The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-21 00:00:00

contingent futurity to divine that it may bring the
noble author of it into considerable difficulty at a
future time. If political utility is to be the sohe
measure of territorial right, in Heaven's name what
m _
fearful wars of opinion ay we not be destinedto!
Lord Stanley's argument pretty nearly equivsf
lent to saying that if Prussia thinks Hanover and
Saxony useless political distinctions, she map
f
swallow them up ; if Austria thinks the same
Bavaria and Wurtemberg, she may do likewise; if
Germany, collectively, forms the same disparaging
_
estimate of all that remains of Denmark ; and I
France sees the inutility of the Low Countries, tbaef
the sooner they are joined to France the ',Ate"
This is a fine prospect for the strong, and rather 6
poor one for the weak. Lord Stanley evidently
er ta
_;
desires to see one, or at most two, great tims
monarchies, and about thirty stipendiary
exiled, consoling themselves on the pier at Brig
ton. Neither is he more Conservative nor moreanimated by a respect for vested rights at Constan;
tinople than he is beyond the Rhine. " The Turk.%
says Lord Stanley, " have played their part in hiso
tory ; they have had their day, and that day I.t
over; and I confess I do not understand, except
be from the influence of old diplomatic traditiond
the determination of our older statesmen to else
" l'o
by the Turkish rule, whether right or wrong. ho
is not an uncommon notion on the part of those v 77,0
are not practically acquainted with the populate
of whom they speak, and who have an ides the
_
Mahometan races must of necessity be inferior to
Christian races. But those who do know Turkey
know otherwise, and will uniformly acknowledge
that, with the single exception of the Greek people'
the Christian races of the Turkish Empire are vele
inferior to the Mohametan Trees by whom they .or
governed. This inferiority tends at once to 10
tellect, energy, and moral character; although.
ceptions will be found in certain enterposiel
Christians, of whatever origin, who are gstherread
around the capital. Lord Stanley may be asse'",,,
that if the mass of the Turks were not very sel3r;
rio.r to the mass of the Christians, no influence fro
u 3
country would have kept them in the potn-ii
which they hold. Not having visited King's 4.4/-c•
for three years, Lord Stanley finds a good
.02513‘,„
subjects cropping up for treatment before his Atr
miring. bucolic constituency, who naturally W°11"i:,
with great admiration, at the width and originality
of his views. His lordship disdains political pre
noel
diction ; yet, undismayed by the ominous
days' prophecy of Lord Russell, he has his le
fling at the future. What he foretells, as regards
the American struggle, will be eminently cons°lll
tory both to North and South. Both, he says's° t
labour in vain. He foresees that the North Pn,
overrun and conquer the South; but that when.tue4
have done so their administrative and constituttete-d
difficulties will only begin. Then the noble 'I%
turns to the Italian question, and he throws V.
paradoxical glance on that curious problem also. ;
has, at least, contrived in a word to put the B°
the
part of the question in a new light. He says 'a
plain truth is that Rome is dear as a gift.
all ruin, and swamp, and malaria, and the Ita.g'„-e
are a vast deal better without it. Let the 1.40,
keep it, and be thankful for nothing. This, inito
word,. is Lord Stanley's view about the Bern",
question ; but if the excellence of the atmospbe.rb
were to determine the capital, the two E°glis.
Houses of Parliament would not be sitting at webs
minster. If, however, Lord Stanley were t°,,,
accepted as an exponent of the views of the uOd
vernment, he would satisfy our difficulties an t
.doubts as to a Reform Bill next year. He says that
in toe last session of an expiring Parliament, eh,
introduction of such a measure would be out et
question. In this way he excuses himself frt
any elaborate discussion of the subject, saying tua..
before Parliamentary Reform comes on for discus
sion, again the existing House of Commons meat
be dissolved ; and, therefore, he will again be O„
r,
the King's Lynn hustings before he will have.,Ti
give a vote in the name of his constituency,
few remarks on the subject, however, are charao..
tensed by the good sense which usually pervades
his speeches on domestic affairs. He says that the
difficulty lies in this wise :—An inconsiderable
change in the franchise would not satisfy those from
.
whom impetus to the measure itself would proceed;
while an extensive scheme of reform would 11,
once be negatived by the voice of those who vilel,
s:
to have a good reason before they make a great
change. Probably this statement contains the gist
of the whole reform difficulty. On the malt ta%
question Lord Stanley does not agree with the Duke
of Rutland and Lord George Manners; he is alto
gether opposed to repeal: he says, truly enough,
t
that the revenue cannot afford it ; and he adds tha
its abolition would result in diminishing also the
return from spirits and the duties obtained from
tea. Lord George Manners advocates a complete
1
repeal by instalments; while Lord Stanley will
agree only to a small and definitive reduction.
However, the main argument against compromise
is, that the expense of collecting remains the same;
and that it is only by maintaining the tax that you
make the collecting expense profitable, and only
by abolishing it altogether that you get rid of a
costly organisation.