The Press.
London, England, 1858-02-27 00:00:00

led as from 1835 to 1841 when guided by Sir R. Peel
the Government never so powerful as when he came
into
power in the close of the latter year. The Whigi as a party
were destroyed by the Reform Bill, forced through the
Lords by their powerful leaders at
.the head of the whole
democracy of the empire ; the Tories as a party were de.
stroyed by Sir R. Peel, when at the head of the Govern.
ment, and supported by a majority so large as promised
them a lease of power for an unlimited period. Earl Grey's
triumph terminated the ascendancy of the old Whig
families which had so long ruled the State, and substituted
in its room that of a coalition of English urban Liberals
Scotch Radicals, and Irish Catholics; Sir R. Peel's return
to power with a majority of ninety-one was the herald of
the dissolution of the great and united party which he had
so long and ably headed, and its severance into angry
soured Protectionists, too weak to form a Governmen%
and wavering Liberal Conservatives, eminent in talent,
but without followers sufficient to give them any preten-
sions to be a ruling party.

All that statement would require caution in
adopting it The whole truth is not there.
The assertion that " the Whigs as a party
" were destroyed by the Reform Bill," is loose
and broad. Would it not be more true to say
that the attacks of the Liberals on the Church
Establishment, and their disastrous and un-
patriotic junction with Mr. O'Connell, con-
tributed to sink them, in spite of the in-
creased electoral aid which they had obtained
by the Reform Bill ? In the face of patent
facts it cannot be admitted that " with Earl
" Grey's triumph the ascendancy of the old
" Whig families" terminated.
In a former volume of this:sequel we read of
the character of O'Connell pronounced upon
(as we thought) finally, but here again we have
an account of the " Monster Meetings " of
1843 ; and there is an appearance of repeti-
tion in some passages of this continuation,
and in too many instances there is extreme
looseness of assertion. It is stated, for ex-
' ample, at p. 16, that " Lord Stanley (Derby),
" notwithstanding his great abilities, was not
" peculiarly versed in colonial affairs." In
Mr Canning's Ministry Lord Derby (then Mr.
Stanley) was Under-Secretary for the Colonies,
and the late Right Hon. R. L. Sheil (a bitter
adversary of Lord Derby) says, "He (Mr.
" Stanley) held a situation in the Colonial-
" office, where he was remarkable for diligence,
" ability, and self-reliance," &c. &c. (Sheil's
" Parliamentary Sketches," vol. ii. p. 362. And
Sir A. Alison forgets that when Lord Derby
left the Irish Secretaryship in 1833, the
Government of Earl Grey and Lord Brougham
advised the Crown to appoint Mr. Stanley
(Lord Derby) to the Secretaryship of the
Colonies, which he held until 1834. The
adversaries of Lord Derby might have objected
to the noble lord's views on colonial affairs,
but we never recollect any man of mark before
asserting that Lord Derby was not peculiarly
conversant with colonial affairs. He had been
twice in the Colonial Department previously to
his acceptance of its seals in 1841, and at the
time when Mr. Sheil admitted his "diligence"
that caustic critic was in parliamentary an-
tagonism to Mr. Stanley. Surely Sir A. Alison
ought to be more careful in his statements.
Alluding to an extraordinary religious leader,
Father Mathew, Sir A. Alison writes:—

The temperance movement began. Father Mathew, a
monk of ardent disposition, nervous eloquence, and enthu-
siastic philanthropy, was the soul of the movement. The
benevolent ecclesiastic wee the unsuspecting hand by
which the Catholic hierarchy carried on their projects
of converting the surplus funds of Irish labour to
the purposes of Repeal agitation. The effect of his heart-
stirring eloquence was at first prodigious; it recalled the
days when Peter the Hermit roused the dormant energies
of Europe in behalf of the Holy Land.
Father Mathew was a friar, not " a monk ;" he
did not lay claim to " nervous eloquence,"
though he had a most touching manner. And
we should like to have the authority cited for
the statement that the Irish Romanist
•` hierarchy appropriated the surplus funds of
" Irish labour to the Repeal movement." The
comparison of teetotalism with the efforts of
Peter the Hermit is absurd.
The trial of Smith O'Brien for High Treason
is inaccurately recorded by Sir A. Alison. It
is said (p. 379) that " Chief Justice Doherty pre-
sided." There were three judges—ChiefJustice
Blackburne (whose office was highest in rank),
Chief Justice Doherty (of the Common Pleas),
and Mr. Justice Moore. Then, at p. 380, Sir
Archibald says, "Meagher was tried at Dub-
" lin (!) by Chief Justice Blackmore" (!)•
!Meagher was tried at Clonmel by the same
court which condemned We confederates awl