consequence, however, was that Antony included him in the proscriptions of the second triumvirate, and his head and right hand were affixed on the rostra from which his invectives had been hurled. It is further related that Fulvia, the wife of Antony, gratified her vengeance by putting the head of Cicero on her lap, opening the mouth, and pricking the tongue with the pins which she wore in her hair. The modern opposition orator has in general no ground for fearing that his philippics will lead to such results as these. Where a constitutional system is fully established in practice, the leaders of opposition have nothing to dread but the frowns of a court or the displeasure of men in power: but even then servility may thin the ranks of opposition; and corruption, adroitly and extensively used by a Government, may attract still more recruits or deserters into its camp. Opposition is another word for free discussion; it is the only efficient security for liberty, good government, and social progress. The majority have always force, but they have not always reason on their side: opposition is the voice of the minority; it is the expression of those who dissent from the policy and measures of the existing Government, and their protest and remonstrance ought always to be heard. It is, in our opinion, impossible to exaggerate the utility of a good, honest, and rational opposition: free criticism of the measures of the Government is the characteristic excellence of a free State; the principal instrument of civilisation and political improvement.

In a country, however, where a constitutional system has hardened into solidity, a parliamentary opposition exercises a large and indefinite power; and all large and indefinite powers

In his first Philippic, Cicero lays down with great clearness the demands which an opposition orator is entitled to make of a government in a time of insecurity and violence. Video quam sit odiosum habere eundem iratum et armatum, quum tanta præsertim gladiorum 'sit impunitas. Sed proponam jus, ut opinor, æquum; quod M. An'tonium non arbitror repudiaturum. Ego, si quid in vitam ejus aut ' in mores cum contumeliâ dixero, quo minus mihi inimicissimus sit 'non recusabo; sin consuetudinem meam, quam in republicâ semper 'habui, tenuero, id est, si libere quæ sentiam de republicâ dixero, 'primum deprecor ne irascatur; deinde, si hoc non impetro, peto ut 'sic irascatur, ut civi. Armis utatur, si ita necesse est, ut dicit, sui 'defendendi causâ; iis qui pro republicâ quæ ipsis visa erun dixerint, 'ista arma ne noceant. Quid hac postulatione dici potest æquius?' (c. 11.) It is remarkable that Juvenal, in describing the dangers of oratory, specifies the second Philippic as the main cause of Cicero's death; although the second Philippic was never actually delivered, and was only circulated in manuscript.

are liable to abuse. We have attempted to show what are the temptations which beset the path of the oppositionist, and induce him to prefer the pursuit of a sectional or personal advantage to the welfare of the entire community. We have pointed out the interests and passions which bias his choice and blind his judgment; and have illustrated the modes in which the power of criticising and objecting may be abused. So conscious, indeed, has the public become of the extent to which party interest and party feeling influence the conduct of opposition leaders, that a charge brought forward by them against a Government scarcely ever obtains general and unqualified belief, unless it is either admitted by the persons attacked, or substantiated by the inquiry of some impartial tribunal. Accusations made by the leaders of one party against the leaders of another are always received by the more cautious and intelligent portion of the public with distrust, and are considered rather as grounds for inquiry than for condemnation.

Parliamentary opposition is a security against the misconduct of the Government; but, like other constitutional securities, it requires to be itself watched. In a free government, the question, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' perpetually arises. The best security against the misconduct of an Opposition is to subject it to an efficient moral responsibility. This responsibility is chiefly enforced by two means. First, by the publicity of the debates, and by the free comments upon the conduct, motives, tactics, proceedings, and language of the parliamentary leaders in the periodical press; from the extemporaneous criticism of the daily newspapers, to the somewhat more deliberate judgment of the weekly journals; and to the fuller and more connected, though less pungent and less varied censures of the monthly and quarterly reviews. Secondly, by the prospect which every Opposition have in view, of success in their constant endeavours to dispossess the existing Government, and of being in consequence called upon to take office. In this case they must, to a certain extent, preserve their consistency: they must attempt, or seem to attempt, to carry into effect in Government the policy which they promoted in Opposition. The view of this contingency exercises a sobering effect upon the character of an Opposition, and tends to keep it within the limits of moderation. It feels itself Her Majesty's Opposition.' Its leaders are afraid of flattering the public, and of playing upon its credulity, by recommending measures which they know to be impracticable; because if the bid for public favour is so successful that the Ministry is turned out in order that they may be able to carry their policy into effect, they are sensible that they would undergo

an ignominious failure. It is a wholesome check upon the excesses of an Opposition that it should have the fear of office before its eyes. The state of things which existed in the English Colonial Governments with Houses of Assembly, before the system of responsible government was introduced, ensured almost perpetual discord. The Executive Government was independent of the Assembly, and the Opposition could not hope to come into office; there was therefore no check upon the factiousness of the Colonial Opposition, who might say any thing or do any thing without the fear of ever being called upon to carry their own policy into practical effect. Besides these two efficient means for enforcing the responsibility of a Parliamentary Opposition, there is likewise the elective character of the members, and the influence which constituents and the desire of being re-elected exercise upon a representative.

On the principle of curing one evil by another-of forging a release to a forged bond-corruption has been used by Governments as an antidote to the determined interested partiality of a professional opposition. Despairing of obtaining a fair judgment from opponents, Ministers have set about securing support by purchasing adherents, as the only available resource against faction. A Parliamentary Government carried on by means of corruption is doubtless worse than a Parliamentary Government carried on without corruption; but it is far better than a despotism, which rests on force, and it offers a far better prospect of improvement. A corrupt Parliamentary Government seeks, in its own fashion, to conciliate public opinion; the submission which it produces is voluntary, not enforced; its course is legal, and it does not interfere with the freedom of discussion.-These are great recommendations, which a despotism, maintained by the bayonet, altogether wants; and hence we see that systems founded on corruption (such, for instance, as the government of Scotland in the early part of this century), may be speedily converted into a state of things in which the popular voice prevails, and the basis of government is pure and incorrupt.

The remarks which we have hitherto made relate to the domestic influences of an Opposition-to the manner in which it works and is worked upon in its own country. It remains that we should say a few words upon its operation with respect to foreign nations.

In ancient times there were no newspapers, and there was no reporting of speeches for the public use. The vituperative

* See the interesting account of the system of Scottish government at this time in Lord Cockburn's Life of Lord Jeffrey.

VOL. CI. NO. CCV.

attacks which the rival orators made upon one another were confined to the audience actually present, except in the cases where an orator reported his own speech, and published a few copies of it. Consequently, the fierce personalities of the Roman senate, and the mutual invectives of the great party leaders, their unsparing criminations and recriminations, were not circulated in the provinces or in foreign states. They did not become known, except by vague and slowly travelling rumours, to the disaffected subjects of the Republic, to its wavering friends, or its declared enemies. In modern times it is otherwise. The speeches of the Opposition leaders are reported at length in the native newspapers, in which they travel over the whole world, and they are moreover reproduced in translations by the journals of foreign countries. In this manner, opposition criticism, which is intended by its authors to operate upon the opinions of their own countrymen, falls into the hands of persons who have other views and interests, and who may use it for purposes wholly different from those for which it was destined.

The effect of opposition speeches in foreign countries depends upon the subject to which they relate. If they relate to a domestic subject, they will be used for proving the existence of internal sources of weakness, such as local disturbances, scarcity of food, bad state of the finances, failure of trade or manufactures. On questions such as these, inflammatory and exaggerated descriptions of social evils are often put forward for party purposes, and at home are received with qualified belief, from a knowledge of the object with which they are made. In foreign newspapers, however, they are cited as the reluctant testimony of a native with respect to his own country, as the admissions of an unwilling witness; whereas, in truth, they may be the highly coloured pictures of an eager partisan, seeking to establish a case against the Government, and to enhance his own political reputation. Scarcely a session passes in England without some impassioned opposition orator representing the Ministers for the time being as having brought the country to the brink of ruin. Such rhetorical exaggerations produce, in general, but little effect upon the convictions of the native public; they have been accustomed to see the sun of England set from time to time in the speeches of desponding patriots. But to a foreigner, who is watching for proofs of the decline of England, and who believes that its political state is rotten and unsound, these statements appear as literal truths, as the disclosures forced from calm observers by the irresistible evidence of facts; as

'Close denotements, working from the heart,
That passion cannot rule.'

When the speeches relate to foreign affairs, the effect which they are likely to produce is of a different nature. While a negotiation with a foreign State is pending, or even after it has been concluded, an opinion expressed by an opposition leader that the demand of his own Government is unjust, or that its course was unfair, may create an impression in the foreign country that the Government with which they are in dispute is not supported at home by public opinion. This may embolden them to resist claims which may be just, or to make unjust pretensions of their own. In the case of a war, the effect produced may be more striking. An Opposition may condemn entirely the policy of a war, or they may censure the manner in which the war is carried on. In either event, their conduct may wear an unpatriotic appearance; they may seem to sympathise with the enemy, to be indifferent to the victories of their own countrymen, to dwell upon their failures, to damp the public enthusiasm, and thus to diminish the chances of a successful result. The nature of an Opposition in a constitutional State is better understood at present on the Continent than it was at the beginning of the century. There is therefore less danger than there was formerly of criticisms upon the conduct of a Government being ascribed to unpatriotic and antinational feelings. In the late war, however, the Whig party, who opposed the war policy, were believed by Bonaparte to be ready to act with him; and he was surprised at making the discovery that Mr. Fox was as firmly devoted to English interests, and as little disposed to intrigue with a foreign Government, as the strongest supporter of the system of Mr. Pitt.

The existence of a permanent opposition to the Government, of a perpetual liberty of political criticism, and of difference of opinions upon great public measures, is so abhorrent to the ideas of a despotic Court, and lies so completely out of its horizon, that censure of the foreign policy of a Ministry, and of the conduct of a war, is peculiarly liable to misunderstanding by the Monarch and his Ministers. It is likely to beget unfounded expectations of all kinds in foreign Governments, and to produce mischievous effects not intended by the opposition leaders. Great discretion, therefore, ought to be exercised in the use of this important privilege. The opposition orator, who speaks upon foreign policy, should remember that he holds in his hand a two-edged sword, which cuts in a double direction; that his words are overheard, not only by his own countrymen, but also by foreign countries. A similar reserve should be exercised by him in commenting upon the conduct of the military and naval commanders employed by the Government of his own country.