NEWS OF THE WEEK.
It is not only in the House of Lords that Ministers have receded from the Reform principles which they once so manfully avowed : they discountenance, as a Cabinet, and some of them as inaividuals, the election-purifying bills in the House of Commons. Lord Joins RussELL—mark this, Reformers of Devonshire !—skulked out of the House before the division which closed the struggle on behalf of Liverpool. He was seen in the act; and provoked the friends of the bill to exclaim, "That is the heaviest blow it has got yet 1"—it was the stab from BRUTUS. The opposition of Lord SANDON and Sir ROBERT PEEL was expected, and harmless; but the treachery of the Sponsor for the Reform Bill, who could have believed? It was not by deserting the cause of the People on such questions as these that Lord JOHN RUSSELL was enabled to ex- change the representation of his family borough for that of Devon- shire. We would recommend the illustrious house of RUSSELL to take care how it offends the electors of Tavistock ; their sweet voices may be extremely serviceable at the next election.
It is worthy of note, that only five members could be prevailed upon to vote in defence of the elective rights of poor, neglected Stafford ; while a triumphant majority of 167 decreed its disfran- chisement. Even Sir ROBERT PEEL admitted that the case of Stafford was too bad. Yet in what respect is it worse than Warwick or Hertford? The bribery there has been carried on, perhaps, with rather less caution. But the real cause of the aban- donment of the unfortunate electors is, that they have no great man for a patron. Stafford has always been saleable, but" the refusal" of it has been generally given to a man of Liberal politics. Hence it is no favourite with Boroughnsongers ; and Sir THOMAS FEE- MANTLE, a nominee himself of the Duke of BUCKINGHAM, takes the lead in procuring its disfranchisement, without the slightest feeling of compunction. During the whole of the debates on the Corrupt Boroughs, Sir ROBERT PEEL has been active and adroit. He has been doing his best to render himself serviceable to his old party, while carefully avoiding any thing disagreeable to Ministers ; 'who, as we have already stated, take no honest interest in the suc- cess of the measures in question. The unwonted interchange of courtesies between Sir ROBERT and the Ministerial men of mark, and especially the bows and smiles that pass when the sly Ex-Secretary encounters the bluff Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Lobby, or other places where Members congregate, have at- tracted observation of late. Sir ROBERT PEEL knows, or suspects, that as a Tory he can never regain Isis place on the Treasury bench ; but he would fain regain it nevertheless, when an oppor- tunity occurs. At present, appearances must be kept up, and he cannot quite go over to the Whigs. Should he do so hereafter, it is safe to assert that he will be of little use to them. His
political character has been blowu to tatters. His insincerity is too well known. No one has confidence in him ; and the
times are approaching when an untarnished reputation will be of more consequence than it ever has been to British poll- tie,ians. In the mean time, however, the coquetting of Sir ROBERT PEEL with Lord ALTI4ORP and the Whigs may be watched.
The claims of the Dissenters were the subject of discussion in the House of Commons on Tuesday. Mr. DIVETT withdrew his resolution against Church-rates, upon the assurance of Lord AL- THORP, that the measure of which he had given notice should be satisfactory to the Dissenters. It is understood that these rates are to be abolished. Lord ALTHORP went further, and promised that a general registration should be established, if not in this session, ill the next. Ile thinks that the machinery of his Poor-law Amendment Bill can be made available for the keeping of registers at a small additional expense. Lord ALTHORP professed himself also strongly in favour of the admission of Dissenters to the Universities (as did also Lords GREY and BROUGHAM last night in the House of Peers); and has promised that Lord Joins RUSSELL'S piddling Marriage-Bill shall not be pressed. In short, one would itnagine that Ministers are now disposed to concede all that the Dissenters require, short of the separation of Church and State. But why not have taken credit for these good intentions sooner ? Why not have given seine in- timation in the King's Speech, or in the debates on the Address, that good things were in store for the Dissenters ? Did they keep silence from the fear of alarming the Church and the Tories ? As we intimated in our remarks on the Speech from the Throne, that supposition seems by no means an improbable one. If such was their design, it has met with the success which shuttling policy and indirect courses deserve. The Dissenters are distrustful, and the Church is irritated and not disarmed.
A Committee has been appointed to take into consideration the Law of Libel, with a view to its amendment. This hardly seems the best way of proceeding : the state of' the law is perfectly well known ; no evidence is needed ; conflicting opinion would be of little value. Two thirds of the Committee are lawyers ; and it is unlikely that they will come to such an agreement among them- selves as to give to their report much weight. The arguments used in the Committee, on this side and on that, will be repro- duced in the House, so that much time will not be saved by the discussions up stairs. The best thing the Committee can do, is that which may be done most quickly. Let them meet ; talk a little ; report that they are disagreed; and then let Sir CHARLES PEP VS bring in a bill, four pages long (O'CoststeLe's was but five pages), which the stupidest country gentleman in the House may understand.
The Corn-laws were brought under debate, in a somewhat irre- gular manner, on Wednesday. Mr. EWART presented a petition from Liverpool for free trade, beginning with a free trade in corn. After speaking in reference to his petition, he presented some others from the Dissenters, and sat down. But the opportunity for haranguing on this tempting subject was too valuable to be host; and a debate ensued, which occupied the greater part of three morning sittings—of course without any result except that of laying the petition on the table. The only speeches worthy of particular notice are those of Sir ROBERT PEEL and Sir HENRY PARNELL. Sir ROBERT dwelt upon the heavy duties which he maintained the agriculturists had to pay for the protection of the manufacturers ; and raised much laughter in the House by enumerating a string of imposts upon foreign articles—such as silks, shoes, gloves, plate, and walking-sticks—all of which, he said, were enhanced in cost to the unhappy owners and occupiers of land, for the exclusive benefit of the commercial and manufacturing classes. Sir ROBERT PEEL is not a man of originality and wit: his jokes (very well told and acted) always smack of Joe Miller. On this occasion, his memory helped him to an often-quoted passage in the vene- rable pages of the Edinburgh Review, commonly fathered on SIDNEY SMITH, in which the taxed existence of an English- man is humorously described, from the moment of his birth till at length "he is gathered to his fathers, to be taxed no more." This, slightly parodied, was just the thing to raise laughter and to win applause (an easy task !) in the House of Commons. But anl..segh the enumeration of taxes on foreign manufactures answered the purpose of Sir ROBERT PEEL in the debate, yet the argument which he endeavoured to found upon it was demolished by the simple and true statement of Sir HENRY PARNELL, that the supposed protection to the manufacturer was a dead letter. Sir HENRY also demonstrated that the corn monopoly benefits none but landlords, and showed up the hypocritical pretence and delu- sion that it is of any use to farmers. This was unpalatable truth
in the place where it was spoken ; and we doubt ad- vocate of the corn monopoly in the House cor ia
the wish, so simply uttered by Sir CHARLES 01 jisdlit MOD-. bate had " terminated with the admirable speech" of the Member for Tamworth.
The new scale of Tea-duties, which is so strongly objected to by the dealers, was brought under discussion at the morning sittings of the House on Monday and Tuesday. There is plenty to be said by Ministers in defenc of a graduated scale, rather than a fixed duty of so much a pound on all descriptions of tea alike: but it by no means follows that the Ministers have graduated their scale 'with either discretion or fairness. They failed to show that the poorer classes of consumers would reap much benefit from it. This is a subject which will under,„ao a good deal more discussion. The Government, we suspect, will be compelled to submit to a mo- dification of their plans.
The subject of the famous Russo-Turkish treaty of the 8th of July, negotiated so adroitly by Count ORLOFF, while our Am- bassador, Lord PONSONBY, was basking in the sun of Naples, has been debated in the Commons. Mr. SHEIL, the mover in this dis- cussion, delivered a speech which, since it appears to have excited considerable admiration in those who heard it, we conclude to have been badly reported in the newspapers. He wished to show that our Government was blameable for permitting the progress of MEHEMET AL!, and affording so plausible an excuse for the inter- ference of Russia. Lord PALMERSTON entered into a defence of the Ministry ; and a most bungling defence it was. We do not think that he had a very bad case. We are ready to accept an ex- cuse for not interfering in distant wars. But Lord PALMERSTON 'S speech conveys the impression that he bad been outwitted and bullied by Russia. He utterly denied that English interests are affected by the treaty in question, and yet admitted that it is an unsatisfactory one, and that he is at this time demanding explana- tions respecting it. When asked to account for Lord PONSONBY'S absence from his post, he declared that his Lordship had been de- tained by bad weather at Naples, from May to November! This impudent assertion defies comment. It was sufficiently handled by Sir ROBERT PEEL. Great stress WAS laid both by Lord PALMER- ErroN and Mr. STANLEY on the close and cordial alliance subsisting between France and England. To have cemented this alliance, is a merit which, Ministers seem to imagine, should be accepted as an atonement for all their blunders in foreign policy. It is im- portant to remember the time when these declarations by Minis- ters were so ostentatiously made. It may turn out that, at the very time they were speaking, they must have been aware of the probability of an approaching rupture of this friendly intercourse.
In the official account of the "Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons," dated "Veneris, 210 (lie Martis," and deli- vered this morning, we find the following entry-
" 39. Supply,— Committee; Ordnance Estimates referred; Supply con- sidered in Committee; Resolutions to be reported on Monday next; Commit- tee to sit again on Monday next."
This is the sum total of information respecting their proceedings which our Representatives deign to communicate to the nation ; but upon referring to the newspapers we find, that this Committee consisted of about thirty Members ; that Mr. HUME threatened to count out the House, but that was not done; and nearly a million and a half of the public money was voted away by this remnant. Independent Electors of England !—if indeed ye be independent, and also rational—consider this; ponder it well, and let your Representatives know your opinion. Mr. HUME made an elaborate and admirable exposure of much gross mismanage- ment and jobbing. We wish he had divided the House, to fur- nish the constituency with ready evidence against the absentees. At last, a Select Committee has been appointed to inquire into the best mode of expediting the business of the House. This was done last night, on the motion of Colonel DAVIES. The pre- sent machinery is proved to be unworkable. It is in no worse condition now than at the commencement of last session; and the very first act of the Reformed Parliament should have been one for its improvement. But "better late than never," says the pro- verb.
There was a brush in the House of Lords on Tuesday, between Lord BROUGHAM and Lord ELLENBOROUGH, on the subject of Scotch Appeals, the hearing of which has been delayed somewhat beyond the usual time, owing to the constant attendance of the Chancellor in his own court. Lord BROUGHAM'S reply to the attacks which had been ignorantly or maliciously made upon him in some of the Tory journals, imputing inattention to the duties of his office, was triumphant enough. His industry in his court is unquestionable; and the crying sin of ruinous delay in deciding the cases brought before him, cannot fhirly be laid to his charge. So far all was well. But Lord BROUGHAM was by no means dig- nified in his tone : his manner of treating the accusations brought against him was pettish and indecorous. Then, what could be more unjustifiable than his holding out the menace to the Scottish appellants, that, as they had pressed for an early hearing of their cases (Lord BROUGHAM assumed this), they should be handed over to Lord WYNFORD, whom they consider unqualified to deal with the law of Scotland? Now there is reason to believe, that Lord ELLENBOROUGH was not prompted on this occasion by the Scottish solicitors, but merely by his own restless spirit. Every one knows Lord ELLENBOROUGH to be a conceited, busy man, who meddles with all kinds of subjects, and sometimes with little sense or reason. But that is no excuse for the Lord High Chancellor of England threatening the suitors for justice with the terrors of Lord WYNFORD'S jurisdiction.
Previous page
