The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-10 00:00:00

SPIRIT or THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—In the House of Lords yesterday the
grant of the pension of £BOO made to Mr. Edmunds
on the 24th of February last was rescinded.
Justice has so far been done, and nothing
less would have satisfied the honour of the House
of Lords and the conscience of the country. It
was assuredly not a case for leniency. It may
be a painful spectacle to see a man reduced in the
evening of life from affluence and good esteem to
such a position as Mr. Edmunds now occupies, but
his offences have been so great that he will find. but
little commiseration. The House of Lords has done
substantial, though tardy, justice. There were in
yesterday's debate frequent references to the position
of the house before the country, and the proper
course that should be taken to maintain its credit.
The misgivings these expressions indicate are not
groundless. Undoubtedly the house has given much
cause for scandal. The country has been shocked
at finding in these times a repetition of those ques-
tionable doings which it is accustomed to attribute
solely to a past age. Lord Redesdale's resolutions
were the first matter tobe considered. It is, perhaps,
natural that the chairman of the committee which
granted Mr. Edmunds his pension should feel ag-
grieved, both in himself and for his colleagues at the
following observations, contained in the report of
the Edmund Inquiry Committee :—" It is to be re-
gretted that the committee did not consider it to be
their duty, under the circumstances, to act upon
their general knowledge or impression so far as to
interpose some delay before the question was finally
disposed of in favour of a pension which, had the cir-
cumstances been fully known to them, would pro-
bably not have been recommended." This Lord
Redesdale and one or two other members of the
pension committee looked upon as a censure.
Whether it were so or not, they took a strange way
of meeting it. They sheltered themselves under the
limitation of their powers. Lord Redesdale's first
resolution was to the effect that that Mr. Edmunds's
resignation having been accepted by the house, and
the matter having been referred to the committee of
pensions without any observation on the part of the
Lord Chancellor or any member of the Government,
the committee " had no question to determine on
the petition so referred to them but the amount of
retiring pension to which he was entitled, and would
have exceeded their duty if, without special instruc-
tions from the house, they had proceeded to inquire
into his conduct in any matter unconnected with his
duties in this house." Happily for the credit of the
Lords,this extraordinary resolution was not adopted.
It was plain that when the house deputed a commit-
tee of its own body to inquire into the " amount "
of pension to which Mr. Edmunds was entitled, they
gave it the right of inquiry whether he ought to
receive any pension at all. In granting pensions it
is not only the length of service—a thing that can be
ascertained in a few minutes—but the meritorious
performance of duties which is to be the subject of
inquiry. It is a rule in the public service, as well
as of common sense, that gross misconduct, such as
debars an official from the possibility of retaining
his post, also takes from him the right to receive a
pension. Such conduct was beyond a doubt charged
against Mr. Edmunds, and with good reason, as
subsequent investigations have proved. The ques-
tion for the Committee was whether the " amount"
to be given him should be £lOO, or £2OO, or £3OO,
or £BOO, or nothing. The proper way to decide
such a question would have been to inquire into the
circumstances under which he had resigned his office
and others ; in fact, into all the matters with which
rumour was busy. We believe it was the bounden
duty of the Committee to make this inquiry; it would
not at any rate have been an excess of duty, but only
a zealous execution of the task committed to them
by the House. Strange to say, Lord Redesdale's
view of the case was adopted by Lord Eversley,
who declared that the question referred to the Com-
mittee did not justify them in inquiring into the
fitness of Mr. Edmunds to receive any pension at all.
This very technical view of the case was, however,
combated with much effect by other. Lords, and by
none more than by Lord Derby himself, who showed
conclusively that the House could not affirm such a
proposition as that the Pension Committee were
preluded from inquiring into Mr. Edmunds' cha-
racter and the circumstances of his resignation.
The Pension Committee may be content with the
assurance by the members of the Edmunds Committee
that they did not intend to convey any censure upon
them by the paragraph we have quoted from their
Report, but last night's debate tended much to con-
firm previous suspicions that the Committee which
gave Mr. Edmunds his pension had a knowledge—
unofficial, indeed, but still sufficiently accurate—of
what had been going on. It is his belief in this
knowledge which is the best palliation of the Lord
Chancellor's conduct. He may almost say that there
could be no deception where nobody was deceived.
The Pension Committee, indeed, every section of the
House itself, must share, each in its respective degree,
the imputation of " error of judgment" and undue
leniency. The committee knew that there was some-
thing wrong, the Government knew it, the leading
men of the Opposition knew it, and, though Lord
Hardwicke can successfully " vindicate his igno-
rance," we are not permitted to doubt that a large
portion of their lordships were aware that their il-
lustrious body was about to pension a defaulter. No
doubt they did not knowhow bad his case was, how
continued and extensive had been his defalcations,
and how little claim the offender had on their mercy;
but they were disposed not to be hard on one whom
they had been accustomed to see in the service of
the house for 17 years, and were too careless to in-
quire into the enormity of his guilt. The best that
can be said for the Lord Chancellor is that his error
was little worse than that of the committee ; and
for the committee, that their error was little worse
than that of the house. A larger assemblage of
peers than has congregated during the present ses-
sion assembled last evening, no doubt in expectation
that the Lord Chancellor would address the house in
deprecation of the censure passed upon him in the
report of the Edmunds committee. But any such
expectation was disappointed. That learned person
preserved an impassive silence, although more than
one speaker seemed to feel a perverse pleasure in
alluding to the part which the Lord Chancellor had
taken in this unfortunate business. Not even on the
question whether Mr. Edmunds should be heard by
counsel would the Lord Chancellor open his lips.
The great scandal of the day has now reached its
end, so far as the House of Lords is concerned. Mr
Edmunds has had the quality of fouling whatever
he has touched. The character of one or two per-
sons is grievously affected ; the highest official in
the country has been led into a lamentable error ; a
great assembly has acted with haste or carelessness,
and has been compelled to revoke its own decision ;
and the conduct of a public office has been shown to
be for years so loose that tyranny and peculation
went on unrestrained. The only comfort to be de-
rived from such exposures is that they are a warning
to public men, and tend to place a check on func-
tionaries great and small.

HERALD.--Under every constitution a weak Go-
vernment is a bad one. But most writers of autho-
rity and intelligence are agreed in thinking that of
all weak Governments a weak Parliamentary Go-
vernment is the worst. When parties are evenly
baLnted, when no Ministry can command an assured
majority
the Legislature, then all the weaknesses,
faults, and perl.q
of a system of government by
party come into full knlay, while its advantages are
for the most part auspeizied or outweighed by
its evils. The benefits of Parliamantary government
depend on the possession by the Admu2.istration of a
control over the action of the Legislature, which en-
sures' in the first place, that the Executive shall be
able to carry out its policy in full reliance on the
assistance of the representatives of the nation ; and
in the second place, that the legislative action of Par-
liament shall be guided by persons whose position ren-
ders them peculiarly sensitive to the danger of hasty
and ill-considered measures, and whose eminence
fixes upon them a distinct personal responsibility for
everything they do or permit to be done. When this
is not the case the British Parliament sinks almost to
the level of the American Congress, whose aimless
debates and ill-considered action have long been the
theme of censure and regret among all thoughtful
observers in America as well as in Europe. But this
is not all. The Federal Executive may be strong
without the aid of Congress ; without the support of
Parliament the British Executive is paralysed. When
we have a Government which cannot control the de-
cisions of the House of Commons we have an almost
all-powerful assembly left without responsible guid-
ance, and a Ministry responsible for everything left
without substantial power. In such a state of things
all the worst features of party government come to
the surface. Corruption, personal and sectional,'
becomes the mainspring of public business. A
dishonest Minister may abuse his patronage
with scandalous disregard alike of duty and
of decency, because the chief of the Ad-
ministration, tottering in his seat, dare not risk
the trifling shock which a Cabinet receives from
the ejection of a single member. A selfish or
extreme section of the Ministerial party must be
conciliated at the public expense, because, without
its support, all government would become impos-
sible, and the daily business of the country could
not go on. A factious and self-willed statesman
may carry measures disapproved by all his col-
leagues and by three-fourths of his supporters, be-
cause the former dare not offend him, and the latter
understand that a single vote might compel a change
of Ministry and a dissolution of Parliament. Of all
these evils we have had abundant experience since
1859 ; and patriotic men of all parties begin to feel
that a strong Liberal Government would be more
constitutional, and a strong Conservative Govern-
ment more liberal, than one which, whatever prin-
ciples it may profess, dare not resist the smportuni-

• •
ties of the Radicals, and cannot overcome the re-
sistance of the Tories. In the meantime all the
rules of constitutional morality are relaxed under
the pressure of circumstances which leave scarce
possibility of carrying them out. Ministers submit
to defeats which, according to constitutional theory,
ought to entail their resignation ; and openly avow
that they have not, and dare not have, a policy of
their own, but wait to take one from the country.
The speech of Sir G. Grey, as leader of the house in
Lord Palmerston's absence, reveals with striking
naivete the effect of six years of weak governnlen tht
in demoralising our statesmen and throwing
very foundations of political ethics into confusion.
The task which devolved upon the Home Secretary
was threefold. He was called upon to explain the
conduct of the Government in regard to the Reform
Bill of 1860. He had to vindicate their course in
voting for, without giving official support to, Mr'
Baines's bill for the reduction of the borough frail
chise. And he was required to state the future policy
of the Ministry upon the subject of Reform at large;
On every single point his speech displayed
oblivion of the first principles of constitutional
morals. In 1859 the Liberal party combined to
eject Lord Derby's Government on the ground thbate
the electoral qualification in boroughs ought to
,
reduced. It became the duty of those who took tliu
lead in that movement to carry such a reductinlio;
existene
and, if necessary, to stake their Ministerial
on its success ; for it was only in order to earl
such a measure that they were enabled to defeat an
throw out the Ministry of Lord Derby. The Govl;
ment of Lord Palmerston brought in a Reform nu-Li
an utte.
but they were not in earnest about it ; they let it
understood that they would not resign if it were
ll_els
carried ; and accordingly the majority of their ow'
party, who had never really liked the measure, el;
t
bined to talk it out. The Government finally
drew it, and Sir G. Grey vindicates the withdraf,
on the plea of necessity. Now, this may be a ont
cient answer to Mr. Forster and his friends, htluno
is no justification of the Ministry. Call any on
conceive a more heinous outrage on politicaliorTl?
than that to which they have virtually pleaded gu°,l
All honest men will agree that a change in the ele rl
toral qualification, being virtually a transfer of P°w,,„r
in a greater or less degree, from one class W atot's'o'
is one of the most serious measures that a states .o
can propose. To tamper with the basis of the fabif,
of government is either necessary or criminal:, may
in the opinion of Lord Palmerston's Cabinet,
bill
necessary, then they ought to have carried their
or resigned their offices. If they believed it tnto;
unnecessary, then what terms of censure can 11 ro,
severe for their conduct ? Not believing in ile'° of
—not desiring it—they affected the charactcro
Reformers for the sake of office. They played tlry,
and loose wieh the constitution of their colinhiso
They used the plea of the extension of the franebad
to turn out their adversaries, and when they "„ii,
done so they consented for six years to let the n*"
of
chise remain unaltered. Have these men any se,ll„sfejoa
public duty ? Do they believe that the cons {hey
exists in order that Whigs may govern, or do to
understand that there are any questions too grar 4 „.;',
be made simply the stalking-horse of a partY in7eat•
But if we could imagine an excuse for the 'ro
ment of their own Reform Bill, we can e°llcw
iich
of none which can extenuate the manner in %1 of
they have dealt with the fragmentary proPcnhat
their adherents. It is confessed that Reforin; by
is, fundamental alteration of the arrangonenro is
which file principal branch of the Legislattais-
chosen—is the gravest subject with which the 1,10
lation of the country can deal. It is a first Prinse-ie-
of parliamentary government that the Queen' f the
sponsible advisers should be also the advisers 0 or.
Legislature ; should take the initiative in. all take
tant measures of general polity ; and SllOll% nOt
the lead in resisting proposals which they ",; ad-
approve. It is utterly inconsistent with thesi",oald
matted functions of the Government that they er,0(1,4
allow private members to take out of their
the reform of the electoral system, and to oea'Ar's
it piecemeal. If, in the opinion of her Dlaj
t
ugh
Ministers, it is desirable to reduce the 1),(",,s- are
qualification to £6, then her Majesty's Minis If,
the persons who ought to make that prolxt,' tbeY
in their opinion, the change is not desira"'L,
ought to resist it. If they simply think the twthel
opportune for the discussion of such a measll-r,,e'sur,
ought to move the previous question. But
port Mr. Baines against that motion ; to an,rn '
-to be
his measure ought to be discussed, and oughtL, are
approved, and yet that it is not one which tidote
bound to take into their own hands is to 0,0 ties
their constitutional functions and dis'solve th(lisetare
between the Administration and the Leave go'
which are the life and essence of representaq'"v of
vernment. The terms in which the future P°Pin-Ight
the Ministry was announced on Monday night of the
well call forth the laughter and. the jeeirs; to a
house. Ministers will not pledge theniseiv-,,,iics,
Reform Bill. They will not pledge themselves act` fee,
one. The subject is one on which they do n.i° ie
it their duty to have a policy or an opiniol3- ntself
generally supposed, the country shall Pr°v.,,' toa's
averse or indifferent to change, Lord Palnle— as it
Administration will maintain the constitutiona
er
stands. If the elections should, contrail tcshilier-
pectation, go in favour of reform, then Lord ;were;
ston's Administraton will become Fell," plitio
This is not a caricature, scarcely even all wugli
cation of Sir G. Grey's language ; an ut theno other Minister would have blunder eu clirt Oito
truth in so naked a form, we cannot douPtiv re-
the utterance of their bungling orator clac.bj's the
presents the future, as it correctly deserifor tit°
past, policy of his chief and colleagues. It i.,si;fliatri
country to say whether it will furnish the he'
with principles and a policy ; or whether it wiof the
stow its confidence on men with other ideasi, that
duty of statesmen—men who desire office con'
they may give effect to convictions they ha' 04
sistently held, and protection to institution state
honestly love and cherish ; and who, when the,,,, use
of public opinion shall no longer permit thein
power for these purposes, will honourably an
grudgingly resign it.