The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-26 00:00:00

"

"<

disingenuous shuffle as this resolution. The Speaker
of the house virtually, Sir JOHN, explicitly chal-
lenges them to place before the house that " other
settlement" which they have so long affirmed to be
practicable. Instead of which we merely have
their pitiful cry embodied in a resolution for "some
other provision."

Out of all patience we naturally say—don't tell
us the thousandth time, that you want " some other
provision"—we surely know that that is your creed
if repetition can teach us anything—tell us what
the other provision shall be—give us some bill.
If you do not we must hold your resolution to be a
confession of hopeless breaking down. We believe
this to be the case. The Tories have found that
Sir JOHN TRELAWNY is right, but they have cried
out so long that they are ashamed to confess it.
Instead of a bill which they would have been but
too glad to produce, we have a cuckoo resolution.
A more pitiable position for gentlemen who have
got into a majority we hardly ever saw—it is talk
when we asked for business ; an assignat when
we wanted a dollar. It is "unjust and inexpedient,"
we are told, as if we had never heard that from
their lips before. But even supposing it to
be so, the House has repeatedly confessed
that it is more " unjust," more " inex-
pedient" to continue the present system. For our-
selves, we never could see the injustice and inexpe-
diency of requiring the worshippers in churches,
any more than the worshippers in meetinghonses,
to rate themselves after the apostolic fashion of
"freely giving." The injustice of compelling
the unwilling to pay for our worship should date
from time "immemorial," is but an argument with
honest folk for hastening the abolition of the rate.
Believing, as we do, that it is unjust in principle
to coerce any one in the name of religion—especially

in the name of the Christian religion, we can poin

to but one "other provision "—and that is, that
each man should pay for the expenses of the church
in which he worships, and for the expenses of the
worship in which he joins,
However, we are not disposed to be dogmatic.
With Sir JOHN TRELAWNY we say—show us
what " other provision" you would have, and let the
House consider my proposal and yours together.
Because we can think of no other, we may not
affirm that you cannot, only let us see it. Mr.
BRIGHT suggested a very simple measure last year,
will that suit you ? He proposed to leave all the
machinery to you for making a rate which you now
have, but to take away the power to compel pay-
ment. The plan has already been successfully
tried in Liverpool, and by men who have done
something better than concoct wordy resolutions.
Perhaps that plan might have its conveniences
for you—but to that or to Sir JOHN TRELAWNY'S
you must soon come, if you can offer nothing better
than wordy resolutions.

Our English Star of the Legion of Honour—the
Victoria Cross—is gradually little by little number-
ing up its heroic recipients. Eight more names
were added by last night's Gazette to the glorious
catalogue. And what tends greatly to enhaice
the value attached to this enviable decoration is
the fact that it is awarded always with the utmost
care and discernment. Of the eight new recipients
of the Victoria Cross whose names were announced
yesterday, seven were military heroes, one a naval
hero—a young reefer. Among the saven soldiers,
one it will be seen was a major, one a captain,
three were lieutenants, one was a sergeant of the
53d Regiment, and the seventh was a conductor in
the Ordnance Department. The maritime chevalier
was a young midshipman (ARTHUR MAYO) of the
Indian Navy, to whom the Cross has been awarded
" For having headed the charge on the 22d of No-
vember, 1857, in the engagement between the In-
dian Naval Brigade and the mutineers of the 73d
Native Infantry and Bengal Artillery, when the
former was ordered to charge two six-pounders
which were keeping up a heavy fire —Mr. MAYO
being" (it is added) " nearly 20 yards in front of
any one else during the advance." It would
be beside our purpose to particularise each
of the seven other instances of gallantry recom-
pensed by the award of this peculiar decoration.
One or two, however, may be selected as particu-
larly worthy of note—without any intention, how-
ever, on our part, of being in any way invidious to
the others not specified in this selection. The
simple fact of the award of the Victoria Cross to
any one renders it nearly impossible that any over-
sight in this kind of reference should bear the con-
struction of invidiousness. The glittering of that
badge of heroism on the bosom of each brave man
to whom it is given by order of the Crown,
be he veteran or be he stripling, is proof
positive, without the utterance or the writing of one
syllable in praise of him, that he deserved well and
nobly of his QUEEN and of his Country.
We have no scruple, therefore, in selecting here
another example or two of the instances deemed
worthy of being commemorated by the award
of the Victoria Cross. The first case upon
the list given last evening in the London
Gazette, is that of an officer, that is, of Major
KEATINGE, of the Bombay Artillery, to whom,
the Gazette of yesterday tells us, the Vic-
toria Cross has been given in remembrance
of an act of heroism thus succinctly de-
scribed : " For having rendered most effi-
cient aid at the assault of Chundairee in volun-
tarily leading the column through the breach, which
was protected by a heavy cross fire. He was one
of the foremost to enter and was severely wounded
in the breach. The column was saved from a seri-
ous loss that would probably have resulted but for
Major KEATINGE'S knowledge of the small path
leading across the ditch which had been examined
during the night by himself and a servant, who de-
clined. when required to lead the column, without his
master. Having cleared the breach he led into the
fort, where he was struck down by another dan-
gerous wound. The Commander in Chief in India
states that the success at Chundairee was
mainly owing to this officer, whose gallantry,
really brilliant, he considers was equalled by his
ability and devotion." Another incident in consi-
deration of which the same badge of honour has
been placed in the band of another of the recipients
gazetted yesterday will suffice. It is the one related
of Lieutenant WALLER, of the 25th Light Infantry.
"For great gallantry at the capture by storm of
the fortress of Gwalicr, on the 20th of June, 1858.
He and Lieutenant RosE, who was killed, were
the only Europeans present, and, with a mere
handful of men, they attacked the fortress, climbed
on the roof of a house, shot the gunners opposed
to them, carried all before them, and took the
fort, killing every man in it." For a gallantry
just as distinguished each of the other five brave
fellows, not here particularized, has obtained the
like decoration. That these men have received it,
We rejoice. May the lik a distinction fall to
the lot of other soldiers and sailors in the QUEEN'S
service who may be found equally entitled to a
similar recompence ! All that we would venture to
ask is that the Victoria Cross should not any longer
be restricted
to soldiers and sailors. A hint might
be taken in this
matter from the system adopted
regulating, ever sin
the Cross of the Legionce
1804, the award of
of Honour. It is
) not that we would startle the two great
warlike professions by Frail
for the like