The Press. — London, England, 1857-03-21 00:00:00

274 Reform party of the city of London, and of the town s and counties throughout the country should hold fast by their Reform principles, or whether they should abandon them." (Loud cheers.) To that question his reply might be easily anticipated. But there was a fourth question of paramount importance—the question of the retrenchment of our expenditure. The estimates of the present year exceeded by more than 5,000,0001. those of Nriti ; and he thought the Government ought to prepare for such reductions as would make the income balance the expenditure, in addition to relieving some of the taxes which press most heavily on the country. With respect to Reform the noble lord expressed himself in hope of a further exten• 'ion of the franchise, without which there coald be no efficient administrative reform. As to church rates, if any measure could be proposed for their abolition, and yet securing provision for the Church, he would support it. In conclusion, the noble lord called upon the electors to roturn men who by their past conduct and character are likely to promote the cause of progress I say the cause of progress ; and it is my intimate conviction that not only is progress healthy, but that it likewise is Conserve. tire—as much more Conservative as the flow of a healthy cureent is more advantageous than the stagnation of an unwholesome marsh. (Hear, hear.) I believe, therefore, yon ought to elect men who will promote progress in such a wry as not to disturb—for I have always been, and have bee t ' backward' and slow ' on that ground—but in such a way as not to disturb the various intricate and corkilicatcd re!ations of our wealthy and complicated form of a , ciety—in such a way as not to disturb trade and the rela ions of men to each other, and to produce alienation and hostility in the place of confidence and harmony—but still progress—progress well weighed, amelioration care• fully considered, an increase of popular franchise and political power, but at the same time accompanied with the increase and diffusion of education." (Loud cheers.) In r.ply to questions put, Lord John Russell stated that he would not pledge himself to vote for the ballot. A vote of c nifidence in the noble lord was carried by an over• whelming majority.. Coitienx and Mn. Mrrenn GIBsoN addressed the electors at Manchester on Wednesday evening at the Free trade Hall. Mr. Milner Gibson in a brief speech justified the vote he had given on the' China question, for he re garded the war as " unjust and unnecessary." Mr. Cob den, who was received very warmly, entered at once into the question of the Chinese debate, and explained how, with tut consulting a human being but Mr. Gibson, he had for a fortnight before the debate came on placed his motion on tee table of the house, and yet he was accused of a factims coalition to overthrow the Government. There was a great question involved in this, which the people of this country ought to take very much to heart:—" Do you want the members of the House of Commons to look after your interests and watch the expenditure, and to guard you from getting into needless and expensive wars ? (Yes.) Well, but you are not going the right way to work, it' what I learn in your newspapers is going to be verified in the course of the election, far I ant told that those mem bers who joined in that vigilant care of your interests, and voted according to the evidence before us on the question of that war, are all to be ostracised—sent into private life—and that you are going to send up other men—(No, no)—to do what ? To look after your interests ? No! to go and do the humble dirty work of the Minister of the hour. (Loud cheers.) In fact, that you are going to con stitute Lord Palmerston:the despotic ruler of this country." (Cheers.) Tint who was Lord Palmerston that they were to invest him with this power :—" When I want to know what a man is I ask—What has he done ? Lord Palmers t rtt has been fifty years in Parliament—(Fifty.two)—fifty two years in Parliament. Well, he has belonged, I be lieve, to every Government excepting one during those fifty years. (Laughter.) I remember the Times newspaper, which spent aboat fifteen years in trying to blacken his reputation, and is now polishing him up every day—(loud laughter and cheers)—and when it had said everything else that was gross, vulgar, and vituperative about him, wound up by saying that he had been boots' to every Adminis tration for thirty years." (Renewed laughter.) But what has Lord Palmerston done for Reform since '3l ?—" In December, 18.53—little more than three years aco—Lord Palmerston belonged to the Ministry of Lord Aberdeen. Now, Lord Aberdeen was considered a very liberal man ; we were all deluded with the idea that Lord Palmerston wan the great chamnion of democracy. and that Lord Aberdeen was always the friend of despotism. I was not taken in by that, but a good many people were. Well, but what did Lord Palmerston do in December, 1853. when Lord Aberdeen's Government was ptepnring a new Reform Bill, to be brought in in the session of 11451? Lord Pal merston left Lord Aberdeen's Government because he ob jected to that modicum of Reform that was then proposed. Well, what has he done since? What has he done th:s very session? Why, he has opposed everything that can bear the mere semblance of Reform : he voted against Locke King's motion for a ten•pound country franchise, which formed part of the bill of 1854; he has opposed even the 40s. freehold franchise for Scotland, if you may believe the Lord Advocate of Scotland, who is in the Mi nistry, for he hes gone down there, and announced that the Government are opposed it." And vet members were called upon to surrender their independence and freedom of thought and action to such a Minister as this. Lord Paltuereton's was the only policy put forward to the coun try. But Lord Palmerston was not content to offera passive resistance to Reform. He voted and spoke against every measure of reform introduced into the house. Rut then it was said his foreign policy was T.iberal. Every act of Lord Pelmerston's foreign policy was known to him ( Mr. Cobden), and he would defy " any human being to show an instance where anybody on the face of the earth had been happier or more free in consequence of Lord Pal merston'a foreign policy." Upon what grounds, then, were the people of England called upon to place their con fidence in Lord Palmerston ?—" NVltat has he done? We are told he carried the Russian war to a triumphant con• THE PRESS. c'usio'i. Now, I will tell you what he did in that war. Lord Palmerston was a member of the Government which declared the war. (hear.) if he be the man of talent, with the powers of administration which we are told he has—if he be a man of this towering genius that we are all suddenly called upon to discover at the age of seventy three—(laughter)—was he not likely, at least, three or four years ago, to have had a share of that energy, so that lie might have imprinted a portion of his' policy upon the Government during the time lie was one of them ? He was responsible for every bluuder just as much as any member of the Government. And what is the Cabinet now? Why, the majority of the Cabinet now was the ma• jority of the Cabinet then. Lord Palmerston was not called upon to make a new Cabinet in order to carry on the war ; certain members of the Cabinet-1 minority— seceded from it, and left the majority, of whom Lurd Pal merston was at the head. That majority is quite as re sponsible for everything that occurred during the early progress of the war—(loud cheers)—as they can claim to he entitled to any merit for any improvement in the con duct of the war after that minority seceded. When Lord Aberdeen seceded from the Government Lord Palmerston told Sir James Graham and the rest of the friends of Lord Aberdeen who remained in the Government that he would carry on the Government and the war upon precisely the same principles that they had been carried on by Lord Aberdeen; that there should be no change in his foreign policy; and that he would only ask the same terms of peace as Lord Aberdeen would have been content with. (Cheers.) That was not only mentioned privately in the course of their discussions amongst themselves, but it came out in the house of Commons. Did Lord Pal merston himself ever come before us to complain of any that had been done in the early conduct of the war whilst he was a member of the Cabinet. No ; on the con trary, he defended everything. When Mr. Roebuck brought forward his motion for inquiring into the scenes going on before Sebastopol, to try and hunt out, if he could, the cause of the ruin and disaster that had befallen our army, did Lord Palmerston get up in his place in the house and say, ' Here are admitted evils ; I grant to the hou. and learned gentleman that this is a fair subject for inquiry ? ' No : he stood by things as they were; defended every thing, and resisted an inquiry by the committee. Now, this is the sort of man that we are called upon all at once to fall down and worship. Why, I say the brazen image shall have no worship from me." (Loud cheers and laughter.) The hon. member then referred at some length to the personal hostility exhibited against Mr. Milner Gibson and Mr. Bright, and adverted to the at tempt of Lord Palmerston to convert Manchester into a pocket borough, and forcing Mr. Lowe upon the consti tuency :—" Hear Mr. Lowe. I have heard him, and I will say this, and in saying it 1 shall be borne out by any im• partial man in the House of Commons, that, considering that lie had some reputation for ability when he was at Oxford, arid as a writer in the Timca—(' Hear,' and laughter)—he is the most conspicuous failure in the House of Commons." The meeting was adjourned for a week, when Mr. Cobden will again be present. Sir JAMES DUKE. Mr. RATKI.:S CURRIE, and Baron ROTHSCHILD on Wednesday attended the adjourned special meeting of the Liberal Registration Association. Sir James Duke explained that his reasons for not supporting Mr. Dodson at the recent Sussex election, were simply that Mr. Dodson possessed no defined political principles, and appeared only desirous of getting into Parliament to get into a Government place. Mr. Raikes Currie ad dreitted that his address—which as his friends said was " too exclusively Palmerstonian "—was but tin " imperfect explanation of his political views." The hon. gentleman then went through his whole political career, showing how religiously he had devoted himself to the Liberal cause. To the question of " How about Palmerston and Reform?" Mr. Currie replied by another, " Have we no hopes of getting reform, and a large reform, from Lord Palmerston as Prime Minister ? " In answer to his own question Mr. Currie commenced to read a paragraph from Sir IL Bethell's address, but was checked by a gentleman in the body of the building inquiring whether the hon. member was reading from Punch. Baron Rothschild denied that any understanding existed between himself and Lord John Russell to secure the noble lord's return. With respect to Lord Palmerston, he felt "a blind confidence" in the noble lord's foreign policy, but as to his domestic policy, " it was a different question, and one which depended upon the amonnt of pressure put upon the noble lord from without." Mr. LAI - AIM and Sir P. BETHELL addressed their con stituents at Aylesbury. Mr. Layard maintained that the position of affairs in China did not justify the measures taken by Sir J. Bowring. Sir R. Bethel' sustained Lord Palmerston's foreign policy on all points. "He could wish to have seen a more speedy progress in administrative and social reforms, but the fault was not in Lord Palmers. ton, but in the timid, hesitating men at his side or at his back, who sometimes voted for, and sometimes in opposi- tion to the Government." Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT met his constituents at Wilts on Thursday. The right hon. gentleman condemned the cry of " Palmerston for ever," without mention of measures Sir DE Lacy EVANS, at Westminster, supported Lord Palmerston because his great qualifications were " tiezibi• lity " and " squeezibility." Sir J. V. SHELLEY claimed the votes of the constituents of Westminster as an ardent supporter of the ballot and universal suffrage. He thought Lord Palmerston deserved the confidence of the country for his recent appointments of bishcps. Sir JAMES GRAHAM addressed the electors of Carlisle this week, and entered at some length into a detail of the conduct of certain of his constituents who desired to wring from Mtn a promise of unconditional support to Lord Palmerston. This Sir James had refused to con• cede. The right hon. baronet then briefly noticed the vulgar charge of a factions coalition, and, passing on to his vote in favour of Mr. Locke King's motion, reviewed SATURDAY, Lord Palmerston's career, and asked if, att.,r all, Lord Palmerston was a Reformer? Sir James Graham then referred to the vote on the China question, and the conduct of Lord Palmerston after that vote :—" Since this vote a very remarkable transaction has taken place. Lord Palmerston has thought fit to serd out a special mission to Canton with a view of effecting the very ob- ject which he ought to have notified to the House of Commons before he sent it to a division on the ques tion. And to whom has Lord Palmerston offered that mission ? Why, to one of the despised and rejected Peelites, the Duke of Newcastle, who was said to be incompetent to conduct the war with Russia To get him out of the scrape he would give to the duke un limited control over the army and navy to negotiate peace. That offer was made to the Duke of Newcastle, after the vote and not before it, and was rejected by his grace." The right hon. baronet then declined to pledge himself to. a vote of confidence in Lord Palmerston, a confidence he did not feel, for this China question was a most unfair question upon which to go the country. "It ought not to be made a question of confidence, in men, it ought to be a question of measures—Cloud cries of ' Hear, hear,'?—and the mode most certain of promoting the measures of which the constituencies approve." In con clusion Sir James Graham expressed his entire coinci dence in the principles put forth by Lord John Russell in his address to the electors of London, " as embodying his ( Sir James Graham's) sincere and deep convictions." foreign Corresponbturt. BRUSSELS, March 17. A PtMPHLET has just been published in this town on the Neapolitan differences, entitled " Un Mot sur la Question Napolitaine, par Quelqu'un qui nest pas un Homme d'Etat." It is well known to have been issued under the patronage, and something more, of M. Antonini, late Minister of Naples at Paris. The public accepts the titlepage to be a truth. With certain grounds of complaint, the author of this short treatise has placed himself in the wrong by a sweeping condemnation of all those who will not concur in a blind acknowledgment of the kingly perfection of Francesco Secondo. This is not commendable as an act of judgment. The Ministers of Russia and Prussia have remonstrated with the King in the name of their Sovereigns upon the obstinacy of his misconduct, and in one case delivering an autograph letter, to induce him to pursue a course that could warrant an interference on their part betwixt him and the Western powers. Their appeal has had no effect. But the real grievance of Italy, which the writer of this pamphlet should have more prominently stated, consists in the English Government having made use of the Republicans to effect a change in the Government of the country, a course from which tile French studiously abstained. Thus the Constitu tionalists were paralysed, and a positive right was given to the resistance against that democratic fac tion which has been and is the curse of Italy. Any one in the slightest degree acquainted with the Italian people will admit that democracy is not the bent of their minds, and the author of this pamphlet on the affairs of Naples, published. " quasi," by authority, would have done well to have insisted strongly on the crying wrong of the Whigs of Lug land having given secret assistance to a cause that in European conferences and Ministerial relations they have been compelled officially to denounce. The non-statesman ("qui nest pas un homme d'etat") disparages the constitutional Governments of Portugal and Piedmont supported by England, as an example inimical to the peace of Europe. (p. 20.) He deems absolutism to be the general desire of the nineteenth century, and remarks, somewhat naively, that with a free press at Naples, Rome, and Florence (p. 22) the Austrians would immediately lose Lom bardy. In fact, after blaming the Congress of Paris for having interfered with the King of Naples, he lays down the desideratum for Europe at the present juncture to be a strict adherence to the dictum of the Congress of Vienna of 1815—standing armies, a gagged press, and the suppression of constitu tionalism. Publications of this nature are not cal culated to benefit the cause they would support ; and, above all, the Conservatives of England justly censuring the improper encouragement g iven to Italian Republicanism for party purposes by the Whigs, and the after abandonment of the victims of their nefarious policy—yet reject summarily any obstruction to the cause of progress, of order, and of good government. The transmission of each despatch increases the coolness betwixt the Cabinets of Vienna, St. Peters burg, and Paris. M. de Buol Schonstein, somewhat . ostentatiously, had declared the approbation of Russia at the note presented to Sardinia by Count Pear. On this becoming known at St. Petersburg, M. Sauli, the Sardinian Minister at that Court, was instructed to convey to M. de Cavour an expression of displeasure on the part of Russia at the contents of the Austrian communication. Whilst deprecating the licentious excesses of the journals both at Milan