4 APRIL 1857, Page 17

Itttrrs fu tOt Chita THE DISSOLUTION AND THE ELECTION. Lanrionney,

Cardiff, 30th March 1867. Sm—The present state of things supplies a very apt commentary on a subject which I have often discussed in your pages, namely, the relations between Parliament and the body known as the "Cabinet' or the " Govermnent." I have often commented on the practical nullity to which Parliament is reduced under the existing system, and the constant temptation set before Members to vote, not upon the merits of the case set before them, but upon the utterly irrelevant question, "Shall the Ministry stand or fall?" " Shall we have Palmerston or Derby ?" A grosser instance cannot be conceived than the behaviour of Lord Palmerston and his party in the late dissolution of Parliament and in the debate which led to it. An official in a distant part of the world commits what I, fortified by the opinion of all the most distinguished statesmen of the country, have no. hesitation in calling an enormous wrong. At the very least, it was the unjustifiable act of resorting to extreme measures in a case which, on any showing., was doubtful. It is a mere question of common morality, a matter of nght and wrong, which had nothing to do with the general political questions of the country, and about which there was nothing to hinder people agreeing who held the most discordant opinions about Corn-laws, Income-Lx, or extension of the suffrage. Parliament is said to be the grand inquest of the nation ; it is for it to censure those climes which it is inexpedient or impossible to bring before the common tribunals. A member of each House of Parliament brings forward a resolution censuring the wrong. There was no reason on earth why Lord Palmerston should have opposed that resolution. By sending out another plenipotentiary he has practically admitted its propriety. There was no possible reason why Mr. Cobden's motion should not have been passed unanimously, or why it should not have been withdrawn unanimously, had Lord Palmerston only chosen to tell the House at first, instead of at last, that he meant to supersede Sir John Bowring. But the opportunity for gaining political capital was too good to be lost. By dexterous management, it would be easy to discredit political opponents, and to raise a cry which might at once gain popularity for the Premier and stave off the national demand for reform. The Liberal party no more approved of Sir John Bowring's doings than the Conservatives. But Lord Palmerston tells them that he shall regard the resolution as a vote of censure. Right or wrong, Palmerston must not be censured; it might bring in Derby. Some stay away like cowards ; others give votes which they afterwards tell their constituents they disapproved in their hearts. Some, including all the intellect, eloquence, and statesmanship of the House, dare to vote according to their consciences. Palmerston or no Palmerston, Derby or no Derby, they cannot bring themselves to call evil good or good evil. Mr. Cobden leads into his lobby all the men of whom England has reason to be proud. Lord Palmerston marches into his at the head of the obedient slaves who can conceive no evil so great as the absence from office of themselves or their chief.

But mark the result. In any other matter but a Parliamentaryone, it would have been thought a signal proof of the righteousness of the decision that men of such discordant views on other points agreed in it. In any matter of science or morals or every-day life, the presumption afforded by such a coincidence would amount almost to moral certainty. Those points on which Cardinal Wiseman agrees with Mr. Spurgeon are looked upon as the indisputable articles of the Christian faith. Those points on which both are content to fraternize with the Chief Rabbi and the Sheikh-ul-Islam are looked upon as still more indisputable verities of natural religion. But in politics we have so completelygot into this pernicious way of regarding every vote as given for or against "Government," that some, I have no doubt, really cannot understand, while others dishonestly take advantage of, the in itself not astonishing fact, that Lord Derby, Lord John Russell, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Cobden, take the same view one point of common morality. It is called factious combination and coalition for men who think differently on internal political questions to think, and to affirm bye vote, that nations are not to be attacked without just cause. Granting the question to be, "Was there just cause," there is no reason why a man's opinion on such a point should depend either way upon his views about vote by ballot, or even as to the general merits of Lord Palmerston. A man may have the greatest general confidence in Lord Palmerston, and yet not be ready to tell. a lie because Lord Palmerston wishes him. Such is the morality of common life ; but in the House of Commons, it seems, you must not speak as you think, if Mr. Disraeli or Mr. Walpole happen to think the same. And all this, while Lord Palmerston is saved from more signal defeat only by the votes of a few rabid Tories, who are ready to approve a Canton butchery because Lord Palmerston has placed mitres on the brow of two or throe popular preachers !

Now Lord Palmerston knows very well that when people are once engaged in a war, they do not always stop to think how it began. The figment of "national honour" requires them to go on right or wrong. He goes to the country on the cry of "national honour' and " coalition " ; he hurries on the election before men have time to think, hoping to strengthen his position by excluding from Parliament all its most distinguished ornaments. A more unprincipled political manoeuvre cannot be imagined ; but one is so

used to such manoeuvres in these wretched party conflicts, that one is not easily surprised. But I really was surprised, oven in Lord Palmerston, at —there is no use mincing matters—the deliberate falsehoods of his Tiverton address. The daring violation of truth which represents the atrocious retaliation of the Chinese as preceding the British aggression is what one would

have thought the lowest babbler in the lowest pot-house in Tiverton would

not have ventured on—much less the Primo Minister of the United Kingdom. By means of this kind, it is just possible that Lord Palmerston may for a while establish his despotism on a surer footing, and may, by a cry of war,

put off the dreaded day of reform. He may have the satisfaction of turning out some very eminent Members and substituting some very insignificant ones. But there are plenty of signs that he cannot have his own way for ever. Lord John comes in triumphantly over the factions of London City; not a dog moves his tongue against Mr. Gladstone in the Convocation-house of Oxford ; the Members for Birmingham are only sent back on their good behaviour; Mr. Roebuck is still the representative of Sheffield ; and, deopito

of lawyers, captains, and old women, Sir Arthur Elton heads the poll for Bath. I myself, to descend a peg, have been, as you know, less lucky ; but I have at least had some opportunities of feeling the pulse of a large and free-spoken constituency. My views on the Canton question were evidently tolerated and no more ; I drew with me part of my audience, but not the majority. But every word that I said against Ministerial encroach

ments, against Lord Palmerston's despotism, in favour of independent Parliamentary action, of distrust of Lord Palmerston as a Reformer, went to the heart of every man in the Cardiff Town-hall. My opponent, Colonel Stuart, of whom I wish to speak in the most honourable and amicable terms, put out at first a purely Palmerstonian address,but he was not voted to be a proper representative of the Liberal party, till he distinctly stated that he

would support measures of reform even at the risk of turning out the present Government. After that declaration, there remained no plausible ground for opposing the candidate who was first in the field. But had he refused or faltered, either Dr. Came or myself would certainly have gone to the poll against him, and, late as we were in the field, and powerful as were the interests against which we should have had to contend, I am persuaded that either of us would have had a very fair chance of success.

If I may judge of the people of England at large from the people of Cardiff, I should certainly say, that, when the matter is fairly set before them, they are quite prepared to let the Parliament of England assert its just rights and to clip the w of Palmerston and Derby alike. We must have k wings Ministers consult the House of Commons before the fact, instead of

evading its censure after. You have yourself of late done good service in this way, in several recent articles in favour of a more distinct Parliamentary action in foreign policy. Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Roebuck have each been saying much the same. But probably you and I, and Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Roebuck, are all engaged in a nefarious bond to bring in a coalition Ministry of Derby and Bright ! One idea has been forcibly brought before me by all this. I cannot help thinking, not only that the duration of Parliament should be greatly shortened—three years at the outside—but that there should be no power of dissolution before their natural term. Now, as in the present case ,a Minister is enabled to "appeal to the country" under false pretences. He can raise a false alarm, and pack a Parliament during a moment of excitement. Indeed, the inerepbrase of "appealing to the country" is complimentary to the constituencies, and tends to win the Minister a certain degree of favour from those to whom he appeals. Of course, on the other hand, of a dissolution could always be foretold beforehand, members would, during the last session, talk to their constituents rather than to the House : but this always happens more or less, and I really thin', it is the slighter evil of the two.

If I am told that I am proposing to limit the prerogative of the Crown, I can only answer, that the prerogative of the Crown has been limited in every straggle for reform from Magna Charts onwards. The Crown may legally do hundreds of things which it never thinks of doing. It is by a pure conventional understanding that the Crown does not appoint Ministers in which neither House of Parliament has the slightest confidence, and that the Crown does not reject every measure upon which both Houses have agreed. I really cannot see what great harm would follow if "We dissolve this Parliament" should become as forgotten a formula as "La Reine s' avieem."

I sin, Sir, your obedient servant, EDWARD A. FREEMAN.