The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-18 00:00:00

What Will Lord Derby Do ?

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SLIN.

Sin,—After the very handsome, not to say flat-
tering, remarks you made on my letter to you of the
6th current, I am- emboldened to address you again
on the above-named important question, whereby I
think I can prove to you that the Tories, or Con-
servatives, as it has now for so many years been
the fashion to call them, are, and have ever been, the
only true and genuine Reformers. The Whigs, it
is true, for the last half-century have made a cat's-
paw of several Liberal measures in order to obtain
the sweets of office, but no sooner had the mooting
of such measures proved a good and safe bridge to
carry them into their harbour of refuge than they
were only too glad to send it to the winds.
It never can be said of them that they praised the
bridge that carried them over. With the exception
of the great Reform Bill of 1832, I defy any one,
who is either old enough to remember their transac-
tions, or else has read history with an impartial eye,
to lay his hand on his heart and point to any real
useful or important measure that they have carried
unless they have been backed up by a Conservative
Opposition. True, they, when in opposition for
many years, advocated the repeal of the Test Act
and Catholic Emancipation, but I have very much
forgotten English history if either of those above
named great and just measures were carried by a
Whig Government. Perhaps here I may be forgiven
if I digress a little to show what has been the
conduct of the Whigs towards the Roman
Catholics. It was, as I once before in a
letter about two years ago remarked to you,
something like that of the devil in one of his jour-
neys to the earth, to kick away the stool from your
friend as soon as ever you have made your fortune
by him. They made a great outcry about the penal
laws enacted against the Catholics, but by whom
were they enacted? Why, by the Whigs. Who
was it that drove away the last Catholic Sovereign ?
Why, the Whigs. In fact, the entire destiny of the
Whig party in relation to the Roman Catholic
Church has been curious and perplexing. They
spen't the first half century of their political existence,
from 1650 to 1700, in a fierce struggle against the
Catholic element, which, according to their idea of
things, threatened to blast the liberties of the
country. From 1700 to 1750, i.e. from the death
of William of Orange (who William Cobbett always
called the dirty old Dutchman), and the accession
of Queen Anne till towards the close of the reign of
George 11., they treated the Catholics with more
apparent indifference, being unable to make use
of them either to the right hand or the left. But
from about 1760, the year of the accession of George
ILI., who (believing the Catholic religion to be
utterly wrong and erroneous, and however mis-
taken a man any one may consider him, was most
undoubtedly the most religious monarch England
had had for a long while), was more opposed to
both Whigs and Catholics than any of his prede-
cessors had been. A new and golden opportunity
dawned upon the Whigs, they therefore spent the
latter part of the last century, i.e. from 1760 to
1800, and again from 1800 to 1850, in agitating
for the removal of every remnant of the penal laws,
and in restoring to the Catholic Church all the
liberty and independence it could claim at the
hands of a Protestant State. But no sooner were
they installed in office than a change came over the
spirit of their dream. So long ago as the years
1833 and 1834, the late Daniel O'Connell desig-
nated them as the base, brutal, and bloody
Whigs—and the late Earl Grey, the so-called
father of Reform, broke up his Government
on account of some of his colleagues joining more
with O'Connell and his clique than he (Lord Grey)
could ever think it right or proper to do. Never-
theless, the Union which had so long existed between
the Whigs and Catholics was not entirely severed
until 1850, when, towards the close of that last-
named year, Lord Russell most grossly insulted
the whole Catholic body by writing his memorable
Durham Letter, on the so-called Papal Aggression
of that year. Hollow, indeed, was the truce which
had so long bound the Whigs to their Roman
Catholic fellow subjects. The Whigs threw them
overboard at the earliest profitable opportunity.
On the other hand, it must be admitted tha t
all, or nearly all, the measures in favour
of the Catholics were carried by a Tory Govern-
ment. Catholic Emancipation was not only car-
ried, but had been intro,.luced, by a Tory Ministry,
viz., the immortal William Pitt. Was the endowment
of Maynooth carried by a Whig Government ?
No such thing 1 It was Sir Robert Peel, and Sir
Robert Peel alone, who either did, or ever proposed,
this simple though tardy act of justice. In all the
11 years the Whigs had been in office, from 1830
to 1841, they allowed May-nooth College to go com-
pletely to the winds. A large portion of the penal
laws were never proposed to be repealed until
1844, the year before the increased grant to May-
nooth was carried, when Lord Lyndhurst, then Lord
Chancellor in the Tory Government of Sir R. Peel,
proposed their abolition. Green, indeed, must be
that Roman Catholic who can place any further
confidence in the Whigs, or any longer consider
them as friends to their creed or party. I think I
have said quite enough to show that the connection
between the Whigs and Roman Catholics is broken
for ever, and that their (the Catholics) only real
friends are and ever have been the Con-
servatives. I think I can also prove that
our greatest measures of reform and progress have
been carried by Tory Governments, and Tory Go-
vernments alone. It is true there was a large budget
of law reforms carried in 1833 by the late Earl
Grey's Government—(which, as I remarked in my
letter to you the other day,was by far the strongest
and most respectable Whig Government that Eng-
land was ever governed by)—but their being carried
by a Whig Government was merely accidental.
They all emanated from commissions which had been
appointed in 1828 by the Tory Governments of the
late Duke of Wellington and Sir R. Peel. In 1852,
the year of Lord Derby's first Administration, there
were more law reforms placed upon the statute
book than had been for many years previously. I
think, therefore, I have clearly shown, as I said to
you in my letter the other day, the country is in
duty bound to give the present Government a fair
trig'

In conclusion, I would draw your attention and
that of your readers to another gross piece of
treachery of Lord Russell 30 years ago, viz., in
1835 and 1838, which is all of a piece with the con-
duct of the Whigs in turning out Lord Derby's
Government in 1859, and their subsequent conduct
from the last-named year until their resignation
last summer in 1866. They, i.e., Lord John Rus-
sell, as he then had turned out the Government of
the late Sir R. Peel, in 1835, on the Irish Tithe
Question, and only three short years afterwards
Lord Russell carried the very identical measure
which he had turned Sir R. Peel out upon. The
Whigs, in 1798-99, opposed the introduction of an
Income-tax, because it was then brought forward
by a Tory Government, in 1806 (only 7 years later),
when, in office, they doubled it. In 1842 they
did the same thing, because it was brought forward
by the Government of Sir R. Peel again in 1848,
when in office they proposed to double it. I think
I have clearly shown you that the conduct of 1112

Whigs for the last thirty or forty years has been all
of a piece. I trust, therefore, it will be very long
again before the country trusts its affairs to their
management, or rather mismanagement. Let all
Liberals bear in mind that an open enemy is better
than a false friend—i. e., assuming that the present
Government are opposed to all Reform, which, as I
have said repeatedly, I do not at all believe is the
case ; and I think if the Whigs are banished to
the bleak and dreary regions of the opposition for
as long a period as they were during the reigns of
George 111. and IV., the country would be rather a
gainer than a loser by such being the case.
I remain, sir, your obedient servant,
A LOVER OF HISTORICAL DATES AND FACTS.

MR. BRAND'S' SUCCESSOR.—It is generally be-
lieved that the Hon. John ()ranch Walker Vivian, M.P.
for Truro, will succeed Mr. Brand as Whip to the Oppo-
sition. The bon gentleman is the second son of the first
Lord Vivian, and he sat for Penryn from July, 1841, till
July, 1817; for Bodmiu from April, 1857, till May, 1859,
when he was an unsuccessful candidate for Truro. He was
elected for Truro July, 1865.