against the present Government, has been manifested on the part of the Whig satellites and underlings, especially to the north of the Tweed. They cannot even attend a dinner given to the most obscure of the race of Adam, without using language of which, when the fumes of the banquet were dissipated, we sincerely trust they were ashamed. Men may hold the most extreme opinions without expressing themselves in uncourteous terms; and the offence becomes greater when we find that it is committed by gentlemen from whose character and antecedents-both of them creditable-we had expected better things. Having said this much, we abstain from further comment, and shall not even transfer the obnoxious expletives to our pages. It is sufficient for us to observe that, among parties vitally interested in the return of Lord John Russell to power, there exists a spirit of animosity towards Lord Derby's Government, infinitely greater than what was exhibited before the result of the election was known. Also, it is not without significance that, at all such gatherings, "the great Liberal party' has been invariably talked of as a united and compact body-a circumstance of which we, who have watched the elections narrowly, have hitherto been in ignorance profound. Certainly such union did not prevail in Edinburgh, where one section of the Liberals assailed another with the utmost violence and acerbity-nor in Glasgow and Greenock, from both of which places the brother-in-law of Lord John Russell, who moreover had been the sitting member for the latter town, was compelled to retire in extreme discomfiture-nor in Paisley, where one Liberal of advanced opinions, also sitting member for the place, was nearly driven from the hustings by the furious supporters of another; nor in the Northern burghs, where Messrs Laing and Loch interchanged courtesies most amusing_to the impartial listener. What took Mr Loch, the younger-perhaps the most unlucky candidate of our day Manchester along with Mr Denman, where these two young Whig-Liberals tried to unseat Bright and Milner Gibson, whose liberality could in no

--

-to

wise be impeached? Were these friendly contests? If they were, all we can say is, that the Liberal candidates must, to judge from the language employed, have an exceedingly mean estimate of the principles and motives of each other.

The truth is, that the Whigs, at the present time, are driven almost to desperation; and, like bad swimmers, when out of their depth, are clutching at every floating straw. They are deeply dissatisfied with Lord John on account of his resignation-which is hardly fair, inasmuch as we may conclude, from certain previous passages in his political life, that the noble lord would not have resigned could he possibly have avoided doing so. They know, however, perfectly well that, without him, they are helpless; for, since Palmerston seceded from them, they cannot exhibit in their whole muster-list a single name to which the reputation of more than average ability is attached. They are, indeed, very ill off for men, as must be evident to all who have watched their late attempts to exalt Messrs Tuffnell and Cornewall Lewis -respectable gentlemen enough, but no wizards-to the rank of consummate statesmen. Take Lord John Russell away from them, and they are about as imbecile a set as ever assumed the name of a party. So they are still compelled to put Lord John foremost in the van; and to assert, as one of them-forgetting for a moment his did, the other day, that "if there is to be a reorganisation of the Liberal party, Lord John Russell deserves the highest position among that party." So then, as yet, there has been no reorganisation-the union so impudently assumed, has no actual existence-the Whigs are just where they were, neither trusted, nor honoured, nor loved by various sections of the Liberals.

cue

Indeed, it would be astounding if the case were otherwise, considering how entirely the Whigs have lived, for years past, on the support of others, without vouchsafing the smallest acknowledgment. Most frightful is the picture of selfishness which the Whig traditions disclose. Professing to uphold "the cause of the people

which, in a country constituted like

this, is a term absolutely without meaning, since there is no antagonistic cause they avail themselves of popular excitement, upon doubtful questions of policy, to get possession of power and patronage; and, once installed, do little else than make division of the spoils amongst themselves, to the total exclusion of all who are not hereditary Whigs. The American slave-owner is not more indignant at finding himself placed at table with a coloured man, than is the party Whig, if any sign of favour is shown to a Liberal of another stamp. And, even as the man of colour resents the insolence and exclusiveness of the Yankee, so do most of the independent Liberals abhor the Whig impertinence. We do not wonder at it. People are sick, at the present day, of hearing reiterated trash about the principles of Charles James Fox -we wonder that, for variety's sake, they do not substitute those of Sir Robert Walpole-and the rubbish which forms the staple theme for glorification at Whig banquets. It is not by blowing at cold ashes that party life can be restored. Show us the living man who has his country's good at heart, not simply at the end of his tongue-who aspires to the position of a statesman because he hopes to govern for the nation's weal, not for personal aggrandisement who cares nothing for party, for mere party's sake, and encumbers himself with no traditionary watchwords, or childish Shibboleths, such as are the last inheritance of the Whigs. Such is the man to follow, if we believe in his doctrine and integrity; and such alone can make a party which is truly worthy of the name.

Lord John Russell is no more the leader of the Liberal party than was Theodore of Corsica an anointed king. He may, indeed, assume the airs of a leader, and his immediate partisans may try to represent him as such, and vindicate his claims on the, score of something like prescriptive right; but both he and they know that they are attempting to perpetrate an imposture. They affect to extol Sir James Graham-in reality, they regard him with almost abject terror. They do not know what kind of alliance he may form; and, sooth to say, he

must be a bold man who would venture to predicate the movements of the Knight of Netherby. They hate Palmerston with a hatred more genuine than the admiration they once professed to feel for his consummate ability; and they dare not venture upon a direct coalition with the men of the Manchester school. That once effected, the whole system of Whig tradition would be instantaneously reduced to devil's-dust. As a party, and as a governing power, the Whigs are doomed. It is strange that they are not convinced of a fact so apparent to every one else. If they form, as they still maintain, the principal portion, or matrix, of the Liberal party; and if Lord John Russell is, as they aver, the one man competent to lead that party-how is it that they are now, not in power, but in opposition? The last Parliament was not Conservative-that they admit how happened it, then, that in such a Parliament, the Whig Ministry was compelled to relinquish office? With which section of the Liberals lay the fault, and which is to make the amende? Not the Whigs. They vindicate and maintain the righteousness of their policy, when impugned, even down to the smallest particular. They acknowledge no error; they stand upon entire infallibility. They will not admit that they have gone wrong, or done anything which should shake the confidence of the country. They proclaim themselves still to be the popular party; and, in that belief, hoist their decrepid standard. If they are the popular party, and were so in a Parliament of their own calling, how happens it that they were ejected? Fifty years hence, if there should be then a Whig historian extant, it will be difficult to assign an adequate reason consistent with the character of the party.

Now, why is it that the Whigs are, even now, so clamorous against Lord Derby and his Government? On what grounds can they justify that insolent tone which one and all of them have assumed? "We don't want any trials of untried men." So said a gentleman, the other day, whose interest in Whig ascendancy is too notorious to require explanation! Yet he seems entirely to

forget that he was one of that company of "tried men" who could not keep office when they had it, or maintain a majority in a Parliament emphatically their own. Surely it was rather rash to provoke comparison between the merits and qualifications of the members of the late and present Ministries. From the highest to the lowest-if we were to weigh Lord Derby against Lord John Russell, and the speaker above referred to against the gentleman who now occupies his distinguished position we believe that the balance would be found greatly in the disfavour of the Whigs. It is when a man has been tried and found wanting, that he is justly placed on the list of incapables. Is it consonant with the principles of justice to condemn any man without a trial?

They can point to no one act of the present Ministry which the country has marked with disapproval. What may be the precise nature of the measures which Lord Derby may think proper to pursue, is at present unknown, and will remain so, until the legitimate and constitutional time for the announcement shall arrive. With regard to the one question which of late years has been so prominently before the country, the Premier has been perfectly explicit. He has stated that he will not attempt the reimposition of a duty upon corn against the declared feeling of a majority of the Commons and their representatives. To say that Lord Derby, by pursuing such a course, is acting contrary to principle, is to utter a deliberate falsehood. We have no reason to believe that his opinions have undergone any manner of change. He has never represented himself as a convert to the soundness of the Free Trade doctrines; and several of his colleagues have not hesitated to declare that their convictions remain unaltered as to the ultimate effects of the violent change which was made in the commercial relations of the country. We have all along most strenuously maintained the same views; and we do not see reason to retract one iota of the opinions which we have expressed. But it is not true that Lord

by came into power pledged to

restore Protection. He did not intrigue for office, like others who have so intrigued-he accepted the great trust of Government at the hands of his Sovereign, not to carry out his own peculiar views, but to administer the affairs of the nation in uprightness and in honour. As a statesman he was bound to consider whether it was his duty to make an attempt to reverse the system which he found in active operation; or, still retaining his own opinion. to allow that system to continue, and turn his energies to the difficult task of reconciling interests which hitherto had been placed in opposition to each other. He did so consider it, and the very first announcement he made, as Minister, was to the effect that he would not attempt to reverse that system, unless with the acquiescence of the great majority of the country.

Mark, now, the absurdity, and-if it were worth marking-the inconsistency of the Whigs. Last year, they and their organs affected to regard the possible advent of Lord Derby to power with a sort of religious horror, because, as they said, such an event would necessarily imply the reimposition of duties upon corn. This year, they try to raise an agitation against Lord Derby, throughout the country, because he has distinctly intimated that he will bring forward no such measure! To whom, it may be asked, do they address themselves? Not certainly to the agriculturists; for that aggrieved class of men is little likely to feel flattered by sympathy from such a quarter. When, in the darkest hour of their depression, the agriculturists appealed to Lord Stanley, and intrusted their cause to his hands, they asked no pledges-they entered into no bargain of reciprocal support. They came to a great statesman, of whose honour they were firmly assured, and in whose wisdom they had entire reliance-they prayed him to advocate their cause in the senate

but they did not commit the folly of attempting to bind him to any specific measure. That Lord Derby has the full confidence of the country party, our opponents do not even affect to deny. Do they mean to say that such would have been the case

had Lord Derby abandoned principle? Not they. They are railing against sense and reason, with the rabidity of discomfited men; aud in the venting of their venom, they cannot see the ludicrous inconsistency of their language. Do they expect, by taunting Lord Derby with dereliction of principle, to irritate the Free-Traders against him? If not, why this fury? Formerly they denounced as insanity the idea of a return to Protection now they are indignant with the Ministry because no such return has been proposed!

We have adverted, at greater length then we intended, to the late Whig manifestations by mere subordinates, because these are usually pilot balloons sent up in order to ascertain which way the wind is blowing, before the bigger bubble is let slip from the political Cremorne. After several minor flights, the Whig party held a great gathering at Perth, nominally in honour of Lord Panmure, but actually for the purpose of witnessing the ascent of a greater aeronaut. And accordingly, after some preliminary cackle, Lord John Russell got into his altitudes.

Now, it might have been reasonably expected that, on such an occasion, whilst addressing an audience far from contemptible, in a speech which, in a few hours, would be in the hands of every man in the country who cares one farthing for politics, Lord John would have adverted to the circumstance of his appearing there, neither in the character of Minister, nor in that of leader of the Opposition, but simply as the head of one of the parties of which collectively the Opposition is formed. When a statesman has demitted office, whether spontaneously, or through treachery, or in consequence of defeat, it is natural to suppose that he will advert to that topic, in order to set himself right with his audience, and to explain why it is that he has no longer in his grasp the reins of power. He may be an injured, or he may have been an imprudent man. Has he to forgive or to apologise? In brief, what caused his fall? Upon that point, which we venture to think is a most material one, Lord John Russell is dumb as death. By implication,

indeed, we are led to suppose that he has been deeply injured, for not one admission does he make of a single fault or error committed by him during his whole political career. He has absolutely nothing to regret. He regards the course which he has been pursuing as the correct one in every point of view, and nothing will induce him to deviate from it, either to the right hand or the left. To say the truth, we expected nothing less from the noble lord. Some men-and he is one of that class-have such a settled and entire faith in their own infallibility, that they never can be induced to allow that it is possible for them to fall into error. So, then, the noble lord is to be regarded in the light of a victim!

If it was so, he had the satisfaction of falling in a Liberal Parliament, and by the hands of Liberal conspirators. Was it that he was too virtuous for them, or that they were too jealous of his power? Did the country rise indignantly to protest against so base an assassination? We venture to say that, notwithstanding all the difficulties obviously in the way of the formation of a new Government, one sentiment-that of intense delight at our delivery from Whig misrule-was prevalent among all classes of the people. There was nothing in the Whigs which they could love-very little which they could even regard. Bunglers in finance, they received no credit even for what they did effect, because their only good measures were forced upon them, after their original schemes had been condemned. They contrived to alienate the most respectable portion of the middle classes, whilst they failed to conciliate the Radicals. They first appealed to, and then insulted, the Protestant feeling of Great Britain; whilst in Ireland they managed to incur the bitter hatred of the Roman Catholics.

More than half their schemes were abortive, partly because they were crude and ill-conceived, and partly because they were not intended seriously to be carried through. They engendered dissatisfaction in our colonies, and seriously imperilled our relations with foreign powers. In short, they governed for the sake of governing, not for the sake of the country;

and the whole land was sick of them and their family alliance. When, therefore, Lord John Russell, at Perth, virtually announced that the Whig policy and Whig views were, in so far as he was concerned, to undergo no modification, we can readily ap; preciate the indignation with which that avowal was received by several of the Liberal journals. They saw, what perhaps the noble lord and his immediate supporters did not see, that a coalition on such terms was impossible-that the Radicals could have nothing to say to the Whigs, so long as the latter chose to envelop themselves in their dubious mantle of integrity and that the whole speech was tantamount to a declaration that, on the first opportunity, the old game would be resumed, without any change of method or of partners. We cannot wonder that the wrath of Joseph waxed hot within him as he perused the egotistical harangue. Well might he exclaim with the Mantuan, "Sic vos non vobis mellificatis apes!" and denounce the Bathyllus, who had so often made free with his wisdom, without allowing him to participate in the spoil!

It may, however, be said, that this retinence on the part of Lord John Russell is manly-that he is not disposed to go farther than his own judgment will allow-and that he declines an intimate connection with the Radicals on high constitutional grounds. If so, why these attacks upon the present Ministry? Why did he, after having advised her Majesty to send for the Earl of Derby, take sweet counsel with Messrs Cobden and Hume for the purpose of embarrassing the progress of the Government almost before it was fully formed? And why does he now attack that Government before the nature of its measures are known? Is it patriotism, or is it faction, which has swayed him to a line of conduct very unusual indeed to statesmen situated as he is, and hardly in accordance with the duty which even an ex-Premier must be presumed to owe to the Crown? That he should be in opposition is natural, and perhaps right. But what can we think of his conduct in bay-ing absolutely in the dark-abusing Ministers for not disclosing their

policy before the legitimate time for doing so has arrived-and dealing in insinuation, when, by his own confession, he has no data whatever on which to found the smallest charge? All he can say is, that they have not told him or the country what they are about to do. Of course they have not. Did he expect that he was still to be summoned to Cabinet Councils? Does he think it reasonable that Mr Disraeli should be obliged, before the meeting of Parliament, to communicate the items of his Budget to the public journals, and submit them to the enlightened discussion of the press? Or does he simply mean to hint that, following his own example, and that of divers other illustrious Whigs, some leading member of the Cabinet should have selected some correspondent-bishop or druggistand confided to him the future policy in a letter which, twelve hours after its inditement, might be made the property of the public? He may rest assured that no such heinous folly will be committed on the part of the present Government. In attacking them before he has anything tangible to lay hold of, he has committed a grievous error, for he has at once exposed the littleness and personality of his own motives, and the want of generosity in the section of that party of which he is the accredited champion. We use the word "section advisedly, because in this matter we do not identify Lord John Russell with many of the leading Whigs, who, less prominent in actual debate, do nevertheless exercise an influence far greater than his over the movements of their party. What opposition may be made to Lord Derby's Government by the Lansdownes, Fitzwilliams, and others of the same stamp, will at least be fair and open. They were, undoubtedly, deeply interested in party politics, and they are so interested; but they are beyond the reach of mere factious motives, and they will not consent to be dragged through the mire, simply for the sake of seeing their party in office, or expose themselves to the certain scandal of another Ministerial defeat. Lord John Russell stands just now at the most critical and slippery point of his whole political