The Press. — London, England, 1858-11-06 00:00:00

1076 of labour in a country depopulated by famine, pestilence, and emigration, and from the conse quent rise of wages. Irish mortgagees had assuredly as much reason, and as much right, to feel alarmed for their property, and to call in their mortgages, as [rish proprie tors had to desire to extricate themselves from a position of increasing embarrassment. Sartre qui pent became, as it always does in such cases, the order of the day. No sooner were the doors of the Encumbered Estates Court thrown open, than, not mortgagors only, but proprietors likewise, rushed into it to save, in the most ex peditious and least expensive way, a wreck at least of their property out of the general ruin. The inevitable effect was a glutting of the market, a further depreciation of Irish pro perty, and losses to an immense amount. Our correspondent is mistaken, however, if he imagines that the proprietors alone suffered these losses; no small share of them fell upon the mortgagees. lie is in error, likewise, if he supposes that none but mortgagors were gainers by the operation. There were instances in which the proprietors took advantage of the new law, with more adroit ness, perhaps, than honesty, to clear their estates at the expense of their mortgagees. Bnt all this does not touch the principle of the Encumbered Estates Act, as a change in the law, which, whatever might be its results, " was " carried into effect with a due regard for existing rights." That the deepest commiseration is due to Irish proprietors who, with their families, were reduced from a state of at least seeming affluence to a state of poverty and want through the operation of the Act, we are the last to deny. Nor do we feel ourselves called upon to become the apologists of the animus with which the new law was advocated, perhaps suggested, on the part of some of its promoters, and by which the oppo sition offered to its enactment was mainly pro voked. We may observe, however, that the severity of the Act, as originally proposed, was greatly mitigated by the amendment introduced into it in the course of its progress through Par liament, which limited its operation to estates the revenue from which was reduced by incumbrances to less than one-half its ori ginal amount. Nor, in dwelling upon the reverse of fortune which befell many of the Irish landowners, should the fact be lost sight of that proprietors who derive their estates from a line of predecessors unmindful of " the duties correla " ttve with the rights of property," cannot be regarded, even with reference to their " exist ing rights," as standing in the same posi tion in which they would have stood had their estates descended to them loaded, not with the ruinous consequences of reckless neglect, but with the happy fruits of a conscientious dis charge, of those duties. The remedy of the En cumbered Estates Court was a rough one; but it was a remedy for a great evil, and was urgently required. The lesson which it taught was a hard one, but the lesson, too, was mach needed. Long may it be before, either in Ireland or elsewhere, a necessity shall arise for such another remedy to be applied, and such another lesson to be learned ! THE CANNING AND PERCEVAL ADMINISTRATIONS. THE article in the Edinburgh Review, which appears under the above heading, is in some respects remarkable. It is remarkable because, appearing in a party Review, it is really an impartial summary of the events with which it deals—a merit which such publications rarely attain to; it is remarkable for the diligence with which it has been compiled ; it is remarkable be cause, from the guileless character of the narrative, it seems the work rather of a précis-writer than a reviewer. You may apply to it in order to obtain historical facts and authorities, but it is, for the most part, innocent of all opinions on the facts narrated or on the authorities referred to. There are, however, some admissions in it, which, coming from a Whig—and, mayhap coming from a Whig statesman—are not by any means of trifling value, as bearing upon the conduct of a certain Whig Leader who is 'alb alive; and, also, as bearing upon the characters of certain Tory statesmen who are now no more. THFI PRESS, NOVEMBER 6, 1858 Those of our readers who can carry back their memories to the period immediately suc ceeding the fall of the Duke of Wsn.r.is(iToN's Administration, will doubtless remember that the charge, braught by the Whigs and Radicals of those days, on which they laid the greatest stress, and which was always in their months, to damage in the eyes of the people their Tory opponents, was the reckless manner in which they had carried on wars which were declared to have been "unnecessary," and thereby the Tories had weighed down the country by fastening a heavy debt on its resources. This accusation was the stock-in-trade whereby all the Whig Radicals contrived to raise an outcry against the Tory party ; and first and foremost in setting afoot this outcry was Lord JOHN RUSSELL. What the Whigs would have done without it, Heaven knows; if they had been de prived of it, the Reform Bill might never have become law. It was because they fully per suaded the multitude that the vast amount of the National Debt was the result of Tory policy— a result which Whigs would have avoided— that they created against the Tory statesmen of those days that hostile feeling which carried the Reform Bill. At a speech delivered by Lord JOHN to his then constituents at Stroud, in which he produced a catalogue of Tory offences, the two most prominently put forward were the large creation of Peers, and the having raised the National Debt between 1793 and 1815 from two to seven hundred millions. Now, the whole gist of this charge de pended on the fact that the war which caused the debt was an unnecessary one, and might have been avoided. Accordingly, the Whig Radicals and their organs always affirmed that Mr. Prrr embarked his country in the war, in order to crush the revolutionary principles which then were triumphant in France; and this affirmation was frequently accompanied with a sneer at the foolishness of the attempt on the part of Mr. PITT to annihilate abstract principles by means of physical force. All who can remember the days of the Reform struggles, must remember that this was the language of the Whigs and Radicals in every society and on every hustings. And yet, in truth. it had no foundation in fact. Mr. PITT, it is well known, hailed the early dawn of the French Revolution with undissembled satisfaction. Indeed, who could have anticipated its horrors, when peace and progress were on the lips of every man, and all seemed to have but one object in view, the amelioration of the condition of mankind ? But even when many of the revoltin„ , * atrocities, which marked its course, had appalled mankind, it never seemed good to Mr. Purr to embark England in a war, in order to interfere for their prevention. For Mr. Purr resolutely refused to allow this country to be a party to the forcible interference in the internal affairs of France, which was attempted by the armies of the Allied Sovereigns, under the Duke of BRUNS %mi.:, in 1792. The celebrated decree of the Convention, offering French assistance to the dis affected in every country to overthrow the established Government, afforded, indeed, ample ground for a declaration of war, had Mr. PITT been so inclined. There were besides other matters on which the French Government gave such of fence to England as would have justified a recourse to hostilities ; but Mr. Purr continued his negotia tions until the French Government cut them short by declaring war against England. France took the initiative, and lett to England no other course but resistance. " We were forced into the war " against our will," was Mr. Purr's emphatic declaration in Parliament two years after its com mencement. War was directly opposed to all Mr. PITT's policy ; whereas, no one can fairly study the history of those times, and deny, that war was the deliberate policy of the French rulers—war, not for this or that injury or provo cation, but war, as a measure advantageous to them, in itself, at which, by some means or other,they were determined to arrive. After the war began, .fr. Purr twice entered into arduous nego tiations for its termination, and the Tory Govern ment of Mr. ADDINOTON actually concluded the Peace of Amiens, which was soon broken by the aggressions of the First NApomm. Mr. Purr, having again become First Minister in 1803, cer tainly continued to carry on the war, which had thus been again commenced by the French Government ; but he always declared that although he would not allow England to stoop t o dishonour, yet that he was, at any moment, read y to accede to any honourable p eace, which shoul d present a reasonable prospect ofsafety and duration, We seek not, however, t o conceal that Mr . Prrfs great rival, Mr. Fo x , did not take this . view of Mr. Prrr's conduct. Ile argued long and often, but in vain, to prove that Mr PITT originated the war. When negotiations were carried on for peace, it was Mr. Pirr's fault that they were not successful. He war either insincere in his efforts, or most unskilful in their application. Within a year of Mr. Fires death, Mr. Fox told the House of Com mons that " Mr. Prrr's system had failed in " restoring peace to Europe, but that his own had " never been tried." The moment, however, for Mr. Fox trying his own system was then close at hand. Mr. Fox became Foreign Secretary on the death of Mr. Prrr. He aceordingfy forthwith opened negotiations with the French Emperor. Everything was in his favour. !lc had always spoken with respect, sometimes with admiration, of NAPOLEON. The oppor tunity was singularly felicitous, for, as the reviewer states, " Shortly after Mr. Fox's ac " cession to office, the offer by a Frenchman "to assassinate BONAPARTE caused him to " communicate directly with the French Go " vernment, and the communication made pre " rented an opportunity for opening a nego " tion for the restoration of peace." Lord YAR MOUTH and Lord LAUDERDALE were the chosen plenipotentiaries to try Mr. Fox's " system." The result of their labours we will not describe in our own terms, but in those of Mr. Fox own Whig colleagues, who had to explain it to the nation after Mr. Fox had followed Mr. PITT to the tomb. " His Majesty," said the Royal Commissioners, in opening the Session of 1807, " has used his " utmost endeavours to negotiate a peace com " patible with the honour and interests of his " people and the general security of the world, " but the ambition and injustice of the enemy " have disappointed these endeavours." Such were the results of the trial of Mr. Fox's sys tem, under his own guidance. Now, we have no wish to retaliate on Mr. Fox, and to charge him, as he charged Mr. Parr, with insincerity and want of skill. "The enemy" only mani• fested that same "ambition and injustice" which he had before invariably displayed. Fox is not to be blamed because he fail ed but Fox's failure vindicated his rival's fame. Not long after, the late Earl GREY, Mr. Fox's successor in the Foreign-office, when recommending a vigorous prosecution of the war, thus expressed himself in the house of Lords :—" I am far, very " far, from holding out to your Lordships con& " dent anticipations of success. The event is in " the hands of Him who giveth the victory; " but one thing is certain, that our only hope is " in resistance, so far as we can resist the obi " tious projects of the enemy." Such was the public testimony given by the great Whig Leaders to the necessity of than war with NAPOLEON. It is strongly corroborated by the reviewer. In speaking of the negotiations at Paris, carried on under Mr. Fox's instructions, he remarks : " The practical ex• " perience of BONAPARTE'S policy, thus acquired, " convinced Mr. Fox that peace with him was " impossible, and that the active prosecution of " the war was inevitable " (page 304). And in the next page he adds :—" Almost Mr. Fox's last " words to one of his most intimate friends and " colleagues, enjoined on his survivors the " vigorous prosecution of the war." Thus are the views of the Whig Leaders, pub licly expressed at the time, confirmed by . the existing records of their private opinions; and yet, notwithstanding all this, which must then, as now, have been perfectly we ll-know o n !o Lord JOHN RUSSELL—a scion of a noble lg house, and nurtured in the hotbed of Wqi . g• gery—did that Noble Lord—a drama tist, a philo sopher, and, proh pudor !an historian —go oil decrying his political opponents for having en larged the National Debt by carrying on an wine cessary war, which he did not hesitate t o insinuate would never have occurred had Whig statesmo rasped the helm of power. But, as if it were not sufficient that. Lord JOHN'S confutation should be found in I he - writings of his friends, he has (we presume , advertently) given to the world his confutation by