The Press. — London, England, 1856-10-04 00:00:00

948 THE WEEK. THOUGH our Ministerial journals have constantly asserted lately that the English and French Ambassadors were on the point of leaving Naples, and that the allied squadrons were under orders for the Neapolitan coast, yet the adoption of these decisive measures has been delayed, and it is now reported that the Emperor of the FRENCH, notwithstand ing the pressure of our Government, is reluctant to have recourse to them. While the whole question remains in suspense, rumours of fresh European complications and of renewed hostilities agitate the political atmosphere, and credit is injuriously effected. The displays of taurotnitezia in Spain furnish the ablest image of our present con ditions. The Noble Lords at the head of the Treasury and of the Foreign-office are] the picadores who by their teasing darts lash our noble Bull into fury, while Naples is the red rag which is fluttered in his view to dazzle his eye and divert his attention from other objects. There never was anything more ridiculous and contemptible in the world than this outburst of rage against King BOMBA, as our Liberals delight to call his Majesty, save always the patriotic offer of that great Liberal Mr. WALTER SAVAGE (worthily named) LANDOR to give 51. to the first Italian town that rises in insurrection, and 95/. (his whole wealth being 1001.) to the brave assassin who shall succeed in murdering the Emperor of the FRENCH, the Emperor of Russia, or any other tyrant (Mr. SAVAGE LANDOR'S style for crowned heads) of Europe. The King of NAPLES has offered, it is said, a free pardon to POERIO and some other political prisoners, if they will only stoop to solicit it. They have declined to accede to this condition, believing probably that their liberation will be effected by a different agency and in a more triumphant manner. The question now is—What will the Emperor of the FRENCH decide to do? Should his Majesty decline to endorse the menace of our Government, how humiliating will be its position ! Should he decide on supporting the menace, what will be the next step ? This is a practical question worth consideration. Should France and England withdraw their representatives, it certainly will not be with the expectation of keeping altogether apart from Neapolitan affairs, for that would give the King occasion to triumph over them. They would anticipate that some disturbances would break out, and that thus a pretext would be afforded them for that interference which their conduct would plainly show that they desire, though as yet they have no valid excuse for it. The with drawal of their representatives, and the appearance of their squadrons, would be intended as a signal for the disaffected to rise throughout the Two Sicilies. Would this be a policy worthy the two leading Powers of Europe ? Supposing them still successful, it is evident that active inter ference must take the shape of an army of occupation. In that case, resistance on the part of the King would be out of the question. But what would then be done with the Government? Would a French army remain at Naples as a French corps remains in Rome, or would there be ajoint occupation by French and British ? Suppose a Liberal Government established in Naples, how long would it last? In the end, should we not have the old, wearisome, disgraceful game of Spanish politics played over again? The action of our Administration on Italian politics has been singularly contradictory. While at the Paris Congress, Lord CLARENDON expressed an anxious desire that all foreign occupation of the Italian States should cease, he raised this Neapolitan question, which, if it has any result whatever, must lead to an extended occupation of Italy by foreign troops, and in its protraction to an indefinite period. Is the English public prepared for this consequence ? The Government of Russia has issued a circular, protesting against the pressure to which the King of NAPLES has been subjected. The interference of England and France in the internal affairs of that kingdom is declared to be a violation of that principle of the inde pendence of Sovereign States which the allied Governments pro fessedly went to war with Russia to maintain on behalf of Turkey. This circular has been met by our Ministerial press with a tone of swagger, little creditable to its candour or courtesy. The organ of the Premier takes the lead. It declares that we have " summarily smashed " Russia, and misrepresents a phrase in the Russian Circular to assert that it proclaims the right of the King of NAPLES to govern his subjects as be pleases. The Daily News raves that " the great and righteous writ de Zunatico inquirendo," must issue against " the base bad Bourbon," in spite of " the old Menschikoff haughtiness, untamed by a disastrous " war and a humiliating peace." It does not strike us that this is the tone in which the Russian Circular should have been met. All such bullying nonsense really degrades the character of this country. If it is to be maintained, we had better prepare for a war with all Europe in the interest of revolutionary propagandism. If it be the mere froth and scum of rabidly Radical declamation, it should be promptly dis owned by the good sense of the country. The political horizon in the United States does not brighten. As the veo-slavery and anti-slavery parties have put forward their candi dates, the Whigs conceive the juncture favorable for proclaiming an intermediate policy, founded on the single principle of upholding the Union, and keeping the balance equal between the parties. Their candidate is Mr. FILLMORE. We imagine the time for such a nomi nation is gone by. Men on each side are too much in earnest to think of S compromise. The idea is spreading through the North that each new slave State :tailed to the Union, will narrow the field for free industry. For tqc negroes little sympathy might be felt; but should the question SATURDAY, assume this practical shape, the contest must become embittered by the clash of material interests. But at present we see only the beginning of strife. We are not among those who have viewed with unqualified appro bation the conduct of Dr. BLOMFIELD in the resignation of his see, nor the principle on which it was accepted, nor the acts by which it has been followed. At the same time, we are bound to admit that the personal character of the ex-Bishop, and the conduct of his diocese in times of no slight difficulty, is deserving of our admiration and sympathy. He was a man who, with the most decided opinions both upon civil and religious questions, had the rare wisdom to appreciate the virtue of compromise, and to moderate his own private views, even where he could hare carried them out, in consideration of the peace of the Church. But this temperance in the treatment of doctrinal differences was not the result of either doubt or fear. He was a bold and able champion of all those rights which the Constitut'in has conferred upon the Church, which, let her wily antagonists say what they will to the contrary, were a quarter of a century ago in very considerable jeopardy. That danger to the Church could not have been chimerical which induced such men as LYNDHURST and WELLINGTON, and that noble and large-natured gentleman Sir ROBERT INcus, to take their stand on its defence. The danger, thanks to such supporters, was averted : and now that it has passed way, we are told that it never existed. This is a very common form of injustice to the merits of departed statesmen, for the simple reason that he who successfully withstands change has no existing phenomenon to point to inseparably connected with his name. Either the destructive or the creative intellect makes, of course, more noise in the world than the purely conservative ; just as the man who poisons his wife is a much more famous character than the physician who baffles disease. The praise of unobtrusive conservatism, con scientious piety, and boundless charity, will ever surround the name of CHARLES JAMES BLOMFIELD. We remember a joke made in the House of Commons, we think by Mr. H. DRUNINIOND, on the subject of the temperance societies. " Tea veniente die, tea decedents canebant," said the hon. member. The likeness of Eurydice to the herb which cheers but does not in toxicate, was perhaps an elegant conception, and it is remarkable that the parties who annihilated Orpheus were devotees of the rosy god. The lesson should not be lost upon us. Orpheus was a sweet singer, and we know that tea parties and hymns commonly are found together. Contempt of good liquor may yet bring down upon us the wrath of its presiding deity, in the shape, not of raging Bacchanals, but of riotous draymen, and thirsty Bohemians, who would like nothing so much as to duck brother Stiggins in a butt of his own brewing. Seriously, we are very glad to see that Mr. SAMUEL POPE has received a sound and convincing rebuke from the common sense of Lord STANLEY. His Lordship adduces no less than eight reasons against the sanity of the Maine Liquor Law, any one of which would be quite sufficient to satisfy a reasonable man. Intoxication could not be abolished if wo would, and would not, so to speak, if wo could. That is to say, the numerical majority in favour of drink is so decisive, as to render any such attempt ludicrous, while it is clear that the abolition of the sale of what are called intoxicating liquors could never prevent the sale of stimulants in some shape, and cer tainly opium is worse than beer. This is the essence of Lord STANLEY'S argument, apart from his facts, and we recommend social reformers to give heed to it. There is a disposition abroad to expect a remedy for all social ills from Government which require checking. It is found out that bread is adulterated with alum, and sugar with sand, and immediately there is a cry, " Why doesn't Government interfere?" If an omnibus seat is not wide enough, or if a house does not get a sufficient supply of pure water, Government is expected to supply a remedy. Drunken ness and death result from the sale of beer, wine, and spirits, and up starts (upstarts most of these societies are) an association .into existence calling on Government to prohibit the sale of all such com modities. The latest case of the kind arises front the sale of drugs. Some foolish people attempt to poison themselves, but do not do it, by purchasing pennyworths of laudanum from different shops, and the sages of the Mansion-house exclaim in chorus that Government should interfere to prevent the sale of poisonous drugs. How this is to be done is the first question. All drugs are poisonous, if taken in excess. It was shown at a recent trial that a very common drug acts to destroy life if taken in large and repeated doses. Calomel pills would kill as certainly as laudanum drops if an excessive quantity were administered. The same might be said of such things as black draught or Epsom salts. A chemist's shop is as full of poisons as of drugs; and their "nastiness" is commonly our best preservative against the harm they might do us. If a person be bent on suicide, is it to be supposed he or she would be restrained because a chemist refused to serve pennyworths of laudanum ? The river at midnight would be far more certain. A sharp knife would give a more irre mediable hurt. Suffocation would be as easy while houses contain bed-posts and pocket-handkerchiefs, or while pennyworths of charcoal are to be purchased at chandlers' shops. There have been many deaths from charcoal; its fumes are as deadly poison as any drug to be bought at the chemist's shop. If the sale of drugs is to be pro hibited, why not prohibit the sale of charcoal ? Then why not pro hibit the sale of brimstone, which would produce suffocation a little more quickly than charcoal? Why not prohibit the sale of the most dangerous and destructive substance in the world—gunpowder, and, of course, firearms with it ? How many murders have been effected by their deliberate, and how many accidents caused by their iueautioui, THE PRESS.