The Press. — London, England, 1858-03-27 00:00:00

the gradual character which their opposition gave to our commercial changes prevented much danger and saved large classes from ruinous convulsions. Defeated. they accepted their defeat and the policy established by it. But the struggle had been too recent to permit their acceptance, loyal and frank though it was, to be accepted as genuine. They NSCFO suspected by the Free-traders in 1852 as Sir Ronnirr PEEL was by the Reformers in 1834; and from the tone of the House and of the press representing opinion out cf doors it was evident that they were regarded with suspi cion and fear. That condition of things and that state of feeling hits passed away com pletely. The position of Lord DERBY'S party is clear and defined in the eyes of the country, nor is there any ambiguity as to the tendency of their general -policy. The majority of the two Houses are satisfied, we fully believe, that they are the best and the strongest Govern ment that the Crown and the Parliament at this moment can present to the country. It remains only for them so to administer affairs as to justify Parliament and to secure the affection and confidence of the People. There remains the subject of open questions; and on this point uo less than the other a com parison between them and their actual predeces sors or possible successors is clearly to the advantage of the Derby Government. The coalition of the leaders of distinct parties, as in the case of Lord ABERDEEN'S Administra tion, and the combination, without fusion, of individual politicians from every Parliamen tary section, as in the case of the Govern ment of Lord PALMERSTON, coupled with the in creased power which the circumstances of each ' Cabin( t since 1846 have thrown into the hands of unattached bodies, have increased largely of late years the practice of declaring ques tions to be "open"—that is, of laying the measures concerning them before the House as recommendations from the Primo Minister, rather than as the result of a Cabinet policy by which the Government stand pledged unitedly to stand or fall. We do not conceal from ourselves, nor are we disposed to deny, the constitutional evils which may ultimately ensue from an enlarged recognition of the practice. Some open questions there must always be, however strong or however com pletely organised a party may be ; nor is their existence in moderstion undesirable. So long as the Government of the day is united in the general tendency and acknowledged object of its measures, a certain amount of individuality of action must, and ought to be, per mitted to its members. It is a question not of principle, but of decree; and unques tionably upon this point the Government of Lord DERBY may, as far as it can be done by anticipation, challenge a comparison with their predecessors. Lord PALMERSTON, from the heterogeneous character of the elements which he held in unaccustomed combination, was compelled to make all domestic questions open. It was the only way ill which the members of his Government could be saved alive from the wrath of their constituencies; and he only prevented the evils which must have arisen by the decision and sagacity with which he reduced the members of his Go vernment to the position of Heads of Depart ments, and induced them to permit all great measures of administration to receive their character and colour from his single mind. This is a hazardous course, and could not have been successful in the hands of a less able or less experienced statesman. It will not be the course of practice in the Cabinet of Lord DERBY. There a number of able, highly informed men, independent in posi tion, and united as to their general view of the position and wants of the country, will co-operate with each other with independence of spirit, but with homogeneity of views, not only to administer carefully the business of their departments, but to guide with prudence the progressive policy of the country. RELIGION IN PARLIAMENT. Ws are not much surprised at the wish which is so often expressed. that all religious ques tions could be excluded from our Parliamen tary discussions. No doubt the sort of hand ling which such questions do receive, when broached in the House of Commons, is quite enough to excite such a wish. But is it practicable to gratify this wish, at any reasonable price? This is a matter which may be questioned. Si!ailAr perplexities will present themselves in other affairs of lifa. Myriads of women, to escape temptation, have flung themselves into convents. Men have done the same, or have taken ORIGEN'S course, to escape from possible evil. But does success follow, in even a majority of cases? This may be doubted. The difficulty Rea deeper than the greater part of mankin care to look. Man is more than the noblest of animals : he is twofold, having a &ail as well as a body. Nor is this all. Even his soul has two parts, or two sympathies ; one leading him downwards, to the habits of the brute—the other bearing him upwards, to the abodes of the angels. Setting at naught all this, and pertina ciously ignoring it, there is a school which would know nothing of man but his " secular " existence ; and would declare that, as for religion, it is a matter which must rest be• tween man and his God ;—their practical mean ing being, that they wish to hear nothing about it. But this is a foolish notion ; for it can only be realized when a man's religion is merely nominal. If it be a substantial thing, and have any truth about it, it must be shown in a man's life and actions. Like wedded love, we do not want it paraded or displayed to the gaze of others ; but if it be real and earnest, it will show itself, silently and unobtrusively, in a thousand little acts of daily life. We cannot turn religion and religious ques tions out of Parliament, till we have first turned them out of two other thrones. Religion has sway over millions of our people ; and as long as that is the case, it must be seen and heard of everywhere. But, beside this, religion is en throned in our institutions ; and before we can silence it in Parliament, we must purge away a great many things which have existed for centuries in our statute-book, in our com mon law, and even in our lands and houses. The secularists tell us—and Lord MACAULAY is somewhat of their way of thinking—that the duties of Governments and Legislatures are to guard us from foreign assaults, and, at home, to protect life and property. If this be a cor rect view, and if it had been held by any of the sages of old, the perplexing question would arise—" How we ever came by an Established Church ?" For we presulue that an earnest, thoroughgoing secularist, if he were framing the constitution of a State, would hold such questions as creeds and churches to be alto gether beyond his province. And such a theo rist must also be of opinion that, in admitting such things into our State system, the Eng. lish legisiators of old were strangely mistaken Such opinions, however, cannot be lightly held. If any statesman, like Lord MACAULAY, judges that an Established Church is a polit►- cal blunder, he must be prepared, so soon as a good opportunity can be found, to rectify that blunder, by getting rid of the Establish. ment. Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND—than whom there is no more acute member of either House—touched this point, in the course of last Monday's debate, when he said : Matters could not go nn in this way. Here was a case where the Church of England stood directly in the way of a change which was thought—and he did not deny it —to be politically right. If ever there was an instance of " in compatibilite des misers," jnatif ) ing a separation, this was it. The first thing which the noble lord the membtr for L'lll don ought to do was to go into the new Court of Divorce and get a lissolution of the mat rine of Church and State. He did not see how it was possible to get out of the diffi culty in any other way. It was no fault of the present gene ration—the thing had been going on for years, and at last we had arrived at a state of aff..irs which was most discredit able. The evil must be got rid of somehow or other, and he saw no other way of getting rid of it than by separating Church from State. Let it be observed, that when Mr. DRUMMOND said that " the Church of England stood in the " way of a change which was thought to he " politically right," he di ,l not mean, Le could not mean, that the Church had any direct pecuniary interest in the matter. What he meant was, that the very idea of all Estab lished Church rested upon the Christian profession of the State. If the St ate i s not even professedly Christian, how can it set up, and maintain, an Established Church? Hence, argued Mr. DRUMMOND, if you want to admit the Jew into the Legislature, begin in an in. telligible and rational way, by separating the Church from the State, and declaring that the State, in future, will be "of no particular religion." Mr. Dauxistosn is a perspicacious reasoner. He does not, like many men, grope his way, one step at a time, uncertain what is to follow. lie knows that all truths are linked together, and that you cannot take one of a series, and shut out, or forget, the rest. _ Nu doubt many members thought, on Mos. day, " Well! if we can only get rid of this " wretched Jewish controversy, we shall soon " be able to shut all other religious disputes " out of Parliament." But the very next night must have rectified their ideas a little on this noint. They had passed the Jew Bill through - committee, and might hope to have no further debate on that question during the present year. But, lo ! the very next night, there came another religious controversy, and one in which Liberals were quite as forward as Conservatives. The Liberal Member for Norwich favoured the House with his views on the 16th and 18th verses of the 18th of Leviticus ; and on the 25th of Deuteronomy ; and on the force properly belonging to the canon law. He was answered by Mr. Div Err, the Liberal Member for Exeter. Mr. Fox, the ultra-Liberal Member for Oldhatn, gave his views of the Mosaic economy ; and Mr. PULLER, the Liberal Member for Hertford shire, gave a very decided opinion that the texts cited from Leviticus did forbid such marriages, and upon that belief he rested his vote. Such is the hopelessness, then, of the idea of getting rid of religion and religious di-eus sions in the House of Gnomons. The thing cannot he done. On the other hand, the attempt to do it must lead to a great increase of such discussior►e. The favourite theory of most Liberals points to that very course which Mr. DRUMMOND sarcastically suggested. If we adopt the " secular system," and hold, with Lord Nlacarmar, that the only duty of the Legislature is to guard life and property, then, h► undertaking the separation of Church and State, we ripen a large crop of religious questions, which must agitate the two Houses of Parliament for many years to collie. So closely interwoven are the State and the Church in these realms, that to separate the two, without inflicting mortal wounds on either, will prove one of the most arduous tasks that ever a Legislature had to encounter. Yet, into this controversy must we plunge, in Mr. DRUMMOND'S opinion, if we deliberately resolve that our present position is a false one, and if we judge it right and proper to assimilate the Constitution of England to that of the United States, where the Common• wealth supports no Church, and adheres to no creed. CIVIL SERVICE EXANIINATIONS. THERE are few questions which bring out so strongly the compromised results which spring from the conflict of opposing prejudices in free discussion as the question of admission to the pablie offices. On the one side are the adherents of the ancient order of things, who look upon corruption as a necessary lever in the machine of Parliamentary Govern• meat, and on patronage as the only form of corruption which will now be tolerated. On the other side is the cast-iron scheino of open competition, set forth by the citizen orators in Drury-lane, who aro much too acute to dream of choosing the clerks in their own offices by any system of competition, open or close ; and at their back Mr. GLADSTONE and the schoolmasters, clamouring for the erection of the Government offices into what one of them called a vast Imperial University." The system which has arisen from the struggle between the two, endorses the extravaent views o neither. Patronage is not recognised 290 THE PRESS, MARCH 27, 1858.