asked to give their opinions stability and force. We have shown the meaning that is to be drawn from any such action, and how the chief object of that action, the lively hope that may be fostered through its aid, is still that peace may be maintained on our own part, and that the struggle between our two allies may be ended. But to our confidence must be joined a warning. On both sides of the House it must be felt that Parliament never met in circumstances more delicate, when the rashness or obstinacy of a few might more easily lead to disastrous results. The supporters of the Ministry may well feel a firm assurance in the wisdom of those whose direction they are called upon to follow. Respect for the difficulties of foreign policy has always been a tradition with the Conservative party, even when that policy was in the hands of those who did not command its trust. To no one has that tradition been more sacred than to the Minister upon whom our destinies now chiefly depend. Such respect would suggest the sinking of small differences, and a careful avoidance of all that would add to the burden now imposed on those who are at once the leaders of the party and the rulers of the nation. Above all, we would deprecate any exaggerated or heated indignation that may be needlessly provocative of war. Such rash impulses are harmful even in the anonymous utterances of the press, much more so in the responsible deliberations of Parliament. to be gained. We fear that there are also reputations for statesmen to lose. May it be with no doubtful or wavering emphasis that Parliament shows on which of these sides the great preponderance of its sympathies lies! Though we have been discussing the probable terms of peace and their effect upon the interests of this country, it must not therefore be supposed that the war is at an end, and that the Turks have no longer any means of resistance. It is true that intelligence has reached us, that the Russians have crossed the Balkans by the Shipka and Trajan passes. But even if this turns out to be true, we do not believe that they have gained any signal advantage. On the contrary, they have by this very act, and seeming success, incurred a greater peril than at any previous period of the campaign, for they have thereby placed a chain of lofty mountains, liable to be made impassable by a single snow-storm, across their line of communications, and have thus exposed their advanced guard to the risk of being cut up in detail by concentrated attacks of the Turkish forces collected on the south side of the mountains. Doubtless, Russia will try to play the same game as in 1829, and will seek to impose upon England and Turkey, as she then did at Adrianople. But Europe now knows in what straits Russia was when she wrung that treaty from the Turks by duping Lord Aberdeen. We trust that the present ministry will not fall into the same trap. The destruction of the Danube bridges, the scarcity of provisions, the prevalence of sickness, and the impossibility of transport during stormy weather, must inevitably paralyse the movements of the army north of the Balkans. But it depends above all upon the patriotism of the bulk of the Opposition whether we are to have peace or war. Disunion in our counsels must breed contempt for us abroad, and contempt abroad is the most certain forerunner of war. Surely the extremes of partisanship have had their own If the Turks understand the present crisis way long enough: surely it is time for that of affairs, and do not yield to panic, but spirit of grave and liberal judgment, which show a bold front by concentrating their cach of our great political parties can claim, forces on good strategical positions, they to reassert itself at a crisis like this. You wish may yet with the help of the weather mato avoid war: join with us then in aban- terially alter the prospects of the campaign. doning that suspicion which, were it ever so Even if they do not succeed in repelling the well founded, must still only hamper those to advance of the Russians, they have still the whom power is now committed, and must fortifications of Adrianople, behind which through them weaken that national force they may retire; and should these be at which is the best security against war. Re- last forced, they can fall back upon the serve your suspicions: pour them out when strong lines erected to defend Constantinoyour political opponents only, and not the ple, where, with the command of the sea, nation, shall be the sufferers. In the Ses- they may defy, till they can obtain honoursion that is just opening there are reputa- able terms of peace, the whole power of the tions for disinterested and large patriotism Russian empire. THE LONDON QUARTERLY REVIEW. NO. CCXC. FOR APRIL, 1878. ONE of the most curious legacies we have inherited from our ancestors is an extreme susceptibility to the influence of political forms and phrases. We are proud of our weakness, and not without reason, for it is a sign of far-descended freedom and of traditional greatness. It is accredited by famous examples in poetry and history. When the worthy Diceopolis wished for his own purposes to prorogue the Athenian Ecclesia, he used his privilege as a citizen, and announced that he felt a drop of rain. The Prytanes, as they were bound to do, at once declared the day's proceedings to be at an end.* If any member of the Polish Diet wished to stop a debate, he had only to make use of the Liberum Veto, and the Assembly had no alternative but to dissolve itself or to murder the obstructing individual. In the same way the English politician, who seeks to acquire popularity by turning the whole community upside down, may be tolerably sure of success, if he can but represent some public act to be unconstitutional.' The word is a good word, and may be used to signify a variety of positive things. On the other hand, it has vast magic as a mere phrase, and, as such, it is used always in one sense and for one purpose, namely, to bring discredit on the Crown. When it is so employed it is, of course, convenient to * 6 Aristophanes,' Acharn.' 171. ignore the fact that the Constitution consists of several parts, and that the encroachment of any one part on the liberties of the others is, in the eye of the law, an unconstitutional act. We never hear, for instance, from modern historians that it was an unconstitutional act of the subjects of King Charles I. to cut off his head; or that there was anything unprecedented in the conduct of William IV.'s ministers who carried off their Sovereign at a moment's notice to pronounce, without deliberation, the dissolution of Parliament; or that Sir Robert Peel pushed hardly on the Royal Prerogative in limiting the Queen's choice of her personal attendants. For each and all of these acts, springing as they did from the will of the majority or its representative ministers, grave and weighty reasons are found; but no epithets are too forcible to describe the wickedness of the Charleses, the Jameses, the Georges, and even the Williams, who have sought, by the exercise of their prerogative, to check the liberties or the opinions of the Commons. We are by no means concerned to defend the conduct of the monarchs we have mentioned; we believe that both their thoughts and actions were often of a thoroughly unconstitutional character; but, as applied to the Crown in the reign of Queen Victoria, most people will be inclined to consider the phrase unconstitutional,' to speak mildly,— inappropriate. We have been long under the impression that the reign of the present Sovereign has been distinguished by the smooth working of our constitutional machinery, by the superiority of the Crown to anything like party favouritism, and by the hearty more fully illustrated than in the earlier years which the biography covered, it was natural that the number of State papers in it should be proportionally large. But it was not of the predominance of politics that the critics. complained. In their eyes the viciousness of the book lay in this, that, whereas a con sympathy which the Monarch has shown for | jesty's reign-the Crimean War-and, as the the varied interests of all classes of her sub-relation of the Crown to foreign affairs was jects. But for the last eighteen months we seem to have been living in a quite different world. There has been solemn whispering and head-shaking in certain circles whenever the name of the Queen is mentioned. Respectable Liberal journals, daily and weekly, have been in a flutter at the aggressive attitude of the Crown. At a meet-siderable section of the public were veheing of Radicals in Willis's Rooms to advocate the opening of the Dardanelles, one of the speakers complained of the undue influence that was being exercised by the Court, and was doubtless somewhat sur-macy, the nature of Russian warfare, as well prised to find himself called to order by the Chairman, and his audience giving three cheers for the Queen. In spite, however, of such momentary weaknesses as this manifestation of loyalty, there has been a tolerable agreement among politicians of a particular complexion that certain recent acts of the Sovereign have been alarmingly unconstitutional.' What, then, has the Queen been doing? Has she been collecting in the House of Commons a party of Queen's Friends?' Has she been endeavouring to thwart the policy of her ministers, who are responsible to the country, by an influence behind the Throne?' Has she been dismissing Lords-Lieutenant, or striking off the names of Privy Councillors who have made themselves obnoxious to her by the expression of their opinions? She has done none of these things. Much less has she tried to revive the Star Chamber or the Dispensing Power. The head and front of her offending' is that she has intrusted to an accomplished man of letters the materials necessary for the preparation and publication of the Memoirs of her husband, the late Prince Consort. Astonishing as such a statement sounds, it is the simple truth. We would remind our readers that the first volume of the 'Life' was published in 1875, the second in 1876; and that when they first appeared both volumes were read with eager interest, not only as containing the history of one whose worth the people had learned to appreciate too late, but as throwing a vivid light on the interior working of our constitutional machinery. Not a syllable was breathed by the critics against the character of the Prince Consort, or the attitude of the Crown, as depicted in this portion of the work. But when the third volume, composed evidently on the same principles as the first two, appeared, there arose a loud outcry. This volume dealt with the most interesting and critical period of Her Ma ment advocates of Russia in her recent war with Turkey, the third volume of the 'Life' placed in the clearest light and the most vivid colours the character of Russian diploas the anti-Russian sympathies of English statesmen and the English people, throughout the events that led to the invasion of the Crimea by the allied armies in 1854. Hence, say these critics, it was evident that the Queen had strong personal inclinations. with which she wished her subjects to become acquainted, in order that by the exercise of her royal influence she might convert the misguided portion of the English people to better opinions. Which exercise of prerogative, without doubt, was highly unconstitutional.' The frame of mind of persons haunted by these apprehensions is very characteristically illustrated by a pamphlet which has come into our hands, entitled The Crown and the Cabinet,' consisting of five letters, reprinted from the Manchester Weekly Times,' with the signature of 'Verax.' The argument in this composition does not call for serious notice. The author, indeed, appears to pose as a kind of tame Junius; he writes of the Queen and the Prince Consort as an exacting master and mistress,' and of their communications to their Ministers as 'pettish and insolent,' together with many other epithets equally respectful and appropriate; but the matter of his discourse might be readily compressed into the phrase of the French doctrinaires, Le roi règne, mais ne gouverne pas; and it only deserves attention in so far as it is a representative expression of a certain middle-class opinion on the nature of the English Constitution. 'Verax' solemnly tells us that 'this instalment of the "Prince Consort's Life" is a Message from the Crown a Message sent straight to the nation over the heads of Ministers, and only too well adapted to fire the resentments which those who are responsible for the policy of the country might wish to allay.' Speaking of the Queen's letter to Lord Aberdeen, to which we shall refer hereafter, he says, I make no comment on these remarks; my loyalty forbids.' As for the notion that would be likely to pay the homage of an ungrudging, unstinted, and unwavering loyalty, to what they would recognise to be nothing but a clockwork figure. And cowardice, unworthy of Englishmen, it is to deny to the chief personage of these realms that privilege of free speech, which she herself so liberally allows to the meanest of her subjects. It is not from men who seek to discredit as a Message from the Throne book, published no doubt under the auspices of Royalty, and written with all the delicacy and skilfulness to be expected from its author, but seeking its fortune in the open market, and exposing itself to public criticism,-that the Crown of England has 6 a any 'It is commonly supposed that while the Queen reigns and all the acts of the Government are done in her name, the responsible business of Government, as regards both foreign and domestic affairs, is done by the dozen or fifteen statesmen whom the Queen selects' danger' to apprehend. Rather it is Engas her Ministers from out of the ranks of the lish freedom that is imperilled by that slavparty which commands a majority in the ish temper which, seeking to stifle the exHouse of Commons. We are under the impres- pression of all opinion contrary to its own, sion that these statesmen meet together in per- has ever been the instrument of force and fect freedom, with minds unmolested and undisturbed by any outside influence, and deter- tyranny. The dangerous fallacies involved mine to the best of their ability what course in the constitutional theories of Verax,' shall be adopted in the management of national as well as the extent to which his unfounded affairs. We call them the Advisers of the opinions appear to be shared by certain of Queen. We take it for granted that the Queen his countrymen, suggest to us that it may be does not advise herself, that she has no advis- useful to inquire first of reason, what is the ers except those supplied to her by Parliament, nature of Constitutional Government in and that she never hesitates to adopt the congeneral, and then of history and our own clusions presented to her on their authority as if they were her own. We exult in this ar- experience, what is the character of the rangement as embodying the perfection of English Constitution in particular. popular government, and we boast of the advantage it gives us of having our national policy decided, not by hereditary brains (sic), which may be wise or foolish, as accident determines, but by the select men of the nation, while it raises the Crown far above the strife of contending parties, exempts it from criticism, 'It is commonly supposed!' There is truth in the last words of the above passage, but not the truth which Verax' intended them to express. The danger to which we are exposed arises not from any unconstitutional encroachment on the part of the Crown, but from the ignorance and cowardice manifested in these common suppositions' of which • Verax' makes himself the mouthpiece. For ignorance of the grossest kind it is, to suppose that the occupant of the oldest throne in Europe, surrounded by a boundless tige, possessed of a vast if undefined prerogative, and commanding countless sources of influence, could ever sink into the capacity of a mere mechanical register of the will of Parliament; or that, if she did, the people pres As All government is founded partly on force, partly on opinion; good government consists in the combination of the two elements in their proper proportions. Aristotle shows, the beginning of government is co-existent with the beginning of society. The rule of the father over the family is justified by his superiority in power. But his government is cemented and established by ties growing out of moral opinion, nor could the family be held together if the father failed to discharge his natural obligations towards his wife and children. Extended to the State, the same principle manifests itself in every form of government. Force encroaching unduly on freedom is certain after a while to reach a point at which freedom recoils and finds the This truth was means to subvert force. constantly illustrated in the Greek despotisms by the frequency of tyrannicide, and by the ingenious arguments with which such acts were defended by the philosophers. It was exemplified again on a larger scale by the influence of philosophy in producing the French Revolution. On the other hand, unchecked opinion is apt by its impotence and distractions to play the game of force. There never was a government in which opinion had such absolute latitude as that of Athens. The people in assembly heard their affairs discussed by their orators; they voted on the spur of the moment; the vote of the majority became a decree, and, if need were, was carried into instant execution. Many of our readers will remember the story of a tremendous tragedy which came within a point of being acted in consequence of this system of government. The city of Mitylene had revolted from Athens. On the suppression of the revolt, the people assembled in the Pnyx to deliberate on the fate of the rebels. Under the influence of an harangue by Cleon, they voted by a large majority that the whole male population, to the number of 6000, should be put to the sword, and that all the women and children should be sold into slavery. A galley was at once despatched to Mitylene to order the decree to be executed. The night passed, and in the morning the people were filled with horror and remorse at the orders they had given. A fresh Assembly was called, and the decree of the previous day was rescinded. Twenty-four hours after the first galley had started, a second followed it; and the unflagging chase that ensued, the superhuman efforts of the rowers, and the arrival of the reprieve at the moment when the sentence was about to be carried into effect, form one of the most dramatic episodes in the history of Thucydides. Vast as was the popular energy of Athens, solid as was its power when wielded by a statesman like Pericles, such a glimpse of passion, vacillation and distraction, in a people given over to the winds of opinion, makes it easy for us to understand the impotence of its democracy to withstand the solid concentration of the Macedonian phalanx. The most sagacious tyrants, as well as the wisest champions of democracy, have understood the necessity of tempering the extreme principles on which their respective forms of governments rest. Thus, Macchiavelli shows how Ferdinand of Arragon achieved his dark and selfish aims by acquiringreputation' as the defender of the Church, and, like another Power in later days, contrived that all his acts should be so connected with apparently generous motives, that men should be unable to gainsay him. On the other hand, the framers of the American Constitution conceived it was politic to render the Executive secure from the storms of opinion by preventing the islature from touching the power of the work..during his term of office by any posed eviden. direct impeachment. the first two, aper, of all the wisdom of outcry. This volu. human nature is perinteresting and critichy towards despo tism, and democracy towards anarchy. The philosophers, who saw every variety of government illustrated in the small states of Greece, found in the perpetual revolutions of which they were witnesses plenty of materials for political speculation, but few for political construction. Yet the foresight of Aristotle anticipated the possibility of a government at once free and powerful in the form of constitutional monarchy.' No such constitution had been as yet actually witnessed. A king,' says the philosopher, governing under the direction of law does not of himself constitute any particular species of government.' Yet the idea was both rational and practicable. 'A king ought to have a proper power, such a one, that is, as will be sufficient to make him superior to any one person, or even to a large part of the community, but inferior to the whole.' And enumerating the arguments against absolute monarchy, Aristotle says : He who bids the law to be supreme, makes God supreme; but he who intrusts man with supreme power gives it to a wild beast, for such his appetites sometimes make him; passion, too, influences those who are in power, even the very best of men; whereas law is intellect free from appetite.' * After the fall of the Roman Empire the principle of limited monarchy appears to have been generally recognised in the Gothic nations of Europe. But from one cause or another, in almost all these nations, the power of the Crown prevailed over the liberties of the people, and, in the eighteenth century after Christ, England stood forth alone as an example to Europe of the privileges that might be enjoyed by subjects under a constitutional monarchy. How these privileges were acquired is matter of history; and though history may be read in different senses, we venture to assert that no reading of it whatever can verify the theory of the cast-iron constitution which Verax' seems to imagine was, at some time or another, imposed upon the nation. To provide,' says he, against the chance that hereditary descent may occasionally give us a fool for a sovereign, our forefathers have devised the mechanism of responsible government.' We can hardly give Verax' credit for being so simple as he wishes to appear, and we believe that he knows very well that the principle of ministerial responsibility, so far from being invented to remedy any weakness inherent in the hereditary principle, was in effect a doctrine founded on the rational consideration " 6 Aristotle, Politics' book iii. cap. x. xi. |