The Press. — London, England, 1855-07-21 00:00:00

JUNE 21, 1855. light one—and thus to defeat the very object which, without it, was held principally in view. Lord GRANVILLE surely need not go to India for examples of tyranny and overexaction in a landlord meeting' its own reward in a tenantry so bankrupt and degraded as seriously to lower the rental and depress the marketable value of the estate. COKE, of Norfolk, did not turn the most barren pro perty in England into the most cultivated and productive by depriving his tenantry of all in citement to improvement, and leaving them nothing but the barest subsistence, as the Company does to its tenantry at Madras. And, notwithstanding the studied mystification of the India-house, there is no such difference in the cases that precisely the same principles do not apply to each. In each it is the stimulus of self-interest operating ; but in the one case it is the interest of the tenant to in vest all his capital and all his labour in the holding, and in the other to invest nothing whatever that he can help. In respect to commerce there is no one so foolish as to sup• pose that what would make a man in London a bankrupt would make him in Calcutta a millionaire. How, then, can it be thought that in agriculture, which is nothing but com merce applied to land, the course which would make a landlord in England a beggar can by any possibility prove profitable to the Com pany at Madras ? THE DEBATE OF MONDAY NIGHT. COARSENESS was always a chief ingredient in the character of Lord PALMERSTON. In the earlier portion of his tortuous career, when vulgarity was kept in closer limits than at present, Lord PALMERSTON was either ashamed or afraid to expose that grossness which at several times has been painfully apparent since his acci dental elevation to the Premiership. Intoxi. cated with his sudden promotion, the swag gering arrogance of his tone has become painfully prominent. His common sense seems to have reeled under the giddiness of his undeserved promotion, and his unseemly propensity to bluster threatens sooner or• later to subject him to a simultaneous vote of censure from all the gentlemen in Parliament. On Monday last the Prime Minister ex ceeded himself (and that is saying much) in the truculent licence of his ill-tutored tongue His reply to the graceful speech of Sir ED WARD LTrroti was the coarsest ever heard from the Leader of an English Cabinet. The personage who made it must have quite for gotten the well known saying of CHARLES Fox—" that the House of Commons could "never be led except by a gentleman," and in Fox's meaning, " gentleman " had no reference either to ancestral domains or a Norman pedigree. but to that high-toned bearing, that proud self-respect, and generous consideration for others, which we expect from every one who stands forward to guide the deliberations of the first Representative Assembly in the world. But if the offences of Lord PAL MERSTON on Monday were almost without example, the exemplary punishment inflicted on him by Mr. DISRAELI was, in poignancy of comment, and in classic severity of reproof, admirably executed. The Member for Bucks gave the vaunting Prime Minister a lasting lesson in the art of being at once Parlia mentary and severe. Alluding to the refined diction and finely-sustained rhetoric of Sir EDWARD LYTTON, Mr. DISRAELI significantly said : " It is language which the noble Vis " count cannot command." The Prime Minis ter perceptibly winced, when vollies of sig nificant cheers echoed the polished poignancy of the Leader of the Opposition. His Lord ship then looked as if he felt that something else besides lofty office was requisite to make a Prime Minister the first Member in the Horse of Commons We trust that we shall have no more " exhi bitions" of Palmerstonian vulgarity. The man ncra the 1-I')use of Commons ought to be kept up to their traditionary level, and invec tives of the pot-house style, even though coming from the lips of a Prime Minister, ought to recoil on the person who is guilty of them. A wit of past days said, with biting THE VIENNA CONFERENCES. sarcasm, that " PALMERSTON always makes one " think of a footman on easy terms with his " mistress," and we could not help recollect ing that shrewd saying as we saw the Prime Minister of England on Monday lecturing the House of Commons as if he were some pow dered wearer of lace and livery browbeating his mistress in her own house. Such displays of personal " spirit " make one recollect the sort of deputations which used to be chronicled as waiting upon his Lordship in Carlton-gardens, and they suggest that the " bottle•holding " metaphors may not have been fortuitous. It is not "judicious" to make people recall such sayings and doings. We must, however, in charity recollect that, previous to his sudden rise to the Premier ship, Lord PALMERSTON was forced to be offi cially familiar with a nauseous class of facts, which taught him the sagacious induction that " dirt was nothing but matter in the wrong " place." The sewage of London was a not very cleanly subject for constant meditation, and we may suppose that the consideration of the topic became infectious, and that Lord PALMERSTON'S mind has been sympathetically influenced. The vigorous remedies adminis tered by Mr. DISRAELI will, it is to be hoped, effect a rapid cure in the Noble Viscount, and teach him that to preach about clean water while he exhibits foul manners is a repulsive inconsistency, which " the veriest child" (as he would say himself) can understand. In former days the Irish often claimed Lord PALMERSTON as one of their countrymen, but on Monday night it was amusing to hear a Milesian representative in the lobby vocife rating a denial that Lord PALMERSTON was Irish, and accompanying it with a remark that, " though he may be an Irish Viscount by " his Peerage, nobody would ever mistake him " that night for an Irish gentleman." WHILE the Vienna Conferences were in pro gress we from time to time inserted in THE PRESS information which reached us from high authority on the leading points under discussion. We have now the opportunity of comparing those notes with the official docu ments recently published, and the result of that comparison shows that our information was substantially accurate. Were the secret history of the whole of those transactions given to the world, it would tend still further to justify our statements, and create surprise at the extent and accuracy of our information. It was in this Journal that the first an nouncement of those Four Points appeared which for the past twelvemonth have occu• pied the whole diplomacy of Europe. With regard to the Vienna Conferences we stated, so early as the 9th of March last, that— It has reached us from high authority that the instruc• ' tions with which Lord John Russell was furnished were in a spirit in accordance with the disposition of the Court of Russia."—PsEss, Leading Article, March 10, 1855. We need scarcely remind our readers how completely this statement was borne out by the observation of Lord JOHN RUSSELL at the Conference on March 26th, that "in the eyes "of England and her Allies the best and " ohly admissible conditions of peace would " be those which, being the most in harmony " with the honour of Russia, should at the " same time be sufficient for the security of " Europe." When most of our contemporaries positively asserted that the Allies would listen to no terms of peace which did not involve the dis mantling of the fortifications of Sebastopol, we positively stated, in THE PRESS of March 24, that the Allies would " consent to the complete "evacuation of the Crimea, without any con• " ditions as to the demolition or diminution " of any of the fortresses of that province." In THE PRESS of the following week, March 31st, there appeared a detailed statement of the propositions entertained by the Allies for giving effect to the third pant. One proposal which we stated would not bear criticism was for excluding all ships•of war from the Black Sea ; another was that the numerical furce of the Russian navy in the Euxine should be limited. On turning to the despatch of Lord 679 CLARENDON to Lord JOHN RUSSELL, dated April 3, we find that these proposals had been agreed upon at a meeting at the Foreign-office held on the 30th of March, at which meeting, write s Lord CLARENDON " were present, the French " Ambassador, M. DROUYN DE LHUYS, Lord " PALMERSTON, Lord LA NSDOWNE , an d myse lf . " A careful perusal of this despatch will show that the proposals brought by Lord JOHN RUSSELL from Vienna did not differ in prin ciple at all, nor very widely in details, from the terms proposed by his Government. It is now said that the two proposals were essentially distinct—one being a principle of limitation, the other a principle of counter poise ; but the scheme adopted at the meeting above referred to was in fact a scheme of counterpoise, as it was proposed that England, France, and Austria should each maintain in the Black Sea half the number of vessels of war to be maintained by Russia and Turkey respectively. The secret instructions supplied to Lord JOHN RUSSELL would probably account for the course he pursued at Vienna, for the favour with which he received the proposals he brought home with him, and the confi dence he expressed that they would be accepted. In fact, the difference between his scheme and the authorised ono of the Government is too insignificant for material distinction. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, after all that had passed, was probably, with reason, surprised at the cold reception he met with on his return. The real charge against him is, not as sustained by the Ministerial prints, that he exceeded his instructions, but that he retained his place in the Cabinet when his conduct was disavowed, and that he gave a completely false impression of his sentiments in the debates which subsequently took place on the subject. In THE PRESS of the 6th of May we an. nounced that the Court of Vienna had sub mitted to " the Allies the course which it " recommends for concluding peace. It adopts " as a counter-basis the counter-proposi " tions of Russia, with the addition that two " frigates of the Western Powers should he " allowed to cruise in the Black Sea." A reference to the despatch of Lord CLARENDON of May 8 will show that this was the exact proposal which he had received some days previously through Lord JOHN RUSSELL, as the terms which Austria proposed to address to Russia. It is remarkable that the final proposal addressed by the Court of Vienna to our Government was dated Vienna, May 18, and must have been received at the Foreign-office by Lord CLARENDON on the 19th or 20th of May at latest. To that proposal no answer was returned until the 29th of May. What occurred in the interval? In the morning of the 21st a Cabinet Council was held, and in the evening Mr. MILNER GIBSON'S motion was postponed on an express assurance by Lord PALMERSTON that the Government did " not " consider all the modes of solving the ques " tions at issue as exhausted, and that Austria " was still charged by her own voluntary " assumption with the task of discovering " a means of bringing about an accommoda " tion between the contending parties." We may, therefore, fairly infer that the debate upon the proposal Lord JOHN Ressitu. brought from Vienna was not the last which took place in the Cabinet upon the subject of peace or war, but that the question was in fact kept agitated, or. in Lori PALMERSTON'S own phrase, that the door was kept open until Mr. DISRAELI gave notice of his motion on the " ambiguous language and uncertain conduct" of the Ministry. With such evidence of his penetration, the public are not likely to refuse credit to his remarkable assertion in the debate of Monday evening, that there was a period, subsequent to Lord JOHN'S return, when the Vienna pro positions met with the concurrence of our Cabinet, though the assertion was met with a vociferous " No'." from Lord PALMERSTON. THE ARMY AND THE GOVERNMENT, A FEW facts will exemplify the justice of those strictures which Sir Ds LACY EVANS passed on - _ _ ... • • .. . . .... - 3. t HE PRESS. 679 ~ at " PALMERSTON always makes 'ne CLARENDON to Lord JOHN RUSSELL, dated April footman on easy terms with his 3, we find that these proposals had been agreed and we could not help recollect- upon at a meeting at the Foreign-office held on rewd saying as we saw the Prime ' the 30th of March, at whi c h mee ti ng , wr it es England on Monday lecturing the Lord CLARENDON " were present, the French ommons as if he were some pow- " Ambassador, M. DR OUYN DE L HUYS, L or d er of lace and livery browbeating " PALMERSTON, Lord LA NSDOWNE , an d myse lf . " 3in her own house. Such displays of A careful perusal of this d es p a t c h w ill s h ow ipirit " make one recollect the sort that the proposals brought by Lord JOHN I - ma which used to be chronicled as In his Lordship in Carlton-gardens.: RUSSELL from Vienna did not di ff er in prin- ciple at all, nor very widely in d e t a il s , f rom uggest that the " bottle-holding the terms proposed by his Government. It may not have been fortuitous. It is now said that the two proposals were idicious " to make people recall essentially distinct—one being a principle of :s and doings. limitation, the other a principle of counter- however, in charity recollect that, poise ; but the scheme adopted at the meeting his sudden rise to the Premier- above referred to was in fact a scheme of PALMERSTON was forced to be offs- counterpoise, as it was proposed that England, ar with a nauseous class of facts, France, and Austria should each maintain in it him the sagacious induction that the Black Sea half the number of vessels of iothing but matter in the wrong war to b e ma i nta i ne d by Russia and Turkey 'he sewage of London was a not respectively. - subject for constant meditation, The secret instructions supplied to Lord suppose that the consideration of JOHN RUSSELL would probably account for the 'ecame infectious, and that Lord course he pursued at Vienna, for the favour 's mind has been sympathetically with which he received the proposals he The vigorous remedies adminis- brought home with him, and the confi- .. DISRAELI Will, it is to be hoped, deuce he expressed that they would be d cure in the Noble Viscount, and accepted. In fact, the difference between hat to preach about clean water his scheme and the authorised ono of the Uibits foul manners is a repulsive Government is too insignificant for material ;y, which " the veriest child" (as distinction. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, after all t y himself) can understand. that had passed, was probably, with reason, days the Irish often claimed Lord surprised at the cold reception he met with as one of their countrymen, but on his return. The real charge against him night it was amusing to hear a is, not as sustained by the Ministerial prints, presentative in the lobby vocife- that he exceeded his instructions, but that he , vial that Lord PALMERSTON Was reta i ne d hi s p l ace i n th e C a bi net w h en hi s 1 • accompanying it with a remark conduct was disavowed, and that he gave a ;h he may be an Irish Viscount by completely false impression of his sentiments ;e, nobody would ever mistake him in the debates which subsequently took place , for an Irish gentleman." on the subject. In THE PRESS of the 6th of May we an. . VIENNA CONFERENCES. nounced that the Court of Vienna had sub- , Vienna Conferences were in pro- mitted to " the Allies the course which it " recommends for concluding peace. It adopts Dm time to time inserted in THE as a counter-basis the counter-proposi- mation which reached us from " tions of Russia, with the addition that two rity on the leading points under " frigates of the Western Powers should he + We have now the opportunity of " allowed to cruise in the Black Sea." A hose notes with the o ffi cial docu- reference to the despatch of Lord CLARENDON of May 8 will show that this was the exact ntly published, and the result of proposal which he had received some days ison shows that our information previously through Lord JOHN RUSSELL, as the tially accurate. Were the secret terms which Austria proposed to address to the whole of those transactions Russia. world, it would tend still further It is remarkable that the final proposal addressed by the Court of Vienna to our r statements, and create surprise Government was dated Vienna, May 18, and t and accuracy of our information. must have been received at the Foreign-office i this Journal that the first an- by Lord CLARENDON on the 19th or 20th of , of those Four Points appeared May at latest. To that proposal no answer e he past twelvemonth have occu• was returned until the 29th of May. What , ole diplomacy of Europe. occurred in the interval? In the morning of . Ord to the Vienna Conferences we the 21st a Cabinet Council was held, and in , t l rly as the 9th of March last, that— the evening Mr. MILNER GIBSON 8 motion was i at us from high authority that the instruc- postponed on an express assurance by Lord :h Lord John Russell was furnished were PALMERSTON that the Government did " not 1 cordance with the disposition of the Court ~ EIE3S, Leading Article, March 10, 1855. consider all the modes of solving the ques- " tions at issue as exhausted, and that Austria carcely remind our readers how ~ was still charged by her own voluntary 1 this statement was borne out by " assumption with the task of discovering Lion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL at the ~ on March 26th, that "in the eyes ~ a means of bringing about an accommoda- tion between the contending parties." We id and her Allies the best and may, therefore, fairly infer that the debate ) . issible conditions of peace would upon the proposal Lord JOHN RUSSELL brought 'hich, being the most in harmony from Vienna was not the last which took place ) honour of Russia, should at the in the Cabinet upon the subject of peace or abe sufficient for the security of war, but that the question was in fact kept agitated, or. in Lori PALMERSTON'S own phrase, f. .. ist of our contemporaries positively that the door was kept open until Mr. at the Allies would listen to no DISRAELI gave notice of his motion on the .ace which did not involve the dim- i f the fortifications of Sebastopol, " ambiguous language and uncertain conduct" of the Ministry. ly stated, in THE PRESS of March 24, With such evidence of his penetration, the ies would " consent to the complete public are not likely to refuse credit to his ( , -1 of the Crimea, without any con• remarkable assertion in the debate of Monday s to the demolition or diminution evening, that there was a period, subsequent the fortresses of that province. to Lord JOHN'S return, when the Vienna pro- )RESS of the following week, Marcht ~ appeared a detailed statement of p ositions met wit h the concurrence of our P Cabinet, though the assertion was met with a tions entertained by the Allies for vociferous " No'. " from Lord PALMERSTON. Ito the third pant. One proposal ~ Mated would not bear criticism was % ~ ig all ships-of war from the Black THE ARMY AND THE GOVERNM ENT, 1 er was that the numerical farce of A FEW facts will exemplify the justice o f those , 4 n navy in the Euxine should be . In turning to the despatch of Lord SirDE strictures which f i . THE PRESS.