The Press.
London, England, 1857-11-07 00:00:00

THE WEEK.

WE certainly cannot congratulate the present Ministers on any profi-
ciency in political oratory. They have boasted, indeed, more than
once that at the last election they gained a majority with all the
orators of Parliament against them, and we have read smart essays in
the Ministerial prints mocking at the use of eloquence. The effects
likely to follow from the diffusion of Lord GRANVILLE'S unfortunate
apology for Lord CANNING may teach some persons that oratory, after
all, is of some use. An orator understands the necessity of timing
his explanations with caution; he knows that assuming awkwardly a
defensive air is the method to make others act offensively, and he is
cautious of dealing with accusations to which he can only offer feeble
excuses. Lord GRANVILLE knows none of these things, and his speech
amply proves that his Lordship is no orator. He is garrulous, not
eloquent—loquacious, not convincing. Because he likes to hear him-
self talk, Lord GRANVILLE fancies that other people possess his own
complacency of ears when his tongue begins to play.
His Lordship's speech on Wednesday was apologetic towards
Lord CANNING and panegyrical towards nearly everybody else. In
fact, his Lordship's laudations came down in a shower, as if to
be in season with the torrents out of doors. Nobody would censure
him for beginning with a panegyric on the Duke of CAMBRIDGE,
but his Lordship then dilated enthusiastically on Lord ELGIN ;
and his remarks on Lord ELGIN will show people what degree
of weight is to be given to Lord GRANVILLE'S words of praise. It
scours that Lord ELGIN by denuding himself of his troops " was
" deprived of any immediate chalice of that personal distinction which he
" had a right to expect that he would win very easily and very rapidly."
The idea of winning " distinction " so very " easily " is a novel
thought, and the notion explains Lord GRANVILLE'S conception of
public fame. Associated prominently with the first Crystal Palace,
rd GRANVILLE obtained " very easily " a European notoriety as
brilliant, but as brittle and ephemeral, as glass. His Lordship's
" distinction" is not associated with toil or difficulty and results of
perseverance.
Having praised the Duke of CAMBRIDGE and Lord ELGIN, the
panegyrical President of the Council then lauded the American
Minister; next Mr. COLVIN was exalted for "having shown great
" energy and admirable judgment in his administration," although
the Noble Earl confessed that Lord CANNING subsequently " repri-
manded " Mr. COLVIN for the too-celebrated proclamation. General
WILsoN and Sir JOHN LAWRENCE next came in for special praise, and
then Sir COLIN CAMPBELL received honeyed words. " The cautious
"tactics of the old soldier Sir PATRICK GRANT" were illustrated with a
comic anecdote, and the peroration of the speech dies out in a con-
cluding panegyric on Lord ELPHINSTONE. We are only astonished
that the King of DELHI and NANA SAHIB did not come in for the
courtly effusions of Lord GRANVILLE. The speech was composed of an
elaborate special-pleading apology for Lord CANNING, and. a string of
panegyrics on the Duke of CAMBRIDGE, the Earl of ELGIN, the American
Minister, General WILSON, Sir JOHN LAWRENCE, Sir COLIN CAMPBELL,
Mr. COLVIN, and Lord ELPHINSTONE.
It was rightly observed, when Lord BYRON published his " English
Bards and Scotch Reviewers," that the severe attack on JEFFREY was
completely neutralised by the indiscriminate censure heaped on the
first authors of the day. So with Lord GRANVILLE'S praise of
Lord CANNING. When the Noble Earl holds his words so
cheap, what would anybody give for them ? At a joyous feast
iu honour of our illustrious Prince the Noble Earl had the
rare indiscretion to address his audience on the politics
of the time, and he had the bad taste to speak to the
assembly as if it were a deliberative one, assembled to weigh
the conduct of Lord CANNING. The Noble Lord talked of giving "fair
play" to Lord CANNING, and he frankly admitted. that " sometimes the
" Governor-Generals conduct was very fairly weighed." But was it

" fair play" to the English public for a Minister of State, without anyone
to reply to him, to turn the Mansion-house table into a rostrum, and
hold forth a prepared speech for the purpose of influencing the public
mind ? Was it " fair play "to his own colleagues for Lord GRANVILLE
to " make so much" (as Lord PALMERSTON would say) of a City audience
as to treat it as if it were a:. assembly of Peers of Parliament, and
representatives of the commonalty of the realm? Was it " fair play "
to the authorities at the India-house for so maladroit an advocate as
Lord GRANVILLE to have thrust himself forward so precipitately, and
actually concentrated public opinion on the critical question of Lord
CANNING'S capacity for his post?
The admissions of this most foolish and clumsy speech are of im-
portance. Lord
GRANVILLE says that Lord CANNING " did not solicit
" the office of Governor-General." Be it so. Then Lord GRANVILLE,
by admission, increases the responsibility of the Cabinet in having
chosen Lord CI.NNING• On the other hand, Lord GRANVILLE, indis-
creetly for his purpose, records how Lord CANNING accepted the post
" after very mature reflection." Significant words ! As if the Go-
'rernor-General had many qualms and hesitations about leaving the
General Post office for the Rulership of India. Well, indeed, may Lord

GRANVILLE say that no subject of her Majesty had a heavier responsi-
bility cast on him than Lord CANNING. With such an advocate as Lord
GRAN VILLIC, the reputation of the greatest statesman might be endan•
gerod. Imagine the indiscretion with which the various charges
against Lord CANNING were elaborately pointed, in tins fashior.:—" There
is one charge, which appears to me one of the gravest that could be made
" against a man in his position, namely, that giving way to a maudlin