The Press.
London, England, 1855-06-02 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 2, 1855.

MR. DISRAELI'S motion has had the wholesome
effect of a storm, which freshens the air when
polluted by heavy vapours. It has cleared and
purified the political atmosphere. Already we
feel the bracing influence of exhilirating truths
spoken with an authority which compelled the
Government to abandon its
_cowardly or de-
signing reserve, and to make ti show at least
of vigour in its language. The debate did
more than reveal the position of parties : it
raised the character of the House, and proved
that there was a spirit in that assembly which
would render it perilous for any Minister to
tamper with the national honour, or presume
too far on the forbearance of Parliament.

Never was a motion more successful, if we
consider only the object it hail in view. That
object was not to overthrow the Government.
In an assembly like the House of Commons
combinations for such a purpose are always
practicable to leaders who will stoop to effect
them. Had the motion been merely directed
to secure a majority it would have been framed
to catch votes. But so far was this from
being the case, that considerable offers of
assistance, we have every reason to believe,
were made upon terms, and were not en-
couraged.
The real object of the motion was to discon-
cert a scheme, which had all the features of a
great conspiracy, to make England the victim
of a German intrigue, and dethrone her from
her eminence by an ignominious peace.
The debate on the evening fixed for Mr.
MILNER GIBSON'S motion indicated the
threatened danger. It showed that the prin-
ciples of the Coalition were still in full force—
that there was a secret understanding between
the last Government and the present, or rather
between the Ministers who retired and the
Ministers who remained—and that the influence
of Aberdeen councils were still paramount in
the Cabinet.
The declarations of Lord CLARENDON in one
House, and of Lord PALYIERSTON in the other,
that the Government were ready to give will-
ing ear to any propositions received from
Vienna were not spoken at random. The last
Vienna proposals had, in fact, been favorably
received by the Cabinet. They had been com-
municated to their late colleagues. A new
Coalition was contemplated, which would
have been even more fatally opposed than the
previous one to the real interests of the
country, and would have secured a majority in
Parliament for sanctioning any terms which
Austria might have thought it convenient to
propose and Russia to accept. This is the
true explanation of that disgraceful scene in
the Commons when the Aberdeenites came to
the support of the Ministry, and Mr. MILNER
GIBSON was comforted by the assurance
that negotiations for peace would still bo
carried on.

If Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Lord PAL-
MEMOS were really of opinion on that
evening that peace was only to be won by
victory, and that for success in negotiation we
must look to arms, why did they listen, and
apparently with favour, to the Vienna pro
posals ?—why did they seek to blind the
country by postponing discussion on the
ground that negotiations were still in pro-
gress? At that time there is no doubt that a
majority of the Cabinet were favorable to the
Austrian proposals, and hence we can under-
stand Count BuoL's complaint, that our
Government, by the publication of the pro-
tocols of the Vienna Conferences, " made
" public the negotiations for peace at a
" moment when they cannot be regarded as
" terminated." A crisis, not only in the war,
but in our national existence, had arrived.
At that moment it really rested with the Con-
servative party to determine the policy which
should be pursued. Indecision on their part
would have been construed into weakness or
indifference. The Government were prepared
to go any lengths in submission which they
deemed consistent with their safety, and were
only withheld by fear of the Opposition from
adopting the views of Mr. GLADSTONE and his
friends, and agreeing to terms which would
have shaken our empire to its foundations,
and for ever have degraded our name.
It was to avert this grave, imminent, and by
the country unsuspected danger, that Mr.
DISRAELI'S motion was brought forward. The
result justified his sagacity. Conspiracy is
harmless from the moment that it is exposed.
The Ministers took fright. Their tone sud-
denly changed—the projected Coalition was
broken off, and the House of Commons, which
would have been made an instrument to sanc-
tion the most profligate compact in our annals,
rose at once to the dignity of its natural posi
tion as the representative of the mind and
guardian of the honour of the British people.
Parties are more powerful through principle
than through numbers. Had the minority
been less than it was, the Opposition, by the
brilliant reconnaissance of their leader, would
still have disconcerted the sinister intrigue set
afoot, and have saved the country from the
shame of what, under the circumstances,
could have been but an ignominious truce.
The amendments proposed to the motion
were a tribute to its importance and its
truth. Those members on the Ministe-
rial side who fancy that they have a charac-
ter for independence to maintain were sud-
denly stricken with a sense of the duties
they had neglected. Had they been sinew e
in disapproving the language of Govern-
ment, or in distrusting its intentions (and the
amendment of Mr. LOWE implies both), their
plain course would have been to vote for the
resolution of Mr. DISRAELI. They must not
hope to uphold their credit with the country
by a double-faced motion brought forward to
bolster up the Ministry while professing to con-
demn it.

Of the three amendments still to be brought
before the House, that of Sir W. lizmicorn is
only of the slightest importance, as showing
the real sentiment of the party which rallied
round the Government a fortnight ago to save
it from an inconvenient discussion.
Mr. LowE's amendment is one of those
shams which can deceive no one. It is uncon-
stitutional from its interference with the pre-
rogative of the Crown, and it is impolitic

because it pledges the House of Commons
not to sanction peace until there is a reduction
of the Russian fleet—a ccndition which will
not bear scrutiny, as it would be ineffective as
a guarantee, and impracticable in practice.
Motions of this kind can never test the
sincerity of a party, or the policy of an Ad-
ministration.
The amendment of Sir Fasscts Mama
remains. It is impossible that the House can
sanction it without totally forfeiting the confi-
dence of the country. It commences by
regretting that the negotiations did not suc-
ceed. Is the Legislature to give an earnest of
its determination to prosecute the war with
vigour by such puling expressions as this ?
What is there, in fact, to regret in the failure
of negotiations which, on the terms proposed,
would only have led to a temporary cessation
of hostilities, embittered by continual bicker-
ings, and incessantly occupied with prepara-
tions for a renewal of the struggle?
The time for such resolutions has past. We
suffered too much from the Aberdeen
policy to permit its continuance. The nation,
at last thoroughly aroused, will no longer
allow its strength to be wasted, and its heroic
defenders to be sacrificed to ignoble councils.
In insists on a definite policy and an ener-
getic action. It desires peace not less than
I,efore ; but its mind is made up that peace to
be obtained must be conquered.

The Government had the fairest oppor-
tunity for soliciting the Legislature to afford
it that support for the prosecution of the war
which Sir F. BARING would beg for it by a
paltry side-wind. It neglected the oppor-
tunity. It preferred still to hang on Aus-
trian professions, and feign belief in the sin-
cerity of a Court which from the very com-
mencement of the dispute has never by a
single act afforded the allies a pledge of its
good faith.
The system of the last Cabinet has been
faithfully acted on by the present. There has
been the same degrading and fruitless nego-
tiation—the same want of decided views and
of official capacity to which we can distinctly
trace all the disasters of the last year, and the
insufficiency of our military force at the
present time. It is not by a few high-sounding
words wrung from Ministers by the pressure
of necessity at the very last moment that they
can be suffered to escape the penalty of their
past mismanagement and the odium of their
still-existing alliance with tho Aberdeen party.
Henceforth Responsibility must be more than a
vague word—a definite signification must be
attached to it.

The Conservative party has but begun its
work. It has exposed a treacherous in-
trigue, and probably saved the country from
such an ignominious peace as would have
given entire satisfaction to Mr. GLADSTONE
and his adherents. But this is the beginning,
not the end of the parliamentary campaign.
It is vain to expect that peace can be conquered
until the whole vicious system of policy and
conduct which has prevailed since the com-
mencement of the war, and which still exists,
has been exposed and swept away. This is
the appointed work for the Opposition. They
must not shrink from it. The people, weary
of mock Liberalism masking real corruption,
will give them cordial support ; and if they are
valiant and vigorous, they will be nobly
rewarded by their success in the exaltation
of the greatness and glory of their country.

510

VICES OF THE LIBERALS.

EVERY person mixing in the general society of
the metropolis must be aware that for the last
few weeks the tongues of men have been apt
to discourse on thb great seacia6l of the
day—the corrupt al es betwefn 0, RIM #
oligarchy and the faise-called Theependeni
Liberals. That th 6 " Whig &nines " have
bought over the block kidicals kit nbtorioill,
and never did a large body of Members of
Parliament make a more ignominious figure
than the parliamentary Liberals at the present
time. Nothing more severe can be said of
them than that they are now formidable
in nothing but numbers. Connections in
politics usually depend upon influence of pro-
perty, character, and talents. In property the
" outsider " Liberals are easily matched
and surpassed without difficulty. In talents
they are sterile. They have produced nei
ther orators, administrators, nor original
natures, capable of casting light on political
problems. In character—but that is the
subject on which we desire specially to engage
the attention of our readers.
It is one of the most momentous facts in the
current history of the times that the Liberals
have utterly broken down in character. The
war has beon flagrantly mismanaged—the
Liberals have held their tongues. The most
scandalous jobs have been perpetrated—the
Liberals have winked at them, and realised by
them ! The bravest of the brave have been
victimised by official incapacity in Downing-
street—and the Liberals have refused to join
in any manly reclamation against the stupid
sacrifice of hecatombs of heroes. Chiefs and
subordinates of departments have miscon-
ducted themselves—and the Liberals, as a
body, are as mute as a Marylebone Baronet
after he has bartered his influence for place,
salary, and title. There is proved ambiguity
.of purpose in the Cabinet—and the Liberals
are as anxious to smother all inquiry as any of
their body after mysteriously-rapid operations
in the tea trade, or after confidential whisper-
ings with the trusty Mr. HATTER in the vote
market. The course of business pursued by
the latter worthy is thoroughly appreciated
by those dealers in Liberalism who, by
organised clamour, put " M.P." after their
names. At the Congress of Vienna, when the
with in the salon of Prince ESTERHAZY were
trying who could utter the most extravagant
thing about the genius of NAPOLEON, the
English Lord DUDLEY distanced them by
saying—" He (NAPOLEON) made past glory
" doubtful, and future fame impossible." Mr.
HArrEa by his exploits has destroyed the
posthumous celebrity of the &lice famed
" Billy Holmes," and performed such feats in
delicate conversations with indelicate M.P.'s,
that all future " whips " will be faint-hearted
at the magnitude of his illicit achievements.
" That the country is sold, and that the
" Liberals are bought," is the remark every-
where. It is vain to deny the charge. It is
proved by the conduct of the Radicals as a
body. Mr. DISRAELI made a perfectly fair
parliamentary motion. The terms of it
enabled any really " independent" Liberal to
Note for it. And how did the clamorous friends
of the ballot and hou4ehOld suffrage behave ?
They acted like obsequious hacks to the Trea-
sury. The country called for censure on the
misconduct of responsible Ministers ; Mr.
ilirr6a cracked his whip, and the place-
hounds from the Reform Club hunted in
couples, with the patrician beagles from
Brookes's. Whether the cry was "So ho,
Coalition !" or " Tallo-ho, Palmerston !" was
all alike to the docile senators who scampered
after the Treasury game in view. Huntsman
HATTER pointed, the Liberal pack voted,
extra-whip GRENVILLE BERKELEY saw that
their messes were afterwards supplied, and
Squire PALMERSTON declares that the Radical
covers are capital, and " kept up so cheaply."
Of their " fences," the less said the better.
But these shortcomings of the noisy pro-
fessors of " Liberalism," though matters for
comical jokes, and cynical comments in the
private circle, are most serious objects of con-
sideration, when we regard the present state

M■■■.„