The Press. — London, England, 1857-08-15 00:00:00

786 arisen from the complications of this tortuous policy, and we hazarded the prediction that a policy so distinct and dissevered from that of our great ally, France, must lead either to " reac " tion at Paris or retractation at London." The Government of Lord PALMERSTON has encountered a decided diplomatic, oheck, and its retractation has taken place. The Noble Lord at the head of her Majesty's (.government having acted with the usual presumption and distrust, boldness and pusillanimity, indiscretion and cunning, and the fifty other contradictions which go to make up his cha racter, has upon pressure agreed to become a convert to the views of the four Powers. lie has resolved to relinquish the very principle for which he so fondly fought, the legality of the recent elections in Moldavia, and has con sented to recommend to the Government of the Porte that the recent elections be annulled, the electoral lists revised, and new elections ordered to take place. Some people of tried constitutions, and long practical habits, can reconcile their minds to part with their old principles and adopt new ideas ; but there is nothing especially satisfactory or consoling to those who hold at heart the honour, the in terests, or the dignity of Great Britain, to see the country, to gratify a paltry spite, and at the beck of Austria, dragged through the mire of disreputable intrigue, and, when this double dealing is detected and exposed by our more honourable ally, compelled to relin quish pretentious it could no longer maintain, and cover a discreditable retreat under an un tenable plea. But we are assured by the Government organs, now driven from the ground they have so lately maintained, that it is most unjustifiable, be. cause Lord PALMERSTON has consented to join the four Powers in a recommendation to the Sultan to annul the Moldavian elections, to assume that her Majesty's Government have " given up their views with regard to the " future Government and Constitution of Mol " davia and Wallachia." The Noble Lord retains so much the bias of his old opinions that he denies the means of rendering those measures effective which he acknowledges to be indispensable, and secretly intends to negative that principle which he professes to approve. The concession, in point of fact, has been one of " words," not principles. This is a poor attempt to colour the conduct of the Noble Lord, as if his retractation were only a pause in his policy, occasioned by cir cumstances unforeseen, but neither affecting that policy nor placing the country in a new situation. The trick is too shallow to have effect. The pliability of the Noble Lord is too notorious, and we feel persuaded that this dexterous manoeuvre cannot impose upon the good sense of the people of England. At the same time it would be as unsafe and imprudent authoritatively to pronounce upon, as it is arduous to attempt to reconcile, the extremely opposite opinions expressed by her Majesty's Government at different times upon the conduct to be preserved towards the Da nubian Principalities; and though the Noble Lord. may not have given up his peculiar " views," and with studied perversity of temper may be prepared in an underhand and secret way to continue that tortuous but turbulent policy which, upon more than one occasion, has perplexed his Sovereign and disgraced his coun try,we venture to say that such conduct, so in consistent with integrity and good faith, would be unworthy of the British name and of the Bri tish character, and could neither meet with the support of Parliament nor with the approbation of the country. Lord PALMERSTON, throughout his whole conduct in this Danubian question, has evaded the obligations imposed upon him by treaties. He has neither acted with strict probity, nor adopted that calm, conciliatory, temperate course of conduct which should havo led him to respect the internal adminis tration of the Danubian States, and, with the view of giving them a full participation of all those blessings which this country so pre eminently enjoys, in place of fostering intrigue and creating uncertainty and turmoil, should have induced him loyally to carry 'out, and not flagrantly to violate, the provisions of the Treaty of Paris. But from the first Lord PALMERSTON has shown himself the convenient aid to the pure L - THE PRESS, AUGUST 15, 1857. poses of Austria. It was by his assistance and with his connivance that the evacuation of the Principalities by the Austrian troops was so long delayed that Austria was enabled not only to forward her political views and extend her conninettial interests, but, by creating establishments and widening her connections, to get a grasp upon the country not easily shaken off. We do not seek to dispute the policy of the Court of Vienna. With the extrication of the Danubian provinces from the protectorate of Russia, it is not remarkable that Austria should desire, or even anticipate, an exten sion of her influence. But the question for this country to consider is, not what the Court of Vienna may anticipate, but whether the conditions of the Treaty of Paris shall be honourably fulfilled, or whether Lord PAL.• MERSTON shall be permitted to continue to play the game of Austrian diplomacy and em ploy his influence to promote its realisation? be " written down," and his heels tripped up by electioneerers. If Radicals are to sit in Parliament, we are glad to have the manliest and the most elo quent that can be found ; and, although Mr. BRIGHT is a political adversary, we cheerfully admit that his talents do honour to the Senate, while they cast into shade the servility of the Lowes and Halls of the Ministerial benches. RETURN OF MR. BRIGHT. Ix is most amusing to watch the sour faces with which the Ministerialists swallow the election of Mr. BRIGEIT for Birmingham. The facts on this point are so peculiar that we may ask particular attention to them. At the General Election no leading Conservative follower of Lord DERBY and Mr. DISRAELI lost his seat, but the Ministerialists specially rejoiced in unseating Mr. BRIGIIT at Man chester. Well, Birmingham is the capital of British Radicalism. It has an older political history than Manchester ; and if the latter place be identified with the Anti-Corn-Law League, Birmingham is connected with the Reform Bill. Its " political unions " were the precedents on which Manchester acted in subsequent times. Birmingham, also, is a far more English locality than Manchester. At the latter place are congregated a large " Irishery"—a vast number of Scotch, Ger mans, and Americans. Of the two cities, we think Manchester is the more purely provin cial in all respects. But Birmingham has elected Mr. BRIGHT in spite of Whig cliquery and Ministerial plotting. The mere fact shows the hollow ness and utter delusion about there being a good Palmerstonian feeling in the country. At the first opportunity presenting itself, a great popular constituency enthusiastically returns Mr. BRIGHT, without even subjecting him to a canvass, and it renders the candida ture of any Whig or Ministerial Liberal hope less. The fact proves how slight is the hold of Lord PALMERSTON upon Liberals out of doors. The Times, seeing how matters were likely to go, took to praising Mr. BRIGHT, and ex pressing its wish (which was not consulted) about having him in Parliament The Scots man lectures Mr. BRIGHT on his past anti- Ministerial transgressions, and growls at his return, while the Times reprints the Scotsman, as if to intimate to Mr. BRIGHT that his ad mission is only tolerated. The Morning Post calls him "a wet Quaker," and professes its agreement with CANNING about" Send a deina " gogue to Parliament," &c. Unfortunately, a worse allusion or a more maladroit quotation could not be made. In the memory of living man no Parliamentary Chief, no Prime Minister of England, was ever subjected to so tremendous a castigation as was inflicted by Mr. BRIGHT upon the coarseness and vulgar swagger of Lord PAL MERSTON. On Thursday, in the current week, Mr. GLADSTONE spoke with uncommon seve rity on the manners (or want of them) shown by the Prime Minister ; but we were made at the moment to think of the still more severe diatribe launched by Mr. BRIGHT, when a powerful and brilliant contrast was drawn between the style in which Sir ROBERT PEEL, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Mr. DISRAELI led the House of Commons, and the coarse vul garity and indecent buffoonery of Lord PAL MERSTON. We do not know how CANNING would have treated Mr. BRIGHT, but we believe that CANNING would have had the manliness to make a stand against him face to face in stead of desiring that his antagonist should WHAT WILL Tltt WHIGS DO? THERE never was a time when Conservatives should more steadily watch the conduct of the Whigs. A decided impression prevails in well-informed quarters that important political manoeuvres will take place before next Christ mas. Many weeks cannot elapse before Ministers must make up their minds whether they will adhere to their announcement of introducing a new Reform Bill next session. Such a measure would demand their united energies, and would also require much time, continually applied to a subject involving serious principles and important details. It is a question, also, with the Whigs whether they could manage to attempt a Reform Bill without an arrangement with Lord JOHN RUSSELL. If their measures were too small, the Noble Lord might outbid them ; if too large, he might underbid them, and thus obtain an advantage, and secure the settle ment of the questioh for himself. Like the Whigs, Lord JOHN RUSSELL is sorely puzzled what to do. He is hesitating whether to throw himself on the India question, or to adhere to his Reform crotchets. Like a troubled spirit, he is always hopping in and out of the House of Commons, eyeing with restless gaze the Treasury Bench, where he enjoyed station, leadership, and all the pomp and pride of office. His contemplations, apparently, have not imparted much serenity to his mind. Ever and anon, Lord JOHN RUSSELL must recol lect how the Premier lately told him that it was " a matter of indifference " what opinions were held by the Noble Member for London on the subject of the Chinese war. Changes there must be, and before long, in the official staff of the Whig party, and we direct Conservatives' attention to eventualities likely to arise. The Cabinet cannot stand still in the face of its promises, but any movement in advance will be extremely difficult. Parties are again falling into the same relations as prior to the late dissolution. The Minis terialists will again have a Radical body assailing them in the flank, and the public mind must demand that more movement, more sincerity, more fresh and frank impulses, should again animate the representatives of opinion. The languid reign of an Officialised Liberalism, retrograde in spirit, and revelling in jobs, cannot last for ever. It is the nature of the English public to require action in politics ; and with a majority of so anomalous a character, it will be almost impossible for the Premier to answer the domestic requisi tion of his followers, and also to take thought of the mighty question arising from our endangered empire in India. OUR POLICY IN CHINA. ONE source of consolation with the public generally for the unhappy position of affairs in India has been derived from the circum stance that we can easily transport some effec tive reinforcements from China. Six months ago we heard of nothing but the prompt and vigorous measures to be pursued against the Celestial Empire, and of the strong military force which would be required to effectually coerce it. But ever since the meeting of the new Parliament the subject for the considera tion of which it was practically summoned has been permitted to drop out of sight. Even before news arrived of the Indian revolt, China may be said to have been forgotten. The quarrel had ceased to interest a single human being beyond the soldiers and sailors