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

SPIRII of tie eUBLIC JOURNALS.

TROM THE EVENING PAPEaS OF YESTE2DAT.
BrLOBE.—The. Times this morning, in annnuncine•
Mr. Gladstone's retirement from the M.inietry, calls
it the most unforeeen and significant of the changes
which bad been anticipated is the Administration. Sig-
nificant, to eoine extent, it is —but we must say, that to
term it " unfore6een" appears to us not to be paying any
high complimeet to that gentleman's consistency. Be-
sides the exclusive Anglican churchrnanship with which
his name stands especially aseociate,i, 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, whin 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
irvimatioes 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 voile face, in
order to remain his right-hand man on the other.
It is less slrprising that Mr. Gladstone should re-
tire now, than that he should not have retired sooner.
lie represented in this Ministry the Church, in its
highest pretensions—uet 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 shc.le 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 whA. placed it
in offiee." We have no longer, indeed, " a Tory
Government "—according to the fond aspirations of
Tadpole ; but " a sound Conservative adminis.
tin ti " according to the wiser mind of Taper.
"I see! I see l" 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, wave no disposition to complain of the pre-
sent tendencies of the Government. Whether " the

great party which placed it in office" has equd
reason to be satisfied, is its own affair. Perhaps we
are to understand the assertion in a non-natural
sense. The " great party" is said to be satisfied,
as Dandle Dim-Dont was said to be " content," when
he had got a sufficient knock-down blow on the
heal, 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 canna 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
Candaher—the treacherous seizure of Sinde—or any
other of the thousandeand-ons events, title or
feigned, which it has spun out to a thread
until the whole world was sick of them.
The 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 'Tiers-Pahnereton 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
weuld not place them in the position in which
the Mole Ministry and the Whigs were placed.
The weakness of the Mol6 party, and of the
Whigs did not lie in their numerical defi-
ciency so much as in their want of colie-
renee and of external support. The Mole and Whig
Ministries were coalition Alinlitrie,, and whatever
their strength in one House of Parliament, each
was, we believe (the Whigs certainly were), the ob-
jects of aversion to the other House of Parliament
in their respectise countries, and both were, as
eealition Ministries always are and always ought to
be, the objects of disgust to their several nations.
There is, therefore, plainly no parallelism
betty-en 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 Mol6
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
yea duration, with a very short intermission.
Again, Sir Robert Peel, in 1834, supported by
the confidence of the Crown and of the House of
. Lords, and a united though numerically inferior
. party, carried on the Government for five months
against a coalition party, and did not think
it necessary to resign, though repeatedly de-
feated by the Lichfield house conspirators ; nor
di I he abandon his post until the parties to " the com-
pact," by their factious proceedings, rendered it impos-
sible for:him to carry on the Government—then he
ithilrew, and about a million and a half of the people
testified their regret that he did so, in their grateful
aldresszs to him. Now the examples of Mr. Pitt
ne"l Sir Robert Peel arc. good precedents in the law
of Parliamentary guirornment ; and, according to
these exa nples, the Soult-Guizot Ministry, even in a
iii n way, would not be justified in thinking of
re,ignation. 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. Ile abstained, ho.vever, from offer-
in e• any obs":ruction, because he would riot do that
indirectly which ou4ht to be done directly ; and
even when the ll'hige had suffered defeat after de-
feat_ he allowed them to remain until compelled
interefere by an irresistible necessity. The
finances of the country had been thrown into
• tu;nous 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
Vi3l.llri 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
(isle/di:on of the degree of confidence which justifies a
Ainister in retaining office, or which rather, while it
hate, :renders a resignation unjustifiable. "The Ali-
. 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. Th,y would not resign, and they remained in
office until they were fairly turned out. We do not,
however, props e for imitation by any one
this disgraceful tenacity of the Whigs. We
use the case merely to show Sir R. Peel's opinion
of the precise point at which, and not before, a minis-
try ought to resign. A small majority, or even a
minority, which can effectually carry on the Go-
. verninalit, does not justify resignation. A minister is
bond to do his duty as long as he can do
• it effectually. As we have before remarked, these
arguments are not necessary to the French Cabinet,
which has an united and sufficient working majority;
but as the principles of Parliamentary government
hive been brought into question, it is proper to state
them clearly.

PKESEST TO FATHER MATHEW.—We have seen a
most beautiful tablet, of solid silver, with the following
imeriptian, preserved by the Directors of the Dublin
and Drogheda Railway Company to Father Mathew, as
a free ticket of passage at all times. We have not space
for the letter which accompanies it at present:—" Pur-
suant to a vote of the Board of Directors of the Dublin
and Drogheda Railway Company, passed on the 1
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 gratitudo for his devotion and useful labours
the goat cause of temperance."—Cork Examine".