in the change. A French constitution may be likened to a town defended by a single wall without any redoubts inside it. A breach once made, the enemy pours in and occupies the position. The two Anglo-Saxon Constitutions on the other hand, are well provided with these internal defences; by their very nature they could never go through those sudden transformations, which are so often in advance of the needs and ideas of the people. They have never suffered from these manifestations of noisy triumph by which progress is exposed to the reaction of exasperated prejudice, and which, on account of one faulty feature, bring about a useless and dangerous revision of the whole constitutional system. Compared to French constitutions they exhibit several defects — they are inferior, regarded as an artistic whole, they are not inspired by elevated ideas, and there is little in their construction to satisfy the intellect. But to make up they are endowed with an elasticity, and with a capacity for adaptation, which have up to this day insured to them a far longer existence than has been granted to the classic constructions and the “eternal mansions “of French constitution-makers.
I say advisedly “up to this day.” The transformation which took place in France in the last century is not confined to that country; it proceeds from general causes. It was accomplished in France at one stroke; in other countries it has taken place by stages, or by a process of insensible evolution. In all societies the increase of personal property, unlimited as it is, and accessible to all, equalizes the differences caused by
