Thus far in reply to the Courier of Tuesday. Since
our re- marks were written, we have seen an article in the same journal of Thursday, from which we learn that our contemporary is in a puzzle between his desire to find apologies for Ministerial miscon- duct and his clear sense of their actual duty. The following passage in one of his leading articles was copied into the Spectator last week- " The Ministers, shortly after the beginning of the session, laid on the table a measure for regulating the marriages of Dissenters, which they thought would or ought to satisfy the Dissenters. When it was discussed, however, the reverse was found to be the fact, and the bill was given up. The Ministers therefore were not acquainted with the wishes of the Dissenters ; we know not how they could heroine acquainted with them, except through their Representatives; and yet they are unreasonably expected to prepare nwasures before the meeting of Parliament to satisfy those with whose desires they hare no accurate and official means of becoming acquainted till after the Parliament meets."
The Com rier, when he wrote this passage, was endeavouring at all events to excuse his friends in Downing Street ; but a few days afterwards, this week, we found in another leading article the pas- sage sul joined- " The slowness of Ministers in bringing forward their most important mea- sures, the slovenly and defective manner in which they have too frequently been prepared, and their readiness to grant committees to any individual who chose to move for one, have done more than any thing else to render the last two sessions so unsatisfactory, and to bring disgrace on the whole bu.iness of legislation. It has no doubt been said in defence of the Dissenters Bill, and something similar may perhaps be said of others, :that it could not be known before hand that it would be unsatisfactory to the Dissenters. But Lord John Russell, or whoever had charge of the Bill, ought to have informed himself better as to the views of the leading classes of Dissenters ; and if he could not introduce a mea- sure they would accept, or if the Government of the day did not authorize him to do so, he ought to have let it alone."
This is the way the Courier answers himself. "It has no doubt been said" indeed—but by when'? Why, by the Courier; who thus demolishes the sophistry of one week by the sound sense of the next.