any thing peculiarly atrocious in Mr John Wood lecturing Sir Robert, more than any other member? And if there was, was Sir Robert himself to be the man to put the gravamen of the offence upon that point? Could he not make little of Mr John Wood of Preston, without placing the colossus of his own dignity beside him, and calling upon the House to "look on this picture, and on this?" It is a very unfortunate and provoking thing that Sir Robert Peel, with his considerable abilities and fluent habits of discourse, will not lay aside this selfcomplacent manner, which is the more unpleasant from its verysmooth

ness.

On the 8th, the Duke of Wellington in the Lords called the attention of the House to the procession of the trades, which had taken place that day, to the King's palace. The Duke appears to have considered that there was something alarming in the procession of so large a body of the common people bearing " flags and other ensigns.' The Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Lord Chancellor, whose nerves are perhaps not so sensitive as those of the Duke, though we would think the sight of masses of men bearing flags and other ensigns rather more familiar to his Grace than to the others, made rather light of the matter. The most curious thing in this affair is, that the law, as laid down from the Woolsack, was most unceremoniously contradicted by ministers in the House of Commons, who do not pretend to be lawyers at all.

The Lord Chancellor says, "Your Lordships cannot prevent people from walking in the streets; and though processions are not convenient things, you cannot prevent processions even with banners,-for processions are but long lines of people walking in one direction. The law gives you no power of prevention until there is an actual breach of the peace, or a most imminent risk of its being broken."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "I am ready to admit that the procession was not strictly legal, according to the letter of the act; but the question is, whether it would not have been imprudent, rash, and illadvised, to have prevented such a

procession under suchcircumstances, and when the government had reason to believe that it would be conducted orderly? I know that such addresses are illegal, but the law is frequently violated with impunity."

Now, in whom are the simple to place their belief touching the law of this land? Is it possible that the Lord Chancellor of England publicly misrepresented the law in the House of Lords? And if he did not, how much is the Chancellor of the Exchequer to blame for being so positive in his error in the House of Commons!

On the 9th, Lord Wynford brought forward his important motion for a committee to enquire into the causes of the existing general distress, and to consider how far a remedy could be provided for it. At a period when the distress and discontent of the agricultural labourers of this country is so great, that outrage, unheard-of for its violence and universality, is going on, and sober-minded men seriously fear a violent breaking up of the established rights of property and relations of society, it does seem unaccountable that the government should deem it expedient, or even safe, to set their faces against such an enquiry. Yet, after hearing not only the motion, but all that was so ably urged in support of it, the Premier replied, that " in every respect he felt a great objection to the enquiry proposed, and he would not give his individual assent to it; if he opposed the proposed measure, it was solely from a sincere conviction that it could produce no good. It was acknowledged on all hands that the country presented a scene of great difficulty-how the difficulty had been produced it was not for him to say, for he was more inclined to look forward to correct the faults, than to look back to the manner in which they had been produced." Let us consider, for a moment, this language of the Prime Minister of England, and ask ourselves how it is possible that a reasonable man in such a situation could so speak. Let us put his matter into a methodical arrangement of propositions, and it will stand thus. It is acknowledged on all hands that the country presents a scene of great difficulty. How the difficulty has been produced it is not for me to say,-that

is, I cannot say how it has been produced. I will not give my individual assent to an enquiry to ascertain how it has been produced. I am more inclined to look forward to correct the faults, than to look back to the manner in which they have been produced.

Surely such a series of propositions as this, would seem to be unworthy of any man who had sufficient sense to button on his own clothes; yet they are those of the minister, allowed on all hands to be a man of first-rate ability. It is to be observed, that, in refusing to go into an enquiry of this description, Lord Grey follows the example of the Duke of Wellington, who similarly refused last session. On the present occasion, the Duke avowed his dissent from the motion, because, from the extent and importance of the subjects which would have to be enquired into, it would be impossible to have such an enquiry without exciting expectations, and involving the country in difficulties and dangers ten times greater than those under which it at present suffers. This is very plain, blunt talk, and makes the Duke's opinion obvious enough; but we are at a loss for the reason that enquiry concerning the cause of the people's distress, and consideration of the best means of alleviating it, would make the difficulties and dangers ten times greater. As to expectations," why should the people not expect? Does the Duke of Wellington or Lord Grey think that despair is preferable to expectation? Is it not monstrous, that, in a country teeming with abundance, where over-production is the cry of economists themselves, and where every man of sense and observation knows, that with our soil, rivers, seas, mines, machinery, and shipping, all the people, and twice that number, might live in comfort, not labouring above half their time-is it not monstrous, that, in consequence of some dreadful defect in our political or social arrangements, half the population is half starved, and great numbers of them roaming about like beasts of prey to take food by violence? Are we not to enquire into the cause of this shocking evil; are we not to consider the means of remedying it, lest haply expectations might be created? Will the hereditary legislators of

Great Britain shut their eyes in timorous hope that the danger will pass by, instead of looking at it in the face like men, and doing what is needful? Will they listen to one man telling them of the danger of examining what is the matter, and another voiding his presumptuous folly in the affected phraseology of a misnamed science, while the people are maddening around them, and while advantage is taken of their hunger by incendiary villains to drive them into open insurrection? How long will men be blind to the plain state of things? The time was when the owners of land and the manufacturers could not do without the labourers, because their assistance was necessary to obtain the produce of the ground, and to turn the raw material into manufactured goods. The labourers then had their sure hold, as well as any other class. True, all the property was in the hands of others; but then others could not use that property without the labourer's assistance; therefore they were sure of a share. In the present time, labourers have so much increased, and so much work can be done by machinery, that a large portion of them are not required by those who possess land and raw material, and such working people are left without any hold upon society at all. But is it because men of property can do without them, that they are to cast them off to perish? No. They are still a part of the society, and ought to be supported while the country affords the means. It is true, the capitalist cannot turn their labour to profitable account; but why should they therefore stand idle and starve? Their labour would support themselves if they had something upon which to apply it; and there is scarcely an acre of cultivated ground in England upon which additional labour might not be employed to a certain extent, which would produce food equal to the support of that labour. Besides, there is a vast quantity of ground not cultivated at all to which this surplus labour might be applied; and if machines have been invented, and things desirable to have can be made easier and more abundantly than before, why should it not be contrived that the people should get the benefit of such improvements, and have more than they had before, instead

of wearing rags, and eating only half enough? As it is, the foreigner gets the benefit of our machinery; but our own people do not. For half the quantity of wine, or gold, or spices, or fruits, the foreigner can and does obtain as much British cotton goods as he used to do, but the man at home has nothing but his labour to give, which is rendered of no value by the very machines which make the cottons cheap, and therefore he cannot get them. Is machinery, then, to be done away with? By no means; but if we will not give the people clothing for their labour, let us give them machines to make clothing for themselves. If the means be in existence to make them comfortable, why should they not be made comfortable?

The Duke of Richmond appeared to considerable disadvantage in the debate on Lord Wynford's motion; he may shift about as he will, but if he would call to his aid the plain straight-forward honesty that he displayed last session, and the manly feeling for the suffering peasantry of England that he evinced then, he would not be driven to manœuvre his way out of such a motion as Lord Wynford's; vainly endeavouring to bear aloft the flag of consistency, while he retreated from a measure so similar to one proposed by himself last year.

In the House of Commons some questions were asked respecting the removal of the Irish Chancellor. The question had been mooted the preceding evening in the other House by Lord Farnham, when Lord Brougham, in reply, entered, for the first time, upon that style of oratory which consists in the uttering of words without saying any thing. Lord Althorp was on this occasion rather more explicit as to the facts both of the appointment and the nonincrease of expense in consequence of it, but he did not condescend to explain by what adroitness he was to pension off Sir A. Hart, at no cost to the country. The whole of the Irish legal arrangements appear to be rather disgraceful to the new ministry, and the matter has been made worse by the shuffling, undecided way in which the ministers have spoken of them in Parliament. If they must have their job, they may at least talk manfully about it, and

confess they have an object in view, more important than the money which it will cost. It is ridiculous to mince and shuffle about a matter which must, sooner or later, come before the public exactly as it is.

The next evening the Lord Chancellor indulged himself in some facetiousness at the expense of Earl Stanhope. The strain in which his lordship spoke would have been more appropriate in the Lower House; and was less becoming in the Lord Chancellor, than it would have been in any other noble lord.

In the House of Commons Lord Althorp intimated that the partnership hitherto subsisting between the Government and the Bank of England, was likely to be dissolved.

On Saturday the 11th, the House of Commons, contrary to custom, assembled, but to what good purpose did not distinctly appear. There was another conversational discussion on the Irish Union Repeal question, in favour of which, not ten men of common sense in the three kingdoms would be found to say a word. All the persons who petition about it, are poor ignorant people, whom Mr O'Connell can lead by the nose, into that or any other absurd mischievous notion, in which it is his fancy for the time to indulge.

Lord Althorp moved for returns, which it is understood are to be used as the basis of the scheme of Parliamentary Reform which Government has in view. The returns related to the amount of population in various places. We shall say no more upon this question at present, than that the notion of founding a scale of representation upon numbers merely, is one of the most fallacious things in the world. If numbers were made the sole criterion, the three counties of Middlesex, York, and Lancaster, would return a third of the parliamentary representation of all England. There are not above half-adozen cities in the empire containing as many inhabitants as the single parish of Saint Mary-le-bone in Middlesex.

On the 13th, there was a very great quantity said in both Houses of Parliament. The new appointments, the pensions granted by the late government after their resignation, and various other matters interesting to the parties concerned, were dis

cussed in the Lords. Lord Grey, with that humbleness of phraseology which aristocracy sometimes affects, alluded to a stipulation that his son should be immediately "discharged," if he did not shew himself diligent and capable in the office to which he was appointed. We have no doubt Lord Howick is quite capable of discharging the duties lately confided to Mr Horace Twiss. We have heard him, three years ago, lecture Mr Canning in the House of Commons; and as to his diligence, his sense of honesty will of course prevent him from taking a salary, if he does not go through the work, for which it is understood to be the remuneration.

In the Commons, the proceedings were of a very miscellaneous as well as important character; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have found his repose on Monday night particularly pleasant, after such an evening's " badgering.' He was on his legs at least a dozen times, making statements and giving explanations, and as he is not a very facile speaker, the trouble to him must be the greater. A brief commentary on this evening's proceedings, would require a paper to itself. We can only say a word or two on the most prominent matters: the affairs of the West India planters underwent a discussion of some length; Mr Macauley was, as usual, flippant in his style, and talked considerably about the "periodicals." One would think he has enough of them, without troubling the House of Commons with them, which has not the same reason to take a lively interest in periodicals that Mr Macauley has. Sir George Murray's speech was altogether admirable;whether we regard the soundness of the matter, or the natural and forcible eloquence of this most able man, we must always look upon him as a great credit to the representation of Scot

land.

Lord Althorp spoke decisively of the Government's intention to do nothing about the currency. Undoubtedly it is for the present the easiest course to do nothing, but how is Sir James Graham, a Cabinet Minister

now, to preserve his consistency? If ever any man was pledged to try to remedy that which he has denounced as a most serious evil, Sir James is bound to do his best to overturn Sir Robert Peel's currency measures. Lord Althorp thought proper to speak in rather a contemptuous manner of "the vague, general, and untangible allegations, of those who advocate the expediency of a small note currency." Epithets more diametrically opposite to those which truth would dictate as applicable to the arguments of those who support a well-secured paper currency, could hardly be devised.

On the 14th, the subject of tithes was discussed in the Lords, and the following remarkable avowal fell from the Bishop of London at the close of a very able speech. Speaking of the Church property he said, "that these funds might be more equally divided, he was the last man to deny, and he agreed that so far as it was consistent with the safety and stability of the Church, some such arrangement might be made. If the subject were taken up in time, with due consideration for vested rights, he was sure that the Church of England would stand, as it had stood, the admiration of Protestant Europe, and the pride of great England." Such words as these from an English Bishop-the metropolitan Bishop too! Verily these are days of Reform!

We have now arrived at the end of the Record for this month. The recess will give us time to bring up arrears, and to attend to the documents laid upon the tables of the Houses, which in this paper we have not had room nor time to consider. Never was Parliamentary business so important, or the course it will take more difficult to be anticipated. Mr Robert Grant already complains of the "premature distrust" of the new Ministers-they have indeed an unruly House to deal with, and their pledges towards popular measures, instead of being a shelter, will only make their difficulties greater. They have themselves set the tide in motion; let them stop it, if they can.