et. That the Americans did hoax Miss
Martineau, and that they would have hoaxed me if they could, I admit,
but even the Reviewer must acknowledge that they would not _hoax_
themselves. Now it so happens, that this document, which has not long
been discovered, is in the splendid public library of Philadelphia: it
has been carefully preserved in a double plate-glass frame, so as to be
read on both sides without handling; it is expensively mounted, and
shewn to every visitor as a great curiosity, as it certainly is, the
authenticity of it being undeniable, and acknowledged by the Americans.
The paragraph which was expunged is verbatim as I gave it--a paragraph
which affords more proof, if further proof were necessary, that
Jefferson was one of the most unprincipled men who ever existed. The
Reviewer recommends my perusal of the works of this "_great and good
man_," as Miss Martineau calls him. I suspect that I have read more of
Mr Jefferson and other American authors than ever the Reviewer has; and
I consider the writings of this Father of Democracy, opposed to his
private life, to be a remarkable _type_ of democracy in _theory_ and in
_practice_. To borrow a term from the Reviewer, those writings are
"_brave words_" to proceed from an infidel, who proved his ardent love
of liberty by allowing his own children to be put up to auction at his
death, and wear away their existence in misery and bondage. I cannot
help here observing a _trifling inconsistency_ on the part of the
Reviewer. After lauding the Father of Democracy, and recommending me to
read his works; after sneering at our aristocracy by observing, "that no
_kind_ of virtue that we have heard of can suffer much from the loss of
a _court_ and of an _hereditary nobility_;" after, in short, defending
and upholding democracy in every page, all of a sudden the Reviewer
turns round and says, "_We are no general admirers of democracy_."
Indeed! if not general, you certainly appear to be _particular_
admirers; and if neither general nor particular, may I inquire what the
Edinburgh Review has been frothing, fizzing, hissing, and bubbling
about, like a tea-kettle in a passion, for these last twenty years?

Never was there a more convincing proof of the boldness and arrogance
which Reviewers (trusting to the irresponsibility arising from their
concealment) assume, than is afforded by the following passage in the
Edinburgh article:--

"_An ardent pursuit of wealth and