The Press.
London, England, 1857-05-23 00:00:00

THE WEEK.

MANY great political measures, many bold and wise strokes of policy,
have been propounded by statesmen out of Parliament ; and we think
Mr. DISRAELI exercised a sound judgment in announcing for the con-
sideration of the public what may be considered the Conservative
view on the subject of Reform to the constituency of the county of
Bucks at Newport Pagnell rather than to the Commons of the United
Kingdom in the Palace at Westminster. His speech, we know, has
already excited deep attention and interest among reflecting men of
all shades of Conservative opinion. If we are to have a Reform Bill
next year, it was the object of Mr. DISRAELI to induce the sound and
well-judging porticn of the community to consider beforehand what
that Reform Bill ought to be. The Reform Bill of 18:32 was a political
manoeuvre—a coup d'etat of the Whigs to overthrow that great political
party who, following out the principles of Mr PITT, had conducted the
affairs of the country during a period of unexampled difficulties and
danger. The manoeuvre was successful ; the Reform Bill, framed fur
party objects, was accepted by the country at a moment of political
fever, and since 1832, with the exceptions of the brief Administrations
of Sir ROBERT PEEL and Lord DERBY, a Whig oligarchy has had the
ascendancy in the government of this great country. Even the over-
throw of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S Government of 1835, and agairi in 1840,
may be attributed to the measure of 1832. Again, in 1852, when
Mr. DISRAELI proposed a Budget calculated to render something like
a measure of justice to the landed interest, by the reduction of the
malt tax and the substitution of a house tax, by whom was that
measure defeated? Why, by the undue predominance in Parliament
of the towns' influence. The succession tax, adding a fresh impost
upon land, is attributable to the same cause. We have no desire to
see revived in any shape a political contest between different classes
in this country. Such contests are, of necessity, injurious to all
classes, and dangerous to the Constitution. But when we are told
that a Reform Bill is to be proposed under circumstances which
make it apparent that the real object in 1858 will be, as in 1832,
to give ascendancy to a particular party, if not to secure the
possession of power to a particular Minister,—it is time, we
say, for the landed gentry of England co reconsider the measure
of 1832—t0 ask themselves whether justice was done to them in that
measure, and whether the injustice then perpetrated for party
purposes is to be aggravated or repaired by the Reform Bill of 1858 ?

The approaching marriage of the PRINCESS ROYAL of ENGLAND
with Prince FREDERICK WILLIAM Of PRUSSIA, is an event of that sort
which Englishmen do, or flatter themselves that they do, regard with
special and peculiar interest. Englishmen pride themselves on their
appreciation of domestic life ; and %bile the popular mind would
perhaps, in other countries, speculate on the future splendour or
power or gaieties of the royal bride, in England we love to dwell on
the probable chances of her reaping all the domestic happiness
which waits on fortunate marriages, but which fate seldom destines
for " heads that wear a crown." The antecedents of her Royal
Highness and of that inestimable lady whose virtues have rendered
monarchy even still dearer than before to the British nation, are such
as to afford a well-grounded hope that in these respects the future of the
young Prince and Princess may correspond with our English notions of
wedded felicity May it be long ere either of them are culled on to
meddle in the troublesome sea of politics. Nor do we think that Lord
PALMERSTON displayed his usual tact or taste when he spoke of the
political prospects afforded by this marriage as one of its chief recom-
mendations. Cannot youth and natural affection have a short breath-
ing-time before they are mixed up with these hard and worldly con-
siderations? For this reason, we think the few graceful words spoken
by Lord DERRY on the same occasion were much better adapted to
the subject. The announcement last night, by the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, that a dowry of 40,0001. and an annual allowance of 8,0001.
a year was what the Government asked for Her Royal Highness,
disarmed criticism. Some honourable members were prepared to
combat any proposition ; and in Mr. ROEBUCK the sense of duty was
so strong, that lie protested against an imaginary extravagance before
he had heard the proposal of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. The
House, however, agreed to the proposal, without entertaining any cap-
tious objections.

Lord LYNDHURST, in his able speech on Tuesday last upon the
LORD CHANCELLOR'S Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, after ac-
cording a general support to the measure, proceeded to renew the
subject which he handled 80 forcibly last year, of the justice of placing
the woman on an equality with the man in respect of obtaining a
separation. There are two points of view from which this proposal
may be regarded—the theoretical and the practical. Practically, we
think, it would nut open that floodgate to licentiousness which its
opponents appear to dread. Very few women would avail themselves
of its provisions. Those who cared so little for public exposure as to
be willing to do so, would not probably be very fastidious about the
marriage-tie at all. The permission to marry again might be no boon.
In theory, too, we must recollect that the husband is every whit as
guilty us the wife. Society has chosen to visit the transgressions of
Cie former with less severity, but in the sight of GOD his sin is

SATURDAY,

equally grievous. We have no right, therefore, to force upon the
woman a lower interpretation of marriage responsibilities, whether
she will or no; she may choose to accept the standard fixed by
society, but she ought to have the option of refusing it.

Sir CHARLES WOOD has an unfortunate tendency when he does the
right thing to do it the wrong way. There never was a man who
possessed less tact. In moving the Navy Estimates, on Monday,
when pointing out to the House the necessity of maintaining our fleet
at a pitch of efficiency equal, at least, if not superior, to the fleets of
the other great naval Powers of the world, what occasion was there to
allude to the probability of " a future war with Russia" that would be
" more serious than the last "? And this at a moment when the royal
yacht is fitting out to convey to our shores, upon a friendly visit to
our Queen, the brother of the Emperor of RUSSIA. But Sir CHARLES
is not only seriously concerned about Russia, he even has his doubts
of the stability of the French alliance ; remarks that France
has been paying the greatest possible attention to her navy ;
that her yards at Cherbourg are upon an infinitely greater extent
than our own ; while our Atlantic cousins have built, and aro building,
enormous steam-frigates; and that, in fact, we must be prepared to
pay a handsome insurance against invasion and war. Now, it would
have been in infinitely better taste if the Right Hon. Baronet had
omitted all these ungracious allusions. They were in bad taste, and
quite unnecessary. The national circumstances and resources of these
great Powers aro well known ; and even if they were not, exception
may very justly be taken against a Minister who, under pretence of
exerting vigour and energy in his department, anticipates difficulties
and dangers, at no time a politic proceeding, but at this particula.
moment most unacceptable for reasons not only of policy, but of decency
In the course of the brief debate that followed, the question of big
versus small ships was raised by Lord CLARENCE PAGET, who sug-
gested the appointment of a committee of naval officers to consider
the point. It is doubtful whether any material advantages would be
gained by such a measure. We must have line-of-battle ships, and
from the advance in the art of ship-building they must not be
excluded. Gunboats and three-deckers have both their special uses,
and as a naval power, we should never be without an efficient force of
every class of vessel, at sea, and in advanced reserve. But the vital
point in the efficient management of our navy, is in always having at
band a powerful body of trained seamen. To establish such a force
upon Rh effective footing, there appears to be no reason against Sir
JAMES GRAHAM'S suggestion that it would be better in time of peace to
pension off the continuous service men after a short sea service,
renewing the force with fresh apprentices, and thus maintaining a
powerful force ever at hand, of trained seamen The plan would be
expensive, but it is only by some such preparation that we shall best
consult true prudence and rational economy.

The capture of an African slaver by one of our West Indian
cruisers has thrown the abolitionists into a fever of excitement. The
great fact that the slave trade still exists, flourishes, and is carried on
as vigorously as fifty years ago, is at last made palpable. For some
years past we have been told that the trade was effectually kept in
check, and that not a vessel escaped our cruisers on the West Coast ;
that Spain and Brazil, and every other country under the sun, had
concluded treaties with us; that barracoons had everywhere been
destroyed ; and, finally, that the returns of captures were so great
chat there was not the least doubt of the destruction of the trade.
In this manner has the question for the last few years been mad 3
pleasant. It did not appear to those who thus argued that the cap-
tures in all probability only bore a fair proportion to the
escapes, and that any increase in our returns was a strong
proof of the vigour with which the trade flourished. The
fact is—and it is one which can no longer be doubted or denied—
the African slave trade will flourish so long as a demand exists for a
supply, and so long as we are content to meet the evil only by force.
We shall never stop the Afric'cn slave trade until we open Africa to
more legitimate commerce, until we skow the native chiefs that the
worst use to which they can put their slaves is to sell them, and until
we give them some material proofs of the advantages of commercial
intercourse. Sir CHARLES Wool) says, " Send more steam cruisers.'
We have already tried that without success. Well-meaning
people maintain that the missionary will effect the desired
change. Without underrating the services of this estimable
body of men, we are disposed to regard the merchant as the
better missionary for Africa. Our object is to stop the slave trade.
We have in the slave-trader a most unscrupulous competitor, against
whom the efforts of the missionary are of no avail. It is a
painful admission to make, but material advantages are more
appreciated by the native African. Let us open the country
to trade, let us establish factories and depots. The people,
Dr. LIVINGSTON tells us, are anxious for intercourse with Euro-
peans, and their country abounds in resources. At this moment
there is a question which agitates all of us, and which has not yet
been answered—" What shall we do with our criminals ?" Why not
send them to the coast of Africa? " The climate would kill them." is
the reply, The climate would do no such a thing. The American

MAY 23, 1857.

settlement at Liberia is an excellent case in point. The ground has
been cleared, the colonists have chosen a lofty position, there is plenty
of water, and, with ordinary precautions, the duration of life is by no
means below the average. Why should we not make the trial ?

Lord PALMERSTON at the present moment has the command of the
House. Nevertheless, the Protestant and Conservative party are not
only discharging their duty to the country, but they are likewise
taking the most effectual means of strengthening themselves as a
great political connection, and of acquiring the confidence of the
public, when they make a decided and bold stand in behalf of
great and well-understood principles, and resist measures calculated
indirectly to injure the institutions of the country. It will
thus be seen who are the real friends of the Constitution in
Church and State ; and the country will learn that a Premier may
make evangelical appointments in the Church, that he may raise to
the Bench a VILLIERS or a BICKERSTETH, yet may really be
playing the Roman Catholic game and sapping the foundations of the
Hierarchy of which his Bishops may be considered an ornament.
Ministers' Money in Ireland and the mode of dealing with it will
illustrate Lord PALMERSTON'S policy in this respect. The reasoning of
Mr. NAPIER, Mr. WHITESIDE, Mr. WALPOLE, and Sir F. THESIGER, was
conclusive. No onc, after their statements, could deny, no one
attempted to deny, that Ministers' Money was a charge upon pro-
perty; no one could deny that it belonged to the Irish Church, and
that it was distributed among some of its most meritorious and hard-
working clergymen; no one could deny that the trusts created by the
Church Temporalities Act had not been, and could not be, satisfied
for many years ; and that the application of 1,4001. a year from the
funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—funds derived from the
Church itself, by the taxation of the clergy and the extinction of ten of
its Bishoprics in 1834—would be in point of fact a confiscation of so
much of the property of the Church for the benefit of parties, the
owners of the houses liable to Ministers' Money, to which benefit they
had not even the shadow of a claim. The Conservatives, therefore,
were right in resisting the measure introduced by Mr. FAGAN, as a
matter imperilling great principles ; and the Conservative supporters of
Lord PALmEasToN, we hope, will ask themselves how far they are justified
in regarding as a Protestant and Conservative Nlinister the Premier
whose first act in his new Parliament is to support a measure involving
the principle of confiscation as regards a portion of the property of the
Established Church, and introducing a precedent dangerous to the
stability and safety of property in general ?

The remarks of Sir WILLIAM CODRINGTON on Monday night upon
the recent anonymous attacks by a staff officer, in the Times, upon
General ASHBURNHAM, were well supported by some admirable letters
from eye-witnesses of the gallant officer's conduct in the field. Sir
WILLIAM CODItINGTON contented himself with expressing a hope that
in future among the qualifications for a staff appointment discretion
would be included. Without passing any opinion upon the necessary
qualifications fora staff appointment, discretion, we may observe,is also an
excellent thing in an editor, and, considering the enormous power of the
Times in the circulation of such scandals,we would venture to suggest the
appointment of a special editor for the department of scurrilous com-
munications. In this case of General ASHBURNHAM it has gone forth
to the world that the Gallant General is little better than a coward.
Now, we maintain that no subsequent recantation, no apologies, no
eulogies, can ever wholly efface the injury so inflicted. The more testi
monies that flock in to his courage and capacity, the more will
lie understand the importance which men attach to the statements of
the Times. He can never more call himself a man of unquestioned
valour. He has felt the breath of slander, and an uneAsy feel-
ing that he is suspected will haunt him through life. The magni-
tude of this injury cannot be exaggerated. And when we con-
sider the ease and impunity with which it can be inflicted, the
responsibility of journalists assumes a serious aspect. Perhaps
the English press has even yet scarce recognised the full grgat-
ness of its position. The power derived from vast sources of infor-
mation, from the employment of high intellectual abilities and
first-rate literary judgment, it understands well; but the moral
power which is gradually coming into its hands, as th. 3 guardian of
truth and justice and as the controller of popular passions, is not yet
entirely comprehended. It has so long been accustomed to act the
part of tribune, that it cannot adapt itself readily to more dignified
magisterial functions. Of General ASHBURNHAM'S appointment we say
nothing. We understand he is a good brigade officer, but whether
he is anything more, has yet to be proved. The excellence of the
appointment, and the circumstances under which it was made, are
questions wholly distinct from the one we have briefly discussed.

The great meetings held in the City to consider the best
mode of disposing of our criminal population, have not been
attended with eminent success. They have been conducted
by persons wedded to particular theories, and those who dif-
fered from them have scarcely been allowed a hearing. We do