On the present Connexion between Politics and Literature.Written in 1820.

Ir is a bad sign of the times when a book cannot be praised or condemned, until it is ascertained what political creed the author has at any time avowed. Yet such is the melancholy depravity of the criticism of the present day, that literary opinion is lost in the exasperation of political conflict. Nothing can be more injurious to the progress of good taste—nothing more destructive to the bland and civilizing power of letters, than this unlucky conjunction of implacable party-feeling with the generous exertions of the intellect. It draws a film over the eyes of criticism, opaque enough to make all objects appear discoloured or distorted; so thick a drop serene hath quenched their orbs, or dim suffusion veiled."

It may be said, in a nation like England, so balanced upon a system of conflicting powers in its government, and so tenacious of freedom and law as is its spirit, that political feelings naturally mingle themselves with most of the exertions of the mind; and that men of the greatest literary acquirements must cease to be members of such a state, or continue to be influenced by those opinions upon civil polity which are in exercise and discussion on every side of them. But surely the Roman republic was, in its most mental days, as full of the noise and excitement of civil contention, and as disturbed by real, vigorous, incessant, political warfare, as England isor ever has been: yet works of literature were not there estimated by the standard of vulgar prejudices, or courtly proscription. There was an enlightened dominion exercised over letters, by that paramount good taste which was founded upon principles of moral grandeur, and corrected by finished cultivation. Hence Tully in his study is not Tully in the senatehouse when he speaks of the literature of his contemporaries, he does not approve or condemn in reference to the part, which he has himself taken in public affairs: he only considers whether the writers had earned immortality by something more decisive of their claims than an enrolment in the ranks of one party or another; and upon merit exclusively intellectual, he

passed that sentence to which time has affixed the seal of its confirmation. How would the exercise of the great powers of even a Quintilian, or a Longinus, have incurred the suspicion of after-ages, if it were observable that their critical opinions were tinged with the vice of party spirit, instead of being the pure emanation of the intellect ! But their view was so

undisturbed by passion-so clear and piercing, from the serenity of the mind's temperament-that their decrees not only fixed the value of literature in their own day, but are also capable of giving the law of right opinion to all posterity. Though we despair of ever seeing rivalled the vast powers, and just and beautiful application of great erudition to subjects of taste, which distinguish those immortal critics, yet the candid and comprehensive view which they took of the subjects they discussed, may and ought to be emulated.

Perhaps there never existed a critic, who contributed to render a different line of conduct more popular among us, than Dr. Johnson. Arrogating to himself, as he did, the eloquence of Tully, the learning of Quintilian, and the originality of Longinus, he was egregiously deficient in what constituted the true splendour of their character-simplicity and elegance of mind. The Doctor's intellect was more stubborn than strong; his infallibility was an assumption of his prejudices belied; and although possessing a great deal of knowledge, there were vulgar traits in his moral constitution, which no power of education could polish, nor genius itself deprive of original grossness. Hence the virulent asperity of political prejudice, which mixed itself up with all his opinions on works of taste and imagination. Hence his denunciations, very often coarse, always dogmatical, poured out upon the most classic and sublime memories that have graced and elevated the history of our refinement. Hence the variableness of his opinions where they ought to have been fixed, and their immutability where they ought not to have been permanent. Hence his coldness where imagination ought to have warmed him, and his passion where a dignified reflection should have kept him calm. Yet this critic, so vain, so arrogant, so prejudiced, so susceptible of little feelings, so impracticable to great impressions-tyrannous

as a giant, and wayward as a child—became popular for those defects which disqualified him for being just; and accordingly has the honour of being considered the founder of a sect. He had, however, talents which he could not, along with his illiberality of sentiment, leave to his disciples. They have caught the spirit of his passions, but not that of his intellect; and they are, accordingly, but pigmies fretting in imitation of the giant's ferocity. They think that power consists in virulence; strength, in a coarse mode of expressing it; and are pragmatical and captious, as people usually are who are opiniative and superficial. Among this class of critics there is no real love for literature, no genuine affection for truth; they are also very impatient of inquiry;—as if to be authoritative, they must appear to speak from intuitive decision.

But if works of genius were not to be exempt from the operation of the vulgar prejudices to which the political opinions of their authors are amenable, we should have nothing to admire and love in all that is great and beautiful in the whole range of Poetry, Eloquence, or even the Arts and Sciences. The Infidel would not believe in Newton's Astronomical Discoveries, because Newton was a Christian; and the Christian would deny Hume's wit and philosophical talent, because Hume was not a believer. Who would be alive to Milton's fire, but the stern republican? Who would enjoy BUTLER'S humour, but the accomplished cavalier? Thus one set of politicians would blot out half the glory of England, and another set would extinguish the remainder: so that the foreigner, who read the criticisms on both sides, and believed both, would infallibly say to himself, " I find England has never produced a great man.

Whoever gives a new pleasure to the mind, is a benefactor to the human race. Whoever kindles in our hearts sensations which they can never have from the cold realities of lifeleading us into the joyous fields of imagination-making us familiar with the images of an intellectual and beautiful creation -melting us to tenderness-raising us to sublime emotion-or by power of gloomier enactment, "wooing terror to delight us;" him we call a poet, and we care not what form he bears

among the crowd of vulgar men-what path he takes in his earthly intercourse: we look upon him in his glorious moments, when upon the wings of genius he soars in the brightness of some high inspiration, and we give him the homage of our deep, heartfelt, and delighted praise.-Such is our feeling, though not so high in the degree, towards other original minds in Literature and the Liberal Arts. When we hear it stated, that such a poet, historian, orator, or artist is of such a political opinion, and therefore we should be cautious what we say about him, we bring to mind the philosophical answer of the Roman Pontiff to some such sagacious monitor, who, having informed him that an artist whom he patronised was a protestant, replied that, "painting was of no religion." So do we say of all genius; it is of no peculiar sect of religion or politics of no country-of no perishable distinction-it is separate from every thing low, illiberal, and confined-it is immortal and universal; and wherever it appears, we look up to it with a feeling somewhat similar to that with which we should view a majestic mountain, or the starry firmament. We disconnect it from all vulgar circumstances, from all common humanity, and give it no calculating admiration.

66

Jobbing" Legislation.-June 10, 1836.

To have an independent body of men, like the Lords, to protect the public interest-ay, and private interests toofrom the consequences of jobbing legislation, is an advantage which would be better understood by the country than it is, if the functions of the House of Lords were to be suspended for a single session. We do not wonder that venal and jobbing "patriots" wish to get rid of that branch of the legislature, or to render it dependent upon the Commons. If that could be effected-if the House of Lords could be abolished, or its independence crushed-if the gross jobs of needy and venal legislators could not be controlled in another place, then, indeed "Detection her taper would quench to a spark, And jobber meet jobber and cheat in the dark."

P

It is not many years ago that the most shameless and notorious traffic was carried on in Committees of the House of Commons in joint-stock bubbles. Against the disgraceful proceedings of the democratic branch of the legislature at that time, the House of Lords made a noble stand. It is in the perfect independence of that body, that its usefulness consists: take that away, and it becomes utterly valueless to any practical purpose. We hope such a curse will never be inflicted in this country, as a Chamber of Peers like that which Louis PHILIP wields-the tame and servile instruments of the citizenDespot's will, a needy, corrupt, and profligate body—used in a legislative capacity, to give the colour of law to acts of the grossest tyranny; and in a judicial character to rival, in monstrous violation of justice, the old Star-chamber of England, or the Inquisition of Spain.

The Criminal-Law Commission-Its Cost-Its Progress.Jan. 30, 1837.

*** AMONG other objects of useful and rational reform which we have long pursued, and not without some success, is that of the administration of justice and the laws which govern Courts of criminal judicature. In Sir R. PEEL's speech at the Glasgow banquet there is an allusion to this important subject, expressed in terms which are applicable only to a reform past and completed. Sir ROBERT, in enumerating the various reforms which have taken place within the last nine or ten years, says "the whole of our criminal law has been revised and consolidated. The severity of our criminal code has been mitigated." The latter of the two sentences contained in this passage is correct--the first is far from being so. It is quite true that the severity of our criminal code has been mitigated; but it is an error to state that "the whole of our criminal law has been revised and consolidated."

The public ought surely to be aware that there is at present in existence a Commission appointed by the Government in the year 1833, to inquire into and report upon the revision