Opiitiond of tbe prerN.

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST A COALITION OF WHIGS AND TORIES.

TIMES—The people must he satisfied whether the constitutional feeling under which Lord Duncannon seemed disposed to act last year, and for which O'Connell then so outrageously abused hint, is to be that which the forthcoming' Cabinet will take for its guidance; or whether a more vivid sense of weakness and dependence, proportioned to the reduced number of Whigs now in Parlia- ment as compared with both Conservatives and Ultra.Radicals, will, on motives of inere sordid party, plunge them into the vortex of revolution. It is plaits enough, that if' the Whigs give way to the Destructives in this or any other in- stance, there can be no cause for it but the mean instinct of office. The Whigs have no natural love nor leaning towards the Radicals. Their prejudices are a thousand times more stubborn, more senseless, more intolerant m favour of Aristocracy under all its phases, than those of any other class of men in Eng- land, because, in fact, the Conservative party is far more extensively connected- with the People. It is from a bitter feeling of the hard alternative in which they have placed themselves, that the old Whigs gulp down the least approach to any real popular reform,—the alternative between indulging their hereditary pride as against the people, and their hereditary conshination of fear and hatred. against a rival party. But what means or resources are at the disposal of Lord Melbourne to resist the pressure, not from without, but from within the walls of the House of Commons, from that large section of the House which, what- ever may be the views of the honest portion of it, tends at least to destroy the equilibrium of our constitution? Lord Melbourne will not accuse us of any personal disrespect towards him, when we allege that he has, nod cart have, nal such defensive power. He and his Whigs must rest ibr support on those who, would preserve the Monarchy, or on those whose principles lead them to sub- vert it. We know what would be the choice ql a man of honour, free to act as his own inclinations would prompt. But we know that unhappily the an of honour in this case is no more than the instrument of those for whom, by artificial and conventional obligations, he is compelled to sacrifice his own dis- erecter judgment. It is all but physically impossible that Lord Melbourne's Government should be able to regulate the action of its own machinery, or to save itself from being swept away by the whirl of a constantly accumulating force, and a rapidly accelerated movement. —April 14, 1835. [This was the argument of the Times on Tuesday against a junction of the Whigs with the Independent party, and in favour of a coalition between the Whigs and Tories ; but last year, when Lord Melbourne was, as he is now, endeavouring to form an Administration, the Times in forcible language demonstrated the absurdity and impolicy of that very course which it now counsels Lord Melbourne to take. We sub.- join an extract from a leading article of the Times in July 1831.] The inconvenience of a Cabinet not united with regard to many important questions, must have been deeply impressed upon Lord Melbourne within that last twelve months. But the Grey Cabinet, even at the worst, was a mild for= of heterogeneous—that is of noxious—mixture, when compared with that against the introduction of which into the Government, if current opinions be correct, Lord Melbourne has had to struggle, or is at this moment struggling,— we mean the infusion of some avowed and leading Anti-Liberals into the new Administration. It is plainly impossible that such a Cabinet could work together for a single week, without being destroyed by its own internal fric. lion. The elements of what was happily termed by the Standard spouts-. neoua combustion would be a thousand times more active and irresistible in soda a Cabinet than in the Grey Ministry, which yet it is certain was destroyed by them. We take it for granted, therefore, that as the issue of such an experi- ment must he obvious, not only to Lord Melbourne, but to any politician who, has his eyes and ears about him, it will not he made at present—at least by a Liberal or a Whig statesman. Then what happens? If the Court should think otherwise, Lord Melbourne, or whoever is cooperating with the noble viscount for the formation of a Ministry, must throw up the game, and leave the King to seek advice from other quarters. His Majesty, of course, will not apply, in the first instance, to any public man more liberal than the acting Secretary

tor tte Rome D. partmt nt ( Lord Melbourne). The alternative iv, that his sty 'tweets to the Tories. But the Toriea with all their infatuated arro •

d Jew d the la o, L o E I;Otad well etemeli to know diet their new, *ion to office ita old now be le emature. The Duke of Wellington's rude, un- feeling, and vindit tive reply to Earl Grey, on Werhiesday evening, showed pretty broadly where the shoe pinched him. leis Grece was out of temper because Lord Grey had vii tuallv broke up hie Itlidetry before it euited hie GI ace's correct& race and that of his party to succeed. Months ago ue warned the Ministers and the Nation of the game of which both were to be the victims. We told them -Oat the Tories waited only until the session of Parliament should he near ex- piring, to oust the Whig., and play such gambols during the seven months' vacation (perhaps kick up a general war for one of them) as might enable them to divert the spirit of the country, to throw an unnatural share of power him their own hands, and turn a dissolution to the ciedit side of their account with fortune. We told the Whig Ministry not to wait for the lipenilig of such enachinations. It was our prayer to them to resign at that very hour—to tell the Sovereign that they could not carry on the Government for his honour or for the national wellbeing without more enlarged powers, or with so exteneive an adulteration of Anti-Reform spirit ae then existed among them ; it teas, as the event proved, a reasonable and friendly prayer, though, perhaps, not so re- garded. Had they listened to us, they would have been enabled to defeat all the schemes of the Conservatives ; the lutor would have colifessed themselves un- prepared to govern England ; and the Liberal Ministers must have had carte blanche from the Crown. —.lay 14, 1834.

TORY OVERTURES.

STANDARD—Lord Melbourne is in the most favouralde position that cen be conctived to carry on the Government o ith honour to hitirself, and with advert. Sege to the country. Without paying the price of a single place in exchange, he can have the support of the whole House of Lords, of nearly 300 Conservative Members of the House of Commone, in addition to his own party of probahly 1W, and the whole confidence of his Royal master. This he would have with- out, as we have said, conferring a single office in exchange; and, we u ill add, without sacrificing a single principle which he has ever professed in public. But he must count upon the loss of Mr. O'Connell and his followers, and of that party in this country which supplies the middle term between the Irish Eepealers and the English Whigs. —April 17.

MORNING CHRONICLE—The Tories, if we may take the Standard as a correct expounder of their views, are now anxious fur a union with the Whigs. All they demand is, that the Whigs should separate themselves from the other classes of Reformers. If you only (say they) throw all your allies ores board we will give you our hearty support. Only deprive yourselves of the ccnitidence eaf the People in you, and we will insure to you the House of Lords and the Court. This is the old story of the wolves, who, in an alliance with the sheep, Stipulated for the dismissal of the dogs. The dismissal of the Melbourne him. ts try last November is the best answer to all overtures from the Tories. We rejoice, however, at the overtures. Nothing but desperation, we know, could draw such language from the foes of the People. When the Tories renounce all expectations of office, things are really come to a strange pass. The plain English of this is, that the Tories find they cannot move a single step. They sprung a mine, as they thought, on the Whigs; but they have only blown Sheinselves up. The dissolution left them in a minority; and though they have threatened another dissolution, they dare not venture on a course which would rouse the whole country against them. In their difficulty, they merely request that the Whigs should abandon their pledgee—should prove traitors to the People, and to the snore decided Reformers. The Whip, of course, would for seer be detested by the People—would fall never to rise again. The duration of Lord Melbourne's ItliMetry, when its tenure would be the good pleasure of the Tories, might be, perhaps, a couple of months. The self.deidal of the 'Tories in renouncing office for a couple of months, in order to get rid of their eformidable rivals for a long period, and thereby insure to themselves the plunder 4 the People for years to route, is sufficiently intelligible.—April l.

• FUTURE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

LONDON Review—Men who would govern this country from hencefor- ward most not be men who thought our institutions perfect five years ago, and Who declare that their opinions have out changed. They must either have sin- cere belief, or the decent pretence of a belief, that those institutions were and are Imperfect—that there are changes, which are not merely necessary evils, which the people unthinkingly deinand, but a good in themselves. This is a lesson

POt Witbnut its value to those who still needed it. In all oilier respects the prospects of the nation appear to us, after this change, exactly as they appeared three months ago. The progress of Reform appears to us certain, and we know full well that it will be slow. Any Ministry which can lie formed out of the scanty and insufficient materials afforded by the present Houses of Parliament will leave much to be desired, much to be criticized, much to be pardoned. This the thorough Reformers are prepared for, and we believe they will disre- gard it. But we do implore, them not to implicate themselves in the respon- sibility of a half-reform policy. They may support a Ministry when it deserves support with far greater effect out of office; and they will retain the in- estimable advantage of being at liberty to advocate what, as members of a Cabinet, they would not have it in their power to carry into effect. Let them tot allow themselves to be circumvented by the timeserving doctrine, that it is imprudent to propose any thing which has no charm of immediate success. All great things which have ever been accomplished in the world, sinee opinion became the ruler of it, have been accomplished by attempting things which, for years or generations, or ages after the first attempt, had not the remotest thence of tilleieSS. • • If the ambition of the thorough Reformers be not Jimited to this paltry object, they will frustrate themselves with the conviction that it is for others to consider what can be carried through the House of commons; but that they are there to stand up for what is good in itself, let who will be Minister, and however small a portion of the House may go along with them. From the 'Ministry we neither expect nor demand all this ; nor lias the time yet come when so manly a course would be consistent with their eremaining a Ministry. But there is one thing which it is not too much to require of them. We cannot expect that they will propose measures which are in advance of the House of Commons ; but unless they would be utterly contemptible, let them not this time confine themselves to such as they trust will be agreeable to the House of Lords. That this was the principle, the et s- !emetic principle, of Earl Grey's Ministry, we have the public testimony of -Lord John Russell, in a speech to his constituents in Devonshire; and Lord Melbourne's answer to the Derby Address was in the same spirit. If the new Ministers act upon a similar principle—if, as often as they believe that the House of Lords would throw out a measure of improvement, they mutilate it, or refuse absolutely to introduce it, and perhaps even assail it when introduced by others—if they again place themselves as a barrier between the Lords and public odium, and, to shield the real culprits, take upon themselves the respon- sibility of withholding from the Nation Its just demands—their Administration will assuredly not last one twelvemonth. Recent events are proof more than suf- ficient, if proof had been wanting, that it is impossible to please the Tories and the People both. The People will not have the Tories, even on a promise to to act like Whigs ; anti ridiculous indeed would the expectation be that they would tolerate Whigs who should again make it their avowed principle to act like Tories.

NO POPERY.

STA N DA r.n—The Morning Chronicle complains that the Terry jeurnals are attempt Mg to revive the cry of " No Popei y !' We do not see any reason why

tla %vim think Pepery an evil, and who witness its rapid advances to power,

simuld not raise the cry of warning. The fact, however, is, that no one is try- ing to raise the my of " No Popery." That cry, having been employed when

the danger was more distant and more doubtfuf than it is at present, would be too feeble for the occasion. It is useless to talk of Popery now as a thing of which we can get rid ; our present unhappy task is to protect ourselves against

its absolute despotism. It was an often. quoted saying of Dr. Johnson' that they who who cried " No Popery " fifty or sixty years since, would cry "Fire " iii the Deluge : the subsequent half century has ;boom how fallacious. With much more truth might we say now that he who, iu 1835, calls for " No Popery," would as wisely call for a pump in the Deluge. We, therefore, do not cry " No Popery ;' but we will raise our voices against an O'Connell tyranny—against committing the destinies of millions of our fellow subjects to the irresponsible power—mark, the irresponsible power—of the leader in a very thinly di-guise(' rebellion—a rebellion marked by all thecalamities, and crimes and wrongs, of the most unrighteous civil war ; and not declared only, because, as set, cowardly submission has tendered an openly displayed banner of revolt unneceseary. Against this O'Connell-tyranny and rebel. ti iumph we reclaim ; and we have no doubt in the world that, upon the next appeal to the People of England, they will practically echo our protest front the busting& The vely lowest cleeses of the Whigs must know this, and Must tremble accordingly at their present position. This is the true difficulty—a difficulty to which, what- ever is pretended, neither the Conservatives nor the Crown have in the elighteet degree contributed ! Without Mr. O'Connell, the Whigs cannot form an Adieini.tratiou—with Mr. O'Connell they embrace speedy and certain ruin.— April 15.

COURIER—There was a time when Popery could arm in its favour Italy, Spain, France, and Southern Germany ; there was a time when Popery, by the alliance with this vast temporal power, sought, and sought with some pro- bability of success, to subdue and enthral the human mind ; there was a time when Popery endeavoured, and had vast means at its disposal, to make its own erring doctrines the universal creed of mankind. At that period it was a proud distinction to be a Protestant State, and to resist the dominion and encroach- ments of Popery. Our ancestors have bequeathed to us no better inheritance of glory than the struggles they made to oppose Popery united with arbitrary power. But masculine minds such as theirs would laugh outright, could they know that their descendants at this period felt the slightest alarm on such grounds. They must regard the Pope now as they regarded the Doge of Venice, or any other phantom of departed power. The Pope has dwindled into a poor priest, who is kept sustained in a little ecclesiastical pomp, without a particle of power, by a few Austrian soldiers : and Austria is our faithful ally, who looks to our acquiescence to preserve her dominion in Italy. France, instead of hunting the Hugunots, equally ptovides for the ministers of every faith; and has at this moment Pro- testants tilling the highest places in her Cabinet. In Spain, the Government and the Church are at war ; and Popery is looked upon as the worst enemy of our ally, the present Constitutional Sovereign of that country. In Germany, reli- gion of all kinds is wholly subservient to the will and policy of the temporal rulers, and Popery, like Protestantism, instead of being the master of Emperors and Kings, is merely tolerated and encouraged as an instrument for quietly governing the people. It is no longer a title of honour to be a Protestant state ; and no fear can now be less grounded than a fear that Popery will again acquire an ascendancy in Europe such as it had when our ancestors gloriously resisted it. To call Great Britain and Irelatul, however, and all her vast Colonies,— including the Catholics of Canadas and the Mauritius, and her vast Indian possessions,—an exclusively Protestant state, implying that the Government is constituted to promote the creed and secure the advantage of any one re- ligious sect, is to insult and to injure all the others. A government or state must be the epitome of all its inhabitants. Mr. Burke says that " the true end of legislation is to follow, not to force the public inclination." It is to give " a direction, or form, a technical dress, and a specific sanction to the general sense of the eommunity." An exclusively Protestant state, with a large Catholic population, is a complete contradiction. If the Legislature is to be the image of the public will, the state must be Catholic as well as Protestant, Presbyte- rian as well as Church of England. For the government of a People, con- sisting of various denominations of Christians, to boast of being exclusively intended for those of one denomination, is to hazard its claim to the allegiance of all the others. —April 15.

PHARISAICAL TORYISM.

MORNING POST—Never was there such a festival of Easter as that which we now approach in Great Britain. The united league of Atheists, of Papists,

of Jews, and of Heathens, presses sore on the very threshold of that faith which was handed down to us by our brave and pious ancestors as their best and last legacy, and was sealed and coufirtned to us with their blood. How, thesis ought every Christian man to humble himself on this memorable occasion ! How ought every Protestant, of whatever denomination, to exert himself on so' perilous and trying an emergency ! It is a glorious eight to witness the cheer- ing fervour that is abroad ; and confident we are that the position of the FM' testant Church requires only to be fairly understood to unite every heart and to mete every arm in defence of our time-honoured and long-cherished insti- tutions. The motley union of assailants affect to laugh at the cry " that the Church is in danger," because they know when that danger is understood by the great majority of the people of these kingdoms it is a chord that will vibrate through their best moral feelings and associations, and that nothing can resist its force. But we fear not. We have with us the best of every denomination of the Christian Church, under whatever name they may be distinguished. We have against us a powerful and unholy league. Let us, therefore, stand fast, with our " armour ready buckled," and leave the event to the great Dis- poser of events, who at his own good time will overwhelm his enemies "with shame and confusion."—April 18.

A WORD IN SEASON TO THE DEVONSHIRE TITHE-PAYERS.

COURIER—The resolution which Lord John Russell moved in the House of Commons, and on which the 'foty Ministers have retired, is a mere assertion of the power of Parliament to appropriate the surplus revenues of the Church to the public welfare, and an assertion that no measure for settling the Tithe question in Ireland would be satisfactory which did not acknowledge that prin- ciple. The great principle in dispute is the inviolability of the revenues of the Church, which the Tories contend are sacred, and must be kept to their present amount ; while the Whigs contend that the appropriation of those revenues is subeeivieat to the public welfare, and that the amount may be reduced if the public welfare is injured by their excess. Now we have a i ecolleetion that there was a large meeting of the county of Devon some time last year, at which a resolution was passed which went to declare that tithe ought only to be a tenth, not of the gross produce, but of the rent. In fact, it declared for the abolition of a large part of the tithes. But if the Legislature have no power, as the opponents of Lord John Russell contend, to utter the appropriation of the revenues of the Church, how can it take away any portion of the tithes from the clergy, and give that portion to the complainirgo farmers ? The dispute betwixt the two is, that the former now take too much, and the latter want this too.much reduced. Any other dispute betwixt thews ;is a moonshine matter. Those freeholders of Devonshire, therefore, whet -shall vote against Lord John Russell, because he supports the principle that the Legislature may appropriate the property of the Clittrch, will vote against the power of the Legislature to reduce the tithes of England below -their present amount. If the Legislature must cot take a single shilling of that propeity—which is wiaat the Tories contend for—bow is it possible that the Legislature can shorten the claims of the tithe-owners in England ? We hope 'that the farmers and freeholders of Devonshire will be made aware of this fact in time, and will he sensible that in voting for the Tory dogma as to Church .propei ty, and in voting for Lord John Russell's opponent, they are .voting, in fact, in favour of Clerical Tithes in England. Whether they ought to be reduced or not, is not our present business; but we tell the faraneis %of Devonshire in time, that they cannot pledge themselves to vote for the candidate put forward by the Tories (Mr. Parker), without condemning the principles of appropriation as to Church property espoused by Lord John Rus- sell and his friends ; and they cannot vote for the Tories without expressing their satisfaction with those tithes, in which, at their county meeting, they demanded so large a reduction.

VEXATIOUS LEGISLATION.

MORNItiG CHRONICLE—it is highly curious to observe the improvement of legislators in handling certain subjects. In the bill for the better regulation of hackney-carriages introduced last year, there was a clause which would have made it impossible for a waggon to pass through London, as it was enacted that the wheels were always to be within fourteen inches of the curb stone, which would not have allowed of turning corners, or passing on the ouside any car- riage or obstruction- We woe curious to see bow this regulation would be modified in the bill of this session, and we fidd it enacted that the driver of every waggon, or other carriage for the conveyance of goods, travelling within the City of London or Borough of Southwark, shall, passing along any street, keep the said waggon on the near side of the street, and at a distance not ex- ceeding Aurteen inches from the curb-stone, except while passing on the off side of any other waggon, or other carriage, travelling at a slower pace along such street ; and if the driver of any such waggon or other carriage, as aforesaid, shall permit the same to be drawn at a greater distance than fourteen inches from the curb-stone, except as aforesaid, and without having any other reasonable cause for so doing, he shall, for such offence forfeit any sum not exceeding ten shillings. It is loud that even a waggoner should be subjected to this sort of legislation, so partially precise and so imperfect in its directions. The waggon is allowed to pass any other waggon or carriage travelling at a slower pace, but what is to be done if the other waggon or carriage be not travelling—that is, if it be stop- ping? Are all the waggons and carts on their way through any street to be brought to a halt, because any one carriage happens to stand on the near side of the road ? If so, a mischievous or interested person may stop all the carts and waggons on a line of road by stationing some carriage on the near side. Put deo there is a saving clause, and a wide one certainly, for " any reasonable cause" for deviating from the fourteen inches. True; but observe how vexa- tiously the act would work. A waggon, in turning the corner of a street, or passing any kind of obstruction, has gone beyond the Parliamentary bounds of fourteen inches, and the driver is summoned before a magistrate, and taken from his business, or the journey on which Ile was proceeding. The magis- trate only can judge of the reasonable cause which the man may plead in defence; the informer finding the wheels more than fourteen inches from the curb-stone, has the case prima facie for a summons. Such a power of annoyance should not be permitted ; and if there any who think what con- cerns so humble a class of people as carters and waggoners beneath consideratim, they are to be reminded that trade has an interest in the matter, and that the delivery of goods may be impeded by the enforcement of the elmnsy enactment we have quoted. It seems to ILISI that a person who frames a bill, as the bill before us is framed, requires much more skill than he exercises, when he directs drivers of waggons to keep their wheels within fourteen inches of a given line. Drawing waggons is thus made a far nicer and more exact business than draw- Acts of Parliament As for limiting the number of otnuibuses, we can see no more grounds for it than for limiting the number of gentlemen's carriages. The man who pays sixpence for his seat in an omnibus, has as much interest in the convenience as a nobleman has in that of his expensive equipage. To reduce the number of the conveyances, and diminish the frequency of the communication, is to deprive the public of advantages had under a free competition. Omnibus drivers and conductors commit outrages which should he repressed by the police ; so do gentlemen's coachmen and foodnen in the throng at fashionable entertainments, where smashed panels and fights are often seen .without provoking any project of law for limiting the number of private chariots and coaches.—.April 15th.