The Press.
London, England, 1855-02-10 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

" existing interest s, or to take a single step
" which may u.sturb the popularity of his
" career. He may be as Conservative as he
" pleases in act, yet retain and enjoy the
" prestige of Llberaltem. These are great
" cards to play, and they are in the hands of e
" skilful gamester. What, then, except death,
" or signal military dingo', should interrupt
" his-tenure of power ?"
We ism stated the OM, we believe, faitly.
overlooking no plea width the most thorough-
going adherent of the new Government can
put forward ; and we, repeat once more that,
while refusing an implicit confidence to an
untried Minister and a Cabinet scarcely yet
formed, we desire that both one and the other
should receive a fair support from Parliament.
Our interests as Englishmen, and our feelings
as supporters of Lord DERBY, are here at one.
Nevertheless, it is not good that exaggerated
expectations be formed, lest a nation, too apt
to construe into treachery the disappointment
of its hopes, should in its anger overthrow
more than the Minister whom it seeks to
replace. There are circumstances in Lord
PALMERSTON'S position, as well as antecedents
in his life, which suggest a doubt how far he
may be able or fit to grapple with existing
difficulties. In the first place, is he master of
his own Cabinet ? In the next, does that
Cabinet share with its chief the approbation
of the public ? These two questions are inter-
woven, and cannot be discussed separately.
The situation of an English Prime Minister
presents many anomalies. The office itself
is not recognised by the Constitation—its
powers are ill-defined, and their extent depends
more on the character of the holder than on
either law or tradition. According to received
ideas, every member of the Cabinet in a greater
degree, every member of the Ministry in a less
degree, is responsible for the acts of the whole.
Only in dealing with affairs purely depart-
mental—and not in the more important of
these—can this rule admit of relaxation. The
budgets of Mr. GLADSTONE, the India Bill of
Sir C. WooD, the Reform Bills and Education
Bills of Lord JOHN RUSSELL have severally
reflected credit or discredit on the colleagues
of those Ministers. To judge, then, what
policy is likely to be pursued, we must look to
the constitution of the Government as a whole.
Now, who are the Ministers? With the ex-
ception of Lord PANMURE, a very worthy Whig
Peer of third-rate abilities, supposed to have
retired from politics in '52, and who now fills
the important post of Minister for War, we
have the Aberdeen Cabinet over again. Nay,
even the posts are not changed. Mr. GLADSTONE
remains to starve our troops, Lord CLARENDON
to conduct our diplomacy, Sir JAMES GRAHAM
to deliver hilarious speeches at Reform-Club
dinners, and to send line-of-battle ships for
the capture of forts near which nothing larger
than a gun-boat can float. Two Ministers only
are made scapegoats for the rest, nor have
pains been spared to show the undiminished
confidence which their more fortunate col-
leagues place iu these. It is, we believe,
solely the prudence or the pride of Lord
ABERDEEN which has precluded him from ac-
cepting a seat at the Council-board. The ex
Premier, condemned by the House of Commons,
afraid to defend himself in the Lords, exe-
crated by the public, receives the highest
honorary distinction which the Crown can
bestow, and is earnestly pressed not to let such
a trifle as a parliamentary censure stand in
the way of his continuance in power. The
Duke of NEWCASTLE, that model martyr to
faction, waits quietly until the return of Lord
DALHOUSIE, when his unmerited sufferings
are to bo rewarded by the Viceroyalty
of India. Does this look like the in-
auguration of a new era in politics ? " Wait,"
say the Ministerialists, " till you have
" seen our measures." Well, we do wait ;
but meantime we judge the measures
by the men. The late Cabinet, among its
other peculiarities, was eminently depart-
mental. The individual opinions of its mem-
bers were as marked as their dislike of the
individual opinions of their colleagues. The
Home office snubbed the Treasury ; the Trea-
sury retorted ; the Admiralty attacked the
Horse Guards ; the President of the Council
quarrelled with the Wanoffice ; the Finance
Minister made his own hobby, from which he

SATURDAY,

has not yet dismounted ; the President of the
Board of Control carried au India Bill which
his secretary went about openly ridiculing;
the Home Secretary wrote, on an average, two
letters a week, and passed his abundant
leisure in quizzing the Prime Minister; the
Prime Minister cioutinued to mutter pro-
phecies of peaces while his oolleagues, amidst
ihe cheers of Parliament, were vaunting the
atiticiplited capttite of Sebastopol, and the
humilhaion.of Russilt. It is too much to ask
us to presuppose the fusion of these dis-
cordant elements into a homogeneous execu.
tive, merely because the idlest of all possible
Home Secretaries has become the most pro-
mising of all possible Premiers. As regards
Lord PALMERSTON'S colleagues, their position
is not easy to comprehend. It is folly, and
worse than folly, to treat the conduct of the
war us a matter for which Lord ABERDEEN and
the Duke of NEWCASTLE are alone responsible.
Either that con:duct was approved by the rest
of the late Cabinet, or it was not. If not,
they had, as honest menl no alternative except
to resign—a step which Lord JOHN RUSSELL
alone had the manliness to take, and which
even he took, by his own confession, too late.
If it was so approved, the war must either be
conducted on the same principles as hitherto—
in which case the country will ratify and
repeat the vote of Parliament ; or, by submit.
ting to a practical reversal of their policy, Mr.
GLADSTONE and his friends will acknowledge
the justice of the censure passed upon them,
and consequently their own unworthiness of a
renewed lease of power. It is not for us to
decide how this problem will be solved;
meantime, we say to our Conservative
friends :—" Be patient, but be vigilant; sup-
" port the Government as though it were one
" in which you could confide, but watch it as
" one which you have reason to distrust.
" Office is not your object, nor yet a personal
" triumph, but the wise exercise of high
" national functions, and the maintenance of
" those great principles which have bound,
" and which bind, you together. You. have
" formidable numbers, a compact organisation,
" able leaders. Without your aid, or at least your
" neutrality, ne Government can long endure.
" You may control, if you do not direct, the
" course of public affairs ; but in unbroken
" union, in temperate conduct, in unwearied
" patience, lies the secret of your strength.
" Act as you have acted during the last two
" years. Your time will not be long delayed ;
" justice will be done you by the people ; you
" will save the imperilled reputation of par-
" liamentary government, and, by maintaining
" the constitutional doctrine of party, rescue
" England from the ascendancy of intrigue."

THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
Tux anxiety felt by the public on the Com-
mittee of Inquiry into the conduct of the war,
is perfectly natural. We cannot be surprised
at people indignantly desiring to know the
reasons why the fair fame of England has
been so disparaged by the shocking mis-
management in Downing-street, and they
dread a repetition of the same misconduct,
unless a strong sense of individual responsi-
bility be brought home to all the officials
engaged in the war. It is not to gratify any
prurient love of " scandalous disclosures," nor
is it from any malignant desire of trampling
on fallen characters with ruined reputations,
that we earnestly require that the inquiry
should be followed up with vigour. We have
no vindictive feelings in urging it forward.
Humiliation has already overtaken the authors
of the calamities of the country, and any
further exposure could scarcely bring them
lower.
But it is on public grounds, and for prospec-
tive reasons, that the beneficial example of a
strict investigation should be made. Unless
an inquiry takes place, we shall present the
singular spectacle of a constitutional country
with an irresponsible executive. Through all
ranks of the civil service a feeling will be
diffirsed that by the aid of parliamentary in-
fluences the most shameful errors can be
screened from the publio gaze. A cloak of