« PreviousContinue »
king or a man king, it matters not, provided that he hath "the divinity that doth hedge a king." The project of sending a Bavarian boy to govern the Greeks, is only a folly capable of being hatched in the brain of superannuated diplomatists who have long made" ducks and drakes" of states, by shying protocols at one another. The Greek will never obey unless he is forced or paid; he has no pleasure in order, consequently no motive to be quiet. The Greeks are in Europe, what pickpockets are in London-lightfingered, restless gentry, who would rather starve to-day on the chance of a prize to-morrow, than accept honest but uniform occupation. They have been and remain morally and politically corrupted; if they cannot rob anybody else, they will scratch and fight with each other. As long as there is booty in the midst of them, they are comparatively happy, for they set about quietly circumventing it by every form of cunning, treachery, hypocrisy, talent, and even seeming generosity and patriotism. When the plunder is gone, they will strike another stroke. All men have been acceptable who brought them money, and no longer. Even Capo d'Istrias was a god as long as he was an agent of the benevolence of Europe. And this boy king will get on well till he is sucked as dry as a squeezed orange: but that will not take much longer than the visit of one of his Bavarian country-women in England-the young ladies of the broom, who arrive with the swallow, and depart with it. Otho will never come of age in Greece.
The Lion's Mouth.
"ALIENA NEGOTIA CENTUM."-Horat.
The unexpected length to which our Correspondent's strictures on the Quarterly have swelled, and our unwillingness to curtail an exposure so merited by that work, have obliged us to encroach upon the space allotted to the "Lion's Mouth," and to cut off some of its legitimate supplies.
We are informed with regret by a friend of the late Mr. Buckle's son, that a paragraph in the Commentary of last month has given pain to that gentleman. Nothing could be farther from our wishes than to offer any intentional slight to his father's memory or his own feelings and though we have again turned to the passage in question, and cannot well conceive that persons in general, under similar circumstances with Mr. Buckle's son, would have felt annoyed at it, we have all respect for feelings which do him honour, and much sincere regret that unconsciously through us those feelings should have been wounded.
We have applied in vain for a copy of "Glen Moubray," at the author's request. He will perhaps again communicate with us.
Thanks to our Correspondent of " St. George's Terrace, Canterbury "—and also for the communication of " T."
We shall find room for Mr. Gilfillan's song in our next number.
The translations from Horace, from the pen of so distinguished a scholar, shall shortly appear.
We are sorry we are obliged to decline the favours of "A. S. A.”— "C. E. S. J."-" A. C. H."—" P. V."—" T. J. R."-" Oscar."-“ T. C.”"S. W."-" Death !"-" B. B. F."—" D. G.”
"The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." We have had nothing but the bill!
Communications are left at the Publishers' for "Crinissus,"-" The Water Wreath," "The West Indian's Bride."-" H. B."
Mr. Hustletrump's Story is as old as the Hills.
"A Day Dream" shall be inserted. We have planned a paper, and may shortly publish it, in which a number of our poetical correspondents will find honourable mention, yet not without some critical remarks.
"Guloseton" is accepted, and will be inserted the earliest opportunity.
NEW MONTHLY MAGAZINE.
MAY 1, 1832.
Passages translated from "The Iphigenia" of Goethe. By Mrs. Hemans 407
Spirit of Song! By Thomas Haynes Bayley
"The Contrast." By the Author of "Yes and No"
Asmodeus at Large. No. IV.
Phrenology. By David Uwins, M.D.
To May. By Leigh Hunt
The Indicator No. LXXXIX.
To a Flower brought from the field of Grütli, By Mrs. Hemans
Exportation of Women-The Philosophy of Mourning-Design in
The Lion's Mouth
JACKFISH have been found with a Carp in their mouths, one half of which has been digested, while the other half remains stubborn and unconquered. Will the latter half choke the Jackfish, or be digested also? The Jackfish is exceedingly like the House of Lords; a very arrogant, blustering fish, with a great swallow, and a very unpopular flavour. Will the House of Lords digest the rest of the Bill, or choke at the attempt? It is a difficult question to decide upon. Meanwhile, we have adjourned Parliament that the Jackfish may do the May 1832.-VOL. XXXIV. NO. CXXXVII. 2 E
best it can with the Carp. It may (or more likely may not) be remembered, that in our number for November, (the first month in which this Magazine passed under its new management,) we predicted, in the teeth of all our contemporaries, that the House of Lords would (so far, we meant, as the second reading was concerned) be gained rather by conversions than creations. We attempted to show, that the nature of that assembly, its comparative freedom from party, its small knots and individual caprices, and above all, the absolution of its members from responsibility to others, rendered it far more accessible to the arts by which a few votes are detached from the mass, than the House of Commons, with its violent political affections, and under the control of constituents on the one hand, and nominators on the other, possibly could be. Our prediction has come to pass. The Bill has been read a second time. There have been seventeen converts, and no creations. In the same article we did not the less urge the necessity, philosophical and legislative, of a creation of Peers; not to obtain the second reading, but to unite the two antagonist assemblies; not to make the first step in reforming the Commons, but in preserving the Lords. That necessity is equally apparent now as then. Will it be obeyed? There is the question. Ministers have now no excuse for not making the Peers. The principle of the Bill has been carried; the House has not been swamped to admit the Reform;-will enough of the stream of English opinion be turned into the channel to bear off the vessel already launched? Seventeen Lords have voted for the second reading of the Bill. Why? In order that they may play the devil with it in the Committee. They have let the stranger into the Harem as being the place above all others where they will have the best apology to mutilate it. The stranger went in a man, will it come out an eunuch? or rather, like the pious Don Raphael, in Gil Blas, will it change its creed to suit that of the company it has fallen amongst― go in a Christian and come out a Mahometan? Nine reluctant votes have carried the second reading of the Bill: to those nine votes will my Lord Grey trust the Bill in the Committee? We believe he will; and we believe the Bill will suffer accordingly. But here let us pause. The public are not generally aware that no alteration in the Committee can be considered permanent until the third reading, or the bringing up of the Report, takes place. Suppose, for instance, schedule A is cut down to six boroughs in the Committee, and the elective franchise is raised from 107. to 50%.; and suppose my Lord Grey, notwithstanding these defeats, goes on with the Bill, he can restore, by an amendment, when the Committee is fairly gone through, and the Bill is to be read a third time, the whole of the
limbs and members thus amputated-no defeat whatsoever is a real, a permanent defeat, until (safe from all amendment, all restoration) the Bill has gone through the third reading. Let the public mark this, for it is of deep importance. And supposing Peers are not made for the Committee; supposing the great schedule A is dwarfed down into a paltry schedulekin, such as Lord John might have given us some ten years ago; supposing the Metropolitan districts are left memberless; supposing the 107. franchise is raised-still, let not the people be discouraged; but let them then pour in from all quarters petitions, such as a free people should present-bold and urgent, that all the benefits of the Bill that are removed should be replaced before the third reading makes them definitive. Now, according to the newspapers, my Lord Grey appears to have said, in his very able, eloquent, but nevertheless somewhat over-lauded speech, that, "though he should be sorry that a less number of boroughs should be disfranchised, or that the 107. qualification should be altered, still they formed no part of the principle of the Bill, and both might be altered with perfect consistency." Now, on this declaration, the Tories, (our keen and subtle contemporary, "The Standard," among the rest,) have naturally set up a shout at my Lord Grey's definition of principle; and these expressions have doubtless given great dissatisfaction to the Reformers. But we have made it a point to see and converse with several who were present at the delivery of that speech, and some of whom, as Lord Grey's immediate connexions and friends, we suppose are likely to know what that eloquent orator really meant to say; and it seems that the true spirit of the remarks as spoken was very different from what it would seem as reported. Lord Grey's observations were in reply to some Tory Lord, (Lyndhurst, we believe,) who said, that if the House passed the second reading of the Bill, it was compelled to disfranchise, as the principle of the Bill, sixty-four boroughs, and to grant unconditionally the 107. franchise. "Heaven!" says Lord Grey, "what an affront the Noble Lord puts on the House, to suppose any Minister can thus dictate to it! It is for the Committee, not the Ministers, who propose it to the Committee, to decide whether the number of boroughs disfranchised shall be sixty-four, or the rate of franchise be a 10%. house. I should be sorry to see the Bill altered in these particulars. I"-here we quote the papers, i. e. "The Times," verbatim-" I should certainly oppose any proposition for reducing the number of boroughs to be disfranchised, or for raising the 107. qualification much higher." But it is for the House to decide these points. Whether I, whether the Ministry can continue in office after that decision, is another question. This, we repeat, was (we are informed from several per
sons present at the delivery of that speech) the purport and spirit of Lord Grey's argument. If so, it was an argument that he might fairly use, and one which put the question of the second reading in its true light. The remark being more of a personal retort on Lord Lyndhurst (a species of arguing of which the statesmen of both Houses are particularly fond) than any confession of Lord Grey's own sentiments, was designed to convey this sneer:-"What! you-you, Lord Lyndhurst, talk of the dignity of the Lords, while you tell them they are tools to carry the Bill, and I tell them they are judges to decide it." We have thought it necessary to enter into this explanation, as the misunderstanding upon the subject of it has been very extensive, and might be very dangerous.
Very well! The Bill has been carried through the second reading. No Peers are made; and, as we have explained, if no Peers are made, the Bill cannot permanently lose any of its provisions before the last stage. And this, we fancy, will be the excuse for not making the creation. We confess that it seems a most inconsistent one, and we will briefly prove why it is so. Peers were not made for the second reading, because, forsooth, the Lords were to have the credit of passing the principle of the Bill; and if a creation were afterwards necessary, it would only be to carry the details. We have now come to the details. The necessity is allowed, and the creation put off till the third reading! What is the third reading? Why, the adopting a second and more solemn time of the principle of the Bill! so that the very reason for which Peers are not to be made at one stage, is the exact reason why they are to be made when the identical same stage is returned to. We cannot make Peers on the principle; we must make them on the details. We cannot make Peers on the details; we must make them on the principle! Behold the cycle of Ministerial logic! Excellent logicians! Now, in the first place, if Peers are to be made at all, this shilly-shallying is only a perpetual wear-and-tear on the patience, the affections, the confidence of the people. And in the next place, it would be better, according to all the precepts of Whig Lords and of Tory Lords-better for the dignity of the House, that the creation should take place, in order to perfect the details, not to carry the principle; that is to say, better in the Committee now, than for the third reading hereafter. To us it would indeed seem an insult to sit coldly by while the enemies are talking and fretting, and say, when all is over, and they seem to have won the day :-" Gentlemen, you have taken great pains with this Bill; you have discomposed all its provisions; you have wasted a vast deal of time, and a vast deal of breath, and if you please, we will restore matters exactly to what they were