that the representation of the English constituencies is systematically bought and sold. Mr. Roebuck boldly charged bribery and corruption upon a considerable number of members, calling them by name, and exposing the base means by which they had gained their seats. "Among others more or less flagrant, was the constituency of Nottingham, which had been bought by Sir John Cam Hobhouse, the intimate friend and adviser of Lord Byron, and by Sir George Larpent, and sold to no less a personage than Mr. WALTER of the Times, who for a given sum of money, was to be permitted by his whig opponents to walk over the course," i. e. to obtain uncontested, the vacant seat. The TIMES has ever been foremost in endeavouring to bring discredit on Republican Institutions, by raking up from the lowest partisan Journals in the United States, the crimination and recrimination bandied about, among them, on the subject of "Pipe Laying," &c. &c., and publishing the details and evidences of the inevitable tendency of our system. Yet here we find the most prominent person connected with that paper buying a whole constituency like a flock of sheep." So much for the calumniators of Democracy-fine critics, such men, of American Politics!-Mr. Roebuck unmoved by the opposition levelled against him from all sides of the House, manfully stood his ground, and amidst the writhings of Tories and Whigs, struck dumb by the exposure of their villainy, he "tore off," in the

language of the Dublin Freeman, "the hereditary mask from the strumpet face of aristocracy,"-he demanded from Parliament a committee of Inquiry to investigate this putrid mass of "honourable corruption," and when the names of that committee were announced, Mr. Duncombe moved "that each member of the committee should subscribe in the presence of the speaker, a declaration that he had never himself or by his agents, been guilty of any act of bribery or corruption in procuring a seat in Parliament, or in returning any member or members. This gentleman declared, that, with a proper committee, he would undertake to prove that the great majority of members of the present house were returned by means of gross bribery or intimidation !"

As may well be supposed, such a House would not vote for an exposure of their own shame, and although the Committee was granted, yet only seventeen members could be found in the whole House of Commons to vote for Mr. Duncombe's motion! Most of the London Journals conceded that this was tantamount to a confession that there were only seventeen honest men in the lower House of Parliament. So much for all this hollow cant about the jealousy of freedom, preventing impurity and corruption in English elections!

It is a gross insult to truth and the spirit of liberty, to say that the people are represented in the British Parliament. The House of Com

mons is elected by the privileged classes; and it legislates for them, and them alone.

After expatiating at length on the immaculate purity of English elections and the unbounded liberty of the people, our author turns to America, to lament over 66 the serious tax of their time consumed in elections ;" and this is one of the principal items in the load of abuses and burdens under which American working men stagger! His argument then amounts to this, that the English aristocracy ever solicitous for the good of the lower orders, cannot bear to see them waste an hour at the hustings, particularly when there is so much more work to be done than there are labourers to do it, and labour is so abundantly paid, and they have from these lofty and humane motives, kindly taken the administration of affairs into their own hands, and saved the people the trouble of having any solicitude about the matter! How grateful the people should be under these superabundant provisions of a kind and fatherly aristocracy! Oh! Liberty, what oppressive terms dost thou impose upon freemen in compelling them to chose their own rulers !

If "Libertas” will permit me to offer a word of advice, I would suggest that his help is greatly needed on the other side of the Atlantic just now. If his principles are correct, three or four millions of Chartists have made a terrible mistake; so anxious are they to assume the tremendous burden of electing their own rulers, they seem pretty

much determined to upset the government, if necessary, to accomplish their object. These men are wrong they are the victims of a destructive infatuation-they need light and guidance. Had not our author better hurry back in the first ship that spreads its sails for England, and save the deluded Chartist millions from such a wanton sacrifice of their present liberty and leisure, and their sans culotte children shall rise up and call him blessed!

Two of the most serious accusations brought against me in the book here under review, are, 1st. that I treated Hon. J. C. Calhoun and others I addressed on the subject of slavery, with courtesy. In pleading guilty to this charge, I must defend myself by saying, that I have been taught to treat all men with becoming respect, and all strangers with courtesy, whatever may be their opinions. Southern men have long enough been plied with brick bats and insults; it is time they were approached with candor and kindness, and from arguments addressed in such a spirit, they will not turn away. The second accusation is, that I did not fill my book with "the horrors and barbarities of American slavery." I had two good reasons for not doing so; first, I saw more slavery in England than I could well describe; and second, "Libertas," and men of the like genus, had taken such special pains to pourtray these "horrors and barbarities," that other persons have been saved the trouble! But I have already devoted too

much time to this portion of his work, and I proceed to show

II. THAT ITS STATISTICS ARE MANY OF THEM WRONG, AND CANNOT BE RELIED ON.-Its aspersions of myself I care not for, its aspersions of my country will mislead no one, but its statistics may have blinded some honest though ill-informed reader, who by some casualty got through the book, which I fear I too much honour by the notice here bestowed upon it. I would correct its mistakes if the author knew no better, and expose his dishonesty if, as I am inclined to believe, he has attempted to deceive.

He endeavours to show that the CORN LAWS have raised the price of grain in England only 3s. a quarter! and, therefore, that the entire tax laid on the British islands, in consequence of the restrictions on the corn trade, is only twenty-two and a half million dollars per annum. One would call this a tax of some magnitude to impose upon the poor for bread !—for it needs no argument to show that a tax upon bread falls on the consumers, and you will not deny that the great mass of them are poor. By his mode of arranging figures, "Libertas" can prove anything that is false to be true. He goes to M'Culloch for statistics, and selects those years when wheat was at its highest price abroad, and then compares this price with those years when wheat was at its lowest price in Great Britain. In this way he could prove that bread is always dearer. in the