The Sun.
London, England, 1854-12-07 00:00:00

THE COMING SESSION.
(.Prom the Daily News.)

•
There appears to be now no reason to deubt that a
fierce onslaught will be made upon Ministers as soon as
the Parliamentary Session Opens. It is rather curious
that those who are preparing to make this onset should,
whie ringing the changes on the phrase, " Coalition
Ministry," be contemplating a coillitioa for the purpose
of assailing It. The "independent Liberals" are ex-
horted to coalesce with Mr. Disraeli for the purpose of
driving the " Coalition Ministry" from office. To such
practical inconsistencies do the slaves of words expose
themselvea. In the-abstract there is nothing necessarily
wrong about a " Coalition MinisUry." With the excep-
tion of the .port-lived Ministry of the Duke of Welling-
ton, we have had none but coalition Minuitries for the
last thirty years. George Canning's Ministry was a
coalition of the Whigs and liberal Tories. Earl Grey's
Ministry was a coalition of the Canningitcs and the
Whigs who had stood aloof from Cannirig. Sir Robert
Peel's Ministry was a ePalition of the Eldon Tories and
the six insides of the-Derby Diily. Lord Derby's party
ewbraced the ci-devmat Canningite Lord George Ben-
tinok and the other Whig Corn-law 'recusants. The
truth is, there is no party. at present in existence that
does not number in its ranks " waifs and strays" that
have originally appertained to other parties. To call a
Ministry a " coahtioe is to- say nothing ; the -question
is, whether that coalition be ati honourable or a dishon-
ourable one.

Nevertheless the emphasis laid by the adversaries of
the present Ministry upon' the phrase " Coalition
Ministry," evinces 'considerable 'kill in the low art
of political manoeuvring. The present Ministry is
made np of two distinct sets of men, 'Who at one
time were arrayed in organised hostility to each
other A notion prevails in many quarters that the
two parties, though brought _into such close juxta-
position, have: not yet amalgamated. Upon this
assumption a calculation is made that an attack CM-
centrated upon one of the parties may be joined in by
many who are friendly to the other ; and that the party
left unassailed, if they see the storm run high, may be
disposed to throw their obnoxious colleagues overboard
like so many Jonahs. It happens that the Peelite section
of the Cabinet have so managed matters as to lay them-
selves more open at this moment to a rough attack than
their colleagues. The Ministerial sins of omission or com-
mission—real or imputed—which at this moment render
many of the supporters of the Government disposed to
revolt from them, are all connected with the manage-
ment of the war. Now the Peelites, as they are called,
have contrived to monopolise among themselves almost
every post that gives a Minister real influence in the
management of the war. Lord Aberdeen is First Lord of
the Treasury, and Mr. Gladstone Chancellor of the Ex-
chequr ; the Duke of Newcastle is at the head of the
War Department, and Mr. Sidney Herbert Secretary at
War ; and Sir James Graham is First Lord of the Admi-
ralty. The Peelites have no right to be surprised, or. to
complain, if, having thus taken into their bands a mo-
nopoly of the direction of the war, they are also expected
to monopolise the responsibility.
It is no time to blink these circumstances, or to allude
to them in circuitous and delicate phrase. Their possible
consequences are so momentous' that they, and all their
possible consequences, ought to be deliberately looked in
the face, and fearlessly canvassed. In Common with the
great mass of the country, we have no part or interest in
the Administration as at present constituted. Like the
great bulk of the people, we accepted itat first because we
nowhere saw a more eligible combination of statesmen ;
and even at this day we do not see where a better Ministry
is to be got among existing public men. We believe that
we speak the sense of the country when we say that
though there has been much in the past conduct of the
war to complain of, we would prefer 'seeing the neces-.
sary improvements in its management made by the men
now in office, than risk the embarrlssments that might
result from a change of Ministry at such a critical
period of the nation's history. At the same time, though
we would rather avoid such a ticklish experiment, we
have that entire confidence in the patriotism and good
sense of Englishmen, and that fixed faith in the high
destinies of England, which would make us regard what
is called a " Ministerial crisis " with very little alarm,
should the conduct of Ministers render it inevitable.
We say " the conduct of Ministers," for we feel con-
vinced that their fate is in their own hands. Two things
only are requisite to ensure their hold of office apiust
arty assailants i—conccri and strictly honourable con-
duct towards each other among tifemserves ; and an
honest determination to prosecute the war with their
utmost energy to the only termination that is consistent
with tide honour and interests of the State and the wishes
of the people. Concord and honourable conduct towards
each other—for there can be no doubt .that incompati-
bilities, more or less important, still exist among them,
notwithstanding they have been so long associated in
office. Let them come to a frank and fair understand-
sing as to how far they are at one in their objects. _ If
" they can agree upon the vigorous prosecution of a com-
mon policy, let them continue as they are : if there are
any dissentients from the voice of the majority among
them, let these dissentients retire without endeavouring
to embarrass their colleagues. Determination to prose-
cute the war with the utmost energy to an honourable ter-
mination—for any resolute policy can only degrade the
country in the eyes of the world, aad involve it in future
troubles.

It is indispensable to the continuance of Ministers in
office, that they meet Parliament with that frankness
which can only result from perfect unanimity among
themselves, and a resolution to do and dare everything
for the assertion of the national honour and interests.
The people are intensely excited, and at times rash and
inconsiderate words may be spoken, and rash and in-
considerate men may push themselves into a prominence
that is not their due. But in the main the prevailing
excitement is of a high and even a holy character. It
is one that prepares men to make sacrifices of all kinds
for the attainment of the object placed before them. It
is one which if appealed to by a statesman of a high-
minded and honourable ambition, with faith in his
own principles and purposed, in that tone of command
natural to men born to take the lead in great emer-
gencies, will carry him triumphantly over all the petty
opposition of party and faction. The nation is tho•
roughly wound up for a great effort, and only wants a
leader worthy of the occasion. Who of our present
Ministers will take upon him to chastise the flag-
ging spirits of his comrades,- and inspire them with
the resolution to remain the .foremost men of Eng-
land at this inspiring moment ? if none of them are
prepared to do this, they may rest assured that the
country will look about for other leaders, and they may
also rest assured that circumstances will create the men
who are wanted.

We have no connexion with, no interest in, any
party but the universal nation ; and, if we had, we
would feel it to be our duty to throw all such consi-
derations to the wind at a moment like the present.
We have no iinterest in Ministers, or any section of
them, except in so far as they may show themselves
worthy of the occasion, and able and willing to steer
the helm of state in the present storm. But we have no
animosity towards any of them, and are prepared to
support them, if they will enable us by their conduct to
do so. We have urged upon the people the expediency
of meeting Ministers in a conciliatory spirit, notwith-
standing all that is passed and gone. We now urge upon
Ministers that it is their duty to meet the public more
than half way. There ought to be on the part of Minis-
ters no affectation of mystery—no attempt at conceal-
ments. We do not mean that councils about to be
carried into act should be garrulously told, in order that
foes as well as friends may hear. But we de insist upon
the most complete explanation of what has been done ;
upon a frank confession of mistakes and shortcomings ;
upon unequivocal indications that there shall be no room
for complaint of tampering with principles or lack of
vigour in the future. We would rather see action than
listen to talk ; but if an irresolute and temporising
policy on the part of the Government shall call for
criticism, we have no fear that the most unreserved
discussion can lead to anything but ultimate good.

AUSTRIA AGAIN.
(Prom the Daily News.)

A. morning contemporary published yesterday what
purports to be an abstract of the treaty concluded be-
tween Austria and the Western Powers. We place little
faith in this abstract. The journal in which it appears
has been rather notorious of late for its readiness to give
publicity to the most false and absurd reports upon
slender or no authority. In addition to this, there is a
precision in the details of the statement very remote from
the vagueness which would be likely to characterise such
accounts, as could escape by the indiscretion of officials,
of the tenor of a treaty which is not, we believe, to be
ratified till the 15th. There is, moreover, something so
radically and incurably bad in what is alleged to be the
purport of the fourth article of the treaty; that we will
not believe any English Minister can have given his
sanction to it, until the publication of the document
may place the shameful fact beyond dispute.
The tenor of the fourth article is said to be : " Eng-
land and France pledge themselves that the territorial pos-
sessions of the Emperor of Austria shall, under all cir-
cumstances, remain undiminished." England has sanc-
tioned the diminution of the territories of the King of
the Netherlands. England did not interfere when one
Sovereign in alliance with it—Louis Philippe—was
stripped of all his territories. Why ? Because Eng-
land respected in every other people that right to choose
their own ruler and form of government which our fore-
fathers successfully asserted at the revolution of 1688,
and again on the accession of George I. England gua-
rantees the integrity of the Ottoman Empire against
foreign aggression ; but England sanctioned and sup-
ported the Greeks when they shook off the Ottoman
yoke. In like manner England might consistently
pledge itself to defend the Austrian Government and
State against the etgressions of Russia or any other
foreign power. But for England to pledge itself " that
the territorial possessions of the Emperor of Austria
under all circumstances, remain undiminished,"
would be at once a base sacrifice of the rights of the
people, a gross violation of one of the first principles of
justice, and a cowardly desertion of its hereditary policy.
For gngland to pledge itself that'! the territorial poa•