the only period of her history that is clothed with external splendour. When Greece fell under the Roman yoke, her material prosperity increased, a new market was opened to her commerce, a new dominion to her literature and art. In every material sense the change was to her advantage; but the mind of Greece, that once had been the peerless light of the world, waned into that obscurity from which it has never since emerged. We have, indeed, in our own time, ample proof how entirely the movements and progress of trade may be apart from the excellence of institutions. We have seen them, in France, continuously progressive under extreme changes of government; and at the present day, if advance in wealth, in exports, in luxury, in all that glitters before the eye, should be adopted as a proof of the soundness of institutions, we should be forced to submit to the opinions of those, who take an enlightened despotism as their model. But though we find that trade has often flourished under ignoble governments, we shall search in vain through the page of history to find that they are capable of maintaining health and purity in the social and political character of a people.

As we proceed, we shall frequently find it impracticable to separate the Union from the Constitution. The latter is the sole bond of union, and whatever terminates the one, ends the other. It will, however, be very necessary to recollectand it is frequently forgotten-that the present is

the second Constitution of the United States. The Union existed long before its date; indeed its germs may be traced back as far as 1754. Immediately upon the commencement of the Revolution in 1774, a Union was formed, under a government bearing the title of Congress; but although independence was declared on the 4th July, 1776, and there were terms of agreement under which the Union subsisted, no permanent and methodical Constitution was framed, until the 1st March, 1781, when the "Articles of Confederation" came into force.

But

Those "Articles" form a complete and very elaborate Constitution. We know that exception will be taken to their being termed a Constitution, because they are not called by that name. what a thing is, according to European logic, depends on the thing itself, and not upon the name given to it. Whether that name be a code, or a charter, or a set of articles, or whether indeed, as in our own case, there be no written instrument to which a title can be attached, this makes no real difference. That is a Constitution,

the terms of which are the framework of the government and political institutions of a country. In these "Articles" defects were discovered after the termination of the war, not indeed so much inherent in the instrument, as in the surrounding circumstances; and, after surmounting great difficulties, the second Constitution was framed, which is now the law of the land.

The present Constitution, although extremely complex, is probably inferior to none ever framed, in the ability displayed in dealing with difficult and incongruous elements. Had those who are struggling to maintain it really acted in its spirit, no convulsion would now have occurred. The evils of the country arise from the fact, that the Constitution has not really been maintained. We shall find, as we proceed, that some of its most important provisions are reduced to a dead letter, and that the principal causes of secession could never have existed had the spirit of the Constitution been adhered to. Its marked characteristic is moderation. The prominent characteristic of the people at the present day is excess. So far from being democratic, all the leading features of democracy are absent from it; there is no universal suffrage, nor household, nor uniform, nor even proportionate suffrage in it. It was framed by men who were not impelled by the thirst of popular applause, and the spirit that actuated them may be judged of by their own words.

Hamilton, the master-spirit of its framers, observed in the convention employed in forming it: "To the proper adjustment of checks, the British owe the excellence of their Constitution. Their House of Lords is a most noble institution. Having nothing to hope for by a change, and a sufficient interest by means of their property in being faithful to the national interest, they form a permanent barrier against every pernicious inno

To

vation, whether attempted on the part of the Crown or of the Commons." Upon another occasion Adams, the second President, observed: Purge the British Constitution of its corruption, and give to its popular branch equality of representation, and it would be the most perfect Constitution ever devised by the wit of men." which Hamilton replied: "As it stands at present, with all its supposed defects, it is the most perfect form of government that ever existed." Perhaps those who urge us to copy American institutions would do well to weigh these words, expressed by two of the most eminent of the fathers of that Republic.

We agree with those who, apart from incurable defects inherent in the circumstances, admire the general excellence of the Constitution; and we consider it unquestionable that it rendered important service to the country at the period of its adoption. Our view is, that circumstances are so widely altered, that it suits them no longer, even if fairly interpreted. We believe, also, that the Union has greatly accelerated the rate of national progress. But it does not follow, by any means, that this has been a real advantage. There are none who have not observed that there is such a thing as growing too fast. In the words of Channing, "Noble growths are slow." The growth of the poplar is rapid, when compared with the growth of the oak; but we know that its value is proportionately small. There is always a ratio

between growth and durability, and a law exists that whatever grows with great rapidity will as rapidly decay. There is also a natural rate of growth, and one that may be stimulated; and all experience teaches that the natural rate will prove the better in the end.

We shall be the more inclined to doubt whether excessive rapidity of material growth be any lasting advantage, if we find it accompanied by a continuous decline in the character and ability of public men, and in the general standard of political morals. It was observed by De Tocqueville, twenty-five years ago, "It is a well-authenticated fact that at the present day the most talented men in the United States are very rarely placed at the head of affairs. The race of American statesmen has evidently dwindled most remarkably in the course of the last fifty years." And if this observation could be made by an acute observer, at a period when Webster, Clay, and Calhoun were still upon the stage, it would appear as if there were some impoverishing and exhaustive principle at work, when, at the present day, we search in vain for one single name that may be termed that of a statesman. Politicians cover the land, statesmen seem to have become extinct. At the commencement of its history, no country produced a larger proportion of men, of the highest order of ability; indeed, it would be difficult to find elsewhere the record of so large a number in an equal population. The fact was commented upon by