NEWS OF THE WEEK.
IN both Houses of Parliament movements have been made which might have been used by Ministers as an opportunity for giving us information on the subject of our foreign relations ; but they have not accepted the opportunity: In the House of Commons, they were put upon their defence in respect to the Crampton af- fair, and they had to defend their position for two nights of de- bate. Mr. Moore's resolution was not indeed couched in the form of a complete censure ; it only declared that the House of Commons could not give its " approbation " to the conduct of 31inisters ; but even that diluted form created alarm, and the -Commons shrank from affirming the resolution. There was an en- deavour to prevent even discussion ; independent Members con- senting to beiteme the shield of Government in the name of the public. Mr. :William Brown and Mr. Joseph Ewalt declared that Liverpool desired the subject to be left in the hands of Go- vernment and the American Minister ; and Mr. Spooner spoke in the name of the whole country. But Mr. Moore insisted that no injury could be inflicted upon the public interests by discus- sion. If Members represent the House of Commons as they are said to represent the country, the House has every variety of opinion, and is quite unable to make up its mind or to muster the courage for acting. Mr. Baillie thought the British Govern- ment had been insulted by the Government. of America, and had .dishonourably yielded in consenting to the dismissal of Mr. Crampton. Mr. Phillimore was of opinion that the Govern- ment was exonerated from .the illegalities which had been committed by the subordinate agents. Sir Frederick Thesiger maintained that our Ministers, through their agents, had broken the laws of the United States by enticing residents to go beyond the territory in order to enlist. Ministers in the House repeated the official defence, exonerating Mr. Crampton, but admitting the right of the American Government to accept or reject a diploma- tic representative on personal grounds. Lord Palmerston made a dashing speech, hitting weak points in the speeches of the oppo- nents, and uttering well-studied ideas in language forcible from its apparently spontaneous character. "Do not tell me of verbal apology," he exclaimed : "I say the apology of deeds is infinitely more valuable, infinitely more satisfactory, to the Government of America " ; our Government having de- sisted from its enlistment. He accused the assailants of Ministers with "laying the foundation for enmity between the two countries " ; and he endeavoured to neutralize the great- est speech of the debate, Mr. Gladstone's, by setting against it Mr. Gladstone's vote. For the evening Lord Palmerston was perfectly triumphant. If there had been no antecedents, if there were no consequences, his would have been the victorious posi- tion; and nothing could better illustrate the situation of the Go- vernment than this kind of success from hand to mouth. Mr. Gladstone declined to admit the distinction between the Govern- ment and Mr. Crampton : after the warnings which had been given, that the enlistment would break the law of the United States, our Government was responsible for a deliberate infringe- ment of the American law. Whatever their professions of avoid- ance, they were answerable for the acts of their agents in that hazardous mission. But Mr. Gladstone objected to abstract re- solutions : he was not prepared formally to pronounce censure on the Government, unless he had been prepared to replace it with an- other ; and therefiire, although he agreed in the censure, he voted against the resolution. This speech illustrates the position of the Commons so far as the argumentation of the subject is concerned. Of course we must take other considerations into account. large body of Members, not troubling their head. much with argumentation, would be indisposed to reopen a closed question, or to enter into transactions that now belong to the past. Others, again, would be swayed by the belief that the Government is strong ; and the division would appear to confirm that conclu- sion, and to justify the Members that voted with the majority. The resolution was negatived by 274 to 80. The whole of the debate was in appearance retrospective ; turning upon the Crampton affair, which is closed—so far as the American Go- vernment is concerned. The lame conclusion, therefore, at which the Commons have arrived, would be of comparatively small im- portance, but for the fact that the subject is not purely retro- spective. It is closed so far as the United States ate concerned ; but so long as our Government abstains from sending another Minister to take Mr. Crampton's pleat), on our side the question is kept open ; and as it does not end here, neither are the hazards or the consequences ended. ,
Lord Lyndhurst's question in the House of Lords was not pro- ductive of any more satisfaction. Lord Clarendon had reason to believe that the King of Naples had given orders for answers to ' be returned, to the Governments of England and France on their representations ; but to lay before Parliament the correspondence on the affairs of Italy would be "only to check the friendly communications that are going on." What are you really doing in the South of Europe ? was the question virtually put by the public through Lord'-Lyndhurst. "Do not ask us to tell you," is the Ministerial answer, "or you will interrupt us."
The legislative butiness has been various, though not volumi- nous: it has been treated quite in the last days of the session style. The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill has been car- ried in the House of Lords with real amendments, especially Lord Lyndhurst's for extending something like an equality of relief to the wife as well as the husband ; and Lord Campbell has thrown out a hint that husbands without means might probably be permitted. to sue before the new court in fermi pauperis. But how is the bill to get through the Commons? There the Wills and Administration Bill has been ominously delayed by irreconcilable disagreements among those who are anxious to carr3r the reform. In like manner, the bill for ex- tending the Ten-hours system to Bleaching-works has been put off till next session, in order then to have an inquiry by a Select Committee. Lord Derby's ridiculous parody of the Oath of Abjuration Bill has also been withdrawn, to avoid a collision between the two:Houses ; a possible contingency, for quarrels can be produced by straws.
