The Press. — London, England, 1856-11-01 00:00:00

NOVEMBER 1, 1856. of controversy. It is not so much the violence of rival parties as the subject of their quarrel which lead us to this opinion. In all free countries the discussion of questions in which the whole body of the people are in terested is sure to be attended by a degree of heat which naturally seems to the statesmen of despotic Governments the forerunner of revolution. In America espe cially, where the fullest freedom of opinion is as it were the differentia of their constitution, much turbulence and disorder may occur without justifying us in predicting consequences of so much magnitude. But slavery is, in the language of the Americans themselves, " a peculiar institution " and one of its historical peculiarities is this that all empires in which it has existed have found in its rapid growth the most fatal impediment both to moral and material pro gress. We are necessarily compelled to take our instances from times antecedent to Chris tianity. But it so happens that there is in some respects a most remarkable resemblance between the Italian provinces of the second century before CHRIST, and the slave States of America at the present day. We have all read how the youthful TIBERIUS GRACCHUS was first incited to the agitation of those measures which modern scholars prove to have been ise and even conservative, by the spectacle of the vast solitudes which met his eye as he journeyed through Etruria on his way to Spain. The substitution of slave labour for free by the Roman nobility, by depriving the poorer classes of all means of saving money and acquiring land for themselves had gradually exterminated the old Italian yeomanry. Slowly and surely a corresponding change ensued in the composition of the Imperial armies. The old patriotic feeling began to decay, and though their consummate military organisation enabled the Romans to overcome the barbarian hordes of Gaul and Asia, yet the youthful vigour which had first made them masters of Italy and conquerors of Carthage was no longer discernable. Nor is the moral corruption in which the last years of the republic were steeped wholly unassign able to the same cause. The provincial middle class, usually admitted to be in all countries the surest support of national virtue, was destroyed. A freeman of the lower orders was virtually excluded from a,gri.- cultural employment; and in Italy there had hitherto been but two modes of living—by the sword or by the plough. When these re sources failed it was necessary to invent a third. Rome accordingly was crowded by ht.rdes of adventurers, whom necessity rendered unscru pulous, and who subsisted by the sale of their votes, and the favour of some powerful patron, whose bidding they were bound to perform regardless of either means or end. Thus was rendered possible the recurrence of such scenes as have in modern times been usually the product only of periods of recognised anar chy. A political opponent was mobbed and murdered, or a great criminal screened from justice, by the agency of these bands of ruf fians. Bribery was reduced to a regular sys tem, and its administration assumed the form of a profession. The efforts of the wisest and best of the citizens were unable to cope with this monster evil. One after another perished in the attempt, till liberty was finally trodden under foot by Auciesztis, and Roman virtue be came a theme for schoolboys. Exact historic parallels are rare. But few will deny that the above description is in some important features, if not a resemblance to the condition of the Southern States, at least near enough to be a warning. One great source of the enmity felt towards them by the Northcrns is the impossibility of obtaining land there. They see some of the most fertile provinces in the Union monopo lised by a few men, who might be equally rich upon smaller estates were the ground culti vated by freemen. The slave° wners, on the other hand, have come to regard the question as one of vested rights, and being a united body, generally speaking of higher education and refinement than their opponents, it is not likely they will ever submit to argument. Had the question admitted of a calm and rational solution, surely some of the many efforts in that direction must have been at all events THE PRESS. partially successful. But the " History of American compromise " is ti history of Ame rican failures. And the most discouraging feature of that history is the extent to which all the leading politicians in America have been deceived in their calculations. The Missouri compromise in 1820 had " finally " settled the question." The Clay compromise in 1850 was to set everything right—and so on through the whole list. But the South is now resolutely bent on a contravention of the whole tone of thought on this subject which has prevailed since the foundation of the Republic. It is no longer content with acqui escence. It is resolved on aggrandisement. Under these circumstances it, is, of course, hopeless to expect any such termination of the difficulty as was anticipated by \VAsHIN6• TON or FRANKLIN. The evil cannot now wear itself out. But, indeed, had matters even not taken the turn which they now have, the exist ence of slavery would still have seemed likely to be permanent. The increase of the black population is far more rapid than of the white, and most rapid of all in the States which have joined the Union the last. These are significant facts. Between the years 1840 and 1850 the increase of the slave population was nearly one-third of the whole ; that of the free population, as near as possi ble, a fourth. In Alabama and Arkansas, which date from 1830, the increase in the next twenty years was in the first from 119,549 to 342,892 ; in the second, from 4,576 to 46,982. Of the old States, in some, as in Maryland, the number has actually declined, and in none of them during the same period has the increase exceeded one-fifth. With this proof before their eyes how well slavery flourishes on a new soil, it is not to be ex pected that the Southerners will relax in their efforts. A dissolution of the Union would seem to be the only possible termination of the struggle. Antagonism between interests of this nature can never be settled by compro mise ; even if quieted for the present, the diffi culty must break out again. And, indeed, we are not sure that slavery could receive a greater check than to be left to its own re sources. Mankind, at all events, would then see what was the intrinsic worth of the insti tution ; and the Southerners be more ready to come to terms when they found what it was to be deprived of the prestige acquired fur the American people principally by the ener gies of the North. SIR ROBERT PEEL'S TABLE-TALK. WHETHER post-prandial "eloquence" (?) should be literally reported, or not, is a delicate subject. Vinous inspiration might be more dangerous to the public service, only that it becomes so ineffably ridiculous ; and it has been often remarked that our English audience have an amazing relish for scenes of drunkenness acted on the stage. To play the part of a drunken gentleman, like the Cassio of the late CHARLES KEMRLE, is admitted to be a feat of rare histrionic power, for few persons can be at once absurdly ridiculous while pre serving something of refinement. The oratory of City feasts is fortunately unreported. A few brief notes of stereotyped , ommon places from the lips of " Her Majesty's Ministers " are all given to the world. The turtle and veniscn on those occasions are spoken of with imme respect than the " orators." In provincial banquets it happens otherwise, as public feasts in rural districts are not of frequent occur rence, and the country journals wish to report whatever makes a stir in the neighbourhood. In those instances, therefore, the after dinner speeches are given to the world with cruel accuracy. Sir ROBERT PEEL'S harangues the other night at the Stafford Militia Banquet wt re very fine specimens of his best style. The) were delivered, unlike some of the Baronet's literary lectures, before a full audience, and 1035 Lord LICHFIELD kindly got him up to exhibit his remarkable powers. Only imagine the rich humour of a Peer of Parliament, and the representative of the AssoNs, desiring that Sir ROBERT at a public banquet would " tell " them all" about his visit to Russia ! Nothing loth to reply, up bounced Sir ROBERT PEEL in " admirable fooling," and made an harangue, which recalls to the mind " Miss Caroline Wilhelmina Amelia Skeggs, Shakespeare, and the musical glasses." He told all about the great personages whom " he had met," whose names, oddly enough, ended in —scoff. He touched on Cronstadt, and as " Lord of the " Admiralty" fired some stern-chasers at poor Admiral Sir CHARLES NAPIER. If the energy of the English Admiral had only equalled the pluck of the British Navy, Cronstadt would have fallen ; and if the Admiral had been a Lord NELSON, &c., &c. When it comes to an " if " in an after-dinner speech of Sir ROBERT PEEL, we think of the dramatist's remark— " There is much virtue in an if." Sir CHARLES NAPIER, scanning the pretensions of his bois terous accuser, could vigorously retaliate with a contrast between the present Sir ROBERT PELL and the two preceding baronets, who gave that name social respectability and Par liamentary eminence, gained by great indus try and eminent talents in two generations, possibly to be lost in one, where the intellec tual qualifications are not hereditary with the family estate. Sir CHARLES NAPIER, however, has had enough of angry bickerings, and the Admiral has had the good sense to write a compara tively moderate reply to the expressions of his censor. "If you had been put forward by the " Admiralty to insult me you acted an un• " worthy part, and if you have put yourself " forward you acted a foolish one." So writes the Admiral, who takes care to record the fact, that the Admiralty had not given him mortars or gunboats. Unquestionably, the " Coalition" behaved most unjustly to Sir C. NAPIER ; but, unfortunately, the Admiral acted most un fairly to himself when he published official letters without her Majesty's permission. But, seriously, these exhibitions of a " Lord " of the Admiralty" ripping up such matters before a popular audience are not to be ex cused for the sake of the mirth excited by seeing an indiscreet young baronet making himself ridiculous. The hereditary name and official rank of Sir ROBERT PEEL may make his harangues reprinted and translated in foreign countries, but they are not likely to serve the dignity of England. Burlesque may do well before the footlights, but we think that the Naval Departments ought to be preserved from such escapades as journals too often record under the name of the present " Sir ROBERT PEEL." THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT .XND THE ENGLISH PRESS. THE Moniteur of Friday last published the following note with reference to certain articles which have lately appeared in some of the English journals : Various organs of the English press have for some time past been in the habit of diffusing calumnies against the French Government, which are the more odious as they are concealed under an anonymous mask, and allow no other answer than contempt. We understand the respect which the liberty of the press in England receives ; and in thus noticing its errors, we confine ourselves to appealing to the good sense and good faith of the English people to warn them against the dangers of a system which, by de stroying confidence between the two Governments, would tend to disunite two nations, the alliance of which is the best guarantee of the peace of the world. This brief note has given rise to much com ment. The Daily News replied to it on Saturday, and demanded that the charge be made " specific," that it might either clear itself or confess its guilt ; and then, claiming great forbearance towards tho French Government, proceeded, with a display of " warm friend ship," to put every circumstance connected with the domestic policy and prospects of France in the worst light, to express the " darkest foreboding" at the F of the coming winter, to anticipate e the ex