CONDUCT OF THE TORIES IN OPPOSITION.

So, we rightly read the signs of the times, enumerated in the opening paragraph of our last number. The chivalrous Tory champion, the Standard, began his elaborate lucubrations on Monday, with a confession of the intended policy of his party ; followed, it is true, by a defence of their past conduct—less

successful than bold.

" The Spectator of yesterday notices 'several indications that the Tory Opposition mean to give the Government little trouble in the early part of the *Two i cg session.' " We do not quote these words for the purpose of contradictio9 them ; and as we shall show, the opinion of the Spectator, in this particular, scarcely stands in need of any confirmation from us. We, in truth, refer to the remarks of Our weekly contemporary, first, to express our surprise that so acute and well-informed a journal as the Spectator should now seem to discover for the frst time, that the Conservative Opposition is not a factions Opposition ; secondly, to show, aa we easily can, that the inference from this seeming so recent discovery—the inference, namely, that the Conservative party had been In the habit of giving trouble to the Government—would be in the highest de- gree trojust. " Pray, we beg leave to ask, on what single occasion, during the last seven years, has the Conservative Opposition volunteered even a contest, with, much more a vexatious molestation of, the Ministers of the Crown? Has not the Conservative Opposition (whether right or wrong is not the present question) arniforanly maintained a defensive position ? HEIN it ever failed to rally to the support of the Ministers, as often as these Ministers have shown a disposition to defend the institutions of the country? We defy the worst enemies of the Conservative party to produce, from the history of our country, or of any ether country, an example of a political party acting in opposition (luring seven years, or, for that matter, during one year, with so chaste an exemption from factious practices—with so noble an indifference to the acquisition of power."

An Opposition is guilty of factious practices when, merely to serve a party purpose, to injure and annoy political opponents, it encourages clamour and fosters calumny. It is especially a fac- tious proceeding to countenance, or not to discountenance, out-of- doors systematic attacks on measures actually supported by the chiefs and the majority of their own party in Parliament. To brills. forward motions, implying serious charges against high function- sries, and then to withdraw them, maintaining, nevertheless, the criminality of the parties assailed ; to repeat accusations incapable of proof; and to reject measures on false pretences,—this is factious conduct.

Few have forgotten the immediate cause of the dissolution of the WELLINGTON Parliament in 1831—the refusal to go into a Committee of Supply ; and never, perhaps, was there a more un- disguised and violent exhibition of mere party feeling, than that of the Tory Peers and Commoners on the day when the late King Caine down to dissolve the Parliament. The spectators thought that noble lords would have fought in plebeian fashion, and got tip a rabble boxing-match, so frantic and furious bud they become

at the prospect of losing power, of' which for so long they had enjoved the profitable monopoly.

The conduct of the Opposition in throwing out the Reform Bill, and then offering to carry it as the condition of being re,

stored to office, stands forth in the history of modern politics as preeminently factious. The design was defeated, in a great degree, by the disgust which it excited in the minds of lisnest Tories, such as Sir.Romer !Nous. Though irreconcileable foes to Parliamentary Reform, these men could not countenance the project of their leaders. The dismissal, in 1834, of the then un- tried MELBOURNE Ministry, supported by a majority of 200 in the House of Commons, belongs to the same class of proceedings. No apology for it worth a straw was ever adduced. Had "noble indifference to the acquisition of power" firmed part of the Tory character, WELLINGTON and PEEL would have told the King, that to turn out a Minister who bad the votes of 500 Members of the House of Commons was an unprecedented and unjustifiable act. But they were ready to take the responsibility of it for the sake of power and emolumere,—which, forsooth, have no charms for those pure statesmen !

The system of Irish Education was Lord STANLEY'S; and Sir ROBERT PEEL sanctioned it by his declared intention to increase the grant to the schools in Ireland. Yet PEEL and his friends have virtually encouraged, by refusing to discountenance, constant appeals to the prejudiced and bigoted portion of the English and Scotch people against the Irish system. No topic of annoyance has been inure effectually handled than this: and the sole end and aim of the agitation is molestation, for were the Tories in power to-morrow, they would increase the number of schools on the same plan.

Similar in character to the clamorous opposition raised against Lord STANLEY'S system of education, is the Anti-Poor-law agita- tion. The Poor-law was strongly supported by WELLINGTON, PEEL, and the Tories generally ; but, simply for party purposes, they encourage systematic misrepresentation of the law, and calumny of the Ministers who introduced it.

The incessant abuse of O'CONNELL, and the attempts to wound Ministers through his sides, are essentially factious. The RAPHAEL plot was the work of faction. No human being believes that Mr. Headmoney HARDY, and the rest, were influenced in that affair by zeal for purity of election. When it was discovered that the case against O'Cosonat could not be maintained, the high- bred Tories tried to free themselves from all participation in the calumny ; but not till then. The disgrace of the RAPHAEL conspiracy belongs to the Tories as a party.

The use made of the trial of NORTON versus MELBOURNE was factious. The public had properly nothing to do with that case;

but t was sedulously paraded with the view to injure the Govern- ment. When it suits their parts. purposes, the private concerns of individuals will be exposed by the Tories.

The speeches, repeated till they became wearisome, on the Spanish policy of Ministers, were merely preludes to motions for papers of' no consequence: but they served to delay the progress of public business. With the same view, the House has been fatigued night after night with stories, apocryphal or false, of Irish outrages, and fierce accusations of Lord Mulgrave, equally unfounded; but Lever did the Tories in Parliament dare to come to close quarters with the Irish Government.

What is the LYNDHURST policy of reducing Whig promises to " nothing," but faction ? It has no reference to the good of the country. Its object is to make the Ministry contemptible by exhibiting its impotence, as a preliminary to the return of the Tories to power.

In fine, let the Tory policy be examined on any side you will, its scope will be found the same— namely, to turn out the Whigs. To this end all the efforts of the Opposition are directed, in and out of Parliament. They have resolved not to act for the present on the offensive, because the more sure game is that of obstruction. Show them a quicker and safer road to °thee, and they will rush into it. They require a " strong and steady majority," which the present Parliament will not give them. It is therefore their cue gradually to break down the Ministerial majority, and, warned by the failure of 1835, to avoid

any thing like a coup Via. Their aim is to produce an impres- sion that the country has soberly and by degrees been converted

to Conservatism. Hence the resolution to adopt a defensive policy in the ensuing session. But let a majority in the Com- mons once be obtained, and then, as Pope SEXTUS the Fifth threw

off the appearance of infirmity after his election, and chanted the Te Deum with the voice of a Stentor, the Tories will abandon their mideration, and laugh at the simpleton who believed in then' " noble indifference to the acquisition of power."