On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
" ^ T qcott and a Burns ? ( Cheers . ) the own » Qjjjbon , but may we not hail with even more delight P *^ 68 ° L , of Hume , Robertson , Alison , and Macanlay ? n > wed cheers . ) We admire the works of Lawrence and r olds but we claim as our own a Wilkie , a Grant , and a g ^ iaton . ¦ ' . ' ¦¦ ¦¦ ¦ Tf Scotland is obliged to go a great way back to counterbalance a- Wellington by a Wallace , we know well enough that she can find a . Napier and Abercrombie in our own day ; but then we Ld these gallant Scotchmen exercising their Urowess upon other fields ; not content to renew Bannoekburn to ' ^_ ^ . am . a ^ ^ ^» ^ _
a chievements on , nor returning haunt the glens of their native highlands . Lord Esrlinton ' c ountrymen delight in Hume and Macaulav , — those thoroughly English writers ; but how is it that they borrow their historical philosophy from Alison rather than Macaulay , and behave as if they dreaded the liberal humanities of Macaulay scarcely less than the scepticism of Hume ? They especially claim as their own Kobert Burns ; but do they thoroughly take to iheir heart the hearty democratic manliness of the poet , who says that " the rank is but the < minea stamp ? " Do they accept the broad Church
of the songster , who was such an TIniversalist that he even hoped Old Nick would " take a thought an' men' ? " Do they enter into the thorough enjoyment of the Epicurean philosopher , who declared that " Church and State might go to——" another place , rather than interfere with his assignation ? Or do they , out of the works of Robert Burns , take only what the exciseman might have written , and what the Kirk Session might sanction with its imprimatur ? Perhaps if Scotchmen had permitted to their country a little more verisimilitude , in claiming to be the birth-place of Burnsr—had taken less pains to cover the land with the darkness and desolation of Knox ' s
asceticism—they might not have driven high Scotch influences to freer climes and a happier metropolis , and would not have had to complain that , though meritorious , they are neglected . A Scotch judge has just declared that there is no law which obliges Scotchmen to stop at home on Sundays , or to go abroad only as if the whole nation were marching to the funeral of its happiness .
I he announcement has come like a clap of thunder upon a people which did not know its own freedom ; and perhaps if Scotchmen can muster courage to use that freedom , they may render residence amongst them tolerable , and may produce that fusion of English and Scotch society which would give them what they want , more than any titular concessions to the Lord Advocate , or pecuniary concessions to palace and post-office .
Untitled Article
THE GOVERNING CLASSES . No . XV . LORD JOHN RUSSELL . lnEUE Jlfe painful difficulties in the way of any J » an who attempts , in order to illustrate a system , 0 8 ketch the portraits of contemporaries . If you praise , you are suspected of flattery ; and if you sneer , yo a re suppos ed to be guilty of the partiality of a Political opponent , or of the impartiality of a private nei "y But there is this excuse for painting your ^ t emporaries—you paint men who have sat to It is a cant to conclude that you can draw acrately the features of those only whom you see at Dos ? - dist f ' to extol the impartiality of Parf p y" TliC imPartiality of posterity i 3 tho imilicU- ° th 0 S ° ° aro unintereste ( 1 in thc vort ) of Judges who notice facts , and not feelings , and viewa nCVOr $ C 0 th ° factS frOm th ° right P ° ° fi'jouH L \ Iea 8 t J it is good that contemporaries 'Vouli mCntion tlleir opinions of one another , or how Titos ' l > , ° Sterit ; jr obta >» material for arbitration ? } Pr * haVC lnuaationa to offer do not hesitate t 0 Sent . S them ; and would it not be nn injury ^ J S Cntvi ( those who do t coincide in tho
,.. > no ^ iiat ev ^^ tO y itUhold lhcir criticisms ? Certainly , l'io sv T disa < lvantages or tho improprieties of strain e ^ ' ^ thafc no 8 cniPlea of delicacy re ~ niJ fltakn 1 SVC 0 P llancy or indignation ; and it is a v ° rninff ° 8 Ul ) p ? that in tho gallery of tho " Go-• "maual !^ " tuo writer lms done anything refer to * m an a #° when it is decorous to Cau Houa a S ^ 'Vl 0 niero ' y a » a garden implement ; but freo cou C ! lti 0 if"n is not tho characteristic of a a PpI « iided ly \ a'Ul W ° 8 Q ° bo 1 J excol ) tionfl tolerably ^ cay ' ln I , ' ¦ is to ^ ° observed , too , that thore is no Polity j ^ xorciao of our immemorial privilege of m aolonco . ltather , indeed , a salutary
improvement Fox was more severe on North than Junus on Grafton . There is nothing Fox said of North so severe as Canning said of Ogden , or Brougham of Canning . And there is nothing in qur Parliamentary history comparable , for vehement impertinence , to Disraeli ' s 1846 assaults on Peel . And nothing Mr . Disraeli said of Sir Robert Peel was so severe as genteel Tory organs say , daily and weekly ,
of the present Prime Minister . The justifications for this free speech are ample . M ' are ruled by an oligarchy ; and during a recess , when representative institutions are taking rest , we don't know what is going on ; but at least we possess the glorious right of freemen , to suggest Tower-hill for Peers who won't let us , a self-governed people , into the secrets of the State .
It is a painful thing to approach a deliberate comment on the career of Lord John Russell . Not only for the ordinary reason , that you tread upon ashes underneath which the fire has not yet been extinguished , but for the special reason that ,-if he has disappointed a nation ' s hopes , it may be because the nation never had a logical basis for its belief in him . There is also a present reason for delicacy in reference to him . He—" as a Minister of State , is renowned for ruining Great Britain gratis ; " he is taking care of the Constitution without a salary , which is very good of him , and to a great extent disarms those public writers avIio are entitled to
bully the moment the victim takes public money . But there are precedents for abusing Lord John Russell . His best friends have been all their lives ridiculing him ; and there is good ground for surmising that he does not mind it . He prints , himself , Moore's remark on his great fault—his irresolution and vacillation ; and in his new preface to the sixth volume of the Moore publication—a preface which , for its utter inconsequence and malappropriateness , suggests doubts of the writer ' s sanity—he interjects an 6 hge on that Sydney Smith ( whose principal joke , in
Lord John ' s estimation , was jumping over the prostrate Sir James Mackintosh and exclaiming " liuat JusiifiaJ" ) who made such cruel mots on Lord John that the Tories are for ever quoting them . Either from great magnanimity or great conceit , he is indifferent to what the world says of him ; and that is a great encouragement to historical students when engaged in the dissection of so distinguished a man . How the world could ever be in doubts about his character , after the evidence of those who knew and know him best , is very suprising . It is not surprising that he
should undertake the government of tho State , seeing that we have the assurance of a high authority , who knew him intimately , that he was the sort of man who would undertake tho command of the Channel licet , or an operation for the stone . But it is surprising that we should always have been expecting great measures from a man who , we were informed , is " squirrel-minded , " and " made up of well-regulated party feeling . " It is astonishing that we should be disappointed in a son of a duke , the chosen leader of tho great Whig families , not
turning out as decided a democrat aa we would have desired . It is marvellous that we should be disgusted because a feeble nature and a cold temperament never took to enthusiastic Liberalism and ardent Kadicalism . It is wonderful that wo should be angry because a man of scholarly taste , and refined tendencies , and cultivated piety , would never sympathise with the political school which has no traditions , civil or religious , and no etiquette , and which would govern in a vulgar way . When the Sandwich Islanders burnt tho ship's figure-head , which they had set up as a god , because tho fl- 'ure-hcad did not ohligo the islanders by
keeping off a storm , as requested , great injustice was done to tho Gosport carpenter who originally , very innocently , carved the statue . Is it Lord John ' s fault that ho is only wood ,- —ami not a divinity ? When he was put up »> y th 0 old Whigs , to propose the ltaform Kills of 18 . 'M > -2 , his fiimplo object—clever young man—was to pass such a measure as would enable tho Whigs to keep in for ever . But tho country insisted that he was a young Republican , of unheard-of patriotism and purity ; and ever since the country has been debating him , because , after nil , ho was found to be ft mere Whig . Lord John Russell is , in fact , in character and morality , only an avcrago member of the governing classos ; a little cleverer
than any of the others , and therefore in a first place . Of course , it is rather wrong that he should hare deluded a great people with his Reform Bill , and that he should continue to govern , indifferent , or inactive , in the midst of English social horrors and English political shams ; but a people is generally responsible for its own position . A Whig party is , doubtless , a real political swindle ; but a Whig party could only exist
among a base and barbarous people . But that this remarkably enlightened nation is so attached to Peers , the Peers would be better persons than they are . If a Marquis of Exeter returns Members for Stamford , it is not because his Lordship is a villain , but because the inhabitants of Stamford are cowards and rogues . And Great Britain is the Stamford of the British aristocracy .
There would be nothing to say against Lord John , were it not that the Whigs are for ever proclaiming that he is a man of genius . Unfortunately , he has written himself down . Had he been content with politics , he would have lived and died with , as high a reputation as Charles Fox ( who * carefully wrote little ) , or as Lord Derby , who , more carefully , never wrote anything . But he possessed a taste for reading , and would write ; and what he has written , though , like his more important speeches , it suggests and indicates a capacity superior to the clerks and
administrators of his caste , must be pronounced , on the whole , the emanations of a mediocre mind . The Whigs say , that the man who wins the leadership of the House of Commons must be a great man . There is no ground for that conclusion . The House of Commons is an assembly where prominence is obtained by those who devote themselves to it ; who work for it , and obtain the " knack " of the placethe knack of statesmanship , or the simulation of
statesmanship , being obtained by a certain class of not necessarily brilliant intellect with the same facility as the knack of special pleading , of journalism , or of actuaries . And , strangely enough , the House of Commons [ both sides ] has generally been led by notoriously inferior men . Walpole was not a first class intellect ; and certainly Pulteney was not . The first Lord Holland was not a first-rate man ; nor was Lord North . What clever leader have the
Whigs had since their idol , Fox , who , we may assume , was as able as Lord Derby ? Tierney left no impression upon history . Lord Althorpe wa 9 decidedly dull . Why , then , take for granted that Lord John is a great man , because he got a position , obtained perhaps , by a technical cleverness , and the accident of birth ? The most successful " leader" the House of Commons ever possessed was Sir Robert Peel , both as Opposition chief and as Minister ; and yet a comparison between Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell would be
favourable to tho latter . Lord John is hardly so able a man as Tierney was , but he has had this advantage—which accounts for most of the mistakes about him—over Tierney : that Tierney died before the Whigs got in ; and that Lord John has had his name connected , not only with great debates , but with great measures . Lord John , at this moment , docs not at all occupy tho first place in tho House of Commons . His defects when pitted against Mr . Disraeli are conspicuous ; and a comparison with Mr . Gladstone would he disastrous to him . He has
a rarer capacity , and a . more philosophic intellect , than Lord Palmerston ; ho has a higher character than Sir James Graham ; he is immeasurably superior to tho Sir John Pakington species of member ; and he has tho advantage of the Cobdens and Brights in knowledge of , and sympathy with , the House . lu contrast and comparison with these and their clans he shines , and is generally supposed to be a very able man—particularly when ho speaks from the right "'» ll ( 1 of Mr- Speaker , for then there is always a corps on duty to cheer him . But an
accurate , uninr tiience . l observer can only como to the conclusion thafc Lord John ifl , as Mr . Mooro said , " always mild and sonsiblo "—nothing more . A perfect gentleman , and an accomplished man , with « pleasant style , which is distinctive , mid not mere Parliamentary slang , like Graham ' s or Pakington ' s , he gained thc affection of hi a party and tho good will of the House—a not very difficult ftat , since ho could always command attention aft tho confidential mouthpiece of the groat Whig families , and often . could command attention as the Minister of the
Untitled Article
We admire De cember 24 , 1853 . ] THE LEADER . 1237 ' "I ' ^ ¦ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^»^»**^^^^^^ w ^^ - ^™^—^^^^ - ^^^^^^^*^^^» j ^^^ 11 fc , ' ^ *
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Dec. 24, 1853, page 1237, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2018/page/13/
-