Cooke, then by Stienhiel in Germany, and lastly by Morse in America.

Another invention of which the public have heard no little discussion lately is the reaping machine. To the American nation doubtless belongs the credit of forcing it into notice and into use; but as for any claim to the invention, it is equally certain they have none. That honour is due solely to the Rev. Patrick Bell, a Scotch minister in the presbytery of Arbroath. He first tried his reaping machine in August, 1828, at his father's farm on Lord Airlie's estate, where it has been in yearly use ever since; and in October he exhibited it at the Highland Society's meeting at Glasgow. The principle upon which his first machine was made differs in nothing from those making at this hour; and, as some of the people employed on his father's farm migrated to America, it is only reasonable to suppose they carried sufficient information with them to explain the machine. American ingenuity soon copied, and American energy soon gave an impulse to, Mr. Bell's machine, for which, though denying them the invention, we ought not to deny them our thanks.

But while I thus explain the unwarrantable claims which Americans have set forth, I must not allow John Bull to lay the flattering unction to his soul that none of his claimed discoveries are disputed on the other side of the Atlantic, I have seen a Book of Facts printed in America, which charges us with more than one geographical robbery in the Arctic Seas, in which regions, it is well known, American enterprise and sympathy have been most nobly employed. As I am incapable of balancing the respective claims, I leave that subject to the Hydrographer's office of the two countries.

The citizens of the Republic have but little idea of the injurious effects which the putting forward unwarrantable claims has upon their just claims. I have now before me a letter from a seafaring man who has spent a quarter of a century upon the borders of the United States; he is writing on the subject of their claims to the invention of steam, and he winds up in these words:—"They are with this, as they are with every other thing to which either merit or virtue is attached—the sole and only proprietors and originators, and say both the one and the other are unknown out of the universal Yankee nation." I do not endorse the sentiment, but I quote it to show the effect produced on some minds by the unfounded claims they have put forward.

They have ingenuity and invention enough legitimately belonging to them for any nation to be justly proud of, without plucking peacock's feathers from others, and sending them throughout the length and breadth of the Republic as the plumage of the American eagle. How many useful inventions have they not made in machinery for working wood? Is not England daily importing some new improvement therein from the American shores? Look again at their perfect and beautiful invention for the manufacture of seamless bags, by Mr. Cyrus Baldwin, and which he has at work at the Stark Mills. There are 126 looms in operation, all self-acting and each one making 47 bags daily; the bags are a little more than three and a half feet long, and chiefly used, I believe, for flour and grain. When they are finished, sewing-machines are at hand, which can hem at the rate of 650 bags each daily. This same gentleman has also adapted his looms to the making hoses for water, of which he can complete 1000 feet a day by the experimental loom now in use, and it is more than probable these hoses will entirely supersede the use of the leather ones, being little more than one-tenth the price, and not requiring any expense to keep in order.

Another and very important purpose to which their ingenuity has applied machinery is, the manufacture of fire-arms. It has long been a matter of surprise to me, why so obvious and useful an application of machinery was neglected by the Government at home. The advantages of being able to transfer all screws, springs, nipples, hammers, &c., from one musket to another, are so manifest to the most infantine comprehension, that I suppose they considered it beneath their notice; nor can I make out that they have duly inquired into the various breech-loading systems used in the States, some of which they have been testing in their Navy for years. As, however, we are beginning to copy their application of machinery, I dare say the next generation will take up the question of breech-loading arms.

A few observations on the Militia appear to follow naturally after remarks on fire-arms. According to the most reliable information which I have been able to obtain, every able-bodied male between 18 and 40 years of age is liable to militia service. Those who do not serve are subject to a fine, varying in different States, from 3s. upwards; which sum helps to pay those who do duty. The pay of a private while on duty is about 10s. a-day, and that of officers in proportion. Formerly, they only turned out two days in the year; now I believe, they generally turn out ten, and in some of the cities twenty, days annually. The persons excused from militia service, are the clergy, medical men, fire companies, and those who have held a commission for three years. Each regiment settles its own uniform; and it is a strange sight to see companies in French, German, and Highland uniforms, all marching gaily through the streets.

The day of firing at a mark is quite a fête; they parade the town, with the target untouched, on their road to the ground: there they commence firing, at 100 yards; if the bull's-eye be not sufficiently riddled, they get closer and closer, until, perforated and in shreds, it scarce hangs together as they return through the town bearing it aloft in triumph, and followed by all the washed, half-washed, and unwashed aspirants to military glory.

I believe the good sense of the people is endeavouring to break through the system of nationalizing the companies into French, German, Highland, &c., believing that keeping up such distinctions is more calculated to produce discord than harmony. How long it will be before they succeed in eradicating these separate nationalities, I cannot pretend to say.

With respect to their numbers, I cannot give any accurate information. The American Almanack—generally a very useful source of information—puts them down at 2,202,113; which is evidently a little bit of Buncombe, as those figures represent very nearly the whole able-bodied men in the Republic between the ages of 18 and 40. As they are liable to be called on, the Almanack puts them down as though regularly enrolled; their real numbers I leave to the fertility of the imagination. In the same authority, I find the officers calculated at 76,920, of which 765 are generals. These numbers, I imagine, must also go through a powerful process of subtraction before the exact truth would be arrived at, although I believe there are twice 765 citizens who enjoy the titular honour.

One fact, however, is beyond doubt; they have a large militia, accustomed to, and fond of, using fire-arms; and those who feel disposed to approach their shores with hostile intentions, will find the old Scotch motto applicable to them in its fullest sense,—

FOOTNOTES:

[CI]