Chartism and Socialism were to be extinguished; and tranquillity was to be the result of obedience to laws administered under trustworthy Tory authorities. The new poor-law bill was to be repealed, or, at least, the despots of Somerset House were to be dethroned. Ireland was to be governed on what were called Protestant principles; the personal animosity and unmitigated railings heretofore directed against Mr O'Connell, were to assume the shape of practical measures of repression; and, above all, the general policy of the government was neither to be checked nor controlled by any fear of the ultra-popular party, nor interrupted or influenced from apprehensions of the Roman Catholics. The cry for repeal was to be met by unmeasured scorn and uncompromising defiance. The education of the people was to be placed in the hands of the clergy of the Established Church. The mutilated versions of the Scriptures were to be banished from the Irish national schools. Archbishop Whately and his excellent colleague, Archbishop Murray, were to be removed from their sphere of useful and honourable labour in Ireland; and in England, a lay and political committee of the Privy Council, usurping the functions of a minister of public instruction, was to be replaced by a syndicate of bishops, assisted by the learned members for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. But we need not proceed with this enumeration. It is sufficient to say, that in all points whatsoever, the conduct of the promised Tory ministers was described as likely to form a contrast to that pursued by their too long successful opponents; and on every one of the questions to which we have adverted, the strongest expectations of a practical change of policy were either held out directly, or were encouraged by silent but expressive acquiescence, as the immediate results of a change in the Councils of her Majesty.

It was under the influence of these expectations that the General Election of 1842 took place. An appeal was made to the strongest and the most widely-spread prejudices. But we doubt whether this appeal would have been successful, had it not been for other contemporaneous circumstances. Unreasonable alarms had induced many very respectable but timid friends of liberal opinions to withdraw, or at least to modify, the support which they gave to the Whig government. England is never without a numerous class who are prone to be influenced by apprehension and timidity; and in this instance the ranks of the Alarmists received many recruits. The political fallacies which have been exposed with so much humour by Bentham, were all brought into play. Those who did not, and could not, object to Lord Melbourne and his colleagues, expressed the

most unbounded and unconquerable dislike to some of the members of Parliament by whom the Cabinet was supported. Where no valid argument could be urged against the measures which the government had actually proposed, it was suggested, without a shadow of evidence, that other measures, intended to be proposed thereafter, were dangerous and revolutionary. On the other hand, while the defection took place of men over-scrupulous and apprehensive, the demands of the more eager politicians increased in number and in degree. They considered the loss of the former class of adherents, to impose upon the Government a necessity of going much beyond all their previously declared opinions. They considered the Government bound to adopt the doctrines of the Radical School, and to surrender at discretion. Nor were the attempts to accomplish this object confined to that gentle violence, which has sometimes been resorted to, even in cases of the most sincere and respectful political attachment. Threats of hostility, expressions of mistrust, and of want of confidence, were unscrupulously used in debate. The Government were called upon to confess themselves as formed of squeezable materials,' and as devoid of fixed opinions, and of courage to maintain them; or they were held up to the hostility of the ultra-liberal party, as Tories in disguise. Perhaps these most unjust and impolitic attacks, which were not participated in by any great portion of the people of England, or of the liberal party in parliament, were somewhat too contumeliously repelled. But this, if it were an error, was generous and sincere ; for undoubtedly any course is more noble in public life than that of obtaining support under false pretences, or by disguising opinions -thus lowering the moral eharacter of a statesman, in the vain expectation of increasing his political strength. We believe that it is now demonstrated that the government of Lord Melbourne did not lag behind the expectation of the great bulk of the people of England, but was rather in advance of the spirit of the times. An additional cause of weakness may be traced to the long duration of the Whig Administration itself. It had existed since November 1830. During that period, though we are satisfied that more was done for the cause of good government, and for the liberties of mankind, than had been achieved in the whole of the preceding century, still there were men, and classes of men, whose hopes had been disappointed, and whose expectations had been frustrated. The period of ten years is a severe trial to the popularity of any party, and after so long a tenure of office, a change is sometimes sought, or submitted to, for the sake of change alone. The Roman historian, in allusion to the political claims of rival candidates for the Consulship, gives the following

as a reason why one should be preferred to his competitors :Accedebat quod alter decimum prope annum assiduus in oculis ' hominum fuerat; quæ res minus verendos magnos homines ipsa 'satietate facit.' (Liv. lib. 35, c. 10.)

These causes were all greatly increased in their influences at the general election, by the lavish corruption used to procure returns. Would that we could with truth and sincerity declare our conviction, that corruption, and the base acts by which low ambition purchases a degrading success, had been confined to the Tories. But though we believe that for the introduction of these vile practices that party was mainly responsible, and that corruption was much more lavishly resorted to by them, it cannot be denied that both parties entered deeply into this competition of venality; and neither can be held free from reproach, though guilty in a far different degree. The unfortunate preservation in the Reform Bill of franchises which have fostered the most undisguised corruption; the rapidity with which the moral contagion was allowed to spread when introduced among the new and purer constituencies; the defence of these unconstitutional practices by those who held the poorer classes in contempt; the example given by too many of the higher orders, showing their greedy readiness to work this iniquity, led to a wider and more intense corruption in 1842, than had ever before been exhibited to the indignation of honest men.

Such were the leading causes which, in our judgment, produced the Tory majority in 1842. That majority we believe to have greatly exceeded the expectation of the leaders of the party. Perhaps we might also surmise that it exceeded in some cases their wishes: we feel most certain that it is inconsistent with their permanent interests. When Parliament met, the majority seemed to be overwhelming. The first vote was decisive : Sir Robert Peel found himself restored to power amidst the acclamation of a very noisy, if not a well disciplined, corps of followers. This majority left him no excuse with respect to his parliamentary strength, and his ability to propound measuresunless, indeed, (as was then shrewdly suspected, and as has since been conclusively proved,) the politics of the first Minister and of his supporters were not quite consistent with each other; and thus, in proportion as his apprehensions of Whig attack were lessened, the certainty of Tory mutiny was increased. Time was demanded by the new government to prepare their measures. This, under ordinary circumstances, would not have been at all unreasonable. But when it was considered that the principles to which the new government stood pledged, had either been openly avowed, or fully admitted, the indulgence sought for and granted

was somewhat more than the occasion justified. Besides, the coy, reluctant, amorous delay,' which would not have been inappropriate in a young and blushing virgin, yielding her heart for the first time, seemed misplaced, if not ridiculous, when the lady at the altar was an experienced widow of maturer years, well acquainted with the world and all the ways of men.

We know not when more of curiosity and of expectation were combined, than at the real opening of the political drama in 1842. The theatre was crowded in all its parts. The applause of the Tory galleries was all prepared, and only awaited the signal. The stage lamps shone brightly. The great performers were known to be behind the scenes; the scenery, machinery, dresses, and furnishings were all said to be new, and to be got up under the direction of the new manager. The premier coup d'archet was heard; but when the curtain rose, and the performance was begun, greater astonishment and surprise could not have been created on comparing the playbill with the representation, than if the tragedy of Cato had been substituted for the Agreeable Surprise, or the dead march in Saul for the bridal chorus of the Freyschutz. It is true that all the actors whose names were announced, made their appearance; but, alas for the lovers of the melodrama! the actors appeared in new characters, and their dresses and machinery were those which had been so long worn and used by their rivals and predecessors. It is true that this bold confidence in the indulgence of their audience succeeded to a certain extent; but perhaps the cause was a theatrical one. The good folks had paid their money at the door, they had secured their seats, and, if they had yielded to their discontent, they might have been left without any play at all, or have been condemned to call back her Majesty's former servants.

If this contrast between the policy professed, and the policy pursued by the government, were not of the highest importance to the public interests, as well as to the characters of public men, it would be difficult to treat the subject with any decent seriousness. But, in order to estimate fairly the conduct of our present rulers, it is necessary to scrutinize more closely their proceedings during the last session. The three great branches of policy on which they had differed with their opponents were the Corn-Bill, and all agricultural questions-the Commercial Propositions contained in Mr Baring's and Sir Robert Peel's Budget-and the State of the Finances. We shall advert to the proceedings of the present government in respect to each.

The Conservative party had, we may say without exception, claimed credit for being pre-eminently the friends of the Agricultural interest; and had represented the protection of that

interest against foreign competition to be the public duty to which they stood especially pledged. It is quite true, that in all these proceedings the leader of the party adhered to certain words of caution, which enabled him to disclaim any specific engagement. But the spirit of all the acts, and all the declarations of the members of the Government-and still more, all the acts and declarations of their friends and supporters-tended to impress a conviction on the minds of reasonable men, of what was the fixed determination of the Tory party. When Sir R. Peel was pressed to state his opinions on this subject, he referred, in reply, to the steady and earnest support which he had given to the existing cornlaw. But he gave further and personal securities to the farmers of England; he took into his Cabinet, in high office, a nobleman whose claim upon public consideration consisted in his uncompromising defence of the corn-laws; and the Paymaster of the Forces was also a man who had resisted even the most mitigated proposals for the modification of our system. These personages were his Johnny Nokes and Peter Styles' pledges to prosecute, on behalf of the agriculturists. If there had been any two men in the whole political world, whose names, indorsed on Sir R. Peel's political bills of exchange, would have insured their circulation amongst the country gentlemen and their dependents, he could not have offered more acceptable security than that of the Duke of Buckingham and Sir E. Knatchbull. We do not suppose that many of our readers will consider a pledge to be less binding, because it results from an honourable understanding rather than from a distinct engagement. The confidence which is accepted from a great party, becomes a consideration which ought to pledge the leader, accepting such confidence, to the most scrupulous performance of the conditions into which he has tacitly entered. It would be a new era in British politics, if the Statute of Frauds were allowed to be pleaded in politics, and if statesmen were permitted with impunity to set aside an engagement because it was not reduced to a written form. If any man thinks that we have put this argument too strongly, we are willing to bring it to a very simple but decisive We ask the members of the Cabinet, one and ail, whether they believe that they could have obtained their parliamentary majority had their measures been announced before the General Election. If this question is answered in the negative, it follows that the constituencies of the country have been grossly deceived; and it is for them to decide whether the Government, or their representatives, have been the deceivers.

test.

But not only has the protection held out to the farmer, by the former corn-laws, been considerably relaxed; new measures,