The Press. — London, England, 1855-03-17 00:00:00

MI.RH 17, 1855 another sort of Coalition, retaining some of the policy of the defunct Ministry while attempting to anticipate the mission of its in evitable successor. In an avowed Coalition the evil is caused by suspended action of the Executive ; but in a transition Ministry the mischief results from vacillation in design. In the present half-century we have had three such Cabinets—those of Mr. ADDINOTON, Lord GODERICH, and that now in existence. Each and all of these were discredited from their birth. The Court could not galvanise the Addington Cabinet into the resemblance of healthy life. The Goderieh Ministry, like the present one, had a quondam Tory Premier, followed by a tail of " Old Whigs." The Court for its own convenience tolerated its in firmity for a time, and the country acquiesced without a murmur in its dismissal. Of these three Cabinets we think that of Lord PALMERS TON decidedly the weakest. It is more oliqueish, and supported by less active influ ences than either that of ADDDINGTON or Lord GODERICH. Its hope of weathering the storm was destroyed by the secession of three such men as Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. SIDNEY HER BERT, and Mr. GLADSTONE. In the meanwhile people ask how long is this transition system to continue? In the cases of all the official blunderers Lord PALMERSTON has sought " to make things plea sant," and he has taken the reputation of the Duke of NEWCASTLE under his special protec tion. The Noble Viscount has gained his point in becoming a Premier, and there is le ammenament deft* of the Palmerston policy. Are we to accept the Viscount's recent recruit, Sir ROBERT PEEL, as an authority on his foreign policy ? In his speech at Tam worth the new Lord of the Admiralty stated that " no settlement of the Eastern question " would be satisfactory unless Poland and " Hungary were restored." We take it for granted that the Honourable Baronet was ex pressing only his own opinion on that occa sion. "An Austrian alliance he denounced," says the report of his speech. Whether Sir ROBERT PEEL'S sentiments be telegraphed to Vienna we are not aware, but it would not be the first time that Lord Jona RossELL was startled by news from Tamwerth. The incident, however unimportant, is enough to show the uncertainty that results from a transition Cabinet. No firm foreign policy can be counted on by our allies when they see that another Ministerial change is rapidly approaching. The action of Parlia ment is suspended, and an oscillating motion is given to all our affairs. In the meanwhile one useful purpose is performed by our Ministry of 'Transition. Conservatives can now clearly see the advan tages of their own unity, and even the most sceptical must be convinced that Lord DERBY acted with admirable sagacity in declining office until he had allowed his oppo nents to destroy each other and exhaust them selves. Two mouths since Lord PALMERSTON had a reputation, but what is it now? THE NUNS AT SCUTARI. - - Is a recent number of this journal we directed attention to certain proceedings of the nuns at Scutari, which had been communicated to us from an authentic source. Our readers will have been led to infer from the tone of the observations we then made that these women are being employed, not as nurses of the sick and wounded, which was ostensibly the character in which they solicited and were allowed admission into the hospitals, but as religious teachers, who are prosecuting sys tematically and assiduously the work of proselytism. Several cases have already been discovered in which they have succeeded in instilling the tenets of the Romish faith into the minds of the soldiers on whom they have attended. We mentioned an instance which occurred at Scutari a short time since, as illustrative. of the dangers to which our suffering country men have been exposed by the home Govern meat. At Kulleli we are given to understand that perverts are being rapidly made. Miss THE PRESS. STANLEY reigns supreme in this establishment, having at her command a numerous retinue of the sisterhood, between whom and herself there exists the most complete confidence and the most cordial sympathy. A Jesuit priest lives in the building, and so skilfully have matters been arranged that there is scarcely an orderly who is not subject to his authority, and the minister of his will. The system on which the nurses were located and are made use of differs essentially from that established with so much judgment, and maintained with such success by Miss NIGHTINGALE. These women attend not only bad cases, as at Scu tari, where there presence is an advantage to the patient and a service to the medical officers, but are indiscriminately distributed for regular and permanent duty among the various wards to au extent which has occa sioned great inconvenience, and will probably be productive of much scandal. In this, and indeed in all other respects, Miss STANLEY has set herself up in opposition to Miss NIGHTINGALE, but for whose firmness and vigilance, under very trying and difficult cir cumstances, much embarrassment would have been created. We shall not be surprised to learn that some official representation has been made upon this subject, for it is now a matter of notoriety that the Romanist party are carrying out their designs, so far, at least, as Kulleli is concerned, not only unopposed, but actually assisted by Miss STANLEY. The facts to which we have referred are beyond question, and demand the immediate and vigorous interference of the Government. SIR JAMES GRAHAM. WHILE the intentions of certain isolated states• men of the present time are under speculative discussion in the various clubs and social re unions of London, it is very remarkable to note the difference of tone taken by persons when contrasting the career of Sir JAMES GRAHAM with the antecedents of Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT and Mr. GLADSTONE. A leading organ on Thursday linked together the names of these three eminent politicians in an article which sarcastically consoled them for their errors in reference to the inquiry committee, by con fessing that " their characters were too high " for impeachment," and it subsequently added, " we are bound to accord them an in " scrutable patriotism." Elsewhere it testi fled also to the " undoubted conscientious ness" of those three statesmen. But, without offering any " impeachment " of his character, we must demur to the per sonal pretensions of Sir JAMES GRAHAM being put in exactly the same scale with those of his brother seceders from the Palmerston Cabi net. It is really a subject fairly open to in quiry at the present time, why a statesman of the energy and eloquence of Sir JAMES GRAHAM does not stand himself as the head of a con nection in Parliament. Seen and heard on the occasion of one of his celebrated speeches, Sir JAMES GRAHAM could scarcely fail to rivet the attention of an intellectual spectator. His commanding figure and highly imposing air, with his tone of measured dignity and display of elocutionary grace, his felicitous selection of matter and sustained force of logic, would of themselves commend the speaker to marked notice from a competent observer. Nor could such a per son fail to note the evident proofs of high mental culture shown in the rhetoric of the display. The whole speech, from the gravity of the careful exordium to the close of the stirring peroration, would be seen to make up into that " great whole " more often aimed at than attained by artists in words. " What " a fine speaker r' would be the not unnatural exclamation of any auLlitor who listened to Sir JAMES GRAHAM for the first time ; and an extraordinary idea of the versatile Baronet's oratorical powers would be left upon the mind of a political novice, who might wonder that such a parliamentary performer had not more dominant influence in the Senate. 247 Yet further experience of the House of Commons would show that even to the ora tory of the member for Carlisle some weighty exceptions must be taken. Though too argu mentative to sink into a declaimer, he wants that promptitude and inspiration on his legs which makes a truly great debater. Excel ling in prepared statement, he does not equally shine when he has suddenly to reply to a previous speaker of the first rank. Though in a different school of eloquence, the orations of the member for Carlisle are nearly as much " set speeches " as those of the late Mr. SHZIL. Their frequent recklessness of language is thus more remarkable, as their careful pre paration is so obvious. Seldom has an emi nent writer so often committed himself by unlucky escapades ; nor can we forgot, as Mr. DISRAELI recently observed, that " iu the " oratory of terror the Right Honourable " Baronet is a great proficient." Except Mr. O'CONNELL, no other public man of the late or present age has so often employed the language of intimidation. It was worse than indiscreet, and undignified in a Privy Councillor, to warn the House of Commons of the number of Roman Catholics in the army, when the Romish Aggression Bill was under considera tion; and " the soldier knows the reason why " he has a better mess," was another unparlia mentary offence of the same kind in more recent times. Thus, also, when inconsistently pleading for au open committee, after having first strenuously resisted all inquiry into the ar-office blunders, Sir JAMES GRAHAM an noyed both the House of Commons and the public press. Imitating, not for the first time, a well-known and admired passage in one of Mr. CHOKER'S powerful speeches against the Reform Bill, the member for Carlisle talked of " that bauble," alluding to his old plaything the mace, and threatened that the public press would vanquish the Commons of England ! Ho then intimated at the same time his conviction that the British press would not keep secrecy, even if warned by authority that publication of certain evidence would injure the public cause I We are proud to say that, in more than ono memorable instance, the history of English journalism honourably refutes such a harsh insinuation. Yet these and other kindred defects will not be enough to account for Sir Jamas GRAHAM'S want of ruling authority in public affairs. It is not merely to such points that the terrible " but" of his critics in society always refers. Indiscretions of the tongue like those of Sir JAMES GRAHAM would in another man be com pensated for by his undoubted official apti tude, his admitted energy in managing a department, and industry in mastering the details of our intricate social problems. Even such unpleasant incidents as his " dark" attack on Recorder SHAW might be palliated by considerations of marked personal an tagonism. But a long career of habitual vacillation, an innate propensity to adopt the extremes of opposite parties, and afterwards rapidly recalcitrate, must detract fatally from the weight of any public character in England. Thus, in looking at Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S ex traordinary course, we see that he has been a candidate for contradictory honours. There is no faction which at times he has not vehe mently supported, and afterwards violently opposed. A century hence, philosophic his torians might doubt whether there were not three or four different " Sir J. Graham's" in Parliament, during the reigns of GEORGE IV., King WILLIAM, and Queen Vicrroaia. They might plausibly conjecture that no single statesman could have appeared in such a political monopolylogue. First, a " Cumber " land yeoman, wanting to knock down the Funded Interest ; then a lacerator of Privy Councillors, out-Cobbetting Cossurr in his tirades ; next, a defender of the Irish Protes tant Church, in 1835, warning the House of Commons (vide Hansard) " that Whig princi " plea consisted in jealousy of Popery, as an " instrument of power," and afterwards pane gyrising the religion of Rome in 1851, as " the " faith of Fessuis, and the creed of Sir THOMAS " MORE, which touched, as with fire from "heaven, the tongue of PASCAL;' an advocate for secret i nves tigation when he was himself charged with opening letters; then a denouncer • I HFl'ft•d•