The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-08-04
The Recent Debate in Pnrlia ment.

As was expected, the vote in the British
Parliament went against the resolution OF
the liberals by great majority; but this
circumstance does not change the tact that
the resolution was a Just and fair statement
OF sound reasons against the course of the
government. But, naturally, such a reso-
luton was not dealt with on its merits, and
therefore was not voted down for any in
herent defect. 1t was voted down on it's
very nature as a protest against the action
of government which the majority had
determined to sustain through thick and
thin. The Parliamentary majority is in
that frame. Of mind which sometimes seizes
upon bodies of this nature in which it dis
trusts its own judgment as to this or that
detail and counts confidently that If 1t
acts submissively under the direction of
a higher intelligence all will come
out right Consequently it does not attend
to reason or argument, does not 'permit
it's Judgment to get the better OF it's fervid
spirit of loyalty to the Ministry. In the
war times with us it was the great feature
of Congressional action that the fate OF a
measure was determined by its source. If
it came from q good republican it went
through, even though ii gave legislative
sanction to the most fearful vilIanies but
coming from democrat the Lords Prayer,
the Decalogue and the Declaration OF 1nde-
pendence would all have been voted down
in a common condemnation. This is not
merely Parliamentary characteristic. To
A.
gifts, was taught great while ago; and the
Ministerial majority in England like our
Congress in the war times, practises the old
rule with mere change OF names.
It did not matter, therefore, to the gov
ernment's supporters that what was said
against the action taken was vigorous and
just, and what was said in its favor either
false or feeble, and sometimes both. Had it
been of any consequence what was said the
last words spoken for the Ministry by Sir
Stafford Northcote would scarcely have es-
caped severe criticism. He said sit was
Unfair for Lord Harrington to compare the
Treaty of Berlin with that Of 1856, as the
Keystone OF the Treaty of 1856-namely, the
independence and integrity of Turkey-had
been destroyed by the Treaty of San
Stefano." But the position OF the Ministry
has been that the Treaty of San Stefano,
as a document made in defiance of that Of
1856, could of itself have no validity, and
could change nothing, except in SO far as it
was accepted and approved in Congress
Of tile Powers. On that theory, therefore,
tire Treaty Of San Stefano had no
eject until the British government
had assented to its provisions yet this
| treaty destroyed the independence and in
tegrity of Turkey" If the independence
and integrity OF Turkey-which England
has labored and fought to maintain through
SO many years-have ct last really been
destroyed, and destroyed by q Russian
treaty to which the British government has
assented, what is it that constitutes the
glory of the Ministry? what is it trium-
plant in? why does the nation hurrah over
its success, and what is the nature of that
success? One queer Incident of this de-
bate results from comparison Of what was
said ON one point in the two houses. Lord
Salisbury solemnly declared that the Min
stry had no more secret treaties in its
pockets We said Mt the time that Lord
Salisbury had proved that he valued his
word SO little that others could set no store
by his pledge on that point. And our doubt
was, it appears, justifable, for on the I'd
inst. Sir Stafford Northcote virtually i'd
mitted that another secret document was
signed on the 3Oth of May" besides the en-
easement with the Sultan.