The Press. — London, England, 1858-06-12 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JUNE 12, 1858. One favourite game with the Times, in which, we are sorry to say, journals of a better character sometimes join, is to vex the souls of Con aervatives with the idea that they are going to be betrayed. Only yes terday we met with the following remarks in a journal which is chiefly circulated among the country clergy : " Mr. BRIGHT and Mr. MILNER GIBSON were not mistaken when they pronounced that Lord PALMERSTON was an obstructive, and declared that they could squeeze much more out of the men whom Lord DERBY would rally round his standard. We always maintained this as one of our rea sons for supporting the late Government, quite apart from the influences which directed the patronage of the Church " We have seen Mr. Loom , : KING'S Wotion for dissociating property from representation carried through the Commons by a triumphant majority. Last night the second reading of the Bill was passed by the Lords, and it was left to the Whig Earl GREY to protest that this bit-by bit concession, without any countervailing set-off, was essentially revolu tionary. "In the Commons a new step was taken. Mr. DISRAELI had not even a word to say against substituting a ten-pound as a substitute for a fifty-pound election franchise for counties. It was an open question ; and, as Lord PALMERSTON declined to undertake the obloquy of opposing what a Conservative Government virtually sanctioned, the second reading of the Bill was carried by 226 to 168. The really Conservative minority, deserted by their leaders, now begin to doubt how far they have done wisely in giving such an impulse to democracy Since Lord PaLmEnsroN's exit the Jew question, the Church-rates question, the Property Qualification question, and now the County Election Franchise, have been alt, one by one, conceded to Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. BRIGHT, and the Radicals. The Radicals are in power, whilst the great country party are betrayed by their leaders who are in office." Now, how stand the facts ? The Jew question remains still undecided. The Property Qualification abolition, advocated by all the member* of the late Government, is conceded by Lord DERRY as a matter of small importance. The Church-rate Abolition Bill and the County Franchise Bill have been resisted by the Government in the House of Commons, and will be thrown out by the Government in the House of Lords. But the broad statement here put forward is, that a valid " reason " for supporting Lord PALMERBTON's Government" was, that he was an obstructive of such Radical Reforms as these. Now, let the actual votes of the past. week answer this unjust and untrue representation. There voted— FOR THE -OF CHURCII RATES. Sir Charles Wood. Mr. Labouchere. Mr. Barnes. Sir B. Hall. Sir J. Ramsden. Mr. Lowe. Mr. Vernon Smith. Mr. Bernal Osborne. AGAINST THE ABOL Mr. Disraeli. Mr. Henley. Mr. Walpole. Mr. Adderley. Sir Hugh Cairns. Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Hardy. Sir W. JOlliffe. Lord J. Manners. Lord Naas. Mr. Whiteside. AGAINST IT. Mr. Disraeli. ABSENT. Lord Palmerston. FOR LOCKE KING'S COUNTY Lord Palmerston. Sir George Grey. Sir Charles Wood. Mr. Baines. Hon. W. Cowper. Sir B. Hall. Sir W. Hayter. Mr. Labouchere. Sir G. Lewis. Sir J. Ramsden. Sir R. Bethel]. Mr. Henley. Mr. Walpole. Lord Stanley. Sir H. Cairns. Lord J. Manners. Mr. Whiteside. Mr. Henley. Mr. Hamilton. Lord Naas. Sir J. Pakington. General Peel. See, then, the unreasonableness and injustice of this writer. He pro fesses to be very much alarmed at the progress of these Radical measures. He says that he supported Lord PALMERSTON as "an obstructive " to such dangerous proposals. Well, he now sees all Lord PALMERSTON'S officials voting for LOCKE KING and against Church-rates. He sees Mr. DISRAELI and the present Ministers opposing LOCKE KING and supporting Church rates. Yet he actually tries to throw upon the Conservatives the blame of what Lord PALMERSTON and his officials did, and to represent the Ministers as conceding propositions which they opposed, and which, in the House of Lords, they will assuredly defeat. The last two or three days have removed two men of some value, though not of the noisy or obtrusive class. Sir PRIMP Ciustrrox had long stood at the head of his profession in Dublin, and he leaves his title to a worthy son, the present representative of her Majesty at the Court of St. Petersburg. Sir EDWARD BUXTON was a truly excellent man, and, for a Whig, a man of more than usual independence. lie was a " Liberal Churchman," and, in his case, the adjective was not unmeaning. His munificence, and that of his firm, in support of the Church, and of reli gious objects generally, was truly exemplary. The Norfolk Whigs gained two seats in the spring of last year by producin g two well-chosen candidates, Sir Epwauo BUXTON and General ~ 1 1- 2 41)11A m. We should hope and trust that the Conservatives of that I 144V igiOn will not quietly submit to be left without a single repreeoutative, EPISTLE INTERROGATORY TO A SIMPLE-MINDED FRIEND, WHO " HOPES TO SEE A LIBERAL ADMINISTRATION CONSTRUCTED ON A BROAD BASIS." No ! dear Euethes—bid me not resign A sober hope for such a dream as thine. For men, for measures, I have blame or praise, But cannot idolize a senseless phrase, Tho' peed abroad in laudatory chimes By ever-tedious Post or Protean Times. What is " a Liberal ?" Ask yon leader sage, Brisk in the freshness of a green old age, Prompt in manoeuvre—pungent in retort, Frank in in sport. Thus might he answer—" What's 'a Liberal r —Oh ! " Much like a Tory forty years ago; " He knows his business—keeps his party in " Works by for kith and kin— " Reforms when forced—deals tenderly with jobs, " And, save at chairing, keeps aloot from mobs." Thus Palmerston, betwixt a smile and sneer, And green expectants shout a cordial " Hear." But see ! where Hayter comes—l catch his eye— He knows the party, what is his reply ? " A Liberal? bless your heart, I know them all— " Reform Club—Brookes's—ready when I call— " Vote as they're bid, and take what they can get ; " I don't half like your Independent' set." Lord John is "Liberal," for his soul delights In Magna Charta, and the Bill of Rights; He quotes Whig Peers from Somers down to Grey— An earnest Oligarch, tho past his day ; Speak of Reform, he shows his last new Bill, But Roebuck sneers, and Gibson likes it ill. Friend Bright is " Liberal," but his battle-cry Is ever "Down with Aristocracy." He loves to roast a Whig, and deems a Lord The nation's bane—a thing to be abhorr'd. One views in cotton cheap and imports free The leading star of " Liberality ;" Another tests its more advanced degrees By hate for Kings and love of Refugees. One weak, vague word embraces in its range Each old abuse—each newest form of change. Say then, Euethes, ere we hope to find, In such materials, howsoe'er combined, A stable fabric, let its type be known; Shall Pam's Corinthian once again be shown ? Bright's simple Doric ? or, in lieu of all, The modern Gothic due to great Ben Hall ? Or must all orders and all styles unite To form a new and motley Composite ? You boggle shrewdly—but suppose it done (Hope lending courage for the risks we run) ; Put Smith in Stanley's office—let us greet Returning Cranworth back to Chelmsford's seat ; Nay, bid Clanricarde reassume his part, To " show" our Sov'reign's " eyes and grieve her heart ;" The " broad-based Ministry" becomes a fact, Yet prudence hints the question, how twill act. Which is the tail, Euethes—which the head ? Can Russell arbitrate? will Bright be led ? Must Pam assert his dictatorial sway, And crush improvement by a ruthless " Nay " ? Or must the State, while rival pilots strain To grasp the helm, and seamen toil in vain, Drift widely forth, with breakers on her lee, O'er the vex'd billows of Democracy ? What, no reply? Farewell then, and repent, Awake to truth, and learn a wise content. He feels but little of the Patriot's care, And little reeks how England's sons may fare, Who bids them choose, by compromise or lot, lie knows not whom,—gyp do he knows not who, I !EV •