The Sun.
London, England, 1855-01-22 00:00:00

LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JANUARY 22, 1855.

THE THREE M.P.'S ON TDB WAR.

(From the Times.)

We know not what may have been the value of the
tea wherewith Messrs. Gibson, Cobden, and Bright re-
galed their supporters at Manchester, but we must say
that if we are to consider the charge of sixpence a-head
as made for the intellectual part of the entertainment,
the article supplied was but a poor equivalent for the
price. As for Mr. Milner Gibson, we verily believe
that if the Russians were landing is England he would
take the opportunisy of making a speech about the
newspaper stamp. While Mr. Bright is bitterly in-
veighing against the press, his colleague is ever urging
the means, as he believes, of spreading and extending its
influence. There is considerable justice, no doubt, in
the observati6n—in which we can join with a perfectly
free conscience that a large portion of the press of this
country, ultra-Liberal as well as ultra-Tory, lent itself to
stimulate the passions of the people and to excite the
wish for syar before war itself had become inevitable.
But we hope Mr. Gibson will prove to the satisfaction of
his colleague in what respect the creation of a new class
of cheaper newspapers, less carefully edited, having far
less valuable interests at stake, and more worked upon
by every gust of popular caprice, would tend to diminish
the danger that the press should abuse its influence by
stirring up mutual animosities, and giving an interested
support to unreasoning clamour. It is amusing to see
one member exposing an evil and his colleague suggesting
the means most likely to conduce to its augmentation.
It is of no use to try to be unpopular en popular prin-
ciples, or to support the assumed pre-eminence of the few
on principles drawn from the presumed infallibility of the
many. Turkey, says M. de Lamartine, is fast dying out
for want of Turks. Republicanism in France was ex-
tinguished for want of Republicans ; and now, it would
appear, the Manchester School, whose mission a few
years ago seemed to be to represent, to form, and fashion
the mind of England, and to stamp an indelible impress
on our history and institutions, is very likely to die out
for want of scholars. Our Tribunes of the people, our
popular orators, the soi-disant heads of our democracy,
the men who have been in the habit of triumphantly ap-
pealing to popular will, and seeking to assimilate our
institutions to those of the United States, where the
voice of the majority is unquestioned, and the voice of
the minority is never beard at all, are now for ever com-
plaining of the delusions which pervert the good sense
of the people, and the passions which darken their
juogineet, and appealing, as it would seem -eery
vainly, from the cry of the many to the enlightened
good sense of the few. It is even with these repro-
sentatives of the masses as with very ordinary people.
So long as the cause they advocate is popular there
is nothing like the voice of the people ; but, when
that voice is on the other side, there is no one
who can enact the part of Coriolanus to the mob, if not
with more contemptuous dignity, at any rate with more
querulous asperity, than your ci-devant mob orator.
Thus, we find Mr. Bright owning that be is in a small
minority, but attributing the war feeling to the passions
rather than to the reason of the country, and to its ex-
traordinary credulity in the press, and citing the move-
ment against the Pope and the fear of a French invasion
as instances of the ephemeral nature of popular delusions.
Mr. Bright finds himself at issue, not only with the
ignorant populace, but with the vast majority of the
reading and thinking part of the English people ; among
others, with every member, without exception, of the
class which has made the business of a statesman the
study of its life. If he refers to the criterion to which
so long as it was favourable to him, he appealed most
liberally—the opinion, namely, of the majority, that is
against him ; if to the opinion of the instructed classes,
that is against him also. He is condemned alike by the
popular and intellectual standard, and in hie isolation is
forced to attribute the ill success of his arguments to pas-
sion and prejudice, instead of admitting the possibility that
opinions which find acceptance with no class of men,
except those deliberately pledged to them on the abstract,
are themselves quite as likely to spring from passion and
delusion as their contraries. "He who is not con-
vinced by these arguments," said a country clergyman
one Sunday, at the conclusion of his discourse; " must
be a villain indeed ;" and that seems pretty much the
opinion which Mr. Bright has formed of the whole
English nation.
Yet, let us put it to Mr. Bright's candour, not
whether the whole nation have not a right to differ, and
be, in fact, right in differing from him on the question
of the war—for this we know is a possibility he would
not admit—but whether in his view of particular trans-
actions and his estimate of particular events he is not a
great deal more likely to be wrong than anybody else.
We, at least, being neither advocates of war nor peace
in the abstract, but believing that nations must be
guided in their adoption of the one or the other by the
urgency of events as they arise, have no occasion to
distort or pervert whatever history teaches and reason
sanctions. But with Mr. Bright the caso is very dif-
ferent. He has adopted a creed of which we will not
say, as Mr. Cobden said at Leeds, that "it deprives his
opinion of all weight among practical men," but which
undoubtedly requires that he should find plausible
and sufficient reasons against any war in which
this country may happen to engage. If the
Russians were to land at the Humber or the
Mersey, and march straight upon Manchester, it
is a necessity of Mr. Bright's pesitien to find
arguments to show, if not that they were right in
so doing, at least that we should be quite wrong in re-
sisting them. He has his choice, indeed, of premises,
but no choice whatsoever as to the conclusion. However
unmanageable be the facts, the problem which he has
set himself to work out is, how to extract one uniform
inference from them, and that inference against taking
up arms. Theodore Hook tells us of a jury that went
" upon the zigzag principle"—all the odd prisoners it
convicted, all the even ones it acquitted. This was the
substitution of a mechanical for an intellectual principle,
and Mr. Bright's way of judging of war is just the same,
only that, instead of approving and condemning alter-
nately, he is always a hanging judge. Now, just as the
jury was less likely to be right in any given case than it
would have been if it had examined into the merits in-
stead of confining itself to the " zigzag principle," so
Mr. Bright must net be angry if the certainty that he
executes Jedburgh justice, and condemns those who go
to war before he examines into the grounds on which
they proceed, detracts somewhat from our respect for his
opinion. Some years ago a very important case came
on for hearing before a local court, and eminent counsel
were employed to argue it. When they had finished the
judge drew a manuscript from his pocket and proceeded
to read his decision, which, for greater caution, he had
arrived at before entering on the judicial investigation
of the case. Such is the treatment that those in favour
of the present war meet with at the hands of Mr. Bright,
and when they remonstrate against a decision so formed,
he tells them, with supreme contempt, that they are the
the victims of heated passions and ephemeral delusions.

1 with former demonStrations which we have witnessed in
that city. It has been customary to speak of " The
Manchester party," and " The Manchester school." The
epithets were employed at first by the Tory-Protec-
tionists as a taunt. They were wisely accepted by the
Anti-Corn-Law agitators as an honourable title. But they
never were accurately descriptive of the body to which
they were applied. An accidental oircumstauce mode
Manchester the scene of the first aggregate demonstra-
tion against the Corn-laws in 1838. The local position
of Manchester—the metropolis of the cotton manufac-
ture, connected by railways with the great port of
Liverpool, with the manufacturing districts of York-
shire, with the Staffordshire potteries, and with Bir-
mingham—made it an eligible place of rendezvous for a
large portion of the Ceinlaw repeaters. There hap-
pened to be in Manchester at the moment a number of
gentlemen singularly qualified for undertaking the ma-
nagement of the moveinent--Mr. Cobden, the Messrs.
Ashworth, Mr. Hall, Mr. R. IL Greig, Mr. J. B.
Smith, Mr. Rawson, Mr. A. Prentice, and others. The
labouring oar came thus to be entrusted by common
consent to the men of Manchester, and nobly did
they repay the trust. Still it is due to truth
to declare that Manchester was not strop, g in
its own strength alone. In the earliest meetings of the
Anti-corn-law delegates a prominent and useful part
was taken by the representatives of London, Liverpool,
Dun-
dee. 'The Baineses, Plints, Dixons, Johnstons, Batters,
Carlisle, Glasgow, Leeds Sheffield, Birmingham,
Aitkens, Walmsleys, Sturges, Boultbees, and other de-
legates from these places were as indefatigable in their
efforts, as liberal in their sacrifices of time and money, as
enlightened in their views of the question at issue, as re-
solute and devoted, as the men Of Manchester. The
Anti-corn-law League was not a " Manchester Party,"
but a " British Party. " Manchester School" is equally
a misnomer. The doctrines of the party were intelli-
gently received and gallantly advocated by the men of
Manchester, but assuredly they did not originate with
them. The men of Macchester were, like most of
their colleagues, only disciples in the schools of Colo-
nel (General) Thompson and Ebenezer Elliott ; nor
were they among the earliest disciples of these apostles
of the doctrine of free trade in corn. Anti-corn-law
associations had years before been organised in the
metropolis; in many of the great centres of manufac-
turing industry, in which very few of the Liberals of
Manchester could be induced to take an active part.
Mr. Villiers began his annual motions against the Corn-
laws without countenance or support from Manchester.
It is to the honour of the men of Manchester that they
took such a resolute and prominent part In the great
struggle against the Corn-laws ; but they neither origi-
nated the movement, nor did they form the whole or
even the greater part of the movement.
We say this in no spirit of detraction. We readily
admit that nowhere else could leaders so completely
adequate to the emergency have been found at the
time as the active members of the central committee at
Manchester. But it is necessary that it should be
known that the great secret of their strength lay in
their being authorised to speak in the tame of the
aggregate industrial classes of Great Britain, and to
assert the intelligence and zeal of those who by their
alliance made Manchester so powerful. It is neces-
sary to do this, in order to show that even if Messrs.
Cobden and Bright had succeeded in persuading the
Liberals of Manchester to pronounce in favour of their
views respecting war in general, an the present war in
particular, Manchester, isolated on this question, as the
meetings at Leeds, Sheffield, and elsewhere have proved
it to be, world not be entitled to the same weight as the
Manchester of the Anti-corn-law struggle. But they
have not succeeded in persuading the Liberals of Man-
chester to make such a declaration. The fist of the
principal guests and prominent managers of Friday
evening will be sought in vain for many names honour-
ably connected with the Anti-corn-law struggle ; and of
those who were preSent it is clear that a majority do
not acquiesce in the opinions of Messrs. Cobden and
Bright respecting the war. The Leeds meeting is a
more reliable indication of the feelings with which the
mass of the great industrial League which put down
the Corn-laws regard the present war than tke Man-
chester soirée.

THE COALITION GOVERNMENT AND
THE WAR.

With the approach of the period fixed for the. reas-
sembling of Parliament, the Coalition has resumed its
squabbles. This is-Not surprising. No one can won-
der at the protracted sittings of the Cabinet who con-
siders its constitution. Each time, before it can ven-
ture to meet Parliament, its members have to go
through all that unpleasant process of retraotation and
compromise which first brought them together. As
every Minister has a policy of his own, and. entertains
the greatest contempt for his colleagues, the most deli-
cats management is required to induce them to agree
on a line of conduct which shall present some ap-
pearance of concord to the ,florid. The more they
know of each "other the deeper must be their mutual die- •
trust from perceiving how little they have in common,
and the more difficult must they find it to es ;ume a
semblance of unanimity. New events as they arise
must stir in every mind the recollection of a life of poli-
tical antipathy. We can imagine how hopeless must
seem the attempt to reconcile the views of Lei d Aber-
deen and Lord Palmerston when the limitation of the
power of Russia in the Black Sea is discussed'
and how vain must be Mr. Gladstone's efforts
to convince his fellow Ministers that there is
no safety for the country but in his schemes
for loading it with direct taxation. Garrick,
torn between tragedy and comedy, can but
feebly typify the distraction of her Majesty's servants,
assailed on one side by self-interest and on the other by
self-will ; nor can we wonder At those reports of a dis-
solution of the Government which are perpetually afloat
when it is evident that nothing short of a miracle can
keep it together. As matters are proceeding, we may
expect to hear that the decisions of the Cabinet are
finally carried by the same sort of endurance that in
disputed verdicts gives the victory to the juryman who
can fast the longest.
It would be unreasonable to expect that the wants of
the country should receive much consideration when the
weightier affairs of private pretension hare to be ad-
justed. The safety of the army is not to be put in the
scale against the ambition of the Duke of Newcastle to
be Minister of War. To wound his vanity would be to
break up the cabinet, while the worst that can happen
by gratifying it, is the lingering waste and wretchedness
of our force, with the chance of its total destruction in
the end. The nation must be burdened with his incem-
may have the benefit of
ge and jealousies which
hisi3eve r.sylue;qpuoterbstat:ti the
es
callsGt°l' Ye
ifrobnri forth demand some sacrifice, the
sacrifice of public interests is the most obvious and easy
and to this cause it must be ascribed that the
lengthened deliberations of the Cabinet are the invariable
prelude to some new disaster or disgrace. At a time
like the present, an Administration which was simply
weak from the absence of individual talent and energy
would be a great misfortune ; bet it is an aggravation
of the evil of our present state that the weakness of the
eivnelrayyart of petty in-
Coalition is due to the scheming *elfishness of its chiefs.
the better plot
their secret ends, it is
taTrghi
gaeieynesrtieset
aasioenht hee et
motionill. rerp I caenstde,teliwdavi tlnl iee e
i
the country which, in the neglect and mismanagement
of its most vital concerns, is made to pay the penalty of
their mischievous rivalries.
perfectly well known to
g to their sentiments is
with our weakness. England is the
foreignvi
eOw Our
d politicalandwit with
distractionaeceomo according to their sentiments is
viewed by them with compl iaines
elley
or contempt. Russia
has all to hope, and Austria all to gain from it. We caa
expect
cneounstyrypinatthhyo world that adheres to constitutional
niost no
thoughti Possible that we
longer regarded in the
government, and the firmest of our allies may not be
displeased to observe how signally it is failing us in the
hour of trial, and how unfavourably it contrasts with a
more despotic system. As the a:stet-al result of the
policy of our own ; eve have slipped
into the rank of a second or third-rate state ; and it is,
Coalitioneeii councils
p r
eteoeft
daEcttooi
rc
a,p
oe n; r voice
perhaps, indicative of our waning inffuerce that France
has lately drawn closer towards Austria, as if to in.
timate how little reliance could be placed upon our
stability.
The negotiations 'low proceeding at Tiena are con-
fessedly opened on our part under false pretences. They
fide transaction.
are intended to impose on the enemy or on our own pee-
et:Tot:Bly
ple, and either way partake more of the nature of a
must hope to
progress, and
dis-
creditable According trtincktthheanmeifnaisntehroianlepstrinbtoen:sawi:
capture Sebastopol while the treaty
openly to demand. This false and stealthy policy has
thus snatch an advantage whichwweernhaayveasnp
yet been the
The
chosen policy of this country. objects for which
the war was undertaken may be achieved by force of
rarely proved successful, and has never
to either, but not to both at the same time. spirittrUst
It would be perfectly fair in our Government, having
arms, or by pacific negotiation;
distinctly explained the only terms on which it would
treat, to refuse to lay down its arms until the enemy
had given some guarantee of his sincerity. The preli-
minary negotiation would then be short and simple, and
it would speedily be ascertained whether deceit on either
side was intended. But this is not the cenree proposed.
It is said that we are to treat, not for the only terms
which will satisfy us, but for less than we intend to take,
and trust to the chances of war to gain for us what we
dare not ask, or are not likely to obtain by negotiation.
It is a rule in moral philosophy that, as negotiation is
the only mean 4 by which wars can be ended, its lan-
guage should always be plain and honest ; but we, in ne-
gotiating, are to say one thing and intend another. We
appeal to the common sense of our readers whether we
have not correctly represented the tone of the
Government journals. Day after day this view
is put forward as if it were highly creditable to the
sagacity and good faith of the Ministry instead of being
utterly damnatory of both. England might pardon
error, might pardon weakness, but we are much mis-
taken in its spirit if it ever consents to pardon treachery
that, if successful, would for ever dishonour our national
escutcheon.

In this disgraceful scheme we trace again the malig-
nant influence of Coalition councils. A section of the
Ministry is willingly to let the negotiation proceed,
firmly believing that it will come to nothing. Another

section, perhaps with deeper craft, urges it forward,
believing it will prove a reality. One party is persuaded
that the question will be decided at Sebastopol, another
party that it will be settled at Vienna—while waverers
and waiters on Providence conceive that both may be
right, that diplomacy and the sword may work very
well together, and that the question Imist be near a
satisfactory settlement when a resolution is taken to
civilly ask only as much as we are likely to get, and
forcibly seize and hold, whatever we call obtain by
force of arms.

The opening of the year was t) witness the definitive
conclabion of an offensive and defensive alliance with
Austria. In place of that, we are now amused with the
promise of a new Vienna Congress. Will Parliament
longer be a party to the• delusion which has been prac-
tised respecting this Austrian alliance ? If peace be
practicable, or thought to be practicable, lot the fact be
stated ; it cannot come too soon,, if the terms be satis-
factory. But therein lies the whole question. What are
those terms ? Is this peace-negotiation, like the invasion
of the Crimea, to be "a leap in the dark ?" Are we to
know nothing of its objects till we are irrevocably com-
mitted to it or are we to enter into the negotiation
with the underitanding that it is to be a mere formality to
afford Austria a further period of delay ? It is a creel
mockery of the sufferings of our army and of the anxiety
of the nation to represent, in the same breath, the dip-
lomatic proceedings at Vienna as sincere and as hollow
—as intended to lead to a definitive treaty of peace, and
as unlikely to have the slightest result. Everything is
to be feared from a Government which, by its latest
measures, has shown itself to be entirely destitute of
foresight and sincerity.
When Ministers last met Parliament the Foreign En-
listment Bill was demanded as a measure of extreme
urgency. No one who heard Lord Palmerston
address the house on that occasion will forget the earnest-
ness with which he spoke. The bill was essential to the
relief, perhaps to the salvation, of our gallant army in
the Crimea ; we could procure an accession of able-bodied
and experienced recruits in no other way. .A. majority
of the Legislature was credulous, the bill was passed,
proclamation was made to the World that we could no
longer depend ou our own population to maintain our
army, and;what has been the result ? The States of
Germany, from which recruits were to be drawn, have
prohibited enlistment in their territories ; many months
must, certainly elapse before a single foreign regiment
can be embodied ; and deplorable, indeed, must be the
state of our army before Sebastopol if it is to wait for
succour until the pet force of Lord Palmerston and Mr.
Sidney Herbert is ready for action.
This bill completed the measures which the Govern-
ment, to the end of the year, deemed necessary for the
prosecution of the war. All their demands were con-
ceded—all their supplies voted. They might have had
still larger powers had they thought proper to have
asked for them. With every requisite for success, to
what but to the grossest mismanagement can we attri-
bute their disastrous failure ? Responsible government
must sink into deserved contempt if the direction of
affairs is longer left in the hands of Ministers whose in-
competency receives each day some new and glaring
illustration. In ordinary times their squabbling
might properly be punished with ridicule ; but, con-
temptible in itself, it is serious in its consequences.
They profess to have done their best, and we see what
that best is. But their capacity for mischief is not ex-
hausted. It is net enough that we have to deplore the
ruin of our noble army through their presumption and
carelessness; they are now, by the account of their
organs, plotting to involve the country in faithless nego-
tiation, and add disgrace to the disaster with which they
have overwhelmed it.—Press.