NEWS OF THE WEEK.
ONE of those long debates "styled on the state of the country" has occupied the chief time of the House of Commons this week : the immediate provocative being Lord Holmes motion for a Corn- mittee of the whole House on the subject. The discussion, as usual, embraced also the standing topics of Corn-law Repeal and Free. Trade, and the comparative merits of the late and the present Ministers.' With materials so utterly worn out, it was not to be ex- pected that the discussion would possess much novelty. Indeed the wonder is, that the debates were not more tiresome than they really proved ; a circumstance which attests at once the amount of inge- nuity in the members of the assembly and the power of party- spirit as a stimulant to vivacity of disputation on the most hack- neyed topics. If the matter was trite, and the speakers were the old stagers, the conduct of the high argument was also after the long fami- liar fashion. The Opposition mover had got up his case, and de- livered an elaborately-compiled treatise, a reflex or digest of all that has appeared in the papers and in speeches for the last twelve .mpriths at least. One of the Prime Minister's lieutenants sallied tforth to encounter the first attack ; Mr. GLADSTONE being the oc- cupant of that post of honour, and the deliverer of a clever speech, :the gist of which was, that all statesmen are agreed as to the sound- -mess of Free Trade principles—that little can be done with them at `present--that the present Ministers have accordingly done little, but their predecessors, and especially the last Ministry, did much less. - Then followed the miscellaneous host, in alternate assaults from either Sidi; with statistics of distress on the Opposition side, and taunts that Sir ROBERT PEEespreach is great but his practice small ; and mingled defence of the Minister and complaint that his preaching is reckless and his practice dangerous, on his own side. Here and there was a diversion thrown in, in the shape of some "independent" or eccentric Member—like Colonel SIBTHORP, with sneers at his leader ; Mr. BENJAMIN DISRAELI, with general- izing advocacy of foreign commercial treaties as the panacea; Mr. FERRAND, with attacks on the League and addenda to Lord Howica's motion. The Conservative Sir JOHN HANMER opposed the motion, but propounded one of the most comprehensive schemes of commercial reform, Crowned by abandonment of " pro- tection.". Mr. CHARLES VILLIERS did not confine himself to an Anti-Corn-law speech, but advanced reasons for inquiry on broader grounds. Finally, the rear of the two forces will" of course be brought up by the two rival leaders, Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Sir ROBERT PEEL. Excepting in dates and particulars arising out of the passing events of the day, the debate might be supposed to have taken place last session.
The motion was fruitless, as it was almost aimless. Professedly it was for a Committee of the whole House, " to consider so much of the Lords Commissioners' Speech as refers to that depression of the manufacturing industry of the country which has so long prevailed' "; but practically, it was a " demonstration" in favour of attiring the Corn-laws somehow. To judge by his opening, LOrd'Howsex has no suggestion to make commensurate with the exigency which he described. Nor has any thing like a substantial suggestion turned up. Various specifics were proposed,—a moderate or even a small fixed corn•duty, total repeal, absolute free trade, taxes_ on machinery, foreign commercial treaties, emigration, a lower silver standard, limitation of credit ; an endless variety of nostrums, applied to special symptoms of the pervading disease, and prescribed'with more or less confidence. The conclusion to be drawn is, that no one has a plan—that not a man really knows what could be done with the evil as a whole. The inquiry, it was foreseen, would be fruitless. Nevertheless, it is by no means certain that it is judicious or proper to refuse the inquiry. The existence of enormous public evil, from whatever cause arising, is admitted: the House of Commons—" the grand inquest of
• Written on Friday, before the last nigbt's debate. [LATEST EDITION]
the nation"—has the peculiar function cf investigating state grievances, and is scarcely entitled to throw the onus of providing remedies upon individual members. It may be " inconvenient " to institute inquiries of the kind; men who have routine business to transact may feel it a " bore "; but it appears to be a duty consti- tutionally incumbent on the Commons. However ill the summohs was expressed, it ought perhaps to have been obeyed. Were ft once ascertained that nothing can be done by Government, there would be a satisfaction and a safety even in that.
There was, however, one element of deserved defeat, common to all movements of the kind which have recently taken place. Here has the House of Commons been talking about the admitted misery of large portions of the people, for a whole week ; Members have joined in the talk, Ministers, Ex-Ministers, and the picked Patriots of the day ; yet nothing is done—nothing that is said even makes an impression. It is all futile vanity. The reason is too obvious : none bestows suffioient pains upon his work—devotes his whole mind to it, and takes thought before he acts. It is not that there is lack of activity and a sort of ability : Members collect abundance of "information," arrange it in something like order, and find plenty to say upon it—" a speech": but their diligence goes no further. The information is usually collected to prop up a foregone conclusion ; the speech is made, possibly not without thought of the public service, but more obviously to elicit applause or to serve a party. The proof is, that we have in this week's debate the identical propositions of last year, the same formulae, the same arguments, almost the same words : the legislators have not reconsidered the whole subject, for their thought has not ad- vanced a jot beyond the point which it had reached last year. They cannot expect, and surely they do not deserve much atten- tion, when they rush into the House to speak, and move, and vote, with so little cogitatiorssan their own part.. On the other hand, if Ministers may be allowed a conservative caution in rejecting rash propositions, their duty is not fulfilled in doing only-this : it does not suffice that they should say, " We admit the exigency; but you have nothing to propose, and therefore we, will think no more of it " : on the contrary, the less others think the more they are bound. And it must be confessed, that of all actors in the passing scene, Sir ROBERT PEEL himself is the one who has given most sign that he really has bestowed earnest reflection upon his task. The evidence is, that lie has most departed from his accustomed course and from the beaten track of party. He may have reached the end of his tether ; and if he is conscious of having done so, his occupation is gone : the country still needing more to be done for it, he—no shame to him—is not the man for her purpose ; though, as in sooth none other offers at the moment, he may continue to hold office " until his successor be appointed." If he feels that the good is not yet all got from him—out with it : if the country is to be bettered in its condition, it is neither by talking on a bootless equivocal proposition like Lord HOWICIeS, nor by merely parrying such a motion with a clever " reply," but by taking heart and really striving to discover what can or cannot be done, and doing what can be done, with all convenient speed.
