The Press.
London, England, 1857-03-21 00:00:00

SYMPTOMS OF THE STRUGGLE.

IT was hoped by some persons that the pre-
sent general election would tend to the clear-
ing up of political parties. That result, judg-
ing by the intelligence from the country, is
not likely to be attained. Indeed, for our-
selves, we never supposed that a dissolution
taken so suddenly on a mere personal ques-
tion could elucidate thoroughly the feelings
of the people. On scanning the various
addresses made by the candidates throughout
the country to bodies of their supporters and
opponents, we arc struck by the narrowness
of range shown in their tone and topics. The
chief difference between several of the
speakers seems to be the degree, more
or less, of adroitness with which they go
through their hackneyed exercises. They re-
mind us of the performers in an equestrian
circus, where the steeds arc put to a tremen-
dous pace, amidst loud cracking of whips.
After all the pulling, and cantering, and great
display of skill, the performers have neither
advanced nor retired. They remain in their
old places still. The practical result to be
expected from the present appeal to the
country is not likely to satisfy persons fond
of definite result. One object, that of " wast-
ing a year," is only too likely to be gained
Let us see how the accounts from various
parts of the empire testify to this description.
We shall begin with the speech of Mr.
LAYARD at Aylesbury :—" Those gentlemen
" who act with myself have always given the
" Palmerston Government a firm, but consis-
" tent support." Yet his colleague, Sir RICHARD
BETHEL'. (the Attorney-General), in following
him, " commenced a severe attack on the acci-
" dental coincidence which brought into the
" same lobby men whose votes could but have
" one effect—that of bringing the Tcries into
" power ;" and the Attorney-General then
went off into a Hong Kong speech, and treated
his hearers to nothing but Chinese topics. A
family expecting to be asked Jilt to dinner,
but being invited only to that beverage which
we owe to the Chinese, could scarcely feel
more disappointment than constituencies
hoping that their candidates will treat them
to some solid topics elaborately discussed, but
putting them off with a copious infusion of
Chinese politics. Yet we can scarcely blame
the candidates for the meagreness of political
fare offered by them to their constituents.
At Finsbury, Major' REED said " that lie
" believed Lord PALMERSTON was the man of
" the day ;" and the gallant officer declared
himself in favour of Mr. LOCKE limes motion,
the Ballot, and no income tax beyond 1860.
Such is the creed of a supporter of " the man
" the day." In Southwark, Sir CHARLES
NAI'IER discharged quite in character several
harmless broadsides against invisible adver-
saries ; and in place of " Rule Britannia," the
the gallant Admiral would substitute a " Rule
" Palmerston" tune He declared himself in
favour of triennial Parliaments ; and urged
the elec'ors not " to allow a single man to go
" into Parliament without being pledged to
" the Ballot"—a measure which Lord PALMERS-
TON called " nonsense."

At Liverpool Mr. J. C. EWART declared him-
self a Palmerstonian as to confidence in the
Cabinet, and he did so after a resolution had
been put and carried—

That the nest meeting of Parliament must witness the
introduction of anew Reform Bill, and that Liberal electors
shcnld return members whose opinions and independence
would not fail them in the hour of need.

At East Norfolk General WINDHAM declared
himself "a supporter of Lord PALMERSTON,"
and said that he was in favour of " reform in
" the Law, reform in the Church, reform in the
" Civil Adminietration, and reform in Parlia-

SATURDAY,

" ment. In the next column of the journal
which records the gallant candidate's speech,
we have Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S citation of the
admission of the Times of December 18th,
1853, that Lord PALMERSTON had withdrawn
from Lord ABERDEEN'S Cabinet, rather than
sanction a moderate measure of Reform!
We could multiply similar instances of in-
congruities and political incoherency without
end. In fact, the brilliant photograph of Lord
PALMERSTON by Lord DERBY in the House of
Peers is symbolical of the confusion of the
electioneers, who act in concurrence with, if
not in obedience, the rather too indefatigable
HAYTER. Popular opinion seems to be one
thing in Lambeth, where the opposition vote
of Mr. WILLIAMS was approved; and another
in Southwark, where it is condemned. At
Portsmouth, the thorough-going Palmers-
tonian Lord MoNex is condemned; and at
Brighton all the candidates profess the creed
unpopular at Portsmouth. In Westminster,
as at Aylesbury, there seems a miring off of
one vote against the other, and there seems
to be a similar pairing in the West Riding,
where it is proposed to return Lord GODERICH
with Mr. DENISON.

The confusion at the present general elec•
tion is entirely unexampled, and such must be
the case where only a personal issue is raised.
The Duke of WELLINGTON urged Sir ROBERT
PEEL in June, 1846, to dissolve on the question
of " PEEL," but Sir ROBERT answered :

Union seems impossible. What is to be our candiJate ?
Even if we get a majority, it would be one supporting us, not
from concurrence in general political principles, but from
a short•lived sympathy. A Government ought to have a
natural support ; aid from the compassion of its ene.oies,
or even from the personally friendly feelings of those
who ought on public principle to oppose a Government, is
a hollow, not a creditable support.

But from the chaos principles of policy
must ultimately emerge ; and it is both our
belief and hope that England will yet be
governed on the principles enlarged upon in
the concluding passages of Lord DERBY'S
speech on Monday. We shall return to the
questions raised by the extraordinary confusion
of the present hour. We are now in the
transition state, where a cloud of personal
pretensions have covered us in " the dust and
powder of individualism."

COALITIONS - PRINCIPLED AND
UNPRINCIPLED.

THE great Mr. Lofty has this week treated us
to a dissertation on the meaning of the word
" coalition." He has consulted his Dicticuary,
and he has benignantly enlightened the public
with the results of his research. He is exact
in the; quotation of all JOHNSON'S authorities.
To coalesce is " to unite in masses ;" and as
various sections of the Commons did unite on
Mr. COBDENS motion, they must have formed
a Coalition. Erudite instructor of the public !
We bow to your authority, and pass from your
jargon to the realms of common sense.
Like many other words, Coalition admits of
a good, of an indifferent, and of a bad signifi-
cation. When applied to political affairs, it is
commonly restricted to a combination of men
of opposite princinles formed for factious or
selfish purposes. Was the majority on the
China vote a coalition in this sense of the
term ? He must be a bold man who will dare
assert the affirmative.

A coalition, in its political sense, means an
arranged and determinate compact; and such
instances of combination are not wanting in
our political annals. When Lord NORTH and
Mr. Fox formed a coalition it was with a per-
fect understanding that their forces were to
join so as to seize the Government, and to
constitute a. permanent majority. When the
Coalition was formed which overthrew Lord
DERBY'S Government in 1851, the chiefs met,
they discussed terms, they arranged the dis•
trihution of offices,• and settled the whole
course of their policy. In these two cases the
fact of coalition was undoubted. The union
may be excused or may be justified, but no
one will attempt to deny that in both in-
atanees the combination was concerted, not
accidental; that all its consequences were
calculated ; and that the parties gained the
great stake for which they played.

MARCH 21, 1857.

Of those accidental combinations, on the
contrary, which spring from political convic-
tion, apart from purpose, compact, and calcu-
lation of consequences, we have numerous
instances in the Parliament now on the point
of expiring. Lord DERBY has mentioned one
such instance—the division on Mr. LocKE
KING'S motion. Who thought of calling that a
coalition ? A more memorable instance was
the division on Mr. ROEBUCK'S motion for a
Sebastopl Committee. Then the Govern-
ment were defeated by an overwhelming
majority. Nearly the whole body of indepen-
dent Liberals went into the same lobby with
the whole body of Conservatives, but no one
ever thought of branding that majority as a
coalition. The majority was united for one
purpose only, as the majority on the China
vote was united but for one purpose. In each
case the combination ended with the divi-
sion, and there was no kind of subsequent
party action.
The difference between a coalition in a fac-
tious or unconstitutional sense of the term,
and an agreement of men (whose general
principles are adverse) on a particular ques-
tion, is, that in.the former case the combina-
tion results from defiance of principle, and in
the latter case from respect for principle. In
the one case men consult their interests or
ambition ; in the other their conscience and
judgment.
The' Ministerialists have found that they
overleapt their mark in endeavouring to fix on
the majority which defeated them a charge of
factious' combination. While they hoped it
might swell into a popular cry they were inde
fatigable in urging it ; bnt since they find
that it is bolily faced. and that the public sen-
timent recoils from it, they are glad to draw
in their horns. It is an old trick for culprits
conscious of guilt to endeavour to divert sus-
picion from themselves by fixing it on innocent
persons ; and the Pahnerstonians hoped by
joining in the "hark follow' of their Leader to
divert attention from the real cause of the dis-
solution, and the sinister end they had in
view.