But as this "demand of the poll" is usually made, taking the vote by "show of hands" is little more than a form. The sheriff then calls upon the electors to attend on the following or some other day named at certain places in their respective wards, and give their votes. And so the assemblage breaks up.

Previously to the day of election, sheds, or "booths" as they are termed, are erected in each ward, at which the votes are received. The hours

of voting are usually from eight in the morning to four in the afternoon. All day, cabs and other carriages are seen driving about the city, with placards upon them, "Vote for "Vote for

As

This is another heavy item in the expense. Sometimes the placard has "Plump for this term will be new to American ears, I must explain it. In a case in which there are two members to be voted for, each elector has of course two votes; but instead of being required to vote for different persons, he may, if he choose, give them both for one individual, and thus do all in his power to secure the election of a favorite candidate. This is called plumping. It does not seem to me a fair mode of proceeding, and I wonder that the law allows it.

As is well known, the voting in Britain is done not by ballot, as with us, but by word of mouth. You step up to the booth-window, and tell your name; which being found in the register, you are asked, "Whom do you vote for, sir?" and your answer is written down. The procedure is simple enough, and, for a person in perfectly independent circumstances, not particularly objectionable. Yet,

even for such, it might in times of excitement, be dangerous; to vote in the hearing of a crowd for an unpopular or obnoxious candidate, whom yet you might in conscience prefer, would be, perhaps, to risk your life. This was shown in many instances during the exciting elections of 1852,— especially in Ireland. Some voters, I believe, lost their lives: and, no doubt, hundreds of others were deterred from coming to the polls at all. But, for persons dependent on an employer, a landlord, or a superior of any kind, this mode of voting, as every one must see, is very objectionable. To give a vote contrary to the wishes of the superior, would be to risk the loss of their situation; and it is not to be expected that independent or conscientious votes will be generally given at such a risk. The consequence is, that, as every one knows, the aristocracy, the great landholders, and the great manufacturers control the House of Commons, and govern the nation, while the great body of the people have no legitimate voice in their own government.

It is astonishing to me that Englishmen of sense and honesty can be found to oppose the principle of voting by ballot. It must be through ignorance or prejudice. If there be a political question that has and can have only one side to it, it is that of the ballot. What is its effect? Simply to give freedom and independence to the voter. What possible objection can there be to this? None, except in the minds of such as do not wish the majority of electors to vote independently. How foolish, in the ears of us, in America, where the ballot has been used for years and centuries, sound all the reasonings of

the "Times" and other journals against the ballot— saying that it will not secure independence to the voter, and all that! Do we not know the contrary? Have I not voted a dozen times by ballot? and did any one ever know how I voted? Not a soulunless I told them. Lookers on might guess, but they could never know. I walk up to the poll, give in my name, and drop into a closed box a folded paper containing the name of the candidate of my choice? How can anybody tell how I voted? When the box comes to be opened, at the close of the poll, who can tell, among the thousands of folded papers, which is mine? The ballot is the sine qua non of England's progress and reform. Till she gets that, she will never have an independent House of Commons, or a House that truly represents the mass of the nation; and without this she can never move forward except at a snail's pace. At a reform banquet in Sheffield some years ago, Mr. Cobden, as I read in the papers, was reported as saying, that were he twenty years younger, he would raise an agitation through the land for the ballot, such as he had formerly raised for the abolition of the corn laws. A voicè cried, "Do it now!" Till it is done, the people of England will never be fairly their own masters.

VISIT TO JEFFREY.

In poets as true genius is but rare,
True taste as seldom is the critic's share:
Both must alike from Heaven derive their light,
These born to judge, as well as those to write.

POPE.

A FEW days after arriving at Edinburgh, I received through a friend a familiar invitation from that "prince of Reviewers," Jeffrey, to lunch with him at two o'clock, on the following day,-or, the note added, "if I was an early riser-to breakfast at ten."

(I may here remark, in passing, that the reviewer's title, by courtesy, was "Lord Jeffrey," he being then one of the judges of the Court of Session. But I prefer, in speaking of him, to use the simple name, by which he is much better known in America, and under which he acquired all his literary celebrity.)

His residence was a little way out of town, at a pleasant villa, named, not very euphoniously, Craigcrook. On arriving at the mansion, we were received very politely by Mr. Jamieson, Jeffrey's son-in-law, and at that time editor of the Edinburgh Review. Soon Mrs. Jeffrey appeared. She was by birth an American lady, though of English descent,

being a grand niece of the famous John Wilkes : Mr. Jeffrey married her at New York, in 1813. Jeffrey himself, being indisposed, did not at once come down. He appeared, however, before breakfast was over; and receiving me in so pleasant and hearty a manner as to put me at once at my ease, he took his seat at the table by my side, and immediately commenced a flow of talk on literary subjects, connected particularly with my own country. He was a person of small stature and rather sharp features, with a keen, sparkling eye, and almost French vivacity of countenance and manner. He could not at this time have been much under seventy-four or seventy-five years of age, yet his speech was rapid, and full of energy and life.

He spoke first of Mr. Prescott, the historian. His commendation of that distinguished writer was very high. He admired him, he said, exceedingly-for his faithfulness, accuracy, and pains-taking; and his style, at the same time, was so beautiful! He thought his merits as a historian very great, and considered his reputation as established. He had perused, he said, his late work-that on Peru-with great satisfaction. He spoke in almost equally high terms of Mr. Bancroft, author of the 'History of the United States.' He had opened the volume, he remarked, without expecting much, but at once became interested, "buckled to it, and read it through." He had not met him yet, he observed; but had heard that he was coming to Edinburgh (Mr. Bancroft was then American minister at London), when he hoped to have a visit from him. Mr. Ticknor he also spoke of; he knew him well,

<