The Press.
London, England, 1854-04-29 00:00:00

386

It is a fact strikingly significative of the dis-
position of our Government that up to this
date our hostility has been confined to show
merely. It is now everywhere asked—Why is
this? How long is it to last? How long are
we to make war as if it were a military
masquerade, to fence with buttons on our
foils, and fire blank cartridges? We may have
peace or war, but #c catinot have bah. Their
duties are irreconcilable.
The organisation of war demands a pervading
energy and a happy audacity that exults in
surmounting difficulties. There must be pre-
sent in a War minister the talent which inspi-
rits others—the hardy resolve—the divining
genius—the foresight that plans—and some-
thing of the enthusiasm which can "do or die ;"
but where shall we look for these qualities in
Lord ABERDEEN'S Cabinet?

It is mere folly or cowardice to' encourage
the idea that commercial relations can
be maintained between countries whose
Governments are really at enmity. Should
hostilities commence in earnest, the delu
sion would be scattered in an instant, and
that it is now favoured is only another
proof that the Government is playing the
country false, and that it yet hopes that
the Turkish empire may be overthrown by
Greek insurrection or Russian victory, before
the Czar has felt the force of our arms.
On this supposition, and on this only, the
conduct of our Government is intelligib.e.
The delay at the War-office,—the evasions of
the Colonial Secretary,—the issue of the
orders in Council,—the emptiness of the
Exchequer,—the inaction of our forces,—all
are explained.

RAILWAY LEGISLATION.
IT is understood that the railway companies
remain firm in their opposition to Mr. CARD-
WELL'S bill, and that that enlightened Minister
has begun to think seriously of following the
example of his colleages, and " postponing,'

i.e., abandoning, the measure. It is likewis

understood that he himself does not scruple
openly to condemn the subterfuge by which
it was attempted to obtain the results, with-
out the machinery, of a parliamentary act.
Mr. BOVVERIE, the ostensible mover in this
fraud, has been made first a tool, and then a
victim. A Russian agent retiring from an
unsuccessful negotiation could not have been
thrown over more unceremoniously. Put for-
ward to do that which Mr. CARDWELL desired
to see done, but would not himself venture to
attempt, and then repudiated in the face of
the House of Commons, by the Minister
whom he had endeavoured to serve, he has
felt it due to his own honour to retire from
the chairmanship of the General Railway
Committee. It remains to be seen whether a
successor will be found, or whether that
strangely-framed tribunal will break down
after a three months' trial. Meantime a few
comments on the Cardwell scheme may not
be out of place.
The assumptions on which this measure
rests are the following—that railway com-
panies either will not, or cannot, supply to
their customers, the general public, the
benefit of an unbroken communication by the
shortest available route, from every part of
the country to every other,—that they cannot be
compelled by any existing tribunal to do so,—
and that, therefore, new and more stringent
checks are imperatively called for.
On the above hypothesis one remark must
be made. Whatever the faults of the existing
system of communication, railway companies
are not answerable for them. Mr. CARDWELL
himself acknowledges this. He says, justly,
that unlimited eompetition between rival com-
panies in neighbouring districts has led to the
disjointed, irregular, inconvenient system
which travellers in this year, 1854, experience
and lament. But who created this competi-
tion? Parliament and the Board of Trade.
The companies did not desire it. Willingly
would they have acceded to any arrangement
by which it might have been averted. They
had no option in the matter. Until last year,
the opinion prevalent both in Parliament and