The Press.
London, England, 1857-04-11 00:00:00

LORD COWLEY'S SERVICES.

IT is currently reported that her Majesty's
representative at Paris is, for some great ser-
vices which the public has yet to learn, to be
rewarded with an earldom. The report is
likely enough to be true. Lord CowLEY be-
longs to that fortunate division of mankind
who, according to Malvolio's classification,
have greatness thrust upon them. In his
diplomatic capacity he has certainly rendered
no services calling for any special mark of
honour.

LA us see what his claims really are. Surely
they cannot consist in the share he took in the
Conferences of Paris? The neglect and it,no-
ranee displ►yed by tl►'; British Plenipoten-
tiaries in that celebrated compromise has
never been paralleled. The bungling
of the two Bolgrads, which nearly caused a
renewal of the war, and the restoration of the
Circassian fortresses to the power of Russia,
are sufficient to cover with perpetual obliquy
the statesmen who are immediately responsible
for those errors. But perhaps it may be
Lord CowLzv's Persian treaty which entitles
him to an earldom. We are not sorry to have
an opportunity of expressing our opinion
upon that treaty, and of enlightening the
public concerning the strange and mysterious
manner in which it was negotiated at Paris.
For weeks together, notwithstanding the im-
patience expressed by the Parliament and by
the Government, no progress whatever was
made by Lord COWLEY in bringing the Persian
Plenipotentiary to see matters from such a
point of view as would afford the least proba-
bility of effecting the much-desired object.
Thealemands of England were, in the opinion
of the Persian negotiator, wholly inadmis-
sible. The demand for the dismissal of the
Prime Minister, the retention by the English
of the Islands of Karrak and Corgo, and the

350

payment of the expenses of the war by Persia
to the amount of half a million, were all
peremptorily rejected by FEROUIi KHAN. From
the very outset, and even before we commenced
the war, the Persians expressed their readi-
ness to surrender Herat, which they never had
any desire to keep, and which they had only
taken possession of to prevent its falling into
the hands of Don MonammEn. They refused
to give it to the Affghans, but declared their
desire to establish there a Government of
native chiefs, and to withdraw the whole
Persian force into their own territories. These
offers we refused to listen to, though tour, after
waging au expensive war, we are glad to close
with these very terms of giving up Herat to
the native chiefs ; the Shah, however, re-
taining the religious supremacy over them—a
fertile source of future quarrels.
A very few days before the treaty was
signed, Lord COWLEY was heard to declare
that he could make nothing of the Persians ;
that they would not, or could not, under-
stand hint. His words were, " What can
"you do with people who will not under-
" stand you? but it will be the worse for them,
" and they will suffer for it in the end." In
short, there was a dead lock ; and, as far us
England's paid diplomatists could go, the dead
lock would Lave continued for ever. My
Lord COWLEY was at his wits' end—for such
bad been the injudicious nature of the propo-
sitions made by him, and, above all, the manner
of making them, that for at long time FERoUK
KHAN positively refused to have anything to
do with hint.

Luckily for England, a gentleman who is
not a paid diplomatist, nor even a Peer or a
Grand Cross of the Bath, but simply a
captain in the Indian navy, hearing how
matteri stool, waited on Lord COWLEY and
offered his services, stating that he spoke
Persian, and had, we believe, known FEROUK
kIrAN in Persia.

By this time his Lordship had probably
discovered that he was not the heaven-born
negotiator which the British Government
affected to consider him, and that to thrust
such terms as he had originally proposed
eJwn tli^ throat of the shrewd Oriental was a
task altogether beyond his capacity. He
therefore accepted Captain LYNCH'S offer, and
in a few hours, as we understand, the treaty,
such as it is, was prepared and signed by both
parties.
Captain LYNCH was very properly deputed
by Lord COWLEY to bring it to Engl►nd, and
on his arrival he was presented by the
Treasury with 500/. for his trouble—a sum
which every one must think trifling as com-
pared with his services ou this important
occasion.

Now, what is there in all this to merit an
earldom? Here is a functionary receiving
upwards of 8,0001. a year from his country,
and it is quite obvious that, although assisted
by three first-rate Oriental scholars, Colonel
OUsELEY, Colonel OTTER, and Mr. REDILOUSE,
we should have had no treaty at all but for
Captain LYNCH.
And what sort of a treaty have we got at
last? We made exorbitant demands, and
gave up one by one every point which could
be of the slightest benefit to our country.
Every foot of land occupied by us in Persia is
to be given up. No British establishment is
to be permitted in Karrak, Corgo, or elsewhere.
The demand for payment of the war expenses,
as well as that fur the dismissal of the Shah's
Minister, are quietly thrown overboard.
Everything. in shirt, is given up except one
point, which, without being of the smallest
advantage to us, is most galling to the pride
of the Shah and humiliating to the Persian
naion—a point which may probably procure
the rejection of the treaty ; and, if it does not,
will, at all events, cause us to be hated in
Pei sia as long as the memory of the degrada-
tion exists. We allude to the stipulation
which has been made for the manner in which
Mr. MURRAY shall be received on his return to
Teheran ; and to obtain this empty triumph
over the feelings of our adversary, the great
point which has been always insisted on by
ambassadors in Oriental kingdoms—namely,
the power to protect subjects of the country
when attached to the British Embassy—is to
be fur the future given up.

THE PRESS.

The treaty, however, proved serviceable to
the Govermuent in one respect. It enabled
the Ministerialists to boast of the success of
the Persian invasion, at the critical moment
when a dissolution was resolved on. If Lord
COWLEY receives an earldom, it will be the
reward, not of honourable public services, but
of helping to give effect to a party manoeuvre.
THETWO PARTIES. •
• •
WitEm Mr. DIsRAELI expressed a hope that one
result of the General Election would be to
draw a more distinct line of demarcation
between political parties, we do not suppose
him to have meant that every member
returned should be an avowed Pal inerstonian
or Derbyite. That is, of itself, what logicians
call a cross division ; and were it to continue
would rather augment than diminish the con-
fusion which the Right lion. Gentleman con-
demns. What we conceive him to have meant
was this : that certain parenthetical ques-
tions which have caused this comming-
ling of colours, being now disposed of, it
was to be expected that the stream of politics
would return into its natural channel ; and
that Parliamentary opinion would again shape
itself definitely into the two great parties of
those who would uphold and those who would
pull down the ancient institutions of the
country. Events seem likely to justify his
anticipations. Those sections of politicians
whose conduct was always uncertain, whose
votes no man could rely upon, and whose pre-
sence in the House was a clog on all hold
legislation, have been utterly broken up. Some
of their leaders have been excluded from Parlia-
ment, and those who remain have been obliged to
choose a side. Individually we may regret the
absence from Parliament of men like Mr. BRIGHT,
Mr. COBDEN, or Mr. R6UNDELL PALMER ; bllt
the truth implied by their expulsion is one
that we rejoice to see asserted. It is, that in
the British House of Commons personal pre-
tensions alone cannot maintain their ground,
and that never was there a greater mistake
than the clamour so long prevalent about the
value of independent members. It has been
discovered that he who is free from party ties
is often a slave to private crotchets ; and that,
so far from helping forward the business of the
country by the aid of impartial opinion, such
men in reality do but impede the measures of
both parties, while powerless .to carry through
their own.

So far, then, as the Independents are con-
cerned, we may consider Mr. DISRAELI'S ex-
pectations as accomplished. Are there any
other clouds or shadows which the recent
election has dissipated ? We think there are.
The Whigs have long traded on the Reform
Bill of 183..!. That event was managed with
studious regard to their own interests. But
just as their professions about liberty a hun-
dred years ago had become an utter sham, so
have their professions about Reform become at
the present day. They have monopolised the
title of Liberal, and bewitched the people with
a name ; and Englishmen have been induced
to believe that the patrons of small boroughs
and the gluttons of State patronage were
sworn to destroy both.
The results of the present election seem to
show that this delusion also is fast wearing
away. A large number of members returned
as Liberals are gentlemen of Conservative in-
stincts; and a large number of Conservatives
are favourable to ju,licious reforms. It remains
to be seen whether their policy will not be
practically the same, and whether both are not
devoted to the attainment of a common ob-
ject—namely, in the language of Lord .Tons
RUSSELL, " the improvement, coupled with
" the preservation, of our institutions." It is
not, then, too much to say that between a cer-
tain proportion of the Liberals and the bulk
of the Conservative party the difference is but
nominal—that they have reversed the old
paradox. That they do not agree to differ,
but rather differ to agree.

On the other side is the remnant of the old
Radical party, to be fortified, no doubt, by
some accession from the ranks of the newly-
returned Liberal majority. What fresh strength
may thus accrue to the Radicals we cannot
undertake to predict with exactness ; yet, if
appearances can be trusted, it will not be

SATURDAY,

large. The rejection of a man like Sir
WILLIAM CLAY is a most significant fact. If
the people had set their hearts on radical
reforms they would never have rejected a
candidate who had identified himself with
such a ,Measure as the. abolition of church
ratus. We do not believe, then, that the
Radicals will
.be sufficiently strong to resist
the united opposition of the Conservatives
and such of the Liberia majority as are Con-
servatives at heart: ,However this may be,
the Radical party is the only bona-fide party
of innovation now in existence; and the
present House of Commons may therefore
fairly be divided into the two parties of Conser-
vatives and Radicals—with a probable majority
in favour of the former. The Government
may not be formed out of the Conservative
connection ; but, in order to hold its ground,
it will, we think, be obliged to conduct the
business of the country on the principles of
Conservatives. Thu latter may be the mino-
rity in name, but they are the majority in
substance. They may be out of office, but
they are in power.
To whom, we would ask, is this position of
affairs most creditable—to the Ministerialists
or the Opposition ? to those who curry false
colours, or to those who sail under their own ?
The Ministerialists persist in calling them-
selves Liberals. What, in the opinion of the
country, does Liberalism mean ? Something
more than fine words, we may be sure. The
people, then, think that Liberalism means
faith in the necessity of organic changes : with
Ministerialists it is faith in the possession
of office. For we defy the subtlest inquirer
to find out any other principle of action by
which they are animated.
This cannot lust long. The people of Eng-
land are not willing dupes. They have a
national reputation for loving what is genuine;
and if it comes to this, that the Government
is, after all, to be a Conservative Government,
they will sooner• or later place it in the hands
of the avowed Conservative party. This re-
sult we look upon as merely a question of
time ; for even the enemies of Conservatism
would prefer a Minister from whom they knew
what they had to expect, to one who threw
them off their guard by professions of sym-
pathy, and took advantage of their confidence
more effectually to retard their designs.

THE WHIGS AND THEIR BOROUGHS.
IN case a " New Reform Bill " should be really
presented by the Whigs, it will be necessary to
observe closely their treatment of their own
boroughs. We do not wish at present to
enumerate the boroughs which are directly
under Whig influence, nor to dwell on the
means taken in 1832 to protect Whig interests.
But we insist that if a new Reform Bill is in-
troduced it must be made a fairer measure
than the last. Attention has never been suffi-
ciently directed to the mode in which the
boundary lines of I oroughs were drawn in
1852. The fair course would have been to
describe a radius from some central point in
each borough. The Whig Commissioners who
were employed by the Whig Government in
the time of the Reform excitement to mould
new constituencies understood their work too
well to adopt any such simple expedient.
They scrutinised the proprietorship of each
borough locality, and then drew their boundary
lines in every variety of irregular shape to ex-
clude Tory influences, and to include those
which were decidedly Whig. The working of
the Bill has shown that Mr. CROKER Was
warranted in his assertion that the measure
would work for Whig purposes, and that fair
play was not, given to the great Conservative
interest. There should, therefore, be great
vigilance shown by the Conservatives to secure
their legitimate power. Property must not be
crushed out of the representation, and the
pure Whig party must not be allowed to
extend its influence at the expense of other
interests in the State.

There is a remarkable passage in Monsieur
Guizors "Life of Sir Robert Peel" which de-
serves attention at the present time. In re-
ferring to the measure brought forward in
1531, Monsieur Gutzon writes:—
It was not amongst the Tory party alone that these
alarms were fomenting ; one of the most enlightened and
respected men in .Lngliind, a Whig in principles, and a

APRIL 11, 1857.

spectator as disinterested as he was observant of this great
debate, wrote to me on the 4th of May, 18:31. " The course
of human affairs has long been urging the nations of
Western Europo towards democracy; this is the result of
the diffusion of wealth and knowledge; but I do not see
why it was necessary to hasten forward a change in social
order, which might have been judicionsly regulated.
Every one here admits that a reform in Parliament, far
less extensive than that so lavishly bestowed on its by
Ministers, would have been received by the moderate
party in the nation with gratitude, and even with
surprise."
That is a singular admission from a Whig,
and if were to judge by the tenor of some ob-
servations at the conclusion of Mr. HAr.t.Am's
" Constitutional History," it might he inferred
that Monsieur GUIZOT'S correspondent was
the distinguished historian. Other citations
are made by Monsieur Gutzox, showing the
alarm felt by Whigs, and by Sir TAMES MA nCIN-
TOSH amongst the number. We shall not
enter upon a retrospective discussion, but we
must remind Conservatives that they must be
cautious and active in seeing that their rights
are not injured by any new Whig Bill. There
was honest alarm and well-founded distrust
entertained about the Reform Bill of 1831,
but the closest and most damaging objection
to it was its one-sidedness, its " uni-lateral
character," as exposed at the time by Mr.
CROKER in his powerful speech of September
the 20th, 1831.