inclined to suspect that the allusion to it is not made seriously. Those alone who are totally unacquainted with the state of the American community could for a moment entertain an idea of its possibility, and they have only to reflect upon a few circumstances to convince themselves of its utter want of foundation. The sub-division of old, and appropriation of new property *, going on (with few exceptions) almost pari passu with the increase of population, i. e. in the same relative proportion, extends its effects throughout the union. Also it should be remembered (and this applies to the third objection, viz. “ that the 'vitality' of the actual government of the United States can scarcely be preserved by the federal or conservative' party, now all but extinct,' against the prevailing system, or democracy,") the interests of the numerical majority are on the side of the prevailing system, and not opposed to its "vitality." The name or watchword of a party may be "conservative," "federal," or tory, it matters little as a distinctive appellation; but if we look to the meaning of words, it may not be difficult to show that in a Republic, at least in such a government as that of the United States, the "conservative" principle is to be found on the popular side; it resides with the “numerical majority," opposed alike to aristocratic,

* By this is meant, the property or monied associations in the older states in contra-distinction to that in the recently settled country.

despotic, or military governments, as to anarchy or disorder; and that country owes its strength, the vigour and the efficiency of its administration, "its vitality," precisely to this popular principle.

It might, on the other hand, not be difficult to maintain in arguing on the affairs of England, that this "conservative" principle may be found to reside in a very different party: in a monarchy, and where political power is vested exclusively in the aristocratic or monied interests, the arguments on this subject are founded on a totally different basis. But the reasoning of the "Quarterly" is on the system of the United States, to which its applicability appears more than doubtful.

It has been asserted in Parliament, and elsewhere, as well as in the "Quarterly," that a "conservative" principle, analogous to that which is the supposed safeguard of our constitution, has been found in that provision of the American constitution, in virtue of which no change is to be effected in it but by a con

*

ARTICLE V. OF CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES.

"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution; or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of threefourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress," &c. &c.

G

currence of two-thirds of all the legislative bodies of the Union in demanding such change, and the consent of three-fourths to its ratification; and also in the rule, by which, in certain cases, a majority of two-thirds of the Senate of the United States is required for the adoption of measures of political importance. But I think on examination that this provision will be found to contain few elements in common with the principle that is generally advocated by the " Quarterly" as being "conservative." At first sight it certainly appears that when a majority, wanting but one or two votes of the requisite twothirds, is forced to yield to the wishes of a smaller party in the nation or senate, a modification of the oligarchical principle is perceptible; the minority, in fact, carrying their point. But let a question of great public interest arise, a question which awakens the attention, and calls forth the energies of the mass of the people in its support, and, in a government constituted like that of America, it will be found that the necessary majorities will never be wanting.

It may be a conservative principle, but it is one that in effect has its foundation in the necessity of placing beyond a doubt the general assent to any measure of vital importance by the great preponderance required, and thus virtually amounts to an extension of the principle of governing in accordance to the will of the " numerical majority."

Fourthly. The rapid diminution of the public lands will, in the course of time, doubtless alter materially the moral and political aspect of America. Still the closing up of this "safety-valve," as it has been called, of the constitution of the United States must, in all human probability, be remote. The Quarterly is almost justified in calling this an "inexhaustible fund." The government of the United States possesses, in round numbers, one thousand millions of acres of unoccupied land; and, making ample allowance for those parts which are unfruitful or inconvertible to useful purposes, it will be probably long before its population becomes inconveniently crowded.

Up to the present time, twenty millions of acres have been sold; about the same number has been granted by Congress for education, internal improvement, &c.; and about eighty millions are in the market, i. e. surveyed, valued, &c. Some estimate may be formed, from the amount of appropriation of public lands during more than half a century, of the ratio which these available resources bear to the wants of an increasing population. At the rate of one million of acres every year, there will be, allowing for a progressively increasing demand, ample space and "verge enough" for speculation on the durability of American institutions, in so far as they depend upon this resource*.

* For some account of the public lands, see Chap. XVI.

CHAPTER X.

Revue Britannique on Finances of the United States.-Letters of General Bernard and Mr. F. Cooper, published by General Lafayette, containing answers to the statements of Revue Britannique.

IN the month of June, 1831, there appeared an article in the Revue Britannique published in Paris, on the finances of France and the United States, in which the expenses of the French and American governments were compared, in a similar spirit to that of the Quarterly. The result of this comparison was asserted to be that, notwithstanding the supposed economy of the American Republic, its expenses exceeded, proportionately to its population, those of the French monarchy. As this unexpected statement was made public at a moment when the French budget was under discussion in the Chamber of Deputies, and clearly with a view to influence public opinion on so important a subject, it attracted much attention. General Lafayette, better acquainted with the real nature of the American government than any of his colleagues, and naturally more desirous, both on public grounds and from private ·