I will now suggest certain proposals,[BY] in the hope that while they can do no harm, they may by chance lead to some good result. The first proposal is a very old one, and only made by me now, because I consider it of primary importance—I mean a "Free-Soil" bill. I advocate it upon two distinct grounds—the one affecting the Republic, the other the slave. The Republic sanctions and carries on the slave-trade by introducing the institution into land hitherto free, and the slave throughout the Union has his fetters tightened by the enhancement of his value; but the great Channing has so fully and ably argued the truth of these evils, when treating of the annexation of Texas, that none but the wilfully blind can fail to be convinced; in short, if Slavery is to be introduced into land hitherto free, it is perhaps questionable if it be not better to send for the ill-used and degraded slave from Africa, and leave the more elevated slave in his comparatively happy home in the Old Slave States; the plea may be used for bettering the condition of the former, but that plea cannot be used for the latter.
The next proposal is one which, if it came from the South, would, I suppose, have the support of all the kind masters in those States, and most assuredly would find no opposition in the North,—I mean the expulsion from the Constitution of that law by which fugitive slaves are forced to be given up. If the proposal came from the North, it would naturally excite ill-feeling in the South, after all the angry passions which abolition crusading has set in action; but the South might easily propose it: and when we see the accounts of the affectionate attachment of the slaves to their masters, and of the kindness with which they are treated, in proportion, as such statements are correct, so will it follow as a consequence, that none but those who are driven to it by cruelty will wish to leave their snug homes and families, to seek for peace in the chilly winters of the North. And surely the slaves who are victims of cruelty, every kind-hearted slave-master would rejoice to see escaping; it would only be the compulsory giving up of fugitives, except for criminal offences, which would be expunged; each individual State would be able, if desirous, to enter into any mutual arrangement with any other State, according to their respective necessities. This proposal has two advantages: one, that it removes a bone of bitter contention ever ready to be thrown down between the North and the South; and the other, that it opens a small loophole for the oppressed to escape from the oppressor.
The next proposal I have to make, is one which, as every year makes it more difficult, merits immediate attention,—and that is, the providing a territory of refuge. No one for a moment can doubt that the foundation of Liberia was an act of truly philanthropic intent, reflecting credit upon all parties concerned in it; but it must, I fear, be acknowledged that it is totally unequal to the object in view. No further evidence of this need he adduced, than the simple fact, that, for every negro sent to Liberia, nearer twenty than ten are born in the States. Dame Partington's effort to sweep back the incoming tide with a hair-broom promised better hopes of success; a brigade of energetic firemen would drain off Lake Superior in a much shorter space of time than Liberian colonization would remove one-third of the slave population. The scheme is in the right direction, but as insufficient to overcome the difficulty as a popgun is to breach a fortified city; the only method of effectually enabling the system of colonization to be carried out, is—in my humble opinion—by setting apart some portion of the unoccupied territory of the Union as a negro colony. In making the selection, a suitable climate should be considered, in justice to the health of the negro, as it is clear, from the fate of those who fly from persecution to Canada, that they are unable to resist cold; and proximity to the ocean is desirable, as affording a cheap conveyance for those who become manumitted: the expense of a passage to Liberia is one great obstacle to its utility.
The quantity of land required for such a purpose would be very small; and stringent regulations as to the negro leaving the territory so granted, would effectually prevent any inconvenience to the neighbouring States. I have before shown that the comparative number of whites and blacks—whites 6,000,000, and blacks 3,000,000—renders it all but, if not quite, impossible for the two races to live together free. I have also shown that the Northern States either refuse to admit them, or pass such laws respecting them, that slavery under a good master is a paradise by comparison. I have further shown that Liberia is, from its distance, so expensive for their removal, as to be of but little assistance, and Canada too often proves an early grave. If, then, these difficulties present themselves with a population of 3,000,000 slaves, and if they are increasing their numbers rapidly—which statistics fully prove to be the case—it is clear that these difficulties must augment in a corresponding ratio, until at last they will become insurmountable. I therefore come to the conclusion, either that territory must be set apart in America itself for the negro's home, or that the black bar of slavery must deface the escutcheon of the Republic for ever.
I now propose to make a few remarks on the treatment of slaves. As to the nature of that treatment, I have already given my calm and unbiased opinion. My present observations refer to corporal punishment, and the implements for the infliction thereof. Of the latter I have seen four; of course there may be many others; I speak only of those that have come under my own eye. The four I have seen are first, the common hunting-whip, which is too well known to require description. Secondly, the cowhide—its name expresses its substance—when wet, it is rolled up tightly and allowed to dry, by which process it becomes as hard as the raw hide commonly seen in this country; its shape is that of a racing-whip, and its length from four to five feet. Thirdly, the strap, i.e., a piece off the end of a stiff heavy horse's trace, and about three or three-and-a-half feet in length. Fourthly, the paddle; i.e., a piece of white oak about an inch thick all through, the handle about two inches broad, and rather more than two feet long, the blade about nine inches long by four and a quarter broad. The two latter implements I found, upon inquiry, were of modern date, and the reason of their introduction was, that the marks of the punishment inflicted thereby became more speedily effaced; and as upon the sale of a slave, if, when examined, marks of punishment are clearly developed, his price suffers from the impression of his being obstreperous, the above-named articles of punishment came into favour.
The foregoing observations—without entering into the respective merits of the four instruments—are sufficient to prove that no one definite implement for corporal punishment is established by law, and, consequently, that any enactment appointing a limit to the number of stripes which may he given is an absurdity, however well intended. Forty stripes, is, I believe, the authorized number. A certain number of blows, if given with a dog-whip, would inflict no injury beyond the momentary pain, whereas the same number inflicted with a heavy walking-stick might lame a man for life. Again, I know of no law in the States prohibiting the corporal punishment of any slave, of whatever age or sex; at all events, grown-up girls and mothers of families are doomed to have their persons exposed to receive its infliction. Of this latter fact, I am positive, though I cannot say whether the practice is general or of rare occurrence.
I have entered rather fully into a description of the implements of punishment, to show the grounds upon which I make the following proposals:—First, that a proper instrument for flogging be authorized by law, and that the employment of any other be severely punished. Secondly, that the number of lashes a master may inflict, or order to be inflicted, be reduced to a minimum, and that while a greater number of lashes are permitted for grave offences, they be only administered on the authority of a jury or a given number of magistrates. Thirdly, that common decency be no longer outraged by any girl above fifteen receiving corporal punishment.[BZ] Fourthly, that by State enactment—as it now sometimes is by municipal regulation—no master in any town be permitted to inflict corporal punishment on a slave above fifteen; those who have passed that age to be sent to the jail, or some authorized place, to receive their punishment, a faithful record whereof, including slave and owner's names, to be kept. My reasons for this proposal are, that a man will frequently punish on the spur of the moment, when a little reflection would subdue his anger, and save the culprit. Also, that it is my firm conviction that a great portion of the cruelty of which slaves are the victims, is caused by half-educated owners of one or two slaves, who are chiefly to be found in towns, and upon whom such a law might operate as a wholesome check. Such a law would doubtless be good in all cases, but the distances of plantations from towns would render it impossible to be carried out; and I am sorry to say, I have no suggestion to make by which the slaves on plantations might be protected, in those cases where the absence of the owners leaves them entirely at the mercy of the driver, which I believe the cause of by far the greatest amount of suffering they endure, though I trust many drivers are just and merciful. Fifthly, that the law by which negroes can hold slaves should immediately be abolished. The white man holding a slave is bad enough, but nothing can justify the toleration of the negro holding his own flesh and blood in fetters, especially when the door of Education is hermetically sealed against him.
In addition to the foregoing suggestions for the regulation of punishment, I would propose that any master proved guilty of inflicting or tolerating gross cruelty upon a slave, should forfeit every slave he may possess to the State, and be rendered incapable of again holding them, and that copies of such decisions be sent to each county in the State. In connexion with this subject, there is another point of considerable importance—viz., the testimony of slaves. As matters now stand, or are likely to stand for some time to come, there appear insuperable objections to the testimony of a slave being received on a par with that of a white man, and this constitutes one of the greatest difficulties in enabling the negro to obtain justice for any injury he may have sustained. It appears to me, however, that a considerable portion of this difficulty might he removed by admitting a certain number of slaves—say three—to constitute one witness. Cross-examination would easily detect either combination or falsehood, and a severe punishment attached to such an offence would act as a powerful antidote to its commission. Until some system is arranged for receiving negro evidence in some shape, he must continue the hopeless victim of frequent injustice.
The next subject I propose to consider is a legalized system, having for its object the freedom of the slave. To accomplish this, I would suggest that the State should fix a fair scale of prices, at which the slave might purchase his freedom, one price for males and another for females under twenty, and a similar arrangement of price between the ages of twenty and fifty, after which age the slave to be free, and receive some fixed assistance, either from the State or the master, as might be thought most just and expedient. To enable the slave to take advantage of the privilege of purchasing his freedom, it would be requisite that the State should have banks appointed in which he might deposit his savings at fair interest; but to enable him to have something to deposit, it is also requisite that some law should be passed compelling owners to allow a slave certain portions of time to work out for himself, or if preferred, to work for the master, receiving the ordinary wages for the time so employed, and this, of course, in addition to the Sunday. As, however, among so many masters, some will be cruel and do their utmost to negative any merciful laws which the State may enact, I would for the protection of the slave propose that, if he feel discontented with the treatment of his master, he be allowed to claim the right of being publicly sold, upon giving a certain number of days' warning of such desire on his part; or if he can find any slave-owner who will give the price fixed by law—as before suggested—and is willing to take him, his master to be bound to deliver him up. With regard to the sale of slaves, I think humanity will justify me in proposing that no slave under fifteen years of ago be sold or transferred to another owner without the parents also; and secondly, that husband and wife be never sold or transferred separately, except it be by their own consent. However rarely such separations may take place at present, there is no law to prevent the cruel act, and I have every reason to believe it takes place much oftener than many of my kind-hearted plantation friends would he ready to admit.
Looking forward to the gradual, but ultimately total abolition of slavery, I would next suggest that, after a certain date—say ten years—every slave, upon reaching thirty years of age, be apprenticed by his master to some trade or occupation for five years, at the expiration of which time he be free; after another fixed period—say ten years—all slaves above twenty years of age be similarly treated; and after a third period, I would propose that the United States should follow the noble example long since set them by Peru, and make it an integral part of their constitution that "no one is born a slave in the Republic."
The next proposal I have to make is one which I cannot but hope that all Americans will fell the propriety of, inasmuch as the present system is, in my estimation, one of the blackest features of the institution we are considering. I allude to the slavery of Americans themselves. In nearly every civilized nation in the world, blood is considered to run in the father's line, and although illegitimacy forfeits inheritance, it never forfeits citizenship. How is it in the United States? There the white man's offspring is to be seen in fetters—the blood of the free in the market of the slave. No one can have travelled in the Southern States without having this sad fact forced upon his observation. Over and over again have I seen features, dark if you will, but which showed unmistakeably the white man's share in their parentage. Nay, more—I have seen slaves that in Europe would pass for German blondes. Can anything be imagined more horrible than a free nation trafficking in the blood of its co-citizens? Is it not a diabolical premium on iniquity, that the fruit of sin can be sold for the benefit of the sinner? Though the bare idea may well nauseate the kind and benevolent among the Southerners, the proof of parentage is stamped by Providence on the features of the victims, and their slavery is incontrovertible evidence that the offspring of Columbia's sons may be sold at human shambles. Even in Mussulman law, the offspring of the slave girl by her master is declared free; and shall it be said that the followers of Christ are, in any point of mercy, behind the followers of the false prophet? My proposition, then, is, that every slave who is not of pure African blood, and who has reached, or shall reach, the age of thirty, be apprenticed to some trade for five years, and then become free; and that all who shall subsequently be so born, be free from their birth, and of course, that the mother who is proved thus to have been the victim of the white man's passion be manumitted as well as her child.
I make no proposal about the spiritual instruction of the slave, as I believe that as much is given at present as any legislative enactment would be likely to procure; but I have one more suggestion to make, and it is one without which I fear any number of acts which might be passed for the benefit of the slave would lose the greater portion of their value. That suggestion is, the appointment of a sufficient number of officers, selected from persons known to be friendly to the slave, to whom the duty of seeing the enactments strictly carried out should be delegated.
While ruminating on the foregoing pages, a kind of vision passed before my mind. I beheld a deputation of Republicans—among whom was one lady—approaching me. Having stated that they had read my remarks upon Slavery, I immediately became impressed in their favour, and could not refuse the audience they requested. I soon found the deputation consisted of people of totally different views, and consequently each addressed me separately.
The first was an old gentleman, and a determined advocate of the institution. He said, "Your remarks are all bosh; the African race were born slaves, and have been so for centuries, and are fit for nothing else."—I replied, "I am quite aware of the effect of breeding; we have a race of dog in England which, from their progenitors of many successive generations having had their tails cut off in puppyhood, now breed their species without tails; nay, more—what are all our sporting dogs, but evidence of the same fact? A pointer puppy stands instinctively at game, and a young hound will run a fox; take the trouble, for many generations, to teach the hound to point and the pointer to run, and their two instincts will become entirely changed. The fact, sir, is that the African having been bred a slave for so many generations is one great cause of his lower order of intellect; breed him free and educate him, and you will find the same result in him as in the dog."—He was about to reply when another of the deputation rose and reminded him they had agreed to make but one observation each, and to receive one answer. I rejoiced at this arrangement, as it saved me trouble and gave me the last word.
A very touchy little slaveholder next addressed me, saying, "Pray, sir, why can't you leave us alone, and mind your own business?"—I replied, "As for leaving you alone, I am quite ready to do so when you have left the negro alone; but as for exclusively attending to my own business, that would be far too dull; besides, it is human nature to interfere with other people's affairs, and I can't go against nature."—He retired, biting his lip, and as the door closed, I thought I heard the words "Meddling ass!"—but I wont be sure.
Next came a swaggering bully of a slave-driver, evidently bred in the North. He said, "This, sir, is a free country; why mayn't every master wallop his own nigger?"—I thought it best to cut him short; so I said, "Because, if freedom is perfect, such a permission would involve its opposite—viz., that every nigger may wallop his own master; and your antecedents, I guess, might make such a law peculiarly objectionable to you personally."—He retired, eyeing first me and then his cowhide in a very significant manner.
The next spokesman was a clerical slaveholder, with a very stiff and very white neckcloth, hair straight and long, and a sanctified, reproof-ful voice. "Sir," said he, "why endeavour to disturb an institution that Scripture sanctions, and which provides so large a field for the ministrations of kindness and sympathy—two of the most tender Christian virtues?" A crocodile tear dropped like a full stop to finish his sentence. Irascibility and astonishment were struggling within me, when I heard his speech; but memory brought St. Paul to my aid, who reminded me he had before written certain words to the Corinthian Church—"Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light; therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed," &e. Thereupon I became calmer, and replied, "Sir, you are perfectly aware that our Saviour's mission was to the heart of man, and not to the institutions of man. Did He not instruct his subjugated countrymen to pay tribute to Caesar? and did He not set the example in his own person? Did He not instruct his disciples in the same breath, 'Fear God! honour the king?'—and is it not elsewhere written, 'But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil?' You are also perfectly aware that the American colonies refused to pay tribute to their Caesar, refused to honour their king, and did resist the evil. Now, sir, these things being so, you are compelled to admit one of two alternatives—either the whole of your countrymen are rebels against the Most High, and therefore aliens from God, or else, as I before said, the mission of the Gospel is to the hearts and not to the institutions of man. I see, sir, by the way you winced under the term 'rebel,' that you accept the latter alternative. If, then, it be addressed to the heart of man, it is through that channel—as it becomes enlarged by those virtues of which you spoke, kindness and sympathy—that human institutions are to become modified to suit the growing intelligence and growing wants of the human race, the golden rule for man's guidance being, Do as you would be done by. Be kind enough, sir, to look at Mr. Sambo Caesar working under the lash in a Carolina rice swamp; behold Mrs. Sambo Caesar torn from his bosom, and working under the same coercive banner in Maryland; and little Master Pompey, the only pledge of their affections, on his way to Texas. Is not this a beautiful comment on the Divine command, 'Love thy neighbour as thyself?' Permit me, sir, with all due respect, to urge you not to rest satisfied with preaching Christian resignation to the slave, and Christian kindness to the owner, but to seize every opportunity of fearlessly asserting that slavery is at variance with the spirit of the Gospel, and therefore that it behoves all Christians so to modify and change the laws respecting it, as gradually to lead to its total extinction. Good morning."—The reverend gentleman, who during the latter part of my observations had buried his hands in the bottom of his tail pockets, no sooner saw that I had finished my remarks, than he hastily withdrew his hands, exhibiting in one a Testament, in the other a Concordance; he evidently was rampant for controversy, but the next deputy, who thought I had already devoted an unfair proportion of time to the minister, reminded him of the regulations, and he was obliged to retire, another deputy opening the door for him, as both his hands were full.
The deputy who next rose to address me was accompanied by the lady, whom, of course, I begged to be seated. The husband—for such he proved to be—then spoke as follows:—"Sir, my wife and I have been in possession of a plantation for nearly twenty years. During all that period the rod has scarcely ever been used, except occasionally to some turbulent little boy. We have built cottages for our slaves; we allow them to breed poultry, which we purchase from them; old slaves are carefully nurtured and exempt from labour; the sick have the best of medical attendance, and are in many cases ministered to by my wife and daughter; the practical truths of Christianity are regularly taught to them; and every slave, I am sure, looks upon me and my family as his truest friends. This happy state, this patriarchal relationship, your proposals, if carried out, would completely overthrow." He was then silent, and his wife bowed an assent to the observations he had made. My heart was touched with the picture of the little negro paradise which he had given, and I replied, as mildly as possible, "The sketch you have so admirably drawn, and every word of which I fully believe, is indeed one which might dispose me to abandon my proposals for change, did any one which I had made interfere with the continuance of your benevolent rule, as long as slavery exists; but I must call your attention to an important fact which you, I fear, have quite overlooked during your twenty years of kind rule. To be brief—the cheerful homes of your happy negro families can afford no possible consolation to the less fortunate negroes whose wives and children are torn from their bosoms and sold in separate lots to different parts of the Union; nor will the knowledge that on your plantation the rod only falls occasionally on some turbulent child, be any comfort to grown-up negroes and negresses while writhing under thirty or forty stripes from the cowhide or paddle. Continue, most excellent people, your present merciful rule; strive to secure to every negro the same treatment; and if you find that impossible, join the honourable ranks of the temperate and gradual abolitionist and colonizer." They listened patiently to my observations, smiled quietly at the vanity which they thought the last sentence exhibited, and retired.
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 theWhat 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:
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.