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

818 recent criticism on Mr. DOUBLEDAY'S life of that deceased statesman, we entered at length into our opinions of the causes which unquestionably detract from his posthumous rer u talon. Most preposterous, therefore, is it for the Herald to accuse us of " being a new defender " of Sir R. PEEL," or of being *dined to "de " fend, extol, and maintain his policy." ,Sueh a coarse style of random assertion is dis claimed by all respectable journalists. The Herald originally gave the statement of what Sir R. PEEL was reported to have said without any qualification, and then on last Monday the same journal is compelled to print Sir ROBERT PEEL'S positive repudiation of the lan guage attributed to him by the Herald! Our contemporary then writes, " But, " perhaps, a reference to the living may " answer nearly as well," and in support of the assertion that the Conservative Opposition to the Melbourne Whigs was exclusively Protes• taut (irrespectively of protection, foreign and colonial policy, finance, &c.), it recommends us to study the bitter speeches of Sir JAMES GRAHAM in 1838, 1839, and 1840. Those speeches would prove nothing on the question, except that Sir JAMES GRAHAM was a profi cient in stinging rhetoric and galling sar casm, after he had due time for their elabora tion. We never looked upon Sir JAMES GRAHAM as a ruling chief in any of the many connections which he has joined. But, even supposing that he was to be held as an autho rity for the principles of the Conservatives in 1838, 1839, and 1840, will our contemporary produce any speech of Sir James Graham assail. isg Maynooth _ . Observe the facts. A discussion has arisen whether "Maynooth " was ever the test for Conservatism? We say that it never was, and we refer to the speeches and principles of the Conservative chiefs since the party was con solidated. "Oh ! Look to the speeches of " Sir bans GRAHAM in 1838, 1839, and 1840," cries the Herald. We do look to them, and they confirm our position that Maynooth was not a test for Conservative Protestantism. Its own witness refutes the Morning Herald. One word more. A cry is now raised against the present chiefs of Opposition, because they do not endorse an agitation against Maynooth. Yet the parties who raise that cry were con tent to follow Lord GEORGE BENTINCK, who, so far from wishing to revoke the grant to Maynooth, was actually in favour of endow i:tg the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, though he steadily contended against any inroad on the property of the Established Church. If, therefore, the question be made one of " con sistency," let our opponents reflect on " the " history of their own times," and be more careful in hazarding charges whose investiga tion must lead to their own discomfiture. It is deeply painful to us to enter upon such controversies. So much we have written in our own vindication, and we counsel our con• temporaries to look more to the consolidation of our common party than to points of dif. ference. Iu that work they may rely on our hearty co-operation and friendly zeal. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE CONSERVATIVES. THAT a thief or a burglar should seek to per suade the public that policemen are unneces sary in the streets of London, and bolts and bars a superfluous precaution, on the ground that crimes against property are no longer to be apprehended, would surprise noboly. But that the public should suffer themselves to be imposed upon by so transparent a device would indeed be astonishing. Yet such is the tone adopted by certain of our Liberal con temporaries towards the Conservative party. They ignore with enviable effrontery the suc cessful resistance offered by the Conservatives during the past session to their attacks on the Constitution and the rights of property, and then exclaim, in tones of innocent perplexity, that the Conservatives have no policy, and are -2we wail, worn out. No man thinks that THE PRESS. good policy which thwarts his own schemes; and so far the language we refer to is both in t( lligible and allowable. But when the same p riot's go on to elptracterise the professions of Conservatives oa questions of future im portance Ns " vague and insincere general tei," it Leo wiles our duty to our supporters to offer a practical contradiction to such wanton falsehoods Time only can test the sincerity of stittoinSats which time only can realise. But it is iji the power of every man to show that his aims are neither vague nor general, but, on the contrary, definite and par ticular. In our remarks last week on the attitude of the Conservative party we alluded to their future policy in regard to the Church of Eng land as calculated to command the support of all true friends of our ecclesiastical institu tions. It is clear that various Church ques tions are gradually rising to the surface of public affairs. Church rates, education, and episcopal property are three subjects which have lately engrossed a considerable share of popular attention. " The Church," in fact, is rapidly becoming one of the questions of the day ; and we invite the calm consideration of the English clergy to this one point. Under whose auspices is this question likely to re ceive the most satisfactory solution—the Con servatives or the Liberals ? Every little sec tion of the Church cannot expect to choose its own Cabinet. In whose favour can they all combine with the greatest chance of satisfying the greatest number, and without danger of becoming the unintentional abettors of a policy thoroughly uncongenial with their own principles and traditions? In the question here proposed there is no want of clearness. Its limits are well defined, and its aim per fectly apparent. It is a circumstance redounding greatly to the credit of the English Church, that she has always maintained her professional spirit in subservience to her patriotism. Some excep tions to this statement might possibly be dis covered, but we think it must be conceded that as a rule she has displayed in her con duct towards the State a peculiarly moderate and national spirit. In the two great emer gencies of the Reformation and Revolution, this side of her character was especially con spieuous. Had she chosen to make a stand against either HENRY VIII. or WILLIAM 111., foreign aid would not have been wanting; and in the latter case, had she been bent alone upon hierarchical aggrandisement, she must have seen that, notwithstanding the menace of Popery, her interests were involved in the maintenance of the Stuart dynasty. But on each occasion considerations of national wel fare prevailed over ecclesiastical ambition and sectarian prejudice, and her clergy earned a permanent title to the gratitude and respect of the people. Our reason for dwelling upon these parti culars, which might at first sight appear some what irrelevant, is this—that the clergy may he brought to remember that they in great measure owe their present high position in this country to the temperate and manly con duct which they have usually displayed in civil affairs ; to the fact that they have never, as a body, allowed theological prejudice to interfere with their duty to their Sovereign, or to weaken the sense of responsibility which their vast political and social influence natu rally entails. We believe they have generally made a conscientious use of this influence ; and have sought to discover in what way they could best contribute towards the stability of our institutions, without giving more than a secondary consideration to the furtherance of particular tenets. But we do not shut our eyes to the fact that the same cordiality does not at present exist between the Church and the Tories as existed but a few years ago, and as we hope is soon to be restored. What causes of coldness have come between these ancient friends, what " graceless zealots" have been, and are, teach ing them to fight, we shall consider, perhaps, on a subsequent occasion. At present, we do but reiterate our question. Whitt party in the State is, as a whole, the moat likely to give effect to sound Church principles ? Particular SATURDAY, sets of Churchmen may have taken a dislike to particular Conservative statesmen; and there may be individusla in the Liberal ranks even better atfeets,l towards the Church than individuals in the Conservative tanks. But on Witch party mut the Church rely i n t h e hour of danger? Which cf them will oppose a bald mad united front 40 those who would rob her both of hor plisperty and her pri vileges ? Which fa 4etri is most truly con genial with her own spirit? Let the clergy honestly ask themselves this question, and we have no diffidence as to the reply. The Church of England is peculiarly a Con servative body. Her fundamental principles are identical with those of Conservatism. Her differentia is the union of dogmatic teaching with the free exercise of private judgment, and the differentia of the English Constitution, as now existing, is the maintenance of order and authority with the fullest individual free dom. We hear religionists of a certain school declaiming against all dogmatic teaching, and politicians of a certain school declaiming against the graduation of orders in society. All such persons are certain to be found in the ranks of that party to which Lord DERBY and his supporters are opposed, to which, in its better days, that Noble Lord himself once belonged, and which he quitted precisely be cause he would not consent to tamper withthe Irish branch of the Imperial Church. We strongly advise Churchmen to forget for a while their internal dissensions, and to ponder well upon the future prospects of the Church of England. From which quarter of the political horizon do the dangers which menace her arise ? Dangers, not threatening to any particular doctrine, but to the very existence of the Church herself, and fraught with solicitude to men of all shades of opinion within her pale. The Church has ere now allied herself with Dissent to resist the danger to their common Protestantism—can not she now hush the disputes of her own members to resist the danger to their common Churchmanship ? Could the Church once bring herself to gaze with unprejudiced eyes on the state of political parties, she would not be long in recognising which was her natural ally—an ally which, if not able to acccomplish all that she hopes, is still able to prevent the accomplishment of much which she fears, and to maintain her in as high a position as her most judicious friends could at present desire. One more truth remains to be enforced, — which is, that if the clergy shall acknowledge the superiority of the Conservative party to be generally better for the interests of the Church than that of their opponents, it be hoves them to put their hand to the plough and not to look back. If we once make up our minds that one course of conduct is better than another, we do not pursue it less vigor ously because the exact difference between that and some other plan we have rejected may still be a matter of dispute. It is foolish for the clergy to say, "Oh yes, the Conner " vatives are the best, but I don't like this " man," or, " I won't support that." When they have once decided which party is, by the general tenor of its policy as well as by its traditions and antecedents, most likely to benefit the cause they have at heart, all minor objections, and all personal prejudices, ought at once to be discarded. THE DICTATOR OF THE DAILY PRESS. WE are surprised that Mr. Lofty, who con descends to favour the public with his notions through a certain newspaper—we adopt his own allusive style of reference—should occupy his space (which he takes care to inform the public is of immense value) with matters of no greater importance than a vestry squabble or a parish pump. Mr. Lofty should be above such trivial subjects altogether. What are our domestic politics to him? Has he not to lecture " King BOMBA," as he calls the Sovereign of the Two Sicilies, and to give President PlEacE a shaking, now and then?