NEWS OF THE WEEIC.
THE position of public affairs is in the most marked manner changed both in our Parliament and on the field of war. For the time the balance of success has decidedly turned in favour of the aggressive party on both fields. The combinations of the Liberals seem _effectually to have "turned" the position of the Conservative Government, and the French and Italian Generals have succeeded in transferring the combat from Piedmont to Lombardy, with a constant advance on all parts of- their own front, and as constant a: retirement on the Austrian aide ; while our Postscript foreshadows new and formidable complications.
The first stage in the political contest at home will probably terminate a few hours before our first 'edition goes to press, and the result will be reported in our postscript. In this page it will suffice to note the heads of the intelligence, and their political import,. The meeting in Willis's rooms was more than a muster of supporters summoned br a party leader. It was more even than the ordinary conSultation of a party before a political com- bat or campaign. It had been preceeded by individual consulta- tions between leading men, and quite as avowedly by the most deliberate reflections, the object of each political section being to ascertain its own strength, to weigh the consequences of its ac- tions, and to learn how far it was effected or could effect the other sections or the Liberal party. The meeting was convened by the requisition which we mentioned last week, the signatures headed by the names of Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell, Mr. Sidney Herbert, and Mr. Milner Gibson. All, with the two or three exceptions thst proved the rule, were in favour of hearty cooperation ; and the most influential frankly referred to the body of the meeting whether there should be an amendment on the Address. Amongst the principles of the renewed and united ac- tion, freshly brought out, were " the representations of the three great sections of the Liberal party—the old Whigs, the Peelites and the advanced Liberals—in any new Liberal Government ;" a Reform Bill in a comprehensive spirit ; the maintenance of neutrality abroad, so to limit the war to its present ground, and to preserve " a strict alliance between England and France." Those last words which we have quoted are Lord Palmerston's ; those respecting the formation of a Liberal Government are the words of Lord John Russell.
On the opening night of the session, after hearing the Queen's Speech in the House of Lords, the attack, sanctioned by the meeting, was commenced, with a telling and energetic modera- tion, by the Marquis of Hartington, he moved the predetermined amendment as an addition to the Address, declaring that the House of. Commons did not repose confidence in the present ad- visers of her Majesty. The strategy adopted by Mr. Disraeli seems to have been struck: out for the occasion ; it was calm- lated.to make a sensation for the evening, but little to serve his party shquld the debate be continued longer ; and it is scarcely possible that he should have been so sanguine as to anticipate
the closing of the debate the same night. His speech was long, and constructed with much of his best skill, and it had a remarkable effect upon the House ; yet his warmest friends must, on reflection, confess that it was impolitic even to rash- ness. It consisted mainly of very well-planted and stinging attacks, personal blows at the leading men of the Liberal party —Lord John Russell being disagreeably reminded of his Vienna experiences and of his Reform Bill failures, Lord Palmerston of his earliest party relations, Mr. Bright of the claims acquired by his eloquence and the little probability of his succeeding with his own measures. But there was no substantial vindication of the Government position ; nothing better than vague promises that the guiding principles would be peace and progress at home —a Reform Bill next session ; and peace, if Lord John Russell had not prevented it by cooling the friendship of the French Emperor towards this Government! The' difficulty in answer- ing his speech would hardly be understood beyond the walls of the House of Commons. The man whom it was intended to oall up was Lord John Russell, who would have had to answer the most' stinging of the personal attacks, and would thus have kept up a string of personalities intended to divert the discussion en- tirely from the great question before the country to a wrangle between individuals. This was very properly avoided, and, after many speeches with a dead silence from Ministers, Lord Palmer- ston closed the first night's discussion with a masterly exposition of the facts relating to the present situation.
The debate on the Address in the House of Lords, in so far as it was more than a form, was only an episode in the great disous- sion. Lord Granville, who drew out the Ministers, distinctly left the question to the representative House, as being empowered to bear the answer of the country to the appeal of Ministers ; and Lord Derby's speech, less studied than Mr. Disraeli's, fresher and even more vigorous, was quite as personal and as little logical.
The notable incidents in the. Upper House lay entirely in certain collateral allusions. Lord Malmesbury sought a kind of vindi-
cation for Government by comparing what they have done with the cotirse Lord Palmerston pursued in 1848 without a word to show that he appreciated the striking differences between the two occasions. Lord Normanby reappeared in the House, but now as the ally of Lord Derby, and champion of Austria ; and in the natural impulse to welcome new recruits, Lord Derby made the unlucky mistake of giving a hearty welcome to the Austrian apologist.
The debate on the second night was almost en suite, though more generally animated. On the Ministerial side, with the cot- oeption of a few remarks from private Members of no command- ing position, there was the same absence of positive argument, and the same tendency to rely mainly upon personal attacks—re- miniscences of the past supposed to be damaging to the leading men of the Opposition. The only great speech of the evening was from Mr. Whiteside, not a speaker calculated to, influence an English assemblage on any grave question. The Opposition was sparing in its personal retorts, but they were proportionately effective ; as where Sir James Graham explained the manner in which he had been led into the mistake of imputing the en- hancement of the billeting money to the present Government. One of their candidates at Davenport, a son of the present Min- idea, had boasted of it as the act of Ministers, ostentatiously ooutrasting " the Conservative fourpence " with " the Whig three halfpence." But the evening brought some severe disap- pointments to the. Ministers, in showing that the Opposition was not so divided as they had calculated. Mr. Horsman was true to Liberal principles' —the notion that he would be otherwise being an obvious misconception. Mr. Bright, instead of afford- ing pretexts for Liberal divisions, was the most direct and dis- tinct in explaining the ground on which the Liberal party acted as a-whole. In the name of a majority elected with certain views, he declined to support the Government of a minority elected with other views; and he called for a change of Govern- ment.= the ground that he desired peace and the maintenance of the French alliance.
