TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE DISSOLUTION.
Iv is indeed much to be regretted by all who are not anxious to revive the well-known forms of party competition, that Ministers have deliberately, it may be said obstinately, refused to make the Dissolution what it usually is—an appeal from the judgment of the late House of Commons to the makers of the House. If we rightly interpret the history of last session, the questions which were evolved in the course of political action and debate were distinct and substantial. They were these-1. Have not the old party divisions become so completely obsolete, through the ex- haustion of previous questions, as to render it possible for a Min- istry descended from the Conservatives and Tories to carry on an administration in accordance with the feeling of the country, now all but universally Liberal ? 2. Cannot a Ministry, even with that Conservative and Tory paternity, bring in such a Reform Bill as, if it does not fully answer every.wish of the Liberal party, will at least satisfy its political conscience by offering a common ground of agreement on the subject of our political progress ? 3. Is there not such a general consent upon the fundamental principles of our own duty in the community of nations as will enable the public men of any party, however denominated, to act abroad for the Crown and people of this country ?
At the commencement of the session just closed, Ministers stood under an implied or an expressed pledge upon all of these questions : they had taken office because upon a specifio point in our foreign relations they appeared to wee better with the general opinion of the country than the Ministry who preceded them ; accepting office in the face of a Liberal majority within the House which they knew to represent even a larger proportion of Liberal opinion out of doors. They also accepted the unavoid- able condition of meeting public expectation by promise of a Reform Bill ; and they did produce such a measure. Both these conditions of their entry into office implied a third, the first in our series,—they proffered themselves on the 'calculation that party distinctions are too obsolete to prevent the members of any political party from becoming the acknowledged agents of the en- tire nation. In many respects they did much to satisfy public judgment ; perhaps no Cabinet has offered greater facilities for proceeding with practical improvements. They introduced a Re- form Bill which, as we have already allowed, might in Committee have been made such a bill as the House of Commons could en- dorse. Their conduct of our foreign affairs in the most difficult mat- ter that has come under their handling is now a question for future judgment ; but it is not the question which originated the crisis : that turned entirely upon the Reform Bill. The Opposition no doubt attempted to make them perform their new march of pro- gress under the yoke ; but in declining that humiliation they an- nounced as. the " principles " of their measure certain• points, parti- cularly the uniform franchise, which is not a principle that the House of Commons or the country could accept. A portion of the Cabinet thus rendered the further progress of the Bill impossible ; the House of Commons deelared that impossibility, and according to all precedent and all theoretical explanation of our constitu- tional usage, the purpose of the dissolution should be to ask the constituencies whether the Ministers were right, or the Opposition ? We cannot help thinking also that the other two conditions pro- perly fall within the purview of the constituencies,—namely, whether the administration can or cannot be carried on by the de- scendants of the Conservative party in accordance with the feelings of the Liberal community, and whether the administration of our foreign affairs has been consistent with English feeling ? To sa- tisfy the requirement of the dissolution, therefore, the Queen's speech should, in terms however general, however interpreted by the oral explanation of Ministers, have referred these three questions to the constituencies, but more particularly the question of Reform.
The state of the country was decidedly conducive, to a favour- able answer. At former elections we have been in the habit of presenting to our readers lists of members and candidates who might be ranged in the various political classes,—Liberals, Con- servatives, Independents, Radicals, Peelites, or under some other term that conveyed definite ideas. This year we find it impossible to apply any such classification. Votes in important divisions — will not suffice. Mr. Stuart Wortley is contending that he, who voted against Lord John Russell's resolutions, positively agrees in the main with Lord Palmerston, who voted for them. The list of members who voted on Mr. Stuart Wortley's side, comprises many men who desired to get into Committee that they might enlarge the bill. For instance, Mr. Horsman is no Derbyite. From any such tests as recent divisions it is impossible to tell who is Liberal, in the substantial sense ; who Conservative, in any restricted" party sense. If Ministers decline to come before the country upon any distinct issue, there is also another negative characteristic of their course.. It has been observed that they are not appealing to large constituencies, to what we may n aliquot sections of the country. But a negative course or an in- determinate issue appears to' usla have been the most impolitic method that Ministers could litie selected. There seems to be little reason for believing that the country will make any answer to the questions whether or not it will have confidence in Lord Derby. It will only attend to thet question when it is presented in individual cases; and ill have confidence in a great variety
of honourable gentlemen whom, as we have already said, it is impossible to classify; but who must, if they are to got their seats, respond to the general opinions of the country. The electoral body would have been quite prepared to answer any distinct question on the subject of the Reform Bill. Without classification, without positive issue, the present election appears to be more than usually at the mercy of the per- manent election agency, which commonly does so much ; and this, probably, is the ground for the many anticipative calculatione which we hear as to the gain of this party or of that. We have no faith in such calculations, from whatever side they come. The result of the present appeal is more than usually inscrutable. Prospects which appeared much more certain have, before now, been reversed. In 1841, Peel was made by a majority which left him some years later ; in 1857 Palmerston actually had that majority which rendered him perhaps too confident. Endeavours to accomplish a net majority by individual devices in particular places—putting up third men where there are two Liberals to take a chance of one seat, and other contrivances, fa- miliar enough to the class of professional gentlemen who are now so busy, constitute a game at which two or more parties can play ; and it is obviously one at which the party which already possesses the majority enjoys by far the greater number of chances. But this election strategy will be, we suspect, more than usually frustrated at the present election by the very fact that, left with- out an issue, the public will be prompted by its own political instincts to set up once more a question of its own. For instance, Reform, which has been the standard of successive Administrations while the public cared little about it, now abandoned by the Ad- ministration, has become the standard for the public. It is not that the majority of electors are demanding any very large mea- sure ; they are demanding, beyond any particular provisions, that bill which shall be carried ; and they will probably subject most candidates to a competitive examination on the subject of Reform.
Previous page
