The Press.
London, England, 1856-10-04 00:00:00

THE WEEK.

THOUGH our Ministerial journals have constantly asserted lately that the
English and French Ambassadors were on the point of leaving Naples,
and that the allied squadrons were under orders for the Neapolitan
coast, yet the adoption of these decisive measures has been delayed,
and it is now reported that the Emperor of the FRENCH, notwithstand-
ing the pressure of our Government, is reluctant to have recourse to
them. While the whole question remains in suspense, rumours of
fresh European complications and of renewed hostilities agitate the
political atmosphere, and credit is injuriously effected. The displays
of taurotnitezia in Spain furnish the ablest image of our present con-
ditions. The Noble Lords at the head of the Treasury and of
the Foreign-office are] the picadores who by their teasing darts lash
our noble Bull into fury, while Naples is the red rag which is
fluttered in his view to dazzle his eye and divert his
attention from other objects. There never was anything more
ridiculous and contemptible in the world than this outburst of rage
against King BOMBA, as our Liberals delight to call his Majesty, save
always the patriotic offer of that great Liberal Mr. WALTER SAVAGE
(worthily named) LANDOR to give 51. to the first Italian town that rises
in insurrection, and 95/. (his whole wealth being 1001.) to the
brave assassin who shall succeed in murdering the Emperor of the
FRENCH, the Emperor of Russia, or any other tyrant (Mr. SAVAGE
LANDOR'S style for crowned heads) of Europe.
The King of NAPLES has offered, it is said, a free pardon to POERIO
and some other political prisoners, if they will only stoop to solicit it.
They have declined to accede to this condition, believing probably
that their liberation will be effected by a different agency and in
a more triumphant manner. The question now is—What will the
Emperor of the FRENCH decide to do? Should his Majesty decline
to endorse the menace of our Government, how humiliating will be
its position ! Should he decide on supporting the menace, what will
be the next step ? This is a practical question worth consideration.
Should France and England withdraw their representatives, it
certainly will not be with the expectation of keeping altogether apart
from Neapolitan affairs, for that would give the King occasion
to triumph over them. They would anticipate that some disturbances
would break out, and that thus a pretext would be afforded them for
that interference which their conduct would plainly show that they
desire, though as yet they have no valid excuse for it. The with-
drawal of their representatives, and the appearance of their squadrons,
would be intended as a signal for the disaffected to rise throughout
the Two Sicilies. Would this be a policy worthy the two leading
Powers of Europe ?
Supposing them still successful, it is evident that active inter-
ference must take the shape of an army of occupation. In that case,
resistance on the part of the King would be out of the question. But
what would then be done with the Government? Would a French
army remain at Naples as a French corps remains in Rome, or would
there be ajoint occupation by French and British ? Suppose a Liberal
Government established in Naples, how long would it last? In the
end, should we not have the old, wearisome, disgraceful game of
Spanish politics played over again?
The action of our Administration on Italian politics has been
singularly contradictory. While at the Paris Congress, Lord CLARENDON
expressed an anxious desire that all foreign occupation of the Italian
States should cease, he raised this Neapolitan question, which, if it has
any result whatever, must lead to an extended occupation of Italy by
foreign troops, and in its protraction to an indefinite period. Is the
English public prepared for this consequence ?
The Government of Russia has issued a circular, protesting
against the pressure to which the King of NAPLES has been subjected.
The interference of England and France in the internal affairs of that
kingdom is declared to be a violation of that principle of the inde-
pendence of Sovereign States which the allied Governments pro-
fessedly went to war with Russia to maintain on behalf of Turkey.
This circular has been met by our Ministerial press with a tone of
swagger, little creditable to its candour or courtesy. The organ of
the Premier takes the lead. It declares that we have " summarily
smashed " Russia, and misrepresents a phrase in the Russian Circular
to assert that it proclaims the right of the King of NAPLES to govern
his subjects as be pleases.
The Daily News raves that " the great and righteous writ de
Zunatico inquirendo," must issue against " the base bad Bourbon," in
spite of " the old Menschikoff haughtiness, untamed by a disastrous
" war and a humiliating peace." It does not strike us that this is the
tone in which the Russian Circular should have been met. All such
bullying nonsense really degrades the character of this country. If it
is to be maintained, we had better prepare for a war with all Europe
in the interest of revolutionary propagandism. If it be the mere froth
and scum of rabidly Radical declamation, it should be promptly dis-
owned by the good sense of the country.

The political horizon in the United States does not brighten. As
the veo-slavery and anti-slavery parties have put forward their candi-
dates, the Whigs conceive the juncture favorable for proclaiming an
intermediate policy, founded on the single principle of upholding the
Union, and keeping the balance equal between the parties. Their
candidate is Mr. FILLMORE. We imagine the time for such a nomi-
nation is gone by. Men on each side are too much in earnest to think of
S compromise. The idea is spreading through the North that each new
slave State :tailed to the Union, will narrow the field for free industry.
For tqc negroes little sympathy might be felt; but should the question

SATURDAY,

assume this practical shape, the contest must become embittered by
the clash of material interests. But at present we see only the
beginning of strife.

We are not among those who have viewed with unqualified appro-
bation the conduct of Dr. BLOMFIELD in the resignation of his see, nor
the principle on which it was accepted, nor the acts by which it has
been followed. At the same time, we are bound to admit that the
personal character of the ex-Bishop, and the conduct of his diocese
in times of no slight difficulty, is deserving of our admiration and
sympathy. He was a man who, with the most decided opinions both
upon civil and religious questions, had the rare wisdom to appreciate
the virtue of compromise, and to moderate his own private views, even
where he could hare carried them out, in consideration of the peace of
the Church. But this temperance in the treatment of doctrinal
differences was not the result of either doubt or fear. He was a
bold and able champion of all those rights which the Constitut'in
has conferred upon the Church, which, let her wily antagonists
say what they will to the contrary, were a quarter of a century
ago in very considerable jeopardy. That danger to the
Church could not have been chimerical which induced such men
as LYNDHURST and WELLINGTON, and that noble and large-natured
gentleman Sir ROBERT INcus, to take their stand on its defence. The
danger, thanks to such supporters, was averted : and now that it has
passed way, we are told that it never existed. This is a very common
form of injustice to the merits of departed statesmen, for the simple
reason that he who successfully withstands change has no existing
phenomenon to point to inseparably connected with his name. Either
the destructive or the creative intellect makes, of course, more noise
in the world than the purely conservative ; just as the man who
poisons his wife is a much more famous character than the physician
who baffles disease. The praise of unobtrusive conservatism, con-
scientious piety, and boundless charity, will ever surround the name of
CHARLES JAMES BLOMFIELD.

We remember a joke made in the House of Commons, we think
by Mr. H. DRUNINIOND, on the subject of the temperance societies.
" Tea veniente die, tea decedents canebant," said the hon. member.
The likeness of Eurydice to the herb which cheers but does not in-
toxicate, was perhaps an elegant conception, and it is remarkable
that the parties who annihilated Orpheus were devotees of the rosy
god. The lesson should not be lost upon us. Orpheus was a sweet
singer, and we know that tea parties and hymns commonly are found
together. Contempt of good liquor may yet bring down upon us the
wrath of its presiding deity, in the shape, not of raging Bacchanals, but
of riotous draymen, and thirsty Bohemians, who would like nothing
so much as to duck brother Stiggins in a butt of his own brewing.
Seriously, we are very glad to see that Mr. SAMUEL POPE has received
a sound and convincing rebuke from the common sense of Lord
STANLEY. His Lordship adduces no less than eight reasons
against the sanity of the Maine Liquor Law, any one of which
would be quite sufficient to satisfy a reasonable man. Intoxication
could not be abolished if wo would, and would not, so to speak, if wo
could. That is to say, the numerical majority in favour of drink is so
decisive, as to render any such attempt ludicrous, while it is clear
that the abolition of the sale of what are called intoxicating liquors
could never prevent the sale of stimulants in some shape, and cer-
tainly opium is worse than beer. This is the essence of Lord
STANLEY'S argument, apart from his facts, and we recommend social
reformers to give heed to it.

There is a disposition abroad to expect a remedy for all social
ills from Government which require checking. It is found out that
bread is adulterated with alum, and sugar with sand, and immediately
there is a cry, " Why doesn't Government interfere?" If an omnibus
seat is not wide enough, or if a house does not get a sufficient supply
of pure water, Government is expected to supply a remedy. Drunken-
ness and death result from the sale of beer, wine, and spirits, and
up starts (upstarts most of these societies are) an association .into
existence calling on Government to prohibit the sale of all such com-
modities. The latest case of the kind arises front the sale of drugs.
Some foolish people attempt to poison themselves, but do not do it,
by purchasing pennyworths of laudanum from different shops, and
the sages of the Mansion-house exclaim in chorus that Government
should interfere to prevent the sale of poisonous drugs. How this is
to be done is the first question. All drugs are poisonous, if taken in
excess. It was shown at a recent trial that a very common drug acts
to destroy life if taken in large and repeated doses. Calomel pills
would kill as certainly as laudanum drops if an excessive quantity
were administered. The same might be said of such things as black
draught or Epsom salts. A chemist's shop is as full of poisons as of
drugs; and their "nastiness" is commonly our best preservative
against the harm they might do us. If a person be bent on suicide,
is it to be supposed he or she would be restrained because a chemist
refused to serve pennyworths of laudanum ? The river at midnight
would be far more certain. A sharp knife would give a more irre-
mediable hurt. Suffocation would be as easy while houses contain
bed-posts and pocket-handkerchiefs, or while pennyworths of charcoal
are to be purchased at chandlers' shops. There have been many
deaths from charcoal; its fumes are as deadly poison as any drug to
be bought at the chemist's shop. If the sale of drugs is to be pro-
hibited, why not prohibit the sale of charcoal ? Then why not pro-
hibit the sale of brimstone, which would produce suffocation a little
more quickly than charcoal? Why not prohibit the sale of the most
dangerous and destructive substance in the world—gunpowder, and, of
course, firearms with it ? How many murders have been effected by
their deliberate, and how many accidents caused by their iueautioui,

OCTOBER 4, 1856.

use ? Mr. PERCEVAL was killed by a pistol-shot, Mr. DRUMMOND was
killed by a pistol-shot. The Queen has been repeatedly fired at. Do
not these cases establish as good a case against the sale of firearms,
as the instances of a few foolish or artful people being sent to hospi-
tals from self-administered doses of laudanum ? We believe that, as
a general rule, druggists use quite as much caution in the sale of
dangerous drugs as is consistent with their sale of drugs at all. Let
any one go about London and attempt to obtain corrosive sublimate
for his experiments, or any other drug which happens to have a bad
name, and he will have more reason to accuse the impertinent caution
of druggists than to complain of their laxity. It will not do to legis-
late as if the world were composed of idiots, fools, drunkards, and
murderers. We must legislate for rational beings, and we must teach
society to rely for its safety mainly on its own prudence. In such
liberty, as in all liberty, there is danger of abuse, but, on the whole,
the danger is not so great as to look to Government for protection
against all the real or imaginary perils with which life in large
communities is beset. The limits within which Government
should act must be determined by common sense. We suppose we
must have Government inspectors of mines, Government inspectors
of factories, Government inspectors of railways, perhaps Government
inspectors of banks, unless good sense decides that the evil of credulity
bears with it its own antidote ; but such inspection is not free from
evils of its own of its peculiar kind, and if we are to have Government
inspection of bakers, druggists, haberdashers, &c., with registration of
arms and other precautions of like nature, we shall soon find our-
selves completely under the control of an army of Government officials
and spies. It is necessary to the freedom of modern society that it
should be taught that its safety depends on itself, and that it should
be accustomed to exercise thought and vigilance, and to trust to
established character, instead of throwing itself wholly on the pro-
tection of Government surveillance.

I%lr. WALTER SAVAGE LANDOR has addressed the following letter to
a Mr. J. MERITON WHITE :

TO J. MERITON warrE.

At the present time I have only 100/. of ready money at my disposal, and am never likely
to have so much in future. Of this 1 transmit to you Si. towards " the acquisition of 10,000
muskets to be given to the first Italian province which shall rise." The remaining 951.
I reserve for the family of the first patriot who asserts the dignity and performs the
duty of tyrannicide. Abject men have cried out against me for my commendation of
this virtue, the highest of which a man is capable, and now the most
imperative. Is it not an absurdity to remind us that usurpers will
rise up afresh? Do not all transgressors? And must we therefore lay aside the
terrors of chastisement, or give a ticket of leave to the most atrocious criminal ? Shall
one enslave millions ? Shall the laws be subverted, and we be told that we act against
them or without their sanction when none are left us, and when, guided by eternal
justice, wo smite down the subvertor? Three or four blows, instantaneous and simul-
taneous, may save the world many years of war and degradation. If it is unsafe to
rob a citizen, shall it be safe to rob a people? In what country is not every schoolboy
taught, even by the priests who are ordinarily his instructors—here impelled uncon-
sciously by a hand invisible—to applaud the self-devoted vindicator? The ferule
strikes the desk, and the boy rises at once into the man.
lierktrEa SAVAGE LANDOR.

Mr. LANDOR has clearly mistaken his vocation. Nature
evidently intended him to cut throats, not to mend pens. He
should have been a Gaucho, or a Red Indian, or an Italian brigand,
rather than an English gentleman and man of letters. It is in-
conceivable that a man verging on eighty, with one foot
aul half the other in the grave, should deliberately offer 951. as a pre-
mium on regicide. Such an atrocious a proposal is so far removed from
all English habits of thought, that we are confirmed in a suspicion,
long entertained, that Mr. LANDOR has reached his second childhood
without regaining his innocence or losing his love fur bloodshed and
murder.

AN IMAGINARY IDYL.
BY THEOCRITUS REDIVIVUS.
JOHN BRIGHT, overtaken by Bzwia. OsnoaNH.
KENSINGTON-GARDENS.

OSBORNE.—Ha! ha ! Bonjour. Thou art not going down West-
minster way, art thou?
BRIGHT.—Verily Ido not comprehend thee. First thou tellest me
a lie, and then thou askest me a question.
OSBORNE.—Then thou art going to Westminster, and I, 0 thou of
the upturned coat-collar, will go with thee, lightening the way with
conversation.

BRIGHT.—I know not that I shall derive much profit by thy talk,
0 joker of second-hand jokes; nevertheless, inasmuch as I may do thee
good, have with thee. And what news of thy department? Art fitting
out new vessels of wrath, at great price, to make war upon the kings
and princes of the earth ?

OssoßNE.—lt is fitting that commerce should be protected, child
of Manchester.

BRlGHT.—Commerce can protect itself, thou middle-aged Momus,
and I would that thy warlike whimsies were not linked with so whole-
some a thing as merchandise. I wish I had a seat in the Cabinet of
thy masters.

OSBORNE.—Art serious, 0 man of the ample brim ? Because,
more impossible things have come to pass. Shall I say unto the
old man, even Palmerston the pleasant, that thine ambition points to
a place ?

BRIGHT.—Did I desire place, thou profane jester, it is not through
thee that I should seek, or hope to obtain it.
OSBORNE.—Though art less than civil, monger of cottons. I could
do thy business with the Governor in a brace of shakes. j

949

BRIGHT.—I know not thy measures of time, which seem some-
what slangy, jocose Secretary. But Ido not greatly covet the honour
of being introduced by thee into a Ministry. I mean no offence.
OSBORNE.—And I take none, pugilistic Quaker. But, to speak
not jokingly, but seriatim, as Joseph Hume was wont to say, thou
mightest do worse than come among us. Thy audacious oratory, and
supposed talents for business, might he made available in office.
BRlGHT.—Humouring thy folly, sportive statesman, what office
could your chief assign to me that would be worth my acceptance ?
OSBORNE.—Frankly, 0 ferocious Friend, I think, that to secure
thee, Palmerston would reek little of displacing whomsoever might
be in the way. Think over it. Thou hast knowledge—or rather thou
hast harangued upon the subject of India. Vernon of the kid gloves
is not an essential element of the Administration.

BRIGHT.—I should remodel India in a way that might profoundly
inconvenience thy friends, Thersites.
OSBORNE.—The Exchequer is more in thy way, son of Shoddy.
Thou art up to figures—shall we remit Lewis to his Review ?
BRIGHT.—As I should stipulate, larky one, that the army be
disbanded, and the navy handed over to the carrying trade, my
budget would be more acceptable to the tax-payer than to thy aristo-
cratic patrons.

OSBORNE —Thou would'st not be amiss as a Home Secretary, burly
believer in Barclay. There thou could'st hardly interfere, and there is
nothing to offend thy prejudices.
BRIGHT.—And the gallows an institution of the country, flippant
underling ? Thou can st not tempt me. Besides, where would be the
wisdom of my allying myself to thy moribund association? The mer-
chant who willingly enters into partnership with a bankrupt firm in-
vites disgrace to his reputation.
OSBORNE.—And who told thee, man of drab, that we are
moribund ?

BRIGHT.—Does a man with a grain of sense need to be told it,
0 more wooden than Wood thy master ? How much longer dolt
think the people will endure a Government that lives but to be
beaten ?

OSBORNE.—Ah! that was last session, queer Quaker. Butter luck
next time.

BRIGHT.—I know nothing of luck, ungodly ex•otscer. But I would
fain know what new reasons ye have for expecting success. Have ye
agreed upon a single principle, prepared a single broad, bold
measure, decided upon a single course of consistent policy? If so,
the improvement upon your feats of last year may augur better things,
and I might care to cast in my lot among you.
OSBORNE.—Nay, thou would'st be our Lot's wife, our lump of
salt, Obadiah Bright. And I am told that we are coining out with a
tremendous programme, for the reformation of creation generally, in
British and foreign parts. Palmerston has caused every man of us to
send in his scheme.

BRIGHT —And—ha! ha !—what halt thou sent in, vain and incon-
venient jester? Were lin office, I bear thee no malice, but by—l mean
by all means thou should'st speedily send in thy resignation.
OSBORNE.—I am as good as any of them, and better than most,
thou bellowing bull of Bashan. Take that—thou did'st not think I
was so well up in biblical information. Why would'st turn me out ?
Because we have exchanged a few hard words ? See how I abused
Graham, and afterwards became his secretary.
BRIGHT.—Words, Portugal onion, what do I care for words ! But
who entrusts grave interests to a mountebank? Enough of such
small mutters as thyself—tell me of the plans of thy employers. Is
the representation to be reformed ?
OSBORNE.—Not exaetually, John the grumble-merchant.
BRIGHT.—Is the Church of England to be made to disgorge her
plunder, frivolous official?
OSBORNE.—Pam would not care, 0 blatant Behemoth, but says it
would scarcely be safe.
BRIGHT.—Is corporation property to be confiscated to the nation,
thou benighted bauble ?

08BOWNE.—Lowe has not been lucky at that work, 0 Pharisee
in collars. I think we shall not try it again.
BRIGHT.—Is the law to be overhauled and made comprehensible,
butterfly Bernal?
OSBORNE.—Thou seest we have no one who understands it well
enough to perform the operation, bullfrog Bright.
BRIGHT.—Is our taxation system to be revised and adjusted, thcu
Brummagem Torn Duncombe ?

OSBORNE.—Who on earth, thou unreasonable nonconformist, have
we to undertake the task ?

BRIGHT.—Then what, 0 insufficient Osborne, is the programme of
which thou hest vaunted

OSBORNE.—WiIt promise not to disclose the secret, self-sufficient
Bright, if I confide it unto thee ?
BRIGHT.—I will use my discretion, thou Pagan ; nevertheless, fear
thou not.

OSBORNE.—Nay, thou schismatic, I must have a more specific
undertaking. Thy finger on thy lip—Harpocrates fashion.
BRIGHT.—WeII, then, take the promise. lam dumb, 0 ridiculous
Ralph. What is the grand plan of thy pretentious chief ?
OSBORNE (drawing near him mysteriously).--It is—WALKER
(Darts off, pursued for some distance by the enraged Bright, but the latter
being tits heavier, the light-heeled Secretary escapes.

The ray. (ale) gentleman sate down amid, ite. ttc.—Tinies report of Sir James Graham's
speech at Liverpool, Wednesday, Oct. 1.
In character cranky, in credit still worse,
Does Bev. mean the Reverend?-
-No : the Reverse.