exultation, that they
never could have an Aristocracy in their country, from the law of entail
having been abolished. They often asserted, and with some truth, that
in that country property never accumulated beyond two generations, and
that the grandson of a _millionaire_ was _invariably_ a pauper. This
they ascribe to the working of their institutions, and argue that it
will always be impossible for any family to be raised above the mass by
a descent of property. Now the very circumstance of this having been
invariably the case, induces me to look for the real cause of it, as
there is none to be found in their institutions why all the grandsons of
_millionaires_ should be paupers. It is not owing to their
institutions, but to moral causes, which, although they have existed
until now, will not exist for ever. In the principal and wealthiest
cities in the Union, it is difficult to spend more than twelve or
fifteen thousand dollars per annum, as with such an expenditure you are
on a par with the highest, and you can be no more. What is the
consequence? a young American succeeds to fifty or sixty thousand
dollars a year, the surplus is useless to him; there is no one to vie
with--no one who can reciprocate--he must stand alone. He naturally
feels careless about what he finds to be of no use to him. Again, all
his friends and acquaintances are actively employed during the whole of
the day in their several occupations; he is a man of leisure, and must
either remain alone or associate with other men of leisure; and who are
the majority of men of leisure in the towns of the United States?
Blacklegs of genteel exterior and fashionable appearance, with whom he
associates, into whose snares he falls, and to whom he eventually loses
property about which he is indifferent. To be an idle man when every
body else is busy, is not only a great unhappiness, but a situation of
great peril. Had the sons of _millionaires_, who remained in the States
and left their children paupers, come over to the old Continent, as many
have done, they would have stood a better chance of retaining their
property.

All I can say is, that if they cannot have an aristocracy, the worse for
them; I am not of the opinion, that they will not have one, although
they are supported by the strong authority of M. Tocqueville, who
says--"I do not think a single people can be quoted, since human society
began to exist, which has, by its own free-will and by