that reflection, if only for one night? Did they forget that band of 158 new members, that ingenuous and inexperienced band, to whose unsophisticated minds the right honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed himself early in the session in those dulcet tones of winning pathos which had proved so effective? He knew that considerable misconception existed in the minds of many of that class of members on the Opposition side of the House in reference to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government with respect to elections. He would not taunt the noble lord opposite with the opinions which were avowed by his immediate followers, but certain views were entertained and certain calculations were made with respect to those elections about the time when the bell of our cathedral announced the death of our monarch. We had all then heard of the projects said to be entertained by the Government, and a little accurate information on the subject would be very acceptable, particularly to the new members on the Opposition side of the House. We had been told that reaction was a discovery that only awoke derision, that the grave of Toryism was dug, and that the funeral obsequies of Toryism might be celebrated without any fear of its resuscitation, that the much-vilified Peel Parliament was blown to the winds, when Mr. Hudson rushed into the chambers of the Vatican. He did not impute these sanguine views to the noble lord himself, for he had subsequently favoured the public with a manifesto, from which it would appear that Toryism could not be so easily defeated. It was, however, vaunted that there would be a majority of 100, which upon great occasions might be expanded to 125 or 130. That was the question. They wished to know the simple fact whether, with that majority in the distance, they then thought of an alteration in the Grenville Act, and whether it was then supposed that impartial tribunals might be obtained for the trial of election petitions. If honourable gentlemen thought this fair, he would submit. He would not do so to others; that was all. Nothing was so easy as to laugh. He wished, before he sat down, to show the House clearly their position. When they remembered, that in spite of the support of the honourable and learned member for Dublin and his well-disciplined band of patriots, there was a little shyness exhibited by former supporters of Her Majesty's Government; when they recollected the new loves' and the old loves,' in which so much of passion and recrimination was inixed up between the noble Tityrus of the Treasury bench and the learned Daphne of Liskeardnotwithstanding the amantium ira had resulted, as he had always expected, in the amoris integratio--notwithstanding that political duel had been fought, in which more than one shot was interchanged, but in which recourse was had to the secure arbitrament of blank cartridges-notwithstanding emancipated Ireland and enslaved England, the noble lord might wave in one hand the keys of St. Peter, and in the other—(the shouts that followed drowned the conclusion of the sentence). 'Let them see the philosophical prejudices of man.' He would certainly gladly hear a cheer, even though it came from the lips of a political opponent. He was not at all surprised at the reception which he had experienced. He had begun several times many things, and he had often succeeded at last. He would sit down now, but the time would come when they would hear him. (The impatience of the House would not allow the honourable member to finish his speech, and during the greater part of the time the honourable member was on his legs, he was so much interrupted that it was impossible to hear what the honourable member said.)—HANSARD. ARMS BILL (IRELAND). August 9, 1843. [On April 29, in consequence of the disturbed state of Ireland resulting from the Repeal movement, leave was given to bring in a Bill on the above subject; and on August 9, on the third reading, Mr. Disraeli, after remarking that Sir Robert Peel had changed front so completely on his Irish policy that his followers must now shift for themselves, and were released from all obligations to support him, went on to give an historical sketch of the relations of the Tory party to Ireland. In this assertion of independence he was joined by Lord John Manners, Mr. Smyth, Mr. B. Cochrane, and others, and it may be interesting at this distance of time to recall the impression produced upon the public mind by this first open declaration of hostility to Sir R. Peel's Government.1 The following extract is from a leading article in the Morning Chronicle' of August 11: 'Amid all the false-heartedness of public men, and all the duplicity which has poisoned public spirit, it is cheering to remark, from the conduct of the young men on the Tory Benches, that there is, in the eloquent words of the member for Shrewsbury, some hope "that the time will come when a party will be formed in this country on the principle of justice to Ireland-justice, not by quailing before agitation, not by adopting in despair the first quack remedy offered on either side, but by really putting an end to that misery which long misgovernment had produced-that misery which was the real cause of all the evil of Ireland, and which until it was put an end to, would not cease to be the bane of England and the opprobrium of Europe." The next is from the 'Times' of August 17 :— It appears that some honourable members who have come lately into notice, and, we will add, into favourable notice-so far at least as honourable character and talent is concerned-choose to combine with a general declared support of the administration, opposition to it upon certain particular subjects. Lord John Manners, Mr. Smyth, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Cochrane, and others, animadverted during the late debate upon the policy of ministers, and on Tuesday night Mr. 1 Cf. Introduction to Speech, June 17, 1844. Disraeli reflected upon some of the measures of Government in the Servian affair. Upon this Lord Sandon rose up and made a furious attack upon Mr. Disraeli for daring to show such disagreement with Government, and went on to make most invidious and uncalled-for observations upon other honourable members who had been recently using the same liberty. Is it really come to this, that in a House of Commons, in which every man has for years and years thought himself at full liberty to talk as much nonsense as he likes, for as long as he likes, gentlemen of some sense and talent are not to be allowed to express their opinions upon points, whether of foreign or Irish legislation, without being taunted and silenced? Is the Magna Charta of the House to be invaded, and that at the expense of speakers who really have not as yet needed its indulgence? Have these gentlemen, we ask, spoken more diffusely, tediously, lengthily than they should? If they had, the example of members would have borne them out; but we do not hear that they have. When they have spoken, they have spoken to the point, and because they had something to say, Everybody allows this. 'It is not to defend "Young England," who are amply able to defend themselves, that we make these remarks, but to maintain the principle of free and fair debate against such attempts to cow and bully as have been lately exhibited. It is not for the benefit of the public, or really for the minister himself (however much for his temporary convenience), that he should be completely independent of and above all questions from his own party. Above all, it is not for the public good that any talent should be kept down, and excluded from a fair field of exercise and training which the debates afford. The country is not in a state to dispense with any rising intellect and vigour any heads that give promise. The latter may not be ready for service yet most public men require years of labour and drudgery to bring them into action. There may be ideas that require maturing and principles that require moulding and accommodating, before they can be brought to bear upon the present state of things. Parties have been stiffened into a certain attitude for the last two centuries, and certain men seem wanted politically, and others not, and that is all that your superficial statesman says. But who knows when a thaw and loosening may come-when older heads may have gone, new events may have happened, and new modes of thinking may be demanded and come into play?' Apropos of a leading article which appeared in the Times' of August 11, Mr. Disraeli addressed the following letter to the editor: 'SIR,-Your paper of to-day contains a leading article very ingeniously written, but which is entirely founded upon error. 'You describe me as having "ungenerously reproached the Prime Minister, in the late debate on the Irish Arms Bill, for the failure of his industrial measures -a reproach which, you justly observe, came with ill grace from a member who had voted for the tariff and the new Corn Law last year, and who had energetically defended them before his constituents during the present. 'A typographical error has misled you. The reproach which you have ascribed to me, and which was noticed by Sir Robert Peel, was urged by the honourable member for Liskeard. 'I voted for "the industrial measures" of Sir Robert Peel last year, and defended them during the present, because I believed, and still believe, that they were founded on sound principles of commercial policy principles which were advocated by that great Tory statesman, Lord Bolingbroke, in 1713; principles which, in abeyance during the Whig Government of seventy years, were revived by that great Tory statesman, Mr. Pitt; and, though their progress was disturbed by war and revolution, were faithful to the traditional policy of the Tory party, sanctioned and developed, on the return of peace and order, by Lord Liverpool. 'It is not merely with reference to commercial policy that I believe that a recurrence to old Tory principles would be of great advantage to this country. It is a specific in my opinion, and the only one, for many of those disquietudes which now perplex our society. I see no other remedy for that war of classes and creeds which now agitates and menaces us, but in an earnest return to a system which may be described generally as one of loyalty and reverence of popular rights and social sympathies.-I have the honour to be, Sir, 'Your faithful servant, 'Grosvenor Gate, Park Lane: August 11, 1843.'] MR. R. DISRAELI said, that, when in opposition, the ministerial party had been accused of making Ireland their cheval de bataille to slide into office upon. It had been made a heinous offence in them, that they had supported the Registration Bill of the noble lord, now the Secretary for the Colonies. In lending his support to that Bill, he would not deny that he had looked. upon it as a party question; still he had thought that good cause had been shown for the measure, and in this belief he 1 Lord Stanley, |