The Press. — London, England, 1855-02-03 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 3, 1855. projects, bitter quarrels causelessly provoked, appointments recklessly jobbed, colonies first teased into rebellion and then dragooned into submission. History will record how, as early as 1848, the able and popular Lord Elam was mobbed in the streets of Montreal for obeying the orders of his chief—how the Cana dian Parliamnent•house was burnt, and the rioters, though well known, escaped un punished—how South Africa resisted, even to the verge of rebellion, the unauthorised im portation of convicts—how the Now Zealand plan of government broke down without even a trial—with what vehemence Australia pro tested against the mock Constitution thrust upon her, its chief parliamentary opponent being at that time Mr. GLADSTONE—and, lastly, with what effrontery the massacre of Matelle, the cruel punishment of the deluded Kandyans, the imbecile and bloody Administration of Lord TORRINGTON, were defended in the House of Lords by the former advocate of colonial rights and Champion of popular government. These are acts which no lapse of years, no new phase of political combinations, not even the exigency of a crisis in the national affairs, can banish from our recol lection. They were stigmatised at the time by the leading statesmen of all parties, by every independent member of Parliament, and, with scarcely an exception, by the entire press of England. But these things are not all. In the department now popularly as signed to him, Lord GREY has some expe rience. The Secretary for the Colonies was also, until of late, the Secretary for War. This office, in ordinary times, is nominal ; but there are occasions when it becomes more than a name. The Kaffir war was under Lord Chuff's peculiar management. How it fared we need remind no one. The Colonial Minister, like a bad workman, quarrelled with all his tools. He dismissed Sir PEREGRINE MAITLAND—he superseded Sir HARRY SMITH ; the reputation of our officers, the lives of our soldiers, mil lions of the national treasure, were sacrificed in the subjugation of a horde of naked savages whom Dutch boers and English colonists, when allowed to fight in their own way, had been accustomed to set at defiance. At the Cape, Lord GREY sustained a double defeat. He fought the colonists and got beaten ; he fought the Kaffirs, and after years of blood shed obtained a temporary submission at a price considerably exceeding the fee simple value of all Kaffraria. Admirable antecedents for the ally of NAPOLEON and the opponent of NICHOLAS ! Having failed against a barbarian tribe, he is set to conquer Russia; an easy task, and one most consistently undertaken by an opponent, on principle, of the war. Would that we could stop here ; but worse remains behind. Who that heard it will forget the memorable debate of August, '4B, when an English gentleman—an English peer—was not ashamed, from his place in Parliament, to avow and to justify the mutilation of an im portant despatch, some passages being sup pressed and the sense of the whole perverted, whereby that despatch was construed to mean precisely the contrary of that which in the in tention of the writer it did mean? What security have we that Lord GREY, as War Minister in 1855, may not do again what, as Colonial Minister he did, and defended, in 1848? From that time to this, so far as we know, there has been on his part no apology, no expression of regret, no indication of changed opinions. Shall we ever feel sure that the despatches of Lord RAGLAN have reached us in an ungarbled form ? Why should the letter of a commander-in•chief be differently dealt with from the memorial of a West Indian petitioner? And what confi dence can the nation place in a Minister whose code of morality admits of such conve nient relaxations ? Intellectual incapacity may be pitied—administrative disaster may be a misfortune as much as a fault; but there are offences against which the most unin structed conscience revolts, and exposures which are more than politically discreditable. Shame on Parliament if, amidst the perplexity caused by the disruption of parties, and under any pretended plea of national necessity, the s appointment of such a man to such a post be assed over in silence Shame on the army , forgetting for a moment its instincts of dis- THE PRESS. cipline and silence, it does not with one voice protest against this betrayal of its interests— this stain upon its hitherto untarnished name ! LORD JOHN RUSSELL AND THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE. —— THE explanation of Lord Jona Enema. on the causes of his resignation created at first a strong impression in his favour, as it w a s assumed that he spoke the truth. But the Duke of NI WOMITLIS speech, if it has done nothing else, has convicted him—we must use an ugly word—of falsehood. As every one is speaking of the contradiction between these statements, we place some passages in parallel colums : LORD JOHN RUSSELL. DUKE 07 NEWCASTLE. When the office of Secre- In the Cabinet at which tary of State for War was it was determined that the separated from the office of two offices of Secretary of Secretary of State for the State for the Colonies and Colonies, Lord Aberdeen Secretary of State for War thought it right to propose should be divided, a discus to the Duke of Newcastle to sion took place, in which I keep which of the two offices felt it my duty to point out he should moat desire. The to the Cabinet the difficulties Duke of Newcastle, with a which would follow from commendable ambition, as that separation, unless, be. I think, replied that, having fore it took place, the duties exerted himself in fitting of the new secretaryship out a very large expedition, were accurately defined, and he should, of course, like to some definite plan were laid remain at the head of the down ; but the noble lord department which should expressed his opinion that, have the directim of the in deference to the wishes orders for that expedition, of Parliament, the measure and the general management should be immediately adop of the war. Lord Aberdeen ted. The measure was de consented to that arrange- termined upon by the Cabi ment, and I was a consent- net, and lam sure the noble ing party to that appoint- lord cannot have forgotten— merit. I am confident, moreover, that none of my late col leagues who sit near me will have forgotten—that at the conclusion of that discussion my last words were these : " The Cabinet having now decided that the two seere taryships shall be divided, all that I can say, as far as I am personally concerned, is that I am perfectly ready to retain either or neither.' (" Hear," and Cheers.) So much, my lords, for my " strong wish " referred to by the noble lord. There are other contradictions between the two statements which leave a painful impres sion on the mind that Lord JOHN RussELL's speech, whatever might be its merits, was not distinguished for veracity. But in the above instance the Duke of NEWC4STLE has the testi mony of his colleagues in his favour, and we are forced to the conclusion that the late Pre sident of the Council has made as strange a misstatement as ever fell from the lips of a public man. DECEASE OF THE COALITION. As the Coalition has fallen, it is only right that its parliamentary obsequies should have been discharged by its chief undertaker, the Earl of ABERDEEN. We shall endeavour to trace the cause of its decease with as much delicacy as possible, influenced more by scien tific than sentimental considerations. Debility, causing want of political stamina, was the main disease of the late Cabinet. It was so organised as that it could not possibly he strong. It was from the first a Ministry of suspended opinions and smothered antipa thies. Enmity assumed the air of friendship, and there was merely the resemblance, with out the inward reality, of sympathy between the colleagues. Rivalries and petty jealousies are to be found in all Cabinets, but weakness, we repeat, was the fatal malady of the Aber deen-Russell Ministry. Superficial thinkers might suppose that such a fault could not be possibly imputed to a junction in which the varied knowledge of Lord JOHN lU:realm., the versatile accomplishments of the vivacious Lord PALMERSTON, were assisted by the in genious sophistry and fluent declarations of Mr. GLADSTONE, and the practised abilities of Sir JAMES GRAHAM. But there was no development of collective political power in their anomalous union, and a total deficiency in executive energy was the result. The Ministers met together, but their minds did not unite. It was a Coalition in name, and a hollow combination in reality. 99 The radical weakness of the Cabinet can now be seen more clearly after the revelations made by the Duke of NEWCASTLE to the House of Lords in his speech on Thursday. His Grace gave most important evidence against the weakness of the Earl of ABERDEEN. It is evident that Lord ABERDEEN dreaded dis pleasing the Duke of NEWCASTLE, or offend ing his Grace by taking any steps for giving more e ffi ciency to the War-offi ce . Why so ? Why did not the Prime Minister act more boldly? Why did he not take the Noble Duke at his word, when he offered to resign the seals of Minister for War? The answer to those questions is not at first obvious, but with a little attention to the state of the facts the reason of Lord ABERDEEN'S wretched vacillation will be easily apparent. Lord ABERDEEN had no parliamentary following of his own, and was indebted to the vicarious aid of the Duke of NEWCASTLE for his position as a Prime Minister. The lesson taught by such facts is the utter folly of trying to make a Cabinet unless the nominal Prime Minister be the real chief of his Ministry ; and that he never can be unless his imme diate personal following, and the number of members of the Legislature who serve under his banner, give him a decided personal pre dominance. Of course Lord JOHN Realm'. cannot be re leased from the responsibility of having even acquiesced in the arrangements of the late Cabinet. His place in it from the first is now known to have been a galling one, and he is not of a temperament fit for enduring penance in a white sheet. He acquiesced in the fatal arrangements which gave the whole offices of the war into the hands of the Peel ites, and he now suffers accordingly. He made the Whigs pass under the Caudine forks of the Coalition : in doing so he dis armed himself, and degraded his followers. He ignored all the grand traditions of what was once " the great Whig party," and he suc cumbed to a clique of the growth of yesterday. With faltering steps and half-frightened air he crept into the Coalition. He has rushed out of it in a frenzy of not ungenerous rage. He must now recollect Mr. DISRAKLI'S pro phecy as to " the loss of character " certain to result from a junction of renegade Tories pretending to be " Liberals," and recalcitrant Whigs describing themselves as " Conserva tives." The Noble Lord must feel small com fort in reflecting on the fact that Mr. MACAU LAY advised him to join Lord ABERDEEN. Nor probably will Mr. MACAULAY find much gratification in witnessing how little of the oracular there was in his advice. Lord JOHN, probably, will not again refer to a gentleman without any official or statesmanlike responsi bilities as an augur in parliamentary affairs. The retrospective, and not the future, should be the mission of Mr. MACAULAY. Nor was the ability of Mr. GLADSTONE of any use to the Coalition. The Whigs studiously avoided him, and never gave him their confi dence. They admired his talents (as who does not ?), but they never applauded him. They disliked seeing the financial department taken out of their party, and would have pre ferred that a block of inutile lignum of their own cutting had been put into the Exchequer. Mr. GLADSTONE has power over an audience, but he has not that commanding energy of nature which masters and moulds a party. He can give brilliant support rather than vigorously sway. A dominating ascendancy of spirit was not assigned to him by nature. He wants that fire of genius and robust hardihood of soul requisite for wielding other men. He never could grapple night after night in debate with a passionate and powerful orator in the signal style with which Mr. STANLEY (Lord DERBY) confuted O'CONNELL. Mr. GLADSTONE illustrates the truth that a collec tion of great talents does not necessarily form a great man. He will often captivate his hearers, but he can never command a British Senate. Weakness, therefore, it is obvious, was the fatal malady of the unhappy Coalition, and at such a time as this there can be no greater fault. A weak Cabinet must necessarily be a wavering one; and at this crisis, when our army is rotting, it is not too much to say that wavering is wickedness. ..~-.y.