The Press.
London, England, 1856-12-13 00:00:00

1180

CorrtspnaDtatt.

ELECTORAL INEQUALITIES.
Letter VI.
TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS."

Sir,—As I promised in my last, I now pro-
ceed to show that the present electoral ad-
justment engenders bureaucracy, and tends
to corrupt the press.
Ministers, when supported by a party who
by the Constitution have a fixed preponder-
ance in the electoral body, and by conse-
quence in the House of Commons, may dis-
pense with persuasion, for they have in their
pockets the votes of a majority large enough
to overpower the Opposition, and to provide
against all vicissitudes of opinion among those
of their own party who aspire to indcpend•
ence. In such a state of things the natural
indolence of mankind, fostered by security,
exerts its influence, and all that can be ex-
pected—at least all that is necessary—is, that
Ministers should give a concise statement of
the nature of the measure they wish to carry.
For appearance sake there may be the form of
debate, some of their young supporters may
take the unnecessary trouble of arguing the
question and meeting the objections of an im-
potent Opposition ; but the measure is de facto
carried so soon as it is tabled, and, but for the
necessity of some constitutional forms, was
essentially enacted by the member of the
Government by whom it was prepared.
Sometimes, indeed, such a Ministry run their
heads against a wall, by introducing a mea-
sure of more than ordinary stupidity, or in-
volving a principle of spoliation-betises which
a party in secure possession of power has a
fatal tendency to commit ; but it costs them
little to withdraw the measure or even to
assist in outvoting it. They look a little
foolish at their mistake, and have to pocket a
few compliments from the minority, but, un-
less they are in the Deus volt perdere cycle, and
go on blundering perpetually, their real power
remains unshaken.

Now, we may say that in a House of Com-
mons so constituted there is freedom of dis-
cussion, a►►d we may call it a deliberative
body ; but the freedom of discussion is only
the privilege of saying what will have no effect
on the audience, and there is as much of the
reality of deliberation in a Cathedral Chapter
when it receives the Queen's conge (retire.
Ministers, with such a Parliament, govern the
country quietly in their offices, appealing to it
only as a form necessary to give their measures
the force of law, in the same way as the Great
Seal is necessary to be aff►xed to charters.
Such a Government, in short, so far as regards
the House of Commons, with one difference,
is a pure bureaucracy, resembling the Govern•
ineut of Austria—that is to say, a Government
of Jacks in-office.

The one difference which prevents the com-
pleteness of the parallel is that freedom of
discussion which we have already said is of no
avail with the audience to whom it is ad-
dressed, but it is potent beyond the walls of
the House of Commons. Once spoken, the
" debates " become public property—no longer
simply the speech of the honourable member,
but the text for the leading article of the
morning papers, and the topic of unlimited
discussion and of fearless and remorseless
criticism by the country in general.
Thus the liberty of speech, transformed
into the liberty of the press, constitutes the
safety-valve against a pure bureaucracy, pre-
venting English statesmen from ever degene-
rating into thorough Jacks-of-office But the
valve is not in good working order ; it some-
how turns slowly and with difficulty to allow
the passage of opposition opinions, and opens
with a will to spread abroad those of the party
in power. The Reform Bill rusted the hinge
in (ne direction and oiled it in the other.
Newspaper editors are human beings (we be-
lieve this to be a fact, though we have met
those who doubt it). Being human, they prefer
to float with the current of success rather
than lag behind in the eddies of adversity.
Like other people, they are inclined to worship
fortune, and to suppose that right is on the
side of might; and it is only a few bilious men
among them who venture to doubt the virtue
of those in power, or believe the good, inten-