The Press. — London, England, 1858-04-10 00:00:00

dissolved, and nothing of a like kind placed in its room; and if the great empire of India shall for the future be consigned to the sole management, under a new title, of the President of the Board of Control ELABORATE versus CRUDE LEGISLAT lON. Is discussing the alleged deficiencies of our public speakers, the Times of Monday makes a remark which is not inapplicable to the consi• deration of the new India Bill,—" We have " fallen into a bad style through too great a "contempt for elaboration" And if the observa tion ba true of the slipshod rhetoric of several debaters, it is even more true of the careless and crude way in which several of our recent Acts of Parliament have been put out of hand by boasted " Reformers." Even iu dealing with the great question of a new Council for India, the spirit of the " Liberals" urges them to name a committee off-hand, and to cast affairs upon them, trusting to the chapter of accidents for the safe working of their new scheme. One of the efficient causes which create so much Conservative feeling in the English public mind is an aversion to rough and-ready measures, to mere lath-and-plaster legislation, which requires constant patching and altering, ending in a desire for another measure after a short time. If the Reform Bill in 1832 had been drawn up in a more comprehensive spirit, or on a more carefully meditated plan, there might not now be a demand for more Parliamentary alterations. Such considerations ought not to be lost sight of when Parliament takes up the forma tion of the new Conned for India. In the measure of the Cabinet there is no doubt that a comprehensive spirit is shown, by arranging that the new Council should be various in its component parts. That part of the plan has been assailed by those who wish for a " less complicated " con struction of the Council. Neithtr Parlia• ment nor the public should be deceived by the use of the word "complicated." The British Constitution is singularly " ingenious," " arti ficial," and " complicated." It is also a very " elaborate " system, and it is so because it is comprehensive in its aims and reach. Prac tical statesmen and political philosophers both concur in designating our Constitution as a "mixed" one emphatically. Its variety, its check and counter-check, its balance of powers, its combination of forces to one end, are its merits, and not its defects. Even the Cabinet Counci!, seemingly so simple to shallow observers, is really a mote complex body than is supposed. Imagine that for the first time it was proposed that the Queen's affairs should be managed by a " Cabinet" on the existing system, now familiarized to us by experience ; in such a case nearly all the objec tions now urged by the opponents to the new India, Bill might be brought forward with equal plausibility. It might be said. "Oh ! the plan of a Cabinet Council is ridiculous, complicated, and even contradictory. One portion of it is to sit in the House of Lords, and another part of it must be taken from the House of Commons, and is it possible that councillors so chosen could ever harmonize in action ? Then it is suggested that in the con struction of these Cabinet Councils various claims should be recognized. Some of the proposed Ministers should he intimately con nected with the great territorial interests ; others should be essentially administrative iu their talents ; and some, again, should be chosen with reference to their capacity for leading in debate. Is it possible that so hete rogeneous a mixture, Peers and Commoners, vast proprietors, great orators, could ever work together? And observe the absurdity," it might be said, "of excluding from the Queen's Cabi net Council all the talent of the country which is without a Peerage or a seat in the House of Commons. Lord MAcAucir, as a Peer, may sit in the Cabinet, but neither a Hallam, nor a Mill, nor a Grote, nor an Alison, though so conversant with the deepest and gravest social and constitutional questions, can sit in the Council to which a Vernon Smith, or a Talbot Baines, te- a Lord Clanricarde, may be admitted ! The thing is an absurdity." Even the constitution of a simple Com mittee of the House of Commons on a ques tion of importance is far more "intricate," and " complicated." and " ingenious " than people suppose. The established rules require that " variety of construction " should be strictly attended to in nominating a com mittee. Gentlemen of great talent and ex perience submit to have their names removed from a committee, and are compelled to " stand aside" to make room for others who are associated with particular interests. A re presentative character is strongly impressed on all our executive departments, and the idea is carried out in detail through all the com ponent parts of our political system. Magis• tildes for a shire are selected by various means, though all are compelled to have the same legal qualification ; and if the magistracy of a district are too one-sided, there is a de mand that their composition should be " mixed." Let any public body of a large and popular character be compelled to delegate the' carrying on of its affairs to an executive council, and instinct will teach it to use " variety " as a principle in the choice of names to be placed on " the management." To combine central energy with local repre sentative experience in the Councillors was the problem before the Cabinet, and we hold that such an end can only be accomplished by an " elaborate " and " ingenious system." The Crown, according to the Cabinet's proposi• tion, would name ex officio a certain number of Councillors, and variety would be introduced by admitting other Councillors selected by qualifications of different natures. A repre sentative force not dissimilar to what can be seen in the Queen's Cabinet would be obtained in a Council for India thus constituted. Ad mission being made dependent upon various qualifications is strictly in analogy with the constitutional construction of many great ccr porate bodies, both political and ecclesiastical. But if people wish to find fault with any proposition, it is easy enough to raise a cry. It could not be expected that the Palmers touians would approve of a measure emanating from Lord DERBY'S Cabinet; nor could the East India-house be expected to give approval to any scheme with such objects. Nevertheless, it will deserve the attentive consideration of Parliament whether the principles of repre sentative variety and personal experience, pro vided for in the Ministerial Bill, are not most valuable ingredients; though people may differ ai to the degree in which they should be in troduced. We believe, from the necessity of the case, that any scheme fur the government of India must be open to the objections (if such they are) of being " elaborate," and " in genious," and " complicated." Those expres sions may be lightly used as terms of reproach ; but let us not think that other schemes are necessarily simple merely because they are crude; or that they would be more prac ticable mei ely because they display uo thought ful workmanship in their details. "THE DISORGANIZATION OF THE LIBERAL PARTY." THIS " disorganization," says the Saturday Review, "is a great fact." it is accounted for by the Spectator in the following way : " The main body of the Liberals, merged in the laxly-recruited and laxly-led horde whieh has lately passed by the name, has been weakened under the twofold process of division in its own ranks, and a demoralizing union under false colours." The deputation of the Reformers' Union of Birmingham, after visiting P. nd conferring with the leading members of the Liberal party in Parliament, reports that " The Liberal section of the House is dis jlinted ; it has no constructive unity of action. Occasionally powerful to overthrow, it is power less to construct." And the Daily News, after lamenting that " Party combinations and party ties seem to be altogether dissolved;' adds, that " there is growing up, in the heart of the nat-- ion, an. earnest longing for the creation of a truly popular party." The " great fset," then, of the Saturday Review. is pot a dream or fiction of its own ; its reality Is recognized on all sides. But surely it is a reinukable occurrence, and one which deserves Ivestigation. The cause Is not to be biutui hs the hostile assaults of the Conservative party ; the decay of the Liberal strength and organization must be laid to the charge of the Liberals themselves. Mr. Hoasmas has already borne witness, that " ever since the late Government was formed, " the opposition to it had been conducted " with a moderation and forbearance to which " he remembered no parallel in all his 'ltalia " mentary experience." It is, too, hilt a single twelvemonth since " Lord PALMERS. TON'S House of Commons" was elected ; and great was the rejoicing when it was found that " the Liberals " were nearly 400 in num ber, while the Conservatives scarcely ex ceeded 250. With such flattering prospects did the " Liberal Administration" and the " Liberal House of Commons " commence their reign ; and now, before a single year has been completed, it is admitted by their own journals that the whole party is " disor ganized," " divided," ;" disunited "; and that " the nation longs for the creation of some " new party" in its room. There cannot well be a more important subject for investigation than this. A great party exists and triumphs in 1857 ; in 1858 it melts and vanishes like a wreath of snow ! What has caused its dissolution? Chiefly, we answer, that with which they untruly charge the Conservatives. Their journals have been unjustly laying it to the charge of the present Government, that " it has no creed, no policy." This is not true of Lord DERBY or his Cabinet ; but it was most unquestionably true of that conglomeration of incongruous materials which constituted "the Liberal party of 1857," and which, its own friends now tell us, " has "no constructive unity of action." In other words, when you call upon it to move, its answer is, that it has not yet decided which way it will be right to move. The 250 or 260 Conservatives are men who, since 1841, have been generally voting together. They know each other's minds, and their opinions are known to the House and to the country. The 350 or 360 Liberals, on the other hand, are men who are often found voting against each other, and on all great questions they hold many different opinions. Hence, as the Bir mingham Reformers say, they are "occasion " ally powerful to overthrow ; but they are " powerless to construct." This last charac teristic explains, in one word, why the Liberals are cut of office, and why they ought to remain so. The functions of a Ministry are not to " overthrow," but to "construct." A party which is " powerlesa to construct" is, for that very reason, unfit to gorern ! Two of the above witnesses entirely agree in their description of the cause of this dis organization. The Spectator tells us that the nominal union which did exist was " a de moralizing union under false colours." The Birmingham Reformers add, that the Liberal party "is disjointed ; it has nu constructive unity of action." In a word,—elected under. " a cry " of " sup port Lord PALMERSTON," and calling them selves by the vague and general name of Liberals, this " great party " had not agreed on any creed, or set of principles. It might be halloed together—it may now be halloed together—" to put out the Tories" ; but when that is done, what is to follow next? Among the 350 or 360 Liberals, are there 200 who are agreed on that point? What are the leading principles of Libe ralism ? Who can give us a definite answer to that question? In what measure, or series of measures, shall we find the answer? Is it " Reform " ? Unquestionably not his but some three or four years since Lord PALMERSTON him self, the great Liberal leader, resigned, rather than go on with a Reform Bill. And in the pre sent session, by postponing his Bill till " after Easter," he clearly showed that he had no real intention to pass any such bill this year. 338 Tll i; PRE S S, APRIL 10, 1858.