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

THE PRESS, MAY 1, 1858. 420 THE WEEK.. A MEETING of Members of the House of Commons friendly to the pre sent Government, was held, by Lord DERBY'S invitation, in Downing street, yesterday afternoon. It was attended by 189 Members, and the apologies of those unavoidably absent, on Committees of the House, and other engagements, augmented the number practically to about 230 or 240. The principal topic adverted to was, the anticipated proceedings on the India Bill. Since Lord HARRY VANE'S resolution to postpone legislation would operate as a negative on the Government proposals, it must be treated as tantamount to a vote of want of con fidence. Not that its success would involve the necessity of resigns• tion; but that it certainly would betoken an absence of confidence on the part of the House. This motion, therefore, as far as was consis tent with individual engagements, required to be resisted. Allusion was made to one or two other subjects. Lord DERBY complained, not unreasonably, of the conduct of the leading members of the late Government on two recent occasions. When Lord PAL- nzairroE, last year, opposed and defeated Mr. LOCKE KING, he was mainly indebted for his triumph to the support frankly afforded him by the Conservatives. This year. when the same motion was brought on by the same gentleman, Lurd PALMERSTON stayed away, and Lord JonE RUSSELL, having often before opposed Mr. KING, now declared in his favour ! Thus the Whig Leaders desert the ground on which they had stood for seven years past, merely for the party purpose of caus ing a Conservative defeat. Still worse was their conduct on the occa sion of Mr. MorisELL's motion. This was the only positive proposal of the Government which had mot with a negative, and yet the Govern ment, in bringing it forward, was merely carrying out the plans of the last Administration. Those plans were extant in the handwritings of the late Ministers ; and yet, when they were brought forward by the present Government, those very Ministers actually voted against them ! Some observations were added on the Church-rate question, the Oaths Bill, &c., and the meeting, which was marked by great unanimity, broke up. There are, however, some few Conservative members, who, having voted with Mr. BARING in February last for postponing Indian legislation until nest year, will not now reverse their votes. These will vote with Lord HARRY VANE ; but it is not anticipated in any quarter that his Lordship's motion will be carried. While we write, we learn that the motion has been rejected by 447 votes against 57 ; that the House of Commons has gone into Committee; that the first Resolution has been adopted without a division ; and that the whole question seems now in a fair way for a settlement. The House of Lords has rejected the clause in the Oaths Bill, which gave a special exemption to the Jews, by an increased majority. Last year the Peen present who voted for the Bill were 91; those against it, 109—majority, 18. This year the Peers present, in favour of the clause, were 80 ; against it, 119—majority, 39. This is a marked increase. It is now rumoured that if the Peers persist in this vote, Sir R. RITHELL will move a resolution of the House of Commons to seat Baron ROTHSCHILD, and that Lord JOHN RUSSELL will support it. Sir R. BETHELL is at all tames a most unsafe guide, and we shall feel some wonder if Lord JOHN ventures to embark in a vessel steered by him. But we deeply regret to say, that although we have given his Lordship due praise, in our first article, for the " pluck " which he often manifests, we cannot say one syllable in vindication of his steadi ness or consistency. Like Sir R. PEEL, he has been, all his life, gradually yielding to democratic pressure. He began by warmly espousing " Protection," and objurgating " Free Trade." In 1841 he Game out as a " fixed-duty man ;" and in five years more he had fallen into the " total repeal" folly. As to Reform itself, for many years he maintained that the settle ment of 1832 was final and conclusive. About 1846 he began to falter a little; in 1850 he expressed to a friend his fear that he might be com pelled to take up the Reform question again :—iu 1852 he actually produced a measure; and now he is said to be prepared to go great lengths. Fer several years he has stood firm on the Church-rate question ; this year he shows signs of giving way. Mr. Locits Kum's motion he has steadily resisted for seven years past; this year he advises its adoption! In short, Lord JOHN seems to think that Lord PALMERSTON stands in his way as to any alliance with tbo Conservative party ; and that, therefore, Messrs. BRIGHT and RORBUOK must ho his allies in any future arrangement. If this bo the state of the case, he may make a compact which will be as bad, or even worse, than the Lichfield-houso Compact; which proved the means of embodying and organizing the Conservative party. The Times has declared that the present Government has encoun tered "no factious opposition." This is a definite statement, and invites definite inquiry. If it is true, we can only say that the support ers of the late Government have been the most unfortunate of men. They have not been factious, but, owing to uncontrollable accidents, they were compelled on Monday last to support a motion brought in by a subordinate of Lord PANMUBK, condemning the policy which the late Secretary at War had inaugurated, and his deputy had endorsed, and which Ministers, deputy, and party, had they occupied the Ministeiial benches, would alike have been prepared to defend. The fact that they either voted against it, or abstained from voting at all, when it devolved on their opponents to carry it out, is only a proof of ho w much the Whigs are superior to public opinion, and how little they regard what may be thought of themselves when the cause of their country, as they say, is at stake. With similar courage on the following night did they either support or abstain from opposing another very important measure which they had vigorously opposed last year, but of which the lapse of twelve months had induced them to take a different view. Careless of the construction that ill-minded people might place upon their conduct, they openly evinced their approbation of Mr. Loess Km by tacitly denying their own words of this time last year, and of Mr. Mos- SELL'S petition by proclaiming the folly of their own measure devised not three months ago. We should not put a harsh interpretation on th e conduct of great men. There was once a famous person of his day of whom the poet well wrote : How Henley lay inspired beside a sink, And to mere mortals seemed a priest in drink. Uninitiated people mistook his inspiration for drunkenness, and Po we sadly fear that by people who do not read the Times the inimitable self-sacrifice of the Whigs will be mistaken for faction. Vulgar minds are apt to consider faction the doing for our own private ends what we have often declared to be injurious to the public interests : and con demning for the sake of regaining power what had received our sanc tion before we lost it : to connive in opposition at measures which we resisted in office for the sake of embarrassing our successors ; and to accept the assistance of political opponents on a particular question to maintain our own position, while we refuse it to them in turn when the same question is at stake. We say the Palmerstoniaus have been the most unfortunate of men in having been driven from the purest motives to adopt a course of action which bears so close a resemblance to faction. We think this ought to be made quite clear to the people. They hate factious conduct, and if they once fancied that Lord PALMERSTON had been acting in this manner, and that these were the arts used to discredit Lord DERBY'S Government, it might really be excessively injurious to the Noble Lord the ex-Premier. We know there is a kind of silence which pro ceeds from consciousness of innocence. But we think, in this case, the Noble Lord had better condescend to clear himself. Of the merits of the question at issue between Mr. MONSELL and General PEEL, or rather Mr. MoNsEnt. and Lord PANMURE, we have already expressed our opinion. We don't particularly admire the change which Mr. MON. SELL'S petition intercepts. But though we so far like the result of the motion, we cannot say we envy the position of the public men who brought it about. The schism in the Liberal " denomination " (it can scarcely b called a " party ") still continues, and is not likely to be closed up It is well to have a thorough knowledge of the causes that break the Liberals into so many fragments, because we are convinced that these causes lie much deeper than is supposed by hasty observers, and we cannot endorse the views which the Times of Tuesday takes of this remarkable state of things. It is there said : In the present divided state of parties, and the fatal predominance ofjeslous feelings, nobody can lead. Several smaller factions, finding themselves precluded from power, have settled into a purely obstrnotive policy. But the root of the schism lies much deeper than the merely per sonal grounds of " jealous feelings " hinted at there. The fact is, that one must study closely the feelings and prejudices of the Liberals " out of doors," in order to understand the alienation of so many popular Members of Parliament from the banners of Lords PALMERSTON and JOHN RUSSELL. There still remains, though hanging loosely together, a considerable following for the "non-party Free-traders . A large portion of the commercial classes is attached, more or less, to this particular denomination, and they are not interested in mere political manoeuvres. Social prosperity, and the general well-being of the industrial portion of the community, are the objects dearest to them. In such times as we are living in, it would be scarcely possible for the most gifted orators to awaken their passions. The Parliamentary representatives of this important section of society are not zealous partizans now-a•days, whatever they might have been in former periods ; and they do not want to be made mere playthings in the hands of the Whig leaders. There is another class in the Liberals " out of doors," which is of a totally different kind, and whose tone of thought is not without significance. The Whig gentlemen of England would be intensely zealous as partizans, but that they have been utterly disi gusted with the exclusive manner in which the official patronage. of the Whigs has been given to Cavendishes, Greys, and Howards, with' out end. Those Whig gentlemen may not be great territorial lords, but they have aristocratic pretensions of their own, and they think that their importance in the Liberal connection has not been duly appreciated by the Whig oligarchy, while at the same time they feel not a little jealous of so many popular seats being held by pure conk ~..-,_