The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-06 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TemEs.—Mr. Doulton, the member for Lambeth,
has contrived to make a speech to his constituents, '
otherwise commonplace, memorable for its sublime
affectation of cynicism about political morality. •
Where he awards praise, it is with a Rhadaman■
thine air of authority, and in a tone which implies
the superiority of Lambeth statesmanship to that of
Her Majesty's Government. Lord Palmerston is
given to understand that the oracle of the Horns
Tavern, having threatened him with expulsion from
office, now grants him a new lease thereof; Mr.
Gladstone is informed that his Budget, Insurance
scheme, and speech on Reform—we suppose with-
out the preface—have Mr, Doulton's sanction ; and
Mr. Cardwell, though on his good behaviour, is
kindly patted on the back for his colonial policy.
This great censor, however, is evidently more at
home in awarding blame, and exposes the perfidy
of the Emperor Napoleon and the sordid motives of
our own Opposition with equally merciless severity.
It was not the virtues of the Ministry, but " the
incapacity and blundering of their opponents" that
saved them from defeat, and this bungling strategy
of the Opposition was due to their uncontrollable
craving for place and power. They "were hungry
for place ; they had carried it in their faces all the
Session." They pretended that they did not in•
tend to make a party fight about the Ashantee War,
or Mr. Stansfeld's affair, or the Danish Question ;
but Mr. Doulton knows better, and did not fail to
observe that " all the dirty machinery of party"
was set in motion on each of these occasions. Their
watchword practically was "Places first end policy
" afterwards,'' and this leads Mr. Doulton to reflect
on one great evil incident to changes of Government;
—" It must be remembered, too, that these changes
of Government were expensive luxuries, In pri-
vate life when a man wanted to get rid of a ser-
vant he paid him his wages, and there was an end
of the matter, but some of these great public sere
vents when they were discharged continued
to receive their salaries. We were paying
now somewhere about £50,000 a year for these
discharged servants. Lord Chelmsford was Lord
Chancellor for a year or so, and got £lO,OOO a year,
and ever since then he had received, and would re.
ceive to the end of his days, £5,000 a year. Mr.
Disraeli's name, too, was on this list, though he was
quite ready to admit that Mr. Disraeli was better
worth his £2,000 a year than Lord Chelmsford his
£5,000." Now, this is a good specimen of the un-
worthy advantage which orators of a certain class
take of vulgar prejudices which they would them-
selves be eager to disavow. If Mr, Doulton were
asked whether he considers £lO,OOO a year too large
a salary for the highest officer of the Crown, he
would probably have the sense to reply in the ne-
gative; and if he were further asked whether he
would propose to give any, and if any, what pension
to a retiring Chancellor, his views of economical
reform might be fairly tested. A wealthy menu
facturer would be in no danger of exaggerating the
value of £lO,OOO a year, though an operative might,
and an educated man would freely admit that official
salaries must bear a just proportion to professional
and mercantile incomes. Tnen what is meant by
all this outcry about the emoluments of a single
ex-Chancellor ? Nothing whatever that we can
imagine, unless it be that the topic, though hack-
neyed, seldom fails to excite ignorant clamour,
There was a time, as we all know, when aristocratic
corruption was the scandal of the day, when per-
quisites and sinecure offices absorbed large sums
out of the Exchequer, and " pensions" were distri-
buted by favour and without the slightest regard
to merit. The present time, as most of us know, '
is singularly free from such abuses ; place after
place has been suppiessed, salary after salary re.
trenched, and the power of the Crown to grant
pensions out of the Civil List limited to the modest
maximum of £1,200 per annum. Other pensions
to retiring public servants are fixed by Act of Par-
liament, and may be cut down, with due regard to
vested interests, by any one who thinks it worth
while to raise the question and can procure a
majority. The reason why this is not done is sim-
ple enough. Every one who gives the matter a
moment's thought perceives that these allowances
stand on r, wholly different footing from the fine
old "pensions" of bygone days. They are partly,
in the nature of rewards for services actually ren-
dered to the public, and so far may be regarded as
a substitute for an increase of salary ; but they also
represent compensation for the enforced withdrawal
from a lucrative profession. Take, for instance, the
retiring pension of a Judge. There are probably
no public functionaries who earn their £5,000 a
year by harder and more incessant work than the
Judges, and it is a common remark that none but
strong constitutions could stand it. The necessary
duties of a Bishop will bear no comparison with it,
and a Bishop, enjoying £5,000 a year, besides a
palace, a peerage, and a greater social position,
may retain his see long after he has become in-
capacitated for the active supervision of a diocess.
It is surely not unreasonable or impolitic to grant
Judges a moderate pension on retirement, which, as
the example of such men as Sir John Coleridge
may show, is not always spent in selfish ease.
The chief difference between this case and that of
the Lord Chancellor is that he is liable to be ousted,
and generally is ousted, by other causes than age
or infirmity. No doubt it may well be contended
that such an appointment should be tenable for life,
and not dependent on the changes of party. If this
is what Mr Doulton intends, he should say so.
In the meantime we mist interpret his words in
the sense which they would assuredly convey to
his audience. This 18 not the first time that poli-
ticai capital has been made out of the Lord Chan-
cellor's salary; and we have seen in a manual pro-
fessing to instruct the people about the vices of
their rulers a statement the direct reverse of the
fact, that the £lO,OOO salary is exclusive of £4,000
attached to the Speakership of the House of Lords.
Mr Doulton does not commit himself to this false
assertion, but he leaves it to be supposed that an
ex-Chancellor, like a discharged servant, never
does another stroke of work for his former master,
as though a Law Lord arrd member of the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council were a mere pen..
sioned incumbrance. And this, although in the
very same speech he had dwelt pathetically on his
own gratuitous labours i❑ committees of the House
of eilommons, and protested against the popular de-
lusion that members were paid for attending them.
There is a terse saying in one of South's sermons—
" These very men, who raise and spread these in-
vectives, do not (as they pretend) hate pensioners so
much, but that they love pensions more." It is true
that it refers to a past age, but then it is the mora-
lity of a past age which can alone give any colour to
Mr Doulton's ill natured comments. It was no
unmeaning taunt that roused Burke into writing
his famous letter to a noble Lord, and drew
from Demosthenes that oration which still
ranks as the masterpiece of recorded eloquence.
• Their hands were pure, but those of their con-
temporaries were not, and they writhed under
attacks which they could not refute without claim.
ing a virtue above that of other public men. Hap.
pily this can no longer be said, and though political
conduct will always be governed by mixed motives
so long as human nature remains the same, wo are
disposed to believe that conscious jobbery and party
votes in the worst sense are already very rare. Cer-
tainly the instance of the latter selected by Mr.
Doulton is very unfortunate. After stating that
" the fight over Mr. Stansfeld" made him feel
ashamed of the company he was in," he adds that
"there was not twenty members in the House who
believed that Mazzini had favoured assassination,
and not two who believed that Mr. Stansfeld had
done anything to forward such a desire." A more
reckless assertion has seldom been made before a
metropolitan constituency. We recommend Mr.
Doulton to read Mazzini's account of the incident,
so often related in connection with his views on
tyrannicide, in the biographical memoir just pub-
lished by his own authority, before venturing to
repeat the former statement. As to the latter, we
have only to say that if Mr: Stansfeld had been as
' frank in his explanation of the facts as he was
' sensitive about his personal honour he would have
' found it much easier to disarm suspicion. The
' penetrating mind of Mr. Doulton may have read
' the mystery, as it appears to read the hearts of
his fellow-men, but others could not, and acted as
honestly in condemning Mr. Stanfeld as Lord
Palmerston in defending him.
POST.-11Ir Ralph Dutton has made a very frank
statement at Portsmouth of his differences with the

political party to which he belongs. It is ono that
does equal credit to his principles as a patriot and
to his feelings as a gentleman. We incline to think
that he has been, rattier hardly dealt with, both by
his Conservative constituents and by the Conserva-
tive leaders in the House of Commons. His case has

not been an uncommon one, at any rate upon the
Liberal side. Mr Dutton felt that he could not con-
scientiously support the party motion which had for
its object to remove the present Government on the
question of their policy in regard to Denmark. The
Conservative electors for South Hampshire appear
to have gone hand in hand with the leaders of the
Opposition in enforcing a doctrine of absolute
obedience to party moves; and the result is that Mr
Dutton has been requested to retire from the repre-
sentation of South Hants on the next general elec-

tion. With this application he has very honourably
complied. We confess that we regret his resolution,
however much we may appreciate and admire his
motives. A general election affords the best oppor-
tunity for putting to issue differences between repre-
sentatives and a section of their constituents; and
we see no reason to doubt that, when the judgment
of the electors of South Hants shall have cooled down,
they will think that Mr Patton judged rightly. If
the days had not passed away when rigid demarca-
tions between political parties were insisted upon,

the Conservatives would never have arrayed the
powerful opposition that they brought together on
the occasio❑ of that momentous division. They sue.
ceeded in running within eighteen of the numbers of
the Government because they were strengthened by
so many seceders from the Liberal ranks. These
apostate votes, however, were given upon a ground
wholly irrespective of the question really at issue.
The seceding Liberals joined the Conservatives in
ostensibly condemning the Danish policy of the
Government just because they really wished to con-
demn it for its Italian policy, on which 'the bulk of
the Conservative party would never have been found
to unite with them. In a word, the R.anan Catho-
lic Liberals owed the Government a grudge for
what had before been done in Italy, and they there-
fore took occssion to support a vote of censure on
account of what had been done in Denmark. But
the Liberal party do not appear in any single in'
stance to have resented the course which the Cathog
lies among them for the most part took. They gave
them credit for acting upon conscientious convica
tions. There has been no sort of persecution com-
menced by the Liberal party against these Liberal
recusants. No one has been unsee.ted on account of
his vote; nor hes a single membi:r been dealt with
in the harsh manner in which the Conservatives
are, we venture to teink, trea.tin g Mr. Dutton., The
Conservative Whigs can ha rd ty expect to poach
upon other preserves, and still. to keep every head
of their own game to themselv:ss. Assume that on
great questions of confidence c very man is to vote
with the party to which he nominally belongs, and
what would have been the result on the occasion of
the Danish division ? Why, the Clovernment would
have had a majority of 30 or 40, in stead of majority
of only 18. We think the conduct, which Mr. Dut'
ton has experienced from his own. party, the more
unfriendly that the question raised in the division
did not involve any recognised pa rty question. It
was not a question between protection and free
trade, between a six pound and a ten pound clause,
or between any two principles of i action on which
Liberals and Conservatives have avowed them-
selves to be divided. Had it been so, we could have
fully understood the resolution u t' ie Conservative
party to throw over a represen' :ative who had
deserted them on a great principle. Mr. Dutton
may fairly be alleged to have under taken to oppose
a Reform Bill containing a six-pound clause when
he presented himsalf on the hustings, at the last elec-
tion. But he cannot be alleged to ha ye pledged hie
vote on a question that had not th en arisen, and
which, when it did arise, was not t o be included
within the limits of any recognised party distincs
tions. To turn out Mr. Dutton for saying that
Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell had maintained
the honour of England, as an act i nconsistent with
his own pledges, is simply tantamount to declaring
that the Opposition of the day hol.d it as a matter
of course that the Ministry of the day always do
compromise the national honour. To do this is in
reality to reduce party to faction. If such a prin-
ciple were to be carried out it wcitild render the
settlement of questions on their own merits impos-
sible, and would greatly aggravate the existing
difficulties of parliamentary gov,2rnment. Mr.
Dutton denies that this was really a question be-
tween Lord Palmerston and Lord Derby. He says
that the issue was a much wider one, and that it was
a question between peace and war. This may, to a
certain extent, be a strained construction ; but una
doubtedly, unless the nation desired to go to war,
there was no reason to upset the existing Ministry.
The terms of the motion were not prospective, but
simply retrospective; yet, nevertheless, if it had
been carried, and the country had confirmed the
vote of the House, it would generally have been felt
that the national voice had in reality pronounced
in favour of war. We think, therefore, that Mr.
Dutton is justified i❑ saying that the question, in its
widest comprehension, embraced the alternative of
peace or war ; and that it was not merely an issue
raised as to whether Lord Palmerston or Lord Derby
should govern the country. Taking this view of
the case, he declares that he thought it h'is duty to
vote for an Administration which alone was likely
to maintain the peace of Europe. He quitted party
grounds for patriotic grounds, and he has his re'
ward. We hope Mr. Dutton will find some other
constituency at the next election that will afford
him a fairer latitude of action. The Conservatives
are apparently determined to reimpose those obsoa
lets notions of party discipline which have at any
rate been found unworkable on the Liberal side,
and which we thought that the Derbyites had them-
selves abandoned also. Less exacting constiturn
encies than those of South Hants will cheerfully
accept the services of so able and conscientious a
public servant as Mr. Dutton. •