The Press. — London, England, 1857-10-10 00:00:00

978 " set of words," and in our times the Whigs have turned "Civil and Religious Liberty" and " Reform " into cant phrases. Whether they will be allowed by the country to con tinue so hollow a game after the solemn pledges of Lord PALMERSTON and Lord JOHN RUSSELL, is yet to bo seen. It is pretended by some of the Liberals that it would be " impossible " for Parliament to deal simultaneously with two such subjects as Parliamentary Reform and the Indian question. Now let us not be deceived by words. The Indian question has two aspects—the military and the legislative. When the mutiny shall be put down, then the legislative question as to the future mode in which India shall be governed must come on for serious and pro found discussion. There are no two opinions about the positive certainty of the legislative question of Indian Reform being discussed, once that the authority of our arms is decisively restored. So that, on the assump tion that Parliamentary Reform is to be ad journed over next year on account of what is conveniently called " The Indian Question," in 1859 the Legislature will be called on at the same time to do•il both with Parliamentary Reform and the Anglo Indian question again ! Observe the case, and let there be no doubt about our position on it. If Ministers say that they cannot deal with a new Reform Bill for England in 1858 on account of India, they will be virtually putting off the subject until the whole Indian problem be decisively settled. For we do not suppose it possible that a Cabinet, whether in 1859, 1860, or 1861, would go to Parliament and say, " Here is an " English Reform Bill. It deals with counties " and boroughs, with franchises, extension of " the suffrage, new boundaries, extinction of " corrupt boroughs, transference of represen " tation, and so forth ; and here also is an " Anglo-Indian Reform Bill, dealing with the " East India Company, organising a new " Legislative Council, placing the army o❑ a " new foundation, extinguishing ceitain " grievances, reconstituting the Civil Service " in the East, and making new arrangements " about the double government of India." We do not suppose that any Cabinet in one SOS slim would call on Parliament to try and dis cuss such an enormous amount of purely legislative work in one year. In its present aspect the " Indian Question" is one almost entirely for the Executive. Action, and notlegislation, restoring dethroned authority, and not reconstituting official power, are the wants urgent upon Government. " Before next summer," says the Times, " we " shall have put down this mutiny." We hope so; and until the mutiny be thoroughly crushed out, it will be vain to ask for Par liamentary attention to subjects of Indian social reform. How, therefore, stands the question as to the competency of Parliament to deal with the subject of a " New Reform Bill" in 1858 ? In answering that query, we shall see what Parliament has done in former times. While the great revolutionary war was raging, Mr. PITT and his Cabinet found time to put down u most formidable Irish rebellion, to miss the great measure of the " Union " through the English and Irish Houses of Lords and Com mons; and about that time, while the Marquis Wsti,ssi.sy was in the East, the Indian ques tion had asmimed most portentous dimen sions. When the present century opened there was no talk, as there is now, of Parlia ment not being able to deal with only one question at a time. The claims of the Homan Cat .olics, and Negro Emancipation, were then pressed forward with extraordinary ardour. Lords GRANVILLE and GREY on one bide, Lord CASTL REAGI-I and Mr. CANNING on the other, concuired iu forcing the Catholic question on Parliament Iu 1808, when the Peninsular war was beginning, so far from exclusively being occupied with one question, Parliament and the public mind were profoundly occupied by the " Cath'lic Question." In 1808 the "No Popery " cry was never louder in the land ; and in 1812 after Mr. l'EacsvAL was assassinated. and when the empire was in a most critical condition, Lords GRANVILLE and GREY de clined office on account of their opinions THE PRESS, OCTOBER 10, 1857. about the " Catholic Question." After the war ceased, in 1815, Parliament had an immense amount of business thrown upon it, in conte euence of the transition from war to peace. The present generation, and readers of newspapers now-a-days, can form scarcely any conception of the keen interest popularly takers in " prices," " paper versus gold," " the Bank," &c., and other phases of the " cur reney " subject, which now seem of a most abstruse character. For a series of years, also, there was extraordinary nnwal enthu siasm on the slave trade, which vitally affected our \Vest India interest, of tar greater social importance at that time than it is now. We challenge contradiction upon the point that for years before the conclusion of the ‘var, and for years after it, there was on Par liament a pressure of greet questions of first class importance, whose united weight. were far greater than would be the simultaneous presentation of a new Reform Bill for 1858, together with the military management of the Indian mutiny. Sessions may be longer now than in those times, because Parliament, or rather the House of Commons, is filled with petty senators, who must advertise the tact that they are M.P's. for " Little Peddlington " But we say, recollecting what Pailiament did in former times, and remembering how much work was got through by other Cabinets, that it would sound like a hollow excuse on the part of the Cabinet if it drops its promised " New Reform Bill," because the " War Ake " and the " Horse Guards " shall be engaged " till next summer " in crushing the Sepoy insur rection. Supp )sing that the " New Reform Bill" is to be laid aside in 1858, what is Parliament to do in the next session? The House of Com mons, while the military campaign is going on, cannot turn itself into a debating club for the discussion of schemes for an amended Government of India. Neither can members occupy themselves with criticising the strategic movements of the generals in the field. Will voting supplies for the war fulfil the duties of the House of Commons? Neither the Home Secretary, nor the Foreign Secretary, nor the Colonial Secretary, nor the Lord Chancellor, nor the President of the Council, nor the Pre sident of the Board of Trade, nor the Post master-General, nor the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, are directly concerned in the administration of the war. The Premier holds no particular office to absorb his atten tion. The Commander-in Chief of the Army and the authorities at the Horse Guards have nothing whatever to do with a " New Reform Bill ;" and can it be contended that the fact of Lord PANMURE being entirely, and Sir CHARLES WOOD being partly, engaged in duties rela ting to the campaign, are enough to prevent the Cabinet from realising its promise of a New Reform Bill for 1858? THE PRIMATE ON THE CHURCH. THE address delivered by the Archbishop of CANTERBURY to the clergy of his diocese, on Monday last, affords an oblique confirmation of the views expressed by ourselves on the subject of the Church of England. It may be doubted, perhaps, how far the Archbishop himself apprehends the conclusions to which his observations would conduct us. Such want of foresight is far front uncommon in even younger men and more zealous partisans than the present Primate of AU England. But it is just because words coining front so high an authority in the Church will, as far as thor go, exercise great influence, and find a ready acceptance among those who might not have been prepared to concur in our deductions from them, that we have thought it a good opportunity for recurring to the discussion of this subject. His Grace's observations on the condition and prospects of the Church of England at the present moment are not encouraging. He greatly deplores certain provisions of the recent Divorce Bill; he is alarmed at the spread of " Romish principles and latitudina " rian speculations ;" and on the question of church rates he alludes to the possibility of trouble and embarrassment, though convinced of the injustice and irrationality of abolishing them under existing circumstances. Here, however, it isjthat his Grace'sjshortsightedness becomes, in our opinion, conspicuous. ge argues, that because only five per cent. of English parishes have repudiated. church rates, they cannot be disteeteful to the people at large, and that, therefore, we need be under no apprehensions for their security. But we think experience has sufficiently shown that the general feeling of the people of this country can never be relied upon to counteract the efforts of a zealous and persevering inino. rity. Does his Grace require an actual in stance—the Divorce Bill which he so deci sively laments is exactly to the point. There are, it is true, but five in a hundred of our English parishes which have shown a disposi tion to escape the payment of church rates, but we very much question whether the pro portion of those desirous to escape from the restrictions of the marriage law was not some thing infinitely smaller. Yet, owing to the want of concert among the friends of the Church, and the absenee of any alliance be tween Churchmen and those politicians most friendly to the interests of their communion, the clamour of a small section was permitted to triumph over the traditions and the com mon sense of the community at large. It' the Archbishop earnestly desires to maintain the temporal interests of the Church, he must use his endeavours to re-establish that connection between the conservative spirit in religion and in politics which has now too long been lost sight of. Furthermore, if "Romish principles and " latitudinarian speculations " are, we do not say to be checked, but simply prevented from swamping the Church of England, a steady course must be held by the pilots of the latter. When these dangers are threatening her it is no time for discussing internal changes. Alterations of her system or Sher Liturgy would be but so many opportunities for the waters to rush in. And perhaps it was ham some feeling of this sort that the Archbishop studiously abstained from the question of liturgical reform. The Church of England can only be main tained in the position which the Primate ap pears to desire for her by a careful and constant recognition of her true character—a branch of the Church Catholic purged of Romish adulterations, and a member of the great Pro testant body of Christendom, but unspoiled of primitive truth. It is because many zealous members of the Church cannot bring them selves heartily to acknowledge this double front which she thus presents to the world, that she is continually swaying to and fro and laying herself open to the aggression of an tagonistic creeds. If prelates and digniteries of the Church of England will permit either themselves or their subordinates to act and preach in defiance of that middle course so wisely adopted by our reformers, they cannot expect that the outside world will be slow to follow their example. If tilt), will not up hold themselves, nobody else will do it for them. If they depreciate the importance of Episcopacy, either expressly or by implication, the public will ask to some purpose why such large revenues are devoted to the support of it If the distinction between church and meeting-house is tacitly ignored, where are the arguments of those who support church rates ? If the sacred character of Church ordinances and Church ministers be either impugned or discredited, why should the clergy complain that marriage is withdrawn from their juris diction ? It is infatuation to supp.)se that certain doctrines can be steadily maintained in the pulpit, without the people learning to apply them for themselves at last. It is folly to imagine that spectacles such as that recently presented by the Evangelical Alliance can be without their effects upon the minds of a practical people like the English. The old French noblesse wont on talking republicanism and infidelity till the last mo ment, never dreaming that the people would have the impertinence to take them at their word. The English clergy may depend that all " peoples " aro very apt scholars at this