The Press. — London, England, 1857-03-14 00:00:00

MA2CH 14, 1857. THE PREMIER AND THE Mock LIBERALS. THE conduct of those Liberals who support Lord PALMERSTON must leave a lasting dis grace on the fame of the party which arro gates to itself the furtherance of " Reform." Their professions are belied by their proceed ings. They talk in one way and vote in another. To hear them repeating their political catechism, one might take them for democrats ; and, after witching their conduct in electioneering, one would judge them to be the janissaries of Downing-street. They call for the Ballot, for Electoral Districts, vast " Extension of the Suffrage," and yet they give their electoral support to the statesman who derided the Ballot as " nonsense," and who only a few days since opposed the motion of Mr. LOCKE Kisu. They desert their old friends and leaders, and they seek to oust from the House of Commons independent politicians who will not cringe to the Trea sury, nor succumb to the ephemeral clamour of the hour. In such conduct there is something infi nitely worse than mere popular fickleness, or democratic inconstancy. If Lord PALMERSTON had ever been a Liberal Reformer, we might excuse the party-worship manifested forhim by the Radicals at the present time. But what is the history of their present favourite? Lord PALMERSTON was a Tory official in what the Radicals call " the dark days of SIDMOUTH " and CASTLEREAGH." From 1809 to 1828 the Premier was Secretary•at-War—that is to say, for nineteen years his Lordship was a place man, in the days of what were denominated " gagging acts," " the spy system," and " Pe terlou massacres." Nor is it any great literary secret that the Noble Viscount's pen was most active in mocking the Liberal leaders in " The New Whig Guide." In point of fact, Viscount PAr.mmisToN remained a Tory while that creed was the passport to place, power, and personal influence ; and then, dexterously shifting his course, his versatile Lordship canted with the current of Reform. But, to do him justice, his Lordship never concealed his contempt for the nostrums of Radicalism. To make use of popular claptraps, without ever sharing the illusions of his dupes, has always been his fertile resource in politics. There is not a man in England by whom Radicals and Radi calism are so sincerely despised as by the idol of the multitude, who cry " PALMERSTON and the people." But it is said by his retainers, " We know " all that you can say about his utter inconsis " tend•, and the levity of his character. But " PALMERSTON carried the country through its " difficulties, and saved the national honour." If the assertion was true, we would warmly applaud the Premier. But what are the facts ? Lord PALMERSTON accepted office under Lord ABERDEEN, and concurred in the War-office being given to the Duke of NEWCASTLE. While the army was rotting in the Crimea, and while his Lordship, as a Cabinet Minister, must have known how things were going, Lord PALMERSTON never made any sign of disappro bation. He delivered several jocose speeches which were most ill-timed, and which won for him from Mr. DICKENS'S tongue the title of "The Comic Old Gentleman." It was the conduct of Lord Jowl' RUSSELL which led to tile change of arrangements of the War Depart ment ; but the worst had then passed. The bad weather was nearly over. The country had been previously roused, but not by Lord I'ALMERSTON. Parliament and the public at large saw that the war should be carried on in earnest, and we defy any one to point to a single great measure at that time Mrhich Lord PALMERSTON can fairly call his own. Adminis trative Reform and Reformers were scoffed at as "Private Theatricals," nor was there any concession to the popular feeling about a new organisation of departments. What, then, is it that Lord PALMERSTON did for the " Liberals," who now shout at his heels, while he grins at them as " gregarious green horns"? Ile kept their party in place. There, then, is the reason why they strive to support THE PRESS. him. Without scruple Lord PALMERSTON at a grave crisis deceived Lord DERBY about his intentions, and snatched at the Premiership with a sinister adroitness not creditable to his fame. His Lordship, for the first time in his life, became a Parliamentary leader, and, excited by the m..velty of the situation, he made no difficulty about the means of keeping himself in power. He bantered sonic ; he browbeat others ; he cajoled clubs. lie or ganised a vigorous band of political trum peters to sound his praises, and he paid marked attention to the fears and hopes of subordinate Liberals. By means, which this is not the place to comment upon, the Noble Viscount procured organs to panegyrise him, whose sole consistency in public life had been their systematic depreciation of his personal pretensions and his foreign policy. Lord PALMERSTON remembered that his old col league and leader, Lord CASTLEREAGI4, had been " written down," and the Premier re solved that no means should be wanting in having himself written "up." The result is before the public. Such are the reasons why Lord PALMERSTON is now praised by the Liberals, with an entire oblivion of their professed principles. Their appetite for place is not yet slaked by their long tenure of power. The Liberals have stuffed every branch of the official ser vice with their supporters. They have had twenty years of office against six years of Con servative power. The consequence is that an organised Liberal ascendancy is now installed. We used to boast that our Constitution was free, and contained a balanced system of check and counter-check; and so it does, if the declaimers about " Liberty " and " Progress " acted upon principle. But in rallying, round Lord PALmEnsToN they have abjured every principle they ever professed, and flung the Reform banner into the dust. Our free Monar chy is threatened with the vices of a simple form of government ; and Englishmen will be trampled on by a tyrant majority, obtained in defiance of political right and of Parlia mentary honour, if they do not resist the intrigues, jobbery, and audacity of the present Cabinet. The crisis is grave, and it is critically de• scribed in words used a hundred years ago by a great orator, singularly applicable to this general election : On this it will depend whether they shall prevail who desire that Great Britain should maintain such a dignity and prudent reserve in the broils of Europe as become her situation, suit her interest, and alone can enable her to cast the balance ; or they who are eager on every occa• sion to pawn her purse, and to sacrifice her commerce, by entangling her, not only too much with the other powers of Europe, from whom she may sometimes want reciprocal engagements, but even with those diminutive puwets, from whom it would be ridiculous to expect aug. THE LIBERAL CRY. THE cry with which the Liberals arc going to the country is purely of a negative character. We have pointed out long ago that in the case of threatened defeat, they invariably had re course to the one device of crying out, " the " Tories are coming ;" and now that a general election is at hand their armoury has not been increased. Still, from half the boroughs in the country rises up one groan of terror at the bare possibility of a Tory Government. What it is that inspires this consternation we pro• fess we do not know. Some of the most ad vanced measures of progress have been passed when Tories were in power,—forced from them, wrung out of them, or anything else which the Radical intellect is capable of alleging, but nevertheless passed—a fact which cannot be asserted of any Liberal Go vernment. And now at the present day, as none of the Tory members to our knowledge eat little children, practise the black art, or have entered into correspondence with the Pope for the revival of the Inquisition, we cannot appreciate the class of minds which are so painie-struck at the prospect of their accession. Joking apart, however, will these practical business-like men, who help to swell the clamour in our provincial towns, accord us a few minutes' patience while we ask them a very simple but a very pertinent question. What do they expect to get from the Liberals, which they have no hope of obtaining from the Tories ? By Liberals of course we mean the party of Lord PALMERSTON. By Tories we do not mean the party of Mr. BENTINCR. Our practical friend must look at the question in a practical manner. He cannot pick a Go vernment. His choice is limited to two. Let its then, WC say, examine his grounds of pre ference. Does he, falling back upon the old Liberal creed, tell us that he desires the abolition of aristocratic extravagance, and a reduction of taxation for the benefit of the people ? Does he tell us in the same spirit that wars should he confined to wars of selklefence, either direct or indirect, and that to force our own views upon foreign potentates is equally im politic and injurious from whatever party such conduct may proceed—from Tories at tho Congress of Vienna, or from Whigs at the Congress of Paris? Does he demand the abolition of nepotism and patronage in the distribution of Government appoint ments, and a thorough reform of civil service administration ? Does he wish to see candidates selected for merit, and a system of examination introduced which shall open up the service to every educated youth in the kingdom ? Does he sigh for an amelioration of our tedious and costly pro cesses of law ?—for the diffusion of general education ?—for a comprehensive and whole some penal system which shall relieve him from the terrors of the garotter and burglar ? If these are his demands, we can point confi dently to the Liberal apd the Conservative parties, and bid him look upon this picture and upon that. The Tories proclaim the ne cessity of reducing our establishments to a peace footing, and of seeking for efficiency in completeness of equipment and perfection of discipline, ratly^.r than in mere strength of numbers. Lord PANMURE and Lord PALMERS TON are for an extravagant expenditure and a large standing force. The Liberals meddle with every petty p►incipality in Europe, and would scatter their image through all lands at the point of the bayonet. MAHOMET himself was not a more decided votary of armed proselytism than Lord PALMERSTON. Nor, indeed, is this the only point of resemblance. But the Tories say that as England has reached her present fortunate constitution through freedom from interference, we ought to allow foreign nations the same chance ; and that constant intervention between kings and sub jects, be they strong or be they weak, is in reality as debasing towards them as it is dan. gero is and injurious to ourselves. In two words, the restless, dissatisfied spirit of Libe ralism as naturally vents itself in war as the conservative and insular spirit of Toryism clings to the policy of peace. To proceed with ourenumeration. The Tories reduce taxation and keep faith with the people. The Liberals maintain taxation and break it. The only civil-service reformer of the day with a possibility of success is Lord STANLEY. The only law reformers who are not laughed at are Lord ST. LEONARDS and Sir FITZROY KELLY. The only educational reformer who is not an impracticable enthusiast, or a convicted blun derer, is Sir John PAmsoTos. The only mea sure of domestic legislation, in which the Liberals have not actually broken down, is the Convict Bill of Sir GEORGE GREY; and that wits only redeemed from destruction because it to some extent adopted the principle which a Tory newspaper has been foremost in pro moting. Now, then, will the practical man tell us why it is that he ceys out for anything rather than a Tory Government? If we press him with facts, he is dumb ; and theories cannot stand without facts. We know very well there is a certain class in the country who have a very fair ground of difference with the Tories. But the loudness of the clamour against them seems always in proportion to the unreasona bleness of the clamourer. The Radicals who honestly desire changes which the Tories would resist, are comparatively quiet. The middle-class Liberal (!) who is opposed to 243