The Press. — London, England, 1857-05-23 00:00:00

THE WEEK. MANY great political measures, many bold and wise strokes of policy, have been propounded by statesmen out of Parliament ; and we think Mr. DISRAELI exercised a sound judgment in announcing for the con sideration of the public what may be considered the Conservative view on the subject of Reform to the constituency of the county of Bucks at Newport Pagnell rather than to the Commons of the United Kingdom in the Palace at Westminster. His speech, we know, has already excited deep attention and interest among reflecting men of all shades of Conservative opinion. If we are to have a Reform Bill next year, it was the object of Mr. DISRAELI to induce the sound and well-judging porticn of the community to consider beforehand what that Reform Bill ought to be. The Reform Bill of 18:32 was a political manoeuvre—a coup d'etat of the Whigs to overthrow that great political party who, following out the principles of Mr PITT, had conducted the affairs of the country during a period of unexampled difficulties and danger. The manoeuvre was successful ; the Reform Bill, framed fur party objects, was accepted by the country at a moment of political fever, and since 1832, with the exceptions of the brief Administrations of Sir ROBERT PEEL and Lord DERBY, a Whig oligarchy has had the ascendancy in the government of this great country. Even the over throw of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S Government of 1835, and agairi in 1840, may be attributed to the measure of 1832. Again, in 1852, when Mr. DISRAELI proposed a Budget calculated to render something like a measure of justice to the landed interest, by the reduction of the malt tax and the substitution of a house tax, by whom was that measure defeated? Why, by the undue predominance in Parliament of the towns' influence. The succession tax, adding a fresh impost upon land, is attributable to the same cause. We have no desire to see revived in any shape a political contest between different classes in this country. Such contests are, of necessity, injurious to all classes, and dangerous to the Constitution. But when we are told that a Reform Bill is to be proposed under circumstances which make it apparent that the real object in 1858 will be, as in 1832, to give ascendancy to a particular party, if not to secure the possession of power to a particular Minister,—it is time, we say, for the landed gentry of England co reconsider the measure of 1832—t0 ask themselves whether justice was done to them in that measure, and whether the injustice then perpetrated for party purposes is to be aggravated or repaired by the Reform Bill of 1858 ? The approaching marriage of the PRINCESS ROYAL of ENGLAND with Prince FREDERICK WILLIAM Of PRUSSIA, is an event of that sort which Englishmen do, or flatter themselves that they do, regard with special and peculiar interest. Englishmen pride themselves on their appreciation of domestic life ; and %bile the popular mind would perhaps, in other countries, speculate on the future splendour or power or gaieties of the royal bride, in England we love to dwell on the probable chances of her reaping all the domestic happiness which waits on fortunate marriages, but which fate seldom destines for " heads that wear a crown." The antecedents of her Royal Highness and of that inestimable lady whose virtues have rendered monarchy even still dearer than before to the British nation, are such as to afford a well-grounded hope that in these respects the future of the young Prince and Princess may correspond with our English notions of wedded felicity May it be long ere either of them are culled on to meddle in the troublesome sea of politics. Nor do we think that Lord PALMERSTON displayed his usual tact or taste when he spoke of the political prospects afforded by this marriage as one of its chief recom mendations. Cannot youth and natural affection have a short breath ing-time before they are mixed up with these hard and worldly con siderations? For this reason, we think the few graceful words spoken by Lord DERRY on the same occasion were much better adapted to the subject. The announcement last night, by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, that a dowry of 40,0001. and an annual allowance of 8,0001. a year was what the Government asked for Her Royal Highness, disarmed criticism. Some honourable members were prepared to combat any proposition ; and in Mr. ROEBUCK the sense of duty was so strong, that lie protested against an imaginary extravagance before he had heard the proposal of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. The House, however, agreed to the proposal, without entertaining any cap tious objections. Lord LYNDHURST, in his able speech on Tuesday last upon the LORD CHANCELLOR'S Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, after ac cording a general support to the measure, proceeded to renew the subject which he handled 80 forcibly last year, of the justice of placing the woman on an equality with the man in respect of obtaining a separation. There are two points of view from which this proposal may be regarded—the theoretical and the practical. Practically, we think, it would nut open that floodgate to licentiousness which its opponents appear to dread. Very few women would avail themselves of its provisions. Those who cared so little for public exposure as to be willing to do so, would not probably be very fastidious about the marriage -tie at all. The permission to marry again might be no boon. In theory, too, we must recollect that the husband is every whit as guilty us the wife. Society has chosen to visit the transgressions of Cie former with less severity, but in the sight of GOD his sin is SATURDAY, equally grievous. We have no right, therefore, to force up on t h e woman a lower interpretation of marriage responsibilities, whether she will or no; she may choose to accept the standard fixed by society, but she ought to have the option of refusing it. Sir CHARLES WOOD has an unfortunate tendency when he does the right thing to do it the wrong way. There never was a man who possessed less tact. In moving the Navy Estimates, on Monday, when pointing out to the House the necessity of maintaining our fleet at a pitch of efficiency equal, at least, if not superior, to the fleets of the other great naval Powers of the world, what occasion was there to allude to the probability of " a future war with Russia" that would be " more serious than the last "? And this at a moment when the royal yacht is fitting out to convey to our shores, upon a friendly visit to our Queen, the brother of the Emperor of RUSSIA. But Sir CHARLES is not only seriously concerned about Russia, he even has his doubts of the stability of the French alliance ; remarks that France has been paying the greatest possible attention to her navy ; that her yards at Cherbourg are upon an infinitely greater extent than our own ; while our Atlantic cousins have built, and aro building, enormous steam-frigates; and that, in fact, we must be prepared to pay a handsome insurance against invasion and war. Now, it would have been in infinitely better taste if the Right Hon. Baronet had omitted all these ungracious allusions. They were in bad taste, and quite unnecessary. The national circumstances and resources of these great Powers aro well known ; and even if they were not, exception may very justly be taken against a Minister who, under pretence of exerting vigour and energy in his department, anticipates difficulties and dangers, at no time a politic proceeding, but at this particula. moment most unacceptable for reasons not only of policy, but of decency In the course of the brief debate that followed, the question of big versus small ships was raised by Lord CLARENCE PAGET, who sug gested the appointment of a committee of naval officers to consider the point. It is doubtful whether any material advantages would be gained by such a measure. We must have line-of-battle ships, and from the advance in the art of ship-building they must not be excluded. Gunboats and three-deckers have both their special uses, and as a naval power, we should never be without an efficient force of every class of vessel, at sea, and in advanced reserve. But the vital point in the efficient management of our navy, is in always having at band a powerful body of trained seamen. To establish such a force upon Rh effective footing, there appears to be no reason against Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S suggestion that it would be better in time of peace to pension off the continuous service men after a short sea service, renewing the force with fresh apprentices, and thus maintaining a powerful force ever at hand, of trained seamen The plan would be expensive, but it is only by some such preparation that we shall best consult true prudence and rational economy. The capture of an African slaver by one of our West Indian cruisers has thrown the abolitionists into a fever of excitement. The great fact that the slave trade still exists, flourishes, and is carried on as vigorously as fifty years ago, is at last made palpable. For some years past we have been told that the trade was effectually kept in check, and that not a vessel escaped our cruisers on the West Coast ; that Spain and Brazil, and every other country under the sun, had concluded treaties with us; that barracoons had everywhere been destroyed ; and, finally, that the returns of captures were so great chat there was not the least doubt of the destruction of the trade. In this manner has the question for the last few years been mad 3 pleasant. It did not appear to those who thus argued that the cap tures in all probability only bore a fair proportion to the escapes, and that any increase in our returns was a strong proof of the vigour with which the trade flourished. The fact is—and it is one which can no longer be doubted or denied — the African slave trade will flourish so long as a demand exists for a supply, and so long as we are content to meet the evil only by force. We shall never stop the Afric'cn slave trade until we open Africa to more legitimate commerce, until we skow the native chiefs that the worst use to which they can put their slaves is to sell them, and until we give them some material proofs of the advantages of commercial intercourse. Sir CHARLES Wool) says, " Send more steam cruisers.' We have already tried that without success. Well-meaning people maintain that the missionary will effect the desired change. Without underrating the services of this estimable body of men, we are disposed to regard the merchant as the better missionary for Africa. Our object is to stop the slave trade. We have in the slave-trader a most unscrupulous competitor, against whom the efforts of the missionary are of no avail. It is a painful admission to make, but material advantages are more appreciated by the native African. Let us open the country to trade, let us establish factories and depots. The people, Dr. LIVINGSTON tells us, are anxious for intercourse with Euro peans, and their country abounds in resources. At this moment there is a question which agitates all of us, and which has not yet been answered—" What shall we do with our criminals ?" Why not send them to the coast of Africa? " The climate would kill them." is the reply, The climate would do no such a thing. The American THE PRESS. 504