The Sun.
London, England, 1852-03-10 00:00:00

etellina

LONDON, WEDNESDAY. MARCH 10, 1852.

Tomorrow tlatra is to be a grand meeting of the
Liberals, convened by Lord Jowl RUSSELL in antici-
pation of the re-assembling of Parliament. What
the Noble Lord's purpose may be it were somewhat
difficult to conjecture. Can he dream for an in.stan.t
that he still possesses a vestige of his once consider-
able, dh;
able, but now long-departed popularity ? Does
imagine that be is still regarded by the nation with
anv degree of confidence, h P
owever insignificant It
would be difficult to believe this even of one so blind
to tile teachings of the past, and so deaf to the
voice of experience, a, the late Prime
Minister. That his judgment is fallible the
country has learnt rather severely by five
or six years' trial-administration. But that its fal-
libility extends to l.with so peculiarly extravagant is
altogether, we believe, beyond the reach of supposi-
tion. Lord JOHN RUSSELL has fallen never to re-
sume an authority he has abused so very grievously.
The prestige of his name has departed. His reputation
for political valour has disappeared. His removal
from office has come upon the people with such an
ineffable sensation of relief, that even democrats are
disposed to exult at the elevation to power of those
diametrically opposed to them in principles. They
pref-r au open foe to one concealing his
enmity under the deceitful guise of friendship.
It is recounted in the most wonderful allegory in our
literature how
4:AITHFUL, after traversing the
Valley of the Shadow, and iieiog at length relieved
from the intolerable companionship of TALKATIVE,
exclaims out of the fullness of his heart—" A good
riddance!" Tfle ssntiments with which the commu-
nity at large, after passing through the melancholy
depths of the last half-dozenyears of _
misgovernment,
find themselves Ultimately and
unexpectedly
relieved from the pees-oce of Lori JOHN
RUSSELL as First Lsrd
of the Treasury,
are
actually and literally identical Toe
in character.
Whigs with their pride, and
their obstinacy, and
their nepotism, and their vasions of reform, and their
pretended enthusiasm about liberality, and their
really aristocratioLtendencies, prejudices, and predia
lections, had stuck to the nation like burrs. At last

THE SUN,

they are shaken off, and, like FAITHFUL we cry, " A
good riddance!"
There are some individuals who may feel disposed
to accuse us, who actually have accused us of incon-
sistency—because of the views taken by us in refer-
ence to the recent changes in her MAJESTY'S Govern-
ment. People of this class would really appear to
identify consistency with partizanship. If to pin our
political faith down to the ideas of any particular
statesman or of any particular group of statesmen be
consistency, then do we claim for ourselves at once
the privileges of inconsistency. But no—away
with such miserable notions of consistency as this—
away! with such frivolous opinions of the superior
value of men beyond measures—away with
such silly and purblind fancies of pre-
ference of persons to principles. For ourselves,
we have during the past quarter of a century advocated
unremittingly whatever course we believed in our
conscience to be for the advantage of the population.
We have never permitted ourselves to degenerate
into the apologists of any Cabinet whatsoever. We
have endeavoured at all times to uphold those opinions
which conviction, not hasty but deliberate, has as-
sured us are calculated to advance the cause of free-
dom and of civilization. We have striven during this
last quarter of a century to render ourselves the
organ—not of Party but of the PEOPLE. To
argue, therefore, that as Liberals we should uphold
my Lord JOHN RUSSELL and the rest of the Departed
Administration, now that they have fallen from the
lofty and responsible position of administrators, is
at once unreasonable and preposterous. We regard
the late Prime Minister and his adherents as too
heinous traitors to the interests of social improve-
ment not to recoil from the despicable office of
dwindling into their apologists. Did we speak other-
wise of them and their proceedings than we
do at this present moment when they still
held on with desperate and convulsive tenacity
to the reins of government—drawing those reins
tighter by the very agony with which they clung to
place and all its perquisites, to power and all its pre-
rogatives ? Assuredly not. And now that by their
imbecility, by their incapacity, by the scorn of the
age, and by the disdain of their contemporaries, they
have been thrown down to make room for other
statesmen, shall we, forsooth, select this juncture
as the fittest in which to forget the cause these men
have abandoned,'.in a despicable eagerness to screen
them from the contempt to which they are entitled ?
Rather than this, we would be laughed at as political
Quixotes. We would rather be derided as crack-
brained Patriots than despised as obdurate and nar-
row-minded Partizans. Once for all, then, we are of
no Party. Instead of Party, we look to the People.
Instead of Men, we look to Measures. Instead of
Persons, we look to Principles.

Besides—what reason has Lord JOHN RUSSELL
given the nation for becoming his panegyrists? Can
we discover any sufficient cause for this in the whole
record of his five or six years' administration ? Com-
pare the fruits of his tenure of office with those of the
tenure of office by Sir ROBERT PEEL. Compare hie
five or six years with the three or four years of his
illustrious predecessor. Weigh them in the balance,
and then give with all honesty the result, showing

the preponderance. Why, more, immeasurably more I
was effected for the good of the community ,
during the last few months of the supremacy of
Sir ROBERT PEEL, the originator and organizer
of Conservatism, than during the whole of
the protracted period during which Lord JOHN
RUSSELL unfortunately presided over the affairs of
the Government. For which of the acts of the late
Premier during that interval are we to be grateful ?
For his mockery of a Reform Bill, introduced only
on the very eve of his compulsory resignation ? For
his blundering system of finance ? For his bungling
budgets ? For that Colonial policy which was per-
petually drawing upon the empire the evils of
war, or or discontent ? For the
insolence displayed towards the only distinguished
statesman in his Cabinet, the only man there posses-
sing the confidence of the people, the only
Minister renowned at once by his ge-
nius, his patriotism, and his experience ?
For his concessions made to German: influence in
1847 by the maritime and diplomatic assistance
afforded to the unpopular SOVEREIGN of Portugal ? or
for that still more glaringly displayed in 18.52 by the
abrupt and impertinent dismissal of Lord PALMER-
STON ? For which of these things is it that the
nation has reason to be grateful to Lord JOHN
RUSSELL ? Or, shall we say that the people have
cause to become enthusiasts in his favour, for inas-
much as he revealed such a very wonderful regard not
for the interests of the country, but for the interests
of the lineal descendants of his great-grandmother ?
Why, the very mention of the GREYS, the ELLIOTS,
and the RUSSELLS, is enough of itself to show the ab-
surdity of this talk about the patriotic and liberal con-
sistency of the late Government. Better one Earl of
DERBY than a thousand Lord JOHN RUSSELLS ! Bet-
ter a Cabinet presided over by an able Protection-
ist than a Ministry composed of Free Trade inca-
pables ! And in saying this we are in no way forgetful
of our devotion to the cause of unrestricted
commerce, and of our implacable animosity to the
agricultural monopolists. It is by reason of our
implicit reliance upon the wisdom of the former, and
our conviction of the hopelessness of any effort to re-
vive the latter policy, that we speak thus candidly in
reference to any choice between the late and the
present Government. By welcoming the Earl of
DERBY as a relief after the incubus of Lord JOHN
RUSSELL, we are jeopardising ❑othing—for, as we
have already maintained, it is our conviction that
the corn-laws can never be restored without
bloodshed—that free trade can never be repealed
without a revolution. " Then," it may be insidiously
suggested by the more fanatical adherents of
the departed Administration, " you are con-
sistently maintaining your devotion to the cause of
liberality by applauding the Earl of DERBY and
his Government." Our observations yesterday in
reference to the reigning Cabinet looked exceedingly
like this—it must be acknowledged ! So earnestly
are we dedicating our energies to the support
of the Derby-Disraeli Administration, so fully
have we given in our adhesion to the Protectionist
leader now at the head of the Government—that

whenever we discern equal opportunity, we are pre-
pared to comment upon the course pursued
by the present Cabinet in language as strong
a 3 any we have recently applied to the Ministry of
Lord Jon RUSSELL. At the same time, saith
the vulgar but accurate proverb, "fair play is
a jewel :" let us hear before passing sentence what
are the exact projects of our existing rulers—
if they confer boons upon the community, let us ac-
cord them welcome, what though those boons fall,
as they did in 1846, from the hand
done
repeatedly, Conservative they violate the libe-
ral tendencies of the age, let us still, as
A
of
'e haveaCo
cln
reference to the when occasion required, in
Whigs in 1847, in 1848, in 1849,
in 1850, in 1851, and in 1852,
ronounce upon their
heads a stern and uncompromising condemnation.

Ive would invite the public attention to the
advertisement of the New
Granada
be nadaCompany now in
course of formation, which
will
foundbefore the ex-
in another
part of this day's impression.
California and Aus-
tralia deposits of gold dust in Long
bad been brought to light, discoveries
hi
have alike excited the hopes of the needy
and
dch
the
terrors of the wealthy, the auriferous qualities of
cer-
tain districts in New Granada were well known. t
was found —we are told by Mr. IV-rx.n in his
admirable pamphlet on the distribution of gold
throughout the world'"—in the Central and Western
Andes. There were also river washings in the Rio Cauca,
and ',considerable quantities were obtained in
the Rio Zulia and the Rio Melia. In the mountains
of Autioquia it was also produced by mineral wash-
ings, the yield being about 500,0001. yearly. On the
same high authority we learn that the gold coinage at
the mint of Bogota, in New Granada, for the 16
years from 1810 to 1825, inclusive, amounted to no
less than 15,151,531 dolls., or nearly 950,000 dolls,
per annum on an average. It ' - certain that a
is
very considerable quantity of the produce never found
its way to the mint at Bogota, and when such quan-
tities could formerly have been obtained with the in-
different resources and inferior skill available, we can
easily conceive what may now be realised by the

* " Notes on the Distribution of Gold throughout the
World, including Australia, California, and Russia."
London: James Wryld, Charing-cross East.