The Press. — London, England, 1857-03-21 00:00:00

-- -nrmimpowm /4 7 e•°e— • b•t• U 53, • 4,1 tg . No. 203.—V0L.V. LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 21, 1857. STAMPED SIXPENCF. UNSTAMPED-FIVEPENCE. Ely Vrtss. of their country for the next seven years to a hand of Ministerialists who have not a prin ciple to stand by or a measure to propose, and whose whole conduct conclusively shows that the " appeal to the country "• is but another name for a conspiracy to overwhelm indepen dent opinions and establish the Absolute Domination of Official Liberalism. LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 21, 1857. PARLIAMENT will be dissolved to-day, and before we can again address our readers the elections will have commenced. We earnestly entreat attention to a plain statement of the issue to be determined. • The vote on the China question is the pre text for the dissolution of Parliament, bit nothing more. The real cause lies deeper. The "appeal to the country" was decided on before that vote was given. , A favourable op. portunity only :was wanted for dismissing a House of Commons which it was foreseen would not submit to Lord PALMERSTON'S Dictatorship for another session, and that opportunity was conceived to present itself when Mr. COBDEN'S motion was submitted to the House. As confident as was NAPOLEON on the eve of his great defeat, the Premier chuckled with glee to mark the gathering of his opponents. Je les Liens clone" was his thought as he pre pared for the contest. He summoned a meet ing of his supporters that he might assert his authority, and that he might separate his servile adherents from the men who, on this particular question, had the temerity to think for themselves. Mr. LINDSAY has stated some particulars of what took place at that meeting. He earnestly entreated Lord PALMERSTON to make some concession—to say only that some inquiry should be made before he formally approved all the acts of Sir JOHN BOWRING. Lord PALMERSTON replied that " he did not consider " any inquiry necessary." He was resolved to make the vote a test of confidence in himself, or rather a test of the number of members who would submit to his authority, and he desired to drive . into opposition every man who ventured to hold an independent opinion that they might be chastised by the "penal dissolution" he contemplated. Had he announced before the vote that a Plenipotentiary would be sent out to China, he well knew, as STR JAMES GRAHAM, in his speech at Carlisle, has expressly stated, that Mr. COED' N'S motion would. have been withdrawn or rejected ; but then his Ministry would still have been liable to the control of the House of Commons, and it was from this control that he was most anxious to escape. His views were shared by a large number of the Official Liberals. They knew their position to be insecure. They were living from hand to mouth, not knowing what a (lay might bring forth. They ,had faith in their Leader's luck—they had confidence in Treasury resources. What a glorieus thing would it be to get a House of Commons troubled with no scruples of principle; careless of questions of finance, and elected for no other purpose than to blindly support the connection to which they belong ! Conspiracy is an ugly word, but there are times when the troth must he spoken, and things must be called by their proper names. The Official Liberals believed that the most favourable opportunity had arrived which was ever likely to occur for securing the perma nent ascendancy of their connection. The vigilance of the House of Commons on financial matters ordinarily imposes a check on lavish or corrupt expenditure. A majo rity returned on the cry of " PALNIERSTON for ever," would offer no opposition to a great in crease of the national expenditure, and a corresponding increase of Governmenfpatron age. Could but fifty, or forty, or• even thirty more Ministerial hacks he returned, the supremacy of Liberal placemen %ould be firmly assured for the next six years at least. In that period the connection might be so strengthened as to ride rough-shod over Throne and People, and plant its roots so deeply through the whole country as to render its domination sure and permanent. The Premier had his game to play—imme diate prolongation of office; his adherents had a higher stake to contend for,—thv knew his age, and they speculated on his infirmities. In their" private and confidential" communi cations they did not hesitate to nominate his successor. His name was useful to them for the present. " PALMERSTON for ever," might collect a Ministerial majority, and then Official Liberalism might assume whatever shape seemed best calculated to perpetuate its power. The Premier believed he had a servile follow ing ; his following believed they had a con• venient tool. To carry out this daring design the elec tioneering machinery which had been orga nised was put into gear, and every possible means were taken to hurry forward the elec tions, that the public might have no time for reflection. The Ministerialists have perfectly succeeded in all that relates to official manage ment. They have made but one error ; they have mistaken the spirit of the country. They have not found it• so easy as they believed to replace Conservatives with Palmerstonians, or to crush the independent opinion of rebellious Liberals. Their "Old Guard "—the name of Palmerston —is failing them. It is melting away before the rapid and converging fire of opposing forces. The cry of " PALNIERSTON for ever,' which they hoped to identify with popular sympathies, and the glory of England. is found to' be but a stalking-horse for the concealment'of designs subversive of public freedom and national honour. The country will not he the dupe of this monstrous imposition. Common sense and generous sentiment rise up to repel it. England, in spite of the enormous growth of Government patronage, is not yet ripe for a coup-d'etat. We believe that the celebrated motion of the great philosophic statesman of two generations back, that " the influence of " the Crown has increased, is increasing, and " ought to be diminished," would be strictly applicable to that mighty Ministerial connec tion which has grown up and been continually strengthened by Liberal rule since the Reform Bill. But, God be thanked, it is not yet strong enough to bring the nation to its foot, to extinguish principle, and to trample out liberty. The scheme was daring, the manage ment was skilful and unscrupulous ; but we confidently expect that it will be defeated at the hustings, and that the electors of the United Kingdom will not intrust the destinies LORD DERBY'S ADDRESS. THE speech of Lord DERBY on Monday last, which we present to our readers in a supple ment, and which in a few hours will be dis tributed through the United Kingdom, is in deed one to make the party feel proud of their chief. Let us hear no more of Conservative disunion or want of confidence in Leaders. The Statesman who could deliver the noble oration now before the country must command confidence. There are certain occasions on which minor grievances, petty cabals, and lukewarm doubts are swept away by the effort of some commanding mind, and bodies of men restored to faith in themselves and enthusiasm in their own cause. Such an occasion was Monday night last, and we' have no doubt of its magic effect upon the'Country. After a brief and succinctatement of our financial situation, in whichithe naked facts of the case, disentangled froVa details, were forciby and lucidly epitomised, the Noble Earl proceeded to a discussion of the most urgent topics of the day : to a vindication of his own conduct, a review of Ministerial policy, and an exposition of Conservative principles. • We have little to add to Lord DERBY'S able remarks on the subject of coalitions. If per sons who happen to disagree on a certain number of points were never to be permitted to agree on any others, society would exist, so to speak, under martial law, and the ordinary business of life could not go on. We should be obliged to call the verdict of a jury a base coalition, and the unanimous decision of Whig and Tory judges a vile conspiracy. There is no difficulty in defining what a coalition is. When two parties whose views are fundament ally opposed stifle their convictions for the purpose of defeating a third, whose principles they ta3itly adopt, and of bullying a fourth, whose principles they openly profess, such a course is repugnant to our notions both of honour and morality. But when two branches of a great political party reunite after a tem porary estrangement, in order to give effect to the policy they have all along shared in com mon, that is a consummation which honest and impartial statesmen would rejoice over rather than deplore. Such a reunion is. per haps, as Lord DERBY says, rather desirable than probable ; but to stigmatise it with the title of coalition is a wilful distortion of lan guage, adopted by the Liberals in order to whitewash themselves. The character of Lord policy is an almost eximi considers tut, rulers of It savage, ho should obs e rv e travelers hive found it dealing with such peor use threats which they d. and newer to hit out unless hurting. By the neglect have suffered the King of in a ridiculous position,jam PkLMERSTON'S fatiagn austed t4euv6. l / 4 If ha Italy as 141,01.0141 and ' . erve ti; )- whiajt , expedient" 04 -j!1 ,le —never ; it, O . - lite do not idieii eaktf ess they At et of the '' w - ";:11 . - s. - •"" of Napla: to , • - "S. and mu It