The Press.
London, England, 1858-07-24 00:00:00

and to show that the " sufferance" hitherto
granted to the Derby Ministry was at an end;
and that he meant at last to take matters into his
own hands.

There was no great alacrity in the Noble Vis-
count's movements; but at last the time came
when abstinence was no longer possible. He
joined battle, and made three assaults on the
Bill in the course of a single evening. Each
attack was repelled, and considerable majorities,
declaring on the side of the Government, made
it quite clear that the dominion of Lord PAL-
MERSTON in that House was at an end.

From that day to this the progress of the
Ministry has been unvarying and unchecked.
Ridiculed in April for the preposterous expecta-
tion that they could carry on the Government
with a wretched minority, they have now arrived
at the close of the Parliamentary year without
suffering a single defeat. It would, perhaps, be
too much to assert that a single session can es-
tablish a Parliamentary practice—or we might
say that in future, whenever it was asked, "Can
a Ministry carry on the public business without
an assured majority ?" the reply might be made,
with reference to the session of 1858, " Why not?"

The true explanation, however. of this new and
unexpected state of things is found in the fact.,
that, if the Ministerialists are not a majority in
the House of Commons, they are still quite the
most numerous party in that assembly ; and that
the cluster of parties known by the general term
of Liberals do not, and will not, act together.
It is the fashion to talk of " the Liberal majority
of the House of Commons." But this is a phrase
implying some kind of unity. A majority is a
body of men who will go into one lobby, or con-
sent to be counted as one mass. Now, there is
no such majority in the present House of Com-
mons. Two attempts have been made, within
the last three months, to form an organization of
this kind. But it is found, immediately the trial
is made, that "the Liberal majority" will not
cohere. They cannot be brought to act together,
and this for the best of all reasons, because they
do not, in fact, think alike.

The Liberal press makes this fact clear. We
have in London twelve daily journals, of which at
least nine call themselves Liberal. But of these
nine Liberal journals, no fewer than five assert,
day by day, that a Derby Ministry is preferable
to a Palmerston one ; and that we may expect
more liberal measures from the present Govern-
ment, than we ever should have obtained from
the last. These newspapers, too, only echo
opinions which are common inside the House of
Commons, and explain the votes of many " Inde-
pendent Liberals," who, in most divisions, are
found supporting the present Ministry.
But here we approach the only doubtful and
perilous point in the whole case. Mr. Mutt., in
his Nonconformist, lately said :

" Meanwhile, the Conservatives are polishing
up the last few measures which remained in the
Whig repertory, and are giving them, one by
one, to the people as inevitable concessions.
They are probably thereby sowing the seeds of
their own destruction, by producing disaffection
in their own ranks, while unable to conciliate the
confidence of their opponents."
Now this is a real danger. It is a repetition, as
yet on a small scale, of the alienation and disrup-
tion of the Conservative party in 1845-1846.
That fact, as well as the similar fact in 1829, are
now matters of history. Thaw members of the
present Government who are inclined to coquet
with Liberalism, and, to use a common phrase,
"to be as Liberal as they can," ought to bear these
things in mind. It is as certain as any one fact
in history, that Sir ROBERT PEEL'S Liberalism of
1829 threw him out of power the neat year, and
gave the Government to the Whigs for twelve
years after. It is equally beyond a doubt, that
his return to " Liberal notions," in 1845-6, again
ejected him from office, and reinstated the Whigs.
Such were the results, the natural and just
results, of two desertions of Conservative prin-
ciples. And there can be no doubt that similar
causes will again produce similar results.
To gain the favour of many of the Liberals,
then, is not all clear profit. There is a hollow-
ness and uncertainty about it while it lasts;
but there is no uncertainty as to the alienation it
creates among the best of the Conservative sup-
porters of the Government.

One perilous symptom of this kind we have
recently seen in the concession of the Jewish
claims. 'We would not exaggerate its impor-
tance, or treat it as a fact altogether fatal
to the Conservative party. We know that it
is mainly a giving way to weariness on the
one hand, and to a hope that the affair, after
all, might be looked upon as a matter of
little practical importance. These were the
temptations, the motives, for giving way. But
the practical result is evil—all evil. Look at the
contempt and derision with which the yielding of
the Peers was greeted in the House of Commons.
Not within the memory of man has that august
assembly had to bear so much scorn as was
poured upon it in the House of Commons on the
morning of July 21. The case differed from that
of 1832, or that of 1846. Grave and serious
national perils were placed before the Lords on
those two occasions. Civil war and famine supplied
weighty grounds for reconsideration. But in the

present case nothing better than mere womanish
weakness was or could

The higher branch of
suffered much in standing ,
to the "advanced Liberals,

of exultation than of

really value the British

the reverse.

So closes the session,
not quite satisfactorily.

'l4
T
Ls,
W 111

be appealed to.
f the Legislatso-c*nkas
.ing and vpniailitn!:,
3erala," Ina 4- ,)
regret. 41 1.
Constiar• • t,
r-- ' ••••A
ASbt