The Press.
London, England, 1857-10-24 00:00:00

THE RIGHTS OF OPPOSITION.

CIRCUMSTANCES must always to a consider-
able extent guide the conduct of an Opposi-
tion under the English Parliamentary system.
At one time it is the duty of an Opposition to
thwart, to obstruct, and to interpose political
obstacles to the action of power; at another
time its duty is exactly reversed, and an
Opposition has to stimulate, to rouse, and to
urge on a weak and wavering Cabinet, feeble
in its policy and faltering in its actions. Sup-
pose a Lord North falling asleep on tho Trea-
sury Benches, and we can see why an Opposi-
tion should chide, reprove, and denounce a
Minister dallying with a rebellion, and trifling
with the national welfare. An overbearing
Cabinet, ruled in the spirit of a Strafford,
must be checked and kept under Parliamen-
tary authority. A supercilious and somnolent
Administration, trusting to routine, mocking
even at friendly critics, making light of im-
minent perils, underrating a great crisis, and
in the jeopardy of a mighty empire intent
only on its own organised jobbery,—such a
Ministry requires that an Opposition should
expose its feebleness, denounce its incapacity,
and rouse the public mind to a sense of the
dangers when the sceptre of power is held by
officials who have neither genius to contrive
nor energy to dare.
Now, we have seen symptoms that all cri-
..

. .
ticism, all censure, all expressions of hostile
• • - •

opinion on the part of the Conservative Oppo-
sition are to be held up to the public as inop•
portune, unseasonable, and " unpatriotic."
- This same line of comment and observation
• has been taken whether the speeches of the
Earl of ELLENBOROUOII, Mr. DISRAELI, Sir
Bet.wEa LYTTON, or Sir JOHN PAKINOTON were
under discussion. The Opposition, forsooth,
must hold its tongue, and say nothing but
"ay" to every vote of the Supplies. Minis-
ters may waver, departments may blunder,
and subordinates may fail, but the Opposition
must say nothing. but allow the Cabinet to
mismanage tho Queen's affairs. Any other
course save that of silence would be " unpa-
triotic." Such is the policy attempted to be
held up for the approval of the British public.
From these courtly followers and servile flat•

terers of the Cabinet we shall appeal to the
history of the English people for the last hun-
dred years, and we shall ask what was the
course pursued by a constitutional Opposition
in times when the national interest was
'thought to bo in danger from the weakness
or incapacity of feeble Administrations?
While Lord NORTH was losing America,
the Opposition of that time were loud and
vehement in their condemnation of Ministers.
In the early stages of the American war, Lord
CHATHAM was unsparing of invectives against
the fatuity of the Cabinet of the time; BURKE,
also, as the spokesman of the Rockingham
connection, was grilling and severe in his deri
Pion of the Ministry ; and CHARLES FON went
still further in his fierce assaults upon Lord
NORTH. In subsequent years, when the public
interest was turned towards the East, did not
the Whig Opposition taunt Mr. Pm with his
inactivity in dealing with WARREN liairmos,
and was not that eminent statesman compelled
to acknowledge the stimulating power of an
energetic Opposition—not mealy-mouthed in
its choice of words for designating Ministerial
mismanagement ? We hear the name of " Mr.