The Sun.
London, England, 1855-10-18 00:00:00

un„
„•

opened the assault with fresh vigour, or rather
additional acerbity. We should, however, be

well contented to let the controversy rest as it is,
satisfied of the unanimous verdict of every right-
minded man, were it not for a very startling
assertion put forward this day in its leader. It
professes to have had a direct communication from
Government, and, mirabile diettc, to the effect
that if its stringent comments were no longer put
forward General SrmrsoN would be offered as a
sacrifice at its shrine ! Le3t it may be supposed
that we have in any degree exaggerated
its meaning, we quote its own
language •. —" At
the first outbreak of national feeling the Govern-
ment was alarmed. We were asked to refrain
from further comments on the untoward event,
and were assured that General SIMPSON would at
once yield to another the command which he was
clearly unfit to hold. If not recalled, he would
be advised in a friendly manner to resign. lie
was an old and respected officer, and, if not capable
of the highest command, might yet be allowed to
retire quietly."
Now there can be no doubt as to the obvious
interpretation of this statement. It is manifestly
intended to convey the impression that an autho-
rised emissary from the Government made a corn-
munication to the Times of the intended recall of
General SIMPSON for the purpose of bespeaking
its indulgence and forbearance. If this bold as-
sertion have any adequate foundation, the party
or parties who adopted a course so unworthy are
totally unfit for the high positions which it is
more than hinted that they occupy. They un-
fairly and unjustly yielded, not to popular cla-
mour, but to the vindictive feeling of a single
journal, which, emboldened by its temporary suc-
cess against one of our most distinguished Generals,
has endeavoured to secure a new victim. It might
have been anticipated that the glorious termina-
tion of the military career of one whom it assailed
as fiercely and wantonly as it now does the gal-
lant SIMPSON might have taught it a salutary
lesson of caution. But no ! Oblivious of the
great discredit cast on it in the case of Lord
GOUGH, it has resumed its unwarrantable attacks
on the British General, who has not considered it
his chief duty to propitiate the manager or the
correspondent of the Times !
For ourselves we totally discredit the statement,
and wo call upon the Times to prove its
accuracy. It has for the nonce made a direct
assertion, which is capable of substantive proof.
A Parliamentary inquiry has already been held
on a similar statement, which it did not venture
to support when the proper time arrived. But
should the Times now shrink from what it has
asserted it must submit to be regarded as a
wilful and deliberate slanderer. If it can sustain
its allegation a Minister must be unfit for his
situation ! This is the dilemma in which it has
just placed itself by its audacity.
There is only one other point in its laboured
article worthy of notice. It says, speaking of
General SIMPSON, "Is he deemed competent by
the Government—are the comments and criticisms
of the Nation" (i. e. the Times), " ignorant or
calumnious? Then, let Lord PA LMERSTON and Lord
PANMIIRE express their approval !" Does the
Times think that expression at all called fur ? Has
it not been conveyed in the clearest and most
unequivocal terms in his promotion to the rank
of General, and his nomination as Knight Grand
Cross of the Bath. No words could convey more
forcibly the high and cordial approbation of his
SOVEREIGN, the Premier, and the War Minister,
than these great, but scarcely adequate, rewards
for his meritorious and distinguished services.