The Press. — London, England, 1857-02-07 00:00:00

F 1 122 i sure of the irritating course followed by Lord PALMERSTON, the Right lion. Gentleman ex plained distinctly his own views upon finance, and enforced the necessity of adhering to the settlement of 1r453. The latter portion of his speech produced great effect. It was broad in its views, yet close and practical in its statement, and contrasted strongly with the tremulous tone of the CHANCELLOR of the Ex- CREW:TER, who followed him in tilt debate. And what said the Right Honourable Gen tleman the Member for Oxford University, with reference to the policy of the Premier? " It is strange," said Mr. GLADSTONE, "that we " should always have to break with all the " world in succession, and that when the " genius of the Noble Viscount is in the " ascendant, we should have ten quarrels " for one that occurs under any other Minis " ter." How did the Premier answer Mr. GLADSTONE ? With jaunty ease, and ban tering suavity. To the charge of having ten times as many quarrels as any other Minister, the Noble Viscount replied, " I will " not discuss arithmetic with my right hon " friend, who is a great master in those " arts." Lord MELBOURNE could not have more pleasantly joked on a serious case. The opinions of Mr. GLADSTONE with refer ence to peace establishments were supported by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, whose speech, from first to last, was a dexterous piece of oblique incri• mination. "Itis by relying on the quietness " of the country, and the spirit of the people, " that you will be formidable in war, and not " by any new-fangled system of increased esti " mates during a time of peace." The Noble Lord bitterly mocked the ineffective course of the Cabinet with respect to Naples ; and, as if the discomfiture of the Cabinet was not oomplete, Mr. MILNER GIBSON reminded the Treasury Benches that '• it was upon finance " that Governments had been frequently ship " wrecked, and that the confidence of the " House of Commons was more particularly " tested." We have given full reports of the powerful speeches of the Earl of DERBY, Mr. DISRAELI, and Mr. GLADSTONE. The tone of the whole discussion has produced much effect in com mercial quarters. It was a home-thrust of Lord DERBY in the House of Peers, when the Noble Earl alluded to " Mercator and his con temporaries," and the witty expression has been caught up by many persons interested in finance. It is now repeated (what we re cently observed) " that the Whigs always break " down on finance," and, as the Member for Westbury knows, " the Whigs never had a financier since WALPOLE." But the Premier will make a joke of Mr. WiLsoN (as he has done before now), though the Treasury Beneh may find it no laughing matter to look for a budget to " Mercator and his contempo raries." SIR ROBERT PEEL. THERE must be great virtue in a name, or else the first night of the session would scarcely have elapsed without some remarks having been uttered on the recent conduct of Sir ROBERT PEEL. It is quite right that the great ness of the father should to some extent be thrown as a mantle over the failings and follies of the son. But the higher the place that son aspires to in public life the less can that indulgence be granted ; and when he loses no opportunity of thrusting himself forward, and obtruding on the world his crude and silly impertinences, it is time it were withdrawn altogether. Sir ROBERT PEEL does not merely speak as an Englishman of wealth and position bearing an honoured name, and till recently supposed not devoid of ability. He. is now, in some respects, a representative of the English Go• vernment, and is sure to be regarded by foreign nations as an exponent of the modes of thought prevalent in the governing circles. They will begin to imagine that we i g have so long pursued the policy of shop ]beepers, that it has begun to taint our manners, and that we axe exchanging the old- THE PRESS. fashioned courtesy of our fathers for the badinage of the commercial room. The Right Hon. Baronet has no excuse for his recent breaches of decorum. He was selected by his father for the profession of a diplomatist, and for years enjoyed the ad vantage of mixing in foreign Courts, and learning the importance attached by conti nental statesmen to the personal demeanour of all official characters. Yet experience seems to have been lost upon him. Why, then, may we ask, should Sir ROBERT PEEL, as a public personage, be absolved from those restraints by which public men are peculiarly bound, and which even no private individual would be allowed to violate with impunity? He has been spreading tales concerning foreign personages and foreign customs, the absurdity of which almost drowns our sense of their culpability. The Empress's crown never tumbled off her head at all. The 601. per day for the dinner, considering that it in cluded the whole Embassy, did not exceed, as we are assured upon excellent authority, what would have been the charges of a London hotel for similar accommodation. A babbler of this kind is bad enough in his own private sphere. His listeners would be amused at first, but when they found out that he was drawing on his own imagination, they would soon find out that he had not wit enough to carry off the imposture, and vote him an unqualified bore. But the bove of private life becomes extremely dan gerous in a public capacity, and ought to be unceremoniously disposed of. The body of gentlemen who compose the House of Com mons will surely not endure to have their manners libelled, their sentiments misrepre sented, and the dignity of their country seriously impaired by one who shall still con tinue to write himself a Lord of the Admiralty ! 1&.,... REFORM UPON THE SHELF. THERE is not one word about a " Reform Bill" in the Queen's Speech ! The House was much amused on Tuesday by an imaginary soliloquy of Lord PALMERSTON. "I" (the Premier might be supposed to say) " can now meet Parlia " went with confidence. They may ask me " what is my domestic. programme What am " I going to do with Parliamentary Reform? " I refer them to a late noble colleague of " mine." We are not surprised at the " great " laughter" which followed this happy point ; for certainly Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S conduct about his " Reform Bill" is exquisitely absurd. We shall catalogue the Noble Lord's changes, which have the effects of " cross-readings." While leading the Melbourne Whigs Lord JOHN RUSSELL abused the reaction against " Reform," and he spoke of " finality." The Radicals became alienated, and " the party" broke down in 1839, when " the Bedchamber difficulty" gave it a brief respite. Then Lord JOHN RUSSELL wrote his " Letter to the Elec " tors of Stroud," and talked of " Progressive " Reform," and made certain appointments of Privy Councillors (who had voted for the bal lot), upon which Earl GREY (then Viscount Howicx) and Sir C. WOOD resigned. When the Conservatives came into office in 1841, Lord JOHN RUSSELL was bereft of Radical popularity. The Anti-Corn-Law League stuck to Free Trade, and professedly would have no party polities ; and Lord JOHN RUSSELL had no chance with " progressive reform," and was called " Finality Jack." In 1848 his I ordship tried to get rid of the " finality" epithet. On the 21st of June, 1848, Mr. HUME made a motion for Household Suf frage, and derided the " Reform Act" of 1832. Lord JOHN RUSSELL defended that measure, but said, " that he had always been of opinion " that it would admit of improvement from " time to time." Trying to regain Radical sympathy, his Lordship suggested " the dis " franchisement of freemen," and he " thought " the 101. franchise too much fettered by " restrictions," and he said that " the public " mind was now turned to the question." Such speaking utterly failed to wash away the word " finality." SATURDAY, In the following year " progressive reform" (under another aspect) was brought before the House of Commons (4th of June, 1849). Mr. COBDEN and Mr. BRIGHT were then in the full tide of their " popularity." Lord Join./ Res- SELL talked at " the Manchester School" with considerable acerbity. He spoke of " the " great popularity of the aristocracy," and reminded Mr. BRIGHT that in England " the " democracy of to-day became the aristocracy of " to-morrow." He talked of " the narrowness " of mind" peculiar to certain Radicals, and he railed at " artful and designing dema " gogues." In that year Lord JOHN RUSSELL seemed ambitious of regaining the " finality" title which he had tried to cast off on the 21st of June, 1848. Under the Coalition Lord JOHN RussEt.r. brought forward a most peculiar measure, which he wept over in withdrawing. And now neither Lord JOHN himself, nor the Ministers, nor the Radicals, have a word to say upon the subject. Is it, or is it not, a practical subject in the estimation of the Liberals ? If they answer, " Yes," the question immediately occurs, Why do not they require that it should assume a practical shape in Parliament ? If they reply, " No," we put it to them, Is it just or honest to try and entrap Radical votes under false pretences ? The truth is, that a Reform Bill from the Whigs, under present auspices, is a mere bub ble ; and it has been well said that Lord PAL MERSTON " hates Reform like a Bourbon." THE INCOME TAX• WE conceive that Lord DERBY, in his masterly exposition of policy on Tuesday, has justly stated the leading requirements of the public at the present time. " The financial state " went which may be made this year," said the Noble Earl, " must involve in its conside " ration, in its discussion, and in its cense " quences, not merely the provision for a " single year, but a well-considered and ma " turgid plan of finance upon which tho country "is hereafter to rely." The Government have had one clear year after the conclusion of peace to reduce those extraordinary ex penses into which the war plunged us, and to place our military and naval establishments on a sound, permanent, and efficient footing. If the estimates much exceed those of the years previous to 185-1, it is morally certain that they will not be upheld in future. Peace establishments may for a year or two be delayed, and an enormous sum be squandered in postponing that settled system to which we must come in the end. But the result of such policy will be rather to diminish the efficiency of our establishments than to increase them, as the ultimate reductions may be made to fall rather on the efficient than the non-efficient portion of those establishments. We shall have officers without men, and stores and material which, when the day of conflict arrives, will be found useless from lapse of time and the progress of improvement. The unanimity of sentiment among leading men in both Houses of Parliament on tho expediency of returning to peace establish ments was remarkable. Earl GREY, Lord BROUGHAM, and by his vote Lord ABERDEEN, coincided with Lord DERBY. In tho Com mons, Mr. GLADSTONE, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Mr. MILNER GIBSON, adopted similar views to those enunciated by Mr. DISRAELI. Supposing that the sentiment thus supported can be defeated in the present session, is it likely that it can be defeated iu future sessions ? The longer peace establishments are deferred, the less likely is it that when adopted they will be really efficient. The country will get angry at the extravagance persisted in, and insist on an extreme opposite to that which it deprecates. We do not yet know to what amount the estimates to be proposed by Government will reach. Mr. GLADSTONE supposes that the in tention previous to the opening of Parliament was to fix them altogether at about 26,000,000/. This would be about 9,000,0001. more than was thought necessary in 1853, when the estimates were higher than they had been for thirty