The Press.
London, England, 1857-07-04 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JULY 4, 1857.

opinion on Ministers' Money which the pre-
aent Prime Minister expressed two years ago.
In a strain of awkward malevolence it is con-
tended that party favours should have pre-
vented a prelate of the Establishment from
expressing his opinion. We shall expose in
detail tile singular maladroitness of the article,
whose writer directs his blows right and left,
careless where they may fall. We are first
t4ild that " the late Lord PLUNKET was the
" man whom of all his countrymen the Whigs
" most delighted to honour ;" and we are next
informed, in the same sentence, that he was
prone to "lavishing places and preferments
" upon every member of his family, with a
" profusion and partiality that excited the
" astonishment, and very often the indignation,
"of the public." Why did not "the Whigs "
check this " profusion and partiality," and do
something to avert the " indignation "? In
striking at the present Lord PLUNKET, the
writer thus gives a backhanded blow to his
friends " the Whigs."
We are afterwards told that to " the success
" of Liberal principles and the Liberal party
" the Noble Lord is indebted for all that he
" possesses,—for his mitre, for his coronet, for
" his wealth, his rank, his luxury, for every
" shred of his purple and fine linen, for every
" glass that sparkles, and for every dish that
" steams upon his table." We are instructed
that but for the Whigs and Whig principles
the Bishop of MASI would " never have ex-
" changed his hot punch for his cool claret ;
"he would never have been translated to
" turbot, or preferred from the mutton chop to
" the haunch of venison."

We are accustomed to the political cant
which claims for " Whig principles" all the
social progress of the age, and we are familiar
with the panegyrics of Lord JOHN RUSSELL on
the example of Lord SOMERS, and the prin-
ciples of Fox ; but we never before heard of
" Whig principles" manufacturing sparkling
glasses, and cooking steaming dishes, and
rivalling Ulster iu producing fine linen. So
miraculous, it seems, are " Whig principles,"
that they can even rival the inexhaustible
bottle of the " Wizard of the North," ant
change hot punch into cool claret, in the
same way as the possession of office alters
blustering patriots into frigid placemen.
Even fishermen and fishmongers, and pur-
veyors of meat, have much to learn from
" Whig principles," which are warranted as the
best means for hooking turbot and reforming
chops of mutton into haunches of venison
" Well done, water !" cried an enthusiastic
tourist on the sight of the Falls of Tivoli.
" What a row ! " exclaimed FANNY ELLSLER
when she saw Niagara ; and when we thus
read of the mai vels in natural magic attributed
to " Whig principles," we can only say,
" Bravo—Flummery ! "
It happens, however, not to be the case that
the Plunket family owe all they possess to
" Whig principles." Were the massive brain,
the argumentative power in a coart of law, the
eloquent tongue, and the overwhelming intel-
lectual vehemence of Lord PLUNKET attribut-
able to " Whig principles "? Had the natural
genius of the man himself nought to do with his
honourable rise from "obscurity and poverty" ?
Was not Lord PLUNKET for years at the head of
the Chancery Bar in Ireland ; and were " Whig
principles," forsooth, in the ascendancy on the
Bench when Lord MANNERS presided. or were
they popular amongst the dispensers of briefs?
There is a graphic portraiture of Mr. PLUNKET'S
style of forensic argumentation in the younler
CURRAN'S " Sketches of the Irish Bar." Were
the talents therein so truly portrayed to be
attributed to " Whig principles," and is
nothing to be ascribed to the energy of the
man who bravely employed the brilliant
ficulties bountifully bestowed on him from on
High ? Was it, forsooth, from " Brookes's
Club " that his mens divinior descended?
It is positively false, also, to assert that
" the wealth " of the Plunket family (for all
its members are equally assailed) is attribut-
able to party favours. Dr. PATRICK PLUNKET,
the elder brother of the orator, was a leading
physician at :Dublin, and left the great advo-
cate a fortune of sixty thousand pounds. Mr.
PLUNKET had been Law Officer under the
Granville Ministry in 1806, but retired from
Parliament on the ground that he could not

absent himself from his professional duties.
The fortune bequeathed by his elder
brother justified him afterwards in enter-
ing the House of Commons, without neglect-
ing his duties. " Whig principles " had
nothing to do with " wealth " earned by
honourable industry ; and it is historically
untrue to say that Mr PLUNKET was the advo-
cate of " Whig principles" at all times. He stood
by the Liverpool Cabinet in 1815, in the discus-
sions which ensued after NAPOLEON'S escape
from Elba; and again, in 1819, in the " Peter-
loo massacre," when he rent into shreds the
" constitutional " arguments and the " Whig
principles " of MACKINTOSH and other Whig
barristers. Was it on " Whig principles
that Mr. PLUNKET took office under Lord
LIVERPOOL in 1822, and held it under the
Marquis Wellesley ?
But our readers will ask, why should the'
present Lord PLUNKET be singled out for the
scurrilous abuse poured down upon him ? We
can only suppose that it is because the Bishop
of TUAM is at the head of the Protestant
movement in the West ,of Ireland. " Whig
principles" in England mean catering to
Exeter-hall, and to the Dissenters ; in Ireland
" Whig principles" are patronage of the priests.
Lord PLUNKET is a most inoffensive peer; he
has taken no part in the politics of " party ;"
and to mark him and his family out for vitu-
peration, because his Lordship gave a vote
similar to that of the Premier two years since,
is a most ridiculous specimen of reckless
rancour.
The view put forward by our contemporary,
that because a father received great favours
from a party the son should not act on his
own opinions, is truly absurd. Let us see
how it would apply. Lord HARROWBT voted
with Ministers on June 18th. But Lord
HARROWBY'S grandfather got his peerage in
1776 from a Tory Cabinet, and his father was
a Tory Minister for years. Suould we be
justified in taunting the present Lord HAD-
ROWRY with the favours conferred by the Tories
for two generations? Or let us take the case
of the Marquis of NORMANDY. What would
our contemporary think of the justice of an
attack on Lord NORMANBY on the score of the
favours of every sort showered by Tory
Ministers on the three predecessors of the •
Noble Marquis in the Peerage?
The fact, however, is that the Whigs :feel
sore at the famous title of " Plunket " being
now decidedly on the Protestant side in
Ireland. So, also, is the title of " Donough-
more," so worthily worn by the present repre-
sentative of the gallant and brilliant family of
Hely Hutchinson. The late Lord CLONCURRT
in his reminiscences has given a strong
picture of what agitators are ; arid it is with
pleasure we observe that the present Lord
CLONCURRY has decidedly joined the Conser-
vative party, and votes with the Earl of DERBY.
In former times these three titles were borne
by those who desired that " Protestant as-
cendancy" should not monopolise the offices
of State; the present holders of these coro-
nets are resolved in the cause of " Civil and
Religious Liberty" to prevent the erection
of a Roman Catholic ascendancy in the realm.
Finally, the Bishop of TLJAM is taunted with
"illiberality and ingratitude" to the Whig
party. "Ingratitude " is the last word that
polemical Whig should advance in public con-
troversy. The standing reproach to the
Whigs is that they treated BURKE, SHERIDAN,
MACKINTOSH, and many more, with " ingrati-
tude." In 1806, a celebrated correspondence
took place between Mr. CURRAN and Mr.
PoNsoNBY which casts much light upon the
" ingratitude " of the Whigs ; and Sir ROBERT
PEEL said in Parliament of the treatment of
Lord PLIINK ET by the Whigs in 1841 :
The noble lord (J. Russell) had a Chancellor, the most
eminent man the bar of Ireland ever produced, and six
weeks before the noble lord quitted office (loud and pro-
longed cheering from the Conservatives), he, so sensitive
as to Irish feelings—he, so jealous of offence to Ireland—
he, having that man as Chancellor whose connection with
them was the pride and boast of the Whig party—he
signified to the Irishman, to Lord Plunket, to the Chan-
cellor, that it was expedient for him to retire. And for
what In order that he might gratify the vanity of a
Scotchman.

Enough. We believe that we have shown
that the malevolence of " The Libel on a
Bishop " was far surpassed by its maladroit-
ness. . _