The Press.
London, England, 1856-08-02 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

Imperial Parliament since. would be violently
extinguished. Does any person suppose that
the change could take place without reviving
in Irela d the itrodOotreligious animositie4?
and /s like! that litly Government. wodid
delibe " ly se hbodk the work of once Mere
i
makin rebut. ilia "great difficulty " which
it pro . in pit* yeali
Sttflitlsing ItiOftdditi entirely abolis'hett
would the agitattieri bf the Spoonerites end
there ? To he consistbfit they must go further.
They must agitate for a repeal of the allow-
ance to Roman Catholic chaplains for the
arthy. Tlibt would be delicate ground ; but
the men who would instigate a revival of the
Repeal agitation would not be likely to shrink
frc m the prospect of provoking a mutiny in the
army.

Certainly if the Spoonerites succeeded thus
far, they would be encouraged to proceed. The
Roman Relief Bill is not so old by thirty five
years as the endowment to Maynooth. If the
Roman Catholic priesthood are rightly de •
scribed as " teachers of treason," and the
" polluters of our towns and counties," it
must needs be intolerable that they should
exercise such an influence in our Legislature
as they actually do by means of Roman Ca-
tholic representatives. The Spoonerites must
certailly consider it a much greater grievance
that Roman Catholics should have an influen-
tial voice in making the laws which govern
them, than that an annual charge should exist
on the Imperial revenue for the education of
the Roman Catholic priesthood.
We should like to be authoritatively in-
formed whether the agitation against May-
nooth is intended to be limited to the extinc•
tion of the endowment, or whether it is an
issue raised for the purpose of returning to
the policy of Protestant ascendancy. We can
understand the importance attached to the
agitation and the zeal with which it is pur-
sued, if such be the ulterior views of those
engaged in it. Yet in that case would it not
be better to try the greater question on its
own merits ? An agitation for the repeal of the
Act of 1829 would be quite as practicable, and
surely of greater importance, than an agitation
for the repeal of this Maynooth endowment,
which at the utmost concerns the disposal of
26,0001. a year.
We very much doubt whether the interests
of Protestantism are in any degree served by
the religious animosity which the Maynooth
agitation keeps alive. In the din and smoke of
religious conflict errors are concealed, and
reason is silent. To a false creed no measures
of repression are so fatal as tolerance and
quietude. During the last few years a great Mini
ber of conversions from Popery have occurred
in Ireland, and surely this of itself is a strong
argument against the revival of the religious
heats which would, in all probability, impair
the great work.
We wish to see this question discussed in a
more conciliatory spirit than some of our con-
temporaries evince. We cannot convince men
by reviling them. In our opinion, sincere
religious conviction (however erroneous) is
entitled to the respect of at least inoffensive
language.

MR. DISRAELI'S REVIEW OF THE
SESSION.

As our summary of the debate of yesterday
se'nnight was necessarily imperfect, we print
in our impression of to-day the report of Mr.
DISRAELI'S speech as it appears in the Times.
We present it to our readers as a calm and
careful statement of the resul is of the session.

Such documents constitute the political
history of our time. It is to them that the future
inquirer will turn when he desires to investi-
gate the politics of our day ; and it is to them,
as a wholesome change front the reckless
assertion and shallow arguments of " leading
articles." that the mere newspaper reader may
profitably devote some portion of his time.
The speech. full of incontrovertible facts, has
cicited much more attention than the
Ministerial. journals find convenient.

SATTJRDIY,

In his opening remarks, the Right Hon.
Nlember for Bucks diaclaitned any intention of
making it party litioll3k. ft) pointed to facts.
The attesien just edheituilid had been remark-
able it* the numbei of Alliasures introduced
to tli Legislature, dild ft* the few that have
been Paaied. Midi is Mao reason for this
failu ? is it to bA iikifibuted to the forms of
the Helm, or to the length of particular
speeches ? Mr. DISRAELI refers to his review of
the session of 1814 to show that those reasons
were assigned for like failure at that time, and
that it was then established that such alle
gations were without foundation. The forms
of the House have since been simplified, and
all prudent facilities afforded for the trans-
action of business.

To clear the public mind from misapprehen-
sion, and to free the Legislature from the
odium which might attach to it through such
misapprehension, Mr DISRAELI laid his state-
ment of facts before the House.

A Government was not bound, he argued, to
bring forward each session a great number of
measures for legislative action. A Government
might conceive that certain important questions
were not ripe for settlement, and might occupy
itself with the transaction of merely necessary
business ; or it might be engaged in the con-
duct of a great war, which would absorb all
the national energies ; or it might have its
whole attention engrossed by delicate and diffi-
cult negotiations with foreign powers.

From all of these pleas the Government was
precluded, by the fact that it had, in the Speech
from the Throne, recommended unmet ous sub-
jects to the attention of the Legislature, and
that it had never ceased to introduce measures
while the war continued, while the Peace Con-
ferences were in progress, and after the busi-
ness of negotiation was concluded.
A reference to Mr. DISRAELI'S statement
will show the reckless manner in which Go-
vernment hills were introduced, and the
equally reckless manner in which they were
abandoned. Bills on important subjects were
introduced by members of the Government
two or three times over, and were as often
withdrawn. It is doubtful whether any pa-
rallel can be found to the number of Govern-
ment failures in the past session.
The Right Hon. Member for Bucks believes
that the main cause of this failure is to be
found in the Government not possessing the
confidence of the Legislature. The source of
this want of confidence may be sought in
various directions. It may arise from the
Legislature distrusting the political principles,
or the business talents, or the special know-
ledge, or the administrative sagacity of the
Government. We follow implicitly the opinion
of BRODIE or BRIGHT in what concerns our
life, of KELLY in what concerns our fortune, of
FARADAY in what relates to chemistry, of OWEN
in all that concerns organic structure. We
have confidence in their opinion, and we trust
ourselves to their direction. The Legislature,
it is plain, had no such confidence in the
direction of the Ministry, for it refused to
follow their guidance.
The answer returned to this argument is,
that the Legislature had confidence in the
Government, because, by large majorities, it
refused to disturb its possession of power.
The defect of the answer is obvious. It con-
founds confidence with tolerance. The
Legislature allowed the Government to per-
form executive functions,but it refused to trust
them further.

If the Government did possess the confi-
dence of the Legislature, then to what cause
are its legislative failures to be referred"
Were the bills introduced not needed, or were
they ill-considered, or were they vicious iu
principle, or were they framed in a slovenly
manner? The Government may take its
choice of these alternatives; but, let it choose
which it may, want of confidence, in some
form or other, will be the natural deduction
from its own choice, and will be found to lie
at the bottom of its failures

Mr. DtsnAELt dwelt for n moment on the
ill consequences that must result from such

AUGUST 2, 1856.

administrative failure. Continual defeat must
make a Government careless of reputation ;
and if such carelessness becomes habitual,
pleasures will be introduced for the mere sake
of the popularity which may attach to their
introduction, without care for their fate. The
most slovenly construction will be thought
good enough for bills unlikely to be criticised
in detail. The Legislature must expect to be
inundated with " slop " measures, framed not
for use, but show. The Law Officers of the
Crown will be degraded into the " Cheap
Johns " of a country fair.
The orator adverted to two points which
were sometimes alleged as inevitable sources
of Ministerial weakness ;—the change effected
in our representative system by the Reform
Bill, and the dislocation of party ties owing to
the absence of distinctive principles among
public men. But in the twenty-four years
that have elapsed since the Reform Bill, the
country has had the two strong Ministries
of Lord GREY and of Sir ROBERT PEEL ; and
even the weaker Administration of Lord MEL-
BOURNE was in a position to carry its measures,
till, owing to its unfortunate retention of
office after it lost the reality of power, the con-
fidence of the Legislature was forfeited.

To the second point—the alleged disloca-
tion of parties—Mr. DISRAELI devoted the most
eloquent portion of his address. He argued
that the pretended dislocation of parties was
not, and could not, be a reality—that parties
must exist iu a constitutional country, and that
the classes of opinion or sentiment, from
which parties resulted, were as clearly marked
now as at any previous period of our political
history. He held that the maintenance of the
existing electoral system, and the due influ-
ence of property in the exercise of the suf•
frage, was a Conservative principle. That
the union of Chuch and State, the maintc-
nanca of the Irish Church, and the upholding
of those local and hereditary influences which
are opposed to a crude centralisation, are Con-
servative principles. The orator dexterously
availed himself of the derisive and acceptive
cheering with which his enunciation of Con-
servative principles was received from the
Ministerial benches, to show that there were
on those benches gentlemen who held opinions
diametrically opposite.

Turning to foreign politics, he argued that
a Conservative policy was opposed to the
dismemberment of either the Russian or
Austrian empire, though both had been advo-
cated by leading members of the Liberal
part) ; and that Conservative principle was
not less opposed to war with the United
States or to hindrance of the natural expan-
sion of their territory.
From the Ministerial benches Mr. DISRAELI
was met by a cry that the policy of peace with
the United States was not less Liberal than
Conservative. The question is to be decided
by facts. Who is to be taken as an exponent
of Liberal ideas on foreign policy if Lord
PALMERSTON he not ? In virtue of his ad-
ministration of foreign affairs, the Liberal
party have chosen the Premier for their
chief.

The type of Conservative policy towsrds
the United States is to be found in the special
mission of Lord ASHBURTON, and in the
memorable treaty concluded by the Noble
Lord, entirely settling, and in the most con-
ciliatory and satisfactory manner, the most
serious and threatening boundary question
that has ever arisen between the two coun-
tries.
What, on the other hand, was the Liberal
policy represented by Lord PALMERSTON ?
He arraigned every circumstance of the mis-
sion and treaty. He contended that the
policy of this country towards the United
States should not be a policy of conciliation,
but a policy of suspicion ; that every point of
difference should be stoutly contested ; and
that the Government of Great Britain should
regard the Government of the United States
as a rival or adversary whose interests were
adverse to its own.
On all the great questions of domestic and
foreign policy, enumerated by Mr. DisitAzcz,
the Government had, he showed, adopted the
Conservative, and not the Liberal line. But
what did this fact prove? Not, surely, that

THE PRESS,

the Conservative principle and party were ex-
tinct, but that Liberal principles were in abey-
ance.

The political situation, however unsatis-
factory in some respects, presented to the
Conservative party two sources of consolation.
First, they had the pleasure of seeing their
principles prevalent in high places ; and
secondly, they had the consolation of knowing
that the Liberal party would throw back their
cause for half a century, by selecting as its
chiefs men who, while in office, not only made
no attempt to carry Liberal principles into
effect, but even shrank from avoiding those
principles.
The danger which besets the Conservative
party at this moment is, lest they should be
lulled into a false security through seeing the
weakness of their opponents, and through be-
lieving the assurances so confidently set forth
that parties are at an end. It is impossible
that the present system can last ; and it is
most unlikely that another session can pass
away without a clear determination of the prin-
ciples on which the Government is to be con-
ducted.

ad
an
DI(
of
in'
go
in
in
foi
Cl
Jo
of
in
B
tli
P 1
tL
cc
of
er
13(
ti
01
fig
ti
el
t!
n
tl
n
h
e
e
fi
tl
0
n
a
3
d
a
C
I
1