The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-09 00:00:00

MAra 4;
w-gg Guff
Jl,

LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1865.

There is nothing to be surprised at in the rejec-
tion of Mr. BAINES'S Bill last night, and perhaps
no great good would have resulted from the pass-
ing of so isolated a measure ; but still it was as
well that the question should be considered. On
the eve of a general election it was desirable that
some members of the Government should be com-
pelled to pass an opinion upon a matter about which
they would much rather have kept silent. Sir G.
GREY'S speech was certainly a masterpiece in the
way of mystification, and Mr. W. FORSTER very
truly characterised it when he said that the right
hon. baronet had promised to tell the House what
the Government would do in future in the direction
of this bill, but that he defied any one to
make out from his discourse what that policy
would be. This is just the sort of game that
our present Government delight to play ; but they
do not always succeed in their object, for it is some-
times possible for people to discern a motive and
discover a tendency by what is not said as much as
by what is. Thus Sir G. GREY must have been
very badly off for ideas on the topic immediately
before him, for he had to go back to the past
achievements of himself and his colleagues, and to
expatiate upon the advantages which they had
gained by the rejection of Lord DERBY'S Reform
Bill. Under the circumstances of the case
the right hon baronet would have shown more
sense and better taste if he had left this matter
alone. It was very venturesome- on- the part of Sir
G. GREY to make out that the House of Commons,
and not the Government, were responsible for the
failure of Earl Russua2
s measure. It is needless
to say that the effort proved a complete failure.
It was imprudent in the extreme to provoke Mr.
DISRAELI to come forward and express himself upon
a subject on which he, of course, entertains much
indignation, and the right hon. gentleman was quite
equal to the occasion. He did not take up the ques-
tion with the view of raking up old grievances, but
rather to disabuse the House of the false impression
Which Sir G. GREY'S specious speech had made.
" Political life," as Mr. DISRAELI truly observed,
44 must be taken as you find it ;" but after a matter
has been so far settled, it is inconsistent for politi-
cal opponents to dig it up to life again to serve their
turn. Thus what other object could the right
honourable baronet have had in view, in taking
his retrospective glance, if it was not to da-
mage the Conservatives before the approaching

election. Properly speaking, the question at issue

lay between Ministers and the Liberal party, and if
they agreed they were strong enough to carry the
proposal of Mr. BAINES. Had the present Opposi-
tion been in office, they could not have done worse
than to let the measure fall to the ground for want
of support and sympathy ; and yet this is the course
pursued by a Government which boasts of its ex-
ploits in turning out the Conservatives, and declares
that it fears not an appeal to the country on the
question of Reform. For real effrontery and dar-
ing assurance, as exemplified in public life, we can-
not do better than look to the Whigs for a model,
and especially if they have some doubtful Liberals
at their beck and call as partisans, as Mr. DISRAELI
forcibly put it. Sir G. GREY took up the history
of Reform, and gave the same remarkable descrip-
tions of it. He conveyed some very erroneous im-
pressions by his skilful adaptation of the theme;
and, for the sake of justice, it was just as well that
they should have been exposed. The amendment
of Lord JOHN RUSSELL was described by the Home

Secretary in very daring terms, but unfortunately
they were not in conformity with truth. One pas-
sage was also extracted from a long speech of Mr.
DISRAELI'S, in order to show that some notions
were entertained by the then Government which, in
reality, were not thought of. It did not require so
great a proficient in the art of criticism as the right
hon. gentlenian the member for Buckingham to
point out the flaws and discrepancies in the speech
of Sir G. GREY, but still it is satisfactory to realise
the remarks of the one most qualified to speak on
the subject, since Mr. DISRAELI had to introduce
the measure to the consideration of the House.
When he had concluded his remarks on the cavalier
treatment of Lord DERBY'S measure, Mr. DISRAELI
proceeded to follow the right hon. baronet through
his criticism of this measure of his friends. In this
affair to gain was to lose, and to succeed to fail.
When Lord JOHN RUSSELL had got his Bill through
a second reading he came to a stand still, and as
the right hon. gentleman observed " the Government
were quite overcome, and it appears that they have
never recoverd the paralysis up to the present time."
The manner in which the Liberal Government dis-
poses of those supporters who go too far in advo-
cating reform was also capitally exemplified by the
dangerous adversary whom Sir G. GREY had un-
wisely provoked. One in particular, who had made
himself obnoxious by his comments on Lord JOHN
RUSSELL'S measure, was ," promoted to a great post
and sent to India, with an income of fabulous
amount." Certainly the manoeuvres of the Cabinet
to get rid of awkward adherents can ill bear the
light of day upon them, and still less can stand
inspection before the House, in which a member of
the Government declares the willingness of himself
and friends to be offered up on the sacrificial altar
of Reform. And now the Ministers complain that
there is no one to help them in their" great under-
taking, but, as Mr. DISRAELI forcibly declared,
" How can they suppose that they will ever carry a
Reform Bill if theyreward all those among their sup-
porters who oppose such bills by promoting them to
posts of great confidence and lucre !" The conclu-
sion at which Sir G. GREY arrived after all
his rhetoric was exhausted, and his comprehensive
criticism could do no more, is thus ably summarised.
First, the right hon. baronet repudiated the rights
of man, and then he repudiated the £6 franchise.
Another inconsistent member of the Cabinet is Mr.
GLADSTONE. Why did he not appear to lend the
powerful aid of his support to a measure which
is in conformity with the principles he professed
last year? The fact is, that this shuffling mode of
procedure will not do ; it may suit the purposes of
a moment, and answer the requirements of the
time, but it can never receive the support or win
the respect of the commmunity at large. To blow
hot and cold is not the way to foster a cause or

to mature a purpose, and it is quite idle for Minis

ters to think of going to the country on the ques-
tion of Reform, if they cannot be certain before-
hand what part the most influential members of
their Cabinet will play in the mighty drama to be
enacted. Who will be bold enough to prophesy
the course which Mr. GLADSTONE will pursue ?
Will he remain silent and do nothing, will
he take a medium course, descant upon popular
rights, and so on, but deem it advisable just for the
present to keep quiet, and therefore vote against a
Reform proposition? or will he, like his great pro-
totype, Sir R. PEEL, discover a third course, and go
boldly in for the honours of democracy, thus keep-
ing up the character depicted by Mr. DISRAELI
in the following terms :—" When, by the dangerous
but fascinating eloquence of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, we were led to believe that the days of

Tom PAINE had returned, and that ROUSSEAU was
to be rivalled by a new Social Contract." There
can be no doubt that Mr. BAINES'S proposal,
and many similar progressive stages of reform,
will be eventually carried, and the matter may
,
safely be left to the sense and understanding of the
community, In England there is never any cause
for fear, and never any foundation for the threats
of the demagogue that no time must be lost in
gaining the desired end. The really important
question as regards last night's debate is the policy
of the Government, and let not the country
be deceived anew, for it is not likely that
by them a Reform Bill will be intro-
duced. As time goes on we can the more
fully appreciate the mischief which Earl Rus-
SELL has wrought to the cause -which he is supposed
to have so much at heart, that of 'reform, in the
advocacy of which he won so many laurels in his
earlier years, but the lustre of whose renown has
been somewhat dimmed by his subsequent conduct.
The facts are incontrovertible that, after living its
full time, this Parliament has been a failure, so far
as it has fulfilled the purpose for which it was
summoned. Had the measure of Lord DERBY
been allowed full scope and fair play there is no
doubt that by this time we should be in posses-
sion of enlarged principles of representation ; but
as it is the settlement is further off than ever,
and it is expedient that the public should know who
they have to thank for it. Let it not be misunder-
stood by those who will be called upon for their
suffrages, and if anything were wanting to convince
the doubtful of the party nature of the Liberal opposi-
tion to the DERBY Reform Bill, surely the deficiency
has been supplied by the speech of Sir G. GREY last
night, in which he did not address himself to the
matter before the House so much as he raked up
past altercations, for the purpose of showing that
his opponents were to blame for the sins and short-
comings of his friends.

The present condition of American affairs is
altogether unsatisfactory, and all well-wishers of

the country, whether Federal or Confederate in
their sympathies, must unite in deploring the dark-
ness and doubtfulness of its prospects. Justice is,
in some measure, avenged by the capture and death
of BOOTH, but the mischief done by the assassina-
tion of ABRAHAM LINCOLN is far from being
remedied. Moderation and conciliation were always
too feebly represented in the Federal councils,
but though LINCOLN countenanced severe and even
cruel measures, and SEWARD was not lacking in
arrogance and assumption, still these two members
of the Cabinet, whose position, reputation,
and experience gave them great weight, were

usually on the side of more moderate proceedings
than their fellows. Mr. LINcoLN's last address
gave offence to some of his party by the quietness
of its tone, and he fully upheld the terms which
General GRANT offered to General LEE. All is now
changed, and changed in a manner which gives
little hope for the speedy pacification of that
unhappy country. Mr. SEWARD, it is true, has
happily escaped with his life. We may hope that
when his voice is once more heard in public his
words will have all the more weight with his
countrymen from the dangers he has escaped and
the sufferings he has undergone. But absolute
power has now drifted into the hands of the extreme
party, men who strive to outbid each other in the
ferocity of their denunciations and the recklessness
of their assertions. Treason, extermination, and
confiscation are words so lightly and so constantly
used that men grow familiar with their sound.
The voice of wise, humane, and prudent men is lost
in the storm, and by an unfortunate conjunction of
circumstances, just as the peace so long striven for,
and at the last so dearly and unsatisfactorily gained,
seemed about to dawn, the horrors of civil disunion
and bloodshed have sprung up with more force than
ever. The present rulers of affairs at Washington
are only anxious, apparently, to influence the pas-
sions of the multitude, to keep up the tumultuous
excitement consequent upon the cruel murder of
Mr. LINCOLN, and to justify themselves in measures
of extreme severity. No thought of conciliation or
compromise is present with them. No heed
is paid to the counsels of moderate and
really patriotic men who might well sug-
gest that as each party has received a severe
shock and has suffered a heavy loss the moment
has arrived for mutual concession. The one side
has lost its leader, the other its capital, but while
the North was the gainer by the Southern evacua-
tion of Richmond, the South has certainly gained
nothing by the assassination of President Lincoln.
Nothing can be more unjust than the attempt to
affix the stigma of the crime on the Confederates as
a party. There is no evidence whatever to point
to such a conclusion, and everything that is known
of the Southern leaders contradicts the assertion
most emphatically, while the evidence of reason and
common sense points to an entirely opposite con-
clusion. Would any Confederate in his senses
wish to supersede LINCOLN and JOHNSON, to replace
SEWARD'S pre-eminence in the Cabinet by the
prominence of STANTON ? Such an idea is as ex-
travagant as it is groundless, but the excuse serves
well the cruel and oppressive views of the extreme
party. Mr. STANTON, who appears to have most
mysterious means of obtaining information, for
which we are supposed to accept his word, has now
discovered that the attempt on the PRESIDENT'S
life was " organised in Canada and approved in
Richmond," and het believes the man who stabbed
Mr. SEWARD to be a St. Albans raider. This is
pretty good, but such announcements from the lips
of a Minister of State are something more than
ridiculous. They show a desire to influence the
popular mind against the Confederates, and against
this country, which cannot be disregarded. Such
accusations should not be lightly made, even on
plaUsible evidence, and certainly they must be based
on something more solid than Mr. STANTON'S ready
and imaginative assertions before they can be
listened to in this country.
The catastrophe which has placed Washington in
mourning has excited the deepest horror among us,
and the manifestations of English sympathy have
been widespread and sincere. But we fear that the
pomp and circumstance with which Mr. LINCOLN'S
funeral obsequies have been invested have had
something of political purpose in them. What are
we to think of President:JoHNsoN, now that the
first heat and passion of the tragedy is over,
deliberately declaring that " the rebel leaders
must be punished and impoverished, and their
social position destroyed," asserting that the
assassination of Mr. LINCOLN was due to the
" fiendish spirit of rebellion," and that Union men
in the Confederacy " must be remunerated from
the pockets of those who had brought suffering
upon the country." Is this the spirit in which to
approach the solution of this difficult and delicate.
question, in which to deal with a brave and
chivalrous, but partially vanquished people ? If
to all the horrors and jealousies of civil war
Mr. JOHNSON means to add the bitterness of con-
fiscation and the enforced distribution of property,
he will introduce another and a more powerful ele-
ment of discord into his already distracted country.
The extent of the Southern States is so great, their
population is so numerous, and their natural wealth
so considerable, that such an attempt will re-
kindle the flames of war, and excite a resistance
more desperate and more united than any merely
political proceeding could do.

Nor are acts wanting to prove the uncompro-
mising hostility of the Northern rulers. General
SHERMAN, who a few weeks since was the hero of
the moment, and who has been virtually the moving
spirit of the last campaign, has made an agreement
with General JOHSTON, the only considerable leader
of Southern force left in the field. The terms of
armistice were favourable to the Confederates, as
they well might be, considering that no engage-
ment had taken place, and that JOHNSTON had
before proved a formidable antagonist to SHERMAN
and his army. On learning the particulars, however,
President JOHNSON, Gen. GRANT, and the members
of the Cabinet unanimously declared that such an
agreement could not be recognised, that SHERMAN
had exceeded his powers, and that he was greatly to
blame for the temporary advantage he had given
his enemy. A most ungracious message was sent to
SHERMAN, bidding him thenceforward to confine his
communications with the enemy to subjects of a
purely military nature, while GRANT himself set out
for North Carolina to direct personally the opera-
tions against JOHNSTON. By this means the Federals
have probably succeeded in disgusting their best
General, and in putting upon him an open slight.
The Americans are never remarkable for their gra-
titude to their public men, and SHERMAN him-
self, some months agO, when he was the
idol of popular enthnsinsm, remarked that
the first repulse or misadventure would soon
make men forget his successes. Now, it seems
that a reverse is not wanted to effect this.
More stirring events have obliterated the interest
felt in the march through Georgia, and SHERMAN,
notwithstanding the atrocities committed during his
march, has not personally shown sufficient rancour
towards the South to make him acceptable to JOHN-
SON and STANTON. The latter, indeed, has gone so
for as to notify his disapproval of SHERMAN'S nego-
tiations to the different commanders of the Federal
armies, directing them at the same time to disregard
all his orders. A less impetuous man than General
SHERMAN would hardly brook such an affront, espe-
cially when he must feel that the present supremacy
of the Northern arms is mainly due to himself.
The South has still an army left, and the extreme
measures of the North may call forth fresh recruits.
It is no longer a question of the supremacy of North
or South, but of the internal government of some
millions of men, and it seems but too probable that
the flames of civil war will be rekindled, that fresh
elements of strife will be called into action, that
anarchy and despotism will struggle for the mastery.
By these means they will very probably drive the