Lord John Russell's proposal shelters itself under the ancient dogma-never quite true, but now a notorious fallacy-that ministers are the spontaneous and mero motu choice of the Crown. It has never been so since the Revolution, nor indeed since the Restoration-though, up to the Reform Bill, the monarchical power tacitly exerted in the House of Commons, and often backed by the constituencies, had, if not an absolute choice, yet a great weight, and generally a predominant authority in the choice of the ministry: that, Lord John admits, is gone, but he does not tell us (though it was no doubt the thing uppermost in his thoughts) whither that power has been transferred: to be sure he need not have told us-everybody sees it; it has passed-not partially-not influentially-but directly and exclusively to the majority of the reformed House of Commons. Can that fact be questioned? The Sovereign, no doubt, still possesses, from the traditional respect of her subjects and the dutiful courtesy of the heads of parties whom the House of Commons have hitherto presented to her as Ministers, some voice in the preference of individual persons and in the distribution of particular employments; but as to the Ministry as a body, or as to the general tenour of their policy, she has less choice than any of the leaders of parties or factions-even very small ones-in the House of Commons.

What, then, is this proposition of Lord John Russell for the alleged protection of the old constitutional right of the Crown in the choice of its ministers, but the real annihilation of the last shred of its independent power-the appeal to the people? An incapable, an obnoxious, an offensive Minister may be forced on the Closet-the Closet cannot resist—but a Constituency may; and, by its actual opposition to the re-election, or (which is more common) by the apprehension of that opposition, the Closet escapes the intrusion of the obnoxious personage. Nous aurons changé tout cela, and the check which Lord John Russell proposes to remove is, therefore, not on the patronage of the Crown, but on the power of the House of Commons, which has become the real dispenser of that patronage. We see, or fancy we see, not only in the retrospective history of all popular assemblies, but by what is passing under our own eyes, the power of the House of Commons approaching to an absorption of all the other elements of the Constitution-we find its committees busied, day after day, with details which ought to belong to ministerial responsibility-we see them invested with some of the executive and many of the administrative functions of the Government. No one questions that the majorities of the House of Commons have, ever since

the

the Revolution at least, made and unmade ministers and ministries; but neither can it be denied that the influences of the Crown and the Lords were, prior to the Reform Bill, powerful ingredients in those majorities, and moderated and counteracted those impulses, caprices, passions, or factions, inseparable from popular assemblies, whom all experience shows to be at once insatiable of power, and incapable of giving it the unity and stability necessary to the good government of a state. The application of these facts and arguments we leave to the judgment of every man who observes the practical working of our present system; and we think that most people will be of opinion that -in the true spirit of the Constitution-the celebrated Dunning Declaration ought to have been directed, even at that early day, and would be infinitely more opportune and more necessary in ours, against the power of the House of Commons rather than that of the Crown. It is therefore that (in addition to our alarm at the general spirit of innovation now afloat) we should be reluctant to give up the appeal to the constituencies, now imposed on candidate placemen, which, slight as it may seem, has already, we believe, been found, and is likely every day to become more so, a protection to the Crown and to its Ministers against personal pretensions and the dictation of parties, which, without this check, it might be difficult to resist.

We have now gone through the chief features and objects of this extraordinary bill, both in its principle and its details. Our objections to the principle appear to us so strong and so decisive that no modification of its details could either have attenuated, nor-we, at first sight, thought-increased them. Our readers will have seen that this last impression was erroneous. Every one of the details is elaborately calculated to help the main mischief-every pretence at conservatism turns out to contain an additional germ of destruction-every seeming deference to property, to intelligence, to education, to moral sentiment, resolves itself into a fresh accession to the power of aggregated numbers. Where a decent consideration of existing interests or ancient rights was professed, the result is found to be innovation and spoliation. In short, the whole appears to us the most extraordinary and laborious combination of mischief and absurdity—of audacious inconsistency, and gigantic injustice, that we have ever seen or read of; and if it, or anything like it, is to pass, the Revolution, already we fear but too certain, will become not merely inevitable, but rapid in its consummation, beyond either the hopes of its advocates or the alarm of its opponents.

But though we see too much reason to fear that the democratical spirit of this bill-recommended as it is from THE THRONE,

and

and produced by MINISTERS, Some of whom at least were never, till now, suspected of democratic tendencies, will eventually prevail, we cannot persuade ourselves that it can be carried in its present form-nay we cannot believe that the Government will even attempt it-they will manage to find some cause or expedient for postponing it to a more inflammable season. But should they persist in the attempt, we hope to see a great rally made against the second reading of the bill, of all who (under whatever other shades of political opinions) are attached to the old Constitution, and adverse to a democratic Republic. If that should fail, whichif the bill be adequately examined and discussed-we hardly think possible under present circumstances, it is open in committee to such an exposure of its nonsense and its deceptions, as may-not improve it, that is hopeless-but encourage the HOUSE OF LORDS and awaken even in the CROWN, or in some of the MINISTRY (who cannot, we would fain persuade ourselves, have seen the full scope of the measure)-a sense of the great and wanton danger of such a tremendous experiment, so uncalled for by the public voice, and so little congenial to public feeling, that it has been approved in no quarter —has been treated by those whom it was intended to cajole either with contempt or dissatisfaction, and has filled everybody else, that it has been our chance to meet, with disgust and alarm-tempered-we are sorry to add-by the very feeble and dangerous consolation of persuading themselves, that it is too monstrous to pass.'

NOTE

NOTE TO NUMBER CLXXX.

In a note to an article on Bohemia, which appeared in the Quarterly Review, vol. xc. p. 427, it was asserted that the Rev. W. B. Clarke, of Sydney, had arrogated to himself credit, with reference to the discovery of Australian gold, which properly belonged to Sir Roderick Murchison, who, from a comparison between the geological structure of the Ural Mountains and the Australian Cordillera, predicted in 1845 the results which were subsequently verified. It has since transpired that the eminent traveller Count Strzelecki, in 1839, and Mr. Clarke, in 1841, detected a rock to be auriferous, but neither of them printed a syllable upon the subject, and the Count, at the request, it appears, of the Colonial authorities, never even mentioned the circumstance in England. While therefore it is as undoubted as ever that the conclusions of our distinguished English geologist were formed independently, and were the first published, we must yet admit that our charge against Mr. Clarke was unfounded, and we must express our regret that we should have given needless pain to an accomplished man who has since thrown so much light upon the structure of Australia. At the same time we must draw a wide distinction between the merit of a large scientific induction and the circumstance of recognising a piece of auriferous rock.

NOTE TO NUMBER CLXXXVII.

In the article upon Gray in our last number a passage is quoted at p. 7 from a letter written by Walpole from Eton, in which, after mentioning that an old schoolfellow, Asheton, is to preach on Sunday morning, he adds, The last time I saw him he was standing up funking over against a conduit to be catechised.' The Provost of Eton has done us the favour to point out that conduit' the word given in all the editions of Walpole-is a misprint for conduct.' The explanation subjoined by Dr. Hawtrey of the true reading will be a necessary adjunct to every future edition of the Letters. The curates of Eton College are called Conducts, and in Walpole's time, and for many years after, the Fellows, whose office it was to catechise the King's Scholars in Lent, relieved themselves of that duty, and transferred it to the Conducts. The office has been for the last twelve years very properly assigned to the Head Master.'

INDEX

TO THE

NINETY-FOURTH VOLUME OF THE QUARTERLY REVIEW.