The Press. — London, England, 1858-04-10 00:00:00

THE PRESS, APRIL 10, 1858. difference between Liberal and Conservative. But then the same difficulty will lie.found hero which exists in the case of the Ballot The Whig leaders, the statesmen of the Liberal party, do not mean to disunite the Church from the State. They have not yet screwed' their courage up to that point. Lord JOHN RUSSELL is one of the stoutest maintainers of Church rates, and when he strives to gain entrance for Baron .ROTIISCHILD, he does it on the express ground that the House will not be the less a Christian House of Commons for having a few Jews in it. And here it is that we see the practical working of the fact stated by the Birmingham Reformers. " The Liberal section is disjointed ; "it has no constructive unity of action.' On the Ballot, on a large measure of Reform, and on the separation of Church and State, the Pahnerstons, Russells, Cavendishes, Grosve nors, Ho wards, and all the other ancient Whigs, are not of the same mind with the Roebucks, Brights, and Milner Gibsons. Their object is totally different. The latter may help the former into office, "to keep out the Tories," but, before many months are . over, they grow tired of their bargain, and declare publicly, with JOHN BRIGHT, that 6 ` the " Ministry of Lord PALmEasros was the very " worst they ever saw." Upon this belief they act; they kick down and demolish their own idol ; and then loudly lament " their disunited condition," and yearn for " the creation of a truly popular party." ON " THE CREATION OF A TRULY- POPULAR PARTY." THE old Liberal party being " disjointed," ac cording to one of its oracles—" distracted," according to another—" disunited," according to a third—and " demoralized," according to a fourth—" there is growing up,' says the Daily News," an earnest longing for the creation of a " truly popular party." This " longing" is a natural and proper feeling. Were it not to exist, we should begin to despair of England. For it was justly re marked, in the very first number of the Satur day Review, that " the true and healthy growth " of Representative Government naturally de " velopes itself into organized parties.'' When, therefore, many thousands of English men, who have been led by the term of " Liberal " to attach themselves to certain leaders, find that they have been drawn into a quagmire ; when they find that they have been entrapped into what the Spectator calls " a demoralizing union under false colours," they must, of necessity, either fall back into mere selfish apathy and despair, or else, if . patriotism be not quenched, they must "long " for the creation of a truly popular party." To the existence of such a feeling, and its widespread character, the Daily News bears witness. But there cannot be a stronger proof given of the utter failure of " Liberalism," as hitherto organized. Having had every thing put into its hands, for more than a twelvemonth past—having had a large majority in the Commons, and no active opposition in the Lords, it finds itself disunited, demo ralized, disorganized ; it is publicly given up, even by its own leaders and journalists ; and the yearning desire of its own disciples is declared to be, " Bury it out of the way, and "let us have a truly popular party." So let it be, then. Clear the ground, mark out your camp, set up your banners, and let us behold the rising power. Avoid, however, the errors which have proved fatal to " Liberalism." Do not let us have, again, "a demoralizing union under "false colours." The new and "truly popular party" must thoroughly agree, at the outset, as to its principles and objects. The system which it adopts and maintains, among the people, it must be prepared to carry into effect in Downing-street, whenever the power of the constituencies may seat it there. Let us have no more anomalies, no more political monsters —such as a party with Voluntaries and Ballot men for its legs and body, and a Palmerston for its head. The new party, to be prepared 339 to rule, must meet the description of the Saturday Review:— " The policy of the country must be directed with a steady hand in a definite course, and the Government must dare to have, and to declare, a settled purpose which it knows it can carry out. Such a Ministry must walk boldly in the light of its own convictions, and not be compelled to grope in the dark for a policy, thinking itself fortunate if it can only escape a fatal collision."—Sat. Rev., No. 1. " A now and truly popular party." Is such a thing to be created out of slender materials ? Can it stand upon the narrow ground of petty or transitory questions? Can a party be formed upon such a controversy, as whether Lord' PAL MERSTON'S or Lord ELLENBOROUGH'S India Bill is the best?. Can we unite men in all parts of the country to maintain the vital importance of putting a little ball into a little box, or of pricking a little card with a little pin ? No! no ! If the heart of the country is to be stirred, and a great party is to he formed, it must have great objects. And where are the great objects which can be placed before it? A' Reform Bill ! No, for all men are agreed that the'Act of 1832 is to be reconsidered and amended; and no one can give the preference to one bill over another, inasmuch as neither the plan of Lord PALMERSTON nor that of Lord DERBY has yet seen the light. 'How is a great party, then, to be formed ? Without objects and distinctive principles, the thing is impossible. Can any such be found? Yes, there can. And more, they have been found ; but the banner has never yet been boldly unfurled. A large number of those who call themselves " Liberals " hold those principles, and individually avow them ; but in Parliament, and as a symbol of a party, they aro not broadly and boldly announced. One large phrase covers much. It is— Nor are his supporters more earnest in the matter than himself. While THE PRESS and the liforning Herald have repeatedly argued in favour of a Bill, the Times has declared, more than once, that " nobody wants it." It is not the question of "Reform," then, that unites or distinguishes the Liberal party. By what, then, is the party known, and what are its objects ? We ask the ques tion, and it is one which demands an answer ; but unquestionably that answer will not easily be obtained. The India Bill,—is it here that we discover the difference between a Liberal and a Con servative Government? Far from it. What ever be the faults or the merits of either of the two Bills, assuredly it cannot be said that Lord PALMERSTON'S Bill was a more liberal measure than Lord DERBY'S. Where shall we seek, then, for " Liberal objects "or " Liberal views "? What are the opposing plans or principles by which Liberals and Conservatives may be divided and diseri minated? If the " demoralizing union under false colours " could be again formed, for what purpose, beyond the mere possession of office, would the various scattered members be brought together, and to what end would their efforts be directed? We search the Liberal journals, daily, weekly, and monthly, in vain, for an answer to this question. Yet, are we to suppose, then, that no ground of quarrel, that no battle-field, re mains? We will not so disguise our convic tions. India Bills or Reform Bills need not separate Conservative from Liberal, for their differences of opinion would be confined to mere points of detail. But there is ONE QUESTION, a large and vitally- important ques tion, which is more than " looming in the distance." Statesmen do not like to talk of it, or to think of it ; for it is a hard and thorny question. But, whether they shrink from it or not, the controversy draws nearer and nearer, and it will hardly be possible for the most cautious politicians to avert an open struggle for many years longer. That question is, THE CONTINUANCE OF THE UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE. It is this which lies at the bottom of most of the practical propositions upon which politicians are now divided. The real issue, concealed under cover of the Bill for abolish. ing Church -rates, is, whether the Church and State shall continue united ? The actual matter contested ;.n the Oaths Bill is, whether England shall remain, like other old countries, professedly a Christian State, or shall conform to the American model, and dismiss all natioual profession of a faith. This—this chiefly and almost solely—is the remaining battle-field between Conservative and Liberal. The Saturday Review boldly claims the verdict as already given, and asserts that " the theory of a Christian State has been long since aban doned." But we beg leave to say that neither of the above measures has yet been adopted by Parliament ; nor do we see any prospect of their being shortly so adopted. The dissolu tion of the Union of Church and State has not yet been resolved upon, nor will it be so for some years to come. There will be many a long and eagerly-fought debate in both Houses, before England leaves the ancient system of adherence to a Christian profession, and adopts the modern American one of knowing no pre ference for any creed. Meanwhile, however, this is, we repeat, THE QUESIION—the only great question which remains unsettled, and in the settlement of which Conservatives and Liberals may be hostilely arrayed. India Bills, as we have said, involve no principle ; one may be better or worse than another in points of detail. Reform is no more, we trust, to be made a ground of quarrel. On all sides the expediency of some amendment of the Act of 1832 is admitted. "No statesman now," said Lord STANLEY at Lynn, " in whatever part "of the House he may sit, considers the " Reform Bill of 1832 a final measure. No " one denies that some modification of that " Bill is reqnired." As to the Ballot, the Liberals themselves are not united upon it Lord PALMERSTON, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Sir GEORGE C. LEWIS are its chief opponents. CHURCH RATES, and OATHS BILLS, and other questions of a kindred kind, will show them selves, more and more, the real ground of THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. This, unlike other questions, is not fading away, but coming daily more into the light. It •involves within its ample circle a great number of points. The abolition of tithes, the expulsion of the Bishops from the House of Lords, the disposal of the ecclesiastical buildings and estates—these are some of the questions which are included under this large phrase. But the foundation principle, upon which the whole repose, is involved in this one question : , Was the ancient principle the truo one, which still rules throughout the old kingdoms 'of the earth, that States had a religious obli gation, and were bound to maintain and sup port the Truth ? Or is the modern theory the right one, which is adopted in the American Republic, and scarcely anywhere else, that Govern ments have nothing to do with religion, nor any other duties besides those connected with the protection of life and property ? We know that many states men' shrink from the very mention of such question's as these, and trust that such a con troversy may not be forced on in their time. But this is a delusive hope. The tide is hurrying us forward, and it will be our wiser course to take soundings, and find out whither we are going, rather than to drift blindly on, till we get upon a sandbank, or strike upon some dangerous reef. The two Bills of the present session which rest upon the American principle have been carried in the Commons by large majorities ; and yet nothing can be more certain than that a majority of those who supported those Bills did not really intend to espouse the principle upon which those two measures were founded. A great number of those who supported the Bill for the abolition of Church-rates were Churchmen. These were partly coerced by their Dissenting constituents, and partly be fooled by assurances that " the Church would " be far stronger if this unpopular impost " were got rid of." The Oaths Bill was forced forward by Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S assurances that Parliament would be as much a Christian assembly if two or three Jews were admitted as it is now ; just as England is a Christian nation, though several thousands of Jews ' abide in it. Thus the principle which lies at I