There is no chapel attached to this establishment, and when divine service is performed, the clergyman takes his station at the head of the corridors; the apertures communicating with the cells are thrown open, and his voice, I am assured, is distinctly audible, even by the most distant prisoner. Strange to say, however and I confess that in a state so religious as Pennsylvania, the fact struck me with astonishment-morning and evening prayers are unknown in the Penitentiary. ACCOUNT of the AMERICAN CONGRESS. IN the American Congress there is more of what may be called speaking against time, than in any other deliberative assembly ever known. Each member is aware that he must either assume a certain prominence in debate, or give up all hope of future re-election; and it is needless to say which alternative is usually preferred. A universal tolerance of long speeches is thus generated, and no attempt is ever made to restrict the range of argument or declamation, within the limits even of remote connexion with the subject of discussion. One continually reads in the public papers such announcements as the following: "In the House of Representa tives, yesterday, Mr. Tompkins occupied the whole day with the continuation of his brilliant speech on the Indian question, and is in possession of the floor to-morrow. He is expected to conclude on Friday; but, from the press of other business, it will probably be Tuesday next before Mr. Jefferson X. Bagg will commence his reply, which is expected to occupy the whole remainder of the week." In fact, an oration of eighteen or twenty hours is no uncommon occurrence in the American Congress. After this vast expenditure of breath, the next step of the orator is to circulate his speech in the form of a closely-printed pamphlet of some hundred and fifty pages. A plentiful supply of copies is despatched for the use of his constituents, who swallow the bait; and at the conclusion of the session, the member returns to his native town, where he is lauded, feasted, and toasted, and-what he values, probably, still more-re-elected. The mode in which the discussion of public business is carried on in Congress certainly struck me as being not only unstatesmanlike, but in flagrant violation of the plainest dictates of common sense. The style of speaking is loose, rambling, and inconclusive; and adherence to the real subject of discussion evidently forms no part, either of the intention of the orator, or the expectation of his audience. A large proportion of the speakers seem to take part in a debate with no other view than that of individual display, and it sometimes happens, that the topic immediately pressing on the attention of the assembly, by some strange perversity, is almost the only one on which nothing is said. The truth, I believe, is, that the American Congress have really very little to do. All the multiplied details of municipal legislation fall within the province of the State governments, and the regulation of commerce and foreign intercourse practically includes all the import ant questions which they are called on to decide. Nor are the members generally very anxious so to abbreviate the proceedings of Congress, as to ensure a speedy return to their provinces. They are well paid for every hour lavished on the public business; and being once in Washington, and enjoying the pleasures of its society, few are probably solicitous for the termination of functions which combine the advantage of pecuniary emolument, with opportunities of acquir. ing distinction in the eyes of their constituents. The farce, therefore, by common consent, continues to be played on. The most prolix speeches are tolerated, though not listened to; and every manoeuvre by which the discharge of public business can be protracted is resorted to, with the most perfect success. Of course I state this merely as the readiest hypothesis by which the facts already mentioned can be explained; but, in truth, there are many other causes at work. Though in either House there is no deficiency of party spirit, and political hostili ties are waged with great vigour, yet both in attack and defence there is evidently an entire want of discipline and arrangement. There is no concert, no division of duties, no compromise of opinion; but the movements of party are executed without regularity or premeditation. Thus, instead of the systematic and combined attack of an organized body, deliberately concerted on principles which will unite the greatest number of auxiliaries, government have in general to sustain only the assaults of single and desultory combatants, who mix up so much of individual peculiarity of opinion with what is common to their party, that any general system of effective co-operation is impossible. It is evident enough, in whatever business the House may be engaged, that each individual acts for himself, and is eager to make or to discover some oppor tunity of lavishing all his crudities of thought or fancy on his brother legislators. The consequence of all this is, that no one can guess, with any approach to probability, the course of discussion on any given subject. A speech, an argument, an insinuation, an allusion, is at any time sufficient to turn the whole current of debate into some new and unforeseen channel; and I have often found it absolutely impossible to gather from the course of argument followed by the speakers, even the nature of the question on which the House were divided in opinion. In England, it is at least pretty certain, that a motion on criminal law will not lead to a discussion on foreign policy, including the improvement of turnpike-roads, the expenses of Plymouth breakwater, the renewal of the East-India Company's Charter, and the prospects of Swan River settlement. But in America, a debate in Congress is a sort of steeple-chase, in which no one knows anything of the country to be crossed, and it often happens that the object of pursuit is altogether lost sight of by the whole party. One effect-I do not know that it is a bad one-of this excursive style of discussion is, that every member finds it necessary to be on the alert. the alert. Something may at any moment be said, to which it is necessary that the representative for a particular state or district should immediately reply. Whatever may be the subject of debate, no member-especially in the Lower House-can be absent a single hour with safety when an orator of the opposite party, according to American phrase, is "in possession of the floor." I have often, in coming to the Capitol, inquired of members of the House of Representatives whether it was proba ble that any interesting discussion would take place in the course of the day. The answer uniformly was, that it was impossible to foresee; for though the topic occupying the attention of the House might be of the most common-place kind, the debate on it was liable at any moment to diverge, and bring on the most unexpected results. But on this matter, as I have already perhaps dealt too much in "wise saws," I shall take the liberty of adducing a few modern instances. One of the first debates at which I was present related to a pecuniary claim of the late President Monroe on the United States, amounting, if I remember rightly, to sixty thousand dollars. This claim had long been urged, and been repeatedly referred to committees of the House of Representatives, who, after a careful investi-, gation of the subject, had reported in favour of its justice. The question at length came on for discussion, "Is the debt claimed by Mr. Monroe from the United States a just debt, or not?" Nothing could possibly be more simple. Here was a plain matter of debtor and creditor; a problem of figures, the solution of which must rest on a patient examination of accounts, and charges, and balances. It was a question after the heart of Joseph Hume-a bone, of which that most useful legislator under stands so well how to get at the marrow. Well, how was this dry question treated in the House of Representatives? Why, as follows. Little or nothing was said as to the intrinsic justice or validity of the claim. Committees of the House had repeatedly reported in its favour; and I heard no attempt, by fact or inference, to prove the fallacy of their decision. But a great deal was said about the political character of Mr. Monroe some dozen years before, and a great deal about Virginia, and its presidents, and its members, and its attempts to govern the Union, and its selfish policy. A vehement discussion followed as to whether Mr. Monroe or Chancellor Livingstone had been the efficient agent in procuring the cession of Louisiana. Members waxed warm in attack and recrimination, and a fiery gentleman from Virginia was repeatedly called to order by the Speaker. One member declared, that, disapproving altogether of the former policy of Mr. Monroe's cabinet, he should certainly now oppose his demand for payment of a debt, of which it was not attempted to prove the injustice. Another thought Mr. Monroe would be very well off if he got half of what he claimed, and moved an amendment to that effect, which, being considered a kind of compromise, I believe, was at length carried, after repeated adjournments and much clamorous debate. The speaking in the Senate is very superior to that in the other House; yet the faults of both bodies differ rather in degree than in character. There is the same loose, desultory, and inconclusive mode of discussion in both; but in the Senate there is less talking for the mere purpose of display, and less of that tawdry emptiness and vehement imbecility which prevails in the Representatives. Though the members of the Senate be absolutely and entirely dependent on the people, they are dependent in a larger sense; dependent not on the petty clubs and coteries of a particular neighbourhood, but on great masses and numbers of men, embracing every interest and pursuit, and covering a wide extent of country. Then, from the comparative paucity of their numbers, there is less jostling and scrambling in debate, more statesmanlike argument, and less schoolboy declamation; in short, considerably less outery, and a great deal more wool. The Senate contains men who would do honour to any legislative assembly in the world. Those who left the most vivid impression on my memory are Mr. Living stone, now Secretary of State, and Mr. Webster, whose powers, both as a lawyer and a debater, are without rival in the United States. Of these eminent individuals, and others, whose intercourse I enjoyed during my stay in Washington, I shall hereafter have occasion to speak. There were other members of the Senate, however, to whose speeches I always listened with pleasure. Among these were General Hayne, from South Carolina, -who, as Governor of that state, has since put the Union in imminent peril of mutilation, and Mr. Tazewell, of Virginia, a speaker of great logical acuteness, clear, forci ble, and direct in his arguments. When General Smith, of Maryland, and Mr. Forsyth, of Georgia, both struck me as being particularly free from the sins that do most easily beset their countrymen. either of these gentlemen addressed the House, I always felt secure, not only that they had something to say, but that they had something worth saying, an assurance of which they only who have gone through a course of Congressional debates can appreciate the full value. But whatever advantages the speeches of the Senate may possess over those of the Representatives, certainly brevity is not of the number. Every subject is overlaid; there is a continual sparring about trifles; and, it struck me, even a stronger display of sectional jealousies than in the other House. This latter quality probably arises from the senators being the representatives of an entire community, with separate laws, interests, and prejudices, and constituting one of the sovereign members of the confederation. When a member declares his opinions on any question, he is understood to speak the sentiments of a state, and is naturally jealous of the degree of respect with which so important a revelation may be received. Then there are state antipathies, and state affinities, a pre-disposition to offence in one quarter, and to lend support in another; and there is the odium in longum jaciens between the Northern and Southern States, shedding its venom in every debate, and influencing the whole tenor of legislation. SCENERY and NAVIGATION of the MISSISSIPPI. IT has been the fashion with tra- Rocks and mountains are fine things undoubtedly, but they could add nothing of sublimity to the Mississippi. Pelion might be piled on Ossa, Alps on Andes, and still, to the heart and perceptions of the spectator, the Mississippi would be alone. It can brook no rival, and it finds none. No river in the world drains so large a portion of the earth's surface. It is the traveller of five thousand miles, more than two-thirds of the diameter of the globe. The prevailing character of the Mississippi is that of solenin gloom. I have trodden the passes of Alp and Apennine, yet never felt how awful a thing is nature, till I was borne on its waters, through regions desolate and uninhabitable. Day after day, and night after night, we continued driving right downward to the south; our vessel, like some huge demon of the wilderness, bearing fire in her bosom, and canopying the eternal forest with the smoke of her nostrils. Conversation became odious, and I passed my time in a sort of dreamy contemplation. At night, I ascended to the highest deck, and lay for hours gazing listlessly on the sky, the forest, and the waters, amid silence only broken by the clanging of the engine. The navigation of the Mississippi is not unaccompanied by danger. I do not now speak of the risk of explosion, which is very considerable, but of a peril arising from what are called planters and sawyers. These are trees firmly fixed in the bottom of the river, by which vessels are in danger of being impaled. The distinction is, that the former stand upright in the water, the latter lie with their points directed down the stream. We had the bad luck to sustain some damage from a planter, whose head being submersed was of course invisible. The bends or flexures of the Mississippi are regular in a degree unknown in any other river; indeed, so much is this the case, that I should conceive it quite practicable for an hydrographer to make a tolerably accurate sketch of its course without actual survey. The action of running water, in a vast alluvial plain like that of the basin of the Mississippi, without obstruction from rock or mountain, may be calculated with the utmost precision. Whenever the course of a river di |