The Press. — London, England, 1856-12-06 00:00:00

1154 that while an aristocratic Government is generally favorable to amicable relations with foreign States, and a peaceful policy, the desire of a democracy, equally ignorant and contentious, always tends towards foreign embroilment and destructive wars. Is Eng lish good sense a reality, or but a naive ? THE LEADERSHIP OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS. DOMESTIC difficulties of various kinds thicken round the Cabinet. It is believed that the state of Lord GRANVILLE . S health will not enable the Ministry to maintain its present arrangements about the Leadership of the House of Lords. What is to be done in the retirement of Lord GRANVILLE, if it should occur, does not seem clear. The post could scarcely be assigned to Earl GREY, as the Ministry would then become essentially changed in its main features, and the Premier would find himself in awkward relations with his Leader of the Lords. We do not suppose that Lord JOHN RUSSELL thinks so despond ingly of his place before the country, that he would consent to go up to the House of Peers, in order to serve the convenience of Lord PALMERSTON. It is rumoured in some quarters that Lord CARLISLE will exchange places with Lord GRANVILLE. But if the latter Noble Lord has not strength sufficient for the House of Lords, it is certain that the Viceroyalty of Ireland would be too wearisome for him, with its tire some pageantry and perpetual worry. As for Lord CARLISLE becoming an efficient Par liamentary leader, it would be absurd to expect such a result at this period of his life. He has neither the ready logic, nor the knowledge of social detail, required for such a position. He can harangue a popular audience, or he can lecture a literary society, or say graceful things to a meeting of " ladies" in a style of faded gallantry, but he cannot grapple with a vigor ous debate, nor can he unravel an intricate argument. Lord CARLISLE is modest, and jaunty, and sentimental, in the manner of the stage father in a five-act comedy of the Morton school. But it would be ridiculous to suppose that his Lordship could undertake to lead the Peers in such debates on foreign policy as are not unlikely to occur in the coming session. If Lord CLARENDON were ten years younger, and if he were not hampered by the business of the Foreign-office, the Ministry might find in him a leader for the House of Lords. let, even under most favorable circumstances, Lord CLARENDON'S excessive moroseness, and his constitutional timidity, together with his want of social weight amongst " the families," would considerably detract from his influence as a Leader of the Upper House. THE DUTIES OF AN OPPOSITION. " CAN any man in England tell what the pro• " sent Opposition represents?" and " Has it " any definite objects ?" Those questions were asked with much conceited assurance by a Radical organ on last Thursday. Inquiries made in that spirit at such a peculiar time, in an age of transition, are at once ridiculous and rash; for an intelligent Conservative has only to reply with a retort, and can any one tell— " What definite policy does the Palmerston " Cabinet represent?" or "What is it that the "4Liberal party seek ?" or "Which are its leaders " —the PREMIER, Or Lord JOHN RUSSELL, or the " Stafford-house Whigs, or the ' Economists,' "or Mr. Lofty,' or Mr. ROBERT LOWE ?" In the present discordant and incoherent state of the Liberal connection, as confessed by its champions and organs, the literary Radical's queries might have been spared. But we shall not reply with a to quoque. We are perfectly ready to justify the course of the present Opposition under the extremely pecu liar circumstances of the present time. Yet let us first examine the state of things acknow ledged by the " Liberals" themselves. On last THE PRESS. Sunday a remarkable article appeared in a weekly journal, well known for its extensive circulation and its consistent support of demo cratic principles. It was headed " Public Spirit," and its authorship was scarcely dis guised. It might just u well, for any secrecy, have been signed with the triple initials of 4he most sparkling rhetorician who declaimed from the Anti-Corn-Law-League platform. It was an essay of the true Oldham manufacture, and its admissions on feats are so remarkable that we shall enumerate some of them. It specifies the total subsidence of all agi tations, and the existence of popular apathy on politics. " The Working Classes" have given up the pursuit of the " Five Points," and " Chartism," like FEARGUS O'CONNOR, is ex tinct. "We cannot say that we are surprised "at this tendency to--" What? Is it to " Progressive Reform," or " Americanism?" Not so. " This tendency to reaction" is what does not astonish the democratic journalist. " So much has been achieved that the ex " haustion of surfeit was likely to follow." It proceeds to analyse the spirit of the Liberal party in the following extraordinary style. " The veteran patriots think that not much " remains to be done, and younger politicians " are puzzled to indicate the next move. The " people are now rather put on their mettle to " prove what are abuses." And much more follows in the same strain, which might have come from a Conservative pen, so strongly does it testify to the fact that " Liberalism" of the strong political sort has been found by expe rience to have been impracticable, un-English, unconstitutional, and, in the long run, un popular. But the Radical writer, though painting the decay of " Liberalism," omits to state the real cause why Radical principles failed to do mis chief. Its INSTITUTIONS saved England from the impulsive violence and revolutionary reck lessness of the Radicals, and to the Conserva tives belongs the glory of having defended and maintained the institutions of the coun try Was not there a terrific cry against the " House of Lords," encouraged by the " Re form Club"? Was not the " Church" assailed, and was not a prespoterous influence accorded to the " Irish vote ? Were net the " Liberal Whigs" obliged to fall back on Conservative aid in putting down " Chartism " and " Young Irelandism" ? What else but its "Institu tions," proudly defended by the Conservative host, rescued England from an anarchy simi lar to what exists now in America ? And upon " American Democracy," in its workings, let us hear the truthful admissions of the eloquent and able Parliamentary Radical. "It is the " curse of the United States that her most " thoughtful and worthiest citizens, disgusted " with the vile knavery of trading politicians, " and the cunning ruffianism of stump oratory, " retire into private life." Why, this style sounds and reads like the staple of Conserva tives speeches and " articles ' for the last twenty years ! It then criticises the state of the " Liberal " mind in England. " The rod of empire is resigned into waiters on Providence. Parlia ment is left entirely to trading politicians, who seek a vote simply to extort a place, and who abandon the business of the nation the moment they can get other business with out it." This is what THE PRESS has often told the public. We have frequently counted up the number of " bi r ds of p assage ." who flutter behind the Whig Ministers ? Are not the colonies crammed with ex-Radical M.P's. who " found a place and lost a consti tuency " ? Has not BENJAMIN HALL, the idol of the unwashed, become a placeman and a baronet, and a courtier? Is not HswEs of Lambeth a placeman, and a " Sir "? And is not Mr. RALPH OSBORNE salaried, and, still greater wonder, is he not silenced ? The Radical continues. " The Coalition of " Lord ABERDEEN contributed to the confusion " of names and principles; the explosion of " Lord JOHN RUSSELL disgusted everybody ; " Lord PALMERSTON has thickened the haze " into a fog, and the omnium gatherum of his " Cabinet has made confusion worse con " founded." And this picture of affairs brings us to the point at which we may state our own views of the duties devolving upon an Oppo sition. Upon such a state of things in the SATURDAY, Liberal party, as described by one of its own Parliamentary speakers and best known poli tical writers, it would be extremely impolitic to raise an Opposition " cry." It is only when a party is thoroughly exhausted and worn out that " a cry " can serve to raise its drooping energies. Great statesmen, when in opposi tion, have rarely committed themselves to " a cry." It was the egregious fault of CHARLES Fox to be perpetually raising "a cry," and Fox, during his protracted career, did not spend two years in power. The Duke of WELLINGTON never sanctioned " a cry " in opposition to CANNING in 1827, or to the Melbourne Whigs at a later period. When Lord DERBY and Sir R. PEEL led the old Conservative Opposition, from 1835 to 1841, they raised no "ory"—a fact which is recorded in the professional meta phor, " Before I prescribe I must be regularly " called in." For, let it be observed that in the working of our English Parliamentary system the onus of action lies clearly on the Government. The Cabinet has, or ought to have, the knowledge requisite for legislation on pressing questions, or for the adoption of a course of public policy. It is for Ministers to propose, and for those on the left of the Speaker's chair to say whether " the country " should adopt the measures of the " Ministry." That this must be the case is evident even from the name of " Opposition." If it was for the " Outs " to offer a digested series of measures, their party should then be called " The Proposition" rather than the " Opposition." Both Whig and Tory publicists and practical politicians must agree on this general principle. An Opposition should, it strikes us, prepare itself for office by careful consideration of all those principles and measures which demand settlement; but it by no means follows that it should play into the hands of a Ministry by committing itself to particular " cries " which an existing Cabinet may at once take out of its hands. The primary duties of an Opposition are to watch and to check, and to give evidences of its ability to treat large public questions in a. patriotic and satisfactory manner. Its affairs should be so conducted, and its combinations so cautiously harmonised, that its chiefs should be prepared to take office whenever the Sovereign or the country feel the necessity of a change. PUBLIC MONIES.—THE EXCHEQUER. WE have stated that it was the clearly ex pressed opinion of tho Commissioners of 1831 that all public monies, without exception, should be paid, in the first instance, into the Exchequer; that the Act of 1834 fell short of the Commissioners' recommendation in making no such provision; and that, notwithstanding Mr. GLADSTONE'S Act of 1854, at the present time nearly two millions and a half of the public revenue is expended without any con trol previously, either on the part of the House of Commons or the Exchequer. We propose now to show from the evidence of last session that the control of the Exche quer, as regards public monies, is, in other respects, incomplete and defective. The 11th clause of the Exchequer Act, 4th Wm. IV. c. 15, enacts that whenever a sum shall have been granted to the Crown by Act of Parliament or vote of the House of Com mons for any specified branch of the public service, and ways and means shall likewise have been granted for making good the same, it shall be lawful for the Crown, by Royal order, under the sign -manual, to authorise and require the Comptroller of the Exchequer to place at the Bank of England, to the credit of the public accountant to the Crown, in the respective branch of service, the amount so granted ; and that the Comptroller shall satisfy himself that such order is in conformity with the grant of Parliament. We pass over, we were going to say, the absurdity of this system of Royal orders. It may sound very fine, that her Majesty should be called upon by sign manual to authorise the issue of every sum voted to her Majesty by the House of Commons. It occasions pro bably, or rather it dud occasion, a good deal of