The Press. — London, England, 1855-01-20 00:00:00

pi, ZL f p MIN AT' t tt6s Ot rtss. be a great misfortune ; but it is an aggravation of the evil of our present state that the weak ness of the Coalition is due to the scheming selfishness of its chiefs. They retain their places that they may the better plot against each other ; and, while every art of petty in trigue is set in motion to advance their secret ends, it is the country which, in the neglect and mismanagement of its most vital concerns, is made to pay the penalty of their mischievous rivalries. Our political distraction is perfectly well known to foreign Courts, and according to their sentiments is viewed by them with com placency or contempt. Russia has all to hope, and Austria all to gain, from it. We can expect no sympathy with our weakness. England is the single country in the world that adheres to constitutional government, and the firmest of our allies may not be dis pleased to observe how signally it is fail ing us in the hour of trial, and how un favourably it contrasts with a more despotic system. As the natural result of the Coalition tactics, our voice is no longer regarded in the councils of Europe ; it is not thought possible that we can pretend to a policy of our own; we have slipped into the rank of a second or third rate state; and it is, perhaps, indicative of our waning influence that France has lately drawn closer towards Austria, as if to intimate how little reliance couldi be placed upon our stability. The negotiations now proceeding at Vienna are confessedly opened on our part under false pretences. They are intended to impose on the enemy or on our own people, and either way partake more of the nature of a discredit able trick than of an honest bond fide transac tion. According to the Ministerial prints, we must hope to capture Sebastopol while the treaty is in progress, and thus snatch an advantage which we have not the spirit openly to demand. This false and stealthy policy has rarely proved successful, and has never yet been the chosen policy of this country. The objects for which the war was undertaken may be achieved by force of arms, or by pacific ne• gotiation ; we may separately trust to either, but not to both at the same time. It would be perfectly fair in our Govern ment, having distinctly explained the only terms on which it would treat, to refuse to lay down its arms until the enemy had given some guarantee of his sincerity. The preli minary negotiation would then be short and simple, and it would speedily be ascertained whether deceit on either side was intended. But this is not the course proposed. It is said that we are to treat, not for the only terms which will satisfy us, but for less than we intend to take, and trust to the chances of war to gain for us what we dare not ask, or are not likely to obtain, by negotiation. It is a rule in moral philosophy that, as negotia tion is the' only means by which wars can be ended, its language should always be plain and honest ; b at we, in negotiating, are to say one thing and intend another. We appeal to the common sense of our readers whether we have not correctly represented the tone of the Government journals. Day after day this view is put forward as if it were highly credit able to the sagacity and good faith of the Ministry instead of being utterly damna tory of botl I. England might pardon error, might pardo n weakness, but we are much mistaken in its spirit if it ever consents to pardon treachery that, if successful, must for ever hishonour our national escutcheon. In this disgraceful scheme we trace again the malignant influence of Coalition councils. A section of the Ministry is willing to let the negotiation proceed, firmly believing that it will come to nothing. Another section, per haps with deeper craft, urges it forward, be ieving it will prove a reality. One party is ipersuaded that the question will be decided at Sebastopol, another party that it will be settled at Vienna—while waverers and waiters on Providence conceive that both may be right, that diplomacy and the sword may work very well together, and that the question must be near a satisfactory settlement when a resolution is taken to civilly ask only as much as we are likely to get, and forcibly seize and hold, whatever we can obtain by force of arms. The opening of the year was to witness the definitive conclusion of an offensive and de fensive alliance with Austria. In place of that, we are now amused with the promise of a new Vienna Congress. Will Parliament longer be a party to the delusion which has been practised respecting this Austrian alliance ? If peace be practicable, or thought to be practicable, let the fact be stated ; it cannot come too soon, if the terms be satis factory. But therein lies the whole question. What are those terms? Is this peace-nego tiation, like the invasion of the Crimea, to be " a leap in the dark?" Are we to know nothing of its objects till we are irrevocably committed to it? Or are we to enter into the negotiation with the understanding that it is to be a mere formality to afford Austria a further period of delay? It is a cruel mockery of the sufferings of our army and of the anxiety of the nation to represent, in the same breath, the diplo matic proceedings at Vienna as sincere and as hollow—as intended to lead to a definitive treaty of peace, and as unlikely to have the slightest result. Everything is to be feared from a Government which, by its latest mea sures, has shown itself to be entirely destitute of foresight and sincerity. When Ministers last met Parliament the Foreign Enlistment Bill was demanded as a measure of extreme urgency. No one who heard Lord PALMERSTON address the House on that occasion will forget the earnestness with which he spoke. The bill was essential to the relief, perhaps to the salvation, of our gal lant army in the Crimea ; we could procure an accession of able-bodied and experienced re cruits in no other way. A majority of the Legislature was credulous, the bill was passed, proclamation was made to the world that we could no longer depend on our own popula tion to maintain our army, and what has been the result? The States of Germany, from which recruits were to be drawn, have pro hibited enlistment in their territories; many months must certainly elapse before a single foreign regiment can be embodied ; and de plorable, indeed, must be the state of our army before Sebastopol if it is to wait for succour until the pet force of Lord PALMERS TON and Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT 18 ready for action. This bill completed the measures which the Government, to the end of the year, deemed necessary for the prosecution of the war. All their demands were conceded—all their sup plies voted. They might have had still larger powers had they thought proper to have asked for theni.iWith every requisite for success, to LONDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY 20, 1854. WITH the approach of the period fixed for the reassembling of Parliament, the Coalition has resumed its squabbles. This is not surprising. No one can wonder at the protracted sittings of the Cabinet who considers its constitution. Each time, before it can venture to meet Par liament, its members have to go through all that unpleasant process of retractation and compromise which first brought them together. As every Minister has a policy of his own, and entertains the greatest contempt for his col leagues, the most delicate management is required to induce them to agree on a line of conduct which shall present some appearance of concord to the world. The more they know of each other the deeper must be their mutual distrust from perceiving how little they have in common, and the more difficult must they find it to assume a semblance of unanimity. New events as they arise must stir in every mind the recollections of a life of political antipathy. We can imagine how hopeless must seem the att2mpt to reconcile the views of Lord ABERDEEN and Lord PALMERSTON when the limitation of the power of Russia in the Black Sea is discussed, and how vain must be Mr. GLADSTONE'S efforts to convince his fellow Ministers that there is no safety for the country but in his schemes for loading it with direct taxation. GARRICK, torn between tragedy and comedy, can but feebly typify the distraction of her Majesty's servants, assailed on one side by self-interest and on the other by self-will. nor can we wonder at those reports of a dissolution of the Government which are perpetually afloat when it is evident that nothing short of a miracle can keep it together. As matters are proceed ing, we may expect to hear that the decisions of the Cabinet are finally carried by the same sort of endurance that in disputed verdicts gives the victory to the juryman who can fast the longest. It would be unreasonable to expect that the wants of the country should receive much con sideration when the weightier affairs of private pretension have to be adjusted. The safety of the army is not to be put in the scale against the ambition of the Duke of NEWCASTLE to be Minister of War. To wound his vanity would be to break up the Cabinet, while the worst that can happen by gratifying it, is the linger ing waste and wretchedness of our force, with the chance of its total destruction in the end. The nation must be burdened with his incom petency that the Government may have the benefit of his support. As the bickerings and jealousies which every question calls forth demand some sacrifice, the sacrifice of public interests is the most obvious and easy; and to this cause it must be ascribed that the lengthened deliberations of the Cabinet arc the invariable prelude to some new disaster or disgrace. At a time like the present, an Ad ministration which was simply weak from the absence of individual talent and energy would I No. 90.—VoL. 111. LONDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY 20, 1855. PRICE SIXPENCE.