The Press.
London, England, 1856-07-26 00:00:00

ITE PRESS.

The Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox)
appealed to the leading members of the
House to show the example of making short
speeches; but he lost sight of the fart that
the time is really wasted by the crowd of
senators who have little reason to speak at
all. From the positions which they hold
Lord FALMERSTON and Mr. DISRAELI, Lord
JOHN RUSSELL and Mr. GLADSTONE, Could
not be expected to speak at briefer length
than they do now. In point of fact, we think
that Sir ROBERT PEEL introduced the habit of
long speeches during his Premiership. Some
of our readers must recollect how frequently
" Sir R. PEEL " headed six or eight columns of
the Times. He made a greater number of five •
hour speeches than Mr. Pm, who had nearly
all the talking work of his party. Lord
BROUGHAM, also, erred repeatedly on the side
of length, and the " documentary " and statis-
tical speeches, illustrative of modern social
questions, must necessarily be long. Yet, ma-
king allowance for all these and other causes,
we are convinced that the debates might be
shortened greatly to the advantage of the House
of Commons; and we believe that what may be
called " the ruck" of our political speakers,
who take up time over-night that they may see
themselves in print whan they take up the
newspaper in the morning, are the real
lengtheners of the debates.

CONSERVATIVE UNION.
TO TILE EDITOR OF " THE PRES 3."

Sir,—We are told that party government is for
ever at an end, and are recommended by some to
rejoice with them over this as a satisfactory circum-
stance. We neither believe the fact, nor, if we did,
should we join in the satisfaction. The existence of
parties is essential to the proper working of repre-
sentative institutions ; it is the regulating wheel
which keeps the constitutional machine going at a
pretty uniform rate, though the extrinsic force
applied be at one time in considerable excess, at
another too small to maintain an active and useful
working. It is, indeed, undeniable that a devotion
to party names and interests, without reference to
the principles and policy they represent, is not so
common as it once was; that the parading of the
fact that they belong to one party or the other, is
alone insufficient to rally electors around those who
aspire to a seat in Parliament ; that there is an ever.
increasing proportion of the community that refuses to
look at public matters through the coloured lenses of
party prejudice. But this is no indication of the decay of
those strongly antagonistical principles,—that which
would innovate and destroy, and that which would
preserve and improve. And, if the time ever come
when these evidences of national life and sound-
ness—which, mutually acting as a spur and a check
on each other, keep the 'public mind in a state of
healthy activity, and proxent its stagnating in sloth-
ful indifference—shall be merged in a carelessness
as to the consistency and truthfulness of our rulers,
their mistake will be learnt too late by such as re-
joice over the disruption of party ties, and expect
broad views from a Parliament composed of a num-
ber of cliques and factions, intriguing and caballing
in the house, and meeting neither with generous
support nor hearty opposition out of doors. We
may judge of the probable results of the continuance
of such a state of things, from the acknowledged
evils of the political anarchy, which took its
origin in the insincerity and treachery of
Sir Robert Peel, reached its height of mischie-
vous influence in the formation and management
of the Aberdeen Administration, and, having evoked
at last the contempt and indignation of all honest
thinkers by its latest form of " Toryfied Liberalism,"
is, I trust, shout to disappear, before that reconsti-
tution of parties which is rendered necessary by the
circumstances of the time, and easy by the return of
peace. Easy,—if those who call themselves Con-
servatives will show half the energy in promoting the
triumph of the principles which they hold in com•
mon that their opponents do in supporting leaders
whom they do not respect, holding sentiments and
following a tortuous line of policy with which none
of them sympathise. For it must distress every real
Liberal to see the Ministry which is supposed to em-
body his opinions flippantly repudiating them, or
endorsing them in a manner that shows it hardly
cares to keep up the semblance of consistency; and
the tail of the party servilely following their Protean

SATURDAY,

chief—fawning on him they would bite, if they dare
like sorry ours, for bits of patronage; and, when
constrained by any uncompromising borough suppor-
ters to " bark out " about some impracticable Rath.
cal hobby, soon lulled into quietude by the
bland accents of Mr. Hayter ; or, when
unusually important, and consequently importunate,
encouraged to hope on, and wait for Providence and the
Secretary to the Treasury, by seeing their
noisiest companions for ever silenced by a place.
On the other hand, the Conservative party has every
advantage, if it will but avail itself of them. The
great body of Liberals are disgusted with the state of
things described above, and discontented by the
grasping arrogance with which the incompetent heads
of a few oligarchical families claim all the high posts
as their own, and pass over, whilst contemptuously
using the services of, their most promising and in-
dependent representatives. It will not do, at such a
time, to rest satisfied with barren convictions; to
leave matters to take their course and right tbsm-
selves. That has too long been the conduct of on-
servatives, and thus they have failed to ally with
themselves those moderate electors who, dissatisfied
with the mismanagement and the levity of Govern-
ment, have too often concluded that sweeping
and organic changes are called for because thei e
was no party which was energetically striving to
carry measures of importance, and to cope with
acknowledged anomalies. The last few years
have seen few measures of utility proposed ;
those who were demagogues in opposition are oli-
garchical obstructives in office ; only occasioney
varying the tenor of a do-nothing policy, on all
the questions requiring settlement, by mischievous
innovation and crude propositions (like those c,r.-
fiscatory and Socialist ones of Mr. Lowe), to grati'y
the passions and subserve the interests of their leaq
respectable partisans. During all this time the Con-
servatives have not turned to account their parlia-
mentary strength, the commanding positions of their
chiefs on the questions of the day, and the weariness
of Liberal rule exhibited by the country. Though, in
the words of another, " as fully alive to the necessity of
popular measures and steady progress" as any of
those who would arrogate to themselves the exclusive
possession of liberal opinions, they have not rallied
round their chiefs and identified themselves es they
ought with their policy. And so, while honourable
opponents have outspoken their admiration and sat:.
port of the catholic spirit with which Pakingtou,
Disraeli, Stanley, Lytton, Walpole, Napier, and
others have undertaken and treated difficult questions,
many of their supporters have held aloof through pre-
judice and petty difference of opinion on details. Let
me warn these that their coldness in supporting useful
reforms and practical improvements, and the half
support they have given to the Premier in conse-
quence, are as inimical to the ends they seek as they
are injurious to their party and the national in-
terests. Such conduct at last produces a reaction,
which may sweep much that is valuable before it; a
clamour of popular frenzy that will not listen to
reason, nor profit by the lessons of experience. Let
me tell the supine Conservative that there is peiil
not only to our character and influence abroad, but
to the security of that which he most values at home,
in neglecting to do his duty as an elector, and to u,e
his influence as a citizen. We must sink little dif-
ferences, and meet our opponents wherever and
whenever we can. Indifference is dangerous, but
despairing inaction is quite indefensible, for never
since 1830 had the Conservatives a better chance of
enlisting popular support. It is not enough for
them to act merely as a drag on Radical innovation
and a check to political jobbery; they alone can do
well, and that only as Ministers, what the nation
and the times demand. Social ameliorations,

national education, military and administrative
reform, require that broad treatment which
we can never expect from our present Cabinet. One
lesson, however, we may learn from the Liberals,—
in spite of their disunion, they will always unite to
keep place and patronage for their party. Surely
national duties and interests, when combined with
the hope of political success, might effect as much
as selfish motives? Cannot representatives give a
cheerful support to measures of importance, pro-
posed by men of consistency and ability, without in-
sisting on their supporting in return their imprac-
tical crotchets? To ask this is to demand uo sacri-
fice of principle ; hut only to entreat them not to
allow the impossibility of obtaining some trifling
object to disunite them from those who are the
champions of institutions they value highly, and the
pioneers of safe progress—building on the ancient
foundations, not seeking new paths. I trust, there-
fore, that during the recess a common basis of active
policy may be agreed on by the Conservative chiefs,
and accepted by their followers ; for all who from
petty motives hold aloof from their party weaken its
action in the Legislature, keep dangerous and inca-
pable men in office, and prevent the country from
openly declaring, as it otherwise would, for a
progressive Conservative Ministry. —I am,
yours ctc., H. L

JULY 26, 1856.

rat6ings in arlinnunt.

HOUSE OF LORDS-MONDAY, JULY 21.
REGISTRATION OF TITLES BILL.

Lord LYNDHURST, expressing in the strongest
terms his regret that so many important bills in
both houses should have during the session been
lost or abandoned by the Government, asked whether
the commission on the Registration of Titles Bill
had yet made their report ?
The Loan CHANCELLOR replied that they had not,
and further said that if the report were not presented
before next session he should introduce a limited
measure for the registration of deeds.

THE RAJAH OF COORO.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE inquired why the
Rajah of Cuorg was compelled, against the recom-
mendation of his physicians, to return to India by
the East India Directors, and whether payment of
his allowance were stopped while he remained in
England ? •
The Duke of ARGYLL said the Rajah of Coorg was
considered a prisoner of war. He had asked and
obtained a year's leave to come to England. That
time had expired, and he had asked for further
leave; but withholding such permission could not
be considered an act of tyranny on the part of the
East India Directors. The East India Company
also considered it objectionable that persons in the
R ijah of Ccorg's situation should spend their revenues
England.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH thought the conduct
of the East India Company very ungenerous and
unwise. He was of opinion that the law officers of
the Crown should inquire into the matter.