have touched them no more than would summer gnats. Well, why not awake
this sleeping strength? Why not divert a mischievous potency into
beneficial action? Why should we confine a body of men to making laws,
when so many of them might be more usefully employed in wheeling barrows?
Now there is Mr. PLUMPTRE, who has done so much to make English Sundays
respectable--would he not be working far more enduring utility with
pickaxe or spade than by labouring at enactments to stop the flowing of
the Thames on the Sabbath? Might not D'ISRAELI be turned into a very
jaunty carpenter, and be set to the light interior work of both the
Houses? His logic, it is confessed, will support nothing; but we think he
would be a very smart hand at a hat-peg.

As for much of the joinery-work, could we have prettier mechanics than Sir
James GRAHAM and Sir Edward KNATCHBULL? When we remember their opinions on
the Corn Laws, and see that they are a part of the cabinet which has
already shown symptoms of some approaching alteration of the Bread
Tax--when we consider their enthusiastic bigotry for everything as it is,
and Sir Robert PEEL'S small, adventurous liberality, his half-bashful
homage to the spirit of the age--sure we are that both GRAHAM and
KNATCHBULL, to remain component members of the Peel Cabinet, must be
masters of the science of dove-tailing; and hence, the men of men for the
joinery-work of the new Houses of Parliament.

Again how many members from their long experience in the small jobbery of
committees--from their profitable knowledge of the mysteries of private
bills and certain other unclean work which may, if he please, fall to the
lot of the English senator--how many of these lights of the times might
build small monuments of their genius in the drains, sewerage, and certain
conveniences required by the deliberative wisdom of the nation? We have
seen the plans of Mr. BARRY, and are bound to praise the evidence of his