The Press.
London, England, 1856-08-02 00:00:00

STAMPED . "SIXPENCE.
No. iirki--ator.". IV. • LONDON; StiPAD4Y): AUGUST att 6• uysmbir,E. D..ty*FEbip
• i rl +Lir

1
....,„...t.„. rt,i•., .r., ,s s
,f,:„.,,,Rifi5,,•:,. •,„,1,1
• • • 0,4,0,10,4:
AL:ft A i 8 0 SI f-M-0
:1" 117;1 T I I. ;!,.-i'l in I .P.,,,i ~f i.llill
Ir'LONDON, SATUIIDAY, AUGUST 2,1856 t

u

13462

4?flti

, 51

4ifyi
Iv seems to be thought necessary to the exist-
ence of Lord PALKERBTON'S Administration to
insist that- blued - parties no lottger . exist.
•
We are confidently assured that neither the
Conservative party nor the Liberal party pos-
sesses any vitality, and that the names alone
linger, like local terms whieh, have
.survived
the objects they expressed, to indicate dis-
tinctions which have ceased ..to have reality.
Conservative and Liberal are to be henceforth
placed in the same category, of obsolete boun-
daries as Holborn Bars, and the Standard .in

Cornhill:
If this assumption be correct, it follows, of
course, that political principles are abolished
with political parties; for a party is organised
for no other purpose thaii to represent, to em-
body, and to give practical effect to principle.
of policy. While principles survive, parties
must necessarily survive also. It is at all
times mole likely that the organisation of a
party will outlast the principle it once repre-
sented, than that the principle, at regards •
vitality and positive effect, can 04110 t the
existence of the party. • • j •
The Ministerialists accept the consequence
of the position they have taken up. They say
that political principle is dead, and that a
Minister of no principle is the legitimate head
of the State, and the representative of the
public mind, in a period when no principle
exists. Lord PALMERSTON is neither Conser-
vative, nor Liberal, nor Radical. But he
kind of sole glacie in which all shades of poli-
tical opinion are represented. He is just the
wizard necessary to amuse a mixed audience
by pouring half a dozen different kinds of
wine out of lAA same bottle.
• _ _

Whether it-be true as regards the Liberal
party that political parties are broken up, it
is for the Liberals themselves to inquire and
determine. Let them decide whether they.
have lost their distinctive principles, and
whether they count for anything more at the
present time than hani:ers-on of the Govern-
ment. A party which has been long in power
may survive long in decay.
The hull drives on when sail and roasters gone.

Bit with the loss of that guidingßo*e r which
is politics principle alone can' Wupply, the
wreck is certain, though the date may be
delayed.
Our concern is with the Conservative party.
Is it in any way true that this party during the
last session has exhibited signs of disorgani-
ution? The question is to be decided by
facts. And what are the facts? There was but
one division during the past session which

,~. .
..

partook of a party character, and that was on
the fall of Kars. On that occasion some sixty
members of the Conservative party, and
among them. several of its most stalwart sup-
porters—" the best of the best "—abstained
from voting. They did not approve of the
motion. They could not support their party,
but they would not vote against it.
The political position was this. A year
previously Lord PALMERSTON had accepted
office under, no doubt, considerable diffi-
culties, and after the Conservative Leader had
found himself unable to respond to the in-
vitation of the Crown. The war was brought
to a close ; a peace was just concluded, and
the practical question for the House of Com-
mons was, Will you, having approved the
general policy of the Administration, now pass
an adverse vote on its separate acts? The
House decided to take the bad with the good
—the abandonment of the Caucasians and the
surrenders of Lord Clarendon with Also i st4b-
mission of Russia and the security of the
Turkish territory. It was for the Opposition
to criticise the conduct and expose the errors
of the Ministry, but it was not to be expected
that at that molnent the Legislature would
expel them from power.
The Opposition desired no such result. It
never anticipated a majority; it expressly
declared that it'had no wish to displace the
Government. :. The time for such change was
not come. But, the Opposition did insist on
its constitutional right to lay bare all the
circumstances of a transaction which had nn-
questiona y gxalted the military fame of
. Russia, W Ile it' 10%440 the reputation of
Englandthroughout the countries of Western
Asia. That right was vindicated. The division
was of no importance in comparison with the
debate.
There was no other motion of a party cha-
racter during the session ; but there were
several occasions when the two principles of
Liberal and Conservative policy—which the
lfilturialists assert are dead—were brought
into, Ahrect collision.
It is a Conservative principle that the here-
ditary peerage should. be preserved its essen-
tial to the independence of the House of
'Lords, and to the stability of our mixed Con•
stitution. It is a Conservative principle that
corporate, Property should be maintained, as
b ed on the same rights, and supported by
,pisame considerations of expediency, as
pate property.
1 Ifoth these principles were attacked by the
action of the Ministry. At a time when
we are required to believe that the distinctivell,
political principles of Conseriio* and Liberal
are dead, those principles were' brought into
collision in the most direct and emphatic
manner that can be imagined. What would
M. de MONTALEMBERT—Who has shown in the
most conclusive manner that the destruction
of constitutional freedom in France is to be
referred to the absence of such an hereoitary
aristocracy as England possesses—think of
the understanding which would argue • that
there was inothing radical ',in an attack on our
hereditary peerage, and nothing conservative
iu its defence? What would M. de TO:ACE*
WILE conceive of the faculty which should
- sffge that there is nothing radical in the argu-
ment that corporate property _ilseft, and
milling conservative in the arguwent that
coorate property rests on tho same basis
l as private property? Why, the most convinc-

fel rl I
ing part Cott,he work, just issued of that inost
profound, politiCal philosopher of France is
directed t6' Show that the great Revolution
became ,
ar.terrible necessity, through the
44101141€ IdikAts*d
u,
..Piegth
tion of corporate bodies.
In these two instances of contest of prin-
ciple which party triumphed' How strange
that in each case the Conservative principle
and Conservative party should have gained the
day, though neither, in. the, ;ppinicin of the
Ministerialists, has any virtussTlexistence !

In two
acted

Motion!

the Bal

Church.

ciplo,
Ia the

Is the

institution? occasions
tho Liberal fated 'against
and he ws a defeati,,f
from confusion, only trough

Conservative parks. I !TT it P inn' fT tr.
:..
It is foreign to our purpose to inquire
whether in those motions the Liberal party
was sincere, or whether it acted merely to
sustain its credit when it shall next have to
appear on the hustings. If it were sincere., it
surely did not adopt the right course to give
effect to its principles. Suppose that the
party desired the establishment of these prin-
ciples more than the retention of office, is it
not reasonable that they would have put some
gentle compplis)99 on / Premier and the
ii:
Government ottiboecit!k 'lOllO vote wits him ?
Had they said 66 for P.4.4lq.sToti, 'We
" cannot compel you,to vote 'with us ; but we
" warn you that ift iyOtt 4,02 not,. we may, not
" think it necessary to come. to /our 'rescue
" when you.are threatened froMillitip.ether side
" of the house," they would. have shown the
sincerity of their convictions, and have com-
pelled the Government to adopt one. course
of policy or the other.r 1 But whether the
Liberals were or were 103* earnest in their
motions, the Conservatives were earnest in
resisting them, and In hoili 'easels the Con-
servative principle won the ietei.y.() .. ~
t ,
Yet, further, on two occadilleinintie the Go-
vernment seriously menacediwith defeat and
overthrow. Mr. .I„,,ows's Shipping Bill sup-
plied one occe.iibti;''the dispute with America
supplied the other. Previous to the time
when a decision intist be taken on each ques-
tion, the Conservatives declared what their
course would be. , They would not consent to
the confiscation of 'corporate. property ;ley
would not consent to support the Govern nt
in a quarrel with the United States, founded
on Lord CLARENDON'S assertion that no. pro-
ceedings had taken place under the Foreign
Enlistment Act furnishing just, ground for
complaint. The Government in each case
wavered to the last. They watched the atti-
tude of the Conservative party; and when they
saw that attitude firm, they in each Cade gave
way. e . '4,2, is •beo. 1
_
The Ministerial writers are' 'finet eager to
laud the prudence of the Government in not
retaliating the dismissal of Mr. Casirrros '
yet up to the day when i
cision was announced,
fluential organs of the
daily press insisted that
dismissed. What caused

.wo other iustancel. the
.Liberal party
independently of iWe Government.
as were made for Oe' 44$01ishtnent of
illot and the destruction of th-e Irish
h. Was. ttirie, iiipigti'de political, prin-
nothing distinctive' 4n.paese motions ?
ballot a Liberal or Cohiervative theory?
Irish Church a Conservative or Liberal
ttion? On both occasions the bulk of
.beral party voted against theii.RpteMier,
e was saved from defeat, and the empire
..nnfusion. only through the votes of the

the ,Governme . d
Vie' three m+; .-6
dovernment ji • -
Mr. DALLAS u , t ''
a ''s
• .
the change .
At
......
•-. NI
s .ti 1
6.4 ••(•> . b
j
\\........... .so .
_ai•