country in Europe, and perhaps in some respects may not be equalled. But in judging of the Union as a whole, it would be as erroneous to take New England as a standard, as to take Utah, with its detestable practices of Mormonism. It is a great copartnership, in which we cannot relieve the worthy from their responsibility for the acts of all. The only means of forming a judgment of the whole, as a whole, is by searching out those sentiments which, though they may be illustrated by local occurrences, appear to pervade the great mass of the community, and more especially that portion of it in which the active political power resides.

An American writer observes: "Never had country better laws than ours; and in the main, at any rate, the judges are upright and correct: but the true trouble is that the people are corrupt. The maxim of All's fair in politics,' operating upon a population relaxed by an overwhelming prosperity, and cursed with a preternatural sharpness, has debauched the morality of the whole nation. The jury system was devised in a country where the people were less fast than here. It was founded on the theory that the community was pure. That the basis of this theory is gone, so far as this country is concerned, it needs no argument from us to urge. So long as the rulers only of a people are dishonest, liberty is safe; but what is to become of a nation, the people of which are corrupt?" The phrase here used, and generally

acted upon in the country, "All's fair in politics,” throws a light on what is undoubtedly the greatest evil of the Union-a laxity of political morals that pervades public life. We have observed that the Unionist has two different sets of principles: those which guide him in private life as a man-precisely the same, speaking generally, as in other countries; and those which the same person will adopt, although in direct opposition to the former, when embarked in public affairs.

The causes of this may, to some extent, be traced to the complexities of the Union.* It exists upon a series of compromises, and where, as in this case, such compromises involve great moral questions of right and wrong, there must be a laxity of principle at the very root of the system. This has been greatly increased by the political necessities of the Union. The Americans, of what may be termed the respectable class, are divided, as in other countries, into two great parties. There is a third, the lower class, largely composed of foreign elements, which gives a decisive majority to either of the two with which it may unite. Hence has arisen that flattery of the mob, so humiliating to the dignity of public men, and which, when developed in legislation, has so perverted the spirit of the Constitution, and lowered public opinion from its original standard. The politicians of the South, in order, as we shall see, to maintain their position against the superior numbers of the North, have long allied themselves

with the class naturally most opposed to their own habits and views; and in order to retain the political power thus afforded, they have aided in that levelling course of State legislation, of which the treatment of justice is evidence, and which has brought public affairs into their present condition. Political necessities have driven the aristocratic into a combination with the democratic element, and this junction has constantly overwhelmed the moderate party. There has been a competition, not to maintain the Constitution, but to invest with power, and obtain the favour and support of those whom it was the object of its framers to restrain.

We shall trace this doctrine of "All's fair in politics" throughout the following inquiries, and find it equally applied to home or foreign politics. It appears to be the parent of "Manifest Destiny," which is really the same thing as the doctrine that might makes right. Whatever a people desire to have, they have only to hold it their destiny to possess,—and take it. On these principles there can be but one law, the law of convenience. Accordingly, we shall hardly find a principle which has not been accepted or denied to suit the convenience of the hour. As an instance, this very doctrine of secession, as we shall find, was never more loudly proclaimed, when it suited their convenience, than by the very Northern States that are now the most violent in denouncing it.

This laxity of political principle, of which the

germ lies in the original compromises for convenience' sake, we have already seen in full operation at the seat of the Central Government. With the State Governments the practice of Repudiation is another development of it. Unquestionably, in each of the States that has repudiated there was a large majority of men thoroughly honourable in their private affairs; but, the moment the question became a public one, they passed from under the private law of honesty to obey the political law of convenience. There is nothing to prevent a State compounding with its creditors, in a candid manner, on sufficient grounds; but repudiation has not been the course of those who could not, but of those who, having the means, would not pay. This has occurred in all parts of the Union, the number of States so distinguished being equal in the two sections, and the population of repudiators by far the larger in the North. And although Mississippi offers the most bold and outrageous case, there is none meaner than that of the great State of Pennsylvania.

Filibusterism is another branch of the same tree. Indeed, when a people hold themselves at liberty to break their own laws, why should they respect those of other countries? The conduct of Lopez, and Walker, was indeed that of individuals, but all know what was the public sentiment and the action of the Government. Indeed, we find it difficult to see in what respect the manœuvres of

Walker in Nicaragua differed from those which obtained Texas,-except in success. The abstraction of Florida from Spain, and of Texas from the sister republic, Mexico, when examined in detail, afford ample proof that this law of convenience has guided the action of the Federal Government. Texas was encouraged when it shared in the revolt from Spain; it was fostered when it revolted again from Mexico; it now secedes from the Union. As the Federal Government assisted in, or countenanced, the two first, it should not be surprised at the third,-a natural result of such an education. If rebellion against England was heroic, and revolt from Spain praiseworthy, or separation from Mexico commendable, it seems strange that it should be so heinous a crime to secede from the Union. Are right and wrong dependent on geography? It seems very clear that the only test of them here is convenience.

We read in an American publication: "We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that corruption of the most alarming character and extent has for many years past disgraced the legislation of the country, and the administration of our State and national Governments. This evil has increased with a rapidity that was frightful, and not a few of our most thoughtful republicans have been learning to dread lest public virtue should, in a few years, be so thoroughly overthrown, that the continuance of the Government in form and vigour would be impossible. The fear was, not that it would be