The Sun.
London, England, 1855-11-09 00:00:00

have done nothing worthy of the sacrifices it has
cost.

It is very easy—we are not sure that it is any
popular—to decry this language as unpa-
triotic, and to claim a monopoly of patriotism for
these who flatter the pride and pamper the self-
conceit of the people. We have never denied the
taking of Sebastopol to be a splendid and a great
achievement—we have held that achievement to be
the glory of England equally with France, and we
have laughed to scorn the folly of those who, in the
face of deeds of unexampy heroism, tell us that
the fame of the British arms is dimmed. But we
have asked, and we ask again, what is its value in
practical result ? How much nearer has it brought
us to any object which any man will assign as the
natural object of a campaign? It is one thing to
admire the bravery of our troops; it is another
thing to believe that this bravery has been used so
as to produce practical results.
The two greatest nations of Europe have now
been two years at war with Russia ; and what have
we done ? We have battered clown some stone
walls on the islands of the Baltic, we have cap-
tured a martello tower at Kinbourn, and we have
driven the Russians from the south side of Sebas-
topol. These are our advances against an empire
that extends over one-third of the habitable globe.
If every two years aro to bring us similar successes
we may look upon it that we have provided for
ourselves and for the next generation half a cen-
tury's playing at war. Russia can afford to lose a
Sebastopol every two years, and a Bomarsund every
two months. The play upon both sides may be au
expensive one, but Russia, in the long run, will
bear the cost at least as well as ourselves. And
were the amusement to be protracted for fifty years
matters would be left pretty much in the status quo.
Our blood, we confess, is stirred when we think
of the results of our two years' warfare—of our
wasted treasures—of the sacrifice of unspeakably
precious lives. Empires have been conquered and
dynasties overthrown at less cast than we have in-
curred in captures of which we can scarcely tell
the good. Let no man, we repeat, tell us, that in
speaking thus we decry the heroism of those who
have been recklessly sacrificed in an aimless strife.
Bravery may b© displayed in the defence of the
most worthless position, as in keeping the key of an
empire. The serjeant who closed the gates of
Hougoumont at the critical moment at Waterloo
would have done as brave a deed if he had been
shutting the door of a mess room against burglars.
Brave deeds in war are only valuable as they lead
to a material position. •
Neither will any one suppose that we are adopt-
ing the cant arguments of the craven faction who
would counsel us that the war ought to be aban-
doned as a hopeless one. We can trace all our
evils to the one source of the coward spirit of
diplomacy presiding over the councils of war. Our
hostile enterprises have been all diplomatic demon-
strations. Not one of them has been undertaken
with the true motive of strategic design. We have
fought against Russia to convince and not to con-
quer. We assailed Sebastopol because some secret
information told our wise Ministers that if once
Sebastopol was taken Russia would bo ready to
negotiate. We sent a noble fleet to the Baltic
because we imagined that the appearance of the
grand flotilla in those waters would bring the Czar
to terms. Our troops were sent to the East, not
to fire a shot in anger, but to help Austrian media-
tion by a nol very respectable military parade.
No wonder that engaging in a war in such a spirit
we have but little but endless protocols to point to
as the result.

This was the war (I !) policy of Lord Aberdeen.
There is too much reason to fear that the same po-
licy at this moment is paralysing our efforts, and
that the victorious arm of our generals has been
stayed because some secret assurances are given
that projects of peace may be entertained. We
yesterday stated some of the reasons that led us to
this conclusion. We adverted to the sparing of
Odessa, the withdrawal of the expedition against
Nicolaieff, but, above all, to the utter absence of
that preparation which is indispensably requisite
if we purpose during the next summer to do more
than dawdle through another six months of useless
and aimless fighting.
It will not do for Lord Palmerston's friends to
throw out hints, as they are doing, that he is not
master in his own Cabinet, and that other in-
fluences control his energy and his sincerity in the
war. Were all they say of him true it would not
mend his position or diminish his responsibility.
Nay, it would increase the latter, as it makes him,
for the sake of place, the tool of others. But upon
the whole Cabinet the responsibility must jointly
fall, and more heavily upon its chief. The Minis-
ters who will trifle with this war, and not Mr.
Gladstone or Mr. Bright, aro the true party of
Rusiia in this country. They are dispiriting the
national ardour and wearying out the national en-
thusiasm. If we are to have a real and earnest
war against Russia there is no sacrifice that can be
called for to which the British nation will not
readily submit to carry it on. But we are a little
impatient at having all thA innnrivAnipnepa of war
without the compensation of its high and inspirit-
ing object. We aro not satisfied with real taxes
and a ehain war. Nay, we cannot wonder, if this
system of diplomatic hostility is carried on, if men
the most anxious for the honour of England will
at last prefer the terms of the most humiliating
peace to the intolerable and constant degradation
of weak and aimless hostilities.

We make these observations in no spirit of party.
The crisis is one of true peril to the country. If,
during the winter, we are once more to wait upon
the diplomatic follies of continental despots—if we
are to dispirit tho national enthusiasm and let
down our national dignity by Being entangled in
the meshes of private negotiation—we believe that
next year will witness the old result. We shall
come out of diplomacy without honour, to take the
field without success.

At last, surely, the time is come when, if we are
to strike at Russia, it must not be with the blind
boxer's blows. The duty of the English Minister is
now to form the plan by which Russian power can
best and most speedily be reduced. It is his duty
to call upon the nation to put forth all its energies
to execute that plan. The Minister who is now
turned aside from this by the low considerations of
Cabinet convenience, or drawn off from it by the
delusive offers of a hollow mediation, will, unless
the people rescue the country from him, be an-
swerable for the loss of England's place among the
nations of the world.