The Press.
London, England, 1858-10-23 00:00:00

The Quarterly Review. October. London :

Murray.
THERE cannot be much question, we think, on
which of the dishes in the unusually tempting
bill of fare prefixed to the present number of the
Quarterly its readers will fall to first. Palmers-
ton and Derby, "The Past and Present Admi-
nistrations," served up under the same dishcover,
is an "idea," as poor Soyer used to call his
culinary combinations, of considerable promise.
Nor has the artiste fallen short of the expecta-
tions which that promise is calculated to raise.
Ile has "done" the two statesmen a la sauce
piquante in excellent style, and presented us with
a highly-flavoured political ragout.
There arc, indeed, between the characters of
the two Premiers who so unexpectedly changed
places at the beginning of the present year,
points of contrast sufficiently striking to interest
the reader by the simple fact of their being
exhibited in juxtaposition. But it is not on this
that the reviewer mainly relies, nor is mere effect
his aim. He approaches his subject not only
with the quick eye of the keen observer, who
readily seizes and thoroughly appreciates traits
of character, but with the calm vision of the
thoughtful philosopher, who looks for the deeper
causes that underlie the phenomena of life—who
loves to dwell on its riddles, and to attempt their
solution. And, certainly, to a mind on this oc-
cupation bent, a more paradoxical state of affairs
could hardly have presented itself than the par-
liamentary history of the last session. The sin-
gular features which it exhibited were, according
to the writer's own mode of stating his problem,
on the one hand, " the precipitation of a public
" favourite from the highest pinnacle of popu-
" larity and power into that Tartarus of politics
" which is as far below the surface of the earth
" and the common walk of men as his former
" elevation was above them" ; on the other
hand, "the regular, the undisputed, the gene-
" rally successful administration of public affairs
" by a Government which is, or is supposed to
" be, opposed to the large majority of the House
"of Commons." How are events and facts like
these to be reconciled with that " vital and fun-
damental" rule of our popular Constitution that
" the sense of the Ministry should be in accord-
" ance with that of the majority of the House of
" Commons" ? Or, if they cannot he so recon-
ciled, are we to conclude that our Constitution
has undergone a radical change, and that "go-
" vernment by majorities" is one of those notions
which, with the lapse of time, have passed away ?
This is the problem the solution of which the
reviewer proposes to himself. His answer, which
he works out with great shrewdness and ability,
is, that in reality " the majority has, during the
" late session, been exercising its will and choice" not less truly than in former years, though in a
" fashion which had not been until now invented."
For the invention of this fashion the House of
Commons is, it appears, indebted, not to the suc-
cessful Minister Lord Derby, but to the unsuc-
cessful Minister, Lord Palmerston. The inquiry
into the means by which the last-named states-
man brought about a resnit so astonishing, and
so little anticipated by himself, occupies a con-
side vra.d
.e, and certainly not the least pungent,
Portion of the essay. In the course of it, the
writer establishes most conclusively, to our