20 FEBRUARY 1836, Page 13



ME. ROEBUCK'S motion as to certain doings in the Maurit:us would certainly have been carried, if the Tories (including Lord STANLEY) had not united with Ministers to prevent inquiry. Here is another instance of the hollowness of Conservative pro- fessions. Sir Rosiaav PEEL declares himself anxious to remove " all proved abuses." The prima fade case is one of shameful abuse. " Never mind that," say the Tories; "it is not a proved abuse." "But how," answer the Reformers, " can it be proved or disproved without inquiry ?" The Tolies reply by voting against the motion for a Committee of Inquiry. Let it be under- stood, therefore, that by " proved abuses," Sir ROBERT PEEL means those only which shall be proved in spite of his efforts to keep back the proof. So much for the hypocritical pretences of the Tamworth manifesto. But what shall we say of the part which Ministers have taken in this affair ? We will say no more at present, than that, if they had been in opposition, they and the earnest Reformers together, would have formed a majority in favour of that inquiry against which they, being on the Treasury bench, both spoke and voted.