American affairs; the power of the lobby is alluded to in every debate. In referring to the political corruption that exists, there is the following sentence in the Chicago Manifesto-the creed of the Northern party: "The people justly view with alarm, the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable, to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favoured partizans, whilst the recent startling developments of frauds and corruption at the Federal metropolis, show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded."

We think they show more than this, they show a state of disease that needs stronger remedy than a change of physicians. They show that the whole system is unsound, which produces such results. The other political party, upon whom the blame is cast, make no attempt to dispute the facts. They admit them, but trace their source to the protective system, which brings into the public treasury, a larger amount of money than the Government can expend, in any pure manner. Thus we have both the great parties in entire accordance, as to the fact of the existing political corruption. Who will dispute such competent

authorities? And if forced to admit such facts as these, they must exercise no light weight, when we are employed in forming a judgment of these institutions. Had our own Government fallen

into such a condition, we should assuredly be more inclined to embark in a struggle to end, than to maintain it.

We observed that the Constitution is by no means democratic. At the period when it was framed, the rule throughout the States was a property qualification. Although differing in the nature and amount, of the qualification, there was no State without one-practically effective - and there was no thought of abandoning the rule. The framers of the Constitution, so far from desiring to lower, or to level this, decided to leave unchanged the diversity which existed. It was held, by the ablest of them, that variety in the suffrage would provide the best representation, and afford the surest prospect of that system of check, and moderating influence, by one interest of another, which, we have seen, they regarded as a supreme excellence in the British Constitution. Here, again, we shall find that the spirit of the founders of the Republic, has been widely departed from, and departed from in this, as in every other instance, with disastrous effect to the country.

Jefferson took no part in framing the Constitution. He expressed strong, though guarded, disapproval of it. He was in Paris, studying and imbibing the principles then coming into play, associating with the members of the future Jacobin club, cultivating the acquaintance of Thomas Paine, and filling his mind with theories, many of them springing from just emotions, but fatal in their

effects, from their tendency to excess, and from ignoring human nature. There he studied them, when the temple of infidelity was about to open its portals in the purlieus of brooding socialism, in the coming shadow of the guillotine. And to these theories he clung, with strange infatuation, long after he had witnessed their result, in sweeping Christianity, liberty, and life, into one hideous ruin. Of the character of his views we may judge by his own words. Alluding to Shay's rebellion, he writes: "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all and always well-informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceived. If they remain quiet under such misconception, it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two! The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

The early spirit of temperate republicanism, (that of the Fathers of the country) which guided its councils during the terms of Washington and Adams, as Presidents, was followed and subverted by this spirit of extreme democracy, imported from France. Jefferson, and not Washington, has been the guide of the country for the last fifty years. One of the many results of this change which we shall meet with, has been the virtual abandonment of all qualifications, and the adoption

of universal suffrage. The effect of this has been greatly aggravated, by the large proportion of foreigners thus placed in the command of political power, without either training or association to fit them for it. To so great an extent, indeed, has this proceeded, that in many districts, and amongst them may be classed the virtual metropolis of the country, New York, the decisive political power is in the hands of those of foreign birth. On this subject of the suffrage, Chancellor Kent, one of the highest of American authorities, remarks, in his Commentaries: "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.”

Thus the unqualified suffrage, which has been regarded by some in this country, as an American institution, is really a foreign abuse, unknown to its Constitution, opposed to the spirit of its greatest patriots, and deplored by the ablest of its jurists. In another passage, bearing on similar subjects, Chancellor Kent observes: "Such a rapid course of destruction of the former constitutional checks, is matter for grave reflection; and to counteract the dangerous tendency of such combined forces as universal suffrage, frequent elections, all offices for short periods, all officers elective, and an unchecked press, and to prevent them from racking and destroying our political machines, the people

must have a larger share than usual, of that wisdom which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated." As no one can imagine that these are attributes of American character at the present day, it would seem to follow, that they have really been “racking and destroying" the political machine.

We have seen that under the system in force, ability is excluded from the highest office in the State; there is another cause which very largely excludes it from the legislative chambers. The ministers are not permitted to take part in the proceedings of Congress. To judge of the effects of this, we have only to imagine the result of excluding the whole of the ministry from the House of Commons. The men who, of all others, have access to the sources of information, who are thoroughly conversant with details, and who possess the requisite experience and ability to guide the debates of the assembly-these men are not to come within its walls. And this deprivation of ability is a small evil when compared with others that result. Who can put a question to a minister, who is never there to be questioned? There is a complete absence of that sharp and effective responsibility to the people, through their representatives, which we should hardly like to exchange, for a system of secret management of the House, by parties who can never be seen, face to face. Thus no minister can introduce and explain his own measure; he must do so second-hand.