The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-31 00:00:00

PIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

VROIII THE EVENING FAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—The Times this morning, in announcinlz
Mr. Gladstone's retirement from the Mini try, call,
it the most unforeseen and significant of the changes
which had been anticipated in the Administration. Sig-
bificant, to some extent, it is—but we must say, that to
term it " unforeseen" appears to us not to be paying any
high compliment to that gentleman's consistency. Be-
sides the exclusive Anglican churchmanship with which
his name stands especially associated, and with which
the lower Church views, and liberal velleities, as re-
gards Ireland, of his leading colleagues, exhibit a con-
trast which no longer admits of being palliated—how
could Mr. Gladstone take the prominent part in re-
versing, which he took in advocating, the policy
hitherto affected in favour of the colonial and free-la-
bour interests, as regards the admission of tropical pro-
ducts ? We have already laid before our readers some
intimations of this reversal ; and it is no more than we
should have expected of any man who desired to be
deemed of otherwise than as a mere tool—a mere '
mouthpiece of any opinions made up for him in his
office—that Mr. Gladstone, having been Sir Robert
Peel's right-hand man so conspicuously on one side of
these questions, should decline making volte face, in
.order to remain his right-hand man on the other.
It is less surprising that Mr. Gladstone should re-
tire now, than that he should not have retired sooner.
He represented in this Ministry the Church, in it:F
highest pretensions—just as the Duke of Buckingham
represented the corn-laws, and " no surrender" of
protection. We knew what speedily became of
the stuffed figure, which was to frighten the pre-
datory tribe from descent on the landed inclosures.
And now the more efficient champion of the
other rallying sign of Toryism has followed him ;
and in consequence of these successive epurations, the
Government, according to the Times, will be " more
able to encourage its friends and silence its opponents
by a policy worthy of the great party who placed it
in office." We have no longer, indeed, " a Tory
Government "—according to the fond aspirations of
Tadpole ; but " a sound Conservative adminis-
tration " according to the wiser mind of Taper.
" I see I see !" said Tadpole musingly—
" Tory men and Whig measures." Power gravi-
tates, however, naturally towards the hands
in whose direction it is exercised; and therefore we,

at least, have no disposition to complain of the pre-
sent tendencies of the Government. Whether " the

great party which placed it in office" has equal
rea%on to be satisfied, is its own affair. Perhaps we
are to understand the assertion in a non•hatural

...... -..._.... _.
sense. The " great party" is said to be satisfied,
as Dandle Dinmont was said to be " content," when

he had got a sufficient knock-down blow on the
head, and was placed hors de combat. Nothing can
be more satisfactory certainly to those active sections
of Toryism, which stirred most, and worked hardest,
and bawled loudest, to place Ministers in power, than
to have acquired the final conviction they must now
have acquired, that no Ministry they can make will
march through Coventry with them. They could
indeed do yeoman's service against the Whigs with
the wavering public ; but they cannot keep Tories
like themselves at the head of affairs. Of this they

should now be satisfied.
STANDARD.—The Times will no more sur-
render the Ministerial crisis in France than it will
" the diocese of Exeter," or than it did the Bridge-
water union—the riots in South Wales—the fires in

Suffolk—the fabled murders and other outrages in

Candahar—the treacherous seizure of Sinde—or any
other of the thousand-and-on: events, true or
feigned, whLh it has spun out to a thread
until the whole world was sick of them.
Tne Ministerial crisis, however, though the
Times would keep it alive, was at an end on Mon-
day, when the whole Ministerial Address was carried
by a great majority. The Times and its fellow-la-
bourers of the Thiers-Palmerston press endeavour to
assimilate the condition of the French Cabinet to
that of the Mole Ministry, which did not resign
when its majority had been reduced to eight, or
until a dissolution of the Chamber had reduced
its majority, such as it was, to a minority.
Again, the Times and its accomplices try to
establish a resemblance between the position of the
French Cabinet, and that of the Whigs in this
country from 1838 to 1841 ; but the Whigs did not
resign, though having a less majority than that
to which the French Government was reduced on
Monday, by a concurrence of accident, surprise,
error, and passion in the Chamber, such as pro-
bably never can again occur. The working majo-
rity of the present French Ministry was no more
reduced by the seeming diminution of Mon-
day, than was Sir Robert Peel's working ma-
jority reduced when he was out-voted last spring
upon the West Indian and factory questions. But
supposing, contrary to the truth, that the work-
ing majority of the present French Cabinet were
less than 40 or 50, or even less than 10. It
would not place them in the position in which
the Mole Ministry and the Whigs were placed.
The weakness of the Mole party, and of the
Whip did not lie in their numerical defi-
ciency so much as in their want of cohe-
rence and of external support. The Mole and Whig
Ministries were coalition Ministries, and whatever
their strength in one House of Parliament, each
was, we believe (the Whigs certainly were), the ob•
cts of aversion to the other House of Parliament
in their respective countries, and both were, as
coalition Ministries always are and always ought to
be, the objects of disgust to their several nations.
There is, therefore, plainly no parallelism
between the position of a Ministry possessing the
confidence of the Crown and the confidence of the
Upper House of Parliament, and thoroughly united
in principle with its supporters, and either the Mole
or the Whig Ministry. If the majority of the French
Cabinet were either small or doubtful, the nearest
parallel would be that of Mr. Pitt in 1783, or Sir
Robert Peel in 1834. Mr. Pitt had the confidence
of the Crown and of the House of Lords, and
opposed a corrupt coalition Ministry, supported
by a corrupt majority in the House of Commons.
He, however, for some months carried on the Go-
vernment, though in a minority, and succeeded in
establishing an Administration of nearly twenty-four
years' duration, with a very short intermission.
Again, Sir Robert Peel, in 1834, supported ty
the confidence of the Crown and of the House of
Lords, and a united though numerically inferior
party, carried on the Government for five month*
against a coalition part:-, and did not think
it necessary to resign, though repeatedly de-
feated by the Lichfield House conspirators ; nor
did he abandon his post until the parties to " the com-
I act," by their factious proceedings, rendered it impos-
sible for:him to carry on the Government—then he
withdrew, and about a million and a half of the people
testified their regret that he did so, in their grateful
addresses to him. Now the examples of Mr. Pitt
lied Sir Robert Peel are good precedents in the law
of Parliamentary government ; and, according to
these examples, the Soult-Guizot Ministry, even in a
minority, would not be justified in thinking of
resignation. But Sir Robert Peel has elucidated
the subject by more than an example. It is very
well known that at any time between 1837
and 1841, it was in his power to render im-
possible the carrying on of the Government
by his opponents. He abstained, however, from offer-
ing any obstruction, because he would not do that
indirectly which ought to be done directly; and
even when the Whigs had suffered defeat after de-
feat he allowed them to remain until compelled
to interefere by an irresistible necessity. The
finances of the country had been thrown into
ruinous disorder by the misconduct of public
affairs; the Ministers had no remedies to propose for
the pressing evil but measures, if possible, more
ruinous than the state of things which they were to
correct. These, their ruinous expedients, were one
by one rejected by the House of Commons. Then,
when they had brought the country as it were to a
dead lock, and not before, Sir Robert Peel told them
that they ought to resign ; even then, however, they
would not resign. Sir Robert Peel next proposed his
memorable vote of want of confidence, and the terms
of that vote put in few and clear words the whole
question of the degree of confidence which justifies a
Minister in retaining office, or which rather, while it
lasts, renders a resignation unjustifiable. " The Mi-
nisters were unable to carry through Parliament,
measures which they considered essential to the
public' service." The Ministers, however, paid no
more attention to the solemn declaration of their in-
capacity than they had paid to the repeated proofs of
it. They would not resign, and they remained in
office until threoyowerefairly turned out. We do not,
however, p
this disgraceful_e tenacity for imitation by any one
of the Whigs. We
use the case merely te Sir R. Peel's opinion
of the precise point at which, and not before, a minis-
try ought to resign. A majority, or even a
minority, which can effectually carry on the Go-
vernment, does not justify resignation. A minister is
bound to do his duty as long ashecanth do
it effectually. As we have before remarked,
arguments are not necessary to the French Cabinet,
e
which has an united and sufficient working majority;
but as the principles of Parliamentary government
.Dave been brought into question, it is proper to state
ele'+. clearly.
• ,
•
.15:‘,-,sErr TO FATHER MATHEW.—We have seen a
most ; :autiful tablet, of solid silver, with the following
don, presented by the Directors of the Dublin
416 o;heda Railway Company to Father Mathew, as
a Lee_ ticket of passage at all times. We have not space
fir ens letter which accompanies it at present:—" Pur-
suant to B vote of the Board of Directors of the Dublin
and Drogheda Railway Company, passed on the 18th
of October, 1844, this perpetual ticket of free passage in
the trains of the line is respectfully presented to the Rev.
Theobald Mathew, as a small, yet earnest, tribute of
esteem and gratitude for his devotion and useful labours
in the greet cause of temperance."—Cork Examiner.