The Press. — London, England, 1857-11-14 00:00:00

THE PRESS, NOVEMBER 14, 1857. 1098 so much to the national difficulties of the task as to the utter want of foresight and comprehension of the crisis exhibited by our Ministers from first to last. PROSPECTS OF THE COUNTRY. ON the 22nd of August last wo informed our readers, " The Legislature is adjourned under " gloomy circumstances. It is felt amongst " politicians of all parties that since the year " 1834 (when such great domestic changes took " place) there never was a recess which might " be looked forward to with so much interest, " as being likely to bring forth most serious " incidents." Such were our words, and we wrote them under the influence of statements of gravity which we had received at the time. What is the state of things in this week ? The news of crash after crash reaches us while we write; a Ministry in search of a financial policy, and not knowing how to extricate itself from " Reform" pledges, seems bent on running to Parliament and making the Legis lature a confidant in its difficulties; capitalists are tremulous, and merchants quail. The whole tone of the crisis may be read in a sentence—" At the Bank the applications for " discount were enormous. In fact, to-day " and yesterday the pressure was heavier than " at any time in 18-17." Such is the admission of the City article of the Times of Friday, and we are not surprised that many people share our grave apprehension at the non financial character of the present Cabinet. We believe that there was seldom in office a Ministry less qualified for dealing with a great commercial crisis. The Prime Minister himself is confessedly the ablest man in the Cabinet, but at no period of his career did Lord PALMERSTON ever show any aptitude for dealing with financial questions, and on some occasions (of which Sir R. PEEL always took advantage) Lord PALMERSTON exhibited extra ordinary ignorance of political economy. It is true that there are two ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer in the Cabinet, but the Mar quis of LANSDOWNE has for a great many years ceased to take any interest in financial ques tions, which have assumed a totally different character from what they were in 1806, when the Noble Marquis held office. The less said about Sir CHARLES Wool) as a financier the better; and we never yet heard any " City " authority profess the least confidence in Sir CORNEWALL LEWIS. On classical questions, or on the budgets of ancient Rome. the Right Hon. Gentleman is a responsible authority. He may be an archwological economist of con siderable pretensions, but Sir CORNEWALL LEWIS is not the financier for a fearful crisis. The Secretary for the Colonies, Mr. LABOD CHERE, would, in some respects, be a better Chancellor of the Exchequer than Sir G. C. LEWIS; but Mr. LABOUCHEItE has the reputa tion of not thinking for himself, and on some occasions he has shown a fatal facility in being " ridden" by his superiors in office, even when he had right views. Ho is thought to be a weak man, and his opinion does not carry influence. Lord CLARENDON is a diplomatist ; Sir GEORGE GREY is a fluent special-pleader in politics ; Lord PANMURE does not profess finance ; Lord GRANVILLE is no economist ; Lord HARROWBY knows something about everything, but least about finance ; Mr. BaINEs is almost equal to the Duchy of Lancaster; Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY is a capital electioneerer ; the Duke of ARGYLL does know something of--geology ; and Mr. VERNON SMITH has the Indian Budget to look after ! Such is the Cabinet which has to pilot the empire through the crisis of the coming winter ! It would be cruel at such a period even to breathe the name of " the new Reform Bill." The Liberal organs have contrived to avoid the topic as much as possible . and short paragraphs in small type have merely announced that some subordinate Radical M.P.'s are superintending some sort of subter ranean Reform agitation which is to blow up one day or other into something great. What combustibles they are collecting we know not ; but it undeniably adds to the gloomy charac ter of this season that the Liberal party, for the sake of keeping tip its political character, has drawn a large oredit for a new Reform Bill. In case the panic spreads, and that numbers are thrown out of employment in the great towns, personal misery will quicken the force of political agitation, and popularity hunting politicians will press the Reform question forward. But, let it be emphatically observed, if Lord PALMERSTON resolve to postpone " Reform," and to adjourn the question over, there must be an end of the Cabinet living on false politi cal capital. If the Cabinet is not to bring forward the promised measure, it must be tried by a practical test, and by the fitness of its members for their posts. The eyes of the whole public will turn towards Sir CORNEWALL LEWIS, and his capacity for filling his post will he severely and strictly criticised. Mr. VERNON SMITH, also, cannot escape notice ; and it would be vain to deny that Lord PALMERSTON has many dangerous tendencies which make his best friends uneasy. It is already felt that the tone of his speech on Monday was a great mistake. Its air of bravado was at once dis agreeable and indiscreet. We have India to reconquer, and our official system in the East to reorganise thoroughly. Was it judicious at such a moment to tell the great kingdoms of the Continent that the men of their popula tions were not " equal" to Englishmen in cou• rage and endurance? Was it wise to sneer at military monarchies with the personality of " iron heels ?" We are ourselves secure in our insular position, for England realises the apo strophe of TALLEYRAND—d Happy country, that 4 ` has got no frontiers !" The circumstance of our living in sn island is the great fact which enables us to have maintained a Constitution of such freedom for so many centuries ; and a Prime Minister should not have forgotten the difficulties under which attempts after consti tutional liberty are made upon the Continent. But the recklessness of Lord PALMERSTON urges him on to say things which afterwards have to be atoned for in undignified apologies. The aspect of affairs in " the City" ought to have taught more caution to Lord PALMERS TON. On the next and succeeding days the Noble Viscount's address, with its ill-timed air of triumph, was severely commented upon amongst mercantile circles. It is only a little more than thirty years since Mr. ROBINSON (now Earl of Ripon) made a premature state ment in the House of Commons. The CHAN CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER of that day (23rd of February, 1824), boasted of the " influence of " England, gained, not by petty intrigues or " blustering dictation, but from the conviction " entertained by other nations of the sincerity " of our professions and the honesty of our " conduct, a conviction which makes them " feel that our power and influence are not the " menacing instruments of hostility and rivalry." In the next year came the crash which deri sively associated Mr. ROBINSON with " prospe rity ;" and before long it may be found out that "blustering dictation" is not a policy which will contribute to the wealth and prosperity of England. Speeches which read like prel►mi nary orders for calling out the Channel fleet should not be made to gratify the self-love of a single Minister. temporary of the petitioners, "assume to them "selves the representation of the conscience of the " clergy and laity of the United Church of E ng. " land and Ireland " They do no such thing. The word conscience is artfully substituted for communion, for an obvious rhetorical purpose. Replace this, and the said clergy men and laymen are perfectly justified. On the principle that no chain can be stronger than its weakest link, so no communion can be more expansive than its narrowest formula, if only ono man insist upon literal obedience to it. That formula may be expunged by the majority. But that is a different question. While it remains in his code every individual may fairly claim to be bound by it. But the point which we arc desirous of urging with the greatest importunity is this— that the clergy do not allow themselves to be called off from the one clear and paramount object which has been plainly set before them by Dr. WILBERFORCE, and which we may ven ture to remind our readers we have all along suggested as the cardinal question at issue— that is, at what stage Parliamentary inter ference in matters ecclesiastical is consistent with the English Constitution and the spirit of the Established Church. Is the jurisdic tion of Parliament original and initiatory, ex tending to the interpretation of Scripture anl the promulgation of doctrine, or is it rather arbitrative and confirmatory, deciding between conflicting opinions within the Church her self, and on evidence which the Church admits, but not importing new doctrines or new prac tices ab extero, whatever their alleged conso nance with the Word of God, but in these matters merely lending the sanction of the civil authority to the prior action of the spiritual ? It seems to us that the conduct of Govern ment in the past session is reconcileable only with the first of these theories. In the first place, they practically assumed the right of interpreting the words of Scripture by a majority of the House of Commons, and of converting an opinion into a dogma by the same authority. For the semblance of con cession, by which it was hoped to persuade the people that the question was left as it was before—a moot point, on which clergymen might think as they like—is utterly worthless. The law in effect says—Oh, you may think as you like, but if you think in a certain way it is at the price of a penalty which most conscien tious clergymen would rather be ejected than submit to. This, forsooth, is the religious liberty of the nineteenth century ! Is it not rather a fresh outbreak of that intolerance which distinguished the fanatics of the Cove nant as much as the familiars of the Inquisi tion, and which a certain class of noncon formists would be ready enough to exercise in this country now if they ever had the power in their hands ? As we have observed on a previous occasion, it is within the range of possibility that at some future time the majority of the House of Commons should consist of nonconformists. Suppose they determined to enact that the services of the Church should be conducted after the fashion of their own—that particular prayers should be expunged, and particular ceremonies abolished. The recent act of legislation would constitute an unassailable precedent. We can have little doubt that some among them look forward to such a con summation. How absurd, then , to quote the Act of Supremacy, as embracing such results as these ! And what blindness and infatua tion in the friends of the Church to abandon their vantage-ground, by the acceptance of the recent act ! If the clergy, then, will take our advice — they rejected it once before, with what results we need not say—they will confine themselves to the ventilation of the question we have here suggested. Let them not be drawn into theological disquisitions before the proper time arrives. The point they have now to insist upon is constitutional, and not doc trinal. The scriptural question, as the Bishop of OXFORD intimates, may be discussed hero PERILS OF THE CHURCH. WE never permitted ourselves to doubt that the unconstitutional injustice of the late Divorce Act wouli receive the consideration of the Church before the next meeting of Par liament. The first signs of approaching ac tivity are presented by the Bishop of OXFORD'S late address to his clergy, and a petition which is in course of signature, praying further in quiry into the subject. Before proceeding to comment on the character of these proceed ings, we must warn our readers once and for all against supposing that if the objectors to the late statute constitute a minority they would not therefore be en titled to adopt the tone they do. " These " clergymen and laymen," says a morning con-