NEWS OF THE WEEK.
THE Tory Ministers have been defeated on the Address, but by a majority disgracefully small. After a debate of three days, which was terminated yesterday morning, the numbers were found to be —for the Ministerial Address, 302, and for the Amendment, 309. Thus the majority is less by three votes thah that by which Mr. ABERCROMBY'S election was secured. This diminution of the ma- jority is partly to be accounted for by the junction of several Members with Lord STANLEY—" waiters upon Plovidence," who have engaged that young nobleman to be their mouthpiece in Parliament; and partly by the absence of real or supposed Re- fonrs...s. In some cases this absence was owing to mistake; in one n Itorious instance it was certainly wilful—that of Sir FRANCIS Bunnarr. The old Member for Westminster neglected to take the on'hs, and thus qualify himself for voting, till the third day of the debate, and then he deliberately walked out of the House to avoid the division. The least that his insulted and betrayed constituents can do, will be to call a public meeting and require his acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds in the mean time—his Peerage may come when it suits the convenience of his new allies the Court and Tories to grant it. The proceedings of last night, however, prove that the Ministerial strength has been strained to the utmost. Sir ROBERT PEEL admitted, that, from inquiries made during the day, he found that he had no chance of altering the verdict against him by another vote on bringing up the report. The Morning Chronicle says that the STANLEY section refused to support him in such an attempt, and. that several of the absentee Reformers would have been in the House last night to defeat it.
Ministers did not deserve the powerful support they received by any promises of effecting large and substantial reformations. The King's Speech, and the Address which echoed it, were as unsatis- factory to true Reformers as can well be imagined. We now see the real value of the professions of these Ministers and their newspapers. The Times and even the Standard predicted, that with regard to the remedy of actual grievances, it would he found that the measures of the MELBOURNE Cabinet would be left far behind by the Tory Ministers. The failures of the Liberals were derided, and we were called to bear witness to the magnificent, performances, or at any rate to the satisfactory assurances, which the Duke and his regiment would offer to the country. The only anxiety Ministers and their partisans professed to feel, was to have an opportunity of explaining their policy and announcing their mea- sures. At length the day of triumph arrived. The King delivered his Speech, and the Prime Minister expounded all the mighty things he meant to do. And the resul t is, that the Irish Church is not to be reformed ; that the Municipal Corporations are not to be reformed ; that Church-rates are still to be levied on Dissenters ; that the Universities are still to be shut against half the youth or the nation; and that even the Malt-tax is to remain for the just chastisement of gaping farmers, who voted in the county elec- tions for those impostors who promised its repeal. We say that none of these reforms are contemplated by Ministers ; for they have expressly avowed their determination to oppose most of them, and have not held out the slightest hope that they will attempt the others. So meagre a display contrasts ridiculously with the pompous boasting of their partisans. Why, even the word Reform is not to be found from beginning to end of the Royal Speech. The announcement of an intention to correct some abuses in the internal affairs of' the Church, and to take measures for ex- tending the influence of the Establishment, is a cheat. We know to whom they have assigned the duty of concocting their plans of Church Reform—the very men who cling closest to Ecclesiastical abuses ; and he must indeed be the most credulous of mortals who expects any thing like honest and substantial amendment from persons so circumstanced. As to the commuta- tion of Tithes, which is promised, we agree with Mr. O'CorstsaLL that it may be either a very good or a very bad thing; and as we fully expect the latter at Tory hands, the best wish we can offer to the tithc-2ayers is that nothing will be done in the matter as
long as these High Church and King Ministers continue to hold their offices.
The Tory Ministers were as unsuccessful in defending their past conduct as in developing their future policy. They have failed en. tirely to justify the dissolution of the Mx !MOURNE Cabinet, although Sir ROBERT PEEL admitted that he had become responsible for that proceeding by his assumption of office. The debates have not added in the least to the facts previously known respecting the cause of Lord MELBOURNE'S dismissal. The old pretence of Earl SPENCER'S death, and the internal dissensions of the Cabinet, was again averred ; but it has been demonstrated repeatedly that theso could not have been the true reasons for the deed. We must recur, then, to the first and most probable solution,—namely, that the whole was the result of a preconcerted conspiracy. The Tories saw that the MELBOURNE Cabinet would speedily recover the greater part, if not all, of that popularity which in 1832 rendered Earl GREY and his colleagues irresistible. They were aware of the advantage they had gained by superior diligence in attending to the election-machinery, and were anxious to profit by it, and by the defects of the Reform Act, before the latter should be amended. They had deceived their Sovereign into the belief
that a Tory reaction had taken place; and only waited for a favourable opportunity of making another struggle for the re-
covery of their former influence. The King thought the right time had arrived when Lord SPENCER died. The plotters would probably have allowed the Ministry to exist some months longer, but its speedy destruction was doomed from the first hour of its existence. Lord MELBOURNE was merely a stop-gap—allowed to succeed Earl GREY because the Tories were not quite ready for office, and the House of Commons was sitting and vigilant. The King was merely a puppet in the hands of the Tory faction. Of course Lord MELBOURNE never imagined that his tenure of office depended on the life of Earl SPENCER; but supposed that the arrangement
he entered into with the Sovereign to conduct the government of the country was a bond fide one. He has reason to complain of
the unworthy treatment he received, and the personal honour of the King in the transaction is not so clear as his loving subjects could wish. Lord MELBOURNE was tricked by the Tories through the agency of the Court. We are justified in believing all that is here supposed, by the utter failure of the Ministers to assign any rational cause for the breaking up of the late Cabinet. All is con- fusion inexplicable, unless the intrigue is admitted ; but the whole affair is clear enough on the supposition that from the beginniag it was resolved that Lord MELBOURNE was only a warming-pan for PEEL. It is no answer to this that the Duke and his man kept away from the Court : of course they would have been idiots, or marplots, had they been found earwigging the King and Queen. Sir CHARLES SUTTON and Lord HOWE, or Sir HER-
BERT TAYLOR, could perform their parts without such assistance. The Courier, in tlie course of a striking article on the con- duct of Lord BROUGHAM,* suggests that but for his hasty and unwarrantable publication of the result of Lord MELBOURNE'S conference with the King at Brighton, the matter might have been bushed up, and the Ministers continued to retain their places : but this theory seems more ingenious than solid; and, looking at the case in all its bearings, we feel convinced that the King was only putting into practice a plan of operations already resolved upon by, and toa certain extent with, the Tories. The attempt to justify the dissolution of Parliament was also a vain one. Ministers confessed, by taking that step, that they were less earnest Reformers than their predecessors ; but, with characteristic insincerity, they tried to persuade the House and the Country that they were equally zealous for practical reforms. Then, why not meet the last House of Commons ? Why, throughout the land, did they make common cause with the bitter- est enemies of Reform and of the candidates on Reform principles? To these questions none but damnatorv answers could be given; and therefore the subject was dismissed with one bold and brazen assertion that it had been the custom for new Ministers to have new Parliaments.
Tile Tory Ministers failed in justifying their conduct; but, on the other hand, the Liberal Opposition acted unwisely in bringing for- ward a tame and meagre Amendment to the Address. The Country has no confidence in the Tory Ministers, and looked to its Repre- sentatives for the expression of that want of confidence, in their Ad- dress to the King. But the Amendment only went a little further than the Ministerial Address in asserting the necessity of measures of Reform; though it certainly did " lament " the unnecessary dis- solution of the last House of Commons in the midst of its Reforming labours. This by no means comes up to the feeling of the earnest Reformers, who wish his Majesty to understand clearly what are the measures they desire, and that they cannot trust the present Ministers with the exe- • See the Courier of Wednesday the 2311a. We iateuded to (Foto the article, but tie Length of the Debates has exeltuiet it.
IL., *7. ; •
+Pillion even of good measures. The course pursued by the Op- position was calculated not only to disappoint the Country, but to lower the spirit and efficiency of the Opposition itself : it seemed
to say, either that the Whigs were fainthearted, or that there was cause to apprehend treachery in the ranks. If the former is true,—
if the Whigs are not equal to the crisis,—it is easy to see that the
anie is up with them as a party. They must give evidence of the spirit and capacity to" bell the cat" with the Tories, or their fate
sea powerful party in the state is doomed. But if the Amendment was adopted from a well-grounded fear of treachery in the camp, and the dread of affording an excuse for the lukewarm to desert, then it is high time that the "pressure from without" should be applied—that the constituencies should be roused to the necessity ed calling their Members to account, and stimulating them to the
performance of their duty on the pain of ejecti on from their seats. An examination of the Division Lists will enable the electors to dWi over who are the negligent and unfaithful Members; the Ab- sentees most especially require to be watched. The debate was dull upon the whole, but enlivened by a few able speeches. On the Ministerial side, Sir ROBERT PEEL per- formed his part with admirable adroitness. His temper was under
complete command, and he called all his rhetorical artifices into play. If the most plausible sophistry and accomplished delivery could have turned a bad cause into a good one, or deprived his bearers of their recollection of his political life and principles, Sir ROBERT PEEL would have triumphed in the debate: but the at- tempt to pass himself off as a Reformer, surrounded as he was by Ultra Tories, and hampered by the Anti-Reform votes of twenty years, was too barefaced to succeed ; and Lord Joust RUSSELL bad no difficulty in completely turning the tables upon his insincere antagonist. The speech of Lord JOHN RUSSELL did credit to his debating talents : if he had been Sir ROBERT PEEL'S equal in power of delivery, it would have been more effective in the House; for it was exceedingly clever, pointed, and well-reasoned. The manner in which he recalled to Sir ROBERT PEEL'S memory the bitter per- sonal attacks upon him by Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL and others of the Anti-Catholic party, in reply to PEEL'S taunt upon the junction of the Whigs with O'CoststELL, was peculiarly happy ; and it will probably have the effect of silencing Sir ROBERT for the future on that subject. Next to Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. GISBORNE deserves commen- dation. Indeed his speech was more immediately effective, owing to the telling manner in which it was delivered. Every point— and this most entertaining speech is full of points—was seen and felt by the House. The perpetual fire which Mr. GISBORNE kept up must have been extremely annoying to the Ministerial leaders and their troops. Mr. HUME also shone in the debate of last night. He not only spoke some hard truths to the Tories, but "showed up" the STANLEY Tail in a vein of light humour, and with an epigram- matic point, that we should not have expected from him. The anger which his remarks provoked proved how true and cutting they were. Mr. O'CONNELL commenced his speech in his happiest style of good-humoured sarcasm, and, as is always the case when he is in that vein, delighted the House. As he advanced, however, into the thick of his subject, and it beer me necessary to call attention to matters which, though of exceeding interest to Irishmen, are dry and unpalateable to the English and Scotch Members, the House became rather weary ; and the latter part of his speech was pronounced a failure. It certainly was so in some respects ; but they who make much of this would do well to remember, that if Irish subjects, even when treated by the most accomplished of orators, receive little attention in the British Parliament, an excuse at least is furnished to the Repealers for demanding a domestic Legislature. Mr. OtoestELL could have excited the House, instead of tiring it, had he not, as well as the other Irish Members, put a restraint on very natural feelings, and avoided giving the Tories an opportunity they longed for of raising the cry against agitation and agitators. He has a claim to the thanks of every Reformer for the forbearance he exercised under repeated provocations.
Lord STANLEY scarcely deserves notice. He gave his speech to the Reformers and his vote to the Tories, after the established custom of Trimmers in Parliament. Lord Howicx gave his elo- quence to the Tories and his vote to the Reformers. This ill- conditioned and presumptuous young gentleman seems to be playing a singular game. He has no confidence in Ministers, but dreads the idea of turning them out. Had he not better desert at once ? He is not to be relied on as a member of the Opposition. Mr. Fox MAULS delivered one of the very best, and Mr. Ser- geant GOULBURN one of the worst first speeches which the oldest Members can recollect. Mr. ALEXANDER BARING broke down; and could hardly prevail upon the House to listen to him. In the House of Peers, Lord MELBOURNE dealt some home thrusts at his successors on the Treasury Bench ; and ridiculed very happily their pretensions to the name of Reformers. He threw in their faces their opposition to those measures which the King, by their advice, mentioned with approbation in his Speech ; and maintained, that if the Duke and his colleagues were sincere in their professions, there had been a change of men only, not of measures. Lord MELBOURNE WES also very successful in pointing out the hypocrisy of those who, like Sir ROBERT PEEL at the Mansionhouse, railed against agitation, and declared that the country languished for quiet, while at the very time he had re- !solved upon a dissolution of Parliament, and by his acceptance of office Had prolonged indefinitely the season of agitation. r - Lord BROUGHAM is once again where he ought always to be- en the Opposition benches. He spoke. as he was wont, when he was the Man of the People. His sarcastic declamation irritated the usually cool and cautious LYNDHURST beyond measure; and there was some sparring between them, in which BROUGHAM had decidedly the advantage. We consider it fortunate that in the same morning paper with the wily and plausible speech of Sir ROBERT PEEL, then unanswered in the Commons, the vigorous attack of Lord BROUGHAM on the Ministry also appeared. The bane and antidote thus went forth side by side. If Lord BROUG- HAM will but eschew Oce, and maintain his independent position, he may yet do the country some service ; but that is his only chance.
Of the Ministerial speeches in the Lords, all that is necessary to observe is, that they were, the Duke's especially, remarkable for want of success.
