The Press.
London, England, 1858-02-13 00:00:00

the abstract. No more could the Govern-
ment of WALPOLE. But a revolution now, as
then, would but throw the political drama one
step further back—would only restore the
very state of things from which the present
regime sprang. If we subvert the Empire we
fall back on the Republic. If we fall back on
the Republic we necessitate the Empire. The
one may be good and the other may be bad,
but the one can hold its own and the other
cannot; and the only medium through which
France can regain constitutional freedom is a
strong and durable Government. The avenue
may be a long, a narrow, and a dark one, but it
is the only one. And those who would in-
terrupt her progress through it are but retard-
ing her ultimate happiness.
An occasion presented itself in which this
country could contribute some slight aid to-
wards preventing such aggression. The cir-
cumstances were not all she could have
wished, but was she therefore to hold back?
We believe that both magnanimity and policy
were on the side of action. England was not
to be stayed in her promotion of constitutional
liberty for fear the world should say she was
bullied by the French. Her character, her
courage, and her history make such insinua-
tions ridiculous; and it is to be wished, in-
deed, that Lord PALMERSTON had not shrunk
from declaring as much in reply to Count
WALEwsirrs despatch. But, if the ignorant de-
claimers of the French army suppose that the
majority of last Tuesday was a tribute of respect
to themselves, they are most egregiously mis-
taken. It is in no spirit of friendship to
military despotism that England has thus
marked her hatred and disdain of murderers.
That system may be a necessity, but we
trust not an eternal necessity. We support it
now, that we may not be called on to resist it
hereafter. And we support it with the greater
readiness that we believe its present Ad-
ministrator to be a partaker in these views,
and heartily willing that the severity of his
rule should cease with the cessation of con-
spiracy and crime.
For these reasons we rejoice that the Con-
servative party has supported the principle
of Lord PALMERSTON S measure, as much as
we regret that the details of that measure
should be so inadequate to the end
proposed. If the Whig Opposition had
criticised these alone they would have
deserved the thanks of the public. But
it argues little wisdom of any sort in Lord
Jona Russell, to have spoken and voted
as he did on Tuesday last. If his vote was
sincere, it was not sagacious ; if a party
manoeuvre, it was not adroit. He and his
followers would sacrifice the substance to the
shadow, and the possibility of future free-
dom to the charm of present declamation.
And though we should be unjust to Lord JOHN
RUSSELL did we not admit that he has received
great provocation from the present Govern-
ment, it must be admitted at the same time
that he chose a bad opportunity for
revenge. Had he reserved the vials of his
wrath for any one of those important subjects
in which Lord PALMERSTON has to figure as a
great legislator, he would probably have suc-
ceeded better. But here the country as well
as the House of Commons was against him.
His long experience should have preserved
him from so palpable an indiscretion. With-
out a chance of success, he has damaged his
own reputation, strengthened the hands of