tion of the powers of Congress ;" and, 3d. and lastly, the continually recurring interest of the presidential and subordinate elections. There is no apparent reason why these "conservative elements" should not have their effect for many centuries to come. In other places the Reviewer finds much to condemn in the two latter elements, yet allows that but for them" the constitution of the United States could scarcely have existed unharmed a year;" i. e. that without some of its most essential features it would be much less advantageous than it is, in practice; which I think that no American will be disposed to contradict. Indeed, notwithstanding the multitude of defects which the Quarterly, in many successive numbers, has discovered in the constitution of the United States, not only as an object of imitation for other governments, in which he may be right, but what is very different, as per se bad for the Americans, he makes as complete an amende as any zealous Republican could require, in these words:" It is a scheme" (bad as it is!) "with which, indeed, the Americans may well be contented; for one better fitted to their situation it might not have been very easy, if possible, to devise." Notwithstanding this high eulogium, it is asserted in the article:-1st. That the law is opposed to large inheritances, and that laws have been made with a view to encroach on the rights of property; 2d. A general approaching division of pro

perty is hinted at; 3dly. That in spite of its advantages, the government is barely able to preserve its vitality against the destroying power (?) within itself. The "federal" or "conservative" power is almost extinct. The democratic party, i. e. the numerical majority, having so much increased. 4thly. That with the "inexhaustible fund of unoccupied land," the time is not far distant,-notwithstanding the "conservative" elements enumerated by the Quarterly, apparently in full vigour, and likely to continue so, and although this is the best possible sort of government for the United States,-the time is not far distant when the " 10,000,000," or it might at once be 13,000,000-for "no opposition," he says above, "to the prevailing system now exists,"-will exercise despotic tyranny. It is difficult to say over whom, as the "single despot," placed, by the Reviewer, in contrast with the millions, exists but as a figure of speech.

An American might fairly be justified in thus commenting upon the observations in the Quarterly.

CHAPTER IX.

United States government well suited to the American people.Testamentary disposition not interfered with by the laws.Division of property.-Conservative principle of American government resides in numerical majority.-Public lands.

BUT the reviewer will find many to agree with him in his former position, viz. "The Americans may well be content with their form of government, in conjunction with the three happy circumstances" which he enumerates, it would indeed not have been possible to devise one better adapted to their country; although even this is thought by him to be on the eve of dissolution. The objections which neutralize this fair assertion require some examination.

First, The law imposes no restrictions on the power of devising property by testament. A man may leave all to his eldest son, or divide it as he pleases, reserving however the widow's dowry.

The law does not interfere with the possession or employment of property in any way: the late Stephen Girardt, a merchant and banker at Philadelphia, is

* The reviewer possibly thought that the French law on testaments was modelled upon that of the United States.

† See an article in the New Monthly for April, 1832, on M. Girard.

a striking example of this. He died worth at least one million and a half or two millions sterling*. A great deal of property in houses and land, in the very heart of Philadelphia, belonged to him; and I recollect an immense square, in a fine situation for building, in that city, which remained inclosed within high paling, unoccupied and unbuilt upon, and applied to no useful purpose for years, and so remaining I believe until his death, a few months ago, from some whim of its proprietor, although "there chanced to be a great many neighbours around him to whom the possession of the land would have been convenient." I do not instance this as a solitary case, and might adduce† others without end to prove the complete power of accumulation and disposal of property in the hands of any individual; but the example of Girard is the more apposite, as he was neither a popular man in manners or habits, nor

* Report says near fifteen millions of dollars, or upwards of three millions sterling.

† At New York there is a gentleman supposed to be of equal wealth with the late Girard, (also acquired solely by his own exertions,) although not of the same singular habits. It would be a violation of the consideration due to private life to say more than that I allude to Mr. J. Astor, known as the founder of a colony on the Colombia River.

Without being miserly, he was very simple and economical in his habits. I have heard, that when he arrived in Philadelphia from France, he was in such humble circumstances that he obtained a living by selling sand and sawing wood in the streets;

politically of the slightest weight or importance, notwithstanding his immense wealth.

It is certain, however, that the principles and habits of the people generally are opposed to leaving the bulk of their fortune to the eldest, or to any one of their children, to the exclusion of the others; and although there are exceptions, yet the rule in practice in the United States is to divide equally or nearly so, the property among all the sons and daughters; this is from choice and feeling the usage and not by law, excepting when a man dies intestate. But it must be remembered, that in a republic, without hereditary titles or honours to support, and with a wide and fair field for the exertion of talent and enterprise, this usage has not the inconvenience to individuals that Europeans generally may suppose, nor is it liable to many of the practical objections which exist to its adoption in countries like ours.

Secondly, That an agrarian law, or any thing approaching to it, is likely to become practicable or popular in the United States, or that it should even be proposed, is so extremely improbable, that one is

at that time he was between thirty and forty years of age. He used to affirm, that the great difficulty in life is to amass the first forty dollars; that afterwards a man, who is not a fool, can always grow rich. Some very munificent acts of his are on record. He was, although uneducated, a man of strong natural good sense and ability, like most of those men who have amassed great wealth from low beginnings.