the modern practice of sending the hat round for money to set up in the abbey or elsewhere a statue, or at least a bust, of smith, during or immediately after his lifetime, in grateful remembrance of the service or pleasure he may have done us, can rarely be indulged without danger of making him and ourselves ridiculous in the eyes of our children; or even in our own, should we survive for a few years the amiable folly of having raised an abiding memorial of our possibly transient enthusiasm. there could have been no doubt of the propriety of setting up a statue to the duke of wellington after waterloo, however much there may reasonably have been about the propriety of the statue itself which the ladies of england dedicated to the hero. but even in the case of such obvious and measurable merits as those of warriors, it is best not to be in a hurry. historical{142} criticism has discovered that the credit of great battles and even campaigns has not always been rightly due to the commanders-in-chief. again, improvements like those of the steam jet, by which it became at once possible to raise the rate of railway travelling from under ten to over fifty miles an hour, the penny post, and the electric telegraph, are certainly matters for permanent memorials, provided that they are raised to the right men. but improvements and inventions of this magnitude scarcely ever are, in the first instance, attributed to the right men, who are generally more or less obscure and unrewarded geniuses. it is the practical man, who has the quickness to see the money value of a great invention and the means of removing the last external hindrance to its popular use, that gets the statue, and the money too. few would envy him the latter; but it is cruel to him no less than to ourselves to be in such haste to decorate him with a laurel crown, which the touch of time may change into a fool’s cap. again, unless statues are due to good intentions ardently prosecuted without reference to results, we ought to be very careful how we impose immortality upon great philanthropists and humanitarians. it would not have been for the abiding happiness and honour of the two eminent prelates and the able editor who lately constituted themselves high{143} commissioners of public morality, to have had their images set up in hyde park back to back, like the figure of hecate triformis, and so to have been forbidden eternally to blush unseen, as no doubt they now desire to do. it would be prudent, also, to wait a while before conferring diplomas of immortality upon the heroes of legislation. the fame of repealers of navigation laws and founders of household franchise should be considered as in a state of pupilage for at least fifty years; and they should not be allowed to sport bronze thighs and the toga virilis, before the public buildings or in the squares of the metropolis, ere the paper on which their bills are printed is well dry. it should be remembered that, in our haste, we may be placing an awful and easy vengeance in the hands of posterity; which might choose, not to pull down such monuments, but—to let them stand.

but of all modes of premature insistence upon the verdict of fame, that which is most to be avoided, if we would avoid making ourselves unnecessarily absurd, is that of decreeing immortality during or soon after their lifetime to literary men and artists. if, indeed, there existed academies of art and literature, which should consist of all the best men of their kind, all actuated by the most disinterested appreciation of merit not their own{144} in their own profession, then we might have some approximation—but only an approximation—to a safe tribunal; and if smith and his friends were such boobies as to want the cake of fame before it was baked, smith might be “busted up” in the abbey, or obtain a parliamentary guarantee of being puff-worthy, in his own day or immediately after, with little more to be said against it than that it was a want of decorum, all the more disgusting on account of the dignity of the occasion and the absence of any call for hurry. but, as no such academy could exist, or, if it existed, could make its decrees prevail with those who are the decreers of statues, how does the matter stand? a man who has done his best, perhaps, to give us harmless amusement, and whose only crime is that of having succeeded too well in adapting himself to the poor capacities and passing moods of his present audience, is now in such danger as he never was at any former time of finding himself rewarded with ten thousand per annum here and an eternity of contempt hereafter.

if persons of culture and natural taste have often to confess that the painter or poet or novelist whose muse was the seemingly faultless mistress of his affections five-and-twenty years ago, now stands before him as a false duessa, what should we think of the right to raise monuments claimed by that{145} public which is as changeable in its tastes as it is liberal in paying for their indulgence? yet it is this public that is venturing more and more audaciously to anticipate the verdict of time. true, it often uses a minister or a committee of experts as its agent, councillor, and representative; but it is none the safer for that. if the agents themselves know better, they know the value of their own popularity too well to say so; or they may have a secret grudge against smith, and so cry “ay” with all their hearts when the people ask, “shall smith have a statue?{146}”