Nr. 323, 14. Juli 1855.
Mittagblatt

X. London, July 11. (From Parliament.) Roebuck’s motion for the censure of all the members of the old coalition cabinet is, as is well known, set down for next Tuesday. While numerous meetings are being held in Birmingham, Sheffield, Newcastle, etc., in support of his motion, and at the same time petitions for it are being publicly signed in every corner of London, the members of Parliament are fleeing to Paris, Naples, to their country houses, to get out of the way of the vote. Roebuck, in order to check this bolting, which is supported by Palmerston in every way, yesterday demanded authorisation to issue a “call” to the House of Commons for next Tuesday. The “call” is an old parliamentary formula, fallen into oblivion since the time of the Catholic Emancipation debate. At the opening of the sitting, namely, the names of all members of Parliament are called. Those absent are liable to arrest by the parliamentary Serjeant at Arms, public apology before the assembled House, and the payment of certain fines. The House of Commons, however, refused Roebuck the compulsory measure of the “call” by a majority of 133 to 108 votes. Nothing, on the whole, is more characteristic of the British Parliament and its organs in the press than the attitude towards Roebuck’s motion. The motion comes from no member of the “official” Opposition. That is its first blemish. It is directed not only against members of the existing but also against members of the dissolved cabinet. It is therefore no pure party manoeuvre. It declares the sins of an old ministry unatoned for by the formation of a new ministry. It forms the bridge to a motion for impeachment. That is the other, great blemish of this motion. The official Opposition, naturally, only wants to wage the parliamentary war “within the limits of a change of ministry.” It is far from waging war against ministerial responsibility. The clique of the Outs is no less anxiously concerned about the preservation of ministerial omnipotence than the clique of the Ins. The skill of the parliamentary struggle consists precisely in this, that in the hand-to-hand combat it is never the office that is hit, but always only its momentary incumbent, and the incumbent only to the extent that he remains capable of standing up as a ministerial candidate at the very moment he has fallen as a minister. The oligarchy perpetuates itself not by the constant possession of power in the same hand, but by letting power fall from one hand alternately, in order to catch it with the other. The Tories are therefore as displeased with Roebuck’s motion as the Whigs. As for the press, *The Times* is decisive here. Which newspaper cried out louder for the appointment of the Roebuck Committee, so long as it was to serve, on the one hand, to bring about a change of ministry, and on the other, to dig a conduit for public passion? But from the moment when Roebuck steps forward, and, relying on the results of his committee, threatens to expose all members of the Coalition to the explicit censure of Parliament, which newspaper observes a more persistent deathly silence than *The Times*! Roebuck’s motion does not exist for it; yesterday’s incident in Parliament over the “call” does not exist for it; the meetings in Birmingham, Sheffield, etc., do not exist in its columns. Roebuck himself is of course no Brutus. On the one hand, he saw his many years of service wretchedly rewarded by the Whigs. On the other hand, his constituents stand behind him. He is the representative of a numerous electoral body, which he must pay in popularity, since he cannot pay it in ready cash. Finally, the role of a modern Warwick, the parliamentary king-maker, can hardly displease the ambitious, but so far barely successful, barrister. The Tories, as Opposition, cannot of course fight Roebuck’s motion in the same way as the Whigs. They therefore seek to forestall it. This is the secret of Bulwer’s motion for a vote of no confidence in the ministry, based on Lord John Russell’s curious revelations about the Vienna conferences. Bulwer’s motion moves purely “within” the limits of a change of ministry. It takes the fate of the ministry out of Roebuck’s hands. If it passes, it is the Tories who have overthrown the Whigs, and, once clothed with the ministry, conventional “magnanimity” would forbid them to pursue their victory and to continue supporting Roebuck. But the cunning of the Tories at the same time enables Palmerston to make use of the old parliamentary tricks. Russell’s dismissal—voluntary or forced—that parries Bulwer’s motion, just as Bulwer has parried Roebuck’s motion. Russell’s resignation would infallibly bring down the Palmerston cabinet, if it did not occur shortly before the close of the session. Now, however, it may, conversely, prolong his cabinet. If so, then no English minister before Palmerston has with equal skill and luck used the popular clamour to impose himself on the parliamentary parties, and the petty parliamentary interests, fractions, formalities—to impose himself on the people. He resembles the accursed old man whom Sindbad the Sailor found impossible to shake off, after he had once allowed him to climb onto his shoulders.