The Press.
London, England, 1858-03-20 00:00:00

11 It E PIItSS, MARCH 20, 1858.

GRAHAM, and when Lord JoHN RussELL spoke
of " finality," there was, of course, no use in a
retrospective discussion on an accepted
measure.
The threat of Lord J. RUSSELL, that he " was
" ready to go over the history of the Reform
" Bill " with Mr. DISRAELI, was " very absurd."
We have no doubt but that the Noble Lord
would be entertaining ; but we fancy that the
CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER must be too
busy for a purely retrospective discussion with
the .x-leader of the Whigs. But why could
not Lord JOHN RUSSELL "go over" a new
edition of Tom MOORE'S Memoirs, in
which that lyrical Liberal wrote down
his own private alarms at the doings of
his Whig friends and patrons, and in
which, also, the heartless indifference of some
of his Liberal allies is freely commented
upon ? It is remarkable, too, that in MOOSE'S
Diary, written in the atmosphere of Brookes's,
there is a strong animus against Lord DERBY,
because the Noble Lord (then Mr. Stanley)
gave repeated proofs that though he was in
favour of Reform, his CoUservative instincts
were opposed to Revolution. We think, also,
that Lord JOHN RUSSELL might do well if he
perused Mr. ROEBUCK'S " History of the Whig
Cabinet," and would "go over " in it the
statements that came from no less a personage
than the Chancellor of Lord GREY'S Ministry—
Lord BROUGHAM. Does the Noble Lord recol-
lect who it was that denounced to popular
assemblages the resistance of the Tory party
as " the whisper of a faction" ? Would the
Noble Lord like to " go over" the sacking and
burning of a great part of Bristol, and the de-
struction of Nottingham Castle, and the orga-
nisation and fury of the political unions ?
Would be wish to "go over " the famous
" T. Y." letter produced by General NAPIER at
the trial of SMITH O'BRIEN, in which the Pri-
vate Secretary of Lord MELBOURNE, who held
the seals of the Home Department in 1831-2,
committed at least himself, if not his principal,
to most extraordinary measures ? Or would
Lord JOHN RUSSELL care to " go over" certain
passages in the political doings of Lord
DURHAM at that time?
The words of the CHANCELLOR of the Ex-
CHEQUER, in his brilliant speech on Monday,
that "from the unreasoning excitement of the
" time facility was given for perpetrating gross
" jobs" during the passing of the Reform Bill,
are undoubtedly true. We shall not "go
over" the ground that we formerly traversed
when we showed that " the balance of party "
has been unfairly turned against the Con-
servative side. The period is bygone,
and has passed into history; and we
rejoice that the error then committed will
not again be fallen into by the Conserva-
tive leaders of the time. It was, undoubt-
edly, a serious error in political strategy
for the Duke of WEr.tirroTorr and Sir R. PEEL
to have met the Whigs without a counter-
Reform Bill. The mode in which the " Ca-
tholic question" was carried had split up the
Tories, and alienated many of the Duke's
stanchest followers. " Reform " had pene-
trated into quarters not animated with revolu-
tionary feelings, and the Tory leaders saw
their error " too late ;" but their mistakes,
which have been pointed out by Sir A. Ausori
and other Conservative writers, were in many
respects attributable to the peculiarly delicate
state of the relations between the Court and
Parliament in 1830. The Conservatives are
now prepared to discuss the whole subject of
amendments in the law of franchise, and they
will not commit the error of allowing Lord
JOHN RUSSELL to monopolise the subject of
Reform.

The Noble Lord has for twenty years
wavered about " finality " and " progressive
reform." He deprecated ulterior objects "
at the end of 1832; he was for further pro-
gress in 1839 ; and he again wavered after
making "Ballot" an open question, when he
admitted Lord MACAULAY to his Cabinet. He
begins to quake lest Lord DERBY would now
interpose, and settle the Reform subject,
without receiving the permission of the bio•
grapher of Fox, and the follower of GREY.
We can assure the Noble Member for London
that there is every likelihood of the question
of " Reform" not being left in the custody of
the vacillating politician who denounced the

opinion of the House of Peers as "the w
per of a faction," and who afterwards earned
for himself the title of " Finality Joker
Thirty years since the Tory party was em
rassed by " the waverers," of whom the
Lord HARROWBY was the chief, and in
period the Liberals have suffered as in.
from the " waverers" attached to their bed.
and Lord Joux RUSSELL has forestalled '•
verdict of history, as being a spirited debater
but a wavering councillor.