The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-01 00:00:00

410 through his own inability to keep it. Lord PALMERSTON was a" sub" for nearly fifty years, and only gained the post of Premier in the seventy-third year of his age, and when all other Liberal leaders had broken down. No doubt both of these " old hands " have plenty of " experience " in " the ways of the House; and they may scoff at " the young ones" for their " want of tact." But these are points of practice upon which national interests cannot be allowed to depend. Sooner or later the broad and large questions which involve the country's wellbeing must have their proper weight ; and Ministries will not be made, or lost, by their adroitness, or their want of it, in this or that particular discussion. GRUNIBLINGS OF THE " OUTS." WE are told by the Times that the Govern ment of Lord DERBY occupies a position abso lutely unprecedented in the constitutional history of England ; and every morning at breakfast we receive from the Morning Post, the recognized organ of LorJ PALMERSTON, an expression of grief that Mr. DISRAELI sits in the seat of the Noble Lord, and a concurrent assurance that in a few days—it may be on Monday, or Thursday, or, in good faith, on the Monday following, at the latest—the Cabinet of Lord DERBY will cease to exist, and Lord PALMERSTON, reinstated, a Phcenix upbuilding anew his Cabinet from his own ashes, will give confidence to his country and information to his newspaper. There is a cosmopolitan proverb, which says that truth is stranger than fiction, and another, a national one, peculiarly the property of Spain, which avers that there is nothing con ceivable on earth which may not be accom plished "by peiseverance and spittle." Ideally the latter is not. it must be Confessed, a very clever proverb, but it is expressive, or, to use modern slang, graphic; and " spittle," we take it, may not improperly be rendered, per favour of free interpretation, by Morning Post, or Times, as the reader pleases " For our own part, we are quite prepared to oppose weekly the strange fictions of the Times by stranger truths, and to meet the daily perseverant jeremiads of Lord PALMER - TOR'S organ with exposure every seventh day. But it is very odd—we may pause to make the remark—there is a very singular differ ence between the tone of Lord PALMERSTON in the House of Commons and the note that is matutinally sounded on his behalf in the journal to which we have alluded. In the douse Lord PALMERSTON, especially since the falling to the ground of the Cambridge-house gather ing, is a Gallio, caring not for differences and division. In the Morning Post Lord PALMERS TON is a disappointed politician, bitterly sor rowing over defeat, and rabidly anxious for re instatement in place. Which is the real Lord PALMERSTON? We trust the former. We have ever entertained p high opinion of the ability, sagacity, and, in spite of many faults, real statesmanlike qualities of the Noble Lord, and we should regret extremely to have that opinion destroyed. Still, we must confess that the absence from the House of Lord PALMERS- ToN—aa absence evidently designed, on . the ciocaotion of Mr . LOCKE KING'S motion- has grievously disturbed our confidence in the Noble Lord's adherence in opposition to prin ciples avowed and maintained in power. i i ,We will put aside, however, these personal questions, •and we will proceed to the con sideration of the more important proposition propounded by the Times, that " the Govern " went of Lord DERBY is in a position utterly " unparalleled in Parliamentary history, and " that England, however accustomed to ;Minis " tries under every imaginable influence of " calamity and decrepitude, has never seen a " Cabinet in the exact position of the present " Government." Now, what is the position of the present Government? It has united in organized support and in reorganized allegiance the ast single Party in Pal liainnit—a Party in o irg ority in the Lords, and in a minority in -tht Commons only when opposed to a ...*-. THE PRESS, MAY 1, 1858. forced or exceptional aggregation of Parties divot se in their opinions, disagreeing as to their principles of policy, and only capable of united action on one or two isolated questions. Is there any statesman in Parliament who is in a better position? Any who can command certain and unvarying sup port? If there be, let him come forward. We confess that Lord DERBY would be hound to give place to him. But who is he ; where does he sit ; and who are his supporters ? Is he to be found below the gangway on the right of the Speaker; or on the front benches of the Opposition ; or below the gangway on the left? Can Mr. GLADSTONE satisfy the condi tions which we are told constitutional usage requires in a First Minister of the Crown, or Lord PALMERSTON, or Lord JOHN Res- SELL, or Mr. BRIGHT Neither Mr. GLAD STONE nor his friends pretend for one moment that he can. Lord PALMERSTON'S own journal tells us that '• in attack upon the "Government the Noble Lord would probably " be outvoted, and that there are difficulties " in the way of a fusion between his own " section and any other." He is, it is confessed, no longer the chosen of England, no longer even the Head of a great Party. lle has dwindled down to the leader of a Section. We may, therefore, we presume, put him, too, out of the question. Then with regard to Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Mr. BRIGHT. How do they stand ? Mr. HORSMAN has been on more than one occasion the exponent of the views of the Party who sit below the gangway on the Opposition side of the House, and he has not concealed from the House and the country that the Liberal Party are in such a state of disorganization that a Government could not even be formed out of the elements which it presents. He has said so plainly, in so many words, and not a single member has protested against his representation, neither has a single journalist come forward to gainsay it. The Government of Lord DERBY, therefore, is literally one of necessity. He and his party sit on the Treasury bench by compulsion, and they administer the affairs of the country under circumstances difficult in their character, and which place them unquestionably often in disagreeable positions, not because they desire place, but because they feel that their retire ment would both arrest and throw into con fusion all the business of the kingdom, and exhibit the country and its institutions in a very undesirable light; shaking, in all pro bability, very materially our power and in fluence in I. urope. It is true that the Government have been defeated upon Church-rates and upon Mr. LOCKE KING'S motion. It is also true Lord PALMERSTON was beaten upon the first when he was esteemed a powerful Minister, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL was thoroughly de• feated upon the second in 1852. It is true that they have been compelled to withdraw their India Bill, a course which Sir CHARLES WOOD thinks places them in an unconstitu tional position. It is not a pleasant step to have to take, we admit, but it is neither new nor strange. We remember a Whig Chancellor of the Exchequer, for instance, withdrawing a Budget no less than five times, and passing ultimately, not the Budget of his Cabinet, but the Budget of an adverse majority of the House. We might cite many other similar instances. We remember, too, when an Irish Section, the Brass Band, were masters of the situation, as Lord JOHN RUSSELL is esteemed to be now, and when their support was eagerly sought at any price. Many were the occasions we remember when concessions the most un dignified in character and the most mischie vous in tendency were made unblushingly, to purchase the support for the night of the Irish Band. The Government of Lord DERBY are not come to this pass. They are not con temptible front incapacity, like the Cabinet of Lord MELBOURNE in 1839 and 1840 ; they are not reduced to daily shifts and petty manoeu vrings, like that of Lord JOHN RUSSELL in 1850 and 1851; and their Chief unquestionably commands greater support arid more public sympathy and confidence than Lord PALMERS TON in 1858. They have vindicated our posi tion in Europe, and they have supplied a large deficiency iu our income without adding one sixpence to the burdens of the people, and without impairing in the slightest degree the efficiency of our Establishments. What would the oountry have more, in the Parlia mentreturned upon Lord PALM E asToN's appeal? PARLIAMENTARY INCONSISTENCIES. THERE are two great questions which rest upon the same principle. In France this is so well understood that, in the financial accounts of the nation, they are usually embraced under the same head. But in England they are separated, and are dealt with apart. And not only so, but the one is provided for in the easiest way—by a vote out of the " Miscel- laneous Estimates ;" while the ;other is left to be supported by the unpopular mode of direct taxation. And, as one natural result of this difference, the one is ever growing and in- creasing in its demands and in its acquisitions; while the other is ;often frowned upon and rebuffed, as unpopular proposals are apt to be. The contrast between the two begins at the period of the Reform Bill. Up to that time the elder of the two had met with little oppo• sition, and the younger had advanced no claims. Not to conceal our meaning, we will explain at once, that we allude to the expenses of Religious Worship, which we provide for by " Church rates," and to the national provision for the Education of the Poor, which is de frayed by Parliamentary grants. In France these two items are classed under one head, as the charges for " PUBLIC INSTRUCTION and RELIGIOUS WORSHIP." And, unquestionably, they both rest upon the same principle. It is assumed, in each case, that the State has some other functions and duties besides those of a Chief Constable. It is supposed that the Government and the Legislature may, and should, take some care for the instruction of the young, and for the religious interests of both young and old. If, indeed, as some assert, the Legislature and the Government have no other duties than those connected with the protection of life and property, then all grants for education, and all rates and tithes for religious instruc tion and worship, are alike vicious and inde fensible. But never yet has a British Par liament adopted this as a basis of legislation. We have said that these two modes of dis charging a plain duty have fared very diffe rently during the last twenty years. Soon after the passing of the Reform Bill, the sys tematic opposition to Church-rates began ; and about the same period we observe the commencement of those Parliamentary grants for Education which have lately begun to as sume so formidable an appearance. It was shortly after 1833 that Dissenting Committees and Societies began to be formed, for exciting a systematic opposition to Church rates. This warfare has now been carried on for above twenty years, and we find that the result is, that out of 8,000 or 9,000 parishes which have sent in returns, the opponents have succeeded in about 500. So that about one parish in every eighteen seems to have got rid of the impost. But then, for the kindred object of the Education of the Poor, the progress made has been in a totally different direction. Here, instead of retrogression, all is advance. In 1833 —the year after the passing of the Reform Bill—the Government of Lord GREY pro• posed a small annual grant in aid of :he education of the pour. Only 20,0001. was then asked. In 1839 the grant was increased to 30,0001. In 1845 it had reached 100,0001. In 1856 it was 450,0001. And in the presentycar , Mr. DISRAELI informs us, that if English and Irish Education, Schools of Science, and other similar grants, are added together, the total to be voted by Parliament will not be less thau one million sterling ! So that while the Voluntaries have been sedulously saving at the spigot, they have been prodigal at the bung-hole. They have stopped the supplies for the Church, as raised by Church•rates, to the tulle of perhaps 100,0001. or 200,0001. ner annum. Meanwhile a new expenditure has sprung up in another direc a~-