The Press.
London, England, 1858-04-17 00:00:00

362,

resign; Lord MELBOURNE'S was thrust out by
a vote of " want of confidence." Sir ROBERT
PEEL next suffered a defeat which was in-
tended to compel, and did compel, his retire-
ment. Lord JOHN Russzu, met with the
same fate. So did Lord DERBY ; 'and then
Lord ABERDEEN; and lastly, Lord PALMERS-
TON. It is not, then, that Ministries dis-
agree, or are modified by deaths or resigna-
tions. They are all compelled to resign, b 3 the
sudden, and often unerpeeled, deasinps of
the House of Commons. Ahd now, having
discharged one Minister, who was sup-
posed to have a majority, his successor is
treated by the Times as an intruder because it
is assumed that he has not a majority. Yet
there is the blindness of personal eagerness
in these Times articles ; for who that wrote in
a cool, reflecting mood could omit to observe,
" Lord PALMERSTON, being nominally the head
of the Liberal majority of the House,
was defeated, and forced to resign, be-
cause many of these Liberals dis-
liked him as leader No attempt, therefore,
should he made to eject the present Govern-
ment, in order to place a Liberal Ministry
in its room, until it has been ascertained
whether there is any one leader whom the
Liberal majority will agree to follow."
The present position of affairs, in fact, is
one wholly new. It could not occur under
the system which prevailed up to 1832. It is
a legitimate fruit of the Reform Bill. The
House of Commons is now divided, though in
name only, into two sections :—a minority,
having one political creed and one set of
leaders ; and a supposed or alleged majority,
which is divided, distracted, disorganized, and
the leaders of which dislike and contemn
each other.

The present writer in the Times (for all men
can discern the difference between the Times
of this week and the Times of three weeks
ago) argues as if all things were wrong and
out of joint just now, but could be set right
in a couple of days by simply turning Lord
DERBY out, and bringing Lord PALMERSTON
back again. Yet, who does not see that this
simple process offers no kind of security
against the recurrence of the defeat of Feb.
19th, followed by a fresh resignation ? The
absurdity of such a course of action is quite
obvious. It might lead to the loss of the
whole Parliamentary year, which might be
wasted in repeated resignations and re-elec-
tions. When Lord PALMERSTON and his col-
leagues adopted the deliberate and unanimous
resolution of breaking up their Ministry, and
handing the reins to Lord DERBY, we must
assume that they were in earnest. We cannot
imagine them to have contemplated such
child's play as a resignation in February, to
he followed by a return to office in May. The
public business, the vast affairs of this great
empire, are surely not to be handled with
such lightness or indifference.

The position, then, we repeat, is a new one,
and yet it is one naturally flowing from the
working of the Reform Bill. We have got s
House of Commons in which there sit a large
number of gentlemen called " Liberals "; but
which gentlemen do not at all agree as to
their ultimate aim and object. The conse-
quence of this real and deep-seated difference
which exists among them, is, that they can only
now and then act harmoniously; and that no
Minister can depend upon their united support
for a month together. Meanwhile, opposite to
them are ranged a very largo body of Members
who are agreed among themselves, and who
do mean the same thing. These Members
may be relied on by their leaders, and they
outnumber any one section of the Liberals.
Will it be the easiest and best course, then,
to attempt to carry on the business of the
country by means of the 260 men who are
agreed, or by the 360 or 380 who are not
agreed ? This question has never before been
put, and up to this time it has, therefore, re-
ceived no answer.

Yet such a question will naturally and very
frequently occur to the spectator, who, without
joining in party strife, takes a rational interest
in his country's welfare. Such a one will
say, " If what is supposed to be the majority--
the Liberal majority—cannot act together,
they do practically cease to be the majority.