The Press.
London, England, 1856-11-29 00:00:00

1130

personal considerations. Parliamentary prin-
ciples of the first importance are at stake on
the question, as to whether Lard PALMERSTON
can be obeyed as the chief of the Ministerial
party ?
From Lord JOHN NiY*SELL'EI ttiib point 0
view the question ha& twofold itiSportittiCa,
p .trsonal and polittai. lord' PA* RUSSELL,
the leader of the Whig party, must naturally
chafe at seeing the Most inconstant politicise*
of the times installed as chief of "Liberal"
Cabinet. Such a dispensation must be dis-
paraging to the personal pretensions, not only
of Lord JOHN RUSSELL himself, but also to the
hereditary position held by the " house of
Bedford" in the Whig connection. For the
first time in Parliamentary memory, the
Russell family has nothing to do with the
Cabinet, although the Whigs are in power.
That fact, alone, is remarkable. The Howards,
the Gowcrs, and the Greys, are all repre-
sented in the Cabinet, but there is no Russell
in the Ministry to keep up the traditions of
the Woburn household. In vain did Lord
JOHN RUSSELL bring in the Reform Bill in
1831, and denounce the House of Lords ; " the
" whisper of a (PALMERSTON) faction " com-
municates the sad news that " the voice of a
" people" (that is to say, of the Reform Club)
is now against the quondam idol of Brookes's,
whose praises were sung by THOMAS MOORE,
though his pretensions were satirised by
SYDNEY SMITH, when the latter (as he himself
has admitted) " took to writing Conservative
" pamphlets." Ought not the sums of money,
also, which the chiefs of the house of Bedford
gave in support of the Whig party, count for
something in their pretensions to the first
post of honour in a Whig Ministry? When
did the " Bedford Whigs " ever before make
so poor a figure in the Liberal procession?
So much for the personal part of the ques-
tion, and it adds stinging bitterness to its
consideration, that the " Coalition" with Lord
ABERDEEN was brought about at Woburn. We
were told, also, from Lord JOHN'S own lips in
Parliament, that the mighty Mr. MACAULAY
said, at Lansdowne-house, tin his best ore
rotunda, "I feel assured of your courage, and I
"do not think that you will be intimidated
" from the path of duty," or words to that
effect. On the same occasion, also, it was told
that " the late Sir ROBERT PEEL had advised
"her Majesty to consult Lord John Russell about
",foreign affairs." The fact is not likely to be
forgotten by the Noble Member for London in
the present aspect of our foreign relations
with Austria and France. The acts of the
Church of Rome, also, in Italy, are of a
character likely to arrest the notice of Lord
JOHN RUSSELL, and we may be sure that the
Noble Lord is no idle spectator of what is
going on in the Italian peninsula.
And, furthermore, there is the awkward
dilemma of the Ministry as to what it will do
about " Reform." Either we are to have a
" Reform Bill," or not. Could a Liberal
Ministry propose a new Parliamentary change,
without having first settled its account with
Lord JOHN RUSSELL? We think not. And it
would be catremely difficult to persuade Lord
JOHN RUSSELL to occupy a secondary position
in any Cabinet which charged itself with such
a duty. We may rest assured that Lord JOHN
RUSSELL will, as long as he is in the House of
Commons, insist on being allowed to rule the
subject of " Parliamentary Reform."
On the other hand, should the Cabinet elect
have no " Reform Bill," it will then stand in a
singular position before the country, and serve
to confirm the truth of the view taken by Mr.
DISRAELI at the close of the last session, that
we have a Liberal Ministry carrying out a
Conservative policy; a view of affairs in which
the Quarterly Review concurs with the Right
Honourable Member for Bucks.
As to the dream fondly entertained by the
Premier's friends that Lord JOHN RUSSELL
would subside into a peerage, we cannot think
that them is much likelihood of such a solu-
tion of the Ministerial dilemma. Lord JOHN
himself would obviously lose statue politically
by going into the House of Lords. He be-
longs to a famous and ennobled race, whereas
. PJLIENEY and WALPOLE were not of pwrician
stock, and founded peerages, which to some
extent consoled them for " their fall up-stairs,'
^rd CassuRFIELD wittily said, Relatively

As Lord CE
lIIL