The Press. — London, England, 1857-08-22 00:00:00

THE PRESS, AUGUST 22, 1857. sponsibility by Lord PALMERSTON'S Government has been in curred. Insensible to the admonitory intimations long given them, blind to the events passing around them, with an army panting for revolt, they withdrew from India the very sources of the exist ence of our rule, and with an appalling hazard staring them in the face, sanctioned a step which surrendered our fellow-countrymen, with their wives and families, to spoliation and massacre, and gave reins to a rebellion that will cost England millions of her treasure, and India torrents of her blood. It is not often that a journalist has to comment on the violation of the code of manners which guides gentlemen who aspire to public honours. When we read the report last week of the foul case of. " Lyle v. Herbert" we saw at once that the noted Mr. JAMES, " the barrister," had transgressed the rules which usually regulate the utterances of the members of the English Bar. Mr. JAMES appeared as the leading counsel in the case to which we have referred, when the proof of the chief allegations of trim. con. turned upon a witness, " out of employment," who listened in an adjoining room to obtain proofs of the guilt of the plaintiff's wife. Mr. JAMES, knowing well that the exhibition of the particular witness would destroy his client's case before the jury, had the indecency of attempt ing to justify the degrading servility of the witness, by offering a pre tended parallel with the conduct of a gentleman of stainless honour in a distressing case of domestic misery which occurred several years since. To rip up past domestic scandal for the sake of making a sophistical nisi prius point was not at all creditable to Mr. JAMES. The impugned honour of Mr. GLADSTONE (as far as a tongue like that of Mr. EDWIN JAMES could damage it) may safely be left for vindica tion to Mr. GLADSTONE himself. The manner in which the House of Commons received his explanation renders comment superfluous from any ono. But the spectacle of a barrister raking up past scandal for the sake of a point is a miserable sight. Where would such a practice end ? We deny that barristers are privileged by the rules of nisi prius in disinterring the forgotten proceedings of scanda -1 lous cases. In arguing a law point an advocate may refer to the precedents of certain cases ; but that privilege is a very different one from ripping up, in speeches to a jury, particulars of painful scan dals. No private family would, on the precedent attempUed to be made by Mr. JAMES, be safe from the scandal of some relative. Per sonal matters ought never to bo wantonly reopened. It is only a few years since a notorious duel took plaee on . account of a public writer having claimed the exercise of the privilege asserted by Mr. JAMES in referring to domestic scandals chronicled in the trials of the House of Lords. Those who stir up bad blood are not liked by English gentlemen ; and there are few members of the legal profession besides Mr. JAMES who would have made such allusions. This recent exhibition of Mr. JAMES has not much improved his dubious standing with the political public. The electors of Southampton know " the reason why " they would not have Mr. JAMES. It was expected by some that he would have distinguished himself before the election committees. But the Learned Gentleman won few laurels there, and he was equalled by many, and surpassed by more than one, of his legal competitors, like Mr. SLAVE and Mr. O'MALLEY. He was to have rode " the Lion of the fold of Judah" (Archbishop WHALE) in a snaffle, and to have taught the Connaughtmen how great was Mr. EDWIN JAMES in " a running down" cause. But, as it was not "a horse case," Mr. JAMES thought he had better let the " Irish lion " alone; and we commend his discretion. It is as well not to have too " spicy" a reputation, even though a Whig Cabinet Minister may have said, "We like our Liberal lawyers, like our venison, to have a high " flavour." Last Tuesday night Mr. DISRAELI asked Mr. VERNON SMITH whether any compensation was to be made to the sufferers in the Indian Mutiny. That fluent functionary immediately replied that a comprehensive scheme of relief was in contemplation. And with this perfectly satisfactory answer Mr. DISRAELI of course sat down con tented. It appears, however, that Mr. VERNON SMITH'S assurance was only one of those happy impromptus with which awkward questions are evaded by Ministerial tacticians. On Thursday night he practically confessed that there was nothing in it, by saying that all he had meant was, that pensions were to be conferred on the widows of officers and civil servants. The " comprehensive scheme'' has therefore dwindled down to the dimensions of an already existing practice, by which such persons are relieved from a fund known as the " Military Fund," and subscribed to by the Company's servants. To this the sufferers can help themselves without any aid from the Board of Control or the magnates of Leadenhall-street. But, to waive the question of any extra compensation to these unfortunate victims of misgovernment, there is another body of persons who have imperative claims upon the Indian Government. We mean the independent residents whose property has been destroyed in the recent outbreak. They settled in India in full confidence of protection by the English Government. The presence of such a class in India is most valuable and necessary ; and for every reason, both of justice and policy, it is expedient that their wants should be at tended to. 'I THE WEEK. THE Legislature is adjourned under gloomy circumstances. It is felt amongst politicians of all parties that since the year 1834 (when such great domestic changes took place) there never was a recess which might be looked forward to with so much interest, as being likely to bring forth most serious inci dents. There have been great political changes since the Ist of January last. The Whigs had secretly organised an electioneering system ; Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY had been made a member of the Cabinet; and the opportunity was taken of a dissolution on the Chinese pretext. The Conservatives stood firm, and gained rather than lost; but the isolated sections were swept away, and an anomalous majority was returned. The Minister appeared to have a triumph, and without " foresight " committed himself positively to undertake a Reform Bill for the next session. By procrastinating this measure to 1858 the Premier hoped to get out of the difficulty. Various measures were laid aside until this Reform Bill should be disposed of and the public mind relieved. The Divorce Bill was introduced and carried, after compromises and cuttings and parings without end. Then came the Indian crisis, which Ministers from the first, and even up to the present week, have so studiously persisted in underrating, that they can have no fair excuse for endeavouring to avoid their promise of a Reform Bill. If they attempt to ride off from their Reform pledges, on the ground that the Indian crisis is of such magnitude, they convict themselves of want of fore sight, and their speeches, " pooh-poohing " the danger, can be quoted against them again and again. We cannot suppose that they contem plate a step which would ruin their already damaged reputation, and we take for granted that they still meditate adhering to their solemn pledges on a Reform Bill. To conclude. The second Parliamen tary Session of the year may now be said to be at an end ; but there is every prospect, according to present appearances, and the Premier's hints on Thursday, of Parliament meeting again before Christmas. It would, therefore, be precipitate to assume that the Parliamentary year has expired. The spirited debate upon Thursday night was excessively da maging to the Government. By Sir W. WILLIAMS'S observations and Lord PALMERSTON'S explanations, the Ministers were placed in this dilemma—either they must admit that they were willing at any time to yield their convictions to a political necessity, and by sacrificing the interests of the empire to secure their places, or else that they are the most uninformed, ignorant, and incapable Govern ment that ever sought to rule the destinies of this great empire, for no effort of their supporters can relieve them of the tremen dous responsibility they incurred if aware of the dangerous condition of the Bengal army, or if, with wilful self-deception, for a selfish and unworthy end, they blinded themselves to the con sequences of their criminal blunder, and consented to reduce our military resources. Lord PALMERSTON, in point of fact, admitted that instead of boldly grappling with the difficulty before him, h e only uttered a cry for " place and power," and surrendered. And this is a becoming spirit for men holding in their hands the des tinies of an empire ! It is upon the double Government of India that rests the general responsibility of these terrible dis asters now scourging our unhappy countrymen and women in the East; but more especially is the Government of Lord PALMERSTON responsible for all those atrocities, all that murder, robbery, and rapine which has occurred upon the confines of the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras. The extension of the revolt in these districts, at Indore, Mhow, Aurungabad, and further south, would have been checked, if not prevented, had the Bombay and Madras armies been preserved intact, and not drawn upon to supply the wants of that Persian war Lord PALMERSTON thought proper to enter upon at a moment when interests far dearer, and of incalculable importance to the honour and dignity of the empire, were at stake. A writer from Calcutta in one of our daily contemporaries justly remarks : Mr. Vernon Smith and Lord Palmerston mast bear the responsibility of a very heavy loss of life and property. Had they not in their wisdom brought on the Persian expedi tion, Bow Lay troops would have continued to occupy Nasseerabad and Neemuch, and none of the petty States would have dared to revolt. The " promptitude" which plunged us into a war with China, and six months afterwards despatched 5,000 troops, which have so for tuitously been diverted to Calcutta, is more than counterbalanced by that prescient sagacity which, depriving Bombay and Madras of their military means, left the poor victims of Neemuch, Allahabad, &c., to a miserable fate. Again, when it is urged that a fleet of vessels should penetrate the rivers of India, and rescue our unhappy fugitives, what is the reply of Lord PAutEasros, but that the fleet of the East India Company is engaged in the Persian Gulf! A deep re• 820 dilk •