ページの画像
PDF
ePub

the sign manual-and his enemies shall have the knout-the whole knout-and nothing but the knout. The chief of those enemies, we cannot help considering his Majesty's present Ministers. They seem to think themselves secure in their seats-but why so much sky between breech and saddle? Of that style of horsemanship we may say, "This will never do." The First Lord of the Treasury is like the tailor riding to Brentford. Soon will they, one and all, be saddle-sick-and with philanthropic alacrity shall we run to stop their unruly Rozinantes, and even to assist them to dismount.

Our Sailor-King may possibly think them loyal; but his unsuspecting spirit will erelong discover its mistake. What is bred in the bone will shew itself in the flesh; and by and by his present adulators will shew him the same reverential love with which they smoothed the deathbed of his brother, which fell like light and like balm on the grey locks of his old sire's head, and on the sightless orbs of his eyes that rolled in vain in search of one sun-ray to cheer or sense or soul. Their cha racter of that sire we dare not repeat; but without danger, or, we hope, offence, we may remind his Majesty, that the Lord High Chancellor of England, and his less famous friend, "the Attorney," have said that he is the brother of Nero. "The Advocate," too-he whom the Edinburgh mob always designate by the simple circumlocution of " the Right Honourable Francis Jeffrey, Lord Advocate of Scotland," once read this loyal lesson to Cobbett-which both parties perhaps have now forgotten, but which is embalmed in the Blue and Yellow :-" Is it too much to say that the zealous advocate of the Bourbons, and of all their connexions, might have been expected to speak of the sons of his sovereign in terms of less contempt and acrimony? His observations on the Dukes of York and CLARENCE, though we had no great objections to their substance, are certainly too much in the style of the professed enemies of royalty." The critic on Cobbett 1d no great objections to the substance of the observations. And what was it? Such brutal abuse as left the Dukes of York and Clarence hardly the

common nature of man. Princes, indeed!-they were, in Cobbett's eyes, but cutpurses of the empire. Yet some few Englishmen may perhaps agree with us in thinking that a professed enemy of royalty is a better subject than a sneaking one who insinuates his scorn of the sons of his king into a hypocritical reproof of their reviler.

Has the nation forgotten the rumours circulated by the Whigs on the death of the late King-that there were reasons why a Regency might be of advantage to the kingdom? Strange notions had they then of the modern Alfred-but they were not, like Cobbett of old, " professed enemies of royalty," and therefore, "though they had no great objections to the substance" of those rumours, they circulated them silently, and with uplifted eyes and shrugging shoulders-the language which traitors love. And as for his Majesty's family-did not the “ Leading Journal of Europe," the hand-organ now and foot-ally of the Ministry, insult and shame them on their birth, and threaten them, if they dared to shew their faces either on high or open places, to_brand_Illegitimate on their forehead? And has not the same slave, at the bidding of his master's beck-for a freedman he will never be who is basely in love with bonds-has not the same slave of many masters shouted forth his pride on the elevation to an earldom of the very person whose high talents, stainless honour, and many accomplishments, half a year ago, could not save him, in a private station, from being dragged before the public by this infamous hireling, and held up to the scorn of the country, because he was the son of the King?

Yes-we are doomed to be in perpetual opposition. That budget of itself doth make Antis of us all. As Pandora's box contained all evilsso did it all blunders. And what will the same blockheads be about, does the nation suppose, when they have settled-if ever that be-the Question of Reform? The Bill, and the whole Bill, perhaps we are to have; but is it indeed true that we are to have nothing but the Bill? On such provender the people will starve. Yet, what other good shall

we get from the Incapables, who know not even how to offer the nation a pinch of snuff, or a quid of tobacco? These are, in some sort, the loathsome luxuries of life. But wait till the Imbeciles attempt to lay a tax on Necessaries-and then their measures will stink in the nostrils of the whole nation. In Scotland-unless it be very severe indeed-the tax will be little productive; and if it be very severe indeed-why there will be a Rebellion after a Revolution, Reform on the back of Reform, out will turn the Whigs, in the Tories; the justly obnoxious tax-the reverse of a poll one-will be taken off in the midst of the most extraordinary vociferations, and the country will be saved.

The Ready-Reckoner has other figures to sum up-and other ciphers to set down-besides those that appear upon the Bills of Reform. But not a single soul among all the Whigs has encountered Cocker but Joseph Hume; he is not a flaming minister; and many an error of omission and commission drops from his pen as he summeth up the "tottle of the whole." But we must have another Budget. The old bag is burst past mending, nor will the only Sadler in the House stitch up the gaping wound. Worse still, the contents have been all scattered on the floor -the winds of Derision have waft ed, and the besom of Destruction has swept them clean away-and the abortive Budget evaporated in steam and smoke.

So much for the Headpiece-now for the Body-and by and by-the Tail of our Article. If either article or animal have a good headpiece, he may be easy about his body, and almost indifferent about his tail. Yet all three are essential to a perfect article or animal, for every production, either of Nature or of Art, should, like an epic poem, have a beginning, a middle, and an end. That our Article has had a beginning, nobody will deny-now let us rush in medias res-and pulling up at the eighth page, as on the successful completion of a trotting-match, for that distance, at the rate of three minutes to the mile, you might suppose that prince of sportsmen, Mr Osbaldestone, on Miss Turner, Rattler, or Tom Thumb, we shall then exhi

bit the nether end of our Article in comparative repose, just like that gentleman walking his tit into the nearest market town.

All persons who are now of opinion that Parliament needs but little reform, and all who are averse to such reform as his Majesty and his Minissters now propose giving us, are set down by that reforming Ministry, and their unreformed adherents, as enemies of the King, the country, and the constitution. Now, the Three Bills are not yet three months old-they are not so much as stirks -mere calves; and let us hear how some of their chief eulogists used to express themselves on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, before these abortions baa'd. Let us begin and end, for the present, with one of the most eminent and able of them all-the Lord Advocate. Seventeen thousand signatures lately bore attestation to his character as a consistent, steady, and enlightened Friend of Reform. As the proof of the pudding lies in the eating of it, so does the proof of his Lordship's politics lie in the reading of them; and, therefore, without questioning the knowledge of the Deacons of the Tailors, Dyers, and Bonnet-makers, let us see if its accuracy be as correct as its range is extensive; and ascertain, from chapter and verse, whether or no their faith, which is that of the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, coincide with the faith of Mr Jeffrey, as for upwards of twenty years it was elaborately and periodically expounded in the celebrated Blue and Yellow, the far-famed Edinburgh Review.

We shall not weary the Deacons by any lengthened analysis of the first two articles-able both-that by implication discussed the subject of Parliamentary Reform in that Journal. We refer the Deacons to them, in two early numbers of the work with which they are so familiar, under the titles of "Memoires de Bailly" and " Filangieri on Legislation." In the first of these two excellent articles-written by Mr Brougham

but which Mr Jeffrey, in a subsequent article, makes his own, by giving us, with complete acquies cence in all its doctrines, a very ele gant abridgement-the highest, and we believe the justest, panegyric is

pronounced on the British constitution as it then existed, now exists, and we fear, ere a few months elapse, will exist no more. Here is that elegant abridgement.

"On a former occasion we endeavoured to shew, that the most perfect representative legislature must be that which united in itself the greatest proportion of the effective aristocracy of the country, or contained the greatest proportion of the individuals who actually swayed the opinions of the people, by means of their birth, wealth, talents, or popular qualities. In this way, it was attempted to be shewn, that the nation was ultimately governed by the same individuals who, in their separate capacities, could have directed the sentiments of a very large majority; and that this was the only way in which the opinions and wishes of the people could be practically represented. Now, upon this footing alone, as it is evident that rank, fortune, and official situation, are among the most powerful of the means by which men are enabled individually to influence the opinions and conduct of those around them, so it follows that those qualifications should have their due share in returning members of the legislature; and that the government could not otherwise be either stable or respectable. The real power of every country is vested in what we have called its effective aristocracy; and that country is the happiest, in which the aristocracy is most numerous and most diversified as to the sources of its influence; that government the most suitable, secure, and beneficial, which is exercised most directly by the mediation of this aristocracy. In a country where rank, wealth, and office, constitute the chief sources of influence over individuals, it is proper that rank, wealth, and office, should make the greatest number of its legislators."

Such is (was) Mr Brougham's and Mr Jeffrey's Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth; and it was, they thought, realized in the British constitution. Mr Jeffrey says "Now, without pretending to justify the irregularities which certainly subsist in our system of representation, and without arguing on the probable effects of these irregularities, we would mereJy ask, Whether it can be denied, in

point of fact, that our Parliament, as it is now constituted, does actually possess the requisites which we have just now specified, and does actually perform the functions on which its substantial value depends? In spite of placemen and pensioners, and purchasers of boroughs, and nominees of lords, the House of Commons unquestionably contains a sufficient number and variety of persons to represent all the different opinions, and maintain all the different views of policy, which exist in the country at farge. There is no sentiment so demo

cratical-no accusation so uncourtly-no interest so local-but it finds there a voice to support and assist it."

Now, we ask the Deacons what they say to that panegyric on Parliament? Might they not imagine that this was not the logic of Francis Jeffrey-but of Christopher North? Had these been the opinions of the Lord Advocate too-then there is no saying but that the Seventeen might have elected his lordship instead of Mr Dundas. But, Deacons ! do you call this backing the Bill? Deacons ! do you persist in praising the consistency of his Lordship's " political literature ?" Deacons ! if this be Parliament, what need of Reform? Deacons! if this be not Parliament, when did it lose its virtues? Deacons! if such never were its virtues, why so indiscriminate in your eulogies on the "political literature" of the Man of the People?

In the article on Filangieri on Legislation, we find opinions equally enlightened, and equally panegyrical on the constitution of our of late so much abused Parliament-that constitution of Parliament which so dissatisfies our Deacons. Thus the Reviewer saith-" If we think more lightly than others of some celebrated parts of our constitution, we are not less persuaded than they are of its intrinsic durability. We look less to the letter of the law than the real spirit and form of the general system. The whole British Constitution has undergone a mighty change in the last century: it has settled, to use the builder's phrase; it has shifted its centre of gravity; and the political theorems of past times are no longer applicable to it. Maximus novator tempus. The hand of the great Re

former has passed over the fabric." There is one Deacon in particular who will feel the beauty of the builder's phrase," it has settled;" and who will understand the danger, as well as the folly of tampering with an edifice" which has shifted its centre of gravity." Who ever denied it was founded on a rock? Why then touch it at all? Or, Deacon! if thou dost, must it not be with a gentle hand, "for there is a spirit in the stones;" and methinks we hear those at the corners pleading trumpet-tongued against "the deep damnation of their taking off." All the Eleven Deacons, and all the Eleven Thousand Signatures, know who was Filangieri. The Editor of the Edinburgh Review feared him for that he was a reformer; and shewed, somewhat scornfully, certain strong reasons why no reformer should on an edifice" that had settled" lay his sacrilegious hands.

But perhaps the Eleven Deacons, and the Seventeen Thousand Signatures have forgot all they ever knew-were it little or much-about Jean Sylvian Bailly and Gaetano Filangieri-and are more at home on William Cobbett. He has all along been a sad fellow -and Mr Jeffrey once on a time gave him such a dressing, that the Edinburgh Deacons of those days thought he never could survive it, but would give up together the Political Register and the Ghost? But William Cobbett lived on, and so did Francis Jeffrey ; and by some of those strange chances and changes that happen with all men, the Lord Advocate now not only holds the very self-same political principles for which he formerly strove to extinguish the fretful Peter Porcupine, after having first plucked out, as he supposed, all his quills, but vehemently striveth he with tongue, tooth, and nail, to make them the law of the land and the constitution of the state. Were the Deacons aware of this when they were concocting their petitions in panegyric of the uniform consistency of the "political literature" of their unchangeable man?

Why so fiercely raged then Mr Jeffrey against Mr Cobbett; yea, even as if he were seeking to devour him like a roaring lion? Verily, because -to use the words of the Great Unchangeable-Mr Cobbett had striven

[ocr errors]

"in the recent numbers of his Political Register to spread abroad a general discontent and disrespect for the constitution, usages, principles, and proceedings, of Parliament! to communicate a very exaggerated and unfair impression of the evils, abuses, and inconveniences which arise from the present system of government," &c. Mr Jeffrey was particularly shocked with the following passage about Parliament, which he quotes with much horror. "I see not the least room to suppose that any insinuations, however foul, can sink the character of the House in the opinion of the country. No, the House is not to be affected by insinuations of any sort. Its character has long been such as to set all insinuations at defiance. I venture to assert, that its character is far beyond the reach of detraction." "After this," quoth Mr Jeffrey, we need not quote any of his sneers at the honourable House." "Still less," he adds, " can it be necessary to retail any of his good old democratic sayings, as to the inadequacy of the representation," &c. All this was very wicked in Mr Cobbett, and we agree with Mr Jeffrey that such sneers were too intolerable to be retailed. But what thinks Mr Jeffrey of the following sneers-not from Mr Cobbett-but from a steam-engine called the Times, now in the service of that government of which the Lord Advocate is one of the stanchest friends and most faithful servants? "That enemy is now the usurper of the people's franchises-the cutpurses of the people's money-the robber of the public treasury under the forms of the law-of law enacted by the plunderer himself to favour his own extortion-his own systematic conversion of the fruits of other men's industry to selfish or criminal uses. When night after night borough-nominees rise to infest the proceedings of the House of Commons with arguments to justify their intrusion into it, and their continuance there, thus impudently maintaining what the lawyers call an adverse possession,' in spite of judgment against them, we really feel inclined to ask why the rightful owners of the House should be insulted by the presence of such unwelcome inmates? It is, beyond question, a piece of the broad

est and coolest effrontery in the world, for these hired lackeys of public delinquents to stand up as advocates of the disgraceful service they are embarked in." That is but one specimen of the style of speech that for some months past has kept perpetually flowing from the hired and unhired friends of reform. It is as insolent as may be; but not nearly so savage as many thousand others that must have met the eyes of all persons who take up a newspaper. Sir Thomas Denman, the AttorneyGeneral of England, in his place in the House of Commons, said that he could not say that the allegations in the above passage from the Times were not true. We see no discountenance of these and other greater atrocities, that in fact fill all the newspapers, the demi-ministerial ones especially, to the brim, frowned now from the Blue and the Yellow, which, on the contrary, smiles sweetly on all the villains and all their villainies, and reserves all its vitu peration for the friends of that constitution which it once would have annihilated Cobbett for attacking, but which it now assails with enginery more powerful than could ever be in the hands of private men -enginery worked by his Majesty's ministers-a park of light artillery having been committed to the Right Honourable Francis Jeffrey, Lord Advocate of Scotland," under whose sharp and scientific eye it has been brought to play against the Constitution with beautiful and pernicious precision-till erelong a breach will be effected-and the radicals rushing on, in immense numbers, succeed, we fear, in overpowering the garrison, dispirited from hopelessness of succour or supplies, and at the very commencement of the siege deserted by the governor.

But what else and what more said Mr Cobbett of yore to kindle the patriotic rage of Mr Jeffrey? Why he said-and Mr Jeffrey is astounded at the statement-" that all the evils under which we were groaning are produced by the improper composition of the legislative bodies, and especially of the House of Commons." To refute this wicked assertion, Mr Jeffrey set himself to work like a hero as he was and is; and first of all boldly met the incendiary on this

his strongest position," that the members are not fairly chosen by the people, but are either nominated by the influence of great families, or purchase the seats from a junto of venal electors." What style of fighting does the champion of Parliament adopt in conflict with such an "ugly customer?" He takes the bull by the horns, and by a sudden twist-like another Milo-flings the rough commoner over his knee whap upon the sod-knocking out his wind, and rendering him, by that single crossbuttock, incapable of coming to time

nay, when time is called, deaf as any post under government. In other words, more intelligible, perhaps, to Edinburgh Deacons-except the Deacon of the Fleshers-Mr Jeffrey admits all that Mr Cobbett has here said, and boldly declares to the whole world that such is-if not the very best imaginable-the very best practicable constitution of any Parlia ment. That it is, and must be so, he proves by many pretty pages of argument and illustration, to which we beg to refer all Deacons, and hereby offer a reward of a complete Set of Maga to him who shall produce such a refutation as shall seem even plausible to a Constituent Convenery as sembled to decide on the comparative power and glory of the two political literatures," the one Mr Jeffrey's, so adverse to the Bill and the whole Bill, and the other the Prize-Deacon's, name and nature yet unknown, who shall succeed in giving that great Anti-reformer his quietus, and in rescuing Cobbett from his borough-mongering grasp.

[ocr errors]

Mr Jeffrey makes short work with William Cobbett's arguments, and treats the strongest of them haut-enbas thus:-" With regard to the interference of peers in elections, it is evidently impossible to prevent it by any statutory or authoritative regulation; and as, in fact, it is not very different from the interference of wealthy commoners," (which interference the dauntless Deacon who shall buckle to Mr Jeffrey in single combat for the prize Set will please to observe his antagonist had, in an earlier part of his article, shewn to be attended with the happiest results,)" it is needless to say any thing more on the subject."

That was a right-handed facer no

« 前へ次へ »