The Press. — London, England, 1857-02-14 00:00:00

148 represented in office. The Liberals have been in power, except for a few brief years, since the fall of the Duke of WELLINGTON'S Ministry. From December, 1834, to April, 1833, Sir R PEEL'S first Cabinet held office for five months ; his second Ministry lasted from the summer of 1841 to the winter of 18-15 (without schism), four years and six months. The spring and summer of 1846 cannot be reckoned as belonging to our side; and Lord DERBY'S Ministry lasted for t"n months in 1852. That is to say, for less than six years the Conservatives have held office against twenty-one years' rule by the Liberals. The effects of this official dispensation are to be seen in all directions—in the Peerage, the Army and Navy, in the Church, the Law, the Magistracy, and in all the social channels which have connection with Downing-street. What are the effects on the public official service of this Cabinet monopoly by one party exclusively? The answer is patent. The consequence is, a tendency to mediocrity; and such must necessarily be the result. All parties long in office have a natural liability to wear out—to lose their pristine vigour•, and their faculty of effecting legislative improvement, and stimu lating social progress. The sway of office soon uses up and exhausts the list of the high aspirants. At first the party in power pro motes its ablest supporters. After a fcw years these are provided for, and then mere per sonal influence or party alliance are taken as the tests. The action of this monopoly is best seen in the great profession of the Law. Thus, after the Whigs had ennobled or pro moted a Brougham, a Denman, a Campbell, a Wilde, and others of that order, they were then compelled to choose a Cran worth, or a Jervis (of whom we have no desire to speak with disrespect), and soon even their secondary class was exhausted. A routine of inferior men for judicial posts would not be endured at Westminster-hall, though it might in places less contr riled by a true public opinion. Government was compelled to choose Mr. Justice W►r.LES and Mr. Baron BRAMWELL (both excellent selections), and entirely unknown in " party." The promotion of Mr. W. H. WATSON then followed, who united many professional with political claims. But the high offices of Attorney and Solicitor General are now held by members of the Conservative Bar, or at least by gentlemen who never heretofore were ranked amongst the " Liberals." Yet the fact is indisputable that at the pre sent time nearly one dozen of the first men at the English Bar, Equity and Common Law, are Conservatives. We have a delicacy in tread ing upon purely professional ground, but every one admits the abilities of Sir FREDERIO TIIESIOER, Sir FITZROY KELLY, Mr. CAIRNS, Mr. WioaAm, Mr. MALiNs ; and (though not in Parliament) the names of Mr. ItoLT and Mr. Sergeant BYLES (both Conservatives) are familiar to the whole public. These gentle men (and we could name others) have not their equals at present in the Whig Bar. All the eleven Whigs have been promoted, and the younger ones have not yet attained their full growth. The Whig stock at Westminster hall is used out. In Ireland a similar result, and from the same causes, is visible. The Irish Bar is confessedly one of the most brilliant in Europe. In 1830, after the long tenure of the Conservatives, a great Whig Bar adorned the Irish Opposition. Mr. WALLACE, Mr. CRAMP TON, Mr. PERRIN, Mr. IMOGHLEN, Mr. SHELL, Mr. Woutse, were all " Liberals," and their eminence in various ways was indisputable. Such a Liberal Bar does not now exist in Ire land. After the promotion of those gentlemen, and their political associates, the Whigs had recourse to less distinguished men. And now (with one or two exceptions) the chief talent of the Irish Bar, we are proud to say, is of the Conservative connection. Mr. NAPIER, Mr. WHITESIDE, Mr. FRANCIS FITZGERALD, Mr. Burr, Mr. BREWSTER, Mr. HENRY MARTLEY, are all Conservatives. The same general law is seen in the higher spheres of the State. The country demands financial revision, on a comprehensive and scientific basis, and executed with reference tis practical experience. For such a boon it THE PRESS. must look to the abilities, the energy, and knowledge of the Right Honourable Members for Bucks and the University of Oxford. The educational movement, of such priceless importance, is in the guidance of Sir JOHN PAKINOTON. It is Sir FITZROY KELLY or Mr. NAPIER who prescribe the modes of Law Reform, and who keep it steadily before the country. And it is to the Conservative party that the country looks for the rehabilitation of British influence on the Continent, and for a peaceful policy with foreign Powers. Change, therefore, in the character of the ruling parties is absolutely demanded by the highest law of the Constitution. The Liberals are degenerating in talent under the long tenure of office. Fresh minds, unbroken energies, and first-rate practical men are wanted to supply the defects of a Ministerial connection, which is fast passing from a party into a caste. LORD CLARENDON'S BOLGRAD DESPATCHES. IN the House of Lords, on the first night of the session, Lord CLARENDON declined to comply with the request of Lord DERBY to furnish to the House copies of the despatches relative to the settlement of the differences with Russia on the Bessarabian frontier. His Lordship declined, en the strange ground that as the question was now settled it would be unwise to revive recollections of dif ference. As we have no fear that the publica tion of these despatches can now lead to feelings of we publish this day Lord CLARENDON'S despatch to Lord WODEHOUSE at St. Petersburg, of date November 12. Next week we propose to print the reply of Prince GORTSCHAKOFF. We pledge the reputation of this journal to the genuineness of the sub joined document.— Foreign-office, November 12, 1850. My Lord,--I transmit to your lordship copies of two communications which I have recently received from the Russian Minister at this Court, the one in closing a recapitulation of the course pursued by Russia in regard to the carrying out the 20th and the 21st articles of the Treaty of Paris, and both deprecating the prolongation of the existing state of suspense as to giving effect to the general stipula tions of that treaty. The Cabinet of St. Petersburg cannot more sincerely regret than does her Majesty's Government the existence of the present state of things. Her Majesty's Government had hoped that with the conclusion of the war all causes of farther irritation and discussion between the two Governments would have speedily been removed. For their own part they endeavoured to extinguish, as far as possible, any feelings of animosity or suspicion which might have been engendered by the war; and they omitted no opportunity of evincing their determination to promote the restoration of those reciprocal feelings of friendship and goodwill which existed between the two countries previously to the late conflict between them. Her Majesty's Government do not wish, however, to examine too closely into the various causes which hitherto delayed the re-establishment of the relations between this country and Russia on their former footing; but while acknowledging the statement delivered to me by Count Chreptowitch of the various occasions in which Russia has evinced a spirit of conciliation and an anxiety to smooth away difficul ties in regard to the demarcation of the Bessarabian frontier under the Treaty of Paris, they cannot but claim for themselves to have shown an equally conciliatory and forbearing spirit in matters which they must be allowed to say were of greater moment, and which, had they felt inclined to adopt the example of Russia, they might, without laying themselves open to reproach on the part of the Government of that country, have dealt with in a very different spirit. The Russian Government need scarcely be reminded of the earnest endeavours made by the British Government to withdraw the British army from the soil of Russia at the earliest possible period, or of the scrupulous abstinence on the part of the retiring forces from any wanton injury of the fortifications or public buildings of the places which they restored to Russia, The Russian Government need not to be reminded that no remonstrances on their part were necessary in order to hasten the evacuation of Russian territory, or to deprecate the destruction of public works. And yet, if the British Government had regulated their proceedings by the example set them on the other side, they would have SATURDAY, withdrawn from the strongholds of Russia with lingering reluctance, and would have left as memorials of their occupation fortifications destroyed, and public buildings thrown down, after the signature of the Treaty of Peace, as was the case at Kars, Ismail, and Reni. I do not, however, allude to these matters on the present occasion with a view to repeat complaints and remonstrances to which her Majesty's Government do not wish at present to advert, but merely to show that her Majesty's Go vernment have not been wanting in a conciliatory and forbearing spirit in regard to the carrying out the engagements of the Treaty of Paris. There are, however, three points in the paper in closed in Count Chreptowitch's despatch to which I must more particularly allude. The first, indeed— namely, that relating to the eastern extremity of the boundary between Moldavia and Bessarabia—is happily settled; but I must observe even on this point that the spirit of the treaty unquestionably contemplated that the boundary should run at the distance of one kilometre to the east of the Lake Houma Sole throughout the whole length of the lake, and that it was never supposed or intended that the line to be drawn should divide the waters of the lake. But be that as it may, the assumed con cession by Russia of any advantages which she might have claimed in this respect has been com pensated by the assignment of an extent of land in another and adjoining quarter equivalent to that which, according to her statement, she had given up. Next, with regard to the Serpents' Island, her Majesty's Government cannot acquiesce in the claim made by Russia to that island, on the ground that no specific cession of it to Turkey is contained in the treaty. But if cession is essential to give a title, the Russian Government are bound to show that they ever acquired possession of the island by such means. It is notorious, however, that no such cession was made by the Porte in the Treaty of Bucharest, by which it made over Bessarabia to Russia—or by the Treaty of Adrianople, by which it ceded to that power a qualified possession of the delta of the Danube; and it is equally notorious that it was not until some time after the conclusion of the latter treaty that Russia took possession of the island, denuded of inhabitants, and established a lighthouse upon it. If such lighthousel was essen tial, as the Russian Government now allege, for the surety of vessels approaching Odessa, it may reason. ably be asked why, if the island appertained to Russia as a portion of Bessarabia, that necessity was not felt and provided for before the Treaty of Adrianople ? And again, if, as is the fact, the light house has been established only since Russia ac quired an interest in the delta of the Danube, it may be fairly inferred—first, that it was for the safety of vessels approaching the Danube that the lighthouse was required ; and, secondly, that the island on which it was erected was considered by Russia as a necessary appendage to the delta of the Danube, and as forming part of the territorial do main nt that district. Otherwise, Russia could not escape from the admission that in time of profound peace she took and maintained possession of a por tion of the Turkish territory to which she had no right. But on whatever ground Russia rested her occu pation of the island, it cannot be denied that she voluntarily abandoned the island when she aban doned the district, her acquisition of which by ces sion was followed by an occupation of the island, of which no specific mention was made in the act of cession; and she has now no reason to complain that the Porte, without waiting for a formal act of cession, which Russia—not having herself obtained possession by any similar act, and therefore herself not legally in possession —could not assume to make, should have resumed its occupancy of the desert island ; its right to which the Porte never renounced by any formal deed, and on which she, like Russia, finds it necessary to erect a lighthouse for the safety of vessels approaching the delta of the Danube, now again forming a part of the Turkish dominions. It is intimated in the Russian note that the pre sence of the English fleet in the Black Sea, and the continued occupation of the Principalities by Aus trian troops, are violations of the treaty; but these measures have been adopted at great cost and incon venience in consequence of acts on the part of Russia at variance with the treaty. The Russian Plenipotentiaries, in the 21st Pro tocol, and with reference to Article 20, declared, " Que les autorites Basses reinettront, des que cette operation (la delimitation) serait terminee, aux auto rites Moldaves la portion du territoire qui, d'apres la nouvelle delimitation, devra etre annexee a la Moldavia." But Russia, by claiming what she was not entitled to possess according to the terms of Article 90 of the treaty, has hitherto prevented the delimitation of the frontier. She has consequently not handed over to the Moldavian authorities the territories which is to be annexed to Moldavia ; and if the British fleet had not re-entered the Black Sea, and if the Austrian troops did not continue to occupy the Prin.