heat of party, the contagion of example, the force of numbers, will always stir it up, even in opposition to a prudent or a selfish policy. The "verbal fallacies” will decorate the cause it adopts—it will be foolish out of "a sense of duty,” and fall, by the hands of the people, from "the noble resolution to combat for its rights."

We are sure that the justice of these remarks will be commonly acknowledged; and if so, our policy was right-and for the sake of the Peers themselves, the necessary creation of new Peers should have been made long since—are absolutely required now. To the ministers themselves, the want of harmony between the two bodies must present difficulties almost insurmountable, and must be a new source of probable disunion in the Cabinet. For, on the one hand, is a House of Commons all but unanimous, pressing on for measures the most popular; on the other, a House of Lords, dark and lowering, and eager to inflict an instantaneous death, or, at least, a tyrannical mutilation, on the first popular bill that is ushered into their assembly. What a dilemma for a government!-the bill that pleases one body must offend the other. Every new motion will carry in itself the seeds of a fearful dissension-every popular benefit will contain the probability of a convulsive struggle with the privileged order. And this must occasion endless disputes among the members of the government;-there must be some among them who, in every new measure, will look to the Peers, and others who will consider rather the Commons. What different ends!-The poles themselves are not more asunder! The people, too, have cause to be apprehensive, because, with such a House of Lords, the policy of the less popular part of the Cabinet becomes of, perhaps, preponderating influence;-it may also appear, in the eyes of a ministry, (who always must be more conservative than a people,) the wiser policy to lean to. Thus, supposing the Peers remain at variance with the people, there will be a general suspicion that each popular bill introduced into the House will be but a delusion; that, passing into the next stage of deliberation, it will be assuredly frittered from its effic

the spring found will never descend to the mouths that are thirsting for the stream-but

"their currents turn awry,

And lose the name of action."

And this suspicion itself is an evil of no inconsiderable magnitude. When the people distrust, even good becomes soured to them-benefits are derived from unworthy motives; the most necessary delays exasperate them, and every unavoidable obstacle seems to them to have been artfully arranged on purpose to thwart their reasonable desires. How, with such a House of Lords, can that state of popular suspicion and its consequent evils be avoided?

Thus, then, when we begin somewhat carefully to examine the real strength of the administration, we find that it is not so firm as it appears-and that we have proved what we have set out by saying, namely, that the very strength of its majority in the Commons may be the cause of its weakness in the Cabinet-it is probable that, ere long, some of the present component parts will be separated from each other, and, by the laws of political gravity, a few fly off to the natural affinities of Toryism, a few remain attached to the stronger attractions (suited to their several qualities) of office-of popularity of party spirit-or of liberal and conscientious principle.

In the above remarks, which relate to views that the daily journals have of late entirely neglected, we have not the remotest wish either to call up new grounds of popular demand of public disquietude or to embarrass the administration. But we have desired only, in recurring to the obvious necessity of harmonizing the two Legislative Assemblies at present so discordant, to anticipate, as is the duty of a prudent speculator on state affairs, a most important question which must shortly be agitated, and which ought to be adjusted previous to a' collision, and not subsequent to it;-in the former, it is an evil wisely remedied: in the latter, a blunder clumsily repaired. And it is also our wish, in speaking of

those difficulties under which the ministry labour, and which, in the general intoxication of an election, so favourable to liberal principles, have been somewhat overlooked, to prepare the people for accidents it is for their interest to foresee; for by continuing to insist on the great reforms for which a parliamentary reform was required, they will give strength to the more liberal part of the Cabinet, and, in case of a division, will retain their friends in office, and lose only the support of the lukewarm. The ministry must be supported by the people, because, if the people neglect them, it is to the aristocracy they will lean. The ministry must be supported, but in case of a schism, what part of the ministry?-those who advise measures popular with the Commons, or those who counsel motions acceptable to the Peers? If it should come to this alternative, let us rather brave the hostility of the Secretary for Ireland as an orator, than consent to his projects as a statesman.

One word more upon a subject (which forms the link between our foreign policy and our domestic,) before we turn from affairs at home to those abroad—the Dutch war. It will, in all likelihood, be on this ground that the Tory Lords will form their first ground of attack on the ministry: it will be their evident tactics not to delay their division against the government for measures of home policy more popular in the country; they will probably, on the first onset of the parliamentary campaign, condemn by the votes of their majority the conduct of the government and the continuance of the war. What would be the unavoidable result of such a vote? On the one hand, the government must either resign or be remodelled; on the other, they must throw themselves on the Commons, and support their power by a Either alternative, how dangerous to the quiet of the country! If the first, the ministry are shaken-perhaps dissolved; if the last, the House of Lords is at once in open collision with the representatives of the people. In all honesty, and with sincere respect, we ask the ministers if they can foresee this choice of evils, and not endeavour to prevent it while there is

counter vote.

yet time? "Content the people, and manage the nobles -in that one maxim lies the secret of. a wise government;" such is the observation of Machiavel in one of his happiest passages. There is but one mode, at this day, of "managing" the nobles of England: they must be brought, by a conservative admixture of enlightened men, into subscribing without danger, because without a struggle, to "the content of the people."

From these considerations, we now turn to indulge in a few remarks upon the aspect of affairs abroad.

THE POLITICIAN.

་

THE WAR THE CONDUCT OF OUR GOVERNMENT DURING THE CONFERENCE THE CONDUCT OF HOLLAND-THE REASONS FOR OUR EXPEDITION TO ANTWERP-OUR POSITION NOW THAT ANTWERP IS TAKEN.

No slight change has passed over the spirit of our tímes since Swift, by the witty fabrication of Prior's journey to Paris, thought it necessary to prepare the public mind for that terrible calamity-A PEACE.

John Bull was then, indeed, what the author of Gulliver describes him—a hot-headed, bullying kind of fellow, with both hands in the pockets which he was always ready to empty to sustain his honour, as he called it, and support his quarrel, which was (generally speaking) somebody else's quarrel, into which he poked his impertinent nose, swaggering and swearing with all the purse-proud, plethoric impudence of a gentleman better fed than taught "that he would break the peace if he liked it, for he had plenty of money to pay for the mending of it." Who, in the name of Providence, would trace any identity between the rubicund, jolly, and fisticuffing ghost of England's ancient peculiarities, and her present thin, and spare, and careful-looking Genius, who turns up his eyes, and locks up his bureau at the very mention of "war," which he vows to God it is quite impossible that he can pay for? What is it to him, says he, if the Poles are massacred, or the Germans enslaved? Poor creature! he has no pity for any other calamities than his own, and how should he? Has he not borne the world's misfortunes on his shoulders-has he not