The Press.
London, England, 1856-02-09 00:00:00

Volitiral.

UR. JOllll BRIGHT, M.P., at the annual meeting c;
the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, on Monday,
spoke at some length upon the subject of the present
state of our relations with America. Mr. Bright set out
by remarking "that ail int we knew was, that nothing
could be known." Everything was concealed, the
Foreign Minister was going to Faris, and just as we
were emerging from a war with Russia, we found
ourselves in so delicate a position with America that

130

the smallest trifle might bring us into great difficulties
with that country :

If the negotiations were open and we knew what was
doing, he pe. haps need not have had to come there or any-
where else to talk about the matter, because lie believed
public opinion would snuff out a great many of these
things: but, he would ask, what would be the result if the
merchants of Manchester confided the management of
their affairs, the buying of their cotton and goods, and the
c.nduct of their export and import trade, to some con-
cealed conspiracy almost among their servants? Why,
they would have no safety whatever in their various
transactions. In the words of the present head of our
Foreign•office, we had " drilled" into the war in which we
had been engaged, which showed the incapacity and
feebleness that had been at the helm ; and who knew that
we might not be "drifting " into a war now?
With reference to the Bulwer-Clayton Treaty, he did
not deny that the words of the treaty inclined more
to favour the position claimed by the English than
the interpretation put upon them by the American
Government; but he egreed with the view of the
Times, that it would be better that we held no terri-
tory there than have an interruption of a day in our
amicable relations with America. As to the other
item of disagreement, the foreign enlistment pro-
ceeding, he thought we bad not only infringed the
19.W4 of the country, but that the whole thing was a
stupid blunder in every point of view:—

It was most incredible that the Government of an
economical country—a country that had adopted free trade
and contained an association called a Chamber of Com-
merce within its dominions—should go 3,000 miles to the
westward, where the labour of a common labourer on a
farm was worth 4s. a day, to enlist men and to take them
3,000 miles to the eastward to fight men whose labour was
not worth more than (hi. a day.

As far as our atonement for the offence went, he
understood we had made an apology but denied the
offence, which was not considered sufficient by the
American Government. He believed the English Go-

vernment was entirely wrong in this matter. In con-
clusion, he much regretted to see the serious tone
adopted by the press of both countries with respect
to the disagreement, and called upon the Chamber to
pass a resolution on the subject. After some slight
discussion, Mr. Bright drew up a resolution for pre-
sentation to Parliament, expressing the deep regret.
of the Chamber at the state of our relations with
America, and calling upon her Majesty's Govern-
ment to consider the question in a conciliatory spirit,
with a determination to avoid any interruption of

_
friendly relations. The resolution was unanimously
agroed to.

Itlttrzgolitan.

AT THE JURIDICAL SOCIETY'S MEETING OR Mon-

day, a paper on life peerages was read by Mr. W. D.
Lewis. Mr. Lewis commenced by adverting to the
defects in the constitution of the Upper House, as to
its being a final court of appeal and error, and the
occasional questionable legality of its decisions, and
admitted that, if life peerages were created only with
a view of strengthenirg the judicial power of the
house, as had been asserted, nothing could be said
against it. But the peerage was a political and
social, and not merely a judicial institution, and it
was far from clear that the mere strengthening of
the judicial staff of the House of Lords could not be
accomplished by resort to old forms in the Constitu
tion, without creating new peers to sit and vote. As
to the prerogative of the Crown to create life peerages,
it must he remembered that the title and political
function of that dignity had not always been concur-
rent and united as at present; in the time of the
Plantagenets, the right to sit in Parliament did not
necessarily accompany a life petrage :
The exercise of a power in the Crown to nominate
members of the Upper House for life only would put in
jeopardy the very existence and continuance of the house,
ant be destruct've to the Constitution itself in all those
relations which the House of Lords bears to other powers
in the State. Such attempts might more frequently be
expected, and more readily attempted, when the Minister
finis that he may bring his nominees into the house with-
out the embarrassment of a permanent addition to its
numbers, or the risk of support being denied to him by
their successors. Such a composition of the Upper
House, or an infusion into it of such an element to any
considerable extent, would defeat the very design and
purpose, and destroy the whole utility of establishing an
Independent aristocratic section of the Legislature. if the
Crown or the Minister of the day nominated a considerable
number of life occupants to the Upper House, they would
reflect only the influence which placed them there ; and
that influence would be nothing more than the majo-
rity of the House of Commons for the time being.
arguments in favour of life peerages,
ejected that if the precedent were once
a was no security that it would not be
unworthy purposes, and in cases where
learning, nor services sanctioned the
conclusion, Mr. Lewis argued that the
permitted, would create discord in the
Jid practically destroy the influence of
body in the State, and leave the Crown

In reply to the
Mr. Lewis obje
allowed there
followed for un
; neither lalent,
sieved( a In
new system, if
peerage, would
the middle bed