The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1873-03-19
Political Revolutions under the British
and American Constitutions.

S'iu VIC e'oihistraliVe machinery OF the
British government as superior to that of
our own. They look upon the former as nat
ural, flexible and easily adjusted to meet sud-
den emergencies, while the latter is regulated
by arbitrary laws, having no reference to the
exlgencies Of any particular time or occasions
For instance, a change in public feeling, if
reflected by the House of Commons, is
instantly followed by change OF rulers
The ex ,cutive cannot remain in power TWEEN
ty-f.ur hours after clear, lnmistakable eH-
preston of a want of popular confidence,
given through the medium of the House Vi
Commons, either formally or by the defeat u
bill brought in by the ministry. nero' on
the contrary, the Executive that loses tne
confidence or respect-of the people within
year after coming into power, must be endur-
ed three wears more, whether or no, unless
some act of gross maladministration or crime
brings the offensive officer into situation
where he can be impeached. In the case of
Andrew johnson if no other of our Chief
Magistrates, the annoyance of a protracted
struggle with an obstinate ruler, who has
made up his mind to take advantage of the
security of his tenure to defy the people, has
been freely experienced. An English prem
Ter under such circumstances would have
been instantly made to feel his responsibility
to the people, and would have been supplant-
ed by representative of the majority of the
House OF Commons within a few hours.
But if the English system has its advantage
e., it has disadvantages that more than coun-
terbalance them. The ministerial crisis of
last week, for instance, gives an unfavorable
impression of the workings of the English
system. The Gladstone ministry came into
power in December, 1868, after dissolution
of Parliament following the defeat of Disrae-
Ii on the Irish Church bill. 1t came
in p with large Liberal majority,
which to this day is substantially
unimpaiied. The House of Commons was
prepared, it seems, Oh the very day that the
Liberal ministry resigned, to give it a vote of
confidence. 1t was defeated on matter of
secondary importance by the aid of the very
men who have supported, and are still ready
to support its general policy. The incoming
Tory ministry, if one is finally formed as the
result of the existing crisis, will lead in the
deliberations of Liberal House. 1t runs the
risk of immediate defeat, and in case of disso-
luton Of Parliament. the chances are more
than equal for the Liberals to obtain ma
jority in the next House. Thus crises arise
and periods of qualified anarchy ensue on
grounds entirely insufficient to logically prod
uce such results. 1t is as if Gen. Grant and
the Republicans had retired from our govern
ment and the Democrats had taken their
place when the San Domingo project was
defeated by union with the Democrats of a
large number Of Republicans who are as loyal
to the essential principles of our Republican
party as Gen. Grant himself. In estimating the
disadvantages of the English system we have
not of course taken into consideration the
agency of hereditary ruler in the appoint
ment of the Premier, and those other pecu-
sliarities Of the British constitution which
make England monarchy instead of re-
public. We only consider those parts of the
system that might be adopted here in carry
ing on our government, without at all impair
ing its democratic purity. There are those
who will always regard the English system of
ministerial responsibility to the people
through the 81 use of Commons as the most
perfect arrangement for securing the peoples
sure and easy control of the government ever
devised. But the most of us will be confirm
edin our preference for our constitution by
the ministerial changes that have just taken
place in England on SO slight ground.