Chapter XX (2)

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=.