The Express.
London, England, 1867-02-15 00:00:00

BRITANNIA.

Tine Erratmo, THE PRINCRin Mr THE PEARL ISLAND ;
OR, THE THREE K1,41;00)14 OP PEAktL, GoLD, AND
SILVER. Mt.. Jacobs.—Firet-rate Pantomimist& —And THE
RETURN Or THE WANDERER.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
TEM DAT —Morning, 10h. 3A Afternoon. 11h. 211 m.
To-Monnow—Morning, Oh. Om Afternoon, Oh. Ira,

LONDON, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 15.

THE answer given yesterday evening by the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER to the questions
of Mr. Ossortse and Lord ROBERT MONTAOU
does not throw much additional light upon the
intentions of the Government with respect to
Reform, or upon its views of the relative respon-
sibility of Ministers and of the House of Com-
mons. Mr. DISRAELI vindicates the resolutions
which he has drawn up as asserting principles
to which he asks the assent of the House of
Commons, and as the only mode of obtaining
a fair hearing for the measure which is to be
based upon them. In the absence of such prelimi-
nary engagement of Parliament, vicious amend-
ments might be proposed and carried, assailing
some principle contained in the Bill. The appli-
cation of the resolutions is, he contends, a part
of the responsible duty of the Government; and
he deprecates the origination by the House of
Commons of any opinion upon points of detail.
This explanation is not very satisfactory. Hither-
to, Ministers have been content to base their policy
upon principles, without stickling for details. The
procedure which seemed to imply an excess of
deference to the House of Commons now appears
to have originated in a deeply-seated distrust of
it. It is recommended as a desperate expedient
for securing from an unwilling assembly a fair
bearing for the Ministers of the Crown, and for
guarding against factious attack. The CIIAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER'S want of confidence in
the Chamber of which he virtually abdicates
the leadership, is betrayed in the reserve
with which he has treated it ; but
it has not until now been explicitly stated,
except in those political novels which it might be
as unfair to quote against him as it would be to
cite Mr. GLADSTONE'S Union speeches or his work
on Church and State in rebuke of the mature
convictions of the Liberal leader. Mr. DISRAELI
Will not trust the House of Commons until he has
its signature to his bond ; he has no confidence
even in its willingness to give him a fair hearing
until he has got its promise to do so. He admits
that to pass the resolutions is not to pass a
Reform Bill, which, after all, must, ho says, de-
pend upon its own merits, to which the resolutions
afford no sort of clue. As the proof of the pud-
ding is in the eating, so the merit of the resolu-
tions is in the application ; and what the applica-
tion of them will be Mr. DISRAELI declines to say.
If the House of Commons should pass resolutions
which the Government does not approve, the
Government " will reserve to itself the privilege of
" free men," and decline to act upon them. Where,
then, is the advantage of the procedure adopted by
Ministers ? The resolutions may be good, and the
Bill may be bad ; or the House may pass resolu-
tions adverse to the convictions of Ministers, who
will then decline to give effect to them. The pro-
cedure of the Government is thus a source of con-
fusion and delay. If Parliament declines to sub-
scribe to the thirteen articles of political faith
submitted to it by Mr. DISRAELI, or at any
rate to the more essential of them, Ministers will
avail themselves of the privileges of free men. If
it assents to them, it may not assent to the Minis-
terial application of them. The Government, ac-
cording to Mr. DISRAELI, will not acquiesce in
resolutions of which it does not approve, and it
considers the application of those resolutions to
be part of its responsible duty. But if it is
responsible both for the principle and the applica-
tion, why should it sever them f Why not, in the
first instance, submit the principles in their appli-
cation ? The business of the House of Commons
is not to lay down general political doc-
trines, but to adopt specific provisions, of
which it may be credited with discern-
ing, and excused from stating, the abstract
grounds. The same measure may recommend
itself to different minds for different reasons, but
Mr. DISRAELI objects to members supporting his
conclusions who do not accept his premises and
avow themselves convinced by his arguments.
. .

In all this the nanowness of a doctrinaire is
apparent, with very few traces of the wisdom of
the practical statesman. The thirteen articles
which Mr. DISRAELI propounds as embodying the
orthodox and saving faith in politics are as imper-
tinent to political legislation as the French decla-
ration of the rights of man, and the precedent may
become as inconvenient.

As Mr. DISRAELI'S late explanations are inconsis-
tent with his original statement, and as they afford
no grouru:. for the procedure by resolutions which
he has adopted, we must take his speech on Mon-
day evening as disclosing the true motives of
the Government. It is something that the freely
expressed censure of the country should
within so short a time have compelled the retreat