The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-07-24 00:00:00

fears as to the character of French intervention in
Syria are confirmed by a statement of Lord John Rus-
sell's, that the British Cabinet has beeii entrapped into
giving its assent, although nothing has been decided
as to the stay or mode of opeiation of the riench troops."

"A BLUNDER IN AcTicsricr THE

SATURDAY REVIEW:

'Tits; Saturday Review enjoys the reputation of
being " a very able and well written" periodical;
among that large and by no means insignificant
flank of sheep who are seen invariably torun and
leap after the foremost wether with blindfold
unconsciousness, and equal disregard of the real
state of the facts or of the true merits of the •
case. Even such a reputation is, in -any view,
undoubtedly an enviable and valuable possession;
but it were still more to if 'founded on truth,
and tafiable of withstanding independent and
impartial investigation. That many of its articles
—especially among its non-political ottribritions
—betray scholarship and ability it were vain to
deny ; and, indeed, it were strange if such a high-
priced paper could not afford to hire the idle'
pens of some of those " unattached," young, and
" promising" productions of Oxford and Cam-
bridge—yclept, " briefless barristers "—who, for
their own and their country's sake, have embraced
a " gentlemanly profession;" and who swarm our
law courts decked out in horsehair and stuff,
with no more interesting occupation than that of
talking over the latest gossip of the town, the
last, night's debauch, or the probabilities of an
approaching change of Ministry and the pickings
to be looked for therefrOm. That there should'
occasionally appear a smart piece of very special,
one-sided pleading, in the course of which the
leading facts affecting the question treated of are
utterly ignored, is only what we might expect
front those who have been trained to the' exercise
of that skill Which is requisite "to make the,
worse appear the better eafise i" lint We fail to.
perceive that the display of such gifts, in a print'
which professes neutrality or impartiality, is any-
thing else than public dishonesty and -hypocrisy,
and especially dangerous to the cause of truth and
progress. After all, there is so frequently mani-
fested in the columns of the Saturday Review so
much that is not merely dishonest and miserably
illogical, but that is actually "stale, flat, and
unprofitable;" Whether as regards thought or
piquincy, that we can only accontit for the fact
of its being tolerated oft the principle that
" ewe let a man gain the reputation of an early-
riser, and he may lie a-bed all day." The greater
proportion of the political articles of the Saturday
Review are so destitute of sound reasoning and.
correct observation of facts, to say nothing of
their want of spirit and brilliancy of conception
or expression, that their stated-appearance in the
leading column's of a newly established cheap
paper of any shade of political profession would
everlastingly damn it in public estimation. But
" one that! !nay steal a horse, while another dare
not look over the hedge," Let those Conservatives
who have hitherto thoughtlessly believed in the
l'eputedmerits of this " Reviler" turn to the " last
number; and read what follows under the heading
" A blunder in tactics!' .
Our readers will remember, that iti the House
of Commons, about midnight, this day week,
Lord FERMOY brought on an indignation resolu-
tion against the Lords, of which we may say
with our contenipOtary; that it was only "worthy
of Lord FERMOY." That noble Member asked
the House to declare, in the.most fornial mariner,
" That the rejection by the House of Lords of the
bill for the repeal of the paper duties, is an innos
vation on the rights and privileges of the Hpuse
of Commons, and it is therefore incumbent upon
this House to adopt a practical measure for the
restoration of its rights and privileges." That
subject had been already under the solemn con-
sideration of the House ; when Lord PALMER-
STON'S three resolutions were all bat unanimously
supported. Those three, resolutions, asserted the
privileges of the }louse in a manner-so' complete
that even the noble nioier of the additional
resolution said he was perfectly rears' to rest -his
description of ' the Common's privileges 7on the
language of Lord PALMERSTON'S first resolution.
Yet he proposed another ! Lord i.EßmorY's
motion asserted that, by the rejection
of---the—hrpm—Duty- Bill, the—Lords--had
been guilty of an innovation. But what was the,
second resolution of. the Prime Minister P. It was
...
an acknowledgment of the right of the Lords to
reject such bills. The resolution of the noble
member.
for Marylebone proceeded "to say that it
was the duty of the House to adopt a practical
measure. Had not the. House pronounced its
opinion.'that the adoption of Lord PALMERSTON'S
resolutions was an adequate and proper measure
for the maintenance of the Commons' _rights P
To have supported Lord FERMOlisf
trhetat,otlutionwould have been to stultify everything to which
the House had already. agreed; for
reso-
lution had been carried it 7ivoulli have counter-
acfed all the effect of the resolutions passed at
the instance. of the Prime Minister. The real
question, then, before the House, this night week,
was; whether the constitutional and adequate
settlement of the question between Lords and
Commons, to which the House, we may say
unanimously, agreed, was to be, erased and blotted
out to gratify the noble Radical member for
Marylebone ? As Sii ROBERT PEEL would have
said, there. were three courses open to the House
—namely, to say either yes or no, or, to decline
giving . any. opinion for or against. We need
hardly explain that when the House wishes to
adopt the last course it supports "the previous
queStion"—a convenient subterfUge for not meet-
ing the real question with a direct negative.

Now, we. ask any moderate and impartial man
whether, in the whole circumstances of the case,
it was most for the dignity and consistency of the
House to get rid of the motion by a mere side-
wind, or to take its stand upon the resolutions
formerly passed, as an adequate settlement of the
ptestio vexata, and maintain the position then
assumed, by flatly saying "No" to Lord PER-
MOY'S anarchical resolution ? That it might suit
Mr. GLADSTONE, after what our contemporary
stigmatises as his " inconceivably reckless out-
break" at the discussion of the three resolutions,
to avoid a positive contradiction of the resolution
which his intemperate language had no doubt
provoked, is easily understood. It is equally
plain that Lord PALMERSTON may have been
glad to move " the previous question," as the only
contrivance by which he could extricate him-
self and his CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
from an awkward predicament. But was it
therefore the duty of the Conservatives to stultify
themselves by countenancing such a weak, incon-
sistent, and undignified course? Were not the
support of the Conservative party, and the conse-
quent unanimity of the House in passing Lord
PALMERSTON'S resolutions, secured only on the
understanding that these embodied an adequate,
constitutional, .and .permanent settlement of the
question ? Was it their duty to set aside that,
settlement in order to gratify Lord PALMERSTON,
and accommodate Mr. GLADSTONE, in their trim-
ming and unseemly courses ? What .was the
only straightforward and honourable policy to
pursue under these circumstances—the only pro-
per.course open to Mr. DISRAELI, as leader of the
Conservative party in the House ? Could the
right lion. gentleman have done less than meet
the resolution with a direct and unhesitating
negative ? Neither Mr. DisaAELI nor his party
occupied any ambiguous position in the
matter
which could have rendered it necessary or a;dvan-
lageous for them to take refuge in the shabbiest
of all motions that can he made—that of
" the previous question." Who will deny that
when a question of Constitutional interest, con-