Mr. ——­, the English charge d’affaires, whom I had known slightly at Paris, and Mr. ——­, who had once belonged to the English legation in Washington, were on the Plateforme.  The latter told me that Carroll of Carrolton was dead; that he had been dead a year, and that he had written letters of condolence on the occasion.  I assured him that the old gentleman was alive on the 4th July last, for I had seen one of his letters in the public journals.  Here was a capital windfall for a regular diplomate, who now, clearly, had nothing to do but to hurry home and write letters of felicitation!

The late changes in England have produced more than the usual mutations in her diplomatic corps, which, under ordinary circumstances, important trusts excepted, has hitherto been considered at the disposal of any minister.  In America we make it matter of reproach that men are dismissed from office on account of their political opinions, and it is usual to cite England as an example of greater liberality.  All this is singularly unjust, because in its spirit, like nine-tenths of our popular notions of England, it is singularly untrue.  The changes of ministry, which merely involve the changes incident on taking power from one clique of the aristocracy to give it to another, have not hitherto involved questions of sufficient importance to render it matter of moment to purge all the lists of the disaffected; but since the recent serious struggles we have seen changes that do not occur even in America.  Every Tory, for instance, is ousted from the legations, if we except nameless subordinates.  The same purification is going on elsewhere, though the English system does not so much insist on the changes of employes, as that the employes themselves should change their opinions.  How long would an English tide-waiter, for instance, keep his place should he vote against the ministerial candidate?  I apprehend these things depend on a common principle (i. e. self-interest) everywhere, and that it makes little difference, in substance, what the form of government may happen to be.

But of all the charges that have been brought against us, the comparative instability of the public favour, supposed to be a consequence of fluctuations in the popular will, is the most audacious, for it is contradicted by the example of every royal government in Christendom.  Since the formation of the present American constitution, there have been but two changes of administration, that have involved changes of principles, or changes in popular will;—­that which placed Mr. Jefferson in the seat of Mr. Adams, senior, and that which placed Mr. Jackson in the seat of Mr. Adams, junior:  whereas, during the short period of my visit to Europe, I have witnessed six or seven absolute changes of the English ministry, and more than twenty in France, besides one revolution.  Liberty has been, hitherto, in the situation of the lion whose picture was drawn by a man, but which there was reason to think would receive more favourable touches, when the lion himself should take up the pallet.