The Press. — 1858-02-13 (London, England)

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 interrupt her progress through it are but retarding her ultimate happiness. An occasion presented itself in which this country could contribute some slight aid towards preventing such aggression. The circumstances 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 insinuations ridiculous; and it is to be wished, indeed, that Lord PALMERSTON had not shrunk from declaring as much in reply to Count WALEwsirrs despatch. But, if the ignorant declaimers of the French army suppose that the majority of last Tuesday was a tribute of respect to themselves, they are most egregiously mistaken. 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 Administrator to be a partaker in these views, and heartily willing that the severity of his rule should cease with the cessation of conspiracy and crime. For these reasons we rejoice that the Conservative 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 freedom 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 Government, 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 succeeded 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. Without a chance of success, he has damaged his own reputation, strengthened the hands of