The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-24 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JUNE 243 1852.

second best ditto, bronz- modal, Mr. Over; for the third
best ditto, bronze medal, Mr. S. Smith; for the best col-
lection of fruit (four sorts), small silver Victoria medal,
Mr. Jarvis.

EXTRA PRIZES OFFERED BY MEMBERS.—By J.
Pow 11, E3q. (open to both classes).—For the best 20
specimens of wild flowers, with name and place of growth
(to be decided according to their beauty, with a view to
their being capable of improvement by cultivation)—
small silver Linnean medal, Mr. Clark. By Messrs. J.
and J. Fairbairn, of Clapham (to class the first).—For
the best six Cape heaths (disiimilar species, in 11-inch
pots)—large silver Victoria medal, Mr. Smith. By Mr.
B. Turner, of Slough (to class the first).—For the best
pelargoniums, in not larger than 8-inch pots (not fancy
varieties), sent out since Augnst, 1851—large silver Vic-
toria medal, Mr. R. Robinson. To Gentlemen's
Gardeners (members only).—For the best 12 roses (dis-
similar), single trusses of one stem—small silver Albert
medal, Mr: Roser. For . the second beat ditto—bronze
medal, Mr. Jarvis.

After the flower-show the concert commenced and
continued until dusk, when the eruption of Etna was ex-
hibited amidst the applause of the whole concourse of
visitors. Tha day passed cif with great eclat.

ADDITIONAL MATHER, PAPER.

TIIE HON. P. C. SCARLETT TO THE EARL OF MALMESBURY,

(It.:ceived Julie 19 )

Florence, June 11, 1852.
My Lord,—l have just read Mr. Mather's letter t.)
your Leedseip, published in the newspapers, in which
he allegee that the suggestion of a money compensation
came from the Legation. Such a suggestion was never
made by me or by my authority, or with my knowledge
or consent, nor have I any reason to believe that any
suggestion of the sort was made by any person attached
to or connected with the Legation, nor do I know by
whom it was made, if it was made. I beg also to take
this opportunity of remarking, that it appears by my
dispatches, that Mr. Mather, in the presence of two gen-
tlemen whom I sent to him, Lord Frederic Kerr and Sir
John Orde, declined to receive any apology. It is
certain that the officer who struck Mr. Ma-
ther with his sword was ready, in consequence of my
request made to the Austrian Envoy, with the
sanction and by the command of the Commander-in-
Chief of the Austrian army, Prince de Lichetnstein, to
express his regret at having done so, whilst under the
apprehension that Mr. Mather intended to assault him.
Your Lordship will also remember that the officer with
whom Prince de Lichtenstein considered the fray to have
begun, and who first struck Mr. Mather, was punished
by being put under arrest and strongly reprimanded,
The private honour of Mr. Mather, which W 23 in some
degree identified with that of the public, would thus
have received the fullest atonement that any gentleman
could require. It was in consequence of Mr. Mather's
repudiation of all apology that I called for an inquiry,
which I understood to be Mr. Mather's expressed desire
to the English gentlemen above-mentioned. This course
I thought expedient, upon the further ground that be-
sides bringing to light what really happened in the
scuffle, it would give time to the British Government to
consider the proper course to be pursued. I did all I
could to forward the inquiry, and I also recommended
an advocate of the highest reputation, and offered,
in my public capacity, to defray the expense of
the proceeding. I take upon myself the entire respon-
sibility of accepting 1,000 francesconi by way of da-
mages. My reasons for thus deviating from your
Lordship's instructions, by which I was to obtain at
least 5001., are that having repeatedly demanded this
latter sum I was unable to obtain any more than 1,000
francesconi, which was at length offered by the Tuscan
Government. If I had persisted in demanding more it
is certain that they would have persisted in their pro-
test against all liability; and under the present peculiar
circumstances of the Tuscan Government, I felt that her
Majesty's Government could not, consistently with ge-
nerosity and justice and the truth of the facts, insist on
her liability as an independent power. If I am mistaken
in this view, I can only express my regret that I did not
leave this matter to be settled by another hand; but I
hope I may be forgiven the expression of my doubt
whether any negotiator could have obtained a larger
compensation in the shape of money from the Tuscan
Government without very serious extremities.
I have, fie.,

(Signed)

P. CAMPBELL SCARLETT,

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
TIMES.—The neighing of a horse, the flight of
birds, height of stature, strength of arm, or length of
beard have in various ages and countries served to de-
termine the choice and election of rulers over mankind.
Bat even these expedients of barbarous or superstitious
nations led them in all probability to results less sudden
and unexpected than the modern ballot-box, as it is
used in the United States. For that singular en-
gine of popular election positively brings about
the exclusion of all the most prominent candidates,
and as a necessary consequence, the selection of
some person whose abilities and former services had
hitherto kept him in a condition of relative obscurity.
The principle of hereditary monarchy is perhaps not
easily to
,be reconciled with abstract considerations of
pure reason applied to the transmission of sovereignty
over a free and intelligent people. Nothing appears
more simple than to say, " Let such a nation elect the
worthies of its citizens to rule over its destinies and
to direct its policy." Yet experience shows
that hereditary monarchy has for some thousands
of years, and under very different phases of
civilization, produced less uncertainty and anomaly
than the elective system. It is based upon tradition,
and justified by experience; but it is still more forcibly
recommended by the startling absurdities and the par-
piexing results of the opposite system, as applied by
certain Republican States under our own eyes. Popular
election has just given, for instance, a Louis Napo-
leon to France; and it has suddenly raised a gentle-
man of New Hampshire, of whom nothing was known
in Europe till yesterday, and who was only known in
America as a respected member of the Legislature, to
the exalted position of candidate of the Democratic
party for the Presidency of the -United States. The
possibility of success iu this form of election by univer-
sal suffrage necessarily depends on two trials. The
candidate must first be chosen and accepted as the sole
candidate of his party throughout the country; and,
secondly, the party which has thus adopted him must
obtain the majority over its antagonist at the regular
and decisive election required by the Constitutipn.
But the preliminary election, conducted under pri-
vate arrangement, and binding only by the obligations
of party honour, is indispensable to ultimate success,
for if either party were divided in the choice of its
representative, the victory would remain with the
other side; and, in point of fact, although the sub-
sequent and formal election decides the contest of par-
ties, the previous convention settles the still more de-
licate and important question of persons. At this
Stage of the electoral proceedings it might, therefore,
be conceived that personal merit would have the utmost
weight, as all the candidates submitted to this trial
are supposed to represent the same political opinions.
Yet the recent determination of the Democratic Conven-
tion at Baltimore has again proved, as had been pre-
viously shown upon the election of Mr. Polk in 1844,
that it is easier for an untried man to attain the summit
of political power by such a process than for a man of
the hi,hest standing in the country to overcome the jea-
lousy of his rivals. Montesquieu has said that the prin-
ciple of absolute monarchy is fear, and that of aristo-
cracies is honour. To speak in the same general terms,
the principle of democracies is envy. Envy is the true
name of that passion for equality, which they some-
times indulge even by the sacrifice of freedom end
the proscription of greatness; for, by the operation of
universal suffrage and the mechanism of popular elec-
tions, it is easier to insure the defeat of a rival than to
secure the return of a friend. Such is the result which
these Caucus elections in the United States frequently
exhibit. By the form and rule of their proceedings, the
candidate who obtains the votes of two-thirds of
the delegates is to be proclaimed the candidate of
the whole party, and accepted by the rest. We
will suppose that two or more candidates of eminence,
such as Mr. Buchanan and General Cass, are the fa-
vourites, as the minor competitors drop off after the
first ballot. As long as there is a third party on the
list there may be hope that his votes will be transferred
to the other prinsipal candidates, so as to give one of
them the requisite number of votes. But suppose that
when only two names remain one has 60 and the other
40 votes out of 100, 67 being the number required to
make a majority. The contest rages with violence
and pertinacity, but with no result. Whatever is
to happen neither side will pass over to its imme-
diate rival; and the passion for excluding him
outweighs and mitigates the sense of its own failure.
In this way 40 or 50 ballots take place. Parties become
weary and irritated, and fall into the state of mon ready
to adopt any compromise which will save them from
political defeat. At that moment a comparatively small
body of voters, who have kept their own counsel
and purposely thrown away their votes on other
candidates in the earlier ballots, may by good manage-
ment turn the whole election in favour of their own
secret candidate. In the present instance this manceuyre
has been skilfully performed by the electioneering
dexterity of the men of Virginia, and as they
started General Frank Pierce at the critical moment, be
became in a very short time the term of compromise
between th© rival factions, and was chosen with a degree
of unanimity that bodes well for his ultimate success as
President of the United States. As far as we are
able to collect information respecting a gentleman
who is thus raised to a more prominent position than
he had before occupied, the lot has in this instance
fallen well; and if the chances of success are—as
we suppose them to be—in favour of the Democratic
candidate, wo greatly prefer General Pierce to
either General Coes, Mr. Douglas, or Mr. Buchanan,
speaking, of course, principally with reference to the opi-
nions and policy those gentlemen are believed to enter-
tain as to the relations of the Union with this country
and with foreign Powers. General Pierce is said to Res-
sees the first and greatest quality of a statesman—high
character. He has the good fortune not to have been
mixed up with the faverish agitation and the puerile
pledges by whieli the eendidatee of the Democratic party
are wont to court popularity. He has not made speeches
for M. Keeetitla or promised the annexation of Cuba.
He has had experience of public affairs in the highest
assembly of that country—the Senate of the United
States; and, to descend to minor particulars in his
political creed, he is at once a man of New
England and yet a decided champion of free
trade. Mr. Rufus King, the Democratic candidate
for the Vice-presidency, is better known to us from
having filled the office of American Minister. in
Paris, where, however, he left no very high impression
of his qualifications, though he was justly more
esteemed than his predecessor, General Cass. The ulti-
mate success of these gentlemen depends, however, on
the result of the Presidential contest, which can only be
said fel:fly-to begin when- both- parties have named
their candidate. The choice of the Whig Convention