The Sun.
London, England, 1855-02-01 00:00:00

\
:;,,opeß‘ 4114 44.44.
:#4,-,Arroilp.o:4
4,, 4

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1855.

It is amusing and instructive to consider the
lucubrations of the various party organs during
the present crisis. We find those who last year
were most exigeant in their demands on the
Derbyites—who designated any degree of opposi-
tion to Ministerial requisitions as " factious," or
possibly pro-Muscovite—now the most earnest in
insisting that there shall be no concession by their
friends, awl that the conduct of the War ! the
safoty of the Army of the Crimea ! 1 nay, more,
the prospects of a permanent and honourable
peace, are all to be sacrificed to the party predi-
lections of these who a short time since were the
ins, but who now, happily for the nation and its
gallant defenders, may be regarded as .4irtually the
outs. Great is the indignation against Lord JOIIN
RIWELL for having produced this result. Indeed
his conduct is denounced as such that it should
constitute " a lasting ground of exclusion from
the confidence of the nation and the CROWN !"

Now, we can recollect a somewhat similar act,
which, although at the time it excited paroxysms
of rage in the party thereby excluded from office,
is now regarded in a very different view by the
entire nation. When Sir ROBERT PEEL broke up
' one of the strongest party combinations that ever
held office—when lie refused any longer to give
up to party what was meant for the benefit of the
entire people—he was assailed with the most
virulent vituperation. No words were sufficiently
strong to express the intense detestation of the
act. Temperate men, however, regarded it as
one of the greatest sacrifices over made—one of the
purest acts of patriotism ever displayed by a Minis-
ter of the CROWN. That feeling has now become uni-
versal. Even those who were once its most uncom-
promising opponents, who let slip no opportunity
of denunciation, have at length come round to
more equitable views ; and we believe that there
is now but little difference of opinion on the sub-
ject—that the brightest act of a very brilliant
career was that in which Sir ROBERT PEHL gave
up his cherished prejudices, and abandoned the
powerful party he had organised for that -which
he conscientiously believed to be for the benefit
of the entire community. We have but little
doubt that when the first soreness has worn away
—ashen the temporary wound has been healed—
there will be a similar verdict respecting the
recent act of Lord Joux RUSSELL ; and that, se
far from constituting " a lasting ground of exclu-
sion from the confidence of the nation and the
CRowN," it will be looked on as his strongest
claim to both—as one of the most incontestable
proofs of his possessing the character (not always
coincident) of a profound statesman and a► tho-
rough patriot. We could not enter into the
consideration of the contemplated changes without
rendering this simple act of justice to one whom
we have always looked on with respect and esteem;
and who was never more entitled to both one and
the other, from every person who advocated the
great principle of " measures, not men," than at
the present moment.
Lord DERBY has, it appears, been sent for, and
had two communications with the Qunnx This
might have been anticipated. Ineleed it is diffi-
cult to conceive how any other course could have
been constitutionally adopted by her MAMITY,
—and it needs not our assurance to the effect that
the constitutional course is that which will be
followed by our most gracious SOVEREIGN. The
Noble Earl is the recognised head of the great
party which commands an absolute majority
iu the Upper House, and is numerically the
strongest of any single party in the popular
branch of the Legislature ? The time has gone
by when the country could be ruled by a majo-
rity of the hereditary legislators. But no one
can presume to assert that the weight and influ-
ence of the Noble Lord in one of the co-ordinate
branches is not a great element of success ; that
must be taken into consideration in the formation
of a new Government, and that Lord DERBY

questionably possesses.
In the Commons, as we have stated, he is iu
a minority. But it is only a combination of all
parties that can defeat his measures. Should he
succeed in obtaining the support of any influen-
tial section of the House, he may carry on the
Government far more efficiently than his pre-
decessors. Now, it is this very weakness that
affords the strongest assurance to us, who
look solely to the benefit of the people, and who
care nothing as to the names of those who may
hold the seals of office so that the power cannot be
abused. There is no great question of internal
policy, now depending, which may be prejudiced
by the appointment. The obsequies of Protec-
tion have been duly solemnised. There is no
possible danger of its resurrection—and all the
previous heartburnings and jealousies that ex-
isted on account of the unseemly hag should be
interred in the same sepulchre. We need not say
how widely we differed on this important point,
but, as the matter has been frankly abandoned
on one side, we do not see the propriety of
brooding over the differences of the past rather
than the hopes of the future.
Then arises the greatest domestic question, or
rather series of questions of the present day.
The various reforms, Parliamentary, legal, eccle-
siastical, flew,
seriously injured financial, monetary, cannot be
by the accession of Lord DEUBY
to office. On the first point, we believe that the
Whigs would be more valuable in opposition than
in power. We willingly
Itussem, as a conscientious
Parliamentary Jon
r
former. But he still, we will say unaccountably,
lags in the rear ! Ho still repudiates " the
Ballot, " the most important, nay more, the
most indispensable, of "all the points." When left
to himself, and unhampered by association with the
Peelites—on this point more conservative than
the Conservatives themselves—he will judge
more impartially, and we cannot hesitate as to
what will be the result. Should Parliamentary
Reform be even postponed for a session, it will be
worth obtaining, and it signifies little whether
that postponement arises from the unwillingness
or the
weakness of the Government, save that
better prospt of providing a
er
rtehmereedyis
fo a
r n
tlltilechform than the latter.
that Derbyit
But clogs does it follow
P rEamentarye Reform 3
meat would oPPo° a

Far from it. We believe that there is at least an
equal prospect of obtaining as broad and corn, pre-
hensive a measure at their hands as from thos o of
their opponents. _ .

•
On the legal reforms there is even a brigh:ter
prospect. Lord St. LEONARD& has done mu .c 1 t ;
and in Ireland the measures of Messrs. NA pr SR
and WHITEsnon have been of a very liberal tt
dency—if not all that we could desire, still p•ro-
gressing very far in the right direction ; and. he
must indeed be an unreasonable person tat
would object thereto.
Ecclesiastical matters are perhaps more dolibt-
ful, but when we look to the clearly-express Bed
views of Lord STANLEY, and his close connection
with the Premier, and his friendship with In
DISRAELI, we must consider that there is a bet: ter
prospect of obtaining important ameliorations tlo an
if the Coalition remained in office—more e epe.
daily when we consider the liberalising tendency
of opposition on Whig minds.
In the other highly important matters of
fiscal, financial, and monetary reform, we conf,3 ss
that we have greater confidence in Mr. DISRA
than 14 Mr. GLADSTONE. We have seen that the
former endeavoured to render the Income Tax .in
some degree more equitable—that he recognise ,d
the distinction between permanent and temporary,
between certain and precarious, income—while ti,he
latter steadily refused to make any concession,
or to let in the point of the wedge in Vie
slightest degree. GLADSTONE even conquered s ,11
his colleagues, and, while he retains office, the re
is not the slightest hope of any more equitable
adjustment of that onerous impost.
In financials he has laid down the principle of
placing the entire War expenditure on the accr
w-
ing income of the country, after denuding the
Exchequer of its balances, and of grinding the pre-
sent generation for the benefit of posterity. We of
the present generation do not approve of th at
coarse, and should rather that he was Minister for
posterity than for ourselves.
What, then, have we to fear from a Derhyite
Government ? Nothing ! It can do no poss.iblo
harm ; all that it could effect would be to retard
the progress of important reforms, which, sooner
or later, are inevitable.
But we have much to hope—much in bringing
the War to a satisfactory termination—much in. op-
posing Germanism—in making England respected
abroad—and, bringing the AUTOCRAT to a speedy
sense of his true position. Without the assistance
of liberal leaders—without Lords PaLsrEnsTox
and JOHN RUSSELL—there may bo constant dif-
ficulties. But those who regard the welfare and
prosperity of the nation as more important than
party feelings will fervently hope for a Coalition
that would indeed be for the benefit of the com-
munity, and which would be of a character to
induce England to change its opinion and to love
such party combinations.

Aristocracy versus merit has been the ruin of
the army in more ways than one. The whole
country is aroused by the Crimean exposures
of the incompetency of men who obtained
their commissions by purchase only, while
merit pined in the ranks ; but the chief
Government spokesman made an admissioi
in the debate which tells most forcibly in
the same direction. He observed that the
reason why our troops know regimental duty so
well, while they are unskilful to carry out the
duties of the larger combinations which form an
army, is that they have been scattered over the
country in single regiments, performing, in fact,
police rather than military service. This state-
ment is strictly true. It would seem to
have been the policy of our rulers not
to let the people see that we had an
army, yet to let them see at the same time
some soldiers in every place where there was a
possibility of popular outbreak. Regiments every-
where, but an army nowhere ; this was the plan
which at once concealed the magnitude of our
military force, and yet kept naughty Chartists
and others quiet. According to Mr. S. IiBitBERT
we have been living under the protection of a
military police, while we supposed tkat the gen-
tlemen of the blue coat and truncheon were our
protectors.

Now, all this we owe to our aristocracy. Its
two great sections—those who openly and at all
times oppose political and institutional reform,
and those whom Sir E. L. Brmwim so justly and
pithily described as " democrats in opposition and
oligarchs in office'—both these sections equally
wish to concede as few popular rights as pos-
sible. Corn laws, game laws, Church-rate laws,
rotten boroughs, taxes on knowledge, shilling
postage, army corruptions, Church abuses—every
abuse, in short, both parties in the aristocracy
have doggedly defended, or are doggedly defend-
ing, till the last moment. The fatal army
abuse, by which its commands have been made
the nest of portionless aristocrats instead of the
reward of proved capacity, has, as we now see,
been clung to till it has brought down upon it the
condemnatory verdict of " the grand inquest of
the nation." It was an abuse practically affect-
ing but a small class, a class which dare not com-
plain ; and hence, till the Crimea revealed the
corruptness and ruinous inefficiency of the entire
hoax, the solemn imposition of the Horse Guards
was accepted as something which civilians were not
to meddle with. They were to pay, to the tune of 15
or 17 millions per annum, but not to complain. All
was perfect. " The Duke" was a guarantee for
that. About such matters, however, as we men-
tioned above, the civilians did know, or thought
they did. Above all great numbers thought that
one man had as good a right to vote for a mem-
ber of Parliament as another, and when times of
pressure came, and petitions and remonstrances
were of no avail, the unenfranchised were liable
to be rather mutinous, and to demand their rights,
and the suppression of aristocratic abuses in an
unpleasantly lond tone. Then was seen the
aristocratical beauty of the regimental dispersion
of our troops. Regimental police saved the
necessity of concession. Bayonets wore every-
where ready to answer any clamour for the
suffrage. It was not needful to content the
people. Call out the troops !
_ .

It cannot be considered far fetched to trace
thus a system which has disqualified our soldiery
from forming an army, which has left the men
incompetent to shift for themselves, and their
superior officers incompetent to supply them with
food, shelter, and ammunition at only seven miles
from their port—it cannot be far-fetched to tram
this system to aristocratic antagonism to the rights
of the people. It is a gross libel on our country-
men even to hint that they need troops scattered
all over the country to keep them quiet. Hardly
anything but soma palpable injustice will collect
any number of plain Englishmen together with
very angry feelings, or for purposes of violence.
Remove all real grievances, all political inequali-
ties, all unjust patronage of favoured sects, all
laws that favour property at the expense of
grievance-monger will have
poverty, and the
hard work to get an audience, and harder
still to arouse one to acts of mischief
ilk support of the orator's nostrum. In
a word, if Whigs and Tories will but consent