The Press.
London, England, 1858-03-13 00:00:00

THE PRESENT POSITION.

It we study just now the aspects of the Liberal
press, it is chiefly in order that we may gain,
if possible, some idea of what is passing in
the minds of the Liberal public. Not, indeed,
that the editors of the Times, the Daily News,
or the Advertiser, have been intrusted with
the proxies of any considerable number of
the people ; but amidst the silence and tran-
quillity which prevail out of doors, we find
no other way of becoming acquainted with
Liberal thoughts and desires than by seeking
them in the columns of Lord BROUGHAM'S
"best public instructors."
Well, then, what are the Liberal politicians
of England now desiring or purposing?
Clearly they are very far from being of one
mind on political questions. If we take up
the Morning Advertiser or the Globe, we find
their ruling desire to be, to replace Lord PAL-
MERSTON in Downing-street as soon as possible.
But if the Daily News falls in our way, we
learn that its school of Liberals holds, with
Mr. BRIGHT, that Lord PALMERSTON'S Govern-
ment was " the very worst that had ever been
seen," and that the saddest thing that could
happen for England would be his restoration
to power ! Awl the other organ of the Man-
chester school tells us only yesterday morning.
that " it is highly probable that the Palmers-
" tonian faction will take the first opportunity
" that presents itself for an attempt to oust
" him from Downing-street, and to re-instate
" themselves in their old berths. The Liberal
" party must not lend itself to any scheme of
" the kind. We object, on principle, to factious
" attempts to turn out any Minister. We es-
" pecially deprecate any attempts to turn out
" Lord DERBT, so long as the result would be
" to bring back Lord PALMERSTON."
But what says the chief " foolometer "—the
journal which, firmly believing JOHN WiLxes's
assertion, that the nonsenseof any constituency
would always beat the sense, ten to one, has
devoted itself for more than thirty years
to the laudable task of finding out and repeat-
ing what the bulk of the people were saying.
What has the Times been saying or doing
during the fortnight which has elapsed since
the change of Ministry?
The Daily News answers this question
jocosely; remarking that, "As PALMERSTON
" has been alternately extolled or snubbed,
" DISRAELI crushed or encouraged, the profane
" British public, at its breakfast table, has
" found a source of ill-mannered amusement
"in asking with a smile, ' Well, I wonder
" which aide the Times will take to day?'"

This is not an unfair statement. It is a fact
which five minutes spent in turning over its
file will verify, that the Times during the last
fortnight has been "of many minds," and that
during the present week it has appeared to
take refuge in a sort of sullen neutrality. We
believe that in this state of doubt it fairly
represents the " nonsense " of the commu-
nity—the great bulk of the population, who
have no very definite or fixed principles, but
are blown this tray in 1857 by a Chinese insult,
and that way in 1858 by a Walewski despatch.

The " foolometer," therefore, merely rests at
the present moment near the point " Change-
able." Were Parliament dissolved next week,
we believe that the great bulk of the electors
would be left lamentably destitute of "a cry,"
and that the returns in many places would
take place on the " chance-medley " principle.
Yet there are some zealous partisans of the
late Premier who insist upon it that the apathy
and neutrality which are almost universal out
of doors have no existence in the House of
Commons ; and who promise us a speedy
ejection of a Ministry which, in their view,
ought never to have, dared to take its place on
the Treasury benches. The new Administra-
tion, they feel assured, is to perish in the
course of a mry few weeks, by the hands of
an indignant House of Commons.
Do these impatient gentlemen ever reflect
on the absurd position in which they desire to
place the second chamber of the Legislature ?
Do they wish, in these critical times, to deprive
Representative Government of all remains of
credit or respectability ; by exhibiting it, even
in England itself, in the attitude of an angry
child, destroying by turns its favourite toys,
and dealing blows on all sides to its guardians
and friends.

Was it by a mere accident—an uninten-
tional blunder—that the House of Commons
destroyed the Palmerston Administration ?
If so, what excuse can that Cabinet, or its
many friends, offer for not giving the House
an opportunity of reconsidering its vote, and
of declaring, in the most public manner, its
confidence in the then existing Government?
Lord PALMERSTON is a man of long Parliamen-
tary experience, and ho has seen, in the
course of his life, more thaa twenty instances
in which the House of Commons, having
fallen into a mistake, has been delivered from
the consequences of its error by being called
upon to give a second and a more deliberate
vote on the same question.

Why did not Lord PALMERSTON' take this
course, if he believed the majority of the
House to be still with him ? But, iu fact, he
believed nothing of the kind. He had seen,
not only the majority of 19, but the secession
of more than twenty of his friends and hereto-
fore supporters, who, while they would not
assist in his expulsion, refused to give a vote
in his favour, and left the House just before

the division. He had heard, too, the ecstatic
shouts of the majority when they saw and
fully understood the consequence of their
vote, and knew that the Palmerston Ministry
was overthrown. He had seen and heard all
this ; and he declined to ask the House to re-
consider its vote. In fact, he knew that
even if he could have cancelled this vote of
censure by a narrow majority, there remained
behind, the Clanricarde debate of the 4th of
March, when a second defeat was inevitable.
He therefore laid down his arms, and surren-
dered at discretion.

After all this, the Noble Viscount is not so
young a politician as to dream that the House
of Commons is going to stultify itself in the
course of less than a single month, by setting
up a Ministry in March which it had put down
in February. Lord PALMERSTON may wait fora
favourable chance, as he did in 1852, but he
will not be guilty of the indecency of attacking
a Government just selected by the Queen, be-
fore that Government has had the least oppor-
tunity of doing either good or evil. Lord JoaN
RUSSELL will be less fettered in his motions,
and he may lead some direct attack on the new

Government as soon as ho can possibly find
a tolerable pretext. But the majority of the
House will probably ask itself whether a Rus-
sell Ministry just now is either desirable or
even possible. The Daily News, Lord JOHN'S
warmest partisan, admits with pain that no
one at this moment believes that a Russell
Cabinet at present is a possible thing. The
House, then, will hardly destroy the new Go-
vernment at the instance of Lord JOHN Rus-
sia', ; for that would be to dissolve a possible
and actually existing Cabinet in order to try
to set up one which is not possible.
But may not the various elements of oppo-
sition be some day accidentally combined, so
as to compel the retivement of Lord Daasrs
Ministry ? This is hardly likely, for the fol-
lowing reasons :

1. Whenever such a conjunction for such a
purpose seems intended, the House must be
calmly warned, to reflect upon the step it is
about to take. If it wishes to compel the re:
tirement of the present Ministry, has it come
to any understanding as to what is to follow ?
Is Lord PALMERSTON to be ejected in February
and restored in April, with a vacillation which
would be worse than childish? Or is a Russell
Cabinet supposed to be attainable ? Or does the
House of Commons really mean to waste the
session of 1858 in the idle employment of
setting up and knocking down successive
Cabinet.s ?

2. And, after all
Huuse of Commons

itself, Lord DERBY

show any such ligl

well-considered tome
taken a most difficull

don it on the first

I, however ridiontfiii- 2. -
is might clidia ~7 -. .e.
must not, ' .• . '
. m..,,
;htnees. r%• -.1 • '.4.--,• .iiii- to
• u 4• ~,,.
inland of th ,• 0 k. 4, ; ...
.4rki.
"i
It task, he as .;.- .-• . ' *.P.
.• ',is.- • .._•,i% it
appearance • ih.;,. • •• • oar . Pi
1.1.•
,••••••...,n ....
....„ Is

242

Every motive ofloyalty, cf patriotism, and of self
respect, will compel him to fight his ship to
the last. He did not undertake the Govern-
ment in any expectation of receiving the ready
support of the House of Commons, but he has
a right to be allowed to develop his policy.
and to place his plans of government before
the country. If this be denied him, his final
duty remains. To the country he must appeal.
His duty to his Sovereign (anti to himself
also) prescribes this step. And the House of
Commons must look this result in the face.
If they think two elections in two years whole-
some, and the loss of a whole year to legisla-
tion a thing of small importance, they will
take their own course. But we, for our part,
do not expect of them so absurd a determi-
nation. We do not think that nearly 100 Liberal
Members of the Lower House will calmly face
their constituents, and say, "We destroyed
" the Palmerston Government in February,
" and we tried to upset Lord DERBY in April ;
" and if you will have the kindness to return
" us once more, we shall be equally ready to
" vote against Lord JOHN RUSSELL."

We observe that while we were putting on
paper the above remarks, the Times was at the
same moment writing as follows :
" Threatened men live long, and threatened
" Legislatures are equally tenacious of exist-
" enee. We are sure that Parliament will not be
" dragooned by this menace, and have very
" strong reasons for thinking that it is futile.
" We cannot believe that her Majesty has
" placed in the hands of Lord DERBY the power
" of dissolving Parliament."
If it were not tolerably notorious that one of
the writers in the Times has his own peculiar
reasons for looking forward to a .dissolution
with feelings of horror, we should have been at
a loss to understand how that journal could
have committed itself to so egregious an ab-
surdity. What ! are its readers to be made to
believe that a nobleman who, as the Times has
often admitted, cannot desire the Premiership,
nevertheless stooped to accept it shorn of
its usual powers—that he blandly gave
himself up to the House of Commons
to be dealt with at its pleasure ? The
idea is so preposterous that is is difficult to
conceive how an astute journal like the Times
could venture to put it forward. However, as
it is put forward as something which the Times
" has strong reasons for thinking," we meet it
by the plainer and broader assertion that we
have the best means of KNOWING that Lord
DERBY is Premier with FULL POWERS ; and that
if the House of Commons, after discarding one
Government, were immediately after to quarrel
with another, the country at large would im-
mediately be called upon to decide, whether
such proceedings met with its approval.