The Press. — London, England, 1854-06-03 00:00:00

a 0;) 4.1-nre" • .• : • /0 1 1 zb t „.14N No. 57.—VoL. 11. LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 3, 1854. g4t dress. It is idle to pretend, after the discussion on the withdrawal of the Disfranchisement Bills, that Ministers possess the confidence of Par liament. Mr. DISRAELI'S summary of the session was a tour de force which cast the Treasury bench into consternation. Never did his courageous eloquence appear to greater ad vantage ; but we must recollect that never had it a finer opportunity for display. Substan tially the question before the House was a motion of non-confidence, but without the responsibility of a division. In this light it was regarded by the Government, and hence the importance attached to the testimony of Sir GEORGE GREY, who waits with exemplary patience ready to be called up at any moment as a witness to character, and for the good word of Colonel PEEL, who finds it convenient to vote with Government from an Opposition bench, and afford them such countenance as a decent bonnet gives to the imposture of a mock auction when its wearer nods approval of the fraudulent articles put up for sale as genuine wares. Of the seven measures enumerated by Mr. DISRAELI as announced by Government early in the session, several were expressly recom mended in the speech from the Throne. Those not thus announced were equally im portant. On three of these measures the Govern- ment were ignominiously defeated in full houses : 1. The Law of Settlement Bill was post. poned, not again to make its appearance, by a majority of 209 to 183 (March 27). 2. The Scotch Education Bill was rejected by 193 to 184 (May 12). 2. The Oaths Bill was rejected by 251 to 247 (May 25). These bills were defeated, not on their de- tails, but on their principle. They were not slily massacred in committee. The division was in each case on the second reading, when the sense of the House is taken on the general merits of a measure. Three other measures are abandoned 1. The Civil Service Reform Scheme. 2. The Parliamentary Reform Bill. 3. The Disfranchisement Bills. The seventh and last measure yet remains, but in a state of so great confusion that it is impossible to say what will become of it. On two of its leading provisions the Government has been signally defeated, and now it is pro posed that its details should be left to the discretion of Commissioners on account of the inability of its authors to define their own meaning and purposes. What plainer proof of want of confidence can be required than is afforded by these de feats ? Some other cause than the occurrence of war is required to account for such whole sale failure, and that cause Mr. BRIGHT has plainly revealed. "As far as advising and " recommending measures to Parliament is " concerned, the Government have not the " confidence of the House of Commons." If the Legislature cares for no other subject than the war, it has a singular mode of showing its indifference. It is sensitively alive to every motion of the Government. It dreads their activity as mischievous, and instead of leaving their hands free it persists on confining them with a straitwaistcoat. To the repeated notices given to the Minis try that they will not be permitted to " lead, " advise, or control the House," they make but one answer :—We will remain where we are 1. . ~; es f• 14 . )1. • . PRICE SIXPENCE. until we are forcibly expelled. Our failures may damage the character of parliamentary government, but do not harm us. The whole exculpatory argument of the Ministerial leader is, that the more popular the character of the House becomes, the less necessary is it that the Government should possess its confi dence. Defeat might be disgraceful in a borough-mongering Parliament, but is not at all disgraceful in a popular Legislature. The degradation of governments, and the rejection of their measures, are to be accepted as neces sary consequences of reform. The allusion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL to the Government of Lord DERBY was a great blun der from his lips. That Government dis dained to hold office in the face of an adverse vote of the Commons. No Ministry had ever to contend with a more reckless Opposition, yet how striking is the contrast between its conduct of affairs and that of its successors. 9 4 Lord DERBY'S Government carried that wise measure for establishing the militia by voluntary enlistment which has proved so salutary in its effect. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was not wise to revive the memory of his con duct on that occasion. Where was his zeal for the public interest and the Queen's ser vice, when, after his Government had broken up, from sheer inability to hold together longer, he refused ordinary forbearance to his successors ? He stood pledged to a Militia Bill by the measure he had introduced, but one of his first acts after his resignation was to make common cause with the party totally opposed to the militia principle, that he might render all legislation on the subject impracticable. The late Administration was squally suc cessful in carrying its bill for the reform of the Court of Chancery. It is stated in the Times of Wednesday that this measure "was " prepared for them by their predecessors." To this statement we give an unqualified con tradiction. Not a sign of such preparation was found in the Government offices. The bill was drawn by Lord ST. LEONARD'S in the spirit of the Chancery Commission Report, the most active and valuable member of that Commission being Mr. HENLEY, a member of Lord DERBY'S Cabinet ! During its brief and, we are willing to admit, precarious tenure of office, this Government was distinguished by the vigorous efforts of the Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND tore pair the neglect of our naval administration for years past, and place that branch of the public service on a footing of the highest possible efficiency. In ten months he increased the ships in our home ports from 43 to 47 ; their guns from 1,2841 to 2,141; and their men from 11,041 to 15,025. He provided for the equip ment of an effective force of screw line-of-battle ships ; he appointed a committee to inquire into the resources of our mercantile steam marine ; and he projected such alterations in the enlistment of seamen for the Royal Navy as would be likely to secure the advantage of a standing force which might at all times be relied on. Were these among the failures of that Admi nistration on which Lord JOHN dwells with spiteful satisfaction ? On one measure it was defeated, but assuredly not disgraced. It proposed to appropriate the long-forfeited seats of Sudbury and St. Alban's to the great constituencies of the West Riding and Lan cashire. Mr. GLADSTONE succeeded in defeat ing this measure on the ground that a weak Administration ought not to be allowed to LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 3, 1854. THE accounts from the Continent are unfa vourable. Austria, as we have always warned the readers of the PRESS, declined to join in any active co-operation with England and France. Prince MErrEsHicH observed, a few days back, that " the solution of the question " is at Vienna; and that the present is not to " be looked upon as a state of war, but rather " of a disorganised diplomacy." All this means another campaign of proto cols ending with the STATUS QUO. We hear from Vienna that the Cabinet of Lord ABER DEEN is on this subject in as thick a fog as NAPIER in the Baltic. The ree,al of M. BUNSEN elicits the revela tion of fresh scandals. It appears that a secret agent of the King of PRUSSIA visited this country at the commencement of the year, and placed himself immediately in com munication with Lord ABERDEEN, who was well acquainted with him. According to his custom, Lord ABERDEEN kept these communi cations secret from his colleagues, till it be came advisable that Lord CLARENDON, who represents the credulity of the Cabinet, should unconsciously assist in the connivance. Lord CLARENDON, perplexed and alarthed, whispered the circumstances to a colleague who was anti- Russian. The colleague betrayed the affair to M. BUNSEN, who in a panic telegraphed to M. MANTEUFFEL, the first Minister of the King of PRUSSIA. There was a great esclandre. The affair was hushed up, as such affairs always are. The secret agent was disavowed, and privately recalled. Had he remained and succeeded there would probably have been no war. The anti-Russian party in the Cabinet was triumphant. M. BUNSEN walked on tiptoe and drew up plans of a new territorial arrange ment, and Lord ABERDEEN remained irritable and moody. The Prussian Plenipotentiary, however, received in due time his reward, and M. BUNSEN'S very fine collection of bronzes is now for sale. WHATEVE R doubt previously existed of the incapacity of Government must be dispelled by the proceedings in the Commons on Mon day night. Individually it may possess ability and vigour, but collectively it has neither. Opposed principles are neutralised by their admixture ; and this combination, from which such capital results were anticipated, exhales in a rank vapour of dishonoured promises. 1 i