The Press.
London, England, 1854-06-03 00:00:00

a 0;) 4.1-nre"
• .• : • /0
11
zb t
„.14N

No. 57.—VoL. 11.

LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 3, 1854.

g4t dress.

It is idle to pretend, after the discussion on
the withdrawal of the Disfranchisement Bills,
that Ministers possess the confidence of Par-
liament. Mr. DISRAELI'S summary of the session
was a tour de force which cast the Treasury
bench into consternation. Never did his
courageous eloquence appear to greater ad-
vantage ; but we must recollect that never had
it a finer opportunity for display. Substan-
tially the question before the House was a
motion of non-confidence, but without the
responsibility of a division. In this light it
was regarded by the Government, and hence
the importance attached to the testimony of
Sir GEORGE GREY, who waits with exemplary
patience ready to be called up at any moment
as a witness to character, and for the good
word of Colonel PEEL, who finds it convenient
to vote with Government from an Opposition
bench, and afford them such countenance as a
decent bonnet gives to the imposture of a
mock auction when its wearer nods approval
of the fraudulent articles put up for sale as
genuine wares.
Of the seven measures enumerated by Mr.
DISRAELI as announced by Government early in
the session, several were expressly recom-
mended in the speech from the Throne.
Those not thus announced were equally im-
portant.
On three of these measures the Govern-
ment were ignominiously defeated in full
houses :

1. The Law of Settlement Bill was post.
poned, not again to make its appearance, by a
majority of 209 to 183 (March 27).
2. The Scotch Education Bill was rejected
by 193 to 184 (May 12).
2. The Oaths Bill was rejected by 251 to 247
(May 25).
These bills were defeated, not on their de-
tails, but on their principle. They were not
slily massacred in committee. The division
was in each case on the second reading, when
the sense of the House is taken on the general
merits of a measure.

Three other measures are abandoned
1. The Civil Service Reform Scheme.
2. The Parliamentary Reform Bill.
3. The Disfranchisement Bills.

The seventh and last measure yet remains,
but in a state of so great confusion that it is
impossible to say what will become of it. On
two of its leading provisions the Government
has been signally defeated, and now it is pro-
posed that its details should be left to the
discretion of Commissioners on account of
the inability of its authors to define their own
meaning and purposes.
What plainer proof of want of confidence
can be required than is afforded by these de-
feats ? Some other cause than the occurrence
of war is required to account for such whole-
sale failure, and that cause Mr. BRIGHT has
plainly revealed. "As far as advising and
" recommending measures to Parliament is
" concerned, the Government have not the
" confidence of the House of Commons." If
the Legislature cares for no other subject than
the war, it has a singular mode of showing its
indifference. It is sensitively alive to every
motion of the Government. It dreads their
activity as mischievous, and instead of leaving
their hands free it persists on confining them
with a straitwaistcoat.
To the repeated notices given to the Minis-
try that they will not be permitted to " lead,
" advise, or control the House," they make but
one answer :—We will remain where we are

1.

.

~;

es f•
14. )1.

•
.

PRICE SIXPENCE.

until we are forcibly expelled. Our failures
may damage the character of parliamentary
government, but do not harm us. The
whole exculpatory argument of the Ministerial
leader is, that the more popular the character
of the House becomes, the less necessary is it
that the Government should possess its confi-
dence. Defeat might be disgraceful in a
borough-mongering Parliament, but is not at
all disgraceful in a popular Legislature. The
degradation of governments, and the rejection
of their measures, are to be accepted as neces-
sary consequences of reform.
The allusion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL to the
Government of Lord DERBY was a great blun-
der from his lips. That Government dis-
dained to hold office in the face of an adverse
vote of the Commons. No Ministry had ever
to contend with a more reckless Opposition,
yet how striking is the contrast between its
conduct of affairs and that of its successors. 94
Lord DERBY'S Government carried that
wise measure for establishing the militia by
voluntary enlistment which has proved so
salutary in its effect. Lord JOHN RUSSELL
was not wise to revive the memory of his con-
duct on that occasion. Where was his zeal
for the public interest and the Queen's ser-
vice, when, after his Government had broken
up, from sheer inability to hold together
longer, he refused ordinary forbearance to his
successors ? He stood pledged to a Militia Bill
by the measure he had introduced, but one of
his first acts after his resignation was to make
common cause with the party totally opposed
to the militia principle, that he might render
all legislation on the subject impracticable.
The late Administration was squally suc-
cessful in carrying its bill for the reform of
the Court of Chancery. It is stated in the
Times of Wednesday that this measure "was
" prepared for them by their predecessors."
To this statement we give an unqualified con-
tradiction. Not a sign of such preparation
was found in the Government offices. The
bill was drawn by Lord ST. LEONARD'S in the
spirit of the Chancery Commission Report,
the most active and valuable member of that
Commission being Mr. HENLEY, a member of
Lord DERBY'S Cabinet !
During its brief and, we are willing to admit,
precarious tenure of office, this Government
was distinguished by the vigorous efforts of
the Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND tore pair the
neglect of our naval administration for years
past, and place that branch of the public
service on a footing of the highest possible
efficiency. In ten months he increased the
ships in our home ports from 43 to 47 ; their
guns from 1,2841 to 2,141; and their men from
11,041 to 15,025. He provided for the equip-
ment of an effective force of screw line-of-battle
ships ; he appointed a committee to inquire
into the resources of our mercantile steam
marine ; and he projected such alterations in
the enlistment of seamen for the Royal Navy
as would be likely to secure the advantage of
a standing force which might at all times be
relied on.
Were these among the failures of that Admi-
nistration on which Lord JOHN dwells with
spiteful satisfaction ? On one measure it was
defeated, but assuredly not disgraced. It
proposed to appropriate the long-forfeited
seats of Sudbury and St. Alban's to the great
constituencies of the West Riding and Lan-
cashire. Mr. GLADSTONE succeeded in defeat-
ing this measure on the ground that a weak
Administration ought not to be allowed to