The Sun.
London, England, 1855-02-28 00:00:00

~~~

.**,:tiiNtiu prh
aN:."-,-4,
generation, on the seven years" war with 'lmmix ilie.c.iii 111
.tzatit
together the most calamitous period in the 13atijih.
.1,x.1 1 , 0
annals. •.% 't:,a, Ne-tk.,...405‘; #.14
.44
3. One more aspect remains, and. that is one con olke.eL kt-te:'&=-,, ..ief
---1- " • , ttai ,
ing which no doubt can exist. The crisis being onelltic-M-_ ,:e jsiyi
peril, the first duty of the Premier wast to select Mi., "'her cs
ablest man for his Administration. that caul& 1
~. - ::'.
possibly be found. In doing so it would. s
necessarily happen that rank and family would be
less regarded, and talent and force of mind more though
of than in Cabinets brought together in the calm and
halcyon days of peace.
But has this been the case ? So far from it—so far
from properly appreciating the real nature of his position
—Lord Palmerston has imperilled the whole aristocracy
of England by absurdly and nest hazardously composing
his Cabinet of one alone. We do not believe that since
" Ministries" and ." Cabinets" were first heard of in
England there ever was seen such a Cabinet of lords as
the present. Let us simply pass them in review :
Premier
Lord Chancellor Lord Cranworth.
Lord President
Lord Privy Seal Duke of Argyll.
Postmaster-General
Foreign Secretary ., Lord Clarendon.
War Secretary Lord Panmure.
Colonial Secretary
Home Secretary Sir G. Grey, first cousin to
arl Grey.
First Lord of the Admiralty SirE C. Wood, brother-in-
law to Earl Grey.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir G. C. Lewis, brother..
in-law to Lord Claren.
don.
Woods and Forests..
Grandpapa

The twelfth, who is, after all, of Lord Molesworth's
family, is the solitary one among the whole who is
neither a lord, nor the brother-in-law or cousin of a
lord. A single " philosophical Radical" is the sole re-
presentative in the Cabinet of the Commons of England.
He is the " pennyworth of bread" to this " monstrous
quantity of sack.
But is this even commonly prudent ? licit fair to the
aristocracy of England ? We, as Conservatives, are na-
turally chary of their rights and -of their interests. Bat
no reasonable friend of the aristocracy would. willingly
see them put forward as monopolisers of all the power
and influence of the state ; more especially would he
like to see this at a moment when storms and tempests
were impending, and when the loftiest pinnacles were.
likely to be the most exposed to the lightning's flash.
This is a grave and fearful mistake of Lord Palmer.
'!'iPl6:eig,ll.24*.esz-..lan-,..tfiauntv and stay." and PAT Ma

very wQll or a Ur.;reinVeftVlC64/4474141-i capacity for the task he has taken in hand. And, first
of all, we tell him that in thus filling his Cabinet with
lords, and lords snly, he is carrying too mach sail for
such stormy weather as we are likely soon to encoUnter•

THE MINISTRY OF TITLES.
(From the Morning Advertiser of this day.)
We yesterday showed that, out of the fourteen mem.
hers composing the Palmerston Cabinet, not fewer than
tea were lords. We might have added, that the remain.
ing four were also men of title, each of them being a
baronet. Their names are—Sir George Grey, Sir Charles
Wood, Sir William Molesworth, and Sir George Corns-
wall Lewis. So that here was a new Cabinet, which
we had hoped would have had much less in it of the
aristocratic element than any of its predecessors—which
consisted solely of men of title. Yesterday a new mem-
ber was added to it, without a title. We allude to Mr.
Vernon Smith, who has been appointed President of the
Board of Control. We have now, therefore, a Cabinet
consisting of ten lords, four baronets, and one plain Mr.
But one untitled member to fourteen members, with the
prefixes of Lord or Sir to their names, will not render
inapplicable the designation we have given to the Pal-
merston Administration of the Ministry of Titles.
We are almost sorry that, since the new Cabinet
was to be so aristocratic in its composition, there
should have been one plain Mr. in it. Since, however,
Lord Palmerston, had made up his mind to disturb the
aristocratic unity of his Cabinet, it is right we should
tell his lordship, that he could not have made a more
unfortunate selection than he has done in the person of
Mr. Vernon Smith. He is a man of no mark whatever.
He has an overweening opinion of himself, which often
leads him to exhibit an arrogant and petulant manner ;
but that is not the only feature in his character. He
has no weight either in the House or out of it. He is a
poor, feeble, wordy speaker, while he has no pretensions
to any grasp of mind. Even the addition of another
Lord to the Palmerston Cabinet would.not have been
more damaging than the reception into it of one so
ill-
conditioned and so conceited as Mr. Vernon Smith. We
stated on Monday, in alluding to the rumour that he
was to receive the 'Presidency of the Board of Control,
that the thing was too ridiculous to be believed. Andl
as a proof that such was the prevalent opinion, we mar
mention that it was difficult to convince people last
night that he had actually received the appointment.
Never was an appointment more generally or more
strongly condemned.
We deeply regret the sad work which Lord Palmer-
ston
has made in trying his 'prentice hand at Cabinet-
making. He has given us not only the most aris-
tocratic Administration of which we have any example
in the history of the country, but he has constructed
his Government of the very.xorst aristocratic materials'
he could have selected. And; as if that had not been
sufficiently damaging to him as Premier, he has singled
out the most unpopular and most unfit man with the
plain prefix of Mr. to his name whom he could have
chosen, for the only office in his Government which was
not filled by a person of title.
But, while we deeply deplore, on Lord Palmerston's
own account, and especially on that of the country, the
unfortunate composition of his Cabinet, it is right that
we should render him the justice to which he is entitled..
t
Wpwnoah
me hhaearwvsfeter
oesnwea
ri diai
stge oie.
nnn t s.fnee
tve t
eir
rsasels
euprvbre
jeepenveci
atoatutt
os
toah
hoe
eecaossvnti
aeos
trtimuttmehnapottr
em. hoe esnLutwro ae;lis at;
and that pressure comes from a quarter whore of all
others, it might be least expected. Will it believed that,
of all men in the world, the Marquis of Lansdowne
should be the party who has, from the first, so greatly
hampered Lord Palmerston in the construction of his
Cabinet? It will be remembered that we stated, ten days.
ago, that it was to the veto which Lerd Lansdowne put.
on Lord Shaftesbury to a seat in the Cabinet, that the
country has to ascribe the loss of the services of the
latter able and excellent nobleman,—one who would,
have given great strength, from his high character, to.
the Administration of Lord Palmerston. And it is to.
the Marquis of Lansdowne that the country owes the
misfsrtune of having so many incompetent persons fa
the new Government. He is, in truth, the real architect
of the Governmental edifice which has just been erected..
He has for the last few weeks been a sort of dictator
in Cabinet affairs,—a Lord Paramount in all matters
appertaining to Ministerial appointments. He takes up,
during a considerable portion of each day, his quarters
in Brookes's Club, and there dictates to Lord Palmer.
ston who should and who should not be appointed t•
places in the Government. What we blame Lord
Palmerston for is, that he submits to this dictation,—
that he consents to be the mere instrument of Lord
Lansdowne's pleasure, and by that means acquiesces in
the latter nobleman's virtually performing the functions
of Premier. Why does not Lord Palmerston make a bold
and manly resistance to this dictation I If he will only
do so, and throw himself on the country, he will thereby
make himself, as we remarked the other day, the stoat
popular and most powerful Minister of modern times.

, %Li t,

.