The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-08 00:00:00

444 THE PRESS, MAY 8, 1858. THE WEEK. The Governor-General of India has, we presume, now absolutely ter minated his connection with that country. Whatever his previous views or purposes may have been—whether he contemplated a prolonged stay, or a speedy return to England—he has taken a step so destructive of any confidence which the British Government may have wished to place in him, that his resignation, we apprehend, must immediately follow the receipt of the communication from the Home Government which has already been sent out. Considering the conquest of Oude to have been completed, Lord CANNING has issued a proclamation, which will be found in another column, in which he rewards six of the great proprietors of Oude by allowing them to keep their own estates ! and then, with respect to the rest of the kingdom, he declares the whole at one stroke confiscated to the British Government. This summary pro - ceeding shocks alike our feelings of justice and our ideas of policy. There must have been hundreds of landed proprietors in Oude who have simply been carried away by the stream, and have appeared to join the insurgents merely to save their lives. To strip all these at once and for ever of their possessions, seems rather more than even severe justice. But when we remember, at the same time, that we have but a few thousands of English troops in occupation of a kingdom abounding in native soldiers, the adoption of a course so harsh and so revolting to the native mind, does appear the most opposite to a sound policy that could well be conceived. The Government announces, without hesitation or delay, that it has signified its disapproval of the whole measure. There 'can be no doubt, we apprehend, that Lord CANNLXG'S next communica tion will contain a request to be informed when his is likely to reach India. The despatch of Lord ELLENBOROUGH, in disapproval of Lord CANNLNG . B proclamation, is a document of consummate ability. It has just been laid on the table of the House of Commons, but its length precludes our giving it in this publication. The general feeling in poli tical circles, is, that Lord CAN - NING's government in India is practically at an end. The consideration of the Lords' Amendments of the Oaths Bill, which Lord JOHN Russm.r. had himself set down for last evening, was suddenly deferred till Monday, when we shall be enlightened as to the course which the movers of that Bill propose to take. Up to this moment we are quite in the dark as to their plans and purposes. To reject the Lords' Amendments, in a brief and summary manner, is, of course, to lose the Bill. And yet the Bill is as Lord JoHN RUSSELL first proposed it, with the exception of a single proviso. He argued at length on the absur dity and indefeasibility of the present Oaths. Well, by the Bill as it now statute, those Oaths will be made what he desires to make them. All that the Lords have done is to strike out one special exemption. But the body of the Bill remains as Lord Joir RUSSELL first framed it. Will its pro moters in the Commons have the frankness to say, " Yes, but the main body of the Bill was a mere sham ; the only important point on it was found, as in a lady's letter, in the postscript. In striking out that one exception the Lords have struck out all for which we felt any care. Without that, the Bill is not worth having." We shall see on Monday what the real intentions of the promoters of the measure are. They can hardly expect that the Lords, after the greatly-increased majority of the present year, will now give way, and render nugatory all the struggles of past years. If the Bill, then, is to be abandoned, the shortest and easiest way of doing it will be the best. And will the matter end here ? We ask the question in no fear, but we ask it because Sir RICHARD BETHELL'S Resolutions are vauntingly theatened in Liberal circles. In other words, it is boasted that if Queen, Lords, and Commons, will not agree to alter an old statute of the realm, the Commons will do it for them ! In other words, the British Constitu tion is no longer to be any shelter from arbitrary power. To seat Baron RoTriscuu.n by a Resolution means much more than the words imply. If the House of Commons were to do no more than this—if it were merely to place Baron ROTHSCHILD on one of the benches of the House, and there leave him, then, truly, Baron ROTHSCHILD would owe the House little thanks. Every vote the Baron gave in that House would subject him to a penalty of 5001. Too expensive a game this, even for a millionaire. But would the House of Commons desire Baron Rants elms) so to take his seat ? If not,—if the House meant to go through with the affair, it would, by another Resolution, repeal sundry statutes of th e rea l m , an d d ec l are i tse lf the supreme power in England! It would threaten, and inflict pains and penalties on all who should put the law in force, be they sheriffs, or juries, or judges of the realm. It was a foresight of this, that made Lord CAMPBELL exclaim, some time back, in the House of Lords, that "he trusted the House of Commons would not send him to Newgate, but even if they did, he was none the less prepared to do his duty." And to this the struggle must come, if the House of Commons chooses to embark in a struggle. Thus, the real issue will be something far higher and more momentous, than the adoption or rejection of a proviso in an Act of Parliament. It involves the practical despotism of a majority in the House of Commons. Can it be true, that under the dangerous guidance of so unsafe a leader as Sir R. BETRELL,—"a constitutional states man," like Lord dons RUSSELL, actually contemplates embarking the house in so dangerous a struggle ? successor 11111 " The Independent Liberals" are so exultant at their recent gathering, noticed in our first page, that some of their number have notified to the Whig managers their resolution to support no future Cabinet, calling itself Liberal, which does not assign to them at least five seats in the Cabinet. They have even gone so far as to indicate the five individuals who they deem best qualified to assist in carrying on the Government. These are— Mr. HORSMAN. Mr. MILNER GIBSON. Sir J. TRELAWNY. I Mr. BRIGHT, and Mr. ROEBUCK. We have great faith in the sincere desire of both of the Whig leaders to propitiate, if possible, so large a body of malcontents ; but we do not expect that either of them will, as yet, bend so low as to consent to form a Cabinet of this kind. For, be it always remembered, that a Cabinet in which Mr. JOHN BRIGHT has a seat will be Mr. JOHN BRIGHT'S Cabinet. No one need expect that this man of peace will be another Bernal Osborne so soon as he is incased in the livery of office. We should like to be present at a Cabinet Council in which Lord JOHN RUSSELL advocated one view, and Mr. JOHN BRIGHT another ! Meanwhile, uneasy at the present state of things, some of the leading Whigs talk of a grand dinner at Stafford-house, at which my Lords PALMERSTON and JOHN RUSSELL are to be formally reconciled. But the awkwardest feature in this part of the case is, that Lord JOHN RUSSELL says that he has no quarrel with Lord PALMERSTON, and that he sees no occasion for any reconciliation. On the whole, although it is impossible ever to be safe from "Lich field-house Compacts" and the like, we feel inclined to say, that the condition of the Liberal camp is one of more hopeless division and distrac tion than ever. At Wednesday's meeting the 120 appointed two regular " whips" to give their corps something like organization. But they own no leader; and when a declaration of "principles" was talked o 1 it was generally fdt that it would be dangerous to go into that subject ! Lord EBURY'S motion, though it could not succeed, was calculated to do good. It could not succeed, because the case is one in which, while all agree as to the want, few can agree as to a remedy. Nothing human is perfect ; and the English Liturgy is human. Yet we see defects in St. Paul's Ca thedral, and in Westminster Abbey, without a thought of attempting to remedy them. We think of the risk—we think of our own weakness and fallibility, and we leave those glorious works to stand, with their faults, rather than attempt to patch or mend them. So, in the present case, few or none were found to dispute Lord EBURY'S statements, and yet scarcely a man felt inclined to give his vote for an experiment. One other powerful reason for inaction lay behind. Many of the faults or defects complained of were not inherent in the Liturgy ; they were capable of amendment without a Commission, or a Convocation. or an Act of Parliament. For instance, if the Morning Prayer, a sermon, and the Lord's Supper for 200 communicants require a devotion of three hours, or three hours and a half is there any difficulty in altering this arrangement? Not a few churches have already altered the ordinary practice--some by an early Communion; others by making it what its name denotes, "the Lord's Supper." And even more than this—there are churches where the Morning Prayer and the Litany are separated, and used, one at one part of the day, and the other at another hour. In some places the Morning Prayer is used in the forenoon, the Evening Prayer at half-past three, and the Litany, with a sermon, followed by the Lord's Supper, in the evening. These are re-arrangements—perhaps innovations; but they are increasing ; they have episcopal sanction, and therefore there is the less necessity for such a step as Lord EBI:RY wished us to take. It is a pleasant spectacle when veteran statesmen lay aside for a moment the weight of empires, cease for the time to consider eivitalem quid deceat status, and recreate their " God-like souls" with the charm, of art and literature. Two such opportunities have been afforded this week by the gatherings for which the present merry month is famous. Lord DERBY and some of his colleagues were present at the Royal Academy dinner last Saturday, and Lord PALMERSTON at the Literary Fund dinner on Tuesday last. It is curious to observe the different style of treat ment accorded to these kindred subjects by the late and the present premier. The latter, as usual, was gay, brilliant, and spirited. Everything shone before him in its brightest colours. He was greeted with repeated bursts of laughter, and seemed to have infected all present with his own good humoured vivacity. Lord PALmEits - rox, on the other hand, was unusually grave and sentimental. "Oh! who can tell how hard it is to climb," &C., was the burden of his speech. The disappointments of authors who found themselves little beyond the bottom of the hill at the moment when they fondly fancied themselves at the top of it—the man of genius wrestling with adverse fate, and an unappreciating public—seemed on this occasion the topics most agreeable to his tongue. lie dwelt with feeling on the uncertainty which beset the literary man as to where he should find his Eldorado; and, generally speaking, may be said to have taken anyth in g but an after-dinnerish view of the profession of literature. Yet almost as many sad stories may be told of struggling artists as of struggling auth ors. IVhile, on the other hand, we should certainly have imagined that if there was a single bright spot on an otherwise lugubrious theme, Lord P.ti. MERSTON was the man to have picked it out. Yet his address of 11 ednes day last was more like a prose imitation of certain passages in Jusenal than the sprightly saltatory tone which usually characterizes the Jud icious . One. The change is as remarkable as that in the behaviour 0 1 , RICHARD 11. "Let's talk of worms." What the tranformation po rtend ' we know not. But we observe it with considerable concern.