The Press. — London, England, 1855-11-10 00:00:00

1062 Lord PALMERSTON'S conduct was marked by an apparently strange deficiency of courtesy and candour, for which no colourable explanation has ever been offered. Lord DERBY left Lord PALMERSTON'S presence under the impression that the noble Viscount would join if hie friends, Mr. GLADSTONE and Mr. S. iiEusEnt, would join also. But before an *newer from either of those two gentlemen was received, Lord PALMERSTON wrote both to thew and to Lord DEuov,stating that he could not cotleur Uri the proposed arrangement, leaving no other alternative to his two friends than to decline also. Let us suppose that among a certain order of politicians this conduct should be applauded as dexterous and clever—yet what are we to think of the taste displayed, some months later, in offering to the heir of Lord DERBY—that noble Earl still being the leader of the Conservative party, and Lord STANLEY a distinguished mem• ber of it—one of the highest offices in the Cabinet? This conduct, too, may be lauded as dexterous and clever, but it sug gests, at the same time, that Lord PALMERSTON has so long been accustomed to regard political principle as a joke as at last to become fixed in the belief that it can be nothing more. Lord PALMERSTON'S sole title to power at the present moment consists, according to the admission of his own adherents, in his resolve to carry out a war policy. Lord STANLEY'S opinions on the war are not doubtful. On the 25th of May last he expressed his senti ments on the subject without reserve. He declared himself opposed to a war of extremity with Russia, and favorable to a pacific arrangement. It is notorious that his opinions have not been changed, but rather confirmed on this point, by subsequent events. Had Lord STANLEY entered the Cabinet, he would have done so with sentiments totally opposed to the prosecution of that " war of principles " which we are told Lord PALMERSTON is bent on urging forward. What will Lord PALMERSTON'S adherents say to this? Does it support the notion of an earnest resolve on his part to carry on the war with vigour? Does it coun tenance the bluster of the Melbourne oration? Shall we suppose that Lord PALMERSTON has any policy, or that he has none? It would really appear that he is solely anxious to strengthen himself in his place, without the slightest care what may be the opinions of his Cabinet, or how they may quarrel round the Council table. It makes one shudder to reflect that at this crisis the fate of the nation is en• trusted to his careless guidance. It may be conceded, that among his own party Lord PALMERSTON would not have found a person so well fitted for the vacant post as Lord STANLEY; yet is his party so utterly bank rupt of talent that he can nowhere in its ranks find a successor for Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH? Put the case as we may, Lord PALMERSTON'S plight is a bad one. He sought to strengthen his connection by gaining over a political oppo• nent, and he found himself unable decently to fill up the vacancy from among his own suppor ters. What must the Liberal party think of this admission of its decrepitude ? A few week's back a " canard " was mali- eiously set flying to the effect that a Coalition was in progress between Mr. DISRAELI, Mr. GLADSTONE, and Mr. BRIGHT. AS boys make " dummies " only to pelt them, or " guys " to blow them up, this sham was mercilessly cudgelled by its inventors. But why are these indignant gentlemen so silent on the actual Coalition which Lord PALMERSTON has attempted to form, by requesting so distin guished an advocate of pacific views as Lord STANLEY to join him ? Has Lord STANLEY less weight in the L egislature than Mr. GLAD STONE or Mr. BRIGHT ? The story cirsulated in the Ministerial prints, that Lord STANLEY declined the offer at the suggestion of Lord DERBY, is, of course, a fable. The slightest acquaintance with the independent character of the son, and the father's respect for it, would suffice to negative the supposition. Conjectures which inter fere with the privacy of domestic life have no place in a newspaper. The course taken by Lord STANLEY was, we make no doubt, dic tated by principle alone. We congratulate the Conservative party on 'this proof of its stability and cohesion. Lord • . . THE PRESS. STANLEY is known to be ambitious of serving the Crown—the post offered him was precisely the one for which by the laborious study of many years ho his rendered himself fit—and it augurs well Mt his &tura career that he has had strength to resist so tempting a proposal. Almost at the threshold of public life, he has sacrificed his ambition to his convictions. The influence of his example will not be lost. It will tend to raise standard of publjp morality among nO, and Mow that, after all, place is not the highest object of a honest statesman's cmbition. The Party to which Lord STANLEY belongs is clear of all the scandals and disasters of the last few years. It has shown uo eagerness for power, no factious rage in Opposition. But the eye must be dull indeed which does not perceive, after the repeated failures and disgraces of the Whig faction, that it is to this Party the country must look if it has really any desire to escape from the perplexities which have been gathering since the overthrow of Lord DEBBY'S Administration, and which are still thickening about it. MR. DISRAELI ON THE POLICY OF THE WAR. THOSE persons who have charged Mr. DisRAELt with a disposition to unite with any party in opposition to the present Government, should have taken the trouble to consult the speeches he delivered last year on the policy of the war, before making their accusations public. Had they done so they would have found that Mr. DISRAELI, while strongly censuring the "ambiguous language and uncertain conduct" of the Government, and severely criticising Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S fantastical bearing at the Vienna Conferences, was most careful to guard himself against any expression of opinion that peace was not practicable. Mr. DISRAELI never gave any countenance to the view that the war was to be a war of extremity, or to be prosecuted for the dismemberment of Russia, for the overthrow of Despotic Go vernment, or for any other of those wild schemes which are now put forward to disguise the real question at issue. The complaint now urged with increasing force against the Government, that it shrinks from the duty of distinctly declaring on what conditions an honourable and lasting peace might be based, found expression in Mr. DISRAELI'S speech of the 6th of July last, in the debate upon Lord JOHN RussELL's part in the ne gotiations at Vienna. In the short but weighty speech delivered by Mr. DISRAELI on that occasion, he explained the reasons which led him to conclude that the negotiations at Vienna could not have a satisfactory result, and then continued : I do not say that i am on that account an advocate of those interminable hostilities we have heard of, or of a war which is to be waged without end, and without purpose. On the contrary, though this is not the occasion for doing so, I shall never shrink on the right opportunity from laying down the principles on which I think a peace, and a last. ing peace as far as human affairs permitted, might be attained. I have already, on a former occasion, referred to some of the modes by which such a peace might be established, and to-night I shall not again advert to them even by inplication. But that a peace may he obtained that will secure the independence of that part of the world which we look upon as the main element of the political balance we wish to uphold, I firmly believe, and I equally believe that it could not have been obtained by the plan which the noble lord so easily accepted, and so cordially sanctioned at Vienna—Times Report, July 7. This was not the language of a man who contemplated an aimless war, or who supposed peace to be impracticable. It was, on the contrary, the language of one who felt that the difficulties of the question were to be solved by the skill of statesmen. How far the fact that the siege of Sebastopol was undecided at that time, weighed on the mind of Mr. DISRAELI, in determining him to declare against a con tinuance of the Vienna Conferences, we cannot say. But undoubtedly the general impression among intelligent and patriotic men was, that to conclude a peace while the enterprise entered on by the Allies with so much pomp remained undecided, would have been damag ing to their military reputation, and even have shaken the stability of their Govern ments. That obstacle is now removed. The SATURDAY, Allies have achieved a great success, and the ground is clear for establishing "principles on " which a lasting peace may be attained." Though it may serve the purposes of faction, and gratify the envy of politicians who are painfully conscious of Mr', DISRAELI'S intellec tual superiority, to represent hint as destitute of fixed principles, yet the Words of no states. man of his day *ill se well sward examination when the itninediqte kpadon for which th e y were Spoltah is past. Three years ago, before a popular movement in favour of Administra tive Reform was thought of, Mr. DISRAELI dis cerned its necessity, and laid down the princi- Dles on which it was to be based. It was Mr; ISRAELI who was one of the first to perceive the serious aspect the Eastern Question was as suming, when Lord JOHN RUSSELL was writing humble and deprecatory despatches to the Emperor NICHOLAS. We have seen that the principles on which a satisfactory and lasting peace may be established have long been settled in his mind ; and his character gives us warrant for concluding that he will not, when the pro per time arrives, hesitate to proclaim them, or fail to use his best efforts to give them effect. THE PRESENT STATE OF INDIA. THE present state of India is not very en couraging even in the opinion of those most enamoured with the conduct of the powers that be. Mr. VERNON SMITH'S estimate of its financial position—unfavorable as it appeared to the public when announced in the House of Commons—is held to be much too flattering a picture by people on the spot. The Santhal insurrection has not been put down, the con quest of the rebels being postponed till the cold weather sets in. Meantime, a proclama tion has been put forth by Government, offer ing an amnesty to the insurgents, promising a redress of any grievances they may have to allege. In itself this measure is a good one; but had it been preceded by some show of power in the Government, it would to the minds of all sound thinkers have been of more effect. From the sublime to the ridiculous there is but one step ; and when a Govern ment that talks so largely does so little, that step is passed. It is not good either to teach the natives of India the lesson that the readiest, if not the only, means of obtaining justice is a recourse to the sword. The other chief items of news by the last mail from India are the attack on Brigadier Mc KENZIE, the murder of Mr. CONOLLY by the Mop lahs, and the dissemination of a pamphlet by a Mahomedan writer, calling on all good Mussul• mans to take up arms. The leading journal has taken these facts as evidence of a hostile combination throughout the Mahomedan population of our Eastern empire. There can, however, be no doubt that on this point it is entirely wrong. Brigadier McKErizix is a well meaning, good man, but as fanatical in respect to his own religious views as the most bigoted Mahomedans are in respect of theirs. His in terruption therefore of a noisy religious pro cession—which in any other person would have been set down to its true cause, the desire to mitigate a nuisance was taken as an insult to the faith of the party, and hence the murderous attack on him from which he so narrowly escaped with life. Substitute Maho medan enthusiasts for Cockney ragamuffins, and it was a mere facsimile of what might have been the case of Lord ROBERT GRosvENOR with the London Anti-Sabbatarian mob. The murder of Mr. CONOLLY had equally little connection with the Mahomedan popu lation of India at large. The Moplahs to whose revenge he was sacrificed are the descendants of an Arab tribe, wholly uncon nected with the Mahomedans of the rest of India. They had been long settled in the collectorate he ruled, and his system of admi nistration had for years given the deepest offence to them. He was an able man, and an honest one, but unhappily one of the new school of Indian statesmen who seem to think that the vigour of power is best shown by its wanton abuse. Constant risings of the people under him were the result, and it was at one time a question with Government whe ther he might not advantageously be removed. am