The Spectator has a long article, all about itself and
Lord Durham.
* There is only one sentence in the Spectator's long self-repe- tition that contains the slightest novelty : and that novelty is an un- truth. It says that we have attacked Lord 1)urhani. We have done no such thing. NV° have thfent/a/ him from champions like the West- minster clique and the Spectator.—Globe, Dec. 17.
, [The admission in the first part of this extract is enough. True to its Ministerial vocation of stating or insinuating falsehoods, of which the disproofs are uniformly suppressed, the Globe produced what we quoted last week, and which gave rise to our restatement a/' jitcts. The Globe now pronounces that restatement a "self-repetition," and without "novelty." Exactly : in other words, the Globe lied last week, and now confesses it.
What we particularly alluded to as a breach of the abstinence boasted of in the Globe of the 10th, was such "defending" as the following, which we copy Italics and all from the Globe of the 8th— Neither Lord Durham, nor those about him, ought to forget that, with the excep• tian ■4' our net which was annulled on legal advice, as illegal, Lord Durham's good intrutions, :11111 the. credit iti't eil for those intentions, are absolutely all his Lordship has to stator upon. This is not a footing that will bear the weight of premature triumph ; anti although we have perseveringly defended Lord Durham against unjust attacks, we noist own that Millie of his recent appearances, and the still more indiscreet style of such a champion as Sir W. Molosworth, have given a rude shock to our hopes of seeing the statesman—assailed by factiotc—hituse/f superior to factions feelings and factious hopes. We shall deeply regret if the sequel verities these Its las ourahle prognostic,. It is in the power of any eminent man, considered ill-treated, to command a generous
• welcome trout Hilt to make a political engine of such a Weleitrae in the
present circumstances is, we assure Lord Durham, to make a 'Weida'. a mistake he W 1101 he long in discovering.
" lord Durham, as Si,' have sad, stands simply at present upon hit good intentions. I lit demeanour amongst the col llll ists induced them 10 hope that his Lordship would initiate measures corresponding to those intentions. Ili- character with his eountry• men leads them to think that lie would hare done so. Lord Durham, however, liad dnu nothing—vrodureil no one °Ibis plans of improvenimit. That he was d ,;ng much. We willingly believe—oli his word tar it. But, as yet, he had submitted it,,thing colonial or home approval. Surely, then, Lord Durham is taking credit in a style not consistent with nuifest self-knowledge in any matt conscious or ordinary human tlilli • inlay, when he assumes the merit of all that he intewfrl to II", as a matter of course; though that merit must have depended on the practical fitness awl reception of his un- ploduced measures aniongst those they concerned. Ari,u.seut, we only know thud Lord Durham intended to legislate on the SIINITts treated or largely in succession by Cana- dian Committees and Commissioners; anti that a plan of federa • had been. or was. in his contemplation, similar to that whiell on a smaller scale :sir Charles Grey had proposed as a Canada Commissioner. This is all, and fireman all the basis of present triumph—unless we are to :aid, what Sir William Molesworth insists upon, that Lord Durham hits had ' the molly courage' to come home to England, and hear and an- swer addresses of congratulation at Plymouth and Exeter, instead of hastening to cont. n lllll ivate in the proper quarters the information Sir William NiVieSWOrth states he had hastened to bring."
If we have erred in placing this to the debit of an attaching animus, it is right that the Globe should have that credit for thjimding, which we hereby tender him.]
Previous page
