those of the members; and the business seemed to be done in a dull,
serviceable, methodical manner, likely to be useful to the country,
and very uninteresting to the gentlemen engaged. Indeed at
Washington also, in Congress, it seemed to me that there was much
less of set speeches than in our House of Commons. With us there
are certain men whom it seems impossible to put down, and by whom
the time of Parliament is occupied from night to night, with
advantage to no one and with satisfaction to none but themselves. I
do not think that the evil prevails to the same extent in America,
either in Congress or in the State legislatures. As regards
Washington, this good result may be assisted by a salutary practice
which, as I was assured, prevails there. A member gets his speech
printed at the government cost, and sends it down free by post to
his constituents, without troubling either the House with hearing it
or himself with speaking it. I cannot but think that the practice
might be copied with success on our side of the water.

The appearance of the members of the legislature of Pennsylvania did
not impress me very favorably. I do not know why we should wish a
legislator to be neat in his dress, and comely, in some degree, in
his personal appearance. There is no good reason, perhaps, why they
should have cleaner shirts than their outside brethren, or have been
more particular in the use of soap and water, and brush and comb.
But I have an idea that if ever our own Parliament becomes dirty, it
will lose its prestige; and I cannot but think that the Parliament
of Pennsylvania would gain an accession of dignity by some slightly
increased devotion to the Graces. I saw in the two Houses but one
gentleman (a Senator) who looked like a Quaker; but even he was a
very untidy Quaker.