The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-12 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

THE " SATURDAY REVIEW " ON MR. GLADSTONE'S
LEADERSHIP. —The papers inform us that on the
first day of the Session the new leader of the House
of Commons slipped into his place unnoticed and
uncheered. Modest exordiums have generally
characterised Mr. Gladstone's speeches, and it is not
inconsistent with the probability of a future career
not less striking than his past career that he com-
mences a new phase of Parliamentary life in the
most undemonstrative fashion. Apart from the
sagacious modesty which did not court notice, there
are other considerations which suggest reasons why
he should not excite enthusiasm. Mr. Gladstone's

nature is, not to excite enthusiasm, but rather to
repel it, except in the heat and glow of vehement de-
bate. It is only when he is warmed by the spirit of
advocacy or attack that he inspires his followers
with sympathy. It would be erroneous to say that
his is a cold temperament. Undoubtedly he has feel-
ings both strong and warm ; but the heat is latent,
and has to be conducted through many devious and
conflicting channels of calculation and refinement

before it comes into contact with other natures. In

the tempest of debate he kindles a glow in his sup-
porters which, however, rarely outlasts the occasion
that called it forth. It is this.,absence of a uniform

and permanent sympathy which, above all things,
distinguishes Mr. Gladstone from Lord Palmerston,
and which bids fair to give a peculiar character to
Mr. Gladstone's leadership of the house. No one
would describe Lord Palmerston as a man of strong
emotions. He did not belong to the class of men
who are remarkable for the gushingness of their feel-
ings and for incontinence in their expression. No
one ever could imagine those moments, precious to a
certain kind of disposition, when Lord Palmerston
would interrupt the even flow of his speech with spas-
modic outbursts of sentiment or with a painful effort
to command feelings which he was unable to express.
Neither is it easy to recall occasions on which the
late Premier soared into the higher regions of Par-
liamentary eloquence. The ordinary style of his
speech was conversational—indeed it was very
generally commonplace. But commonplace as it
most frequently was, free as it almost was from
eloquence, and free as it always was from any
emotional element, it did certainly find its way to
the hearts and feelings of his hearers. Not often
heated, and never excited, by his theme, Lord Pal-
merston could at times create in his followers an
enthusiasm which to the external world must have
been wholly inexplicable. The truth is, that the
character of the man himself was so well known,
his instincts were so familiar, that a very few words
sufficed to conduct his meaning to his audience.
They had already anticipated the purport before
the words were fairly out of his mouth, and the
form of the words was a secondary matter. In his
case there was an understanding between the
speaker and those whom he addressed—such an
understanding as must always subsist between a
frank and genial man and other men who are in
habitual intercourse with him. On any great sub-

ject it was not difficult for members to know what
Lord Palmerston's sentiments would be ; their
enunciation in the house, therefore, touched a chord
which was quite ready to respond. Was it a sub-
ject of foreign policy which affected the honour of
England ? Then Lord Palmerston would speak as
a patriotic English gentleman. Was it a matter of
delicacy to which it was expedient for the time to
give the go-by ? Then Lord Palmerston gave it the
go-by in the light and easy way in which men of
the world dismiss questions which it is inconvenient
to treat at length. Whether he was explicit or re-
served, he had a sympathetic following, because
both his reserve and explicitness were characteristic
of a disposition thoroughly known and intelligible
to the house. Now this is the very reverse of
Mr. Gladstone's character. He can both edify
and amuse the house by a disquisition on
finance such as Lord Palmerston had neither the
power nor the wish to attempt. He can interweave
figures of rhetoric and flowers of poetry with the
details of a budget with a success which Lord Pal-
merston could never have attained. And in some
of the greatest conlicts of modern debate he has
shown himself always equal, and sometimes supe-
rior, to the greatest debaters of this generation.
Still, with all these advantages, the success with
which he will lead the House of Commons is a pro-
blem equally to his friends and his foes. It is not
enough to constitute the leader of the Government
in the House of Commons, that he should be the
most forcible or the most graceful of speakers ;
neither is it sufficient that he should be the most
felicitous of financiers. A knowledge is required
greater than the science of finance or the art oZ
speaking—the knowledge of mankind and the know-
ledge of one's own self. In both these Mr. Glad-
stone is eminently deficient. Had he known more
of human nature, it is only consistent with common
charity to suppose that he would not have seized so
many occasions for irritating it; that the escapades
of the Exhibition buildings question would have
been avoided, and the inauspicious attack on Mr.
Sheridan foregone. And if Mr. Gladstone's eccen-
tricities have furnished grounds for the belief that
he has little of that knowledge of mankind without
which no one can hope to be, we will not say an
orator or a statesman, but even a great member of
Parliament, they - have fostered in a still greater
degree the conviction that he is eminently deficient
in that knowledge which the Greek sage averred had
descended from heaven. Of course, it would be
hypercritical to censure any modern statesman for
having modified his political doctrines in the course
of a long political life. None of the statesmen who
have held high office within the last thirty years
could hope to win a flitch awarded to undeviating
consistency. Not to speak of the present leaders
of the Conservative party, Wellington changed
his creed, Peel changed his, Sir James Graham
changed his. But in each of these cases the
change was slow, painful, and reluctant. Who can
conjecture the suddenness or measure the extent
of his inconsistencies ? It is not his liability to
change his mind which inspires his followers with
alarm and his opponents with amazement, but the
extent of his changes, and the subtle refinements by
which he justifies his conversions. Young politicians
of the rising generation are probably ignorant that
Mr. Gladstone entered Parliament the child and
champion of advanced Toryism ; that country
rectors regarded him as devout French Catholics
regard M. de Montalembert, and that country
squires trusted in him as their fathers had trusted
in Perceval or Eldon. But older politicians will ask
themselves how it is possible to predict the muta-
tions of a statesman who, having in his youth claimed
for the State the adjunct of a religious conscience,
appears not unwilling in his riper years to do justice
to Ireland by abolishing her Established Church,
and who, having in mature life volunteered an
apology for pocket boroughs, not five years after-
wards courts and obtains the applause of the advo-
cates of universal suffrage ? And if this inconsis-
tency of action startles men, still more alarming is
that fatal faiihty of argument, that ready enuncia-
tion of abstract doctrines applicable at the shortest
notice to any purpose of the moment, which has
often been remarked upon as a characteristic of Mr.
Gladstone's oratory. That he will always find
reasons for any line of action which it may suit him
to adopt with regard to any public question what-
ever, probable enough ; but it is precisely this
inventiveness of reasons which makes his leadership
so terrible to his followers. They do not know what
he may be able to persuade himself of at any given
moment of his life. They are always living in fear
of some fresh discovery in political philosophy as
remarkable and as unexpected as that of the abstract
right of all mankind to vote at elections. Is it
wonderful that his followers shrink in dismay from
the guidance of a chief whose peculiar power of
seeing many sides to a question precludes his adhe-
sion to any one side, and who, having thrown off
the mantle of Oxford Toryism, may, for aught they
know, be about to emulate O'Connell in Ins Irish,
and Mr. Bright in his English, policy ?
THE SPECTATOR ON CABINET CHANGES.—The
Cabinet is, we believe, the stronger for the resigna-
tion of Sir Charles Wood. Earl de Grey as his
successor will probably do well. He has none of
Sir Charles Wood's special deficiencies, he starts
oddly enough with considerable Indian popularity,
and he has one special qualification—immense expe-
rience in the most important function of his office.
The Times says he has all to learn, but the Times
forgets what the business of the Indian Secretary-
ship is. Its most important department, the one
section of the work in which there is no room for
blundering, no margin for mistakes, is simply War-
office work over again. The Indian Army has to be
reorganised and contented, and if Earl de Grey,
who built the Volunteer force, is not fit to do that,
he is not fit to be a Cabinet Minister at all. We
believe that he will do it, will set himself boldly to
the wearisome task, and will if left long enough in
office convert that huge, miscellaneous, discontented,
inefficient machine into a smaller, highly paid,
strictly disciplined, mobile organisation. Nobody
except Lord Ellenborough could be expected to do,
it better, and he would be certain at the outset to'
break his official neck over some bizarre crotchet
which all his eloquence could not explain away.
The appointment is unexceptionable, and with Mr.
Stansfeld to explain the department in the Com-
mons, to make the Budget interesting, and Boo-
tanese despatches readable, to restore to Indian
affairs that touch of colour and romance which
really belongs to them, and to bring the Imperial
accounts out of the chaos into which they perma-
nently tend to fall, India will occupy a far
more prominent place than it has lately done
amongst successful departments. The coun-
try will probably be more surprised than the House
at the sudden elevation of the Marquis of Harting-
ton to the Ministry of War. It is not often

that a man of thirty-three is appointed one of
her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, still
less often when he has previously won no
Parliamentary campaign. The Radicals will mutter

with justice that it is a great thing to be an heredi-
tary chief of the Whigs, that Cavendishes seem to
be above experience, and that it is only commoners
whose elevation excites a howl of annoyance. Still
Premiers must take the world as they find it, par-
ticularly when it seems to them the best of all pos-
-ible worlds. England is governed in quiet times
by its great proprietors, among them few have a
greater place than the Duke of Devonshire, and if
the heir of the Cavendishes will do, ceteris paribus
he is sure to be selected first. If he is not, he has
cousins.enough and seats enough to make the slight
very dangerous, not to speak of the sympathies of
caste. Lord Hartington will do undoubtedly as
Secretary at War, may do, for aught outsiders can
tell, when on Earl Russell's retirement the Vice-
royalty of the Whigs falls, as it in all human pro-
bability will, to him. He has been three years
Under Secretary, and though he will never be a good
speaker till he has cured himself of an unfortunate
habit of repeating one sentence while he thinks out
the next, his term of office has been a considerable
success. Very patient, very industrious, and with
a prodigious memory, he can answer in succession
a dozen savage interpellations, so that those who
throw them are effectually put to confusion. He
has only to display some power of initiative to be

an efficient minister, and if he is a minister earlier

than he otherwise would have been, why England
is a thousand years old this year, and has never
broken either with the dynasty or its great vassals.

He is, moreover, in name a commoner, and we have
at last one of the great spending departments repre-
sented in the only house greatly interested in pre-
venting waste. Lord Dufferin will of course be the

Under Secretary for War, an office for which the

India House is no bad 'training ; and as to Mr.
Monsell, he is as a representative man a distinct
gain, the Liberal Catholics having been most un-
fairly neglected, and as an administrator can by no
possibility make mistakes. On the whole, all cir-
cumstances considered, the changes now announced
are beneficial, introduce younger blood into the
Cabinet, and enable it to meet an excited and
vigorous Opposition with less exclusive reliance on
the abilities and popularity of a single man. Mr.
Gladstone, Mr. Goschen, Lord Hartington, Mr.
Villiers, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Forster, and Sir Roun-
dell Palmer, ought to be, and if well handled will
be, a most dangerous phalanx to meet in Parlia-

mentary strife. -
THE "LONDON REVIEW" ON LEGISLATIVE LIVERY.

—Aristotle has written a chapter on hats, and, in
later times, the learned Professor Tcufelsdrockh has
developed, at considerable length and with great
power of reasoning and wealth of illustration, his
famous " Clothes-Philosophy." No one who has
ever sipped (if it were no more) of the waters of
wisdom from these sacred fountains, will think the
question raised by Mr. Bright a light one, when he
submitted to the judgment of the re-elected Speaker
the proposition that members of the House should
be permitted to pay their respects to that function-
ary at his levees, and share in his official hospi-
talities, in the conventional costume which society
at large recognises as the proper evening dress of a
gentleman. The gravity of the subject was imme-
diately appreciated by Mr. Gladstone when he
solemnly deprecated requiring an " off-hand"
answer to a question that evidently demanded such
serious and deliberate consideration. Pending the
decision which it awaits, and will await perhaps a
little longer, from the sole authority who is compe-
tent to solve so difficult a problem, it is open to
men of speculative minds to consider it in some of
its most obvious relations, and to submit, if they
think proper, their reflections to those who are
chiefly concerned as well as to the public at large,
who are, on their part, at liberty to give them as
much or as little consideration as they may seem to
deserve. Into the general question of official c 05....
.... . .

tume, we do not now require to enter. It is true
that the propensity to appear in " decorated ap-
parel," whether in the gorgeous uniform of a
marshal, or the grande tenue of a senator, or simply
with the little bit of red ribbon at the button-hole
that marks its wearer as one who has been enrolled
in the illustrious ranks of the Legion of Honour, is
stronger amongst our neighbours in France, and in
other continental nations, than it is in this country ;,
but we all at the same time habitually feel the propriety
of having certain orders, and grades, and classes, dis-
tinguished by a peculiar dress, and no true British felon
even could be hanged with credit to himself or satis-
faction to the spectators, if the judge who tried him
had appeared in court without his wig, or had
omitted to substitute the black cap for it when
passing sentence. The narrower question which we
are now endeavouring to discuss is simply that
which has been raised .by Mr. Bright, namely,
whether members of the House of Commons' ought
to be excluded from the official receptions and en-
tertaiments of the Speaker, if they do not make
their appearance in court dress or in uniform. On
the one side, it is stated that the custom at present
existing has been handed down by immemorial
usage, and it is contended that, in still conforming
to it, the members of the house are only perpetua-
ting an observance which maintains the high dignity
of the gentleman who presides over their debates,
and, by consequence, of that house of which he is
the head. On the other side, it is argued that the
dignity of the house or of its Speaker would suffer
no diminution by the abolition or modification of a
rule which excludes from the Speaker's levees and
dinners many Members of the house who are sin-
cerely desirous to show him every mark of respect,
and who would be perhaps amongst the most agree-
able and welcome of his guests, but who either
cannot afford the expense of providing a set of
habiliments which they can wear but seldom, or
object to make themselves ridiculous, no matter in
how honourable a cause, by assuming a dress that
better befits a field-officer or a flunkey, and in
which they seem to lose the sense of their own
identity. An eminent literary and political charac-
ter is said to have once advised a parvenu who asked
him how he was to conduct himself in society, where
many things were so new to him, to " wear a black
coat and hold his tongue." A member of Parlia-
ment cannot justly be expected always to hold his
tongue; and even the wearing of a black coat of the
correct cut, accompanied by the usual white neck-
tie, is a test of real gentlemanliness which few can
safely risk ; but it is better, after all, to look like a
waiter than like a fool. The late Mr. Cobden
committed himself to too republican a sentiment
when he spoke of " the barbaric pomp of royalty ;"
buc he did a sensible as well as a bold thing
when he appeared amongst the Commis-
sioners at the opening of the great Exhibi-
tion of 1851 in the simple costume of an English
gentleman. He was bien distingud, as Talleyrand
said of the unstarred and unribanded Lord Castle-
reagh at the Congress of Vienna. It was consistent
with this conduct that he should refrain on prin-
ciple from attending bhe Speaker's receptions, as he
was not permitted to appear there in a dress which
did not offend the eyes of his Sovereign on a great
occasion of public ceremony.. It is clear that no
argument of an analogical kind can be drawn from
the fact that an official dress is worn by the judges
and members of the bar when they attend the
levees of the Lord Chancellor, or by officers of the
army and navy, when, under similar circumstances,
they pay their respects to the Commander of the
Forces or the First Lord of the Admiralty. Bar-
risters and officers have a professional and official
costume, members of Parliament have none. If a
Q.C. were to appear among his brethren in attend-
ance on the Chancellor in the uniform of the
" Devil's Own" so astounding an innovation would
expose him to universal reproach or ridicule. Yet,
in itself, it would not be a greater absurdity than
the figure a merchant, or manufacturer, or banker
cuts when he arrays himself in military scarlet and
gold. The "intelligent foreigner" who, from the
Speaker's gallery, hears a member so apparelled
dilate—when moving or seconding the Address—
upon the blessings of peace and the horrors of war,
is scandalised and perplexed. Such sentiments
amaze him, coming from one whom he takes to be,
at the very least, a general of division. The
Speaker has several courses before him in solving
the question which he has been called on to decide.
He may leave things as they are, which will not
only perpetuate but increase the dissatisfaction at
present existing. He may suggest or prescribe the
adoption of a peculiar official costume by members,
which, though a logical proceeding, would make
matters rather worse. He may leave it to the
judgment of the members themselves individually
whether they shall wear uniform, or court dress, or
simple evening dress. This is all Mr. Bright de-
mands ; and if it be true that such a liberty was
conceded by Speaker Abercrombie, we think it
would be unreasonable in Speaker Denison to re-
fuse it. He may, if he prefers it, have two classes
of receptions—grand or full-dress receptions, and
ordinary ones. The first levee of the session, and
, the entertainments prescriptively given to the lead-
ing Ministers and leading members of the Opposi-
tion might belong to the former class; all other
levees and dinners to the latter. Or, finally, he
may "go the whole hog," and make it a rule to
receive his visitors and guests on all occasions that
they present themselves in the proper dress of gen-
tlemen.
THE " ANGLO-AMERICAN TIMES" ON THE GOOD
QUEEN.—The conductors of this journal have more
than once explained to their readers that it is beyond
their province to touch upon ordinary events in
Europe, but that they propose to devote themselves
exclusively to American topics. The present week,
however, has witnessed an event which we feel
called upon to notice, and that is the return of the
Good Queen to public life. Americans are not

accustomed to reverence royalty for the sake of
royalty, but they yield to no other people on
earth, not even to Englishmen, in their respect, their
reverence, their love for Queen Victoria. They
can understand, and they do understand, the de-
voted attachment of "the English nation to their
Sovereign, for she is a woman whose fame belongs
not only to England, but to every household in
Christendom where there is a Christian wife or
mother. They are willing, therefore, to sympathise
with the British people—to congratulate them and
to rejoice with them—on her Majesty's re-appear;
ante among her faithful and loyal subjects. Rau
Queen Victoria lived in the mediaeval ago
she would have been honoured in her lifetime and
canonised after death for those sublime qualities
which are so conspicuously illustrated in her life and
character. "In that fierce light that beats about a
throne and blackens every blot," she is spotless. We
cannot understand-that " luxurious sorrow" of which
some English journa.ls speak in connection with the
long seclusion of their Queen. She has sorrowed
like a true wife—like a true woman ; and although
the matter does not concern us, still we cannot but
feel that in some instances the English Press has
committed an impropriety in alluding,
in any other
than the most respectful terms, to that great Grief
which, indulged in b.v the Royal Lady of Britain,
gives her a new grace and a new dignity. The
loss of the Prince Covsort was no common loss
—it deserved no common sorrow. He was, first
and last, oPlt whom the world could ill afford
to spare. A patron and friend of art, a promoter
of education, a statesman of rare ability, a
pattern of moral excellence—if any man has ever
lived to illustrate manhood and to ennoble it,
surely that man was Prince Albert the Geed;
But he was more than this—he was a husband and
father who should be a model to all husbands and
fathers; and the widow who still deplores his loss
should be made to feel that Time, which gently
assuages all griefs, cannot blot out or obliterate frail
the minds of the British people the remembrance of
what he did for England, of what he did for civilisa-
tion. We have alsoto acknowledge on the part of the
American people the ready sympathy of the Queen
with them, and her appreciation of the grand rev"
which has been achieved by the American strug-
gle—the abolition of slavery in the United States.
We feel assured that her Majesty's Speech, and
that portion of the debate thereon which referral
to America, will be read with lively interest 1/
Americans, and that they will cordially respond
the most earnest desires of the British people —an
with them pray for the long life, peace, Kapp
and prosperity of the Good Queen.