most pacific of conquerors-he whose official seal bears the proud motto of The cream of Princes, whose port resembles the planet Saturn'-has discovered that the Indus is no longer our natural boundary, and that glory and profit alike demand the conquest and occupation of other lands. The announcement in the Queen's speech at the opening of the session, communicating a resolution to withdraw from the military occupation of the country to the westward of the Indus, is contradicted and disavowed by the Governor-general. The sword is again drawn-when, and under what circumstances, will it be sheathed? And what is the defence of this new war? Not that it is just, but that it will be profitable. Here there have not been, as in Affghanistan, European or Persian intrigues to counteract. Simonich has been in the cabinet of the Ameers of Scinde, or in the field. The whole proceeding is one emanating from our Governor-general, and for which he and his employers are responsible. No It has been rather too rashly asserted by those who are unable to deny the manifold failures of the Government, that they are all attributable to the factious opposition of their adversaries in the House of Commons; and this is said by a worthy contemporary to be in fulfilment of his prophecy, attributing all unpatriotic principles and conduct to the Whig party. Me quoque vatem dicere pastores! is the triumphant exclamation of our brother Journalist. We are not aware who are his pastoral witnesses; but, if any such exist, they are more silly than their sheep.' We are prepared not only to deny, but to disprove, the audacious charge brought against the Opposition. On their part we can exhibit instances of forbearance, and of the sacrifice of all vulgar and selfish party advantages, which, we believe, are without precedent in our Parliamentary annals. In 1842, on the question of the Tariff, the Government was left at their mercy; but when surrounded by threatening agriculturists, and encompassed by bulls of Bashan, stunned by loud reproaches, mugitusque boum, they were rescued from peril by Lord John Russell and his adherents. During the late session, when an opposition out of doors, unexampled in strength and numbers, was arrayed against the education measure, so far from following a bad example, and returning evil for evil, every effort was made to soften and mitigate adverse feelings to do justice to the good intentions of the Government-and to bring all parties to unite in framing and supporting the bill, if it could have been made just and acceptable. When the late lamented Sir Charles Bagot, acting in direct contravention of all the declared principles of his party, appointed, as members of his Colonial Government, French Canadians, some of whom had been charged with a participation in actual revolt, was this opportunity taken, though a very tempting one, to taunt or to weaken the Colonial Administration? How easy would it have been to contrast the haughty and offensive declarations contained in Lord Stanley's former despatches, with the unqualified and undignified surrender now made under his authority? The Whig party were too high-minded thus to have placed at hazard great public interests. They remembered but too well the mischiefs produced by the party attacks directed against Lord Durham, and they disdained to follow the example set to them. During the debate on the Irish Arms' act, it was proposed by Lord John Russell, as the means of averting all opposition, and of facilitating the proceedings of the Government, that all the powers and authorities of the existing law should be continued. This wise and candid proposal was unfortunately declined. Yet even under these circumstances Lord John Russell voted for the second reading of the bill itself. When a measure for organizing the Chelsea pensioners was introduced, it was most vehemently opposed by some of the Liberal members. We think the bill was much misconceived by them. But what was the conduct of the Whig leaders? Lord Palmerston, who for so many years had been Secretary at War-Mr Macaulay, who had recently retired from the same office-not only lent the weight and authority of their votes to this measure, thus separating themselves from some of their party-they also attended and spoke strongly and conclusively in its favour. We think, without going further, we have now brushed away the rubbish with which the most injudicious of all camp-followers has sought to defend the Tory intrenchments. The defence is in itself an acknowledgment of weakness. The session, it is admitted, has been a blank-a melancholy failure; but for this disappointment it has been attempted to show that the Opposition is responsible. If we do not wholly deceive ourselves, we have demonstrated the falsehood of the second of these assertions as conclusively as the truth of the first. One other defence, hazarded on behalf of the Government, remains to be considered, and cannot well be passed over. The Ministers, it appears, are entitled to credit for two really considerable and efficient bills of legal reform which have passed during the session. They are entitled to public gratitude for the enactment of the Libel and Evidence bills! They, indeed! We might feel somewhat more of confidence in their principles, and in their measures, if they took counsel with the framers of those bills. If the true patriotism of the Lord Chief-Justice of England, and the courage and clear understanding of Lord Campbell, guided their deliberations, we should have a more gratifying task to perform than that ungracious one in which we have been engaged. We could have wished, if our limits permitted, to point out to the public how much they owe to the two noble and learned personages just named: To Lord Denman, for having swept from our code absurdities and anomalies which disgraced it, and which rendered the discovery of truth in some cases difficult, in others impossible; to Lord Campbell, for his introduction of a bill the most important to public liberty, as well as private character, which has passed on the subject of libel since Mr Fox's well-known act. This excellent statute, though somewhat mutilated in the Commons, will yet remain a monument of the good sense and public spirit of our distinguished countryman, who, by his successful advocacy and practical measure of reform, has acquired honour for himself, and conferred a real benefit on the public. We have now completed our review of the acts of the Conservative Government, and of the Conservative House of Commons. It does not suggest much reason of gratitude for the past, or hope for the future. The two best bills which passed -indeed the only two bills of any importance-originated, as we have shown, with the Whig members of the House of Peers. The only useful and practical measure passed for Ireland, the repeal of the spirit-duties, is attributable to the same branch of the legislature. In other respects, we venture to ask, for what have we to thank our rulers, and in what condition have they left the interests of the country? What promises have they kept, what duties performed? Under their auspices, in Ireland the Repeal agitation has spread in a manner the most threatening and formidable. The once quiet district of South Wales is now involved in disturbances, assuming a character unexampled amongst us of revolutionary anarchy. They have collected their income-tax in time of peace, but they have not restored the credit of our finances. For the purpose, we presume, of showing their zeal for the administration of the law, they have passed a legislative censure upon the Supreme Court of Appeal. To reconcile the agricultural and commercial classes, they have stimulated the energetic operations of the Anti-CornLaw League. To extend our trade, they have undertaken commercial treaties with various powers, and have lamentably failed in all. To give contentment to the Scottish Church, they stood by with folded arms and allowed the Secession to take placeintroducing after the event, a declaration of the law which, if accurate and made in time, would have made that Secession unne cessary. To give strength and stability to our Indian empire, they have exposed to the wonder of Hindostan an idol the most strange and disproportioned ever yet placed in a pagoda. To advance the interests of our colonies, they have disregarded an appeal the most powerful ever made on behalf of territories which only want inhabitants to make them great, and of suffering multitudes who are unable to procure homes on their native shores. They can neither conclude a mail-coach contract in Ireland, nor defend a turnpike gate in South Wales. Such have been their acts-such their glories after a triumphant return to power, and with a boasted majority of ninety-two in the House of Commons. We repeat the question, as originally put. How is this to be accounted for? Among the members of the Government are men of high character and distinguished abilities, and who, we are willing not only to hope, but to believe, are sincerely actuated by good intentions. Why, then, have they so lamentably failed; and how are we to account for the unexampled contrast between their condition in 1841 and in 1842 ? How like a younker or a prodigal The scarfed bark put from her native bay! With over-weathered ribs and rugged sails!' The curse we repeat emphatically the curse-of their original assumption of power is on them: the contrast between their real principles, and those which they either professed, or led their followers to believe that they professed, is contemptible-we might add, disgusting. No party trusts; but few respect them. That prescriptive veneration for ancient things on which the poetry, if not the strength of Tory principle depends, is cast aside; or a most strange and ineffectual attempt is made to combine it with the doctrines of expediency. In a word, there is exhibited throughout, a want of fixity and earnestness which deprives action of energy and principle of public confidence. 2 N VOL. LXXVIII, NO. CLVIII. NOTE to the Article on the Life of Addison. No. 157, ART. VII. IN our review of Miss Aikin's Life of Addison, we remarked, that the Little Dicky' mentioned in the Old Whig, could not possibly be Sir Richard Steele. We also expressed our opinion that, in all probability, Little Dicky was the nickname of some comic actor, who played the part of Gomez in Dryden's Spanish Friar. We have since ascertained that our conjecture was correct. The performer to whom Addison alluded was Henry Norris, a man of remarkably small stature, but of great native humour, whose strength lay in such characters as that of Gomez. Norris had greatly distinguished himself by his ludicrous performance of the part of Dicky, the serving-man, in Farquhar's Trip to the Jubilee, and had thus earned the nickname of Little Dicky. He was at the height of popularity in the year 1719, when the Old Whig appeared. An account of him will be found in the General History of the Stage, published about a century ago by one Chetwood, who had been, during twenty years, Prompter at Drury-Lane Theatre. ERRATA IN No. CLVII.- ART. I. P. 6, line 3 from bottom, for gaining' read 'gainers.' P. 25, line 13 from top, dele and.' Same page, line 4 from bottom, read unrecorded.' P. 27, line 9 from top, for exclusively' read extensively.' Same page, line 26, for deposits' read deposit.' 6 Same page, line 30, dele 'so.' P. 44, lines 7 and 8 from bottom, for 'must' read may;' for 'might' read 'must.' No. CLIX. will be published in January. |