The Sun.
London, England, 1853-09-06 00:00:00

is impossible to overrate the importance or the signi
cance of this, It cannot be said that this intelligence
was not of gravity or importance. It is enough to say
that it demanded a decision as to the course that Eng-
land should take. By whom has that decision been
made? Our constitutional practice since the revolution
pointed out one, and only one, course. It should be
made by the Sovereign, upon the advice of that select
committee of her Privy Council called the Cabinet, to
which the duty of advising the Sovereign upon matters
of state policy as they arise is assigned. No man who
has read the history of England can be ignorant that in
government by a cabinet lies, in fact, the essence of our
constitutional system. Government by departments is
and must be despotism with all its evils, and without
the advantages of either its unity or its strength. The
practical working of our monarchy since the revolution
has been this, that upon all great questions of policy,
foreign or domestic, the Sovereign should be advised by
a council of men holding different of the great offices of
state—sometimes including men, as is now the case with
Lord John Russell, holding none—and that these men
should offer their collective advice to the Sovereign upon
all subjects affecting the well-being of her realm, no
matter in what department of its aministration those
questions might immediately arise.
We are almost ashamed to repeat maxims that are the
very elements of our political system, but they have been
discarded. News is brought to our Foreign Office that
the Sultan demands modifications in the note suggested
by the conference at Vienna. It becomes necessary for
the Queen's Ministers to consult—but instead of the
summoning of a Cabinet Council the Premier is called
in by the Foreign Secretary to settle the matter. The
Premier thinks it prudent to associate with them the
Home Secretary. The result is that they send for Lord
John Russell to the most distant extremity of the island.
The noble lord runs up as fast as express engines can
whirl him to town, he meets the three already admitted,
to the divan—he spends a whole day with them in deli-
beration, and lie then starts off again—it never having
been so much as thought of that it would be decent to
recognise the existence of such a body as the Cabinet.
Neither can it be said that the exigency was such that
there was not time to convene the members of the Ca-
binet. The intelligence had reached the Foreign-office
days before Lord John Russell was sent for—and then
the member of the Cabinet was summoned who was at
about the greatest distance. Some members of the Ca-
binet were in town, others within an easy distance, who
were not invited when Lord John Russell was brought
from Roseneath. It is perfectly plain that the meeting
was intentionally a selected one—equally plain that it
was convened for the practical determination of the
question whatever it was that arose. This is manifest,
upon the face of the transaction itself. An old gentle-
' man beyond 60 is not to be dragged up even in a rail-
way-carriage from the city of Edinburgh to London for
one day, unless that day is to have some practical effect.
Next we have the dispatch of a messenger to the Queen
as soon as the conference is over. In the circumstances
themselves we have further this plain and palpable
proof. The matter was one that required a decision,
and no Cabinet Council to decide on it has been held.

not to w!n understand guilty
the
real of the
object o
f hypocrisy
summoningof affecting
both
( Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell to this secret
conclave. They were invited, not for the purpose of
taking their advice, but of ascertaining whether it were
possible to cajole them over to that betrayal of Turkish,
and with them of British interests, which we doubt not
was contemplated by Lord Aberdeen. The adhesion of
these noble lords would have neutralised one section of
the Cabinet—upon the rest the Premier might safely
reckon as his accomplices or his tools.
This suggestion brings into stronger light the evil and
danger of the proceeding we denounce—it cannot alter
or affect the constitutional principle we maintain. Yes-
terday we demonstrated the importance and materiality
of the changes in the note suggested by the Porte.
Those alerations raised, in fact, the question whether
Russia had a right to a protectorate over the Greek
Church in the dominions of a Mussulman Sovereign.
We can conceive no question involving considerations
of more interest or more moment. We cannot now
dwell upon the topics which invest it with so momen-
tous and difficult an importance. But surely this was
a question upon which the Queen of England had a
right to the advice of her whole Cabinet ; it was due to
Christendom ; it was due to the liberties of Europe ; it
was due to the parties principally involved, that our de-
cision should be one attended by every constitutional
deliberation. It was above all due to the people of
England that it should be decided according to the con-
stitution.

As for the excluded members of the Cabinet, we do
not presume to defend their honour. We will not
adopt the rather coarse illustration of a morning jour-
nal ; but after all they best know themselves whether
they are fit to perform the menial office in carrying for
a bear, which Lord Aberdeen plainly wishes to monopo-
lise. They must judge for themselves whether they are
fit to continue Ministers in a Cabinet in which they
are not permitted to intermeddle with the matters that
most vitally affect the honour and the welfare of Eng-
land and Europe.

This is not for us to decide. It is for us to point out
the degradation of their position, if not of themselves.
It is emphatically for us to point out that there is a deep-
laid conspiracy at work to withdraw our foreign politics
from the sphere and influence of constitutional go-
vernment. "