NEWS OF THE WEEK.
WHITSUNTIDE finds the Corn Bill further on its anxious way through the Lords than might have been expected a little while ago; the House having passed the second reading by 211 to 164- a gross majority of 47, whilst of the Peers present there was a majority- of 12. The debate lasted three long nights. With fewer speeches, more elaborate preparation, a greater stateliness of manner, and less unmeasured rudeness of indecorum than in the Commons, the progress of the discussion has not fulfilled the Duke of Rich- mond's promise, that after the first stage personalities should be altogether avoided. The Earl of Ripon, who led the debate, be- gan it, in no unworthy spirit however, with personal matters : he made a great point of exonerating himself from the imputation of inconsistency. He, it seems, the introducer of the Corn-law of 1815, was even at that time in the main opposed to any corn-law it all ; and he assented, not on the score of protection to native industry," but " independence of foreign countries." So like- wise the Earl of Haddington, it now turns out, has long avowedly
i ehanged his mind on the subject of protection. It s easy to sneer at these avowals and treat them as insincere : there is every reason to believe them quite sincere. Had these Peers possessed a mere ambition for place, they might have whistled off Sir Ro- bert Peel, and, by strengthening Lord Stanley, have prepared a new way to office; for, thus supported, his prospect would have been very different from what it now is. But, whatever-the mo- tive that actuates them the effect is plain : Sir Robert Peel's ad- vance in the direction cif Free Trade has induced an extraordinary move among the quondam Tories : Free-traders, it appears, lurked there ; and now we have them out, converting old obstructers into most efficient auxiliaries in the progress of opinion.
To the worst class of personalities the Protectionists stuck with a pertinacity that would have been amusing if it had not been repulsive. Sir Robert Peel and his misdeeds were the main object of their diatribes ; but the League came in for a share, with the imputation of all sorts of bad motives and evil designs. The Duke of Richmond abandoned himself as thoroughly as any speaker to vituperation ; and, with more or less coarseness or delicacy, all who followed on his side made the question hinge on the personal part of the affair. Even the venerable and diplomatic Lord Ashburton, though statistical, was also personal. Lord Stanley's speech, pronounced by eulogists to be his masterpiece, was no exception. Corn- posed with all the skill that his natural cleverness and Par- liamentary practice could command, and comprising all the points and commonplaces of the subject, it did not contain one new idea—it placed nothing in a new light. But it re- animated the dead, recalled the forgotten, reproduced the aban- doned; tricked them out in rhetoric that pleased the ear ; and with the nice tact of a true speaking artist, touched very tenderly the frail topics that shunned the grasp of masculine reasoning and the light of exposure. The "great speech" was constructed as much as possible to inflict pain. In some of the most etuclied passages, personal malignity towards Sir Robert Peel seemed to inspire every word. The assault, indeed, was clothed in decorous language, but not disguised ; and when he, most untruly, described "his right honourable friend" as mistaking clamour for the deep still flow of public opinion, lie but echoed in more courteous phrase the Duke of Richmond's imputation of incompetency. and cowardice. The reason for this position of Lord Stanley 18 explained by the se- quence of facts. Lord Stanley was not felicitous in the adminis- tration a Colonialaffeire; he was virtually set aside in the New Zealand bnsiness, silenced when he would have given tongue and "pitchforked " into the House of Lords, not as promotion, but as a way of shelving him ; and the series of significant facts is crowned by the outburst of this speech. His object in it seems to have have been to emulate, to outdo Mr. Disraeli. His sta- tistics were similar, but not quite so wild : foreign corn, for in- stance, is to come in under the new bill at 40.e.,- instead of 35s.,; and the quantify, three years hence, is to be not indefinite, but 5,000,000 of quarters. His language also was more subdued— more " genteel "—in manner : but not in spirit. Mr. Disraeli never attained office, and assails Sir Robert Peel: Lord Stanley has lost office, and assails Sir Robert Peel. The Disraeli of the Lords is as clearly a disappointed man as his prototype in the Commons. The single new feet in Lord Stanley's speech, if it is new, was the confession than Sir Robert Peel's Cabinet he was quite alone in resisting ale- proposal to abolish *the Corn-laws. Lord Haddington appears to have been at first a supposed com- panion in dissent ; but he was really as hearty, in assent as any-. Of all the leading men in the Conservative party, therefore; Lord Stanley is the only one who sleserts the onward policy of Sir Ro- bert Peel.
Personalities also formed a prominent feature in some Whig speeches. The party held a meeting at Lansdowne liouse on Sa- turday, and agreed to act in a body as Supporters Of the bill. It is evident that without some such restraint Lord Normanhy would. have been one to mutilate the measure. He talked of the fixed duty ; strayed somehow to the subject of sanatory improvements; puzzled about house-rents in town and country ; seemed to regret that Sir Robert Peel should be the man to introduce so good a measure ; and finished by saying that he should support it. Lord. Normanby vacillates between his patriotism and his _party ties : he is evidently a man of the past. Lord Clarendon's masterly speech shows him to be a man of the present--one who can com- mand events. He forgot faction and old feuds, and appeared as a leading man in the party of those who have for their sole object the service of the country. Less showy than Lord Stanley's speech, Lord Clarendon's outlives it: there is between the two all the difference between the real and the unreal ; and Lord Claren- don will probably be working officially as a statesman when Lord Stanley is forgotten as an orator. Another -Whig, if so he can be called, that deserved well, is Earl Grey ; who spoke at the opening of the third night. Ile did not enter at all into the party questions, but did good and laborious servicein exposing Lord Stanley's tissue of glittering hollowness; picking to pieces his arguments' Confuting his facts, rubbing off' his glosses. Lord Stanley had tiLiverpool correspondent, whose letter he read ob- viously because it contained abuse of ,Sir Robert Peel: Lord Grey- 'tlso had . a Liverpool correspondent, who utterly refuted Lord Stanley's statistics, with his terrible prophecies of exhaustless Supplies to swamp the British corn-market. The third night, and the debate, were wound up by the Duke of Wellington, in a speech of characteristic brevity, plainness, and directness—worth, at that stage, volumes of argumentation. He forcibly set forth the political neeessity:untler which he and his colleagues acted : he warned the House against the suicidal iii- policy of endeavouring to brave the Crown and the Popular branch of the Legislature. Recurring to personalities, he shadowed forth a fine sentiment : his position is peculiar; if he his rendered public services have-they not been strikingly acknowledged ? the favours conferred upon him by Crown and Country have removed him from Party—he owes higher obligations. Most nobly spoken : and well has he fulfilled those obligations now, not perhaps with- out some sacrifice of associations and predilections. He hinted, too, that this perhaps was the last occasion on which ha might tender his advice. On the whole, the Great Captain's admirable address was calculated to bring back the Peers to the common sense of the question, and to the higher views which bad at tuned been forgotten. It fitly ushered in the triumph of the popular measure; .whose march has been signalized, not by clamour and outrage, but by the deliberate concurrence of all parties save one in a national act.
Incidentally connected with these movements of party, is the conduct of Lord John Russell ; which has been more creditable in the way of leadership than it had hitherto seemed. To him is the merit imputed of convening the Whig Peers at Lansdowne House, to keep them in order for the task of passing the bill. There might be a sharp eye to BM-interest in his doing so. As Ireland was Sir Robert Peel's "difficulty," the Corn Bill was Lord John's: he was bound to pass it, but wanted strength for the Herculean labour : it was of vital importance that Sir Robert Peel should get it out of the way before the Whig reaccessicin: Hence the magnanimity. We are glad to see the Whigs take ea intelligent a view of their own interests. Another astute move by the Premier-proximate is on the Sugar- duties. Lord John Russell has recorded his intention to abolish the differential duties. Luckily for that Whig advance, Mr. Hume, at the instance of a Minister, has waived his resolutions on the West Indies. The less done in that behalf before Lord John enters the field, the better for him. This notice of Lord John's is his "London letter" of the Sugar-duties. Under different circum- stances, it might, indeed, have the awkward effect of making Sir Robert Peel attend to the subject himself; in which case, Lord John's embryo scheme would probably be superseded by one more comprehensive and thoroughgoing. But the chances are in his favour, as Sir Robert's hands are full. He will probably not have time to overcome the "split in the Cabinet" on the Sugar question, before the opportunity is gone. Whig prospects there- fore are looking up.
Previous page
