[26] The Castilian tongue is rich in words descriptive of grace in

women. Spain is, certainly, the country where that quality is most

common. I will cite only a few of those expressions, indicative of

shades easier to appreciate than to translate. _Garbo_ is grace

combined with nobility; _donayre_, elegance of bearing, vivacity of

wit; _salero_, voluptuous and provocative grace; _zandunga_, the kind

of grace peculiar to the Andalusians--a happy mixture of readiness and

nonchalance. People applaud the _garbo_ or _donayre_ of a duchess, the

_salero_ of an actress, the _zandunga_ of a gipsy of Jerez.--MÉRIMÉE,

p. 110.

[27] The enchantment of Don Pedro by Maria Padilla is a popular

tradition in Andalusia, where the memory of both is vividly preserved.

It is further added, that Maria Padilla was a queen of the

gipsies--their _bari crallisa_--consequently consummate mistress of

the art of concocting philters. Unfortunately, the gipsies were

scarcely seen in Europe till a century later. The author of the

_Première Vie du Pape Innocent VI._ gravely relates that Blanche,

having made her husband a present of a golden girdle, Maria Padilla,

assisted by a Jew, a notorious sorcerer, changed it into a serpent,

one day that the king had it on. The surprise of the king and his

court may be imagined, when the girdle began to writhe and hiss;

whereupon the Padilla easily succeeded in persuading her lover that

Blanche was a magician bent upon destroying him by her arts.--MÉRIMÉE,

p. 120.

[28] ZUÑIGA, _Anales de Sevilla_.--"The people say, that Maria

Coronel, pursued by Don Pedro, in the suburb of Triana, plunged her

head into a pan in which a gipsy was cooking fritters. I was shown the

house in front of which the incident occurred, and I was desired to

remark, as an incontrovertible proof, that it is still inhabited by

gipsies, whose kitchen is in the open street."--MÉRIMÉE, p. 247.

[29] We have already adverted to the religious tolerance of the time,

and to the intermixture of Mussulmans and Christians: M. Mérimée gives

some curious details on this subject. The nobility of Castile made no

difficulty to grant the _Don_ to the Moorish cavaliers, and the rich

Jew bankers obtained the same distinction, then very rare amongst the

Christians themselves. Thus Ayala, the chronicler, speaks of Don

Farax, Don Simuel, Don Reduan, &c.; although of Spaniards he gives the

Don only to the princes of the blood, to a few very powerful _ricos

hombres_, to certain great officers of the crown, and to the masters

of the military orders of knights. The Andalusian Moors were

frequently treated as equals by the chevaliers of Castile; but this is

far less astonishing than that the Jews should have attained to high

honours and office. Pedro, however, seems always to have had a leaning

towards them, and the Israelites, on their part, invariably supported

him. He was more than once, in the latter part of his reign, heard to

say that the Moors and Hebrews were his only loyal subjects. At

Miranda, on the Ebro, in 1360, the populace, stirred up by Henry of

Trastamare, massacred the Jews, and pillaged their dwellings. The

object of the Count was to compromise the townspeople, and thus to

attach them indissolubly to his cause. When Pedro arrived, he had the

ringleaders of the riot arrested; and, in his presence, the unhappy

wretches were burned alive, or boiled in immense cauldrons. Obsolete

laws were revived, to justify these terrible executions; but the crime

of the offenders was forgotten in the horror excited by such barbarous

punishments. It was just after these scenes of cruelty that a priest,

coming from Santo-Domingo de la Calzada, craved private audience of

the king, 'Sire,' said he, 'my Lord Saint Dominick has appeared to me

in a dream, bidding me warn you that, if you do not amend your life,

Don Henry, your brother, will slay you with his own hand.' This

prophecy, on the eve of a battle between the brothers, was probably

the result of fanatical hatred, on the part of the priests towards a

king now generally accused of irreligion. Whatever dictated it, Pedro

was at first startled by the prophet's confident and inspired air, but

soon he thought it was a stratagem of his enemies to discourage him

and his troops. The priest, who persisted that his mission was from St

Dominick, was burned alive in front of the army.--MÉRIMÉE, pp. 35,

290, 299, &c.

[30] "According to the interpolator of the chronicle of the

_Despensero Mayor_, Simuel Levi, whose death he erroneously fixes in

the year 1366, was denounced to the king by several Jews, envious of

his immense riches. Simuel, on being put to the torture, died of

indignation, '_de puro corage_,' says the anonymous author, whom I

copy, since I cannot understand him. There were found, in a vault

beneath his house, three piles of gold and silver lingots, so lofty

'that a man standing behind them was not seen.' The king, on beholding

this treasure, exclaimed--'If Don Simuel had given me the third part

of the smallest of these heaps, I would not have had him tortured. How

could he consent to die rather than speak?' _Sumario de los Reyes de

España_, p. 73. Credat Judæus Apella."--MÉRIMÉE, p. 317.

Don Pedro was often accused of avarice, although it appears probable

that his fondness of money sprang from his experience of the power it

gave, and of its absolute necessity in the wars in which he was

continually engaged, rather than from any abstract love of gold. When,

after his flight from Spain in 1366, his treasures were traitorously

given up to his rival by Admiral Boccanegra, who had been charged to

convey them to Portugal, they amounted to thirty-six quintals of gold,

(something like fourteen hundred thousand pounds sterling--a monstrous

sum in those days,) besides a quantity of jewels.

[31] The custom of the time, according to Froissart and others. On the

march, most of the soldiers, sometimes even the archers, were on

horseback; but when the hour of battle arrived, spurs were removed,

horses sent away, and lances shortened. When the time came for flight

and pursuit, the combatants again sprang into their saddles.

THE OPENING OF THE SESSION.

The British Parliament has again been summoned to resume its labours.

The period which intervened between the close of the last, and the

opening of the present session, was fraught with great anxiety to

those who believed that the cause of order and peace depended upon the

check that might be given to the democratic spirit, then raging so

fearfully throughout Europe. France, under the dictatorship of

Cavaignac, had emerged a little from the chaotic slough into which she

had been plunged by the wickedness, imbecility, and treason of a junta

of self-constituted ministers--men who held their commissions from the

sovereign mob of Paris, and who were ready, for that sovereign's sake,

to ruin and prostrate their country. Foremost among these ministers

was Lamartine, a theorist whose intentions might be good, but whose

exorbitant vanity made him a tool in the hands of others who had

embraced revolution as a trade. Of this stamp were Ledru-Rollin, Louis

Blanc, and, we may add, Marrast,--men who had nothing to lose, but

everything to gain, from the continuance of popular disorder.

Fortunately, the daring attempt of June--which, if it had succeeded,

would have surrendered Paris to be sacked--was suppressed with

sufficient bloodshed. Military domination took the place of helpless

democratic fraternity; the barricades went down amidst the thunder of

the cannon, and the rascaldom of the Faubourg St Antoine found, to

their cost, that they were not yet altogether triumphant. Of the

subsequent election of Louis Napoleon to the presidentship we need not

speak. It would be in vain, under present circumstances, to speculate

upon the probable destinies of France. All that we have to remark now

is her attitude, which, we think, is symptomatic of improvement. The

socialist theories are wellnigh exploded. Equality may exist in name,

but it is not recognised as a reality. The provinces have suffered

enough from revolution to abhor the thought of anarchy; and they long

for any government strong and resolute enough to enforce the laws, and

to stamp with its heel on the head of the Jacobin hydra.

Austria, on the other side, has done her duty nobly. Astounded as we

certainly were at the outbreak of revolution in Vienna, we had yet

that confidence, in the spirit and loyalty of the old Teutonic

chivalry, that we never for a moment believed that the mighty fabric

of ages would be allowed to crumble down, or the imperial crown to

fall from the head of the descendant of the Cæsars. And so it has

proved. The revolt occasioned in the southern provinces by the

co-operation of Jacobinism, under the specious mask of nationality,

with the mean and selfish ambition of an intriguing Italian potentate,

has been triumphantly suppressed. Vienna, after experiencing the

horrors of ruffian occupation--after having seen assassination rife in

her streets, and the homes of her burghers delivered over to the lust

and pillage of the anarchists--has again returned to her fealty. The

insurrections in Bohemia and Hungary have been met by the strong arm

of power; the schemes of treason and of faction have been discomfited;

nor can modern history afford us nobler examples of heroism and

devotion than have been exhibited by Windischgrätz and Jellachich.

Whilst the democratic press, even in this country, was sympathising

with the insurgents--whilst treason, murder, and rapine were palliated

and excused, and fulsome and bombastic panegyrics pronounced upon the

leading demagogues of the movement--we have watched the efforts of

Austria towards the recovery of her equilibrium, with an anxiety which

we scarcely can express; because we felt convinced that, upon her

success or her defeat, upon the maintenance of her position as a

colossal united power, or her division into petty states, depended, in

a large measure, the future tranquillity of Europe. Most happily she

has succeeded, and has thereby given the death-blow to the hopes of

the besotted visionaries at Frankfort. The Central Power of Germany,

as that singular assemblage of mountebanks, with a weak old imbecile

at their head, has been somewhat facetiously denominated--that

pseudo-parliament, which, without power to enforce its decrees, or any

comprehensible scheme of action, has arrogated to itself the right of

over-riding monarchies--is gradually dwindling into contempt. Even

Frederick-William of Prussia, its chief supporter and stay, has found

out his vast mistake in yielding to the democratic principle as the

means of ultimately securing for himself the rule of a united Germany.

The attempt has already wellnigh cost him the crown which he wears. He

now sees, as he might have seen earlier, but for the mists of interest

and ambition, that the present movement was essentially a democratic

one, and that its leaders merely held out the phantom of resuscitated

imperialism in order to make converts, and to strike more effectually

at every hereditary constitution. The farce cannot, in the ordinary

nature of things, last much longer. Without Austria, Bavaria, and

Prussia, there is no central power at all. The Frankfort parliament,

as it at present exists, can be compared to nothing except a great

Masonic assemblage. In humble imitation of the brethren of the mystic

tie, it is solemnly creating grand chancellors, grand seneschals, and,

for aught we know, grand tylers also for an empire which is not in

existence; and, without a farthing in its treasury, is decreeing civil

lists and bounties to its imperial grand master! Unfortunately, the

state of Europe has been such that we cannot afford to laugh even at

such palpable fooleries. They tend to prolong excitement and disorder

throughout a considerable portion of the Continent; and already,

through such antics, we have been on the eve of a general war,

occasioned by the unjust attempts to deprive Denmark of her Schleswig

provinces. The sooner, therefore, that the parliament of Frankfort

ceases to have an existence the better. It hardly can exist if the

larger states do their duty, without jealousy of each other, but with

reference to the common weal.

But though the democratic progress, under whatsoever form it appeared,

has thus received a check in northern Europe, it is still raging with

undiminished violence in the south. British diplomatic relations with

the See of Rome have received the _coup-de-grace_, in the forcible

expulsion of the Sovereign Pontiff from his territories! The leading

reformer of the age--the propagandist successor of St Peter--has

surrendered his pastoral charge, and fled from the howling of his

flock, now suddenly metamorphosed into wolves. There, as elsewhere,

liberalism has signalised itself by assassination. The star of

freedom, of which Lord Minto was the delegated prophet, has appeared

in the form of a bloody and terrific meteor. Even revolutionised

France felt her bowels moved by some latent Christian compunction, and

prepared an armament to rescue, if needful, the unfortunate patriarch

from his children. More recently, the Grand-duke of Tuscany--a prince

whose mild rule and kindly government were such that democracy itself

could frame no articulate charge against him, beyond the fact of his

being a sovereign--has been compelled to abandon his territory, and to

take refuge elsewhere.

Such is the state of the continent of Europe at the opening of the new

session of Parliament--a state which, while it undeniably leaves great

room for hope, and in some measure indicates a return to more settled

principles of government, is very far from conveying an assurance of

lasting tranquillity. It is now just a year since the sagacious Mr

Cobden issued the second part of his prophecies to atone for the

failure of the first. The repeal of the corn laws, and the other

free-trade measures, having not only failed to enrich this country at

the ratio of a hundred millions sterling annually--the premium which

was confidently offered by the Manchester Association, as the price of

their experiment--but, having somehow or other been followed by a

calamitous deficit in the ordinary revenue, the member for the West

Riding bethought himself of a new agitation for the disbandment of the

British army, and the suppression of the navy, founded upon the

experiences which he had gathered in the course of his Continental

ovations. He told his faithful myrmidons that all Europe was in a

state of profound peace, and that war was utterly impossible. They

echoed the cry, and at once, as if by magic, the torch of revolution

was lighted up in every country save our own. Nor are we entitled to

claim absolute exemption. Chartism exhibited itself at home in a more

daring manner than ever before: nor do we wonder at this, since the

depreciation of labour in the home market, the direct result of Peel's

injudicious tariffs, drove many a man, from sheer desperation, into

the ranks of the disloyal. Ireland was pacified only by a strong

demonstration of military force; and, had that been withdrawn,

rebellion was the inevitable consequence. Still, though his promises

are thus shown to be utterly false, the undaunted Free-trader, in the

teeth of facts and logic, persists in maintaining his conclusions.

Again he shouts, raves, and agitates for an extensive military

reduction; and, lo! the next Indian mail brings tidings of the war in

the Punjaub!

Public attention, during the recess, has been very generally directed

to the state of the finances of the country. No wonder. Last year, in

proposing the first of his abortive budgets, Lord John Russell

distinctly calculated the probable excess of the expenditure over the

income at the sum of three millions and a quarter; to balance which he

asked for an augmentation of the income tax--a proposal which the

nation very properly scouted. But, whilst we state now, as we stated

then, our determined opposition to the increase of the direct taxation

of the country, we must remark that the free-trade party were hardly

justified in withholding their support from a minister who had played

their game with such unimpeachable docility, in an emergency directly

resulting from the operation of their cherished system. The statement

of Sir Charles Wood, to the effect that, during the last six years,

the nation had remitted seven and a half millions of annual taxation,

ought surely to have had the effect of an argument upon these

impenetrable men. Seven millions and a half had been sacrificed before

the Moloch of free trade. Good, benevolent, plain-dealing Sir Robert,

and profound, calculating Lord John, had each, in preparing their

annual estimates, lopped off some productive branch of the customs,

and smilingly displayed it to the country, as a proof of their desire

to lessen the weight of the national burdens. That our revenue should

fall was, of course, a necessary consequence. Fall it did, and that

with such rapidity that Sir Robert Peel dared not take off the income

tax, which he had imposed upon the country with a distinct and solemn

pledge that it was merely to be temporary in its duration, but handed

it over as a permanent legacy to his successor, who coolly proposed to

augment it! Now it really required no reflection at all to see that,

if our statesmen chose, for the sake of popularity or otherwise, thus

to tamper with the revenue, and to lessen the amount of the customs, a

deficit must, sooner or later, occur. Not the least baneful effect of

the policy pursued by Sir Robert Peel has been the system of

calculating the estimates so low, and adapting the income so closely

to the national expenditure, that a surplus, to be handed over to the

commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, is now a

tradition. We have abandoned the idea of a surplus, nor can it ever

again be realised under the operation of the present system. Instead

of a surplus we have a permanent income tax, and, more than that, a

fresh debt incurred by us, under Whig management, of no less than ten

millions.

Such being the state of our finances, the question naturally suggests

itself to the mind of every thinking man, how are we to find a remedy?

The Financial Reform Associations--which are nothing else than the

bastard spawn of the Anti-Corn-law League--are perfectly ready with

their answer. They see no difficulty about it at all. "Act," they say,

"upon the same principle which every man adopts in private life. Since

your income has fallen off, reduce your expenditure. Cut your coat

according to your cloth. Find out what are the most expensive items of

your estimates, and demolish these. If you can't afford to have an

army, don't keep one. Your navy is anything but a source of income;

put it down. In this way you will presently find that you can make

out a satisfactory balance-sheet."

This is the pounds, shillings, and pence view of the case, and its

supporters are determined to enforce it. Dull statistical pamphlets,

inveighing against the enormous expense of our establishments, are

compiled by pompous pseudo-economists, and circulated by the million.

Looking to the past, it requires no familiarity to predict, that, as

sure as winter follows autumn, so certainly will the Whigs yield to

the pressure from without. Nay, it is not a prediction; for already,

in the Queen's speech, an intimation to that effect has been given.

Now this is a matter of vital moment to every one of us. We are now

verging towards the point which we have long foreseen, when the

effects of unprincipled legislation will be wrested into an argument

against the maintenance of the national greatness. We have a battle to

fight involving a more important stake than ever. We must fight that

battle under circumstances of great disadvantage; for not only has

treachery thinned our ranks, but the abandonment of public principle

by a statesman whose hairs have grown gray in office, has given an

example of laxity most pernicious to the morals of the age. But not

the less readily do we go forward at the call of honour and duty,

knowing that our cause is truth, and confident, even now, that truth

must ultimately prevail.

In the first place, let us set ourselves right with these same

Financial Reform Associations, so that no charge may be brought

against us of factious opposition to salutary improvement. We have

perused several of their tracts with great care; but, being tolerably

familiar with their statistics already, we have not acquired any large

stock of additional information. They point, however, to many things

which are most undoubted abuses. That a reform is necessary in many

civil departments of the state, has long been our expressed opinion.

Money is not only misapplied, but the revenues which ought to be drawn

from some portions of the public property, find their way into private

pockets, and are not accounted for. We do not doubt that the dockyards

are largely jobbed, and that the nation suffers considerable loss by a

partial and nefarious system of private instead of public contracts.

We are no admirers of sinecures, of unnecessary commissionerships, or

the multiplication of useless offices. The department of Woods and

Forests is an Augean stable, which requires a thorough cleansing. It

is notoriously the most inefficient and the worst served of the public

boards, and it has permitted and winked at peculation to an extent

which is almost incredible. We desire to have the public accounts

better kept, and some security given that the officials will do their

duty. We wish to see patronage fairly and honourably exercised. We

wish to see abuse corrected, curbed, and abolished.

And why is this not done? Simply for this reason--that we are cursed

with a government in every way unfit for their charge. The present

ruling family party have not among them a vestige of a public virtue.

Jobbing with the Whigs is not an exceptional case--it is a living

principle. It is more to them than the liberty of the press: it is

like the air they breathe; if they have it not, they die. They keep

their adherents together solely by the force of jobbing. Look at their

Irish Trevellyan jobs, their commissions, their unblushing and

unparalleled favouritism! Never, in any one instance, have they

attempted to save a shilling of the public revenue, when, by doing so,

they would interfere with the perquisites of some veteran servitor of

their order. We know this pretty well in Scotland, where jobbing

flourishes all the better because we are denied the superintendence of

a separate Secretary of State--an office which is imperatively called

for. The present is undeniably a time for the exertion of strict

economy in every department, and yet ministers will not vouchsafe to

commence it in their own. During the last two years, various offices

which are not hereditary, which are notorious sinecures, and which are

nevertheless endowed with large salaries, have become vacant; and, in

every case, these have been filled up by Lord John Russell, on the

broad ground that the government could not afford to dispense with

such valuable patronage.

So far we are at one with the finance reformers. So long as their

object is to reform evident abuses, we are ready not only to applaud,

but to co-operate with them: but the correction of abuses is a very

different thing from that suicidal policy which has been over and over

again attempted in this country--that policy which, by saving

thousands, insures the loss of millions.

Because our revenue has fallen off, is that any reason why we should

part with our army and navy? Let us assume that the army and navy are

necessary for three purposes--first, for the defence of the country;

secondly, for the maintenance of internal order; and thirdly, for the

retention of our colonies. Let us further assume, that, keeping these

three necessary points in view, it is impossible to effect a numerical

reduction of the force: and we then ask the economists whether, these

premises being allowed, they would push their doctrine of cloth-cutting

so far as still to insist upon a reduction? Not one political tailor of

them all will dare to say so! They know the overwhelming storm of

contempt that would arise in every corner of Great Britain, if they

dared to give vent to such a traitorous sentiment; they leave it

unuttered, but they aver the non-necessity.[32] Here we meet at once

upon fair and open ground; and we ask, whether they mean to aver that

the present force is greater than is required for the three purposes

above mentioned, or whether they mean to aver that any one of these

purposes is unnecessary? This, as we shall presently have occasion to

see, is a very important distinction.

To the first question, as yet, we have only indefinite answers. We

hear a good deal about clothing allowances and abuses, with which we

have nothing whatever to do. It may be, that there exist some faults

in the army and navy department, and that these could be amended with

a saving of expense to the country: if so, let it be done. We

cordially echo the language of Lord Stanley, on moving his amendment

to the address: "I believe it is possible to effect some reductions in

the civil departments of the army, ordnance, and navy. I also think

that large reductions may be made by checking the abuses which exist

in the administration and management of the dockyards. But the

greatest security we could obtain for having the work well done in the

dockyards, would be the passing of an enactment to deprive all persons

in those yards from voting for members of parliament. I have heard at

least twenty naval officers express an opinion that, until persons

employed in the dockyards shall be prevented from voting for members

of parliament, it will be impossible to exercise efficient control

over the work performed in those establishments. If reductions can be

effected, in God's name let them be made; and, although one may wonder

how such a course has been so long delayed, I will applaud the

government which shall economise without prejudice to the permanent

interests of the empire. But when the country is in a position which

requires that she should have all her resources and powers at hand, I

cannot concur with those who, for the sake of economy, would largely

diminish the naval and military forces of the country."

Mr Cobden, so far as we can gather from his orations, advocates the

propriety of disbanding the army on the score of peace. He thinks

that, if we were to dismiss our forces, all the other nations of the

earth would follow the example. There is something positively

marvellous in the calm audacity of the man who can rise up, as Cobden

did at Manchester, on the last day of January, and enunciate to his

enraptured audience, that, "notwithstanding all that had been said on

that subject, he reiterated there never was a time when Europe was so

predisposed to listen to advances made by the people of England, on

that subject, as now!" Where, in the name of the Seven Sleepers of

Ephesus, has the man been during the last twelvemonths? What does Mr

Cobden understand by Europe? We should like to know this, for it is

very easy to use a general term, as in the present instance, without

conveying any definite meaning. Does he refer to the governments or

the mobs of Europe--to the well-affected, who wish for order, or to

the Jacobins whose cause he adores? If he meant the latter class to

signify Europe, we can understand him readily enough. He is right:

great indeed would be the joy of the clubs in Paris, Berlin, and

Vienna, if there were not a soldier left. What jubilee and triumph

there would be in every Continental capital! Not the suppression of

the police would excite deeper exultation in the hearts of the

denizens of St Giles', than would the abolition of standing armies in

those of the bearded patriots of the Continent. No need then of

barricades--no fighting for the partition of property--no bloodshed,

preparatory to the coveted rape and pillage! The man who can talk in

this way is beneath the average of idiots; or, otherwise, he is

somewhat worse. Not only during the last year, but within the last

five months, we have seen that the whole standing armies of Europe

have been employed in the task of suppressing insurrection, and have

not been able to do it. Under these circumstances, what state would be

"predisposed" to surrender its citizens to the tender mercies of

democracy? Ignorant indeed must be the audience that could listen to

such pitiable drivelling as this!

Until it can be shown or proved that our armaments, even in ordinary

times, are larger than are required for the purposes of defence, of

internal tranquillity, and of colonial occupation, there is no cause

for reduction at all. The troops at home are maintained for the first

two objects, since it would be as wise, in the time of peace, to

dismantle the fortifications of a town and to spike the cannon, as to

dispense with an army. Is there no necessity for the troops at home?

The experience of last year alone has shown us what we might expect if

Cobden's views were realised. Glasgow, the second largest city of the

empire, was for a time in the hands of the mob. We doubt whether the

stiffest free-trader in the West would now be disposed to renounce

military protection. Have the people of Liverpool already forgotten

that their shipping and warehouses were threatened with incendiarism,

and that such apprehensions of a rising were entertained, that, at the

earnest entreaty of the magistracy, a camp was established in their

vicinity? What would be the state of Ireland, at this moment, if the

troops were withdrawn, or their number so materially lessened as to

give a chance of success, however momentary, to insurrection? But it

is useless to ask such questions, for, in reality, there is hardly a

sane man in the British islands who does not know what the immediate

result would be, and the horrible penalty we should ultimately pay for

such weak and culpable parsimony.

It is a very favourite topic, with finance reformers, to refer to the

state of the army and navy as it existed previous to the French

Revolution. "In 1792," they say, "the whole cost of these departments,

including the ordnance, amounted only to five millions and a half--why

should we not now reduce our expenditure to the same amount?" It is

wearisome to enter into the task of explanation with these gentlemen,

who, after all, are but slenderly acquainted with statistics, else

they would at once divine the answer: nevertheless we shall undertake

it. According to the nearest approximation which can be made, the

British islands, in the year 1792, contained a population of about

_fifteen and a half millions_. The census in 1841 showed a population

of _twenty-seven millions_, and at the present moment the number is

probably not short of _thirty_. So that, on the reasonable principle

that military establishments should bear a certain ratio to the

population, and excluding every other consideration, the annual

estimates ought, according to the standard of the financial reformers,

to be at least eleven millions. But then, be it observed, our colonial

possessions were comparatively small compared with their present

extent. Since 1792, we have received accession of the following

colonies and settlements:--Ceylon, Trinidad, St Lucia, Malta,

Heligoland, British Guiana, the Falkland Islands, Hong-Kong, Labuan,

Cape of Good Hope, Mauritius, Van Diemen's Land, Western and Southern

Australia, New Zealand, and the Ionian Islands. The area of these new

possessions is considerably more than _six times_ that of the whole

extent of the British islands; the surface of the new colonies being,

in square miles, no less than 828,408, whilst that of Britain proper

is merely 122,823. We purposely abstain from alluding to the extent

and increment of our older colonies, as our object is simply to show

the difference of our position now, from what it was in the year

immediately preceding the outbreak of the first French Revolution.

In the mean time, however, let us keep strictly to our present point,

which is the necessity of maintaining a standing army at home. Within

the last fifty-seven years, the population at home has doubled--a fact

which, of itself, will account for many social evils utterly beyond

the reach of legislation. The enormous increase of the manufacturing

towns has not been attended with any improvement in the morals of the

people. The statistical returns of criminal commitments show that vice

has spread in a ratio far greater than the increase of population; and

along with vice has appeared its invariable concomitant, disaffection.

Every period of stagnation of trade is marked by a display of

Chartism: the example set by such associations as the League has not

been lost upon the greater masses of the people. Ireland is a volcano

in which the fires of rebellion are never wholly extinguished, and

every internal movement there is sensibly felt upon this side of the

Channel.

But it is needless, perhaps, to enlarge upon the point, because there

are very few persons who maintain that our home force is greater than

the occasion requires. That admitted, the question is very

considerably narrowed. The reductions demanded would then fall to be

made in that portion of our armaments which is used for colonial

occupation and defence.

First, let us see what we have to occupy and defend. In 1792, the area

of the British colonies which we still retain was about 565,700 square

miles. Subsequent additions have extended this surface to 1,400,000.

This calculation, be it remarked, is altogether exclusive of India.

The free-traders themselves do not aver that we maintain a larger

force than is compatible with their magnitude for the occupation of

the colonies. "I am quite aware," says Cobden, "that any great

reduction in our military establishments _must depend upon a complete

change_ in our colonial system; and I consider such a change to be the

necessary consequence of our recent commercial policy." We are glad at

last to arrive at the truth. That one sentence contains the key to the

present crusade against armaments, and it is very well that we should

understand and consider it in time. Our readers must not, however,

understand the word "change" in the literal sense; the following

extract from the Edinburgh tract will put the matter in a clearer

light. "The possession of the colonies is supposed to add lustre to

the crown; but it may be doubted whether the honour is not purchased

at a price considerably beyond its value. The colonies pay no taxes

into the exchequer: we keep them, they do not keep us. An Englishman

may be told that he belongs to an empire on which the sun never sets;

but, as he pays dearly for this in taxation, and gets nothing but

sentiment in return, he may be inclined to question the value of that

vast dominion on his connexion with which he is congratulated. But if

the Englishman makes nothing by the colonial possessions, neither does

the colonist. As things are managed, the union is mutually

embarrassing, while the expenses we incur for maintaining the colonies

are ruinous." Were we right or wrong when we said, two years ago, that

the tendency of free trade was a deliberate movement towards the

dismemberment of the British empire, and the separation of the

colonies from the mother country? Here you have the principle almost

openly avowed. The colonies are said to cost us about four millions

a-year, and this opens too rich a field for the penny-wise economist

to be resisted. Nor are we in the slightest degree surprised at these

men availing themselves of the argument. If they are right in their

premises, they are also right in their conclusion. If the people of

this country are deliberately of opinion that our commercial policy

is, henceforward and for ever, to be regulated upon the principles of

free trade, the colonies should be left to themselves, and Earl Grey

immediately cashiered. This is what Cobden and his followers are

aiming at; this is the ultimate result of the measures planned, and

proposed, and carried by Sir Robert Peel. It is no figment or false

alarm of ours. The free-traders do not take the pains to disguise it:

their main argument for the reduction of our forces is the uselessness

and expense of the colonies, and they seem prepared to lower the

British flag in every quarter of the globe. Our fellow-citizen who has

compiled the last Financial tract speaks to the point with a calm

philosophy which shows the thoroughness of his conviction: he says,

"As foreigners now trade with our colonies on the same terms with

ourselves, it is evident that the colonists prefer our goods, only

because they are better and cheaper than those of foreigners; _it

therefore seems reasonable to suppose that the colonies would continue

to buy from us were the connexion dissolved, or greatly changed in

character_. The United States of America once were our colonies, and

the trade with them has vastly increased since they became

independent." According to this view, it would appear that Papineau

was not only a disinterested patriot, but also, an enlightened

economist!

See, then, what great matters spring from petty sources!--how personal

ambition, and competition for power between two statesmen of no high

or exalted principle, can in a few years lead to a deliberate project,

and a large confederacy, for the dismemberment of the British empire!

To gain additional swiftness in the race for ascendency, Sir Robert

Peel and Lord John Russell alternately threw away, most uselessly and

recklessly, many of the surest items of the national income. They

sacrificed, until further sacrifice was no longer possible, without

conceding a broad principle. The principle was conceded; and the

bastard system of free trade, without reciprocity and without

equivalent, was substituted for the wiser system which had been the

foundation of our greatness. By this time, indirect taxation had been

reduced so low that the revenue fell below the mark of the

expenditure; the duties levied upon imports exhibited a marked

decline. Both Peel and Russell were committed to free trade, and

neither of them could, with any consistency, retrace their steps.

Russell, then in power, had no alternative except to propose

additional direct burdens, by augmenting the income-tax. This

proposition was rejected, and there was a dead-lock. Lord John was at

his wits' end. The free-traders now propose to relieve him from his

embarrassment, by cutting down the expenditure so as to meet the

diminished income. This can only be done by reducing the army and

navy, and the army and navy cannot be reduced except by sacrificing

the colonies; therefore, say the free-traders, get rid of the colonies

at once, and, the work is ready-done to your hands.

We defy any man, be he Whig, Peelite, Free-trader, or Chartist, to

controvert the truth of what we have stated above. We anticipated the

result from the first hour that Sir Robert Peel yielded, not to the

expressed will of the nation, but to the clamour of a selfish and

organised faction; and every move since has been in exact concordance

with our anticipations. Last year, Lord John Russell showed some

spirit of resistance to the power which was dragging him downward: he

refused to tamper with the army. In an article which appeared in this

Magazine just twelve months ago, we said--"It is to the credit of the

Whigs that, far as they have been led astray by adopting the

new-fangled political doctrines--rather, as we believe, for the sake

of maintaining power than from any belief in their efficacy--they have

declined all participation with the Manchester crew, in their recent

attempts to lower the position and diminish the influence of Great

Britain." The country knows, by this time, that we cannot repeat the

encomium. Last year, _before there was a single disturbance abroad_,

before insurrection had arisen in Ireland, Lord John Russell brought

forward his budget, and, with the support of the great majority of the

House, not only peremptorily refused to accede to a diminution of our

forces, but actually proposed an augmentation. _This year_, we find in

the royal speech the following paragraph--"The present aspect of

affairs has enabled me to make large reductions on the estimates of

last year."

"The present aspect of affairs!"--Go to, then--let us see what the

phrase is worth--how far the context of the whole speech will justify

the choice of the expression? This is no time for shuffling or

weakness--no time for party-tricks. The atmosphere is dark around us.

By the help of Heaven we have stood the pelting of the storm, and yet

stand unscathed; but the clouds are still black and threatening. We

cannot take a vague assertion, even though it proceeded from a

minister a thousand times more able and trustworthy than the present

premier. We must have proofs before we loosen our cloak, and lessen

the security of our position.

How stand we with regard to the Continental powers? For the first

time, for many years, the British Sovereign has been unable to state

"that she continues to receive from all foreign powers assurances of

their friendly relations." Instead of that we are simply told, what no

one doubts, that her Majesty is desirous to maintain the most friendly

relations with the other members of the European family.

Unfortunately, however, desire does not always imply possession. Are

we to attribute this omission of the usual paragraph to mere

inadvertence? or are we indeed to conclude that, abroad, there has

arisen a feeling so unfriendly that to hazard the assertion of former

relationship would really be equivalent to a falsehood? It is painful

to allow that we must arrive at the latter conclusion. The moral

weight and influence which Britain once exercised on the Continent has

utterly decayed in the hands of Whig administrations. Instead of

maintaining that attitude of high dignified reserve which becomes the

first maritime power of Europe, we have been exhibited in the light of

a nation of interfering intriguers, whose proffered mediation is

almost equivalent to an insult. Mediators of this kind never are, nor

can be, popular. The answer invariably is, in the language of holy

writ--"Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? intendest thou to

kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian?" and, in consequence, wherever

we have interfered we have made matters worse, or else have been

compelled to submit to an ignominious rebuff. Every one knows what

were the consequences of Lord Palmerston's impertinent and gratuitous

suggestions to the crown of Spain. "What," said Lord Stanley, "is the

state of our relations with that court? You have most unwisely,

through your minister, interfered in the internal administration of

the affairs of that country. That offence has been visited by the

Government of that country upon our ministers in a manner so offensive

that, great as was the provocation given by the British minister, no

man in your Lordship's House, with the information we possess, could

stand up and say that the Government of Spain was justified in the

course they had pursued, however much the magnitude of the offence

might have palliated it. But the state of affairs in Spain is this:

Your minister has been ignominiously driven from Madrid, and you have

quietly and tacitly acquiesced in the insult which the Spanish

Government have put upon you." The immediate consequences of Minto

negotiation in Italy have been assassination and rebellion, the flight

of the Pope from his dominions, and the surrender of the sacred city

to the anarchy of the Club propagandists. But perhaps the worst

instance of our interference is that with the Neapolitan and Sicilian

affairs. We have thus chosen openly to countenance rebellion: we have

gone the length of negotiating with insurgents, for securing them an

independent government. We held out a threat, which we did not dare to

fulfil. After menacing the King of Naples with a squadron off his own

shores, apparently to prevent the expedition then prepared from

setting sail for Sicily--and thereby encouraging the insurgents by the

prospect of British aid--we allowed the fleet to sail, the war to

begin, the city of Messina to be bombarded, and then, with a tardy

humanity, we interfered to check the carnage. In consequence, we are

blamed and detested by both parties. The Neapolitan Government feel

that we have acted towards them in a manner wholly inconsistent with

the character of an ally; that in negotiating with rebels, as we have

done, we have absolutely broken faith, and violated honour; and that

even our last interference was as unprincipled as our first. If the

plea of humanity were to be allowed in such cases, where would be the

end of interference? Durst we have said to Austria, after the

reoccupation of Vienna, "You have taken your city, and may keep it,

but you shall not punish the rebels. If you do, we shall interfere, to

prevent the horrors of military execution"? We think that even Lord

Palmerston, notwithstanding his itch for interposition, would have

hesitated in doing this. Lord Lansdowne, in touching upon the subject

of the Austrian and Hungarian relations, is positively conservative in

his tone. According to him, the British cabinet views rebellion in a

very different light, according as it appears in the centre or the

south of Europe--on the banks of the Danube, or on the shores of the

Mediterranean. "As regarded the administration of the internal affairs

of Austria and Hungary, the British Government had not been asked to

interfere, and had not desired to interfere. They contemplated, as all

Europe did, with that feeling which was experienced when men were seen

successfully struggling with difficulties, a contest which had led to

the display of so much lofty character on the part of individuals. Had

this been the place, he (the Marquis of Lansdowne) should have been as

ready as the noble lord to pay his tribute of respect to individuals

who had appeared in that part of the world, and had been most

successful in their efforts to restore the glories of the Austrian

army in her own dominions. _In the negotiations between the Emperor

and his subjects they had no right to interfere_, neither had they

been invited by either party." This is sound doctrine, we admit, but

why treat Naples otherwise than Austria? Had we any right to interfere

in the negotiations between the King of the Two Sicilies and _his_

subjects? Not one tittle more than in the other case; and we beg to

suggest to Lord Palmerston, whether it is creditable that this country

should be considered in the light of a bully who hesitates not, in the

case of a lesser power, to take liberties, which he prudently abstains

from doing where one more likely to resent such unwarrantable conduct

is concerned. As for the Sicilians, they feel that they have been

betrayed. But for the prospect of British support, certainly warranted

by our attitude, they might not have gone so far, nor drawn upon their

heads the terrible retribution which overtook them. Such are the

results of Palmerstonian interference, at once dangerous, despicable,

and humiliating.

We have read with much attention the speech of Lord John Russell, on

the first night of the Session, explanatory of the Italian

transactions; and we must say that his vindication of his

father-in-law is such as to inspire us with a devout hope that the

noble bungler may, in future, be forced to confine his talents for

intrigue to some sphere which does not involve the general

tranquillity of Europe. Considering the manner in which we are mulcted

for the support of the Elliots, we are fairly entitled to ask the

hoary chief of that marauding clan to draw his salary in peace,

without undertaking the task of fomenting civil discord between our

allied powers and their subjects. But even more important is the sort

of admission pervading the address of the Premier, that our

interference in the Sicilian business was regulated by the views

entertained by the French admiral. Sir W. Parker, it seems, did not

take the initiative; it was not his finer sense of humanity which was

offended; for, according to Lord John, "when that expedition reached

Messina, there took place, at the close of the siege of Messina,

events which appeared so horrible and so inhuman in the eyes of the

French admiral that he determined to interfere. It appeared to the

French admiral, that it was impossible such a warfare could continue

without an utter desolation of Sicily, and such alienation from the

Neapolitan Government, on the part of the Sicilians, that no final

terms of agreement could arise; he therefore determined to take upon

himself to put a stop to the further progress of such a horrible

warfare. _After he had so determined, he communicated_ with Sir W.

Parker. Sir W. Parker had a most difficult duty to perform; but,

taking all the circumstances into consideration, our former friendly

relations with the Sicilians--the accounts he had received from the

captain of one of her Majesty's ships then at Messina--the atrocities

he heard of, _and that the French admiral was about to act_--and that

it was important at that juncture that the two nations should act in

concert, his determination was to give orders similar to those which

had been given by the French admiral." Now, although we are fully

alive to the advantage of maintaining the best possible understanding

with the fluctuating French governments, and exceedingly anxious that

no untoward cause for jealousy should arise, we do not think that Lord

John's explanation will be felt as satisfactory by the country. It

appears by this statement, that, had there been no French fleet there,

Sir W. Parker would not have thought himself entitled to interfere. It

is _because_ the French admiral was about to move that he thought fit

to move likewise. If there was any honour in the transaction, we have

forfeited all claim to it by this avowal. If, on the contrary, there

was any wrong done, we excuse it only by the undignified plea, that we

were following the example of France. This is a new position for

Britain to assume--not, in our eyes, one which is likely to raise us

in Continental estimation, or to support the prestige of our maritime

supremacy. To quarrel with our allies is at all times folly; to

vindicate interference on the ground of maintaining a good

understanding with another power, is scarce consonant with principle,

and betrays a conscious weakness on the part of those who have no

better argument to advance.

See, then, how we are situated with the foreign powers. Spain is

alienated from us--Austria not fervid in her love, for there too, it

would seem, we have most unnecessarily interfered. We are detested in

Naples and Sicily, unpopular elsewhere in Italy, mixed up with the

Schleswig dispute, and on no diplomatic terms with Central Germany.

Our understanding with France has fortunately remained amicable, but

we neither know the policy of France, nor can we foresee under what

circumstances she may be placed in a month from the present time. Is

this a peaceful prospect? Let us hear Lord John Russell, whose

interest it is to make things appear in as favourable a light as

possible:--"I do not contend that there is not cause for anxiety in

the present state of Europe. I am far from thinking that the

revolutions which took place last year have run their course, and that

every nation in which they occurred can now be said to be in a state

of solid security. I rejoice as much as any man that the ancient

empire of Austria, our old ally, is recovering her splendour, and is

showing her strength in such a conspicuous manner. Still I cannot

forget that there are many questions not yet settled with regard to

the internal institutions of Austria--that the question of the

formation of what the honourable gentleman (Mr D'Israeli) has called

an empire without an emperor, is still in debate, and that we cannot

be sure what the ultimate result of these events may be. It is also

true that there may have been, during last year, an excess of

apprehension, caused by the great events that were taking place, and

by the rising up of some wild theories, pretending to found the

happiness of the state and of mankind on visionary and unsound

speculations, on which the happiness of no people or country can ever

be founded. We have seen these opinions prevail in many countries to a

considerable extent; and no one can say that events may not, at some

unforeseen moment, take an unfortunate turn for the peace and

tranquillity of Europe." These are sensible views, moderately but

fairly stated; and we ask nothing more than that his lordship's

measures should be framed in accordance with a belief which is not

only his, but is entertained by every man of ordinary capacity

throughout the country. Experience has shown us that war is almost

invariably preceded by revolution. These are not days in which

potentates can assemble their armies, march across their frontiers

without palpable cause of offence, and seize upon the territory of

their neighbours. But for the spirit of innovation, restlessness, and

lust of change, never more generally exhibited than now amongst the

people, the world would remain at peace. It is only when, as in the

case of Germany and Italy, the sceptre is wrenched from the hands of

the constitutional authorities, and when the rule of demagogues and

experimentalists commences, that the danger of war begins. At such a

time, there are no settled principles of polity or of action. Crude

theories are produced, and, for a time, perhaps, acted upon as though

they were sound realities. Men adopt vague and general terms as their

watchwords, and strive to shape out constitutions to be reared upon

these utterly unsubstantial foundations. Laws are changed, and the

executive loses its power. All is anarchy and confusion, until, by

common consent of those who still retain some portion of their senses,

military despotism is called in to strangle the new-born license. This

is a state of matters which usually results in war. The dominant

authorities feel that their hold of public opinion is most precarious,

unless they can contrive to give that opinion an impulse in another

direction, and, at the same time, to employ, in some way or other,

those multitudes whom revolution has driven from the arts and

occupations of peace, and who, unless so provided for, immediately

degenerate into conspirators at home. War is sometimes resorted to as

the means of avoiding revolution. The disturbed state of the north of

Italy furnished Charles Albert with a pretext for marching his army on

Milan, as much, we believe, on account of the revolutionary spirit

rife within his own dominions, as from any decided hope of territorial

aggrandisement. This was the policy of Napoleon, who perfectly

understood the character of the people he had to deal with, and who

acted on the thorough conviction that war was the necessary

consequence of revolution. We do not say that, in the present

instances, such calamitous results are inevitable--we have hope that

France may this time achieve a permanent constitution without having

recourse to aggression. At the same time, it would be folly to shut

our eyes to the fact that, throughout a great part of Europe, the old

boundaries have been grievously disturbed; and that the modern system

of intervention has a decided tendency to provoke war, at periods when

the popular mind is raised to a pitch of extraordinary violence, and

when the passions are so keenly excited as to disregard the appeals of

reason.

These considerations are not only directed towards the course of our

foreign policy; they are of vast moment in judging of the expediency

of reducing our forces at this particular time. Last year, with NO

revolutions abroad, the Whigs not only refused to lessen the amount of

our standing army, but increased it. This year, when the Continent is

still in a state of insurrection, and when war is pending in different

parts of Europe--when, moreover, an Indian contest, more serious in

its aspect than any other which we have recently seen, has

commenced--they propose to begin the work of reduction. Her Majesty is

made to say,--"The present aspect of affairs has enabled me to make

large reductions on the estimates of last year!"

We never have suspected Lord John Russell of possessing much

accomplishment in the art of logic; but, really, in the present

instance, he has the merit of inventing a new system. According to his

own showing, according to his recorded admissions, his doctrine is

this: In time of peace, when there is no occasion for armaments,

increase them; in time of threatened war and actual disturbance, when

there may be every occasion for them, let them be reduced. Yet perhaps

we are wrong: Sir Robert Peel may possibly be admitted as the author

of this vast discovery--in which case, Lord John can merely rank as a

distinguished pupil. The astute baronet, in his zeal for commercial

convulsions, has taught us to expand our currency when there is no

money-famine, and to contract it in the case of exigency. Whether

Californian facts may not hereafter get the better of Tamworth

theories, we shall not at the present moment stop to inquire. In the

mean time let us confine our attention to the proposed reductions.

We are therefore compelled--reluctantly, for we had hoped better

things from men styling themselves British statesmen--to adopt the

view of Lord Stanley, in his powerful and masterly estimate of the

policy of the present Government. "In the face of all this," said the

noble lord, after recapitulating the posture of affairs at home and

abroad, "ministers have had the confidence to place in the mouth of

their sovereign the astounding declaration, that the aspect of affairs

is such as to enable them to effect large reductions in the estimates.

I venture to state, openly and fearlessly, that it is not the aspect

of affairs abroad or in Ireland, but the aspect of affairs in another

place, which has induced the government to make reductions. _I believe

that they have no alternative but to do as they are ordered._" Here,

then, is the first yielding to the new movement--the first step taken,

at the bidding of the Leaguers, towards a policy which has for its

avowed end the abandonment of the colonies! The question naturally

arises--where is to be the end of these concessions? Are we in reality

ruled by a Manchester faction, or by a body of men of free and

independent opinions, who hold their commissions from the Queen, and

who are sworn to uphold the interests and dignity of their mistress

and of the realm? Let us see who compose that faction, what are their

principles, what are their interests, and what means they employ to

work out the ends which they propose. The splendid speech of Mr

D'Israeli, in moving his amendment to the address--a speech which we

hesitate not to say is superior to any of his former efforts, and

which displays an ability at the present time unequalled in the House

of Commons--a speech not more eloquent than true, not more glowing in

its rhetoric than clear and conclusive in its logical deductions--has

told with withering effect upon the new democratic faction, and has

exposed the ministry which bows before it to the contumely of the

nation at large. "I am told," said the honourable member, "that

England must be contented with a lesser demonstration of brute force.

I am not prepared to contradict that doctrine; but I should like to

have a clear definition of what brute force is. In my opinion, a

highly disciplined army, employed in a great performance--that of the

defence of the country, the maintenance of order, the vindication of a

nation's honour, or the consolidation of national wealth and

greatness--that a body of men thus disciplined, influenced and led by

some of the most eminent generals--by an Alexander, a Cæsar, or a

Wellesley--is one in which moral force is as much entered into as

physical. But if, for instance, I find a man possessing a certain

facility of speech, happily adapted to his cause, addressing a great

body of his fellow-men in inflammatory appeals to their passions, and

stirring them up against the institutions of the country, that is what

I call brute force--which I think the country would be very well

content to do without, and which, if there be any sense or spirit left

in men, or any men of right feeling in the country, they will resolve

to put down as an intolerable and ignominious tyranny! I have often

observed that the hangers-on of the new system are highly fond of

questioning the apothegm of a great Swedish minister, who said, 'With

how little wisdom a nation may be governed!' My observations for the

last few years have led me to the conclusion, not exactly similar, but

analogous to that remark; and if ever I should be blessed with

offspring, instead of using the words of the Swedish statesman, I

would rather address my son in this way, 'My son, see with how much

ignorance you can agitate a nation!' Yes! but the Queen's Ministers

are truckling to these men! That is the position of affairs. Her

Majesty's Ministers have yielded to public opinion. Public opinion on

the Continent has turned out to be the voice of secret societies; and

public opinion in England is the voice and clamour of organised clubs.

Her Majesty's Ministers have yielded to public opinion as a tradesman

does who is detected in an act of overcharge--he yields to public

opinion when he takes a less sum. So the financial affairs of this

country are to be arranged, not upon principles of high policy, or

from any imperial considerations, but because there is an unholy

pressure from a minority which demands it, and who have a confidence

of success because they know that they have already beaten two Prime

Ministers." No one who has perused the report of the proceedings at

the late free-trade dinner at Manchester can have failed to remark

that the League is still alive and active. It was not for mere

purposes of jubilation, for the sake of congratulating each other on

the accomplishment of their old object, that these men assembled.

Exultation there was indeed, and some not over-prudent disclosures as

to the nature and extent of the machinery which they had employed, and

the agencies they had used to excite one class of the community

against the other; their inveterate hatred towards the aristocracy and

landed gentry of Great Britain was shown in the diatribes of almost

every one of the commercial orators. "We cannot," says _The Times_,

"but regret that in those portions of the Manchester speeches which

refer to their corn-law achievements, the minds of the speakers appear

still imbittered with class hatred, and feelings of misplaced

animosity towards their fellow-countrymen." "As a people," quoth

Friend John Bright, "we have found out we have some power. We have

discovered we were not born with saddles on our backs, and country

gentlemen with spurs." Ulterior objects are not only hinted at, but

clearly and broadly propounded. The population of the towns is again

to be pitted against that of the counties, and the counties, if

possible, to be swamped by an inundation of urban voters. The banquet

of Wednesday was followed by the financial meeting of Thursday. George

Wilson, the ancient president of the Anti-Corn-Law League, occupied

the chair. Bright and Cobden, the Bitias and Pandarus of the

cotton-spinners, moved the first of a series of resolutions: and an

association was formed, "for maintaining an efficient care over the

registration of electors in boroughs and counties, and to promote the

increase of the county electors by the extension of the forty-shilling

freehold franchise." It was further agreed "that the association

should co-operate with similar associations throughout the country,

and that parties subscribing £10 annually shall be members of the

council, together with such persons, being members of the association,

as shall be elected by any vote of the council." We hope that these

announcements will open the eyes of those who thought that by yielding

to the former agitation they were adopting the best means of bringing

it to a close. Agitation never is so quieted. The experiment has been

made in Ireland until further yielding was impossible; and so will it

be in Britain, if a higher, a bolder, and a more steadfast line of

policy should not be adopted by future governments. From the present

Cabinet we expect nothing. Their invariable course is to yield; for

they neither have the ability to devise measures for themselves, nor

the public virtue to resist unconstitutional encroachments. For where

is the constitution of this country, if we are to be practically

governed by Leagues, by huge clubs with their ramifications extending,

as in France, throughout every town of the empire, and secretly worked

according to the will of an inscrutable and unscrupulous council?

Public opinion, as we understood the phrase in Britain, manifested

itself in Parliament; now, we are told, that it is something

else--that it is the voice of clubs and assemblies without. Very well,

and very powerfully did Mr D'Israeli allude to this system of

organisation in the close of his animated speech:--

"I have noticed the crude and hostile speculations that are

afloat, especially respecting financial reform, not only

because I consider them to be very dangerous to the country;

not only because, according to rumour, they have converted

the Government; but because, avowedly on the part of their

promulgators, they are only tending to ultimate efforts. This

I must say of the new revolutionary movement, that its

proceedings are characterised by frank audacity. They have

already menaced the church, and they have scarcely spared the

throne. They have denounced the constitutional estates of the

realm as antiquated and cumbrous machinery, not adapted to

the present day. No doubt, for the expedition of business,

the Financial Reform Association presents greater facilities

than the House of Commons. It is true that it may be long

before there are any of those collisions of argument and

intellect among them which we have here; they have no

discussions and no doubts; but still I see no part of the

go-a-head system which is likely to supersede the sagacity

and matured wisdom of English institutions; and so long as

the English legislature is the chosen temple of free

discussion, I have no fear, whatever party may be in power,

that the people of England will be in favour of the new

societies. I know very well the difficulties which we have to

encounter--the dangers which illumine the distance. The

honourable gentleman, who is the chief originator of this

movement, made a true observation when he frankly and freely

said, that the best chance for the new revolution lay in the

dislocation of parties in this House. I told you that, when I

ventured to address some observations to the house almost in

the last hour of the last session. I saw the difficulty which

such a state of things would inevitably produce. But let us

not despair; we have a duty to perform, and, notwithstanding

all that has occurred, we have still the inspiration of a

great cause. We stand here to uphold not only the throne, but

the empire; to vindicate the industrial privileges of the

working classes; to reconstruct the colonial system; to

uphold the church, no longer assailed by appropriation

clauses, but by vizored foes; and to maintain the majesty of

parliament against the Jacobin manoeuvres of Lancashire. This

is a stake not lightly to be lost. At any rate, I would

sooner my tongue were palsied before I counselled the people

of England to lower their tone. Yes, I would sooner quit this

House for ever than I would say to the people of England that

they overrated their position. I leave that delicate

intimation to the fervid patriotism of the gentlemen of the

new school. For my part, I denounce their politics, and I

defy their predictions; but I do so because I have faith in

the people of England, their genius, and their destiny!"

Our views therefore are simply these--that while it is the duty of

government to enforce and practise economy in every department of the

public service, they are not entitled, upon any consideration

whatever, to palter with the public safety. We cannot, until the

estimates are brought forward, pronounce any judgment upon the merits

of the proposed reductions--we cannot tell whether these are to be

numerical, or effected on another principle. Needless expenditure we

deprecate as strongly as the most sturdy adherent of the League, and

we expect and hope that in several departments there will be a saving,

not because that has been clamoured for, but because the works which

occasioned the outlay have been completed. For example, the

introduction of steam vessels into our navy has cost a large sum,

which may not be required in future. But to assign, as ministers have

done, the position of affairs abroad as a reason for reducing our

armaments, is utterly preposterous. It is a miserable pretext to cover

their contemptible truckling, and we are perfectly sure that it will

be appreciated throughout the country at its proper value. It remains

to be seen whether these estimates can be reduced so low as to meet

the expenditure of the country. Our own opinion is, that they cannot,

without impairing the efficiency of either branch of the service; and

we hardly think that ministers will venture to go so far.

Let us, at all events, hope that Lord John Russell and his colleagues

are not so lost to the sense of their duty, as to make the sweeping

reduction which the Manchester politicians demand--that they will not

consent to renounce the colonies, or to leave them destitute of

defence. Still the question remains--how are we to raise our revenue?

To this point we perpetually recur, for it is in this that the real

difficulty lies. What says her Majesty's Government to this? The

answer is quite short--Nothing. They have no scheme, so far as we are

given to understand. They cannot go back upon indirect taxation; the

country will not stand any increase of the direct burdens. The old

rule was, out of two evils choose the least: the new rule seems to be,

choose neither the one nor the other, but let matters go on as they

best can. We have that confidence in the good sense of the country,

that we cannot believe that this _laissez faire_ system will be much

longer tolerated. The family party, as the interwoven clique of

Russells, Mintos, Greys, and Woods, has not unaptly been designated,

was not placed in power merely to enjoy the sweets of office, or to

provide for their numerous kindred; they must either grapple with the

pressing difficulties of the state, or surrender their places to

others who are more confident and capable.

Confidence is not wanting in certain quarters, though capability may

be a matter of more dubiety. Mr M'Gregor, M.P. for Glasgow, and

concocter of the famous free-trade tables, is ready at a moment's

notice to produce a new financial scheme, founded upon unerring data,

and promising a large increase of the revenue. Cobden has another

scheme on the irons with the same view, benevolently proposing to lay

the land of Great Britain under further contribution. We believe that,

after the experience of the past, few people will be likely to accept

either budget without considerable hesitation. Both gentlemen have

committed a slight mistake in imitating Joseph's interpretation of the

dream of Pharaoh; they should have inversed the order, and given the

years of famine the precedence of the years of plenty.

The truth is, that it is a very simple matter to take off existing

taxes, but marvellously difficult to impose new ones. Granting that a

certain sum is required for the annual engagements and expenditure of

the country, no wise statesman would abolish any source of revenue,

without, at the same time, introducing another equivalent. Our error

has been abolition without any equivalent at all. It is all very well

to say, that by reducing import duties upon particular articles you

stimulate the power of production: that stimulus may be

given--individuals may in consequence be enriched--and yet still there

is a defalcation of revenue. This, however, is the best case which can

be pointed out for the reduction of duties, and can only apply, in any

degree, to imports of raw material. The greater part of Sir Robert

Peel's tariff is founded upon a principle directly opposite to this.

He removed import duties from articles which, so far from stimulating

the power of production at home, absolutely crushed that power, by

bringing in foreign to supersede British labour. Thus, in both cases,

there was a sacrifice. In the one there was, at all events, a direct

sacrifice of revenue; in the other, a sacrifice of revenue, and a

sacrifice of labour also. The imposition (and the word is appropriate

either in its plain or its metaphorical meaning) of the property and

income tax, which gave Sir Robert Peel the power of making his

commercial experiments, proved inadequate to replace the deficit. The

promised gain was as visionary as the dividends on certain railway

lines projected about the same period, and no new source of national

income has been opened to supply the loss.

Lord Brougham, no bad judge of human nature, observed the other night,

that "such was the extent of the self-conceit of mankind, such the

nature and amount of human frailty, that it became no easy matter to

induce a nation to retrace its steps." People are ever loath to accept

as facts the most pregnant evidences of their own deliberate folly.

Perfectly aware of this metaphysical tendency, we are not surprised

that, for the last two or three years, every remonstrance against the

dangers of precipitate commercial legislation should have been treated

with scorn, both by the older advocates of the abolition system, and

by the younger disciples who were converted in a body along with their

master. They have been kind enough, over and over again, to entreat

us to relinquish our defence of what they called an antiquated and

worn-out theory. Their supplications on this score have been so

continuous as to become absolutely painful; nor could we well

understand why and wherefore they should be so very solicitous for our

silence. Our worst enemies cannot accuse us of advocating any

dangerous innovations: our preachment may be tedious, but, at all

events, we do not take the field at the head of an organised

association. Neither can we be blamed for solitary restiveness, for we

do not stand alone in the utterance of such opinions. The public press

of this country has nobly fought the battle. We have had to cope with

dexterous and skilled opponents; but never, upon any public question,

has a great cause been maintained more unflinchingly, more

disinterestedly, and more ably, than that of the true Conservative

party by the free Conservative press. We are now glad to see that our

denunciations of the new system have not been altogether without their

effect. The temporary failure of free trade has been conceded even by

its advocates; but we are referred to accidental causes for that

failure, and the entreaty now is, to give the system a longer trial.

We have no manner of objection to this, provided we are not asked to

submit to any further experiments. We desire nothing better than that

the people of Great Britain, be they agriculturists, or be they

tradesmen, should have the opportunity of testing by experience the

blessings of the free-trade system. The first class, indeed, do not

require any probationary period of low prices to strengthen their

conviction of the fallacy of the anti-reciprocity system, or of the

iniquity of the arrangement which compels them to support the enormous

amount of pauperism engendered by the over amount of population,

systematically encouraged by the manufacturers. "The manufacturers,"

said Lord Brougham, "do not, perhaps, tell the world that they

manufacture other things besides cotton twist; but every one who knew

anything of them, knew that they _manufactured paupers_. Where the

land produced one pauper, manufacturers created half-a-dozen." Still

we can hardly expect to be thoroughly emancipated from the effects of

the great delusion, until men of every sort and quality are

practically convinced that their interests have been sacrificed to the

selfish objects of a base and sordid confederation. We have no wish to

hark back without occasion, or prematurely, to the corn laws: but, at

the same time, we are not of the number of those who think that

subsequent events have justified the wisdom of the measure. If the

loyalty of the people of Great Britain did really rest upon so very

narrow a point, that, even amidst the rocking and crashing of thrones

and constitutions upon the Continent, ours would have been endangered

by the maintenance of the former law, we should still have reason to

despair of the ultimate destinies of the country. Are we to understand

that, in such a case, the Jacobin faction would have had recourse to

arms--that the Manchester League would have preached rebellion, or

excited its adherents to insurrection? If not this, where would have

been the danger? Never was any question agitated in which the mass of

the operatives took less interest than in the repeal of the corn laws.

They knew well that no benefit was thereby intended to be conferred

upon them--that no philanthropic motives contributed to the erection

of the bazaars--that the millions of popular tracts were poured forth

from no cornucopia of popular plenty. The very fact, that the hard and

griping men of calico were so liberal with their subscriptions to

promote an agrarian change, was sufficient of itself to create a

strong suspicion in their minds; for when was the purse of the

taskmaster ever produced, save from a motive of selfish interest? We

will not do the masses of the British population the foul injustice to

believe that, under any circumstances, they would have emulated the

frantic example of the French. Cobden has not yet the power of his

friend and correspondent Cremieux: he is a wordy patriot, but nothing

more; and, even had he been inclined for mischief, we do not believe

that, beyond the immediate pale of his confederates, any considerable

portion of the nation would readily have rallied round the standard

of such a Gracchus, even though the tricolor stripes had been

displayed on a field of the choicest calico.

"The corn law is a settled question!" so shout the free-traders daily,

in high wrath and dudgeon if any one even ventures to allude to

agricultural distress. We grant the fact. It is a settled question,

like every other which has been decided by the legislature, and it

must remain a settled question until the legislature chooses to reopen

it. We do not expect any such consummation for a long time. We agree

perfectly with the other party, that it is folly to continue

skirmishing after the battle is over, and we do not propose to adopt

any such tactics. We are content to wait until the experiment is

developed, to see how the system works, and to accept it if it works

well; but not on that account shall we less oppose the free-traders

when they advance to further innovations. The repeal of the corn laws

was not the whole, but a mere branch of the free-trade policy. It was

undoubtedly the branch more calculated than any other to depress the

agricultural interest, but the trial of it has been postponed longer

than the free-traders expected. They shall have the benefit of that

circumstance; nor shall we say one word out of season upon the

subject. But perhaps, referring again to the Queen's speech, and

selecting this time for our text those paragraphs which stated that

"commerce is reviving," and that "the condition of the manufacturing

districts is likewise more encouraging than it has been for a

considerable period," we may be allowed to offer a few observations.

We do not exactly understand what her Majesty's ministers mean by the

revival of commerce. This is a general statement which it is very easy

to make, and proportionally difficult to deny. If they mean that our

exports during the last half year have increased, we can understand

them, and very glad indeed we are to learn that such is the case. For

although we have seen of late some elaborate arguments, tending, if

they have any meaning at all, to show that our imports and not our

exports should be taken as the true measure of the national prosperity,

we have that faith in the simple rules of arithmetic which forbids us

from adopting such reasoning. But our gladness at receiving such a

cheering sentiment from the highest possible authority is a good deal

damped by the result of the investigations which we have thought it our

duty to make. We have gone over the tables minutely, and we find that

the exports of the great staples of our industry--cotton, woollen,

silk, linen, hardware, and earthenware--were of less value than those

of 1847 by FOUR MILLIONS AND A HALF, and less than those of 1846 by a

sum exceeding FIVE MILLIONS AND A HALF. With such a fact before us, can

it be wondered at if we are cautious of receiving such unqualified

statements, and exceedingly doubtful of the good faith of the men who

make them?

But, perhaps, this is not the sense in which ministers understand

commerce. They are entitled to congratulate the country upon one sort

of improvement, which certainly was not owing to any efforts upon

their part. We have at last emerged from the monetary crisis, induced

by the unhappy operation of the Banking Restriction Act, and, in this

way, commerce certainly has improved. The fact that such a change in

the distribution of the precious metals should have taken place whilst

our exports were steadily declining, is very instructive, because it

clearly demonstrates the false and artificial nature of our present

monetary system. The consequences, however, may be serious, as the

price of the British funds cannot now be taken as an index of the

prosperity of the country, either in its agricultural or its

manufacturing capacity, but has merely relation to the possession of a

certain quantity of bullion. The rise of the funds, therefore, does

not impress us with any confidence that there has been a healthy

revival in the commerce of the country. We cannot consider the

question of commerce apart from the condition of the manufacturing

districts; and it is to that quarter we must look, in order to test

the value of the free-trade experiments.

We have already noticed the enormous decrease, during the last three

years, in the annual amount of our exports. This, coupled with the

immense increase of imported articles of foreign manufacture, proves

very clearly that the British manufacturer has as yet derived no

benefit from the free-trade measures. We do not, of course, mean to

say that free trade has had any tendency to lessen our exports, though

to cripple the colonies is certainly not the way to augment their

capabilities of consumption. We merely point to the fact of the

continued decrease, even in the staples of British industry, as a

proof of the utter fruitlessness of the attempt to take the markets of

the world by storm. We are told, indeed, of exceptional causes which

have interfered with the experiment; but these causes, even allowing

them their fullest possible operation, are in no way commensurate with

the results. For be it remarked, that the free-trade measures

contemplated this result,--that increased imports were to be

compensated by an enormous augmentation of exports: in other words,

that we were to meet with perfect reciprocity from every foreign

nation. Now, admitting that exceptional causes existed to check and

restrain this augmentation, can we magnify these to such an extent as

to explain the phenomenon of a steady and determined fall in our

staple exports, and that long before the occurrence of civil war or

insurrection on the continent of Europe? The explanation is just

this,--the exports fell because the markets abroad were glutted, and

because no state is disposed to imitate the suicidal example of

Britain, or to sacrifice its own rising industry for the sake of

encouraging foreigners. What inducement, it may be asked, has any

state in the world to follow in our wake? Let us take for example

Germany, to whose markets we send annually about six millions and a

half of manufactures. Germany has considerable manufactures of her

own, which give employment to a large portion of the population. Would

it be wise in the Germans, for the sake of reducing the price either

of linen, cotton, or woollen goods by an infinitesimal degree, to

throw all these people idle, and to paralyse labour in every

department, whenever they could be undersold by a foreign artisan?

Undoubtedly not. Germany has nothing whatever to gain by pursuing such

a course. The British market is open to her, but she does not on that

account relax her right of laying duties upon imports from Britain.

She shelters herself against our competition in her home market,

augments her revenue thereby, and avails herself to the very utmost of

our reduced tariffs, to compete in our country with the artisans of

Sheffield and Birmingham. Every new return convinces us more and more

that commercial interchange is the proper subject of international

treaty; but that no nation whatever, and certainly not one so heavily

burdened as ours, can hope for prosperity if it opens its ports

without the distinct assurance of reciprocity.

Let us try distinctly to ascertain the real amount of improvement

visible in the manufacturing districts. In order to do this, we must

turn to the last official tables, which bring down the trade accounts

from 5th January to 5th December 1848, being a period of eleven

months. We find the following ominous result in the comparison with

the same period in former years:--

_Exports of British Produce and Manufactures from the United Kingdom._

1846. 1847. 1848.

Total, £47,579,413 £47,345,354 £42,158,194

FIVE MILLIONS, TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS of decreased exports in

eleven months!--and the manufacturing districts are improving!

Let us see the ratio of decline on some of the principal articles

which are the product of these districts. We shall therefore omit such

entries as those of butter, candles, cheese, fish, soap, salt, &c.,

and look to the staples only. The following results we hardly think

will bear out the somewhat over-confident declaration of the

ministry:--

_Export of Principal Manufactures from the United Kingdom._

1846. 1847. 1848.

Cotton manufactures, £16,276,465 £16,082,313 £15,050,579

Do. yarn, 7,520,578 5,547,943 5,443,800

Linen manufactures, 2,553,658 2,690,536 2,475,224

Do. yarn, 797,640 615,550 440,118

Silk manufactures, 768,888 912,842 520,427

Woollen yarn, 858,953 941,158 712,035

Do. manufactures, 5,852,056 6,424,503 5,198,059

Earthenware, 742,295 773,786 651,184

Hardwares and cutlery, 2,004,127 2,138,091 1,669,146

Glass, 241,759 272,411 216,464

Leather, 307,336 327,715 244,663

Machinery, 1,050,205 1,186,921 779,759

----------- ----------- -----------

£38,973,920 £37,913,769 £33,401,758

Looking at these tables, we fairly confess that we can see no ground

for exultation whatever; on the contrary, there is in every article a

marked and steady decline. Some of the free-trade journals assert

that, although in the earlier part of the last year there certainly

was a marked falling off in our exports, yet that the later months

have almost redeemed the deficiency. That statement is utterly false

and unfounded. In September last, we showed that the exports of the

first seven commodities in the above table, exhibited a decline of

£3,177,370, for the six earlier months of the year, as compared with

the exports in 1847. We continue the account of the same commodities

for eleven months, and we find the deficiency rated at £3,370,603; so

that we still have been going down hill, only not quite at so

precipitate a rate as before. Free-trade, therefore--for which we

sacrificed our revenue, submitted to an income-tax, and ruined our

West India colonies--has utterly failed to stimulate our exports, the

end which it deliberately proposed.

The diminution of exports implies of course a corresponding diminution

of labour. This is a great evil, but one which is beyond the remedy of

the statesman. You cannot force exports--you cannot compel the foreign

nations to take your goods. We beg attention to the following extract

from the speech of Mr D'Israeli, which puts the matter of export upon

its true and substantial basis:--

"Look at your condition with reference to the Brazils. Every

one recollects the glowing accounts of the late

Vice-president of the Board of Trade with respect to the

Brazilian trade--that trade for which you sacrificed your own

colonies. There is an increase in the trade with the Brazils

of 26,500,000 of yards in 1846 over 1845; and 18,500,000

yards in 1847 over 1845; and this increase has so completely

glutted that market, that goods are selling at Rio and Bahia

at cost price. It is stated in the _Mercantile Journal_, that

'It is truly alarming to think what may be the result of a

continuance of imports, not only in the face of a very

limited inquiry, but at a period of the year when trade is

almost always at a stand. Why cargo after cargo of goods

should be sent hither, is an enigma we cannot solve. Some few

vessels have yet to arrive; and although trade may probably

revive in the beginning of 1849, what will become of the

goods received and to be received? This market cannot consume

them. Stores, warehouses, and the customhouse are full to

repletion; and if imports continue upon the same scale as

heretofore, and sales have to be forced, we may yet have to

witness the phenomenon of all descriptions of piece goods

being purchased here below the prime cost in the country of

production!' Such is the state of matters in these markets;

and I do not see that your position in Europe is better.

Russia is still hermetically sealed, and Prussia is not yet

stricken. I know that there are some who, at this moment,

think that it is a matter of no consequence how much we may

export; who say that foreigners will not give their

productions for nothing, and that, therefore, we must just

manage things in the most favourable way we can for

ourselves. There is no doubt that foreigners will not give us

their goods without some exchange for them; but the question

which the people of this country are looking at is, to know

exactly what are the terms of exchange which it is beneficial

for us to adopt. That is the whole question. You may glut

markets, as I have shown you have succeeded in doing; but the

only effect of your system, of your attempting to struggle

against those hostile tariffs, by opening your ports, is

that you exchange more of your labour every year and every

month for a less quantity of foreign labour; that you render

British labour or native industry less efficient; that you

degrade British labour--necessarily diminish profits, and,

therefore, must lower wages; while the first philosophers

have shown that you will finally effect a change in the

distribution of the precious metals that must be pernicious

to this country. It is for these reasons that all practical

men are impressed with the conviction that you should adopt

reciprocity as a principle of your commercial tariff--not

merely from its practical importance, but as an abstract

truth. This was the principle of the negotiations at Utrecht,

which was copied by Mr Pitt in his commercial negotiations at

Paris, which formed the groundwork of the instructions to Mr

Eden, and which was wisely adopted and upheld by the cabinet

of Lord Liverpool; but which was deserted, flagrantly, and

openly, and unwisely, in 1846. There is another reason why

you can no longer defend your commercial system--you can no

longer delay considering the state of your colonies. This is

called an age of principles, and no longer of political

expedients--you yourselves are the disciples of economy; and

you have, on every occasion, enunciated it as a principle

that the colonies of England were an integral part of this

country. You ought, then, to act towards your colonies on the

principle you have adopted, but which you have never

practised. The principle of reciprocity is, in fact, the only

principle on which you can reconstruct your commercial system

in a manner beneficial to the mother country and advantageous

to the colonies. It is, indeed, a great principle, the only

principle on which a large and expansive system of commerce

can be founded, so as to be beneficial. The system you are

pursuing is one quite contrary--you go fighting hostile

tariffs with fixed imports; and the consequence is that you

are following a course most injurious to the commerce of the

country. And every year, at the commencement of the session,

you come, not to congratulate the House or the country on the

state of our commerce, but to explain why it suffered, why it

was prostrate; and you are happy on this occasion to be able

to say that it is recovering--from what? From unparalleled

distress."

The labour market in this country, so far from improving, is, we have

every reason to believe, in a pitiable state. Let us take the one

instance of silk manufactures. Of these we exported, during eleven

months of last year, an amount to the value of £912,842; this year we

have only sent out £520,427, or nearly £400,000 less. But this decline

does not by any means express the amount of the curtailment of labour

in this important branch of industry. The home market has been

inundated with foreign silks, introduced under the tariffs of 1846,

and that to a degree which is wholly without precedent. Let us see the

comparative amount of importations.

1846. 1847. 1848.

Silk or satin broad stuffs, 115,292 lbs. 147,656 lbs. 269,637 lbs.

Silk ribbons, 180,375 " 182,978 " 217,243 "

Gauze or crape broad stuffs, 6,536 " 5,588 " 8,243 "

Gauze ribbons, 31,307 " 41,825 " 49,460 "

Gauze mixed, 18 " 8 " 39 "

Mixed ribbons, 1,842 " 3,094 " 2,466 "

Velvet broad stuffs, 26,798 " 27,494 " 29,669 "

Velvet embossed ribbons, 13,550 " 14,192 " 41,461 "

------------ ------------ ------------

375,718 lbs. 422,835 lbs. 618,218 lbs.

Is there any commentary required on these figures? We should hope that

no one can be dull enough to misapprehend their import. In one year

our exportation of silk goods has fallen to little more than a half:

in two years our importations from the Continent have nearly doubled.

Where ninety British labourers worked for the exporting trade, only

fifty are now employed; and if we suppose that the consumpt of silk

manufactures in this country is the same in 1848 as in 1846, the

further amount of labour which has been sacrificed, by the increased

importations, must be something positively enormous. It is in this way

that free trade beggars the people and fills the workhouses; whilst,

at the same time, it brings down the national revenue to such an ebb,

that it is utterly insufficient to balance the necessary expenditure.

It would be well if politicians would constantly keep in view this one

great truth--That of all the burdens which can be laid upon a people,

the heaviest is the want of employment. No general cheapness, no class

accumulations of wealth, can make up for this terrible want; and the

statesman who deliberately refuses to recognise this principle, and

who, from any motive, deprives the working man of his privilege, is an

enemy to the interests of his country.

We cannot, and we do not, expect that men who have committed

themselves so deeply as Mr Cobden has done to the principles of free

trade in all its branches, should, under any development of

circumstances, be brought to acknowledge their error. No evidence

however overwhelming, no ruin however widely spread, could shake their

faith, or at any rate diminish the obstinacy of their professions.

They would rather sacrifice, as indeed they seem bent on doing, the

best interests of the British empire, than acknowledge the extent of

their error. Their motto avowedly is, _vestigia nulla retrorsum_. No

sooner is one interest pulled down than they make a rapid and

determined assault upon another, utterly reckless of the misery which

they have occasioned, and hopelessly deaf even to the warnings of

experience. They are true destructives; because they feel that they

dare not pause in their career of violence, lest men should have

leisure, to contemplate the ruin already effected, and should ask

themselves what tangible benefit has been obtained at so terrible a

cost. Mr Cobden knows better than to resume consideration of

free-trade principles, now that we have seen them in actual operation.

He is advancing on with his myrmidons towards the Moscow of free

trade; but, unless we are greatly mistaken, he may have occasion, some

day or other, to revisit his ancient battlefields, but not in the

capacity of a conqueror. There are, however, others, less deeply

pledged, who begin to perceive that in attempting to carry out free

trade without reciprocity, and in the face of hostile tariffs, we are

ruining the trade of Britain for the sole advantage of the foreigner.

Mr Muntz, the member for Birmingham, is not at one with ministers as

to the cheerful prospect of the revival among the manufacturers.

"When I came here," said he characteristically, "I heard a

great deal about the improvement of trade in the country. But

I went home on Saturday, and there was not a man I met who

had experienced any of this improvement in trade. On the

contrary, every one said that trade was flat and

unprofitable, and that there was no prospect of improvement

because they were so much competed with by foreign

manufacturers. This very morning I met with one of my

travellers, who had just returned from the north of Germany;

and I asked him what was the state of trade. 'Oh,' said he,

'there is plenty of trade in Germany, but not trade with

England. They manufacture goods so cheaply themselves, that,

at the prices you sell, low as they are, you cannot compete

with the Germans.' I will tell the House another curious

thing. About three or four years ago, the glassmakers of

Birmingham were very anxious for free trade, and, though I

warned them that I did not think they could compete with

foreigners, yet they were quite certain they could. Well, I

introduced them to the minister of the day--the right

honourable baronet the member of Tamworth--when, to my horror

and astonishment, they asked, not for free trade, but for

three years of protection. Why, I said to them, I thought you

were for free trade? 'Yes,' they replied, 'so we are; but we

want the three years of protection to prepare us for free

trade.' Now, on Saturday last, I received a letter from one

of the leading manufacturers, stating that the import duties

on flint-glass would expire very soon, and with those duties

the trade in this country, he feared, was also in great

danger of expiring, owing to the produce of manufactures

being admitted duty-free into this country, while they had

protective duties in their own, thus keeping up the price at

home by sending over the surplus stock here. The letter

concluded by requesting that the protective duties, which

were about to expire, might be renewed. The improvement in

trade, which was so much talked of, is not an improvement in

quality, but an improvement in quantity: there are half a

dozen other trades which have vanished from Birmingham,

because of the over-competition of the Continent. And,

strangely enough, the manufactures that have been the most

injured are those which last week were held up by the public

press as in a most flourishing condition!"

This statement furnishes ample ground for reflection. The truth is,

that the whole scheme of free trade was erected and framed, not for

the purpose of benefiting the manufacturers at the expense of the

landed interest, but rather to get a monopoly of export for one or

two of the leading manufactures of the empire. Those who were engaged

in the cotton and woollen trade, along with some of the iron-masters,

were at the head of the movement. No influx of foreign manufactured

produce could by possibility swamp _them_ in the home market, for they

are not exposed to that competition with which the smaller trades must

struggle. The Germans will take shirtings, but they will not now take

cutlery from us. The articles which they produce are certainly not so

good as ours, but they are cheaper, and protected, and it is even

worth their while to compete with us in the home markets of Britain.

The same may be said of the trade in brass, gloves, shoes, hats,

earthenware, porcelain, and fifty others. They are not now exporting

trades, and at home, under the new tariffs, we are completely

undersold by the foreigners. As for the glass trade, no one who is

acquainted with the present state of that manufacture on the

Continent, can expect that it will ever again recover. This, in

reality, is the cause of the present depression; and until this is

thoroughly understood by the tradesmen who are suffering, there can be

no improvement for the better. What advantage, we ask, can it be to a

man who finds his profits disappearing, his trade reduced to

stagnation, and his capability of giving employment absolutely

annihilated, to know that, in consequence of some sudden impulse,

twenty million additional yards of calico have been exported from

Great Britain? The glass-blower, the brazier, and the cutler, have not

the remotest interest in calico. They may think, indeed, that part of

the profit so secured may be indirectly advantageous in the purchase

of their wares, but they find themselves lamentably mistaken. The

astute calico-master sells his wares to the foreigner abroad, and he

purchases with equal disinterestedness from the manufacturing

foreigner at home. This is the whole tendency of free trade, and it is

amazing to us that the juggle should find any supporters amongst the

class who are its actual victims. If they look soberly and

deliberately into the matter, they cannot fail to see that the

adoption by the state of the maxim, to sell in the dearest and buy in

the cheapest market, more especially when that market is the home one,

and when cheapness has been superinduced by the introduction of

foreign labour, must end in the consummation of their ruin. Can we

really believe in the assertion of ministers, that manufactures are

improving, when we find, on all hands, such pregnant assurances to the

contrary? For example, there was a meeting held in St James's, so late

as the 11th of January, "to consider the unprecedented number of

unemployed mechanics and workmen now in the metropolis, and to devise

the best means for diminishing their privations and sufferings, by

providing them with employment." Mr Lushington, M.P. for Westminster,

a thorough-paced liberal, moved the first resolution, the tendency of

which was towards the institution of soup kitchens, upon this

preamble, "that the number of operatives, mechanics, and labourers now

thrown out of employment is unusually great, and the consequent

destitution and distress which exist on all sides are painfully

excessive, and deeply alarming." And yet, Mr Lushington, like many of

his class and stamp, can penetrate no deeper into the causes of

distress, than is exhibited in the following paragraph of his

speech:--"The great majority of those whose cases they were now met to

consider, were the victims of misfortune, and not of crime, and, on

that account, they had a legitimate claim upon their sympathy and

commiseration. But private sympathy was impotent to grapple with the

gigantic evil with which they had to contend; isolated efforts and

voluntary alms-giving were but a mere drop in the ocean, compared with

the remedy that the case demanded. They must go further and deeper for

their remedy; and the only efficacious one that could effectually be

brought to bear upon the miseries of the people, was the reduction of

the national expenditure--the cutting down of the army, navy, and

ordnance estimates, and the removal of those taxes that pressed so

heavily upon the poorer portions of the community." This is about as

fine a specimen of unadulterated senatorial drivel as we ever had the

good fortune to meet with; and it may serve as an apt illustration of

the absurd style of argument so commonly employed by the members of

the free-trade party. Suppose that the army were disbanded to-morrow,

and all the sailors in the navy paid off, how would that give

employment to the unfortunate poor? Nay, would it not materially

contribute to increase the tide of pauperism, since no economist has

as yet condescended to explain what sort of employment is to be given

to the disbanded? As to the taxes spoken of by Mr Lushington, what are

they? We really cannot comprehend the meaning of this illustrious

representative of an enlightened constituency. Supposing there was not

a single tax levied in Britain to-morrow, how would that arrangement

better the condition of the people, who are simply starving because

they can get no manner of work whatever? It is this silly but

mischievous babbling, these false and illogical conclusions enunciated

by men who either do not understand what they are saying, or who,

understanding it, are unfit for the station which they occupy, which

tend more than anything else to spread disaffection among the lower

orders, to impress them with the idea that they are unjustly dealt

with, and to stimulate them in their periodical outcry for organic

changes. The remedy lies in restoring to the labouring man those

privileges of which he has been insidiously robbed by the operation of

the free-trade measures. It lies in returning to the system which

secured a full revenue to the nation, whilst, at the same time, it

prevented the minor trades from being swamped by foreign competition.

It lies in refusing to allow one class of the community to extinguish

others, and to throw the burden of the pauperism which it creates upon

the landed interest, already contending with enormous difficulties.

Until this be done, it is in vain to expect any real improvement in

the condition of the working-classes. Each successive branch of

industry that is pulled down, under the operation of the new system,

adds largely to the mass of accumulating misery; and the longer the

experiment is continued, the greater will be the permanent injury to

the country.

Not the least evil resulting from the free-trade agitation is the

selfishness and division of classes which it has studiously

endeavoured to promote. So long as the agriculturists alone were

menaced, the whole body of the manufacturers were against them. The

tariffs of 1846 struck at the small traders and artisans, and the

merchants looked on with indifference. Now the question relates to the

Navigation Laws, and the shipmasters of Britain complain that they

cannot rouse the nation to a sense of the meditated wrong. Every one

has been ready to advocate free trade in every branch save that with

which he was personally connected; and it is this shortsighted policy

which has given such power to the assailing party. Deeply do we

deplore the folly as well as the wickedness of such divisions. No

nation can ever hope to prosper through the prosperity of one class

alone. It is not the wealth of individuals which gives stability to a

state, but the fair distribution of profitable labour throughout the

whole of the community. In contending for the support of the

Navigation Laws, we are not advocating the cause of the shipmasters,

but that of the nation; and yet we feel that if the principle of free

trade be once fully admitted, no exception can be made, even in this

vital point. If we intend to retain our colonies, we must do justice

to them one way or another. We cannot deprive them of the advantages

which they formerly enjoyed from their connexion with the parent

country, and yet subject them to a burden of this kind, even although

we hold that burden necessary for the effectual maintenance of our

marine. We await the decision of this matter in parliament with very

great anxiety indeed, because we look upon the adoption or the

rejection of Mr Labouchere's bill as the index to our future policy.

If it receives the royal assent, we must perforce prepare for organic

changes far greater than this country has ever yet experienced. The

colonies may still, indeed, be considered as portions of the British

empire, but hardly worth the cost of retention. Free trade will have

done its work. The excise duties cannot be suffered to continue, for

they too, according to the modern idea, are oppressive and unjust; and

the period, thus foreshadowed by Mr Cobden at the late Manchester

banquet, will rapidly arrive: "It is not merely protective duties that

are getting out of favour in this country; but, however strong or weak

it may be at present, still there is firmly and rapidly growing an

opinion decidedly opposed, _not merely to duties for protection, but

to duties for revenue at all_. I venture to say you will not live to

see another statesman in England propose any customs-duty on a raw

material or article of first necessity like corn. I question whether

any statesman who has any regard for his future fame will ever propose

another excise or customs-duty at all." The whole revenue will then

fall to be collected directly: and how long the national creditor will

be able to maintain his claim against direct taxation is a problem

which we decline to solve. The land of Great Britain, like that of

Ireland, will be worthless to its owner, and left to satisfy the

claims of pauperism; and America, wiser than the old country, will

become to the middle classes the harbour of refuge and of peace.

We do not believe that these things will happen, because we have faith

in the sound sterling sense of Englishmen, and in the destinies of

this noble country. We are satisfied that the time is rapidly

approaching when a thorough reconstruction of our whole commercial and

financial policy will be imperatively demanded from the government--a

task which the present occupants of office are notoriously incapable

of undertaking, but which must be carried through by some efficient

cabinet. Such a measure cannot be introduced piecemeal after the

destructive fashion, but must be based upon clear and comprehensive

principles, doing justice to all classes of the community, and showing

undue favour to none.

Our observations have already extended to such a length, that we have

little room to speak of that everlasting topic, Ireland. "Ireland,"

says Lord John Russell, "is undergoing a great transition." This is

indeed news, and we shall be glad to learn the particulars so soon as

convenient. Perhaps the transition may be explained before the

committee, to which, as usual, Whig helplessness and imbecility has

referred the whole question of Irish distress. The confidence of the

Whigs in the patience of the people of this country must be boundless,

else they would hardly have ventured again to resort to so stale an

expedient. It is easy to devolve the whole duties of government upon

committees, but we are very much mistaken if such trifling will be

longer endured. As to the distress in Ireland, it is fully admitted.

Whenever the bulk of a nation is so demoralised as to prefer living on

alms to honest labour, distress is the inevitable consequence; and the

only way to cure the habit is carefully to withhold the alms.

Ministers think otherwise, and they have carried a present grant of

fifty thousand pounds from the imperial exchequer, which may serve for

a week or so, when doubtless another application will be tabled. This

is neither more nor less than downright robbery of the British people

under the name of charity. Ireland must in future be left to depend

entirely upon her own resources; situated as we are, it would be

madness to support her further; and we hope that every constituency

throughout the United Kingdom will keep a watchful eye on the conduct

pursued by their representatives in the event of any attempt at

further spoliation. From all the evidence before us, it appears that

our former liberality has been thrown away. Not only was no gratitude

shown for the enormous advances of last year, but the money was

recklessly squandered and misapplied, no doubt in the full and

confident expectation of continued remittances. And here we beg to

suggest to honourable members from the other side of the Channel,

whether it might not be well to consider what effect free trade has

had in ameliorating the condition of Ireland. If on inquiry at

Liverpool they should chance to find that pork is now imported direct

from America, not only salted, but fresh and preserved in ice, and

that in such quantities and at so low a rate as seriously to affect

the sale of the Irish produce, perhaps patriotism may operate in

their minds that conviction which reasoning would not effect. If also

they should chance to learn that butter and dairy produce can no

longer command a remunerative price, owing to the increased imports

both from America and the Continent, they will have made one further

step towards the science of political economy, and may form some

useful calculations as to the prospect of future rentals. Should they,

however, still be of opinion that the interests of the Irish people

are inseparably bound up with the continuance of free trade--that

neither prices nor useful labour are matters of any consequence--they

must also bear in mind that they can no longer be allowed to intromit

with the public purse of Britain. The Whigs may indeed, and probably

will, make one other vigorous effort to secure their votes; but no

party in this nation is now disposed to sanction such iniquitous

proceedings, and all of us will so far respond to the call for

economy, as sternly to refuse alms to an indolent and ungrateful

object.

In conclusion, we shall merely remark that we look forward with much

interest to the financial exposition of the year, in the hope that it

may be more intelligible and satisfactory than the last. We shall then

understand the nature and the amount of the reductions which have been

announced under such extraordinary circumstances, and the state of the

revenue will inform those who feel themselves oppressed by excise

duties, of the chances of reduction in that quarter. Meanwhile we

cannot refrain from expressing our gratitude to both Lord Stanley and

Mr D'Israeli for their masterly expositions of the weak and

vacillating policy pursued by the Whig government abroad, and of the

false colour which was attempted to be thrown upon the state and

prospect of industry at home. Deeply as we lamented the premature

decease of Lord George Bentinck at the very time when the value of his

public service, keen understanding, and high and exalted principle,

was daily becoming more and more appreciated by the country, we are

rejoiced to know that his example has not been in vain; that his noble

and philanthropic spirit still lives in the councils of those who have

the welfare of the British people at heart, and who are resolute not

to yield to the pressure of a base democracy, actuated by the meanest

of personal motives, unscrupulous as to the means which it employs,

impervious to reason, and utterly reckless of consequences, provided

it may attain its end. Against that democracy which has elsewhere not

only shattered constitutions but prostrated society, a determined

stand will be made; and our heartfelt prayer is, that the cause of

truth may prevail.

FOOTNOTE:

[32] We find that we have given the leaguers rather too much credit in

the above paragraph. Some of them appear to think that, whether

necessary or not, our forces should be dispensed with; at least so we

gather from the following expressions contained in a dull ill-written

tract, purporting to emanate from the "Edinburgh Financial Reform

Association," which has just come into our hands. Let us hear the

patriotic economists. "If there be any other cause for maintaining a

huge and expensive force, it must be found in the desire to provide

for the scions of the nobility and landed gentry, with a view to

secure votes in both houses of parliament. As is well known,

commissions in the army and navy are held almost entirely by these

classes. No doubt, officers in active service may be said to give work

for their pay, while their gallantry as soldiers is beyond dispute;

but this, unfortunately, does not mend the matter. Their services we

hold to be for the greater part unnecessary; _at all events, they are

services for which the nation cannot afford to pay any longer, and

they_ THEREFORE _ought to be relinquished_." This is intelligible

enough; but we hardly think there are many reasoners of this calibre.

_Printed by William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh._

* * * * *

Transcriber's Notes:

Obvious typographical errors have been repaired. Accepted older

spellings were retained (for example, "wofully," "bran-new," "lingot,"

etc.).

Text file only: [Delta] refers to the Greek letter, which was the

only signature for "The Sycamine."

Text file only: Footnote 20, ^{er} refers to superscript "er."

P. 287, "as offusc and impervious a fold"--unable to verify an

alternate spelling for "offusc."

P. 299, "the Income Tax. the Chancellor"--period after Tax present in

original; possibly an abbreviation for Taxation.

P. 321, last line of poem: "Chase the BuffalO!"--capitalization of

final "O" is true to original.