The Press. — London, England, 1858-12-18 00:00:00

1226 tion of democrat, we plead guilty to the charge. If to denounce the Ballot when established for a limited constituency, as a fraud upon the unenfranchised, and as calculated to generate a feeling that they are branded with unmerited serf dom, is to incur the imputation of democratic opinions, we accept the imputation ; but we know that it is false. Writing in the sense, in which these terms are understood in America, we avow our attachment to the republican (as contrs distinguished from democratic) elements of the Constitution, no less than to the aristocratic and to the monarchical. We see, that the two latter, the safety of which is inseparable, are attacked. The desire to maintain a balanced constitution 'oust always entail upon its defenders the charge of,complexity of principle and of purpose from those, who confine their efforts to the establish ment of the predominance of one element of power. Mr. COBDEN told one of his audiences, we think in 1845, that simplicity of object was essential to the success of agitation; and added, that the two other essentials were, the avoidance of argument, which he said should be displaced by the constant repetition of, and declamation upon, certain preconcerted data; all of which must be taken as proved. We are not under the necessity of at present resorting to this prescription, however popular with his disciples ; and shall simply conclude by expressing our hope tbat the defenders of the aristocratic and monarchical elements of the Constitution will not overlook the influence, which the possession of real property, indissolu bly connected as it is with the interests of this country, must always have upon the character of its present, and upon the education of its future, possessors. The greater part of the real property, as well as the majority of the population, are beyond the precincts of the present boroughs. We desire a redistribution of representation, according not merely to population, but according to pro- perty. We rejoice in the fact that the distinctions and differences between the possessors of this pro perty, as regards their comparative wealth, con dition, employments, and pursuits, are almost in finitely varied ; but we point to two facts, that if the collisions between the Lower and Upper branches of the Legislature are not to be aggra vated to the detriment and, as Mr. BRIGHT ex pects, to the destri ction of the latter during the existence of a future Reform Act, some element tending to increased congruity and independent co-operation must be infused into the composi tion of the House of Commons. The greater part of the real property of Eng land and Wales lies, as we said before, beyond the precincts of the boroughs, coincident with the niajority of the population. It is in the in creased representation of this property that we look for the more harmonious working of the Constitution. The creation of electoral districts has been held up as a bugbear, on the false inference that it necessarily entails the adoption of universal suf frage. There is no more necessary connection between them than between Tenterden steeple and the Goodwin Sands. The tendency of the creation of electoral districts is exactly opposite to those of the Ballot. The former would con nect more closely, the latter would sever, the existing connection between representation and the unenfranchised classes • the one would pro mote their contentment, the other would arouse their distrust. We have no wish totally to ignore ancient landmarks, but we suggest this as our first point for the consideration of our readers. In the second place, we desire to call the atten tion of the friends of true religion, and of its extension to the poor, to the anomaly pre sented by the vote of the house of Commons in favour of the abolition of Church-rates, while eighty per cent. of the parishes of England and Wales are contented, nay, desire, to maintain them, or obtain an equivalent. How does Mr. MALL, who has avowed his desire to abolish Church-rates solely for the purpose of disconnecting the Church from the State, com mand this anomalous majority ? Is it not clear that it arises from the packed character of the majority of the House of Commons under the Act of 1832 ? Were the greater part of the real property and the majority of the population of THE PRESS, DECEMBER 18, 1858. England and Wales more fairly represented, Mr. MIALL and Mr. BRIGHT would find their majority dwindle under the free action of legiti mate representation ; and of this they are per fectly aware. Hence their ill-concealed terror of electoral districts or increased county repre sentation. EXTREMES MEET. LET Mr. Burma's Bill, as far he foreshadows it, become law. Let numbers only be represented. Let the Ballot be the mode of election. It will be found forthwith that Cardinal WISEMAN is no longer a noisy showman, but a substantial power in the government of England. There are in England about two millions, or at least a million and a half, of Roman Catholics. There are in Ireland at least five millions. There is in Scot land probably a quarter of a million. Thus, while nine-tenths of the property, the intelli gence, and, we may add, the industrial energy of our country, are Protestant, nearly one third of its population is Roman Catholic. Let the element of numbers alone dominate in sending representatives to Parliament, and you arm with vastly increased power the very section that, least enlightened and most anti-national and bigoted, is also most likely to misuse it. Let it also be remembered that the Romish element binds into one mass the whole of its subjects, and lays that mass pro strate at the feet of the Priest who lies at the feet of the Bishop, who lies at the feet of the Cardi nal, who lies—in more senses than one—at the feet of Pio NoNo,—or, rather, of the immoral and unprincipled Ultramontane junta that in spires and works the Pope as its puppet. The Romish Church in this country is essentially hos tile to all that is the glory of our Constitution. Moving in this direction it acts as one man, ani mated by one passion. The Univers and the Tablet are original and echo in their undis guised and unblushing political antipathies. Let any one acquainted with the Romish creed ponder the following extract from the Tablet newspaper, the chief organ of Romanism in England, and say if it be not as correct in its expression of Roman Catholic politics, as it is daring and offensive in the spirit by which it is inspired. It seems almost prophetic of the course which Join; 'Won r is now so vehemently filling up : " The Pope will speak out more loudly than ever, and, what is more, he will be listened to. Ile will turn over your old musty Acts of Par liament with finger and thumb, scrutinizing them with most irreverend audacity, examining those which concern him ; and when he has found these, reject some, and tolerating others, with as much freedom as you use when you handle oranges in a shop, selecting the soft and sweet, and rejecting the sour and rotten, he will then— oh dreadful thought !—insist upon being obeyed. The very slates at Westminster-hall must erect themselves with horror, at the bare thought of such a thing. What ! a Bill read three times in each House of Parliament, engrossed on parch ment, garnished with wax, and over it, pro nounced by Royal lips, the mysterious words— The Queen wills it,' her Lords will it, her Com mons will it; what can it want to give it the perfect functions of law? Nothing of solemnity, of force, which the Imperial Legislature of the kingdom can give, is wanting; but, truly, it' wants the sanction of religion. The Pope snuffs disdainfully at it. An Italian priest will have none of it. It trenches upon his nghts, or, rather, his duties. It violates the integrity of those interests which he is appointed to guard; and therefore, Commons, Lords, Queen, wax, parch ment, and all, avail very little. You may call it law if you please. You may print it in your volume of statutes ; but, before long, you will have to repeal and alter it, in order to procure the sanction of a foreign potentate, without which, in the end, it has not the value of a ten penny nail." We ask every Englishman who is not blinded stchoe declaredm es prin ciplesac of prejudice or intoxicat e d b y a f i erce democratic passion, whether this i s th e power he desires to arm with additional infl uence and weight in the power p p olicy of ft h h i s e thecountry m pr iesthood, ish a e th re this, ath iw Quaker prevail, reality. It will be in vain that Protestants raise an outcry against the C on f ess i onal, and crowds collect in St. James's-hall to applaud eloquent exposes of the practices of some silly curate, while they aid and abet a p o li cy w hi c h tends ine vitably to place the Vatican in the seat of central influence, and to subject England to the rule of those Argus-eyed Jesuits who now look with envy and, hatred on the national glory which they would, if they could, trample in the dirt. That very instrument which JOHN BRIGH T presses on the country as the defence and pro tection of independent voters, th e B a ll ot, is 'pre cisely that medium of priestly power which the Romish Hierarchy covets. It takes off all land lord, social, and public influences, and throws in with unqualified force the inspiration of the Con fessional. Heretofore the action of the Confes sional has been diluted, and often conquered, by the publicity of the hustings. The public, the newspaper, friends, landlords, and other col lateral influences, have mightily weakened the Confessional and sacerdotal power even in Ireland. But if all these influences are withdrawn and the priestly influence in the Confessional left untouched, you have then the fell inspiration of the confession-box dominant at every election, carried out with masterly skill and with most disastrous success. The very divisions of Protestants—in denomination, in politics, in party—this consolidated Papal power will turn to its own purposes. We ask our countrymen to view JOHN BRIGHT'S Bill purely and simply as the second Papal aggression—the more perilous because disguised under the names of Popular Rights and Parliamentary Reform. We counsel them to look at these suggestive thoughts dispassionately and fairly. JOHN BRIGHT may be gratifying his own passions, but he is also doing the work and fulfilling the aspirations of an alien despotism which our fore fathers felt intolerable, and which, by G oo ' s blessing, we will not allow to dictate or dominate in this free England of ours. LORD STANLEY. IF the Proclamation, announcing to the native populations of India the assumption by the Crown of England of the direct government of that portion of the British empire, could not fail to make a salutary impression upon them by the calm dignity of its tone, and by the promkc which it holds out to them of a just rule and of generous treatment; the speech addressed by the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, on the occasion of the examination at Addiscombe, to the future servants of the Crown on that im portant field of action, is not less calculated to produce a wholesome effect upon the European part of her Majesty's subjects in India. Although directed, in point of form, to the youthful au dience before him, Lord STANLEY'S address was, in fact—and we trust it will be read in that sense by those whom it concerns in the Eastern hemi sphere—an official intimation, not to the public servants alone, but to all who, as European resi dents in India, are to the native mind representa tives of the dominant race, of the spirit in which the mother country expects that they shall acquit themselves of the duty imposed upon them by the very nature of their position. And although, in the words of encouragement and advice spoken to a room full of cadets, the Noble Lord did not feel himself called upon to discuss the causes which have led to the deplorable events of the last two years, yet it is obvious from the tenor of his remarks that some of those causes were present to his mind and prompted the most pregnant passages of his speech. That a strong feeling of alienation, approach ing in some instances to intense hatred, had grown up between native and European Indians, is a fact to which it is impossible to shut our eyes. It is attested quite as much by the tone of the Anglo-Indian press as by the extensive support which the revolted sepoys received from :~.. .