The Press. — London, England, 1857-09-19 00:00:00

first is what we have already stated—namely, that it is a form of Church government well suited to the inclinations of the English people ; that it is in harmony with the rest of our institutions, bound up with many of our dearest traditions, and regarded with unfeigned attachment by the aristocracy and the pea santry. This may be called the practical, social view of the question, and, in order to preserve it, the clergy must be careful not to violate any of the associations with which their order is connected. Those who support the Church from such motives are very scru pulo•is on the subject of externals. They do not like innovations of any sort. They like the Church of England to be what it has been, both in ritual, in practice, and in doctrine. They disliked the ceremonies of the Tracta rians infinitely more than the extremest Cal vinists disliked them, and they have hated the vagaries of Low Churchmen with a keener hatred than the most ultra-sacerdotalist could display. To all this class, the spectacle lately afforded by the Evangelical Alliance will be productive of the deepest disgust. Their notion of the Church is that it is something infinitely more dignified than any other form of Christianity ; that it appeals with much greater effect to the imagination, and has more power of exciting rational devotion, than the style of Nonconformist worship. To see, then, dignitaries of this Communion, the ex clusiveness of which they pay so much to maintain, abdicating their position, and nega tiving all differences between themselves and every species of heterodoxy, will be felt by the classes we have described as something like a personal injury. But there is another and a still more impor tant point of view than this. Common sense will sometimes inquire, after all, whether if this be the only good of episcopacy it is quite worth the price we pay for it. It may be worth a good deal simply on the above grounds, but not worth all it costs us now. We only say that:thia is a view very likely to occur at times to so practical a people as the English ; and if there were not another large section of Churchmen who support it from higher con siderations, we question if the party of taste, and prescription, and utility would very long hold their ground. But there is a large party, as it happens, who say, " We support episcopacy because there is something in the institution which cannot be got elsewhere. It is a boon of which we cannot afford to count the cost, any more than we can of medicine, or any other thing without which life cannot last. Episco• pacy is an apostolic institution which, if not demonstrably necessary to salvation, it is at least very dangerous to neglect ; and we cling to the Church of England, therefore, as being to our minds pretty well coextensive with Christianity." Now, our readers need not start. These opinions are not Tractarianism. They existed long before that party was heard of, and will exist long after it is forgotten It is simply the view taken by the old High Church party from the days of Queen Er.az&- BETH downwards. It was held by Dr. Joint sox and many other good English Churchmen who entertained a rooted aversion to Popery; and has, we repeat, all along been the creed of a large party who have as good a locus atandi in the Church of England as any other. What must be their feelings on perceiving clergy men of their communion consorting familiarly with sectarians it is needless to describe. Now, if we take the two classes of Churchmen we have here depicted,we shall find that together they constitute a good half, if not a majority, of the whole English Church. And we have not the smallest doubt that their feelings have been deeply wounded by the indecent and thoughtless proceedings in question. And we do maintain that no person in English orders, and receiving the money of the English Church, is justified in showing such con temptuous disregard for the sentiments of so many of her members. That Dissenters and Churchmen are all alike may be the private opinion of the Dean of CANTERBURY, but it is not the opinion of the Church of England; and we deny his right to convey that im pression to other countries by lending the sanction of his high office to such irregularities. There were once a good many, and perhaps are still some clergymen iu the Church of THE PRESS, SEPTEMBER 19,1857. England who believe there is littlo difference between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church ; but are we therefore to have a Catholic alliance in which English deans and Popish priests shall kneel down and pray together? The one would be exactly as reasonable as the other; for the Church of England is " the Holy Catholic Church " no less than a Protestant one. It is indeed her very Protestantism which now makes her catholic. And it is just as false to suppose that our Protestantism makes us all one with Dissenters as that our catholicism makes us all one with Popery. We are most unfeignedly sorry that any English clergyman should have been so ill advised as to act in this manner ; and we do hope that some of the Church authorities will take some opportunity of publicly protesting against it. THE WHIGS AND PEERAGE JOBB ERY. WITHIN the last few days a list has been published of the peerages made by the Whigs since they entered office in 1830. The " families" have certainly taken care of their own friends, and one most objectionable practice of the Whigs in connection with the granting of new titles is seen in the fact that they have repeatedly given peerages to families already ennobled. The Abercromby family had a peerage already, but after four years service as Speaker Lord DUNFERMLINE was gazetted to a Barony. It may well be asked, what did Lord DUNFERMLINE do that a second peerage should be given to his family? Mr. PONSONBY, once Member for Dorsetshire, was, in 1838, created Lord De Manley, although that family already had the Earldom of Bess borough and Barony of Ponsonby. A Viscounty was given to the late Lord PON BONBY, who was our Minister at Constanti nople, and Lord MELBOURNE got the Barony of " Beam-o.le " for his brother FREDERICK. At the coronation of her Majesty the Irish Lord LISMORE was raised to the English peerage, his special pretensions consisting in th.: facts of his near relationship to the families of Grey and Ponsonby. For the sake of political effect the Earl of MULGRAVE was made Marquis of Normanby, though it may be remarked, without offence, that the " House of Phipps " has scarcely status for that elevated rank. Graceful feelings of regard for an old personal friend of the Queen's father induced her Majesty to bestow th 3 Earldom of Leices ter on Mr. COKE ; but as we stood a short time since in the picture-gallery at Penshurst, and observed the portraits attesting the connection between that title and the Sid neys, we wished that Mr. Com'. had got some other honour We d 9 not like touching on the social rank of certain persons ennobled by the Whigs in the last quarter of a century, but after sur veying the list our readers would probably agree with us in thinking that peerages had been given to some families without due con sideration. The late Sir HENRY PARNELL was a most respectable and accomplished gentle man. In politics, he was too Radical for the Whigs and too Whiggish for the Radicals ; he was too theoretical for office, and too high spirited for a "popular leader." He wrote an excellent handbook on road-making, and he was a better specimen of the " Economists." But what (lid he ever do that he should have been raised to the peerage, while a Privy Councillorship was refused to the much. respected, but nearly-forgotten, JOSEPH HUMS ? In law peerages, the Whigs have grossly jobbed. They made Lord COTTENHAM an earl ! and this at a time when Lord LYNDHURST and Lord BROUGHAM were simple Barons, as they now are, when they have no reversion of their baronies. Lord CAMPBELL got two peerages, one for himself and another for his wife, Lady STRATHEDEN, whose father (Lord ABINGER) had previously been ennobled at " the other side "of the question." Mr. BICKERSTETH, a spe culative Republican, was made Lord LANG• DALE, and Sir THOMAS DENMAN, and Sir 'l'. WILDE, and Sir R. Roux were successively ennobled. In the five years while Lord JOHN RUSSELL was Premier, the baronies of Dartrey, Milford, Elgin. Clandeboye, Eddisbury, Lon desborough, Overstone, and Broughton, were conferred on Lord CREMORNE, Sir R. B. PHIL LIPP 3, the Earl of ELGIN, Lord DUFFERIN, Mr. E. J. STANLEY (now Lord Stanley of Alderley), Lord ALBERT CONYNOHAM, Mr. JONES LLOYD, and Sir J. C. Hoemousn ! What did Lord CREMORNE do for an English peerage ? We can understand the claims of Lord ELGIN, but what are those of Lord DUFFERIN ? Oh, he " Ibas SHERIDAN'S grandson." But SHERIDAN is vilified shamefully (and we think unjustly) by most of the Whig writers, including Lord HoLLAND, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Tom MOORE. We have nothing to say against Lord OVER STONE, who was supposed to have been an extra•financial Minister at times, and it is quite natural that Sir JOHN CAM Hounouss, the enthusiastic Radical declaimer of the Westminster hustings, should wind up with becoming a lord. "Well, Signor CAST'," said NAPOLEON I. to the witty author of " Gli Parlanti," " are you still a Democrat ?" " More than ever, Sire," answered the clever Italian, with a low bow ; " I see that great "men always begin that way." So Westmin ster tribunes graduate from Covent-garden into I the House of Lords ! Peerages ought to be conferred only after long public services, or on commoners of the highest consideration. They never should be given to special families in exclusion of others. The CAVENDISHES have three ennobled fami. lies, Devonshirz, Burlington, and Waterpark ; the PONSONBYS have three, Bessborough, Pon souby, and De Manley ; the GROSVENORS now have two, Westminster and Ebury ; and so on through a long list, in which the clannish spirit of Whiggism is abundantly shown. This subject demands attention, as there are rumours that a batch of new peers will be made next year. If Sir BENJAMIN HALL should be created a noble, where would the honour be in receiving the title of "Lord MACAULAY of Rothlcy." THE MILITIA. AND THE LINE. WE last week expressed an opinion that if the Militia continue to be regarded as a fuud from which to draw recruits for the regular army, it would be well to conduct the system on more wholesale principles. To take men one by one, or by twos and threes, from a militia regiment must inevitably retard, if not altogether prevent, its attainment of a high state of efficiency. Nor would the regular army profit so much by recruits so taken as by whole companies or regiments with con fidence in each other, and accustomed to act together. This idea has been taken up during the week by a field officer of militia, who makes the following proposal in the Times : I humbly, therefore, submit a plan by which the fifteen Line battalions can be raised before two months. Call out several of the strong militia regiments—none tinder an eight company corps. When each is recruited to any number over $OO ( the number required for a second bat - talion of ttte Line) let a circular be addressed to the com manding officer, informing him that, should his regiment be disposed to volunteer with a strength of not less than 800, they will be kept together and placed as a second bat talion in one of her Majesty's regiments of the Line; that half the number of the field officers, of the captains, and o f the subalterns will be appointed to her Majesty's regular service with their present rank, and in the same regiment with their men ; and that the adjutant will receive au in rease of 2s. per day to his pay, or a bonus of 500/. c This scheme seems feasible enough. But there is one feature in it which does not sewn quite equitable. Why should only half of the officers of the Militia accompany their men? The field officer seems to intend that of the eight militia companies of which that second battalion would consist, four should be com manded by their old captains, and four by newly appointed ones. Where is the justice, the policy, or the necessity of such a limita tion us this ? The remaining militia officers would be worse off than they were before, and have all their labour to undergo afresh. This we suppose to be his meaning from the follow ing sentence : A regiment with a second battalion seems to have told off as its strength of regimental officers six field officers, twenty captains, and forty subalterns. Surely one or two field officers, four captains (men of some wealth and county standing in those ranks), and eight subalterns would b• no monstrous or dissgreesble infusion.