NEWS OF THE WEEK.
Ix the retrospect of this week's Parliamentary business, the debate on the Railway Bill shows like Aaron's rod swallowing up all its neighbours. Something there does appear of Danish claims and Welsh bishoprics, gambling matters and Mediterranean politics ; but dwarfed by the comparative bigness of the favourite topic. The motion for the second reading of the Railway Bill was met, not very judiciously, by a motion for discharging the order of the day. This refusal to enter upon the merits of the railway-regula- tion proposed by Government, had it come from the parties inte- rested in railways, would have had a bad appearance. The public has an interest in the question between Ministers and the proprie- tors; and this motion looked like an evasion of the jurisdiction of public opinion. But Mr. GISBORNE took the whole responsi- bility of his proposal upon himself: he had, he said, consulted with no one before making it. The main labour of defending the Government bill fell upon Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. CARDWELL, and Sir Roma PEEL, assisted by Mr. LABOUCHERE as a volunteer. The arguments, and still more the tone of the first and second of these speakers, were little calculated to recommend the measure. Mr. GLADSTONE appeared to express angry surprise at the pre- sumption of railway-proprietors in attempting to resist the Govern- ment interference. The President of the Board of Trade argued, that the activity of Parliamentary solicitors, anxious to carve out work for themselves, was at the bottom of the opposition to the measure. Mr. CARDWELL was witty—on the strength of quo- tation—about companies having no souls, or such souls as lay in the grave of the licentiate Pedro Garcia. Both the gentlemen over- did their argument : they seemed to be of opinion, not merely that the railway " interest" was, like all human beings, liable to be biassed by self, but that it was preeminently sordid. Mr. GLAD- STONE'S attack upon the lawyers was an appeal to the vulgar prejudice against that profession. It is true that the expense of carrying bills through Parliament is great, and that very bungling slipshod bills do pass through Parliament. But it does not appear mery clearly how the matter would be mended by transferring the initiatory power to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade would be obliged to employ solicitors to put in shape the bills intrusted or submitted to them. The only effect of investing the Board of Trade with authority to sit upon railway-bills to be offered to Par- liament—as the Lords of the Articles did upon all bills in the Scotch Parliament—would be to create a monopoly of this branch of practice in favour of certain solicitors, pets of the Board. Whether such an arrangement would be found conducive to economy and despatch of business, may be questioned. Mr. LABOUCHERE used terms more respectful to the Railway interest ; not having a pa- ternal feeling towards the bill, his ire was possibly not so much roused. The most successful speech against the measure—for the mastery of the subject displayed in debate within the House scarcely corresponded to the vehemence of the opposition out of doors—was Mr. CHARLES BULLER'S. Mr. BULLER asked the Home Secretary, very fairly, " who was Jack Cade now ? "—alluding to the debates on the Factories Regulation Bill. Admitting that railways might call for regulation and control, Mr. BULLER objected to this bill as transferring the power of control from Parliament to the Executive Government. Sir ROBERT PEEL took up the defence of the bill, in an able and conciliatory speech. He laboured under this disadvantage, that the conciliation appeared to have been called for by his colleague's want of tact, and that his arguments sounded rather like an apology for the bill than an advocacy of it. His strongest point was the necessity of Government taking some steps to secure the right of interfering with rail- ways, should the future development of the railway-system show that interference is at last necessary. To this, however, it may be replied, that this power may be secured by the insertion of a clause in all railway bills, providing for revision of the privileges granted, at the expiry of fifteen or any other series of years. Sir Ro- [LATEST EDITION.] BERT PEEL'S striking picture of the difficulty of legislating for a sys- tem of which the rapid development might in a few years entirely change its character, suggested of itself the impropriety of attempt- ing to legislate for permanence in our present state of knowledge. The bill passed the second reading: but the impression left by the debate is, that it would be advisable not to press it further this session ; and that the Premier himself, were it not for appearances, would confess himself of that opinion. He admitted that the power of interfering in railway-management, and in particular the power of purchase, conferred upon the Board of Trade, is extreme ; but endeavoured to reassure his hearers by suggesting that the very greatness of the powers affords a guarantee that there is no in- tention to make use of them.
The debate on the Danish claims presented nothing of novelty on the merits of the case. Mr. CHRISTIE taunted the supporters of Government with voting differently now, their leaders being in office, from what they had done when they were out ; and he was answered by a legal subtlety, showing that a new view of the question had occurred to them. It was not asserted that they had got any new lights as to the essential justice of the case. The truth is, that the present Government are merely doing what their predecessors did before them, and what in all likelihood their suc• cessors will do after them : they have got hold of some money belonging to private parties, and are most reluctant to part with it ; and they are particularly acute in discovering flaws in the claim- ants' titles, in order that they may not be obliged to refund. It was the same with the China compensation-money, with the monies claimed by the Baron DE Bode, and many similar cases might be mentioned. An additional proof that in a contest between the Government and a private individual, the individual has no chance of obtaining justice.
Lord Powis has withdrawn his bill for repealing the union of the sees of Asaph and Bangor. It was full time, when it had been,
discovered that the Queen's consent having been withheld, the Speaker of the House of Lords could not lawfully put the question whether the bill "do pass." Lord AIONTEAGLE came forward to exonerate Ministers from the charge of having devised this way of getting rid of a bill which they had opposed unsuccessfully, by taking the ,credit of the serviceable discovery to himself. This does not much mend matters. Either the objection that the Via had been irregularly introduced, without the consent of the Crown, is valid, or it is not : if valid, then have Ministers, when they al- lowed it to be introduced, neglected to assert the rights of the Crown : if a mere pretext, then their availing themselves of such a subterfuge is not the less discreditable because they had not wit enough to invent it. They are taking shelter behind the Throne, to escape an adverse majority of the House of Lords; imitating in this their graceless predecessors the Whigs, with the difference that the Whigs invoked the Royal aid against a majority of their opponents, whereas the present Ministers invoke it against a ma- jority of their own supporters. The discovery that this class of bills can only be introduced with the consent of the Crown, seems to stand much in, the same predicament with the ferreting out of forgotten penal laws in the statute-book. This week's discussions on gambling have done little to clear the way to satisfactory legislation on that subject. They have consisted chiefly of personal altercation. Colonel PEEL took occasion to pro- test against the left-handed compliment paid to him along with others by Judge ALDERSON, at the close of the horse-racing trial. Lord GEORGE BENTINCK made a grave attack upon Mr. Ginsoat for receiving information respecting gambling affairs from men implicated in similar transactions. His Lordship did not explain how any person not liable to such a charge could give the necessary information.
An attempt was made in the beginning of the week to raise a dis- cussion on foreign affairs, apropos of the French squabble with
Morocco. Fears were expressed of the French being allowed to gain a naval preponderance in the Mediterranean, which the actual condition of the French fleet scarcely appears to justify. Com- plaints were made of neglect in the Foreign Office to check foreign encroachment in Africa ; but as this was felt to be an awkward question for Lord P.ALMERSTON, it was not followed up. So long as the French advance only Westward, it can be of little consequence to us : during peace, Gibraltar will receive the usual supplies from the African coast, and in war take them. Were the course of French conquests in Africa to turn Eastward, it would be time to look about us.
