NEWS OF THE WEEK.
THE decline of Ministers continues to be marked by the events of the week ; and it must now be estimated as considerable, since, from the combined influences of unsafe counsels, internal treachery, and the traps laid for it by enemies, the Cabinet first entered upon its downward course. Last week we noted the damaging effect of anexplained and apparently unnecessary changes : but that which then passed as the most insignificant incident in the redistribution of places, the retirement of Mr. Strutt, is again made prominent this week by his explanation in the House of Commons. The explanation is concise, but conclusive. There was little to be said about it, because there was little said about it between him and his colleagues : it was simply hinted to him that he must go ; and the plain statement of the ease was sufficient to tell the House of Commons that hi& treatment at the hands of his leading col- leagues deserved no other epithet than that of ungentlemanly. If the Government is suffering from internal debility, the conse- quences of that disease appear in functional derangement; and while to the list of measures already withdrawn Lord Palmerston is adding his bill for establishing a County Police, the House of Commons is inflicting upon Ministers some of those defeats which they have courted. The most signal of these was the triumph of Mr. Heywood's clause, virtually for abolishing the tests which barred the door against the admission of Dissenters to Oxford, thus placing that University on the same footing with Cambridge. With respect to the merits of Mr. Heywood's proposition, there was very little difference between him and Ministers, any more than there is between both of them and the public out of doors who have attended to the subject. But the argument of Minis- ters, mildly and candidly put by Mr. Sidney Herbert, has great force. Inevitable as the reform may be ultimately, it is one so much more debated, that it is far more difficult to obtain the con- sent of the two Houses, and especially of the Upper House, for a bill including such a proposal than for one without it. There is another reason : the governing body of Oxford is to be improved, and it may be politic as well as courteous to await any spontaneous concessions from the new body; Parliament, however, holding in its own hands the power of effecting ulterior improvements. Moreover, it will be more easy to accomplish them after the in- ternal government of Oxford shall have been amended than before. There is great force in these arguments ; but they did not suffice to prevent the carrying of Mr. Heywood's clause, in a division of 252 to 161. It is an amendment on the bill which will assuredly be struck out in the House of Lords, if that House should not take advantage of this enlargement as a plea for throwing out the bill altogether. The grounds, indeed, for declining to mix up two measures, each one so important, and this one naturally standing after the other, would have been strong enough to check the majority, if that majority had happened to have sufficient confi- dence in the determination and power of the Government. After the division, Lord John Russell proposed to give up resistance, and passively to suffer the passing of another clause admitting Dissenters to take degrees as well as to share the studies of the University : but Mr. Walpole insisted upon a division ; and then the House rallied and threw out the more formidable addition.
Although, as we anticipated, the second reading of Sir William Clay's Church-rates Abolition Bill has settled the fate of that mea- sure for the session, the effect of the debate is more promising for the progress of the main object than the casual success at the earlier stage, or the promises of Ministers that they will take it up "!51t year." Church-rate abolition, indeed, stands in a better position than Ministers. The merit of the object is admitted, almost
generally ; Ministers themselves admit, without reserve, that the present system cannot be maintained. By their interjections and their intimations they have almost pledged themselves to attempt a settling next year ; but, unluckily, they also, through Mr. Gladstone, appear to have indicated the principle of the measure which they may bring forward. If so, it would con- sist perchance in some permissive bill enabling parishes to abolish church-rates. At all events, it is expressly said by Mr. Glad- stone, that he would approve of a measure making a distinction between rural parishes in which the church-rate works satisfac- torily, and town parishes where it works ill. This is an idea which might have been paralleled in 1831 if the Ministers of that day had proposed a Reform Bill making a distinction between consti- tuencies which were quiet at the time, and others that were agi- tating for Reform. Amongst the postponed measures, therefore, stands one for the settlement of church-rates, with a foretaste of its character by no means promising.
Lord Lyndhurst also has drawn out the Government on Foreign ground; although in truth his object evidently was, not to impair the position of Ministers, but to ascertain more distinctly the ground on which we really stand as towards Russia. Lord Lynd- hurst never takes up a great subject without rendering it more distinct than any other man can do ; and on this most important of all subjects at the present moment he has been attended by his usual felicity of lucid arrangement and explanation. Through a statement to the House of Lords, he has shown to Ministers and to the English public, the very imperfect footing upon which we stand as respects our German alliance, for that which must be the most important object upon the conclusion of war—the attainment of material guarantees to prevent Russia from again infringing the peace with aggressive encroachments. Lord Clarendon replied in a manner which was all that could be wished so far as it con- veyed a reassurance that the Foreign Minister of this country Ls resolved to take the present wonderful opportunity to s..:eure the "material guarantee " of peace ; but, as we endeavour to show in a separate paper, lie was not so happy in exhibiting his apprehension of the other question mooted by Lord Lynd- hurst—the actual force and effect of our alliance-stipulations with the German Powers. Lord Aberdeen was drawn forth as well as Lord Clarendon ; and while he appeared to under- stand the subject of our German relations less inaccurately than the Foreign Secretary, and did not differ from him very materially in the expression of the material object at which England must aim, he did differ most essentially in the tone of his language. He made very light of any danger to be apprehended from Rus- sia; and yet he threw out a kind of despairing remark, that we should do very well if we were able to keep off Russian aggres- sion for twenty-five years as we have done for the last quarter of a century,—almost as if he did not expect that we should succeed so well. The fact is, we believe that Lord Aberdeen has no faith in the stability of infidel Turkey ; and le has, we can easily un- derstand, a supreme contempt for the popular rhetoric and vulgar exaggeration current in most of the public discussions of these mat- ters. Hence the contemptuous tone, and something like sheer antagonism. But there were other questions besides the future of Turkey or the moral propensities of Russia, namely, the P.ctual position of England in the East, and the position of Ministers at home. In regard to those two questions of paramount importance, we consider Lord Aberdeen's language to have been exceedingly impolitic,—suggesting as it does that he is in feeling at issue with the public and even with his own colleagues, and so lending an aspect of reality to insinuations and assertions respecting himself and his Cabinet that would otherwise be thought incredible. We remember no parallel to Lord Aberdeen's pococurante treatment of this grave subject, except Lord Melbourne's manner of treat- ing the Anti-Corn-law movement, towards the close of his Premier- ship.
