The Press. — London, England, 1858-07-03 00:00:00

--'-- 626 entirely new position. For the first time. it seems to be admitted as a principle of the Con stitution, that the Peers have not an unlimited power of refusal ; but that after a certain number of negatives, there exists some undefined neces sity of giving way. This change of position is perhaps the most important political tact of our time. It removes the House of Lords from the position it has hitherto occupied ; and places it, undeniably, below the House of Commons. The final, the reol power of legislation, will be felt to rest, in future, with the more popular assembly. And this, not merely, as hitherto, that the House of Commons, with the people at its back, must be listened to; but that the House of Commons, by itseK may claim to dictate to the House of Lords. The latter may have the right of saying No a certain number of times ; but when that limit is reached, then the will of the Commons must be done. This, we say, is a new state of things in British history. It is a deliberate relinquish ment of its independent position by the house of Lords; an abdication of its place and func tions, and an acceptance of a lower condition and status in the Constitution. That such a change should have taken place under a Con servative Administration is to us a matter of deep regret. Nor is that regret at all allayed by the ap pearance in the Times of a warm laudation of the Earl of DERBY. Nothing more ill-omened could well be conceived. Any one who will turn to the Times of March, 1829, will read there the most glowing eulogium on the Duke of WELLINGTON and Sir ROBERT PEEL, for conceding the Romish claims. The Duke and his friend were both ejected from office the very next session, and remained on the Opposition benches for eleven long years. In the Times of 184.5-6 any one may read similar praises of Sir R. PEEL for surrendering the Corn Laws. Sir ROBERT PEEL was ejected from office in less than a year, itnd remained excluded from power to the end of his life. Hence, to find any friend of ours—any one whom we respect and admire—bepraised in the Times, gives us a sort of cold shudder. The laurels and flowers with which they cover the object of their deceitful praise, are the laurels and flowers with which men bedeck a victim. The minor Radical journals, Daily News, &c., chime in with the Times, and follow the Standard's article which we cited last week, in pteferring " retbnning Tories to obstructive Whigs." But then they deny the consistency of an opposition to the Church-rate Bill to-day, after conceding the Jewish claims yesterday; and they plainly threaten that the same meant, the same perseverance which has succeeded in the one case, must and shall succeed in the other. Let the Lords look to it, for they are fairly warned. And surely a body of 135 English Peers (the number of those who voted or paired against Lord LucAs's Bill), if they remain united, may do much to stem even a stronger torrent than the Dissenters can direct against them. The present state of things cannot last—the present state, we mean, of union between declared Radicals and supposed Conservatives — between Times, Standard, and Daily News. If " England does not love Coalitions," she is not very likely to tolerate long such a combination as this. When those who have long been opposed come to act together, people will natu rally ask, Which has drawn the other after him? Who are the masters, and who are the tools ? Whose game is it that is playing, and who is to be the winner in the end ? We need not be told who are the losers. CONSERVATIVE REFORMS. WE said in our last number, that "The plain " fact is, that a Conservative policy is, to main-• "lain, to defeni, to stand in the old paths," But in the previous article, in the opening page of the number, we had said:— "We have always felt it to he one of the heaviest charges which could be brought against Sir Roman' PEEL, that, having promised a settle ment of the Church-rate question in 1835, he entirely neglected that most favourable opportu nity which was afforded him by the Conservative l'arliament of 1841, and preferred adjusting the quarrels about 'Dissenters Chapels' and May moth College, to effecting a fair compromise of THE PRESS, hru - 8, IbsB. this great question, which concerns. more or less, every parish in the fifty-two counties of England anti Wales." 4'o one, therefore, who had read these two articles with an honest mind; could possibly obi derstand us to mean, that Conservative principles bound a man to defend everything just as it stood, and to resist the most obvious and nem. sary intprovementit. In fact, what is le , riststion, and what occasion have we for a LegislatiVe Assembly, unless it be admitted, at starting, that our long-tried and valued institutions will inevitably require, from time to time, such modifications and improvements as new circumstances render necessary ? The case of the Church, and especially of Church-rates, sufficiently explains what we mean; and it explains also the difference between Con servative and Liberal reforms. The British Constitution gives a prominent place to our Established Church. By a law so ancient that none can fix the date of its com mencement, the inhabitants of each parish are intrusted with the duty, and are liable to the charge, of repairing their church, and of keep ing up Divine Service therein. For this purpose they have been accustomed to meet each Easter, to deliberate upon the amount needed, and to assess that amount upon the inhabitants. For centuries this state of things continued, and no change, no reform, was needed. But the French Revolution of 1789 opened many ques tions, and among others raised in England, was, that of the lawfulness and expediency of an Es tablished Church. The Dissenters began to question this; and since then—i.e., for about sixty years—their warfare has been directed, not, as previously, against some habits and practices of the Church, but against the Establishment itself. And this warfare has quite changed the position of the Church-rate question. Dissenters found that they could come, like other inhabi tants, into the annual vestry, and oppose the Church-rate altogether. In many places they have done so, and in about 450 parishes out of 9,000 they have stopped the rate. Now, this is a case not contemplated by the law. The Judges tell us, from the bench, that there is not the least doubt that each parish is bound to repair its church. But, practically, the right to discuss the amount of a rate may be stretched into a right, or at least a power, to refuse that rate. And thus a legal obligation is evaded. Legislation, then, becomes necessary ; and we have two modes of action proposed,—the Con servative, and the Liberal. The Conservative plan is, of course, to adhere to the principle of an Established Church ; and to meet the new circumstances of the case, by enabling the Church to raise the necessary funds in some other way. The Liberal plan is, to "con cede" to the opposition; to let a noisy minority have its way ; and to give up, wholly, Church rates in 9,000 or 10,000 parishes, because Dis senters have succeeded in stopping them in 450. Common sense, surely, is opposed alike to inaction and to weak and groundless concession. To do nothing, is criminal neglect; with which neglect we charge, alike, Sir ItoliEnr PEEL, Lord JonN Itussmi., and Lord PALMERSTON. I lad these statesmen valued, as they ought to have done, the Church more than their own personal interests, they would have perilled everything to settle this question. But they saw that to touch it might shorten their official existence, and they preferred place to the Church's welfare. But it' inaction was weak and criminal, what is that total concession which Sir &mix TRELAWNY counsels ? Viewed merely as a political question, such a concession is absurd. It is an ascertained fact, that in eighteen or nineteen parishes out of twenty, Church-rates are quietly granted. That an opposition is raised, in one parish out of each twenty, may furnish reason enough for a modi fication of the law. But that the one parish is to prescribe the law, and that the nineteen are to succumb to the will of the nne, is a novelty in politics and legislation. If minorities are to rule, there can be no end or limit to the absurdities we may perpetrate. A true Conservative, then, would be always amending; or else, why should our Legislature sit during half the year ? But he will ever con tend against weak end foolish concessions ; espe cially concessions which involve constitutional principles. To give up Church-rates, as Sir &nix TRELAWNY proposes, is to give up the principle of an Established Church. And, as soon as that is conceded, tithes will immediately be questioned • and the seats of the Bishops in the House of Cords will be scarcely defensible. We have thus touched upon the Church-rate question, As fsir ex.ample of what we mean by " CosglitiVATlvt RE:Point." Such reforms always have preservation as their main object. We may briefly enumerate many improvements of this class which have been made in our day. 1. Before his first declension, while acting properly as a Conservative Minister, Sir ROBERT PEEL proposed and carried many most valuable reforms. Some of these have been so long in operation among us, that we forget their date and their authorship. But the facts remain the same. One of these reforms—the substitution of the excellent police of the metropolis for the old " Charleys "—is at least a thing which need not be forgotten. 2. Lord Joirc Rl:mm.l. carried through Par ment, some twenty years ago, an excellent mea sure, the Tithe Commutation Act. This was a scheme worth twenty " Appropriation Clauses," and it would have done credit to any Conserva tive Government. 3. The Reform of the Municipal Corporations in 1835-6 partook too much of a party character to merit praise. But at this moment it is open to any Government to bring forward a scheme which would be truly one of " Conservative Reform." We mean, for granting corporations to the great metropolitan boroughs. Such a measure would be both right and expe dient. It would be right, inasmuch as there is no reason why a man should have fewer privileges in Hackney than in St. Alban's. If it is proper for Leeds to have a Town Council, why should not Lambeth have one also? It would be expedient, inasmuch as creating offices and functions for active men of the middle classes is distinctly a Conservative mode of action. So placed in office and in power b y the law, men become loyal supporters of the powers that be. But, excluded, they find public occupation for themselves, become agitators, and often demagogues. THE SESSION OF PARLIAMENT, AND SOME THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IN IT. IN spite of committees who hazard their lives in the rooms of the Parliamentary Palace of West minster, and risk their persons in steamers on the inky surface of the river that washes its walls—in spite of the contrivances of the men of science, of deodorizing curtains and shiploads of lime crammed into his pestiferous maw, Old Father Thames seems to remain master of the situation ; and it is pretty evident that as soon as the India and the Money Bills can be passed a cry will be raised of "To your tents, oh Israel," and Lords and Commons, men who are in office and men who want to be in office, will give up the campaign and disperse every one to his par ticular vanity, as Sam Weller has it—to his river, his moor, or his watering place. For once since many years a Speaker will be able to open the grousing season, and after the 20th of July we may expect that the Parliament will pass, like . the famous Indian Fakeer, who went into his coffin for six months at a time, into a state of suspended animation. The Session of 1858 will be at an end, and people will ask what has been done in it. And what is the true answer? Men, whom tempera ment or position naturally disposes to dissatisfac tion with everything that is, will present us in reply with a long list of measures that might have been introduced, and of bills that have not been passed, which will be made as a matter of course to assume imposing-looking dimensions. They will exclaim, See how small the account of new laws looks by the side of our list ;—what time has been lost ! We, who do not, as many do, measure the progress of the country by the number of new laws with which it is loaded and too often mischievously hampered, take a totally -