Whiggism and the reverse of Toryism. This has been followed by its natural consequences. Our policy has been greatly changed -some of our most important laws and systems have been changed some of the leading relations and regulations of society have been changed-certain of the habits and feelings of the nation have been changed-and other changes are in preparation, which must affect most seriously almost everything in the country that we have been accustomed to worship.

If we had been the menials, and not the independent friends of the Ministers-if we had been believers in Toryism merely because it was the creed of Lord Liverpool or Mr Canning-we should perhaps have changed with them. But we were not. We followed them only because we followed their principleswe supported the creed and not the men. They did not give us our faith, and it was not for them to take it away. We saw them leave us with pain and grief, but we went not after them; we still kept in the path of our fathers.

If the Ministry had only changed its opinions on speculative points, we should not perhaps have opposed, if we could not have supported it. But, alas! to reverse the relations between master and servant-to carry the trade of a nation like this from one system to another-to prejudice the people against monarchy and in favour of republicanism-and to make changes in the laws which materially alter the balance of our interests and bodies, and reach, to injure, every man's purse and breadloaf, are not matters of mere abstract opinion. The changes of the Ministry have had the most sweeping practical operation; they have destroyed some of our most valuable laws and systems; they have altered the circumstances and shape of society; they are hostile to the old and true principles of the country; and they are pregnant with mighty evils. This is our conscientious conviction, and therefore we have opposed them.

Moreover, we cannot shut our eyes to the truth of history; we cannot ascribe to the experiments of the ministry, that prosperity which the kingdom at present enjoys, and which, in the exultation of the moment, all parties so readily ascribe to these experiments; for we can distinctly trace its root and ramifications to the laws and principles of the old system-the system of the fathers and founders of our liberties, our strength, and

our dominion. Nay, more-Was is not in the fruits of that old system, that the ministry found the means by which they have been enabled to make their speculative changes, and to persuade Parliament to adopt their theoretical improvements? What proof, indeed, have we yet received, that these changes have done England any good? Was it not under the old commercial regulations that the overflowing of the revenue arose, by which the reductions were enabled to be made in those particular taxes that restricted the importation, and of course the consumption of the products of foreign and alien ingenuity? Is it not a problem which the evidence of facts is still required to determine, whether it would not have been better to have allowed the restrictions to continue on foreign commodities, and to have confined the reduction of taxation to the burdens which repress the growth of our own existing national and colonial industry?—We are not here touching any doctrine of political economy, much as we are disposed to question some of the axioms of the science. We are only contending, that while the world consists of separate communities and different nations, it is the duty of the respective governments of each to regard exclusively their own interests. Formerly, when boons were granted to foreign countries, to encourage them to trade with England, it was the custom to obtain some equivalent benefit in return; but now, since our policy has become libertine, we are exerting all the means of legislation to bring the products of foreign artizans into competition with those of our own operatives, not in the general market of the world, but in the very shops and huxteries of our remotest towns and villages. England is forgotten in the cheers which the ministry are receiving from alien commercial interests; and the surplus revenue derived from the ancient precautions of the wisdom of experience, is converted, by this new anti-national system, into boons and bounties, which will have the effect of raising competitors in trade and manufactures, by whom the profits of our own capitalists will be reduced to fractions, and the earnings and employment of our own people impoverished and curtailed.

If there had been an efficient Opposition to have examined these changes, we should perhaps have been silent but there was not. If we could not have opposed them without assisting

the Whigs to obtain the reins of government, we certainly should not have written a line against them. We assuredly would have them rather than a Whig Ministry. Such a Ministry, when Whiggism is what it is in persons and principles, would be the greatest curse that could visit the country. The Whigs, however, were even more firmly pledged to the change than the Ministers; and, of course, our opposition was as much directed against the former as the latter. We have not, by this opposition, contaminated ourselves with Whig alliance; we have not disgraced ourselves by warring for Whig benefit; we have fought for the good of our country ONLY, in company with the most honourable and upright of our countrymen.

The Ministry, however, by its change, placed us in a most painful and embarrassing situation. It naturally carried along with it all its own prints, and many of its friends. Its new principles and measures were cried up by the Opposition, and, as it seemed, by the greater part of the nation. To oppose these we had to oppose men whom we had long, and whom we still, venerated; we had to oppose both the Ministry and the Opposition, a united Parliament, a united Press, and, to a very great extent, public opinion. We had no party in the field to head and support us. Personal profit and honour seemed to lie entirely on the side of change, and there appeared to be much to lose in fidelity and consistency. Nothing but the commands of conscience could have engaged us in such a contest. We had but one course before us as honest men, and this we took, regardless of consequences; we looked neither to the right hand nor the left, but stood forward to defend the principles and laws under which our country had become free, great, and happy, without inquiring the names, description, and numbers of their enemies. We knew the hearts of our countrymen; we thought that our motives could not be suspected; we felt assured that every one would see that we were drawing upon ourselves the displeasure of all who could administer to our personal interest and ambition, and would therefore bear with us if they thought us in error, on the score of our integrity. We have not been mistaken. A regularly and greatly increasing circulation attests that our conduct has lost us no friends, and that we have had credit given us for honesty, if not for wisdom.

It may be that the Ministry is right, and that all these changes are wise and necessary, but we cannot discover it. The more accurately we examine, the more firmly we are convinced of the truth of our own opinions. Time has brought no refutation to us, whatever it may have done to those from whom we differ; in so far as experiment has gone, we may point to it in triumph in confirmation of our principles and predictions. If at the last we be proved to be in error, we shall at least have the consolation of knowing that we have not erred from apostacy; that we have not erred in broaching new doctrines and schemes, and supporting innovation and subversion; that we have not erred in company with the infidel and revolutionist, with the enemies of God and man. We shall have the consolation of knowing that we have erred in following the parents of England's greatness; in defending that under which we have become the first of nations, and in protecting the fairest fabric that ever was raised under the face of heaven to dispense freedom and happiness to our species. Our error will bring us no infamy, and it will sit lightly on our ashes when we shall be no more. We will persevere in our present path; we will follow no party We revere many of the Ministers, we ever shall revere them, and whenever we can do it conscientiously we will support them. We will, however, oppose them firmly whenever duty may command us. We venture to hope that such of our readers as may not always think with us, will bear with us on the score of that latitude of opinion which is the Englishman's birth-right, and that they will pardon our errors in consideration of our intentions.

one.

If we have good reason to congratulate ourselves on our political career, so can we look back with at least equal pleasure on our achievements in criticism and literature.

Before we appeared, the art of criticism was indeed a truly miserable concern. The critic looked upon the poet as his prey. The two were always at daggers-drawing. The insolence of reviewers had reached its acme, and absolutely stunk in the nostrils of the Public. Yet still there was a power in the rancid breath to taint, if not to wither. Men of genius were insulted by tenth-rate scribblers, without head or heart; and all conversational criticism was pitched on the same key with that of the VOL. XIX.

d

wretched reviews. We put an end to this in six months. A warm, enthusiastic, imaginative, and, at the same time, philosophical spirit, breathed through every article. Authors felt that they were understood and appreciated, and readers were delighted to have their own uncorrupted feelings authorized and sanctioned. In another year the whole periodical criticism of Britain underwent a revolution. Principles were laid down and applied to passages from our great living poets. People were encouraged to indulge their emotions, that they might be brought to know their nature. That long icy chill was shook off their fancies and imaginations; and here, too, in Criticism as in Politics, they began to feel, think, and speak, like free men. The authority of the Pragmatic Faction was annihilated, and no Zany-Zoilus in the Blue and Yellow could any longer outcrow the reading Public. A long, prosing leading article in the Edinburgh, abusing Wordsworth, looked ineffably silly beside one splendid panegyrical paragraph in Maga on the Great Laker; the evaporated soda-water of wishy-washy witlings would not go down after the still or sparkling Champaigne of old George Buchanan. A deposed Critic-king is a most deplorable subject. His temples are most absurd without their crown, and having lost his sceptre, he is forced to hide his hands in his breeches pocket. So fared it with many an anointed head. Their thunder would no longer sour even small beer. Sneers saluted them as they skulked along, and the merest versifiers mustered up courage and trod upon their kibes. Periodicals, that, a few years ago, with fear of change perplexed monarchs, have since been known to apologise to boardingschool misses. This universal dethronement we accomplished, and there is once more a Republic of Letters.

The world has acknowledged that the appearance of our Magazine was indeed an era in the history of criticism. For some months, indeed, here too we were assailed by the most frantic falsehoods. Dunces whom we had most mercifully knocked on the head, or rather killed in a moment by scientifically putting the well-sharpened point of our pen into their spinal marrow, were buried by their friends with all the pomp of martyrs. Their blood, it was said, would lie heavy on our heads-ay, heavy as their works on our shelves. And the Sanctum, within No. 17,