SOME EFFECTS OF THE COMING EXHIBITION.

CERTAINLY the approach of the "Exhibition" produces anything but a general activity in trade. Everything is hanging back, in expectation then to realise a little California. People will not let their lodgings, because they are afraid to depreciate their market-and besides they may as well await the great event. The very pantomines this year did not present those usual advertisements which are paid for by certain shop-keepers and other active people in consideration of the notoriety thus acquired. These latter intended, they said, to wait for the Exhibition. But what is this in comparison with the stagnation that will subsequently ensue? How many people will take houses and buy furniture for which they cannot pay, and spend money, and be ruined? Let the Insolvent Courts of 1852 answer these questions? The influx of seedy foreigners is already very great. We confess that we look upon this with great repugnance. What with sallow "Oratorians," and bearded Jews and Gentiles, the streets of London already present a very unwholesome appearance. For ourselves, we must confess that we do not like this notion of "mixing the breed.” The effects in future years, if nothing else go wrong, will be pretty much the same as if London had been occupied by a foreign army for a year, and given up three months to pillage. But Mr. Cobden says that it is all right. We emphatically say, in Oriental language, "On his head be it!"

Morally and physically, we condemn the whole thing. A triennial exhibition of internal industry to take place first at London, then at Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, ay, and start not, Dublin; such would have been the popular

V

device of a true legislator or suggestive patriot. We are very illiberal, doubtless. The swindler accuses his intended victim of want of pluck and spirit. If this be your liberality, we are proud to be thought otherwise. We could give a receipt for the destruction of England in Mrs. Glasse's style. "Take your country, after first choosing one that is well taxed and with a heavy national debt, then disarm it. Baste with philanthropy. Beat well with agricultural distress. Lard with free-trade. Add spice of all nations quantum suff. Then simmer over the fire of imbecility, and stir with the spoon of contempt. Season with papacy, decorate with newspaper ornaments, and serve up in a crystal plateau with glass filagree work." You have, then, a perfect mess, à la Cobden; and the proof of your success will be that all mankind will partake of it. As the quantity of requisite material is very great, it is a dish that the world may never see again.

In a letter to a morning paper about patent model buffers for railways, or some improvement or other to obviate the Eastern Counties' habit of running off the line into eternity, or leaving your front teeth sticking in the forehead of your vis-à-vis, as a minor catastrophe, there exists the statement "that Prince Albert was the originator of the 'World's Meeting.' "" Now, feeling as we do the fullest and most painful conviction that one twelvemonth hence His Royal

Highness Prince Albert will be very thankful to any one who has contradicted that statement, and wishing to be first in the field to secure his gratitude, we beg leave to whisper a doubt-mind, only a delicate doubt; a blushing, bowing, courtier-like, conventional, sneaking, hesitation-as to this being the fact. If Prince Albert says himself that he was, mind, we have retracted beforehand. We have the reverence of Falstaff for the young lion german(e); and we toss up our doubt, to catch it in the spoon of acquiescence, or on the fork of denial, as the case may turn out to be.

But this

But who did originate the Great Exhibition? Was it Cole, or Dilke, Brown, without a final e, Snob, Prince, or Peasant? We have heard that Mr. FRANCIS WHISHAW proposed a "Great Exhibition" so far back as 1844. was simply a yearly National Exhibition. Had its intention been otherwise, we would not advocate the cause of its originator. This gentleman-formerly secretary to the Society of Arts in the Adelphi, but now fully repudiated by them—even went so far as to offer a premium for plans of a "Great Exhibition" building. Why is Mr. WHISHAW not now recognised? Is it because the flatterers of the Prince think he might interfere with the Prince's renown or their own selfish views? One thing we are certain of, which is this: the Prince is too much of a gentleman and a man of merit to wish that this individual should be sacrificed on the altar of his fame. We shall recur more fully to this subject, and enter a little upon the merits and present position of Mr. WHISHAW. Will Mr. Paxton also say whether or not M. Horeau first suggested a building of glass and iron?

A PRIZE ESSAY IN TWO WORDS.

A PRIZE of One Hundred Guineas has been offered by the Reverend Dr. Emerton, of Magdalen Hall, Oxford, for the best essay on the following subject:-"In what respect is the union of all nations at the Great Exhibition calculated to further the moral and religious welfare of mankind, and thus conduce to the glory of God? And in what respect may we, as a nation and as individuals, most effectually promote this object?"

We answer both questions—“IN none!”

QUESTIONS FOR "NOTES AND QUERIES."

WE shonld like to know who or what was represented by the statue about to be removed from Leicester Square to make way for Wyld's globe and the satellite "Greenhouse." Was it Dick Turpin, or Priapus, or the genius of the mouldy cab-stand in that locality? Why are the cabs in Leicester Square the worst in London? In the Muffe's Oracle for 1661 it is said that "the merrie monarch didde there often make a 'Great Exhibition' of himself." Is this a historic type? What will posterity mean by saying that her rulers played "old gooseberry" with England, supposing that it ever should say so? Have the oyster grottoes "only once a-year" any connexion with the expedition of Caligula? Was the Paxton who did not come in with William the Conquerer entitled to a cauliflower in his bearings; and if not, why not?

THE MINISTERIAL CRISIS.

"ON, STANLEY, ON!"

MUST Lord John Russell be returned upon the country like a bad shilling, to be nailed upon the counter of the Great Exhibition? We trust that no such necessity will be found to exist, in spite of the broken state of parties, the ambition of one man, the diffidence of another, or the really great perils which will surround him who takes the deserted helm of the staggering vessel. The present Ministry has exuded—gone out like a candle, the only difference being that the extinction is unattended with even a flare up in the socket. Let us not look to the manner, the motive, or the expectation. It may be Lord John Russell wished to take the oppositionists by surprise; it may be that he wanted to get rid of one or two such men as the Chancellor of the Exchequer; it may be that he found himself utterly at a loss, or that he hoped his Royal Mistress would be at a loss without him. Perhaps he had no other alternative. We are inclined to think that he had not. It is, in our opinion, the very panic of rottenness. In regarding the whole affair, we are led to exclaim-"Imbecility ushered them to the door, and contempt follows them. Shuffling was their characteristic-wriggling their pre-eminence. Like many other bad things they made some futile pretence of promise in the end. The last act was a little justice done to our North American Provinces, and some faint show of attention to a Colonial Envoy. Their abandonment of the clergy reserves in Canada, and their civility to Mr. Howe, of Nova Scotia, were a flower or two sprinkled on the tomb of their Exodus." Such acts of virtue on the part of such a Ministry, were actual symptoms of approaching dissolution,