The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-28 00:00:00

THE SUN,

supporters. This and all the other embarrasstnents which
have ensued from the extension of the Ministerial
measure to Ireland we clearly predicted, and over and
over again urged the Ministry to abandon so suicidal
a course. Unhappily, our warnings were not attended
to; end no*, because the evil which we predicted
has come to pass, we are geld that we aro inconsistent
for simply chronicling the result. The truth is that we
were neither speaking in praise or blame of the Durham
letter or the conduct of the Ministry. We were merely
pointing out why Lord John Russell, who more than any
one was responsible for that letter, was an unfit nego-
tiator with Sir James Graham, who was known to object
to any measure restraining Papal aggression. It may
very well be that the letter of Lord John Russell,
written as it is seine have been, without consulting his
colleagues, and without the intention, as it appears, of
following it up by an efficient measure, was a political
error, and tended to the dissolution of the Whig Go-
vernment. We praised that letter, not as a clever party
move, but as a manly and vigorous expression of opinion
worthy of the First Minister of a nation which had not
lost, amid the cant of toleration or the supineness of
freedom, a just susceptibility to its honour. It is not
our fault if the Ministerial measure, the errors
of which we have frequently
.pointed out,
has provoked enemies while it has failed to
conciliate friends; nor if Lord John Russell, in
despite of our warnings of last year, has chosen to ship-
wreck his Government by resisting Parliamentary Re-
form; nor if Sir Charles Wood has chosen to fling
away his financial reputation by a support of the most
iniquitous provisions of the income-tax. We certainly
had no wish for the fall of the Whig Ministry, because
we saw that upon that fall would ensue a crisis of no or-
dinary difficulty and danger, which might, if Lord
Stanley had been strong enough to carry out his Pro-
tectionist policy, have produced the most serious results.
Even while the negotiation between Lord John Russell
and Sir James Graham was proceeding we abstained
from saying anything which might throw difficulties
in the way of a coalition, but after that conference was
at an end it became our duty to show the hopelessness of
such a negotiation in order that no more valuable time
might be wasted, even at the risk of pointing out that the
Prime Minister was, above all his colleagues, committed
to the admitted blunders and failures of his Cabinet, and
was, therefore, of all men, the least able to consent to a
new line of policy.
CHRONICLE.—Lord Stanley has a second time
abandoned the task which Lord John Russell's weakness
twice committed to him. Lord Stanley had no further
reason for delay, after the failure of his late negotia-
tions for an alliance with Mr. Gladstone and Lord Can-
ning. His resources, such as they were, lay visibly be-
fore him, and he could judge at once of the probability
ef success as fully as if he had employed a month in
consideration. It is a severe criticism on the composi-
tion of the still-born Ministry that no one at any time
seriously believed in the possibility of its existence.
The late Government fell almost without a blow; but
the attempted Administration has dispersed into air be-
fore it was possible to attack it. The consummation
proves that the Protectionist phantom, after condensing
itself into all the solidity which it is capable ot
assuming, is still impalpable and imaginary.
Lord John Russell found a difficulty on Mon-
day in indicating the supposed external causes
of his defeat. Lord Stanley, with a united party
ready for office, and with full discretion as to his political
course, may be excused from the task of elucidating his
failure. It is said that he has never been sanguine of
success, nor has the deportment either of friends or op-
ponents, during the crisis, had aria tendency to re-assure
him. It is a remarkable circumstance that, in addition
to the inherent difficulty of forming a Protectionist Ca-
binet, Lord Stanley early discovered the impediment
which his encouragement of the late " No-Popery" cry
had placed in the way of his success. It cannot be for-
gotten that in the debate on the Address Lord Stanley
denounced as insufficient the frivolous precautions by
which Lord John Russell attempted to evade the per-
formance of the threats contained in his Durham Letter.
If Lord Ashley and Mr. Plumptre were to give Lord
Stanley their support, it was incumbent upon him at least
not to fell short of the demonstration which ruined his
undecided and yet intemperate predecessor. The forces of
free-trade could be counted and faced, however.desperate
the attempt might prove; but the ashes of the extinct anti-
Papal agitation are yet too hot to walk over with security.
While the question of a Protectionist Ministry was still
open, we were unwilling to encourage an alarm in which
we did not share; but it is necessary to remind all those
who have been opposed to Lord Stanley's policy, that
the ill consequences of his possible success in forming
an Administration could only have been averted by its
failure or its early overthrow. The determination of
the House of Commons to maintain a liberal policy
could alone have anticipated an agitation which would
otherwise have gone further than the occasion which
called fur it. With Protectionists in office, it would
have been no time to wait for their aggression on the
principles of commercial freedom. If such a contingency
recurs, the more timid and cautious of the Liberal sec-
tion of the House must be active if they would defend
thewselve3, not only against the reaction in front,
but against the formidable movement in the rear. The
practical sense of the country is tolerant of many
anomalies in customs and constitutional forms ;
but one condition is necessary for its endurance—
that the will of the intelligent majority shall, on the
whole, by some contrivance or machinery, be the rule of
the Government. Six months of a Government con-
ducted on the strength of mere county votes would go
far to convince the more active classes of the community
that the balance of the Constitution required redressing.
The future effect on the Protectionist party of Lord
Stanley's refusal to form a Government may hereafter
form a not uninteresting nor unimportant subject of
speculation. At present the conclusion of the Minis-
terial crisis requires more immediate attention. Lord
John Russell has tried in vain to rally the party which
he had ruined; sad Lord Stanley, after putting forth hip
utmost strength, has been compelled to confess its insuf-
ficiency. Two courses, at least, still remain—there-con-
struction of the late Administration, under an abler, and
still more unscrupulous leader, or the union of all the li-
beral statesmen in the House, without the encumbrance of
those pledges and prejudices which attach only to a portion
of the late Administration. The only politician whose
ability and daring might seem capable of restoring to
supremacy the old exclusive alliance would, we believe,
find insuperable difficulties in a task which we have no
reason to suppose he is inclined to undertake. Some ot
the more advanced Liberals have, it is understood, been
captivated by his display of activity, while they found
hopes for the success of their own projects on his well
known political pliability. But his supposed colleagues
are by no means equally unanimous in their willingueo-
to submit to the guidance of their able and dangerous
associate. It must be remembered, moreover, that the
most serious and influential section of the advanced
Liberals has never given its confidence to the versatile and
plausible statesman who has contrived to secure the confi
dente of less cautious politicians. The Manchester party
is well aware that the supposed leader of the suppose°
Ministry has often endangered the peace ot the country,
while he has never given pledges to the cause of free
trade on which eutlicieut reliance can be placed. Oee
other combination remains; and it is that which all
impartial observers indicated from the first as the only
sate termination of the crisis. The country must be
sate fled by this time that the statesmeu to whose pa
triotism appeals may probably be made are unduly
eager for effice. It remains for all who may be invitee
to unite for the public good, to show by their conduct
that party considerations and personal feelings weigh
less in their estimation than the opportunity and the
duty of performing au important service to the country.
It is not our province to suggest the claims of indivi
duals. There is ample room for selection among candi-
dates qualified for every department of administration.
It is to be hoped that no unavoidable delay will be in-
curred in satisfying the public anxiety.
HERALD.—The Times having distinguished itself
on Wednesday by venting, in its leading article of than.
morning, its bitterest invective upon the outgoing Minis
ter, whose career, whether statesmanlike and wise or
the contrary, it had previously encouraged, and for a
long period studiously promoted, has in its pages of
yesterday fallen foul of the incoming Minister by as un-
lair an attack and in as deliberate a manner. This
journal distinctly asserts, not as a matter of gossip, not
even under the suspicious title of " Ministerial Crisis,"
or even of the scarcely more correct authority of the
Court Circular—but on deliberation, and with all the
forethought of a premeditated composition, that the first
person who was applied to by Lord Stanley to assist in
the formation of a Cabinet was Viscount Canning. It
then proceeds to insinuate that his Lordship, in the
promotion of that object, before he consulted with
any of his own " obscure followers," virtually threw
over the cause of Protection, and sought a mon-
cil
xp
itsetinenwse of hisithtw own
oonf Sir R. Peel's lieutenants at
the
principles and of his own par-
ty. We do not expect political consistency at the
hands of the Times, but we cannot conceal our astonish-
ment that an organ with all the pretension which it as-
sumes to direct the course of public opinion—a journal
which arrogates a correct knowledge of facts beyond its
contemporaries—and prides itself' upon the authenticity
of its intelligence, should not at least endeavour to pre-
serve even the mere semblance of truth. If it does not
avoid from principle and conviction the error of giving
publicity to what it knows to be unfounded, it does sur-
prise us that it should so utterly have disregarded the
old adage—that a good memory is a necessary qualifica-
tion on such occasions and in such emergencies, which has
been especially recommended as a useful safeguard to
those who propagate statements opposed to facts. In the
chronological account which the Times itself has furnished
of the movements of the most eminent actors in the pre-
sent Ministerial crisis, we find that on Tuesday morning
Lord Stanley had an audience of her Majesty at 11 o'clock,
and that after the audience his Lordship proceeded te
the residence of Mr. Disraeli, where he remained with
that Honourable Gentleman an hour; after which he
returned home—and that late in the etternoon he called
upon Lord Canning. Can the Times reconcile this.
their own account, with the statement of yesterday, to
which ee now direct the attention of our readers? In
the second place, the Times informs the public that Mr.
Gladstore arrived in town on Wednesday morning at
pact eleven o'clock, and that soon afterwards the Right.
Hon. Gentleman waited upon Lord Stanley at St.
James's-square. Now, if Viscount Canning was the
first personage whose assistance was invoked in the for-
mation of an administration, and Mr. Gladstone the
second, does the Times deliberately mean to affirm that
Lord Stanley, having received his Sovereign's gracious
commands to construct a Cabinet for the purpose of
carrying on the Government of this great empire, in
a time ot unexampled difficulty, end at a crisis of no
common danger, remained perfectly inactive from
eleven o'clock on Tuesday morning until past twelve.
On eVedneeday, with the sole exception of calling on
Viscount Canning ? The known activity end business.
like habits of Lord Stanley at once give the contradic-
tion to such an assumption. Slothful neglect of any
duty has never till this moment been laid to his charge.
We ottunot eay that we have been favoured with a pe-