from us, arise from this source, but I know by painful experience that many of them do; and I seriously believe, that things would now be better, in this respect at least, between the countries, if, when the Americans adopted a form of government so radically different from ours, they could likewise have reformed the dialect as thoroughly. It is curious enough, by the way, to see the discomfort that some scrupulous Americans show to the mere name of our common tongue; I have actually heard a grave proposal made to relinquish the practice of calling it the English Language!

I remember reading in some old author, that when the Jesuits went to China, they found the religious ceremonies so like those of the Roman Catholic Church, that in their labours of conversion, they were more perplexed than assisted by this remarkable similarity, being often sorely bothered how to make the difference between the religions sufficiently manifest in the outward manners. They declared, accordingly, in writing to their countrymen at home, "that in all their travels amongst the Heathen, they had never before found the arch enemy concealed under so insidious a garb, and that it was far easier to convert a Gentoo to Christianity-though he worshipped a stick or a stone, and would rather kill one of his parents than

leap over a cow-than it was to bring about a Chinese who cared neither for God nor Devil.”

I don't go quite so far. But I will say this, that in all my travels, both amongst Heathens and amongst Christians, I have never encountered any people by whom I found it nearly so difficult to make myself understood as by the Americans.

So much for language. But I may take this occasion, though rather premature, to add, that I consider America and England as differing more from one another in many essential respects, than any two European nations I have ever visited. This may look a little paradoxical at first, but is perhaps The accidental circumeasily shown to be true. stance of their literature being supplied chiefly from us, serves to keep up an appearance of similarity, which, I am fully persuaded, would soon disappear under the influence of causes kept in check by this circumstance alone.

The fact of the greater part of all the works which are read in one country, being written for a totally different state of society in another, forms a very singular anomaly in the history of nations --and I am disposed to think that the Americans would be a happier people if this incongruous communication were at an end. If they got no more books or newspapers from us, than we do from

France or Spain, they would, I really believe, be much happier, as far as their intercourse with this country has any influence over them.

Surely this reasoning holds true in the case of England? Are we not happier in this country, in all that concerns our relations with America, where the great mass of the people never read an American volume, and never even see or hear of one? Do we worry and fret ourselves about what is said of us in America? Certainly not! Yet this does not arise from indifference, but from ignorance. If American newspapers, books, pamphlets, and reviews, were by any strange revolution in letters, to be circulated and read in this country, I will answer for the sensation they would produce, being one of extreme irritation-perhaps not less than what is excited in America by our publications. While, after all, at bottom, the countries respectively may be writing not for each other at all, but for themselves exclusively, and thus, as I have explained, virtually using two different languages.

If, therefore, the Americans choose to import from us, by every packet, what is disagreeable to them-but which was really never meant for their perusal, they ought not to blame us for keeping in that state of blissful ignorance of their daily opinions and feelings with respect to us, which-as

I well know !—it would be a very foolish sort of wisdom on our part to destroy, by extending our acquaintance with their literature and history beyond its present confined limits.

CHAPTER IIL

On the 15th of September, 1827, when we went again to the House of Assembly, the speaking was even more discursive than it had been upon the first day. The orators rambled about from topic to topic with a most wasteful contempt of time, of which I dare say the same persons would have been much more economical had they been at their ordinary occupations-that is to say, working with their hands, not with their heads.

From thence we went to the Senate chamber, where we found the members acting not in a Legislative, but a Judicial capacity. The Senate consists of 32 members, besides the Lieutenant-Governor of the State, who is, ex officio, President. The senators are chosen for four years, and one quarter of their numbers go out annually.

By an article of the State Constitution, the court for the trial of impeachments and the correction of errors, is directed to consist of" the President of the