The Press. — London, England, 1856-09-27 00:00:00

914 this, or in some other, manner an independent opposition is always easily manageable. When NAPOLEON declared, as the result of his expel knee, that every man had his price, he did not imply that every man was corrupt, but that, in dealing with individuals, every man had some special object et heart, and that, by conceding the object, which might be honest and laudable in itself, you gained the man. A Minister cannot now secure the votes of members by inviting them to a banquet and by having a 1001. note folded within each napkin. The mode of influence has changed, but the motive to corruption on one side, and the liability to temptation on the other, sub sist under PALMERSTON as strongly as under WALPOLE. This is what the " independent " members themselves declare. In these times, when Centralisation is making rapid advances, and must, in spite of the warnings of political seem, advance fur ther still—when the power and patronage of the Government have risen to such a height as to bring very large and influential classes completely under its influence—can we expect that any effectual check will be imposed on it by independent opinion either in Parliament or in the Press ? It is to Party alone that can be trusted the duty of scrutinising the acts of Administration, of watching its policy, of exposing its errors. Unless the Party in Opposition is bound together by the honourable ties of political connection—unless its members repudiate with the indignation of high and honourable minds all attempts to separate them—unless they are above the sordid meanness of making terms for themselves or their friends with the Government—unless they have the noble spirit which binds them for good or ill to the banners un dor which they have enlisted, no opposition to a Government possessed of such immense and continually increasing administrative patron age as the British Government of this day is practicable. One political connection will be come rooted in the country too firmly to be overthrown. It will triumph over the Sovereign, and scoff at the independent opinion which it knows so easily how to manage. It will employ corruption as the easiest agency of Govern ment, and " make things pleasant" by under mining the foundations of public liberty. From the representatives of purely popular constituencies we expect no resistance to a system which they must think works ad mirably. But there is a class in this country which in all stages of our history has proved itself incorruptible. That class is the English Gentry. If the tendency of our day towards what may be termed governmental autocracy is ever to be successfully opposed, it must be by their aid. The Reform Bill has diminished but it has not destroyed their influence. Their spirit is indomitable. It was checked under the despotism of CROMWELL, but Freedom abode by their hearths waiting for happier times. It was kept down by the long reign of the Whigs on the accession of the house of Hanover; but it woke to overthrow a system which, from its sordid and exclusive sway, had become intolerable. And it is to the same spirit that we look now to maintain the genuine healthy principles of Party and to join in manly opposition to the servile in fluences which, but for such a check, will sap the great principles of the English Constitu tion, by establishing the ascendancy of a single political connection over Throne and Parlia ment, the Press and the People. SIR JAMES GRAHAM AFTER DINNER. WE have been much amused at the way in which Sir JAMES GRAHAM this week has illus trated the points of his most peculiar character. His speech at the agricultural dinner in the north wns, like all his orations, carefully pre pared, and yet maladroit in its matter. A shrewd brother baronet, and near neighbour, Sir I. (?) MAXWELL, seems to have previously " poked some fun" at makers of " cut and dry speeches," for Sir JAMES, on rising, adopted the hint, and professed to be ready to speak extemporaneously. But, though we recollect Sir JAMES GRAHAM for many years, we never beard him address any audience without careful preparation The impromptu fait a THE PRESS. loisir is the kind of rejoinder in which he excels ; and it is a strange thing that he so often says something awkward, since he is always so stddiously deliberate in his prepa rations. He showed to hia brother agriculturalists, as he has often done in the House of Com mons, that the ars odare artem is not amongst. his many elaborate accomplishments as a speaker. A more natural orator, and one more capable of speaking extempore, would have carefully avoided " Montesquieu," after the solemn asseveration that he would eschew the " cut and dry." But, though Mr. Lofty told the world on Thursday that " MONTESQUIEU is nearly a forgotten writer (!j,' Sir JAMES GRAHAM could not find it in his heart to " cut " the author of the " Spirit of Laws," though, in the art of " cutting,' the annals of Patrlia mentt show that Sir JAMES GRAHAM has had few superiors. Accordingly, he brought out before his brother squires and agriculturalists the quotation which he had so carefully " potted" from MONTESQUIEU. The text-writers on politics—as his speeches and writings on " Corn and Currency " testify—have long been carefully studied by Sir JAMES GRAHAM ; but he does not apply their principles with much skill. For example, a statesman of his experience ought to have known that MONTESQUIEU, though a brilliant author, was not a compe tent judge about the reasons which developed English agriculture, and that attributing to " freedom" its principal source was an exalt geration. MONTESQUIEU was an " Anglo maniac," and he was a propagandist of liberal views in Government, but he had not attended much to " sociology." He was, beyond doubt, what Boaxs called him--" a genius with a " penetrating aquiline eye ;" but he was too much of a system-monger. The practical character of the English people had more to do with the superior agriculture of England than " freedom ;" and its climate, as the poli tical economists acknowledge, was peculiarly suited for raising farm stock of every descrip tion, from draft horses down to barn-door fowls. MorrEscaumu was a most awkward instance for Sir JAMES GRAHAM to have chosen for the display of his study of political authors. For example, Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, with ill dissembled complacency, that "he contem " plated with vast satisfaction the various " measures of his political life." We shall not discuss those measures; but does Sir JAMES GRAHAM recollect what MowirEseuixo wrote about the animating principles of Dupotisms, Republics, and Monarchies? " Fear is the " principle of a Despotism, Virtue of a " Republic, and Honour in a Monarchy." Now, was the way in which those measures alluded to by Sir J. GRAHAM were brought about always reconcileable with " the honour " of the advisers of the Crown? Catholic Emancipa tion and Free Trade were both carried in a style calculated to shock the traditionary notions of "honour" common to the gentle men of England. We recollect how, in 1846, Sir JAMES GRAHAM affected to regret the manner in which Free Trade was conceded, and how he admitted that the mode of passing it would weaken confidence in public men His own speeches about " the dismal sound of " the factory bell," seemed to read like cross readings with his bitter " know-the-reason why " harangues. The people of England, whatever flippant persons may assert to the contrary, are not satisfied with results merely. They like to have them reached in a way com patible with "honour." In that respect, at least, they illustrate the remarks of MONTES QUIEU. It is rather late also for Sir JAMES GRAHAM to have commenced the study of MONTES QUIEU. It is a pity that, when the case of the Bundler° Brothers was pending, Sir JAMES GRAHAM did not quote " Montesquieu " on "freedom," for the benefit of Lord ABER DEEN and the Post•office authorities. " Cheer " old ELDON—for he never ratted," cried the mob at Oxford, as Mr. EMERSON records. Our democracy does " honour " to the animating principle of " Monarchy," but the report of the proceedings at the Carlisle agricultural dinner states that Sir JAMES GRAHAM, " without wait " ing for a single cheer," rose to speak. We SATURDAY, should like to "know thu reason why" ho rosc so fast. It is plain that the postprandial is not the school of eloquence in which one of Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S heavy, though undeniable abilities, is suited to excel. lie was not more success ful amongst his neghbours than at the Reform Club dinner to Sir C. NAPIER. Let him leave after-dinner speeches to geniuses like Ser geant MURPHY. ROMAN CATHOLIC ENCROACHMENTS. THAT considerable uneasiness exists at the present time about the progressing influence of the Roman Catholic interest in this empire, cannot be denied by any one acquainted with English society. Nor can it be gainsaid, in presence of facts to which we shall direct at tention, that there are abundant grounds for being dissatisfied with the disproportionate official patronage bestowed on the Roman Ca tholics by the party now in power. The sub ject is one which can be illustrated without polemical acrimony, and we shall introduce no elements of bitterness into its discussion. Firmly convinced of its great social and con stitutional importance, we approach it without the least animosity towards the Roman Catho lic community. That in consequence of the appointments made by the Government the Roman Catholic influence has vastly increased in Ireland, will scarcely be denied even by Roman Catholic partisans This onesided exercise of patron age is obviously of far greater importance than the question of Maynooth ; and one of the practical objections against the Maynooth agi tation is that it takes attention away from a far more serious aspect of Roman Catholic in fluence. Let us endeavour to rectify this injurious dispersion of the strength of Pro testant public opinion, and concentrate it on a subject which has not received sufficient notice from the English people. - . - . About the principle on which Roman Catholics should be admitted to the honours and advantages of office there ought to be no dispute. We fully acknowledge that by the Relief Act of 1829 Roman Catholics are entitled to an amount of patronage proportioned to their normal circumstances of talent, social position, and personal aptitude. But it is no special merit to be a Roman Catholic. Because a man goes to mass, and reverences priestly authority, he is not therefore, as some per sons suppose, a superior person to his Protes tant competitor for any office ; and yet, after looking at the prodigious official influence granted to the Roman Catholics, and after contrasting the limited number of their Peers and gentry with the social station of Protestants, it would really appear as if there was a settled policy in certain quarters to undermine the Protestant interest in Ireland, and swamp it under Roman Catholic ascendancy. It is no secret that the Roman Catholics boast that their creed is " the rising political religion "in Ireland." They say that if a man be a Roman Catholic, and a moderate one, he will probably be promoted by the Conservatives (if in office) to show that they are not intolerant; but that, whether moderate or violent, whether he be a gentleman or an agitator, he is certain to be supported and encouraged by the Liberals. The late Chief Baron WouLvE (an eminent Roman Catholic) has supplied us with a prac• tical rule for measuring the disproportionate influence given by the Liberals to Roman Catholics. Whea the Conservatives objected to municipal corporations in the great towns of Ireland as tending to place Protestant pro perty under the dominion of a Romanist majority—" Not so," said Mr. WOULFE iu Par liament ; " the influence will be in a propor " tion compounded from the ratios which the " superior property, position, and education of " the Protestants bear to the Catholics." So it ought to have been; but when the system was tried it was found that the Roman Catholics were as exclusive as the old condemned Pro testant ascendancy of the last century. The consequence was, that a new division of the municipal wards in Dublin and the provincial towns was made by Act of Parliament, so as to insure something like fair play to Protestant influence and property. i'il