New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1885-09-16

HbM D Compares with II Liberal Prede-
GeReOF 8f

4AA0'AtO PIOOcctSSOK, tho new tory
cabinet has sixteen members, equally
divided between the two houses. The
radical papers talk sharply, Of course,
about Lord Sslisbury's aristocratic
lea1ings in having eight peers in his
cabinet, besides three sons of peers,
but they provoke invidious compare
sons with the previous cabinet by do
ing so: The grave weakness of Mr..
Gladstene's cabinet, writes London
correspondent to The Neso 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. It is hard
IL fair, perhaps, to credit aristocracy
/ with peers who have earned their IL
tiles. W these Mr.. Gladstone's cabi-
net contained two-Lord Carlingford,
who had been Chichester Fortescue,
and Lord Selborne, erstwhile Rounded
Palmer. Of the others Earl North
brook and Earl Kimberley were ele-
waited from barons; 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-
tlVes of peers were Lord Hartin gton
and Sir William VerHon-Harcourt, a
scion of the Vernons who SAYS 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.. extraordinarily a few wears
ago; Lord Iddesleigh, the still un-
familiar mask for Sir Stafford North
cote. and Sir Hardinee Clifford ana
Edward Gibson, whose titles are not
yet announced. The sons of peers are
i've 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 ludicrously below the
standard of Chamberlain, Dixie, and
Irevelan, to say nothing of Gladstone,
VINO by taclt consent is no longer COM
pared with any other living English
man, or of John Bright, who served
during the old cabinet first two wears.
In rough way the comparison illus
trates the difference between the two
parties. The tories find their brains
and their qualified as we'll as natural
leaders in the aristocracy, while in the
liberal party the aristocrats are more
OF an incumbrance than an aid. The
cOmmOner element IN the new tory
ministry might have made better
showing, perhaps, but for the silly and
indefensible custom OF compelling a
i minister to be re elected. There IS a
leading article in The Times to-day at
lacking this absurdity. and surely it
comes none too soon. To pass by the
obvious Inconvenience of paralyziug
all parliamentary business for the next
fortnight in order that fifteen or TWEEN
ty men may go through the ceremony
of being reelected by their several
constituencies, there is the grieyous
objection that the rule has operated to
Keep both Edward Clarke, queens
counsel, and Edward Macnaehten.
queens counsel, out of the ministry,
for the reason that the former was
threatened with difficult campaion
at Plymouth, and the latter sits for
County Antrim, which the liberals on.
~ recently carried at by-election.
The law by which this mischief, per-
sonal and general, is worked dates
from Queen AIMS time, when it was
passed to serve as check on the
crowns proclivity to bride inconven-
lent politicians by Office. All practical
need for such check is as dead and
obsolete as the cause of the Stuarts
but it 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.
pealed? Probably twenty years or
more from now.
Comment on the personnel of the
new cabinet is, aside from the ;ndis-
criminate praise or detraction of parti-
sanshiD, rather favorable The least
popular appointment is that of man
ners, who has not one conceivable
qualification for the postal depart
ment save that he served there badly
before. and was originally appointed
to it 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 con.
tidence IN his business ability to accom-.
plish the great undertaking. In Col.
Stanley's appointment to the colonial
office some people think they discern a
studied design to expose Lord Derby's
plumbers through the agency of his
own brother and heir, while others
see just as clearly a scheme to let Lord
Derby down easily and cover over his
short comings. The queer appoint
ment par excellence is that of the duke
of Richmond, country squire, pure