escape, but locked in, and compelled to return, pale and agitated, to give a reluctant vote! We find an egregious instance of "looking one way and rowing another" in the conduct of Ministers, when they announced their determination to uphold the Royal authority in Canada, and at the same moment lent the most indecent and unconstitutional support to the Radical candidates for Middlesex and other places, by whom the Canadian traitors were instigated and encouraged. They blew hot and cold with the same breath," when the members of the Cabinet voted against the Ballot, and caused their sons, brothers, and all their immediate friends and official subordinates to support it-much after the old fashion in the Civil Wars, when father and son generally took different parts, that so the estates might in any event be preserved to the family. They "looked one way and rowed another," when they appointed a Commission to enquire, at the expense of more than L.30,000, into spiritual destitution in Scotland; which it now appears they never intended to relieve, whatever might be the tenor of the Report. They "blew hot and cold with the same breath" when Lord Melbourne denied all connexion with Mr O'Connell, adopting at the same time Mr O'Connell's policy, and negatived the alleged treaty of Lichfield House, upon the ground of which treaty, or 66 Cabinet Minister, announced at the same time his hostility to its existence-and when they justified, yet disavowed, Lord Durham's ordinances; which no man of political probity would either have approved, without enforcing, or have annulled, without disapproving. They showed" that their constancy is variation," when, without any alteration in circumstances, they changed sides on the Pension list enquiry. They "played at hide-andseek with their old principles," when, having taken office, pledged to carry, and only because they were pledged to carry, the Irish Appropriation clause into effect,-they introduced a measure in which, after several days' consideration, their own oldest friends could not say whether the famous clause was embodied or not; but in which it ultimately appeared that this, the very key-stone of their policy, had been tacitly abandoned. These tactics had been described, almost prophetically, by a great master of intrigue. "The ocean which environs us is an emblem of our Government, and the pilot and the Minister are in similar circumstances. It seldom happens that either of them can steer a direct course, and they both arrive at their port by means which frequently seem to carry them from it. But as the work advances, the conduct of him who leads it on with real abilities clears up, the appearing inconsistencies are reconciled, and when it is once consummated, the whole shows itself so uniform, so plain, and so natural, that every compact alliance," Mr Shiel pub- dabbler in politics will be apt to think he licly justified his adherence to the Government, an adherence which has of late been so munificently rewarded. They looked one way and rowed another" when, during Sir Robert Peel's Administration, they met his Address with an amendment, which they then said was not intended-but which Sir John Hobhouse (in his speech on Lord Londonderry's Embassy) afterwards admitted to have been intended-to cause Sir Robert's resignation. They" blew hot and cold with the same breath" last session; when Lord John Russell, in a spiteful tone, expressed his intention of maintaining the Established Church in Ireland; while, to recall to their allegiance any wavering Radicals, Lord Howick, a I could have done the same. But, on the other hand, a man who proposes no such object, who substitutes artifice in the place of ability, who, instead of leading parties and governing accidents, is eternally agitated backwards and forwards by both, who begins every day something new, and carries nothing on to perfection, may impose a while on the world; but a little sooner or later the mystery will be revealed, and nothing will be found to be couched under it but a thread of pitiful expedients, the ultimate end of which never extended farther than living from day to day." "The sum of all his policy had been to amuse the three parties of the day, as long as he could, and to keep his power as long as he amused them. When it be. came impossible to amuse mankind any longer, he appeared plainly at the end of his line.”—Bolingbroke, Letter to Sir William Windham, Works, i. 23. Our own ministers are not yet plainly" at the end of their line,' only because of their line,—the proposing organic changes,-there can be no end. Next, we have an account of the state of parties at the accession of George I. "The minds of some Ministers are like the Sanctum Sanctorum' of a temple I have read of somewhere; before it a great curtain was solemnly drawn; within it nothing was to be seen but a confused group of misshapen and imperfect forms, heads without bodies, bodies without heads, and the like. To develope the most complicated cases, and to decide in the most doubtful, has been the talent of great Ministers; it is that of others to perplex the most simple, and to be puzzled by the plainest. No man was more desirous of power than the Minister here intended, and he had a competent share of cunning to wriggle himself into it; but then his part was over, and no man was more at a loss how to employ it. The ends he proposed to himself he saw for the most part darkly and indistinctly; and if he saw them a little better, he still made use of means disproportionate to them." little arts by which he had got into it; he thought that he should be able to com. pound for himself in all events, and cared little what became of his party, his mistress, or the nation. That this was the whole of his scheme appeared sufficiently in the course of his Administration; was then seen by some, and has been since acknowledged by all people. "For this purpose he coaxed and persecuted Whigs; he flattered and disappointed Tories; and supported by a thousand little tricks his tottering Administration."-Bolingbroke's Works, i., 340. αμέραι ἐπίλοιποι μάρτυρες σοφώτατοι. The recurrence of similar events in our own times is the best proof of the truth of Bolingbroke's description; as, on the other hand, his account of a past age throws a very powerful light upon our modern history. The following passage must recall to every mind the insolent sycophaney of a certain party about the time of the late King's death; their pretended" Orange plot in favour of the Duke of Cumberland ;" their indecent attempt to compromise the Queen; We are likewise informed that and their various low artifices at the those elections. "With whom and by whom he had risen, expected much from him. Their expectations were ill answered; and I think that such management as he employed would not have hindered them long from breaking from him, if new things had not fallen in, to engage their whole attention, and to divert their passions. "The two parties were, in truth, become factions in the strict sense of the word. I was of one, and I own the guilt; which no man of the other would have a good grace to deny. In this respect they were alike; but here was the difference-one was well united, well conducted, and determined to their future, as well as their present objects. Not one of these advantages attended the other. The Minister had evidently no bottom to rest his Administration upon, but the party at the head of which he came into power; if he had rested it there, if he had gained their confidence, instead of creating, even wantonly, if I may say so, a distrust of himself in them, it is certain he might have determined them to every national interest during the Queen's time, and after her death. But this was above his conception as well as his talents. He meant to keep power as long as he could, by the "The Whigs desired nothing more than to have it thought that the successor was theirs, if I may repeat an insolent expression which was used at that time." "The art of the Whigs was to blend, as undistinguishably as they could, all their party interests with those of the succession, and they made just the same factious use of the supposed danger of it, as the Tories had endeavoured to make some time before of the supposed danger of the Church. As no man is reputed a friend to Christianity beyond the Alps and the Pyrenees who does not acknowledge the Papal supremacy, so here no man was to be repu ted a friend to the Protestant succession, who was not ready to acknowledge their supremacy." The manner in which they surrounded and engrossed the new and inexperienced sovereign is described in a quotation from Goldsmith in our former article on this subject. P. 366. Is all this unlike what we are witnessing around us? And if not-is there not the same meanness and unstatesmanlike artifice afloat now which was detected and held up to contempt in the last century? How, then, has "government been a progressive sci ence?" We repeat, not at all, as regards the management of party politics-or, at least, the progress has not been made by those who are supposed by the Reviewer to lead the "great march." If such be the "leaders," we shall straggle in the rear." Let us now call the attention of the Edinburgh Reviewer to a piece of modern legislation, which almost tempts us to reverse his illustration, and to allege that the "head is now where the tail was a century since." In what has been called Mr Macaulay's Indian Code, is the following provision: "113. Whoever, by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs, or by visible representations, attempts to excite feelings of disaffection to the Government established by law in the territories of the East India Company, among any class of people who live under that Government, shall be punished with banishment for life, or for any term, from the territories of the East India Company, to which fine may be added, or with simple imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years [imprisonment in the tropics, certain death!], "to which fine may be added, or with fine." What would become of poor "H. B." and his "visible representations' under such a law? But it may be said that conviction by a jury must precede these inflictions. Are Indian juries then infallible? are they impartial in disputes between men of different blood? The Whigs have subscribed for a monument to Muir and Palmer, alleged to have been unjustly convicted by a British jury, and will they give such powers as these to an Indian jury? But perhaps this is part of Mr Macaulay's plan for depriving British subjects of British justice, and even the safeguard of an Indian jury is not to be interposed between the Government and its victims. This immoderate severity of punishment for libels against the Government is the more remarkable, as private character is scarcely protected at all by the new code. A free press may, for aught we know, be a bad thing for India, but if so, a censorship should be manfully established and avowed. We are thankful that we live in Britain. Any exposure of misconduct in a governor, any criticism upon crude legislation, any departure, even in a private letter, from the most slavish Oriental deference to rulers, may be "There is no law to say such things to the Government, "As these things the old Moor said, They severed from his neck his head;" and many would prefer this simple and efficacious remedy for sedition to Mr Macaulay's complicated and tyrannical alternatives of persecution. All we say is, if this law holds good,— "Woe is me" Calcutta! We feel, and joyfully feel, the vast social improvement which has taken place within the last two hundred years we feel that the laws are observed, that peace (except at elections) is maintained; that arbitrary power can no longer be exercised in Great Britain, at least, by the Crown. Dead bodies are no longer found in Tower Ditch to the number of two or three a-week, as in James I.'s time, nor are travellers robbed on Blackheath or Finchley Common, as they were at the accession of George III. No statesman now living would imitate the Duke of Marlborough, who betrayed to the French Court the secret of an expedition intended against Brest; in consequence of which treason the expedition failed, and many English lives were lost. But has, in point of fact, any new principle been incorporated into our Constitution? And if not, how has "Government, as a science, been progressive?" It is in the improved practical enforcement of our rights that our superiority consists. But it would be difficult to name any important element of liberty or public tranquillity that has not been known for ages. We act, it is true, upon principles of religious toleration, still, who can certainly pronounce how far our ancestors could have safely adopted such maxims, in dealing with those who would have scorned mere toleration, and who aimed at ascendency; and who had, moreover, evinced, by their conduct when in power, so ferocious a hatred to the monarchy, and so intolerant a spirit towards the church? Errors were com mitted in this matter, no doubt, but civil war had but lately subsided, and it does not follow that, because good and peaceable citizens may be tolerated, therefore, our forefathers were blind and blundering when they refusedtoo harshly, it may be allowed-to indulge the dangerous and scheming sectarians of the 17th century. Up to this time, our latest and most important experiment of this kind has not been so decidedly satisfactory and triumphant in all its consequences as to entitle us to exult with unalloyed self-confidence over those who were less conciliatory than ourselves. South speaks (iv. 176) of "a faction which nothing can win, nothing oblige, and which will be sure to requite such a favour once done them, by turning it to the utmost reproach and ruin (if possible) of those who did it." He then appeals to the judgment, reading, and experience of all who have in any measure applied themselves to the observation of men and things, whether they ever yet found that any, who pressed for indulgences and forbearances, did it with a real intent to acquiesce, and take up in these forbearances once granted them, without proceeding any further. None, I am sure, ever yet did, but used them only as an art or instrument to get into power, and to make every concession a step to a further demand; since every grant renders the person to whom it is made so much the more considerable, and dangerous to be denied, when he shall take the boldness to ask more. To grant is, generally, to give ground; and such persons ask some things, only in order to get others without asking; for no encroachers upon, or enemies to any public constitution, ask all at first. Sedition itself is modest in the beginning, and no more than toleration may be petitioned for, when in the issue nothing less than empire and dominion is designed. "The nature of man acts the same way, whether in matters civil or ecclesiastical. And can we so soon forget the methods by which that violent faction grew upon the throne between the years forty and sixty? Did not the facility and goodness of King Charles I. embolden their impudence, instead of satisfying their desires? Was not every condescension, every concession, every remission of his own right, so far from allaying the fury of their greedy appetites, that, like a breakfast, it rather called up the stomach, and fitted it the more for a dinner? Did not craving still grow upon granting, till nothing remained to be asked on one side, or given on the other, but the life of the giver ? "Thus it was with the State; and I would fain hear any solid reason to prove that it will not fare alike with the Church. For how has the Papacy grown to that enormous height, and assumed such an extravagant power over sovereign princes, but by taking advantage from their own grants and favours to that rapacious and ungrateful see? which still took occasion further and further pretensions; till courfrom thence to raise itself gradually to tesy quickly passed into claim; and what tive; so that at length insolence, grown was got by petition, was held by preroga big and bold with success, knew no bounds, but trampled upon the neck of emperors, controlled the sceptre with the crosier, and, in the face of the world, openly avowed a superiority and pre-eminence over crowned heads. Thus grew the Papacy, and by the same ways will also grow other sects; for there is a Papacy in every sect or faction; they all design the very same height or greatness, though the Pope alone hitherto has had the wit and fortune to compass it." The Irish Roman Catholics have turned their emancipation to the utmost reproach and ruin of those who granted it. Did they "press for those indulgences with a real intent to acquiesce, without proceeding any further?" They told us they had no wish to interfere with the Established Church. Now it is a nuisance, an "insult to the people of Ireland," and it must be demolished. They have made "every concession a step to a farther demand." They made the abolition of the Penal Laws "a step to the demand of" Emancipation. They have made the concession of Emancipation a step to the demand of the abolition of tithes, and the repeal of the Union. Mr O'Connell said he took the remission of part of the tithes as an "instalment;" and he said, "Give me the Municipal Corporation Bill, and I will get all the rest for myself," that is, he knew it would make him so much the more considerable, and dangerous to be denied, "when he should take the boldness to ask for more.' In 1829, when the Roman Catholic Review thus expressed the current vaRelief Bill was passed, the Edinburgh ticinations of its party : "Even Lord Eldon will live to see that his king O'Connell has lost the crown of Ireland, and it is again on the head of George IV. We have taken off our standing premium on faction, and given loyalty its due and honourable encouragements. "Protestant families of the middling class, will not be driven to emigration by a pressure, and by an atmosphere which they dare not stand. It is a safety-lamp for their neighbourhood. . . . 66 It will be henceforth a matter of indifference what is the creed of any man. One law for the rich, and another for the poor, will soon be a thing as incredible as among ourselves. We need no more alternate between the rival dangers of Ireland's strength or Ireland's misery. That withered arm of the empire is restored to health and vigour. Her prosperity is now all ours. We shall feel it in the budget, when Irish taxation pours in its supplies. We shall feel it in the release of those numerous regiments that have stood sentinel over our prisoner. We shall feel it in the respectful caution of those continental courts which have lately trespassed on our divisions, and defied our weakness.". Ed. Rev. Vol. xlix, p. 266. Nine years have elapsed since this was written, most of them years of conciliation, concession, and subserviency. Are the Roman Catholics satisfied? Is the Established Church really strengthened? Is it a matter of indifference in Ireland what is the creed of any man? Hear the Agi tator "The battle of Ireland must be fought over again. We have gained nothing.... "We will complain of the tithe system. Without its extinction there can be no religious liberty. I own an affection in my heart for our domestic legislature. Ireland, therefore, is commencing agitation justice requires it: it is not a question of compromise or trafficking. O tell them we seek equal franchise, equal corporate reform, equal liberty of conscience, and I tell them that Ireland is pledged to get all these, and will not take one particle less. I would have taken less before last year, I would have taken less the present year, but I'll not take less next year. I'll get it all, or I'll have repeal! I am yet strong enough, hale and young enough, to commence the new agitation!"-[ Spoken by Mr O'Connell at a Dinner in Cork, Monday, 27th August, 1838.] There can be no difficulty in applying to domestic struggles the maxim which Hume tells us (Hist. of Eng. c. 64), that the illustrious John de Witt relied on in his foreign policy, VOL, XLIV. NO. CCLXXVII, viz., "That no independent government should yield to another any evident point of reason or equity; and that all such concessions, so far from preventing war, served to no other purpose than to provoke fresh claims and insolences." We have seen the "fresh claims and insolences" of Mr O'Connell; here, then, the predictions of the Edinburgh Review have failed. But have they been verified in other respects! Has there been no emigration of Protestants? Are there fewer troops in Ireland? Is it through "respectful caution" that Russia has seized a British vessel, the Vixen, carrying on a fair trade with an independent country? and that Prussia has bound all Germany in an engagement to exclude our manufactures? and that Austria, with the other two, prevents us, in the teeth of the treaty of Vienna, and of our foreign Minister's pledge, from having a consul at Cracow? and that France retains Algiers in spite of her promise to evacuate it? that Spain slights us, after the sacrifice of 10,000 men-the Dutch hate us, and even Portugal laughs at us? Yet Lord John Russell, a professed student of the science of government, conceives interminable concession to be the only remedy for perpetual demand. He said (Mir. Parl. 7th Feb. for a high authority upon the consti1837),-"Whenever I have to look tution of this country-whenever I wish to seek for enlarged principles with respect to the manner in which the Government of this country should be carried on, I do not refer to the theories of Locke, or to the legal statements of Blackstone; but I refer, whenever I can, to the authority, the precepts, and the maxims of Mr Fox. He stated in a very eloquent speech (delivered in 1797) the principles upon which he conceived the Government of Ireland should be conducted. He stated in his usual frank-it might be almost called incautious-manner, that he conceived that concession ought to be made to the people of Ireland. He said, if he found he had not conceded enough, he would concede more.' Alas, can he not remember "how craving still grew upon granting, till nothing remained to be asked on one side or given on the other, but the life of the giver?" "Concerning which," South lays down this assertion, "that what effects and consequences any thing 2Q " |