The Press.
London, England, 1856-03-15 00:00:00

THE WEEK.

THE great event of the week is the admission of Prussia to the Paris
Conferences. The intelligence reached London by telegraph from
Berlin, and was published in the morning journals of Thursday, but
Lord PALMERSTON could not be brought to acknowledge the truth of
the announcement that evening. Yesterday brought a confirmation
of the intelligence from many sources; and it was known that Baron
MANTEVFFEL, the Prime Minister of Prussia, had left Berlin for Paris
to represent his Sovereign. Last evening Lord PALMERSTON made a
candid admission of the fact, and, in terms which scarcely admitted
of misconception, intimated that all main points of difference had
been settled between the belligerent powers. M. DE HATZFELD, the
Prussian Minister at Paris, is to be the colleague of M. MANTEUFFEL.
COMA ORLOFF has, it is stated with great appearance of probability,
made it known at St. Petersburg that a definitive understanding has
been come to on the fifth point, and that the terms of peace are sub-
stantially settled. The whole affair was in reality concluded when
the preliminary treaty was signed a fortnight ago.
A small evening print, devoted to the Ministry, will now probably
have something more to say on THE PRESS and its " guesses." Cannot
the Globe see that just as it depreciates our information it magnifies
our sagacity 9 If for several months past wo have constantly
" guessed " the truth on important facts, and been reproached by our
astonished contemporary with " canards" and " shaves," surely THE
PRESS is entitled to some credit for its guessing faculty. Was it
mess-work a month ago to announce that Prussia must be invited to
join the Paris Conferences ? Was it guess-work to declare that a
pacific negotiation was in progress several weeks before cur contempo-
raries could be brought to believe it? Why does not the Globe try its
hand at guessing now and then? We can assure our contemporary
that merely in a commercial point of view it is very profitable work.
It has raised THE PREss to a position of which it has every reason to be
proud.

The subject of the costs of the East India Company in the Dyce
Sombre case, was last evening again brought under discussion, by a
question put by Lord HENRY LENNOX. An evasion was attempted
on a point of form. The matter was, however, urged by Mr. OTWAY,
in whom, though an opponent, we are glad to recognise many states-
manlike qualities. An answer was thus elicited from M. DANBY
SEYMOUR, to the effect that the East India Company having demurred
to the opinion of the legal advisers of the Crown, all proceed-
ings were at a stand-still until their own had been consulted.
We confess that we cannot see the justice of such reasoning,
The East India Company have been accused of a gravee offence.
To deprive three women of a just inheritance, the Directors are
squandering the revenues wrung by depredation and torture from the
pations committed to their charge. The logic of the India Board is
eminently faulty ; as wo are not aware of any case in which appro-
bation from a defendant's counsel has been required as a preliminary to
prosecution. We hope Mr. VERNON SMITH will be firm on this
occasion, ami that no over-refinement will deter him from the course
be is called upon to pursue. If he is to be considered President of the
Board of Control, let him exercise control over those who so much
require it. We cannot consent to confide powers to one who is pre-
vented from (employing them lin a just cause by a faltering heart or
trembling hand.

Very oddly, announcements of peace and symptoms of continued
war crowd on us together. Can it be that peace was really settled a
fortnight ago ? Impossible, says the reader of the newspapers. Look
t the Times of Tuesday last. Woolwich is busier than it has ever
been before, and ai finery in immense force are sent by special trains
to Southampton, and thence shipped off to the Crimea with all pos-
sible despatch. Even the German Legion is getting licked into shape
at last. Their colours were presented to them at Shorncliffe on Satur-
day last ; and we learn that " the Foreign Legion, now fast approach-
" ing completion, will ultimately consist of two regiments of Jagers,
" &c. &c., amounting in the aggregate to 10,000 men " What in the
world shall we now do with these legionaries—gathered, as the report
tells us, from every part of Germany,—now we have got them ? What
a mess we shall be in, if the nation should happen to be seized with
an economical fit. We trust that now, at any rate, embarkations for
the Crimea may cease, and that our Chancellor of the Exchequer will
turn his attention to the probability of a peace budget.

The "Reform Party" in the Literary Fund Corporation have
again been active at the annual meeting this week. Mr. DILKE has
moved that the expenses are unreasonable, and that a great change
must be made in the administration of its affairs. We had hoped
that the question was settled last year. Agitation in politics may be
justifiable, but agitation in social, and especially in charitable bodies,
is likely to end in the agitators having their own wa3 by disgusting
moderate people with their clamour and abuse. Perpetual avowals of

SATURDAY,

mismanagement are not likely to conciliate public support. The dis-
satisfied party are bound to specify their particular grounds of corn.
plaint. This was urged by Mr. ROBERT BELL, himself an author of
varied and graceful attainment, who is less known than some of the
celebrities of our day, not assuredly because he is less gifted, but
because he is more modest. If the house is not wanted, or the secre •
tary is not wanted, why not move to that effect ? Or if a general
charge of mismanagement is to be urged, let there be details given to
justify it, and let the question be discussed in a businessslike and
decent manner. So it might have been but for Mr. DICKENS, who has
a soul above details, and will not descend to them. We will under-
take to say that never at any public meeting was a speech delivered so
full of vulgar pretension, and so devoid of reason. Why cannot lie
keep his buffoonery for his books? We laugh at a person who affects
to talk above our head, but what are we to think of one who through
contempt of our own understanding, or failure of his own, talks
beneath our feet? All his nonsense on the " gentility "of Willis's
rooms, and the depravity of decorum, appear to infinite disadvantage
if contrasted with the addresses of " the ticket-of-leave men" at St.
Martin's-hall. Of the two extremes, is it not better for the Pas Seul to
be gone through in a quiet, inoffensive way, than for a fellow to throw
his heels much higher than his head, and cast the dirt off his hoofs in
the ;faces of all who are standing near. Mr. DICKENS'S speech was
more than offensive—it was an outrage on good manners and right
feeling. He accused the Fund of " toadying the aristocracy." This
is not only ungracious, but inconsistent. He has complained that the
aristocracy did not patronise literature. He now complains because
they do. He twits the committee with running after titles. Last
year the council nominated by himself consisted almost entirely of
" lords and right honourables."
Why should he wish to repel rank and wealth—to dissociate rank
and talent—the aristocracy of nature and the aristocracy of society ?
We are sorry for the honour of English literature to see this jealousy
of social position—this mongrel maudlin sentiment creeping into its
ranks. Mr. DICKENS is vexed because a Duke stands higher in social
rank than himself. forgetting that he is only so on his own ground.
Such vexation can proceed only from inordinate personal vanity.
Literary men should be more jealous of their own independence, and
less careful of promiscuous applause ; more easy and less loquacious,
more manly and less professional. A really generous nature will even
in the assertion of its own independence, avoid insult to others. We
wish Mr. DICKENS had done so. Happily he stood alone in his dog-
matic assertion of moral and intellectual snperiority. While he played
the fool with the time—

The spirits of the wise looked down from the clouds and mocked him.
It is very possible that his speech may injure the Fund, notwithstand
ing the moderate tone of the subsequent discussion and its satifactory.
close. His bitter foolery carries this antidote with it, that no one is
like to imitate his example. If he has a friend in the world to give
him honest counsel, it will be a long while before he again ventures
to make any similar exhibition of himself.

The Government have yielded the principle of Mr. LowE's
Property-is-Theft Bill. They dared not meet Sir FREDERICK THE-
SIGER'S amendment. This is, on one account, to be regretted. Tl:e
views avowed by the Vice-President of the Board of Trade are so
dangerous and hateful that they ought to have been reprobated by a
vote of the House in which they were expressed. Two principles were
put forward by him respecting property, each most unsound and per-
nicious. The first was, that property is of different kinds : that some
kinds may be considered fair and some unfair ; some honest and some
dishonest. The property he proposed to confiscate he of course de-
clared to be an unfair and dishonest kind of property. In opposition
to Mr. LONE, we say that no such distinction can for one moment
be maintained. That possession, claim, or right, which can be en-
forced in a court of law, is property ; all property subsisting by legal
right stands on exactly the same footing. The beneficial interest which
the law allows or gives can fairly and honestly be taken
and enjoyed. And we think Mr. LOWE would be very muat
puzzled to adduce any legal rights which it would be shameful
to exercise. His second principle is as false as his first. It would
establish a distinction between the property of individuals and the
property of a number of individuals, as companies and bodies corpo-
rate. No such distinction is known to our law; and it would be im-
possible to admit it, without undermining the foundations on which
all property must rest. Between his first and second speeches Mr.
LOWE had ample time for consideration; yet his second speech was
more distinctly tainted with the worst doctrines of the Socialist school
than his first. Is it possible that a gentleman can continue to be a
Minister of the Crown who quotes M. PROCDHON as an authority on
principles of property, and declares himself to some extent a convert
to his teaching? Mr. LowE's position gives to his sentiments a
degree of importance they would otherwise want, and for this reason
it is necessary that the two leading principles of his economical creed
should be subject to a rigid investigation. Will none of our legal
friends undertake the task?

As the Parliamentary papers on Kars become more widely read,
the anxiety increases for the subject to be fully discussed in tie
Legislature. The great point at issue seem to be, whether our Cabi-
net was justified, in relying wholly on Turkish effort, while they in
reality tied the hands of the Turkish Government. The fact an
hardly be denied that both Lord CLARENDON and Lord PANum
deliberately contemplated the fall of Kars and the destruction of the
Asian army, regarding such disasters as of little importance compared
with other operations of the war. Whether they were justified in
taking such a view is the main point to be discussed and decided.