The Press. — London, England, 1856-05-10 00:00:00

484 garchy. They do not much resort to the Pall-mall clubs ; on the contrary, they rather pretend to disparage the " Clubs" for their partisanship,' and they talk mellifluously about " Independence." These are the Tar tuffe 3 of the Treasury Benches, and their pro ceedings deserve more attention than has hitherto been bestowed upon Tkey have escaped notice by their apparently not acting under a recognised leader. But Mr. HArma is to them what O'CONNELL Wll5 to the " tail," and Ministers connive at their factitious clamour out of season, and reward their season aide servility in time. These members, considered separately, are of the most ephemeral character as politicians. As flies do not survive a summer, so most of these buzzing little folk will not be heard of at another general election. Their places will be filled by another swarm as small and as voracious of Treasury sweetmeats. Formerly this class of " Liberals" was not to be met with in Parliamentary circles ; and it would really be a curious speculation, whether they did not rise into activity by the pernicious spectacle of the " Tail Members." They are in all respects a most dangerous class of re presentatives. They do not belong to the popular and platform " Liberals." who wish to Americanise our British Constitution. They are too insignificant, and too sparingly gifted with talent, to aspire to becoming chiefs of a party. During the present session they have been more conspicuous than ordinarily. They have taken advantage of the absence of the Manchester chiefs, and they have plied their votes with assiduity, and have had a prosper ous time of it. Now, let us ask the question, " How far can " these mock Liberals be accepted as repre " sentative politicians?" A negative answer must be returned to that query when we balance their votes against the opinions of the country. They panegyrise the Ministers who achieved the peace, and yet their con stituents' do not reciprocate the feelings of artificial joy with the diplomatic prowess of Lord CLARENDON. The country is frigid on the subject upon which their disembodied corps of Treasury janissaries are in an affected flutter of rapture. As discordant as per formers in a Dutch concert on the leading questions of the day, these Liberals of the lip have all acted in harmony when Lord PAL MERSTON was tottering to his fall. The man ner in which they extricated themselves from their dilemmas would be most amusing, if it were not more disgusting. Mr. LAYARD, in his speech on Monday night, made a remark which is strikingly suggestive of the character of these mock Liberals. " Large ships," said the Member for Ayles bury, " had proved to be of very little advan " tage in this war. What was there to prevent " Russia' from having a swarm of small gun " boats?" The hint is not lost in the Par liamentary warfare of the present Cabinet. They cannot command many political three-- deckers ;—they cannot compel The Lord John Russell and The Earl Grey to hoist Ministerial colours. Those fast-sailing frigates The Cob den or The John Bright are not under their orders, but they have a flotilla of diminutive craft, each of which obeys the signals of the ardent HATTER. They cruise into whatever lobby the Port-Admiral of Downing-street is pleased to direct them. They leave Bellamy's Bay at the first signal from him, and discharge their volleys just as he likes. These are the independent Liberals ! These are the parties who boast that they do as they please ! It has been said that the gods of ancient Greece seemed to look down with serene irony on the follies of their idolators. Contempt, in spite of his mirthful propensities, is at times visible in the Premier's demeanour towards the "independent" portion of his worship pers. He listens to their hollow " oppo sition " with derisive air; he smiles when they inveigh against him; for he knows how they secretly play his game for him. They help to divide the House of Commons, and to disturb the action of the " Liberals" out of doors. The Premier knows them, despises them, and .--uses them. THE PREgS. OUR MAI:: :::11E SURRENDER. TIIE surrender of ,our .maritime rights by the declaration atticha.:l4 the late treaty has taken the nation by surprise. It had been led to believe that a sanguinary war had been brought to a successful conclusion, and that all the objects for which- we embarked in it had been attained. How domes it, then, that in the hour of viotory our Ministers have abandoned privileges, sanctioned both by the law and the p vac tics, of =liana,. and. up. .Lo. this time consistently maintained by England in defiance of the most formidable combinations? These rights have been held in times past by statesmen and politicians of all parties, with out exception, as essential to the preservation of our naval supremacy. Between Tory and Whig and Radical there was no difference of opinion upon this point previous to the com mencement of the late war. The Ministry who embarked in that war did so with notorious and avowed reluctance, and they introduced certain innovations into our maritime law, the effect of which was to enable the enemy to carry on his foreign commerce with compara tively slight interruption, through the instru mentality of neutral States. By this means, it cannot for a moment be doubted that Russia was enabled to prolong the contest. We all recollect how, by means of the con venient neutrality of Prussia, she contrived to render our blockade in the Baltic a gigantic sham. Our readers are perhaps not aware,: that this state of things created much dis satisfaction ou board the British fleet; but everyone remembers the outcry that was raised at times against Prussia, at times against America, for the material aid which they were thus enabled to render to the enemy. Indeed, it can hardly be doubted that, had the war continued for another twelvemonth, the nation would have compelled its rulers to put an end to the systematic and disgraceful frauds that were practised in the profaned name of humanity and enlightened policy during the late struggle. It is well known, that there were jealous supporters of the pre sent Ministry in both Houses of Parliament, who were strongly opposed to the continuance of this state of things Yet, in spits of experience so conclusive and so recent, and in spite of the stern lessons of our former history, our rulers, with an infatua tion that is hardly credible, persist in main taining those pernicious theories through which our naval strength was paralysed—for such is the literal fact—during the late war. Nay more, they have bound the nation, so far as they can bind it, to adhere to these theories in all time coming; and they have done this without the consent, or even the knowledge, of the Legislature. When war was declared against Russia on the 28th of March, 1854, the Crown, for the first time in our history, waived the right of taking an enemy's goods from a neutral ship. It sanctioned, in short, for the time being, the right of the enemy to carry on his trade in neutral bottoms. The legality of this waiverion the part of the Crown cannot be doubted, whatever opinions may be enter tained as to its policy ; for it is the unques tionable privilege of the Sovereign to relax the laws of maritime warfare as occasions may arise for the exercise of this power. But our Plenipotentiaries at the Paris Congress have bound the Crown, so far as they could bind it, to observe in all time coining the same rule with regard to neutral navigation as was ob served during the late war. They have de clared that in all time coming the enemies of England shall have the privilege of carrying on their trade in neutral bottoms. They have deliberately surrendered a right which we have maintained in times past against " a world in arms," and which PITT, and Fox, and WILBERFORCE, and Column., alike considered essential to the power and safety of the na tion. They have declared that in all time coining England shall recognise the rule of " free ships free goods " a consummation for which her enemies, and, above all, Russia, have been scheming for the last eighty years; and, rather than consent to which, Lord Isiar, SATURDAY, sox, who well knew what it meant, said that she ought to shed her last drop of blood ! And what equivalent hays we obtained for the surrender of a privilege whi c h we have uniformly maintained for the space of five centuries? When a nation or an i n di v i dual gives up a right, it is usually aba n d one d from one of two motives. Either the surrender is made from necessity, °compensation in some shape or other is obtained. Have we been compelled to surrender a most important na tional right at the close of a successful war, and if so, by whom? Have we obtained an equivalent for the sacrifice we littile'niade, and if so, what is it? As Lord DERBY truly re marked, we are utterly in the dark upon both these points. We know not whether the sur render was made spontaneously aud gratui tously, or whether it was the result of pro longed discussion. But this we do know, that the surrender in question is without a prece. dent in our past history. We defy Lord GrRANVILLE to produce one. His Lordship, in incidentally alluding to the matter, did not attempt to satisfy his hearers upon this point. To waive a right, and to surrender and re nounce it in all time coming, are two very dif ferent things. The rule which is now declared to be for ever abandoned has been incorporated into our jurisprudence by a long and uniform train of decisions ; and we may add, what is less generally known, that it has been no less firmly engrafted upon the law of the United States. The Constitution of this country invests the Crown with the power of suspending the laws of maritime warfare in various ways, but does it allow these laws to be permanently altered and cancelled by the same authority ? Can the mere act of the Sovereign at once and for ever preclude both himself and his successors from the exercise of a privilege in the maintenance of which the nation is so deeply interested? Our Mi nisters have not yet attempted to reply to these questions ; but Parliament would resign its high trust if it did not insist upon a full inquiry into the circumstances which led to the late disgraceful surrender of our rights. HOW THE TREATY AFFECTS ASIA. LORD DERBY, in his late speech on the treaty, in the House of Lords, dwelt very forcibly on the position in which it leaves Asia. While professing to curb effectually the ambition of Russia, it merely diverts it into another channel. Territorial aggrandisement in Europe is forbidden, but to territorial aggrandisement in Asia there is put no stop whatever. On the contrary, it is rather in vited if anything by the avowed determination of our Ministers not to attempt, to control by arms the progress of Russia iu that quarter. They will not allow Russia to menace Turkey through the means of a fleet in the Black Sea, but. they will permit it to menace her ten times more effectually and permanently by conquests in Asia—conquests which must iu the end so completely overshadow her as to make the weight irresistible with which she is fallen upon by her aggressor in any future war.. To meet the attack under those new circumstances fleets will be powerless, and none but the possessors of au overwhelming land force will be in a position effectually to interfere. In such case England's voice would obviJusly go for little, and all our continental allies, saving France, would probably show as great a disinclination to the adoption of active measures as they have done in the war that is just concluded. But France alone could hardly undertake the task, reinforced as Russia would be by all the hordes of Asia, even if other views and other employment for her armies did not—as they possibly would — prevent her. We cannot help thinking, therefore, that the opportunity which has thus been allowed by our Ministers to slip by unimproved is one that will never in human probability occur again. If they were in earnest in their desire to curb the power of Russia, and mentally equal to the task, they should have affixed r a 1 e r, h - it e- w ig Iy Ia of is of in to le ne th se Zi- to ill to ty, lo of er