The Press.
London, England, 1858-02-20 00:00:00

170

penses of the Government must be fearfully
augmented. Are these circumstances under
which the precipitate assumption of Indian
liabilities can be justified—a policy which
mocks at caution, refuses inquiry, and taunts
with factiousness those who demand investi-
gation ?
Had the Government of lg5:1 yielded to the
request of the Conservatives, and consented
to an inqui►;y into Indian affairs, the Govern-
ment of 185 S might not have been confronted
with a bloody and desperate insurrection. If
the Government of 19'►8 act in the same reck-
less spirit, the country may find itself at the
expiration of another five years in the midst
of equally great, if widely dissimilar, difli
cultiPs.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL ON " PRESTIGE."
WHEN Lord JOHN RUSSET.L, in the debate of
Tuesday, on Mr. BAILLIE% motion, spoke of
the "old English policy of doing what is
" right," the phrase was greeted with "loud
cheers" in the House of Commons. The
Noble Member for London seemed to take the
cheers as meant for him, instead of really
being (in many instances) at him, as any spec-
tator of the scene might have perceived who
watched the manner and heard the tone of
some of those " cheer=." There are not a few
experienced politicians who sincerely desire
that Lord JOHN RUSSELL would conform his
own conduct to the standard of " old English
policy" indicated by himself, and the public
at large have long waited for explanation from
his lips of many dark passages in the recent
history of his ever-changing public life.

In 1834 Lord JOHN RUSSELL Was
a leading influence in destroying the great
Parliamentary connection of the Reform-Bill
Whigs. His conduct to the Radicals in 1839,
and the tone of his letter to the electors of
Stroud (which was in the style of philosophi-
cal T,pryism), paralysed his party, and gave a
great opportunity for the Conservative Oppo-
sition. In 1841 Lord JOHN RUSSELL mis-
managed the economical question of the day ;
and subsequent events abundantly demon-
strated that he knew as little about "corn" as
about " Catholics." In Opposition from 1811
to 1846, more than once he spoiled the game
of his party, and, reaching office by accident,
owing to the schism of 1846, the Noble Lord
made several grave blunders, which we need
not record. But, coining to his recent boast
about " old English policy," we will put a few
searching questions, which the Noble Lord
must answer before he can stand exempt from
the imputation of treachery, which is cer-
tainly most alien to " old English " sentiments
of right and wrong.
Gentlemen of opposite parties, who have
closely scrutinised the conduct of Lord JOHN
RUSSELL, are agreed in thinking that the
Noble Lord, on account of three lamentable
episodes in his career, is liable to the charge
of treachery. His masked and hypwritical
policy about the " Durham Letter," his mission
to Vienna, 'and his sudden desertion of the
Aberdeen Cabinet, leave huge blots on his fair
fame, which in the opinion of Conservatives
and liberals is fatally clouded by his es-
capades. The world has not even yet fully
beard how deeply the Noble Lord committed
Linaself on the occasion of the " Durham
Letter." There was nothing more extraordinary
on that occasion than that the Roman Catholic
officials at Dublin kept their posts without
re-igning. Their own religionists despised
Them fur their imputel " servility," and many
Protestants were amazed at their complacency.
'These Roman Catholic gentlemen were men
arrf honour and spirit ; and the world has never
known the extent of pressure put on them
mot to resign, as they really wished to do.
Their names were Mr. HUGHES (now Solicitor-
Getkeria for Ireland), Sir THOMAS ReanNoros,
K.C.8., Mr MONTESQI;IEU BELLEW (then Lord
of the Treasury), and Mr. BALDWIN, Counsel to
the Castle. These gentlemen did not address
the public at the time, but their friends gave
explanations for them which did not originate
in Ireland. The " Durham Letter," it seemed,