The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-23 00:00:00

mestic loan, where the judgment of the House of paration necessary for engaging in "
Commons could be asked and its decision taken in life " with any reasonable prospect
the first instance. If it were a question of policy Far better if the 700/. were restored
merely affecting England, the representatives of
the people might complain at the slight passed on
them in first making the arrangements, and then
asking their assent to a matter which admitted of
no modification or alteration of any kind. Such
was the case with the loan of sixteen millions, in
which the opinion of the popular branch of
the Legislature was not asked, either as
to the amount to be borrowed or the nature
of the securities to be given in return. There
the "insult" might have been properly resented,
and the sanction of Parliament refused to that
which was contracted without the slightest refer-
ence to their wishes or feelings ; but in the pre-
sent instance the matter was altogether different.
According to the recognised practice of nations
the question could not have been previously dis-
cussed. The Executive was the recognised agent,
whose acts, however objectionable and impolitic,
must necessarily be ratified, even though we
might disapprove the arrangement, and might
dismiss the incompetent negotiator. The na-
tional faith required its confirmation, and we
could not have repudiated it without forfeit-
ing the character for honour and integrity
which is the proudest boast of " the United
Kingdom," and which has elevated the " little
Islands of the West" to a position in the scale of
nations to which they could not otherwise have
aspired.

The questions respecting the grant of pecuniary
assistance to Turkey, and the mode in which that
assistance should be afforded were peculiarly
matters for private arrangement with the Cabinet
of Paris, and there might be reasons for the par-
ticular course adopted, which could not, con-
sistent with the respect we owe to our illustrious
Ally, have been distinctly explained. For causes
generally known, and with an insignificant excep-
tion universally approved of throughout France
and England, the Western Powers resolved to
sustain Turkey and to prevent the absorption of its
territories by its gigantic and unscrupulous assailant.
In carrying out that legitimate and clearly-defined
object both Governments have had to submit to
very serious sacrifices both of men and money.
They have from the very commencement of these
unfortunate complications entered into arrange-
meats which have been faithfully and honourably
carried out on both sides, and the result has been
a mutual friendship and cordiality that has never,
and we earnestly trust may never he weakened or
disturbed. In the course of these arrangements
it was deemed expedient to supply a sum of five
millions sterling to the Ottoman Government,
and no doubt adequate reasons were as-
signed for the required aid, although it
might not in justice to the borrowing power
be fitting to publish them. It was peculiarly a
question for the consideration of the Government
whether it should be granted, and even if we
had not confidence in our own Cabinet we should
have sufficient respect and confidence for that of
our ally to grant it, at once, without hesitation
or remonstrance ; and a greater slight or injury
could not be inflicted on France than a refusal,
either of men or money, by way of subsidy, loan,

or guarantee.
Having decided on advancing the money, the
mode in which it was to be done was also neces-
sarily a matter of mutual arrangement. We could
not say that we desired to grant a subsidy, or a
direct loan, when France was willing to join in a
guarantee, but objected to either of the other
courses. We owed a certain degree of deference
to a faithful ally, and should make some sacrifice,
even if there were a sacrifice, for its co-operation.
We trust, then, that there may be no difficulty
made this day. At all events it can only be made
by the advocates of peace at any price or on any
conditions. Whatever excuse might be made for
mistake on Friday evening, none is now possible,
and every factious vote given this evening will be
regarded in its true light—as that of a friend of
Russia, an opponent of the French Alliance.

Although, as a matter of principle, we do not
generally approve of duties which ought to be dis-
charged by the Government being permitted to
depend on private liberality, or making those who
have just and irresistible claims on the nation
objects of charity, yet there are ooe,asions when
the urgency of the demand admits of no alterna-
tive, and the people must cordially step forward
to compensate for the wrongful acts of those whom
they permit to remain at the head of affairs.
The widows and orphan children of officers
who perish in the field of battle, face to face
with the foe, or from disease contracted in the
efficient and devoted discharge of their arduous
duties—and we see but little if any distinction
between the cases—have indeed powerful claims,
not merely on the national bounty, but also on
the national justice. Every true-hearted English-
man must feel the deepest sympathy and com-
miseration for those who have been prematurely
deprived of husbands and fathers in the fearful
confliot into which England has been forced. The
events which have conferred triumphs on our
arms, and created joy and exultation throughout
the length and breadth of the land, will bring
not merely affliction and sorrow, but penury and
destitution to these sufferers. The widow, no
longer rich in the inestimable love of her gallant
soldier, may have her withered heart further
wrung by the sharp and bitter privations of
" poortith cauld," and by seeing the objects of
their mutual affection—the children of her de-
ceased hero--wanting not merely the comforts
and elegances, but almost the actual necessaries,
of life. During her husband's life she could main-
tain herself and her children in independence ;
\ while he was spared she wanted nothing ; but
how changed was-her condition when the fatal
0 steel, or bullet, or disease cut short his career,
k and left her exposed to penury and almost want.
Perhaps her own fortune had been applied but a
short time previously to " purchase " his

promotion, and by his untimely end '
became confiscated to the State. She thus
not only • lost her husband, but her money.
The system of purchase, at all times and under
all circumstances indefensible, thus becomes a
direct robbery of the widow and orphan, who have
become such in the service of the country. "Won
olet mummus " is a principle generally adopted.
by Financial Ministers. Provided they get the
necessary funds they scruple little as to the means.
But the purchase-money of commissions of offi-
cers who die on the field or in the hospital
carries with it a taint that renders it disgraceful
to the nation. For it is the produce of robbery
of the worst description—the robbery of the wi-
dows and the fatherless.
It is true that there are pensions which may
be granted, but notwithstanding the augmenta-
tion under the warrant of the 15th June, they
are utterly inadequate to their objects. What, we
ask, is 401. per annum for the widow, and from
5/. to 101. for the child of a Lieutenant who had
paid a regulation price of 700% for his commission,
and possibly a great deal more under the arrange-
tnents that frequently take place ? It would
scarcely procure the most humble subsistence,
without any allowance for education or the pre-

the battle of

of success.
with which

the widow might enter into some business
which would give her a chance of providing
for her helpless children, and that she
waived all claim on the spurious and pretended
liberality of the nation, and received the "hard
cash" which her husband had paid for the privi-
lege of dying for the honour and security of his
native land. Let it be remembered, that even
under the "new warrant," the liberality whereof
has been so greatly lauded, although the pensions
and allowances may, under peculiar circumstances,
be increased, there is a proviso that, under no
possible circumstances, can the aggregate amount
of allowances to the family of a Lieutenant ex-
ceed 1001. per annum, or that of a Captain 1501.
We cannot, then, conceive a stronger claim
by any Society than that of the Widows'
and Orphans' Permanent Fund, which en-
deavours partially to repair this frightful injustice,
and to afford the only possible consolation to the
afflicted mourners. What Englishman can with-
hold his contribution to those who have been be-
queathed by the dying heroes as legacies to their
country? What English woman will not, to the
utmost of her ability, assist in allaying the sor-
rows of which she can form some estimate ?
What widow will refuse to cast in her mite for
the relief of her suffering sisters? It is a sacred
duty, which cannot be postponed. Government
ought to discharge it, but " red-tapery" has pre-
vailed, and the smirking impertinence of Mr. F.
PEEL has added insult to injury by the mode
of communicating the heartless refusal of Mr.
HEADLAM'S equitable and reasonable motion.
Let the British people repair the injustice, unless
they wish to be accounted participators in the
wrong inflicted on the sufferers. A permanent
fund is required, and we are much mistaken if
that will not be speedily forthcoming.

Administrative Reformers should be encou-
raged by the conviction that if the work they have
undertaken is one of such magnitude as to tax all
their energies, it is also one that will reward all
their toil, for, with perseverance, success to a large
extent is certain, and the probable results of that
success are almost incalculable. They will do
well, therefore, to proceed with increased vigour,
undeterred, on the one hand, by specious pro-
mises and inadequate concessions, and on the
other by the magnitude of the obstacles they have
to encounter.

The monster evil to be uprooted is that of
patronage, to which is owing the wretchedly in-
efficient state of the departments, and much of
the Ministerial non-responsibility and misadven-
ture, of which we have recently had such deplor-
able proofs. So long as public appointments are
the reward of political subserviency and instru-
ments of corruption, the public will be badly
served, and the Ministers who make them will be
shielded from retribution for their misdeeds. It
is out of all reason to expect the member who
profits by a bad appointment to call the Minister
who made it to account for the consequences,
however mischievous to the public. One evil
thus, it will be seen, leading to and supporting
another.

The objections to appointment by merit are of
a nature hardly consistent with sincerity, and
certainly not with reason and facts. One is, that
the tendency of such a system must necessarily
be democratic. But little reflection is needed to
dissipate an objection like this. Those who urge
it, we suppose, are not desirous to have it inferred
that the junior scions of the aristocracy stand so
low in the scale of intellect, and are so incapable
of profiting by instruction, that with vastly supe-
rior opportunities for acquiring a high-class edu-
cation, they would infallibly be beaten by their
plebeian rivals on what must be a fair open com-
petition before an independent Board of Examiners.
What could the worst enemies of their order say
of it more damaging than that ? And if they
mean that it would lead to Chartism, experience
and analogy leave little room for question, that
appointment by merit would have no such effect,
but, on the contrary, would rather have a con-
servative tendency. The habits of reflection, ap-
plication, and order which the course of preparation
required is likely to produce ill disposing young
men generally for wild speculation in. politics or
subversive preferences, and it should not be for-
gotten, in connection with this subject, that the
course of education for official employment will
most assuredly have to partake more largely of a
specific practical nature than the best at present,
and will, therefore, be all the more likely to dis-

courage demagoguic notions.
Let it prove, however, a blow at the aristocracy
ornot—if it does the blame and the shame will rest
with that body. Administrative Reformers have
no design to set the aristocracy aside in order to
elevate the democracy. They " simply desire to
get the real and efficient service for which they, in
common with the rest of her MAJESTY'S subjects,
pay," and ought not to be content with anything
short of that. It is also objected, or, rather,
it is made a ground of excuse for non-co-opera-
tion, that the necessity for further stirring in the
matter is obviated by the steps taken by Ministers,
who have been doing all in their power consis.•
tently with prudence in the way of Administrative
Reform. Do the parties who argue thus remem-
ber the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
on Mr. VINCENT ScuLLY's motion Are they aware
that the Right Honourable Baronet scouted the
notion of competitive examination as a system that
would prove costly beyond endurance and imprac-
ticable—ignorantly demanding whether France
in the plenitude of her glory ever thought of ap-
pointing her civil servants by this mode of exami-
nation ? A tone and attitude like this by a Cabi-
net Minister offers a poor chance of the work of
reform being executed by men in office without
assistance. The question and the objections •are
readily answered. The system of competitive
examination has been at work in nearly every
department of the French civil service for a couple
of score or more years, and besides the great
advantage of the concours comparatif to the
service manifested in its high efficiency,,
there has been the further one of giving
a constant and widely extended stimulus
to education, and thereby an increase to the
.in-
tellectual average ; the disappointed candidates
having, at least, obtained a larger share of know-
ledge and a better training than they would
otherwise have had to enter the world with. So
much for dependence on Ministers. If Adminis-
trative Reform is to come by a Ministerial train,
you may set out to welcome its arrival in the
Greek Kalends. Even the recent Order in
Council is a delusion ; it still leaves nomination
in the hands of party, and, consequently, does
not open the way to merit.
No, there must be no trusting to Ministers nor
party if we are to have Administrative Reform ;
for as yet we have got little, if any. Administrative
Reformers must work for it, and not leave
it to others ; and if one class does not
move vigorously enough another must stir
LoOk at the • War Department, and
the history of the War in the Crimea—that
congeries of blukulers—blunders of reddens-