London, July 11. As is generally known, Roebuck’s motion 
censuring all the members of the old Coalition Cabinet* has been 
put down for next Tuesday. Whilst numerous meetings support- 
ing his motion are being held at Birmingham, Sheffield, Newcas- 
tle, etc., and at the same time public petitions are being signed in 
support of it in every corner of London, members of Parliament 
are decamping to Paris, Naples and their country homes, in order 
to avoid the division. In an attempt to prevent this exodus, 
supported by Palmerston in every respect, Roebuck yesterday 
moved for power to call over the Commons next Tuesday. The 
“Call”? is an old parliamentary practice which had sunk into 
oblivion since the: time of the debate on Catholic Emancipation.”*! 
At the opening of the sitting the name of every single Member of 
Parliament is called out. Those who are absent are subject to 
arrest by the parliamentary serjeant-at-arms,° a public apology 
before the assembled House and the payment of certain fines. By 
a majority of 133 to 108, however, the Commons refused Roebuck 
the right to coerce members by means of a Call. Nothing could be 
more characteristic of the British Parliament and its press organs 
than their attitude towards Roebuck’s motion. The motion does . 
not emanate from any member of the “official” opposition. That 
is its first blemish. It is directed not only against members of the 
present Cabinet but also against members of the dissolved Cabinet. 

It is not, therefore, a purely party manoeuvre. It declares that the 
sins of the old Ministry are not expiated by the forming of a new - 
Ministry. It opens the way for a motion calling for impeachment. 
That is the other great blemish of this motion. For the official 
opposition is of course only willing to wage the parliamentary war 
“within the limits of a change of Ministers’. It is far removed from 
waging war against ministerial responsibility. The clique of Outs is 
no less anxious about maintaining ministerial omnipotence than 
the clique of Ins. The skill in conducting parliamentary battles 
consists of course precisely in ensuring that during the fight it is 
never the office that is hit but always the person holding the office _ 
at a given time, and even he only to an extent that will permit him 
after being brought down as a Minister immediately to come 
forward as a candidate for the Ministry. The oligarchy does not 
perpetuate itself-by retaining power permanently in the same hand, 
but by dropping it with one hand in order to catch it again with 
the other, and so on. The Tories are therefore just as dissatisfied 
with Roebuck’s motion as the Whigs are. 

As to the press, the reaction of The Times is crucial. Was there a 
newspaper that clamoured louder for the Roebuck Committee to 
be set up, as long as its purpose was, on the one hand, to bring 
about a change of Ministers and, on the other, to provide an 
outlet for the public passion? However, from the moment that 
Roebuck comes forward and, supported by the findings of his 
Committee, threatens to lay allthe members of the coalition open to 
explicit censure by Parliament, is there a newspaper which observes a 
more stubborn silence than The Times? As far as The Times is 
concerned, Roebuck’s motion does not exist; yesterday’s incident in 
Parliament concerning the “Call” does not exist; the meetings at 
Birmingham, Sheffield, etc., do not exist in its columns. Roebuck 
himself is, of course, no Brutus. On the one hand, he has seen how 
miserably the Whigs have rewarded him for the services he has 
rendered over many years. On the other hand, he has his 
constituents behind him. He represents a large body of constituents 
whom he has to pay in popularity as he cannot pay them in cash. And 
finally, the role of a modern Warwick, the parliamentary 
King-Maker, can hardly be displeasing to this ambitious but so far 
scarcely successful barrister. The Tories who form the opposition 
cannot, of course, oppose Roebuck’s motion in the same way as the 
Whigs can. They are therefore seeking to forestall it. This is the 

secret behind Bulwer’s motion calling for a vote of no confidence in the 
Ministry,* based on Lord John Russell’s strange revelations about the 
Vienna conferences.” Bulwer’s motion remains entirely “within” the 
limits of a government reshuffle. It takes the fate of the Ministry out 
of Roebuck’s hands. If it succeeds then it will be the Tories who have 
toppled the Whigs, and once holding the Ministry, conventional 
“magnanimity” would forbid them to pursue their victory and to 
continue supporting Roebuck. But the artfulness of the Tories at the 
same time enables Palmerston to employ old parliamentary tricks. 
The dismissal of Russell, whether voluntary or imposed, will serve to 
parry Bulwer’s motion just as Bulwer has parried Roebuck’s motion. 
Russell’s departure would be certain to bring Palmerston’s Cabinet 
down were it not to occur shortly before the end of the session. Now, 
however, it may on the contrary prolong the life of his Cabinet. If so, 
then no English Minister before Palmerston has managed with such 
skill and good fortune to use the people’s clamouring in order to 
force himself upon the parliamentary parties on the one hand, and, 
on the other, to use the petty parliamentary interests, groupings and 
formalities that exist to force himself upon the people. He is like the 
old man of the sea whom Sindbad the Sailor found impossible to 
shake off once he had allowed him to climb onto his shoulders.