NEWS OF THE WEEK.
THE battle is not always to the strong, and seldom to the braggart. When the Duke of WELLINGTON reads the reports of speeches delivered at Conservative e;nners by the men whom he vanquished in 1829, and who have since been repeatedly driven off the field even when under his own command, he can scarcely escape the reflection that these pot-valiant orators, so ready over their wine to risk all for the " Constitution," may waver and crouch again, in the heat of the struggle which is approaching. Sir ROBERT PEEL himself, the Duke knows, is not unchangeable in his course; and we can fancy his sneer when he saw the grandiloquent pledge, which PEEL delivered at Glasgow, to stand by the Church. This, he must think, is just the same sort of stuff that my Lieutenant talked when he was Member for Oxford University, and he is now the renegade Representative of " Tamworth tower and town."
However, all must acknowledge that the Scottish Tories made a grand demonstration at Glasgow on Friday last. Nearly three thousand five hundred persons were present at the PEEL banquet. Of these about fifteen hundred came from all parts of the country ; two thousand being inhabitants of Glasgow and the vicinity. But it is of little moment where the guests came from; there they were —on the ground chosen for the assembly—the most numerous and powerful festive gathering ever assembled in this country to do honour to a political leader and testify adhesion to his party. Such was the influence they exercised, that the Whigs could not prevent their own friends from ratting ; several of them, it ap- pears from the jibes of the Liberal journals of the place, took the opportunity to desert, and unite themselves with the triumphant Tories.
It is pretended in some of the Whig newspapers that the Glas- gow Festival was a failure. This is sheer nonsense. Had the tables been half empty, it would have been a failure; but were there not from three to four thousand men at the dinner, many of them persons of high rank and large possessions ? Had the orator and his entertainers quarrelled—had there been a row— it would have been a failure; but the whole assembly rose as one man when PEEL called upon them to stand by the Church and the Lords. They were unanimous, and enthusiastic. True, it may be that some were disappointed in the grand speech or the evening, regarding it merely as a rhetorical display, and Sir ROBERT PEEL as an orator. Those who had never heard him speak, and who had built their expectations upon the hyperbo- lical praises of the Tory journalists, who attribute to him super- human powers of eloquence, may have been surprised, and not agreeably, to find the Tury champion a person without originality of idea or expression—a painstaking artist, very adroit, but not at all overpowering—ingenious, but not brilliant. On the other hand, there were probably many at the banquet who would be struck with his " pawkie" shrewdness, and esteem him a sgfe man, more trustworthy by far as a Minister of State than one who sported large views of politics, and aimed at effect by the enunciation of high principles. Then again, it was a disappoint- ment to the quidnunes that Sir ROBERT PEEL did not disclose more of the Parliamentary tactics of the Tories for next session. Their expectations, however, were unreasonable. It is not the cue of a cautious candidate for office to commit himself to more than generalities. Who can tell what may happen ? In the mean while, Sir Ronsau put one point beyond doubt—he and LYNDHURST will act in concert. There is no " split," as some of the twaddling Whigs have foolishly supposed, between the two Tory leaders. They will hunt the Ministers in couples, and divide the prey—when they can run it down.
Searching the Glasgow Manifesto for something tangible—for
some declaration which may serve as a line of demarcation be- tween Whigs and Tories—we find but one. Sir ROBERT PEEL will stand by the House of Lords—and so will the Whig Ministers; he is hostile to the Ballot—so are the Whig Ministers; he will protect the State Church in the Three Kingdoms—the Whig Ministers will swear to do the same. For all that appears to the
(LATEST EDITION.1
contrary, Sir ROBERT would give up the Irish Corporations to the "aliens." The only difference is, that the Whigs will transfer 50,000/. a year, at some future but indefinite period, from the Church of Ireland to the National Schools of Ireland. Voila tout. With this slight exception, all the substantial part of Sir RO- BERT PEEL'S speech might have been uttered by Lord JOHN RUSSELL. Really the discrepancy is that of tweedle-duo and tweedle-dee, as far as the principles of government are affected. In the administration of public affairs, indeed, there is a distinc- tion, most important to the parties implicated,—namely, that in one case Whigs, in the other Tories, would flock with checks in their pouches to the hank on quarter-day. As a review of the actual state and prospects of parties, Sir ROBERT PEEL'S speech was most deficient ; and, like the absence of the statue of Brutus from the Roman procession, that deficiency suggests the theme that it was wished to suppress. He dared not to allude to the government of Ireland. He intimated vaguely that lie would resist the alienation of the revenues of the Irish Church : but, even when aided by the false courage which the shouts of that vast assembly might inspire for the moment in the breast of a coward, he could not screw up his nerves to touch upon O'CONNELL, or upon the formidable organization of the Irish millions against the Tories. Yet lie must have felt bitterly, in the midst of his triumph, that with a third of the population of the United Kingdom burning with hatred of' himself and his party, there could be no sure prospect of return to office. Everybody inte- rested in politics looks anxiously to Ireland. Daily are accounts received of the vigour and energy of the Ministerialists under their great chieftain O'CONNELL—of the defeats of the Tories at the registries, of the decline of their power, and sometimes of the ratting of their friends. These facts made the subject of Ireland unmanageable even by PEEL before an audience of admiring par- tisans.
Being aware that a considerable number of persons present had welcomed and supported the Reform Bill, Sir ROBERT cunningly pretended that he had now become the protector of that measure. He admitted his defeat as an opponent of Reform, but called upon all those who had supported the Act of 1832 as a final settlement, to join his ranks, and defend the next position, assailed by the unreasonable persons who regard the Reform Act as only the precursor of improvement and the means of further change. On this point, too, Sir ROBERT is certainly in accordance with all
those who have declared that with the passing of that law the movement ought to stop. Before, however, either the Whigs, or professing Reformers like the Tamworth Baronet, " take up their position," as they say, on the Act of 1632, they should, in common honesty, give the people what that Act pre-
mised. At present we have something very different from the Reform Bill of Lord Jolts; RUSSELL; which has been Tory- lied in its working. if it is to be a final measure. at least let Ls have it. Don't give us a stone, and then say, " You ought to be satisfied with that good bread."
The Glasgow gathering has been succeeded by very large assem- blages of Tories at Oxford and Maidstone. There, as elsewhere, the tone of the speakers was confident, and towards the present Ministers highly insolent and vituperative. The Tory activity since the close of last session has been wonderful, and could
only have been inspired by the hope—it may yet be fallacious— of a speedy restoration of their friends to power. A majority of 40 against them on the Address would perhaps cool their courage.
