The Press. — London, England, 1856-07-26 00:00:00

CAUSES OF PROLIX DEBATES. THE increasing length of debates in the House of Commons has been a subject of constant com plaint since the Reform Bill ; and Lord PALMERS- TON did not, on Tuesday, state the whole of the reasons why so many members now address the House as compared with the practice for- merly. The Premier evidently piques himself upon the agreeable way in which he glides away from " unpleasant " views of things. He put the blame on the constituencies created by the Reform Bill, and took no notice of the loss of time incurred by members without high personal pretensions as orators or men of general information. The subject is rather delicate, but we really do not think that it is the members for large constituencies who lengthen the debaies. The county members take rather less than their proportion of de bating, and, with the exception of Sir B. HILL, the metropolitan members have not been too constantly on their legs. Mr. BUN COMBE was never a tedious speaker; Mr. WAKLEY spoke often, but briefly to the point ; Sir DE LACY EVANS is not a proser, though his colleague succeeds in that line ; and no one can charge the four members for the City of London with having been wearisome to the House. It cannot be denied that many members consume the public time from feelings of per sonal vanity. Mr. R J. PHILLIMORE alluded some time since to the curious change result ing in the constitution of the House of Com mons with reference to the striking diminution in the number of gentlemen with university degrees. He stated truly enough that the members \VIIO came into the House from the manufacturing districts were generally of the middle age in life ; and he might have added (what is certainly no discredit to them) that several of this particular body of members have been the first of their families. With many admirable private qualities, that descrip tion of persons are always prone to exaggerate their own importance. Satirical observers would have an ample field in depicting the absurd vanity of provincial politicians, and their anxiety to see their names in the Parlia mentary reports. Under these influences the House of Com mons has too often resembled an overgrown parish vestry. Any one is now tolerated "on his logs." When a great parliamen tary failure, " Conversation SHARP," entered the House of Commons in 1807, Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH encouraged him to attempt the part of an orator, as there were "no longer " such terrible listeners as Prrr and Fox." And even in subsequent times the " terrible listeners " prevented many middling speakers addressing the House of Commons. The subordinate class of Irish members, introduced by " the tail," was, also, responsible for the modern practice of " any one at all" standing up to speak. Mr. Wattrwsos's method of an arbitrary limit would never suit a free assembly like the House of Commons. The members, gene rally, are the greatest sufferers from the multi tude of speakers, for it must be a most irk some and harassing thing for many a member to wait and wait until one speaker after another has bored the House before he can bring forward some well•considered motion. It would, however, be absurd to apply a Procus teen limit to all speakers, good or bad, and it, would be highly invidious to draw a line be tween the various classes of orators, even if it were practicable. 11111& ITE PRESS. The Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox) appealed to the leading members of the House to show the example of making short speeches; but he lost sight of the fart that the time is really wasted by the crowd of senators who have little reason to speak at all. From the positions which they hold Lord FALMERSTON and Mr. DISRAELI, Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Mr. GLADSTONE, Could not be expected to speak at briefer length than they do now. In point of fact, we think that Sir ROBERT PEEL introduced the habit of long speeches during his Premiership. Some of our readers must recollect how frequently " Sir R. PEEL " headed six or eight columns of the Times. He made a greater number of five • hour speeches than Mr. Pm, who had nearly all the talking work of his party. Lord BROUGHAM, also, erred repeatedly on the side of length, and the " documentary " and statis tical speeches, illustrative of modern social questions, must necessarily be long. Yet, ma king allowance for all these and other causes, we are convinced that the debates might be shortened greatly to the advantage of the House of Commons; and we believe that what may be called " the ruck" of our political speakers, who take up time over-night that they may see themselves in print whan they take up the newspaper in the morning, are the real lengtheners of the debates. CONSERVATIVE UNION. TO TILE EDITOR OF " THE PRES 3." Sir,—We are told that party government is for ever at an end, and are recommended by some to rejoice with them over this as a satisfactory circum stance. We neither believe the fact, nor, if we did, should we join in the satisfaction. The existence of parties is essential to the proper working of repre sentative institutions ; it is the regulating wheel which keeps the constitutional machine going at a pretty uniform rate, though the extrinsic force applied be at one time in considerable excess, at another too small to maintain an active and useful working. It is, indeed, undeniable that a devotion to party names and interests, without reference to the principles and policy they represent, is not so common as it once was; that the parading of the fact that they belong to one party or the other, is alone insufficient to rally electors around those who aspire to a seat in Parliament ; that there is an ever. increasing proportion of the community that refuses to look at public matters through the coloured lenses of party prejudice. But this is no indication of the decay of those strongly antagonistical principles,—that which would innovate and destroy, and that which would preserve and improve. And, if the time ever come when these evidences of national life and sound ness—which, mutually acting as a spur and a check on each other, keep the 'public mind in a state of healthy activity, and proxent its stagnating in sloth ful indifference—shall be merged in a carelessness as to the consistency and truthfulness of our rulers, their mistake will be learnt too late by such as re joice over the disruption of party ties, and expect broad views from a Parliament composed of a num ber of cliques and factions, intriguing and caballing in the house, and meeting neither with generous support nor hearty opposition out of doors. We may judge of the probable results of the continuance of such a state of things, from the acknowledged evils of the political anarchy, which took its origin in the insincerity and treachery of Sir Robert Peel, reached its height of mischie vous influence in the formation and management of the Aberdeen Administration, and, having evoked at last the contempt and indignation of all honest thinkers by its latest form of " Toryfied Liberalism," is, I trust, shout to disappear, before that reconsti tution of parties which is rendered necessary by the circumstances of the time, and easy by the return of peace. Easy,—if those who call themselves Con servatives will show half the energy in promoting the triumph of the principles which they hold in com• mon that their opponents do in supporting leaders whom they do not respect, holding sentiments and following a tortuous line of policy with which none of them sympathise. For it must distress every real Liberal to see the Ministry which is supposed to em body his opinions flippantly repudiating them, or endorsing them in a manner that shows it hardly cares to keep up the semblance of consistency; and the tail of the party servilely following their Protean SATURDAY, chief—fawning on him they would bite, if th e y d are like sorry ours, for bits of patronage; and, when constrained by any uncompromising borough suppor ters to " bark out " about some impracticable Rath. cal hobby, soon lulled into quietude by the bland accents of Mr. Hayter ; or, when unusually important, and consequently importunate, encouraged to hope on, and wait for Providence and the Secretary to the Treasury, by seeing th e i r noisiest companions for ever silenced by a place. On the other hand, the Conservative party has every advantage, if it will but avail itself of them. The great body of Liberals are disgusted with the state of things described above, and discontented by the grasping arrogance with which the incompetent heads of a few oligarchical families claim all the high posts as their own, and pass over, whilst contemptuously using the services of, their most promising and in dependent representatives. It will not do, at such a time, to rest satisfied with barren convictions; to leave matters to take their course and right tbsm selves. That has too long been the conduct of on servatives, and thus they have failed to ally with themselves those moderate electors who, dissatisfied with the mismanagement and the levity of Govern ment, have too often concluded that sweeping and organic changes are called for because thei e was no party which was energetically striving to carry measures of importance, and to cope with acknowledged anomalies. The last few years have seen few measures of utility proposed ; those who were demagogues in opposition are oli garchical obstructives in office ; only occasioney varying the tenor of a do-nothing policy, on all the questions requiring settlement, by mischievous innovation and crude propositions (like those c , r.- fiscatory and Socialist ones of Mr. Lowe), to grati'y the passions and subserve the interests of their leaq respectable partisans. During all this time the Con servatives have not turned to account their parlia mentary strength, the commanding positions of their chiefs on the questions of the day, and the weariness of Liberal rule exhibited by the country. Though, in the words of another, " as fully alive to the necessity of popular measures and steady progress" as any of those who would arrogate to themselves the exclusive possession of liberal opinions, they have not rallied round their chiefs and identified themselves es they ought with their policy. And so, while honourable opponents have outspoken their admiration and sat : . port of the catholic spirit with which Pakingtou, Disraeli, Stanley, Lytton, Walpole, Napier, and others have undertaken and treated difficult questions, many of their supporters have held aloof through pre judice and petty difference of opinion on details. Let me warn these that their coldness in supporting useful reforms and practical improvements, and the half support they have given to the Premier in conse quence, are as inimical to the ends they seek as they are injurious to their party and the national in terests. Such conduct at last produces a reaction, which may sweep much that is valuable before it; a clamour of popular frenzy that will not listen to reason, nor profit by the lessons of experience. Let me tell the supine Conservative that there is peiil not only to our character and influence abroad, but to the security of that which he most values at home, in neglecting to do his duty as an elector, and to u , e his influence as a citizen. We must sink little dif ferences, and meet our opponents wherever and whenever we can. Indifference is dangerous, but despairing inaction is quite indefensible, for never since 1830 had the Conservatives a better chance of enlisting popular support. It is not enough for them to act merely as a drag on Radical innovation and a check to political jobbery; they alone can do well, and that only as Ministers, what the nation and the times demand. Social ameliorations, national education, military and administrative reform, require that broad treatment which we can never expect from our present Cabinet. One lesson, however, we may learn from the Liberals, — in spite of their disunion, they will always unite to keep place and patronage for their party. Surely national duties and interests, when combined with the hope of political success, might effect as much as selfish motives? Cannot representatives give a cheerful support to measures of importance, pro posed by men of consistency and ability, without in sisting on their supporting in return their imprac tical crotchets? To ask this is to demand uo sacri fice of principle ; hut only to entreat them not to allow the impossibility of obtaining some trifling object to disunite them from those who are the champions of institutions they value highly, and the pioneers of safe progress—building on the ancient foundations, not seeking new paths. I trust, there fore, that during the recess a common basis of active policy may be agreed on by the Conservative chiefs, and accepted by their followers ; for all who from petty motives hold aloof from their party weaken its action in the Legislature, keep dangerous and inca pable men in office, and prevent the country from openly declaring, as it otherwise would, for a progressive Conservative Ministry. —I am, yours ctc., H. L