The Press. — London, England, 1855-06-30 00:00:00

JUNE 30,1855. patronage of the appointments connected with this has hitherto been too valuable a per quisite for the statesmanlike alteration to find avour with the Directors. For this deplorable condition of the Indian finances the great Conservative party are not responsible. When the Coalition insisted in hurrying their India Bill through Parliament, the Conservative leaders deprecated and to the utmost of their power exerted themselves to prevent all hasty legislation. Their councils, however, were not listened to, and we are now reaping the fruits of this ill-digested mea sure. So far as it has yet gone the evil is not irremediable, but with a deficit increasing yearly at an enormous rate, it is clear that the ways and means of the Indian Government will soon have reached their utmost limit. The crisis is patent—it is im possible to shut our eyes to it—and the only question for Parliament to consider is, whether it will fairly face the difficulty and boldly deal with it, or whether it will wait till the Directors and Mr. VERNON SMITH conjointly shall have involved in inextricable embarrassment the finances of our Eastern empire. LORD PALMERSTON AND HIS CABINET. WE have alluded elsewhere to Mr. ROEBUCK'S motion. Let us now briefly glance at the circumstances which have brought it on. Four months ago Mr. ROEBUCK, by his motion for the appointment of the Sebastopol Com mittee, overthrew the Ministry of Lord Am- In doing so Mr. ROEBUCK was the exponent of public opinion. The vote was regarded, rightly, as a vote of censure. The majority of more than two to one was almost unparalleled in the records of Ministerial cen sures. There is an instinct in English opinion which seldom errs. It was surmised that the Cabinet of Lord ABERDEEN had a leaning towards Russia, and that the war was dis honestly carried on by Ministers not in earnest in its prosecution. We ourselves com mented from time to time upon the want of earnestness as regards the war which the financial measures of Mr. GLADSTONE dis played. The suspicion of a leaning towards the enemy of England, at a time of war, was sufficient to seal the doom of that Cabinet. The extent of its leaning, amounting to little short of treason, was then unknown. The debate consequent upon Mr. DISRAELI'S motion of the 24th of May gave us an insight into the deliberations of Lord ABERDEEN'S Cabinet, and elicited from Mr. GLADSTONE and Sir JAMES GRAHAM the ignominious confession of its real policy. We shall consider presently how fur those revelations bear upon Mr. ROEBUCK'S approaching motion, and upon Lord PALMERS TON and his Cabinet. Lord DERBY, when commissioned by her Majesty on the 31st of January to form a Government, considered (and who will not say rightly?) that the daty he owed to his Sovereign and country at such an emergency was para mount to all party considerations. He thought the country required a strong Government, and he sought the aid of Lord PALMERSTON to form one. It is well known that party sacri fices and personal sacrifices were '6 ffe red, which at least proved the disinterestedness of the Conservative leaders. Our readers will not have forgotten the dextrous artifice by which Lord DERBY'S patriotic intentions were frustrated. Lord PALMERSTON, pieferring a weak Government of which he should be the head, to a strong Government of which he should be only a leading member, by a disin genuous manoeuvre supplanted Lord DERBY and succeeded in forcing himself upon his Sovereign. He then possessed a prestige and influence in the country. He had not then been discovered. But how stands the matter now? If there was a member of Lord ABER DEEN'S Cabinet who more than another must have been and was cognisant of the treachery which has since been disclosed, that in lual was Lord PALMERSTON. The publicch only surmised it ; Lord PALMERSTON knew it. If there was an individual more than any other who ought to have protested against the DEEN. THE PRESS. Russian tendencies of that Cabinet and broken it up by resigning, it was Lord PALMERSTON. Did he resign? Did he pro test? And what was his first act when com- missioned by her Majesty to form a Govern ment? Why, to make the acceptance of office by the most Russian section of Lord ABER DEEN'S Cabinet a sine quii non in the formation of his own! Fortunately for England, the firmness of Mr. ROEBUCK brought about another Minis terial crisis. Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. GLAD STONE, and the Peelites retired. Sir Jams GRAHAM is not always discreet ; frequently he . . is mischievous. On the occasion of his re tirement he volunteered a etatement which now acquires signal importance in connection with Mr. ROEBUCK'S motion. In joining the Government of Lord PALDIERSTON he had supposed, as a matter of course, that the nomination of the Sebastopol Committee would be resisted. He had made no stipula tion upon . that subject, but there was one pledge, and one only, which he felt it to be his duty to exact from his Noble friend. We shall quote his words as reported in the Times of Saturday, Feb. 24th. He had before - - observed incidentally, but significantly, " With the exception, I think, of Lord l'Ax- " MLIRE and Lord CANNING, all the members " of the present Government in the Cabinet " are the identical persons who were members "of Lord ABERDEEN ' S Government " He then proceeds,—",l will tell the House, however, " there was one difficulty, which with me was cardinal, and upon which I .was entirely satisfied. I wished to know from my Noble 3 friend now at the head of the Government, " whether there was to be any change in the " foreign policy of Lord ABERDEEN'S Admi " nistration, to which we, as colleagues, had " given an unanimous consent, and also " whether with reference to the negotiations " now pending at Vienna there was any " alteration with respect to the terms which, " in our opinion, would be consistent with a " safe and honourable peace. Ithought it my " duty to satisfy myself upon these points, " and my Noble friend, in the most frank " manner, gave me explanations which were " entirely satisfactory." Let our readers now just consider what has been here disclosed by Sir JAMES GRAHAM himself. Why, that he regarded the adherence by Lord PALMERSTON to Lord ABERDEEN'S foreign policy, to which as colleagues they had given their unanimous consent, as a cardinal point; and that Lord PALMERSTON had declared his adherence to that policy in a most frank and satisfactory manner. But what was that foreign policy to which Lord PALMERSTON so readily promised to adhere ? The answer to this question is to be found in the speeches of Mr. GLADSTONE and Sir JAMES GRAHAM on Mr. DISRAELI'S motion of the 24th of May. Mr. WHITESIDE on that occasion denounced that policy as a pro- Russian policy, and its advocates as the advocates of Russia, and his bold denuncia tion was enthusiastically responded to by the House of Commons. We say, then. it is clearly and incontestably established, first, by the declaration of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, of Feb. 24th; and, secondly, by the speeches of Mr. GLADSTONE and Sir JAMES GRAHAM on Mr. DISRAELI'S motion last month, that Lord PALMEasToN frankly and unhesitatingly pledged himself to the Aberdeen pro Russian policy, which is execrated from one end of Great Britain to the other. Is it, then, right— is it safe that Lord PALMERSTON should con tinue at the head of the Government? From motives of personal ambition he prevented the formation of a really strong Government under Lord DERBY, in whose honour, and spirit, and earnestness the country might have confided. He now turns out, on the evidence of his late colleagues, who are discarded by the country, to be equally, if not more criminal than themselves. Mr. ROEBUCK proposes to bring the question to an issue. Is there a Conservative who can hesitate as to the ver dict he must give ? WANTED AN ORATOR. NATURE, we arc told, abhors a vacuum, and at present there seems a great void in the Official Reform Society of Drury Lane. Relays of speakers are put on every week, but as yet there has not been ono thoroughly effec tive political address at its gatherings. The logic of the speeches is not sharp, the matter used in them is of dubious character, and their rhetoric is not very effective. The Society only says aloud what the various journals have been proclaiming for weeks in terser style, and with more sterling vigour. There is an amateurist air about the performers at the new Society which almost tempts one into thinking that they merited being quizzed by the Premier on their " Private Theatricals." This week it was expected that Mr. DICKENS would have broken new ground, and started forward as the Cobden of the Association. People were discussing whether Boz would gather as many laurels in politics as in litera ture. " Why not? SHERIDAN had dazzled in " his comedies, and shone in St. Stephens." The names of other " double-firsts" in lite rature and politics were recalled, and coteries debated and looked oracular as to whether the special faculty of Mr. DICKENS was suited for politics, with its nocturnal logic, its complex modes of reflections, its requisites for dealing with men of the world, and not with the children of the brain. Then, would Mr DICKENS surrender all the time necessary for mastering facts, and becoming familiar with social questions ? These speculations were soon set at rest by Mr. DICKENS. "By liters " Lure I have lived, and I am perfectly aware " that I cannot serve two masters." And so those who dreamed of seeing Mr. DICKENS try his powers in a hand-to-hand struggle with the great Whig families, beheld their visions of a new Liberal chieftain vanish. After such statements as to his intentions, Mr. DICKENS, of course, does not come within the category of politicians. Decided purposes, party attachments, and avowed principles, are requisites for a leader of other men in England ; and Mr. DICKENS, on deliberation, has thought it better to confine himself to letters. Judging of his powers by his display on Wednesday, we think that he has acted wisely. His ad• dress, succesfful with a mere platform au dience, was far too Piekwickian to command the attention of a stubborn and jealous audience like the House of Commons. It was the very quintessence of caricature to assail the " comic old gentleman," the Premier, in a speech studded with carefully conned jokes. Serious political passion, an undaunted and sustained resolve, would sway the masses at the present time, but prolonged bur lesque, though exciting smiles at the mo ment, raises sneers afterwards. Capacity for affairs is one thing, aptitude for exciting the risible muscles is another. The people hunger for the proofs of a strong will, which would lead them on through the obstacles of improvement. Since they cannot have a CHATHAM, it is but sore comfort to get a Jos GRIMALDI, with his " roars of laughter," cheers and loud laughter," &c. We should be sorry to see the society full into the hands of mere holiday speakers or amusing comedians. There is solid business cut out for it to perform, and the enthusiasm with which the crowd hailed Mr. LAYARD testi fies to the presence of strong political feelings The errors of the Member for Nineveh were overlooked on account of his zeal. The speakers who followed Mr. Thomas were tame and ineffective. Mr. M'CULLAOH, an ex-Private Secretary to an ex-Secretary for Ireland (Mr. LABOUCHERK), fell foul of the President and Vice-President of the Board of rradc, because " one was a Peer, and the " other the son of a Peer." T his is a pitiful mode of arguing Administrative Reform. There were far more flagrant cases of appoint ments upon which Mr. WCULLAGH might have commented. Could he not have put it to his auditors, Was it right to appoint a barrister like Mr. PH INN to a high post in the Admi ralty, over the heads of several officials who had been working in that department for several years? Or was it right to nominate Mr. HowzrA. over all the officials in the War office ? We should like to have the opinion of the assemblage at Drury Lane taken upon facts of that description, which have nothing r F r,