The Sun.
London, England, 1868-05-06 00:00:00

SPIRIT OV,,THE PUBLIO JOURNALS.

The Times asks what the, House 'ought to think of its
premat position. There 'are two courses before it, and
no' third. The first is to resolve upon an immediate vote of
Avant of confidence. There are manyrea.sons in favourof this
course. It is constitutional enough to satify the soul even
of Mr. Bouverie. It is the natural translation into
language of that vote upon the Irish Establishment
which Mr. Disraeli and his followers cannot interpret.
Finally, we venture to hazard the suggestion that if it
were boldly resolved upon, and successfully carried,
Mr. Disraeli might still find insuperable obstacles in
the way of a dissolution, and it would not follow after
all. But there are two reasons against a vote of want of
confidence. Would it be successful ? This question may
be left to the ingenious gentlemen who are skilful in such
computations, but the answer is at least dubious. And
again, how embarrassing success would be ! Mr. Bright
justly criticised a statement that there are at least a score
of persons designated as members of the next Cabinet.
That was too moderate. The number is considerably
above that estimate, and, upon the most accurate com-
putation, is found to be nearer thirty than twenty,
and yet with all this plethora there is at least one
post of the highest dignity which could not at this junc-
ture be easily filled. It is indisputably for the interest of
the Opposition to let the Ministry continue in office, even
at the cost of the perquisites of power. The right of nomi-
nating bishops and the other patronage so often dwelt upon
on Monday and again last night are very precious ; but it
may be well to forego for a season even these almost
inestimable privileges. This leads us to the single
alternative of an immediate vote of want of confi-
dence. If the vote be not moved at once, the House
should zealously co-operate with the Ministry in com-
pleting the Reform Bills. They have the power in their own
hands, and they can compel success. It may, of course, be
said that they would act under the fear of a dissolution,
but is not a dissolution always possible in theory ? and we
have shewn that in this instance it may be disregarded in
practice. But if the Opposition loiter and hesitate, and
bre uncertain what to think, and spend night after night
in seasoning their pleasures with personal talk, they will
be unable to do what is now in their power, and the end of
the session will find the Ministry still in office and Reform'
not completed.

The Post complains that the world knows nothing if
the course taken or proposed to be taken by the Ministry:
What Mr. Disraeli really did say to the Queen is not
known. We do not know either where we are or whither
we are going. What the Government will do when Mr.
Gladstone's second and third resolutions are carried ; how
they will meet the address to the Crown which will be the
consequence ; when they will play the card of dissolution
which they are now fingering with such delicate hands
and with such a touching belief in its virtue—all this is
in the bosom of the future and of Mr. Disraeli, and we
can only hope that the interminable game of blindman's
buff run mad, which the Premier has for two years been
playing with the Parliament and the country, may soon
be brought to a conclusion in a peremptory and decided
manner.

The Standard answers the objections to the law laid
down by Mr. Disraeli, that every Minister has a constitu-
tional right to dissolve. In the first place, the question of
dissolution or resignation is not one for the Minister alone,
It is one which is pre-eminently within the personl
cognisance of the sovereign. It is her right to dissolve
Parliament whenever she believes than she can by so doing
obtain from the country the reversal of a vote which she
believes to be contrary to the public interest. It
is her right to refuse to dissolve whenever she be-
lieves that the country is of the same opinion with
Parliament, and that a dissolution would entail a
needless burden and trouble upon the public. In
this there is nothing inconsistent with the strictest
doctrine of Ministerial responsibility. That responsibility
does not reduce the Crown to a cypher, or limit its constP
'tutional prerogative ; it only requires that for every apt
.of the Crown some Minister should be answerable to Par.
'lament. And for a dissolution, or for refusing to dissolvo
some Minister is always answerable. Mr. Disraeli
strictly and solely responsible for the determination t(
dissolve now. If the Queen had declined to dissolve, Mr
Gladstone would have come into office, and would thereby
have made himself responsible for not dissolving. Thus
much we may say in passing, because language was
used in the House, though not by Mr. Gladstone, which
seems to imply a misunderstanding on this subject. •
Mr. Gladstone properly dealt only with the advice
which his adversary had rendered to the Crown. And,.
first, he affirned that the only thing which could justify a
Minister in dissolving was a belief that he could obtain
from the country a reversal of the verdict of Parliament.
This is true on the whole, but not without qualification.
There may be cases, and we think the case of the Irish
Church is one, in which it is not tolerable that any uncer-
tainty should exist as to the wishes of the country ; in
which a Minister is justified in refusing to allow a revolve
cionary change to be made by any less authority than
that of the nation, directly and constitutionally consulted.

The Daily News fears that the only effect of the publl
Cation of the second part of the Ritual Commission will b
to strengthen, like its predecessor, the party against whit.
it is directed. The Ritualists are at the present tim
appealing to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
as the highest tribunal having ecclesiastical jurisdiction it
the realm, to have the practices described in this secon(
report declared legal or illegal ; and while their appeal ib
pending the majority of the commission propose that the
usage of the Church, as they define it, " shall be
to be the rule of the Church." Fancy the
consequences of declaring of our churches that thi
thing which has been is the thing that shall be
We can all remember a score of abominations that hay
been got rid of during the last thirty years, which it woule
almost have been worth the inconvenience of a revolution
to get rid of, if the work could be done in no other way.
Who would go back to the days of the parish clerk
chanting his psalm to the lion and unicorn over against
him, to the three-decker blocking the view of the com-
munion-table, and to churchwardens' Gothic? The
Bishop of Oxford, the Dean of Ely, Sir Robert J.
Phillimore, Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Hubbard, and
the Rev. Mr. Gregory oppose " any attempt to
stereotype by legislation for perpetual observance
any use not actually enjoined." Mr. Coleridge and
the Dean of Westminster " will not join in any
recommendations which have for their single object the
attainment in the services of the Church of a rigid unt;
formity in matters not essential." Lord Beauchamp
thinks that a time when wide latitude in matters of doc-
trine is tolerated if not encouraged within the Church is
not suitable for curtailing a ceremonial observance to
which no superstitious meaning is attached ; and the Rev,
T. W. Perry will not sign the report, because he fears
that its proposals, so far from promoting peace, tend
towards provoking a strife which may seriously risk a dis-
ruption in the Church of England.

The Herald remarks that Charles Dickens has been our
ambassador on a message of peace and good-will. Among)
the intelligent classes of the Northern States his visit will
have done much to efface all heartburnings which have
arisen about the Alabama business, about Fenian sympa-
thisers, and naturalisation claims. The kindly words
addressed to him, and the kindly answers returned, are
so many fresh-forged links between the old country
and the new. It would be well if there were
more such visits, more such exchanges of sympathy
and cordiality between one country and the other.
We should thus learn, one and all, what we already be-
lieve, that there are as polished gentlemen in America as
there are in England ; that Americans are sobering down
into that tempered spirit which is the characteristic of the
inhabitants of older countries ; that they have gained
rather than lost in character by that fiery furnace of trial
through which they have lately passed. They will find,
on their part, that among intelligent persons in England
there exists no sort of prejudice or dislike, no jealousy of
America which would not be quickly dispelled by familiar
intercourse with men of our blood and kindred, whose
family relationship with ourselves we should at once
acknowledge. They must let us have our own views about
their civil war, our oven opinion as to the future of the
Southern States—questions on which we have been as
much divided as they are. They will believe that we do
full justice to the motives•which actuated them through.
out that tremendous struggle, that we respect them more
than we can say for their earnestness in it, for the devoted
and self-sacrificing spirit in which they carried on to so
triumphant a conclusion their championship of what they
regarded as a holy cause.

THE LATE ROYAL VISIT TO IRELAND.—As
recognition of the arrangements made for the reception
and entertainment of the royal visitors during their recent
stay at Dublin Castle, his Royal Highness the Prince of
Wales forwarded for distribution amongst the domestics of
the viceregal household the sum of one hundred guineas.
In addition, Mr. Bergh, the house steward, has been
honoured with the special gift from his Royal Highnes of
a diamond breastpin of considerable value. It is richly
set, and forms a prince's plume.

TIIE DIRECT COST OF PALTPERIS3I.—The sum
expended in the actual relief of the poor in England and
Wales during the year 1867 was £6,959,840, being at the
rate of Gs. 64d. per head on the estimated population. The
sum raised from the poor rates levied was .C 10,303,665; and
there were " receipts in aid " amounting to £358,523,
making a total of £10,G92,158 ; but of this sum £3,945,333
Al's expended for other purposes than the actual relief of
the poor—purposes which, in fact, have no coLne.tion
illiatever tin relief 9# the poor.