"LORD DURHAM AND THE REFORMERS."
THE New Year's number of Tait's Magazine contains, under this title, an article which demands notice, partly on its own account,
and partly by reason of the reflections which it suggests.
What the aim of the writer is, it would be difficult to say. Not that he wants earnestness, or uses words of doubtful meaning ; but his avowed object is pursued in the manner best of all calculated to insure disappointment. His workmanship reminds one of that animal which dies of tearing its own throat by swimming for its life. Lord DURHAM is invited to " demonstrate' as a Reformer-. to " tell us what he will do for us"—to " take his stand among ow leaders"—to " cordially cooperate with the other Reform leaden" —to " make manly and magnanimous sacrifices of small objects, and unite for the energetic promotion of the common cause." Sad is the declared and only purpose of the whole article. Now for the mode of invitation. Lord DURHAM is asked to throw himself " frankly on the rational Reformers ; "—and is then told, that be is a " vainglorious personage ;" that he must " confess his errors that he must " refrain from injudiciously vindicating his Canadian policy ;" that he " gained a great reputation on the small capital of thiee speeches ; ' that he has " wofully deceived e' " but if he expresses regret and penitence, he will be forgiven, and restored, and taken back at his real value." He is next asked, " upon what terms he will negotiate, and take his stand with or under" (amongst others) " the LEADERS, ROEBUCKS, ATTWOODS, HARVEY'S, WAR. LEYS;" and finally, whether " he is not likely to be more a hin. drance than a help." Would any man, however the reverse of " vainglorious," respond to any call so made ? Love would as soon be given to an arrogant and insolent suitor, who should try to per. suede with a cudgel. This writer in Tait is a droll sort of ra• tional Reformer."
Putting manner aside, however, let us now examine the sub- stance of this proposal. A bargain is proposed : Lord DURHAM is asked "on what terms he will negotiate." With a view to leader- ship, he is to give as well as take : there is to be a contract between him and—whom ? The question shows the utter impracticability of our "rational " Reformer's scheme. The individual might engage for himself', but who is to answer for the other party ? The other party would consist of the People, who never did and never can enter into a bargain of this sort. Leadership, even of a mere party, is never obtained by negotiation between the leader and the followers ; but is ever the result—and must be so more especially when it is the People who elect a leader—of confidence founded . on evidence of the fitting qualities. We intend to notice this subject more fully next week—and with reference to Lord Deanam's position and character. Meanwhile it may be re- marked, that Tait's object savours less of the rationale of popular leadership, than of the spirit in which the leaders of mere par- ties strike selfish bargains, and enter into disgraceful coali- tions. Lord DURHAM is required to abstain from defending his Canadian policy, and even to forfeit the repeated pledges by which he has engaged to make the settlement of Canadian affairs his first business : and he is assured that, in return, he shall "not be pressed hard" on certain questions, including " even the Corn-laws." The merest Whig or Tory could not have made a more unworthy pro- posal for mere party purposes. And then, Lord DURHAM is not to be pressed hard on the Corn-law question—that question as to which he has long been thoroughly and notoriously with the People! Enough of this ; but we have a word to say on our own account. Tait ventures a sneer at "the re-Durhamizing journals :" and this after we had reduced the MELBOURNE Globe to silence on that topic. We have never flattered Lord DURHAM; never recalled a word of censure on the unhappy Bowany Letter, (of which the latest evil consequence to Lord Deimuu is the present resentment of Tait, still smarting under the disappointment which that letter occasioned to all sincere Reformers) : and our present support of him is so "qualified and conditional" (how often must we repeat this ?) as scarcely to deserve the name. We wish that Tait would be as consistent as we have been. He forgets himself. He, who now places Lord DURHAM "under the HARVEYS, WAKLEYS," &c. not to mention the "small capital of three speeches," &c. ex- claimed in July 1837, in allusion to the family motto of the LAMB.. TONS—" Lord Durham's day has come."* We replied on the in- stant in these words- " Le jour viendra.' Honest William Tait, in the seventh heaven of de- lightful anticipation, says that Lord Durham's day has come. Alas for Mr. Trait's disappointment Read Lord John Russell's address to the Stroud elec- tors; remember his declaration on Friday last that the Reform Act is a ' final measure ; ' hear the Whigs talk ; look at their newspapers; and then try to , believe that any thing better than the juste milieu, winch Lord Stanley ap- proves of, is in store for the Reformers. No-41e jour viendra,' but it is not come yet, and Lord Durham must bide his time. When he comes again into the Government, it must be with power and honour—with the means of advancing his principles—and not merely to lend the prestige of a popular nom to Wing
uses in the popular constituencies."t •
The llowLny Letter followed. That explains honest WILLIAM v 'f Alt's present feelings ; and, by doing so, it further accounts for his inconsistency in estimating the character of a public man. But in no degree does it justify one so very inconsistent, in imputing inconsistency to others, who have carefully avoided that common ' product of ungoverned feelings.
Previous page
