The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-09 00:00:00

Constantinople about the strengthening of the defences
of the city and the construction of an entrenched
camp in its immediate neighbourhood, which, if true,
indicate a resolution to establish an army of reserve
there. But beyond what can be conjectured from
these indications nothing is known. The Allied Powers
preserve, and will very properly continue to preserve so
long as they can, silence as to the ulterior operations
they contemplate. It is right that Russia should be
kept as long as possible in suspense as to the point on
which the storm is to burst. The country between Con-
stantinople and Varna is equally well suited to serve as
the basis of operations fix a campaign in the Crimea or
for a campaign in Bessarabia, with Poland as the ulti-
mate destination of the invaders. The considerations
above enumerated would appear to favour the notion
that the latter is contemplated by the Allies. A state-
ment confidently made in well-informed quarters yes-
terday that a squadeon has been detached from the
Allied fleets to occupy Kertch would lead to the infer-
ence that the Crimea is to be the scene of operations.

( .Fmns the Morning Herald of this day. )
The family constitution of the present Cabinet, to
which yesterday we ventured to direct the attention of
our readers, is a subject of much more importance than
to superficial observers it might seem. At first sight it
appears almost invidious to inquire into the relation-
ships and affinities of noble lords and right honourable
baronets. A cousin of a Cabinet Minister is not, there-
fore, unfit to be a Cabinet Minister himself. We do not
want to establish any rule of exclusion within the pro-
hibited degrees. Sir George Lewis is not the worse
Chancellor of the Exchequer because he is brother-in-
law of Lord Clarendon. Sir George Grey is not neces-
sarily unfit to be Home Secretary because he is con-
nected, either by birth or marriage, to three-fourths of
his brother Ministers. It does not follow that Lord
Hnrrowby may not very gracefully fill the "otium, cum
dignitare' of the duchy, even though he be cousin by
blood of one-half the Cabinet, and cousin by mar-
riage of the other. All this we readily admit. Nay,
more, we concede that such inquiries into the alliances
of Ministers savour of ungraciousness. It is only when
the whole web of complicated family relationship is ex-
posed—when we find that the list of the Cabinet is no-
thing more or less than a genealogical tree—that British
statesmanship is made a matter of pedigree, and offices
are religiously distributed in due course of administra-
tion to the next of kin—it is only then that such iu-

quiries are proved to be relevant and proper, as the con-
viction forces itself on the mind, that the highest honours
and most important posts of the state are made by an
adroit, although imbecile conspiracy of cousins, the pa-
trimony and peculiar of an aggregate coterie of two or
three great families.
That this is the true state of the case we yesterday
established. We showed by a very cursory glance at
the materials of the Cabinet that at least ten out of
fifteen Cabinet Ministers were allied by the closest re-
lationship to one or other of the great houses of Devon-

shire, Sutherland, or Carlisle. —The close connection
between these patrician families might entitle us with
truth to dispense with the triple enumeration. Were
the Queen's Ministers assembled at a Cabinet dinner,
they would perfectly represent a Christmas family party
at Woburn or Sutherland or Devonshire Houses, with
the very natural addition of two or three old and attached
_ _

friends-of the family. Almost every Cabinet Minister
recognises at the Council-board cousins or brothers-in-
law, varying in number from two or three to ten. The
man is a stranger who has not at least the smaller num-
ber. The whole affair, we repeat, is a conspiracy to mo-
nopolise in one family connection the great offices of
state.

This conspiracy was consummated when Lord Pal-
merston manoeuvred Sir James Graham, Mr. Glad-
stone, and his associates out of office. In 1852
the cousin Cabinet fell before the contempt of the
country. To regain place, which they had lost by
their own imbecility, the family coterie entered iuto
a new, but it now seems a separate, conspiracy with
the followers of Sir Robert Peel. A Cabinet was formed
which included not only men outside the charmed circle
of Sutherland or Devonshire affinity, but actually men
who had no aristocratic connection at all. But the

family influences were too strong. Slowly, hut surely,
they undermined the Coalition Administration. The
first moment of popular discontent, the blow. which
everyone knew was long meditated was struck. The first
movement of the Cabinet got rid of the Duke of New-
castle and Lord Aberdeen. But the cousins were not
sure enough of their position to dispense in the first in-
stance with all " the Gentiles of the outer court." Lord
Palmerston returned to office, retaining a few of the
aliens in his service—but it was only to get rid of them
at once, and hardly had the noble and facetiou; viscount
kissed hands upon the premiership which he obtained on
the faith uf their co-operation, than he managed gently to
get rid of the rest of the intrudeN, and constitute his
Cabinet a pure \Vhig one—which, being interpreted,
means a Cabinet selected from the relatives of the great
houses we have 'tamed.

. The result is that England is at this inomect governed
by a coalition of three clans. It would certainly be a
marvellous co.ncidence if, in a nation of thirty millions,
the dozen individuals most worthy to be the advisers of
the Sovereign all happened to be related to this singu-
larly fortunate family coterie. Yet to this conclusion
we must come, or we must believe that men not the
most worthy are thrust into this position because they,
happen to he able to put forward the claim of consan-
guinity as their title to office.
We have said that this is a subject of much
greater importance than at first sight it might ap-
pear. This system of selecting our Ministers from
one family connection, however honourable the fa-
voured families may se, entails of neceslity imbecility
and narrowness upon the national council. We do
not merely speak of the improbability that the
limits of any one connection will supply the fittest or
even fit men for the high offices of the state. But, inde-
pendently of this, we believe the tendency of such exclu-
siveness is to enervate the councils of the country. The
family group at the Council Board, however, is still the
family group. Their sympathies are those of "the con-
nection," and not of the nation. There is a law of na-
ture which forbids the institution of a distinct family
caste. Physiologists tell us, and experience assures us,
that families which intermarry exclusively with their
own connections degenerate and dwindle away. The
law has its analogy in politics, and Cabinets that are re-
cruited from relatives of Cabinet Ministers become by
the very operation of the process enervated and imbecile.
But there is more than even this. This system of
government, tolerated by the habitual phlegm of Eng-
lishmen in times of quiet, will be denounced with their
characteristic resolution in times of national emergency.
In plain honest English, the country will not stand it.
Not even to the

" Blood of all the Howards"
will we concede the right to ruin us ; and in spite of co-
teries, and clans, and cliques, we are perfectly resolved,
rather than let England go to the --, under the pa-
tronage of great houses, to take the management of our
own affairs into our own hands. But the danger is—
and it is no slight one—that this exclusiveness of caste
may be confounded with our whole system of govern-
ment--that the aristocratic, aye, and even the monarchi-
cal element of our constitution may be held answerable
for this vicious and selfish monopoly of a gang of family
conspirators, who for the last 24 years have well nigh
converted our constitutional system of government into
an oligarchy. The dynasty of Whig families is
an exclusive one ; but the aristocracy of England
are the subjects of its exclusion just as much, and as
completely as are those who can boast no patrician
origin. Noble blood avails nothing, eialesi it be
allied to some one of the great Whig families, who in
the name of liberty and liberal government assume
the exclusive privilege of being statesmen. Popular in-
dignation will not be very nice in making this distinc-
tion ; and because the dynasty of the families is an aris-
tocratic one, it will be directed against all that is aristo-
cratic in the country.
The truth must be plainly told. The exclusiveness
which the country cannot tolerate is one for which the
aristocracy at large is no more responsible than any
other class or section of the community. Whiggery has
become a family tradition, and Whig policy degenerated
into a family compact. In a constitution like ours the
union of any number of men, in either House of Parlia-
ment, can effect great results. Witness what has been
acomplished by a Popish Brigade. We have had a few
families banded together, having representatives in both
houses, with high historical pretensions, with large posses-
sions, great social distinction, and great personal respecta-
bility of character. Of these families a league has been
formed, of which the real principle has been to keep the
Government in their own hands. With an affectation
of popular politics—with a readiness to adopt any policy
that conciliated for the moment the support either of the
Court or the people—making all their movements subor-
dinate to their notion of the constitution, which means
to them the supremacy of the favoured families—it is,
after all, not to be wondered at that such a league should
succeed to a great extent in its design. The time is
come when national disaster has taught the country the
true effect of such a system, and in the exasperation of
that lesson the danger is, that if the aristocracy do not
head the people in breaking down the exclusiveness of
"the great families," the people may, so far as practical
government is concerned, insist on getting rid of the
aristocracy and " the great families" together. Our first duty is to get rid of the family alliance.
This is the cause alike of the Throne, the nobility, and
the people. We have to vindicate the cause of free go-
vernment—to assert the right and the duty of the Sove-
reign to choose as her servants those who willfamonarchial
verve her
best. This great—this essential principle
constitution we have now to vindicaten
aristocracy,obut wem must do
so, not against the privileges of s
against the pretensions—we must
say, the insolent pre-
tensions of a family coterie.

THE REPRESENTATION OF ROCHESTER.—TIIO Kentish,
Gazette, after observing that no intimation has been re-
ceived from Mr. Villiers with respect to the representa-
tion of Rochester, says that the chairman of the local
Conservative committee stated at a meeting, held at the
Golden Lion, on the 2d inst., that if another election
should be necessary, and if it appeared the wish of the
Conservatives of this city that Mr. Bodkin should come
forward, he would be found willing as hertofore to yield
to their wishes, and represent their view; and interests
ist Airlisauenit: