The Press. — London, England, 1857-11-14 00:00:00

after. But let the clergy rest assured that if they do not make a firm stand against the present encroachments of the civil power, the English Church 1611 rue their conduct to the latest hour of her existence. MAJOR EDWARDS ON INDIA. Tan address of Major EDWARDS to his con. stituents at Beverley deserves something more than the mere cursory notice which is all we can accord to the majority of Indian speeches. And this not so much for the absolute value of the Gallant Officer's re marks, who did neither more nor less than is usual under similar circumstances, as be- cause he broke ground in a new direction. We do not look for great orations or Profound expositions of policy in an after-dinner speech, and think ourselves lucky if even a Cabinet Minister gives us a single new idea. Well, Major EDWARDS has done this. lie has set us on comparing two things at first sight essentially dissimilar, but which on closer examination will be found to preset t certain features in common, which may guide us to valuable conclusions. No two things, then, at first sight, can appear less like one another than the revolt of our American colonies, and the mutiny of our Indian army. The one was the struggle of our adult offspring to shake themselves free from the jealous tenacity of parental government—of men of our own blood and of our own religion, nurtured on the same traditions, and with the same respect for law, liberty, and virtue—a struggle which, had it not come when it did, must inevitably have occurred later, as far as human sagacity can divine—which was waged gallantly and honourably on both sides, and the termination of which was, perhaps, little less beneficial to Great Britain than to the new empire which it called into existence. Of the other we need say but little. It is in all respects the reverse of the above picture. And were we to lose India as we lost America, there is no new continent on which to plant ourselves afresh. It was our expulsion from the Western Hemisphere which led us to con centrate our energies on the East, as the loss of Sicily was the foundation of the Cartha ginian empire in Spain. But we should have no such opportunity again, and the loss of India would be fatal. But there are points of resemblance, never theless, between the two insurrections, of infi nitely more importance to us at this moment than the closest historical parallel. What was the spirit in which the petitions of our colo nists were received, or the news of their dis affection listened to ? What was the mood in which we undertook to subdue a continent in revolt, and to grapple with the dangers of a totally novel style of warfare ? Were not our arrogant enforcement of obnoxious duties and our supine security in the centre of a wide spreading conspiracy very much akin to the causes of our present disaster? It may be a consolation to reflect that Hindoos are not Anglo-Saxons, and that were our blunders even worse than they have been we run no risk of permanently losing our dominion. But it is time, nevertheless, that Englishmen began to consider whether these terrible sacrifices, which mark the commencement of all our wars, are indeed inevitably necessary. And for this!rea son, if for no other, we are grateful to Major Enwsans for pointing to an analogy most useful for the public to contemplate. Major EDWARDS'S observations on the new Reform Bill were modest and pertinent ; and, on the whole, we think the electors of Beverley have every reason to be satisfied with their new representative. THE PRESS, NOVEMBER 14, 1857. at the Reform Club. The taunt about English men not liking steel scabbards and " iron heels" so much as the people of the Continent, is one of those trenchant personalities which should never be used by a statesman when alluding to foreign kingdoms. The most unfortunate Part of the speech was the careful stamp of preparation which it bore. It cannot be jestingly put aside as a light postprandial effusion of the Premier. There was not a joke in it from first to last ; and the measured sentences recorded the fact that it was a foreign-policy demonstration from Lord PAL MERSTON. There cannot be any doubt that the speech was both in words and tone a decided menace. Why should the unpleasant eventuality have been intimated at all, " if any foreign nation dreamed in its " visions that the time had arrived when a " different bearing might be exhibited to England " ? Surely such an insinuation is too uncourtly for a Prime Minister of England. It has always been thought by practical states men that it is a bad habit in politics to moot cases; and Lord PALMERSTON seems to have been deliberately suggesting an offensive case for the sake of making mischief. The least informed hearer of his speech could have divined, without prompting, that the Prime Minister must have been aiming his words at some particular power or great personage. It is worth while inquiring at what European power this menace in the " come-on " style of " a judicious bottleholder" was levelled. Lord PALMERSTON, even in his most auda cious mood, would not attempt to browbeat Prussia, with the royal marriage depending between members of the august dynasties of two Protestant kingdoms. No object would be gained by sneering at Russia. And after the relations which have been established between the Courts of St. James and Vienna during the last two years, it is plain that Austria could not have been disrespectfully spoken of by Lord PALMERSTON. The Minister's offensive and threatening words can only be interpreted as a menace to France ; and it is characteristic of Lord PALMERSTON that after having been one of the first to acknowledge the Emperor of the FRENCH, he should now be equally forward in exciting public prejudice against him. Such conduct is in keeping with his whole diplomatic life. That the speech was meant as an intimidator) , hint on the question of the Principalities there can be no doubt. On any other reading it would be a mass of rhapsodical and purposeless bluster, unlike the usual style of Lord PALMERSTON'S harangues, which always have an object. It is most significant that at the Lord Mayor's dinner there was a marked absence of all the foreign Ministers of note The di plomatic corps was represented by the Chargé d'Affaires of Sweden and the Ministers of Hayti and the Hanse Towns ! Were not invi tations sent in the usual form to the chief representatives of the foreign Courts? For what reasons were they all absent? The subjects now discussed eagerly amongst the diplomatists of Europe, the tone of well•informed journals abroad, and certain circumstances which we shall not mention at present, give ample means for in terpreting the cypher used by Lord PALM E RS TON last Monday. The key is supplied to the Noble Viscount's enigmatical insults by the fact that France desires the Principalities to have a constitutional sovereign, and that Lord PALMERSTON is opposed to such a solution from an arriere pensie in favour of Austria and Turkey. At the same time both Russia and Sardinia, for opposite reasons, support the views of France. That Russia should seek to thwart England in this most important affair, we can easily understand, and we can readily conceive why Sardinia should move upon it in a sense adverse to Austria. Thus, if things stand in the statu quo of the present writing, there will be in the coming Congress three votes at each side, and the casting one will be in the favour of Prussia. flow stands at this time the influence of Lord Palmerston at the Court of Berlin? That ques- 1099 tion can only be answered by pointing to the offensive display of last Monday. The phrase " judicious bottleholder," which gave such offence, had the excuse of having been uttered in presence of a deputation of pothouse politicians. But the " iron-heel " taunt was hurled forth deliberately in pre sence of the "merchant princes" of London, and when speaking to the toast of " Her Majesty's Ministers." If such a speech had been spoken in the House of Commons, the Noble Viscount might have been subjected to interrogation from various quarters, and from opposite political ()allies. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, probably, would have aimed a few pointed sentences at the Prime Minister, contrasting his present tone with his former professions. But there was nobody present to follow Lord PkLMERSTON. He had the pleasure of hurling forth a safe bravado, not for the first time in his life. He knew that the bravado was safe, because the Emperor Lours NAPOLEON values the English alliance. Thus, on any interpretation, the speech of Lord PALMERSTON is unworthy of his position. If " the iron heel," and the defiant references to the military re sources of England, were a bonii-fide taunt, we say that it was ill-timed and reckless ; but, on the other hand, if it was mere empty gas conade, we say that it is time for Lord PAL. MERSTON to refrain from sounding the trumpet of defiance, when he knows that the company round the lists are only splitting their sides with laughter at his vaunting threats against adversaries in nubibus. His political tourna ments savour too much of Astley's. All this furibund bluster is unworthy of an English Minister. It is doubly so when we reflect that by advocating the status quo in the Principalities Lord PALMER ETON is sup porting what at another time he would call " an iron heel " over the Rouman people, and refusing to accept a legitimate opportunity for furthering a constitutional Government ! Verily, Proteus can be considered a fabulous character no longer. He is a political cele brity of our own time and country, changing from party to party, and setting up in one country the policy he undermined in another. The most extraordinary thing about his career is that the Noble Lord can procure a Cabinet of appendages to affirm approbation of his acts. The Noble Viscount's colleagues in Downing-street show the reverse of an exem plary patience in the endurance of his "iron heels." LORD STANLEY AND POPULAR EDUCATION. THE movement in favour of the better educa tion of the working classes is fortunate in being supervised by several distinguished persons. Lord BROUGHAM is still amongst us, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL takes zealous inte rest in the cause. Of those connected with the Conservative party, Lord STANLEY, Sir JOHN PARINGTON, and Mr. ADDERLEY stand prominently forward amongst the friends of popular education, and we think it is evident that the new movement for the better educa tion of mechanics is likely to advance pro sperously. In the recent speech of Lord STANLEY at Wigan, several sound views were put forward on the subject of popular education. It can• not be denied that in some quarters there has been an amount of exaggeration almost enough to justify the reactionary cry against " educs tionmongers." Lord STANLEY took a cool and impartial view of the results hitherto arrived at in popular education. The Noble Lord hit the right nail on the head when he shrewdly stated " that the teaching of the boy had no " connection with the after life of the man." Therein, we believe, lies one of the main causes of the frequent aversion felt in some quarters to popular education. Much of the knowledge impartea at preliminary schools was not calculated to aid a labourer's son in his " battle with life ;" and of " Mechanics Institutes," also, it might be said that the aim was often too ambitious. The style of the THE PREMIER'S MANIFESTO. THE harangue of Lord PALMERSTON at the Mansion-house dinner on Monday was a mixture of the offensive menace in the Civis &mantis Sum speech with the undigni fied indiscretion of the notorious baniuet