The Press. — London, England, 1858-03-06 00:00:00

218 been men of admirable address. WALPOLE was genial and goodhumourod ; GEotioE GRENVILLE, if formal and ceremonious, was a gentleman of the old school ; Lord NORTH had charming amenity and a temper that nothing could rule ; the younger Pi r, if stately. solemn, and proud, was incapable of aught that could be eotifoundkd with low vul garity; the stinging satire of Mr. CANNING waif occasionally too poignant, but it was polished with classical refinement ; Lord eisit.EßEAott owed much to manners that were admired by his most bitter detractors ; and assuredly Lord PALMERSTON could not find precedents in the demeanour of Sir RouEttt Pgy.t, or of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, for those impetuous out bursts of grossness which tarnished his recent career. The delusion that he could play the part of a Dictator completely turned Lord PALMIeRS•• TON'S head, and he forgot the manners duo to an assembly of the first gentlemen in the world. He fell into the same mistake as the great Irish demagogue, O'CONNELL. In the first Reformed Parliament Mr. O'CONNELL had a large following, and his demeanour towards several of the leading English Liberals became actually intolerable, and alienated many even of the Radical party from the cause of justice to Ireland. Faults of manners that were natural in a democratic chief, bred up in the coarse turmoil of aggregate meetings, could never be tolerated in an English senator at the head of the House of Commons. Never, certainly, did any Leader of the Commons expose himself to such severe reproofs. The Noble Viscount sneered at Mr. BRIGHT, as " the honourable " and reverend gentleman," and, soon after, he had to endure from Mr. BRIGHT the most scathing invective that has been heard since the days of BROUGHAM ; he told Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Mr. GLADSTONE " that he did not " care what they thought ;" the questions of a most accomplished Member of the House (Mr. STIRLING) lie called " very absurd ;" and certainly Sir BULWER LYTTON gave the Noble Viscount reason to recollect how " very absurd " such a style of sarcasm must ever prove in an assembly of English gentlemen. Our readers will recollect that THE Pans has called their repeated notice to the reck lessness manifested by Lord PALMERSTON Have not our views on the Noble Viscount's faults proved to be true ? His own political friends rapidly became alienated from his affectation of autocracy ; they were ready to follow a great chief, but they would not cringe to a dictator, and they left the Parliamentary despot in a minority on the first legitimate opportunity. They knew well enough that the appointment of Lord CLANRICAROE was only the consequence of the utter recklessness of Lord PALMERSTON, and that other acts of a similar kind were to be expected from the Noble Lord. The political lesson taught by the fall of Lord TALMERSTON is of the highest constitu tional significarce. Let a British Minister surround himself with a devoted body guard of political adherents, let him organise a majority without scruple and lavish places without care, let him mesmerise a large por tion of the public press, and let him at the head of his great array mock at his adver saries, and laugh to scorn the precedents of offit••e and the courtesies of Parliament, and then he may calculate upon ejection without sympathy, and a fall without dignity. The House of Commons will turn upon a defunct dictator. Greater men than even Lord PAL MERSTON has ever pretended to be—a Chatham and a Wellington—were taught the tremendous power of the free Parliament of England; and no one knows better than Lord PALMERSTON that, the Huskisson connection left the Wel lington Cabinet chiefly because they thought that the Great Duke, then rather inexpe rienced in Parliamentary leadership, was not sufficiently conciliating in his demeanour. But the illustrious WELLESLEY, though stern in tone and laconic in phrase, was incapable of offering deliberate rudeness to any gentle man. His letters to persons who needlessly intruded on his valuable time were answered curtly, but never coarsely ; and even when his Grass was severely assailed in Parliament, Oat 11111ty nature never forgot what was due Nil- zce THE PRESS, MARCH 6, 1858.\ to his own dignity, and to the rank of Houses of Parliament. We do not say that the coarseness of Lord PALMERSTON'S. demeanour was the chief cause of his fall from power, but it greatly aided that event. His deportment was universally flt to be personalty offensive, and what added to its impropriety itas the fact of his being rude withottt provocation. " Manners," says BURKS, " ate a more ihipdr4lll3l3 than laws, and upos " thein in a Otat dettiee the laws depehd. " Manners corrupt tit purify, exalt or debase, " barbarise or retirk us by a steady insensible " operation like that of the air we breathe in." Out aristocracy Mid out English sneinty has always been distinguished for a system of manners, in which case and self-respect, with consideration fur others, were united ; and without proper courtesy it would be impos sible to carry on the business of Parliament. Lord PALWASTON violated the traditions of Parliament, while his talents were not so great as to atone for his faults; and a just lesson was given to the world by the ease with which the vaunting Viscount %las proved to he conquerable even in the midst of his majority. ' - ;.NAk\NN it became the duty of Lord CAMP. BELL to act upon that decision i t i s a wise provision of the Constitution which places the liberty and the character of Englishmen not in the hands of a paid func tionary of the Ciown, but of men who aro indeOendpnt and their equals. The Crown May pardon ; thejudge bitty ndt teverse : it is his mi. queationable privi d e td aubmit to the consti tional adHsers et t gribn any rea sons which may inditiirb him to from the decision of the jury, tint he should leave pardon to the source whence alone it can constitutionally flow. We do not desire to criticise with severity the measure of punishment which was inflicted on the other defendants, for in their case it was at least substantial. The discretion which a judge has to exercise is of a delicate and difficult character. The leniency, perhaps excessive, even in respect of an offence novel to the criminal courts, will, the public may be well assured, not a second time be repeated. Punish ment has fallen at last upon frauds which have too long escaped the vengeance of the law; and if the first blow fails of its purpose, the second will only fall with accumulated force. This case is of further importance as being calculated to reassure those who may have been inclined to doubt the sufficiency of the law to deal with complicated cases of dis honesty arising out of the commercial system of the present day. The law of England being originally framed in a comprehensive spirit, and with a view not to any particular state of society, but to the moral exigencies of the State at all times and under all circum stances, displays an elasticity which enables it to cope with the most complex as with the most simple forms of injustice and duplicity. And it will give additional satisfaction to all who rejoice in the termination of this case, to know that it has not been accomplished by any strained interpretation of the law, or by any special enactment made to meet the cir• cumstances, bat by a simple and deliberate application of a principle familiar to the spirit of our jurisprudence long before trading cor porations and directorial boards had become recognised agencies in the commercial world. THE BRITISH BANK TRIAL. AT a time when the sufficiency of our criminal law is being called in question in other respects, it is consolatory to find that it is able to meet the case of commercial dishonesty. The conviction of the Directors of the British Bank is an event calculated, on the whole, to give satisfaction to the public as a vindication of justice, and a retribution upon those who have made the energies of trade subservient to unprincipled aggrandisement. And if the general condemnation of the enterprise has included some persons whose participation in the guilt of conspiracy is less clear than that of others, it may afford a warning to thought less adventurers that a careless assent to the doubtful speculations of others will be at• tended with as much danger to themselves as to the unhappy victims of the contemplated fraud. At the same time, it is useful to observe, in the case of Mr. STAPLETON, that a defendant must not in the result be prejudiced by any hardships which may befall him through any inadvertence or want of discrimination on the part of a jury. Individually, perhaps, Mr. STAPLETON is to be pitied for having undergone the judgment of the court on a charge of conspiracy to which it may be believed that he was not morally liable ; but the lesson to be drawn from the circumstance will not be thrown away if it has the effect of arresting the heedlessness, whether of directors or of shareholders, in entering upon a career of which the end is uncertain and the means questionable. With regard to some of the other defendants, as there is reason to be lieve that they propose to attempt obtaining a revers9.l of the judgment of the court, we desire to refrain from prejudicing their case by any premature remarks. In the meanwhile, the public may congratulate itself that after some delay, and with great trouble and ex pense, th• principal malefactors in this nefarious transaction have been brought to justice. It is to be regretted, however, that the con duct of the Judge should, perhaps, be not altogether above the reach of criticism. We de sire to speak with respect of a discretion which doubtless was conscientiously exercised by one who was unquestionably master of the facts of the case. In his best days, Lord CAMPBELL never surpassed the conciseness and per spicuity with which he presented to the jury 'the result of a series of facts, the proof of which had occupied their attention for upwards of a week. But when the jury had decided the issues submitted to them—when, notwithstanding a strong appeal ou the part of the Judge, they to whose conscience the Con stitution submits the question had decided that Mr. STAPLETON had, with the intention to defraud, put forth to the public a state ment whien he knew to be false, LORD CLARENDO:TS APOLOGY. NOTHING more besides the speech of Lord CLARENDON on Monday was wanted to show how completely the late Cabinet had mismanaged the French complication. The case against the Palmerston Ministry was bad enough as it stood, but Lord CLARENDON has made it still worse ; for the Noble Earl has proved that Lord PALMERSTON and himself had deliberately adopted their erroneous view of what the national dignity required. It is said —but we cannot speak with certainty as to the fact—that the course pursued by the Govern ment was suggested by Lord CLARENDON him self, and beyond doubt the whole passage was not unlike some of the incidents in the Noble Earl's previous career. Lord CLARENDON thought that the Cabinet would get out of the difficulty by evading it, and giving no written answer to Count War.Ewsxt. Could Lord CLARENPON, or any one else, cite a single pre cedent from records of the Foreign-office in which, after receiving so grave a communi- cation as Count WaLEwsices, this country left it without public answer? We never read or heard of any such case, in which a foreign Power addressed a strong interpellation to the Court of St. James, and to which there was " no answer." It is nought to the purpose to plead that there were oral communications and inter views with M. PERSIGNY besides instructions to Lord COWLEY. If Count WALEWSKI had not written this despatch, but confined himself to oral communications, the excuse might be allowed, but not otherwise. Lord CLARENDON asserts that the statements in Count WALEW.. SKI'S despatch are perfectly true ; but that is nought to the point, even if such were the case, and the assertion cannot in an unreserved sense be completely admitted. The real ques tion was what construction should be placed on that special statement of facts at such a B 4 kfpt. I