CHAPTER XX.

Harley L’Estrange was seated alone in his apartments. He had just put

down a volume of some favourite classic author, and he was resting his

hand firmly clenched upon the book. Ever since Harley’s return to

England, there had been a perceptible change in the expression of his

countenance, even in the very bearing and attitudes of his elastic

youthful figure. But this change had been more marked since that last

interview with Helen which has been recorded. There was a compressed

resolute firmness in the lips—a decided character in the brow. To the

indolent careless grace of his movements had succeeded a certain

indescribable energy, as quiet and self-collected as that which

distinguished the determined air of Audley Egerton himself. In fact, if

you could have looked into his heart, you would have seen that Harley

was, for the first time, making a strong effort over his passions and

his humours; that the whole man was nerving himself to a sense of duty.

“No,” he muttered—“no—I will think only of Helen; I will think only of

real life! And what (were I not engaged to another) would that dark-eyed

Italian girl be to me?—What a mere fool’s fancy is this! I love again—I

who, through all the fair spring of my life, have clung with such faith

to a memory and a grave! Come, come, come, Harley L’Estrange, act thy

part as man amongst men, at last! Accept regard; dream no more of

passion. Abandon false ideals. Thou art no poet—why deem that life

itself can be a poem?”

The door opened, and the Austrian Prince, whom Harley had interested in

the cause of Violante’s father, entered with the familiar step of a

friend.

“Have you discovered those documents yet?” said the Prince. “I must now

return to Vienna within a few days. And unless you can arm me with some

tangible proof of Peschiera’s ancient treachery, or some more

unanswerable excuse for his noble kinsman, I fear that there is no other

hope for the exile’s recall to his country than what lies in the hateful

option of giving his daughter to his perfidious foe.”

“Alas!” said Harley, “as yet, all researches have been in vain; and I

know not what other steps to take, without arousing Peschiera’s

vigilance, and setting his crafty brains at work to counteract us. My

poor friend, then, must rest contented with exile. To give Violante to

the Count were dishonour. But I shall soon be married; soon have a home,

not quite unworthy of their due rank, to offer both to father and to

child.”

“Would the future Lady L’Estrange feel no jealousy of a guest so fair as

you tell me this young signorina is? And would you be in no danger

yourself, my poor friend?”

“Pooh!” said Harley, colouring. “My fair guest would have _two_ fathers;

that is all. Pray do not jest on a thing so grave as honour.”

Again the door opened, and Leonard appeared.

“Welcome,” cried Harley, pleased to be no longer alone under the

Prince’s penetrating eye—“welcome. This is the noble friend who shares

our interest for Riccabocca, and who could serve him so well, if we

could but discover the document of which I have spoken to you.”

“It is here,” said Leonard simply; “may it be all that you require!”

Harley eagerly grasped at the packet, which had been sent from Italy to

the supposed Mrs Bertram, and, leaning his face on his hand, rapidly

hurried through the contents.

“Hurrah!” he cried at last, with his face lighted up, and a boyish toss

of his right hand. “Look, look, Prince, here are Peschiera’s own letters

to his kinsman’s wife; his avowal of what he calls his ‘patriotic

designs;’ his entreaties to her to induce her husband to share them.

Look, look, how he wields his influence over the woman he had once

wooed; look how artfully he combats her objections; see how reluctant

our friend was to stir, till wife and kinsman both united to urge him.”

“It is enough,—quite enough,” exclaimed the Prince, looking at the

passages in Peschiera’s letters which Harley pointed out to him.

“No, it is not enough,” shouted Harley as he continued to read the

letters with his rapid sparkling eyes. “More still! O villain, doubly

damned! Here, after our friend’s flight, here, is his avowal of guilty

passion; here he swears that he had intrigued to ruin his benefactor, in

order to pollute the home that had sheltered him. Ah! see how she

answers; thank Heaven her own eyes were opened at last, and she scorned

him before she died. She was innocent! I said so. Violante’s mother was

pure. Poor lady, this moves me! Has your Emperor the heart of a man?”

“I know enough of our Emperor,” answered the Prince warmly, “to know

that, the moment these papers reach him, Peschiera is ruined, and your

friend is restored to his honours. You will live to see the daughter, to

whom you would have given a child’s place at your hearth, the wealthiest

heiress of Italy—the bride of some noble lover, with rank only below the

supremacy of kings!”

“Ah!” said Harley, in a sharp accent, and turning very pale—“ah, I shall

not see her that! I shall never visit Italy again!—never see her

more—never, after she has once quitted this climate of cold iron cares

and formal duties—never, never!” He turned his head for a moment, and

then came with quick step to Leonard. “But you, O happy poet! No ideal

can ever be lost to you. You are independent of real life. Would I were

a poet!” He smiled sadly.

“You would not say so, perhaps, my dear lord,” answered Leonard with

equal sadness, “if you knew how little what you call ‘the ideal’

replaces to a poet the loss of one affection in the genial human world.

Independent of real life! Alas! no. And I have here the confessions of a

true poet-soul, which I will entreat you to read at leisure; and when

you have read, answer if you would still be a poet!”

He took forth Nora’s MSS. as he spoke.

“Place them yonder, in my _secrétaire_, Leonard; I will read them

later.”

“Do so, and with heed; for to me there is much here that involves my own

life—much that is still a mystery, and which I think you can unravel!”

“I!” exclaimed Harley; and he was moving towards the _secrétaire_, in a

drawer of which Leonard had carefully deposited the papers, when once

more, but this time violently, the door was thrown open, and Giacomo

rushed into the room, accompanied by Lady Lansmere.

“Oh, my lord, my lord!” cried Giacomo, in Italian, “the signorina! the

signorina!—Violante!”

“What of her? Mother, mother! what of her? Speak, speak!”

“She has gone—left our house!”

“Left! No, no!” cried Giacomo, “She must have been deceived or forced

away. The Count! the Count! Oh, my good lord, save her, as you once

saved her father!”

“Hold!” cried Harley. “Give me your arm, mother. A _second_ such blow in

life is beyond the strength of man—at least of mine. So, so!—I am better

now! Thank you, mother. Stand back, all of you—give me air. So the Count

has triumphed, and Violante has fled with him! Explain all—I can bear

it!”

THE EARL OF DERBY’S APPEAL TO THE COUNTRY.

When we addressed our readers, in the month of June last,[10] in a very

earnest, and perhaps a somewhat apprehensive spirit, we declared that we

did so “on the eve of a tremendous conflict, the results of which, in

our deliberately formed opinion, shared by every thinking and

experienced politician in the kingdom, affect the welfare of the Empire

to an extent almost unprecedented, and also, at present, utterly

incalculable.” That conflict has now taken place, or rather it is

yet—while we are writing, very far on in this memorable month of July

(the 24th inst.)—not quite over. It has been, indeed, a signal conflict:

but between whom? And what is the issue? Has there been a victory, and

consequently a defeat? Is it the Earl of Derby, sitting dismayed in his

cabinet, from whose lips these sad words are at this moment falling, as

he surveys the results of the general election of 1852, on which he had

staked so much?—or is it his rival and opponent? But _who is he_?—or is

his name legion? Is it Lord John Russell?—or Sir James Graham?—or the

Duke of Newcastle?—or Lord Palmerston?—or, dropping for a moment to the

_dii minores_, is it—Mr Cobden?

One fact is certain, that the Earl of Derby, on the 1st of July 1852,

upon which day the writs were issued for a new election, deliberately

gave battle to them all; having four months previously declared that he

would do so. And on the occasion of making that declaration, he

furthermore declared, in terms which no one could mistake, that he

intended to do battle for the _Constitution in Church and State_—for the

Protestant Constitution; and against those who were secretly or openly

advancing to assail its integrity, under the baleful flag of DEMOCRACY

and POPERY. He and his advisers had been calm and quicksighted enough to

see that such was the true nature of the great electoral struggle

ordained to take place in the month of July 1852; and they had also

sufficient sagacity and resolution to foresee and defeat the cunning and

desperate attempts which would be made by their opponents, to disguise

the true nature and real objects of the contest, and shift the scene of

it to a disadvantageous and deceptive locality. Those, indeed, who made

this attempt, were wise in their generation, and did the very best thing

that the nature of things admitted. Conscious of occupying a

discreditable and desperate position, through their own imbecility and

recklessness, the only chance of regaining lost ground, and making a

tolerated appearance before the country, lay in attempting to enlist

popular sympathies; and the felicitous device was, to persuade the

millions that their bread was in danger;—but this was to be done, if at

all successfully, so very suddenly, that the falsehood should not be

found out before it had gained its object. The Earl of Derby was to be

exhibited before women and children as a vampyre, but only for a moment,

lest the false colours should dissolve away while they were being looked

at, and a wise and benevolent statesman appear in his true figure and

colours. Hence the convulsive effort that was made, the moment it was

announced that his gracious Mistress had summoned him in a critical

emergency to her counsels, to precipitate him into a contest before he

had had a moment’s time to survey his new position, to summon his

advisers about him—to tell friends from foes—and see what were the

precise objects which they had to keep in view. “If,” said they, “Lord

Derby be allowed to go to the country at his own time, and in his own

way, the country will welcome him as a deliverer from mischievous

misrule. Let us, therefore, force him to select _our_ time, and _our_

place, for fighting the battle. If we hesitate, we are lost; for he is

strong and skilful, and the country acute and honest.” In vain the Earl

said to his eager opponents, “By your leave, gentlemen; for a moment, by

your leave. What is the meaning of all this feverish fidget? What are

you afraid of?” “That you will take away the people’s bread; reverse a

wise and beneficent policy; and not only bid the sun of commercial

prosperity stand still, but go back, and so plunge us all into confusion

and despair.” “I assure you,” quoth the Earl, “I am not going to attempt

_any_ of these things. I love the people as much as yourselves, and,

with you, am one of them. My interests, like your own, are identical

with theirs: I wish only to secure the safety of our institutions, the

common interests of the Queen and the people, against certain perils

which I see distinctly, though you may not. And as to the corn question,

in which you would tie up, and hide, and crush all others, I will have

none of it. I have opinions of my own on the subject of corn laws,

thinking it would be infinitely to the benefit of the community if I

could at once derive a revenue for it from foreigners, and enable our

own corn-growers to supply us with bread at a reasonable price, and

foster and stimulate the energies of producers, and provide a safe,

quick-paying home-market for them: thus protecting the interests of both

the great classes of the community—producers and consumers. If, however,

your long-continued and systematic agitation and misrepresentations have

succeeded in persuading the masses of society that my own views on that

subject are at variance with theirs, and that theirs they are resolved

shall prevail, be it so; I will do all I can, less than which I should

desert my duty in doing;—I will take care to submit that particular

question, in order to dissipate all doubt, to the deliberate decision of

the country; and whatever that decision may be, I will cordially carry

it out. But do you seriously suppose that this question is the only one

by which I must stand or fall?—the only one for which the Queen called

me to her counsels? O no, gentlemen. Whichever way the pleasure of the

country may lie upon this question, it is but one, and that a

subordinate one, of several—nay, of many; it is but one, and a

subordinate interest among several intrusted to my consideration and my

keeping. Suppose the corn question totally set aside, and at rest, and

yourselves called to advise the Sovereign, and carry on the government

of the country, _what would you do, then_? You may pause; but I know

well what you would do. Judging from your own repeated declarations, you

would, under the pretence of liberalising our institutions, intrust

power to incompetent hands, to be used only for the furtherance of your

own selfish purposes; they would nominally, and you as demagogues

practically,[11] be the depositaries of power. Your avowed principles

are inconsistent with the maintenance of our national independence; of

the connection between Church and State; of the Protestant character of

our institutions: the Queen’s throne would be shaken, and her crown

quiver upon her sacred brow, if you were intrusted with the power for

which you are so anxious. I see distinctly before me the crimsoned

darkness of anarchy, and through it the fabric of a republic crumbling

under a military despotism. Now, gentlemen, I fear God and honour the

Queen; I am heart and soul a Protestant; I am satisfied with our

institutions, civil and religious, and believe that so are the people;

but let them speak out for themselves on all these subjects, which I

will submit to them with deliberate distinctness, despising your efforts

to misrepresent my objects and principles, and await the decision with

composure.” “Well, but, my Lord, how is this? Be so good as to tell us

in detail what you are going to do if you should be continued in power;

do not set us running about in search of shadows; do not amuse us with a

series of dissolving views; give us something visible and tangible, in

order that we may deal with it in our own way before the people.” “That

is, in order that you may misrepresent it. No, my friends: you would

have me do exactly what I will not do. It was by your own voluntary act

that I am where I am. You should have considered consequences. I did,

and have formed my purposes, and organised my plans. My character and

principles are before the country, so are those of my colleagues. These

principles I will reassert as emphatically as you please; and I pledge

myself to carry them out in practice, if I have the opportunity.” “But

you will delude the country: you will set them scampering in every

direction after will-o’-the-wisps, while you and your myrmidons are

quietly stealing their bread, and forging chains and dungeons for them.”

“Well, gentlemen, tell the country as much: see whether they will

believe you. It is a fair question between us. You say that yourselves,

and your doings are thoroughly well known to them. Well, if that be so,

go and prosper with the constituencies, for they will give you their

confidence if they think that you deserve it. But observe, my good

friends: if, thus knowing you and your doings, _those constituencies

should decide against you_, and in favour of me, my friends, and our

principles, even though I expressly withhold a distinct declaration of

the way in which I purpose to act upon them, what will you _then_ say?

That those whom they knew they reject, and have chosen others?” It is an

ugly dilemma! “But, my Lord, you impute to us principles and purposes

which we repudiate: we are _not_ wolves in sheep’s clothing; we are

good, honest folk, the best friends the people ever had—in fact, their

true, as you their false friends.” “Well, gentlemen, what is easier than

to tell them so? You are only losing time yourselves, and making me lose

precious time myself; for all our hands are full, having the Queen’s

business to do in every quarter of the globe. Good morning, my friends,

away to the constituencies.” On this, one may conceive that the colloquy

ended, and the people’s imaginary deputation withdrew, with flushed

faces, anxious brows, and disconcerted looks, to their council-chamber

in Chesham Place. After a troubled silence, one lean flippant fellow

among them possibly rose up, with his arms stuck a-kimbo, and said—“Lord

Derby shall dissolve _instanter_: we will kick his people out of the

House of Commons the very first day we meet, and so force him to

dissolve; and I will bring out our trusty fellows of the League,

subscribe a hundred thousand pounds, and in one month’s time annihilate

the crazy Cabinet, and then there is an end of him!” But these wild

counsels did not altogether prevail. The more steadily that matters were

looked at by long-headed people, the more embarrassing was found the

position which had been occupied. If the Earl of Derby should succeed in

presenting himself to the people in his own way, and if they should

think fit to say, “We will have no return to protective duties, but we

feel that there is a great derangement of financial affairs which we

believe you capable of rectifying; and, above all, we believe you a man

of honour, and agree with you as to the existence of a dangerous

conspiracy between Popery and Democracy:” where would then be those who

had themselves driven him to appeal to the country? And as time wore on,

it saw Faction baffled and crushed, and the new Ministers developing

extraordinary aptitude for business; exhibiting uniform tact, temper,

and firmness; overcoming obstacle after obstacle, formerly deemed

insuperable; winning majorities in division after division, forced on

them by their opponents; while no amount of newspaper stimulus could

succeed in flurrying the spirits of the country into distrust or alarm.

Not an opportunity was lost in either House of Parliament for gibing,

taunting, misrepresenting, sedulously echoed by the Radical press out of

doors, both metropolitan and provincial. In four months’ time, a

skilfully-slandered Ministry succeeded in conducting to a satisfactory

conclusion such a splendid amount of legislation as will ever render

those four months memorable; and at the close of that eventful period,

the Earl of Derby saw that the proper moment for appealing to the

country had at length arrived: at the voice of the Queen, her Parliament

dissolved away; and her people were free to choose another.

Now had arrived indeed the tug of war. Now was to be seen the fruit of

those seeds which all parties had been sowing during the interval, with

a view to propitiating the people. Those seeds had been scattered by

many hands, and were of various kinds. A large proportion of that seed

consisted solely of _distrust of Lord Derby_, because he _was_ Lord

Derby, without principles or a policy; and this seed was deemed the most

attractive and hopeful of any, by its venerable and volatile sower, who

scattered it freely everywhere, watching its growth with deep

solicitude, for he had laid out all the little he had left, of political

capital, in order to purchase that seed. Said he to himself, with

sometimes a sigh, and sometimes a smile, this will grow up, if at all,

flexible and chameleon-hued, according to the condition of the political

atmosphere; and the vast extent to which it is sown must, at all events,

show the spirit and resources of the sower, and keep that personage

prominently before the public eye. Another class of seeds had fallen

from a desponding and anxious sower, who had been deposed by former

followers and supporters from a proud position, and accused of having

rendered necessary the sowing of any seed at all, at that particular

conjuncture. He moved tremulously along, scattering his little seed, the

growth of which, he evidently hoped, might be suitable for all purposes,

and alarm no one prematurely. He was rudely jostled, however, by surly

impudent fellows, who furiously stamped on what he had sown, and flung

down thickly large crimson-coloured seed, which should by and by choke

and overpower the other by its baleful and glaring crop. A few timid

hands scattered seeds stealthily, those of parasitical plants, following

in the wake of a burly sower in scarlet, full of deceit and insolence,

dropping, as he went, dark and deadly seed, heedless of the alarm, the

scorn, and the hatred which he by turns provoked. That seed was

destined, in the sower’s expectation, to produce ere long a forest,

overshadowing the land, with all manner of obscene birds lodging in its

gloomy branches.

To drop metaphor, however, the appeal to the constituencies was

undoubtedly made under circumstances calculated to occasion much anxiety

to the Queen’s Ministers, under whose auspices that appeal was made.

They were in a great minority in the House of Commons, and had been

thrown into that minority by reason of their having been opposed to a

measure which, by whatever means, had brought popularity to their

opponents, the majority. The latter had astutely identified themselves

with the most palatable topic that can ever be urged to the masses of

the community—cheap food, without reference to all those deep and

extensive political arrangements, necessarily involved in the discussion

concerning the import of foreign corn. Mr Cobden, for instance, was

aware of being a mere cipher, disconnected with that question, the

agitation of which had alone given him political importance, and an

independent fortune, securing him leisure for all kinds of mischief; and

it was his interest, and that of all those who were, with him, opposed

to the Government, to interweave that popular topic with all other

political topics, giving them, and those urging them, the hue of its

popularity. Thus was the constituency carefully familiarised with a

contrast between the friends of free and fettered trade, with all their

respective advantages and disadvantages, and the applause or odium which

either entailed. A second source of anxiety to the well-wishers of the

Government, and unquestionably a great one, was that Government’s steady

adherence to the expressed determination of its chief, on first assuming

the reins of power, that he would indicate only the general PRINCIPLES

on which his policy was founded, reserving all measures and details,

till the period when he should be able to carry his plans and measures

into effect. This was a severe test to be borne by any class whatever of

aspirants to popular confidence and favour. It was saying, “We stand on

character and principle; if you distrust either, withhold your support.”

And this furnished such endless topics of effective ridicule and

invective to the opponents of the Government, as required no small

amount of moral courage in its supporters to encounter. These topics

were used with systematic energy by a bitterly hostile press for several

months previously to, as well as during, the momentous contest with

which we are dealing; and it were idle to disguise that these efforts

were made with great ability, and a very great measure of success. When,

therefore, the struggle commenced, we ourselves said, It is a very

critical one, entered upon under circumstances _most unfavourable to the

Government_: and if, in spite of those immense disadvantages, the

Government should be victorious, it will be a triumph indeed, and

calculated to secure them both strength and permanence. A calm observer,

however, of the position of parties and the course of events, could not

fail to detect, on the other hand, certain disturbing forces inevitably

affecting the tactics of the opponents of Ministers. The rashness of

Lord John Russell in resigning the Government as he did; immediately

recommending his gracious Mistress to summon Lord Derby to her counsels;

and, instantly afterwards, suddenly repenting of what he had done, and,

stung by the keen reproaches of his supporters, organising an opposition

to Lord Derby, simply because he had obeyed the royal command—alienated

from him a great amount of that secret support on which he had so long

been borne buoyant, and averted from him the countenance of men, though

professing Liberal principles, yet characterised by independence and

moderation. To attempt a coalition with such a man as Mr Cobden, and at

the particular moment selected for the experiment, was one of the

maddest tricks of modern politicians on record; alienating for ever a

steady support, in the vain attempt to conciliate a contemptuous and

distrustful patronage! If Lord John Russell were honest, and Mr Cobden

honest, and both firm, what would be the inference?

Again, when the late members of the House of Commons were reduced to the

rank of private citizens, they had belonged to various sects and

parties, as the representatives of opinions not over easy to define and

distinguish for practical electioneering purposes. There were fervent

and lukewarm Conservatives, with corresponding Liberals; high church,

low church, dissenters, Protestants, Roman Catholics, both in reality,

and _in name_ only. All these were now to present themselves to the

country as worthy of its confidence, a considerable majority of them,

however, being unable to state what public man they owned as leader, or

to what party they professedly attached themselves. And many, indeed,

wished themselves to be thenceforth regarded as leaders and founders of

parties! And each individual’s ambition would suggest to him the

necessity of considering how he intended hereafter, if elected into

Parliament, practically to carry out his views, with reference to a

sphere of action where unfortunately _all_ could not be leaders. How,

then, were all these to “go to the country?” And that country, too, a

somewhat shrewd one!

The last Session of the Parliament of 1852 closed very quietly. Neither

Lord Derby in the House of Lords, nor any of his colleagues or friends

in the House of Commons, seized an opportunity for making, as with their

power they could have made, a dazzling _ad captandum_ appeal to the

country. Very many of their supporters expected that this would have

been done; but we are of opinion that, in not doing so, they acted with

a dignity and self-reliance entitling them to the highest respect. They

might, indeed, have pointed to a glittering catalogue of their doings

during the Session—afforded their supporters many rallying points, and

secured among them a conspicuous consistency of means and objects; but

these advantages appeared to be deliberately foregone. Never before, in

our memory, did a Ministry, especially one so critically situated, and

professedly on its trial, go to the country with less apparent effort to

secure a favourable verdict. It amounted to an apparently indolent

over-confidence, susceptible of being resolved by their enemies into a

conscious unworthiness, and distrust alike of themselves, of their

cause, and of the issue.

The Earl of Derby having distinctly announced, in the month of February,

that he should be guided by the legitimately expressed voice of the

country, in reimposing, or abstaining from reimposing, duties on corn;

and, moreover, that he would not attempt to do so, unless the country

should decide in favour of such a policy by an unequivocal and even a

great majority, some two months afterwards made another announcement, in

answer to one of the many interpellations with which he was

perseveringly harassed by his opponents in the House of Lords. He said

that, if it would afford them any satisfaction, he already distinctly

saw that the voice of the country would be pronounced against the

reimposition of duties on corn, whether for purposes of protection or

revenue. Forthwith there arose a cry among his opponents and their

advocates, “Then at once retire, as avowedly vanquished Protectionists!”

and nothing could exceed the rancorous reiteration of the demand. Lord

Derby, however, remained unmoved; and his enemies, beginning to fear

that they had to deal with one of thoroughly settled purpose, anxiously

cast about for other topics of disparagement against the coming

elections. The public themselves, however, seemed so provokingly

indifferent to their efforts, that it was deemed unsafe to attempt an

open organisation of opposition, or to inaugurate it by formal appeals

to the country, in the shape of public meetings. Not one was called

throughout the length and breadth of the land! although it was

occasionally whispered that a great staff of agitators at Manchester,

amply officered, and largely supplied with the sinews of war, were ready

to start into action at a moment’s notice. But in defence of what? Lord

Derby had already declared that the corn laws were out of his reach, and

his supporters were almost everywhere using the same language; many of

them accompanying it, however, with avowals that their _opinions_ were

unchanged, though the temper of the masses of society rendered it

impossible to act up to those opinions. Then—said his enemies—is not

this monstrous? The cause of Free Trade is now in the keeping of false

friends, or rather of its enemies, who are only apparently surrendering

their opinions and intentions, in order subtlely and indirectly to

effectuate them by and by! and there arose the cry that this was to be

done by the juggle of readjusting taxation. On this point the Ministers

and their friends avowed that they were concentrating their attention

with a view to redress glaring injustice; but beyond that general

declaration they could be induced to say nothing. In the mean time, the

nation began to speak out for itself unequivocally on another great

subject of its anxiety—the safety of our Protestant institutions,

threatened by Dr Wiseman and his allies in Ireland, in a spirit of

deadly hatred and unwavering resolution. They did not condescend to

conceal or disguise their intention of securing a large accession of

force in the new House of Commons—a course of procedure, however,

calculated directly to strengthen the hands of the Government, who were

at all events known to be thoroughly in earnest upon the subject of

Protestantism. Concurrently with this, there existed another subject of

anxiety among moderate men of all parties—the sweeping changes, of a

democratic tendency, proposed by Lord John Russell and his new friends

to be effected in our political institutions. The Earl of Derby took

several opportunities of declaring publicly and unequivocally his

determination to resist all attempts of this kind, come in whatever

shape, and from whatever quarter, they might; and the practical result

of all this was, that he stood, on the eve of the all-important appeal

to the country, in the character of a PROTESTANT CONSERVATIVE MINISTER.

That appeal, it was declared by his opponents, would at once annihilate

him and his Government. But the assertion was always accompanied by a

certain small difficulty in suggesting who was to succeed him, and what

was the exact combination of parties by which that successor was to be

made, and to be kept, Minister. At all events, it was said, get rid of

Lord Derby. Strip off his disguises, and expose him and his friends to

the country as charlatans and impostors; and, when the proper time

comes, it will be sure to find the proper man. The organs of the Peel

party began now to make themselves heard a little; we were told that

that was the quarter in which the coming man was to be looked for; and

it was whispered at Clubs, and intimated in the papers, that the Duke of

Newcastle had the list of his Cabinet complete!—Thus, then, stood

matters when the writs were delivered into the hands of the returning

officers throughout the kingdom; and when the vital struggle commenced,

the attitude of Ministers was at once firm and modest.

The _Times_ of Wednesday the 7th July thus announced, in its leading

article, the commencement of the grand struggle:—“So far as regards the

disputed seats, the general election begins this morning, and a few

hours will place beyond doubt our probable masters for the next five or

six years”—words very exciting to all ardent politicians, and fraught

with no little truth. That the editor, when he wrote them, expected the

result to be a defeat of Ministers, no one who has read what had been

said before, and has been said subsequently, and with increasing

bitterness, in the eloquent leading columns of the _Times_, can doubt.

The first week was devoted to the English borough elections; and here

the opponents of the Government expected a long series of triumphs. It

is not consistent with our space or purpose to present a detailed

retrospect of the general elections. We shall content ourselves with

indicating a few salient points, fraught with _great political

significance_ in respect of both persons and places—the sayings and

doings of the chief electors and elected.

A calm voice from Calne first caught the attentive ear. The Earl of

Shelburne, the son and heir of the Marquis of Lansdowne, was re-elected

without opposition on Tuesday the 6th July. What said he, on returning

thanks for his re-election? That he had “thought it desirable to try the

experiment of Free Trade; saw nothing to shake his faith in it—much to

confirm it; but had always thought that the change had been very abrupt.

There were persons who had been seriously affected by the rapidity of

the change, and he should therefore be ready to give his attention to

any proposed remedy for their distress.” “He was not a supporter of the

present Government, but should offer no factious opposition to them; and

although there were other men quite competent to conduct the government

of the country, to whom he could more readily give assistance, yet,

until those men were established in power, he by no means said, that if

the present Government brought forward measures of which he could

approve, he would not give them his support. He felt that it was his

duty, as their representative, to abstain from all factious opposition

to the present Government, until some other Government became possible.”

If the Earl of Derby had been one of Lord Shelburne’s auditors, he ought

to have been perfectly satisfied with these declarations; yet the

speaker has been ever since set down in the daily lists given, in both

the Conservative and Liberal newspapers, amongst the opponents of the

Government, as though he were one of those certain of being found among

the “ayes” on that “want of confidence” motion which a whisper from

Sheffield was at the same time telling us would be the first step taken

by the triumphant Liberal majority in the new Parliament. Weighing the

political considerations likely to sway such a man as Lord Shelburne,

can it be doubted that his tendencies are Conservative, though moderate,

and that his public utterance of his sentiments was designed to be

regarded as timely and significant? Lord Shelburne was in the late

Parliament, and consequently aware of all that had been said by, on

behalf of, and against Ministers; and he was also, when he thus spoke,

aware of what would be the consequence of an instant, blind,

unscrupulous act of opposition—one shameful in itself, as factious, and

calculated to be attended by consequences most serious to the State. He

therefore gave public notice that those inclined to act thus are to look

for no countenance from him. Thus much for what fell from the Earl of

Shelburne, and which, as in full accordance with the temperate,

dignified, and friendly course adopted by his noble father in the House

of Lords, since the accession of Lord Derby, is by no means unworthy of

attention. But the very temperate tone of the member for Calne has

distinguished many others of the re-elected or newly-elected members for

both boroughs and counties; who have in express terms repudiated

factious opposition to the Government, recognising the necessity of

carefully reconsidering our fiscal policy, in consequence of the

suddenness with which the late changes were effected, and the severe

sufferings they have entailed upon particular classes. Yet all such

members duly take their places in the aforesaid “lists”—gentlemen of

fortune, of position, of attainments, of high personal character, with a

large stake in the welfare of the country—as though they were “safe

cards” for an unscrupulous Opposition, and always at the beck and

bidding of such statesmen as a Cobden or a Bright! These are, indeed,

fond but fallacious calculations, as the result will very shortly show.

Turn we now to Tiverton, where, on the ensuing day, (Wednesday the 7th

July,) a very distinguished person was re-elected for Parliament—we mean

LORD PALMERSTON. The noble lord declared his political opinions in

considerable detail; and no one can read what fell from him without

admiring the fascinating ease and playfulness which adorned the

manifestation of intellectual power and great political knowledge. _Not

one syllable_ was uttered by Lord Palmerston of a hostile, disparaging,

or offensive character, with reference to Lord Derby or his Government.

He did not stoop to borrow those vulgar and degrading terms of

opprobrium in which so many of his co-aspirants for political power

suffered themselves to indulge, thereby disentitling themselves to the

consideration of gentlemen. He undoubtedly spoke of Protection as “a

question long since settled,” admitting that he himself had been in

favour of such “a small duty as would not have raised in any perceptible

degree the price of food, but which would never be again submitted to

the choice of the agriculturists.” He deprecated hasty reforms,

earnestly advocating “steady progressive improvement of our

institutions, going slowly and deliberately about them,” and deprecating

“rashly and hastily overturning those ancient institutions under which

this country has long flourished and prospered.” He utterly repudiated

vote by ballot and triennial Parliaments, justified his support of the

ministerial Militia Bill, and spoke with extreme caution on the subject

of the Maynooth grant. He made no allusion to any political leaders, nor

indicated any possible situation or combination of parties in the new

Parliament, nor what was the course which he himself might feel bound or

disposed to pursue. Thus much for this eminent person, who said nothing

which might not also have been said by any even _decided_ supporter of

the Ministry. The indignity which had been inflicted upon himself by

Lord Derby’s predecessor, he passed over in dignified silence. Lord

Palmerston, again, is claimed by the Liberal journals as an undoubted

opponent of the Ministry, whatever measures they may or may not propose!

On the ensuing day LORD JOHN RUSSELL was declared re-elected, after a

suddenly-announced contest. He said that he relied on his past career as

the best guarantee of his probable future career; spoke of the question

of Free Trade as finally disposed of; and added, that “that contest

being removed out of the way, questions of religious liberty—of

Parliamentary reform—reform of our courts of law and equity—of sanitary

reform—and others of vast and deep importance to the people at large,

will have due attention bestowed upon them, and time given for their

consideration.” When challenged on the subject of Papal Aggression, he

answered coldly and drily, in a single sentence—“I never will allow any

interference with the supremacy and independence of the Crown and of the

nation; but, on the other hand, I will never punish any man for his

religious opinions.” Into this shrivelled sentence had shrunk the lusty

letter to the Bishop of Durham! He declared himself determined to remove

“all religious disabilities,” especially those alleged to affect the

Jews; and that “one simple oath, the same for persons of _all religious

faiths_,” should be substituted for the existing oaths—of course

including every class of heathens and pagans! He declared himself

opposed to vote by ballot; and when pressed on the subject of extending

the franchise and shortening the duration of Parliament, spoke with

marked guardedness, thus:—“With regard to these two questions, I must

ask the indulgence of the electors. With regard to any measure I may

bring forward, or may support, in Parliament, I have to consider, first,

what is best for the country; and next, what other men will support, and

what I have a chance of carrying. If fit to be your representative, I am

fit to be intrusted with discretion on those subjects.” It is worthy of

notice, that whereas Lord John Russell, in 1847, had 7137 votes, he

polled in 1852 only 5537 votes—_i. e._, 1660 votes fewer than in 1847;

while Mr Masterman was returned at the head of the poll by 6195

votes—_i. e._, a majority of 658 votes over Lord John Russell—Mr

Rothschild having gravitated to the bottom of the poll, where he lay

pressed down by a majority over him, by Sir James Duke, of 522 votes. In

1847, Mr Rothschild had 6792—in 1852, only 4748 votes. All these are

highly significant facts, not to be accounted for by the mere suddenness

of the struggle. In noticing these facts, and also recording the

triumphant return, at the head of the poll, of the Government candidate

at Greenwich, the _Times_ observed—“Thus far the changes, such as they

are, are in favour of Lord Derby.” On that day, however, the _Times_ had

unexpectedly to record, in letters of mourning, a very splendid triumph

for Lord Derby, in the result of a contest on which, as if by common

consent, the eyes of the whole kingdom had for many weeks been fixed

with intense anxiety. It was the deliberately-selected battle-field

between the Earl of Derby and his combined Peelite and ultra-liberal

opponents. This was, indeed, a pitched battle between parties; and the

field was Liverpool. Lord Derby sent one of his own lieutenants to fight

it, and in conjunction with an eminent, and very able, and

highly-respected resident supporter at Liverpool; the opponents being an

equally honourable Liverpool resident, and Mr Cardwell, the late member,

and favourite lieutenant of the late Sir Robert Peel. All parties

admitted that the issue of this contest, especially if of a decisive

character, would be of immense political importance; and the general

impression undoubtedly was, that the Ministerial candidates had

undertaken too much for their strength. All other elections were thrown

into the shade while this was pending; the result of which was conveyed

hourly to London, during the London election, by the electric telegraph.

The result dismayed our opponents. Lord Derby’s candidate headed Mr

Cardwell by 1130 votes, and his other opponent by 1467 votes; while the

other Ministerial candidate, Mr Turner, headed Mr Cardwell by 1446

votes, and Mr Cardwell’s comrade by 1783 votes! Such was the decision

deliberately pronounced by the great and enlightened constituency of

Liverpool; and it has been, and will be, attended by consequences of

magnitude.

Mr Cardwell’s defeat at Liverpool has been followed by the signal

discomfiture of that small party in the late House of Commons, of which

he had been a distinguished member—Mr Green, Mr Smythe, Mr Roundell

Palmer, (an amiable and most accomplished man, who, after an arduous

canvass, fled without a struggle,) Mr Pusey, Mr Townley, Mr Tollemache,

Mr Mackinnon, Lord Mahon, Lord Norreys, Sir C. Douglas, Sir George

Clerk, and others—as though there had been a sort of political murrain

among them; and the _Morning Chronicle_ has had to gnash its little

teeth, day after day, in despair, as its friends disappeared; declaring,

at length,[12] in a solemn, funereal strain—“A competent Ministry might

be formed from the candidates who, at the present election, have been

rejected principally in consequence of their political honesty and

intellectual superiority!”

On the same day on which Lord John Russell expounded his political

opinions, on having been declared re-elected for London, Sir James

Graham presented himself to the constituency of Carlisle, and made a

very remarkable appearance. At that period not a few regarded him as

most likely to be fixed upon as the leader of the combined forces of the

Opposition—and, on defeating Lord Derby—as his successor; and what might

fall from him on the present occasion was regarded with some curiosity.

Respect for the private personal character of the right honourable

baronet would incline one to speak with forbearance of his chequered and

erratic public career; but it must be owned that he has by turns

belonged to, aided, and damaged, almost every party in the

State—adopting and abandoning political principles, whenever a candidate

for office, with a levity that is lamentable to all interested in the

public character of statesmen. His habit of replying with a sort of

jaunty jocularity, to taunts on the score of his having boxed the

political compass, tells heavily against him in the estimation of a

sincere and staid people like ourselves, especially when he himself

comes forward, at the eleventh hour, to level elaborate sarcasms at

those whom he may deem obnoxious to similar imputations. He has of late

been peculiarly bitter in his reproaches against the present Ministers,

on the subject of their imputed inconsistencies on the subject of

Protection. If Sir James were to cast his eyes over pp. 669–695, of the

46th volume of Hansard,[13] where stands recorded a lengthened,

elaborate, and most able speech of his, in opposition to Mr Villiers’

motion to consider the question of repealing the corn laws, we cannot

but think that it would, for a moment, bring the colour into his cheek,

and make him indeed doubtful as to his political, if not even personal,

identity. He is there seen sternly vindicating the landlords against

false imputations of cowardice and selfishness. “If the advocates of

Free Trade expected them to yield to fear, he mistook their character

greatly, if he could not confidently pronounce, that from such motives

as these they ought not, so they never would act;” and he reprobated

agitation on the subject of the corn laws, as productive of disastrous

consequences. “Commerce, credit, floating capital, were exotics which

flourished in the sunshine of national tranquillity; and if a struggle,

such as was contemplated on the other side, were pushed to extremities,

the very manufactures which they sought to encourage would take to

themselves wings, and fly away to lands where they might hope that

national peace would be preserved, and life and society be secured.” He

heard “with astonishment, the President of the Board of Trade declare

that he had encouraged agitation; a declaration well worthy of the

member for Manchester, but utterly unworthy of a Minister of the Crown.”

“If they endeavoured by force of law to establish, that in a year of

comparative scarcity the home-corn grower should not have a price which

would cover the cost of production, they aimed a deadly blow at British

native agriculture, which, after all, depend upon it, was the foundation

of national power and prosperity, and the mainstay of national

greatness.”

The peroration of his speech consisted of a touching and beautiful

picture of the corn lands of this country thrown out of cultivation, and

agricultural labour superseded. “After the best reflection which he

could bestow upon the subject [!] and viewing it in every possible light

[!] he did not hesitate to declare his conviction, that a free

importation of corn must produce the same effect in England that the law

of agistment had produced in Ireland.... Let them but once diminish the

consumption of British-grown corn, and from that moment the consumption

of iron, of hardware, of cotton, and of woollens must decline. Then

would come a fresh displacement of labour, and a fresh lowering of

wages; and discontent, disturbance, and misery would prove its

inevitable consequences.... Little could they estimate the wretchedness

which sprung from change of habit, of house, of manners, of the mode of

life itself. What change more cruel could despotism itself inflict, than

a change from ‘the breezy call of incense-breathing morn,’ to a painful

and grievous obedience to the sad sound of the factory bell—the

relinquishment of the thatched cottage, the blooming garden, and the

village green, for the foul garret or the dark cellar of the crowded

city—the enjoyment of the rural walk of the innocent rustic Sabbath, for

the debauchery, the temptations, the pestilence, the sorrows, and the

sins of a congregated multitude? Where were their moralists, that their

voices were not raised against the fearful consequences which the

proposed change brought in its train? Talk to him of sending the Poles

to Siberia, or the hill coolies from the Coromandel to the Mauritius!

the authors of the intended change contemplated the perpetration, within

the limits of their native land, of a cruelty far more atrocious. It was

the first step towards making England, the workshop of the world,

dependent for its daily food upon Continental supplies. He hoped that

the proposition would not be successful. Were it to succeed, he should

say with his friend Lord Ashburton, that _this was the last country

which he should wish to inhabit_.”[14] And for these reasons he

concluded by “not hesitating to give his cordial and decided opposition

to the motion.”

Was this the Sir James Graham who, only thirteen years afterwards, could

venture to scatter sarcasms over the Earl of Derby and his supporters?

When Sir James presented himself, shortly after the accession of the

present Government, before his present constituents, he declared himself

a convert, at length, to vote by ballot; or, at all events, as in a

situation to become an immediate convert! Both in and out of the House,

he has ever since been one of the most sedulous and skilful of those who

have striven to lower the Government and their friends in the estimation

of the country, timing his appearance with great exactness, so as to

seize the moment for most effective action; striving to disguise his

earnestness and anxiety beneath the mask of a jocular contempt, but ever

studiously keeping himself in the foreground. When before the

constituency of Carlisle on the 8th of July, he appeared to feel the

necessity of diverting attention from the political wanderings of his

whole life, by taking the lion’s share of credit for almost all the

great measures of modern times. He had, however, transparently another

object—to paint his own portraiture upon the eyes of the country, as THE

practical statesman of the age, of enlightened sagacity and extended

experience, with both the will and the power to do whatever might be

expected of one aspiring to lead the motley throng combined against Lord

Derby. We suspect, however, that the portrait, though finished off by

the sitter’s own masterly hand, with a loving warmth of colouring, has

only been eyed askance by those whom it had been intended to charm;

while the _Times_ criticised it severely. “After perambulating England,”

said Sir James, “I have come home at last, and once more appear before

the Carlisle constituency. I have no personal object to gratify. I see a

great public interest at stake; and I think it of the last importance

that this capital of the Borders should send no doubtful voice to the

approaching Parliament.... If the electors of this city shall be of

opinion that the time has arrived when, with reference to the public

interest, I should withdraw from the public service, I will respectfully

retire. If, on the other hand, they be of opinion that my labour may

still be useful to the public, _I am content, for a short time longer_,

to give to the _public my best exertions_. I cannot promise you that

they will be more zealous, more energetic _than they have been_; nor am

I vain enough to expect that my exertions can be attended with greater

success than has crowned my past efforts.” We regard this as neat, and

unequalled. Such a cool bidding for power was probably never before made

by a man of Sir James Graham’s mark in this country.—A certain Dr

Lonsdale then assumed the functions of catechist of Sir James Graham,

whose ears he first soothed with the dulcet assurance that “Sir James

Graham was sure to hold the highest place in the next Administration!”

and the venerable catechumen answered the courteous catechist very

smoothly on the subject of foreign politics; but the latter concluded by

saying—“The right honourable gentleman has shown that he is neither a

Derby-_ite_ nor a Russell-_ite_. Then what _ite_ are you?” Sir James

replied, “It is true I am not a Derby-ite, nor a Russell-ite: Dr

Lonsdale asks what ‘ite’ I now am. I _have_ been a Peelite; but am now

resolved not to bind myself in the fetters of any party, but will do my

best as a private member of Parliament, OR IN ANY SITUATION WHICH IT MAY

BE IN THE PLEASURE OF THE CROWN TO CALL UPON ME TO FILL.” We ask again,

when was this equalled? Had Sir James and the Doctor arranged this

little scene beforehand? Sir James said not a word, having been kindly

not asked a word, on the subject uppermost in the mind of the

country—the insolent and dangerous machinations of Popery against our

civil and religious liberties; but on the subject of Reform, he declared

stoutly that he had been dissatisfied “with the new Reform Bill

introduced by the late Whig Government;” that the Reform Act of 1832

(for which he claimed a large share of credit) “was marked by great

imperfections,” and “a revision of the measure was indispensable.” The

new Reform Bill ought “to disfranchise decayed boroughs, and extend the

franchise to large communities not at present enjoying it.” And, “with

respect to cities and boroughs, it appeared to him that residence and

rating should be the legitimate foundation of any future extension of

the suffrage.” Sir James then bade high for popular favour; but, as we

showed in our April number,[15] he is necessarily opposed, in his

attempts to unsettle the Reform Act, to some of the greatest Whig

supporters of the late Government; one of whom, Earl Fitzwilliam,

declared in his place in Parliament, since the accession of Lord Derby,

his strong disapproval of Lord John Russell’s recent Reform Bill—adding,

“It will not do for the Government to be thus continually tampering with

constitutional rights.” As the English borough elections went on,

notwithstanding the Ministers succeeded in a great number of instances

in which they attacked Liberal seats, they appeared to have suffered no

inconsiderable losses; but they displaced numerous staunch and able

supporters of the late Government, as well as several of the Radical

members. One of the Liberal papers (the _Daily News_) of the day on

which we are writing, following the tristful example of the _Morning

Chronicle_ in respect of its Peelite friends, mourns over the following

victims:—Mr Bernal, Mr Greene, Mr Horsman, Sir Edward Buxton, Mr

Hardcastle, Lord Ebrington, Lord Duncan, Mr W. J. Fox, Mr Anstey, Sir

John Romilly, Sir William Somerville, Colonel Thompson, Mr D’Eyncourt,

Mr George Thompson—to which he might have added a long catalogue of

others; and may now greatly increase the list—Sir George Grey being a

host in himself! and thus concludes: “Still, even with these losses, our

ranks are crowded; and we shall give Lord Derby battle, with no fear as

to where will be the victory.” This, however, was said on the 21st July,

after the ranks of Lord Derby had been swollen with reinforcements from

the English counties and from Ireland, without, at the same time, losing

ground in Scotland. So long as the English borough returns, which came

in almost all at once, or within two or three days of each other, showed

a considerable numerical superiority for the opponents of Lord Derby,

notwithstanding his gains, the Liberal papers, as if agreeing to close

their eyes against the distant but inevitable _county_ returns! were

loud in their exultations, occasionally slipping into even truculent

expressions. “Thus ends,” says one, “somewhat prematurely too, the farce

of a Derby Ministry.” “Will Lord Derby venture to meet the new

Parliament?” asked another. “The Derbyites begin now to feel the absurd

appearance they make before the country which they have so long striven

in vain to mystify and amuse.” “How do you like the returns, my Lord

Derby?”—And so forth. On the other hand, the friends of the Ministry

began also to quake, and go about with downcast looks, uttering

despondency; and one of their own ablest organs was forced to “remind

its friends that they were not to run away disheartened by the idea that

they had _suffered a loss_ on every occasion on which they had simply

failed to wrest a seat from their opponents;” and its readers were

assured “that, all things considered, matters wore by no means an

unpromising aspect.” Another able journal concluded by the solemn

assurance, that, “great as were Lord Derby’s difficulties, those of the

leaders, whoever they might be, of the heterogeneous opposition, were at

least as great”—a passage quoted the next day by a triumphant Liberal

contemporary, with the words “cold comfort!” prefixed. A week’s time,

however, began to tell startling tidings for the opponents of the

Ministry. Unexpected success in Ireland, notwithstanding almost

unprecedented difficulties and obstacles arising out of the demoniacal

conduct of the Papal emissaries, to whom we shall presently again

allude; and the counties, pouring in their contingents by threes and

twos at a time, soon gave a totally different aspect to the field of

battle. In almost every instance, moreover, where Lord Derby’s county

friends were assailed, they triumphantly maintained their ground; and in

nearly every case where they were assailants, they were successful. It

was amusing to note how suddenly Lord Derby’s opponents in the press

drew in their horns; and after the “boldest” had “held their breath for

a time,” they began to comfort one another by fearful tales of

intimidation; of divers gross irregularities pervading the whole

proceedings; of divisions among the Liberal party, letting in the common

enemy; the defective state of the registries; and the still more

defective and unsatisfactory condition of the franchise!

Having, however, heard what Lord Shelburne, Lord John Russell, Lord

Palmerston, and Sir James Graham thought proper to address, concerning

their opinions and purposes, to their respective constituencies, let us

hasten on to a very eager, bustling, and ambitious personage, making his

appearance much later in the field as a candidate for re-election for a

county—we mean Mr Richard Cobden; who, on Saturday the 17th July,

presented himself on the hustings at Wakefield, to go through the

pleasant ceremony of an unopposed re-election. He was accompanied

by—_Sir Charles Wood_, Lord John Russell’s late Chancellor of the

Exchequer, and then chairman of Mr Cobden’s committee, of which he had

taken pains to show himself a conspicuous and active member. Several

points of the former gentleman’s appearance on this occasion challenge

particular observation; chiefly as indicative of his intense vanity and

egotism; his virulent hatred of the Ministerial party, especially of the

brilliant Chancellor of the Exchequer, under whose knout he had so

frequently writhed; his absorbed one-ideadness; his consciousness of the

palsied condition of the “Liberal” party, and the necessity of powerful

stimulants to revive it; and the absence of any, even the slightest

indication of triumph at the state of the elections. Before the

electors, at the hustings, he was content to appear in his capacity as a

Free-Trader only, reserving the other more special matters for a

subsequent occasion, when sure of a safe and favourable reception from

his own supporters only, under the auspices of Sir Charles Wood. On the

former occasion he deliberately glorified himself on account of “his

name being so prominently connected with Free Trade,” and “having the

honour, privilege, and glory to see himself individualising, as it were,

a great and permanent principle!” He proceeded to charge the Ministerial

party with “undisguised selfishness in advocating a change of taxation

for the benefit of particular interests;” “transferring the taxation now

paid by the land, to the shoulders of those who have no land at

all”—which was “protection in a new form, ten thousand times less

tenable than in its former aspect.” He hoped “that forty-eight hours

would not elapse after the meeting of Parliament before the present

Government, and the party that belongs to it, are brought fairly to

issue upon the question of Free Trade or Protection.” This sort of

worn-out dreary drivel was all that he thought it prudent to say upon

the hustings before the electors of the West Riding; but it was far

otherwise afterwards, at the “luncheon” at the Corn Exchange, presided

over by Sir Charles Wood, and given to Mr Cobden by his “friends and

supporters.” He there ventured to launch out into general politics; “and

as Parliament was likely to meet in November,” he said it “would be as

well to calculate beforehand what the state of parties would be.” He

immediately betrayed his fears of returning to the condition of a

political cipher, in the absence of Free Trade agitation. “The subject

of Free Trade being disposed of, the state of parties would be found

exceedingly embarrassing to the old political leaders! The House would

not answer the helm; and the question was, how they should take a new

tack!”—“I do not think there is anything in the temper of the country

which should precipitate any decision on the point”—he had seen the then

rapidly-altered aspect of the election returns!—“for with the exception

of the feeling as regards [_sic_] Free Trade, I do not think there is

much political feeling in the country on any question! There will be, in

the House of Commons, no party so strong as to be able to form a

Government which can be bargained [!] to stand for three months, if the

old rule is to be acted on as to Government majorities. The question

then is, _how are parties to be reconstituted_? Consequently our friends

of the statesman and functionary class must take counsel to themselves,

and SEE WHAT IS TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO INSPIRE SOME FRESH ENTHUSIASM, BY

AND BY, IN THE COUNTRY, ON BEHALF OF THE OLD LIBERAL PARTY!” This was

the same gentleman who, on attempting to reorganise the League, upon

Lord Derby’s accession to power, unwittingly acknowledged, in terms, the

extreme difficulty of “keeping up the excitement of the people, on the

subject of _Free Trade_, for more than a few weeks!” Mr Cobden then

favoured his company with a few of his luminous notions on the subject

of “Parliamentary Reform;” being pleased to intimate that “as far as the

suffrage was concerned, Lord John Russell had proposed a five-pound

rating claim;” but Mr Cobden “would rather have a five-pound renting

clause—a franchise which would go, he thought, almost as far as any

gentleman in that room practically expected or probably wished—_at

present_.” Mr Cobden concluded with coarse and insolent invective

against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. “If there is a man in this

country—a politician who has suddenly jumped to an elevation which I

predict he will not sustain—who may be called a dangerous revolutionist,

if he have the opportunity—it is he! The strangest revolution I have

seen, was when I found the great territorial party declaring

intellectual bankruptcy and proclaiming political suicide, by naming Mr

Benjamin Disraeli as their chief! And if it were not for the steadying,

ballasting principle of the Manchester school, which would prevent

_jugglers, and mountebanks, and unscrupulous incendiary adventurers_

from playing tricks in this country, [!] there is no man so dangerous,

because none who seemed less unwilling, at all times, to bend anything

like the profession of principle to his own personal and sinister

objects, than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer!”[16] Without

condescending to characterise the tone and style of this attack upon an

absent gentleman, let us see how he was being spoken of elsewhere, at

the very same moment, by a _gentleman_—one of the most able,

accomplished, and high-minded members of the House of Commons, Mr

Drummond, the member for West Surrey. “It appears to me that our taxes

have been laid on upon no general principle, as money was wanted, and

that they are not in the satisfactory state they ought to be. Let the

Minister be who he may, this must be put in a better state; and I

believe that Mr Disraeli is more likely, and the persons now in office

are more likely, to do this than others.—I must be permitted to say,

that I think Mr Disraeli a man of very great genius. He has risen by his

own merits alone; and never having been tried in office, he is not a man

who ought to be sneered at by persons who pretend that they wish ‘to

extend the basis of the Administration!’” This dignified rebuke might

have been uttered by the speaker on listening to Mr Cobden’s gross

vituperation on the occasion to which we are referring. Such was Mr

Cobden—in Yorkshire; such will not be Mr Cobden—in the House of Commons,

when standing face to face before that same formidable Chancellor of

Exchequer, behind whose back he has spoken offensively with such

virulent vulgarity and presumption. Passing over these smaller matters,

however, it is impossible not to note the recently lowered tone of Mr

Cobden, whilom so loud and confident on the subject of a “Protectionist

Ministry” as a thing to be only “laughed at,” and which would “fly like

chaff before the wind before a General Election.” On the ensuing day,

the _Times_, in commenting on Mr Cobden’s speech, pronounced to be “not

wholly worthy of his theme”—and in a “tone hardly elevated enough for

the occasion”—“recommended to the consideration of the future Parliament

the advice of Mr Cobden with reference to the manner in which Ministers

should be dealt with.”—“It is only fair and wise to hear from them the

principles on which they intend to act, and the measures which they mean

to bring forward.... By precipitating matters, we are quite sure either

to prevent the Ministry from showing conclusively the hollowness of

their abandonment of Free Trade, or from bestowing upon us a great

public benefit. It is much easier to turn out a Government than to form

its successor; and the besetting sin to which heterogeneous Oppositions

are liable is, that they are apt to place themselves in a situation in

which they may be called upon to act in concert, when concert, except

against the common enemy, is impossible; and thus, by the exertion of

their strength, to render their weakness more apparent and more fatal.”

These were prudent counsels, and probably influenced by the same causes

which had emboldened the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a few days

previously,[17] thus to speak out concerning the position and prospects

of the Government: “It is my firm conviction that the Government of Lord

Derby will meet Parliament in the autumn with an absolute majority. To

me that is not a subject of doubt.” Two days afterwards—the election

returns, during the brief interval, abundantly justifying him—Mr

Disraeli thus deliberately and confidently addressed the constituency of

Buckinghamshire from the hustings: “I express my firm and solemn

conviction, in the face of the county of Buckingham, after witnessing

the present temper of the public mind, and scanning—I am sure with no

prejudice—the results of the general election, that the Ministry will be

permitted to bring forward their measures; that no manœuvres of faction

will terminate their career; and that those measures will obtain the

assent, and I will even say the enthusiastic approbation, of the great

body of the people.” On the ensuing day, the _Spectator_ observed—“The

elections have not yet decided the question of the majority; and it is

still possible that Lord Derby may have the balance of numbers.” In the

“Postscript” to the same number of his paper, the editor, in recounting

additional gains, observed—“Lord Derby is steadily gaining in the

elections.”

Before these pages meet the reader’s eye, all the elections will have

been completed; but up to the day on which we are writing, it would

appear that nearly six hundred are decided, and the results are thus

classified in the five morning papers of this day.[18] It is curious to

see how the various organs of political opinion deal with the same

facts, viewed through the disturbing medium of their own hopes and

wishes.

The _Times_ distinguishes between “Ministerialists” and “Liberal

Conservatives,” giving 252 as the former, and 63 as the latter—together,

315; Liberals, 271;—placing the latter in a minority of 44. The

_Morning gives— Opposition, Majority for

Herald_ Ministerialists, 311 269 Ministerialists, 42

_Morning „ do. Liberals, do.

Post_ 289 275 14

_Daily „ Derbyites, do. do.

News_ 285 293 Liberals, 9

_Morning „ Non- Majority for

Chronicle_ Ministerialists, Ministerialists, Non-

250 326 Ministerialists, 76!

Doubtless all these are _intended_ to be, or to be deemed, fair

approximations towards the real numerical relations existing between

those who will be found generally opposed to each other in the House of

Commons; but it is obvious that such calculations are, to a very great

extent, purely conjectural, and deeply tinctured by the political

predilections of those who make them; and indeed it is impossible for

any calm and well-informed observer to cast his eyes over the columns on

which these calculations are based, without seeing abundant reason for

doubting the propriety of even the Conservative classifications. The

gentlemen whose political opinions and intentions are thus confidently

dealt with, must often smile at the position thus assigned to them. In

the Liberal journals of this day,[19] for instance, two members, Mr

Duncuft, for Oldham, and Mr Sandars, for Wakefield, are set down as

“Non-Ministerialists,” “Liberals,” and “Oppositionists;” while, on the

preceding day, Mr Duncuft is reported as returning thanks for the toast

of “The Conservatives of Lancashire;” and proposing “The Conservative

Press,” at a dinner given by “The Conservatives of Wakefield,” to Mr

Sandars! And very many other names might be mentioned, which the

slightest consideration must show to be referred to the wrong category.

There are undoubtedly many, and will be more, gentlemen returned to

Parliament, so far unpledged to particular measures, and having

indicated, in such general terms, the tendency of their political

opinions, as to render it doubtful on which side of the Speaker’s chair

they will sit, or on which side they would vote on the leading political

questions of the day. But we would warn those who have been so loudly

proclaiming their confident opinions on the subject, to pause before

coming to a conclusion on the course which will be adopted by the

majority, on the first fair and avowed trial of strength between

Ministers and their opponents. In our opinion, on a calculation of the

probable character of the members, upwards of 70, yet unreturned—but all

of whose names are known, and their general political opinions

ascertained—whoever shall propose a direct motion of want of confidence

in Ministers, or any motion having that tendency, will find himself in a

very considerable, if not, indeed, in a large minority. The consequences

of such a successfully taken step, all must see, would be exceedingly

serious; and a forced resignation under such circumstances would greatly

dissatisfy the country, and still further confuse the present perplexed

party relations of those opposed to the Government. Long before

Parliament meets, which will be probably towards the close of October,

each member will have asked himself frequently and anxiously the grave

question—Who is to succeed Lord Derby? And how is the compact and

formidable phalanx of his present supporters to be practically dealt

with? Without such a sacrifice of principle as would shock the morality

of the whole country, how could a Ministry be formed which would combine

in opposition to the present occupants of the Treasury Bench—those

publicly pledged persons who would insist on being included in the new

Government? And by whom are they to be led? What are the measures which

they would propose, and be likely to carry? Will Lord Palmerston, Lord

John Russell, Sir James Graham, Mr Gladstone, go into the same lobby

with Mr Hume, Mr Cobden, and Mr Bright, on a motion in favour of a great

extension of the suffrage, vote by ballot, triennial parliaments, or the

destruction of the Irish Church?—or on a motion of simple want of

confidence in Ministers? And if Mr Villiers, or any other member, should

propose a resolution expressive of the determination of the House not to

sanction any measures calculated to interfere with or reverse the policy

of the year 1846, who shall tell the fate of it in the then existing

complication and character of the House of Commons, with such various

shades of opinion on fiscal and economical questions? Who shall expect a

majority to agree on what will constitute a prejudicial or unjustifiable

interference with that policy? And suppose Ministers should distinctly

avow that it was not their intention to propose measures directly or

indirectly aimed at such interference or reversal? Suppose a

considerable number of members should be found concurring generally in

the Free Trade policy, but also believing that the manner in which it

was introduced and established was unjust, and injurious to great

interests in the country, and anxious to repair such injustice, and

mitigate the admitted sufferings of the agriculturists? This is the

opinion of Lord Shelburne, and doubtless of many men of moderate

opinions, though formally opposed to the present Government. Suppose, on

the other hand, the Minister, in answer to such a motion, should be

prepared to intimate generally a policy likely to be received with

favour in the House of Commons and out of doors; and either move the

previous question, or boldly meet the motion with a direct negative, and

_successfully_? Their hands would have been immensely strengthened by

their opponents, for the remainder of the Session—perhaps for many

succeeding Sessions. All these, and many other cognate considerations,

will be taken calmly into account by the more astute tacticians of the

Liberal party; and, in our opinion, shrewder counsels will prevail than

those which would herald in an immediately aggressive policy on the part

of her Majesty’s motley opposition. With the very best hostile

intentions, they would lack arms and opportunity. We concur in every

word of the following passage, which fell from the lips of Mr Disraeli

at Aylesbury, so long ago as the 14th instant. “We shall carry out our

views with more efficiency, and, I believe, with more success, in the

new Parliament—when the Ministry will no longer have to meet a hostile

Parliament, or be restrained in its policy by an overpowering

Opposition. We shall meet Parliament prepared to do our duty, under a

firm conviction that the country will steadily support us. I will not

conceive the alternative position of the Government’s failing to

succeed; but at the same time, no one can be blind to the fact, that the

Opposition will create its organisation upon revolutionary principles.

The Whigs have shown us their character. Their policy has been received

with universal scouting by the country, and they cannot attain to power

again, except by calling to their councils the Jacobin clubs of

Lancashire. I feel that the present Government is necessary for the

preservation of the English Constitution; but the future institution of

the Opposition already peeps from its shell, and developes its horns;

and from that shell the Opposition cannot emerge, except enveloped in

the slime of sedition. A change in the institutions of the country will

be the condition of its success; and Englishmen must indeed be false to

all their professions—false to that high spirit which Englishmen have

ever shown—false to the traditionary associations of their country, if

they suffer an Opposition, founded on such principles, to govern this

nation.

“Will you,” concluded the right honourable gentleman, “be prepared to

say, we will have justice done to the soil—we will have our legislation

conceived in the spirit of the age, which is the spirit of justice? We

will have the PROTESTANT CONSTITUTION of this country preserved, not

with the sectarianism of bigots, but with those who believe that

Protestantism is the only safeguard of English liberty?”

In our opinion, the country has answered these questions decidedly in

the affirmative, and thereby placed firmly in power an able, united,

Protestant Conservative Government. It is easy for newspapers, day after

day, and week after week, to repeat the cuckoo cry that Ministers are

impostors, and that their policy is, in the vulgar phraseology of the

hour, “_a sham_.” The progress and the result of the general election of

1852 demonstrate that these paper pellets cannot batter down the rock of

national firmness and good sense. Had it been otherwise, Ministers must

have fallen ignominiously within the first week of their presuming to

take office; for the wordy batteries of the “Liberal” press have been

blazing upon them, double-shotted, from morning to night ever since. Yet

the Funds have never gone down, and Ministers remain in their places,

not with downcast looks and desponding hearts, but with cheerful

confidence and resolution, satisfied that the voice of the nation has

pronounced in their favour, and has also declared that it will regard

their acts with indulgence and forbearance, and will not tolerate

faction or intrigue. There is now a fair prospect that a united and

powerful Government may do incalculable good to the country and the

Sovereign which has called that Government into existence. Its mission

is to act, where its predecessor could only talk; to consolidate and

strengthen, where that predecessor could only disturb and unsettle; to

terminate the wretched strife of classes, by a just, cautious, firm, and

comprehensive policy. Its mission is, further, to repel the insolent

advances of Democracy and Popery, which will now find that the day of

vacillation and vicious concession has passed away. We say it with pain,

that we believe the interests of Protestantism are no longer safe in the

keeping of Lord John Russell, though individually he may be true at

heart in his abhorrence of the wicked and tyrannical spirit of Popery;

but his political exigencies have fettered his will, and chilled his

spirit. His fondness of power inclines him to compromises and

sacrifices, which very often look only too like sacrifice of principle

and conviction. In like manner we fear him in his dalliance with

Democracy. In tampering with the great political adjustment of 1832, he

is seen standing irresolutely with his foot upon the steep inclined

plane which leads to confusion and anarchy, surrounded by those who are

incessantly goading and jogging him into commencing the descent. We

believe that in his heart he despises the clique of Cobden, Bright, &c.;

he has in fact contemptuously told them so to their very faces;[20] yet

are we grievously apprehensive that he is now prepared to join them,

faintly protesting, but suffering them to impel him infinitely further

than he himself thinks it safe or wise to go. That he has lost the

confidence of the country, few will question; and is that confidence now

extended to Sir James Graham? His recent career, especially his

undisguised sympathy with Popery, would at once irritate and alarm the

country, if it saw his advent to power a probable event; and, indeed, he

must have gazed with dismay on the successive disappearance from

Parliament of so many of those to whom he had recently allied himself,

in reliance on their efforts to consolidate and work his influence. A

very few months, perhaps a few weeks, will see the erratic baronet the

close ally of the Manchester School—at once its leader and follower; he

will declare for a perilous extension of the suffrage, and support it

with powerful and plausible arguments, but, at the same time, with that

semblance of dignified candour and moderation, which he has been

latterly showing such anxiety to assume, and acquire credit for. He will

co-operate with Mr Cobden, very quietly at first, to reorganise the

Liberal party; and if their efforts obtain any considerable share of

popularity, Sir James will be seen one of the most eager and swift in

the race towards the goal of revolution. Both he, Mr Cobden, and Sir

Charles Wood, at present know well that they have grievously lost ground

in the country, and that what they have so lost is now in the possession

of Lord Derby and his Government.

Of one thing we are _quite certain_, that Ministers will not meet the

new Parliament unprepared to carry into vigorous operation a

well-considered and determinate policy, which will abundantly satisfy

any degree of reasonable expectation. Nor shall we be surprised to see

them disposed to bring matters to a speedy issue, if encountered by

factious opposition, come from what quarter it may, and disguised under

never so specious an aspect. Those interests which have suffered so

severely from precipitate legislation, will be well represented in the

new House of Commons, and have to deal with a friendly Ministry, which

it will be at once their interest and their duty to support steadily,

against all hostile and sinister combinations. The cause of law reform

will be safe in their hands; nay, the first four months of their

existence have shown that it cannot be in better hands, and we venture

to deny that it can be in any other hands so good as theirs. They have

indeed shown a thorough heartiness in the sacred cause of law and

justice; and what they have already done in this great department, of

itself is sufficient for ever to signalise their hitherto brief tenure

of power. We shall not concern ourselves, nor amuse our readers, by

speculations as to the precise number of supporters with whom the

election returns are rapidly surrounding Lord Derby and his Government.

It is now, as we have already stated, upwards of a week ago since the

present Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly declared in public, that

the Government “would meet Parliament, in the autumn, with an absolute

majority;” and we are not aware of a single journal that has ventured to

contradict the statement. Every day’s returns tend to corroborate more

and more strongly the truth of that statement, which was one calculated

to challenge vehement contradiction, could it have been given

consistently with fact. There was a will, but no way, to do so. Our own

over-zealous friends may have been too sanguine in their expectations,

and hasty in their calculations; but those of our opponents, at least of

the more eager and unscrupulous, are preposterous, impeaching their good

faith, or their capacity as political observers. We entertain no

misgivings as to the position and reception of Ministers in the new

Parliament. Their majority, on vexed questions, may not be large, but it

will be sufficient; and against faction, it will be _decisive_.

What, then, was the question which has been put to the constituencies,

and answered? It was not that of Free Trade or Protection. The question

was one of a far wider description. Lord Derby, in February last, stated

in terms the question which he sought to have answered; a question not

of details, but of principles, relying on the estimate formed of his

character by the country, for its allowing him to carry these principles

into operation.

“These are the PRINCIPLES on which I shall make my appeal on behalf of

myself and colleagues. We are threatened with far more serious

difficulties than opposition to a five shilling, six shilling, or seven

shilling duty on corn. It is a QUESTION, whether the Government of this

country can be carried on, and on what principles, and through what

medium. Will you support a Government which is against hostile attacks;

which will maintain the peace of the world; which will uphold the

Protestant institutions of the country; which will give strength and

increased power to religious and moral education throughout the land;

and which will exert itself, moreover, I will not hesitate to say, to

oppose some barrier against the current, continually encroaching, of

democratic influence, which would throw power _nominally_ into the hands

of the masses, practically into those of the demagogues who lead them?”

This was, indeed, a GREAT QUESTION, and it has been ANSWERED

satisfactorily to all lovers of constitutional freedom.

_Printed by William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh_

-----

Footnote 1:

_Reise nach Persien und dem Lande der Kurden._ Von MORITZ WAGNER, 2

vols. Leipzig: Arnold. London: Williams & Norgate. 1852.

Footnote 2:

“Ararat and the Armenian Highlands.” Blackwood’s Magazine, No.

CCCCIII.

Footnote 3:

“Caucasus and the Land of the Cossacks.” Blackwood’s Magazine, No.

CCCC.

Footnote 4:

_Reise nach Colchis_, &c. Leipzig, 1850.

Footnote 5:

Fallmerayer—_Fragmente aus dem Orient_.

Footnote 6:

The Sultan’s physician.

Footnote 7:

“The decrease of the Irish population from 1841 to 1851 was

1,659,330, of whom 1,289,133 emigrated. But as there was no

considerable emigration till 1846, and the famine occurred in that

year, there can be no doubt that down to the end of 1845 the

population had advanced at its former rate, which would make the

inhabitants in 1845 about 8,500,000, and the decrease since that

time fully 2,000,000.”—_Emigration Report_, July 12, 1852.

Footnote 8:

See _Blackwood’s Magazine_, Feb. 1852.

Footnote 9:

_The Moor and the Loch._ By JOHN COLQUHOUN, Esq. 3d Edit. Edinburgh,

1851.

Footnote 10:

“The Great Question.” June 1852. No. CCCCXL.

Footnote 11:

See our April Number, “The Earl of Derby.”

Footnote 12:

Tuesday, 20th July 1852.

Footnote 13:

New Series, 14th March 1839.

Footnote 14:

Hansard, 3d Series, vol. xlvi. col. 694–5.

Footnote 15:

Page 403—“The Earl of Derby.”

Footnote 16:

In a similar strain ventured to speak a certain Mr Serjeant Murphy at

Cork. “Who is their Chancellor of the Exchequer? I’ll tell you what he

is. He is a political adventurer, who speculates on politics as a

black-leg on the turn of the dice and the fluctuating chance of the

turf—a political trader!” And the refined and complimentary Milesian

proceeds to utter a supposed _bon-mot_ concerning Mr Disraeli’s speech

on the Budget, which, he says, he himself heard, “while sitting near

the Duke of Cambridge, _with whom I have the honour of being

acquainted_!”

Footnote 17:

Wednesday, 14th July 1852.

Footnote 18:

21st July 1852.

Footnote 19:

21st July 1852.

Footnote 20:

See our June Number, p. 763.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. Silently corrected palpable typographical errors; retained

non-standard spellings and dialect.

2. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.

3. Enclosed blackletter font in =equals=.