The Press. — London, England, 1857-02-28 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 28,1857. certain other portions of Lord PALMERSTON'S policy, their import, or rather their non import, in a religious sense becomes manifest indeed. If we glance at the employment of the Govern ment patronage in Ireland, the Premier's Protestantism will appear in a still stronger light. The appointments made by Lord CARLISLE are : ROMAN CATBOLICS. 1. Judge of Common Pleas 3. Attorney.G.meral 3. Chief Justice, Bombay 4 and 5. Two Assistant Bar. risters e. Austialian Judge 7 and 8. Two Dublin Police PROTESTANTS. 1. Solicitor•Geueral 2. Clerk of Affidavits in the Magistrates 0. Secretary to Commission of Charitable Bequests 10. Crown Prosecutor, at Court of Chancery 3. Commissioner ti inquire re lative to Lunatics Green-street, Dublin 11 to 30. Twenty Circuit Crowu 4to 8. Four Circuit Crown Prosecutors Prosecutors $l. Secretary to Lunatic Asylum Commission 32. Superintendent of Educa tion in the Mauritius Among attorneys the Romanists have had five appointments as Crown Solicitors and Clerks of the Crown, and the Protestants two,—that is to say, in all a proportion of thirty-seven Roman Catholics to ten Protestants. As to the recent appointment of Mr. MARTLEY, we believe that the position was previously offer€d to Mr. Sergeant O'BRIEN, a Roman Catholic, who, not finding it suitable to his views, suffered it to descend to Mr. MARTLEY. All these things taken in conjunction lead us to think it just possible that the ultra-Evan gelicals may have blundered in assuming Lord PALmEasToN to be one of themselves ; and that that Noble Lord has not undertaken the very desperate attempt above alluded to of per suading the world that he is a bigoted reli gionist. Is there not, indeed, something in the evidence which tends rather to the oppo site conclusion? If his Lordship thinks it right to promote Roman Catholics in Dublin, he can scarcely think it a matter of profound religious importance to promote ultra Protes tants at home. 111-disposed persons would be apt to say that he (lid not care much about either kind of creed—that he was influenced wholly by political considerations—that his object was to win supporters on both sides of the Channel ; to confirm the courage and ex tend the influence of his own party, and at the same time to steal some sympathy from the opposite side by the process now familiarly known as " gammoning the chaplain." "CHINA" DEBATES. PERSONS who have been in the habit of supposing that the art of oratory was fast becoming obsolete, must have been considerably "awakened" by the scene which took place in the House of Lords on Tuesday last. In moving the resolutions condemnatory of our late proceedings in China, the Earl of DERBY made his audience feel that eloquence was still a living motive power, and not merely a dream of past ages. There are occasions (now for various reasons becoming less and less frequent) when the peril of sonic great principle, or the discus sion of some of the fundamental doctrines of political morality, demands that appeal to the higher laws of our nature in which the excel lence of true oratory, as opposed to morn acute advocacy, ha.. been held to consist. Such an occasion was afforded on Tuesday last, and when we say of Lord DERBY that he proved himself fully equal to that occasion, we have uttered the highest praise we know how to confer. The chief of his Lordship's arguments are already before the public. The worthless character of the register under which the Ai row claimed to be a British vessel, which was but so much waste paper ; the fact that the loreha was no longer under the protection of that register, even had it not been worthless; and that, further, she was not of that class of vessels entitled to its protection, had both the register itself been good, and its autho rity still in force ;—are now clearly aster tained truths, and we shall not delay our readers by the discussion of them. But it was THE PRESS. by his noble and forcible language on the broad question of international law and Christian duty that the Noble Lord reaped the truest laurels—language, we venture to predict, that will do more in recovering or maintaining our prestige among weaker nations than all the cannon in our arsenals. There is really such an abundance of argu ments, every one fatal to the pretensions of this miserable vessel, that it is difficult to choose the most pertinent. Perhaps, hm‘ever, the maxim laid down by Lord LYsonuasr con tains within the shortest compass the most irrefrogable testimony against her. " Allow " me," said the Noble Lord, "to lay down a " principle which no one will successfully con " test " to the subjects of a foreign country, by any " of your laws, as against the country of which "he is a subject." That is to say, what should we think of an American vessel coming up the Thames, granting to British subjects the right to hoist the American flag, and then proclaim ing that they were withdrawn r from British jurisdiction ? Yet this is exactly what we have required the Chinese to submit to. To those who urge that, if every other point were abandoned, e should have been justified in bombarding Canton for the dishonour which was done to our flag, there is obviously a double answer In the first place, if every other point be abandoned, the flag flying ou the lorcha could not lawfully be looked upon as ours. But we deny, in the second place, that any dis honour was done to it. We challenge proof that the flag was hauled down. The Imperial Commissioner states over and over again, in the most decided language. that all vessels coming to anchor in the harbour of Canton lower their colours ; and, as he pithily observes, colours that were not flying could not have been hauled down. What ground Lord CRAN WORTH could have for saying that this denial on the part of YEli was an " after thought," we cannot discover, except in the fatal familiarity with after-thoughts for which the Learned Lord is famous. Nor should we have expected that Lord WENSLEYDALE would have been quite so reaz!y in adopting the ideas of a Lord Chan cellor who had got him into one mess already, and on Tuesday night led him into another. He, however, repeated the invention on Thurs day, though totally unable to give a reason for it. Another most amusing feature in the ad journed debate was the conduct of the Duke of ARGYLL. Really this young man's friends should give him better advice. To see him contradicting Lord LYNDHURST on a point of law, and correcting the Bishop of OXFORD OH a question of argument, reminds us irresisti bly of the ambitious and ill-fated frog. The stress laid by various speakers on the material aspect of this question was not in the least exaggerated. The value of our Chinese trade was increasing yearly, and that it should have been so is in itself a tolerably strong argument that our exclusion from the town of Canton could not have been a very ruinous restriction. We talk of reducing the duty upon tea Why, if this wretched quarrel is suffered to proceed there is not a poor old woman in the country whose corn tbrts will not at once be materially diminished. Charity begins at home, and so dues mag nanimity. Let us consider the physical in terests of our poor in England, before we are so very touchy upon a point of honour in China. While we are now writing, the debate is in progress in the House of Commons. What its exact issue may be in the shape of a division, we cannot tell. But we are quite sure that the debate in both Houses will learo a lasting stain on the memory of a Government which is not thereby persuaded to acknowledge its error, put an end to unprovoked bloodshed, and confess that the interests of party are, atter all, subservient to those of humanity. MONOPOLISTS OF OFFICE. OUR readers cannot have forgotten the remark able speech of the Right Hon. Memler for Bucks at the close of last session, when atten tion was drawn to the anomaly of Liberals in office endeavouring to carry out a Conservative 195 policy in order to satisfy the feelings of the country. Such a plan of Administration re veals a worn-out party, and convicts its upholders of being mere monopolists. The evils resulting from the Executive being swayed by an exhausted connection are well worth • consideration, as it gives us an opportunity of contrasting the strength and resources of " Conservatism" with the increasing weakucss of " Liberalism." That . Parties have a natural tendency to wear out, under a long tenure of office, is a conclu sion proved by political history. The Walpole Whigs degenerated into the mediocre eof the Pelham faction, when jobbing henna. gn organised system. The Court party, which obtained office in the earlier years of the reign of GEORGE 111., gradually sunk down into the imbecile politicians who lost our colonies in America. The last days of the great Tory connection, which ceased to hold power in 1830, did not exhibit the steady resolution of the years when it first obtained office. So, also, in our own times, the Liberals now in power show a remarkable decline in persons and principles. The monopoly of influence leis exhausted their freshness. For principle they substitute cant. For earnest convictions they otter a conventional creed. Fur measures, they refer Parliament to the reports of a committee; and for " a cause,' they strive to stay in Downing-street. Such is the degeneracy of a great party, which went into power in 1830 with a cry of " Peace, Economy, Retrenchment, and Reform " Its cries are now extravagant estim aes, no retrenchment, a policy or embroilment with China, or Persia, or America (as best may suit the caprice of the Premier), and, last, not least, "No Reform." In 1830 the party now in office boasted of the leadership of statesmen of considerable weight, like the late Earl GREY, Lord BROUGHAM, Lord ALTHORP, Lord DUR HAM, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Sir JAMES GRAHAM', Mr. STANLEY, and other eminent persons Ranged behind these were several younger politicians, who since either rose to distinction, or were cut off iu their youth. We allude to Lord Howiek (now Earl GREY), the accom plished Earl of KERRY (a nonleman of the highest promise), Mr. MACAULAY, Mr. CHARLES BULLER, Mr. POULETT Tnomsos (Lord SYDEN. HAM), and others. Look at the contrast between the staff of the Liberals then and now. Earl IiREY is a statesman to whom we have sometimes been opposed, but his abilities are unquestionable. The Noble Earl is not iu office ; and, after Tuesday's debate, it can be no secret that thu Foreign Folicy of Lord PALMERSTON is not approved of by one with hereditary instincts in favour of " peace, economy, and retrench ment." Lord JOHN RUSSELL is content to wield power over, and not in, the Cabinet. Where are there any rising Liberal statesmen like those whom we have enumerated above? Thus, both in persons and principles there is evident exhaustion iu the ranks of dill Liberals. But that is not all. The degeneracy of the Liberals, under the monopoly of office, is shown most forcibly in the Cabinet having become a clique, and in its ruling connection being a mere caste. Office is closed against the vast bulk of the Ministerial followers, and even the cry for " The Ballot " is scouted as " nonsense " by the Prime Minister whom the Liberals support. Mr BAINES is the only Cabinet Minister unconnected with the Whig nobility. The members for large towns h we turned Radicalism into a mere imposture. It is bawled for on the hustings, and abandoned in the ante-room at Downing-street. The tenets of BENTHAM are professed before clubs and constituencies, and (according to Mr. RuEsucK) they are relinquished for invita tions to the Queen's ball. We trace this signal degeneracy of the Libe rals to the lethargy produced by a long tenure of office. They have had during the last quarter of a century twenty-one years of office, to show against six years of rule by the Con,er vatives. They are advancing no new men, and are making no reputation as administrators.