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

THE PRESS.

c'usio'i. Now, I will tell you what he did in that war.
Lord Palmerston was a member of the Government which
declared the war. (hear.) if he be the man of talent,
with the powers of administration which we are told he
has—if he be a man of this towering genius that we are
all suddenly called upon to discover at the age of seventy-
three—(laughter)—was he not likely, at least, three or
four years ago, to have had a share of that energy, so that
lie might have imprinted a portion of his' policy upon
the Government during the time lie was one of them ? He
was responsible for every bluuder just as much as any
member of the Government. And what is the Cabinet
now? Why, the majority of the Cabinet now was the ma•
jority of the Cabinet then. Lord Palmerston was not
called upon to make a new Cabinet in order to carry on
the war ; certain members of the Cabinet-1 minority—
seceded from it, and left the majority, of whom Lurd Pal-
merston was at the head. That majority is quite as re-
sponsible for everything that occurred during the early
progress of the war—(loud cheers)—as they can claim to
he entitled to any merit for any improvement in the con-
duct of the war after that minority seceded. When Lord
Aberdeen seceded from the Government Lord Palmerston
told Sir James Graham and the rest of the friends of Lord
Aberdeen who remained in the Government that he would
carry on the Government and the war upon precisely the
same principles that they had been carried on by Lord
Aberdeen; that there should be no change in his foreign
policy; and that he would only ask the same terms of
peace as Lord Aberdeen would have been content with.
(Cheers.) That was not only mentioned privately in the
course of their discussions amongst themselves, but it
came out in the house of Commons. Did Lord Pal-
merston himself ever come before us to complain of any
that had been done in the early conduct of the war
whilst he was a member of the Cabinet. No ; on the con-
trary, he defended everything. When Mr. Roebuck brought
forward his motion for inquiring into the scenes going on
before Sebastopol, to try and hunt out, if he could, the
cause of the ruin and disaster that had befallen our army,
did Lord Palmerston get up in his place in the house and
say, ' Here are admitted evils ; I grant to the hou. and
learned gentleman that this is a fair subject for inquiry ? '
No : he stood by things as they were; defended every-
thing, and resisted an inquiry by the committee. Now,
this is the sort of man that we are called upon all at once
to fall down and worship. Why, I say the brazen image
shall have no worship from me." (Loud cheers and
laughter.) The hon. member then referred at some
length to the personal hostility exhibited against Mr.
Milner Gibson and Mr. Bright, and adverted to the at-
tempt of Lord Palmerston to convert Manchester into a
pocket borough, and forcing Mr. Lowe upon the consti-
tuency :—" Hear Mr. Lowe. I have heard him, and I will
say this, and in saying it 1 shall be borne out by any im•
partial man in the House of Commons, that, considering
that lie had some reputation for ability when he was at
Oxford, arid as a writer in the Timca—(' Hear,' and
laughter)—he is the most conspicuous failure in the House
of Commons." The meeting was adjourned for a week,
when Mr. Cobden will again be present.

Sir JAMES DUKE. Mr. RATKI.:S CURRIE, and Baron
ROTHSCHILD on Wednesday attended the adjourned special
meeting of the Liberal Registration Association. Sir
James Duke explained that his reasons for not supporting
Mr. Dodson at the recent Sussex election, were simply
that Mr. Dodson possessed no defined political principles,
and appeared only desirous of getting into Parliament to
get into a Government place. Mr. Raikes Currie ad-
dreitted that his address—which as his friends said was
" too exclusively Palmerstonian "—was but tin " imperfect
explanation of his political views." The hon. gentleman
then went through his whole political career, showing how
religiously he had devoted himself to the Liberal cause.
To the question of " How about Palmerston and Reform?"
Mr. Currie replied by another, " Have we no hopes of
getting reform, and a large reform, from Lord Palmerston
as Prime Minister ? " In answer to his own question Mr.
Currie commenced to read a paragraph from Sir IL
Bethell's address, but was checked by a gentleman in the
body of the building inquiring whether the hon. member
was reading from Punch. Baron Rothschild denied that
any understanding existed between himself and Lord John
Russell to secure the noble lord's return. With respect
to Lord Palmerston, he felt "a blind confidence" in the
noble lord's foreign policy, but as to his domestic policy,
" it was a different question, and one which depended upon
the amonnt of pressure put upon the noble lord from
without."
Mr. LAI-AIM and Sir P. BETHELL addressed their con
stituents at Aylesbury. Mr. Layard maintained that the
position of affairs in China did not justify the measures
taken by Sir J. Bowring. Sir R. Bethel' sustained Lord
Palmerston's foreign policy on all points. "He could
wish to have seen a more speedy progress in administrative
and social reforms, but the fault was not in Lord Palmers.
ton, but in the timid, hesitating men at his side or at his
back, who sometimes voted for, and sometimes in opposi-
tion to the Government."

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT met his constituents at Wilts on
Thursday. The right hon. gentleman condemned the cry
of " Palmerston for ever," without mention of measures

Sir DE Lacy EVANS, at Westminster, supported Lord
Palmerston because his great qualifications were " tiezibi•
lity " and " squeezibility." Sir J. V. SHELLEY claimed
the votes of the constituents of Westminster as an ardent
supporter of the ballot and universal suffrage. He thought
Lord Palmerston deserved the confidence of the country
for his recent appointments of bishcps.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM addressed the electors of Carlisle
this week, and entered at some length into a detail of
the conduct of certain of his constituents who desired
to wring from Mtn a promise of unconditional support
to Lord Palmerston. This Sir James had refused to con•
cede. The right hon. baronet then briefly noticed the
vulgar charge of a factions coalition, and, passing on to
his vote in favour of Mr. Locke King's motion, reviewed

SATURDAY,

Lord Palmerston's career, and asked if, att.,r all, Lord
Palmerston was a Reformer? Sir James Graham then
referred to the vote on the China question, and the
conduct of Lord Palmerston after that vote :—" Since
this vote a very remarkable transaction has taken place.
Lord Palmerston has thought fit to serd out a special
mission to Canton with a view of effecting the very ob-
ject which he ought to have notified to the House of
Commons before he sent it to a division on the ques-
tion. And to whom has Lord Palmerston offered that
mission ? Why, to one of the despised and rejected
Peelites, the Duke of Newcastle, who was said to be
incompetent to conduct the war with Russia To get
him out of the scrape he would give to the duke un-
limited control over the army and navy to negotiate
peace. That offer was made to the Duke of Newcastle,
after the vote and not before it, and was rejected by his
grace." The right hon. baronet then declined to pledge
himself to. a vote of confidence in Lord Palmerston, a
confidence he did not feel, for this China question was a
most unfair question upon which to go the country. "It
ought not to be made a question of confidence, in men, it
ought to be a question of measures—Cloud cries of ' Hear,
hear,'?—and the mode most certain of promoting the
measures of which the constituencies approve." In con-
clusion Sir James Graham expressed his entire coinci-
dence in the principles put forth by Lord John Russell in
his address to the electors of London, " as embodying his
( Sir James Graham's) sincere and deep convictions."