The Press.
London, England, 1858-05-01 00:00:00

THE PRESS, MAY 1, 1858.

forced or exceptional aggregation of Parties
divot se in their opinions, disagreeing as
to their principles of policy, and only
capable of united action on one or two
isolated questions. Is there any statesman in
Parliament who is in a better position? Any
who can command certain and unvarying sup-
port? If there be, let him come forward. We
confess that Lord DERBY would be hound to
give place to him. But who is he ; where does
he sit ; and who are his supporters ? Is he to
be found below the gangway on the right of
the Speaker; or on the front benches of the
Opposition ; or below the gangway on the
left? Can Mr. GLADSTONE satisfy the condi-
tions which we are told constitutional usage
requires in a First Minister of the Crown,
or Lord PALMERSTON, or Lord JOHN Res-
SELL, or Mr. BRIGHT Neither Mr. GLAD-
STONE nor his friends pretend for one
moment that he can. Lord PALMERSTON'S
own journal tells us that '• in attack upon the
"Government the Noble Lord would probably
" be outvoted, and that there are difficulties
" in the way of a fusion between his own
" section and any other." He is, it is confessed,
no longer the chosen of England, no longer
even the Head of a great Party. lle has
dwindled down to the leader of a Section. We
may, therefore, we presume, put him, too, out
of the question. Then with regard to Lord
JOHN RUSSELL and Mr. BRIGHT. How do they
stand ? Mr. HORSMAN has been on more than
one occasion the exponent of the views of the
Party who sit below the gangway on the
Opposition side of the House, and he has not
concealed from the House and the country
that the Liberal Party are in such a state of
disorganization that a Government could not
even be formed out of the elements which it
presents. He has said so plainly, in so many
words, and not a single member has protested
against his representation, neither has a single
journalist come forward to gainsay it. The
Government of Lord DERBY, therefore, is
literally one of necessity. He and his party
sit on the Treasury bench by compulsion, and
they administer the affairs of the country
under circumstances difficult in their character,
and which place them unquestionably often in
disagreeable positions, not because they desire
place, but because they feel that their retire-
ment would both arrest and throw into con-
fusion all the business of the kingdom, and
exhibit the country and its institutions in a
very undesirable light; shaking, in all pro-
bability, very materially our power and in-
fluence in I. urope.
It is true that the Government have
been defeated upon Church-rates and upon
Mr. LOCKE KING'S motion. It is also true
Lord PALMERSTON was beaten upon the first
when he was esteemed a powerful Minister,
and Lord JOHN RUSSELL was thoroughly de•
feated upon the second in 1852. It is true
that they have been compelled to withdraw
their India Bill, a course which Sir CHARLES
WOOD thinks places them in an unconstitu-
tional position. It is not a pleasant step to
have to take, we admit, but it is neither new nor
strange. We remember a Whig Chancellor of
the Exchequer, for instance, withdrawing a
Budget no less than five times, and passing
ultimately, not the Budget of his Cabinet, but
the Budget of an adverse majority of the
House. We might cite many other similar
instances. We remember, too, when an Irish
Section, the Brass Band, were masters of the
situation, as Lord JOHN RUSSELL is esteemed
to be now, and when their support was eagerly
sought at any price. Many were the occasions
we remember when concessions the most un-
dignified in character and the most mischie-
vous in tendency were made unblushingly, to
purchase the support for the night of the
Irish Band. The Government of Lord DERBY
are not come to this pass. They are not con-
temptible front incapacity, like the Cabinet of
Lord MELBOURNE in 1839 and 1840 ; they are
not reduced to daily shifts and petty manoeu-
vrings, like that of Lord JOHN RUSSELL in 1850
and 1851; and their Chief unquestionably
commands greater support arid more public
sympathy and confidence than Lord PALMERS-
TON in 1858. They have vindicated our posi-
tion in Europe, and they have supplied a large
deficiency iu our income without adding one
sixpence to the burdens of the people, and

without impairing in the slightest degree the
efficiency of our Establishments. What
would the oountry have more, in the Parlia-
mentreturned upon Lord PALM E asToN's appeal?

PARLIAMENTARY INCONSISTENCIES.
THERE are two great questions which rest
upon the same principle. In France this is so
well understood that, in the financial accounts
of the nation, they are usually embraced
under the same head. But in England they
are separated, and are dealt with apart. And
not only so, but the one is provided for in the
easiest way—by a vote out of the " Miscel-
laneous Estimates ;" while the ;other is left to
be supported by the unpopular mode of direct
taxation. And, as one natural result of this
difference, the one is ever growing and in-
creasing in its demands and in its acquisitions;
while the other is ;often frowned upon and
rebuffed, as unpopular proposals are apt to be.
The contrast between the two begins at the
period of the Reform Bill. Up to that time
the elder of the two had met with little oppo•
sition, and the younger had advanced no
claims.

Not to conceal our meaning, we will explain
at once, that we allude to the expenses of
Religious Worship, which we provide for by
" Church rates," and to the national provision
for the Education of the Poor, which is de-
frayed by Parliamentary grants. In France
these two items are classed under one head,
as the charges for " PUBLIC INSTRUCTION and
RELIGIOUS WORSHIP."

And, unquestionably, they both rest upon
the same principle. It is assumed, in each
case, that the State has some other functions
and duties besides those of a Chief Constable.
It is supposed that the Government and the
Legislature may, and should, take some care
for the instruction of the young, and for the
religious interests of both young and old. If,
indeed, as some assert, the Legislature and
the Government have no other duties than
those connected with the protection of life
and property, then all grants for education,
and all rates and tithes for religious instruc-
tion and worship, are alike vicious and inde-
fensible. But never yet has a British Par-
liament adopted this as a basis of legislation.
We have said that these two modes of dis-
charging a plain duty have fared very diffe-
rently during the last twenty years. Soon
after the passing of the Reform Bill, the sys-
tematic opposition to Church-rates began ;
and about the same period we observe the
commencement of those Parliamentary grants
for Education which have lately begun to as-
sume so formidable an appearance.
It was shortly after 1833 that Dissenting
Committees and Societies began to be formed,
for exciting a systematic opposition to Church-
rates. This warfare has now been carried on
for above twenty years, and we find that the
result is, that out of 8,000 or 9,000 parishes
which have sent in returns, the opponents
have succeeded in about 500. So that about
one parish in every eighteen seems to have
got rid of the impost.
But then, for the kindred object of the
Education of the Poor, the progress made has
been in a totally different direction. Here,
instead of retrogression, all is advance. In 1833
—the year after the passing of the Reform
Bill—the Government of Lord GREY pro•
posed a small annual grant in aid of :he
education of the pour. Only 20,0001. was then
asked. In 1839 the grant was increased to
30,0001. In 1845 it had reached 100,0001. In
1856 it was 450,0001. And in the presentycar,
Mr. DISRAELI informs us, that if English and
Irish Education, Schools of Science, and other
similar grants, are added together, the total to
be voted by Parliament will not be less thau
one million sterling !
So that while the Voluntaries have been
sedulously saving at the spigot, they have been
prodigal at the bung-hole. They have stopped
the supplies for the Church, as raised by
Church•rates, to the tulle of perhaps 100,0001.
or 200,0001. ner annum. Meanwhile a new
expenditure has sprung up in another direc-

tion, which already amounts to 1,000,0001. per
annum, and which is likely, Mr. DISRAELI
states, to be, in a few years more, as much as
3,000,000/. per annum.
We are not confounding things that differ.
Mr. BAINEs, one of the chief opponents of
Church-rates, is equally an opponent of grants
for education. Both, he constantly and
lustly argues, are alike opposod to the Volun-
tary principle. And this Voluntary principle,
ho unceasingly insists, would both educate the
children of the poor, and also supply means of
public worship, better than rates or Parliamen-
tary grants.

- -
We point out this discrepancy in the tactics
of the Liberals, in order that they may rectify,
or else justify it, if they can. -NVe say that
both the two objects are of the same character.
If it is right for the State to take care of the
children of the poor, and to provide education
for them free of charge, it is equally right for
the State to take care that places of public
worship are provided, and religious instruction
given, for those millions of the working classes
who cannot provide thane things for them-
selves.

The Church-rate question is often wholly
misrepresented by the opponents of the
Church. They look at the respectable pew-
holders who occupy the best portion of most
churches, and they ask why these ladies and
gentlemen cannot provide organists and clerks
and sextons for themselves ; and why they
will insist on putting their hands into their
neighbour's pockets, to find means for keeping
their churches and chapels in repair. We
reply, that if this was really the question, the
Church-rate controversy might soon be brought
to a close. The persons alluded to—those of
the upper and middle classes who attend the
parish churches—want no Church-rate made
for their benefit. But it is an enormous
blunder to treat the question in this way, or
to speak of a few hundreds of thousands of
householders who actually pay Church-rates,
as if they were the whole of the people of this
country.

Mr. CHARLZS KNIGHT, in his " Companion
to the Almanack for 1855," discusses at some
length the occupations of the people. He
shows that about one-half of the people are
" home-members of families." Of the remain-
ing half, who are occupied in various labours,
he estimates that there are—

About 1,000,000 domestic servants,
„ 1,000,000 employed in preparing mate-
rials for dress,
„ 1,000,000 employed in making dress,
„ 1,000,000 ord. agricultural labourers,
„ 1,000,000 other persons living by farm
and field occupations.
These are leading classes, but it must be
obvious that there are multitudes of other la-
bourers who fall under none of these heads.

Now, when the Dissenters ask us—" Why
cannot you Churchmen pay for your own ex-
penses of religious worship?"—we reply by
asking them to look over this estimate of the
population, and to say how these millions are
to pay for their own churches and their own
ministers—in fact, whether, if the means of
worship are not provided for them, they are
likely to have any religion, or means of reli-
gion, at all?

Our present purpose, however, is chiefly to
address those members of the " Liberal ma-
jority" in the House of Commons who are in
the habit, year after year, of joining in the
hue and cry against Church-rates, and yet,
almost in the same breath, of voting without
the least difficulty 800,0001. or 1,000,0001. per
annum in aid of " National Education." The
two objects, Public Worship and Education,
are kindred objects. The Finance Minister
of France classes them together in his Budget.
The principle on which they are justified
applies equally to both. Mr. MIALL and Mr.
BAINEB object alike to both. The whole
Voluntary party is fully as much opposed to
one as to the other. Yet we constantly find
some two hundred gentlemen in the House
of Commons who vote with Sir W. CLAY and
Sir J. TRELAWNY to abolish Church-rates, and
then vote with Lord JOHN RUSSELL for large
grants for education. All these gentlemen

• We have shown what is the capital they trade on—how by
promises and plausibilities, by appeals to cupidity and
ignorance, they gain for some selfish project the eager support
of those who will derive from it no Jot of the expected benefit.

411

honest men ought to set their faces. More-
over, their agitation has been greatly favoured
by the conduct of successive Administrations.
During the Coalition there was an unseemly
scramble for patronage between rival parties in
the Cabinet, and even Sir ROBERT PEEL'S most
devoted disciples forgot the best lesson be-
queathed to them by their distinguished
leader—that conscientiousness in the bestowal
of public appointments of which he was a
memorable example. Of course, when Lord
Jolts RusseLL gained the ascendant the old
Whig leaven prevailed, and office was the
appanage of a small privileged clique; while
the subsequent Premiership of Lord ParmEas-
Tom reached the " lowest deep " in the abuse
of patronage, and amused or disgusted the
country by appointments alternately ludicrous
and indecent. What a aeries of godsends for
Administrative Reformers ! Professing to
work for so great an object—to stand on so
high a principle—aided so opportunely by the
jobs and blunders of ill-constructed and feeble
Governments, how could they, how did they fail?
We answer, from fatal defects in their own
views and their own organization, from lack of
discernment, from self-interest, from class
prejudices, from putting suspicions in the
place of certainties, and substituting declama-
tion for argument. They clamoured for " the
"right man in the right place," but did not
recognize him when they had gotten him.
They believed the slanders against that truly
great man, Lord RAGLAN, and were as unjust,
if not as libellous, as the Times. Some of their
number, again, showed strong symptoms of a
wish to make their Administrative Reform
agitation a means for forcing themselves into
public employment ; in other words, showed
that one very common abuse of patronage—the
bestowing it to silence a troublesome assailant
—would find an exceptional favour in their
eyes. Still more obvious was their subjection
as a body to class prejudices. Consisting
mainly of men of business, they assumed
themselves to possess, as such, an intrinsic
superiority to men trained to administrative
functions in Government offices. Now we
might admit that many of the complaints
made against red-tapeism were well-founded,
that divided responsibility often crippled
individual energy, and complicated forms
interfered with the rapid action required
at a crisis, without being prepared to
endorse the large drafts drawn on public ap-
probation by these self complacent admini-
strators in posse. They assumed, quite gra-
tuitously, that a good man of business must be
good not only at his own business, but at his
neighbour's—must be like the "wise man" of
the Stoics, " et, eutor bonus, et rex, Et quicquid
volet." And against this assumption the com-
mon sense of the public ought at once to have
rebelled. Official experience, special train-
ing, must be something—might be much. Dis-
gust, however, st the blunders committed
during the earlier stages of the Russian war
awhile gained a favourable hearing for men,
who, if they thought too much of themselves.
were at least active and shrewd in exposing
the shortcomings of others. But matters
mended in the Crimea, and the leaders of the
Association made mistakes, and published
misstatements which were very like slanders;
and so their credit waned. Then came the
peace, and the revival of speculation ; and a
series of disclosures which made the public
painfully alive to the fact that " men of busi-
ness " are neither incorrupt nor impeccable,
even in the administration of their own affairs.
No doubt the reaction thus produced was most
unfavourable to the men who had volunteered
to set everyth:ng right by importing mercan-
tile principles and practice into the various
government departments.
But the principal cause of the failure which
we have been investigating lay deeper even
than this reaction. The truth is, that the
evils to be encountered are not such as can be
fitly dealt with by agitation. They are of
ancient growth, widely diffused, and remedi-
able only gradually and in detail. Not
zeal only, but candour, temper, and patience
are requisite for their cure ; and these are
qualities rarely found in agitators, and cal-
culated sorely to embarrass their movements.
Their forte lies in pulling down rather than
in building up ; and in this case, mere demoli-

t

412

tiun is nothing. Take official patronage from
its present possessors—the question still
remains, to whom are you to transfer it?
Open competition for certain posts under
certain conditions diminishes, but no means
exhausts, Weld iffioulty. In truth, public opinion
is the only agency at once potent and subtle
enough to pervade and purify the whole
system. The votes of constituencies, the
independent action of honest members of
Parliament, and, above all, the influence of the
press, must be the real sources of Administra-
tive Reform. Had electors been loss easily
cajoled by the venal declamation of trading
patriots, we should have had a house less
accessible to corrupt motives, and less prone
to connive at jobbing. Had Members of Par-
liament of advanced " Liberal" views been less
read) to support a rapacious Whig oligarchy
in their monopoly of place, from a vague hope
of bribing them to acquiesce in organic
changes, wo should have been less devoured
by the locust and the palmer-worm, the
Elliots, Greys. and Phippses. Lastly, had the
public press generally canvassed appoint-
ments, not on party grounds, but on their
own intrinsic merits, honest Ministers would
have found encouragement in well-doing, and
even the most profligate would have hesitated
to promote a notoriously unprincipled or inca-
pable dependant.. Thus far the present
Ministry contrast most favourably with their
predecessors in the disposal of their patron.
age. If the people of England really wish for
Administrative Reform, they should show them-
selves not insensible to this contrast. And as
to the press, what can be more strange, more
unjust, than that among the thousand and one
" leaders " in which the two India Bills have
been canvassed, only here and there one should
have noticed the fact that Lord ELLEN-
1011OUGH'S Bill seemed rather to shun than to
seek patronage, while that of the late Govern-
ment aimed at creating and grasping it by
wholesale ? Surely our " Liberal" contemnpo•
varies owe something to public principle in
this respect I

"AN OVATION."
" ST. MARTINIALL, Long acre " (we state it on
high Radical authority) was on Wednesday
night " the scene of a glorious demonstration

in favour of the Liberty of the Press " We may
also state (on the authority of Mr. EDWIN
JAMES, Q C.) that that gentleman then and
there enjoyed an " ovation " "for having per
" formed his duty conscientiously and fear-
" lesslv as an advocate." In simpler phrase,
some hundreds of persons met together to
declare the legality of certain publications
held by the law-advisers of the Crown to
be libelous ; and at that meeting Mr. E. JAMES
was very loudly cheered for his success ful
defence of Dr. BERNARD, and made a speech
gratis thereupon. Nov, as to the meeting,
and the " Press Prosecution Defence Fund,"
(the contributions whereto, strangely enough,
are not advertised in the report), and the

admirable lecture" of Mr. SLACK on the
divine right of publishing pamphlets in favour
of tyrs.nnicide—these are topics with which we
should have been little disposed to meddle. The
meeting might be very harmless, and was cer-
tainly very obscure ; as little fit to represent
the real opinions and feelings of the London
public as the " three tailors of Tonley-street "
to be the spokesmen of the people of England.
It may, indeed, appear inconsistent, and some-
what indecorous, in one breath to laud the in-
dependence of British juries and to pretend to
dictate the verdict of one not yet impanelle I ;
but the mistakes of very insignificant bodies
can do little mischief. So with regard to the
" document " which Mr. SLACK prepared with
so much care " in accordance with the wishes
' of many gentlemen ;" it was probably almost
as eloquent and fully as rational as most of
the effusions of pinchbeck patriots who ails-