The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-08 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TDIES.—TiI e energetic language in which Lord
Derby delared on Tuesday evening that it would
be impossible to carry any measure of Reform
through Parliament unless all parties were disposed
to subordinate for a time party triumphs to the
public welfare admitted of but one interpretation.
A special appeal is to be made to the patriotism of
the Legislature. We are arrived at such a pass that
it is, as Mr. Gladstone says, of the first necessity
the question of Reform should be settled. "It
stops the way." The continued agitation of the sub-
ject may serve to create fresh difficulties, but can-
not smooth the road out of the embarrassment of
our position. Lord Russell observed in the House
of Lords that almost all the monster meetings which
had been held during the recess had pronounced in
favour of manhood suffrage, but he supposed no one
lidding a responsible position looked forward for a
moment to any such extension of the privileges of
voting. Ile was, no doubt, right in his opinion,
but it is evident that the delay of another year may
foster the delusion that revolutionary changes are
possible. If the session upon which we have just
entered is t ) be given up to a mere struggle for
place, any proposals that the Government may make
will be declared insufficient almost before they are
known, and the members of the Opposition must
make a higher bid and commit themselves to deeper
pledges for the sake of power. It is very possible
that such tactics, if adopted, might succeed, but
success would bring its own punishment. The
triumphant party would find itself once more un-
able, perhaps, indisposed, to give all that its pro-
mises had led the world to expect, and Parliamen-
tary Government would be gravely discredited. If,
as we understood, the Administration intend to
propose on Monday what the guarded language of
the Royal Speech and of the heads of the Go-
vernment in each House led us to expect., we cannot
deny that there is much to be said for the form of
procedure. Five times within fifteen years has a
Reform Bill been presented to the House of Com-
mons by the Ministers of the Crown—four times by
a Liberal, once by a Conservative Government—
and each time only to be defeated. This of itself
is a strong argument for believing that the method
of proceeding by bill, if again followed, must again
end in failure ; and it is well known that a dis-
passionate observer, who combines at once the
austerity of a political philosopher and the expe-
rience of a practical statesman, long since recom-
mended another course. Lord Grey suggested a
reference to a Committee of the Privy Council, but
the plan is open to the double objection that it is
practically an absolute novelty, and that it presup-
poses a total abnegation of M inisterial responsibility.
The last objection we must hold to be fatal ; and
fortunately a better plan, tried in our own time, lies
close at hand. The position of the India Bill in
1858 was in many respects an exact parallel to the
position of reform in 1867. A great calamity had
happened in India, and the House of Commons re-
solved that the authority of the East India Com-
pany should give way to the direct control of the
Crown. The House of Commons committed itself
to this resolution, and then awoke to the difficul-
ties of carrying it into effect. A bill for the go-
vernment of India was introduced by Lord Pal-
merston, but was not received with complete
satisfaction. The defects of the bill became more
apparent the more it was considered, and when
Lord Palmerston's Government was defeated on the
Conspiracy Bill the possibility of obtaining from
the new Ministry a better scheme for the govern-
ment of our Eastern Empire was looked upon as a
happy incident of the event. It would be cruel to
recur to the disappointment that followed upon the
production of the India Bill No. 2. It is to this
hour a puzzle how such a scheme could have re-
ceived the preliminary sanction of Lord Derby's
Cabinet. The state of affairs was embarrass-
ing, if not alarming. The House of Commons
had resolved on putting an end to the double rule
of the East India Company and of the Board of
Control, but could find nothing to take its place.
Two Ministers had tried to devise a scheme worthy

of acceptance, both had failed, and meanwhile
India was under a provisional Government. In this
dilemma Lord Russell, then a member of the Lower
House, came to the assistance of the country. He

proposed that both Bills should be laid aside, and
the method of proceeding by Resolutions should be
adopted. This was, in fact, a proposal that the
principles of the Bill to be finally adopted should be
agreed upon before any of its details were framed,
and that these principles themselves should be
arrived at by discussion in Committee of the House
of Commons. The Administration was not to
escape responsibility, as it was its duty to frame
Resolutions, but the Resolutions might be moulded
with comparative freedom without necessarily in-
volving the fate of the Ministry. Such a plan
had on the face of it oue recommendation—

that it afforded a way of escaping a perpetual
wrangling over details ; but Lord Russell urged
its adoption on other grounds. "It was de-
sirable," he said, with truth, " that the House
should discuss the question of the future govern-
ment of India without raising a party debate
. • • and if Resolutions might be discussed in a
Committee of the whole House it would be pos-
sible to ascertain what the opinion of the House
was as to the mode of government to be
adopted," and he added that he felt strongly
the method of Resolutions to be the only
method by which party discussion could be
avoided. No one would accuse Lord Russell of
undue haste in reccmmending a deviation from the
ordinary precedure, and it is instructive to note the
reasons which, in his estimation, justified the
course he proposed. In addition to those we have
cited he declared that they had seen the plans
proposed by two different Governments, and he
thought neither measure would receive the full
concurrence of the House without undergoing very
considerable alteration. If we could view proposals
to reform our Home Government as dispassionately
as new schemes for the government of India, free-

ing our minds for a moment from the heat of party
strife and the prejudices of personal interest, we
should see how exactly the reasons advanced by
Lord Russell for proceeding by resolutions in. 1858
apply now. There have been similar failurts, and
there exists a similar embarrassment in treating a
question of the highest importance. We need scarcely
add that the course proposed by Lord Russell was
adopted, and adopted with signal success. Fourteen
resolutions embodying the principles of the future
government of India were brought into the House
of Commons, and, after comparatively short discus-
sions, the leading resolutions were definitely settled;
and Lord Stanley, as Indian Secretary, found it
possible to withdraw the rest and introduce a com-
plete bill. There were not wanting predictions
thatand a
thenhnrttime
scheme
wasfixed p
finally passed
beforewouldd h
tnoeted of
work,n
which it would require revision; but we all know
that it has proved singularly free from defects, and
Parliament will indeed have reason for congratula-
tion if, nine years after passine, any Reform Bill,
there be as little demand for fresh alterations as
there is now for further amendment of the Govern-
ment of India. It may be a great assumption that
Reform can be treated apart from party interests,
but we trust there is no ground for thinking so ill
of our public men as to believe them incapable, amid
their personal differences and the contests of a just
ambition, of being animated by a paramount desire
for the public good. There is, however, one condi--
tion essential to the success of such an appeal to the
House. It must be made with all the frankness
with which it is desired it shall be met. The .Go-
vernment must deal honestly and fairly with the
House of Commons if it ventures to ask the House
of Commons to unite honestly and fairly with it.
The Ministers of the Crown must show the spirit
they would evoke, and if they do so they may find
themselves justified in the hope that the session of
1867 will be signalised by the settlement of a pro-
tracted and threatening difficulty.
Post--The Admiralty is the best abused of all
the Government departments, and we are not sur-
prised even at this early period of the session, that
Mr. Seely should have given notice of his intention
to make the mismanagement of the Board of Admi-
ralty the subject of a special motion. The English
people are particularly sensitive about their Navy,
and it would Terhaps be unreasonable to expect
that, under any system of management, however
perfect, the work now done by the Board of Admi-
ralty would meet with universal commendation. It
must, however, be admitted on all hands that the
objections so often advanced against the manner in
which the Navy, with all its accessories, is managed
are not entirely capricious. The constitution of the
Board of Admiralty is in itself so anomalous, that
one would a priori be inclined to expect that the
business transacted under its supervision would be
indifferently done. Passing from " My Lords" to
the subordinate departments, one is met at every
turn by evidences of an organisation in which the
want of supervision and control is constantly con-
spicuous. These defects are universally conceded ;
and if Mr. Seely were merely to content himself with
asking the House of Commons to affirm that such
mismanagement existed, and if such affirmation
would remedy the evil, there would be no ques.ion
of the motion being carried unanimously. But it is
much easier to destroy than to construct, and
although Mr. Seely may be enabled to make a very
good case against the Admiralty, it is by no means so
clear that he will be in a position to submit a scheme
which, if adopted, would remedy the evils of which
he complains. Not that we mean for one moment to
suggest this as a reason why no change should be ef-
fected, for thus applied such an argument would tell
against all reform whatsoever. We simply desire to
call attention to the real difficulty of the task which
Mr, Seely has not been the first to undertake. If

in no other respects, the English people are ex-
tremely conservative in the maintenance of their
executive departments in the same form in which
they have been handed down ; and those who *ill
take the trouble of studying the modifications which
have been made from tithe to time in the adminis-
tration of the several departments of the State will
have no difficulty in satisfying themselves that
abuses must be very gross, and proposed remedies
very efficient, when a departure from the recognised
routine is formally sanctioned by the Government
or by Parliament. A good many persons who
recognise the deficiencies of our system of Admiralty
management are nevertheless averse from hasty
experiments being made in a matter affecting the
efficiency of our fleets, and of the dockyards in
which they are built. Apart from the question of
administration, it has always been a moot point
whether, in respect to the construction and repara-
tion of ships, it would not be better for the Govern-
ment to go into the market like ordinary consumers.
instead of being themselves their own shipwrights.
This is a matter entirely independent of that which
Mr. Seely proposes to bring to the notice of the
House of Commons ; but it is nevertheless worthy
of notice, because the chief ground on which such a
change has been suggested is the improvidence and
peculation which are assumed to be incidental to
our present system of dockyard management. It
has been contended that, adopting the principles of
free trade, and relying on the natural results of
competition, the Government would be enabled to
provide at a much cheaper cost for the wants of the
navy in private dockyards than in their own. It is,
however, doubtful whether, even throwing out of
account special circumstances to which we will pre-
sently allude, this would be the case. By being
themselves competitors in the shipbuilding trade,
the Government necessarily keep down prices,
whereas if they trusted to private individuals to
supply their wants, they would find themselves com-
pelled to pay the prices demanded, however exorbi-
tant those prices might be. Nor would the assumed
existence of competition protect the Government
from being victimised, since their wants, more espe-
cially in the event of war, becoming imminent,
would necessarily tax to the utmost the resources of
even the most patriotic and most honest ship-
builder:. Bnt, dismissing these consi krations, the

necessity under which the Government would be
placed of not only providing for the protection
of private dockyards, as they do at present for
their own arsenals, and of taking care that a suffi-
ciency of raw material and of stores were always
kept on hand for their use, would render it im-
possible for any Government, and more especially
that of a great maritime State, to place its sole
reliance in private firms for the supply of
everything requisite for the service of its navy.
If peculation and waste in public dockyards are
to be effectually guarded against, if serviceable
vessels in sufficient numbers are always to be
found ready for the use of the State, if ships are
not to be constructed at an immense cost simply to
be cut down or transformed at an additional cost
into something for which they were never originally
intended, if ruinous experiments in the art of ship-
building are no longer to be made, no ironclads to
be put in commission merely as an initiatory step
towards being re-docked and dismantled, some
radical change must be made in the entire theory of
Admiralty management. What •that alteration
should be it may be difficult to say, and we sin-
cerely hope that Mr. Seely will be enabled to sub-
mit some proposal which will recommend itself to
the acceptance of the Government and the House
of Commons. The objection so frequently taken
to the change in the heads of departments which
attends a change of Ministry is one which is more
apparent than real. The fact of a Conservative
First Lord or Secretary being replaced by some
Liberal statesman who has never in his life, except
from motives of curiosity, boarded a man-of-war or
entered a dockyard, does not in any appreciable
degree tend to the prejudice of the Admiralty. It
is in the constitution of the Board, the divided
responsibility and the insufficient supervision and
control which are exercised over subordinate chiefs,
that the evil consists. It is the defects which flow
from these causes which Mr. Seely has announced
his intention of exposing, and for which it is fair to
assume that he is sanguine enough to believe that
he can suggest a cure.

COUNTRY MARKETS.