The Press.
London, England, 1858-06-12 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JUNE 12, 1858.

One favourite game with the Times, in which, we are sorry to say,
journals of a better character sometimes join, is to vex the souls of Con-
aervatives with the idea that they are going to be betrayed. Only
yesterday we met with the following remarks in a journal which is chiefly
circulated among the country clergy :
" Mr. BRIGHT and Mr. MILNER GIBSON were not mistaken when they
pronounced that Lord PALMERSTON was an obstructive, and declared that
they could squeeze much more out of the men whom Lord DERBY would
rally round his standard. We always maintained this as one of our rea-
sons for supporting the late Government, quite apart from the influences
which directed the patronage of the Church
" We have seen Mr. Loom,: KING'S Wotion for dissociating property
from representation carried through the Commons by a triumphant
majority. Last night the second reading of the Bill was passed by the
Lords, and it was left to the Whig Earl GREY to protest that this bit-by-
bit concession, without any countervailing set-off, was essentially revolu-
tionary.
"In the Commons a new step was taken. Mr. DISRAELI had not
even a word to say against substituting a ten-pound as a substitute
for a fifty-pound election franchise for counties. It was an open question ;
and, as Lord PALMERSTON declined to undertake the obloquy of opposing
what a Conservative Government virtually sanctioned, the second reading
of the Bill was carried by 226 to 168. The really Conservative minority,
deserted by their leaders, now begin to doubt how far they have done
wisely in giving such an impulse to democracy Since
Lord PaLmEnsroN's exit the Jew question, the Church-rates question,
the Property Qualification question, and now the County Election
Franchise, have been alt, one by one, conceded to Mr. MILNER GIBSON,
Mr. BRIGHT, and the Radicals. The Radicals are in power, whilst the
great country party are betrayed by their leaders who are in office."

Now, how stand the facts ?
The Jew question remains still undecided.
The Property Qualification abolition, advocated by all the member* of
the late Government, is conceded by Lord DERRY as a matter of small
importance.
The Church-rate Abolition Bill and the County Franchise Bill have
been resisted by the Government in the House of Commons, and will be
thrown out by the Government in the House of Lords.
But the broad statement here put forward is, that a valid " reason
" for supporting Lord PALMERBTON's Government" was, that he was an
obstructive of such Radical Reforms as these. Now, let the actual votes
of the past. week answer this unjust and untrue representation. There
voted—

FOR THE

-OF CHURCII-

RATES.
Sir Charles Wood.
Mr. Labouchere.
Mr. Barnes.
Sir B. Hall.
Sir J. Ramsden.
Mr. Lowe.
Mr. Vernon Smith.
Mr. Bernal Osborne.

AGAINST THE ABOL
Mr. Disraeli.
Mr. Henley.
Mr. Walpole.
Mr. Adderley.
Sir Hugh Cairns.
Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. Hardy.
Sir W. JOlliffe.
Lord J. Manners.
Lord Naas.
Mr. Whiteside.
AGAINST IT.
Mr. Disraeli.

ABSENT.
Lord Palmerston.
FOR LOCKE KING'S COUNTY

Lord Palmerston.
Sir George Grey.
Sir Charles Wood.
Mr. Baines.
Hon. W. Cowper.
Sir B. Hall.
Sir W. Hayter.
Mr. Labouchere.
Sir G. Lewis.
Sir J. Ramsden.
Sir R. Bethel].

Mr. Henley.
Mr. Walpole.
Lord Stanley.
Sir H. Cairns.
Lord J. Manners.
Mr. Whiteside.
Mr. Henley.
Mr. Hamilton.
Lord Naas.
Sir J. Pakington.
General Peel.

See, then, the unreasonableness and injustice of this writer. He pro-
fesses to be very much alarmed at the progress of these Radical measures.
He says that he supported Lord PALMERSTON as "an obstructive " to such
dangerous proposals. Well, he now sees all Lord PALMERSTON'S officials
voting for LOCKE KING and against Church-rates. He sees Mr. DISRAELI
and the present Ministers opposing LOCKE KING and supporting Church-
rates. Yet he actually tries to throw upon the Conservatives the blame of
what Lord PALMERSTON and his officials did, and to represent the Ministers
as conceding propositions which they opposed, and which, in the House
of Lords, they will assuredly defeat.

The last two or three days have removed two men of some value,
though not of the noisy or obtrusive class. Sir PRIMP Ciustrrox had
long stood at the head of his profession in Dublin, and he leaves his title
to a worthy son, the present representative of her Majesty at the Court of
St. Petersburg. Sir EDWARD BUXTON was a truly excellent man, and,
for a Whig, a man of more than usual independence. lie was a " Liberal
Churchman," and, in his case, the adjective was not unmeaning. His
munificence, and that of his firm, in support of the Church, and of reli-
gious objects generally, was truly exemplary.
The Norfolk Whigs gained two seats in the spring of last year by
producing two well-chosen candidates, Sir Epwauo BUXTON and General
~11-241)11Am. We should hope and trust that the Conservatives of that I
144VigiOn will not quietly submit to be left without a single repreeoutative,