words of the Duke of Wellington on the field of
Waterloo, and say, Up guards and at 'em!" At whom?
Alas, this is found to make all the difference. The
charge is now being made with a vengeance; but it
is the Bookers, and Balls, and Chowlers, and Youngs,
and Fosketts that are rolling head over heels down
the hill. But the retribution will hardly be complete,
or the pure and great memory of Peel avenged against
his detainers and persecutors, until the whole troop
of ministers shall be seen rolling and tumbling after
the poor miserable dupes they have betrayed.
Lord Palmerston has saved them for the present,
but sooner or later this cannot fail to be the issue.
Meanwhile Mr. Disraeli must be content with the
fame of the epithet which the Times, no very hostile
critic in his case on any occasion, has not been able to
resist, fixing on him. There was once an eminent
man in our history who, famous for cheating the very
tools who were his instruments for cheating others,
seemed to one of the first wits of this island to realise
and embody in himself "the very superlative degree
of greatness." Of such, according to the leading
journal, is the present greatness of our Chancellor
of the Exchequer. He is the Jonathan Wild of
Protection. The eminent man in question had
the art to select for his instruments persons on
whom devolved the responsibility for everything he
planned; and while on the one hand he was always
ready to urge them to fresh exploits in the calling
they had selected, on the other he was equally
prompt to disavow their deeds, and hand them over
to condign punishment whenever justice became
importunate for a victim. Thus did he occupy,
pursues the author of this close comparison, a kind
of intermediate station; partly as the head of a gang
of thieves, and partly as a kind of detective or
assistant in the administration of justice; contriving
to maintain himself in his dangerous position by the
dexterous alternation of these two characters, for now
he encouraged his gang by his countenance and
assistance, and again quelled their insubordination by
the menace of betraying them. We all know, however,
what became of Jonathan Wild at last; and
the parallel not obscurely points at the ignominious
close which sooner or later must attend every career
not guided or sustained by sincerity and honour.

It is one of the penalties of a statesman in a free
country that he cannot hope to escape such comment
as this when his conduct happens to expose him to it.
"Whatever may take place elsewhere," said the Chief
Justice of the Queen's Bench in full court a few days ago,
"I trust that this country will be able to continue to
boast that we have a free press, and that questions of
history, modem and ancient, may be freely discussed
by anybody without any apprehension of a criminal
information. The authorities in the old books, when
the law of libel was not settled, or when it was
tyrannically and vexatiously settled, which laid it
down that to impute to any high officer of the
Crown that he was incompetent for his office was
libellous on the government, because such a statement
brought disgrace on the government itself, have long ago
been exploded. There can be no impropriety in calling
in question the competency of any public functionary
for the due and efficient discharge of his duty." No;
nor can there be any impropriety in going further
than this, and calling in question, not simply the
competency, but the morality, of any set of public
functionaries, who propose deliberately to do, for the
sordid sake of retaining office, what they persecuted
and almost hunted to death a great statesman for
doing, though in the act, which to him was one of
sacred duty, he sacrificed office, friendship, and all
that men ordinarily value.

Lord Campbell's remark was made on the occasion
of refusing a criminal information against the
Quarterly Review, applied for by Sir Charles Napier
on the ground of a libel in reference to his administration
of Scinde. It was quite right that this should
be refused; but it seems difficult to understand why
a refusal should not also have been given in the same
court, on the previous day, to an application to re-open
the odious and noisome details of the case of Achilli
and Newman. A new trial was there granted, not on
any ground that appears to carry weight with it; not
because the judge had refused evidence that should
have been admitted, or because he had misdirected the
jury as to the value of the facts deposed to by the
witnesses; but simply because the jury had given a
verdict against the "weight of evidence." Now who
are to judge of the weight of evidence if not the jury?
Evidently this was a case in which that function
devolved to them; for the evidence on either side
was as abundant as the swearing was hard. The
principle is full of danger which would permit the
reconsideration of such a case on such grounds; for
certainly, if Lord Campbell now thinks that the
weight of evidence was against the prosecutor, it was
his duty more emphatically to have said so when he
summed up at the trial. Whatever may be the jury
now called to try the case again, they will sit under the
express disadvantage of having received from the
whole Queen's Bench of judges a direction to view
the evidence with a certain bias; which they will
either submit to do, or will show a not unreasonable
determination not to do, by flying to the opposite
extreme.

The subject of Convocation is naturally recalled by
the mention of a religious quarrel. Notwithstanding
the excitement of public feeling opposed to any
such pretences or claims of churchmen, the
Archbishop of Canterbury has, during the past month,
absolutely permitted Convocation to show signs of life
by hesitating to put in force his right of prorogation
till after motions had been made, resolutions passed,
and addresses voted, both in the upper and lower
house. The immediate result has been paltry enough,
consisting simply of a parcel of pretentious commonplaces,
interlarded with squabbling interchanges of
bad words, that would not have done much credit to
the debating club of the upper boys at Eton. But it
may be feared that the troublesome party in the
church have received so much strength and encouragement
even from these proceedings, that it will be
difficult to restrain them from future mischief.—Let
us add a final and pleasant word on another subject
with which a particular set of churchmen have also
been meddling disagreeably. With a very manful
disregard of cant, and in a manner highly honourable to
his feelings and judgment, Lord Derby has publicly
stated his opinion that the opening, under certain
restrictions, of the Sydenham Crystal Palace on
Sundays, instead of being a desecration of the Sabbath,
will be of "great advantage to the population of this
overcrowded metropolis, by enabling them to avail
themselves on a Sunday afternoon of the innocent
recreation and amusement provided for them in the
beautiful grounds attached to it, by giving them fresh
air, and promoting moral and social improvement
among them." These are well chosen words, and will
probably be remembered to Lord Derby's credit when
his protectionist eloquence has been long forgotten.

NARRATIVE OF PARLIAMENT AND
POLITICS.

PARLIAMENT was opened on Thursday the 4th instant
by a Royal Commission, consisting of the Lord Chancellor,
the Duke of Northumberland, the Marquis of
Salisbury, the Duke of Montrose, and the Earl of