The Sun.
London, England, 1863-10-01 00:00:00

ridiculous, they will in all likelihood, these dis-
creditable eccentricities in the last Budget be emu-
lated in the next by others as perilous and as
ridiculous. It is the perpetual thought of this in
futuro that yields us a qualm of discomfort, even
when we are most disposed to congratulate our-
se:ves while turning over (as we have been doing
just now) a comparatively satisfactory balance sheet.

Sir H. VERNEY and Mr. HUBBARDhwaivteh been
y
practising their rhetoric in Buckingham
atole
t
gseutchceesrsin tlhteirisesttriumeattehoaft fotrheeiygndaiffaanirost,
atnhde no
worst and..st c:f theln
tphairstisckuliarmrlyishini‘rierg. aHrdußtßOAßßDllEthsiaad
argument. He spoke at some
rut and length,sp eao7ol
uo.hiys ob
servations were very quietly
in-
troduced, but thetoneoff
tthheemeoaolototry. l
gethe!rie statedfailedto
represent the spirit of
that it was a very satisfactory thing t o notice that
Earl RUSSELL had observed lately that there was
no immediate chance of a war because of Poland.
This may be a fact, and perhaps it is, for all things
are not prepared for a contest just now, and there
are certain contingencies and difficulties that might
interpose awkward delays and occasion inconve-
nient 'estrangements if that event took place. It
was the explanation of the affair that rendered Mr.
HUBBARD'S remarks so unsuitable, for he seamed to
insinuate that we had no right to have interfered at
all in the affair. He set out with this assertion,
that " non-intervention was the true policy of this
country—non-intervention in every case in which
the direct interest or honour of England did not
call upon us to go to war." This is rather a sweep-
ing assertion, because England would be stultifying
herself if she did nothing and said nothing, what-
ever happened of cruelty and tyranny in a foreign
State. It would not be doing nothing but perform-
ing something in a very bad cause if our mighty
nation had tamely acquiesced in the policy of St.
Petersburg, and thus tacitly encouraging the cruel
and devastating course that the legions of the Rus-
sians have been pursuing in Poland, turning her
fields into burial grounds, and threatening to de-
populate her cities. Mr. HUBBARD went on to say
that " great injustice had been done to Russia by
the way in which the question had been debated in
the House of Commons, and in every public meet-
ing which had been held in this country." It is a
great pity that any influential public man should
speak in this strain, because it furnishes an excuse
to the opponents of liberty to say that our country
is not at unity on the question. Mr. HUBBARD
xas very indignant that we should have presumed
to dictate terms to a nation so mighty, to tell the
absolute ruler of seventy or eighty millions of men
to cease from hostilities. Times and manners must in-
deed have changedfor the worse when the exponents
of England's policy pause torcflect if a ruler is mighty
before taking up the cause of the weak he is tramp-
ling on, or defending the poor who are in jeopardy
from his wrath. If we are to fear any empire, from
whence are there to come any champions of the
oppressed. It should bo the proudest boast of our
countrymen that their Government consider no state
too mean to be protected, and regard no empire as
too mighty to be opposed if the cause of justice
demands it. The spirit of honour, the claims of
humanity, and the voice of the oppressed ones on
GoD's earth have ever been held sufficientlp potent
to call forth the assistance of England, and arm her
hosts for any encounter. It is a proud thought to
dwell upon that on our empire the sun never sets,
but it is a higher and better cause for rejoicing to
raflect that on our shores the slave is free. When
Mr. HUBBARD said that the first outbreak was the
"midnight assassination of Russian troops quar-
tered in a Polish province," he might have remem-
bered what caused that outbreak. The midnight
seizure of Polish youths to serve in the ranks of their
enemies will be held by many as a sufficient prove.
cative for even greater deeds of violence. It is
really a relief to turn to Sir H. VERNEY'S remarks
on this subject. He said that he dissented from his
colleague in his views regarding Poland. He gave
it as his opinion that " those who went to Russia
were miserably deceived," this is, doubtless, very
true, but those who stay at home will coincide with
Sir H. VERNEY'S assertion that, "there is no coun-
try in the world that has been so dreadfully tyran-
nised over as Poland has been by Russia." He
considered that we ought not to permit such a state
of things to go on without uttering a protest.
He went to political grounds, and stated that
peace could never be satisfactorily established
in Europe until Russia ceased to tyrannise over
Poland. This was a word in season, and must have
been the exponent of the feelings and the represen-
tation of the opinion of many persons. 11r. HUB-
BARD'S views in regard to foreign policy were alto-
gether of a questionable character on this occasion.
He briefly adverted to America, and thereupon
affirmed that " in this case our Government had
acted with great firmness and consummate wisdom."
It would puzzle many to explain how and in what
matter " great firmness" is consistent with the
shuffling policy and variable demeanour that have
characterised all the course of the transactions of
our Ministers during the trans -Atlantic controversy.
" Consummate wisdom" does not appear in a line of
action that is estranging both sides from us far more
than any open espousal of an adverse cause would
have irritated either party. Lukewarm acquaint-
ances ale worse than enemies, and dilly-dallying
with things that want immediate decision, and a
wavering purpose in settling affairs where a strong
will is needed, can never occasion anything but
doubt and discontent. Non-intervention is not the
present policy towards America. Have we not I
just heard Earl RUSSELL'S statement that he will
protect, to the utmost of his power, one side more ,
than the other. Everyone knows what that means
coming from such a quarter, and, therefore, it is
quite unavailing for adherents of his policy to try
to win over doubtful minds, for such bold assertions
are not proved at all.

Sir H. VERNEY spoke on the subject of labourer's
cottages. He expatiated on the advantage accruing
to the landlords by providing good and comfortable
residences. They might thus combine interest with
duty, and benefit themselves white they bestowed
a blessing upon others. He believed that the land-
lord could give his son no better education than
how to manage their land better and to obtain a
thorough knowledge of it. He had had ample
experience 3f the efficacy of the changes intro-
duced into the condition of the dwellings. "He
had seen the character of the labourers improved
by taking them out of the bad cottages and placing
them in good ones." Mr. HUBBARD, in adverting
to this subject, remarked that it had been said
the cottage question was a landlord's, but that it
was also a farmer's question. " The tenant far-
mer paid wages to the labourer, who could only
Occupy his cottage
at a rent that would remune-
rate the owner when he got sufficient wages for
his labour." The proceedings passed off with
satisfaction to all concerned, and the discussion
of local interests will doubtless be productive of
great service to the good cause now in hand in
so many
Places of furnishing better homes for the
labouring classes. Experience has attested in many
striking instances the vast importance to the com-
munity of enabling the labouring classes to live
with comfort, decency, and ease.
It in no use
their hearing sermons from the pulpit,
wisdom