The Press. — London, England, 1855-10-13 00:00:00

fear it would sadly try the loyalty of our Eng lish nobility and landed gentry if that act were repealed, and their lands made liable to re demption again at pleasure by the Crown. In England the change formed the foundation of all our after agricultural improvements and wealth, because of the agricultural indepen dence which it gave. In India the effects of a similar change will not be different whenever a truly enlightened and patriotic Governor- . General shall dare to propose the innovation for the approval of the Crown. The home policy that should be pursued by the new Governor-General will form the sub ject of our next week's article. We have already in the present one gone beyond the length we had intended. THE " PRESS " AND THE " TIMES." Ix is now three weeks since, in an article on " The Times ani Lord PALMERSTON," we directed the attention of our readers to the singular circumstance of an extravagant pane gyric on the Premier appearing in the columns of that journal which, for twenty years and more, had vilified Lord PALMERSTON without scruple and without cessation. It took the Times an entire fortnight to reply to our re marks. It had certainly abundant leisure for composing its answer. It felt, probably, that as it had gone too far in its former vitupera tion of the Viscount, so it had committed itself too egregiously in its tardy laudation of one for whom it reserved all its praise until he had become Prime Minister of England. Yet, after abundance of deliberation, the Times never committed a greater blunder than in the tone of its reply to our comments on its notorious and unparalleled inconsistency. It has made, during late years, some curious blunders, and is prominent amongst them shall be recorded the indecent tone assumed in replying to this Journal. We shall not degrade ourselves by employing towards the Times language similar to what has been used in its attempted exculpation. But we shall not allow its audacity of imputation to pass unpunished. " Writers careless of the "degree in which they injure by their " profligacy or their meanness the character of " the occupation to which they belong ;" " habitual baseness ;" " who habitually prosti " tate their pens for the purposes of faction " and animosity." We shall not, as we have said, reciprocate such phrases ; but we shall certainly resent them, and we shall obtain ample redress against those who have dared to use them. We shall permit no journal to use such language with impunity ; and we know no better way of proving our determina tion on that point than by inquiring how far the Times, after its avowed abandonment of all steady principle, is warranted to assume its tone of dictatorial censorship? In the first place, the Times admits the fact that Lord PALMERSTON was its " ancient ad versary," and, in offering a sophistical apology for its panegyric, it plausibly asserts that Lord Patmitaszom is one of those mixed characters with some fair and some foul features, doing good with one hand and evil with the other, virtuous in one year and 'vicious in the next, alternating between the powers of light an 1 darkness. Truly the compliments of the Times are of a singularly cruel character. The recent eulogist retains rather too much of the " ancient adversary." The language of Lord PALMERSTON'S new courtier is of a more da maging kind than is commonly heard in the antechamber of a Minister. But what avails the special plea of Lord PALMERSTON being a mixed character? It only confirms our charge, which we now reassert, that for years the Times made a set at Lord PaLmsasToti, and assailed him with continuous disparagement, as coarse, as rancorous, and as prolonged as that with which, to its lasting disgrace, it maligned the character and disparaged the illustrious abilities of HENRY LORD BROMIIAM. —... Why did not the Times in those past years admit the mixed qualities of Lord P - ALMERSTON Why did it never recognise the genial qualities of the man while condemning the errors of THE PRESS. the statesman? Why did it always use such sombre colours, and exaggerate into caricature the less favorable features of the politician ? His activity, his affable manners, his good natured disposition, his freedom from the " hard habits of a politician," his vigour and readiness in debate, the versatility of his parts, then never received during a long course any recognition from the Times. On the contrary, for years and years it traduced his character, vilified his policy, derided his pretensions, and scuuted his statesmanship as that of a mere " Brummagem Alcibiades." It travestied him as a ridiculous mixture of an old dandy and a modern " destructive." It affected to think that in his character there was more of the associate of BEAU BRUMMEL than of a pupil of the Pittito school. The most ridiculous conclusions on Lord PALMERSTON would have been arrived at by any foreigner who for twenty years followed the Times in its systematic and studied depreciation of the English statesman who divided with Lord BROUGHAM the honour of having earned the enmity of that journal, ever vacillating in its opinions, and ever vituperative in its style. In our original article (Sept. 22) we re marked, that "it used to be insinuated that " authentic `Foreign' intelligence found its " way into the columns of other j oumals, much "to the annoyance of the Times." Lord PAL• MERSTON'S "ancient adversary" is perfectly savage at our alluding to such matters; just as if it could " have any difficulties in obtain " ing foreign information." Yes, but it had. Another daily journal, from 1885 to 1846, out ran the Times in the purity and precision of its intelligence. The journal to which we allude —we are talking of a past period—rivalled the Times in other matters also. It was most ably managed by a Whig-Radical Baronet, whose character was " mixed," in a different sense from that of his zealous friend the pre sent Prime Minister, for the worthy Baronet hovered between the City and the Reform Club. We never said, nor do we now say, that the prolonged animosity of the Times against Lord PALMERSTON solely originated in the fact that the Viscount was both an active and able patron of the journal which, in those days, brilliantly disputed the first place in circulation with the Times. But, with the files of both journals before us while we write, along with those of the MorninyPost, we should not find it difficult to show that the prolonged antagonism of the Timer was vastly aggravated by the Viscount's hearty and unconcealed recognition of the gentleman who was at once " a baronet amongst journalists and a " journalist amongst baronets." Other news paper potentates also tried to be baronets, but, as MATHEWS says in the song, " they couldn't." But we do not care further to discuss the former hatred of Lord PALMERSTON shown by the Times. It will be more useful to give special illustrations of the inconsistent man ner in which it has behaved to the two great parties of the State and to the public. It has recently, under its own hand, exposed its want of prescience, by turning round to sing the praises of Lord PALMERSTON when he was past threescore and ten. Similar ignorance and precipitation have been displayed by the Times when it sullied its columns with language which must either be " recanted " (to use its own words) or bitterly regretted by it for a long time to come. OPINIONS ON THE WAR. We are in imminent danger, according to our humble appreciation of the state of affairs, of being incontinently led into a contest for ulterior purposes with which we have no national sympathies. It is time for us to begin to reflect seriously if the original objects of the war are not well nigh attained. At all events, let us be quite sure that to the complete accomplishment of this we limit all our expectations. If Russia is not yet convinced that Europe is both resolved, and able, to prevent her further encroach ments upon her weaker neighbours, let the blow be followed up until conviction takes the place of that most refractory scepticism. But to the cry to us to lead the van in an attack upon established principles, and an attempt to assert the supremacy of the purely democratic sentiment, let the country resolutely tarn a deaf ear.—Bath and Cheltenham Gazette, Oct. 10. SATURDAY, To listen to some counsellors, every victory, in stead of bringing peace nearer, should be a new plea for further bloodshed and carnage. There was talk about " rendering the enemy's humiliation complete," as if that could ever be a just reason for war, and we are told that "the resources of Russia, for mischief, must be effectually destroyed." If it were possible to reduce Russia, at present holding the larger half of Europe, to a feeble, harmless power, there might be reason in these admonitions. But those who utter them know well that when we have done our best and our worst, Russia, unless we are prepared to settle as well as conquer it, will still be a great empire, disposing of enormous resources in men and wealth, and as such always capable of exercising, and, therefore, of abusing power. Every sane man knows that at the end of this war Russia will be a great, if a wearied and exhausted, State. Putting aside, then, the wanton demands of the violent, and looking only at the permanent interests of all parties concerned, let us ask, who will be a gainer by a contest, all the original ends of which are already obtained? The Danubian principalities are freed from invasion. We may be moderately assured that Russia will not touch that material guarantee for the next thirty years. The Black Sea fleet, the subject of so many stipulations, is gone. Turkey is to be admitted to the European family, and its Christian populations are to be admitted to the full privileges of citizenship. The war has arrived, if not at its natural termination, at least at the end of its first period. Military honour is satisfied. The original military aim, as well as the professed political aim, of the Crimean expedition is fulfilled. We are not pleading for a dishonourable or unsafe peace. Such a peace would be scouted by the whole nation. But we are at the moment of victory. We hove gained our original objects, and, at least, it may be required of the Government that it shall not needlessly com mit us to a new straggle.—Northampton Herald, Oct. 6. The fatal weakness of the Premier's case, and of the case of the old war party, is, •.hat he will not say, and they do not know, what the war is for, or rather what it is to be for. As regards its originally avowed object, that is attained, in a sense of fullness immea surably beyond what was at first contemplated by the Cabinet of which Lord Palmerston was a leading member, and whose policy he has always defended and identified himself with subsequently. If any body had asked his lordship, or any of those who then were members with nim of the Aberdeen Ad ministration, whether the attainment of the ends enunciated in that most unlucky and unfortunate speech of Lord John Russell, announcing the Cri mean expedition, would satisfy all the requirements of the case, the response would be unhesitatingly in the affirmative. There would be no reservation as to the possible conduct of Russia in the matter. It would have been deemed enough that the mind. panties had been freed from the invader, and that Sebastopol eras rendered no longer a "standing menace to Turkey," which it never was, and never was felt to be by the Turks themselves, notwithstand ing the eternal iteration of the fiction by.nearly'all men and all parties in this country, from the First Minis ter to the humblest journalist. All, and much more than all, that was then deemed sufficient has been at tained; and yet everyone feels and knows that we are really but entering on the war after having reached the stage that was to have ended it. Why is this ? Liverpool Albion, Oct. Bth. We are not to be understood as counselling or desiring any pacifio advances on the part of the allies. All overtures for peace must of course come from Russia, and we must continue the punishment, frightful as it is, until she does make such over tures. But still we must not persevere only to humiliate her. . . . Of the stronghold of Russia in the Black Sea we may now say, "Delenda est Carthago." And not only is the stronghold itself "blotted out," but the magnificent fleet which it sheltered,—that fleet whioh earned for itself at Sinope an infamous immortality of fame and which was the terror of Turkey. In that part of her dominions the power of Russia is crushed, and Turkey may discard her fears. It is supposed that the Russian troops will evacuate the Crimea with all convenient despatch. But whether they march out with drums beating and colours flying, or are beaten out, will that end the war ? A month or two ago we were all exclaiming against negotiating for peace until Sebastopol was taken. Well, Sebastopol is taken, and the glory of the allied arms is reburnished— vindicated, if that were necessary. What next? Are we to wait until we have seen the back of the last retreating Russian on the Isthmus of Perekop ? Perhaps we are. But this, one would think, is the moment for mediation. At all events, it seems to be high time that Parliament should be called together to discuss the present posture of affairs, and delibe rate upon what is best to be done.—Manchester Courier, Oct. oth. WA,