else fish and potatoes again, before going to bed, this comprises all they can afford,-fish and potatoes being the chief, almost the only article of diet, and bread being used more as a luxury than a staple article of food."

Taking the facts as here stated, how few poor people in Ireland or any other country (except England) would reckon themselves in the grasp of gaunt famine upon such a diet,shellfish, cod, ling, tusk, haddock, herrings, potatoes, bread, meal, and those three times a-day, without mentioning pigs, geese, and other poultry. With such commodities at hand, even without the meal and the bread for a few months, there is not much room, one would suppose, for the wasting and weakening of the stalwart forms of the hardy sons and daughters of Ultima Thule. But that sketch of hyperborean sufferings was drawn for effect, for a purpose, and the sketcher has shewn the cloven foot that he is a Leaguer. He says,―

"Had it not been the expectation that the corn-laws and the laws prohibiting us from exchanging our fish for foreign grain were so soon to be repealed, and whereby we expected to get cheap bread, and by which our own slender means (by procuring us more bread for less money) might have kept us from starvation, we would have been obliged ere now to again appeal to our southern friends for temporary aid. Now this hope deferred' of the abolition of these most iniquitous laws bas brought us to the brink of starvation."

I am far from denying that scarcity in meal, and potatoes too, does exist in our island. But this has not been caused either by the rot or the cornlaws. In the winter months, when we were told that famine was stalking throughout the south country, speculators were invited to come and purchase from us where the blight was unknown. Tempted by high prices, the small farmers sold more of their victual than they could spare; and hence the deficiency that has ensued, but which will be of short duration, and remedied by nature, independently of a tariff or a free importation of corn.

Periodical scarcities are no rare occurrences in Shetland, where the climate is so variable. Often have the inhabitants been reduced to the brink of starvation, but this was

through the failure of their crops; and in accounting for these misfortunes we laid the saddle on the right horse-on the bad season, and not on the corn-laws, or the prohibition of exchanging cod and ling for Spanish wheat. In 1782-85, when there were no corn-laws, Shetland was grievously afflicted by famine, owing to deficient harvests. Hundreds of cattle, horses, sheep, &c., died for want of food, and many of the people must have perished had not subscriptions, collections of money, supplies of meal, &c., been made, and sent to their relief. A vote of money was granted by the House of Commons; several hundred pounds were collected in Edinburgh; but nobody proposed the remedy of free trade. At a much later period we were visited by a similar calamity. The years 1837-39 proved most disastrous to us. Four or five harvests in succession were bad, and many were brought from comfortable circumstances into great poverty, from which they have not yet recovered, notwithstanding the aid they received from the south, in money, contributions of meal, &c., in considerable quantities. Nobody thought of ascribing these afflicting dispensations of Providence to the corn-laws, or dreamed that such casualties could be prevented in future by what is now called "unfettering industry and destroying baneful monopoly." No; I can tell you the small experience we have had of free trade, is not likely to inspire us with a wish to have more of it.

The importation of barilla several years ago utterly ruined our kelpmanufactories, and struck a blow to the industry and wealth of the whole Scottish islands, from which they will never recover. The alteration of the tariff, in 1842, did us a world of mischief. By reducing the duty on fish to half its present amount, it gave the Dutch and Norwegians an advantage over us, by enabling them to undersell us in our own markets. The effect of this on the fishermen, and all connected with them, is obvious, for they must work at reduced wages, seeing the curers cannot afford to pay the same prices for fresh fish.

Another evil against us was the lowering of the duties on Baltic timber; and the adverse operation of

these causes combined, was pointed out by a friend of mine a few months ago.

"The injustice," he remarks, "of the reduction will be obvious, when it is considered that the Norwegians can build their boats of wood which costs 4d. per foot, whereas Sir Robert Peel seems to forget that the duty is 7 d. a foot to us, the freight about 5d. or 6d.; so that the raw material for our boats actually costs 300 per cent more than in Norway. Exempted from many taxes as the Norwegians are, compared with us, how is it possible for our people to compete under such circumstances? The oars, masts, and spars, all pay heavy duties, which will be little, if at all, reduced, so that the consequences will be very serious if the subject is not fully represented by the Scottish members. What I would recommend is, that petitions be sent from every fishing locality against any further reduction of the duty on fish, at all events, on herrings; and that Norway fir, under ten inches square (which maximum would not interfere with Canadian interests), and all spars under eight inches diameter, be admitted duty-free, as being absolutely required for the fisheries."

A petition praying for relief was sent and presented to the first lord of the Treasury. "The premier," says another correspondent, "condescended to answer it; and although refusing relief, it gave great satisfaction here, in consequence of so great a man acknowledging the receipt of a petition from so poor a class."

There are many far better things which the government could give us than free trade. They could render us independent of Spanish wheat by reducing or removing the old feudal and crown taxes we pay, and allowing us to get fishing materials as cheap as our neighbours, and without the heavy duties we now pay. They could give us Lighthouses in Fair Isle and several other points, to save the dreadful losses we sustain from the wreck of our boats and the loss of the crews. They could do something to revive the kelp-trade, which, though never so important to us as to the other Scottish islands, was, nevertheless, a source of employment to great numbers.

"It is difficult to conjecture," says Dr. Edmondston, in his remarks on the country, "what other motive than a reckless adherence to the speculative dogmas of free trade could have induced the British legislature to inflict so severe

a wound on the industry and resources of the Scottish islands, and which neither equity nor policy can defend. Among the advantages," continues the writer," which Shetland might hope to derive from legislative favour, a reduction of the duties on timber generally, and particularly on boats from Norway, would be most valuable and universally felt. The boats are imported in boards, and are of a class not in use in any other ports of the kingdom, hence no temptation to smuggling could exist. Another benefit would be a drawback on the duty of a limited quantity of tobacco, tea, and sugar (and I would add rum, brandy, &c.), for the use of the fishermen during the season, in the same manner as it is granted to merchant-seamen. The mailsteamer, running all the year, would also be a signal boon to us, as bringing Shetland completely within the vortex of the British market; and no satisfactory reason has yet been given why this advan tage, often solicited, has been withheld. The Isles of Man and of the Channel enjoy many peculiar and important advantages, distant colonies are pampered, and it might not be unreasonable to expect some fostering patronage and commercial indulgence to be extended to the long-neglected Shetland Islands."

Without some such encouragements, it is clear the march of improvement can never reach us. I must not conceal, however, that much may be done by the inhabitants themselves retrenching some of their extravagances. A taste for foreign luxuries has got among us to an extent scarcely credible. The lasses must have their finery and the men their "creature comforts." It is an established fact that about 40,000lbs. of tea are consumed annually, the value of which would perhaps exceed the whole gross rental of the islands. Sir Walter Scott says, in his Diary, on the authority of Mr. Collector Ross, that the quantity of spirits, tea, coffee, tobacco, snuff, and sugar, annually imported into Lerwick for the consumption of Shetland, averaged then, at sale price, 20,000l. yearly, at the least. It is clear there is room here for retrenchment, at least till the islanders are able to support these expensive habits.

I had intended to give a short account of the different fisheries, the mode in which they are prosecuted, and the singular customs that are observed by those engaged in them. This, however, must be the subject of another communication.

A CAREFUL observation of the political history of the last twenty years in this country will go far to shew that the natural tendency of recent legislation is towards the diminution, if not the destruction, of the ascendancy of the aristocracy in the government and in parliament.

By the aristocracy, we mean, for our present purpose, those who have been usually designated by that name; that is to say, the nobility, the landowners, and those other members of the general community, who are linked to the state by special and recognised ties, other than the payment of taxes, the exercise of the franchise, or general obedience to the laws. Nor do we desire to exclude from that general term the more exalted members of the commercial classes, the "merchant-princes" of London, or Liverpool, or those manufacturers whose gigantic operations, and the cnormous number of their fellow-men to whom they give employment, may, in a more liberal, and perhaps a more prospective reading of the term, entitle them to be considered as in one sense members of the aristocratic body. We confine our remark to the classes already designated; and when we speak of the "natural tendency" of modern legislation leaning to the result we have pointed out, we by no means would be understood to assume that such will be its inevitable consequence. On the contrary, we believe that social causes are conspiring to elevate the aristocracy of blood and rank, and hereditary claims, to substantial power and influence in the state, in a ratio of increase quite commensurate to the diminution of their political and legislative power.

it

In support of the first proposition may be observed, that, for some years past, the initiative in legislation has been virtually abandoned in the House of Peers, which is, according to the constitution, the natural representative or embodiment of the aristocracy of the country. Immediately on the passing of the Reformbill, there was a rush by the multitude at the representation; and some

VOL. XXXIV. NO. CC.

glaring, though isolated, instances of democratic influence at the elections exhibited themselves to an astonished public in the House of Commons. Then came a reaction: the most outrageous of the new-comers were rejected; and their places were supplied either by more moderate men of the same class or by members of the aristocracy. But upon that came again a recoil; and, for many years past, the current of representation has set in decidedly in favour of the middle and commercial classes. Further, it may be said, the carrying of great questions by appeals to the popular will has increased this tendency. Instead of legislation, we have the mere votes of a majority blindly yielding to dictation from without-mere whirlwinds of popular impulse, raised no one knows how: yesterday specks on the horizon, today swallowing up all in their irresistible fury. And not the least in the catalogue of proofs is the fact that our leading statesmen, whether they be of aristocratic origin or not, pay an ostentatious homage to the middle classes, extolling their wisdom and fitness to hold the balance of power-a homage so exaggerated and so little warranted by the proofs given of talent for government by the inert and comfortable classes, as to be only ascribed to interested motives, dictated by a sense of the influence of congregated numbers at the elections.

In opposition to the assertion that the natural tendency of our legislation is towards the decline of the aristocracy, it might well be urged, that practically they are still at the head of affairs; that, with the exception of men like Sir Robert Peel, who are the chosen advocates of the aristocracy, the fee for their support being fame and power, all the high offices of the state are filled, not merely by noblemen, but by the descendants of those very men who have held them for ages, and especially of those men who founded our representative and constitutional system of government.

This, however, is, we fear, but a

M

hollow semblance. Though the offices are held by these great members of aristocratic families, their real power comes from without; their measures are dictated to them, not by them; there has of late years been too much of the roi fainéant about them; they have been but splendid puppets, other men pulling the strings, and their only chance of even the appearance of free-will has been when they have outrun the popular eagerness, and, as in Sir R. Peel's case, have anticipated the actual contact of the pressure from without, making a virtue of necessity, and being, in fact, victors only in an inglorious race against time.

These we take to be notorious, indisputable facts, the intermediate result of the "natural tendency" of our modern system, but not its inevitable and permanent consequence. For a counteraction, we look to the increase of the social influence of the aristocracy, proofs of which

are

growing on us in the events of every day. We trust to be able to shew that the most prominent and distinguished members of the aristocracy at the present time have exhibited talents which constitute them the real, not merely the nominal, leaders of the people.

Yet how common and how popular a course it has been to decry and run down the aristocracy! Public opinion, influenced by writers who have not been ashamed to pander to class prejudices, or to invest with a sort of ideal grandeur the great movements which have proceeded from popular impulse, has followed the course of legislation. Persons whose sole weight consisted in their having been delegated to parliament by large constituencies have been allowed to usurp the functions of the natural leaders of the people, and those who, as the instructors of the people through the press, ought to have respected the rights of intellect to the exclusion of mere vulgar influences of a political nature, have unfortunately swelled the chorus of admiration, until those who are not behind the scenes, and who only derive their knowledge of public men from newspapers and books, have been led to believe in a just and natural transfer of power from the Stanleys and Russells, to the

Wakleys and Brights. The mischief would not be so great were these attacks merely made on individuals -if the personal short-comings of particular members of the legislature were subjected to criticism, and compared with the superior vigour of intellect or strength of moral purpose displayed by other men who have sprung more immediately from the ranks of the people: but, unfortunately, this battery of sarcasm, depreciation, and misrepresentation, is directed more against a class than against individuals; and is, therefore, the more injurious, by tending to loosen the ties which bind together the different portions of the community. With one or two honourable exceptions, the press of this country, and more especially the metropolitan papers, have not done their duty in the recent political struggles. They have too much worshipped the mere numerical majority, and the few men who have been intrusted with its power, and have paid too little attention to the opinions and remonstrances of men who, whether from their station or their knowledge, were entitled at least to deference and respect, if, of course, they could not expect their opinions to be received without question, merely because they were theirs. They have gone with the stream, and talents which would have adorned any righteous cause have been prostituted to the purpose of throwing a halo of philosophic sacrifice and statesmanlike courage over the most glaring inconsistency, or of exalting some of the coarser elements of democratic influence. It may be urged, on the other hand, that the aristocracy of this country are too deeply rooted in the affections and the respect of the people, too closely intertwined with their most cherished constitutional ideas, to be affected by these temporary and individually insignificant attacks. But the continual and persevering enunciation of any opinions, even of such as are in themselves worthless, will cause their being gradually looked on with less and less of the doubt which attaches to novelty, until they at last take the place of old fixed ideas in the popular mind, which is, unfortunately, always too prone to run after the new. Thus this multitude of

small attacks may come in time, if not counteracted, to have all the force of more well-directed and bettercalculated blows, until at last the prestige which the natural course of things generates, and the constitution sanctions, in favour of those whose birth, independence, and education qualify them to rule, becomes transferred to others, who have no claim, or present no guarantee beyond the accident of the popular choice, and whose tenure of political power would depend alone on the popular will.

Not alone through the press has this tide set in against the old and time-honoured ascendancy of the aristocracy. A perusal of the speeches at public meetings will shew that it is spreading among those who have the ear of the people. Point-blank appeals to the popular will are too often accompanied by sneering or depreciatory remarks on the qualifications of those who by the constitution are intrusted with the initiative in legislation; and if any particular nobleman or man of standing is se lected as the "object of praise, the condition of that praise is too often a subserviency to popular clamour; although, to the honour of our nobility be it said, there are few indeed of them, be they of what party they may, who condescend to accept homage on such terms. A worse symptom of all is the open, audacious threatening by some popular leaders, that hereafter the government of this country will be torn from the aristocracy and vested in the commercial body only-"that the towns will constitute the government." We will do Mr. Cobden the justice to hope that the explanation of this phrase which he gave in the House of Commons, almost as soon as he uttered it, was a true one, nor would we willingly believe that Sir Robert Peel in cheering it meant to accept it in its more obvious sense. Nevertheless, we do believe that there is a determined intention on the part of some of our more active public men to organise the town constituencies under banners more or less democratic, and to effect a transfer of power from one class to the other. The evils that would follow such a result are almost too self-evident to require to be demonstrated. It is the duty of every well-wisher to the

country to exert himself towards counteracting the tendencies which are setting in like a tide against the established order of things, but which may be checked if taken in time; for the respect borne by the people of this country, of whatever class, towards their superiors in the social scale (where that superiority is warranted by the talents or the conduct of the individuals), is deep rooted, and nothing but the most determined and persevering misconduct or neglect on the part of the aristocracy, or misrepresentation by those who are their professed detractors, could ever undermine or destroy it.

Fortunately, the aristocracy of this country are in no danger of decay. In this respect they are unlike the aristocracy of almost every other country in Europe. Though they may be in some of their private and social relations exclusive-and in this they but exercise the natural privilege of every man to choose his own society-they are not politically an exclusive body. In other countries the gulf between the aristocracy and the people is much wider than it is in England. They have distinct privileges, distinct associations, distinct pursuits, and although there may be more personal affability and freedom in their public intercourse with the people, they do not so essentially mix themselves up in their affairs as they do in England. Here not a single movement takes place, political or charitable, of any significance, that has not some nobleman or member of a patrician house at its head, or taking an active part in its support. In all places and in all circumstances they identify themselves with the people, and, as they constitute themselves their friends, they naturally become their leaders.

But their leadership is not the result of their rank alone. It is a popular idea that people of the middle class run after a lord to lend the sanction of his name to their undertakings merely because he is a lord. John Bull, according to these thinkers, is an inveterate tuft-hunter, and no good will be done for the country till he is taught to believe that so far from any intellectual influence being associated with the possession of a coronet, on the contrary, the peerage is but a collection of incapa