The Press. — London, England, 1858-03-13 00:00:00

and he often damaged as well as served them. Lord JOHN RUSSELL at the end of 1851 removed Lord PALMERSTON from the Foreign-office, and put Lord GRANVILLE in his place : and when Lord Jowl consented to join Lord ABERDEEN, the Noble Lord stipulated for the leadership of the House of Commons. But Lord PAL MERSTON had his revenge. It is now of no use to inquire whether the round-robin addressed by certain subordinates at the time of the Vienna negotiations was a spontaneous or a preconcerted act : it is certain that Lord PAL MERSTON availed himself of it, and Lord JOHN received a " Roland " for his " Oliver," and was obliged to cede the Secretaryship for the Colonies, and retire to the back benches. Even such retribution did not satiate Lord PALMERSTON. The late Premier's friends did their best to eject Lord JOHN RUSSELL from the City of London ; and a few months since Lord PALMERSTON derided Lord JOHN'S " opinion " in the face of the House of Coin• mons. Is Lord JOHN Russlrt.t. a man who could afford to endure all these provocations, and to sit second to Lord PALMERSTON ? The " old Whigs" and " constitutional" Liberals may remind Lord JOHN RUSSELL that Cambridge-house does not more differ from Woburn Abbey than the pretensions of Lord PALMERSTON and his clique from the claims of " The Bedford Whigs." If Lord JOHN RUSSELL yields the pas to Lord PALMERSTON, even at Brookes's, no one in the present generation will ever again hear of " The Bedford Whigs " The reputation of the whole Russell connec tion is at stake on this point, which has a political and prospective significance ; for Lord PALMERSTON does not represent any positive principle. and the sight of one bred up under Lord LIVERPOOL and Lord CASTLEREAGH blos soming into a fierce chief of Opposition in the seventy-fourth year of his age is likely to please the public taste. The tone taken by Lord PALMERSTON towards a great number of Liberal Members must effectually disqualify him from the chiefship of the Opposition ; but in order to play that part with success the Noble Viscount should give up his bluster, and alter his manner, and cease to be like himself. As Leader of the House, the Noble Lord signally failed in sum ming up a debate ; and the fact was revealed that after all his long experience the Noble Viscount's knowledge was not on constitu tional or social subjects, for which he cared little. His mind was not fertile in political ideas, and he never argued out a case fairly, but sought to get rid of a subject with a ban tering air, in 'which mere persiflage was sub• stituted for logic and wit. To meet the exi gencies of an Opposition, who seek to gain power by a new Reform Bill, Lord PALMERSTON is singularly unsuited ; and we can easily conceive that Opposition is in a serious dilemma on the subject of its leadership. LORD PALMERSTON'S INDIA BILL. THE present is said to be the golden age of impostors, and it is not, therefore, surprising that the late Premier should have met for a time with the success he did. But as the fall of such when it comes is usually final and de cisive, we have little apprehension of seeing the country again converted into a stage for the exhibition of his shams. The nation is sick of him, and will have no more of him at any price. It sees too plainly the results. His vaunted humiliation of Russia is found to end in her present overbearing attitude on the Black Sea. His " spirited " policy that would Px el ude Naples from the comity of nations for her treatment of ber own subjects, is seen to terminate in an abject submission to her cruel dealing with our imprisoned engi neers. The paltry game of brag in regard to the Serpent Isle and Bolgrad disputes, so ably exposed in the late French pamphlet— but played at the period with such effect on our public here—has ended fitly in the degra dation which caused his overthrow. Nor, in the home policy of the late Premier, has the system of imposture he adopted been less transparent than that pursued by him in re spect to foreign States. His conduct in regard to church rates has been such as to show that his affect.id ultra-liberality was a mere pre tence; while the confidence expressed in him by the eleckors of Tiverton since his downfall, THE PRESS, MARCH 13, 1818. proves what kind of a Reform Bill would have been introduced by him if he had ever brought forward one at all. It is not likely that the inhabitants of that little borough, returning two representatives, would have viewed his career with much satisfaction if it was to lead— as if he had introduced a Radical Reform Bill it must have led—to the disfranchisement of themselves. Indeed, we perfectly well re member the late Mr. CROKER, at the time of the last general election, expressing his great amusement at the use made by the candidates addressing Liberal constituencies of Lord PALMERSTON'S name. He said that for his part he was glad to see him in power, because he know him to be as sound and thorough an old Tory as he was himself; bus he was quite at a loss to understand what the advocates of reform and progress could mean by proclaim ing themselves as his followers, seeing that he was the last man in the world to give effect to their views. It was not very likely, we thought at the time, that so shrewd an observer should have been mistaken in a man he had known all his life ; and we imagine that the represen tatives of the constituencies referred to are by this time thoroughly convinced of their mistake. But of all the exhibitions of this eminent performer in the art of political sleight of hand, we do not know of any more conspicuous than the position he has been pleased to assume in regard to the India Bill. We are sure that none of our readers will be imposed on for an instant by the pretension his Lord ship has set up, as the inaugurator of the policy of transferring India to the Crown ; for they must all remember that the first check that was given to the Company was given by the Conservative leaders in 1853, ably and honourably supported as they were by most of the independent Liberals under the leading of Mr. BRIGHT. From that day to this, though there has been little done in Parliament—for the apathy of that assembly on the subject was a fatal obstacle in the way—the labours of the Conservatives and their organs have been unceasing, and to these may be mainly attributed the present advanced state on this subject of the public mind. When, for in stance, during the past four years, has this Journal ever ceased, whether in season or out of season, to proclaim the errors of the Minis terial and Directorial policy towards India—to show the folly and cnme of annexation, the abominations of the torture system, the evils of the judicial and police system, and the ruinous and fatal nature of the system pur sued in regard to land ? Who, on all these sub jects, have expressed themselves more loudly and more clearly than we have done ? And who more openly declared that the abolition of the Company was essential to reform ? If the public have now arrived at just notions on these points, there are none who can claim to have had a larger share in forming its opinion than ourselves. Nor has another quarterly pelio Heal been idle which, though uncon nected with party, yet supports Conservative views, and from the pages of which the late Ministers appear not only to have borrowed their scheme (a scheme not improved, though, in the transfer), but also most of the arguments on which it was based. But while the Conservative press was thus labouring on behalf of Indian Reform, what was the line that the Pal merstonian organs invariably took ? Why, they supported every abuse ; they resisted to the uttermost every change of system ; and till they found that they must sacrifice either the Company or their places, the government of India by the Directors was declared to be the wisest, the purest, the most siugie-minded and the most beneficent that the world had ever seen. Then to be sure the Premier and his followers at once turned round, and nothing could equal the ridicule and abuse heaped by them on the Company's head. Timeo Danaos Bona ferentes is an old saying, and it is not surprising that the Conservatives as a body mistrusted reforms from such un scrupulous hands. Lord PaLat EASTON'S change of mind could not have been adopted from conviction ; and India is too important to be made a shuttlecock to serve party ends. Nothing could be clearer than that the change of plan on the Premier's part was a mere party move ; the object being, by adopting the policy of hits rivals, to gain a vast amount of power and patronage for himself. At the same time it was felt very questionable whether addi tional power could be safely intrusted to an Indian Minister admittedly so incompetent as Mr. VERNON SMITH. When, therefore, the highest living authority on Indian matters, the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, declared in his place in Parliament that on special grounds relating to the disturbed state of India the time for the change was inopportune, it is not very surpris ing that the majority of the Conservative body should have felt inclined to defer to his view. cial difficulties in the way of immediate change which were entitled to some weight. It was known that no one had less sympathy with the Directorial system than Lord ELLEN BOROUGH, while at the same time no one knew more completely the [precise limits of their powers, and the vast nature of those that might be wielded by an efficient President of the Board of Control. No one, moreover, had formed juster notions of the nature of the revolt from the outset, or predicted more, clearly the course that it would run. No one s in fine, was more perfectly master of the whole question in all its bearings and details. It cannot, therefore, be imputed either as an error or as a crime to the Conservatives, that they should under the circumstances have bowed with few exceptions to an authority the very highest that exists upon Indian affairs. To construe their opposition to the late Premier upon this point, under circumstances so grave, into inconsistency on their parts, is a mere perversion of language ; as it is to attribute to them the adoption of Lord PALMERSTON'S Indian policy, when it is clear that the policy of placing India under the Crown was in fact taken by Lord PALMERSTON from their organs and themselves. This policy he had opposed as long as he was able ; he only adopted it when he saw that it must triumph to the utter dis comfiture of himself. It is not surprising, therefore, that the real authors of it should have objected to see what they intended for the salvation of our empire perverted, as it was clear it was about to be, into the means of fur nishing an additional fund of corruption to "Sir GEORGE HATTER( and of power to a Minister so incapable of using it as the Palmerstonian President of the India Board, Mr. VERNON Smrra. If any justification of the course that Conservatives took wore requisite, it would be found in the disclosures of the Butt Com mittee and in the scramble that took place for 1 all the scraps of Ministerial patronage left undisposed of till the last moment of Lord PALMERSTON'S clearing out. By their vote on the India Bill they but asserted the principle which the House of Commons has since so effectually affirmed, that the Palmerston Admi nistration hal ceased to command the confi ience of the country, and that it was impos sible. therefore, to intrust larger powers, whether in India or in England, to its hands. DUTY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AmososT the beneficial consequences of the anti• Palmerston course followed by the House of Commons, one of the most important re sults will be that of restoring that illustrious assembly to its rightful place in the estima tion of the country and the world. A delusive idea had got abroad that the House of Com mons had no will of its own, and that it had lost its elasticity and freedom of action under the deadening influences of successful elec tioneering. It was supposed that the House of Commons would not turn upon Ministerial authority, and that it would not trust itself to encounter the arts of placemen grown grey in office. The manner in which the House has vindicated the national feelings, while hum bling the arrogance of Lord PALMERSTON, has given a noble example that the Commons of England are not degenerate in spirit, and that the menace of a Minister or the interest of a party will not prevent it from its free expres sion of opinion or fully exercising its rights. The House has acted boldly towards power; it now remains for the Commons to act with wisdom for the country. It has overthrown the Palmerston Ministry by its own act, the responsibility of which will not be shrunk from by the Commons. The question, there fore, arises, how shall the House deport itself towards the new Cabinet; and every patriotic Englishman will anxiously hope that the House will act with a grave and politic circurc- . .-