The Sun.
London, England, 1869-02-15 00:00:00

TIIE MINISTERIAL BANQUET.

Poor Mr. Bright always seems to be in bad favour
with the Press. The papers, Liberal and Conserva-
tive, have always some fault to find with him. He is
indiscreet, he is flattering, he has the manner of a
demagogue, he does not understand the responsibility
upon his shoulders, &c., &c. His speech at the
" Fishmongers" is no exception to the rule. It
might be expected that the Tory journals would have
their " little joke" over the injury done to his family
by reason of his love of politics; it would only be a
matter of course that writers on the side of the
Opposition would find a great deal of nonsense in
what he had intended for sense ; but it is not the
llera'd only, for the Telegraph and even the Spectator
find occasion for criticism in the oratory to which
the President of the Board of Trade gave utterance
on Thursday night last.

The Post does not doubt Mr. Bright's good inten-
tions. "Ile is no doubt a very plain and honest
man," but for our aristocratic contemporary he is
rather too earnest. Earnest men might be modest,
and Mr. Bright need not have said—as according to
the Post he did in effect say—" I thank Thee, 0
Lord, that I am not as these bishops are, with from
£5,000 to £15,000 a year, full of humour and merry.
I have given my life, I have sacrificed the interests
of my family to the interests of my country."

Like the Post, the Spectator wants to know why
Mr. Bright made an attack on the bench of bishops.
" On this occasion Mr. Bright wounded his audience
by feeble, acrimonious attacks on an order of men
absolutely unconnected with his subject. The
Spectator notes that he sat down without a cheer__
after making a hind of apology for his mistake.
The Telegraph has other faults to find with this
singularly unfortunate speech. Mr. Bright com-
plained that his advice was not taken by the
Cabinet. This complaint our contemporary thinks
was made in the wrong place altogether. It is his
business to work with hiscolleagues, not against them?
If he accepts office, he is not free to stand, as it were,
outside, and denounce official shortcomings with a
free tongue, proper enough in
" Such a speech is
its proper place, but that place is the Cabinet Coun-
cil, not the Fishmongers' ; and Mr. Bright is
woefully mistaken if he thinks that by denouncing
his colleagues out of doors he can relieve himself
from his own share of Ministerial responsibility.

The Conservative papers see in Mr. Gladstone's
statement that the policy of binding together the
three countries could not be carried out in one
measure—an admission that the Irish Church scheme
must take a long time to pass Parliament. The
Daily News corrects this criticism by pointing out
that the Prime Minister spoke not of any specific
measure or mcns-,:res, but of the moral effect of wise
and just leg-sl.ition. Tho 11-era.'crs criticism of Mr.
Gladstone is not altogether happy. Its complaint is
that Mr. Gladstone " vaunts the favour of the Queen."
.Mr. Gladstone simply s2oke of the constitutional
chip racter of her Majesty. He did not, as another
Premier has done, make himself out to be the special
favourite of IZoyalty.