invade France, in order to restore the fallen prerogatives of the king, to drown the cry for liberty and reform, and to prop up the then tottering throne of tyranny and despotism. And what followed? Hear it in the words of Alison:-"No doubt (says he) can now exist that the interference of the allies augmented the horrors and added to the duration of the revolution. All its bloodiest excesses were committed during or after an alarm ing but unsuccessful invasion by the allied forces." The allies were repulsed with disgrace; and England then took up the cry, put herself at the head of the coalition,† and forced France into that war which for twenty years darkened the affairs of Europe, and which France did everything in her power to avert. And what has this war left us? Read the answer, written as it is with a pen of blood, in the world itself. Read it in the words of Brougham, who says, "Fifteen millions have been squandered on cruelty and crime-in naturalizing barbarism over the world-shrouding the nations in darknessmaking bloodshed tinge the earth of every country under the sun; and all with the wretched, and, thank God! I may now say, the utterly frustrated, as it always was the utterly vain, attempt to crush the liberties of the people."

We do earnestly hope, then, that the fulsome adulation of Wellington as the defender of our "rights and liberties" will, ere long, cease to be heard. We hope that his admirers will, for the future, base their admiration on another foundation; for, not only does the evidence relating to the war prove this a slippery and unsafe one, but Wellington's military oath, and his theory of duty, wholly incapacitate him for receiving any admiration on this score.§

We come, now, to Wellington's life and

* Vol. v. p. 129.

+"England was still the soul of the coalition, and the implacable son of Chatham made prodigious efforts for the destruction of France."M. Thiers.

Brougham's speech at Liverpool, 1835.

"The soldier, be he commander or common man, who hires himself to do the bidding of whatever government may have power in his country, going out and doing whatever he is commanded to do, without reserving to himself the right of considering whether he fights on the side of liberty or tyranny, of right or of wrong, makes himself a mere automaton, which can deserve no honour."-" Wellington," by Dr. Brown.

character as a man and as a statesman. We confess that we approach this part of our subject with some reluctance. A man in private life may work for good or evil, and the world know it not; and as a statesman, as a public character, there are actions, and reasons for actions, which none can fathom but himself. T. W. and his satellites have looked upon this phase of his character from pretty nearly the same point of view; and, consequently, we shall take them together, as also "Aristides" and "L'Ouvrier,” who have followed on the opposite side. It is amusing to see how this portion of Wellington's life is made subservient to individual views. One sees in it nothing but a personification of virtue and justice, charity and benevolence, sacrifice of self, and entire devotion to the public weal; another, austerity and oppression, selfishness and ingratitude, bigoted opposition and forced concession, legislation for the aristocracy and not for the people.

This part of the subject seems to us to resolve itself into this, Did Wellington act conscientiously? Did he act with a single eye to the furtherance of the interests of society, or was he only animated by class interest, aristocratic prejudice, or implicit obedience to the behest of an earthly power? These questions, and others of a like nature, are hard to solve; but still we must grapple with them. We can scarce go the whole length with Cobden, when he says, "Sometimes it was the Queen; sometimes the public service, or the apprehension of a civil war, or a famine, which changed his course, and induced him to take up a new position; but reason, or conscience, or will, seemed to have no more to do in the matter than in the manœuvres of an army;"* for we think that, at times, reason, will, and conscience, had something to do in the matter; though, at the same time, we cannot but deeply deplore that these noble attributes of the human soul were often lamentably obscured by that sense of duty which he brought with him from the camp to the senate.

Wellington's guiding principles as a statesman are fully embodied in the words, “duty” and "necessity." When fully convinced of the necessity of a measure, he at once applied his almost superhuman energies to the car

* Cobden's pamphlet, " 1793 and 1853,"

rying of it; and we admire his frank and manly explanations of conduct, his utter disregard of party, the contempt with which he met the bitter sneer and biting sarcasm, even when hurled, as it often was, from his own party, and the true John Bull courage and firmness which carried him through difficulties which would have overthrown even greater minds. When fully convinced of the necessity of Catholic emancipation, he at once adopted it, even when the country was far from being unanimous in its support, and when the church, the mouthpiece of the state, was loud in its condemnation; and, amid the most tremendous opposition, he passed it, a full and complete measure. When attacked on the score of having at one time voted against such a measure, he replied in the following simple and disingenuous words:"My lords, I admit that many of my colleagues, as well as myself, did on former occasions vote against a measure of a similar description with this; and, my lords, I must say that my colleagues and myself felt, when we adopted this measure, that we should be sacrificing ourselves and our popularity to that which we felt to be our duty to our sovereign and our country. We know very well that if we had chosen to put ourselves at the head of the Protestant cry of No Popery!' we should be much more popular even than those who have excited against us that very cry. But we felt that in so doing we should have left on the interests of the country a burden which must end in bearing them down, and, further, that we should have deserved the hate and execration of our countrymen.'

On all questions that came before the house we find him frankly declaring his opinion, heedless of praise or blame. Even on the celebrated reform bill there is the same frank and honest avowal of his sentiments. After giving his opinion upon it, as quoted in a previous number of the Controversialist, he says, "I feel bound in candour and honour to state that the proposition of parliamentary reform will meet with my strenuous and decided opposition." This bold avowal was made in the face of the certain destruction of his ministry; and though we may mourn over his want of penetration and sagacity in not seeing the

⚫ Catholic Relief Bill, April 4, 1829.

necessity of such a measure, we cannot condemn his opposition, when it came from a conscientious belief that the "representation could not be improved." And even the reform bill owes something to him; for after a long opposition, and seeing the distracted state of parties, the inflamed condition of the people, and the critical position of the nation, he at once withdrew, along with a hundred peers of his party, from the sittings of the house, and then the bill was passed, 106 voting for it, and 22 against it.*

Wellington was not an enlightened statesman. He was not a liberal man, in the popular sense of that term. He had not that far-seeing glance which can discern at once the wants and requirements of society; and yet he was far more liberal than many of his political creed; and when judged by the men of his own time, instead of the men of our own day, he will lose little by the comparison. "I am not (says he) one of those who consider that the best means of preserving the constitution of the country is by adhering to measures, which had been called for by particular circumstances, because they have been in existence two hundred years, since the lapse of time might render it proper to modify, if not to remove them altogether."†

In conclusion, we would say that Wellington, as a soldier-as a mere machine, that performed its work well, may be justly admired; but when contrasted with such men as Washington, Kossuth, and others, who have fought in defence of their rights and liberties, responsible to none but their God, he dwindles into insignificance. As a statesman he possessed many qualities which we freely admire, and which we would wish to see more common among the statesmen of our own day. We admire his courage and firmness-his frankness and candour-his simplicity and unswerving integrity-his utter contempt of all affectation and canthis immobility amidst all the kingly favours and praises which were bestowed upon himhis undeviating rectitude-his freeness from petty passions and party strifes, and his rigid adherence to whatever he deemed a duty.

We mourn, however, that with the oppor

Hansard's "Debates," and "Life of Welling. ton," by Sir A. E. Alexander, F.R.S. + Debate on Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill, April 21, 1828.

tunities he enjoyed-with the talents which he undoubtedly possessed-with the long life that was permitted him-he did not do more for human freedom and progression; that he did not come more out into the world, and, throwing off his aristocratic prejudices, mix freely with his fellows, sympathize more with their wants and feelings, and try to alleviate and lessen their miseries and distresses. We regret that his cradle was the camp and tented field. We mourn that he was worshipped as a military hero. We mourn that historians sing his praises through the trumpet of glory. We mourn that our poets bend the knee, and in the melody of rhyme portray his victories and triumphs. We mourn that the world delights to honour such-to erect them statues-to give them titles, places, and pensions, passing by the men of mind and intellectual greatness, who so unweariedly work for their elevation and enlightenment. We mourn, in fine, that Wellington lived and died as a warrior. We mourn that his last act was that of a warrior; and we mourn that he has not carried with him into the tomb that military spirit, which is even now fearfully rampant in England, and which is ever opposed to the true interests of man, and the teaching of Christianity.

We have now done. We have felt the onerous nature of our task, and we tremble lest we should have erred; for,

""Tis hard to censure and be just;

To whet the sword too keen or let it rust;"

«Perchance, if we knew the whole, and largely, with comprehensive mind,

Couldst read the history of character, the che. quered story of a life,

And into the great account, which summeth a mortal's destiny,

Wert to add the forces from without, dragging him this way and that;

The secret qualities within, grafted on the soul from the womb,

And the might of other men's example, among whom his lot is cast,

And the influence of want or health, of kindness or of harsh ill usage,

Of ignorance he cannot help, and knowledge found for him by others,

And first impressions hard to be effaced, and leadings to right or to wrong,

And inheritance of likeness from a father, and natural human frailty,

And the habit of health or disease, and prejudices poured into his mind,

And the myriad little matters which none but Omniscience can know,

And the accidents that steer the thoughts where none but Ubiquity can trace them :If we could compass these, and the consequents flowing from them,

And the scope to which they tend, and the necessary fitness of all things," then could we truly and unerringly estimate character; then should we read the "secrets of the heart and the reasons of the mind;" but now we truly feel that

"There is so much of good among the worst, so much of evil in the best,

Such seeming partialities in Providence, so many things to lessen and expand;

Yea, and with all man's boast, so little freedom of his will,

That to look a little lower than the surface, garb, or dialect, or fashion

We may feebly pronounce for a saint, or faintly condemn for a sinner."

and,

J. N. C.

"He was disposed," Lord Aberdeen said, "to dissent from the maxims which had of late years received very general assent, that the best security for the continuance of peace was to be prepared for war. That was a maxim which might have been applied to the nations of antiquity, and to society in a comparatively barbarous and uncivilized state, when warlike preparations cost but little; but it was not a maxim which ought to be applied to modern nations, when the facilities

of the preparations for war were very different. Men, when they adopted such a maxim, and made large preparations in time of peace that would be sutficient in time of war, were apt to be influenced by the desire to put their efficiency to the test, that all their great preparations, and the result of their toil and expense, might not be thrown away. He thought, therefore, that it was no security to any country against the chances of war, to incur great expense and make great preparations for