The Press.
London, England, 1858-06-05 00:00:00

THE PRES-S, JUNE 5, 18$8.

540

THE WEEK.

. ll' .

kilTO,

Tar, vacancy in the Cabinet which was caused by Lord
BOROUGH'S resignation has been filled up in the manner indicated as prof
bable in THE PRESS of May 15. Lord STANLEY becomes President of the
Board of Control, and Sir EDWARD BULWER LvTroN takes his place as
Secretary for the Colonies. The writs were moved on the 31st, and
both elections, for Hertfordshire and for King's Lynn, are likely to be un-
opposed. The Lynn election takes place this day, and the 4446 is lave
begged Lord STANLEY not to incur the trouble of a journey into Yifi
'I r,
merely to present himself before them.

Mut

1!7 .17

Lord LucAN's proposal to amend the Oaths Bill los not quite so
immediately calamitous as the charge at Balaklava, yet it was mischievous
enough. It gave an opportunity for the expression of a desire on the part
of two or three Noble Lords that the question could in some way or other be
compromised. And this expressed desire is seized hold of on the other in , le)
and we are immediately told that " the question is virtually settled." .

We owe an apology to Lord SHAVIZSBURY for having' mixed tip 'MS
name with this absurd affair. A thoroughly trustworthy informant hitd
assured us that the great Hebrew family which is most interesed in the
question were rejoicing in the belief that the Noble Earl had eppged tq
support Lord LIiCAN'S amendment. Considering this to be good Amato.,
rity, we reasoned on the supposed fact. But Lord SaArrEssunv's name
is not found among Lord LUCAN'S supporters, and we naturally regret
having for a moment believed the statement.

.d•I

To come to the point, however, we desire to ask—ls not the word
compromise misused in this matter ? Is it a case which admits of a com-
promise ? A woman is either married or unmarried; a man is in possession
of a certain office, or he is not in possession. Baron ROTHSCHILD wishes to
be seated in the House of Commons, but he is not seated there. Between
two such plain words as IN and OCT what compromise can there be?

As we have already remarked, we regard this phrase "compromise "
as a mere attempt to delude. The whole controversy, at present, turns
upon one point : Is Baron ROTHSCHILD to take his seat, or not ? Lord

LIMAN'S amendment allows him to take his seat : therefore Lord LueAx's

amendment is no compromise, but a mere
dispute.

ion of the whole matter in

The account given by Mr. HonsmAN of his indolence in the Irish

Office was, in one respect, most unjust to himself. His administration of
that important post was far more active than his modesty permitted him
to confess. So far from be ing quite idle, Mr. Ilonsmax was most indus-
trious, though his energy took the unfortunate direction in keeping up a
general misunderstanding with most of the Irish Members. To some of
them, by his own acknowledgment, he was positively offensive. He
required that the applications made by the "Independent Members" from
the sister country should be reduced to writing; "he would receive no
verbal request, and gave no verbal answer " to Mr. M‘Manos, the
representative for the County of Wexford ; and " with those Members he
" thought it right to fence round the transaction of business with a degree
" of circumspection." This confession is enough to prove the offensiveneSs
of his conduct. It was not amongst those " Independent Irish Members"
that a JOIIN SADLEIR and his associates of the O'FLAHERTY type were
to be found. And we fancy that Colonel FuLKE GREVILLF.., M.P. for
Westmeath, has far higher aristocratic pretensions than the great
Mr. HORSMAN ; and yet Colonel GREVILLE was one of those
" Independent Members." But if Mr. llonsmAs has no ca-
pacity in dealing with men and things, we admit that he
is gifted in a rare way with the power of seeing things that
no one else could see. " There was little or nothing to be done by iiiChref
Secretary," said Mr. HonssfAx, who, by such a reckless assertion, &Ai/
down a contradiction on himself from all sides, more especially from his
late colleagues, Sir GEontiE GREY and Mr. J. D. PiTzuEitAto (ex-Attor-
ney-General for Ireland). He attempted to justify the statement by
saying that " he had only one clerk, and that one was not. sufficiently
employed." We cannot vouch for the working of the staff in the Irish
Office (London) as conducted now, but we believe the facts to be these,
The Irish Office, like the other departments of State, is worked by a ,per 7
manent staff, on whom the routine duties necessarily fall. One of the

clerks is generally styled the " Acting Private Secretary " to the Chief
Secretary, who may also, if inclined, nominate his own private secretary.
The "one clerk" invidiously referred to by Mr. llonsmAx we take to be
one of the ordinary Raft of the department ; as it is plain that he was not
nominated by Mr. Itlnfissalf himself, who knew nothing about him. The
Irish Office, so grievously misrepresented by Mr. HORSMAX, has an average
of business through the year quite sufficient to tax the energies
of an able administrator; and it must be remembered that under
our Parliamentary system it is expected that our leading officials
should make work for themselves, and rmt take merely routine
duty. Even if there was little or nothing to 'do, Mr. HORSMAN might
have managed 'to have remained on friendly terms with the Irish
'Members. Not one' of them, Conservative, Whig, or Independent, raised
a voice for hintiiestirrhursday. He was condemned openly by some, he
was tacitly rebukedf, by others, and his statements were conclusively
refuted by several; but he was warmly praised, sincerely respected, and
affectionately encouraged by—himself. The truth is, that Mr. lions :um.:
is not so much In"be blamed after all. When he offended the Irish
Members, the itlihiliOLGintleman was only acting on the example of
liiiiosiffielil superiors. W"Ciinbridge-house" and its clique had a right to
9144r:its disdain or the' Meat Liberal party—if Lord PALMmuTrox could
say . that • 'fiat dire what Lord J. RUSSELL, or Mr. GLADSTONE, •
. ~ .
thought uppn the, matter," possibly Mr. IIoRaMAN supposed that he
Might have . a right to show his superciliousness to the Irish Members.
' They have, •hOwever, completely disabused him of his mistake; and when
he regards himself in his flattering looking-glass, he will in future be
More likely to take 'elk 'finer narrey of liis' own natural dimensions.
: . :.,,1,
~,,J- 1:. 11 jjr 71 ' :: 'r• ',' if _
,'"(Ill i ‘.11.,... rli! WO r/ r --t i i, ' 1 -,

r • 11 !crib 71. I
Oq alt,.the last' contest, for the present session, is to take
place in the' Hones of Commons on the.. Church-rate question. We
already know that by the greater activity and greater pecuniary expendi-
ture of the Dissenting party, a majority is secured which will send the
Bill up to the House of Lords. But this knowledge ought not to make
Churchmen relax in their exertions. We already see, in the case of the
Oaths Bill, that it is not the bare fact of a majority in the House of Com-
mons that weighs with the Peers ; but the largeness of that majority, and
the persistence of the Lower House in reproducing the Bill. year after year,
for a long time together. No one expects, we apprehend, that the House
of Lords will receive with any satisfaction a measure which in effect goes
to remove the Church from its position of a National Establishment, and
to reduce its members to the position of a sect. But even now, on its
first appearance in the Upper HOuse, it is desirable that the Lords should
know that the opposition to the measure in the House of Commons was
not a weak or insignificant one. No friend of the Chtmll, therefore,
should be careless about his attendance on Tuesday evening.

As to the House of Peers, we do trust that on so high and all-impor-
tant a question as this, no petty party feeling will be allowed to interpose,
but that Whigs and Tories will concur with almost absolute unanimity in
the rejection of such a measure.
For the question, in short, is nothing less than, Are you for an Estab-
lished Church or against it ? In the Lower House there are some two hun-
dred members who represent borough-towns where Dissenters abound, and
these gentlemen willingly catch up the cuckoo-note, " The Church will do
better without Church-rates than with them," and so manage to curry
favour With, tholr constituqta on the one hand, and yet to quiet their own con-
sciences on the, other. But, the Peers know nothing of this sort of " pres-
sure from without," They can, and we trust will, act from principle only.
Let thtm believe Lord JOHN RUSSELL, then, who has explained more than
once that there is no principle which condemns Church-rates which is not
equally. cogent against Tithes—that if it be wrong to make a Dissenter con-
tribute/towards the stipend of the parish clerk, it cannot be right to make
him contribute to the income of the rector. In short, that the principle of
an Established Church involves at once Tithes and Church-rates and all
similar payments ; and that to challenge the justice of any one is to chat.
lage Vie indite of all. In short, it is the existence of a National Church
that if in question f and a nation which had got rid of its Church
•,r3illitilotiongil*,eficumbered with a Peerage or a Queen.
,n , •
e we write these lines, the recollectidll'ciosses our minds that
.•.,
erthfir,cimistion, anterior to this, hangs stilt' doubt. It has long been
491444,by„js numerical majority iglthe house of Commons, that the
Legislature itself need.not be even Christian. And it is now said that the
I,'eers are.dispueled to." compromise " this question. But we cannot blind
our:eyes to the fact, that when Christianity has been " compromise," the
Church cannot long expect to find a better fate.

0 for the good old times of 1836 and 1837, when Conservative dinners
followed so fast upon the heels of each other that criticism was out of the
question, and the chief topic of remark was, how many Conservatives were

mustered—sometimes 1,200, sometimes 1,700, or even more. All those
musterings Owe over ; the Conservative ascendancy was gained by the
followers and then lost by the leader, and for seven years past a Conserva-
tive dinner bas been a thing of comparatively rare occurrence.
Two consequences naturally follow. First, thoughts and words so
long " bottled up " often burst forth when occasion is given with all the
gush and sparkling of effervescing wines. They may even transgress
decorum, and overflow upon persons and things for whose use they were
not intended. A second result is, that as such productions are now com-
paratively rare, the critics are sharp set, and fall upon them with unwonted
zest and voracity. Thus, a Minister happens to meet a party of his con
stituents, and to give them a humorous description of recent Parliamen-
tary occurrences; and forthwith, two ex-Premiers and an ex-Secretary of
State occupy the ears of Parliament for hours together with criticisms upon
one single speech, delivered in a Buckinghamshire village ! As we just now
said, in the former days, when each week that came round saw some great
Conservative gathering, who would ever have dreamed of Parliamentary
comments on such affairs? But neither Whigs nor Tories dine much in
public now ; and when a knife-and-fork fight does take place, it seems to
be considered an event of startling importance.
Speaking seriously, however, it surely was no slight compliment to be
paid to a single speech at Slough, that three different Whig statesmen of
the first class considered it worth their while to occupy the precious hours
of Parliament with supposed refutations of this after-dinner speech. This
fact places festive oratory in a higher rank than it had previously held.
Conservative statesmen must now tread warily. Should Sir BULWER
Ixrrox or Lord STANLEY be tempted to dine with their constituents in
the elections which are now about to take place, let them carefully weigh
their words. More critical and difficult will be their position than when
addressing Parliament. For in the House of Lords or Commons the op-
ponents are before them, and the reply, and rejoinder, and explanation, are
immediate. But in a country tent or barn, with two or three country re-
porters, a few words may be misunderstood or misstated, and no correction
be practicable. Then follow complaints to Parliament, debates on speeches
heard by none who are present, and an absurd waste of time, ending in
nothing, except a fresh proof that the Whigs are vexed, and that the ex-
Ministry are disconiented.

The immediate object of the late Visitorial inquiry at Trinity College,
Dublin, was to pronounce on the justice of a University censure formally
passed on Drs. SHAW and CARMICHAEL, two or the Junior Fellows, by the
Hebdomadal Board. In the month of March last there appeared in the
columns of the Dublin Conservative journal a letter on the subject of
University Reform, of which Dr. SHAW was the writer. This letter vir-
tually imputed to the Provost and Senior Fellows the same charges which
have been adduced at greater length in the May number of the Dublin
University Magazine, of which the principal count is the following :
That, whereas, in the year 1801. an M.A. degree cost 71. 18s. 6d. ; seve-
ral other degrees, '29/. 45.; and the degree of B.D. or D.D., 36/. ; of which
sums the Provost and Senior Fellows received nothing, and the college
chest as much as 29/. 10s. ; in 1851 the cost of each degree had been
slightly raised, making an increase in the aggregate of about 10/. ; and
that, of these monies, 39/. 10s. went to the Provost and Senior Fellows,
and to the College chest nothing. For this offence, Dr. SHAW was sum-
moned before the governing body of the University, and punished in the
mode above described. What may be the actual effect of this punishment,
we do not know. Probably, nothing beyond the supposed disgrace
of it. But, however that may be, Dr. SHAW thought
it sufficiently severe to justify an appeal to the Visitors,
and hence that inquiry which has created so much excitement in
Dublin during the past week. The result of it is that the appeal
of Dr. SHAW has been dismissed, and the propriety of the censure
confirmed. After due consideration we cannot, we confess, bring our-
selves to see this question in any other light than such as it appeared
in to the Vice-Chancellor. The columns of a newspaper are not the
Proper channels for exposing abuses such as Dr. SHAW" complained of.
Having first of all laid a proposition of reform before the Hebdomadal
Board, which was rejected, his proper course, as it seems to us, was to
have appealed at once to the Visitors. If the case was not one of sufficient
importance to justify such a step as this, it was certainly not of sufficient im-
portance to warrant so irregular and mischievous a proceeding as the one
adopted. To attempt to decide a question of this nature by means of a