modern innovation. If it were found to answer in democratic America, it would not by any means follow that it might be safely and beneficially adopted under the British monarchy. But if in America the vote by ballot has failed to secure purity of election; if it has produced pernicious and bitter fruits even there, he would be a bold man who should try the experiment of engrafting on our native institutions that foreign offshoot of democracy. A single extract from a New York newspaper, descriptive of the practical influence of the ballot, as exhibited during the election in 1841, may tend to deter us from so dangerous a novelty:

"We begin to fear that this unhappy country is on the eve of a bloody civil war, a final dismemberment of the union-the destruction of the present government, and the ruin of all free institutions. Do you want our reasons? Here they are. The revelations recently made, and daily making, of the gross frauds upon the ballot-box, committed by both parties, give a picture of demoralization that makes the honest heart sick of human life. It really appears to us, that whichever party succeeds at the next election, it will be by fraud on the ballot-box; and if so, the defeated faction will not submit, but resort to physical force to revenge themselves. The frauds at Baltimore, the frauds at Philadelphia, the frauds in Ohio, the frauds in New York, are revealed and revealing; and in spite of explanations, disclosures, oaths, and affidavits by the hogshead, we must believe that the political leaders of both parties are guilty of gross and terrible corruption. According to the best calculation, it appears that in the great Atlantic cities, there has been for three years past a disposable force of five thousand men, distributed in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Albany, and other towns, who were put up to the highest bidder, and driven about from town to town, like cattle, to the poll,

voting as often as they could, and 'laying pipe' in every city and in every ward. Sometimes the Democrats bought up these Hessians-sometimes the Whigs; but they were always to be had by those who had the most money. It appears, also, that this horrible system of fraud had its origin in Philadelphia, and was contemporaneous with the struggles of the United States Bank for a re-charter."

The choice of statesmen in America, and their public conduct, are influenced by several other circumstances, besides the vote by ballot and universal suffrage. By the payment of salaries to representatives and public officers, their appointments become an object of ambition to needy adventurers. The salaries in general are moderate, and in the higher offices are less in proportion than in the subordinate departments. Cheap and dear are relative terms; and an inferior article which is said to cost little, may in fact be dearer than a superior one which costs more. In America the expenses of the government are in the aggregate high, while the character and talents of its functionaries are on the whole of an inferior stamp, and there is a great deal of jobbing and peculation. "I conclude," says M. De Tocqueville, "without having recourse to inaccurate computations, and without hazarding a comparison which might prove to be incorrect, that the democratic government of the Americans is not a cheap government; and I predict without hesitation, that if the people of the United States are ever involved in serious difficulties, the rate of taxation will soon be as high as in the greater number of the aristocracies and monarchies of Europe."

In America, as regards either emolument, or continuance in power, or independence in its exercise, there is little to invite or to reward the exertions of distinguished men. Public offices are held on the precarious tenure of the popular favour, and on the

condition of subserviency to the popular will. Public men are narrowly and jealously watched; and that mental superiority which enables a man of talent to take a more sound and enlarged view of affairs than the multitude can do, and which renders him their best representative, is in fact a disqualification for the part of a mere deputy, who, whatever his own opinions may be, is to speak and act as those who appoint him may dictate. "A proceeding," says M. De Tocqueville, " which will ultimately set all the securities of representative government at nought, is becoming more and more general in the United States. It frequently happens that the electors in choosing a deputy, prescribe to him a certain line of conduct, and require him to pledge himself that he will observe it. Now, with the exception of the tumult, this is just the same as if the majority of the population should hold their deliberations in the market place."

According to the theory and spirit of the British constitution, such is not the proper position of a member of parliament. He is not the delegated tool of a section of the constituency, but the representative of the whole. This important principle was admirably stated by Burke, in his final address to the electors of Bristol." If government were a matter of will upon any side, your's, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, not of inclination. And what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments? Authoritative instructions, mandates which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey; these are things unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mis

take of the whole order and tenor of our constitution. Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different states, and with hostile interests, which interests each must maintain as an agent against other agents; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, and that of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member for Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.”

In America, on the contrary, representatives are more immediately under the controul of their constituents, their dependence upon whom is increased by the regulation which requires that they shall be inhabitants of the state they are chosen to represent. In England a man of talent who may not have "honour in his own country," is often the successful candidate for some distant burgh or county, and in the public service he acquires a national reputation. The American rule must frequently lead to the choice of men strongly influenced by local and temporary prejudices, but not of superior ability and worth. It is not surprising, therefore, that able, upright, and independent men, prefer agriculture, commerce, or a liberal profession, to a political career, in which they are likely to be outstripped by persons of inferior character and attainments, but of greater subserviency to the will of the electors.

"I know not," says M. De Tocqueville, "whether in the United States the people would be willing to elect men of superior talent, who should ask their suffrages; but that such men rarely solicit them is certain." And Mr. Dickens tells us, "that they who in other countries would, from their intelligence and station, most aspire to make the laws, do in America recoil the farthest from that degradation." For these reasons, and also because the tenure of office of the representatives, senators, and public functionaries, is

generally too short and uncertain to enable them to acquire experience, the qualifications of American statesmen are seldom of a high order.

Although Pope's well known lines are not absolutely true, they contain truth :

For forms of government let fools contest;
Whate'er is best administered is best.

And it is obvious, that a form of government which from its very nature is administered by inferior and inefficient statesmen cannot be a good one. How far is this view borne out by the character of the legislative assemblies of the United States?

The house of representatives of the supreme government at Washington corresponds to the British house of commons. Mr. Fearon, an English radical, thus described it in 1817:-"They want in appearance the age, experience, dignity, and respectability, which we associate with the idea of legislators, and which are possessed by the superior branch of Congress. ..... Some two or three speakers regularly command attention; others talk on as long as they please, the members being occupied in writing letters, and in reading and folding up newspapers."

M. De Tocqueville, in 1830, described it as follows:"When you enter the house of representatives at Washington, you are surprised by the vulgar appearance of that great assembly. In vain do you look around for any man of great celebrity. The members are generally obscure individuals, whose names suggest nothing remarkable. For the most part, they are village attornies, tradesmen, or persons in some humble employment. Though education is almost universal in America, it is said the representatives of the people cannot always write correctly."

The legislative assemblies of some of the states fall