The Press.
London, England, 1853-05-07 00:00:00

THE WHIG "REFORM" CRY.

So "Refight" is for the present to be "a cry"
reserved fitr the use of the Coalition. " Mt-
" ICSS," 8/1111 Mr. Hume, in his remarks on Mr.
Locke King's motion to extend the Ten Pound
Franchise to Counties, " the Government he-
" tray the confidence reposed in them, I have
" reason to believe that we shall have a fair

" and satisflictory measure of Refinin next
" session." These words are ominous enough,
coining from the lips of the member for Mon-
trose, but they deepen in their import when
we recollect the concluding sentence of Lord
.lolin Russell's speech of Monday last, when he
attacked Imrd Derby, and spoke about "making
" Demoentey Conservative." Lord John inti-
nmted that lte had no fear of Denmoeniey, if you
did not irritate it, by declining to concede to
it. Mr. Disraeli. therefore, had good grounds
for the tone used by him on Monday last, when
he asked, " Why this hostility to the land
and when he charged a certain portion of the
revolutionary faction with the desire of
" changing a first-rate kingdom into a second-
" rate republic."
It is remarkable that, while the party in
power insists upon tying up Parliament to a
fixed financial policy, " Reform" is to be placed
upon a sliding scale, and is to fluctuate with
the rise and full of the Coppock Consols at the
Rama Club. If Coalition scrip goes off satis-
thetorily to its haders at Brookes's, and
the Parliamentary dividends from the Income
Tax Budget be remunerative, it is possible that
no more Agitation Stock will at present be
created, until the party requires some more
fictitious capital to draw upon. Let taxation
be permanent, let the Legislature be flouting,
in what Lord John Russell himself called " a
•• sea of speculation!" Such is the contradic-
tory and ambiguomi policy recommended by
the Cabinet. For this year they carry on their
affairs by an alliance with Manchester, they take
their chance for the chapter of accidents being
in their favour, and when in difficulty they can
full back upon Mr. Locke King, Extension of
the Suffrage, and the shifting resources of
" Reforin"—adapted for dissolving views. But
they calculate very hastily if they suppose that
such a policy will k. endorsed by a majority
of seventy-one members of the Lower House.
Although we have hug been aware, on the au-
thority of the Reverend Sydney Smith, " that
" it is impossible to sleep easy while Lord
John has command of the watch," and
though the antecedents of Sir James Graham
make us readily believe that he would lend
himself to violent int.asures. we are vevy seep-
tied as to the gentlemen who composed the
Budget majority on Monday answering to Mr.
Hayter's summons to support. a Radical Re-
form so extensive as to justify Mr. Hume's an-
ticipations of its proving " satisfactory. '
Our scepticism on this point is further con-
firmed as we scan the names of the gentlemen
who voted with the Treasury last Monday.
Without inquiring whether a Liberal organ of
Weditcsatty be right in surmising that the
majority was chiefly caused by " the fear of a
" dissolution," we may record our amusement
at the ludicrous attempts to give the Coalition
credit for being t2upported in its general policy

SATURDAY,

by the gentlemen who voted with it this week.
We have seen some waste of type in empty
taunts to Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli about
certain -supporters of Conservative principle%
having voted fur Mr. Gladstone's Budget.
Amongst the paraded list of absent names we
have seen those of the Marqnis of Blandford,
Sir Robert Inglis, Sir Joint Walsh, Mr. Henries,
and several other members of Parliament
less noted, but with opinions equally well
known. Is it to be supposed that these gen-
tlemen will be absent either from division or
debate when the Coalition will set about per-
forming its promise to Mr. Hume in a way
" satisfactory "to that 14entleinau? Nor is the
attempt less absurd to identify the absent
members of Monday with " those men of metal
" and large-acred squires " who routed Sir
Robert Peel. Those who look to " Reform" as
the reserved cry for the present Cabinet may
depend upon it that the absentees of last Monday
• will not " troop on " in support of the new
Reform Bill. Though Mr. Hume and Mr.
Cobden may lend sombre countenance to their
revolutionary schemes, let them not reckon on
their gloomy ranks being gladdened for at sea-
son " by the pleasant presence of Walter Long,"
or their dangerous vacillation being, approved
of by " the stout heart of Mr. Buck." Believ-
ing that the Coalition will make an effort to
retain power by launching a new Reform Bill,
we cannot for at moment doubt but that the
Constitutional party in this country of all
shades of sentiment will unite in preventin
progressive measures being taken for the put.
pose of establishing " a second-rate republic it
England."
From the buoyancy of Mr. Hume's tone, w
suppose that the member for Montrose must
have had some confidential information. If
such were the case, we are only surprised that
Mr. Hume was not invited to take a place in
the Cabinet. Mr. Hume, however, was cast
ofi; in company with other old friends. Along
with the Greys he was sent to that place which
Mr. Ellice not unbecomingly represents.
Recollecting the part which " the Greys"
have hitherto played in the history of "Re-
" form," we should like to know are they also
aati.fied with the intentions of Government?
Are they as credulous as Mr. Hume, and as
docile as Mr. Locke King ? They used to be
fond of having opinions of their own. They
allowed Sir Robert Peel to curry the question
of repeal of the Corn Laws in IN-16, rathek thaw
endorse the foreign policy of Lcrd Pahnerston.
On the " Irish Church Lord Grey bad a
scheme of his own ; and on the Colonies--
but enough,—we are not going to give a cata-
logue of the questions in which. they thought
fur themselves.

Well ! if the Greys be at last satisfied with
things as they are, we shall believe that the
millennium is at hand ! Even in " Reform"
they have hitherto been at least original in
their views. We recollect on a memorable
occasion a remarkable revelation that came
from the lips of Lord Grey, touching his views
upon " Vote by Ballot." It was made to the
House of Commons early one morning in the
month of June, 1539, upon the occasion of
" Ballot" being made an open question. We
have called the occasion " memorable ;" and
so it was, for a variety of reasons. In a
crowded house, anxious to hear Mr. Macaulay
speak for the first time after his return
from India, the doctrine of open questions
was discussed by the member for Edin-
burgh with his usual research. The late Mr.
Shell having reminded Sir James Graham of
his conduct with reference to the commit-
tee on the Reform Bill, the member then for
Dorchester under Tory. now for Carlisle under
Whig auspices, referred to the present leader
of the House of Commons with au acrimony
that we still recollect. After ;Sir Robert Peel
had iu emphatic terns expressed his disappro-
bation of open questions. quoting Burke's de-
scription of Lord Chatham's Coalition Minis-
try, up rose the present Earl Grey, then Lord
Howick, and stated that his reason for consent-
ing w Ballot being an open question was be-
cause he thought it the better mode of resisting
its adoption. Even at this distance of time we
still recollect the buzz of astonishment which
rose from the Radical part• on this expression
of opinion ; and when members walked forth

p

MAY 7, 1853.

into the morning dawn they were thinking and
talking, not of Mr. Nltteattlay's rounded period.
or Sir Robert's anti-Coalition rhetoric. or Sir
James Graham's bitterness to Lord imt
of the declaration of Lord Howick. On turn-
ing to Hansard (third series, vol. xxxviii., p.
500) we find the very words used by the ex-
Colonial Secretary : "He thought the ilovern
anent were yiring the best cleaner qf resisting it
"by making Ballot an open question." We
shall see next year, when a plan will be pro-
posed for materially and completely changing
that measure of 1t43:2 from which the name of
Grey derives a great part of its historical cele-
brity, whether the noble lord will lend the sanc-
tion of his name to sehemes that by antieipa-
tion are announced by Mr. Hume as likely to
satisfy the Radicals.
If, as it appears, the Reform 11111" is to be
destroyed, the men of Carlisle may say that
they know of an old " Cumberland yeoman"
whose long practice in lighting the flames of
faction will give him what Sir William Moles-
worth, in the words of Bentham, would call
" the appropriate official aptitude of—fin ineen-
diary! But we may doubt whether all of his
former colleagues, or any of the opponents who
aid him with an occasional vote, will connive
at the least experiment in the way of confla-
gration.

CHURCH-RATES—CONSERVATIVE
REFORM.
IF there be one assignable cause which more
than another tends to foster wild and danger

ous projects of innovation, and to lessence.
spelt for established institutions, it is the
obstinacy which refuses to see a limit in any
law which the "wisdom ot• our ancestors" has
framed, and which clings to customs, once ex-
cellent, but now from lapse of time obsolete.
This reactionary spirit has of late years well-
nigh ceased to exist, and Conservatives for the
most part now ditter from Reformers, not so
much in the direction of the course as in the
rate at which each is inclined to travel. Ad-
ministt•sttive reform, moreover, is felt to be the
best safeguard against Parliamentary reform in
the democratic sense ; for the goodness of the
laws reflects honour on the lawmakers or law-
menders, and few persons care for the theo-
retical constitution of the House of Commons,
provided the work of legislation be well and
promptly done. Hence, when any legal nui-
sance is to be abated, the Conservative Oppo-
sition is generally found, if not foremost, in the
work, yet ready to lend effective aid ; and with
good reason, for, while it is the business of the
Radical in search of a grievance to demonstrate
the inefficiency of the present Legislature to
supply popular wants, the Conservative, zealous
tin• its honour, takes a pride in showing with
what vigour it can operate for the removal of
recognised abuses.

These remarks lead natundly to the subject
of our article—the law of church-rates, and the
imperative necessity for its reform. The gene-
ral nature of that law is probably known to
every one. Before the Reformation, the eccle-
siastical polity of England was framed on a
simple and consistent principle—that of the
absolute union of Church and State, insonmeh
that a number of the one was ex verexxitate
member of the other also. A Dissenter
was a rebel, and liable to punishment
us such ; which is still the Catholic theory, not
much modified by the lapse of three centuries.
In this state of things, it was natural that every
man should be called upon to pay according to
his hbility for the mainteimuce of the sole estab-
lished or tolerated Church. The obligation,
originally conscientious only, then enforced by
the spiritual authorities, finally settled into it
part of the common law of England. Strictly
maintained by Laud, abandoned during the
Commonwealth, revived at the Restond ion, this
now compulsory impost was levied on all
persons alike. When the Stuarts fell, dissent
beginning to be tolerated, and Dissenters natu-
rally objecting to a personal rating for the
benefit of a communion which they abhorred,
litigation, endless and profitless, commenced
on the subject of church-rates. This strife has
grown with the growth and increased with the
strength of free opinion in England. At the
end of a century and a half it remains still un-
appeased—unreasonable concession being de-

THE PRESS.

mantled on the one hand, reasonable coneession
denied on the other ; the ('Lurch clinging to a
barren privilege, and Dissent using that privi-
lege as a weapon whereby to subvert the Es-
tablishment. Statesmen have tried to make
peace. lint tried in vain. Sir R. Peel suggested
one plan ; Lord Althorp another; the public
rejected both; hundreds of thousands have
been expended int
vestries have
be-
come foci of lova' agitation and discontent.
('an these things be set straight 1) We believe
they ; and that only by the exercise of a
lade of the common sense which Hume and
others have declared mankind incapable of
exercising on a religious question.
One or two fails must be made plain in-the
first instance, that we nnty more clearly see our
way. We assert, then, without fear of contra-
diction, tll that no cause, soeial or politieal,
has tended ntore to the disorganisation of so-
ciety than this petty question of church-rate;
('') that. the law as it stands is a dead letter.
it being notorious that in no parish where the
Dissenting element is large can these rates be
collected (3) that the existing law originated
in a state of society and under eiremnstanees
wholly different from those of the present day.
Of the last of these propositions no farther
evidence is required than that. which we have
already given. Of the first. no man who has
resided in a huge tuanufaeturing town, or who
knows anything of the state of such towns, can
possibly entertain a doubt.
Manchester, Southwark, I weds. lainiester.
Tavistock, nearly all the Lancashire and
shire boroughs..Brightoin, some of the London
parishes, and illlllllllollllll, petty agricultural
villages, have been, within the last twenty
years, the svelte of religious war on a small
wall.. In some pimps riots have broken out,
to the great danger of life and property ; in
others, the animosity, hiss openly VelltVii, has
smouldered on for years, breaking out at inter-
vals into petty personal feuds, embittering poli-
tical diflertince, and desecrating the name of
religion itself. Hundreds of thousands have
been wasted in litigation, amounting alto-
wither to at sum which collectively far exceeds
the hotel of the rates actually in dispute. Ex-
clusive dealing, discontinuance of employment.
dispossession of tenants from their oceuptiney
—all the worst features of the worst election
eontests—have marked the feud between or-
thodoxy and dissent, between parish-hole-
pendenee and dilliThWall3lolll4,llll'ol. And of
all persons who have suffered by this state of
things, the clergyman has suffered most. A
mediator in all other quarrels, in this quarrel
he becomes, not voluntarily, but as it were tw-
o/Pio, a kind of party leader. Tile result is, at
considerable diminution of his influence wher-
ever the chureh-rate battle has been sharply
fought, and a proportionate inerease of dis-
sent. It would not be amiss it' the opinion of
the working clergy could be taken as to the
expediency of continuing church-rates on their
present footing. Making all allowance for the
love of tradition which their habits and pro-
fession inspire. we believe that a clear makjmity
of three or four to one would be returned in
favour of a change. And not without cause ;
for, independent of the feuds and heart-burn-
ings to which we have alluded, the law is abso-
lutely inoperative wherever a strong party has
an interest in resisting it. Judges, lawyers,
clergy, churchwardens, vestry agitators, are all
equally aware of the fact. Since the litigation
of the Braintree case especially, it is an aseer-
tained fact that it mAjority of any vestry cannot
practically be coerced into imposing at rate.
The rate may therefore be defeated wherever
one-half the ratepayers are found to oprotat it ;
and the small nucleus of dissent is. In most
boroughs, certain to be swelled by at large ad-
dition of Ow ecom(ontiettl, the dimeolitented, and
the lovers of peace—the latter anxious to
bring about the only possible settlement
of a controversy which (otherwise threatens to
be endless. We do not write theoretically. It
is certain, as any recorded fact can be, that in
almost every large town where ehurch-rate dis-
putes have run high they have ended in the
total discontinuance of the rade, and the edop-
tioon of the voluntary prineiple. Innumerable
instances are to be found in the Report of the
Parliamenhoy Committee of Ims 1. Now, the
solution of such at result is not to he found
merely in the greater activity of one party, and

the sloth or indifferente of the other. A wide-
spread phenomenon indicates a motes deep.
seated cause. !inimically. the veriliet of the
nitepayers of England has been pronounced
against the rntOreeutt•ut of rates. in all pliers
where they tall heavily on Dissenters as well
as on Churchmen. The reason is
►ivi fitrie—we say nal ease Of injupttieo
appears to he made out. The popula►• sympa-
thy is apilltst 1110 opposed to Ispit.
lar sympathy. no law can. in this or any coun-
try. be etieetnatly carried into execution. The
question, then, stands thus: Church-rates
must be maintained, lest IMr din reheti tall into
aunt decay ; church-rate law must be
reformed. lest a SVIVit. ot• Iltdoit'aess impede
its working altogether. its it has already done
to some extent. Can such a solution of the
problem befelr us be ftatud*."flte debate of
Nlonday next will answer our query : and not
improbably illlmWeV it in the affirmative.

TILE IHKIKYARD INQUIRY.

Wr hail intended to disensa the provetslings
before the committee now sitting for the in.
vestigatiu t of charges preferred against t Ito
late Board of Admiralty ; but, though very de-
sirous of addressing our readers Oil the fillb-
ject, we feel, upon reflection. that no other
opt: is alt present lett us than to follow the
graced example of journalists who have de
dined to eminent upon a ease aillute sub
podeir. It itt better, 11114140111)tellly, that While
111'01•1.14111114S. whether of 11 judieial or an inqui-
sitorial ellararter,llll. pending, the piddle press
should pause in ventilating its conclusions,
thmungli, as in the matter now referred to, the
practice be attended %%lilt temporary injustice
to wrougfully-accused parties.
ll' any piddle journals during this inquiry
should have indulged itt elimination rather
than in discussion, the eXalllple. ant' the honour
of journalism. is one In be avoided. Nor. in-
deed, would we at. all allude to the subject till
it emulates fairly before us, were it not that we
wish to explain to our readers the reason why
we pass over the confusion between private"
and official eommunieations in which it is the
tendency of this itimittiry to involve Its. Vast
surprise has been tilt generally by people of
all parties at " private and confidential" corre-
spondence having been so (remittently read
berm ire the elommittee. Conversations made in
the careless unreserve of private and unottieial
ilitercoltrae have also been detailed with great
Illinntelless, all, if we are to trust to the im
prts, even pantomimic gesture has been em-
ployed to ',minty the mode in which trivial
words and phrases have been used. All this
seellis very strange to many persons who not
unreasonably suppose that Monte novel social
cede has been recently introduced, which
patty maliec :dime eat a welemone and appro-
priate.