NEWS OF THE WEEK.
" UNCONSTITUTIONAL" is a hackneyed phrase, but it is perhaps the fittest of any for describing an innovation which Lord John Russell has introduced into the practice of the British adminis- tration. Anything more at variance with the theory of our po- litical system it would be impossible to devise. Momentous as the innovation might prove, it was small in its beginning, and not imposing in its aspect at any stage. Helpless dismay at finding that the Irish Rate-in-aid Bill was so generally considered an unsatisfactory measure—was indeed generally scouted—seems to have suggested the device ; which was, to summon the whole Irish Members to a separate conference with the Minister, out of the House, and to throw upon them the responsibility of accepting that measure or dictating a substitute. It might fairly be in- ferred from Lord John's speeches that he had two objects in view : he spoke as if there were no alternative in the wide world but his Rate-in-aid Bill, or an extension of certain English taxes, in- cluding the Income-tax, to Ireland; as if he meant to alarm the Irish Members into accepting the rate-in-aid under pain of re- sorting to the Income-tax, or else, the rate-in-aid failing, to sig- nalize his administration by effecting an extension of English taxes to Ireland with the acquiescence of the Irish Members. The interview did not begin propitiously : Mr. John O'Connell opened the conversation with a lecture to Lord John Russell for "garbled" accounts of other interviews which had been put forth officially. Lord John retorted, in terms courteously indirect, that gentlemen on deputations are given to issue onesided reports of interviews, always representing the Minister as overwhelmed with the arguments of his visiters. When Lord John. had pro- pounded his cogent alternative touching the rate-in-aid, he abruptly retired, and left the deputation to sleep upon the hint. But they would not walk into the trap set for them : they passed a resolution declining to give an opinion "out of the House of Commons," on any specific measure, or on the course that the Minister ought to pursue. They perceived the indecorum and inconvenience of the relation with thc Minister into which Lord John tried to inveigle them. His experiment, therefore, has failed for the nonce, and he must proceed on his own responsibility. Had he succeeded, he would have placed the first Minister of the Crown in the position of being agent to obey the suggestions of a section of the House of Commons; te change which would at once have nullified so much responsibility as still attaches to the office of Minister, and have reduced that office to a lower grade than it has ever occupied in English history.
Ministers were turned back to the ordinary discussions in Par- liament ; and, as if to deepen their disgrace, they were obliged to resume the discussion of the rate-in-aid with the demand for another Irish grant, of 100,0001., in anticipation of the rate to be collected under the bill !
A new attempt has been made to facilitate the transfer of land in Ireland. Mr. Sadleir proposed a Commission for the purpose. The House was counted out, so that the motion came to nothing ; but such discussion as there was drew forth a gloomy view for the future. Mr. Sadleir painted an alarming picture of Chancery difficulties ; a picture, however, not half so disheartening as Sir John Romilly's repetition of the stale assurance, that improve- ments in Chancery are going on, and that Ministers have further measures in petto. Mr. Cornewall Lewis's Road Bill, for the consolidation of high- ways and turnpike trusts—introduced a second time this session —has been .once more debated, and again withdrawn. The his- tory of this bill is more edifying than ever. The subject of turn- pike trusts and highways is assuredly one of that sort which lie within a comprehensible compass—which can be quite taken within the grasp of the human understanding, and can be tho- roughly mastered in all its parts : if so, the authors of the bill might well have ascertained what was wanted, what was possible
and what impossible—have taked ,up the project or abandoned it —and having taken it up, have shaped their bill in direct accord- ance with the known facts. If they did not so master the subject and complete the scheme, on what pretext could they occupy the time of Parliament with an abortive measure ? if they had so mastered the subject and perfected their measure, and knew that it was practicable and beneficial, why did they abandon it? It ought either not to have been introduced or not relinquished.
The day on which this closing scene took place aggravated the misconduct—it was a 'Wednesday, one of the few left for the use of independent Members and not appropriated by Government. Mr. Lewis endeavoured to evade that complaint by representing the bill as not a Government measure, because it had been forced. upon Ministers : but this only increased the dissatisfaction. The dissatisfaction is as natural as it is just. If Ministers effectively employed the time thus filched from independent Members, there might be the less reason to complain ; but to appropriate day after day for the introduction and colourable pursuit of bills, which Ministers lack either the ability or the will to carry, is exasperating. In the case of this Road Bill, a sitting is taken up in the name of Government, on the implied pretext that the subject to be discussed is preeminently important and urgent ; and then the sitting is thrown away. Mr. Scott has performed suit and service in his post as spokes- man for the Australian Colonies, by making a very wide motion for inquiry into the political and financial relations of Great Bri- tain and her dependencies : but the effect of the demonstration was not very favourable to Colonial interests. The motion was not well considered, and was inopportune. Through some pecu- liarly advantageous circumstance, Mr. Scott obtained the favour of precedence on a Government night—one of those nights at which Ministers grasp so eagerly ; but the cause in part appeared. on the evening of the debate. His own speech was chiefly a collection of points gleaned from Mr. Wakefield's new book on Colonization, but not put with so much force as to compel the Ministers to take any course one way or the other: it was quite open to them to grant or to refuse a Committee; and some ex- pected that the Committee would be granted, as a mode of shelving troublesome questions for the session. Ministers did not resort to that easy expedient. Mr. Hawes, however, improved the occa- sion to deliver a carefully prepared oration—a manifesto setting forth the Ministerial views on the subject of Colonial Govern- ment, in a revised and semi-popular form. The main purpose was, to support the assertion that the policy of the Colonial Office is to grant free institutions to all colonies as soon as they become "fit" to receive such institutions. Mr. Hawes, indeed, found so many exceptions to the rule, that it governs only a minority of instances; and it would be easy to show that his rose-coloured account of the actual system at the Colonial Office was fallacious. For example, he represented "the Office" as meekly obeying Anti-Colonial policies dictated to it by the public and the Parlia- ment; including in that category the emancipation of slaves. Now it is notorious that the crying complaint against the Colo- nial Office on this head has not been slave-emancipation, but the neglect of auxiliary measures to accompany emancipation. But there had evidently been no counter-preparation for a debate. The attendance was at one time so scanty as scarcely to consti- tute a quorum. Mr. Gladstone touched in a masterly manner upon some points of Mr. Hawes's elaborate manifesto, but only upon points—enough to show what he could do if he would. Sir William Molesworth contributed a concise but telling sum- mary of the presumptive evidence of mismanagement, which claimed investigation, though rather by a Commission of well- qualified persons, than such an inquest as Mr. Scott proposed. Upon the whole, however, the Under Secretary was allowed, to prelect complacently from his own pulpit, on his own text, with- out an answer.
