Chapter 2194 - 245: Do You Think Sir Arthur Is Easy to Mess With? Then Try His Public Opinion Tactics First_2

If we believe they are not worthy of autonomy, then we should honestly admit: what we are denying is not the capabilities of a particular nation, but the universality of freedom.

If we refuse to grant autonomy out of disdain for the Canadians, then what we are denying is not their qualifications, but the applicability of freedom itself. As if freedom belongs only to a few lucky ones and not to every subject in the Empire.

At such a dangerous juncture, we need more than ever someone who can see the flaws in the system and is willing to mend the cracks with reason and empathy. Looking back at recent colonial governance, few can, like the Earl of Dalhousie, perceive the gap between the interests of the Empire and the public opinion of the colonies, and are willing to overcome the inertia of traditional bureaucracy to try new policies to resolve the conflict.

He is not a perfect man, yet in the current absurd situation, his downfall precisely reveals the government’s shortsightedness and dullness. An outstanding politician who dares to candidly criticize systemic deficiencies is dismissed even faster than those who create defects.

That the unrest in Canada has developed to where it is today is not just because the colonial government is riddled with incompetence, but also because London has shown shameful cowardice and confusion at the most critical moment. The Melbourne Cabinet, in dealing with the Canadian issue, demonstrated not the wisdom of governance but a mindset of fear of responsibility. They hesitated between maintaining constitutional principles and catering to the interests of a small minority in the colonies, resulting in neither side being appeased, leaving only a ruin of the system and the anger of the people.

On this point, we can only reiterate the consistent view and position of the Westminster Review. It should be unlikely that anyone would think our magazine has ever shown even a hint of hostility towards the Cabinet, unwillingness to treat them fairly, or a tendency to refuse an alliance with the Whig Party. Without compromising our cause and damaging our character, we have done our utmost to draw closer to the Cabinet, making the greatest possible compromises to seek cooperation.

All we seek is to serve the interests of Britain itself. As long as they are willing to continue governing, in return for our support for their retention, all we ask is the passage of the Anonymous Voting Bill. Yet the Cabinet has chosen this moment to unprecedentedly express its hostility towards anonymous voting.

Therefore, our support must draw a line here!

Because this is by no means an isolated incident, this is not just the Cabinet’s retreat on a particular policy, but a sign of a policy shift.

From the perspective of the Radical Party, the correct interpretation of the recent defeat of the Whig Party in the general election should be: unless the voters are provided with the shield of anonymous voting or a goal they deem worth fighting for, they will not continue to endure sacrifice and hardship. The British people will not be willing to maintain the current Cabinet merely because of their dislike for the Conservative Party.

However, the Melbourne Cabinet has made a completely different interpretation of this election failure; their interpretation is that this country is turning towards conservatism. Therefore, they too must become more conservative, and the evidence of this result is the declaration by Home Secretary Lord John Russell regarding Canada.

What pains me even more is Mr. O’Connell, the warrior who fought a lifetime for the freedom of Ireland, who should have been most empathetic to the suffering of another oppressed nation. Yet on the Canadian issue, he has taken a stance contrary to the spirit of freedom, recklessly continuing to favor the Cabinet. Perhaps in his eyes, the British people, if they care about other matters, will not truly care about Ireland.

Wise as Mr. O’Connell is, he failed to see that the welfare of Ireland is, in fact, dependent on our influence among the populace, as is the welfare of England, Scotland, and the overseas colonies. When this fundamental is threatened, we would rather endure all secondary risks and rush to occupy necessary grounds to defend our source of power. Publicly opposing any government that refuses further reform is the unshirkable stance of every Radical Party member.

If so, let us face Viscount Melbourne with the clear stance we once took towards Earl Grey during Parliamentary reform!

Let us break the alliance with the Whig Party and publicly move into the opposition camp!

This opposition should not be unreasonable, just as we would support rational proposals of the Conservative Party; we will still vote in favor of the Whig Party’s proposals that deserve support. But if the Conservative Party proposes a motion of no confidence in the Melbourne Cabinet, the Radical Party must give full support.

At first glance, this might lead to the Conservative Party coming to power. But if this can build a close and strong Radical opposition party, which we value most, then what is this loss to fear!

Moreover, any person with political common sense would realize with a little thought that a Conservative Party Cabinet is not inevitable, nor is it the consequence of this move. The necessary condition for forming a Cabinet is controlling the majority in the Lower House, so it cannot be achieved by the strength of the Conservative Party alone. This majority can only be constituted by a union of the Whig Party and the Conservative Party or a combination of the Whig Party and the Radical Party.

And the right to choose whether to continue governing ultimately lies in the hands of the Whig Party. Should they choose the Conservatives, then, as we speculate, the political inclination of the Whig Party will become apparent, and we can fully see whether there will be any loss in replacing a Conservative Party Cabinet in disguise with an openly Conservative Party Cabinet.