The Press. — London, England, 1857-02-21 00:00:00

IRUARY 21, 1857. ,ntinent to disarm by showing reason deuce in the continuance of peace. iefensive forces, or defensive works, never can excite jealousy ; they are essentiilly different from establishments which partake of an aggressive character. Considerations of this kind are especially necessary at a moment when the temper of the people is not unfavourable to an increase in our naval and military establishments. They have been led to look to an increase of our armed forces as a remedy for the disasters of the late war—when, in truth, those disasters were much less owing to any deficiency of strength than to a deficiency of discretion on the part of men at the head of affairs. At the commencement of the war we were enabled to send forth an army of fifty thousand men, in the highest state of discipline and efficiency. The disasters which befel it arose not from inadequacy of strength, but from want of fore sight. Had the army been double its strength, its sufferings would, in all probability, have been infinitely augmented. No amount of numerical strength can possibly save a military force from the terrible consequences natural to rash enterprise and thoughtless manage ment. With more energy at the commencement of the war our services might have been recruited to any extent deemed necessary. Bounties were tardily offered, and sparely raised. When a more liberal system was adopted, the diffi culty of augmenting our forces by sea and laud vanished. Whatever establishments we may resolve to maintain, the transition from peace to war must require great administrative energy and skill on the part of met: at the head of affairs. No previous preparation will avail if these qualities be wanting ; and if they be present combinations and arrangements scarcely pos sible to be made beforehand, will be rapidly effected, suitable to the peculiar character the war may assume, and the localities where it is to be waged. It would be a miserable mistake to rely on large and costly establishments as a preparation for war instead of on adminis trative vigilance, efficiency, and vigour. MR. CANNING AND " HIS PUPIL." WHEN Mr. COCHRANE on Tuesday night asked an important question upon a most serious subject relating to Foreign Policy, the Honour able Gentleman was replied to by the Prime Minister with his customary levity, which we suspect is now becoming perfectly wearisome to his audience. " I will answer his question " by asking another," said Viscount PALMERS ‘.roN ; and his Lordship then recommended Mr. COCHRANE to go to Downing-street, and give Lord CLARENDON the benefit of any information which ho possessed. The Prime Minister grimaced ; and the Lords of the Treasury forthwith grinned at their Leader's " wit." It is really time that the House of Commons should consider whether mere jocoseness, consisting of pointless banter delivered with flippant assurance, should be allowed to pass without condemnation. Political wit, whether from Lord NORTH, Mr. CANNING, Mr. SHERIDAN, is a very different thing from the monotonous jocoseness of Viscount PALMERSTON. The Noble Viscount was recently complimented by the Right Hon. Member for Bucks, with the allusion of " a pupil of CANNING." With all respect for Mr. DISRAELI'S opinion, we may be excused for objecting to that description. It may be worth while to compare Lord BROUGHAM'S characterisation of Mr. CANNING with an obser vation of Viscount PALMERSTON, and to observe the remarkable points of difference along with some highly unpleasant features of resem blance between the master and his " pupil." Before citing Lord BROUGHAM'S description, we must remark that the Premier's attempt at " wit " on Tuesday, answering the question by asking another, is noted as an Irish habit. We recollect when an eminent Parliamentary personage informed the House of Commons that Lord PALMERSTON was an "Irishman," and such possibly may be the case. If so, the Noble Viscount must be admitted to be 1 Ike Mr. CANNING, at least in one particular. FEB] ......--- of the Con able confil Merely d( THE PRESS. Let us, however, proceed to Lord BROUGHAM'S picture. " Born with talents of the highest " order, these had been cultivated with an " assiduity and success which placed him in the first rank amongst the most accomplished " scholars of the day." Such a sentence could never be applied to Viscount PALMERSTON, who was a political subordinate for twenty years, having been outstripped by most of his con temporaries, and who for twenty successive years was second to Lord JOHN RUSSELL. No one could place Lord PALMERSTON amongst " the first scholars of the day," and we have heard the Noble Viscount's accomplishments RR a linguist called in question. Lord BROUGHAM then proceeds to charac terise the wit, eloquence, and argumentative powers of CANNING. He speaks of " the rich profusion" of the gifts of Mr. CANNING. He particularises his " most lively original fancy." Now, we challenge any panegyrist of the Prime Minister to mention one passage of "original fancy" in any speech ever delivered by him The pleasantest speech ever made by him was his jocose onslaught on Mr. ROWCLIFFE, and his best jest was about the " Old, Old Hats." That, however, was a well-seasoned, weather beaten, joke. Lord BROUGHAM then refers to Mr. CANNING'S "happily retentive and ready " memory ;" and the Prime Minister has a ready recollection of jokes, but the Noble Viscount (unlike Lord JOHN RUSSELL and others) cannot remember arguments in a discussion. His attempts to sum up at the conclusion of a debate, contrasts feebly with performances in the same line by Sir R. PEEL, Lord J. RUSSELL, or Mr. DISRAELI, or Mr. GLADSTONE. In fact, the Premier is truly great as a wag, but decidedly a fitilure as a wit. Let our readers try, if they can, to recollect a single brilliant thing ever said by him. Now, Lord BROUGHAM records at length " all the varieties " of Mr. CANNING'S wit," and describes it as " lending a charm to dry chains of close rea " soning." It would be as vain to look for " close reasoning," as for " original wit," in the speeches of the Premier. Lord BROUGHAM also records how Mr. CANNING'S declamation was always " beautifully ornate, being never " deficient in admirable diction," a sentence which would read like most galling sarcasm if applied to the eloquence (?) of Viscount PALMERSTON. But there were certain points in which the waggish Prime Minister shows that he is a servile pupil of Mr. CANNING. In commenting on the defects of Mr. CANNING'S character Lord BROUGHAM observes, " His irritable temper has " been noted ; he had a love of trifling, and a " fondness for indulging in pleasantry, more in " jurious to his estimation with ordinary men " than his temper." That Lord PALNIEnsToN affects to be an imitator of Mr. CANNING in these inferior roints, is quite obvious. Imita tors always exaggerate the faults of their models, and Lord PALMERSTON burlesques Mr. CANNING. " These qualities greatly marred." continues Lord BROUGHAM, " the effect of Mr. " CANNING'S more solid and important talents." We could wish that the Prime Minister would profit by the hints for improvement which nearly every page of Lord BROUGHAM'S descrip tion would suggest. "The grave points of his " discourses were perfectly sustained ; they " were unmixed with ribaldry." Alas ! Such a sentence could not be penned about Viscount PALMERSTON. One might think that Lord BROUGHAM had written this description with an oblique reference to " the pupil " now before us. " Bred up in office from his early years, Mr. " CANNING had become so much accustomed to " its pleasures that he felt uneasy when they " were taken away from him." And further on we are told, " The unfortunate love of " power carried too far, and felt so as to make " the gratification of it essential to existence, "is ruinous to the character of a statesman. It " leads often to abandonment of principle, con " stantly to compromise; it subjects him to " frequent dependence ; it lowers the tone of " his mind," and, in a word, it produces all those debilitatory effects which may be ob served in the present Prime Minister of Eng land. On another day we may refer to several other points in this elaborate piece from Lord in BROUGHAM'S pen, which seem like Parliamen tary " asides " for the benefit of Lord PAL MERSTON. In " lively fancy," "original wit," " chains of close reasoning," " sustained decla mation," " admirable diction," there can be no comparison between CANNING and "his pupil ;" but recent exhibitions of a " lament able " kind would warrant us in saying that in "irritable temper," " love of trifling," " fondness for indulging in pleasantry," as well as in " love of power curried too far;' the pupil has far exceeded his master, and the interior imitator has greatly outstriped the original. The example, imitable in its faults, is apt to deceive, and it is not of the dazzling merits or splendid qualities of Mr. CANNING that the present Prime Minister is the exag gerating copyist. An angry wag ditl't.trs vastly from an original wit, as much as a perennial placeman from a mighty statesman, or a merely smart debater from a soul stirring orator. THE NEW DIVORCE BILL. THE law of divorce in England has long been a vexed question. It has been condemned as anomalous and unjust by some of our greatest writers and jurists, and it has been feebly defended evon by those who have hitherto opposed any change. No one, indeed, can deny that the law as it now stands is attended with evils of the most serious kind. It has ever been the boast of English jurisprudence that it regards all men as equals; and it may be said that in theory the privilege of divorce is open to all. Practically, however, unless the suitor has a thousand pounds in his pocket, it is idle for him to attempt to obtain a dissolution of the marriage tie. Divorce in this country is, in short, an expensive luxury within the reach of the wealthier classes, but positively denied to their less fortunate brethren. There are anomalies, too, in the mode of procedure which urgently demand correction. The action for trim. con., which must be brought before a Parliamentary divorce can be obtained, is a kind of exhibition %%hicli every lover of propriety must desire to see abolished. These evils and their conse quences are sufficiently notorious ; but every remedy hitherto proposed has failed. Let us see whether the LORD CHANCELLORS scheme is likely to share the fate of all its prede cessors. Lord CRANWORTH proposes, in the first place, to establish a new court, which shall have ample and exclusive jurisdiction in all matrimonial causes. The judges of this court are to be the Lord Chancellor, the three chief judges of the superior courts at Westminster, and the Dean of Arches; so that no new appointment would be required. In disputes between married persons this court is to grant decrees of divorce a mensa et toro upon nearly the same principles as those now observed by the courts of Doctors' Com mons. So far there appears to be no serious objection to the scheme ; but the next provi sion of the Bili is so remarkable that. we must call especial attention to it. At present the law, as most of our readers are probably aware, is averse to the separation of husband and wife. It does not positively refuse to recognise such separations ; but it requires, before they have any legal effect, that trustees shall be appointed to act on behalf of the wife, and that they shall be parties to any deed which may be executed enabling her to live apart from her husband. But this pre caution Lord CRANWORTH would wholly set aside. He would allow married persons, with out the intervention of trustees, and without assigning any reason whatever, to execute a deed of separation, to be enrolled in the new courts, which shall enable them to live sepa rate, and to be considered as separate persons for all civil purposes excepting one. Neither husband nor wife is to be allowed to marry so long as the other remains alive ; but, with this excep tion, both are to te held, upon executing such a deed, as single in the eye of the law. Their civil rights and their respective properties are to be deemed as essentially distinct as they were before their marriage. If an estate or