The Press. — London, England, 1856-12-13 00:00:00

1178 7' t". t 4, with marked attention by NAPOLEON, then at the head of the State with the title of First Consul. Mr. Fox deserved the admiration he received. It was to his efforts that the peace must mainlybe ascribed. It is charitable to suppose that he was sincere in his views, and that he believed a solid and sati*factory peace might be concluded with the dazzling person age who had given such brilliant evidence of his genius in arms and statesmanship. During his stay in Paris, Mr. Fox received on every side the most flattering expressions of admiration. The archives of France were thrown open to him that he might search them for materials for the work on which he was engaged. But in that novel scene it may well be supposed that his mind was directed rather to the polities of his own day than to those of the reign of the Grand Monarque and the career of the unfortunate JAMES 11. - - Like Mr. Fox, the Leader of Opposition now in Paris has consistently held that the general interests of England point to a sincere and cordial alliance with France. Mr. DISRAELI was a member of Lord DERBY'S Administra tion, which established an alliance with France under the rule of the present Empe ror on so just and sure a basis that it has remained firm during a great crisis in Euro pean affairs. But here the parallel ends. The Peace of Amiens was one of the shortest and least satisfactory on record. NAPOLEON became our ally for a few months, only to become again our bitter opponent. Events did not justify Mr. Fox's anticipations. There were circum stances in the constitution of the two Govern ments, and the position of the two countries, which rendered their friendship at that time impossible. Mr. Fox applauded the peace, and condemned the renewal of the war. Against the sentiment of his country, he leant to the side of the man and the nation who were considered to be our natural enemies ; and his visit to Paris had no other result than to show the high sense entertained of his talents and influence by the First Consul. Mr. DISRAELI visits Paris after the Emperor of the FRENCH has proved, for the whole period of his eight years' rule, that he is the firm, the warm, and the consistant ally of England His good faith has never wavered; he has made no profession which he has not kept ; he has en tered into no engagement which he has not strictly fulfilled. The flattering reception of Mr. Fox by the First Consul might seem to mark NAPOLEON'S conviction that, under any eircuin stances, he was secure of the support of a cu• tain party in Parliament. The cordial recep tion of Mr. DISRAELI, by the Emperor of the FRENCH, can only mark his grateful sense of the conduct of Opposition during that trying period in which the French and English Go vernments were engaged in contest with a common foe. In contrast to the state of affairs in 1802, the alliance with France is now recognised as part of our national policy. We perceive its advantages, and we see that it may be main tained without the slightest sacrifice of dignity or interest on either side. The Peace of Amiens was but an experiment. In spite of the support of the Opposition it did not an ewer. The French Alliance of our day has answered. It has had the good fortune to meet with the support of both our Go vernment and our Opposition. It has been directed to preserve the independence of nations, and to curb misguided ambition. So far as Mr. Disitaxtt's reception by the French Emperor is of a political complexion, and par takes of a public character—which can be our only reason for referring to it—it is a testi mony on the part of the head of the French Gov to the loyalty with which the - `'on fulfilled its duties during if Mr. DISRAELI'S visit to ised to have the slightest itics, it must be viewed as on the part of the Oppo good faith which has transaction of the Int in its relations with Government to the English Opposition f the war ; and again, i Paris can be auppos connection with politi an acknowledgment o onion of the signal , Ep acterised, ••-every , ~ erntliesolreznmen lana49 ...-- THE PRESS. REFORMATORY MOVEMENT. THE corrected Report of the National Refor matory meeting at Bristol has just been pub lished, and its appearance affords us an oppor tunity of saying a few words on what seems .to be the one great practical difficulty in carrying the scheme into general operation. It seems universally believed, that iu this movement is to be sought the ultimate solution of the pro blem which is now so perplexing us,—i. e., the disposal of our criminals ; and it seems also universally agreed that the advantages afforded to the inmates of Reformatory institutions are likely to create so much envy in the minds of our poorer population as to defeat the very end proposed. If the cure is made so attractive, there will be less aversion to the disease. This seems to be the one great obstacle with which our Juvenile Reformatories will have to contend. When we consider the wretchedness into which many of our poor population, especially in towns, are sunk, it seems difficult to imagine how the life of the Reformatory can be made less eligible Sufficient food, and shelter from the cold, are in themselves no slight boons to hungry lads who do not have a sufficient meal, perhaps, once in six months, and who have lived in rags from their birth. This is an attraction which appeals, of course, only to the very lowest of all. But when we add to this the higher advantages of education, and the prospect of becoming an object of in terest to persons of wealth and station, we can readily imagine the kind of sensation with which honest poverty would regard the insti tutions in question. Yet the points we have enumerated constitute the very lowest possible scale of advantages which can await a lad who becomes an inmate of them. What, then, are we to do ? There seems to us one answer, and one only, to the question : devise a system of institutions for the children of honest parents, which shall afford equal or greater benefits than the Juvenile Reform atory. This has already been tried in one or two instances, in the shape of industrial schools, and as yet promises well. The prin cipal embarrassments in such a plan would be the oft-mooted question of the boys' work, and the resolute opposition of the farmers. We would ask, too, is the instruction to be given gratis ? If so, we have often been told that gratuitous education is not prized by the poor. If not, the school would at once be placed at a disadvantage in comparison with the reformatory. We must, however, have some faith in the good sense of the people themselves to help us through these difficulties. No doubt the spectacle of a youthful felon enjoying advan tages which no course of good conduct could have gained for him is irritating to virtuous parents. But should these lines meet the eyes of the humbler classes, we would bid them remember that such irritation is not wholly reasonable. A poor man, if he breaks his leg, and is taken to the hospital, is sup plied there with luxuries he could never have commanded at home. Yet when his wife comes to see him, and finds him in a state of cleanli ness and comfort to which he is a stranger, does she therefore wish him to tumble down and break his leg again ? No ; better is health and a dinner of herbs than a sick bed with chicken and port wine. As it is, let the poor remember, with physical disease so is it with moral. Let none of them be jealous of the poor little criminal who seems for the moment better oft' than their own children He is a criminal. He is—and the fact can never be undone—what they would shudder to think of their own children becoming. We know this is a view of the question difficult for them to adopt. But having suggested it, we must leave it to their own reason to con vince them of its truth. SATURDAY, ATTACKS ON THE OPPOSITION. THE Goddess of Discord having permanently settled in the internal ranks of the " Liberals," it is deemed good policy by their advocates to try and sow dissension amongst the principal Conservatives of the Opposition. The trick can deceive nobody, though the manner in which it is carried out is calculated to disgust numbers. Abuse is place of argument, and odious personality instead of open and manly antagonism, are substituted by small rhetori cians, whose uncouth metaphors, and inaccu rate phraseology, suggest the notion that their literary apprenticeship was passed under " Mrs. Malaprop." The style of their attacks reeks of the inspiration of a " pot-house Junius." Those who write such productions are bad enough ; those who publish them are worse. The first degrade themselves ; the second commit their journals, aid disparage the credit of political writers. It is, under present circumstances, a dangerous policy for the calumniators of the Conservative party to poison political dis cussion by anonymous personality. The chiefs of the " Liberal " party occupy such peculiar relations towards each other, that one would think stone-throwing at their opponents ought to be the last resource adopted by those seeking to defend a Cabinet living in a glass house. We hoped that Liberal ingenuity would have discovered some other method of defend ing its principles than a recurrence to the scurrility and savagery of tone which belong to other days long gone by. Two can play at the game of " writing down." We do not think so meanly either of public opinion or of the character of the free press of Eng land, as that in the reign of Queen Vrcroars a systematic course of vulgar and impudent personal detraction directed against any public character could be tolerated. If such were the case, the evil would not stop there. It would spread to the highest places in the land, and the curse of corrupt journalism would leave a festering disease in English society which would produce enormous evils. We warn the public against the serious perils which may result from any attempt at sanctioning the slanderous style of writing Liberal " organs " have recently employed against the principal chiefs of the Opposition. ' It would be only falling into the trap set by insidious and unmanly adversaries if, upon this occasion, we were to defend Con servative chiefs from the gross writings to which we allude. It would be easy, indeed, to raise certain questions about the relations ex isting between the Premier arid " the fami lies," or about the Bedford Whigs being placed in abeyance ; or about Earl GREY being treated like Lord John RUSSELL, and placed amongst the " outs." We shall pass these points, and draw attention to the only public, as apart from personal, grounds of accusation employed in these censures on the Opposition. It is said, by way of reproach, that the Opposition has never had the manliness to come forward directly with an open vote of censure upon the Government, and has confined itself to skir mishes and desultory attacks. Why, what would the same censors have said if the Opposition had asked Parliament to censure the Cabinet ? Then there would have been a cry of " playing the game of the " enemies of England !" By turns it would have been called a Russsian, an Austrian, or a French Opposition ; just as in the days when Lord ASHBURTON was written down, twelve years ago, the friends of the present Premier used to call the then existing Ministry "an " American Cabinet." It is to the honour of the present Opposition that no factious course was pursued by it during the late war. Let it be remembered that Lord JOHN RUSSELL was significantly told at the commencement of the struggle in the Crimea that the Coalition Cabinet need not apprehend such courses as were pursued by the Whigs towards WELLES LEY in the Douro. That promise was kept to the letter. The Cabinet was not thwarted or opposed during the war. The Executive was