in our history. From that day dates the corporate existence of
the two great parties which have ever since alternately governed
the country. In one sense, indeed, the distinction which then
became obvious had always existed, and always must exist. For it
has its origin in diversities of temper, of understanding, and of
interest, which are found in all societies, and which will be
found till the human mind ceases to be drawn in opposite
directions by the charm of habit and by the charm of novelty. Not
only in politics but in literature, in art, in science, in
surgery and mechanics, in navigation and agriculture, nay, even
in mathematics, we find this distinction. Everywhere there is a
class of men who cling with fondness to whatever is ancient, and
who, even when convinced by overpowering reasons that innovation
would be beneficial, consent to it with many misgivings and
forebodings. We find also everywhere another class of men,
sanguine in hope, bold in speculation, always pressing forward,
quick to discern the imperfections of whatever exists, disposed
to think lightly of the risks and inconveniences which attend
improvements and disposed to give every change credit for being
an improvement. In the sentiments of both classes there is
something to approve. But of both the best specimens will be
found not far from the common frontier. The extreme section of
one class consists of bigoted dotards: the extreme section of the
other consists of shallow and reckless empirics.

There can be no doubt that in our very first Parliaments might
have been discerned a body of members anxious to preserve, and a
body eager to reform. But, while the sessions of the legislature
were short, these bodies did not take definite and permanent
forms, array themselves under recognised leaders, or assume