The Press. — London, England, 1856-02-23 00:00:00

w.,,,v ; N 170 LIFE PEERAGES. who has conducted himself in a more irre proachable manner, and who will leave us more honoured in our memories. IF we cast our eye over the various kingdoms of Europe at the present day, we can hardly fail to be struck With the fact that they littve almost without an' exception been free, prosperous, and exempt from internal convul sions, exactly in proportion to the success with which the nobility has maintained its inde pendence of the Crown. The policy of Louis XI., steadily followed up at a later period by RICHELIEU an or Louis XIV., wrested from the French aristocracy their rightful privilege of governing, and reduced them to a position in which high personal qualities were unable to redeem the odium attaching to a class who, with all the wealth of the country in their hands, had no duties to perform and no taxes to pay. The Reign of Terror was the conse quence. Some little time before this policy reached its consummation, occurred that great event which determined the future of Eng land, which secured to her nobles a sphere of activity and usefulness, and prevented them from sinking into that apathy which is always the precursor of corruption In the Revolution of 'BB the victory was, perhaps, pushed too far, and the Crown weakened too much. But the question to be decided by experience, and not by theory, is whether at that time the pre dominance of the nobility over the Crown was not a lesser evil than the predominance of the Crown over the nobility. The idea of a European Monarchy is that the King represents the principle of autho rity, the people the principle of freedom, and the aristocracy the principl e of order ; the duty of the latter being to correct the aberra tions of the other two, to uphold liberty with out being turbulent, and subordination without being servile. This is the ideal of a modern Constitution—not attainable, perhaps, more than any other ideal, but on which neverthe less we should fix our eyes as the type of a perfect polity. If we were asked what it is that especially fits an aristocracy for the discharge of these functions, we should say it is the sense of permanence that pervades it. In an aggregate of families, of whom some are very ancient, and all hope to be so, the personality of indi viduals is weakened. A member of this body is not a mere isolated unity, connected alike with the past and the future. He feels him self but a link in the long chain of his country's history—morally almost powerless to do other than perpetuate the traditional policy of his race. In proportion to the antiquity of his family will such a man be in clined to view popular questions with bold ness. He whose family or order has coexisted with the people for a thousand years, will not doubt their honesty or good faith; nor, on the other hand, will he hesitate to speak out frankly when his principles are opposed to their wishes. He will be equally fearless either to promote their liberties or to restrain their licence. In the presence of two other forces which are by nature fluctuating, which can no more help being so than the waves of the sea, is not the existence of a third, of a character essentially the reverse, of paramount importance ? Whether the introduction of life peers would affect this character is surely not a difficult question. They would be ill the House of Lords, but not of it. Their personal associa tion and habits of political thought would all be in accordance with the general sentiments of the Commons. To change a man's na ture something more is required than merely to change his name. If you at once invest him with all the attributes that belong to an hereditary peer, it is probable that a corre sponding change will follow in himself. Other- i wise the very inferiority of his position will drive him into antagonism, even had he felt none before. Those who have accused us of denying the Royal Prerogative know very well that their use of that word is equivocal. The exercise THE PRESS. of prerogative, which the Whigs now uphold, is exactly the same which the Tories have always condemned. But they think that by using the simple expression " prerogative," they will, persuade the public that our present opposition is inconsistent with our former professions. We claim for ourselves the same consistency we concede to our opponents. Tories wish the Crown to exercise real power — Whigs, delegated power. The one would have the King 'govern through his Ministers, the other would have the Ministers govern through the King. The Whig notion of Royal autho rity reminds one of the cloud in which the deities of old enveloped their favorite heroes when bent on sonic dangerous enterprise. In this way the real author of a measure may frequently be concealed till it is expedient to show himself, and is enabled to withdraw from the undertaking without damage if he finds it beyond his strength. The Deus ex machine has seldom been more required than on the present occasion. In regard to the question of precedents, the House of Lords must be the lawful judge of whatsoever affects its own privileges. This would seem to be in accordance with universal custom. But, further, we would remind our readers of the almost totally worthless character of the precedents adduced This► was alluded to by Loid DERBY on the first night of the debate, and the reason of it is, that a precedent in law and a precedent in politics are too widely different things. The establishment of the simple fact is sufficient in the one case, but a great variety of circum stances must be taken into account in the other. Of these circumstances their Lord ships are, it appears to us, decidedly the beet judges; and after the able argument of Lord LYNDHURST we do not apprehend there will long be two opinions in the country. THE BENCH AND BAR OF IRELAND. THE motion of Sir JOHN SHELLEY has not been without its value. The restless puppet of the concealed intriguers, who would sacrifice the great constitutional principle of tke indepen dence of the Judges, in a miserable plot for placing one or two Romish lawyers on the Irish Bench, is undeserving of further notice. He received his proper castigation in the House; and when the real object of putting him in motion was thoroughly exposed, Lord PALMERSTON set him aside, as a vulgar con veninencc no further required. What an ex posure of a Government, which recklessly tampers with all the forms and principles of the Constitution! Life peerages ; Fermoy fabrication ; Shelley motions ! Many Conservative members, we are aware, regret that the intention to divide, which was only adopted after Mr. S. WORTLEY'S speech, had not been known to them in good time. They would have swelled a large majority against granting the return. But, on the other hand, the return will be valuable; if there be delinquency on the face of it, it is clearly established now, that it is not to be found in the conduct of the eminent Judges who were specially selected as the game to be hunted down in the House of Commons. Never was a case more triumphantly estab lished for accused men, than by the spirited defence made by Mr. NAPIER, which the House cheered to the echo. Theorists may speculate on the physical and mental qualifications of judges ; for practical men, the best test in the world is—how, in fact, has the work been done for the public ? Mr. CHANCELLOR BRADY, who SO specially complimented BARON PENNEFATHER in 1853, and so treacherously betrayed him in 1855, has shown himself a worthy accomplice of the clique of confederates who would sacri fice the best interests of Ireland to the rapa city and intrigues of the Church of Rome. But out of evil good often arises. Is Ireland to be an integral part of the United Kingdom or a fief of the Papacy? In England, if a Judge feels himself to be unequal in any respect to the most efficient discharge of his high duties, he knows that the moment he retires he makes way for the best lawyer which the working Bar can furnish. In Ireland, the SATURDAY, vacancy may be filled by some ignorant intri gue. cure to expect thi great learning, co . 'scharge his ;tion of the intense re position, to teh for a sue- Tent of j uris- high ino - tives of the con- pork. _ the public. He is thus called on to say whether, to accele rate a result which he must conscientiously believe to be a fatal blow to public justice and the prospects of the Irish Bar, he will put the country to the expense of a full retiring pension. If the question be considered on imperial grounds, it presents a new aspect. Let the appointment of the Irish Judges be made on. the same principle as the English, and then may you expect the same results as to retir ing, iu advanced age or under any special in firmity. The Irish Bar should not let the question remain as it is ; their existence as a body worthy of confidence or respect depends upon the spirit with which they may now act. If they succumb to the treatment which the clique of intriguers, miscalled the Irish Government, seem resolved to inflict upon them, they will sink into contempt and decom pose in gmadual corruption. If they demand equality of privilege, and insist upon being treated as Englishmen would contend for to the death, then we may yet have to congratu late them on the happy results of the Punch and Judy exhibition of Sir JOHN SHELLEY and Lord PALMERSTON. uer. It is not in human nat ure r, • that a Judge of high principle, Brea conscious of his Mimes atlll to dis fluty to the advantage and satisfacf public, should not feel the most luctance to withdraw froM his p secure a seat ou the judicial Bench cessoi whom he khoWs to bb ignora prudence or law, upintlipiiced by hi of religioh or morality, Wor worthy ( tidence of the sound portion of THE CASE OF LORD CARDIGAN. NEVER, surely, was there so striking an ex ample of the fickleness of popular favour, as in the treatment offered to the Earl of CARDIGAN. A few months since the high per sonal qualities, the cool courage, and the soldierly accomplishments of that brilliant officer were extolled to the skies ; and now it is sought to blast his character upon charges relative to his conduct in the month of Novem ber, 1854. We have examined the whole case, as it is presented against Lord CARDIGAN, and there is enough in it to show how cautiously we should lend an ear to vague charges brought against any officer of rank in her Majesty's service. In the first place, we must call attention to the proceedings in Parliament on Thursday night. In the Upper House, Lord DERBY noticed the extraordinary circumstance that, although the particular accusations were made against Lord CARDIGAN in June last, the Com ma►nder-in-Chief did not see the Report until it was placed on the table of the House of Lords, and that thus a cruel injustice was done to the Earl of CARDIGAN by withholding the fact, until recently, that those charges had been made against him. Later in the evening, Lord HARDINGE confirmed tho statement of Lord DERBY with the words, " I did not receive " that Report until very lately, and as soon as " I received it I put myself in communication "with my Noble friend, Lord PANMURE." That is, really, a singular revelation. Lord CARDIGAN, in the opinion of all men, had emi nently distinguished himself by personal prowess in the Crimea. His health gave way; he came home, and he was made an Inspector- General of Cavalry. Accusations, under Lord PANMURE'S cognisance, were preferred against him last summer. The Gallant Earl was con tinued in his elevated and responsible post of Inspector• General of Cavalry, and in that capacity waited upon her Majesty at the royal visit to Aldershott last August. There, with other Crimean heroes, his Lordship was deco rated with the glittering insignia of personal merit; and now it is sought to taint his name. Then, again, the course of appointing an anomalous Board for the purpose of "receiving such explanations" as the officers inculpated " may desire to give, and to report thereupon " to her Majesty," is a most unprecedented