The Press. — London, England, 1857-10-24 00:00:00

1006 hibited at this early period is not very reassuring, more particularly when we re member what a similar spirit led to at Cabul when the outbreak occurred. In any case, it is likely to prove a great impediment to the speedy settlement of the rebellion which Lord Joni; RUSSELL has staked his credit on. nail proper counsels prevailed , in the outset, snob an early suppression of it might not hay, been impossible; but with a (18.0 fling abd Vernon Smith for the drivers of the India state-coach, we must not expect to progress either at a very safe or at a very rapid rate. Each probably knows just as much about the business as he does about the driving of a railway locomotive ; and if the country chooses therefore to leave itself to their guidance, it ,must not be surprised at any accidents that may occur. VILE PRES 'Qhionriß 24, 1857. Buttxc" constantly appealed to byl - ioliticians, and the other day, in one speech, the Secre tary for the Admiralty twice quoted from " the great BURKE." Tile ;sal of BURKE in urging on the Revolutionary War was undoubted, and at the close of li paat famous person Waa a stittM upp ch sortef Of Government and el King OEOROII 111. et the last literary prq dnction of Iluaxx the " Thoughts on Regioi4e Peaee t " R w #1 the conduct of Mrel, Par was severely punadverted upon, and the Minister censurpik for want of energy ade quate to the occasion. Let us see further how far this newfangled theory that an Opposition should be kept upon the " silent system" is warranted by the examples of great statesmen, renowned in Parliamentary history, and respected by all men for their "patriotic" conduct. Mr. CAN NING was a great man, and felt ware.y for the public cause. When Mr. ADDINOtON, with faltering grasp of the reins, was guiding the official chariot, did Mr. CANNING hold his tongue or keep his pen idle ? Was not the town then edified and amused by the most stinging raillery, and by some of the most caustic political criticism ever offered to a Minister? Then it was that "the Doctor" was held up to the derision of all England— While his faltering speeches leg, And his pericvlshobble vilely, Cheer—oh ! cheer him, brother Brame, Cheer—oh ! cheer him, brother Hiley. With a wave of his hand or a slight shake of his head, Mr. PITT might have recommended " the silent system." to Mr. CANNING, but he did not do so. When the conduct of the war in Spain was placed under the control of Lord CASTLEREAGH, were the Whigs of that time very squeamish in their strictures on Lord CASTLEREAGH? Did Earl GREY, Mr. PON SONBY, Mr. WHITBREAD, and Mr. TIERNEY pursue "the silent system" towards the Mi nistry of that time? But we shall not appeal to the examples those times. Let,us come nearer to our own period. We suppose that it will be admitted that the Duke of WELLINGTON and Sir ROBERT PEEL meant well to the public cause. In critical questions connected with foreign affairs the Duke of WELLINGTON was never on " the silent system" as far as regarded Lord PALMERSTON'S Course of constant inter meddling with the internal condition of other nations. When Lord. DURHAM did certain acts in Canada for which he had neither law nor warrant, the great Conservative Opposition of that day did not follow "the silent system," and one of its most eloquent speakers, the accomplished Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT, was put forward to express its disapprobation. Nor were the Duke of WELLINGTON and Sir ROBERT PEEL silent about the lamentable vacillations and timidity of Ministers in dealing with Irish Agitators. But we need not go farther to find preced2nts against " the silent system" than the conduct of Viscount PALMERSTON at a most dangerous period, when war was threatening between this country and the United States. Was Lord PALMERSTON silent about the "Ashburton Convention "? Were his associates in Parliament, and his organs out of doors, silent at that most critical period (lW) when the state of Ireland was also an object of intense solicitude ? Was Lord MAcauLar taciturn on that occasion? On the 21st of March, 1813, we find Lord MACAULAY addressing such language as the following to the House of Commons : Are not the symptoms of pugnacity still greater than they were before? What other effect could be hoped for? time ran any natMA segue a (Moscow's' which does an/ respect itself ' lf England cannot find safety in her firmness and iignity, she can never find it is sabserviencyand Acme. . . . I say that one article of the treaty hes been ratified in one sense at Wash ington, and in another sense in London think, too, I can see in the feelings of the other Powers of the world towards you the effect of what you have done with the United States. And so on. It was in the same session, when the eyes of all the statesmen iu all the. Courts and Cabinets of Europe were closely watching the Government, and while the monster meet ings were disturbing Ireland, that Lord JOHN Russer.t. bitterly mocked at the inactivity of the Cabinet--" If Ministers think that Mr. " OCONNELL is breaking the law of the land, " why don't they prosecute him ? Is the " Right Honourable Baronet afraid of him ? " Or words to that effect. " The silent system was not in those days recommended by Liberal politicians foc gig example of an Op position. We tt , the r e, tat no member of' the Op I i will *nd 'their undoubted right' o Oxpressi di' probation at the lama tab laggar ay which Ministers acte4 f flAck fft h respect to th e ~ mutt'. It is ifiett the right, but th e "pa utic" duty of 'a Opposition to expose the intapaCity of a Ministry which does not vigorously discharge its functions. And never did England stand in more pressing need of a determined Opposition than at the present time: Let the Opposition abandon its rights, and it is not difficult to see that the empire will be " drifting " into difficulties amidst help that may arrive only " too late." THE DANUBIAN PRINCIPALITIES. THE diplomatic cheek Lord PALM.ERSTON'S Go vernment encountered last August upon the question of the illegality of the Moldavian elections has been confirmed by the recorded opinions of the newly-elected Divan of Molda via, and by that of the other Principality. The recently elected Divan of Moldavia has de3lared almost unanimously in favour of a union of the provinces. The Moldavian elec tions of July last returned an anti-union ma jority to the Divan. We need not here recapi tulate the discreditable intrigues and double dealing upon the part of certain Powers de sirous to influence those elections. Suffice it to say, that Lord STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE at Con stantinople was placed by his Government in a position so false as to state to the Porte, in conjunction with the Minister of Austria, that to annul those elections of Mol davia would be a violation of the Treaty of Paris, and that, with Baron PROKESCH-OSTEN, he would not shrink "from any responsibility " which might result to the Porte " from a " refusal of adjournment." This vigoeous and decided avowal of a principle and a policy is chiefly memor able for the unconditional surrender of both within a fortnight Since that period fresh elections have taken place in Moldavia ; and though we were assured that her Majesty's Government retained so much the bias of their old opinions that they did not intend "to give up their views with regard to the " future Government and Constitution" of time Principalities, it wouldirptiear that our Minis ters have restricted their interference, limited their iataigues, and in point of fact have adopted a more temperate course of conduct than such a statement indicated, or that their previous evasions of the obligations imposed upon them by the Treaty of Paris would have led U 3 to expect. We need not here discuss the causes which have brought about so marked a change in the Danubian policy of our Government. They are to be found per haps as much in that want of integrity and good faith which precipitated the capitula tion at Osborne as in any others of graver import. The elections both in Moldavia and Walla chia have returned a majority in each Divan in favour of the union of the Principalities, and not a mere customs union, such as originally designed by Lord CLARENDON, but the union of the two provinces under a foreign prince. These expressed wishes of the Divans form but one element, it is true, in that chief consideration, the integrity of the Turkish em pire, which will have weight with the Con gress of the five Powers about to regulate the definite organisation of the Principalities. But the wishes of the Roumans are now defini tively expressed. They demand permission to unite the provinces under one sovereign Prince, who shall be selected by the congress of Paris from where they will, so that be be not of Moldo-Wallachian extra gt. They will recognise the suzerainty of tl3O Porte, and desire only to make and enjoy their own laws, and to pay one Government instead of two. These desires are not immoderate, for. after all, what is there in the question of union? Moldavia and Wallachia are not Turkish provinces seeking in the turbulence of THE RIGHTS OF OPPOSITION. CIRCUMSTANCES must always to a consider able extent guide the conduct of an Opposi tion under the English Parliamentary system. At one time it is the duty of an Opposition to thwart, to obstruct, and to interpose political obstacles to the action of power; at another time its duty is exactly reversed, and an Opposition has to stimulate, to rouse, and to urge on a weak and wavering Cabinet, feeble in its policy and faltering in its actions. Sup pose a Lord North falling asleep on tho Trea sury Benches, and we can see why an Opposi tion should chide, reprove, and denounce a Minister dallying with a rebellion, and trifling with the national welfare. An overbearing Cabinet, ruled in the spirit of a Strafford, must be checked and kept under Parliamen tary authority. A supercilious and somnolent Administration, trusting to routine, mocking even at friendly critics, making light of im minent perils, underrating a great crisis, and in the jeopardy of a mighty empire intent only on its own organised jobbery,—such a Ministry requires that an Opposition should expose its feebleness, denounce its incapacity, and rouse the public mind to a sense of the dangers when the sceptre of power is held by officials who have neither genius to contrive nor energy to dare. Now, we have seen symptoms that all cri .. . . ticism, all censure, all expressions of hostile • • - • opinion on the part of the Conservative Oppo sition are to be held up to the public as inop• portune, unseasonable, and " unpatriotic." - This same line of comment and observation • has been taken whether the speeches of the Earl of ELLENBOROUOII, Mr. DISRAELI, Sir Bet.wEa LYTTON, or Sir JOHN PAKINOTON were under discussion. The Opposition, forsooth, must hold its tongue, and say nothing but "ay" to every vote of the Supplies. Minis ters may waver, departments may blunder, and subordinates may fail, but the Opposition must say nothing. but allow the Cabinet to mismanage tho Queen's affairs. Any other course save that of silence would be " unpa triotic." Such is the policy attempted to be held up for the approval of the British public. From these courtly followers and servile flat• terers of the Cabinet we shall appeal to the history of the English people for the last hun dred years, and we shall ask what was the course pursued by a constitutional Opposition in times when the national interest was 'thought to bo in danger from the weakness or incapacity of feeble Administrations? While Lord NORTH was losing America, the Opposition of that time were loud and vehement in their condemnation of Ministers. In the early stages of the American war, Lord CHATHAM was unsparing of invectives against the fatuity of the Cabinet of the time; BURKE, also, as the spokesman of the Rockingham connection, was grilling and severe in his deri Pion of the Ministry ; and CHARLES FON went still further in his fierce assaults upon Lord NORTH. In subsequent years, when the public interest was turned towards the East, did not the Whig Opposition taunt Mr. Pm with his inactivity in dealing with WARREN liairmos, and was not that eminent statesman compelled to acknowledge the stimulating power of an energetic Opposition—not mealy-mouthed in its choice of words for designating Ministerial mismanagement ? We hear the name of " Mr.