The Press. — London, England, 1858-06-05 00:00:00

neglect this, in the existing state of things, would be to incur the most awful responsibility that ever was incurred by a public man."—Morning Advertiser, Feb. 22. These passages were written, the first, a week before Lord PALMERATON'S fall, the others a day or two after his resignation. But they all de scribe the state of affairs at the very moment of which Mr. Dis►tAi:t.i spoke. And, be it observed, they are taken from no insignificant journal. The editor, whose pen thus vividly described the national perils, is not unknown at Cambridge house. The very warnings which we have given above, actually met Lord l'Ai.msits - rox's eve, day by day, in February last. And it cer tainly affords ground for a suspicion of tailing memory, or some such infirmity, to find the Noble Lord now coming forward, in May, to express his wonder and astonishment, that any one should have supposed, in February last, that there was the least unpleasant feeling, the least tendency to hostile words or actions, between the English and French Governments. We have cited but a single instance, because that single instance shows sufficiently what ideas were then passing through men's minds. But we should have had no difficulty (had it ap peared needful) in producing extracts from half a .dozen London newspapers, and speeches at more than one public meeting, all establishing the same fact—that many men seriously be lieved, in February last, that the question of peace or war with France might be decided—and decided in a perilous manner in a very few days—aye, or in a very few hours ! THE PRESS, JUNE 5, 1858. an able, and in his own department a blameless labourer, to the field which for the moment he appeared to have quitted. The class for whose benefit the meeting of last Tuesday in Whitehall-gardens took place is one which has particular claims to the charitable sympathies of the wealthier ranks. There is a close connection of cause and effect, as well as a painful contrast, between the attraction of those sylph-like forms that float gracefully through our ball-rooms, and the haggard pallor of those hardly worked, ill-fed, scantily clothed, daugh ters of patient toil whom Lord SHAFTESBURY so painfully described as "looking like disinterred corpses." Even our "hardly-used brother" the stonebreaker appeals less forcibly, less touchingly to our hearts than these our suffering sisters. Regarded from another point of view, the question of their lot becomes yet more important, if not more interesting. It must not he forgotten that their temptations are proportionate to their hardships. This point was not touched on at Tuesday's meeting, but it is wall worth the con sideration of those who write so fluently on the statistics of a class yet more unfortunate than our needlewomen. The tale is a common one ever since the days of TmilEsez, how hopeless labour leads to recklessness,• and misery to sin. His fair Andrian, who at first " pudice vitam, parce "et duriter Agebat, lana et tela victum quteri " tans," and then by a gradual descent " Accepit " conditionem, dein quantum occipit," is but the type of thousands who make our streets a sight yet more deplorable than unseemly. Cold and weariness are evil prompters, and "Malesuada Fames" has sate in the porch of Orcus ever since VIRGIL beheld her in hideous vision. It is much to raise the fallen, but more to prevent the fall. We trust this consideration will have its due weight in the scheme shortly to be propounded by Lord SHAFTESBURY and his coadjutors. Of that scheme we may have to speak hereafter, when its details are before the public. At present we would only express a hope that aid to female emigrants may form one of its principal features. Those who struggle on here as suf ferers or victims might among our friends in Australia be useful and happy—blessing and blessed. And with this hint we take for the present our leave of the subject, wishing Lord SHAFTESBURY God speed in his new voyage on a sea which he bas navigated so often and so well. " I AM NOTHING IF NOT CRITICAL." IF our own praises are supremely pleasant to hear, we must also admit that censure of others is little less pleasant to read. Setting aside those to whom we are bound by personal affection or political allegiance (and even these exceptions are not invariable), there are few for whom our respect is so entire that we could not enjoy seeing them occasionally well quizzed, or even cleverly satirized, when they have disappointed our hopes, impugned our principles, or, it may be, shocked our prejudices. If the lash be but neatly and smartly laid on, we are apt to forget that the operator is showing his dexterity at the expense of flesh and blood, that the accompany ing jest may be but salt to the wound, and that Petit Andrit was hated by his victims as cordially as Trois Eschelles. No doubt this pleasure in seeing our neighbour "shown up," especially on political grounds, is a great temptation to the journalist. Even when earnestly desirous of in structing, he can do so only on condition of se curing readers by amusing them. He caters for the public taste, and if dishes "d l'lndienne" are general favourites, he must be liberal of hot pickles. Still a good artiste should please by the variety, and not merely the piquancy, of his carte; he should apply his cayenne and chili vine gar with discrimination, and not devil spring chickens or emulate Byron's practical joke of fish-sauce with apple-pie. If all men and all parties are to suffer the editorial scourge, the discipline becomes unavailing for warning or for reformation.. The schoolmaster would never be more " abroad" than if he whipped his pupils all round to promote their general culture. In fact, it is expected of the journalist, for his own sake as well as that of the public whom he professes to instruct, that he should have some faith and some charity—that he should recognize in public 533 life men, ay and bodies of men, who deserve his confidence in general, and his lenient construc tion when their course appears questionable. It is startling as well as perplexing to be told that both Ministers and their opponents are equally intolerable; that A who maintains a proposition, and B who denies it, are both alike mistaken ; that to stand still is absurd, and to move impos sible; that to keep silence is hypocrisy, and to speak out madness. Given—for example—the present state of public affairs; an honest man, wishing to see his way a little, has recourse for en lightenment to a weekly journal of high !Preten sions, and supported by a peculiar kind of talent. He is informed at starting that "a futile attempt "to enforce the responsibility of a delinquent " Minister has ended in a public acknowledgment "of Parliamentary incompetence, founded on " a public admission of Parliamentary ignorance." Passe pour cela—the House is not too well in formed on Indian affairs, and it will do little harm to say so ; though it is rather hard to believe (what we are subsequently told on the same authority) that the entire debate was irre levant to the real issue. however, our seeker for truth goes a little farther; the M.P.'s have failed him, and he would fain appeal to the sense of the nation. But this, he is informed in the next article, would be only the proverbial leap out of the frying-pan into the fire—an appeal from incompetency and ignorance to insanity. " Whom the gods wish to destroy, whether in the " capacity of Indian rulers or otherwise, they " first deprive of their senses, and especially of " common sense; and in the case of the English " nation the preliminary process seems to have " been fully accomplished." Worse and worse. Our "earnest inquirer," having puzzled out the meaning of the sentence last quoted, is prompted to exclaim with the victim of friendly arbitration in TERENCE, " Probe fecistis—ego multo incertior " sum, quam dudum." Ile does not emerge from his perplexity when he is further instructed by very distinct inuendo that the line of the Conservatives is mere conventionalism ; that the Whigs bid for majorities by " the basest kind of " political treating ;" and that the " Independent Liberals " "have reached the limits of Snobbism in " an exhibition of imbecility and meanness." But a ray of hope flashes across his mind—perhaps the Editor is on intimate terms with "the coming man," and can indicate the true and only statesman, the Deus ex machine, on whose appearance "dark shall be light, and wrong done to right." Is he to be a Whig, exempt from the family failings of jobbing and exclusiveness ; or an Independent Liberal, incapable of Snobbism ; or a Conservative, bent on doing the nation's work in earnest ; or, finally, some highminded Christian, who eschews party, and is only bent on regenerating political morality by religious in fluences ? Even this last hope eludes the too confiding disciple of the " best possible instructor." Individuals fare no better than parties. Lord PALMEIISTON is " like a clown with the rheuma " tism, or an Old Bailey advocate who has lost " his voice." Mr. BRIGHT is like SAMSON, " a " very strong man who has the peculiarity of " being totally blind." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER is merely " an actor "—an able one, but by no means judicious; in fact, " the very evil genius of the Administration." And Lord SturrEsatTßY is dismissed with the pregnant inquiry, " Why is it that the selfsame snifter " fuges are the unfailing resource of a cowardly " child caught in a fib, of a Jew attorney detected "in a malpractice, and of Virtue and Piety " struggling with unmerited calumny ?" Such is the way in which England and English men are dealt with in the same pages which are graced by an doge funebre on a foreign Princess which for truth and beauty we have rarely seen surpassed ! What can be our contemporary's object in bespattering his countrymen thus indis. criminately ? Does he merely mistake his own position, forgetful of his own well-applied metaphor of the Fly on the Wheel Or does he calculate on making censoriousness pass for power, and hope to loom larger through the dust he raises ? Let it strive to level down ward as it will, the Saturday Review will remain but where it was. We are wrong—for though it will not rise, it will descend. It has adopted a line unlike that by which it gained its high position ; a line which is unjust, unpatriotic, and, if we durst hint at so vulgar a consideration, one which will not even pay. THE LONDON DRESSMAKERS. Ir was with much pleasure that we recognized Lord SHAFTESI U on Tuesday last, again in his own peculiar and appropriate sphere, engaged in prompting and organizing a benevolent movement in behalf of a truly pitiable class. The right man in the right place is a rare as well as a welcome sight. That it is rare, however, arises not merely from the corrupt or injudicious use of patronage. It is at least equally due to the false appreciation by individuals of their own gifts and qualifica tions, the longing of the round man (to borrow a quaint old illustration) to stick himself in the three-cornered hole. Men generally—and the remark is at least equally true of the female world—pique themselves most on something which is not their recognized forte. CICERO diverts Rome with bad verses, and FREDERICK the GREAT bores French savans with philosophi cal correspondence. Misapplying SHAKESPEARE'S profound saying, that To have done, is to hang Quite out of fashion, like a rusty armour In monumental mockery, aspirants for distinction set down what they have undoubtedly attained as little worth, and, instead of using it as a basis for further success in the same line, cast it behind them, in the sudden desire to gather laurels in some more attractive, because comparatively untried, field. And thus the public interest suffers doubly by the loss of a tried and skilful worker in one de partment, and by the errors of a half-trained amateur in another. • Lord SHAFTESBURY has long occupied a position as honourable as it was useful. In philanthropic exertion he was facile p r i nce p s , a t l eas t amon g the English laity. His exertions on behalf of the factory operatives might alone have entitled him to the nation's gratitude, but his benevolence was multi iorm and comprehensive. The rescue of child hood from ignorance and vice, the raising the condition of the adult operative by training htm to self_respect through the influence of domestic comfort, the care of the sick and needy, the diffu sion of the Gospel—in short, the enlightening of all the dark corners of the earth, came within the scope of his efforts. Even his strongest opponents admitted his Christian excellence. But there was a momentary deflection. Biasied, for a time, by personal predilections and per sonal distastes, Lord SHAFTESBURY took what, for him, was a n ov el course, and in which he gained no laurels. We rejoice to welcome back I