ment is against them; and we, confessing honestly to no great degree of respect or admiration for Yankee land, hail the "Change for the American Notes" as a perfect ratification of Boz, both in his work on the country, and still better, his recent number of Chuzzlewit.

While on the subject of America, we would wish to add a line of a certain Cornelius Mathews, who writes pamphlets and delivers lectures in New York on the subject of an international copyright law.

We must suppose the gentleman's intentions to be honourable and creditable, but such is the complex involution of his style-such the headlong impetuosity with which tropes, figures, and metaphors run down, jostle, and overturn each other, that we have puzzled ourselves in vain to detect his meaning or the gist of his argument. Giants, elephants, "tiger mothers," and curricles, angels, frigates, baronial castles and fish-ponds "dance through his writings in all the mazes of metaphorical confusion ;" and however desirous we may feel, that a law of copy

right might protect British authors from American piracy-as one of the craft we boldly say, "non defensoribus istis! non tali auxilio !"

Let the question be put forward manfully and intelligibly; let it not be a piece of Indian jugglery performed by Cornelius Mathews, but the plain and simple acknowledgment, that literary property is property, and as such has its rights, sacred and inviolate. That the great argument in favour of an act of mere honesty should be the "convenience" of it, savours too strongly of America for us; and as to the immense results that are to follow from English authors imbibing more exalted notions of liberty, "writing, as they will do, up to the American standard! and then disseminating these notions at home." If we could only once believe that such a catastrophe were in store for us, and that British writers should pander to the coarse tastes of a coarse people for profit or applause, we frankly say, we had rather be robbed any day than see such a disgrace inflicted on our lite

rature.

Lord Eliot complimented him! However, the ministerial notions of ability and temperateness on Irish questions are, it must be owned, not at all easy to be understood; for the secretary of state for the home department, after several nights' consideration of the subject, told the house, that "he was bound to say, that the speech in which the honourable member for Limerick had introduced his motion, was a speech of great ability, and also very dispassionate in tone; but, at the same time, he must say, that the honourable member had selected his principal arguments from the armoury of the Repeal Association, and his object seemed to be much more repeal than inquiry.”

This was no very indirect compliment to the Repeal Association itself; and I trust that that worshipful and multitudinous society will be sensible of the honour done it by the secretary of state for the home department, and take it as a compensation for the somewhat different view of its merits taken by the Duke of Wellington and the Lord High Chancellor of England. The Lord Chancellor tells the House of Lords that he regards the Repeal Association as a formidable and a foul conspiracy, and he calls Mr. O'Connell the leader or captain of that conspiracy; and the Duke of Wellington described it as a conspiracy of the streets, which had indeed no secret, but trusted to the effects of terror and violence. To eyes and ears unacquainted with the curious freemasonry of cabinet discussions and agreements, there might seem some serious difference between the views concerning the Repeal Association which are indicated by Sir James Graham, and those which are expressed by the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst. However, Lord Stanley asserts most emphatically, that the cabinet is perfectly united in regard to Irish matters, and assuredly he must know best.

There is however some reason to suppose, that Sir James Graham, who is not, or has not hitherto shown himself, either by nature or by habit, a particularly bland and complimentary person as a parliamentary disputant, has in this Irish discussion some peculiar reason for his extraordinary and unwonted oiliness. It is whispered here, that having been induced by much re

flection upon the difficulties of Irish government to conclude that the Irish are mad, he made up his mind to treat them upon the soothing system, and to appear unconscious of any thing wrong or reprehensible in their conduct. Thus, in respect to Mr. O'Connell, who is daily in the habit of complimenting Sir James as "the great liar," "the man of many lies,” &c., &c., the right honourable baronet was pleased in his speech on Irish grievances, to class him with Burke, Plunkett, Sheridan, and Canning, and to assert that one and all of them, including, of course, Mr. O'Connell," would go down to history among the brightest ornaments of the House of Commons." This was pretty well, if the right honourable gentleman was in earnest; and certainly, if solemnity, and almost sadness of manner, be any test of earnestness, the right honourable baronet meant distinctly what he said. There was another Irish hero whom he exalted to the skies on the same occasion, namely, Mr. More O'Ferral, member for Kildare. It is remarkable that the Whigs, instead of making this gentleman a prime minister, or at the least a secretary of state, made him only Secretary of the Admiralty. They could not have known what Sir James Graham has told them, that he was a gentleman of calm demeanour, spotless honour, and high learning. They little expected, probably, to hear a Conservative 'secretary of state for the home department proclaiming to the House of Commons and to the world, that he might, without flattery to the honourable member for Kildare, say that his general demeanour, and the efficient manner in which he discharged his duties while he filled an office under the government, proved the propriety of entrusting Catholic gentlemen with large and ample executive powers! There was something more of the same kind, but this is enough for a specimen of Sir James Graham's exercises in the "soothing system:" in Ireland I think we would call it the sluthering system; but what's in a

name?

There was this remarkable feature in the Irish grievance debate, that while for the first two nights it was held to be insufferably dull, stupid, irritating, and unprofitable, and Sir Robert Peel was censured right and

He

left for not rising up in reasonable wrath to put an end to such waste of time and words, it became subsequently interesting, and finally made a great impression, though not at all of the kind which the mover of the question, or any one else, in or out of the house, could have anticipated. What it showed eventually was, that strange opinions were fermenting in the brains of ministerial members, and that the icy links of "duty to your leader," by which the present premier seeks to keep his forces under command, had in a good many cases snapped asunder. It is impossible to give any credit for good sense, or sound English feeling, to some of the gentlemen who broke away from the ministerial moorings on this occasion. But one may give them credit for candour and indepen dence. They talked much nonsense about the benefits to be derived from petting popery, and being munificent to Maynooth, but it must be allowed that they spoke with some warmth of feeling, and genuineness of purpose. It is the premier's fault that he has not these men still on his side. might direct their ardour if he would sympathise with it, but he will not sympathise with any one's ardour. He will endeavour to accommodate himself to gentlemen opposite, and concede to them if they press him, but he will make no allowance at all for those on his own side. His voice is to be their oracle, though it be any thing but kind. His nod is to be their leading sign, though it be more in anger than in friendship. He will allow nothing for any peculiar feeling which they may have cherished. If they want indulgence from him, they must join "the gentlemen opposite." It is not surprising that under these circumstances, when the house is tossing in a sea of strange opinions, and all the old landmarks of political attachments and antipathies are abandoned by the minister, he should find that some of his followers are leaving him. The debate does not appear to have done a particle of good towards determining a more hopeful course of legislation and government for Ireland; but it has, according to all present appearances, decidedly damaged the ministry. Their majority has been a good deal smaller than usual, and the prestige of their strength and union, as a parliamentary party,

has been very considerably shattered. The Whigs begin once more to think of the possibilities of regaining office.

But were the matter not so very serious, it would be very diverting to behold these new-light Tory lovers of Ireland and of Romanism, sporting their feelings and their patriotism in the House of Commons. How utterly ignorant they are of the real state of affairs in Ireland! The fact is, they have become enamoured of the poetry of popery-its works of mercy and kindness, its self-denials, its watchings, and fastings, its elaborate discipline, and its ceremonies. Their fancy colours all these things with the brightest hues; and what their fancy pictures as popery in the abstract, they argue about as the popery of Ireland. They know nothing of all the cunning and the coarseness, the juggling tradesmanship and political bigotry, with which the practical popery of Ireland is mixed up. Were they to read this, they would set the writer down as a Protestant bigot, who hates his Roman Catholic brethren because they are Roman Catholics. There again they know nothing about the practical truth as it is in Ireland. They do not know that we live upon the best of terms with our Roman Catholic friends, though we totally disbelieve that their religion is what it ought to be, or that there are not serious political and social evils connected with it. They do not know that we buy with them, sell with them, eat, drink, and make merry with them, and enjoy the comfort of pious resignation, or the joy of pious gratitude in common with them, though we do not join in their religious ceremonies, nor they in ours. They do not know that it is not only possible, but accords with practical every-day experience, that Protestants and Romanists, even in Ireland, live in kindness together, and would live in more if prosperity gave them the means, though the Romanist (if pushed to it) must admit the theory that his Protestant friend is a heretic, and must roast for a long time in purgatory at all events, if not in a worse place; and the Protestant firmly holds that the religion in which his friend believes is full of superstitions, and its ecclesiastics, for the most part, exceedingly unsound and dangerous in their ideas of political duty. Undoubtedly, the

kingdom of Ireland may get on extremely well, though not one jot more of political concession is made to popery; and a friendly intercourse and a thriving trade might subsist among the Irish, though no more money be given to Maynooth. It is very possible to treat the religion of the mass of the Irish people with decent respect, and yet not to rush into the extravagance of placing their religion in such a position as regards the state, that the political constitution of the British sovereignty would be violated, and the political independence, which belongs essentially to Protestantism, would be weakened or overthrown.

Notwithstanding the immense length of the grievance debate in the Coinmons, there was really very little said which relates to the practical matters that form part and parcel of the everyday condition of the people. It was not Mr. Smith O'Brien's decorous parade of arguments "selected from the armoury of the Repeal Association," or Mr. Roebuck's fiery tirade about the Irish Church Establishment which really hit the point so well as Mr. Bateson's earnest remonstrance against the evils of absentee landlords, or Mr. Emerson Tennent's remark upon the little which politics really and practically had to do with the matters which ought to be set right in Ireland.

"Of all the ills that human hearts endure

How few that laws or kings can cause or cure."

This, however, is a truth which the orators and agitators never will allow. The patriotism which manifests itself in speech-making and self-glorification is alone that to which they will give themselves the trouble to attend. I should be sorry to undervalue the benefits of good political government and impartial laws, or to deny to the eloquence and energy of the political patriot their just meed of praise; the perpetual trader in affairs of state and legislation-the political empiricthe man who is continually carrying away the attention of those who will listen to him from their practical affairs to his grand general schemes of political amelioration-the agitatorthe grievance monger-such a man is

but

a great evil, and no real friend to the people, whatever he may pretend to be. If any good is to arise out of the tedious, spiritless, and unfeeling speeches about grievances which have of late so much occupied the House of Commons, it will be in the re-action. There may be some hope that the good sense of the public will be sickened with so much useless palaver, and will recoil into a determination to be no longer pestered with such stuff, but to take into consideration the practical wants of the people. Let the House of Commons appoint a committee and examine not this agitator, and that gentleman who are one and all of them seeking to promote their own power and renown as politicians, but let them send for Paddy this, and Denis that, and Larry the other thing, and ask these men fairly and plainly what it is that makes them thrive, and what it is that hampers and distresses them. The legislature, if it will do its duty, and the government, if it will be what it ought to be-a protection to the weak, and a refuge for the helpless, and an antagonist of the strong and sturdy political vagabond-must cast aside the rant and nonsense of agitators, whether in parliament or out of it, and must try to learn from the people themselves what are their real grievances, and what would do them good. No general truth is more true than that the Irish common people, with all their eccentricities and faults, are an intelligent and a grateful people. I am much mistaken if they would not uphold even a Protestant government, and a government resolved to maintain unviolated the legislative union, provided they were made practically certain that the queen's ministers earnestly cared for them, and were really anxious that they should live in comfort. What is most wanting in all governments, but especially in Irish government, is affectionateness and parental solicitude for the people. Our mixture of democratic principles in the government is unfavourable to this, and of late the insane deference of statesmen to the heartless dogmas of the Whig political economy school is still more so; but if it were a constant, ever-living principle of the government to show kindness to the people, not by yielding to the suggestions of political bullies, or impostors, or fools, but by doing that