The Press. — London, England, 1857-03-28 00:00:00

ta . • . ~f ...• No. 204.—V0L.V. ge Vrtss. LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 28, 1857. Lord PALMERSTON'S connection. Ts it for him to talk of discordant elements who has no other chance of retaining power than by play ing off parties against each other, deluding both with expectations he has not the slightest in tention to fulfil ? Lord PALMERSTON takes credit to himself for accepting office, after he had been expelled from power with his colleagues. It is true that Lord DERBY had declined to form an Administration when he thought that he could not command that amount of Parlia mentary support which would insure a strong Government. But no one knows better than Lord PALMERSTON that Lord DERBY was pre pared to undertake the responsibility of power if other combinations had failed. Lord DERBY only wanted some kind of assurance that the country might not be disturbed by another change of Ministry at a time when it was ne cessary that the national energies should be concentrated for the prosecution of the war. Lord PALMERSTON embraced a risk from which Lord DERBY shrank. Does that of itself give him a title to gratitude ? Would not any fellow picked up out of the streets have done as much ? The lower you descend in the social scale, the more plentiful are the aspi rants for office, however difficult or responsi ble it may be. There is nothing commenda ble in the selfish ambition which shinks from no risk to compass its ends, and more parti cularly if the risk be not its own. Lord PALMERSTON intrigued for the Premiership, and, because he intrigued successfully, he claims recognition as a patriot. Shrewd man of the world as he is, does he suppose any one can be deceived by this glaring hypocrisy? He carried on the war with " energy and " vigour." He omits to state that the first act of his ministry was to negotiate for peace, while the siege of Sehastapol was still in sus pense. In that negotiation, Lord JOHN was his scapegoat. No ono was more ready than the Premier to conceal all that passed at Vienna. Mr. DISRAELI'S motion condemning the " ambiguous language and uncertain con " duct" of the Ministry after the return of Lord JOHN, disconcerted the schemes of the Cabinet conspirators. No ono was more ready to applaud the warlike harangues of the Noble Lord the Member for London than the Premier, though no one knew so well all that had passed, and was passing. When the fraud was discovered, Lord JOHN was the Jonas to be thrown overboard, though every member of the Cabinet was equally implicated with himself in the deceit that had been practised. The Prime Minister claims credit for the firmness of his Government in overcoming the difficulties which arose out of the Treaty of Paris. Not a word is said of the cause of those difficulties. They originated, not as Lord PALMERSTON endeavoured to show, through the faithlessness of Russia, but through the blunders of himself and Lord CLARENDON. They neglected to stipulate for one great object of the war, and then endeavoured to cover their ladies by assuming the airs of a bully. The difficulties were at last removed by means which Lord PALMERSTON, with the applause of his adherents, declared should never have his consent—the assembly of a new Conference ; and then all his roystering of " no concession" settled down into a compromise, which, if earlier adopted, would have saved the nation some millions of war expenditure. The occupation of the Black Sea by a British STAMPED UNSTAMPED..FIVEPENCE. fleet after peace was concluded was but a feint to cover a diplomatic blunder. It is boasted that the Opposition founded no successful attack upon the Neapolitan or Persian papers. This exultation is a little pre mature, for Naples may yet prove a stumbling block in the Premier's way. The Opposition felt that the Chinese question was quite strong enough by itself. One glaring proof of unfitness for the helm is as good as a hundred. A t Canton we saw his policy in the fruit ; at Naples only in the bud. In that part of his address which relates to the Canton proceedings, the falsehood is bold and shameless. The paragraph is so worded as to convey an impression that tbe t` insolent barbarian "—which is his mode of describing the Imperial High Commissioner — had begun to poison and proscribe British subjects before the outbreak of hostilities. For this scandalous perversion of fact there can be no excuse. Nothing whatever has transpired to show that up to the commence ment of hostilities on our part, the Chinese were not perfectly peaceable and friendly. Because all the most eminent men in Par liament have condemned a precipitate and cruel policy towards China, Lord PALMERSTON has the front to speak of them as willing to make the humiliation and degradation of their country a stepping-stone to power. When will Lord PALMERSTON learn that there can be no humiliation in the exercise of all the higher principles of our being—as justice, truth, and humanity ? It is the opposite of these quali ties which really degrade a nation, and which makes power not honoured but detested. With all his official experience he has yet to learn the catechism of British statesmanship. His language is so opposed to all the rules of English policy, so totally different from any sentiments that have ever fallen from his pre decessors in the Premiership, that high-prin cipled men recoil from it with a shudder, and feel that no terms can be too strong to express their sense of its thorough barbat ity. Is it to be supposed that Lord PALMERSTON is the only man of his day who cares for the honour ,of England, and that all her states men save he are in a conspiracy to lower her fame ? Have all the eminent men who in past times condemned his tortuous and tur bulent proceedings been in a league to depre ciate him? The Duke of WELLINGTON was not likely to be backward in asserting th• honour of his country ; yet in that great man's whole career there is to be found no example of that arrogance (perfectly savage in all that relates to China) which the Noble Viscount seems to think necessary as an evidence of British spirit . The caricature is too gross to last any longer. He has played his last card in the dissolution, and lost the trick. When beaten he might have retired with some dignity. He could not take a hint ; he desires some inti mation of a coarser kind. We are much mistaken if the new Parliament will long wait an occasion for administering it. WHICH SHALL formed which would .irlkile "WHICH SHALL BE T •'• ,i''' . ...""vAl) 'd THIS question is asked by theme '•'' : i- r.. 4 2:' 5 electors of Tiverton with app: eraP • " : . ---. - . 41n; .4 s i . d, ~,, that an answer must be retu rtt, . r- .. , W alp i 'LI 1 ;;; the Administration of which . : . I ( '' l'e t l refr'd ' ..i." 0 11. I 'N,‘ He assumes that no other Go -0. .14 .4 ;1,,: 1 ,1 . formed which would upholg i:. , ' ; 1 0 ii —'4oo. I LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 28, 1957. THE address of the Premier is not meant for the electors of Tiverton only. It is intended for the nation. By this manifesto Lord PAL-. MERSTON desires to place his policy in the fairest light, and to secure for it support. He is his own advocate, and we may be quite sure that the good points of his Administra tion will lose nothing from being described by himself. His modesty will never iniuce him to veil what he considers to be his per fections. An English Minister in addressing his countrymen should above all things be care ful that his statements fairly represent the truth. To garble a case is to insult the public understanding. It may for a time be ap plauded by faction, but no long period can elapse before the intelligence of the country predominates, and then the falsehood will be severely chastised. Lord PALMERSTON speaks as if he were addressing an intoxicated popu lace ; each succeeding address is more coarse and offensive in its tone than the last. Like a villainous publican, he puts more vitriol into his spirits in proportion as his customers become more excited by their libations. The addresses of a Minister to his country men are State papers, which form part of political history. They may be fervid, but they ought not to be false and insolent. Nothing is gained, and much will be lost, by abandoning that political chivalry which pre scribes courteous terms in the most violent contests. Lord PALMERSTON affects the ribaldry of DANIEL O'CONNELL ; he indulges in the same unscrupulous assertion; and might success fully imitate the great Agitator could he but command his wit. The celebrated " base, " bloody, and brutal," are surpassed by the Billingsgate showered upon Commissioner YEH. At the very commencement of his address, Lord PALMERSTON misrepresents the question now before the country. It is, according to him, whether the present Administration shall continue to hold power, or whether it shall be transferred to the " discordant elements'' which passed a vote of censure on her Majesty's Government. Does Lord PALMERS TON really suppose that if he had resigned office on occasion of the majority against him, the Government of the State would have been a prey to " discordant elements "? He knows better. Lord DERBY would have re placed Lord PALMERSTON ; and a Conservative Administration, formed on the basis of that of 1852, but in all probability more compre hensive, and embracing a larger amount of ability and experience, would have succeeded to the worn-out Whig connection which serves under the Noble Viscount. If there were discordant elements in the majority on the China question, were there none in the minority ? What are we to think of the Marquis of BLANDYORD pairing off with Mr. THOMAS DUNOOMBE, and such Tory squires as Mr. BENTINCE with advanced Radicals of that the 1 MI