The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-29 00:00:00

4Z C ;;,,Z

,

I PRICE 6D,

echo, darkly but steadily, long-existing appee-
hen-ions. A. fear is gaining ground, to the effect that
all our boasting—all our dearly-bought alliances—all our
sacrifices of money and men—are coining to a very igno-
minious result. It is felt, by a hind of instinct which
seldom misleads a whole people, that we are on the eve
of some shameful compromise—some hollow, inade-
quate, and patched-up peace.
A great national question of this kind must be looked
at without reference to party spirit. On domestic ques-
tions it is almost impossible to legislate or administrate,
except through the action of party, not seldom even of
fiction. But when the interests of the nation in the
aggregate, and our reputation in the eyes of the world,
are at stake, away with all preferences for Whig or
Tory, for this or that statesman, for one or the other
section of the community. A considerable and clamor-
ous class at home cry out for peace, because they _find
that the war interferes with their trade and manufactures.
" Perish the country," they cry, "but keep the mills
going !" The influential persons in the City, whose busi-
ness it is to deal in money, or to traffic in the public
funds, are also desit ous of an immediate peace, because at
the momeiit things are stagnant ; and those gentlemen
seldom or never looked beyond the moment. An influ-
ental and well-informed foreign writer tells the world
that the British aristocracy generally are in favour of
peace because they foresee that the war will be made
an excuse for demanding important changes in the con-
stitution. This may or may not be an approximation to
the truth. It certainly is justified as a surmise by the
singular silence and apathy of the Government, by the
inexplicable delays that have occurred in the Crimea,
and by the. ardour with which various chiefs of aristo-
cratic sections of the House of Commons coquet with
the gentlemen who are generally regarded as the leaders
of the democratic party in this country.
Upon one point there can be nos doubt—there exists
in the public mind a feeling of dull, blank disappointment.
A. free people, accustomed to the use of representative in •
stitutione, and habituated to make their will obeyed by
their ostensible ruler,, aro not easily induced to part
with a power so cherished. It is very rarely that such
a people call for a Dictator. If they do, it is because
they believe themselves. iii peril, domestic or foreign,
and ere content to' wei ve their privilege of talking or de-
liberating, for thesake of securing unity of will and vigour
of action. Cromwell wash dictator of this stamp. So was
Chatham. So was the younger Pitt. Each has left a glo-
rious name to posterity, as asserter and defend'er of the na-
si mal honour; and their praises as rulers are joined in by
those who otherwise execrate their policy. The late Sir
Robert Peel was also a dictator. What gained fur him
the respect even of his political opponents'? His moral
courage, vigour, singleness of purpose, disregard of all
considerations except the national honour and the public
good. Once in power, Sir Robert Peel never swerved
from his object, which was to preserve his country from
the horrors or the penalties of an internecine strife be-
tween classes ; to save alike the aristocracy and the
people from the consequences of inflamed passions and
antagonistic interests. He was indeed a ruler ; nor
would he permit any influence whatever—whether from
above him, or beneath him, or around him—to divert
bins from the point towards which all his thoughts and
purposes ever were steadily turned. And what were his
rewards ? A reputation aggrandised—contrary to the
ordinary rule with Ministers—by continuance in office,
and the tears of a nation shed over his untimely death.
At a season of fearful peril to the nation, once more
a Dictator was called for. Our military reputation had
fallen, by the combined influence of false economy and
interference of civilians during a long peace, with per-
severing misrepresentation by journalists at home. The
public had become persuaded that the policy thereto-
fore pursued had been too moderate and pacific, and-
that the time for its revision was come. With the
unanimity which only prevails at such a crisis, all
eyes were turned towards one man—ali voices called
his name. By a species of acclamation he was voted
to the supreme power, and entrusted with that
best machine of Government, the public confidence.
Nearly fifteen years have elapsed since any British
statesman was invested with power in the sense in
which it has been entrusted to the present Prime
Minister. Even the case of Sir Robert Peel is scarcely
in point, because he first cause into power as the chief of
a powerful party, and on the high tide of an almost un-
precedented reaction. Lord Palmerston was borne into
office by the public hopes. No one asked of what mate-
rials he would form a Ministry. No one reflected whether
he was a Whig or a Tory, or a man of aristocratic or of
democratic sympathiee. All was done in a spirit of
almost blind faith. There was reliance upon him as a
man of "vigour"—as one who, by some means or other,
had been kept back, but wbo, if once at the helm, would
speedily set things to rights.
Above all, the public called for Lord Palmerston be-
cause lie was believed to be, on principle, opposed to
Russia, and desirous offs Tarrying on the war with energy.
A.'"popular impression assumed that the whole of his later
policy had been addressed to the frustration of the de-
signs of that power; and that by some means or other he
bad been sacrificed in consequence.. His being called by
a rare unanimity to take the helm was intended as a new
declaration of war against the Czar, as a manifesto by
the nation that the privations endured by our army in
the Crimea, and the ostentatious exaggerations thereof
by some journalists, had not operated on us as a " heavy
blow and a great discouragement." From a man so em-
powered and so supported much was naturally expected ;
and in proportion to the excited, perhaps the exaggerated,
hopes of the nation, will be the disappointment and in-
dignation should he collapse.
It is for this reason that the proceedings of her Ma-
jesty's Government, wrapped as they are in an unneces-
sary mystery, are watched with so deep an interest and
so fretful an anxiety at the present time. Ugly rumours
are afloat. By some means or other, they have derived
consistency and confirmation. Men talk of compromises,
compared with which those made during the decline of
the Roman Empire were honourable and glorious. We
are slow to believe all that we hear on this subject. We
do not conceive it possible that statesmen imbued with
the old spirit of the aristocracy, and sustained by the
spontaneous confidence of the country, can contemplate
the kind of arrangement which common report ascribes
to them. Lord Palmerston, at the present moment, is
not in the position of an ordinary minister. He cannot
fall back upon-a " pasty," and regulate to the influence
of their " principles" his abnegations of individual will.
He stands alone. He has been invested with a dictator-
ship in order that he way bring the whole force of the
empire to bear upon the enemy. As to him would be
accorded the glory of a success, so upon his head would
be visited the consequences of a compromise which might
prove even worse than a failui a.

AYES-69.
A dderley, C. Greene, Thomas
13a4nes, lit. Hon. M. Orey, Sir G. •
Barrington, Viscount Gurney, J.
Baxter. W. Hamner, Sir J.
Bell, J. Harcourt, G.
Wags, W. Hayter, W.
Bramsion, T. W. Headlany, T.
Brocklehurst J. Hutt, W.
Byng, G. Ingham, K.
Cowper, W. F. Johnstone, Sir J.
Crourtird, E. 11. J. Keogh, W.
Crossley, F. Kinnaird, A.
Denison, E. B. Lewis, Sir G. C.
Denison, J. E. Lockhart, A. E.
Diliwyn, L. 3UL:ono, J.
Duncan, Viscount Milligan, It.
Heiman, G. Monck, Viscount
Dundas, F. Mon creiff, J.
Emlyn, Vis. Morris, D.
Fenwick, IL Mimly, W.
Forster, C.. Nerreys, Sir D.
Fors '.er, J. Paget,.Lord A.
Fortescue, C. Paxton, Sir J.
Freestun, Col. Pechell, Sir G.

NONS-73.

irk wright, G. Frewen, C.
Ball, J. Gaiwey, Sir W.
Bankes, Rt Hon G. Grogan, Edward
Bennet, Capt P. Gwyn, H.
Bentinek, G. Hamilton, G. A.
Blackburn, P. Harcourt, Col. F.
Brady, J. Henley, J.
Bramley-Moore, J. Horsfall, T.
Carnac, Sir J. Keating, 11.
Child, Smith Knatchball, W.
Christie, Samuel Langton, H. G.
Clinton, Lord C. P. P. Laslett, W.
Cobbett, J. M. Liddell,ll.o.
Cobden, Iv. Lovaine, Lord
Cowan, C. Macartney, G.
Crook, J. Macgregor, Jas.
Davies, J. L. MacMahon, P.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. Maunsell, T.
Duncombe,Hon.A. Miles, W.
Dundas, G. Michell, W.
Dunne, Col. Mowbray, J.
Egerton, E. C. Mullings, J.
Farrer, J. Nuutz, G.
Fitzgerald, W. Napier, J.
Floyer, J. North, Col, J.
Foley. J. Noithcote, Sir S.

E wart .
Bonham

THE LIVERPOOL ELECTION.
( From the ;Morning Herald of t/d8 day.)
The Conservatives have been soundly beaten at Liver-
pool, and, however we may regret it, it would be affec-
tation to express any surpr:s..

That the Conservative party is by far the predominant
one in Liverpool has been proved so abundantly as to
allow of no doubt. That party has carried every elec-
tion for the last 20 years with a high hand. At the last
general election the poll closed thus :
Mr. Turner (C.)
Mr. Forbes Mackenzie (C.)
Mr. Cardwell (L.)
Mr. Ewart (L.)
Whereas yesterday the poll, for the first time for
many years, gave the first place to a Liberal, closing
thus :
Mr. Ewart
Sir G. Bonham 4,221
The very numbers themselves indicate the reason of
the change. Mr. Ewart has polled more than one thou-
sand fewer votes than Mr. Turner received in 1852.
Why, thou, is he returned ? Clearly because a mistake
had been made, and the Conservatives bad proposed a
respectable man, but a bad candidate.
Even this last expression we must qualify. A. man
may be a bad candidate at one time, !Ind a good one at
another. Under the present circumstances, Sir George
Bonham was-not the man for Liverpool. The event has
proved this.

In 1852 a great question was presented to the people
—Shall Lord Derby's Administration be supported !
The Conservatives of Liverpoot, to fight this:battle, put
forward one of their best merchants ; and with him they
associated a supporter of Lord Derby's—Mr. Forbes
Mackenzie. Thus they combined at once the town and
trade of Liverpool and the Conservative Ministry. They
went to the poll, and gained the victory by a majority
of 1,350 votes over this same Mr. E wart, who is now
successful.

The contest did not end here ; for in 1853 another
battle was fought ; and now Mr. Horsfall, another
Liverpool merchant, defeated Sir Erskine Perry by 1,361
votes.

At the present moment the circumstances are diffe-
rent. Lord Derby is not in power ; nor is he making
any effort to return to power. • Political feuds are not
much thought -of ; and at such a moment personal and
local considerations have a preference. The Conserva-
tives committed the error of sending up to London for
a candidate ; and the second and still greater error of
accepting a gentleman who was almost unknown in
Liverpool. They thus gave their opponent an advant-
age which he did not fail to use on the hustings, in tho
following manner :
" Far be it from him to disparage the character of
his honourable opponent ; but he would put it to the
good sen ie of the electors, whether a person who had
lived here all his life, who was identified with their in-
terests, who had had a commercial education, and whose
whole prosperity depended on his property in Liverpool;
would not make a better representative than his honour-
able opponent, whose name, he would venture to say
with all possible respect, he positively
d even fifty members of this community bad heard of be-
fore his friend Mr. Bold Lad bruuqht himid notdbelieve
even
wniaievsae
candidate for the vacant :_eat."
The result was singular'
_
iY like that of 1853, only re-
versing the parties :

In 1853 the Whigs put up Sir E. Perry, an Indian
judge, and were opposed by Mr. Horsfall, a Liverpocl
merchant. Mr. -Li-onfall polled 6,034 votes, Sir Erskine
Perry only 4,673.
In 1855 the Conservaiives proposed Sir George Bon-
ham, an Indian Governor, and were opposed by Mr.
Ewart, a Liverpool merchant. Mr. Ewart polled 5,690
Totes, and Sir George Bonham only 4,221.
Sir George 13onham alight hate been good_caudi,

..‘,
-------7:17X1------J A-4e ' '
...,..„
4,
5r....,
\ L.,
•..4. v-,-
--e.--e_.----e-- - . _
dO“,delet_been storied, as, Mr. Forbes MaN:isnzt‘c` %ca* -, 17--e '/'.
e . irie, Irre e:
in 1852, in company with a Liverpool merchant e.Onsle- •,.. ~,"it- )_ ei
- distinet!y to support Lord D2rby as Premier. But ate-..,...e.:''.eiF le
-0
' the present moment there is no party contest going °el:. - ' .',lf.,
and Sir George Bonham failed in rousing the CoirseS-`ire -e-r.e.,
votives of Liverpool to any active exertion. `-r;''.'yitee;'--'" ke
i ._3
The soul and life of the Conservative party in Livete-i_ir`t •
pool has always been a religious and Protestant feeling.
Had theMaynooth question been opened in Parliament!'
. and had Sir G. Bonham expressed himself heartily nix*
it, that wou'd have carried his e'.e :tier. But the Proi
testants of Liverpool see no sign of motion in Parlia-
_.' meet corcerning Maynooth—they are not aware, pro-
' bably, that Mr. Spooner is now seeking for an open day
. for its introduction ; and Sir George Bonham's language -
on this question, we must be permi ,tkel to say, was no
calculated to gain the confidence of the Protestants o
Liverpool. He is reported to have said,— .
"I can only repeat what I have said again and again,
and, tholigh I have been considerably abused, I will say
it again.' I think the' question is only an election prac-
tice, after all. I will—l say it because of the party I
belong to—l will oppose a grant to Maynooth. (Great
cheering and laughter.) I have been asked that over
and over again : and, therefore; I say what I have before
said, and what I say I mean, and what I say I will do."
The result of this coolness on the part of the Conserva-
tives was signally fatal. They would not come to the
poll. In 1852, at eleven o'clock, thu poll stood thus :
Turner (C.)
E..vart (L.) 3501
In 1855, at eleven o'clock, the poll stood thus :
Bonham (C.) ..... 1426
Ewart (L.)
It was not, therefore, the greater strength of the
Liberals—it was the indifference of the Conservatives,
that lost this election. Could Sir George Bonham have
obtained the votes which carried Mr. Turner in 1852, or
Mr. Horsfall in 1853, he would have been returned.
He was not returned because he failed in obtaining that
support. The successful candidates at these three elec-
tions were-
-1852. Mr. Turner 6693
1853. Mr. Horsfall
1855. Mr. Ewart
Finally, as a general lesson, gathered from the result -
of this contest, we may offer this :—That, in these quiet .
timer, the mere name of a Conservative will not of
itself insure success. At the general election, which,
from the probable failure of the present Gover-
nment, may be expect el before Midsummer, we must
offs to the people, if we wish to carry them with us, '
Some solid and enduring principles. Except comae such
course an this be taken, the election; will everywhere
turn, as that at Liverpool has just turned, upon mere
local preferences or private partialities, and we shall
have a new House of Commons of which it will be im-
possible, beforehand, to predict anything. Such a
result, in the present circumstances of the empire, would
surely be one of the greatest calamities which can be
;ensgined. Let those who have the power do their best
to shield us from it.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION.

HOUSE OF CWINIONS.—MAnca 23.
VACATING OF SEATS IN PARLIAMENT BILL.
Order for second reading read. Motion made, and Question
put, "That tho bill be now read a second time."
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now,"
and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon
this day six months." Question put, " That the word
' now' stand part of the question." The houso divided
—Ayes, 69 ; Noes, 73.

Philipps, J.
rellard-Urquhart, W.
Ricardo, 0.
Ricardo, S.
Thchardson, J.
Roche, E.
Russell, F. C.
Sandars, G.
Seymour, 11.
Spooner, R.
Stanley, W.
Strutt, E.
Stuart, W.
hompson, G.
Thornely, T.
Whatman,
Wickham, 11. W.
Wilkinson, W.
Wilson, J.
Wortley, J. S.
Wyndham, W.

TELLERS
Wrightson, W.
Deedcs, iir.

Oakes, J.
Packe, C.
Palmer, Robert
Percy, J.
Pigott, F.
Milting ton' .T.
Pritchard, J.
Ricardo, J.
&lily, F.
Smijth, Sir W.
Smollett, A.
Stafford, A.
Thesiger, Sir F. '
Vance, J.
Vansittart, G.
Verner, Sir W.
Waddington, H.
Whitmore, If.
Williams, W.
Winnington, Sir I'.
Woodd, B.

TELLERS

Hadfield, G.
Barrow, W.

ELECTION INTELLIGENCE.

LIVERPOOL.

The result of the polling yesterday has surprised both
parties ; and great blame is attached to the Conserva-
tives for the apathy they are said to have manifested in
bringing up their voters from the commencement of the
contest. 11r. Ewart's supporters, on the contrary,
showed a corresponding amount of energy, and were re-
warded for their exertions by the triumphant success of
that gentleman over his opponent. At the close of the
poll the numbers stood as follows :

5,00
4,221

Mr. Ewart has thus been returned by a majority of
1,469 votes. The Conservatives made a vigorous at-
tempt between the hours of 12 and 3 to retrieve the for-
tunes of the day, but Mr. Ewart had obtained too large
a number of votes to be materially affected.
On its becoming known that Mr. Ewart had gained
the contest by so overwhelming a majority, a dense
crowd proceeded to Clayton-square, where the Liberal
candidates are accustomed to address the electors at the
close of the poll. The assemblage, which was estimated
at not less than 10,000 people, was composed princi-
pally of the respectable inhabitants of the town, and the
decorum with which the proceedings were conducted
afforded a striking contrast to demonstrations of triumph
on previous occasions. There was apparently not one
in( briated person in the vast concourse, a fact unpa-
raHt led in the election annals cf this borough.
Mr. J. C. EWART briefly addressed the meeting amid
enthus=iastic applause. Tile electors of Liverpool, he
said, had shown, by a majority of upwards of 1450
votes, that a certain clique in the town should no longer
dictate to them in their choice of a representative. This
election was, indeed, the greatest triumph—not only to
Liverpool, but to the United Kingdom, which could
have been achieved. He remarke:l that his opinions on
general as well as local subjects were very well known.
But a few years before he had unsuccessfully- contested
the borough in connection with his friend Mr. Cardwell,
(Nlr. Cardwell's name v:as received with great applause)
who, he was sure, would be very happy to hear the re-
sult of .the election. "Gentlemen," continued Mr.
Ewart, "I shall shortly take my seat in the House of
Commons, and you may depend upon it no smiles of
Ministers, no offers of place, shall have the effect of in-
fluencing my conduct. I will do my duty to my native
town, and I will do my duty to my country also."
Speeches having also been delivered by Mr. Robertson
Gladstone and other prominent supporters of Mr. Ewalt
the assemblage separated with three cheers for " the
Queen," three for " the Army and Navy," and three for
" Mr. J. C. Ewart," and three for "Mr. Robertson
Gladstone."
Sir S. G. Bonham was not present.