NEWS OF THE WEEK.
THE Whig attempt to form a Cabinet has come to nothing, and now be- longs entirely to the past. The party, that was almost "in power," has clean gone, almost as if it had vanished from the earth. Sir Robert Peel is once more Premier, with all his Cabinet, save two,—Lord Wharncliffe, who sank a victim to the mental excitement of the turmoil; and Lord Stanley, the victim of his own misconduct and incapacity as Minister for the Colonies.
"Lord Grey has done it all," cry the disappointed Whigs. Lord Grey, indeed, appears to be the proximate and ostensible cause of the rupture in Lord John Russell's abortive Cabinet; but the account of the matter which we believe to be the true account is far from being discreditable to him. It is understood that Earl Grey refused to sit in the Cabinet if Lord Palmer- ston should hold the seals of the Foreign Office; because such an appoint- ment would alarm and offend very many estimable persons in England, excite distrust of us in other countries, and add to the difficulties of the new' Government, Lord Palmerston's conduct in 1840, and on other occasions, has made him a bad reputation, as the head of a "War party" in this country; and Lord Grey, who had formerly expressed strong • opinions in favour of peace, might well object to a Foreign Minister whose whole'later tendencies have been warlike. In or out of office, in speeches and in writings, official or otherwise, Lord Pahnerston has for several years laboured unremittingly to keep alive the embers of discord wher- ever they were to be found. Earl Grey is angrily reproached for in- dulging a "crotchet." What he did was to stand by a principle, and a very important one too. A Itfinistry which gave us a chance of re- pealing the Corn-law at the risk of repealing the peace of Europe, was not so great a " catch " that a thinking and independent politician should abandon essential principles in order to enable it to attempt a precarious existence on sufferance. , . • - -
But if Earl Grey were to'blame; what must be said of Lord John Russell for suffering- such a difficulty to baffle. his attempt at forming the Govern- ment that boasted no less a vocation than the rescue of the country? Many alternative courses would seenipreferable to. such a frustration of his whole enterprise. He might have obliged Lord Palmerston to waive his predilections in favour of foreign squabbling, and to accept some post of dignity less dangereus for a-man o? his character; or Lord John might have done without 'Lord Palmerston at all—surely a Ministry can exist without that official Tithonus? Or Lord Grey might have been suffered to indulge his scruple by retiring, without obliging the wholeffhig Cabi- net to retire too, on the mashared scruple. For im.shaissd the sctnple must
have been, or there is no pretext for blame to Lord Grey. . There must have been other difficulties behind, with small prospect of overcoming them, or that one would not' so readily have subdued Lord John's resolve. Some supposed, last week, that Mr. Cobden was the diffi- culty—that the " eld" Whigs were reluctant to make the offer of a post due to the Free-trade leader: that does not appear to have been the case; the offer had been made, and it had been declined. By the stele showing, the Corn-law repeal itself could not have been the difficulty.
It must have been some general doubt as to possessing sufficient power to carry on the Government: Lord John Russell and his colleagues must have given way before the prospect of future defeat. It remains to be ex- plained whether any- self-consideration could justify them as statesmen in abandoning an enterprise of such a momentous character as that indicated by Lord John Russell's letter. The alarming emergency therein set forth —the prospect of famine—remains unabated, or rather, is more imminent, for there has been no change except the lapse of time. In such an enter- prise everything should haie • been ventured: simply to attempt the salva- tion of the country, success apart, was worth any risk, even that of self- sacrifice. Besides, eventual defeat in Parliament would not have prevented the only measure applicable to the assumed emergency—the "opening of the ports" by an order in Council. Such opening could not have been accomplished by enactment much if at all before next summer. True, Lord John Russell had objected to an order in Council; true, Parliament might subsequently have refused an indemnity: but what was the hazard of responsibility or the worth of punctilio as opposed to the terrible necessity enunciated in Lord John's letter? The party seem to have undertaken the task of attempting an Administration with no other effect than to cast a slur upon their own earnestness and capacity, and upon the measure of Corn-law repeal, its necessity and practicability.
But the Peel Cabinet have not returned to office without some eager questioning as to what could be their object in retiring. Their meaning was clear when they resigned; but it is all made dark by their reaccept- ance. What can be the reason—what change can have occurred, to maker them undertake now what they relinquished a fortnight ago? Some ex- plain it this way. The retirement was a mere ruse to admit the Whigs to office, simply that those troublesome persons might discover their own imbecility, and be disarmed as effective opponents; Sir Robert Peel and his colleagues thus preparing a return to a quieter possession of office, with. the inert body of Whigs between them and the real Free-traders. This explanation implies something so mean and discreditable, not only to states- men, but to gentlemen, whether Liberal or Conservative, that it may be dismissed as incredible.
Another supposition is, that Sir Robert Peel, taught by the difficulties of the Liberal Ministry, has abandoned the high ground which he had taken, and has purchased the concurrence of his late colleagues by descending to their level. In conformity with this view, projects of compromise have been imagined—one, a fixed duty of ten shillings, diminishing by one shil- ling a year, down to five shillings, and there to remain. This story is not much more credible than the other. Sir Robert Peel's protest against a fixed duty has been distinct, recent, and forcible. The impolicy of such a compromise—which would settle nothing, would disgust the agriculturists yet exasperate the Free-traders, and would protract the Repeal agitation for five years and as many more as the fixed duty should last—is glaring; and it cannot be believed that the Premier has abandoned his vantage- ground for so disadvantageous a position.
Both of these suppositions imply an indecent abuse of the Crown's highest prerogative, and a personal insult to the Sovereign, in creating a troublesome "Ministerial crisis," for the individual convenience of the , CEown's servant.
4,A. third surmise is, that Sir Robert Peel's colleagues have risen to his level; and that, having purged their consciences by a brief retirement from office, they reaccept lion a new tenure under him.aathe "Popular" Minister and Free-trader-in-chief. There is no doubt that he could best carry the main measure, and could at the same time obtain the best terms for the agriculturists. Conservatives, therefore, are equally justified with Free-traders in supporting the man whose influence may be the most ad- vantageously used for all parties.
