The Sun.
London, England, 1855-01-22 00:00:00

LONDON, MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 1855.

No man can assume the appearance of amiability
better than the CZAR, whenever it may suit his
purpose so to do. He thoroughly understands
the art of cajolery, and can wheedle men of all
ranks and positions—from the "Angel of Peace"
to a member of the Peace Society, or a German
Grand Duke to a democratic Yankee slave-owner.
He knows the effect of a word of praise distributed
in due season, and does not spare his approval,
nor, we believe, other no less potent influences,
when he has any object to achieve.
The Grand Dukes of Meeklenburgh-Strelitz
and Mecklenburgh-Schwerin are at present the
subjects of enthusiastic laudation on account of
"their noble attitude"—evinced through their
representative, M. D'OERTZEN-at the Germanic
Diet. This " noble attitude" was one of complete
isolation. It was striving to impress on the Diet
the policy of abstention, SO that the AUTOCRAT
might act as he thought proper, without any
danger of producing collective'action on the part
of Germany. This is what he has been striv-
ing to inculcate on every other nation—what
he endeavoured to impress on the Western
Powers, on Austria, and others. All he wanted was
to deal with the Turks first—to be permitted to
establish himself at Constantinople in the first
instance, and then to dispose of the other Powers
in detail.

The Western Nations, however, did not per-
ceive the "nobility" of such an "attitude."
They did not appreciate the benefit of being " the
last" to be devoured. Nor could they remain
quiescent during the intended triumph of might
over right—the unconscientkuis absorption of the
territories of an independent Sovereign into the
overgrown dominions of the would-be Dictator of
Europe—the master of the world, if he could
get at America—to subjugatt) those whom he now
flatters to the top of their be Int.
. Austria, too, has, it appears, excited his wrath
by her accession to the treaty of the 2d December,
which was apparently just known at St. Peters-
burg at the time, and was possibly the cause of
this laudatory proclamation. lt would signify little
how greatly he exalted his creatures and relatives
—both being completely under his thumb, and
the son of one of these puppets being married to
his' own daughter. But these compliments have
an ulterior motive—the shaft is intended to reach
a little further than the mark at which it is ap-
parently aimed. - There is a covert blow against
Austria when he speaks of " the complications
which the Cabinet of Vien.ria labours more and
more to accumulate." Tilers is also,.
bably the chief subject of the letter, a hint to
" Cliequot" to behave himself, in which case he
might also receive the coveted distinction of the
Imperial praise. It also shows the duplicity and
insincerity of the CZAR in affecting a readiness to
conclude a peace on the teems demanded by the
Allies. If such were his real intention he
would not at the moment have put forward
such a manifesto. The two Grand Dukes
would have been satisfied with his thanks at a
later period, er in another form. But he could
not, in such case, have insinuated that Germanic
interference might " force out of the existing war
a struggle that shall involve the whole of Europe."
It is well that our Ministers and diplomatists
should understand this proclamation in its true
light, so as to avoid the deceptive language that
may probably be indulged in at the Conferences
in Vienna, to which Prussia so urgently seeks
admission.

The representatives of the kingdom meet on
Tuesday, and therefore the select of Manchester
met last Friday. It is their settled practice now,
a habit contracted in the thriving days of the
League, to apprise the country and the Ministry
of Manchester politics just in time for the coming
sessions. Mr. MILNEB. GIBSON was the lion of
the meeting, not only as senior member, but as
being a fresh speaker; his fellow-member and Mr.
COBDEN, the Manchester nominee for the West
Riding, having already fully expressed their
views. This time there was no row. The ad-
mission was by ticket, and the meeting seemed
disposed to applaud the leading speakers. Mr.
GIBSON is, of
.course, a politician of much wider
range of view than the great Leaguers ; yet it was
evident that he was not a little influenced by the
company in which he found himself. On the great
question of the day he did not rise above a Rus-
SELL interpretation of the Four Points.
Mr. GIBSON first briefly confessed the Parliamen
tart' sins of last session. They were sins of omission.
Amongst these he did not number the dropping of
the Reform Bill—that he considered wise. But
theydid not pass a Bribery Bill without depriving
it of all its efficacy, they did not pass a Jewish
Emancipation Bill, they left London with but
three members, they refused the ballot, refused
to abolish church rates and ecclesiastical courts,
they spent their time in not-doing; indeed as Mr.
G. expresses it, the " session was an abortion."
One promise he gave for next session, that the
Newspaper Stamp Duty is to be abolished, and
those of our readers who do not need the services
of the post for their newspaper, are not to pay
for them. If Mr. G. speaks from knowledge,
this may account for certain terrific onslaughts on
the Cabinet by a journal which not long ago
treated them as the SOLOXONS of the day, though
now apparently anxious to annihilate them before
the budget is announced.
The war, however, was of necessity the grand
topic. The best the speaker could say for his
peace-at-any-price colleagues was, that even Lora
ParareasTorr was credibly reported to have em-
ployed paid agency to pre
English policy through .thepress ofsamtheevUiewnisteodf
ad the
States and that of France and Italy. If one was
guilty of luring Russia into the Principalities,
by
publishing the aversion of England to war, so
was the other. Perhaps the WIKOFF agency may
be the subject of a Parliamentary question to the
Home Secretary. Whatever answer ho gives it
will have no bearing on the merits of the case.
More to the purpose was Mr. GIBSON'S attack on
the "balance of power" theory ; it involved, ho
considered, two fallacies—first, that particular
territories should be governed to all time by par-
ticular dynasties, without regard to the wishes of
the people ; secondly, that by informing a power