The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-26 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 1854.

Well, the Vote of Credit has been carried—and
without even a division. Three Millions of
Pounds sterling are placed at the disposal of the
"excellent" ABERDEEN, to deal with as be thinks
proper, and Parliament has nothing more to do
until required by the Financial Minister to sanc-
tion any imposts he may deem it expedient to
propose for the purpose of redeeming the obliga-
tion thus contracted. Lord ABERDEEN is virtaially
dictator for six calendar months. He may act,
or rather not act, as he thinks proper, " tdith the
concurrence of other Powers." He may, if so
minded, take Prussia for his guide and ennanple,
exhibiting the most implicit confidence in the pro-
fessions of his friend of forty years' standin g-. We
had certainly hoped that the British Mouse of
Commons would have exhibited greater zeal and
nergy—that they would have shown theanselves
better qualified to meet the existing emeri p3ncy—
and more mindful of their own rights and privi-
leges, and of those of their successors throeaghout
all generations. The Noble Lord, the meniber for
Marylebone, stood forth boldly and independently.
He afforded a locus penitentio to .all dteesirous
of rescuing themselves from the imputatior es that
might otherwise be cast upon their fair lames.
But his manly effort elicited but a feeble re sj ponse.
The prospect of the autumnal Session wa s too
much for the virtue and patriotism of Hon. Gen-
tlemen. Visions of cool breezes on sea or moun-
tain, rendered irresistible by the intense ai td suf-
focating heat of the weather, prevailed, an xl the
palpable lukewarmness, if not freezing it tdiffe-
mace, prevented the Noble Lord from pre sassing
his motion to a division.'
Well, we now at least know what we ha ye tO
anticipate, and it is the more
in,, olbent e 3) a the
Members of "the Fourth Estate to defend the
interests that have been forgotten, or
disregarded, by those of the "
S at least
second and Th it d.,,
The duties that have been abandoned by
chosen representatives of the
be
people must, the
assumed by the public journalists, and they- will
be sustained and strengthened by the support and
confidence of the community. They haven tdeed
received an unexpected recognition, for even 1 the
Ministerial Leader of the House of Com mons
has referred to the reports of his state, nents
appearing in the daily journals, and de-
clared his willingness to abide thereby--and a 3
it appears that no divisions are to be take tzt at
any time, but that Hon. Gentlemen, while e.
pressing a total want of confidence either in a a
individual Minister or in the entire Cabinet, ar e
to give proofs of the most peifect trust, we fano: (
gnat the opinions and comments of the Journalit..t

---- 7 -
an the events of each
succeeding day will be jr Ll' t
as worthy of notice as if put forward by part' le
who Could attach the magic initials to
•
their ] 13-
=Waive names. On the Press, then, the peoi )le
of the United Kingd
Until the ona must exclusively depet td
month of February ; and we belies e
that, with few exceptions, they will be faithfr . 1
and efficient champions of the national honour an 4
the national security . They will at least hay re
advantage this Strik i n g over their legislative rivalgi
that there cannot be so many painful discrepan( nes
between their "sayings and doings" as we b .ave •
had to deplore during the
present and sev oral

' preceding Sessions on the part of the representa-
tives of free and independent constituencies.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL attempted to ride off on
a collateral point, to make the question one of
" Confidence" or "No Confidence." He said,
" If we are fit to be Ministers of the Crown we are
fit to have that discretion. If we are not fit to have
that discretion, on the other hand we are no longer
fit to remain Ministers of the Crown. !" Vow, we
must earnestly and emphatically protest against such
an argument—one, indeed, that might be pushed
to any extent, even to making the lives and pro-
perties of the people dependent on the will and
pleasure of the Minister for the time being. We
are well aware of the efficacy of so very signifi-
cant a hint respecting a change of Ministry—a
hint carrying with it not merely the " delicious
treat of an autumnal session," but the inestimable
blessing of a general election, with all its noise and
turmoil, and its innumerable demands on the
time, the patience, the energies, and the pockets
of those who are to determine the matter, and
many of whom would be guilty of an act of poli-
tical suicide, signing their own death warrants as
public men. We repeat, then, that it is not fair
to make use of such a threat in order to induce
the guardians of the public purse not merely to
abdicate their functions, but to transfer the power
constitutionally reposed in them to any Ministry,
however popular. As we have already stated,
" the most trusted, and the most trust-
worthy, should not demand so great a sacri-
fice, nor should the chosen representatives
of the people, disgrace themselves by establishing
a precedent so fraught with danger to popular
rights and privileges."
The dangerous example has, however, been set—
the " precedent has been established." The three
millions now granted may be quadrupled, or more
than quadrupled, another time. A still greater
responsibility than that so boldly assumed may
be encountered by future Ministries, more un-
limited confidence (if that be possible) may be re-
posed in the discretion of Ministers, until the
liberties of the people be sacrificed to the magni-
tude of a discretion more suited to a Turkish
Vizier than a First Lord of the Treasury of the
United Kingdom !
A similar " discretion" will, we suppose, this
evening be insisted on for capitalists who are prac-
tically to be allowed to raise fun*ds for the use of
the Auxocnax if the dividends offered be deemed
satisfactory. That " discretion," as we have
already explained, may operate very prejudicially
to the interests of the tax-payers of Great Britain
and to the cause of European Civilisation. And, in
like manner, the unlimited discretion of rulers
must promote the cause of " despotism." What,
in fact, is the principle of " Autocracy" but " un-
limited discretion " for the ruler to do as he
thinks proper, without being accountable to any
person or persons whatever—to "do as he likes
with his own "—without let or hindrance. And
this is the course in which the House.of Com-
mons has made a very decided step by its
vote of last night. We trust that the time will
speedily arrive when the voters, aye, and non-
voters, of the United Kingdom may express their
opinions on the propriety of such a proceeding,
The fear of a dissolution, is the true secret why
members have neglected their duty. Bat their
time is coming—and that soon

A reviewer in the Edinburgh has manifestly not
followed the advice of Sir JAMBS GRAHAM. ; but
has, with wonderful industry, been carefully
"pottering over blue-books ;" and this, more-
over, in reference to the very subject in regard to
which this same pottering was originally depre-
cated, namely, in reference to the Diplomatic
History of the Eastern Question now ripened into
a war between the Russian and the Allied Go-
veraments. The first article iu this recently -pub-
lished number of our great Whig contemporary
is nothing less than an elaborate piece of special
pleading, to prove that the matter here paxiicu-
larised has been treated from first to last with the
most consummate ability, and the most high-
minded patriotism, by the members of her MA-
JESTY'S present Administration. A rather diffi-
cult thesis to have selected truly—one, the
difficulty of which the Edinblirgh Reviewer at
once virtually acknowledges by the exquisite dis-
play of preparatory caution with which he adv en-
tures upon it. If Mr. BOUNDERBY was correctly
defined as the "Bully of Humility," then might
the critic in the Whig Quarterly be happily de-
signated the Braggart of Candour. Never was
there a more blusterous affectation of lucidity, a
more obtrusively paraded anxiety to be clear and
explicit. The effort destroys itself. Any reader
would inevitably be roused into suspicion as to the
honesty of the argument carried on with such an
officious air of exactitude in regard to names, and
dates, and facts, and documents, even to minute
punctilios—supposing them to have been pre-
viously unacquainted with any of the particulars
in reference to the matter under examination.
But as to the actual matter in hand, scarcely
any one can sit down to a perusal of the leading
article in the new number of the Edinburgh with-
out having a previous knowledge of results glar-
ingly demonstrative of the culpability of the
ABERDEEN Coalition. The reviewer has entered
resolutely upon his task, in defiance of all the
notorious evil consequences of the diplomatic cor-
respondence in regard to the Eastern Question,
in spite of the obvious ill effects of the War into
which that correspondence has been developed.
The argument is ostentatiously carried back at
the outset to a distance of time amounting to
nearly a quarter of a century, to the year 1844,
at least, when the Eastern Question, or, to speak
more plainly, the question of the destruction of
Turkey, to be followed by the subsequent division
of spoils among the destroyers, through another
grand act of territorial dismemberment, was first
mooted by the Emperor NICHOLAS to three mem-
bers of her MAJESTY'S Government. It is alto-
gether preposterous for the admirers of my Lord
ABERDEEN to endeavour to screen their " dear"
and '6 excellent" favourite under the shadow of
the great names of those who were admitted with
him iu 1841 into the CZAR'S confidence. There
can be no doubt, of course, whatever that the
AUTOCRAT, in revealing his intentions, or rather,
perhaps, we should say merely his views in regard
to Turkey in 1844, upon the occasion of his visit
to England, did so not only to the Earl of ABER-
DEEN, but at the same time also to Sir ROBERT
PEEL and the Duke of WELLINGTON. There is
no doubt, there cam
with the be no doubt, we say,
as to Sir ROBERT and the DUKE having shared
Earl of
and responsibility ABERDEEN in the privilege
y of the Russian EMPEROR'S con-
fidence. But there
IS a doubt in the minds and
hearts of the people of England as to whether, in
the event of those two men having been
great
spared to the country Beg long, they would, or
could, consistently with their
own fame as patriotic t
statesmen, have consented to
as timorously,
and gingerly, and doubtfully, and, let us say at
once, disgracefully, as Lord ABERDEEN has acted
in his scarcely even pretended antagonism to the
infamous designs of the Russian Government
" That is the question." And, theref
it ••
ore, is
altogether idle, it is simply, in truth, begging the
question, and waving the difficulty to assume, as
the friends of the Premier have assumed, that be
entirely exonerated from blame as associated
with the policy of the CZAR NICHOLAS, by the
mere coincidence of his having, in 1844, shared
in the personal confidence of that potentate with
Ministerial colleagues as illustrious as Sir ROBERT
PEEL and the Duke of WELLINGTON. No—the
people of England are at this moment (right or
wrong) labouring under the conviction that the
Prime Minister has acted neither well nor wisely
in his conduct in reference to the AUTOCRAT. A