The Sun.
London, England, 1834-05-29 00:00:00

3PIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS

It is by no means a ground for dissatisfaction
that two more resignations of cabinet ministers—
namely, the Duke of Richmond and Lord Ripon—
have followed those of Mr. Stanley and Sir J. Gra-
ham, and have been accepted by his Majesty; nor
would it be matter of surprise or regret, if one,
two, or three others should be added to the list,
although we are not aware that such an event is to
be regarded as more than a possibility. Doubts are
said to be entertained respecting the intentions of
Lords Melbourne and Lansdowne, the former of
which noblemen has, it is everywhere allowed,
gained reputation since he came into of as Home
Secretary, while the latter has either survived or
exposed the fallacy of that which was once ascribed
to him. If the above lords and gentlemen have
been unable to comprehend the necessity of that
Adjustment of church revenues which, of all others
that have ever been proposed, must appear to most
men of comtson sense the most desirable, and in-
deed etc most inevitable, of course the best
stg,i, they could take for the public was to de-
tscend from a position where they had remained to
no other purpose than the obstruction of the na-
tional business, and the embarrassment and punish-
ment of their colleagues. For the motives of two
amongst them—the two first who resigned—we
have the most sincere respect, because they were
manifestly conscientious and honest, consistent and
undisguised throughout, and founded on a reverence
(however misapplied) for those principles by which
all property is protected. Mr. Stanley, at the same
time, has declared his resolution to give the same
general support (save only on these church ques-
tions) to Lord Grey's Government as while he
ferried a part of it. r How Sir James Graham may
act in that particular has not been stated on any
od authority ; but we should scarcely think the
right hon. baronet will take a direction opposite to
that of Mr. Stanley. But what excuse can there
be for the other retired or retiring ministers, who
have not the same scruples with regard to
Irish 'church property as those of the two
whom we have mentioned, who on former oc-
casions have shown themselves not besieged
by any such stubborn tenderness of conscience, nor
declared their repugnance down to the latest mo-
ment ? What is their conduct but one of two
descriptions—either a weakness which shrinks from
responsibility, however enjoined by the gravest
public duty, or a determination to join the cry and
swell the ranks of the anti-liberal party, and thus to
check (feeble and short-sighted as they are), the
giant march of practical reform through those de-
pArtments of the State which suffer most cruelly
from the want of it ? The secession of men capa-
ble of being actuated by either species of feeling, at
a time like this, must be looked upon as a relief to
any Government professing and designing to serve
the cause of liberty. Let, however, who will aban-
don the service of the country at this exigent and
critical season, there are at least two Ministers who
we are assured will not—Lords Grey and
Brougham. These two, should they be left un-
supported, which is by no means likely, are
sufficient to constitute the nucleus of a Li-
beral Cabinet, of which the growth to maturity
would be an easy and rapid process. With re-
spect to Lord Brougham, the rumours in the anti-
Liberal quarters prove the soreness and alarm of
that mortified faction at the prospect of the learned
lord's strict adherence to his duty. They tell us
he will join the band of ministerial deserters. We
tell them we are sure that he will not. Such a step
on the part of Lord Brougham at this moment
would be an act of treason to the people of Eng-
land, and of suicide upon his own character. If
Lord Brougham had no enlarged or upright prin-
ciples to decide his conduct, we should have ample
security for his rectitude in the learned lord's posi-
tion. What would be Lord Chancellor Brougham
but as a chief among the reformers of law, and
church, and constitution ? What would be Lord
Brougham, once stripped of that public confidence
which he has achieved for himself—he, an uncon-
nected and unfriended individual, no otherwise known
than by the application of extraordinary attainments.
and perhaps by endowments more extraordinary, to
the promotion of popular knowledge, of popular in-
terests, of equal rights, of rational freedom, and of
liberal and wholesome government ? The learned
lord's supposed devotion to this great cause is the
vital principle of his political existence. Divest
him of it, and he falls lifeless to the earth. Who-
ever else, therefore, may abandon the Sovereign.
the Prime Minister, and we must add, the nation,
at such a juncture, it is certain that the Chancellor
cannot. His identification with the cause of the
people has mainly rendered him what he is. His
separation
from it, but for a day, would destroy his
fame—that is, his power—irretrievably. It is ob-
vious, nevertheless, that a weighty duty devolves
upon Lord Grey and his abiding colleagues, viz.,
the selection of useful successors to those from
whom they have been released. It will not do, we
must tell them frankly, to fill the vacant chairs
with the blind, the lame, the impotent, the help-
less. The new members of the Cabinet must
be men of bold, robust, resolute, consistent, and
straightforward characters. They must be one
and all effective, or the whole will be a failure.
There are so many nervous arms, so many Hercu-
lean sinews, under the direction of wily and in-
veterate spirits, at work in active hostility against
all good and valuable legislation, that the people of
England cannot any longer tolerate, and will not, a
single faineant among the high functionaries of the
state. We have never seen abroad a temper of
more anxious—we fear we must say suspicious—
watchfulness, in relation to the new appointments
to be made by Lord Grey for the completion of his
imperfect cabinet. Not one, but every one of the
vacancies will be closely observed, and the nomina-
tion to it unceremoniously canvassed—an ordeal of
scrutiny for which, we devoutly trust, the noble
earl and his colleagues will show themselves pre-
pared by the fitness and excellence of their selec-
tions from the political world. We shall not follow
the example of other journals which have been free
enough with the names of public men on this occa-
sion, but shall abstain from publishing any names at
all, knowing, as we do, that not one appointment
nor person has yet been definitively fixed upon.—
Times.

The real and exclusive resignations in the Cabi-
net are those of Mr. Stanley, Sir James Graham,
the Duke of Richmond, and the Earl of Ripon ;
viz., the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the
First Lord of the Admiralty, the Postmaster Ge-
neral, and the Lord Privy Seal. The King has
graciously accepted these resignations ; and we be-
lieve we may confidently assert that Lord Grey has
the full and voluntary consent of his Majesty to se-
lect the successors of the retiring Ministers. A
more responsible or difficult duty never devolved
on a British subject. The state of public opi-
nion—the position of parties—the dissonant charac-
ter of the two branches of the Legislature—all the
r'lations of the country, agricultural and commercial,
domestic and foreign, combine to increase the heavy
responsibility of the Premier. We fervently hope
that experience will not be despised. A correspon-
dent in the Globe of last night has boldly stated the
past errors of a Cabinet wanting in unanimity of
opinion and deficient of resolution in action :
" Should the Government of Earl Grey be now
dissolved, the cause of its dissolution will be its ina-
bility to move with the moving power which it has it-
self created. Since the first meeting of the reformed
Parliament, Ministers have sought to conciliate the
Peers rather than to satisfy the people. This error
arose from the influence of old associations, and from
failing accurately to observe the nature and extent of
the change which the Reform Bill effected in the dis-
tribution of political power. By the Constitution, the
House of Commons holds the purse-strings of the
nation ; and, consequently, the preponderating and
prevailing power of the State must rest immediately
in the House of Commons, and ultimately in the
i con-
stituent body by which the House of Commons s re-
turned. Before the Reform Bill, the Peers returned
a majority of the Commons, and were, in fact, the
constituent body, to which, upon an ultimate gpeal,
the supreme power of the State belonged. Hy the

Reform Bill, a majority of the House of Commons is
returned, not by the Peers, but by the 101. house-
holders; and therefore from the former to the latter
the preponderating and controlling power of the State
has been transferred. Formerly, that which was willed
by the Peers became law ; now, that which is willed
by the 10/. householders must become law. Against
the House of Commons, while acting in harmony with
the constituent body, the House of Peers is powerless ;
and a Minister supported by a House of Commons
thus acting could not be displaced though all the
aristocracy of England were combined and arrayed
against him. On the other hand, when a Minister, in
seeking to strengthen himself in the House of Lords,
loses the support of the House of Commons, or
leads the House of Commons to lose that of the con-
stituent body, he undermines and destroys the founda-
tions of his power. This is the conduct which mini-
sters have latterly pursued. Influenced by early as-
sociations, and by the recollection of things that have
passed away, Earl Grey has leant upon his order for
support, forgetful that his order is not what it was.
He has almost lost the substance, in grasping at what
is now a shade. Let him take warning from the past,
and let him take counsel from the enlightened noble-
man by whose aid he framed the Reform Bill, and
who, of all our public men, seems most fully to com-
prehend its working. Lord Durham has shown, in
his several public declarations, how accurately he can
estimate the value of the new constituency, and how
necessary it is to the peace of the country that the
government should be placed in harmony with that
body which returns a majority to the House of Com-
mons. This is the one thing needful. If the ministry
be not re-constructed so as to effect this object, dissatis-
faction must increase, and other and sweeping organic
changes will be demanded. It is no longer possible to
stand still. The alternative is, the inclined plane or
the_precipice—gradual improvement or revolution."
Up to a late period last night no appointments or
plan for the re-formation of the Cabinet had been
determined. We believe that all the leading po-
pular members of the House of Commons, and a
large majority of the representatives, are fully aware
of the critical circumstances attending the dismem-
berment of the administration, and sensible that
Lord Grey will stand in need of all the force which
he can possibly combine in the existing state of
parties and public opinion. Titular names and
" middle men " will only form temporary jury masts,
to be carried away by the first political storm. All
personal and private considerations must be sus-
pended in the choice of the successors of the re-
tiring ministers. The exigencies of public affairs
require the selection of public men in whom the na-
tional constituency and the reformed House of Com-
mons may place implicit confidence. All minor dif-
ferences of opinion—all petty jealousies and indivi-
dual objections, must give way to imperious necessity.
A party ministry can no longer maintain itself in
power or satisfy the nation. Whig, Tory, and Ra-
dical, are nick-names out of fashion, and no longer
applicable as generic distinctions of public men. The
country is divided into two sections of political sen-
timent—reformers and anti-reformers. A reform
administration can alone hold the helm of the vessel
of the state, rolling in the storm of European poli-
tics and rapid social changes. Five-sixths of the
House of Commons are men of decidedly liberal
opinions, and no member of a government of real
promise and unquestionable reform character need
fear his constituents, however divided and disap-
pointed the electors have been in the last twelve
month§„ The British people are too sagacious not
to discern their real interest ; their confidence has
ever been liberally given when sincerely sought and
really deserved. Lord Durham, Lord Radnor, Mr.
Ellice, Sir John Cam Hobhouse, Lord Mulgrave,
Lord Duncannon, Mr. Abercrombie, and many other
eminent persons may be enlisted in the public ser-
vice. The selection and prominent position of such
public men will alone obtain the confidence of the
country under its present critical circumstances.
Unless such decisive changes are made it
would be far better to recall the departed Ministers;
inferior successors would only insure bitter disap-
pointment and public odium. A numerous, power-
ful, well-organised, and preponderating class of the
constituency—the dissenters—must be propitiated,
and their reasonable claims to equal rights must be
fully conceded. In this imminent political position
of the country we again urge the general public
conviction that a temporary, patchwork, juste milieu
administration will do irreparable mischief, and
come to an early and miserable end. A govern-
ment must now be formed re-uniting all sincere re-
formers, and consonant to the opinions of that de-
cided majority which demanded and successfully
carried a reform of the representation—which re-
turned five-sixths of the members of the House of
Commons ; and the reformers will ask throughout
the country—who so capable and essential to meet
the emergency of the times—to realize the objects
of parliamentary reform, as Lord Durham, Lord
Radnor, and other public men who have
been the consistent advocates of civil
freedom, and whose principles were adopted
in the recent reformation of the representa-
tive system ? The Cabinet must have an infusion
of energy and force, or under present circumstances
it will be the weakest and shortest administration of
modern times. There is one question which the
people constantly ask—what is the use of parlia-
mentary reform, if men only are to be changed, and
all the old abuses are to remain ? No Ministry
formed upon the principle of giving this question
the go-by can possibly be permanent. The Ministry
must be in harmony with the nation ; and there is
as little prudence and foresight in opposing the just
demands of the people, as there is in a rash and
precipitate overthrow of everything established
merely because it is established. In fact, all history
shows us that an obstinate resistance to reforms and
improvements only tends to give additional impetus
to innovation, whereby more extensive changes are
made than wisdom would sanction, as the stream
which is arrested in its course at last carries every-
thing before it. We have an example of this in
Ireland, where blind resistance to the claims of jus-
tice has only precipitated the fate of the Protestant
Established Church.—Morning Chronicle.
" Mr. Stanley and Sir James Graham," says our
contemporary of the Standard, " have resigned
their respective offices, upon British and Christian
principles. and set a noble example to future states-
men,—an example which will redeem the country,
if any individual efforts of human virtue can have
that effect." We adopt the sentiments and ex-
pressions of our learned and eloquent fellow-
labourer. Our approbation,—our confidence,—
will not be wholly without value in the eyes of Mr.
Stanley and Sir James Graham ;—for they know
that we are not very ready to praise, nor very prone
to trust. But, having gratified our feelings by the
expression of our deep gratitude to these two men
for the noble part they have played, we turn to
exercise our judgment in the consideration of the
results which the part so played by them will
produce in the country. Hitherto the Mi-
nistry has been divided between two prin-
ciples. There have been the assailants of pro-
perty on the one side, the defenders of it on the
other ; here were the lovers of monarchical institu-
tions, there the admirers of republican theories—
Sir James Graham did not differ more widely from
Sir Robert Peel than from Mr. Poulett Thomson ;
Mr. Stanley was not more opposed to Sir Richard
Vyvyan than to the " person discreditably known
in the city on account of his connection with the
Greek Loan." This division of opinion has often
made the Ministry ridiculous, but it has more
often made the Ministry powerful. The weight of
public confidence which the Cabinet derived from the
support of Mr. Stanley and Sir James Graham was
very great. Sir James Graham, we are assured,
conducts the business of an office with admirable
judgment. Mr. Stanley, we know, masters the
difficulties of debate with singular dexterity. But
the reputation of the two friends for moderation
and for integrity gave to the Cabinet a support
which it could never have derived from all the in-
dustry of the one, or all the genius of the other.
How many persons are there within - the circle
which each of our readers best knows who have
supported the government because of their reliance
upon the worth and the wisdom of those who have
now abandoned it. If a measure was denounced

as revolutionary, how many were there to exclaim
" Sir James Graham cannot be a friend to revolu-
tion." If a design was condemned as fraudulent,
how many were there to reply, " Mr. Stanley can-
not be consenting to a fraud." But there is no
longer a division of opinion in the Cabinet.
In whatever manner it may be re-constructed,
it is henceforth avowedly and unmixedly
radical ;—in principle republican, in practice
revolutionary. It would be a miserable delu-
sion to suppose that this question concerning
the appropriation of the Irish tithe is the only
question upon which one section of the Cabinet has
been opposed to the other. Upon other topics of
scarcely less momentous importance, we trace symp-
toms of equally distinct hostility. It is impossible
to explain the tone used by the government upon
the revision of the Pension List, upon the repeal of
the Septennial Act, upon the adoption of the ballot,
but by the hypothesis that upon these questions the
intemperate precipitation of the one party was con-
trolled by the scrupulous morality of the other.
The ministerial journals, for the most part, hold
this language. They assert that the removal of the
retiring ministers will produce an alteration not
only in the course of the government upon the
bill which has occasioned that removal, but in
the general policy of Earl Grey's administration.
At this juncture, therefore, it behoves every man
who has supported hitherto this administration to
consider well the grounds on which he has supported
it. It behoves every man who has professed con-
fidence in the ministers to reflect in what individuals
he has in fact confided. Many honourable and
conscientious men have supported the administra-
tion : have they supported it in the anticipation of
safe and moderate reform, or in the desire for cer-
tain and convulsive revolution ? Many noble and
opulent individuals have placed trust in the minis-
ters : have they trusted Sir James Graham, in the
best sense of the word a gentleman,—Mr. Stanley,
in the best sense of the word an aristocrat,—or
have they trusted Mr. Poulett Thomson, whom
Manchester will not make a gentleman, and Lord
J. Russell, whom birth has not made an aristocrat ?
The choice may, must, now be made. For those
who are honest enough and bold enough to leave
the banners they have served under when they
become unworthy of their service there can be no
opportunity like the present. They have for their
cause the assertion of the most solemn principle that
ever was yet called into question by the temerity of
political ambition. They have for their example
the conduct of men wl.ose talents are universally
acknowledged—whose probity is universally esteem-.
ed. Those who call themselves moderate reform-
ers, those who deprecate violent measures, those
who' shrink from causeless innovation, those, in
short, who, loving liberty, value the Constitution,
and, hating corruption, abhor also anarchy, can
scarcely expect a fitter occasion for the profession of
their faith than this, when their leader is Mr, Stan-
ley, and the Protestant Church their watchword.—
Morning Post.
Nothing certain is, we believe, yet known as to
the filling up of the vacancies in the Administra-
tion ; many rumours are, however, afloat. To state
them all would be endless and contradictory work ;
we shall therefore content ourselves with noticing
the arrangement which was most generally received,
and which, upon the ground of rational conjecture,
appears to have been most deserving of credit. To
the names of Mr. Stanley and Sir James Graham,
the original seceders, have since been added the
Duke of Richmond and Lord Ripon. So far all is
certain. But in the disposal of the vacant offices
there is a great deal of doubt—at least, a great deal
to justify doubt, until the authoritative announce-
ment shall have put an end to speculation. The
following seemed to us the best guess of the day :
Lord Althorp to take the Colonial-office, and Mr.
Spring Rice to succeed him as Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer ; Lord Carlisle to be Privy Seal, in the room
of Lord Ripon ; Lord Mulgrave to he Postmaster-
General, in the room of the Duke of Richmond ; and
Mr. Ellice or Mr. Abercron-ibie Lo he rirscLOrdoithe
Admiralty, in the room of Sir James Graham. We
should not wonder if the press had to congratulate
itself on the accession of Lord Durham to the
ministry, for his lordship's name was talked of as
likely to come in. But this gives us more place-
men than places. So much for the prevailing
rumours. Though the question which produced
the rupture of the administration is of far more real
importance than the patching and repairing to
which it has given rise, the latter is of some im-
portance too, for on its strength or weakness will
depend, In a great measure, the success of the
question itself. Upon this, however, as we have
already stated, all is mere conjecture. One thing,
however, is certain, that unanimity in the cabinet
with respect to the church and other questions is
the object of the pending arrangement, and if that
object be effected the strength of the government
for good or for evil will be materially enhanced.
They may be weaker in debate, but they will be
stronger in purpose and in action. So much the
more necessary is it that their proceedings should
be narrowly sifted when they return to the helm of
affairs.—Morning Herald.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MAY 28.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL T. SHORE.

His LORDSHIP had read the judgment which his
Honour the Vice-Chancellor had delivered in this
case. It appeared to have been corrected by his
Honour, and it struck him, although the Unita-
rians said that they were entitled to participate in
Lady Hewley's bequest, and although the Presby-
terians said that they were entitled, that he (the
Lord Chancellor) and, what was of more impor-
tance, the House of Lords, might decide that nei-
ther of these sects were entitled, and that another
party, might be called in. The parties ought to con-
sider, if they went on cutting each other's throats,
that the Attorney-General might come in. If he (the
Lord Chancellor)found the matter doubtful,he should
call upon the Attorney-General and the heir at law of
Lady Hewley. The Court had a power to adopt
such a proceeding, as the House of Lords had ex-
ercised it in the Berkeley Peerage case, by order-
ing a party into Court, and by appointing the late
Sir Thos. Plumer as his counsel, whose client was
ultimately successful.
Mr. RoLFE said that the party for whom he ap-
peared had been struck by the probability of the
Attorney-General's coming in.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that at the times in
question many very peculiar religious opinions had
been entertained, and it was very probable that the
present case would mainly turn upon what had been
Lady Hewley's religious opinions. It was also pro-
bable that there might not be any such persons as
the godly ministers of whom that lady had talked.
He had made this observation, as it would be too
late to consider the point when the matter had come
to the House of Lords.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 28.

THOMAS V. SAUNDERS AND ANOTHER.

The Plaintiff moved in person for a rule to show
cause why the Master should not review his taxa-
tion of costs. The action was brought by Mr.
Thomas, an attorney at Carmarthen, against two
magistrates of that county, for maliciously commit-
ting him to prison on a charge of felony, or rioting,
during the last election. The circumstances of the
case have been frequently before the public. The
cause was removed by certiorari from Carmarthen
to Gloucester, and the Jury found for the defen-
dants, on the ground that they had not acted mali-
ciously, but in error. The plaintiff having failed,
the defendants, by the 7th Jac., cap. 5., were en-
titled to double costs. The Master, in his taxa-
tion, had doubled the costs occasioned by removal
of the action from Carmarthen to Gloucester, and
he submitted that the Master ought to review and
greatly reduce the amount of costs.
Mr. CHILTERN showed cause against the rule ob-
tained by Mr. Thomas.--Rule absolute.

FORRE v. WAGNOR.

Mr. KELLY moved to let aside the verdict in

Ithis case, and enter a nonsuit. The action was
brought by the plaintiff in forma pauperis to recove
901. A document was produced at the trial in the
hand-writing of the defendant, in these terms :
" Mr. Thomas Fosse—l 0 U the sum of 90/., havin
borrowed that sum of you this day. "G. WAGNOR.
" To be repaid in ten days."
Before he (Mr. Kelly), who was counsel for the de-
fendant, could see the instrument, it was handed to
a witness, who proved the hand-writing. In case
he had seen it before it was read, he might have
objected that it was a promissory note without a
stamp, and therefore it could not be received.
He was precluded from that objection after the
contents had been read, but he now came before the
court to snake the objection, and contended that the
plaintiff ought to be nonsuited.—Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAY 28.