The Press. — London, England, 1858-03-13 00:00:00

• ma P.n. la i / ta.l IM mtiki f, / ....- .......-..- - ‘4112°10Y'.91 • -'- ( / a s m de e i ~ ..4 11.1 ii T IT 1 ._.,0 ----.. 's•—..________ \ ' II /(11 ta i ~, ~ ft 4 1 &Al Gil I .. _. ;t .' 1. No. 254.—V0L. VI. LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 13, 1858. ST VA PFD ....SIXPENCE. UNSTAMPED..FIVEPENCE. Oe pess. LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 13, 1858. THE PRESENT POSITION. It we study just now the aspects of the Liberal press, it is chiefly in order that we may gain, if possible, some idea of what is passing in the minds of the Liberal public. Not, indeed, that the editors of the Times, the Daily News, or the Advertiser, have been intrusted with the proxies of any considerable number of the people ; but amidst the silence and tran quillity which prevail out of doors, we find no other way of becoming acquainted with Liberal thoughts and desires than by seeking them in the columns of Lord BROUGHAM'S "best public instructors." Well, then, what are the Liberal politicians of England now desiring or purposing? Clearly they are very far from being of one mind on political questions. If we take up the Morning Advertiser or the Globe, we find their ruling desire to be, to replace Lord PAL MERSTON in Downing-street as soon as possible. But if the Daily News falls in our way, we learn that its school of Liberals holds, with Mr. BRIGHT, that Lord PALMERSTON'S Govern ment was " the very worst that had ever been seen," and that the saddest thing that could happen for England would be his restoration to power ! Awl the other organ of the Man chester school tells us only yesterday morning. that " it is highly probable that the Palmers " tonian faction will take the first opportunity " that presents itself for an attempt to oust " him from Downing-street, and to re-instate " themselves in their old berths. The Liberal " party must not lend itself to any scheme of " the kind. We object, on principle, to factious " attempts to turn out any Minister. We es " pecially deprecate any attempts to turn out " Lord DERBT, so long as the result would be " to bring back Lord PALMERSTON." But what says the chief " foolometer "—the journal which, firmly believing JOHN WiLxes's assertion, that the nonsenseof any constituency would always beat the sense, ten to one, has devoted itself for more than thirty years to the laudable task of finding out and repeat ing what the bulk of the people were saying. What has the Times been saying or doing during the fortnight which has elapsed since the change of Ministry? The Daily News answers this question jocosely; remarking that, "As PALMERSTON " has been alternately extolled or snubbed, " DISRAELI crushed or encouraged, the profane " British public, at its breakfast table, has " found a source of ill-mannered amusement "in asking with a smile, ' Well, I wonder " which aide the Times will take to day?'" This is not an unfair statement. It is a fact which five minutes spent in turning over its file will verify, that the Times during the last fortnight has been "of many minds," and that during the present week it has appeared to take refuge in a sort of sullen neutrality. We believe that in this state of doubt it fairly represents the " nonsense " of the commu nity—the great bulk of the population, who have no very definite or fixed principles, but are blown this tray in 1857 by a Chinese insult, and that way in 1858 by a Walewski despatch. The " foolometer," therefore, merely rests at the present moment near the point " Change able." Were Parliament dissolved next week, we believe that the great bulk of the electors would be left lamentably destitute of "a cry," and that the returns in many places would take place on the " chance-medley " principle. Yet there are some zealous partisans of the late Premier who insist upon it that the apathy and neutrality which are almost universal out of doors have no existence in the House of Commons ; and who promise us a speedy ejection of a Ministry which, in their view, ought never to have, dared to take its place on the Treasury benches. The new Administra tion, they feel assured, is to perish in the course of a mry few weeks, by the hands of an indignant House of Commons. Do these impatient gentlemen ever reflect on the absurd position in which they desire to place the second chamber of the Legislature ? Do they wish, in these critical times, to deprive Representative Government of all remains of credit or respectability ; by exhibiting it, even in England itself, in the attitude of an angry child, destroying by turns its favourite toys, and dealing blows on all sides to its guardians and friends. Was it by a mere accident—an uninten tional blunder—that the House of Commons destroyed the Palmerston Administration ? If so, what excuse can that Cabinet, or its many friends, offer for not giving the House an opportunity of reconsidering its vote, and of declaring, in the most public manner, its confidence in the then existing Government? Lord PALMERSTON is a man of long Parliamen tary experience, and ho has seen, in the course of his life, more thaa twenty instances in which the House of Commons, having fallen into a mistake, has been delivered from the consequences of its error by being called upon to give a second and a more deliberate vote on the same question. Why did not Lord PALMERSTON' take this course, if he believed the majority of the House to be still with him ? But, iu fact, he believed nothing of the kind. He had seen, not only the majority of 19, but the secession of more than twenty of his friends and hereto fore supporters, who, while they would not assist in his expulsion, refused to give a vote in his favour, and left the House just before the division. He had heard, too, the ecstatic shouts of the majority when they saw and fully understood the consequence of their vote, and knew that the Palmerston Ministry was overthrown. He had seen and heard all this ; and he declined to ask the House to re consider its vote. In fact, he knew that even if he could have cancelled this vote of censure by a narrow majority, there remained behind, the Clanricarde debate of the 4th of March, when a second defeat was inevitable. He therefore laid down his arms, and surren dered at discretion. After all this, the Noble Viscount is not so young a politician as to dream that the House of Commons is going to stultify itself in the course of less than a single month, by setting up a Ministry in March which it had put down in February. Lord PALMERSTON may wait fora favourable chance, as he did in 1852, but he will not be guilty of the indecency of attacking a Government just selected by the Queen, be fore that Government has had the least oppor tunity of doing either good or evil. Lord JoaN RUSSELL will be less fettered in his motions, and he may lead some direct attack on the new Government as soon as ho can possibly find a tolerable pretext. But the majority of the House will probably ask itself whether a Rus sell Ministry just now is either desirable or even possible. The Daily News, Lord JOHN'S warmest partisan, admits with pain that no one at this moment believes that a Russell Cabinet at present is a possible thing. The House, then, will hardly destroy the new Go vernment at the instance of Lord JOHN Rus sia', ; for that would be to dissolve a possible and actually existing Cabinet in order to try to set up one which is not possible. But may not the various elements of oppo sition be some day accidentally combined, so as to compel the retivement of Lord Daasrs Ministry ? This is hardly likely, for the fol lowing reasons : 1. Whenever such a conjunction for such a purpose seems intended, the House must be calmly warned, to reflect upon the step it is about to take. If it wishes to compel the re: tirement of the present Ministry, has it come to any understanding as to what is to follow ? Is Lord PALMERSTON to be ejected in February and restored in April, with a vacillation which would be worse than childish? Or is a Russell Cabinet supposed to be attainable ? Or does the House of Commons really mean to waste the session of 1858 in the idle employment of setting up and knocking down successive Cabinet.s ? 2. And, after all Huuse of Commons itself, Lord DERBY show any such ligl well-considered tome taken a most difficull don it on the first I, however ridiontfiii - 2 . - is might clidia ~7 -. .e. must not, ' .• . ' . m..,, ;htnees. r%• - .1 • ' . 4.- -, • .iiii- to • u 4• ~,,. inland of th ,• 0 k. 4, ; ... . 4rki. "i It task, he as .;.- .-• . ' *.P. .• ' , is . - • .._•,i% it appearance • ih. ; ,. • •• • oar . Pi 1.1.• , •••• • • .. ., n .... ....„ Is