To whom all communications (post paid) must be addressed.
SOLD BY ALL THE BOOKSELLERS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
PRINTED BY WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS, EDINBURGH.
263
BLACKWOOD’S
EDINBURGH MAGAZINE.
No. CCCCLV. SEPTEMBER, 1853. Vol. LXXIV.
Notwithstanding all that has
been said regarding the strict impartiality
required from an historian,
we are of opinion that the theory,
however proper and plausible, can
hardly be reduced to practice by any
writer whilst treating of affairs in
which he must feel a national or political
interest. If facts alone were
to be dealt with, it might, at first
sight, appear no very difficult task
to present an accurate and orderly
array of these. But no one who has
had occasion to investigate minutely
contemporary records, for the purpose
of arriving, if possible, at a clear and
distinct understanding of the details
of any one particular transaction, can
have failed to remark the startling
discrepancies and gross contradictions
which meet him at every turn. There
is, indeed, a common skeleton or
framework, but the clay which is cast
around it, and moulded into form,
differs in shape according to the peculiar
instincts of the artist. Even
diarists, who might be supposed to be
impartial, as labouring solely for their
own gratification, are by no means to
be implicitly received in regard to
what they set down. The many
tongues of rumour begin to babble
contrariety almost as soon as a deed
is acted. You cannot be certain that
the event of yesterday is narrated to
you one whit more faithfully than that
which occurred a hundred years ago.
All men have their prepossessions and
tendencies towards belief—what they
wish they accept without investigation;
and discard with as little ceremony
all that is obnoxious to their
views. Men there are, undoubtedly,
at all times, who cannot be termed
partisans, seeing that they have no
leaning to one side or other of a dispute;
but theirs is the impartiality
of indifference, not of conscientiousness.
And as it rarely happens that
a man thinks it worth his while to
preserve a record of events in which
he does not feel a vivid interest, history
receives very little assistance
from the contributions of cold-blooded
spectators. Take any event of moderate
remoteness; and, if it be of such
a nature as to excite party antagonism,
you will find, almost invariably,
that the real evidence is resoluble into
two parts—one of assertion and one of
contradiction. For example, even a circumstance
so publicly notorious as a
political execution, shall be related by
two eyewitnesses in a totally different
manner. One of them, whose
opinions are precisely identical with
those of the victim, describes his bearing
and demeanour at the scaffold as
heroic, and claims for him the sympathy
of the populace—the other, who
regards him as a criminal of the deepest
dye, charges him with cowardly
pusillanimity, and declares that he departed
from this life amidst the execrations
of the mob. As to what took
place before the execution, when the
prisoner was necessarily secluded from
the eyes of both witnesses, that must
ever remain a mystery. The friend
portrays him as a Christian martyr,
surrounded by fiends in human shape,
whose delight was to insult his misfortunes—the
enemy would have you
look upon him as a poltroon, whose
fear of death was so abject as to overcome
all his other faculties. So difficult
is it, even at the source, to acquire
accurate information as to the complexion
of the facts upon which subsequent
historians must found.
Passing from facts to motives, there
is of course much greater discrepancy.
The grand outlines of history cannot
be violently distorted, though the
accessories constantly are. Certain
landmarks remain, like mountains,
unchangeable in their form, though
the portraying artist may invest them
either with sunshine or with storm.
But in dealing with the characters of
public men, historians are rarely liberal,
almost never impartial. They
judge the man, not only by his cause,
but by their estimate of his cause. If
the tendencies of the writer are puritanical,
he will see no merit in the
devotion, loyalty, and courted sufferings
of the cavalier; nay, he will
often insinuate that he was actuated
by baser motives. On the other hand,
the writer who detests the violence
and condemns the principles of the
Parliamentarian faction, is too apt to
include, in his general censure, men
of unblemished life and irreproachable
private character. And the temptation
to exaggerate becomes all the
greater, because exaggeration has already
been practised on the other side.
Mr Burton, in his praiseworthy
endeavours to elucidate the history
of Scotland from the Revolution of
1688, down to the suppression of the
Jacobite cause in 1746, has exhibited,
throughout his work, very little of the
spirit of the partisan. In this respect
he is entitled to much credit—the
more so perhaps, as, had he chosen to
adopt the other course, he might have
pleaded the example of a brilliant
living authority, who is rather to be
regarded as a fashioner than as a
truthful exponent of history. His
subject, too, is a difficult one, and
such as few men living could approach
without exhibiting a decided bias on
one side or on the other. In Scotland,
religious and political zeal run constantly
into extremes, so that zealotry
perhaps is the more appropriate term.
There was no considerable neutral
party in the country, constituted as it
then was, to recall the others to reason,
or to temper their stern enthusiasm;
and hence arose that series of
conflicts and commotions which, for
more than a century, convulsed the
kingdom. Even now, men are not
agreed as to the points on which their
ancestors disputed. They have inherited,
concerning the events of the past,
a political faith which they will not
surrender; and the old leaven is seen
to affect the consistency of modern
character. From this sort of party
spirit Mr Burton is remarkably free.
He has diligently collected facts from
every available source, but he has not
allowed himself to be swayed by the
deductions of previous writers. In
forming his estimate of public characters,
he has dismissed from his mind,
as much perhaps as it was possible
for man to do, the extravagant eulogy
of the friend, and the indiscriminate
abuse of the opponent; and it must
be acknowledged that many of his
individual portraits impress us with
the idea of reality, though they differ
widely in resemblance from the handiwork
of other artists. A book of history,
constructed on such principles,
though it may not excite enthusiasm,
is undeniably entitled to respect; and
as Mr Burton was eminently qualified,
by his previous studies and pursuits,
to undertake this difficult task, we are
glad at length to receive from his
hands so valuable a contribution to
the history of Scottish affairs during
a period of peculiar importance.
If it were our intention to enter into
a minute consideration of the subject-matter
of the work, we should be
inclined to take exception to some
portions of the narrative, as calculated
to convey erroneous impressions as to
the social state of the country. We
have already said that, as a political
chronicler, Mr Burton may be considered
as remarkably free from prejudice.
We ought to add that he is
equally fair in his estimate and analysis
of the religious differences which
were, in Scotland, for a long period,
the fruitful sources of discord; and
that he has succeeded, better than
any former historian, in explaining the
nature of the ecclesiastical difficulties
which—arising out of the intricate
question of the connection between
Church and State, and the efforts of
the latter to restrain the former from
arrogating, as had been done before,
an entire and dogmatic independence
of action—have resulted in repeated
secessions from the main Presbyterian
body. But we cannot accord him the
same meed of praise for his sketches
of the Highlanders, and his attempted
delineation of their character. The
martial events of last century, in
which the Highlanders were principally
engaged, have given them, in
the eyes of strangers, a prominence
greater than is their due; so that,
even at the present day, Englishmen
and foreigners are apt, when reference
is made to Scotland, to form an entirely
mistaken view as to the bulk of
the population. Many of the present
generation must remember the singular
spectacle which Edinburgh displayed
during the visit of George IV.,
when the tartan mania was at its
height, and the boundary of the clans
seemed to have been extended from
the Highland line to the Tweed.
There was no harm in such a demonstration,
but it tended to generate
and diffuse false ideas; which,
however, may be corrected without
unduly lowering the position of the
Highlanders, or denying them that
consideration which their valour undoubtedly
deserves. When we remember
the materials of which the
armies of Montrose, Dundee, Mar, and
Charles Edward were composed, we
should be slow to credit the assertion
that the Highlanders have played an
unimportant part in Scottish history;
nor can we assent to the sweeping
propositions advanced by writers who,
for years past, have been ringing the
changes upon what they are pleased
to term the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon
race, over every other sept
which has a distinct name, and especially
over such of the inhabitants of
the British Isles as are supposed to be
of a different descent. Notwithstanding
the vast intermixture of blood
which has taken place, there are undoubtedly
visible, even at the present
day, in so small a country as Scotland,
very marked peculiarities of race; but,
without descending to the minute distinctions
of the antiquarian, the Scottish
nation has, by popular consent,
been long divided into two sections,
territorially separated—the Lowlanders
and the Highlanders. Whatever
may have been the origin of the Lowlanders,
it is at all events certain that
up to the reign of Malcolm III. there
were few or no Saxons in the land.
“Malcolm,” says Hailes, “had passed
his youth at the English court; he
married an Anglo-Saxon princess; he
afforded an asylum in his dominions to
many English and Norman malcontents.
The king appeared in public with
a state and retinue unknown in more
rude and simple times, and affected to
give frequent and sumptuous entertainments
to his nobles. The natives
of Scotland, tenacious of their ancient
customs, viewed with disgust the introduction
of foreign manners, and
secretly censured the favour shown to
the English and Norman adventurers,
as proceeding from injurious partiality.”
Of many important districts on
the coasts, the Scandinavians acquired
and retained possession, and some of
the nobility and gentry are undoubtedly
of Norman descent. But the old
names, such as those of Douglas,
Graham, Ogilvie, and Keith, are indigenous
to the country, and have no
more affinity with the Saxon than
they have with the Hungarian race.
Alexander III.—whose accidental
death at Kinghorn led to the nefarious
attempts of the English Edward
upon the liberties of a free nation—was
the last of a long line of Celtic
monarchs, in whom, however, it is
not now the fashion for our petty virtuosos
to believe. That descent, which
tradition had preserved from times of
the remotest antiquity—which was
referred to as acknowledged fact in
the public acts of the legislature and
official documents of the kingdom—which
was not refuted nor denied when
advanced as a plea against the pretended
right of suzerainty asserted for
the English crown—which such men
as Fletcher and Belhaven cited in the
course of their arguments against an
entire incorporating union—is sneered
at by modern antiquaries who have
nothing to substitute for the faith
which they seek to overthrow. Indeed,
to call such gentlemen antiquaries,
is a direct abuse of language.
Scriblerus, we are told, flew into a
violent passion when, by dint of unnecessary
scouring, his handmaid demonstrated
that the ancient buckler
in which he prided himself, was nothing
more than a rusty pot lid. His
successors take the scouring into their
own hands, and deny the possibility
of a buckler. Our present business,
however, is not with the pseudo-antiquaries—for
whom we entertain a sentiment
bordering very closely upon
contempt—we simply wish to show
that the term Saxon, as applied to the
Scottish Lowlanders, is altogether inappropriate;
and that, if there is any
remarkable degree of energy in their
character which distinguishes them
from the Highlanders, it does not, at
all events, arise from a superabundant
infusion of the Anglo-Saxon blood.
Energy, indeed, is about the last quality
that can be claimed for the Saxons.
They were brave, no doubt, but also
intensely phlegmatic; and, in point of
intellect, were not to be compared
either to the Normans or the Danes.
They were smally endowed with that
imaginative faculty which is so remarkable
a characteristic of the Celtic
race—displayed but little aptitude for
proficiency in the arts—and in all matters
of taste and cultivation were exceedingly
slow and unimpressible.
Owing to the peculiar nature of the
country in which they were located,
and to their obstinate adherence to
the patriarchal, as opposed to the
feudal system, the Highlanders retained
not only their speech but their
original manners and customs, while
the Lowlanders were gradually altering
theirs. Thus there came to be,
within the same country, and nominally
owing allegiance to the same
sovereign, two great sections which
held but little intercourse with each
other. Still they were both Scots, and
gathered round the same standard.
At Bannockburn and at Flodden, the
Highland chief and clansman fought
alongside of the Lowland knight and
man-at-arms; and some of the most
powerful heads of tribes stood high in
the roll of the nobility. In this way
the Highland influence, important on
account of the warlike material which
it commanded, was always more or less
powerfully represented at the court of
Scotland; and although the southern
population generally saw little, and
knew less, of their northern neighbours,
it is not true that there existed
between them a feeling of strong animosity.
Raids and reprisals there
were undoubtedly; but these were
common from Caithness to the border.
The strife was not always between the
tartan and the broadcloth. Scotts
and Kerrs, Johnstones and Maxwells,
fought and harried one another with
as much ferocity as did the Campbells,
Macdonalds, and M‘Leans in their
mountain country; nor, if we are to
trust contemporary accounts, is it very
clear that the former were decidedly
superior in civilisation to the latter.
Mr Burton, we think, has not done
full justice to the Highland character.
Whatever may be thought of the abstract
merits of the cause which they
espoused, the resolute adherence of
the Highland clans to the exiled
family, the surprising efforts which
they made, and sufferings which they
endured in the last memorable outbreak,
must ever command our sympathy,
and excite our warm admiration.
Surely Mr Burton might have
been contented with narrating the fact
that, notwithstanding the reward of
thirty thousand pounds offered for the
apprehension of Prince Charles Edward,
none of the poor Highlanders
or outlaws whom he encountered in
his wanderings would stoop to the
treachery of betraying him, without
suggesting that the amount “was too
large for their imagination practically
to grasp as an available fund”! The
same under-current of depreciation
towards the Highlanders is visible in
his account of the atrocious massacre
of Glencoe, and even in the half-apologetic
manner in which he palliates,
though not excuses, the butcheries of
Cumberland after the battle of Culloden.
It is necessary to note these
blemishes, the rather because they
occur in a work distinguished, in other
respects, for a high degree of accuracy.
We have the less inclination to
enter upon disputed grounds, because
the points on which we differ from
Mr Burton are not of practical moment.
The political intrigues and
risings of the last century have not
left any permanent effect upon the
social condition of the country; but
the subsequent blending together of
the Lowland and Highland population,
and the establishment throughout
the country of a uniform administration
of the laws, have been productive
of the happiest results. So
far the changes have wrought well
within Scotland. But the great event
of last century undoubtedly is the
union between England and Scotland,
which, often proposed, and long delayed
by mutual jealousy and clashing
interests, has elevated Great Britain
to the foremost rank among the European
states.
That union was carried into effect,
not as the result of any sympathy between
the English and Scottish nations—for
antipathy rather than sympathy
was felt on both sides—but as
an absolute political necessity. In
truth, such an event was an almost
inevitable sequel to the union of the
crowns in the person of one monarch,
at least if that arrangement was to be
maintained; and it could not be long
delayed. There is, in Lockhart’s
Papers, an anecdote which shows how
early this was foreseen. “We are
told,” says he, “that when King
James was preparing to go and take
possession of his crown of England,
his subjects of Scotland came to take
their leave of him, and attend him
part of his way thither with all the
state and magnificence imaginable;
but amongst these numerous attendants,
decked up in their finest apparel,
and mounted on their best horses,
there appeared an old reverend gentleman
of Fife, clothed all over in the
deepest mourning; and being asked
why, whilst all were contending to
appear most gay on such an occasion,
he should be so singular? ‘Why,
truly,’ replied he, ‘there is none of you
congratulate His Majesty’s good fortune
more than I do, and here I am
to perform my duty to him. I have
often marched this road, and entered
England in an hostile manner, and
then I was as well accoutered in
clothes, horses, and arms, as my
neighbours, and suitable to the occasion;
but since I look upon this procession
as Scotland’s funeral solemnity,
I’m come to perform my last
duty to my deceased and beloved
country, with a heart full of grief,
and in a dress correspondent thereto.’
This gentleman, it seems, foresaw
that, by the removal of the king’s
residence from Scotland, the subject
wanted an occasion of making so immediate
an application to the fountain
of justice, and the state of the nation
could not be so well understood by
the king; so that the interest and
concerns of every particular person,
and likewise of the nation in general,
would be committed to the care of the
ministers of state, who, acting with
a view to themselves, could not fail to
oppress the people. He foresaw that
England, being a greater kingdom,
made (as said Henry VII. when he
gave his daughter to the King of
Scotland rather than the King of
France) an acquisition of Scotland,
and that the king would be under a
necessity of siding with, and pleasing
the most powerful of his two kingdoms,
which were jealous of, and
rivals to, one another; and that,
therefore, ever after the union of
the crowns, the king would not mind,
at least dare encourage, the trades of
Scotland; and that all state affairs
would be managed, laws made and
observed, ministers of state put in and
turned out, as suited best with the
interest and designs of England; by
which means trade would decay, the
people be oppressed, and the nobility
and great men become altogether corrupted.”
These anticipations—though
probably confined to a few who were
not dazzled at the prospect of the
enormous succession which had opened
to their prince, nor rendered blind to
the future by the splendour of the
present triumph—were afterwards
thoroughly realised. From the union
of the crowns, Scotland derived no
permanent benefit, but the reverse.
She retained, indeed, her parliament;
but she had parted with the presence
of her sovereign, who was entirely
surrounded and swayed by English
influence. Whenever the interests of
the two countries clashed—and that
was not seldom—the weaker was sure
to suffer; and thus, instead of increasing
amity, a feeling even bitterer than
that which had existed while the
kingdoms were entirely independent,
was engendered. No wonder that
there were rebellions and outbreaks;
for, in a political point of view, it
would have been better for Scotland
to have had no king at all, than to
owe allegiance to one who was necessarily
under English dictation. Hence,
instead of advancing like England,
steadily in the path of prosperity,
Scotland rapidly decayed—until, to
use the words of an historian of the
union—“in process of time, the nobility
and gentry turned, generally
speaking, so corrupted by the constant
and long tract of discouragement
to all that endeavoured to rectify
the abuses and advance the interests
of the country, that the same was entirely
neglected, and religion, justice,
and trade made tools of to advance
the private and sinister designs of
selfish men; and thus the nation,
being for a hundred years in a manner
without a head, and ravaged and
gutted by a parcel of renegadoes, became,
from a flourishing, happy people,
extremely miserable.”
Passages like the foregoing are apt
to be regarded as general complaints,
which hardly could be substantiated
by reference to special instances.
There is, however, abundance of evidence
to show that Scotland, during
the period which intervened between
the union of the crowns and that of
the kingdoms, was greatly depressed
by the influence and policy of her
more powerful neighbour. Under
Cromwell, an entire freedom of trade
had been established between the
two countries. His ordinance was
as follows: “That all customs, excise,
and other imposts for goods
transported from England to Scotland,
and from Scotland to England, by
sea or land, are, and shall be, so far
taken off and discharged, as that all
goods for the future shall pass as free,
and with like privileges, and with the
like charges and burdens, from England
to Scotland, and from Scotland
to England, as goods passing from
port to port, or place to place in
England; and that all goods shall
and may pass between Scotland and
any other part of this commonwealth
or dominions thereof, with the like
privileges, freedom, and charges, as
such goods do or shall pass between
England and the said parts or dominions.”
“Thus,” remarks Mr Burton, who has
entered very fully and distinctly into the
trading and commercial history of the
times, “there was no privilege enjoyed
by traders in England which was not
communicated to Scotland; and what was
not even attempted in France till the
days of Turgot, and only arose in Germany
with the Prussian league—an internal
free trade—was accomplished for
Britain in the middle of the seventeenth
century. It was during the few years of
prosperity following this event that many
of our commercial cities arose. Scotland
enjoyed peace and abundance, and was
making rapid progress in wealth.”
After the Restoration, however, the
Parliament of England repealed this
wise arrangement, and by enacting
that the Scottish people should be
commercially considered as aliens, introduced
a fresh element of discord
between the nations.
“In 1667, commissioners were appointed
from the two kingdoms to treat
of union, when this object of a free trade
was at once brought prominently forward
on the part of Scotland, and at once repelled
on that of England. It was stated
that the colonies had been created at the
expense of Englishmen, and should exist
for their advantage only; that the East
India and some other trades were monopolies
in the hands of companies, not even
open to the English at large, which it
was out of the question to communicate
to any strangers; and, finally, that the
privileges of English shipping were far
too precious to the merchants of England
to be extended to Scotsmen.”
This churlishness on the part of
England was the more inexcusable,
because the Scots nation was not left,
as of old, free to form an unfettered
and reciprocal alliance with any of the
Continental states. From very early
times, the relations between Scotland
and France had been of the most intimate
description—it being the policy
of the latter country to support the
former, and to retain its friendship,
as the most effective check upon English
aggression. The military service
of France had long been open to the
enterprising Scottish youth, and at
the French universities the northern
men of letters were received with
open arms. But the union of the
crowns, if it did not entirely close, at
least greatly limited the extent of this
intercourse. If England went to war
with France, all communication with
Scotland was necessarily closed. It
might not be Scotland’s quarrel, but
the enemies of the King of England
were also to be considered as her
foes. Hence she found that, on the
one hand, her old relations were ruthlessly
broken off, whilst, on the other,
she was denied all participation in
the commercial privileges which were
rapidly augmenting the wealth of her
southern neighbour. Hume tells us
that “the commerce and riches of
England did never, during any period,
increase so fast as from the Restoration
to the Revolution.” At the accession
of the Stuarts to the English
throne, the revenue of that country
amounted to about £500,000: in
1688, when James II. left the throne,
it had risen to £2,000,000. Within
twenty-eight years the shipping of
England had more than doubled.
And, while this extraordinary degree
of prosperity prevailed in the south,
Scotland was daily becoming poorer,
not through the fault or indolence of
her people, but in consequence of that
anomalous connection, which, while
it withheld any new advantages, deprived
her of the opportunity of the
old.
One effort, which well deserves to
be remembered in history, was made
by the Scottish nation to rescue themselves
from this degrading position.
We allude to the Darien scheme,
which, though unfortunate in its issue,
was yet as bold and comprehensive a
commercial enterprise as ever was
undertaken. That it failed, was undoubtedly
not the fault of the projectors.
The most disgraceful means
were used on the part of the English
government, at the instigation of
English merchants alarmed for the
continuance of their monopoly, to
render it abortive; and even were
the character of William of Orange
otherwise without reproach, his duplicity
and treacherous dealing in this
transaction would remain as a dark
blot upon his memory. But in thus
attempting, disreputably and unfairly,
to crush the rising spirit of Scottish
enterprise in a field hitherto unoccupied,
the English advisers of the crown
had gone too far. True, they had
succeeded in annihilating nearly all
the available capital of the northern
kingdom, which had been embarked
in this gigantic scheme; but they had
also roused to a point almost of ungovernable
fury the passion of an insulted
people. There is this peculiarity
about the Scots, that they are
slow to proclaim a grievance, but resolute
to redress it when proclaimed.
The extreme quietude of demeanour
and retinence of speech have sometimes
been falsely interpreted as indicative
of a want of spirit; whereas,
on the contrary, no people can be
more keenly alive than they are to a
sense of injury. And such was the
attitude of the Scottish parliament
at the time, and such the defiant tone
of the nation, that William, seriously
alarmed for the safety of his throne,
“took up the neglected question of
the union, and earnestly recommended
such a measure to the House of Lords,
with a special reference to the history
of Darien, and to the adjustment of
trading privileges, as the only means
of saving the two nations from endless
and irreconcilable discord.”
It was not, however, destined that
the union of the kingdoms should
be effected under the auspices of
the prince whose name in Scotland
is indissolubly connected with the
tragedies of Glencoe and Darien.
The accession of Queen Anne, a
daughter of the house of Stuart,
inspired the Scottish people with the
hope that their grievances might
be at last redressed, or, at all events,
be considered with more fairness than
they could expect from her predecessor,
who was an utter stranger to
their habits and their laws, and whose
title to rule, being questionable in
itself, might naturally lead him to
show undue favour to the stronger
nation which had accepted him, at
the expense of the weaker and more
remote. It was now perfectly evident
to all who were capable of
forming a judgment on the matter,
that, unless some decided step were
taken for admitting the Scots to a
commercial reciprocity with the
English, an entire separation of the
two kingdoms must inevitably take
place. With a large portion of the
northern population, the latter alternative
would have been cheerfully
accepted. What they complained of
was, that they were uselessly fettered
by England—could not take a single
step in any direction without interfering
or being interfered with by
her—were denied the privilege, which
every free nation should possess, of
making their own alliances; and had
not even the right of sending an
accredited ambassador to a foreign
court. They had no objection, but
the reverse, to be associated with
England on fair terms; but hitherto
there appeared no reason to hope
that such terms would ever be granted;
and they would not consent to
be degraded from their rank as an
independent nation. The English
were, on the other hand, exceedingly
adverse to any measure of conciliation.
As in individuals, so in nations,
there are always peculiarities which
distinguish one from another; and
an overweening idea of their own
superiority is essentially the English
characteristic. A great deal has been
and is written in the South about
Scottish nationality—it is, in reality,
nothing compared to the feelings
which are entertained by the Englishman.
But of this we shall have
occasion to speak presently; in the
mean time, it is sufficient to note that
no measure could have been more
unpopular in the trading towns and
shipping ports of England, than one
which proposed to admit the subjects
of the same crown to an equal participation
of privileges. Accordingly,
the first attempt of Queen Anne,
made only three days after her accession,
in her opening speech to the
Parliament of England, towards a
union between the two countries,
proved entirely abortive. It is worth
while quoting from Mr Burton the
note—for it is little more—of this
negotiation, for the purpose of showing
how determined the English
people were to maintain their old
monopoly. Commissioners on either
side were appointed.
“It became at once apparent that the
admission of Scotland to equal trading
privileges was still the great difficulty
on the side of England. The first fundamental
proposition—the succession to
the throne, according to the Act of Settlement—was
readily acceded to, as well
as the second for giving the United
Kingdom one legislature. As an equivalent
fundamental article, the Scottish
commissioners demanded ‘the mutual
communication of trade, and other privileges
and advantages.’ To this it was
answered, that such a communication
was indeed a necessary result of a complete
union; but a specific answer was
deferred, until the Board should discuss
‘the terms and conditions’ of this communication.
There was a deficiency of
attendance of English members to form
a quorum, which for some time interrupted
the treaty. Whether this was
from their being otherwise occupied, or
from distaste of the business before them,
it chafed the spirits of the Scots. When
the two bodies were brought together
again, the trade demands of the Scots
were articulately set forth. They demanded
free trade between the two
nations; the same regulations and duties
in both countries for importation and
exportation; equal privileges to the shipping
and seamen of the two nations; the
two nations not to be burdened with
each other’s debts, or, if they were to
be so, an equivalent to be paid to Scotland,
as the nation more unequally so
burdened; and, lastly, it was proposed
that these demands should be considered
without reference to existing companies
in either kingdom. This was well understood
by both parties to have reference
to the Darien affair.
“On the part of England it was conceded
that ‘there be a free trade between
the two kingdoms for the native
commodities of the growth, product, and
manufactures of the respective countries.’
But even this concession, defined so as to
exclude external trade, was not to extend
to wool—an article on which English
restrictions on exportation, for the
support of home manufacture, had risen
to a fanatical excess. A reference was
made to the colonial trade—the main
object of the Scottish demand of an exchange
of commercial privileges. It was
postponed, and in a tone indicating that
it was too precious, as a privilege of
Englishmen and a disqualification of
Scotsmen, to be conceded.”
After further communing, without
any satisfactory result, the meetings
of the commissioners were adjourned;
and there stands on the minutes of
the Scottish Parliament the following
brief but exceedingly emphatic resolution,
that the Scottish commission
for the treaty is terminate and extinct,
and not to be revived without the
consent of the Estates.
These details are absolutely necessary
for a proper understanding of the
circumstances under which the great
Act of Union of the two kingdoms was
finally carried. Former historians have
given too much prominence to mere
party intrigues and ecclesiastical contests,
which, though they undoubtedly
lend a colour to the transactions of
the times, are by no means to be regarded
as the sole motives of action.
The Presbyterian form of Church government
was by this time finally
settled; and there was no wish, on
the part of any large section in the
country, to have that settlement disturbed.
The Jacobite or Cavalier
party regarded the proposals for a
union with suspicion, as necessarily
involving a surrender of their cherished
principle of legitimacy; and it
is not unreasonable to suppose that
many of them were rather glad than
otherwise to perceive that the failure
of the negotiation was entirely attributable
to the tenacity and superciliousness
of the English. Some of
the nobility were conscientiously opposed
to an entire incorporating union
as degrading to the country, and injurious
to the dignity of their own
order; and they were supported in
that view by a large number of the
gentry, who were not sufficiently conversant
with commercial affairs to
understand the enormous importance
of the development of the national
trade. But in the midst of parties
actuated by traditionary feeling and
sectarian motives, there had arisen
one, the members of which were fully
alive to the critical state of the country,
earnestly impressed with the necessity
of elevating its position, and,
withal, determined that its honour
should not suffer in their hands.
At the head of this independent
body of politicians was Fletcher of
Saltoun, a man of high and vigorous
intellect, but of a hasty and impetuous
nature. Fletcher was heart and soul
a Scotsman, and devoted to his country.
Loyalty to the sovereign was
with him a secondary consideration—indeed
he seems always to have entertained
the theory that the kingly
office was simply the result of the
election of the people. He had taken
an active part in Monmouth’s rebellion,
and fought against King James—William
he looked upon as no better
than a usurping tyrant—and he
was now ready to transfer the crown,
if transferred it must be, to the head
of any claimant, if by so doing he
could rescue his country from what
he deemed to be intolerable degradation.
Those who followed Fletcher,
and acted along with him in Parliament,
did not subscribe to all these
peculiar opinions; but, like him, they
regarded the welfare of the country
as their primary object, and were
determined, since England would not
come to terms, to achieve once more
an entire and thorough independence.
They looked for support, as brave
men will ever do in such emergencies,
not to party politicians who might
use and betray them, but to the great
body of the people; and they did not
appeal in vain.
The last Parliament ever held in
Scotland, assembled on the 6th of
May 1703. Nothing was said about
further negotiation for a union, but
something was done significant of the
determination of the country to vindicate
its rights. An act was passed
restraining the right of the monarch
to make war, on the part of Scotland,
without the consent of the Scottish
Parliament. Another, by removing
the restrictions on the importation of
French wines, was intended to show
that the Scottish legislature did not
consider themselves involved in the
English continental policy. But the
most important measure by far was
that termed the “Act for the Security
of the Kingdom.” The crown of England
had been formally settled upon
the Princess Sophia and her heirs,
failing direct descendants of Queen
Anne, and it appears to have been
confidently expected that the Scottish
Parliament would adopt the same
order of succession. So little doubt
seems to have been entertained on
this point, that no conference on the
subject had been held or even proposed,—a
neglect which the Scots
were entitled to consider either as an
insult, or as an indirect intimation
that they were at perfect liberty to
make their own arrangements. The
latter view was that which they chose
to adopt. In their then temper, indeed,
it was not to be expected that
they would let slip the opportunity of
testifying to England that, except on
equal terms, they would enter into no
permanent alliance, and that, in the
event of these not being granted, they
were desirous to dissolve the connection
by effecting a separation of the
crowns. The main provisions of the
Act, as it was passed, were these:—
“That on the death of the Queen without
issue, the Estates were to name a successor
from the Protestant descendants
of the royal line of Scotland, but the admitted
successor to the crown of England
was excluded from their choice, unless
‘there be such conditions of government
settled and enacted as may secure the
honour and sovereignty of this crown and
kingdom,—the freedom, frequency, and
power of Parliaments,—the religion, freedom,
and trade of the nation, from English
or any foreign influence.’ It was
made high treason to administer the coronation
oath without instructions from the
Estates. By a further clause, to come in
force immediately, the nation was placed
in a state of defence, and the able-bodied
population were ordained to muster under
their respective heritors or burgh magistrates.”
This act, though not formally ratified
until another session, affords the true
key to the history of the great Union
effected in 1707, whereby the people of
two kingdoms, long rivals and often at
hostility, were happily blended into
one. It is not our intention to enter
into any minute details regarding the
progress of that measure, or to depict
the popular feeling with which it was
received. It was hardly possible that
an event of this magnitude could take
place, without exciting in some quarters
a feeling of regret for altered nationality,
and creating in others a
strong misgiving for the future. But,
in reality, there was no national surrender.
The treaty was conducted
and carried through on terms of perfect
equality. England and Scotland
were united into one kingdom by the
name of Great Britain, and their separate
ensigns were appointed to be
conjoined. Each division was to retain
its own laws, institutions, and
ecclesiastical polity, and one Parliament
was to legislate for the whole.
It was upon the latter point that the
great difference of opinion prevailed.
Some advocated—and the reasons
they adduced were not without their
weight—a federal union, which would
at least have the effect of preserving to
Scotland the administration of its own
affairs. They maintained that, under
an incorporating union, the interests
of Scotland, in so far as their own domestic
and peculiar institutions were
concerned, must necessarily, in the
course of time, be neglected, in as
much as the Scottish representatives
in the Imperial Parliament would constitute
but a small minority—that by
entire centralisation of government,
the wealth of the lesser country would
be gradually attracted to the greater—and
that no guarantees could justify
the imprudence of parting with an
administrative and controlling power
over such matters as were intended
to remain peculiarly distinctive of
the nation. The experience of well-nigh
a century and a half has proved
that such apprehensions were not
altogether without a foundation, and
that the predicted tendency to absorb
and centralise was not the mere
phantom of an inflamed patriotic
imagination; nevertheless, we are
clearly of opinion that the objections
which were raised to a federal
were of far greater weight than those
which could be urged against an incorporating
union. It is impossible,
we think, to read the history of last
century without perceiving that a federal
union, however skilfully framed,
could hardly have been maintained
unbroken—it would at any rate have
engendered jealousies and perpetuated
prejudices which are now happily set
at rest—and it probably would have
been a material bar to that unrestricted
intercourse which has been
productive of so much advantage to
both divisions of the island. But,
while granting this, we by no means
intend to deny that centralisation,
when pushed beyond a certain necessary
point, may not become a grievance
which loudly calls for a remedy.
To judge from their language, and
the general tone of their opinions,
many of our brethren in the south
seem to regard the Union simply as
an act by means of which Scotland
was annexed to England. A few
weeks ago, a presumptuous scribbler
in a London weekly journal, while
reviewing Mr Burton’s work, designated
Scotland as the incorporated, in
contradistinction to the incorporating
body; and although we do not suppose
that such exceeding ignorance of
historical fact is common, we are
nevertheless constrained to believe
that a good deal of misapprehension
prevails as to the real nature of the
treaty. Even the language of statesmen
in Parliament is often inaccurate,
and has a tendency to promote false
views upon the subject. To talk of
the laws of England or of her Church,
is strictly correct, for these are peculiar
to, and distinctive of herself; but
such expressions as the English flag,
English army, English parliament,
&c., are altogether inappropriate, unless,
indeed, the Treaty of Union is
to be considered as an absolute dead
letter. These things may be deemed
trifles; but still there is a significance
in words, which becomes the greater
the oftener they are employed. We
have, however, no desire to cavil about
terms; nor would we have noticed
such a matter, if it were not also evident
that there has been, for some
time past, and still is, a tendency to
regard Scotland in the light of a subsidiary
province, and to deal with her
accordingly. Such, we say, is the
case at present; but we do not therefore
by any means conclude that there
is a desire to defraud us of our privileges,
or to degrade us from our proper
position. We believe that we have
grievances for which we require redress;
but we are induced to attribute
the existence of these grievances,
most of which have been generated
by neglect, rather to the limited number
of our national representatives,
and the inadequate provision which
has been made for the administration
of Scottish affairs, than to any intention
on the part of British statesmen
to withhold from us what we consider
to be our due. Still, as claimants,
and especially as claimants under so
solemn a treaty, we are not only entitled,
but bound to state our case,
which we shall do, we hope, with
proper temperance and discretion.
We have often been told, especially
of late years, that any expression of
what is called Scottish nationality is
absurd, and likely to be injurious to
the general interest of the kingdom;
and those journals who have taken
upon themselves the task of ridiculing
any movement on the part of Scotsmen
to obtain what they consider to
be their just privileges under a solemn
international treaty, beseech us not
“to engage in a disgraceful imitation
of the worst features of Irish character.”
We certainly have no intention
of imitating the Irish; but we have
as little idea of relinquishing that
which is our own, or of submitting
to domineering pretensions which
have not a shadow of a foundation to
rest on. In all matters common to
the British empire, we acknowledge
but one interest—in all matters peculiar
to Scotland, we claim a right to
be heard.
To say that Scottish nationality is
a dream without an object, is to deny
history, and to fly in the face of fact.
The Union neither did nor could denationalise
us. It left us in undisturbed
possession of our national laws
and our national religion; and it
further provided, as well as could be
done at the period, and most anxiously,
for the future maintenance of those
institutions which the state is bound
to foster and preserve. If it had been
intended that in all time coming the
Imperial Parliament of Britain was
to have full liberty to deal as it pleased
with the internal affairs of Scotland,
certainly there would not have been
inserted in the treaty those stringent
clauses, which, while they maintain
the institutions of the past, lay down
rules for their regulation in the future.
These were, to all intents and purposes,
fundamental conditions of the
treaty; and to that treaty, both in
word and spirit, we look and appeal.
We can assure our friends in the south
that they will hear nothing of what a
polished and judicious journalist has
had the exquisite taste to term “a
parcel of trash about Bannockburn,
and sticks of sulphur of which a schoolboy,
in his calmer moments, might
feel ashamed.” We have no intention
whatever, as the same ornament of
letters has averred, of demanding a
repeal of the Union—on the contrary,
our demand resolves itself into this,
that the spirit of the treaty should be
observed, and the same consideration
be shown by Parliament to matters
which are purely Scottish, as to those
which relate exclusively to England.
And until it shall be received as righteous
doctrine, that men are not only
ridiculous, but culpable, in demanding
what has been guaranteed to them,
we shall give such assistance as lies
in our power, to any movement in
Scotland for the vindication of the
national rights.
That the provisions of the Treaty
of Union were just and equitable, will
not be disputed. They were adjusted
with much care, with much difficulty,
and were, in many points of view,
exceedingly favourable to Scotland.
But, unfortunately, almost from the
very outset, a series of infringements
began. Mr Burton, who certainly
does not exaggerate Scottish grievances,
remarks, “that many of the
calamities following on the Union,
had much encouragement, if they did
not spring from that haughty English
nature which would not condescend
to sympathise in, or even know, the
peculiarities of their new fellow-countrymen.”
We go even further than
this; for we are convinced that, had
the provisions of the Union been
scrupulously observed, and a judicious
delicacy used in the framing of
the new regulations necessary for
the establishment of a uniform fiscal
system—had the pride of the Scots not
been wantonly wounded, and a strong
colour given to the suspicions of the
vulgar that the national cause had
been betrayed—it is more than probable
that no serious rising would
have been attempted on behalf of the
Stuarts. Obviously it was the policy
of the English to have conciliated the
Scots, and by cautious and kindly
treatment to have reconciled them to
their new position. But conciliation
is not one of the arts for which Englishmen
are famed; and it is not improbable
that the nation was possessed
with the idea that the Scots had,
somehow or other, obtained a better
bargain than they were altogether
entitled to. Moreover, the English
were then, as some of them are even
now, profoundly ignorant of the history,
temper, and feelings of the northern
population. Mr Burton very justly
remarks:—
“The people of Scotland, indeed, knew
England much better than the people of
England knew Scotland—perhaps as any
village knows a metropolis better than
the people of the metropolis know the
village. Those who pursued historical
literature, it is true, were acquainted
with the emphatic history of the people
inhabiting the northern part of the island,
and were taught by it to respect and fear
them; but the ordinary Englishman knew
no more about them than he did about
the natives of the Faroe or Scilly isles.
The efforts of the pamphleteers to make
Scotland known to the English at the
period of the Union, are like the missionary
efforts at the present day to instruct
people about the policy of the
Caffres or the Japanese.”
No sooner was the Union effected,
than disputes began about duties.
Illegal seizures of Scottish vessels
were made by the authorities. Englishmen,
wholly ignorant of the laws
and habits of those among whom they
were to reside, were appointed to
superintend the revenue; and, as
sometimes occurs even at the present
day, the dogmatic adherence of such
men to the technicalities of the “system”
under which they were bred,
and their intolerance of any other
method, made them peculiarly odious,
and cast additional unpopularity upon
the English name. If we again quote
Mr Burton on this subject, it is less
with the view of exposing what formerly
took place, than in the hope
that the spirit of his remarks, not
altogether inapplicable even now,
may penetrate the obtuse mist which
shrouds our public departments; and
lead to some relaxation of that bigoted
bureaucracy which prevails in
the Government offices. It has been,
we are aware, laid down as an axiom
that the local business of any district
is best conducted by a stranger. Our
view is directly the reverse. We
maintain that an intimate knowledge
of the people with whom he is to
transact, is a high qualification for an
official; and it is much to be regretted
that the opposite system has been
pursued in London, under the baneful
influence of centralisation.
“Cause of enmity still more formidable
passed across to Scotland itself, where
the Englishman showed his least amiable
characteristics. To manage the revenue,
new commissioners of excise and customs
were appointed, consisting in a great
measure of Englishmen. They were followed
by subordinate officers trained in
the English method of realising the
duties, whose distribution throughout
the country afforded opportunities for
saying that a swarm of harpies had been
let loose on the devoted land, to suck its
blood and fatten on the spoils of the
oppressed people. The Englishman’s
national character is not the best adapted
for such delicate operations. He lays
his hand to his functions with a steady
sternness, and resolute unconsciousness
of the external conditions by which he is
surrounded. The subordinate officer
generally feels bound, with unhesitating
singleness of purpose, to the peculiar
methods followed at home in his own ‘department,’
as being the only true and sound
methods. He has no toleration for any
other, and goes to his duty among
strangers as one surrounded by knaves
and fools, whose habits and ideas must
be treated with disdain. Thus has it
often happened, that the collective
honesty and national fidelity to engagements
of the English people, have been
neutralised by the tyrannical pride and
surly unadaptability of the individual
men who have come in contact with
other nations.”
These arrangements were evidently
unwise, as being calculated to produce
throughout the country a spirit of discontent
among the middle and lower
classes, whom the Government ought
to have conciliated by every means in
their power. There is much independence
of thought, as well as shrewdness,
among the Scottish peasantry
and burghers; and their hearty co-operation
and good-will would have
been an effectual barrier against any
attempts to overthrow the Hanoverian
succession. To that, indeed, as a
security for the maintenance of the
Presbyterian form of church government,
they were well inclined; and,
therefore, it was of the more moment
that they should be reconciled as
speedily as possible to the Union.
But instead of the fair side of the picture,
the dark one was imprudently
presented to them. The taxation was
greatly increased, the measures altered
according to a foreign standard,
and a degree of rigour exercised in the
collection of the revenue, to which they
had been previously unaccustomed.
Against these immediate burdens and
innovations, it was of no use to expatiate
upon future prospects of national
prosperity as an off-set. The Commons,
never keenly in favour of the
Union, began presently to detest it;
and, if they did not absolutely wish
success to the Jacobite cause, it was
pretty generally understood that they
would take no active measures to oppose
a rising which at least might
have the effect of freeing them from a
burdensome connection.
Nothing, indeed, could be more injudicious
than the early legislation of
the United Parliament in regard to
Scottish affairs. In order to strengthen
the hands of the English officers
of customs and excise located in the
north, who could not understand the
technicalities, and would not observe
the forms of a law to which they were
habitually strangers, it was determined
that the Scottish Justices of the
Peace should be made fac-similes of
the English. We may conceive the
horror of a grim Presbyterian west-country
laird at finding himself associated
in the commission with “the
most reverent father in Christ, and
our faithful counsellor, Thomas Archbishop
of Canterbury, primate of all
England, and metropolitan thereof!”
Then came the abolition of the Scottish
Privy Council, and a new act for
the trial of treason, superseding the authority
of the Court of Justiciary, and
introducing the commission, unintelligible
to Scottish ears, of Oyer and
Terminer. This was passed in the face
of the united opposition of the whole
body of the Scottish members. Then
came the Patronage Act, which effected
a schism in the church, and others
more or less injurious or injudicious;
so that it is impossible to avoid the
conclusion of Mr Burton, “that English
statesmen, had they desired to
alienate Scotland, and create a premature
revulsion against the Union,
could not have pursued a course better
directed to such an end.” In fact,
the existence of the Union was at one
time in the greatest peril. The Scottish
members of the House of Commons,
though almost to a man returned
on the Revolution interest, held a
meeting for the purpose of considering
the propriety of taking steps to have
the Union dissolved; and it does not
appear that there was a single dissentient
voice. Lockhart, the member
for Mid-Lothian, who summoned the
meeting, has given us a sketch of his
statement, the most important points
of which were as follows: “That the
Scots trade was sunk and destroyed
by the many prohibitions, regulations,
and impositions on it, and the heavy
taxes imposed on the native produce
and manufacture (all which were calculated
and adapted to the conveniency
and circumstances of England,
with which those of Scotland did noways
correspond); and that the country
was exhausted of money, by the
remittance of so great a part of the
public taxes, and the great recourse
of so many Scotsmen to London: if
matters stood long on such a footing,
the ruin and misery of Scotland was
unavoidable; that from the haughty
and insolent treatment we had lately
received, it was sufficiently evident
we could expect no just redress from
the English.” The result of the conference
was a communication with the
Scottish Representative Peers, who
were also by this time thoroughly disgusted
with the Union; and the Earl
of Findlater, selected as the mouthpiece
of the party, moved the dissolution
of the Union in the House of
Lords, and succeeded in effecting an
equal division of the members present.
The motion was lost by the small
majority of three upon the proxies.
It is remarkable that in this debate
the Duke of Argyle and his brother,
Lord Ilay, both warm friends of the
Hanoverian succession, spoke strongly
in favour of the motion; thus showing
how keenly and universally the
attempt to provincialise Scotland was
felt by all classes. It became evident
that, under such a system of administration,
Scotland could not long remain
tranquil; and, accordingly, the
death of Queen Anne was followed
by the raising of the insurrectionary
standard.
Mar’s rebellion was at length quelled,
mainly through the efforts and
personal popularity of the Duke of
Argyle. In all human probability it
never would have taken place, but for
the encouragement held out to the
Jacobites by the universal discontent
of Scotland. But in spite of every
warning, the ministers of the day persevered
in a line of conduct most offensive
to the northern population.
They suppressed the important office
of the Scottish Secretary of State, as
if the affairs of that kingdom were of
so little importance, that an English
Secretary, who knew nothing of the
people or their laws, was perfectly
competent to superintend their business
in addition to that of the other
country. Such an arrangement as
this, however, was too preposterous
to remain unaltered. The English
Secretary might just as well have attempted
to administer the affairs of
Muscovy as those of Scotland; and,
in process of time, the functions of
Secretary were quietly handed over
to the Lord Advocate—a combination
of which the country has had much
reason to complain, and which it certainly
ought not to tolerate longer.
The history of the country between
1715 and 1745, is, with the exception
of a short period during which the
Duke of Argyle exercised a sort of
provisional vice-royalty, little else
than a catalogue of repeated innovations
and dissensions. At that time
Scotland was regarded by English
statesmen as a dangerous and smouldering
volcano; and fully half a century,
dating from the time of the
Union, went by, before anything like
a feeling of cordiality was established
between the two nations.
When we regard Scotland as it is
now—tranquil, prosperous, and enterprising—we
are naturally led to wonder
at the exceeding greatness of the
change. The change, however, is not
in the character of the people: they
are still as jealous of what they esteem
to be their just rights and guaranteed
privileges as ever; but they have felt,
and fully appreciate, the advantages
which they have derived from the
union; a closer intercourse has taught
them to respect and admire the many
estimable qualities of the English character;
and they perceive that a very
great deal of the aggression of which
their fathers complained, and which
led not only to heartburnings but to
civil strife, arose rather from ignorance
than from deliberate intention of offence.
And if, even now, there are
some matters with regard to which
they consider that they have not received
justice, these have not been, and
will not be, made the subjects of a
reckless agitation. No one believes
that there is any design on the part of
England to deal unkindly or unfairly
with her sister. We may, indeed,
complain that purely Scottish matters
are treated with comparative indifference
in the British House of Commons;
but, then, it is impossible to
forget that the great majority of the
members know very little indeed of
the Scottish laws and institutions.
There is some truth in one observation
of the Times—though the writer
intended it for a sneer—“that the
Scottish representatives in London are
not only regarded with the deepest
respect, but to them the highest of all
compliments is paid—namely, that
when a Scotch subject is brought before
the House, almost invariably the
matter is left to their own decision,
without interference of any kind.”
If the Times could have added that
Scottish business obtained that prominence
to which it is entitled—that our
bills were not invariably shuffled off
and postponed, as if they related to
matters of no moment whatever—the
statement might be accepted as satisfactory.
Even as it is, we are not
inclined to stand greatly upon our
dignity. Neglect is, upon the whole,
preferable to over-legislation; and we
are not covetous of the repetition of
such experiments as were made by the
late Sir Robert Peel upon our banking
system. But, so far as we know, beyond
an occasional grumble at slight
and delay, there has been no serious
remonstrance on this head. What we
do remonstrate against is, that while
exposed to an equal taxation with
England, Scotland does not receive
the same, or anything like the same,
encouragement for her national institutions,
and that her local interests
are not properly cared for on the part
of the British government.
We are very anxious that this matter
should be stated fairly and calmly,
so that our brethren in the south may
judge for themselves whether or not
there is substantive reason in the appeal
for “Justice to Scotland” which,
having been faintly audible for many
years, is now sounded throughout the
land. We have anything but a wish
to make mountains out of molehills,
or to magnify and parade trifles as
positive grievances. Therefore we
shall not allude to such matters as
heraldic arrangements, though why
the stipulations made by treaty with
regard to these should be violated or
overlooked, we cannot comprehend.
If emblems are to be retained at all,
they ought to be in strict accordance
with the position of the things which
they represent. Our real complaints,
however, are not of a nature which
will admit of so easy a remedy as the
application of a painter’s brush, or a
readjustment of quarterings; nor can
they be laughed down by silly sneers
at the attitude of the Scottish Lion.
They are substantial and specific;
and both the honour and the interest
of Scotland are concerned in obtaining
their redress.
And first we maintain, and refer to
the Treaty of Union, and our present
arrangements as proof, that the equality
established between England and
Scotland has been observed only as
regards equality of taxation, but has
been disregarded in the matter of
allowances. We ask Englishmen,
against whom the charge of pecuniary
injustice has almost never been made,
and who frequently have erred, in regard
to foreign connection and subsidy,
on the other side, to take into serious
consideration the facts which we are
about to adduce.
The object of the Treaty of Union
was to establish uniformity of trade
and privilege, internal and external,
throughout the United Kingdom; to
equalise taxation and burdens; and
to extinguish all trace of separate
interest in matters purely imperial.
But it was not intended by the Union
to alter or innovate the laws and institutions
of either country—on the
contrary, these were strictly excepted
and provided for. The previous acts,
both of the English and the Scottish
Parliaments, remained in force, applicable
to the two countries: but, for
the future, all legislation was to be
intrusted to one body, “to be styled
the Parliament of Great Britain.”
Referring again to the Treaty of
Union, we find anxious and careful
provision made for the maintenance
in Scotland of three national institutions,
the Church, the Courts, and
the Universities; all of which the
united legislature was bound to recognise
and protect. In short, the
whole spirit and tenor of the Treaty
is, that, without altering national institutions,
equality should be observed
as much as possible in the future
administration of the countries.
It cannot be pretended that the
Union implied no real sacrifice on
the part of the Scottish people. London,
to the exclusion of Edinburgh,
became the seat of government.
Thither the nobility and wealthier
gentry were drawn, and there a
considerable portion of the revenue
of the country was expended. That
was the inevitable consequence of
the arrangement which was made,
and the Scots were too shrewd not to
perceive it. But, on the other hand,
the advantages which the union offered,
seemed, in prospect at least, to
counterbalance the sacrifice; and it
was understood that, though the Scottish
parliament was abolished, and
the great offices of state suppressed,
the remanent local institutions were
to receive from the British government
that consideration and support
which was necessary to maintain them
in a healthy state of existence.
It is almost to be regretted that the
Treaty of Union was not more distinct
and specific on those points; and that
no stipulation was made for the expenditure
of a fair proportion of the
revenue raised from Scotland within
her bounds. That such a guarantee
would have been advantageous is now
evident; for, instead of diminishing,
the tendency towards centralisation
has become greater than ever. No
government has tried to check it—indeed,
we question whether public men
are fully aware of its evil.
As a country advances in wealth,
the seat of government will always
prove the centre point of attraction.
The fascinations of the court, the concourse
of the nobility, the necessary
throng of the leading commoners of
Britain during the parliamentary season,
are all in favour of the metropolis.
To this, as a matter of course, we must
submit, and do so cheerfully; but not
by any means because we are in the
situation of an English province. It
never was intended to make us such,
nor could the whole power of England,
however exerted, have degraded us to
that position. London is not our
capital city, nor have we any interest
in its aggrandisement. We do not
acknowledge the authority, in matters
of law, of the Chief-Justice of
England—we are altogether beyond
the reach of the southern Ecclesiastical
Courts. These are not accidental
exceptions; they are necessary parts
of the system by which it was provided
that, in all things concerning
our local administration, we were to
have local courts, local powers, and a
local executive. We complain that,
in this respect, the spirit of the treaty
has not been observed. Our Boards
of Custom and Commissioners of Excise
have been abolished; the revenues
of the Scottish Woods and Forests are
administered in London, and applied
almost entirely to English purposes;
and a like centralisation has been extended
to the departments of the
Stamps and Post-office.
But lest it should be said that these
are grievances more shadowy than
real, let us take the case of the Woods
and Forests mentioned above. The
hereditary revenues of the Crown
in Scotland amount to a very large
sum, all of which is sent to London,
but hardly a penny of it ever
returns. Holyrood, Dunfermline,
Linlithgow—all our old historical
buildings and objects of interest, are
allowed to crumble into decay; because
the administration of a fund
which ought to be devoted to such
purposes is confided to Englishmen,
who care nothing whatever about the
matter. By one vote in the present
year, £181,960 were devoted to the
repair and embellishment of royal
palaces, parks, and pleasure-grounds
in England; but it seems by the statement
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
that there are no funds available
for the repair of Holyrood. Of
course there can be no funds, if all our
money is to be squandered in the
south, and an annual expenditure of
nearly £10,000 lavished upon Hampton
Court, where royalty never resides.
Of course there can be no
funds, if £40,000 is given for a
palm-house at Kew, and upwards of
£62,000 for royal parks in England.
But there are funds, if we may believe
the public accounts, arising
from the revenue of the Crown in
Scotland, though most unjustly diverted
to other than Scottish purposes.
It may be, however, that,
very soon, no such funds will remain.
A large portion of the Crown
property situated in Scotland has
been advertised for public sale; and
we may be sure of this, that not
even a fractional portion of the proceeds
will be applied to the North of
the Tweed. Now, if the management
of this branch of the Revenue had been
intrusted to a board in Edinburgh (as
it formerly was, before the Barons of
Exchequer were abolished), we venture
to say that, without asking or
receiving one shilling of English
money, we could have effectually rescued
ourselves from the reproach to
which we are daily subjected by
strangers, who are not aware of the
extent to which centralisation has
been carried. They look with wonder
and sorrow at Holyrood, with her
ruined chapel, and the bones of our
Scottish kings and queens exposed to
the common gaze, and ask whether
they really are among a people famous
for the enthusiasm with which they
cleave to the memories of the past,
and to the recollections of their former
glories. Peering through the
bars of that charnel vault where the
giant skeleton of Darnley is thrown
beside the mouldering remains of
those who once wore the crown and
wielded the sceptre of Scotland, they
can recall no parallel instance of desecration
save the abominable violation
of the sepulchres of St Denis by
the base republican rabble. And who
are to blame for this? Not certainly
the Scottish people, but those who
have diverted the revenues applicable
to purely national objects, to the maintenance
of English palaces and the
purchase of London parks.
Centralisation has deprived us of
several important offices which could
have been filled quite as economically
and efficiently for the public service
in Scotland as in the south. We are
by no means in favour of the extension
of useless offices, but there is a
vast difference between such and
places of responsibility, where local
knowledge becomes a very high qualification.
It is impossible that a
board, sitting in London, can give the
same satisfaction to the people of
Scotland, or conduct business so effectually,
as if it was located among
them. But, besides this, it seems to
be a settled matter that Scottish official
appointments are to be remunerated
on a different scale from that
which is applied in England and in
Ireland. Why is it that our officials—in
the Edinburgh Post-office,
for example—are paid at a far lower
rate than those who perform the
same duties in London and in Dublin?
Is it because Ireland contributes
more than we do to the revenue?
Let us see. The revenue of
Scotland for the year ending 1852
was £6,164,804, of which there was
expended in the country £400,000,
leaving £5,764,804, which was remitted
to London. The revenue of
Ireland for the same period was
£4,000,681, of which there was expended
in Ireland £3,847,134; leaving
a balance merely of £153,547.
Have the people of Scotland no
reason to complain whilst this monstrous
inequality is tolerated?
Let us now turn to the Universities,
which in the eyes of a Government so
zealous as the present affects to be in
the cause of education, and to Lord
John Russell in particular, ought to
be objects of considerable interest.
Let us see how they have been treated.
In the year 1826 a Commissioner
was appointed by George IV. to examine
into the state of the Scottish
Universities, and to report thereon.
The Commissioners, of whom the
Earl of Aberdeen was one, made a
report in 1831, to the effect that, in
general, the chairs were scandalously
ill-endowed, and that adequate and
complete provision should be made in
all the Universities, so that the appointment
to the Chairs “should at all
times be an object of ambition to men
of literature and science.” Four or five
bulky blue books of evidence, &c., were
issued; but the only party connected
with literature who derived any benefit
from the commission, was the English
printer. Not a step has been
taken in consequence by any administration,
although two-and-twenty years
have elapsed since the report was given
in! Sir Robert Peel had no objection
to found and endow Popish colleges in
Ireland, but he would not listen to
the representations made on behalf of
the Protestant colleges of Scotland.
In consequence, the emolument drawn
from many Chairs in Scotland is
under £250 per annum, even in cases
where the Crown is patron! Such is
the liberality of the British Government
in regard to Scottish education
in its highest branches, even with the
most positive reports recorded in its
favour! As for museums, antiquarian
and scientific societies and the like,
they are left entirely dependent upon
private support. We do not say that
a Government is bound to expend the
public money upon such objects as the
latter; but it is at all events bound
to be impartial; and really, when we
look at the large sums devoted every
year as a matter of course to London
and Dublin, while Edinburgh is passed
over without notice, we have a right
to know for what offence on our part
we experience such insulting neglect.
This is, moreover, a matter which
ought not to be lightly dismissed, inasmuch
as, if Edinburgh is still to be
regarded as a capital city, she is entitled
to fair consideration and support
in all things relating to the
diffusion of arts and science. We do
not desire to see the multiplication of
British museums; but we wish to
participate directly in that very lavish
expenditure presently confined to
London, for what are called the purposes
of art. If we are made to pay
for pictures, let us at least have some
among us, so that our artists may derive
the benefit. We have all the
materials and collections for a geological
museum in Edinburgh, but the
funds for the building are denied.
Nevertheless, a grant of £18,000 per
annum is made from the public money
to the geological museums of London
and Dublin.
Passing from these things, and referring
to public institutions of a
strictly charitable nature, we find no
trace whatever of state almonry in
Scotland. Dublin last year received
for its different hospitals £23,654 of
state money. Edinburgh has never
received the smallest contribution.
Can any one explain to us why the
people of Scotland are called upon to
maintain their own police, while that
of London receives annually £131,000,
that of Dublin £36,000, and that of
the Irish counties £487,000—or why
one half of the constabulary expense
in the counties of England is defrayed
from the consolidated fund,
while no such allowance is made to
Scotland? We should like very
much to hear Mr Gladstone or Lord
Palmerston upon that subject.
It is anything but an agreeable task
for us to repeat the items of grievance,
of which these are only a part. There
are others highly discreditable to the
Government, such as the continued
delay, in spite of constant application,
to devote any portion of the public
money to the formation of harbours
of refuge on the east and northern
coasts of Scotland, where shipwrecks
frequently occur. But enough, and
more than enough, has been said to
prove that, while subjected to the
same taxation, Scotland does not receive
the same measure of allowances
and encouragements as England, and
that the system of centralisation has
been carried to a pernicious and unjustifiable
length. If these are not
grievances, we are really at a loss to
know what may be the true meaning
of that term. To many of the English
public they must be new, as we have
no doubt they are startling; for the
general impression is, that Scotsmen,
on the whole, know pretty well how
to manage their own affairs, and are
tolerably alive to their own interest.
That is undeniable; but the peculiarity
of the case is, that we are not permitted
to manage our own affairs. England
has relieved us of the trouble; which
latter, however, we would not grudge
to bestow, if allowed to do so. But
our grounds of complaint are not new
to statesmen and officials of every
party. Representation after representation
has been made, but made
in vain. The press of Scotland has,
year after year, charged the Government
with neglect of Scottish interests,
and warned it against persevering in
such a course; but without effect.
The unwillingness of the people to
agitate has been construed into indifference;
and now, when the national
voice is raised in its own defence, we
are taunted with previous silence!
Now, we beg to repeat again, what
we have already expressed, that
we do not believe it is the wish of
Englishmen, or of English statesmen,
that we should be so unfairly treated.
Indeed, we have reason to know that
some of the latter have expressed
their conviction that Scottish affairs
are not well administered, and that
great reason of complaint exists. That
is consoling, perhaps, but not satisfactory.
We are told that we ought
to be very proud, because, at the
present moment, a Scotsman is at the
head of the Government. As yet we
have seen no reason to plume ourselves
upon that accident, which in
no way adds materially to the national
glory. We shall reserve our
jubilation thereon, until we have a
distinct assurance that Lord Aberdeen
is prepared to grant us substantial
justice. Of that, as yet, no indication
has been afforded; and, to confess
the truth, were it only for the
grace of the movement, we would far
rather see the reforms and readjustments
we require conceded to us, as
matter of right, by an English than
by a Scottish Premier. What we
seek is neither favour nor jobbing, but
that attention to our interests which
is our due. If Lord Aberdeen thinks
fit to render it now, we shall, of
course, be very glad to receive it;
but we do not entertain extravagant
expectations from that quarter. If
his heart had really been warmly with
the country of his birth, it is almost
impossible to suppose that, having
set his name, as he did, to a strong
report in favour of assistance to the
Scottish universities, he would have
allowed about a quarter of a century
to elapse without mooting the subject,
either as a peer of Parliament, or as
an influential member of more than one
Cabinet; and it is impossible to forget
that, with the most deplorable schism
in the history of the national Church
of Scotland—the more deplorable, because
it might have been prevented by
wise and timely legislation—his name
is inseparably connected. Therefore,
in so far as our interests are concerned,
we see no especial reason for glorification
in the fact that Lord Aberdeen is
a peer of Scotland. That Lord Campbell,
who, as the Times avers, “holds
the highest common law appointment
in the three kingdoms,” was born in
Cupar, in the ancient kingdom of Fife,
by no means reconciles us to the fact
of an unfair application of the revenue.
Lord Brougham, we believe, first saw
the light in Edinburgh—is his subsequent
occupation of the woolsack to be
considered a sufficient reason why the
citizens of the Scottish metropolis
should be compelled to maintain their
own police, when those of London
and Dublin are paid out of the imperial
revenue? Really it would appear
that notorieties are sometimes
expensive productions. With profound
respect for the eminent individuals
referred to, we would rather,
on the whole, surrender the credit of
their birth, than accept that as an
equivalent for the vested rights of the
nation.
Supposing, then, that the reality of
the grievance is made out—as to
which we presume there can be no
question, for the matters we have
referred to are of public notoriety—it
is necessary to consider what remedy
ought to be applied. Undoubtedly
much is in the power of Ministers.
They may select more than
one point of grievance for curative
treatment; and Mr Gladstone may
possibly endeavour, in his next financial
arrangements, to atone for past
neglect; but it is not by such means
as these that the evil can be wholly
eradicated. We must look to the
system in order to ascertain why
Scotland should have been exposed
so long to so much injustice; and,
believing as we do, that there was no
deliberate intention to slight her interests,
we are driven to the conclusion
that the fault has arisen from
the utterly inadequate provision made
by the State for the administration of
her internal affairs.
The absurd idea that the true position
of Scotland is merely that of a
province, has received countenance
from the fact that there is no Minister
in the British Cabinet directly
responsible for the administration of
Scottish affairs. There is, indeed, a
Home Secretary for the United Kingdom;
but it is impossible to expect
the holder of that office to have
an intimate acquaintance with the
laws, institutions, and internal relations
of the northern division of the
island. The Secretary of State, in
general, knows nothing about us, and
is compelled to rely, in almost every
case, upon the information which he
receives from the Lord Advocate.
Now, the position of a Lord Advocate
is this: He must be a Scottish barrister,
and he usually is one who has
risen to eminence in his profession.
But he has had no experience of public
affairs, and usually little intercourse
with public men, before he receives
her Majesty’s commission as first law
officer of the Crown. He has not been
trained to Parliament, for a Scottish
barrister is necessarily tied to his own
courts, and cannot, as his English
brethren may, prosecute his profession
while holding a seat in Parliament.
Thus, even supposing him to be a man
of real eminence and ability—and we
are glad to express our opinion that,
of late years, the office has been
worthily filled—he enters the House
of Commons without parliamentary
experience, and has very little leisure
allowed him to acquire it. For, in the
first place, he is, as public prosecutor,
responsible for the conduct of the
whole criminal business of Scotland;
and he is the Crown adviser in civil
cases. Then he has his own practice
to attend to, which generally increases
rather than diminishes after his official
elevation; and in attending to
that in Edinburgh, he is absent from
London during half the parliamentary
session—in fact, is seldom there, except
when some important bill under
his especial charge is in progress.
Besides this, the office of Lord Advocate
is understood to be the stepping-stone
to the bench. One gentleman,
now a judge of the Court of Session,
did not hold the office of Lord Advocate
for three months, and never had
a seat in Parliament. In the course
of last year (1852), no less than three
individuals were appointed Lords Advocate
in succession, and two of them
did not sit in the House. Owing to
these circumstances, it rarely happens
that a Lord Advocate can acquire a
reputation for statesmanship—he has
neither the time, the training, the
facilities, nor the ordinary motives of
doing so. At any moment, even on
the eve of completing some important
national measure, he may be summoned
to the bench, and, in such an
event, the interests of the country
are tied up until his successor in
office has been able to procure a
seat, and has become, in some measure,
reconciled to the novel atmosphere
of St Stephen’s.
This is, beyond all question, a bad
system. The peculiar legal functions
of the Lord Advocate are, in addition
to his private practice, a burden quite
heavy enough for any single pair of
shoulders to sustain; nor is it consonant
either with the dignity or the
convenience of the country, that he
should be made to act as a sort of assessor
or adviser to the Home Secretary.
He ought certainly to be in
Parliament, as the Attorney-General
of England is, to give advice in legal
matters, but no further. The training
of the bar is not by any means that
which tends to the development of
administrative qualities; and, even
were it otherwise, we have shown that
the precarious nature of the office must
preclude the holder of it from the advantage
of official experience. But,
in fact, as those who have had public
business to transact in London know
full well, there is no order or arrangement
whatever provided for the
administration of Scottish affairs.
Let us take the case of a deputation
sent to London about some local
matter. They naturally, in the first
instance, direct their steps to the
Lord Advocate, who, if in town—by
no means a certain occurrence—receives
them with great courtesy,
listens to their story, and then, regretting
that the subject in question
does not fall within the sphere of his
department, refers them to the Junior
Lord of the Treasury. They recount
their tale to that official, who really
seems to exhibit some interest, but
discovers, after a time, that they
should have made application to the
Board of Woods and Forests. Thither
they go, and are probably referred to
some clerk or under-secretary, brimful
of conceit, and exclusively English
in his notions. He refers them to the
Secretary of the Treasury; but that
man of figures is too busy to listen to
them, and knows nothing about the
matter. He suggests an application
to the Home Secretary. Lord Palmerston,
the pink of politeness, smiles,
bows, and remits them to the knowledge
of the Lord Advocate. By this
time half the deputation have left,
and the others are savage and excited.
They are advised to memorialise
the Treasury, which they do,
and receive an immediate reply that
“my Lords” will take the matter
into their consideration. And so in
all probability they do; but it turns
out at the last moment that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer has a
ruling voice in the matter; and,
as his financial arrangements for the
year are already made, the application
must stand over to be considered at a
future period.
It is now full time that a new
order of things should be introduced,
and that the affairs of Scotland should
be administered by a responsible Secretary
of State with a seat in the
Cabinet. We have, on every ground,
full right to demand this. The public
revenue levied from Scotland is
larger than that of either Holland,
Belgium, Naples, Sardinia, or Sweden
and Norway. It is larger than the
combined revenues of Bavaria, Denmark,
Greece, and Switzerland. The
revenue of Ireland is one-third less
than ours, and yet Ireland has not
only a Secretary of State, but a Lord-Lieutenant.
No one surely can venture
to say that the interests here involved
are too trifling to require superintendence,
or that any organisation would
be superfluous. For our own part,
having watched narrowly for years the
working of the present absurd and unregulated
system, we do not hesitate
to declare our conviction that justice
never can, and never will, be done to
Scotland until its affairs are placed
under the management of a separate
Secretary of State. This point cannot
be pressed too strongly. The
wealth, importance, and position of
the country justify the demand; and
we have yet to learn that there is any
one sound or substantial reason for
denying it.
Another point, and it is one of vast
importance, is to insist that, at the
next adjustment of the representation,
Scotland shall send its just proportion
of members to the House of Commons.
At present, whether the test
of revenue or of population be applied,
we are inadequately represented
as contrasted with England. We pay
more than a ninth of the whole revenue
of the United Kingdom, but we
have only a thirteenth part of the representation.
It is quite necessary
that this should be remedied, so that
our interests may be properly and
efficiently attended to in the legislature.
We care not what criterion is
taken—whether that of revenue or
that of population—but we have a
right to demand and expect, that in
this matter also we shall be dealt
with according to the same measure
which is applied to England. According
to the last census, each of our
Scottish members represents an average
population of 54,166; whilst one
member is returned for every 35,845
of the population of England. The
apportionment ought to be made according
to some clear, intelligible principle—not
by a mere flourish of the
pen, or an arbitrarily assumed figure.
With a responsible Minister, and an
adequate representation, attention to
the interests of Scotland would be
secured; and it is the bounden duty
of every man who wishes well to his
country to bestir himself for the attainment
of these objects.
We have not approached this subject
with any feeling of exacerbation.
In demonstrating wherein Scotland
has not received its proper meed of
justice and consideration, we have
been careful to avoid rash strictures
or unworthy reflections upon our
neighbours. If in some things we
have suffered from neglect, and in
others from innovation, we must not
hastily conclude that there is a deliberate
intention anywhere to deprive
us of our due. The form in which
our affairs have been administered for
well-nigh a hundred years, is, as we
believe we have shown, quite inadequate
for the purpose for which it was
originally intended; and the rapid development
of the wealth and population
of the country ought, long ago,
to have suggested the propriety of a
more rational arrangement. There is
no occasion, in a matter of this sort,
for any appeal to national feelings,
which indeed it would be superfluous
to rouse. The case is a very clear
one, founded upon justice and public
policy; and, if properly urged, no
government can venture to treat it
indifferently. But in whatever way
this movement may be met—whether
it is regarded with sympathy, or replied
to by derision—it is our duty to
aid in the assertion of our country’s
rights; and we shall not shrink from
its performance.
FOREIGN ESTIMATES OF ENGLAND. [2]
284
With what heart or conscience
can an English critic expose the
deficiencies of a foreign book, “dedicated
to the great, the noble, the hospitable
English people”? Upon its
first page he finds a compliment that
cripples his quill. Though he had
gall in his ink, it must turn to honey
on his paper. Mr Schlesinger takes
his English readers and reviewers at
an unfair advantage. Perhaps he
thinks to treat them like children,
thrusting a comfit into their mouths
to bribe them to swallow drugs. The
flattering flourish of his commencement
may be intended to mask the
batteries about to open. He gags us
with a rose, that we may silently bear
the pricking of the thorns.
Inexhaustible interest attaches to
the printed observations of intelligent
foreigners upon England and its
capital. The field is vast, and has
been little worked. There are few
books upon the subject either in
French or in German, and, of such as
there are, very few possess merit or
have met with success. Defaced, in
a majority of instances, by prejudice,
triviality, or misappreciation, they
attracted slight notice in the countries
of their publication, and were utterly
unheeded in that they professed to
describe. Increased facilities of communication,
and more extensive study
of the English language in France
and Germany, will bring about a
change in this respect. We anticipate
the appearance, within the next
twenty years, of many foreign books
upon England, and especially upon
London—a city first known to Continentals,
according to the author now
present, in the year of grace 1851.
“Stray travellers, bankers, wandering
artisans, and diplomatic documents,
had occasionally let fall a few
words, which sounded like fairy tales,
concerning the greatness, the wealth,
the industry, and the politics of the
monster city of the West; but that
city lay, geographically, too far out
of the way, and the phases of its historical
development had not been
sufficiently connected with the history
of Continental nations, for it to be, like
Paris, a favourite object of travel and
study.” The cosmopolitan glasshouse
was the glittering bait which
drew to our shores a larger concourse
of foreigners than England ever before
at one time beheld, or than she
is likely ever again to behold, at least
in our day, unless in the rather improbable
contingency of the French
Emperor’s successfully realising those
projects of invasion some are disposed
to impute to him. A summer of unusual
beauty, a general disposition to
show kindness and hospitality to the
stranger, the manifold attractions of
that really wonderful building, unsurpassed
save by the edifice now rising
from its remains on the slope of a Kentish
hill, combined to invest London
with a charm to which foreigners who
had already visited it were wholly unaccustomed,
and for which those who
for the first time beheld it were quite
unprepared.
Max Schlesinger, well known as the
author of one of the most successful
and popular of the books that were
written on the late Hungarian war, was
amongst the visitors to the Crystal
Palace, but must have resided in England
for a longer period than the duration
of that exhibition. The first
volume of his “Wanderings,” which
appeared last year, was written in England,
for he dates his preface from the
Isle of Wight. He does not profess to
give an account of London. He felt
that two volumes, compendious though
they be, would be insufficient for more
than a glance at such a multitude of
objects for description, and of subjects
for reflection and analysis, as are
presented by the overgrown British
metropolis, and he preferred dwelling
upon a few points to glancing at a
great many. He has hit upon an
ingenious and amusing plan for the
exposition of his views and maintenance
of his impartiality. He establishes
himself in an English family,
in the terra incognita of Guildford
Street. The master of the house, Sir
John, who is intended as a prototype
of his countrymen, is a thorough John
Bull—shrewd, sensible, intelligent,
with a moderate allowance of English
prejudices, a warm attachment to his
country, a well-founded conviction of
its pre-eminence amongst the nations,
and of the excellence of its institutions.
Dr Keif (the word signifies a grumbler),
another inmate of the house, and an
old friend of Sir John’s, is an Austrian
journalist, whose pen has taken liberties
that have endangered his own,
and who has sought refuge in England,
which he begins good-humouredly
to abuse almost as soon as he
has landed in it. He is kind-hearted,
impetuous, excitable, given to faultfinding
and polemics, and nearly as
much convinced of German superiority
as Sir John is of that of England.
Then there is a Frenchman, Tremplin,
introduced in the second volume, and
who can see nothing good out of
Paris. An Englishman named Frolick—who
conducts the foreigners upon
nocturnal excursions to theatres, gin palaces,
“penny gaffs,” the purlieus
of Drury Lane and St Giles’s, and to
any other place they are curious to
study—and the ladies of Sir John’s
family, make up the list of characters,
amongst whom there are occasionally
very amusing dialogues, when the
master of the house, Keif, and Tremplin,
hold stiff disputations as to the
merits of their respective countries.
Mr Schlesinger’s style is pointed, and
often humorous; and the plan he has
adopted imparts to his book a lightness
and entertaining quality by no
means invariably found in works of
the kind; whilst it at the same time
enables him to avoid that appearance
of invidious dogmatism which is one
of the most fatal pitfalls literary travellers
are exposed to stray into.
As may be supposed from the terms
of his dedication, Mr Schlesinger has
found much to like and admire in
England, and especially in the English
nation. His book is, upon the whole,
highly favourable to us, although sarcastic
Dr Keif and that puppy Tremplin
now and then point to a raw spot.
Evidently well acquainted with our
language, gifted with an active mind
and an observant eye, he has no
need to resort to the flimsy devices of
some recent writers on the same topic.
There is solid pabulum in his pages,
something superior to the flimsy lucubrations
of one or two French writers
we have lately fallen in with, and of
one of whom (M. Méry) we took
notice a few months ago. Most
Frenchmen who write about London
do so with an extremely superficial
knowledge of the subject. Want of
self-confidence is not a failing of
theirs; they come to England with a
mere smattering of the language, and
with a predisposition to dislike the
place and its customs, to laugh at the
people, to be tortured by the climate
and poisoned by the cooks. They remain
a short time, examine nothing
thoroughly, nor appreciate anything
impartially, quit the country with
joy, remember it with a shudder, and
write books in which burlesque stories
and ridiculous exaggerations are
eked out by denunciations of perpetual
fogs, and by hackneyed jokes concerning
the sun’s invisibility. Such
writers may be sometimes witty, occasionally
amusing, but they are neither
fair critics nor reliable authorities.
There is no plan or order in Mr
Schlesinger’s book. Guildford Street
is his headquarters; thence he rambles,
usually with Dr Keif, sometimes with
Sir John and other companions,
whithersoever the fancy of the moment
leads him. On their return
home, from Greenwich or Vauxhall,
from the House of Commons or a
minor theatre, or from a stroll in the
streets, they invariably find, no
matter how late the hour, the cheerful
tea-urn and smiling female faces
to welcome them; and it is usually
during these sober sederunts, whilst
imbibing innumerable cups of bohea,
that Sir John and Dr Keif hold those
lively arguments which Mr Schlesinger
has transcribed with stenographic
fidelity. We turn to the fourth chapter
of the second volume, headed “Westminster—The
Parliament.” Probably
no foreigner ever gave a more
vivid and correct description than
this chapter contains of things with
which it takes both time and pains
for a foreigner to become thoroughly
acquainted. Doubtless Mr Schlesinger
has been indebted to reading and conversation
as well as to his own observations,
and some statistical and descriptive
parts of his work are probably
derived from English books.
One entire chapter, that on Spitalfields,
he acknowledges to have taken
from such a source. But there are
numerous remarkable passages for
which he can hardly be indebted to
anything but to his own quick ear and
sharp eye. In company with Sir John
and Dr Keif, he goes to the Speaker’s
Gallery of the House of Commons.
It is five o’clock—bills are being read—presently
the debate begins—Dr Keif,
who has a perfect knowledge of English,
is indignant that the chat amongst
the members prevents his hearing the
orators. These, he is assured by Sir
John, who is an old frequenter of the
House, are mere skirmishers, of little
importance; the gossips will be still
enough when any one worth listening
to rises to speak. A message from the
Upper House fixes the attention of the
Germans, who are immensely diverted
by the formalities with which it is presented,
by the forward and backward
bowing of the messengers and of the
sergeant-at-arms, whose official costume,
knee breeches and sword, has
already excited their curiosity. Mr
Schlesinger, a decided liberal in German
politics, not unfrequently becomes
as decidedly conservative in treating
of English customs and institutions.
“All these ceremonies,” he says,
“are extraordinarily comical to the
foreign guest, and even the Englishman,
who enters for the first time in
his life the workshop of his lawmakers,
may probably be rather
startled by such pigtailed formalities,
although his courts of justice have
already accustomed him to periwigs.
In most Continental states, ceremonies
handed down from previous
generations, and unsuited to the
present time, have been done away
with as opportunity offered. People
got ashamed of perukes and silk
cloaks, and dismissed them to the
lumber room, as opposed to the spirit
of the age. Whether they might not,
in their war against those intrinsically
unimportant and harmless externals,
make a commencement of more serious
conflicts, was probably overlooked.
In France and Germany we have
lived to witness such conflicts. In
the revolutions of both those countries
the war was in great measure against
externals, against abuses of minor
importance, against titles of nobility,
orders of knighthood, upper chambers,
clerical and royal prerogatives; but
in neither did a compact majority ever
contrive to seize the right moment, to
harmonise contradictions, and to secure
the two results which should be
the aim of every revolution—improvement
of the condition of the people, and
unlimited individual liberty. Where
these two things are secured, all other
difficulties peaceably solve themselves....
A pacific progress ensues; a
gradual, but so-much-the-safer activity
of reform becomes not only possible,
but necessary and inevitable.
The English, even those belonging to
the Radical party, have an instinctive
sense of this truth. The Lower House
has never taken the field against the
Peers, because their wives wear coronets
in their hair, or because the
Queen opens and closes Parliament in
the Upper House, upon which occasions
the Commons stand thronged
like a flock of sheep before the bar
of the House of Lords,” &c. &c. We
pass over some pages of interesting
remarks to get to Mr Schlesinger’s
sketches of certain prominent members
of the House of Commons, merely recording,
by the way, this German
reformer’s opinion, that the monarchical
principle is firmer in England at
the present day than it was a century
ago, before the clamour of innovation
and revolution had swept across the
Channel. We trust and believe that
he is right in this opinion. We well
know that there are, both in and out
of Parliament, a few men, more noted
for a certain class of talent than respected
for consistency and high principle,
who look upon the crown as a
costly bauble, and would gladly see it
replaced by a republican government.
If they do not say as much, it is because
they dare not, because they know
that the press and the public would
combine to hoot them down. But it
is not difficult to discern the levelling
principle that is paramount in their
hearts. The enunciation of that principle,
did they ever contemplate it in
any form, has not been favoured by
the events of the last five years. Common
sense and shrewd perception are
qualities claimed by Englishmen, and
usually conceded to them even by
those foreigners who like them least.
We must, indeed, be lamentably deficient
in both, not to have taken a
warning from what we have beheld,
since 1847, in the two most civilised
countries of the European continent.
There is little contagion in such examples
as have been set to us. License,
with despotism as a sequel,
constitutes no very alluring prospect
to a nation accustomed to seek its
prosperity in industry and order. We
have seen enough of the results of
sudden changes abroad to desire that
any we adopt at home should be exceedingly
gradual and well-considered.
Foreign revolutionists have done us
the service which drunken helots were
made to render to the children of
Sparta. We have learned temperance
from the spectacle of their degradation.
In his preface, Mr Schlesinger protests
his impartiality, and on this
score we have no fault to find with
him. Some of his parliamentary portraits,
however, are perhaps a little
tinged by his political predilections.
In the main they are extremely correct,
and the likenesses undeniable.
Mr Disraeli, Lord John Russell, Lord
Palmerston, Colonel Sibthorp, are his
four most prominent pictures. Lord
John himself would hardly claim the
designation of “a great orator” bestowed
upon him by his German admirer,
who, in other respects, gives a
truthful and happy delineation of the
Whig statesman. But the following
sketch is the gem of the parliamentary
chapter.
“‘So that is my Lord Palmerston,’
whispered Dr Keif, parodying his
friend Kappelbaumer—‘that is the
“God-preserve-us” of all rational
Continental cabinets? He yonder
with the white whiskers, the finely-cut
features, the striped neckcloth, and the
brown trousers, which he probably got
as a present from Mazzini? Yonder
elderly gentleman, lying rather than
sitting upon his bench, and chatting
with his neighbour as he might do in
a tavern? Now, by Metternich! this
Lord Palmerston looks so cordial,
that, if I had not read the German
newspapers for many years past, I
never would have believed all the
wickedness there is in him. To think
that yonder people do not scruple to
converse with him! with a convicted
partisan of rebels, in whose company
no respectable citizen of Vienna or
Berlin would be seen to cross a street!
But, as we say, there is nothing in a
man’s looks. He does not look in the
least like a rebel or a conspirator.
And yet to think of all the rude notes
he has written!’
“‘That is just because he is a great
diplomatist,’ remarked Sir John, with
much unction. ‘We like him so much
the more because you, across the
water, hate, and fear, and throw
stones at him. He has the luck to be
as popular at home as he is abused
abroad. When that is not the case
with a minister of foreign affairs,
better pension him off at once. He
is appointed for the very purpose of
barking and snapping all round the
house, to keep off intruders and thieves.
And can you deny that Lord Palmerston
perfectly performed his bull-dog
mission? Was he not always on his
legs? Did he not lustily bark like a
chained watch-dog, so that all the
neighbours round respected him? And
did he ever bite anybody? No, you
cannot say that he ever bit anybody.
Only showed his teeth. Nothing
more. That was enough. And that,
merely by so doing, he frightened you
all, that, we well know, is what you
will never forgive.’
“‘I would give anything in the
world,’ cried Dr Keif, ‘to hear him
make a little speech. How does he
speak?’
“‘In a way I well like to hear,’
answered Sir John; ‘out and openly;
no pathos, no emotion—sensibly, intelligibly—and
above all, courteously and
politely, as befits an English gentleman.
It is not in his nature to be
rude; he cannot be so, except when
he takes pen in hand to write abroad.
In the House he is never personal;
and yet nobody better knows how to
turn a troublesome questioner into
ridicule, often in the most innocent
manner, so that it is impossible to be
angry with him.
“‘I was in the House last summer,’
continued Sir John, ‘when Mr
So-and-so questioned him about the
foreign refugees. In such cases members
do not put to a minister the
straightforward question, Have you
answered this or that note? but they
make an introduction a yard long,
ramble round and round the subject
like cats round a plate of porridge,
make a long rhetorical display before
coming to the point. Mr So-and-so
made a lengthy discourse—spoke until
the sweat broke out upon his brow
from sheer liberalism and sympathy
with the refugees; at last he got to
his question, Whether it was true
that several Continental governments
had demanded that the British Government
should keep watch over the
proceedings of the refugees in London?
what governments those were?
whether the Secretary of State for
foreign affairs had replied to the demand?
and whether he had any objection
to lay before the House the
correspondence concerning it? The
question was not a very agreeable one
to a minister in Lord Palmerston’s
position. During the speech by which
it was prefaced, he sat with his head
bent forward and his legs crossed,
pulling his hat down lower and lower
upon his forehead, and frequently
passing his handkerchief across his
face. It seemed as if he perspired
even more than his interrogator; he
was evidently in the most painful embarrassment
what to reply. Mr So-and-so
made an end and sat down.
The House was so silent that one
could plainly distinguish the snoring
of some drowsy members on the back
benches; Palmerston slowly rose, and
requested the speaker to repeat his
question in plainer terms, it not having
been put with sufficient clearness
the first time. The fact was, it had
been put so clearly and plainly that
in the gallery we lost not a syllable.
Oho! thought I, and many with me—something
wrong here; the noble
Lord wants to gain a few minutes to
prepare his reply. Mr So-and-so probably
thought the same thing. He
got up with the air of a man who feels
confident that he has found a sore
place, and repeated his question in the
following simplified form: “I beg to
ask the Secretary of State for foreign
affairs,” he said, “which are the foreign
governments that have demanded
of the British Cabinet that it should
exercise surveillance over the political
refugees in London?” He paused.
There was dead silence. Lord Palmerston
rose with solemn slowness, took
off his hat, cleared his throat, as if he
were about to make a long speech,
said very quickly, “Not one”—threw
his hat upon his head and himself back
upon his seat. You may imagine the
stupefied countenance of the questioner,
and the roar of laughter in the
House. Do you suppose Lord Palmerston
had not at once understood the
question? He understood it perfectly;
but his meditative attitude, his request
for its repetition, his solemn uprising,
his clearing of his throat, his very perspiration—all,
everything was diplomatic
roguery, intended to heighten
the effect of the two carelessly-spoken
monosyllables, “Not one.” His interrogator
looked ridiculous enough,
but Lord Palmerston had said nothing
that could offend him. The minister
had so far attained his object that for
some time afterwards he was not
plagued with questions about refugees.
Such scenes do not bear telling; they
must be witnessed. When Lord Palmerston
pleases, the House laughs,
and all laugh, and no man is hit so
hard that he cannot laugh with the
rest.’”
Proceeding from a foreign pen, this
lively parliamentary sketch must be
admitted to be wonderfully truthful.
Mr Schlesinger was particularly
struck, upon his visits to the House
of Commons, by two things, and these
were, the longwindedness of the orators,
and their ungraceful gesticulation.
An English orator, he says,
seems to make up his mind beforehand
to abstain from gestures, and
does his best to put his hands in a
place of safety. Some of the attitudes,
which are the consequence of this desire,
he justly describes as neither
tasteful nor elegant. “One man
thrusts his hands into his breeches’
pockets, another sticks them into his
waistcoat armholes, some hide them
inside their waistcoats, or under their
coat tails, others take a Napoleonic
attitude. Thus do they begin their
speeches. But, as the Englishman is
wont to linger no short time over the
mere exordium of his harangue; as
he is capable of talking much longer
about nothing than is commonly supposed
upon the Continent; as he has
very good lungs; and as a large portion
of the British public is apt to
estimate a speech’s value by its
length, it is quite conceivable that he
cannot maintain, during the whole
duration of his discourse, the posture
he adopts at its commencement. Besides
this, he may warm as he goes
on, and, when this is the case, he displays
the strangest action of his arms
and of his whole body.” In this
paragraph, Mr Schlesinger makes one
grave mistake. With the exception
of a very limited number of methodical
old fogies—slaves to habit, and the
curse of their clubs—who, having
nothing else in the world to do, make
it the business of their lives to read
the debates from the first line to the
last, we know of no class in the
United Kingdom that would not
heartily rejoice if members of Parliament
would cultivate brevity of
speech and early hours, as advantageous
alike to their own health and
to the business of the country. “What
a capital speech; it took an hour and
a half in delivery!” Such, according
to Mr Schlesinger, is the form of
praise often heard in England. He
blunders here. People will certainly
listen with pleasure for an hour and
a half, or for thrice as long, if they
have the chance, to the earnest and
fiery eloquence of a Derby—to the
graceful, lucid, and often witty discourse
of a Palmerston—to the polished
and scholarly periods of a
Macaulay—to the incisive oratory
of a Disraeli. They will even lend
their attention to the somewhat drawling
and monotonous, although business-like
delivery of the Whig leader
whom Mr Schlesinger has dubbed a
great orator, because Lord John is
supposed not to be one of those Englishmen
whom his German admirer
has declared to be capable of talking
a long while about nothing at all.
But Mr Schlesinger has taken a part
for the whole, and imagines that English
willingness to hear and read the
long discourses of a few chosen and
gifted men, extends itself to the lame
prose of the first noodle who takes
advantage of dinner-time to inflict
himself upon a bare house, a yawning
gallery, and reporters with closed
note-books. Let him take the confession
of members, public, and reporters,
as to the feelings with which
they listen to an infinitesimal economical
calculation, or to a two hours’
blatter about Borneo, from Mr Hume;
or to a monody on Poland, or eulogium
of Kossuth, from the lips of that
most wearisome of well-meaning men,
Lord Dudley Coutts Stuart. He will
find that in England the value of a
speech is not—as Byron says that of
a very different thing should be—“measured
by its length.”
Probably the two things that foreigners,
upon a visit to London, are
most curious to see, are the Thames
tunnel and Greenwich. Mr Schlesinger,
Dr Keif, and Frolick—who seems
an easy-going man-about-town sort of
cockney, delighted to have the pretext
of ciceronism to revisit all manner
of queer haunts—take ship at
London Bridge, their minds upon
white bait intent. They find much
to say upon the way, and are very
pleasant and amusing. In the beginning
Mr Schlesinger moralises upon
the crowd of colliers, more precious,
he maintains, to Britain than ever
were gold-laden galleons to Spain.
“Take from the British Isles their
coals,” he says; “pour gold, silver,
and diamonds, into the gloomy shafts;
fill them with all the coins that have
been coined, since the world’s commencement,
by good and bad princes,
and you will not replace the inflammable
spark that lies dormant in the
coal, and which creates vitality by its
own exhaustion.” Then he turns his
attention to his fellow-passengers by
the steam-boat, and remarks that the
difference of classes is not so strongly
defined by costume in England as in
France and Germany. He misses the
linen frocks or blouses worn on the
Continent by men of a class which, in
England, is usually clad in broadcloth,
though this be often ragged or threadbare.
“In London,” he says, “if
you see, early in the morning, a man
hurrying along the street in a black
coat, round hat, and white cravat, do
not take him for a professor hastening
to his college, or for an attaché to an
embassy conveying important despatches
to his chief. He probably
has soap-box, strap, and razor in his
pocket, or at best is shopman to some
Regent Street haberdasher—he may
be a waiter, a tailor, a shoemaker, or
a boot-cleaner. Many an omnibus-driver
sits white-cravated upon his
lofty box, and drives his horses as
gravely as a Methodist preacher leads
his flock. Amongst Englishwomen,
also, the difference of rank is not very
easy to be inferred from their dress.
Coloured silks, black velvet, and hats
with botanical appurtenances, are worn
by the maid as by her mistress.” This
general uniformity of costume in England
strikes most foreigners, and
shocks many. Frenchmen, in particular,
consider the use of old and
second-hand clothes, common amongst
the lower classes of our countrymen
and countrywomen, as a sort of degrading
barbarism. An amusingly
impertinent French journalist, in a
little book now before us, states his
view of the matter in colours which
are certainly vivid, but can hardly be
called exaggerated. “The eternal
black coat and white cravat!” he exclaims.
“One might take the people
for so many gentlemen of high degree,
condescending, in their leisure moments,
or from eccentric caprice, to
weigh sugar and measure calico.
Thus it was that I took the grocer, in
whose house I lodge, for a gentleman,
and, through stupid pride, dared not
bargain for my apartment, for which
I pay twice its value. The history of
an English black coat would fill a
volume, at once comic and philosophical.
One must take it up at its birth,
when it quits the premises of a fashionable
tailor to grace the shoulders of
Lord ——, who pays seven or eight
guineas for it, on account of its inimitable
cut. Thrown, a fortnight later,
to the nobleman’s valet-de-chambre,
it passes to the second-hand dandy,
then from back to back, lengthened,
shortened, always descending in the
social scale, losing its buttons, gaining
holes, and at last devolving to the
poor devil who sweeps a crossing,
over which prance the splendid horses
of the lord who was its first possessor.
Poor coat! Sold at last for three
shillings; its fragments finally used
to polish a table or cleanse a kitchen
floor, until they are bought by the
hundredweight and cast into the mill,
to reappear in some new form. The
fate of the coat is also that of the
gown. The lady’s gown and hat
begin their career in the drawing-room,
and end it in the gutter. We
foreigners are always shocked, on our
first arrival in England, to see the
servant-maids washing the door-steps
in bonnets, which once were of velvet,
and now are of nothing at all! One
sometimes observes upon them certain
vestiges which, plunged into
Marsh’s apparatus and analysed by
a skilful chemist, might be recognised
as fragments of feathers, shreds of
lace, or stalks of flowers. Does the
cook who wears this cast-off covering,
who wraps herself, to go to market, in
a tattered shawl, on whose surface
holes and stains vie for the mastery,
imagine that she will be taken for her
mistress going to buy her own butter
and vegetables, as an agreeable change
from the daily routine of park and
opera? What strange vanity is it
that peeps through these ragged garments?
Why do these honest Englishmen
prefer a gentleman’s old
clothes to the clean blouse or warm
strong jacket they might get for the
same price?” There is considerable
truth in these remarks, especially
as regards men’s coats and women’s
head-dress, although we do not believe,
as does the Frenchman we
have quoted, that the wearing of
second-hand clothes proceeds, on the
part at least of English men of the
lower classes, from a desire to ape
their superiors. It is one of those
habits one can hardly explain, which
we may designate as cosa de Inglaterra,
just as Spaniards define as cosa
de España any peculiar and eccentric
usage of their country. We must
submit the matter, one of these days,
to our old friend and contributor, the
author of the “Æsthetics of Dress.”
Of one thing we are very sure, that
no one possessing an eye—we will not
say for the picturesque, but for what
is neat, appropriate, and convenient—can
travel on the Continent, without
drawing between the everyday
dress of the English lower orders and
that of the corresponding classes in
most foreign countries, comparisons
highly unfavourable to the former.
And this is the more surprising that,
in most things, neatness is peculiarly
an English characteristic. Witness
the trim gardens, the whitewashed
cottages, the well-swept courts of our
villages, the vigorous application of
brush, broom, and soap in the humblest
dwellings of Britain. But a line
must be drawn between the country
and the towns. In the latter, the appearance
of the lower classes is anything
but well calculated to inspire
foreigners with a high opinion of their
regard to the external proprieties.
We share our French friend’s horror
of greasy, threadbare coats, and of
bonnets requiring chemical decomposition
to ascertain their primitive materials;
and, were it possible, we
would gladly see the former replaced
by the coarse clean frock or jacket;
the latter by the cheap coloured handkerchief
or straw-hat, which looks so
neat and becoming upon the heads of
Continental peasant and servant-women.
It is to be feared, however,
that to agitate the change would be
but a profitless crusade. The fault—and
a fault we think it must be admitted
to be—lies in the total absence
of anything like a national costume.
In all the more highly civilised European
countries, this, however graceful,
has been abandoned by the upper
classes in favour of a conventional, and
certainly, in most respects, a graceless
dress. But in all those countries, except
in England, that national costume
has been either retained, to a
certain extent, by the people, or exchanged
for one more in harmony
with their occupations—not discarded
in favour of such absurdities as long-tailed
coats and high-crowned beavers.
At the Thames Tunnel the two Germans
and their companion pause, and
Mr Schlesinger gives an account of its
origin and progress, which will have
novelty and interest even for many
Londoners. On reaching Greenwich,
the party admire the hospital—the
finest architectural group of modern
England, according to Mr Schlesinger,
with whom, notwithstanding the florid
pretensions of the new Houses of Parliament,
we quite agree on this score.
Greenwich is unquestionably the only
royal palace England possesses worthy
of the name. Windsor Castle
ranks in a different category. “Take
the most ingenious architect in the
world,” says Mr Schlesinger, “bind
his eyes, and bring him to the platform
on which we now stand; then,
removing the bandage, ask him the
purpose of this magnificent pile. If
he does not at once say that it is a
king’s palace, he is either the most
narrow-minded or the sharpest-witted
mortal that ever drew the plan of a
house. Who would suspect that all
this splendour of columns and cupolas
is devoted to the service of poor crippled
old sailors? That it nevertheless
is so, does honour to the founders and
to the English nation.” And then
Mr Schlesinger, who is a bit of a
frondeur, and not very indulgent to
his own country’s defects and failings,
contrasts the thoughtful care, tender
kindness, and splendid provision
which England’s veterans find at
Chelsea and Greenwich, with the deficiencies
and discomforts of the analogous
institution at Vienna, and with
the absence of any at all at Berlin.
Passing the Trafalgar, which he recommends
to all “who are willing to
pay more money for a good dinner
than would keep an Irish family for a
week,” he moralises his way through
the Park—then full of holiday-makers,
for it is Monday, and “the people
indemnify themselves for the rigidity
of English Sabbath-observance.” A
dinner at Lovegrove’s, and speculations
upon white bait, conclude a pleasant
day and an amusing chapter.
Mr Tremplin is described as a little
elderly gentleman, with hair curled in
a very youthful fashion, rosy cheeks,
and a forest of grey whisker which
would make him look quite fierce, but
for the expression of mingled good-humour
and vanity that twinkles in
his little black eyes. For twenty
years he had been in the habit of
paying an occasional week’s visit to
Sir John, and upon each succeeding
visit he found London more and more
gloomy and unbearable. Nothing less
than his affection for his old friends
could have induced him to exchange
his heavenly Paris for the fogs of
Thames. When in England, however,
he amiably concealed his dissatisfaction,
ate and drank like an Englishman,
laughed and joked with the
ladies from morning till night, and
wiped his eyes when he took his leave.
Between him and Dr Keif vehement
discussions were of frequent occurrence.
Tremplin was inexhaustible
in his laudation of France; and this
the doctor could the less endure, that
this adulator of Paris was himself a
German by birth, although he had
passed his life in the French capital,
had made his little fortune in the
Opera Passage, and, like most renegades,
out-Heroding Herod, was infinitely
more French than a native-born
Frenchman. Had he been an
undeniable Parisian, Dr Keif might
perhaps, from courtesy, have spared
his feelings; but the Austrian journalist
had no consideration for the
feelings of a Frenchman who had first
seen the light at Frankfort-on-the-Maine,
and he gave his sarcastic
tongue full swing. At dinner, one
day, at Sir John’s, we find them at it,
hammer-and-tongs; Monsieur Tremplin
holding up Paris as an example
in all respects to the entire universe;
Dr Keif, exasperated by this exorbitant
claim, sneering bitterly at the
pretension.
“‘It is inconceivable,’ cried the
doctor, ‘that all the world beside
does not sit idle, since Paris is there
to think and work for it. What does
one need for universal regeneration
beyond the Journal des Débats, which
signifies enlightenment—Mademoiselle
Rachel, who represents the æsthetical
education of mankind—and
the Chasseurs d’Afrique as the representatives
of freedom? Even in the
Paris cancan, immoral as it may seem,
there is doubtless grace and decency
enough to civilise half a world. Eh?
What say you? And if France is
found one morning in the guardhouse,
it is merely because she has
danced like mad the whole night
through for the good of oppressed
humanity, and her evil case is but a
witty trick, suggested by the most
profound ideas of emancipation; for,
enfin, France can do whatever she
wills to do. She undertakes, in broad
daylight and before the eyes of all
Europe, to lie down in the dirtiest
gutter, and she succeeds. Woe to the
benighted people who do not forthwith
follow her example, who cannot
see that a gutter in which France
wallows must lead straight to salvation.
The French are the most conceited
and crazy people on the earth’s
surface—a nation of witty fools, of
genial ragamuffins, of old gamins and
revolutionary lacqueys, who can neither
govern themselves nor be governed,
for any length of time, by
God’s grace; they consequently, after
their fourth revolution and third republic,
will seek safety at the feet of
an Orleanist or Bourbon prince, whom
they will replace, after a while, by
some romantic hairdresser, dancing-master,
or cook, elected by universal
suffrage. For my part, I vote for
Soyer: he has at least the merit of
having established a good school of
cookery at the Reform Club.’”
Whilst extracting this tirade of the
incorrigible Keif’s, we have taken no
notice of the frequent interruptions
attempted by the unfortunate German-Frenchman.
The doctor’s flowers
of rhetoric were far from fragrant to
the nostrils of Tremplin, and the vein
of truth that ran through his discourse
made its somewhat brutal and exaggerated
form yet harder to bear.
“The most audacious blasphemy,”
says Mr Schlesinger, “shouted into
the ear of an English bishop’s grandmother,
might have an effect approaching
to that which the compliments of
the excited Keif had upon his neighbour’s
nerves.” Purple and perspiring,
and unable to get in a word, poor
Tremplin received one rattling volley
after another, vainly endeavouring to
escape from the iron grip the doctor
kept upon the topmost button of his
coat. At last he was released, with
a parting prod from Keif’s barbed
tongue.
“‘Notwithstanding their deeply
sunken condition,’ the doctor said, ‘it
is undeniable that the French, like the
Spaniards, Italians, and Irish, are still
a witty, diverting, and highly interesting
nation.’
“‘Infiniment obligé!’ screamed
Tremplin, breaking from the doctor,
making a low bow, and thrice repeating
the words, ‘How said you?
Di-vert-ing! Infiniment obligé, Monsieur
le Docteur! Your German modesty
inspires you with charming
compliments.’
“‘No compliment, Monsieur Tremplin,’
replied Keif: ‘merely my honest
opinion.’
“The Frenchman cast an epigrammatical
side-glance at the doctor,
buttoned his coat to the chin, as if
arming himself for an important decision,
and exclaimed in a loud voice:
‘You are’—(A long pause ensued,
during which all present rose in confusion
from their seats.) ‘You are
totally unacquainted with Paris!’
“‘And what then?’ said Dr Keif.
“‘That is enough, I need to know
no more. Enfin....’ And with a
shrug of the shoulders in which the
doctor should have beheld his moral
annihilation, Mr Tremplin turned his
back upon his opponent.”
Some minutes elapsed before the
agitation caused by this little scene
completely subsided. In the embrasure
of a window, the lady of the house
poured balm into poor Tremplin’s
wounds; Keif paced the room, his
complexion green and yellow, visibly
struggling with the consciousness that
he had been too hard upon the poor
little Frenchman—rather rudely vehement
and sarcastic; Sir John alone
remained at table, balancing a silver
dessert-knife, and making a small
speech, to which nobody listened, in
praise of the admirable parliamentary
order observed at English public dinners.
“‘There, when did it occur to
anybody, before the removal of the
cloth, to speak on more serious subjects
than the domestic virtues of
turtle and turbot, the tenderness of
the lamb and venison, the age and
excellence of the wines, and the qualities
of all those good things of the
earth which are so exquisitely adapted
to promote the harmonious intercourse
of Whigs and Tories, High Churchmen
and Dissenters, landlords and
cotton lords? There is the great
point. That is what foreigners will
not learn. They do nothing at the
right time and nothing thoroughly,
therefore do they eat gall and brew
poison.’” There may be more than
one grain of truth in the baronet’s
words, Mr Schlesinger opines, but he
does not stay to discuss the subject.
It was written that the evening should
be one of scrutiny and controversy.
The feud between Keif and Tremplin
having been easily put an end to by
Sir John’s good-humoured intervention,
the conversation again became
general. The doctor must go out at
nine o’clock, he said; he had promised
to accompany Frolick to the
theatre, and in a stroll through the
theatrical district of London. This
brought up Tremplin—not, indeed, to
renew wordy combat with the formidable
antagonist by whom he had been
so recently worsted, but to express
his astonishment that anybody could
go to a London theatre in the dead
season. He had always understood
that the only theatres to which comme-il-faut
people went in London were
the Italian operas and the miniature
French playhouse in St James’s, and
these were then closed. It was true
that the queen annually honoured the
obscure English theatres with a few
visits, but that was merely out of complaisance
to English prejudices. The
ladies protested against this depreciation
of the English drama; but the
Parisian, who had quite forgotten his
late indignation and discomfiture, did
but smile and politely persist—developing
his notions on an infinite variety
of subjects with that easy, urbane,
superficial dogmatism which characterises
the very numerous class of
Frenchmen who combine unbounded
admiration of their own nation and
country with slight esteem for, and
considerable ignorance of, all others.
“‘Mesdames!’ he exclaimed, ‘you
have no idea of all that you forego by
living in London. It is well for you
that you have never been in Paris, or
you would feel like Eve when banished
from Paradise, to which she would so
gladly have returned for a chat with
the seductive serpent. Pardieu, Paris!
There, everyday life is an enchanting
drama; every drawing-room
is a stage; every chamber has its
wings; and every one, from the porter
to the duke, has perfectly learned
his part. The theatres that open at
night do but display and illuminate,
with a magical light, the day’s comedy.
Your worthy English people
can neither act nor judge of acting.
An English actor is a creature as
much out of nature as a Parisian
quaker. Where do you find most
passion for the art—here or with us?
Paris has hardly half so many inhabitants
as London, but has many
more theatres, and they are always
as full as your churches. The poorest
artisan cannot exist without sunning
himself in the radiance of the stage;
and will live for two days of the week
on bread and milk, in order to save a
few sous for the Variétés or the Funambules
on Sunday evening. Show
me the Englishman who will sacrifice
a mouthful of his bloody roast-beef
for the sake of a refined enjoyment.
No, no;—you weave and spin, and
steam and hammer, and eat and drink,
with God knows how many horses’
power; but as to enjoying life, you
do not understand it. Am I right,
Madame?’”
The ladies looked at each other,
but were not ready with an answer.
Sir John shook his head as he sat in
his arm-chair, and remarked that
there were good grounds for the difference.
The Frenchman would not
admit their goodness, and launched
into an energetic diatribe against the
strictness of London Sabbath-observance.
We take it for granted that,
even if the personages introduced into
Mr Schlesinger’s book are not imaginary,
the conversations he gives are
chiefly of his own composition, intended
to display the different sides
of the various questions discussed;
and that a juste milieu between the
rather extreme views expressed by
Keif and Tremplin, and occasionally
by Sir John, may be adopted with
tolerable certainty as the measure of
the author’s own opinions. Of this
last point we feel the more convinced,
by the moderate and sensible
manner in which Mr Schlesinger
expresses himself when speaking in
his own person. His delineation of
the representatives of England, Germany,
and France, and the manner
in which he puts them through their
parts, is really very spirited and clever.
Without, of course, in the
slightest degree coinciding in the
levity and irreverence of the profane
Parisian, we will give a further specimen
of his views and notions concerning
this country, its condition and
institutions; views and notions which,
allowing for the tinge (only a slight
one) of humorous caricature thrown
in by Mr Schlesinger, are, in our firm
belief—we might almost say, to our
certain knowledge—those of a great
number of Monsieur Tremplin’s fellow-citizens.
Having taken up the
ball of conversation, the Frenchman
ran on with it at a canter, curvetting
and kicking up his heels with huge
self-satisfaction, and highly pleased
at having an opportunity of showing
himself at once patriotic, eloquent,
and gallant. He proceeded to explain
the causes of the decline of the
British drama.
“In the first place,” he said, “the
performance of a play would desecrate
the Sunday evening. The Sabbath
must be ended as wearisomely as it
is begun. If one speaks of this to an
Englishman, he pulls a long face, and
talks about the morality of the lower
orders. How moral the English
lower orders are! One sees that
every Monday, when the drunken
cases are brought up at the police
offices. One man has bitten off a
constable’s nose by way of a joke;
another has knocked down his wife
and danced upon her body; a third
has cut open his better-half’s head
with the poker. All morality and
liquor; but, thank heaven, they have
not been to the theatre—any more
than to church. Don’t tell me, because
you have more churches than
there are days in the calendar, that
your poor people go to them; there
is no room for them. Your churches
are for respectable citizens, with cash
jingling in their pockets. Then again,
there are thousands of quakers, methodists,
and other fanatics, who consider
it a deadly sin to visit a theatre
even upon working days. And finally,
you are all such smoky fireside
people—so given to stick in your
shells like snails—that it is a punishment
to you to have to creep out of
your houses; or else you have such
a silly passion for green grass, that
you go and live at the end of the
world, where you need a carriage to
bring you home from the theatre by
daybreak. These terrible distances
ruin the pocket, and cramp civilisation.
Your much-be-praised Englishmen,
doctor, have not got a monopoly
of wisdom. But I pity them not. It
is for the poor daughters of Albion
that I feel sorry. Upon my honour,
ladies, I should not grieve if Napoleon’s
glorious dream were to be
realised. Ha, ha! That would be a
life! Fancy our grande armée leaping
one day upon the British shores.
Before the sun is up the braves are in
the city, say bonjour, conquer, and are
forthwith conquered—by the charms
of the fair-haired Anglo-Saxons.
Our soldiers ask nothing in the way
of acknowledgment. Keep your bank,
your religion, and your lord mayor.
The sole glory desired by France is,
to annihilate the dragon of English
ennui. Hand in hand with the fair
sex, the invincible army achieves that
feat. On the first evening there is a
great fraternity-ball at Vauxhall; the
next morning appears a manifesto in
the name of the liberating army, by
which the erection of at least one
French vaudeville theatre in every
parish is decreed, as the sole reward
of the victors; and in a few years,
when these new institutions have
taken firm root in the hearts of the
English people, the heroic army returns
to sunny France, promising to
come back should you relapse into
your puritanical hypochondria. The
daughters of Albion stand upon their
chalky cliffs, and wring their white
hands in grief at their deliverers’ departure.
What say you to this picture?
Is it not chivalrous? Is it
not replete with the most affecting
disinterestedness? And do you doubt
that it dwells in the hearts of thousands
of Frenchmen?”
If Monsieur Tremplin here paused,
it was for breath rather than for a
reply. Certainly it was not for want
of matter, for he quickly resumed
his satirical commentary on English
usages, rattling off a string of libels
on the dress and carriage of Englishwomen,
on English musical taste, &c.
&c.—the whole for the special benefit
of Keif, whom he had got into a
corner, the ladies being now busy
tea-making. In the heap of flippancy
and exaggeration, a few sparkles of
sense and truth are discernible; not
all the Frenchman’s arrows fly wide
of the mark. He laughs pitilessly at
the medley of colours frequently seen
in ladies’ dresses in England; talks
of “a scarlet shawl over an apple-green
gown with yellow flounces, and
a cavalry hat with ostrich feathers”
(the judicious assortment of colours
is one of the great studies and occupations
of a Parisian woman’s life),
and is altogether abominably disrespectful
and scandalous in his remarks
upon the fair sex of Great Britain,
although he speaks in raptures of the
beauty of “the raw material”—the
beautiful hair, form, complexion, and
so forth. Presently he gets upon the
opera, and the dress exacted as a
condition of admission. “Dresscoats
and black trousers—why not
powder and bagwigs? It is written
in the Morning Post that seven delicate
ladies, in the first row of boxes,
once fell into picturesque fainting fits,
because a foreigner with a coloured
neckcloth had smuggled himself into
the pit. Be it observed that he had
paid his bright Victorias at the door
like anybody else. Dress-coat is
indispensable—black trousers ditto;
but coat and trousers may be old,
dirty, threadbare. It strikes one as
strange, that, besides paying his money,
he is to be tutored by the servants
at a theatre-door.” Keif, listening
with smiling indulgence to the
petulant Frenchman, occasionally presumes
to differ from him, or at least
to modify his strictures on English
tastes and usages. “One meets with
very good musical connoisseurs in
this country,” says the doctor; “but
I confess that the British public’s
digestive powers, in respect of music,
often astonish me. John Bull sits
out two symphonies by Beethoven,
an overture of Weber’s, a couple of
fugues by Bach, half-a-score of Mendelssohn’s
songs, and half-a-dozen
other airs and variations, and goes
home and sleeps like a marmot. At
the theatre he will take in a tragedy
by Shakespeare, a three-act comedy
from the French, a ballet, and a substantial
London farce. All that does
not spoil his stomach.” Tremplin
was delighted to find the doctor falling
into his line. “Yes,” he said,
“nothing satisfies these people but
quantity. The Englishman throws
down his piece of gold and asks for a
hundredweight of music”—and he
urged the doctor to go to Paris. Sir
John was the best creature in the
world, but he was an original—an
oddity. The doctor, upon the other
hand, was a man of sense and observation;
and before he had worn out
a couple of pair of shoe-soles upon
the asphalt of the boulevards, his eyes
would be opened.
“Pardieu! Paris!” cried the little
man, getting very excited. “The
whole civilised world dresses itself out
in the cast-off clothes of Paris. What
has Paris not? Do you wish religion?
There are Lacordaire, Lamennais,
and the Univers. Religion of
all sorts. Are you a lover of philosophy?
Go to Proudhon. For my
part, to speak candidly, I care neither
for philosophy nor religion; both are
mauvais genre, and I should not mind
if M. Proudhon were hung; but that
does not prevent me, as a Frenchman,
from being proud of him. In a word,
you will convince yourself that the
whole world beside is but a bad imitation
of Paris. There you find heaven
and the other place, order and
freedom, the romance of orgies and
the solitude of the cloister, all combined
in the most beautiful harmony—in
the most magnificent and elegant
form. Of one thing especially”—and
Tremplin laid his hand, with the earnestness
of an apostle, upon the shoulder
of the astounded Keif—“be well
assured, and that is, that nowhere
but in Paris can you learn to speak
French. Impossible. You never
catch the accent. England’s climate
is the most dangerous of all for the
pronunciation. I, an old Parisian,
still am sensible of the pestilential
influence the jargon here spoken has
upon my tongue; and whenever I return
to Paris from London, I feel
ashamed before my own porter.”
The hour was come for Keif to bend
his steps theatrewards. Sir John
escorted him to the door, and apologised,
by the way, for the provocation
Tremplin had given him at dinner.
It was some slighting remark about
Germans—an intimated opinion that
they would never be accessory to the
combustion of the Thames—that had
first roused the ire of Keif, and provoked
his tremendous denunciation
of Frenchmen as all that is frivolous,
unstable, and contemptible.
“‘What can you expect from a
Frenchman?’ said Sir John. ‘He
is a harmless soul, but a great oddity;
one might make money by exhibiting
him in Piccadilly. When I first knew
him I took some trouble with him,
and tried to give him an idea of what
England is; but, as the proverb says,
you cannot argue a dog’s hind-leg
straight. You will never catch me
arguing with him again.’”
Keif went his way, chuckling at
the notion of this precious pair of
mortals taxing each other with oddity,
and totally unconscious that he himself
was as great an oddity as either
of them. It was long after midnight
when he returned home. Everybody
was gone to bed, the servant told
him, except Sir John and Monsieur.
He found them at their chamber-doors;
with candles, burnt low, in
their hands. The baronet had forgotten
his resolution;—he was trying
to argue the dog’s hind-leg straight.
The pair were in the heat and fervour
of a discussion, which had evidently
been of long duration. Shakspeare
and Frenchwomen were its rather
strangely assorted subjects. The
doctor caught a few sentences as he
passed, wished the disputants good
night, and turned into bed. Fully a
quarter of an hour elapsed before they
evacuated the lobby to follow his
example. Keif laughed to himself.
“‘So,’ he said, ‘in Monsieur
Tremplin’s eyes, Shakespeare is deficient
in power; and Sir John denies
that Frenchwomen are graceful! Was
there ever such a pair of originals?’
And so saying, the third original went
to sleep.”
We need hardly say that the ramble
of Dr Keif (by whom we suspect
Mr Schlesinger himself is meant)
through the theatrical purlieus, furnished
abundant materials for a chapter.
It was Saturday—the very night
to see the Drury district in its glory;
for wages had been paid, and after
twelve no liquor would be sold; so
the fortunate recipients of cash were
making the most of the short night.
This chapter, like some others in the
book, shows such a thorough familiarity
with, and correct perception of,
London low life—is so totally different,
in short, from the blundering
and exaggerated pictures one usually
meets with in accounts of London by
foreigners—that we are more than
once tempted, whilst reading it, to
suspect the writer of unacknowledged
obligations to English authors. But
Mr Schlesinger has, we have no doubt,
been long resident in England, and
as he, moreover, in one or two instances,
indicates by a note his appropriation
of English materials, we
dismiss from our mind the idea of
unconfessed plagiarism. Since we
do so, we must not refuse him the
praise to which his faithful and striking
sketches fairly entitle him. With
him and Frolick, we turn out of the
Strand, through a narrow court, into
Drury Lane.
“In the shops which occupy the
ground floor of almost all the houses,
are exposed for sale, at low prices,
shabby female apparel, coarse eatables,
low literature with horrible
illustrations, strong shoes, old clothes,
abominable cigars, cold and hot meat.
But the most prominent feature in
the whole of Drury Lane is the gin
palace, whose favourite station is at
corners, where the lane is intersected
by cross streets. The gin palace contrasts
with the adjacent buildings
pretty much as does a Catholic church
with the cottages of a Slavonian village.
From afar it looms like a lighthouse
to the thirsty working man;
for it is sumptuous with plate glass
and gilt cornices, and dazzling with
a hundred many-coloured inscriptions.
Here, in the window, is the
portrait of a giant from Norfolk, who
is employed in the house to draw
liquor and customers; yonder, in
green letters upon the pane, we read—‘The
Only Genuine Brandy in London;’
or, in red letters—‘Here is
sold the celebrated strengthening
wholesome Gin, recommended by all
the doctors’—‘Cream Gin’—‘Honey
Gin’—‘Genuine Porter’—‘Rum that
would knock down the Devil,’ &c.
&c. Often the varnished door-posts
are painted from top to bottom with
suchlike spirited announcements. It
is to be remarked, that even those
gin shops which externally are the
most brilliant, within are utterly comfortless.
The landlord intrenches
himself behind the bar, as in a fortress
where his customers must not enter.
The walls in this sanctuary are covered
with a whole library of large
and small casks, painted of various
colours. The place thus partitioned
off is sometimes a picture of cleanliness
and comfort, and within it an
arm-chair invites to repose; but in
front of the bar, for the customers,
there is nothing but a narrow dirty
standing place, rendered yet more
disagreeable by the continual opening
and shutting of the doors, and where
the only seat, if there be one at all,
is afforded by an empty cask in a corner.
Nevertheless the palace receives
a constant succession of worthy
guests, who, standing, reeling, crouching
or lying, muttering, groaning or
cursing, drink and—forget.
“On sober working days, and in
tolerable weather, there is nothing
remarkable, to the uninitiated, in the
appearance of Drury Lane. Many a
little German capital is worse lighted,
and not so well paved. Misery is less
plainly legible upon the physiognomy
of this district than upon that of Spitalfields,
St Giles’s, Saffron Hill, and
other wretched corners of London.
But at certain times it oozes, like Mississippi
slime, out of every pore. On
Saturday evenings, after working-hours,
on the evening of holiday-Monday,
and after church on Sunday,
Drury Lane is seen in its glory. On
the other hand, Sunday morning in
Drury Lane is enough to give the
most cheerful person the spleen. For
the poorer classes of labourers the
Lord’s day is a day of penance, without
church to go to or walk to take.
The well-dressed throngs that fill
parks and churches scare smock-frock
and fustian-jacket into the beer-shops.
For the English proletarian is ashamed
of his rags, and knows not how to
drape himself with them picturesquely,
like the Spanish or Italian lazzarone,
who holds beggary to be an honourable
calling. In the deepest misery, the
Englishman has still pride enough to
shun the society of those even half a
grade superior to himself, and to confine
himself to that of his equals,
amongst whom he may freely raise
his head. And then church and park
have no charm for him. His legs are
too weary for a walk into the country;
boat, omnibus, and railway, are too
dear. His church, his park, his club,
his theatre, his refuge from the exhalations
of the sewers above which he
dwells and sleeps, are the gin palace.”
This is a gloomy, but we fear, to a
certain extent, too true a picture. In
every large city, and particularly in
such an overgrown one as London, a
certain-amount of misery of the kind
above depicted must exist; there must
be a certain number of human beings
living in a state of almost total deprivation
of those blessings which
God intended all his creatures to
share—of a pure air, of the sight of
fields and flowers, of opportunities to
praise His name in the society of their
fellow-men. But we are pretty sure
Mr Schlesinger has lived long enough
in England to discern, and has
candour enough to admit, that in no
country in the world are such generous,
energetic, and unceasing efforts
made by the more fortunate classes
for the moral and physical betterment
of the unfortunates whose degraded
condition he graphically and truly describes.
That which in most European
countries is left almost entirely
to the charge of government, and
which is consequently often left undone,
or at best half done, is effected
in England by the cordial co-operation
of the government and the nation,
aided by a press which must in justice
be admitted to be ever ready to give
publicity to social grievances, to the
sufferings of particular classes, and to
practical suggestions for their alleviation
or remedy. Fortunate inhabitants
of a favoured land, we must not
allow the difference just pointed out
to inflate our national vanity over-much.
In no country is there so much
private wealth as in England, and
thus, when we seem to give much, we
may be giving not more than others
whose means are less, but their will
as good. Then there is, undeniably,
another, and we should perhaps say
a selfish, motive for the energetic,
efficient, and liberal manner in which
the opulent and well-to-do classes of
Englishmen take up and prosecute
schemes for the amelioration of their
poorer countrymen. An observant
people, shrewd in deduction, and setting
common sense above every other
mental quality, we take warning by
our neighbours. And we feel that the
best safeguard for institutions we all
revere and cherish—the best security
against sedition and revolution, and
against the propagation, by designing
knaves and misguided enthusiasts, of
that jacobinism whose manœuvres and
excesses have proved so fatal in other
lands—is a generous and humane consideration
of the wants and sufferings
of the poorer classes, and an earnest
endeavour to elevate their condition.
And let us acknowledge, with thankfulness,
that we have good stuff to
work upon; that if the higher classes
show themselves prompt in sacrifices,
a praiseworthy patience is displayed
by those they strive to succour. The
Parisian artisan or day-labourer, although
probably less of a bellygod
than the Londoner of the same class,
quickly gets irate when he finds bread
dear and commons short; and, upon
the first suggestion from any democrat
who promises him a big loaf, is
ready enough to “descend into the
street,” tear up the pavement, build a
barricade, and shoot his brother from
behind it. Contrast this with the
fortitude and long-suffering of the
poor gin-and-beer-drinking people
whom Mr Schlesinger qualifies (and
the terms, perhaps, may not be justly
gainsaid) as besotted and obtuse of
sense. Grant that they be so; they
yet have qualities which constitute
them valuable citizens of a free country.
They will toil, when work is to
be had; they have an innate respect
for law and order, and a manly pride
which makes them shun a workhouse
coat as an abject livery; they loathe
the mendicancy in which the southern
lazzarone luxuriates; they are not
insensible to the benevolent efforts
constantly making in their behalf;
and they take little heed of the demagogue’s
artful incitements.
“There is hardly any people,”
muses Mr Schlesinger, in a very different
part of his book and of London,
(when strolling at the Hyde Park end
of Piccadilly), “that loves a green
tree and an open lawn so heartily as
the English. They have not less reverence
for the noble trees in their
parks than had the Druids for the
sacred oaks in their consecrated
groves; and it does one’s heart good
to see that the struggle with Nature,
the striving to apply her powers
to wool-carding and spindle-turning,
does not destroy the feeling for those
of her beauties which cannot be converted
into capital and interest. The
English nation refute, in their own
persons, the oft-repeated lie that
‘excessive’ cultivation (civilisation)
estranges men from their primitive
childish feelings. In England, more
than in any other part of the world,
are fire and water, earth and air,
made use of as bread-winners; in
England, the ploughed field is fattened
with manure gathered on barren reefs
thousands of miles distant; in England,
nature is forced to produce the
enormous water-lilies of the tropics,
and to ripen fruits of unnatural size;
in England, one eats grapes from
Oporto, oranges from Malta, peaches
from Provence, pine-apples from Jamaica,
bananas from St Domingo, and
nuts from Brazil. That which the
native soil produces only upon compulsion,
and at great cost, is borrowed
from other zones, but not on that account
are his native trees and meadows,
woods and shrubberies, less
dear to the Englishman.”
Mr Schlesinger will not doubt that
this love of rural scenes and nature’s
beauties, which he so happily and
gracefully discriminates and defines, is
common to all classes of Englishmen.
We believe that it is, and we recognise
in it a propitious sign. The poor
people he has seen, during his Sabbath
rambles in London’s “back-slums,”
losing sight of the blessed
sunshine, and immuring themselves in
a tap-room or gin palace, would perhaps,
but for their ragged garments,
weary limbs, and scantily furnished
pockets, have preferred, like their betters,
a country ramble, to the cheap
and deleterious excitement provided
for them by Booth and Barclay. But
we feel that we are arguing without
an opponent. We can only trust, and
we do so trust, seriously and gladly,
that the day will never come when
the consciousness that the attainment
of perfection is impossible will deter
English legislators and philanthropists
from devoting their utmost energies
and abilities to the improvement of
the meanest and most depraved classes
of their fellow-countrymen.
The conviction that Shakespeare is
better known, better understood, and,
above all, better acted in Germany than
in England, is very prevalent in the
former country, where we have often
heard it boldly put forward and sustained.
When in Shakespeare’s native
land, Germans may possibly be more
modest in their pretensions; and yet
we must not be too confident of that,
when we see a German company selecting
Shakespeare’s plays for performance
before a refined and critical
London audience. The recent performances
of Emil Devrient and his
companions, give especial interest to
some theatrical criticisms put forth by
Dr Keif for the benefit of his friend
Frolick, seated by his side in the pit
of the Olympic Theatre. He is of
opinion that English actors, when rendering
Shakespeare’s characters, cling
too tenaciously to tradition, and aim
too little at originality. After a visit
to a penny theatre, of the proceedings
at which he gives a most laughable
account, he returns, at some length, to
the subject of the English stage, and
highly praises certain English comic
actors as excellent, and superior to
any of the same class in Germany.
“I know nothing better,” he says,
“than Matthews at the Lyceum, and
Mrs Keeley. There you have natural
freshness, vigour, ease, and finesse, all
combined in right proportions. There
is less heartiness about our German
comic performances; they always remind
me of the strained vivacity of a
bookworm in a drawing-room; now
the author, then his interpreter, is too
visibly forced in his condescension.”
What follows is less complimentary.
“When I for the first time, at Sadler’s
Wells, saw Romeo and Juliet
performed, I bit my lips all to pieces.
Juliet looked as if she came from a
ladies’ school at Brompton, instead of
an Italian convent; the orthopedical
stays and backboard were unmistakable:
as to Romeo, I would unhesitatingly
have confided to him the
charge of an express train, so sober
and practical was his air, so solid and
angular each one of his movements.
The same impression was made upon
me by Mercutio, Tybalt, Lorenzo. It
was not that they displayed too little
vocal and mimic power; on the contrary,
it was because they gesticulated
like madmen, and ranged up and down
the entire gamut of human tones, from
a whistle to a roar, that I too plainly
saw that no tragic passion was in
them. The same company afterwards
delighted me in comic pieces.” In
English theatricals Mr Schlesinger’s
taste is strongly for the humorous;
the broader the farce and the thicker
the jokes, the better he is pleased. A
Christmas pantomime, with its practical
fun and methodical folly, delights
him. He is wonderstruck and enchanted
by the mischievous agility of
clown, and the only drawback to his
pleasure is the inappropriate introduction
of a ballet. “To see twenty or
thirty Englishwomen, of full grenadier
stature, perform a ballet-dance ten
minutes in length, is an enjoyment
from which one does but slowly recover.
To this day I live in the firm
conviction that the worthy young women
had not the least idea that they
were called upon for an artistical performance,
but took their long legs for
mathematical instruments, with which
to demonstrate problems relating to
right angles, the hypothenuse, and the
squaring of the circle.” This sarcasm
elicited a long reply from Frolick, who
had once, it seems, been a fideler
bursch in Heidelberg, who knew German
well, and had seen Shakespeare
acted in both countries. In some respects
he preferred the German performance
of Hamlet and Romeo and
Juliet, but Richard III. and Falstaff
were to be seen best in England. The
decline of the drama in this country
he attributed to a complication of
causes, of which he cited two—the
nation’s preoccupation with matters
more practical and important, and
the want of a government support.
“In your country,” he said, “thirty
courts cherish, foster, and patronise
the theatre; here, every theatre is a
private speculation. When the Queen
has taken a box at the Princess’s
Theatre and another at Covent Garden,
she has done all that is expected from
her Majesty in the way of patronage
of the drama. Upon the same boards
upon which to-day you hear the swanlike
notes of Desdemona, you to-morrow
may behold an equestrian troop
or a party of Indian jugglers. If you
complain of such desecration of the
muse’s temple, you are simply laughed
at. Aubry’s dog, which so excited
the holy indignation of Schiller and
Goethe, would be welcomed at any of
our theatres, so long as he filled the
house.” Without going the length of
restricting theatrical performances to
what is termed the legitimate drama,
there ought to be a limit to illegitimacy,
and unquestionably the introduction
upon our stage of tumblers,
jugglers, and posture-masters, circus-clowns,
rope-dancers, and wild Indians,
has powerfully contributed to
lower its character, and to wean many
lovers of the drama from the habitual
frequenting of theatres. But
the stage in England has not the importance
and weight it enjoys in some
foreign countries; notably in France,
where it is one of the means used to
distract from politics the attention of
the restless excitement-loving people;
where ministers of state, and imperial
majesty itself, condescend to interfere
in minute dramatic details, and to
command the suppression of pieces
whose merits they deem beneath the
dignity of the theatre at which they
are produced. There, it is worth a
government’s while to subsidise the
theatres; in England such an item
would never be tolerated in a chancellor
of the exchequer’s budget. Nor
is it needed. Public demand will
always create as large a supply as is
really required.
Pleasantly and intelligently criticising
and discoursing, the German
doctor and his companion took their
way again through Drury Lane,
witnessing more than one disgusting
scene of drunkenness, riot, and brutality.
It was hard upon midnight:
the gin palaces and their frequenters
were making the most of their last
few minutes; the barrows of battered
fruit and full-flavoured shell-fish were
trading at reduced prices, upon the
principle of small profits and quick
returns; oysters as big as a fist
were piled up by threes and fours, at
a penny a heap—poverty and oysters,
Mr Weller has informed us, invariably
walk hand in hand; here was a girl
carried away dead drunk upon a
stretcher—“it was the hunger,” an
old Irishwoman, with a glowing pipe
in her mouth, assured the gentleman,
“that had done it—oh! only the hunger—the
smallest drop had been too
much for poor Sall;” here a brace of
Amazons were indulging in a “mill”
in the centre of an admiring ring; in
front of a public-house a half-famished
Italian ground out the air of “There’s
a good time coming, boys—wait a little
longer,” the organist looking the while
as if he had great need of the “good
time,” and very little power to wait.
Suddenly the lights went out in the
gin palaces, ballad-singers and hurdygurdy
stopped short in the middle of
their melodies, shouts and curses subsided
into a hoarse murmur, and the
mob dispersed and disappeared, to
adopt Mr Schlesinger’s severe comparison,
“like dirty rain-water that
rolls into gutters and sewers.” The
amateur observers of London’s blackguardism
pursued their homeward
way.
“Suddenly, from a side street, a
tall figure emerged with long noiseless
steps, and cast a glance right and
left—no policeman was in sight. Then
she rapidly approached our two friends
and fixed her glassy eyes upon them.
“It is no midnight spectre, but
neither is it a being of flesh and blood,
it consists but of skin and bone. Upon
her arm is an infant, to which the
bony hand affords but a hard dying-bed.
For a few seconds she gazes at
the strangers. They put some silver
into her hand. Without a word of
thanks, or of surprise at the liberality
of the alms, she walks away.
“‘The holy Sabbath has commenced,’
said Keif, after they had
proceeded for some distance in silence,
‘the puritanical Sabbath, on which
misery feels itself doubly and trebly
forlorn.’
“‘My dear friend,’ replied Frolick,
‘five-and-twenty years ago you might
have paved Oxford Street with such
unhappy wretches as that we just now
met. Now you must seek them out
in a nook of Drury Lane. And the
puritanism of the present day is a
rose-coloured full-blooded worldling,
compared to that of the Roundheads;
it is nothing but the natural reaction
against the licentious cavalier spirit,
created by the gloomy hypocrisy that
prevailed before the Restoration, and
handed down even to the beginning
of the present century. It is English
nature to cure one extreme by running
into the other. Either wildly
jovial or prudishly refined; drunkards
or teetotallers; prize-fighters or peace-society-men.
If the perception of a
harmonious happy medium, and the
instinct of beauty of form, were innate
in us, either we should no longer
be the tough, hard-working, one-sided,
powerful John Bull, or we
should ere now have proved the untruth
of your German proverb that in
no country under the sun do trees
grow until their branches reach the
sky.’”
After which modest intimation
(somewhat Teutonic in style) of his
patriotic and heartfelt conviction that
if England were a little better than
she is, she would be too good for this
world, Frolick took leave of his friend.
We shall soon follow his example.
Before doing so, we recommend to
all English readers of German, the
twelfth chapter of Mr Schlesinger’s
second volume, both as very interesting
and as containing many sensible
observations and home-truths. No
extraordinary acuteness is necessary
to discriminate between the writer’s
jest and earnest.
“The reader acquainted with
English domestic arrangements,” says
Mr Schlesinger in a note to his first
volume, “will long ago have found
out that the house we live in is that
of a plain citizen. So we may as
well confess that Sir John is neither
knight nor baronet, but was dubbed
by ourselves, in consideration of his
services to the reader, without licence
from the Queen, and with a silver
spoon instead of a sword.” Sir John
is not the less—if Mr Schlesinger’s
sketch be a portrait—a good fellow
and a worthy simple-hearted Englishman;
and we find with pleasure, at
the close of the book, a letter from
him, dated from his cottage in the
country, and addressed to the cynical
Keif, who was braving November’s
fogs in Guildford Street. The
doctor had sent to his friend and
host the proof-sheets of the second
volume of the Wanderings through
London; Sir John writes back his
thanks, his opinion of the work, and
his cordial forgiveness of the jokes at
his expense that it contains. “Never
mind,” he says; “we Englishmen
can stomach the truth; and if you will
promise me to abjure some portion of
your German stiffneckedness, I willingly
pledge myself never again to
try to reason a Frenchman’s hind-leg
straight. Between ourselves, that
was the greatest absurdity our friend
has exposed. As to all the rest, I
will maintain my words before God,
the Queen, and my countrymen.
But,” continues Sir John, quitting
personal considerations, “as regards
our friend’s book—which, you tell me,
is to be published at Christmas in
Berlin, the most enlightened of German
cities—I really fear, my dear
doctor, that it is a bad business.
How, in heaven’s name, are Germans
to form an idea of London from those
two meagre volumes? Many things
are depicted in them, but how many
are neglected, and these the very
things in which you Germans should
take a lesson from us! Not a word
about our picture-galleries, which,
nevertheless, impartially speaking,
are the first in the world! Not a
word about the British Museum,
about the Bridgewater, Vernon, and
Hampton Court galleries! Not a
word about St Paul’s, nor a syllable
concerning the Colosseum, Madame
Tussaud, or Barclay and Perkins’
Brewery! No mention of our finest
streets—Regent Street, Bond Street,
Belgravia, and Westbourne Terrace;
of our concerts at Exeter Hall, our
markets, our zoological and botanical
gardens, Kew, Richmond, Windsor,
art, literature, benevolent institutions,”
&c. &c. Sir John continues
his enumeration of omissions, until it
seems to comprise everything worth
notice in London; and we ask ourselves
with what Mr Schlesinger has
filled the eight hundred pages we
have read with so much satisfaction
and amusement. We perceive that
he has given his attention to men
rather than to things, that his vein
has been reflective and philosophical,
and that he has not mistaken himself
for the compiler of a London guide.
But still Sir John is dissatisfied. In
Berlin, he says, “people will imagine
England has no picture-galleries—ha!
ha! and no hospitals—ha! ha! ha!
In ten such volumes, the materials
would not be exhausted.”
“It is delightful here in the country,”
concludes Sir John, breaking off his
criticism. “Where do you find such
fresh green, and such mild air in November
as in our England? I go out
walking without a greatcoat, and say
to myself, ‘Across the water, in Germany,
the snow lies deep, and the
wolves walk in and out of Cologne
Cathedral.’ Here it is a little damp
of a morning and evening, but then
one sits by the fire and reads the
newspaper. Nowhere is one so comfortable
as in the country in England.
Come and see us in our cottage; the
children are longing to see you, and
so am I.”
Then comes a postscript, which,
like many postscripts, is not the least
important part of the letter. “At
this damp time of the year,” says the
spoon-dubbed baronet, “I advise
you to take a small glass of cognac of
a morning—there must still be some
bottles of the right sort in the cellar—and
every night one of my pills. You
will find a boxful on the chimney-piece
in my study. Do not be
obstinate: you do not know how
dangerous this season of the year is
in England.”
So kind and hospitable a letter demanded
a prompt reply, and accordingly
we get Dr Keif’s by return of
post. It is pretty evident, however,
that the motive of his haste is rather
anxiety to answer the charge of incompleteness
brought against Max
Schlesinger’s book, than generous
impatience to thank Sir John for
placing the pill-box at his disposal.
The author of the Wanderings, he
says, preferred dissecting and dwelling
upon a few subjects to slightly
touching upon a large number; and,
in his usual caustic strain, he reminds
his friend, that if some things of
which London has a right to be proud
have been left unnoticed, the same
has been the case with other things
of which she has reason to be ashamed.
He then enumerates the blots, as Sir
John had detailed the glories. Having
done so: “it is horrible here in
London,” he says. “Where do you
find such fogs and such a pestilential
atmosphere, in November, as in your
London? That the wolves now walk
in and out of Cologne Cathedral is a
mere creation of your Britannic imagination;
and, since you talk of doing
without a greatcoat, why, the English
walk about the whole winter through,
in Germany, in black dresscoats, but
they are cunning enough to carry
several layers of flannel underneath
them. Have you by chance discarded
yours? That you are comfortable in
your country-house I have no doubt.
That I never disputed.”
In his turn, Dr Keif treats himself
to a postscript. “Since this morning,”
he says, “I have followed your medical
prescription, and will keep to it—partially,
that is to say. I found the
cognac, and will take it regularly.
On the other hand, when you return
to London, you will find your
pills untouched upon your chimney-piece.”
And so we come to “Finis.” Mr
Schlesinger is a genial and unprejudiced
critic of a foreign capital’s customs
and character, and we thank him for
his agreeable, spirited, and impartial
volumes. By his own countrymen
they will, or we are greatly mistaken,
be highly and deservedly prized.
NEW READINGS IN SHAKESPEARE. [3] — NO. II.
303
If the glory of Shakespeare is a
theme for national congratulation, the
purity of his text ought to be an object
of national concern. It is not
enough that the general effect of his
writings should impress itself clearly
on the hearts and minds of all classes
of readers; that the grander and
broader features of his genius should
commend themselves to the admiration
of all mankind. This they can
never fail to do. The danger to which
Shakespeare is exposed is not such as
can ever materially affect the soul and
substance of his compositions. Here
he stands pre-eminent and secure. But
he is exposed to a danger of another
kind. As time wears on, his text
runs periodically the risk of being extensively
tampered with; whether by
the introduction of new readings, properly
so called, or by the insertion of
glosses of a comparatively ancient
date. The carelessness with which it
is alleged the earlier editions were
printed, is pleaded as an apology for
these conjectural corrections;—one
man’s ingenuity sets to work the wits
of another; and thus, unless the cacoethes
emendandi be checked betimes, a
distant posterity, instead of receiving
our great poet’s works in an authentic
form, may succeed to a very adulterated
inheritance.
This consideration induces us to
exert such small power as we may
possess to check the growing evil, and
in particular to repress that deluge of
innovations which Mr Collier has lately
let loose upon the gardens of Shakespeare,
from the margins of his corrected
folio of 1632, and which, if they
do not shake the everlasting landmarks,
at any rate threaten with destruction
many a flower of choicest
fragrance and most celestial hue. We
believe that when Mr Collier’s volume
was first published, the periodical
press was generally very loud in its
praises. “Here we have the genuine
Shakespeare at last,” said the journals,
with singular unanimity. But
when the new readings have been
dispassionately discussed, and when
the excitement of their novelty has
subsided, we believe that Mr Collier’s
“Shakespeare restitutus,” so
far from being an acceptable present
to the community, will be perceived
to be such a book as very few
readers would like to live in the same
house with.
In order, then, to carry out what
we conceive to be a good work—the
task, namely, of defending the text
of Shakespeare from the impurities
with which Mr Collier wishes to inoculate
it—we return to the discussion
(which must necessarily be of a minute
and chiefly verbal character) of the
new readings. We shall endeavour to
do justice to the old corrector, by
bringing forward every alteration
which looks like a real emendation.
Two or three small matters may perhaps
escape us, but the reader may
be assured that they are very small
matters indeed. It will be seen that
the unwise substitutions constitute an
overwhelming majority. The play that
stands next in order is “King John.”
King John—Act II. Scene 1.—In
this play the new readings are of no
great importance. A few of them may
equal the original text—one or two may
excel it—but certainly the larger portion
fall considerably below it in point
of merit. The best emendation occurs
in the lines in which young Arthur
expresses his acknowledgments to
Austria—
“I give you welcome with a powerless hand,
But with a heart full of unstained love.”
The MS. corrector proposes “unstrained
love,” which perhaps is the
better word of the two, though the
change is by no means necessary. The
same commendation cannot be extended
to the alteration which is proposed
in the lines where Constance is endeavouring
to dissuade the French king
from engaging precipitately in battle.
She says—
“My lord Chatillon may from England bring
That right in peace, which here we urge in war;
And then we shall repent each drop of blood,
That hot rash haste so indirectly shed.”
“Indirectly” is Shakespeare’s word.
The MS. corrector suggests “indiscreetly”—a
most unhappy substitution,
which we are surprised that the generally
judicious Mr Singer should approve
of. “Indiscreetly” means imprudently,
inconsiderately. “Indirectly”
means wrongfully, iniquitously, as may
be learnt from these lines in King
Henry V., where the French king is
denounced as a usurper, and is told
that Henry
“bids you, then, resign
Your crown and kingdom, indirectly held
From him the native and true challenger.”
It was certainly the purpose of Constance
to condemn the rash shedding
of blood as something worse than indiscreet—as
criminal and unjust—and
this she did by employing the term
“indirectly” in the Shakespearean
sense of that word.
In this same Act, Scene 2, a new
reading—also approved of by Mr Singer,
and pronounced “unquestionably
right” by Mr Collier—is proposed in
the lines where the citizen says—
“That daughter there of Spain, the Lady Blanch
Is near to England.”
For “near” the MS. correction is
niece. But the Lady Blanch is repeatedly,
throughout the play, spoken
of as niece to King John and the
Queen-mother. Therefore, if for no
other reason than that of varying the
expression, we must give our suffrage
most decidedly in favour of the original
reading. “Near to England”
of course means nearly related to England;
and it seems much more natural,
as well as more poetical, that the
citizen should speak in this general
way of Lady Blanch, than that he
should condescend on her particular
degree of relationship, and style her
the “niece to England.”
At the end of this Act, in the soliloquy
of Faulconbridge, a very strange
perversion on the part of the MS. corrector
comes before us. Faulconbridge
is railing against what he calls “commodity”—that
is, the morality of self-interest.
He then goes on to represent
himself as no better than his neighbours,
in these words—
“And why rail I on this commodity?
But for because he hath not woo’d me yet;
Not that I have the power to clutch my hand,
When his fair angels would salute my palm.”
The meaning of these lines is certainly
sufficiently obvious. Yet Mr
Collier’s corrector is not satisfied with
them. He reads—
“Not that I have no power to clutch my hand,” &c.
But unless Mr Collier can prove—what
will be difficult—that “power”
here means inclination, it is evident
that this reading directly reverses
Shakespeare’s meaning. If “power”
means inclination, the sense would be
this—I rail on this commodity, not
because I have no inclination to clutch
my hand on the fair angels that would
salute my palm, but because I have
not yet been tempted; when temptation
comes, I shall doubtless yield like
my neighbours. But power never
means, and cannot mean inclination;
and Mr Collier has not attempted to
show that it does; and therefore the new
reading must be to this effect—“I rail
on this commodity, not because I am
unable to close my hand against a
bribe,” &c. But Faulconbridge says
the very reverse. He says—“I rail on
this commodity, not because I have
the power to resist temptation, or am
able to shut my hand against the fair
angels that would salute my palm; for
I have no such power: in this respect
I am just like other people, and am as
easily bribed as they are.” The new
reading, therefore, must be dismissed
as a wanton reversal of the plain
meaning of Shakespeare.
Act III. Scene 3.—We approve of
the corrector’s change of the word
“race,” the ordinary reading, into
ear, in the following line about the
midnight bell—
“Sound one unto the drowsy ear of night.”
The old copies read on instead of one,
which was supplied—rightly, as we
think—by Warburton. The MS. corrector
makes no change in regard to
on.
Act III. Scene 4.—The passionate
vehemence of Constance’s speech is
much flattened by the corrector’s ill-judged
interference. Bewailing the
loss of her son, she says—
“O, that my tongue were in the thunder’s mouth;
Then with a passion would I shake the world:
And rouse from sleep that fell anatomy,
Which cannot hear a lady’s feeble voice,
Which scorns a modern invocation.”
For “modern” the MS. corrector
would read “widow’s”! And Mr
Collier, defending the new reading,
observes that Johnson remarks, “that
it is hard to say what Shakespeare
means by modern.” Johnson does
make this remark. Nevertheless the
meaning of the word “modern” is
perfectly plain. It signifies moderate—not
sufficiently impassioned; and
we are called upon to give up this
fine expression for the inanity of a
“widow’s invocation”! In the same
lines this reckless tamperer with the
language of Shakespeare would change
“Then with a passion would I shake the world,”
into
“Then with what passion would I shake the world.”
Act IV. Scene 2.—In the following
lines a difficulty occurs which seems
insuperable, and which the MS. corrector
has certainly not explained,
although Mr Collier says that his
reading makes “the meaning apparent.”
King John, in reply to some
of his lords, who have tried to dissuade
him from having a double coronation,
says—
“Some reasons of this double coronation
I have possessed you with, and think them strong:
And more, more strong (when lesser is my fear)
I shall endue you with.”
This is the common reading; but
why the king should give them more
and stronger reasons for his double
coronation, when his fears were diminished,
is not at all apparent. The
strength of his fears should rather
have led him at once to state his
reasons explicitly. The MS. correction
is—
“And more, more strong, thus lessening my fear,
I shall endue you with.”
But how the communication of his
stronger reasons should have the
effect of lessening the king’s fear, is
a riddle still darker than the other.
The possession of these reasons might
lessen the usurper’s fears; but surely
the mere utterance of them could
make no difference. If the MS. corrector
had written, “thus lessening
your fears,” there would have been
some sense in the emendation; and, if
a new reading be required, this is the
one which we venture to suggest.
Act IV. Scene 3.—We confess that
we prefer the MS. corrector’s line,
“Whose private missive of the Dauphin’s love,”
to the ordinary reading,
“Whose private with me of the Dauphin’s love.”
But we are not prepared to say that
the latter is unintelligible, or that it
is not in accordance with the diplomatic
phraseology of the time.
The following new reading has
something to recommend it; but much
also may be said in defence of the old
text. Salisbury, indignant with the
king, says, as the ordinary copies
give it,
“The King hath dispossessed himself of us;
We will not line his thin bestained cloak
With our pure honours.”
The margins propose “sin-bestained,”
which is plausible. But there
is also a propriety in the use of the
word “thin.” The king’s cloak (that
is, his authority) was thin, because
not lined and strengthened with the
power and honours of his nobles. The
text ought not to be altered.
We conclude our obiter dicta on
this play with the remark, that Pope’s
change of “hand” into “head,”
which is also proposed by the MS.
corrector in the following lines, (Act
IV. Scene III.) seems to us to be an
improvement, and entitled to admission
into the text. Salisbury vows
“Never to taste the pleasures of the world,
Never to be infected with delight,
Nor conversant with ease and idleness,
’Till I have set a glory to this head,
By giving it the worship of revenge,”
—that is, the head of young Arthur,
whose dead body had just been discovered
on the ground.
King Richard II.—Act. II. Scene
1.—Ritson’s emendation, as pointed
out by Mr Singer, is unquestionably
to be preferred to the MS. corrector’s
in these lines—
“The King is come; deal mildly with his youth,
For young hot colts, being rag’d, do rage the more.”
“Raged,” the common reading, can
scarcely be right. Ritson proposed
“being reined.” The margins suggest
“being urg’d.”
We differ from the MS. corrector,
Mr Collier, and Mr Singer, in thinking
that there is no good reason for
disturbing the received text in the
lines where the conspirators, Willoughby,
Ross, and Northumberland,
are consulting together; but, on the
contrary, very good reasons for leaving
it alone. Willoughby says to his
brother—conspirator, Northumberland,
“Nay, let us share thy thoughts as thou dost ours.”
Ross also presses him to speak:
“Be confident to speak, Northumberland;
We three are but thyself; and speaking so,
Thy words are but as thoughts, therefore be bold.”
The change proposed is our for “as.”
“Thy words are but our thoughts.”
The difference of meaning in the two
readings is but slight; but the old
text seems to us to have the advantage
in depth and fineness. Ross’s
argument with Northumberland to
speak was not merely because his
words were as their thoughts. That
was no doubt true; but the point of
his persuasion lay in the consideration
that Northumberland’s words would
be as good as not spoken. “We three
are but yourself, and, in these circumstances,
your words are but as
thoughts—that is, you are as safe in
uttering them as if you uttered them
not, inasmuch as you will be merely
speaking to yourself.” The substitution
of “our” for “as” seems to bring
out this meaning less clearly.
Act II. Scene 2.—The following
lines (part of which, for the sake of
perspicuity, we print within a parenthesis,
contrary, we believe, to the
common arrangement) require no
emendation. The queen, labouring
under “the involuntary and unaccountable
depression of mind which,
says Johnson, every one has some
time felt,” remarks—
“Howe’er it be,
I cannot but be sad; so heavy sad,
As (though, in thinking, on no thought I think)
Makes me with heavy nothing faint and shrink.”
The MS. corrector reads “unthinking”
for “in thinking;” but this is by
no means necessary. The old text is
quite as good, indeed rather better
than the new.
Scene 3.—Much dissatisfaction has
been expressed with the word despised
in the lines in which York severely
rates his traitorous nephew Bolingbroke:
“Why have those banish’d and forbidden legs
Dared once to touch a dust of English ground?
But more than why,—why have they dared to march
So many miles upon her peaceful bosom,
Frighting her pale-faced villages with war,
And ostentation of despised arms?”
“But sure,” says Warburton, “the
ostentation of despised arms would
not fright any one. We should read
‘disposed arms’—i.e., forces in battle
array.” “Despoiling arms” is the
reading recommended by the margins.
“Displayed arms” is the right expression,
according to Mr Singer. But
surely no emendation is required. The
ostentation of despised arms was quite
sufficient to frighten the harmless villagers;
and this is all that Shakespeare
says it did. And then it is in the
highest degree appropriate and consistent
that York should give his
nephew to understand that his arms
or forces were utterly despicable in the
estimation of all loyal subjects, of all
honourable and right-thinking men.
Hence his words,
“Frighting her pale-faced villages with war,
And ostentation of despised arms,”
mean—alarming with war only pale-faced
villagers, who never smelt the
sulphurous breeze of battle, and making
a vain parade of arms which all
true soldiers must despise.
Act III. Scene 3.—The substitution
of storm for “harm,” in the following
lines, is an exceedingly doubtful emendation.
York says of Richard—
“Yet looks he like a king; behold, his eye,
As bright as is the eagle’s, lightens forth
Controlling majesty. Alack, alack for woe,
That any harm should stain so fair a show!”
It is true that, in a previous part of
the speech, the king is likened to the
setting sun, whose glory “the envious
clouds are bent to dim;” and therefore
the word storm has some show of reason
to recommend it, and “harm”
may possibly have been a misprint.
But we rather think that it is the
right word, and that it is more natural
and pathetic than the word storm.
Nothing else worthy of note or comment
presents itself in the MS. corrections
of King Richard II.
The First Part of King Henry
IV.—Act I. Scene 1.—“No new
light,” says Mr Collier, “is thrown
upon the two lines which have produced
so many conjectures:
‘No more the thirsty entrance of this soil
Shall daub her lips with her own children’s blood.’”
The MS. corrector has in this instance
shown his sense by not meddling with
these lines; for how any light beyond
their own inherent lustre should ever
have been thought necessary to render
them luminous, it is not easy to
understand. As a specimen of the way
in which the old commentators occasionally
darkened the very simplest
matters, their treatment of these two
lines may be adduced. The old quartos,
and the folio 1623, supply the
text as given above. By an error of
the press, the folio 1632 reads damb
instead of daub. This damb the earlier
commentators converted into damp.
Warburton changed “damp” into
trempe—i.e., moisten. Dr Johnson,
although very properly dissatisfied
with this Frenchified reading, is as
much at fault as the bishop. With
the authentic text of the older editions
before him, he says, “the old reading
helps the editor no better than the
new” (in other words, daub is no better
than damb, and damp, and trempe);
“nor can I satisfactorily reform the
passage. I think that ‘thirsty entrance’
must be wrong, yet know not
what to offer. We may read, but not
very elegantly—
‘No more the thirsty entrails of this soil
Shall daubed be with her own children’s blood.’”
Truly this reading is by no means elegant;
it is nothing less than monstrous.
To say nothing of the physical
impossibility of the blood penetrating
to the “entrails” of the earth, the
expression violates the first principles
of poetical word-painting. The interior
parts of the earth are not seen,
and therefore to talk of them as daubed
with blood, is to attempt to place before
the eye of the mind a picture
which cannot be placed before it. In
science, or as a matter of fact, this
may be admissible; but in poetry,
where the imagination is addressed, it
is simply an absurdity. Steevens,
with some hesitation, proposes—
“No more the thirsty entrants of this soil
Shall daub her lips with her own children’s blood.”
“Entrants,” that is, “invaders.”
“This,” says Steevens, “may be
thought very far-fetched.” It is
worse than far-fetched—it is ludicrously
despicable. Conceive Shakespeare
saying that “a parcel of drouthy
Frenchmen shall no more daub the
lips of England with the blood of her
own children”! What renders this
reading all the more inexcusable is,
that Steevens perceived what the true
and obvious meaning was, although
he had not the steadiness to stand to
it. He adds—“or Shakespeare may
mean the thirsty entrance of the soil
for the porous surface of the earth
through which all moisture enters,
and is thirstily drunk or soaked up.”
Shakespeare’s words cannot by any
possibility mean anything except this.
“Porous surface,” as must be obvious to
all mankind, is the exact literal prose
of the more poetical phrase, “thirsty
entrance.” Yet obvious as this interpretation
is, Malone remained blind
to it, even after Steevens had pointed
it out. He prefers Steevens’ first
emendation. He says, “Mr Steevens’
conjecture (that is, his suggestion of
entrants for entrance) is so likely to be
true, that I have no doubt about the propriety
of admitting it into the text.”
In spite, however, of these vagaries,
we believe that the right reading, as
given above, has kept its place in
the ordinary editions of Shakespeare.
This instance may show that our MS.
corrector is not the only person whose
wits have gone a-woolgathering when
attempting to mend the language of
Shakespeare.
Before returning to Mr Collier’s
corrector, we wish to make another
digression, in order to propose a new
reading—one, at least, which is new
to ourselves, and not to be found in
the variorum edition 1785. The king
says, in reference to the rising in the
north, which has been triumphantly
put down—
“Ten thousand bold Scots,—two-and-twenty knights,
Balked in their own blood, did Sir Walter see
On Holmedon’s plains.”
For “balked” Steevens conjectured
either “bathed” or “baked.” Warton
says that balk is a ridge, and that
therefore “balked in their own blood”
means “piled up in a ridge, and in their
own blood.” Tollet says, “‘balked
in their own blood,’ I believe, means,
lay in heaps or hillocks in their own
blood.” We propose—
“Ten thousand bold Scots,—two-and-twenty knights,
Bark’d in their own blood, did Sir Walter see
On Holmedon’s plains.”
“Barked,” that is, coated with dry
and hardened blood, as a tree is coated
with bark. This is picturesque. To
bark or barken is undoubtedly an old
English word; and in Scotland, even
at this day, it is not uncommon to
hear the country people talk of blood
barkening, that is, hardening, upon a
wound.
Act I. Scene 3.—The following lines
present a difficulty which the commentators—and
among them our anonymous
scholiast—have not been very
successful in clearing up. The king,
speaking in reference to the revolted
Mortimer and his accomplices, says—
“Shall we buy treason, and indent with fears,
When they have lost and forfeited themselves?
No, on the barren mountains let him starve.”
There is no difficulty in regard to the
word “indent;” it means, to enter
into a compact—to descend, as Johnson
says, to a composition. But what
is the meaning of “to indent, or enter
into a compact, with fears”? Johnson
suggests “with peers”—that is,
with the noblemen who have lost and
forfeited themselves. But this is a
very unsatisfactory and improbable
reading. The MS. corrector proposes
“with foes;” and Mr Collier remarks,
“It seems strange that, in the course
of two hundred and fifty years, nobody
should ever have even guessed at foes
for fears.” It is much more strange
that Mr Collier should be ignorant
that “foes” is the reading of the Oxford
editor, Sir Thomas Hanmer—a
reading which was long ago condemned.
Mr Singer adheres rightly to the
received text; but he is wrong in his
explanation of the word “fears.” He
says that it means “objects of fear.”
But surely the king can never have
regarded Mortimer and his associates
as objects of fear. He had a spirit
above that. He had no dread of them.
Steevens is very nearly right when he
says that the word “fears” here means
terrors: he would have been quite
right had he said that it signifies
cowardice, or rather, by a poetical
licence, “cowards”—(fearers, if there
were such a word.) The meaning is,
shall we buy treason, and enter into a
composition with cowardice, when
they (the traitors and cowards) have
lost and forfeited themselves? Treason
and cowardice are undoubtedly the
two offences which the king intends to
brand with his indignation. “Foes”
is quite inadmissible.
In Act II. Scene 1—Gadshill, talking
in a lofty vein of his high acquaintances,
says, “I am joined with no
foot land-rakers, no long-staff, six-penny
strikers; none of these mad,
mustachio, purple-hued maltworms;
but with nobility and tranquillity;
burgomasters and great oneyers; such
as can hold in; such as can strike
sooner than speak,” &c. The change
of “tranquillity” into sanguinity, as
proposed by the MS. corrector, we
dismiss at once as unworthy of any
consideration. “Oneyers” is the only
word about which there is any difficulty;
and it has puzzled the bigwigs.
Theobald reads “moneyers”—that
is, officers of the mint—bankers.
Sir T. Hanmer reads “great owners.”
Malone reads “onyers,” which, he
says, means public accountants. “To
settle accounts is still called at the
exchequer to ony, and hence Shakespeare
seems to have formed the word
onyers.” Johnson has hit upon the
right explanation, although he advances
it with considerable hesitation.
“I know not,” says he, “whether
any change is necessary; Gadshill
tells the chamberlain that he is joined
with no mean wretches, but with burgomasters
and great ones, or, as he
terms them in merriment, by a cant
termination, great oneyers, or, great
one-eers—as we say privateer, auctioneer,
circuiteer. This is, I fancy,
the whole of the matter.” That this
is the true explanation, or very near
it, and that no change in the text is
necessary, is proved beyond a doubt
by the following extract from the
writings of one whose genius, while it
elevates the noblest subjects, can also
illustrate the most small. “Do they
often go where glory waits them, and
leave you here?” says Mr Swiveller,
alluding to Brass and his charming
sister, in Dickens’ Old Curiosity
Shop. “‘O, yes, I believe they do,’
returned the marchioness, alias the
small servant; ‘Miss Sally’s such a
one-er for that.’ ‘Such a what?’
said Dick, as much puzzled as a
Shakespearean commentator. ‘Such
a one-er,’ returned the marchioness.
After a moment’s reflection, Mr Swiveller
determined to forego his responsible
duty of setting her right—[why
should he have wished to set her
right? she was right; she was speaking
the language and illustrating the
meaning of Shakespeare]—and to suffer
her to talk on; as it was evident that
her tongue was loosened by the purl,
and her opportunities for conversation
were not so frequent as to render a
momentary check of little consequence.
‘They sometimes go to see
Mr Quilp,’ said the small servant,
with a shrewd look: ‘they go to a
many places, bless you.’ ‘Is Mr
Brass a wunner?’ said Dick. ‘Not
half what Miss Sally is, he isn’t,’ replied
the small servant.” Here is
the very word we want. Shakespeare’s
“oneyer” is Dickens’ one-er
or wunner—that is, a one par excellence,
a one with an emphasis—a top-sawyer—and
the difficulty is resolved.
Set a thief to catch a thief; and leave
one great intellectual luminary to
throw light upon another. After Mr
Dickens’ lucid commentary, “oneyer”
becomes quite a household word, and
we suspect that the MS. corrector’s
emendation will scarcely go down. He
reads, “burgomasters and great ones,—yes
such as can hold in.” “This will
never do,” to quote a favourite aphorism,
and literary canon of the late Lord
Jeffrey, when speaking of the Lake
School of poetry.
Act II. Scene 4.—The complacency
with which Mr Collier sets the authority
of his MS. corrector above that
of the other commentators on Shakespeare,
is one of the most curious features
in his literary character. The
following is an instance of his marginolatry.
“Rowe,” says Mr Collier,
“seems to have been right (indeed,
the emendation hardly admits of
doubt) in reading tristful for ‘trustful’
in Falstaff’s speech, as we learn
from the alteration introduced in the
folio 1632. ‘For Heaven’s sake, lords,
convey my tristful queen.’” As if
the authority of Rowe, or of any other
person, was not, to say the least of it,
just as good as that of the anonymous
corrector, who, by the blunders into
which he has fallen, has proved himself
signally disqualified for the task
of rectifying Shakespeare where his
text may happen to be corrupted.
Act III. Scene 1.—Now and then,
however, as we have all along admitted,
the old corrector makes a
good hit. A very excellent emendation,
about the best which he has proposed,
occurs in the scene where Mortimer
says—
“My wife can speak no English, I no Welsh.”
The lady then speaks to him in Welsh,
being at the same time in tears;
whereupon her husband says—
“I understood thy looks, that pretty Welsh
Which thou pourest down from the swelling heavens.”
“The swelling heavens”—her eyes
might no doubt be swollen; but that
is not a pretty picture. The correction,
which is a manifest improvement,
and worthy of a place in the text, is
“from these welling heavens.” This
correction is taken from Mr Collier’s
appendix, or “notes,” where it might
be easily overlooked.
Act V. Scene 1.—The MS. corrector
is very fond of eking out imperfect
lines with conjectural interpolations,
and of curtailing others which present
a superfluity of syllables. This is a
practice which cannot be permitted
even in cases where the alteration improves
the verses, as sometimes happens;
much less can it be tolerated
in cases, which are still more frequent,
where the verses are manifestly enfeebled
by the change. A conspicuous
instance of the latter occurs in these
lines. The rebellious Worcester says
to the king,
——“I do protest
I have not sought the day of this dislike.
K. Henry.—You have not sought it—How comes it then?”
Here the words, “How comes it
then?” are vehement and abrupt, and
the verse is purposely defective. Its
impetuosity is destroyed by the corrector’s
stilted and unnatural interpolation—
“You have not sought it—say, how comes it then?”
That word say takes off the sharp edge
of the king’s wrathful interrogative,
and converts him from a flesh and
blood monarch into a mouthing ranter,
a mere tragedy-king.
The Second Part of Henry IV.—Act
I. Scene 2.—We agree with Mr
Collier and Mr Singer that the substitution
of diseases for “degrees” in
Falstaff’s speech is a good and legitimate
emendation, and we willingly
place it to the credit of the MS. corrector.
Act I. Scene 3.—The MS. corrector
attempts to amend the following passage
in several places—not very successfully,
as we shall endeavour to
show. The rebellious lords are talking
about their prospects and resources.
Bardolph counsels delay, and warns his
friends against being over-sanguine.
“Hastings.—But, by your leave, it never yet did hurt,
To lay down likelihoods, and forms of hope.
Bardolph.—Yes, in this present quality of war;
Indeed, of instant action. A cause on foot
Lives so in hope, as in an early spring
We see the appearing buds; which, to prove fruit,
Hope gives not so much warrant, as despair,
That frosts will bite them. When we mean to build,
We first survey the plot, then draw the model;
And when we see the figure of the house,
Then must we rate the cost of the erection;
Which, if we find outweighs ability,
What do we then, but draw anew the model
In fewer offices; or, at least, desist
To build at all? Much more in this great work
(Which is, almost, to pluck a kingdom down
And set another up), should we survey
The plot of situation and the model;
Consent upon a sure foundation;
Question surveyors; know our own estate,
How able such a work to undergo,
To weigh against his opposite; or else
We fortify in paper and in figures,
Using the names of men, instead of men.”
In this speech of Bardolph’s we shall
confine our attention to the two main
points on which the corrector has tried
his hand. These are the two first
lines, and the verse printed in italics.
The two first lines are somewhat obscure;
but we are of opinion that a
much better sense may be obtained
from them than is afforded by the
corrector’s emendation, which we shall
presently advert to. “Hope,” says
Hastings, “never yet did harm.”
“Yes,” says Bardolph, “in a state
of affairs like the present, where action
seems imminent, it has done harm
to entertain (unfounded) hopes.” He
then proceeds to press on his friends,
as their only chance of safety, the
necessity of making the war not imminent—of
postponing it until they have
pondered well their resources, and received
farther supplies. All this is
intelligible enough, and may be elicited
with perfect ease from the ordinary
text which was adjusted by Dr Johnson—the
original reading of the two
lines in question being obviously disfigured
by typographical errors. There
is therefore no call whatever for the
MS. corrector’s amendment, which
seems to us infinitely more obscure
and perplexing than the received reading.
He writes—
“Yes, in this present quality of war;
Indeed the instant act and cause on foot
Lives so in hope,” &c.
Mr Collier says that this emendation
“clears the sense” of the passage.
We should have thanked him had he
shown us how; for, if the old reading
be obscure, the only merit of the new
one seems to be that it lends an additional
gloom to darkness. In regard
to the other point—the line printed in
italics—the MS. corrector breaks the
back of the difficulty by means of the
following interpolated forgery—
“A careful leader sums what force he brings
To weigh against his opposite.”
This, and the other similar delinquencies
of which the MS. corrector is frequently
guilty, are neither more nor less
than swindling—and swindling, too,
without an object. Nothing is gained
by the rascality; for the sense of the
passage may be opened without resorting
to the use of such a clumsy
crowbar, such a burglarious implement
as
“A careful leader sums what force he brings.”
It means, before we engage in any
great and perilous undertaking, we
should know how able we are to undergo
such a work—how able we are
to weigh against the opposite of such
a work; that is, to contend successfully
against the forces of the enemy. Mr
Singer says that, if any change is necessary,
we should read “this opposite,”
instead of “his opposite.” With
submission we beg to say, that, if any
change is necessary, “its” and not
“this” is the word which must be
substituted for “his.” But no change
is necessary; “his opposite” means
the work’s opposite; and it is no unfrequent
idiom with Shakespeare to
use “his” for “its.”
Act II. Scene 1.—Hostess Quickly
says, according to the old copies—
“A hundred marks is a long one for a poor
lone woman to bear.”
“One” being obviously a misprint,
Theobald substituted “loan;” and this
is the usual reading. The MS. corrector
proposes “score;” and this, we
think, ought to go into the text. But
it will be long before the MS. corrector,
by means of such small instalments,
clears his “score” with the
ghost of Shakespeare. As a help,
however, towards that consummation,
we are rather inclined to place to his
credit the substitution of high for the
in the line—
“Under the canopies of costly state.”
—Act III. Scene 1.
Perhaps, also, he ought to get credit
for “shrouds” instead of “clouds”—although
the former is now no novelty,
having been started long ago by some
of the early commentators. The original
reading is “clouds;” but the epithet
“slippery” renders it highly
probable that this is a misprint for
shrouds—that is, the ship’s upper
tackling; and that “slippery shrouds”
is the genuine reading. It seems probable
also that rags, the MS. correction,
and not rage, the ordinary reading,
is the right word in the lines where
rebellion is spoken of (Act IV. Scene
1) as
“Led on by bloody youth, guarded with rags,
And countenanced by boys and beggary.”
The MS. corrector seems to be retrieving
his character. We are also
willing to accept at his hands “seal”
instead of “zeal” in the line—
“Under the counterfeited seal of heaven.”
We cannot, however, admit that
there is any ground for emendation in
the following passage (Act IV. Scene
1) where the king is spoken of, and
where it is said that he will find much
difficulty in punishing his enemies
without compromising his friends:—
“His foes are so enrooted with his friends,
That, plucking to unfix an enemy,
He doth unfasten so, and shake a friend,
So that this land, like an offensive wife,
That hath enraged him on to offer strokes;
As he is striking, holds his infant up,
And hangs resolved correction in the arm
That was uprear’d to execution.”
The question is, who is the “him”
referred to in the fifth of these lines?
It can be no other than the king. He,
the husband, being excited to chastise
his wife—that is, the rebellious country—she,
as he is striking, holds his
infant (that is, certain of his friends)
up, and thus stays his arm, and suspends
the execution of his vengeance.
The MS. corrector substitutes “her
man” for the words “him on.” Mr
Collier approves, and even Mr Singer
says that this “is a very plausible
correction, and is evidently called for.”
If these gentlemen will reconsider the
passage, they will find that it cannot
be construed with the new reading,
unless several additional words are
inserted; thus, “So that this land
(is), like an offensive wife who hath
enraged her man to offer strokes, (and
who) as he is striking, holds his infant
up, and hangs resolved correction in
the arm that was upreared to execution.”
This is as intelligible as the
ordinary text, though not more so;
but the introduction of so many new
words—which are absolutely necessary
to complete the grammar and the
sense—is quite inadmissible; and
therefore the MS. correction must be
abandoned.
King Henry V.—In this play
none of the MS. corrector’s emendations
are entitled to go into the text.
First, we shall call attention for a
moment to a very small correction of
our own, which perhaps may have
been made in some of the editions,
but not in that which we use, the
variorum of 1785. In Act I. Scene 2,
the Bishop of Ely says—
“For government, though high, and low, and lower,
Put into parts, doth keep in one consent
Congruing to a full and natural close
Like music.”
Surely “though” ought to be through.
“For government, put into parts, like
a piece of music, doth keep in one consent
or harmony, through high, and
low, and lower,” &c. In the same
Act, same scene, an emendation is
proposed by the MS. corrector, which,
though specious, we cannot bring ourselves
to endorse. King Henry, in
reply to the dauphin’s taunting message,
says—
“But tell the Dauphin, I will keep my state,
Be like a king, and show my sail of greatness,
When I do rouse me in my throne of France.”
The corrector proposes soul for “sail.”
But Shakespeare’s is a grand expression—“I
will show my sail of greatness,”—will
set all my canvass—will
shine,
“Like a proud ship with all her bravery on.”
It is a pity that he did not write hoist
or spread, which would have removed
all doubt as to the word “sail.”
“Show,” however, is, on some accounts,
better than hoist or spread.
Neither do we perceive any necessity
for adopting the MS. correction “seasonable
swiftness” instead of “reasonable
swiftness.” Nor is it by any
means necessary to change “now
thrive the armourers” into “now
strive the armourers:” In Act II.
Scene 2, the king says, in reference to
a drunkard who had railed on him—
“It was excess of wine that set him on,
And on his more advice, we pardon him.”
The margins read, “on our more
advice,” overturning the authentic
language of Shakespeare, who by the
words “on his more advice,” means
on his having returned to a more reasonable
state of mind, and shown
some sorrow for his offence.
Act II. Scene 3.—We now come to
one of the most memorable corrections—we
might say to the most memorable
correction ever made on the
text of our great dramatist. In Dame
Quickly’s description of the death of
Falstaff she says, as the old copies
give it, “for after I saw him fumble
with the sheets, and play with flowers,
and smile upon his fingers’ ends, I
knew there was but one way; for his
nose was as sharp as a pen, and a
table of green fields.” There is evidently
something very wrong here.
Theobald gave out as a new reading,
“and a’ (he) babbled of green fields,”
the history and character of which
emendation he explained as follows:
“I have an edition of Shakespeare
by me with some marginal conjectures
by a gentleman some time deceased,
and he is of the mind to correct this
passage thus: ‘for his nose was as
sharp as a pen, and a’ talked of green
fields.’ It is certainly observable of
people near death, when they are delirious
by a fever, that they talk of
moving, as it is of those in a calenture
that their heads run on green fields.
The variation from table to talked is
not of very great latitude; though we
may come still nearer to the traces of
the letters by restoring it thus—‘for
his nose was as sharp as a pen, and
a’ babbled of green fields.’”—(Vide
Singer’s Shakespeare Vindicated, p.
127.)
This, then, is now the received
reading; and there can be no doubt
that it is highly ingenious—indeed,
singularly felicitous. But the MS.
corrector’s emendation is also entitled
to a hearing. He reads: “for his nose
was as sharp as a pen on a table of
green frieze.” This, it must be admitted,
is a lamentable falling off, in
point of sentiment, from the other
conjectural amendment. We sympathise
most feelingly with the distress
of those who protest vehemently
against the new reading, and who
cling almost with tears to the text to
which they have been accustomed.
We admit that his babbling of green
fields is a touch of poetry, if not of
nature, which fills up the measure of
our love for Falstaff, and affords the
finest atonement that can be imagined
for the mixed career—which is
now drawing to a close—of the hoary
debauchee. It is with the utmost reluctance
that we throw a shade of
suspicion over Theobald’s delightful
emendation. Nevertheless, we are
possessed with the persuasion that
the MS. corrector’s variation is more
likely to have been what Dame Quickly
uttered, and what Shakespeare wrote.
Our reasons are—first, the calenture,
which causes people to rave about
green fields, is a distemper peculiar
to sailors in hot climates; secondly,
Falstaff’s mind seems to have been
running more on sack than on green
fields, as Dame Quickly admits further
on in the dialogue; thirdly, however
pleasing the supposition about
his babbling of green fields may be,
it is still more natural that Dame
Quickly, whose attention was fixed
on the sharpness of his nose set off
against a countenance already darkening
with the discoloration of death,
should have likened it to the sharpness
of a pen relieved against a table,
or background, of green frieze. These
reasons may be very insufficient: we
are not quite satisfied with them ourselves.
But, be they good or bad,
we cannot divest ourselves of the impression
(as we most willingly would)
that the marginal correction, in this
instance, comes nearer to the genuine
language of Shakespeare than does
the ordinary text.
Should, then, the MS. corrector’s
emendation be admitted into the text
of the poet? That is a very different
question; and we answer decidedly—No.
Its claim is not so absolutely undoubted
as to entitle it to this elevation.
It is more probable, we think,
than Theobald’s. But Theobald’s has
by this time acquired a prescriptive
right to the place which it enjoys.
Although originally it may have been
a usurpation, it is now strong with
inveterate occupancy: it is consecrated
to the hearts of all mankind,
and it ought on no account to be displaced.
It is part and parcel of our
earliest associations with Falstaff, and
its removal would do violence to the
feelings of universal Christendom.
This consideration, which shows how
difficult, indeed how injudicious, it is
to eradicate anything which has once
fairly taken root in the text of Shakespeare,
ought to make us all the more
scrupulous in guarding his writings
against such innovations as the MS.
corrector usually proposes; for, however
little these may have to recommend
them, succeeding generations
may become habituated to their presence,
and, on the plea of prescription,
may be indisposed to give them up.
“Principiis obsta, sero medicina paratur.”
Act III., chorus.
“Behold the threaden sails,
Borne with the invisible and creeping wind,
Draw the huge bottoms through the furrowed sea.”
“Borne” is here a far finer and more
expressive word than “blown,” the
MS. corrector’s prosaic substitution.
Act IV. Scene 1.—In the fine lines
on ceremony, the MS. corrector proposes
a new reading, which at first
sight looks specious, but which a moderate
degree of reflection compels us
to reject. The common text is as
follows:—
“And what art thou, thou idol ceremony?
What kind of god art thou, that sufferest more
Of mortal griefs than do thy worshippers?
What are thy rents?—what are thy comings in?
O ceremony, show me but thy worth!
What is thy soul, O, adoration?
Art thou aught else but place, degree, and form,
Creating awe and fear in other men?
Wherein thou art less happy, being feared,
Than they in fearing.”
The MS. corrector gives us—
“O, ceremony, show me but thy worth!
What is thy soul but adulation?”
The objection to this reading is that
Shakespeare’s lines are equivalent to—O,
ceremony, thou hast no worth;
O, adoration, thou hast no soul—absolutely
none. This reading, which
denies to ceremony and adoration all
soul and substance—all worth and
reality—is more emphatic than the
corrector’s, which declares that adulation
is the soul of ceremony; and
we therefore vote for allowing the
text to remain as we found it.
Act IV. Scene 3.—In the following
lines Shakespeare pays a compliment—not
of the most elegant kind we admit—to
the English, whose valour, he
says, is such that even their dead
bodies putrefying in the fields of
France will carry death into the ranks
of the enemy.
“Mark, then, abounding valour in the English;
That being dead, like to a bullet’s grazing,
Break out into a second course of mischief,
Killing in relapse of mortality.”
The similitude of “the bullet’s grazing”
has led the MS. corrector into
two execrable errors. By way of
carrying out the metaphor, he proposes
to read “rebounding valour,”
and “killing in reflex of mortality.”
But Shakespeare knew full well what
he was about. He has kept his similitude
within becoming bounds, while
the corrector has driven it over the
verge of all propriety. Both of his
corrections are wretched, and the latter
of them is outrageous. We are
surprised that he did not propose
“killing in reflex off mortality,” for
this would bring out his meaning
much better than the expression which
he has suggested. But we may rest
assured that “killing in relapse of
mortality” merely means, killing in
their return to the dust from whence
they were taken; and that this is the
right reading.
The First Part of King Henry
VI.—A difficulty occurs in the last
line of Act II. Scene 5, where Plantagenet
says—
“And therefore haste I to the Parliament,
Either to be restored to my blood,
Or make my ill the advantage of my good.”
This is the common reading, and it
means, “or make my ill the occasion
of my good.” The earlier copies have
“will” for “ill,” The MS. correction
is—
“Or make my will th’ advancer of my good.”
But this is no improvement upon the
common reading, which ought to remain
unaltered.
Act IV. Scene 1.—A small but
very significant instance, illustrative
of what we are convinced is the true
theory of these new readings, namely,
that they are attempts, not to restore,
but to modernise Shakespeare, comes
before us in the following lines, where
the knights of the garter are spoken
of as
“Not fearing death, nor shrinking from distress,
But always resolute in most extremes.”
“Most extremes” does not mean (as
one ignorant of Shakespeare’s language
might be apt to suppose) “in
the greater number of extremes:” it
means, in extremest cases, or dangers.
The same idiom occurs in the “Tempest,”
where it is said—
“Some kinds of baseness
Are nobly undergone, and most poor matters
Point to rich ends;”
which certainly does not mean that the
greater number of poor matters point to
rich ends, but that the poorest matters
often do so. It would be well if the two
words were always printed as one—most extremes,
and most poor. Now,
surely Mr Collier either cannot know
that this phraseology is peculiarly
Shakespearean, or he must be desirous
of blotting out from the English language
our great poet’s favourite forms
of speech, when he says, “there is an
injurious error of the printer in the
second line;” and when he recommends
us to accept the MS. marginal
correction, by which Shakespeare’s
archaism is exchanged for this modernism—
“But always resolute in worst extremes.”
Act V. Scene 1.—How much more
forcible are Shakespeare’s lines—
“See where he lies inhersed in the arms
Of the most bloody nurser of his harms,”
than the MS. substitution—
“Of the still bleeding nurser of his harms.”
Scene 4.—Four competing readings
of the following lines present themselves
for adjudication—
“Ay, beauty’s princely majesty is such,
Confounds the tongue, and makes the senses rough.”
This is the text of the earlier editions,
and it evidently requires amendment.
Sir T. Hanmer reads—
“Ay, beauty’s princely majesty is such,
Confounds the tongue, and makes the senses crouch.”
Our MS. corrector proposes—
“Ay, beauty’s princely majesty is such,
Confounds the tongue, and mocks the sense of touch.”
Mr Singer, who also, it seems, has a
folio with MS. corrections, gives us,
as a gleaning from its margins,
“Ay, beauty’s princely majesty is such,
Confounds the tongue, and wakes the sense’s touch.”
It may assist us in coming to a decision,
if we view this sentiment
through the medium of prose. First,
according to Sir T. Hanmer, the presence
of beauty is so commanding that
it confounds the tongue, and overawes
the senses. Secondly, “The princely
majesty of beauty,” says Mr Collier,
expounding his protégé’s version,
“confounds the power of speech, and
mocks all who would attempt to touch
it.” Thirdly, “Beauty,” says Mr
Singer, taking up the cause of his
MS. corrector, “although it confounds
the tongue, awakes desire. This must
have been the meaning of the poet.”
How peremptory a man becomes
in behalf of MS. readings of which
he happens to be the sole depositary.
We confess that we prefer Sir T.
Hanmer’s to either of the other emendations,
as the most intelligible and
dignified of the three.
The Second Part of King
Henry VI.—Act I. Scene 3. (Enter
three or four petitioners.)
“First Petitioner.—My masters, let us
stand close, my Lord Protector will come
this way by and by, and then we may deliver
our supplications in the quill.”
“In the quill”—what does that
mean? Nobody can tell us. The
margins furnish “in sequel.” Mr
Singer advances, “in the quoil, or
coil”—“that is,” says he, “in the
bustle or tumult which would arise at
the time the Protector passed.” And
this we prefer.
Act II. Scene 3.—Anything viler
than the following italicised interpolation,
or more out of keeping with
the character of the speaker and the
dignity of the scene, it is impossible
to conceive. Queen Mary says to the
Duke of Glo’ster—
“Give up your staff, sir, and the King his realm.
Glo’ster. My staff?—here, noble Henry, is my staff!
To think I fain would keep it makes me laugh;
As willingly I do the same resign
As e’er thy father, Henry, made it mine.”
Yet Mr Collier has the hardihood to
place this abominable forgery in the
front of his battle, by introducing it
into his preface, where he says,
“Ought we not to welcome it with
thanks as a fortunate recovery and a
valuable restoration?” No, indeed,
we ought to send it to the right about
instanter, and order the apartment to
be fumigated from which it had been
expelled.
Act III. Scene 2.—The MS. corrector
seems to be right in his amendment
of these lines. Suffolk says to
the Queen,
“Live thou to joy in life,
Myself to joy in nought but that thou liv’st.”
The ordinary reading is “no” for
“to.” This ought to go into the text;
and the same honour ought to be extended
to “rebel” for “rabble” in
Clifford’s speech, Act IV. Scene 8.
The Third Part of King Henry
VI.—In this play two creditable marginal
emendations come before us, one
of which it might be safe to admit into
the text. The safe emendation is ev’n,
in the lines where the father is lamenting
over his slain son, (Act II.
Scene 5)—
“And so obsequious will thy father be,
Ev’n for the loss of thee, having no more,
As Priam was for all his valiant sons.”
The ancient copies have “men,” and
the modern ones “sad.” Ev’n was also
proposed by Mr Dyce some little time
ago. The other specious correction is
“bitter-flowing” for “water-flowing,”
in the lines where the king says (Act
IV. Scene 8),
“My mildness hath allayed their swelling griefs,
My mercy dried their water-flowing tears.”
But “water-flowing” may simply
mean flowing as plentifully as water,
and therefore our opinion is, that the
corrector’s substitution ought not to
be accepted. “Soft carriage” (Act II.
Scene 2), recommended by the margins,
instead of “soft courage,” is not by any
means so plausible. “Soft courage”
may be a Shakespeareanism for soft
spirit. The Germans have a word,
sanftmuth—literally soft courage—i. e.,
gentleness; and therefore Shakespeare’s
expression is not what Mr Collier calls
it, “a contradiction in terms.”
Act V. Scene 5.—The young prince
having been stabbed by Edward,
Clarence, and Glo’ster, Margaret exclaims—
“O, traitors! murderers!
They that stabb’d Cæsar shed no blood at all,
Did not offend, nor were not worthy blame,
If this foul deed were by to equal it”—
which, of course, means that Cæsar’s
murderers would be pronounced comparatively
innocent, if this foul deed
were set alongside their act. The
margins propose,
“If this foul deed were by to sequel it”—
than which nothing can be more
inept.
King Richard III.—Act I. Scene 3.—Richard
is thus agreeably depicted:
“Thou elvish-marked, abortive, rooting hog,
Thou that wast seal’d in thy nativity,
The slave of nature, and the son of hell!”
The correction here proposed is—
“The stain of nature, and the scorn of hell.”
But the allusion, as Steevens says, is
to the ancient custom of masters
branding their profligate slaves; and,
therefore, “slave” is unquestionably
the right word. As for the “scorn of
hell,” that, in certain cases, might be
a compliment, and is no more than
what a good man would desire to be.
Act III. Scene 1.—Buckingham is
endeavouring to persuade the Cardinal
to refuse the privilege of sanctuary to
the Duke of York. The Cardinal
says—
“God in heaven forbid
We should infringe the holy privilege
Of blessed sanctuary! not for all this land
Would I be guilty of so deep a crime.
Buckingham. You are too senseless-obstinate, my lord,
Too ceremonious and traditional:
Weigh it but with the grossness of this age,
You break not sanctuary in seizing him.”
That is, do not go to your traditions,
but take into account the unrefining
character and somewhat licentious
practice of this age, and you will perceive
that you break not sanctuary in
seizing him; for common sense declares
that a youth of his years cannot
claim this privilege. This interpretation
renders the MS. corrector’s inept
substitution, “the goodness of his age,”
quite unnecessary. Strict and abstinent
for “senseless-obstinate” is still
worse.
Act III. Scene 7.—To change “his
resemblance” into disresemblance, is
to substitute a very forced and unnatural
reading for a very plain and
obvious one. Glo’ster asks Buckingham,
“Touched you the bastardy of Edward’s children?”
“I did,” answers Buckingham, who
then goes on to say, “I also touched
upon his own (i. e. Edward the
Fourth’s) bastardy,”
“As being got, your father then in France,
And his resemblance not being like the Duke,”
—that is, I also touched upon his resemblance
(which is no resemblance)
to his (reputed) father the Duke.
“Disresemblance” has not a shadow
of probability in its favour.
Act IV. Scene 3.—Mr Collier seriously
advocates the change of “bloody
dogs” into “blooded dogs,” in the
lines about the two ruffians.
“Albeit they were fleshed villains, bloody dogs.”
“Blooded dogs” means, if it means
anything, dogs that have been let
blood, and not dogs that are about to
draw blood as these dogs are. There
seems to be nothing in the other corrections
of this play which calls for
further notice.
King Henry VIII.—Act I. Scene 1.—Speaking
of Cardinal Wolsey, Buckingham
says,
“A beggar’s book
Outworths a noble’s blood.”
The margins offer—
“A beggar’s brood
Outworths a noble’s blood.”
This emendation looks plausible; but
read Johnson’s note, and you will be
of a different way of thinking. He
says—“that is, the literary qualifications
of a bookish beggar are more
prized than the high descent of hereditary
greatness. This is a contemptuous
exclamation very naturally put
into the mouth of one of the ancient,
unlettered, martial nobility.” In scene
2, the change of “trembling contribution”
into “trebling contribution,”
where the increase of the taxes is
spoken of, is a proper correction, and
we set it down to the credit of the
MS. corrector as one which ought to
go into the text.
Act II. Scene 3.—What a fine poeticism
comes before us in the use of the
word salute in the lines where Anne
Bullen declares that her advancement
gives her no satisfaction.
“Would I had no being,
If this salute my blood a jot,”
—that is, this promotion is not like a
peal of bells to my blood; it is not
like the firing of cannon; it is not like
the huzzaing of a great multitude:
it rather weighs me down under a load
of anxiety and depression; or, as she
herself expresses it—
“It faints me
To think what follows.”
The MS. corrector, turning, as is his
way, poetry into prose, reads—
“Would I had no being,
If this elate my blood a jot.”
This must go to the debit side of the
old corrector’s account.
In Scene 4 of the same act, the
queen, on her trial, adjures the king,
if she be proved guilty—
“In God’s name
Turn me away; and let the foul’st contempt
Shut door upon me, and so give me up
To the sharpest kind of justice.”
The MS. corrector writes—“to the
sharpest knife of justice.” But the
queen is here speaking of a kind of
justice sharper even than the knife—to
wit, the contempt and ignominy
which she imprecates on her own head
if she be a guilty woman; and therefore
“kind of justice” is the proper
expression for her to use, and the MS.
substitution is unquestionably out of
place.
Act III. Scene 2.—Mr Singer says,
“‘Now may all joy trace the conjunction,’
instead of, ‘Now all my joy,’ &c.
is a good conjecture, and may, I think,
be safely adopted.” We agree with
Mr Singer.
Act III. Scene 2.—The following is
one of the cases on which Mr Collier
most strongly relies as proving the
perspicacity and trustworthiness of his
corrector. He brings it forward in his
introduction (p. xv.), where he says,
“When Henry VIII. tells Wolsey—
‘You have scarce time
To steal from spiritual leisure a brief span
To keep your earthly audit,’
he cannot mean that the cardinal has
scarcely time to steal from ‘leisure,’
but from ‘labour’ (the word was
misheard by the scribe); and while
‘leisure’ makes nonsense of the sentence,
labour is exactly adapted to the
place.
‘You scarce have time
To steal from spiritual labour a brief span.’
The substituted word is found in
the margin of the folio 1632. This
instance seems indisputable.” Did
Mr Collier, we may here ask, never
hear of learned leisure, when he thus
brands as nonsensical the expression
“spiritual leisure”? Is it nonsense
to say that the study of Shakespeare
has been the occupation of Mr Collier’s
“learned leisure” during the last fifty
years, and that he has had little time
to spare for any other pursuit? And
if that be not nonsense, why should it
be absurd to talk of the “spiritual
leisure” of Cardinal Wolsey, as that
which left him little or no time to attend
to his temporal concerns? Spiritual
leisure means occupation with
religious matters, just as learned leisure
means occupation with literary
matters. Leisure does not necessarily
signify idleness, as boys at school
(σχολη—leisure) know full well. It
is a polite synonym, perhaps slightly
tinged with irony, for labour of an
unmenial and unprofessional character.
It stands opposed, not to every kind
of work, but only to the work of
“men of business,” as they are called.
And it is used in this place by Shakespeare
with the very finest propriety.
In so far, therefore, as this flower of
speech is concerned, we must insist on
turning “the weeder-clips aside” of
Mr Collier’s ruthless spoliator, and on
rejecting the vulgar weed which he
offers to plant in its place.
Act IV. Scene 2.—In the following
passage, however, we approve of the
spoliator’s punctuation, which it seems
Mr Singer had adopted in his edition
1826.
“This Cardinal,
Though from an humble stock undoubtedly,
Was fashioned to much honour from his cradle.
He was a scholar, and a ripe and good one.”
All the common copies place a full
stop after honour, and represent the
cardinal as a scholar “ripe and good
from his cradle,” as if he had been
born with a perfect knowledge of
Greek and Latin.
Act V. Scene 2.—It is very difficult
to say what should be made of the
following:—
“But we all are men,
In our natures frail; and capable
Of our flesh; few are angels.”
Malone proposed—
“In our natures frail: incapable;
Of our flesh few are angels.”
The margins propose “culpable of our
flesh,” which was also recommended
by Mr Monck Mason. We venture
to suggest—
“In our natures frail; incapable
Of our flesh.”
i. e., incontinent of our flesh. But
whatever may be done with this new
reading, the next ought certainly to
be rigorously excluded from the text.
Loquitur Cranmer—
“Nor is there living
(I speak it with a single heart, my Lords)
A man that more detests, more stirs against,
Both in his private conscience and his place,
Defacers of a public peace, than I do.”
“The substitution of strives for
‘stirs,’” as Mr Singer very properly
remarks, “would be high treason
against a nervous Shakespearean expression.”
Scene 3.—The MS. emendation in
the speech of the porter’s man (queen
for “chine,” and crown for “cow”)
is certainly entitled to consideration;
but it is quite possible that his language,
being that of a clown, may be
designedly nonsensical.
Troilus and Cressida.—Act I.
Scene 2.—Cressida says,
“Achievement is, command—ungained, beseech.”
This line is probably misprinted. Mr
Harness long ago proposed,
“Achieved, men us command—ungained, beseech,”
—that is, men command us (women)
when we are achieved or gained over—they
beseech us, so long as we are
ungained. The MS. corrector’s emendation
falls very far short of the perspicuity
of this amendment. He gives
us—
“Achieved, men still command—ungained, beseech.”
Scene 3.—We may notice, in passing,
a “new reading” proposed by
Mr Singer, which, though ingenious,
we cannot be prevailed upon to accept.
It occurs in the following lines, where
Ulysses says—
“The heavens themselves, the planets, and this centre
Observe degree, priority, and place,
Insisture, course, proportion, season, form,
Office, and custom in all line of order;
And therefore is the glorious planet, Sol,
In noble eminence enthroned and sphered
Amidst the other; whose med’cinable eye
Corrects the ill aspects of planets evil,
And posts like the commandment of a king,
Sans check, to good and bad.”
Instead of “other,” Mr Singer proposes
to read “ether.” But “other”
is more in harmony with the context,
in which the sun is specially described
as exercising a dominion over the other
celestial luminaries. The parallel passage
from Cicero, which Mr Singer
quotes, tells just as much against him
as for him. “Medium fere regionem
sol obtinet, dux, et princeps, et moderater
luminum reliquiorum.” We
therefore protest against the established
text being disturbed.
To return to Mr Collier. He must
have very extraordinary notions of
verbal propriety when he can say that
“a fine compound epithet appears to
have escaped in the hands of the old
printer, and a small manuscript correction
in the margin converts a poor
expression into one of great force and
beauty in these lines—
‘What the repining enemy commends
That breath fame blows; that praise, sole pure, transcends;’”
—that is, praise from an enemy is praise
of the highest quality, and is the only
pure kind of praise. The poor expression
here condemned is “sole pure,”
and the fine compound epithet which
is supposed to have escaped the fingers
of the old compositor, is soul-pure.
We venture to think that Shakespeare
used the right words to express his
own meaning, and that the MS. corrector’s
fine compound epithet is one
of the most lack-a-daisical of the
daisies that peer out upon us from the
margins of the folio 1632.
Act III. Scene 1.—The words, “my
disposer Cressida,” have been satisfactorily
shown by Mr Singer to mean,
my handmaiden Cressida. Therefore
the change of “disposer” into dispraiser,
as recommended by the MS.
corrector, is quite uncalled for. The
speech, however, in which these words
occur must be taken from Paris, and
given to Helen.
Act III. Scene 2.—In the dialogue
between Troilus and Cressida, the lady
says, that she must take leave of him:
“Troilus.—What offends you, lady?
Cressida.—Sir, mine own company.
Troilus.—You cannot shun yourself.
Cressida.—Let me go and try.
I have a kind of self resides with you,
But an unkind self that itself will leave
To be another’s fool.”
This conversation is not very clear;
yet sense may be made of it. The lady
says, that she is offended with her own
company: the gentleman rejoins, that
she cannot get rid of herself. “Let
me try,” says the lady; “I have a
kind of self which resides with you—an
unkind self, because it leaves me
to be your fool; of that self I can get
rid, because it will remain with you
when I leave you.” The MS. emendation
affords no kind of sense whatsoever.
“I have a kind self that resides with you,
But an unkind self that itself will leave
To be another’s fool.”
Scene 3.—In the following passage,
in which it is said that the eye is unable
to see itself except by reflection,
these lines occur:
“For speculation turns not to itself
Till it hath travelled, and is married there,
Where it may see itself.”
Mirrored, for “married,” is certainly
a very excellent emendation; but it
may reasonably be doubted whether
mirror was used as a verb in Shakespeare’s
time. “To mirror” does not
occur even in Johnson’s Dictionary.
This consideration makes us hesitate
to recommend it for the text; for
“married,” though, perhaps, not so
good, still makes sense. On further
reflection we are satisfied that “married”
was Shakespeare’s word. In
this Scene Shakespeare says, “that
the providence that’s in a watchful
state” is able to unveil human thoughts
“in their dumb cradles,” in their very
incunabula—a finer expression certainly
than the MS. corrector’s substitution
“in their dumb crudities.”
Act IV. Scene 4.—Between Mr Collier
and his corrector the following passage
would be perverted into nonsense,
if they were allowed to have their own
way:
“And sometimes we are devils to ourselves
When we will tempt the frailty of our powers,
Presuming on their changeful potency;”
—that is, trusting rashly to their potency,
which is better than impotency,
and yet falls far short of perfect potency.
Mr Collier hazards the opinion,
that “unchangeful potency” would
be a better reading. We cannot agree
with him except to this extent that
it would be a better reading than the
one which the MS. corrector proposes,
“Presuming on their chainful potency,”
which we leave to the approbation of
those who can understand it.
Scene 5.—The lines in which certain
ladies of frail virtue, or, in the
stronger language of Johnson, “corrupt
wenches,” are spoken of, have
given rise to much comment.
“Oh! these encounterers so glib of tongue,
That give a coasting welcome ere it comes.”
This is the ordinary reading. The
margins propose,
“That give occasion welcome ere it comes.”
We prefer the emendation suggested
by Monck Mason and Coleridge,
“That give accosting welcome ere it comes;”
—that is, who take the initiative, and
address before they are addressed.
Coriolanus.—Act I. Scene 1.—In
his first emendation, the MS. corrector
betrays his ignorance of the right
meaning of words. The term “object,”
which nowadays is employed
rather loosely in several acceptations,
is used by Shakespeare, in the following
passage, in its proper and original
signification. One of the Roman citizens,
referring to the poverty of the
plebeians as contrasted with the wealth
of the patricians, remarks, “The leanness
that afflicts us, the object of our
misery, is an inventory to particularise
their abundance; our suffering is a gain
to them.” For “object” we should,
nowadays, say spectacle. But the
corrector cannot have known that
this was the meaning of the word,
otherwise he surely never would have
been so misguided as to propose the
term abjectness in its place. “This
substitution,” says Mr Collier, “could
hardly have proceeded from the mere
taste or discretion of the old corrector.”
No, truly; but it proceeded from his
want of taste, his want of discretion,
and his want of knowledge.
The ink with which these MS. corrections
were made, being, as Mr Collier
tells us, of various shades, differing
sometimes on the same page, he is of
opinion that they “must have been
introduced from time to time during,
perhaps, the course of several years.”
We think this a highly probable supposition;
only, instead of several years,
we would suggest sixty or seventy years.
So that, supposing the MS. corrector
to have begun his work when he was
about thirty, he may have completed
it when he was about ninety or a hundred
years of age. At any rate, he
must have been in the last stage of
second childhood when he jotted down
the following new reading in the famous
fable of the “belly and the members.”
The belly, speaking of the food
it receives, says—
“I send it through the rivers of the blood,
Even to the court, the heart, to the seat o’ the brain,
And through the cranks and offices of man.”
And so on; upon which one of the citizens
asks Menenius, the relator of the
fable, “How apply you this?”
“Menenius. The senators of Rome are this good belly,
And you the mutinous members.”
Yet, with this line staring him in the
face, the old corrector proposes to
read,
“I send it through the rivers of the blood,
Even to the court, the heart, the senate brain.”
The senate brain! when Shakespeare
has distinctly told us that the senate
is the belly. This indeed is the very
point of the fable. Surely nothing except
the most extreme degree of dotage
can account for such a manifest
perversion as that; yet Mr Collier
says that “it much improves the
sense.”
The MS. corrector cannot have been
nearly so old when he changed “almost”
into all most in the line,
“Nay, these are all most thoroughly persuaded;”
for this is decidedly an improvement,
and ought, we think, to get admission
into the text.
Scene 3.—Unless we can obtain a
better substitute than contemning, we
are not disposed to alter the received
reading of these lines:
“The breasts of Hecuba,
When she did suckle Hector, look’d not lovelier
Than Hector’s forehead, when it spit forth blood
At Grecian swords contending.”
Scene 6.—In the following passage
a small word occasions a great difficulty.
Coriolanus, wishing to select a
certain number out of a large body of
soldiers who have offered him their
services, says—
“Please you to march,
And four shall quickly draw out my command,
Which men are best inclined.”
But why “four?” Surely four men
would not be sufficient for the attack
which he meditated. The MS. corrector
gives us—
“Please you to march before,
And I shall quickly draw out my command,
Which men are best inclined.”
The second line is unintelligible, and
not to be construed on any known
principles of grammar. Mr Singer
proposes—
“Please you to march,
And some shall quickly draw out my command,
Which men are best inclined.”
We would suggest—
“Please you to march,
And those shall quickly draw out my command,
Which men are best inclined,”
—that is: And my command shall
quickly draw out, or select, those men
which (men) are best inclined to be
of service to me. The construction
here is indeed awkward, but less
awkward, we think, than that of the
other emendations.
Scene 9.—The punctuation of the
following passage requires to be put
right. Coriolanus is declaring how
much disgusted he is with the flatteries,
the flourish of trumpets, and
other demonstrations of applause with
which he is saluted—
“May these same instruments which you profane
Never sound more! When drums and trumpets shall
I’ the field prove flatterers, let courts and cities be
Made all of false-faced soothing. When steel grows
Soft as the parasite’s silk, let him be made
A coverture for the wars!”
But what is the sense of saying—let
courts and cities be made up of hypocrisy,
when drums and trumpets in
the field shall prove flatterers? This
has no meaning. We should punctuate
the lines thus—
“May these same instruments which you profane,
Never sound more, when drums and trumpets shall
I’ the field prove flatterers. Let courts and cities be
Made all of false-faced soothing,” &c.
The meaning is—When drums and
trumpets in the field shall prove flatterers
(as they are doing at present),
may they never sound more! Let
courts and cities be as hollow-hearted
as they please; but let the camp enjoy
an immunity from these fulsome
observances. When steel grows soft
as the parasite’s silk (that is, when
the warrior loses his stubborn and
unbending character), let silk be made
a coverture for the wars, for it will
then be quite as useful as steel. The
only alteration which the MS. corrector
proposes in this passage, is the
substitution of coverture for the original
reading “overture”—a change
which was long ago made.
Act II. Scene 1.—The margins
make an uncommonly good hit in the
speech of Menenius, who says, “I am
known to be a humorous patrician,
and one that loves a cup of hot wine
with not a drop of allaying Tiber
in’t: said to be something imperfect
in favouring the first complaint.” No
sense can be extracted from this by
any process of distillation. The old
corrector, brightening up for an instant,
writes “thirst complaint;” on
which Mr Singer remarks, “The
alteration of ‘first’ into thirst is not
necessary, for it seems that thirst
was sometimes provincially pronounced
and spelt first and furst.”
Come, come, Mr Singer, that is hardly
fair. Let us give the devil his due.
What one reader of Shakespeare out
of every million was to know that
“first” was a provincialism for thirst?
We ourselves, at least, had not a suspicion
of it till the old corrector
opened our eyes to the right reading—the
meaning of which is, “I am
said to have a failing in yielding rather
too readily to the thirst complaint.”
This emendation covers a multitude
of sins, and ought, beyond a doubt,
to be promoted into the text.
We also willingly accept empirick
physic for “empirick qutique,” the
ordinary, but unintelligible reading.
A difficulty occurs in the admirable
verses in which the whole city is described
as turning out in order to get
a sight of the triumphant Coriolanus.
“All tongues speak of him, and the bleared sights
Are spectacled to see him. Your prattling nurse
Into a rapture lets her baby cry
While she chats him. The kitchen malkin pins
Her richest lockram ’bout her reechy neck,
Clambering the walls to eye him.”
Cheers instead of “chats” is proposed
by the old corrector. Mr Singer says
that cheers “savours too much of modern
times,” and suggests claps; but
a woman with an infant in her arms
would find some difficulty, we fancy,
in clapping her hands; though, perhaps,
this very difficulty and her attempt
to overcome it may have been
the cause of her baby crying himself
“into a rapture.” We are disposed,
however, to adhere to the old lection—“while
she chats him”—that is, while
she makes Coriolanus the subject of
her gabble. For it ought to be borne
in mind that Coriolanus has not, as
yet, made his appearance: and, therefore,
both cheering and clapping would
be premature. We observe that, instead
of a “rapture”—i. e., a fit—one
of the wiseacres of the variorum proposes
to read a rupture! The nurse
lets the baby cry himself into a rupture!
This outflanks even the margins.
The annotator subscribes himself
“S. W.”—which means, we presume,
Something Wanting in the
upper story.
We accept touch for “reach” in the
sentence where it is said, “his soaring
insolence shall reach (the oldest reading
is “teach”) the people. This
correction had been already proposed
by Mr Knight. But we cannot approve
of the following change (prest
for “blest,” Scene 2) which has obtained
the sanction of Mr Singer. Sicinius
has just remarked that the senate
has assembled to do honour to
Coriolanus, on which Brutus says—
“Which the rather
We shall be blest to do, if he remember
A kinder value of the people, than
He hath hereto prized them at.”
Does not this mean—which honour
we shall be most happy to do to Coriolanus,
if &c.? Why then change
“blest” into prest? a very unnatural
mode of speech.
Scene 3.—In the next instance,
however, we side most cordially with
the margins and Mr Collier, against
Mr Singer and the ordinary text. The
haughty Coriolanus, who is a candidate
for the consulship, says—
“Why in this wolvish gown should I stand here,
To beg of Hob and Dick?” &c.
Now Shakespeare, in a previous part
of the play, has described the candidate’s
toga as “the napless vesture of
humility;” and it is well known that
this toga was of a different texture
from that usually worn. Is it not
probable, therefore—nay certain—that
Coriolanus should speak of it as woolless,
the word wolvish being altogether
unintelligible? Accordingly, the MS.
corrector reads—
“Why in this woolless gown should I stand here.”
Mr Singer, defending the old reading,
says, it is sufficient that his investiture
in this gown “was simulating
humility not in his nature, to bring to
mind the fable of the wolf.” Oh, Mr
Singer! but must not the epithet in
that case have been sheepish? Surely,
if Coriolanus had felt himself to be a
wolf in sheep’s clothing, he never
would have said that he was a sheep
in wolves’ clothing![4]
Act III. Scene 1.—In the following
speech of Coriolanus several corrections
are proposed, one of which, and
perhaps two, might be admitted into
the text:—
“O, good but most unwise patricians! why,
You grave but reckless senators, have you thus
Given Hydra here to choose an officer
That with his peremptory ‘shall’ (being but
The horn and noise of the monsters), wants not spirit
To say he’ll turn your current in a ditch,
And make your channel his? If he have power,
Then vail your ignorance: if none, awake
Your dangerous lenity.”
Leave for “here” is, we think, a good
exchange; and revoke for “awake,”
an improvement which can scarcely
be resisted. Further on, Coriolanus
asks—
“Well, what then,
How shall this bosom multiplied, digest
The senate’s courtesy?”
There is, it seems, an old word bisson,
signifying blind; and therefore we
see no good reason (although such
may exist) against accepting, as entitled
to textual advancement, the
old corrector’s substitution of bisson
multitude for “bosom multiplied.” The
latter, however, is defended, as we
learn from Mr Singer, “by one strenuous
dissentient voice.” Why did
he not tell us by whom and where?
One excellent emendation by Mr
Singer himself we must here notice.
Coriolanus speaks of those who wish
“To jump a body with a dangerous physic
That’s sure of death without it.”
No sense can be made of this. Some
copies have vamp, which is not a bad
reading; but there is an old word
imp, which signifies to piece or patch.
Accordingly, Mr Singer reads—“To
imp a body,” &c. This is the word
which ought to stand in the text.
Scene 2.—Here the old corrector is
again at his forging tricks upon a
large scale. Volumnia says to Coriolanus,
her son—
“Pray be counsell’d,
I have a heart as little apt as yours
To brook control without the use of anger;
But yet a brain that leads my use of anger
To better vantage.”
The interpolated line is very unlike
the diction of Shakespeare, and is not
at all called for. “Apt” here means
pliant, accommodating. “I have a
heart as stubborn and unaccommodating
as your own; but yet,” &c.
Mr Singer proposes soft for “apt;”
but this seems unnecessary.
Act IV. Scene 1.—Although the
construction of the latter part of these
lines is somewhat involved, it is far
more after the manner of Shakespeare
than the correction which the margins
propose. Coriolanus says to his
mother—
“Nay, mother,
Where is your ancient courage? You were used
To say extremity was the trier of spirits;
That common chances common men could bear,
That when the sea was calm, all boats alike
Show’d mastership in floating; fortune’s blows,
When most struck home, being gentle wounded, craves
A noble cunning.”
Gentle-minded is the new reading; but
it is quite uncalled for. The meaning
is—You were used to say that when
fortune’s blows were most struck home,
to be gentle, though wounded, craves
a noble cunning—that is, a high degree
of self-command.
Scene 5.—It is curious to remark
how cleverly Shakespeare has anticipated
old Hobbes’ theory of human
nature and of society, in the scene
where the serving-men are discussing
the merits of peace and war.
“Peace,” says one of them, “makes
men hate one another.” “The reason?”
asks another. Answer—“Because
they then less need one another.”
This, in a very few words,
is exactly the doctrine of the old
philosopher of Malmesbury.
Scene 6.—“[God] Marcius” for “good
Marcius,” is a commendable emendation;
and perhaps, also, it may be
proper to read—
“You have made fair hands,
You and your handycrafts have crafted fair,”
instead of
“You and your crafts, you have crafted fair.”
The following passage (Scene 7) has
given a good deal of trouble to the
commentators. Aufidius is describing
Coriolanus as a man who, with all his
merits, had failed, through some unaccountable
perversity of judgment,
in attaining the position which his
genius entitled him to occupy. He
then says—
“So our virtues
Lie in the interpretation of the time;
And power, unto itself most commendable,
Hath not a tomb so evident as a chair
To extol what it hath done.
One fire drives out one fire, one nail one nail,
Right’s by right fouler, strengths by strength do fail.”
Our virtues, says Aufidius, consist in
our ability to interpret, and turn to
good account, the signs of the times.
“And power, unto itself most commendable,
hath not a tomb so evident
as a chair to extol what it hath
done;” that is,—and power, which
delights to praise itself, is sure to
have a downfall, so soon as it blazons
forth its pretensions from the
rostrum. The MS. corrector proposes—
“Hath not a tomb so evident as a cheer,” &c.
The original text is obscurely enough
expressed, but the new reading seems
to be utter nonsense. What can Mr
Singer mean by his reading—
“Hath not a tomb so evident as a hair”?
The old corrector also reads, unnecessarily,
as we think, suffer for “fouler.”
“Rights by rights suffer.” There
seems to be no necessity for changing
the received text. “Right is fouler
by right,”—which Steevens thus explains:
“what is already right, and
is received as such, becomes less clear
when supported by supernumerary
proof.”
Act V. Scene 3.—An emendation,
good so far as it goes, comes before
us in the speech of Volumnia, the
mother of Coriolanus. She, his wife,
and young son, are supplicating the
triumphant renegade to spare his native
country. She says that, instead
of his presence being a comfort to
them, it is a sight—
“Making the mother, wife, and child to see
The son, the husband, and the father tearing
His country’s bowels out. And to poor we
Thine enmity’s most capital.”
This is the reading of the ordinary
copies, but it is neither sense nor
grammar. The old corrector removes
the full stop after out, and reads—
“His country’s bowels out; and so poor we
Thine enemies most capital.”
But if this is the right reading, it
must be completed by changing “we”
into us. The meaning will then be—making
thy mother, wife, &c.; and so
(making) poor us (that is, those whom
you are bound to love and protect before
all others) thy chief enemies.
Scene 5.—Aufidius, speaking of Coriolanus,
says, I
“Served his designments
In mine own person, holp to reap the fame
Which he did end all his.”
The word “end” has been a stumbling-block
to the commentators. The
old corrector reads—
“Holp to reap the fame
Which he did ear all his.”
On which Mr Singer remarks, with a
good deal of pertinency, “The substitution
of ear for ‘end’ is a good
emendation of an evident misprint;
but the correctors have only half done
their work: ear—i. e. plough—and
reap should change places; or Aufidius
is made to say that he had a
share in the harvest, while Coriolanus
had all the labour of ploughing, contrary
to what is intended to be said.
The passage will then run thus—
‘Served his designments
In mine own person; holp to ear the fame
Which he did reap all his.’
“This,” adds Mr Singer, “is the suggestion
of a correspondent of Notes
and Queries, vol. vii. p. 378.”
Ten plays, as revised by the old
corrector, still remain to be overhauled.
These shall be disposed of
in our next Number, when it will
appear that the MS. emendations
offer no symptoms of improvement,
but come out worse and worse the
more fully and attentively they are
considered.
THE DUKE’S DILEMMA. A CHRONICLE OF NIESENSTEIN.
325
The close of the theatrical year,
which in France occurs in early
spring, annually brings to Paris a
throng of actors and actresses, the
disorganised elements of provincial
companies, who repair to the capital
to contract engagements for the new
season. Paris is the grand centre to
which all dramatic stars converge—the
great bazaar where managers
recruit their troops for the summer
campaign. In bad weather the mart
for this human merchandise is at an
obscure coffeehouse near the Rue St
Honoré; when the sun shines, the
place of meeting is in the garden of
the Palais Royal. There, pacing to
and fro beneath the lime-trees, the
high contracting parties pursue their
negotiations and make their bargains.
It is the theatrical Exchange, the histrionic
Bourse. There the conversation
and the company are alike curious.
Many are the strange discussions and
original anecdotes that there are
heard; many the odd figures there
paraded. Tragedians, comedians,
singers, men and women, young and
old, flock thither in quest of fortune
and a good engagement. The threadbare
coats of some say little in favour
of recent success or present prosperity;
but only hear them speak, and
you are at once convinced that they
have no need of broadcloth who are
so amply covered with laurels. It is
delightful to hear them talk of their
triumphs, of the storms of applause,
the rapturous bravos, the boundless
enthusiasm, of the audiences they
lately delighted. Their brows are oppressed
with the weight of their
bays. The south mourns their loss;
if they go west, the north will be envious
and inconsolable. As to themselves—north,
south, east, or west—they
care little to which point of the
compass the breeze of their destiny
may waft them. Thorough gypsies in
their habits, accustomed to make the
best of the passing hour, and to take
small care for the future so long as
the present is provided for, like soldiers
they heed not the name of the
town so long as the quarters be
good.
It was a fine morning in April.
The sun shone brightly, and, amongst
the numerous loungers in the garden
of the Palais Royal were several
groups of actors. The season was
already far advanced; all the companies
were formed, and those players
who had not secured an engagement
had but a poor chance of finding
one. Their anxiety was legible upon
their countenances. A man of about
fifty years of age walked to and
fro, a newspaper in his hand, and
to him, when he passed near them,
the actors bowed—respectfully and
hopefully. A quick glance was his
acknowledgment of their salutation,
and then his eyes reverted to his
paper, as if it deeply interested him.
When he was out of hearing, the
actors, who had assumed their most
picturesque attitudes to attract his attention,
and who beheld their labour
lost, vented their ill-humour.
“Balthasar is mighty proud,” said
one; “he has not a word to say to
us.”
“Perhaps he does not want anybody,”
remarked another; “I think
he has no theatre this year.”
“That would be odd. They say
he is a clever manager.”
“He may best prove his cleverness
by keeping aloof. It is so difficult
nowadays to do good in the provinces.
The public is so fastidious! the authorities
are so shabby, so unwilling to
put their hands in their pockets. Ah,
my dear fellow, our art is sadly
fallen!”
Whilst the discontented actors bemoaned
themselves, Balthasar eagerly
accosted a young man who just then
entered the garden by the passage of
the Perron. The coffeehouse-keepers
had already begun to put out tables
under the tender foliage. The two
men sat down at one of them.
“Well, Florival,” said the manager,
“does my offer suit you? Will
you make one of us? I was glad to
hear you had broken off with Ricardin.
With your qualifications you ought
to have an engagement in Paris, or
at least at a first-rate provincial
theatre. But you are young, and, as
you know, managers prefer actors of
greater experience and established
reputation. Your parts are generally
taken by youths of five-and-forty,
with wrinkles and grey hairs,
but well versed in the traditions of
the stage—with damaged voices but
an excellent style. My brother managers
are greedy of great names;
yours still has to become known—as
yet, you have but your talent
to recommend you. I will content
myself with that; content yourself
with what I offer you. Times are
bad, the season is advanced, engagements
are hard to find. Many
of your comrades have gone to try
their luck beyond seas. We have
not so far to go; we shall scarcely
overstep the boundary of our ungrateful
country. Germany invites us; it
is a pleasant land, and Rhine wine
is not to be disdained. I will tell
you how the thing came about. For
many years past I have managed
theatres in the eastern departments,
in Alsatia and Lorraine. Last summer,
having a little leisure, I made
an excursion to Baden-Baden. As
usual, it was crowded with fashionables.
One rubbed shoulders with
princes and trod upon highnesses’
toes; one could not walk twenty
yards without meeting a sovereign.
All these crowned heads, kings, grand dukes,
electors, mingled easily and
affably with the throng of visitors.
Etiquette is banished from the baths
of Baden, where, without laying aside
their titles, great personages enjoy
the liberty and advantages of an incognito.
At the time of my visit, a
company of very indifferent German
actors were playing, two or three
times a-week, in the little theatre.
They played to empty benches, and
must have starved but for the assistance
afforded them by the directors
of the gambling-tables. I often went
to their performances, and, amongst
the scanty spectators, I soon remarked
one who was as assiduous as
myself. A gentleman, very plainly
dressed, but of agreeable countenance
and aristocratic appearance,
invariably occupied the same stall,
and seemed to enjoy the performance,
which proved that he was easily
pleased. One night he addressed to
me some remark with respect to the
play then acting; we got into conversation
on the subject of dramatic
art; he saw that I was specially
competent on that topic, and after
the theatre he asked me to take refreshment
with him. I accepted. At
midnight we parted, and, as I was
going home, I met a gambler whom I
slightly knew. ‘I congratulate you,’
he said; ‘you have friends in high
places!’ He alluded to the gentleman
with whom I had passed the
evening, and whom I now learned
was no less a personage than his
Serene Highness Prince Leopold,
sovereign ruler of the Grand Duchy
of Niesenstein. I had had the honour
of passing a whole evening in
familiar intercourse with a crowned
head. Next day, walking in the park,
I met his Highness. I made a low
bow and kept at a respectful distance,
but the Grand Duke came up to me
and asked me to walk with him. Before
accepting, I thought it right to
inform him who I was. ‘I guessed
as much,’ said the Prince. ‘From
one or two things that last night
escaped you, I made no doubt you
were a theatrical manager.’ And by
a gesture he renewed his invitation
to accompany him. In a long conversation
he informed me of his intention
to establish a French theatre
in his capital, for the performance
of comedy, drama, vaudeville, and
comic operas. He was then building
a large theatre, which would be
ready by the end of the winter, and
he offered me its management on very
advantageous terms. I had no plans
in France for the present year, and
the offer was too good to be refused.
The Grand Duke guaranteed my
expenses and a gratuity, and there
was a chance of very large profits.
I hesitated not a moment; we exchanged
promises, and the affair was
concluded.
“According to our agreement, I
am to be at Karlstadt, the capital of
the Grand Duchy of Niesenstein, in
the first week in May. There is no
time to lose. My company is almost
complete, but there are still some important
gaps to fill. Amongst others,
I want a lover, a light comedian, and
a first singer. I reckon upon you to
fill these important posts.”
“I am quite willing,” replied the
actor, “but there is still an obstacle.
You must know, my dear Balthasar,
that I am deeply in love—seriously,
this time—and I broke off with Ricardin
solely because he would not
engage her to whom I am attached.”
“Oho! she is an actress?”
“Two years upon the stage; a
lovely girl, full of grace and talent,
and with a charming voice. The
Opera Comique has not a singer to
compare with her.”
“And she is disengaged?”
“Yes, my dear fellow; strange
though it seems, and by a combination
of circumstances which it were
tedious to detail, the fascinating Delia
is still without an engagement. And
I give you notice that henceforward
I attach myself to her steps: where
she goes, I go; I will perform upon
no boards which she does not tread.
I am determined to win her heart,
and make her my wife.”
“Very good!” cried Balthasar,
rising from his seat; “tell me the
address of this prodigy: I run, I fly,
I make every sacrifice; and we will
start to-morrow.”
People were quite right in saying
that Balthasar was a clever manager.
None better knew how to deal with
actors, often capricious and difficult to
guide. He possessed skill, taste, and
tact. One hour after the conversation
in the garden of the Palais
Royal, he had obtained the signatures
of Delia and Florival, two excellent
acquisitions, destined to do him infinite
honour in Germany. That
night his little company was complete,
and the next day, after a good
dinner, it started for Strasburg. It
was composed as follows:
Balthasar, manager, was to play
the old men, and take the heavy
business.
Florival was the leading man, the
lover, and the first singer.
Rigolet was the low comedian, and
took the parts usually played by Arnal
and Bouffé.
Similor was to perform the valets
in Molière’s comedies, and eccentric
low comedy characters.
Anselmo was the walking gentleman.
Lebel led the band.
Miss Delia was to display her
charms and talents as prima donna,
and in genteel comedy.
Miss Foligny was the singing chambermaid.
Miss Alice was the walking lady,
and made herself generally useful.
Finally, Madame Pastorale, the
duenna of the company, was to perform
the old women, and look after
the young ones.
Although so few, the company
trusted to atone by zeal and industry
for numerical deficiency. It would
be easy to find, in the capital of the
Grand Duchy, persons capable of filling
mute parts, and, in most plays, a
few unimportant characters might be
suppressed.
The travellers reached Strasburg
without adventure worthy of note.
There Balthasar allowed them six-and-thirty
hours’ repose, and took advantage
of the halt to write to the Grand
Duke Leopold, and inform him of his
approaching arrival; then they again
started, crossed the Rhine at Kehl,
and in thirty days, after traversing
several small German states, reached
the frontier of the Grand Duchy of
Niesenstein, and stopped at a little
village called Krusthal. From this
village to the capital the distance was
only four leagues, but means of conveyance
were wanting. There was
but a single stage-coach on that line
of road; it would not leave Krusthal
for two days, and it held but six persons.
No other vehicles were to be
had; it was necessary to wait, and
the necessity was anything but pleasant.
The actors made wry faces at
the prospect of passing forty-eight
hours in a wretched village. The
only persons who easily made up their
minds to the wearisome delay were
Delia and Florival. The first singer
was desperately in love, and the prima
donna was not insensible to his delicate
attentions and tender discourse.
Balthasar, the most impatient and
persevering of all, went out to explore
the village. In an hour’s time he returned
in triumph to his friends, in
a light cart drawn by a strong horse.
Unfortunately the cart held but two
persons.
“I will set out alone,” said Balthasar.
“On reaching Karlstadt, I
will go to the Grand Duke, explain
our position, and I have no doubt he
will immediately send carriages to
convey you to his capital.”
These consolatory words were received
with loud cheers by the actors.
The driver, a peasant lad, cracked
his whip, and the stout Mecklenburg
horse set out at a small trot. Upon
the way, Balthasar questioned his
guide as to the extent, resources, and
prosperity of the Grand Duchy, but
could obtain no satisfactory reply:
the young peasant was profoundly
ignorant upon all these subjects. The
four leagues were got over in something
less than three hours, which is
rather rapid travelling for Germany.
It was nearly dark when Balthasar
entered Karlstadt. The shops were
shut, and there were few persons in
the streets: people are early in their
habits in the happy lands on the
Rhine’s right bank. Presently the cart
stopped before a good-sized house.
“You told me to take you to our
prince’s palace,” said the driver, “and
here it is.” Balthasar alighted and
entered the dwelling, unchallenged
and unimpeded by the sentry who
passed lazily up and down in its front.
In the entrance hall the manager met
a porter, who bowed gravely to him
as he passed; he walked on and
passed through an empty anteroom.
In the first apartment, appropriated
to gentlemen-in-waiting, aides-de-camp,
equerries, and other dignitaries
of various degree, he found nobody;
in a second saloon, lighted by
a dim and smoky lamp, was an old
gentleman, dressed in black, with
powdered hair, who rose slowly at his
entrance, looked at him with surprise,
and inquired his pleasure.
“I wish to see his Serene Highness,
the Grand Duke Leopold,” replied
Balthasar.
“The prince does not grant audiences
at this hour,” the old gentleman
drily answered.
“His Highness expects me,” was
the confident reply of Balthasar.
“That is another thing. I will inquire
if it be his Highness’s pleasure
to receive you. Whom shall I announce?”
“The manager of the Court theatre.”
The gentleman bowed, and left Balthasar
alone. The pertinacious manager
already began to doubt the success
of his audacity, when he heard
the Grand Duke’s voice, saying,
“Show him in.”
He entered. The sovereign of
Niesenstein was alone, seated in a
large arm-chair, at a table covered
with a green cloth, upon which were
a confused medley of letters and newspapers,
an inkstand, a tobacco-bag,
two wax-lights, a sugar-basin, a sword,
a plate, gloves, a bottle, books, and a
goblet of Bohemian glass, artistically
engraved. His Highness was engrossed
in a thoroughly national occupation;
he was smoking one of
those long pipes which Germans
rarely lay aside except to eat or to
sleep.
The manager of the Court theatre
bowed thrice, as if he had been advancing
to the foot-lights to address
the public; then he stood still and
silent, awaiting the prince’s pleasure.
But, although he said nothing, his
countenance was so expressive that
the Grand Duke answered him.
“Yes,” he said, “here you are.
I recollect you perfectly, and I have
not forgotten our agreement. But
you come at a very unfortunate moment,
my dear sir!”
“I crave your Highness’s pardon if
I have chosen an improper hour to
seek an audience,” replied Balthasar
with another bow.
“It is not the hour that I am thinking
of,” answered the prince quickly.
“Would that were all! See, here is
your letter; I was just now reading it,
and regretting that, instead of writing
to me only three days ago, when you
were half-way here, you had not done
so two or three weeks before starting.”
“I did wrong.”
“More so than you think, for, had
you sooner warned me, I would have
spared you a useless journey.”
“Useless!” exclaimed Balthasar
aghast. “Has your Highness changed
your mind?”
“Not at all; I am still passionately
fond of the drama, and should be delighted
to have a French theatre here.
As far as that goes, my ideas and
tastes are in no way altered since last
summer; but, unfortunately, I am
unable to satisfy them. Look here,”
continued the prince, rising from his
arm-chair. He took Balthasar’s arm
and led him to a window: “I told you,
last year, that I was building a magnificent
theatre in my capital.”
“Your Highness did tell me so.”
“Well, look yonder, on the other
side of the square; there the theatre
is!”
“Your Highness, I see nothing but
an open space; a building commenced,
and as yet scarcely risen
above the foundation.”
“Precisely so; that is the theatre.”
“Your Highness told me it would
be completed before the end of winter.”
“I did not then foresee that I should
have to stop the works for want of
cash to pay the workmen. Such is
my present position. If I have no
theatre ready to receive you, and if I
cannot take you and your company
into my pay, it is because I have not
the means. The coffers of the State
and my privy purse are alike empty.
You are astounded!—Adversity respects
nobody—not even Grand Dukes.
But I support its assaults with philosophy:
try to follow my example;
and, by way of a beginning, take a
chair and a pipe, fill yourself a glass
of wine, and drink to the return of my
prosperity. Since you suffer for my
misfortunes, I owe you an explanation.
Although I never had much order in
my expenditure, I had every reason,
at the time I first met with you, to
believe my finances in a flourishing
condition. It was not until the commencement
of the present year that I
discovered the contrary to be the case.
Last year was a bad one; hail ruined
our crops and money was hard to get
in. The salaries of my household were
in arrear, and my officers murmured.
For the first time I ordered a statement
of my affairs to be laid before
me, and I found that ever since my
accession I had been exceeding my
revenue. My first act of sovereignty
had been a considerable diminution of
the taxes paid to my predecessors.
Hence the evil, which had annually
augmented, and now I am ruined,
loaded with debts, and without means
of repairing the disaster. My privy-councillors
certainly proposed a way;
it was to double the taxes, raise extraordinary
contributions—to squeeze
my subjects, in short. A fine plan,
indeed! to make the poor pay for my
improvidence and disorder! Such
things may occur in other States,
but they shall not occur in mine. Justice
before everything. I prefer enduring
my difficulties to making my
subjects suffer.”
“Excellent prince!” exclaimed Balthasar,
touched by these generous
sentiments. The Grand Duke smiled.
“Do you turn flatterer?” he said.
“Beware! it is an arduous post, and
you will have none to help you. I
have no longer wherewith to pay
flatterers; my courtiers have fled.
You have seen the emptiness of my
anterooms; you met neither chamberlain
nor equerry upon your entrance.
All those gentlemen have
given in their resignations. The civil
and military officers of my house, secretaries,
aides-de-camp, and others,
left me, because I could no longer
pay them their wages. I am alone;
a few faithful and patient servants
are all that remain, and the most important
personage of my court is now
honest Sigismund, my old valet-de-chambre.”
These last words were spoken in a
melancholy tone, which pained Balthasar.
The eyes of the honest manager
glistened. The Grand Duke detected
his sympathy.
“Do not pity me,” he said with a
smile. “It is no sorrow to me to have
got rid of a wearisome etiquette, and,
at the same time, of a pack of spies and
hypocrites, by whom I was formerly
from morning till night beset.”
The cheerful frankness of the Grand
Duke’s manner forbade doubt of his
sincerity. Balthasar congratulated
him on his courage.
“I need it more than you think!”
replied Leopold, “and I cannot answer
for having enough to support the
blows that threaten me. The desertion
of my courtiers would be nothing,
did I owe it only to the bad state of
my finances: as soon as I found myself
in funds again I could buy others
or take back the old ones, and amuse
myself by putting my foot upon their
servile necks. Then they would be as
humble as now they are insolent. But
their defection is an omen of other
dangers. As the diplomatists say
clouds are at the political horizon.
Poverty alone would not have sufficed
to clear my palace of men who are
as greedy of honours as they are of
money; they would have waited for
better days; their vanity would have
consoled their avarice. If they fled,
it was because they felt the ground
shake beneath their feet, and because
they are in league with my enemies.
I cannot shut my eyes to impending
dangers. I am on bad terms with
Austria; Metternich looks askance at
me; at Vienna I am considered too
liberal, too popular: they say that I
set a bad example; they reproach me
with cheap government, and with not
making my subjects sufficiently feel the
yoke. Thus do they accumulate pretexts
for playing me a scurvy trick.
One of my cousins, a colonel in the
Austrian service, covets my Grand
Duchy. Although I say grand, it is
but ten leagues long and eight leagues
broad; but, such as it is, it suits me;
I am accustomed to it, I have the
habit of ruling it, and I should miss
it were I deprived of it. My cousin
has the audacity to dispute my incontestible
rights; this is a mere pretext
for litigation, but he has carried
the case before the Aulic Council, and
notwithstanding the excellence of my
right I still may lose my cause, for I
have no money wherewith to enlighten
my judges. My enemies are powerful,
treason surrounds me; they try to
take advantage of my financial embarrassments,
first to make me bankrupt
and then to depose me. In this
critical conjuncture, I should be only
too delighted to have a company of
players to divert my thoughts from my
troubles—but I have neither theatre
nor money. So it is impossible for
me to keep you, my dear manager,
and, believe me, I am as grieved at it
as you can be. All I can do is to give
you, out of the little I have left, a
small indemnity to cover your travelling
expenses and take you back to
France. Come and see me to-morrow
morning; we will settle this matter,
and you shall take your leave.”
Balthasar’s attention and sympathy
had been so completely engrossed by
the Grand Duke’s misfortunes, and by
his revelations of his political and
financial difficulties, that his own
troubles had quite gone out of his
thoughts. When he quitted the palace
they came back upon him like a
thunder-cloud. How was he to satisfy
the actors, whom he had brought two
hundred leagues away from Paris?
What could he say to them, how appease
them? The unhappy manager
passed a miserable night. At daybreak
he rose and went out into the
open air, to calm his agitation and
seek a mode of extrication from his
difficulties. During a two hours’
walk he had abundant time to visit
every corner of Karlstadt, and to admire
the beauties of that celebrated
capital. He found it an elegant town,
with wide straight streets cutting completely
across it, so that he could see
through it at a glance. The houses
were pretty and uniform, and the
windows were provided with small indiscreet
mirrors, which reflected the
passers-by and transported the street
into the drawing-room, so that the
worthy Karlstadters could satisfy their
curiosity without quitting their easy
chairs. An innocent recreation, much
affected by German burghers. As
regarded trade and manufactures, the
capital of the Grand Duchy of Niesenstein
did not seem to be very much
occupied with either. It was anything
but a bustling city; luxury had
made but little progress there; and its
prosperity was due chiefly to the moderate
desires and phlegmatic philosophy
of its inhabitants.
In such a country a company of
actors had no chance of a livelihood.
There is nothing for it but to return
to France, thought Balthasar, after
making the circuit of the city: then he
looked at his watch, and, deeming
the hour suitable, he took the road to
the palace, which he entered with as
little ceremony as upon the preceding
evening. The faithful Sigismund,
doing duty as gentleman-in-waiting,
received him as an old acquaintance,
and forthwith ushered him into the
Grand Duke’s presence. His Highness
seemed more depressed than upon
the previous day. He was pacing
the room with long strides, his eyes
cast down, his arms folded. In his
hand he held papers, whose perusal it
apparently was that had thus discomposed
him. For some moments he
said nothing; then he suddenly stopped
before Balthasar.
“You find me less calm,” he said,
“than I was last night. I have just
received unpleasant news. I am
heartily sick of these perpetual vexations,
and gladly would I resign this
poor sovereignty, this crown of thorns
they seek to snatch from me, did not
honour command me to maintain to
the last my legitimate rights. Yes,”
vehemently exclaimed the Grand
Duke, “at this moment a tranquil
existence is all I covet, and I would
willingly give up my Grand Duchy,
my title, my crown, to live quietly at
Paris, as a private gentleman, upon
thirty thousand francs a-year.”
“I believe so, indeed!” cried Balthasar,
who, in his wildest dreams of
fortune, had never dared aspire so
high. His artless exclamation made
the prince smile. It needed but a
trifle to dissipate his vexation, and to
restore that upper current of easy
good temper which habitually floated
upon the surface of his character.
“You think,” he gaily cried, “that
some, in my place, would be satisfied
with less, and that thirty thousand
francs a-year, with independence and
the pleasures of Paris, compose a lot
more enviable than the government of
all the Grand Duchies in the world.
My own experience tells me that you
are right; for, ten years ago, when I
was but hereditary prince, I passed
six months at Paris, rich, independent,
careless; and memory declares those
to have been the happiest days of my
life.”
“Well! if you were to sell all you
have, could you not realise that fortune?
Besides, the cousin, of whom
you did me the honour to speak to
me yesterday, would probably gladly
insure you an income if you yielded
him your place here. But will your
Highness permit me to speak plainly?”
“By all means.”
“The tranquil existence of a private
gentleman would doubtless have many
charms for you, and you say so in all
sincerity of heart; but, upon the other
hand, you set store by your crown,
though you may not admit it to yourself.
In a moment of annoyance it is
easy to exaggerate the charms of
tranquillity, and the pleasures of private
life; but a throne, however rickety,
is a seat which none willingly
quit. That is my opinion, formed at
the dramatic school: it is perhaps a
reminiscence of some old part, but
truth is sometimes found upon the
stage. Since, therefore, all things
considered, to stay where you are is
that which best becomes you, you
ought——But I crave your Highness’s
pardon, I am perhaps speaking
too freely——
“Speak on, my dear manager, freely
and fearlessly; I listen to you with
pleasure. I ought—you were about
to say?——”
“Instead of abandoning yourself
to despair and poetry, instead of
contenting yourself with succumbing
nobly, like some ancient Roman, you
ought boldly to combat the peril.
Circumstances are favourable; you
have neither ministers nor state-councillors
to mislead you, and embarrass
your plans. Strong in your
good right, and in your subjects’ love,
it is impossible you should not find
means of retrieving your finances and
strengthening your position.”
“There is but one means, and that
is—a good marriage.”
“Excellent! I had not thought of
it. You are a bachelor! A good
marriage is salvation. It is thus that
great houses, menaced with ruin, regain
their former splendour. You
must marry an heiress, the only
daughter of some rich banker.”
“You forget—it would be derogatory.
I am free from such prejudices,
but what would Austria say if I thus
condescended? It would be another
charge to bring against me. And
then a banker’s millions would not
suffice; I must ally myself with a
powerful family, whose influence will
strengthen mine. Only a few days
ago, I thought such an alliance within
my grasp. A neighbouring prince,
Maximilian of Hanau, who is in high
favour at Vienna, has a sister to
marry. The Princess Wilhelmina is
young, handsome, amiable, and rich;
I have already entered upon the preliminaries
of a matrimonial negotiation,
but two despatches, received
this morning, destroy all my hopes.
Hence the low spirits in which you
find me.”
“Perhaps,” said Balthasar, “your
Highness too easily gives way to discouragement.”
“Judge for yourself. I have a
rival, the Elector of Saxe-Tolpelhausen;
his territories are less considerable
than mine, but he is more
solidly established in his little electorate
than I am in my grand duchy.”
“Pardon me, your Highness; I
saw the Elector of Saxe-Tolpelhausen
last year at Baden-Baden, and, without
flattery, he cannot for an instant
be compared with your Highness.
You are hardly thirty, and he is more
than forty; you have a good figure,
he is heavy, clumsy, and ill-made;
your countenance is noble and agreeable,
his common and displeasing;
your hair is light brown, his bright
red. The Princess Wilhelmina is
sure to prefer you.”
“Perhaps so, if she were asked;
but she is in the power of her august
brother, who will marry her to whom
he pleases.”
“That must be prevented.”
“How?”
“By winning the young lady’s
affections. Love has so many resources.
Every day one sees marriages
for money broken off, and replaced
by marriages for love.”
“Yes, one sees that in plays——”
“Which afford excellent lessons.”
“For people of a certain class, but
not for princes.”
“Why not make the attempt? If
I dared advise you, it would be to set
out to-morrow, and pay a visit to the
Prince of Hanau.”
“Unnecessary. To see the prince
and his sister, I need not stir hence.
One of these despatches announces
their early arrival at Karlstadt. They
are on their way hither. On their
return from a journey into Prussia,
they pass through my territories and
pause in my capital, inviting themselves
as my guests for two or three
days. Their visit is my ruin. What
will they think of me when they find
me alone, deserted, in my empty palace?
Do you suppose the Princess
will be tempted to share my dismal
solitude? Last year she went to Saxe-Tolpelhausen.
The Elector entertained
her well, and made his court
agreeable. He could place chamberlains
and aides-de-camp at her
orders, could give concerts, balls, and
festivals. But I—what can I do?
What a humiliation! And, that no
affront may be spared to me, my rival
proposes negotiating his marriage at
my own court! Nothing less, it seems,
will satisfy him! He has just sent
me an ambassador, Baron Pippinstir,
deputed, he writes, to conclude a commercial
treaty which will be extremely
advantageous to me. The treaty is
but a pretext. The Baron’s true mission
is to the Prince of Hanau. The
meeting is skilfully contrived, for the
secret and unostentatious conclusion
of the matrimonial treaty. This is
what I am condemned to witness! I
must endure this outrage and mortification,
and display, before the prince
and his sister, my misery and poverty.
I would do anything to avoid such
shame!”
“Means might, perhaps, be found,”
said Balthasar, after a moment’s reflection.
“Means? Speak, and whatever
they be, I adopt them.”
“The plan is a bold one!” continued
Balthasar, speaking half to the
Grand Duke and half to himself, as
if pondering and weighing a project.
“No matter! I will risk everything.”
“You would like to conceal your
real position, to re-people this palace,
to have a court?”
“Yes.”
“Do you think the courtiers who
have deserted you would return?”
“Never. Did I not tell you they
are sold to my enemies.”
“Could you not select others from
the higher class of your subjects?”
“Impossible! There are very few
gentlemen amongst my subjects. Ah!
if a court could be got up at a day’s
notice! though it were to be composed
of the humblest citizens of
Karlstadt——”
“I have better than that to offer
you.”
“You have? And whom do you
offer?” cried Duke Leopold, greatly
astonished.
“My actors.”
“What! you would have me make
up a court of your actors?”
“Yes, your Highness, and you
could not do better. Observe that
my actors are accustomed to play all
manner of parts, and that they will
be perfectly at their ease when performing
those of noblemen and high
officials. I answer for their talent,
discretion, and probity. As soon as
your illustrious guests have departed,
and you no longer need their services,
they shall resign their posts.
Bear in mind that you have no other
alternative. Time is short, danger
at your door, hesitation is destruction.”
“But, if such a trick were discovered!——”
“A mere supposition, a chimerical
fear. On the other hand, if you do
not run the risk I propose, your ruin
is certain.”
The Grand Duke was easily persuaded.
Careless and easy-going, he
yet was not wanting in determination,
nor in a certain love of hazardous
enterprises. He remembered that
fortune is said to favour the bold, and
his desperate position increased his
courage. With joyful intrepidity he
accepted and adopted Balthasar’s
scheme.
“Bravo!” cried the manager;
“you shall have no cause to repent.
You behold in me a sample of your
future courtiers; and since honours
and dignities are to be distributed, it
is with me, if you please, that we will
begin. In this request I act up to the
spirit of my part. A courtier should
always be asking for something, should
lose no opportunity, and should profit
by his rivals’ absence to obtain the
best place. I entreat your Highness
to have the goodness to name me
prime minister.”
“Granted!” gaily replied the prince.
“Your Excellency may immediately
enter upon your functions.”
“My Excellency will not fail to do
so, and begins by requesting your
signature to a few decrees I am about
to draw up. But in the first place,
your Highness must be so good as to
answer two or three questions, that I
may understand the position of affairs.
A new-comer in a country, and a
novice in a minister’s office, has need
of instruction. If it became necessary
to enforce your commands, have you
the means of so doing?”
“Undoubtedly.”
“Your Highness has soldiers?”
“A regiment.”
“How many men?”
“One hundred and twenty, besides
the musicians.”
“Are they obedient, devoted?”
“Passive obedience, unbounded devotion;
soldiers and officers would
die for me to the last man.”
“It is their duty. Another question:
Have you a prison in your dominions?”
“Certainly.”
“I mean a good prison, strong and
well-guarded, with thick walls, solid
bars, stern and incorruptible jailors?”
“I have every reason to believe
that the Castle of Zwingenberg combines
all those requisites. The fact
is, I have made very little use of it;
but it was built by a man who understood
such matters—by my father’s
great-grandfather, Rudolph the Inflexible.”
“A fine surname for a sovereign!
Your Inflexible ancestor, I am very
sure, never lacked either cash or courtiers.
Your Highness has perhaps
done wrong to leave the state-prison
untenanted. A prison requires to be
inhabited, like any other building;
and the first act of the authority with
which you have been pleased to invest
me, will be a salutary measure
of incarceration. I presume the Castle
of Zwingenberg will accommodate a
score of prisoners?”
“What! you are going to imprison
twenty persons?”
“More or less. I do not yet know
the exact number of the persons who
composed your late court. They it is
whom I propose lodging within the
lofty walls constructed by the Inflexible
Rudolph. The measure is indispensable.”
“But it is illegal!”
“I crave your Highness’s pardon;
you use a word I do not understand.
It seems to me that, in every good
German government, that which is
absolutely necessary is necessarily
legal. That is my policy. Moreover,
as prime minister, I am responsible.
What would you have more? It is
plain that, if we leave your courtiers
their liberty, it will be impossible to
perform our comedy; they will betray
us. Therefore the welfare of the state
imperatively demands their imprisonment.
Besides, you yourself have
said that they are traitors, and therefore
they deserve punishment. For
your own safety’s sake, for the success
of your project—which will insure the
happiness of your subjects—write the
names, sign the order, and inflict upon
the deserters the lenient chastisement
of a week’s captivity.”
The Grand Duke wrote the names
and signed several orders, which were
forthwith intrusted to the most active
and determined officers of the regiment,
with instructions to make the
arrests at once, and to take their prisoners
to the Castle of Zwingenberg,
at three quarters of a league from
Karlstadt.
“All that now remains to be done
is to send for your new court,” said
Balthasar. “Has your Highness carriages?”
“Certainly! a berlin, a barouche,
and a cabriolet.”
“And horses?”
“Six draught and two saddle.”
“I take the barouche, the berlin,
and four horses; I go to Krusthal,
put my actors up to their parts, and
bring them here this evening. We
instal ourselves in the palace, and
shall be at once at your Highness’s
orders.”
“Very good; but, before going,
write an answer to Baron Pippinstir,
who asks an audience.”
“Two lines, very dry and official,
putting him off till to-morrow. We
must be under arms to receive him....
Here is the note written,
but how shall I sign it? The name
of Balthasar is not very suitable to a
German Excellency.”
“True, you must have another
name, and a title; I create you Count
Lipandorf.”
“Thanks, your Highness. I will
bear the title nobly, and restore it to
you faithfully, with my seals of office,
when the comedy is played out.”
Count Lipandorf signed the letter,
which Sigismund was ordered to take
to Baron Pippinstir; then he started
for Krusthal.
Next morning, the Grand Duke
Leopold held a levee, which was attended
by all the officers of his new
court. And as soon as he was dressed
he received the ladies, with infinite
grace and affability.
Ladies and officers were attired in
their most elegant theatrical costumes;
the Grand Duke appeared greatly
satisfied with their bearing and manners.
The first compliments over,
there came a general distribution of
titles and offices.
The lover, Florival, was appointed
aide-de-camp to the Grand Duke,
colonel of hussars, and Count Reinsberg.
Rigolet, the low comedian, was
named grand chamberlain, and Baron
Fidibus.
Similor, who performed the valets,
was master of the horse and Baron
Kockemburg.
Anselmo, walking gentleman, was
promoted to be gentleman-in-waiting
and Chevalier Grillenfanger.
The leader of the band, Lebel, was
appointed superintendant of the music
and amusements of the court, with
the title of Chevalier Arpeggio.
The prima donna, Miss Delia, was
created Countess of Rosenthal, an interesting
orphan, whose dowry was to
be the hereditary office of first lady of
honour to the future Grand Duchess.
Miss Foligny, the singing chambermaid,
was appointed widow of a general
and Baroness Allenzau.
Miss Alice, walking lady, became
Miss Fidibus, daughter of the chamberlain,
and a rich heiress.
Finally, the duenna, Madame Pastorale,
was called to the responsible
station of mistress of the robes and
governess of the maids of honour,
under the imposing title of Baroness
Schicklick.
The new dignitaries received decorations
in proportion to their rank.
Count Balthasar von Lipandorf, prime
minister, had two stars and three grand
crosses. The aide-de-camp, Florival
von Reinsberg, fastened five crosses
upon the breast of his hussar jacket.
The parts duly distributed and
learned, there was a rehearsal, which
went off excellently well. The Grand
Duke deigned to superintend the getting
up of the piece, and to give the
actors a few useful hints.
Prince Maximilian of Hanau and
his august sister were expected that
evening. Time was precious. Pending
their arrival, and by way of practising
his court, the Grand Duke gave
audience to the ambassador from
Saxe-Tolpelhausen.
Baron Pippinstir was ushered into
the Hall of the Throne. He had asked
permission to present his wife at the
same time as his credentials, and that
favour had been granted him.
At sight of the diplomatist, the new
courtiers, as yet unaccustomed to rigid
decorum, had difficulty in keeping their
countenances. The Baron was a man
of fifty, prodigiously tall, singularly
thin, abundantly powdered, with legs
like hop-poles, clad in knee breeches
and white silk stockings. A long
slender pigtail danced upon his flexible
back. He had a face like a bird of
prey—little round eyes, a receding
chin, and an enormous hooked nose.
It was scarcely possible to look at him
without laughing, especially when one
saw him for the first time. His apple-green
coat glittered with a profusion
of embroidery. His chest being too
narrow to admit of a horizontal development
of his decorations, he wore
them in two columns, extending from
his collar to his waist. When he approached
the Grand Duke, with a self-satisfied
simper and a jaunty air, his
sword by his side, his cocked hat under
his arm, nothing was wanting to
complete the caricature.
The Baroness Pippinstir was a
total contrast to her husband. She
was a pretty little woman of five-and-twenty,
as plump as a partridge, with
a lively eye, a nice figure, and an engaging
smile. There was mischief in
her glance, seduction in her dimples
and the rose’s tint upon her cheeks.
Her dress was the only ridiculous
thing about her. To come to court,
the little Baroness had put on all the
finery she could muster; she sailed
into the hall under a cloud of ribbons,
sparkling with jewels and fluttering
with plumes—the loftiest of which,
however, scarcely reached to the
shoulder of her lanky spouse.
Completely identifying himself with
his part of prime minister, Balthasar,
as soon as this oddly-assorted pair
appeared, decided upon his plan of
campaign. His natural penetration
told him the diplomatist’s weak point.
He felt that the Baron, who was old
and ugly, must be jealous of his wife,
who was young and pretty. He was
not mistaken. Pippinstir was as
jealous as a tiger-cat. Recently married,
the meagre diplomatist had not
dared to leave his wife at Saxe-Tolpelhausen,
for fear of accidents; he
would not lose sight of her, and had
brought her to Karlstadt in the arrogant
belief that danger vanished in
his presence.
After exchanging a few diplomatic
phrases with the ambassador, Balthasar
took Colonel Florival aside
and gave him secret instructions. The
dashing officer passed his hand through
his richly-curling locks, adjusted his
splendid pelisse, and approached Baroness
Pippinstir. The ambassadress
received him graciously; the handsome
colonel had already attracted her
attention, and soon she was delighted
with his wit and gallant speeches.
Florival did not lack imagination,
and his memory was stored with well-turned
phrases and sentimental tirades,
borrowed from stage-plays. He spoke
half from inspiration, half from memory,
and he was listened to with
favour.
The conversation was carried on in
French—for the best of reasons.
“It is the custom here,” said the
Grand Duke to the ambassador;
“French is the only language spoken
in this palace; it is a regulation I had
some difficulty in enforcing, and I was
at last obliged to decree that a heavy
penalty should be paid for every German
word spoken by a person attached
to my court. That proved effectual,
and you will not easily catch any of
these ladies and gentlemen tripping.
My prime minister, Count Balthasar
von Lipandorf, is the only one who is
permitted occasionally to speak his
native language.”
Balthasar, who had long managed
theatres in Alsace and Lorraine, spoke
German like a Frankfort brewer.
Meanwhile, Baron Pippinstir’s uneasiness
was extreme. Whilst his wife
conversed in a low voice with the
young and fascinating aide-de-camp,
the pitiless prime minister held his
arm tight, and explained at great
length his views with respect to the
famous commercial treaty. Caught
in his own snare, the unlucky diplomatist
was in agony; he fidgeted to
get away, his countenance expressed
grievous uneasiness, his lean legs were
convulsively agitated. But in vain
did he endeavour to abridge his torments;
the remorseless Balthasar relinquished
not his prey.
Sigismund, promoted to be steward
of the household, announced dinner.
The ambassador and his lady had
been invited to dine, as well as all the
courtiers. The aide-de-camp was
placed next to the Baroness, the Baron
at the other end of the table.
The torture was prolonged. Florival
continued to whisper soft nonsense to
the fair and well-pleased Pippinstir.
The diplomatist could not eat.
There was another person present
whom Florival’s flirtation annoyed,
and that person was Delia, Countess
of Rosenthal. After dinner, Balthasar,
whom nothing escaped, took her
aside.
“You know very well,” said the
minister, “that he is only acting a
part in a comedy. Should you feel
hurt if he declared his love upon the
stage, to one of your comrades?
Here it is the same thing; all this is
but a play; when the curtain falls, he
will return to you.”
A courier announced that the Prince
of Hanau and his sister were within a
league of Karlstadt. The Grand Duke,
attended by Count Reinsberg and
some officers, went to meet them. It
was dark when the illustrious guests
reached the palace; they passed
through the great saloon, where the
whole court was assembled to receive
them, and retired at once to their
apartments.
“The game is fairly begun,” said
the Grand Duke to his prime minister;
“and now, may Heaven help
us!”
“Fear nothing,” replied Balthasar.
“The glimpse I caught of Prince
Maximilian’s physiognomy satisfied
me that everything will pass off perfectly
well, and without exciting the
least suspicion. As to Baron Pippinstir,
he is already blind with jealousy,
and Florival will give him so much to
do, that he will have no time to attend
to his master’s business. Things look
well.”
Next morning, the Prince and
Princess of Hanau were welcomed,
on awakening, by a serenade from
the regimental band. The weather
was beautiful; the Grand Duke proposed
an excursion out of town; he
was glad of an opportunity to show
his guests the best features of his
duchy—a delightful country, and
many picturesque points of view,
much prized and sketched by German
landscape-painters. The proposal
agreed to, the party set out, in carriages
and on horseback, for the old
Castle of Rauberzell—magnificent
ruins, dating from the middle ages,
and famous far and wide. At a short
distance from the castle, which lifted
its grey turrets upon the summit of a
wooded hill, the Princess Wilhelmina
expressed a wish to walk the remainder
of the way. Everybody followed
her example. The Grand Duke offered
her his arm; the Prince gave his to
the Countess Delia von Rosenthal;
and, at a sign from Balthasar, Baroness
Pastorale von Schicklick took
possession of Baron Pippinstir; whilst
the smiling Baroness accepted Florival’s
escort. The young people walked
at a brisk pace. The unfortunate
Baron would gladly have availed of
his long legs to keep up with his coquettish
wife; but the duenna, portly
and ponderous, hung upon his arm,
checked his ardour, and detained him
in the rear. Respect for the mistress
of the robes forbade rebellion or complaint.
Amidst the ruins of the venerable
castle, the distinguished party found
a table spread with an elegant collation.
It was an agreeable surprise,
and the Grand Duke had all the credit
of an idea suggested to him by his
prime minister.
The whole day was passed in rambling
through the beautiful forest of
Rauberzell. The Princess was charming;
nothing could exceed the high
breeding of the courtiers, or the fascination
and elegance of the ladies;
and Prince Maximilian warmly congratulated
the Grand Duke on having
a court composed of such agreeable
and accomplished persons. Baroness
Pippinstir declared, in a moment of
enthusiasm, that the court of Saxe-Tolpelhausen
was not to compare
with that of Niesenstein. She could
hardly have said anything more completely
at variance with the object of
her husband’s mission. The Baron
was near fainting.
Like not a few of her countrywomen,
the Princess Wilhelmina had
a strong predilection for Parisian fashions.
She admired everything that
came from France; she spoke French
perfectly, and greatly approved the
Grand Duke’s decree, forbidding any
other language to be spoken at his
court. Moreover, there was nothing
extraordinary in such a regulation;
French is the language of all the
northern courts. But she was greatly
tickled at the notion of a fine being
inflicted for a single German word.
She amused herself by trying to catch
some of the Grand Duke’s courtiers
transgressing in this respect. Her
labour was completely lost.
That evening, at the palace, when
conversation began to languish, the
Chevalier Arpeggio sat down to the
piano, and the Countess Delia von
Rosenthal sang an air out of the last
new opera. The guests were enchanted
with her performance. Prince
Maximilian had been extremely attentive
to the Countess during their
excursion; the young actress’s grace
and beauty had captivated him, and
the charm of her voice completed his
subjugation. Passionately fond of
music, every note she sang went to
his very heart. When she had finished
one song, he petitioned for another.
The amiable prima donna sang a duet
with the aide-de-camp Florival von
Reinsberg, and then, being further
entreated, a trio, in which Similor—master
of the horse, barytone, and
Baron von Kockemburg—took a part.
Here our actors were at home, and
their success was complete. Deviating
from his usual reserve, Prince
Maximilian did not disguise his delight;
and the imprudent little Baroness
Pippinstir declared that, with
such a beautiful tenor voice, an aide-de-camp
might aspire to anything.
A cemetery on a wet day is a cheerful
sight, compared to the Baron’s
countenance when he heard these
words.
Upon the morrow, a hunting party
was the order of the day. In the
evening there was a dance. It had
been proposed to invite the principal
families of the metropolis of Niesenstein,
but the Prince and Princess
begged that the circle might not be
increased.
“We are four ladies,” said the
Princess, glancing at the prima donna,
the singing chambermaid, and the
walking lady, “it is enough for a
quadrille.”
There was no lack of gentlemen.
There was the Grand Duke, the aide-de-camp,
the grand chamberlain, the
master of the horse, the gentleman-in-waiting,
and Prince Maximilian’s
aide-de-camp, Count Darius von
Sturmhaube, who appeared greatly
smitten by the charms of the widowed
Baroness Allenzau.
“I am sorry my court is not more
numerous,” said the Grand Duke,
“but, within the last three days, I
have been compelled to diminish it by
one half.”
“How so?” inquired Prince Maximilian.
“A dozen courtiers,” replied the
Grand Duke Leopold, “whom I had
loaded with favours, dared conspire
against me, in favour of a certain
cousin of mine at Vienna. I discovered
the plot, and the plotters are
now in the dungeons of my good fortress
of Zwingenberg.”
“Well done!” cried the Prince;
“I like such energy and vigour. And
to think that people taxed you with
weakness of character! How we
princes are deceived and calumniated.”
The Grand Duke cast a grateful
glance at Balthasar. That able minister
by this time felt himself as much
at his ease in his new office as if he
had held it all his life; he even began
to suspect that the government of a
grand duchy is a much easier matter
than the management of a company
of actors. Incessantly engrossed by
his master’s interests, he manœuvred
to bring about the marriage which
was to give the Grand Duke happiness,
wealth, and safety; but, notwithstanding
his skill, notwithstanding
the torments with which he had
filled the jealous soul of Pippinstir,
the ambassador devoted the scanty
moments of repose his wife left him
to furthering the object of his mission.
The alliance with the Saxe-Tolpelhausen
was pleasing to Prince Maximilian;
it offered him various advantages:
the extinction of an old lawsuit
between the two states, the
cession of a large extent of territory,
and, finally, the commercial treaty,
which the perfidious Baron had
brought to the court of Niesenstein,
with a view of concluding it in favour
of the principality of Hanau. Invested
with unlimited powers, the
diplomatist was ready to insert in
the contract almost any conditions
Prince Maximilian chose to dictate
to him.
It is necessary here to remark that
the Elector of Saxe-Tolpelhausen was
desperately in love with the Princess
Wilhelmina.
It was evident that the Baron
would carry the day, if the prime
minister did not hit upon some scheme
to destroy his credit or force him to
retreat. Balthasar, fertile in expedients,
was teaching Florival his part
in the palace garden, when Prince
Maximilian met him, and requested a
moment’s private conversation.
“I am at your Highness’s orders,”
respectfully replied the minister.
“I will go straight to the point,
Count Lipandorf,” the Prince began.
“I married my late wife, a princess
of Hesse-Darmstadt, from political
motives. She has left me three sons.
I now intend to marry again; but
this time I need not sacrifice myself
to state considerations, and I am
determined to consult my heart
alone.”
“If your Highness does me the
honour to consult me, I have merely
to say that you are perfectly justified
in acting as you propose. After once
sacrificing himself to his people’s happiness,
a prince has surely a right to
think a little of his own.”
“Exactly my opinion! Count, I
will tell you a secret. I am in love
with Miss von Rosenthal.”
“Miss Delia?”
“Yes, sir; with Miss Delia, Countess
of Rosenthal; and, what is more,
I will tell you that I know everything.”
“What may it be that your Highness
knows?”
“I know who she is.”
“Ha!”
“It was a great secret!”
“And how came your Highness to
discover it?”
“The Grand Duke revealed it to
me.”
“I might have guessed as much!”
“He alone could do so, and I rejoice
that I addressed myself directly
to him. At first, when I questioned
him concerning the young Countess’s
family, he ill concealed his embarrassment:
her position struck me as
strange; young, beautiful, and alone
in the world, without relatives or
guardians—all that seemed to me singular,
if not suspicious. I trembled,
as the possibility of an intrigue flashed
upon me; but the Grand Duke, to
dissipate my unfounded suspicion,
told me all.”
“And what is your Highness’s decision?...
After such a revelation”—
“It in no way changes my intentions.
I shall marry the lady.”
“Marry her?... But no; your
Highness jests.”
“Count Lipandorf, I never jest.
What is there, then, so strange in my
determination. The Grand Duke’s
father was romantic, and of a roving
disposition; in the course of his life
he contracted several left-handed
alliances—Miss von Rosenthal is the
issue of one of those unions. I care
not for the illegitimacy of her birth;
she is of noble blood, of a princely
race—that is all I require.”
“Yes,” replied Balthasar, who had
concealed his surprise and kept his
countenance, as became an experienced
statesman and consummate
comedian. “Yes, I now understand;
and I think as you do. Your Highness
has the talent of bringing everybody
over to your way of thinking.”
“The greatest piece of good fortune,”
continued the Prince, “is that
the mother remained unknown: she
is dead, and there is no trace of family
on that side.”
“As your Highness says, it is very
fortunate. And doubtless the Grand
Duke is informed of your august intentions
with respect to the proposed
marriage?”
“No; I have as yet said nothing
either to him or to the Countess. I
reckon upon you, my dear Count, to
make my offer, to whose acceptance
I trust there will not be the slightest
obstacle. I give you the rest of the
day to arrange everything. I will
write to Miss von Rosenthal; I hope
to receive from her own lips the assurance
of my happiness, and I will beg
her to bring me her answer herself,
this evening, in the summerhouse in
the park. Lover-like, you see—a rendezvous,
a mysterious interview! But
come, Count Lipandorf, lose no time;
a double tie shall bind me to your
sovereign. We will sign, at one and
the same time, my marriage-contract
and his. On that condition alone will
I grant him my sister’s hand; otherwise
I treat, this very evening, with
the envoy from Saxe-Tolpelhausen.”
A quarter of an hour after Prince
Maximilian had made this overture,
Balthasar and Delia were closeted
with the Grand Duke.
What was to be done? The Prince
of Hanau was noted for his obstinacy.
He would have excellent reasons to
oppose to all objections. To confess
the deception that had been practised
upon him was equivalent to a total
and eternal rupture. But, upon the
other hand, to leave him in his error,
to suffer him to marry an actress!
it was a serious matter. If ever he
discovered the truth, it would be
enough to raise the entire German
Confederation against the Grand
Duke of Niesenstein.
“What is my prime minister’s
opinion?” asked the Grand Duke.
“A prompt retreat. Delia must
instantly quit the town; we will devise
an explanation of her sudden departure.”
“Yes; and this evening Prince
Maximilian will sign his sister’s marriage-contract
with the Elector of
Saxe-Tolpelhausen. My opinion is,
that we have advanced too far to retreat.
If the prince ever discovers the
truth, he will be the person most interested
to conceal it. Besides, Miss
Delia is an orphan—she has neither
parents nor family. I adopt her—I
acknowledge her as my sister.”
“Your Highness’s goodness and
condescension——” lisped the pretty
prima donna.
“You agree with me, do you not,
Miss Delia?” continued the Grand
Duke. “You are resolved to seize
the good fortune thus offered, and to
risk the consequences?”
“Yes, your Highness.”
The ladies will make allowance for
Delia’s faithlessness to Florival. How
few female heads would not be turned
by the prospect of wearing a crown!
The heart’s voice is sometimes mute
in presence of such brilliant temptations.
Besides, was not Florival faithless?
Who could say whither he might
be led in the course of the tender
scenes he acted with the Baroness
Pippinstir? Prince Maximilian was
neither young nor handsome, but he
offered a throne. Not only an actress,
but many a high-born dame, might
possibly, in such circumstances, forget
her love, and think only of her ambition.
To her credit be it said, Delia did
not yield without some reluctance to
the Grand Duke’s arguments, which
Balthasar backed with all his eloquence;
but she ended by agreeing
to the interview with Prince Maximilian.
“I accept,” she resolutely exclaimed;
“I shall be Sovereign Princess
of Hanau.”
“And I,” cried the Grand Duke,
“shall marry Princess Wilhelmina,
and, this very evening, poor Pippinstir,
disconcerted and defeated, will
go back to Saxe-Tolpelhausen.”
“He would have done that in any
case,” said Balthasar; “for, this
evening, Florival was to have run
away with his wife.”
“That is carrying things rather
far,” Delia remarked.
“Such a scandal is unnecessary,”
added the Grand Duke.
Whilst awaiting the hour of her
rendezvous with the prince, Delia,
pensive and agitated, was walking in
the park, when she came suddenly
upon Florival, who seemed as much
discomposed as herself. In spite of
her newly-born ideas of grandeur, she
felt a pain at her heart. With a forced
smile, and in a tone of reproach
and irony, she greeted her former
lover.
“A pleasant journey to you, Colonel
Florival,” she said.
“I may wish you the same,” replied
Florival; “for doubtless you
will soon set out for the principality
of Hanau!”
“Before long, no doubt.”
“You admit it, then?”
“Where is the harm? The wife
must follow her husband—a princess
must reign in her dominions.”
“Princess! What do you mean?
Wife! In what ridiculous promises
have they induced you to confide?”
Florival’s offensive doubts were dissipated
by the formal explanation
which Delia took malicious pleasure
in giving him. A touching scene ensued;
the lovers, who had both gone
astray for a moment, felt their former
flame burn all the more ardently for
its partial and temporary extinction.
Pardon was mutually asked and
granted, and ambitious dreams fled
before a burst of affection.
“You shall see whether I love you
or not,” said Florival to Delia. “Yonder
comes Baron Pippinstir; I will
take him into the summerhouse; a
closet is there, where you can hide
yourself to hear what passes, and then
you shall decide my fate.”
Delia went into the summerhouse,
and hid herself in the closet. There
she overheard the following conversation:—
“What have you to say to me,
Colonel?” asked the Baron.
“I wish to speak to your Excellency
of an affair that deeply concerns
you.”
“I am all attention; but I beg you
to be brief; I am expected elsewhere.”
“So am I.”
“I must go to the prime minister,
to return him this draught of a commercial
treaty, which I cannot accept.”
“And I must go to the rendezvous
given me in this letter.”
“The Baroness’s writing!”
“Yes, Baron. Your wife has done
me the honour to write to me. We
set out together to-night; the Baroness
is waiting for me in a post-chaise.”
“And it is to me you dare acknowledge
this abominable project?”
“I am less generous than you think.
You cannot but be aware that, owing
to an irregularity in your marriage-contract,
nothing would be easier than
to get it annulled. This we will
have done; we then obtain a divorce,
and I marry the Baroness. You will,
of course, have to hand me over her
dowry—a million of florins—composing,
if I do not mistake, your entire
fortune.”
The Baron, more dead than alive,
sank into an arm-chair. He was
struck speechless.
“We might, perhaps, make some
arrangement, Baron,” continued Florival.
“I am not particularly bent
upon becoming your wife’s second
husband.”
“Ah, sir!” cried the ambassador,
“you restore me to life!”
“Yes, but I will not restore you
the Baroness, except on certain conditions.”
“Speak! What do you demand?”
“First, that treaty of commerce,
which you must sign just as Count
Lipandorf has drawn it up.”
“I consent to do so.”
“That is not all: you shall take
my place at the rendezvous, get into
the post-chaise, and run away with
your wife; but first you must sit down
at this table and write a letter, in due
diplomatic form, to Prince Maximilian,
informing him that, finding it
impossible to accept his stipulations,
you are compelled to decline, in your
sovereign’s name, the honour of his
august alliance.”
“But, Colonel, remember that my
instructions——”
“Very well, fulfil them exactly;
be a dutiful ambassador and a miserable
husband, ruined, without wife
and without dowry. You will never
have such another chance, Baron! A
pretty wife and a million of florins do
not fall to a man’s lot twice in his life.
But I must take my leave of you. I
am keeping the Baroness waiting.”
“I will go to her.... Give me
paper, a pen, and be so good as to
dictate. I am so agitated——”
The Baron really was in a dreadful
fluster. The letter written, and the
treaty signed, Florival told his Excellency
where he would find the post-chaise.
“One thing more you must promise
me,” said the young man, “and that
is, that you will behave like a gentleman
to your wife, and not scold her
over-much. Remember the flaw in the
contract. She may find somebody
else in whose favour to cancel the document.
Suitors will not be wanting.”
“What need of a promise?” replied
the poor Baron. “You know
very well that my wife does what she
likes with me? I shall have to explain
my conduct, and ask her pardon.”
Pippinstir departed. Delia left her
hiding-place, and held out her hand
to Florival.
“You have behaved well,” she said.
“That is more than the Baroness
will say.”
“She deserves the lesson. It is
your turn to go into the closet and
listen; the Prince will be here
directly.”
“I hear his footsteps.” And Florival
was quickly concealed.
“Charming Countess!” said the
prince on entering, “I come to know
my fate.”
“What does your Highness mean?”
said Delia, pretending not to understand
him.
“How can you ask? Has not the
Grand Duke spoken to you?”
“No, your Highness.”
“Nor the prime minister?”
“Not a word. When I received
your letter, I was on the point of asking
you for a private interview. I
have a favour—a service—to implore
of your Highness.”
“It is granted before it is asked.
I place my whole influence and power
at your feet, charming Countess!”
“A thousand thanks, illustrious
prince. You have already shown me
so much kindness, that I venture to
ask you to make a communication to
my brother, the Grand Duke, which I
dare not make myself. I want you
to inform him that I have been for
three months privately married to
Count Reinsberg.”
“Good heavens!” cried Maximilian,
falling into the arm-chair in
which Pippinstir had recently reclined.
On recovering from the shock, the
prince rose again to his feet.
“’Tis well, madam,” he said, in a
faint voice. “’Tis well!”
And he left the summerhouse.
After reading Baron Pippinstir’s
letter, Prince Maximilian fell a-thinking.
It was not the Grand Duke’s
fault if the Countess of Rosenthal did
not ascend the throne of Hanau.
There was an insurmountable obstacle.
Then the precipitate departure
of the ambassador of Saxe-Tolpelhausen
was an affront which demanded
instant vengeance. And the Grand
Duke Leopold was a most estimable
sovereign, skilful, energetic, and blessed
with wise councillors; the Princess
Wilhelmina liked him, and thought
nothing could compare, for pleasantness,
with his lively court, where all
the men were amiable, and all the
women charming. These various motives
duly weighed, the Prince made
up his mind, and next day was signed
the marriage-contract of the Grand
Duke of Niesenstein and the Princess
Wilhelmina of Hanau.
Three days later the marriage itself
was celebrated.
The play was played out.
The actors had performed their parts
with wit, intelligence, and a noble
disinterestedness. They took their
leave of the Grand Duke, leaving him
with a rich and pretty wife, a powerful
brother-in-law, a serviceable alliance,
and a commercial treaty which
could not fail to replenish his treasury.
Embassies, special missions, banishment,
were alleged to the Grand
Duchess as the causes of their departure.
Then an amnesty was published
on the occasion of the marriage;
the gates of the fortress of Zwingenberg
opened, and the former courtiers
resumed their respective posts.
The reviving fortunes of the Grand
Duke were a sure guarantee of their
fidelity.
LADY LEE’S WIDOWHOOD. — PART IX.—CHAP. XLIII. — CHAPTER XLIV. — CHAPTER XLV. — CHAPTER XLVI.
342
A short time after the loss of poor
Julius, Bagot had gone to town without
seeing Lady Lee in the interval.
The night of his arrival he wrote a
note to Seager, desiring that gentleman
to come to him in the morning.
Seager came about ten o’clock to
the lodgings occupied by Bagot, expecting
to find him up and dressed.
As he was not in the sitting-room,
Seager proceeded up-stairs to his bedroom.
He was met at the head of
the stairs by Wilson, the Colonel’s
servant, who told him he feared his
master was ill. “He had been talking
queer,” Wilson said,—“very queer.”
Seager entered the bedroom. The
Colonel was in bed, and did not look
ill, but his friend observed that he
cast a peculiar hurried anxious glance
at the door as he entered. He went
up to him, shook hands, congratulated
him on the late event, and then seated
himself on the side of the bed.
“What makes you so late in bed?”
asked Seager; “keeping it up late last
night, eh?”
“No,” said Bagot, “no. I want
to get up—but how can I, you know,
with these people in the room?” (casting
a quick nervous glance towards a
corner of the apartment.)
“Very odd,” thought Seager, following
the direction of the Colonel’s
eyes, and seeing no one. “He hasn’t
lost his wits, I hope. A little feverish,
perhaps. I’m afraid you’re out of
sorts, Lee,” he said. “You don’t look
well.”
“Quite well,” said Bagot; “never
better. I’ll get up in a minute, my
good fellow, as soon as they’re gone.
Couldn’t you”—(in an under tone),—“couldn’t
you get ’em to go?”
“Who?” inquired Seager, again
following the glance the Colonel cast
towards the same part of the room.
“Who!” cried Bagot; “why, that
tea-party there. They’ve been drinking
tea the whole morning—two women
and a man.”
“By Jove, he’s mad,” thought Seager
to himself—“mad as a March
hare.”
“I’ve asked ’em as civilly as I
could to go away,” said Bagot, “but
they don’t mind that. It’s very curious,
too, where they got the tea, for
I don’t take much of it. Fancy them
coming to me for tea, eh?” said Bagot.
“Absurd, you know.”
“Why, ’tis rather a good joke,”
said Seager, affecting to laugh, but in
great consternation. Since reading
the accident to the poor little Baronet
in the papers, he had counted on Bagot
as the source from whence all
the funds required for the conduct of
the coming trial (without mentioning
other more immediate wants) were to
be supplied. And here was the Colonel
evidently out of his mind—unfit,
perhaps, to transact even so simple a
business as drawing money.
“Have you got much money in the
house, Lee?” asked Seager presently.
“Money,” said Bagot, who seemed
to answer some questions rationally
enough; “no, I don’t think I have;
I’m going to draw some as soon as
I’ve seen my lawyer.”
“Just so,” said Seager, “and the
sooner the better. Where’s your
check-book? Just sign your name,
and I’ll fill it up. We must have
some funds to carry on the war. The
trial comes on the beginning of next
month, and there’s a great deal to be
done beforehand.”
“Ah, that cursed trial!” said the
Colonel, grinding his teeth; “but I’ve
been thinking it over, Seager, and it’s
my belief that, if we bribe the Crown
lawyers high enough, we may get
’em to lay the indictment for manslaughter.”
“Manslaughter!” repeated Seager
to himself, as he took the check-book
from Bagot’s writing-desk. “Oh, by
Jove, he’s stark staring! Now, old
fellow,” he continued, coming to the
bedside with the inkstand and check-book,
“here you are. Just take the
pen and write your name here. I’ll
fill it up afterwards.”
Bagot took the pen, and tried to
write his name as Seager directed; but
his hand shook so that he could not,
and after an attempt or two, he threw
the pen from him.
“Come, try once more, and I’ll
guide your hand,” said Seager. But
Bagot refused so testily that he did
not press him.
“Do you know,” said Seager presently,
puzzled at Bagot’s extraordinary
demeanour, “I don’t think you’re
half awake yet, Lee. You’ve been
dreaming, haven’t you?”
“Not a bit,” said Bagot; “I didn’t
sleep a wink all night.”
“I wonder if that’s true?” thought
Seager. “You don’t see the tea-party
now, do you?”
Bagot, as if suddenly recollecting
them, looked quickly towards the corner
where he had fancied them seated.
“No,” said he, with a kind of doubtful
pleasure; “they’re gone—gone, by
Jove!” Then, raising himself on his
elbow, he cast a searching glance all
round the room, and at last behind
his bed, when he started, and, falling
back aghast on his pillow, muttered,
“There they are behind the curtains,
drinking tea as hard as ever, and
they’ve got a little boy with ’em now.”
“Ah,” said Seager, humouring him,
“what’s the boy like?”
“I could only see his back,” answered
Bagot, in a whisper, “but I
wouldn’t look again for the world,”
(shuddering, and turning his face
away.)
Seager now went to the door, and,
calling Wilson, desired him to fetch a
physician who lived in the street, to
see his master.
The physician, a brisk man, of few
years, considering his eminence, and
who piqued himself on suiting his tone
to that of his patients and their friends,
soon arrived. He came in jauntily,
asked Bagot how he was, heard all
about the intrusive tea-party, felt his
pulse, looked at him attentively, and
then took Seager aside.
“The Colonel, now, isn’t the most
abstemious man in the world, is he?”
he inquired, with a jocular air.
“No, by Gad,” said Mr Seager;
“he’s a pretty hard liver.”
“Drinks pretty freely, eh? Wine?—brandy?”
“More than I should like to,” replied
Seager. “I’ve often told him
he’d have to pull up some day.”
“Ah, yes, he’ll have to”—said the
other nodding. “He’s got delirium
tremens.”
“Has he, by Jove!” exclaimed
Seager—adding, with an oath, “what
a fool I was, that it never occurred to
me, knowing him as I do.”
“The attack’s just beginning now,
and promises to be violent,” said the
doctor.
“What—you think ’twill go hard
with him, eh?”
The physician said, “Perhaps it
might; ’twas impossible to say; however,”
he added, “you won’t be long
in suspense—a few days will settle the
matter.”
“Come, that’s a comfort,” said Seager,
remembering how important it
was that Bagot should be able to exert
himself before the trial. “Poor
devil,” he added, “what a pity—just
come into a fine property!”
“Well, well, we’ll try to keep him
in possession,” said the doctor. “I’ll
leave a prescription, and look in again
shortly.”
“By the by,” said Seager, detaining
him, “people who’ve got this complaint
sometimes talk confounded stuff,
don’t they?” The doctor said they did.
“And let out secrets about their
own affairs, and other people’s?”
“Possibly they might,” the doctor
said—“their delusions were various,
and often mixed strangely with truth.
I’ve heard patients,” he added, “in
this state talk about private matters,
and therefore it may be as well to let
no strangers come about him, if you
can avoid it.”
Seager thought the advice good,
and assured the doctor that he would
look after him himself. Accordingly,
he sent to his own lodgings for a supply
of necessaries, and established
himself as Bagot’s attendant.
In this capacity Mr Seager’s energy
and vigilant habits enabled him to act
with great effect; in fact, if he had
been the poor Colonel’s warmly-attached
brother, he could not have
taken better care of him. He administered
his medicine, which there was
no difficulty in getting him to take, as
it consisted principally of large doses
of brandy: he held him down, with
Wilson’s assistance, in his violent fits,
and humoured the strange hallucinations
which now began to crowd upon
him thick and fast.
Some of these Mr Seager found rather
diverting, especially an attendant
imp which Bagot conceived was perpetually
hovering about the bed, and
in whose motions he took vast interest.
“Take care,” said Bagot, starting
up in bed on one occasion as Seager
approached him; “mind, mind! you’ll
tread on him.”
“Tread on what?” said Seager,
looking down, deceived by the earnestness
of the appeal.
“Why the little devil—poor little
fellow, don’t hurt him. You’ve no
idea how lively he is. I wouldn’t have
him injured,” added Bagot tenderly,
“on any account.”
“Certainly not,” said Seager; “not
while he behaves himself. What’s he
like, eh?”
“He’s about the size,” returned
Bagot, “of a printer’s devil, or perhaps
a little smaller; and, considering
his inches, he’s uncommonly active.
He was half-way up the bedpost this
morning at one spring.”
All this nonsense, delivered with
perfect earnestness and gravity, contrasted
so oddly with the Colonel’s
red nose and bristly unshaven face,
that it greatly amused Mr Seager, and
helped him to pass the time. By and
by, however, both the tea-party and
the imp disappeared, and their place
was taken by spectres of more formidable
stamp. In particular, there
was a demon disguised as a bailiff in
top-boots, who was come, as Bagot
firmly believed, to take his soul in
execution, he having unfortunately
lost it at chicken hazard to the enemy
of mankind, which latter personage
he paid Mr Seager the compliment of
taking him for.
It was now that Seager began to
appreciate the soundness of the doctor’s
advice with respect to excluding
strangers from the hearing of Bagot’s
delusions. He began to talk, sometimes
pertinently, sometimes wildly,
of the approaching trial, generally
ending in absurd ravings; sometimes
charging Seager with dreadful crimes,
sometimes imagining himself the culprit.
On the third day of his attack,
Seager remarked that a showman
figured largely in his discourse, and,
finding the patient in a tractable mood,
he questioned him as to who this showman
might be.
“I know,” said the Colonel, still
taking Mr Seager for the distinguished
personage aforesaid—“I know it’s of
no use to try to keep anything a secret
from you. But suppose now I tell you
all about Holmes, will you let me off
what—what I lost, you know?”
“What was that?” asked Seager,
forgetting the imaginary forfeit.
“Why the—the soul,” said Bagot.
“It’s of no use to you, you know.”
“Oh, ah, I’d forgotten that,” said
Seager. “Pray, don’t mention it;
’tisn’t of the least consequence. Yes,
we’ll cry quits about that.”
Then, to his hearer’s surprise, Bagot,
apparently satisfied with the conditions,
related all the particulars of his
nocturnal interview with Mr Holmes,
comprising what had passed between
them inside the caravan.
Seager listened in breathless astonishment.
The delusion, if delusion
there was in this instance, was the
most plausible and coherent of any
that had yet haunted Bagot. It had
touched, too, on some previous suspicions
in Seager’s own mind, and he
resolved, if Bagot recovered, to sound
him on the subject.
Meantime he tried to lead him to
talk more freely on the subject. But
Bagot now began to wander, talked
all kinds of nonsense, and ended, as
usual, in violent ravings.
All this time the demon in top-boots
and his brethren were in constant
attendance. Never for a moment
was Bagot free from the horror
of their presence; and if all the frightful
spectres of romance and superstition
had been actually crowded round
his bed, the poor Colonel could not
have suffered more than from the horrible
phantasms that his imagination
summoned to attend him.
It was beginning to be doubtful if
he could hold out much longer under
the disease; but on the third night
he fell asleep, and woke the next
morning in his right mind.
“Ah, he’s pulled through this time,”
said the doctor, when he saw him.
“All right, now; but he mustn’t resume
his hard drinking, or he’ll have
another attack.”
“I’ll look after him myself,” said
Mr Seager. “I’ll lock up the brandy
bottle, and put him on short allowance.”
“Well, he ought to be very grateful
to you, I’m sure,” said the doctor,
“for all your attention. Really, I
never saw greater kindness, even
among near relations.” And the doctor
having been paid, departed, perfectly
convinced that Mr Seager was
one of the best fellows that ever
breathed, and the sort of person to
make any sacrifice to serve his
friends.
“Now I’ll tell you what it is, Lee,”
said Seager, when Bagot was on his
legs again, and manifested a desire for
his customary drams. “You mustn’t
go on in your old way yet awhile. If
you do, you’ll go to the devil in no
time.”
“Never you mind, sir,” said Bagot
with dignity. “I presume I’m the
best judge of what’s good for me.”
“You never made a greater mistake,”
returned Mr Seager. “Just
go and look in the glass, and see what
your judgment of what’s good for you
has brought you to, you unfortunate
old beggar. You look like a cocktail
screw after the third heat, all puffing
and trembling. I’ll lay you a five-pound
note you don’t look me straight
in the face for a minute together.
Here’s a sovereign, now—well, I’ll
put it between your lips, and if you
can hold it there for fifty seconds, you
shall have it, and if not, you shall give
me one. What d’ye say to that?”
“Sir,” said Bagot, with his lips
trembling, and his eyes rolling more
than ever at these delicate allusions
to his infirmities—“sir, you are disagreeably
personal.”
“Personal!” sneered Mr Seager.
“I wish you could hear the confounded
rubbish you talked while in bed. I
only wished I’d had a short-hand
writer to take it down—all about the
bailiffs, and devils, and so forth. And
the showman, too—one Holmes. He
struck me as a real character; and if
all you said was true, you must have
had some queer dealings together.”
As he spoke he fixed his green eye
on Bagot, who started, cast one nervous
glance at him, and then, in great
agitation, rose and walked to the window,
where Seager saw him wipe his
forehead with his handkerchief.
Presently he looked stealthily over
his shoulder, and, perceiving that
Seager still eyed him, he affected to
laugh. “Cursed nonsense I must have
talked, I daresay,” said he huskily.
“Oh, cursed, you know, ha, ha.”
“But that about the showman
Holmes didn’t sound so absurd as the
rest,” said Seager. “It struck me as
more like some real circumstances you
were recollecting. Come, suppose you
tell me all about it sensibly, now.”
“No more of this, sir,” said Bagot,
waving the handkerchief he had been
wiping his forehead with. “The subject
is unpleasant. No man, I presume,
likes to be reminded that he
has been talking like a fool. We
won’t resume the subject now, or at
any other time, if you please.”
“Ah,” said Seager to himself, on
observing Bagot’s agitation, “I was
right—there was some truth in that.
I must consider how to turn it to account.”
In his new circumstances Bagot was,
of course, a very different personage
from the Colonel Lee known to tradesmen
and money-lenders of old. There
was no talk now of arresting him for
small debts, no hesitation in complying
with his orders. The Jews, bill-brokers,
and other accommodating
persons who had lately been open-mouthed
against him, now offered him
unlimited credit, of which he did not
fail to avail himself. His creditor,
Mr Dubbley, seeing the very different
position the Colonel would now occupy
at the Heronry, and alive to the impolicy
of offending so important a
neighbour, stopt all proceedings against
him, and, with the most abject apologies
and assurances of regard, entreated
him to take his own leisure
for the payment of the debt. Apparently
satisfied with these advantages,
the Colonel showed no eagerness to
take upon him either the dignity or
the emoluments that had now devolved
on him in the succession of inheritance.
The first lawyers in the kingdom
were retained for him and Seager. A
considerable sum was placed at the
disposal of the latter, who was to employ
it either in bribing that very important
witness, Jim the groom, who
had charge of Goshawk, to perjure
himself, or in getting him to abscond.
As he proved tractable, however, and
agreed, for a sum which he named, to
swear anything that the gentlemen
might wish, it was resolved to produce
him; and Seager was very sanguine
of a favourable result.
In the mean time Bagot, anxious
and gloomy, kept almost entirely in
his lodgings, and seldom spoke to anybody
except on business. He did not
know what reports might be abroad
about the coming trial; he did not
know how his associates would look
upon him; and he feared at present to
put the matter to proof by going among
them. This line of conduct Seager
thought highly impolitic, and told him
so. “Put a good face on the matter,”
he said. “Go down to the club—play
billiards—go to the opera. If you go
sneaking about with a hangdog face,
as if you didn’t dare show yourself,
people will bring you in guilty before
the trial, and the legal acquittal will
hardly serve to set you right again.”
So Bagot suffered himself to be persuaded,
and went down to his club.
Here he had been, in days of yore, a
prominent character, and had enjoyed
an extensive popularity among the
members. He formed a sort of connecting
link between the fogies and
the youngsters; his experience allying
him with the one class, his tastes
and habits with the other. Here he
might formerly often have been seen
entertaining a knot of immoral old
gentlemen with jokes improper for
publication, or the centre of an admiring
circle of fledglings of the sporting
world, who reverenced him as an
old bird of great experience and sagacity.
With doubtful and anxious feelings,
he now revisited the scene of his former
glory. Putting on as composed
a face as possible, he went up-stairs
and entered the library. There were
several people in it whom he knew.
One well-known man-about-town,
with whom the Colonel was rather
intimate, was seated opposite the door
reading a newspaper, and, as Bagot
could have sworn, fixed his eye on
him as he entered, but it was instantaneously
dropt on the paper. Another
member—an old gentleman who
was strongly suspected of a happy
knack of turning up honours at critical
movements of the game of whist—looked
round at his entrance, and
the Colonel advanced to greet him, in
perfect confidence that he, at any
rate, was not a likely person to cast
the first stone at him; but Bagot was
mistaken. The old gentleman shifted
his chair so as to place his back towards
Bagot, with a loud snort of
virtuous indignation, and, leaning
forward, whispered to a neighbour
some hurried words, of which Bagot
could distinguish—“Deuced bad
taste!—don’t you think so?”
Crimson with rage and shame, Bagot
bent down over a newspaper to
recover himself, and fumbled with
trembling hands at his eye-glasses.
He heard a step behind him presently,
but he dared not look up.
“Lee, my boy, how are you?”
said a stout hearty man about fifty,
slapping the Colonel on the shoulder.
“I’ve just come back from a tour,
and the first thing I saw in the paper
was about you—about your”—the
stout gentleman stopt to sneeze, which
he did four times, with terrible convulsions
of face and figure, during
which Bagot was in horrible suspense,
while every ear in the room was
pricked up—“about your good fortune,”
said the stout gentleman, after
he had blown and wiped his sonorous
nose as carefully as if it were some
delicate musical instrument that he
was going to put by in its case. “I
congratulate you with all my heart.
Fine property, I’m told. Just wait
while I ring the bell, and we’ll have
a chat together.”
He went to the bell and rung it;
but, on his way back to Bagot, he
was stopped by a friend who had entered
the library with him, and who
now drew him aside. Bagot stole a
glance over his paper at them. He
felt they were talking about him. He
heard his stout friend say—“God
bless me, who would have thought it!”
and he perceived that, instead of rejoining
him, according to promise, he
took a chair at the farther end of the
room.
Bagot still kept his own seat a little
while, but he could not long endure
his position. He fancied every one
was looking at him, though, when,
with this impression strong on him,
he glared defiance around, every eye
was averted. He wished—he only
wished—that some one would offer
him some gross tangible insult, that
he might relieve himself by an outburst—that
he might hurl his scorn
and defiance at them and the whole
world.
No one, however, seemed likely to
oblige him with an opportunity of this
kind, and, after a minute or two,
Bagot rose, and, with as much composure
as he could command, quitted
the room and the house. As he
walked—in no happy frame of mind
with himself, with the world, or with
Seager, whose advice had entailed
upon him this mortification—towards
his lodgings, along one of the small
streets near St James’s, he saw some
one wave his hand to him, in a friendly
manner, from the opposite side of the
way. Bagot was too short-sighted
to recognise this acquaintance; but,
seeing him prepare to cross the road
to him, and reflecting that he could
not afford to drop any acquaintances
just then, when all seemed deserting
him, he stopped to see who it was.
Mr Jack Sharpe, the person who
now drew near, had been intended
for the Church, but happening to be
fast in everything except in his progress
in the different branches of university
learning, in which he was particularly
slow, he never arrived at
the dignity of orders. He had formerly
moved in the same circle as
Bagot, but had lost his footing there,
in consequence of strong suspicions of
dishonourable conduct on the turf.
These seemed the more likely to be
just, as he had never sought to rebut
the charge against him; and it was
rumoured that, since the occurrence,
he had allied himself—taking, at the
same time, no great precautions for
secresy—with a certain swindling
confederacy. Therefore Bagot had,
when last in town, in all the might
and majesty of conscious integrity,
avoided Mr Jack Sharpe, sternly repelled
all his attempts to renew their
acquaintance, and returned his greetings,
when they chanced to meet,
with the most chilling and formal
bows. Sharpe appeared to think that
late circumstances had bridged over
the gulf between them, for he not only
saluted Bagot with unwonted familiarity,
but took his hand. The
Colonel disengaged it, and, intrenching
himself behind his dignity, endeavoured
to pass on. Jack Sharpe,
nothing daunted, walked cheerfully
beside him.
“Well, Colonel, how goes the trial?”
asked Mr Sharpe, who had managed,
notwithstanding his downfall, to preserve
the appearance and manners of
a gentleman. “You’ll get a verdict,
I hope.”
The Colonel inclined his head stiffly.
“Well, I hope so,” said Jack
Sharpe. “It was a deuced clever
thing, from what I hear of it, and deserves
success; and my opinion of the
cleverness of the thing will be exactly
the same, whether you and Seager
get an acquittal or not.” And Mr
Sharpe looked as if he expected to
find Bagot highly gratified by his
approbation.
“Do you presume, for a moment,
to insinuate a doubt of my innocence
of the charge?” asked Bagot sternly.
“Oh, certainly not,” returned Jack
Sharpe, with a laugh. “Quite right
to carry it high, Colonel. Nothing
like putting a good face on it.”
“Sir,” said Bagot, increasing his
pace, “your remarks are offensive.”
“I didn’t mean them to be so,”
answered the other. “But you’re
quite right to carry it off this way.
You’ve come into a good property, I
hear, and that will keep you fair with
the world, however this trial, or a
dozen other such, might go. Some
people have the devil’s own luck.
Yes, Colonel, you’ll pull through it—you’ll
never fall among thieves. It’s
only the poor devils,” added Jack
Sharpe bitterly, “that get pitched
into and kicked into outer darkness.”
Bagot was perfectly livid. By this
time they had reached a corner of
the street, and, stopping short, the
Colonel said—
“Oblige me by saying which way
your road lies.”
“Well, well, good morning, Colonel.
I’m not offended, for, I daresay, I
should do the same myself in your
place. Politic, Colonel, politic! I
wish you good luck and good morning.”
And Mr Jack Sharpe took
himself off.
This encounter grated on Bagot’s
feelings more than any other incident
that had occurred to him. To be
hailed familiarly as a comrade by a
swindler—to be prejudged as one who
had forfeited his position in society, and
was to retain it only on new and accidental
grounds—this sunk deep, and
shook that confidence of success which
he had hitherto never permitted himself
to question.
Just afterwards he met Seager, who
came gaily up to ask him how he had
got on at the club. Bagot told him
something of the unpleasant treatment
he had met with, and the disgust
and annoyance it had caused him
to feel. Seager grinned.
“You’re not hard enough, Lee—you
think too much of these things.
Now, I’m as hard as a nail. I meet
with exactly the same treatment as
you do, but what do I care for it?
It doesn’t hurt me—they can’t put
me down,” and Seager smiled at the
thought of his own superiority.
“What would you do, I wonder, if
a thing which just now happened to
me were to happen to you? I was
looking on at a billiard match, and
Crossley, (you know Crossley?) who
had been, like the rest of ’em, deuced
distant and cool to me, offered to bet
on the game. I took him up—he
declined. ‘Oh, you back out, do you?’
says I. ‘Not at all,’ says Crossley;
‘but I don’t bet with everybody.’ Now,
what would you have done?”
“I should have desired him to apologise
instantly,” said the Colonel.
“He’d have refused.”
“I’d have kicked him,” said the
Colonel.
“’Twould have caused a row, and
we’re quite conspicuous enough already,”
said Seager. “No; I turned
coolly to him, and says I, ‘Very good;
as we’re going to close our accounts,
I’ll thank you for that ten-pound note
I won from you on the Phœbe match.’
Crossley, you know, is poor and
proud, and he looked cursedly disgusted
and cut up at this exposure of
his shortcomings. I’ll bet, he wishes
he’d been civil now. You must take
these things coolly. Never mind how
they look at you: go back to the club,
now, and brave it out—show ’em you
don’t care for ’em.”
“No,” muttered Bagot, “I’d die
first. I’ll go out no more till ’tis over.”
In this resolution he shut himself
up in his lodgings, only going out in
the dusk to walk in such thoroughfares
as were not likely to be frequented
by any of his acquaintances.
Never had a week passed so dismally
with him as this. His nerves were
yet unstrung by his late attack, and
his anxiety was augmented as the
day of the trial approached, until he
wondered how he could endure it. In
spite of his efforts, his thoughts were
impelled into tracks the most repugnant
to him. The remembrance of
his reception by the members of his
club haunted him incessantly, though
it was what most of all he wished to
forget; for Bagot, being, as we have
seen him, a weak-principled man of
social habits, though he had found no
difficulty in quieting his own conscience,
was keenly alive to the horrors
of disgrace.
He felt as he remembered to have
often felt when a great race was approaching,
which was to make or mar
him—only the interest now was more
painfully strong than ever before.
There was an event of some sort in
store—why could he not divine it?—ah,
if he were only as wise now as he
would be this day week, what anxiety
would be saved him! He only dared
contemplate the possibility of one result—an
acquittal. That would lift
the weight from his breast and reopen
life to him. But a conviction!—that
he dared not think of—for that contingency
he made no provision.
During this week Harry Noble had
come up from the Heronry on some
business connected with the stable
there, in which the Colonel had been
interested; and Bagot, conceiving he
might be useful in matters in which
he did not choose to trust his own
servant Wilson, had desired him to
remain in town for the present. This
Seager was glad of, for he knew Harry
was to be trusted, and he told him in
a few words the nature of the predicament
the Colonel was in.
“You must have an eye to him,”
said Seager; “don’t let him drink
much, if you can help it; and if it
should be necessary for him to make
a trip to France for a time, you must
go with him.”
“I’ll go with him to the world’s
end, Mr Seager,” said Harry. He was
much attached to the Colonel, having
known him since the time when Noble,
as a boy, entered the Heronry stables;
and though he had then, like the other
stable-boys, found Bagot very severe
and exacting, yet, having once proved
himself a careful and trustworthy
servant and excellent groom, the
Colonel had honoured him since with
a good deal of his confidence.
Harry had the more readily agreed
to this since, when leaving the Heronry,
he had parted in great wrath
from Miss Fillett, who had found time
in the midst of her religious zeal to
harrow up Noble’s soul with fresh
jealousies, and to flirt demurely, but
effectually, with many brethren who
frequented the same chapel.
The day before the trial Seager
came, and Bagot prevailed on him to
stay and dine, and play écarte. Seager
was sanguine of the result of the trial,
which was to commence on the morrow,
in the Court of Queen’s Bench—spoke
in assured terms of the excellence
of their case, their counsel, and
their witnesses; and telling him to
keep up his spirits, wished him good
night, promising to bring him back
the earliest intelligence of how the
day had gone.
The Colonel’s eagerness for, and
terror of, the result had now worked
him into a state of agitation little
short of frenzy. The trial was expected
to last two days, but the first
would probably show him how the
case was likely to terminate. Both
Bagot and Seager preferred forfeiting
their recognisances to surrendering to
take their trial, which would have
shut out all hope of escape in the event
of an adverse verdict.
Finding it impossible to sit still
while in this state, the Colonel started
for a long walk, resolving to return
at the hour at which Seager might be
expected. Arriving a few minutes
later than he intended, he went up-stairs
to his sitting-room, but started
back on seeing a person whom he did
not recognise there. His first impression
was, that it was a man come
to arrest him.
His visitor, on seeing his consternation,
gave a loud laugh. It was Mr
Seager.
“Gad, Lee,” said that worthy, “it
must be well done, if it takes you in.
I was in court all day, and sat next
a couple of our set, but they hadn’t
an idea who I was.”
Mr Seager was certainly well disguised,
and it was no wonder the
Colonel had not recognised him. Low
on his forehead came a black wig, and
whiskers of the same met under his
chin. He had a mustache also; his
coat was blue, his waistcoat gorgeous,
with two or three chains, evidently
plated, meandering over it, and his
trousers were of a large and brilliant
check. In his elaborate shirt-front
appeared several studs, like little
watches, and his neck was enveloped
in a black satin stock with gold flowers
and a great pin.
“What d’ye think, Lee—don’t I
look the nobby Israelite, eh?”
Bagot shortly admitted the excellence
of his disguise, and then asked,
“What news?—is it over?”
“Only the prosecution—that’s
finished,” returned the metamorphosed
Seager.
“Well,” said Bagot breathlessly,
“and how—how did it go?”
“Sit down,” said Seager; “give
me a cigar, and I’ll tell you all about
it.”
Nothing could be more strongly
contrasted than the anxiety of Bagot
with the composure of Seager. No
one would have imagined them to be
both equally concerned in the proceedings
that the latter now proceeded to
relate; while Bagot glared at him,
gnawing his nails and breathing hard.
“The court,” said Seager, throwing
himself back in the chair after he had
lit his cigar, with his hands in his
trousers’ pockets, and his feet stretched
to the fire—“the court was crowded.
Sloperton’s counsel opened the ball
by giving a sketch of the whole affair—little
personal histories of you and
me and Sloperton, the sort of things
that might be prefixed to our poetical
works after we’re dead—you know
the style of thing, Lee, birth, parentage,
breeding, so forth. Then came
out Sloperton’s meeting with us at the
Bush at Doddington—the adjournment
to Oates’s room—the broiled
bones, cards, and betting, and the
terms of the wager with Sloperton.
“Our friend Sloper was the first
witness, and had got himself up a
most awful swell, as you may suppose,
on such a grand occasion, and there
wasn’t a young lady in court who
didn’t sympathise with him. I could
see by his way of giving evidence he
was as vindictive as the devil. Our
fellows went at him, but they didn’t
damage his evidence much. He told
about the bet—how, by your advice,
he had sent to me to offer to compromise
it—and how he had perfectly
depended all was fair till he heard the
mare was lame. Oates followed, and
corroborated the whole story. Then
came one of the vets who attended the
mare, and he swore, in his opinion,
she’d got navicular disease. Then
came a new actor” (Bagot listened
more eagerly than ever), “one Mr
Chick, who saw us return to the stable
that morning we gave Goshawk the
trial; and he swore the mare was lame
then.”
Bagot drew a long breath, and fell
back in his chair.
“Against all this,” Seager went on,
“we’ve got to-morrow the evidence
of Jim, who’ll swear the mare never
was lame while in his charge, and of
the other vet, who’ll swear she was
and is sound. So cheer up, old boy;
it may go all right yet. Never say
die.”
Seager paused, and looked at Bagot,
who had covered his face with his
hands. Both were silent for a space.
“By the by,” said Seager presently,
in an indifferent tone, yet eyeing
Bagot with a keenness that showed
his interest in the question—“by the
by, where’s Lady Lee now?”
Bagot did not answer, and Seager
repeated the question.
“What’s Lady Lee to you, sir?”
said Bagot, removing his hands from
his face, the colour of which was very
livid.
“O, nothing particular; but she
might be something to you, you know,
in case of the business going against
us to-morrow. You said she had left
the Heronry, didn’t you?”
Bagot did not reply.
“It’s no use blinking the matter,”
said Seager testily. “Things may
go against us to-morrow, in which
case I’m off, and so are you, I suppose.
I’ve made all my arrangements;
but I think we had better
take different roads, and appoint a
place to meet on the Continent. But
I’m short of money for a long trip,
and, of course, you’ll accommodate
me. We row in the same boat, you
know. Come, what will you come
down with?”
“Not a penny,” said Bagot in a
low thick voice.
“Eh! what?” said Seager, looking
up at him.
“Not a penny,” said Bagot, raising
his voice. “You devil,” he cried,
starting from his chair, “don’t you
know you’ve ruined me?” and, seizing
the astonished Seager by the
throat, he shook him violently.
“You cursed old lunatic!” cried
Seager, as soon as he had struggled
himself free from Bagot’s grasp.
“You’re mad, you old fool. Only
raise a finger again, and I’ll brain you
with the poker. What d’ye mean,
ha? We must talk about this, and
you shall apologise, or give me satisfaction.”
“What, an affair of honour, eh?”
sneered Bagot between his ground
teeth. “Between two gentlemen!
That sounds better than convicted
swindlers. Curse you,” he added, in
a hoarse whisper, “you’ve been my
destruction.”
“He’s dangerous,” thought Seager,
as he looked at him. “Come, Lee,”
said he, “listen to reason; lend me
a supply, and we’ll say no more about
this queer behaviour. I know you’ve
been drinking.”
“You have my answer, sir,” said
Bagot. “Not a penny, I repeat. I
wish you may starve—rot in a jail.”
Seager looked at him keenly for a
minute. “He’s been at the brandy
bottle,” he thought. “Well, let him
drink himself mad or dead, if he likes.
But, no!—that won’t do either—he
may be useful yet. The old fool!”
he muttered as he departed, “he
doesn’t know how far he has let me
into his secrets. Well, he’ll change
his note, perhaps;” so saying, he left
the room and the house.
Disguised as before, Seager went to
Westminster next day, to hear the
conclusion of the trial. The court
was, as on the previous day, crowded
to excess, and Seager recognised a
great number of his and Bagot’s acquaintances
among the spectators.
The counsel for the defendants made
an able address to the jury. The prosecutor,
he said, had tried to win Seager’s
money, as Seager had tried to
win his; and, nettled at finding he
had made a rash bet, he now brought
the action. The defendants were men
of reputation, who had been engaged
in many betting transactions before,
and always without blemish or suspicion.
There was no proof that the
mare was unfit for the feat she had
been backed to perform; and, if she
had attempted it, she could have done
it with ease.
After calling several witnesses to
speak to minor points, the other veterinary
surgeon who had attended the
mare was put in the box. He swore
the mare’s lameness was trifling and
temporary; that he had seen her trot,
and believed her certain to win such
a match as the one in question; and
that he had not detected in her any
trace of navicular disease.
This witness having sustained a
severe cross-examination unshaken,
Mr Seager began to breathe more
freely. The last witness was Jim the
groom. Jim, though very compliant
in respect of any evidence he might
be required to give, had obstinately
insisted on payment beforehand. It
was to no purpose Seager had promised
him the money the instant he
should come out of court; the cautious
Jim was inflexible till the stipulated
sum was put in his hands.
Seager watched him as he was being
sworn with the greatest attention;
but Jim’s was not an expressive
countenance, and nothing was to be
read there. But Mr Seager detected
treachery in his manner the moment
the examination began. Without attempting
to repeat the lesson he had
been taught, he prevaricated so much
that the counsel for the defendants,
finding he was more likely to damage
than to assist his clients, abruptly sat
down. In the cross-examination he
suffered (though with some appearance
of unwillingness) the whole truth
to be elicited; admitted the mare’s
lameness—remembered the Colonel
and his master trying her, and finding
her lame—(an incident he had been
especially desired to erase from his
memory)—and also remembered to
have heard them talk about “navicular.”
He also recollected that Seager
cautioned him to keep the circumstance
very quiet.
Seager sat grinding his teeth with
rage. He had forgotten the incident
of the horse-whipping which he had
administered to Jim, though the latter
had not, and was therefore at a
loss to account for his treachery.
Jim’s revenge happening to coincide
with his duty, he had no sooner pocketed
the reward for his intended perjury,
than he resolved to pursue the
paths of rectitude, and to speak the
truth.
Just at this time Seager caught
sight of one he knew standing very
near him, and listening as eagerly as
himself. This was Harry Noble, who
had been there also on the previous
day, and who, firmly convinced that
his master was wrongfully accused,
had heard the evidence of the groom
Jim with high indignation, and was
now burning to defy that perjured
slanderer to abide the ordeal of single
combat. Seager, writing a few words
on a slip of paper, made his way up to
Harry, and pulled his sleeve. Noble
turned round and stared at him, without
any sign of recognition.
“Look another way,” said Seager,
“and listen. ’Tis me—and I want
you to run with this note to the Colonel.”
“What! are you Mr Sea——?”
began Harry; but Seager squeezed
his arm.
“Hush!” he said. “I don’t want
to be known; and don’t mention to
anybody but the Colonel that you’ve
seen me. Take this note to him; he’ll
start for France as soon as he gets it,
and you must get him away with all
the speed you can. Don’t delay a
minute.”
Noble nodded and quitted the court.
He got a cab, and went with all speed
to Bagot’s lodgings, and, telling the
cabman to wait, immediately ran up-stairs
with the note. The Colonel,
who was pacing the room, snatched it
eagerly, read it, and let it fall, sinking
back into a chair quite collapsed.
“It’s all over,” he muttered.
Noble stood near, looking at him in
respectful silence for a minute or two.
At length he ventured to say, “Shall
I begin to pack up, sir? Mr Seager
said we must be quick.”
“Don’t name him!” thundered Bagot,
starting from his chair. “Curse
him! I could tear him!”
“I’ll never believe ’twas you as
did the trick, sir,” said Noble. “No
more won’t anybody else; though,
as for Mr Seager, I couldn’t say.
Shall I begin to pack up, sir?” he
repeated.
“Do what you please,” returned
his master in fierce abstraction.
Noble, thus empowered, entered the
bedroom, and began to stow Bagot’s
clothes away in his portmanteau.
Presently he came to the door of the
apartment, where the Colonel had
again sunk down in his chair. Bagot
was now face to face with the event
he had so dreaded; no subterfuge
could keep it off any longer—no side
look rid him of its presence. He would,
in a few hours, be a convicted, as he
was already a disgraced, man. The
averted looks—the whispers—the cold
stares of former friends, that had lately
driven him almost mad, were now
to be his for life. Life! would he
bear it? It had no further hope, promise,
or charm for him, and he was
resolved to be rid of it and dishonour
together.
“Beg pardon, sir,” said Noble at
length, seeing that Bagot took no notice
of him. “Perhaps you’d wish
to let my lady know where we’re gone,
sir?”
Bagot started, and seemed to think
for a minute. As soon as Noble,
after delivering his suggestion, had
vanished, the Colonel drew his chair
to the table, and began to write, while
Harry, in the next room, went on
with the packing.
He finished his letter, directed and
sealed it, and laid it down, muttering,
“Thank God there’s one act of justice
done.” Then he went to a cupboard
in the apartment, filled a large
glass of brandy, and drank it off.
“Now,” he muttered, “one moment’s
firmness! no delay! Leave
that room,” he called out to Noble,
as he went towards the bedroom—“there’s
something I wish to pack
up myself.”
Noble accordingly came out. As
he passed the Colonel, he noticed a
wildness in his expression. Before
entering the bedroom the Colonel
turned and said, “Let that letter be
sent to-day,” pointing to the one he
had just written, “and you can go
down stairs for the present,” he
added.
Noble’s suspicions were aroused.
Having got as far as the door, he pretended
to shut himself out, and came
softly back. Listening for a moment,
he heard Bagot open some sort of
case that creaked. Presently he
peeped in—Bagot was in the very act
of fumbling, with trembling hands, at
the lock of a pistol. He was just
raising it towards his head when
Noble, with a shout, rushed in and
caught his arm.
“Don’t ye, sir, don’t ye, for God’s
sake!” he said, as Bagot turned his
face with a bewildered stare towards
him. “Give it to me, sir.”
“Leave me, sir,” said Bagot, still
looking wildly at him—“leave me to
wipe out my dishonour.” He struggled
for a moment to retain the pistol,
but Noble wrested it from him, took
off the cap, and returned it to its
case. The Colonel sunk down moaning
on the bed, and covered his face
with his hands.
Noble hastily fastened the portmanteau
and carpet-bag, and called to
Wilson to help to take them down to
the cab in which he had come, and
which waited at the door.
“Now, sir,” he whispered to Bagot,
“don’t take on so—we shall be safe
to-night. You won’t think of doing
yourself a mischief, sir, will you?
don’t ye, sir!”
He took him gently by the arm.
The poor Colonel, with his nerves all
unstrung, rose mechanically, and stood
like a child while Noble put on his
hat and wiped his face, which was
moist with sweat and tears; then he
followed him down stairs unresistingly.
Noble whispered to Wilson
at the door, that he and the Colonel
were going away for a time, and that
there was a letter on the table to be
sent that night to the post. Then he
put the Colonel and the luggage into
the cab, mounted himself to the box,
and they drove off, Harry frequently
turning to look at his master through
the front glass.
Meantime Seager sat hearing the
close of the defence. The judge summed
up, leaving it to the jury to say
whether the defendants knew of the
mare’s unfitness to perform her engagement
at the time they persuaded
the plaintiff to pay a sum in compromise.
The jury, after a short deliberation,
found them both guilty of fraud
and conspiracy.
There was some technical objection
put in by the defendants’ counsel; but
this being overruled, the judge proceeded
to pass sentence. He was
grieved to find men of the defendants’
position in society in such a discreditable
situation. No one who had heard
the evidence could doubt they had
conspired to defraud the prosecutor of
his money. He did not know whether
he was justified in refraining from inflicting
the highest punishment allotted
to their offence, but, perhaps, the
ends of justice might be answered by
the lesser penalty. The sentence
was, that the defendants should be
imprisoned for two years.
Seager, seeing how the case was
latterly going, was quite prepared for
this. Just waiting to hear the close
of the judge’s address, he got out of
court with all possible speed.
He went to his lodgings, changed
his dress, and hurried to Bagot’s.
There he met Wilson with a letter in
his hand which he was about to take
to the post. Seager glanced at the
direction, and then averting his eye,
“That’s for Lady Lee,” he said—“from
the Colonel, is it not?” Wilson
said it was.
“Ah,” said Seager, “I just met
him, and he asked me to call for it—he
wants to add something he forgot,
before ’tis posted. Give it me.”
Wilson, supposing it was all right,
gave it to him. Mr Seager, chuckling
over the dexterity with which he had
obtained the letter, and thus more
than accomplished the design of his
visit to Bagot’s lodgings, which was
to get Lady Lee’s address, drove off
to his own lodgings, reassumed his
disguise, and went straight to the
station.
Entering the railway office, he
shrunk aside into a corner till the train
should be ready to start—he wished
to leave as few traces as possible
behind him. He was quite unencumbered
with baggage, having taken the
precaution to send that on to Dover
to await him there under a feigned
name. As he stood aside in the shade
a man passed and looked narrowly at
him. Seager thought he recognised
his face: again he passed, and Seager
this time knew him for a police sergeant
in plain clothes. He was rather
alarmed, yet he was a little reassured
by considering that his disguise was a
safe one. But he reflected that it
might have caused him to be taken
for some other culprit, and it would
be as awkward to be arrested as
the wrong man, as in his own character.
The last moment before the starting
of the train was at hand, and Seager,
as the police sergeant turned upon his
walk, darted stealthily to the check-taker’s
box and demanded a ticket,
not for Frewenham, but for the station
beyond it—for his habitual craft did
not fail him. Having secured it, he
hastened on to the platform and took
his place.
At the moment he took his ticket,
the sergeant, missing him, turned and
saw him. Instantly he went to the
box and asked where that last gentleman
took his ticket for, and, on
being told, took one for the same
place. The bell had rung, and he
hastened out, but he was too late.
The train was already in motion; the
last object he caught sight of was
Seager’s head thrust out of one of the
carriages; and the baffled policeman
turned back to wait for the next
train.
Fane had spent some time in diligent
pursuit of Onslow; at first with
no great promise of success, but latterly
with some certainty of being
upon his track. Just, however, as his
hopes of securing him were strongest,
he had received a letter which had
been following him for some time from
town to town, summoning him to
attend the sick-bed of his uncle, who
had been attacked with sudden and
dangerous illness.
Of course he set off at once, as in
duty bound; but he was surprised
and ashamed, knowing the obligations
he lay under to his relative, to notice
how little anxiety and pain the news
occasioned him. Fane was very
honest in analysing his own emotions,
and on the present occasion laid
more blame to the account of his own
nature, which he accused of unsympathising
callousness, than it by any
means deserved. He would have
done as much to serve a friend, and
was capable of as warm attachment,
as most people, but his feelings required
a congenial nature to call them
forth. He was not one of those who
wear their hearts on their sleeve for
any daw to peck at, and had none of
that incontinence of affability which
insures a man so many acquaintances
and so few friends. Had he been
Lear’s eldest son, he would, to a certainty,
have been disinherited, along
with Cordelia, in favour of those gay
deceivers, Goneril and Regan.
Now, Mr Levitt his uncle, though
naturally amiable, was an undemonstrative
character, full of good impulses
which terribly embarrassed
him. He would read a poem or
romance with the keenest enjoyment,
yet with affected contempt, turning
up his nose and screwing down the
corners of his mouth, while his eyes
were watering and his heart beating.
He would offer two fingers to a parting
friend, nod good-by to him
slightly, and turn away, feeling as if a
shadow had come upon his world.
He had been used to write to his
nephews in the spirit of a Roman or
Spartan uncle, giving them stern advice,
and sending them the most
liberal remittances, in the most ungracious
manner—throwing checks at
their heads, as it were—while all the
time he was yearning for their presence.
In fact, he was so ashamed of
his best points, and so anxious to
conceal them, that the rigid mask
wherewith he hid his virtues had
become habitual, and he was a very
sheep in wolf’s clothing.
Those, however, who had known
him long, rated him at his true value.
Fane found the household in great
grief. Miss Betsey, an ancient housekeeper,
distinguished principally by
strong fidelity to the family interests,
a passion for gin-and-water, and a
most extraordinary cap, wrung her
hands with great decorum; and Mr
Payne the banker, Orelia’s father, at
the first news of his old friend’s illness,
had left a great money transaction
unfinished to rush to his bedside,
where Fane found him on his arrival.
Indeed, it was from him he had received
intelligence of his uncle’s
illness.
Mr Payne’s temperament had suffered
foul wrong when they made him
a banker. He had naturally an intense
dislike to matters of calculation,
his bent being towards belles lettres,
foreign travel, and the like pleasant
paths. Somehow or other he had got
rich, and flourished in spite of his want
of talent for money-making. His
worldly pursuits, perhaps, made his
tastes keener, for he fell upon all manner
of light reading with wonderful
zest after a busy day at the bank. As
for his taste for travelling, it was
whispered among his acquaintances
that its development was not so much
owing to an erratic and inquiring
spirit, as to the fact that in the
second Mrs Payne he had caught a
Tartar, and availed himself of any
plausible excuse to escape from her
domestic tyranny. Orelia, coming
home from school one vacation, and
finding her stepmother in full exercise
of authority, not only, as a matter
of course, rebelled herself, but tried to
stir up her father to join in the mutiny.
Finding him averse to open war, she
proclaimed her intention forthwith of
quitting the paternal mansion, and
living in the house which had become
hers by the death of her godmother,
as before related; and Mr Payne,
coming down on Saturdays after the
bank was closed, would spend one-half
of his weekly visit in lamenting
the ill-temper of his spouse, and the
other in his favourite studies.
Fane found his uncle slowly recovering
from the effects of the attack
which had prostrated him, and by no
means secure from a relapse. Mr
Levitt caught the sound of his step on
the stair, and recognised it; and Mr
Payne, seated by the bedside, saw
the invalid glance eagerly at the door.
Nevertheless, he received his nephew
almost coldly, though the latter testified
warm interest in his state.
“You’ve been some time finding
me out, Durham,” said his uncle,
after shortly answering his inquiries.
“I’m afraid you’ve been summoned
to this uninteresting scene from some
more agreeable pursuit.”
“It was an important one, at any
rate, sir,” returned Fane; “yet even
that did not prevent me hastening
hither the moment Mr Payne’s letter
reached me. I only got it this morning.”
“An important one, hey, Durham!”
said Mr Levitt, with the cynical air
under which he was accustomed to
veil his interest in his nephew’s proceedings.
“We may judge of its importance,
Payne, by his hurrying
away from it to look after the ailments
of a stupid old fellow like me.
Some nonsense, I’ll be bound.”
Mr Payne, a bald benevolent man
of fifty, in spectacles, came round the
bed to shake Fane’s hand.
“Without the pleasure of knowing
the Captain, I’ll answer for his holding
you in due consideration,” said
Mr Payne. “And your uncle knows
that, too; he’s only joking,” he said
to Fane.
“Well, but the important business,
Durham?” said the invalid, as Fane
seated himself beside his pillow.
Fane, remembering that his cousin’s
was a prohibited name, and fearing
the effect it might produce, attempted
to laugh off the inquiry.
“Love!” said Mr Levitt, with another
cynical glance at Mr Payne,
who had resumed his station at the
other side of the bed. “A charmer
for fifty pounds; why, I grow quite
curious—don’t you, Payne? It’s exactly
what you suggested as the cause
of his delay. Come, let’s hear about
her—begin with the eyes—that’s the
rule, isn’t it?”
“Wrong, sir, quite wrong,” said
Fane, with another disclaiming laugh.
“Poor, bashful fellow!” persisted
his uncle. “But we won’t spare his
blushes, Payne. And how far did
you pursue the nymph, Durham?—and
why did she fly you? Is she at
length propitious? I hope so!—you
know my wishes.”
“There’s no lady in the case, sir,
I assure you,” said Fane earnestly.
“Ah! it’s always the way with
your sensitive lovers,” pursued his
questioner, addressing Mr Payne.
“They’re as shy of the subject which
occupies their thoughts as if they
didn’t like it. Come, if you’re afraid
to speak out before my friend Payne
(though I’m sure you needn’t be—he’s
discretion itself), he’ll go away,
I daresay. What is she like? and
when is it to be?”
“When is what to be, sir?” asked
Fane, trying to humour the old gentleman,
but getting impatient, nevertheless.
“Why, the wedding, of course.
Seriously, Durham, I’m all impatience.
Your last letter seemed to
point at something of the kind; and
it was written long enough ago to
have settled half-a-dozen love affairs
since. I’m more earnest than ever
on the subject, now that my admonitions
seem likely to be cut short; and
this matrimony question may affect
the dispositions of my will, Durham.”
“Consider it settled, then, I beg,
sir,” said Fane seriously. “I shall
never marry.”
“I shall be sorry to find you serious,
Durham. A bachelor’s life is but a
dreary one. Just look at the difference
between me and my friend
Payne—he is rosy and happy, and, if
he were lying here, he would have
quite a family meeting assembled
round him—while I should be alone,
but for a nephew who has no great
reason to care about me, and a friend
whose good-nature brings him to see
what may, perhaps, be the last of an
old acquaintance. My opinions on
the subject I’ve so often spoken to
you of, haven’t changed, you see, in
the least—and perhaps I shall act
upon them.”
“As you please, sir,” said Fane.
“I speak my deliberate thought when
I say I don’t intend to marry.”
Here Miss Betsey tapt at the door,
to say that Mr Durham’s supper was
ready.
“Go down with him, Payne,” said
Mr Levitt. “I’ll go on with this
story here—a silly thing; but sick
people mustn’t be too critical.”
“An excellent novel!” exclaimed
Mr Payne—“full of feeling.”
“Ay, ay, well enough for that
kind of trumpery,” said the invalid,
who was secretly burning to know
how the hero and heroine were to be
brought together through such a sea
of difficulties; and his friend and his
nephew, after making a few arrangements
for his comfort, went down
stairs together.
Fane dismissed the servant who
waited at table. He wished to open
what he intended to be, and what
proved, a very interesting conversation.
“You’re a very old friend of my
uncle’s, Mr Payne,” he said. “I’ve
so often heard him speak of you, that
I seem almost familiar with you,
though this is our first meeting.”
“A school friendship,” said Mr
Payne; “and it has continued unbroken
ever since.”
“I will tell you,” said Fane, “what
the pursuit was I was really engaged
in, and you will perceive I could not
mention it to my uncle. The fact is,
I believe I was on the point of discovering
my cousin Langley.”
Mr Payne dropt his knife and fork,
and leant back in his chair. “You
don’t say so!” cried he. “Poor Langley—poor,
poor Langley!”
Fane told the grounds he had for
suspecting Langley and the ex-dragoon
Onslow to be one and the same
person.
“Following some faint traces,”
said Fane, “I reached a town where,
exposed for sale in a shop window, I
saw some drawings which I recognised
for his. You know his gift that
way.”
“Ay, a first-rate draughtsman,
poor fellow,” said Mr Payne.
“He had sold these for a trifle far
below their value, and, as I found,
had left the town only the day before.
I therefore felt secure of him when
your letter diverted me from the pursuit.”
“Poor Langley!” repeated the
sympathetic Mr Payne. “Such a
clever fellow! Draw, sir! he had the
making of half-a-dozen academicians
in him—and ride!—but you’ve seen
him ride, of course. And such an
actor!—nothing like him off the London
boards, and not many on them
equal to him, in my opinion. And to
end that way, I don’t know if I should
like to see him again.”
“You can perhaps enlighten me on
a point I’ve long been curious about,”
said Fane. “I mean the real cause of
my uncle’s displeasure towards him—the
extravagance attributed to Langley
doesn’t sufficiently account for it.”
“No,” said Mr Payne, “your uncle
would have forgiven that readily
enough. He pretended, as his way
is, to be angrier at it than he was.
But the real cause of estrangement
was more serious.
“Your uncle finding, by his frequent
applications for money, that accounts
which had reached him of Langley’s
gambling were but too true, at length
replied to a request for a hundred
pounds by enclosing a check to that
amount, at the same time saying it
was the last he must expect, and expressing
his displeasure very harshly.
The check was brought to our bank
the next day, and it was not till after
it had been cashed that it was suspected
that the original amount, both
in words and figures, had been altered.
Four hundred pounds it now stood,
and that sum had been paid on it.
The 1 had easily been made into a
4, and the words altered to correspond—neatly
enough, but not so like
your uncle’s as to pass with a close
scrutiny. While we were examining
it, your uncle came in, his anxiety on
Langley’s account having brought him
to town. He took the check, looked
at it, and then drew me aside. ‘’Tis
forged,’ said he; ‘mine was for a
hundred: but not a word of this,
Payne—let it pass as regular—tell
the clerks ’tis all right.’ This was a
terrible blow to him. From that day
to this we have heard nothing of
Langley, nor does your uncle ever
mention his name; and no one but an
intimate friend like me would guess
how much he felt the dishonour.”
“But Langley must have known
’twould be discovered immediately,”
said Fane, who listened with deep
attention.
“Ay—but meantime his end was
answered. The money was paid,
and he doubtless calculated that your
uncle would rather lose the sum than
suffer the disgrace of exposure—and
he was right.”
“I can’t believe him guilty,” said
Fane.
“He must have been severely
tempted, poor boy,” said Mr Payne—“always
so open and upright; but
there can, I’m afraid, be no doubt of
his guilt. Consider, he has never
showed his face since.”
Fane thought for a minute or two.
“No,” he said—“no, not guilty, I
hope and believe. No guilty man
could have borne himself as he has
done since. But there is now more
reason than ever for resuming my
search for him. Yes, yes—I must
see and question him myself.”
“Where do you believe him to
be?” asked Mr Payne.
“I traced him to Frewenham, in
——shire,” answered Fane.
“Frewenham! God bless me!
Why, my daughter’s place, Larches,
is close to that. I’m going down
there in a day or two to see Orelia.”
“Orelia!” exclaimed Fane; “then
Miss Payne is your daughter.”
“Oh, you have met, then, perhaps?”
said Mr Payne, with interest;
“where and when?”
“At the Heronry,” said Fane.
“My troop is at Doddington, the
town nearest to where Miss Payne
was staying.”
“Oh, ho! this is fortunate,” said
Mr Payne. “As soon as your uncle
gets better, we will go down together
to Frewenham. My friend Levitt,”
he resumed presently, “is, I see,
much disappointed to find his surmises
as to your matrimonial prospects
incorrect. He had set his
heart on their fulfilment; and some
expressions of admiration for some
lady, in a late letter of yours, prepared
him to expect something of the
kind.”
Fane coloured deeply. He remembered,
indeed, that, writing to his
uncle one evening, after a delightful
afternoon passed with Lady Lee, he
had suffered his admiration to overflow
in expressions which, though
they seemed to him slight compared
with the merits of the subject, were
yet, perhaps, sufficiently warm to
warrant his uncle’s inferences. It
was some comfort to remember that
he had not mentioned her name in
this premature effusion.
“My uncle seems to have quite a
monomania on the subject of my becoming
a Benedict,” he said presently,
by way of breaking an awkward
silence. “His doctrine would have
seemed more consistent had he inculcated
it by example as well as by
precept. One doesn’t often see a
more determined bachelor.”
“A love affair was the turning-point
of your uncle’s life,” said Mr
Payne. “He knows and feels that
a different, and how much happier
man he might have been, but for an
early disappointment, and that makes
him so desirous to see you comfortably
established.”
“Now, do you know,” said Fane,
“I can’t, by any effort of imagination,
fancy my uncle in love. His
proposals, if he ever reached that
point, must have been conveyed in
an epigram.”
“Your uncle is a good deal changed,
in every respect, within the last few
years, especially since that sad business
of poor Langley,” said Mr Payne;
“but I scarcely recognise in him now
my old (or rather, I should say, my
young) friend Levitt. However, you
may take my word for it, Captain
Durham, that your uncle knew what
it was, some five-and-twenty years
ago, to be desperately in love. He
seemed, too, to be progressing favourably
with the object of his affections,
till a gay young captain in the
Guards turned her head with his
attentions—Captain, afterwards Colonel
Lee.”
“What! Bagot!” said Fane.
“Ah, you know him, then,” said
Mr Payne; “then you also know it
was no great alleviation to your
uncle’s disappointment to find a man
like Colonel Lee preferred to him.
Lee, it seems, had no serious intentions,
and jilted her—and your uncle
disdained to renew his suit.”
This account seemed to Fane to
throw a good deal of light upon parts
of his uncle’s character which he had
hitherto been unable to fathom.
“Yes,” resumed Mr Payne, “yes;
your uncle is a great advocate for
marriage, and certainly ’tis all very
well in its way, though, perhaps,” he
added dubiously, in an under tone, to
himself—“perhaps it may be done
once too often.”
Here Mr Payne left Durham while
he went up-stairs to visit his sick
friend, and presently returned to say
he had found him asleep, and thought
he had better not be disturbed again.
Shortly afterwards, finding Durham
more disposed to ruminate over what
he had heard than to converse, he
bid him good night, and went to
bed.
Fane’s meditations were interrupted
by Miss Betsey, who came in, not
altogether free from an odour of gin-and-water,
to express her gratification
at seeing him well. Miss Betsey
was a thin old lady, with an unsteady
eye, and a nose streaked with little
veins, like a schoolboy’s marble. She
wore on her head the most wonderful
structure, in the shape of a cap, ever
seen. It was a kind of tower of muslin,
consisting of several stories ornamented
with ribbons, and was fastened
under her chin with a broad band
like a helmet. Her aged arms protruded
through her sleeves, which
were tight as far as the elbow, and
sloped out wider till they terminated
half-way to her wrist, where a pair of
black mittens commenced.
“Your dear uncle’s been bad, indeed,”
said Miss Betsey, taking a
pinch of snuff. “I a’most thought
we should have lost him, Mr Durham;
but he’s better now, poor dear. But
there’s no knowing what might happen
yet,” said Miss Betsey, shaking
her head; “and I’ve had a thought
concerning you, and him, and another,
Mr Durham.” Here Miss Betsey
closed her snuff-box—which was
round, black, and shining, and held
about a quarter of a pound of princes’
mixture—and, putting it in her ample
pocket, laid the hand not occupied
with snuff on Fane’s shoulder with
amiable frankness, which gin-and-water
generates in old ladies. “Mr
Durham, your dear uncle’s never forgot
your cousin, Master Langley—and
’twould be a grievious thing if he
was to leave us” (a mild form of
hinting at Mr Levitt’s decease) “without
forgiving him. Couldn’t you put
in a word, Mr Durham, for your dear
cousin?”
“The very thing I intend, Miss
Betsey,” returned Fane, “as soon as
it can be done effectually.”
“Ah, Mr Durham,” the old lady
went on, waxing more confidential,
“your dear uncle’s fond of you, and
well he may be, but you’re not to him
what Master Langley was;—no,”
repeated the old lady, shaking her
forefinger, and looking sideways at
him, “not what Master Langley was;
and your dear uncle’s never been like
the same man since that poor dear
boy left us.”
“You seem to be quite as fond of
him as my uncle ever could have been,
Miss Betsey,” Fane remarked.
“Fond!” said Miss Betsey, “who
wasn’t? He had that coaxing way
with him that he could”—she completed
the sentence by flourishing her
forefinger in the air, as if turning an
imaginary person round it. “Everybody
was fond of him;—the maids
(the pretty ones in particular) was
a’most too fond of him—so much so,
that it rather interfered with their
work.”
Fane’s smile at this proof of his
cousin’s irresistibility called forth a
playful tap on the shoulder from the
old virgin, who presently afterwards
dived down into her pocket for her
snuff-box, and, screwing off the lid,
which creaked like the axle of a stage
waggon, stimulated her reminiscences
with a pinch.
“Well-a-day! your uncle’s never
been the same man since. You don’t
know, perhaps” (whispering in a tone
that fanned Fane’s cheek with a zephyr
combined of gin-and-water and
princes’ mixture), “that he keeps
Master Langley’s room locked up the
same as the poor boy last left it, do
you? There now, I said so,” giving
him a gentle slap on the back, and
retreating a pace, as he answered in
the negative; “for all you lived here
weeks together, on and off, you never
knew that. Come with me,” added
the old lady; “I’ve got the key, and
we’ll go in there together.”
Fane willingly followed her, taking
deep interest in all fragments of his
cousin’s history. Arriving at the door
of a room looking out on the lawn,
Miss Betsey stopped, and, after some
protracted fumbling at the keyhole,
opened it. “Once or twice, when he
thought nobody was watching him,
I’ve seen your uncle coming out of
this door with tears in his blessed
eyes,” said she, as she entered, preceding
him with the candle.
The rooms were, as Miss Betsey
had said, just as their former occupant
had left them. The pieces of a fishing-rod,
with their bag lying beside
them, were scattered on the table,
together with hackles, coloured worsteds,
peacocks’ herls, and other materials
for fly-making. An open book
was on the window-seat, and an unfinished
sketch in oils stood on an
easel.
“There,” said Miss Betsey, holding
the candle up to a painting over
the mantelpiece, “there you see the
dear fellow taking a leap that none of
the others would face. Your uncle
was so proud of that deed that he got
it painted, as you see—and a pretty
penny it cost him. There were other
likenesses of him here, but your uncle
put ’em all away before you came
from Indy.”
Fane approached to look at the
picture, which set at rest any uncertainty
that might remain as to his
cousin’s identity with the rough-riding
corporal. There was the same handsome
face, only younger, and without
the mustache. The same gay air and
easy seat that distinguished the dragoon
Onslow on horseback appeared
in the sportsman there represented,
who rode a gallant bay at a formidable
brook, with a rail on the farther side.
The work was highly artistic, being
the production of a famous animal-painter.
At this stage of the proceedings
Miss Betsey’s feelings seemed to overpower
her. She wept copiously, and
even hiccupped with emotion; and,
setting the candle on the table, abruptly
retired.
Fane lingered round the room, looking
at the backs of the books, and
turning over portfolios of drawings,
which would, of themselves, have
identified the hand that produced
them with Onslow’s, as exhibited in
the sketch-book of Orelia. Among
these was a coloured drawing of his
uncle—a good likeness—and another
of the artist himself. Fane, looking at
the bold frank lineaments, internally
pronounced it impossible that their
possessor could have been guilty of
the mean and criminal action imputed
to him. He pictured to himself, and
contrasted his cousin’s condition before
he lost his uncle’s favour, with
his life as a soldier, and decided it to
be contrary to experience that any
one could, under such a startling
change of circumstances, have behaved
so well, had he been conscious
of guilt.
After some time spent in these and
similar meditations, suggested by the
objects around him, he went out and
locked the door. Passing the housekeeper’s
room, he went in to leave the
key. Miss Betsey appeared to have
been soothing her emotions with more
gin-and-water, for she sat still in her
elbow-chair, with her wonderful structure
of cap fallen over one eye, in a
manner that rather impaired her dignity,
while she winked the remaining
one at him with a somewhat imbecile
smile.
“Come, Miss Betsey,” said Fane,
“let me see you to bed.”
Miss Betsey rose, and, taking his
offered arm, they proceeded slowly
along the passage together. “By
Jove,” thought Fane, “if those youngsters,
Bruce and Oates, could see me
now, what a story they’d make of it!”
“You must make haste and get a
wife, Mr Durham,” said Miss Betsey,
whose thoughts seemed to be taking
a tender hue—“though, to be sure,
you’re not such a one for the ladies
as Mr Langley was”—and here the
old lady commenced the relation of
an anecdote, in which a certain housemaid,
whom she stigmatised as a
hussy, bore a prominent part, but
which we will not rescue from the
obscurity in which her somewhat indistinct
utterance veiled it.
Fane opened the old lady’s bedroom
door, and, putting the candle on the
table, left her, not without a misgiving
that she might possibly set fire
to her cap, and consequently to the
ceiling. This fear impressed him so
much that he went back and removed
it from her head, and with it a row
of magnificent brown curls, which
formed its basis, and, depositing the
edifice, not without wonder, on the
drawers, he wished her good night,
and retreated; but, hearing her door
open when he had got half-way along
the passage, he looked back, and saw
Miss Betsey’s head, deprived of the
meretricious advantages of hair, gauze,
and ribbon, protruded shiningly into
the passage, as she smiled, with the
utmost blandness, a supplementary
good night.
CORAL RINGS. [5]
360
Montgomery’s well-known lines
in praise of the coral polyps have
given these animals a tolerable share
of poetical celebrity. Mr Darwin’s
ingenious researches have invested
them with a degree of importance
which elevates them to the rank of a
great geological power. These minute
creatures are now entitled to a
larger share of consideration than the
greatest and most skilful of quadrupeds
can claim. All the elephants
and lions which have been quartered
in this world since its creation—all
the whales and sharks which have
prowled about in its waters—have
done much less to affect its physical
features, and have left far slighter
evidences of their existence, than the
zoophytes by whose labours the coral
formations have been reared. For the
most colossal specimens of industry
we are indebted to one of the least
promising of animated things. Comparing
their humble organisation with
that of other tribes, we feel pretty
much the same sort of surprise as a
man might express were he told that
the pyramids and temples of antiquity
had not been constructed by Egyptians
or Romans, but by a race like
the Earthmen of Africa, or by a set of
pigmies like the Aztecs now exhibiting
in London.
Though the works now before us
have been long in the hands of the
public, the substance of their contents
is far from being generally known.
Yet the beauty of the results at which
their authors have arrived, and the
interest with which they have invested
the coral reefs, may well recommend
these volumes to universal perusal.
While Dana, more than all his predecessors,
has illustrated the natural
history of the little gelatinous creatures
by which the coral is secreted,
Darwin has described the growth and
consolidation of their labours into
lofty and extended reefs, and connected
these with the broadest and
most striking phenomena of physical
geology. The toiling of the minute
zoophytes in the production of vast
masses of coral rock which wall round
whole islands, and stretch their mural
barriers across deep and stormy seas,
he has shown to be successful only
through the conjoined operation of
those wonderful physical forces which
are now lifting and now lowering large
areas of the earth’s surface.
Mr Darwin’s views not only exhibit
a charming sample of scientific induction,
but carry with them such an air
of probability, that the most cautious
investigators may subscribe to them
without any particular demur. Being
the result of very extensive inquiries,
and confirmed by collating the peculiarities
of many reefs, they are
grounded upon a sufficient quantity
of data to entitle them to reasonable
confidence. We propose, in the present
article, to indicate some of the
principle steps in the theory which
this gentleman has propounded; and
that the reader may examine them
consecutively, we shall imagine an intelligent
voyager visiting the Pacific
for the first occasion in his life. As
he sails across that noble sheet of
water, observing with a philosophic
eye every object which presents itself
to his view, he suddenly perceives in
the midst of the sea a long low range
of rock against which the surf is breaking
with a tremendous roar. He is
told that this is a coral reef; and having
read a little respecting these curious
productions, he resolves to investigate
them carefully, in order to
fathom, as far as possible, the mystery
of their origin. As he approaches, the
spectacle grows more interesting at
every step. Trees seem to start up
from the bosom of the ocean, and to
flourish on a beach which is strewed
with glistening sand, and washed by
the spray of enormous billows. When
sufficiently near to survey the phenomenon
as a whole, he perceives that
he has before him an extensive ring
of stone, set in an expanse of waters,
and exhibiting the singular form of an
annular island. Launching a boat,
and following the curve of the shore
for some distance, he finds at length
an opening through which he penetrates
into the interior of the ring.
Once entered, he floats smoothly on a
transparent lake of bright green water,
which seems to have been walled
in from the rest of the ocean, as if it
were a preserve for some sort of nautical
game, or a retreat for the more
delicate class of marine divinities.
Its bed is partially covered with pure
white sand, but partly also with a
gay growth of coral—the stems of this
zoophyte branching out like a plant,
and exhibiting the most brilliant diversities
of colour, so that the floor of
the lake glows like a sunken grove.
All the hues of the spectrum may be
seen gleaming below, whilst fishes
scarcely less splendid in their tints
glide to and fro in search of food
amidst this shrubbery of stone. A
fringe of trees, consisting principally
of graceful palms, decorates the inner
portion of the ring, and when surveyed
from the centre of the lagoon,
this edging of verdure springing up in
the midst of the Pacific presents one
of the most picturesque sights the
voyager can conceive. Indeed, as he
contemplates the tranquil lake within,
and listens to the dash of the surf
without—as he runs over the features
of this beautiful oasis in the wilderness
of waters, we may pardon him if he
almost expects to be accosted by
ocean nymphs or startled mermaids,
and indignantly expelled from their
private retreat.
The whole structure is so striking,
that the most careless observer must
feel some little curiosity to ascertain
its origin. Our voyager regards it
with much the same sort of interest
as an intelligent wanderer would display,
were he to stumble upon a ring
of blocks like those at Abury or Stonehenge
in some distant desert. In order
to pursue his inquiries systematically,
he proceeds to note down the
principal characteristics of the scene.
The first peculiarity which arrests his
consideration, is the circular form
which the rock assumes. Though far
from constituting a smooth and perfect
ring, its outline is sufficiently definite
to rivet the attention at once.
Then he observes that the outer portion
of the annulus scarcely rises above
the level of the sea, whilst the inner
portion—the bank on which the belt
of trees is mounted—is not more than
ten or twelve feet in height at the
utmost. From this he infers that
the agency concerned in the formation
of the structure was probably restricted
in its upward range. Next he notices
that the ring itself—that is, the wall
of rock enveloping the lake, though
by no means uniform in breadth—is
not more, perhaps, than three or four
hundred yards across in any part of
its extent: this seems to say, that the
agency was also restrained by circumstances
in its lateral expansion. Again,
as he runs his eye along the whole
sweep of the reef, he remarks that it
is not quite continuous, the ring being
broken here and there by openings,
through one of which he himself
passed into the lagoon. If he then
endeavours to estimate the size of the
whole formation with its included
lake, he may find it in this particular
case to be eight or ten miles in circumference.
Should he stoop down
to examine the material of which the
reef is composed, he will discover it
to be dead coral rock mixed with sand
where it is not washed by the sea;
but on breaking off a fragment where
it is covered with water, he may observe
multitudes of little worms, or
curiously shaped polyps, which, incompetent
as they seem, are in reality
the architects of the pile. But perhaps
the most significant circumstance to
be noticed is the difference in depth
between the internal lagoon and the
external ocean. If he takes soundings
within the reef, he ascertains that the
water is comparatively shallow, the
slope of the rock beneath the lake
being tolerably gentle, and the depth
rarely more than thirty or forty
fathoms. Let him cross the ring,
however, pushing his way through
the belt of trees; and on trying the
experiment in the contrary direction,
seawards, he finds that the ground
shelves downwards gradually under
the water, until it reaches a depth of
five-and-twenty fathoms, after which
it plunges precipitously into the abyss.
So abrupt, indeed, does the descent
become when this point has been attained,
that at the distance of a hundred
yards from the reef he cannot
reach the bottom of the sea with a
line of two hundred fathoms. If,
then, our explorer were capable of
existing under water for a while, and
could be lowered to the bed of the
ocean, he would see before him an
enormous cone or mound of rock
shooting upwards through the liquid
to a prodigious height, its summit
being hollowed into a kind of cup or
shallow basin, the rim of this lofty
vase just peering above the level of
the waves, and its interior being partially
inlaid with a gorgeous and
flower-like growth of coral.
Now, without glancing at minor
details, it must be admitted that our
voyager has stumbled upon a fine
physical problem. As the Round
Towers of Ireland have constituted
one of the most perplexing questions
on shore, so these coral towers of the
tropics seem to present an equally
perplexing mystery for the sea. In
the course of his researches, however,
he detects a circumstance which appears
to be perfectly paradoxical.
Climbing the cliff from the bottom of
the ocean, he perceives that the creatures
which produce the coral cannot
exist at any greater depths below the
surface than from twenty to five-and-twenty
fathoms. Within that limit,
upwards, the rock is covered with
life; below, it is tenantless and dead.
Yet, descending as the structure of
coral does to immeasurably greater
depths, the question naturally arises—how
could the animal ever toil
where it cannot even live? How has
that part of the edifice, which lies
buried in a region where no sunbeam
ever pierces, been built by architects
whose range of activity is comparatively
so restricted?
Brooding over an inquiry, which
only adds fuel to his curiosity, he proceeds
on his cruise. He has already
noted the prominent features of one
particular reef, which exhibits a coral
construction in its simplest shape—namely,
as a ring enclosing a lagoon.
He now falls in with specimen after
specimen of a similar class, and carefully
observes the differences in character
they present. In point of shape,
he finds that some are oval, others
greatly elongated, and many very
jagged and irregular in their form.
Here is one like a bow, and there
another like a horse shoe, whilst none
can be said to be geometrically round.
In regard to size, he meets with reefs
which are a single mile only in diameter,
and then with others, which
amount to as many as fifty, sixty, or
even more. If he compares the
various rings, he observes that some
are perforated by few openings, and
in rare cases there are none—the
fissures having apparently been filled
up with sand or detritus, so as to form
a continuous girdle round the lake.
But, in other instances, the reef is so
freely intersected by these openings,
that the ring itself may be said to
consist of a series of small islands
arranged upon an extensive curve.
In general, however, he perceives that
the channels connecting the ocean
with the lagoon are confined more
especially to that side of the structure
which is least exposed to the
action of the wind; and as he is sailing
within the region of the trade-winds,
the portion of the reef which
fronts the breeze and the billow perpetually,
appears to be more lofty and
substantial than the other. Glancing,
too, at the bank which carries the
fringe of trees, he observes that it
never seems to rise higher than a certain
level in any case whatever; and
as he finds that it consists chiefly of
sand and sediment, he concludes that
it has been heaped up by the waves
themselves. The vegetation, indeed,
which frequently gives such a gay
and graceful aspect to coral rocks,
does not always gladden the eye;
but where it is wanting, he infers
that the circumstances which favour
the dissemination of seeds or the
growth of plants, have failed to operate
as yet, but may, perhaps, in process
of time produce their accustomed
effects. Comparing also the depth of
the lagoons with that of the surrounding
ocean, he ascertains that the striking
discrepancy which attracted his
attention in the first reef he examined,
obtains to a considerable degree in
every subsequent instance: however
shallow the sea may be within the
ring, its depth rapidly increases, and
frequently becomes quite unfathomable
at no great distance without.
Finding, then, that though certain differences
exist in the formations he has
already inspected, yet certain general
features of resemblance invariably
prevail, he concludes that all of these
structures are due to the operation of
a kindred agency. But here there
arises another perplexing question.
If he must admit—and the admission
is inevitable—that the coral polyps
have been the builders of these piles,
how can he suppose that a number of
small animals, each labouring separately,
as it were, could erect an immense
wall of rock, leagues in circumference,
which, though far from
regular in its composition, shall yet
exhibit any marked approach to a
circle, an oval, a horse shoe, or any
other symmetrical form? Still more,
how could they build, not one, but innumerable
reefs, differing in various
particulars, but all indicating some
common principle of construction?
How is he to explain the appearance
of co-operation, where, from the nature
of the creatures, he cannot imagine
any intentional co-operation to exist?
A troop of moles working beneath a
field will never cast up a succession
of hillocks in such a way that they
will all combine to form a spacious
circle, or any other regular and definite
figure. If, therefore, he is compelled
to believe that a number of insignificant
creatures like the coral polyps
are capable of executing such prodigious
undertakings, wanting, as they
do, the intelligence which enables
higher beings to carry out a coherent
scheme, he must look for an explanation,
not in the instincts of the animals,
but in the conditions under
which they pursue their toils.
Hitherto, however, our voyager has
only encountered reefs of one class—namely,
“atolls,” or lagoon islands.
He looks anxiously, therefore, in the
hope of falling in with a specimen of
a different description. He knows
that if a process is too slow in its action
to admit of direct observation, yet its
character may probably be ascertained
by comparing several cases where the
same agency is employed—that is, by
criticising the phenomenon in distinct
stages of development. He proceeds
on his voyage, and at length is fortunate
enough to meet with a coral formation
which varies in type from those
already inspected. There is the same
sort of ring springing hastily from the
sea; but instead of an internal lagoon,
the central space is occupied by a
beautiful and populous island, leaving
only a belt of water between the reef
and the shore. Where all the elements
of such a scene are sufficiently
defined, a more charming spectacle
can hardly be conceived. The land
appears like a pleasant picture framed
in coral. Round a group of mountains,
forming the nucleus of the isle,
there runs a verdant zone of soil—next
comes a girdle of tranquil water—then
a ring of coral—and last, a band
of snowy breakers, where the swell of
the ocean is shattered into surf. The
island of Tahiti, whose mountains
rise to the height of seven thousand
feet, and whose greatest breadth is
about thirty-six miles, is almost encompassed
by a reef of this description.
When this spot is approached
so as to make the separate objects
visible, the appearance becomes quite
striking. “Even upon the steep surface
of the cliff, vegetation abounds;
the belt of low land is covered with
the tropical trees peculiar to Polynesia,
while the high peaks and wall-faced
mountains in the rear are covered
with vines and creeping plants. This
verdure is seen to rise from a quiet
girdle of water, which is again surrounded
by a line of breakers dashing
in snow-white foam on the encircling
reefs of coral.”[6] Perhaps, however,
the descent of the waves upon the
ring—curling and chafing like coursers
suddenly curbed—constitutes the most
magnificent feature of the scene. “The
long rolling billows of the Pacific,
arrested by this natural barrier, often
rise ten, twelve, or fourteen feet above
its surface, and then, bending over
it, their foaming tops form a graceful
liquid arch, glittering in the rays of a
tropical sun, as if studded with brilliants;
but before the eyes of the
spectator can follow the splendid
aqueous gallery which they appear to
have reared, with loud and hollow roar
they fall in magnificent desolation,
and spread the gigantic fabric in froth
and spray upon the horizontal and
gently broken surface of the coral.”[7]
With a reef like this before him our
explorer may now collect some additional
data which will help him a few
steps onward in his inquiry. The distinction
between a formation of this
class and those of the former description,
consists principally in the substitution
of an internal island for a
lagoon. Were that island pared
away or dug out, a simple lake surrounded
by a ring of coral rock would
be left. The one structure would
pass into the other by the erasure of
the central land. But here again he
has stumbled over a difficulty apparently
as great as any he has previously
encountered; for it would be
preposterous to suppose that large
areas or lofty hills could be readily
expunged from the surface of the
earth. There is a stage, however—call
it rather a pause—in the reasoning
process, when the great master of
inductive logic recommends that, after
having arranged all our available facts,
and extracted from them all the inferences
they can legitimately supply,
we should allow the mind to take a
little leap forward, just by way of
venture, and see what conclusions it
will suggest. In short, we are to
send for the imagination, yoke it to
the materials we have accumulated,
and observe in what direction it will
conduct us. Our explorer does this.
He sets that faculty to work—with
due discretion, however—and in a
short time it hints to him that islands
may possibly sink down slowly in the
ocean by the action of the subterranean
forces. And if so, would not
that explain everything?
He proceeds, therefore, to inquire
how this supposition will work; for
there are many conditions which it
must satisfy, and many puzzles which
it must solve, before its probability
can be affirmed. In the first place,
the coral polyps, as we have seen, can
only operate within a limited depth of
water, which has been roughly fixed
at twenty or five-and-twenty fathoms.
Mr Dana, indeed, considers that sixteen
fathoms will perhaps measure the
whole extent of the region assigned
to the principal artificers. Consequently,
when the creatures laid the
foundation of any particular reef, they
must have done so in shoal water, or
in the neighbourhood of land. Next,
where a small isle issues from a profound
sea, it will in general be tolerably
regular in shape; because, with
relation to the bed of that sea, it must
in reality be a kind of mountain:
therefore, as the coral builders find the
requisite range of water in the zone
which encircles the shore, the reef they
form will be tolerably regular too.
Hence the circular or curvilinear outline
which these structures generally
assume. Then, if, after the basement
of such a ring has been laid, the land
should begin to descend slowly, the
polyps must proceed to raise the edifice
storey after storey, for thus alone
can they keep themselves within the
region of vitality; and here we have
an explanation of the singular fact,
that the reef, where it constitutes a
true atoll, or coral-lagoon, usually
ascends to the level of the sea. A
singular fact we call it; because, if we
consider how variable are the heights
of any series of mountains on land,
the equality of stature which distinguishes
these marine elevations is
certainly a remarkable result. If it
were possible for some great giant to
run the palm of his hand along the
tops of the Andes or Himalayas, it
would describe a very irregular sweep,
rising or falling with every peak it
visited; but were he to draw it over
the summits of a succession of atolls,
though these might stretch through a
space thousands of miles in length, he
would scarcely perceive any difference
whatever in point of altitude. It will
be seen, therefore, that the uniformity
characterising these Alps of the ocean
is a circumstance which our explorer’s
hypothesis readily solves. But in raising
their embankment higher, it is
clear that the animals must build up
vertically, and hence the abrupt or
precipitous face which it presents
externally towards the deep water.
Landwards, again—that is, within the
reef—the pigmy architects will labour
more feebly, because it is found that
the kind of polyps which exist in
smooth still water are more delicate
in their productions than their gallant
little brethren who flourish amongst
the breakers. This serves to explain,
again, why there is an interval of fluid
left between the rising reef and the
sinking shore; but as the land subsides,
the space which it occupies
within the magic ring will obviously
diminish, whilst the space covered by
water will proportionately increase.
The girdle of coral will not maintain
its original dimensions, because the
polyps will probably incline inwards,
instead of building directly upwards;
but the contraction of the ring will
proceed slowly, because the wall is
invariably steep seawards, even if it
should not be altogether precipitous.
Finally, when the island is fairly
drowned, when we have got its whole
body well under water, we shall have
an enormous mass of coral raised by
successive additions of coral skeletons,
and resting upon a basis which may
be hundreds of feet below the level of
the sea. A zone of rock, constituting
the rim of the structure, will just show
itself above the waves, whilst within
this zone sleeps a shallow lake, where
the polyps, for various reasons, have
not followed the growth of the ring
with equal rapidity, or where the
sediment deposited has not accumulated
in sufficient quantities to fill up
the interior. And when the lake is
obliterated, as ultimately it may be,
either by the labours of the feebler
animals, or by the deposition of detritus
from the reef, we shall have the
platform of a new country where tropical
forests may some day flourish,
where towns and villages may hereafter
arise, and where man may exhibit
the strange and mingled play of
virtue and vice, which has marked his
footsteps from the first. “The calcareous
sand lies undisturbed, and offers,
to the seeds of trees and plants cast
upon it by the waves, a soil upon which
they rapidly grow, to overshadow its
dazzling white surface. Entire trunks
of trees, which are carried by the
rivers from other countries and islands,
find here, at length, a resting-place,
after many wanderings: with these
come some small animals, such as insects
and lizards, as the first inhabitants.
Even before the trees form a
wood, the sea-birds nestle here; stray
land-birds take refuge in the bushes;
and at a much later period, when the
work has been long since completed,
man appears, and builds his hut on
the fruitful soil.”[8]
Thus, it will be seen that the supposition
of a slow descent of the land
appears to meet the prominent requirements
of the case; and however startling
the assumption might seem when
first suggested, yet the pressure of
certain conditions, which this theory
alone can sustain, renders its adoption
almost, if not altogether, inevitable.
But, says the explorer, if this hypothesis
be correct, it should follow that,
as the sinking isle may vary in altitude
in different parts—as it may
have several peaks or elevated districts—all
these higher portions must
be left projecting out of the water for
some time after the lower lands have
been entirely submerged. Accordingly,
we may expect to discover
coral reefs, containing within their
circuit several small islands, the relics
of some larger district which has died
a watery death. And this is just
what frequently occurs. The two
isles of Raiatea and Tahaa, for example,
are included in one reef. The
group known as Gambier’s Islands
consists of four large and a few
smaller islets encircled by a single
ring. The reef of Hogoleu, which is
one hundred and thirty-five miles in
circuit, contains ten or eleven islands
in its spacious lagoon.
So, again, says our explorer, as
islands are frequently arranged in clusters,
it should follow that, if the areas
whereon any of these groups were
stationed, have subsided, whole archipelagoes
of coral reefs ought to exist.
And some of these archipelagoes may
be expected to exhibit a series of perfect
lagoons, where the land has been
fairly submerged; whilst others, where
the process is less advanced, or the
ground more elevated, ought to present
a series of reef-encircled islands
merely. Here also the theory is fully
corroborated by facts. Low Archipelago
is composed of about eighty
atolls; and of the thirty-two groups
examined by Captain Beechy, twenty-nine
then possessed the internal lakes
which we have seen are characteristic
of this class; the remaining three having
passed, as he believed, from the
same condition originally to the dignity
of closed or consolidated reefs.
The Society Archipelago, again, consists
of tolerably elevated islands,
encircled by coral ledges, and lying in
a direction almost parallel to the last.
Indeed, it will be readily imagined
that the shape and character of the
coral formations must be considerably
influenced by the nature of the site
upon which they are reared. They
will assume different aspects according
to the physical configuration of
the land to be entombed. They must
be interrupted where the water is too
deep, or the shore too precipitous to
permit the artificers to acquire a proper
footing. They will exhibit breaches
where the descent of cold streams
from the mountain heights, or the
presence of mud carried down by
rivers, rendered it impracticable for
the creatures to pursue their avocations.
They may also adopt peculiar
forms where the lowering of the
ground may not have taken place gradually,
or where, from some eccentric
action of the subterranean force, one
portion may have sunk under different
circumstances from the rest. A
reef may, therefore, be submerged in
part, or, as in some instances, throughout
its whole extent. Thus, in the
Peros Banhos Atoll, forming a member
of the Chagos group in the Indian
Ocean, a portion of the ring dips under
water for a distance of about nine
miles. This sunken segment consists
of a wall of dead coral rock, lying at
an average depth of five fathoms below
the surface, but corresponding in
breadth and curve with the exposed
reef, of which it is obviously the complement.
Or a ring may be wholly
submarine. The same group affords,
amongst others, an admirable example
of this in the Speaker’s Bank, which
is described as a well-defined annulus
of dead coral, let down into the sea to
a depth of six or eight fathoms, with
a lagoon twenty-two fathoms deep
and twenty-four miles across. It is
apparently a drowned atoll. Hence
from these, or from other causes, such
as the action of the sea, the killing of
the zoophytes by exposure or otherwise,
we may have several modifications
of the model reef.
As yet we have only mentioned two
principal types of structure—first, the
atolls or coral-lagoons; and, second,
the encircling reefs. But we may here
refer, in a sentence or two, to a third
and an important class—namely, the
barrier reefs. These are extensive
lines of coral masonry, which pursue
their course at a considerable distance
from the shore, but with a degree of
conformity to its outline, sufficient to
prove that some relationship subsists
between them. They do not, however,
surround an island like the encircling
reefs. The West Coast of
New Caledonia is armed with a reef
of this character, 400 miles in length;
but in some parts it is sixteen miles
distant from the shore, and seldom approaches
it nearer than eight miles in
any other quarter. This great ledge of
coral rock is, moreover, prolonged for
150 miles at the northern extremity
of the island; and then, returning in
the form of a loop, and terminating on
the opposite shore, seems to intimate
that, in ancient days, New Caledonia
was of much greater extent in this
direction than it is at present. There
is a still more magnificent specimen of
the barrier reef on the north-east of
Australia. This noble coral ridge is a
thousand miles in length. Its distance
from the coast is generally between
twenty and thirty miles, but occasionally
as much as seventy. The depth
of the sea within the barrier is from
ten to twenty-five fathoms, but at the
southern extremity it increases to
forty, or even sixty. On the other side,
without the barrier, the ocean is almost
unfathomable. The breadth of this
embankment varies from a few hundred
yards to a mile, and it is only at
distant intervals that it is intersected
by channels through which vessels
may enter. It is a causeway for
giants, and yet the architects were
mere polyps!
It is time, however, that our voyager
should proceed to verify the supposition
his fancy suggested. As yet
he has adduced no proof that subsidence
is, or has been, the order of the
day where its results are supposed to
appear. He knows that mountains
and islands must not be sunk by a
mere assumption, however plausibly
that assumption may seem to solve
the mystery of the reefs. Now, it is
an admitted fact that, in certain parts
of the globe, extensive regions have
been hoisted up, some suddenly, some
slowly; whilst others have gone down
in the world just as suddenly or as
slowly. The coast of Chili and the
adjoining district, as is well known,
were once elevated several feet,
throughout an area of perhaps 100,000
square miles, in the course of a single
night. Sweden has long been rising
in its northern portion, and sinking in
its southern, as if it were playing at
see-saw on a magnificent scale. But
we want evidence from the coral localities
themselves. Of course, from the
nature of the case, the testimony must
necessarily be somewhat limited; because
the question relates to a tardy
movement, operating through ages,
and occurring in regions which may
be wholly uninhabited, or else peopled
by tattooed and unphilosophical savages.
But there seems to be tolerable
proof for the purpose in hand.
For instance, in an island called
Pouynipate, in the Caroline Archipelago,
one voyager describes the ruins
of a town which is now accessible only
by boats, the waves reaching to the
steps of the houses. Of course, it is
not likely that the founders of that
place would build their habitations in
the water; and, therefore, it must be
inferred that this spot is in course
of depression. Such, according to theory,
should be its condition, because
it consists of land encircled by a reef—that
is, of land which must all vanish
before the formation can be converted
into a true coral-lagoon. At
Keeling Island, again, Mr Darwin
observed a storehouse, the basement
of which was originally above highwater,
but which was then daily washed
by the tide. Many other instances
of the same sort might be advanced;
but there is still more striking evidence
on this point, perhaps, in the
existence of certain reefs which may
now be introduced as links in the
theory, or rather as tests by which its
validity may be tried. These have
been styled “shore” or “fringing”
reefs. They differ from the other
classes in the shallowness of the foundation
on which they rest, and in the
closeness of their approach to the
land—either lining the shore itself,
or, if separated, leaving a channel of
no great depth between the coral bank
and the coast. Wherever these exist,
it is clear that the soil is stationary,
or that it must be in course of
elevation. It cannot be undergoing
depression, because the coral beds
would increase in thickness, and graduate
into another class of structure.
And in many instances where these
fringes abound, there is the clearest
proof, derived from organic remains,
and other geological evidences, that
the land has been actually upraised.
A resident at Oahu, one of the Sandwich
Islands (which are all fringed),
stated that, from changes effected
within a period of sixteen years only,
he was satisfied that the work of elevation
was proceeding at a very perceptible
rate. Indeed, in numerous
cases of this kind, coral deposits are
found at a height where it is as certain
that the polyps could never have
toiled, as it is certain that fishes could
never have lived. But elevation in
one quarter implies depression in another.
And, accordingly, it has been
shown that the Pacific and Indian
Oceans might almost be divided into
a series of great bands, where the bed
of the sea has alternately risen and
sunk—just as if in one band the crust
of the earth had been heaped up into
a great solid wave, and in the next
had subsided into a huge submarine
trough or valley. For it happens that
the reefs abounding over one of these
areas belong almost universally to the
class of formation which, according to
theory, indicates that the ground is
subsiding, whilst those which distinguish
the next area are quite of the
opposite description, and intimate
that the crust is rising. Thus, for
example, if we select the broadest
illustration available, it will be seen,
on referring to a map of the Pacific,
that there is an extensive chain of
islands, beginning to the west of the
Caroline Archipelago, and running
through Low Archipelago—a distance
of several thousand miles—the whole
family of which belong to the type
denoting depression; whilst there is
another long chain of islands, corresponding
or parallel, in some measure,
with the first, and extending, say
from Sumatra to the south-east of the
Friendly Isles, most of which indicate,
by their reefs, that they belong to the
type denoting elevation.
The general coincidence, therefore,
of fringing reefs with raised or stationary
districts, and of atolls or
lagoons with regions which appear
to be subsiding, affords considerable
support to the theory our voyager is
maturing. But there is another remarkable
criterion, which in due time
he contrives to discover. In the districts
where fringing reefs occur, or
where the coral has been plainly uplifted,
active volcanoes are frequently
established. But where reefs of the
contrary character prevail, these
agents are rarely, if ever, to be found.
Of course, where a volcano presents
itself in any particular locality, and
especially if it happens to be a volcano
in a state of activity, this shows
that the subterranean forces are disposed
to upheave the soil above them;
whereas, if volcanoes are wanting in
another quarter, or if, being there,
their activity has ceased, the conclusion
is, that in this region no upward
tendency at present exists. Now, this
test, too, is in striking accordance
with geographical fact. The two
great chains of reefs already mentioned
may again be adduced. In
the series of atolls or subsiding islands
extending from Caroline Archipelago
to Low Archipelago, not a single
working volcano is to be detected
within several hundred miles of any
moderate cluster; whereas, in the
band or series of isles which are characterised
by fringes, numbers of
these powerful agents are busily engaged;
and in some of them, as, for
instance, in Java, the subterranean
forces are known to be intensely energetic.
In fact, it may be stated as a
pretty authentic conclusion, that whilst
volcanoes frequently appear in those
areas where the crust of the earth is
now, or has recently been, in upward
motion, “they are invariably absent in
those where the surface has lately
subsided, or is still subsiding.”[9]
At the same time, it may be interesting
to remark, that whilst busy
volcanoes are thus shown to be irreconcilable
with the presence of true
atolls, yet at one period the theory
most in fashion assumed that all coral-lagoons
were mere submarine craters,
whose rims had been coated with calcareous
matter by the coral polyps.
However plausible this hypothesis
might seem when applied to a few
particular cases, its insufficiency was
soon discovered when a considerable
number of reefs had been compared,
and when the order of transition from
one type to another was clearly understood.
The vast size of some of
these atolls—the elongated shape
which many assume—the mode in
which they are frequently clustered—the
precipitousness of their flanks,
rendered it difficult, if not impossible,
to treat them as drowned Etnas or
Heclas. Then the equal altitudes
they must have attained as submarine
mounts, is totally inexplicable, if the
fact of the limited operations of the
polyps be admitted; for it would be
preposterous to imagine that thousands
of volcanic cones could all rise
to the surface of the sea, or within
a range of five-and-twenty fathoms,
and yet never overtop the waves to
a greater height than a dozen feet.
But, above all, the existence of coral
rings, with land in the interior—where,
if the theory were correct, a
large cavity should have taken the
place of primitive rocks, exhibiting no
signs of volcanic action—has proved
utterly fatal to the theory. It is
manifest that Tahiti, for example, with
its lofty mountains, could never have
been the centre-piece of a huge crater;
and it is certain that a volcanic
vent would not assume the shape
of a mere moat, like the girdle of
water which encompasses an ancient
castle.
Combining, then, the various data
already adduced, and observing that
there is a general harmony in the results,
our voyager may reasonably
conclude that his theory has now been
mounted upon a tolerably fair basis
of facts. He has explained the seeming
paradoxes which thrust themselves
upon his view at the earlier
stages of the inquiry. He has brought
all the different varieties of coral formations
under the grasp of one law,
and shown how, by the continued
operation of a subsiding force and the
continued addition of coral skeletons,
the “fringing” reef would pass into
an “encircling” reef, and this again
would graduate into a perfect “atoll.”
It is true that in doing this he has
been compelled to draw a pretty picture
of the fluctuations to which the
earth’s crust is exposed. Large areas
are supposed to sink in one quarter,
and to rise in another. Here and
there a spot which has once been
lowered may again be uplifted; and
this fitful movement may, in the course
of ages, be repeated, as if to show
what “ups-and-downs” a poor island
may be called upon to endure. He
knows, indeed, that his theory trenches
upon the marvellous. Were it not
for the light which geology has latterly
thrown upon the pranks played by the
Earth in its youthful days, he is aware
that his hypothesis would be condemned
as a thing far too romantic
for belief.
But perhaps the most surprising
circumstance, after all, is, that such
stupendous structures should really
be fashioned by such puny artificers.
When he turns his attention to the
builders themselves, he finds that they
are little better than lumps of jelly.[10]
The workmen, who far surpass, in the
vastness of their erections, all the
proud masonry of man, belong to the
lowest classes of animated things.
They are half-plant, half-animal.
Until the commencement of the last
century, indeed, their pretensions to a
higher dignity than that of marine
vegetables was denied; and when a
certain M. Peyssonel interested himself
on their behalf, and endeavoured
to raise them to a higher position in
the scale of organisation, his proposal
was treated with much the same sort
of derision as if he had demanded the
admission of monkeys into the ranks
of humanity. These zoophytes consist,
in the main, of a mere visceral
cavity, containing no distinct system
of vessels, exhibiting no decided appearance
of nerves, possessing no
other senses than an imperfect touch
and taste, and certainly manifesting
no distinction of sex. They are simply
digestive sacs, for which a troop of
tentacles are continually foraging:
they eat, drink, secrete coral, throw
off young polyps, and die, without in
general wandering an inch from the
place where they were produced.
Of all living things we should least
expect that creatures so imbecile as
these would be able to run up great
embankments capable of repelling billows
which sometimes roll along in an
unbroken ridge of a mile or two in
length, or of resisting a surf whose
roar may be heard at the distance of
eight or nine miles. That a feeble
zoophyte should have the power of
breasting the waves of the Pacific, did
we not know it to be a fact, would appear
a more preposterous notion than
that of the memorable lady who attempted
to keep the Atlantic out of
her dwelling with a mop. No other
animals seem to possess a faculty at
all approaching to this: none exhibit
a constructive propensity which leads
to such massive results. The bee, for
example, produces more geometrical
works, but we cannot conceive of a
honeycomb as large as a county, or a
mountain of cells as tall as Skiddaw
or Snowdon. It would be absurd to
dream of fabricating a reef of sponge,
though, if its animal character be admitted,
this creature will almost hold
as high a rank in life as the coral
polyp; nor would it be pardonable to
imagine that such a miserable material
could ever become the basis of a
new island. The beaver, it is true,
executes very extensive dams; he is
an excellent carpenter—perhaps the
most skilful four-footed artisan with
which we are acquainted; but put
him in the midst of a boisterous sea,
to erect a great circular rampart fifty
or a hundred miles in diameter, with
the billows tumbling about his ears
continually, and he might just as well
have contracted to build the Plymouth
Breakwater, or the Eddystone Lighthouse.
In fact, if we consider what
difficulty men have in achieving their
simplest specimens of marine architecture,
it may be said that, were a
whole nation of human beings set to
work in the Pacific, they could not
accomplish one of the colossal enterprises
which these morsels of pulp
silently effect.
What renders the undertaking more
surprising is, that these soft-bodied
things have to make rock for themselves;
they have to provide the very
stone which constitutes the edifice
they build; they have not only to find
straw to produce their bricks, as it
were, but to procure the clay itself.
The hard coral composing their edifices
is the internal skeleton of the
animals, and appears to be a secretion
from their own tissues. Chemical
analysis has shown that it consists
principally of carbonate of lime—upwards
of 95 parts out of every 100—including
also small quantities of silica,
alumina, magnesia, iron, fluorine,
and phosphoric acid. It is remarkable,
however, that this secreted matter
is harder than calcareous spar or
common marble—much harder, indeed,
says Mr Dana, than its peculiar
chemical composition will explain.
“Using an iron mortar,” observes Mr
B. Silliman, junior, “in the earlier
trials, the iron pestle was roughened
and cut under the resistance of the
angular masses of coral, to a degree
quite remarkable, considering the nature
of the substance operated on. So
much iron was communicated to the
powder from this source, that recourse
was had to a mortar of porcelain; and
even this was not proof against wear,
the porcelain pestle being pitted by
the repeated blows. The more porous
species, of course, were crushed
with less difficulty.” Whence, then,
do the animals procure the materials
which they fashion into such dense
and enormous piles? Here are millions
of tons of calcareous matter
heaped up by their agency, and yet
there is no visible storehouse from
which they can obtain any solid supplies.
For as the land subsides, the
builders of the reef are cut off from
the shore: there is little but coral
beneath them—there is nothing but
water around them. It must therefore
be from the billows of the ocean
that the creatures possess the power
of picking out the small quantity of
carbonate of lime which the fluid contains.
Their food may, of course, contribute
to the supply; but from what
source again did the minute animals
they devour procure their stock of
salts and earths?
It is singular, too, to observe how
limited is the sphere of activity assigned
to these creatures. In order to
complete a reef, it is not sufficient that
one tribe or species alone should be
employed; the Madrepores, Astræas,
and Gemmipores are the principal masons
engaged; but each structure exhibits
considerable diversity of workmen.
There are some polyps, as we have
seen, which love the contention of the
surf, and thrive only when exposed to
the play of the waves; there are
others which covet a more tranquil
life, and prosper only in the peaceful
lagoon. Neither could change places
with safety, any more than the reindeer
could barter climates with the
camel. A reef might almost be divided
into a number of zones, in each
of which a particular sort of coral
polyp finds its appropriate habitat.
The sea-front of the ring appears to
be partitioned into belts, like the vegetable
regions on the slope of a mountain.
“The corals on the margin of
Keeling Island,” says Mr Darwin,
“occurred in zones: thus the Porites
and Millepora complanata grow to a
large size only where they are washed
by a heavy sea, and are killed by a
short exposure to the air; whereas
three species of Nullipora also live
amidst the breakers, but are able to
survive uncovered for a part of each
tide. At greater depths a strong
Madrepora and Millepora alcicornis
are the commonest kinds, the former
appearing to be confined to this part.
Beneath the zone of massive corals,
minute encrusting corallines and other
organic bodies live.” Thus, even in
the limited range allotted to these
zoophytes, we have a minute illustration
of the law which has been so admirably
developed by Professor Edward
Forbes—that the bed of the sea
exhibits a series of regions, each
peopled, according to its depth, by its
peculiar inhabitants.
But if the creatures which are employed
in the erection of the reefs are
restricted to so narrow a field of exertion,
a very peculiar provision has
fitted them for the work they have to
perform. This consists in what is
called their acrogenous mode of increase.
If, for example, the zoophytes
assume the form of a plant, it is not
the whole mass which is alive, but
only a very small portion at the summit
and at the extremities of the
branches. All the remainder of the
stem and boughs has been converted
into dead coral. To grow, with them,
is therefore to mount. The skeleton
of the young animal is hoisted upon
that of its defunct predecessor. Some
zoophytes, like the Goniopores, spring
up in columns to the height of two or
three feet; and to each of these coral
pillars a capital of live polyps, two or
three inches in extent, is affixed. Or
if the creatures assume a more clustered
or globular form, as is the case
with many of the Astrææ, Porites,
and others, the depth of life in the
mass is extremely small. A dome of
Astræas, twelve feet in diameter, is
supposed to consist of a thin film of
living polyps, extending not more
than half or three quarters of an inch
below the surface—a solid nucleus of
coral being, in fact, merely coated with
vitality. It is to this property of upward
and outward growth that we
must ascribe the prodigious power
these animals possess. Their labours
are cumulative; and hence, though in
themselves the most insignificant of
creatures, they are enabled to heap
up tier after tier of skeletons, until the
mountain which has sunk in the waters
is rivalled by the monument they
erect upon its site.
If we wish, however, to form some
conception of the marvels which these
zoophytes accomplish, we have only
to remember that the coral formations
in the Pacific occupy an area of four
or five thousand miles in length, and
then to imagine what a picture that
ocean would exhibit were it suddenly
drained. We should walk amongst
huge mounds which had been cased
and capped with the stone these animals
had secreted. Prodigious cones
would rise from the ground, all towering
to the same altitude, and reflecting
the light of the sun from their
white summits with dazzling intensity.
Here and there we should come
to a huge platform, once a large
island, whose peaks, as they sank,
were clothed in coral, and then prolonged
upwards until they rose before
us like the columns of some huge
temple which had been commenced
by the Anakims of an antediluvian
world. If, as Champollion has said,
the edifices of ancient Egypt seem to
have been designed by men fifty feet
high, here, whilst wandering amongst
these strange monuments, we might
almost fancy that beings hundreds of
yards in stature had been planting
the pillars of some colossal city, which
they never lived to complete. But the
builders, as we have seen, were mere
worms; the quarry from which they
dug their masonry was the limpid
wave; and the vast structures which
have been calmly upreared in the
midst of a tempestuous sea, are the
workmanship of creatures which possess
neither bodily strength nor high
animal instinct. That duties so important
should have been assigned to
beings so lowly, is one of the finest
moral facts science has unfolded. It
is the function of the coral polyp,
under the present geological dispensation,
to counteract the distant volcano,
and to repair in some degree the
ravages of the subterranean fires. Its
task is to fasten upon a sinking island,
and keep its top on a level with the
sea. The haughtiest of physical forces—that
which sometimes shakes great
continents—which lifts or lowers whole
regions in a night—is often kept in
check by the industry of these diminutive
things. When the earth’s crust
is collapsing, and it becomes necessary
to fill up the vacancy, the commission
is not given to any gigantic
workmen, but a number of mere
polyps are bid to labour upon the subsiding
soil, as if to show that the
Creator could employ the humblest of
His creatures in executing the largest
of physical undertakings.
THE AGED DISCIPLE COMFORTING.
371
Fear not, my son; these terrors are from God.
Hast thou not heard how, when Elijah stood
On Horeb, waiting while the Lord passed by,
Before the still small voice, there came a blast
That rent those ancient mountains? after the wind
An earthquake, after that again a fire?
Aye, when Christ visits first a sinful heart,
The devils that abide there shake with fear;
Who can abide his coming?
I remember,
(How could I not?) that, in his days of flesh,
We—even we, who called ourselves his friends—
As little knew him as dost thou to-day.
In a dark night we sailed upon the lake,
Alone, not knowing where our Master was.
The night was dark, and dark our lonely hearts;
A moon there was, but low, and blurred with clouds;
Only upon the horizon lay a line,
A level line of light, which, near and far,
Marked the black outline of the eastern hills.
Stern was our toil, with every art we had
To speed our vessel; for the breeze had sunk,
Or only came by snatches—till the rain—
Then flashed the incessant lightnings, then the hills
Rang, roared, as though the thunder shattered them;
Then surged the waves against the opposite wind,
Rattled our useless cordage, rent our sail,
Rent, flapping in the tempest, and his might
Seized on our boat, and drave it at his will.
No man was free from fear; we knew too well
Those treacherous waves; and He, whose master voice
Had laid them cowering at his feet, like dogs,
Where was He now?—In some lone mountain wood
He communed with his Father and the angels,
And knew not that we perished there alone.
Alas! far otherwise when in the stern
He slept, amid the hubbub of the storm,
As if on priceless couches, in the pomp
Of Herod’s palace; now He was afar,
Each of us felt the terror of the night,
And each one acted as his nature was.
One fell to prayer; one muttered instant vows;
Another lay and wept aloud; some few
Deemed that the gale was transient, and sate still
Watching their idle nets; some, bolder, strove
To save the canvass, and the labouring mast.
Amongst the band were two, forever first;
One was a reverend man, of ripening years,
Whose steel-grey beard fell on his fisher’s coat,
Even to his belt; the other was a youth,
Whose face, made ruddy by the genial suns
Of five-and-twenty summers, always shone
A God-wove banner of celestial love.
These two were working still, to save the ship,
When the cry rose, “A spirit!” There it walked,
Or seemed to walk, the waters, and drew near.
Then he that wore the fisher’s coat cried out;
“If not to be afraid be brave,” he said,
“When fear were preservation, be not bold;
What men could do we have done; now let be,
Lest haply we be found to fight with God.”
Thus spake he; but we lay down, motionless,
Struck by despair, and waited for our end:
Only the young man bared his trusting brow.
Then spake the Form majestic:
“It is I;
Be of good cheer;” and then we knew our Lord,
And took him up into the ship with us,
And fell before him worshipping, and said,
“Ah, doubt is dead; ah, blessed Son of God!”
Thus scant of faith were we, and ignorant
That he was with us, when we saw him not,
Or deemed him but some spirit of evil, sent
To make complete the horrors of the night.
Our hearts calmed with the waters, we were saved,
And knew our Master’s power, and blessed his love,
And, lo! were landed at the wished-for shore.
H. G. K.
THE EXTENT AND THE CAUSES OF OUR PROSPERITY. — TO THE EDITOR OF BLACKWOOD’S MAGAZINE.
373
The majority of the Legislature
and of the great Conservative party
throughout the country have declared,
either openly or tacitly, that our present
commercial policy cannot be
reversed; and, in the present temper
of the people, such submission was
almost inevitable. Whatever might
be the convictions of Conservative
statesmen as to the working and tendency
of Free Trade, the expression
of those convictions, and evidence,
however strong, in support of them,
would have fallen idly upon the ear
of the masses, taught as they have
been—and, indeed, are predisposed—to
jump to the nearest conclusion,
when tracing effects to their causes.
They see the outward and visible
marks of prosperity accumulating
around them on every side. Blue
books and merchants’ and brokers’
circulars at length speak the same
language and tell the same story of a
widely-spread prosperity, which every
man hears boasted of in his daily
avocations, whilst exulting Liberalism
continually proclaims to the world
the coexisting fact of free imports. It
is of no avail to remind those men
that the prosperity in question is not
that which they predicted or anticipated;
that it is not the prosperity
meant by the men whose most loudly-urged
inquiry was, “How can we
compete with the foreigner, whilst
food is at war prices?” It is of
no avail to remind them that the
foreigner has not, as was promised
us, reciprocated our generous policy,
and that the tariffs of the world are
still maintained in their restrictive
character; or to point to the palpable
fact that we have not even that
“cheapness” of all the necessaries
and comforts of life, which was held
up as the great boon to be achieved
by Free Trade legislation. The arguments,
assumed to be conclusive,
brought to bear against those who still
adhere to the principles which they
have all along maintained, are that
the commercial and industrial enterprise
of the country is extending—that
our population is fully employed—that
the revenue increases in elasticity—that
property of every description
maintains its value—and that,
through the length and breadth of the
land, there is scarcely a cry of suffering
raised which is not at once
drowned by counter acclamations of
satisfaction with the existing condition
and prospects of the great masses of
the community.
Whilst statesmen, however, are
forbearing, and refrain from active
opposition to the conclusions, be they
founded on delusion or not, drawn by
the advocates of onward policy in the
direction of Free Trade, it is the legitimate
province of the political essayist
to investigate facts, which lie below
the surface from which ordinary inquirers
derive their arguments, and to
take care that such facts are brought
with sufficient prominency before the
public. The suppressio veri has ever
been a favourite weapon of casuists;
and when we see that a precisely
opposite result is admitted by all
parties to have followed the adoption
of a given policy, it is reasonable to
conclude that some suppression of the
truth has taken place as to the facts,
or that they do not legitimately lead
to the conclusions drawn from them.
We see at the present moment high
prices of every commodity prevailing,
whereas we were assured that low
prices would bring them within the
reach of the mass of consumers. We
have dear labour in every department
of industry, instead of the cheap
labour which the capitalist made no
secret of expecting as the result of
free imports of foreign food. We
have high freights for our shipping,
both inwards and outwards, yet both
Free-Traders and Protectionists prophesied
low freights as the result of
the repeal of the Navigation Laws.
We have well-employed artisans, notwithstanding
the anticipated displacement
of their labour by the introduction
of foreign manufactured articles.
Lastly, the British farmer is not
ruined; a good Providence has protected
the tiller of the soil from the
annihilation which was predicted for
him; and he is enabled indirectly, by
high prices of certain portions of his
produce, to wring an ample reward
for his industry from the consuming
classes. The obvious inference to be
drawn from such a state of things is
that some circumstance or circumstances,
previously unforeseen, have
interfered to derange and falsify the
calculations of both the great opposing
parties in the country; and it is most
desirable to know what are those circumstances,
and what their past and
probable future operation.
To arrive at the solution of these
questions, we may be excused if we
refer to a notice of the industrial and
commercial condition of the country
given in this Magazine in June 1851,
or a little more than two years ago.
At that period, as admitted by the
circulars of our leading merchants,
brokers, and manufacturers, we were
in anything rather than a condition of
general prosperity. Importation of
foreign produce was unattended with
profit, the export trade to foreign
markets was equally unprofitable, and
the home demand, both for produce
and manufactures, was seriously restricted.
With respect to the latter,
an eminent Manchester firm, Messrs
M‘Nair, Greenhow, and Irvine, reported
in their circular of March 31,
1851—“The market is far from
satisfactory. Complaints to this effect
are very frequent, and determined
resolutions in favour of reducing the
production of cloth of certain descriptions
are becoming general on the part
of manufacturers, who assign, with
reason, their inability to render their
manufactures remunerative. Vitality
is wanted, and the absence of anything
approaching to a demand for the
country trade contributes necessarily
to aggravate and deepen the dissatisfaction.”
The Shipping Interest
was at that time in a most disastrous
condition, freights being reduced
in many cases fully 50 per
cent, and far below the remunerative
point. Such was the condition of the
country five years after the repeal of
the Corn Laws, and two years after
the repeal of the Navigation Laws.
With respect to the latter interest, it
is important to bear in mind that the
low freights in 1851—particularly for
long voyages—were very generally
attributed to the competition of the
American shipowner, who, having a
valuable passenger and carrying trade
secured to him by the new conquests
of his countrymen in California, could
afford to bring return cargoes from
India, China, and the markets of the
Pacific, at much lower rates than
British shipowners. The changed
fortunes of the latter class afford striking
testimony of the fact that their
prosperous position, at all events, is
not attributable to Free-Trade measures,
or to legislation of any kind.
A few months after the ruinous period
to which we have referred, the country
was electrified by intelligence of
the discovery in our Australian possessions
of wealth equal in amount, if
not even superior, to that which was
being gathered by the adventurers
in California; and although at first
doubts were expressed of the correctness
of the intelligence, a large emigration
to those colonies at once set
in, which has continued to increase
up to the present time. We ceased
to hear of shipping lying idle in the
docks of our leading seaports. We
ceased to hear of our seamen entering
into the service of rival countries.
Our building-yards, both at home and
in the American colonies, became
scenes of unprecedented activity; and
every branch of industry connected
directly or indirectly with shipping,
was placed in a prosperous condition.
To enable the reader to form an idea
of the amount of tonnage employed
in this new trade, it may be stated
that the amount of shipping which
sailed from the port of Liverpool for
Australia, since the first of January
1852, to the end of July 1853, was
175 ships of 138,500 tons register.
These were exclusively passenger-ships.
If we add 40 more as the number
taking cargo or cabin passengers
alone, which are not mentioned in the
Government officer’s returns, we have
in round numbers 215 ships with a
tonnage of 170,000 tons, from the port
of Liverpool, engaged in this new
trade. The departures from London
and other ports, of which we have
not at hand correct returns, but which
very materially exceed those of Liverpool,
will swell the amount of tonnage
to about 500,000 tons. Of the shipping
from Liverpool, 52 vessels—in
all, 46,000 tons—have been chartered
by Government for the conveyance of
Irish and Scotch emigrants chiefly,
sent out by the Emigration Board.
There were loading in Liverpool, on
the 8th inst., 48 ships, with an aggregate
tonnage of 33,369 tons.
Moreover, from the nature of the
trade, and the peculiar temptations
which present themselves to our seamen
to desert when they arrive in
the colony, and proceed to the diggings,
the wages paid them have been
nearly double the average paid for
other voyages.
Here, then, we have the prosperity
of one great interest in the country
distinctly accounted for, with which
Free Trade has manifestly no connexion.
Australia has saved the
British shipowner from ruin; and it
has done more. An increasing population,
attracted to the colony from
every quarter of the globe, have become
large consumers of British products,
and promise at no distant date
to be still larger consumers. In the
first six months of 1851 we exported
to Australia 3,003,699 yards of plain
calicoes, and 3,611,751 yards of printed
and dyed calicoes. In the corresponding
period of 1852 the exports
were 1,453,079 yards of plain, and
5,683,822 yards of printed and dyed
calicoes; and in the six months just
ended they have increased to 6,856,010
yards of plain, and 5,751,431 yards
of printed and dyed. This is in addition
to the large quantity of these
goods taken as outfits by emigrants,
and the stocks which may have
gone from our Indian and other markets.
The hardware trade of Birmingham
has been largely benefited
by the consumption of Australia; and,
in fact, there is scarcely a branch of
industry in this country which it has
not stimulated. Even the farmer
owes to it much of his present position.
The absorption of agricultural labour
by the diggings of Australia, from
which colony we derive the finest
wools used in the manufacture of
broadcloth, has, by raising the price
of those wools, encouraged the substitution
of an inferior article. This
cause, and the great increase in the
home consumption, a portion of which
increase has been taken by emigrants
in the shape of slops, blankets, &c.,
has contributed materially to raise the
value of our own produce. The extent
of this advance is thus stated by
a leading firm in the wool trade in
Liverpool—“The advance in the
value of the various kinds of British
sheep’s wool, from August 1851
to August 1853, varies from 30 to 40
per cent. Production has not decreased,
but perhaps the contrary,
while consumption is very much increased.”
Farm produce of all kinds—butter,
cheese, bacon, &c.—have
found in the colony a new market,
which has greatly contributed to produce
the high prices existing at home.
If we turn to the manufacturing interest,
we suspect it will be found that
much of its present boasted prosperity
is attributable to other causes than our
Free-Trade policy. We have had a
considerable increase in our exports
of cotton manufactures during the first
six months of the present year; but
when we inquire to what countries
this increase has gone, we find that
nearly the whole has gone to four—viz.,
the United States, China, Australia,
and the coast of Africa. The
three last we may certainly exclude
from the countries whose increased
dealings with us are at all distinctly
traceable to Free Trade. We have
therefore to examine how far those of
America can properly be so considered.
The exports of cotton goods to that
country, as given in Burn’s Monthly
Colonial Circular for the first six
months of 1851, 1852, and 1853, were
as follows:—
Plain Calicoes.
Printed and Dyed.
First six months of
1851,
6,580,713
yds.
21,078,887 yds.
„ „
1852,
8,928,610
„
22,144,002 „
„ „
1853,
26,428,896
„
49,478,800 „
The shipments to that country are
still being made on so extended a scale
that, whilst every sailing vessel which
can be secured is promptly filled up at
high rates of freight, the steamers are
actually compelled to shut out goods,
although the rates have lately been
advanced to £5 per ton for those
chiefly of the class called “fine,” which
they are in the habit of carrying. It
is calculated that there are at present
lying in Liverpool for shipment by the
“Cunard” line of mail boats, more
cargo of this description than can go
for three weeks to come; and the
consignees of the American or “Collins”
line had recently a lottery in
their office, to decide whose goods
were to go by the steamer then loading.
To what cause, then, can we
attribute this amazing increase of
our exports to America? It cannot
be the operation of Free-Trade measures
in this country which has enabled
America to take from us, in the
first six months of 1853, twenty million
yards of plain, and nearly twenty-eight
and a half million yards of
printed and dyed calicoes, more than
in 1851. We have not extended to
her, in particular, any material concessions
since the latter year. We
have not been greater importers of
her bread-stuffs, or of any other article
of her production, with the exception
of cotton. Of this great staple
the clearances from all the ports of
the Union to this country, from 1st
September 1852 to 5th July 1853, were
1,617,000 bales, against 1,577,160
bales in the corresponding period of
1851–2, and 1,285,173 bales in that
of 1850–51; showing an excess this
year of 39,840 bales over last, and
331,827 bales over 1851. This may
account in part for the increased purchases
of America from the British
manufacturer; but, on the same
grounds, she must also have increased
her purchases from other countries;
for we find that, whilst her excess of
exports to Great Britain was 331,827
bales last year, as compared with
1851, the excess to “all countries”
was 533,386 bales, showing that other
countries had also received increased
supplies to the extent of 201,559
bales: and we are not aware that any
of those countries have been legislating
of late in the direction of Free
Trade; The conclusion which it
strikes us as most likely to be correct,
as to the cause of our increased exports
to America, is that something
has occurred to improve the condition
and enlarge the consuming power of
that country. Such, on inquiry, we
find to have been the case; for with
the comparatively light import of
British fabrics in 1851, what was the
state of the American market for those
fabrics? We have it thus stated by
the New York Courier and Enquirer
of the 16th of April in that year, as
quoted in the article to which we have
before referred—“The very heavy
sales made of domestic light prints
have put an end to all inquiry for
the foreign article; and we do not
know a case of English prints that will
bring prime cost, whilst the majority
must suffer a heavy loss......
Nor is the prospect better for ginghams;
few, if any, bring cost and
charges.”
It is true that reference was made
by the American writer to accidental
causes, which were alleged to have
produced this unprofitable state of
business in 1851; but it is tolerably
clear that there must have been besides
a want of the power to buy—and
it is the fact that there was such
a want—compared with that which
exists at present. The American
planters have had, since 1851, two
crops of cotton, in succession, larger
than were ever raised before, which
have been sold, especially the last, at
higher prices than those which prevailed
in 1851—a year of short crop,
as will be seen from the following
table, made up to the 30th ult.:—
Mobile Fair.
Orleans Fair.
Crop to July 5.
1853,
6¾d. to 6¾d.
6⅝d. to 7d.
3,172,000 bales.
1852,
5⅝d. to 5⅝d.
6⅜d. to 6⅜d.
2,963,324 „
1851,
5¼d. to 5⅜d.
5¾d. to 5¾d.
2,273,106 „
The American farmer also has had this
year considerably enhanced prices of
grain of all kinds—cheese, butter, pork,
beef, and other produce—for which
large markets have been opened in
California and Australia. Emigration
has greatly swelled the number
of the population, and thus increased
domestic consumption. Employment
throughout the Union is
ample, every fresh body of labourers,
as soon as they are landed, being
sought out and engaged at good wages
for the various railways, canals, and
other public works, which are constructing
in almost every state. California,
with its vast mineral wealth,
is exercising an almost inconceivable
influence throughout the entire continent,
enlarging and rendering more
secure its monetary resources, stimulating
domestic enterprise, and furnishing
that which a new country
most urgently requires—the means of
extending its foreign commerce. It
is not the Free-Trade policy of Great
Britain per se, if indeed at all, which
has rendered the United States better
customers of Great Britain, but mainly
the increased and unparalleled prosperity
of the American people—a
prosperity which, it should ever be
borne in mind by the statesman, is
coexistent with a strictly protected
domestic industry.
In addition to the effect produced
upon the industrial portion of the
community in our own country by
the increased demand for British
productions to supply the wants of
America and Australia, we must not
omit to notice some other important
circumstances which have been in
operation during the past three or four
years. We have recently been sending
away to our North American Colonies,
to the United States, and, for
two years past, to Australia, large
numbers of our population, and particularly
of that portion of them whose
position at home may be termed one
of struggling for the means of living.
Large tracts of land in Ireland, once
thronged with this class, are at present
almost literally unpeopled; and
from England and Scotland many
thousands of able-bodied labourers,
skilled artisans, and small farmers,
have swelled the tide of emigration.
It may be said, with truth, that this
is not a sign of prosperity at home.
These classes confessedly left their
native soil because it no longer afforded
remunerative employment for
their industry. Yet, indirectly, an
increased prosperity has been the
result of their departure, especially in
our large towns and in the manufacturing
districts. We feel no longer
the pressure upon the labour market
of continual immigration from Ireland
to this country of a semi-pauper class,
ready to accept employment at the
very lowest rate of wages upon which
life can be supported by the coarsest
description of food. The visits of
Irish agricultural labourers are now
decreasing year by year; and although
many still come to settle amongst us,
and to partake with our own working
classes of the advantages of continuous
employment, they are no longer
satisfied with that low scale of remuneration
for which they were formerly
content to labour.
The comparative dearness of what
used to be their staple article of food—the
potato—has driven them, during
the past few years, to the adoption
of a higher scale of living. They
have imbibed, even in their own workhouses,
the taste for aliments similar
to those upon which the English labourer
is fed. In proof of this change,
which has been taking place in Ireland
during the past few years, we
may point to the fact of that country
having ceased almost entirely to supply
the British markets with cereal
productions, and to its diminished exports
of other descriptions of farm
produce; for it is not true that this
has been altogether caused by diminished
production. The result is felt
upon their arrival in this country, by
the Irish emigrants speedily falling
into the scale of living, and demanding
the same wages, as our own labouring
classes. To the causes referred
to is, in a great measure, to be attributed
the improved condition of those
classes generally in every department
of industry. Labour is no longer in
excess of the demand for it, and commands
a higher rate of remuneration.
An additional portion of the working
masses, too, have become consumers
of both foreign and domestic produce
and manufactures, and hence some of
those marks of prosperity which political
economists see in increased imports
and customs, and excise receipts,
and attribute exclusively to the operation
of Free Trade. We have got
rid of the surplus portion of our labouring
masses; and, as the result, those
who remain to us are better employed
at better wages.
The operation of this change, so far
as regards the revenue, the importing
merchant, and the manufacturer, is
much greater than is generally supposed.
Below a certain scale of wages
the working classes contribute almost
nothing to the revenue, or to the profits
of the importer, and comparatively
little to those of the manufacturer;
and the bulk of the population of Ireland
had ever been hitherto below that
scale, where they were in receipt of
wages at all. Any addition to such
wages, half of which at least is expended
upon customable or exciseable
commodities, tells immediately upon
revenue and upon the profits of imports;
whilst the remainder is probably
expended upon the consumption of
home productions, and thus further
stimulates the prosperity of the producing
classes. The comforts of life
are sought for, instead of the mere
necessaries being endured; and, virtually,
an improvement in the condition
of the labourer becomes a real
increase in the numbers of the population.
The United States are experiencing
this fact in the immense
consumption of every description of
produce and manufactures by her prosperous
gold miners in California; and
Great Britain is experiencing it also
in the consumption of the settlers in
the gold regions of Australia. Our
merchants had paused in their shipments
to that colony. They feared
that they might have glutted its markets.
In doing this they had simply
overlooked the fact, that a highly prosperous
community consumes ten times
the quantity of commodities of all
kinds, which suffices for the wants of
the same number of individuals prohibited
by their position from indulging
the tastes and desires natural to
them. A few hundred thousand of
diggers in Australia, with Anglo-Saxon
habits, gathering each their ounce of
gold per day, are equal to as many
millions of rice-eating Hindoos in
India, or opium smokers in the Celestial
Empire.
Since these remarks were written,
they have received a very striking
confirmation from the circular of
Messrs W. Murray, Ross, and Co.,
commission merchants of Melbourne,
dated 20th May. After referring to
the high prices existing in Melbourne,
and the rapidity with which the supplies
of goods which had arrived up
to that date had been taken off, the
writer proceeds, with respect to the
apprehended glut to be created by the
large shipments known to be on the
way—“Great though the quantity
of goods to come forward may be, it
is yet equally evident that consumption
will keep pace with, if it do not
exceed, the import. The fact, moreover,
must not be omitted out of the
calculations of operators at foreign
ports, that the exorbitant rates current
in Melbourne have attracted such
large importations from all the other
Australian colonies, that the markets
of every one of them are more bare
of commodities than our own. The
consequence will be, that as Melbourne
and Sydney will be the principal
recipient ports for foreign merchandise,
large transhipments must
be made to fill up the vacuum which
our extraordinary demand has created.
The European population of the Australias
is estimated at 600,000, the consuming
power of whom is equal to at
least three times as many in England.
Therefore, the wants of a population,
equivalent to 1,500,000 at home, have
to be provided for. The immense
addition which will also be made to
these numbers by the rapid immigration
which is, and will continue flowing
from the mother country and elsewhere,
must also be taken into account.
The average immigration has
latterly been about 3000 souls per
week. No diminution is expected;
on the contrary, an increase is expected.
Some idea of the probable
increase of the population during this
year may be formed from knowing the
increase which took place during the
last year in Victoria alone, namely,
100,000. As respects our power of
consumption, nothing need be feared by
the foreign shippers; all the goods that
come forward will be wanted.” When
it is borne in mind that the bulk of
the population, described to be thus
rapidly increasing, have Anglo-Saxon
tastes, and consume principally British
articles of the best description,
we need scarcely be surprised if present
prices at home, especially of agricultural
produce, are not only maintained,
but very materially enhanced.
We find, from the same circular,
that Australia is diverting from this
country a large portion of our usual
supplies of flour, cheese, &c., which
we should otherwise have received
from the United States, thus accounting
for the advance in prices in the
British market already experienced.
All other commodities, whether of
British, colonial, or purely foreign production,
are bringing enormous rates
in that country. English products,
however, such as butter, cheese, hams,
bacon, &c., are those most materially
increased in value; and large quantities
must go out to meet the demand,
thus trenching still more upon
the amount of the necessaries and
comforts of life which are at present
within the reach of our consuming
classes.
That, under all these circumstances
combined, we have a high range of
prices of produce existing, is scarcely
to be wondered at; but, whilst we
must decline to admit that such high
prices are attributable to our adoption
of a Free-Trade policy, we are rather
doubtful of the fact that they are altogether
the result of the undeniably-increased
consumption of our population.
Other causes are operating,
which account, in part, for such high
prices, irrespective of those which are
urged by the advocates of that policy,
and of those who attribute them to
the prosperous condition of the country.
We have had, during the present
year and a portion of the last,
decreased imports of some of the leading
articles of foreign produce. Thus
we have received in the ports of London,
Liverpool, Bristol, and the Clyde,
during the first seven months of 1853,
only 100,080 hhds. and 13,065 tierces
of West India sugar against an import
of 122,300 hhds. and 15,685 tierces
during the corresponding months of
1852. We have received of Bengal
and Madras sugar 401,970 bags, &c.
against 526,345 last year. From
the Mauritius our receipts have been
777,900 against 708,730 mats, &c.;
and from Java, and our other East
Indian possessions 62,360 bags, &c.
against 88,915 last year. Decreased
stocks and advanced prices naturally
follow such a state of things. On the
other hand, we have both increased
imports and stocks of Havana, Brazil,
and other foreign sugar—which, however,
being chiefly used for refining
purposes and for export, is not so correct
an index of the consuming power
of our home population. We have a
slightly increased import of colonial
molasses, and a considerable decrease
of stocks. Our imports of colonial
rum have been 19,330 puncheons only
against 23,450 puncheons last year,
whilst the stocks are only 15,530
against 25,695 last year. The causes
of this decline in the productiveness
of our West Indian possessions, as
well as in our imports from the East
Indies, need scarcely be glanced at;
and, as a just retribution, we find that
the exports of cotton manufactures to
the most important of the former—Jamaica—have
fallen off from 2,413,611
yards of plain cottons, and 2,036,598
yards of printed and dyed, in the first
six months of 1851, to 874,382 yards
of plain, and 888,565 yards of printed
and dyed in the corresponding period
of 1853. Of another important article—tea—our
imports during the first
seven months of the present year have
been less than in the corresponding
months of last year, viz. 30,086,000 lb.
in 1853 against 32,867,000 in 1852;
and prices have been enhanced in part
by the civil war going on in China, and
by the effect of the reduction made in
the duty by Mr Gladstone’s Budget.
Dried fruit, which was cheapened by
the Tariff of 1841–2, has advanced
enormously in price; but the principal
cause of such increase has been a
blight, which has occurred during the
past two years. The supply of many
articles of home produce, too,—such
as butchers’ meat, butter, bacon, &c.—has
been limited by the wet season
at the beginning of this year, which
was unfavourable to every description
of agricultural produce. All these are
distinctly exceptional causes of apparent
prosperity, as shown by high
prices of commodities, and have nothing
whatever to do with the question
of Free Trade v. Protection.
It is not our intention here to enter
into an inquiry as to the effect which
the increased production of gold in
California and Australia has produced,
in inflating prices by enlarging the
basis of our monetary circulation.
Political economists of our modern
school persist in treating the question
of the currency as a bugbear; and in
maintaining that the price of gold,
irrespective of its increased supply,
must remain, unlike that of all other
commodities, fixed. It is useless to
direct their attention to the effect upon
prices which an enlarged currency,
sustained by the golden treasures of
California, has produced throughout
the length and breadth of the American
continent. It is useless to attempt
to show them, although such is
the fact, that the increased banking
facilities gained by that country during
the past two or three years have
enabled her growers of grain, of cotton,
and other produce, to maintain
prices above what European and other
countries could afford to pay, and to
liquidate an almost continually adverse
balance of trade. This much,
however, the most strenuous advocate
of the bullionist theory will perhaps
admit: The mercantile community of
this country, notwithstanding their
imports have in the aggregate very
largely exceeded their exports—thus
inducing of necessity large exports of
specie—have not during the present
year, as we might have expected, been
incapacitated by the position of the
bank from holding their stock of produce.
Money for commercial, and
even for speculative purposes, has been
abundantly afforded; and even in the
face of a somewhat high rate of interest,
advances on mortgage and for
permanent investment have been
readily procurable at reasonable rates.
But for this circumstance, we could
certainly not have sustained prices of
imported produce; and our merchants,
having been compelled to submit to the
inflated ones of foreign countries, must
have been utterly prostrated. The
same reasoning applies to the internal
industry of the country. Had money
not been cheap, and easily procurable
on bona fide security and for investment,
the vast amount of enterprise
which has recently been manifested in
the erection of new buildings, and
new works of every description, in the
drainage of our soil, in the beautifying
of our large towns, and the health-producing
improvement of their sanitary
regulations, must have been
checked, until, by a restriction of our
imports, and something approaching
to a general commercial bankruptcy,
we had wrung back the limited amount
of truant specie, upon which our currency
is based, from the hands of the
foreigner. We are not at all certain,
however, for what period this pleasant
state of things may last. For many
weeks successively we have seen the
stock of bullion in the Bank of England
decreasing, notwithstanding the
large arrivals from Australia and other
quarters; and although this may in
part be accounted for by the increased
amount required to conduct the enlarged
internal trade of the country,
there can be no denial of the fact, that
we are experiencing a serious external
drain, required to meet our increased
imports. For three or four months
past the fear of a considerably tightened
money market, as the result of
such drain, has very greatly tended
to repress speculation, which would
otherwise have run into excess; and
at the present moment anticipations
of an advance in the rate of interest
by the Bank of England and the large
discounting houses are beginning to be
seriously entertained.
We have, then, the following facts
established with tolerable clearness—viz.,
first, that nearly all the most
important commercial interests of the
country have been placed during the
past two years in a condition of great
prosperity; and, in the second place,
that our industrious classes are now
fully employed, at good wages. But
it cannot be admitted that the cause
of such a beneficial change is altogether,
or even mainly, the Free-Trade
policy which we have recently adopted.
Notwithstanding this fact, we are perfectly
ready to admit that we cannot
at present disturb that policy, or retrace
our steps. A large majority of
the public believe that the change in
question has been produced by Free
Trade. They cannot perceive the exceptional
causes which have been in
existence, or these are sedulously kept
from their eyes. A large portion of
our working masses, during the temporary
cheapness which followed the
first adoption of the system, which
cheapness was increased by the commercial
sacrifices caused by monetary
paralysis in 1847, 1848, and
1849, became acquainted with luxuries
to which they had ever previously
been strangers. A population, whose
staple food had been oatmeal in its
various forms of preparation, became
acquainted with wheaten bread, with
tea, coffee, &c., and were enabled to
resort more frequently to butchers’
meat. They found themselves enabled
to be better housed and better clothed,
as well as better fed. The change in
this respect, which took place throughout
the manufacturing districts especially,
was most striking, and was
dwelt upon as affording ample proof
of the successful results of Free Trade
policy, so far as regarded these classes,
at a period when it was manifest that
they were consuming every description
of foreign and domestic commodities at
prices which were ruinous alike to the
importer and the home producer. It
was only reasonable to expect that
those classes, thus substantially benefited,
would resolutely refuse to listen
then to any proposal for the reversal of
measures to which they were taught
to attribute the increased comforts
they were enjoying; and the same indisposition
to do so continues to prevail
now, with prices of all the necessaries
of life materially enhanced.
Any return to protection, however
modified, is regarded by them as, so
far, a return to their old diet, and to
the discomforts of their previous condition.
For any party to insist upon
such a retrograde policy, would be to
throw them once more into the hands
of the political demagogues, from
which they have, during the past few
years, happily emancipated themselves.
Without any legislative interference
with Free Trade, however,
the position of these masses is just
now becoming materially changed for
the worse; and notwithstanding the
fact, which we have admitted, that
employment is more abundant than at
any former period, it is very questionable
whether we are not threatened
with serious difficulties and social disorganisation,
arising from the efforts
of the labouring classes to maintain
themselves in that position which
they have been taught was their
right, and was the natural result of
Free Trade. For some months past
the temper of these classes has been in
a state of almost universal ferment.
With continuous employment superseding
the intermittent employment
of a large portion of them, demands
have been made for increased wages,
and have in most cases been conceded.
We have had strikes of our dock
labourers and porters for rates which
were never heard of previously, even
when three or four days’ work in a
week was considered as affording a
fair amount of the means of living.
The same classes, on our railways and
other public works, have given evidence
of dissatisfaction with their position
by similar proceedings. Handicraftsmen
of every description have
joined in the movement; and even the
police of our large towns have shown
a disposition to seek other avocations
than those of wielding a truncheon for
from 18s. to 21s. per week, with a
livery. Throughout the manufacturing
districts there has been, during
the past three months, a large suspension
of labour, the hands in one
branch after another seeking advances
of from 5 to 10 per cent, and in
some instances attempting to impose
conditions upon their employers.
Turn-outs, of short duration, resulting
in concessions to their demands,
have served to show the operatives
that they are now the most powerful
body, and to lay the foundation of
further aggressive efforts. Next only
in importance to the increase thus
caused in the cost of manual labour,
the manufacturer has had to submit to
a large increase in the cost of his fuel,
to the extent, in some districts, of 15
to 20 per cent—the miners in most of
the small-seam collieries, and in several
of the deep pits, having successfully
stood out for higher rates of remuneration.
The iron-miners, especially
in Wales, have followed the example
of their brother operatives in other
branches of industry; and in one district
in South Wales it is expected that upwards
of 20,000 of the working population
will shortly be deprived of the
means of living by the blowing out of
furnaces by the masters, in the endeavour
to resist the demands of their men.
There are two or three rather important
questions which offer themselves
for solution connected with
these aggressive movements of the
working classes. Are they the result
of a confidence, on their parts, of
power to coerce their employers? Is
capital being compelled to relax its
gripe upon industry? Or are these
movements merely the defensive ones
of men who feel that the comforts,
which they have been recently enjoying
through a factitious cheapness,
are being withdrawn by high prices
of the various articles of consumption?
We believe that we must attribute them
to all these causes combined. To this important
part of our subject we entreat
the earnest attention of our readers.
It is natural to conclude that the
working classes must feel somewhat
confident of the fact that, to a great
extent, the pressure upon the labour
market, caused by immigration of
fresh hands into the large manufacturing
and other towns, has been withdrawn.
The surplus population of
the agriculturists have either sought,
or are seeking, new spheres for the
exercise of their industry in other
lands, which offer to them a surer
prospect of permanent prosperity; but
there is this striking difference between
the present movement of our
operatives and those of former years,
that the opportunity for it has not
been seized upon in a pressing emergency
of the masters—that it is not
confined to a particular class, or a
particular district. It is, in fact, universal,
and apparently unprompted.
No demagoguism has been required
to bring it about; and, with a few rare
exceptions, we have observed characterising
every conflict for higher wages
the best possible feeling between the
employers and the employed. So long
as the latter remained in the enjoyment
of cheap food, they were quiescent;
and in the majority of the strikes
which have recently occurred, the plea
most prominently put forward has been
the advanced price of all the necessaries
of life. In some few cases only
has a scarcity of labourers appeared
to warrant a demand for advanced
wages; and it is a remarkable fact
that these have resulted from causes
distinctly unconnected with Free-Trade
policy. The carpenters in our shipbuilding
yards, and other branches of
industry connected with the shipping
interest, have been enabled, by the increased
demand for ships for the Australian
trade, to command higher rates
of remuneration, irrespective of the advance
in the prices of food. The men
employed in building trades generally—masons,
house-joiners, bricklayers,
&c.—have been placed in a similar
position by the internal improvements,
and the increase of public and private
works, which a more plentiful currency
has stimulated throughout the country.
But the main inducing cause of the
aggressive attitude of the industrious
classes, as a body, has been the fact
that employment, at the wages paid
from 1845 up to within the past few
months, was insufficient to enable them
to keep up to the standard of living
which the cheapness prevailing in the
greater portion of those years had
given them a taste for. The following
comparison of the present prices
of a few of the leading articles, which
form the consumption of the working
classes, with those existing in the corresponding
period of 1851, will enable
the reader to draw a tolerably accurate
conclusion with respect to their condition
in the respective years. We
take the prices from the authorised
Liverpool data, as this port may be
said to regulate those of the manufacturing
districts:—
There has obviously been upon the
bulk of these articles an advance of
from 25 to 30 per cent; and this advance
has been most signal upon the
articles which the working man’s family
chiefly consumes—bread, butchers’
meat, cheese, bacon and pork,
butter, &c. With respect to tea,
which has recently formed an important
item in their expenditure, we
have had within the past few weeks
a reduction of the duty. This, however,
has been nearly met by the increase
in price which it now commands
in bond. We had in July last
a reduction of 1s. per cwt. in the duty
upon sugar, and since 1851 the total
reduction is 2s. This also has been
more than met by increased price,
in the average, at least, of the period
between 1851 to 1853, for we find
that the price of “good dry brown”
was, in 1852, only 35s. 6d. per cwt.
The reduction of duty on soap is
neutralised by the high price of the
materials. In order to ascertain, or
at all events to approximate to, an
idea of the extent to which the working
classes have been affected by the
changes of the past two years, we
shall take the instance of an average
family, composed say of a man and
wife and three children, earning the
advanced wages of 24s. a-week. Such
a family would consume at present,
according to the scale of living enjoyed
by them two years ago, when commodities
were cheap, as follows:—
Bread, produce of 21 lb. flour,
3s.
0d.
Tea, 2 oz.,
0s.
6d.
Coffee, 4 oz.,
0s.
4d.
Sugar, 2 lb.,
0s.
9d.
Butter, 1½ lb.,
1s.
3d.
Candles, 1 lb.,
0s.
7d.
Coals, 1½ cwt.,
0s.
10½d.
Soap, 1½ lb.,
0s.
7½d.
Butchers’ meat, 5 lb.,
2s.
11d.
Bacon, 1 lb.,
0s.
8d.
Cheese, 1 lb.,
0s.
8d.
Currants, &c., 1 lb.,
0s.
8d.
Potatoes, 20 lb. (average price of 1853),
1s.
3d.
Sundries,
0s.
2d.
Rent, water, &c.,
3s.
6d.
17s.
9d.
We have thus an expenditure of
17s. 9d. a-week for food and rent out
of an income of 24s., leaving only a balance
of 6s. 3d. for clothing, malt and
other liquors, medical attendance and
casualties. Such a scale of living
may appear a high one to some parties,
who have been in the habit of
gauging the human appetite for the
purpose of getting up statistics for
union workhouses, model prisons, or
model conditions of society. It will
be found, nevertheless, to be pretty
nearly that into the enjoyment of
which our able-bodied working classes,
pursuing moderately healthful though
laborious avocations, rushed with
eagerness during the period of cheapness
resulting from the early operation
of Free Trade. The cost of such
a scale in 1851, calculated according
to the prices of that period, would be
about as follows:—
Bread, produce of 21 lb. flour,
2s.
0d.
Sugar, 2 1b.,
0s.
8d.
Butter, 1½ lb.,
1s.
0d.
Candles, 1 lb.,
0s.
5½d.
Coals, 1½ cwt.,
0s.
9d.
Butchers’ meat, 5 lb.,
2s.
3½d.
Bacon, 1 lb.,
0s.
6d.
Cheese, 1 lb.,
0s.
5½d.
Currants, Mr 1 lb.,
0s.
4½d.
Potatoes,
1s.
0d.
Articles in which no material reduction has taken place, including rent,
5s.
1½d.
Total week’s consumption,
14s.
7½d.
Thus the working man’s family in
1851 were enjoying the same scale of
living for 3s. 1½d. less than it now
costs them; and would have had
9s. 4½d. left for clothing, &c., out of 24s.
per week, if the same range of prices
which were then existing had continued.
Their present wages, however,
have only been gained by them
during the last few months. The utmost
advance realised by any class of
workmen has been 6d. per day; and
such a family as we have instanced
were called upon, by the increased
prices to which their food has risen
since 1851, to adopt one of these alternatives:
Their wages of a guinea
a-week, with 17s. 9d. of expenditure
for food and lodging, leaving them
only the insufficient margin of 3s. 3d.
for clothing, medical attendance, malt
liquor, &c., they must either have
gone back to their old scale of living,
or insisted upon an advance of wages.
The allowance of wheaten bread must
have been curtailed and oatmeal substituted;
a less comfortable dwelling
must have been submitted to; their
consumption of butchers’ meat must
have been stinted; and they must
have resigned altogether the whole,
or a portion at least, of the luxuries
contained in their dietary—tea, sugar,
currants, &c., to the serious loss
of the revenue. They preferred, and
happily for them they have been
able to obtain, the latter alternative,
an increased remuneration for their
labour. It is clear, however, that
large as this increase has been, it has
not placed the working man’s family
in any better position than they occupied
in 1851. They have at present
3s. per week more to live upon; but
their living costs them 3s. 2d. more.
This, however, it will be said, is
only the position of a family provided
with constant work both in 1851 and
at present. We readily admit that
there is a class below this who are
very materially better off now than
they were in the former year. The
condition of the working man who
has now four or five days per week of
employment, where he had formerly
only three days, is materially improved,
notwithstanding the recent
advance in prices of commodities.
But this is precisely the class which
has been most materially benefited by
the emigration of their competitors
in the labour market, and by the activity
which has been imparted to
the internal enterprise of the country
by our discoveries in Australia, and
the enlargement of the currency resulting
from them.
It must be tolerably clear to most
men that no portion of our working
classes will readily submit to a reduced
scale of living, either as the result, or
the fancied result, of legislation, or
from known ordinary causes. There
is a further source of social danger in
the circumstance that, having been
taught that legislation had realised
whatever benefits have accrued to
them since the adoption of Free-Trade
policy, they will be inclined to look
to further legislation in the same direction
for a remedy, whenever,
through an advance in the price of
the necessaries and comforts of life,
or circumstances at present unforeseen,
anything may occur to injure
their position. They have tasted
of those comforts; and they will
insist upon enjoying them whatever
other interests or institutions
may have to be prostrated in order
to bring about that result. Indeed,
the Ministry of Lord Aberdeen, as
shown by their policy during the whole
of the past session, have impressed
upon the minds of the working classes
the fact that nothing will be permitted
to stand in the way of further progress
of the policy upon which the
country has entered, or of cheapness
for the consuming classes. With a
view to relieve those classes, we
have just witnessed an impost, which
may be almost called one of spoliation,
authorised to be levied upon the owners
of our soil; and, ludicrous though its
failure has been, the operation of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the
interest of the National Debt may be
only a prelude to what the fundholder
may expect from a more unprincipled
minister. We are not at all assured
that even the national honour will be
permitted, without a struggle, to stand
in the way of cheapness of the necessaries
of life. Happily society is at
present undisturbed by the efforts of
the political demagogue. Our Brights
and Cobdens, and their “peace progress”
associates, are at present too
small a minority to dare embarking
in an attempt to persuade the highest-souled
nation on earth to embrace
degradation. But signs and portents
have not been wanting during the past
two months, whilst we have been upon
the verge of a collision with Russia,
which, combined with the temporising
course of her Majesty’s Ministers,
ought to be seriously weighed by every
patriotic man. The world at large,
reading the tenor of our trade circulars,
and looking at the same time at our
tedious protocolling and negotiations
with an aggressive power, may well
draw the conclusion that England is
more anxious for uninterrupted supplies
of grain from the Black Sea than
for the maintenance of her prestige as
the leading power in Europe; and
reflecting men may seriously ask the
question—how long, in the present
temper of the consuming masses, would
a state of warfare be tolerated with
patience? Unprincipled persons there
are sufficient amongst us, who, although
at present their bad passions are without
a profitable sphere for their exercise,
would willingly emerge from obscurity
to undertake the task of inflaming
the minds of our working
masses, and who might probably do
so successfully if they could point to
dear food as the result of a manly and
consistent foreign policy.
Whatever may be the future price
of food—and we are satisfied that it
must maintain its present, if not a
higher value, as measured in gold—there
is another reason why we may
look for a prematurely advanced rate
of wages in this country. The great
American continent is now bridged
over, as it were, by a constant succession
of passenger-ships—“clippers,”
whose voyages rarely average
above eighteen to twenty days, and
of which eight or ten sail every week
from the port of Liverpool, in addition
to those which go from other ports
of the United Kingdom. The postal
arrangements between the two countries
are as regular as those between
London and Edinburgh. A month’s
time suffices to exchange communications
between this country and the
Far West of the United States; and
£5 or £6 will suffice to convey the
British labourer or artisan to the
prairies of the Mississippi, the Ohio,
or the Western States of our North
American colonies. Moreover, it is
no longer to a new land, or amongst
strangers, that the Celt and the Saxon
now go to push their fortunes, and find
new scope for their industry and enterprise.
A hearty welcome awaits
them in these countries from friends
and relatives who have preceded
them; and, in a majority of cases, it
is the success of these pioneers which
furnishes their connexions at home
with the means of emigrating. Whilst
high wages and prosperity prevail in
new countries situated as the United
States and Canada are, and must continue
for years to be with respect to the
old countries of Europe, it is sheer
folly to imagine that low wages in
those old countries can ever be secured.
The cost of a passage across the Atlantic
for an adult operative is insignificant,
compared with that of a strike
of even a few weeks’ duration; and
the dangers and hardships of the voyage
are regarded now, as compared
with those contemplated by the emigrant
a few years ago, very much
like those attending modern railway
travelling as compared with that by
“the heavy stage,” which our great-grandfathers
patronised, when the
journey from Edinburgh to London
was advertised to be performed in a
fortnight—“God willing.” To a far
greater extent than our statesmen imagined
we are committed to the fortunes,
and bound by the rate of labour,
enjoyed by the working classes of the
American Republic. If Free Trade,
as was boasted, has placed Manchester
alongside the valleys of the Mississippi,
the increased facilities now
afforded for emigration have also
placed our operatives in closer proximity
to their highly-paid American
brethren. Those classes in Great
Britain will never again succumb to
the dictation of the capitalist, whilst
there is afforded to them a way to
the prosperity enjoyed by their fellow-labourers
in the United States and
Canada. And here a serious question
arises for the consideration of
those politico-economical schemers
who have built up their expectations
of manufacturing prosperity and enlarged
foreign trade upon the basis
of cheap production in this country.
Great Britain cannot spin and weave
for the world whilst her labouring
population have the wages of new
countries thus easily open, as we have
seen, to their acceptance. We may
command for a time the trade with
our own colonies. The abundant
capital of our merchants may maintain
our commercial predominance for a
time. But colonies situated as Australia
and Canada are—the resort of
the enterprise of every nation—will
seek to be independent. Capital, the
Free-Traders reminded us, owns no
allegiance, and may command the
cheap labour of countries differently
situated to our own. It is worth the
while of our manufacturing interest,
whose selfishness has been manifested
in our Free-Trade policy, to ponder
upon the probable future operation of
those signal events, which Providence
seems to have thrown in the way of
the realisation of their ambitious designs.
But the middle classes—the men
who exercise the franchise—surely
these, it will be urged, are, and have
been for some time past, in a condition
of unqualified prosperity. The
retailers in our large towns and boroughs,
as distributors of commodities
between the merchant, or the producer,
and the consumer, must have
been benefited materially by the enlarged
consumption of the country.
The assumption is a natural one, and
yet it may be only partially true. The
business of the retailer is one of which
we possess no statistics. We have
no means of gauging the results of
his dealings. A larger amount of
money may be passing through his
hands now than formerly. Enhanced
prices of every article in which he
deals, independently of increased
consumption of those articles, will
account for his receipts being larger.
But the great question to be solved
is—are his profits increasing in the
same ratio? It would be a healthy
sign if we could find that the increased
consumption of the country had operated
to put an end to that ruinous competition
which has for years past been
going on amongst these classes;—a
sign that the consumers, being in possession
of increased means to buy,
were willing to afford to those from
whom they buy a fair remuneration for
their industry and their capital. It
would be most gratifying to find that
puffery and clap-trap were declining
amongst our shopkeepers; that frauds
were less rife than formerly; that
adulteration was no longer practised,
and just weight and measure were
universally meted out. We observe,
however, none of these healthy signs
of a profitable trade. On the contrary,
we have evidence around us on
every side, that the retailer has for
some months past been placed, as it
were, in a vice between two opposing
conditions of the community, by whose
custom he has to live. He has to
fight against rising markets and dear
labour on the one hand, and the determination
of the consumer to insist
upon cheapness on the other. For
every purchase which he makes, he
has to pay higher prices; and he can
only extort these from the community
after a severe struggle. He is, in fact,
in the position of the traveller, who
has no sooner surmounted one hill
than he sees another on the path before
him. It is notorious that this is
always the case in rising markets.
Every advance in the price of raw
materials or other commodities is followed
by a period of business without
profits. Traders are withheld, by
mutual jealousy and the fear of competition,
from the necessary efforts for
self-protection. Doubts intervene as
to the permanency of such advanced
prices. And when at length the step
is resolved upon of demanding a corresponding
advance from the consumer,
it is frequently found that a
further upward movement has taken
place in the wholesale markets, which
once more compels the retailer to resign
the gain which he ought to derive
from his industry. This has
been the position of these classes during
the whole of the past twelve
months; and it is one in which capital
is rapidly exhausted, especially in
the case of men whose dealings are
from hand to mouth, and whose
means are limited. The tradesman
of large means and extensive credit
may buy a stock in advance of his
consumption; and thus for a time
protect himself from the loss which
rising wholesale markets, unattended
with higher retail prices, would occasion;
but the small capitalist has no
such resource. He is continually reversing
the principle extolled by the
Free-Trader, by buying in the dearest
market and selling in the cheapest.
The severity of this operation of
rising markets has been very greatly
increased on the present occasion by
the prevailing temper and opinions
of the consuming classes, especially
throughout the manufacturing districts.
They have been taught that
free imports were to bring about a
permanently low range of the prices
of all commodities; and they are disposed
to regard and to resist high
prices, as the result of speculation on
the part of the capitalist, or undue
extortion on the part of the retailer.
When being charged 8d. for a pound
of beef or bacon, which a year ago
was only worth 6d., or 10d. for a
pound of butter, which a year ago
was sold at only 7d., they have regarded
the extra charge as something
approaching to a fraud. It is of no
use reminding those persons that they
are themselves demanding from the
community a higher price for their
labour; and that dear labour involves
dearness of every product of labour.
They are deaf to such appeals to their
reason, and resolutely ignore every
fact which tends to account for the
high prices of which they complain.
The prosperity which they contemplated,
and believed that they had
secured by free imports, was one
which the consumer could monopolise.
Each class seems to have imagined
that the remainder were to be
prostrated for their own particular
benefit.
It is perfectly natural that, during
such a struggle between the distributors
and the consumers of commodities,
and whilst competition was unabated
amongst the former, no effort
would be left untried by them to
secure business and profit. The great
object to be achieved was to induce a
belief on the part of the consumer
that he was not paying advanced
prices, and was still in the enjoyment
of the idol “cheapness.” This could
only be done by the aid of adulteration,
and deception of every kind; and
never were these dishonest practices
of traders more rife, throughout the
manufacturing districts especially, than
they have been of late. The price of
flour began to rise towards the close
of last year. From an average of
about 21s. for the best quality of
American, it has gradually risen to
28s. Was the price of bread advanced,
in proportion, to the consumer?
It was not—at least apparently.
A less profit was submitted
to by the baker and retailer; and
wherever it was possible, just weight
was withheld. For example, the
small loaves, nominally of two pounds
weight, with which the small shopkeepers
are supplied for retailing
amongst that portion of the working
classes in the manufacturing districts
whose payments are usually weekly
ones, were not very perceptibly advanced
in price, but decreased in
weight. Twenty pounds of bread
contained in such loaves were manufactured
into twelve or thirteen, nominally
of two pounds each, instead
of ten. The price to the consumer
of each loaf remained the same. Although
tallow has risen in price at
least thirty per cent, the price of the
candles principally consumed by the
working classes remained mysteriously
almost the same. We have had this
accounted for by the fact that dishonest
manufacturers have been supplying
equally dishonest tradesmen with the
article in quantities, purporting to be
pounds in weight, but, in reality, two
or three ounces less. Thus, candles
sold as twelve, fourteen, or sixteen to
the pound, contain still the number
represented; but, as the buyer never
asks to have them weighed, as he
does beef or mutton, they are short of
the proper weight. This practice has
lately been shown to prevail throughout
a great portion of the manufacturing
districts, especially of the north
of Lancashire and the West Riding of
Yorkshire. The adulteration of coffee
with chicory, it is well known, has prevailed
so long, and the tastes of the
consuming classes have become so
accustomed to the mixed article, that
the Legislature has had to submit to
its permanent practice. Cheatery of
every description, in short, has been
resorted to by the dishonest trader,
to disguise from the consumer the fact
of dearness, and to wring a profit from
the low range of prices which alone
the public are disposed to tolerate;
whilst the honest trader, who is not
willing to descend to such arts, has
been carrying on a continually losing
business, and contemplating in despair
the gradual absorption of his
capital.
Unfortunately there are not in existence
the requisite data to enable
us to arrive at the precise position of
these classes as compared with that
which they formerly occupied. The
humbler portions of them—the small
retailers in our large towns and manufacturing
districts—were never in the
habit of attaining a place in that
truth-telling and widely-read record,
the London Gazette. They embark
in their petty course of ambition,
trusting to the enterprise which they
feel stirring within them for a successful
result; and when the reverse
comes, and disappointment is their
lot, they retire from the struggle, disappear
amongst the classes from which
they rose, and are forgotten. The
other sources of information, with respect
to the condition of these classes,
have been so altered recently, since
the extension of increased powers to
the County Courts, that the means of
an accurate comparison of any two
periods are wanting. Moreover, the
resort to legal proceedings, in cases of
insolvency, is less now than in former
years. Compositions and amicable
private arrangements between creditors
and debtors are found to be
cheaper, and more satisfactory in their
results, than the ordinary formal modes
of proceeding. Hence the statistician,
who would fain persuade mankind
that nothing of ill exists in the world
save that which such records reveal,
can prate glibly of prosperity to classes,
who, knowing the reality of their own
position, must feel such prating to be
a bitter mockery. The facts which
we have shown above, as to the tendency
of rising markets to decrease the
profits of the retailer’s trade, are sufficient
of themselves to prove that he
cannot, at the present moment, be in
the enjoyment of a satisfactory position;
and we have the further fact to
adduce, that at no previous period
was credit more reluctantly extended
to that class than at present. The
merchant and the wholesale dealer
are well aware, and watch well when
the retailing classes are doing business
without profit. They are aware when
those classes are living upon their
capital. And that a large portion of
them are doing so at this moment,
and have been so for many months
past, is clear, not only from the increased
jealousy of the wholesale
dealer, but also from their almost general
exclusion from the benefits of a
money market which, up to within
the last few weeks, might be fairly
described as “easy” to most other
classes. The extensive merchant who
has produce in his hands to pledge,
or the speculator who can raise capital
of his own equal to cover the
probable margin of loss to arise from
his temporary investment, can command
almost unlimited pecuniary accommodation,
on tolerably reasonable
terms. But the same facilities are
not open to the retailer, who may
for a time require an increase of his
means. To this class money is always
dear. It is to be had by the bulk of
them only upon usurious terms. The
retailer cannot command a capital by
paying in to his banker small bills
drawn upon his customers. He must
resort to the Loan Society, to the
Insurance Office, or to the moneylender,
whose terms are even more
ruinous than those of the previously
mentioned parties; and it is a sad
fact that such modes of raising money
are more practised amongst tradesmen
of the present day than formerly.
We can scarcely glance over the columns
of a newspaper published in
any of our large commercial towns,
without observing one or more advertisements
of societies professing to
lend money on personal security, repayable
by instalments, the interest
of which is seldom less than ten per
cent; or of insurance companies, whose
directors hold out to parties in want
of money the inducement that life policies
may be pledged, and the provision
which might have been made,
through the beneficial medium of insurance,
for a widow or an orphan
family, anticipated, for the purpose of
bolstering up perhaps unprofitable
speculations. There is known to be
existing amongst the trading classes
an underground ramification of involvements
of this description, which
would startle the world if it could be
brought to light, as it is seen occasionally
in the schedules of insolvents
in our Bankruptcy and our County
Courts. The most profitable business
would not suffice to maintain a man
who is paying ten to twenty per cent
for every money accommodation which
he may require in temporary emergencies,
and is besides compelled from
time to time to make up the defalcations
of friends, between whom and
himself a mutual system of guaranteeship
for loans is constantly existing.
The evil is not by any means
confined to the small trading classes,
but prevails as well amongst our
working classes. We have loan societies
whose accommodations range
from £3 to £10 or £15, which the
working man too frequently avails
himself of to enable him to expend
upon excursion trips, and other extravagancies
scarcely justified by his
station in life. We have, too, modes
of anticipating the incomes of the
working classes even less legitimate
than the legalised loan societies.
During this very week we find recorded,
in a Manchester paper, the
existence, throughout a large portion
of the manufacturing districts, of
clubs, the parties engaged in which
pay small weekly instalments, as low
even as a shilling or sixpence, and
gamble with the dice, or draw lots for
the privilege of having the whole sum—say
of forty shillings or five pounds,
for which they are responsible—advanced
on personal guarantee. Another
festering sore in the body politic
is the present amazing increase, especially
in the manufacturing districts,
of what in the metropolis is called the
“tally system,” but is elsewhere better
known as dealing with “Scotchmen,”
or “weekly men.” It argues
little in favour of the provident character
of our manufacturing operatives,
that thousands of hard-working and
industrious families amongst them
purchase the bulk of their clothing
from these men, at prices ranging
from 40 to 60 per cent above the fair
value of the articles, not only to their
own manifest injury, but also to that
of the legitimate trader. These men
are to be seen in every manufacturing
town and village, yard-stick in hand,
and parcels of patterns and collecting-books
protruding from their capacious
pockets, perambulating the small
streets and courts inhabited by our
working classes, too often to wring
their gains from simple-minded wives,
whose husbands are unconscious of
the indebtedness incurred, until made
aware of the fact by a summons from
the county or some other petty court
of law. Not above twelve months
ago one of these Scotchmen in a manufacturing
borough in Lancashire had
no fewer than fifty cases for hearing
in a single fortnightly session of the
County Court there; and it is not
uncommon to find upwards of one-half
of the cases tried at these courts,
in the manufacturing districts, to consist
of actions for debts incurred in
the manner we have described. So
largely has the number of this class
of traders increased of late, that
they have become a distinct power,
and, in some of our boroughs, can
determine the result of an election—in
favour of Whig-Radicalism, by
the by; for your travelling Scotch
draper is invariably attached to “liberal”
politics. In one borough in
Lancashire with which we are acquainted,
it is computed that they
possess, amongst their own body, no
less than eighty or ninety votes; and
at the last two elections those votes
decided the results of the contests.
Under such circumstances it would
be most rash, at any time, to assert
the existence of great prosperity, either
of the retail traders or of our manufacturing
operatives, merely from external
appearances, or from the ordinary
tests of employment and increased
consumption of the necessaries of
life. We know that at present there
do exist all the external appearances
of such prosperity; but we know also
that there is a restlessness being manifested
amongst those classes, which
is incompatible with a perfect satisfaction
with their real position. We
have to bear in mind always, whilst
speculating upon the state of the small
traders in particular, that they form
a class whose numbers are readily
recruited during a period of actual or
apparent prosperity. Little encouragement
suffices to induce the well-to-do
operative, disgusted with the
arduous toil required from him in his
legitimate sphere, to embark in the
apparently more easy avocations of
the small dealer; and since we have
placed so large a share of the political
power of the country in the hands of
these classes, it is most important
that we should not be misled as to
their social condition, and the amount
of prosperity which they are enjoying.
We have taught them to believe that it
is within the power of legislation alone
to command that prosperity for them;
we have taught the working classes,
too, that it is in the power of legislation
to bring about cheapness contemporaneously
with highly remunerated
labour; yet we see abundant elements
at work, which point to dearness in
prospect as the result. We see the
prices of raw materials and produce
rising in every foreign market as the
result, in part at least, of an increase
of the precious metals throughout the
world. We see foreign enterprise and
industry everywhere stimulated by
increased monetary facilities afforded
to the masses of the people, whilst
such increased facilities at home never
extend below the privileged classes,
who are permitted to negotiate directly
with the banker and the capitalist.
We see the bulk of the transactions
of the country, and especially
the distribution of food and other
necessaries, falling day by day more
extensively into the hands of those
classes who can avail themselves of
cheap money; whilst all below them
the very nature of our existing banking
system drives into the hands of
the usurious lender, unless they are
contented to restrict their dealings to
little beyond the supply of their daily
wants. What must be the course of
the great masses of our population,
should their present doubtful prosperity
altogether disappear; or should
high prices and reduced profits press
them further than at present towards
the necessity of curtailing their enjoyment
of material comforts? It is not
difficult to perceive that a demand
must arise for continual further reductions
of taxation, and consequent
reductions of the public expenditure.
We have gone almost as far as we
can go in dealing with those duties
whose removal is followed by such an
amount of increased consumption as will
protect our customs’ revenue from
exhaustion. The numerous small
items the taxation of which was well-nigh
unfelt, although, in the aggregate,
it was productive, are being
rapidly swept away; and there remain
none for the financier to operate
upon save the few large imposts, the
removal of any one of which would be
almost equivalent to national bankruptcy.
If interference with these is
denied, a demand must arise either
for such a diminution of the public
expenditure as is incompatible with
the maintenance of the national honour
and security, or for a decrease in the
interest of the public debt. Mr Gladstone’s
financial abortions have shown
us, with tolerable distinctness, that, in
the existing state of our monetary
laws, a permanently reduced rate of
interest is inconsistent with increased
imports and an enlarged trade. Whilst
the specie, which regulates the quantity
of money which is permitted to
circulate, is constantly liable to be
drawn away to meet adverse balances
of trade, such as we have now with
almost every country of the globe, a
reduction in the pressure of our indebtedness
is impracticable, except by a
stretch of power on the part of the
legislature, which must for ever stamp
us as an unprincipled people. With
the important question of the currency,
however, we repeat that we have no
intention of meddling in this article.
Our object has been simply to examine
carefully the actual condition of our
industrious classes, and to endeavour
to trace that condition to its true
causes; we leave to others to draw
conclusions, and to point the way to
a remedy, should further experience
prove that a remedy is required.
Liverpool, 13th August 1853.
Printed by William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh.
1. History of Scotland from the Revolution, &c. By John Hill Burton. 2 vols.
London: 1853.
2. Wanderungen durch London, von Max Schlesinger. Two volumes. Berlin:
Duncker. London: Williams and Norgate. 1853.
3. Curiosities of Modern Shakesperian Criticism. By J. O. Halliwell, Esq. 1853.
Observations on some of the Manuscript Emendations of Shakespeare, and are they
Copyright? By J. O. Halliwell, Esq. 1853.
J. Payne Collier’s alte handschriftliche Emendationen zum Shakespeare gewurdigt
von Dr Nicolaus Delius. Bonn, 1853.
The original text of Shakespeare has obtained two stanch and able defenders in the
persons of these two gentlemen. Mr Halliwell’s competency to deal with the text
of our great poet, and with all that concerns him, is, we believe, all but universally
acknowledged—the best proof of which is the confidence reposed in him by the subscribers
to the magnificent edition now publishing under his auspices; a confidence
which, we are convinced, he will not betray by any ill-judged deviations from the
authentic readings. Dr Delius’s pamphlet contains a very acute dissection of the
pretended evidence by which Mr Collier endeavours to support the pretended emendations
of his MS. corrector. It is characterised by great soundness of judgment,
and displays a critical knowledge of the English language altogether astonishing in
a foreigner. He may be at fault in one or two small matters, but the whole tenor
of his observations proves that he is highly competent to execute the task which, as
we learn from his announcement, he has undertaken—the publication, namely, of an
edition of the English text of Shakespeare with German notes. We look forward with
much interest to the publication of this work, as affording further evidence of the
strong hold which Shakespeare has taken on the minds of Germany, and as a further
tribute of admiration, added to the many which they have already paid to the genius
of our immortal countryman.
4. The German translators Tieck and Schlegel adopt the reading of the first folio,
tongue, for “gown,” and translate,
“Warum soll hier mit Wolfsgeheul ich stehen.”
Dr Delius concurs with his countrymen, and remarks that the boldness of Shakespeare’s
constructions readily admits of our connecting the words “in this wolfish tongue”
with the words “to beg.” Now, admirable as we believe Dr Delius’ English scholarship
to be, he must permit us to say that this is a point which can be determined only
by a native of this country, and that the construction which he proposes is not consistent
with the idiom of our language. Even the German idiom requires with
(mit), and not in, a wolf’s cry. We cannot recommend him to introduce tongue into his
text of our poet.
5. The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. By Charles Darwin, M.A.,
F.R.S., F.G.S. London: Smith, Elder, and Co. 1842.
The Structure and Classification of Zoophytes. By James D. Dana, A.M. Philadelphia:
Lea and Blanchard. 1846.
6. Wilkes’s United States Exploring Expedition, vol. ii. p. 130, (ed. 1852.)
8. Kotzebue’s Voyage, 1815–1818. Vol. iii. p. 333.
9. Mr Darwin’s Coral Reefs, p. 142. The only supposed exception to this remarkable
coincidence, at the time when Mr Darwin wrote, in 1842, was the volcano
of Torres Strait, at the northern point of Australia, placed on the borders of an
area of subsidence; but it has been since proved that this volcano has no existence.
Sir Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology. 8th edit. p. 767.
10. This expression, as applied to many of the coral polyps, must be taken in
a somewhat qualified sense. Many of them are of a fleshy consistence.
11. A reduction of duty of 2s. on foreign has taken place during these periods.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.
Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last chapter.