The Press. — London, England, 1858-02-27 00:00:00

A RIGHTEOUS NEMESIS. THERE is so mething remarkably appropriate I 1 in the occasion of Lord PALMERSTON'S fall. His strange and calamitous career might have terminated amid circumstances relatively in significant and comparatively inauspicious. There are many questions which might have caused his overthrow which would have failed to place him in his real and distinctive chit. rater before the country. Had he owed his ejection to incapacity as a legislator upon any of the dominant subjects of modern interest— had he failed to deal, for example, with the great topic of Indian administration as becomes the difficulty, the importance, and the dignity of the subject—or had he launched out into the troubled waters of Reform and suffered shipwreck from lack of wisdom or excess of audacity, the lesson would have been absent, the moral would have been wanting, which now happily attaches to the catastrophe of hia reign. With neither of these delicate pro blems was his name associated nor his repu tation identified. In no such field of labour was his authority established or his fame achieved. He would have been a prophet more bold than prudent, who ventured to pre dict the principles or to speculate upon the policy he would adopt when confronted with the necessity of solving such questions as these. Here we looked in vain to his ante cedents to learn his opinions or to conjecture his intentions. All was dark, mysterious, in definite; and it may safely be said of this re markable man that, with all his ability, his knowledge, and his experience, his forty years of public life have passed away without connecting him as a statesman in any marked or impressive manner with any political creed or with any national cause. There is but one exception that can be taken to this declaration. Lord PALMERS TON had in one respect the credit of a distinctive mission. He was the English Minister in a sense that could be properly applied, as was imagined, to no other living man. In this lay his idiosyneracy. It was from this point of view Lis friends delighted to regard him—to extol his courage and to chaunt his triumphs. This was the spirit by which his career had been illustrated, and his influence attained. His name was a very shibboleth of national honour. Before him the tyrant trembled, and the slave rejoiced. So the story ran But alas ! for the Minister who has expended his caergies in acquiring one claim alone to public sympathy, and finds at the end that all Lis labour has been in vain! Alas ! that the Government in which he delighted to disport himself should become a tattered rag, and that his main pretension to the confidence and gratitude of his countrymen should be pro claimed an imposture and a sham ! That Lord PALMERSTON should fall on the motion of Mr. MILNER GIBSON was about as complete a form of retributive justice as can well be conceived. Here was one of the re doubtable champions of the Peace party—that section of politicians whom ho had ever treated with contemptuous scorn—whose dogmas he had so keenly derided—whose want of patriotism he had so often repobated amid the acclamations of his followers—of whose affections he had shown Manchester was the centre and its mills the circum ference—here, we say, was one of the leaders of the Peace party teaching Lord PALMERSTON what was due to the honou: and demanded by the independence of the country ! What a picture was that! The very men whom, according to Lord PALMERSTON, it might have been thought would most applaud his forbearance and appreciate his pusillani mity, place themselves in the attitude of avengers of the affront and indignity to which this vaunting Minister had tamely exposed the nation. Mr. MILNER GIBBON and his confederates were ejected from Parliament at the general election because they re fused to sanction the Chinese war, which Lord PALMERSTON found necessary to his existence when peace had been concluded with Russia. Other men as able, and members of a more popular party, were made the tern- Porary victims of the public hallucination THE PRESS, FEBRUARY 27, 1858. upon this question. But this delusion, like others of a kindred character, soon evapo rated, and two large constituencies send back to Parliament the men whom the " British. flag" juggle had banished. Their first essay is an assault upon our " Civis Romanus " in the very citadel of his strength, and the rest is matter of history. The letter of M. WALEwsxr, which the Times has learned since the Government were overthrown to call an " outrageously insolent and offen " sive despatch," was too much even for the Peace party. And so Lord PatnimisTos's career is ended, not because he has bungled the Indian question—not because he has betrayed the Liberals upon Reform—not because his jobbery has been scandalous and his levity intolerable—but because the foun dations of his popularity hare crumbled be neath his feet, and he stands revealed and exposed as a thoroughly Un-English Minister. THE CHOICE OF PARTIES. THE question of the day for an uncommitted English gentleman to make up his mind upon is, " What party should I join ? " The Pal merston system, be its faults or merits what they may, has broken down. Lord JOHN RUSSELL does not lead a hundred members of Parliament, and he has no following in the Upper House, except the half-reluctant Duke of BEDFORD and his kinsman Lord TORRINGTON, and with the country the Noble Lord does not stand high at present. Sir JAMES GRAHAM is supposed to be looking to lead the " Ballotists ;" and, after the " Walewski affair," nobody dreads Lord PALMERSTON or Lord CLARENDON iu Opposition. In answer, therefore, to such a question, ii is obvious that no English gentleman could decide it by personal considerations. Ho must be guided in his choice of party by public grounds alone; and by this test we are convinced that at the present crisis an English gentleman must deliver a vote in favour of " Conservatism," and of giving Lord DERBY'S Cabinet a fair trial. For, supposing that an Englishman takes a " Liberal" course in the present time, the (ideation will at once occur, "whom is he to follow ?" Lord PAL MRESTON has been thrown " out; " Lord J. RUSSELL advocates the rule of the Whig family clique; and Sir J. GRAHAM has no party be hind him. A gentleman may certainly choose to link himself with Mr. BRIGHT'S friends, and some people think that Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. GIBSON, Mr. COBDEN, Mr. W. J. Fox, and others of that school, will become the real leaders of the " Liberals." But that line of politics will infallibly draw on " Vote by Ballot," extensive electoral changes, and mob-constituencies on the Finsbury and Marylebone pattern; and an English gentleman, even of the " moderate Liberal school," may well pause before he gives his sanction to such dangerous politics. At this crisis an Englishman may fairly desire that Social Reform should be entered upon practically, not theoretically ; that cer tain administrative changes should be tnade without further delay, in order to give more energy to the Executive; and that more regard should be observed in the choice of persons selected for employment in the public service. He may desire to have no more of " Clanri cardism," and he may wish to have reforms advocated by Lord STANLEY, Sir FITZROY KELLY. and Sir JOHN PAKINGTON carried out. In short, he may aspire to see the cause of Social Reform entered upon earnestly, effec tively, and without delay. Now, safe and prac tical reform can be best attained under a Conservative Cabinet such as we see in power. Mr. DISRAELI was the first statesman who sounded the note in favour of "Administrative Reform ; " Sir JOHN PAKINGTON has given re peated proofs of his sincerity in the cause of education and social improvement; while the cause of Legal Reform could not he in safer hands than those of Sir FITZROY KELLY. The late Cabinet was strikingly deficient in prac tical statesmanship, and " Domestic Reform " 6, was certainly not its strong point. 195 Besides, it is most important to observe that, even if the " Liberal Party " were pre pared to carry on the work of Social Reform, it is disorganised. Its divisions, conflicting cliques, and contradictory aims, completely paralyse its powers. It is a political army without recognised generals, or a disciplined rank and filo. There is discord in its coun cils, and no agreement as to its future strategy. Its chiefa have been tried, and found wanting as " practical reformers." The rule of the Liberals has been, in point of fact, an actual abnegation of social and practical reform. In what department of the State did they effect any real or permanent improvements? Neither Lord PALMERSTON nor Lord PANMURE were " military reformers ;" the " Take care of Dowb— ' system shows that they were not " popular" or " progressive " in their ideas. There is no use in overlooking the fact that the Liberals through the country are sick of "moderate Reform." The phrase has no mean ing for them ; it suits neither their convic tions nor their constituencies. They wish for sweeping changes to be brought about by stirring agitators and declamatory politicians. The choice, therefore, is forced upon all mode rate men, " Are you for Conservatives, or for " Destructive': I" It is of no use to pretend that there is a moderate Liberal party in the coun try. Where is it? Who are its leaders? What are its chances ? The questions answer themselves. The Whigs are a clique ; the Libe rals have been contaminated by "jobbery," and are notoriously disorganised; the Radicals alone are resolved, and their policy is that of destructiveness. They are earnestly anxious to introduce the American system of public: life into England. They wish to annihilate all distinction between counties, and to cut the country up into electoral districts, to be mea sured, nut by moral associations, but mathe matical proportion. They desire to see all sentiment and strong local feelings banished from politics, and that there should be no differences between Kent and Kerry, or be tween Cornwall or Cork. For the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, for the Church of England with its time-honoured associations and its ennobling influences, for the national feeling of the country, and for the healthy ambition of our great professional classes, the Radicals have no sympathy. Hence they advocate the " Ballot," hoping to annihilate the moral influences connected with birth, estate, and all legitimate pretensions. A dead level suits their desire, and absence of all distinc tions between gentlemen and greengrocers, ladies and laundresses, will alone accord with their principles. They are terribly sincere in their system, and the supercilious tone of the Whig clique will not prevent them from fur ther incursive forays upon the Constitution. Resistance must be made to their revolu tionary system, and that can best be done by a Conservative Party resolved by practical amelioration and by a truly national course of politics to take away all plausible pretexts from the advocates of dangerous innovations. The fact that the temperate and statesman like essay of Earl GREY on Reform has been denounced as "old Toryism " betrays the •irus of the Radical spirit, veiled under an assump tion of superficial Whiggism. Constitutional politicians must beware of " destructives under a mask. The moderate Liberals are defunct, and nought remains in the present Opposition but a Whig clique and an anoma lous confederation for tho furtherance of Radicalism. Can any English gentleman hesitate in his choice ? On the one side is the Constitution, and on the other is clamour and innovation. The Conservative Cabinet is in favour of Social Reform—the Opposition is committed to designs dangerous, if practicable. The public service demands united energies, and the Op position is split into fragments. There is a vast deal of work before Parliament, and Lord. PALMERSTON had no colleagues of vigour to assist him. Our foreign politics require spirit and conciliation, and the favourites of the Opposition tergiversated in one country and truckled in another, and compromised the honour of England. Between Conservatives at one side and Destructives on the other, what English gentleman can hesitate in deciding in favour of Lord DERBY?