one another by fresh shades of character being introduced to prevent them from being absolutely identical; but a general family resemblance runs through the whole. One character is that of an open, free-. handed, manly being, generally fond of pleasure, full of impulses which on the whole are generous ones, not deficient in ability, and ability sometimes of a high order, careless, self-confident, rather arrogant, and sometimes not very scrupulous. The other is of a different type: crafty, cold-blooded, intensely selfish, clear in the perception of what he wants, and determined to get it at any cost, often inferior to his antagonist in talent, but superior to him in the obstinacy with which he pursues his object— an obstinacy which is rarely shaken by any feeling of mercy, or by any shrinking from meanness or crime. It is also a part of their respective characters that, while the first is sometimes a free-thinker, and, if he is religious, does not say much about it, the second makes a great parade of godliness, and that not necessarily out of hypocrisy, but because he has great faith in the externals of religion, and in fact is apt to be extremely superstitious. The earliest instance of this antagonism that we know of was displayed more than seventeen centuries B.C., in the persons of Esau and Jacob; and it was only the opportune death of one of the parties, just as the

struggle was commencing, which has prevented us from seeing it renewed on a very great scale in the century in which we live.

I have described these two characters rather in the abstract than with any particular reference; and so far from holding that these types are reproduced in every instance with perfect exactness, I am not sure if there is a single one to which the words I have used can apply without some sort of alteration. I will not, therefore, be responsible for the precise applicability of everything I have said, or have it considered in the light of an attempt to depict the character of any individual or people. I say people, though this proviso refers rather to the case of individuals; for the antagonism I have mentioned has been seen more than once in the case of nations, as well as in the case of men. If it had not been so, I should not have been excused in saying anything about it here.

Well, Jacob and Esau-Jacob of the North, and Esau of the South-knowing perfectly well that their interests, or supposed interests, are incompatible, and probably not without a suspicion that their tempers are no less so, make up their minds to keep house together. They will not intrust anybody with full power to manage their affairs for them, so as to force them to make mutual concessions for their common

advantage. They insist on sending their representatives to Washington, not to act as statesmen for the general good, but to vote as delegates according to the injunctions of their respective States; and the two sections having irreconcilable interests, Congress cannot legislate so as to suit both. So that, unless its members are fully possessed with a spirit of statesmanlike moderation, and the citizens, whose delegates they are, with the spirit of Christian charity, the chances are that there will be questions to be settled which will test the solidity of the Union.

Alas! there is but little hope that any such spirit will prevail. It is difficult to make individuals, even if they are tolerably sensible and well-educated, feel that it is wise to sacrifice what they imagine to be their own interest for the sake of the general good. It would be still more difficult to induce an ordinary constituency to do so; and to succeed in impressing such an idea on the mass of citizens of a State, with whom selfishness would take the form of patriotism, would be, humanly speaking, impossible. If there were any real reasons for the sacrifice, they would perhaps not be very clear to an educated gentleman. They would seem of no importance to a ten-pound householder. And to the greater part of the voters, under a system of universal suf

frage, they would seem anti-national, not to say trea

sonous.

I am not finding fault with all this. If the citizen of Massachusetts or New York satisfied himself that the interests of his State were bound up with Protection, it was his duty to vote for Protection. To a New Yorker, his country is the State of New York. To that State attach the interests and duties which attach people all over the world to their respective countries. Within its limits is the home wherein he was born with it are connected his earliest associations, his most important duties, his nearest interests; the family to which he belongs, the neighbours and acquaintance with whom he is most brought in contact, all reside there; and his relations with them are regulated by its laws. His life and property are protected by its officers; his lawsuits, if he has any, must be settled in its courts. The only military force that he is likely to see much of, unless indeed he happen to be anywhere near one of those points which in different parts of the country are given into the charge of the forces belonging to the Federation, is its militia; and generally, in all matters in which an ordinary person ever comes in contact with Government, the only Government which he is obliged to be acquainted with is that of the State of New York. No doubt he feels himself exalted by the

thought that New York is a member of a great and powerful union of States, which, to the eyes of foreigners, presents the appearance of a single body, and which would resent an injury done to its members as if it were done to the whole. No doubt he is proud of the greatness, both in extent and in resources, of the aggregate of States and Territories of which that Union is composed. No doubt, as a citizen of the Union, he feels a jealousy of the aggressions, or what he would call such, of France in Mexico, and Spain in San Domingo, which, in the mere character of citizen of New York, he would not feel. No doubt there are ways in which he has duties towards the Union direct. But those duties are of a secondary order. He belongs to the Republic of the United States, because he belongs to the Republic of New York. "Siamo Veneziani,

poi Cristiani."

So that the New Yorker or the Bostonian is not only entitled, but bound, to think more of the interests of New York or Massachusetts than of those of the Union. But, if he is a member of the Federal Congress, he has other duties to bear in mind. At a European Congress the representative of England is right in standing up for purely English interests, for he is there purely as the representative of England; and he knows that if on some question vitally affect