The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1885-10-02
THE NEW TORY MINISTRY.
How 1t Compares with Its Liberal Prede
cpsSnr

How 1t Compares with Its Liberal PreLe.
cessor.
Like its predecessor, the new tory
cabinet has sixteen members, equally
divided between the two houses. The
radical papers talk sharply, of course.
about Lord Salisbury's a%ristocratic
leanings in having eight peers in his
cabinet, besides three sons of peers,
but they provoke inv;dious compari-
sons with the previous cabinet by do
ing SO. The grave weakness OF MIR.
Gladstone's cabinet, writes n London
correspondent to The hew York Times,
lay in its wing peers and relatives of
peers. whereas in the new ministry
the strongest element will be its no.
bles, ancient and modern. 1t is hard
ly fair, perhaps, to credit %aristocracy
with peers who have earned their IT,
ties. OF these Mr.. Gladstone's cabi-
net contained two-Lord Carlingford,
who had been Chichester Fortescne,
and Lord Selborne, erstwhile Rounded
Palmer. Of the others Earl North
brook and Earl Kimberley were ele-
waited from b~arons; the rest, Granville,
Derby. Spencer, Rosebery, and Argyll,
Lansdowne, and Cooper, who seeded
in other years, all represented old IT,
ties and old families. The two rela-
ives OF peers We're Lord Harrington
and Sir William Vcrnon-Harcourt, a
scion of the Vernons who saws in
speeches that the blood of kings flows
IN his veins. In the new cabinet there
are four o]d-title mobiles, Salisbury,
Richmond. Harrowby, and Carnarvon,
and there are four new ones, risen
from the ranks-Lord Cranbrook, who
was Mr.. Gathorn-Hardy Il few years
ago; Lord lddesleigh, the still un-
familiar mask for Sir Stafford North
cote. and Sir Hardinge Clifford and
Edward Gibson, whose titles are not
yet announced. The SON. of peers are
tive in number-Lord Randolph
Churchill, son Of the duke of MARI
borough; Lord John Manners, son of
the duke of Rutland; Lord George
Hamilton, son of the duke of Aber-
corn; Col. Stanley, son of the late Earl
Derby, and Mr.. Stanhope, son of Earl
Stanhope.
The two lists compare with curious
%closeness as to numbers. In point of
ability it is nowhere denied that the
latter list has the advantage. But
when commoners are considered the
advantage shifts. Hicks-Beach, Cross,
and Smith are l~udicrously below the
standard of Chamberlain, Dixie, and
Irevelan, to say nothing OF Gladstone,
who by tacit consent is no longer com
pared with any other living English
man. or of John Bright, who served
during the old cabinets tirsttwo years.
In a rough way the comparison illus
trates the difference between the two
parties. The tories find their brains
and their qualified as well as natural
leaders in the aristocracy, while in the
liberal party the aristocrnts are more
of an incumbrance than an aid. The
commoner element IN the new tory
ministry might have made a better
showing, perhaps, but for the silly and
indefensible custom OF compelling a
minister to be reelected. There is a
leading article in The Times to-day at
tacking this absurdity. and surely it
comes none too soon. To pass by the
obvious inconvenience of p%aralyziur
all parliamentary business for the next
fortnight in order that fifteen ortwen-
ty men may go through the
va "|S AS-SiSSlCu W tuciI several
constituencies, there is the grievous
objection that the rule has operated to
keep both Edward Clarke, queens
counsel, and Edward Macnaghten,
queens counsel, out of the ministry,
for the reason that the former was
threatened with Il difficult campaign
ut Plymouth, and the latter sits for
county ANTRIM, which the liberals on
~ recently carried at a by-election.
Inc law by which this mischief, per-
sonal ana general, is worked dates
from queen AIMS time, when it was
passed to serve as a check on the
crown $ proximity to bride incouven-
lent politicians by office. All practical
need Tor such a check is as dead and
obsolete as the cause OF the Stuarts,
but 1t still hangs on, to cost the coun-
Try delay, uncertainty, perhaps for
elgn complications. and to deprive the
tory ministry OF two of the ablest men
IN the party. Yet when will it be re-
pealede Probably twenty years or
more from now.
Comment on the personnel of the
new cabinet is, aside from the indis-
crlmlnate praise or dctraction of parti-
sanshlD, rather favorable. The least
popular appointment is that of man
ners. who has not one conceivable
qualification Tor the postal depart
ment save that he served there badly
before. and was originally appointed
to 1t because he had served badly IN
some other Office. Mr.. Smith, as
secretary OF war, sounds odd, but it Is
said that he will really, through his
his Old subordinate, Capt. Codrington,
a new lord OF the admiralty, run the
navy, too, with a view to bringing
both arms OF the service into working
order together, aud there is much ON
fldence IN his business ability to accom-
piish tho great undertaking. In Col.