ject. Thus the author of an article in the Revue Britannique, speaking of the supposed "cheap government of the United States," "C'est là une phrase faite, un lieu commun de notre éloquence parlémentaire, et qui, comme beaucoup d'autres, repose entièrement sur une erreur. Ce qui est fort étrange, c'est que cette phrase a été jetée dans la circulation par des hommes qui ont visité les Etats Unis, et qui entretienment avec ceux de leurs citoyens qui viennent en Europe des rélations journalières. Elle n'en annonce pas moins une ignorance complète de ce qui s'y passe; c'est ce qu'il nous sera facile de démontrer.”*

I confess that it does not appear to me very singular that this assertion of the cheapness of the government of the United States should be made principally by those who have had opportunities of personally examining the nature of the American system, as I fully participate (after passing some years in the United States) in that opinion. If the author means to say that it is a government suited to few other countries, it would certainly not be so

"This has become a set phrase, a common-place of our parliamentary eloquence, and which, like many others, is founded solely on error. It is very singular that this phrase has been made current by men who have visited the United States, and who are in the habits of daily intercourse with such of their citizens as come to Europe. It betrays, nevertheless, a complete ignorance of what is passing there, which it will not be difficult. for us to prove."

easy to contradict him: but as to its comparative economy, there can be little doubt that both theoretically and practically it is the cheapest government that could be established in a country of such extent, in the present day. The Quarterly Reviewer, however, expresses a very different opinion (the Revue Britannique coinciding throughout with that journal); and Captain Hall points out the supposed key to this alleged costliness of the government of the United States, namely, that each state having a separate government and jurisdiction, we are misled by quoting the expenditure of the federal government alone as the whole burden borne by the people of the United States to defray the national charges.

It is quite necessary to bear in mind the stateexpenditures, in estimating the share of public charge borne by each individual in the United States, but in the tables appended to Captain Hall's Travels (Vol. III.), the nature of these expenses is completely misunderstood, as they are carried to account in gross, as charges directly borne by the population.

In the course of the following pages the statements published in the Quarterly Review, Revue Britannique, &c. will be examined in some detail, and it will not perhaps be difficult to show whence the errors have arisen in the estimates above alluded to.

1

CHAPTER VIII.

Statements of Quarterly Review on the subject of United States examined. Supposed insecurity of property.-Conservative elements.

In an article entitled "progress of misgovernment," which appeared in the Quarterly Review,* a summary is given of the financial arrangements of the United States. On perusing this statement, I was surprised at the result which the reviewer deduces from his calculations, the data of which seem to be. principally taken from the statistical tables appended to Captain Basil Hall's Travels. The writer of this article assumes, that it would be a great error to suppose that "the government of the United States is economical, and that it is, in fact, in proportion to its population, as expensive as that of Great Britain, or more so.". As the whole article so.” is redolent of party spirit, and evidently written with a view to influence public opinion on subjects connected with the great measure of reform, the passages in question should not perhaps be regarded as containing positive statistical statements

* Vide No. XCII. p. 594, Jan. 1832.

relating merely to the American financial system, but rather as the special pleading of a counsel, whose object is by no means to lay the whole case clearly and fairly before the public. Perhaps this may be thought as justifiable in political as in legal arguments.

The mistatements and singular inaccuracies contained in the article "Progress of Misgovernment" on the subject of America, are doubtless not the result of a wish to deceive the public mind with regard to the real position of that country. The whole article offers internal evidence that its author is personally and practically unacquainted with the people and country of which he speaks, and adds another to the thousand and one instances of the most erroneous inferences being drawn from data depending solely on hearsay or printed information, particularly where a favourite theory is in view, and that theory founded, of course, en conviction, but also turned to aid the arguments of party, with the unhesitating vehemence of political opposition.

With somewhat similar zeal for the dissemination of their own principles, and a corresponding want of practical acquaintance with the nature of European governments, I have heard Americans gravely wondering at the blindness of the English, or of

other nations, in not adopting republican institutions and forms of government in all their extent, and not only arguing for the practicability of such adoption, but foretelling its speedy accomplishment. It is true, that in conversing with many of those who have visited this country, and even, with the better informed Americans, who never had any opportunities of judging personally of the state of things in England, I have found them as well aware of the utter unfitness and impracticability of a republican government in England as any sane Englishman.

If, however, the article in question be not put forward as an ex parte statement, but as expressing the bona fide opinions or the reviewer, it is difficult to conceive how so ingenious a writer can have imbibed such erroneous impressions as his statements are calculated to convey; the mystification must be laid to the account of his sources of information, the writer of this article having evidently never been in the United States; this appears at once, not only from the financial exposé which he gives, but more particularly from the preceding part of his paper, in which he treats incidentally of the stability of the institutions of America, and the security of property in that country. After insinuating that passing the reform bill will be the