Ir our readers expect that we are going to help them to an explanation of the harlequin tricks that have been played of late in the highest political circles, we beg, at the outset of this paper, to undeceive them. The whole series of events is a mystery to us. We cannot even guess why Sir Robert Peel's government should have come to a dead-lock at all, far less assign a plausible reason for the resignation by all its members of their offices. It is the ordinary practice, we believe, when differences occur in cabinets, that the minority shall give way to the majority, whosoever the individuals composing the adverse factions may be; and it sometimes happens, if the dispute run very high, or the point under discussion be regarded as a vital one, that the dissentients retire. So it was with Mr. Huskisson and his friends in the famous East Retford case; so with Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham, who quitted Lord Melbourne's administration rather than be parties in any way to the spoliation of the church's property in Ireland. Neither is the secession of the head of the government, if he find himself at issue with his colleagues, by any means unprecedented. The late Earl Grey gave place among the Whigs to Lord Melbourne, not because he found himself unable to do the work of premier, but because his suggestions were resisted by the younger members of his cabinet. And if we go back to the days of the Butes, and the Rockinghams, and the Portlands, we shall discover cases of the kind befalling continually. But the sudden abandonment of their posts by a body of noblemen and gentlemen whom the sovereign had called to her councils, and the nation trusted to an extent unparalleled in modern times, that was an occurrence for which people were unprepared. Moreover, as if the measure of the people's astonishment required some farther filling up, it turns out, after all, that this fugitive cabinet is forced back again, bodily, into power, not through any intrigue on the part of the statesmen composing it, nor yet by a vote of the House of Commons, or the results of a general election, but through the sheer inability of

their rivals to undertake the task which Sir Robert Peel and Co. had voluntarily assigned to them. If our readers expect that we are going to account for all this,-to explain why the Conservatives broke down, or how they have contrived to set the state omnibus in motion again, they give us credit for an amount either of intelligence or ingenuity to which we cannot lay claim. But though we be unable to trace recent events to their causes, there is nothing, as far as we can see, to prevent us, or any other of her majesty's reflecting subjects, from gathering out of the circumstances by which we seem to be surrounded a lesson which it may be worth while to remember. Let us see whether our notions in regard to the general position of affairs be either rational in themselves, or likely to find an echo in the opinions of those on whose judgments in such matters we have hereto been accustomed to place some reliance.

And, first, it may be necessary to notice the rumours which are floating about on the surface of society, "some of which, we must confess, appear to us almost too ridiculous to be gravely entertained. These are not days for the creation of kings-consort, or even for the appointment to the command of the English army of a young foreign prince, however amiable. It may be distressing to the feelings of an exalted personage, that one whom she has honoured with her hand should not be permitted to claim at the courts of other nations the foremost place, which is freely conceded to him here. And with all our hearts we wish that the grievance could be got rid of. But to suppose that on ground so silly, for a reason so puerile, the idea of seeking a crown matrimonial could have been entertained is to outrage all decency, and to offer to the illustrious individuals most deeply concerned in the supposed arrangement a direct insult. No minister, Tory, Whig, or Radical, would dare to propose such a thing to a British parliament; no parliament, if any minister were found hardy enough to broach the project, would entertain it for a moment. There is neither scope nor pliability in the constitution for

such an interpolation on the rights of the royal family; and we are altogether without a precedent which might help us to bend it to our purpose, were it desirable to do so. The case of William and Mary is not a case in point. They came in, conjointly, to fill up a breach, or an assumed breach, in the regular line of succession. They were elected by the people of England acting through a convention, which convention did not become a parliament till after William, equally with Mary, had been offered and had accepted the crown. Moreover, the act of convention which thus disposed of the crown decreed, that in the lifetime of Mary, the sole and full regal power should be in the prince;" yet that, in the event of the death of Mary without issue, the succession should be in the Princess of Denmark and her children. To look, therefore, to the Revolution of 1688 as affording any sanction or precedent for the engrafting of a new branch on the old royal stock would be ridiculous. We have, however, a case in point of not much more than a century's standing. Prince George of Denmark, though the husband of Queen Anne, continued Prince George to the end of his days, without so much as a patent of precedency having been made out for him, or any other step taken to place him at the head of society even in England.

So much for one rumour, which seems to carry the refutation of its truth upon the face of it; neither are we inclined to allow greater credit to another, which is likewise going about. With all possible respect for Prince Albert, we must use the freedom to say, that he is every way unfit to be placed at the head of the English army. His royal highness is, we believe, a good man in all the relations of life; nor is it because we distrust his talents, whether as a tactician or as the administrator of a machine, however great, which he understands, that we thus express ourselves. But he does not understand-indeed it would be miraculous if he did-the construction of the British army. Put him at the head of his father's forces, and we are persuaded that he would manage them well; but the British army is so different from all the other armies of the world, both in the materials of

which it is composed and the order of the duties which it is required to perform, that we defy any man, except a native born Englishman, be his natural and acquired powers what they may, to command it properly. This was conspicuously shewn in the instance of William III. William was a soldier, and a tried one, too; yet his manner of conducting the affairs of the English army was such as to produce universal discontent, and here and there to provoke mutiny. Now, we do not suppose that Prince Albert would act with the sternness of precipitation which more than once characterised the proceedings of the Prince of Orange. His physical temperament is milder, and he is a younger man-too young, indeed, even if all the other requisites were present with him for so grave an office; and youth, and a temper constitutionally gentle, would restrain him from outraging the feelings, or even jarring the prejudices of veterans old enough, many of them, to be his grandfather. But he lacks that intimate acquaintance with the tastes, habits, manners, and capabilities of all ranks and orders in the British community, which no forcigner can acquire were he resident among us twice as long as the Prince has been; and without which it would be fatal in any man, be his position what it might, to attempt the establishment of any degree of authority over our army. For the British army is governed now, and every day will but confirm and strengthen the system, much more by moral than by physical influence. A commander-inchief among us, must not only know how to issue orders and come to decisions which are wise, but he must be able to satisfy the country that they are the wisest that could have been attained to; and that they deserve to be respected because of their perfect adaptation to the circumstances of the parties to which they apply. And his royal highness, with the utmost deference be it written, is very little familiar with the habits of any circle of society, beyond that of the palace. He never mixes, as far as we know, with the gentlemen of the land. He speaks the English language but imperfectly. We doubt whether he could put a battalion of the Guards through the simplest

manœuvres. He cannot be aware of the delicacy that is required in dealing with courts-martial and their decisions. In a word, he is altogether unfit for the office, which his enemies, and those of our royal mistress, say that he aspires to; and no man in the three kingdoms can be more fully satisfied of the fact than himself. We, therefore, dismiss this rumour, as we have done the idle tale about the crown-matrimonial, not only as a thing incredible, but impertinent. Prince Albert is all that the people of England wish him to be, where he is. But were he to be pushed by any influence whatever out of the retirement which best becomes the husband of the queen, his popularity would soon make to itself wings and flee away; if results, much more mischievous, did not arise from the proceeding.

We come now to a third report, of which The Times may be said, in some degree, to be the originator; that there were divisions in the cabinet on the subject of the Corn-laws, so wide, so irreconcileable, that it was found impossible for the sections to hold any longer together. Now, here again, it appears to us that there must be some great mistake. That the cabinet, worked upon by the apprehensions of a scarcity, the extent of which, designing persons, for their own purposes, had grossly magnified, may have taken, and probably did take, the subject of the Corn-laws into consideration, we are not disposed to doubt. It was a proceeding so obviously consecutive on the cry which suddenly arose, that had the cabinet failed to come into it, they would have been very much to blame. But how any reasonable man can believe that Sir Robert Peel, in the face of recent declarations to the contrary, would propose to the cabinet an entire and unconditional repeal of the laws which regulate the importation of corn and

other articles of food into this country, does indeed surprise us. Nor is this all. Sir Robert, we are told, proposed an absolutely free trade in corn; the Duke of Wellington refused to budge an inch beyond the present sliding-scale; the question was put to the vote, Sir Robert was left in the minority; and the cabinet flew forthwith into splinters.

Is this probable? Is it likely that Sir Robert Peel and the Duke would so far forget what was due to themselves, and to their sovereign, as to quarrel outright on a subject so complicated; and in their wrath impose upon the queen the task of finding new advisers, at a moment when they must have known that themselves, and only themselves, could carry on the affairs of the government? We think not; and we should be extremely sorry to do otherwise. At the same time it is evident that some extraordinary difficulty did present itself somewhere. But as we shall never know either wherein it consisted, or by what happy process it has been overcome, till the parties most immediately affected by it speak out, we must therefore be content for the present with shewing cause why, in our opinion, it would be rash, in the absence of better proof than a newspaper report, to look upon Sir Robert Peel as the sort of rash traitor which a few rash speakers in public places have had the bad taste as well as bad manners to represent him.

It is not fair in this year of grace, 1845, to twit Sir Robert Peel with the Roman Catholic triumph of 1829, far less to make his proceeding on that occasion the standard by which to estimate his character as a mo

ralist in politics. Sir Robert Peel was not the prime mover in that arrangement. Whether it were a wise or an unwise measure, the merit of devising, and arranging, and carrying it through, belongs exclusively to the Duke of Wellington. Sir Robert Peel was the mere journeyman of his grace; and by no means a zealous journeyman either. It is ridiculous, also, to compare the state of public feeling, at least in the two houses of parliament, as it bore upon the question of 1829, with the state of public feeling in both houses of parliament in regard to the aboli

tion of the Corn-laws. The Emancipation-bill had passed the Commons over and over again, and was as sure to pass, yet again and again, as it might be reintroduced. In the Lords, too, the opposition diminished from year to year. Indeed, so rapid was the falling away, that, unless our memory be in fault, the last time that the Upper House refused to

sanction what the Lower had proposed to them, the bill was thrown out by an inconsiderable majority of fifteen. Moreover, of these fifteen peers several avowed their intention of voting, when next it should be brought forward, in favour of the measure. It cannot, therefore, be said, that however daringly he may have outraged the religious prejudices of the British people, even the Duke of Wellington put any unnecessary restraint upon the two Houses of Parliament in carrying his Catholic Emancipation Act. And as to Peel, it is no longer a secret that he resisted the making a cabinet question of the measure as long as he could; that he would have withdrawn from the cabinet sooner than be a party to the plan, had not the Duke in some measure constrained him to abide. But how stands the case now? Whatever may be the opinions of men out of doors, there is no disputing the fact that the present House of Commons is, by a great majority, made up of members who stand pledged to their constituencies to protect the agricultural interests. The Lords, likewise, are, almost to a man, opposed to any further interference with the Corn-laws; indeed, there needed all the skill of Peel and all the moral influence of Wellington to lead their lordships forward, even amid the dangers of 1842, to the point at which they no longer make a secret that they are determined to stop. Are we to suppose that Sir Robert Peel, knowing all this, knowing that it was the agricultural constituencies which brought him into office-his fixed duty scheme and nothing else having sent Lord John Russell into opposition-are we to suppose that Sir Robert Peel, with these truths patent before him, has ever meditated a step so wild as the recommendation by the crown of an unconditional and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws? The idea is quite monstrous. Sir Robert may regret, as many other good and wise men do, that such laws ever had existence. He may wish that it were possible to get rid of them, and cherish the belief that their repeal would effect changes neither so ruinous as their advocates apprehend, nor so advantageous for commerce as is assumed by their assailants. But

he cannot fail to be aware, that to repeal them in the lump is not possible, except on peril of the very existence of the constitution. Now

Sir Robert Peel may be as resolute a politician as you please, but he is not a revolutionist. He is not prepared to array one House of Parliament against the other, even if he were sure of carrying the Commons along with him, far less to coerce the Lords by pitchforking or threatening to pitchfork 100 members at the least into the chamber. Yet, without some such procedure, we question whether any minister would be able to carry a bill for free trade in corn; for we know that a good hundred peers at least would be necessary to equalise the strength of parties in the upper house of parliament.

Again, it is no secret to Sir Robert Peel, that however free he may stand in his own person from all pledges one way or another, his party accepted him for their leader, and fol

lowed him with an enthusiasm which has no parallel in the history of political warfare-for this single reason, that they put faith in him as the advocate of the views fiscal, religious, and economic-which they themselves entertained. Had their confidence in regard to these matters been less surely fixed, there would have been no rally worth the name from the defeat of 1833. Doubtless the incapacity of the Melbourne administration to carry on the detail business of the country must have made itself felt sooner or later; and, in the common course of things, the powers of the executive would have passed from one set of hands to another, till somebody was found of sufficient judgment to wield them. But there would have been no such industry or ready expenditure of time and money in watching the registration courts, and seeing that the lists of voters were full, as has brought us round, in point of public feeling, well-nigh to what we used to be ere the Reform Act passed. Sir Robert Peel cannot forget this; no, nor the one great rallying cry which achieved it. He has tried his party pretty well, it must be confessed. They have given up much for him in various ways-much of Protestant prejudice, since it is the fashion so to speak of that which our fathers used