st of a large share of the proportion of the taxes borne by them.

MEETING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

The houses of parliament assembled on the 4th of November. On the 11th
her majesty in person delivered the speech from the throne. The speech
referred to commercial policy in terms which the Hon. Mr. Villiers
denounced as "vague and equivocal."

BOTH HOUSES CARRY RESOLUTIONS PLEDGING THEM TO THE FREE-TRADE POLICY.

On the 23rd of November, the Hon. Mr. Villiers proposed a series of
resolutions affirming the prosperity of the country, and the comfort of
the poorer classes, as resulting from the policy of free-trade, and more
especially in corn, pledging the house to support the measure of
1846, by which all duties on corn were repealed. The chancellor of
the exchequer moved an amendment with the intention of defeating these
resolutions. The government, however, assumed the tone of converts to
free-trade on the ground that the country had pronounced for it. Mr.
Frederick Peel, with bitter and eloquent irony, in the best speech he
probably ever delivered in parliament, reminded Mr. Disraeli of his
taunts and abuse of Sir Robert Peel for changing his opinions on the
subject of a corn-law, and invited the right honourable satirist to
account for his own change, if it were effected by any other motive than
to retain office. He went to the country advocating the re-imposition of
a corn-tax, and on his return presented himself to the house a convert
to the opinion that it would be wrong to disturb the settlement of 1846.
After a protracted debate, Lord Palmerston proposed an amendment which
more generally embodied the public opinion, and was more adapted to
party exigencies. All opposition to it on the part of the government
was so hopeless, that most of their supporters left the house. Eighty
remained, and voted against his lordship; four hundred and eight members
supported it. The House of Commons was pledged to the free-trade policy.

A similar debate took place in the lords with nearly identical results.
Various measures were discussed without leading to any parliamentary
decision or useful law. It was evident that on all subjects of
free-trade and financial philosophy the government and the majority of
the house were at issue--the one desiring to restore protection under
various sly and indirect pretences, the other anxious to develop
free-trade principles, and a system of national finance in harmony with
the