TIME PAST AND TIME PRESENT.
BESIDES the little leader, but large fib, to which we replied at once in our second edition last Saturday, (and which we reprint at the end of this paper,) the Examiner of the 9th instant contained an article called The Ministry," which was intended, though not so set forth, as an
answer to our remarks of the previous week. This mode of indirectly answering at an impugner instead of directly replying to him, is after the manner of Mr. Spring Rice ; and though not very straightforward, has the recommendation of convenience,—since by this means any weak or dubious affirmation may be strengthened or explained without recurring to the defect of the original premise; any glaring light or coarse shadow may be softened down and harmonized into keeping with the general tone of composition ; and what can neither be answered, softened, nor explaim•d away. may be altogether dropped. For ex- ample, the Examiner leaves undefended and unnoticed its assertion that " opinion was growing rapidly against the ilt used irresponsible power of the Lords" up to about Easter 1838 ; it overlooks alto- gether the Parliamentary condition in which the Bombardment policy had involved the best Ministry that has ever been,* towards the end of the session of 1837; it does not attempt to prove that an Ap. propriation-clause could have been got through the present House of Commons ; nor does it condescend to say how Lord Melbourne's Go- vernment can " occupy a higher and a stronger popular ground." These, however, are eubordinate points, compared with the " sure results " that have been produced by the Ministerial perseverance as long as it was practicable in the fatal delusion of the Bombardment policy. For this plan of conduct, so pregnant with evil consequences both actual and to come, the Examiner thus attempts a defence-
" In our paper on ' The Past Session' we adverted to the foolish clamour of the extreme section of the Radicals against the bombardment of the House of Lords with good measures ; and we referred to it, in part, the change for the worse in the policy of :Ministers, who found themselves upbraided for doing nothing, while they adhered firmly to their principles, and perseveringly con- tended or them in the House of Peers. The first interruption of this system was accidental—it was interrupted by the death of William the Fourth, and upon the dissolution of Parliament in '37 there was wanting the strong feeling which had existed at the close of the sessions of and '36, because the demise of the Crown, and its consequences, precluded the renewal of the struggle with the Lords upon certain popular questions. The feeling against the power obstruc- tive of all good could only be kept up by continuous examples of its obstinate vice. The general election then took place in a season of apathy, only too favourable to the success of the hi ibery and intimidation never before so un- sparingly exercised by the Tory party. So far the interruption of the bombard- ment of the Lords with good measures was unavoidable; but in the last session, when the time came for renewing it, instead of charging his mortar, Lord John
Russell hauled down his Hag. •
"And now, to return to our starting points, we should be glad to be in. formed what the deriders of the bombardment system wonld have had the Go- vernment do. They, with a most ridiculous prudery, deprecated the proposal of measures to the Lords which it was foreknown that the Lords would reject. They complained heavily that nothing was done, and %voted not be content with a Ministry which did nothing but bring the Lords to the test of good mea- sures. What then would they have had ? Would they have had the Govern- ment set about the Reform of the Lords? How was it to be attempted without showing the necessity for reform in the obstinate obstruction of all good mea- sures? But, cry these querulous folks, It is immoral to ply the Lords with measures which they are certain to reject,' and yet in the same breath they complain that the Government does not propose measures of greater magnitude, which must at least be equally foredoomed to rejection. Their brilliant ex- pedient, however, was to let an the Tories to try their hands ut doing some mischief in place of the Whig attempts to do some good. This, as we have often demonstrated, (?) would have been submission to the Lords with the worst effect, the public mind not having been ripened to the resolution of dealing with the obstruction in the hereditary branch of the Legislature. In place of this general submission, we have now the submission, it is true, of Lord John Russell ; but, discreditable and injurious as his principle of submission, volun- teered and carried beyond the evil occasion, was, It allows of an easier retrieval than the other course of a surrender of the Government of the conntry by the 111inisters, supported by the Commons, to the Lords, on the ground of the im- possibility of carrying on the Government with the support of the Commons against the hostility of the Lords—the possession of 'he Government being the seal point in contest between the two Houses. Such a submission as this would, in all probability, have taken away the basis for any construction of a popular Administration for many years to come."
The best reply to this fallacious misstatement will be a reference to facts ; showing what the " deriders of the Bombardment system (if this means the Spectator) would have had the Goverimmut do" at dif- ferent stages of their course, and what happy results attended the pur- suit of the "Bombardment system." When the Tory policy first developed itself in May and June 1836, in the bold rejection of the Tithe and Corporation Bills, three courses were then currently discussed by us, as open to the Ministers. 1. Since Lord Melbourne had not stipulated for means to carry on his Govern- ment, or in other words to create Peers, (which, by the by, would pi o- bably have prevented the collision,) lie might encourage or adopt the question of Peerage Reform. 2. He might dissolve Parliament. 3. He might resign. And we suggested this last course as the preferable one, because it was the most regular and honourable ; arid because to the Tories would have been left the impossible task of facing the Commons, where the Ministerial majority had risen as high as 86 even on the ques- tion of rejecting the Lords' Amendments ; or they must have gone to the country with the whole Liberal party united, and inspirited by anger—
with the Ministers strong in the credit of that boldness which in May Ian rallied the country round Lord Grey, though previously suspected and unpopular—and with no single question to embarrass the Liberal leaders, or to divide the " Moderate " and the " Extreme" followers, but on this broad, simple position, Are the Lords to stop the functions of the People's Government? When it became apparent that none of the three alternatives within reach of the Ministry were to be adopted, and that tlaq preferred the Bombardment policy, although we had " de-
* Our onntemporary denies having ever held that the pre.erit was the he-t possible Uimmisv. I3e it as he says: the hot we have ever lad -:‘• Ill,. deli. rided," deprecated, and shadowed, forth the results of that plane III, first announcement} yet so far from reiterating the plan of resignaa*; we ineetediate/y d said what we " would have had the Governmenrdol next, by suggesting the policy of " open questions;" which, ofth . little lip assistance from the Examiner, we frequently hut vainly ow' throughout the autumn, because we saw that the only chance fot ie h- " Bombardment
ent policy " was active exertion, and the restoration
that union amongst Reformers which the Lyndhurst policy bad shak ef What success would have attended the courses we suggestedotnt• remain matter of conjecture. The success which attended the ".)10;_ bardment policy" is matter of history. During the autumn of lai the Examiner oracularly predicted that the " pear would he ripe shent Easter" (1837); or in plain terms, that by that time Peerage Re- form would be sufficiently advanced to allow of a dissolution of par filament upon that question. Easter came ; but, alas for the prophet; Peerage Reform had died away ; men were not speculating AS to tke duration of the " House of 'Mischief," but as to the duration of the Bombardment Ministry. Scarcely had Whitsuntide passed when they suffered a virtual defeat on their Church Bill, and were obliged to abandon it. By June they were irretrievably entangled in difficulties, such as the Spectator had often predicted as the sure result of this policy, when the King's death opportunely rescued them from destruction ; but did not, as the Examiner asserts, " preclude the renewal of the struggle with the Lords upon certain popular gam titans." On the contrary, had the Bombardment scheme been any thing but a delusion, the Government might perhaps have roused the country by pushing forward their measures, and taking the opportunity to say in effect—" There are our measures ; take them or leave them; but our position at Court is now changed, and so will be our future con. duct." Instead of any thing like such an appeal to Reformers, them was much comsetting with the Tories and buttering of the Duke of 1Vel1ington ; within ten days of the demise of the Crown, out came a damper in the shape of Lord John Russell's Manifesto; hninediately followed by Lord Durham's Bowlby Letter, which the Examiner lauded as a masterpiece of political wisdom ; and then the Elections a ound up the first grand result of the Bombardment system. The session of 1838 was only a natural consequence of the plan ; for, to do the Minis. ters justice, we believe they would gladly enough have prepared'the-
hat variety of tried it bill for "rejection by the Lords," could they have been perfi sure of its passing the Commons. " Through w being" this fatal policy may yet have to pass, we are not prophets enough to tell ; but its fatal and final results will not be seen till after the Tories are again in office, with a second Peel Parliament elected under their auspices.
The Examiner designates the advice to resign, which we urged fora few weeks in May and June 1836, as "a brilliant expedient to let in the Tories." The resignation, however, would have taken place on the recognized ground of the Minister being unable to carry his mei, sures, and those measures broad, palpable. and strongly marking his principles ; the Tories must have contended in the Cotnmons with a majority, and in the country against character and union ; so that there was a well-grounded hope that if "let in," they could not "keep in." But, after two years of disunion, disgrace, and discomfort, the Examiner also suggested the "brilliant expedient of letting in the Tories." And on what, does the reader suppose? On the Corporation Bill?— No. On the Appropriation principle ?—.No. But on the question whether the remains of the Million Loan should be given up to the Irish clergy ! Here is the " brilliant expedient," chapter and verse— "There was a time for a stand, but Ministers failed to avail themselves of the opportunity of setting themselves right. %%lien Mr. O'Connell proposed the grant for the tithe arrears, and Sir Robert Peel supported him, resistance to the Conservative and the Repealer united being nut of the question, Mini,trrt should lutve thrown up the Bill, and with it the Governntent, and left Sit Robert Peel in the awkward predicament of having the Irish tail appended to him. Ministers might then, according to their declared views, have retired front office honestly in defe.nce of the public purse ; and they would have lift it to Sir Robert Peel and Mr. O'Connell to form an Administration upon the principle of making a sacrifice of the public money for the reward of disobe• dience to the laws."—Evaminer, 29th July 1833; Article " Endlessness of Concession."
Our contemporary also asserts, that the resignation we counselled " would in all probability have taken away the basis for any construc- tion of a popular Administration for many years to come." How? It is as sure as any untried events Can be, that the Tories could not have faced Parliament or the country ; and the Ministers would have returned to office with the increased strength resulting from courage, character, and success, and with the full power to carry their measures. But whatare the Liberal prospects now? where is now the Popular Ministry ? what chance of " its reconstruction for many years to come ? " The cha- racter of the Ministers is already irretrievably damaged : refuge in the Conservative ranks or private life awaits them whenever the Tones think fit to relieve them from the toils of office. The Irish Member are blackened with the suspicion of political corruption, and convicted of gross insincerity and selfishness ; the British Liberal 31embers are not altogether one in purpose, and some of them are injured by acts of self-seeking and sub-erviency, the last perhaps forced upon them by their anomalous position ; the Tories are in heart, strong oum. the regis- tration, and strong wherever influence or corruption can gam a bold; the Reformers apathetic, disgusted, or careless. The "basis of a Popular Admitiistration " upheld by the Bombardment policy ! The utmost that Reformers can at present look forward to, is to form the " basis" of an effective and working Opposition to the approaching Tory rule.
Previous page
