The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-08 00:00:00

• ~,_ r 4e# i / ~ r , \ I . I P i; LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 8, 1858. No. 262.—V0L. VI. STAMPED ....SIXPENCE. UNSTAMPED..FIVEPENCE. THE STATE OF AFFAIRS. THE storm in a puddle, which certain Liberal journalists fancied that they had raised a fort night ago, has now nearly subsided; and things are daily assuming a more calm and settled aspect. The Liberals in Parliament had twice succeeded in entrapping Ministers into an am bush ; and then the Liberals in the press were ready to exult over " their miserable plight." But no real damage ensued from either of those two mishaps; and the lesson so learnt will warn all Conservatives not to expect straight forward or honourable dealing from the people who now occupy the Opposition benches. We speak of those two affairs as ambushes, and by what other phrase can they be accurately described ? A plan for the Woolwich examina tions was left in the War-office, approved by the late Government, when that Government quitted Downing-street. It belonged to General PEEL to carry that plan into operation. As a man of honour himself it was natural for him to expect honourable conduct in others. But all such hopes were doomed to be disappointed. When the question came on for decision, whether the plan should be carried into effect, almost all the official men of the late Government either left the House or voted against the plan ! The next night there came on Mr. Lociu KING'S motion, which Lord PALmEnsrox had resisted last year, and in which resistance he was only saved from defeat by the aid of the Conserva tives. This year, Lord PALMERSTON quietly absented himself; and his subordinates were ready to play over again the game of the preceding night, and again to put the Government in a minority ! Mr. DISRAELI only avoided this by not dividing; for which he was bitterly up braided by the Times. The object was, to be able to talk of " two Government defeats in two days." Yet those two defeats, if they had both been inflicted, would have covered with shame, in the eyes of any reasonable man, the Opposition, not the Ministry. It would have been made apparent, that the people who have so recently res►gned were ready to vote anything and to desert any principle, so that they might but get back into office. However, the Government escaped from these two ambushes with little loss. The main hopes of the Opposition then centered on the India Bill. They were at all times ready to disavow all desire " to make so great a question a mere battle -field for party ;" and yet in every club you heard their avowed hopes that " Lord DERBY would be defeated on his India Bill, and that he then could hardly avoid resigning." . Whether Lord Joni R USSELL h a d an y friendly feelings towards the Government, or whether he merely meant to say to both the late and the present Government, " I have A better Plan of operations than either of you," we can never know. But, whatever his inmost purpose may have been, it was obvious that much might be said in favour of the course he suggested. Hence it became the most natural thing in the world that the Government should accept Lord JOHN'S proposal, especially since it accomplished that which Ministers honestly desired, and that which Lord PALmEnsToN professed to desire, namely, the construction of an India Bill, step by step, without any considerable triumph or defeat being given to either party. By this plan, all the main provisions of the Bill would be set tled, clause by clause, before any Government measure, as a whole, came before the House for a vote. Clearly, this plan possessed the great advantage of enabling the members to vote freely on each proviso of the Bill, without being forced to consider how each vote might affect the posi tion of the Ministry or the Opposition. Already this sedative has visibly operated. The whole measure seems likely to be agreed to, point by point, with comparatively little manifestation of party feeling. This is undoubtedly a great gain. Meanwhile, in other respects the prospect brightens. The Budget was the most successful that we have seen for several years past. The Government having already reduced the estimates prepared by the late Ministry, is not likely to meet with any serious annoyance from JOSEPH HUNEE'S successors. It is possible that Mr. LocME KLNG'S Bill, and Sir JOHN TRELAWNY'S, may be forced through the House of Commons, to be rejected by the House of Lords ; but this would equally have happened had Lord PALNIERSTON remained in power. It is no defeat of the present Ministry. • The really troublesome questions, however, are those which are equally troublesome to all Go vernments; those which concern the connection of Church and State. An active minority—for we know it to be a minority—is resolved, by pertinacity and insolence, to overbear the voice of the great mass of the people, and to get rid of the Established Church. Already has this arrogant assumption succeeded thus far,—that while the bulk of the House of Commons consists of Churchmen, a considerable majority of votes has been obtained against the Church! Some of the Church's friends are coerced by a few noisy constituents; others are deceived by the pretence, "It is for the interest of the Church to abolish Church-rates." Equally rational would it be to say, "It is for the interest of landlords to abolish rents, and to depend on the ' good feeling' of their tenants for voluntary offerings." This question, however, and the kindred one of the Oaths Bill, are unquestionably the chief difficulties which lie before us. They are not, indeed, questions which particularly embarrass the present Ministry. The Governments of Lord r, and of Lord ABERDEEN, and of Lord JoiD; RUSSELL, were equally perplexed by them. Meanwhile, it is not an insignificant fact, that on Wednesday last, as many as 120 " Liberal It'.', s. Members" of the House of Commons assembled together, in one of the Committee-rooms of the House, not to consider how the late Government could be restored, but, we might almost say, how it could be kept out of office! Mr. HEAD LAM, of Newcastle, was in the chair. He said, that " the object of the meeting was to express a general feeling that the Liberal party had not been fairly treated—that, in fact, it had been betrayed. . . He was convinced he spoke the sen timents of that meeting when he said that office ought not to be in posession of a clique, or a few families ; and that a wider basis was absolutely ne cessary." Mr. BAss, of Derby, moved a resolution, " That the meeting cannot express satisfaction with the Governments which have hitherto relied upon the Liberal party." Mr. BAITER, of Montrose, complained that "our Governments were little better than a family party. He would not advise any steps for the overthrow of the present Ministry." Mr. CLAY, of Hull, said, that " Lord PALMERS'TON had forfeited the con fidence of a large portion of the Liberal party, and the country was tired of the old Whig blood." After these followed Mr. FORSTER of Walsall, Mr. Loci of Southwark, Mr. AywroN, Mr. EWART, Sir A. Evros, and Mr. TURNER of Manchester. To find so considerable a section of the House, led by such men, and using such language without dissent, portends the failure of any present attempt to re-seat the Whiga in power. This, as we have said, is no unimpor tant circumstance, in the present state of affairs. Here are one hundred and twenty members pre- sent—representing, there is no doubt, at least 150 in the aggregate, or one-fourth of the whole House of Commons—who boldly declare that the " cliques" and " family parties" by which the Whigs have been ruling for the last dozen years, must come to an end; and that they will tolerate them no longer. This spirit, if it cannot be either quelled or moderated, seems to render either a Palmerston or a Russell Administration, just now, almost impossible. THE INCOME TAX AND OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. THE public have received during the past week, at the hands of two distinguished Members of the House, differing widely and remarkably in every imaginable characteristic, two disquisitions upon financial policy and administration which can scarcely be passed over in silence. Sir Conzrz- WALL LEWIS, ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, objects to the Budget because the maintenance of his Sinking Fund of 1855 is not made its first object; and Mr. the expenditure which he asserts, the result or foreign relations ceives it, if we do equally the fault Constitution that BRIGHT denounces which necessitata. •,, • .sult of needless i 4 hr Ins and juurtaposifil, 3 not misunde /S i p of aristocratic 7. 111t " 1 % -1 " .we have have info • • . • fro / .. a 241 5 . N 1*.4