The Press.
London, England, 1857-12-12 00:00:00

THE PRESS, DECEMBER 12,1857.

for the suppression of the press which Lord
ELLENBOROUGH tells us that he, when Governor-
General, himself received. Then, as now, and
ever since the period at which Lord MET-
CALFE emancipated it, it has been the object
of the India-house to destroy the Anglo-Indian
press. This has not been on account of the
charges usually made against it in England,
but because of the nepotism and misgovern-
ment of the Company that it has so conti-
nuously pointed out. Some of its worst fea-
tures, indeed, as judged in this country, were
the rancour and unfairness with which a por
tion of it pursued such men as Sir CHARLES
NAPIER and Lord FALLEN BOROUGH himself.
But in these attacks it was hounded
on by the Directors and their civilian
friends. Indeed, we have no hesitation
in saying that, whenever the press in India
has greatly deviated from its legititnate path,
it has been under the influence of some high
functionary persuading the editor against his
better sense. That as a whole it has been un-
faithful to its duties we take leave to deny,
and our evidence may be considered the more
trustworthy as none have suffered more deeply
at its hands than some of those to whom we
have given our wannest support. Its errors
have been exceptional ; and it is doubly base
in those to taunt it with them through whose
own seductions alone it has gone astray. It will
now, however, have gained experience, and
when again free, as we hope soon to see it, it
will be better able to tell its real from its pre-
tended friends. It will see that those who
never courted it in its prosperity are not its
worst friends at heart, and that the loudest
call for its destruction has emanated from
those who, when it has erred, have caused the
fault. It will see that they who are doing
their best to save it are men who have never
benefited by its influence; and that they who
are crying for its destruction are persons who
owe everything to its support. For the faction
that aro now striving to ruin it are indebted to
its aid for all the credit they enjoy, and ex-
hibit their intrinsic worthlessness by thus re-
paying the former favours so misjudgingly
accorded to them by the Anglo.lndian press.

This is just what constitutes the difference
between Reform and Revolution. We find
that some institution we have long been ac-
customed to respect does not work. Either
from haste or from some hidden purpose, an
alteration is made totally at variance with its
nature. The machine is of course ten times
more useless than before. And then, without
ever considering whether it is not our own
handiwork that is principally to blame, and
whether a more judicious reform would not
have effected our object, we topple down the
whole fab►ic, and find we have brought on a
revolution while only intending a reform.
A statesman of high views and powerful mind,
had he wished to remedy the spiritual desti-
tution which exists amongst us, would have
found in the present situation an excellent
opportunity for a comprehensive and perma-
nent measure of parochial reform. A redistri-
bution of parishes in our town districts would
be a perfectly conservative measure, and
would do no violence to the feelings of the in-
habitants, to whom their parish, unlike the
case of our country villages, is a mere
abstraction. But even to a man of Lord
SHAFTESBURY'S intellect the notion might well
have occurred. And that so thoroughly
obvious a proposition has been brought for-
ward by no one of his followers is a perfectly
clear proof that it is not the good of the
' Church, but the supremacy of a self-righteous
faction to which their efforts are directed.
It is needless to dwell on the excellences
of the parochial system. Every Churchman
must have felt them ; and they would only
be weakened by description. We would
merely observe that since the bishoprics of
the Church have become pieces of Ministerial
patronage, the independence of the parochial
clergy has been a matter of more moment
than ever. And that the assertion of this
independence is in no way inconsistent with
the highest respect for episcopal authority,
must be clear enough to all those who are
willing to remember what episcopal authority
in the present day means.

The evils of the proposed change may be very
summarily described. The least of them is the
use of unconsecrated buildings. In fact, we do
not know that any Churchman would object to
this practice in the abstract. But the avowed
preference of an unconsecrated to a conse-
crated place of worship is naturally calculated
to give offence, and, when the latter are to be
obtained, looks very much like a wilful outrage
on the most cherished feelings and traditions
of a large portion of the community. We
would remind Lord SnArrEsnimv, and that
other " man of God " to whom he has sold
himself, that something was once said about
giving " offence to one of these little ones."
We are sorry that two such eminent
Gospel Christians as their Lordships should
require to be reminded of it by us. But as the
conduct of the Centurion once rebuked that of
the Elect, so may we, who are still, we fear,
reprobate, occasionally bring home a truth to
those chosen Vessels of grace.
The fact is that Lord SHAFTESBURY'S pro.
posal, if ever carried into law, will inevitably
produce the same mischief as the mendicant
friars of old. The regular clergy will be shoved
to the wall, now as then, not by superior
learning, but by superior impudence ; and we
shall have a gang of clerical orators
travelling over the country, gaining the ear of
" weak women," sowing dissension in every
parish and in every family in every parish,
and whose whole reputation will depend on
their bringing into contempt the very system
they were appointed to support. We invite
our readers to consider impartially what human
nature is ; what temptations must inevitably
beset persons so circumstanced; and what an
attractive career will thus be opened to men
of a fluent tongue, but little learning, and still
less inclination for the discharge of regular
duties, the demands of a holy life, and the
restraints of a responsible position.

Another strong objection is to be found in
the unlimited discretionary power thus vested
in the bishops. No incumbent of a parish the
population of which exceeds two thousand—
within which definition comes three•fourths of
the parishes of the kingdom above the status
village—will then be safe from