The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-11 00:00:00

GENERAL HAVELOCK'S PENSION.

(Prom, the Times.)
The question "What is constitutional ?" has some
analogy to the question " What is providential ?"
The classical poet argued that navigation was a de-
fiance of Providence, because the sea was designed
to separate one country from another. But the
answer to that is, that if the sea is a urovideutial
separation, navigation is a providential remedy for
it. And so now some excellent people argue against
taking morphiainsurgical operations, on the ground
that bodily pain is an infliction of Provicb-nce ; the
answer to which is, that the same Providence which
sends the pain sends the morphia. In fact, this
argument about Providence, and this answer to it,
run through almost the whole of life and nature.
Twenty years ago thousands of worthy persons
thought railways impious. What business had we
to think of travelling so quickly ? Was it not a
proud aim at übiquity—an approach to assuming
an attribute of omnipotence ? And before the time
of railways old-fashioned people looked ominous on
the subject of the "Rockingham" and the "High-
flyer." Ten miles an hour was contrary to Provi-
dence when men had been accumtomed to go six.
All fhe great creations of art have thus been voted
in their way defiances of Providence—ships, rail-
ways, cities—for "God made the country, and
man made the town,"—as if the discovery was not
in any case just as providential as the original diffi-
culty
which it cured or diminished, as if a wheel-
barrow could be providential if a locomotive was
not, and as if a ferryboat could be safe from the
charge of impiety if the Great Eastern was open
to it.

The same kind of argument goes on on the ques-
tion of what is or is not constitutional. Thus, in
the debate on Wednesday on the subject of Sir
Henry Havelock's pension, it was argued by Mr.
Gladstone that the "interposition of members of
the House" in the case of granting rewards to
public servants was unconstitutional, because the

constitution made the Crown the fountain of
honour. Bat the.answer to this is, that if the con-
stitution gives this privilege to the Crown, the con-
stitution also subjects the exertion of the privilege

in any case to a vote of the House of Commons ;
and that men have a clear right to make remarks
and suggestions on an Act to which they are called
on to be parties, and to which their concurrence
is necessary. Mr. Gladstone cautioned the House
against meddling with the Royal Bounty, and so
marring its grace, and interfering with its character
as a free spontaneous act. This argument would
have had something in it if the Crown, according
to the working constitution of this country, acted
quite independently in these matters, and without
the slightest reference to Parliament. But this is
not the case. The Crown gives rewards upon
the recommendation of Ministers, and the
Ministers represent the opinion of Parliament.
That is the working constitution of this coun-
try. We do not say that it is so described
in any written statute, or that you can give
index authority for all this ; but, whether
it is or is not "De Lolme's Constitution," it is
the de facto constitution of England now. The
Crown does not act independently, even in its
executive character, but in concert with Parlia-
ment, and the Royal bounty is an act of the
nation, and not an act of the Queen alone. It
expresses the gratitude of Parliament and the
country for particular services, and therefore it
is nonsense to say that the freedom and grace of
this act are inteifered with when Parliament
takes part in the bestowal of it and offers sug-
gestions upon it. So for as it is the act of Par-
liament, so far it can be interfered with by the
deliberations of Parliament.

This sort of Parliamentary prose is like a great
deal of the advice which we meet with in didac-
tic works, in letters from fathers to sons, in fic-
titious speeches of sages to young men, and in
books about education and the management of
families. With good and sensible hints every
now and then, the great mass of the teaching of
such books is, however well meant, extremely
useless, simply because it is artificial, technical,
and arbitrary. They lay down fixed rules on
subjects which do not in the least admit of them,
and make statute letter the guide in matters on
which the only true guide is common sense and
good feeling acting for the best according to the
occasion. Nothing is easier than laying down
rules, prescribing limitations, interposing vetoes,
aid drawing imperious distinctions. The only
difficulty is to get them confirmed and ratified
by common sense, acknowledged and received
among men of independent judgment. There was
Lord Grey, the other night in the House of Lords,
laying down the law very strongly against all criti-
cism whatever upon a Governor-General of India in
times of disturbance, on the ground that such criti-
cism might weaken his authority in India, and
interfere with the effectiveness of Governm3nt.
But does Lord Grey seriously think that everybody
in this country is bound to keep solemn silence
about every act of Lord Canning's until this whole
mutiny is over and tranquillity is completely esta-
blished ? Is this duty imposed by conscience or by
Lord Grey ? There is a reason indeed given for it
—a man must be very badly off if he has not some
reason or other to give—but if we are to accept such
a reason as this for such a prohibition we must
really accept so many reasons for so many prohi-
bitions that the country and Parliament might as
well at once abdicate their privilege of speech alto-
gether. There is a possibility of some harm re-
sulting from such criticism. But we should like to
know what exertion of what human function or
talent in social or political life is not accompanied
by such a possibility. All freedom has risks attend-
ing it. Everything does harm—Parliament, the
press, public meetings, elections ; the only ques-
tion is whether the good does not overbalance the
harm. The air we breathe has deadly elements in ir,
and roast beef may be a.fatal poison, but the general
effect of both is more profitable than noxious to
life. We cannot have all the advantages of a free-
dom and all the advantages of a despotism too. A
despotism can do what Lord Grey wants, and pre-
vent all the risk which accompanies the exercise of
speech, by suppressing that faculty ; but for our
own part we think that the remedy is worse than
the evil, and that the system which allows us to
criticise a Governor-General of India is ultimately
better for the Government of India than a system
which ties up the tongue of a nation. These rules,
that people are not to open their mouths under this,
that, and the other position of affairs, would soon
give us a Count de Morny's Parliament ; there
would be always some reason or other why persons
were not to speak. In the imagination of many
there is a crisis always at band, if there is not
one actually present ; if it is present we must not
speak till it is over ; if it is approaching we shill
only bring it nearer by speaking. These rules, in
short, are a sort of respectable recognised fudge, to
which a man gives vent when he finds himself in
a didactic humour, or in a critical humour, or,
possibly, in not a very good humour—when a
digestion slightly out of order is appetsed by the
agreeable stimulus of coercion, by the satisfaction
involved in cautions and checks to his neighbour,
telling him he must behave himself better and
must act according to this rule and that. How
many a solemn reprimand has proceeded from
this latent cause, —how many a grave reproof,
backed by the most oracular expression ? For-
tunately, nobody attends to these rules, nob )dy
cares about them, nobody thinks himself in the
slightest degree bound by them, and the adviser
himself least of all, who, after they have answered
the purpose of a temporary set down to somebody,
breaks them quite coolly the next day.
With all deference to Mr. Gladstone, then, we
must give our opinion that the house had a perfect
right to express itself as it has continued to
do on the subject of General Havelock's pension.
Such remarks were quite constitutional, and the
occasion called for them. General Havelock is now
between GO and 70, and his life is exposed to all the
risks of a sanguinary war in a trying climate. To
annex the pension, then, to his life only may be to
give him nothing. All precedent is in favour of a
continuance to the son, and certainly such distin-
guished services ought not to be made an exception
to the rule.