O

i ‘ '

so: mum.» mutant. ‘

tered by profane adoration ; reverenced to-day, dis- carded to-znorrow; always jostled out of the place which nature and society would assign her, by sensuality or contempt; radmired, but not esteemed; ruling by passion, not affection; imparting her weakness, not her con- stancy, to the sex she would exalt ; the source and mir- ror of vanity—we see her as a wife, partaking the cares

,and cheering the anxiety of a husband; dividinghis

, .5 “1-.

toils, by her domestic diligence; spreading cheerfulness around her, for his sake; sharing the decent refinements ofthe world, without being vain oftltcm; placing all her joys and all her happiness in the man she loves.

As a mother, we find her the affectionate, the ardent instructress of the children, whom she has tended from their infancy; training them up to thought and virtue; to piety and I benevolence ; addressing them as rational beings, and preparing them to become men and women, in their turn. Mechanics’ daughters should make the best wives in the world.”

mm

’1'!!! sto-cortrtnaxcz ozone—omit noaear PEEL’S sreecn

-mno wonstv AND ms COLLEAGUES—TORY TAC-

Tics—riic sLioixo scam: roit 'rne AGRICULTUBXSTS,

sun a Low vixen nu'rv you run TOWNS—BOTH cau-

ivorr er. raun—wntcn is’l

Sir Robert Peel gave'notice, on Monday last, ofa Motion framed with characteristic cunning in the art of vote-catching, in the hope that; if carried. by a majority, however small, and coupled With a similar expression of feeling in the House of Dords, it would compel the Government to have recourse to a Dissolu- tion, without venturing to await the issue of the Corn- st Debate. ,

We have expressed elsewhere our opinion of the im- policy of this step (as a Party move), and of its probable results; and we know that many Conservatives concur in our views. As to the motion itself, our Readers shell judge for themselves; but ifthey can draw from it any clear idea of the future course of the Peel Cabi- net, t have much more penetration than we can boast o , and can see further into a mill-stone than the rest of the world.

“ That her Majesty's ministers do not sufficiently possess the confidence ofthe House of Commons to enable them to carry through the house measures which they deem of essential im- port-rice to the public welfare; and that their continuance in ufiice, under such circumstances, is at variance with the spirit ofthe 'Iltllnlion."

These propositions Sir R. Peel worked out, on Thursday night, in a speech so tame, so flat, so spirit~ less, and s so apologetic in many parts, that we doubt whether Lord Stanley will ever speax again of “ the admirable ingenuity with which his Right Honourable Frigitd can dress up a statement for the House of Coni~ mons;" a quality which no one denies to him when his heart is in it, and his opinions coincide with the course which circumstances compel him to take.

The first half of his argument consisted in a labour- ed attempt to prove what no man doubts, that a Go- vernment is never respected, or respectable, if weak, and that the attempt to maintain a Minority in power, under a Representative system, by the favour of the Crown, neither can, or ought to, sticcced.

He pleaded his own conduct in 1835, and that ofthe Duke of Wellington in 1830, as an illustration ofthis; —the Duke having thought it his duty to resign when left in s Minority of Five upon the Civil list, and he himself having given up the Government in l835. the moment the House of Commons had declared against him upon a measure so important as the Irish Church. There was no analogy whatsoever between existing circumstances, and the case of Mt. Pitt in 1784. Mr. Pitt indeed held the Government in spite of a majority of the House of Commons, but upon the plea that the oppoaition ofthat majority to him was prrsorml ;—that the Resolutions. whichit passed against him, were not founded upon any disapprobation of his mmsures,—for he had brought none forward—but were a direct attack upon the right ofthe Crown to choose its own Ministers; —and that the King, in dissolving, appealed from a Fac- tion to the Country.

' Now, begging Sir R. Peel's pardon, there is some analogy here. The address ofthe majority of the House of Commons in I784 against it Dissolution, was con- ceived in the same spirit that animates the majority qow. The object in both cases is to secure a power concentrated in certain hands, against the consequences of a Popular Appeal. If Pitt had been fiirced to give up the Dissolution, which he contemplated as a last re- source when he took office, he must have given up of- fice too, and succumbed to that majority, whose tenure he consented to affirm. Just so, Lord Melbourne now. He never could in reason expect to carry the extensive changes proposed, in the present House of Commons, and Is must give up those changes, or break up the majority which is opposed to them and him.

5 Sir Robert Peel does not deny the Constitutional right to do this, or dispute the fact that Parliaments have been dissolved upon lighter grounds. Under Mr. Perceval a_disstilution took place because Ministers had fly 3 majority of 46,—the ne plus ultra, we should imagine, of the most sanguine man’s hopes on either side, in these degenerate days! But it is argued that a weak Government has no right to appeal from the Re- presentative body to the Constituent body, because it has failed in carrying certain measures ;—and weakness is a sin which Sir Robert Peel conceived he’ had brought horns to the Government by a reference to its conduct upon the Appropriation Clause, the Jamaica Bill, and the present Budget,—Mr. Baring having sub- mitted on Moqlay last, to the degradation of bringing in a Bill for the regulation ofthe Sugar Duties, upon the basis forced upon him by the Opposition, without one word of explanation, or apology.

‘ Now, to us Mr. Baring’s silence was remarkably sig- nificant. Lord Darlington understood it, if Sir Robert Peel did not; for as no man believes that the Govern- ment intends. to continue in office in a minority, the means by whidh'this minority was to be rectified, were suficiently clear. We may admit, therefore, without scruple, that the attempt to govern permanently by the aid of a minority, “ Would be subversive if the authority both of the House qf Commons, and of the Crown ,-” _—-that there are no “ special circumstances,’ that can Justify such a determination on the part of any Minis- ters, still less ofa Government which, ifit has not the Commons to sustain it, certainly has not the Lords; —and that ifrve admitted Ministers to be fit judges of those cases, in which an exception might be made to

ordinary rules, we should have nothing but exceptions, and no rules at all.

a

untouched Robert Peel warns us of‘ the perils of'

nounces the attempt to excite charms ofa Duty of] Shilling we ask in return, whether,

Agitation, and de-

per Bushel on wheat,

A" ‘hi' i” “"denieble.—but it leaves the question of lb“ Bo'ough “gain. we

the “we” to ‘he country 5 and when Si, pressed, six weeks hence, upon somewhat better

the public mind by the .0

must leave things for ever as they are? May not peace be too dearly bought, if national ruin is to be its price- And are we to submit to see the withering up of our re,- sources, and the inevitable decay of our trade, in ordeé' to avoid that temporary suspension of business, an

interference with the Retail Trade in wheat, (.we use the Right Hon. Baronet‘s own words,) to.whi.ch ;lle agitation of the Corn Law Question may give rise . If Why, what a peddling pitiful argument, is thisl d

good for any thing it is gogd against all change on 6! anv circumstances, or at any time. Does Sir Robert Peel mean this? _ If so, why hold out a prospect of mo- ilifying the Sliding Scale, when he and his friends are in power. But nothing can be more disingenuous, more slippery,-—(as Lord Palmerston called it,) than the con- duct ol‘ihe Conservatives upon this subject; for _wlllle Sir Robert Peel catches his agricultural gulls In the House of Commons by affecting to sneer at Lord- Wors-

'l Iey's supposition that no one knew precisely the extent

to which modifications might be carried in his hands, we are credibly informed that Sir George Mun-ax. m Manchester, has been affecting to consider the Ministe- rial Duty as too high, and making a handsome bid of Sir Shillings a Quarter, instead of Eight, as the Duty which he and his Party are prepared to support! >

Now, this, iftrue, is most disingenuous; if not true. most disgraceful both to the party and the man. We believe it, because it is precisely the line taken by the Conservatives .upon the Catholic question last year, when the rampant fanaticism of their Hastings. oratoI'S was atoned for by a disgusting alfectation of liberality in the House. But the trick is stale. It will not bear repetition. The Country demands not solemn plausi- bilities, but tangible facts ;—and when Sir Robert Peel. at the close of his most insipid harangue, claimed credit for his frankness except in matters of Finance, we could not help thinking how few would care for declarations, in which the one essential, and indispen- sible thing was left out. ’

It is upon Finance that the question between the two parties now exclusively turns. We shall ask no- thing about the Ballot, or Short Parliaments, or the Suffrage itself, at the coming Election, but simply whether a man means to give us Cheap Bread, and Free Trade? If he do he will serve our turn, for we prefer Mr Baring's Budget, with all its uncertainties, to the certainty of a Loan to cover the Deficit of this year, and the total impossibility of speculating upon what next year may produce, which is all that is vouchsafed to us by Sir Robert Peel’s exquisite caution in Fi- mince.

Lord Worsley, who spoke after Sir Robert Peel, wiped out with a Single remark, a large portion 0f,his

Confidence were worth any thing, the untoward remem- brances of the appropriation Clause, and the Jamaica Bill, which the Member for Tamworth had invoked, Were ell'aced by the Majority upon Sir John Yarde Bul- ler's Motion last year. He should himselfsupport the

that, because he differed with them upon one point, it was incumbent upon him to vote against them upon all.

This declaration drew down upon Lord \Vorsley a fierce attack from Mr. Christopher, who declared that no man had left the Lincolnshire County Meeting on Friday last, withouta full conviction that he had with- drawn his confidence from the Ministry, in lieu of which he now headed the Renegade band, by which the Anti-Carn-Law Cabinet was to be saved! But Lord VVorsley proved, by a reference to the report of his speech, that he had said nothing to warrantthis im- pression, having expressed, in the strongest terms, l‘is distrust of Sir Robert Peel, and expressly guarded him- selfagainst flie supposition that he would either bring forward a vote of want of confidence, or concur in it ifproposed.

Of Sir John Cam Hobhouse, and other intermediate speakers, Mr. D‘Isrneli, Sir Hesketh Fleet'vood, and Mr. Walter, our limits do not permit us to say much; but Mr. Macaulay’s speech, which ended the first night’s Debate, deserves most honourable mention, for it was rich in matter, vigorous in tone, 'and striking both by the frankness ofits admissions, and the man- liuess of its closing appeal.—Mr. Macaulay’s argument was divided into tw0'parls. In the first of which he proved that there was nothing in the practice, or spirit, ofthe Constitution, that rendered it incumbent upon a Government to resign because unable to carry new measures through Parliament. Mr. Pitt had not re- signed when defeated upon the Fortification Bill, though his resolution declared it to be essential to the safety of the country. Lord Castlereagh had been eaten upon the Income Tax, yct remained in office: and Lord Slanhope, in earlier times, had continued Minister though the Peerage Limitavion Bill was lost, to which the greatest importance was attached by the Government ofthat day.

But if occasional concessions to opinion were necessary before the passing of the Reform Bill, how was it possible to dispense with them now, when the power of sending members to the House of Commons had been transferred from Rotten Boroughs to large Constituencies, each of which expected to exercise some influence, if not control over the opinions of its Representative? The consequences ofthis were fore- seen by the Duke of Wellington, who said, in 183], that we should never have what was termed a strong Government again; and if the principle ofthe Con- stitution were rightly laid down by Sir Robert Peel, —if.a Government was never to propose a measure in Parliament without carrying it, or resigning if it did not succeed,—the Resolution if adopted would establish a 'rule, that would inevitably prove fatal to his own Ad- ministration, sitting Six months after it had raised him to power.

The Debate of Friday began with Mr. Milnes, of whom Ive fear that we can only say that he is too good a poet ever to make a good speaker on ordinary matters amongst practical men. His great gun proved to be loaded with Snipe-shot; and Mr. Darby, Who followed him, had no shot at all ;—so that unless it be determin- ed by some overruling power that the Government shall die a violent death there was nothing 0 e part of the Tory orators to in- spire the slightest anxiety as to its fate.

' Lord Teignrnonth, indeed, affirmed that, to his cer- tain knowledge, Ministers had lost the confidence of at least three hundred Chartists in Marylebone ; but as his lordship admilted, with praiseworthy modesty, that it was very doubtful whether he should himself represent may leave its opinion to be ex. grounds,

(a e have not the least doubt that ‘t 'l ' relives Napier. ' I m I be’) by s"

- Lord Sandou argued that, Trade being bad, it was

to "aid this "enamel", we very imprudent, (we wonder he did not say very uncon.

speech, for he said, (and very justly,) that if Votes of

Government upon the present occasion, not conceiving‘

,to the Country, with which they presumed

ehands of Sir Robert Peel, T

cences upon this subject bronaht 11 John Russell, not easily to beer ome to

'W‘l' L’

to‘attempt anything for

its relief; but! as

i ' ‘V do were flourishiiig,ii '1 Lord Morpethjngt‘ly remarked, if'ijq‘ae moxive for Change

stitutional.)

Id wish to interfere. . I grisiigtys ‘ivli’ullle universality oftlge diptgizsi, there must be, ifthis is ever to ‘e re . “(I Mr. san- This was the feeling also of Mr. Hutt, a lament elo- ford ' while Mr Grattan, whose Wild and ve i foreible “m,” is “"8"!” ii‘eiipeli‘i’i or" 5:2..T3‘1t. in 1..-

' . le (3 a I uuhhshijedliigleiiigsfoniiilence could never be giveni iii: Tories, although the House of Commons m g

choose to refuse it to the WhIgS- “can-

Lord Morpeth’s speech wit: (:31 euqnueaéuitl‘z gay “the m_ layis in power’ bl” n “no i 'o ntil its mea- temion orlhe Guvem'meilt "cit/ii; rli’aisilrliiiimilent, convened sures had been submitte ‘0 a . - their fate. The for the “press Putl’osehOfdeif/hlglnvigrge to form this Par- Couutry, iii clIQosmg 1 "set . r “,ng on the lianieut, “'Olll‘l remnect mat It kmiw eve‘ y at art Peel. one side, and pothing on th: othepl-é fOEOSlIIIESEd ) peculiar as was usually the case I“ en P me world frankness, had made it l’llS‘ studll ‘0 15”“ which particularly in the dark. The only Pomt’ "[23" ,ion to he had been explicit, was in vowmg eternal a iestk de- the Sliding Scale, and the people of England mqu er ‘ a termine whether this Singular devotion ltorso anigenlce path, should prove, or not, a passport to t ieir co ‘

v wcr.

andAsiiopfhe weakness of the Government, lhe Pro"fs 0f ' ' l4 r The name of England had never it were. smgu «i - G vemmem stood hioher abroad than under that weak 0 ' i

' l: -k d' and at home the mOSt alarm‘ which it as now attac e , _ 1’9? had been Put ing agitation that had appeared Since I owers down, without any demand for extraor inaryg ~ There had been no suspension of the Habeas 079‘”: —no Six Acts,—no Gagging Bills,—-ye1 Comple‘el mm' quillity was restored. The only proofs of wea mess, therefore, were in the nicely balanced state of, Parlles \in.that House; but was this an evil that a change 9 Government would remove? He saw no SignS'Of ll m the only measures that the Conservatives had tried them- selves, for nothing could equal the contempt \vith w‘hlcll the resolution upon the sugar duties had been received. The country had been disgusted by its hypocrisy,‘ Mid it had been literally scouted out of Exeter Hall. '1 here was, therefore, no security that a Conservative Govern- ment would be better able to carry its measures than the Government that we had now; but there were measures which no Government could bring forward Without being prepared to stand or fall by them. This was the case with the financial changes recently proposed. They were a change of system, not of particular taxes:. '1 he Government had seen the possibility of supplying the deficiency in the Revenue, not merely Without detri- ment, but with advantage to the people. The Treasury would be enriched, yet the people relieved—and when it recommended this change of system, it was fullypre- pared to abide the issue, and not to bow to any decismn short ofthat of the country itself. To the country the matter would now be referred.‘ If the deep feelings of 1831 were revived, the people would triumph Over the class interests with which they had to contend. If the people were indifferent, the ministers would have the consolation of having done their “duty lioaestly,‘and, after handing over the government to their opponents, would endeavour to advance, as private individuals, those principles wliichbas public men, they had done their utmost to promote. Sir James Graham answered Lord Morpeth in the most slashing speech that has yet been made on the To- ry side. This is natural. The Ex-Member for Cumber- land speaks with the proverbial fervour of a Renegade ; and he has, moreover, some personal objects in India, which sharpen, at the present moment, both his wits, and his appetite for power. We will not be induced, how- ever by any dislike ofthe tone and temper of Sir J. Gra- ham's speech, to deny its ability, which was unquestion- able. It was well delivered, and skilfully conceived. The point about the Poor Laws was admirably made, for there can be no doubt that it w0uld have been infinitely better to ask, in the first instance, for the minimum of power, and thcnto carry the Law unchanged, than to ask for everything, and then to give up so much, that no one can now foresee in what the measure will end. But it is in his personalities that Sir James Graham stands unrivalled. His bitter sarcasm upon “ Whigs crouching under the prerogative of the Crown,” (he would have said petticoat, had he dared. for that is the usual tory phrase,) "and pleading the precedent of Mr. Pitt,”—drew cheers from the Tory benches louder, and longer, far, than any that had greeted Sir Robert Peel ; —-—but even the most enthusiastic of his admirers were astounded at the cool impudence of the man, whom they follow, yet dislike, and despise, when, turning to the Treasury Bench, he said,—" I abide by Mr. Fox! l” He then reprobated all delay in dissolving. It was an interregnum. The Dissolution ,should be instant. A beaten‘Ministry had no right to ask the House to pro- ceed With the Supplies; and if they delayed that appeal to threaten the House, he hoped and predicted, that, in a new Par- liament, Avengers would be found of the insulted div- nity ofthe old. . - ° I But the Dissolution itself was unjustifiable. The ad- v1ce to dissplve was Revolutionary. (Here, Lord John Russell whispered across the table the word “ 1831,” when the same advice tendered by Sir James Graham, and acted uppn by the Crown, was designated as Revolu- “Onal'y.h)’ SH” Hardinge, who now sits by his side.) Mng'erneyi "13807.. had said that nothing but the malice of the Devil himself could have recommended a Dissolution at a'moment when the cry of“ the Church in danger “'35 ""58d ;—and was there less danger in the "Y or Cheap bread? Had not. agitation begun in hioh Wipes? Did not Lord Morpeth say last year that R2- ligion itself prescribed an alteration in the Corn Laws? —(great cheers from the Ministerial side)—and had not Lord John Russell himself affirmed that “the bane- 3:31p: designs of.Providence,were counteracted by the

~Slgl‘lted policy of man 1 ’ (Immense cheers.) The

men,wbo held this language yet disclai ’ ' . _ . med a were like Sampson sending oiit ' guano",

fields ofthe Egyptians, with fire hey were Pirates firing the Shilling Duty was a desperate pln But their reign was over—their gland would soon be relieved fro tration with which she had ever

There is power in this, but neith ' '

cy, when we recollect that no man didjiddlcdeeen: qecehn- very system. which he condemns, than Sir Jalin mG: e ham in lSBl.—What he did then he now decriezs' Ira- was the Prince of Agitators—the most daring of“ {e Ithe largest Fox-preserver, (for incendiary pur osi‘ratfjs t c three kingdoms ;—and if he have not some preinsiihlsn

him by Lord

and Change