NEWS OF THE WEEK.
Tiffs has been in Parliament a week of debates " to be conti- nued," with relief from tedium sought in personalities of a kind more than ordinarily disgraceful to any deliberative assembly.
The discussion on the Coercion Bill, for instance, was con- verted by Lord George Bentinck and Mr. Disraeli entirely into an attack on Sir Robert Peel, of such a nature, that had it ap- peared in a newspaper it would have provoked an action for libel. The substance of the accusation is this. In 1827, Mr. Peel se- parated himself from Canning on the score of Catholic Emanci- pation ; but in 1829, the year when he himself adopted the mea- sure, he let a remarkable confession escape his lips, that be had been favourable to Catholic Emancipation in 1825. According to this alleged confession, he told Lord Liverpool, in 1825, that " something must be done"; yet in 1827, he opposed Canning's attempt to do that something. Such is the tale that was preferred against Sir Robert Peel last week by Lord George Bentinck ; who charged the Premier with having "hunted Can- ning to the death." On Friday Sir Robert Peel replied. He ut- terly denied that hehad changed his'opinion in 1825; and showed that in 1827 he and Canning were on terms of cordiality, although opposed on the particular subject. In the same reply, Sir Robert justly rebuked Lord Bentinck for the licence of his speech. Mr. Disraeli recurred to the attack on Monday, with further evidence, the value of which we examine in a separate paper. It is in itself by no means so conclusive as Mr. Disraeli would assume, and it is counter to every probability. Sir Robert Peel's adversaries have complained of his delay in ad- vancing the Coercion Bill : they are the great obstruction, and this dispute is a capital instance of their idle hindrances. It was all about a matter that is said to have occurred twenty years ago ; not a tittle of fresh evidence has accrued in the interval ; the accuser has been acting with the accused ; but having a new quarrel on another score, he revives this old tale. It belonged to the past generation, when it was fresh in men's minds, and it could be discussed with some probability of a satisfactory con- clusion. Perhaps it is advanced now because the facts are less known. At all events, it had nothing to do with the debate—in regard to that it was a sheer impertinence; and the wonder is that it was not put down with those obstructive cries which the House is accustomed to give out in less flagrant cases. Some subsidiary questions have been raised, equally trivial, and alike dictated by the mere desire to inflict some injury on the Minister. He is accused of having taunted Lord George Bentinck with changes of opinion. A misrepresentation : what occurred was this. Lord George Bentinck used very coarse lan- eage, talked of "kicking," and described Sir Robert Peel as forcing forward -his measures by the help of " hired janissaries." Sir Robert pointed out the extremely unparliamentary nature of such language ; and called to mind that Lord George had changed his own opinions and his votes several times, without imputations on his motives. The reproach here is not against the changes of opinion, but against the ungenerous denial of an indulgence or a right which the accuser had himself enjoyed. Another question has been the due limit of Parliamentary licence in speech. Lord George balled Sir Robert Peel's colleagues and adherents—the Herberts, Lincolns, Egertons, and the like- " hired janissaries" ; and his apologists vindicate him by the ex- ample of Charles James Fox ; who said, when his India Bill was arrested, that it was " strangled by the janissaries of the Bed- chamber." There is no parallel in the cases, except the literal identity of the word " janissaries." Lord George's phrase directly - imputed mercenary, motives to the supporters of the Minister : Fox's use of the phrase was more metaphorical, more poetical, and its licence was therefore less coarse and naked ; moreover, it was not intended to shadow out the vileness of the instruments so much as the despotism of the act. It was extorted in a fit of heat, when Fox had just undergone most exasperating usage from the Court : Lord George alights upon it in coolly hunting for expressions to disparage and annoy men with whom he has been acting, and who certainly have caused him no personal offence. But supposing that Fox had been as bad, would that excuse Lord George ? Strong language was one form of that indifferent self- control in Fox that belonged to a spoiled child with a robust con- stitution, violent impulses, and a guileless heart : it was weakness. What excuse for Lord George's coarseness is the fact that the blemish in a great mania identical with a leading characteristic in the manners of the small man ?
The disposal of such matters has constituted all the progress made with the Coercion Bill.
The progress made with the Corn Bill by the Lords was much of the same kind. There were indeed divisions, on the Duke of Buckingham's amendment to perpetuate the reduced sliding scale of the new bill, and on Lord Wicklow's amendment to impose a permanent fixed duty of 5s. per quarter : some advocates of Pro- tection dung to each as a last straw ; while old advocates of fixed duty opposed the amendment in favour of the bill—betraying no small exasperation at finding their flank turned by Sir Robert Peel. But the personalities were the thing. It will be remembered that last week the Bishop of St. David's and the Bishop of Oxford made stirring speeches in favour of the measure. Lord Stanley insinuated that Dr. Thirlwall did not mind the loss of protection, because he has a fixed income; while Lord Hardwicke "lectured" Dr. Wilberforce for imputing motives to the Peers. The Right Reverend Fathers in God showed that they could ably, though decorously, defend themselves ; but the scene of recrimination was edifying—noble Peers bandy mutual accusations of interested mo- tives with a most self-betraying-, readiness. To this comedy suc- ceeded a farce, in which Lord Stanley extemporized d little bur- lesque for Punch ; parodying Milton, and callin5, Lord Brougham stripling "cherub," smiling "celestial youth," with " suitable grace. ' Some practical business has been transacted. Sir George Clerk has introduced a series of resolutions, embodying the report from the Committee of the Board of Trade, on the question of Railway Gauges. The resolutions suffer the Great Western to retain its broad gauge, and even to extend it in branches strictly connected with that line alone; but they forbid the adoption of any but the prevalent narrow gauge on any new railway, and sanction the opening of communication with the narrow gauge from North to South, even to Bristol. The effect of these resolutions, if carried out, will bet to postpone the actual and final settlement of the gauge question for a while ; leaving the broad gauge apparently undisturbed, and allowing a little more time for the consideration of the subject with further experience as to the rapid increase of traffic. But eventually; the broad gauge, we think, must be sur- rounded, and forced to adopt the usual width in self-defence. By unusual good fortune, this decision appears to have pleased both sides in the dispute.
