The Press.
London, England, 1856-08-23 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

with their immediate followers and poli-
tical friends, differed on it from the majority of
the Tory party. During the Peninsular War
the chiefs of the Tories differed on it also from
the mass of their followers. The Royal Prinoes
of that time were also divided about the diffi-
culty arising from the Catholic question.
Even the Whig party itself did not folk,*
unanimously the leadership of Fox upon it.
Lord CAMPBELL has recorded in his "Lives of
the Chancellors " that the " Catholic question
was never a Whig party one," alluding to the
hostility of Lord ERSKINE to the Catholics; and
Lord HOLLAND has also given us an amusing
and authentic account of ERSKINE'S arguments
in the Coalition Cabinet against Emancipation.
"No new thing," indeed ! The Maynooth dif-
ficulty is of sixty years date. It was recom
mended by Mr. BURKE (after he seceded from
the Liberals), it was adopted by Mr. Ptrr, and
accepted by King GEORGE 111.
The Herald is therefore wrong in attacking
the conduct of the Conservative chiefs, as if
Maynooth were a " new thing." But our con-
temporary falls also into mistakes as to fact
which have excited our surprise. Its history
of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S conduct teems with
serious errors; and we think leas 01 its misre-
presentations of ourselves, when we find it
condescending to assail a deceased statesman
in a manner perfectly unjustifiable. We are
not partial to the fame of Sir ROBERT PEEL,
but that eminent man cannot now answer for
himself, and he should not in his grave be un-
fairly attacked. The Herald imputes language
to Sir ROBERT PEEL which we feel convinced
that he never used, and which he positively-
denied himself. We shall print the accusation
of the Herald, and Sir ROBERT PaaL's denial in
parallel columns :

MAIMS al TIM " 11[01111TNO DENIAL Or SIR ROBERT
REZALD." PEEL.

In the year 1838 a depu- I think it probable that I
tation from tilasgow waited said 1 feared the approach.
upon him, and he talked to ing revival of those times
them with great apparent when, instead of being en-
earnestness on the necessity gaged in political conflicts,
for the union of the English we should be engaged iu
and Scotch churches to resist such religions disputes as
the eticroactirnentsof Popery. agitated Europe three hnn-
He added, "I am persuaded direct years ago—. .Of this I
that we shall, ere long, see a are earl/Went, that I said so•
struggle arise in which we thing to encourage hostility
shall have to determine the towards the Roman Catholics.
question whether Popery or With respect to the
Protestantism is to have the expressims about " Popery,"
ascendancy." I must say that they were
very contrary to the language
I had always been in the
habit of using.
The Morning Herald quotes Hansard (vol.
lxxix. p. 1,407) as its authority for the charge,
but it omits to inform its readers that the
emphatic denial by Sir R. Past of a Doctor
BUCHANAN'S assertions about what he said is
to be found at p. 1.422 of the same volume !
Lord PANMURE (when Mr. Fox Maims) at-
tempted to fasten that charge on Sir ROBERT
PEEL, but it was such a complete failure, that
friend or foe never referred to it again until
our contemporary acted as its resurrectionist
last Tuesday.
Our contemporary's pretended history of
the Conservative party also teems with similar
errors. Sir ROBERT PEEL, we are told, " set
" about reconstructing the Conservative party,
" and his sagacity showed him that no other
" basis could be found on which a large and
" earnest party could be built up but that of
" Protestantism." The Herald takes no notice
whatever of the memorable stand made in
1834 by Mr. STANLEY (Lord Dunn) the Duke
Of RICHMOND, the Earl of RIPON, Sir JAMES
GRAHAM, and Lord GEORGE BENTINCE. When
PROTESTANT INSTITUTIONS were assailed by the
Whig party acting in obedience to the coali-
tion of Irish Repeaters and English Levellers.
Lord DERRY and his friends left the Liberal
party, and then the great Conservative party
was really founded.
The Herald also takes care to omit all no-
tice of the fact, that these eminent persons,
though gallantly defending the Established
Church, were not prepard to revoke the grant
to Maynooth, and that subsequently they ap-
proved of the Act of 1845.
Azd besides, " Protestantism" (in the sense
of the Morning Herald) was not the basis
of the great party led by Sir It. Part.. On the
important question, whether Municipal Cor-
porations ought to be given to Ireland, there

SATURDAY,

was division in the " great Conservative party."
In point of fact, they were in a minority of
eighty 41n that question, while cn other sub..
jects the Melbourne Whigs could command
only a seejority of twenty. Foreign policy,
Coloalel and Finaneial Affairs, and Corn Laws,
were also main sleasents of the Conservative
party of that time.
If; thpefore, a fabge discussion about
Maysioo* 'honk be **tinned, we must
entreat that a more strict attention to facts
shall be observed. We are zealous in support of
a policy which shall consolidate and enlarge our
PROTESTANT INSTITUTIONS, but we are opposed
to a line of conduct which must exasperate
our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in Ireland;
and, in a strictly Protestant sense, we are
firmly convinced that in the present exigencies
of the empire the retention of Maynooth is a
lesser evil than would be its inconsiderate
abolition. In an empire there must be many
anomalies It is the part of hot and hasty
Radicalism, not of thinking Conservatism, to
urge that all measures should be squared to
the uniformity of one unvarying principle.
The Protestantism of England is safe in its
Church Establishment, in the free circulation
of the Bible, in our Literature saturated
with Protestant spirit, in our free press,
our English society, and our House of Com-
mons, whose Protestantism is to Popery as
sixteen is to one.

THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY AND ITS
LEADERS.
INSTEAD of answering point by point the acute
writer in the Morning Chronicle, who endea-
vours to establish " Conservative Disorganisa-
tion " as a fact, we are persuaded that he will
think we pay him a higher compliment in en-
deavouring to grasp his main argument, and
in replying to that alone. We take this course
the more willingly as it enables us to meet
the remarks of several other journals which
have dwelt on the same theme.

The argument of our opponents, if we ap-
prehend it rightly, is, then, that the Right
lion. Member for Bucks cannot command the
support of all the members of the Conserva-
tive party—that hence the Opposition is
weakened, and the country by so much in-
jured. Is this a fair statement of the matter
in dispute?

Admitting that our opponents are right in
their facts, the very serious gaestion would
then be raised whether the Leader of the
Opposition in the House of •Commons or his
recusant followers are in fault? It does not
follow in political more than in domestic jars
that there must be faults on both sides. If it
be admitted as a public calamity that such
jars exist in the Conservative party, we should
much like our contemporaries, as impartial
spectators, to judge the quarrel and endeavour
to apportion the blame. They have already
disregarded the warning given in Llutlibras to
those persons

Who in quarrels interpose,
and are therefore not likely to mind any
scratches they may receive in the performance
of what they are pleased to consider a public
duty.
If it be true that there is a section of the
Conservative party which regards the leader-
ship of the Right Honourable Member for
Bucks with suspicion, the fact need excite no
surprise. The cases are rare in our Parlia-
mentary history when an Opposition has been
perfectly united, and has reposed implicit
confidence in its leaders. The Morning
Chronicle points attention to the state of the
Opposition when led by Sir ROBERT PEEL.
That Opposition was perhaps the most pow-
erful and compact of which any instance
exists, yet it was for several years kept at
bay by the feeble Government of Lord MRL-
BouliNs ; and our contemporary must re-
collect, as we do, that the question was
frequently raised by ardent Conservatives,—
Who shall lead us ? Whoever has studied the
history of Oppositions in this country will

AUGUST 23, 1856.

have observed that concord among their chiefs
and their members was not the rule but the
exception. The splendid philippic delivered
by Lord GREY against Mr. CANNING, when the
great Whig leader believed that his political
career would close in Opposition, is a striking
commentary on the extreme difficulty of keep-
ing together a party in opposition for any con-
siderable period.
When our contemporary points to the expe-
rience of the last session, he must allow us to
remind him that it is not every session which
presents opportunities for a trial of party
strength. Such opportunities may be dexter-
ously evaded by a 'Minister who cares nothing
fc r either principles or measures in comparison
with place. A wadded waistcoat is said to present
greater resistance to a deadly weapon than a
coat of steel. The Administration during the
last session was as supple and as slippery as
an eel.

%When our contemporaries assert that Mr.
DISRAELI does not command the confidence
of his party, they should reflect a little what
sense they attach to the word party. A party
is primarily composed of those persons who,
from their exalted rank, their extensive influ-
ence, their long and consistent attachment
to principle, and their commanding ability,
are marked out as the natural leaders of any
great political connection. It is these persons
who must decide on the claims of a chief to
confidence ; and we hazard nothing in saying,
that never did any leader of Opposition com-
mand more unreservedly the confidence of
those persons to whom the government of a
party must be intrusted than does Mr. DIS-
RAELI at the present moment.
It is the natural effect of long exclusion
fr9m office, and one of the great uses of party
government, to test severely the loyalty of an
Opposition. Our opponents must admit that
the Conservative connection has stood the
trial bravely. Attempts have not been want-
ing to break it up; that it subsists intact—
that it has resisted all Ministerial influences
to weaken it—is a full and sufficient answer to
that pretended disorganisation of which so
much has been said.

The efforts to depreciate the Leader of
Opposition in the House of Commons are so
malignant, that we are compelled to say a few
words on his personal position. Mr DISRAELI
has not the adventitious advantages which
have distinguished many party leaders in
this country. He has neither high rank nor
colossal fortune to bind followers to him. It
is not surprising that the Whig aristocracy,
swollen by the plunder of a Church. and by
fifty years of the grossest corruption ever
recorded in Parliamentary annals, should ac-
count it an audacious thing for a private
gentleman to lead a party in virtue of the
claims of intellect alone. We do not wonder
that the Whig connection should use all their
influence WI get Mr. DISRAELI written down.
But we aro surprised to see their ungenerous
efforts supported by writers pretending to
represent popular opinion. It is not for
them, one would think, to depreciate
the claims of intellect. Providence has
decreed that the world shall be governed by
it. The highest minds in an empire are those
best calculated to take the lead in its councils,
and, whatever principles are for the time in
the ascendant, to guide its destinies. There are
persons who have usurped the title of states-
manship by blindly representing prejudices
and by endeavouring to give them effect.
There are others who have grasped at its
honours by consenting to serve any master, by
changing their principles with circumstances,
and by dextrously contriving to bear a part in
all the leading routine of Government. The
true statesman is he whose mind perceives
the requirements of a people in that age in
which he lives, and who is prepared to meet
them in such manner as to confirm and con-
solidate the solid strength of his country, to
bind together what is new with what is old,
and from the exigencies of his epoch to con-
tribute to the growth of national empire.
There can be no doubt in which class pos-
terity will rank the Right Honourable Mem-
ber for Bucks.

THE PRESS.

ENGLAND AT THE SEASIDE.

IT may surprise many persons to learn that Oil pro
pensity of our countrymen to rush to the seaside at
this time of the year is comparatively of modern.
date. The middle of the eighteenth century is the
period when this sanitary, or pleasure-seeking cus-
tom was introduced. At that time several of our
decayed coast towns became " watering-places."
Singularly enough they declined and revived simul-
taneously. Bathing-waggons took the place of
smuggling loggers, and revenues were raised from
cockney's not contraband cargoes. One might now
suppose, who sees the myriads at our seaside places
of resort, that the practice of going to visit Neptune
in summer hail been common to "the good old
times." A curious new volume (published by LONG-
MANS) illustrative of " social history in the southern
"counties of England" treats inter alia of this
(now) seasonable topic:—
Before the year 1750, the sea on our southern coast had ever
been as pule, the hills and nndercliffs as grand and capti-
vating ; but there is in history no record of any summer
seaside pleasure-taking, and there never had been con-
venience for sea bathing, nor hot baths. Which is the
most strange, the neglect of the seaside for bathing, or the
change that has now obtained?

So writes Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS, the author of the
" Life of the Duke of Monmouth," in his new work,
dedicated "with gratitude" to Mr. MACAULAY. Mr.
ROBERTS cites matter to show that the rush to the
sea dates from the publication of Doctor RICHARD
RUSSELL on "The Use of Sea-water in Diseases of
the Glands." This work was first published in Latin
in 1750, and produced a great effect on the medical
faculty, and its author chose Brighton for his pro-
fessional residence. Sea-water became the panacea
for every ailment. The doctors and their patients
were equally enthusiastic about the new remedy.
After the passion• for sea-water came the rage for
sea-air, and then medicinal waters came into
augmented fashion.

kr. ROBERTS, however, does not pursue his sub-
ject philosophically. It is remarkable that the
migration to the sea in summer should be contem-
poraneous, or nearly so, with the construction of the
great towns of the north, which, in the latter end of
the last century, became the hives of manufacturing
industry. Our propensity to rush for air has pro-
gressed with our tendency to become a country of
cities. As our navy became our chief national arm,
a love for yachting arose, and the seaside was at
once aristocratic and fashionable.
Steam bas carried this rush to the ocean still
further. The working-man now sends his wife and'
children to the seaside, and " cheap boats" and
" excursion trains" have introduced great comfort
into the humbler circles. Equality of enjoyment
was never more universally diffused, though to
" keep up position " in England enforces on both
extremes an equality, of anxiety, which illustrates
PALEY'S notion about the equal diffusion of happi-
ness amongst all clases.