NEWS OF THE WEEK.
LORD STANLEY has roused the political World from letharaebe4 moving the Peers to censure Ministers for their conduct in
and carrying his motion by the large majority of 169 to 132. The position which he has thus made good can hardly be shaken
by a counter-movement projected in the House of Commons ; for the one does not meet the other. Ministers have declined to ao, eept the situation as a " Ministerial crisis," but they have converted it into a Ministerial scandal Lord Stanley's speech was a masterly though rapid recital of the Greek Squabble, drawn from the official records : animated and tinged here and there with the colouring of his own mind, it was in its main drift correct, and in its essential points strictly so. The resolntion that he moved was indisputable, and was not dis- puted. It recited nndenied facts, as to the doubtful nature and exeggerated amount of the claims which were backed by the coer- cion of our fleet, as to the tendency of those transactions to en- danger the continuance of our friendly relations with foreign powers, and as to the regret of the Peers at those tamnsaetions. Although Lord Palmerston at first demanded settlement of the most equivocal claims without quelification, his subsequent despatches admitted the exaggeration. The main averments with which Lord Stanley supported his resolution were equally un- deniable. For instance, he objected to the tone in which Lord Palmerston- enforced his demands : so far back as the 9th of March, when the first of the Greek blue books appeared, we cited examples of his studiously offensive manner towards the Xing of Greece in particular. The other speeches on Lord Stanley's side express the views most generally entertained by reflecting men as to the impoliey of Lord Palmerston's course.
The thing said by Ministers contra is no reply; their most promi-
nent argument being totally journal which The grand counter- argument first appeared in a ournal which continues to publish official documents "pending the negotiations," and is in other ways the all but avowed organ of the Foreign Office ; it was repeated by Lord Lansdowne in the House of Peers, and then again by Lord John Russell in the House of Commons. At the commencement of his resolution, Lord Stanley "recognized "—that is to say admitted the right and duty of Government to secure for British subjects abroad the full protection of the laws of the states in which they are : whereupon Ministers protest that they will not thus " limit the right of this Government on behalf of British subjects abroad : but Lord Stanley's positive admission of an argument that might have been advanced against him if he had not thus admitted it, is no denial of a larger argument not in question. Lord Lansdowne and Lord John Russell moot a further question as to the right of this country to invade the states of a hypothetical despot and coerce a modification of autocratic laws on behalf of British sub- jects: but that is a false issue, and can only have been selected as the basis of the Ministerial defence because they dared not join issue with Lord Stanley on his own grobnd.
Though censured by the Peers, Ministers will not be expected to resign : with that spirt of boldness which always revives Lord John's popularity in the Parliamentary arena, he has declared that he " cannot consent to surrender the reins of power " ; and with that ingenuity which wins the admiration of " Libe- rals," he has found a reason in the plea, that to let the Lords determine the composition of the Executive Government would be " unconstitutional." He has also declared, with the same winning hardihood, that Ministers will persevere in their foreign policy ; of which, he hints, the principle is, to show that the Foreign Minister is "not the Minister of Russia, Austria, or France, but of England." A fine sentiment; sure of " three rounds" from any audience in which the taste for claptrap sur- vives ! In other words, the master-principle of Lord Palmerston's foreign policy, dictating these perverse demonstrations in sup-
port of ill-conditioned claimants, is, to thwart Austria, Russia, and France, in order to remove the suspicion that he is the Minister of one of those states and the accomplice of the others. Such being the master-principle of so able a man, it is remarkable that his suc- cess has never sufficed to destroy that wild suspicion. But although Ministers do not mean to resign, or to take any sub- stantive course themselves, they do not hesitate to accept a counter- demonitiation got up for them by a friend. Early in the week, Mr. Osborne tried to provoke Sir John Walsh into making an inculpa- tory motion, in order that Ministers might take the contest in the Lower House ; but Sir John Walsh declined to be the catspaw. Mr. Roebuck then took the matter in hand : after a conversation with Lord John Russell, he obtained a Government night, and propounded a resolution intended to countervail Lord Stanley's. That resolution, however, does not exactly fit the ease ; and it is =y- composed. The House of Commons is to be invited to " That the principles which have hitherto regulated the foreign policy of her Majesty's Government were required to pre- serve untarnished the honour and dignity of this country, and in times of unexampled difficulty, the best calculated to maintain peace between England and the various nations of the earth." This is said apropos to a squabble in which England coerced Greece with a war-fleet, incurred the indignant protest of Russia and Austria, and came to an open breach with Tranoe ! With a wilder enthusiasm, Mr..Anatey proposes to fasten Mr. Roebuck's generalizing, evasive resolution, to the Greek affair. But note the singular use ascribed to " principles," as nostrums for preventing " tarnish," and as being selected according to expediency ! We believe that the terms of Mr. Roebuck's motion are of no importance. In whatsoever terms the motion may be couched, the Commons are not going to pronounce judgment in the Greek controversy on its merits—at least the Liberals are not ; for the result may in some degree depend upon the fact whether Ministers can induce the unfailing Peel to stand by them this time. With the Liberals it will not even be a vote of confidence, for many will support the whitewashing motion, who will have no confidence in Ministers ; nor would we affirm of the very mover that he has any such wonderful reliance. But the untiring Liberals are going to support a vote of preference, to keep in the Whigs—a vote " that black is white, to keep out the Tories."
Perhaps the supine helplessness of Ministers under the re- doubted compulsion of Lord Westmeath proves their weakness still more than the majority in Lord Stanley's case. This Irish Marquis has obliged them, by 32 votes to 30, to insert a clause in their bill for amending the Encumbered Estates Act, fixing the price for which estates may be sold at a minimum of fifteen years' purchase. Now Lord Westmeath is not of the race of Titans. The Irish Lieutenancy and its abolition have been disoussed with unusual earnestness. It is quite plain that a greater degree of good faith was engaged in the discussion than we often see. Ministers wish to effect an improvement; but they have taken up the measure on too narrow a view, and have not mastered the collateral considerations, especially that concerning the distribu- tion of authority between the officials in London and Dublin. Sir Robert Peel is also in a state of suspended judgment: but he is not answerable for a matured conclusion, as Ministers are ; and his objections to a fourth Secretary are very cogent. The fourth Secretaryship would make another post for a friend, and the subordinate places would form a newly-swelled de- partment for the sweet exercise of patronage : but the Whigs ought to have learned from the Grey-Palmerston troubles on their resuming office, that a multiplication of posts to fill is sometimes an embarrassment ; and from their whole career they ought to have learned, that an augmentation of patronage increases a da- maging opprobrium yet more than it increases the support to be derived from dependent clients. No sufficient reason was advanced for rejecting Mr. Bright's mo- tion to inquire into the cotton-cultivation of India. The impoliey of introducing other and larger questions—such as that of rent, and the misdeeds of the East India Company—was no valid argument against the motion. The assertion of particular persons, however well-informed, that cotton-cultivation in the Indies, East or West, cannot thrive, should go for what it is worth—as the evidence of individual opinion. In the West Indies, we know that the main obstacle is want of population; and we know that this is the fac- titious result of legislation, which might be reversed. In the East Indies, the whole course of production is restricted and perverted by laws that need only the will to abrogate them. The inquiry would have stored up useful information for the question which approaches, as to the continuance of the Company's charter.
Lord Melgund's proposal for an united national system of educa- tion in Scotland was likewise refused support, without adequate reason. It may emanate from the Free Church party ; it may be meant to relieve that petty of hut expense winch diamonds pre- tracted and precarious eNwts to meet it: but what then? surety Lord Melgund is quite right when ha sleseribes the vaunted paro- chial education of Scotland as ineadlisient, quite earrect 'when Ike says that the state of religion in Scotland ought to facilitate an united system.
The Ministerial conduct in the matter of the new Post-office arrangements for Sunday, presents a case of the most naked mala fides. Having established a strong and safe position, they give it up to Lord, Ashley, in order to evade responsibility and the mere name of resisting Exeter Hall. They back out, and throw the responsibility of resisting the Sabbatarians on the country itself; and their plea for doing so is not true. Lord John Russell says that when the House of Commons votes an address to the Crown, Ministers can only pass it on, and the Crown must either refuse or comply in the terms of the motion ; so that. Ministers must either succumb or must place the Crown in collision with the Com- mons. But that is not a correct representation ; although the Premier gave colour to it by proposing a new form in regard to addresses. It is already competent to Ministers to advise the Crown to say, that any matter mentioned in an address has been referred to the proper department, and will receive due attention. As the affair stands, their conduct is grossly " unconstitutional," and despicably shabby. If the measure were adopted with any respectable motive, pains would be taken to make it work well by the help of auxiliary measures, to facilitate the delivery of mail- communications on Saturday night, or to free the transmission of letters by private channels during the suspension of the Post- office. But Ministers not only accept a measure of which they disapprove, hastily voted by a seventh part of the House of Com- mons—they at the same time avowedly hope that it will provoke public annoyance ; to that end, they refuse anything that can mitigate the public inconvenience ; and they positively carry their bad faith so far as to lend the name of the Queen to this provoca- tive of agitation and clamour! After the Ministerial Beene on Thursday, the Commons were seized with a paroxysm of the passion for " forwarding " measures; and among the crowd thus propelled were some of interest. The Interments Bill was read a third time and passed, after due praise to one of the Members for Marylebone. So was the Factory Bill, to secure the loss of two hours a week to the hands. Even the County Courts Extension Bill was passed. The Mercantile Marine Bill was read a second time, with alterations and mutilations ; Mr. Hume being induced to waive his wish to deliberate on the changes—who deliberates ?—it is " obstructive." Much work for one evening, and promising a short session, were it not that Mem- bers often make up for these rushes, by many a protracted " riposo " on the legislative Journey.
