they had been transmigrated into a cooing flock of the feathered tribe of the same name, hob-nobbed each other, and no doubt crowned the glass with the sentiment of "Speedy place and soon," as old Sir William Curtis would have phrased it. Nor is this all. The people of England are become as of one mind in regard to the political stolidity of the Opposition party-a stolidity not alone a fault, but a crime where pretension to something better once obtained confidence.

Dismissing the "regular" Opposition, so called to distinguish it from that wavering line of policy which gives or withholds support by fits and starts to obtain a reputation for disinterestedness, we come to the popular feeling how were matters as to that? There were the customary premonitory symptoms, but not a united opposition to any important measures, except to the income-tax. As usual, before the recess closed, there were certain anti-ministerial exhibitions among those who really believe every grievance can be redressed by a government, and those who, neither believing nor caring about it, must say something to make themselves notorious among their kind. In the first of these categories must be placed a numerous body of builders' workmen out of employ, partly in consequence of the season, and partly generated by the enormous overbuilding continually going forward, as if the metropolis is to extend itself for ever. This, of course, is laid at the door of the government in place of the inclement season, and the continual outlay of capital in buildingspeculations. Then meetings were got up to consider the position of the poor needlewomen-badly enough off, Heaven knows! Of this evil, "bad government" is declared the cause, since, were it not for being illgoverned, England would become a scene of perfect happiness, from John O'Groats to Cape Cornwall. Then some demagogue declares that it is treason towards the people to deny the six points of the charter, and thus keep the nation in its present misery, as no good will accrue until the poorer classes legislate for the rest. Here an orator, who makes a trade of his addresses wherever he can ferret out a discontent, calls for universal suffrage; and there some pardoned felon mounts the rostrum to declare how shamefully the government behaves towards disinterested lovers of their country like himself. Provisions carry a high price-this is the government again, which prevents our sharing as usual in the trivial luxury of apple-dumplings-no matter that the Devon and Hereford orchards failed last year. Ministers combine with the landed interest to keep up the present high prices of provisions-this, while the ports are open, and the duties are no longer existent. If there be monopoly in Mark-lane, or middlemen stand between the slopseller and shirt-making woman-if the carcase monopolist interpose between the grazier and butcher, it is the fault of the authorities-why does not parliament make laws to set all this right? Is not this a proof of bad government? "Let us get into parliament," cries the Chartist, "we will set all right; put down political economy, and prevent there being a beggar in the land."

Now all these complainings are the result of an ignorance which it is the custom to flatter, and of the use of the word "people" without defining the term. This increase of complaints is always observable just before parliament assembles. No well-informed persons of any political colour support them until they take an aspect of truthfulness. Abettors echo such complaints, false or true, make a profit by them, and run mis- ..

taken persons deeper into error as to their foundation. The session once commenced, the mistaken ascriptions die off, or become absorbed in topics resting on a better foundation, or originating in parliament itself. For many of the evils of which complaint is thus made, our rapid increase in numbers is the cause, combined with our insular position, which prevents the exit of a superfluous population, without the condition of possessing sufficient wealth to transport themselves to vacant lands. Could the labourer put his foot at once from England upon the shores of Canada or Australia, we should hear less of the sufferings of the poorer classes. We want elbow-room for our population; but this is a different question from that before us, too voluminous for further comment.

The House met at the period fixed, and the union of the Opposition so lately divided was tested. In the House of Lords, the Earl of Derby spoke with that reckless eloquence which for many years he has exhibited; at one time in support, at another in opposition to almost every sentiment and every political party; to-day a Whig, to-morrow a Tory, or one knows not what-a singular example of political inconsistency. It might be supposed that, from his lordship's small reputation in the public view as a politician, he would be more careful in husbanding it. To do all the mischief possible in damaging an opponent may be a principle in a time like our own, when Christianity is so much improved; but it argues a forgetfulness inexcusable not to recollect that mischief is too precious a thing to throw away. His lordship's censures were confined to declamatory assertions, and to giving advice to his brother peers to demand a pledge for the repeal of the income-tax in 1860; a point not at all relevant to the debate before the House. The royal speech was declared "meagre;" as if royal speeches were intended to be much otherwise. "Pity 'tis, 'tis so;" but it is a separate question about changing such speeches into manifestoes or statements de omnibus rebus. His lordship alluded to the King of Siam as one monarch with whom we were at peace, as if he were the only sovereign amiable towards us. He declared we were to blame for the part we had acted in the cases of Neufchâtel and Naples, in regard to Italian liberty, and the bombardment of Canton; in fact, for everything. Our foreign affairs were all sources of misgiving to his lordship. It is unfortunate that some statesmen proceed to such lengths in their assaults of an opponent, that, like certain historians, they will deliberately deviate from the correct line to satisfy their antipathies, and to serve their own purposes even justify Satan's first rebellion. The royal speech has, from long custom, become little more than a form, of which it is competent, we imagine, for any peer to propose an alteration into a document long enough to fill a blue-book. To lay open the prospective objects of the cabinet would be exceedingly inconvenient to any administration, if it were only for the premature questionings which it would occasion from members at all times and seasons.. Lord Derby must have known this; and if his lordship did not all the world did, and that if he himself were in Rome he would do as Rome does. Of what value, then, were his lordship's arguments? Could they hold water even before the senators of Gotham? The effort of Earl Grey, by moving an amendment, did not help the Opposition, the non-contents in number being nearly thrice the

contents.

Mr. Disraeli, in the Lower House, evidently took his clue from the noble lord at the head of the Opposition. No doubt they had talked the matter over beforehand-all was concocted for the occasion, so far, at least, as to secure getting both on the back of the same hobby. Not in his wonderful plotless stories did Mr. Disraeli, in playing his part, draw more largely on imagination, as he was happily told by Lord Palmerston, in answering charges heard of by the House that evening for the first time. What was it but "imagination" that made England -thank Heaven! it was a flight of fancy-the "instigator" of a permanent guarantee of Austria's Italian dominions, or of a secret treaty made at her "instance" to that effect, covering her rulers with disgrace. This was the gist of the charge made to stigmatise the government. A military convention between two powers, known to a third, never acted upon, from the contingency on which it was based never occurring-that of a war between Austria and Russia-a thing gone by. What was the motive of the revival but to darken the conduct of Mr. Disraeli's political opponents? It would have been little short of infamy for the ministers of England to have secretly instigated a treaty giving up Italy to Austria, with the avowal of an opposite feeling to the British people. The instigation of such a treaty by the ministry, and England's guarantee to it, were equally a romance. In the support of such an act, His reasons were fancies,

His facts were romances,

Which nobody can deny,

might well be applied to Mr. Disraeli's speech, so happily put together, "so clever," as the ladies always say of the last novel published. Deeply imbued with the speaker's energy of manner, it was further enlivened at the reflection of his friends having become one and indivisible again. It was undoubtedly one of his loftiest essays, well argued in the absence of foundation. Nothing, indeed, could be more in character, more attractive, and more ostensibly earnest. Nothing indicated the bygone disciple of O'Connell, or of Lord George Bentinck, the last of the "heroes." The honourable gentleman's talent, happiness of allusion, and eloquence, wanted nothing but the unimportant auxiliary of fact, some scintillation of truthfulness to win all sorts of praises. The premier was only home secretary when so heavily charged. Was this little fact forgotten in the fire of the orator?

It was of no moment whether the convention was signed or not by the two Powers, because it was never operative. Lord Palmerston's mistake as to the signature he himself rectified. Why pertinaciously seek to impart life to a caput mortuum? What construction can be put on such an act by people who have not Mr. Disraeli's bitterness of place-disappointment "to prick the sides of their intent ?" In concocting a charge against a minister in power, it is well to be consistent, to master every phase of a case, and not to imagine that a public servant, who fills so high a position, is placed there only to be baited from spleen or for party amusement. The attacks of the Tory leader in the Commons wanted substance; they were niggling and petty; they dropped through the sifter, and the fire died out, for want of honest fuel, after a flare-up that portended a mighty conflagration.

taken persons deeper into error as to their foundation. The session once commenced, the mistaken ascriptions die off, or become absorbed in topics resting on a better foundation, or originating in parliament itself. For many of the evils of which complaint is thus made, our rapid increase in numbers is the cause, combined with our insular position, which prevents the exit of a superfluous population, without the condition of possessing sufficient wealth to transport themselves to vacant lands. Could the labourer put his foot at once from England upon the shores of Canada or Australia, we should hear less of the sufferings of the poorer classes. We want elbow-room for our population; but this is a different question from that before us, too voluminous for further comment.

The House met at the period fixed, and the union of the Opposition so lately divided was tested. In the House of Lords, the Earl of Derby spoke with that reckless eloquence which for many years he has exhibited; at one time in support, at another in opposition to almost every sentiment and every political party; to-day a Whig, to-morrow a Tory, or one knows not what-a singular example of political inconsistency. It might be supposed that, from his lordship's small reputation in the public view as a politician, he would be more careful in husbanding it. To do all the mischief possible in damaging an opponent may be a principle in a time like our own, when Christianity is so much improved; but it argues a forgetfulness inexcusable not to recollect that mischief is too precious a thing to throw away. His lordship's censures were confined to declamatory assertions, and to giving advice to his brother peers to demand a pledge for the repeal of the income-tax in 1860; a point not at all relevant to the debate before the House. The royal speech was declared "meagre;" as if royal speeches were intended to be much otherwise. "Pity 'tis, 'tis so;" but it is a separate question about changing such speeches into manifestoes or statements de omnibus rebus. His lordship alluded to the King of Siam as one monarch with whom we were at peace, as if he were the only sovereign amiable towards us. He declared we were to blame for the part we had acted in the cases of Neufchâtel and Naples, in regard to Italian liberty, and the bombardment of Canton; in fact, for everything. Our foreign affairs were all sources of misgiving to his lordship. It is unfortunate that some statesmen proceed to such lengths in their assaults of an opponent, that, like certain historians, they will deliberately deviate from the correct line to satisfy their antipathies, and to serve their own purposes even justify Satan's first rebellion. The royal speech has, from long custom, become little more than a form, of which it is competent, we imagine, for any peer to propose an alteration into a document long enough to fill a blue-book. To lay open the prospective objects of the cabinet would be exceedingly inconvenient to any administration, if it were only for the premature questionings which it would occasion from members at all times and seasons. Lord Derby must have known this; and if his lordship did not all the world did, and that if he himself were in Rome he would do as Rome does. Of what value, then, were his lordship's arguments? Could they hold water even before the senators of Gotham? The effort of Earl Grey, by moving an amendment, did not help the Opposition, the non-contents in number being nearly thrice the

contents.

Mr. Disraeli, in the Lower House, evidently took his clue from the noble lord at the head of the Opposition. No doubt they had talked the matter over beforehand-all was concocted for the occasion, so far, at least, as to secure getting both on the back of the same hobby. Not in his wonderful plotless stories did Mr. Disraeli, in playing his part, draw more largely on imagination, as he was happily told by Lord Palmerston, in answering charges heard of by the House that evening for the first time. What was it but "imagination" that made England -thank Heaven! it was a flight of fancy-the "instigator" of a permanent guarantee of Austria's Italian dominions, or of a secret treaty made at her "instance" to that effect, covering her rulers with disgrace. This was the gist of the charge made to stigmatise the government. A military convention between two powers, known to a third, never acted upon, from the contingency on which it was based never occurring-that of a war between Austria and Russia-a thing gone by. What was the motive of the revival but to darken the conduct of Mr. Disraeli's political opponents? It would have been little short of infamy for the ministers of England to have secretly instigated a treaty giving up Italy to Austria, with the avowal of an opposite feeling to the British people. The instigation of such a treaty by the ministry, and England's guarantee to it, were equally a romance. In the support of such an act,

His reasons were fancies,

His facts were romances,

Which nobody can deny,

might well be applied to Mr. Disraeli's speech, so happily put together, so clever," as the ladies always say of the last novel published. Deeply imbued with the speaker's energy of manner, it was further enlivened at the reflection of his friends having become one and indivisible again. It was undoubtedly one of his loftiest essays, well argued in the absence of foundation. Nothing, indeed, could be more in character, more attractive, and more ostensibly earnest. Nothing indicated the bygone disciple of O'Connell, or of Lord George Bentinck, the last of the "heroes." The honourable gentleman's talent, happiness of allusion, and eloquence, wanted nothing but the unimportant auxiliary of fact, some scintillation. of truthfulness to win all sorts of praises. The premier was only home secretary when so heavily charged. Was this little fact forgotten in the fire of the orator?

It was of no moment whether the convention was signed or not by the two Powers, because it was never operative. Lord Palmerston's mistake as to the signature he himself rectified. Why pertinaciously seek to impart life to a caput mortuum? What construction can be put on such an act by people who have not Mr. Disraeli's bitterness of place-disappointment "to prick the sides of their intent?" In concocting a charge against a minister in power, it is well to be consistent, to master every phase of a case, and not to imagine that a public servant, who fills so high a position, is placed there only to be baited from spleen or for party amusement. The attacks of the Tory leader in the Commons wanted substance; they were niggling and petty; they dropped through the sifter, and the fire died out, for want of honest fuel, after a flare-up that portended a mighty conflagration.