The Press.
London, England, 1858-05-08 00:00:00

successor

11111

" The Independent Liberals" are so exultant at their recent gathering,
noticed in our first page, that some of their number have notified to the
Whig managers their resolution to support no future Cabinet, calling itself
Liberal, which does not assign to them at least five seats in the Cabinet.
They have even gone so far as to indicate the five individuals who they
deem best qualified to assist in carrying on the Government. These are—

Mr. HORSMAN. Mr. MILNER GIBSON.
Sir J. TRELAWNY. I Mr. BRIGHT, and Mr. ROEBUCK.
We have great faith in the sincere desire of both of the Whig leaders
to propitiate, if possible, so large a body of malcontents ; but we do not
expect that either of them will, as yet, bend so low as to consent to form a
Cabinet of this kind. For, be it always remembered, that a Cabinet in
which Mr. JOHN BRIGHT has a seat will be Mr. JOHN BRIGHT'S Cabinet.
No one need expect that this man of peace will be another Bernal
Osborne so soon as he is incased in the livery of office. We should like to be
present at a Cabinet Council in which Lord JOHN RUSSELL advocated one
view, and Mr. JOHN BRIGHT another !
Meanwhile, uneasy at the present state of things, some of the leading
Whigs talk of a grand dinner at Stafford-house, at which my Lords
PALMERSTON and JOHN RUSSELL are to be formally reconciled. But the
awkwardest feature in this part of the case is, that Lord JOHN RUSSELL
says that he has no quarrel with Lord PALMERSTON, and that he sees
no occasion for any reconciliation.
On the whole, although it is impossible ever to be safe from "Lich-
field-house Compacts" and the like, we feel inclined to say, that the
condition of the Liberal camp is one of more hopeless division and distrac-
tion than ever.

At Wednesday's meeting the 120 appointed two regular " whips" to
give their corps something like organization. But they own no leader;
and when a declaration of "principles" was talked o 1 it was generally fdt
that it would be dangerous to go into that subject !

Lord EBURY'S motion, though it could not succeed, was calculated to
do good.
It could not succeed, because the case is one in which, while all agree
as to the want, few can agree as to a remedy. Nothing human is perfect ;
and the English Liturgy is human. Yet we see defects in St. Paul's Ca-
thedral, and in Westminster Abbey, without a thought of attempting to
remedy them. We think of the risk—we think of our own weakness and
fallibility, and we leave those glorious works to stand, with their faults,
rather than attempt to patch or mend them. So, in the present case, few
or none were found to dispute Lord EBURY'S statements, and yet scarcely
a man felt inclined to give his vote for an experiment.
One other powerful reason for inaction lay behind. Many of the
faults or defects complained of were not inherent in the Liturgy ; they
were capable of amendment without a Commission, or a Convocation.
or an Act of Parliament.

For instance, if the Morning Prayer, a sermon, and the Lord's
Supper for 200 communicants require a devotion of three hours, or three
hours and a half is there any difficulty in altering this arrangement?
Not a few churches have already altered the ordinary practice--some by
an early Communion; others by making it what its name denotes, "the
Lord's Supper." And even more than this—there are churches where the
Morning Prayer and the Litany are separated, and used, one at one part
of the day, and the other at another hour. In some places the Morning
Prayer is used in the forenoon, the Evening Prayer at half-past three,
and the Litany, with a sermon, followed by the Lord's Supper, in the
evening. These are re-arrangements—perhaps innovations; but they
are increasing ; they have episcopal sanction, and therefore there is the
less necessity for such a step as Lord EBI:RY wished us to take.

It is a pleasant spectacle when veteran statesmen lay aside for a
moment the weight of empires, cease for the time to consider eivitalem
quid deceat status, and recreate their " God-like souls" with the charm, of
art and literature. Two such opportunities have been afforded this week
by the gatherings for which the present merry month is famous. Lord
DERBY and some of his colleagues were present at the Royal Academy
dinner last Saturday, and Lord PALMERSTON at the Literary Fund
dinner on Tuesday last. It is curious to observe the different style of treat-
ment accorded to these kindred subjects by the late and the present premier.
The latter, as usual, was gay, brilliant, and spirited. Everything shone
before him in its brightest colours. He was greeted with repeated bursts
of laughter, and seemed to have infected all present with his own good
humoured vivacity. Lord PALmEits-rox, on the other hand, was unusually
grave and sentimental. "Oh! who can tell how hard it is to climb," &C.,
was the burden of his speech. The disappointments of authors who found
themselves little beyond the bottom of the hill at the moment when they
fondly fancied themselves at the top of it—the man of genius wrestling
with adverse fate, and an unappreciating public—seemed on this occasion
the topics most agreeable to his tongue. lie dwelt with feeling on the
uncertainty which beset the literary man as to where he should find his
Eldorado; and, generally speaking, may be said to have taken anything
but an after-dinnerish view of the profession of literature. Yet almost as
many sad stories may be told of struggling artists as of struggling authors.
IVhile, on the other hand, we should certainly have imagined that if there
was a single bright spot on an otherwise lugubrious theme, Lord P.ti.
MERSTON was the man to have picked it out. Yet his address of 11 ednes-
day last was more like a prose imitation of certain passages in Jusenal
than the sprightly saltatory tone which usually characterizes the Judicious.
One. The change is as remarkable as that in the behaviour 01,
RICHARD 11. "Let's talk of worms." What the tranformation portend'
we know not. But we observe it with considerable concern.