The Press.
London, England, 1856-08-09 00:00:00

No. 171.—VoL.IV.

LONDON, SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1856.

STAMPED ....SIXPENCE.
UNSTAMPED..FIVEPENCE

Cl2t Vrtss.

Opposition, the Radical policy is secure. To
perceive the snare is to shun it. Some sacri-
fice or setting aside of deeply•rooted hopes
and ardent convictions is always needed to
keep a party together. But history is, indeed,
but an old almauack if it does not show this—
that in the collective union of party is the
force which saves and exalts nations, while in
the division of individual sentiment is the
weakness which ruins them.

had no confidence in them. The truth is, that
they laboured under the double disadvantage
of a bad cause and a weak following.
If the Opposition did not muster in strength
on any party question, this return establishes
a fact of far greater importance, that they mus-
tered in sufficient force on every business
question to prevent the passing of measures
which they disapproved. For a disorganised
party they acted with wonderful unity, tact,
and success. While they offered no impedi-
ment to the transaction of necessary business,
they carefully avoided any vote which could
be construed into support of the Government.
It is not surprising that the Ministerialists
should wish to create an impression that the
party opposed to them is broken up. Fortu-
nately, the facts are all the other way. Consi-
derable differences of opinion must always pre-
vail in every great party. It is neither practi-
cable nor desirable that the freedom of indi-
vidual minds should be lost in party organisa-
tion. In England party is not conspiracy; it
does not bind men to act together on every
occasion ; it does not propose as its first
object the overthrow of a Government. It is
free, loyal, and legitimate. Its primary aim
is to maintain great and fundamental princi-
ples of policy, such as those enumerated by
the Right Honourable Member for Bucks
towards the close of his speech. Why is it
that the advocates of radical changes in our
representative system, and in every depart-
ment of Church and State, are seated on the
Ministerial benches, except that the Libe-
ral, as opposed to the Conservative party,
absorbs every element adverse to the mainte-
nance of established things?
Occasions will from time to time arise when
through the settlement of great questions the
division of parties will seem less marked than
heretofore. Such periods of calm can never
be of long pontinuo.nce. The principles which
have been at war since social freedom began,
are not to be restrained from manifesting their
activity, more especially in an age like ours,
when democracy is restless, vigilant, and
animated to extend its force at risk of over-
throwing the political fabric which shelters it.
To the Conservative spirit of this country we
owe it that the advances of democracy have
been kept within the bounds of well-regulated
freedom.
The weakening or destruction of the party
organisation which gives nerve and expression
to Conservative sentiment is the greatest mis-
fortune which can befal a country. It is the
first and most indispensable element of secu-
rity to every Government and every nation. It
is not a mere dead-weight, acting as a drag on
the wheels of progress, which is required, but
an alert and intelligent spirit, which can ad-
vance as well as resist—which is ever anxious
to strengthen its position, and which is ready
at any moment to guide the powers of the
State. Without this activity it is in reality
powerless, as in certain conjunctures a choice
must be made; the balance must sway heavily
ou one side or the other, and that side which
is unprepared may be depressed to overthrow
or extinction.
Why is it that Liberal politicians support
the existing Government. though Liberal
principles are in abeyance ? Partly through
influences utterly and basely corrupt, but
partly, also, because they know that long depri-
vation from office is a severe trial to party
loyalty, and because they know that with the
extinction of a governmental party in the

LONDON, SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1856.

THE return moved for by Mr. DISRAELI on the
•25th ultimo has been published. The public
Bills discharged during the late session are

enumerated. v It is unnecessary to go over
the long and melancholy list. The epidemic
was the most fatal in the annuls of legislation.
It is sufficient to say, that the official docu-
ment confirms every fact stated by the Right

Hon Member for Bucks
The return places the Ministerial journals
in a painful dilemma. What are they to say
to the authentic record of Government failure?
If they hold that the measures were not
wanted, what is to be thought cf the wisdom
which thrust them upon the table of the
Legislature ? If they say that they were im-
mature, what is to be conceived of the skill
which brought them forward ? If, on the con-
trary, the measures were good in themselves,
and were wanted, how can wo escape the con-
clusion that the Administration was too weak
in legislative support to carry them?
The morning journal which is presumed to
be under the immediate patronage of the
Premier assures its readers that the failures
of the Government are to be attributed to the
factiousness of the Opposition. But how can
this explanation be reconciled with the often
repeated assertions that the Government was
supported by a large majority in Parliament,
and that the Opposition was disorganised?
The Conservative party, we have been told
again and again, is broken up, yet by the ad-
mission of our opponents this routed party
was always able to muster a majority when a
Ministerial measure was to be overthrown
In our opinion it would be erroneous to
attribute the Government failures to any
single cause. They were due, as regards one
class of measures, to such slovenliness of
preparation and such Ministerial defects in
the bills, as necessitated their abandonment
before they could be discussed; and as re-
gards another class, to the embodiment of
principles so opposed to the Conservative
sentiments of the Legislature as to compel
the Government to withdraw them to avoid
defeat. It is to misrepresent the argument
founded on the facts of failure, to assert that
the cause is to be sought exclusively in either
the measures or the Ministers. The measures
were bad and the Ministers were distrusted.
Take the case of Mr. LOWE'S Shipping Bill
for example. The Vice-President of the
Board of Trade declared • that Corporate Pro-
perty was theft, and founded his bill on his
principle. The course of the Conservative
party was clear. They declared they would
resist a measure which if successful would
shake the security of all property in the
realm. If the Ministers approved this bill,
as they pretended, and it they possessed the
confluence of the House, as is asserted, how
came they to abandon this measure when
threatened with Conservative opposition? On
the most favorable supposition, they had no
confidence in their measure, or the House

b t ert6s.

LIBERALISM IN SPAIN.
THE house of cards built up with so much
care by Lord PALMERSTON in Spain has at last
tumbled to the ground. The French Govern-
ment looks on the ruin with complacency ;
our Ministry with anguish and wringing of
hands. This time there is no mistake ; the
Liberal party are totally overthrown. The
frightful slaughter at Madrid and Barcelona
has given a check to the sacred right of insur-
rection. Wearied with twenty years of con-
vulsion, during which the forms of constitu-
tional government have been ludicrously
parodied, the nation is glad to take refuge
under any Administration which promises it
the security of a strong hand.
The tone of our Government press is, that
the rule of Marshal O'DototEm. cannot last—
that he is a tuol in the hands of the Court—
that he will be dismissed in favour of a more
obsequious Dictator—that insurrection will
raise its head again—that there will be more
fights, more slaughter—and that Liberalism,
backed by Lord PALMERSTON, will yet take up
arms and come triumphant out of the bloody
fray. This is what is hoped. It is forgotten
that a more powerful will than that of Lord
PALMERSTON now regards the Spanish Penin-
sula, and that his Lordship has to deal, not
with a Louts PHILIPPE, but a Louts NAPOLEON.
Our Premier, secure, as he believed, in his
mastery of the chessboard of Spanish politics,
is bewildered at finding himself suddenly
checkmated. If his Lordship is the great man
that his friends would make him out, he has
been much more unlucky than great men
usually are.
The first decided step taken by this country
in support of the Christine party was in 1834,
when Lord PALMERSTON was Foreign Secre-
tary. On the 22nd of April in that year was
formed the Quadruple Alliance, afterwards the
subject of so much discussion in both Houses
of Parliament, between Portugal and Spain
and France and England. By this treaty the
two first-mentioned Powers bound themselves
to assist each other in the expulsion from
their respective territories of Don MIGUEL
and Don CARLOS—of whom the former was
contesting the throne of Portugal against the
young Queen MARIA, and the latter the throne
of Spain against the young Queen ISABELLA.
By a second article England bound herself to
promote this design by a naval co-operation ;
and by a third, France placed herself at the
disposal of the other three Powers. ,
of this energetic conduct soon bsep 4413* ,
Don Cant.os, whose party had lwr Sitiif.r. -
D
the stronger, was compelled toOkirrefit44 la' ....;.. '-7.'1
England, Pon MIGUEL fled ritiLly.r.a4 .
I .rf
Liberalism was everywhere tri
itZlift. lilt- p.,,-
in the following year the S ' •-PriliiitC,?
rce
zjtk4
again appeared in arms among ' Atekh ', '
and Lord PALMERSTON was p .to,gpit,'N
(... ~e,
.t.•,,..... ...... '.! p.,,,
'N N 4#o