But a very brief period exposed them also to censure. When the Coercionbill again came on for discussion, the noble lord who had before spoken with such noble earnestness on behalf of law and order was now found prepared to vote against the measure he had before supported-to cast all considerations to the winds that could interfere with the full accomplishment of party revenge. Thus was a disgraceful rivalry in tergiversation kept up by the three great parties in the House, although each was jealous lest the others should outstrip them in these petty manœuvres. One more instance of this wholesale forgetfulness of political honour, and we have done with the painful record. We allude to the course taken by all parties on the Sugar question. The most offensive hypocrisy is that in which moral and religious considerations are simulated. What an amount of this offence must have been accumulated by those who formerly put forward the anti-slavery pretext as a reason for refusing to alter the sugar duties, but who now, with a disgraceful facility, abandoned all those pretences-nay, even turned them into ridicule! With the exception of the speeches of some few noble and honourable-minded men, who preserved their consistency on the one side or the other, the debates on Lord John Russell's Sugar-dutiesbill were actually revolting to the moral sense of the public. With such examples before us, where is confidence hereafter to be placed? To counterbalance these derelictions of principle, there was one great moral lesson in the proceedings of the session. Statesmen have been taught, in the person of no less illustrious and successful a man than Sir Robert Peel, that if they break their pledges retribution must come. Even assuming the late premier's motives to have been solely patriotic, so glaring a violation of all party ties could not be allowed to pass unpunished. Let us hope that the means resorted to by both the Whigs and the Protectionists had this moral end in view. It would discharge them of much of their obliquity. Personality has been even a more marked and a more degrading feature of the session than political ter giversation. Isolated instances there have been, from time to time, of indulgence in much more violent conduct, but they have proceeded from men in comparatively inferior stations as politicians: never has this low order of political attack been indulged in so extensively by men in a high position as during the past year. Passing over a multitude of minor cases, we will glance at one or two of the most striking. For instance, Mr. Shaw, a man holding a very high position-a judge, a privy councillor, the representative of an university had expressed very strong disapproval of the conduct of ministers. Upon this, Sir James Graham, on the 27th of March, rose and imputed to him impure personal motives, insinuated that his anger arose not from public considerations, but from his having been refused a retiring allowance as recorder of Dublin, and also the secretaryship for Ireland. At least, if the attack meant any thing, this was its purport. This was bad enough, as coming from a cabinet minister, and of course it provoked Mr. Shaw to reply. He denied the charge, of course; but added, that if it were true, the divulging a private and confidential communication to produce a temporary triumph in debate was utterly unbecoming the feelings of a gentleman: he added, that his feelings towards the home secretary were those of but he was not allowed to finish the sentence. Surely such proceedings as these must be checked, or the British House of Commons will ere long be reduced to the level of an American assembly. The other case we shall select is one we refer to with great pain, because the person offending is a nobleman who has greatly distinguished himself, and has rendered good service to his party and to the country. But Lord George Bentinck has used language during the session which must be put a stop to. The range of allowable severity is quite wide enough for all legitimate resentment. Lord George has stepped beyond it. His rancour has almost gone the length of provoking personal hostility; it certainly would, if Sir Robert Peel had not sunk all other considerations in his single determination to carry the Corn - bill. The specch of the noble lord on the 8th of June, when he finally declared his determination to oust the minister, was an outrage on parliamentary decency; it well deserved the rebuke administered by Sir Robert Peel. But Lord George Bentinck's attack was mildness itself compared with what was said by Mr. Disraeli during the following week. He went the length of charging Sir R. Peel with a wilful and deliberate perversion of a part of an old speech of his, in the corrected copy furnished by him to Hansard. This was nothing less than a distinct and direct charge of fraud; and we venture to predict, that if the tendency to make out charges is not stopped at the outset, the House of Commons, instead of being, as it proudly boasts, an assembly of the first gentlemen in Europe, will dwindle into a collection of the most choice specimens of a very opposite order of society. While on this subject of personality, need we recall to the reader's mind the singular coarseness of Lord George Bentinck's attack on Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Ripon, the reckless imputation of the most corrupt motives against the most honourable men? Not the least evil of these scenes is that they provoke rejoinders in the same spirit, and that men who ought to be above such courses will, in a moment of natural indignation, forget their own self-respect in replying. This was the case when Lord Lyndhurst condescended to bandy abuse with Lord George Bentinck. But enough of this painful subject. The session has developed much parliamentary talent. Of the singular rise and sudden eminence of Lord George Bentinck enough has been said. His cleverness as a tactician was even more remarkable than his eloquence or his information. In Mr. Stafford O'Brien, too, the House has discovered a valuable acquisition. Captain Layard, also, has displayed much popular talent, and a degree of perseverance and tact which must push him forward. Mr. Seymer and Mr. Scott also developed unexpected talents for debate. The Irish party have derived debating strength in the person of Mr. Macarthy, the new member for Cork. One specch of his, for con. centrated thought, pointed aud anti thetical language, and, above all, for extreme eloquence in delivery, produced a great effect, and gave him at once a position; at no very great distance, he would even bear comparison with Mr. Sheil. On the other hand, we have to record the evident decay of Mr. O'Connell's physical, nay, even of his mental powers. As a debater, he is comparatively extinguished. Mr. Cobden's constitution, also, seems to have given way in the very moment of victory. The real party contests of the session have been contemptible when compared with the importance of the crisis. They have all turned upon paltry personalities. This was but a necessary consequence of the art and finesse used by the premier in getting up his plan, and propping it with transparent pretexts. It has been the most trying scene of Sir Robert Peel's arduous career. Indeed, an opinion very generally prevails that he does not desire to resume office, but that if he did, he might be prime minister if he liked. Of what party? If past treachery did not forbid future confidence, we might answer,-of the Conservatives; for there is yet much to be defended. The censure passed on Sir Robert Peel is not grounded so much on his policy as on its inconsistency with his past professions. Although he has lost moral influence with his party, he has gained ground as a statesman-has shewn a strong will and a definite purpose. He has certainly inspired vast numbers with the belief that he is the only man to govern the country. Even those who most reprehend his proceedings are beginning to urge that the Corn-laws formed no essential part of a Conservative system of policy-that Sir Robert Peel saw they must go, and took means to anticipate the catastrophe rather than be overwhelmed in it. On the other hand, we must not overestimate the facile triumphs of a Bentinck or a Disraeli. The best speeches of the latter were those in which he attacked Sir Robert Peel for mediocrity, and a timid policy as a statesman; yet as soon as the premier adopts the only bold course open to him, he turns round, and makes the charge of treachery. And of Lord George Bentinck it should be remembered, that to attack is always an easy task; for you take every thing for granted, and have nothing to prove; you have only to assert and to vituperate. Politics are growing to be a more noble pursuit. They are more removed from the sphere of court caballing or caprice, and cabinet intrigue, and are more and more open to the influence of public opinion. New laws of political morality are thereby rendered necessary. One significant fact must have been remarked. Sir Robert In glis, although he deprecated, more in sorrow than in anger, the conduct of Sir Robert Peel, adopted a very moderate tone throughout the session. Does he perceive that the Whigs are already preparing an organisation against the Church, beginning with the Irish branch of the Establishment, and foresees therefore a reunion of the Conservative party in its defence? If so, his evident desire not to exasperate Sir Robert Peel, or to drive him beyond the pale of Conservatism, may be accounted for. MORELL'S HISTORY OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY. In our article on Mr. Morell's History, we asserted that he had given no evidence of any direct acquaintance with the works of the philosophers treated of. He has met this by a counter-statement, in which he pledges his word that he has read them. We are bound to accept his word, but can only say, that the evidence afforded by his book is such that he must have read with very little profit, or with a very poor memory, as the public will conclude from the following statement. For the sake of brevity, we confine ourselves to the French philosophers as exhibited by Mr. Morell. We open Mr. Morell's book at the various places where he speaks of French writers, and compare with it, page by page, M. Damiron's book; and we solemnly assure the reader that in M. Damiron we find all the passages given by Mr. Morell, all the exposition, and, what is still more surprising when we think of the original authors, we find absolutely nothing of this kind in Mr. Morell that is not in M. Damiron. This may be fortuitous, but it is somewhat marvellous. Coincidences so striking as occur between M. Damiron and Mr. Morell are curiosities of literature. M. Damiron cannot even quote the Journal des Débats of twenty years ago, but Mr. Morell must also have seen the very paper and quoted the very passage (for all we are given to understand to the contrary)! When, therefore, we find Mr. Morell giving the same extracts and expositions of Cabanis, Garat, Volney, Destutt de Tracy (called by him Destout Tracy), Broussais, De Maistre, La Mennais, Ballanche, Baron d'Eckstein, Azais, as M. Damiron had given, somewhat differently worded and arranged,-when we find Mr. Morell's views sometimes only differing from those of M. Damiron as a bad translation differs from the original-for example, the ton d'amertume said by one to characterise the style of De Maistre, is by the other altered to "the gloominess of his opinions "what are we to conclude? Ex uno disce omnes! London :-Printed by George Barclay, Castle Street, Leicester Square. THE events of the last few years have brought about a revolution in the political world, of which it would be impossible to underrate or to overlook the social consequences. The Reform-bill was a fact, of which we have as yet seen only the first-fruits. The conditions of society in which we move forbid us to imagine that this enactment, momentous as it was, can be the be-all and the endall of our civil changes, or the limit of popular progress. We do not, indeed, profess to coincide with the opinions of those who look with unmixed satisfaction on the doctrine of "progress' 99 or the dissolution of parties. Indeed, we think the two terms inconsistent. That any advance can be made by the legislature without the assistance of party, appears as impossible as that the world could perform its present revolutions if the laws of motion were in abeyance. Whatever progress has been made in any direction, has been made by the combination of several parties or the victory of one. Whatever advance may hereafter be made, must derive its force and momentum from the strength and direction of the partics which produce it. The names, indeed, may change, but the things will remain. Bodies of men will continue to be influenced by the same laws of gregarious at VOL. XXXIV. NO. CCIV. traction and individual submission, long after the terms " Whig" and "Tory" have lost their application and their influence. It becomes, therefore, a question of Some importance, What are to be the representatives of that motive power which is to give an impulse to this anticipated progress? Suppose that the present names of party become obsolete the present leaders of party effete, who are to be the interpreters of the popular will, the guides of popular counsels, the controllers and the instigators of popular passions? For some one class there must be to intervene between the people and their legislators, between design and action, between hopes and realisation. Who, then, are the men on whom is to devolve the duty of "moral suasion "-the responsibility of political guidance the power of political excitement? This is a question well worth considering. It is one, we fear, which many Conservatives too frequently and too carelessly overlook. They forget a few important facts. They shut their eyes to a striking chapter of history. They avert their faces from great and new phenomena. The Reform-bill has been passed, and they still look on England as though it had never been enacted. But the Reform-bill, though the TT fruit of many aspirations, has been but the seed of many others. It is regarded by many but as the prelude to other and greater changes. It has put in motion new longings. It has created new desires. Yet there are men who look upon it as the barrier of the popular impetus-the consummation of a turbulent and soonsatisfied ambition. They think the people may be ruled as they once were; by the same men and the same means that sufficed in the olden times. They forget that great civil revolutions leave an impress on the character of the age which has witnessed them and the generation which follow them. An error of this kind proceeds rather from indolence than from obstinacy, but, unattended to, is soon hardened into a creed of obstinate and exclusive dogmatism. It is not only to the change which came over the nation's dream at the time of the Reform-bill that we would call the attention and the recollection of our Conservative readers, but also to the attendant circumstances, which have given it importance and extension. Since the year 1832, upwards of two million souls* have been added to the population; but that population differs much from the myriads that preceded it. It is no longer an uneducated, no longer a brutal, no longer a mere drudge-like population. It may not be thoroughly educated, yet its instruction is better, its knowledge is more complete than formerly. Although our system is open to the charge of sectarian exclusiveness, it yet merits the praise of sectarian rivalry. Churchman, Papist, and Dissenter have done the best that the circumstances of the case allow of their doing for the education of their poorer brethren. That much remains to be done, and that much hereafter will be done by the State, for the mental no less than the physical improvement of their condition, there is, happily, little reason to doubt. But imperfect as the instruction hitherto given is, it is equally impossible to deny that it is very powerful both for good and for evil, A curiosity on political subjects has been awakened which can never be lulled. A criticism of political personages has been called into play, which it would be easier to conciliate than suppress. Men in high station are judged with a keen and scrutinising minuteness; the relations and the tactics of parties are canvassed with warmth and interest by classes who were formerly supposed to be blind or indifferent to the progress of the political drama. Above all, the inconsistency between the promises and the performances of statesmen affords to every one who can read, write, or only talk, abundant material for severe comment and rigorous condemnation. With the facilities which now exist for communicating knowledge, the opportunities of political discussion are indefinitely multiplied. Every club and every publichouse has its oracles and its declaimers. Almost every body reads a newspaper, and those who do not read listen with attention to those who do. In such a state of things a new order has been called into existence, or rather has grown into importance. With the cultivation of the national intellect has increased the power of those who communicate with it on national subjects. The newspaper has become something greater than the vehicle of news. The newspaperwriter is far superior to the old hack commentator on trite events, or the wholesale dealer in party scandal. The experience of the last four years has shewn that "leading articles" need not necessarily be heavy, or abusive, or personal. We now know that they may be written with salient piquancy, sportive humour, and even argumentative eloquence. It would be possible to refer to articles in our principal journals which have displayed learning without pedantry, and the graces of composition without the appearance of labour. This, in a literary point of view, shews a great improvement on the journalism of our ancestors. But the literary part of the subject is the least important. The social and the political consequences of such an advance are immeasurably more momentous than the graces of style and the beauties of writing. But grave though they See Returns moved by Mr. F. Scott last January, and made by the Board of Trade. |