The Press. — London, England, 1857-02-14 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 14, 1857. repugnant to the national habits and feelings. The remedy, and the only efficient one, for this state of things we pointed out on a former occasion. It is to establish a new Court of Probate which shall have jurisdiction in all testamentary courts, and which shall be guided in its rules of procedure by the common law of the land. This was the main feature of the scheme proposed last year by Sir FITZROY KELLY, and approved by the most eminent law authorities in tl►e Upper House. We are per suaded that until it is adopted, there will be no efficient reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts. To return to Lord CRANWORTH'S plan. We remarked, on a former occasion, that the judge of his proposed new tribunal would hold a mere sinecure appointment. And such, indeed, appears to be the opinion of his Lordship ; for it is his present intention to cast upon one of the Vice-Chancellors the duties of the office in question, whatever these may be. But in fact the court intended to he created would have no judicial business, properly so called, to transact at all. It would not decide upon questions of facts, for these would be tried before a jury and a ccmmon•law judge. It would not decide upon questions of law, for these, it appears, would be tried elsewhere. What, then, would be the functions of the new court? Simply, so far as we can comprehend them, to attend to mutters of routine, while the real testamentary business of the country, involving the most important questions of law and fact, would be transacted elsewhere. Another grave objection to the Chancellor's scheme is the mode provided for appeals from his proposed court. At present there is but one appeal from the Court of Probate, and that is to, perhaps, the most efficient tribunal in the kingdom—namely, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Lord CRANWORTH iS dissatisfied with this simple process, and therefore he proposes to have two Courts of Ap peal in place of one, both of them equally ill adapted for his purpose. Au appeal is to lie, in the first instance, to the Lords Justices, and thence to the House of Lords. Mark the strange jumble of inconsistencies involved iu the entire scheme. The new court is professedly to be a court of common law; yet it is to be precluded from trying issues of fact, and it is to be presided over by an Equity Judge, whose decisions are to be reviewed by an equity court of appeal. No wonder that Lord LYNDHURST declared, with his accustomed penetration, that the scheme in question would substantially transfer the jurisdiction of the present Court of Probate to the Court of Chancery. In a word, it is only Sir RICHARD BETFIELL'S rejected measure of last session in another and an equally objectionable shape. It is satisfactory to us to perceive that the views we formerly expressed upon this sub ject are entertained by the highest legal authorities in the Upper House. To Lord LYNDHURST'S opinion we have already referred. Lord BROUGHAM expressed himself still more forcibly as to the inconsistency of appointing a Vice-Chancellor to preside over a court of common law, which, after all, was not to exer cise the functions which invariably devolve on such a tribunal. Lord CAMPBELL entreated his noble friend on the woolsack to avoid tl►e Court of Chancery, and to make the new tri bunal a court of common law. If, in spite of all these warnings, the Chancellor insists on proceeding with his impracticable scheme, the Ecclesiastical Courts are safe for at least another session. We shall, on a future occasion, consider Lord CRAW oram's other schemes—the Clergy Of fences Bill and the New Divorce Bill. We must r epeat our deliberate opinion that the Ec , .lest astical Courts had infinitely better re main as they are than that the Chancellor's plan of reform should be adopted. In these courts there is at least no risk of any conflict of jurisdiction ; and from them there lies a single appeal to the Privy Council, which, as at present constituted, is as perfect a tribunal as any in the world. LORD PALNIERSTON'S LEADERSHIP. "A CARELESS, coarse, and over-familiar style of " discourse, without sufficient regard to per " sons or occasions, and an al►noet total want of " political decorum, were the errors by which THE PRESS. " he was most hurt in the public opinion, and " those through which his enemies obtained " the greatest advantage over him." Of whom, and by whom, were those significant words written ? They are to be found in BURKE'S famous " Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs," and they were applied to Sir ROBERT WALPOLE, who gained power, neither by acci dent, nor intrigue, nor tergiversation. One of his successors in the Premiership, vastly his inferior in capacity for ruling England, and in political consistency, might profit by the moral lesson which they teach. For although Viscount PALMERSTON has held office under ten Prime Ministers, from the Duke of PORTLAND to Earl ABERDEEN, it would appear that experience fails him in his present post. His tone and conduct in the Leader ship of the Commons arc utterly unworthy of the place and the audience, and are most un suitable to one with the ambiguous antece dents of the Noble Lord. Never did any of his Lordship's predecessors entangle them selves with adversaries, and descend to " ribald ridicule," like the present Prime Minister of England. His tone is not only unbecoming in a man of his rank and station, but it is maladroit in an assembly where the Noble Lord has some superiors, and several equals, on the score either of birth, or of for tune, or eloquence, or lofty intellect. The conduct of Lord PALMERSTON becomes provo cative of the comparisons which are prover bially odious. If, following the Noble Lord's example, we were to greet him with an ironical eulogy, we should congratulate him on having at last shown some positive originality in his political conceptions. He wishes to innovate upon the high standard of dignity and decorum main tained byl his predecessors in the Leader ship of the House. It is the first time that Parliament has seen the spectacle of a blus tering Leader of the House of Commons. Lord NORTH was often familiar, but never vulgar ; if he was too often witty on grave questions, Lord NORTH was neither offensive nor coarse. His " delightful temper" has been commemorated by the most brilliant of his adversaries. It may be doubted whether, in the orations of BURKE, Fox, and BARRE against Lord NORTH, there was so galling a passage as that withering invective hurled by the Member for Manchester against the official personage " who sat on those Treasury " Benches in years before Mr. BRIGHT was " born." Lord PALMERSTON, we surmise, does not yet forget the vivid contrast drawn by Mr. BRIGHT between the Leadership of Sir ROBERT PEEL, Lord J. RUSSELL, and Mr. DISRAELI, " who left no stain on that distinguished " post," and the style assumed by Lord PALMERSTON himself. If the Premier forgets Mr. BRIGHT, we can assure him that others do not. The House cheered that speech vehe mently, and every week the Premier by his conduct recall it to many a memory. It is not alone the coarseness, but the ex treme recklessness of assertion in Lord PALMERSTON which is so blameworthy. He will hazard any assertion to gain a momentary cheer. Sir ROBERT PEEL once ridiculed the Noble Viscount's " assurance," and there was never a more glaring instance of it than in the audacity of saying that the recent Tripartite Treaty with Austria was " not an act of general " European policy," (!) though the result showed clearly it was, because from that time the Governments of England and Austria acted in harmony. What can be thought of the discretion of a statesman who makes such reckless assertions ? When his Lordship became Premier silence was kept as to the artifices with which he treated Lord DERBY. The mode in which the present Premier affected readiness to act with Lord DERBY, but professed a wish to consult Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT and Mr. GLADSTONE, whom the Noble Viscount, informed that he would not serve under Lord DERBY, has no precedent in the lives of the ten Prime Ministers under whom Lord PALMERSTON spent fifty years. Such are not the arts by which great men gain power. While the Queen's standard fluttered before a brave enemy, the gentlemen of England 147 could take no thought on these things. But Lord PALMERSTON should not presume too far on the forbearance hitherto exercised towards him. A score of members from opposite sides of the House might now be tempted to admi nister reproofs as pointed as the censure of Mr. BRIGHT. Nobody is deceived by the his trionic heartiness and artificial good-fellowship of the Noble Viscount. The points of his cha racter as a browbeater, wearing a mask of bon hmnuiie, are thoroughly understood. His Lord ship chronicled the visit of the Leader of the Opposition to Paris, and speculated as to cer tain Parisian habits. The Premier plumes himself on his talents as a Parliamentary comedian. A piece of Parisian origin, trans ferred to our stage under the title of Double faced People, is not unworthy the notice of his Lordship. Some features in the cha racters of the class, of whom the Noble Vis count is a great representative type, attracted the ingenuity of the Parisian dramatist ; and few who contemplate the Premier's career can doubt his readiness for playing a leading part in Lea Faux Bonhommes. Such are not the talents which command political deference in the House of Commons. Members become critical when they find a Prime Minister using language familiar to brawlers, and gaining power by an intrigue. They see that Viscount PALMERSTON cannot argue out a question fairly, or sum up a debate with the judicial skill or polemical acuteness of Lord JOHN RUSSELL. They contrast his meagre diction, his hesitating delivery, his borrowed jokes, and his monotonous levity with the masterly addresses of some of his contemporaries. For even impartial spectators admit that " the careless, coarse, and over " familiar style of discourse," which was in jurious to WALPOLE, is the worst mode that could have been adopted by a statesman, the facility of whose whirls renders him useless as a weather-vane, and who equals WALPOLE in nothing except that " entire want of political " decorum " which ruined a Prime Minister that could never have been classified amongst lea faux bonhommes of the Palmerstonian pattern. MONOPOLY OF POLITICAL POWER. WHETHER Government by " Party" be the best constitutional system, or not, is purely a spe culative question. In England the system is established ; it is interwoven with our social institutions, and it cannot be altered. Our national traditions, and our individual aspira tions, make us believe that Representative Government is the form best suited for our happiness; and our common sense tells us that when association is free to ail, there must be PARTY, or political connection, as a remedy for certain fluctuating evils peculiar to all free countries. If " good men" will not " combine," experience warns us of the evils to be feared when " bad men conspire" to substitute faction for freedom, and to grasp at office, though not deserving the trust of power. But it, as must be the case, we continue to be ruled by " Party," it is indispensably necessary for the benefit of all that the system be fairly worked out. Government by " Party" necessarily presupposes the ideas of rival connections, of periodical changes of rulers, of public services performed in the sight of all, and of personal deserts honourably rewarded. It is by the double action of parties that the State is propelled. The Conserva tive and Progressive movements act upon eaoh other, and a middle maximum of speed is attained. But on the present occasion we do not seek to dwell upon the theory of " Party," of which the first principles are equally affirmed by Conservative and Liberal reasoners. What we desire to draw attention upon here is the peculiar effects resulting from one party having enjoyed an excessive tenure of power. Let us see the facts, and their consequences to the social weal. Since 1530 the Conservative opinion and sentiment of England have not been adequately