The Press.
London, England, 1856-05-17 00:00:00

LORD RANELAGH AND THE CARLTON

CLUB.

No questions are more interesting in our
English social life than those which partake at
once of a private and public character. Subjects
that come exclusively under the first of these
classes cannot be discussed openly ; but from
time to time there are topics ventilated which
combine the personal interest of something
" behind the scenes " with the semblance, if
not the reality, of political interest. Such a
subject has now been mooted by Lord Rom-
LAGII in his letter to the members of the
" Carlton Club."

" Club questions " admit of more social
casuistry than any other topics of equal or
less magnitude. Clubs are not only political
but social gatherings, and the only funda-
mental maxim common to these little com-
munities is, that their members should main. -
tam the conduct of " gentlemen." Even in
the application of that rule there is often some
difficulty, as the late Lord ALVANLEY showed,
when the members of Brookes's refused
to exclude Mr. O'CONNELL from their club
on account of conduct which, if " done " by
Mr. Brown Jones or Mr. Smith Tomkins,
would have, probably, excommunicated either
of those persons from any club. Having men

MAY 17, 1856.

tioned "Brookes's," we may remark that Lord
BRotottot relates an authentic anecdote of
Mr. Pirr (circa 1804), driving home from the
House of Commons, and saying to his corn-
panion--" I have, a great mind to go in and
" sup at Brookes s." Mr. Pirr, in point of
fact, had not taken off his name, though he
never again entered that club after the year
1784. In doing so, as we are informed, Mr.
Pin conformed to a custom followed by many
gentlemen (and several instances of it have
come under our cognisance), of not removing
their names from clubs, when either political
differences or personal causes have made them
cease from frequenting these societies. There
is, obviously, a great difference between leaving
a name on a list, while absenting from "pre-
sence" (to use Lord ItANELAoli's word), and
giving directions to the secretary to remove it
from the list. The latter course is of that
peremptory kind which English gentlemen
shrink from, unless on grounds of strong pro-
vocation.
It was, perhaps, a matter of mere sentiment
in the case of Mr. Pirr to leave his name in
Brookes's ; but supposing that Mr. Pirr,
while assailing the Whigs, and using both
oratorical and literary weapons against the
Whigs, had gone day after day, and night after
night to " Brookes's," dined, supped, and
talked there, and listened to the conversations
there—stay, stay. we cannot suppose anything
of that kind. We are satisfied that Mr. Pirr
would never have given his "presence "
amongst a collection of his adversaries, while
personally and politically antagonistic to them
in the Senate.

Now, we must confess that we feel some re-
luctance in noticing at all the letter of Lord
RANELAGH. The members of the Carlton Club,
or of any other club of gentlemen, are not
amenable to the criticisms of journalists, like
those public personages whose acts and
speeches concern everybody. We should not
like to anticipate any conclusions, or even to
suggest them ; but we may say that we believe
the decision of the interesting question
mooted by Lord RANELAGH will turn on the
point what constitutes " presence" in a club.
We shall not, therefore, go seriatim through
the points of Lord RANELAGH'S letter. None
of them is more important than the last sen-
tence :

My resolutions are directed against those alone who,
either by writing, voting, or stronger adhesion, have
openly or in effect joined the party to which this club is
opposed.

We do not know whether it is casually, or
intentionally, that Lord RANELAGH puts "by
writing," first in his categories of conversion.
The whole letter is composed in a manly, un-
affected style, arid it savours not at all of a
narrow, inquisitorial spirit. On the contrary,
his Lordship seems to allow a certain latitudi-
narian range ; but he appears to think that
toleration must have its limits.

It is obvious, to speak generally, that there
may be "presence" in a club of a sinister
character. A man of mean nature, and malig-
nant heart, might frequent such a society for
personal purposes. He might collect gossip,
ferret out party secrets, observe private inter-
course between particular persons, and armed
with such knowledge he may try to become
virulently offensive. We do not suppose that
any such character is to be found in " The
Carlton," or " Brookes's," or the " Reform
Club " Such a person would deserve to be
classified with the.fera naturm, and a particular
kind of "club-law" would be almost justifiable
in his case. But without resorting to any
such extravagant supposition, we can well
imagine that " Brookes's" would be much
annoyed if any man, or men, was using that
eminent club solely for personal purposes, of
a kind that could i.ot be honourably avowed.
There can be only two parties in this coun-
try, Tories and Whigs, or Conservatives and
Liberals, in modern parlance. Gentlemen
who have no side in politics ought to belong
to " White's," or the " Athenieum," the
Wyndham," " Garrick," or some other non-
political society. In " political" clubs, corn-
Ilion principles, the same objects, the same an-
tipathies, and the same recognised leaders,
would seem to be fair tests of membership.
The tdem nolle atque idem velle might fairly
be applicable to those societies, and " the

, ..