The Press. — London, England, 1856-08-02 00:00:00

I 722 tone, and what influenced the decision of the Cabinet, but the firm attitude of the Conser vative party? The Liberal party—ter it is a party still— are content to point to their possession of place as a decisive ONO!' of their Iliponenis' weakness. But it cannot be denied that they retain place only by submitting to Conserva tive dictation, and bj , dropping the ati tinctive characteristics of Liberal policy. The Premier himself declares that he is a Con servative, but a Conservative at the head of a Liberal connection He sit) s to the Opposition — You shall enjoy your principles under my administration, but Shall have neither place nor patronage ; and to the Liberal party—You shall enjoy place and patronage, but you must net pretend to principles. This division of office from power, and of place from principle, is not new in our political history. It has often occurred before, but it has never lasted long. Sir ROBERT PEEL twice tried the experiment of ruling on Liberal principles by a Conservative majority, and signally failed. We venture to predict that Lord PALMERSTON will not be more suc cessful in attempting to govern on Conserva tive principles by a Liberal majority. Parties may, in certain political conjunc tures, be extremely confused, without being extinct or even materially weakened. Such is the case at this moment. The lines which separate the great natural boundaries apolitical opinion are not effaced. In every free country there always has been, and always must be, two great parties—•the one desirous to upheld and strengthen established institutions ; the other seeking to change them, even to their overthrow. A distinctioli which subsists in the nature of man and the constitution of society is not to be effaced by the juggles of placemen or the declamation of journalists. THE MAYNOOTH AGITATION. WE have reason to feel flattered at the atten tion which our remarks on the May nooth agitation have received. It is true that our views have been roughly assailed by journals which still hold the principle of Protestant ascendancy ; but we desire nothing inure than that the question at issue shall be fairly argued. If we do not reply individually to the contempo►aries who have done us the honour to comment on our articles, it is because the space at our disposal will not allow us to do so, and because also we think the subject can be most advantageously discussed by a broader style of treatment than such a method would allow of. On the present occasion we propose to direct attention to the practical aspect of this embarrassing question. Those persons who are agitating for a repeal of the existing statute endowing the College of Maynooth, are bound to state frankly what their intentions are. Do they merely desire to reduce that institution to the state in which it existed prior to the Maynooth Bill of 1845 ? Or do they desire the entire abolition of all assistance by the State towards the education of the Roman Catholic priesthood ? If the former, they would but restore the question to that most unsatisfactory state of annual agita tion which it was the main object of Sir ROBERT PEELS Bill to terminate. If the latter, the important question will be raised whether the Act of Union would not be vio lated by the withdrawal of that endowment, which was founded by the Irish Parliament in 1795. By merely reducing the amount of the endowment, no principle would be gained ; by abolishing the endowment altogether, a grant which has subsisted fur sixty years— which became ehargeable on the national revenue by the Act of Union—and which has been sanctioned by every Ministry of the 11 THE PRESS. Imperial Parliament since. would be violently extinguished. Does any person suppose that the change could take place without reviving in Irela d the itrodOotreligious animositie4? and /s like! that litly Government. wodid delibe " ly se hbodk the work of once Mere i makin rebut . ilia "great difficulty " which it pro . in pit* yeali Sttflitlsing ItiOftdditi entirely abolis'hett would the agitattieri bf the Spoonerites end there ? To he consistbfit they must go further. They must agitate for a repeal of the allow- ance to Roman Catholic chaplains for the arthy. Tlibt would be delicate ground ; but the men who would instigate a revival of the Repeal agitation would not be likely to shrink frc m the prospect of provoking a mutiny in the army. Certainly if the Spoonerites succeeded thus far, they would be encouraged to proceed. The Roman Relief Bill is not so old by thirty five years as the endowment to Maynooth. If the Roman Catholic priesthood are rightly de • scribed as " teachers of treason," and the " polluters of our towns and counties," it must needs be intolerable that they should exercise such an influence in our Legislature as they actually do by means of Roman Ca tholic representatives. The Spoonerites must certailly consider it a much greater grievance that Roman Catholics should have an influen tial voice in making the laws which govern them, than that an annual charge should exist on the Imperial revenue for the education of the Roman Catholic priesthood. We should like to be authoritatively in formed whether the agitation against May nooth is intended to be limited to the extinc• tion of the endowment, or whether it is an issue raised for the purpose of returning to the policy of Protestant ascendancy. We can understand the importance attached to the agitation and the zeal with which it is pur sued, if such be the ulterior views of those engaged in it. Yet in that case would it not be better to try the greater question on its own merits ? An agitation for the repeal of the Act of 1829 would be quite as practicable, and surely of greater importance, than an agitation for the repeal of this Maynooth endowment, which at the utmost concerns the disposal of 26,0001. a year. We very much doubt whether the interests of Protestantism are in any degree served by the religious animosity which the Maynooth agitation keeps alive. In the din and smoke of religious conflict errors are concealed, and reason is silent. To a false creed no measures of repression are so fatal as tolerance and quietude. During the last few years a great Mini ber of conversions from Popery have occurred in Ireland, and surely this of itself is a strong argument against the revival of the religious heats which would, in all probability, impair the great work. We wish to see this question discussed in a more conciliatory spirit than some of our con temporaries evince. We cannot convince men by reviling them. In our opinion, sincere religious conviction (however erroneous) is entitled to the respect of at least inoffensive language. MR. DISRAELI'S REVIEW OF THE SESSION. As our summary of the debate of yesterday se'nnight was necessarily imperfect, we print in our impression of to-day the report of Mr. DISRAELI'S speech as it appears in the Times. We present it to our readers as a calm and careful statement of the resul is of the session. Such documents constitute the political history of our time. It is to them that the future inquirer will turn when he desires to investi gate the politics of our day ; and it is to them, as a wholesome change front the reckless assertion and shallow arguments of " leading articles." that the mere newspaper reader may profitably devote some portion of his time. The speech. full of incontrovertible facts, has cicited much more attention than the Ministerial. journals find convenient. SATTJRDIY, In his opening remarks, the Right Hon. Nlember for Bucks diaclaitned any intention of making it party litioll3k. ft) pointed to facts. The attesien just edheituilid had been remark able it* the numbei of Alliasures introduced to tli Legislature, dild ft* the few that have been Paaied. Midi is Mao reason for this failu ? is it to bA iikifibuted to the forms of the Helm, or to the length of particular speeches ? Mr. DISRAELI refers to his review of the session of 1814 to show that those reasons were assigned for like failure at that time, and that it was then established that such alle gations were without foundation. The forms of the House have since been simplified, and all prudent facilities afforded for the trans action of business. To clear the public mind from misapprehen sion, and to free the Legislature from the odium which might attach to it through such misapprehension, Mr DISRAELI laid his state ment of facts before the House. A Government was not bound, he argued, to bring forward each session a great number of measures for legislative action. A Government might conceive that certain important questions were not ripe for settlement, and might occupy itself with the transaction of merely necessary business ; or it might be engaged in the con duct of a great war, which would absorb all the national energies ; or it might have its whole attention engrossed by delicate and diffi cult negotiations with foreign powers. From all of these pleas the Government was precluded, by the fact that it had, in the Speech from the Throne, recommended unmet ous sub jects to the attention of the Legislature, and that it had never ceased to introduce measures while the war continued, while the Peace Con ferences were in progress, and after the busi ness of negotiation was concluded. A reference to Mr. DISRAELI'S statement will show the reckless manner in which Go vernment hills were introduced, and the equally reckless manner in which they were abandoned. Bills on important subjects were introduced by members of the Government two or three times over, and were as often withdrawn. It is doubtful whether any pa rallel can be found to the number of Govern ment failures in the past session. The Right Hon. Member for Bucks believes that the main cause of this failure is to be found in the Government not possessing the confidence of the Legislature. The source of this want of confidence may be sought in various directions. It may arise from the Legislature distrusting the political principles, or the business talents, or the special know ledge, or the administrative sagacity of the Government. We follow implicitly the opinion of BRODIE or BRIGHT in what concerns our life, of KELLY in what concerns our fortune, of FARADAY in what relates to chemistry, of OWEN in all that concerns organic structure. We have confidence in their opinion, and we trust ourselves to their direction. The Legislature, it is plain, had no such confidence in the direction of the Ministry, for it refused to follow their guidance. The answer returned to this argument is, that the Legislature had confidence in the Government, because, by large majorities, it refused to disturb its possession of power. The defect of the answer is obvious. It con founds confidence with tolerance. The Legislature allowed the Government to per form executive functions,but it refused to trust them further. If the Government did possess the confi dence of the Legislature, then to what cause are its legislative failures to be referred" Were the bills introduced not needed, or were they ill-considered, or were they vicious iu principle, or were they framed in a slovenly manner? The Government may take its choice of these alternatives; but, let it choose which it may, want of confidence, in some form or other, will be the natural deduction from its own choice, and will be found to lie at the bottom of its failures Mr. DtsnAELt dwelt for n moment on the ill consequences that must result from such