The Press. — London, England, 1858-06-19 00:00:00

weak as to relinquish that provision, and to rely for the future on Voluntary effort. We say, too, that it is not a question of whether the higher and middle classes shall support their own churches and their own ser vices. They do this now, both by their legal payments and by their Voluntary gifts. The real question is, whether the neutral classes, whether the whole community, shall be assessed in a small annual levy, in order that parish-churches— churches for all —may be maintained in every corner of the kingdom. An argument resting on the case of Belgravia, or of Islington, or of the large towns generally, must be totally inapplicable to the country at large, especially to the rural parishes. In Bel gravia we have a whole suburb filled with the wealthy. Of course it is quite easy for these persons to bear the expense—not a burdensome one—of such churches and ministers as they desire. At Islington thousands of the wholesale traders of the City take up their abode. A few pounds from each forms an aggregate sufficient to build many churches, and a few shillings per annum from each supplies the place of a rate. But bow can such examples as these be applied to the case of the thousands of villages, where two or three farmers constitute the aristocracy of the parish, and where the expenses of the Church will inevitably be thrown, ultimately, upon the poor incumbent, whose 3001. a year is already insufficient for his seven children? And how many of the clergy have far less than 3001. a year ! One "Rural Incumbent " thus described his case in a newspaper a few days ago:— "I am incumbent of a district from which I have received, on an average of five years, a net income of about 911. from all sources, after pay ing expenses. Amongst other expenses to which I found myself liable were those connected with the church organ. The donor of this organ had felt that the organist's salary, &c., should not be a burden thrown exclusively on the clergyman ; and had, therefore, set on foot an annual sub scription for defraying this expense. When I came to the district I found the subscription already diminished, and, after a time, by death and removal, all the subscriptions fell off. In the meantime, also, the substitution of an effi cient plan for warming the church, instead of an inefficient stove, had entailed a proportionate in crease of expense upon myself. " Under these circunstances, I told my churchwarden how affairs were, and he took steps to renew subscriptions for the organ ex penses, and for the additional cost of warming the church effectively. At first the matter seemed to be taken up in a liberal spirit. My chief parishioner came to me and said that he thought the congregation ought to raise 301. a year for these objects. I felt much obliged, and waited the result. When my churchwarden brought the book in due season I found the result to be 61. ; and, moreover, this my chief parishioner had told the churchwarden that, though he would give 11. that year, he did not intend to give anything in future. Of course I could not press the matter any more, and so I continue to bear the whole expense. " Now, I consider my district to be favourably situated ; my schools and charities are most libe rally supported, and yet, in regard to church expenses, such is the result of the voluntary principle. What would it be in less favoured places ? It could not be well worse, it is true, but it would be just the same. In the long-run the clergyman would have to pay, because he could not submit to carry a begging-box round his parish." Are we prepared to inflict this burden upon thousands of the working clergy merely to gratify the malevolent feelings of a few Dissenters, who care far less for the few shillings per annum which they would save, than for that injury to the Church which is their real object ? That there is any wide-spread feeling in opposition to Church-rates is a fiction. When the people saw a proposal to open the British Museum on Sundays, they sent into the house of Commons, in a few weeks, petitions signed by 629,926 persons, praying that the public museums and galleries might not be so opened. But what have been the petitions against Church-rates ? Here is the sum-total in the last seven years : THE PRESS, JUNE I'9, 1858. In 1851 .. 14 containing 1,411 Signatures. 1852 .. 20" 1,041 It 1853 .. 112 " 12,660 lt 1854 .. 697 " 82.9611 1855 .. 1,599 " 149,512 41 1856 .. 144 " 12,075 1857 .. 10 " 1,379 This very week a poll has been taken on a proposed Church-rate in St. Clement Danes' parish, one of the great parishes of Westminster, and the numbers were : For the Rate Against it In this state of things it cannot he said that the alleged expediency, so far as it is grounded on the unpopularity of Church-rates, is at all made out. The argument of the stout and stubborn Dis senter—that Church-rates are unjust and un scriptural—has at least sufficiency about it. That is, if it were true—if it could be proved—it would be fatal to Church-rates. But the plea of expe diency—the plea that the Church would do better without Church-rates than she can with them—is hollow and fictitious. It is a sham ; and our indignation is naturally aroused when we find more stress laid, in such journals as the Times, upon this pretended argument, than upon the more weighty objections of the political Dissenters. TIIE NEW COLONIAL SECRETARY. " llotitim virtue facile tlixeris—magnum libenter." THERE are certain public characters who, even though personally unknown to us, so engage our regard and confidence in one capacity, that we cannot help wishing and hoping the best for their success in another, though totally dis similar. Our favourite living authors are not always such men. We know too little of them, or too much. Sometimes the individuality of the writer is wholly lost in his book. Some times, again, there are unmistakeable traces of levity, for instance, or of laxity of principle, which scarcely interfere with our admiration of the work—perhaps even heighten our amuse ment, yet limit our trust in the author. All the reading world were on the happiest terms with SYDNEY SMITH, but very few would have liked to see him a Bishop. The least prudish of the fashionable ladies who used to sigh over " Yes and No" and " Matilda " would hardly have recommended Lord NORMANDY to represent English morals abroad. Twenty years ago Sir E. B. Lyrros, though popular as a novelist, would not have been generally welcomed as a Minister. His abilities were unquestioned ; but there would have been doubts as to his discretion. A quick eye for abuses, a contempt for hollow conventionalism, a generous sympathy with the op pressed, would have been held but insufficient war rants for his possessing the clear discrimination, the practical sagacity, above all, the hearty nationality, requisite for the ideal of a British statesman. But, happily, his countrymen have now learned to know and to trust him better. Like one of those generous wines that mellow with age, and lose only their harshness while they retain their flavour and their cordial warmth, he has gained in geniality without losing in raciness. The author of " The Caxtons " has the sympathies of Englishmen as well as their admiration ; is not a favourite only, but a friend. And, wide as is the difference between the qualities requisite for success in authorship or oratory, and those demanded by the high administrative functions on which Sir E. B. Lvrrox is now entering, we believe that his appointment is regarded by a great majority of the public with hope and pleasure, rather than uneasiness or distrust. These favourable impressions have, we doubt not, been deepened by the perusal of the new Colonial Secretary's speech at Hertford. Finished in ex pression, moderate in tone, kindly and genial in feeling, equally remote from mock modesty and from empty self-exaltation, it not only delighted the mingled audience to whom it was addressed, but has been admired and approved by thou sands, even of those who politics might have been expected to prejudice them against the new member of a Conservative Cabinet. Ilis allusions to the hereditary connection of his family with the electors of Herts—so appropriate to the place and time—his simple narrative of office renounced and accepted, of 579 ambition and love of repose successively subor dinated to duty—his acknowledgment of the courtesy of highminded opponents, and his recog nition of the past services of statesmen who have unfortunately worn out their popularity, had a value beyond that of mere eloquence, and breathed the true spirit of a high-bred English gentleman. He touched on the French and Neapolitan difficulties--on reforms past and to come—in fact, on all the leading political ques tions of the day, without exultation, where exultation might have been excusable—without bitterness, where it was difficult not to feel bitterly. Finally, his tribute to the merits of Mr. DISRAELI contrasted most nobly with the language of many politicians of the day— Liberals (!) of the exclusive Whig cast—who regard a self-raised man of genius with the sort of aversion felt by a New York abolitionist for a " nigger." Such was the speech which a weekly con temporary has assailed, not with criticism (for he is happily tender of the high character of his journal for literary discrimination), but with that ingenious and studied sarcasm which he re gards as the great engine of political reforma tion, aided by a liberal allowance of mere abuse ! The very heading of the article, "The New Phase," is to suggest the fair and rational conclusion that, if Mr. DISRAELI speaks severely of opposition tactics on one occasion, and Sir E. B. Lvrrox courteously and forbearingly of a distinguished neighbour on another totally different, not only are both speakers worthy of the harshest reprobation, but the head of the Government—alius et idem—is undergoing a political transformation by proxy. Starting thus, the writer speaks of the address of Sir E. B. Lyrrox as "an imposition," " preternaturally dull," " deliberately absurd," " a whole vat of dulness," &c., &c. No taunt is spared, from the ridiculous imputation of plotting to be stupid, to the impertinent charge of "shabby gentility," and the outrageously (let us hope " preternatu rally") vulgar allusion to our illustrious author's obligations to his publisher ! Nempe hoc assidue Will not the Saturday Review once speak civilly and charitably of some public man, even though guilty of " Derbyism," just by way of a change ? Surely the editor might have shown, unblamed, some sympathy with the of a man of letters, albeit a Minister of the Crown. We press this question the more earnestly, because the article against which we have now entered our protest concludes with an apparent reference to a similar previous protest which we ventured to record against the unsparing bitterness of our contemporary's political comments. At the close of " The New Phase " the writer remarks—" Some of our con " temporaries complain that the Saturday Review " has not ranged itself under the banners of " some one or other of the rival politicians who " are struggling for power and place." He then proceeds to insist. in very happy phrase, on the right of private judgment, and to claim for him self the office of a judge, and not a partizan. Now, we beg leave for ourselves to observe that our complaint was not of the kind referred to in the above extract. We complained not of impartiality, but of indiscriminate virulence. True. we said that it was expected of a journalist that he should have some faith and some charity ; that he should recognise in public life men—ay, and bodies of men—who deserve his confidence in general, and his lenient construction when their course appears questionable. But these words do not imply that journals " should sur " render themselves with implicit confidence " to politician A or B ; nor (which is more to our present purpose) do they at all express the "gist" of our remarks on the political "slash ing " of the Saturday Review. Had our object been controversy, instead of friendly suggestion, we might, no doubt, have dwelt on the close connection of political preferences with poli tical principles. and on the probability of a journalist finding in the British House of Commons some man or men with whom he is generally at one on public questions. This how ever was not, and is not, our point. We can well understand that the present state of parties may afford an opening for the new experiment of a journal standing equally aloof from all sections of public men ; nay more, that such a journal may render to the public high, if not the highest service, by maintaining its strictly judicial A successes