The Press. — London, England, 1858-04-24 00:00:00

meats, and give us in hand a surplus of in come over expenditure. All this is quite pos sible —possible without risk of checking the progr ess of the nation in comfort, in educa tion, or in science and art—if Parliament will only a pply itself to the work with steady atten tion and with sober common sense. We in vite them earnestly to undertake the task. THE PRESS, APRIL 24, 1858. treated, he listens to the false pretence, and votes "at least for going into committee, in order to see what can be done ?" For our own part, we are satisfied that, in the present position of the question, no better course can be taken than that which Lord DERBY indicated in his reply to last Monday's deputation. Let a bill be passed, if possible, first, to enable parishes, in their corporate capacity, to commute and so dispense with Church-rates. Let a new Ecclesiastical Com missioner, if needful, be appointed, specially to superintend this matter. There are many small parishes where the question lies in so narrow a compass as to be susceptible of an easy arrangement. But besides this, power should be given to landlords, everywhere, to take the rate upon themselves, to relieve the suffering consciences of their Dissenting tenants, and to substitute the owner's name for the occupier's in the rate-book. This simple expedient would, we are satisfied, quickly re move four-fifths of the existing grievance. The agitating Dissenters, however, would probably oppose this plan. They would say that simple repeal is what they want, and that they will accept of nothing less. Very well ; then the pretext that they aro striving to bene fit the Church will be put an end to. It will be made quite evident that it is not their own relief, but the Church's injury, which is the real object at which they aim. We hold it, therefore, as proved that . . . . there is uo ground for saying that the French Government ex ceeded their kgitinuste rights, or that the English Govern ment made any concession (! ) which placed Cue honour and dignity of the country in jeopardy (!) A great orator once said that " it was a stu " pid thing to knock one's head against a " wall"; but what could be said of people who " build up a wall for the express purpose of " bumping their brains against it"? The remark was made on the absurdity of Lords GREY and GRENVILLE taking up Mr. PITT'S dropped plan of " Catholic Emancipation ;' and now the Edinburgh Review espouses the condemned views of Lords PALMERSTON CLARENDON, which led to the shipwreck of the late Ministry. Its attempt, also, to ride off on the fact that " an oral reply" had been given to Count WALEWSKT, is too ridiculous. What would any gentleman think, it' after addressing his equal on a personal question involving the civilities of neighbourhood, he had received an " oral answer " by John the butler, or Dick the groom ? Nations know nothing of colloquial inter course. They communicate politically, not by the lips of transient officials, but by the authorized despatches of the heads of depart ments. Can it be possible that any subordi nate in the Foreign-office is concerned in the editorial department of the Edinburgh Review ~~ CHURCH RATES. THE Nonconformist, Mr. NIIALL's paper, among its intelligence of the past week, gives us the following fact : " STRADISIIALL, Suffolk.—ln this village, after an attempt to impose a rate, it was at last agreed that the amount required should be raised by voluntary subscriptions. There is only one Dissenting rate-payer residing in the parish. Much praise is due to him for his vigilance and successful exertions in bringing the affair to such an honourable termination." Here is a whole parish, accustomed for cen turies past to maintain its church in the mode pointed out by the English law, suddenly turned from its purpose by one persevering opponent. Hundreds yield their views and purposes to the objections of a single man. From this little fact we gather the following lessons : 1. How small an amount of " conscience " may be really present when a result is obtained which seems to betoken a great deal. When we hear of a whole parish giving up Church rates, and resorting to the voluntary principle, we naturally conclude that the amount of " conscientious scruple " is very large. Yet we here find a case actually paraded in a Dissent ing newspaper, in which it is confessed that one Dissenter constituted the whole array of " burdened conscience " in the parish. 2. We observe, too, in this case, how easy it is for an opponent to any rate or tax to enlist supporters. So long as he acted alone, this one Dissenter could do little ; but there is probably no pariah in which some ratepayers are not to be found who would prefer exemp tion to remaining under the burden. To all such, the first step is easy. They have only to exclaim, " Let it be a voluntary rate, and let only those pay who are willing." Having carried this point, some of these persons will pay the first year's voluntary rate, and then raise some objection the year after. Then it soon comes to be understood that " You need not pay the Church-rate unless you like it ;" and naturally, in each following year, the number of contributors gradually falls off. 3. But in what other case do we allow the " scruples" of one ratepayer to outweigh the assent of one hundred or five hundred? No stronger " conscientious scruple " could be adduced than that of Quakers against war ex penditure. Yet if Messrs. BRIGHT and GILPIN were to advance their conscientious scruples in bar of a vote for the army in the House of Commons, they would merely be laughed at. But when " one Dissenter " objects to a Church -rate, the whole law of the land is made to vive way to him. We observe that in the debate of Wednes day, in the House of Commons, Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. BALL, and Sir J. TRELAWNY condescended to use the pretence that they " advocated this ` measure out of regard to the interests of the Church itself." This is nothing else than ;NT. It is merely following up Mr. MIALL's advice of last week, not to " drive these men " the„ Whigs--" away befcre the appointed nine. Therefore, " the flag of separation must not yet be unfurled." It must still he pre tended that Church-rates are to be abolished (jut of r egar d to the good of the Church—that 440,000/ a year is to be taken from her re venues, merely to do her service ! This bare !aced attempt to deceive as well as to injure is almost too much to be patiently borne. Yet the pretence catches a few votes. The strongest pressure is used by the Dissenters in all the co nstituencies. The beset and perplexed Al P. hears little from the Churchmen of his borough; but he is assured by Sir JOHN TRH LAWNY that " it is chiefly with a view to the interests of the Church itself" that he brings forward his motion. And thus urged and in- THE "EDINBURGH REVIEW" ON THE MINISTRY. THE article in the new number of the Edin burgh Review on the present Ministry is a sin gularly dull production. One might infer from the internal character of the composition that two or three hands contributed to its stupendous stupidity. Upwards of forty (!) pages are consumed by this patchwork pro duetion, which in the month of April, 1858, discusses at full length the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER'S speech on India delivered in the summer of 1837! The India question is examined from the point of view presented by it last year; and the style of the article may be estimated from the fact that the name of " Mr. DISRAELI" occurs at least jour times as often as that of any other public character ! The article attempts to wind up with a damp invective against the CHANCELLOR of the Ex- CHEQUER. " The public has been assured that ; " Mr. DISRAELI is the real Prime Minister." (!) Where was the public so " assured "? We can answer, like our readers, in the columns of the Times about a month since. And there is no secret about a subordinate of the late Govern. ment having been the contributor of that article. One might suppose that the conduc tors of the Edinburgh Review had heard quite enough by this time of having published in the year 1853 a libellous article on Mr. DISRAELI, which deeply degraded the character of " Quarteily Periodicals." Even the " oldest readers " of the " blue and buff" frankly con fessed that its onslaught upon Mr. DISRAELI far transgressed all bounds of fair criticism The attack on the Conservative Cabinet in the current number is all set to the same key ; for example, " Mr. DISRAELI has been " able to overthrow a Government, but we " doubt whether he can savo an empire," and so on, ad nauseam. We have rarely read so awkward and so flimsy an attempt to represent a manifesto from a party. It is quite evident that the old patrons of the Edinburgh are quarrelling amongst themselves. We cannot blame the editorial management of that once distin guished organ of the Whigs, because " Brookes's" is in an uproar, and the " Reform Club" threatens an insurrection ; but we have no doubt that in every political gathering of the Liberal Party severe censure will be given to those who have been so maladroit as to commit the Edinburgh Review to Lord CLA RENDON'S " impolitic policy." We ask our readers to observe the following passage, which nccurs at page 565 of the article on " The Second Derby Cabinet." The joint writers of that article observe : THE BALLOT. IN considering the moral effects likely to rise from the adoption of the Ballot at elections, three principal questions suggest themselves. First, what are the evils for which it is pro posed as a remedy? secondly, will it really remedy them? and, thirdly, will it produce any evils new in kind or in increased degree? To the first of these the reply is very brief. In popular phrase, it is intended to'prevent or greatly diminish corruption and intimidation. Will it, then, have these effects ? We reply emphatically, No; and we would beg any of our readers who incline to think the experi ment worth trying to ponder our arguments on this bead. Let it be observed, imprimis, that to have a chance of repressing either bribery or intimidation the system of secret voting must he compulsory. If it be not—if, iu other words, the voter have it in his power to give his vote visibly, the briber or inti midator will only have to insist on its being so given in the presence of himself or his agent. Five-pound notes, silk parasols, threats of ejectment or withdrawal of custom, will retain the influence dear to HATTER'S hopes or COP POCK'S gentle shade. The covetous or timid will be lad or driven as now, with this difference, however, that it will no longer be possible to convict a candidate of employ ing undue influence. Clearly, then, secret voting must be compulsory—a weighty objec tion, as will be seen when we come to our third head of inquiry. We may believe our neighbour's statement that he voted blue, or orange, or any other hue of the political rain bow, hut we are never to know its truth ; nor if we distrusted his assertion could we prove its falsehood. And this (say the Ballot mongers) is just what we want. Very well, gentlemen, we admire your self-respect, but we question your foresight, and especially we doubt it as to bribery. A variable proportion of most borough constituencies (CREsus him self would not attempt to buy a county) con sisting mainly of persons utterly unfit to be trusted with the franchise, are known to be venal. Under the Ballot a long-pursed can didate will have to deal with them as a class, and not as individuals. That is all. For instance, let us suppose the respectable voters in a given town to be about equally divided —a fact which a personal canvass may establish for all practical purposes, though it cannot be ascertained in detail. There remain, let us say, 150 voracious free men or money-loving ten-pounders, who con•