The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-21 00:00:00

ment. Everything considered, the eulogiums
pronounced by the " coining men" upon the most
prominent, if not the most gifted of their antago-
nists, bore the aspect at least of magnanimity.
Referring to the EX-CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
Lord Jonor RUSSELL observed :—" I can only say
for myself, I admire the ability and talent the
Right Hon. Gentleman displayed on the part of the
Government, and on behalf of their cause, and
the struggle in which he has been for some time
engaged ;" while Sir JAMES GRAHAM remarked—
" I have never failed to admire the talents of the
Right Hon. Gentleman, and the signal ability with
which, under great difficulties, he has conducted
the course of Government in this House." In a
somewhat kindred spirit Mr. HUME spoke of the
facilities afforded by the late Cabinet in the way
of supplyingwhateverinformation had been desired,
adding, upon his own experience—" I have met
with civility in every department." Naturally
enough the expressions which fell from the lips
of Mr. CAYLEY were rather more fervent than
those of the preceding panegyrists. Speaking of
the late Leader of the House of Commons, he
declared that " He entered the Cabinet with a
high reputation, and he goes out of office with
that reputation not only untarnished, but in-
creased greatly in the estimation of his country-
men"—an opinion which must have fallen grate-
fully upon the ears of the Right Hon. Gentleman
the ex- CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, coming as
it did from one who, in his personal capacity
scarcely less than in his position as the Member
for the North Riding of Yorkshire, is universally
recognised as one of the most important re-
presentatives in the interests of the agricul-
turists. Meanwhile, the Noble Earl the
Leader of the defeated M:nistfy was pronouncing
in the House of Lords his authoritative eulo-
gium upon the Administrators who had avowed
official allegiance to him from February to
December as the chieftain of the Tory-Reforming
Government. Nothing—and we say this as the
dispassionate sympathisers with Liberalism—no-
thing could have been more worthy of the orator, or
more satisfactory to the subjects of his very ear-
nest encomiums than the reference made, in the
course of that remarkable speech, to the eminent
and peculiar merits of several of the more import-
ant members of the late Administration. It was
a speech, constituting not so much a direct com-
mendation of his more noteable colleagues indivi-
dually, as an indirect, and, to a great extent, a
singularly successful vindication of the past acts
and general policy of the departed Government.
Especially and peculiarly may this be said in allu-
sion to the remarks made by the EX-PREMIER upon
the conduct of the ex-Foreign Secretary—the Earl
of MALMESBURY. "Our foreign relations," said
the Noble Earl, " are on a far more friendly and
satisfactory footing than they were when my
Noble Friend near . me, the Foreign Secretary,
assumed his office ; and I rejoice at havink this
opportunity of bearing my testimony to the merits
of one than whom no one has been more unspar-
ingly and more unjustly maligned than my Noble
Friend, and to state that, from first to last, I have
had no cause for anything but self-congratulation
in having obtained the services of one who, with-
out previous political experience, has brought to
bear diligence, ability, and good judgment upon
affairs of great difficulty, which have reflected the
very highest credit upon himself, and which, I
may say without fear of contradiction, have ex-
torted the applause and admiration of old and
experienced diplomatists, against whose views and
wishes he more than once combated." A splen-
did, and, in several particulars, eminently well-
deserved panegyric upon the energy, the
activity, the patriotism, the tact, and the
determination displayed by Lord MALMESBURY
upon more than one occasion, and that, too,
sometimes under very trying and momentous cir-
cumstances ! Turning from the Foreign-office to
the Court of Chancery, turning from the SECRE-
TARY of STATE to the LORD CHANCELLOR, the
ex-PRIME MINISTER said :—" My Lords, if we
look to the department of the law, we shall see
that greater improvements and greater reforms
have taken place in that department within the
last helve months than had taken place for many
previous years—reforms, the magnitude and im-
portance of which have been freely acknowledged
by both sides, and for which the Government and
the country are indebted to the unwearied zeal, the
untiring assiduity, the distinguished talent, and
pround professional knowledge of my Noble
and Learned Friend on the woolsack, who,
when he shall leave office, it will be difficult
for any Government to find a successor that
will not give rise to regret he has quitted it."
Assuredly an eulogium the correctness of which
no one will have either the ingratitude or the
temerity to gainsay. Whatever we may think
of their previous antagonism to Free Trade (an
antagonism which they have now at length and
for ever abandoned) ; however much we may re-
gret their lack of sympathy for the political aspi-
rations of the multitude (a lack of sympathy which
they have virtually compensated for by their active
and undeniable efforts at reform)—it would be
unjust and ungenerous not to subscribe in the
fullest extent to the accuracy of such tributes as
the foregoing, offered to his colleagues by a states-
man like the Earl of DERBY, at the moment when
he is announcing to the country, through the Par-
liament, the fact of his Ministerial resignation.
Another portion of the ex-PnEminn's speech of
last evening, we would here, iForeover, particula-
rise with the utmost possible distinctness. It is
that portion which had reference to the
measures adopted by the Legislature in compli-
ance with the suggestion of his Cabinet—mea-
sures affecting the national defences of the country
—measures, let us add,, which would alone of
themselves suffice to shed some degree of lustre
upon this Tory-Reforming Government. Alluding
to the circumstance of his Ministry having already
carried those military and maritime improvements
into effect, and speaking of them, moreover, with
justifiable pride and really enviable satisfaction,
the Noble Earl expressed his earnest hope in their
regard as follows :—" I trust," said he, " those
great elements of self-defence which we have suc-
cessfully called into operation will not be ne-
glected—namely, the completion of that constitu-
tional force, the Militia, and the increase of that
naval force on which primarily and in the
first instance the safety and the honour of
this country depend." Mark that ! The Earl
of DERBY has spoken of our naval force
as the force "on which primarily and
in, the first instance, the safety and the honour of
this country depend." It is precisely what we our-
selves have insisted upon for years past—a truth
now recognised by one of the foremost statesmen
of the age, and proclaimed from his place in the
Upper branch of the Imperial Legislature. Let
his successors profit by the avowal. Let the Earl
of ABERDEI7—if it must needs be the Earl of
ABERDEEN who is to be thrust upon the nation
as Prime Minister—let " Athenian ABERDEEN,"
" that dear ABERDEST," " that excellent ABER-
DEEN," remember that truth of vital import,
while he is actually
in the process of making
his Ministerial arrangements. Rumours are
afloat to the effect, that Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT is
to be placed at the head of the Board of Ad-
miralty. What another civilian—presiding over
the destinies of the Royal Navy of England !
Suppose a similar announcement were made in
regard to the Army—suppose it were intimated
that Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT is to be placed at the
head of the Horse Guards ! What would
our soldiers think ? And are our sailors
of no account ? Hadn't we enough of Sir
FRANCIS BARING 7 Is not the country sick of
seeing these civilians in supreme command at the
Admiralty ? We by no means disparage the
abilities ef Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT. We believe
him to be a very able and efficient
Administrator. But we think he would more fitly
be in place anywhere than at the head of the
Maritime Department. No : we would see sol-
diers commanded by soldiers—sailors commanded
by sailors. It is intimated, in some quarters, that
Viscount HARDINGE is to continue at his post as
Commander-in-Chief, notwithstanding the change
of Administration. Then, why not have the
Board of Admiralty still presided over .by
the Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND ? If that
be impossible, why not, instead of nam..

submit to.

ing Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT his Grace's succes-
sor, place Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT at the head of
some other department, and give the direction of
the Board of Admiralty to an illustrious man like
the heroic Earl of DIINDONALD ? Are there not
other distinguished members of the service
capable of presiding over its fortunes with
honour to themselves and advantage to the
country ? Is there not, for example, such
a man in existence as Sir CHARLES NAPIER,
the victor in the Tagus, and the conqueror
at Acre ? And would not individuals thus
eminent in their professions, and renowned
for their brilliant achievements, be more qualified
to conduct the affairs of the Admiralty than
your mere civilian and red• tapist ? We are
chagrined at having still to make the inquiry—
as chagrined as your Salt-water JACK must be to
see some black-coated Administrator lording it
among the naval uniforms in our dockyards !
Briefly, iu this, as in many other instances, it
would be well for the country if the Whig-Peelites
took a leaf out of the book of the Tory Reformers
—if the new ABERDEEN Administration took a
hint from the late DERBY Government.

What will be done with respect to the renewal
of the Property and Income Tax ? That point
must speedily be disposed of. The impost will
expire at the termination of the financial year, on
the sth day of April next. Five millions and a
half will thus be lost to. the Exchequer, unless the
charge be renewed, or a suitable substitute pro-
vided. The Legislature has unequivocally de-
clared itself against any addition to indirect taxa-
tion. The amendment proposed by Lord PAIr
MERSTON to Mr. VILLIERS'S resolution, and carried
by an overwhelming majority against the 53 dis-
sentients, is conclusive on that subject. The
division of Friday morning will also prevent any
tampering with the House Duties by those who
rejected the first resolution, and thus refused their
assent either to an increase of the rates, or any ex-
tension of the area of taxation. Something in the
shape of a Property Tax must then be brought
forward ; and the only question is, what will be
the nature of the new measure. We strongly
suspect, that the envenomed shir t of NESSUS was
not a more fatal bequest to his Conqueror than
the unsettled Income Tax will prove to the new
Cabinet.
It must be renewed. But in what form F The
answer to the interrogatory is of vital importance.
The welfare and prosperity of the country, the
contentment of the industrious classes greatly depend
on the answer. We believe that the Representa-
tives of the people will not consent to a renewal
of the tax in its present unjust, unequal, and
oppressive form, without change or modification of
some kind, recognising the distinction between
permanent and precarious income. The Libe-
ral party, whose opinions are represented
by Messrs. HUMS and COBDEN, are solemnly
pledged to obtain justice—or, at least, some ap-
proximation towards justice—for the industrious
classes ; to resist, tots coelo, the equal taxation of
all descriptions of income, without reference to the
sources from whence it may be derived. The only
objection to the proposition of Mr. DISRAELI, on
this topic, was that it did not go far enough. The
amendment of Mr. HuarE, whose efficient exer-
tions on the Select Committee were beyond all
praise, proceeded on that assumption. A large
proportion of the more immediate followers of
Lord JOHN RUSSELL entertained similar opinions.
It was the obstinate refusal of Sir CHARLES WOOD
to listen to the voice of public opinion on this par-
ticular topic that led to the secession of many of his
supporters, and the ultimate dissolution of the Whig
Ministry. If, then, a large proportion of the ma-
jority which, by refusing its assent to the finan-
cial scheme compelled the resignation of the DERBY
Administration, agree with the minority on the
justice and expediency of distributing the burden
more fairly on those by whom it is to be sustained,
it is manifest that no Cabinet, based on a perti-
nacious resistance to that salutary principle, can
hope for a long continuance in office.
It is our anxious desire to show every degree
of fair-play to the Ministry. We did so to the
DERBY Government, even before they had fully
and completely shaken off the slough of Protec-
tion, and we shall do so to any Administration
that may be honoured with the Royal confidence,
until they bring forward propositions not calculated
to promote the welfare and prosperity of the
country. " Measures, not men " has been, and
ever shall be, our guiding principle, and by that
we shall continue to be guided. We, therefore,
deem it our duty emphatically to caution the
Leaders of the new Cabinet against a per-
verse and obstinate determination to maintain
the existing system. If they do so, it must prove
a stumbling-block in their path—an insuperable
obstacle to their retention of office. We repeat,
what we have frequently and advisedly put for-
ward, that the strength and permanency of any
Government must chiefly depend on its fiscal policy.
The public attention has been strongly directed
to that quarter ; and, although considerable in-
terest is also naturally felt with respect to ques-
tions of Parliamentary, legal, sanitary, educa-
tional, colonial, ecclesiastical, and other reforms,
there are none of deeper or more vital importance
than those affecting the collection of the public
revenue ; or, in other words, the matters which
fall especially within the department of the CHAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
Now we confess that we listened with consider-
able alarm to the opinions expressed during the
late debate by three Right Honourable Gen-
tlemen, who will naturally assume prominent
positions in any Administration that may be
formed under the presidency of Lord ABERDEEN.
We willingly acknowledge the vast practical ex-
perience and great administrative talents of
GRAHAM, GLADSTONE, and GOULBURN, and the
effect of the prestige belonging to the most cher-
ished colleagues of the lamented Statesman whose
name has become a household word in English
families by English hearths. While the name of
" PEEL " is respected and reverenced in every lo-
cality throughout the length and breadth of the
land, considerable indulgence will be extended to
his principal followers, who retained the opinions
and vindicated the memory of their distinguished
leader. But there is a point beyond which indul-
gence cannot be extended. If they refuse to
listen to the voice of public opinion—to accord
that which is a matter of simple justice—which is

alike demanded by equity and expediency—they
must abide the consequences. Even their names

cannot avert the hostility of those whose principle
it is to look to "measures " rather than to
" men."
If there is anything on which the mind of the
community is firmly set, it is the extension of the

principle of direct taxation on an equitable basis,
and the gradual removal of the indirect imposts
by which industry is unfairly clogged and restrict-
ed, and which cost far more to the consumers
than finds its way into the public purse. Sir
JAMRS GRAHAM, however, expressed himself

strongly opposed to any measure of direct taxation,
except in the time of war—that it should be

expressly reserved for a period when we were

opposed to some great European Power—for an

. -
extraordinary emergency, and to terminate with

_ ...
the crisis to which it owed its existence. On the
other hand, Messrs. GLADSTONE and GOITLBURN

objected—and that in the most energetic terms--

to any modification of the existing system, which
would look to the source from whence income was

obtained. It is therefore our duty, even before the

Ministerial arrangements are finally completed, to
direct attention to this subject of primary im-
portance, on which the fate of the future Adminis-

Tation must greatly depend. It may induce the

Righ Hon. Gentlemen to whom we have alluded

to modify their opinions while there is yet time,
and not to act on views which, if attempted to be

carried into practical operation, must lead to the

destruction of the forthcoming Administration ;
or, at least, to the serious damage which must at-

tend the abandonment of propositions deliberately
put forward—a damage and disgrace that the
DERBY Government surrendered office rather than

The trial - and condemnation of Mr. KIRWAN
suggest some very serious questions respecting
tiials involving capital punishment. We have

none of that injudicious sympathy with the crimi-
nal which would endanger the lives of numerous
innocent persons, either by acquitting in the teeth
of the strongest circumstantial evidence, or by
laying hold of some technical informality in the
indictment. A jury or a judge who do this are
answerable for all the blood shed afterwards by
the human tiger whom they liberate amongst
the defenceless and unsuspecting. Neither can
we share the views of those who think capital
punishments inconsistent with the Christian faith.
If so, the Apostle PAUL set a very wrong example
when he declared that he refused not to die if he
had done anything worthy of death : and taught
unchristian views of the Ruler's duty when he as-
serted that he was " GOD'S minister for good, not
bearing the sword in vain, for he is the minister
of GOD, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that
doeth evil." We think that the man who has
proved himself dangerous to the lives of his fellow-
men has forfeited his right to liberty, and
that he who has actually taken another's life
has no claim to retain his own. We are met,
however, by religious considerations, on the awful
accountability of sending into eternity a man so
obviously unprepared to enter it ; but, if the
man be at large, how many more may he send
thither without a moment's warning ? One wretch
we have heard of, in South Wales, who escaped
through some technical defect in the evidence, if
we remember, right, when executed at last for
another murder, confessed it was the ninth he had
committed since his acquittal, all sent quite sud-
denly into eternity. We remember also •that a
Governor of Malta, finding murders among the
soldiers becoming frequent, and that the murderers
appeared satisfied with the priest's absolution, de-
termined that the next time he would allow no
confession and absolution. The culprit begged
hard for a priest. " No," was the inexorable re-
ply ; " you sent your victim unshrived into
eternity, and you shall go there unshrived
yourself." The murders ceased from that time.
Neither in Scripture, therefore, nor in the
dictates of justice and humanity, can we
find that the murderer has any claim to
his life. On the other hand, we differ
quite as much from those who would find
in Scripture reasons binding us to execute the
murderer, whether we think it for the good and
safety of society or not. We are not to be bound
in the nineteenth century after CHRIST by laws
given to a nomadic patriarch, four-and-twenty cen-
turies before CHRIST. No ; we hold ourselves
quite free to deal with the murderer in the way
we think most likely to repress the crime of mur-
der. To hang him if it will most effectually deter
others ; to imprison him for life, if that be found
to render life more sacred in the eyes of those who
might be likely to commit the crime.
Now, we will freely own that we think the
arguments of those who plead for life-imprison-
ment very strong. To a great many of the bru-
talised, animalised minds capable of murder, the
idea of confinement, to a large extent, of course,
solitary, combined with deprivation of their accus-
tomed low and sensual enjoyments, would be more
terrible than death itself. Then the cessation of
the sight or spectacle of judicial killing, which is
of course manslaying, would deprive the
spectators of the suggestion of manslaying.
And nothing is more certain than the mys-
terious tendency in many minds, especially
amongst the uneducated and excitable, to repeat
any horrible, awful, or extravagant act which they
have witnessed. The comparative certainty of
conviction, too, when juries were aware that irre-
vocable, as well as awful punishment, did not
depend upon their 'verdict, would, and must have,
a most beneficial effect. Theorists may argue that
a jury have but to keep to their oath, and that
they are not responsible for the consequences ;
fact, however, shows that men whose word no one
would doubt, will violate an oath rather than
have even the innocent share of a true verdict in
depriving an undoubted murderer of life. Much
more will most men magnify very small defects in
evidence into ground for an acquittal. With such
facts as these in their favour, those who would
abolish capital punishment, even for murder, and
who expect thereby to diminish the number of
murders, have a strong case in their favour.
It does not appear, however, that they yet carry
the majority of the community any more than a
majority in Parliament with them, while it is,
nevertheless, notorious that many murderers do
escape, who would not were the punishment not
irremediable in case of mistake. It is this single
circumstance which interferes with almost any
one's self-possession in a capital case. It is known
that, where the circumstantial evidence has been
the strongest conceivable, the person executed
upon the strength of it has proved to be perfectly
innocent. Hence every juror feels that he may
himself by possibility be instrumental, by his
verdict, in what is really a most painful murder.
He cannot think there is reasonable doubt, per-
haps, in the case before him ; yet so other jurors
have thought, and, by acting on their thought,
have agonised their minds in after years by the
recollection of their innocent victim. If, then,
the community does not see its way clear to abolish
capital punishment, can nothing be done to remedy
its admitted evils ? Mr. DICKENS made an earnest
appeal to Lord JOHN RUSSELL to render executions
private ; a practice adopted in some of the States
of America, and of the Continent of Europe.
This would, of course, put a stop to the dreadful
scenes of every kind attendant on public executions,
but would not lessen the tendency of jurors to
acquit, if possible, in trials for murder.
We venture to suggest the desirableness of
giving the jury, in every trial for murder, a
double form of verdict ; that they should be
allowed to record in their verdict the nature of
the evidence ; that they should declare the ac-
cused " guilty on ocular testimony," or "guilty
on circumstantial evidence," and that in the latter
case life, of course, should not be taken, but per-
petual imprisonment be the certain punishment,
without discretion on the part of the Judge—
leaving, however, inviolate the Sovereign's right
to pardon. The effect, surely, must be to dispose
prosecutor, judge, and jury to weigh without
apprehension, all purely circumstantial evidence,
and not to be looking out for some loophole in
the evidence through which a guilty man
might escape. We can hardly conceive
a much stronger case of circumstantial evidence
than KIRWAN'S. The impossibility of any one
else being on the island ; the cries heard being in-
compatible with suicide ; the clothes being found
after KIRWAN had returned to the men, in a place
where they swore they had searched before ; and
then the adequate motive, his consciousness of hav-
ing grossly wronged a beautiful young woman for
twelve years, certainly present as strong a com-
bination of circumstances as we can well conceive
of to prove his guilt. Yet there remains the bare
possibility of her having committed suicide. Some
minor incidents were indeed incongruous with it ;
it might have been expected especially that she
would have done so in her ordinary dress, more
clearly to show that cruelty and grief had driven
her to it. Accidental drowning seems most un-
likely of all ; the bare possibility of suicide, how-
ever, does remain, and we doubt not that it was
a trying doubt to some of the jurors. Perhaps
some jurors would even have considered the case
not sufficiently proved. The course we have sug-
gested would have prevented even the hazard of
an acquittal.

No doubt, we shall be told that evidence has
the same value and force whatever the results
may be. It is sufficient or insufficient to convict,
whether the conviction be followed by death or
by a trivial fine. No doubt it is. So evidence
may be sufficient to show a venture to be a good
one, whether you would gain or lose 51. by it or
5,000/. Yet no one would make the venture in
one case on the same evidence that he would in
the other. Still less would he do so were his li-
berty or his life at stake. It is no more use to
oppose legal theorising to people's intuitive per-
ceptions in this matter than for Mr. GLADSTONE
to oppose his mathematical theory of the Income
Tax to the intuitive perceptions of men of common
sense, and the practical habits of the actuaries.
We throw out the above suggestion with not a little
confidence, that, in practice, it would be found to
work well. Letters in our columns prove that
some intelligent onions would have shrunk :from