That we shall know when Parliament meets; and possibly not before.  At present the attempts to explain, to reconcile, and, as it were, to construe the Government system of policy, is first almost neglecting the Irish sedition, and then (after half-a-year’s sedentary and distant skirmishing, by means of Chancery letters) suddenly, on the 7th day of October, leaping into the arena armed cap-a-pie, dividing themselves like a bomb-shell amongst the conspirators, rending—­shattering—­pursuing to the right and to the left;—­all attempts, we say, to harmonize that past quiescence (almost acquiescence) with this present demoniac energy, have seemed to the public either false or feeble, or in some way insufficient.  Five such attempts we have noticed; and of the very best we may say that perhaps it tells the truth, but not the whole truth. First came the solution of a great morning journal—­to the effect that Government had, knowingly and wilfully, altered their policy, treading back their own steps upon finding the inefficiency of gentler measures.  On this view no harmonizing principle was called for the discord existed confessedly, and the one course had been the palinode of the other.  But such a theory is quite inadmissible to our minds; it tallies neither with the long-headed and comprehensive sagacity of Sir Robert Peel, nor with the spirit of simplicity, directness, and determination in the Duke of Wellington. Next came an evening paper, of high character for Conservative honesty and ability, which (having all along justified the past policy of vigilant neutrality) could not be supposed to acknowledge any fickleness in ministers:  the time for moderation and indulgence, according to this journal, had now passed away:  the season had arrived for law to display its terrors.  Not in the Government, but in the conspirators had occurred the change:  and so far—­to the extent, namely, of taxing these conspirators with gradual increase of virulence—­it may ultimately turn out that this journal is right.  The fault for the present is—­that the nature of the change, its signs and circumstances, were not specified or described.  How, and by what memorable feature, did last June differ from this October? and what followed, by its false show of subtlety, discredited the whole explanation.  It seems that notice was required of this change:  in mere equity, proclamation must be made of the royal pleasure as to the Irish sedition:  that was done in the Queen’s speech on adjourning the two Houses.  But time also must be granted for this proclamation to diffuse itself, and therefore it happened that the Clontarf meeting was selected for the coup d’essai of Government; in its new character for “handselling” the new system of rigour, this Clontarf assembly having fallen out just about six weeks from the Royal speech.  But this attempt to establish a metaphysical relation between the time for issuing a threat, and the time