The Press. — London, England, 1858-12-11 00:00:00

.THE PRESS, DECEMBER 11, 1858. largest amount of voluntary action might be rec k on ed upon in support of the resolutions of an assem bly constituted with the concurrence of the entire body of the communicant laity; in the latter case, any legislative measure founded upon those resolutions would have the advantage of the advocacy in Parliament of a number of lay men conversant, by previous discussion in the assemblies of the Church, with all the bearings of the question. We might then hope to see Parliamentary Church legislation of a character really conducive to the efficiency of the Church, and thereby to the best interests of the country at large, because proceeding on the principle that the Church consists not of the clergy alone, but of clergy and laity—that is, laity in the full exercise and enjoyment of Church communion. DRUMMOND versus BRIGHT. I r is said that when two men are determined to quarrel, the best way is to turn them both into a sawpit and let them talk it out. Mr. DRUM MOND and Mr. BRIGHT are in a kind of sawpit, and at present the talking is very loud. BRIGHT began it ; DRUMMOND went on with it. BRIGHT assailed the Constitution and advocated demo cracy; DRUMMOND hates democracy, and raises the standard of the Constitution. Within the last few days we have been favoured with a pam phlet containing the only categorical answer to Mr. BRIGHT, and the best castigation of his fla grant misstatements that we have yet seen. Mr. BRIGHT is a gentleman of long range. He sees as well as any man the results of the measures he advocates. The uninstructed constituents whom he addresses and professes to represent are so much taken up with guns, ironwork, brass work, and all the wear and tear of manu facturing life, that they have little or no means of testing the extravagant state ments by which it is sought to pave the way for the subversion of all aristocracy, whether landed or otherwise, and the introduction of ele ments of Government which would soon lead to the utmost confusion both of principle and action. But Mr. DRUMMOND is not one of the deluded ; he is neither gunmaker nor brassfounder. In his own opinion, if he is anything at all, he is a great gun, an oracle, the depositary of human wisdom, the censor of human conduct, and the arbiter of the proprieties of legislation. With this impres sion of himself, he has taken Mr. BRIGHT to task in a very amusing, and, in many instances, a very truth-telling pamphlet. The genius of the two men and their tactics are wide as the poles. The one is all talk ; the other all thought. The one loves plain speaking, and never leaves a moment's doubt of his meaning ; the other is more versa tile, and not always so comprehensible. So Mr. BRIGHT speaks, and Mr. DRUMMOND writes. Mr. BRIGHT advocates Reform, and Mr. DRUM MOND takes him to task for attempting to sub vert the Constitution. Mr. BRIGHT, as might be expected, is bold, reckless of history and logic, and therefore frequently inaccurate; Mr. DRUM MOND, on the other hand, is cautious and sequential. The result is a very pretty quarrel between the two, in which—if great principles were not at stake—nothing would be more amusing than to watch the contest, and speculate upon its chances. But the subjects handled are of the gravest kind, and the men who handle them represent important classes of the community, and influen tial schools of political thought. We are not prepared to accept Mr. DRUMMOND as the apostle of Conservative principles and the landed inte rest, but we should be false to our cause did we not confess that he has very ably and successfully dealt with the weak points of his adversary, and given the school which Mr. BRIGHT leads a les son which may save them from many mistakes, if they are wise enough to learn it in time. Sel• dorn has any member received from another so thorough a castigation. Mr. BRIGHT calls the newspapers "the best possible public instructors." Yet Mr. DRUMMOND turns the fire of half the p a pers against Mr. B RI GHT, and shows him w conclusively and unsparingly " the best public instructors" have exposed his radical folly. We cannot, in one article, go page 1 1 page through Mr. DRUMMOND'S pam phlet ; but it will give our readers some idea of Mr. DRUMMOND'S strength and Mr. BRIGHT'S weakness, if we select for notice a few of the more salient poiate. In the first instance Mr. DRUMMOND charges his adversary with making Reform and Democracy convertible terms. Probably that is not far from Mr. linicnT's notion, but an unguarded way of expressing himself leads his readers to suppose that he is stating his own conclusion when he says (p. 4), " Reform means " the rule of the mob." This is a proposition which we cannot endorse. We believe that the present state of the representation is capable of much amendment. It may be doubted whether any modification of it will much affect the personnel or the legislative efficiency of the House of Commons, but it will redress ano malies and content the people ; and that is no mean consideration. To that extent we ourselves are the advocates of Reform. But the reform which Mr. DRUMMOND, in common with most Conservatives, wishes to see is not that which would satisfy Mr. BRIGHT ; and knowing that, Mr. DRUMMOND shows up Mr. BRIGHT'S formula in all the fulness of its absurdity. " Reform," he says, " is used as a word, under " the pretence of which the alleged desire to " amend one thing is intended to establish another " thing entirely different." This Mr. DRUM MOND afterwards shows to mean the destruction of the aristocracy and the introduction of the sys tem of America. Everyone will recollect Mr. BRIGHT'S attack on the House of Peers. Mr. DRUMMOND is discri minating in this part of his castigation. Ile ad mits the truth of some facts, and denounces the malevolence of others. He thinks, and many think with him, that it is time that the system of voting by proxy were done away with, except in the case of men absent on foreign or distant ser vice, like the Governor-General of India, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and such like public ser vants ; but that " idle peers, trifling their time "in London, or only absent on their own plea " sure, should not be permitted to vote on ques " tions in the discussion of which they have taken "no part." He would also take from the Peers the power of criminal jurisdiction, " because " the circumstances out of which that function "arose have ceased to exist." But these conces sions made, all the rest is a cutting satire upon the Arch-Radical pretensions. " Your language and " sentiment," he says to Mr. BRIGHT, " are that " vulgar and low abuse which marks the real " adulation of titled persons, and which is the cha " racteristic of pot-house politicians." The fol lowing passage is so true, that we extract it at length :- " All, however, who can appreciate that talent in which you were taking pains at Birmingham to distinguish yourself, know that every great question is debated in the House of Lords with far greater ability than it is in the House of Commons. You know, for that style of eloquence which is commonly called the power of debate,' no man can be compared to Lord DERBY. Many speeches of Lords LYNDHURST, BROUGHAM, LANSDOWNE, GRANVILLE, CLARENDON, ELLEN BOROUGH, the Bishops of EXETER and OXFORD, far exceed anything that has been heard of late years in the House of Commons, although I am not unmindful of yourself, or of Mr. COBDEN, and, above all, of Mr. GLADSTONE. The speeches of Lords MANSFIELD, HARROWBY, and GREY, at the time of the Reform Bill, are almost the only speeches now referred to." The Bright school are not precise about facts. Unlike BYRON, they do not "like to be particular in dates." Anything that will stimulate the passions of the people and work them round to the point required is uttered without the slightest reference to truth or charity. In this way Mr. BRIGIIT attempted to show that the sons of Peers had no inducement to work—were spoiled by early flattery, and grew up to be drones and dead-weights upon the energies of social. This is Mr. Duummosn's answer : " You rail at the House of Peers as a set of idle men, flattered from their childhood by being called my lord,' and having no temptation to work hard. Nevertheless, they do work hard; and as you attack them as a class I will venture to assert that they are, as a class, immeasurably superior, in intellectual and moral qualities, to any other class that can be named. I should like to see a competitive examination in science between them, with Lords WROTTESLEY, ROSBE, BROUGHAM, and LyrrEvrort, at their head, and the whole race of cotton-spinners, brass and iron founders, and manufacturers of 1205 any description. I should like to see another examination between them in literature, either modern or ancient, and I will back Lord DERBY, Lord CARLISLE, Lord STANHOP., Lord CARNARVON, and many more, against all the owners of mills in Britain. But the fact is, this attack on classes is unstatesmanlike and narrow-minded, and proceeds only from an igno rance of mankind. Every class contains a pro portion of good and bad, clever and stupid, learned and unlearned people, and that propor tion is commensurate with the opportunities of each individual in it becoming what he is." Mr. DRUMMOND, though an Irvingite, comes to the rescue of the Established Church. Mr. BRIGHT does not scoff at the doctrine or dis cipline of the Church, except when he offen sively called the Bishops the offspring of an adulterous intercourse; but he scoffs at it for being established. Mr. DRUMMOND, in answer, says :—" It is the duty of every man to warship " GOD ; it is the duty of every family, as one " body, to worship GOD ; it is the duty of every " community to worship Goo. The nation, as "one, can only do this by established laws and "regulations." And then he adds the following telling passage on the relations of Church and Dissent : " The Established Church is the only Church in which the poor have a right to go and worship Gon, and hear His Word preached without pay ing for it. This is what ' the ruling class that is, the Government—in fulfilment of its duty, has done for the lowest class. The Dis senters are mostly of the middle class ; they indulge in the luxury of chapels of their own, in which they allow no poor man to have his child baptiz4 nor partake of the Holy Com munion, unless he pays for a sitting, which, in the Free and other Dissenting Churches in Scotland, costs six shillings a quarter. These six shillings go to the preacher, and this preacher is under the control of the rich middle-class Dissenters who sit in his chapel. The poor preacher dare not expose the villany of the manufacturers and shopkeepers who adulterate every article of food or medicine which they sell—bread, milk, and butter, cheese, beer, wine, sugar, tea, &c.—as Mr. WAHLEY, a middle-class man, has exposed, and, by the help of Dr. HASSALL, has published to the world. The poor preacher dare not expose the whole sale villany of the middle-class merchants who have figured in the Western, Northern, and Scotch banks, because these persons would withdraw their distinguished patronage from the poor preacher, who is dependent on them, but they will allow him to rail at the vices of the higher classes, of which they know nothing, and at the wickedness of taking a walk on a Sunday." How true this is we need not stop to prove. Mr. BRIGHT was very great upon the Ballot— a measure which, he says, is necessary to protect the country voters. This, however, is not Mr. DRUMMOND'S opinion. He thinks, from what working men have told him, that it would be a great comfort to them as a screen from the tyranny of their masters, and more still from the tyranny of their own class ; for in all large establishments the workmen lord it over their employers in matters of business, and over their fellow-workmen in matters relating to elections, to strikes, to subscriptions, to clubs, and similar societies. He passes on to show that since Mr. BRIGHT'S notion of Reform would make the House of Commons represent numbers and not property, and the majority must always be poor, the Parliament would soon be found repre senting poverty and not wealth, the inevitable result of which would be the predominance of the doctrine that property is robbery. Whenever Mr. DRUMMOND descends to per sonalities with his adversary he is most unspar ing. Here is a specimen : "Mr. COBDEN said well, that, if it had not been for your external profession, you would have been a prize-fighter ; and lately you have avowed yourself not to be sufficiently pleased to act with other people. How then, in the name of common sense, can you imagine that you can ever be a statesman in a free country ?" But the best portion of the whole pamphlet is that in which Mr. DRUMMOND exposes the un fairness and absurdity of sneering at the ar: ,-• cracy as the " ruling elopes' Me proves Sig, 4 I .THE PRESS DECEMBER 11 1 t 1858. 1205 - -i• larges t amount of voluntary action might be Mr. DRUMMOND charges his adversary with any description. I should like to see another reckoned upon in support of the resolutions of an making Reform and Democracy convertible terms. examination between them in literature, assem bly c onstituted with the concurrence of the Probably that is not far from Mr. Bormtr's notion, either modern or ancient, and I will back entire body of the communicant laity; in the but an unguarded way of expressing himself leads Lord DERBY, Lord CARLISLE, Lord SwirroPsr, l a tter case, any legislative measure founded upon his readers to suppose that he is stating his own Lord CARNARVON, and many more, against sA those resolutions would have the advantage of conclusion when he says (p. 4), " Reform means the ow ners of mills in Britain. But the fact is, the advocacy in Parliament of a number of lay- " the rule of the mob." This is a proposition this attack on classes is unstatesmanlike and men co nversant, by previous discussion in the which we cannot endorse. We believe that the narrow-minded, and proceeds only from an igno- assemblies of the Church, with all the bearings present state of the representation is capable of ranee of mankind. Every class contains a pro- of the question. We might then hope to see much amendment. It may be doubted whether portion of good and bad, clever and stupid, Parliamentary Church legislation of a character any modification of it will much affect the learned and unlearned people, and that propor- really conducive to the efficiency of the Church, personnel or the legislative efficiency of the tion is commensurate with the opportunities of an d thereby to the best interests of the country House of Commons, but it will redress ano- each individual in it becoming what he is." at large, because proceeding on the principle that malies and content the people; and that is Mr. DRUMMOND, though an Irvingite, comes to the Church consists not of the clergy alone, but no mean consideration. To that extent we the rescue of the Established Church. Mr. of clergy and laity—that is, laity in the full ourselves are the advocates of Reform. But BRIGHT does not scoff at the doctrine or dis- exercise and enjoyment of Church communion. the reform which Mr. DRUMMOND, in common cipline of the Church, except when he offen- with most Conservatives, wishes to see is not that sively called the Bishops the offspring of an DRUMMOND versus BRIGHT. which would satisfy Mr. BRIGHT; and knowing adulterous intercourse; but he scoffs at it for Ti is said that when two men are determined to that, Mr. DRUMMOND shows up Mr. BRIGHT'S being established. Mr. DRUMMOND, in answer, formula in all the fulness of its absurdity. sa y s :..._,, It is the duty of every man to warship quarrel, the best way is to turn them both into o Reform," he says, "is used as a word, under " D; 170 • t is the duty of every family, as one a sawpit and let them talk it out. Mr. Daum- "the pretence of which the alleged desire to "body, to worship GOD; it is the duty of every Nosy and Mr. BRIGHT are in a kind of sawpit, " amend one thing is intended to establish another " community to worship Gon. The nation, as "thing entirely different." This Mr. DRU . M- and at present the talking is very loud. BRIGHT "one, can only do this by established laws and MOND afterwards shows to mean the destruction o began it ; DRUMMOND went on with it. BRlGHTations." And then he adds the following of the aristocracy and the introduction of the re • gui sys- telling passage on the relations of Church and assailed the Constitution and advocated demo- tern of America. Dissent : cracy ; DRUMMOND hates democracy. and raises Everyone will recollect Mr. BRIGHT'S attack on the standard of the Constitution. Within the " The Established Church is the only Church the House of Peers. Mr. DRUMMOND is discri- last few days we have been favoured with a pain- in which the poor have a right to go and worship urinating in this part of his castigation. lie ad- phlet containing the only categorical answer to GOD, and hear His Word preached without 1)7.- mits the truth of some facts, and denounces the Mr. BRIGHT, and the best castigation of his fla- *n for it. This is what `the ruling class ' — rant malevolence of others. He thinks, and many 1 g is, . . grant misstatements that we have yet seen. Mr. that the Government—in ful fi lment of its think with him, that it is time that the system of BRIGHT is a gentleman of long range. He sees as duty, has done for the lowest class. The Dis- voting by proxy were done away with, except in well as any man the results of the measures he senters are mostly of the middle class ; they the case of men absent on foreign or distant ser- advocates. The uninstructed constituents whom indulge in the luxury of chapels of their own, vice, like the Governor-General of India, the Lord he addresses and professes to represent are soin which the allow no poor man to have his Lieutenant of Ireland, and such like public ser-much taken up with guns, ironwork, brass-child baptize nor partake of the Holy Corn- vants • but that "idl e peers, trifling their time work, and all the wear and tear of menu- 44 in munion, unless he pays for a sitting, which, in eir own plea-' Lo n d on, or on ly absent on th • factoring life, that they have little or " sure, s hould b , not e permitted to vote on ques- the Free and other Dissenting Churches in no means of testing the extravagant state- Scotland, costs six shillings a quarter. These " tions in the discussion of which they have taken ments by which it is sought to pave the way six shillings go to the preacher, and this preacher "no part." He would also take from the Peers for the subversion of all aristocracy, whether is under the control of the rich middle-class the power of criminal jurisdiction, " because landed or otherwise, and the introduction of ele- ~ Dissenters who sit in his chapel. The poor the circumstances out of which that function ments of Government which would soon lead to preacher dare not expose the villany of the "arose have ceased to exist." But these conces- the utmost confusion both of principle and action. manufacturers and shopkeepers who adulterate sinus made, all the rest is a cutting satire upon the But Mr. DRUMMOND is not one of the deluded ; every article of food or medicine which they Arch-Radical pretensions. "Y o ur language and he is neither Funmaker nor brassfounder. In hi s sell—bread, milk, and butter, cheese, beer, "sentiment," he says to Mr. BRIGHT, "are that own opinion, if he is anything at all, he is a greatwine, sugar, tea, &c.—as Mr. WAHLEY, a " vulgar and low abuse which marks the real gun, an oracle, the depositary of human wisdom, ~ adulation of titled persons, and which is the cha- middle-class man, has exposed, and, by the help the censor of human conduct, and the arbiter of " racteristic of pot-house politicians." The fol- -of Dr. HASSALL, has published to the world. the proprieties of legislation. With this impres- l • • thatextract itat owing passage is so true,we sion of himself, he has taken Mr. BRIGHT to task sale villany of the middle-class merchants who fen h•— gt . in a very amusing, and, in many instances, a very have figured in the Western, Northern, and truth-telling pamphlet. The genius of the two " All, however, who can appreciate that talent Scotch banks, because these persons would men and their tactics are wide as the poles. The in which you were taking pains at Birmingham withdraw their distinguished patronage from one is all talk ; the other all thought. The one to distinguish yourself, know that every great the poor preacher, who is dependent on them, I loves plain speaking, and never leaves a moment's question is debated in the House of Lords with but they will allow him to rail at the vices of doubt of his meaning ; the other is more versa- far greater ability than it is in the House of • the higher classes, of which they know nothing, tile, and not always so comprehensible. So Mr. Commons. You know, for that style of eloquence l i and at the wickedness of taking a walk on a BRIGHT speaks, and Mr. DRUMMOND writes. which is commonly called `the power of debate,' Sunday." Mr. BRIGHT advocates Reform, and Mr. DRUM- no man can be compared to Lord DERBY. Many i How true this is we need not stop to prove. MOND takes him to task for attempting to sub- speeches of Lords LYNDHURST, BROUGHAM, • Mr. BRIGHT WaS Very great upon the Ballot— vert the Constitution. Mr. BRIGHT, as might be LANSDOWNE, GRANVILLE, CLARENDON, ELLEN - a measure which, he says, is necessar y to protect expected, is bold, reckless of history and logic, BOROUGH, the Bishops of EXETER and OXFORD, the country voters. This, however, is not Mr. and therefore frequently inaccurate; Mr. DRUM- far exceed anything that has been heard of late DRUMMOND'S opinion. He thinks, from what MOND, on the other hand, is cautious and years in the House of Commons, although I am working men have told him, that it would be a sequential. The result is a very pretty quarrel not unmindful of yourself, or of Mr. COBDEN , and, i eat comfort to them as a screen from the between the two, in which—if great principles above all, of Mr. GLADSTONE. The speeches of •g r anny of their masters, and more still from were not at stake—nothing would be more Lords MANSFIELD, HARROWBY , and G REY, at the tyranny of their own class ; for in all large amusing than to watch the contest, and speculate the time of the Reform Bill, are almost the only establishments the workmen lord it over their upon its chances, speeches now referred to." employers in matters of business, and over their But the subjects handled are of the gravest I The Bright school are not precise about facts. fellow-workmen in matters relating to elections, kind, and the men who handle them represent Unlike BYRON, they do not "like to be particular to strikes, to subscriptions, to clubs, and similar important classes of the community, and influen- in dates." Anything that will stimulate the societies. He passes on to show that since Mr. fiat schools of political thought. We are not passions of the people and work them round to BRIGHT'S notion of Reform would make the prepared to accept Mr. DRUMMOND as the apostle t h e po i nt requ i re d i s uttere d w ithout the slightest House of Commons represent numbers and not of Conservative principles and the landed inte- reference to truth or charity. In this way Mr. property, and the majority must always be poor, rest, but we should be false to our cause did we BRIGIIT attempted to show that the sons of the Parliament would soon be found repre- not confess that he has very ably and successfully Peers had no inducement to work—were spoiled senting poverty and not wealth, the inevitable dealt with the weak points of his adversary, and by early flattery, and grew up to be drones and result of which would be the predominance of the given the school which Mr. BRIGHT leads a les- dead-we ights mad-weights upon the energies of society. This doctrine that property is robbery. son which may save them from many mistakes, : is DRUMMOND'S answer : Whenever Mr. DRUMMOND descends to per - il they a re w i se enoug h to learn it in time. Sel- M r . sonalities with his adversary he is most unspar- dom has any member received from another so " You rail at the House of Peers as a set of . mg. Here is a specimen : thorough a castigation. Mr. BRIGHT calls the idle men, flattered from their childhood by being " newspapers " the best possible public instructors." called 4 my lord,' and having no temptation to Mr. COBDEN said well, that, if it had not Yet M r . D RUMMOND turns the fire of half the work hard. Nevertheless, they do work hard ; you been for your external pro f ession, would pa yourself not to be su ffi ciently pleased to pers against Mr. BRIGHT, and shows him and as you attack them as a class I will venture have been a prize-fighter ; and lately you have w conclusively and unsparingly " the best to assert that they are, as a class, immeasurably avowed public instructors" have exposed his radical superior, in intellectual and moral qualities, to act with other people. How then, in the name f olly- We cannot, in one article, go page any other class that can be named. I should of common sense, can you imagine that you can bever be a statesman in a free country ?" y p a ge through Mr. D RUMMON D ' S pain- like to see a competitive examination in science phlet ; but it will give our readers some between them, with Lords WROTTESLEY, But the best portion of the whole pamphlet is idea of Mr. DRUMMOND'S strength and Mr. BOSSE, BROUGHAM, and Li-rravrost, at their that in which Mr. DRUMMOND exposes the un- BRIGHT'S weakness, if we select for notice a few head, and the whole race of cotton-spinners, fairness and absurdity of sneering at the az' ,-• of the more salient points. In the first instance brass and iron founders, and manufacturers of cracy as the "ruling classes' lie proves slat, , 4 I • Al