The Press.
London, England, 1858-05-22 00:00:00

482

worth his acceptance. Mr. HEADLAM, Mr.
ROEBUCK, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, and several
Others of like rank and standing, are regarded as
candidates for high office. Our rcadr.rs may s
well accustom themselves tp think q( suck a
state of things, for it k to *wile such Anne that
the Times is evidently pointing.
Another important wmint Rf the mai is this :
" The country," says the Times, " must have a
"stable Government—a Government with a
,4 policy. "

By all means, gentlemen—but pray how do
you mean to get it ? The Saturday Review,
which just now coincides remarkably with the
Times, says, in its last number, that "g to
" render the formation of a Cabinet possible, the
"permission of a large number of open questions
"is unavoidable, a large number of open ques-
" tions must be permitted."
Now, it is quite evident, that a Cabinet in
which "a large number of open questions" is
permitted, is a Cabinet without a policy. This is
a self-evident proposition. But, then, will any
reasonable man inform us, why the people should
feel the least interest in the establishment of a
Ministry which, on a large number of important
questions, is to have no opinion—no policy ?
Meanwhile, the old device of "being all things
to all men " is carried to a great extent by
the Cambridge-house people. The journals
which support their movement, and yet pretend
to Liberalism, keep saying, " Mind ! the next
Ministry must be less Whiggish, and more
Liberal, than the last." The Liberals who go to
Cambridge-house repeat the same phrases to
Lord PALMERSTON himself, and the Noble
Viscount nods approvingly, and promises that
"It shall be done." But while more full-blown
Liberalism is thus promised on the one side, to
the Clergy the Record declares that " Lord
Paz.mnawrox is quite as good a Conservative as
Lord DERBY." Thus, as it was last year, so
now ; all parties are to help Lord PALMERSTON
back into office; and then, before another year
had elapsed, all parties would find themselves
equally disappointed !

But what if it should turn out that the bear's
akin has been sold quite prematurely ? What K
after all, there should be neither Resignation or
Dissolution, nor even a Ministerial defeat of any
kind?

It is this way that things are now tending this,
Friday, morning. Already; so large a number of
previously " doubtful men " have given in their
adhesion to Mr. DulArnes amendment, which
" gives a triumph to neither party," that the
speculation last night was, that it would be
carried by a majority of between 20 and 30
votes. But since then Sir JAMES OUTRIIIeB
protest has appeared (which we give entire on a
subsequent page), and that document must have
great weight in the still pending discussion. It

will not surprise us in the least 1.1 no division be
taken on Mr. Cardwelts original motion.
(We write this on Friday morning.) Assuredly,
to pass a Vote of Censure in a British
Rouse of Commons on a Government because, on
a practical
Eastiietion of Indian policy, it has agr
with thelndian Directors, and witha eer
JAMIE OUTRAN", one of the most wise and prudent
men in India—would be a piece of factious spite
iiimost without a parallel.
We know, indeed, that there are some friends
of the Government who wish to be beaten, be-
cause they wish to go to the country on this
question. But, although we agree with them
that " we never can have a finer opportunity for
" a Dissolution," we still hope and believe that
they will be disappointed. The present Members
of .the House of Commons will not be foolish
enough to force Government to send them to
their constituents on such a question.