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. He cannot be made to avow his own opinions-no responsibility can be fixed upon him. He must work the business of the government, through private arrangements with members of the House, and use patronage to supply the place of ability or knowledge. We have some impatience of the very idea of what is called "back-stairs" influence, and what shall we say to a system, in which the whole business of the government, is conducted on the back-stairs principle, and where, indeed, there can be no other? We should expect to see in the result precisely that political corruption, which all parties in the United States admit to exist there. And not only is this the system of government which prevails there, but the ministry, thus connected with the representatives of the people, through the influence of office alone, can retain their power, so long as they agree with the President, for the four years of his tenure of office. They can do so against the will of the whole people, and of both Houses of Congress. It is quite true they require money; this must be voted; and this necessity would appear to give an effectual, controlling power. But in practice it has no such result: so great is the secret influence of the Government in the House, that although it has sometimes occurred, that the ministry have been in opposition to a majority of the House, we cannot find that they have ever yet failed to obtain the money votes required. It would convey a less unsatisfactory impression of the system, if they had failed. As yet this has not occurred, and there is no such thing really known to the American system, as ministerial responsibility to the people. Whilst with us, the people possess through their representatives, an ever-vigilant power over the government, which they can put into operation on any night of debate, and do constantly exercise-there is in America, no more real practical power over the ministry, than there is real choice in the election of President. It would seem as if we, ourselves, were in the use and enjoyment of republican institutions, whilst the people of the United States content themselves with the theory, and profession, and sound of them. Reviewing the preceding facts, we certainly find much that is at variance, with our most cherished ideas of constitutional government. Either, after five hundred years' experience, we are ignorant of what representative institutions ought to be, or else these stand in need of very radical reform. They explain, what else would be incomprehensible, such a course of legislation as we have witnessed during the present crisis, when, if ever, the calm wisdom of a senate was required. We see the true spirit of the Constitution, lost or perverted, the nominal power of the people, really in the hands of trading politicians, -the electoral college, whose office is selection, deprived of the function of choice, the ruler of the State so ap - pointed, as to bar out experience and talent,legislation converted into a livelihood, and parliamentary corruption organized into a profession, -two armies of place-holders, one besieging, and the other besieged, ministerial ability and knowledge excluded from parliamentary discussion, and ministerial responsibility exchanged for government influence. As the result of all this, we find an incessant decline in the ability at the head of the State, and in the character of its legislation; and, in spite of rare material advantages, an amount of embittered discontent which has at length culminated in civil war. We have, however, as yet.examined but one part of the subject, the political institutions of the Union. Before we can form a full impression of the value of the Union itself, we must also consider its effect on the character of the people, in their social or public life. 2 |