constitution? We answer—experience set at nought—advice derided warnings neglected—these brought the League into existence—these gave it power and motive, and vital energy—these gave it an easy and unresisted ingress into the very sanctuaries of our domestic life—
'Scandit fatalis machina muros
Foeta armis: pueri circum innuptægrie puellœ
Sacra canunt; ſunemque mode contingere gaudent.
Illa subit, mediæque molnans illabitur urbi'
A New power has arisen in the State; and maids and matrons flock to theatres, as though it were but a new 'translation from the French',
"Let no man say that we are blind to the possible mischiefs of such a state of things. We acknowledge that we dislike gregarious collections of cent and cotton men. We cannot but know that, whatever be the end of this agitation, it will expire only to bequeath its violence and its turbulence to some successor."
The League could forgive the allusion to "gregarious collections of cant and cotton men." It could forgive being called deceiver, hypocrite, huge Trojan horse of sedition. It was a great fact, and it would remain a great fact in spite of railing. It had produced facts, too, important and worthy of consideration. The Times had recorded that "no moralist could disregard them; no politician could sneer at them; no statesman could undervalue them; he who collected opinion must chronicle them; he who framer laws must, to some extent, consult them." The Times had acknowledged this; it had declared that "A NEW POWER HAD ARISEN IN THE STATE," and the League could forgive its habit of calling names. The Morning Post also admitted that the League had become "a great fact," but attributed its power to the inertness of the landed interest:—
