TOPICS OF TH E DAY.
DISMISSAL OR RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS.
SEVERAL correspondents, as well as some country newspapers, suppose that we have declared in favour of the acceptance by the Commons of Lord FRANCIS EGERTON'S—that is, Sir ROBERT PEEL'S, and now Lord LYNDHURST'S—plan for the total destruc- tion of Irish Corporations. We have been misunderstood. What we said was. that " an argument in favour of that course might be imagined." We placed both sides of the question before our readers, to show the Tury dilemma; but did not strike a balance in favour of either side. The time is now come for a decision; and we therefore return to the subject. The one argument in favour of accepting the Tory bill, is, that it would be well to get rid of the Orange corporations—to make room for corporations from which none should be excluded. But on theether hand, as we have said before, the power taken away from those who grossly abuse it, might fall into still more "danger- ous hands." Is not the risk too great? Are we to assume that Sir ROBERT PEEL will not have the administration of the law which he has proposed? Even now. a base intrigue is on foot, having for object to furnish the Court with a pretext for once more "dismissing" the MELBOURNE Ministry.. How will Sir ROBERT PEEL'S bill work, Sir ROBERT PEEL being nominal Premier under Lord Chancellor LYNDHURST? There are many indications of such an event as occurred in November 1834. Ministers are less popular than they were at the beginning of the session. Like Lord GREY'S Stanley-ridden Cabinet, they have recently, on several occasions, given much offence to the masses; and it is ad- mitted on all hands, that though they manage to keep the Tories out, this has been, so far, the utmost limit of their power as a Reforming Administration. They carry on the mere routine of government, but cannot pass a single legislative measure of im- provement. " Considering "—that is, standing still—seems to be their forte. As regards acts of Parliament, Lord LYNDHURST has been virtual Prime Minister, negatively at least, ever since Lied MELBOURNE'S last appointment to the office. The country is be- coming thoroughly tired of this LYNDHURST-MELBOURNE Go- vernment, and would almost prefer a state of things under which the Tories should be openly responsible for their own doings. Those earnest Reformers in the Commons who arc the most stanch in their support of Ministers, find it necessary, out of doors, to apologize for being so : Mr. Marys:Est. will know what is meant. Depriving themselves of popular support, Ministers lay themSelves open to Tory intrigues at Court. The present in- trigue against Lord MELBOURNE individually, (and time will show that it is altogether a party plot,) proves his political weak- ness: he is presumed to be tottering,—that is, liable to be knocked down with a feather. Though the result may come slowly, the same causes will always produce the same effects; and the mode of Lord GREY'S fail, w Well is now understood by every body, shows the insecurity of Lord MELBOURNE'S position. It ap- pears, therefore, by no means improbable, that if the Commons should accept Sir ROBERT PEELS measure for the government of Irish towns, they will give to Sir ROBERT PEEL more power over all those towns than he now exercises in his own borough of Tamworth. is not the risk too great?
We should think the risk too great, even if Lord LYNDHURST'S return to office were not likely to be accelerated by the acceptance of his bill. But we look upon the bill as a means, deliberately adopted by the crafty Tory leader, for overturning the present Ministry. No one pretends that the Tories like their own bill ; that they wish for the destruction of Orange corporations; or that they even object sincerely to any existing abuse in the govern- ment of Irish towns. What then can be their motive for sending back to the Commons that measure precisely which the Com- mons had deliberately rejected ? The motive is plain : it is to insult the Ministry and the Commons, and, in the hope that Lord MELBOURNE and his Commons' majority may tamely put up with the insult, to bring into contempt all that is Liberal in our go- vernment. The able speeches of Lord HOLLAND, Lord LANS- DOWNE, and Lord MELBOURNE on this subject, render it impos- sible that they should recommend the Commons to accept Lord LYNDHURST'S bill,—unless they mean to say, that it is their busi- ness and that of the Commons, to pass any measure however bad, and to submit to any affront however gross, rather than risk a collision between the two Houses. After their emphatic condem- nation of Lord LYNDHURST'S plan, and after basing pointed out the insulting manner of the Lords towards the Commons, they cannot for very shame advise the Commons to adopt the plan and brook the insult, on any other ground than the inconvenience of collision. But can a so-called Reforming Ministry last six months, or even to the end of the session, if they thus avow that their sole object in holding office is to enjoy the profit and patronage thereof as long as may be? Supposing that the country would bear it, there might be some sense on the part of Ministers, in their urging the Commons to avoid collision with the Lords at any price : but no one imagines that the country would bear it—that the Commons will always accept had measures and also gross insults from the Lords. Collision, then, must come. It follows that Ministers, under the above supposition, would only recommend time Com- mons to pay an enormous price— to stultify and degrade themselves as the National Representatives—for what ? in order to avoid collision for only a few months, or perhaps weeks. This would be an insult to the nation, perpetrated, not by the Lords, but by the Commons at the bidding of Ministers. If Ministers should thus surpass Lord GREY in "dragging friends through the dirt," the present intrigue—any Tory intrigue against Lord MELBOURNE—would immediately an- swer its purpose. Let us suppose the country thoroughly an- gered, as it was by Lord BROUGHAM'S anti-movement speechifi- cation in Scotland nearly two years ago; and then Lord Mice- nonast's only support is at once cut from under him. Out he must presently go, if he persuade the Commons to accept a mea- sure which they have solemnly rejected. and which himself' has been amongst the loudest to decry. Does he aspire to Lord BROUGHAM'S prevent political nonentity ? That he should be in opposition and despised, is the manifest aim of the Tories: She surest and shortest way to their end, is by inducing Ministers to cram this foul measure down the throats of their own adherents, who have once rejected it with disgust. We come to the alternative. Suppose Lord LYNDHURST'S plan rejected a second time, what then? In that case, say some of the smaller Whigs, who cannot bear to think of turning out of office. though but for a munth,—in that case, disselse Parliament. Why? fUr w but reason? with what object? Seeing that the Lords would be just as irresponsible after a dissolution of Parliament as they are now, and that Lord MEstiousise has a good working majority in the Commons, whether for Opposition or for Ministerial pur- poses, it would be idle to dissolve Parliament, with any other ob- ject than the very small one of postponing a step which, after all, Lord MELBOURNE: must take, if' the Louis will not permit him to carry on the government in a way pleasing to the Great Council of time Nation. It appears to us, upon full and anxious reflection, that Lord MELBOURNE'S choice now is between resignation and dismissal. The Government underlings will not agree with us : they are as short-sighted as the hungry Tories, and would keep in, as the others want to get in, at whatever price and for ever so short a time. They talk about our having gained a fair municipal law for England, by compromising last year with the Lords; and therefore, say they, let this session pass without any one measure of reibrm. It is not compromise which they propose, but complete submission. This year time Tories offer us nothing but an insult for acceptance. Last year we got rid of MANNERS SUTTON, dismis,ed the Tories, and greatly reformed English Cor porations; a considerable balance of good resulted from the la- bours of the session : but this year promises—absolutely nothing. For how lung is the pleasure of the House of Commons to be set completely at nought. And is it less likely that Lord MELBOURNE will be dismissed it' he continue in office after it becomes plain that the Lords will not permit him to carry on the government ? It is not less likely, but more; for he do continue in office after the Lords have declared that no measure of his Cabinet shall pass, he will become nearly as unpopular—nearly as liable to be struck down by a Court intrigue—as it' he had consented to be, virtually, Under-Secretary to Lord LYNDHURST. But there is a wide difference between dismissal and resignation. if the Lords compel him to resign, lie will still be the leader of the nation; ad- mired, beloved, trusted, and though in opposition for a time, yet more powerful than ever, and sure of regaining office with the means of holding it. There is no case in which a Tory Govern- ment can last, except that of the nation being deserted by its present leaders. The prudent Tories fear that Lord MELBOURNE may resign; they would base him sink irrevocably in the public esteem, and then dismiss him. He must, we cannot help think- ing. either resign presently, or be dismissed before long. The experiment ofa Ministry in adverse possession has been fully tried, and seems to be on the point of manifest failure. We agree with the Times of yesterday, that "the crisis approaches;' but we do not think that the time is coming—we think that it is almost past—" for observation and reflection." This is the time for de- cision and action. Perhaps before we can again address our readers, it will be known whether Lord MELBOURNE'S judgment and moral courage be equal to this great occasion for the use of those qualities.
Previous page
