POSTSCRIPT.
SATURDAY NIGHT.
Excellent work was done in the House of Commons last night: the motion for going into Committee on the Customs and Corn-laws was carried by a majority of 97; and the old misunderstanding between Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Cobden was finally and satisfactorily cleared up.
What led to the personal matter was a long irregular squabble begun by Mr. FERRARO; who reverted to the attack made upon him by Mr. Roe- buck on Thursday night; and then the quarrel branched off into all sorts of personal questions: we can only notice the salient points.
Mr. FERRARO retorted Mr. Roebuck's charge of personality, by reminding the Member for Bath that he had thrown the Times on to the floor of the House, re- commending Members on both sides to horsewhip a gentleman every way his superior—Mr. Walter. Mr. Roebuck had said that not half a farthing would be given in the legal profession for Mr. Ferrand's opinion : Mr. Roebuck's own pro- fessional opinion is not accounted worth half a farthing, and that ill success is what rankles in his breast. Mr. Ferrand went on to pour forth more quotations, about Mr. Ashworth's treatment of the factory people, and so forth. To dismiss this part of the subject at once: he was supported by Mr. FIELDER' and Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY; opposed by Mr. BRIGHT and Dr. BOWRING ; and Lord JOHN MANNERS testified to the admirable manner in which Mr. Ashworth conducts his mills, under a deep sense of his responsibility as one of the great Barons of the cotton system. Mr. ROEBUCK did not grudge the exultation over his ill success in life: but it had never been his fate to have an assembly of English gentlemen declare that Ins statements were false and calumnious, as the House had done and recorded in the case of Mr. Ferrand's assertions about two Members.
Mr. DISRAELI said that the House had made a similar record in the case of Mr. O'Connell. As to personalities, Sir Robert Peel had accused a Member of being an assassin. These disagreeable proceedings had originated in the quarter where most disagreeable proceedings in that House did, in Mr. Roebuck—with his finger pointing and bated breath—his melodramatic malignities and Sadler's Wells sarcasms—speaking daggers but using none. However, a tree must bring forth its fruit—a crab-tree, crab-apples—a meagre and acid mind, meagre and acid speeches. Mr. O'CONNELL said, he had not calumniated any individuals: he had said that the system of Election Committees was a system of perjury; and though the House resolved against him, and the Speaker lectured him, he immediately re- peated the charge—justly, as it turned out, for the system was altered. Sir ROBERT PEEL rose, on the allusion to an erroneous construction which he had put, three years ago, on some remarks by Mr. Cobden. "That honourable gentleman made an explanation of the meaning of the expressions he then used; I followed the honourable gentleman in the course of the debate; and my intention, after that explanation, was distinctly to relieve him from the imputation I had cast on him under my erroneous apprehension of the remarks he had made. If any one who was present at that debate had hinted to me that my reparation was not complete, and that my acceptation of the disavowal was less unequivocal than it should have been, I should have taken the earliest opportunity of stating what I meant to convey. I should be sorry that the subject has been revived, if it did not give me an opportunity of stating what my intention was, and of entirely with- drawing the imputation I threw out under what was at that time an erroneous impression.' Mr. COBDEN made suitable response. He had not thought the disavowal quite distinct. "I take the present statement, however, as a full and entire disavowal of the imputation made by the right honourable Baronet; and I am glad it has been made, since it gives me the opportunity—quite as pleasant to my feelings as to those of the right honourable Baronet—of expressing my regret that whilst the remembrance of what had passed in this House was rankling in my mind, I have alluded to the right honourable gentleman in terms which I lament having adopted. After the explanation that has been given, I hope no one will feel justified in ever hereafter alluding to the matter."
The grand debate was carried on with an improvement on the previous sight in general animation; but, excepting one speech, with little variation in the staple of the arguments. The opponents of the motion were, Mr. GEORGE RASHES, Captain GLADSTONE, Mr. SPOONER, Mr. BORT/MICK, and Lord GEORGE RENTINCH; the supporters, Mr. RICICHAM Esceerr and Mr. COBDEN.
The exception in point bf novelty was the speech of Mr. COBDEN; one of his most masterly performances. It was directed, however, not to the merits of the Corn question, but to the party policy of the Protectionists.
Towards the beginning, Mr. Cobden touched on the self-defeating personalities to which the Protectionists resorted, in their inability to justify their law. If they feared ulterior measures, they were doing their best to arm Ministers for such measures. "The more they attack them—the more obloquy they load them with—the more will the country sympathize with them out of doors. Why, you are making the present Ministry the most popular men in the country. If the right honourable Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury were to go into the manufacturing districts of the North, his journey would be one continued triumph. The right honourable Home Secretary was not personally very popular two or three years ago: it is a difficult thing for a Home Secretary in troublesome times to become popular: but the magnificent contribution the right honourable Ba- ronet has given to our good cause, by his able speeches and authoritative state- ments of facts, has sunk deep into the mind of the country; and, spite of the martyrdom you are inflicting upon him, he has rendered himself so popular that I don't think we could parade any one in Manchester or Liverpool who would meet with a more cordial reception." The Protectionists have made the question turn on the demand for a dissolution of Parliament in order to an "appeal to the country"—a very Democratic doctrine! But they will not have a numerical majority at the next election. Three months mo they might have had, but not now that their party is broken up. The Metropolis, with its immense, intelligent, and laborious population—all the great towns, all with a population above 20,000—are against them. They retain only their pocket boroughs and nomination counties. If the Members for the pocket boroughs persist in opposing public opinion, they will only cause those boroughs to be put into another Schedule A. As to the counties, the Protectionists count unduly on their 501. tenant-at-will franchise—a recent innovation in the constitu- tion: there are but 150,000 tenant-farmers; and the League are prepared to meet that obstacle by strengthening the forty-shilling freehold franchise, a franchise Lye centuries old. Mr. Cobden caused much laughter by simply enumerating the exploded fallacies repeated in the debate,—drain of gold, wages rising
and failing with price of corn, land thrown out of cultivation, &c. &c. Protection, in fact, is defunct. The very landlords and farmers no longer believe
in it, thoughthey keep up the farce of affecting to do so; witness the landlords' efnsal to part with their land for less than thirty years' purchase at the present
rental—the willingness of the farmers to take land at the same rent. Protection, indeed, is now regarded throughout the country in the same light as witchcraft— protective laws, like horse-shoes nailed to the-door to keep out the witch. We are on the eve of great changes: let the party put themselves in a position for the coming work—be the real aristocracy of improvement and civilization.
The House divided at a quarter past three o'clock, on Mr. Miles's amend- ment—For the amendment, 240; against it, 337; majority against the Protectionist amendment, 97. The main question was then agreed to. The House went into 'Committee pro forma, but at once adjourned; the Committee to sit again on Monday.
Earlier in the evening, Colonel SIBTHORP sarcastically asked Sir Robert Peel, when the Secretary for the Colonies, the Secretary for Ireland, and the Attorney and Solicitor-General for Ireland, were likely to have seats in that House? Sir ROBERT PEEL observed, that the question was unusual and unconstitutional; but he gave a reason for suffering the continued absence of those officers- " I have such confidence in the policy and wisdom of the measures which her Majesty's Government have submitted to Parliament, and such reliance on the calm deliberation and ultimate just decision of the House of Commons, that I have been content to forego that advantage as to the presence of members of the Government in this House which in ordinary times the Crown possesses." Sir Robert mentioned that two Lords of the Treasury had resigned, from disapproval of the Ministerial measure; but their places would be supplied forthwith.
The proceedings in the Lords are void of interest.
Previous page
