Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

till Sir Robert again, for a brief but brilliant period, recovered office in 1835. Then we find the Whigs in possession of power, and retaining it with continually decreasing majorities, till 1839, when they introduced a most tyrannical act to suspend the constitution of Jamaica. The Conservatives, and ten of the usual followers of the ministry, resisted this despotic bill; and it was carried at the second reading by the scanty majority of five; and the result was the resignation of the Melbourne cabinet. In another week, however, we find them reinstated in office,-Sir Robert Peel being unable to form an administration, in consequence of her majesty having declined to insist on the customary change in the appointments of the royal household. However graceful and expressive of a kind heart it may have been in her majesty to decline parting with those female friends to whom custom had attached her, the unlucky ministry cut but a sorry figure in returning to office, not called to it by the nation, but dragged out of the mire-clinging to the petticoats of their fairer, and we do believe their better, halves. We shall now examine the unconstitutional position occupied by the Whigs from the memorable epoch of the bedchamber counterplot down to the late dissolution.

It is no doubt the leading principle of our constitution, that the crown should call to its councils those ministers who have the confidence of the people. This is the vital-the allimportant point on which our muchboasted liberty depends. Violate it, and we might as well live under the despotic sway of the Czar as under that of a monarch governing in spite of the declared inclinations of the country. So long as parties are balanced, or nearly so, we hold that the crown may select its ministers from either, but an attempt to rule with majorities in both houses against the responsible advisers of the crown can only end in the stoppage of the supplies, and the paralysation of public business and confidence. Such were the principles of Fox, Burke, and the old Whigs of the school of 1688. Such were the principles that actuated Lord North when, in 1782, he retired with majorities in the lower house of

9 and 10 in his favour. Such were the principles that induced the resignation of Lord Sidmouth with a majority of no less then thirty-seven in his favour. Such the principles that led to the resignation of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel in 1829 with a majority of twenty-nine against them; and, acting on these very principles, Lord Melbourne himself resigned in 1839 on possessing a majority of only five in favour of his government of Jamaica bill. When Pitt, in 1783, resisted a motion of want of confidence in his administration, it was not that he questioned the soundness of the principles we have laid down, but because he could hardly have been considered in office at the time, and he awaited the decision of the nation, as pronounced by the new parliament, which he immediately summoned. It was reserved for the Melbourne ministry to give a new tone to our constitution, and to endeavour to destroy the fundamental principle-the great bulwark of our freedom-by advising the crown to retain ministers who possessed the confidence of neither house of legislature. We shall quote from the “Mirror of Parliament" the principal majorities against them on their recovery of office by the very singular "bedchamber" dispute.

On the 18th of June, 1839, we find them in a majority of only two; yet though a short time previously they had resigned when possessing a majority of five, in this instance they determined on NO RESIGNATION.

Four days previously they again had, on the 20th of June, their old majority of five on the third reading of the Jamaica bill-but this time

NO RESIGNATION.

1st July (1839), on the Factory Regulation-bill, there was a majority of forty-four against them, but NO

RESIGNATION.

On the 26th of the same month there was a majority of sixteen against them on the subject of reducing the chief magistrates' salary in the Metropolitan Police-bill. This being, however, a trivial point, we must not wonder that there was NO RESIGNATION.

We come now to the year 1840. And on the 29th of January in that year we find them in a minority of no less than 104 on Colonel Sibthorpe's motion for reducing Prince Albert's

allowance. This likewise was of course a minor point, and, par consequence, NO RESIGNATION.

The 13th of February we find them in a minority of ten on Mr. Herries' motion for certain financial returns, but NO RESIGNATION.

On the 28th of the same month we find them in a minority of twentyeight on Mr. Liddell's motion concerning Sir John Newport's pension, but NO RESIGNATION.

The 26th of May, on Mr. Villiers' motion on the corn-laws we find them in a minority of 123, but NO RESIGNA

TION.

During the same year we find them in the following successive minorities on a matter of vital importance, namely, Lord Stanley's Irish Registration-bill:

March 26th, in a minority of sixteen, but NO RESIGNATION.

May 18th, ditto of nineteen, but

NO RESIGNATION.

May 20th, ditto of three, but NO

RESIGNATION.

June 11th, ditto of eleven, but No

RESIGNATION.

As a wind-up to the session we next find them, on the 22d of June, in two minorities of forty-nine and eleven, but NO RESIGNATION. We cannot weary our readers by going seriatim through the successive defeats they have sustained since the commencement of last session. Suffice it to say, they were beaten SEVEN times, and that we were not surprised to find, as usual, that there was NO RESIGNATION. Thus we find those Whigs, who always arrogated to themselves the credit of being the lofty defenders of freedom, introducing into the constitution, from a love of office, the shabbiest motive that can influence the conduct not merely of a statesman, but a gentleman- the despotic precept, that in this country a government can continue to exist in the face of a declared majority in both houses. The step which Sir Robert Peel finally adopted was a bold and decisive

one.

A vote of confidence in ministers had been carried fourteen months

previously by a majority of fifteen. Yet in the same House of Commons Sir Robert Peel carried a motion of want of confidence in the same men, and a motion asserting that their continuance in office was in violation of the spirit of the constitution. They

then, with singular tenacity of life, did not resign, but they dissolved; it was pushing their right to the very extreme under the circumstances, but they did so, and the nation, by a vast majority, has deliberately decided against them. The circumstances attending this dissolution were of a nature so singular, and betokening such a combination of recklessness and incompetency, that they come within our province to examine.

The Whigs had, as we have shewn, by gross financial mismanagement, brought matters to such a state, that every year there was an increasing deficiency in the revenue of the country as compared with its expenditure. They said that the country must therefore be taxed to the amount of 1,700,000l. per annum to make up the deficiency. They, with this object, proposed to encourage slave-grown sugar, and, in the very critical state of the Canadas, to exasperate our colonies there by reducing the prohibitory duty on foreign timber. These plans we have not space to discuss, and therefore pass to that which crowned their fate, and on which they prided themselves as their master stroke of policy-their proposed alteration in the corn-laws. They found themselves each session sinking lower and lower, and every debate and every new election strengthening the phalanx of the Conservative opposition. To rescue them some bold measure should be adopted-some popular topic of excitement to throw forth to the nation, and then, when they had shaken society to its foundation, to dissolve, and to be once more borne into continuance of power on the turbid waves of the storm they had raised. The happy idea of the "big loaf" occurred to them. Let us, said they, proclaim cheap bread, cheap sugar, and the elections must be in our favour. They accordingly did so. But, instead of that terrible agitation on which they doubtless counted, those meetings of 150,000 that shook the country with their threats before the passing of the Reform-bill, the nation received the "big loaf" with wonderful coolness. We are asked, said the public, to pay a fixed duty of eight shillings a quarter on all foreign corn imported into this country, or, in other words, to pay a fixed duty on an article whose

value, by the laws of nature, is as fluctuating and uncertain as the seasons which produce it. We would wish to have bread cheap; we would wish, if possible, to have it for nothing; but, as we cannot, we prefer to continue as we are, paying a price that gives fair remuneration to the farmer in times of plenty, and with a power, when corn is scarce, of buying foreign grain at a mere nominal import duty. The present corn-laws may doubtless require alteration, but it must be a very different alteration from that proposed by ministers, and one which will not compel us to pay a high instead of a nominal duty on corn when it becomes really dear. The principle of the sliding scale-a principle which adapts the price to the degree of scarcity of the article to be purchased is manifestly just-it perhaps requires such alteration as experience of its practical working may suggest, and we make no doubt that it will receive from a powerful Conservative ministry, able to carry their own measures, much more efficient amendment than can be given to it by the tinkering of a ministry who are dependent for the carrying of their measures on the will of an opposition more powerful than themselves. We believe that the above few sentences do really comprise the sentiments of the vast majority of the people; and that it was as well the conviction of the inefficacy of the measure itself, as a general disgust at the unconstitutional government of the Whigs, that caused the agricultural districts, as well as the great manufacturing and commercial towns of Leeds, Liverpool, London, Dublin, &c. &c., to call to power that Conservative opposition, in whom their confidence had for ten years been gradually acquiring renewed strength.

Thus, my Lord John, you have been disappointed. The people have discovered your "big loaf” to be a big lie; and there has not been a meeting of 150,000 persons at Birmingham, as in 1831, to proclaim no payment of taxes, unless we pay you your quarter's salary-no meeting, declared by the lord-chancellor to be illegal, with which, as once, you, a minister of the crown, may enter into open correspondence, to encourage violation of the law. There has been no castle burnt at Nottingham-no

Bristol riots-no town gaol at Derby broken open-none of those desperate riots that disgraced the realm in 1831-no anxious display of violence for the purpose of retaining you in office. The poor peasantry of Ireland did indeed make a fight for you, at the bidding of a leader that has said he despised you; and even that contest was unsuccessful, but sufficient to throw a light on the character and motives of those who pulled the strings of the puppets: the people were glad to be rid of you.

Our readers will observe, that we have all along argued on the supposition that the Melbourne ministry do not mean to act so ungentlemanly or so very unconstitutional a part, as to advise their youthful sovereign to diminish the present loyal and warm attachment felt towards her by men of all parties, by retaining them in office, when once a decided majority of that house, which she has summoned together for the express purpose of declaring whether the nation confides in them or not, shall have recorded its verdict against them. We heed not the ominous tone which the Standard has of late, on some occasions, thought right to assume; and really after the professions made by Lord John Russell, Mr. Macaulay, and others of the ministry, that they would no longer hold office under such circumstances, - when we find notwithstanding those professions and the terrible infringement of all the free principles of our constitution, which would be implied by such retention of office-when we still find in any a scepticism, an unbelief in these pledges, and a supposition that these men could place their queen in such an invidious and disagreeable position it affords the best commentary on their past conduct. For ourselves we own frankly that we do not believe them capable of such baseness; and refuse to entertain the belief that for another quarter's salary they could willingly insult a nation, hazard the popularity of the queen, or peril her crown.

We have no doubt that when Sir Robert Peel returns to office he will find, as he avowed in 1839, his chief difficulty to be Ireland. He will be greeted once more with the unmeaning cry of "Justice to Ireland." We say unmeaning, for wherein has Ireland been treated with injustice?

Of what has she now to complain? She too has had her reform-bill, her emancipation-bill, her poor-laws, an altered system of her corporations, and a profuse distribution of government patronage for ten years amongst the Radical and Popish portion of her population. Is it for these that we are threatened with rebellion? Rebellion, indeed! Let them try it. With all his faults we cannot divest ourselves of a sort of personal liking for O'Connell, based, strange as it may appear, on his immense and varied talent and wonderful assurance. We, therefore, give him a friendly hint (though his deficiency in the courage of a Catiline may perhaps render it unnecessary) to beware how he gets his neck into any legal noose, with the iron Duke to pull it.

Let the Protestants of Ireland be but united; and then, even without the aid of this country, they can have nothing to fear. It is always more difficult to keep a victorious than an assailing army together; and again we say, be united. It is melancholy to think there should be need of such advice; but when we look into the speech now lying before us, of the Right Hon. Frederick Shaw to the electors of the Dublin University, it would be folly to deny the fact that there has been a schism in the Conservative camp at the other side of the water. The men who seek too much are if possible more detrimental to the interests of their party, than those who seek too little. The time when moderation, always expedient, becomes graceful, is in the moment of victory; and we trust that the great cause of Conservatism will be no longer scandalised by such attempts as were recently made to oust Mr. Shaw from the representation of the University because he had not deserted his post, or from inability to obtain all that might be wished, neglected to secure all, which the great leader of his party thought it advisable to seek. We hold in high respect, no doubt, the tinkers and tailors of the old Dublin corporation; but we advise them in future to abstain from dictating to educated Ireland, as represented by the electors of the Dublin University, whom they ought or whom they ought not to send to parliament. Let the schism,

if ever it arrived at that dignity, be now forgotten and buried in the long list of upwards of eleven hundred of those electors who have deprecated its continuance and sanctioned by their approval the disinterested conduct and laborious exertions, where exertion might be useful, of Mr. Shaw, whom we presume we may now regard as their member for life.

We have thought it right to allude to this affair; for though it appear trivial here, yet was it a sign of the times in Ireland, and nothing connected with the history of the Protestant party there can be now considered unimportant.

There is one more topic on which we must say a word, differing from many of our Conservative brethren as to the light in which we view itwe mean the queen's speech. We rejoice that it has been made what it is. In the first place, its approval of a course of policy so contrary to the sentiments of the great majority of both houses of parliament affords the earliest possible opportunity of each house recording its decision against ministers, and terminating their career. This, therefore, is some gain. In the second place, their preferring to make their royal mistress thus publicly appeal to the country in their behalf-their endeavour to quit office with the queen engaged, in the eyes of the more ignorant classes, by her recent speech to uphold their policy, is all that was wanting utterly to remove any regret amongst gentlemen at their departure from office; and to prove that as they reigned without dignity, so they fell without decency.

We have "told the tale" of the Whigs literally "as 'twas told to us" by their actions. Let our readers determine whether these have proved their incompetency; and as to proof of their shabbiness, we are content to rest our case on their crowning act of disrespect both to the nation and their sovereign, as exhibited in the technically called "Queen's Speech."

And now, my Lord John Russell, think you, to use your own words in a familiar epistle to a seditious assembly,-think you that " IT IS IM

POSSIBLE THE WHISPER OF FACTION SHOULD PREVAIL AGAINST THE VOICE OF A NATION?"*

* Vide Lord John Russell's letter to the Birmingham Political Union in 1831.

THE JOURNAL OF AN AUTUMN IN THE COUNTRY.

IN THREE PARTS.

PART I.

"I was chosen fellow of the college when I was one year bachelor of arts; before which time I had been so studious as to fill whole books with observations out of various authors, with some of my own which I made upon them. For I find one book begun in the year 1646, wherein I have noted many useful things, and rather more large in the year 1647, having the word æternitas at the top of many pages, by the thought of which I was quickened to spend my time well. It is a great comfort to me now in my old age, to find that I was so diligent in my youth; for in those books I have noted how I spent my time."-BISHOP PATRICK's Autobiography. Oxford Edition, p. 15.

"My method will vary with the subject. Throughout I shall give my opinion with becoming modesty, but with the courage of a man unwilling to betray the rights of reason."-GIBBON: Introduction to his Diary.

"As drives the storm, at any door I knock,

And house with Montaigne now, and now with Locke."

THE poet Gray always sketched upon the spot the characteristic features of a landscape; and he gave the same advice to his friends: "You have nothing to do," he wrote to Mr. Palgrave, "but to transcribe your little red books, if they are not rubbed out; for I conclude you have not trusted any thing to memory, which is ten times worse than a lead

pencil." Boswell, who has not, perhaps, received all the credit to which his talents really entitled him, makes a very sensible observation upon this subject:-"Every man should keep minutes of what he reads. Every circumstance of his studies should be recorded; what books he has consulted; how much of them he has read; at what times; how often the same authors, and what opinions he formed of them at different periods of his life." Such an account, he justly thinks, would illustrate the history of the writer's mind. A journal of this description, genuinely composed and with candour of revelation, would possess the charm and value, without the stiffness and presumptuousness, of autobiography; it should be a series of letters written of oneself to oneself. Always avoiding, however, the prolixity of the famous Parish Clerk, whose journal, in two large volumes in folio, Pope lettered, "The Importance of a Man

* Sept. 6, 1758.

POPE: Imitat. of Hor. Ep. 1.

to himself." Literature, like Nature,
has its peculiar scenery; and in
travelling through it, we should
record our impressions while they are
vividly reflected upon the eye.
66 А
few scratches," says Gilpin, in allusion
to the pleasures of picturesque travel-
ling, like a short-hand scrawl of
one's own, will serve to raise in
our minds the remembrances of the
beauty they humbly represent, and
recall to our memory even the splen-
did colouring and force of light which
existed in the real scene.' Among
the Jews, after the destruction of
Jerusalem, when a disciple had passed
with honour the examination of his
teachers, he ascended a raised seat;
and a writing-tablet was placed
before him, to signify that he should
write down his acquisitions," to pre-
vent their escape from his memory,
and their consequent loss for ever.†

[ocr errors]

The advice of Professor Smyth to the student of history seems perfectly just and wise:-"Let such reflections as strike him, while he reads the history, be immediately noted down at the time; let the whole chain be then surveyed, and general results and estimates formed." This caution was given with a particular reference to the perilous times of Charles I.; but it applies with equal force to every page of history whatsoever. Reading history as it ought to be

+ Hartwell Horne's Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures, tome iii. p. 475.

Eighth edition.

Lecture xv. p. 391, t. i. Second Edition.

VOL. XXIV. NO. CXLI.

T

« ElőzőTovább »