The Press.
London, England, 1857-03-28 00:00:00

THE WEEK.

Tnz elections have opened well. We have every reason to be satisfied
with the results, so far as they are yet known. We have gained at
Windsor, Hertford, and, we believe, at Bath; while Viscount CHELSEA
has come forward to contest the representation of Middlesex. The
Noble Lord's address is a frank, manly, and ingenuous exposition of
the Conservative creed. Lord C HELSEA'S prospects, we have reason to
believe, are of the most gratifying nature ; and we trust that we shall
have the pleasure of congratulating him upon his election for this im.
portant constituency.
We have no doubt that substantially the new Parliament will be the
same as the last ; the most eminent members of it will, with scarcely
an exception, be returned. The Treasury candidates sent forth in
opposition both to Conservatives and Independent Liberals seem
destined to be singularly unlucky. The " young man from Northamp-
ton " has lost his old place, and is not likely to gain a now one. He
has to deplore another loss—his character. His reception at
Guildhall yesterday must have taught him that something more than
slaver of Lord PALMERSTON is required to recommend him to a popular
constituency. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was enthusiastically received. The
sense of his past demerits is lost in the indignation felt at the
unworthy treatment he received from the Ministerialists, and from
that presumptuous body, the Registration Association.
Assuming the new Parliament to be nearly the same in composi•
tion as the last, the dissolution will have proved a failure. It was
the last chance of Lord PALM ERSTON, and it is certain that, together
with his adherents, ho was more sanguine of the result than circum-
stances are likely to bear out. We can at this time calculate with
tolerable certainty on the return of about 310 Members of the late
Parliament, and of these about 160 voted for Mr. COBDEN'S motion, and
150 against it.
The new Parliament is likely to be less tolerant than
the last of the PALMERSTON system of playing parties against
each other. Some political questions of moment will certainly be
brought forward at an early period by the Liberal party, and of course
the Conservatives will feel no great anxiety to save Lord PALMERSTON
from his friends. The fate of Actaeon again threatens him, and we
shall be much mistaken if he does not before the end of the session
experience in his person the truth of the old adage, " that he
who sits between two stools must come to the ground."

The Emperor of CHINA, if the accounts from India are to be
believed, has set our Government an example of moderation which it
would do well to follow. The Emperor has decided on a conciliatory
course, and proposes to disavow the proceedings of his officer at Can-
ton. Had we done the same, the dispute would already be at an end.
The just and politic view of the question was, that until
the two Governments could have some direct communications with
each other, judgment should be suspended on the acts of the local
authorities. The quarrel was simply theirs until we could commu-
nicate with Pekin. But of course in sanctioning without inquiry the
conduct of our officers, we converted a local dispute into a national
quarrel. We hope it is true that the Imperial Cabinet at Pekin has
taken a jester view of the whole case. We may mention that the
latest Parliamentary papers strongly show that' our Government con-
templated, if they did not directly order, hostilities some time before
they broke forth.

The breach between Austria and Sardinia is widening. All diplo-
matic relations are broken off, and meantime our Ministerial jourals
still dwell with complacency on the increasing friendship between the
Cabinets of London and Vienna. In other words, Sardinia is " sold."
After being encouraged to stand up against Austrian domination in
Italy by our Cabinet, she will be abandoned, when she has gone too far
to retrace her course, and will furnish yet one more example of the
truth of DE MONTALEMBERT'S assertion that Lord PALMERSTON has
invariably betrayed liberty by fomenting insurrection.

We observe that the Dublin Erening Post attempts to prejudice
the Roman Catholic population of Ireland against Lord DERBY by
asserting that in his speech of March the loth he described their
religion "as a creed religiously corrupt and politically dangerous."
There is more Jesuitical skill than plain honesty shown in this quota-
tion. By its separation from the context, Lord DERBY'S meaning is
to some extent perverted. What he really said. alluding to the core•
monies and practices of the Tractarians, was, that they
led to more than an approximation on the part of many of that party to a creed
which, with all respect to its many amiable and virtuous professors, I cinuot as a }'ro•
testant and a member of the Church of England but regard as religiously corrupt and
politically dangerous.

We do not see how any sincere man, firmly attached to the Reformed
Church of England. could have expressed himself in milder terms.
As a conscientious Protestant, Lord DERBY must regard the Church
of Rome as " religiously corrupt ;" and as a member of the Reformed
Church of England, Lord DERBY must regard the ecclesiastical polity
of Rome as " politically dangerous." It would be very weak, as well
as very dishonest, to attempt to disguise the antagonism between the
two Churches ; but the tenor of Lord DERBY'S observations shows that
this antagonism may be devoid of rancour, and may subsist with
perfect toleration and the most charitable feeling. That mawkish in•
differentism which professes to regard all creeds as equally true or
equally false, and which varies its sentiments and acts as one party or
another in the empire is to be conciliated, can never command respect

SATURDAY,

or fulfil the wants of a truly national policy. Lord DERBY is anxious
to afford to all religious denominations the utmost toleration they can
claim, and the real practical enjoyment of every privilege to which
they are entitled ; but he is not the less resolved, on both political and
religious grounds, to uphold the Church of England, and to resist
any attacks which may be made on her from within or without.

The elections have produced few complications so curious as that
presented by the county of Hertford. The facts of the case may be
compressed into a few words. At a meeting of the Herts Conservative
Registration Association, a committee was appointed to consider a
compromise, offered by the Whigs, for the unopposed election of one
Liberal and two Conservative candidates. The committee was likewise
charged with the duty of selecting, if necessary, the exlsting Conser-
vative member who was to make room for the Liberal candidate. At
this meeting the three members for the county were present—Sir
HENRY MEUX, Sir EDWARD BULWER LYTTON, and Mr. ABEL SMITH. All
three gave unhesitatingly a pledge of adhesion to any decision what-
soever of the committee. What, therefore, was the surprise of the
latter body, after coming to terms with the Whig Association, on
learning that Sir HENRY MEUX had notified his intention
to withdraw from his pledge, and, notwithstanding the decision of the
committee, to inflict on the country the much deprecated visitation of
a contest. Nevertheless, such was the case, and such the conduct of
Sir HENRY MEUX. We need hardly observe how deplorable to the
Conservative constituency of Hertfordshire are the consequences of
such proceedings. That one Whig should [be allowed a seat
might be tne result of prudent calculation. But that a contest
should exist between Conservatives is a conbination that cannot be en-
dured. We, therefore, sincerely trust that Sir HENRY MEUX will re-
consider his rash proceedings, doubtless the result of insidious coun-
sellors from the adverse party. In fact, we think we can trace in the
whole transaction distinct marks of a hand not wholly unknown to
that section of the Carlton Club against which Lord RANELAOH'S
late motion was directed. But, whatever motives may have
induced Sir HENRY MEUX to embark in this line of
conduct, we must beg him to reflect seriously on the
damage inflicted, not only on the Conservative cause, but on himself,
In the decision of the Conservative Committee there could have been
no particle of desire to offend. His health was generally known to be
failing, and he was consequently the member whose loss for them
would have been the least felt. On his convalescence, his return to
public life would have been hailed with pleasure by his country. But
as matters now stand, we must warn the supporters of Sir HENRY
MEUX of the dangers incurred by their candidate. Not only is he
working harm for his party, but he is neglecting one of those obliga-
tions which every Englishman, every gentleman must hold sacred—
the observance of his pledge.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL tells us that one of his proposals at Vienna
towards securing a permanent peace was that Russia should be pre-
vented from occupying the Circassian ports. All last spring we our-
selves were continually pointing out the error which had been com-
mitted by Lord PALMERSTON in failing to secure this important point.
It was the one thing needful to have secured pence in the regions
east of the Black Sea, and our neglect is already producing its results
iu the renewal of war between Russia and Circassia. Yet Lord PAL-
MERSTON brags of the glorious and satisfactory peace which was con-
cluded under his auspices.

The language of the Prime Minister's address is a ludicrous
imitation of what Sir WALTER SCOTT called " the big bow-wow style."
The sentiments are coarse ; the diction is clumsy. In the first
sentence of the seconl paragraph, upon which the whole composition
turns, we count two " whiches," four " thats," and four " shalls,'
iterated to close proximity, as if he desired to torture the ears of the
Tivertonians. The document, at least, has the significance of pro-
claiming that in grammar, logic, and rhetoric the Noble Viscount is
not " a pupil of Mr. CANNING." He alludes to " that aggregation of
" hitherto discordant elements by whose combined, &c." This is the
fifth or sixth time that the idea has been expressed by him. He
alluded to it twice in Parliament, and twice in the Mansion-
house, and now it is uttered again. He is so full of
the thought that it inspires his composition, and his
address is a literary coalition of repugnant paragraphs. A savage air
of fierceness, and slipshod style, will not make an orator. The biuster
which frightens clowns and children is laughed at by men of sense.
This address may be oftener quoted in the ensuing session than the
Premier has calculated. One passage in it cannot be forgotten, even
if it be forgiven, by the statesmen whose honour it so grossly and inde-
cently assails. Lord MALMESSURY, in an admirable and well-timed
letter, exposed the scandalous impropriety of that passage, when, after
mis stating the issue with the sophistry of an unscrupulous advocate,
Lord PALMERSTON asks:—
Will the British nation give their support to men who have thus (!) endeavoured to
make the humiliation and 11,!gradation of their country the stepping-stune to power
This is the language of audacity forgetting its responsibility
A statesman cannot use such language to England with impu-
nity. The insult is not only gross but rash. It is positively
ridiculous when uttered by a chameleon politician who has served
under ten Prime Ministers, and who has been consistent only in
adhering to the Treasury Bench. We venture to prophesy that with
an adequate amount of stammering the Premier, amidst jeering adver-
saries, will have to recall that language, and again exhibit that facility
in swallowing his words which is familiar to one who has served with
so many connections, anti worn the livery of so many political masters.
Mr. THACKERAY has made the world laugh at " Jeames," while he was
a subordinate in plush. But " Jeames de la Pluche, Esq.," became an
odious character, and the humorist cut short his existence. The

MARCH 28, 1857.

Premier, dazzled by his elevation, so unexpected, has adopted a man-
ner which can never be endured by the gentlemen of England. It will
not be borne with them now.
Ut to fortune" sic nos te, Celse, feremus,
was a social sentiment in civilised antiquity ; and Parliamentary
manners will not tolerate a tone of arrogance, never assumed by the
greatest man who ever swayed the Commons of England.

THE HUSTINGS AND THE NATION.
'Tis done at length ! the "ancient house," that bore
Its weight of years so feebly, is no more !
Scant was its shrift at parting—scantier yet
Fell, here and there, the accents of regret.
One righteous vote, to truth and conscience due,
Round its last hours a fitful lustre threw ;
Then Pam and darkness reassumed their reign—
The writs are out, and Chaos come again !

Puff rules supreme. Alarmed officials ply,
With zeal unfeign'd, the laudatory lie ;
The tender Post with admiration thrills ;
With honied praise the hollow Times distils.
Hayter and Coppock strain their " touting " pow'rs,
From dedications cull the rankest flow'rs,
Rob epitaphs to deck their chief, and shed
Incongruous panegyrics round his head.
Boast echoes boast, and sham replies to sham,
Brag is the game—and whe can brag like Pam?

What varied watchwords with his name combine !
What mingled banners wave along the line,
When, prompt to bribe and all agog for jobs,
His squad of placemen front distrustful mobs!
All things to all men, can he fail to please?
" Pam and the War !" "Lord Palmerston and Peace !"
Now for Reform, and now for none he sings ;
Now for the people's wrongs, and now their kings.
As varying foes demand the varying end.
The Record's champion or the Tablet's friend.
Who bade, d'ye ask, yon Irish lawyers rise ?
The " Man of God!" each winking priest replies.
Who raved of tyrants, then denied relief
Each chuckling despot cries, the Liberal Chief !

And well such motley tribute fits his case,
Chameleon-hued, and constant but to place.
Which be his views? What CEdipus can show?
Speak, man of leaders, speak, decorous Lowe!
Quote one true word, one plain confession read,
To give the world assurance of his creed.
Say what he was, or is, or means to be,
And I've a plumper, Bob, for him—or thee !
Whig, Tory, Radical, whate'er the claim
His hirelings urge, their plaudits are the same.
But can this Babel be a nation's voice?
This Proteus of the hustings Britain's choice?
No! Venal clamour may awhile delude,
In truth's despite, the untaught multitude ;
But short the triumphs of the double tongue,
Soon pall the strains by hired retainers sung ;
And more precarious yet the trickster's aid
From wholesale promises at random made.
To-day's loose pledge shall be to-morrow's debt,
And dupes abjure a Bankrupt Cabinet!

A DIALOGUE WITH OUR MEMBER.
BY A WESTMINSTER ELECTOR.
ELECTOR.—Sir John Shelley, allow me to congratulate you that
you are once more entitled to add M.P. to your name.
Sir JOHN.—Thank you, Sir. Had a contest taken place, I conclude
that I should have been favoured with your vote ; and therefore I beg
you to accept my acknowledgments.
ELEcroa.—Frankly, Sir John, that would have depended on
circumstances. I would rather have voted for you, a gentleman, than
for the keeper of a suburban circulating library ; but had any decent
candidate started, Liberal or Conservative, I should have voted against
you.

Sir Jous.—Happily there is no need to suppose an unpleasantness
But may I ask why I should have been opposed by you
ELECTOR.—AIIow me to reply by another question.
Sir JOHN.—With all my heart.
ELECTOR.—Why, on earth, should anybody have voted for you ?
Sir JOHN.—Really, that is a very abrupt and disagreeable way of
putting a case. You compel me to recount my own merits.
ELECTOR.—The very thing I want you to do For, to tell you the
truth, I have been in vain trying to get at them from anybody else.
Sir JOHN.—WeII, I am a Liberal.
ELECTOR.—Ah ! Well, lam rejoiced to hear it. What is a Liberal?
Sir JOHN.-11a! ha!