The Press.
London, England, 1855-10-20 00:00:00

PAMPHLETS.

Sketch of the Siege and its Probable W
Sequences. Vigilant
Wright.
G. R. ht.
On the Sanitary Applications of Charcoal, tc., and on
Ventilation. Madden.
The Laws relating to Lessem.. and Asiatic Seamen. Smith
and Elder.
Petition to the House of Commons on Administrative Reform.
The Ground we Tread in Worcestershire. J. S. Pskiugton,
Esq. Hatehard.
Courtenay Dictionary of Abbreviations. Groombridge
Mind Your Stops. Do.
How to detect Adulteration. 1)o.

PERIODICALS.

The Quarterly Review No: 194. Murray.
The Church of England Sunday School Quarterly Magazine.
Track/or the Protest Crisic Nos. 20 to 46:

SATURDAY,

etartspoubturt.

WE intended to publish a selection from the letters
we have received on the great question of the time,
"Peace or War." But they have latterly become so
numerous that it would be impossible to print a tenth
part of them. Their writers must be satisfied that
all have been read and considered. We are equally
obliged to the writers, whether their views (as in the
great majority of cases) agree with those we have
expressed, or whether they differ from us. The
points of the question are in general well seized.
The principal objection we find stated is, that pro-
posals of peace Must come from Russia. So be it ; but
whether is it bettor to show that such proposals would
meet with favorable reception, or be ignominiously
rejected ? Besides, it should be recollected that the
Vienna negotiation was " broken off "—as some of
our (sbinet Ministers have declared---on our part,
less, as we are satisfied, through deliberate conviction
that the Stems offered would not prove satisfactory,
than through the absolute impossibility of withdraw-
ing the allied forces from before Sebastopol, without
dishonour, perhaps without serious political results.
Now, we can better afford to show generosity t. a
defeated foe. To another objection, that the objects
of the war cannot be precisely defined until negotia-
tion is commenced, we briefly reply that our argu-
ments have been mainly directed against declarat►ons
which would render negotiation impossible. What,
for instance, says the most powerful journal in
Europe, so lately as Thursday last—a journal which
arrogates to itself, and with some show of reason, the
claim of representing the opinions of a majority of
Englishmen, and the right to prescribe principles of
action to the Government:—

We are now engaged in oar grealeal war, a new war of
principles lt is the contest which the highest
minds among us have for a century hoped for and pre-
dicted. Many great and wise men have desired to see
these days, and have not seen them. We of this genera-
tion have been chosen for the work, and if we WI the
failure is for ever. The public is stanch in its general
purpose, but it has belt means and details to its Govern-
ment. If the Government, through fear or favour, shows
itself unworthy, the nation must make its voice heard.
Does not language of this kind demand some cor-
rective? If such sentiments are to prevail, then let
us bid farewell to common sense in our policy, and
prepare for the ruin which must attend its de-
sertion.
There is one passage in the letter of a corre-
spondent, generally opposed to oar views, so sagacious
that we make it, an exception to our rule :
This is the lesson of history—all great wars have quickly
vindicated their immunity front human foresight or oon-
trol. We see statesmen and nations alike dragged resist-
lessly along, and any attempt to stop or to direct the
current is only noticed by history for its futility.
This is melancholy doctrine. Are we in a war altogether
beyond our control, which we cannot direct and coast
stop, and the result of which we cannot foresee ? Soh
has been the case hitherto, and man is still the tame.
There are stern conditions on which alone it is permitted
to nations to appeal to the God of Battles.
Are we to resign ourselves to this Pagan kind of
destiny? Are wars to be exempt from that general
law which leaves men and nations free to shape their
own course and work out their own salvation ? Are
men never to gain wisdom from experience—never
to look into the histories of past warp, and mark bow
severe a lesson they read on self.sufficiency and vin-
dictiveness? Is our own age, with all its lights, to be
no wiser than ages that have preceded it? The
question is insufficient. It will be less wise if such
doctrines as we have quoted above from a contempo-
rary are to prevail.
A few words more before we conclude this reply to
the numerous correspondents who have honoured us
with their communications. The line taken by this
journal is the result of anxious consideration. We
could not expect all members of the Conservative
party to agree with it. Such a result would have
been inconsistent with that independence of
thought characteristic of Englishmen which has
made us at once, paradoxical as it may seem, the
most united aud most divided of communities; in
religion the most tolerant and most dissentient ; in
politics the most orderly and the most quarrelsome;
in commerce the most competitive and most associa-
tive; in general life the most solitary and most socia-
ble. We have some title to the confidence of our
readers. We claim it now. We challenge a not
distant future. Let it decide on the consistency, the
soundness, the policy, and, in the highest sense of
the word, the Conservatism of our coarse.