The Press. — London, England, 1857-07-18 00:00:00

Fi think of the piety of the venerable Dr. CANTWRLL. We are assured by those who are acquainted with the sister country that the interference of the Roman Catholic clergy in electioneering has usually lost the Conservatives nearly fifteen seats, counting thirty on a division. Or, in other words, if the Roman Catholic gentry, middle Musses, and independent electors at large, were allowed to choose candidates without the interference of a " tribunitian clergy," the Conservative ranks would be largely reinforced. The Whigs, it cannot be denied, have used the priests for electioneering purposes. The brothers, and cousins, and other relatives of the Whig priests, swarm in the public offices. Great official patronage in Ireland and the Colonies has been gained by Ithe priests taking to the platform, and working at the polling-booths in the style that would gratify Mr. CopeocK. The Whig aristocracy sanc tioned the system. They even acquiesced in their immediate political connection in Ire land being ousted from the representation of several seats which for generations had been filled by eminent Whigs. There are now no Boyles, no Ponsonbys, no Butlers, no Grattans returned by the popular constituencies in Ireland. The priests chose gentlemen of another stamp, and the Whigs approved of their doing so. And now, when an Irish " Independent party " wished to cut the telegraphic wires between the Reform Club and the Irish priests, the Whigs raise a cry of horror at " spiritual intimidation," which they themselves have connived at and fostered for years. A great cry has been made about the conduct of the priests at the Mayo election. We know nothing of the local polities of that county, but we can easily understand how Colonel HIGGINS was a most unpopular candidate at the last election. Against his personal cha racter we have not a word to say ; but, after the manner in which the Gallant Colonel pledged himself to the Independent party, and after his apparent disregard of his political promises, it is no wonder that the Gallant Officer was a distasteful candidate in Mayo, where Roman Catholic feelings are of an intense kind. The Roman Catholics pre ferred the Conservative candidate Captain PALMER, one of the Balaklava heroes, to Colonel HIGGINS. They acted on the prin ciple of choosing an avowed political adver sary rather titan a hollow friend; and it is evident that Colonel HIGGINS was regarded as a political renegade, with what amount of justice we cannot undertake to say. We shall wait with much curiosity to see whether the Whigs will be consistent in repu diating "the spiritual intimidation," by which they have gained so many votes in late years. THE PRE S S, JULY 18, 1857. as much a friend as the other Powers of Europe, and we should not have been "ender " vouriny for ever to raise up jealousy and suspi " cion"—an arrowy stroke which struck the target aimed at. The Noble Lord skilfully put aside the rough-and ready logic with which Sir FENWICK WILLIAMS tlial to settle the question. It is in military and not Par liamentary defence that the Gallant Member for Caine excels. Logical " short-cuts " (as Lord JOHN called them) are extremely dan gerous things in presence of trained debaters. Mr. GLADSTONE spoke with great ability, and emphatically stated the question raised by Mr. ROEBUCK'S resolution " was one "of extraordinary gravity and interest." The Member fur the University of Oxford declared that " the principle of constitu " tional liberty had greatly retrograded," and the Right Hon. Gentleman ex posed in detail the conflicting views and uncertain policy of the Cabinet. Mr. GLAD STONE echoed the opinions of many astute politicians when he declared hi ; scepticism as to the enormous and world-wide importance of the possession of Herat. The wisdom of declaring to Europe that the object of Russia was the destruction of our Indian empire through Affghanistan, was judiciously pro tested against by the Right Hon. Gentleman ; but the part of his address which told most on the House of Commons was the emphatic admonition which Mr. GLADSTONE delivered on the necessity of Parliament expressing a decided opinion against a Minister availing himself of the medium of the Indian army, the Indian finance, and the Indian Executive, to make and conclude war on his own account, without the consent of the House of Com mons. This part of Mr. GLADSTONE'S speech was vehemently cheered by both sides of the House of Commons. Lord PALMERSTON never appears to worse advantage than in attempting to sum up a debate. He has no talent for judicial charges; and he cannot, like Sir It. PEEL or Lord J. Rus- SELL, go round the House, and say something to every one. No public speaker leaves greater gaps in his addresses, and he did not debate the Persian war on Thursday night. His speech was, therefore, what we would have ex pected from the known character of the man. It was a string of asseverations, not a series of answers. Some of the best speeches of the night were left unnoticed : and with dogged manner, and something to excess of that "Par liamentary assurance" once imputed to the Noble Viscount by Sir R. PEEL. the Premier said his course was all right, and he said it so often that we could have wished that he would have condescended even to vary the language. In " constitutional knowledge" Lord PAL.. MERSTON is no proficient. He took a high pre rogative tone in denying the alleged doctrine that the Crown had no right to make war without the consent of Parliament. The Crown certainly can make war, but where is it to get the supplies ? Is the consent of Parliament not necessar3 for the estimates ? Such a line of argument was really puerile. No one denied the rightful prerogative of the Crown ; but the policy of making war first in a secret and sudden way, told then coming to Parliament for aid, stands condemned by the general opinion of the House of Commons and the country. But Lord PALmEasToN thinks that he is a greater man by affecting the tone of a dictator. Mr. DISRAELI'S brief and brilliant reply to the Premier was in his happiest manner. The rapidity with which the Right Hon. Member for Bucks saw the opening left by the Prime Minister's indiscreet allusion to Mr. ROEBUCK'S alleged " un-English resolu• Lions," marked a consummate master of Parliamentary fence. " Was the resolution for " inquiry into the state of the army before " Sebastopol un-English ?" asked Mr. DisakEm; and the Right Hon. Gentleman followed up the point by dexterous allusions to the Pacifico debate, while his political warning to the young members of the House was executed in a spirit of rich humour, mingled with elfec tive political sepal tee. Circumstanced, however, as the House of Commons was, we do not think that it possibly could have affirmed Mr. ROEBUCK'S resolutions. But the debate had great use. It ex- 691 posed the unprincipled way in which Lord PALMERBTON conducts his diplomacy, and it registered the dangers run from being ruled by a statesman whose position is purely per sonal, and who is a neutral in party. The damaging effect of the debate is seen in the candid confession of a leading Ministerial organ of Friday—" We do not dispute the " Royal Prerogative, but we do dispute the " very (lark, precipitate, awl irresponsible way in " which it is occasionally exercised." Stronger language we could not have em ployed. THE CLARENDON CAPITULATION. WE are glad to see that the disgraceful sur render of our maritime rights by the late Treaty of Paris has once more occupied the attention of Parliament. That surrender was unprecedented in the history of diplomacy. Lord CLARENDON was sent to Paris to negotiate a treaty of peace with the representatives of the other belligerent Powers A treaty of peace, such as it is, was the result—an honourable, nay, a triumphant treaty for England, as we were then assured by the Queen's Ministers. And yet into this treaty, which terminated, in the language of our rulers, " a great and successful war," there was introduced a condition expressly designed for the humiliation of the British flag and the overthrow of our maritime supremacy. Lcrd CLARENDON, without the knowledge of the nation, without the consent of Parliament, deliberately renounced those naval rights which for the space of five centuries England had maintained against the world. Up to the commencement of the late war no British statesman of any party had ever doubted the necessity of maintaining these rights. They were universally held to be essential, not only to our maritime greatness, but to our national independence. They were in strict conformity with the law of nations. From time imme morial we had claimed and exercised the right of seizing the goods of an enemy in a neutral ship. That right no longer exists. It was signed away behind the nation's back by Lord CLARENDON at Paris. Whether this secret renunciation, overturning, as it did, the common law of the land, was binding upon Parliament and the nation, is a question which we shall not now discuss. Suffice it to say that the national faith is pledged, and it cannot now be broken without furnishing a cause of war to all the States that were parties to the Treaty of Paris. This is the practical result of " the Clarendon capitulation," as it was too truly termed by Lord DERBY when its conditions were first made public. Let not the nation be deluded by cant phrases about enlightenment and progress. Its pre sent, rulers have thrown away a mighty weapon of offence which cannot be resumed without provoking universal war. " It was done in the dark," exclaimed Lord DERBY, " without the knowledge of Parlia " 'neut. We knew not when our birthright " was given away." We know it now, however; and our merchants, for whose especial benefit it is to be presumed that the rights in ques tion were renounced, are beginning to calcu late the results in the event of another war. Mr. LINDSAY brought the matter before the House of Commons on Tuesday night. That gentleman is a large shipowner, and ho per ceives, after taking a whole twelvemonth to consider the matter, that the effect of the rule laid down by the " Clarendon capitulation" will be simply to render British shipping useless in the event of another war. And why? Because neutral vessels, being exempted from capture, will undoubtedly be preferred. It will, therefore, be necessary to insure British vessels at a ruinously high rate, which will practically give a monopoly of our carry ing trade to the foreigner. Such is the argu ment of Mr. LINDSAY, and so far we entirely agree with him ; for the opinion he now expresses is that which has all along been advJcated by this journal. But he has discovered, which we confess we have not, a remedy for the evil in question. He would not annul the Convention of Paris; on the contrary, ho would carry out the rules THE PERSIAN WAR DEBATE. THE discussion on the Persian war has greatly damaged the character of Lord PAL iiiitsToN's Cabinet. It has directed attention to the dictatorial tone of Lord PALMERSTON him self, and it has exhibited the divided counsels of the Ministry. The speeches of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and of the PRESIDENT of the BOARD OF CONTROL, injured the Govern ment even more than the attacks of Parlia mentary adversaries. Well might Sir J. GRAHAM have interrupted Sir CORNEWALL LEWIS in amazement, and asked, " What ! Persia a " vassal of Russia! Do you really mean to " assert that as a fact?" At a later period of the evening Mr. VERNON SMITH said—" All " parties are satisfied with the arrangements " made ; I confidently entertain the opinion " that Persia will come to the conclusion that " in this country, and not in Russia, she will " fi , !d her most natural ally." After such Cabinet " cross-readings " Mr. DISRAELI was Justified in requesting to be excused from implicit confidence in the Ministerial views of Persian politics. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was critical and poignant ‘ upon the c on d uc t o f th e C a bi ue t. The Noble Member fin. London called atten tion to the fact that after the Crimean war had ceased we ought to have treated Russia