The Press. — London, England, 1858-04-17 00:00:00

THE WEEK. Tax Foreign•ofce appears to be successfully disentangling the sadly. involved !affairs handed down to it. The Passport question has been arranged this week, as completely as it is practicable to do— so long as the system itself is adhered to. We trust that, before long, the Continental Powers will begin to see that there is no real security to be found in the use of these slips of paper. Another step, and an important one, has been taken in the Cagliari case. The law officers of the Crown having reported that the detention of the two engineers was clearly illegal, no time was lost in despatching to Naples a demand for a proper compensation. As to the capture of the ship itself, that is an entirely separate question, and on that point the law officers have not yet formed an opinion. The Duke of MALAKOFF has arrived in town, has had an inter ♦iew with Lord Mstatzssußv, and dines, we believe, with her Majesty to-morrow. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE QUER will make the annual Financial Statement on Monday ; and during the samo sitting he will lay on the table of the House the Resolutions on the future government of India, whieh it will be proposed to discuss in a Committee of the whole House on the following Monday. One of the journals enjoying the confidence of the late Ministry anticipates that Lord PALMERSTON will urge forward, and will carry, his own Bill. But we cannot believe that one in his Lordship's posi tion will deliberately take a course so distinctly factious. If he re mains of opinion that the leading features in his Bill are sound and defensible, let him carry them, if he can, in the Committee of the whole House, ou Monday next. To take any other course, is to declare, ♦ery explicitly, that having resigned office in February, he wishes to resume it in April. This would, indeed, be wretched work! The proposition of the Noble Lord the Member for the City of London, with regard to the Government India Bill, shows with sufficient clearness the situation in which Parliamentary parties are now placed. The House of Commons is, in fact, obliged to take upon itself duties which were formerly the duties of the Crown Ministers. Now, why is this the case ? Is it the fault of the Conservatives? We really believe that the most prejudiced person in the world would scarcely answer this question in the affirmative. The reason why Parliament is placed in such a posi tion is undoubtedly to be looked for in that general dissolution of party ties which followed the repeal of the Corn Laws. That event broke up the strength of the Conservative party without in reality adding to that of the Liberals. The members of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S party who agreed with his economic reform, did not differ on any other important questions from those members of the party who dissented from it. The consequence was that their secession became a serious impediment to the practical efficiency of Parliament. They could be relied on as faithful allies by neither of the two leading parties in the House, who each felt them selves liable to be tripped up at any time by a vote of this particular section. Under these circumstances it has become the obvious necessity of every succeeding Ministry to trust less and less to party organization, and more and more to the goodwill of the entire House. Lord PALMERSTON could not have remained in office a month without the support of the Conservatives ; yet by courting their advocacy he must be held to have abandoned all those traditions by which, in his speech upon Lord Joss's proposal, he affects so studiously to abide. Lord PALMERSTON, in fact, was obliged to "throw himself" on the House, and as long as he continued to do so, he was tolerably suc cessful. The moment he ventured to rely on his own party alone, he was left in a minority. It is clear, therefore, that Ministers now must regard the whole House as their party. This may be a misfortune or a benefit, according to different schools of opinion, but the fact stares us in the face. And we must not be imposed upon by the declamations of men who, if they returned to power, would be obliged to adopt the same course which they now so ostentatiously condemn. India, too, is the least objectionable subject on which the new state of things can operate. No old party traditions are concerned in its management. And we are sure that Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in his proposal, was, whether consciously or unconsciously, expressing the sense of the community. The system of passports is a curious relic of bygone modes of feeling. It is analogous to the practise of our ancestors, who required that avery man travelling about England should be able to show that he had work in hand, or else that he should submit to the imputation of " a valiant beggar." Now, as Mr. FROUDE has shown us in his history, there really was sound policy at the bottom of this system in the days of the Tudors. At a time when every individual was a much more distinct entity than he is now, it might bo possible to classify and ticket him with benefit to the public and without injustice to himself. But now that we have amongst us a vast class of persons above the necessity of labour, and as like one another as two peas, such a system becomes at once useless and oppressive. One half of the world, it is said, knows not how the other half lives. Formerly they did know. And this just constitutes the difference. The greatest villain in her Majesty's dominions may now pass for the greatest saint, and as such, of course, could obtain a passport without the slightest difficulty. Q.. d. What more is to be said ? Lord MALMES. BURY has done all he can for us. And for the present, if English. men choose to travel they must accept the passport along w i t h sea sickness, the plague, the yellow fever, the dirt, the grease, and other disagreeable but inevitable conditions of seeing the world. Through two or three long articles this week has the Times argued with great pertinacity upon the supposition that there is one, united, " Liberal Party "in the House of Commons. Whereas everyb o d y w h o reads a newspaper is thoroughly aware that nothing of the kind exists. Facing the Treasury benches, in the House of Commons, there rise a similar range of seats, ordinarily occupied by the Opposition. Here sits that divided, disorganized, discordant body which the Times chooses to describe as a " party." Near to the late Premier sits Lord JOHN RUSSELL, whose every action expresses his purpose, not to aid in replacing the Noble Member for Tiverton in Downing street. If Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE sits there,—close by him sits Mr. HORSMAN. There we see Mr. VERNON SMITH, and there also we see Mr. MILNER GIBSON. A round dozen of ox-placemen are there, eagerly watching for " any opening." But close by them sits Mr. ROEBUCK, and near him Mr. BRIGHT, who lost no time in publishing his conviction that the late Ministry was " the very worst " that he had ever known. Now, what an abuse is it of language to persist in describing this collection of opposites as a party of sympathising friends? Why, it is not yet two months since one section of this "Liberal Party" managed to de. atroy, politically, the other section ! It was by Mr. MILNER GIBSON, an " advanced Liberal," that the Liberal Ministry was broken up. And, in fact, the whole body of advanced Liberals lose no opportunity of declaring their conviction that the Palmerston Cabinet was an im posture, and that it was the greatest obstacle to " progress " that could be conceived. In actual fact, in the daily work of politics, this Liberal party is not only divided, but in a state of bitter discordancy and opposition. Yet in the fictions,—the romances, published in the Times, it is represented as one, meaning and striving for the same thing. The writer all the while knowing that between the Conserva tives on the Treasury benches, and the Conservative Whigs on the Opposition benches, there is far more real unity and sympathy, than between Sir G. LEWIS and Mr. ROEBUCK, or between Sir GEORGE Garr and Mr. BRIGHT. Mr. MIALL% paper, the Nonconformist, alludes to our article of last week, on " the creation of a truly popular party," in the following strain : It has been the one desire and work of our life to lend a helping band in bringing about the great consummation which is being hastened on by the events of every session —namely, a final reconstruction of political parties upon a distinct and fundamental politico-ecclesiastical basis. It is coming—but the time is not yet. There still remains a preliminary question or two to be disposed of by parties as they now exist before the flag of " Separation" can be unfurled. The public mind, although ripening fast, is not yet fully prepared for a contest on this grand field. We want no " fusion, unless such a one as will conduce to a permanent result. We rejoice that none of the " leaders " are competent to rally the host. We have no objection to the fermentation which now seps• rates particle from particle, and, during its process, forbids combination. It has long been our conviction that the Liberal party will not be long without qualified leadership whenever it has an honest creed. For a long time past it has not possessed this. It has consisted ever since the abrogation of the Coro Law of a majority who make a loud profession, and a minority who hold a great principle—and the profession is made to cover the prin:iple, not for the purpose of nourishing, but destroying it. Our great aristocratic champions of " religious liberty " know very well that every step they take towards the realisation of their design is justifiable only on the broad ground occupied by anti-State Churchmen. They take up this and that ecclesiastical question as it may suit their convenience, and urge it by reasonings which, if good for anything, are good for a separation of Church and State. But that is a question which involves vast changes, politcal, social, and pecuniary—changes which, however beneficial to religion, would not be likely to increase the oligarchical power which gives them importance. They repu diate it accordingly. They cast contempt upon it. They treat its advocates with super cilious scorn—and, step by step, they are doomed to bring it about. Necessity is hid upon them. They cannot maintain a distinction between themselves and the Conser vatives but by means of ecclesiastical questions—and they cannot touch matters of Church government, at least on the Liberal side, without implying, in every argument they use, the conclusion they are the foremost to deny. Now we have no desire to drive these men to their own place before the appointed time. That place, by rights, is with the Tories, as obstructives. Thither the whole tribe will go at last by a natural law of gra vitetion. But it is not our policy to force them there until their palpable inconsistencies have detached from them every supporter who has a head of his own on his shoulders, and a heart of his own in his bosom. Let Lord John Russell remain where be is to carry his little Oaths Bill, and to resist the abolition of Church-rates! Let Lord Pal merston move under his " false colours" until his supporters are disgusted with his hollow pretensions ! Let the Radicals stay where they are until they are bold enough to acknowledge that their creed is incomplete and their objects narrow, excluding, as they do, the great question of the age ! There is much for all of them to learn, and all will best learn it when uncongenially herded together on the Opposition benches. They have still to carry a Reform Bill. That done, we care not how soon the advice of Tins Parss be taken. Separation of Church and State will then be ready as a basis for the party of progress, and once more we shall have earnest politicians, ennobling warfare, and in the end, we doubt not, glorious victories. We commend these remarks to the calm consideration of the Whig leaders. We said, and Mr. MIALL concurs with us, that these gentle men do not, for the most part, intend to separate the Church from the State ; and, therefore, we desired an explicit statement of the real question at issue, in order that every man might make up his mind which side he would take. Mr. MIALL, however, plainly states t h at this is not the present policy of tho Dissenters. " The public m i nd, they feel, is not yet fully prepared for this contest." The o f " Separation " must, not yet be unfurled. "We have no desire, SaY 5 the Nonconformist, " to drive these men (the Whigs) to the ir own place before the appointed time." Let them remain where they are until wr, the Dissenters, have made as much tire of them as possible. Such rs the Dissenting estimate of " our great aristocratic champions of reli gious liberty." THE PRESS, APRIL 17, 1858.