darkness and instantaneousness, the dismissal of the Melbourne Administration, and the dictatorship of Wellington.

And why? WHY?

Le Roi le veut.

There is no other, or better, solution of the mystery. There were none of the ordinary presages or concomitants of the downfal of a Ministry; no emergency to which its members felt themselves unequal; no parliamentary defeat; no public measures for which they had to ask the royal assent against the royal will. There was nothing but the very slightest and absurdest pretext that can be imagined, for an unprecedented exercise of prerogative. We shall avail ourselves, for a description of the occasion, of Mr. L. Bulwer's "Letter to a late Cabinet Minister," just published.

Supposing then the King, from such evident reasons, to have resolved to get rid of his Ministers, at the first opportunity,-suddenly Lord Spencer dies, and the opportunity is afforded. There might have been a better one. Throughout the whole history of England, since the principles of a constitutional government and of a responsible administration were established, in 1688, there is no parallel to the combination of circumstances attendant upon the present change. A parallel to a part of the case there may be,-to the whole case there is none. The Cabinet assure the King of their power and willingness to carry on the government; the House of Commons, but recently elected, supports that Cabinet by the most decided majorities; the Premier, not forced on the King by a party, but solicited by himself to accept office; a time of profound repose; no resignation tendered, no defeat incurred-the revenue increasing-quiet at home-peace abroad; the political hemisphere perfectly serene:-when lo, there dies a very old man, whose death every one has been long foreseeing-not a minister, but the father of a minister, which removes, not the Premier, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from the House of Commons to the House of Lords! An event so long anticipated does not confound the Cabinet. The Premier is not aghast, he cannot be taken by surprise by an event so natural and so anticipated, (for very old men will die!) he is provided with names to fill up the vacant posts of Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Commons. He both feels and declares himself equally strong as ever; he submits his new appointments to his Majesty. Let me imagine the reply. The King, we are informed, by the now ministerial organs, expresses the utmost satisfaction at Lord Melbourne and his Government; he considers him the most honourable of men, and among the wisest of statesmen. Addressing him, then, after this fashion

"He does not affect to dissemble his love,
And therefore he kicks him down stairs."

My Lord, you are an excellent man, very-but old Lord Spencerhe was a man seventy-six years old; no one could suppose that at that age an Earl would die! You are an admirable minister, I am pleased with your measures; but old Lord Spencer is no more. It is a sudden, an unforeseen event. Who could imagine he would only live to seventysix! The revenue is prospering, the Cabinet is strong—our allies are

faithful, you have the House of Commons at your back; but alas! Lord Spencer is dead! You cannot doubt my attachment to Reform, but of course it depended on the life of Lord Spencer. You have lost a Chancellor of the Exchequer; you say you can supply his place;-but who can supply the place of the late Lord Spencer? You have lost a leader of the House of Commons; you have found another on whom you can depend; but, my Lord, where shall we find another Earl Spencer, so aged and so important as the Earl who is gone! The life of the government, you are perfectly aware, was an annuity on the life of this unfortunate nobleman-he was only seventy-six! My love of liberal men and liberal measures is exceeding, and it was bound by the strongest tie, the life of the late Lord Spencer. How can my people want Reform, now Lord Spencer is dead? How can I support reforming ministers, when Lord Spencer has ceased to be? The Duke of Wellington, you must be perfectly aware, is the only man to govern the country, which has just lost the owner of so fine a library and so large an estate. It is true that his Grace could not govern it before, but then Lord Spencer was in the way! The untimely decease of that nobleman has altered the whole face of affairs. The people were not quite contented with the Whigs, because they did not go far enough; but then -Lord Spencer was alive! The people now will be satisfied with the Tories, because they do not go so far, for-Lord Spencer is dead! A Tory ministry is necessary, it cannot get on without a Tory parliament; and a Tory parliament cannot be chosen without a Tory people. But ministry, parliament, and people, what can they be but Tory, after so awful a dispensation of Providence as the death of the Earl of Spencer? My Lord, excuse my tears, and do me the favour to take this letter to the Duke of Wellington.""

If any thing could bring hereditary kingship into immediate and irremediable disgrace with the people of this country, it would be such a personal, uncalled for, arbitrary, yet constitutional interposition as this. Popular discussion has hitherto steered clear of the regal branch of our Government. The reigning sovereign has enjoyed much of cheaply purchased popularity. Even his refusal to create peers when the Grey administration and the Reform Bill were ousted together by the Lords, was not exposed to harsh construction. But it is not wise to force the people to moot the question of the utility of the royal prerogative. It has been hitherto regarded, even by far-going radicals, as a topic which did not press.' Why make it press?

The Quarterly Review,' published while we are writing, affirms that the late Cabinet was broken up by the question of Church reform, and that a minority of that Cabinet declared they would resign if measures were proposed so strong as the majority thought essential to their facing Parliament with safety. Perhaps this statement is concocted to disgrace the late Government (its Premier, and some of its members not specified) with reformers and the country. If not, it shows very plainly what we have to expect. The Whigs could not unite in carrying so much Church reform as was necessary to insure them the support of the Com

mons. Then the Tories must have determined either to rule without the Commons, or to corrupt or overawe them. Moreover the Dissenters may learn that they must not be satisfied, in the elections which may be coming, with general professions of adhesion to the late ministry or to the cause of reform. All have not been their friends that seemed so. There must be a clear understanding, on this, as on some other points.

With a solicitude which the selfishness of Toryism has sometimes shown on previous occasions, the Quarterly' makes the King personally responsible for the recent hateful change, which it thinks in harmony with the general character of monarchical government. This is backing one's friends. Even Jacobins blushed for the cowardly desertion of Louis XVI. by the privileged classes of France. But the age of chivalry is gone,' and certainly it will never be revived by modern Tories. The King, the King! let the King bear all. We are satisfied that his people at large will show that they see in all this affair additional motives of respect, loyalty, and affection.' And if they do not, who can help it? No doubt they will see also that, as the Quarterly' gravely adds, by exercising, pro tempore, all the powers of Government, the Duke has evinced a magnanimity unparalleled in political history.' The people will not be insensible of his deserts.

6

For ourselves we are rather looking to the magnanimity' of the Reformers, who are now rallying as one man to prevent a retrograde movement which would be most debasing and ruinous. We cannot suppress the feeling that, however demanded by the exigency of the time, however essential to all the national interests, this is magnanimity. The Whigs had generated a disgust which only principle can overcome. They had delayed, truckled, compromised. They had weakly sought to conciliate, by putting arms into the hands of their and the country's deadliest enemies. They had endeavoured to govern by yielding, and by echoing the cant, and employing the agency of Tories. And they leave office; bitter must be their reflections on that disgraceful truth; after four years of power, with Castlereagh's six Acts, and the taxes on knowledge, unrepealed. Not four days of power should they have possessed, without sweeping both from the statute book. But they are out; and we can only endeavour to provide that no popular ministry shall take office without the amplest security for the people's progressing rights, and the unconditional capitu

lation of the court.

In spite, however, of these resolutions; in spite of an abundance of Tory profession; in spite of the treason of journals* (the

The facility with which the leading Journal' veered round from its former position of ultra-whiggism, and showed itself, not purely Tory, but Rota-tory, only failed of being very amusing by being so very disgusting. The most curious incongruities found their way into its columns in consequence of the suddenness of the change. The subalterns had not their cue for a day or two. They were like Frenchmen at the restoration, marching under the white flag with the tri-colour cockade in

'Times' especially) which had been the organs of public opinion: the reformers of the Empire are united. The timely declaration of the metropolitan members is as a banner raised in a crowd, and order follows spontaneously. Meeting after meeting. throughout England, evinces an unimpaired unity of spirit. The characteristic caution of Scotland carries the dread of division even to an extreme degree; and the mighty voice of O'Connell answers for Ireland that the repeal shall be in oblivion till Toryism is trodden down. The Dissenters are up, in their Churches; To your tents, O Israel;' and the operatives see the wondrous difference between the hope of a second Bill of Reform and the possibility of a second field of Peterloo. So let the elections come; let all the lies of the hustings be outdone by future promises; let beer run down the kennels of Liverpool and Norwich; let the Chandos cattle be driven in herds to the county booths; let the Church' be in danger,' and the life and fortune' war-cry raise its last desperate shout; we shall still have the Commons of England in their House of Parliament, and the cause of all honest men will be triumphant.

But there must be no blind gratitude, nor blinder confidence. There is work to be done for the country, of which the electors should make sure. No party names, nor local connexion, nor general character, nor indefinite professions, should avail for a candidate. Nor no length of service, if he will not render the service now needed, and which is essential. Every member should go into the new Parliament solemnly pledged to do his utmost in the very first session, for two great objects. First the completion of organic reform by extending the suffrage, shortening the duration of Parliaments, and granting the vote by ballot and secondly, the commencement of a thorough Church Reform, such as shall restrain the Church to its spiritual functions, and deprive Toryism of its body guard-a corrupt political clergy. All the talk of reform which comes short of this, is moonshine. Without the accomplishment of both these purposes, even Whig moderation cannot hold office for any time, nor any good governtheir caps. We noted, among other specimens, the following instance of Question and Answer from the same broadsheet, that of November 18.

The leading article queries thus:

The object of it (the Common Council Meeting) was to present a requisition to the Lord Mayor to convene a Court of Common Council; but for what purpose do our readers suppose? Why! to consider the propriety of presenting an address to the King, expressing the GENERAL ALARM of the Citizens of London at the unexpected dismissal of the Administration, &c.' GENERAL ALARM! Where are the symptoms of it? In what hole and corner is it hiding itself? We will venture to say that so impudent a pretence as this would not have been hazarded by any man but Mr. Richard Taylor.

To which questions, we receive from Money Market and City Intelligence,' the following reply ready made.

'Among the liberal politicians of this part of the metropolis, the greatest excitement of course still prevails, and it cannot fail to show itself, we think, in action, as soon as the names of the new Ministers are announced.'

ment be anticipated. They are essential; and whoever would induce the people to throw these overboard under the pretext of union, is a deceiver. The union he seeks, would comprehend the people's enemies. The only real pledge of union is the Durham test. The squeamish Whig who will not concede so much to friends, is prepared to concede much more to foes. Had thus much of organic reform been conceded by Earl Grey two years ago, we should not now have been under the Wellington dictatorship; we should not now have been wondering whether the ministry was cashiered for thinking of Church Reform; we should not now have had to fight our battles over again, and have only the consolation of this new crisis being of a more peaceful character than the former; we should not now have had an unreformed House of Lords dreaming, however vainly, of unreforming the House of Commons; we should have been inscribing the tomb of Toryism instead of parrying its dying kicks and convulsive strugglings. But it is not too late to mend the mistake; and heaven helps those that help themselves.

The well-timed pamphlet of Mr. Bulwer's quoted in the foregoing Article, finishes with an excellent comment on the hopes held out that the Duke might become a reformer. We select some of his specimens of Tory claims on popular confidence.'

'Dissenters, their claim to enter the University, and their character

generally.

"Who and what were the Dissenters? Many of them differed but little, except in one or two points, from the Established Church; others of them did not agree with the Church of England in any respect; others denied the Trinity, and others were Atheists. Would it be desirable to place SUCH persons in a situation to inflict injury on the Established Church?"-Speech of the Duke of Wellington, April 20.

666

Again, on the Dissenters' University Bill

If ever that measure should be adopted by the House, which God forbid. ."'—Ibid.

Irish Church Reliefs.

"The object of the government, (for Ireland,) after the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, should have been to do all in their power to conciliate-whom? The Protestants! Every thing had been granted to the Roman Catholics that they could require !"-The Duke of Wellington's Speech, Hansard, p. 950, vol. xix. third series.

'On the Irish Church Temporalities Bill.

"Utterly inconsistent with the policy of the country."

'Irish Tithe Bill.

"If the Government were so feeble, and so irresolute, as to allow the law to be dormant, (in collecting tithes,) then it was no wonder the English Church should be sacrificed.'"-Ibid. Aug. 11.

666

Well," says one journal, "but at least he will give us a Corporation Reform." The following sentence looks like it, certainly: