The Press.
London, England, 1855-01-20 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

to a pecuniary loss amounting to more than
half his income. Thus, while other Indian
officers holding civil and military appoint-
ments out of India—appointments, however, of
which the Company have the patronage—are
allowed to draw not merely their Indian sub-
sistence, but all their large Indian allowances
into the bargain—while the Directors can
throw away thousands of pounds of the public
money annually in stuffing themselves and
their friends at the London Tavern, and can
waste scores of thousands more in sinecure
offices for their relatives and friends about the
India•house and in India—the most rigid views
of economy at once seize them when they have
to consider claims of the deepest importance
to our army, but which have nothing, unfor
tunately, but the public benefit to recommend
them. _ _ .

It is, indeed, purely on public grounds that
we take up the question, and not on that of in
justice to individuals, for these can easily
avoid the injustice by declining to volunteer
and remaining at home. More than one first-
rate officer, whose services would be invaluable
at the present juncture, has we know done so.
Their argument has been, that it was not fair
to ask men to serve in the Crimea for less than
half of what they were actually receiving with
their own regiments, and that if under such
direct discouragement to volunteering the coun-
try lost the benefit of their services it was the
fault of the India-house and of the Board of
Control, and not their own We du not our-
selves concur in that opinion, we take a more
enlarged and patriotic view of the duties of all
at the present crisis; but to whatever extent
such officers may be to blame, the Directors
and the President of the India Board are to
blame in a far higher degree. We do hope,
therefore, that when the present disgraceful
state of our War Department is made the sub-
ject of inquiry by the Legislature, as we have
no doubt it will be, there will not fail to be
made also a strict investigation as to the ex
tent to which the India-house and the Board
of Control have thrown obstructions in the
way of Indian officers, being employed in
Turkey, whose services might prove of the
greatest value in the prosecution of the war.

THE " EDINBURGH REVIEW " AND
THE OPPOSITION.
As the hour approaches when Ministers must
be called to account for the mismanagement
of the war, there are obvious signs of trepida-
tion amongst their supporters. Already a flag
of distress is hung out by the Edinburgh Re-
view. The attacks of the Opposition are de-
precated, and a pedantic essay in disparage •
ment of parliamentary government is the
first article in the old organ of the Whigs. It
would seem that the Coalitionists anticipated
condehmation, and before they are tried and
convicted they seek to vilify the tribunal be-
fore which they have to answer. Thus the
Edinburgh Review tells us that opposition is
to be distrusted because its leaders are men
of ambition, just as if that passion
were entirely dormant on the Ministerial
benches, and as if no desire of self aggran-
disement had ever flitted through the virtuous
breast of the self-denying Duke of NEWCASTLE
In disparaging the nature of parliamentary
opposition, the Ministerial writer in the
Edinburgh seems to have taken his illustra-
tions from the history of the Whigs out of
office, and it would have been well if his lec-
tures on " ambitious men" had been pointed
with examples from some of those intriguing
personages who acted towards Lord DERBY'S
Cabinet after a fashion that we shall not
describe.

The article itself is a curiosity in writing.
Addressed to politicians, it cln only be
read with the help of " Todd's Johnson," and
a good encyclopaedia. But one result
has certainly been shown by the writer of
the article. Ho has furnished us with
evidence of the anxiety with which Milii£3
ters dread " the vehement invective, pointed
sarcasm, and brilliant ridicule" of the
leaders of the Opposition. Fear of the
scathing eloquence of Lord MUM and Mr.

SATIJRDAVo

Daiwa'. has seized upon the Ministerial
ranks, even before the fray has commenced.
The elaborate attempt to conceal their alarm
makes it appear more ridiculous. Thus it is
sought to diminish the moral power of a
leader of Opposition, by asserting that his
business " is to sustain the part of an advo-
" cat us diaboli"--a strange retrospective tribute
to the memories of Fox (who was in office for
only a few months of his life), and GREY, and
TIERNEY, and all the rest. Then we are in-
structed that all ambitious men are envi-
ous"—a maxim supported by a quotation from
a classical historian, the reviewer not caring to
inquire whether a score of glorious names, from
SIDNEY to NELSON, might not be quoted in
refutation of his calumnious and superficial
remark. Into such absurdities fall book-
worms when attempting to treat of popular
themes. _ _

But we are happy to record that after the
reviewer's disparagement of the system under
which Government is conducted by the
" Outs" and " Ins," he concludes with the
reflection " that an Opposition is a necessary
" condition for freedom and political pro-
gress "—the best, though scarcely the most
novel attempt at an aphorism from his pen.
Possibly, when he wrote those words, lie
wished to play the part of a prophet rather
than a pedantic professor, and his Ministerial
friends will, perhaps, prove the necessity for
" progress," by exchanging the benches of the
Treasury for those of Opposition—a result
which would be hailed with true British
cheers from all ranks and classes of the peo-
ple of England, disgusted with the sight of
incapacity in power.