The Sun.
London, England, 1858-03-01 00:00:00

TEIE NE 6Y CABINET.

11-_ • . .
(Pram the Daily Newt.) -
Before the new Ministers can take their places in
the House of Commons Lord Palmerston has in-
stalled himself—on his own nomination—in the
seat conceded by use and wont to the leader of the
Opposition. 'This assumption of office on his part
was cheered by his friends in the house •, and
already batteries have been opened on Lord Derby's
Government from the journals devoted to the in-
terests of the ex-Premier. Are the independent
members of Parliament, or is the country at large,
prepared to acquiesce in this usurpation ? Are they
willing to act on the understanding that there can
only be two Ministers and two party organisations
in England, and that office must be tossed back-
wards and forwards between them like a shuttle-
c.)ck between two battledores. Lord Palmerston
by res'gning has confessed that the vote of the
House of Commons on Mr. Milner Gibson's motion
was so severe a censure of the policy of his Adminis-
tration that he could not retain office under it. In
consequence of his resignation the Queen has exer-
cised her undoubted prerogative of entrusting the
business of the nation to a new Ministry. It would
be suicidal in the independent members of the
House of Commons who have just driven Lord
Palmerston from office to commence an immediate
• attack upon Lord Derby, without pausing to deli-
berate as to what is the beat course to be pursued
with regard to him, or who is the leader most
worthy of their confidence.
Before the independent members of the House of
Commons accept Lord Palmerston as a leader, they
will do well to pause and reflect what have been the
principles ostentatiously proclaimed of late by his
most able and influential organ in the press. On
the 11th 'of last month the Times indulged its
readers with an exposition of the view it takes of
the functions of an English Ministry and an Eng-
lish Opposition. After denouncing with scornful sar-
casm the line pursued by the then Opposition
with regard to the Conspiracy Bill, the Times pro-
ceeded to remark, with wonderful candour :—" We
don't wish to flatter the present occupants [of
the Opposition benches]. On the contrary we have
little doubt that if Lord Palmerston, Sir George
Grey, and the Ministers generally, found them-
selves on the other side, they would do the duties of
that position as welljas they are now doing their own.
We should have them suggesting a flaming mani-
festo as apretty compliment to send to the French
Emperor and Empress just witnesses of a fearful
carnage intended for themselves—informing them
for their comfort, that it was the custom of this
country to take its own time, and put itself out for
nobody, not even for an Emperor. We should
have Sir George Grey taking his stand on the
Nolumus leges Anglice,' &e., or some other wise
old saying ; or arguing that because too much was
done in Queen Anne's time, and no more than
enough in George lll.'s, therefore we ought to do
nothing at all. Some other member, now on the
Treasury Bench, would argue that if a word too
much had been said on the other side of the Channel
we ought to retaliate by doing nothing, and refuse
to take a step against murderers in revenge for long
tongues." And this tirade was wound up by a
recommendation to explain to the irate French
colonels the real value of debates in the House of
Commons. "Let them be instructed that a bill is
only a sort of thesis laid on the table of the House
of Commons, just as a proposition used to be written
on a slip of paper, and posted on the gates of a
University, or the doors of a school, to provoke a
disputation and to sharpen youthful wits. Let it
be explained that at Westminster we have still
opponents,' as they used to be called, while the
Government represent the 'respondents' of the
mediroval disputations. In those days it was no
unusual circumstance for the disputers to change
sides the day after, when each of them was expected
to improve on the arguments of his yesterday's
~ppenents, and generally did so. . . Such is our
Parliamentary system, and we are far from deny-
ing its merits. It is best to know both sides_ of a
, question and we have them in the debates the
Imperial Legislature, though, govern-
mentsfortunatel
fie,the
are obliged to take only ono side—that
practical one."
It is not ie9possible that many of the readers of
the Times Ay have regarded the "leader" from
which we have been quoting as merely a playful
caricature, an ebullition of irrepressible animal
spirits excited by the triumph of a large majority.
But the course which has been pursued by the
Times,.since
the division on Mr. Milner Gibson's
motion, must have convinced even the most chari-
table, that the article in question is a cynical
avowal of the scandalous opinions and principles of
action of the Party in behalf of which it is penned.
OA the MY raCniag after the division the Times