The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-26 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—The Ministerial announcement yesterday
was two-fold. First, there was the formal state-
ment—little more than a repetition of what was said
a week ago—that Lord Russell had tendered his re-
signation, that it had not been accepted, and that
nothing could now be determined or said till he had
seen her Majesty, which he hoped to do to-day at
noon. This left open all the floating conjectures as
to resignation, dissolution, modification, or what
not. Another announcement has been made, not
so formal, but yet important. We yesterday pre-
pared our readers for it, and might, indeed, have
prepared them for it earlier, had we shared the
general want of reserve which seems to have cha-
racterized this crisis. As every one now knows,
there has been an attempt to provide for Govern-
ment that means of retreat which from first to last
they professed to cut off from themselves, and
proudly rejected when offered. Mr. Gladstone had
burnt his ships and his bridges, and thrown aside all
impediments. So when the check came he
found himself without even the means of in-
trenching himself in the face of a foe. We as-
serted, and still assert, that the vote of yesterday
week was not a vote upon confidence, and that it
need not have been fatal either to the Ministry or
to Reform. The Opposition most consistently
maintained that upon a division in favour of a
rateable franchise the figures would remain to be
settled, and they ought to have been taken at their
word. No doubt, there was the intention to delay
and obstruct, and finally defeat, the measure if pos-
sible, but intention counts for nothing in these con-
troversies. At all events, there was the question
whether, by Parliamentary rule, Government should
be considered as having lost the confidence of the
house, as well as all hope of carrying the bill. It
was open to them to force a decision upon the new
question which had arisen, whether they possessed
the confidence of the house or not. The truth is
that Mr. GLADSTONE has so frequently talked as if
the fate of the Government, the Parliament, the
Constitution, and the nation was trembling in the
balance at each detail of the bill, that his words had
lost a little of their effect ; and when he chose to
say that the question between rateable value and
estimated rental had a political import, inasmuch as
it touched the numerical result of the bill, people dis-
regarded the threat, and went by their own common
sense, knowing that it did not really determine the
number to be enfranchised. Ministers, however,
were not sufficiently calm to consult wisely for them-
selves and their bill, and nothing would satisfy them
but to throw up their cards, and accept the position
of injured individuals. Hence the announcement
of last Tuesday. The delay, however, afforded time
for the reflection and deliberation that ought to
have come earlier, and that now could hardly fail
to be too late. They and their friends, among
them, at whose lead it boots not to say, arranged
that Mr. Crawford, one of the members for the City,
was yesterday to give notice of a motion, the terms
of which were well weighed and approved, for an
address to her Majesty, expressing full confidence
in her Ministers and assent to the principles of the
Reform Bill, but praying that, under the circum-
stances, the subject might be put off to another ses-
sion for further deliberation than was now possible,
and pledging the house in that case to support a
measure for the extension of the franchise, and for
transferring it from small and decaying constituen-
cies to large and flourishing populations. We be-
lieve we may say that till yesterday afternoon this
arrangement was accepted ; a majority of 40 or
more was confidently reckoned on, and everybody
was preparing his part in the new movement. But
when the Cabinet separated, shortly before 4 o'clock
yesterday, all this had been undone, and a Lord of
the Treasury conveyed to Mr. Crawford a message
declining his aid. It was too late for the operation,
which was one that also required great delicacy of
treatment. Ministers were under an engagement
to do nothing of a political character till they made
their decisions and their explanatious, and they
could therefore have nothing to say to a movement
intended to rescue them from their difficulty. They
were under the terms of an armistice, and that
would have been broken by any movement con-
nected with them. Had any independent member,
or anybody assuming independence for the occa-

sion, given notice of such a motion without concert
with the Government, it might have been enter-
tained. But such tact would have been singularly
out of character with the whole history of this bill.
The upshot is that the scheme of a vote of confi-
dence is at an end. This is the week's work, and
such is the result. A Government which has inces-
santly complained of delay has revenged a single
night's debate upon a most important question, and
one upon which they had themselves held different
opinions, with a week—aye, more than a week—of
absolute trance and suspended vitality. It is by the
act and deed of Ministers that the debate has been
adjourned from Monday, the 18th, to next Thurs-
day, the 28th, the very first day on which the de-
bate could now by possibility be resumed. That
makes it impossible to proceed with the bill, and
this is a question upon which the announcement
to be made this afternoon will be superfluous. On
this point curiosity needs no satisfaction. On other
points we have to hear something. Will Go-
vernment resign ? Will it dissolve ? Its own feel-
ings must have suggested before this that for such
complete and gratuitous mismanagment there is only
one atonement. Whatever comes of it, a Cabinet
that has thrown away such a cause, such a majority,
such confidence, and such personal dignity into the
bargain, ought to mark its sense of its error so
strongly as to make all hope it is wiser now. If
Lord Russell and Mr. Gladstone think they have
done their part well, and that the fault is in the
Opposition or the independent members, they must
be incorrigible. Of course, nothing but a dissolution
will satisfy some reformers. An appeal to the con-
stituencies, the opening of many thousand public-
houses for political discussion, and the prospect of
some hundred thousand people being kept idle for a
fortnight in July, afford a hope of that excitement
which has so long refused to come. No spontaneous
combustion, no latent heat, no subterranean fire, has
been so long in showing itself. Reform is like the
gunpowder treated by the new invention, and can-
not be induced to explode or become the least dan-
gerous. The several particles puff and fizz a little,
but the mass smoulders or smokes, and goes out as
soon as it is let alone. You may pile Reform moun-
tains high, apply burning faggots, throw in shells,
and even introduce a few ounces of the real mate-
rial, but Mr. Bright's patent Reform will not go off,
as anybody may see who will look in at the window
of his terrible magazine. But a general election
may do something, if only because nothing else
will. No matter what harm it may do. Not
only members of Parliament, but tradesmen, mer-
chants, employers of labour, and the very nume-
rous and respectable classes dependent on regular
pursuits and steady industry, exclaim against it.
From a hundred unsuspected quarters one hears
the fervent prayer that there may not be a general
election. It is quite as likely to lose votes for Re-
form as to gain any ; and we cannot suppose that
English gentlemen will consent to swear to the de-
tails of a bill at the bidding of the most vociferous
mob orator. Nor is there any case for a dissolu-
tion that can be justified into a constitutional pre-
cedent. There has been discussion, not over much ;
there has been delay, for at least half of which
Government is itself responsible. But the chief
principles of the bill have not been rejected, and the
question of confidence has not even been submitted
to the House. There is, then, no cause for dissolution
until Government may choose to obtain a case by
challenging an adverse vote either on the bill or on
themselves.,

HERALD.—The Ministerial announcement of yes-
terday confirmed the anticipatory rumour which
had been in circulation for the greater part of last
week. Having obtained the Royal permission to
disclose what had passed between the Sovereign and
her advisers, the chiefs of the Government informed
Parliament that they had tendered their resigna-
tions ; that the Queen had hesitated, under exist-
ing circumstances, to accept them, and had thought
consideration and consultation necessary ; that she
had found it requisite to have a personal interview
with her Ministers, and that she had accordingly.
left Balmoral yesterday afternoon, and had com-
manded their attendance at Windsor for one o'clock
to-day. Such being the case, the two Houses were
invited, and of course agreed, to adjourn till this
evening, on the understanding that by that time
some decision will have been reached. We cannot
say that the result of the week's delay, such as it is,
can be considered satisfactory. The plain truth is
that during the adjournment proposed by Ministers
on Tuesday last nothing whatever has been done ;
all that ought to have been decided and effected in
that time has been postponed till to-day, andfor the
first time during many years a Ministerial crisis has
been prolonged by seven whole days of almost ab-
solute inaction. The delay which has taken place
in so critical a state of things, both at home and
abroad, is most unfortunate; and though we are
not disposed severely to censure the omission of the
Ministers to give to their Mistress advice appro-
priate to the circumstances, we cannot but feel that
it is most unhappy that the Queen should have no
counsellor who can and will, at such a juncture,
advise her with perfect freedom and frankness,
and without regard to party interests or Parlia-
mentary tactics, as is best for the dignity of the
Crown and the convenience of the public service.
This want is the more apparent because it is but
too plain that the present official advisers of the
Crown fail in that unselfish and conscientious
loyalty—that scrupulous care for the constitu-
tional position of the Sovereign, and determination
to sacrifice thereto all party and personal conside-
rations, which is the first duty of English states-
men. Lord Melbourne displayed a similar defect
of principle in 1839, and secured for himself a two
years' prolongation of power at the expense of the
royal dignity, and of that reputation for impartia-
lity which it is so essential that the Sovereign should
maintain, and which during the rest of her reign,
aided and guided by the tact and constitutional in-
stinct of the Prince Consort, her Majesty has so
well upheld. The error of the " Bed-chamber plot"
is, it would seem, regarded by Lord Russell and
Mr. Gladstone not as a warning, but as a precedent.
They are disposed to drag the name of the Queen
into a political contest, and represent her as a par-
tisan, in order to make her well-earned popularity
and the respect which Parliament and the nation
are ever disposed to pay to her, available to bolster
up their damaged reputation and reconstruct their
shattered fortune. If they think, on reflection, that
they can go on, they have prepared the way for the
withdrawal of their resignations under shelter of the
royal name. This is at once grossly disloyal and
grossly
unconstitutional. Ministers ought to make
it their first object to maintain the recognised im-
personality of " the Crown" as regards party con-
flicts ; to preserve the habitual and established
silence as to the personal actions and words of the
Sovereign. The only royal words, will, or acts of
which Parliament can be cognisant are those which
are uttered, expressed, performed through the
Ministry. If Ministers retain office, it is they who
have advised the Queen to retain them, and if they
have done wrong in retaining office, the censure
fall on them, and on them alone. To attribute
their conduct to the commands of the Queen is
to violate the first rule of constitutional govern-
ment ; it is to make themselves irresponsible and
the Crown responsible. It is a course, moreover,
as unfair to Parliament as to the Queen. For if a
Minister comes down and says to the House of
Commons, " I tendered my resignation, and her
Majesty refused it," what follows? One of his
party rises to move a vote of confidence ; and the
house is placed in this position that those who re-
fuse to join in that vote put themselves in persona'
antagonism to the Sovereign ; and if the vote were
rejected the House of Commons would almost in
express terms have passed a censure on the Queen.
Ministers have no right to do anything of the kind ;
and we cannot but hopeand believe that the rumour
which suggests that they intend in this way to cover
their resumption of office is unfounded. They have
gone too far already in throwing upon the Queen's
personal reluctance to part with them the responsi-
bility of the delay which has already occurred. No
vote of confidence would assail the honour of the
Ministry if they should resolve to break the solemn
pledge they gave to stand or fall by their Reform
Bill. For that pledge was not given to the house
or to the constituencies, but to those who are not
represented in the house ; to those aspirants to the
electoral franchise whose numbers and enthusiasm
are so highly rated, whose wrongs are so keenly
felt by Mr. Gladstone. Nor was the pledge given
without reason. The non-electors might have been
perfectly quiet and content if no promises had been
made to them, considering how very low the quali-
fication already is, and how clearly the franchise is
within the reach of any skilled artisan who is really
anxious to possess and willing to strive for it. But
in 1859 the Liberals made large promises ; they
went so far as to turn out a Conservative Govern-
ment on the mere question of the borough franchise;
they excited the expectations of the working class,
they came into office expressly to carry a Reform
Bill, and then they threw Reform overboard. Mr.
Gladstone felt that it would not be safe to repeat
the farce of 1860 ; it might be perfectly possible
to shelve the question, but it would not do again
to trifle with it. He was, we think, wrong to
bring in a Reform Bill this year;
.but having de-
termined to bring it in, he was right to reassur
those whom in 1860 he had helped to deceive and
disappoint by promising to stand or fall with the bill
of 1866. But having made that promise he must
keep it. The faith of the non-electors, and of the
country at large, in the honour of public men and
in the sincerity of reforming statesmen, would be
annihilated if a Liberal Ministry were to shelve a
second Reform Bill, after a solemn pledge to carry
it or to resign. The rejection of a Radical Reform
Bill by its avowed opponents provokes no distrust,
no exasperation ; but its abandonment by its authors

would create that utter unbelief in Parliament an,

id

in Parliamentary Liberalism among the working
classes, of which Mr. Forster spoke as consulting a
real public danger. What is, perhaps, more to the
present purpose, that feeling would be fatal to the
personal position and political career of Mr. Glad-
stone. He has broken with the old Liberal party,
he has quarrelled irreparably with the Whig families,
he has alienated the Liberalism of the educated and
the rich—let him disappoint the Radicalism of Bir-
mingham, and break faith with the democratic ele-
ment of the manufacturing districts, and he will be
left politically isolated, without a party and without
a future. There is no reason whatever for hesitat-
ing to part with the present Ministry ; no reason,
at least, that can be avowed in Parliament and ap-
proved before the country. They are pledged to
resign ; they are dishonoured if they remain. They
are not by any means superior, either in debating
power or in administrative capacity, to the Conser-
vatives. Mr. Gladstone apart, the leading Conser-
vative statesmen are by common consent abler and
more popular than those to whose places they would
succeed. Nor have the present Ministers any
longer a majority in the House of Commons—they
have alienated, disgusted, and broken it up. There
is but one respect in which they can be preferred to
their rivals ; they have not a different foreign policy,
but different sympathies and proclivities. If, then,
they remain in office it will' be supposed that they
owe it to these sympathies ; that the constitutional
usage of England has been set aside and a parlia-
mentary vote overruled in order that a Government
agreeable to Prussia and to France might retain
office at the present juncture—in order that the
rulers of England may be men known to sympa-
thise with the wanton disturbers of the peace of
Europe. Such a suspicion could not fail to produce
the worst possible moral effect, and yet such a sus-
picion could not fail to arise if it were announced
to-night that " the Queen had declined to accept
the resignation of her Ministers." We are glad to
believe that such an event is as improbable as it
would certainly be disastrous.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

COLCHESTER-JuNz 23.

There was a small supply of wheat at market to-day, and
the market was in a most excited state ; but few farmers
would sell at all, and the business done was at 5e per qr
advance. Beans, peas, and oats continue scarce, and quo-
tations are rather improved.

Wheat, white. 58s 63s Beans, Mazagaii......4os 440
red 548 560 Middle and small_ 42s 46s
Barley ... 34s 43s Peas, white 388 420
Oats ..... ... —s —8 grey............368 4211