The Press.
London, England, 1857-11-14 00:00:00

THE PRESS, NOVEMBER 14, 1857.

1098

so much to the national difficulties of the
task as to the utter want of foresight and
comprehension of the crisis exhibited by our
Ministers from first to last.

PROSPECTS OF THE COUNTRY.
ON the 22nd of August last wo informed our
readers, " The Legislature is adjourned under
" gloomy circumstances. It is felt amongst
" politicians of all parties that since the year
" 1834 (when such great domestic changes took
" place) there never was a recess which might
" be looked forward to with so much interest,
" as being likely to bring forth most serious
" incidents." Such were our words, and we
wrote them under the influence of statements

of gravity which we had received at the time.
What is the state of things in this week ?
The news of crash after crash reaches us while
we write; a Ministry in search of a financial

policy, and not knowing how to extricate
itself from " Reform" pledges, seems bent on
running to Parliament and making the Legis-
lature a confidant in its difficulties; capitalists
are tremulous, and merchants quail. The
whole tone of the crisis may be read in a
sentence—" At the Bank the applications for
" discount were enormous. In fact, to-day
" and yesterday the pressure was heavier than
" at any time in 18-17." Such is the admission
of the City article of the Times of Friday, and
we are not surprised that many people share
our grave apprehension at the non financial
character of the present Cabinet.
We believe that there was seldom in office
a Ministry less qualified for dealing with a
great commercial crisis. The Prime Minister
himself is confessedly the ablest man in the
Cabinet, but at no period of his career did
Lord PALMERSTON ever show any aptitude for
dealing with financial questions, and on some
occasions (of which Sir R. PEEL always took
advantage) Lord PALMERSTON exhibited extra-
ordinary ignorance of political economy. It
is true that there are two ex-Chancellors of
the Exchequer in the Cabinet, but the Mar-
quis of LANSDOWNE has for a great many years
ceased to take any interest in financial ques-
tions, which have assumed a totally different
character from what they were in 1806, when
the Noble Marquis held office. The less said
about Sir CHARLES Wool) as a financier the
better; and we never yet heard any " City "
authority profess the least confidence in Sir
CORNEWALL LEWIS. On classical questions, or
on the budgets of ancient Rome. the Right
Hon. Gentleman is a responsible authority.
He may be an archwological economist of con-
siderable pretensions, but Sir CORNEWALL
LEWIS is not the financier for a fearful crisis.
The Secretary for the Colonies, Mr. LABOD-
CHERE, would, in some respects, be a better
Chancellor of the Exchequer than Sir G. C.
LEWIS; but Mr. LABOUCHEItE has the reputa-
tion of not thinking for himself, and on some
occasions he has shown a fatal facility in being
" ridden" by his superiors in office, even when
he had right views. Ho is thought to be a
weak man, and his opinion does not carry
influence. Lord CLARENDON is a diplomatist ;
Sir GEORGE GREY is a fluent special-pleader
in politics ; Lord PANMURE does not profess
finance ; Lord GRANVILLE is no economist ;
Lord HARROWBY knows something about
everything, but least about finance ; Mr.
BaINEs is almost equal to the Duchy of
Lancaster; Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY is a
capital electioneerer ; the Duke of ARGYLL
does know something of--geology ; and Mr.
VERNON SMITH has the Indian Budget to look
after ! Such is the Cabinet which has to pilot
the empire through the crisis of the coming
winter !
It would be cruel at such a period even to
breathe the name of " the new Reform Bill."
The Liberal organs have contrived to avoid
the topic as much as possible. and short
paragraphs in small type have merely
announced that some subordinate Radical
M.P.'s are superintending some sort of subter-
ranean Reform agitation which is to blow up
one day or other into something great. What
combustibles they are collecting we know not ;

but it undeniably adds to the gloomy charac-
ter of this season that the Liberal party, for
the sake of keeping tip its political character,
has drawn a large oredit for a new Reform
Bill. In case the panic spreads, and that
numbers are thrown out of employment in the
great towns, personal misery will quicken the
force of political agitation, and popularity-
hunting politicians will press the Reform
question forward.
But, let it be emphatically observed, if Lord
PALMERSTON resolve to postpone " Reform,"
and to adjourn the question over, there must
be an end of the Cabinet living on false politi-
cal capital. If the Cabinet is not to bring
forward the promised measure, it must be
tried by a practical test, and by the fitness of
its members for their posts. The eyes of the
whole public will turn towards Sir CORNEWALL
LEWIS, and his capacity for filling his post will
he severely and strictly criticised. Mr. VERNON
SMITH, also, cannot escape notice ; and it
would be vain to deny that Lord PALMERSTON
has many dangerous tendencies which make
his best friends uneasy. It is already felt that
the tone of his speech on Monday was a great
mistake. Its air of bravado was at once dis-
agreeable and indiscreet. We have India to
reconquer, and our official system in the East
to reorganise thoroughly. Was it judicious at
such a moment to tell the great kingdoms of
the Continent that the men of their popula-
tions were not " equal" to Englishmen in cou•
rage and endurance? Was it wise to sneer at
military monarchies with the personality of
" iron heels ?" We are ourselves secure in our
insular position, for England realises the apo-
strophe of TALLEYRAND—d Happy country, that
4` has got no frontiers !" The circumstance of
our living in sn island is the great fact which
enables us to have maintained a Constitution
of such freedom for so many centuries ; and a
Prime Minister should not have forgotten the
difficulties under which attempts after consti-
tutional liberty are made upon the Continent.
But the recklessness of Lord PALMERSTON
urges him on to say things which afterwards
have to be atoned for in undignified apologies.
The aspect of affairs in " the City" ought to
have taught more caution to Lord PALMERS-
TON. On the next and succeeding days the
Noble Viscount's address, with its ill-timed
air of triumph, was severely commented upon
amongst mercantile circles. It is only a little
more than thirty years since Mr. ROBINSON
(now Earl of Ripon) made a premature state-
ment in the House of Commons. The CHAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER of that day (23rd of
February, 1824), boasted of the " influence of
" England, gained, not by petty intrigues or
" blustering dictation, but from the conviction
" entertained by other nations of the sincerity
" of our professions and the honesty of our
" conduct, a conviction which makes them
" feel that our power and influence are not the
" menacing instruments of hostility and rivalry."
In the next year came the crash which deri-
sively associated Mr. ROBINSON with " prospe-
rity ;" and before long it may be found out that
"blustering dictation" is not a policy which
will contribute to the wealth and prosperity of
England. Speeches which read like prel►mi-
nary orders for calling out the Channel fleet
should not be made to gratify the self-love of a
single Minister.

temporary of the petitioners, "assume to them
"selves the representation of the conscience of the
" clergy and laity of the United Church of E ng.
" land and Ireland " They do no such thing.

The word conscience is artfully substituted
for communion, for an obvious rhetorical

purpose. Replace this, and the said clergy-
men and laymen are perfectly justified. On
the principle that no chain can be stronger

than its weakest link, so no communion can

be more expansive than its narrowest formula,
if only ono man insist upon literal obedience
to it. That formula may be expunged by the

majority. But that is a different question.

While it remains in his code every individual

may fairly claim to be bound by it.
But the point which we arc desirous of
urging with the greatest importunity is this—
that the clergy do not allow themselves to be
called off from the one clear and paramount
object which has been plainly set before them
by Dr. WILBERFORCE, and which we may ven-
ture to remind our readers we have all along
suggested as the cardinal question at issue—
that is, at what stage Parliamentary inter-
ference in matters ecclesiastical is consistent
with the English Constitution and the spirit
of the Established Church. Is the jurisdic-
tion of Parliament original and initiatory, ex-
tending to the interpretation of Scripture anl
the promulgation of doctrine, or is it rather
arbitrative and confirmatory, deciding between
conflicting opinions within the Church her-
self, and on evidence which the Church admits,
but not importing new doctrines or new prac-
tices ab extero, whatever their alleged conso-
nance with the Word of God, but in these
matters merely lending the sanction of the
civil authority to the prior action of the
spiritual ?
It seems to us that the conduct of Govern-
ment in the past session is reconcileable only
with the first of these theories. In the first
place, they practically assumed the right of
interpreting the words of Scripture by a
majority of the House of Commons, and of
converting an opinion into a dogma by the
same authority. For the semblance of con-
cession, by which it was hoped to persuade
the people that the question was left as it was
before—a moot point, on which clergymen
might think as they like—is utterly worthless.
The law in effect says—Oh, you may think as
you like, but if you think in a certain way it is
at the price of a penalty which most conscien-
tious clergymen would rather be ejected than
submit to. This, forsooth, is the religious
liberty of the nineteenth century ! Is it not
rather a fresh outbreak of that intolerance
which distinguished the fanatics of the Cove-
nant as much as the familiars of the Inquisi-
tion, and which a certain class of noncon-
formists would be ready enough to exercise in
this country now if they ever had the power in
their hands ?
As we have observed on a previous occasion,
it is within the range of possibility that at
some future time the majority of the House of
Commons should consist of nonconformists.
Suppose they determined to enact that the
services of the Church should be conducted
after the fashion of their own—that particular
prayers should be expunged, and particular
ceremonies abolished. The recent act of
legislation would constitute an unassailable
precedent. We can have little doubt that
some among them look forward to such a con-
summation. How absurd, then, to quote the
Act of Supremacy, as embracing such results
as these ! And what blindness and infatua-
tion in the friends of the Church to abandon
their vantage-ground, by the acceptance of
the recent act !
If the clergy, then, will take our advice—
they rejected it once before, with what results
we need not say—they will confine themselves
to the ventilation of the question we have
here suggested. Let them not be drawn into
theological disquisitions before the proper
time arrives. The point they have now to
insist upon is constitutional, and not doc-
trinal. The scriptural question, as the Bishop
of OXFORD intimates, may be discussed hero

after. But let the clergy rest assured that if
they do not make a firm stand against the
present encroachments of the civil power,
the English Church 1611 rue their conduct to
the latest hour of her existence.

MAJOR EDWARDS ON INDIA.

Tan address of Major EDWARDS to his con.
stituents at Beverley deserves something
more than the mere cursory notice which is
all we can accord to the majority of Indian
speeches. And this not so much for the
absolute value of the Gallant Officer's re-
marks, who did neither more nor less than is
usual under similar circumstances, as be-
cause he broke ground in a new direction.
We do not look for great orations or Profound
expositions of policy in an after-dinner
speech, and think ourselves lucky if even a
Cabinet Minister gives us a single new idea.
Well, Major EDWARDS has done this. lie has
set us on comparing two things at first sight
essentially dissimilar, but which on closer
examination will be found to preset t certain
features in common, which may guide us to
valuable conclusions.

No two things, then, at first sight, can
appear less like one another than the revolt
of our American colonies, and the mutiny
of our Indian army. The one was the
struggle of our adult offspring to
shake themselves free from the jealous
tenacity of parental government—of men of
our own blood and of our own religion,
nurtured on the same traditions, and with the
same respect for law, liberty, and virtue—a
struggle which, had it not come when it did,
must inevitably have occurred later, as far as
human sagacity can divine—which was waged
gallantly and honourably on both sides, and
the termination of which was, perhaps, little
less beneficial to Great Britain than to the
new empire which it called into existence. Of
the other we need say but little. It is in
all respects the reverse of the above picture.
And were we to lose India as we lost America,
there is no new continent on which to plant
ourselves afresh. It was our expulsion from
the Western Hemisphere which led us to con-
centrate our energies on the East, as the loss
of Sicily was the foundation of the Cartha-
ginian empire in Spain. But we should have
no such opportunity again, and the loss of
India would be fatal.

But there are points of resemblance, never-
theless, between the two insurrections, of infi-
nitely more importance to us at this moment
than the closest historical parallel. What was
the spirit in which the petitions of our colo-
nists were received, or the news of their dis-
affection listened to ? What was the mood in
which we undertook to subdue a continent in
revolt, and to grapple with the dangers of a
totally novel style of warfare ? Were not our
arrogant enforcement of obnoxious duties and
our supine security in the centre of a wide-
spreading conspiracy very much akin to the
causes of our present disaster? It may be a
consolation to reflect that Hindoos are not
Anglo-Saxons, and that were our blunders even
worse than they have been we run no risk of
permanently losing our dominion. But it is
time, nevertheless, that Englishmen began to
consider whether these terrible sacrifices,
which mark the commencement of all our wars,
are indeed inevitably necessary. And for this!rea-
son, if for no other, we are grateful to Major
Enwsans for pointing to an analogy most
useful for the public to contemplate.
Major EDWARDS'S observations on the new
Reform Bill were modest and pertinent ; and,
on the whole, we think the electors of Beverley
have every reason to be satisfied with their
new representative.