TOPICS OF THE DAY.

THE DUTY OF MINISTERS.

Mem of the dissatisfaction which prevails in the country in re- gard to the proceedings of the House of Commons, has arisen from the servile attention of the majority to Ministerial conve- nience, rather than the interests and expectations of their consti- tuents. Measures have been abandoned and motions allowed to drop, merely because to persevere in them would have been dis-

agreeable to Lord ALTHORP. To stultify their own votes, ap- peared a less evil in the eyes of the majority, than to be coldly

treated by the occupants of the Treasury bench. But this readiness to be dragged through the mire was disgusting to the constituencies; and hence the want of confidence, and the general disappointment in regard to the conduct of their Representatives, which are on all hands admitted to exist.

We learn from the Courier, that some of our contemporaries are desirous "that Ministers should manage and control the House of Comumns." The sycophants who entertain such a desire must have been marvellously successful in concealing it; for this is the &st tone we have seen any thing of the kind suggested. The Indignation at the meanness of Members for their imlitical sub- servieney, has been loud and general, especially among the Inde- pendent party ; but who they are to whom the Ministerial influence has appeared too weak, is beyond our ken, or imagination to divine; unless, indeed, the mere hangers-on at Downing Street or Somerset House may be the persons referred to. It is possible that some obscure or ephemeral journal may have been the organ of such wishes as the Courier alludes to; but its existence must have been as brief as contemptible, and it has utterly escaped our knowledgx.

The Courier very properly repudiates the idea of Mi.„imial control, and objects likewise to impose on Ministers " exclusively the :ask of preparing all the business which is to be brought before the House ;" because, as he justly observes, that would be " a usurpation of the functions of the Independent Members." Un- questionably it would : and moreover, such a plan would be quite impracticable ; for, as we ourselves observed last week, " there will, there must, there ought to be, many motions on a variety of whieets hy Members unconnected with Me Ministry." We per- fectly agree with our contemporary, that " it is a great deal too irmiAL to ask them to chalk out the whole proceedings of the session." Indeed the idea is so absurd, that we do not believe any zational being entertains it ; and therefore it seems superfluous to argue against it.

But the Courier seems to have exceedingly vague notions as to what the duty of Ministers should be. Ile says, " The great duty of Ministers in the House of Commons is, to obtain the Supplies, and conduct the business of the Crown." It' this is correct, the sooner it is generally understood, and the rule acted upon, the better. Let Ministers be confined to this duty, and not throw the %eight of Government influence into the scale in favour of or against any legislative measure. At present they interfere in every airs; of importance. But, according to the rule here supplied, they are wrong in meddling with the Poor-laws, Ecclesiastical, Legal, and Municipal Reform. Indeed, the making the Reform Act a Government question, was a step quite beyond their pro- vince ; for it had nothing to do with the Supplies or the business of the Crown, any more than the other great measures we have referred to. Still, the rule laid down by the Courier may be a very sound and useful one ; but if it should ever be adopted, then the National Representatives must lose no time in returning to the old constitutional practice and Whig doctrine of insisting on rekhsws of grievances &fore voting the Supplies. Otherwise, the tricks of the STUARTS may again be played off, and a prorogation follow speedily on the steps of a grant. Oar contemporary, however, is ready to depart widely from the Posits he has assigned. In the same article which we have quoted hem, he observes, that " every thing which may be said to be a part of the system growing from and depending on the Execu- tive Government, falls under their care ; " and then proceeds to state, that " the Irish Church Establishment exists, like the Re- venue Boards, only by the power of the Government ; and Minis- ters, therefore, must take the Reform of that into their hands." So that any thing which exists only by the power of Govern- ment must be taken into the hands of Ministers. This is leaving the first rule far behind. What is there, among all the variety of subjects on which legislation acts, that does not depend on the Executive Government, or exist by its power ? or rather, suppos- ing there were no Executive Government, what is there of which we should be secure ? Not our lives and property certainly ; not personal or public liberty ; nothing, in short, which renders civi- lized preferable to savage life. According, therefore, to the second rule laid down by the Courier, the duties of Ministers extend very far indeed beyond the mere obtaining of Supplies and conducting the business of the Crown.

The Courier states, with entire truth, that

" Them is plainly a contradiction in the ideas of those who require that Mi. vistas should both control and manage the Muse of Commons with a view to satisfy the People, and consult their Representatives constituting that tionse of Commons as to the means. They want, in fact, that measures should proceed both from the People and from the Ministers,—which seems to us almost ab- swd."

But, as we before inquired, where are those very singular per- sons to be found (out of the Treasury offices) who do require that Ministers should control and manage the House of Commons? Is not the writer in the Courier acting a part unworthy of his talents and argumentative powers, in setting up a man of straw merely to knock him down with ease?

The difficulty of satisfying the public is insisted upon. Minis- ters, we are told, have no means of knowing the wishes of the Nation, except through its Representatives; and then, sometimes these wishes are materially changed in the course of a session of Parliament.

" Them are far more difficulties, therefore, about this matter than sanguine people, who talk of the Ministers managing the House of Commons, and intro- ducing at the commencement of the session measures which will satisfy the public demands, are aware of ; and we advert to them in time, in order to guard our readers against encouraging too ardent hopes."

But still, in the same article which concludes with this passage, it is admitted, that

" From the Ministers we may rationally expect that those measui es which they think necessary should be prepared by them before the Parliament meets, and should be all introduced within one fortnight after it assembles."

Now, in the doctrine laid down in this last quotation, we cor- dially concur. We showed last week, in our article on the "Timely Preparation for the Next Session," that if this plan were adhered to, many motions of individuals would become unnecessary ; that if Ministers are prepared with those measures only which they stand pledged to bring in next session, some scores of the notices now on the book will inevitably be withdrawn ; but that if they

should go further, and take up some other questions which we think they are bound by the rules of sound policy to deal with, then very few notices indeed would remain. But we were not un- reasonable, and only asked Ministers to do as much as they could " do well "—to busy themselves during the recess " in selecting and maturing such measures as they deem of the most uigent importance, and be prepared to state their intentions at the open- ing of the session." By following this rule, much time and labour, and many individual motions, would be saved. But if the first general rule laid down by the Courier be observed,—if the Ministerial duties be confined to obtaining Supplies and con- ducting the business of the Crown,—it is plain that motions would be multiplied exceedingly, and that the evil of impatient and eager attempts at legislation, which the Courier has often peevishly complained of, would be augmented a hundred fold. Of the hundred-and-two notices now on the book, forty-five are 14 leave to bring in bills, and seventeen more for motions which are prelimi- nary to legislation. With all these, the Ministers as such, according to the first rule of the Courier, would have nothing to do. We have seen, however, that this general rule is not adhered to by our contemporary for ten sentences of his article together.

Another " general principle" is laid down by the Courier; and that is, for Ministers to • " eschew all theoretical reforms." The vote by Ballot and the Septennial Act Repeal are alluded to here, we presume. Well, if Ministers will be content merely to eschew them, and not exert active Government influence to defeat the efforts of the Reformers to carry these questions, we suspect that there will be no great complaint made against them ; though, as regards the repeal of the Septennial Act, they would act with gross incensistency and want of principle in refusing to support it. One grand cause of dissatisfaction at present is, that on these, and on many other popular questions, Ministers are always in the way, and will not allow their partisans among the falsely-styled Representatives of the People to vote as their constituents would desire. We wish sincerely that Ministers would take the advice of their organ, and eschew interference with such " theoretical' questions as the Ballot and Septennial Parliaments. We do not like the appearance of this article in the Courier. It looks as if the amended Ministry—the successors of Earl. GREY—were going to continue the Do-as-little-as-possible system. If that is their policy, it is easy to foresee its total failure. They must give way to " honester men," and, like all temporizers, hasten events which they would fain retard.