The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-22 00:00:00

484 the Duke of WELLINGTON, raised Lord ELLEN BOROUGH to the rank of an Earldom. In 1852, Lord DERBY advised the Queen to make Sir STRATFORD CANNING Viscount Stratford de Red cliffe, and Lord FITZROY SOMERSET a Baron by the title of Raglan. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN, on becoming Chancellor, was made Lord St. Leo nardo, and Sir FREDERIC THESIGER was made Lord Chelmsford. It will be seen at a glance that these peerages, with the exception of the Earl of ELLESMERE and Lord ASHBURTON, were chiefly official peerages. Mark the contrast in which the Whigs during a quarter of a century jobbed their peerages. The fact will appear most flagrantly in the case of their law-lords. They gave a peerage to Mr. BICKERSTETH (Lord Langdale); they made Sir JOHN CAMPBELL'S wife Baroness Stratheden, and afterwards they made Sir Rolm himself Lord Campbell ; besides adding to the Peerage the titles of Denman, Cottenham, and Truro, in addi tion to the titles of Cranworth and Wensleydale. We do not dwell on the partiality shown in giving an Earldom to the late Lord F-NHAM, while orators and statesmen of the world-wide celebrity of Lords BROUGHAM and LYNDHURST have been left in the rank of Barons ; but the fact is indisputable that since 1830 the Conserva tives have made only three law-lords (viz., Barons ABINGER, ST. LEONARDS, and CHELMS- FoRD), while the Whigs have made eight, viz., BROUGHAM, DENMAN, COTTENHAM, CAMPBELL, LANGDALE, TRURO, CRANWORTH, and WENS LEYDALE! But it is in the family party peerages that the most enormous Whig jobbery has taken place. Here is what the Whigs have done. They have reserved the Cabinet and the monopoly of the Executive for the cousinhood and its special clique, while they have given peerages to Liberal commoners in order to increase their influence in the Upper House. They have made an ar tificial noblesse, as we could show in many in stances, only that it would be invidious. But some we shall mention. Ought Mr. SPRING RICE (Lord Monteagle) have been made a Bri tish peer ? How he got his pension of two thou sand a year in 1841 is still remembered; and his four sons are all provided for in the public offices, the family drawing several thousands a year. The Whigs at the same time passed over the accomplished Sir HENRY PARNELL ; they gave him no place in the Cabinet, but they made him a Peer. On what public grounds was the peerage of " De Manley" given to a family (Ponsonby) which had already two peerages in it ? What did the Irish Lords LISMORE, and DUFFERIN, and TALBOT DE MALAHIDE, ever do for the public cause that they should have been raised to the English Peerage ? We can understand the claims of Lords FDIGALL and KENMARE to be made British Peers, but the way in which the Whigs have raised Irish Lords, without large fortunes or Parliamentary services, to the Eng lish Peerage is most improper. "Oh, but," criesa Whig objector, " you forget " what Mr. Prrr did." We do not do so. Mr. PITT found the country under the yoke of the Whig families, and he advised the Sovereign to restore the balance by raising wealthy commoners to the English House of Lords. It was the Irish Peer age that Mr. Prrr so vastly augmented, for a public and Imperial purpose. When the Irish House of Commons refuse— to consent to a com mercial union with England in 1785, Mr. Prrr saw that English statesmanship should aim at a political and Imperial union; and for a public purpose that great man created several eminent generals and admirals to the Irish Peerage, in order to subdue the malcontent Whig aristocracy in Ireland. People will differ as to the means which he used, but his aim was grand and com prehensive. Nothing but party has been the object of the Whig peerages; and even his splendid literary triumphs would not have given a coronet to Lord MACAULAY except that the brilliant historian had been a thoroughgoing partizan. It is also most remarkable that Lord SuArrEs- BURY had the support of all the Roman Catholic Peers. The Duke of NORFOLK, Lords ARUN DEL of Wardour, CAMOTS, PETRE, were " pre sent" in support of Lord SHAFTESBURY, and Lords Fixamx, DORMER, KENMARE, STAFFORD, STOURTON, VAUX of HARROWDEN, were proxies in favour of the resolutions. In spite of the ex cessive number of creations by the Whigs, the THE PRtSS ) MA! 22 1 1858. resolutions were rejected by nine majority ; but it must not be forgotten that ten Roman Catholic Peers supported Lord SHAFTESBURY, and it is most extraordinary that not one Roman Catholic Peer supported Government. It is more remark able that Mr. CARDWELL, the mover of the vote of censure, should have defended Cardinal Wisik:- MAN'S aggression ; and the seconder of the vote of censure in the Lower House was an Irish Roman Catholic barrister, who had last year been chosen by the whole Roman Catholic body for the purpose of inducing the Legislature to alter the terms of the Roman Catholic oath. The part which the Papal party has played in this contest is eminently characteristic of their system of tactics. As for the votes of the Bishops—but on that subject remarks will be found elswhere ; but the political conclusion to be drawn from the fore going facts is that it is for the interest of freedom and the Constitution that a check should be placed to the ascendancy of Liberalism. CHURCH-RATES. WE cannot help hoping that the Church-rate question presents a better prospect of a reason able adjustment being effected than it has pre sented for some time past. So long as the advo cates for total abolition, without a substitute and without compensation, were buoyed up with the hope that, by means of extensive agitation, they could succeed in preventing, under the operation of the present law, the levying of these rates in the majority of parishes throughout the country, so long it was perhaps not to be expected that they would desist from urging upon the Legis lature their extreme demand for sweeping con fiscation. It is true that they have made some progress in this work ; but, whatever the " Li beration Society" may say, that progress has in reality been much less rapid than they pretend. The Committee of Laymen, who have devoted their time to an examination of the actual facts of the case, draw conclusions far more to be relied on for accuracy than the assertions put forth by the " Liberation Society;" and, accord ing to the Committee, not more than five per cent. numerically of the parishes in England and Wales have as yet succeeded in a successful op position, whilst it also appears that of this number nearly six per cent. have relented, and rates have been newly granted in parishes where they had been refused; and this is mainly owing to a change of feeling in the minds of those who had been parties to the refusal. They could not bring themselves tamely to witness the decay of the old church, long the ornament of their parish, within whose sacred precincts the bones of their ancestors lay buried ; and, Dissenters though they be, they were too high-minded to leave undischarged their duties as parishioners. It seems, however, now more than probable, not only that the numbers of parishes refusing rates will not increase, but that they will steadily diminish ; for, by a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, on the 26th ult., in the case of the parish of Great Leighs, it appears that in very many of the parishes in which the rates have been successfully resisted, such success has been owing to votes having been tendered and accepted which the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench has now declared to be illegal— viz., the votes of the occupiers of small tenements under six pounds value. The Court also decided that the owners of these small tenements, of how ever many they might be possessed, were not entitled to more than six votes, that being the maximum of votes allowed by law to any one single individual. We agree with the observa tion made by the Committee of Laymen, that this decision reverses the respective positions of those who would abolish and those who would main tain Church-rates--at least, if the abolition be to be effected on the grounds on which the abo litionists have hitherto mainly relied for ulti mately carrying their point. We confess, we have always thought that this question ought to be decided on its merits, and not on any accidental advantages which the state of the law might confer on one side or the other. But it has seemed good to the aboli tionists to lay great stress upon the assumed fact that the advocates of Church-rates were strug sling to maintain that which had become of little value, and which was, from daily increasing opposition, likely to become of no value at all. Why, y, they have said, keep u p f ee li ngs of irri tation and ill-will for such a trifle ? Now, it is true that we never attached any great weight to this argument, because we knew that an important principle was at stake, and not merely a sum of money; and, more especially, because we felt that those who chiefly put it forward, did so, not because they cared for the money, but because they wanted to set aside the principle. Still, how ever, we cannot deny that the prospect of getting rid of Church-rates, under the existing law, was a prospect calculated to encourage the obeli ' tionists to prosecute their designs—inasmuch as it was likely to make the defenders of the rates less zealous in maintaining that w hi c h was rapidly slipping through their fingers, fight they ever so bravely. In this respect, therefore, the positions of the two parties seem to have been reversed. The case of tithes in Ireland during the agitation of the well-known " Appropriation Clause " is a case in point. There, as the Com mittee state, the occupiers refused to pay—the Government proclaimed that tithes must soon be extinguished. Then came the Exchequer processes; and in less than a year, the tithes which were apparently so near their extinction, were never so well paid up. This was a source of great dismay to the Whig-Radical Government of that day ; and it is curious to look back upon the trick to which they had recourse. Their object (as openly avowed by them) was to compel the House of Lords to pass the " Appropriation Clause," as the only condition on which they would consent to take measures to secure for the Irish clergy their property, which force withheld from them. When, however, the results of these Exchequer processes became manifest, they saw that they would lose the lever by which they felt confident they should coerce the Lords: so, with more of ingenuity than of honesty, they inserted in the middle of a Police Bill a clause, wholly unconnected with the avowed ob jects of the Bill, enabling their Lord- Lieutenant by his fiat to put a stop to these processes. The clause passed the Commons undiscovered, and got as far as the Committee of the House of Lords. It was then detected by the vigilance of the late Lord HARROWBY, who, contemptuously holding up the Bill in the face of the Ministers, told them that it was "a slippery trick," and that the clause must be expunged. It was expunged accordingly, without one word being said in its defence ; for the authors of the trick cowered under the severity of the rebuke. We rejoice, however, to see that although the Committee of Laymen feel that this legal decision may considerably strengthen their position, they do not seem to be unduly elated by it. They still avow their desire for a reason able adjustment : and for that we also are anxious. Nor need we despair of finding a rea sonable basis of compromise ; the prospect of which the decision of the Court of QueTi s Bench above alluded to very materially im proves. One other word we must add. We have no doubt that the Whig Peers, as well as the Con servative ones, are entirely opposed to the total abolition of Church-rates; while they are prepared to consider any rational plan for an adjustment of the question. Let them, then, in the present in stance, when a Bill for total abolition comes before them, agree to an unanimous rejection of such a proposal. Nothing could be more likely to bring_ the Church-rate agitators, who at presen t scoff at the idea of a compromise, to their senses, than such an unanimity in the House of Lords. THE IIOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE OATHS BILL. THE reasons given by the Commons for opposing the Lords' Amendments in the Oaths Bill are expressed with much weakness, and the real difficulty of the case has not been met by Lord J. RUSSELL or Sir R. BETHELL. It is beside the purpose to consider what was the original mean ing attached to the words " on the true faith of a Christian," because time, custom, and the sanc tion of the Legislature did affix a positive mean ing to them. We might as well ask how pro