With regard to the frequency of elections, I will only insert the following sentence from Mr. Justice Story, as, I believe, public opinion in this country is all but universal in its condemnation:  “Men, to act with vigour and effect, ... must not be hurried on to their conclusions by the passions of elections has a tendency to create agitation and dissensions in the public mind, to nourish factions and encourage restlessness, to favour rash innovations in domestic legislation and public policy, and to produce violent and sudden changes in the administration of public affairs, founded upon temporary excitements and prejudices:  ... it operates also as a great discouragement upon suitable candidates offering themselves for the public service ... the period of service ought, therefore, to bear some proportion to the variety of knowledge and practical skill which the duties of the station demand.”—­If any annual-parliament maniac still exist, let him profit by these words of wisdom from the pen of a republican, dipped in the ink of Prudence and Patriotism; and in the marked difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate Chamber—­the former of whom are elected for two, the latter for six years—­let him behold the most incontrovertible living proof’s of their truth.  John Jay, one of the most able men of America, writing to Washington, expresses his wish that the Upper House, or Senate, should be elected for life.

I will now turn to a topic which probably interests the British public more than any other—­except the franchise—­I mean the Ballot.  So much has been said about the coercion of voters by those on whom they are dependent, and so much disgraceful jobbery at elections in this country has been laid bare, that if the Ballot were really a panacea for the evil, every patriot should exert his utmost energies to forward the introduction of so essential a measure.  In reading any American document where the word “ballot” is used, it must be remembered that, unless the word “secret” precede it, the meaning is merely voting by an open piece of paper on which the name of the candidate is printed, and which he may enclose in an envelope or not, as he chooses.  It is, therefore, only with the secret ballot we have to deal at present; for although the power to vote secretly exists, it is obvious, that unless secret voting is made compulsory, it affords no protection to those who are in a position to be bribed or coerced, inasmuch as those who did bribe or coerce would insist upon the vote so obtained being given openly.

It will perhaps astonish an Englishman to be told that “secret” ballot is all but unknown in the United States.  Nevertheless, such is the case.  An act was passed some four years ago in Massachusetts requiring secrecy; and what was the effect of this act?  A large body of the electors met together to denounce with indignation any attempt at enforcing that which they repudiated as unworthy of freemen.  So strong was this feeling that in 1853, the act which enforced it was repealed, and in the convention called to discuss the revision of their Constitution—­according to Mr. Tremenheere—­although the democratic party were in a great majority, the effort to impose secrecy was thrown out by a majority of 5000[CB].