The Press. — London, England, 1858-02-20 00:00:00

Pro ves the great changes in public feelings on I „ an y questions involving personal conduct. Seeing the lengths to which our forefathers went in imposing " taxation wit rout repre sentation " on the Americans, we must be more measured than Sir CORNEWALL LEWIS in the expressions of our opinions about Indian statesmen of the last century. The laws of morality itself are immutable and cannot be altered, but in applying them to the conduct of mortals wo must remember the force of c ircumstances. There ought to be a great difference be tween the utterances of a public writer or a brilliant essayist like Lord MACAULAY, or even of a public speaker at a convened meeting, and what proceeds from the lips of a Minister of State. In the latter case it is obvious for many reasons that expressions in the Senate, even of retrospective censure, should be dis erectly guarded, if it were for no other purpose than to prevent the publicists of foreign countries exciting national feelings against the English nation and name, and using us evidence the rhetorical exaggerations of " Ministers on their legs." Both Sir JAMES GRAHAM and Sir CHARLES WOOD showed sin gular facility in recalling violent expressions which had fallen from them while ranting before certain " popular" audiences, and Sir CORNEWALL LEWIS might yet feel that his tone against the chief founders of our Indian empire was not very prudent or discreet. Sir CORNEWALL LEWIS'S speech shows that he wants the practical mind required for a Cabinet Minister. He is a phi tosopher spoiled with a good deal of pedantry ; he is not a skilful adminis- trator ; and, although an excellent scholar and an accomplished man of letters, the last part in which Sir CORNEWALL LEWIS could excel would be that of a leading debater to a Cabi net in difficulties. LORD PALNIERST ON ON "A GENTLEMAN." THE question, " What is a guinea?" has long perplexed political economists. The question, " What is a gentleman ?" has equally perplexed social philosophers. Lord PAL MERSTON, there is no denying, is continually addressing himself to its solution, if not with the most logical acumen, nt least with the most laudable pertinacity. During the India debate, a few nights ago, he made a fresh ad vance in this direction. He then described Indian patronage as distributed between two grades—between " the sons of gentlemen and " the sons of the middling classes." There was no possibility that a member of the middle class could be a gentleman. It was a thing not to be thought of. Now, we cordially ac quiesce in the Premier's antagonism to that class of politicians who would recur to the humble level of social evality which con tented itself with the ostracism of the sans culottes. But there is something incongruous in the manner in which the chosen chief of the " ten-pounders " acquits himself of his magnificent contempt for the " middling classes." Lord PALMERSTON'S only appreciable approximation to this question is to pronounce, not " what is a gentleman," but what he is not . The truth is that, in our mixed Constitution, gentility, like relationship, expires imper ceptibly. But the Liberal Minister's logic succumbs to no such difficulty. He seizes his vanishing point in the " middling classes." It is not long since the Prime Minister, in his place in Parliament, threw a similar damper on the social vanity of the whole body of officers of her Majesty's Commissariat. " It is in the Commissariat," retorted the Noble Viscount to the Administrative Re formers, " that your military system has " brokea down ; and nobody pretends that the " officers in the Commissariat are the sons of " gentlemen." The notion was too prepos terous to be argued. The "gentlemen "of the Commissariat vainly expostulated with Lord PANII ORE. The infelicitous appeal from an Irish peer to a Scottish thane was but equal to the inversion of discipline in accusing a Prime Minister to a Secretary of State. But neither PAM nor PAN were able to master this THE PRESS, FEBRUARY 20,N58. great question, and the problem, "What is a gentleman ?" remained insoluble. Mr. ANDREws, coachbuilder and self designed representative of Southampton, fell under a similar ban. But a coachbuilder's gentility appears to have been too subtle fur the Premier's intellect. The great senator, therefore, at his classic villa of Broadlands, took counsel of an ironmonger. The iron monger, who had come from Southampton on the humble errand, it is believed, of fixing a new grate, found himself, with Eastern ra pidity, transformed into a Prime Minister's Prime Minister. It did not occur to the new favourite, " snatched from a bowstring to pre " side at Court," that he was illustrating the fable of the pot which called the kettle black. The Premier and the ironmonger sat together in judgment on the coachbuilder, and ignored his social pretensions. Nevertheless, the Premier addressed Mr. ANDREWS as " My dear Sir," and consoled him with the title of " esquire." It is an anomaly in our social constitution that, while Dukes, Archbishops, and even Prime Ministers, are made by the Crown, gen tlemen should be made by Act of Parliament. There is an Act which declares that solicitors shall be gentlemen. We are aware of the dif ference between gentlemen by Act of Parlia ment and gentlemen by will of society ; but it is a mockery of urbanity to term your coach builder an esquire, and then to declare that no member of the middling classes can be a gentle- man. In the same manner, certain articles in the Edinburgh Review, which may be described as the responses of the Kent-house oracle, dwell with a characteristic difference of terms on the distinction between "patricians and ple beians." We are willing to ascribe this dis torted view of English society to the infirmity of a severe classic rather than to the zeal of a modern landholder. But it is hardly decent to see two Cabinet Ministers vaunting their contempt for the very classes by whose suf• ferance they are maintained in power. Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE, when lately asked why he was not in the Cabinet, answered with much felicity that "he was not a Brahmin." It was characteristic, perhaps, of that gentleman that the possibility of his exclusion on intrinsic grounds did not suggest itself to him. But the answer was not less just than happy ; and if the " ten-pounders " possessed any pluck or spirit, they would transfer their allegiance to that party which has never been tainted by this oligarchical spirit, and has ever shown itself ready to encourage talent, even among the middling classes. CHURCH RATES. IF Church Rates are to be abolished, let us have a clear understanding on the subject. As a great deal is now said on the point of fairness and candour, and freedom of con science, let us at least give the suffering party the benefit of these admirable sentiments as well as the aggressor. If, according to the leading journal, the existence of church rates adds strength to the hands of the Church's foes, their abolition ought certainly to lend strength to the hands of the Church's friends. We have always foreseen the possi bility of being driven to take this ground. Notwithstanding the opposition offered to Sir WILLIAM CLAY by a considerable section of the Whig party—notwithstanding the avowed sentiments of constitutional Liberals like Lord Jo►ty RUSSELL—we have always felt that the active and persevering minority whom Sir JOHN TRELAWNY represents stood a very fair chance of carrying their point. Independently of the religious convictions of the regular sup porters of the Bill, and the practical difficul ties in the levy of church rates which weighed with so many more who have no dislike to the principle, there must always be a small body of members whose idiosyncrasy attracts them to anything which bears the resemblance of relief from coercion. No matter whether what is enforced is good or evil, just or unjust, due or not due, nothing in their opinion can be 171 right which is effected by compulsion. With nothing, on the other hand, to oppose to these agencies but a disunited clergy, to whom the question of candles or no candles is much more important than the maintenance of a church to put them in—who have allowed their internal differences to prevent a unani mous support of the only party in the State which could have preserved them from their enemies—we have ever considered the total abolition of church rates as only a question of time. We have never ceased to warn her of what she might expect; and we must now turn our attention to the present emergency, and endeavour to ascertain how far the Church may be enabled to convert to good this blow at her ancient authority. As was well said by Lord ROBERT CECIL, the abolition of church rates is a step towards the separation of Church and State. The revenue so raised might be small in amount, and irregularly collected ; but it was a link of association in the popular mind between the ecclesiastical and the civil authority. Wise men do not require to be told on what subtle and apparently trifling things great events depend. We do not object to the abolition of church rates because of its material detriment to the Church, but because it will familiarise the popular mind with a different idea of her position—with an idea of her as an isolated, independent body, instead of being woven up in the general system of the country. Now, we warn those persons who look for ward to the separation of Church and State with equanimity, if not with joy, that such an event must bring with it the realisation of much which they have hitherto opposed. The common fairness of Englishmen will not allow the Church to be deprived of State protection with one hand and bound in State fetters with the other. If the union falls to the ground, Convocation rises in its place. That is a con cession which will inevitably be demanded, and we think is impossible to be refused. Our readers know that our own observations upon this subject have always tended rather to moderate the zeal of the Hich Church party. We should be unfeignedly sorry at anything which seemed to justify their ac, tivAy ; yet if anything could do so, it would be the course of legislation to which the abolition of church rates not indirectly points. Affairs are gradually but surely verging to a crisis. Shall the old, broad, free pale of the Church of England continue as it is—an area on which so much conflicting opinion had room to expatiate? Or shall it be narrowed to the dimensions of a sect, to gratify the malice of a sect in which her different schools shall be jostled together, and compelled to fight it out till one or the other is destroyed ? It is a question of no less magnitude that is now before the country, and we would fain believe there was any ground for hope that the practical blessings we now enjoy will not be sacrificed for the sake of a pure theory and an unsubstantial grievance. f3AILLIE'S MOTION. MR. BAILLIE performed an excellent service in bringing forward his motion for papers re biting to Oude on Tuesday last. His speech contained much that was of very great interest, and calculated to throw light upon the history of the annexation which Lord DALHOUSIE carried out. But, if it had possegsed no other value, it would have entitled him to our grati tude for culling forth the admirable sentiments which Lord JOHN MANNERS gave utterance to in relation to that most iniquitous and most disastrous affair. We do not remember to have ever read a speech which more entirely commanded our sympathies, as it will certainly command those of all honourable minds. It painted the enormity of the transaction and the had faith of it in their true colours ; and showed that under no consideration, whether of natural equity or international right, could a spoliation be defended, which was equally contrary to both. Those who are desirous of justifying this act are very fond of going into a point which, as Lord JOHN MANNERS proved very clearly,