The Press.
London, England, 1858-06-05 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JUNE 5, 1858.

the journals who support them complain loudly
that sufficient credit is not given them for the
patriotism of their conduct and the disinterested-
ness of their motives. We are assured that had
it not been for their eublic virtue, the Govern-
ment could not have discharged its ordinary and
necessary functions, and we must have had, in
the middle of a most important session, Parlia'
mentary anarchy and national confusion. Lord
I'ALMERSTOX, by previous arrangements and cur-
rent forbearance, enabled Ministers to disen-
tangle and settle the complications of our tbreign
relations, and put financial matters on a satisfac-
tory iboting for the year; while the timely and
sagacious co-operation of Lord JOHN RUSSELL
upon the Indian Bill saved the Government from
being displaced, and dragged the great subject of
Indian Administration out of the category of
party questions. As for the late attack, made
with such an announcement of power, and with-
drawn with such a display of impotence, that,
we are assured, was not the issue of the intrigues
of a Cabal, but th 6 result of a common sentiment
of alarm pervading with singular simultaneity
the minds of Lord PALMERSTON, Lord JOILN
RUSSELL, Lord SHAFTESBURY, and Mr. CARD-
WELL, lest our Indian empire should be sacri-
ficed by the strong views and rash action of Lord
ELLENBOROUGIL

Party spirit on the Opposition side of the
House, we have been told, is in abeyance, if not
extinct ; public motives govern, and public
virtue, as evinced by "forbearance," is supreme.
We could almost wish that we had simplicity or
charity enough to give credence to all this. But,
in spite of our wishes, the events of every day force
upon us the conviction that in the past days of Eng-
lish history Party Spirit was never more rampant
in feeling, more active in device, nor more un-
scrupulous in action, than it is at this moment.
At the commencement of the career of the

present Government we directed attention to the
remarkable difference between the language and
demeanour of Lord PALMERSTON as represented
by himself in the House of Commons, and of
Lord PALMERSTON as represented by the press
out of doors. In the house Lord PALMERSTON
was mild as the cobra with his teeth drawn,
conciliatory and co-operative as the pet of the
gaol chaplain ;—scarcely, indeed, save by an occa-
sional suggestion as to the order of public busi-
ness, asserting his claim, to be regarded as the
Leader of the Opposition. Outside he was de-
fiant and abusive, daily complaining of Mr.
DISRAELI'S occupation of the Treasury bench,
and predictin,, his own immediate return
to office. We said then it was thought
by some uncharitable persons that the quiescence
within the House was deceptive, and that the
real PALMERSTON was to be looked for in the
columns of his morning journal, trying to get up
a sensation abroad, and intriguing at Cambridge-
house. Were we not right ? Was there ever
anything more ridiculous, is there anything more
absurd now, than the spectacle of the two com-
petitors for the next Premiership—Lord PAL-
MERSTON above, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL below
the gangway—each flaunting his forces nightly
and upon every possible occasion before the face
of the other, like the Kingmakers in SHAKES-
PEARE'S historical plays, in order to bring his rival
to terms ? An effort of patriotism to save India
from being made the shuttlecock of party conflict !
Does anybody who has watched events believe
that to have been the character of Lord JoHN's
Parliamentary move with reference to the Indian
Bill ? Why, it was part of the game. It was
the great occasion for which Lord JOHN had been
anxiously waiting, by which he was to discomfit
Lord PALMERSTON just sufficiently to show him
that he could not come into power again with-
out the aid of his ancient colleague. Having
cleverly given Lord PALMERSTON a dismaying
and unexpected back-fall, Lord JOHN thought
he was master of the situation. So for the
moment he was, and the result was the New
Alliance of Cambridge-house, and the miserable
motion of Mr. CARDWELL. And he might have
remained so; the Noble Lord might even have
had a chance of being again Prime Minister of
England, and of again throwing his allies over-
board when they had served his turn, had not
the disgust of the House of Commons broken up
suddenly and decisively the carefully arrayed
combination, and left them in a state of discom-
fiture, soreness, and wrath which defied conceal-
ment, and, reckless of consequences, has exhi-

bited itself most ludicrously in the recent frantic
and feeble attacks upon the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER'S Speech at Slough. Talk of
" forbearance " after all this ! We say, and so
will every man throughout England say in his
chimney-corner, with our old friend Burchell,
" FUDGE!

OUR POSITION IN FEBRUARY, 1858.
THREE several attacks have been made on Mr.
DISRAELI, by Lord JOIIN RUSSELL, by Lord
PALMERSTON, and by Lord CLARENDON, with
reference to an expression used by him at the
late Conservative dinner at Slough. He is re-
ported to have there said—" When I tell you
" seriously that the question of peace or war,
" when we acceded to office, was not a question
" of weeks or days, but of hours, I am sure that
" you will remember that peace has been pre-
" served, while the honour of the country has
" been vindicated."

The three Noble Lords who have made the
Slough Speech a theme for Parliamentary dis-
cussion seem scarcely able to find words to ex-
press their astonishment and indignation at this
statement. According to their view, the state of
Europe at the moment when Lord PALmEnsToN

so suddenly tumbled from his seat was one of
unusual calm and repose. They find it difficult
to conceive what strange dream or spectral delusion
can have flitted across Mr. DISRAELI'S vision, to
induce him to talk of warlike emergencies. So
feeling, it is not at all surprising that they should
give vent to some expressions of anger, as well
as of astonishment, at representations which
they deem so far distant from the truth.
But were those representations untruthful ,
Was the idea of war—possible, and perhaps even
near—a new and startling one ? Is the fact so c:
At the time of Lord PALMERSTON'S resignation,
in February last, had no language savouring of
apprehension found its way to the public eye or
ear, either by speech or by publication ?
The case is not at all as Lords PALMERSTON
and CLARENDON would represent it. Fourteen
weeks have passed away, and men already begin
to forget the topics of conversation which were
rife in the depth of last winter. But those who
have trustworthy memories can easily recal to
mind, if they will, the common apprehensions of
that period, as to what might follow the denim-
ciations of the French Colonels in the Moniteur,
and the refusal of the House of Commons to pass
Lord PALMERSTON'S Conspiracy Bill.
But we need tax no one's memory. We can
copy, without any difficulty, passages from
London newspapers of February last, which
demonstrate, in the simplest of all ways, that
Mr. DISRAELI, in his speech at Slough, was
merely describing what everybody felt to be the
state of affairs in February last.
We might cite various newspapers, but.
single one may suffice. We take the following
passages from the London morning paper which
(excluding the penny journals) is second only to
the Times :

"Ministers will incur a grave responsibility
if, after what has taken place, they do not forth.
with take the precaution of having a formidable
fleet in readiness to protect our shores, in case of
any attempt being made to give effect to the
menaces of the French Colonels. Lord PAL-
MERSTON, as the head of the Government, and
the presumed guardian of the public interests
and the country's safety, should take care, with-
out an hour's delay, that every available vessel,
and every available seaman, should be put into
fighting condition."—Morning Advertiser, Feb.
12, 1858.
" We do implore Lord PALMERSTON, by every
consideration of loyalty which he owes his
Sovereign, by patriotism to his country, and by
all the responsibilities which rest on him as a
Minister, not to lose a moment in putting our,
coast defences in the most efficient possible state.,
—Morning Advertiser, Feb. 20.
" We repeat, that the most urgent necessity
exists for putting our coast defences in the most
efficient state of which they are capable, 511c1
also of calling out the Militia without delay. Jo

neglect this, in the existing state of things, would
be to incur the most awful responsibility that
ever was incurred by a public man."—Morning
Advertiser, Feb. 22.

These passages were written, the first, a week
before Lord PALMERATON'S fall, the others a day
or two after his resignation. But they all de-
scribe the state of affairs at the very moment of
which Mr. Dis►tAi:t.i spoke. And, be it observed,
they are taken from no insignificant journal.
The editor, whose pen thus vividly described the
national perils, is not unknown at Cambridge-
house. The very warnings which we have
given above, actually met Lord l'Ai.msits-rox's
eve, day by day, in February last. And it cer-
tainly affords ground for a suspicion of tailing
memory, or some such infirmity, to find
the Noble Lord now coming forward, in May, to
express his wonder and astonishment, that any
one should have supposed, in February last, that
there was the least unpleasant feeling, the least
tendency to hostile words or actions, between
the English and French Governments.

We have cited but a single instance, because
that single instance shows sufficiently what ideas
were then passing through men's minds. But
we should have had no difficulty (had it ap-
peared needful) in producing extracts from half
a .dozen London newspapers, and speeches at
more than one public meeting, all establishing
the same fact—that many men seriously be-
lieved, in February last, that the question of
peace or war with France might be decided—and
decided in a perilous manner in a very few
days—aye, or in a very few hours !