7 NOVEMBER 1835, Page 10

TORY EMBARRASSMENT AND OVERTURES.

A LARGE majority of the House of Peers are resolute Tories : this no one disputes. But the Tories maintain that the King is on

their side, and that the Registration has given them a considerable majority of the Electors. In other words, King, Lords, and Com- mons are Tory. Yet the Government is conducted by Whigs, and supported by Radicals. In this country, then, the minority governs ; and a minority too which is described as being immea- surably inferior to the majority in property, intelligence, moral ammeter—in all the elements of influence. This is indeed passing strange ; so strange that it cannot be true.

We asked last week why the Tories did not dissolve the present Parliament ? If they are sure of King, Peers, and Peop e, where would be the difficulty, where the hazard of such a step ? The Standard, in reply to our question, says- ,' We may answer, in the first place, because they cannot. But that answer, though decisive, would still be incomplete : for our belief is, that the Con- servatives, even if they could, would not dissolve Parliament, seeing that there is good ground for expecting a fair Conservative majority at the next meeting of the House of Commons. It is in this manner that the registry will first tell, and perhaps tell most usefully."

But why cannot the Tories dissolve the Parliament ? We are assured that the King is eager to get rid of the " Beggar-bullied Whigs,"—well, all that is required is the Royal sign-manual: and we are also told that the Country is anxious to return a majority of Tory Members,—well, give it the much-desired

opportunity. If the Tories speak the truth when they assert

their predominance at Court and among the Electoral body, they can dissolve the Parliament and reinstate Sir ROBERT PEEL in

Downing Street. The fact of their reluctance and profesed inabi- lity to dissolve the Parliament, is directly at variance with their alleged influence over King and Commons. Reconcile these contradictions, 'gentlemen ; or cease from bragging of your su- premacy.

But the Tories have " good ground for expecting a fair Con- servative majority at the next meeting of the House of Commons." Indeed ! what is the ground? There is only one way of obtaining the expected (?) majority,—namely, by the rattino-t' of the Minis- terialists. How many must rat to constitute "a fair majority?" Taking the majority of the present Ministers at its lowest figure— say 36-La gain of 18 would be required to bring parties even. The Tories sneer at 36 as a wretched " measuring-cast majority;" of course, then, they would consider 50 as not more than a" fair Conservative majority." To give them this number, they must lure 25 more deserters from the Liberal camp. Thus, 43 (18 and 25) Ministerialists must have signified their intention of ratting, in order to give the Tories "good ground" for expecting a fair majority. Now we ask the Standard to name a dozen Members, whose accession it anticipates ?—But it is a waste of words to ex- pose the futility of this excuse for not dissolving the Parliament. The fact is, that the Tories have been defeated in the Registra- tion Courts, and would fain effect a compromise. This was plainly enough hinted at in the Standard of Monday. After giving an extract from the Oxford Herald, which sagaciously recom- mended to Lord MELBOURNE to throw otr O'CONNELL and gain over the Conservatives, the Standard goes on to observe- " What our Oxford contemporary says is perfectly true. If Ministers should pursue a moderate course in Parliament, and administer the government of the country with ordinary moderation, Conservatives must perforce support them. . . . . . Now, in the case of such a man as Sir Robert Peel, or the Duke of Wellington, the notion that he takes office otherwise than reluctantly, and under a painful sense of public duty, cannot but seem absurd in the eyes of any rational being. But two men cannot make an Administration ; and Sir Ro- bert and his Grace would naturally bring into office with them friends to whom the public service would not be, as it would to them, so obviously at least, a burden and a loss. We therefore should not regret to see—and we believe in this particular we speak the Conservative sense of the country—we could even wish to see a safe Whig Government, such as the Conservatives of the country could support." This may be very cunning, but it will not answer the intended purpose. The Times also informs us that Lord MELBOURNE might have had Sir ROBERT PEEL for a colleague, if he had been so minded- 4, Lord Melbourne last year rejected a coalition which had been proposed to Film from a friendly and elevated quarter, because it might involve a sacrifice of principles, and, consequently, of public reputation. His Lordship might since' it is probable, either have effected a coalition with the same parties most bonourable to himself, and to the country most gratifying and useful, or at least by the constitutional spirit of his measures have obtained their disiti. terested support."

Lord MELBOURNE knew last year, as he must know now, that a coalition with the Tories would doom his Administration to inevitable and speedy ruin. He saw last year, as he must see now, that the Tories cringe only because they have been worsted.

Did they propose to him to join the Pees Administration ? Would they ask his assistance if they could stand alone? The fact of their willingness to make terms with him, proves their inability to impose them. If Lord MELBOURNE can forget the treatment he received last November, so far as to trust Tory professions of willingness to support him, he must be little better than an imbecile—instead of' the firm and clear-sighted statesman which the Reformers now consider him.

We believe that no Minister ever received so large a share of perfectly disinterested support from Members of Parliament, from the Country, and we may add from the Press, as Lord MEL- BOURNE commands, because he deserves it. There are at least 150 Members of the House of Commons who vote steadily in sup- port of Ministers, not because they are Ministers, but because they are Liberals. This honourable, independent, regular, and efficient support, the Tories advise Lord MELBOURNE to discard, in order to form a junction with the Duke and PEEL; who, it is admitted, must provide at the public expense for persons to whom the public service would not be " a burden and a loss "—that is to say, for a crew of placeltunters. There never was any thing more impudent than this proposal ; but even such a suggestion would not have come from the Tories, were they not conscious of being the defeated party, and desirous of making terms, before the operation of the Municipal Act shall have struck another blow on their influence in the provinces.