The Sun.
London, England, 1855-08-31 00:00:00

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

THIg DAY—Morn. 21min. aft. 4—Evening 42min. aft. 4
To-Moßßow—Morn. 1 min. aft. s—Evening 21min. aft. 4

WEATHICR.—&Te Omar, Aug. 31.
TEDIBI4OMZTISS, IN Tlllll SHADS.
70—highest since noon yesterday.
59 —lowest this morning and daring the night.
70—this day, at noon.
8A.13.011ET18, 30'31.
WIND, E.—Light breeze, and fine, clear, sultry weather.

'At) =,#)
;•;./

~~,

.

c§1131.,

LONDON, FRIDAY, AUGUST 31, 1855.

Scandinavian enthusiasm was greatly excited by
the early intelligence respecting the bombardment
of Sweaborg. The results were considerably mag-
nified there, as in this country. The complete
demolition of " the Gibraltar of the North" was
currently reported and implicitly believed. It
was naturally. supposed that the brilliant success
which attended the operations of the Allied fleets
was but the first of a series of slitiilar triumphs by
-which, the Russians would be, if not annihilated,
at least materially crippled; so that she could no
longer menace her neighbours, or continue the
aggressive policy which she had so long displayed
towards them. In Sweden particularly the sup-
posed, event was hailed as a great act of retributive
justice, which inflicted well-merited punishment
on the unconscientious plunderer in the very scene
of her crime. Flelsingfors had been robbed from
Sweden. It was a Swedish, beforo it had been
transformed into a Russian fortress—the capita)
of that Finland which had once been the fairest
province of their fatherland. They could not conceive
that the victorious squadron would be contented
with the mere destruction of stores—that they
would not take possession of the all but captured
forts—or that, even if they could not permanently
retain the works, they would depart to °the!
quarters, while one stone remained standing on
another, or a single Russian cannon commanded
theapproaches. Such folly would be incomprehen-
sible if the English Government were really in
earnest and desirous of obtaining the co-operation
of nations in the immediate vicinity of so formid-
able an enemy.

Bitter indeed must have been their disappoint-
ment on ascertaining the true state of the case,
on learning that from some cause the assailants had
stopped in the very centre of their work, leaving
the sea defences but little injured, and still avail-
able for Muscovite purposes. Some foundation
has therefore been afforded for the mendacious
pretences of the Russians, which ascribes some-
thing the very reverse of bravery to our larger
vessels, and declares the damage inflicted on the
works of the fortress and the batteries in
general to be " insignificant." They are told
by the General DE BERG that " The enemy's
large vessels, as ships of the line, fri-
gates and steamers, owing to the large surface
they would offer to our (i.e., the Russian) fire,
took no part whatever in the combat with the
fortress, carefully avoiding receiving any damage ;"
and the fact that they escaped without a single
man killed, or vessels materially injured, seems to
corroborate the statement, for had it been other-
wise, why did they not go in to finish the work
so well commenced by the mortar-vessels and
gun-boats, and complete the demolition of the
forts, the fire whereof had previously been all but
silenced ?

The alleged reason will scarcely be credited.
The Swedes do not know Sir Charles Wood !
They cannot believe that a First Lord of the
Admiralty would for a moment be retained in
office who disregarded the obvious precaution of
keeping a suitable reserve of shells and mortars
for the use of the fleet, so as to prevent it from
fairly following up and completing its triumphs,
and rendering the enormous expenditure incurred
on the Baltic expedition prac't'ically useless. They
have probably never heard of the evil reputation
attached to his name. If any rumours respecting
him have circulated in Stockholm or the surround-
ing country, they have been merely with respect to
his connection with the retired " Aberdeenists,"
who have since become avowqdo.llnssian partisans,
who has also deprecated the
with Lord GREY,
War, and declared himself for peace
at any price
or on any condition, and UM the henchman of
Loid JonN RUSSELL, who disobeyed the instruc-
tions of the Cabinet by whom he was appointed,
and of which he continued a member, notwith-
standing his gross insubordination. Under' such
circumstances, then, the inopportune failure of
supplies at the most pressing emergency would be
ascribed to something worse than mere incom-
petency. Even Sir CHARLES WOOD, if in ear- i
scarcely ignore the palpable fact that
mortars would not last for ever, and that it, ,

-would be as necessary to provide a reserve of
heavy ordnance of, that particular class for
the vessels in which they were in use,
ai additional pairs of shoes for soldiers
engaged in actively marching and countermarch.
ing from place to place. Sweden can, therefore,
place no reliance on the sincerity of the English
Government, when it permits such a man to retain
such an office ; and their doubts are enhanced
when they consider the inactivity of the naval
forces in the Euxine, and the great care taken to
keep " the large vessels, ships of the line, frigates,
and steamers," out of danger, carefully avoiding
exposing themselves to any damage. Sir E.
LYONS is not an officer of that discreet valour
that would spare either himself or the men
under his command if he had full permission
to act as he thought proper. If not kept back
by secret instructions from home, he'd have been
long since heard of, in some way or other, and
not remained a mere spectator of the toils and
dangers of the army in the Crimea. The extra-
ordinary prudence lately observable amongst
English Admirals is decidedly not a legacy
derived from the old " Sea PALADINS "
of England. It is decidedly well to spare men
and vessels when the object can be accomplished
without loss. But would NELSON have permitted
a season to pass by ingloriously because some
danger should be encountered in meeting the
enemy muzzle to muzzle, or if they skulked
behind stone walls, in cutting them out from the
very ports in which they were vainly seeking
shelter ? Unfortunately we have now no NELSONS
who will insist on the privilege of meeting them
wherever they are to be found, and dealing with
them according to the usage of English Admirals
of the olden time.

The Peer and the Presbyter are just at this
moment exhibiting themselves in striking contrast,
and illustrating their respective susceptibilities of
the better tendencies of the age. The Presby tens
of Edinburgh and the heir to the Derby peerage
are, by appropriate methods, disclosing to the
public the stuff which each class of men is made
of. The one throws open his park to the grateful
multitudes, and speaks to them on self-reliance on
their part, and of his own gratification in offering
to the humble many the pleasures of a ramble in
his grounds, and the improvement as well as plef,' -
sure of gazing on the works of taste which orm -
ment the family mansion ; the others open the
door of the Calton Gaol, but only to close it on
an aged widow who cannot pay them thirty
shillings for ministrations, en which, from
conscientious reasons, she never attended ! Lord
STANLEY votes against Church-rates, and would
probably vote against the equally odious Edin-
burgh Annuity Tax ; not only that, but he
tells the thousands of Lancashire mechanics ga-
thered on his lawn, " that every year we see more
plainly that in education, as in other matters,
self-help is the best help, that a little which men
do for themselves is better than a great deal they
get the State to do for them." The Edinburgh
Presbyters, on the contrary, are occupied in
wringing silver and gold, and bawbees too, from
poor widows, and scores of other poor persons, by
means of such thumb:screws as are yet permitted
them. The idea of reliance on the liberality of
those they teach, or, what comes to the same
thing, on their own capacity and diligence as
religious instructors, does not seem to occur to
the successors of the great model Presbyter who
burnt SERVETUS.

We have some faint recollection, indeed, of
other Presbyters whom we used to think passable
models ; it may, however, be a serious objec-
tion to them that they were not so near the
middle ages as the great predestinarian.
They lived in the remote antiquity of the
first century, indeed some of them bad
taken their oral instructions from the founder of
our faith himself. Perhaps it is hardly to be
expected that men should turn back from the
sun-light of JOHN CALVIN to the dimly discerned
glimmerings of PETER and PAUL. Geneva logic
has developed Christianity wonderfully since their
time. What would the Presbytery now think of
any of their number who should tell a modern
ANANIAS that his property was " his own," even
though the Holy Kirk had need of it ; or of
~no who should admonish a fellow Presbyter to
" Feed the flock and take the oversight thereof—
not by constraint but willingly, not for filthy lucre
but of a ready mind." Of course PETER had not
sat at the feet of the heretic-burner. He would
have been wiser now. And PAUL, too, he was so
unenlightened that he actually worked for his
living ! He told a whole assembly of presbyters
that he bad " coveted no man's silver, or gold, or
apparel—that they knew that his own hands had
ministered to his necessities and to those who were
with him." He carried this amiable weakness to
such an extent that he declared it was better for
him to die than not to be able to boast of waiving
his right to live by the Gospel, when asserting
that right would have prejudiced his ministerial
usefulness. Ho even laid it down as a rule for
his disciples that they should give " not grudingly
or of necessity," for, he added, " the LORD loveth
a cheerful giver." In this last remark PAUL was
decidedly in error, for we can hardly imagine that
the Edinburgh Doctors of Divinity would fill the
gaols and streets with angry or weeping givers,
if they did not know the mind of the LORD better
than PAUL did. Like PETER, too, PAUL taught a
very eminent young presbyter, to whom he wrote,
that men in that office were not to be " greedy of
filthy lucre, but patient and gentle to all men," and
thelike. It is plain that PAUL might be a very good
primitive Christian, but he was not a finished
Presbyterian ; he had not learned from those pro-
mised comforters, CALVIN and KNox. He and
the other Apostles were sent forth in those twi-
light days of Christianity " as lambs in the midst
of wolves," but now the State Presbyters go forth
as wolves in the midst of lambs. In brief, PAUL
was very good at doctrines and as far as the five
points go, but he knew nothing about the support
of Kirk Ministers.

We suppose, with the other denizens of
Edinburgh, the Presbytery term themselves
Modern Athenians. One point of resem-
blance they may certainly claim. Ancient
Athens sent SOCRATES to prison on an in-
dictment of heresy in regard to the esta-
blished faith ; the Presbyters of the Modern
Athens send the poor widow PRINGLE—widow,
too, of a Colour-Serjeant who had served twenty-
nine years in the 78th Highlanders—send the
soldier's widow of sixty to prison literally for
thirty pieces of silver. She dissents from the esta-
blished faith, which, in the Edinburgh kirk, is,
that citizens who object to pay for what they
never use, shall he made to pay. For widows,
paupers, and all, the Presbyter tax or the gaol
are the only alternatives. Luckily, they
cannot give them the cup of hemlock, nor even
CALVIN'S substitute, the faggot ; perhaps, how-
ever, they do not wish ; dead heretics bring no-
ing
th to the sacred cheat.

We believe it was some of these Presbyterian
clergy who, not long ago, would have almost had
our Government go to war because one of their
Doctors of Divinity got into prison at Madeira,
if we remember right, for preaching Protestantism

to the simple-minded Catholics. The law of the
island was clear and undisputed—but the Scotch
doctor was conscientiously doing his duty, and
it was denounced as intolerable that he
should not have liberty to do what he
believed to be his duty. Compare, then,
the case of the aged soldier's widow with
the other. She pleads either poverty or conscience.
If the former, what language can depict the ava-
rice of these spiritual pawnbrokers, who take
even the widow's body in pledge for a paltry thirty
shillings which she cannot afford ? If she plead
conscience, as she may with good right, why are
Presbyterian Doctors alone to have the benefit of
that plea ? It it be denied that there can be any
conscience about the matter, we reply that that is
the assertion of all persecutors against their victims ;
the Catholics certainly could equally employ it
against the proselyting Scotch doctor. The Ca-
tholics, indeed, by comparison appear to immense
advantage. To imprison a man for teaching
what they held to be fatal error was bad enough
in one view, but it is magnanimity itself com-
pared with the miserly meanness and the Shylock
cruelty of imprisoning a woman,—an aged woman
—a widow—for THIRTY SHILLINGS !

But we have done. Fully as the war engages
us, we do hope Lord PALMERSTON will take
these Edinburgh Doctors of Divinity in
hand next Session. But for their avaricious
demands the Annuity Tax would ere now
have been extinguished, and it is a disgrace to
the Legislature that it should longer remain for
the benefit of a few ministers whose half-filled
churches bear witness to their merits. Lord
PALMERSTON has shown his capacity for schooling
the Edinburgh Presbytery, by his seasonable ad-
monitions when, on the occasion of the cholera,
they wished hino force the people to kirk, while
overlooking the primary duty of purifying the
haunts of disease. We hope he will now teach
them that the time is come to put an end for ever
to these ecclesiastical forays in the service of
MAMMON. The intolerance of Tuscany or Spain
is respectable by the side of these degrading per-
secutions for filthy lucre.