The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-02-23 00:00:00

DORSET COUNTY EXPRESS

TI7EBDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1858.

HONESTE AUDAX.

IN the House of Lords on Monday the Duke
, of CAMBRIDGE stated that a despatch had been
, received from Sir Coux CararsELL exonerating
General WINDHAM from all blame in respect to
the defeat and disaster in Cawnpore. On Tues-
day the Church of England Special Services Bill
passed through committee with some amend-
ments. On Thursday Lord Pammums announced
that since the lit of January, 8,500 men have
enlisted into the regular army, and that if the
recruiting should continue at the present rate of
2,000 a week for two or three months longer,
the force sent out to India since last July will
have been replaced. His lordship added that it
is not considered necessary to send out any fresh
regiments to India, and that the Militia will
probably be able to return to their homes before
the commencement of next summer. Lord
BROUGHAM brought in a Bill for reforming the
law of bankruptcy and insolvency as regarded
the county district courts.—ln the House of
Commons on Monday, the debate on the India
Bill, adjourned from Friday, came on for discus-
sion. The object of the measure is to transfer
from the East India Company to the Crown, the
government of India. The Bill proposes to
abolish the present Courts of Directors and
Proprietors, and to substitute a President and
Council for Indian affairs: the President to be
a member of the Cabinet, and the Council,
consisting of eight members, to be nominated by
the Crown for eight years. The President into be
on the footing of a Secretary of State, and is to
have a Secretary in the Howie of Commons who
will go out with him on a change of Ministry.
The eight Councillors, however, are not to be
capable of sitting in Parliament. The Bill is
confined to these and other minor changes in the
home administration, without any alteration of
the arrangements in India. In the course of
the debate the Bill was supported by Mr. Rol?,
BUCK, Mr. DUFF, Mr. Lows, Mr. SLANEY, Sir
H. Ravansox, Mr. A. Mime, Mr. WYLD, and
Mr. DANDY SEYMOUR, and opposed by Mr.
WHITESIDE, Mr. LIDDELL, Mr. CRIWPOBD, Sir
J. Waist', Mr. ADAMS, and Mr. ELLIOTT. The
adjournment of the debate was then moved and
carried on a division by a majority of 280 to 32.
On Tuesday Mr. H. Benin's motion for the
production of papers relating to the annexation
of Oude was agreed to, with the assent of
Ministers, after a long debate on the policy of
that measure. Mr. WRIGHTSON'S motion for
leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the
Act of Queen A.NNE, relating to the vacating of
seats in Parliament on the acoeptance of office,
was negatived by 108 to 91. On Wednesday
on the motion for the second reading of Sir J.
TRELAWNEY'S Church Rate Abolition Bill, Lord
R. CECIL moved as an amendment that the Bill
be read a second time that day six months. The
Bill was opposed by Sir G. GREY and the CHAN-
CELLOR of the Malaspina, but the second
reading was carried on a division by a majority
of 213 to 180. On Thursday the adjourned
debate on the India Bill was resumed, when the
Bill was supported by Sir C. Woo, Mr. CAMP-
BELL, and Lord J. RUSSELL, and opposed by
Colonel SYKES, Mr. WILLOUGHBY, Sir BuLwisa
LYTTON, and Mr. DISRAELI. After a reply from
Lord PALMERSTON the House divided, when the
question that leave be given to bring in the Bill
was carried by 318 to 173, giving Ministers a
majority of 145. On Friday the second reading
of the Conspiracy Bill was moved by the Prime
Minister. An amendment was thereupon moved
by Mr. MILNER GIBSON, which was ultimately
carried against the Government by a majority of
19, amidst the liveliest enthusiasm of the House.

THE defeat of Ministers on Friday night on the
Conspiracy Bill will hardly take the country by
surprise. The feeling amongst the British
people that the measure was unnecessary, and,
more than all, that it was an ill-timed and un-
worthy concession to Foreign dictation, mani-
fested itself in the most unmistakeable manner
from the moment the intentions of the Govern-
ment became known. The growing repugnance
to this piece of ill-advised and precipitate legis-
lation obtained in the course of a few days so
much intensity and coherence that it was
speedily reflected by the House of Commons,
and the consequence was the defeat of the Bill
by a majority of 19. The course of proceeding
adopted by Mr. MILNER GIBSON displayed much
sagacity, and the tone and character of the
honourable gentleman's speech, as well as the
spirit and oratory of those who followed him,
were eminently worthy of the great cause they
had in hand—worthy of themselves and of
the people of England. It must have been
clear to attentive listeners that ere the debate
was half got through the measure of the Govern-
ment was seriously threatened. Lord PI.LKER-
STON having, in a somewhat feeble manner,
moved the second reading of the Bill, Mr.
Mrrataa GIBSON proposed the following amend-
ment, the division upon which threw the Minis-
ters in a minority :

"That this House hears with much concern that it is
alleged that recent attempts upon the life of the
Emperor of the French have been devised in England,
and expresses it. detestation of such guilty enterprises;
that this House is ready at all times to assist in remedy-
ing any defects in the criminal law which, after due in-
vestigation, are proved to exist, yet it cannot but regret
that Her Majesty's Government, previously to inviting

the House to amend the law of oonspiracy by the second
reading of this Bill at the present time, has not felt it
to be their duty to make some reply to the important
deepatch received from the French Government, dated
Peris, January 20, 1858, and which hat been leid before
Parliament."

The amendment at first sight seems remarkably
simple, and scarcely capable of bearing the im-
mensely important consequences which have
flowed frolu it. The House was simply asked to
express their "regret" that the Ministers had
not answered a certain despatch from the French
Government previously to legislating upon the
subject before the House. But that regret
undoubtedly involved the declaration of a dere-
liction of duty and an indirect censure upon the
Government: as such Ministers determined to
regard it, and joined issue upon that point.
Lord PALMERSTON described the amendment as
"insidious,' and denounced the ground taken
by the Opposition as narrowed to the most con-
temptible dimensions. But it answered its pur-
pose. There lay beneath the terms of that
amendment, calm and unostentatious as it
was, a real embodiment of the spirit of the
people. The voice of British Liberty, not
loud but deep, was recognized in the gentle
and well-chosen terms of that fatal amendment,
A few minutes' attentive consideration of the
facts will, we imagine, carry the entire country
along with the majority of the House of Cora-
l:120115 in their decision in this matter. Cer-
tainly the mere omission to answer a despatch
seems a trifling matter in itself; but what M the
nature of that despatch which so imperatively
demanded a reply? It is dated the 20th of
January, and is as follows :

"It is no longer the hostility of misguided indivi-
duals, manifesting itself by all the excesses of the press
and all the violenoe of language; it is no longer even the
work of the factious seeking to rouse opinion and to pro-
voke disorder; it is assassination, elevated to doctrine,
preached openly, practised in repeated attempts, the
most recent of which has just struck Europe with amaze-
ment. Ought, then, the right of asylum to protect such
a state of things? Is hospitality due to assassins?
Ought the English legislation to contribute to favour
their designs and their plans? And can it continue to
shelter persons who by their flagrant sots place them-
selves beyond the pale of common right and under the
ban of humanity ?"

What is here but a deliberate affront to our
people, and a libelling of our laws? Would it
be possible that a British House of Commons
could quietly, submissively, promptly proceed
to comply with the " invitation " of Napoleon
111., to do such a thing as to revise our statutes
under the direct imputation that our legislation
is of such a character as to "favour the designs
"and plans of assassins?" Are Englishmen to
submit to be told that "assassination is elevated
"to a doctrine among us"—that "it is preached
"openly, and practised in repeated attempts 7"
Is this the sort of incentive thought to be appli-
cable when a placid acquiescence in an attempted
interference with the internal affairs of this
country is sought by France 1 No; France has
gone the wrong way to work; and it is matter
of profound congratulation that, however much
the House of Commons may be chargeable with
having lost in the bulk of oratorical brilliancy,
the spirit of independence and of inviolable
liberty is as stanch as ever, and as firmly and
nobly upheld by the representatives of the
people.
In that most offensive despatch the most un-
just charges are manifestly made; and the great
question is, have the Ministers admitted, by
their conduct, the truth of those charges? If
the conduct of Ministers in introducing the Bill,
and the absence of any reply to that despatch,
did not sufficiently prove that our Government
had, pusillanimously —we had almost said,
ignominiously—pleaded guilty to these impeach-
ments, the declaration of the Prime Minister
himself at the close of the debate will prove the
fact beyond doubt. Lord Palau:snow declares,
in what the Times calls a "spirited reply," that
these allegations are true, and that the best
answer to be given to them was the passing of
this Bill. Never did a Minister make a state-
ment more fatal to his own reputation and the
stability of his government. It is true Lord
PALMERSTON, in a manner in the highest degree
unworthy of him, endeavours to palliate his
admission by showing "that the persons alluded
" to " in the despatch are "foreigners ;" and then
he asks, "Is that an insult to this country?"
Why, the Minister must be affected with a most
singular obliquity of vision to get up in his plans
in Parliament and tell the assembled Commons
that the terms of that despatch were aimed at
and applied to foreigners I If that were so,
what becomes of Count WALEWSICI'S assertion—
that "assassination" is in England "elevated
"to doctrine," and "preached openly ?" What
becomes of that reference to legislation—that sort
of legislation sought to be imposed upon us, of
which our Government's great boast is, that it
applies equally to foreigners and British sub-
jects? Then it is not easy to see wherein Lord
PALMERSTON found the difficulty of replying to
that despatch, if he really supposed the charges
and reflections contained in it to apply solely to
foreigners; and what, in this view of the mat-
ter, could possibly have made the suggested
reply "a meagre, undignified, and humiliating
"proceeding ?" No; it is an obvious and mise-
rable shift on the part of the Premier, whose
false and laboured construction was most pro-
perly rejected by the House. The House of
Commons did not and could not believe with
their eyes open that the despatch was the inno-
cent, harmless thing which the Minister strove
in vain to portray it. The country will never
believe it. The Minister who could thus trifle
with the uproused feelings of England upon a
question like this can scarcely ever hope to be
forgiven, and can never regain that position of
lofty pre-eminence in the confidence and esti-
mation of England which he enjoyed up to the
period of these French innovations.

It seems not only reasonable, but highly
honourable and indubitably just, that our legis-
lators should hold their hands until the
unfavourable and galling impressions necessarily
resulting from Count WALEWSICI'S despatch, the
articles in the Moniteur, and other proceedings
in which the French Government are more or
less implicated, should be removed by France, or
met by our Government in a manner worthy of
this country, and consistent with the known
facts of the case. If this duty be neglected—
which to us appears to be as clear as it is impera-
tive—who can deny that we were proceeding to
legislate under the influence of taunts, menaces,
and calumnious charges, directed against us by
the Government of that very country in whose
behalf we are called upon to take these steps?
The Times, which throughout the agitation of
this question has truckled to the Government in
a manner unworthy of its great power and influ-
ence, dealt on Saturday with the Ministerial
defeat in a singularly jocose and jaunty manner
—adducing very little to the purpose, in the
course of an unusually lengthy article. The fact
may be taken as a certain evidence of vacillation,
and the precursor of altered views in respect
of the policy and the quondam favourites of
the Times. Notwithstanding that the writer
seems to have sat down with an all-pervading
spirit of frolicsome satire, of which it is intended
that Mr. MILNER. GIBSON and the Opposition
should have the benefit, there is yet one solitary
sentence—the concluding one of all, which
really makes some atonement for the emptiness
and perversions so conspicuous throughout the
composition in question. It sets out with a
false proposition—that the defeat of the Govern-
ment on Friday night was a repetition of the
" Bowama episode" last year. Far from it.
The " BOWRING episode" brought the Minister
proudly before the country, which immediately
surrounded him with a host of friends whose
unexampled number and enthusiasm made him
the most popular and powerful Minister of that
or, probably, any other period. The "episode
"under the lead of Mr. Mum GIBSON " is

altogether another thing. Lord PALMERSTON
knows better than to face the country upon this
question. He now finds that the many vows
of support, so generously awarded to him, were
qualified by the right of individual judgment,
and limited by a just sense of the character and
dignity of his country. Instead of looking with
confidence to the cheering voices of the people,
he has now everything to apprehend from
wounded pride and the bitterness of disappoint-
ment. The Times "regrets that Mr. Maass
" Gissow," in the debate, "was leading the House
"off the consideration of the Bill on a false
"scent ;" but the mind of the writer, as he pro-
ceeded with his theme, seems at length to have
soared above these false notions, and to spurn
with becoming dignity the whole tenour of his
I own article and the flippant sophistry with
I which it is abundantly charged. "The real
"question, however, last night," says the Times
of Saturday, at the conclusion of the article
alluded to, "was, whether Lord PALMERSTON
"had or had not maintained the honour of his
"country in his recent communications with the
"French Government, and the House of Com-
" mons, by a majority of 19, has decided that
"he had not." That was the question, and no
"false scent," which led off the suffrages of 234
representatives of the people, who, to their own
honour and the satisfaction of the country, up-
held the character of England at a time when it
VMS seriously threatened by the dead weight of
a Government from whom better things and a
more genuine patriotism might well have been
expected.

As to the "ins and the outs," consequent
upon the Ministerial disaster of Friday night,
we may with tolerable safety rely upon the
Times of yesterday as the best informed paper
at the present moment upon these inevitable
changes. Ministers are "out." A Cabinet
Council was held on Saturday afternoon, where
it is said it was the unanimous opinion that no
Government could continue to hold office after a
vote of censure on so cardinal a point of British
politics as that which formed the subject of
Friday's debate. We believe there is no doubt
that Lord DERBY has undertaken to form an
administration, and that Mr. GLADSTONE will
be the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the new
Government. Rumour assigns to Mr. Disnxitu
the important post of Foreign Secretary. Lord
ST. LEONARD'S, We believe, will waive his claims
to the Chancellorship in favour of Sir F.
THESIGER, whose accession to that high dignity
would be satisfactory to the profession over
which he would preside. The Conservative Am-
bassador at Constantinople, too, is at home, and
we can hardly doubt that Lord DERBY Will be re-
inforced by a personage of such weight and dis-
tinction in European politics as Lord STRATFORD
DE REDOLIFFE. "The party," says the Timm,
"counts in its ranks so many lawyers of note
who have waited long for the ermine that we
need not indicate how the legal poets are likely
to be filled up. So far as men willing and, to a
certain extent, fit to take office are concerned,
Lord DERBY is not likely to suffer any lack."