The Press. — London, England, 1855-12-01 00:00:00

00 gave the sinecure of the Privy_ Seal to " hereditary waverer," Lord fiaattowey. The Premier paves his road with egg shells Taking this comical slide from before our eyes, we can see neither strength nor grace in such ap pointments. Mr. RALPH OSBORNE Would remind us that there is " his Grace the Duke," and that our remark should, therefore, like Mr. OSBORNE'S public speeches, be withdrawn. But we shall allow it to stand ; for, of all the elaborate failures in our modern public life (and they are numerous), the little Duke with the mighty airs is the greatest. From his nineteenth year the Duke of ARGYLL has been always putting himself forward; and with pamphlets, speeches, lectn.ies, soirees, his Grace has disputed the precedence with the advertising vans. The Earl of DERBY at a single stroke settled him. His Grace was conceited enough to think that, because on one occasion Lord DERBY did not reply to his speeches, therefrom the palm of victory rested with the Duke, who crowed lustily. " My Lords," said the Earl of DERBY, " a short " time since there was one of those persons " called navvies,' who was in the habit of " allowing his wife to beat him. He was a " very large man, and she was only a small " woman. The neighbours asked him why he " permitted her, 'Oh ! never mind,' said he, "' it amuses her, and it don't hurt me.' " The shouts of laughter which greeted this al lusion, told in Lord DERBY'S brilliant style, were almost loud enough to have been heard at St. Martin's-le-Grand. How Lord PALMERSTON hopes to get strength by Lord HARROWBY is a mystery. The new Lord Privy Seal has a prodigious stock of 81-assimilated knowledge. Ho has nearly as many general ideas about everything in par ticular as Lord Been:mum& himself: he only wants genius, eloquence, practical capacity, and clear purposes, in order to be a distin guished leader. Like many other walking encyclopfedias, Lord HARROWBY confounds his attainments, which are great, with his abilities, which are small—hie familiarity with past facts for comprehension of present emergen. cies. He might appropriately be addressed in the very words employed by the Duke of WEL LTNOTON to a nobleman whose questions, leading to nothing, had occupied the time of a com mittee—" My Lord, you have had too much " education for your abilities." " But then there is Mr. BAINES." Ah ! that appointment is the primest piece of claptrap. It was intended as a bait to catch those who talk about men sprung from " the people." Unfortunately, Mr. BaiNes did sot rise by his own energy. His father was, indeed, a man of really remarkable qualities, and stamped a distinction on the name which the son can never equal. With the cry of " the right man, Ic ," we could understand how a Cabinet would like to have accepted such a public character as the late eminent Mr. BAINES ; but the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancas ter is a case of mere conventional rise, such as is every day seen. It is really too ridiculous to talk of " strength" being acquired by giving another sinecure post to a gentleman who, on the ground of physical exhaustion, resigned his place at the Poor-Law Board. Mr. BAINES never made a telling speech in Parliament, or at the bar. Nature never intended him for an orator, and art has not amended original defi ciencies. " But it is meant for the Dissenters. It is a " capital bait for them." That is a good joke, indeed. By way of helping a discordant Cabinet, the Dissenting element is introduced. We do not believe that the Dissenters are such dupes as to be flattered with a member of their body being made a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. They are not quite so foolish as electioneering partisans suppose. They can distinguish between the late and the present Mr. BAINES. They know that Mr . BAINES had a father before him, who started his son in the world with wealth, influence, and connection. Even the President of the Board of Control knows that, to aristocratic ears, the name of " Talbot Baines " sounds just as well no " Vernon Smith." But it is said that Lord STANLEY OF ALDER LEY will strengthen the Ministry. If so, it is singular that, during six years of his weak Cabinet, Lord JOHN RUSSELL 340Ver asked husi THE PRESS. in. Is it hoped that constituencies of dim perceptions would confound him with the " Lord STANLEY," who would, indeed, be a source of strength to any Cabinet ? Lord STANLEY OF ALDEHLEY has been for nearly thirty years in public life, and he has never brilliantly distinguished himself. He is neither an orator nor au administrator ; and his connection, though what is popularly known as " long-tailed," is not first-rate. To be sure his Lordship is a great hand at elec tioneering, and it was probably in contempla tion of a desperate and hazardous throw of political dice that his Lordship was invited to help in rattling the boxes. The most comical part of the recent changes is that they were made simultaneously with the Ministerial organ's confession of the Cabinet's want of orators in the House of Commons. Out of the four new appointments three are members of the Upper House, and Mr BANES is the reserve of eloquence relied upon by the Premier for the sessional wars. Caricatures which do not make people laugh are us useless as skates in Jamaica, and clap traps which will not go down with the most gullible are sure to reooii on the charlatans who concoct them. Our Premier is a wag, and is chief grinner at his own performances. His parasites com pare hint with CHATHAM, but his deeds recal the imitators of GRIMALDI. The last appoint ments were surely gazetted by " Mr. Merry man," who prepares his broad laughs down at " Broadlands." MR. DISRAELI ON SATISFACTORY TERMS OF PEACE. ON reference to the 138th volume of " Han sard's Parliamentary Debates," we find an authentic report of Mr. Disraeli's speech on the Bth of June, 1855, delivered in the debate on the Prosecution of the War. From that speech we make an extract, which is of the highest importance at the present time as containing the conditions upon which, in Mr. Disraeli's opinion, a just, permanent, and honourable Peace might be concluded. Mr. Disraeli said : I now oome to the question of the preponderance of Russia as regards Turkey ; and I think that the noble lord [ J. Russell ] and his colleagues, and I am afraid, too, that many of us, are apt to consider this question of preponderance as something novel iu politics, as a new phenomenon in our political experienoe, and as a problem to which it affords no solution. Now, what is the preponderance of a great power as regards a weaker State, in the independence and integrity of which Europe has an interest? Is there anything strange in such a conjuncture? Why, the history of modern Europe is the history of attempts to check and control the preponderance of great States over contiguous weaker ones in the independence of which Europe has had an interest.. We have heard a great deal of the designs of Russia, and we have had a picture drawn of those designs by a law officer of the Crown, which is enough to make us tremble. Ido not suppose that Russia is freer from ambitious designs than any other great power ; but is Russia the only country that has ever exhibited designs upon the independence of weaker neighbours ? Why, in the case of the designs entertained by that vast military empire, France, upon the Low Countries, there was the precise parallel of a powerful State attempting to encroach upon the independence of a weaker State, in the preservation of whose integrity Europe had an interest. Were not the designs of France as well matured, and as continuously carried on by individuals possessed of as great ingenuity, as great ability, and as great energy as any of the sovereigns or statesmen ef Russia of whom we have • heard so much? Why, Cardinal Richelieu was the ' first man who conceived the plan of subduing the Netherlands. Louis XIV. invaded the Nether , lands, and Napoleon the Great conquered the Nether lands. And yet. at the present day, the Netherlands are independent, and the preponderance of France, which for a century and a half was exerted upon that battle-field, has been baffled, and at no period perhaps in the history of France has the conquest of the Netherlands been less a feature in the political system of that country than it is at the present moment. Thus we see that there are means by which the preponderance of a great power over a weaker may be controlled ; and the question to consider is, whether the project of the Government is the best means of controlling the preponderasoe SATURDAY, . - - of Russia with respect to Turkey? To judge of that, it may be well to consider how it was that in the case of the Low Countries the ambitious designs of France, which were carried on continuously for so long a period, and by men more fertile in resources than any three men who ever lived, Richelieu, Louis XIV., and Napoleon, were baffled, and the independence of that country preserved. The united will of Europe established the neutrality of Belgium, one of the battle-fields of Europe, but I do not see that the noble lord or his colleagues have at any time ever started the idea of establishing the neutrality of the Principalities, another battle-field of Europe. Switzerland was one of the battle - fields of Europe, and its independence was menaced by the preponderance of Austria; but the Congress of Vienna established the neutrality of Switzerland, as the Congress of London did that of Belgium ; and Switzerland also is independent. What I complain of in the negotiations of the Government is, that I see no evidence of a recurrence to those means by which statesmen of great ability and unquestioned reputation have attempted to deal with difficulties similar to those with which the Government have now to grapple. I do not ask the house to pledge itself to the prin ciple of establishing the neutrality of the Principali ties ; all that I ask them to do is to entertain the idea, and to well consider it. Let me, in a few short sentences, place before the house what the effect upon Turkey would be if the Principalities were declared neutral ground. The frontier of Turkey on the Danube would be reduced, and it is on that fron tier that Turkey is exposed to the greatest danger. In such a case, the frontier of Turkey would extend only from Reni to the Black Sea, and let us consider what would be the consequence it Russia attempted to invade Turkey on that side. The Russian army would have to pass a large river, and then to enter on the fell and pestiferous steppes of the Dobrudscha, to pass the fortresses of Schumla and Varna on its left, and Silistria on its right. I see no probability that in the course of ages the Russians would be able to overcome such difficulties ; and am I then to be told that there are no means of checking the prepon derance of Russia with regard to Turkey, except those means which have been suggested by the Government? I say that it is the bounden duty of this house to consider whether the scheme proposed by the Government appears to be the one most likely to effect the objects which they have in view. With regard to the Asiatic frontier, nature is not so favor able to diplomacy, inasmuch as there are no natural barriers; but the noble lord will not pretend that it is impossible to establish artificial barriers. The noble lord is,no doubt,well acquainted with the Barrier Treaty and is aware that on various occasions it has been stipu lated that fortresses should be erected, to be periodi cally inspeoted by a commissioner. It was not thought derogatory to the honour of the King of Holland, or to the princes of Germany, that Wellington, as Marl borough had done before, should inspect fortresses raised as artificial barriers in those countries. Fort resses on that principle might be erected at Erze roum and Kars, and on other points of the Asiatic frontier; and the same principle might be extended to the Bosphorus, and a fortress erected under the constant inspection of English commis sioners. We all know the crudeness and inutility of the scheme of the Government, which has resulted in failure, and I therefore venture to place be fore the house and the country these materials for thought, and to endeavour to show that there are practical means of controlling the preponderance of Russia without humiliating her; that there are other means than those proposed by the Government, by which Turkey may be placed in a position which will, for a long time, so far as she is concerned, secure the peace of Europe, and which will connect her more closely with the European family of nations. The ideas which I have advanced have been sanctioned and put in practice by great men, and I think them well worthy of the attention of the house. There is one other point which ought always to be borne in mind, and that is—the condition of the eastern coast of the Black Sea. The fortresses on that coast have, with 1 the exception of two which are held by the Turks, 1 been blown up, and before concluding a peace, if you restore that coast to Russia, it might be stipulated that those fortresses should not be rebuilt, and that the two held by the Turks should also be blown up, when they leave them. That is not a stipulation which would wound the feelings or injure the pride of any nation, however great ; but it is one which would render imperfect the military communications ' of Russia in those waters, and which would, more than any other condition that could be devised, con solidate the power of Turkey, and secure the posses sion of Constantinople to the Ottoman empire. will not, however, pursue this theme, as many other opportunities will be afforded to me for discussing it. What I have been anxious on the present occasion to do, when these erect schemes of the Government are placed before us, and when we are told that peace cannot be effected, because these inefficient and useless methods have not been successful at the conferences, is to show, first, that it is our duty tile denounce such ineffectual propositions ; and, in th I 4/ 1 IN \ 1..