ART. VIII.—1. The Second Congress and the Russian Claim to the Isle of Serpents and Bolgrad. By a Cambridge Jurist. London, 1857. Th articl is ascribe 2. Our North-West Frontier; with a Map of Persia and M Affghanistan. London, 1856. Gladston IN our autumnal Number, amidst the diminished animation of ·268 the chronic struggle between Liberal and Conservative opi-andp.59 nions, and the too sensible decline both in the usefulness and in the influence of Parliament, we thought it our duty to draw attention to a mode of conducting public affairs which, in our estimate, is neither Conservative nor Liberal. The people of England happily possess a security for good government, far beyond that which the composition of even the most trustworthy ministry can afford, in the constitution, temper, traditions, and ordinary conduct of the two Houses of Parliament. The Legislative Chambers indeed cannot govern ; and all our best and most honest statesmen have felt it their duty to make a firm stand against the very first indications of a tendency on the part of either House of Parliament to assume the function of governing. What is not less true, though much less understood to be true, is, that, without a rightly-disposed Minister to assist them, they cannot legislate upon any matters of really high concern or arduous effort. But when the Minister misgoverns in his executive capacity, or when he proves himself incapable of directing the separated energies of the Parliament by well-considered proposals towards useful aims, they have the remedy in their own hands. When at length the atmosphere is fairly overcharged with electricity, there is no justice so speedy as that vote of the House of Commons, which inflicts capital punishment on an Administration. But in order that this great and effectual power may be rightly administered, it is necessary that the relations of the Parliament and the Administration should be conducted with uniform dignity. They must be governed on both sides by that sense of honour which feels a stain like a wound,' and which recoils with horror from the idea that to muffle up and to deny a disgrace can either cancel or alleviate it. If on its side the Parliament feels that its legislative achievements do not come up to the fair expectations of the country, or if it perceives that the Minister in his separate capacity, as wielding the powers of the Crown, is an unfaithful guardian of the public interests or honour, then not only does the obligation arise to put him to the proof, but the neglect of that obligation in either case is inevitably followed by a loss of the reverence due to Parlia R 2 ment ment from the country, and of the influence which, in the legitimate discharge of its duties, it never fails to command. We believe that we gave utterance to a deeply-rooted and widely-spread conviction, when we endeavoured to show that the recent performances of Parliament had not come up to the most reasonable and moderate expectations of the public; that the character of the country was lowered and its interests hazarded by the foreign policy of the Government, alternately quarrelsome and shabby, and constant only in being ostentatious, restless, and changeful; that the relations of the Executive to Parliament were not governed on either side by the sense of dignity and mutual respect which is necessary for their healthful working; and that the natural consequence was an impression throughout the country that Parliament itself with its present constitution is becoming inefficient an impression which touches the very palladium of our liberties in its consecrated seat. It is plain that the complaint, thus spoken in this Journal, represented a feeling that pervaded the mind of the general public. For that feeling, if not the language in which it was uttered, has received the notice of the Minister himself. Paying, like Kossuth and Sir John Pakington, a visit to Manchester during the autumn, and fortunate in preceding them, he found the whole field of political discussion open for him, and, selecting a topic with his usual tact, he answered as follows the imputation, which it seems he found lurking under the dubious compliments and unquestionable admonitions of the address presented to him by the corporation of that city. By introducing the subject in self-defence upon a gratulatory occasion, he showed that dissatisfaction had become audible even to official ears, and that he well knew the country feels an ignorant impatience' of an inaction all the more to be condemned because it is chequered with noisy and abortive bustle. Let us hear, however, his words : 'Nations which are governed by ukases and edicts may complain of their governments if everything is not done at once which they may think ought to be accomplished; but, fortunately, in this country improvements must be the result of a general concurrence; all prejudices must be overcome, all counter opinions must be reconciled; and, though time may be required for operating improvements, yet those improvements, when made, are founded upon general conviction, and carry with them the feelings and opinions of the mass of the nation, and therefore they are more permanent and valuable than improvements more hastily resolved upon. We are often reproached in Parliament with having done but little in the course of a session. Well, gentlemen, if every session were to produce you a small number of useful laws, I think you would not have any good reason to complain of your representatives. Those laws and improvements which are gradual are generally better considered considered and more effectual, and therefore it is no real reproach to the Legislature of the country that a small number of improvements are made in each session of the Legislature.'-(Quoted from the Times' of Friday, Nov. 7.) The Minister in difficulty has a philosophy to fall back upon, the philosophy of nil admirari, and of taking all things easily. Prejudices must be conciliated, opinions united, haste avoided; small results, where well digested, are preferable to the largest where the composition is crude. Such is the defence. But the answer is plain. Our complaint was not founded upon a comparison with Governments that are worked by ukase and by edict; it was founded on a comparison of 1855, and especially 1856, with previous years passed under governments impartially enough selected as to political opinion,-under the governments of Lord Grey, Lord Melbourne, Sir Robert Peel, and Lord Aberdeen. We have had from the present Administration something much more resembling ukases and edicts than those Ministers presumed to deal in, for we have shown that, under its rule, bills of great constitutional importance and difficulty have been forced through the House of Commons with gross indecency in five days. It has not then been from the want of a disposition to dictate that the Parliamentary harvest has been short beyond all precedent both in quantity and in quality; but from the want of either will or ability, or both, to work. Other Administrations had interests to unite and prejudices to conciliate; but under all their difficulties they passed laws, which the country saw to be many and thought to be good. The Minister says, Do little and do it well; we answer, he does as little as possible, and does that little as ill as possible. In the adroitly turned line of Bentley παῦρ' ἠπίστατο ἔργα κακῶς δ ̓ ἠπίστατο καὶ τά. We have not space to dwell further on the licence which has been assumed by rambling members of the Ministry in their provincial speeches, or on the pestilent example set by its abandonment of representatives abroad whose conduct it had formally approved. But even in Parliament, the invention of the Government, barren as it has been in practical legislation, has notwithstanding proved fertile enough to engender novelties in the art of self-defence, that have not yet obtained a due share of attention, yet which, unless we are mistaken, await the notice of the coming historian. It is sometimes, we perceive, imputed to the party in Opposition, that they have moved no vote in condemnation of the Government. Now, whatever be the sins of its opponents, surely this one cannot be laid to their charge; it would would even be easier to sustain the directly opposite accusation. It seems to have been forgotten that in 1855 a vote of direct censure was proposed by Mr. Disraeli, as leader of the Opposition, during the Vienna negotiations; that of a second, notice was given by Sir E. Bulwer shortly afterwards; that a third was proposed by Mr. Whiteside in 1856 with respect to the siege of Kars; and that a fourth was announced by Sir John Pakington with reference to the conduct of Ministers in the matter of the Crimean Inquiry, and the famous promise, 'We will be your committee.' Now it has been, so far as we are aware, the beneficial and honourable practice of successive governments, when an issue of confidence or censure has been raised in the House of Commons, to meet it directly, and on no account to substitute any other question for it. Take, for instance, the case of the Melbourne Government. Thrice it was thus assailed; once by Sir John Yarde Buller in 1840; once, in terms not quite so direct, by Lord Harrowby on the sugar duties, in 1841; once by Sir Robert Peel in the summer of that year. In all three cases that Government, though far, in our judgment, from being a paragon of chivalrous conduct, manfully accepted the challenge, and met an intelligible Aye with an equally intelligible No. Yet more: on a fourth occasion the Melbourne Government itself manfully raised the question of confidence by a direct affirmative motion. The present Earl Fortescue, a nobleman whose very high character must always give weight to his proceedings, himself proposed to the House of Commons, and carried there on behalf of the Government, a vote in approval of their Irish policy, which Sir Robert Peel, Lord Derby, and Sir James Graham, as manfully opposed. Such are recent instances, resting upon authority, which ought to be respected by the present Administration. Nor was this practice founded upon anything less than the highest considerations of constitutional policy. The Constitution requires that no man shall be minister by the mere absence of formal censure; he must have the unquestioned confidence of Parliament. And therefore when the question is once raised, especially in the House of Commons, whether the Government possess that confidence or not, to flinch from the issue, and to substitute another issue, or to interpose some proposal or device that may stave off the subject till the session has closed, is a sin against first principles. For many a Government besides that of Lord Palmerston, it would have been convenient to parry a deadly thrust by some counter-proposal that should turn the point of the sword aside. It has been reserved for him, sterile in legislative power, to exhibit a marked fecundity in the noble art of parliamentary evasion. The motion respecting Kars, indeed, was known known to be doomed even before it was made, from the general disinclination to pass severe judgment upon omissions which could not rightly be denied, but which were both covered by the successes of the war, and also somewhat cloudily mixed up with a variety of questions in regard both to the conduct of military authorities and to the helpless and corrupt administration of the Turkish government. On this occasion, therefore, the Government assumed the hectoring tone, and even ventured to stigmatise as a miserable fraud a most just, usual, and becoming proposal for the adjournment of the debate. On all the four other occasions (we add the motion of censure in July last by Mr. Moore, respecting America, to the three which proceeded from the friends of Lord Derby) the Minister simply escaped from the issue; he was carried off in the ancient fashion by the tutelary goddess, and left a phantom only on the field. First, Mr. Disraeli's censure was met by an amendment from Sir Francis Baring, which substituted the vigorous prosecution of the war for the condemnation of the Government. Sir Edward-Lytton's censure was anticipated, some twenty-four hours only, we believe, before the time appointed for the debate, by the abandonment of Lord John Russell to the winds and waves; whose singular fate it was twice to save the Administration in one Session--once in February by joining it, and once in July by quitting it. Sir John Pakington's censure on the subject of the Commission sent to the Crimea was averted by the expedient of appointing a court to try the Commissioners, instead of letting Parliament pronounce upon the conduct of the Government. For some two months that court did not even meet, and so the session was tided over. And lastly, in the case of Mr. Moore, though he was backed by no parliamentary party, yet so dangerous was it felt to allow the House of Commons to be asked by any one and in any form for a verdict on the merits of the question, that the issue was simply taken upon the vote whether the House would or would not go into the Committee of Supply. The advanced Liberal, when challenged by constituents, may tell them, if he likes, that the Government has established a right, with which no competing applicant can vie, and in which no Attorney-General can find a flaw, to take out a patent for a new and perfectly successful method of estopping the Houses of Parliament from the discharge of the very first among all their duties, that of calling to account the advisers of the Crown. - But we have spoken of Attorney-Generals; and the name reminds us, that the accomplished and laughter-loving advocate who lately filled that office has yielded it to a successor, who has commenced his career with an innovation scarcely less startling than |