The Press. — London, England, 1856-08-09 00:00:00

No. 171.—VoL.IV. LONDON, SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1856. STAMPED ....SIXPENCE. UNSTAMPED..FIVEPENCE Cl2t Vrtss. Opposition, the Radical policy is secure. To perceive the snare is to shun it. Some sacri fice or setting aside of deeply•rooted hopes and ardent convictions is always needed to keep a party together. But history is, indeed, but an old almauack if it does not show this — that in the collective union of party is the force which saves and exalts nations, while in the division of individual sentiment is the weakness which ruins them. had no confidence in them. The truth is, that they laboured under the double disadvantage of a bad cause and a weak following. If the Opposition did not muster in strength on any party question, this return establishes a fact of far greater importance, that they mus tered in sufficient force on every business question to prevent the passing of measures which they disapproved. For a disorganised party they acted with wonderful unity, tact, and success. While they offered no impedi ment to the transaction of necessary business, they carefully avoided any vote which could be construed into support of the Government. It is not surprising that the Ministerialists should wish to create an impression that the party opposed to them is broken up. Fortu nately, the facts are all the other way. Consi derable differences of opinion must always pre vail in every great party. It is neither practi cable nor desirable that the freedom of indi vidual minds should be lost in party organisa tion. In England party is not conspiracy; it does not bind men to act together on every occasion ; it does not propose as its first object the overthrow of a Government. It is free, loyal, and legitimate. Its primary aim is to maintain great and fundamental princi ples of policy, such as those enumerated by the Right Honourable Member for Bucks towards the close of his speech. Why is it that the advocates of radical changes in our representative system, and in every depart ment of Church and State, are seated on the Ministerial benches, except that the Libe ral, as opposed to the Conservative party, absorbs every element adverse to the mainte nance of established things? Occasions will from time to time arise when through the settlement of great questions the division of parties will seem less marked than heretofore. Such periods of calm can never be of long pontinuo.nce. The principles which have been at war since social freedom began, are not to be restrained from manifesting their activity, more especially in an age like ours, when democracy is restless, vigilant, and animated to extend its force at risk of over throwing the political fabric which shelters it. To the Conservative spirit of this country we owe it that the advances of democracy have been kept within the bounds of well-regulated freedom. The weakening or destruction of the party organisation which gives nerve and expression to Conservative sentiment is the greatest mis fortune which can befal a country. It is the first and most indispensable element of secu rity to every Government and every nation. It is not a mere dead-weight, acting as a drag on the wheels of progress, which is required, but an alert and intelligent spirit, which can ad vance as well as resist—which is ever anxious to strengthen its position, and which is ready at any moment to guide the powers of the State. Without this activity it is in reality powerless, as in certain conjunctures a choice must be made; the balance must sway heavily ou one side or the other, and that side which is unprepared may be depressed to overthrow or extinction. Why is it that Liberal politicians support the existing Government. though Liberal principles are in abeyance ? Partly through influences utterly and basely corrupt, but partly, also, because they know that long depri vation from office is a severe trial to party loyalty, and because they know that with the extinction of a governmental party in the LONDON, SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1856. THE return moved for by Mr. DISRAELI on the •25th ultimo has been published. The public Bills discharged during the late session are enumerated. v It is unnecessary to go over the long and melancholy list. The epidemic was the most fatal in the annuls of legislation. It is sufficient to say, that the official docu ment confirms every fact stated by the Right Hon Member for Bucks The return places the Ministerial journals in a painful dilemma. What are they to say to the authentic record of Government failure? If they hold that the measures were not wanted, what is to be thought cf the wisdom which thrust them upon the table of the Legislature ? If they say that they were im mature, what is to be conceived of the skill which brought them forward ? If, on the con trary, the measures were good in themselves, and were wanted, how can wo escape the con clusion that the Administration was too weak in legislative support to carry them? The morning journal which is presumed to be under the immediate patronage of the Premier assures its readers that the failures of the Government are to be attributed to the factiousness of the Opposition. But how can this explanation be reconciled with the often repeated assertions that the Government was supported by a large majority in Parliament, and that the Opposition was disorganised? The Conservative party, we have been told again and again, is broken up, yet by the ad mission of our opponents this routed party was always able to muster a majority when a Ministerial measure was to be overthrown In our opinion it would be erroneous to attribute the Government failures to any single cause. They were due, as regards one class of measures, to such slovenliness of preparation and such Ministerial defects in the bills, as necessitated their abandonment before they could be discussed; and as re gards another class, to the embodiment of principles so opposed to the Conservative sentiments of the Legislature as to compel the Government to withdraw them to avoid defeat. It is to misrepresent the argument founded on the facts of failure, to assert that the cause is to be sought exclusively in either the measures or the Ministers. The measures were bad and the Ministers were distrusted. Take the case of Mr. LOWE'S Shipping Bill for example. The Vice-President of the Board of Trade declared • that Corporate Pro perty was theft, and founded his bill on his principle. The course of the Conservative party was clear. They declared they would resist a measure which if successful would shake the security of all property in the realm. If the Ministers approved this bill, as they pretended, and it they possessed the confluence of the House, as is asserted, how came they to abandon this measure when threatened with Conservative opposition? On the most favorable supposition, they had no confidence in their measure, or the House b t ert6s. LIBERALISM IN SPAIN. THE house of cards built up with so much care by Lord PALMERSTON in Spain has at last tumbled to the ground. The French Govern ment looks on the ruin with complacency ; our Ministry with anguish and wringing of hands. This time there is no mistake ; the Liberal party are totally overthrown. The frightful slaughter at Madrid and Barcelona has given a check to the sacred right of insur rection. Wearied with twenty years of con vulsion, during which the forms of constitu tional government have been ludicrously parodied, the nation is glad to take refuge under any Administration which promises it the security of a strong hand. The tone of our Government press is, that the rule of Marshal O'DototEm. cannot last — that he is a tuol in the hands of the Court — that he will be dismissed in favour of a more obsequious Dictator—that insurrection will raise its head again—that there will be more fights, more slaughter—and that Liberalism, backed by Lord PALMERSTON, will yet take up arms and come triumphant out of the bloody fray. This is what is hoped. It is forgotten that a more powerful will than that of Lord PALMERSTON now regards the Spanish Penin sula, and that his Lordship has to deal, not with a Louts PHILIPPE, but a Louts NAPOLEON. Our Premier, secure, as he believed, in his mastery of the chessboard of Spanish politics, is bewildered at finding himself suddenly checkmated. If his Lordship is the great man that his friends would make him out, he has been much more unlucky than great men usually are. The first decided step taken by this country in support of the Christine party was in 1834, when Lord PALMERSTON was Foreign Secre tary. On the 22nd of April in that year was formed the Quadruple Alliance, afterwards the subject of so much discussion in both Houses of Parliament, between Portugal and Spain and France and England. By this treaty the two first-mentioned Powers bound themselves to assist each other in the expulsion from their respective territories of Don MIGUEL and Don CARLOS—of whom the former was contesting the throne of Portugal against the young Queen MARIA, and the latter the throne of Spain against the young Queen ISABELLA. By a second article England bound herself to promote this design by a naval co-operation ; and by a third, France placed herself at the disposal of the other three Powers. , of this energetic conduct soon bsep 4413* , Don Cant.os, whose party had lwr Sitiif.r . - D the stronger, was compelled toOkirrefit44 la' ....;.. '-7.'1 England, Pon MIGUEL fled ritiLly.r.a4 . I .rf Liberalism was everywhere tri i tZlift. lilt- p .,, - in the following year the S ' • - PriliiitC,? rce z j tk4 again appeared in arms among ' Atekh ', ' and Lord PALMERSTON was p .to,gpit,'N (... ~e, . t .• ,, ..... ...... '.! p.,,, 'N N 4#o IMRP••• -