TOPICS OF THE DAY.
CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY.
SOME of our readers have been rating us for a want of due &Mil- dence in the Ministry.
We, doubtless, repudiate the profligate maxitn in politics; that all public men are alike. We know the value of consistency ; and we appreciate the difficulties of preserving it through the va- rious chancres in our eventful times. Liberal principles are pro- fessed ; Anti-Reformers have turned completely round, and have become the friends of improvement. There are not a few men, now high in power and (ace, who, as every one remembers, agreed with the Tories in sneering at Reform, and in upholding a rotten system of representation, though they were utterly opposed to
them in every thin°.° else. Among these men, the present Premier is not to be classed. He was a Reformer forty years ago; he has- been one, we believe, ever since. To say that such a man is no.
more deserving of public confidence than the late Lord Cagit.E'-- REAGII, Nvould be to assert what our honest convictions cleoly contradict. But, as we belong to no party but that of the Natice,. —as we arc not under the slightest obligation to extenuate the? delinquencies of the Whigs, or to exaggerate the blunders and political profligacy of their opponents,—we claim to ourselves the right to examine the acts of Earl GREY'S Ministry, and to applaud or stigmatize them according to their character and probable effect. Though we are by no means disposed—very far from it indeed—to view the policy and practice of the present Government with a suspicious temper and a jaundiced eye, still we dare not place a blind confidence in any Ministry : we cannot applaud mea- sures which; had they emanated from a Tory Cabinet, would have been designated as arbitrary, because their promoters are members of a Whig and a Reforming Administration.
With every disposition to think well of a body of men whohave been in a great degree instrumental in carrying the Reform Act, we consider it absolutely necessary to watch them closely—to warn our readers of any symptoms of backsliding which appear
in their policy. and the practical working of .their system, of go- vernment. And we regret to say, that the manner in which they opened their Parliamentary campaign was such as to induce the pregnant suspicion that some, of' them were lukewarm, if not treacherous, to the popular cause.
It will not soon be forgotten, that their very first act was to place Mr. MANNERS SUTTON in the Chair of the House of Commons. Was not that a suspicious circumstance? did it not appear very like a tru?..kling attempt to conciliate, by most paltry means, the virulent foes to popular rights? The mode in which it was ma- naged too—the negotiation of the Ministry with their plausible candidate—was such as to create distrust in the minds of many of' their well-wishers. The election of an Anti-Reforming Speaker was their first act; now for their second.
For some time previous to the opening of Parliament, it was un- derstood that overtures had been made to the leading Anti-Re- formers. The 'regular organs of the Ministry in the Press had assumed an altered and most offensive tone on many -of the popular questions of the day. With respect to the affairs of Ireland, it was given out that an "imposing attitude" was to be assumed; the standing army. was to be strengthened; martial law was to supersede the constitution ; and the old Tory measures of coercion and violence were to be resorted to by the Reforming Ministry. But it appeared that doubts were entertained as to the concurrence of the Reformers in such measures as these; and the Ministry were therefore constrained to beg for assistance from their Conservative opponents, in the well-grounded confidence that it would be joyfully accorded. We maintain that these over- tures afforded strong and just cause of suspicion against the Mi- nistry.. Why did they distrust their Reforming majority—that majority which represented the opinions of the great mass Of the People of England?
When the day arrived for the opening of Parliament, matters assumed a still darker aspect. Not one word of conciliation dropped from the lips of the Ministerial organ, the proposer of the Address in the Commons. Every sentence breathed defiance and severity. The members of the Cabinet, who spoke during the de: bate, said nothing to mitigate or to neutralize the stern announce- ment of the coercive measures which they declared to be forth- coming. They did not deny that the Habeas Corpus Act Was to be suspended, and the right of trial by a jury of their countrymen denied to the Irish criminals. They talked vaguely of the con- ciliatory measures which were to follow; but, contrary, to all— even to Tory precedent—they maintained a stubborn silence as to the extent or nature of those measures. Were they fearful, that if they had proclaimed their scheme of Church Reform, they should have lost the votes of the Conservatives, when the division on the Address came to be taken ? If such was the case--if their object was to triumph over the Radical and Repeal minority—to show how great a superiority of force they could command, we can style their conduct as little better than a piece of desperate and dangerous bungling. An insurrection might have broken out in Ireland upon the receipt of the King's Speech, coupled with the speeches of the Ministers and their partisans on the first night of the session. - The risk of-such a calamity was not trifling; espe- cially when -we consider-, that. the highly-wrought and inflomma. tory addresses of Mr. O'Cormann and the Irish members—full of fearful forebodings and fierce denunciation—were certain to accom- pany the announcement of the intentions of Government. It seemed to be the very aim and intent of Ministers at all risks to irritate the men who lead the Irish Democracy. We have heard no one reason assigned for this inconceivably indiscreet conduct, • except the fear, which we have above alluded to, that to divulge their scheme of Church Reform would have been to alarm their Conservative allies,—who really seem to have been taken in on this occasion. Up to Tuesday night, therefore, when Lord ALTHORP proposed 'his extensive and politic measure of Church Reform, we maintain %hat the Ministry had not acted in such a manner as to deserve the confidence which has been demanded for them. It is difficult to imagine how they could consistently be supported both by Sir FRANCIS BURDETT and Sir ROBERT PEEL on Irish questions. The support of the Tories injured them more in public estimation than it benefited them on the division. The effects of the suspicion thus engendered in the public mind will not be easily or soon allayed. We have stated some of the reasons which have caused us to view with distrust, and to scrutinize with some severity, the plans and apparent policy of a Cabinet whose measures we would gladly support and applaud. In carrying through every scheme of re- form and retrenchment, which is worthy of the authors of the new Charter, we shall freely and zealously lend them our aid. During the struggle on the Reform Bill, we refrained from opposition, when there was no little ground for it—because we would not, in ever so slight a degree, endanger the successful termination of their great work. We refrained for the sake of the People of England, whose cause they were fighting; not for love of the Ministry, whom we only know as the faithful or negligent and treacherous servants of the People. We arc not bound to change sides with them.
Previous page
