ページの画像
PDF
ePub

THE

NEW MONTHLY MAGAZINE

AND

LITERARY JOURNAL.

VOLUME I. FROM JANUARY-JUNE, 1833.

AMERICAN EDITION.

BOSTON:

PUBLISHED BY ALLEN AND TICKNOR.

CHARLES S. FRANCIS, NEW YORK,

CAREY AND HART, PHILADELPHIA.

1833.

[blocks in formation]

THE

NEW MONTHLY
MONTHLY MAGAZINE.

THE POLITICIAN, NO. VIII. The real strength of the Ministers Considered. -Probable divisions in the Cabinet. Mr. Stanley's Faults and Merits.-A view of the position of the House of Lords, and the necessity of avoiding a collision between the two Assemblies.-The probable Tactics of the Tory Peers.

one part of the Cabinet the courage to advance, as it strikes into the other moiety of the Cabinet the fear of proceeding. One says "We have now the power to forward the work of good government." The other says "Things are gone too far, now is the time to resist continued innovation;" with one it is the very moment to advance-with the other to stand still. This, we have cause THE world need not be informed that the to believe, is the real state of feeling amongst elections are now over-and an immense the ministers, (although, perhaps, it is more majority of what are termed the Whig party easy to point out the conservative than the returned to the reformed House of Com- progressing portion,) and thus, as we commons. Never had an English administration menced by saying, their seeming strength is a stronger body of supporters in the Repre- the cause of their probable disunion. We sentative Assembly. Never, therefore, to will not take the question of the Ballot as an the eye of the superficial did an English ad- example; we fancy (despite of mere popular ministration appear more powerful. But, rumours) that we shall find all the ministers examined a little closer, we shall find that agreed to resist that measure. So far there what seems the cause of their strength is is little fear of a schism; too much impornot unlikely to be the cause of their disunion. tance has been attached to some equivocal An overwhelming preponderance of members expressions of Lord John Russell, and of a are returned, engaged to the most popular few immediate partizans of the ministry. opinions, and the consideration of the most The threat-"If men are to be intimidated popular opinions is at once forced upon the from giving their votes, then, much as we government. The Ministers run every hazard dislike it, we must have the ballot," ought of losing the majority they have obtained un- to be regarded merely as an electioneering less they consent to embrace the policy to manœuvre. It simply means—“If we are which that majority are pledged. The conse- not returned to parliament, we will punquence of this is an immediate discussion ish you with a new infliction of popular among the members of the Cabinet how far rights;" and, being safely returned, the exto resist the Movement, or how far to ad- cuse for dispensing with the Ballot will be— vance with it. Had the proportion of reform-"The bill has worked well. Let us wait." ing members been less great, it is obvious Or, in other words, "we are now in a mathat there might have been less disagree- jority, what signifies further alteration?" ment among the ministers; for the more Liberal would have said to the more Conservative "With this House of Commons we cannot carry popular measures to the extent we wish, and we are contented, therefore, with approaching to the boundary that you would appoint." The Conservative policy would have been embraced, and the very necessity of securing a dubious majority would have made the Cabinet unanimous. But the amazing strength of the liberal party, and the lengths to which they have carried their professions to their constituents, give

In truth, it is impossible to disguise from ourselves the fact, that when ministers have spoken of the Ballot, it has not been as a boon to the people, but as a punishment to the Tories. A man of ordinary discernment may perceive, therefore, that the "animis celestibus iræ” are not likely to be kindled by any extraordinary fervour for securing the Ballot, and that the intimidation which has not prevented the return of my Lord John Russell for Devonshire, will not be considered sufficiently strong to warrant" so dangerous an innovation in our constutional customs."

With this embarrassing ally, popular questions become doubly difficult to the government, and we are sure that there must arise many subjects for consideration on which the opinions of Mr. Stanley will be in the one scale and the expectations of the English people in the other, the fear of the hostility of the one, the evils of disappointing the other!

But there is a question that cannot be | dignity by as suddenly forsaking it. Yet blinked or delayed,-the question of Church this perilous friend would be a terrible foe: Reform; and the degree and nature of that he is the only man on the ministerial benches reform can scarcely be a matter of easy ar- capable of replying to Peel. To take his rangement with the ministers. From the counsels from the ministry would be an inline of conduct Mr. Stanley has adopted,- calculable blessing,-to transfer his voice to from the unbending haughtiness of his char- the opposition would be an irreparable misacter, and from engagements to the High- fortune. church Party, stronger perhaps than those of any other English member of the House of Commons, (save, it may be, Sir Robert Inglis,) it is difficult to imagine that he will readily subscribe to the pecuniary emancipation of dissenters and the diminished "dignity" of the hierarchical salaries. The most obvious and the most imperiously demanded of all the ecclesiatical reforms (the adjustment of tithes only excepted) is, that the treasuries of the Established Church should only be supported by its members. No reform short of this will satisfy that vast and intrepid body of men, the Dissenters of England, who, by siding with the people on political, have won their confidence on ecclesiastical matters,-so that not to satisfy the Dissenters will, we suspect, be not to satisfy the people. But this species of Reform, however just and moderate, cannot possibly be agreed to by Mr. Stanley:-the man who is pledged to support the enormities of the Church of Ireland, cannot shrink from advocating the petty grievances of the Church Establishment of England. He who thinks that the Catholic majority should pay the Protestant few in one country may be forgiven for asserting that the dissenting minority should enrich the proponderating division of the Legitimate Establishment in the other. We can conceive no reform which Lord Brougham would propose from which it is not likely that Mr. Stanley would dissent. The latter gentleman stands, indeed, in a peculiar position; he is equally dangerous as an enemy and a friend,-an admirable speaker, he is a bungling statesman; with great talents, he has no judgment; no man debates better or legislates worse; clear, shrewd and penetrating in the House of Commons, he is blinder than a mole in the Cabinet of St. James's or the councils of the Castle at Dublin. He detects every fallacy in an adversary, he embraces every blunder in a law,—nothing can be happier than his replies or more infelicitous than his motions, he hastens to commence and never calculates how he is to proceed, his Bills are brought into the House with a vast flourish of trumpets, they vanish in all the skulking obscurity of defeat, -he compromises the ministerial wisdom by rushing into a motion, and the ministerial

*Yet the Tories have affected to consider the opinions of Lord Brougham as more congenial with the sentiments of Mr. Stanley than those of any other Member in the Cabinet. It is easy to see through their design in this representation.

And here a new view of the political field forces itself upon us. It may be recollected that, in opposition to the generality of our contemporaries, we insisted that the necessity of a creation of Peers, so far from being removed by the passing of the Reform Bill, would become doubly imperious by that event. We said, "If the Upper Chamber cannot agree with this present House of Commons, how can you hope that it will agree with the next? Are you afraid of a collision now?-be doubly afraid of a collision then; at present there is one only ground of dispute,-with your first Reformed Parliament there will be a hundred grounds. Take now, therefore, the opportunity when the apparent urgency of the case excuses all extraordinary measures;-pour into the Upper House that necessary infusion of popular principles which will bring it into sympathy with the Lower;-make your Peers apparently for the passing of one great national measure and the escape from a probable revolution; but in reality, also, not for the temporary occasion, but for permanent ends;-not for the punishment of the Lords because they have resisted the people, but for their real safety because they should harmonize with the people."

Our reader will perceive that we were right; the necessity for a creation of Peers remains unaltered. Consider the Church Reform, the Taxes on Knowledge, the Abolition of Slavery, nay, the minor points of the opening the East India Monopoly, and repealing the Bank Charter. Is it likely that, on these questions, the Tory majority of the Peers will yield to the liberal majority of the Commons? It would be madness to expect that England should once more witness the extraordinary spectacle of a monarch beseeching the majority of his hereditary counsellors,-to walk, amidst the hootings of a derisive people, out of their own legislative assembly, and the haughty successors (not, alas! descendants!) of the Norman dictators of the third Henry, preferring the prayer of their Royal Master to what they solemnly asserted they believed the dictates of their

conscience, the safety of the constitution, | House will be but a delusion; that, passing into the next stage of deliberation, it will be assuredly frittered from its efficiency; that the spring found will never descend to the mouths that are thirsting for the stream-but

-"their currents turn awry

And lose the name of action."

and the prosperity of the country ;-that humiliating spectacle cannot again occur, the disgrace of it was too foul, and the ludibrium too galling. As vain would it be to expect that the Peers, aware of the danger of being triumphant, would silently submit to perpetual defeats, would relinquish their immense And this suspicion itself is an evil of no inmajority over the Ministers they hate with considerable magnitude. When the people all the bitterness of a hostile party, and all distrust, even good becomes soured to them the vengeance of an insulted order,-and-benefits are derived from unworthy mothat the prudence, which never yet controll- tives; the most necessary delays exaspeed a powerful body, will make them vote rate them, and every unavoidable obstacle against the bias of their opinions and against seems to them to have been artfully arrangthe urging of their passions. A corporate ed on purpose to thwart their reasonable body is not like one man,-it is not equally desires. How, with such a House of Lords, open to the view of its own interest: the heat can that state of popular, suspicion and its of party, the contagion of example, the force consequent evils be avoided? of numbers, will always stir it up, even in opposition to a prudent or a selfish policy. The "verbal fallacies" will decorate the cause it adopts,—it will be foolish out of "a sense of duty," and fall, by the hands of the people, from "the noble resolution to combat for its rights."

Thus, then, when we begin somewhat carefully to examine the real strength of the administration, we find that it is not so firm as it appears-and that we have proved what we have set out by saying, viz., that the very strength of its majority in the Commons may be the cause of its weakness in the Cabinet-it is probable that, ere long, some of the present component parts will be separated from each other, and, by the laws of political gravity, a few fly off to the natural affinities of Toryism, a few remain attached to the stronger attractions (suited to their several qualities) of office-of popularityof party spirit-or of liberal and conscientious principle.

We are sure that the justice of these remarks will be commonly acknowledged; and if so, our policy was right, and for the sake of the Peers themselves, the necessary creation of new Peers should have been made long since, are absolutely required now. To the ministers themselves, the want of harmony between the two bodies must present difficulties almost insurmountable, and must be a new source of proba- In the above remarks, which relate to views ble disunion in the Cabinet. For, on the that the daily journals have of late entirely one hand, is a House of Commons all but neglected, we have not the remotest wish unanimous, pressing on for measures the either to call up new grounds of popular demost popular; on the other, a House of Lords, mand-of public disquietude, or to embarrass dark and lowering, and eager to inflict an the Administration. But we have desired instantaneous death, or, at least, a tyranni- only, in recurring to the obvious necessity cal mutilation, on the first popular bill that of harmonizing the two Legislative Assemis ushered into their assembly. What a di- blies at present so discordant, to anticipate, lemma for a government!-the bill that as is the duty of a prudent speculator on pleases one body must offend the other. State-affairs, a most important question Every new motion will carry in itself the which must shortly be agitated, and which seeds of a fearful dissension-every popular ought to be adjusted previous to a collision, benefit will contain the probability of a con- and not subsequent to it ;-in the former, it is vulsive struggle with the privileged order. an evil wisely remedied: in the latter, a And this must occasion endless disputes blunder clumsily repaired. And it is also among the members of the government;- our wish, in speaking of those difficulties there must be some among them who, in under which the ministry labour, and which, every new measure, will look to the Peers, in the general intoxication of an election, so and others who will consider rather the Com- favourable to liberal principles, have been mons. What different ends!-The poles somewhat overlooked, to prepare the peothemselves are not more asunder! The ple for accidents it is for their interest to forepeople, too, have cause to be apprehensive, see; for by continuing to insist on the great because, with such a House of Lords, the pol- reforms for which a Parliamentary reform icy of the less popular part of the Cabinet be- was required, they will give strength to the comes of, perhaps, preponderating influence; more liberal part of the Cabinet, and, in -it may also appear, in the eyes of a ministry case of a division, will retain their friends (who always must be more conservative than in office, and lose only the support of the a people), the wiser policy to lean to. Thus, lukewarm. The ministry must be supportsupposing the Peers remain at variance with ed by the people, because, if the people the people, there will be a general suspicion neglect them, it is to the aristocracy they that each popular bill introduced into the will lean. The ministry must be supported,

« 前へ次へ »