in the manner in which railway business was conducted in the House of Commons at a time when it is to be feared that, notwithstanding the high standard of honour in the British Parliament, there was a good deal of jobbing.  For instance our Reciprocity measure was pressed by us at Washington last session, just as a Railway Bill in 1845 or 1846 would have been pressed in Parliament.  There was no Government to deal with.  The interests of the Union, as a whole and distinct from local and sectional interests, had no organ in the representative bodies; it was all a question of canvassing this member of Congress or the other.  It is easy to perceive that, under such a system, jobbing must become not the exception but the rule.

Now I feel very strongly, that when a people have been once thoroughly accustomed to the working of such a Parliamentary system as ours, they never will consent to revert to this clumsy irresponsible mechanism.  Whether we shall be able to carry on the war here long enough to allow the practice of Constitutional Government and the habits of mind which it engenders to take root in these provinces, may be doubtful.  But it may be worth your while to consider whether these views do not throw some light on affairs in Europe.  If you part with constitutional monarchies there, you may possibly get something much more democratic; but you cannot, I am confident, get American republicanism.  It is the fashion to say, ‘of course not; we cannot get their federal system;’ but this is not the only reason, there are others that lie deeper.  Look at France, where they are trying to jumble up the two things, a head of the State responsible to the people who elect him, and a ministry responsible to the Parliament.

* * * * *

    To the Duke of Newcastle.

    March 26, 1853.

It is argued that, by the severance of the connection, British statesmen would be relieved of an onerous responsibility for colonial acts of which they cannot otherwise rid themselves.  Is there not, however, some fallacy in this?  If by conceding absolute independence the British Parliament can acquit itself of the obligation to impose its will upon the Colonists, in the matter, for instance, of a Church Establishment, can it not attain the same end by declaring that, as respects such local questions, the Colonists are free to judge for themselves?  How can it be justifiable to adopt the former of these expedients, and sacrilegious to act upon the latter?

The true policy, in my humble judgment, is to throw the whole weight of responsibility on those who exercise the real power, for, after all, the sense of responsibility is the best security against the abuse of power; and, as respects the connection, to act and speak on this hypothesis—­that there is nothing in it to check the development of healthy national life in these young communities.  I believe that this policy will be found to be not only the safest, but also (an important consideration in these days) the most economical.

* * * * *