REPRESENTATION OF EDINBURGH.
THERE is a passage in Mr. Aneaceomev's address to the electors of Edinburgh, which merits a remark or two. " I should deceive you, if I were now to state, that while in offico may votes would on all occasiotis be such as I might be disposed to give if I MIS altogether unconnected with mlice. Union is essential to th:: success of every Government, rs and no man who acts in concert with others can expect that his particular opinion should always prevail. I could not with consistency or honour II3VC accepted office unless I entertained a confident and conscientious belief that the measures of the Administration will, in essential points, be such as I should willingly have suppo be rted when acting as a Menir of Parliament. If lay ex- pectations as to measures of the Ministers shall he realized, may means at use- fulness will be increased : if I find that I have been mistaken or too sanguine in my estimate of their future conduct, I shall he ready to retire." This is an explicit avowal to the Edinbugh constituency, that
- -
Mr. ABERCROMBY, though returned by them to Parliament, will not be stictly and properly their Representative. His own private opinions—the wishes and interests of the electors of Edinburgh— may be at variance with the plans of the Government ; but Mr. ABERCROMBY will feel bound to sacrifice them to the more im- portant object of preserving unanimity in the Cabinet—or rather, the false appearance of unanimity, by which the public has been and may again be deceived. In future, there will be no means of ascertaining the opinions of the inhabitants of the Scottish capital through their Members ; both of whom must be considered representatives of the Govern- ment in the house of Commons. Assuredly the electors, thus publicly warned, will have no right to complain when they find, that instead of their malt weight being brought to bear on that side of any question which they tray espouse, it is thrown into the scale of the opponent. Mr. ABERCROMBY has distinctly said, "I can no longer vote on all questions as I would do, and as my con- science would dictate, were I an independent member of the.Legis- lature ; for union is essential to the st 'Tess of every Goversmsnt, and I am now a member of the Government."
The passage cited from the address seems to have provoked remarks from some of the good people of Edinburgh; and Mr. ABERCROMBY, in his speech to the electors on Monday, thus alludes to them- " There is one point in my address to you on the present occasion, which I un-
derstand has been nitwit criticized. I told you I should deceive you if I said that my votes would be on all oecasions the same as if 1 were uneouneeted with
Government. Sonic gentlemen have said, that this was speaking too plain— that I should have held my peace ; and if it should so happen as 1 had stated, I should leave it to be found out. Gentlemen, I ant of a contrary opinion. Judg- ing from expel ience, I think the possibility may occur which I have stated ; and if I did not forewarn you of it, then I should have to mystify and explain, and split hairs, and define, and endeavour to persuade you that I had done right : and what would be the result ?—Why, that I should lose toy own self-respect, and
forfeit your confidence. I therefore tb—ight it right to warn you in good time of what may by possibility happen ; and it is for you to judge whether, in these circumstances, I ant still tit to be your Representative."
Nothing can be more candid and honourable than this. If the eyes of the Edinburgh constituency are not fully opened to the real position of their Member it is no fault of his.
But it will be said, that in essential points Mr. AIERCROMBY may still be relied upon by his constituents. Here the question presents itself, what points do Mr. ABERCROMBY and his consti- tuents deem essential? A list of questions should be presented to the candidate, and an explicit declaration required from him on each. For example, is not the Corn-law question one of great importance, and in a high degree " essential ?" Well—Mr. ABERCROMBY voted with Mr. IIUME in favour of an alteration in the Corn-laws, which the Cabinet in a body voted against : will he in future vote on this essential question with his colleagues, or with his constituents and his own conscience ?
On this point, and other similar ones, the electors of Edinburgh will gain no information. Mr. AnlilcaoMiY, in the speech above referred to, distinctly declared, that though he was ready to answer any questions relative to his past Parliamentary conduct, he would say nothing of his future intentions ; because he could not speak on the subject without compromising his colleagues. " I shall be quite ready," he said, "as it is my duty to do, to answer any questions which may be put to me in respect to my past conduct. For that, I alone am responsible; and if in any thing I have erred, I must bear the Idiotic. But if I am questioned respecting what may be my jiaure conduct, I do not see how it is possible for me to answer. I am no longer a single individual, standing and acting alone ; and I do not think it would be right, standing in the connexion which I now do with others, to give any answers by which those others might be affected."
This is another illustration of the unfitness of men in office to represent extended constituencies, and of the propriety of giving Ministers official seats. It is desirable that the representation of Edinburgh, Manchester, and all large places, should be real, effectual, direct. It is not desirable that the Heads of Depart- ments should be cut off from communication with the Legislature, as has recently been the case; for although the necessity of a re- election may indirectly have the effect of administering reproof to an unpopular Government, yet this is not an adequate compensation for the direct injury and hindrance it occasions to is •b:ie business. Mr. ABERCROMBY and his colleagues should sit in the House in their real characters of responsible advisers and servants of the Crown; while Edinburgh, Manchester, Northamptonshire, and Coventry should be represented by men who can vote with or ag rrst Government according to their own consciences and the interests of their constituents.
It is also time that the farce of pretended unanimity should be finished. We have no security whatever that the Cabinet is unani- mous upon any question, in the fact of their voting together upon it. Why should not the public know how the matter really stands, so that all may not be compromised by the unpopular ac; of a bare majority, or take the credit of good measures to which they are opposed? It by no means follows that the Cahinet should break up on every occasion of open difference. We have seen that some- times the Cabinet Members vote against each other without any such result. The late case of Baron SMITH is one in point.
Previous page
