All

lians, were the only people who held it to be a regular platoon evolution to run away on a day of battle. Europe has laughed over their share of the business on the day of Waterloo. Intellectually, they were just as much below the European standard. Without any favouritism on the part of the Dutch king or council, it is notorious that hardly every tenth man in official station was a Belgian. The Belgians to the Dutch were as six to four every body wished that they should take their share in national administration; yet, from mere defect of energy and native power, there were not found enough of Belgians to fill any reasonable proportion of the public offices.

It was not a hatred of this kind which led the Portuguese, for example, in 1648 to revolt from Spain. It was not such a hatred which separated the Norwegian from the Swede. No; these were all noble races of men; and their hatred grew out of the pride connected with conscious merit-merit depressed and treated with injus tice. But the Belgian hatred grew out of conscious imbecility contrasted with exemplary merit in their yokefellows. Pull in the same traces with those whose every effort put them to shame, resolutely they would not. Yet, after all, there was for the Belgians this palliation. The Dutch had not only the credit of eclipsing them, but also the profits. In their hatred the Belgians really had an interest at stake. But the Franco-Canadians have none. No illiberal advantage has been taken of their deficient energy or of their religion. They are eligible to public stations without grudg. ing-they are elected. Their hatred is the pure tribute of ill-will to a spirit of energy and enterprise not fostered by the old French government, and never yet connected with French blood.

Now we may put it to Lord Ellenborough himself-ought such a spirit of enmity-a jealousy so ignoble, and promising such bad results for Lower Canada, to have found that sort of sympathy and provision which he misses in the bill recently sanctioned by the Conservatives? Not only is it the very last residuum from what is meanest in human impulses; but we repeat, that for a country in the condition of Canada, no temper could possibly be so ominous. Hostility to

We

the British from mere mortification at hearing the world re-echo with the sound of that brilliant name; jealousy from pure spitefulness at being next neighbours to a province which will soon shame them by the miracles of persevering industry, are not qualities to justify any man's countenance. But they are qualities to call for his vigorous repression, nay, for castigation, when they promise to affect the development of Canada, as in this case they do. The final secret in this business is, that British enterprise not only shames the old Canadian seigneurs, but sometimes forces them into reluctant co-operation. And this disturbs them; this breaks the repose of that Castle of Indolence in which the old feudal pantaloons slumber away their lives. Were the history to be given from the hustings of but one public undertaking in Canada, it would do more to let us all behind the curtain of Canadian politics, than a volume of general disquisitions. speak of the river St Lawrence. This noble river, of which some people believe that it distributes a greater body of water than any other which has been measured, occupies a common relation to the British province and what we may call the French province. Its navigation must be improved. It is the common high-road for all parties; and in future times, when the upper provinces are laid open, will be occupied by English sails for a space far longer than from Lapland to Gibraltar. But, though both parties had an interest, the proportions and quality of that interest were very different. The FrancoCanadian had little interest in manufactures or commerce his farm produce met an easy market in Quebec or in Montreal; and for mere locomotion, for mere personal intercourse, why, the river did well enough as it was. The English interest in the St Lawrence was a great interest, the French a small one; the English interest manifold, the French in one monotonous direction; the English interest a growing one, the French stationary. What cared the French seigneurs for canals to intersect the country, and to draw out the capacities of the river, as a great central artery that had been provided by nature without taxing human resources? Upon that subject, therefore, the parties quarrelled. The British might lay

we cannot amend their nature; but it is our business to take care that their nature shall not become available against Canada, by guiding Canadian legislation.

III. Next comes a subject which, even by its name, is fitted to alarm all readers and all hearers. We need not say that it is the Corn Question of which we speak. We figure to our selves the shy public under the image of a horse, roaming freely on some spacious plain, which his groom is vainly seeking to catch. The bridle or the halter is kept out of sight, and he holds out some pretence or some reality of what may allure the animal to risk his liberty; but with this differ. ence in favour of the groom as compared with ourselves, that the corn, if he really has any to offer, will prove a real temptation; whereas for us that unhappy article of corn is the supreme repellent of this world. Anacharsis Clootz styled himself "the spokesman of the human race;" and this modern subject of corn may be styled by preference "the bore of the human race." The moment we present this fatal ally of apoplexy to the attention of our coy suspicious public, instantly we figure to ourselves that same many-headed public, under the image we have selected, as galloping off in widening circles-standing for a moment then whinnying-throwing up its heels-and turning irreclaimable upon our hands.

But, reader, fear us not; stand a minute; woho, then, poor fellow. We shall not bore you. Were our disposable space more, we should shape a few replies, specially to the moral (not the economic) arguments of Mr Villiers and of Lord Fitzwilliam. In their economy there is nothing but what has been considered a thousand times, though each (as is ever the case) urges his old weatherbeaten principles with the most happy unconsciousness, that “for all and some" there is a regular rejoinder in waiting, if he would condescend to look for it. In one sole instance, Lord Fitzwilliam has pushed into the ring a novelty; that is, a novelty as respects the facts, for it does not affect the doctrines. It is this-in some parts of the island it seems that the price of wheat falls when it ought to rise, i. e., not because the crop has been a good one, but for the opposite reason-from the

very excess of its badness. Wheat is sometimes so ruined in quality, that it cannot be used for making bread-flour. What follows? It sinks at once, not as it would sink if degraded from the market of the rich to the market of the less fastidious poor, where its use as human food still continues the same

no; the poorest of the poor cannot touch it-it sinks as an article degraded from one use to another-from a human use to a brutal or a mere mechanic use. This degradation of use at once works a complete revolution in the price. The price sinks by a half or two-thirds; and thus the remarkable result follows-that the average may be lowered; that is, the indications may be published of in. creasing plenty through a change which, pro tanto, and by its tendency, argues increasing scarcity. By possi bility, the scale might drop almost to zero, whilst, in fact, the price of wheat was running up to a famine alti. tude. This is a curious and interesting fact; and gradually we may hope to come into possession of all the facts, some of which are still sadly in arrear, after all the costly investigations of our government. Meantime, Lord Fitzwilliam's novelty was none to us. We had seen the case reported in an Edinburgh newspaper; for the fact itself has occurred often of late in the central parts of Scotland. And were the case largely diffused, and were it a recurring case in every year, it must be valued as a serious disturbing force with regard to the oscillations of our sliding scale. But it is a local case in the first place; and secondly, even as a local one, it is a rare case, or at least rare as a case of magnitude. However, the old proverb bids us "not to look a gift horse in the mouth." For any novelty whatever, on so dreary a field, we are thankful: the smallest contributions are received with gratitude. We, therefore, thank Lord Fitzwilliam. Else, and as regards the moral arguments of both Lord Fitzwilliam and Mr Villiers, on behalf of our party we are most indignant. Both of them are men of high integrity; (we make allowances for the partisanship which led Lord Fitzwilliam sadly astray in his affair with the late Bishop of Peterborough ;) both would scornfully resent any expostulation with their own principles of action that should presuppose a habitual indulgence to

conscious purposes of oppression. Yet both allow themselves to suppose of Tory landlords and Tory clergymen -not that they have erroneously fancied that policy to be good for their dependants, which in reality is found to be bad-no; that is not what they suppose; their ordinary logic is, that we Tories are aware of our op. pression, but defend it by trusting sometimes that it is not very great oppression; sometimes, that if it were, still, in a conflict of interests, we have a right to favour ourselves, and by other palliations equally disingenuous. Why appeal, as both of them do, to our consciences-to our secret sense that, after all, the poor have rightsor even more tauntingly to our prudential fears? Mr Villiers bids us remember in time that men will not go on enduring for ever; that a day of reckoning will come; and places the poorer classes in the sublime attitude of meek apostolic beings, fully sensible to the wrongs practised upon them, forbearing through certain periods of time; and finally, after giving us a long season for repentance, rising to crush us when they find all forbearance thrown away. Now, what intolerable abuses are these of men's patience and of good logic! It is presumed, throughout, that we admit the argument of our opponents. It is taken for granted that we concede the point at issue as to the best mode of making corn cheap. We grant, it is pretended, that the policy of our antagonists would make corn cheaper nay, much cheaper; but we deny that it ought to be cheaper. What delu

sions are here! Who denies what they suppose us to deny? Who grants what they suppose us to grant? But, not to enter upon corn discussions, after we have promised that we would not, let us confine ourselves to pointing one or two suggestions for the hustings; such, we mean, as will be separately intelligible and independently available.

1. There are many cases on record where people have disputed earnestly upon a presumed fact, without ever having had their thoughts directed to the previous question as to the very existence of that fact. Thus, at this moment, all men agree to argue the case, as though the fact were flagrant, at least in reference to this present year, that foreign corn could be laid down in our markets at a price much

below that of our own domestic growth. Now, the last average taken was 67s. the quarter for good wheat. The selling price on the Continent, during the same six weeks, has ranged pretty closely to 503.; that is, observe, in that part of the Continent from which only any large quantity could be drawn. Minor sources could avail nothing at any price. What, then, is the difference? About 17s. Now, look into the various estimates published by Government of the costs connected with freight, port charges, and warehouse dues. By the lowest estimate, the difference will appear to be so nearly absorbed as to bear no practical effect at all; and by the highest estimate, the difference will be more than absorbed. Finally, it may be alleged, there is something peculiar in the year. It is a dear season for the Continent, and so far the advantage in favour of foreign wheat must be less than usual. Certainly it is a dear season for the Continent; but then, on the other hand, it is a dear season at home, and that restores the proportions between us.

2. Check every statement as to prices of wheat by one question uniformly forgotten. What is the weight of the wheat? Wheat notoriously ranges in common markets from fiftysix to sixty-four pounds weight in the bushel. Our own wheat, from which men derive their prices, always reaches the highest of these weights at the least. The cheap wheat of the Mediterranean very seldom reaches more than the lowest. At the price of three guineas the quarter, there goes a discount of one shilling a bushel upon our English sixty-four pound wheat, as compared with much of the fifty-six pound foreign; that is, a discount of 12 per cent, or exactly one bushel is deducted out of every eight. Now, when you find (as find you will) that after allowing for freight, &c., prices often come near to a balance with our English prices,-this discount of one in eight will often turn the scale.

3. But above all, nail a villanous anti-corn-law man on the hustings, by a clencher which we will state. We once heard a case reported from a Liverpool election, where a literary man, upon first addressing himself to speak, had so expanded the wide circle of his mouth, that some Jack Tar, out of mere wantonness, with

out a shadow of personal feeling, simply because he saw in the orator's mouth a theca, or case fitted to receive a reasonable paving-stone, and at the same time chanced to remember that in his right hand such a paving-stone was lying idle and "waiting for a job," quick as thought launched his argument, summarily plugged up the entire capacity of the orator's mouth, and dismissed him to the surgeon's hands re infectâ. The paving-stone was actually extracted by a surgical operation, and, of course, an oration was lost for that election. Now, it is not every body who has an argument ready which is so "true a fit," or can send his argument "home" so accurately. Jack must have been a man of genius. But still an argument or a paving-stone (no matter which) is quite good enough if it answers the purpose of putting a stop to a corn-law orator. This may be safely received as a general principle in ethics. Our friend the orator of Liverpool, whose oration was brought to such a sudden stop, could only goggle and look unutterable things, without attaining to any thing like a sound. We are not Jack; and without pretending to take the conceit out of a man so entirely, we shall be satisfied if our opponent is reduced to talk nonsense, which we presume he must be, in attempting to get rid of the following answer to a popular piece of logic. One of the commonest objections to the extravagant anticipations by which the labouring poor apply the proposed corn-law revolution to their own benefit is this-How will you, the labourer, benefit if your wages conform to the alteration in the price? What is it to you that more bread can be obtained for a penny, if your pennies are proportionably fewer? How is this objection parried? It is parried in two different modes. Some say the wages will conform to the supposed alteration in wheat, but by slow degrees. Some say-No; wages will never conform. Well; let them settle their own quarrels: we shall not interfere. But take it either way. First, then, wages never adapt themselves to the altered level; that means that the labourer will have the entire benefit of the supposed difference in price. But what, then, becomes of the main argument on which the Manchester men rely? For if the total difference

NO. CCXCIX, VOL. XLVIII.

goes to the workman, it does not go to the diminution of costs in manufacturing goods. By this supposition the goods cost precisely what they used to cost: that is clear; because the labourer is supposed to receive the whole difference. A very happy result if it could be realized, and one which we should rejoice to see; but still it will do nothing for the manufacturer; and his hope is knocked on the head. Now, taking it the other way, wages will slowly conform to the altered rate of wheat. In that case, and supposing all along (which we do not suppose) that wheat does really fall permanently, then prosperity to that extent will settle upon the manufacturers. Profits rise; exportation is stimulated-in what degree is a disagreeable question-but wages, after a rise and a gradual declension, are supposed to settle back precisely at their old point. So that the sole final result upon this argument would beto take something from the landholder and to settle it upon the manufacturer, a result which certainly nobody would think worth a decent-looking button-top. Meantime, both cases are mere delusions. But we urge the dilemma in order to show that, even upon conceding all they ask, the result is-that blank disappointment awaits one of the two parties, and, in fact, each alternately. For, as to the third case supposable, viz. that the two parties should divide the fancied difference, that case leaves so little to either, upon any estimate, that it is below the button-top. Neither party, you may swear, will be content to "make two bites of a cherry."

IV. Next comes Ireland-of all topics the most permanent for English politics, and the most exciting. On this subject the author of the va luable pamphlet on "The Merits of the Whigs," has done a most seasonable service, by condensing and digesting the very voluminous evidence taken in 1839 before a Committee of the Lords' House on the State of Ireland in relation to Crime. We shall endeavour to diffuse the service a little more widely, by repeating something of the same process upon parts of this pamphlet. What the noble au thor of that pamphlet announces with respect to the Lords' Report, we announce with respect to his own abstract, viz. the object of bringing it

U