The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-31 00:00:00

intentions of Russia, should she have assented to
treat on the basis of the Four Points ? Cui bono
the pacific protestations so liberally made ? The
answer is plain, the reasons easily to be detected.
Partly that time was an object, and she hoped to
have obtained an armistice preceding the negotia-
tions, as suggested by her good friends King
CLICQtYOT and Mr. JonN Baton; but chiefly be-
cause she placed great reliance on Austria. NI-
CHOLAS could not believe that his brother despot
really intended either to humiliate his pride or
diminish his power. It is, then, we believe, the
duplicity or vacillation of Austria that has in
duced M. ]YnOvvN DE 1111717 S to hasten in person
to the scene of action, and that, on the other
hand, has made NESSELEODE disregard his age and
infirmity in order to be present at the diplomatic
contest. The one hopes to prevail on the youth-
ful Emperor to continue in the course which he
professed his intention of pursuing—the other of
drawing him through devious bye-paths, until he
~.,
becomes inextricably involved in Russian snares.
There must, as we have already said, be some
foundation for these anticipations.
What has been the conduct of Austria up to
this time ? She has not as yet drawn a single
sword or fired a shot in anger, and thus has
avoided committing herself to the contest. But that
is not all: her neutrality has been almost as
serviceable to Russia as that of Prussia. Froth
the very commencement she delayed the proceed-
ings of the Allies, inducing them to consent to
the most injudicious procrastination, in order to
obtain the favours which with almost feminine
coquetry she half granted and half withheld.
When occupying the Principalities she obstructed
the advance of the Turkish troops, and thus en-
abled the Russian forces to be withdrawn from
Bessarabia and assume the offensive at Balaklava
and Inkerman. When the valour of the English
and French troops foiled these attacks, when
,she
said that she must take some part, she cajoled us
into accepting:a perfectly valueless Treaty. What,
we ask, has been the utility of that Treaty of the 2d
December? How has Austria assisted us although
nearly four months have elapsed ? She has done
nothing—literally nothing for us, although she has
succeeded in obtaining concessions on the first
Two Points where her interests are chiefly
concerned. Not only have we this powerful
evidence of her hollowness and treachery, but we
see Russia withdrawing her veteran troops from
Poland and replacing them by Asiatics. This
would not have been attempted if any doubts
were entertained as to the future conduct of
Austria.

Once more we repeat what we have so fre-
quently asserted, that the open enmity of Aus-
tria would be far better than her pretended
friendship. The one could easily be met—the
other occasions greater embarrassment and diffi-
culty. The time may not be very distant when
the taunt addressed to an Austrian potentate may
again become applicable—when every voice in
France and England, if not in Europe, may ad-
dress FRANCIS JosErir in these words--
"Thou wear a lion's bide ! Doff it, for shame,
And bang a calf-skin on those recreant limbs."

The abolition of Church Rates is now entirely
in the hands of those whom they most oppress.
In a much larger House than last year Sir W.
CLAY has again obtained leave to bring in his
bill, and by a majority of more than one-third.
Last year, however, the then Leader of the House
of Commons resisted its introduction with every
argument of the ira.nox school ; this time the new
Leader of the House argued for its introduction.
Lord I'ALILERSIum'S assent to the firot reading
Sir W. CLAY'S bill is certainly another and a great
step gained in the Church-rate struggle. We
know the versatility of the Noble Lord,
and we know how my it is for a
Minister, if so minded, to shelve the bill of an
independent member on the second reading or in
committee; still the sanction of a Prime Minister
to the introduction of a bill, entirely abolishing
Church' Rates, shows that Government is seriously
pressed by the advocates of religious freedom.
We are, moreover, confident, from several politi-
cal reasons, that neither Government itself nor
the House of Commons can resist on this ques-
tion a decided pressure from without. If consti-
tuencies, if Liberal Churchmen, and if Dissen-
ters do their duty during the Easter recess, the
second reading will be triumphantly carried.

The abolition of Church Rates and of the com-
pulsory Newspaper Stamp ought certainly to go
together--the main arguments for and against
each are identical. The law, for instance, in re-
gard to the former is in a far worse state than
that in the other. It is so bad that the
highest legal authority informs us that, were
it thoroughly worked by opponents, not one
Church Rate in a hundred would be found a
legal one. The cost of proceedings in those
doomed nuisances Ecclesiastical Courts being
the only thing which deters from litigation,
Mr. CLAY might plead as Sir C. LEWIS did, you
dare not make the law more summary and strin-
gent, that would raise a perfect storm in the
country ; on the other hand, it cannot be enforced
on either side on account of the uncertainty, de-
lay, and expense.

Then, again, the main argument against the
Stamp, and what we have always acknowledged to
be a practical unfairness, is, that, by compelling
all copies of a journal to be stamped, those who
do not use the Post-office are compelled to
pAy for those who do. The repealers ask, with
an air of triumph, " Why tax a man for a postal
service of which he never avails himself ?"—which
is, of course, the case whenever papers are pur
cliased with no intention to post them. Still
more triumphantly may the Church-rate repealer
ask, " Why tax a man for -a
religious service
which he never uses ?" More triumphantly, we
say, for the hardship is incalculably greater on
the vast numbers who, while taxed for the
Churchman's worship, sacramental wine, costly
buildings, surplice washing, and all the et
ceteras of the Episcopalian service, not
merely do not use the Church service, but have a
strong repugnance to it, or who at least pay the
entire expense of their own religious services and
their own houses for worship. No man pretends
a like repugnance to the postal service, or is at
the cost of an expensive arrangement in its place.
Mr. WIGRAM and others, indeed, could be so
intolerably stupid, or worse than stupid, as to
pretend that the Church, meaning by that expres-
soicrm. his ovvnChurch, being instituted for the good
Dissenters as well as others, Dissenters
ought cheerfully to pay Church-rates ! If
Mr. W,cluem goes into
the overy-day worldng f
lie will find. those
perverse Dissenters or
WIGRAm's worship about as cheerflpilalyy-las Mr.
WioßA.m pays for the institution of receiving
houses,
pursefinds his pockets lightened of his
or handkerchief.
Those perverse here-
tics will, in spite of all leis arguments, confound
w leish en he
his Church, in this respect, with the pickpockets
of the City streets. Indeed, they angrily avow
that the only difference they know is, that one
does it by law, the other against law. And
many of them think that a au' to
take money of them for what they can-
not use, is worse than skill and cunning employed