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

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,