TRICKERY versus TRUTH: LORD BROUGHAM AND THE EARL OF DURIIAM.
THE conduct of the ever restless Chancellor has supplied the newspapers with employment for another week. His speech at Salisbury has been the prominent subject of discussion; and, like most of Lord BROUGHAM'S recent exhibitions, has taxed the pa- tience and ingenuity of those who deem it their duty or interest to defend his political virtue. The Morning Chronicle has taken the lead among his apologists; and has devoted two elaborate articles to the purpose of showing, that although Lord BROUGHAM and Lord Dunisam appear to be at variance, yet they are really of the same mind on all important questions, and that they merely differ a little in the choice of means for effecting similar ends. Our contemporary, who has more than once ventured to lecture his brethren of the press on their disrespect for the Chancellor, has this week affected the character of a mediator between Lords BROUGHAM and DURHAM ; MO, with ludicrous simplicity, his aimed at persuading those distinguished persons, that they are quite mistaken in supposing that any difference of importance exists between them, and that at all events they ought sedulously to avoid the appearance of disagreement. But, notwithstanding the well-meant sermon of the Chronicle, we incline to believe that there is a wide gulf between the Chancellor mid the Earl of DURHAM. We speak of their recent conduct and their actual position. The time was, we are aware, 'when they could both act together. But the opinions and actions of the parties have di. verged widely of late. The Chronicle, we apprehend, is wrong in saying that " the difference between these two noblemen is a difference merely as to nicans," and that they are " equally honest in their pursuit of the same great object." We judge of both by their recent public conduct, and perceive a marked and manifest discrepancy both in their objects and their mode of pur- suing them.
Lord DURHAM is not in the habit of thrusting himself f irward
upon all occasions, fit or unfit. He is not obtrusive on public at- tention : but whenever he does come forward, it is in the character of a Reformer—of a friend to the cause of progressive improvement —an advocate of large and comprehensive measures of ameliora- tion. This appears to be a distinguishing characteristic of Lord DURHAM ; be moves with the age he lives in, and does not go back as its spirit advances. If we mistake not, he was formerly a Whig, and acted with his party as a matter of course. He now perceives that the day for mere Whiggism is gone by—that the People have outlived it : he has therefore become a Reibrmer, " impatient of every hour that passes over recognized and unre- formed abuses." But Lord BROUGHAM has made a retrograde movement. In 1814, he was an advocate for annual Parliaments, and for representation coextensive with taxation. In that year, he was extremely anxious to join heart and hand with old Major CARTWRIGHT'S friends, and delivered a speech at the City of London Tavern calculated expressly to win them over. This speech he corrected for publication himself: the original docu- ment, in his handwriting, is extant.* He said--" We have re- quired that Parliaments should be chosen yearly, and that the elective franchise should be extended to all who pay taxes." Again, he spoke of "the two Radical doctrines of yearly election and the franchise enjoyed by all paying taxes." "To effect this reform," he said, "all good men must now unite ;" and be enforced the necessity of this description of Parliamentary Reform in strong language. Afterwards, Mr. BROUGHAM became a very equivocal and doubtful Reformer, and has never again reached the point on which he fixed himself for a time in 1814. He in fact has been retrograding, while Lord DURHAM has been progressive. His actions have all one aim—his own individual honour and glory, and, what he now considers essential to their maintenance, the retention of officest He sees that the present is a time of change; that Toryism or Radicalism may gain the ascendant over Whiggery ; and that it would be well for him to have friends in either camp, and declarations of opinion on which to fall back, if hard pushed. With this view, he spouts Liberalism one day, and Conservatism the next; now abusing the House of Peers, now adulating its wisdom and usefulness, and holding out overtures to the Duke of WELLINGTON and Sir ROBERT PEEL. We are here speaking of his present, not of his past proceedings ; though the constant appeal made by the Chronicle, and other advo- cates, to the bygone deeds of Lord BROUGHAM, may tempt us to reconsider his past career, from his laudation of Peer to the close of the last session. Much of his late conduct, certainly, throws a suspicious light on passages of ,his earlier life which have been currently placed to his credit : it raises the question, has he always been acting a part, or has he lately undergone an intel- lectual and moral change?
Lord BROUGHAM'S journey into Scotland was taken expressly with the view of patching up a broken character. Indeed, he made no secret of his consciousness that it was fractured, and that it must be repaired. His aim therefore was to gain golden opinions from all sorts of men. Our readers will remember that we anticipated and foretold the course Lord BROUGHAM would adopt in the provinces. We knew that his reputation had been.se-i riously hurt; and the character of the man made us feel confident that be would lake the very means he did adopt with a view to plaster it over. With this view, he thrust himself into a conspicuous place at the GREY Dinner, where he was not a anted. He delivered
contradictory speeches and opinions at different places, in the ab- surd hope of conciliating all parties. He laboured, by the con- stant repetition of a most slavish sentiment, to recommend himself to the good graces of the King. All these inconsistencies in his conduct are reconciled, on the supposition, which we have not the least doubt is perfectly correct, that his chief aim and end Is the retention of his present office, or the obtaining of a still higher one. Looking at his proceedings in this light, all is palpable:- "The prospect clears, and Brougham stands confessed." It is absurd, it is a libel on Lord DURHAM, to pretend, as the • This manuscript, Lord Comm% NE, in the House of Commons, brandishml over Mt. BROUGHAM'S head, when, in February 18i7, he sneered at honest Reformers, with thew .big blunders and little nostrums." -1 The follow ing anecdote we have heard, on authority which we think may be trusted. When Earl GREY retired in 1832 with the rest of the Ministry, Lord ft,oeoilAU re• pined at the hard necessity. and was most reluctant arid the last to yield to it :.he hailed as a perfect godsend the respite of even a single slay, which accident supplied. and left him still the eustoilier of the bag and seals. a N% by should not Bannon/ix bear the sobriquet of Old Bags," which his party used to make so free with when Ewa was Chancellor ? Chronicled, that the aims of that nobleman are substantially the • same as these of Lord BROUGHAM, and that both are equally honest in the pursuit of them. But the Chronicle has throughout been un- just to Lord DURHAM. The tone and tendency of its articles would imply that Lord DURHAM at Edinburgh made an unprevoked at- tack on the Chancellor, which the latter took the first opportunity of resenting at Salisbury. The fact is, that Lord BROUGHAM delivered at Edinburgh, what was, and what was felt to be, an insidious speech against the great body of the Reformers. Lord DURHAM was not personally attacked; but the Reformers of England were ill-used by the Chancellor. When, therefore, Lord DURHAM'S health was coupled with that of the English Re- formers, he stood forward in their defence, in a most noble and chivalrous manner, with a perfect command of temper and ex- pression, and with the soundest discrimination : he spoke like a iincere man, bui. also like an enlightened practical statesman. The Chancellor was mute at the time, but took occasion last week at Salisbury to deal a blow at Lord DURHAM'S back. This is the true state of the question, though the Chronicle has misrepresented it. Has our contemporary no sympathy with the feelings of the Reformers, who have joyfully adopted Lord DURHAM'S words and sentiments from one end of the country to the other? Has he yielded himself up body and soul to the Chancellor, and become an unscrupulous apologist of his misdoings, and the defamer of all who will not bow down and worship the babbler? Has he totally abandoned the discriminating and truth-telling functions of an independent journalist? Truly, to spin commonplaces about the" suspension of political conffictsbetween eminent public men," and whiningly to deprecate the "schism between such men as Lords BRounirAm and DUR- HAM," &C. is idle employment. Who regards the advice? It is felt to be the bounden duty of eminent public men openly to de- clare their real opinions on all important questions. In fact, the Chronicle does not object to Lord Bites:cream's Juste-Milieuism, but to Lord DURHAM'S open repudiation of it. Lord BROUGHAM may say what suits him ; Lord DURHAM is to be lectured if he arraigns the Chancellor's Conservative doctrines and conduct ! But whatever the Chronicle may think, the Reformers of Eng- land will not join him in attempting to lower Lord DURHAM to the present standard of Lord BROUGHAM. The itinerant charlatanism of the latter, the People of England cannot away with. They are beginning to look upon him, in politics, as a mere quack, who, reckless of principle, will say whatever comes into his head, or seems to serve a temporary purpose. He appears to have no perception of the dignity of truth. He addresses himself to the foibles and baseness of human nature : flattery and cajolery, and the insinuation or promise of selfish advantages, are the means he works with. Between a man so acting, and the blunt, honest, high-spirited Earl of DURHAM, there can be no sympathy of soul: they cannot pull together.
Previous page
