The Press.
London, England, 1856-08-30 00:00:00

recent criticism on Mr. DOUBLEDAY'S life
of that deceased statesman, we entered at
length into our opinions of the causes which
unquestionably detract from his posthumous
rer u talon.
Most preposterous, therefore, is it for the
Herald to accuse us of " being a new defender
" of Sir R. PEEL," or of being *dined to "de
" fend, extol, and maintain his policy." ,Sueh
a coarse style of random assertion is dis-
claimed by all respectable journalists. The
Herald originally gave the statement of what
Sir R. PEEL was reported to have said without
any qualification, and then on last Monday
the same journal is compelled to print Sir
ROBERT PEEL'S positive repudiation of the lan-
guage attributed to him by the Herald!
Our contemporary then writes, " But,
" perhaps, a reference to the living may
" answer nearly as well," and in support of the
assertion that the Conservative Opposition to
the Melbourne Whigs was exclusively Protes•
taut (irrespectively of protection, foreign and
colonial policy, finance, &c.), it recommends
us to study the bitter speeches of Sir JAMES
GRAHAM in 1838, 1839, and 1840. Those
speeches would prove nothing on the question,
except that Sir JAMES GRAHAM was a profi-
cient in stinging rhetoric and galling sar-
casm, after he had due time for their elabora-
tion. We never looked upon Sir JAMES
GRAHAM as a ruling chief in any of the many
connections which he has joined. But, even
supposing that he was to be held as an autho-
rity for the principles of the Conservatives in
1838, 1839, and 1840, will our contemporary
produce any speech of Sir James Graham assail.
isg Maynooth _ .

Observe the facts. A discussion has arisen
whether "Maynooth " was ever the test for
Conservatism? We say that it never was, and
we refer to the speeches and principles of the
Conservative chiefs since the party was con-
solidated. "Oh ! Look to the speeches of
" Sir bans GRAHAM in 1838, 1839, and 1840,"
cries the Herald. We do look to them, and
they confirm our position that Maynooth was
not a test for Conservative Protestantism. Its
own witness refutes the Morning Herald.
One word more. A cry is now raised against
the present chiefs of Opposition, because they
do not endorse an agitation against Maynooth.
Yet the parties who raise that cry were con-
tent to follow Lord GEORGE BENTINCK, who,
so far from wishing to revoke the grant to
Maynooth, was actually in favour of endow i:tg
the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, though
he steadily contended against any inroad on
the property of the Established Church. If,
therefore, the question be made one of " con-
sistency," let our opponents reflect on " the
" history of their own times," and be more
careful in hazarding charges whose investiga-
tion must lead to their own discomfiture.

It is deeply painful to us to enter upon such
controversies. So much we have written in
our own vindication, and we counsel our con•
temporaries to look more to the consolidation
of our common party than to points of dif.
ference. Iu that work they may rely on our
hearty co-operation and friendly zeal.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE
CONSERVATIVES.
THAT a thief or a burglar should seek to per-
suade the public that policemen are unneces-
sary in the streets of London, and bolts and
bars a superfluous precaution, on the ground
that crimes against property are no longer to
be apprehended, would surprise noboly. But
that the public should suffer themselves to be
imposed upon by so transparent a device
would indeed be astonishing. Yet such is the
tone adopted by certain of our Liberal con-
temporaries towards the Conservative party.
They ignore with enviable effrontery the suc-
cessful resistance offered by the Conservatives
during the past session to their attacks on the
Constitution and the rights of property, and
then exclaim, in tones of innocent perplexity,
that the Conservatives have no policy, and are
-2we wail, worn out. No man thinks that