The Press. — London, England, 1858-03-20 00:00:00

LORD J. RUSSELL AND THE " MONOPOLY OF REFORM." THE bitterness of Lord JOHN IRUSSELL in the debate of Monday last can easily be under• stood by those familiar with his present aims and past habits. For several years the Noble Lord has lived in the belief that England had no other statesman equal to dealing with the subject of Parliamentary Reform, and his Lordship is now irritated that Lord DERBY'S Cabinet has announced to the country that it will in due time take the subject of Reform into their consideration. Nor is it from the Conservatives alone that Lord J. RUSSELL dreads an aggression on his Reform monopoly. In his own connection there are many am bitious " Liberals " who think that the vacil lation of the Noble Lord on this long-standing question is a strong proof that lie does not pos sess the qualities required for the head of a party seeking to come into office upon a new Reform Bill. Lord JOHN RUSSELL on Monday attacked Mr. DISRAELI with studied purpose. The Noble Lord went down to the House with an extract from the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER'S speech at Aylesbury, and he then set about distorting the obvious meaning of Mr. Drs. BARU'S language. It was a poor artifice of Lord J. RUSSELL to attempt to fasten upon the CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER an accusation that the Right Honourable Gentleman brought unfounded charges against the memories of Earl GREY and Lord ALTHORP. The CHAN CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said nothing of the statesmen of that day, and his whole language on the subject is in nowise inconsistent with what fell from the Earl of DERBY in the House of Lords on March the Ist. After reminding the Peers that he (Lord DERBY) had been in the Cabinet at the time of the Reform Bill, the Noble Earl said—" When I look back to " the violence of feeling, to the bitterness of " political excitement and of party spirit, and " to the passion which accompanied the carry " ing of that great measure," &c. &c. Surely Lord DERBY knows as much of the history of those days as Lord JOHN RUSSELL ; and it is rather singular that the Noble Member for London does not call the Noble Earl to account for having testified to the "violence," "bitter ness," " party spirit," and " passion " of those extraordinary times. Oh! but it was the accusation of " jobs " having been then done that rouses the wrath of Lord J. RUSSELL. The Whigs, of course, never indulge in any of " the jobbery of " Liberalism." There never was a Whig Minister who cared to look after his Scotch cousins. And Mr. HORSMAN, also, was in error when he alluded, amidst " loud cheers," to " the shabby nepotism which in the county " of Kent and at Manchester filched profes " sional appointments from their legitimate " claimants. The Whigs, of course, are so completely pure that there were no jobs at all perpetrated in times of " violence," " bitter. ness," and "party spirit." We indulge in no personal censures on the memories of Earl GREY and of Lord ALTHORP when we say that in the excitement of that period several petty connections and factious subordinates did avail themselves of the general confusion, and obtained very singular settlements about borough boundaries, so as to favour certain localities, to the great detriment of the Con servative connection generally. It would be easy to give to Lord Jolla RUSSELL a list of some of those cases; but if we were to do so, the cry from the Liberals would then be— "Oh ! Sir Harry This and Mr. That are now " no more, or they are old and enfeebled, and "it is a shame for you to attack them." Be sides, when the Conservative party was formed by the junction of the Duke of WELLINGTON and Sir E. PEEL with the Duke of IticnmoND, Earl of DERBY (then Mr, Stanley), and Sir J. 1 1 It E PIItSS, MARCH 20, 1858. GRAHAM, and when Lord JoHN RussELL spoke of " finality," there was, of course, no use in a retrospective discussion on an accepted measure. The threat of Lord J. RUSSELL, that he " was " ready to go over the history of the Reform " Bill " with Mr. DISRAELI, was " very absurd." We have no doubt but that the Noble Lord would be entertaining ; but we fancy that the CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER must be too busy for a purely retrospective discussion with the .x-leader of the Whigs. But why could not Lord JOHN RUSSELL "go over" a new edition of Tom MOORE'S Memoirs, in which that lyrical Liberal wrote down his own private alarms at the doings of his Whig friends and patrons, and in which, also, the heartless indifference of some of his Liberal allies is freely commented upon ? It is remarkable, too, that in MOOSE'S Diary, written in the atmosphere of Brookes's, there is a strong animus against Lord DERBY, because the Noble Lord (then Mr. Stanley) gave repeated proofs that though he was in favour of Reform, his CoUservative instincts were opposed to Revolution. We think, also, that Lord JOHN RUSSELL might do well if he perused Mr. ROEBUCK'S " History of the Whig Cabinet," and would "go over " in it the statements that came from no less a personage than the Chancellor of Lord GREY'S Ministry— Lord BROUGHAM. Does the Noble Lord recol lect who it was that denounced to popular assemblages the resistance of the Tory party as " the whisper of a faction" ? Would the Noble Lord like to " go over" the sacking and burning of a great part of Bristol, and the de struction of Nottingham Castle, and the orga nisation and fury of the political unions ? Would be wish to "go over " the famous " T. Y." letter produced by General NAPIER at the trial of SMITH O'BRIEN, in which the Pri vate Secretary of Lord MELBOURNE, who held the seals of the Home Department in 1831-2, committed at least himself, if not his principal, to most extraordinary measures ? Or would Lord JOHN RUSSELL care to " go over" certain passages in the political doings of Lord DURHAM at that time? The words of the CHANCELLOR of the Ex- CHEQUER, in his brilliant speech on Monday, that "from the unreasoning excitement of the " time facility was given for perpetrating gross " jobs" during the passing of the Reform Bill, are undoubtedly true. We shall not "go over" the ground that we formerly traversed when we showed that " the balance of party " has been unfairly turned against the Con servative side. The period is bygone, and has passed into history; and we rejoice that the error then committed will not again be fallen into by the Conserva tive leaders of the time. It was, undoubt edly, a serious error in political strategy for the Duke of WEr.tirroTorr and Sir R. PEEL to have met the Whigs without a counter- Reform Bill. The mode in which the " Ca tholic question" was carried had split up the Tories, and alienated many of the Duke's stanchest followers. " Reform " had pene trated into quarters not animated with revolu tionary feelings, and the Tory leaders saw their error " too late ;" but their mistakes, which have been pointed out by Sir A. Ausori and other Conservative writers, were in many respects attributable to the peculiarly delicate state of the relations between the Court and Parliament in 1830. The Conservatives are now prepared to discuss the whole subject of amendments in the law of franchise, and they will not commit the error of allowing Lord JOHN RUSSELL to monopolise the subject of Reform. The Noble Lord has for twenty years wavered about " finality " and " progressive reform." He deprecated ulterior objects " at the end of 1832; he was for further pro gress in 1839 ; and he again wavered after making "Ballot" an open question, when he admitted Lord MACAULAY to his Cabinet. He begins to quake lest Lord DERBY would now interpose, and settle the Reform subject, without receiving the permission of the bio• grapher of Fox, and the follower of GREY. We can assure the Noble Member for London that there is every likelihood of the question of " Reform" not being left in the custody of the vacillating politician who denounced the opinion of the House of Peers as "the w per of a faction," and who afterwards earned for himself the title of " Finality Joker Thirty years since the Tory party was em rassed by " the waverers," of whom the Lord HARROWBY was the chief, and in period the Liberals have suffered as in. from the " waverers" attached to their bed. and Lord Joux RUSSELL has forestalled '• verdict of history, as being a spirited debater but a wavering councillor. tortign Ccorrtsgonbottt. PArus, March 1 So much has been said on both sides of the Chan. nel about the Walowski-Malmesbury despatches, it cannot fail to be interesting to you to know real sentiments of the French nation on this most important subject. As regards the Walewski , spatches, it is the general opinion that the French Minister never for an instant intended either dictate to the English Government, or in any way , offend the people of England; but it cannot be denied that many persons in France were greatly irritated, at what they believed to be the apathy of the English Government in not preventing the refugees conspiring against the life of the Emperor. feeling was no secret to any one who had resided any length of time in France ; and had the Minister taken any other steps than those he did, he would have been generally condemned, and accused truckling to England. The despatches of Conn' Walewski are therefore generally approved of, at the same time, the conciliatory, dignified, firm language of Lord Malmesbury has equally found favour with all reflecting Frenchmen; and there feeling of satisfaction throughout the country . this unpleasant affair has been brought to so honour able a conclusion. No one partakes more in satisfaction than the Emperor himself. The Moniteur of this morning very justly rebukes the Times for a very gross article on the 15th, which, among other wilful misstatements, it is that the Emperor cannot now show himself in pui unless escorted by a squadron of cavalry. within the last fortnight I have almost daily met Emperor driving an open carriage in the most popu lous parts of Paris, such as the Boulevards, the de la Paix, and the Rue de Rivoli, without any escort whatever ; and further, I have met him on horseback in the Faubourg St. Antoine, the abode of workmen and labourers, and many, many Republicans, acoom panied only by one of his generals•in•waiting followed by his two grooms. Had the informant the Times but have placed himself last night at' window of his house, which is nearly opposite to Opera, he would then have seen with what enthi siasm the Emperor and Empress were received the populace, both in going to and en leaving theatre. In my next, I am in hopes of being able to furnish you with some interesting details as to the change of the Prefect of Police. The present Prefect, Boitelle, is well known as possessing great energy and firmness of character. M. Pietri retires in ' full enjoyment of the confidence and esteem of Sovereign. I believe I am correct in saying that, notwithstand ing all the reports so industriously circulated, M. tk Persigny will not leave London, nor Count Wa lewski the Hotel of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Both these statesmen are in high favour with Emperor. Baron Brunnow, the new Russian Ambassador the Court of St. James, was to have left Berlin the 17th for London. Prince Jerome, who had a relapse, is daily gaining strength. The Princess Menschikoff, accompanied by numerous suite, is now in Paris, and will remain with us till the end of the season. The Maharajah Dhuleep Singh will leave Paris a few days for Sardinia, on a shooting excursion. Paris is very full and very gay, and although are still en Carime, hardly a night passes with,.. some brilliant soiree being given by the aristocracy The splendid apartments of the Duka and Duche; of Bassano in the Tuileries were crowded on Frith last. The reunions of the Princess Mathilde greatly sought after. whis- earned Ihnny.” ember- le late [ll this much body ; led the ebater, P. 18. ) Chan- les, that tow the is most rski de- French itber to r way to a denied rritated, English es from !. This 'ided for &Mister e would used of Count of, but, ed, and y found ere is a try that honour. in that rebukes 15th, in is said n publio Now, met the st popu- the Rue iy escort Irseback vorkmen 11COOM• ng and .want of it at the e to the t, entliu- !ived by wing the furnish change feet, M. energy in the n of his :hstand- , M. de ralewski Both ith the iador to ;rlin on gaining I by s remain Paris in ion. mgh we without tocracy. )uchess Friday lde are