The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-10 00:00:00

Gammon and Vixen also ran.

Betting-6 to 4 agst The Norman, sto 2 agst Neophyte,
3 to 1 agst Gammon, 8 to 1 agst Vixen, and 10 to 1 agst
Plumper. Won by a head; a bad third.

The Glasgow Plate of 50 sous; for two-yr-olds, Est; three,
Bst ; four and upwards, 9st ; mares and geldings allowed
31b ; certain penalties and allowances. Hopeful Stakes
Course.
Lord Stamford's Little Lady, 2 yrs, 6st 41b (in. 71b ex.)
(Edwards) 1
Mr. Jacques's Viscount Brignall, 2 yrs, Gst (H. G rimshaw) 2
Mr. Swindell's Limeflower, 2 yrs, Gst (J. Adams) 3
The following also ran :—Billy Banks, Beethoven, Bal-
namoon, and La Belle Alice.

Betting—Even on Little Lady, 2 to 1 agst Viscount
Brignall, 7 to 4 agst Limeflower, and 7 to 1 agst any other.
Won by a head ; four lengths between the second and
third.

The Chesterfield Plate (Handicap) of 100 sovs ; winners

extra. On© mile.
Mr. Coleman's Amsterdam, 5 yrs, Bst 41b.... (Edwards) 1
Mr. H. Lambert's Rescue, 3 yrs, sst 111 b .... (Parsons) 2
Mr. H. Jones's Melior, 3 yrs, Est (Doyle) 3
The following also ran :—Andy, Tom Thumb, Hegira,
Black Cloud, and Corona.

Betting-2 to 1 agst Amsterdam, 3to 1 agst Black Cloud,
5 to 1 agst Tom Thumb, 10 to 1 agst any other offered.
Won by half a length ; a length between second and third ;
bad fourth.

CABINET SECRETS.

(From the Times.)

To-day we have a little tale for little people
The correspondence of Lord John Russell and
Earl Grey gives the comforting assurance that
Ministers are but men, that Cabinets are not
always happy or even well-regulged families, and
that eloquent declamation is sometimes Tr cant to
hide serious misgiving. There is too much truth in
the metaphor which makes a stage of public affairs.
Here is a peep behind the scenes ; or, rather, the
actors, throwing off their robes, advance to the foot-
lights, and disburden themselves of at least a dozen

years' "hoarded " grudges. The other day Lord
Grey, in his remarks on Reform, vindicated, if not
his outward consistency, his settled convictions, by
showing that Lord John Russell had forced this
question prematurely upon Parliament without the
concurrence of his colleagues, and that he had him-
self never gone along with him. The two state•
ments, that it is all Lord John Russell's doing, and
that Lord Grey has always been otherwise than
hearty is the cause, are so manifest, so notorious,
that our readers would pass very lightly over the
passage which repeated this trite information. Our

reporters evidently, at the close of a long debate,
detected no novelty in that portion of Lord Grey's
remarks, and condensed them with freedom.
Though, happily, they have preserved the order of
events, they have not given the intervals as care-

fully as the delicate nature of the subject required.
Thinking it a thrice-told tale, and a revival of ideas
distressingly familiar, they slurred over a history
which the two actors concerned find it necessary to
contemplate with the minutest regatd to chronology.
On Thursday night Mr. Walpole, taking men and
things on common report, and having a very correct
appreciation of these two noble lords, quoted the
passage in Lord Grey's speech as he found it, and
quoted it against Lord John Russell, to prove that
the demand for Parliamentary Reform had not
sprung from the people, but from Lord John him-
self, and was the result of his own political neces-
sities. The appeal to Lord Grey's speech was really
superfluous. It was only made for the rhetorical
purpose of introducing what schoolboys call " autho-
rity" into the theme. It was something to find a
witness to a notorious truth in one of Lord John's
own colleagues, himself the son of the great statesman
under whom Lord J. Russell worked the Reform Bill
of 1831. The quotation was at least ornamental.
Mr. Walpole, however, seems to have forgotten that
to evoke Lord Grey was to provoke Lord J. Russell,
who was only too glad of the opportunity of deny-
ing the statement with characteristic brevity and
simplicity of language. Lord Grey resents the
denial, quotes our report, states more fully what he
actually said, and asks what Lord J.Russell denies.
Lord John replies that his denial was on the sup-
position that Lord Grey had referred to his speech
on Mr. Locke King's motion in 1851, when there
had been repeated discussions in the Cabinet on the
subject of Reform, and when it could not be said
that he was taking his colleagues by surprise. As
Lord Grey had, in fact, referred to speeches three
or four years previous to that date, while Lord
John says he has searched in vain for the first in-
timation of a second Reform Bill, he is happy to
withdraw his denial.

Ilere, in our humble opinion, the matter might
have rested. But " the beginning of strife is as
when one poureth out water," and the course of
Lord John Russell's researches led him not only
to his own forgotten speeches, but also to Lord
Grey's. Unfortunately for the cause of political
veracity and Christian charity, two capital hits pre-
sented themselves, which Lord John Russell was not
the man to pass by. With unwary candour, Lord
Grey had referred to his own harassed position at
the Colonial-office as his reason for not deserting
his colleagues, even with the prospect of a Reform
Bill, on their return to power after Lord Derby's
failure. This recalled to Lord John's recollection
the pleasing circumstance that he had had a good
deal of work to do to defend Lord Grey's adminis-
tration of the colonies, as he does not omit to remind
him. Unfortunately, as our readers will agree with
us, the consciousness of unrequited service, and pos-
sibly of a friendship exceeding the limits of true
patriotism, carries Lord John Russell a step further.
He little thought that while he was labouring to
back up Lord Grey, and attend him as his squire in a
tour through fifty colonies, Lord Grey " was all the
time hoarding up accusations to be used against
him 11 or 12 years afterwards, in a place where he
could not reply." Of course, this was meant only
for a private and privileged communication, but it
was a very pungent one. We are bound to say,
not only in charity, but in truth, that it is a slip
for which even Lord John must be sorry, Lord
Grey may well be able to remember that he was
against any revival of the Reform agitation, and
annoyed at Lord John Russell's putting his foot
into it without a word to his colleagues, and yet be
guiltless of the ungrateful intentions ascribed to
him.

The chief feature of the correspondence, however,
is one which reflects but little credit on either of
these statesmen, and is calculated to throw a new
light on political oratory. It is quietly assumed
that several speeches, or rather series of speeches,
were more or less insincere, and merely made to
serve a turn against the inward convictions of the
statesmen themselves. Lord John Russell does not
tell Lord Grey with how much heart he defended
his colonial administration, but he certainly leaves
it to be inferred that he found the task a hard one,
and one that might deserve some oblivion of his
ownrer soffences.More
very Conservative
x y
character
speeches during the troublous period of 1848-1851,
Lorde
ofn his Russellovcn
and evidently feels that a sacrifice to the respecta-
bility of political life is not a mere truckling to a
morbid sentiment. Lord Grey also makes his con-
fessions. He played the part of a reformer ; he re-
presented Lord John Russell's measure of 1852 as
the necessary fulfilment of pledges forced upon his
colleagues by the success of independent reformers
and the temper of the times. On that occasion he
said not a word of Lord John Russell's temerity,
or his tendency to spontaneous legislation. It was
necessary, he says, to make the best of the case:
Lord John had done the same for him at the colo-
nies, and he could not but help Lord John through
a Reform Bill, little as he liked it, These are

revelatioiss which contrast strangely with the
high-stilted tone of Parliamentary eloquence ?
Are they to be entirely believed ? Perhaps a middle
course between the speeches in Parliament and these
angry palinodes will hit the truth nearest. Ben
statesmen may be doing injustice to their public
sincerity, while they are exaggerating their pri-
vate claims the one on the other.
But one is tempted to ask how much of this sort
of work is going on now, and what sort of revela-
tions shall we have 11 or 12 years hence. We can
easily imagine letters of that date to " Dear Mr.
Gladstone" or " Dear Lord John," reminding them
severally of avowed dislike, but friendly support of
the commercial treaty, the budget, and the ten-
penny income tax, of the £6 franchise, or of the re-
peal of the paper duty. It is no secret that on all
these questions the Cabinet has been fiercely at.
variance. Mr. Gladstone and Lord John will have
much to say for themselves, they will be able to
quote largely from _Hansard, and will be met by
the candid admission that it was all fudge, and
that, as these follies had been taken in hand, there
was no choice but to go through with them. When
we give a general support to a government, but
criticise this or that measure ; or when we urge the
passing of a measure under existing circumstances,
with the confession that we do not like it, and
think it might have been avoided, the half the
world that eat, drink, sleep, and abuse the Times,
set it down to venal inconsistency. Yet it seems
better than publicly advocating measures through
thick and thin, and then reminding their authors
ten or twelve years after that such dirty work de-
served a better reward. An admission of insince-
rity comes with neither grace nor use twelve years
after the act.

(Front the Daily 11rews.)
No wonder Lord John Russell has thought it
necessary to publish his correspondence with Lord
Grey. No wonder if after the publication of that
correspondence Lord Grey thinks it unnecessary
to make any statement thereupon in the House of
Lords. Lord Grey, as it appears from the monu-
mental pages of Hansard, was at least a consent-
ing Reformer in 1852, when Lord Grey was also
a Minister of State. The same noble earl is

something more than a silent anti-Reformer in
1860. Eight years may have made him a sadder
and a wiser man, but Hansard survives all

changes of opinion, whether Ministers or of
malcontents, and to that mute perennial witness
Lord John Russell, with a painful singleness of
purpose, appeals. Some weeks ago Lord Grey was
explaining at length to his hereditary brethren the
reasons which had induced him to acquiesce in the
Reform Bill of 1852, and he then declared that
" the original difficulty" from which all reform
bills, present and to come, had sprung, wns the
gratuitous and unauthorised avowal by Lord John

Russell, as head of the Cabinet in 18179, that "the
time was come when a change might be made in
the measure of 1832." According to Lord Grey,
the fellow-minister of Lord John at the time, this
untoward expression of opinion fell from the lips
of the -First Minister without the privity or con-
sent of his colleagues, and with Lord Grey's ex-
press disapproval. Lord Grey, as Colonial Minis-
ter, had, it is true, consented, with extreme reluct-
ance, to remain a member of an administration
thus pledged to a policy which he condemned.
But why ? Because the Cabinet was "on the eve of
falling." We are honestly anxious to do justice to
this characteristic stroke of chivalry. If the days
of reform are over for our hereditary Whigs, let us
at all events have the satisfaction of showing that
the days of chivalry are not dead for them. No ;
though Lord John had, with that intrepidity which

glories in danger, nailed the colours Of Reform to
the mast, Lord Grey, though only a prisoner on
parole, and owing nothing but a forced allegiance
to her flag, determined to stick to the sinking ship,
and to desert the flag only in the event of living
to do so. He acquiesced in the introduction of the

bill because h© Was persuaded (we use his own
words) that it had not the remotest chance of pass-
ing. He took the pledge because he felt sure it

would never be kept:
Be voila pourquoi votre fille est maette. This is
why Earl Grey opened not his mouth against re-
form in 1852, but actually consented as a Mini.iter
to the introduction of a bill by the head of the

Cabinet. Not that he was v.bsolutely dumb.

This,

of course, the laws of chivalry wculd not have per-
mitted. On the contrary, as Lord John Russell

reminds him, Lord Grey made, in his ministerial
capacity, a speech on the Address to the Cl own, in
February, 1852, apologising very ably and cmclu-
sively for the introduction of the Reform Bill, and
demonstrating exhaustively that its introduction

hi,d become a sort of moral necessity. In that ad-
mirable speech Lord Grey was not content with ex-
pressing freely and distinctly his own complete and
unreserved adhesion to the bill, but with prophetic
ardour he cut the ground from under the feet of any
renegade or reactionist in days to come who might
plead the " apathy" of the people as an excuse for
withholding a measure of political justice. Lord
Grey's words on this point were valuable when
spoken in 1852 ; in 1860 they were quite inestimable.
We never have understood the precise meaning of
the eulogy so often bestowed by the critics on great
dramatic artists of whose performance there is no-
thing new to say—"h4 surpassed himself" As-
suredly no other form of words so exactly expresses
the difference between the Lord Grey of 1852 and
the Lord Grey of 1860. The progress backwards,
if we may be allowed the phrase, is immense. Here
is the Lord Grey of eight years ago. At that date,
remember, he was a Minister of State ; he is speak-
ing of a Reform Bill introduced by the Head of the
Cabinet " without any previous concert or commu-

nication with his colleagues," of a bill which had
his own entire disapproval. Mark how he de-
nounces Lord Russell's rashness, exposes a hasty
inconsiderate pledge, and deplores an ill-timed and
uncalled-for violation of the settlement of 1832 :

"Now, my lords, let me point out the real cir-
cumstances of the case. Three years ago, if I re-
member rightly, various motions were made in the
other House of Parliament, and obtained that house
a consideratle d,gree of support, not only from those
who voted for these measures, but in the expression
of an opinion by gentlemen of great weight and in-
fluence, that experience had shown that there were
defects in the Reform Act which required further
legislation. My noble friend feeling the force of these
remarks and of public opinion, and seeing defects in
the arrangement of the Reform Bill which had not
answered the expectations of the country, thought it
right to express his opinion that a time might come
when it would be proper to make some alteration
in the existing laws relating to the franchise. My
noble friend expressed that opinion in the strongest
manner, and particularly after the noble proofs that
were given in 1848, by all classes of the population,
of loyal attachment to the Crown and to the exist-
ing institutions of the country. My noble friend
expressed that opinion as far back as 1849, and
since that time has had to combat various proposals
made in the other House of Parliament for altera-
tion in the Reform Act. But it was my noble
friend's opinion that if in combating these proposals
for hasty and inconsiderate alterations in the Re-
form Act he had not expressed himself in favour of
future improvements, he would have shaken the
foundations of that great settlement of our consti-
tutional rights. My noble friend said, and Ithink
he was right, that he was not averse to well con-
sidered amendments. But it was impossible that
lie could take this line in combating those proposi-
tions, which he looked upon as dangerous, without
thereby contracting pledges which he considered it
his duty to fulfil at a proper time: I ask, can there
be a better time for redeeming them than the pre-
sent ? Is not the very apathy of which the noble
earl speaks a sufficient reason for calmly approach-
ing the subject, and calmly considering what amend-
ments can be introduced ? Would that apathy
have existed if we had pronounced the Reform Bill
to be a final measure, and if he had said there were
no blots in it which we would attempt to get rid
of ? If he had taken that line, would there not have
been a very different disposition on the part of the
people of this country with regard to changes in
the Reform Act far less temperate than those now
about to be proposed ? I think it is a justification
of the line which my noble friend has taken, and
in which his colleagues joined."
Considering that this unanswerable justifica-
tion' of a new Reform Bill is eight years old we
are bound to give Lord Grey the credit of being a
man (at least eight years) before his time, and this,
perhaps, even more than Lord John Russell's
pledges, is the "original difficulty" under which—
as a posthumous anti-reformer—be n9w labours.
Now what is Lord Grey's latest interpretation of
this nescit reverti of eight years ago? As a confi-
dential hint to a brother Cabinet Minister it may
mean little or nothing; as a lifting of the veil
which shrouds the arcana of Cabinets from the
vulgar gaze it seems to us to suggest a curious doc-
trine of mutual responsibility. " You know per-
fectly well," writes the sometime Secretary of
State for the Colonies to his former chief, " that it
is the duty of a member of Government, when its
acts are attacked in Parliament, to state, as well as
he can, the reasons by which the Cabinet he belongs
to has been guided, eTen though sometimes those