Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-11-02 00:00:00

-NEWC47 ...."LE CATTLE MARKET.—Nov. 1. -
Ino supply of. Beasts to-day comprised 1,183 _head.
The Beef trade Was in a sluggish state, and prices were
3d, per ',llene lower. There were 6,640 Sheep in the
market. The Mutton trade was in a steady states and,
rates supported. In the Pig market 739 were exhibited,
with a good demand for small Pork; but the larger kinds
were slow of sale. Prices—Reef," ss. Bd. to 7s. 6d.,
Pork, 6s. to Bs. per stone ; Sheep, 6d. to 7d. per lb.

NORTT-174}4- DA nv TIMES.

the Free Trade Hall, and in presence of between
three and four thousand ladies and gentlemen.
Lord Stanley was also present,
gild delivered an
eloquent and appropriate address,

- --+ -
A LITTLE befote the last but one AessiOh of Par-
liar-.,ent. 'when Lord DERBY'S dO'vernment was
In power, and had given promise of dealing with
several grave and perplexing questions, which
the Liberals had for ever promised to take into
consideration, and for ever neglected, newspa-
pers and public speakers were always expecting
that Cabinet Ministers, when in the country,
would - lay a programme of their policy before
their constituents, and were • always taunting
them with a suspicious reserve, in not so far
1 satisfying an impertinent curiosity.

The expectation was, of course, very foolish,
and, in some instances, even unconstitutional.
It would, no doubt, be a very dangerous practice
for the Minister• of the day to make the whole
country his Cabinet Council. It is not the cus-
tom, still less the duty of public men, to give.up
their intended measures to the debates of news-

papers, and the gossip of coteries, as preparatory
to Parliamentary discussion. Lord MALMESBURY

was quite right in not going out of the path of a
Constitutional Minister to enlighten a meeting of
city magnates on pending foreign negotiations.
Mr. DISRAELI only consulted official dignity, and
the responsibility of
,liimSelf and his colleagues
when he declined to induct the bucolic mind of
Buckinghamshire into the delicate details of
coming reforms.
But why was official garrulity : like this
unnecessary, as well, as unconstitutional and
undignified ? Because, • pending Parliamentary
discussion on particular details of policy, it is
sufficient for the country to know the general
principles of the Administration. A Conservative
has confidence in Lord DERBY, not because he
has a full knowledge of every turn of policy, or
every detail of statesmanship which Lord DERBY
has ever taken, or is likely to take, but because—
he is a Conservative.

Now, though Lord DERBY is no longer a
Minister, nor bound in the same way to a cau-
tious reserve, we do not hesitate to return the
same answer to those critics, who complain that
the speeches of Saturday shadowed forth no
particular line of policy, no positive measures for
which to politically live or die next Session.
The Conservatives of Liverpool met to do honour
to their Parliamentary chief, not as identified
with any particular measure, past or future, but,
in his own language, as—" the embodied imper-
sonation of Conservative principles."

Is there any uncertainty, then, as to the true
nature, as to the fixed and inherent meaning of
Conservatism ? Does any one doubt as to its
bearing upon those popular topics of the day
which are clamoured for in the market-place, and

made political capital of on the hustings, and
coquetted with in Parliament ? Changed as it
has been in its relations to existing circumstances ;
identified as it has been with things long passed
away; unsuccessful as it has been in resistance
to various rude and violent disruptions, with
still an affection, as it ought to have, for some
laws which have been abrogated, some systems
which • have been overturned, some convictions
which have been ruthlessly abused; is there not yet
room.to expatiate in, is there not yet something real
that it may believe in, something well defined and
marked out that it' mar do ? There are, doubt-
less, some things we have lost, which we would
have back. We would have the legislature still
Christian. • We would have the marriage law
in accordance with the law of God. But is

there no longer room for a Christian to legis-
late for a Christian country, because the
denier of the Divine author of Christianity

is to have a share in a work which he cannot
properly discharge ? Are chaste men and lovers
of God's Word to believe and act as if they
believed no longer in the sanctity of the
,holy marriage tie, and the indefeasible autho-
rity of the Bible ? • But, amid _ all these
changes,- and petty revolutions, and perversions
of religious claims, and of the most sacred sanc-
tions, he is no philosopher, he is but a superficial
observer of the appearances and accidents of
things, who ventures to say that Conservatism
has no active, living, intelligible principle left,
nothing on which to, base a faith or build a
policy. He can be no sensible man, he can be no
admirer of the English Constitution, he can be no
real patriot, of whatever party or whatever
opinions, who could take it as a subject of con-
gratulation that Conservatism has no longer a
mission in the State. In what way has the
informing spirit of Conservatism really changed ?
In different ages, no doubt; it presents different
•
'aspects; at varying crises it has had different
'tactics to pursue. But what is there that
has not changed in its accidents and rela-
tions'? Nay, what changes of a far more
fundamental ' character, have we not, in the
past history and the present experience
of the now Liberal party, had to record ? Were
Whigs always Radicals ? Were they . always
`even friends to religious liberty ? Were not the
famous ancestry of the present "Liberal" party,
the notorious authors of everything that they now
stigmatise as bigotry, and narrow-mindedness in
our political system? On the contrary, when
was Conservatism, or its doctrinal progenitor,
, averse on principle to reform in the A dminis-
tration, or the extension of political privi-
leges ? Even Reformers- may regret, that
European convulsions, and national dangers,
prevented WILLIAM PITT superseding that
policy upon which the Whig's have' so long
traded,—never like Statesmen, and often like
charlatans.
No. Though circumstances may have induced
Conservative leaders sometimes to vacillate, and