able men from the liberal ranks. Rejecting this exaggeration of their own principles, they are stigmatized as cold or indifferent to the principles themselves. Practical good sense cannot be more usefully applied, than in exposing and resisting the application to evil of doctrines essentially true, when confined within their due limits. Charles Surface would have been justified in selling the portrait of Uncle Noll,' if the picture had been an odious caricature, in place of a correct likeness. To the Government, these Impracticables are also mischievous, and this mischief is sometimes increased by inconsiderate support given to them by men of a much better class. Should Lord John Russell propose to relieve the ten-pound householders from any one of the onerous conditions to which they are subject, the Whigs are charged with enacting every restraint allowed to continue on the statutebook. Should the punishment of death be repealed in ninetyfive out of a hundred cases, the Whigs are held up as creating capital offences in the five of exception. If the duty on newspapers be reduced from fourpence to one penny, the measure is dealt with, not as a removal of seventy-five per cent of an impolitic tax, but as the imposition of an insulting burden upon knowledge. Thus a tone is given which depreciates the best efforts of the Government-which deprives them of that popular encouragement which is a reward in victory, and a consolation. in defeat. It deadens popular feeling, it weakens popular support, and diminishes-though in honourable minds it cannot destroy the motives to perseverance in a struggle for the advancement of civil liberty. Depend upon it,' said Lord Melbourne in 1835, in reply to an address from Derby, the popular party are not sufficiently strong to bear any divisions among them'selves.' This truth is, at the least, as undeniable now as it was five years back. These fatal divisions are to be averted, not by calling upon any class to do that, which, on reflection and principle, they disapprove, but by enforcing on all the policy of contending manfully for the opinions which they hold in common, and inculcating forbearance on the points where they differ.

Perhaps all this may be conceded to us; but it may still be urged, that, although a freedom and independence of action may be unavoidable among the individuals who compose the Liberal party, such difference of opinion becomes objectionable if tolerated within the Government itself. It is not our intention at present to discuss the propriety of open questions,' and indeed it is not necessary that we should do so. It will be sufficient for our purpose to call the attention of our readers to the only two cases in which it has been stated that open questions now exist. We allude to the question of the Corn-Laws and to that of the

Ballot. It would be beyond our present limits to argue either of these questions upon its merits. Our object is to show that neither the public interest, nor the characters of the members of the Government, are prejudiced by the liberty of action conceded on these points to the Ministers of the Crown, and to those who act under their authority. We allude only, in passing, to a fact perfectly notorious. The charge of want of unanimity on the Corn-Laws, is brought forward to prove that the present Ministry are undeserving of public confidence. This mortal sin is supposed to be peculiarly their own. Now it so happens that, during the government of Lord Grey-now so often appealed to with encomium by those who had been among its most violent opponents the most uncompromising reply given to the Corn-Law arguments of Sir James Graham, then a cabinet minister, proceeded, not from an opponent to the Government, or from a person unconnected with it, but from Mr Poulett Thompson, representing the Board of Trade in the House of Commons. We should be sorry to rest our justification on precedent only. We are prepared to assert that there could not be a greater misfortune for the public, and for the progress of the Corn-Law question, than that it should be taken up, and dealt with strictly, as a party question. We believe that it would retard the settlement to which we anxiously look forward-a settlement that can only be made with safety, if the question is argued on principles of amicable discussion, admitting the existence of rights and interests on both sides. This reconcilement of conflicting views would not be promoted, if one of the great parties of the state was to pledge itself for, and the other against, the repeal or modification of the present Corn-Laws. The violence and exaggeration to which a question of this nature inevitably leads, would all be augmented were the repeal of the Corn-Laws to become the watchword of party. The exasperated spirit which now, both in prose and verse, treats the proprietors and farmers throughout the empire as selfish robbers; the ignorant prejudice which resists all proposal of change as spoliation and radicalism; would be fearfully increased, if the line which divides the two sides of the House was also the division between the supporters and opposers of the existing law. Already the tendency to estrangement between the several classes in society is most formidable. They have each taken up an adverse and threatening position. They have each their missionaries, their conventions, their advocates, and even their poets. The tendency of all this is to tear society asunder, and to produce bitter and enduring animosities. The coming strife may be a strife between the great bulk of the manufacturers and consumers on the one hand, and the class of agricultural proprietors

upon the other. Should a period of dearth arise, no one can contemplate the collision without awe and apprehension. That the present Corn-Laws should, under such circumstances, be scattered to the winds, is perhaps not the most important, though it is the most certain result. But all other evils would be enhanced, and the hopes of a dispassionate and a just settlement would be indefinitely postponed, if, to the other causes of hatred and animosity, were to be added the violence of party division. Earnestly desiring, therefore, that the dangers which are here described may be averted; and believing that this can best be achieved by forming a just estimate of the rights of the contending parties through mutual concession, ultimately leading to an equitable compromise, we rejoice that the Corn-Laws are not to be discussed upon the stern principles of party. The Liberal party ought to be tolerant, when they find that some of their most conscientious and honourable friends adhere to the principles of agricultural protection; and the Tories will act prudently if they decline committing themselves to any unalterable resolution against a salutary change, when they find that the pigeon which they released from their ark at Devonport, has brought them back a head of Odessa Wheat as a badge of peace and of security.

Nor is the objection on the subject of the Ballot less easy to be answered. Differences of opinion are distinguishable into two classes perfectly distinct the one from the other. A difference of principle is a manifest inconvenience, and may be an absolute bar to combination in action; it is far otherwise in respect to a difference of opinion on the mode of applying a principle, acknowledged as just on both sides. The principle which is involved in the question of the Ballot, is the recognition of the right of the voter to exercise his franchise free from all intimidation or corrupt influence. Has it ever been stated, that upon this point any difference of opinion exists between the friends and the opponents of the Ballot in the Cabinet? On the contrary, have they not on all occasions, whether in or out of office, as individual members of Parliament, or as members of an Administration, contended against that base and sordid doctrine which considers the constituency of England as so many chessmen with whom the privileged orders are to play? Has Lord John Russell in opposing, any more than Mr Macaulay in supporting, the Ballot, hesitated to avow the old constitutional doctrine that elections should be free, and therefore that the electors should be free also? As concerning the object to be gained, so far from discovering any difference of opinion, we perceive a sincere and perfect unanimity. Whether the Ballot will effect its object-whether it can

be carried into practice, whether it may not produce new and serious inconveniences, whether it may not diminish the force of public opinion, by substituting the balloting-box for the higher and nobler agency of censure and applause-these are all important considerations, upon which, were the present occa sion a fitting one, we should not hesitate to express our opinion. But we wish to impress upon the minds of our readers that this formidable difference, which is to work the disqualification of our Whig Ministers, is a difference with respect to the modus operandi, and not a difference on the object to be effected.

We admit, however, that the Tories may boast a concord of opinion, both on the principle and the detail of this question. Theirs is the glorious doctrine,' that a man may do as he will with his own' theirs the perverted use of the maxim which affirms the influence of property. Their theorists-and we grieve to say their moralists and divines also-maintain and defend doctrines which are, in our opinion, repulsive to the first principles of freedom and of duty. Their reasoning is to the following effect :We, the educated classes, are alone capable of judging upon high questions of political interest. We are bound in every way to advance those interests to which we are on conviction attached. This is our duty specially in reference to the conduct of others, whose capacity of judging is less than our own. Therefore we should persuade our dependents, where persuasion will be effectual, to surrender their consciences and their votes into our keeping. If persuasion is ineffectual, their pecuniary interests should be appealed to. If they are blindly insensible to interest, then coercion ought to be employed. But, under all circumstances and by all methods, the vote of the ten-pound householder must be procured, or an opportunity is lost to strengthen the good cause, and an imperative duty is neglected. This logic, if true, would lead even beyond Toryism. It is the doctrine of persecution it leads to the practices of the Inquisition.

It might perhaps be imagined, that men who exhibit such exquisite sensibility on the subject of union and agreement between all the members of a government, had been, when themselves in office, one pure and unbroken chrysolite. But, unless our memory deceives us, they rather resembled a piece of ill-compacted pudding-stone. They had tolerated in one cabinet the liberal and enlightened Canning, hunting in couples with Lord Eldon: Lord Wellesley, the eloquent advocate of emancipation, was condemned to receive his instructions from Lord Sidmouth: Mr Goulburn and Lord Plunket were jointly associated in the government of Ireland. Here were exhibited differences of opinion of no common kind; for the one party held

emancipation to be the destruction of the constitution of England; the other considered religious equality to be the means of safety, as well as the accomplishment of the ends of justice. These differences of opinion extended to all questions of administration; they interfered with every act of state-with every appointment, and with every election. Nor were they confined to the Catholic question, or to Irish politics. In foreign policy, in commercial regulations, in financial affairs, the same differences prevailed. The Treasury Bench,' wittily observed Lord Brougham in 1824, resembles the keys of a pianoforte, now a black note and now a white one; until, when approaching the Crown lawyers, in the persons of Sir Charles Wetherall and Sir John Copley, we find two very black notes brought closely together.' Such are the persons who now charge the Government with a want of concord and of unity in opinion! From Sir James Graham the charge comes with a still worse grace. His feelings, it would appear, are outraged by the difference of opinion between Lord John Russell and Mr Macaulay. When the member for Pembroke next meets the Cumberland Farmer,' he may perhaps learn how greater differences of opinion may be reconciled. When the man who was as great a believer in small notes as Mr Attwood himself, can justify his present faith in the gold standard-when the same man who proposed to make the Ballot a part of the Reform Bill, can defend his opposition to all further change, he may then find some justification for the vehemence of his attacks upon his former colleagues.

But passing from former times, and a particular instance, to the actual condition of the Tory party-is there any one fact which is more evident and more undeniable than the irreconcilable differences of principle which exist among those who compose the Opposition? They may profess one common allegiance to their distinguished leader; but the seamen at the Nore were not a more mutinous crew. Servi è ver, ma servi ognor frementi. It is from their ranks that the most unmitigated abuse is pointed against Sir Robert Peel. We doubt whether their political antipathies against their natural enemies the Whigs, approach in inveteracy to the mistrust and hatred which they are at no pains to conceal, when they discuss the past life, and anticipate the future course of him whom they are constrained reluctantly to follow. The little knot of ex-official men-those whom these political partisans are wont to designate as the red-tape squadron may perhaps keep compactly together. But whenever a question arises, either in or out of Parliament, in which the late and the present member for the University of Oxford draw out their respective forces, the Oriflamme on which are inscribed the