which, as a whole, were felt to be more discreditable to the mercantile character of England than anything that had previously occurred. For the first time, probably, since that early period when Flemish or Italian capital was first advanced upon English good faith, the credit of English merchants generally came under suspicion in foreign countries. Nearly at the same period occurred the scandalous abuses in the management of various railway boards, decidedly worse than anything of the kind that had been known before, and evincing too plainly a growing relaxation in the moral practice of mercantile men. If those events could be taken as fair indications of the morality either of the nation or of the mercantile classes as a whole, the case would be, indeed, past all surgery. But they cannot be regarded in that light, when we call to mind the clear and emphatic reprobation which those transactions received from mercantile men, from statesmen, and from the public press. Whatever progress the disease had made, that general and indignant condemnation was a proof that there was still moral vitality enough to effect its cure, and that the community was sound at heart.

Decline of Moral Courage.

The decay of moral courage amongst public men appears to me to be in many respects a more serious evil, because the tendencies which lead to it seem less capable of counteraction. It has unquestionably increased since the Reform Bill, and threatens to be progressive under the continued working of popular representation. Exactly the same phenomena which De Tocqueville and others have noticed as resulting from the working of democracy in America, are becoming from day to day more prominent in England. Public opinion is growing tyrannical, and those who in any way depend upon its favour have strong temptations to become subservient and parasitical. It is more agreeable to exemplify what is going on by cases of bold and honourable resistance to the evil, than by

those of an opposite description. The separation of Mr. Roebuck from the constituency of Bath was, I think, an evil omen. If he had been more flexible, and less honest, he need not have sought a seat elsewhere. I am not insensible to Mr. Roebuck's faults; but his moral courage, his honesty, and his great power in parliamentary debate, cannot be questioned. Those high qualities, however, were all insufficient to induce a liberal majority to agree in allowing freedom of thought and action to its representative. My own faith in the Reform Bill received a still greater shock from the rejection of Mr. Macaulay by the constituency of Edinburgh in 1847; but before remarking upon this case, it will be well to make one or two general observations.

Permanent Seats for Tried Men.

It is clearly the interest of a popular constituency, when it has once really secured a good man, to keep him, and adhere to him through good report and evil report. They may, in the first instance, scrutinize to the utmost into character and capacity; but, those points once ascertained, it is preposterous that one who is qualified to legislate should be expected to veer about with every breath of popular feeling. At all events, it is certain that the best men will not do so; and if constituencies are determined to establish this slavish relation with their members, they must expect to find in the latter the vices of a slavish spirit. The principle of giving men, once approved of, something like a permanent seat, is a conservative principle, which would now be of immense value, because it is perfectly in harmony with the most advanced ideas of the present age. Lord Mahon has shown, in a very striking manner, how family seats contributed to give steadiness to the working of the old English constitution; the list of the House of Commons in the reign of Queen Anne exhibiting many of the same names, in connection with the same seats, which appeared in that assembly more than a hundred years later. That old principle, however, could not and cannot do otherwise than

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.