The Press. — London, England, 1857-04-25 00:00:00

398 mark and promise. Lord ALTHORP appears to be shrewd and manly, and to have a strong spice of personal ambition. He belongs to a famous stock, for few of the great political families of England have produced more personal and Parliamentary celebrities than the race of the Spencers. Even if his Lordship's talents prove but secondary, we may be sure that his party will not be stinted in praising him. It is time that the Whigs should produce a clever young man, as they have been disappointed in the Duke of ARGYLL. The new Member for Stafford, Lord INOESTRE, has spoken with point and force, and many of his friends enter thin hopes that the Noble Lord will prove a valuable acquisition to the Conservative party. General WINDHAM, the new Member for East Norfolk, bears a famous Parliamentary name, to which the gallant officer has added military celebrity. On subjects connected with " Army Reform," the House will listen with much respect to General Wisoimes opinion. His family has in later years been decidedly " Whig," though his eminent relative, the late brilliant orator, hovered doubtfully between Whigs and Tories, and, as was remarked of him," used diamond-scales in forming his de " visions." Mr. CONINGHAM, the new repre sentative for Brighton, is spoken of as a most promising Radical. His career will by many be watched with much interest. Ho has fluency, force, and a commanding personal appearance ; and the Radicals are in want of a popular spokesman de omnibus rebus since Mr. HUME'S place has never been filled, and since Sir B. HALL and Mr. OSBORNE have been silenced by office. Mr. CONINOHAM is no novice in politics, and has many graceful accomplishments which will entitle him to attention. What the successors of Mr. COBDEN, Mr. BRIGHT, and Mr. MILNER GIBSON may prove to be in general debate is a question on which a variety of sentiments are entertainel. Some speak in high terms of the commercial knowledge and general talents of Sir JOHN POTTER and Mr. ASPINALL TURNER; others disparage their political pretensions, and assert that they will turn out to be cyphers. Since the Reform Bill, Manchester has been represented by gentlemen extremely capable of taking a foremost place in debate. Mr. JONES LLOYD (Lord OVERSTONE) aspired to the representation of that great borough, and Mr. PoucErr THOMSON ably spoke the sentiments of his Whig-Radical constituents. Sir J. POTTER and Mr. TURNER will be, therefore, tried by a high standard ; and, from the marked manner in which Mr. BRIGHT and Mr. GIBSON were disparaged, people will be surprised if their places be filled by mediocrities. It is rather curious that both the members for Manchester should be " Unitarians ;" and that body of Dissenters in that constituency has some very peculiar features which distinguish them from their co-religionists elsewhere. " The Tory " Unitarians of Manchester," is a phrase that has sometimes been used to describe them. Mr. AEROYD, the vanquisher of Mr. COBDEN at Huddersfield, is another member in whom some accidental interest centres. If people will not expect too much from these latter changer, they will not be much disappointed. " Will Eiithen make a figure in the House ?" He has command of choice language with the pen in his hand, and has much of the spon taneity of genius ; but has he " ballast" ? Has he political knowledge, and is he practical in his views ? 'These are questions which the Hon. Gentleman must answer by his performances Members with Oriental associations have been , . singularly unlucky in the House of Com mons. If we read Mr. KINGLAKZ'S political opinions rightly, ho is in favour of " Ballot, Universal Suffrage, and no Church rates." He may be put down as an ultraist. Mr. CAIRD will have to show that he can speak as well as write ; and though a man may have prompt powers when pinning forth his thoughts through the columns of the Times, self-pos session may te lost in presence of rows of members who are by no means unversed in things appertaining to agriculture. ' Mr. SERGEANT KINGLAKE (Roi t h eS t Or ) an d Mr. Boviu. are gownsmen from Westminster , eminent as practitioners, but not known politicians. Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN, the new - Wr for Dudley, is no relative o f th e V ...... ‘ /4' ... THI 111 SS. dramatist, though he got his seat with so much adroitness as to show that he has some " wits' of his own. Mr. TORRENS M'CULLAOH, the new Member for Yarmouth, sat formerly for Dun dalk, and may be described as a man of po litical promise. On the whole, however, it cannot be affirmed that any new member with a great reputation, or raising great expecta tions, has been elected to the present House of Commons. nut the inspiration of oppor tunity may do much for many senators not yet known to fame, and brilliant success may he achieved in the case of Honourable Gentle men whose astonished friends will eagerly exclaim, " Who'd have thought it ?" In Par liament, as on Ensom Downs, an " outsider" often takes a foremost place. WHAT IS PROGRESS? IT was not without some degree of reason that Sir R. T. BUXTON tho other day used the expression, " What the Liberals term pro gross." Not that the phrase was here in tended as any disparagement of the thing in itself, but simply of the account to which that word has been turned by the Liberal party, and the flippancy with which it rises to the lips of many who would be sorely puzzled to define its meaning. Of course, we all know what Progress moans absolutely, but relatively to ourselves and the present generation its signification is by no means so clear. We doubt if any two political philosopher s could agree precisely on the subject. It is easy, of course, to frame a definition of the friends of Progress which shall exclude a large number of Conservatives, but it is equally easy to frame another which shall exclude a large number of Liberals. Till, therefore, both can agree upon a common definition of this vaunted phrase, it is a mani fest begging of the question to say that Con servatives are opposed to it. Let us enumerate the leading measures, the support of which is supposed to indicate a love of " Progress." In the first place, demo cratic suffrage, the ballot, and separation of Church and State. Then come all that class of objects for which the Administrative Re formers were striving To these may be added such questions as Divorce, Chancery, and the Ecclesiastical Courts ; Education, and the reform and amelioration of our criminals, juvenile and adult. Now, what we want to know is, to how many of these schemes it is neces sary for a man to give in his adhesion before he can claim the title of Progressionist? To all of them—or to four or five—or to three or two ? If to all—there are not a dozen Progres sionists in the House. If not to all, it is still very difficult to say where the line is to be drawn; and, draw it where we may, it will never cut the number into two divisions, cor responding to Liberals and Conservatives. But not only are men's minds in this utter state of confusion about the means ; the most contradictory notions prevail concerning the end also. What is the ideal perfection to which we should direct our stens ? Some say that the culminating point of England's glory vas the reign of Queen ELIZABETH. Able men have urged that Rome only reached her maturity in the days of CALIOULA. Some think an enlightened despotism, and some an unfettered democracy, to be the goal of poli tical effort; others still pin their faith to a constitutional monarchy. It is clear that a man's political conduct must be very different according to whichever of these opinions may regulate his course. All in turn have been dignified with the name of Progress. Sardinia, France, and America have all been cited as examples. England, of course, the Progressionists cannot adduce. In the do minions of VICTOR EMMANUEL constitutional government is progress ; in those of Queen VICTORIA. forsooth, it is not—that is to say, it is wound up with a great number of interests which a certain section of politicians are long ing to destroy; and accordingly, while consti tutional government itself continues to be the theme of their eulogy, all those institutions without which constitutional government SATURDAY, cannot exist for a moment are the objects of their unceasing persecution. _ If a party Come forward and say candidly we wish to see our Government modelled upon that of France, apd therefore we would destroy the House of Peers—or, we wish to see it modelled upon that of A rneriea, and therefore we would swamp the influence of property—they would at All events be consistent and intelli gible. This would undoubtedly be Progress. But to hold up one hand for the Throne, and the other for undermining its foundations is a species of folly and dishonesty which has been reserved for the present age to produce, and which well merits the contemptuous tone in which it was alluded to by Sir IL T. Burros. The Conservatives, at all events, avoid such flagrant perversity as this. They openly declare that the primary articles of their creed are the preservation of the monarchy, the Church, the hereditary branch of the Legisla ture, and the existing conditions of landed property; and, in spite of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the Constitution has required defenders. They will support no movement which trenches on the security of these. But surely within these limits there is as wide a margin left for social improvements as any practical man can desire. Law reform, education d reform, civil-service reform, and the amen 1- ment of our penal system offer a wide field for the energies of our statesmen and philan thropists. . _ _ Progress is the improvement of society— not the incessant change of institutions. Perpetual political commotion is unfavourable to civil development. There are persons ivlio seem to imagine that to be moving is neces sarily a good, as if it was impossible ever to make a wrong move. What should we think of a man who, having taken a wrong turning, persisted in his path, because "an English " man, sir, never goes back "? Yet this is the kind of language to which we have been OCCA• sionally treated in high quarters. It behoves every lover, therefore, of constitutional order to be doubly cautious in his advocacy of changes which are so certain to be final. Where there is no locus pautitentia a man should be careful of making a false step. He is the truest friend to rational progress who most fully recognises this truth ; he who has it always in view may be trusted, if an honest man, with even hazardous measures ; but he who has not should be carefully watched when advocating the most plausible and apparently harmless changes. The great point is to hold the framework of society together—and the framework of English society is our organised graduation of classes. While this is steady, internal reforms can be pursued with safety—but not other wise. We cannot decorate the rooms of our house while, we are pulling down the walls. The colintry can judge for itself which it re quires most—whether it prefers the vague generalities which the Liberals term " Pro gress" to the more specific, if less high sounding, social improvements of the Con servatives. THE RIGHTS OF PROTESTANTS. Ix counting up the numbers of " Liberals" and " Conservatives " returned at the late elec• tion, some calculators forgot to ask, " How was "it likely that the new members would deal " with subjects involving the rights of Pro " testantism?" Some " religious " newspapers wrote up Lord PALMEUSTON, and by one of them the gay Viscount was profanely desig nated as " the man of God." No means were spared to raise a Low Church cry in favour of the present Ministry. But even already a note of alarm is sounded lest " the cry'' might bring the Cabinet into trouble, and perplex it with a knotty subject, which more urgently demands solution than " Maynooth." A religious question of the hi ;h• est importance, relating to the claims of the " Church Education Society of Ireland," will again claim the particular notice of the Legis lature, and the case is one which cannot pos sibly be set aside. Year after year, with con•