They, account for his mistake-to give some reason for his former belief, and to show how it was that he was deceived. The reason given was, that from the acknowledged differences of opinion existing among the various classes of the liberal side of the House of Commons, Sir ROBERT PEEL expected that no union would be effected amongst them, and that by this division of his enemies he should be able to retain office, and govern the country. This division, however, unfortunately for the ex-Premier, did not render his opponents absolutely blind to their own interests. seeing their arch enemy in power, determined to forego their differences and combine their forces in order to rid themselves of the mischievous interloper. Thereupon Sir ROBERT was turned out; and thereupon, also, Sir ROBERT sets up a shout, half a whine, and half a laugh. His enemies combined, shameless politicians! The Radicals knew that a Tory in office would exclude all hope of Reform; the Whigs saw that a Tory in office would exclude them from all hope of power. They hated the Tories more than the Radicals, and they, therefore, did not refuse to aid the Radicals in ejecting the Tories. Mr O'CONNELL, Mr HUME, and Lord J. RUSSELL acted together; the rope of sand, as it was called, was found a bond of union the Tories could not sever, and thereupon Sir ROBERT indulges in signs of wonderment, and makes insinuation of dishonesty. The Liberals of every shade knew well, that all change, all reformation, would be impossible under Sir ROBERT PEEL: they all to some extent desired change-the great majority desired important and vital changes. They saw that by being united, advance could be made; they therefore joined together; and this, in Tory language, is called an unholy alliance. Sir ROBERT PEEL, in making this statement, but re-echoes what has been repeated by the Tory organs, times without number. He has furbished up an old and worn-out argument, and, in Jew fashion, brings it forward as new. He pretends to be astonished at the junction. He declares that he could not have expected it. Such things were never heard of before, and no other sect or party ever was guilty of so extraordinary a coalition! For his information, and for the proper edification of the public, I will describe a party which has done precisely the same thing, and to the same end-a party which, though close to Sir ROBERT, he, it appears, could not perceive-a party, in short, of which he was the leaderthe Tory party. The elements of which the Tory party, the Tory side of the House of Commons, is composed, are as discordant as any that are united under the Liberal auspices. The divisions existing among them are as marked as those of their opponents, and their political principles vary precisely in the same manner. The Liberals, however, found a common end; they discovered that in one great matter they agreed-viz. they all believed that a great reform in our institutions was needed. They differed, some of them, as to the extent of this reform. They differed also, in some degree, as to the means of effecting it; but they were unanimous in believing that some great change was necessary, and they believed also (and the event has justified their expectation) that a measure of immediate practical good could be proposed, which should unite all classes of Liberals, and make them act with harmony and with effect. The Tories also found that they, with all their many causes of discord, could unite for one great purpose, which should please all. They all of them desired place and power; they all of them desired to exclude the Liberals from any participation of the good things; and they all agreed that the principle of self-government was pernicious. They discovered that they all desired to prevent any change that should, in reality, strengthen the influ ence of the People. To maintain the present system of corruption intact in substance, they also found to be a common object. Differing as to the means of attaining this desired end, differing as to their conception of what was actually needed to maintain the system, they nevertheless united into one band, and together strove to put down and utterly to rout their opponents. The cases are similar; and if one party deserve reproach, the other cannot escape it. Such is the general statement. I will now bring evidence to sustain the description I have given in other words, I will describe the different sections of the Tory party in the House of Com mons. The opinions of this party, in their various gradations, form a descending or ascending scale, and their differences create the same difficulty to him describing them, that lies in the path of the naturalist when he endeavours to classify the various races of the human species. It is difficult to know where one class ends or the other begins. The extremes show wide divisions, while it is impossible accurately to state where the division begins. The difficulty will be immediately perceived by the following table of names. Between Lord MANDEVILLE and Mr PUSEY the distance is immense, but conservatives of every possible gradation may be found between the two. 1. Lord MANDEVILLE, Right Hon. H. GOULBURN, Lord STORMONT, Colonel SIBTHORPE, These are specimens of outrageous Conservatives-Tories of the out-andout school; men who hate all change, and who look upon the days of CAS. TLEREAGH as the standard or measure by which all other times ought to be tested. Folly, ignorance, and bigotry could hardly be more accurately represented. 2. Sir H. HARDINGE, Mr BONHAM, Mr H. TwisS, Mr GLADSTONE, Sir R. PEEL, Mr PRAED. These are official Tories;-the shade of their Conservatism varying, indeed, considerably, but still all their opinions are brought to agree by the expectation of place. For example: if it were not for hopes of office, Mr GLADSTONE would rival Sir R. INGLIS in his bigotry; but as he expects to be a minor star in the constellation of a Tory Ministry, he would prudently put any outrageous Conservatism in the dark, should it stand in the way of his official advancement. Mr H. Twiss has really no opinions at all; he puts on his Toryism much as MrGLADSTONE Would subdue his for place. Sir H. HARDINGE is a sharp little testy person, whose capacity really never reached a general principle. He is always, it would seem, ready to fight; and, from experience of his ability, I should think he could do nothing else. 3. Lord SANDON, Here is another set of Tories, of a shade and description entirely different from the preceding. More moderate, and in some degree more reasonable, excepting always Saint ANDREW. 4. Lord STANLEY, Sir J. GRAHAṀ, account for his mistake-to give some reason for his former belief, and to show how it was that he was deceived. The reason given was, that from the acknowledged differences of opinion existing among the various classes of the liberal side of the House of Commons, Sir ROBERT PEEL expected that no union would be effected amongst them, and that by this division of his enemies he should be able to retain office, and govern the country. This division, however, unfortunately for the ex-Premier, did not render his opponents absolutely blind to their own interests. They, seeing their arch enemy in power, determined to forego their differences and combine their forces in order to rid themselves of the mischievous interloper. Thereupon Sir ROBERT was turned out; and thereupon, also, Sir ROBERT sets up a shout, half a whine, and half a laugh. His enemies combined, shameless politicians! The Radicals knew that a Tory in office would exclude all hope of Reform; the Whigs saw that a Tory in office would exclude them from all hope of power. They hated the Tories more than the Radicals, and they, therefore, did not refuse to aid the Radicals in ejecting the Tories. Mr O'CONNELL, Mr HUME, and Lord J. RUSSELL acted together; the rope of sand, as it was called, was found a bond of union the Tories could not sever, and thereupon Sir ROBERT indulges in signs of wonderment, and makes insinuation of dishonesty. The Liberals of every shade knew well, that all change, all reformation, would be impossible under Sir ROBERT PEEL: they all to some extent desired change-the great majority desired important and vital changes. They saw that by being united, advance could be made; they therefore joined together; and this, in Tory language, is called an unholy alliance. Sir ROBERT PEEL, in making this statement, but re-echoes what has been repeated by the Tory organs, times without number. He has furbished up an old and worn-out argument, and, in Jew fashion, brings it forward as new. He pretends to be astonished at the junction. He declares that he could not have expected it. Such things were never heard of before, and no other sect or party ever was guilty of so extraordinary a coalition! For his information, and for the proper edification of the public, I will describe a party which has done precisely the same thing, and to the same end-a party which, though close to Sir ROBERT, he, it appears, could not perceive-a party, in short, of which he was the leader— the Tory party. The elements of which the Tory party, the Tory side of the House of Commons, is composed, are as discordant as any that are united under the Liberal auspices. The divisions existing among them are as marked as those of their opponents, and their political principles vary precisely in the same manner. The Liberals, however, found a common end; they discovered that in one great matter they agreed-viz. they all believed that a great reform in our institutions was needed. They differed, some of them, as to the extent of this reform. They differed also, in some degree, as to the means of effecting it; but they were unanimous in believing that some great change was necessary, and they believed also (and the event has justified their expectation) that a measure of immediate practical good could be proposed, which should unite all classes of Liberals, and make them act with harmony and with effect. The Tories also found that they, with all their many causes of discord, could unite for one great purpose, which should please all. They all of them desired place and power; they all of them desired to exclude the Liberals from any participation of the good things; and they all agreed that the principle of self-government was pernicious. They discovered that they all desired to prevent any change that should, in reality, strengthen the influ ence of the People. To maintain the present system of corruption intact in substance, they also found to be a common object. Differing as to the means of attaining this desired end, differing as to their conception of what was actually needed to maintain the system, they nevertheless united into one band, and together strove to put down and utterly to rout their opponents. The cases are similar; and if one party deserve reproach, the other cannot escape it. Such is the general statement. I will now bring evidence to sustain the description I have given in other words, I will describe the different sections of the Tory party in the House of Com mons. The opinions of this party, in their various gradations, form a descending or ascending scale, and their differences create the same difficulty to him describing them, that lies in the path of the naturalist when he endeavours to classify the various races of the human species. It is difficult to know where one class ends or the other begins. The extremes show wide divisions, while it is impossible accurately to state where the division begins. The difficulty will be immediately perceived by the following table of names. Between Lord MANDEVILLE and Mr PUSEY the distance is immense, but conservatives of every possible gradation may be found between the two. 1. Lord MANDEVILLE, Right Hon. H. GOULBURN, These are specimens of outrageous Conservatives-Tories of the out-andout school; men who hate all change, and who look upon the days of CAS. TLEREAGH as the standard or measure by which all other times ought to be tested. Folly, ignorance, and bigotry could hardly be more accurately repre sented. 2. Sir H. HARDINGE, Mr BONHAM, Mr H. Twiss, Mr GLADSTONE, Sir R. PEEL, Mr PRAED. These are official Tories;-the shade of their Conservatism varying, indeed, considerably, but still all their opinions are brought to agree by the expectation of place. For example: if it were not for hopes of office, Mr GLADSTONE would rival Sir R. INGLIS in his bigotry; but as he expects to be a minor star in the constellation of a Tory Ministry, he would prudently put any outrageous Conservatism in the dark, should it stand in the way of his official advancement. Mr H. Twiss has really no opinions at all; he puts on his Toryism much as MrGLADSTONE would subdue his for place. Sir H. HARDINGE is a sharp little testy person, whose capacity really never reached a general principle. He is always, it would seem, ready to fight; and, from experience of his ability, I should think he could do nothing else. 3. Lord SANDON, Mr ALSAGER. Here is another set of Tories, of a shade and description entirely different from the preceding. More moderate, and in some degree more reasonable, excepting always Saint ANDREW. 4. Lord STANLEY, Sir J. GRAHAM, Sir M. RIDLEY, Sir M. S. STEWART, Mr G. F. YOUNG. These may be called the indescribables. They are Conservatives; but evidently of a different nature must their Conservatism be, from that of Sir R. INGLIS and Mr SHAW. These also differ greatly among themselves. Lord STANLEY is a hot-headed, supercilious, and an ignorant, haughty Aristocrat. Mr ROBINSON is simply imbecile. Mr SINCLAIR seems crazy; and Mr DENISON is too weak to have any opinion. Mr G. F. YOUNG takes up his position among the Tories, because when parties are balanced, the doubtful men become important. Should parties be decided, that is, should one obtain a marked majority, we shall see Mr YOUNG the very humble servant of the majority. 5. Mr MILES (Somerset), Mr Alderman THOMPSON, Here again is another set of Tories, wholly different in their principles and proceedings from those mentioned above. If from this extract of Toryism we make a compound extract, and take Sir R. INGLIS, Sir R. PEEL, Lord STANLEY, and Mr PUSEY, do we not find under the same banner men as opposite in principles as are Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr O'CONNELL, Mr HUME, and Mr GROTE. Sir ROBERT INGLIS was in his heart violently opposed to every portion of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S bill for the relief of the Dissenters. Had this bill been proposed by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the member for the University of Oxford would not have been content silently to leave the House when he heard the explanation of its purpose. Furious opposition would then have been deemed his duty, and we should have seen what was really the distinction between the opinions which that proposed measure evinced, and those of Sir R. INGLIS. It should be remembered that this difference exists not on a minor point, but on the grand principle of religious toleration. Sir R. PEEL on this point differed seriously from his more sturdy namesake, and proposed a measure which Sir R. INGLIS must have believed wholly subversive of every principle upon which the Church of England is founded. Again, on the subject of the Appropriation of the Revenues of the Irish Church, Mr PUSEY differed from Sir ROBERT PEEL, Lord STANLEY, and Sir R. INGLIS; and this difference, both as regards principle and expediency, is quite as marked, and quite as important, as the difference between Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Mr GROTE on the Ballot. If we turn back to the proceedings of the GREY Ministry, we shall find Sir R. PEEL in almost every case in which the Tories were opposed to that Government, voting against Lord STANLEY. How, then, can it be said that the elements of which the Tory party is composed, are homogeneous and harmonious? The truth is, that Sir ROBERT PEEL united under his banner, during his late short holding of office, men of the most opposite characters and opinions, because his whole dealings during that time were false and hypocritical. He saw that the nation, that is, the great majority of the People, desired certain great changes in their institutions. He saw that in order to keep the nation quiet, he must promise to yield in some degree, and a large degree, to their wishes; he therefore made very liberal professions. These professions gave many persons, of no fixed principles, or steadfastness of character, an excuse |