The Press. — London, England, 1855-09-22 00:00:00

7eAlzE cAd4d-% //, r ://fLe-e-f. , Out No. 125.—V0L. 111. g't V rtss. LONDON, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1855. SINCE the fall of Sebastopol, the adherents of the Ministry exult in the failure of the Vienna Conferences last spring, and point to the success we have achieved as due to the policy of our Cabinet at that time. This exultation is indecent. The failure of a pacific negotia tion can never be legitimate matter for exulta tion, whatever victories may be subsequently achieved, unless the grounds on which it pro ceeded were insufficient or dishonourable. If the Government had declined to engage in the negotiation from a belief that the time for peace had not arrived, or had it insisted on the destruction of Sebastopol as a prelimi nary condition, we could understand how the fail of the town might be ascribed to the firm ness and foresight of its policy. But through out the Conferences it was assumed that Sebastopol would remain in the bands of Russia intact. The arguments of the Peace party proceeded on the assumption that there was in reality little difference between that principle of limitation agreed to by our Go vernment and that principle of counterpoise, proposed by Russia, which was subsequently found to have been sanctioned by the Pleni potentiaries of France and England. The negotiation turned in no way on Sebastopol, but on a very insignificant point of difference, which Russia yet thought concerned her honour. Had she conceded that point, Sebas topol would have been saved, and the Allies, according to the arguments now used, would have been disgraced. So far as Sebastopol was concerned, the Government and the Peace party stood on the same ground ; and it would be quite as just to charge the Ministry with having attempted by its policy to avert the triumph of our arms, as to bring such an in dictment against Sir .TAMES GRAHAM and Mr. GLADSTONE. The state of affairs before Sebastopol was no doubt unfavorable to peace, and formed an adverse element in the negotiation, though never mentioned at the Conferences. The Allies could scarcely have withdrawn from the siege without some loss of reputation. That difficulty should have been foreseen when the expedition was projected. It pursues us still, though in an altered form. We are. perhaps, even more unable to withdraw from the Crimea after victory than while the issue was in suspense. The fall of- Sebastopol, which, by a natural delusion in the public mind, was Supposed likely to terminate the war, will, it is now beginning to be perceived, only tend to give it a more determined character. The believers in an irresistible destiny overruling the will and reason of men may find support for their opinion in every step that has marked the origin and progress of this Eastern quarrel. The Crimean expedi tion was decided on without thought of the consequences, and those amongst our states men most strongly opposed to a war of ex tremity with Russia committed themselves to an act which rendered it well-nigh impossible for either party to withdraw from the contest until the resources on one side or on both Were exhausted. The constitution of the last LONDON, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 22,1855. Government was so unfortunate that it had no power of controlling popular sentiment when control was most necessary. Lord ABERDEEN lost the confidence of the nation through timidity, and attempted to regain it by rash ness. He fell at the moment when the Conferences he had arranged with so much care were about to be opened, and the Minis ter who had mainly contributed to his defeat was in turn overthrown in endeavouring to carry out his pacific policy. There is no parallel in history w such a succession of blunders. The Emperor ALEXANDER 18 reported to have declared that he would never treat for peace on a basis of defeat. Whether this report be literally correct or no, it exactly indicates the policy which it is tolerably certain Russia will pursue. The growth of the Roman power was likened by HORACE to that of an oak which flourishes from the strokes of the axe that lops its branches, and gathers strength from slaughter and loss. Something of this in• domitable spirit has animated the Russian Government in its wars. We must reduce the empire to the verge of ruin before we can hope to impose on it humiliating terms. Have we counted the efforts and sacrifices which will be necessary for such an enterprise ? The Crimea is not yet won. Perhaps a succes sion of desperate conflicts will still be required to wrest the whole peninsula from the enemy. We shall then have to garrison it with an enormous force, and afterwards have to turn our attention to enterprises more difficult even than the capture of Sebastopol. If peace be not practicable now, it will not be practicable till the Allies are in possession of St. Peters- burg, or till they have pursued the last army Russia can raise to the gates of Moscow. This war must end in such a defeat of Russia as will deprive her of all power to rank as a first-rate Power in Europe, or must result in terms of pacification which will leave her strong enough to attempt at some future time the realisation' of those ambitious schemes which have been freely imputed to her. In the latter case we never can have any security against her aggressive policy, save that which arises from dread of the opposition it will be certain to provoke from other States, and especially from the Governments of the West, and from the knowledge that her movements must always be viewed with jealousy. But on the supposition that in the course of this con test the strength of Russia is destroyed —as, if the war be waged to extremity it probably will be for all practical purposes for a genera. tion to come—there will remain but two first- rate Powers in the world—France and Eng land. Some politicians may regard this contin gency with satisfaction. We are not of them. The political world requires a balance of forces for its freedom and safety. It is most secure when its equilibrium is preserved by the counter but harmonious action of numerous independent States. Triumvirates have often had a long reign, as there is a shifting weight which can be thrown into one scale or the other. But when one of the governing powers is lost, the contest between the remaining two is seldom long delayed ; and that regulated system of independent States which it has required centuries to build up, and that balance of political power which it has uniformly been the object of great statesmen to uphold, are in danger of being totally overthrown. STAMPED .... SIXPENCE. UNSTAMPED..FIVEPENCE. If hostilities are to continue, it is perfectly plain that henceforth we shall prosecute them, not for Turkey, but against Russia ; and we must not shut our eyes to the fact that what ever successes we may gain, short of the total prostration of Russian power, will only tend to make terms of peace more difficult or im practicable. LORD PALMERSTON AND THE "TIMES." THE present age may certainly be considered as one of " extiaordivary events." Both branches of the BOURBONS have been swept away, and the distinguished chief of the House of Bonaparte rules potentially over France. For two years Ministerial changes have occurred in Downing-street far surpassing in variety the dissolving-views at the Poly technic. Speculative Republicans have been turned into Cabinet Ministers, and " Gents " from Australia who began with " five shil- lings " have become Privy Councillors. Other events, not less strange, have occurred. Drury-lane Theatre has been crow4ed to hear an English Opera Company ; Mr. FEAROUS O'Connell has received a public funeral ; and we have heard of an enterprising author whose " book " has been more sucees9ful at Tatter sall's than at " the Row." But far more surprising than any of these marvels is the astonishing event that on Thursday, the 20th of September, a panegyric was actually fired off from the Times at Lord PALMERSTON ! Well, that is a wonderful event 1 For twenty years, as all the journalists of England and as all their various readers must recollect, there were two English statesmen especially hateful to the Times. It abused them through all the moods and tenses of its vituperation. One was HENRY LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX, and the other was HENRY JOHN TEMPLE VISCOUNT PALMERSTON. At all times, and on all occasions, both these individuals were singled out as men to be vilified and scorned. We shall say nothing of the disgraceful means resorted to in depreciating Lord BROUGHAM; but we challenge any one to produce a single column of the Times recognising those graceful qualities in Lord PALMERSTON readily acknow ledged both by his personal enemies (out of Printing-house-square) and his political oppo nents. During the days of the Melbourne Cabinet, from 1835 to 1841, the Times abused Lord PALMERSTON. In Sir ROBERT PEEL'S time, from 1841 to 1846, it never gave him a good Ovoid. When Lord JOHN RUSSELL was Pre mier (1846 to 1851) the Times was always snarling and carping at the Foreign-office. It used all its power against him in the Don Pacifico debate, as in former days it had always assailed his Spanish policy. It vilified him grossly on occasion - Emperor NAPOLb.O7 branded him as " ally in Europe. Viscount PALMS; reption to the Times. There were this continuous reasons. It used thentio " Foreign '1""""" rs'•••• - . , • - asion of the coup ditat of the POLLON, and subsequently it as " having left us without ejk )e." From first to last 4,busio a HOLSTON was the systematic mi.; 4 iG a rule of inconsistink.of the tT --1 many to be found Pa , ~.. . • u us disparagement W :7 7 ' 1 1-t ised to be insinuated .` '.. ' t) live intelligence Ritm o... lt itii • ....- ...,* ...... .......) •—• E-I \P p, r' I I