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

supporters. This and all the other embarrassments salsieb,
hare ensued from the extension of the Ministerial
ilii;asure to 'lre:ria vac elearly predicted, and over and
oatr again urged the iNlinisti'y it! abardon so suicidal
a course. Unhappily, our warnings were not a?!snded
to; and now, because the evil which ae predicted
has come to pass, we are t pld that we are inconsistent
foil simply chronicling the result. The truth is that we
were neither speaking in praise of 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 said to have been, without consulting hia
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 bad 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 it 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
Primo 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 Tisibly be-
fore hi,n, and he could judge at once of the probability
of 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 Miaistry 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 of
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 any 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
whandi eh h
placed
scis ed in th
e way encouragementnf hisothe late
success. "
ItN 00-sPpnonnetr yn' cry
s'
for-
in oe
nt tiewnntehe adt
sins thenindffie
cbiantnet otnn
e thefr
iAv
ndldnruess s
precautionsL or d Stan
ne
yy
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 fJI 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
owpoe
dn d wenn
tw
share;er were unwillingt
so
neennceosus raar
yg
who have been opposed to Lord Stanley's policy, that
et
an
r ai
rnmd inallwhich
e
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 for it. With Protectionists in office, it would
have been no time to wait for their aggression on the
principle's 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
themselves, 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 consiitutional 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; and Lord Stanley, after putting forth his
utmost strength, has been compelled to confess its insuf-
ficiency. Two courses, at least, still remain—the re-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 to
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 colleague,
are by no means equally unanimous in their willingne,s
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 col&
deuce of less cautious politicians. The Manchester party
is well aware that the supposed leader of the supposed
Ministry has often endangered the peace of the country,
while he has never given pledges to the cause of free-
trade on which sufficient reliance can be placed. One
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
sati,fied by this time that the statesmen to whose pa
triotisrn appeals may probably be made are unduly
eager for office. It remains for all who may be invited
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 an 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 eveiy 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 that
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
y esterday fallen foul of the incoming Minister by as un-
fair an attack and in as deliberate a manner. This
journal distinctly asserts, not as a matter of gossip, not
even under the suspicions 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 recon-
n w tohf
ht
iws oo
wonf p
rSi inro
pRI
e. s
an d feel's
of
hl i
iesu toe nwann t
ps
nat.!
t
We do not expect
ctt
yhi
.ei a expensetivv
e
smhwuahemninedethss
that
atoorf r
direct
gare
aen
teTent
szr.
tmgah
csn,
oe c
withrob
ruu ert
c wealtekaeol
nfleontwphn politicaluenl
ebn knowledge
gireconceal
sinf ni
asoici
onstnnts
newirbhceaniy3cs,
hot anntinidt st
journalhn
s
nc of n
itst e mi
npt oe rl
lai
gr ieens o--e
snd
hnu
ldpridesn itself o
ta tleastupo upon the authenticity e
ndes
vnn r tn
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 to
the residence of Mr. Disraeli, where he remained with
that Honourable Gentleman an hour; after which he
returned home—and that late in the afternoon he called
upon Lord Canning. Can the limes reconcile this,
their own account, with the statement of yesterday, to
which we now direct the attention of our readers? In
the second place, the limes informs the public that Mr.
Gladstone iirrived in town on Wednesday morning at,
past eleven o'clock, and that soon afterwards the Right
Ron. 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
commends to construct a Cabinet for the purpose of
carrying en the Government of this great empire, in
a true of unexampled difficulty, and at a crisis of no
common danger, remained perfectly inactive from
eleven o'clock on Tuesday morning until past twelve,
on Wednesday, with the sole exception of calling on
Viscount Canning ? The known activity and busuisss-
like habits of Lord Stanie y at once give the contradic-
tion to such en assumption. Slothful neglect of any
duty has Dever till this moment been 180 to his charge.
We cannot say that we have been savoured with a pe-