The Press. — London, England, 1856-08-30 00:00:00

- 7" l "eiligiar ~.,b ,11.; Art6l+ No. 174.—V0L.1V. rtss. LONDON, SATURDAY, AUGUST 30, 1856. ABERDEEN'S Administration was framed on the principle of " large measures" of Reform. Its only large measur..l was the Russian war—a war which ordinary firmness on the part of the Britis.h Government would have prevented. The relations of this country with the Conti nental Governments at the present time are not such as to make us extremely satisfied with the policy that gave occasion to the contest. The writers who suppose that an Opposition is for ever to hold out bribes to the people to assist them to overthrow the Administration for the time, are profoundly ignorant of what is the theory, and what ought to be the prac tice, of party government. There are times in every nation's history when the battle of prin ciples languishes; when the party of change is content with its gains, and the party of Conservatism desires movement to consolidate existing institutions. The line between parties will not then be sharply drawn, and efforts will not be wanting to efface their distinctive marks and mix them together. Connection is then 'a valuable bond to prevent a fusion which would change government by party into government by corruption, which would subvert the loyal influences of traditional principle and of old companionship, and leave each politician to consult his own inclination or interest; which would reduce the contest of principles to the simple mercenary issue of a strife between outs and ins—between those who want to get, awl those who have to give. Beyond the preservation of principle, it is one purpose of an Opposition to keep a Go vernment in reserve. While an Opposition is vigilant, the nation has its choice not only between systems of policy, but between sets of men. It is unquestionably for an Opposi tion to show capacity for affairs, and zeal for the public interest ; but such capacity and zeal may be shown in other ways—as they have been shown by the Conservative Opposition for years past—than by attempting to create a rivalry for change, or by proposing great schemes merely to dazzle the popular unnd. In his best days, when in 1835 he resisted the whole force of the Reform party, Sir ROBERT PEEL triumphantly refuted the argument we are now called on to repel. It supposes, he said, that statesmen are ever to be on the look out for change ; that they are to sink down into mere agitators ; and are to excite storms that they may be called on to guide them. This never can be, and never will be, the policy of Conservatism. Its strength, we say once for . all, must consist, not in its biddings for .Demo cratic support, but in its principles, its con nection, its perception of public requirements, and the capacity of its members for adminis trative business. It repudiates change for the sake of change, or when it takes the shape of hazardous experiment. But it is false to attribute to it reluctance to improve ment. Progressive Conservatism is no new thing, as some persons affect to treat it. The Con servative spirit in this country, whatever shape it has assumed, or in whatever party forms it has been embodied, has always been essentially progressive. We concede that no party can stand at this time which does not acknowledge that it has work to perform, and which is not only willing but earnest to effeot it. But there is a wide difference between a disposition to ameliorate the social state of our people, and to widen and confirm STAMPED .... SIXPENCE. UNSTAMPED..FIVEPENCE. the foundations of our national empire, and that heedless advocacy of great schemes of change which the Conservative party is urged to adopt. In one respect, the hints of our opponents may be useful. It, is for a party in Opposition to survey, without passion or prejudice, the actual state of affairs. Those of its members who hope to rise to eminence must go through that work which Mr. BURKE tells us he went through to thoroughly acquaint himself with the social and political state of the nation, and which Lord STANLEY is practically going through at the present time. If there be any truth in the observations we threw out last week, that the number of persons who take an active interest in political questions, is from various circumstances being gradually con tracted, it becomes a more urgent duty on the part of professed politicians to devote them selves more earnestly to the study of politics. They must rely less than heretofore on public opinion, and more on themselves. They must consider that in the absence of all political excitement it rests with them to mould opi nion, and really to direct the policy of the country. With so grand a task before them, indifference would show want of capacity, or want of inclination for political life. While the public apathy lasts, the chances must be greatly in favour of that party which ranks among it the most vigorous, enlightened, and best instructed minds. "THE PRESS" MIND THE LATE SIR ROBERT PEEL. ON Monday last the . Morning Herald began a leading article with the following sentence : THE PRESS. the champion of Sir Robert Fell.! - Does not that fact at once account for the present weakened and distracted state of the Conservative party? Now, as it was only on Saturday last that we corrected the errors of our contemporary con cerning a particular charge against Sir ROBERT PEEL, it seems rather extraordinary thitt such "championship " should be the cause of an alleged state of things which for weeks past our contemporary has told us existed for some time! How could the fact of THE PRESS con futing on August 23rd the erroneous asser tions of a contemporary " account for the " present state of the Conservative party," as seen through the disordered vision of dim sighted observers? Even if THE PRESS had been " the champion " of Sir ROBERT PEEL on last Saturday, such " championship " could not possibly have caused a state of things said to be in existence long prior to the 23rd of August. The logic of our contemporary is as ridiculous as his narrative is erroneous. It is not true that even in a single instance THE PRESS acted as " champion " for Sir ROBERT PEEL. The Herald, -ting our arguments on Maynooth answer them, ripped up an charge against Sir ROBF.RT matter of fact that which Si time positively denied. Wt R. PEEL was misrepresentel by the Herald. It is n( PRESS is, or was last week, of Sir R. PEEL. In that w•e stated that "we are " the fame of Sir R. PEE: in misrepresenting .h while a ..41 .. t Old , 9 1.. 1 . 1"". " A 4) $1 PEE . !•' 11,7-7- Sir " . --- ''• - ••''' 'e... tv 'e s. 9 . , , • .., . ', . u rgriz" iliat. Et; iot • L 4 41:1 fit`". ... , Wig „; • "7l ide\VNlib ,nr e at i i,„_ 4ll kat, i 'i l itt` * . ' 4 ' • 2 1" j ire • . 'p ;r1 EL ; :• '1 LONDON, SATURDAY, AUGUST 3n, 1856. THE argument most relied on against the Conservative party and leaders seems to be, that they have no great scheme of policy to propose. Where, it is asked, are their " large measures?" What do they offer the country? What particular reforms do they advocate? What extensive changes do they show them selves anxious to promote? We give as closely and faithfully as we can the idea put forward in several leading journals. The con ception of the writers appears to be that a change of Government is never desirable unless a revolution has to be accomplished. They suppose that parties should contend one against another for popular support, and that the prize of Government should be knocked down to the highest bidder. As any such con test must infallibly result in the ruin of the Constitution, the Conservatives are not likely to be a party to it. This demand for mighty changes and start ling effects does not come with a good grace from the supporters of the existing Adminis- tration. We cannot learn that it has any scheme of policy to propose ; or that it has any intention of settling those vexed questions of our time which urgently call for settlement. Suspended between oppo site poles of policy, it is kept in a state of per petual variation ; it is the very essence of a negation. It would be nothing were it some thing, and it is something only because it is nothing. The Conservatives have a creed,• as shown by Mr. DISRAELI'S speech at.the close of the session ; and they have objects and a policy, as shown by their conduct during the session. But what creed or what objects has the once great Liberal party ? That party is nothing now but a connection, kept together by, the basest of all party influences—the en joyment and the expectation of Government rewards. It is the vulgarest imaginable conception of statesmanship to suppose that the leaders of a party are to be always bidding for office in the face of the people, or that, like players in the booths of a fair, they are to he always per forming antics on the outer stage, that they may attract support to see the wonders they will perform inside. The critics on the present attitude of the Conservative party intimate that its leaders should promise such wonders as are set forth in the bills of a travelling circus. One performer ought to dance a horn pipe on the extremity of an elephant's trunk, and another to leap through the windows of a stage coach when it is in full career. We beg leave to think that it is not by such absurd antics that the confidence of the country is to be won. If a Ranliamentary majority can only be.gained by the promise of revolutionary changes, the Conservatives had much better remain in a minority. Lord