The Press. — London, England, 1858-07-03 00:00:00

Jvm 5' Pcc + N \ ..,.,.,...........; "A GOVERNMENT ON SUFFERANCE." WE suppose that we shall hear no more, at least during the present session, of the " sufferance " and " tolerance" which were supposed 'to be kindly accorded by my Lords PALMERSTON and Givaivir.r.}: to the present Government. They have now thrown off any such disguise ; they have tried both the covert and the open attack, and have failed in both. They first planned a movement under cover. Two neutrals—two individuals not directly con nected with the late Government—were selected ; and, under the cloak of a zeal for the honour of Lard CANNING, a vote was sought to be obtained which would have implied a censure upon the pre sent Ministry. The House of Lords rejected the proposal. In the Commons its fate was more disastrous, for there the mover bad to withdraw it amidst derisive cheers. So ended the flank movement by which it was anticipated that the present Government would be put to the rout. Still, however, the adherents of Lord PAL mERsToN were confident in their predictions, that "the Ministry would not stand a month." Its intrinsic weakness was said to be so great, as to insure its fall the first moment any question arose, upon which a vote of the House of Commons could fairly be taken. Well, for a time, no such question arose, and the opponents were left in possession of their belief that whenever an occasion should occur, the fate of the Ministry was quite certain. At last, however, when the India Bill, the great measure of the session, was fairly under weigh, and sailing calmly through the committee, it became absolutely necessary that Lord PALmEnsTox should do something to justify the boastful assumptions of his admirers. To sit in silence while the mea sure of the Government was successfully passing through the House, would have been an admis sion of weakness, which would have ended at once all the assumptions of the late Premier and his friends. Lord PALMERSTON, therefore, had scarcely any choice. He is now blamed by some of his followers for rushing into defeat in Friday evening's debate of the last week. But it was scarcely, possible for him to take any other course. A general who declines an engagement when the enemy is immediately in his front, leaves no room for doubt as to his motives and feelings. Had Lord PALMERSTON shrank from a division on the occasion in question, his leadership would practically have been at an end. But the other horn of the dilemma proved equally fatal. He went to a division and was beaten. That which would have been admitted, had he remained silent, was now proved. It was seen, in two consecutive divisions, that he had no majority of the House at his back. The plain question, " The India Bill of the Government, or the India Bill of Lord PALMERSTON," was fairly put ; and by two large divisions the House decided in favour of the present Government. LATEST EDITION. In 1832 the House again yielded to an alarm ing conjuncture of circumstances. The Whigs had resigned ; the Tories found it impossible to carry on the Government, and they resigned also. Birmingham threatened commotion, and the wheels of Government in London seemed to have come to a dead lock. The point in dispute was, whether the Peers should exercise their right of altering the Reform Bill. To avoid the peril of approaching anarchy, the dissentient Peers withdrew, and the Whigs were allowed to carry their measure unaltered. STAMPED .... SIXPF NCE. UNSTAMPED ..FIV EPENCE. In 1846 another sort of crisis occurred. The po tato famine in Ireland made some sort of legislation as to food inevitable. Sir ROBERT PEEL had in duced the Duke of WELLINGTON to concur with him in a measure of total repeal. To oppose and dismiss this Government could only bring in Lord JOHN RUSSELL and the Whigs, who would propound a similar measure. Under these special circumstances, and in the unquestionable necessity of some immediate legislation, the majority of the Peers left themselves in the hands of the Duke of WELLINGTON, and per mitted a total repeal of the Corn Laws. Have any circumstances at all resembling those of 1829, or 1832, or 1846, recently oc curred ? Does any political crisis threaten ? Is a civil war looming in the distance; or does famine seem likely to bring on an insurrection for food ? Are there any special reasons what ever that should have induced the Lords to alter, in July, the vote they deliberately adopted in April ? Nothing of the kind can be alleged. The vast difference that exists between the prescnt case and those former concessions which are alleged as precedents, is this,—that, in its present con cession, the House of Lords is acting on no other real or apparent motive but a mere weari ness of the contest. It retracts its " No," and says " YES," merely because the House of Com mons persists in asking, year by year, "WILL Yor s " Now, this is a prodigious advance on any former concession. In most of the previous in stances, the Lords and the Commons changed their course together, under the pressure of some real or supposed exigency. Famine, or appre hended commotion, was the plea advanced ; but in the present case no reason of this kind can be alleged. The people have asked for no such concession ; no external peril exists or can be conceived. The one, sole, and total change of course the House of Commons, people, persists in coming. table of the House of Lords, and that the Lords arc applications ! We gay that a yielding pressure as this places the , / r cC/ a, reason for a • ;e is merel Y I Y \ un year bliwy. .ords, volt weary orP. , -- 1 0, 134. 44 , ' 4111 1 Y th such . 4:4ll , lHoudiv : o o e House 44 11 " ., • • No. 270.—V0L. VI. L N - LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 3, 1858. These divisions are quite intelligible, and are fully understood, all over the three kingdoms. English, Irish, and Scotch newspapers, of every class and of every party, accept the decision of that evening as full and conclusive, at least for the present session. The whole fiction is at an end—the bubble has burst. And the last few days have shown that the divisions of Friday week were not accidental, and that the defeat of Lord PALMERSTON was a true, real, and certain thing. The House has during the past week gone twice into committee on this Bill, and in as many as six or eight divisions the Government has not suffered a single defeat. In plain truth, it is now proceeding in the usual course of all Governments, to transact its busi ness in a regular and easy manner; asking for no sufferance," praying for no " toleration." The fact, then, on which we have been in sisting for the last twelve weeks comes broadly to light, and is the ruling fact of the case. Lord PALMERSTON resigned, in February, not by mis take—not in pique merely—but on good grounds. He had discovered that the majority which he wielded in 1857 had now deserted him, and that he had not the confidence of the House of Com mons. His resignation, therefore, was a per fectly reasonable and legitimate act. But it was not reasonable—it was not right, within a couple of months after arriving at that conclusion—to attempt suddenly to deny it, or to call it in question. If Lord PatmEnwrox could not creditably retain the Government in Feb ruary, it was absurd for him to attempt to re gain it in May. Parties are not, and cannot be, thus rapidly broken up, and then re-formed. Having deliberately given the reins over to Lord DERRY, Lord PAL3tEnsToN acts discreditably in immediately trying to snatch them away again. There was no solid ground for any such hopes as his followers evidently entertained a few weeks since. They were fallaJous, and we are glad that they have now been thoroughly extinguished. ABDICATION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS. THE Duke of CLEVELAND counselled the House of Lords, on Thursday night, to do what it had repeatedly done before. But this was altogether a misconception. The House did then what it had never done before. No precedent was shown, or could be shown, for that humiliation. In 1829 the House yielded its opinion, strongly expressed a year before, on the subject of Romish emancipation, on the strong assurances of the Duke of WELLINGTON, that he feared a civil war. Retaining its own view of the abstract impropriety of admitting Papists to legislate for a Protestant nation, the House still accepted the assurance of the first soldier of the age, that he stood in apprehension of bloodshed ; and it allowed this important fact to alter its decision.