Scarce had the last charming couple disappeared, when a deputy arose,

the antipodes of the last speaker; his manner was so arrogant, I

instantly suspected his ignorance, and his observations showed such

painful sensitiveness, that they were evidently the production of an

accusing conscience. His parentage I could not ascertain accurately;

but, being a slight judge of horseflesh, I should suspect he was by

"Slave-bully" out of "Kantankerousina,"--a breed by no means rare in

America, but thought very little of by the knowing ones. On referring to

the list, I found he was entered as "Recriminator," and that the rest of

the deputation had refused to give him a warranty. He sprang up with

angry activity; he placed his left hand on his breast, the right hand he

extended with cataleptic rigidity, and with an expression of countenance

which I can only compare to that of an injured female of spotless

virtue, he began, "You, sir--yes, I say, you, sir--you presume to speak

of the slave--you, sir, who come from a nation of slaves, whose rampant

aristocrats feed on the blood of their serfs, where title is another

word for villany, and treads honesty beneath its iron heel! You, sir,

you offer suggestions for the benefit of a country whose prosperity

excites your jealousy, and whose institutions arouse mingled feelings of

hatred and fear! Go home, sir--go home! no more of your canting

hypocrisy about the lusty negro! go home, sir, I say! enrich your own

poor, clothe your naked, and feed your own starving--the negro here is

better off than most of them! Imitate the example of this free and

enlightened nation, where every citizen is an independent sovereign;

send your royalty and, aristocracy to all mighty smash, raise the cap of

Liberty on the lofty pole of Democracy, and let the sinews of men obtain

their just triumphs over the flimsy rubbish of intellect and capital!

Tyranny alone makes differences. All men are equal!"--He concluded his

harangue just in time to save a fit, for it was given with all the fuss

and fury of a penny theatre King Richard; in fact, I felt at one time

strongly inclined to call for "a horse," but, having accepted the

deputation, I was bound to treat its members with courtesy; so I

replied, "Sir, your elegantly expressed opinions of royalty, &c.,

require nothing but ordinary knowledge to show their absurdity, so I

will not detain you by dwelling on that subject; but, sir, you

studiously avoid alluding to the condition of the slave, and, by seeking

for a fault elsewhere, endeavour to throw a cloak over the subject of

this meeting. You tell me the poor in England need much clothing and

food--that is very true; but, sir, if every pauper had a fur cloak and a

round of beef, I cannot see the advantage the negro would derive

therefrom. Again, sir, you say the negro is better off than many of our

poor; so he is far better off than many of the drunken rowdies of your

own large towns; yet I have never heard it suggested that they should be

transformed into slaves, by way of bettering their condition. Take my

advice, sir; before you throw stones, he sure that there is not a pane

of glass in your Cap of Liberty big enough for 3,000,000 of slaves to

look through. And pray, sir, do not forget, 'Tyranny alone makes

differences. All men are equal!'"

A slam of the door announced the departure and the temper of

Recriminator, and it also brought upon his feet another deputy who had

kept hitherto quite in the background. He evidently was anxious for a

private audience, but that being impossible, he whispered in my ear,

"Sir, I am an abolitionist, slick straight off; and all I have got to

say is, that you are a soap-suddy, milk-and-water friend to the slave,

fix it how you will." Seeing he was impatient to be off, I whispered to

him in reply, "Sir, there is an old prayer that has often been uttered

with great sincerity, and is probably being so uttered now by more than

one intelligent slave: it is this, 'Good Lord, save me from my friends.'

The exertions of your party, sir, remind me much of those of a man who

went to pull a friend out of the mud, but, by a zeal without discretion,

he jumped on his friend's head, and stuck him faster than ever."

When he disappeared, I was in hopes it was all over; but a very

mild-tempered looking man, with a broad intelligent forehead, got up,

and, approaching me in the most friendly manner, said, "Sir, I both

admit and deplore the evil of the institution you have been discussing,

but its stupendous difficulties require a much longer residence than

yours has been to fathom them; and until they are fully fathomed, the

remedies proposed must be in many cases very unsuitable, uncalled for,

and insufficient. However, sir, I accept your remarks in the same

friendly spirit as, I am sure, you have offered them. Permit me, at the

same time, as one many years your senior, to say that, in considering

your proposals, I shall separate the chaff--of which there is a good

deal--from the wheat--of which there is some little; the latter I shall

gather into my mind's garner, and I trust it will fall on good soil." I

took the old gentleman's hand and shook it warmly, and, as he retired, I

made up my mind he was the sensible slave-owner.

I was about to leave the scene, quite delighted that the ordeal was

over, when, to my horror, I heard a strong Northern voice calling out

lustily, "Stranger, I guess I have a word for you." On turning round I

beheld a man with a keen Hebrew eye, an Alleghany ridge nose, and a chin

like the rounded half of a French roll. I was evidently alone with a

'cute man of dollars and cents. On my fronting him, he said, with

Spartan brevity, "Who's to pay?" Conceive, O reader! my consternation at

being called upon to explain who was to make compensation for the

sweeping away--to a considerable extent, at all events--of what

represented, in human flesh, 250,000,000l., and in the produce of its

labour 80,000,000l. annually!

Answer I must; so, putting on an Exchequery expression, I said, "Sir, if

a national stain is to be washed out, the nation are in honour bound to

pay for the soap. England has set you a noble example under similar

circumstances, and the zeal of the abolitionists will, no doubt, make

them tax themselves double; but as for suggesting to you by what tax the

money is to be raised, you must excuse me, sir. I am a Britisher, and

remembering how skittish you were some years ago about a little stamp

and tea affair, I think I may fairly decline answering your question

more in detail; a burnt child dreads the fire."--The 'cute man

disappeared and took the vision with him; in its place came the reality

of 2 A.M. and the candles flickering in their sockets.

Reader, I have now done with the question of the gradual improvement and

ultimate emancipation of the slave. The public institutions of any

country are legitimate subjects of comment for the traveller, and in

proportion as his own countrymen feel an interest in them, so is it

natural he should comment on them at greater or less length. I have,

therefore, dwelt at large upon this subject, from the conviction that it

is one in which the deepest interest is felt at home; and I trust that I

have so treated it as to give no just cause of offence to any one,

whether English or American.

I hope I have impressed my own countrymen with some idea of the gigantic

obstacles that present themselves, of which I will but recapitulate

three;--the enormous pecuniary interests involved; the social difficulty

arising from the amount of negro population; and, though last not least,

the perplexing problem--if Washington's opinion, that "Slavery can only

cease by legislative authority," is received--how Congress can legislate

for independent and sovereign States beyond the limits of the

Constitution by which they are mutually bound to each other. I feel sure

that much of the rabid outcry, the ovation of Mrs. B. Stowe, and other

similar exhibitions, have arisen from an all but total ignorance of the

true facts of the case. This ignorance it has been my object to dispel;

and I unhesitatingly declare that the emancipation of the negroes

throughout the Southern States, if it took place to-morrow, would be the

greatest curse the white man could inflict upon them. I also trust that

I may have shadowed forth some useful idea, to assist my Southern

friends in overtaking a gangrene which lies at their heart's core, and

which every reflecting mind must see is eating into their vitals with

fearful rapidity. My last and not my least sincere hope is, that some

one among the many suggestions I have offered for the negro's present

benefit, may be found available to mitigate the undoubted sufferings and

cruel injustice of which those with bad masters must frequently be the

victims. Should I succeed in even one solitary instance, I shall feel

more than repaid for the many hours of thought and trouble I have spent

over the intricate problem--the best road from Slavery to Emancipation.

Since writing the foregoing, 20,000,000 freemen, by the decision of

their representatives at Washington, have hung another negro's shackle

on their pole of Liberty (?). Kansas is enslaved--freedom is

dishonoured. As a proof how easily those who are brought up under the

institution of Slavery blind themselves to the most simple facts, Mr.

Badger, the senator for North Carolina, after eulogizing the treatment

of slaves, and enlarging upon the affection between them and their

masters, stated that, if Nebraska was not declared a Slave State[CA] it

would preclude him, should he wish to settle there, from taking with him

his "old mammy,"--the negro woman who had nursed him in infancy. Mr.

Wade, from Ohio, replied, "that the senator was labouring under a

mistake; there was nothing to prevent his taking his beloved mammy

with him, though Nebraska remained free, except it were that he could

not sell her when he got there."

Let the Christian learn charity from the despised Mussulman. Read the

following proclamation:--

"From the Servant of God, the Mushir Ahmed Basha Bey, Prince of the

Tunisian dominions.

"To our ally, Sir Thomas Reade, Consul-General of the British

Government at Tunis.

"The servitude imposed on a part of the human kind whom God has

created is a very cruel thing, and our heart shrinks from it.

"It never ceased to be the object of our attention for years past,

which we employed in adopting such proper means as could bring us to

its extirpation, as is well known to you. Now, therefore, we have

thought proper to publish that we have abolished men's slavery in all

our dominions, inasmuch as we regard all slaves who are on our

territory as free, and do not recognise the legality of their being

kept as a property. We have sent the necessary orders to all the

governors of our Tunisian kingdom, and inform you thereof, in order

that you may know that all slaves that shall touch our territory, by

sea or by land, shall become free.

"May you live under the protection of God!

"Written in Moharrem, 1262." (23rd of January, 1846.)

What a bitter satire upon the vaunted "Land of Liberty" have her sons

enacted since the Mahometan Prince penned the above! Not only has the

slave territory been nearly doubled in the present century; but by a

recent decision of the Supreme Court, every law which _has been_ passed

by Congress restricting slavery, is pronounced contrary to the

constitution, and therefore invalid. Congress is declared powerless to

prohibit slavery from any portion of the Federal Territory, or to

authorize the inhabitants to do so; the African race, whether slave or

free, are declared not to be citizens, and consequently to be

incompetent to sue in the United States' Courts, and the slave-owner is

pronounced authorized to carry his rights into every corner of the

Union, despite the decrees of Congress or the will of the inhabitants.

In short, in the year 1857, upwards of eighty years after Washington and

his noble band declared--and at the point of the sword won--their

independence, and after so many States have purified their shields from

the negro's blood, the highest tribunal in the Republic has decreed that

the rights of the slave-owner extend to every inch of the Federal soil,

and that by their Constitution _the United States is a Slave Republic._

What will the end be? A few short years have rolled past since the

foregoing remarks were penned, and in that interval the question of

Slavery has again made the Union tremble to its uttermost borders. The

cloud, not bigger than a man's hand, was sped by President Pierce's

administration to the new State of Kansas, and ere long it burst in a

deluge of ruffianism and blood; the halls of Congress were dishonoured

by the violent assault which Mr. Brookes (a Southern senator) made upon

Mr. Sumner of Massachusetts; the Press spread far and wide the

ignominious fact, that the ladies of his State presented the assailant

with a cane, inscribed "Hit him again!" the State itself endorsed his

act by re-electing him unanimously; North and South are ranged in bitter

hostility; in each large meetings have advocated a separation, in terms

of rancour and enmity; and it is to be feared the Union does not possess

a man of sufficient weight and character to spread oil over the troubled

waters.

How will "Manifest Destiny" unfold itself, and what will the end

be?--The cup must fill first.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote BY: Many of my suggestions, the reader will observe, are drawn

from the Cuba code.]

[Footnote BZ: In Peru, the maximum of stripes the law permits to be

inflicted is twelve; and girls above fourteen, married women, fathers of

children, and old men, are exempt from the lash.]

[Footnote CA: At the time of the discussion, the Nebraska territory

included Nebraska and Kansas]

CHAPTER XXVII.

_Constitution of United States._

The most important subject that claims the attention of the traveller in

any country that pretends to education or civilization, is undoubtedly

its Constitution. The reader cannot expect--and most probably would not

wish--to find, in a work like this, any elaborate account of the

government of so vast and varied a republic as that of the United

States. Those who wish thoroughly to grasp so very extensive a topic

must study the history of each individual State from its foundation;

must watch the changes each has undergone, noting the effect produced;

and must carefully pore over the writings of the great men who

originally planned--if I may so express myself--the Republic, and must

dive deep into the learned and valuable tomes of Story, Kent, &c. Those

who are content with more moderate information, will find a great deal,

very ably condensed, in a volume by Mr. Tremenheere. To the reader, I

pretend to offer nothing but a glance at such elements as appear to me

most useful and interesting; and in so doing, I shall freely borrow such

quotations from Mr. Tremenheere's references to Story and Kent as I

conceive may help to elucidate my subject, not having those authors at

hand to refer to.

The Government of the United States consists of three departments,--the

Executive, Legislative, and Judicial; or the President, the House of

Representatives and Senate, and the Judicial Courts. The President and

Vice-President are chosen by an elective body from all the States, the

said body being selected by popular vote in each State. The

Vice-President is _ex officio_ Speaker or President of the Senate, and

in case of the chief dying, he becomes for the remainder of the term the

President of the United States. They are elected for 4 years, but may be

re-elected indefinitely. Should the votes be equal, the House of

Representatives selects the President from the three on the list who

have most votes, and the Senate selects the Vice in the same way. The

qualifications for President and Vice are--native born, 35 years of age,

and 14 years' residence in the States. The salary of the President is

about 5100l. a year, and a residence at Washington, called "The White

House." The salary of the Vice-President is 1680l. a year. There are

five Secretaries,--State, Interior, Treasury, War, Navy, and a

Postmaster-General; the Attorney-General also forms part of the Cabinet.

These officials also receive the same salary. The Senate is composed of

two members from each State, irrespective of population, so as not to

swamp the small States. The election is by the Legislature of each

State, and for 6 years; one-third of their number go out every 2 years.

The qualification for a senator is that he should be 30 years of age,

have been 9 years a citizen, and living in the State for which he is

elected. The House of Representatives originally consisted of one member

for a certain amount of population, and as the increase in population

was very rapid, the number of Representatives increased as a matter of

course. In 1843, it was one member for every 70,000 of population, but,

to prevent the body from becoming unmanageable owing to numbers, in 1853

the House was limited to 234 Representatives, elected _pro ratâ_ to the

several States. Slaves are reckoned in the proportion of three-fifths of

their number. The preliminary steps are, that every 10 years a census is

taken, after which a bill is passed by Congress, apportioning number of

representatives to each State, according to its population. This done,

each State passes a law, districting the State according to the number

of members assigned it, and each district elects its own representative

for Congress. The election is for 2 years, and the qualification is 7

years a citizen, 25 years of age, and living in the State. The salary is

the same as that of a senator. The names of members composing a division

on any question in either house, are not printed unless they are

demanded by one-fifth of the members present. One of the clauses of

their Constitution is very original, and runs thus:--"Each House may

determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for

disorderly behaviour, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a

member."

All impeachments are tried in the Senate, and a majority of two-thirds

is requisite for a conviction. If the President be on trial, the Chief

Justice, or head of the Supreme Court, presides. While power of trial

rests with the Senate, the power of impeachment rests solely with the

House of Representatives. In addition to the ordinary functions of an

Upper House, the Senate has also what is called "an Executive Session,"

which is held with closed doors; at this Session all treaties and high

appointments are discussed, and the appointments are not held to be

valid till ratified by them. Whenever fresh land becomes sufficiently

populous, the general Government admit it as territory, and appoint an

administration. This was the case with Nebraska and Kansas in 1853; and

the "Missouri Compromise" (which confined slavery south of the 36º 3'

parallel of latitude) having been repealed, it became optional with them

to adopt slavery or not. Kansas fought barbarously for the dishonourable

privilege, and with temporary success: Nebraska has declined the honour

as yet. The interests of territories are watched over at Washington by

delegates in the House of Representatives, who have a seat, but no vote.

This sensible arrangement might, in my humble opinion, be adopted in

this country with reference to our colonies, whose wants at present have

no interpreter intimately acquainted with colonial affairs in either

branch of the Legislature.

Each State in the Union has its own Governor, House of Representatives,

Senate, and Judiciary, and is in every respect a sovereign State--they

like the word as much as they pretend to dislike the reality--acting

perfectly independently within its limits, except in such cases as were

mutually agreed upon by the terms of the Union, and to some of which we

shall refer by and by. This sovereignty of individual States renders the

elective franchise different in different States.

At the date of the first elections after the Declaration of

Independence, no State admitted mere citizenship as a qualification for

the elective franchise. The great men who appeared upon the stage at

that period, profiting by the experience of past ages, threw certain

guards around the franchise in every State in the Union, varying in

different States, but all bearing unmistakeable testimony to the fact,

that a perfect democracy was not the basis on which they ever

contemplated building up the Republic. A few short years have rolled by;

the 13 States are increased to 33, and according to Mr. Tremenheere, "a

grave departure from the theory of the Constitution, as it existed in

the eyes and expectations of its careful and prudent founders, has taken

place, in the gradual lowering throughout nearly all the States of the

Union, and the entire abandonment in two-thirds of them, of those

qualifications for the exercise of the franchise which existed when the

Constitution was adopted." In one State--Illinois--aliens being

residents are entitled to vote. Now, if the great men of 1776 thought

safeguards around the franchise wise and prudent in their day, before

the great tide of emigration had set in to the westward, and when the

population was only 4,000,000, what would they say, could they but rise

from their graves and see how their successors have thrown down the

prudent barriers they had raised, and laid the franchise bare to

citizenship, now that the Union numbers 23,000,000 souls, and that the

tide of emigration is daily flooding them with hordes of the

discontented and turbulent from every country in the Old World?

But perhaps it may be said that I, as an Englishman, am prejudiced

against republican institutions in any shape; let me, then, quote you an

authority which every educated American will respect. Mr. Justice Kent

says, "The progress and impulse of popular opinion, is rapidly

destroying every constitutional check, every conservative element,

intended by the sages who framed the earliest American Constitutions as

safeguards against the abuses of popular suffrage." Let us turn to

another equally eminent American authority, Mr. Justice Story. "It might

be urged, that it is far from being clear, upon reasoning or experience,

that uniformity in the composition of a representative body is either

desirable or expedient, founded in sounder policy, or more promotive of

the general good, than a mixed system, embracing, representing, and

combining distinct interests, classes, and opinions. In England, the

House of Commons, as a representative body, is founded upon no uniform

principle, either of numbers, or classes, or places; ... and in every

system of reform which has found public favour in that country, many of

these diversities have been embodied from choice, as important checks

upon undue legislation, as facilitating the representation of different

interests and different opinions, and as thus securing, by a

well-balanced and intelligent representation of all the various classes

of society, a permanent protection of the public liberties of the

people, and a firm security of the private rights of persons and

property."

Thus far I have quoted the opinions of the highest American authorities

upon the franchise. And, as far as the lowering it in England affords us

any light, I would wish some unbiased and competent person to inform the

public, whether--whatever other benefit it may have procured to the

community--it has increased or decreased bribery and corruption; and how

the balance between advantage and disadvantage will stand, in reference

to the community at large, by a further lowering of the franchise in

this country; and also to what extent--if any--it can be lowered,

without throwing all but unlimited power into the hands of the masses,

and thus destroying that balance of the different interests of the

community which are--thank God--still represented, and which, if once

lost, would reduce our beloved Sovereign to the position of a gaudy

puppet, and the House of Lords to a mere cypher, and be as certainly

followed by all the horrors of a revolution, and all the evils of a

corrupt democracy. How easy is it to find politicians ever ready to

sniff the incense of popularity at the plausible shrine of a descending

franchise!--how difficult to find those who, while granting what is just

and prudent, have the wisdom to plan, and the courage to dare, measures

to arrest a mobular avalanche!

With regard to the frequency of elections, I will only insert the

following sentence from Mr. Justice Story, as, I believe, public opinion

in this country is all but universal in its condemnation: "Men, to act

with vigour and effect, ... must not be hurried on to their conclusions

by the passions of elections has a tendency to create agitation and

dissensions in the public mind, to nourish factions and encourage

restlessness, to favour rash innovations in domestic legislation and

public policy, and to produce violent and sudden changes in the

administration of public affairs, founded upon temporary excitements and

prejudices: ... it operates also as a great discouragement upon suitable

candidates offering themselves for the public service ... the period of

service ought, therefore, to bear some proportion to the variety of

knowledge and practical skill which the duties of the station

demand."--If any annual-parliament maniac still exist, let him profit by

these words of wisdom from the pen of a republican, dipped in the ink of

Prudence and Patriotism; and in the marked difference between the House

of Representatives and the Senate Chamber--the former of whom are

elected for two, the latter for six years--let him behold the most

incontrovertible living proof's of their truth. John Jay, one of the

most able men of America, writing to Washington, expresses his wish that

the Upper House, or Senate, should be elected for life.

I will now turn to a topic which probably interests the British public

more than any other--except the franchise--I mean the Ballot. So much

has been said about the coercion of voters by those on whom they are

dependent, and so much disgraceful jobbery at elections in this country

has been laid bare, that if the Ballot were really a panacea for the

evil, every patriot should exert his utmost energies to forward the

introduction of so essential a measure. In reading any American document

where the word "ballot" is used, it must be remembered that, unless the

word "secret" precede it, the meaning is merely voting by an open piece

of paper on which the name of the candidate is printed, and which he may

enclose in an envelope or not, as he chooses. It is, therefore, only

with the secret ballot we have to deal at present; for although the

power to vote secretly exists, it is obvious, that unless secret voting

is made compulsory, it affords no protection to those who are in a

position to be bribed or coerced, inasmuch as those who did bribe or

coerce would insist upon the vote so obtained being given openly.

It will perhaps astonish an Englishman to be told that "secret" ballot

is all but unknown in the United States. Nevertheless, such is the case.

An act was passed some four years ago in Massachusetts requiring

secrecy; and what was the effect of this act? A large body of the

electors met together to denounce with indignation any attempt at

enforcing that which they repudiated as unworthy of freemen. So strong

was this feeling that in 1853, the act which enforced it was repealed,

and in the convention called to discuss the revision of their

Constitution--according to Mr. Tremenheere--although the democratic

party were in a great majority, the effort to impose secrecy was thrown

out by a majority of 5000[CB].

A friend of mine, who took considerable interest in this question, was

present at the elections for the State of Massachusetts, and when, at

the same time, a popular vote was to be taken on the proposed revision

of the Constitution; this latter was by special enactment made

compulsorily secret. How far this object was attained, the following

statement will show. As the voters came up to the polling-place, tickets

were offered them by the agents of the opposite parties, in a large room

full of people. The voters selected whichever ticket they preferred, in

the presence of the whole room, and then, in compliance with the terms

of the enactment, they sealed it up in an envelope before depositing it

in the voting-box. So much for compulsory secrecy. Of course on this

occasion, as on all electioneering occasions, the voters might have

concealed their votes, had they chosen so to do.

The only States, that I am aware of, where secrecy is enjoined by law

are New York and Indiana; and in the former of these I can most

certainly testify, from personal observation, that in many instances, if

not in most, it is a dead letter. I never met a soul who, in talking

about politics, ever thought of concealing his sentiments. I am

therefore forced to the conclusion that secrecy only exists among the

very lowest; and here it may be as well to introduce the opinions of the

Governor of this important State. Mr. Washington Hunt, in his Message of

January 7, 1851, says, "The alarming increase of bribery in our popular

elections demands your serious attention. The preservation of our

liberties depends on the purity of the elective franchise, and its

independent exercise by the citizen, and I trust you will adopt such

measures as shall effectually protect the ballot-box from all corrupting

influences."

If any efforts were made to stay the tide of corruption, the message of

the same Governor the following year will enable you to judge of their

success. In his address on the 6th of January, 1852, this paragraph

occurs: "The increase of corrupt practices in our elections has become a

subject of general and just complaint: it is represented that in some

localities the suffrages of considerable numbers of voters have been

openly purchased with money. We owe it to ourselves and to posterity,

and to the free institutions which we have inherited, to crush this

hateful evil in its infancy, before it attains sufficient growth to

endanger our political system. The honest and independent exercise of

the right of suffrage is a vital principle in the theory of

representative government. It is the only enduring foundation for a

republic. Not only should the law punish every violation of this

principle as a crime against the integrity of the State, but any person

concerned in giving or receiving any pecuniary consideration for a vote

should, upon challenge, be deprived of the privilege of voting. I submit

the subject to your consideration, in the hope that additional remedies

may be prescribed and enforced."--The two foregoing extracts do equal

credit to the head and heart of Governor Hunt; but what a picture do

they portray of the effects of secret voting!

Let us now turn from Governor Hunt, and see what the Press says on the

subject. The _New York Herald_, which if not highly esteemed is at least

widely circulated, thus writes in the month of May, 1852:--"Look at the

proceedings on Thursday last in the 19th Ward. Voters carried to the

ballot-boxes in scores of waggons from, various localities; and, in

other wards, hundreds of democrats voting for Scott and for Fillmore,

men ignorant and steeped in crime, picked up in all the purlieus of the

city and purchased at a dollar a head; and some, it is said, so low as

half a dollar, to deposit in the ballot-box a vote they had never

seen."--The article then goes on to explain the methods employed at

elections--viz., a lazy fellow who wont work, brawls, and drinks, and

spouts, and defames every honest man in the ward, till he becomes a

semi-deity among the riff-raff, then "his position is found out by those

who want to use him. He is for sale to the highest bidder, either to

defeat his own party by treachery, or to procure a nomination for any

scoundrel who will pay for it. He has no politics of any kind. He has

rascality to sell, and there are those who are willing to purchase it,

in order that they may traffic in it, and sell it to themselves again at

a very high profit.... We have heard of a case in one of the Lower Wards

of the city, in which one man got, at the time of the late democratic

conventions, the enormous sum of two thousand dollars, out of which it

is said he bribed the majority of the electors and kept the balance for

himself."

A few paragraphs further on he suggests remedies for the evil;--and what

do you suppose they are? First, that honest people should not leave

politics to the riff-raff. Secondly, "there ought to be a registration

established, by which no man could sail under false colours, or deposit

a vote at a primary election, unless he belonged to the ward, and

belonged to the party to which he professed to belong." Conceive the

state to which secret voting has reduced the wealthy and intelligent

city of New York; absolutely, a return to open voting is considered

insufficient to reach the vitals of the evil which secrecy has brought

about. Here we have proposed as a remedy _the compulsory register of

political sentiments_; and to prove that things are not mending, in the

"Retrospect of the year 1852," which forms a leading article in the same

journal at the commencement of 1853, after a lengthy panegyric upon the

state of America, &c., during 1852, he winds up with these most serious

drawbacks to the previous eulogy: "if we are bound to admit with crimson

blush that crime is sadly on the increase, and that our municipal

institutions have reached the lowest depths of inefficiency and infamy,

these but remind us that the work which 1852 has bravely carried on is

not yet achieved."--I would wish carefully to guard against being

understood to endorse the violent language employed by the _New York

Herald_. I am aware how unsafe a guide the Press ever is in times of

political excitement; but after making every reasonable allowance,

enough remains to prove the tendency of the secret ballot, corroborated

as it is by the authoritative message of the Governor of the State.

Let us now turn for a moment to that most witty and amusing writer,

Sydney Smith. In speaking of Mr. Grote's proposal for the ballot, the

author says, "He tells us that the bold cannot be free, and bids us

seek for liberty by clothing ourselves in the mask of falsehood, and

trampling on the cross of truth;"--and further on, towards the end of

the pamphlet, he quotes an authority that Americans must respect--"Old

John Randolph, the American orator, was asked one day, at a dinner-party

in London, whether the ballot prevailed in his State of Virginia? 'I

scarcely believe,' he said, 'we have such a fool in all Virginia as to

mention even the vote by ballot; and I do not hesitate to say that the

adoption of the ballot would make any nation a set of scoundrels if it

did not find them so.'"--John Randolph was right; he felt that it was

not necessary that a people should be false in order to be free.

Universal hypocrisy would be the consequence of ballot. We should soon

say, on deliberation, what David only asserted in his haste, that "all

men are liars."[CC]--How strangely prophetic the opinion of John

Randolph appears, when read by the light of the _New York Herald_ of

1852.

It has always appeared to me that the argument in favour of ballot which

is drawn from its use in clubs, if it prove anything at all, is rather

against than for it; its value there arises from the fact of the

independence of the members, which enables any member if asked by the

rejected candidate how he had voted, to decline giving any answer

without fear of consequences. Were he dependent, he must either deny the

black-ball he gave, had he so voted, or, confessing the fact, he must

suffer for it, and silence would be sure to be construed into a

black-ball: therefore, before ballot could be of any value to a

constituency, they must be independent; and if independent, there would

be no need of the ballot. Of course secrecy could be obtained by

falsehood. Moreover, the object of it in a club is to keep out of a

select society not only those who are considered absolutely offensive,

but many with whom, though you might like to meet them in general

society, you do not think it desirable to be on more intimate terms; and

even in a club, who will deny that it is often used to gratify private

malice, and frequently, when candidates are numerous, are black-balls

put in to hasten forward the election of friends? While freely

confessing and deeply regretting the disgraceful jobbery and bribery

which an inquiry into our own elections too often reveals, we ought to

be thankful for the light of experience which a contemplation of the

elective system of the United States affords, warning us as it does that

an imprudent lowering of the franchise and a recourse to the secret

ballot do but aggravate the evils they were intended to cure. Before we

proceed to lower our franchise, should we not do wisely to try and

devise some means for obtaining the votes of those already entitled to

vote? Many an honest and industrious artisan at present entitled to a

vote will not come to the poll on account of the violence which--if not

of the mobular party--he may be subject to; his family depend on his

exertions for their daily bread--a broken limb, or any such accident

happening to him, may bring the whole family to deep distress, if not to

the workhouse. It appears by the _Edinburgh Review_ of October, 1852,

that at a previous general election, 40 per cent, of those possessing

the privilege did not poll their votes. A hasty lowering of the

franchise would certainly increase that number, and thus while losing

more votes of the peaceful and industrious citizens, we should be

increasing those of the more turbulent, and of those who are excited by

designing demagogues.

But to return to the United States. In the former edition I omitted to

explain that "a Congress" meant a Parliament for two years--the term for

which the representatives are elected. One of the sessions is from the

first Monday in December to about the end of August, and is called the

long session; the other commences the same day, and sits till the 4th

March, and is called the short session; but, besides these regular

sittings, there may be extra sessions as often as the President thinks

fit to assemble Congress. At the time I was in the States, by a fiction

very agreeable to the members, if Congress closed the session on Monday,

and the President ordered its reassembling on Tuesday, the members were

supposed to be at their respective homes, and received mileage payment

accordingly. This snug little bonus was called "constructive mileage."

In the year 1856 an act was passed fixing the payment of members at

1260l. each for their services in each Congress of two years, and

abolishing the constructive mileage job. The only deduction from the

above is that made for non-attendance of members. The payment is thus

arranged:--Each member receives 1l. 13s. 6d. for every day he

attends in Congress; the whole number of days a session lasts are

calculated at the above rate, and the difference between that amount and

630l. (the half of 1260l.) is a bonus given, at the end of the first

year's session, and is in lieu of all further payments for any extra

sessions which the President may think it advisable to call during the

year. It will thus be seen that each member receives the same sum, minus

1l. 13s. 6d. for every day's non-attendance.

Mileage is allowed at the rate of 1l. 13s. 6d.. for every twenty

miles distance to and fro, but only for one session each; year. The

advantage Texas and Californian members obtain from this liberal

allowance is obvious, and its injustice is felt by those who live in the

neighbouring States to Washington.

Now, as travelling, in most parts of the Union, is at the rate of less

than 2d. a mile, and living at the rate of two and a half dollars

(10s. 6d.) a day, it is obvious that the situation of a

representative is advantageous in a pecuniary point of view to those who

wish to make a trade of politics. A member coming from a distance, say

of 200 miles, and attending 120 days, would have a clear balance of

about 150l. left for the rest of the year; and a member from Texas

would clear about 500l. How far such a measure is wise, and brings the

most desirable men into the public service, let their own countrymen

tell. Mr. Venables, of North Carolina, in a speech at Richmond, Virginia

(quoted by Mr. Tremenheere) says, "With money enough, any bill can be

carried through Congress." No nation--and, least of all, so very

sensitive a nation as the United States--would pass an act which could

possibly throw a cloud of doubt over the integrity of its

representatives were there not some imperative necessity; the act

referred to below will be found in page 363 of _Appendix_ to

Tremenheere's _Constitution of the United States_, one clause of which

runs thus:--"That any senator or representative in Congress who, after

the passage of this act ... shall receive any gratuity, or any share of,

or interest in, any claim from any claimant against the United States,

&c., on conviction shall pay a fine not exceeding 5000 dollars

(1000l.), suffer imprisonment in the Penitentiary, not exceeding one

year, or both, as the court in its discretion shall adjudge." Another

clause follows, against the knowing and wilful destruction of public

documents; another, against any individual who shall tempt any member of

the Senate or House of Representatives with bribe of any kind to

influence his vote, and against members accepting the same. This act

bears date Feb. 26, 1853, and certainly proves that Mr. Venables'

assertion had some solid foundation in truth.

It will be remembered by some that Collins, finding the Cunard line of

steamers, when supported by Government, too strong for him to contend

against, applied to Congress for a Government grant. In obtaining that

grant, I do not pretend to say that he, or any one on his behalf, used

bribery or corruption, when he took round one of his magnificent vessels

to Washington, and feasted Congress on board in a most champagnely

style; but this I know, that many Americans were most indignant at the

proceeding, for, coupled with the act above referred to, it could not

but excite suspicion; and I feel sure, if Cunard had brought round one

of his splendid steamers to the Thames, and there feasted the

Legislature while his obtaining a Government grant was under discussion,

he could not have taken a more effectual method to mar his object. _La

femme de César ne doit pas être suspecte_. Thus, then, as far as we can

judge of any advantage to be derived from payment of members, we can see

nothing to induce us to adopt such a system; and, if I mistake not, the

American himself feels disposed to give it up, believing that the

standard of the representative will be raised thereby.

We will now make a few remarks upon a body peculiar to America, and

known as "the Lobby." But, first, I would observe that, by a rule in

both Houses, changeable at pleasure, ex-members of Congress, ministers,

secretaries of legation, &c., are allowed the privilege of coming within

the bar to hear debates; and of the people so privileged the Lobby is

chiefly composed. They have no counterpart in this country, but may

perhaps be said to have a faint and distant resemblance to our

Parliamentary agents, and they are in no way recognised by Congress.

Their work consists in endeavouring to force all members who purpose

presenting public or private bills to employ them, which, of course,

involves a "consideration;" and, as their name is "Legion," and their

motto on this point "unanimity," they are enabled, owing to their

influence with the members, to throw the greatest possible obstruction

in the way of most bills which are not passed through their "greased

palms." The result need not be described. The correspondent of the

_Times_, who, if report he correct, has held the highest situations a

citizen of the United States can hold, states, in a letter to be found

in that journal, on the 27th January 1857, that the Minnesota Land Bill

had been said, in the House of Representatives, to be supported by

bribery, and that one member openly avowed in his seat that he had been

offered 1500 dollars for his vote in favour of the bill. The consequence

was an inquiry into the alleged charge, and doubtless it will affect the

weight of the Lobby. He adds--"The Lobby has, no doubt, great influence

on the Legislature, but it is not yet all-powerful." In estimating the

effect of a vote, it must be remembered that there are only 234 members

in the House of Representatives, and 62 in the Senate; and, to give some

idea of the interests concerned, the correspondent states--"It is

scarcely an exaggeration to say that the Federal Congress at Washington

has a disposing power over twice the amount of national property subject

to the votes of the Parliament at Westminster." Those who feel an

interest in this subject I would strongly urge to read the whole of the

very able letter alluded to.

I have before spoken of the very great readiness with which any stranger

gains admittance to Congress to listen to the debates. As a broad

feature, I believe their discussions are carried on in a sober,

practical, business-like manner; nevertheless, most outrageous scenes

have occurred. I subjoin the following extract, not from any one

sentence it contains, but from its continuity, as a proof that the tone

of the House is not worthy of the dignity of so great a country. A

member of any community may get up and use the most gross and offensive

language; but if the offender be immediately called to order, and made

to retract the offensive expressions, the community thus vindicates its

character. Should, however, the most gross and offensive language be

used by two members for any length of time without any interference,

reprobation, retraction, or punishment, the community as a body must

fairly be considered, by their silence, as endorsing such conduct.

The extract is taken from that widely circulating journal, "the

_Illustrated London News_:--

"In the House of Representatives at Washington, on the 11th ult., the

following amusing but disgraceful scene occurred between two of the

members--Messrs. Stanly and Giddings. The former having charged the

latter with uttering a falsehood, the following conversation ensued:--

"Mr. Stanly: 'It is usual for one who has no regard for the decencies of

life to relieve himself from responsibility by pronouncing statements

false, and it is characteristic of the man who sneaked away from this

House, and took his pay for work which he did not do.

"Mr. Giddings: 'When the gentleman descends to low vulgarity, I cannot

follow him, I protest against Dough-faces prompting the gentleman from

South Carolina.

"Mr. Stanly: 'It is the business of a scavenger to have anything to do

with him, and I will have to wash my hands after handling him; but the

thing has to be done, as he has thrust himself on us as a kind of

censor. It is a small business for me, and I don't know how I can

descend any lower than to take hold of the hon. member for Ohio. (Cry of

'Good.')

"Mr. Giddings: 'Will you hear me?

"Mr. Stanly: 'Nobody wants to hear you, but I will indulge you.

"Mr. Giddings: 'The gentleman is barking up the wrong tree.

"Mr. Stanly: 'The galled jade winces again.

"Mr. Giddings: 'The gentleman sha'n't crack the overseer's lash to put

me down.

"Mr. Stanly: 'I hope that the gentleman will not gnash his teeth so

hard; he might hurt himself. Who is here playing the overseer over white

men--who but he, who is throwing his filthy gall and assailing everybody

as Northern Whig Dough-faces, and what he calls the vile slave-holders?

He is the only man who acts in that way. We don't raise the overseer's

lash over our slaves in North Carolina. If that member was in the

southern country, nobody would own him as a black man with a white

skin--(laughter)--but he would be suffered to run wild as a free negro,

and in the course of three weeks he would be brought up to the

whipping-post and lashed, for stealing or slandering his neighbours.

(Laughter.) If I say that he is a gentleman, I tell a falsehood.

"The Speaker (to Mr. Stanly)--'Will the gentleman suspend for a moment?

"Mr. Stanly: 'We ought to suspend that fellow (pointing to Mr. Giddings)

by the neck. (Laughter.)

"Mr. Giddings: 'The gentleman from North Carolina reminds me of the boy

who turned round so fast that the hind part of his breeches was on both

sides. (Laughter.) The gentleman says that I was at Norristown, too; but

where was he and the members of the House? Why, drinking their grog.

(Laughter.)

"Mr. Stanly: 'I charge the official reporters not to let his (Mr.

Giddings') felonious hand touch one word of what I say, for we know how

he on a former occasion misrepresented my colleague from the Orange

district, and his own colleague from the Chillicothe district, having

altered his own speech after he got to his room with his coloured

friends. (Laughter.) He talks about my associates: but has anybody ever

seen him in private decent company? Free negroes may call to see him. He

does not let his right hand know what his left doeth. He alludes to my

absence; but I have not set myself up as a standard. I don't say I'm

always in the house as I ought to be. He says we were here drinking our

grog during Christmas times. Where was he? In Philadelphia, drinking

beer and eating oysters with free negroes. (Laughter.) Which was the

best off? Judge ye. (Laughter.) He thinks he was better off than we

were. [Mr. Stanly paused, and, looking towards Mr. Preston King, who was

standing near Sir. Giddings, remarked, raising his voice to a higher

pitch, "Help him out; he needs a little more poison." (Voices, "Ha, ha!

Good! Ha, ha!")] I quit this subject in disgust. I find that I have been

in a dissecting-room, cutting up a dead dog. I will treat him as an

insane man, who was never taught the decencies of life, proprieties of

conduct--whose associations show that he never mingled with gentlemen.

Let him rave on till doomsday.'

"The conversation then ceased."

Any one who has seen much of American gentlemen, must know that such

language as the above contains would be reprobated by them fully as

strongly as by any gentleman in this country. To doubt that would be to

do them a gross injustice. Does not, therefore, the recurrence of such

scenes go far to prove, that the advance of ultra-democratic principles

has the effect of lowering the tone of the Representative Chamber, and

that men of liberal education and gentlemanly bearing do not constitute

the majority in that House? In the days of Washington, would any member

have dared to use, or would any other member have for a moment

tolerated, such language? It is but justice to say, that the tone of the

Senate Chamber is far more dignified; and many who have been members of

that body have established a world-wide reputation both as orators and

statesmen.

Let us now turn for a few minutes to that important subject, the

Judiciary of the States, one peculiar feature of which is, its being a

co-ordinate branch of the Legislature. The Supreme Court of the United

States is the highest tribunal in the country; it consists of a Chief

Justice and eight associate Justices, the Attorney-General, a reporter,

and a clerk. All questions affecting foreign ambassadors, consuls, &c.,

are tried before this court; and it is a final court of appeal in cases

involving constitutional questions, and various others, too long to

enumerate here. It has even the power of annulling the acts of the

Federal Congress at Washington, if such acts are contrary to the

Constitution.

The following article in the Constitution regulates the terms upon which

alone any change may be made, and which is of so peculiar and

conservative a character that I insert it in full:--

"ARTICLE V.--_Power of Amendment_.

"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it

necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the

application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States,

shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either

case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this

Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of

the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the

one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one

thousand eight hundred and eight, shall in any manner affect the first

and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article, and that

no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage

in the Senate."

The foregoing article is a remarkable instance of prudence and

forethought, and acts as the strongest safeguard against hasty measures,

which in times of great excitement may sometimes obtain a majority that

would afterwards be regretted by all parties. If the principle involved

in any question is really felt to be of vital importance, the majority

can dissolve the Union if they consider the object in view worth the

sacrifice.

The salary of the Chief Justice is about 1050l. a-year. This court is,

I believe, invariably composed of men of the highest talent and

integrity; their appointment is from the President, and endorsed by the

Senate, and their tenure of office is "during good behaviour."[CD] There

has, fortunately, been no change in the manner or term of these

appointments; but, in the different States, the democratic mania has

removed the old landmarks of prudence bequeathed to them by their

fathers. Mr. Tremenheere tells, that in 1833 only 5 States out of the 24

had adopted the principle of electing Judges, and appointing them for a

term of years; in 1844, 12 States out of the 29 had adopted the

principle; and in 1853, 22 out of the 31 States had come to the same

resolution. We surely have in these facts a most important warning of

the danger of introducing too much of the democratic element into the

constitution of any country. Reflect, if but for a moment, on the danger

to the community, where the selection of the Judges of the land may be

guided by political rancour or public clamour; the bare knowledge that

such may be the case, even if the purity of the masses be so great as

not to admit of such sinister influence, the bare possibility, I say, is

calculated to lower the respect in which it is most desirable the

judiciary should ever be held,[CE] and to deter the most pure and

high-minded citizens from offering their services. The salaries of the

Judges range from 250l. to 400l. a-year.

The next point to which I would call attention, is to be found in Art.

I., sect. 6, of the Constitution of the United States, the last clause

of which runs thus:--"No person holding any office under the United

States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in

office." This was probably one of the most extraordinary blunders such

an able body of men as the framers of the Constitution ever made; and if

their object was to guard against corruption, and the undue influence of

the leading men of the country, it has most signally failed, as the Act

before referred to, of February, 1853, fully testifies. Only conceive

the effect of excluding all the Cabinet and high functionaries from

seats in the Lords and Commons; conceive the great statesmen of this

country being obliged to hand over the introduction of most important

measures, and the defence and explanation of them, to other hands. On

this point, Mr. Justice Story remarks: "Thus, that open and public

responsibility for measures, which properly belongs to the executive in

all governments, especially in a republican government, as its greatest

security and strength, is completely done away. The executive is

compelled to resort to secret and unseen influence,--to private

interviews and private arrangements,--to accomplish its own appropriate

purposes, instead of proposing and sustaining its own duties and

measures by a bold and manly appeal to the nation in the face of its

representatives. One consequence of this state of things is, that there

never can be traced home to the executive any responsibility for the

measures which are planned and carried at its suggestion. Another

consequence will be--if it has not yet been--that measures will be

adopted or defeated by private intrigues, political combinations,

irresponsible recommendations, by all the blandishments of office, and

all the deadening weight of silent patronage; ... ministers may conceal

or evade any expression of their opinions."

In charity it should be presumed that in all nations which possess

anything worthy of the name of free institutions, the ablest men of the

political majority constitute the Cabinet; and, by the enactment we are

considering, all this talent is excluded from the councils of the

nation, whereas all the talent of the Opposition may be there arrayed

against their measures. I confess it is beyond my penetration, to see

how this can be reconciled to justice or common sense; in no one

principle of their Government did they more completely ignore the wisdom

and experience of the mother country, and in the object they had in view

they appear to have most completely failed. It is but fair to the

democrats to say it is no act of theirs; they inherited the misfortune,

and are likely to keep it, as it is one of the fundamental principles of

their Constitution, and they have a salutary dread--much to their

praise--of tinkering up any flaw they find in that document, lest in

mending one hole they make two. They have, as a nation, so greatly

prospered under its combined enactments, and possess such an unlimited

independence in their individual States, that although the exclusion of

the Cabinet is now very generally admitted to be an error, I saw no

inclination to moot the question; probably, lest other questions

affecting the slave and non-slave-holding States might be brought on the

boards, and again disturb the bonds of union.

Another very remarkable--and in a Republic anomalous--feature in the

government, is the power of the President, who, by the Constitution, is

enabled during his four years' tenure of office to rule in total

opposition to the majority, obstructing all the measures they may bring

forward, unless the majority amounts to two-thirds in both Houses of

Congress.

Article I., section 7, clause 2, runs thus:--"Every bill which shall

have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before

it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if

he approves, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it with his

objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall

enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to

re-consider it. If after such re-consideration two-thirds of that House

shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the

objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be

re-considered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall

become a law," &c.

This power of the President has been used by Washington, Jackson, Tyler,

and Polk; particularly by Tyler, who opposed the wishes of the majority

even when those wishes were backed by his own ministry. During the

discussions on the Constitution, many of the wisest heads at that

eventful period desired to establish the Presidency for life, but

eventually the term of four years was agreed upon; and if such powers of

obstructing the wishes of a majority were to accompany the office, it

certainly was a prudent conclusion they arrived at. In a densely

populated community like Great Britain, such powers, whether in the

hands of the sovereign or the ministers, would produce a revolution in

much less time than four years. It may, however, be questioned, whether

these powers are not productive of evil, by rendering necessary such

frequent elections for the Presidency. On this point, Mr. Justice Story

states: "The inconvenience of such frequently recurring elections of the

chief magistrate, by generating factions, combining intrigues, and

agitating the public mind, seems not hitherto to have attracted as much

attention, as it deserves." And Chancellor Kent remarks, that "the

election of a supreme executive magistrate for a whole nation affects so

many interests, addresses itself so strongly to popular passions, and

holds out such powerful temptations to ambition, that it necessarily

becomes a strong trial to public virtue, and even hazardous to public

tranquillity."

There is another evil which attends these frequent elections of the

chief magistrate--namely, the enormous patronage at his disposal, and

the mass of jobbery and corruption to which the exercise of it almost

invariably leads. Besides the appointment of nearly ever military,

naval, civil, judicial, and revenue-collecting official--some of these

subject, it is true to the approval of the Senate--Mr. Justice Story

remarks, that with regard to inferior offices "his patronage probably

includes ninety-nine out of every hundred of the lucrative offices of

the government." His great rival in patronage is the Postmaster-General,

who has power to appoint and remove all deputy-postmasters, which, as

the number of post-offices is 22,688, amounts to something considerable.

This power was doubtless intended for the public good, and in order that

incompetent or inefficient persons should be removed. To the honour of

Washington, it is recorded that during his eight years' Presidency only

nine removals took place. To President Jackson they are indebted, as I

have before remarked, for the introduction of the present corrupt

system. According to Justice Story, on his entering office he removed

233 _employés_; since then, the snowball has been steadily increasing

till the present moment; it has now reached an amount which it would

require Mr. Babbage's machine to calculate. Who can doubt that such vast

patronage, has far more influence in the selection of a President, than

any personal qualification for the high and important post? Nothing

could prove more clearly that such influences are paramount to all

others than the last election. There were eight candidates on the

democratic side, of whom General Pierce was not one; all the eight had

their special friends, and each party was loth to lose the chance of

patronage which their friend's election might reasonably lead them to

hope for. Thus they fought so vigorously that there was no chance of any

one having the requisite number of votes, i.e., a majority of the

whole number polled.

The Convention being deputed by the different States to select from the

candidates already in the field, how do they get out of the difficulty

at the eleventh hour? They take upon themselves to nominate a candidate

for the Presidential chair, who was not fettered by any particular

followers, and from whom all parties hoped they would receive some share

of the loaves and fishes as a reward for their support. The electors

endorsed the new selection of the Convention, and General Pierce, lately

commanding a brigade in the Mexican war, was elected by a most

astounding majority. Scarcely any President was ever elected with such

all-but unanimity, and the Press was equally undivided in its praises.

Every paper I read, in every place I passed through, was full of the

most unbounded eulogy. But mark the change a few months made. Before

the end of the year, one-half of that Press, which had bespattered him

with such fulsome adulation during the honeymoon of which his

inauguration was the centre, were filling their columns with long and

loud complaints, if not abuse. And what was the chief burden of their

invective? It was the manner in which he distributed his patronage. In

short, they were discontented with the share they received of the loaves

and fishes, and thus the target of their adulation during the summer of

hope, became the butt for their abuse in the winter of disappointment.

There is another subject connected with these elections, which speaks

with warning voice against the presumable advantage of democracy. I

would not be misunderstood as casting the slightest reflection upon the

amiable qualities, intellectual powers, or administrative talents of any

American citizen who has been raised to the Presidency during later

years. Let any candid reader, however, whether English or American, look

at the following lists of Presidents since the Constitution, and he

cannot fail to observe that while the franchise was restricted in nearly

every State, those called to that high post were the marked men of the

highest talent in the country--men whose reputation and abilities were

patent to the whole community; while, with the increase of democracy,

those selected during later years are men who, whatever their virtues

and capabilities, were comparatively unknown. In the case of General

Franklin Pierce, he was never even named by the community; but, as we

have shown, was selected by the Convention at the eleventh hour, as a

compromise of political partisanship. Let us not forget, that while some

of the later Presidents were elected, Calhoun, Clay, and Webster--whose

names are the just pride of the Republic, and household words in every

family--were passed over.[CF] Surely these simple facts may afford us

subject for profitable reflection.

We will now pass on from the Governor of the Republic to the Governors

of individual States. Their salaries vary in different States, and range

from 300l. to 2000l. a-year. Their election is in some States by the

people, in others by the legislature: their term of office varies; in

some States the election is annual, and in all for a very limited

period; and under them each separate State has its own House of

Representatives and its Senate. The chief power, which resides in the

Governor alone, is that of pardon; and here we may observe, that it is

only reasonable to suppose that so enlightened a community as the United

States would not for any considerable number of years have tolerated the

most flagrant abuse of such a power as that of pardon; and consequently

that if it be found that such abuse do now exist, it must have grown

with the ever-growing democratic element.

Mr. Tremenheere quotes largely from a work by Dr. Lieber, Professor of

Political Philosophy in the State College of South Carolina. Among

others of a similar character, the following passage occurs:--"I

consider the indiscriminate pardoning so frequent in many parts of the

United States, one of the most hostile things, now at work in our

country, to a perfect government of law." He elsewhere states "that the

New York Committee had ascertained that there are men who make a regular

trade of procuring pardons for convicts by which they support

themselves." Further on he says, "To this statement we have now to add

the still more appalling fact, which we would pass over in silence if

our duty permitted it, that but a short time ago the Governor of a large

State--a State among the foremost in prison discipline--was openly and

widely accused of taking money for his pardons. We have it not in our

power to state whether this be true or not, but it is obvious that a

state of things which allows suspicions and charges so degrading and so

ruinous to a healthy condition, ought not to be borne with." He then

subjoins this note:--"While these sheets are going through the press,

the papers report that the Governor of a large State has pardoned thirty

criminals, among whom were some of the worst characters, at one stroke,

on leaving the gubernatorial chair."--Among the conclusions Dr. Lieber

draws on this point, is the following astounding one--"That the

executive in our country is so situated that, in the ordinary course of

things, it cannot be expected of him that he will resist the abuse; at

least, that he will not resist it in many cases."

The foregoing extracts are certainly entitled to no small weight when it

is remembered they come from the pen of a republican professor, writing

upon "Civil Liberty and Self-government." I do not pretend to say that

such gross cases as those referred to by him came within my cognizance

during my travels, but I most certainly did hear charges made against

governors, in more than one instance, of granting pardons through

corrupt influence.

I have now given a cursory review of the leading features in the

executive of the United States; and I have endeavoured, while doing so,

to point out the effects which the gradual inroads of the democratic

element have produced. The subject is one of the deepest interest to us

as Englishmen, inasmuch as it is the duty of every government to

enlarge, as far as is consistent with the welfare of the nation, the

liberty of the subject. The foregoing remarks on the constitution of the

United States appear to me conclusive as to one fact--viz., that the

democratic element may be introduced so largely as that, despite a high

standard of national education and worldly prosperity, its influence

will produce the most pernicious effect upon the government of the

country.

This truth cannot be too strongly brought forward, for undoubtedly

change is the mania of the day; and as, in a free country, all

constitutional changes must have a liberal tendency, it behoves our

legislators to study deeply and patiently the effect produced upon any

country whose constitution is more democratic than our own, so as to

enable them, while steadily advancing with the age, to know when the

well-being of their country requires them, as true patriots, to resist

those measures which threaten injury to the social fabric committed to

their guidance. No field can afford them more profitable subjects for

reflection than the United States. Independent of the fact that her

institutions are more democratic than our own, she possesses natural

advantages that enable her to carry them out, such as we do not; and,

therefore, the British statesman may always study her career with

profit when any great liberal movement is being agitated in his own

country.

Lest any one should be disposed to imagine that the statements I have

made, or the deductions I have drawn, are merely the prejudices of a

traveller brought up under a constitutional monarchy, I will add a

passage showing the conclusions at which one of the ablest men in

America has arrived.

Bishop Hopkins, in an address delivered before the House of Convocation

of Trinity College, Hartford, after eulogizing the wisdom and

patriotism, of the founders of his country, as being "the wise master

builders of the noblest republic in the world," asks what is its present

state after seventy years' brief experience? Behold the reply:--"First,

then, we hear on every side the charge of political corruption. Bribery

is practised in all our elections. The spoils of office are expected as

a matter of course by the victorious party. The President of the United

States dares not be impartial; for, if he were, he would lose the

confidence of his friends without gaining the confidence of his enemies.

The oldest statesmen, and the most prominent, cannot follow the dictates

of their own judgment and conscience without being reproached as though

they were laying a trap for the presidential chair. The very laws of

Congress are set down as the results of personal venality or ambition.

The House of Representatives, or even the Senate Chamber, are disgraced

every year by fierce passion and violent denunciation. The barbarous and

unchristian duel is anticipated as quite inevitable unless it be averted

by explanations which may satisfy worldly honour, in utter contempt of

all religious principle. And no member of either House can go to the

performance of his public duties with any security that he may not be

insulted by coarse invective before the day is closed. Yet our rulers

are never weary of lauding the character of Washington, as if they were

quite convinced that the time had passed by when they might be expected

to verify the language of praise by the act of imitation. When we look

into the other classes of the community, the same charge of venality and

corruption meets us again. Our merchants are accused of all sorts of

dishonest management; our brokers, of stock-jobbing; our city aldermen,

of bribery; our lawyers, of knavery; our justices, of complicity with

the guilty. The same worship of Mammon seems to govern the whole, and

the current phrase, 'the almighty dollar,' is a sad but powerful

exponent of the universal sin which involves the mass of our

population."

Being perfectly aware what a "glass house" of corruption we ourselves

are living in, I do not quote the foregoing by way of "throwing a

stone," but insert it merely as a warning of the direction in which we

should not seek for an advance in purification.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote CB: Why is it that, in our yearly debate in Parliament, and in

all the journals of the day, from the _Times_ down even to the _Morning

Advertiser_, the United States are always quoted as a republic where the

ballot succeeds, when there is no excuse for the most commonly educated

man being ignorant of the fact, that the ballot, as understood in this

country, does not exist among them? To their honour be it said, they

hold secret voting in sovereign contempt.]

[Footnote CC: _The Ballot_, by the Rev. SYDNEY SMITH. 1839.]

[Footnote CD: This expression, both in America and England, is

tantamount to--for life.]

[Footnote CE: _Vide ante_, opinion of New York Press upon the trial of

Matthew F. Ward.]

[Footnote CF:

G. Washington 1789

J. Adams 1797

T. Jefferson 1801

J. Madison 1809

J. Munroe 1817

J.Q. Adams 1825

A. Jackson 1829

M. Van Buren 1837

W.H. Harrison 1841

J. Tyler 1841

J.K. Polk 1845

Z. Taylor 1849

M. Fillmore 1850

F. Pierce 1853]

CHAPTER XXVIII.

_The Church, the School, and the Law._

Although the Church has no connexion with the State, it must ever be a

most important element in any Christian community. I therefore furnish a

table of the various denominations, so as to enable the reader, at a

glance, to get the particular information he may desire. Some of the

denominations given in this table are, of course, again divided into

other sects, such as "Reformed Methodists," "Episcopal Methodists,"

"Wesleyan Methodists," "Six Principle Baptists," "Seventh-Day Baptists,"

"Anti-mission Baptists," &c.

Denominations. Number of Aggregate Total Value

Churches. Accommodation. of

Church Property.

£

Baptists 8791 3,130,878 2,295,590

Christian 812 296,050 177,621

Congregational 1674 795,177 1,674,532

Dutch Reformed 324 181,986 860,313

Episcopal 1422 625,213 2,365,013

Free 361 108,605 52,973

Friends 714 282,823 359,071

German Reformed 327 156,932 29,024

Jewish 31 16,575 78,036

Lutheran 1203 531,100 602,205

Mennonite 110 29,900 19,791

Methodist 12,467 4,209,333 3,073,700

Moravian 331 112,185 93,002

Presbyterian 4584 2,040,316 3,017,675

Roman Catholic 1112 620,950 1,884,505

Swedenborgian 15 5,070 22,701

Tunker 52 35,075 9,665

Union 619 213,552 144,913

Unitarian 243 137,367 686,305

Universalist 494 205,462 371,073

Minor Sects 325 115,347 155,815

Total 36,011 13,849,896 £17,973,523

If the foregoing table may be taken as indicative of the whole

population, it will be seen that one person out of every three is a

Methodist, and only one in every twenty-two is a Romanist; but what is

more worthy of remark is, the provision which, under the voluntary

system, has been made for public worship.

We here see accommodation provided for 14,000,000 in a population of

23,000,000--of which 3,000,000 are slaves. At the same time, it must

also be observed, that all these churches are not necessarily supplied

with ministers. Their support being dependent upon their congregation,

it will occasionally happen that a minister gets starved out, and some

time may elapse before a successor is appointed; the inconvenience of

which contingency occurring is obvious. More than one such case came

under my own observation when travelling through the country.

With regard to the distribution of the churches, the only peculiarity I

observe is, that the Unitarian community appear to be nearly all

gathered into one spot, and that spot the Land of the Pilgrim Fathers,

and the State that is considered foremost in education. Out of 243

churches, 163 are situated in Massachusetts. I have never heard any

reason given for this curious fact; doubtless the great talents of

Channing tended to swell their numbers, but could hardly account for the

extraordinary proportion established in this State.

In proportion to its numbers, it will be seen that the Episcopal is the

wealthiest of all Churches; and yet we find complaint made of the

insufficiency of the support for their ministers. Bishop Eastburn, of

Massachusetts, in a pastoral letter, states that in his diocese

"respectable parents will not bring up their children to the clerical

profession, because the salaries hardly keep people from starving." How

far this is true generally, or whether confined to his own

neighbourhood, I cannot say. The Episcopal Church in America is free

from the violent factions that have distracted and thrown obloquy upon

the sister church in this country. The puerile struggle about surplices,

and candles, and steps up to altars, and Brussels lace offerings, appear

to have attracted little attention among those in America, whose

theological views assimilate with the extreme high party in England: and

I never heard, during my residence in the States, any of that violent

and uncharitable language with which discussions on religious topics too

frequently abound in this country; nor is the Episcopal community by any

means so divided as it is here. The Bishop of New Zealand is far nearer

their type than the controversial prelate of Exeter.

The Book of Common Prayer, as arranged by Convention in 1790, is well

worthy of notice, and, in many points, of imitation. These pages are not

the proper place for a theological discussion, and my only reason for

touching upon the subject at all is, that the public voice is constantly

calling for some modification of the great length of our present Sunday

services, and I therefore conclude that the following observations may

be interesting to some of my readers.

The leading points of retrenchment are--removing all repetitions, such

as the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and the Collect for the day; a portion

of the close of the Litany is omitted at the discretion of the minister.

The Communion Service is not read every Sunday. I suppose the Church

authorizes this omission at the discretion of the minister, as I have

attended service on more than one occasion when the Communion was not

read; when read, Our Lord's commandment, Matthew xxii. 37-40, follows

the Commandments of the Old Testament, and a short Collect, followed by

the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel for the day, finish that portion of the

service. Independent of the regular Psalms, for the day, there are ten

separate short collections, any one of which the minister may substitute

for the proper Psalms, and the Gloria Patri is only said after the last

Psalm.

The leading features of difference from our own "Common Prayer" are as

follow:--They appoint proper Second Lessons for the Sunday, instead of

leaving them, to the chance of the Calendar--they place the Nicene and

Apostles' Creed side by side, and leave the minister to select which he

prefers, and to use, if he think proper, the word "Hades" instead of

Hell. They remove the Athanasian Creed entirely from the Prayer Book,

leaving to the minister to explain the mysteries which that creed so

summarily disposes of. When it is considered how many Episcopalians are

opposed to its damnatory clauses, and how much more nearly the other

creeds resemble that model of simplicity, the Lord's Prayer, they appear

to have exercised a sound discretion in this excision. Few

deep-thinking people, I imagine, can have heard the children of the

parish school reading the responses of that creed after the minister,

without pain.

Lest the passing opinion of a traveller upon the subject be deemed hasty

or irreverent, I beg to quote Bishop Tomline's opinion. He says--"Great

objections have been made to the clauses which denounce eternal

damnation against those who do not believe the faith as here stated; and

it certainly is to be lamented that assertions of so peremptory a

nature, unexplained and unqualified, should have been used in any human

composition.... Though I firmly believe that the doctrines of this creed

are all founded on Scripture, I cannot but conceive it to be both

unnecessary and presumptuous to say that, "except every one do keep them

whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." Mr.

Wheatley also, when writing on the Creed, says, that the third and

fourth verses constitute the creed, and that what follows "requires our

assent no more than a sermon does, which is made to prove or illustrate

a text."--To resume.

They have proper prayers and thanksgivings for individuals who desire

their use, instead of, as with us, introducing a few words into the

ordinary service. They have provided a liberal collection of psalms and

hymns for singing in church, and no others are allowed to be used. Each

psalm and hymn has the Gloria Patri suited to it marked at the

beginning. The inconvenience of the total want of such a provision in

our Church is most palpable. Not long before I went to America, I was

attending a parish church in the country, where a great proportion of

the psalms and hymns used were the minister's own composition, and if I

recollect right, the book cost half-a-crown. I came up to town, and I

found my parish church there had a selection under the sanction of the

Bishop of London. Since my return from America, I have gone to the same

London church, under the same Bishop, and I have found a totally

different book in use.--The foregoing are the principal alterations in

the Sunday services.

The alterations in the other services are chiefly the following:--In the

full Communion Service, the word "condemnation" is substituted for

"damnation," in the notice of intimation. The whole of the damnatory

clause in the exhortation, from the word "unworthily" to "sundry kinds

of death," is expunged. The first prayer in our Church after the

reception, is modified by them into an oblation and invocation, and

precedes the reception. The remainder of the service is nearly the same

as our own.

They have removed the objectionable opening of the Marriage Service;

but, not content with that, they have also removed the whole of the

service which follows the minister's blessing after the marriage is

pronounced, and thus reduced it to a five minutes' ceremony. While on

this subject, I may as well observe that, from inquiries I made, I

believe but few of those marriages take place by which husband and wife

are prevented from kneeling at the same altar, by which their highest

interests can never be a subject of mutual discussion, and by which

children are either brought up without any fixed religious ideas at all,

or else a compromise is entered into, and the girls are educated in one

church and the boys in another. In short, I believe the Romanists in

America marry but rarely out of the pale of their own church. I cannot

say what the law of divorce is, but it appears to offer far greater

facilities than would be approved of in England. A gentleman mentioned

two cases to me, in one of which the divorce was obtained by the wife

without the husband being aware of it, although living in the same

State; in the other, the wife returned to the State from which her

husband had taken her, and there obtained a divorce without his

knowledge.--To return from this digression. In the Visitation of the

Sick they have removed that individual absolution of the minister, the

wording of which is so objectionable that, if I am rightly informed, it

is rarely used by ministers in England. In the Burial of the Dead, they

have changed the two concluding prayers in those sentences which refer

to the deceased. The Commination they have entirely expunged. They have

added a full service for Visitation of Prisoners, and a Harvest

Thanksgiving; and they have provided a form of morning and evening

prayer for families.

The foregoing constitute the leading points of difference. Of course

there are many minor ones which are merely verbal, such, for instance,

as their expunging the scriptural quotation of "King of kings, Lord of

lords," from the prayer for the President, probably out of deference to

the prejudices of the Republicans, for which omission they have

partially atoned by the substitution of the grander expression of "only

Ruler of the Universe," in lieu of the more limited term "only Ruler of

Princes." To enter into all these verbal changes would be alike tedious

and useless. Enough, I trust, has been written to convey a general idea

of the most striking and interesting points of difference.

Other churches transplanted to this hemisphere seem to differ from the

parent stock most essentially. Thus I find in the almanack for 1853,

"Methodist Episcopal Church (North) 3984 ministers, and 662,315

communicants," and below them "Methodist Episcopal Church (South)"

without any return of statistics. I regret not being able to give the

reader any history of this occidental hierarchy. I do not even know the

Episcopacizing process they go through, whether it is entirely lay or

entirely clerical, or whether it is a fusion of the two. At first I

imagined it was a Wesleyan offshoot, but I can find no indication of

that fact; and, moreover, the Wesleyan is a very small body, numbering

600 ministers and 20,000 communicants. I only allude to it because it

appears to me a totally novel feature in Dissenting bodies--as

understood in England. Another curious change produced by this Western

climate is, that it turns all my Presbyterian friends instrumentally

musical. I do not remember entering any of their churches without

finding an organ, and in many instances a very good choir. Although I

approve highly of the euphonious improvement, I feel sure that many of

my countrymen in the extreme north would rather see a picture

representing Satan in Abraham's bosom inside their kirk than any musical

instrument. Such is the force of habit and prejudice.

The extent to which the churches in America have increased is doubtless

most creditable to the community, when it is remembered that all the

various denominations are supported voluntarily. Nor is their number the

only point worthy of notice: the buildings themselves have all, some

ecclesiastical appearance, and many of them are fine specimens of

architecture. Besides which, they are always kept clean and in good

order; you will never find those unsightly barns, and still less the

dilapidation which is often met with in the mother land. I have myself

been in a church at home where the flooring was all worn away, and

gravel from the outside substituted, and where the seats were so rickety

that a fall might be anticipated at any moment. The parishioners were

poor Highlanders, it is true, but the owner of the soil was a man of

considerable wealth.

I have, since my return to England, been into a beautiful old parish

church in one of the midland counties; the building was in a most

deplorable state of dilapidation, and the communion-rail formed a

music-stand, while inside were placed an orchestra of two fiddles and a

bass-viol. The minister received, for the first three years he

officiated, the exorbitant remuneration of thirty pounds a year; since

which time he has taken the duties of parish schoolmaster, the salary of

which, increased by a small sum from Queen Anne's Bounty, enables him to

keep body and soul together. But of course the school engrossed all his

time, except what was necessary to prepare his discourses, and his

parishioners were unavoidably and totally neglected, till dissenting

ministers came to the rescue. As a natural consequence, they soon

followed the ministers who made them the objects of their care, and when

I attended this beautiful old parish church, the congregation,

independent of the orchestra and the parish school, consisted of eleven

souls, three of whom came from the minister's own house. You might seek

in vain to parallel such a case throughout the whole Republic.

I now propose to make a few observations about disbelief in the United

States. On this point I have no statistics to refer to, nor do I believe

such exist. I therefore can form no idea of its extent; but the open way

in which some parties not only express their doubts of the authenticity

of Scripture, but dispute every doctrine which it contains, and openly

proclaim it the enemy of man, is worthy of some notice. An Ismite

Convention was held for many days at Hartford, in one of the New England

States (Connecticut) where, I suppose, education may be considered as

universal as in any other State in the Union.

The meeting was considered of sufficient importance to occupy daily

several columns of one of the New York leading journals, and to employ a

special reporter. It is thus headed--"MEETING OF PHILOSOPHERS,

THEOLOGIANS, THINKERS, STRONG-MINDED WOMEN, SPIRITUAL RAPPERS,

ATHEISTS, AND NEGROES." Details of this Convention would be too

tedious; I propose only giving a few of their resolutions.

Resolved--"That the Bible, in some parts of the Old and New Testament,

sanctions injustice, concubinage, prostitution, oppression, war,

plunder, and wholesale murder, and, therefore, that the Bible as a

whole, originated,[CG] is false, and injurious to the social and

spiritual growth of man." After which the chairman goes on to prove (?)

it is purely human, &c. Another resolution reiterates the former, and

adds that "the time has come to declare its untruthfulness, and to

unmask those who are guilty of its imposture." Then follows a resolution

for the especial consideration of slave-owners:--"Resolved--That it is

the climax of audacity and impiety for this nation to receive the Bible

as the inspired Word of God, and then to make it a penal offence to give

it to any of the millions who are held as chattel slaves on its soil,

thus conspiring to make them miserable here and hereafter." Then follows

a charitable resolution, declaring their belief that all the clergy

"would readily burn the Bible to-morrow if public sentiment demanded

it." One of the orators brings the Bible to the bar of geology, and

there condemns it, and recommends "that the Hindoos should establish a

mission to enlighten Christians of this and other countries. He believed

that the priesthood and the Bible were opposed to all liberty and

progress, and the deadliest enemies of mankind."

Another member of this blasphemous band becomes highly indignant because

the orthodox clergymen--who probably remembered that "evil

communications corrupt good manners"--would not meet them on their

infidel platform, and he presents a resolution declaring that "by their

absence, they had openly declared their infidelity to their professions

of theological faith, and had thus confessed the weakness and folly of

their arrogant assumptions, and proved that they loved popular favour

more than common good; and they are therefore moral cowards, pharisees

of this nineteenth century, seeking to enslave more and more the mind of

man," &c. Another orator then proposes a resolution, to the effect that

the spirit and genius of Bible religion is not a system of salvation

from sin and its effects, but a system of damnation into sin and its

effects; that it is the friend of moral and spiritual slavery, and

therefore "the foe of human mental and spiritual liberty." Subsequently

a strong-minded woman, called Mrs. Rose, appeared on the platform amid

considerable uproar, followed by extinguishing the gas and singing

songs. After a severe struggle, the lady managed to express her

sentiments in these mild and Christian terms:--"The Church is upon your

neck. Do you want to be free? Then trample the Church, the priest, and

the Bible under your feet."--The last day's proceeding closed by a row

in the gallery, owing to a fight, in which a dirk had been drawn; and

then the Convention adjourned till the following year.

The reader must not imagine that I state this as an indication of the

tone of religious feeling in the New England States,--far from it; but

it appears to me a fact worth noticing, that a Convention of such a

nature and magnitude, and considered of sufficient importance to employ

the special reporter of a leading journal of New York, should by any

possibility assemble for days and days together, and give vent to such

blasphemous sentiments among a people so liberally educated and so amply

supplied with means of religious instruction. I only hope that the

infidelity of the whole Republic was gathered into that one assembly,

and that having met in so uncongenial an atmosphere, they all returned

to their homes impregnated with some of the purer atmosphere of the

great majority of the people.

The subject of Education naturally follows the Church; but, on this

point, any attempt at accuracy is hopeless. Whether it be from the

variety of school systems in the different States, or from some innate

defect in the measures taken to obtain information, I cannot pretend to

say; but the discrepancies between the statements made are so great,

that I can only pretend to give a moderate approximation to the truth,

which is the more to be regretted, as the means provided for education

throughout the length and breadth of the Republic constitute one of its

noblest features. In rough numbers, they may be thus stated:--

Schools. Number. Instructors. Pupils.

Public 81,000 92,000 4,000,000

Colleges 220 1500 20,000

Academies, & others 6,000 12,000 261,000

Of the above colleges, theology claims 44, medicine 37, law 16.

Among the expenses of the various colleges, which I can refer to, I find

University College, Virginia--the terms of which occupy 44 weeks--is the

most expensive. The annual charges for a student are the

following:--College expenses, 40l.; board, 22l.; washing, fuel, and

lights, 4l.--in all, 70l. It is obvious that no provision is here

made for champagne suppers, hunters, tandems, and other "necessaries,"

of our University students, including a few "auxiliaries," in the shape

of I O U's, for red coats, top-boots, Hudson's regalias, and mysterious

jewellery bills for articles that men don't wear. Doubtless some papas

would prefer the Virginian bill of fare; but then, they must remember

that the republican lads go to college to learn something, whereas many

papas send their first-born hopes to Oxford and Cambridge to save

themselves trouble, and to keep the youths out of mischief during the

awkward period of life yclept "hobbledehoyhood." How they succeed is

pretty well known to themselves, and probably their bankers have some

idea also; yet, with all these drawbacks, who will deny that those seats

of learning turn out annually some of the most manly and high-minded,

and some of the best educated and most industrious, young men in the

country?

Having entered into some of the details of education at various places

during my travels, I shall not trespass on the reader's patience by

dwelling further on the subject, except to call attention to the

following important regulation with regard to children in factories; and

I most sincerely hope it may reach the eye of Lord Shaftesbury, or some

other of his coadjutors in the noble work of the protection and

education of helpless youth. The regulation exists in some shape or

other in many States. I subjoin the wording of it from that of

Massachusetts:--

_"No child under the age of fifteen years shall be employed in any

manufacturing establishment, unless such child shall have attended some

public or private day-school, where instruction is given by a teacher

qualified according to law to teach orthography, reading, writing,

English grammar, geography, arithmetic, and good behaviour, at least one

term of eleven weeks of the twelve months next preceding the time of

such employment, and for the same period during any and every twelve

months in which such child shall be so employed."_

Although my salt-fish friends are probably very familiar with

sea-lawyers, the general reader may be astonished to see any allusion to

law made by a sea-captain. I therefore beg to inform him, that the

following observations on a most interesting point are furnished me by a

friend who is legitimately at home in that complicated business, and who

devoted much attention to the study of the method by which land is

conveyed in the United States with so much ease and so little expense:--

"In America all conveyances of land, whether absolute or by way of

mortgage only, are, with the exception of some chattel interests,

required to be registered within a fixed or a reasonable time after

their execution. Registration is constructive notice to all the world;

if not registered, a deed is only valid against the parties to it and

the heirs and devisees of the grantor. Generally, however, notice

obtained by a purchaser previous to his purchase, will, if clearly

proved, prevent his taking the advantage, though he may have been

beforehand in registering his own title.

"By the old laws of Massachusetts, all deeds of conveyance were required

to be recorded, 'that neither creditors might be defrauded, nor courts

troubled with vexatious suits and endless contentions.' In consequence

of the number of registers established in each county--and the

excellence of their arrangements, no inconvenience results from the

accumulation of deeds, notwithstanding the early period to which they go

back. In register for Suffolk county, Massachusetts, are to be seen

copies of deeds from 1640 down to the present time. They are bound up in

640 volumes, and do not as yet take up much space. They have lately

multiplied in an increasing ratio, the volumes having risen from 250 to

their present number in the last 25 years.

"The register for Philadelphia county, Pennsylvania, contains within a

moderate compass deeds from 1683 downwards. They are referred to by

indices on the following plan: All deeds made within a certain time, and

in which the name of the grantor commences with the same letter of the

alphabet, are bound up in one volume; thus, a volume marked "H

1820-1847," contains all deeds executed between those years by grantors

whose names begin with H. One index volume contains the names of all

grantors between those years in alphabetical order, another that of all

grantees, and both refer to volume and page of the books of deeds. A

third index gives the names of grantors and grantees, arranged

chronologically, according to the year in which the deed they were

parties to was executed.

"The original deed remain in the possession of the proprietors, but are

of secondary importance. They are written in a plain, legible hand on

paper, parchment being seldom used. The signatures of the parties are of

course requisite; but the seal, which is essential to a deed in England,

is in many States dispensed with. The custom of registering obviates the

necessity for those long recitals that so swell out an English

conveyance, and the shortest possible forms of covenants are preferred.

The American conveyance only witnesses that the grantor conveys the

property therein described, which, or part of which, was conveyed to him

by such a one by a deed of such a date, and a marginal note states the

volume and page where the deed thus mentioned is to be seen.

"The advantages of registration are,--greater security of title, and

brevity and economy in conveyances. The example of the United States

shows that there is nothing in the Anglo-Saxon laws of real property to

render such a system impracticable. Several of the most eminent lawyers

in Boston declared, that their registration was found to work easily and

safely; the only change desired was by a few, who expressed a wish that

more registers should be established, as, one for every district,

instead of for every county. They all expressed their astonishment that

a similar plan had not long ago been adopted in England. They admitted

that dealings with property were more simple in America, where strict

settlements are either not allowed, or not generally in use, but

maintained that the real obstacles to a registration in this country

lie not so much in the difficulty of carrying it out, as in the

prejudices of landowners, the self-interest of lawyers, and the

superstitious dread entertained by John Bull generally of anything to

which he is unaccustomed."[CH]

I am no lawyer, as I observed before, and therefore I do not pretend to

pass an opinion on the details of the foregoing remarks; but of the

results produced by their system, I certainly can speak, for I have seen

property transferred without the slightest trouble, and for a few

shillings, which, owing to the amount involved, and the complications

connected with it, would, if transferred in this country, have kept the

firm of Screw, Skinflint, and Stickem hard at work for mouths, and when

finished, would have required a week to make up the bill of costs, &c.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote CG: I suppose originated _from the Deity_ is

intended.--H.A.M.]

[Footnote CH: Communicated to me by Mr. J.G. Dodson, son of the Right

Honourable Sir J. Dodson, Dean of the Arches, &c.]

CHAPTER XXIX.

_Inventions and Inveighings.--Palquam qui meruit ferat._

Writing about law makes one litigious; so I seize this opportunity for

making a few observations on American claims. I am not going to open the

question of the Bay of Fundy, &c., fisheries; because British liberality

has resigned a right, the retention of which was a source of continual

irritation to our republican neighbours. I must, however, quote a few

lines from the work of their able Chancellor, Kent, to show how fully

justified we were in claiming the sovereignty of the Bay of Fundy. If

the Chancellor's work on the Law of Nations is consulted, it will be

found that he points out to his countrymen their right to the

sovereignty of lines stretching "from Cape Anne to Cape Cod, Nantucket

to Montauck Point, thence to the Capes of the Delaware, and _from the

South Cape of Florida to the Mississippi."_ With such wholesale claims

asserted on their part, it would require something more than modest

assurance to dispute England's right to the Bay of Fundy. But my

litigation with the Republic is respecting some of their claims to

inventions, which they put forward in so barefaced a manner, that the

unwary or the uninquiring--which two sections of the human family

constitute the great majority--are constantly misled into a belief of

their truth; and the citizens of the Republic would do well to remember,

that by putting forward unwarrantable pretensions to some discoveries,

they afford just grounds for questioning their lawful claims to others.

The first I shall mention is with reference to Fulton and steam. Mr.

Charles King, the President of Columbia College, in a lecture delivered

before the Mechanics' Institute, Broadway, New York, in December, 1851,

claims for Fulton "the application of a known force _in a new manner,

and to new and before unthought-of purposes_." Now what are the real

facts? James Watt, in 1769, patented the double-acting engine, which

was the first step by which the steam-engine was made capable of being

used to propel a vessel. In 1780, James Pickard patented what is no

other than the present connecting rod and crank, and a fly-wheel, the

second and last great improvement in the steam-engine, which enabled it

to be of service in propelling vessels.[CI] In 1785, William Symington

took out a patent, by which he obtained, with economy of fuel, a more

perfect method of condensation of steam and a more perfect vacuum.

In 1787, Mr. Miller, of Dalswinton, a gentleman who had spent a fortune

of nearly 30,000l. in ship-building experiments, was urged by Mr.

Taylor to try and apply the power of steam to vessels. William Symington

was applied to, with the view of knowing if he could apply his engine to

one of Mr. Miller's boats, which he accordingly did, and propelled a

little pleasure vessel on the lake at Dalswinton, at the rate of five

miles an hour, on the 14th November, 1788. In the following year, Mr.

Symington made a double engine for a boat to be tried upon the Forth and

Clyde Canal; and in the month of December, 1789, this trial-vessel was

propelled at the rate of six and a half miles an hour. Lord Dundas, who

was a large proprietor in the Forth and Clyde Canal, employed Symington

to make experiments in 1801. The result of these trials was the

construction of the "Charlotte Dundas," the first practical steam-boat

ever built. The engines of this vessel combined the patents before

mentioned of Watt, Pickard, and Symington, which combinations--made by

the latter patentee--constitute the present system of steam navigation.

The "Charlotte Dundas" made her trial trip in March, 1802, and so

satisfactory was the trial, that the Duke of Bridgewater ordered eight

boats of Symington, for the purpose of running on his canal. The Duke of

Bridgewater died immediately after; and the Forth and Clyde proprietors,

owing to the injury caused to the banks, discontinued the use of the

boat. The foregoing observations prove that if any one individual can

claim the merit of inventing the steam-engine, that man is William

Symington, who, combining previous inventions with his own patent,

constructed the engine as at present in use. At the same time, every

credit is due to Mr. Miller, who first afforded Symington the

opportunity of putting his ingenuity to the test.

[Illustration: HUDSON RIVER STEAMER.]

Let us now look at Mr. Fulton's part in the transaction. In 1801 he

visited Scotland, and was present at one of the experiments making by

Symington on the canal, and from him he obtained permission to make full

sketches and notes of both boat and apparatus. The fact is sworn to on

oath of the presence of an American gentleman, who called himself Mr.

Fulton, during the experiments; and further evidence is found in the

fact that the engines he ordered of Messrs. Boulton and Watt for the

"Clermont" were precisely of the same dimensions as those in the

"Charlotte Dundas," with the exception of two inches more diameter in

the piston; and the patent of Fulton dates from 1809--twenty years after

Symington had propelled a boat by steam on Lake Dalswinton, and eight

years after he had himself taken sketches of Symington's engines in the

Forth and Clyde canal-boat.

Beyond the foregoing evidence, there is the testimony of Mr. Bell that,

at Fulton's request, he sent him information, plans, &c., of Mr.

Miller's first experiments. The long and the short of the story is

clearly this:--Mr. Fulton was a shrewd and clever engineer. He came to

England, copied the steam-engine which Symington had combined--one can

hardly say invented--and then returned to his own country, and applied

it successfully, for which the Republic ought to be thankful to him, and

to honour his name; but, for a president of a college lecturing before a

mechanics' society, to call Fulton the inventor "of applying a known

force _in a new manner and to new and before unthought-of purposes,"_

exhibits an ignorance or an assurance, for neither of which the

slightest excuse can be made.[CJ]

With equal accuracy Mr. King informs the mechanics that "Colonel John

Stevens had clearly worked out in his own mind, long before any

locomotive was constructed in Europe, the theory of such an application

of steam, and the actual form in which it could be advantageously made,

as well as the cost of constructing and working a railway for the use of

locomotives." If this were true, how does it happen that the son of the

Colonel, an able and ingenious mechanician, came over to George

Stephenson, at Liverpool, to learn what he was doing, and to order

engines from him; but Mr. King out-herods Herod, for he claims on behalf

of the Colonel, the working of Steam expansively in 1815, for which Watt

had taken out a patent thirty-five years before. If presidents of

colleges in America cannot in their lectures deal more closely with

facts, the instruction given within the walls of the college will come

under very unfavourable suspicions.

In conclusion, I will only add a few remarks as to ocean steamers, on

which subject, as on the invention of the engine, there is considerable

difficulty in awarding the honours to any single individual. The

Americans were the first to employ steamers along the coast, and the

"Savannah," built by them in 1819, was the first vessel that crossed the

ocean employing steam in any way as an assistant. But in her the steam

was a very small auxiliary power, and upon the sails the vessel mainly

depended. She cannot, therefore, fairly be called an ocean steamer. The

"Enterprise," a vessel of 500 tons burden, with two 120 horse-power

engines, started from London for Calcutta, touching at the Cape of Good

Hope, about the year 1826; and may be fairly considered as the first

vessel that made an ocean journey essentially dependent on steam.

Subsequently the "Royal William," built at Quebec, after running between

that port and Halifax from 1831 to 1833, started in the fall of the

latter year for Falmouth; and to her belongs the honour of being the

first _bonâ fide_ paddle-wheel steamer that crossed the Atlantic. She

was afterwards sold to the Portuguese government, and fitted up as a

man-of-war steamer, under the name of the "Doña Isabella."