“My Lords,—‘_Idem sentire de republicâ_’ has been in all times, and amongst the best of statesmen, a bond of union at once intelligible, honourable, conducive to the common weal. But there is another kind of union formed of baser materials—a tie that knits together far different natures, the ‘_eadem velle atque nolle_,’ and of this it has been known and been said, ‘_ea demum, inter malos, est prime amicitia_.’ The abandonment of all opinions, the sacrifice of every sentiment, the preference of sordid interest to honest principle, the utter abdication of the power to act as conscience dictates and sense of duty recommends—such is the vile dross of which the links are made which bind profligate men together in a ‘covenant of shame;’ a confederacy to seek their own advancement at the expense of every duty;—and this, my Lords, is the literal meaning of ‘open questions.’ It is that each has his known recorded opinions, but that each is willing to sacrifice them rather than break up the government to which he belongs: the ‘_velle_’ is to keep in office, the ‘_nolle_’ to keep out all antagonists; and none dare speak his mind in his official capacity without losing the ‘_firmitas amicitiæ_,’ by shaking the foundations of the Government.” Here is a splendid outburst of vehement denunciation. If that could be applied with justice to the Government of Lord Melbourne, if such an invective as that is an index of the state of opinion in the country at that time, with reference to the dissensions in the Whig Cabinet, how much more applicable is it to the Coalition of the present day, with regard to whose members, putting out of sight the question of Free Trade, which is now the law of the land, there is hardly a question of public importance to which we can point as an example that ‘_idem sentire de republicâ_’ is their bond of union. Discontent and anxiety may well prevail when we have, in times so important as these, a Ministry in power so disunited, and composed of such discordant elements, such base materials as the present, and backed by followers who, true to their nature, are constantly quarrelling amongst themselves. Look at the diversity of sentiment displayed in their recorded speeches on that subject which, more than any other, is uppermost in the minds of the people. There is Lord John Russell in the House of Commons inveighing against the criminal ambition of the Czar of Russia, declaring that “this enormous power has got to such a pitch, that even in its moderation it resembles the ambition of other states;” arguing that that power must be checked; telling the people of England that they must be prepared to enter the contest with a stout heart and a willing mind, and then solemnly invoking the God of justice to prosper her Majesty’s arms, to defend the right! We have the Home Secretary and the Earl of Clarendon completely subscribing to these sentiments; but we