experience came to temper their natural ardour; nothing warned them of the obstacles which existing facts might oppose to the most desirable reforms; they had no idea of the dangers which always accompany the most necessary revolutions.'

Their animosity to Christianity was a feature which would, of course, attract the attention of every observer. M. de Tocqueville ascribes it entirely to want of political experience, and agrees with Burke in the conclusion that the least degree of practical knowledge would have prevented it.

Two passages from the Reflections and the Ancien Régime on this subject are strikingly similar. Burke, whilst insisting on the fact that experience had brought Englishmen to reverence religion as the basis of society, says that his experience has lived down scepticism: Who, born within the last forty years, has read one word of Collins and Toland, and Tindal and Chubb and Morgan, and that whole race who called themselves free-thinkers? Who now reads Bolingbroke? Who ever read him through?'

After referring, not to this passage of Burke, but in general terms to the Deistical controversy in England, M. de Tocqueville says: "Why look for examples out of France? What Frenchman in the present day would think of writing such books as those of Diderot and Helvetius? Who would read them? I should almost say, who knows their titles? The incomplete experience which we have acquired in sixty years of

public life has sufficed to disgust us with this dangerous literature.'

The resemblance on this point between these great men deserves notice rather than praise. The question of the truth of a religion, is at least as important as that of its utility, for truth is the highest form of utility, and grapes will grow on thorns, and figs on thistles, before all human life can be founded on a lie. It is the weak point of both Burke and M. de Tocqueville that they never seem to admit that inquiry into the origin of received truths has any value for its own sake. They undoubtedly had some. Mere political experience would not have been sufficient to parry all their attacks. The questions which they raised are still outstanding, and will some day or other imperiously require a solution. The question what is the truth, as far as we can grasp it, about God and the soul, is at least as important, as practical a question for every man as the question what is the nature of Democracy.

This parallel between Burke and M. de Tocqueville might be carried through the whole of their respective books; but the foregoing observations are enough to serve as an illustration of the way in which the keen glance of practical experience sharpened by passion is explained and confirmed by the minute inquiries and mature wisdom of political philosophy.

IT is a common reproach against the Americans that, with many opportunities, they should have produced so few books of any real power or originality, nor is the reproach by any means unjust. Since the Declaration of Independence they have had no Franklin, no Hamilton, it might almost be said no Jonathan Edwards-though whether that is a loss is quite another question. On the other hand, they have been faithful enough to the memory of the eminent men whom they did produce in former times. The few remarkable books which were formerly written in America have been made the most of, and have been constantly republished.

The Federalist is one of the most important of these, and though comparatively little known in this country, at least of late years, it appears to have been republished continually in America; and a most elaborate edition- -as handsome as type and paper can

1 The Federalist. A New Edition, with Notes. Sampson Low, Son and Marston. 1864.

London:

make it, and enriched with a preface which discusses at vast length, and with every appearance of great research, every point connected with the authorship of the work, and with the particulars of the editions through which it has run-has lately been published in New York.

The Federalist is a book altogether unlike anything in English literature. It is a record of the controversies which attended the establishment of the American Constitution, and may be taken as a manifesto setting forth, on the part of the authors of that measure, the views which presided over their work. As most of our readers are aware, the relations between the thirteen colonies which proclaimed their independence in 1776, were at first regulated by articles of Confederation, by which each State was recognised as an independent body, though certain powers were delegated to Congress.

After the conclusion of the war, the Confederation fell into the greatest discredit, both at home and abroad. It was inefficient to the last degree. Its great leading defect was that each State retained so much power that the Central Government had practically none at all. If it wanted troops or money, it had to make requisitions on the separate States. If they refused to obey, which they often did, there was no remedy except civil war, and the consciousness of this utterly paralysed the Government. money credit of the United States sank to the lowest ebb, their finances fell into inextricable confusion,

The

their military force almost disappeared, and the Confederacy seemed likely to fall in pieces from inherent weakness.

In this state of things a Convention met at Philadelphia, in the summer of 1787, to settle the scheme of a general Constitution. In September it was submitted to the States, with a proviso that, as soon as nine of them ratified the Constitution, proceedings should be commenced under it; and during the latter part of 1787 and the beginning of 1788, the series of letters afterwards collected under the title of the Federalist appeared in the New York papers under the signature of 'Publius.' Their object was to explain the nature and benefits of the proposed Constitution, and to persuade the States in general, and especially the State of New York, to accept it.

There is, of course, a literary controversy as to the authorship, which those who care for such matters may read about in the preface to the present edition. It appears, however, that, whoever may have written particular papers there are in all eighty-fiveHamilton wrote nearly three-quarters of the whole, and Jay and Madison the remainder. Jay, according to one account, wrote four, and Madison fourteen, besides three others in which he was assisted by Hamilton. This, however, is a small matter. Substantially, Hamilton may be regarded as the author, as he was also the most active and conspicuous of the authors of the Constitution itself.

It must be admitted that it requires a considerable