The Press. — London, England, 1857-06-20 00:00:00

\ • t ut kirk ME No. 216.—V0L.V. LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 20, 1857. STAMPED ....SIXPENi . E. UNSTAMPED-FIIrEPENCF. Eke ',press. LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 20, 1857. THE malice of faction was rarely more dis tinctly seen than in the active propagation of rumours that there were schisms in the Con servative party. Because Sir JOHN PAKINOTON honourably avowed a change of views on the admission of Jews into the Legislature, it was assumed that dissensions existed amongst the representatives of the Conservative commu• nity. It is significant that these rumours have been spread abroad in a week when a favou rite measure of the Government escaped defeat in the House of Lords by the narrow majority of 5, on a division of 101 to 96, and when on a practical motion, of which long notice had been given, Ministers were beaten on the same night in the House of Commons by a majority of 10, on a division of 172 to 102 ! We must remind the circulators of such idle tales that Lord GEORGE BENTINCK was chosen Leader of the Conservatives in the Lower House, afterthe clearest declaration from that lamented statesman of his views on the question ; and the same thing can be affirmed in the case of the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for Bucks. Like the " Catholic Question," the subject of the Admission of the Jews into the Legislature has at no time been made a test of Party. Lord CASTLEREAGH and Mr. CANNING led the Tories in the Lower House from 1806 to 1826, though both were for "Emancipation"; and these eminent statesmen acted in a Cabinet of which the Premier, Lord LIVERPOOL, and the Chancellor, Lord ELnoN, were actively hostile to the claims of the Roman Catholics. So little of a party character had the Catholic question, that the Quarterly Review remained silent upon it till 1830, and never discussed its balance of arguments in any " uni-lateral sense," to use the phrase of one of the most noted of its political contributors. In spite of their differences of opinion about the Roman Catholics, the Tory party concluded the war in triumph, and preserved the due equilibrium in European States. Will any one contend that differences on a Jewish are more serious than those on a Romish ques tion ? It is, besides, an entire mistake to suppose that an absolute conformity on secondary or sectional political questions was ever required from the members of the great Conservative party. That connection was founded after the Reform Bill, and it stayed the move ment from going too far. It gave battle to the Liberals on the question of the sacredness of Church property, and it won. It assailed the Whigs on their financial blunders, and proved to the country that the Liberals were un fitted to conduct the business of the Exchequer. The whole community pronounced against them, and accepted the Income Tax in pre ference to Whig budgets. On Foreign Policy the Conservative statesmen impeached the conduct of Viscount PALMERSTON ; and the country has adopted the opinions of the Con• servatives, while the Premier, ever facile and flexible, has been compelled to modify his own. When menaced by Irish agitation, which had, from the fostering patronage of the Whigs, disturbed the empire, and insulted the majesty of the Crown, the Conservatives put the law of the land into execution and van quished O'CoNNELL. Andyet while gainingthese great Parliamentary and constitutional battles, and exhibiting an unbroken confederacy, there were several secondary questions on which the Conservative chiefs dissented from each other, such as a Municipal Reform for England and Ireland, the Universities and the Dissenters, Railway Legislation, and other subjects which we need not particularise. Such differences of opinion must always be expected amongst large political confederations composed of freemen and gentlemen. It is only in fundamental views and essen tial principles that absolute conformity can be looked for amongst all the members of a great party. The Conservatives do not object to the fair action of public opinion, once that it is clearly ascertained to be opinion, and not the senseless echo of clamour. They desire to be ruled by the ancient institutions of the realm, because they preserve the State from the rigidity of absolutism, or the extravagance of democracy. It is calumny to assert that Conservatism is opposed to social progress, or the free development of true public spirit. On all the great questions cited above the Con servatives refused to bend to ephemeral clamour, and the voice of the country pro nounced finally in favour of their prin ciples. Who now hears any Radical outcry about " Reform of the House of Lords," or removing the Bishops from the Upper House ? So, also, on the " Ballot," the Con servatives have consistently resisted that un- English mode of taking the suffrages of a free people. The Whigs. in reality, coincide in opinion with them, but only for the aid given by the Conservatives our electoral proceed ings would long since have been "America nised," and the foundations of our mixed Con stitution would have been shaken. There will, always, be some exceptional question presenting difficulties which cannot be solved by the first principles of Party. The Jewish question has all that variety of complicated interests and conflicting claims on which it might previously be anticipated that there would be differences of opinion between members of the Conservative party. To expect unanimity of view upon such a subject would be impossible. There are many " Liberals " in the country who do not coincide with Lord JOHN RUSSELL upon it; and, exclu sively of all political sentiments, there is un doubtedly much variety of feeling on the ques tion, and even a great portion of apathy in the community at large. ECONOMICAL REFORM. THE saying of Madame ROLAND at her execu tion might fairly be parodied after hearing a debate on the Miscellaneous Estimates, and observing the way in which Liberal Members conduct themselves. " Oh ! Economy," it could be said, " how many jobs are committed " in thy name !" If the Opposition take exception to the increase of expenditure, if Lords ELLEN BOROUGH and MALDIESBIna succeed in direct ing the attention of influential classes to official extravagance, what could a professional " Economist," seeking to palliate the "jobbery of Liberalism," do to avert Parliamentary wrath ? He would do exactly what Mr. WiLsox has done. He would read a solemn lecture to " the House," throwing the respon sibility of " the frightful increase " on the six hundred and fifty representatives of the people. This is the old Whig system of de clining official responsibility. When they have mismanaged matters they always fall back on " opinion," and when Mr. WILSON recently told the House of Commons " that " the House had frequently exercised a pros " sure upon the Government against the " opinion of the Government," the Honour able Gentleman was unconsciously describing the vacillation and the halting between two opinions which strikingly mark the conduct of Whig politicians whenever they attempt to deal with practical affairs. It was really ludicrous to listen to the Honourable Gentleman delivering a pedagogic warning to the members of the House of Commons. "If honourable members wished " to promote economy, it was above all things " necessary to look with a jealous eye at every " proposition, from whatever quarter it might " come, for removing local expenditure and " placing it on the Consolidated Fund." And what has the Honourable Gentleman to say about the " constabulary of Ireland," which stands at the sum of 639,100/. for the year 1856 ? We have been told that Ireland is so peaceable that the Viceregal system should be abolished, and we have heard panegyrics on what "Liberal Government" has done in Ireland. If there were foundations for those panegyrics, why is there not considerable re duction in the amount charged to " Miscella neous Estimates " for the local police ? One would think that official ingenuity might see that in this direction there was vast room for vigorous retrenchment. But the whole blame, it is absurdly contended, must be cast upon " the House." Nobody, forsooth, was in fault. If the ship strikes upon a rock, is all responsibility to be cast upon the crew, and is the pilot, with the helm in his hand, and a chart in the cabin, to bear no censure ? The Liberals since 1830 have had twenty years' tenure of office against some seven scattered years of Conservative power; and we insist upon it that the attempt to cast the blame upon " the House " is unjust. We must remind Mr. WILSON that if " the House " is to bear the blame for the faults of weak and squeezable Ministries, " the House," by the same rule, must receive all the praise for various measures which some of Mr. Witsorr's friends now arrogate to themselves. Upon this point we must contrast a passage from BURKE'S " Letter to a Noble Lord " with the degenerate views of Government advocated by Mr. Wir.soN:— Economy demands a discriminating judgment, and a firm, sagacious mind. It shuts one door to impudent importunity, only to open another, and a wider, to real merit. It is a distributive virtue, and consists not so much in saving as in selection. Where and when have Mr. WILSON'S friends in office shown the " firm. sagacity," " the dis crimination," the resistance to "impudent importunity," described by Boom ? " Eco nomy" was one of the four watchwords of Earl GREY in 1830 ; if that Whig Peer could revisit the scenes in which he acted a distin guished part, what amazement the N@ o r of the Whigs would feel at 01 Aix of._ pp y.,P.t)ps, • nb'