The Press. — London, England, 1858-02-13 00:00:00

, •Lk.esi.•••.r.;•.• • Nittraturt. Parliamentary Government Considered with Re ference to a Reform of Parliament. An Essay. By Earl Grey. London : Bentley. WE are informed in the preface to this Essay that a great part of it was written a consider able time since, and without any view to pub lication. This circumstance will account for the somewhat abstract and general character of his lordship's observations. Had these been prompted solely by the existing crisis we should doubtless have been led more into de taiMand have been carried through long statisti cal arguments. But we do not regret that it is otherwise. An essay like the present was much wanted. It was but proper, on the eve of a great political movement, to bid men, as it were, pause for the last time, and, ere plunging into action, listen to a few words of calmness and candour; to place before them once more the true causes of their freedom, and to take care that if bent on imperilling that noble fabric which has sheltered them through so many tempests, they should not do so unwarned. His lordship's description of Parliamentary Government, though necessary to the unity of his plan, requires no comment here. It is sufficient to say that it is identical with the views frequently put forward in these columns. His lordship fully recognises (p. 31.) the im portant truth that stable institutions are a substitute for the precarious supply of bril liant individuals; and that party, is the modern sense of the word, is the only machi nery by which Representative Government can he carried on. These reflections will be familiar to readers of Tut. PRESS ; and we are heartily glad to see such wholesome truths sanctioned and recommended by so eminent an authority as his lordship. According to Lord Grey, the one point in which the provisions of 1832 were defective was that indicated by the Duke of Wellington in his celebrated interrogatory,—How is the King's Government to be carried on ? That is to say, the inefficiency of Parliament which has led to the present Reform agitation results from the continued weakness of Ministers. No Reform, therefore, would, ho thinks, be com plete which did not provide some machinery for meeting this defect. In one word, the principal object for which a second Reform Bill is wanted is to increase the influence, not of the people, but of the Crown, in the Houses of Parliament ; or essentially the reverse of what the first was intended to accomplish. Whatever be the cause, and whatever be the remedy, of this weakness, there can, we think, be little doubt of its existence. 'Whether Government can ever again become the pilot of public opinion remains to be seen; but, at present, the constant interference of the people with their representatives is an impe diment to sound legislation. This point has been prominently brought forward in a recent article of the New Quarterly Review, which, we observe, traverses much the same ground as the essay now before us, and sometimes draws almost identical conclusions. The writer, however, seems to think we have already reached that stage of evil which Lord Grey predicts from a too close repetition of the last Reform Bill. Both, however, agree that it is not to an increase of the democratic ele ment in the Commons that we must look for improvement. Lord Grey says admirably : Our system of representation has always given an ascendancy in the House of Commons to the upper classes of society, who have felt that they could not hope to retain the great power thus placed in their hands, unless they exercised it in a spirit of moderation and of respect for the rights of others. If the House of Commons had been so constituted as to render it the mere organ of the popular will, this motive to moderation in the exercise of its powers would have been wanting, and these powers would at the same time have been enormously increased, because there would have existed no appeal against any abuse of power by the House of Commons, to the opinion of a larger public than that by which it is elected. At the same time, he is disposed to think that this external influence may have now become excessive : Even as it is, I four that mPrnbera are far too much dig' posed to vote against their own opinions and their own knowledge of what is right, in deference to popular clamour excited by ignorance or passion, and that their tendency to do so is increasing. It is an alarming symptom THE PRESS, FEBRUARY 13,1858. of deterioration, in the character of public men and of the House of Commons, that it has more than once happened, of late years, that motions have been carried, so decidedly against the opinion of a large proportion of those who have voted for them, that they have not scrupled in private to express their regret at finding themselves in a majority At present the fault of the House of Commons is, not that the power it gives to popular opinion, or clamour ( for they are not always easily distinguished), is too small, but rather that it is perhaps too great. From this cause it sometimes happens that measures, for which there is a momentary cry, are rashly wanted, contrary to the true interest of the nation and the opinion of the majority of enlightened men A few years, though much in the life of an individual, are little in the life of a nation ; and some delay in passing useful measures may well be submitted to, as cheaply par. chasing tbe advantages we obtain in return for it. Among these advantages, the intellectual and moral training which the nation derives from the discussion of changes in the law which encounter serious resistance is not perhaps one of the smallest ; but what is most important is, that such changes can seldom be carried until after they have re ceived such ample deliberation, and till public opinion is so completely settled with regard to them, that, when once passed, they are almost invariably permanent, and more completely effective than they could become if adopted in a different manner. If we look back at the history of our legislation, for many years past, we shall find that it has been steadily progressive ; and that, although some of the greatest improvements in our laws have not been achieved without years of arduous struggle, yet, when once accomplished, they have been secure against all at tempts to repeal them, and have commanded the complete obedience of the nation. In the New Quarterly these opinions appear in a somewhat more advanced stage : This popular interference with the action of Parlia ment has been one of the most marked features of democratic progress during the last few years. Resist ance to the Sabbatarian movement and the Temperance movement came from outside the walls of Parliament. The Crimean Commission and the Chelsea Inquiry, not to say the war itself, were the result of external pressure— in the shape of public meetings, and leading articles ex pressive of the popular will. And, to go back to a stronger instance than all of them, what would have been the fate of the corn laws had the country really been governed by the House of Commons? But, did this ex ternal influence only make itself felt on great and extraor dinary emergencies, the regular efficiency of Parliament would be but little impaired. But its presence is percep tible in every debate and every division in the house, in the wearisome long speeches of " independent members," in the anomalous character of the division list, in the re- criminations of party-leaders and followers. Party can no longer be held together when a member can no longer justify his vote by pleading that he voted with his party. Yet such is the case with the greater part of our popular constituencies. The most insignificant question cannot come on for discussion but what the Millborcugh Gazette or the l'arnley Independent immediately fall foul of their honoured representative, and demand loudly that the member for so important and enlightened a constituency shall be " above party considerations." It is clear that the majority of members will never bring themselves to disregard these admonitions ; and the consequence is that a vacillating and piecemeal legislation has inevitably sup planted all broad and philosophic and statesmanlike thecries of government. No Minister can be certain that a sufficient number of members will stand by him to carry through any great or comprehensive measure. At every turn of the debate the people demand to " have a finger in the pie," and the representatives must humour their caprice, till at last the whole measure is given up in despair, or turned out such a thing of shreds and patches as may well cover our statute-book with ridicule. These observe• tions, therefore, lead us to conclude that the authority of the people over Government, which was formerly mediate and indirect, is gradually becoming direct and immediate. And that the enfranchised classes, instead of intrusting their interests to the care of a deputation, are beginning to undertake them in person. If the opinions expressed in the earlier pages of this article be correct, simple extension of the suffrage would rather aggravate than diminish the incapacity of Parlia ment to deal with the questions of the day. We assume that incapacity to be acknowledged. But if it is not, at all events there must he some deficiency in its working to make reform needful; and we are quite confident that, whatever that may be, it would not he removed by any further progress in the direction of 1832. Otr House of Commons, as at present constituted, instead of not being sufficiently democratic for the work of the country, is, we are positive, too much so. The same writer accounts for the present con dition of the House of Commons in the fol lowing manner : It will appear, we think, on very slight reflection, that, since the Reform Bill of 1882, the House of Commons has occupied an entirely new, if not an anomalous and contradictory, position in the country. The original functions of that house were, as we all know, confined to pecuniary disbursements. And down to a late period it continued to be its primary and most important office to watch over the Englishman's rights to tai himself But from the moment when power departed from the Crown, the two Houses of Parliament shared between them an almost irresponsible authority The Houses of Lords and Commons were, fur all practical purposes, one body, holding their own resolutely against both Crown and people, and compensating for a burdensome monopoly of power at home by the splendid success of their foreign .• policy. Thus it will be seen that's.) long as the House of Commons was the popular element in the Constitution, it was not the governing body ; and that when it became the governing body it ceased to be the popular element. Under either condition its constitution was well enough adapted for the discharge of its duties. When, after the long torpor of the eighteenth century, the people awoke from sleep, and demanded that the popular element of the Constitution should be revived, nobody seems to have con. sidered what, by that time, the House of Commons had actually become. In 1832, therefore, the popular chit ranter of the house was partially restored, while its non. popular functions were still retained ; and the consequence is, that it is now a standing contradiction to itself. It cannot govern the country because it is too much of a mob, and it cannot resist oligarchical influences because it is too little of a democracy; at present neither system, neither government by the many nor government by the few, is allowed a fair chance. Neither in the present essay, however, nor in the article from which we have been quoting, is any definite suggestion offered for the solu tion of the difficulty. Lord Grey certainly recommends that the powers of Government should be increased, but then he does not tell us how. And the writer in the New Quarterly promises a remedy, but has unhappily ne glected to explain it. The fact is that tho future of the House of Commons is one of those questions on which, whatever men may think, they hesitate to speak boldly. We would not seek to disguise our own apprehen sions on the subject. Time is gradually veri fying many of the predictions by which the first Reform Bill was accompanied. Those doctrines of political optimism by which the populace is alternately pacified and flattered are a bar to philosophic statesmanship. And her Majesty's Ministers have lost those powers, now more desirable than ever, which enabled them to withstand the blind impulse of demo. cracy or the selfish instincts of trade. Who• ther the forces of the Constitution admit of such readjustment as to revive those powers without their concomitant corruptions is now the problem before us. No man can be san guine of the result ; and writers may well be pardoned who, after investigating the phe nomena, decline to enunciate a theory. Another passage in which the present essay coincides with the New Quarterly Review is that which treats of the subsidence of great political questions, and its effect on Parlia mentary Government. Lord Grey writes : The fact of all the most important public questions on which parties were formerly divided having been finally settled, has contributed to increase the difficulty of main taining the authority cf the Government in the House of Commons. While these questions were still at issue, they served as a bond of union both to the party which sup- ported , and to that which resisted, the measures in dispute, and helped to keep up the party discipline upon which the strength of a Ministry, as well as that of au Opposition, greatly depends. In the New Quarterly we find : The predominance of social over political questions proves that party is in abeyance. For party arose out of the conflict of politics, and in proportion as the one ceases to interest, the other will cease to flourish. For the pro motion of such reforms as at present occupy the attention of men like Lord Stanley and Sir John Pakington, the House of Commons is not adapted. That great assembly has grown up through ages of high political excitement. When dynasties and creeds were at stake —when a speech from a great orator was an event of European importance, and when, moreover, its own debates were the only regular expression of public opinion. But in quiet times, when no great interests are involved, when oratory is superseded by journalism, and knowledge is more important than genius, the House of Commons has come round to some thing like Mr. Laing's description of it, and is useful prin cipally for the purpose of voting the supplies. - - Here again, however, Lord Grey's method is purely tentative. Though he makes Minis terial efficiency to depend upon party effi ciency, he does not inform us how his pro posal to strengthen Ministers would revive party. But the fact is, it is a mistake to sup pose this country has arrived at the state in which " all great questions are settled, and " only minor points remain." Consequently, the remarks of M. tie Tocqueville here quoted do not apply to England, however truo of America. Parties are hero held in abeyance because they are in a state of transition. The management of Liberalism is changing hands, and as the extremes on either side be gin to fall off, the residuum will probably amalgamate into a powerful Conservative party, devoted to the safety of our essential institutions. While the Church and the aris tocracy. and, covertly, the Crown, remain ob jects of hostility to an influential body, it can not be said that all great questions aro settled. '---~-;. 160