The Press.
London, England, 1857-02-14 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

" he was most hurt in the public opinion, and
" those through which his enemies obtained
" the greatest advantage over him." Of whom,
and by whom, were those significant words
written ? They are to be found in BURKE'S
famous " Appeal from the New to the Old
Whigs," and they were applied to Sir ROBERT
WALPOLE, who gained power, neither by acci-
dent, nor intrigue, nor tergiversation. One of
his successors in the Premiership, vastly his
inferior in capacity for ruling England, and in
political consistency, might profit by the moral
lesson which they teach.
For although Viscount PALMERSTON has held
office under ten Prime Ministers, from the
Duke of PORTLAND to Earl ABERDEEN, it would
appear that experience fails him in his present
post. His tone and conduct in the Leader-
ship of the Commons arc utterly unworthy of
the place and the audience, and are most un-
suitable to one with the ambiguous antece-
dents of the Noble Lord. Never did any of
his Lordship's predecessors entangle them-
selves with adversaries, and descend to
" ribald ridicule," like the present Prime
Minister of England. His tone is not only
unbecoming in a man of his rank and station,
but it is maladroit in an assembly where the
Noble Lord has some superiors, and several
equals, on the score either of birth, or of for-
tune, or eloquence, or lofty intellect. The
conduct of Lord PALMERSTON becomes provo-
cative of the comparisons which are prover-
bially odious. If, following the Noble Lord's
example, we were to greet him with an
ironical eulogy, we should congratulate him
on having at last shown some positive
originality in his political conceptions.
He wishes to innovate upon the high
standard of dignity and decorum main-
tained byl his predecessors in the Leader-
ship of the House. It is the first time that
Parliament has seen the spectacle of a blus-
tering Leader of the House of Commons.
Lord NORTH was often familiar, but never
vulgar ; if he was too often witty on grave
questions, Lord NORTH was neither offensive
nor coarse. His " delightful temper" has been
commemorated by the most brilliant of his
adversaries. It may be doubted whether, in
the orations of BURKE, Fox, and BARRE
against Lord NORTH, there was so galling a
passage as that withering invective hurled by
the Member for Manchester against the
official personage " who sat on those Treasury
" Benches in years before Mr. BRIGHT was
" born." Lord PALMERSTON, we surmise, does
not yet forget the vivid contrast drawn by Mr.
BRIGHT between the Leadership of Sir ROBERT
PEEL, Lord J. RUSSELL, and Mr. DISRAELI,
" who left no stain on that distinguished
" post," and the style assumed by Lord
PALMERSTON himself. If the Premier forgets
Mr. BRIGHT, we can assure him that others do
not. The House cheered that speech vehe-
mently, and every week the Premier by his
conduct recall it to many a memory.
It is not alone the coarseness, but the ex-
treme recklessness of assertion in Lord
PALMERSTON which is so blameworthy. He
will hazard any assertion to gain a momentary
cheer. Sir ROBERT PEEL once ridiculed the
Noble Viscount's " assurance," and there was
never a more glaring instance of it than in the
audacity of saying that the recent Tripartite
Treaty with Austria was " not an act of general
" European policy," (!) though the result
showed clearly it was, because from that time
the Governments of England and Austria
acted in harmony. What can be thought of
the discretion of a statesman who makes such
reckless assertions ?

When his Lordship became Premier silence
was kept as to the artifices with which he
treated Lord DERBY. The mode in which
the present Premier affected readiness to
act with Lord DERBY, but professed a wish
to consult Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT and Mr.
GLADSTONE, whom the Noble Viscount, informed
that he would not serve under Lord DERBY,
has no precedent in the lives of the ten Prime
Ministers under whom Lord PALMERSTON spent
fifty years. Such are not the arts by which
great men gain power.
While the Queen's standard fluttered before
a brave enemy, the gentlemen of England

147

could take no thought on these things. But
Lord PALMERSTON should not presume too far
on the forbearance hitherto exercised towards
him. A score of members from opposite sides
of the House might now be tempted to admi-
nister reproofs as pointed as the censure of
Mr. BRIGHT. Nobody is deceived by the his-
trionic heartiness and artificial good-fellowship
of the Noble Viscount. The points of his cha-
racter as a browbeater, wearing a mask of bon-
hmnuiie, are thoroughly understood. His Lord-
ship chronicled the visit of the Leader of the
Opposition to Paris, and speculated as to cer-
tain Parisian habits. The Premier plumes
himself on his talents as a Parliamentary
comedian. A piece of Parisian origin, trans-
ferred to our stage under the title of Double-
faced People, is not unworthy the notice of
his Lordship. Some features in the cha-
racters of the class, of whom the Noble Vis-
count is a great representative type, attracted
the ingenuity of the Parisian dramatist ; and
few who contemplate the Premier's career can
doubt his readiness for playing a leading part
in Lea Faux Bonhommes.
Such are not the talents which command
political deference in the House of Commons.
Members become critical when they find a
Prime Minister using language familiar to
brawlers, and gaining power by an intrigue.
They see that Viscount PALMERSTON cannot
argue out a question fairly, or sum up a debate
with the judicial skill or polemical acuteness
of Lord JOHN RUSSELL. They contrast his
meagre diction, his hesitating delivery, his
borrowed jokes, and his monotonous levity
with the masterly addresses of some of his
contemporaries. For even impartial spectators
admit that " the careless, coarse, and over-
" familiar style of discourse," which was in-
jurious to WALPOLE, is the worst mode that
could have been adopted by a statesman, the
facility of whose whirls renders him useless
as a weather-vane, and who equals WALPOLE in
nothing except that " entire want of political
" decorum " which ruined a Prime Minister
that could never have been classified amongst
lea faux bonhommes of the Palmerstonian
pattern.

MONOPOLY OF POLITICAL POWER.
WHETHER Government by " Party" be the best
constitutional system, or not, is purely a spe-
culative question. In England the system is
established ; it is interwoven with our social
institutions, and it cannot be altered. Our
national traditions, and our individual aspira-
tions, make us believe that Representative
Government is the form best suited for our
happiness; and our common sense tells us
that when association is free to ail, there must
be PARTY, or political connection, as a remedy
for certain fluctuating evils peculiar to all free
countries. If " good men" will not " combine,"
experience warns us of the evils to be feared
when " bad men conspire" to substitute faction
for freedom, and to grasp at office, though not
deserving the trust of power.
But it, as must be the case, we continue to
be ruled by " Party," it is indispensably
necessary for the benefit of all that the system
be fairly worked out. Government by " Party"
necessarily presupposes the ideas of rival
connections, of periodical changes of rulers,
of public services performed in the sight
of all, and of personal deserts honourably
rewarded. It is by the double action of parties
that the State is propelled. The Conserva-
tive and Progressive movements act upon eaoh
other, and a middle maximum of speed is
attained. But on the present occasion we do
not seek to dwell upon the theory of " Party,"
of which the first principles are equally affirmed
by Conservative and Liberal reasoners.
What we desire to draw attention upon here
is the peculiar effects resulting from one party
having enjoyed an excessive tenure of power.
Let us see the facts, and their consequences
to the social weal.

Since 1530 the Conservative opinion and
sentiment of England have not been adequately

148

represented in office. The Liberals have been
in power, except for a few brief years, since
the fall of the Duke of WELLINGTON'S Ministry.
From December, 1834, to April, 1833, Sir
R PEEL'S first Cabinet held office for five
months ; his second Ministry lasted from the
summer of 1841 to the winter of 18-15 (without
schism), four years and six months. The
spring and summer of 1846 cannot be
reckoned as belonging to our side; and Lord
DERBY'S Ministry lasted for t"n months in
1852. That is to say, for less than six years
the Conservatives have held office against
twenty-one years' rule by the Liberals. The
effects of this official dispensation are to be
seen in all directions—in the Peerage, the
Army and Navy, in the Church, the Law, the
Magistracy, and in all the social channels
which have connection with Downing-street.
What are the effects on the public official
service of this Cabinet monopoly by one
party exclusively?
The answer is patent. The consequence is,
a tendency to mediocrity; and such must
necessarily be the result. All parties long in
office have a natural liability to wear out—to
lose their pristine vigour•, and their faculty of
effecting legislative improvement, and stimu-
lating social progress. The sway of office
soon uses up and exhausts the list of the high
aspirants. At first the party in power pro-
motes its ablest supporters. After a fcw years
these are provided for, and then mere per-
sonal influence or party alliance are taken as
the tests. The action of this monopoly is
best seen in the great profession of the Law.
Thus, after the Whigs had ennobled or pro-
moted a Brougham, a Denman, a Campbell, a
Wilde, and others of that order, they
were then compelled to choose a Cran-
worth, or a Jervis (of whom we have no desire
to speak with disrespect), and soon even their
secondary class was exhausted. A routine of
inferior men for judicial posts would not be
endured at Westminster-hall, though it might
in places less contr riled by a true public
opinion. Government was compelled to
choose Mr. Justice W►r.LES and Mr. Baron
BRAMWELL (both excellent selections), and
entirely unknown in " party." The promotion
of Mr. W. H. WATSON then followed, who
united many professional with political
claims. But the high offices of Attorney and
Solicitor General are now held by members of
the Conservative Bar, or at least by gentlemen
who never heretofore were ranked amongst
the " Liberals."

Yet the fact is indisputable that at the pre-
sent time nearly one dozen of the first men at
the English Bar, Equity and Common Law, are
Conservatives. We have a delicacy in tread-
ing upon purely professional ground, but every
one admits the abilities of Sir FREDERIO
TIIESIOER, Sir FITZROY KELLY, Mr. CAIRNS,
Mr. WioaAm, Mr. MALiNs ; and (though not in
Parliament) the names of Mr. ItoLT and Mr.
Sergeant BYLES (both Conservatives) are
familiar to the whole public. These gentle-
men (and we could name others) have not
their equals at present in the Whig Bar. All
the eleven Whigs have been promoted, and
the younger ones have not yet attained their
full growth. The Whig stock at Westminster-
hall is used out.

In Ireland a similar result, and from the
same causes, is visible. The Irish Bar is
confessedly one of the most brilliant in
Europe. In 1830, after the long tenure of the
Conservatives, a great Whig Bar adorned the
Irish Opposition. Mr. WALLACE, Mr. CRAMP-
TON, Mr. PERRIN, Mr. IMOGHLEN, Mr. SHELL,
Mr. Woutse, were all " Liberals," and their
eminence in various ways was indisputable.
Such a Liberal Bar does not now exist in Ire-
land. After the promotion of those gentlemen,
and their political associates, the Whigs had
recourse to less distinguished men. And now
(with one or two exceptions) the chief talent
of the Irish Bar, we are proud to say, is of the
Conservative connection. Mr. NAPIER, Mr.
WHITESIDE, Mr. FRANCIS FITZGERALD, Mr.
Burr, Mr. BREWSTER, Mr. HENRY MARTLEY,
are all Conservatives.

The same general law is seen in the higher
spheres of the State. The country demands
financial revision, on a comprehensive and
scientific basis, and executed with reference
tis practical experience. For such a boon it