The Sun.
London, England, 1855-08-06 00:00:00

cussion was limited to the details of the antici-
pated modification, he carried his own views and
prevented the act of justice and of policy from

1-- ,
ieceiving the legislative sanction.
Such was the state of affairs when Mr. GLAD-
STONE brought forward his first budget' refus-
ing to recognise the distinction, but pro-
viding (t) for the gradual reduction and ultimate
extinction of what, under the circumstances,
was justly considered an odious impost. The
' financial conjuror managed his cards dex-
terously. The pretended boon, which at the
time he must have known would never have
been given, was eagerly accepted. It was

said that it was not worth while to cavil or dis-

pute about that which would so speedily be num-
bered with the past, and that it would be madness
to oppose such a " heaven-born" Minister, or to

risk the loss of his invaluable services for such a
trifle. GLADSTONE was the idol of the day, be-
fore whose footstool the time-servers were only
too happy to lick the dust. We remained firm.
We neither joined in the servile throng, nor in
any degree surrendered the opinions we had long
entertained, and strenuously and unceasingly ad-
vocated. We still stood up for the deeply-injured
working classes, who, by the sweat of their brows
or the exercise of their intellects, earned incomes
scarcely adequate to the exigencies of their posi-
tions. Their just claims were, however, dis-
regarded. The " GLADSTONE ovation" was cele-
brated with such extraordinary splendour that
few listened to the groans of the victims bound to
his chariot wheels, and even many of the sufferers
forgot their wrongs in the glory of his triumph.
The sacrifice of " principle "—the unblushing
subserviency then exhibited, has possibly induced
him to suppose that he can again induce Honour-
able and Right Honourable Gentlemen to swallow
their own words and again yield to his crotchets.
He has accordingly flung off disguise, and become
the vituperator and maligner of his country and
of his quondam colleagues. Had his hand
clutched the filthy bribes of Russia he could
not have more earnestly advocated its cause, or
sought to afford excuses for the German Powers,
whe were alike oblivious of their duties and of
their promises. He has sent forth these opinions
with the knowledge that they will encourage the
enemy to pursue its aggressive policy, and to pre-
vent its acceptance of any terms that can be ac-
ceptable to the Western Powers, or consistent
with their honour or security. It is " a nasty
bird that fouls its ownnests"—so says the old pro-
verb—and we trust that Mr.GLADSTONE will pon-
der on its application, and the moral that may be
deduced therefrom.
But a new light is cast by the recent speeches
of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer on the
very extraordinary financial policy which he pur-
sued. At the time when he steadily refused to
modify the income tax, and under the promise of its
extinction obtained a renewal for seven in place
of three years, ho was acquainted, through the
explanations of Sir HAMILTON SEYMOUR, with the
secret views of the CZAR, and his avowed inten-
tions with respect to the assets of " the sick man."
At that very time, notwithstanding the reduction
in the stock of gold, and the steadiness of the
efflux of bullion from our shores, lie brought
forward his scheme for the conversion of the
Three per Cents., and the payment of the South
Sea Loan, and other small stocks ! By this
" valuable financial demonstration," as it was
termed, he denuded the Exchequer of its
balances, and rendered himself dependent on loans
from the Bank of England for the means of
meeting the dividend on the National Debt.
What could a Minister nominated by the CZAR,
and who looked solely to his interests, have
done more ? He also refused, after the War had
broken out, to sanction a loan even to the extent
of replacing the money he had so imprudently dis-
bursed, and at the same time strove to starve the
War, and to disgust the people with hostilities by
heaping burdens on their shoulders. In these
views he was disappointed. The indomitable
courage and resolution of the people conquered
all the difficulties imposed by the treachery or
imbecility of some of the Cabinet. Our holiour
is still safe, but we have not to thank Mr. GLAD-
STONE for that circumstance. We do not think
the course adopted by the ex-financial Minister
o dculated to recruit the Peelite ranks, or to render
the nation desirous of his accession to the Pre-
miership, a post to which it is well known that he
aspires, and which he already fancies to be within
his grasp.

We would be the last to deny to any English-
man, and especially to a Member of Parliament,
he right of.freedom of speech ; -like every other
right, however, it should be used with common
prudence. The partners of a banking or commer-

vial firm, or the members of a boatel conducting
the business of a public company, have each a full

right to utter all their minds ; but what would
be thought of any of their number who should

publicly declare opinions of his own, in which,
moreover, he differed from his colleagues, and
which should have the effect of diminishing confi-
lence in the firm, or lowering the market value of

the company's shares ? His opinions we will even
suppose to be right, yet if their publication would
discourage the friends and customers of the house
or company, and, much more, if they would
encourage the hostile operations of a rival
company, he would be universally con-
demned for: such an abuse of his right. It would
be deemed either treachery or the grossest impru-
dence. H e would be told that his duty was
quietly to secede if he differed fundamentally from
his colleagues, and not to be guilty of injuring
their
corar non interests by an unfair use of his
tongue.

We put this plain consideration to such men as
LATnG, and also to Messrs. COBDEN', BRIGHT,
GLADSTONE, and the other commercial men, or
men of commercial knowledge, who publish so freely
anti-warlike, opinions. They have been denomi-
nated traUsors, and their conduct on the Turkish
Loan quest ion spoken of as nefarious ; and they
Appear. to b, s very sore on the subject. Can they
reasonably • wonder ? Suppose them, for argu-
ment's sake, . 1.,0 be right, yet is it right, on the other
hand, to stre agthen our antagonist, to weaken our
Government : and our Generals, and to increase the
expenditure o f life and money? They exclaim that
their intention is are the very reverse. We admit it,
it least so far as saving life and taxation are con-
cerned. But; will they, with their asserted supe-
riore mischievous effect of
intelligence,
their conduct on Russia ? Or will they fancy that
deuy th
their appeals to our purse or our fears can shake
English re 3C aution 9 They see that the nation
insists on a. v igorous prosecution of the
• •ty
see that by :an immense majority War. They
it affirms that
peace sh al !1 b s conquered, not sued for ;
yet they
that we
do all ti key ain to make Russia believe
are not 1 warty and united, do all they can to in-
, nation ofvigorate her resistance in the hope of wearing out
shopkeepers, and all they can to make
peace dill is nit to be conquered ! If they cannot
hope to ski vert their countrymen from their object,
is it then: not "nefarious" and unpatriotic reck-
lessly to or chance the difficulty of obtaining it ?

It; is useless to allege that such is not their wish ;
such must be the result of their doings. Russians