The Press. — London, England, 1853-05-07 00:00:00

the faith of this assurance the meeting acted, and the forty votes of the Irish Brigade went as one man in the division against Mr. Disraeli. Some of them have since received the substan tial rewards of office. Those who stipulated only for terms for their country have not been quite so well treated. In the middle of December the pledge was given. In the middle of April the newly installed Chancelhar •Ithe Exchequer proposes his financial scheme, and one of its nest pro . mutant characteristics is the extension of the income tax to Ireland. The official who g a v e the authokity is taxed with this apparent breach of.luith, did his justification was that he had pledged himself for Sir Charles Wood and the ‘Vhign, but that he would not bind Mr. Glad stone and the followers of Sir Robert Peel. All these facts have been, and are still, openly and freely talked of among members of the House of Commons : the names of those who conveyed the assurance, and of the official who authorised it, are perfectly well known, and the whole transaction has been plainly stated in the public journals. We may get a glimpse in this revelation of the artifices by which Mr. Disraeli was defeated. We have not, indeed, ascertained the negotia tions by which other sections of the 4. unholy alliance ' were induced to gather to the standard of .4 coalition ;" but, when we know the means by which one quota ot' the anomalous bevy was • obtained, we may perhaps form a guess of those which were employed towards the rest. This much, at least, the existence of this negotiation 1 . 1 melusively establishes—that the vote upon Mr. Disraeli's budget was not the result of as Mere unconcerted agreement of Opillinn be tween different sections of the Opposition, but was the issue of a deliberate and well-planned movement ; while those opp o sing sections in . sited upon terms of mutual arningement. terms having reference, not to the immediate . matter before the house, but terms controlling the contracting parties after they had seized on the power which it was the objeet of the conspiracy to clutch. Let us for a moment glance at the treatment maw experienced by those to whom this pro mise was given. The pledge is said to have -been given in the name and by the authority .aat' Sir Charles Wood. The income tax for Ire • land is proposed by Mr. Gladstone. The • honesty of the excuse is about up ron a pa with the morality of the pledge. Those who did . not scruple to eater into meeret engagements to effect a factious object have felt but little difficulty, when the object want achieved, in disregarding them. Sir Charles Wood is a member of the Cabinet by which the Irish in come tax is proposed. t"ir Charles Va'ood has spoken and will vote in favour of that tax. It' it be true that the right hen. gentleman au thorised a confidential emissary to obtain the aid of the Irish members to the displacement of the late Ministry, by a. pledge that an Irish income tax should not be the consequence of the change, we can hardly think he shelters himself from the consequences because he is .at the India Board instead of the Exchequer. This shifting of places does nut alter the laws of good faith ; and the plea that the President of the India Board is not bound by the pro mise of the expectant Chancellor seems little better than a device to escape detection by a Yew clumsy aliens. It is certainly an illustration of the inge nious use to which the strange contrariety of the composition of the Cabinet may be put. it can supply to exalt each minister an ex case for the contempt of every obligation of principle or of party. The fable of Protons is realised to the very life. Seize upon Birdied like Sir William Molesworth. and. when you think you have caught him in the • meshes of some former pledge, you suddenly Lind him changed to the form of an antiquated Tory, in the person of Lord Aberdeen. Bind Sir Charles A'saod by the promise as to the income tax, and the image of Mr. Gladstone Odes sleekly from your grasp. Attempt to cateli * Protestant champion iu the semblance of Lord John Russell. and you are amazed at the transmutation into a Pope's liegenum in the lineaments of Mr. Keogh. Proteus had not so many changes in reserve. The tossings of the kaleidoscope scarcely supply eombillit- THE PRESS. tions so varied. No dissolving views could present transitions so rapid and so complete. Ingenious, however, as this may be, it adds but little to the credit of British statesman ship. If the truth is pleasing to be spoken, it is not easy to conceive anything more discre ditable than the whole history of the negotia tions we have mentioned. The votes of the Irish members Were secretly sought through an underhand negotiation secretly obtained—as surances were given in private conelaves which were wholly concealed from the assembly whose decisions they controlled. Mr. Dis raeli's budget was refused, not because it was disapproved of, but because Irish members were promised a future exemption from the obnoxious income tax. Men who had filled high offices under the Crown did not hesitate thus to bind their conduct when they should return to their offices. It adds, in our judg ment, but little to the discredit that attaches to the very nature of the negotiation that faith has not even been kept with those who must now feel that they were its dupes. THE WHIG "REFORM" CRY. So "Refight" is for the present to be "a cry" reserved fitr the use of the Coalition. " Mt " ICSS," 8/1111 Mr. Hume, in his remarks on Mr. Locke King's motion to extend the Ten Pound Franchise to Counties, " the Government he " tray the confidence reposed in them, I have " reason to believe that we shall have a fair " and satisflictory measure of Refinin next " session." These words are ominous enough, coining from the lips of the member for Mon trose, but they deepen in their import when we recollect the concluding sentence of Lord .lolin Russell's speech of Monday last, when he attacked Imrd Derby, and spoke about "making " Demoentey Conservative." Lord John inti nmted that lte had no fear of Denmoeniey, if you did not irritate it, by declining to concede to it. Mr. Disraeli. therefore, had good grounds for the tone used by him on Monday last, when he asked, " Why this hostility to the land and when he charged a certain portion of the revolutionary faction with the desire of " changing a first-rate kingdom into a second " rate republic." It is remarkable that, while the party in power insists upon tying up Parliament to a fixed financial policy, " Reform" is to be placed upon a sliding scale, and is to fluctuate with the rise and full of the Coppock Consols at the Rama Club. If Coalition scrip goes off satis thetorily to its haders at Brookes's, and the Parliamentary dividends from the Income Tax Budget be remunerative, it is possible that no more Agitation Stock will at present be created, until the party requires some more fictitious capital to draw upon. Let taxation be permanent, let the Legislature be flouting, in what Lord John Russell himself called " a •• sea of speculation!" Such is the contradic tory and ambiguomi policy recommended by the Cabinet. For this year they carry on their affairs by an alliance with Manchester, they take their chance for the chapter of accidents being in their favour, and when in difficulty they can full back upon Mr. Locke King, Extension of the Suffrage, and the shifting resources of " Reforin"—adapted for dissolving views. But they calculate very hastily if they suppose that such a policy will k. endorsed by a majority of seventy-one members of the Lower House. Although we have hug been aware, on the au thority of the Reverend Sydney Smith, " that " it is impossible to sleep easy while Lord John has command of the watch," and though the antecedents of Sir James Graham make us readily believe that he would lend himself to violent int.asures. we are vevy seep tied as to the gentlemen who composed the Budget majority on Monday answering to Mr. Hayter's summons to support. a Radical Re form so extensive as to justify Mr. Hume's an ticipations of its proving " satisfactory. ' Our scepticism on this point is further con firmed as we scan the names of the gentlemen who voted with the Treasury last Monday. Without inquiring whether a Liberal organ of Weditcsatty be right in surmising that the majority was chiefly caused by " the fear of a " dissolution," we may record our amusement at the ludicrous attempts to give the Coalition credit for being t2upported in its general policy SATURDAY, by the gentlemen who voted with it this week. We have seen some waste of type in empty taunts to Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli about certain -supporters of Conservative principle% having voted fur Mr. Gladstone's Budget. Amongst the paraded list of absent names we have seen those of the Marqnis of Blandford, Sir Robert Inglis, Sir Joint Walsh, Mr. Henries, and several other members of Parliament less noted, but with opinions equally well known. Is it to be supposed that these gen tlemen will be absent either from division or debate when the Coalition will set about per forming its promise to Mr. Hume in a way " satisfactory "to that 14entleinau? Nor is the attempt less absurd to identify the absent members of Monday with " those men of metal " and large-acred squires " who routed Sir Robert Peel. Those who look to " Reform" as the reserved cry for the present Cabinet may depend upon it that the absentees of last Monday • will not " troop on " in support of the new Reform Bill. Though Mr. Hume and Mr. Cobden may lend sombre countenance to their revolutionary schemes, let them not reckon on their gloomy ranks being gladdened for at sea son " by the pleasant presence of Walter Long," or their dangerous vacillation being , approved of by " the stout heart of Mr. Buck." Believ ing that the Coalition will make an effort to retain power by launching a new Reform Bill, we cannot for at moment doubt but that the Constitutional party in this country of all shades of sentiment will unite in preventin progressive measures being taken for the put. pose of establishing " a second-rate republic it England." From the buoyancy of Mr. Hume's tone, w suppose that the member for Montrose must have had some confidential information. If such were the case, we are only surprised that Mr. Hume was not invited to take a place in the Cabinet. Mr. Hume, however, was cast ofi; in company with other old friends. Along with the Greys he was sent to that place which Mr. Ellice not unbecomingly represents. Recollecting the part which " the Greys" have hitherto played in the history of "Re " form," we should like to know are they also aati.fied with the intentions of Government? Are they as credulous as Mr. Hume, and as docile as Mr. Locke King ? They used to be fond of having opinions of their own. They allowed Sir Robert Peel to curry the question of repeal of the Corn Laws in IN-16, rathek thaw endorse the foreign policy of Lcrd Pahnerston. On the " Irish Church Lord Grey bad a scheme of his own ; and on the Colonies-- but enough,—we are not going to give a cata logue of the questions in which. they thought fur themselves. Well ! if the Greys be at last satisfied with things as they are, we shall believe that the millennium is at hand ! Even in " Reform" they have hitherto been at least original in their views. We recollect on a memorable occasion a remarkable revelation that came from the lips of Lord Grey, touching his views upon " Vote by Ballot." It was made to the House of Commons early one morning in the month of June, 1539, upon the occasion of " Ballot" being made an open question. We have called the occasion " memorable ;" and so it was, for a variety of reasons. In a crowded house, anxious to hear Mr. Macaulay speak for the first time after his return from India, the doctrine of open questions was discussed by the member for Edin burgh with his usual research. The late Mr. Shell having reminded Sir James Graham of his conduct with reference to the commit tee on the Reform Bill, the member then for Dorchester under Tory. now for Carlisle under Whig auspices, referred to the present leader of the House of Commons with au acrimony that we still recollect. After ;Sir Robert Peel had iu emphatic terns expressed his disappro bation of open questions. quoting Burke's de scription of Lord Chatham's Coalition Minis try, up rose the present Earl Grey, then Lord Howick, and stated that his reason for consent ing w Ballot being an open question was be cause he thought it the better mode of resisting its adoption. Even at this distance of time we still recollect the buzz of astonishment which rose from the Radical part• on this expression of opinion ; and when members walked forth T! t,