NEWS OF TIIE WEEK.
Tint preliminary movement on the Corn question has been made this week in both Houses of Parliament ; and its supporters have suffered a repulse, for which they could not be unprepared. The Lords rejected Lord BROUGHAM'S motion without a division ; the Commons negatived that of Mr. VILLIERS by a majority of 361 to 172.
Among the Lords, BnoronAst stood alone. Not a single Peer aided him in the debate ; and it would not be easy to name half a dozen upon whose votes he could have counted if a division had been pressed. The minority in the Commons consisted of' Whigs and Radicals, with one Tory exception : Mr. FEILDEN of Black- burn supported the family interest in manutitutures.
It thus appears that there is no disunion among the Tories on this question. Although the motion did not necessarily in- volve an expression of opinion on the policy of the Corn-laws, the Tories hastened to announce their determination to main- tain " things as they are." Several avowed that their opposi- tion to the petition for inquiry rested on a belief that its concession would promote the views of the Abolitionists,—regardless of the inference that, in their opinion, increase of knowledge on the subject was unfavourable to their cause. Sir Ronmir PEEL took rather different ground : he was desirous of an early decision, pro- fessing alarm at the consequences of uncertainty, and refused to sanction a proceeding, which must cause delay. Sir FRANCIS Bramerr declined the trouble of hearing evidence, only because he admitted the fitcts ; and as he not only admitted the facts, but thought his brother landowners mistaken in their view of the ques- tion, his vote in fitvour of a change must be expected should an op- portunity occur for recording it. These minor differences me insufficient to weaken the evidence of the debates and the di- vision, that dissension on the subject in the Tory camp has been stifled, and that the party with its leaders in Parliament have resolved to uphold the present scale of duties. That there had been disagreement, however, was shown by the Standard's late alarm ; the renovated Anti-Corn-law vigour of the Times, the ex- hibition of which ceased just when it might have been most effectual ; and the general impression of an impending compromise. how the entire reunion in the Conservative phalanx has been effected, does not clearly appear ; but it may be conjectured that Sir ROBERT PEEL and the official section were controlled by the great lords and squires of the party. The thriller may have been willing to forward an arrangement which it was supposed the Go- vernment might propose ; for they have eyes on place, mid behold hi the Corn question a serious obstacle. Those among thent who possess landed property, would discern an equivalent far a possible reduction of rents, in the convenience of salary and the pleasures ' of Ministerial power. But the men of many acres, who have no such desires or expectations, would naturally cling to laws on which they rely for the maintenance of their state and the payment of their debts. If this heavy mass of Conservative resistance stood firm, the official light intimtry would be compelled to ground their arms. Such, we suspect, is the true solution of the change in 'fury tactics, which, without any ostensible reason, has occurred during the last three weeks. The Ministry in the Conn-tons were divided. While Sir Joux llommusii, Mr. Poisi.serr Tuomsox. ;Ind other official persons not members of the Cabinet, voted with Air. V !MAMAS, Lord Joust Ilesserm, Lord llowieK, Lord PALsoittsvoN. and Mr. SPRING RICE, IVA a following of subalterns, opposed the motion to hear evidence lit the bar. The list of the minority proves that the Government influence was not employed on either side ; and we cannot think that Lord JOHN Russnim or Lord HowicK gained many votes for the majority by the speeches they delivered. Lord Howlea, with much pomposity and affectation of logic, led the opposition in the Coalitions. He professed to enter- [LATN.s'r El:moo:qr.] tain an enlightened abhorrence of the barbarous Corn-laws ; and his main objection to the proposal of hearing evidence at the bar was its assumed detriment to the purpose of those who advocated it. The dogmatic yet halting-minded Secretary at War, forsooth,
knew better than the much more experienced persons who conduct the Anti-Corn-law movement, what the effect would be of diurnal discussions of a question which courts thorough investigation as
the sure means of success. From his exalted station he could in- form the Delegates and their advisers, that they were misled Ill the course they had adopted—quite on a wrong scent. It
was an egregious blunder to imagine that the House of Commons would pay attention to evidence. On the contrary, Mr. MARK
PnILEIPs, Who, having presented a petition from his constituents,
might feel bound to keep his scat during the examination of wit- nesses, would probably be the only Member on the right side of the chair ; whose occupant would be asleep, or composing verses for next year's album. This humorous description of the appearance of the House of Commons was vastly entertaining to—Lord Howie!: himself, who laughed outright at the picture : every man present, except that dignified legislator and minister of state, fla that the attempt at jocularity was ill-tuned, and a perfect failure in execu- tion. Sir ROBERT PEEL and the landed gentlemen, who offered re- solute and grave opposition to Mr. VILLIERS, knew that the mode of proceeding he proposed would effectually promote the suc- cess of the cause he advocated : they did not object to it as likely to retard and render it ridiculous. And it is indeed difficult to believe that even Earl GREY'S crotchety and self-satisfied scion could have been sincere, in representing the course deliberately chosen by time petitioners, from farmer experience of its excellent results, as likely to postpone the accomplishment of his and their wishes.
Lord JOHN RUSSET.L adopted Lord Howicx's opinions : the Home Secretary wits not loth to be spared the necessity of a speech against inquiry ; which ill became the Member far Northumberland, but which in the Representative of Stroud would have been es- pecially indecorous. Lord Jonx was also grieved at the want of opportunity of proving by his vote his disapprobation of the laws, which, virtually, he supported in conjunction with the "predominant landed interest."
Mr. POULETT Tuostsos roused himself to the delivery of a sensible, rather prosy, speech,—such as the Manchester Delegates, sitting under the Gallery, need not blush for. What he said was indeed much to the purpose ; only the President of the Boasd of Trade and Member for Manchester seemed to lag after those he ought to have led long ago. The two great speeches of the week were those of Lord BROUGHAM and Mr. VILLIERS. The first was a fine display of rhetorical power ; sustaining Lord BRommAm's reputation as the first orator of his day. His impressive delivery gave force to many just, well-combined observations, and arguments, which if not original, came with the farce of novelty as well as strength on the hearer. Though he stood the solitary supporter of his side of' the question in the House of Lords, opposed by the Dukes of WEL- LINGTON, BUCKING]] AM, 1111d RICHMOND, Lord MELBOURNE and others, it seemed as if all they could achieve was a mere nibble at the elaborate and energetic statement which he had produced. His reply was all adroit mixture of courteous sarcasm with cutting re- proof Of his opponents generally there is little to remark, except that they exhibited a bull-headed resolution to maintain the rent- raising laws. Mr. VILLIERS riveted the attention of the House of Commons to a closely-linked, clear, passionless, but most impressive state- ment of the case which the petitioners were prepared to prove. It was said of' Rocinn SHERM 1N, a distinguished member of the first American Congress, that - with every sentence he knocked some
nail on the head ;" so Mr. Vi 1,1,111115, while going over the wide space which his case presented. clinched every statement with the emphatic declaration—" This I am prepared to prove by evidence at the bar." He was earnestly supported by Mr. STRUTT, Mr.
THOUNELY, Mr. WARD, and Mr. M Am; ILLIPS. The most elaborate opposition to the motion came from Sir ROBERT P EEL ; who lied fortified billISelf with many figures, founded on that old and treacherous mode of making out a case,
a comparison of averages selected from periods favourable to the advocate, to prove that the exportation not only of the raw ma-
terial of manutlictures bin of articles in the composition of which manual labour was largely employed, had not declined, but was in- creasims, lie argued on this ground, that it was absurd to attri-
bute decline of tiweign commerce to the Corn-laws, for there was no decline. Ile stopped there : he ventured not to assert that there was no prospect—no certainty of a decline. But,the-certainty of this result, under the existing system of prohibition, Mr.,:tini- 13 ER'S desired to d cm st rate by evi dence. lip offered to prove, that fbreigners were employed in undermining, the coinniertial pros- perity of this country. lie did not pretend that British mann.,
factures were already ruined ; but he was prepared to show that they must finally—perhaps at no distant period—succumb to foreign competition ; that the process of decline had commenced; that the detail of exports exhibited an alarming disproportion between the raw materials and the manufactured goods, taking
into account the natural augmentation of demand ; and that to the Corn-laws must be ascribed a "striking change" in the description of exports, which every body might perceive on exami- nation. It is not possible to mistake the drift of Mr. VILLIERS'S argument : but Sir ROBERT PEEL had laboriously prepared himself to oppose a different class of statements, and he hoped that his in- applicable reply might be allowed to pass for a sufficient refu- tation. He was mistaken : Ir. VILLIERS restated his argument, briefly but clearly. A few sentences sufficed to show that the Tory leader's elaboration had been thrown away—that his shot had dropped wide of the mark. Sir ROBERT was forced to confess that had he (rightly) understood the case put by Mr. VI LLIERS—and we repeat, no Orson of ordinary capacity could have misapprehended it—his tables and his eloquence would have been spared. But what did it matter to PEEL'S followers ? He might have spoken in Hebrew with the same effect. They had made up their minds to reject the motion. Their fives.; as Mr. WeentorroN em- phatically told them, had not been acted upon : theV eaw that the manufiteturing capitalists and the working classes did not " pull together." Exultingl, y ata mc. . C kYr EY proclaim the godsend. But
„
• _ • nay of reunion cannot be far distant ; and then, as Mr. Wtnnun- TON predicted, these valiant monopolists will quail—they will yield to fear what they refuse to justice and reason. In the meanwhile, it is not much to be regretted, that the opponents of the Corn-laws, lacking the support of the now alienated and ill-led masses, are compelled to rely upon the force of truth, of facts, and of argument. They are laying the foundation of a more complete triumph over a diminishing band of foes.
The House of Commons has laid itself open to the most serious charge which can be brought against an assembly pre- tending to represent the people : it has refused to institute even inquiry into grievances which delegates from several millions of the people declare to be of a most serious description. Who can expect redress of grievances, when the combined merchants and manufacturers of all the large towns of Great Britain are told that thc Imafl not be allowed even to offer proof of the wrongs they complain of, at the bar of the House of Commons ? There was not even the miserable excuse of want of precedent to urge against their leiayer. It was admitted that the offer of evidence at the bar was in accordance with precedents, and the constitutional practice. The Rotten Borough House of Commons permitted as a matter of course—as aim undoubted right—that which has been denied to the whole mercantile and manufacturing body by the " Reformed" Par- liament. Grant it was in the discretion of the House to repeal or maintain the Corn-laws. Admit that this question involved others of difficulty—many conflicting interests. That was not the point which was decided on Tuesday. The " Reformed" House of Com- mons, instigated by the leading Whig Minister and the chief of the Tory Opposition, repulsed petitioners at their bar—men possessed of intelligence, capital, industry, and character—all that makes citizens valuable in a state—praying to adduce evi- dence only that they suffer wrong, and have cause to apprehend abso- lute ruin, from laws passed by Parliament. No gloss put upon this proceeding can conceal its true character. Verily it will be re- membered.
The appointment of Mr. TURTON to an office in Canada was un- der the notice of the Lords on Tuesday ; the Earl of WINCHILSEA having moved for copies of correspondence between Ministers and iLord IMAM in relation to that act of authority. Lord MEL- BOURNE stated, that he had written privately to Lord DURHAM urging him to cancel the appointment ; and Lord GLENELG had expressed his official disapprobation of it ; but Lord DUR- HAM positively refused to dismiss Mr. TURTON, or accept his proffered resignation. Lord BROUGHAM told a story of the
Divorce-bill ; which the Earl of Wice.r.ow, " wanting under-
standing," misapprehended. Lord DURHAM resolutely vindicated his owo conduct in appointing Mr. Teams; and eulogized the
talent, integrity, and with one exception, of a remote date, the un-
impeachable- character of his friend. For his own part, he was quite willing that all the correspondence on the subject of the ap-
pointment should be produced : he had a copy of his despatch in
his pocket, and would read it with Lord Ahem:puttee's permission. But wlmlle he would not oppose Lord WINCHILSEA'S motion, he warned the House, that the matter should not rest there ; for he was resolved to press inquiry into the cases of all public men who after conviction of adultery had been appointed to office under Government.
It has been said that Lord DURHAM does not relieve himself from the charge of appointing an improper person, by proving that
a similar stigma was no obstacle to the rise of others in the public service—that retaliation is no defence. But this is not the fitir way of viewing the threat. Lord Moults' offers to prove that it has not been the practice to make private frailties a disqualification
for public employments. And this is emphatically true as regards Mr. TURTON. For, in what position does Lord DeenAm find that
gentleman ? Stigmatized, shunned, persecuted ? On the contrary, trusted, respected, and received in society as a valuable member of it. Mr. Thaw: had been presented with testimonials of zeal and ability in the public service by two Governors of' India, and was the representative in Lomlou of the principal merchants of
•
Calcutta. Was Lord DURHAM to reject the aid which Lord Com. DERRIERE and Lord AMHERST had secured, and duly appreciated? Lord DURHAM does not say—Because you attack Mr. TURTON, will assail a score of others; but—I will not allow him to be made the solitary victim of a departure from the common rule : to bring home to selfish and hypocritical hedonists, a sense of the injustice of their "unequal measures," I propose to make the ease their own.
Lord DURHAM'S declaration will probably put an end to thi8 case, if to no other pitiful annoyance. It produced a remarkable impression on all within hearing—Peers on the benches, gentlemen of the Commons and others below the bar, and ladies behind the half-drawn curtain. For a minute or so after he had ceased to speak, the Lords maintained a dead silence, and then an involun. tary laugh betrayed a sense of the absurd dilemma in which grave senators and judges in the tribunal of last resort now found them. selves. The smile and the titter died away ; not so the feeling of the stern reproof. There has been a good deal of conversation in both Houses of Parliament on a variety of other subjects, and much incipient legislation.
Mr. lIanvEy's seat for Southwark has been declared vacant by the Comtnittee of investigation appointed last week ; and a writ has keel issued for the election of a new Member. Mr. HAKIM is secure of his Cturn to the House ; and if it is true, RS Mr, HUME states, that there ate, sixteen Members in a.similar predica. meat with respect to the acceptatiee of office, he will probably take care that he is not the only sufferer ender the statute. MT. POULETT THOMSON says that Government does DOI intend to interfere with the "internal communication "of he countrn but Mr. SPRING Rica has promised to bring in a bill on that sub. ject, with a view to establish a more equitable mode of taxing tra. yellers.
Colonel SIBTHORPE is resolved to know how much Lord DM HAM'S corks and table-napkins cost the country. With that view, he moved an address to the Queen, in language which Lord Jolts RUSSELL described as indicating deficiency of common sense mid ignorance of grammar; whereupon the gallant Colonel, in high dudgeon, avowed his " savage contempt" for Lord Joins. The motion, cut down and made intelpgible by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was agreed to. A motion by Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE, to allow performances In the Westminster Theatres on the Wednegdays and Fridays in Lett, was rejected by a large majority ; why, it would be difficult to ex- plain. The restriction is not known beyond the precincts of West- minster ; but Lord JOHN RUSSELL doggedly refused to interfere with the established and silly rule.
Police improvement, in the Metropolis, the civil war in Spain, the seizure of a British pilot by a French captain in the Gulf of Mexico, and the King of Hanover's depredations on British trade in the Elbe, under the name of " Stadt Duties," are among the other noticeable items which go to make up the stun of Parliamentary proceedings.
