The Press.
London, England, 1854-07-15 00:00:00

THE MINISTRY AND THE SESSION.

Ir has become a tedious, but it may not be a
wholly useless, task to recount the failures and
disasters that within the last few months have
befallen the Aberdeen Administration. None
can forget with what rapturous applause its.
formation was hailed by a large section of the
press. A political millennium, we were told,
was at hand. The reign of pure reason had
begun. Party—that exploded invention of a
bygone age, " the madness of the many for
the gain of the few "—was to be henceforth a

THE PRESS.

name unknown. War had been extinguished,
and the pacification of all nations ensured
(so these same journalists wrote) by the
Exhibition of '5l; now domestic feuds were
to cease, and the foundations of an enduring
Government had been laid, on principles im-
perfectly developed by Sir R. PEEL, in his
lifetime, but faithfully preserved by his politi-
cal successors. So the oracles spoke ; and
though 411 men wondered, and some ventured
to doubt, yet the hold prediction met in gene-
ral with little open dissent. It need not be
added that those who questioned its fulfilment
were treated with the courtesy usually shown
to heretics by professors of an orthodox creed.
The idea of an opposition to Lord ABERDEEN'S
Government seemed too ridiculous to merit
serious notice. Ministerial organs teemed
with panegyric, almost fulsome in its exagge
ration, of the individuals lately charged with
the conduct of affairs. The brilliancy of the
Duke of NEWCASTLE, the business talents of
Mr. S. HERBERT, the vivacious eloquence of
Mr. CARDWELL, the manly frankness and decided
views of Mr. GLADSTONE, each received their
due 'need of praise. Even the Whigs came
in fora share. "Next to genius," said a wit,
" is the power of seeing where true genius
" lies ;" and, if Lord JOHN RUSSELL had in his
own person failed as a minister, he had at
least expiated his faults by a judicious and
graceful humility. The rival of PEEL—his
victor in more than one pitched battle—he
whose earlier adoption of free-trade doctrines
had precipitated, if it did not cause, the me-
morable conversion of '46—had descended to
hold " a subordinate office under a subordinate
" officer" of his old opponent. Past offences
might well be forgotten after such an atone-
ment. Lord JOHN could not be gratified with
an office ; but he was allowed the nominal
lead of the Commons, under supervision by
Lord PALMERSTON and Mr. GLADSTON E ; and
even the leading organ, which had uniformly
opposed his policy and discredited his
Government, now relaxed its enmity so far
as to patronise him from time to time.
Rarely has a political section, numeri
cally insignificant, and destitute of perma-
nent parliamentary influence, occupied so
influential a position as that of the Peelites
when they first met Parliament in 1853.
Could they have retained that position it
would have been the most memorable triumph
on record : as it is, they have not only failed
amidst the disappointment of friends and the
derision of the people, but by their failure have
involved Europe in war, and thrown a fresh load
of debt on the already overburdened resources
of this country.

Thehollowness of the Coalition did notmake
itself felt at once. Fora while the unquestioned
talent of some of his supporters, the ab•
sence of rivalry, and the injury inflicted on
the Derbyite party by its recent defeat, gave
Lord ABERDEEN the command of the Commons.
It may almost be affirmed that they kept it to
the end of the session. Reform had been
judiciously postponed. Foreign affairs did
not yet suggest to inexperienced observers
any idea more alarming than that of a pro-
longed, perhaps troublesome, diplomatic im-
broglio. The succession tax, however unjust,
was popular out of doors. Even the wretched
India Bill, condemned on all hands, passed
its second reading by a majority which seemed
not only to defy, but to annihilate, opposition.
When Parliament closed its sittings not much
had been done ; but the prestige of the Minis-
try remained intact, and their promises to
"bring in a bill next year," though freely
tendered in lieu of present legislation,
were accepted, without much distrust. A
single error had been committed, and it was
repaired without delay. Messrs. SADLEIR,
MONSELL, and KEOGH, offended by the sturdy
Protestantism of Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S speech,
had made a demonstration of resigning office.
But Lord JOHN was snubbed, the malcontents
were coaxed back, not needing much solicita
' tion, and an opportunity was taken of ostenta-
tiously repeating the coalition principle, "that
" complete agreement in opinion between
" members of the same Government is imma-
" terial, and need not be expected." Thus
the incident, which at first sight seemed un-
fortunate, became a means of proclaiming the
supremacy of the Peelite interest, and of ad•

651

ditionally conciliating the " Brigade." The
curtain dropped amidst general applause, and
anticipations of more extended triumph. We
concede all this willingly ; for our case rests
on facts, and we should be sorry to weaken it
by undue depreciation of any real success
which our opponents may have gained. The
prorogation in August last was the culminating
point of the Coalition career. From that hour
to the present all has been vacillation, quay•
relling, confusion—danger impending abroad,
anarchy triumphant at home. Parliament,
with no principle predominant and no leader
supreme, has presented the strange spectacle
of an assembly entrusted with executive func •
tions, at a momentous crisis, and while itself
suffering from chronic disorganisation. Minis-
ters, unable to agree, unable to govern, afraid
to appeal to the country, and unwilling to
resign, talk feebly of " carrying on the war,"—
a war which the Premier and the Chancellor
of the Exchequer equally, and notoriously,
disapprove. The whole history of Lord ABER-
DEEN, during the last eleven months, is a
practical treatise on the art of sinking.
Let us recount, with the dry brevity and pre-
cision of a chronicle, the Ministerial mishaps.
Seven measures of great importance were
announced in the Queen's speech of January
31, 1854. Rarely has a more pompous pro-
gramme been submitted to the nation—with
what result the following catalogue will
show :

(1.) Reform of parliamentary representation.
Introduced; second reading postponed under
pretext of taking Irish and Scotch Reform
Bills along with the English; finally aban-
doned, after threats of resignation from Lord
JOHN RUSSELL, which were not retracted until
within a few hours of the decision being an-
nounced in Parliament.

(2.) Bills to disfranchise corrupt voters in
certain towns. Withdrawn after much useless
discussion.

(3.) Plan for reorganising the civil service
in such a manner as to give a virtual control
over all administrative affairs. Understood to
be framed by Sir C. TREVZLTAN, and indus-
triously " written up " by the Times, but
scouted on all hands, and never even dis-
cussed in Parliament.

(4.) Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill. Care-
fully framed by the legal advisers of the Go-
vernment, and kept a full year for consideration.
Withdrawn on a threat of opposition from a
private member.
(5.) University Reform Bill for Cambridge,
intended, but dropped. Oxford Bill entirely
recast in the Commons, many clauses being
added and many more struck out. Subse-
quently altered again in the Lords. This bill
has been printed five times, and differs alto-
gether from that originally introduced. Three
important and several minor defeats were sus-
tained by Government during the progress of
this measure through the Commons.
(O.) Alteration of law of settlement and
abolition of removals. Postponed, against
the will of Government, in consequence of a
misunderstanding. Ministers beaten on ques-
tion of postponement (March 27) by 209 to
183.

(7.) Coasting trade opened to foreign
vessels. This, a necessary result of the na-
vigation-law repeal of 11449, passed without
opposition from any quarter.
Making five complete failures, one partial
failure, and one success.

In addition to thew officially announced
measures we have the follcwing, proposed by
Government, and either rejected or with-
drawn :

Oaths Bill. Lost by 251 to 247—minority,
4. (May 25.)
Scotch Education Bill. Lost by 9 votes-
-193 to 184. (May 12.)
Police Bill (Lord Palmerston's). Withdrawn
in consequence of threatened opposition.
Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill.
Withdrawn by the LORD CHANCELLOR in con-
sequence of the withdrawal of the Testamen-
tary Jurisdiction Bill in the Commons.
Laud and Tenant (Ireland) Bills. With-
drawn by Sir. J. Yovao, after having passed.
the Lords, and been sent to the Commons on
the 26th of May last.
To enumerate the various occasions on w4lek;
Ministers have suffered defeat would pesimpiy,

L

will hesit
which in
Who, thei
believe, I
Parsee, of
of reduci,
army MOT
commerci
port of gc
that Ind
this cert
borne in
the Direc
speed, Is
strutting
Lions the
only a co
THE A
Ir has bi
wholly us
disasters
befallen
can forg
forinatioi
press.
Was at h
begun.
bygone 1
the gain

652

tedious. Three instances, however, occur
which from the importance of the debate, or
the interest at the time attaching thereto,

merit notice.
On February 28 Mr. CHAMBERS moved for a
committee to inquire into the state of nunneries,
&c., throughout the British dominions. Minis
tern opposed the motion, which was neverthe-
less carried by 186 to 119—majority, 67.
On May 23 Sir W. CLAY moved for leave
to bring in a bill abolishing church rates.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed him, and was de-
feated by 129 to 62—majority, 67.
On June 12 Mr. SPOONER moved to
omit an item of 5501. from the estimates for
payment of Roman Catholic chaplains. He
carried his motion, after much debate, by 158

to 136—majority, 22.
The debate on the admission of Dissenters to
Oxford must be in the memory of all readers.
Government, sheltering itself under the plea
of anticipated opposition from the Lords, ob
jected to Mr. HEYWOOD'S first clause, the pur-
port of which was to do away with tests at
the time of matriculation. The clause passed
by a majority of 91. Then, conscious of having
lost his control over the House, and preferring
surrender to defeat, Lord JOHN spontaneously
acceded to the second clause. by which non-
conformists were admitted to a share in the
governing power. Mr. WALPOLE, on the im-
pulse of the moment, seized the vacated post
of leader, divided against the clause, and threw
it out; thus giving Ministers the victory of
which they had despaired, and which possibly
some among them did not desire.
On two recent occasions, besides those men
tioned, a certain defeat was avoided by timely
concession, or rather by a surrender at discre-
tion. Mr. CARDWELL spoke against the limi-
tation of commercial liability, but gave way to
the expressed feeling of the House, and
suffered the resolution in its favour to pass
unanimously. Lord PALMERSTON in like man-
ner resisted Mr. MILNER GIBSON'S resolution
whereby the newspaper stamp duty was con-
demned; but finding, from the state of the
House, that a division must go against him,
gracefully sacrificed his opinion to the neces-
sity of the case.
We have thus five measures announced in
the royal speech rejected or withdrawn ; eight
Government defeats on other questions (be-
sides many of minor consequence) ; and two
resolutions involving important principles
carried against the avowed opinion of Minis-
ters without a vote being taken. In all,
fifteen failures within five months, not
balanced by a single success, unless the un-
opposed Coasting Trade Bill and the much-
altered Oxford Bill can be designated as such.
This is not all. The Cabinet whose preten-
sions were so lofty, whose parliamentary
strength it was idle to resist, has not only
been engaged in one perpetual internal quar-
rel, but has been unable to prevent its dissen-
sions from becoming notorious. Within the
last twelve months not less than nine admi-
nistrative changes have occurred. Resigna-
tions have been tendered without apparent
cause, and retracted without a syllable of
explanation One Minister has been ignomi-
niously ejected from office without the shadow
of a cause, except that his place was wanted
for another. One has retired under circum-
stances of personal discredit, to which pity
for the fallen restrains us from alluding fur-
ther. Mr. BAINES resigned because he was
not consulted in the affairs of his own depart-
ment, and took office again for no visible reason
except that he was invited to do so. Lord
GRANVILLE'S dignity and Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S
much-vaunted disinterestedness have equally
suffered by the recent causeless changes. The
relations which bind Lord PALMERSTON to a
Cabinet of which the two leading members are
his declared enemies remain still inexplicable.
The days of the Coalition are numbered. No
one now asks whether they will fall, but when I
The more clearsighted among them desire a
breakup, and deprecate a continuance in
office by which they can only be injured. How
long this provisional state of things may last
we cannot foresee. Only this we know, that
neither Parliament nor the country will en-
(lure another session like the last, and that
the conduct of a great and perilous war ought
not to be entrusted to hands too feeble for
the ordinary routine of peace.

THE PRESS.

V rotteVings in V arliament.

THE TENANT-RIGHT BILLS.
The attempt to carry these bills through committee
on Tuesday morning having closed with an announce •
ment from Sir J. YOUNG that the Government would
not press them further during the session, Mr. NA
PIER, in the evening sitting, complained of the course
which the Ministry had pursued with regard to those
measures, and of their treatment of himself person-
ally in connection therewith. Time not then per- '
mitting him to enter into full explanations on the
subject, an opportunity was afforded on Thursday
night, when the state of the case as it lay between
Mr. Napier, the Government, and the lush tenant-
right question, formed the subject of prolonged de-
bates in both houses. In the Commons Mr. NAPIER
himself entered into a detailed history of the bills
which were now to be abandoned. He described his own
connection with them as original framer in the year
1862 ; the discussions upon them both in Lords and
Commons, and the changes they had undergone in
select committee, or while passing through succes-
sive stages in the Upper House during the present
session. Three bills, ne said, had gone before the
select committee of the Peers—one for giving
" leasing powers," another for arranging the terms
of holding land between landlords and tenants, and a
third entitled the " Tenants' Compensation Bill."
This last had been rejected by the committee, but
the two former were returned, and, having passed the
House of Lords, were sent down to the Commons.
During all this time he had taken much trouble in
watching and perfecting the measures, but the Go-
vernment had taken their actual management in the
Legislature out of his hands, professing a full con•
sciousness of their great importance, and leading him
to believe, even up to the previous Tuesday, that they
fully intended to carry them through this year. At
the last moment, however, he learnt that they were
to be thrown over, and all the labour bestowed upon
them rendered abortive. He contended that there
was no sufficient cause for thus deserting the bills,
and pointed out that the excuses offered for that step
by Sir J. Young were altogether futile. Mr. Napier
then appealed to the house to pronounce whether
such conduct was fair and honourable on the part of
the Government, who had invited his co-operation
and made use of his exertions. Towards Ireland he
declared that their course presented a complete de-
lusion, bolding up the pretence of settling a most im-
portant controversy, and then deceiving expectation
in the end.
Sir J. YOUNG remarked that the complaint now
urged was twofold—first, of personal discourtesy; and
next, of public expediency. For the first, if well
founded, he expressed his sincere regret, declaring
that it was altogether unintentional. The latter, he
said, was a mere matter of opinion. Sir J. Young
then proceeded to explain and justify his conduct
towards the bills in question. The Government had
been sincerely anxious to settle the landlord and
tenant controversy, and he himself had honestly en-
deavoured to perfect and carry the measures laid
before Parliament on the subject. Unexpected op-
position had, however, sprung up; the whole day
sitting on Tuesday was consumed in debating whe-
ther the bill should be allowed to make any progress
in committee; and he had since been earnestly en-
treated to hold the matter over until the measure
arranging the correlative question of tenant compen-
sation could be considered and prepared. Yielding
to these various motives, he had determined to post-
pone legislation until next session; and, whether the
measures were deemed as private or as Ministerial
bills, he contended that this resolve had been dis-
creet and fair.
Lord J. RUSSELL interposed an appeal to the
Opposition to let the subject drop. Precedence had
been given to the bill before them that night, not
under any idea of making progress with it, but to
afford an opportunity for certain explanations. These
having been exchanged, he trusted they might be
allowed to proceed with real business.
This appeal was, however, disregarded. Mr. White-
side reiterated and enforced the charge against the
Government. Mr. Lucas and Mr. J. Fitzgerald
followed in a like strain, and demanded what the
real intentions of the Ministry were on the subject of
tenant right.
Lo rd J. RUSSELL again rose, and, after recapitu-
lating a serious catalogue of the troubles and diffi-
culties that beset the question, ventured to hope that
some measure enlarging and settling the "leasing
powers "of Irish landowners might hereafter become
law. With regard to the code of landlord and tenant
law, or the question of tenant's compensation, he
could hope nothing, at all events so long as this con-
troversy was surrounded with so much excitement
and passion as at present.
The discussion was continued by other members
until
Mr. DISRAELI rose, and, after paying a tribute to
the energy and sincerity of Mr. Napier, commented

SATURDAY,

upon the mingled inefficiency and inconsistency of
the reasons assigned for abandoning the bills. One
excuse was that the two remaining measures were
useless and incomplete without the Tenants' Com-
pensation Bill ; but this imperfection, he said, was
known in February last, and should have been urged
then. Another plea was based upon the advanced
period of the session to which they had arrived, and
which gave no time to carry the measure. But for
this procrastination the Government were responsi-
ble, and how could they account for it? What work
done could they show as a reason for delaying the
progress of so important a bill?—
" What have we been doing that we couldn't consider
and attempt to settle a question, not introduced for the
first time, but years ago, to the consideration of Parlia-
ment? What have her Majesty's Ministers being doing
the last six months that we have not had this question
fairly considered and ably arranged? (Cheers.) I want
to know what is the catalogue of their legislative exploits
which may be an excuse for the period which has been
thus employed or thus wasted? I want to know, if they
have been at war, what conquests they have achieved? I
want to know, if they have been at peace, what beneficial
arrangements, what advantageous legislation, they have
accomplished? ( Cheers.) Have they reformed Parlia-
ment? Have they revised parliamentary oaths? Have
they educated the country? Have they even educated
Scotland? (Cheers and laughter.) What corporations
that are corrupt have they punished? What have they
done which may be a valid excuse for not having dealt
with this all-important measure ? (Cheers.) I should
have thought that, instead of moving to report progress, it
would have been more satisfactory to the country, and
more satisfactory to the feelings of any minister who pre-
tends that he leads the House of Commons, if he bad
given some reason why six months should have elapsed in
which they, having done nothing, should not have done
this. Report the progress of these two bills l Why, it is
too derisive a proposition to be made. (A laugh.) Report
the progress of the Ministry ! (Cheers.) Tell us what
they have done. Make a motion to that effect. Report
the progress of her Majesty's Ministers! Come forward
and tell us what her Majesty's Ministers have done, and
that would be a reporting of progress far more edifying
and satisfactory than the motion which has been made by
the Lord President this evening. If the noble lord and
his compeers have not succeeded yet in dealing with this
difficult question—at any rate, vast and difficult as it is,
the late Government attempted to deal with it with some
efficiency and with all sincerity—what is the prospect
which the noble lord holds out of the future legislation of
his Government—if it be a Government—upon this sub-
ject? (A laugh.) I would ask the noble lord vho tells
you he can do nothing at present, whether he will answer
the question, what are the intentions of his Government
with respect to the tenure of land in Ireland for the future t
I think that that was a very fair parliamentary question.
How it was met I leave the committee to decide. The
noble lord says that it's a difficult question, and, therefore,
we are not to deal with it. My idea of a Government is,
that it is a body of men who ought to deal with difficult
questions. (Cheers.) I know that the Lord President,
for a number of years, has, somehow or other, contrived
to govern this country—personally speaking, I think with
admirable ability—that he is a ripe scholar, an unparal-
leled debater, in my opinion no uncommon orator—still I
think that the secret skill of his administration has always
been that he has evaded questions that are difficult. (Cheers
and laughter.) But Ido not think that that is a satisfac-
tory answer to the gentleman who addressed that query."
Reverting to the complaint urged by Mr. Napier, Mr.
Disraeli considered it well founded, but feared that
the right hon. member had shown too much sensi-
bility. Had he been consulted, he should have dig-
shaded him from making his appeal, on the ground
that the Administration treated him no worse than
its members were obliged to treat one another,
perfidy being necessary to the existence of the
Coalition.
Lord J. RUSSELL complained that the question
before the house had been converted by Mr. Disraeli
into a means for making a party attack on the general
conduct of the Government. He then explained
some passages in his own conduct towards the Irish
tenant question, and, referring to the mode in which
that question had been treated by the Government of
Lord Derby, endeavoured to fix a charge of incon-
sistency or ill faith upon the members of that Ad-
ministration. The noble lord went on to accuse Mr.
Disraeli of violating the traditional rules of party
warfare in the house :
" There is another plan which the right hon. gentleman
does find within his power—that is, to lie in wait for mo-
tions which are made by independent memberir, and
whatever the colour of the motion, provided there is no
great principle involved immediately disastrous in its con-
sequences, then the right hon. gentleman has influence
with his party; and gentlemen who have not much ate
tended to the question are ready to follow his lead, and
then he pursues one undeviating course, and that is, what-
ever may be the question, to endeavour to put the Govern-
ment in a minority—l Hear, hear)—and then to take his
chance of saying their measures have failed, and that
motions which they had opposed had been carried. It
is certainly a conduct which is somewhat new to me.
(Laughter.) Because 1 have been opposed to Govern-
ments, led by such men as Sir R. Peel, and leaders like
Sir R. Peel, and others who preceded him in the leadership
of that party, when they found that their opinions led
them to oppose the Government, they naturally and fairly
justified their votes, but they never thought of coining
down to this house merely to take up any motion which