We will now make a few remarks upon a body peculiar to America, and known as “the Lobby.”  But, first, I would observe that, by a rule in both Houses, changeable at pleasure, ex-members of Congress, ministers, secretaries of legation, &c., are allowed the privilege of coming within the bar to hear debates; and of the people so privileged the Lobby is chiefly composed.  They have no counterpart in this country, but may perhaps be said to have a faint and distant resemblance to our Parliamentary agents, and they are in no way recognised by Congress.  Their work consists in endeavouring to force all members who purpose presenting public or private bills to employ them, which, of course, involves a “consideration;” and, as their name is “Legion,” and their motto on this point “unanimity,” they are enabled, owing to their influence with the members, to throw the greatest possible obstruction in the way of most bills which are not passed through their “greased palms.”  The result need not be described.  The correspondent of the Times, who, if report he correct, has held the highest situations a citizen of the United States can hold, states, in a letter to be found in that journal, on the 27th January 1857, that the Minnesota Land Bill had been said, in the House of Representatives, to be supported by bribery, and that one member openly avowed in his seat that he had been offered 1500 dollars for his vote in favour of the bill.  The consequence was an inquiry into the alleged charge, and doubtless it will affect the weight of the Lobby.  He adds—­“The Lobby has, no doubt, great influence on the Legislature, but it is not yet all-powerful.”  In estimating the effect of a vote, it must be remembered that there are only 234 members in the House of Representatives, and 62 in the Senate; and, to give some idea of the interests concerned, the correspondent states—­“It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the Federal Congress at Washington has a disposing power over twice the amount of national property subject to the votes of the Parliament at Westminster.”  Those who feel an interest in this subject I would strongly urge to read the whole of the very able letter alluded to.

I have before spoken of the very great readiness with which any stranger gains admittance to Congress to listen to the debates.  As a broad feature, I believe their discussions are carried on in a sober, practical, business-like manner; nevertheless, most outrageous scenes have occurred.  I subjoin the following extract, not from any one sentence it contains, but from its continuity, as a proof that the tone of the House is not worthy of the dignity of so great a country.  A member of any community may get up and use the most gross and offensive language; but if the offender be immediately called to order, and made to retract the offensive expressions, the community thus vindicates its character.  Should, however, the most gross and offensive language be used by two members for any length of time without any interference, reprobation, retraction, or punishment, the community as a body must fairly be considered, by their silence, as endorsing such conduct.