The Press. — London, England, 1853-05-14 00:00:00

TO THE WHIGS. LETTER 11. GENTLEMEN,—The case at issue in the last general election had not been confined to the question, whether the act that repealed the corn laws should or not be modified. Even in the counties, the general cry of the farmers was, not that free trade should be abandoned, but that free trade should be impartially carried out. The paramount question everywhere was ay or no to a fair trial of Lord Derby's Government. The question was answered by the rettu•rt of about three hundred members more or less pledged to grant to the new Admi nistration a support, whether provisional or permanent; cordial or qualified. What were the other parties which assembled in No vember last on the &era the House of Commons? First in point of numbers were the Radicals, viz., those who favoured a bold in crease of the Democratic element in the constitution. Nor was this body undistinguished by leaders remarkable for influence and energy without the doors of Parliament, and for ability and eloquence within its walls. It is impossible to affect contempt for a party, whatever its de fects, which comprised the ready intellect of Mr. Cobden, the inflexible purpose of Mr. Bright, and the perseverance and acumen of Mr. %liners, sharpened into passion by his ►wowed hostility to the aristo cracy, to which by birth he belonged. Sir William Molesworth lent his austere philosophy, and Mr. Bernal Osborne contributed his ••,rustic wit, to the intellectual resources of a host thus formidable to any Government front its numbers, and still more formidable to our mixed constitution from the principles which sought to remove the sristoc►attic medium, placed by Time between those two contending powers that never yet in the history of the world have been long left nakedly confronting each other. viz., Monarchy and Popular Suffrage. That all this party, whatever its subdivisions or its jealousies, would be actuated and combined fur the time in one sentiment of hostility to Lord Derby's Government was clear. Free trade was ;:afe ;—but so was the Constitution : and the common object of this party was not only to preserve the one, but to change the other. Below the gangway, in the ranks of this motley Opposition, assem bled the special followers of the late Sir Robert Peel, determined not only to protect his policy, but to avenge his fall. These gentlemen could not but regard in Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli the most illus trious victims they could dedicate to the Manes of their hero. With them, therefore, as with the Radicals, it was not enough that free trade should be recognised as the future principle of our financial sys tem ; it was not the future that engaged their fears; they had to etlitee a debt of resentment in the past. Next came the Irish party, popularly termed The Brigade. Free trade was no more to thee► than Hecuba to Hamlet.. Whatever the financial measures of lull Derby, to Lord Derby's Government they bail pledged their opposition, on the simple ground that they had ►Teemed it a duty incumbent on their patriotism ►aid their conscience to oppose every conceivable Government whatsoever. Now I turn to you. the Whigs, and I ask what could be your sympa thy with any one of these three divisions, bent on the overthrow of that Government which had succeeded to power on the inevitable expi ration of your own :► Could you sympathis• with the ulterior objects of the Mullenls—was the " democracy" of Lord John identical with the ►lenioenlcy—we will not say of Mr. Bright—but of it single honest leader of the Movement ? Could you sympathise with the followers of Sir Robert Peel ? Wind to you was their desire of retribution against those who hail assailed his conversion on the ►luestion of the corn laws? You sympathise with their resentment ! You were the last men to do so ; for none were so bitter in all societies against the skilful adversary who had contrived to repique you by a bold discard of the suit you had counted on his retaining. Free trade was one thing ; that you were bound to defend: the supposed wrong to a foe who, by destroying his own party, had outwitted yours, was another thing: and that, wrong, real or imaginary, you were not bound to avenge. Not a sarcasm of Mr. Disraeli's in the most heated period of old debate but what sonic of you had cheered in the House of Com mons, and nearly all of you cited in clubs and drawing-rooms, with the acrimonious pleasure of furtive enemies, when others say what them selves think, but do not think it wise to be the first to utter. Lastly.—What had yott in common with the Brigade? The author of the Durham letter in eommon with Mr. Duffy? Thus, really remote from the three sections antagonistic to Lord Derby's Government, and unable to form of yourselves an Administra tion. what was that position which became you best? Surely you had but to evince neutrality in order to obtain the office of arbitrators. Free trade was secure. The first net of Lord Derby's Government. on the assembling of the new Parliament, was precisely that anticipated SATURDAY, I • y :~G THE PRESS. by every man of ordinary sense. It was the recognition of that prin ciple which divides the rulers of a despotism from the Ministers of a constitutional monarchy, vie., the submission of men, made responsible to the Sovereign for the security of the realm, to the power of public opinion, when unequivocally expressed by a legitimate appeal to its verdict. Here all taunts as to the inconsistency of politicians who, in opposition, had opposed a law which in office they ratified, were absurd on the lips of those who had studied our history and comprehended our constitution. To oppose a law—to represent the hardships it may in flict—to argue on the consequences it may entail—to advise, when it be passed, either congenial modifications or supplementary amend ments ;—all this belongs to the just province of debate. But that law, confirmed in all its integrity by fresh proofs of popular assent, and the modifications or amendments advised, rendered as impracticable as the repeal,—nothing remains for those who have passed from the freedom of opposition to the grave responsibilities of office but to accept the law, and seek, by means analogous to its spirit, remedies for whatever partial grievance it may inflict. But if certain high and stubborn spirits, who, in the severity pecu liar to those Censors who cannot aspire to be Consuls, refused to ac knowledge that there could be any virtue in necessity—if the Brights and the Bernal Osbornes could not enlarge their comprehension of the requisites of statesmen beyond quotations from Hansard, there were surely some ,jester thinkers in the House of Commons who must have trembled at the doctrine that men in office arc rigidly to carry out the opinions they professed in opposition. Stand forth, my friends the Whigs ! those juster thinkers must be you! Who in opposition had been the most renowned supporter of Roman Catholic emancipation ? Was it not the very archetype of Whiggery, Charles Fox ? Charles Fox came into office—what did he do ? Honestly confess that, if it be the noble duty of a member in opposition to advocate his own opinions, it is the stern necessity of a minister of the Crown to defer to the opinions of the public and the sovereign. Therefore Charles Fox re quested the friends of Roman Catholic emancipation not to embarrass the Government; with too lively a remembrance of his former ser vices to their cause, the ducal head of the house of Russell was commissioned by Mr. Fox to meet the more eminent strugglers for political franchise of their religious faith, and advise them not even to present their petition that session ! The petition was accordingly suspended, and the fears of the Minister relieved. Who does not remember that, on the principle embodied in the Irish appropriation clause, Lord John Russell expelled the Government of Sir Robert Peel ? And so keen in opposition was my Lord John's sense of the immediate and vital adoption of that principle, that he declared in Parliament that "he would rather have severed his political con " nection from those with whom he had so long allied, than continue " any longer a system founded on bigotry and oppression !" Abjure his very party fin• a principle ! Noble sacrifice,—not to be completed ! Heaven had compassion on the Whigs—the party was not abjured, the principle was. Lord John had only to come into office, and bigotry and oppression obtained an instant reprieve. Lord Derby fought for his principle as long as there was a chance of a majority for its adoption. Lord John, having obtained a majority that brought himself into office, immolated the principle so intolerable in opposition to the austerer deities whom office intmlem into the creeds of men. Themis is the goddess of Opposition—Nemesis sits in Downing-street. Was it possible, then that you, the Whigs, could have any just quarrel with Lord Derby's Crovenunent, when it adopted your own peculiar policy of free trade in conformity with your own_ illustrious examples of political expe diency ? Or was it for you to insult the conscience of honourable men by coupling their public measures with a bill of indictment on their private opinions ? I grant that if, when Lord Derby's Government at once accepted free trade as the principle henceforth incorporated in our commercial policy, and to be recognised in our financial system, that Government had nevertheless evinced, on all general measures, the tendencies to arbitary rule, and resistance to the great law of progressive improve ment. You. as Whigs, would have been justified in combining with all other sections for its downfal. But the whole spirit of Lord Derby's Government was to vindicate and to vivify your own Re form Bill—to preserve the constitution tha Reform had created, but to put into action all its long-neglected machinery for the redress of grievances, or the correction of abuse. This, in my next letter, I will endeavour to prove. Meanwhile I have thus far cleared the ground before us-Ist. The question between free trade and pro tection no longer existed as an insuperable barrier between your. selves and any pally with which, upon their general conduct upon state affairs, your hereditary sentiments might be more congenial than with other divisions of political opinion. 2nd. In reviewing those divisions We find banded against Lord Derby's Government,