The Press. — London, England, 1854-05-27 00:00:00

477 (0 - ( n A A a'ez-fi No. 56.—VoL. 11. LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1854. vress. on the certainty of all the great Powers being compactly allied against Russian policy, the Emperor of RUSSIA has probably succeeded in changing the issue, and the controversy will be no longer as to the evacuation of the Turkish dominions, but on the recurrence to the status quo, or to a redistribution of terri tory, with the four great Powers divided on the question. The difficulties of our Cabinet are increased, because, as we have reason to believe, no definite ideas prevail on the subjects of com pensation and security as conditions of peace. We have reason also to believe that the Em peror of the FRENCH has remarked that, since the status quo cannot be recognised, and as no plan of compensation and future security is matured, prolonged occupation is the alter native ; and thus the consequence of our pro ceedings will be—the Turkish empire in the systematic possession of foreign armies, which hitherto has ever been the first step to parti tion, and which must, at all events, entail on this country a vast and protracted expenditure, probably without any results. LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1854. WHILE the country is anxiously awaiting the operations of its fleets and armies, it appears that an active diplomatic campaign is going on, in which already considerable results have been obtained, though we are not so sanguine as our contemporaries that the advantages are on the side of the Allies. It appears that negotiations for peace were in active progress very shortly before the declaration of war, and that, although that manifesto seemed to indicate a conclusion of these endeavours, the efforts have been since renewed, and only a few weeks ago proposals on the part of Russia were made to the British Cabinet of so conciliatory a nature that the Russian party in our Cabinet were anxious for their acceptance. It was even intimated, in order to further this result, that the feelings of the Emperor NAPOLEON coincided with those of Lord ABERDEEN. We have reason to believe that the propositions of Russia in this instance involved, to say the least, a virtual concession of all those condi tions which had been insisted upon by the Allies previous to the declaration of war. The anti-Russian party in the British Cabinet, however, succeeded, though with difficulty, in the rejection of these propositions ; and an opinion was expressed that the time for a settlement on the status quo had passed. It seems that shortly after this decision it transpired that the advances on the part of the Government of St. Petersburg were a well-calculated feint. made on the assumption that they would be rejected, and that the Western Powers might become committed to the dangerous course,— doubly dangerous when indefinite,—of repudiating the status quo. No sooner was this end obtained than, as it reaches us, representations were made to Austria and Prussia that the Emperor of &RM. adhering to his voluntary engage ment to respect the integrity of the Turkish empire, and not to seek any territorial aggran, disement at its expense, and aelnowledging, from the unforeseen circumstances that had occurred, that his main object, the relief of the Christian subjects of the Porte, had been substantially obtained, was ready, in the the interests of peace, and to evince his regard for his allies, to cause the evacuation of the Principalities by his armies without reference to the simultaneous retreat of hostile fleets. These overtures, as we are assured, have been received with favour by the two German Courts, and, at the present mo ment, while in this country we are calculating The renewal of the labours of the Vienna Conference, and the recording protocol from which so much is expected, are merely steps in the accomplishment of the projects above intimated. THE Ministerialists have an easy way of meet ing unpleasant charges. Instead of replying to facts they abuse the persons who state them. Last week whoever opposed their malt tax was an enemy to the war, and now whoever exposes their diplomacy is a friend to Russia. The part of Titus Oates is to be revived for their benefit, and the questioners of their wisdom are to receive no other answer than a scream of " The Plaat, the Plaat !" The artifice is too contemptible to deserve a serious rejoinder. All that can be said in its favour is, that it is venerable from age, and that it is the customary resource of the weakness or falsehood which has nothing better to urge in its defence. The accuracy of the information we gave last week on the causes which led to the recal of the Chevalier BUNSEN is not denied, but we are accused of lending ourselves to the designs of Russia by publishing it. By " discrediting the Cabinet" we "render an in " valuable service to the enemy;" and it is in ferred that this country can only be preserved from the ambitious designs of the Czar by the foresight and energy of Lord ABERDEEN ! Does the journal which publishes this stuff for the enlightenment of its readers suppose that it will find credence even among them ? Were we favouring the designs of Russia in rousing opinion to the danger which menaced Turkey at a time when the Ministerialists denied that any danger existed, or did we manifest Russian sympathies in insisting on the expediency of the French alliance ? The real friends of Russia are not those who desire to keep the public mind cor rectly informed on the diplomatic intrigues b)e PRICE SIXPENCE. which have been and still are carried on but those who cry " Hush ! hush !" to every dis closure which would enable the country to form a just opinion on the policy of our Go vernment, and who attempt to stifle discussion by misrepresentations which, though malig nant, are harmless, as they are too absurd for belief. It is not necessary that we should say one word as to our means of information. Every journal of influence and connection has sources of its own. The only question with which the public is concerned is, whether the information be authentic. if it be not, the Ministerial journals would surely be able to return some better reply to it than ridiculous babble of " Russian inspiration." Our columns sufficiently attest our independence, and we are proud to acknowledge that our success is mainly owing to the nationality of our aims and views. If we have uniformly opposed the present Government, it has been because we knew that it was formed on a vicious princi ple, and because we foresaw that its action must inevitably prove detrimental to the public interests. Its capacity for misch4 does not yet seem exhausted. The divid councils which have so mainly contributed to the war still continue to render its prosecution dilatory and uncertain, and to prevent thlit impression being made on the policy of Europe which a more decisive attitude would assuredly produce. GOVERNMENT DEFEAT ON THE OATHS BILL. Tali favourite axiom of M. TIMM, " The King " reigns, but does not govern," is aptly illus trated by the present position of our Govern ment. It holds office, but it does not rule. For the first time in our history the executive and legislative functions of administration are completely severed, and a Cabinet which is not deemed worthy of being entrusted with the higher duties of government exists merely to carry on official business. In a House of nearly five hundred members the Ministers were on Thursday night defeated by a majority of four. Henceforth it is apparent that they re tain their places, not from the confidence, but from the sufferance of Parliament. The one is denied—the other accorded to them. The character of the debate was marked and peculiar. It is known that in a body like the House of Commons ostensible objects are not always the real objects, and that measures are considered in reference to their tendency rather than to their professed purpose. There are parliamentary as there are legal fictions, and the issue raised often involves a more impor tant principle than appears on the surface. The discussion on Thursday night was not whether Jewish disabilities should be removed . That question has for several successive years been decided in the affirmative ; but it was, whether the measure introduced as a new Oaths Bill should be allowed to advance the insidious designs of that party of which Mr. GLADSTONE is the representative, by weakening our Protestant defences, and abolishing the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Crown. In the admirable speech of Sir FIZDERICIC TRZBIGER this design was distinctly charged against the bill. It was " intended solely foe -AIL .P