13 NOVEMBER 1852, Page 1

NEWS OF THE WEEK.

Tim Speech with which Ministers have advised the Queen to com- mence the business of the Session, records the entire acceptation of the Free-trade policy by the recently Protectionist Ministry ; and at the same time, paradoxically enough, the document, coupled with the speeches that explained it, puts it beyond a doubt that Ministers have from the first been shuffling with the

public. The paragraph on this main point, in the Speech from the Throne, is remarkable in its terms, which have been the subject of general criticism. It is not only contradictory, but it insinuates something more than is stated. Ministers accept a Free-trade policy, not on any formal declaration by Parliament after the elec- tion, but, it would appear from the Speech, on the evidence of the facts—on "the generally improved condition of the country, and especially the industrious classes." The decision of the election is accepted on the calculation of the Whippers-in ; a species of levity in form which marks how little the Minister had actually relied on the decision of the country for his own doctrine. On the con- trary, independently of that decision, he accepts the Free-trade policy on the strength of its successful working. But in the Royal Speech he proceeds to suggest, that " if, in contributing to this happy resnit"—that is, " the generally improved condition of the country and especially the industrious classes "—the recent legislation "at the same time inflicts an inevitable injury on certain important interests," Parliament should consider how " to mitigate that injury," and " to enable the industry of the country to meet " unrestricted competition." Thus, Par- liament is asked to defend " industry " against the "injury " inflicted by measures which have " generally improved ' the condition of " the industrious classes." Certainly it was ill-con- sidered to make Queen Victoria the instrument for laying such a proposition before Parliament. The sarcastic touch in the use of the word. " wisdom " and the disparaging name for Free-trade as " unrestricted competition," also indicate a more than lurking ani- mus against the policy adopted. Lord Derby, indeed, disavows any reserve : Mr. Disraeli equally disclaims any intention to palter with the explicit acceptance of Free-trade ; only he avows that the same principle which has been established in commerce must be carried out in finance. What this means, it is impossible to under- stand; and he takes a fortnight longer before he will expound the practical measure to which he alludes thus enigmatically. Not satisfied with the amount of explicitness in the Royal Speech, Mr. Charles Villiers announces that he intends to bring forward a motion on the 22d instant, " which will put the question upon so clear and intelligible a footing that there shall be no further doubt about it." Mr. Disraeli was particularly anxious that Mr. Villiers's motion should stand over until the development of his own financial scheme—that is, until the 26th ; but Mr. Villiers adhered to his original intention. It is desirable that the question should be settled once for all, and it is quite right that it should be considered independently of any ulterior question. Mr. Disraeli himself ought to have no objection ; for if he is to accept Free-trade as the basis of his financial corollary, there can be no difficulty in his establishing that foundation first, before the super- structure shall be raised upon it.

It is not only the equivocal language of the Speech, or the ab- sence of any light from Mr. Disraeli, but there are other signs of a vacillation that ought to be ended at once. While the seconder of the Address concurred with Ministers in adopting Free- trade, the mover remained a Protectionist.. In the House of Lords, that statement may be almost reversed ; the tone of the seconder

was highly Protectionist. And here and there in the de- bates Protectionist murmurs were heard. On the other hand, all sections of the Opposition have agreed upon a prompt decision. Lord John Russell, who eat between Sir Charles-Wood and Sir James Graham, with Mr. Cobden at his back, gave Mr. Villiers his unqualified support. Mr. Villiers, therefore, is the spokesman for the united Liberal party ; and the question is no longer in the exclusive hands of the Manchester section.

If we look for information either to the Speech or the Ministerial commentary respecting the other branches of administration, we must be disappointed. We only see enough to create doubt. The usual assurances from F.oreifin Powers, for example, are belied by the whole body of news from all parts of the world. But the very terms of the Speech cast suspicion on tho nature of our Foreign relations. The allusion to "the Prince President of the French Republic " is an innovation, and indeed a departure from offi- cial form, implying some coquetry with the chief of the Re- public, unknown to us officially as a " Prince "; and the boast of cooperation with that Prince in the Argentine Republic also suggests the question, why it is thus paraded ? The Speech makes us aware that the dispute arising from " frequent and really well- founded complaints of infractions of the fishery convention of 1818" has not been settled. As to the actual state of our relations with Foreign countries, therefore, we learn nothing, save a some- thing in the tone which implies intimacy with the Elysee, and a still open litigation with the United States. One other fact is quite clear : the late Protectionist Ministry, but now the Free-trade Ministry, composed of the party that once resisted Reform, must now be added to the list of ;'Reform" Minis- tries! The Speech has a very long list of reforms, embracing a great variety of subjects—India, Law, Secondary Punishments, Capitular Institutions, Fine Arts, and the Universities. In the last case, the course hinted is peculiar. "The desire of the Uni- versities" for reform is presumed, and Parliament is invited to furnish enabling measures. Here, therefore, in the Reform acti- vities of the once Anti-Reform party, we find the same trimming between the influences of improvement and those of reaction. Ministers offer themselves as an instrument to the University Re- form party—as a shield for the University Conservative party. Whatever may be the measures that Mr. Disraeli announced as still looming in the fortnight, it is impossible that Ministers can long pursue a double course, diverging in opposite directions. The debate which arose on this string of peculiar and not very intelligible propositions was interesting, less for its eloquence than for the practical manner in which the substantial matters were handled, especially in the House of Commons. In the House of Lords, we are chiefly struck by the eloquent tribute from more than one Peer to the Duke of Wellington ; and by the national tone, nobly elevated above party distinctions, in which Lord. Lans- downe, followed by Lord Derby, spoke of the Militia, of the de- fences, and of the, reawakening national spirit. In the House of Commons, the speakers went more directly to business in hand. Mr. Villiers brought the debate at once to the question of Free-

trade. Mr. Walpole tried to explain away the air of evasiveness in the Speech from the Throne ; but Lord John Russell vigorously contrasted the obscurity of the admission with the lucidity of the facts admitted, establishing the Free-trade policy; and he accom- panied this exposition by an important declaration in favour of

abolishing transportation to all the Australian Colonies. The air of Lord John's speech is that of a man who means business. Mr.

Disraeli endeavoured to gain time ; but Mr. Gladstone drove home

the lode of Mr. Villiers's position ; and afterwards Mr. Cobden showed that the whole position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, imitating Sir Robert Peel's relinquishment of policy but not Sir Robert Peel's relinquishment of office, was untenable. Lord Pal-

merston's adhesion to Free-trade is important as tending to re- move one doubt at least respecting his possible alliances. Not striking in the eloquence, the debate is interesting for the practi- cal issues taken up in it ; and the Opposition shines in comparison with the Ministenal side, in closeness, substance, and force.