The Press.
London, England, 1854-07-01 00:00:00

SERVILITY OF RADICALISM.

THE singular position occupied by the Radical
party in Parliament is certainly very strange.
Sustaining the Cabinet in office, and with a
large numerical following, the Radicals are
content with a few subordinate posts being
assigned to them and a single Cabinet
Minister being selected from their body.
Opinions differ widely as to the mode of view-
ing such remarkable abnegation. Some, like
Mr. BRIGHT, deem it very " absurd ; " others,
like Mr. OSBORNE, think it convenient, and say
nothing. The simplicity with which inno-
cent Radicalism believes itself to be repre-
sented in the Government has something in it
almost Arcadian. If the whipper-in appeared
on the walls of the Royal Academy this season
the artist should have painted Mr. HATTER
with a shepherd's crook, surrounded by the
bleating flock of woolly Radicals patiently
waiting to he shorn. Many, however, whisper
that there is something too contemptible in a
large parliamentary party practically abjuring
its principles, lowering its flag, and succumb-
ing tamely to an official clique.
The traditions of parliamentary Radicalism
are not very animating to its more ambitious
upholders. It has been obliged to tolerate
more official rebuffs than any preceding or
contemporary party, equalling its wealth and
numbers, ever endured. Just as in former
days Mr. MILNRR GIBSON was taken up and
put down again, so in the present session
Mr. &rat= is raised to the heights of office
only to be dashed down to a lower level than
that from which ho ascended. So in the
nursery tale the giant always amused his
victim with the splendid prospects from the
top of his castle preparatory to hurling him
from the battlements. How the Radicals en
dure such treatment is really surprising.
They have placed their old principles in
abeyance; they think of " progress " as a walk
to a supercilious interview at Downing-street,
where their memorials are received with the
condescension that borders on contempt, and
forgotten with the carelessness that implies an
intentional neglect. Some of the more pre-
tentious in their body recollect how PotmErr
Therms became a peer and a colonial
governor; but their dreams are dissipated
when they think with a shudder of Mr.
STRIITT.

Recollecting the composition of the present
Cabinet, we are astonished at the servile ac-
quiescence shown by the Radicals to the sys-
tem which ignores their principles and insults
their personal pretensions. We can, of course,
understand how the Member for Middlesex is
perfectly satisfied with the ample slices of
official pudding bestowed on him. Corn•
pulsory taciturnity may, indeed, be galling to
one with such an ambition for notoriety : he
may long to make another raid upon the dusty
farces of the obsolete FOOTE, and compose an
impromptu harangue with jokes from GEORGE
SELWYN, and historical knowledge from the
philosophic HANSARD. The obscurity of a
salaried subordinate may mortify a taciturn
official who fancied that speaking was his
strong point, as the grammar of some of his
official correspondence showed that writing
was his weak one. But fraternal affection is
delightful, and a consulship for a brother can
console a mute orator. The Gazette recording
the promotion of a kinsman will atone for the

SATURDAY,

want of a newspaper with a speech interspersed
with rhetorical traps for "cheers and laughter"
of the best Brummagem pattern, with Osborne,
maker, stamped upon them. The disuse of
such speeches may, however, be attributed to
the improvement in the Selretary for Ad-
miralty's licowledge. Another of these silenced
Radicals, ihe Attorney-General, may have in•
formed hifn that "trying, to inflict wounds
" with blunt histruments " has long been a
statutab le offence.
;It is certainly very strange that a' Cabinet
so exclusively aristocratic in its constitution
should be so submissively followed by gentle.
men who proclaim themselves as representa-
tives of the democratic principle. Now that
Mr. STRUTT has been extruded, there is not ( with
the single exception of the LORD CHANCELLOR)
one member of the Cabinet who is not the son
of a titled person. Even Mr. GLADSTONE, the
solitary " Mr. " of the Ministry, is the son and
brother of a baronet, besides being regularly
trained for statesmanship. We can fancy
some apologist for absolutist government sar-
castically deriding our British Constitution as
one in which everything but the Executive
Department is open to untitled talent, and
quoting the Coalition as an illustration, of his
argument. It is clear that if Mr. HAMPDEN,
Mr. PYM, Mr. SELDEN, or even Mr. SIDNEY,
flourished in our days they would have been
deemed plebeian intruders on the Whig pre-
sences, on which all but Peelites must be held
to be poachers. It would be no use for them
to grow hoarse in citing Lord &micas or Mr.
BURKE. Lord JOHN RUSSELL would quote a
French proverb as well as he could, and laugh
in their faces. Whether such great men, if now
alive, would allow themselves 'to be called
" Radicals " we need not speculate. In any
age they would desire to be known as English-
men, and in that character they never would
tamely endure a tithe of the contumely courted
by the Radicals. For it is evident that either
the principles of Radicalism are fallacious and
impracticable, or its parliamentary upholders
must be men of inferior talents and lowly de •
sires. Such is the disagreeable dilemma sug-
gested by the sight of the most obsequious
party that ever arrogated to itself the title of
" Liberal." Whether their principles be false
or their talents be feeble would be too invi-
dious to inquire. In former days they were
obnoxious to the imputation of living in the
future, but, judging them by their present
tactics, the Radicals belong to the past tense
—a consummation desirable on many grounds,
if it could have been less ignominiously at-
tained.

NATIONAL EDUCATION, IRELAND.
So long ago as the 25th of February last, in
reviewing the petition of the patrons of
national schools in Ireland, and in adverting
to the position of the education question in
that country, rendered so remarkable by the

secession of the Archbishop of DusuN, the
ex-Chancellor (Mr. BLACKBURNE), and Mr.
Baron GREENE from the National Board, we
expressed our satisfaction that a committee
of inquiry had been proposed by the Earl of
EGLINTON in the House of Lords, and we
promised to keep our eye on the inquiry.
It would be premature and improper, while
the inquiry is in progress, to comment upon
the evidence adduced before the committee.
We shall only state that the inquiry has been
prosecuted with the greatest assiduity and
impartiality; that the Archbishop of DUBLIN,
Mr. BLACIBURNE, and several of the present
commissioners, the secretaries, several of the
inspectors, and a number of gentlemen and
clergymen of all vie ws and denominations,
have been examined. We are, therefore,
warranted in believing that the actual state of
things, under a system which costs the country
nearly 200,0001, a year, will be fully and fairly
exhibited.

Our object now is to invite the attention of
our readers to a petition (of which we subjoin
a copy) presented last week by his Grace the
Archbishop of CorrEasuar, and referred by
the House of Lords to Lord EOLINTON'S com-
mittee.