The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-22 00:00:00

fision on these points, come when it might, had care-
ully postponed all consideration of them to the latest
possible moment ; and well, therefore, may the Chro-
nicle, in its shallow cunning, say that " no actual
difference" had occurred amongst its members. If
by " actual difference" is meant a positive division
upon a vote in the Cabinet the Chronicle may, for
the reason above stated, be right ; but if it pre-
tends to say that there did not, as Lord Mel-
bourne knew and acknowledged to his Master,
exist a vital difference of opinion among the Council-
lors of the Crown, which must sooner or later termi-
nate in such division, and the consequent disruption of
the Administration, then we say fearlessly, and we do
not speak without warrant, the Chronicle is either
egregiously misinformed or wilfully mendacious. Who,
then, can blame the King, seeing that the breaking-up
of his Government must occur in a very short time,
and would in all likelihood take place at a period most
inconvenient for the public service, for having man-
fully determined to face at once the danger which could
not ultimately be averted ? On the contrary, will any
loyal subject or right thinking man hesitate to give his
Majesty the credit which he has so nobly earned for a
sound discretion no less than a genuine attachment to
his people, in dismissing that discordant assemblage
of conflicting politicians, who possessed no one qua-
lity of a Cabinet except their salaries, and every cha-
racteristic of a debating club, except its honesty ?
Morning Post.
The proceedings of a Conservative meeting were re-
corded in the Times of yesterday. It was held at Ash-
ford in Kent, and the avowed object of it was to com-
memorate His Majesty's late declaration to support
" the Constitution in Church and State." Looking
at the names of those who figured on the occasion, and
at the toasts which were agreed upcn to be given from
the Chair or otherwise, it may be pronounced one of
your regular old " Church and King " meetings, of
which the real object has long been understood by all
classes of Englishmen, being no other than that the
patronage of the Crown in Church and State should
be carefully reserved for the exclusive benefit of one
favoured party in the kingdom. When we state that
Lords Winchilsea and Strangford, Sir E. Knatchbull,
and the Rev. T. Manners Sutton, were the chief
performers en this well-timed stage, our readers may
form a pretty shrewd guess at the tone and disposition
which prevailed among them. It will be judged at
once how much sympathy with the general spirit of
reform—how much attachment to the popular branches
of our institutions—were manifested by the several
speakers and by the company ; and last of all, how
much service at this particular moment the cause of
Conservatism and that of the Duke of Wellington's
Administration are likely to derive from the sort of
alliance which a leading Conservative journal has
since (erroneously we are aware) insinuated to exist
between his Grace's principles and those of the ultra-
oligarchs at Ashford, The Rev. T. Manners Sutton,
it is true, talked of Church reform as a thing " ex-
pected by the clergy from their friends, but not from
their enemies." By the latter, the Rev. Gentleman
referred, of course, to the authors and projectors of
those reforms which have been lately under public
discussion. But as we never heard that either Lord
Grey's or Lord Melbourne's Cabinet had gone one
inch too far in their notion of what the country called
for, it must be inferred that the reform which the
" friends of the clergy" are expected to grant would
fall far short of that which was decided on
by the Whigs, and is at this hour demanded by
the nation. In which case, we hope, and are much
disposed to anticipate, that neither the Duke of
Wellington nor Sir Robert Peel will entitle himself to
a niche in the Pantheon of " Friends of the Clergy."
Men ought not to employ phrases notoriously vague
in their signification. This language should be strict
and definite, and such as implies their promise of pur-
suing some certain course of action. There is no
word less binding upon the conscience, apparently,
than " Reform.' Lord John Russell, we presume,
would intend by Church Reform a measure rather dif-
ferent from that for which the Rev. T. Manners Sut-
ton seems to be prepared ; and we all know that the
Archbishop of Canterbury, whose health was drunk
uproariously at the Ashford dinner, flattered himself
that he had made an ample reform of the Church, by
enacting that no clergyman should be a pluralist whose
livings were more than thirty miles asunder I It is
something, however, to hear a Tory dignitary like
Mr. Sutton admit that any Church Reform is to
be tolerated. It is a hint which the Duke, we take
for granted, will know how to improve upon. It would
be very unfortunate for the Duke of Wellington, if
the future acts of his administration were now to
be judged of by the language of some of his old
political associates. The speech of Lord Strangford
is throughout a commination against all reforms in
Church and State. That profound diplomatist and
superfine translator reckons securely on a restoration of
the political state of England to its "pristine purity,"
--a *Veal of the Reform Bill to wit ! His Lordship
considers the downfall of the Whigs a dispensation " of
retributive justice" for their impious and mischievous
willingness to admit Jews, Infidels, and Christians
alike to the benefits of the Constitution—and such are
the men who have the modesty to obtrude themselves
as political allies of the Duke of Wellington, and to
impress upon the country the wild imagination that his
accession to office will be succeeded by the furtherance
of follies like theirs. We suppose there is no great
rashness in repudiating on the part of the Duke
any possibility of his participation in the dreams of
that class of Conservatives, to whom, and for whom,
his Grace may well recollect that his own more
sober views of policy were sacrificed not many
years ago, and with them his existence as a Minister.
/t is asked everywhere whether the present House
of Commons will be dissolved before the new Cabinet
meets it ; and the question is neither the less natural,
nor the less interesting, because it is not susceptible
of an immediate answer. The present House of Com-
mons is pledged to large reforms. A non-reforming
Administration, therefore, cannot encounter it without
being instantly overthrown. So if it be the object of
a Government composed of men who have hitherto
passed for Conservatives to strengthen itself in Par-
liament by a new election, and a consequent appeal to
the people, such a Government must be conscious that
the spirit of reform pervades the nation out of deoss,
to say the least of it, as extensively and thoroughly
as it animates the representatives already chosen : and
that to create the slightest chance of a return favour-
able to the embryo Cabinet of Peel and Wellington,
the whole country must have satisfactory proof of
the measures about to be adopted, being reform mea-
sures in Church and State, in England and in Ireland.
We have not left ourselves time or space to remark
upon the Newcastle dinner and its most remarkable
circumstance, Lord Durham's able and uncompro-
mising speech. His Lordship's general matter in the
beginning of his discourse was no less sound and va-
luable than the tone of it was temperate and becoming.
But we are sorry to say that the latter part of his
speech exhibits striking proofs that passion had blinded
his judgment. Else why does he denounce the pos-
sible change from bad to good as disgusting and dis-
graceful ? Does he suppose the nation is so enslaved
by the spirit of faction as to refuse to accept a bene-
ficial measure from a Minister because he is not a
Whig ? Such stuff is unworthy of Lord Durham's
clear sense ; it is the mere raving of a bigotted parti-
san. What ! are we to be told that the people of
England cannot understand, and demand and secure,
what they feel to be their just claims, unless a Whig
Lord holds the helm of Government ? We repudiate,
in the name of the people, such miserable party jargon.
The people may have, they must have, personal par-
tialities for particular men, but as patriots they sacri-
fice their individual partialities for the public good—
they look to the acts of their governors, and not to
their mere names. A Grey or a Wellington, if his
acts are just and wise, is in their eyes an enlightened
and patriotic Minister, whether his sobriquet be Whig
or Tory. Much as we admire the talent and spirit 9
which characterize the greater part of Lord Durham s
speech, we should have been wanting in duty to our-
selves and to his Lordship also, if we had not in a
frank, and we trust not uncorteous, manner pointed out
what even his best friends must allow to be an irra-
tional and unworthy sentiment.— Times.

When we declared the other day that we " nailed
our flag to the mast of Reform," we did not say so