the conditions of different parts of the Union.

At

present the two years term is justified on the ground that it furnishes a proper check on the President. The Congress elected in the autumn of 1884 at the same time as the President, meets in December 1885, while another, elected in 1886, meets in 1887, and thus covers the later part of his four years term. Thus the people can, if they please, express disapproval of the policy which he has so far followed. One is also told that these frequent elections are necessary to keep up popular interest in current politics, nor do some fail to hint that the temptations to jobbing would overcome the virtue of members who had a longer term before them. Where American opinion is unanimous, it would be presumptuous for a stranger to dissent. Yet the remark may be permitted that the dangers originally feared have proved chimerical. There is no country whose representatives are more dependent on popular opinion, more ready to trim their sails to the least breath of it. The public acts, the votes, and speeches of a member from Oregon or Texas can be more closely watched by his constituents than those of a Virginian member could be watched in 1789.1 And as the frequency of elections involves inexperienced members, the efficiency of Congress suffers.

V. The numbers of the two American houses seem small to a European when compared on the one hand with the population of the country, on the other with the practice of European States. The Senate has 76 members against the British House of Lords with about 560, and the French Senate with 300. The House has 325 against the British House of Commons with

1 Of course his conduct in committee is rarely known, but I doubt whether the shortness of the term makes him more scrupulous.

670, and the French and Italian Chambers with 584 and 508 respectively.

The Americans, however, doubt whether both their Houses have not already become too large. They began with 26 in the Senate, 65 in the House, numbers then censured as too small, but which worked well, and gave less encouragement to idle talk and vain display than the crowded halls of to-day. The proportion of representatives to inhabitants, originally 1 to 30,000, is now 1 to 154,000, having constantly fallen as the population increased. The inclination of wise men is to stop further increase when the number of 400 has been reached, for they perceive that the House already suffers from disorganization, and fear that a much larger one would prove unmanageable. So much depends on the

...

1 There is force in the following observations which I copy from the 54th and 57th numbers of the Federalist :—“A certain number at least seeins necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as on the other hand, the number ought to be kept within a certain limit in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob. . . . In all legislative assemblies, the greater the number comprising them may be, the fewer will be the men who will in fact direct their proceedings. The larger the number, the greater will be the proportion of members of limited information and of weak capacities. Now it is precisely on characters of this description that the eloquence and address of the few are known to act with all their force. In the ancient republics where the whole body of the people assembled in person, a single orator, or an artful statesman, was generally seen to rule with as complete a sway as if a sceptre had been placed in his single hand. On the same principle the more multitudinous a representative assembly may be rendered, the more it will partake of the infirmities incident to collective meetings of the people. Ignorance will be the dupe of cunning, and passion the slave of sophistry and declamation. The people can never err more than in supposing that by multiplying their representatives beyond a certain limit they strengthen the barrier against the government of a few. Experience will for ever admonish them that, on the contrary, after securing a certain number for the purposes of safety, of local information, and of diffusing sympathy with the whole society, they will counteract their own views by every addition to their representatives."

particular circumstances of each country that no general rule can be laid down as to the size of representative assemblies, and the experience of one nation is of no great value for another. So far as general principles go, a student of politics will be disposed to think that as the American Chamber ought not to be raised much further, so the British House of Commons ought to be rather reduced than increased.1

VI. American congressmen are more assiduous in their attendance than the members of most European legislatures. The great majority not only remain steadily at Washington through the session, but are usually to be found in the Capitol, often in their Chamber itself, while a sitting lasts. There is therefore comparatively little trouble in making a quorum, though the quorum consists of one half in each House, whereas in England the House of Lords, whose quorum is three, has usually less than thirty peers present, and the House of Commons finds a difficulty, through many private members' days and on government days from eight till ten o'clock p.m., in making up its modest quorum of forty. This requirement of a high quorum, which is prescribed in the Constitution, has doubtless helped to secure a good attendance. Other causes are the distance from Washington of the residences of most members, so that it is not worth while to take the journey home for a short sojourn,

3

1 The House of Commons would be much less manageable than it is did the whole of its 670 members attend. Even now, the number present during a debate rarely exceeds 450, though of course as many as 600 sometimes vote in great divisions. There is sitting space on the floor for only 360.

2 Though sometimes the sergeant-at-arms is sent round Washington with a carriage to fetch members down from their residences to the Capitol. 3 Oliver Cromwell's House of 360 members, including 30 from Scotland and 30 from Ireland, had a quorum of 60. See the Articles of December 1653 in Parliamentary History, vol. iii. p. 1417.

and the fact that very few attempt to carry on any regular business or profession while the session lasts. Those who are lawyers, or merchants, or manufacturers, leave their work to partners; but many are politicians and nothing else. In Washington, a city without commerce or manufactures, political or semipolitical intrigue is the only gainful occupation possible; for the Supreme Court practice employs only a few leading barristers. The more democratic a country is, so much the more regular is the attendance, so much closer the attention to the requests of constituents which a member is expected to render. Every extension of the suffrage in England has been followed not only by a change in the character of the House of Commons, but by an increase in the numbers usually present, and in the eagerness of members to defer to every wish of those who have returned them. Apart from that painful duty of finding places for constituents which consumes so much of a congressman's time, his duties are not heavier than those of a member of the English Parliament who desires to keep abreast of current questions. The sittings are neither so long nor so late as those of the House of Commons; the questions that come up not so multifarious, the blue books to be read less numerous, the correspondence (except about places) less troublesome. The position of senator is more onerous than that of a member of the House, not only because his whole State, and not merely a district, has a direct claim upon him, but also because, as one of a smaller

1 Before the Reform Bill of 1832 there were rarely more than 200 members present in the House of Commons, and it usually sat for two or three hours only in each day. I remember to have been told of a member for Hampshire about 1820, who sat for thirteen years, being in perfect health, and was only thrice in the House. Nor was this deemed a very singular case.

body, he incurs a larger individual responsibility, and sits upon two or more committees instead of on one only.

VII. The reasons which make a political career unattractive to most Americans will deserve to be considered in a later chapter. Here I will only remark that the want of opportunities for distinction in Congress is one of them. It takes a new member at least a session to learn the procedure of the House. Full dress debates are rare, newspaper reports of speeches delivered are curt and little read. The most serious work is done. in committees; it is not known to the world, and much of it results in nothing, because many bills which a committee has considered are perhaps never even voted on by the House. A place on a good House committee is to be obtained by favour, and a highspirited man may shrink from applying for it to the Speaker. Ability, tact, and industry make their way in the long run in Congress, as they do everywhere else. But in Congress there is, for most men, no long run. Only very strong local influence, or some remarkable party service rendered, will enable a member to keep his seat through two or three successive congresses. Nowhere therefore does the zeal of a young politician sooner wax cold than in the House of Representatives. Unfruitful toil, the toil of turning a crank which does nothing but register its own turnings, or of writing contributions which an editor steadily rejects, is of all things the most disheartening. It is more disheartening than the non-requital of merit; for that at least spares the self-respect of the sufferer. Now toil for the public is usually unfruitful in the House of Representatives, indeed in all Houses. But toil for the pecuniary interests of one's constituents and friends is fruitful, for it obliges people, it wins the reputation of energy and