The Press.
London, England, 1855-02-17 00:00:00

4e;Xce $2/6-(rj
t r
t cr;
(

No. 94.—VoL. 111.

LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1855.

Ct V rtss.

To effect this great object Lord DERBY was
willing to make great sacrifices. It cannot be
said of him that he was anxious to obtain
power that he might appropriate it among his
immediate adherents. Mr. DISRAELI set a
noble example of self-sacrifice by consenting
to resign the post which his brilliant orato-
rical powers entitled him to claim as Leader of
the Commons in Lord PALMERSTON'S favour.
To secure the Noble Viscount's assistance
Lord DERBY consented to receive into his
Cabinet the two colleagues with whom he was
known to be closely associated. Many mem-
bers of the Conservative party would have
viewed this fusion with great regret, nor
could any circumstances short of the extreme
urgency of the case, and the public require-
ment for a firm Administration, have ren-
dered it either expedient or justifiable.
But in considering this transaction it is to
be distinctly understood that the application
of Lord DERBY was to Lord PALMERSTON alone,
and that it was to obtain his adhesion that the
admission of Mr. GLADSTONE and Mr. HERBERT
into the projected Cabinet was consented to.
Those gentlemen were viewed as an indispen-
sable part of Lord PALMERSTON'S personal fol-
lowing, and as make-weights to be cast into
the scale in consideration of the strength
which Lord DERBY'S Cabinet might have gained
by the popularity and influeoce supposed to
be attached to Lord PALMERSTON'S name.
To those gentlemen Lord DERBY made no per-
sonal application whatever. Lord PALMERSTON
undertook the office of addressing them, and
assuredly Lord DERBY would have sanctioned
no such overture had he not imagined that
Lord PALMERSTON only waited their consent
to join the projected Ministry.

It is true that Lord PALMERSTON made no
promise, but from the conversation which took
place, and the discussion on the office which
it was proposed he should fill, Lord DERBY
left him with a strong sentiment that the
arrangement would take effect. Lord PALMERS -
ToN promised that his definitive answer should
be sent at five o'clock that day. It was not
sent until half past nine, and then, as all the
world is aware, contained a refusal on the
ground that, owing to the vote of the House
of Commons, he could bring no strength to
Lord DERBY'S Government.

From what took place it would naturally be
supposed that his decision was influenced by
the adverse opinion of his late colleagues. No
such thing. It is established, on the con-
trary, that their refusal was influenced by the
adverse opinion of Lord PALMERSTON. He had
determined not to join before he knew what
their decision would be, and had stated that
determination to them in plain terms.

We arrive at this important fact from that
passage in Lord DEanv's speech, on the Bth
inst., in which he alluded to the letter he
received from Mr. GLADSTONE, two or three
hours after the receipt of Lord PALMERSTON'S
refusal. In this courteously worded note Mr.
GLADSTONE expressly said, " I alsolearned from
" Lord PALMERSTON that he is not of opinion
" that he can himself render you useful ser-
" vice in that Administration." After this
intimation from his Lordship, no option was
in reality left to Mr. GLADSTONE and Mr.
HERBERT. Instead of being solicited, as Lord
DERBY had every reason to suppose they would
be, to join Lord PALMERSTON in assenting to the
proposed arrangement, they were in reality
solicited to concur with him in rejecting it.

PRICE SIXPENCE.

It is not easy to understand why Lord
PALMERSTON should have applied to Mr. GLAD-
STONE and Mr. HERBERT at all, unless we sup-
pose him actuated by the paltry motive of
showing that Lord DERBY was willing for the
sake of national union, and to secure a strong
Government, to admit into his Cabinet states-
men who were justly obnoxious to the Con-
servative party. By the clever strategy of
Lord PALMERSTON, it is now known that Mr.
GLADSTONE and Mr. HERBERT were afforded an
opportunity of retrieving their past errors, and
of rejoining that party to which from connec-
tion, from the constituencies they represent,
and from their first introduction into publics
life, they unquestionably belong. But, at the
same time, it ought to be known that the pro-
posed fusion would have had no one point
of resemblance with that Coalition—here•
after to be styled infamous—which we
have never ceased to condemn, and of
which the country is now reaping the
bitter fruit. A statesman in Lord DERBY'S
position might well conceive that for the
time that Ministry must be the best which.
without sacrifice of unity in its councils, would
secure the greatest amount of administrative
ability and the strongest parliamentary sup-
port. But he would never have consented to
preside over a balanced Cabinet, or to have
admitted " open questions " as a part of his
policy. He would have been in name and in
reality the head of his Government, and would
have permitted no other influence in it than
was naturally due to the ability and experience
of its individual members. Such a Govern-
ment as he contemplated would have been
equal to the difficulties with which it would
have had to cope, and would completely have
satisfied the wants, if not the sentiment, of the

couu try.
To the formation of such a Government
Lord PALMERSTON objected, only bemuse he
could not be at the head of it. Between him-
self and Lord DERBY there was no opposition
of principle—no difference whatever on any
question of public policy, or on the manage-
ment of the war. By pretending to consult with
MT.GLADSTONE and MT. HERBERT, LOTdPALMERB.
TON seems to have had a double object in view
—to cast off from himself upon them the odium
of refusing the arrangement proposed, and to
exhibit Lord DERBY as soliciting the co-opera-
tion of men lately condemned, with himself,
by a vote of the House of Commons. Tho
artifice did not succeed. The large views and
disinterested aims of the statesman only stand
out in bolder relief from contrast with the
petty devices and grasping selfishness of the
trickster.

THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
No one can be surprised at the intense anxiety
with which the people of England look forward
to the conduct of the House of Commons at
the present time. The public has been startled
by the rumours that every possible exertion is
being made in Ministerial quarters to stifle
the inquiry for which the House of Commons
so decisively voted. But in spite of all at•
tempts to cloak the truth the Committee must
go on. The House of Commons that would
recede from investigation in this flagrant case,
after, having three weeks since, voted for it by
a majority of 305 to 148, would be degraded.
Such scandalous tergiversation could never be
forgotten at the hustings.