The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-22 00:00:00

reproaches, for if he had erred, it '. delicacy for Lord Canning." plainly implied that the . a bearing on the topic now and that therefore Mr. VER them. Had they been on . private affairs only, no one 3 see a line of them. But that "he may have erred," out of too much delicacy ' The meaning of this obvious to admit of a doubt. - right to ask for " private . question, too, has been set since occurred. The present Board of Control was asked a the practice with reference to said he had to state that no the Board of Control of any soon as such letters were at once forwarded to their might state, however, that Government came into office, months, no private letter or communication had either been received Government or been received itrol until Saturday night last. Saturday night last a packet containing three private CANNING, all addressed to the Board of Control, Lord ELLEN CANNING had received intel- ELLENBOROUGH had accepted fact of his having addressed to him immediately after , to prove that he was in the corresponding by private letters with the 'Cheers.)" made complete. For three CANNING was ignorant of the taken place at the Board of those three months no confi 'ion was received from him. \ of Lord ELLKNBOROUGH to India Board is made known to itely three private letters from President are brought by one eis clear and inevitable. In which have elapsed, various arrived here, written by President of the Board of these have been delivered to accounts for the expression he occasion, of " Lord CANNING'S perusing them to see if they necessary to be commu- Government ! And we are to be that during all these three series of letters—how many been—from Lord CANNING to President of the India Board, t family gossip and sinctly Why ! we will undertake to c a single man on the whole 'hose swallow is equal to such But if not, what is the alter all these letters there was nature, anything addressed _ the India Board, what has doing, in secreting it from the successor ? Will any man, in Parliament, stand up and say have been honourable and written on Thursday after hour after, we were treated glimpses into this mystery. evidently feeling that Mr. involving the whole party forward, took the matter out of to set things straight by extracts to the douse of Com ame fault was still adhered to, frankness and straightforwardness. his explanations, people were . to how much had been re much kept behind. Hence had still to be asked, as it is undesirable that this subject should occupy the again, perhaps I had better question to the Noble Lord. -night of two letters which by the late President of the not fear those reproaches wa s from too much de l l Here, again, it is pi letters in question had a before Parliament, and t NON SMITH concealed th pr i v ate affairs, and on pi would have desired to se Mr. SMITH admits that and may have erred "01 " for Lord CANNLVG." language is too obvious 1 But have we any rig letters" at all ? This q at rest by what has since Secretary of the Board few days since as to the private letters, when " Mr. BAuxtE said l record was kept at the private letters. As 801 received they were at destination. He migh since the present Govet a period of three mont private communication I or shown to the Govei at the Board of Control i (Cheers.) On Saturda' arrived at the Board c letters from Lord C ANN President of the Board uoitormi. Lord CAN-si ligence that Lord ELLE that office, and the fact three private letters to wards was sufficient to habit of corresponding b Board of Control. (Chu Here the case is mac months Lord CANNLNI change which had take Control. For all those dential communication At last the accession of the Chair of the India I him, and immediately th him to the new Presid packet. The inference is the three months whiC /eaters have probably a Lord CANNING to the I Control ; and all these Mr. Siam. This accou dropped on the first occae letters," and of his perm contained anything m nicated to the Governm expected to believe, thi months the whole serif soever they may have bee] the (supposed) Preside contained nothing but private matters. Why ! say, that there is not a Opposition bench whose a story as this. But i native ? Why, if in al anything of a public na to the President of thi Mr. S3irrn been doing, i knowledge of his succe either House of Perlis that he deems this to he correct conduct ? Thus far had we writ soon, when, in an hou to some further glimp Lord P.totEusToN, ev I ER.xON s • MITH wag 111 in disgrace, came forwas his hands, and tried t 4 reading certain extract s mons. But the same t of a want of frankness Irhen he had given his c still in the dark as to T , e aled, and how muck 'umber follows questions had " Mr. BRIGHT : As it 411 P le aaant part of the 81 at tention of the House 4 st once put another quei feeave heard to-nig] been received by THE PRE S S, MAY 22, 1858. Board of Control. Before to-night we had no distinct statement that there had been more than one. What I want to know is this—that, whereas the Government have stated that for about ten weeks there was no communication direct from Lord CANNING to the President of the Board of Control—whether the Noble Lord can tell the House that these two letters are all the letters which Lord CANNING has written either to the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton or to the Prime Minister during these ten weeks. Of course I refer to letters concerning the public affairs of India. If the Noble Lord had been kind enough to state the exact circumstances before, we should have avoided much of the painful impression which has been created in the public mind. (Cheers.)" "Lord PALMERSTON : The Hon. Gentleman was probably not in the House when I gave an answer to that question two days ago. My answer was so far incorrect, that I stated that two letters had been received, when, in point of fact, there had been four, dated the sth and 20th of February, the 6th of March, and the 17th of March—the latter of which contained a commu nication on a military point, which was sent to the Duke of CAMBRIDGE." Thus, on a military question, the ex-Ministers felt it their duty to send Lord CANNLNG'S letter to the Commander-in-Chief; but on political questions, they did not communicate Lord CAN NLNG'S letters to their successors in office. And we should be prepared to maintain that this secretion of letters which properly belonged to the President of the Board of Control is a more culpable act than any other which has taken place in this whole transaction. So much for Mr. SMITH., whose doings, or rather whose shortcomings, have done more to lower the character of English Ministers in the eyes of the public, than any other person or thing in our memory. But we have another sample of the same kind of FOUL PLAY in another department. The Times newspaper assumes much, and its right to assume much cannot be denied. It damages the character of the English press, undoubtedly, by its frequent veering in politics—Radical in 1831, Conservative in 1835, Peelite in 1846, Russellite in 1847, Anti-Palmerston in 1849, Pro-Palmers ton in 1857—the more especially as the secret history of all these changes is well known, and the why and the wherefore as thoroughly under stood as the terms of any other political bargain. Its character does not rest perhaps on its straight forwardness, but on its businesslike qualities. It is a saleable paper, and therefore it sells ; it is a saleable paper, and therefore it is sold. But while the Vernon Smiths in Parliament are doing their best to lower the character of the British statesman, the Times runs in parallel lines with them in debasing the public character of the journalist. A device such as that which has just been played off, is almost equal to Mr. VERNON SMITH'S for its cool audacity and its transparent dishonesty. We first heard of Lord CANNLNO . B Proclamation in the columns of the Times. That paper had sent out a correspon dent to the British army in Oude, and, a fort night ago, that correspondent sent home a copy of the Proclamation, and with it the expression of his fears as to its effects on the present struggle in Oude. • This appeared in the Times of the 6th of the present month. When a fortnight was elapsing, the most natural and eager interest began to be felt as to what " the Times Correspondent" in Oude would next write touching the effect of the Proclamation. Day by day people have been looking for this expected letter. On Friday of last week the Times rece'ved its "Private Correspondence" from Calcutta. The Calcutta letter appeared on Saturday. On Wed nesday its Bombay letters came in, and in Thursday's paper we had the letter from Bom bay. But where was the letter from Lucknow, for which all were looking? A brief line in formed us that "the Lucknow letter has, for the "present, miscarried. Singular enough, when its importance, at the present moment, is so obvious. But what if the •' Lucknow letter," like its predecessor, was utterly opposed to the Pro clamation of Lord CANNING ? Why, then, its appearance just now might endanger the success of Mr. CARDWELL'S motion ; and the failure of Mr. CAnnwrax's motion might dash to the 483 ground the hopes of many gentlemen who are calculating upon being invited to Downing-street in the course of a few days. So, what is to be done, but what the Times, sans eeremonie, did? " The Lucknow letter has, for the present, miscarried." Those three little words, "for the present," reveal a great deal. If the letter had been lost, if it had been sunk in the deep sea, why then it would not have "mis carried for the present." But there is no such danger. The Times is in no fear but that it can publish the letter at some future day. But not just now—not till the debate is over! It has " miscarried for the present." Truly, looking back on the last ten days' work, may we not fear, lest, with Vernon Smiths, and with convenient newspapers, we shall get back into a system and code of morals, out of which, for the last forty years at least, we had been visibly rising ? THE WHIG PEERS, AND THE DIVISION IN THE LORDS. THE division of the Peers on the morning of Saturday, May 15, will well repay the observers of our political affairs, and we shall call attention to some extraordinary facts relating to the manner in which the prolonged official ascendancy of Whiggism has given an unjust amount of peerages to the Liberal party. The Whigs, up to this year, have been in office for twenty-two years, within a fraction of a quarter of a century ! They held power from 1830 to 1834; from 1835 to 1841 ; from 1846 to 1852; from 1852 to 1858. Their reign was inter rupted by Sir R. PPM for five months in the winter of 1834-5, for five years from 1841 to 1846, and by Lord DERBY for about ten months in 1852. Let these dates be marked. During these twenty-two years the Whigs made forty-three political Peers, taken from the Whig party, exclusive of military and naval Peers, like Lord SEATox, Lord LYONS, &c. &c. We assume that our gallant generals and admirals would have gained the Peerage irrespectively of " party," but the Whigs actually made forty three political Peers, exclusive of eldest sons, called up during their fathers' lifetime, and ex clusively of military and naval Peers! In favour of Lord SHAFTESBURY'S resolutions there were present ninety-three Peers, and of these there were twenty-two made by the Whigs during their recent ascendancy. Their names are as follow :—Lords Aveland (1856), Helper (1856), Campbell (1841), Carew (1834), Congle ton (1841), Dufferin (Irish Peer promoted),* Cranworth (1850), De Manley (1838), Ebury (1857), Glenelg (1835), Hatherton (1835), Leigh (1839), Lismore (Irish, promoted),* Monteagle (1839), Stanley of Alderley (1839), Strafford (1835), Talbot de Malahide,* Truro (1850), Vivian (1841), Wensleydale (1856), Wrottesley (1838), Wycombe (by courtesy, Earl of Shel burne). Total, Twenty-two, amongst those "Present" in favour of the resolutions. And amongst the Proxies were the Earls of Cottenham (1850), Gainsborough (1841), Leices ter (1837), Strafford, Earl of (1847); Brougham (1830), De Freyne (1851), Fingal,* Kenmare,• Lurgan (1839), Overstone (1850), Panmure, (1831), Portman (1837), Stuart of Decies (1839) —all made since 1830, and numbering thirteen. And amongst those who paired were Lord Evers ley (1857) and Lord Macaulay (1857). So that of the 158 who supported Lord SHAFTESBURY'S resolution, about one-quarter were of new peers since 1830. But it will be asked, " How many Tory Peers were made by Conservative Ministers within the same period ?" Any one living in society, and accustomed to the political conversation of the clubs, could count off-hand the number and names of the Conservative commoners raised to the Peerage in the last quarter of a century. In 1834-5, Sir R. PEEL advised the Crown to create MT. ALEXANDER BARING " Lord Ashburton," and Sir JAmEs Scant.rrr " Lord Abinger." hi 1846, Lord FRANCIS EGERTON was made Earl of Ellesmere ; and after his services in India, Sir HENRY HARDINGE was made Viscount liar dinge, and Sir HI:on GOUGH was also raised to the Peerage ; and her Majesty, on the advice of • The Irish Peers thus marked hare been raised to the English Roues LI Lords sites _ -