The Press.
London, England, 1858-05-22 00:00:00

THE PRE S S, MAY 22, 1858.

Board of Control. Before to-night we had no
distinct statement that there had been more than
one. What I want to know is this—that,
whereas the Government have stated that for
about ten weeks there was no communication
direct from Lord CANNING to the President of the
Board of Control—whether the Noble Lord can
tell the House that these two letters are all the
letters which Lord CANNING has written either
to the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Northampton or to the Prime Minister during
these ten weeks. Of course I refer to letters
concerning the public affairs of India. If the
Noble Lord had been kind enough to state the
exact circumstances before, we should have
avoided much of the painful impression which
has been created in the public mind. (Cheers.)"
"Lord PALMERSTON : The Hon. Gentleman
was probably not in the House when I gave an
answer to that question two days ago. My
answer was so far incorrect, that I stated that
two letters had been received, when, in point of
fact, there had been four, dated the sth and 20th
of February, the 6th of March, and the 17th of
March—the latter of which contained a commu-
nication on a military point, which was sent to
the Duke of CAMBRIDGE."

Thus, on a military question, the ex-Ministers
felt it their duty to send Lord CANNLNG'S letter
to the Commander-in-Chief; but on political
questions, they did not communicate Lord CAN-
NLNG'S letters to their successors in office. And
we should be prepared to maintain that this
secretion of letters which properly belonged to
the President of the Board of Control is a more
culpable act than any other which has taken
place in this whole transaction.
So much for Mr. SMITH., whose doings, or
rather whose shortcomings, have done more to
lower the character of English Ministers in the
eyes of the public, than any other person or thing
in our memory.
But we have another sample of the same kind
of FOUL PLAY in another department.
The Times newspaper assumes much, and its
right to assume much cannot be denied. It damages
the character of the English press, undoubtedly,
by its frequent veering in politics—Radical in 1831,
Conservative in 1835, Peelite in 1846, Russellite
in 1847, Anti-Palmerston in 1849, Pro-Palmers-
ton in 1857—the more especially as the secret
history of all these changes is well known, and
the why and the wherefore as thoroughly under-
stood as the terms of any other political bargain.
Its character does not rest perhaps on its straight-
forwardness, but on its businesslike qualities. It
is a saleable paper, and therefore it sells ; it is a
saleable paper, and therefore it is sold.

But while the Vernon Smiths in Parliament
are doing their best to lower the character of the
British statesman, the Times runs in parallel
lines with them in debasing the public character
of the journalist. A device such as that which
has just been played off, is almost equal to Mr.
VERNON SMITH'S for its cool audacity and its
transparent dishonesty. We first heard of Lord
CANNLNO.B Proclamation in the columns of the

Times. That paper had sent out a correspon-
dent to the British army in Oude, and, a fort-
night ago, that correspondent sent home a copy
of the Proclamation, and with it the expression
of his fears as to its effects on the present
struggle in Oude. •
This appeared in the Times of the 6th of the
present month. When a fortnight was elapsing,
the most natural and eager interest began to be
felt as to what " the Times Correspondent" in
Oude would next write touching the effect of the
Proclamation. Day by day people have been
looking for this expected letter.
On Friday of last week the Times rece'ved its
"Private Correspondence" from Calcutta. The
Calcutta letter appeared on Saturday. On Wed-
nesday its Bombay letters came in, and in
Thursday's paper we had the letter from Bom-
bay. But where was the letter from Lucknow,
for which all were looking? A brief line in-
formed us that "the Lucknow letter has, for the
"present, miscarried. Singular enough, when
its importance, at the present moment, is so
obvious.

But what if the •' Lucknow letter," like its
predecessor, was utterly opposed to the Pro-
clamation of Lord CANNING ? Why, then, its
appearance just now might endanger the success
of Mr. CARDWELL'S motion ; and the failure of
Mr. CAnnwrax's motion might dash to the

483

ground the hopes of many gentlemen who are
calculating upon being invited to Downing-street
in the course of a few days.
So, what is to be done, but what the Times,
sans eeremonie, did? " The Lucknow letter has,
for the present, miscarried." Those three little
words, "for the present," reveal a great deal. If
the letter had been lost, if it had been sunk in
the deep sea, why then it would not have "mis-
carried for the present." But there is no such
danger. The Times is in no fear but that it can
publish the letter at some future day. But not
just now—not till the debate is over! It has
" miscarried for the present."
Truly, looking back on the last ten days' work,
may we not fear, lest, with Vernon Smiths, and
with convenient newspapers, we shall get back
into a system and code of morals, out of which,
for the last forty years at least, we had been
visibly rising ?

THE WHIG PEERS, AND THE DIVISION

IN THE LORDS.
THE division of the Peers on the morning of
Saturday, May 15, will well repay the observers
of our political affairs, and we shall call attention
to some extraordinary facts relating to the
manner in which the prolonged official ascendancy
of Whiggism has given an unjust amount of
peerages to the Liberal party.
The Whigs, up to this year, have been in
office for twenty-two years, within a fraction of
a quarter of a century ! They held power from
1830 to 1834; from 1835 to 1841 ; from 1846 to
1852; from 1852 to 1858. Their reign was inter-
rupted by Sir R. PPM for five months in the
winter of 1834-5, for five years from 1841 to
1846, and by Lord DERBY for about ten months
in 1852. Let these dates be marked.

During these twenty-two years the Whigs
made forty-three political Peers, taken from the
Whig party, exclusive of military and naval
Peers, like Lord SEATox, Lord LYONS, &c. &c.
We assume that our gallant generals and admirals
would have gained the Peerage irrespectively of
" party," but the Whigs actually made forty-
three political Peers, exclusive of eldest sons,
called up during their fathers' lifetime, and ex-
clusively of military and naval Peers!
In favour of Lord SHAFTESBURY'S resolutions
there were present ninety-three Peers, and of
these there were twenty-two made by the Whigs
during their recent ascendancy. Their names
are as follow :—Lords Aveland (1856), Helper
(1856), Campbell (1841), Carew (1834), Congle-
ton (1841), Dufferin (Irish Peer promoted),*
Cranworth (1850), De Manley (1838), Ebury
(1857), Glenelg (1835), Hatherton (1835), Leigh
(1839), Lismore (Irish, promoted),* Monteagle
(1839), Stanley of Alderley (1839), Strafford
(1835), Talbot de Malahide,* Truro (1850),
Vivian (1841), Wensleydale (1856), Wrottesley
(1838), Wycombe (by courtesy, Earl of Shel-
burne). Total, Twenty-two, amongst those
"Present" in favour of the resolutions.

And amongst the Proxies were the Earls of
Cottenham (1850), Gainsborough (1841), Leices-
ter (1837), Strafford, Earl of (1847); Brougham
(1830), De Freyne (1851), Fingal,* Kenmare,•
Lurgan (1839), Overstone (1850), Panmure,
(1831), Portman (1837), Stuart of Decies (1839)
—all made since 1830, and numbering thirteen.
And amongst those who paired were Lord Evers-
ley (1857) and Lord Macaulay (1857). So that
of the 158 who supported Lord SHAFTESBURY'S
resolution, about one-quarter were of new peers
since 1830.

But it will be asked, " How many Tory Peers
were made by Conservative Ministers within the
same period ?" Any one living in society, and
accustomed to the political conversation of the
clubs, could count off-hand the number and
names of the Conservative commoners raised to

the Peerage in the last quarter of a century. In
1834-5, Sir R. PEEL advised the Crown to create
MT. ALEXANDER BARING " Lord Ashburton,"
and Sir JAmEs Scant.rrr " Lord Abinger." hi
1846, Lord FRANCIS EGERTON was made Earl of
Ellesmere ; and after his services in India, Sir
HENRY HARDINGE was made Viscount liar-
dinge, and Sir HI:on GOUGH was also raised to
the Peerage ; and her Majesty, on the advice of

• The Irish Peers thus marked hare been raised to the
English Roues LI Lords sites

_ -

484

the Duke of WELLINGTON, raised Lord ELLEN-
BOROUGH to the rank of an Earldom. In 1852,
Lord DERBY advised the Queen to make Sir
STRATFORD CANNING Viscount Stratford de Red-
cliffe, and Lord FITZROY SOMERSET a Baron by
the title of Raglan. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN, on
becoming Chancellor, was made Lord St. Leo-
nardo, and Sir FREDERIC THESIGER was made
Lord Chelmsford. It will be seen at a glance
that these peerages, with the exception of the
Earl of ELLESMERE and Lord ASHBURTON, were
chiefly official peerages.
Mark the contrast in which the Whigs during
a quarter of a century jobbed their peerages. The
fact will appear most flagrantly in the case of
their law-lords. They gave a peerage to Mr.
BICKERSTETH (Lord Langdale); they made Sir
JOHN CAMPBELL'S wife Baroness Stratheden, and
afterwards they made Sir Rolm himself Lord
Campbell ; besides adding to the Peerage the
titles of Denman, Cottenham, and Truro, in addi-
tion to the titles of Cranworth and Wensleydale.
We do not dwell on the partiality shown in
giving an Earldom to the late Lord F-NHAM,
while orators and statesmen of the world-wide
celebrity of Lords BROUGHAM and LYNDHURST
have been left in the rank of Barons ; but the
fact is indisputable that since 1830 the Conserva-
tives have made only three law-lords (viz.,
Barons ABINGER, ST. LEONARDS, and CHELMS-
FoRD), while the Whigs have made eight, viz.,
BROUGHAM, DENMAN, COTTENHAM, CAMPBELL,
LANGDALE, TRURO, CRANWORTH, and WENS-
LEYDALE!

But it is in the family party peerages that the
most enormous Whig jobbery has taken place.
Here is what the Whigs have done. They have
reserved the Cabinet and the monopoly of the
Executive for the cousinhood and its special
clique, while they have given peerages to Liberal
commoners in order to increase their influence
in the Upper House. They have made an ar-
tificial noblesse, as we could show in many in-
stances, only that it would be invidious. But
some we shall mention. Ought Mr. SPRING
RICE (Lord Monteagle) have been made a Bri-
tish peer ? How he got his pension of two thou-
sand a year in 1841 is still remembered; and his
four sons are all provided for in the public offices,
the family drawing several thousands a year.
The Whigs at the same time passed over the
accomplished Sir HENRY PARNELL ; they gave
him no place in the Cabinet, but they made him
a Peer. On what public grounds was the peerage
of " De Manley" given to a family (Ponsonby)
which had already two peerages in it ? What
did the Irish Lords LISMORE, and DUFFERIN, and
TALBOT DE MALAHIDE, ever do for the public
cause that they should have been raised to the
English Peerage ? We can understand the
claims of Lords FDIGALL and KENMARE to be
made British Peers, but the way in which the
Whigs have raised Irish Lords, without large
fortunes or Parliamentary services, to the Eng-
lish Peerage is most improper.
"Oh, but," criesa Whig objector, " you forget
" what Mr. Prrr did." We do not do so. Mr.
PITT found the country under the yoke of the Whig
families, and he advised the Sovereign to restore
the balance by raising wealthy commoners to the
English House of Lords. It was the Irish Peer-
age that Mr. Prrr so vastly augmented, for a
public and Imperial purpose. When the Irish
House of Commons refuse— to consent to a com-
mercial union with England in 1785, Mr. Prrr
saw that English statesmanship should aim at a
political and Imperial union; and for a public
purpose that great man created several eminent
generals and admirals to the Irish Peerage, in
order to subdue the malcontent Whig aristocracy
in Ireland. People will differ as to the means
which he used, but his aim was grand and com-
prehensive. Nothing but party has been the
object of the Whig peerages; and even his
splendid literary triumphs would not have given
a coronet to Lord MACAULAY except that the
brilliant historian had been a thoroughgoing
partizan.

It is also most remarkable that Lord SuArrEs-
BURY had the support of all the Roman Catholic
Peers. The Duke of NORFOLK, Lords ARUN-
DEL of Wardour, CAMOTS, PETRE, were " pre-
sent" in support of Lord SHAFTESBURY, and
Lords Fixamx, DORMER, KENMARE, STAFFORD,
STOURTON, VAUX of HARROWDEN, were proxies
in favour of the resolutions. In spite of the ex-
cessive number of creations by the Whigs, the