was sick of them. The measures, therefore, of the
government would be Conservative as well as Liberal;
for both were essentially necessary. The noble earl,
too, had spoken of the spread of democratic principles,
but he looked in vain for any indication of such a state
of things; on the contrary, the country at large was
never more tranquil or contented, and though there
might be speculative democrats among us, those were
not the men who subverted states. Finally, the noble
earl expressed his regret at the spirit of hostility in
which Lord Derby had spoken of the new government,
and concluded by moving the adjournment of the
house to Friday, the 10th of February.

The Earl of DERBY said there was so little to complain
of in the programme which the house had just heard,
that he should have abstained from any remarks had it
not been said that he had accused the noble earl and his
colleagues of entering into a conspiracy against the late
government. Now, he denied that he had ever used
the word "conspiracy," though he might have said
"combination;" and if, after the negotiations which
had confessedly taken place between three totally different
parties in the lower house, the concert which had
been arrived at among them did not constitute a
combination against the government, he was at a loss to
understand the meaning of the word. With respect to
the financial measures of the new government, he was
glad to hear that some of the noble earl's supporters in
the lower house had already modified their extreme
opinions, and that a readjustment of that tax on equitable
principles would be attempted. The intentions of
Lord Aberdeen on education and legal reform were
undoubtedly satisfactory, though his views on the
amendment of the representation were of oracular
ambiguity. The noble earl had ridiculed the notion of
a dangerous democracy, but it remained to be seen
whether an alteration of the existing representative
system might not throw too great power into the hands
of a lower and less informed class of the community.
Personally, he had no feeling of hostility against the
new government, but he had no great confidence in it,
for he had no conception of the principle on which it
was based. If, however, the noble earl conducted his
administration on a truly Conservative policy, he should
receive no evidence of public hostility.

IN the HOUSE OF COMMONS, on Friday, the 26th of
November, the adjourned debate on Mr. Villiers's
resolution in favour of Free Trade, was resumed by Mr.
MILNER GIBSON, who denied that this was a question of
want of confidence, the government being entirely
separated from it. The house should take care not to place
free trade on a basis which might slide from under it.
The fact that food was cheap might not always be a
fact; but the question rested upon the right that men
had to free exchange. He complained of Lord
Palmerston's conduct, in taking the question out of
Mr. Villiers's hand.—Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT supported
Lord Palmerston's amendment, as being the more
generous course.—The Marquis of GRANBY'S reasons
for not adopting either one of the resolutions were threefold.
He did not believe that the prosperity of the
country was as great as it ought to be; he did not
believe it was attributable to recent legislation and
unrestricted competition; and even if it were, he believed
that such legislation was not stamped with the principles
of unrestricted competition.—Sir JAMES GRAHAM,
after some observations on the inconsistency of ministers,
said that he had endeavoured to frame his resolution
in the temper and spirit which Sir R. Peel would,
had he been alive, have displayed, and with that Christian
forbearance for which the departed statesman was so
remarkable. He was not surprised that, on the whole,
gentlemen opposite were disposed to reject a declaration,
that a policy against which they had so long struggled
was wise and just. He was as earnestly opposed to any
idea of compensation, and should resist it as strenuously
as any member in that house. But, painful as it was to
him to vote against Mr. Villiers, he should feel it his
duty to support Lord Palmerston's amendment.—Lord
JOHN RUSSELL said that he hoped the debate would be
brought to a close that night. Commenting on the
course pursued by the government, he observed that
Lord Derby seemed to have misconceived the constitutional
position of himself as regarded the question of
free trade, and also that of his subordinates, who had
taken opposite sides at the elections. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer had been a faithless supporter of protection;
it was for the house to take care that he was not
so faithless to free trade. He had no confidence in the
professions of the ministry, or in the conversion of many
of their supporters. The battle was not over.—Mr.
WALPOLE replied to Lord John Russell, and defended
the government.—Mr. COBDEN animadverted with some
severity upon the course taken by Lord Palmerston,
who, he said, had pressed his amendment into the
service of a protectionist government, and, if the
result should be unfavourable to free trade, the country
would understand that the noble lord was the author of
the disaster. By this intervention he had given the
protectionist party a chance of indemnity. By refusing
to adopt the word "just," and by omitting the word
"property," in his amendment, he had opened the door
to compensation. Mr. Cobden then pointed out the
calamities which, he contended, had been the effects of
the corn-law system, expressed his astonishment that
there should be any hesitation in branding that system
as unwise and unjust; and, in strong terms, inveighed
against the conduct of the protectionist party. The
division, he observed, would be between those who
should vote for free trade, barring compensation, and
those who should vote for free trade, leaving compensation
alone.—Mr. BUTT said he should neither support
the resolution nor the amendment. He should oppose
any resolution that would close the question of compensation.
—Mr. GLADSTONE denied that the division would,
as Mr. Cobden alleged, determine the question of
compensation. It was impossible to say that collateral
claims for relief, aye for compensation, might not arise,
which it would be irrational to resist. The amendment
pledged the house to adopt free trade as a system. The
difference between that and the original motion was,
that those who voted for the latter said that the house
must travel back to 1846, and revive the circumstances
which then existed, for the purpose of preventing the
united and overpowering expression of opinion in favour
of free trade. He warned Mr. Villiers that, by pressing
his motion, he was taking a step and adopting a form of
language without parliamentary precedent. In adopting
the amendment, he felt that his course was that which
would have been pursued by Sir R. Peel, to whose
motives in the policy which had cost him so many
painful sacrifices, Mr. Gladstone paid a warm tribute of
praise.—Mr. NEWDEGATE spoke shortly in vindication
of his political conduct.—Mr. VILLIERS replied. On a
division his resolution was negatived by 336 against
256; and Lord Palmerston's amendment was carried by
468 against 53.

On Monday, Nov. 29, Sir A. COCKBURN called the
attention of the house to a Petition of householders of
Derby against the return of Mr. Horsfall, on the ground
of bribery, and, after stating the circumstances of the
case, moved for the appointment of a select committee
on the subject.—Mr. WALPOLE, on the part of the
government, assented to the motion, and it was agreed
that a committee, consisting of five members, should be
nominated by the general election committee. And—

On Wednesday, December 1, the general
committee reported that they had selected Mr. Goulburn,
Lord H. Vane, Lord Barrington, Sir W. Molesworth,
and Mr. Deedes, to be the members of the above
committee.

On Monday, December 6th, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER stated that government had received
information of a change in the form of the government
of France, and that an emperor had been proclaimed
under the title of "Napoleon III;" and her Majesty's
ministers, acting upon the principle of recognising every
de facto government, had advised her Majesty to
recognise the new form of Government in France. At
the same time it had been announced to her Majesty's
government in a friendly and unofficial manner, and
formally and officially, that, in accepting the title of
"Napoleon III," the Emperor of France did not in any