限

should agree in all main questions, and these may not exist still; it ceases to believe in statesmen find it impossible to do so. assurances; it suspects every one, and misOr, thirdly, the country must put up with trusts and is bewildered by a code of politia greater evil still-that of having its affairs cal morality, in which everything depends conducted by men who can give and take, upon degree. All this may be quite unreacan compromise and yield, can agree with sonable, but it is not unaccountable; the any colleagues, and sit in any cabinet, pre-public is not philosophic, nor always discisely because they have no earnest convic- cerning or discriminating; it is a grievous tions at all. For it is obvious at once, that thing when the confidence of the country in just in proportion to the depth and sincerity the character of its statesmen is shaken ; of a statesman's opinions will be his diffi-and that it has been thus shaken to its very culty of surrender or of compromise. And core by recent occurrences no one can deny. if the nation requires that it shall be gov

erned by fifteen or twenty men who think Such then being the mischiefs which result earnestly, and yet must think alike, it is an from this supposed necessity for cabinet Egyptian task-master, and requires the in-union, viz., frequent and injurious ministecompatible and the impossible.

rial changes, transference of power to infeBut another evil, and one perhaps more rior statesmen, damage done to the policy serious than any we have named, arises of superior ones, bewilderment of the naalmost inevitably from the collision between tional conscience, and destruction or disthe actual facts and the theoretical morality turbance of public confidence in the great of political life. If the affairs of the coun- and powerful, it may be worth while to try are to be conducted with any efficiency, consider whether this necessity is real or if it is not to be exposed to ministerial imaginary, and whether the unity of action, crises at the most perilous conjunctures, if or at least of opinion, for which we pay so cabinets are to have any stability or endur-high a price, is worth that price, or, indeed, ance at all, men who differ on very import- is attainable at any price. ant points must often continue to sit in the same cabinet, and must compromise or suppress their differences. Then comes exposure, and public confidence receives a rude and fatal shock. Men of the highest eminence, politicians of the purest honour, are discovered to have been sitting and acting for months with colleagues with whom they essentially disagreed, but by a majority of whom they were overruled. It is remembered that they have defended these colleagues even where they dissented from them; that they have acquiesced in courses as to the wisdom and propriety of which they had long entertained the most serious misgivings, and stood gallantly by associates whom in private they were endeavouring to oust or to dissuade. When discovery comes, or often before, ministers secede, and the language they then hold and the extreme opposition into which they speedily run, convey the strongest impression as to the extent of the divergences they had long suppressed, and even formally or impliedly denied. The nation does not split hairs, nor take much account of explanations, however ingenious or sound. It is told-and justly, granting the constitutional theory of cabinet unity that these things must be; but to its broad instinctive moral sense they savour of insincerity; it remembers that all the time these suppressed internal dissensions existed, it was assured, in stereotype phrase, that the Government felt and acted as one man;" it asks why the same state of things

And, first, we may observe in passing, that it is by no means of such old date as is supposed. Formerly, our sovereign consulted or directed each Minister on matters in his own departments. Cabinet Councils, as we see them, were unknown in earlier days. Even as late as the middle of the last century—a time certainly not as a whole to be drawn into a precedent-the greatest and most avowed divergencies existed in the Government, which yet held together with considerable coherence. Pelham's own Paymaster spoke against his estimates. His own Secretary-at-War spoke against his Regency Bill. In 1754, Newcastle was Prime Minister, and made Sir Thomas Robinson Secretary of State and leader of the House of Commons. Legge was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Pitt Paymaster of the Forces, and Fox Secretary-at-War. "In November," says Macaulay, "Parlia ment met, and, before the end of that month, the new Secretary of State had been so unmercifully baited by the Paymaster and the Secretary-at-War, that he was thoroughly sick of his situation. Fox attacked him with great force and acrimony. Pitt affected a kind of contemptuous tenderness for Sir Thomas, and directed his attack principally against Newcastle. Legge, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, refused to sign the Treasury warrants necessary to give effect to the treaties negotiated by the First Lord." Not a seemly spectacle this, but curious, and indicative of different conceptions of Goy

ernment unity from those which prevail in our day. Lord Chatham took his own way when Minister, without troubling himself much about the proceedings or opinions of his colleagues. His son, the second Pitt, secured harmony by doing all the thinking of the Cabinet himself. This, as we have already pointed out, can be the case no longer. Ministers are expected and choose to examine and consider for themselves, not only on their own branch of administration, but on those of their colleagues likewise. Now, it needs no proof that fifteen or twenty men who think for themselves cannot think alike on half the important questions that come before them, unless those questions involve clear principles, and are of a nature to test character. The real agreement aimed at is therefore unattainable. We attain it only in a most imperfect degree, and by a most costly process.

of retaining one desirable and indispensable man. Further, we should bring our theory more into harmony with our practice; and, in doing so, we should trench upon no really extant prerogative of any constitutional power. The Crown nominally now ap points its Ministers-the Parliament really designates them. Why should we compel either the legal or the actual authority to select them in the lump? We think it no strange or unwarrantable liberty in the House of Commons to say, "We will commit the Government to such or such a party." Why should we deem it stranger or more inadmissible to say, "We will commit this or that special department to this or that qualified individual?" We shall be told that, under such a system, the power and action of the Government, as a Government, would be at an end. In speaking thus, are we not mystifying ourselves with words, and dwelling in unmeaning forms? Would not the Foreign Policy of the Government be that of Lord Clarendon, and the Financial Policy of the Government that of Mr. Glad stone, backed by a majority of the two Houses? And is it really anything but this now, only this impaired, imperilled, and uns vowed?

"Of what use would Cabinets be, (it is asked,) if this supposed unison were avowedly dispensed with?" We reply that their actual, as distinguished from their fancied, value would remain as now. They would be secret conclaves for consultation. Each Minister would have the benefit of his colleague's advice; his ideas and his policy would be cleared, mended, and tested by discussion with some of the ablest men in On a matter so new as that which we the kingdom; while they would escape the have here broached, we abstain from giving" wounds and injury they now often sustain a decided opinion. We merely desire to by forcible modifications. The good influ- lay it before the public for discussion, satis ence of the Cabinet upon them would re-fied that, when it has once been fully argued, main, though its bad influence would be there will be no great difficulty in arriving eliminated. Moreover, men of sensitive at a sound conclusion, nor in carrying out conscience would not be tortured, as they that conclusion, when once adopted, into ac now are, by having to support special meas- tual life. ures which they secretly disapprove, and men of lofty reputation would not be damaged by having this apparent insincerity brought to light. Statesmen would have the unspeakable comfort of being able to say openly what they thought, and the public would have the trustful repose of being able to believe implicitly what statesmen

said.

The change we are contemplating would have another advantage: It would facilitate a suitable distribution of Ministerial

ART. VII.-1. The Newcomes. Memoirs of a most respectable Family. Edited by ARTHUR PENDENNIS, Esq. London, 18545. The Life of Henry Fielding, with Notices of his Writings, his Times, and Conte poraries. By FREDERICK LAWRENCE. London, 1855.

2.

places; it would make it much more possi-LET us set out by entering our protest against ble than it is now to put and keep each the ignorance or hypocrisy which is at the statesman in the department which he understands. We should not as now, in order to get a tolerably good set of Ministers on the whole, have to leave them to allot offices in utter disregard of individual qualifications. We should not have to discard an entire good Ministry in order to get rid of one objectionable Member-we should not have to tolerate an entire bad Ministry for the sake

base of the main complaint brought against Mr. Thackeray, by some who have not been indisposed to concede to him the possession of the most brilliant abilities. There has been a loud cry raised, (and in the name of religion too!) that this writer represents men and women as worse than they are; that the majority of his dramatis persona are mean, or malicious, or stupid, or vain, or

week-days for making out many of us to be somewhat less than saints? The plain fact is, that Mr. Thackeray is decried for exactly that quality which constitutes his originality, namely, his faithfulness to some important point, or points of truth, hitherto denied or disregarded. We are all, nominally, orthodox on the point of human imperfection in the abstract, but now that Mr. Thackeray insists on proving in detail, that there is really some substantial verity in the charge, he meets with a most heretical roar of disapprobation. He is the Athanasius of the doctrine of human peccability.

have two or more of those and other disqua-
lifications together; that absolutely admira-
ble characters are not to be discovered in
his social world; that his very good people
are few and far between; and that his amia-
ble persons are sometimes stupid, at least
to a degree that would prevent their shining
at a London dinner party. Does not the
accusation, put plainly, confute itself, and
turn to the credit of the accused for clear-
sightedness? For our parts, we should
rather be disposed to charge Mr. Thackeray
with the opposite error, were we not con-
vinced that a novelist who should represent
the world with its average amount of malice, This subject, the further it is examined,
stupidity, meanness, and vanity, would be brings the greater credit to our client.
absolutely unreadable. Let the reader take Other writers have represented the world in
a glance, first over the score or so of por- as evil a light, but few have done the work
traits in the "Newcomes," and then over the with such conscience-convicting truth. Mr.
score or so of his own acquaintance-includ- Thackeray makes a third with Shakespeare
ing, of course, himself, and let him candidly and Fielding in this, that all his discreditable
say whether, the numbers pre-supposed characters have an unhappy trick of claim-
equal, he knows as many worthy people as ing kindred with us. Without desiring to
Mr. Pendennis, in his editorial capacity, pre- undervalue the great ability of Mr. Dickens,
tends to depict. Of course, we are assum- it must be allowed, for example, that his
ing, though this is, perhaps, unfair, that our bad people have the unreal though conveni-
reader knows his own friends and himself as ent quality of self-isolation from the tolerable
he is allowed to become acquainted with part of humanity-to which, of course, every
that 66
most respectable family," the New-reader belongs. We cut them with a perfect
comes, and those who are associated with it. conscience; we cannot even exchange a nod
This, however, being premised, we certainly with such unmistakably disreputable per-
should judge him happy, if among his pecu- sons. But the three writers above mention-
liar score, he can find matches for the great- ed are more profound in their ethnology.
minded gentleman, Colonel Newcome; the They display to the conscience of the "most
high and sweet lady, the Countess of Florac; respectable persons," the links by which
the(considering the disadvantages of her bring- they are more than blood-relatives of the
ing up) remarkably right-minded Miss Ethel; most unknowable scoundrels. Again, the
the frank and 'honourable boy Clive; the good people of Mr. Thackeray's writings
honest and independent, and withal amiable, are apt to displease us, strange as this may
Miss Honeyman; the immaculate matron seem, for the very same reason. The heroes
Mrs. Laura; the unpretentious wife-and- and heroines of less veracious writers per-
home-loving member of parliament, her hus-mit themselves to be admired at a distance,
band; the meek man of genius, J. J., not to
speak of others of less significant, or a more
mixed quality, as F. Bayham, Sherrick,
George Barnes, Lady Walham, De Florac,
Lord Kew, Miss Cann, and half-a-dozen
others, who are "all right at heart," as the
cant and very questionable phrase goes.
Against this galaxy of excellence, what have
we of the utterly abominable to put in the
scale? Only Barnes Newcome, Mrs. Mack-
enzie, Mrs. Hobson Newcome, and Lady
Kew, all of whom, except the last, let it be
allowed, (for it is true,) are extremely com-
mon characters, though we have not, com-
monly, the means of becoming so thorough-
ly and philosophically acquainted with them
as in these instances. Why do we go on call-
ing ourselves "miserable sinners" on Sun-
days, if we are to abuse Mr. Thackeray on

and without insisting that we shall be like them, for the very sufficient reason that this is impossible. But Mr. Thackeray's good people affront us with a display of our own possibilities. If we are not as good as they are, we ought to be, and we know it; and we are obliged to blush at meanness, malice, vanity, and folly, which others, so clearly sharing the same humanity with ourselves, have abandoned, or refused to take up with. Furthermore, between perfect heroes and heroines, and imperfect readers, the distance is not measurable; and, as all mathemati cians know, the relations between infinity and zero are remarkable, and by beginners in algebra these entities (or nonentities) are apt to be confounded. But between imperfect readers and much less imperfect Colonels Newcome and Countesses de Florac,

the distance is perfectly intelligible, and not, by any slight of conscience, to be confused with nullity....

the article in question (September 3, 1840) with the "Lecture on Fielding in the English Humourists." There is exactly the same order of views and intellectual merit in both, but there is nearly as much difference between the two styles as there is between smoke and flame.

These qualities of Mr. Thackeray's recent writings, while they scandalize large classes, confer upon his books an inexpressible at traction and value for those who really believe in original sin and human imperfectibility. If Mr. Thackeray wrote only half as well as he does, many people who now criticise, would be wholesale admirers of his works. He is not half-cracked, which difference mainly of the times lived in and is unfortunate for his reputation with those depicted by these writers. Does any one who judge of genius by the fracture. He suppose that Fielding would have dared to has a feeling of the responsibility of possess describe a Squire Western, or a Lady Belintellectual power, or, at all events, he laston for the edification of subscribers to acts as if he had, (which is all that concerns us,) and neglects no means of making it efficient and productive. His business is to paint the world, and for that purpose he goes to look at it, and does not wish Nature out of the way, as Fuseli did, in order that his egotistical fancy may have unimpeded play; and his successive works bear that unmistakable badge of conscientious workmanship, successive improvement.

The difference between Fielding and Thackeray, in respect of that breadth of handling in which it has been complained that the latter is inferior to the former, is a

modern circulating libraries? Could the respective virtues and failings of a Joseph Andrews and a Tom Jones have been set forth, in a time when the lips of novelist and dramatist are absolutely locked, with regard to that which still exercises, as it ever did, and ever must, the chief moral energies of almost all men, during many, and those the most dramatic years of their lives? We do not complain of this refine Mr. Thackeray's peculiar "style" reaches ment of modern speech, though we doubt perfection in the "Newcomes." We say his whether it goes much deeper. On the conpeculiar s style, because, in that exquisite trary, we heartily wish the reform were more novel "Esmond," he has proved himself thorough than it is, and that men should capable of assuming a style, which, though never rise, even from their talk over their throughout sustained and faultless, is evi- wine, with a flavour in their mouths and dently not that which pleases him best, how- minds of a phrase or a sentiment which ever much it may be preferred by many of ought to make them blush to "join the his readers, and those, perhaps, the best ladies." Reforms often advance from superworth pleasing. The chief fault of his ordi- ficial to profound, and a pure tongue is a nary and own style is also the fault of Field- laudable hypocrisy, if it be nothing better. ing's; namely a habit of winking the eye, as Art, it is true, has hitherto been a sufferer it were, at the reader, as he goes on. We by the improvement. That it will not be suppose that most readers like this, as those are generally popular favourites who do it. For our parts, we could well dispense with the compliment to ourselves supposed to be implied, for the sake of the gain to the novelist's dignity. With the single drawback, however, of this defect, Mr. Thackeray's present style is a marvel of completeness and culture; and, to appreciate it properly, the degrees through which this writer has passed in attaining it should be examined. Mr. Thackeray was a "crack writer" fifteen years ago. It is exactly fifteen years ago that there appeared in the "Times" news-would scarcely be compatible with the paper an article on Fielding, which is too marked in its manner, and its anticipation of the views expressed in the "Lectures on the English Humourists," for there to be a moment's doubt as to the authorship. The "Times" literary articles are always in the most striding style that can be had for money. But let the reader, who has easy access to a file of that newspaper, compare