The Press. — London, England, 1856-02-02 00:00:00

98 quainted with the Continent, feel miserably dis enchanted of their hopes .at finding that we are to return to the status quo—for the result is nothing better. These complainants lament that the balance of power remains the same, when the Prime Minister, four years ago, talked flippantly about sketching certain changes in the map of Europe. There is, a'so, they say, an air of subordination to ex ternal influences which ill befits the greatness of a country like England. At any time, they reason, this appearance of weakness would be unworthy of the national renown ; but after the talk of Lord PALMERSTON, and the artifices to which he had recourse, there is something insulting in the cool assurance assumed by the head of the Cabinet. On the other hand, there is another class of persons, less intelligent, and less familiar with continental questions. These latter ranks 'look with commercial eagerness for some tan gible results proportionate to the national sacrifices. Half our army was lost; a hundred millions have been added to our colossal debt ; vast personal sacrifices have been made— what have we got? The capital sunk, the scandals of routine, the vacillation of the Coalition, the insincerity of Lord JOHN RUSSELL (connived at by the Premier, until Lord JOHN blabbed upon himself). These are points on which loud and angry words are heard in the public meetings of the deluded democrats who looked up to Lord PALMERSTON as a great upholder of the rights of nationalities. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, some years since, talked of " the jargon of nationality." The phrase was not without felicity, when applied to the style of speeches and demon strations encouraged by the Prime Minister. It cannot be wonderful that such a Minister —playing such a part—always inconsistent, and often most indiscreet, should cause strong feelings of disappointment. Vast numbers feel that they were hurried beyond them selves in hurraying for the Premier. Lord PALMERSTON is now found out and seen through even by classes removed from high political life. It is now felt that the gentlemen of England, Whig and Conservative, were always right in keeping him for his life from • the leadership of party. MR. DISRAELI'S DINNER. THE union now happily prevailing among the leading members of the Conserva tive party was signally shown this week by the guests who responded to Mr. DISRAELI'S invitation on Wednesday. Never before did the banquet of any Opposition Leader in the Lower House at the open ing of session exhibit such an array of names, repr(3entative of rank and property, and associated with proud historical associa- Lions. The great ducal houses of Richmond, Marlborough, Rutland, and Montrose, were represented by the Earl of MARCH, the Mar quis of BLANDFORD, the Marquis of G :ember quis 01 ZLANDFORD, the Marquis of GRANBY, and Lord WILLIAM GRAHAM. The rising aris- tocracy of the age, combining capacity for affairs with first-rate connections, was seen in the Marquis of CHANDOS and Lord STANLEY, Lord ROBERT CECIL also, 011 whom so mnny eyes are fixed as a future chief, and who bids fair to uphold his great English name, • was amongst the guests of the Member for Bucks. The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE, and the great Protestant connection of that distin- guished family, was represented by Lord • . EDWIN HILL. Nor was the powerful race of the Lowthers without a gallant representative. \ . Sir WATKIN WYNNE could testify how warmly A . s • , **.great Commoners of the principality fe e l . ;.. - --- .' I ,N,l t.. jra!ds the brilliant Leader of the C onserve 4 , 4 • *Vain the House of Commons. The eminent • . et Sir JOHN YARDE B ULLER , on w h om Si r - 7 - T ,BEEL used to lavish so m an y comp li- t ß in '-;' ' also there to answer for the manly rii , %.. tlieL,_ . - at' . . evon ; and so were Si r W ILLIAM dttl wi ll wait a throng, of the " uucoronetted Lord of I t°4 THE PRESS. nobility," real old Commoners, whose rank the Crown never gave, and never can take away, like the Egertons, Gore Langtons, Howard Vyses, Palk! ? and Knightleys. We must e*pkess ddr gratification that the brilliant Member fok Hertford, Sir EDWARD LYrrox of Knehworth, was amongst that goodly Company. Sir JOHN PAKINOTON and Sir Jona TaoLtorE were also there, along wit Lord BARRING TON, Lord NEWPORT, LON ELmutt, Lord LoVanit, Lord GALWAY, and estimable representatives of the families of Yorke and Clive. We repeat, never previously has there been seen so powerful an array of wealth and connection at the table of an Opposition leader. To have been the host of such a company was an honour which might well nerve any Englishman with manly pride. No one now can dispute the moral power which rallies to the call of the Member for Bucks. Such a union destroys all falsehoods about dissensions, circulated by mercenary whis perers. We all recollect how Sir ROBERT PEEL confessed his pride at being at the head of " the gentlemen of England," yet he never met Parliament with a more united party in the Lower House than that represented by the distinguished guests who last Wednesday assembled at the board of Mr. DISRAELI. THE INDIA BILL OF 18'53. ACCORDING to the terms of the India Bill of 1833, its provisions were to expire in April, 1854. It became the duty, therefore, of Lord DERBY, soon after his accession to power in 1852, to propose committees of both Houses to inquire into and report on the best plan for the future government of that country. His Lordship in doing so admitted that he had personally a less intimate acquaintance with Indian affairs than with the affairs of the other parts of the British empire —affairs which had come more directly under his cognisance as a Minister of the Crown. On the one hand, he said the existing sys tem had been highly applauded ; on the other, it has been as loudly condemned ; and under these circumstances he had deemed it best to keep in mind the judicious advice of Lord ELLENBOROUGH to himself and to Mr. HERRIE3. This was to pledge himself in the outset to no particular system, but to reeommend the appointment of committees embracing peers and members of all parties, whose duty it would be to make the fullest and most searching inquiry into the past, and thus afford the best means of judging as to the best possible future system for govern ing India. Nothing certainly could be more wise and patriotic than this proposal. In accordance with it committees were appointed, and various petitions presented to both Houses by the Earls of ELLENBOROUGH, ALBEMARLE, and HARROWBY ; Lord MONTEAGLE and others were referred to these petitions, which were accom panied by speeches of the greatest feeling and highest ability, pointing out the numerous grievances under which the natives of India laboured. Matters thus seemed in admirable train for a really sound and dispassionate ex amination of this great question, when the public exigences required that the Parlia ment should be dissolved. On the opening of the new Parliament, Lord DERBY still being Premier, the committees were reappointed with such alterations as the changes in the representation had rendered necessary. In all other respects they remained the same, and they took up their inquiries at the point where they had been broken off at, the disso lution. Shortly after this, Lord DERBY'S Ministry resigned their offices, and the ill starred Coalition assumed the reins of power. The first acts of the new Ministry had rela tion entirely to the consolidation as far as possible of their own power, and the Indian Committees were allowed to continue their labours uninteruptedly. But on the 3rd of June, before their labours had been nearly SATURDAY, completed, and before even the evidence taken by them had been put into the hands of members, Sir CHARLES WooD, the new Presi dent of the India Board. .asked leave to b r i ng in a bill for the govetnment of India, and leave was granted. Great was the indignation of the leading Opposition and independent members at this deliberate sacrifice of all preliminary inquiry ; but the Coalition was all powerful, the was breaght in and set d own for a second reading on the 23rd June. Lord STANticy, to meet the difficulty, brought for ward his celebrated amendment, to the effect that further information was necessary to enable Parliament to legislate with advantage for the permanent government of India, and that in that bite period of the session it was inexpedient to proceed with a measure which, while it disturbed existing arrangements, could not be considered as a final settlement. In short, ho maintained that the course adopted by his noble father, when Premier, should be adhered to, and that legislation should not take place till the reports of the Committee of Inquiry were before both Houses. His arguments were sufficient to convince any man open to conviction, and were fully ac quiesced in and supported by many members on all sides of the House. A most admirable speech from Mr. DlSRAELl—followed but not answered by one from Lord Jottx RUSSELL— cIosed on the fourth night the debate. The division was one of the most curious that has been ever witnessed. Nearly all the Ministerial supporters of the highest talent out of the Ministry entered the lobby with Lord STAVLEY, while on the other hand many Conservatives supported the Government on this occasion. The cause of their doing so is not very intelligible, seeing that the course proposed by Lord STANLEY was strictly and exactly that which Lord DERBY had, when Premier, laid down. The probability is that they were partly misled by Mr. HE RRIES, who seems himself to have been under a misappre hension as to the course Lord DERBY'S Govern ment had intended to pursue, and partly under the influence of that spirit of apathy which always more or less characterises every party after a defeat which has deprived it of power. It has been said by some Ministerial prints that the true reason was the unwillingness of certain members of the party to enter a lobby into which had marched Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. COBDEN, Mr. BLACKETT, Mr. PHILLIMORE, and Mr. PHINN. Had the motion originated with any of these gentlemen it would certainl3 have been not unnatural for members of the great Conservative party to hesitate before granting it their support ; though even then the exam ple of their leaders might have been enough to convince the most sceptical, that in doing so they could not very well be wrong. But to suppose that any true Conservative could hesitate, on such grounds as these, to support a motion framed by Lord STANLEY, seconded by Mr DISRAELI, and which was entirely in the spirit of the policy which Lord DERBY had himself proclaimed, is to suppose what we may be sure never did and never could take place. Lord ELLENBOROUGH had, in his speech of the 13th of May,on the Manchester petition regarding India, laid down the true light in which statesmen 'should view such accessions of aid on any particular point of legislation : He received such recruits to the good cause of Indian reform with great satisfaction. A striking change had certainly taken place in public opinion during the last fourteen months, with respect to the Indian Government. The conclusions at which public opinion seemed to have arrived had always been his conclusions. For a party to bend its policy to catch oppo nents' votes is an art often practised by the Whigs, but which we have always repudiated. Independent support, however, when honest and conscientious, is a tribute to truth which any connection may fairly accept; and the more especially when the general divergence of opiniJn is so great as to make such agree ment necessarily casual, and the remotest suspicion therefore of unworthy motives on either side impossible. It has been well observed that there is a Nemesis in politics which amply punishes, sooner or later, those who violate political laws• Thus Sir CHARLES Woon's fulsome eulogies of the Company in L 853 had to be followed in 1855 by the presentation of the Torture Report, .