The Press. — London, England, 1856-12-06 00:00:00

1164 THE WEEK. THE announcement in the last issue of THE PRESS, that the Confer ences would be resumed at Paris, has this week been confirmed by two of the Ministerial journals—the Morning Post and the Globe. These prints intimate that the Conference will only assemble, however, to give effect to Lord PALMERSTON'S edicts ; that he has secured the co operation of France, Austria and Sardinia, and that Russia will put forward pretensions only to have them rejected with contumely. This may possibly be the case ; but the renewal of the C onference is, at all events, a great fact. The points which have prevented the faithful execution of the Treaty of Paris will be fairly discussed ; and it will be a great advantage to be free from that mystification which has sur rounded the whole question since the adjournment of our Parliament. An important item of foreign intelligence is the note addressed by the Ambassadors of France and Russia at Constantinople to the Turkish Minister, REDSCHID PACHA. The substantial authenticity of this note there appears no reason to doubt, though we observe that the Vienna Correspondenz asserts that two notes were delivered sepa rately by the Ambassadors—their purport, however, being the same . The communication contained four important interrogatories ; first , whether the Government of the Sultan was willing to leave the whole question of Bolgmd and the Isle of Serpents to be disposed of by a Conference at Paris, or would prefer the offer of Russia to cede the Isle of Serpents and the Delta of the Danube—Russia retaining possession of Bolgrad ; second, whether the Porte did not conceive that the occupation of the Danubian principalities by Austria was contrary to the terms of the Treaty of Paris ; thirdly, whether the presence of an English squadron in the Black Sea was not also contrary to the term of the Treaty ; and fourth, whether the Divans of the Principalities would be at liberty to declare in favour of their administrative union. If this statement be correct, it is certain that the policy of France and Russia on the Eastern question is adverse to that of England and Austria. The Court of Paris may perhaps conceive that it has just ground of complaint, as unquestionably it has fulfilled the terms of the Treaty itself, and has lent no coun tenance to its infraction in any way. The first occasion of difference between the Governments of France and England, was probably the ordering an English squadron into the Black Sea without consultation with our Allies. This one false step first led to a coolness between the two Governments, which subsequent events seem rather to have aggravated than appeased. The public mind seems at last alive to the fact that we are about to commence one of those little wars which have always been imme diately disastrous to the credit of the country, and ultimately have swollen to colossal proportions. We allude to the expedition about to make war on Persia ; the alleged cause being the siege of Herat by a Persian force. As Herat was formerly a frontier fortress of Persia, and one of its bulwarks against invasion by the Affghan tribes, there appears no just cause why Persia should not attempt to regain p oases sion of it, more especially as the fertile province of Korassan has been repeatedly laid waste by barbarous incursions. We can imagine that Russia must be well pleased with this British expedition. It seems likely to play effectually into her hands. If Persia can be per suaded to resist the dictation of England, and to defy this expedi tionary force, Russian aid in men and money will not be wanting. In that case our efforts would only succeed in establishing Russian influence in the Persian Court, and a war with Persia, backed by the resources of Russia, waged by us at so great a distance from our supplies might prove to be one of the most arduous contests in which we ever engaged. Already there are reports that the Russian Government is preparing to assemble a considerable force on the southern shore of the Caspian, that it may support Persia in the event of hostile invasion of her territory. Our Government, on the other hand, is intriguing with theiAffghan chiefs, is subsidising our old enemy, DOST MAHOMMED, supplying him with arms which may one day be turned against ourselves, and seems inclined to send a new expedition into A ffghan istan, to march to the scene of hostility. It would have seemed our safest policy to have endeavoured to strengthen and maintain the independence of the Persian kingdom as a barrier against Russian encroachments, rather than to take steps to weaken it and bring Russian forces into its aid. The late war will have been concluded to little purpose if it is to be instantly renewed with Russia in a locality where our operations must necessarily be slow and enormously expensive, and the success of our arms, without great efforts, be extremely problematical. Lord PALMERSTON'S choice of Bishops is said to have been not a little influenced by the advice of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY. Three Low Church nominations, as in the cases of MONTAGU VILLIERS, Dr. BARING, and the Rev ROBERT BICKERSTETH, seem rather one-sided. It seems strange that such a mind as the Premier's should he suddenly seized with " Low Church " fever, and the choice of three " Low Church" bishops certainly does look as if the Viscount, distrusting his own fitness, had applied for external advice somewhere. It is to be observed that Mr. BICKERSTETH is not " the Bickersteth," but only nephew to the late eminent author. Doubtless he has considerable personal merits of his own, though they seem rather to belong to the SATURDAY, character of a good parish priest than a bishop. It has been remarked by a Liberal organ, on Tuesday, " Good in many respects as Lord PAL " MERSTON'S appointments have been, the men he has chosen are hardly " equal in knowledge, eloquence, learning, sagacity, courage, modera " tion, and influence, to the emergencies of the times." There is truth and exaggeration in that remark. Their " courage " and " influence "is considerable, and they have some " sagacity ;" but we admit that " the learning " and " eloquence " of Bishop MONTAGU VILLIERS and Mr. BICKERSTETH are not adequate to the wants of a Church assailed on every side by subtle scepticism, energetic dissent, and the well-dis guised sophistries of Rome, and whose most educated clergy are now divided seriously on questions of Church government. It is. said also that if such appointments save us from " semi-Romish fanaticism " we run the risk of an " ultra-Protestant bigotry.' Without adopting that view, we may say that such a system of selec tion does incur the danger of disparaging the claims of that profound theological erudition which has always been one of the glories of the English Church. We doubt whether, at Oxford or Cambridge, the late appointments will be approved ; and if Lord SHAFTESBURY in fluenced the appointment of Mr BICKERSTETH we feel assured that the original selection of MONTAGU VILLIERS was considerably aided by the Earl of CLARENDON. The recent verdict given in the case of "Lord LIICAN v. Daily News,* is such as the majority of the public most likely expected. English men are so justly jealous of the liberty of the press, that they are perfectly willing to shut one eye to its license. A newspaper article comes under the head of " privileged communications," and malice is not to be presumed. To prove it must always be extremely hard work, where the defendant has so ready an answer to plead as the exigencies of the public welfare. It does not, however, follow that be cause a newspaper ought not to be convicted of libel, that therefore it has not transgressed the limits of public duty and good taste. It may be inexpedient to visit with legal penalties language which may very fairly come under the ban of the social tribunal. Our own conclusion is that the use or abuse of the privilege of the press must be left in great measure to editorial discretion. Such seems the rational deduc tion from the verdict in question, and so much it seems impossible not to concede to the present position of journalism. Whether the suggestions of an Oxford Undergraduate, published in the Times of last week, really emanate from a young gentleman in statu pupillari or not we of course cannot determine. But, commit ting ourselves to any opinion on their practicality, we may say they certainly seem at first sight a fair solution of the difficulty. The com missioners seem virtually to have recognised the injustice as well as the inexpediency of throwing open school and college foundations to the whole world where these were working well, according to the intentions of the founders. We cannot ourselves approve even of such changes as have been introduced into St. John's College, and which were censured in this Journal more than two years ago. However, as they seem to have advanced no further on the same road, we have perhaps no great reason to complain. But it must be obvious, one would think, to persons of candour and common sense, that to slightly diminish the value of existing foundations by deducting something to establish fresh ones of a different nature, would be preferable to changing the character of those foundations altogether. Merchant Taylors' School, for instance, would, we are sure, gladly have surrendered something in the value, for the sake of retaining the permanent character, of its scholarships. By the Undergraduate's plan, the same number of fellowships for life would remain to encourage students — one great object to be desired at the present day—while a temporary provision would also bo secured for those who required support at the threshold of professional life. The Undergraduate may have been in error as to the exact amount of the Queen's College and Magdalene revenue ; but that is a matter of detail, and does not detract from the merit of the general plan. To found a certain number of university studentships, tenable for a term of years, out of the revenues of the colleges, leaving the college fellowships in statu quo, minus the almost imperceptible depreciation which such a tax would involve, seems to us a very equitable and practical device for reconciling the claims of he public with the vested interests of existing educational bodies. The Irish are clever folks at committing a murder and escaping its consequences The police, we are always told, are very active, the authorities mysterious, and the Government interested; but it happens that nothing comes of all this activity, mystery, and interest. May not this result be partly attributable to that system of secrecy the Irish police adopt in their preliminary investigations. In the case of the cruel murder of Mr. LITTLE, the authorities appear to be carrying this practice to a ridiculous extent. Secret sittings of a secret board secretly take place ; some secret police are secretly tracing a secret clue ; other secret police are secretly watching secretly suspected persons, while the terrible secret itself yet remains shrouded in the darkest secrecy. A little publicity, we are inclined to think, would do good. The facts of the case, so far as they are known, would be circulated and commented on far and wide ; every fresh discovery would stimulate public feeling, would lead to mutual reference and inquiry, and tend to multiply traces indicating the murderer. In the case of Courvoisier it was a result of this publicity which determine‘ ,l his conviction. A certain portion of plate was missing from the house; this fact came to the ears of a woman to whom Courvoisier had con fided the care of a small parcel. She was induced to open the packet, found plate engraved with the murdered nobleman's crest, gave information to the police, and convicted the murderer. It it the publicity given to the intelligence obtained which leads person not implicated in the crime, but acquainted with the criminal, THE PRESS.