The Press. — London, England, 1856-02-16 00:00:00

146 statetman nor an orator. At the Australian Bar he was not in anywise distinguished, and the most singular thing about this gentleman is, that the colonists who were well acquainted with him are likewise in perfect amazement at his elevation. We shall not discuss *hit we have heard from Australians about the feats of Mr. LOWE, when he attempted to pliti the part of a colonial Lyeurgtui. But, serving his audacious conduct on the Partnership Amendment Bill, we are entitled to caution our readers against the puffing arts by which it is sought to beguile the public into the notion that Mr. LOWE is en dowed with great abilities. We heari Mr LOWE'S first and only successful speech in the House of Commons The subject was an easy one. But he had a new voice, his manner was bold and unabashed, and, on that one occasion, he pro duced something of oratorical effect. Many times since he has endeavoured to do it again, but has failed. He has shown that his range is limited—that he is sharp, not deep ; acute, not originative. His diction is bald and meagre. When attacked he loses self-posses sion, and he has never succeeded in reply. On some occasions Mr. LOWE notoriously broke down in the estimation even of his political friends ; and at the weapon of sar casm, being both coarse and clumsy, he has failed after• efforts to be severe. Now, the sudden rise to high office of such a man, without lofty eloquence, or brilliant accomplishments, or long services, appears all the more extraordinary when we observe that his elevation in the world is accompanied by a systematic resolve in certain quarters to advertise him incessantly. Just after Mr. LOWE had introduced in his own name, the measure of Mr. CAIRNS, the " City article " of a contemporary came out with a flaming specimen of the " puff oblique," on behalf of Mr. LOWE. Thus, on Wednesday, February 6th, there is some mention made of the " General Iron Screw Collier Company," and occasion was at once taken to sound the hornf or Mr. Lows. Then again, in the " City ar ticle" of February the I Ith,a special paragraph is inserted, announcing that " the speech de " livered by Mr. LOWE " (with an etcetera too long to reprint). " has been published by Mr. " RieowAY, of Piccadilly," The mention of Mr. RIDGWAY'S local habitation was, like the paragraph, rather superfluous, but it rounded the complimentary allusion, and gave addi tional impo:•tance to the " puff direct." If every speech printed by Mr. RIDOWAY, "in a pamphlet form," is to be noticed in the " City article," that gentleman's place of business will be well advertised before the session is over. Bit it was not for the publisher, but for the Privy Councillor, that the notice was intended. Again, on the 12th of February, we are treated in the "City article" to a choice speci men of the "puff collateral," all again in the same direction. It occurs under an allusion to the " Peel River, Land, and Mineral Com pany." It is stated, " The Company have not "at present been brought under limited liabi lity because, &c., &c." And then it is adroitly mentioned, " but if Mr. LOWE'S new measure (!) "is brought into operation, advantage will at "once be taken of its provisions." Now, really this is a little too bad. Such blowing of the horn for Mr. LOWE is out rageous. There is no necessity for deafening " the City " with his name. If he must see himself in print, let him take an advertising van, or let him buy a space of a second-class railway carriage (placards are not allowed in the " first class," which often causes unpleasant " mistakes ") ; but we should really, for his own sake, wish that " the City article " was not quite so much at the service of the Right Honourable Vice-President of the Board of Trade. Such conduct only brings in ques tion the public reputation of the Member for Kidderminster, besides depreciating consider ably the value of any statements in the " City artic!e." Let panegyrists Write as they choose, it is false to assert that the Partnership Amendment Bill is a " new" measure, or that it is " Mr. Lowis" at all. With the exception , THE PRESS. of the words, " not being the trade of a banker," the Bill is the same as the amendments which Mr. CAIRNS introduced last session, when Mr. LOWE voted against him ! Mr. CAIRNS ,inade that assertion once, Mice, and thrice, to All'. LOWE'S face in the House of COMmooi and the House cheered Mr. OAIRSB again aft again. The three leadifig provillions of the artnership AmendmOt Bill be idetticalq e same as those of the proMised Act of last year. 1. On the adiiiike of capital or money, the provisions and phraseology of Mt'. LOWE'S " new " measure belong to the Mefiaber for Belfast. 2. On non responsibility in certain specified cases of con tract for remuneration of servants or agents, the provisions and phraseology of the clause are not Mr. Lowe's, but those of Mr. CAIRNS. 3. On the question of construction, the provi sion of Mr. CAIRNS is that followed by Mr. LowE. Yet this, forsooth, is the " new measure" expatiated on by Mr. LOWE, and systematically advertised in " the City article." . . But we shall not mike it a question between Mr. CAIRNS and Mr. LOWE. There are other authorities which we can appeal to on this subj e ct. 1. Mr. THOMAS BARING, the member for Huntingdon, an impartial witness, stated, " This bill" (Mr Lowe's nominal one) " was a " complete contradiction to that of last year, and " Government could not be right obout both ;" and to that observation Mr. LOWE said— nothing. 2. In the same debate (Feb. 8) Mr. CARD.. WELL'S exertions on this question of partner ship liability were gracefully referred to by Mr CAIRNS; but Mr. CARDWELL, though merit ing what Mr. CAIRNS said, rose, and, in the tone of a gentleman, remar zed, " He did not " wish to remain silent, because he might have " obtained a credit in this matter which he did " not deserve ;" and he then gave the history of the whole question from the session of 1850-51, and to that statement Mr. LOWE said— nothing. There is a subtle sneer in the irony of Mr. CARDWELL'S " lie might have obtained a " credit in this matter which he did not " deserve " that would have touched a less sensitive person than the Right Honourable ROBERT LOWE. But what can be expected from a gentleman who, after the speeches of Mr. CAIRNS, Mr. THOMAS BARING, Mr. CARDWELL, could find assurance to thank the House for the very kind way in which his measure had been received ? The complacency of some people seems to spring, not from the exaggerations of vanity, but from callousness to reproof. Mr. LOWE appears to be of their number. LIFE PEERAGES. THE situation in which the new Lord WENS LEYDALE is placed by the resolve of the Go vernment to try, in his case, the extent to which the prerogative may be stretched, is peculiar and embarrassing. If he claims to take his seat in virtue of the writ of summons, his peerage becomes at once, according to im memorial custom, an hereditary one ; while, on the other hand, if he claims in virtue of the patent, the validitj of his claim is con fessedly within the cognisance of the body which he seeks to enter. We most sincerely hope, therefore, that when he does make his appearance at their Lordships' bar, it will be in the character of an hereditary peer. It cannot, we are sure, be the wish of her Majesty to provoke a collision with the House of Lords. Since her accession to the Crown she has avoided with remarkable tact any appearance of a hostile attitude towards either branch ~of the Legislature ; and to assume it for the first time on a question, to say the least of it, of an extremely doubtful character, would be as ill-advised as unnecessary. A Declaratory Bill %% ould have allowed a full discussion of the subject, and in cases where the prerogative is doubtful such is the course which common sense and precedent would both seem to indicate. IVe have been taunted, as Tories, with questioning the Royal Prerogative. But what, in the present day, does the prerogative ■ SATURDAY, of the prerogative is the measure of Minis terial mean ? As Lord DERBY well said, the e tht i l ie. o ec t s t t of irresponsibility. Impeachment is obs t f o h b n a ei responsible i b t ig h l i lete ; and if a Mitt stet can shelter himself htb to account t h t t i e n ,n y d t o h nb e gef eo p ria. r sba e d r ew i 0 0l ou t! i i n i ts T o g i e d ' r i tl i the 1 od t use i l sorb u 13r disougthp ii! it # o sudden invention of the bvernitlefit tb itiget a p • articular emer getig. It wag iii Fibffitemplation at least a tar tk,as 1851. It is therefore a deliberate s eoe c t?v a n i l e l ca e and and well-considered scheme. But in • 1851 the distinguished Judge to whom a life peerage was offered was compelled to decline it by the unanimous disapproval of the Bench. What could have been the reason of this hostility . ' The Judges have no special interest in the here ditary character of the House of Lords. The innovation would have primarily benefited themselves. Must they not have believed they foresaw a wide inroad on the Constitu tion? a most pernicious facility for invading the independence of that House on the inde pendence of which the stability of our other institutions so intimately depends? In point of fact, the change effected by life peerages in the House of Lords would be greater than that effected by the Reform Bill in the House of Commons. For, while the principle of representation on which the latter is founded was in that case confirmed, the principle of hereditary descent, which is the basis of the former, is in the present case directly attacked. It is to be observed, that none of those journals which support the principle of life peerages have as yet attempted to grapple with the most formidable objections they pre sent. They ride off exultingly upon two arguments—one the necessity of more law Lords, the other the unseemly spectacle presented by the impoverished descendants of hereditary law Lords. But of the danger to the independence of the House of Peers, and the wound inflicted upon its original character, they say not a word. To contend that the danger is fanciful, and therefore not worth discussion, is but confessing an unit willingness to look consequences in the face. Life Peers would never have the same interests as feudal and hereditary Peers, or share in their conservative traditions. And, if we con sider on the one hand the rapidity with which hereditary families become extinct, and the natural inclination there would be to create many men life Peers who are now made here ditary, it is surely no ungrounded alarm to anticipate the day when the latter might form a decided minority. The possibility of any more open invasion of their Lordships' rights is one to which the public is loath to listen ; yet that which was done in the last century, and nearly done in the present, can hardly be considered impossible now, should the path to it be ren dered more easy. Is the existence of a Govern ment strong in numerical support, but weak in Parliamentary talent, wholly improba ble? But what more natural than that such a Government should endeavour to repair its native defects by the assistance of mercenarie s' What more obvious than that under the proposed system it would be an, easy t hi n g to carry out such a design in the Lords which would be difficult in the Commons ? Men whom the constituencies would reject as re presentatives might be forced as life Peers upon the Lords—adventurers, whom necessity had made bold and debating clubs fluent, the Swiss of the peerage, who would be at the beck and call of their patron alone—an/us addict& jurare in verbs magistri—and only too glad to overbear the sentiments of the constitut ional nobility. One word in conclusion to those who assert that the peerage is " the creature of the Crown." Is this true in any sense bearing on the present inquiry? Separately, no doubt , the Peers are indebted for their titles to the favour of the Sovereign. Yet, considered in the aggregate, we doubt if it is not truer to say that the Crown was created by the peer age, than the peerage by the Crown 13arons —or what answer to such—existed bel"l' kings ; and we might as well say the Church the creation of the Crown, because ; the Crown nominates bishops, as that th e ay's-