The Press. — London, England, 1856-08-30 00:00:00

820 of heterodox Dissenters (like the Unitarians in Ulster) holding certain portions of glebe lands To sum up the argument. It is obvious that if " Maynooth " were abolished for the sake of " principle," its adversaries should not stop there, but assail the Church of Rome in Canada, and it would be necessary nearer home to organise opposition to Roman Catho lics, peers, judges, generals, admirals, and captains, Queen's Counsel, and courtly at tendants on the Sovereign (like Lords CANIOTS and CASTLEROSSE). Such a policy could never be adopted by the statesmen, or tolerated by the enlightened public, of the empire. But there is no real necessity for debating such a proposal, as, in point of fact, the Church of Rome has not gained in the last ten years, and we should be only playing her game by giving the Irish agitators a grievance. On another day we will show how our PROTESTANT INSTITUTIONS can be best in vigorated; and in attachment to Protes tantism we yield to none. The Protes tantism of England must be maintained, and the result of the contests on " the Appro priation Clause" leave us no fears on that point. But the statesmen of the reign of Queen VICTORIA Will not lend themselves to injudicious zeal, attempting impossibilities, and achieving practical mischiefs, under the pretence of pursuing "principles." Comsgontatt. CONSERVATIVE TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." Sir,—l address you as, unfortunately, the only Conservative organ in the country that is en deavouring to bring about Conservative union and organisation. You, sir, have always advocated progressive Con servatisrn ; and if we are ever again to see Con servative statesmen at the head of affairs, it can only be on the intelligible principle of progressive Conservatism. This idea has, however, given offence to certain respectaole parties who agree with Taper and Tadpole that "there is nothin; like a good cry," ani who believe that the State can alone be saved by the old "No Popery" shiboleths of the hustings. Any one who thinks it impolitic to excite the Catholics of Ireland to disloyalty and rebellion by a vexatious and retrogressive policy, and who takes his stand on the broad Conservative principles enunciated by Mr. Disraeli at the close of last session, is denounced by them as a heretic and some• thing worse, holding opinions altogether repugnant to the spirit of Conservatism. No honest man can reasonably object to any party conscientiously holding and prosecuting particular opinions, even when these opinions are at variance with his own convictions; but is it not folly to insist dogmatically on the adoption of these opinions as a sine qua non of a right to a title cf a far wider signification ? It would certainly be an edifying spectacle to see upwards of three hundred English gentlemen, repre senting more than half the electors of Great Britain and 'reload, moved by a perfect harmony and identity of sentiment. Such a party would be a self-propelling machine, and would no more require a leader of transcendent abilities to direct it than the Montagne Russe requires a steam-engine to propel it. But why is the master mind, the hard head and the strong will, singled out to lead a party if it is not in order to hold together what at first seem in congruous elements! In every party, especially in a country where free dismission and free thinking are courted and encouraged, there must be con siderable diversity of opinion. Even in the narrow sect of Methodists the legality of card playing and the morality of dancing are at this moment under discussion ! The question to be settled is what Intl tude may be allowed for differences of opinion in a party without endangering the unity of the whole. By narrowing your basis you secure the nullity of your influence; by enlarging your basis you are in danger of giving scope to the intrigues and tramifi- THE PRESS. cations of evil-intentioned or weak-minded sec tarians. This difficult problem Mr. Disraeli has, in the permanent interest of Conservatism, endeavoured to solve. He has invited all those who believe that Conservative principles are not a sham, nor things established a delusion, to unite under ons banner, and, without resigning their particular tenets, to consider them a subdivision of a great integral whole. Unless this arpeal be heartily responded to, Conservatism must continue to represent a negative quantity in the body politic, and whilst its members are engaged in controversies analogous to the " Quicolour " dispute of a certain ex royal family, it must submit to the spectacle of Conservative princi ples unwillingly and abortively carried out by their avowed opponents. One word, sir, with regard to the right hon. member for Bucks, and I have done. Sectarian Conservatives have discovered that the author of " Coningsby " is not a large landed proprietor, and they consequently pronounce him unfit to lead a party which comprises the bulk of the territorial in fluence of the country. Now, this might have been a most excellent reason for refusing to accept a man as the leader of a party, but as for rejecting him after a connection as leader which dates from Lord George Bentinck's death, it is utterly frivolous and illogical. Besides, it requires Athenian ingrati tude and Saxon stolidity combined to reject a states man whom posterity will rank with Bolingbroke on the lowest and most ignoble pretext ever advanced for furthering a political intrigue.—l am, sir, with many apologies, dtc., your obedient servant, H. BUTLHE JOHNSTONE. 24, Park straet. Grosvenor squsre, Monda3, August 25, 1856. TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS." Sir,—Without wishing to commit you to my opinions, T should wish to offer a few remarks on the present position of the Conservative party. Perhaps there has been no time at which the Conservative position has been better defined, although through a long continuance in oppositi,m it may be harder to write out and codify t: , e tnaxims on which its pre sent working is maintained than at other times. I am very far from agreeing with those who take a desponding view, as some writers of the present moment, of the prospects of the party—in fact, the present political inaction, however we may regret it, is capable of affording much hope to any one who will be content to consider the success of the princi ples which he advocates as higher and more impor tant than temporary majorities and numerical triumphs. On this account the remarks in THE PRESS of last Saturday on the connection of conser vative with national feeling seem deserving of much attention. It is beyond question that the views of even a minority, when consistently maintained through changes of circumstances, though never perhaps thoroughly victorious, can yet obtain a great influence over those who refuse entirely to submit to their authority; and such I c nceive to be the case at present. The persevering upholders of Conserva tive principles are out of office, it is true ; but in the shop, in the market, even in the mill, wherever men think, the principles themselves are, to ali intents and purposes, triumphant. Perhaps not ostensibly, but their power is not the less for that. Still, principles are best uphell by party, and party falls without a firm basis of connection. What, then, are to be the principles of Conservative union ? Or rather the . question becomes now, Are we, or are we not, to limit the standard of Conservatism to adherence on certain points of transitory interest— questions comparatively of detail, which frcm their nature are incapable of any perfect solution? Questions of theory do not demand, nor indeed do they admit, definitive settlement, except by the course of years and the gradual progress of national feeling. Practical questions, on the other hand, should never be left in abeyance. Nothing can be WONO for a country than perpetual fluctuation and indecision with regard to administrative policy. For this reason no intelligent Conservative chooses to attack any of the " Reform settlements " of the century ; for this reason Lord John Russell, if he bad preferred honour able candour to vulgar obstinacy, or wise statesman ship to extra senatorial support, would long ago have suffered the Jiro n"‘'t;on to drop to the ground ; lastly, for t..;., it is that I abjure, condemn, and reprobate the doctrine that the course of Go vernment of the country, or the political attachment of the representatives of the nation, should depend upon such a question as the endowment of Maynooth. And [perhaps the chief object of Mr. Disraeli in the SATUIIDAY, speech which he delivered at the close of the session —a speech which I consider, though many do not, a master effort of a master-mind—was to recal the at tention of his followers to the main and important principles which some seem in danger of neglecting. The fact is, that many of us are beginning to think those principles so secure that they may be over looked, to imagine the truce so lasting that they may never be called to furbish their armour anew. And along with this carelessness, and as a part of it, phrases creep into circulation among us utterly op posed to the truth. For instance—Protestantism in not the basis of Conservative policy, though the sup port of Protestant institutions (not qud Protestant, but qua Church of England) is one of the chief articles of the Conservative creed. And these Con servatives are by no means free from blame when patriotism is not strong enough to induce them to leave smaller matters in the hands of their political chiefs, and to make it their aim without prejudice or bitterness to strive for a restoration of political unity. None can regret more bitterly than I the measure of 1848, which so many Conservatives considered fall of injustice and injury to the landed interest; but if the voice of the nation decides that the settle ment shall be final, what impediment is there to Conservative union nowt It; after all the hostility and acrimony consequent upon a violent disruption of party, it be possible once more to have in Parlia ment a compact united Conservative following, will any one seriously come forward and propose more dissension, more jealousy, more internal strife, for ' the sake of a universally controverted polemical sudject, in which it may be that our religious feel ings are opposed to our sense of national honour? Let Conservatives read in a large and intelligent spirit the clearly enunciated summary of policy in Mr. Disraeli's speech, and consider whether these do not form a fit and sufficient rallying-point. There is no room for selfishness; union we must have: is not union upon these principles possible? is it not desirable? When once Conservatives have rightly decided this, they will be able to devote themselves with some chance of success to destroying the pre ! sent anomalous phase of politics. The chief requirement of a nation is that its Government shall be well carried on. Good govern ment emphatically does not consist in mere per functory execution of the routine of office, or mainte nance of civil order, or petty half measures of legis lation. It is absolutely necessary for the goou of the country that those who direct its administration be men who, while they are competent by a compre hensive appreciation of the requirements of the time at once to sympathise with and to direct its feelings, are able by holding the confidence of a majority of Parliament to act in accordance with those views, unfettered by a consciousness of weak ness. No more perftet illustration of this could be seen than the brilliant administration of Pitt, and no more painful contrast can be afforded than that of Palmerston. The first requisite has never been wanting to Conservatives, with the single exception of one short period—when they first resumed &hie after the passing of the Reform Bill: of their con sciousness of the necessity of the second, their honourable retirement in 1832 gives proof. Self respect is a great source of strength ; if it were the only one, the Palmerston Administration must fall in a week. Conservatives of the present day have no small ground of comfort to fall bark upon. They see in office men who by traditional policy are, or should be, opposed to them upon almost all the questions of modern political controversy—men who have obtained their power by means which they re gard with abhorrence, and hold it on principles which they believe to be dangerous and detrimental; but there remains the fact, sure and palpable, that the views for which they and their fathers have striven are becoming more and more, and still insen sibly, the views of Englishmen and legislators, and have crept into and are moulding to their likeness the minds of their opponents themselves. I earnestly wish that a strong Conservative Ministry was in office : but it is not in office only that the party can do its duty; its influence is less, but still is great, ID opposition. And since they are in opposition for the present, a Whig Government which is compelled to be conservative in action is better, not in moral►ty, not in precedent, but still it practice is better than a Whig Government on Whig principles. Let Con servative members of Parliament be contented to remain on the Opposition benches, if it must be so; and let them thank God that their work has not been in vain on either side of the bouse.—l am, sir, your obedient servant, E. E. B. TO THE EDITOR OF " THE rams." Sir,—As a Conservative, I regret most deeply to see the attitude which the Morning Herald has taken up with regard to the position and prospects