The Press. — London, England, 1856-03-08 00:00:00

- Tibt IJett,t;s No. 149.—V0L. IV. LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 8, 1856. STAMPED .... SIXPENCE. UNSTAMPED..FIVEPENCE. ot dress. LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 8, 1856. ANOTHER step, and a considerable one, has been made towards the conclusion of peace. But it still suits the purposes of our Ministry to surround the negotiation with mystery, and to affect doubt as to its progress. The artifice is becoming too transparent to de ceive any one. On Monday a statement was published that Preliminaries of Peace had been signed by the members of the Conference at Paris. In the House of Commons that evening, Mr. DISRAELI asked Lord PALMERSTON whether the state ment was correct. To this very simple ques tion the Premier avoided returning a direct answer. He endeavoured to confuse the point by a relation of all that had occurred since the commencement of the negotiation, spoke of the " Protocol of Vienna, and the Protocol of " the first meeting at Paris, in which the pre " vious Protocol was inserted as part of the " day's proceedings," and altogether managed to give the impression that the Conference went on without making progress, and that the signature of the Preliminaries of Peace was in reality nothing more than a recognition of what had taken place at Vienna some weeks previously. When, asked Mr. DISRAELI, was the Pre liminary Treaty signed? Here is the answer of Lord PALMERSTON : It was last week. I forget the exact day. Very recently. This is as much as to say that the transac tion was of no kind of consequence. It was a mere formal proceeding, not worth special attention. It might have taken place on the day when the Conference first met (Monday). or the day when it last met (Saturday). " Last week" was near enough. In opposition to his Lordship, we think it of some importance that the exact day should be known. The Preliminary Treaty was signed on Saturday last. That fact must have been perfectly well known to the Premier. Why, then, did he seek to conceal it' The reason is obvious. When the Conference met on Monday the Protocol of Vienna. embodying the proposi tions accepted by Russia, was recorded, and an armistice was agreed to. The Conference met next on Thursday, and again on Saturday, when a Preliminary Treaty was signed. Lord PALNIERSTON was perfectly well aware that, in the interval between re cording the Vienna Protocol and the signature of the Preliminary Treaty, the Propositions on which a definitive Treaty is to be founded .were discussed ; that p o i n t s on w hi c h Luis ierstanding might arise were explained and settled ; and that agreement was come to as to the interpretation which the several articles should bear. When all chance of future misunderstanding was thus, as far as possible, precluded, then—and not till then— the articles accepted by Russia were formed into a Preliminary Treaty and signed. The protocol of Vienna and the Preliminary Treaty —which it pleases Lord PALMERSTON to con found together—differed therefore from each other in this essential particular :—that the latter was not concluded until the former had been discussed, explained, and the interpreta tion which should be put upon every point susceptible of doubt, had been defined and agreed to. By this procedure the doubts which, pre vious to the meeting of the Conference, ex isted as to the opposite constructions which might be put upon the several articles by the Plenipotentiaries have been removed. It was doubted, for instance, whether Russia had been made fully aware of the reserved con ditions which the Allies, in the fifth article, stipulated they should have a right to bring forward. It was doubted whether a grave difference might not arise as to the manner in which Nicolaieff should be dealt with. It was doubted whether serious complications might not arise concerning the future state of the Asiatic frontier. Well, those questions have been discussed, and all difficulties have been removed. The Plenipotentiaries, after three days of unreserved personal communication, came to a complete understanding as to the fundamental conditions of peace. Is not a Preliminary Treaty, concluded under those circumstances, a matter of some importance ? Ought not our Premier on the first day of this week to have known the particular day in last week when this important document was signed ? If we contrast the proceedings at the Paris Conference with those at the Vienna Confer. ence a year ago, we see more clearly the im portance to be attached to this Preliminary Treaty. Last year, Russia accepted the four points as a basis of negotiation ; the Plenipo tentiaries met to discuss those points, but were unable to agree on their interpretation, and the negotiation was broken off. In the present instance, the Plenipotentiaries have met, they have come to an understanding as to the sense in which the articles shall be under stood, and they have taken a step which authorises, and must immediately lead to, the draft of a definitive Treaty being drawn up. Is it likely that, having settled the funda mental conditions of Peace, there will be any serious difficulty as to the words in which such conditions are to be expressed ? Men who are thoroughly agreed on the terms of a con tract, do not fly off on the manner of its expression. There is a Lind of equity in diplomacy as in law. Means are easily de vised for giving effect' to intentions ; and, happily, contracts of agreement are, of all sorts of contracts, those which are most easily arranged. The drift of Lord PALMERSTON'S answer is discovered without difficulty; but what is the motive of his drift? What can be his object in attempting to create an impression that thus far the proceedings of the Conference have been merely of a formal nature ? If the Conference had been sitting for a twelve month, his " very lately" would be intelligible; but, considering the gravity of the occasion, and the momentous nature of the question at issue, his affectation of supercilious indiffer ence can only give an impression that he has personally very little to do with the negotia tion, and that he still clings to the hope that some accident will arise to break it off, and to necessitate a resumption of the War. THE FIRST LAW OFFICER OF IRELAND, FOR several years past the influence of the Irish Malcontents over the British Cabinet has been a source of anxiety in our affairs. Causes, apparently slight, produce prodigious effects. A taint comes in the atmosphere, and a population perishes from an epidemic ; a plank starts, and the three-decker founders ; a lit tle fibre snaps, and a giant is paralysed. It is thus with the ruins of empires. States debilitate as much from the virus of petty fac tions as from the ascendancy of overgrown corruption. The disorganisinv influence of the Irish Malcontents illustrates that truth. But it is a cheering feature in English society that when an evil is distinctly seen the energy of the national mind applies itself to an appropriate cure. The public are now startled into attention at the means by which a corrupt knot of Irish adventurers organised such gigantic frauds and grasped such official power. The commercial aspects of the case belong to the economist ; but the credit of her Majesty's service, and the future purity of the ermine, are involved, also, on this occasion. In the repulsive story of the Sadleirites and their allies there is nothing so remarkable as the signal manner in which chastisement has overtaken them. They prospered for a time, and they thought that the political knavery of some, the joint-stock swindling of others, and the infamous audacity of all, would never stand revealed. While they were elated at their successful schemes, others were dis mayed at their sudden prosperity. When SADLEIR was made a patronage Lord of the Treasury, and EDMUND O'FLAHERTY gazetted to be an Income tax Commissioner, and Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH nominated Solicitor-General, a deceased Member of Parliament exclaimed, "Is GOD'S Providence] superseded in Ire " land ?" But if the questioner had lived till now, he would have seen a sublime instance of myste rious retribution. There are astounding inci dents in the last act of the Sadleirite drama which may well make the guilty quail and rouse the apathetic. The doom of a Greek tragedy is not more critically perfect than the wonderful shaping of events in the few days before the forger poisoned himself on Hama stead-heath. The suicide of Sadleir, and the scandalous attack on the Irish Judicature, were nearly simultaneous ! If Baron PENNS FATHER had been hunted from the Bench, Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH would "by routine " have succeeded. If the detection of SAnotia could only have stood adjourned for two or three months, things might have been made pleasant for a judicial aspirant! Or even when SADLEIR, two years since, used the forged conveyance for the first time, if he had been detected then, -hide Shelley motion pending, mat dated. Bin auxiliary gen, submit to con, We rejoice, was made. The Conservati. has a great to these House of Lori WEN! PARKE had House of k; : '• h * 4 •ted then, while no Shelley motion was tatters might have been accommo- at now, as by pre-ordained - • • the eneral of SADLEIR . ' • . condign scrutiny o . , therefore, that thot a l Iservative party, a • eat duty to disch&g Malcontents On Irr` 4 ' Peers lately objet ILEYDALE s peerags. I taken his seat, flue -t33/147 .11 . Lords would have been, 7".• at