Yet “the Hero of Ulm,” doesn’t stand quite alone,—
For we have a General Mack of our own;
And when any strong Fortress in which he commands,
Any morning is found in The Enemy’s hands,
We cry till our voices are ready to crack,
“Pray, who could have done it but General Mack?”
In the time of old Mack, although only a lad,
What delight in the name must the stripling have had!
How the opening buds of political truth
Must have swell’d in the heart of the generous youth,
As he nobly resolved to pursue the same track,
And become, in due season, a General Mack!
“If perchance,” he would say, “the time ever should be,
When some fortress as strong is entrusted to me—
If its chosen defenders I ever should lead,
Here at once is a system that’s sure to succeed!
How soon may the boldest and bravest attack
Be brought to an end, by a General Mack!”
In days when they tell us that prophets are rare,
This was, for a young one, you’ll own, pretty fair;
For in due course of time, (not to dwell upon dates,)
Full many a fortress had open’d its gates;
And I could not admit, though I were on the rack,
Any one could have done it but General Mack.
On each new exploit, the same wonderment ran—
“You’ll allow that this Mack is a wonderful man.
All the optics of friends and of foes he defies—
He is always preparing some pleasant surprise—
What a squint you must have, if you see on what tack,
He next is to go—honest General Mack!”
Oh, gallant commander! I hear people say,
These triumphs of yours have at length had their day.
I will not determine how far that may be,
But I’m sure they have not been forgotten by me;
And a Carol for Christmas you never shall lack,
As long as your name shall be General Mack!
REFLECTIONS SUGGESTED BY THE CAREER OF THE LATE PREMIER.
We have heard a great deal said of late against what are termed “personalities”—a term which, I suppose, implies remarks or reflections on the personal conduct of an individual. If a statesman is hard pressed on some unpleasant point, he escapes by saying, that it is only a “personality,” and that to “bandy personalities” is a thing from which he is precluded by his dignity. If a discussion in Parliament turn much upon these personalities, they are treated by those who may find them distasteful, as a totally irrelevant matter, interrupting the true business of the House; and if they are noticed, it is done as if it was a pure πάρεργον, a gratuitous piece of condescension on the part of the person replying to the attack. It seems to be laid down as a sort of axiom by many, that political questions should be discussed solely on their own merits, abstaining from all remarks on personal character, more especially in Parliament, where all such reflections are condemned as pure waste of the time of the House.
That political questions should be discussed on their own merits, and that those merits are in no way affected by the character of any individual whatever, is perfectly true; but if it be meant to be inferred that the personal character of public men is therefore a matter of no importance, a subject which is to be veiled in a sacred silence, and never to be examined or discussed, such a sentiment is eminently flimsy and false, one which could only find general acceptance in a poor-minded age, to which material interests were of greater value than the far higher ones of national character. For that the national character is greatly affected by the personal character of its leading public men, is a truth that will scarcely be called in question. The venality and corruption which more especially disgraced the ministry of Walpole, and infected, in a greater or less degree, that of his successors, may reasonably be expected to have exercised a widely debasing influence on the nation at large, an expectation amply confirmed (to say nothing of native testimonies) by the estimates which foreign writers of that time draw of the national character of England. The intriguing and profligate character of many of the public men under Charles II. had, no doubt, a similarly evil influence on the popular mind; and generally, all insincerity in high places must be looked on as a bane to the country. Most widely should we err, if, in estimating the career of these statesmen, we looked only to the outward character of their measures, in a commercial, economical, or political point of view. However beneficial many of their measures may have been in these respects, if their own character was not sincere and honest, if these measures were brought about not by fair and open means, but by artful and underhand intrigues, by false professions, by duplicity, and insincerity, by venality, whether of the open bribe, or the insidious government influence, we pass a verdict of censure on their career, we reject them from the rank of the true patriots, the sacred band, who have earned renown as the pure benefactors of their country,—“Quique sui memores alios fecere merendo.”
If we looked only at the commercial or practical consequences of his measures, the career of Walpole might be esteemed glorious—for I believe it is generally considered that his measures were sagacious and successful. But the venal character of his administration is a blot that no one may remove, and this stain on his personal character neutralises (as far as he is concerned) all the effect of his measures. Posterity, accordingly, has done him justice, and has assigned him his fitting rank—he takes his place among the skilful statesmen, not among the great patriots. Who will be able to alter this decision? Who shall have influence to induce the world to raise him to the higher rank,—to make us couple the name of Walpole with those of Aristides, Phocion, and Demosthenes?