become progressively weaker in an age of widely-diffused political intelligence. But an effective substitute for it may be found, if popular constituencies have enough of wisdom and self-control to give permanence to the position of individuals of tried character and ability.

The operation of this principle, so far as it appears in the Senate of the United States, is still the sheet anchor of the American constitution, and if it shall ever be lifted, it will be hard to tell what wreck and confusion may follow. Amongst ourselves, most persons, when not under the influence of election excitement, would admit that there are many public men who, under all changes of government, ought to be in the House of Commons. As representatives of different parties one may name such men as Lord John Russell, Sir James Graham, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Cobden. The list, of course, might be much enlarged, but these are enough to illustrate the principle here contended for. Those men have shown themselves amongst the most competent that England possesses to deal with public affairs. That being the case, what is wanted for the country is their own best and freest thoughts, unbiassed by pressure from without, because they must see, immeasurably better than the majority of their constituents, the bearings of the various questions which come before them. Of course, if a representative absolutely changes his opinion upon a fundamental question, he should do as Sir Robert Peel did in 1829-restore the representative trust to those who placed it in his hands; but excepting such extreme cases, which are now likely to be rarer than ever, resistance on the ground of any question now in agitation, either to Lord John Russell in London, or to Mr. Disraeli in Buckinghamshire, or to Mr. Cobden in the West Riding, would be, according to my view, exactly that vicious and dangerous working of the democratic principle which tends to destroy all independence and high character in public men.

Mr. Macaulay at Edinburgh.

According to these principles, the original position of Mr. Macaulay at Edinburgh was one that ought never to have been disturbed; and it might have been thought that no member of parliament was more certain to have a life tenure of his seat. With the highest qualifications for public life, his political opinions were exactly of that firm and progressive yet moderate character, which might have been supposed to reflect whatever was best in the intelligence of the Scottish metropolis. He, however, was rejected on some contemptible grounds, in favour of a man previously unknown. If there were any so-called Conservatives who joined in the rejection, the proceeding on their parts was suicidal. The loss, as it happened, was a loss only to Edinburgh. The gain, was a gain to Mr. Macaulay and to the whole world. Yet the brilliant proof was not requisite to satisfy any reflective person, that the miserable and exhausting drudgery of attendance at the House of Commons could not have been undertaken, by a man of such genius and such tastes, from any other motive than a sense of public duty.

But the spirit shown by the people of Edinburgh in the case. of Mr. Macaulay, and by the people of Bath in the case of Mr. Roebuck, is the same spirit which in more or less intensity is everywhere to be found, and which in many other cases. encounters less resistance. This is the worst political symptom of the present time, that is to say, not so much the civium ardor prava jubentium itself, as the want of that courageous and uncompromising resistance to it which is its natural and wholesome corrective. In the United States, the evils of this state of things are slow and progressive. But with England, in the present condition of Europe, they may be sharp and sudden. I am unwilling to cast personal reflections, but I must say, that the courage which leads men to brave unpopularity for a great national interest does appear to me to have declined within the last fifty years. Excepting the conduct of Sir Robert Peel upon the two great questions of Roman Catholic

Emancipation and the repeal of the Corn Laws, and the honourable but admirable resistance offered by a small number of public men to the Anti-Papal Bill', there has been little to remind us of that spirit which was shown at the commencement of the French war by Charles James Fox, and in a much higher degree by the late Earl Grey. The amount of public and private obloquy, in the face of which those statesmen persevered in maintaining their own views, would have been too much for the feebler virtue of the present day.

Grounds of Hope.

Against these evils there are many grounds of hope, not only in the religious condition of the nation, but in the widely diffused habits of practical humanity, the existence of which cannot be denied; but these topics are too large to be discussed within the limits of the present work. Two favourable circumstances, however, may be mentioned, as affording some counteraction to the evils that have been dwelt upon. The first is, the great variety of masses into which society in England is divided, and which give rise to such diversities of interest and opinion as it may be hoped will effectually prevent the tyrannical predominance of any one principle. Of this social peculiarity, which is not to be found in France or America, the advantage is inestimable. It ensures this great result-that every opinion or pretension which becomes prominent is sure to get adequately criticised, and, however unpopular the just criticism may often be, it holds its ground, and sooner or later must prevail.

Closely connected with the foregoing is the existence of a newspaper press which, almost more than any other feature in

' I ought, indeed, to mention also the conduct of Sir Robert Peel's Government upon the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Whether that measure was right or wrong, it is certain that the members of Sir Robert Peel's Cabinet could have no motive for taking it up except the belief that it was just, and they carried it through, against the most formidable opposition that a Government can possibly face; that is to say, a combined religious opposition of friends and foes out of doors.

the social condition of England, distinguishes it from other countries. The characteristics of the English press upon which its influence depends are-first, the high moral tone and the consummate ability shown in a large portion of its discussions; but, secondly and chiefly, the fulness and accuracy with which it records all the sayings and doings of public interest which happen not merely in England, but throughout the world.

Character of English Journals.

Having spoken with great freedom on other matters, I will not be prevented by a former connection with the London newspaper press from speaking with equal freedom upon this one. In moral tone and in ability, the leading English journals cannot claim any superiority over those of France, unless such as may be imagined to belong to the peculiarities of the English mind; but it is a great deal to say that they are in no respect surpassed by publications in which the ablest minds of France are habitually represented. France does, or rather, when she was free to speak, used to do, her very best in her journals; England competes with her in that department, and has a vast mass of intellectual power besides, which gives no aid to the journals. In many respects, however, it appears to me that there is now more political ability in the newspaper offices than in the offices of state. No doubt it is often flashy, and would break down if brought to the test of action, but, as far as discussion goes, the work is better done. In one important respect, that is, in the decorum of personal allusion, the House of Commons has a decided superiority over the journals; but in information, logic, and comprehensiveness, the balance inclines to the newspapers. One great source of the influence of newspaper essays, or "leaders," lies in the force of style by which they are often distinguished, and by which, as it appears to me, even the best essays of Queen Ann's age are thrown into the shade. In some cases the wit, in others the eloquence, in others the pregnancy of thought, is the characteristic merit; but, taking as a

whole the leaders and newspaper criticisms of the last fiveand-twenty years, they contain in themselves a body of lite

rature, for which it would be difficult to find a parallel. Very often, when it was a matter of duty for the present writer, as a humble rival or colleague, to study the productions of those who were masters of the craft, a feeling of sadness has arisen at the thought that gifts so rare as those productions indicated should be wasted, and the fine sensibilities impaired, by the fever of nightly composition, upon subjects often of so little permanent interest or value. But the second thought was better; namely, that all this intellectual wealth, which seemed so prodigally poured out, was in fact spent in the most effective education of the national mind; that those labours-great, though attended with no fame-were slowly but surely raising the taste, the intelligence, and the moral tone of the whole English people.

With this high sense of the value of the critical or editorial it the most important department of the newspaper. The most portion of the English newspaper press, I still do not at all think important feature in the English journals, and that which there is nothing to be compared with in other countries, is the fulness and accuracy of their intelligence. Each journal will naturally give most prominence to those movements which it

to correct each other; but I do not believe that in the accounts of public matters there is wilful misrepresentation. In the parliamentary reports unfairness is out of the question. The highest merit in a reporter is always accuracy.

Of course,

when abridgment is necessary, reporters frequently form a very different estimate of the value of what is said, from that which is formed by the speaker, but in such cases the errors of judgment into which the reporters fall are extremely apt to be shared in by the public. Looking to the prodigious and varied

mass

to

be

of facts contained in a newspaper, I am much disposed

think with Mr. Cobden, that one of these journals may more instructive to the ordinary English reader than the