The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-01 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
TIMES. - The Ministerial explanations in the Commons
last night were a praiseworthy attempt to produce a good
entertainment out of slender materials. A single sentence
might have comprehended all that there was to be told, viz.,
that Lord John Russell had found Sir James Graham and
Lord Aberdeen too decidedly adverse to his Ecclesiastical
Titles Bill to join his Government, and that the Queen had
ehereupoe summoned the Duke of Wellington to assist her
with bis advice. To say this in so many words would hardly
have sathfied the public craving for specific intelligence—a
craving so great that, when Lord John set down, the House
could scarcely believe ho had. told all that there was to be
told, and one Member after another got up to ask whether
there was an Administration or not; why nothing had been
said about the Budget; who was the Chancellor of the
Exchequer; what share had the window-tax in the
Ministerial crisis; and, lastly, whether it was not com-
petent, under existing circumstances; for any private Mem-
ber to undertake the lead of thellouse, and work the Legis-
lature. without the aid ef her Majesty's advisers. As the most
important fact in Lord John Russell's speech -occupied an infi-
nitesimal compass.-and was not stated in a way to strike the
less vigilant class of understandings, he found it necessary to
get again, and explain, lance more, with a smile, that
there was no Administration, no Chancellor, of the Exche-
quer, no-Budget, nobody to answer questions about it, or to
enter into -any engagements with 'inpatient politicians. So
the Ecclesiastical Tttles Bill is at thebottinn of the present
delay. Sir James Graham and Lord Aberdeen, sensible as
they are of the folly and • arrogance' of the language;
adopted by Pio Nono and Dr. Wiseman, think the
Bill a violation of the principles of toleration, and a re-
trograde step from the Emancipation Act -of 1829. ' Sir
James held that, he was himself. so deeply cetnraitted
against the measure, in particular b'y x latter !written .four
months ago, and that Lord John and the House of Commons
were so deeply committed in favour of some such measure,
that he saw no possibility of taking office with Lord John
for the present. The only result of the attempted coalition,
therefore, is a renewal of the friendship long maintained and
long interrupted between those two not very dissimilar
statesmen. Expressions of friendship and even affection
were exchanged between them, and formed by far the most
agreeable episode in the "explanations" of the evening.
Could the present obstacle be removed, we are led to expect
that we might once more see the day when Lord John and
Sir James will fight side by side, as in times gone by.
So far as regards the actual measure before the House,
Lord John Russell gave some colour to Sir James's
animadversions by stating, on authority not given,
that the second and third clauses of the Bill
would interfere with the religious worship of
the Irish Roman Catholics, and the regular suc-
cession of their ministry. As his Lordship did not wish to
encroach on religious liberty, he announced his intention of
altering these clauses, so as to confine the operation of the
Bill, if possible, to the object expressed in its title. This,
however, would not mitigate the aversion felt by Sir James
Graham to the measure, and to the " No-Popery cry," as he
calls it, with which it has been accompanied. Any Act on
the subject, in his opinion, will either be persecution, or it
will be ridiculous. Most probably, he says, it will have the
effect of both; that is, it will exasperate Roman Catholics,
without preventing their assumption of territorial titles, and
even their enj iyment of bequests let to their hierarchy under
territorial denominations. Whether the sound lawyer, or
the constitutional statesman, or the rival politician,
predominates in these objections, we leave to the ,
sagacity or -experience of our readers. It would
be vain to pretend that the explanation of the
evening at all enlighten our path through the
difficulties of the crisis, or prove that crisis to be less formi-
dable than we have hitherto supposed it. Lord John an-
swers the imaginary charge that he had accepted a defeat
on Mr. Locke King's motion as a ruse to escape the responsi-
bilities entailed by his Durham letter. This would have
argued, be replies, a want of courage he has never shown
before, even under circumstances far more likely to bring it
out. He then appeals, in what we must beg to consider by
no means the most successful part of his speech, to his reten-
tion of the helm of affairs during such gloomy and difficult
periods as the Irish famine, the continental revolutions, the
Irish insurrection, and the mercantile crisis which
led to the suspension of the Bank of England
Act. Undoubtedly these were fearful passages, and
the way in which we have got through them, on the
whole, reflects as much credit on the talents of our states-
men as on the character of our people and the resources
of our country. But let us not deceive ourselves with high
sounding names. There are divers kinds of difficulties.
There are national difficulties, social difficulties, and
party difficulties. The Irish famine entailed many difficulties
or rather impossibilities of administration, but it was calcu-
lated to rivet Lord John to his seat rather than shake him
off. So also of foreign revolutions. No sooner was a threat
of revolution heard on these shores than all England, almost
to a man, rallied round the Throne and the statesmen that
served it at that juncture. Much the same may be said of
the other occasions Lord John refers to. The sense of danger
united us all in what we believed to be a work of self-preser-
vation, and the more our confidence was appealed to the more
freely did we bestow it. The difficulties of the present crisis
are of a wholly different character. We have the two great
sections of the religious world, and the two great
sections of the industsisl world, severally at
issue on the delicate questions of Papal interfe-
rence and agricultural protection. Lord John is
deeply committed on both subjects; and is consequently
threatened with the determined hostility of two powerful
parties, whom it is generally possible to defeat separately,
but who may, nevertheless, one day combine their forces.
That is the peril which be has deliberately and conscienti-
ously dared to defy. He has not shown the least desire to
elude the threatened collision, nor is it necessary that he
should appeal to his I rmer career to prove his present
courage, which is beyond all impeachnient. The occasions
he enumerates, indeed, prove not so much his courage as the
spirit of the people who gathered round their rulers in the
time of need. With the exception of this rather inc mse-
quential part of Lord John Russell's speech, it was as inte-
resting and important as the amount of the " explanations"
to be given permitted ; and the very great enthusiasm with
which it was received leaves no doubt that the principles
which unite most suffrages in the Legislature have lost
neither numbers nor zeal during the fluctuations, and perhaps
we should add the temptations, of the still pending crisis.
CH RONICLE.—The present state of things was announced
last night in both Houses of Parliament. I consequence of
the failure of all the combinations which have been thus far
attempted, her Majesty has sent for the Duke of Wellington,
for the purpose (to use the words of Lord John Russell) of
"taking counsel from that eminent man, whose wisdom in
civil affairs is hardly less than the glory derived from his
military achievements." That the advice tendered by his
Grace will be upright and sTacious, no one will doubt; and
the country would willingly see one more civic triumph added
to the accumulated honours which have been won by the
first subject of the English Crown. We shall take another
opportunity of referring to the speeches made in the House of
Lords. Lord Aberdeen's deliberate protest against ecclesias-
tical agitation, and his declaration of his assent to the prin-
ciple of extending the suffrage, will be read with general in-
terest. Lord Stanley's more elaborate exposition of his po-
licy requires fuller consideration than it is possible to bestow
upon it without withdrawing attention from the more
interesting topic of -the future prospects of the political
world. The narrative of the late negotiations de-
livered in either House of Parliament possessed
little novelty or interest. We have ourselves communicated
to our readers from day to day all the statements which are
now confirmed by the principal actors in the drama which it
has been our business to record. It was no doubt by an
oversight that Lord John Russell omitted to mention the
visit to the palace by the Mat gals of Lansdowne, which pre-
ceded the royal summons to the Duke of Wellington. Tue
circumstance may be found not altogether unimportant,
when the final termination of the crisis arrives. In vindicat-
ing, against a supposed aspersion from Mr. Disraeli, a per-
sonal honour of which no suspicion was entertained, Lord
John Russell virtually admitted that he had on Monday un-
nteutionally conveyed an inaccurate impression to the
iHouse. Lord Stanley, whose conduct throughout these
transactions has been creditable to his discretion and pa-
triotism, had recommended her Majesty to attempt a Mi-
nisterial coalition between the late Administration and

the friends of Sir Robert Peel, before resorting to the
party which he himself re? resented. It does not appear
that, if the Queen had declined to follow his advice,

, __ _ ... ......,
Lord Stanley would have positively refused t 0...... form
an Administration • and thus far Mr. Disraeli
would have been justified in interfering, if the substance as
well as the manner of his implied contradiction had been
mere judiciously adapteci to the occasion. The House lis-

tenedwith courteous attention to Lord John Russell's unne.

cessary vindication of himself, as well as to his detailed nar-
rative of events with which all his auditors had been fully
acquainted within a few hours after the various changes and
negotiations respectively occurred. To the general surprise,
their patience was partially rewarded by revelations of the
future which were so curiously ambiguous that they may
either have implied that the Premier believed himself to be
once more virtually in office, or that he was taking a final
farewell of power. The true explanation of the fall of the
Ministry was still left wholly untouched. The audience well
knew that, in Mr. Osborne'a appropriate language, it was
occasioned " by epistolary imprudence and financial imbe-
cility ;":butMr. Locke King and Mr. Disraeli still obtain the
. .

credit which is due to the writer of the Durham letter,
and to his colleague, the author of the Budget. The finan-
cial interests of the country are still deemed unworthy of
a place in Lord John Russell's catalogue of politi-
cal matters of importance ; but the Ecclesiastical
Titles Bill occupies a prominent place, if not among the
ostensible causes of his fall, at least among the occupations
which are to produce or to celebrate his recovery. The ex-
Minister declares his intention—we suppose in the event of
returning to office—of modifying the Aggression Bill by
altering or expunging the only two clauses which could be
represented as having, possibly, a practical operation. En-
lightened by Archbishop Murray's protest, he has discovered
that the language of that measure, which had not the effect
assigned to it by the Attorney-General who drew the Bill,
involved nevertheless results of the gravest character, in
the form of direct interference with the spiritual functions of

. __....... _.
the Roman Catholic Church. That this interpretation
of the Bill, like every other which has hitherto
proceeded from official authority, is unfounded,
we shall take an opportunity of explaining
when we know how far Lord John Russell is

authorized to announce Ministerial intentions, andconse:

quently to invent apclogies for them. Sir James 'Graham ob-
served, amidst the applause of his hearers, that the misap-
prehensions formed by the authcrs of the Bill as to its pur-
port were in themselves a proof of the difficulty of legislat-
ing on the subject. He might have added, that the readiness
shown to eliminate even the little di-play of vigour apparent
in the Bill illustrated the sincerity of the politicians who
framed it to flatter one popular cry, and who mutilate it
without hesitation when they are threatened from another
quarter with a more serious agitation. We once mere tell
Lord John Russell that the measure would destroy his power
again and again, however trifling and unmeaning
he might
render it. If he had discouraged the agitation at first, a nomi-
nal measure might have been passed with little resistance;
but he has contrived to make the most frivolous
substitute for repression a symbol of religious persecution.
Without the Durham letter a declaratory Act would
have been an insignificant and unmarked blunder. The
total indifference of the House of Commons during the greater
part of his address must have satisfied Lord John Russell
that his motives are understood, and that his policy is ap-
preciated as it deserves. To the charge of weakly deserting
WI Pot; the BUIL:Ayr, or ex-Minister, wads a feeble defence