WHY WAS A NEW PARLIAMENT SUMMONED?
THERE are some wavering and wayward Members of the New Houseof Commons, who, though professedly Liberal, and elected by Reformers, hesitate to give expression to their own and their constituents' opinion of the Horse Guards Cabinet, until a certain portion, they do not say bow much, of the session has passed away. They decline to act with decision at the outset of the Parliamentary campaign. They prefer giving time to the enemy to fortify his position. They have no confidence in Ministers, but do not choose to declare their distrust. Their constituents have no confidence in the Tories; but these timorous, slackbrained gentlemen, would leave it to be inferred from their trimming conduct that their constituents bad no opinion whatever on the subject. Yet they will not coalesce with the Tories. They are shocked at the idea of being held forth to the Country as Anti- Reformers ; but they do more mischief in their present disguise than if they wore the adversary's colours and took his pay. THERE are some wavering and wayward Members of the New Houseof Commons, who, though professedly Liberal, and elected by Reformers, hesitate to give expression to their own and their constituents' opinion of the Horse Guards Cabinet, until a certain portion, they do not say bow much, of the session has passed away. They decline to act with decision at the outset of the Parliamentary campaign. They prefer giving time to the enemy to fortify his position. They have no confidence in Ministers, but do not choose to declare their distrust. Their constituents have no confidence in the Tories; but these timorous, slackbrained gentlemen, would leave it to be inferred from their trimming conduct that their constituents bad no opinion whatever on the subject. Yet they will not coalesce with the Tories. They are shocked at the idea of being held forth to the Country as Anti- Reformers ; but they do more mischief in their present disguise than if they wore the adversary's colours and took his pay. We would ask these persons for what purpose they were elected? Why did the King, and the Tories, who have such a mortal hatred to the moderately short and regular Parliaments which the Country calls for, dissolve the late House of Commons before its second year was completed? Why was all the incon- venience and annoyance of an election, about which the Oligarchy and their tools make such a clatter when the People demand short Parliaments, diregarded by the Court and the Duke? Only one constitutional reason can be assigned : the King had made a total change of Ministers, and he wished to know what the Nation thought about it. He dissolved Parliament in 1831, in order to ascertain whether the Country ap- proved or disapproved of the Reform Bill. He appealed to his subjects by the late dissolution, for their opinion as to the trust- worthiness of the new Ministers. He wants to know, whether the Nation, which was for Reform and a Liberal Ministry in 1831 and 1832, is for Toryism and the formerly discarded Ministers of Toryism in 1835. He has been told, no doubt, that we are all wild to have the Duke and PEEL once more in office; and he replies—" Well, if it be so, you will have a majority in a new House of Commons ; and in order to ascertain that point, you shall have a general election:. But the Waverers and Trimmers would thin postpime their reply to this question, though they were summoned by the King and elected by the Country to give it. They (at least some of the Doubtful do) profess their desire to let the Ministers have " a fair trial." But Ministers demand a verdict in their favour at the very outset of the session, and without any trial at all. They mean to propose an Address—do they not ? And if their address be carried, will it not be considered, as heretofore, a sanction of the Ministry by the House of Commons ? Will it not be trumpeted as a grand Ministerial victory, and made use of to inlist the " 'Waiters on Providence," who have stood aloof? Ministers will not wait till their measures are brought forward or carried—they will not give the House an opportunity of trying them ; but, adhering to the usual mode of proceeding, will endeavour to obtain the verdict of the Commons in their favour without a trial.
Every man who votes for the Ministerial Address, on whatso- ever pretence, will thereby record his approval of Tory principles, and should be classed among Tories for the future. Every one who declines voting at all on the Address, neglects that duty for which he was especially elected a Representative of the People at this time. The very first thing to be done, after the House is regularly constituted, is to express approval or disapproval of the late change of Ministry. The division on the Address will afford the requisite opportunity for making this declaration of political sentiments. An Anti-Ministerial vote will not preclude the sup- port of future good measures, should any such emanate from the present Administration. But they who vote for the Treasury Address must be held to prefer a Tory to a Reforming Adminiss tration, independently of the measures of either; for at that period of the session, it will be impossible to know whether those measures will be good or bad. Coming, indeed, from men " whose whole lives," as Sir JAMES GRAHAM says, " have been devoted to oppose good government and uphold bad," bow is it possible to think otherwise of the promise of popular measures, than as of a mean deception, rendering those who resort to it more than ever unworthy of a nation's confidence ? If the Corn- mons think, with Sir JAMES GRAHAM, that the new Ministry is " composed of the worst possible materials," let them declare it in their firA counsels to the King; who has formally put the question in issue, by an unprecedented appeal, which admits of no other constitutional construction or rational defence.
Previous page
