The sun sets not on my domain.
What did my dower of kingdoms gain ?-
My realms of gold in India's main ?
I found the Peasant's lot above
Her Queen's; for she could waken love!
Oh, it hath madden'd me to see
All could be happy, loved,—but me!
But me! whose very brain gave way,
Whose fond heart sunk, the Furies' prey,-
Trampled, disdained, and cast away
By him for whom I would have died
With rapture-aye! and martyr's pride;
For then, perchance, I should have read
Some pity in his keen, cold eye,
For the devoted early dead,

Whose Love for him was Agony-
In dying more than living blest,
If on his sympathising breast!

Ah me! those weary days come back
When I was on the mental rack,
And sought in vain to charm and please,
And smiled with spirit ill at ease;
And dressed, and danced, and jested light,
Braided with flowers my locks of night,
And strove to deck my Southern face
With the fair Flemings' blooming grace:
For they could please the roving eye
Of him who passed me, widowed, by !
Yet I was beautiful! My brow
Was like the famed Egyptian Queen;
Rounded these cheeks-so hollow now!
Beaming, these tear-dimm'd eyes have been,
And shone upon my port and face
The beauty of my lofty race.

But it is idle thus to dwell

On charms that long since drooped and died,
That pleased not him I loved so well-
Then, what have I to do with pride?

Ah me! I thought that years of grief
Had brought oblivion's cold relief.
Can Memory with Madness reign?
Give me my reason back again,
Or let me, senseless, rave in vain !
Oh, my great mother! oft I see,

In dreams, thy calm eyes fixed on me,—
NO. XXXI.-VOL. VI.

D

On me, thy last, lorn, madden'd child,
In thoughtful grief, in wonder mild-
Art musing if that God be just,

Whom thou didst serve with boundless trust?

Vigil, and fast, and alms, and prayer,

Rewarded by a maniac heir?

Thy hope, of bud and flower bereft

And I the mad and sullen-left!

Mother! Great mother! well didst thou

Bear crown and cross upon thy brow!
Thy faith-a Phoenix! rose above
The ashes of Earth's hope and love-

And thou hadst peace! Yes! Peace at last-
Peace when the cloud and storm were past—
Each thought and wish absorbed in God-
While I rebel beneath his rod!

Mother! Cassandra-like, I see
Our long line's mournful destiny-
And, in a haze of grief and shame,
The barren ending of our name!
Madness and weakness, pride and sin―
Spoilers without-false friends within!
Oh! the slow death that gnaws my heart!
My spirit struggles to depart-
What can be worse than forty years
Of raving, moaning, pain and tears?
Yet is my future dimm'd by fears!

Strike the loud harp! my sole delight,
And charm me to forget my woe,
And let the organ's tones of might
Through the cathedral arches flow;
Sing me the Psalms of Israel's king—
The great, the penitent, the sad—
My spirit soars upon his wing;

Let me forget that I am mad!

I e'en can pray-" Oh Lord, how long?"
And, sooth'd and soften'd by the song,
I bless him for the hope he gave,
And buried, blighted, in the grave!

MRS. ACTON TINDAL.

35

THE COMING REFORMATION.

PART III.

“Men, my brothers, men the workers, ever reaping something new, That which they have done but earnest of the things which they shall do." TENNYSON.

MY DEAR PERCY.-So you are satisfied with my analysis of Toryism, yet cannot understand why I do not at once pass to Radicalism? I will tell you why. It is because I hold Radicalism as a potent and useful engine for the destruction of a superannuated Toryism; but I think it unable to replace the Institutions it would destroy by any new Institutions of its own. Toryism I called the exponent of Order with Retrograde tendencies.

Radicalism, its antagonist, is the exponent of Progress with Destructive tendencies.

Now if I am correct in saying that Society can only be fitly regulated by a doctrine which shall contain within itself, both the principles of Order and the principles of Progress, you will at once see that both Toryism and Radicalism must necessarily be incompetent to that office, since they each only embrace one set of the conditions.

Other reasons might be adduced. For example, we all must see that Radicalism is essentially destructive, and therefore its office is limited to criticism of the reigning principles. The Tory declares all social disorder springs from the nation having forsaken its ancient standards, and discarded the spirit from its ancient Institutions. The Radical no less stoutly declares that it springs from the still incomplete destruction of ancient prejudices and effete Institutions.

I am inclined to agree with the Radical; but only up to a certain point. To me it seems that the incomplete destruction of ancient prejudices is only part of the evil; and that by far the greater part of the evil arises from the absence of any doctrine capable of supplying the place once supplied by that doctrine, now in ruins. And it is herein that the weakness of Radicalism lies. Great in opposition-irresistible in the assertion of Rights

over Privileges, of Justice over Favouritism-powerful as the protest of outraged Humanity—it is weak, vacillating, vague and contradictory in construction. Once suppose its destructive office at an end, and what remains for it?

To be eloquent over the misery of millions, to expose the injustice of class legislation, to rouse the People to a sense of their rights and their mights, is a great office; and it is the office of Radicals. But do not in your admiration confound that office with what it is not. Do not mistake the eloquent Orator for the great Legislator. Demosthenes was not Solon. Art is not Science. Be cautious, therefore, lest your sympathies mislead you into the too common error of supposing Radicalism has any constructive power. If a Revolution were to-morrow to place the country in the hands of the Radicals, the utter inefficiency of that party would be manifested by this dilemma. Either, first, they must replace the existing Institutions by new ones framed upon a basis that would admit of both Order and Progress; or, secondly, they must govern by means of existing Institutions slightly modified.

They could not do the first, simply because they have no accepted theory of society upon which to found their Institutions. Their efforts expend themselves in eloquence. They have no theory of social hierarchy, though they (at least the most intelligent sections) admit the absurdity of absolute equality. In action they would be powerless; or else they would fall back upon existing Institutions, and try to adapt them to their purposes. But if the existing Institutions are good, Radicalism is a mere uproar and revolt; if good enough at bottom, and only needing a little modification, then is Radicalism not a doctrine, cannot be accepted as a Party, but has at best the subordinate office of criticism.

66

""

To the Radical I put this question: "Are you, on the whole, satisfied with the present social hierarchy? Does he answer, 'No," then I challenge him to bring forward his theory of society with its new Institutions and all its machinery; does he answer, 'Yes, but in some respects it might be altered," then I him, "Sir, you are only a critic, useful perhaps in your line, but playing too subordinate a part for me to trust the destinies of our nation to you or such as you. Your efforts are confined to

66

Destruction; I want one who can build."

say to

One remark will convince you, Percy, how thoroughly destruc

tive Radicalism is, and how obviously opposed it is to anything like organic unity in its aims. It is this: Radicals admit within their circle all varieties of opinion which have a destructive tendency. Every conscientious Radical will, I am sure, on self-interrogation, confess that he looks leniently upon social theories in themselves eminently anarchical-such as Chartism, Socialism, Fourierism, &c. If he does not approve of them as theories, he encourages them as instruments. Absurd as he may deem them, and incompetent as he may know them to be to afford a true solution of the political problem, he sees that they are destructive of established Institutions, and in so far they have his sympathy and support. “There are quarrels," says Carlyle, "in which even Satan, bringing help, were not unwelcome; even Satan, fighting stiffly, might cover himself with glory-of a temporary sort." But Radicalism, if it were an organised theory capable of affording the true solution of the problem, would never for an instant tolerate these theories, but would combat them as damnable heresies destructive of all social order.

If I called Toryism the Stationary doctrine, I may call Radicalism the Visionary, for, apart from its criticism of the solutions offered by others, it is romantically visionary. Its great argument is Hope. "Give us a Republic, get rid of the present system, and new Institutions will soon be found." That-I speak it seriously—is the belief of the Radicals; and their belief they put forward as an argument.

Institutions will come! What misconception of the whole subject is betrayed by this vague hope! Whence, I ask, are these Institutions to proceed? Is it expected that they will descend from Heaven in the sudden inspiration of democratic oratory? Is it expected that they can be "made to order?" Will they spring up out of the brains of facile theorists as soon as wanted?

No, Percy, no not thus do Institutions grow. There is but one healthy process; they can only proceed from the spiritual culture of the whole nation-from its Religion or its Philosophy. The nation must be swayed by its Faith or its Ideas. Once destroy the faith in Royalty and Aristocracy, and you have destroyed the whole framework of a monarchical society. It must be organised anew. But how organised? I can conceive one method and only one, viz., by some organic doctrine in which the ideas of the theorists will respond to and embody the wants of the