The Press. — London, England, 1857-03-28 00:00:00

THE WEEK. Tnz elections have opened well. We have every reason to be satisfied with the results, so far as they are yet known. We have gained at Windsor, Hertford, and, we believe, at Bath; while Viscount CHELSEA has come forward to contest the representation of Middlesex. The Noble Lord's address is a frank, manly, and ingenuous exposition of the Conservative creed. Lord C HELSEA'S prospects, we have reason to believe, are of the most gratifying nature ; and we trust that we shall have the pleasure of congratulating him upon his election for this im. portant constituency. We have no doubt that substantially the new Parliament will be the same as the last ; the most eminent members of it will, with scarcely an exception, be returned. The Treasury candidates sent forth in opposition both to Conservatives and Independent Liberals seem destined to be singularly unlucky. The " young man from Northamp ton " has lost his old place, and is not likely to gain a now one. He has to deplore another loss—his character. His reception at Guildhall yesterday must have taught him that something more than slaver of Lord PALMERSTON is required to recommend him to a popular constituency. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was enthusiastically received. The sense of his past demerits is lost in the indignation felt at the unworthy treatment he received from the Ministerialists, and from that presumptuous body, the Registration Association. Assuming the new Parliament to be nearly the same in composi• tion as the last, the dissolution will have proved a failure. It was the last chance of Lord PALM ERSTON, and it is certain that, together with his adherents, ho was more sanguine of the result than circum stances are likely to bear out. We can at this time calculate with tolerable certainty on the return of about 310 Members of the late Parliament, and of these about 160 voted for Mr. COBDEN'S motion, and 150 against it. The new Parliament is likely to be less tolerant than the last of the PALMERSTON system of playing parties against each other. Some political questions of moment will certainly be brought forward at an early period by the Liberal party, and of course the Conservatives will feel no great anxiety to save Lord PALMERSTON from his friends. The fate of Actaeon again threatens him, and we shall be much mistaken if he does not before the end of the session experience in his person the truth of the old adage, " that he who sits between two stools must come to the ground." The Emperor of CHINA, if the accounts from India are to be believed, has set our Government an example of moderation which it would do well to follow. The Emperor has decided on a conciliatory course, and proposes to disavow the proceedings of his officer at Can ton. Had we done the same, the dispute would already be at an end. The just and politic view of the question was, that until the two Governments could have some direct communications with each other, judgment should be suspended on the acts of the local authorities. The quarrel was simply theirs until we could commu nicate with Pekin. But of course in sanctioning without inquiry the conduct of our officers, we converted a local dispute into a national quarrel. We hope it is true that the Imperial Cabinet at Pekin has taken a jester view of the whole case. We may mention that the latest Parliamentary papers strongly show that' our Government con templated, if they did not directly order, hostilities some time before they broke forth. The breach between Austria and Sardinia is widening. All diplo matic relations are broken off, and meantime our Ministerial jourals still dwell with complacency on the increasing friendship between the Cabinets of London and Vienna. In other words, Sardinia is " sold." After being encouraged to stand up against Austrian domination in Italy by our Cabinet, she will be abandoned, when she has gone too far to retrace her course, and will furnish yet one more example of the truth of DE MONTALEMBERT'S assertion that Lord PALMERSTON has invariably betrayed liberty by fomenting insurrection. We observe that the Dublin Erening Post attempts to prejudice the Roman Catholic population of Ireland against Lord DERBY by asserting that in his speech of March the loth he described their religion "as a creed religiously corrupt and politically dangerous." There is more Jesuitical skill than plain honesty shown in this quota tion. By its separation from the context, Lord DERBY'S meaning is to some extent perverted. What he really said. alluding to the core• monies and practices of the Tractarians, was, that they led to more than an approximation on the part of many of that party to a creed which, with all respect to its many amiable and virtuous professors, I cinuot as a }'ro• testant and a member of the Church of England but regard as religiously corrupt and politically dangerous. We do not see how any sincere man, firmly attached to the Reformed Church of England. could have expressed himself in milder terms. As a conscientious Protestant, Lord DERBY must regard the Church of Rome as " religiously corrupt ;" and as a member of the Reformed Church of England, Lord DERBY must regard the ecclesiastical polity of Rome as " politically dangerous." It would be very weak, as well as very dishonest, to attempt to disguise the antagonism between the two Churches ; but the tenor of Lord DERBY'S observations shows that this antagonism may be devoid of rancour, and may subsist with perfect toleration and the most charitable feeling. That mawkish in• differentism which professes to regard all creeds as equally true or equally false, and which varies its sentiments and acts as one party or another in the empire is to be conciliated, can never command respect SATURDAY, or fulfil the wants of a truly national policy. Lord DERBY is anxious to afford to all religious denominations the utmost toleration they can claim, and the real practical enjoyment of every privilege to which they are entitled ; but he is not the less resolved, on both political and religious grounds, to uphold the Church of England, and to resist any attacks which may be made on her from within or without. The elections have produced few complications so curious as that presented by the county of Hertford. The facts of the case may be compressed into a few words. At a meeting of the Herts Conservative Registration Association, a committee was appointed to consider a compromise, offered by the Whigs, for the unopposed election of one Liberal and two Conservative candidates. The committee was likewise charged with the duty of selecting, if necessary, the exlsting Conser vative member who was to make room for the Liberal candidate. At this meeting the three members for the county were present—Sir HENRY MEUX, Sir EDWARD BULWER LYTTON, and Mr. ABEL SMITH. All three gave unhesitatingly a pledge of adhesion to any decision what soever of the committee. What, therefore, was the surprise of the latter body, after coming to terms with the Whig Association, on learning that Sir HENRY MEUX had notified his intention to withdraw from his pledge, and, notwithstanding the decision of the committee, to inflict on the country the much deprecated visitation of a contest. Nevertheless, such was the case, and such the conduct of Sir HENRY MEUX. We need hardly observe how deplorable to the Conservative constituency of Hertfordshire are the consequences of such proceedings. That one Whig should [be allowed a seat might be tne result of prudent calculation. But that a contest should exist between Conservatives is a conbination that cannot be en dured. We, therefore, sincerely trust that Sir HENRY MEUX will re consider his rash proceedings, doubtless the result of insidious coun sellors from the adverse party. In fact, we think we can trace in the whole transaction distinct marks of a hand not wholly unknown to that section of the Carlton Club against which Lord RANELAOH'S late motion was directed. But, whatever motives may have induced Sir HENRY MEUX to embark in this line of conduct, we must beg him to reflect seriously on the damage inflicted, not only on the Conservative cause, but on himself, In the decision of the Conservative Committee there could have been no particle of desire to offend. His health was generally known to be failing, and he was consequently the member whose loss for them would have been the least felt. On his convalescence, his return to public life would have been hailed with pleasure by his country. But as matters now stand, we must warn the supporters of Sir HENRY MEUX of the dangers incurred by their candidate. Not only is he working harm for his party, but he is neglecting one of those obliga tions which every Englishman, every gentleman must hold sacred— the observance of his pledge. Lord JOHN RUSSELL tells us that one of his proposals at Vienna towards securing a permanent peace was that Russia should be pre vented from occupying the Circassian ports. All last spring we our selves were continually pointing out the error which had been com mitted by Lord PALMERSTON in failing to secure this important point. It was the one thing needful to have secured pence in the regions east of the Black Sea, and our neglect is already producing its results iu the renewal of war between Russia and Circassia. Yet Lord PAL MERSTON brags of the glorious and satisfactory peace which was con cluded under his auspices. The language of the Prime Minister's address is a ludicrous imitation of what Sir WALTER SCOTT called " the big bow-wow style." The sentiments are coarse ; the diction is clumsy. In the first sentence of the seconl paragraph, up o n w hi c h th e w h o l e compo sition turns, we count two " whiches," four " thats," and four " shalls,' iterated to close proximity, as if he desired to torture the ears of the Tivertonians. The document, at least, has the significance of pro claiming that in grammar, logic, and rhetoric the Noble Viscount is not " a pupil of Mr. CANNING." He alludes to " that aggregation of " hitherto discordant elements by whose combined, &c." This is the fifth or sixth time that the idea has been expressed by him. He alluded to it twice in Parliament, and twice in the Mansion house, and now it is uttered again. He is so full of the thought that it inspires his composition, and his address is a literary coalition of repugnant paragraphs. A savage air of fierceness, and slipshod style, will not make an orator. The biuster which frightens clowns and children is laughed at by men of sense. This address may be oftener quoted in the ensuing session than the Premier has calculated. One passage in it cannot be forgotten, even if it be forgiven, by the statesmen whose honour it so grossly and inde cently assails. Lord MALMESSURY, in an admirable and well-timed letter, exposed the scandalous impropriety of that passage, when, after mis stating the issue with the sophistry of an unscrupulous advocate, Lord PALMERSTON asks:— Will the British nation give their support to men who have thus (!) endeavoured to make the humiliation and 11 , !gradation of their country the stepping-stune to power This is the language of audacity forgetting its responsibility A statesman cannot use such language to England with impu nity. The insult is not only gross but rash. It is positively ridiculous when uttered by a chameleon politician who has served under ten Prime Ministers, and who has been consistent only in adhering to the Treasury Bench. We venture to prophesy that with an adequate amount of stammering the Premier, amidst jeering adver saries, will have to recall that la nguage , an d aga i n exhibit that facility in swallowing his words which is familiar to one who has served with so many connections, anti worn the livery of so many political masters. Mr. THACKERAY has made the world laugh at " Jeames," while he was a subordinate in plush. But " Jeames de la Pluche, Esq.," became an odious character, and the humorist cut short his existence. The THE PRESS. 308