NEWS OF THE WEEK.
THE vote of the Commons last Saturday morning, against the con- troverted part of the new Sugar-duties Bill, produced a " Minis-
terial crisis," which lasted till Monday night. The Premier, it was generally understood, had taken the affront in dudgeon ; and all the official satellites felt or affected a sympathetic soreness—looked -grim, talked resignation, and screwed up their faces " ad exemplar regis." The sacred rest of the Sabbath was disturbed : one Cabinet Council was held on Sunday, and another on Monday.
At the close of the Sunday's deliberations Sir ROBERT PEEL proceeded to Buckingham Palace, and was detained to dinner.
The Queen was understood to be alarmed lest he should
resign, at a time when any extra excitement might be more than usually inconvenient. London stood at gaze. Conserva- tives were teased with vague anxieties ; Liberals tantalized -with faint hopes ; and the rest of the world enjoyed the luxury of a " sensation." The Parliamentary Members of the Carl- ton were assembled to sooth the incensed Premier with a vote of ilicit confidence; but notes of insubordination and discon- even there. Conservative Members flocked to Fri . ens, and obtained interviews, or left their cards. A resignation was talked of as possible. On Monday morning the excitement began to assume the form -of more definite conjecture. The courses open to the Minister were freely canvassed. In the first place, it was said that he might resign ; in the second, that he might reenact the old Sugar-duties for another year, and profit by the lesson he had received. The second branch of the alternative, as being the more rational, was generally expected : in the language of the turf; it was "the fa- rourite." But, as frequently happens on the turf, the "named horses" were distanced by one of whom none but the initiated—ill this case the Premier's by dreamed. Beyond this trusted circle, none seem to have contemplated the bold step of rescinding the vote : and yet this was what Sir ROBERT came down to demand of the House at its opening on Monday.
The scene was striking. The Opposition and the malecontents of the Ministerial benches mustered in force. On the other side it was apparent that "the whip" had not been spared : the maimed and the halt were there, with the sick yet unable to take up their beds and walk. The Premier rose to address the House, amid a silence that felt ominous. His speech, even in the drier parts, reads well enough : it has the usual forms of lucidity, coherence, JA;tusibility. But the usual powers and effect of delivery were missed- He hesitated, stammered, looked ill at ease, and carried no conviction—the consciousness of soundness and sincerity seemed wanteng. Even in the political section, when he warmed into more freedom and energy, his feeling was obviously personal. The address, therefore, was received coldly—nay, superciliously. But the work had been done by other means : the speech was taken for what it was, a mere matter of form ; and the House before rising agreed to the Premier's rather exorbitant request that it should eat its own words.
The reasons—" the mighty magic "—by which the House would make-believe to have been swayed to this self-sacrifice are too un- satisfactory to be accepted either as the inducements of the House ,cor the explanations of the Premier's motives. They professed to explain, first, the merits of the measure ; secondly, the policy of the party. It is difficult to give any satisfactory account of the former ; perhaps they are most aptly described in the taunt with which the Premier was met—that he, who in 1841 declared he had 4:10t taken up the Anti-Slavery cry and he would not take up the Cheap Sugar cry, had now Rdopted both as the sole ground on which he rested his measure. He antgad a deficient supply of sugar and a rise in prices—which are called in question; he spoke of the necessity of discouraging the consumption of sinve-labour sugar— which nobody appears to believe his measure likely to effect ; and tent .4,psnetrated
he attempted to illustrate some of his positions by references to the Timber-duties—which nobody appears to consider in point.
In what he said respecting the policy of his party, Sir ROBERT was
more intelligible. He made it clear to the dullest apprehension, that he would submit to no insubordination among his followers when he had resolved to carry a measure, and that he had resolved to carry his new Sugar-duties. But Ile did not succeed in ex- plaining why he laid so much stress on this measure; and therefore he left upon his followers an irritating impression
that he was calling upon them to follow him blindfold. With Sir ROBERT PEEL'S speech all the interest of the discussion—
if it could be said to have any—ceased. Dring the rest of the
" debate on the Sugar-duties," the Sugar-duties were the last thing in men's thoughts. Lord JOHN RUSSELL enlarged upon the
disgrace of rescinding a vote upon Ministerial dictation. Lord Howtea, in following the general current, contrived to give utter- ance to some massive truths, which have a wider bearing than the
point immediately at issue. Mr. DISRAELI delivered a pungent and amusing diatribe against Sir ROBERT PEEL. Mr. Slim. and Mr. ROEBUCK assailed or taunted Mr. DISRAELI. Several other Members briefly restated the opinions they had expressed before ; and the whole was wound up by a vote of 255 to 233, for undoing the vote passed on the previous Friday by 241 to 221. The result of this mutiny has been to strengthen the Premier's command of his party. They attempted to coerce him, and he has coerced them. It is said that they have lost confidence in him : this may be doubted. The utmost amount of confidence they ever had in him was that he was the only leader who could keep them together ; and this since Monday evening they must entertain more than ever. It is true that the Anti-Free-traders cannot now look to him for support of their policy ; but they never did. The party is not united in support of a principle, but in support of PERI.; and as long as he is true to himself; he is consistent. He will be true to himself as far as he can see his way ; and even the late dis- cussion gives pretty unequivocal indications as to how he conceives that way to lie. Ile did not fight so desperate a battle for a differ- ence of two or four shillings the hundredweight in the duties on sugar. He is not going to give up the Income-tax ; and he wants something to sweeten that bitter pill. Again, he is preparing to make larger concessions toihe growing public opinion in favour of free trade. He sees what men are bentupon having done; and he will go a good way to gratify their wishel, in order that it may be done by himself. This is not large statesmanship—this is not the game of a high-minded statesman; but his resolute and domineer- ing tone is, personally, more respectable than the sycophantish shifts by which his predecessors aimed at the same end. With Monday's division the Parliamentary interest of the week terminated. On the same evening the Lords had a rechauffe of the Post-office catechism of the preceding week in the other House. On Tuesday the Commons did not form a House; and on Wednesday they only sat till seven o'clock. During that brief time, however, Ministers contrived again to bring out into bold relief their only characteristic peculiarity—obstinacy in perilling themselves in defence of some measure so small that nobody can conjecture why they take an interest in it. Thus, they assumed the manage- ment and responsibility of a Vestries in Churches Bill—as Parlia- mentary phraseology designates the measure for taking Vestries out of churches. This is one of the subjects which appears almost too minute for legislation. The only " case" of a serious squabble in a church, mentioned during the debate, was one in St. Leonard's, Shoreditch—seven years ago : and for aught that appeared, it might have been owing to mere want of tact in the Rector. The measure in question is objectionable on the ground of causing unnecessary expense ; and in a party which is professedly hostile to innovation, the adoption of a measure which jars with the time-hallowed usages of the mass of the people seems inexplicable. The Sugar-duties Bill was again before the House of Commons on Thursday, in Committee. The discussion was too desultory, and went too much into detail, to be succinctly described; but it went far to damage both the bill and its owners. It was first announced as intended to discourage slavery and the slave-trade : then it was represented as hostile only to the slave-trade; then it was described as meant only to check certain forms of slavery ; and lastly, its object was narrowed to opposition to the slave-trade West of the Cape of Good Hope. In regard to slavery, its de- fenders were driven out of one position after another ; and they fared little better when its tendency to increase the supply or di- minish the price of sugars came to be subjected to the criticism not of set speeches but conversational objections. But it will become law ; though, as Sir ROBERT PEEL gave, not unequivocally, to understand, only for one year. Then we shall have another turmoil, with perhaps a greater "crisis"; and in the mean time, the whole Sugar question remains in a state of unsettlement, very injurious in the concerns of commerce.
