1822.] 
cannot be too extensively circulated 
among the idolators of legitimate go- 
vernment. 
We comé next to Walpole’s Me- 
moirs, which form the ninth article. 
Since the preliminary puffing of this 
work ina former number, a new view 
has been taken of its tendency, and 
the present is a laboured effort to im- 
pair its authority, and lessen the un- 
favourable impression it is calculated 
to produce as to the virtues of public 
men. The motives are obvious ; but, 
in our opinion, not likely to be success- 
ful, as the claims of the work to vera- 
city depend on circumstances that can- 
not be easily controverted. First, the 
statements in the Memoirs mainly 
coincide with those in the Letters, and 
other works of Horace Walpole. 
Secondly, the work is posthumous, and 
the period of publication fixed for a time 
when the writer may be supposed to 
have had no motives to disseminate 
falsehood rather than truth; when he 
could have no interest to gratify, nor 
enmities to indulge. Lastly he has, 
with apparent candour, at least, men- 
tioned those instances where he was 
most likely to be misled by prejudice 
or interest, so that the reader may be 
more careful in trusting to his narra- 
tive. With such strong circumstances 
in its favour, it does not appear that 
the detection of a few inaccuracies, 
many of which the writer could proba- 
bly have reconciled, canalter its general 
character. But what is most confir- 
matory of Walpole’s testimony, is, that 
he is for the most part borne out by 
other writers, many of them contem- 
porary, and of opposite interests and 
connexions. Look into any Memoirs 
of the reigns of George the Second and 
his successor, those of Waldegrave, 
Doddington, Landaff, Wraxall, and 
Nicholls, for example, and do we not 
find the same melancholy picture of the 
profligacy of public men? Must we 
not then conclude, that Walpole had 
too mueh reason for the base motives 
he imputes to them, and that they were 
as he describes them, unprincipled 
politicians, solely bent on objects of 
ambition and emolument. While Wal- 
pole was occupied in mere trifling and 
court gossip he was a mighty favour- 
ite of the Quarterly, and ‘‘ anoldheroof 
ours,” and they were pleased to conti- 
nue to admire him; but, when he 
throws a little light on the great men 
of his time, he is accused of detraction 
and misrepresentation. This is the 
3 
The Quarterly Review, No. 53. 
131 
general way of the Review. Whenever 
a work tends toexpose the system which 
the Quarterly was established to sup- 
port, every unfair artifice isemployed to 
lessen its authority, and thus are truth 
and literature perverted to its sinister 
purposes. 
Waddington’s Visit to Ethiopia, 
seems also in ill favor; and, besides the 
artifices in the preceding article, con- 
tains a great many indifferent jokes, 
impertinences, and unwarranted con- 
clusions. Mr. Waddington, we ob- 
serve, has been so ill-advised as to in- 
sert a long advertisement in the news- 
papers in reply to the misrepresenta- 
tions of his work. Had this gentleman 
been better acquainted with the voca- 
tion of his reviewer, he would, we be- 
lieve, have kept bis money in his 
pocket, and felt little uneasiness about 
any strictures from so perverted a 
source. 
The eleventh, and last article, is the 
State of the Currency ; it is bold, able, 
and ingenious, and coming from the 
quarter it does, peculiarly interesting. 
The reviewer does not openly broach 
his subject, but the object is plainly an 
attack on the fundholders. ‘'That 
circumstances may arise,’ says he, 
“such as no wisdom or prudence could 
anticipate, which may render some 
modifications of the terms of perpetual 
contract not only expedient, but justi- 
fiable, on the ground of equity, no man 
at all acquainted with human affairs 
will deny. And if (mark that,) if 
overruling necessity should ever compel 
us’ to consider of an attempt of this 
kind, there can be no doubt that an 
open and undisguised transaction is 
much beiter than “‘ paltering in a dou- 
ble sense.” ‘That the state of the 
country requires some financial steps 
to be taken beyond the ordinary means 
of providing for the expenditure of the 
year is abundantly evident.’ This is 
so plain, that he who runs may read, 
and coming from the leading journal 
of government, is ominous of the ulti- 
mate fate of that great monument of 
credulity and knavery, the public 
debt. For our parts, we feel no sur- 
prise at the disclosure: it always ap- 
peared to us that a breach of national 
faith would be last resorted to. We 
could not think that men, who had 
shown so little principle in other parts 
of their administration, would be scru- 
pulous in observing their engagements 
with the fundholder; we could not 
think that a government, which had 
ventured 
