wealth of all but its legitimate advantages: and admirably have its framers succeeded. A millionaire, in America, may have a mansion in every capital of the union, establishments in town or country, on any scale he pleases of expense or luxury, and were he distinguished for talents or merit, his riches would, of course, cæteris paribus, give him certain advantages; but he would in vain attempt to procure admittance to either house of legislature, by dint of wealth alone; and I do not think that it would be possible to adduce a single instance to disprove this assertion.

It has been remarked that an aristocracy is growing up in every city in the union; but it should be remembered that it is not a political, but a social aristocracy.

The representatives in congress have been repeatedly described as mere delegates, and not free to exercise their opinions or abilities according to the dictates of their own judgment or conscientious intentions. But this, although, perhaps, considered theoretically true of the house of representatives, by a great proportion of the Americans, is disallowed by many others; and with regard to the senate, certainly does not hold good as a rule. It may be said that, de facto, the state of the question is very much the same as in England. On any great

G

national question arising, or about to be decided, the electors naturally ascertain the sentiments of a candidate upon that particular subject, leaving him free to exercise his unpledged opinion upon all other topics that are not supposed so vitally to concern their immediate interests.

To say that every member of congress is, therefore, a mere delegate upon any debate that might arise would be an error, and, indeed, would in most cases be mistaking cause for effect. The representative is elected because his opinion on certain subjects is known and approved, not in order that he may be compelled to register prejudged decisions opposed to his own judgment.

I have before me at this moment a speech of Mr Clay's, upon a highly important subject, and find the following words :-"I stand here as the humble but zealous advocate, not of the interests of one state, or several states only, but of the whole union; and never before have I felt more intensely the overpowering weight of that share of responsibility which belongs to me in these deliberations," &c.: surely this is not the principle of a hard-curbed and hoodwinked delegate.*

In conversation with more than one of the most

* Vide Debates in the Senate, Feb. 1832.

distinguished men in congress, I have frequently heard opinions expressed that quite corroborated the view here taken of the state of feeling on this head in the United States.

Other objections on the score of insecurity to property, real expense of the government of the United States, &c. are incidentally answered in the course of the following pages; but with regard to the real independence of the judicial power of America, so vital a question deserves particular attention.

CHAPTER V.

Supreme Court of the United States.—Its judicial independence and high character.-Diplomatic agents particularly interested in its proceedings.-Has jurisdiction in all cases touching the law of nations.-State "Judiciaries."-Associate judges.

It would be quite superfluous on the part of the author of these pages to offer any remarks upon the high personal and judicial character of the chief justice and the other individuals composing the supreme *court of the United States; such a tribute of respect, as he would be proud to offer, could only be regarded as a matter of course, by those who have been honoured by an acquaintance with these gentlemen; or who have regarded with any attention the proceedings of the court at which they preside.

But the elevated reputation which the decisions and conduct of the supreme court of the United States have so justly acquired, is by no means likely

*The character of the venerable Chief Justice Marshall is as justly appreciated and respected by those foreigners whose high diplomatic situations have afforded them opportunities of cultivating his friendship, as by his own countrymen. And it is a singular compliment extorted from those who are inimical to the institutions of his country, that they attribute much of the success that has hitherto attended its existence to the personal character of the head of the supreme court.

to cease with the lives of those now composing it. If judicial independence can be secured by any safeguard to be provided by legislative foresight or prudence, it will not be difficult to show that the federal "judiciary" of the United States is placed upon as firm a basis as can be well imagined.

The nature of the supreme court* of the United

*That the supreme court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original, but not exclusive jurisdiction; and shall have, exclusively, all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors or other public ministers, or in which a consul or vice-consul shall be a party.”. Public and General Statutes of the United States, published by Justice Story, chap. xx. § 13.

There are few countries where the immunities and privileges extended by civilized nations to the representatives of foreign powers, are more complete or more strictly protected than in America: thus, "if any writ or process shall, at any time hereafter, be sued forth or prosecuted by any person or persons, in any of the courts of the United States, or in any of the courts of a particular state, or by any judge or justice therein, respectively, whereby the person of any ambassador or other public minister, of any foreign prince or state, authorized and received as such by the president of the United States, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such ambassador or other public minister, may be arrested or imprisoned, or his or their goods or chattels be distrained, seized, or attached, such writ or process shall be deemed or adjudged to be utterly null and void, to all intents, construction, and purposes whatsoever.