tunities for emigration so beneficial to the mother-country. But apart from these and similar reasons, and taking into consideration the practice of the world and its ideas respecting honor, it is not to be presumed that England will voluntarily relinquish Canada or surrender it to another. 4thly. Hence there remains only the most important question of all viz. whether the Canadians themselves will not demand a separation from England, assert their independence, and annex themselves to the United States. If it be true, as some observers assert, that law and order are better maintained in Canada than in the United States, and that every body there is contented, why then there is nothing to fear. The more recent history of Canada however by no means confirms this statement, but goes no further towards it than this, that there are two parties in the country-a French and an English one, which are so nearly balanced as to prevent any harmonious measures. The French in Canada are a cheerful, amiable, and contented race; they exhibit all the commendable and agreeable qualities ascribed to them in the time of Louis XIV. But they have since undergone no change in morals, views, or occupations; they are wholly disinclined to every change, every bold undertaking, and all that is called progress: whereas the other inhabitants of Canada of the Anglo-Germanic stock exhibit, together with greater seriousness (e. g. with respect to keeping Sunday), a restless striving after new settlements, acquisitions, and pursuits; and though they enjoy less quiet happiness, they surpass their French neighbors in every other respect. The task of appeasing and reconciling these two great elements of the population has been a very difficult one for the government. It has never tyrannized over Canada, has removed many grievances, and granted many favors both commercial and pecuniary; still various complaints and grievances remained behind, of which we will here mention a few. First. The separation of Upper from Lower Canada and the establishment of a twofold government in the year 1791, was designed to secure to each part all that was desired, and to prevent all unpleasant collision; but the variety of complicated interests and rights thus produced gave rise to double difficulties and contradictions. Secondly. It was objected that the upper house was appointed by the governor,* and consequently was entirely dependent upon him; that he, a military officer unacquainted with the peculiar duties of administration, alone appointed the executive council; that the right of suffrage was not distributed in proportion to the * M'Gregor, ii. 357. population; that the lower house was allowed no control over the revenues of the crown; and that the established church, comprising about the one and twentieth part of the population, claimed for itself alone one seventh of the unsold land (about 2,588,000 acres). These and other grievances, which led to an open insurrection, produced in July, 1840, the union of the two Canadas, and the establishment of a new constitution in common for the two. The Legislative Council, appointed by the governor with the Queen's sanction, consists of at least twenty members, who hold their places for life. For the House of Assembly, Upper and Lower Canada choose an equal number of representatives.* A new election takes place every four years. Every member must possess a clear income of five hundred pounds from real estate, &c. Undoubtedly, the constitution (which differs essentially from those of the United States) and the administration (especially the war department) are far more expensive than in the neighboring republic. Whether the Canadians will on that account long for the American system, may for the present be left undecided; certainly the people of the great republic can never regard the Canadian constitution and administration in the light of a model for them to imitate. Finally, the result is here as often elsewhere exhibited, that two countries whose political condition is very different, may externally make equal progress. Thus Canada had, In the year 1676, 8,500 inhabitants of whom by far the greater portion were French and Catholics.† The above condensed view of the relations of the United States to other powers, demonstrates that from no quarter is there any considerable danger to be apprehended. Neither Mexico, nor Canada, nor England can ever take any thing from this great, populous, and freedom loving country, as long as it avoids the dangers of disunion, and remains true to itself. *Raumer's England, iii. 67. † The population of the British possessions in America, in the year 1843, is said to have been, in Lower Canada, Upper Canada, CHAPTER XXXVII. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND PUBLIC LIFE. Europe and America- American Political System - New Constitution-The President-Presidential Election-Conventions-Presidents and Kings-Europe and America-Re-election of the President. I HAVE already given in Chapter VIII. a summary view of the American Constitution; but it seemed to me that a consideration of its value and practical working, as well as of public life in general, could not properly be entered upon, until a number of other important topics had first been discussed. But even now that this has been done, the formation of a proper estimate is difficult, leads to repetitions, and can by no means be expected to meet with general acquiescence. For besides that I hold it quite impossible to transplant to Europe much that is excellent in America, my praise of the latter will not please even those who are dissatisfied with their own home. European liberalism is usually no more than a partial principle, directed against the monarchical heads; while it retains its own peculiar element, which it tends, cherishes, and fondles in every possible way. The military, the officeholders, the clergy, and the learned, regard the circle of their monopolies as too sacred to be invaded; and are loud in their denunciations of the Americans, for having desecrated all their sanctuaries, declared their gods to be idols, and their faith superstition. Nevertheless, true Americanism consists in this very totality of their social, ecclesiastical, and political organization; and not in this or that particular clause of their constitutions, or in solitary traits of manners and customs. Another ground of false judgments already noticed by me is, that most observers retain the European point of view, and apply every thing to the European standard; so that of course every thing appears distorted and not reducible to rule. Thus, when the sovereignty of the people is spoken of, they have no idea of a well organized system, such as exists in the United States, but of the popular commotions in some European capitals; they forget that, if the political forms of America were as defective as they assert, the wise conduct of the American people under a bad constitution would be doubly deserving of admiration. In rebutting such one-sided imputations, the Americans naturally assert: "It is only in the United States that a genuine representation exists. What we see in the most enlightened states of Europe is but a feeble approximation. The legislative bodies there, though respectable in point of talent, are, properly speaking, but a kind of drags or encumbrances, hung on the machine of monarchy to equalise its motions. A great number of European governments are founded only on force (as in Poland, Italy, and Ireland); and hence the dread or the impossibility of granting greater freedom. America, on the contrary, seeks no aid from superstition, supports no gainful impostures, and uses none of that disgusting cant with which the old governments varnish over the degradation of the people. When travellers say (and the Quarterly emphatically repeats and enlarges upon it), that all the freedom in America which exceeds the English measure goes only to the profit of the disorderly at the expense of the friends of order, we can and must ask in reply, Who are the disorderly in America; or are there here more mobs, paupers, beggars, and grumblers than in England ?"* Another class of observers and critics measure the worth and practical utility of republican institutions by the unfortunate attempts of the French Revolution;-which is as fair and as proper, as if the character of monarchy were to be estimated by the times of the Roman Emperors. Although some resemblances may be traced between the French and American revolutions, the differences and contrasts are much greater, and the diversity of their origin and progress has led to totally different results. Had the French people before the revolution possessed more rights and greater political experience, fewer abominations would have been practised and tolerated. Much that was new was not true, and vice versâ; hence so many contradictions, such clinging to antiquated usages, or excessive commendation of novelties. If the American revolution, which produced a really new social existence, is to be designated as a failure, in what respect were the French more successful? What admirable courage was possessed by Jefferson, not to despair at the very time when the frightful experience of France deterred the rest of Europe for many years even from the most needful improvements! He recognised the essential difference between the two nations, distinguished the true from the false, use from abuse, and the possible from the impossible. That timid historians are frightened out of their wits at particular occurrences in modern French history, is quite comprehensible, and may be overlooked or commiserated; but what * Encyclopædia Americana, art. United States, pp. 452, 454. Hinton, ii. 422. there is that is so horrible in American history, it is more difficult to conceive. That human opinions are not to be forced upon mankind as of divine right, has become a prevalent maxim even in Europe. Besides, one might also say that the doctrine of divine right is carried still further and improved upon in America. For not only does the President of the United States place himself under the divine protection, while he is as much divini juris as any European monarch; but every American citizen considers his rights to have as lofty an origin and as solid a foundation as those of a king. But since the Americans have enlarged their rights beyond those of any other people, their duties also rise in proportion; and if servility elsewhere often prevails, here pride has to be tamed; nor must it be forgotten that citizens, as well as kings, nobles, and priests, need a constant spiritual purification of the heart and passions. If we now enter into a closer examination of the American political system, we perceive that this was not an à priori invention of a few, but was the result of a preparation of two centuries, and proceeded from the whole body of existing circumstances. In general the deficiencies and advantages, the impediments and the progress of a people, by no means depend on their political forms alone. Thus the republics of South America adopted from their northern neighbors the letter of their constitutions; but they lacked the necessary preparation, education, sound principles, religious toleration, industry, and love of peace: and the result has been civil war, tyranny, and anarchy; to which every one desires to see an end, though few are as yet bold enough to hope for it. The republican principle in the United States has branched out and grown up into something quite different from any constitution in the old or new world. Hence Hamilton and his party could not carry out their plans for the centralization of power, the abolition of independent states, the choice of senators and presidents for life, &c. Though the old federal constitution of 1778 was (it might be said, happily) found useless, a great variety of objections were raised against the new draft, the refutation of which was undertaken with success by the authors of the Federalist. The motives of fear, hope, selfishness, and jealousy, were all brought more or less into play; and contradictory objections were heaped one upon another. Congress, or the states, would have too many or too few rights; the president would soon be converted into a tyrant, and the Senate into a wretched oligarchy; while the House of Representatives would produce an unbridled democracy. Even Patrick Henry, one of the most zealous of patriots, *Madison Papers, ii. 905. † Carpenter's Speeches, i. 137. |