The Press. — London, England, 1857-04-11 00:00:00

350 payment of the expenses of the war by Persia to the amount of half a million, were all peremptorily rejected by FEROUIi KHAN. From the very outset, and even before we commenced the war, the Persians expressed their readi ness to surrender Herat, which they never had any desire to keep, and which they had only taken possession of to prevent its falling into the hands of Don MonammEn. They refused to give it to the Affghans, but declared their desire to establish there a Government of native chiefs, and to withdraw the whole Persian force into their own territories. These offers we refused to listen to, though tour, after waging au expensive war, we are glad to close with these very terms of giving up Herat to the native chiefs ; the Shah, however, re taining the religious supremacy over them—a fertile source of future quarrels. A very few days before the treaty was signed, Lord COWLEY was heard to declare that he could make nothing of the Persians ; that they would not, or could not, under stand hint. His words were, " What can "you do with people who will not under " stand you? but it will be the worse for them, " and they will suffer for it in the end." In short, there was a dead lock ; and, as far us England's paid diplomatists could go, the dead lock would Lave continued for ever. My Lord COWLEY was at his wits' end—for such bad been the injudicious nature of the propo sitions made by him, and, above all, the manner of making them, that for at long time FERoUK KHAN positively refused to have anything to do with hint. Luckily for England, a gentleman who is not a paid diplomatist, nor even a Peer or a Grand Cross of the Bath, but simply a captain in the Indian navy, hearing how matteri stool, waited on Lord COWLEY and offered his services, stating that he spoke Persian, and had, we believe, known FEROUK kIrAN in Persia. By this time his Lordship had probably discovered that he was not the heaven-born negotiator which the British Government affected to consider him, and that to thrust such terms as he had originally proposed eJwn tli^ throat of the shrewd Oriental was a task altogether beyond his capacity. He therefore accepted Captain LYNCH'S offer, and in a few hours, as we understand, the treaty, such as it is, was prepared and signed by both parties. Captain LYNCH was very properly deputed by Lord COWLEY to bring it to Engl►nd, and on his arrival he was presented by the Treasury with 500/. for his trouble—a sum which every one must think trifling as com pared with his services ou this important occasion. Now, what is there in all this to merit an earldom? Here is a functionary receiving upwards of 8,0001. a year from his country, and it is quite obvious that, although assisted by three first-rate Oriental scholars, Colonel OUsELEY, Colonel OTTER, and Mr. REDILOUSE, we should have had no treaty at all but for Captain LYNCH. And what sort of a treaty have we got at last? We made exorbitant demands, and gave up one by one every point which could be of the slightest benefit to our country. Every foot of land occupied by us in Persia is to be given up. No British establishment is to be permitted in Karrak, Corgo, or elsewhere. The demand for payment of the war expenses, as well as that fur the dismissal of the Shah's Minister, are quietly thrown overboard. Everything. in shirt, is given up except one point, which, without being of the smallest advantage to us, is most galling to the pride of the Shah and humiliating to the Persian naion—a point which may probably procure the rejection of the treaty ; and, if it does not, will, at all events, cause us to be hated in Pei sia as long as the memory of the degrada tion exists. We allude to the stipulation which has been made for the manner in which Mr. MURRAY shall be received on his return to Teheran ; and to obtain this empty triumph over the feelings of our adversary, the great point which has been always insisted on by ambassadors in Oriental kingdoms—namely, the power to protect subjects of the country when attached to the British Embassy —is to be fur the future given up. THE PRESS. The treaty, however, proved serviceable to the Govermuent in one respect. It enabled the Ministerialists to boast of the success of the Persian invasion, at the critical moment when a dissolution was resolved on. If Lord COWLEY receives an earldom, it will be the reward, not of honourable public services, but of helping to give effect to a party manoeuvre. THETWO PARTIES. • • • WitEm Mr. DIsRAELI expressed a hope that one result of the General Election would be to draw a more distinct line of demarcation between political parties, we do not suppose him to have meant that every member returned should be an avowed Pal inerstonian or Derbyite. That is, of itself, what logicians call a cross division ; and were it to continue would rather augment than diminish the con fusion which the Right lion. Gentleman con demns. What we conceive him to have meant was this : that certain parenthetical ques tions which have caused this comming ling of colours, being now disposed of, it was to be expected that the stream of politics would return into its natural channel ; and that Parliamentary opinion would again shape itself definitely into the two great parties of those who would uphold and those who would pull down the ancient institutions of the country. Events seem likely to justify his anticipations. Those sections of politicians whose conduct was always uncertain, whose votes no man could rely upon, and whose pre sence in the House was a clog on all hold legislation, have been utterly broken up. Some of their leaders have been excluded from Parlia ment, and those who remain have been obliged to choose a side. Individually we may regret the absence from Parliament of men like Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. COBDEN, or Mr. R6UNDELL PALMER ; bllt the truth implied by their expulsion is one that we rejoice to see asserted. It is, that in the British House of Commons personal pre tensions alone cannot maintain their ground, and that never was there a greater mistake than the clamour so long prevalent about the value of independent members. It has been discovered that he who is free from party ties is often a slave to private crotchets ; and that, so far from helping forward the business of the country by the aid of impartial opinion, such men in reality do but impede the measures of both parties, while powerless .to carry through their own. So far, then, as the Independents are con cerned, we may consider Mr. DISRAELI'S ex pectations as accomplished. Are there any other clouds or shadows which the recent election has dissipated ? We think there are. The Whigs have long traded on the Reform Bill of 183..!. That event was managed with studious regard to their own interests. But just as their professions about liberty a hun dred years ago had become an utter sham, so have their professions about Reform become at the present day. They have monopolised the title of Liberal, and bewitched the people with a name ; and Englishmen have been induced to believe that the patrons of small boroughs and the gluttons of State patronage were sworn to destroy both. The results of the present election seem to show that this delusion also is fast wearing away. A large number of members returned as Liberals are gentlemen of Conservative in stincts; and a large number of Conservatives are favourable to ju , licious reforms. It remains to be seen whether their policy will not be practically the same, and whether both are not devoted to the attainment of a common ob ject—namely, in the language of Lord .Tons RUSSELL, " the improvement, coupled with " the preservation, of our institutions." It is not, then, too much to say that between a cer tain proportion of the Liberals and the bulk of the Conservative party the difference is but nominal—that they have reversed the old paradox. That they do not agree to differ, but rather differ to agree. On the other side is the remnant of the old Radical party, to be fortified, no doubt, by some accession from the ranks of the newly returned Liberal majority. What fresh strength may thus accrue to the Radicals we cannot undertake to predict with exactness ; yet, if appearances can be trusted, it will not be SATURDAY, large. The rejection of a man like Sir WILLIAM CLAY is a most significant fact. If the people had set their hearts on radical reforms they would never have rejected a candidate who had identified himself with such a ,Measure as the. abolition of church ratus. We do not believe, then, that the Radicals will .be sufficiently strong to resist the united opposition of the Conservatives and such of the Liberia majority as are Con servatives at heart: , However this may be, the Radical party is the only bona-fide party of innovation now in existence; and the present House of Commons may therefore fairly be divided into the two parties of Conser vatives and Radicals—with a probable majority in favour of the former. The Government may not be formed out of the Conservative connection ; but, in order to hold its ground, it will, we think, be obliged to conduct the business of the country on the principles of Conservatives. Thu latter may be the mino rity in name, but they are the majority in substance. They may be out of office, but they are in power. To whom, we would ask, is this position of affairs most creditable—to the Ministerialists or the Opposition ? to those who curry false colours, or to those who sail under their own ? The Ministerialists persist in calling them selves Liberals. What, in the opinion of the country, does Liberalism mean ? Something more than fine words, we may be sure. The people, then, think that Liberalism means faith in the necessity of organic changes : with Ministerialists it is faith in the possession of office. For we defy the subtlest inquirer to find out any other principle of action by which they are animated. This cannot lust long. The people of Eng land are not willing dupes. They have a national reputation for loving what is genuine; and if it comes to this, that the Government is, after all, to be a Conservative Government, they will sooner• or later place it in the hands of the avowed Conservative party. This re sult we look upon as merely a question of time ; for even the enemies of Conservatism would prefer a Minister from whom they knew what they had to expect, to one who threw them off their guard by professions of sym pathy, and took advantage of their confidence more effectually to retard their designs. THE WHIGS AND THEIR BOROUGHS. IN case a " New Reform Bill " should be really presented by the Whigs, it will be necessary to observe closely their treatment of their own boroughs. We do not wish at present to enumerate the boroughs which are directly under Whig influence, nor to dwell on the means taken in 1832 to protect Whig interests. But we insist that if a new Reform Bill is in troduced it must be made a fairer measure than the last. Attention has never been suffi ciently directed to the mode in which the boundary lines of I oroughs were drawn in 1852. The fair course would have been to describe a radius from some central point in each borough. The Whig Commissioners who were employed by the Whig Government in the time of the Reform excitement to mould new constituencies understood their work too well to adopt any such simple expedient. They scrutinised the proprietorship of each borough locality, and then drew their boundary lines in every variety of irregular shape to ex clude Tory influences, and to include those which were decidedly Whig. The working of the Bill has shown that Mr. CROKER Was warranted in his assertion that the measure would work for Whig purposes, and that fair play was not, given to the great Conservative interest. There should, therefore, be great vigilance shown by the Conservatives to secure their legitimate power. Property must not be crushed out of the representation, and the pure Whig party must not be allowed to extend its influence at the expense of other interests in the State. There is a remarkable passage in Monsieur Guizors "Life of Sir Robert Peel" which de serves attention at th e p resen t time. In re ferring to the measure brought forward in 1531, Monsieur Gutzon writes: — It was not amongst the Tory party alone that these alarms were fomenting ; one of the most enlightened and respected men in .Lngliind, a Whig in principles, and a