24 FEBRUARY 1849, Page 11

TOPICS OF THE DAY.

THE BANKRUPTCY OF STATESMEN.

IN our recent notice of the doctrine which in practice suspends the old-fashioned responsibility of British Ministers, we had only room for setting forth one half of the evil arising from the present state of party politics. That moiety of mischief consists of the irresponsibility and feebleness of the Ministry or Govern- ment, and their unavoidable want of a policy, either general or departmental, for supplying the legislative necessities of these islands and the empire. The other half consists of the useless- ness of " her Majesty's Opposition." That expression is full of meaning to the politician who reflects. Opposition, in British politics, does not mean contradiction or hostile resistance : it means watching and correcting the conduct of the Government, and, above all, improving the policy and measures of the Govern- ment, by means of suggesting and expounding a better policy, and proposing better measures. If the duties of Opposition were confined to mere fault-finding and hostile voting for the sake of contrariety—to mere opposition in the general sense of the word—the country might well dispense with it ; but when, in the ordinary state of British politics, we speak of her Majesty's Oppo- sition, we mean something far more worthy than a faction banded together for the purpose of turning out her Majesty's Government and taking their places : we mean the leading statesmen out of office and their adherents, whose rivalry with the Government in the business of legislation—in conducting the action of Par- liament—really governs the country, as much as, or even more than, the so-called Government. There have been many times, since our constitution was established in 1688, when the Opposi- tion governed more than the Government ; and at all times during the century and a half down to 1846, the influence of Opposition was an important and very wholesome element of government. So essential indeed is this influence to the well-working of the British constitution, that without it that constitution does not work : it is the cause of that responsibility of Ministers which is the grand fruit or essence of our constitutional system. At pre- sent, British Ministers are irresponsible, because constitutional opposition there is none. The doctrine whose practice renders the Ministers irresponsible and useless, takes effect through the irre- sponsibility and uselessness of the Opposition. The half of the whole evil which is the cause of the other half, may therefore be deemed the more important of the two. The whole evil is pro- duced by the prevalence amongst all parties of the doctrine which says, Let the present continue, coke qu'il con' te. The operation of this doctrine upon the Ministry and the par- ties nominally in opposition, has been remarkably illustrated du- ring the present session of Parliament, by what has taken place with regard to Ireland. The Ministry could not propose "com- prehensive measures" for what Lord John Russell, used to call the regeneration of Ireland, without raising up an active, tho- roughgoing, perhaps formidable opposition; therefore in obedi- ence to the new doctrine which limits the duties of a Ministry to

in-

vention conduct of executive business—which forbids legislative and activity by the party in office—which commands the Ministry to abstain from running any serious risk of being turned out by a hostile vote—the Government presents to us as measures for Ireland a dole of 50,000/. for paupers, and an inquiry by Committee up-stairs about the working of the Irish Poor-law. Leading statesmen in Opposition—Sir James Graham inadver- tently perhaps, Mr. Disraeli by a set speech—reproach the Minis-

ters with the insignificance of their Irish policy, and ask them why they do not propose "comprehensive measures." The ques-

tion might be properly answered by another. The Premier might

say to Sir James Graham and Mr. Disraeli, If you object to our policy, why do you not propound a better ? where are your "com-

prehensive measures?' One of you twits us, and the other at- tacks us in a flashy speech, for doing nothing for Ireland : what do you propose to do for Ireland ? The accusation you bring against us applies to you even more than to us; for we deem "comprehensive measures" impracticable, or inexpedient just now-: whereas you declare them to be necessary, and suitable to the occasion and yet you propose no substitute for our little grant of money add our smaller inquiry up-stairs. This retort is not, of course, uttered by the Prime Minister, who is far from wish- ing to provoke an opposition of real rivalry with his administra- tion; but the truth of it is fully understood by all parties. The irresponsibility and uselessness, or the sham, of opposition, is as much an admitted fact as the suspension of Ministerial responsi- bility. In addition to the evils resulting from this state of things, to which we adverted last week, there is one even more to be re- gretted, because it dries up the very springs of good policy and legislation. The best statesmen in all parties are going to rust. Statesmanship, political sagacity, legislative ability, in our public men—these constitute the means of good government for after time as well as for the present; and these qualities, instead of being cultivated under the present state of things, are smothered by it in a thick tangle of commonplace, pretence, and mere de- traction of one another. In the Ministerial party, the greatest ability, such as that of Lord Clarendon, Sir George Grey, and

Sir Francis Baring, is of no more real value than Lord Carlisle's good-nature or Lord Grey's peculiarities. Were the lamented Charles Buller still amongst us, he would be nothing but the head clerk of a bureau. Sir Robert Peel has become so excessively

non-political, that the Times can make him the subject of its jokes without offending its numerous readers. Sir James Graham's admitted capacity for legislative planning of the " comprehensive " kind, is wasted in the political occupation of lifting his eye- brows and shrugging his shoulders at the evidences of Minis- terial incapacity. Lord Lincoln and Mr. Gladstone are con- tent with moving about as if they would gladly find some- thing to do. Lord Stanley's only business is to endeavour to keep up the spirits of his party by eloquently finding fault with the Government. Mr. Disraeli has no opportunity of showing whether he has any statesmanlike quality beyond the power of brilliant and very entertaining point-making. Mr. Hume does little but grumble and growl. The financiers of Man- chester, being in earnest, though not as wise as could be wished, alone have an occupation to keep their hands in practice as states- men. If the last three years' condition of our politics should continue much longer, our statesmen of past performance and the greatest promise will be made good-for-nothing by inaction. As it is, the public is forgetting them. Even the most distin- guished of them is losing the prestige of his reputation, and would not now, if something forced him into power, be able to carry the nation along with him over all obstacles as he has done before. In this country, politicians who do not continually make fresh capital—who rely wholly on the credit of their name made by past exertion—are sure to lose even that, and to end in the bankruptcy of oblivion by the great public, whose admiration and confidence are a politician's wealth.