The Press. — London, England, 1858-01-30 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JANUARY 30, 1858. fectly natural. Nothing could have surpassed our own when we first became aware of the purpose which it is now our intention to com municate. Of all the ill-advised exertions of the Royal prerogative since her Majesty's family have sat on the Throne of these realms, we do not hesitate to say that the pro posed creation of seven Whig Peers at the present crisis is the least excusable on the grounds either of public policy or private merit. The precedents for this aggression on the Upper House are the creation of some dozen new Peers by the Government of Queen ANNE to carry through the Peace of Utrecht, and the threatened creation of Peers to carry the last Reform Bill. Each of these cases is removed from the present by a very long interval indeed. In 1713 the object for the sake of which this extreme measure was adopted was universally popular. There was no question about it. The people were tired of the war, and the war was tired of them. It could do no more for them than was already done. These points are admitted both by Lord MACAULAY and Mr. THACKERAY, whose bias is not towards the party by whom that peace was effected. There was a strong party of dissentients in the Upper House alone ; and of these at least two•thirds were actuated either by personal or by party motives. Some were friends of the Duke of MARLBOROUGH, others were friends of the Elector of HANOVER ; and the English nation just then, as both the above quoted authorities allow, was inclined to neither. Under these circumstances the measure recommended by the Ministry, though not justifiable, is certainly to be palliated. In 1832 the position of affairs was exactly analogous. There was a strong feeling throughout the country in favour of the Re form Bill, and a strong opposition to it in the House of Lords. That opposition was, to say the least of it, just as patriotic as the opposi tion to the Peace of Utrecht. One was for the sake of defending our old Constitution, the other for the sake of introducing a fresh dynasty. A party was to profit and a party was to suffer by each. Let us say no more than that the one was as respectable as the other. Here again, then, the Minister having indis putably the country and the House of Com mons at his back, though not, we repeat, justi fied, was to some extent excusable in recom mending such a step to his Sovereign. But in the present case not one of these conditions exists. The opposition to the Pre mier's policy in the House of Lords is very generally shared in by the country, and it yet remains to be seen if the Commons will not endorse it. The questions now under the consideration of the Legislature have not yet received the verdict of public opinion. They are not measures loudly and universally de manded by the majority of the nation, and waiting the tardy assent of a reluctant cli garchy. They concern points on which public opinion is really very evenly balanced, and to make any addition of party advocates to the House of Lords under such circumstances is to swamp free discussion, and to coerce legiti mate opinion. It is perfectly obvious that this measure is felt necessary by the Premier to insure his personal ascendancy. Has it come to this, that the working of the Constitution is to be checked for the convenience of one man? If so, then, indeed, let us fold our arms and await our destiny. But we cannot believe that so glaring a violation of right should be per petrated without so strong a remonstrance from the people's representatives as would cost the Premier his throne. Still less do we believe the injurious rumour of a disgraceful compact by which the permission so to act has been purchased. It is incredible that any transaction so outrageous to English feeling should have been ventured on by those to whom it is attri buted But, however this may be, we trust an unmistakeable protest will be offered by the nation at large, in time to prevent so unjusti fiable an invasion of the Constitution from being consummated. THE PAPAL PARTY ABROAD AND IN IRELAND. WE have read with much interest the remark able circular which Count CAVOUR has addressed to the Intendants of Sardinia, on his taking charge of the Ministerial portfolio vacated by Signor RATAZZI. The views enun ciated on the question of priestly power are specially worthy of notice. " The Govern " ment," says Count CAVOUR, " is attached to " the religion of the State ; it respects her " Ministers, but it maintains the independence " of the civil power and liberty of conscience ; " it repels all intervention of the priestly order " in what relates to political and civil institu " tions ;" and the entire document is drawn up in that bold tone. It has no political reti cence, no Jesuit's logic, no sinister State craft. Its argument is intelligible, and its language is without ambiguity. It is a State paper of " Liberal Romanists " in office ; and its perusal excites many reflections, when we remember that certain priests in Ireland are now by Parliamentary orders placed upon their trial for (alleged) offences at the last general election. _ _ _ _ But our experience of the arts and wiles of the Court of Rome, and our knowledge of its formidable system, make us feel that we must not be too sanguine in accepting the cause of religious freedom as being finally victorious even in Piedmont. There are many deep thinkers who believe that constitutional liberty, the right of free assembly and discus sion, and the perfect freedom of the press, can exist with permanence only in Protestant countries. " Liberal Romanists," certainly, have vast difficulties to contend against in re sisting the ascendancy of clerical power. The priests have a system organised and secret ; they have corporate power, and many facilities for private influence. Above all, they have the Confessional, and they have boundless re sources in the weakness and domestic affec tions of women. In Roman Catholic coun tries woman exercises a religious power that it is difficult for Protestants to conceive. The graces of the sex, the finest instincts of the female heart, and the winning ways of the mother and the wife are all employed, directly or indirectly, to mould and rule the habits of male members of a family. It is against these influences that the Piedmontese will have to contend, and we sincerely trust that they may be successfuL We could wish that there was some Celtic Cavour in Ireland to speak thrilling words to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and remind them of the promises made when " Catholic Emancipation " was conceded in 1829. We have no desire to disinter the painful recollec tions of the last twenty years in Ireland, but it is impossible to be blind to the fact that the policy of the Roman Catholics in Ireland has been entirely altered. Roman Catholic barris ters easily find constituencies, while obstacles aro thrown in the way even of " Liberal Pro testants." The Irish Judicature is fast passing into the hands of the Roman Catholics, and they are seeking also to establish a complete ascendancy in the " National Education " system. The more that is conceded to them, the more aggressive do they become. As soon as one "grievance" is redressed, twenty others are brought forward, and they affect a con venient forgetfulness of the manner in which they disturbed the realm for many years. They retarded the prosperity of Ireland by the Repeal delusion, which was fostered and countenanced by the great mass of the Roman Catholic clergy, and they lowered the character of the Irish representation by intro ducing a swarm of petty adventurers into the House of Commons, who won no name in the Senate, and whose whole ambition was to secure places for themselves and their allies. Yet, in spite of these things, the Ultramon tanist party in Ireland arrogantly demand that they are to obtain as large a portion of the official patronage and of the public re wards as if they had never disturbed the ctountry with " Repeal," or sought to aid Car dinal VfnutmaN in his aggression. It is impossible, on this point, to forget the words that fell from the Earl of DERBY in 1853 with reference to the conduct of the Roman Catholic priests at the election of 1852. Lord DERBY alluded in the House of Lords to the extravagant acts of clerical as cendancy committed in that year ; and his Lordship stated, just as Count CAVOUR might be supposed to have done, the absolute ne cessity that the State should vindicate its constitutional privileges. Our readers must recollect that the Conservative Cabinet was overthrown mainly by the votes of that " Brass Band" which obtained its powerichiefly by the identical malpractices against which Count CAVOUR has emphatically protested. The contrast, therefore, between the _ " Liberal Romanists" in Piedmont and the Ultra. montanists in Ireland deserves the particular regard of all who study the progress of the Church of Rome and the vicissitudes of her fortunes. Is it yet too late to hope that a moderate party may be found amongst the Irish Roman Catholics ? It is plain that if matters are allowed to go on in that country as they have been for the last few years, the Protestants of Ireland will be deprived of their legitimate position ; and that it will be only a question of time when an open attempt will be made to bring about a complete religious revolution, attended with equal perils to the political freedom of Ireland and to the Protestantism of England. BANKRUPTCY REFORMS. TN the year 1849, just after the passing of the Bankrupt Law Amendment Act, Mr. W. HAWKS, the Chairman of the Bankrupt Law Amendment Act Society, announced to the "commercial and trading classes" that the reformed courts would " afford the quickest, " cheapest, and most efficient means of wind " ing up estates." After eight years' expe rience, the commercial and trading classes seem to have formed a different opinion. Creditors still always prefer private arrange ments. But amid the numerous charges which are preferred against these courts with more or less of justice, that which was stated by the influential meeting recently held at Exeter to be the head and front of their offend ing is unquestionably the true cause of their unpopularity. They are not the cheapest means of winding up estates. In a private arrange ment the creditors are at no trouble and no expense. A meeting is summoned—an ac countant reads a statement of the debtor's position—the debtor makes his creditors an offer—it is accepted—the meeting dissolves, and all is over. But wherever there is a legal inquiry there must be expense ; there must be a highly-paid official assignee, and a costly staff of officers. There will arise con flicting interests, tedious and expensive con tests, lawyers and lawyers bills. So far, perhaps, the evil is to some extent beyond the reach of cure. But his unquestionably true that the Courts! of Bankruptcy are at present far more costly than they need or ought to be. It should never be forgotten that the costs in bankruptcy must ultimately be paid by the creditors—men who are already heavy losers, and are called on to relinquish a portion of their just claims. But in addition to this, in asmuch as the costs of the winding-up are defrayed out of the estate in the first place, business in bankruptcy is absolutely without risk, and i 9 always paid for on the nail. The best test of the truth of this is the avidity with which the post of solicitor to the assignees is pursued. In no oourts should the scale of costs be watched so jealously and paid on so low a scale; in no courts is the scale so high and the scrutiny so lax. What, however, at first surprised us was that so sensible a body of men as the Exeter meeting should have imagined that this evil could not be remedied without the interference of the Legislature. The Chancellor, assisted by the Lords Justices and two of the Commis sioners, has, of course, full power to regulate and from time to time alter the scale of costa and fees payable in bankruptcy. It seemed ainai w INMAN 1n lus aggression. I and fees payable in Danicruptcy. OUtnaivaa