The Press.
London, England, 1858-07-03 00:00:00

N \
..,.,.,...........;

"A GOVERNMENT ON SUFFERANCE."
WE suppose that we shall hear no more, at least
during the present session, of the " sufferance "
and " tolerance" which were supposed 'to be

kindly accorded by my Lords PALMERSTON and
Givaivir.r.}: to the present Government. They
have now thrown off any such disguise ; they
have tried both the covert and the open attack,
and have failed in both.

They first planned a movement under cover.
Two neutrals—two individuals not directly con-
nected with the late Government—were selected ;
and, under the cloak of a zeal for the honour of
Lard CANNING, a vote was sought to be obtained
which would have implied a censure upon the pre-
sent Ministry. The House of Lords rejected the
proposal. In the Commons its fate was more
disastrous, for there the mover bad to withdraw
it amidst derisive cheers. So ended the flank
movement by which it was anticipated that the
present Government would be put to the rout.

Still, however, the adherents of Lord PAL-
mERsToN were confident in their predictions, that
"the Ministry would not stand a month." Its
intrinsic weakness was said to be so great, as to
insure its fall the first moment any question
arose, upon which a vote of the House of
Commons could fairly be taken.
Well, for a time, no such question arose, and
the opponents were left in possession of their
belief that whenever an occasion should occur, the
fate of the Ministry was quite certain. At last,
however, when the India Bill, the great measure
of the session, was fairly under weigh, and sailing
calmly through the committee, it became absolutely
necessary that Lord PALmEnsTox should do

something to justify the boastful assumptions of
his admirers. To sit in silence while the mea-
sure of the Government was successfully passing
through the House, would have been an admis-
sion of weakness, which would have ended at
once all the assumptions of the late Premier and
his friends. Lord PALMERSTON, therefore, had
scarcely any choice. He is now blamed by some
of his followers for rushing into defeat in Friday
evening's debate of the last week. But it was
scarcely, possible for him to take any other course.
A general who declines an engagement when the
enemy is immediately in his front, leaves no room
for doubt as to his motives and feelings. Had
Lord PALMERSTON shrank from a division on
the occasion in question, his leadership would
practically have been at an end.
But the other horn of the dilemma proved
equally fatal. He went to a division and was
beaten. That which would have been admitted,
had he remained silent, was now proved. It was
seen, in two consecutive divisions, that he had no
majority of the House at his back. The plain
question, " The India Bill of the Government,
or the India Bill of Lord PALMERSTON," was
fairly put ; and by two large divisions the House
decided in favour of the present Government.
LATEST EDITION.

In 1832 the House again yielded to an alarm-
ing conjuncture of circumstances. The Whigs
had resigned ; the Tories found it impossible to
carry on the Government, and they resigned
also. Birmingham threatened commotion, and
the wheels of Government in London seemed to
have come to a dead lock. The point in dispute
was, whether the Peers should exercise their right
of altering the Reform Bill. To avoid the peril
of approaching anarchy, the dissentient Peers
withdrew, and the Whigs were allowed to carry
their measure unaltered.

STAMPED .... SIXPF NCE.
UNSTAMPED ..FIV EPENCE.

In 1846 another sort of crisis occurred. The po-
tato famine in Ireland made some sort of legislation
as to food inevitable. Sir ROBERT PEEL had in-
duced the Duke of WELLINGTON to concur with
him in a measure of total repeal. To oppose
and dismiss this Government could only bring
in Lord JOHN RUSSELL and the Whigs, who
would propound a similar measure. Under these
special circumstances, and in the unquestionable

necessity of some immediate legislation, the
majority of the Peers left themselves in the
hands of the Duke of WELLINGTON, and per-
mitted a total repeal of the Corn Laws.

Have any circumstances at all resembling
those of 1829, or 1832, or 1846, recently oc-
curred ? Does any political crisis threaten ? Is
a civil war looming in the distance; or does
famine seem likely to bring on an insurrection
for food ? Are there any special reasons what-
ever that should have induced the Lords to alter,
in July, the vote they deliberately adopted in
April ?

Nothing of the kind can be alleged. The vast
difference that exists between the prescnt case
and those former concessions which are alleged
as precedents, is this,—that, in its present con-
cession, the House of Lords is acting on no
other real or apparent motive but a mere weari-
ness of the contest. It retracts its " No," and
says " YES," merely because the House of Com-
mons persists in asking, year by year, "WILL
Yor s "

Now, this is a prodigious advance on any
former concession. In most of the previous in-
stances, the Lords and the Commons changed
their course together, under the pressure of some
real or supposed exigency. Famine, or appre-
hended commotion, was the plea advanced ; but
in the present case no reason of this kind can be
alleged. The people have asked for no such
concession ; no external peril exists or can be
conceived. The one, sole,
and total change of course

the House of Commons,

people, persists in coming.

table of the House of Lords,

and that the Lords arc

applications !

We gay that a yielding
pressure as this places the

,
/

r
cC/

a, reason for a •
;e is merel Y I Y \
un
year bliwy.
.ords, volt
weary orP.,--10,
134.44, ' 41111 Y
th such .4:4ll,lHoudiv:oo
e House 44 11"., • •

--'--