The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 24, 1852.

" well-regulated party feeling " having a sly
word of allusion to what he facetiously defined
as the noble lord's " amiable cynicism." To-
wards the close of his address the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER indignantly scouted the idea of
himself and his colleagues consenting for one
hour to remain in office as " Ministers on suf-
ferance." Nothing, he declared, would induce
them to continue in power, unless the cordial
bearing of the Legislature gave the stability
requisite to consolidate them into a strong Go-
vernment. Having taken a complete survey
of the course pursued by the existing Cabinet,
since its formation in February ;1 having enu-
merated some of the more commendable of its
achievements, such, for example, as the formation
of the Militia, and also the diminution of several
of the abuses in Chancery ; after following their
movements from the period when they were
gazetted to the dissolution of the late Parliament,
and from the general election in July to the
assembling of the new House of Commons in
November, the Right Hon. Gentleman appealed
in an impassioned peroration to the sense of jus-
tice among the younger representatives, implor-
ing them not to allow themselves to become
" the tools, or the victims of exhausted fac-
tions and obsolete politics." It was immediately
afterwards that Mr. BRIGHT, in one of the
ablest speeches ever delivered by him within
the walls of the Legislature, endeavoured in the
most effectual manner to embarrass the position of
Ministers, by proclaiming the inconsistency of
their position—coolly trotting out in proof of this
the various unfortunates who, during the process of
the recent appeal to the country, had figured upon
the hustings in the deepest colours of the Pro-
tectionists. It cannot for an instant be ques-
tioned by the reflective observers throughout the
United Kingdom that the time had indeed
arrived for some definite conclusion to be arrived
at in this matter of the Free-trade principles
by the present House of Commons, and
in the presence of what was originally,
of course, a Protectionist Government. Further
hesitation in regard to the permanence of the
commercial policy inaugurated in 1846 by Sir
ROBERT PEEL could not, in truth, be otherwise
than injurious to the interests of the nation, pre-
judicial to the character of the Legislature, and
baneful to the reputation of her Majesty's Govern-
ment. Without some explicit declaration in the
negative or in the affirmative, matters would be
left in a state so painfully dubious and incompre-
hensible that the consequent and inevitable evils
would necessarily prove altogether incalculable.
Aware of this, and conscious of the unassailable
security of that cause which he had himself
cherished years before it was recognised by the
generality, either within or without the walls of
Parliament, Mr. VILLTERs determined at the earliest
available period to submit the exigent problem of
the emergency to the consideration of the popular
representatives. Now that the matter has actually
been brought forward substantially in the Legis-
lative Chamber of the Commons at Westminster,
we cannot, as conscientious Free-traders and
fervent lovers of patriotism, but rejoice that the
question has been formally presented for the ac-
ceptance or the refusal of the Administration. It
would be unfair to all parties implicated in the
transaction not to feel thus in reference to the
important discussion of yesterday. But for the
motion introduced by the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton the judgments of the multi-
tude might still have been tossed about
upon a sea of conjectures as to what might
be, upon the most vital of the political topics of
our age, the real opinions entertained by the
present Government. No such uncertainty can any
longer be felt upon the matter, now that the
country has lying before them the eminently
adroit, but sufficiently explicit, and, indeed, alto-
gether unmistakeable declaration of the CHAN-
CELLOR of the Excn:EQuER. That declaration is
simply, that her MAJESTY'S Ministers do not feel
themselves called upon to attempt any revival
whatsoever of the abandoned principles of Protec-
tion. Mr. DISRA RYA' s reminder to the house,
that ever since the passing of the enactment
of 1846, neither he himself, nor any one
of the individuals sympathising with him
in his ideas of a commercial policy, have
endeavoured to bring back the old system through
direct or indirect appeals to the British Parlia-
ment—was the strongest point in the argument
by which he strove to parry the thrusts of his
Free-trade antagonists. Mr. BRIGHT'S reminder
to the House, on the other hand, that if no posi-
tive adventure of the kind—no adventure having
in view the restoration of the laws formerly
passed by the sticklers for monopoly—had been
made iu the Commons by the Leaders of the oppo-
site party since the period of Sir ROBERT
PEEL'S enactment, their followers had un-
questionably, out of the Commons, employed
every imaginable means to forward their in-
terests, and to create a soul under the dead ribs
of Protection—was indisputably the most forcible
and the most rational justification of the motion
submitted to the Legislature, supposing for one
moment that it needed (which we deny) any jus-
tification at all. Although the discussion was, as
might have been alone anticipated, adjourned un-
til Thursday after the speeches of Mr. KER
SEYMER and Mr. FREDERICK PEEL had been
followed by the remarkable address of
Lord PALMERSTON the resolution proposed
by the representative of Wolverhampton,, cannot
but be regarded as already most effectual in re-
moving whatever doubts still existed in regard to
the commercial views of the DERBY-DISRAELI
Cabinet. That Cabinet, as we now take it, is dis-
tinctly pledged to the maintenance—and not only
to the maintenance, hut to the resolute enforce-
ment and continuous development of the Free-
trade system, or as the CHANCELLOR of the Ex-
CHEQUEa loves to call it, the system of unrestricted
competition. Henceforth, there can be no pos-
sible misapprehension upon the subject. The
state oracle is no longer dumb. And if, at last,
ApoLLo has not spoken from his, shrine, the Right
Hon. Gentleman, leaning upon the green box of
office, and addressing himself candidly to the
Free-trade Opposition, has avowed that the
principles of Protection are no longer desired to
be revived by the existing Government.

13071Vocsation, after a political submersion of a
century and a-half, has begun to exhibit, signs of
life ; some galvanic respirations have unquestion-
ably been made. Whether they will result in a re-
turn of all the vital powers and functions remains
to be seen. A short time back, when it was
rumoured that Lord DERBY, at the instigation of
his High-Church supporters, was about to advise
her MAJESTY to license Convocation to resume its
long-disused functions, we expressed our incre-
dulity in regard to any statesman being capable of
such unconstitutional conduct. From what has

just occurred, it is very evident that the agitators
may have perplexed the Government for a while
with those legal ingenuities which they openly
brought forward when the Houses met. Unless
there were some doubtful points of this kind be-
fore the Government, we must think, with all the
Liberal press, that they ought at once to have
contradicted the rumour.

Be this as it may, the advocates of Convoca-

tion have now taken a course which will soon call
upon Parliament to interrogate the Government
as to their actual power over the proceedings of
this body, and to legislate, if need be, accordingly.
We have had one Papal aggression, and we cannot
now tolerate an Anglican aggression. It can never
be endured that such a nuisance as this long-
suppressed debating club of Church dignitaries,
should resume action by virtue of some overlooked
loopholes 'in an Act of Parliament.

A step, and, in the opinion of a member of the
Lower House, a step verging upon an ecclesiasti-
cal revolution, was made by the course which was
adopted. In the Upper House quite new ground
Was
taken ; namely, that the Archbishop of CAN-
TERIIITRY had no power to prorogue the. Houses
without the consent of the other bishops, and that
the mix's licence was not requisite to empower
them to deliberate as long as they pleased, though
confessedly needful to enable them to enact
canons. The agitators had fortified themselves
with the legal opinion in their favour of Drs.
ADDAms.and PHILLIMORE, and of her MAJESTY'S