The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-15 00:00:00

THE S UN. LONDON, MONDA Y MORNING. 'DECEMBER 15. 1845.

TIM MINISTERIAL CRISIS.

FROM TILE MORNING PAPERS e,F SATURDAY.
Cf-IRO.aICLE.—The more time that we have to look
at the posture in which affairs are placed, the more per-
plexing does the cc.njuncture appear. The calmest by-
stander cannot attempt to solve the problem without
speedily appreciating the difficulties which meet the
practical statesman in every course that suggests itself.
The truth is, we have been so completely taken by sur-
prise that we have not yet become aware of our situa-
tion. No one feels sufficiently the extent of the mis-
chief. The shell which Sir Robert Peel has flung into
the country has yet in truth to explode. A heavy re-
spcatsibility is thrown on all who are called upon to act
in this emergency. He would be fearfully culpable who
should allow his eagerness to engage him in any polity
which he does nut clearly see the way of bringing to a
successful issue. We are happy, therefore, to find on
the part of Lora John Russell no indications of such an
eagerness to form a Government, as indeed his known
prudence and patriotism forbad us to anticipate on his
pert. The policy of bringing forward good measures
for rejection is one which rarely becomes a minister,
end would be wholly inexcusable now. We should feel
the deepest regret at seeing any statesman, in whom we
have been accustomed to place confidence undertake the
Government of the country without a moral certainty of
being able at once to carry the repeal of the corn-law.
Such certainty could at present only result from an as-
suraace of being cot dially supported by a considerable
body of those who have hitherto been separated from us
by party distinctions. No doubt the end might, and, if
all gentler means fail, must beattained by the mere force
of an excited public opinion. An appeal to the country
on the question of the corn-laws might, and probably
would, even at present, return such a House of Commons
triumph over the resistance of the House of
Lords. But we must confess that such an excitement as
would be needed for this purpose is what we would
greatly deprecate. From the necessity of having re-
course to such means of carrying our point, Lord
John Russell has a right to expect that he should be
relieved by the support of all who are convinced that
the present corn-law must be repealed. The person from
whom he has a right to expect the most ready and un-
equivocal assistance, is the Minister whose sudden aban-
donment of his post has placed the country in this per-
[diting and critical position. Nor is this support to be
obtained by any compromise of that clear principle on
which Lord John Russell pledged himself to act in his
memorable letter to the electors of London. His worst
enemy could not now suggest to Lord John Russell any
course more fatal to his character and influence than any
compromise which would continue the existence of the
corn monopoly. If the responsibilities of Government
are to be devolved on him, the Government must be con-
ducted tin his known principles. If it is to be conducted
on other principles, let its responsibilities rest on those
who either will undertake to uphold the existing
monopoly, or deem that it should only be tampered
with and. modified. After all, the first step towards secu-
ring the settlement of this most difficult question is to
come to a thorough and immediate understanding of the
principles on which all pieties are prepared to deal
with it. While we remain in doubt as to this point, it
is impossible for any man to determine what practical
steps should be taken. Now, with regard to Sir Robert
Peel, all is still uncertainty. We know ensly that he and
his colleagues have resigned because they desired to
deal with the corn-law in some way in which the Duke
of Wellington disapproved of their dealing with it.
This tells us nothing as to the real nature of the change
which Sir Robert Peel intended to propose. A portion
of the press would have us believe that he meant to
sweep away the corn-law altogether. From another
portion we learn that he has never intended to aban-
don the principle of protection. While these doubts
are allowed to hang over his conduct and inten
tions, he subjects himself to the suspicion of repeating
the curse by which he is accused of having ori-
ginally acquired power—of committing himself to
no definite policy, making use of all parties, and
leaving the country in the dark as to the policy by
which its fortunes are to be decided. Surely we have
had enough of this already; all parties have had enough
of it; we must not permit it to be practised again. It
comes to the old triad of alternatives, in which. Sir
Robert Peel delights. If he means to stand by the corn •
laws, let him make it up with the Duke, and go on with
his old Ministry. If he is for free-trade, let him give in
his adhesion to Lord John Russell, to whom he advised
her Majesty to entrust the business of forming an Ad-
ministration. It. he and the majority of his colleagues
have some middle course of their own, they have at pre-
sent the majority of the House of Commons, and must
get rid of the Duke, and on their own responsibility pro-
pose their own substitute for their own sliding-scale.
But if he should prove to be unmindful of his duties, it
is the more imperative on Lord John Russell not to
place himself in any position which may lower his high
character—it is the more important that he should refuse
to accept the name of power without the means of carry-
ing his policy into effect, or even to purchase some por-
tioneof power by a compromise of principle.
HERALD.—Whatever may have been, or are, our
opinions of Sir Robert Peel end his colleagues, the Con-
servative Cabinet has ceased to exist, and their opinions
will only remain as matter for explanation in their places
as private Members of Parliament ; but of the fact that
Lord John Russell is at this time the confidential adviser
of her Majesty, we cermet pretend to speak without the
greatest alarm and disguA. Is not Lord John Russell
the man who within these few weeks has published a
manifesto declaring his adhesion to the wildest visions of
the Anti-Corn-law League ? Has he not proclaimed
himself the champion of a total and immediate repeal of
the corn-laws ? This alone would be sufficient ground
for us to call upon our agricultural friends to be up and
stirring ; and to discriminate between their open and
avowed enemy, and the man who, though even in error,
he may think it necessary to make some alteration
in these laws, is yet ready to accompany that al-
teration with friendly, and as ho believes ade-
quate, compensation. As to Lord John Russell, the
agricultural interest cannot fail to look upon him as
their bitter and uncompromising enemy. We have not
the slightest doubt that Sir Robert Peel, if he think a
change in the corn-laws to be now inevitable—a state of
things which we cannot view in the same light—would
accompany it with other measures likely to diminish the
abruptness and intensity of so vast an innovation. A
totalnimmediateee
we repeal, such as the Timesan-
nounced
looked
upon, and still look
and a
upon, as a monstrous fable—the atrocious fabrication of
that mischief-working print. We would entreat the
Conservatives to recollect that the corn-laws are not the
only basis upon which the Conservative party was
weeksi
framed, or the sole principle upon which good and wise
men unite to defend our institutions and the monarchy.
To the friends of the Church, but, above all, to the
Protestants of Ireland, we beg leave to point out the se-
rious position in which this great change involves them.
They were affronted because Roman Catholics obtained a
share of vacant places—they were full of resentment when
Sir R. Peel determined on giving an additional en-
dowment of Maynooth; no breach of principle—at most
but a foolish squandering of some thousands of pounds,
an experiment which could not make the Roman Catho-
lic priests worse, and which might elevate their tone and
improve their education—they were displeased because
Sir R. Peel would not aid them by subscription out of
the public funds for the support of a system of education
exclusively their own, a measure which would have
paralysed all the good—little enough, some say—in the
national system, but which subscription would have been,
at most, but a smell addition to the funds of the estab•
lishment, and of the nnrnerous and wealthy landowners
of Ireland. These were their grievances, their loudly-
resented affronts; but how stand they now? Instead of
declaiming against a paltry grant to Maynooth, let them
prepare for assaelts, frequent, reckless, and embittered,
on their church establishment. Instead of a passing smile
to some Ronian prelate, let them look for the invasion of
Trinity College, aed the opening and desecration of all its
ancient and most valued privileges; and instead of a stray
place here and there, conferred on a Liberal or a sus-
pected Precursor, let them reckon on seeing all the pa-
tronage, lay and ecclesiastical, of Ireland, bartered for
the foul support of the demagogue who is the curse of
the empire, and their sworn and deadly enemy. We
again ask, who is Lord John Russell ? Was he not a
party to the Lichfield-house compact ? Who are his
friends ? Are they not those statesmen who in the
very last session of Parliament pledged themselves
deeply and irretrievably to the utter destruction of the
Protestant Establishment in Ireland, and to substitute
n its stead, and in all its possessions, the worst form of
modern superstition—a Romish priesthood ? Some
persons may, perhaps, look upon Lord John Russell as
a model of consistency ; hut it' the League and the
manufacturing interest would take advice from men
impartially friendly to every British interest, we
would entreat them to recollect that Lord John
Russell who, after having declared that any shortening
of the hours of factory labour would cut up British in-
dustry by the roots, was the very same individual who,
within the short period of eighteen months, was found,
for the sake of popularity, nut from i onscience, voting
with the very men whose opinions he had so decried.
Above all, we would entreat every class and rank—we
would entreat those who are attached to our free but
limited monarchy—we would entreat the friends of the
Church and of solid religious education—we would en-
treat those who place their dependence upon a wise
financial administration—we would entreat those who
are friendly to a European peace, and who dread a war
with America (not from any fear of defeat, but for the
interests of humanity)—we would entreat them one and
all to bear in mind the deeds and misdoings of Lord
John Russell.
POST.—The noblemen and gentlemen who have
hitherto considered it their duty to give a general sup-
port to the views of Sir Robert Peel, and to regard him
as their leader, should now earnestly Consider the
position in which they stand, and come to a decision as
to their future course. We need scarcely avow our own
distinct opinion that they are not only fully justified
in taking a complete farewell of the leadership of Sir
R. Peel, but that they are bound to do so by a sense
of what is due to justice, to reason, and to honourable
feeling. Our opinion, however, is only worth at-
tention, in so far as we can show it to be founded
in good sense, and supported by a fair consideration
of facts and circumstances. We proceed, therefore,
to argue the case, observing, however, the brevity
which is needful in the columns of a newspaper.
We shall not now enter upon a history of the
events of the session which preceded the formation of
the Peel Ministry. Any one, however, who will recal
them to mind, cannot fail to agree with us,
, that there
were four principal points which the triumphant Con-
servative party fully expected to be accomplished by the
new Administration. These were-
1. The restoration of the finances, so as to make the
revenue at least equal to the expenditure.
2. The protection of British industry, and especially
of agricultural industry, from those dangers with which
it had been threatened by the fixed duty schemes, or
free-trade doctrines of the Whigs.
3. The modification of the Whig poor law, and the
amelioration of those harsh regulations in which poverty
appeared to be regarded as crime.