The Press. — London, England, 1857-08-01 00:00:00

738 Ministerial quarters there is an apparent desire to sever the alliance between the English Liberals and the Irish Priests. The subject is of great importance in every point of view. At a general election, on an average, the Conservative party has lost several seats in consequence of the interference of the priests on the hustings. The real gentry of Ireland, even of the Liberal or Old Whig con nection, have been ousted from seats given to termagant declaimers or untrustworthy persons ; the patronage of the Crown has been diverted into improper channels; and the dignity of Parliament itself has been lowered by the class of representatives returned from the sister country. And now, when the mischief has been done, after a powerful sacerdotal party has been fos tered in Ireland by the connivance and patro nage of the Whigs—after the priests have been systematically used as allies in " keeping out the Tories"—after Brookes's has thoroughly squeezed out all that it could get from the Irish priests, the English Whigs, with a coarse callousness to all reproaches, and with a chuck ling enjoyment of "sharp" practice, wheel about and march towards Exeter-hall, and have the effrontery to raise a simulated terror about " spiritual intimidation." In the annals of political tergiversation there never was any thing so indecent. They take up Colonel HIGGINS as a hero: they praise him as if he were entitled to be canonised with the Sidneys, the Russells, and the Vanes of early Whig times ; they espouse his cause with marvellous enthusiasm ! Now, when the Protestant senti ment of England has been aroused, the Whigs desert their priestly coadjutors—noir, when the Protestant seems a more winning card than the Roman Catholic one, the Whigs take to vili fying Mr. MOORE as safely as their dread of that hard-hitting gentleman will permit; and they panegyrists the heroic HIGGINS, who braved " spiritual intimidation," as a man deserving to receive present patronage, and future immor tality ! If there was sincerity or manly courage at the bottom of this new Whig movement we would honour it, and as Protestants and Con servatives we should rejoice at it. But the disgraceful history of the Whigs, in connection with their hypocrisy towards both the Protes tants and Roman Catholics of Ireland, for the last twenty years, leaves not a doubt upon our minds that this affected cry about "spiritual intimidation" is an artful attempt to cajole the Protestant opinion of England; and we now call upon the Protestants of England, and we trust that our words will not be heard in vain, to ask these recent terrorists about " spiritual intimidation," how long is it since they have conceived such a horror of seeing sacerdotal canvassers at the polling-booth, and clerical counsellors in the Whig committee-rooms ? How comes it that no attempt was ever made by the ruling powers of the Whig party to preserve for themselves, or their allies in the Irish Protestant Nobility and Gentry, a fair share of the representation of the country ? Many years have not elapsed since Lord JOHN RUSSELL branded the Protestants of Ireland as " a miserable monopolising minority," sand at that identical time the ennobled Whig families of Ireland (with two exceptions) were excluded from the popular representation, and their seats (r iven to the class who caricatured by their conduct the people who once sent a Burke, a Sheridan, a Grattan, a Plunket, a Canning, and many more, to the British Senate. We should much like to be informed why the Whigs never made a manly stand against " spi ritual intimidation," in the days when a King of England had removed from Windsor Castle a bust of a certain Whig Duke for his having aided Mr. O'CONNELL. Vast good might have accrued to the empire if the Whigs had been more timely, more brave, more truthful in their opposition to " spiritual intimidation." For many and eventful years the English Whigs zealously served the cause of the Pope and his priesthood, and they were deaf to all remonstrances on the subject, whether coming from Conservatives or Irish Protestant Whigs. • They made no remonstrance when " spiritual • intimidation " drove the son of GRATTAN from Meath, or banished Butlers, Boyles, and Pon . aonbys from the representation of Ireland. The English Whigs calmly acquiesced, and I THE PRESS, AUGUST 1,185'7. accepted the commands of the Papal body guard in Ireland. We fear, after the sort of system almost established in Ireland, that their recent con version about " spiritual intimidation " will be of little use. When the steed has been stolen it is no time to think of locking the stable-door ; and we observe that in the por tion of " Itaikee's sirs," just published, there is a con- - recorded with the Du hi Memoirs, ..versittion r of WELLINGTON, in the year 1813, when his Grace said, " Our task in Ireland is more ' difficult on accouht of ten years of misrule " there ; and since then the Whigs have been continuing their " misrule," and fostering, by their tacit approval and open connivance, the organised system of " spiritual intimidation against which they now raise a cry, which they will forget by the time of the next Ge neral Election. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CIVIL SERVICE. THE course pursued by her Majesty's Govern ment with regard to the Bill for the Abolition of the Superannuation Tax, introduced by Lord NAAS, is as dishonest as it is inconsis tent. It is dishonest because, in opposing the measure, Mr. WILSON and his financial chief, the CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER, have attempted, with sinister astuteness, to perplex and mislead the House by false data and in accurate calculations. Iu this kind of work, indeed, the Hun. Member for Devonport finds his most congenial arena of action ; and if he had not long since been known as a perfect master of the culinary art, a veritable Soyer in statistics, his essay upon this occasion would have been sufficient to entitle him to that remarkable distinct ion. In cooking esti mates and in dressing accounts, however, Mr. WitsoN and his promising disciple should remember that human credulity has its bounds and Parliamentary gullibility its limits; and that, consequently, when they have passed the frontier of that too extensive territory, they cease to be the deceivers and become themselves the dupes. But the course pursued by the Government in this matter was also inconsistent, inasmuch RS the CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER himself, as was pointed out by Mr. DISRAELI, admitted the injustice of this obnoxious impost, and made two abortive attempts to reconstruct and readjust it. The House of Commons by its vote on Wednesday night has ratified our view of the speeches of Mr. WILSON and Sir G. C. ',Elvis, and administered to Lord PALMERSTON'S Cabinet a rebuke as decisive as it is richly merited. The issue, indeed, raised for decision by Lord NAAS'S Bill was so plain and intelligi ble that Mr. Witsos's ingenuity in the mysti fication of evidence and the perversion of facts was impotent to beguile the judgment of his auditory. How did the matter stand ? A Royal Commission, appointed for the special purpose of investigating the question, and moreover, be it noted, appointed on the ex press ground that the Ministry was not satis fied to act upon the opinion of the Select Committee, which had previously been con sulted—a Royal Commission, we say, thus instituted, after elaborate research and pro tracted inquiry, reported in favour of the re moval of the superannuation tax, unaccom panied by any qualiiyinglproviso or stipulation whatever. And yet it is said that the proposal of Lord NAAs is not comprehensive—that it leaves the question where it-found it—that it is simply a rash and indiscriminate addition to the sala ries of the Civil servants of the Crown ! Now, we should like very much to know what can be a more comprehensive mode of dealing with a grievance than redressing it? or how, if an evil is admitted to exist, anything can be more wise or rational than its prompt and effective arrest? Here is a charge upon the industry of a certain portion of the Civil Service, which by universal assent is pro nounced inequitable and impolitic. It is, therefore, in the interest of national honour that its withdrawal is to be demanded ; and the only rashness of which th e L eg i s l a t ure can be guilty in accomplishing it, is the rash ness of receding from a false position—the rashness of doing justice, regardless of the hazard, and contemptuous of the sacrifice. In making a surrender of that to which it has no moral title, the country is neither reckless nor prodigal. It is perfectly true that releasing the Civil servants from the abatement on account of superannuation is benefiting them to the extent of that abatement. But, then, it is to be remembered that the superannua tion tax was imposed for a specific definite purpose; that purpose was to provide a fund to bear the burden of pensions. There is no pretence or justification whatsoever for Mr. GLADSTONE'S casuistical discovery that this charge was intended as an indirect agent for the reduction of salaries. It is obvious that such a view of its design is untenable; for if the burden were devised with this aim, it would have been general and not partial in its operation. It cannot be seriously contended that the Act of 1834 was introduced to diminish the incomes of only 16,000 out of 49,000 members of the Civil Service. And this is a complete answer to the argument, used in the course of the debate, that if this concession be granted to the 16,000, the other 33,000 will besiege the House to do something also for them; for the only hardship they have suffered is the hardship of being free from a deduction whilst their fellow-workmen were subject to it, and an appeal on that ground Mr. GLADSTONE knows well would re ceive but one answer. It is to be observed, also, that the principle of allowing retiring pensions gratuitously— that is, without levying contributions in aid of it—is neither novel nor untried ; for, to say nothing of the usages of other nations, in this country we have at this moment 33,000 out of a corps of 49,000 who have a title to pensions, and pay nothing for it. When it is argued that the superannuation tax is a stimulus to the zeal, and an incentive to the energy of the Civil Service, let it be observed that if it be capable of furnishing that salutary impulse, its area should in all reason be extended ; but no one in his senses will say that there is not as much ability and as much industry in the 29,000 who are exempt from as in the 16,000 who are subject to this goad. We are aware, however, that to look for broad views and high sentiments from that school of economists to which Mr. Wttsog belongs is a vain, a desperate expectation. He is not only not a statesman, but he is a hard and impassible politician, saturated with the spirit of redtapism, and wedded to the doctrines of routine. This, however, we could forgive, if he were not so audacious in his statements and so disingenuous in his reasoning. When he argues, for example, that because the retiring allowance is propor tionate to the salary, and that salary may reach 1,2001. or 1.5001. a year, the superannua tion tax is a boon to the Civil Service, he must have imagined his audience were very ignorant and unsuspicious. In the first place, he must be quite aware that the main cause of complaint against the present system is, that the deduction is compulsory and general, as regards the 16,000, and the re ceipt of the pension is problematical and ex ceptional ; that whilst there is a certainty of temporary loss, there is no security of ulti mate benefit. It is not the amount of the pen sion which is appealed against, but the fact that not one man in ten who is subject to the abatement ever enjoys the pension, and is thus, with his family, robbed of the whole sum he has contributed ! In the second place, the salary of 1,2001. or 1,5001. a year of which Mr. WILSON speaks, intending to persuade the un informed that it is quite a common income in the service, is so very rarely given, and when given is so seldom bestowed upon the labourers of a department, and so generally to partisans of the Government, that not one in fifty has the remotest idea of realising it, or would refuse twenty shillings for his rever sionary chance of it! The Ministerial organs contend, further, that this tax is defensible as being in the nature of an insurance. That statement is ludicrously absurd, for whereas 16,000 pay the premium, not one in seven receive a policy, so that in the majority of cases not a sixpence Is secured, though the abatement may extend over a period of thirty or forty years.