The Press. — London, England, 1857-10-03 00:00:00

954 somehow or other, the title of " Bedford " came upon us with novel effect. We had almost forgotten the fact that a Duko of Bedford is the titular chief of the " House of Russell." Some years since a quack medicine was constantly advertised with a letter from the " Earl of A—," and people used to ask in consequence "Is there an Earl of A— ?" For the benefit of Lord ABERDEan, we may observe, in passing, that the patron of the quack medicine was an Irish and not a Scotch earl. Seeing what takes place before our eyes in relation to the present Ministry, and recollecting that there is no Russell in the Cabinet, and remembering what Dukes of Bedford were in other days, we now are almost tempted to raise a doubt on the ques tion " Is there a Duke of Bedford ?" The first Duke of BEDFORD was the father of Lord WituArd RUSSELL, and, pro kw causd, is a great man in the Woburn annals. He took the Parliamentary side in the Civil War, and then he rallied with King CHARLES, and dis tinguished himself at the battle of Edgehill, but afterwards wavered, and subsided into political neutrality. The second and third Dukes of BEDFORD duly married, had off springs, and continued the " House of Rus sell," if they did nothing more. Then came a succession of dukes, noisy themselves, and the cause of noise in others. There was Jose, fourth Duke of BEDFORD, who was Lord Lieu tenant of Ireland, and who actively patronised what one of his descendants would call " the mummeries of superstition." He fell under the lash of JUNIUS, and his successor, Duke FRANCIS (the fifth Duke), had his democratical folly immortalised by BURKE in the greatest invective in the language. Mr. Fox endea voured vainly to efface the effects of BURKE'S terrible attack, but the great Whig orator did not succeed. The only speech that Fox ever wrote out, and got by heart, was his funeral oration on FRANCIS, Duke of BEDFORD, and it was the only time that Fox ever failed " on his legs." Such a Duke of Bedford, associated with a splendid literary triumph of BURKE, and the solitary natural failure of Fox, cannot soon be forgotten. Then we had the sixth Duke of BEDFORD, who was a great man in Woburn alma's, because he was the father of Lord JOHN RUSSELL! He, too, was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1806: To his first levee crowded, in the levelling audacity of their joy, persons of every rank except the highest—of every description but the loyal. From their concealment sullenly emerged the unexecuted patriots of 1798, in sulting the very magistrates before whom they had been convicted. In subsequent times the illustrious father of Lord JOHN RUSSELL patronised Mr. O'CONNELL, and was not displeased at the " Lichfield-house Compact." But even Dukes of Bedford must die, and now we have, if the correspondence with Mr. Mum. be authentic, a seventh Duke of BEDFORD actually living. Yet there is room for doubt. " The Bedford Whigs " were always a proud body ; it was their boast that there was always a Russell in the Cabinet; they took a great leading part. and ruled the Whig connection. But we rarely or ever hear of the Duke of BEDFORD now. Perhaps, after all, there is no Duke of Bedford. Who knows? Everybody hears of the Duke of DEVONSHIRE and the glories of Chatsworth, and his brilliant receptions, and his magnificent improvements at Lismore Castle. The popular Duke of RICHMOND and the hospitalities of Goodwood are known to everybody worth knowing. The Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND, princely charities are famous in the lend. The Duke of LEINSTER is often heard of, and the Duke of ARGYLL is positively in the Cabinet. But where is the Lord of Woburn? Where is the head of the " House of Russell?" The correspondence with Mr. MIALL appears to be authentic ; and the Newmarket Racing Calendar of this week records the running of "The " Dukt If BEDFORD'S gelding by Tadmor," Duke of BEDFORD'S Killigrew by '." So, then, there is a Duke of ,nd the indefinite article is pro.. most appropriate. He flourishes, les, in times when Mr. BERNAL Nkes Lord John Roseau. under his .)Duke ~ril )e f ~ and " Rochester. B dford; ai b.tbly the n or vegetate OSBORNE tab THE PRESS, OCTOBER 3, 1857. protection, and condescendingly says of him, " that he (Lord JOHN) is far too useful a man " to be consiyned to the dreary shade of a back " bench." No, no, there cannot be a Duke of Bedford. It is impassible. The degeneracy of the " House of Russell" has not passed into such ab ject political decrepitude. Yet who corresponded with Mr. MIALL? Aud who ran the horses at Newmarket,? Let us see what " Dod " says. Yes! It is too true—there is a Duke of Bed ford ; his name is " Prancis," and ho is a " special Deputy Warden of the Stannaries." How aro the mighty fallen ! A Duke of Bed ford's sole public distinction to bo a " special " Deputy Warden of the Stannaties," and Lord Jolts to be picked up by Mr. OSBORNE ! Thus it would seetn that though the Duke of BED FORD is alive, the " Bedford Whigs" are defunct. The Bedford title exists, but its grandeur is no more . Is he dead? Is be rotten ? He's worse—he's forgotten. MINISTERS ON INDIA. THE reputation of her Majesty's Ministers as practical statesmen is an opinion at least zealously propagated, if not widely enter tained. The merit of this opinion we will undertake to bring to an issue, on which every reader of the meanest capacity can determine for himself. The position of affairs in India has now arrived at a point at which it is very generally admitted our destruction on the one hand, or our success on the other, is reduced to the simple question of reinforcements. The dis affection in the native army first evidenced itself in January last, in March, and again in April. The worst symptoms appeared upon the surface—incendiarism was rife, and overt acts of mutiny were committed, until at length the long pent up conspiracy prematurely burst forth in May. With a daring and a heroism un equalled in the history of the world, our scat tered soldiers are still holding India at bay. The question then arises why, if the rebellion broke out in March, April, and May, our army was not reinforced by August, and why will no reinforcements from England reach India before November? We will endeavour to find a reply in the expressed opinions of Ministers during the last few months upon Indian affairs. As the annexation of Oude is the recognised cause of this Indian rebellion, it is important that we should ascertain and show the opinion of the Government upon that act of spoliation. On the 21st of July, 1556, Mr. VERNON SMITH, in his annual Indian Budget, officially announced the annexation of Oude, and, speaking in the name of the Government, expressed an opinion that it was " a very tea " sonable thin , / " for Lord DALTIOUSIE to accomplish. Mr. V. SMITH, then entering into some detail as to the preliminary steps Lord DALHOU3IE had taken, said that he was per fectly indifferent as to whether "the transac tion" were designated " as an annexation, an " acquisition, or a cession," and concluded his observations upon the subject with the fol lowing positive declaration of policy : - - I am perfectly prepared, therefore, whenever it shall be questioned, to defend the acquisition of Oude.—Sprech, 2lst July, This is conclusive. The wisdom of the act, within one brief year, has been tested and torn to shreds ; and, whatever imputations this result casts upon either the sagacity or fore sight of Ministers, it is clear that, by first authorising and then declaring themselves ready to justify this act of annexation, they bound themselves neck and heels to that in• evitable revolt the act was destined to excite. The question then arises, did they, with the sagacity of practical statesmen, prepare for every emergency ; and when the first symp toms of disaffection were exhibited, did they show a correct appreciation of the danger surrounding us ? Mr. VERNON SMITH, in the above speech in July, 1896, admitted the existence of disaffection among the Oude Sepoys, arising from our annexation. It was transitory and evanescent, and he hoped it " would pass away." But not one active measure Was taken to meet that disaffection as it should have been met, by the immediate addition of several European regiments to our force. Quite the reverse. The Ministers at that moment had resolved upon a Persian war, and in a few months drained India of so many of her troops that Lord CANNING ex. pressed his gravest apprehensions for the safety of the country. The inswrection was rapidly organising. 'Upon the 24th of Jan uary, 1857, the 34th ititgiment at Barrack pore btleued down the station, on the 25th of February the 19th Regiment mutinied, and the ohupattie movement commenced. On the 31st of March the 19th Regiment was dis. banded. The situation of India was felt to be extremely perilous, and the most earnest representations, we have reason to believe, were conveyed to the Home Government by the mail arriving on the 19th of May. Yet, how did the Ministers decide upon so grave an event as a mutiny in the native army, and an appeal for an immediate despatch of troops from England? They decided as mediocrity always decides : they resolved that it was a matter of no consequence. Blind to the tenor of their despatches, and heroically closing their ears when fact and demonstration thundered in them that a rebellion was rising in India, they pronounced it to be a " trifling outbreak " which would bo " easily suppressed." Lord Partmuax on the 19th of May, in reply to Lord ELLKNBOROUGH, declared their utter ignorance of what they ought to have known well, by stating The accounts from India are not such as to create in the minds of the Government a belief that there is any absolute necessity for lipecial meamtrel.—Spccch,lgth May. Here there is at onco a definite opinion formed upon the insurrection at Barrackpore, the chupattie movement, the incendiarism at Umballah, and the appeal of Lord CANNING for troops. There was "no absolute necess . ty " for those special measures which, by their timely application, would have prevented these terrific results from coming to pass ! These words deserve to be remembered. Upon the 11th of June Mr. VERNON SMITH, re ferring to the mutiny at Meerut and the murder of the British officers, entreated the public, in their accommodating credulity, to feel "no alarm," and in reply to Mr. Run in the House of Commons sail:— He should add the expression of a hope that the public would be under no alarm upon that subject, as, owing to the promptitude and vigour which had been displayed by his noble frieud Lord Canning, and the excellent demon. strations which had been math upon the occasion of the disbandment of the 19th Regiment by General Hearsey, as well as the eloquent and stirring speech to which that gallant officer had then given utterance, the late disaffection among the troops in India had completely been put an end to, as he felt quite sure anysuch occurrence would in future be put an end to by the exhibition of the same promptitude and the same vigour as that to which he had just referred. —Speech, 11th Jane. When. on the :2 9t h June, the mail brought intelligence of the seizure of Delhi, and dis pelled all hopes that the outbreak was partial and not an organised insurrection against our rule, Lord GRANVILLE deprecated our feeling " any unnecessary alarm," and protested against Lord ELLENBOROUGH'S proposition that the Militia should be embodied as a measure of " exaggerated alarm." On the same evening. Mr. V. SMITH announced that 14.000 men would leave England in the course of July. It was "a measure of security alone," rather than that any danger was to be apprehended : I say (said Mr. Smith) that our Indian empire is not imperilled by the present outbreak ; and I hope that in a short time the disaster will be effectually suppressed by the force already in the country. The Right Hon. Gentleman then, us we recently showed, made the notorious statement about the mail having left a day too soon for him to apprise us of the razing of Delhi to the ground. Time wore on. Every one remembers the thrill of horror which at each succeeding mail vibrated through the country; but when the great heart of England was now throbbing with grief, now beating high with stern resolu tion, Ministers, with a sagacity and fore sight so peculiarly their own, apprehended no danger, and would take no extraordinary mea sures for the security of our fellow-countrymen. Lord GRANVILLE, on the 1-ith of July, in reoly to Lord ELLENBOROUGH, denied in positive terms that the insurrection extended beyond the army. Lord PALNLERSTON the same evening took cheering views, and, referring to the