The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-01 00:00:00

THE .RUSSIANISM OF THE TIMES.

The Russianism of the Times is often so patent to all, that
no one can mistake it; but, for the most part, it is so stu•
diously concealed, that those only who thoroughly compre•
head the character and conduct of that journal, can detect

its latent desire to subserve the interests of the Czar.

Illustrations both of the open and covert friendship for the
Autocrat have appeared in the columns of our contemporary
within the last two days. On Thursday there was a laboured
article, to prove that we ought to do nothing at all i❑ the
Baltic, but just content ourselves with looking at the, fleet of
Russia lying snugly in Cronstadt or Helsingfors. Don't, on
any account, was the language of the Times, attack any of
the Russian forts in the North seas ; nt.r seek to destroy a
single ship of the Russian squadron. If you do, who knows
but you may be beaten; and the result be, that the Russian
ships will, in a few days thereafter, pay a very unpleasant
visit to London, IluTI, Newcastle, Perth, or Aberdeen..
There was something so transparently Russian in this, that
every one who read the article of our contemporary felt
as if he had been perusing a string of sentences penned
by the Czar himself. . The inspiration, if not the
very words, doubtless came direct from St. Petersburg.
Now just because there exists so intense an anxiety in
the Autocratic mind, that no great 'naval demonstration
should be made by us in the Baltic, we fondly hope that such
'a demonstration will be made without one hour's unnecessary
delay. The Czar knows that a vigorous blow there would
he fatal to him, and hence his profound solicitude that it
should not be struck. For that very reason it ought to be
struck with energy and at once.

So much for the latest illustration of the more manifest
friendship of our contemporary for Russia. The illustration
to which we allude of the leading journal's covert friendship
was afforded in the article yesterday, in which it sought to
prevent the carrying out of the happy idea of a National Fes-
tival, having for its object to unite in terms of closer friend-
ship, the people of France and England All that a miser-
able attempt at ridicule could do, our contemporary did before
to divert from their purpose those gentlemen with whom the
idea originated; but they were men who no more heeded the
assaults of the Times than they would the idle wind as they
passed along the streets. To the infinite mortification of our
contemporary, the idea is still in the course of being carried
out, and what is more, will be crowned with complete suc-
cess. And the Russian organ knows full well that it will be
so. The article of yesterday was consequently written, not
iu the hope of defeating it, but in order to give vent to its
spite that it has failed to render service to that country,
had Mr. Under-Sheriff Anderton's
_happy conception been
knocked in the head.

But, we may probably be asked, how could the Times
have rendered a service to the Czar by preventing the advent
of the intended Festival? In this way, —the object and
tendency of the Festival are, to bring into the bonds of a
closer union the two great European nations. And union
between France and England is what Russia, of all things,
dreads. Her policy is to keep them severed. It is owing to
the cordial union which now happily subsists between them,
that she has been defeated in all her plans of aggrandisement.
Had any alienation between these two countries existed at
the present time, the Czar would have been able, in all pro-
bability, to carry out those purposes of criminal ambition,
on which his heart has so long been set. There is, therefore,
no object in which the Czar takes a demper interest, than
that of putting an end to the subsisting friendship between
the two countries. Consequently, any scheme which is in-
tended and adapted to strengthen and perpetuate the cordial
feeling which now exists between them, must be, to the Czar,
the object of alarm and detestation.
The attack of yesterday on the National Festival, and the
effort to hold up to ridicule those with whom the idea origi-
nated, was one of the lamest articles of the kind which ever
appeared in the columns of our contemporary. It was wholly
devoid of point. There not only was no justice in it, but
there was not even the semblance of justice. It was feebler
even than the first. It was written under an evident con-
sciousness that it would be labour in vain, More than this ;
our contemporary virtually, though evidently with great re-
luctance, admits that the thing is destined to meet with a
decided success. "It is clear enough," says the Times,

" that, if the popular feeling should run the oilier way, even
those who think these festivities the most ill-timed must needs
give way, lest their motives should be misinterpreted." This
is an admission that not only is" the popular feeling" running
the other way—that is to say in favour of the Festival—but
that those who haVe hitherto stood aloff from the thing, and
thrown cold water ou it, are now about to give in their ad-
hesion.
One of the objections of our contemporary to the project is
certainly exceedingly odd. The idea originated, it says,
" with a small knot of persons." Have not all the greatest
plans and projects of which the world ever heard, had
a similar origin ? Would the Times ignore or oppose a
scheme, simply because it did not occur to a multitude of
persons at once? In that case, we should never have a
new project or idea at all. The quality which marks a great
idea is, that the moment it is brought before the com-
munity it strikes the public mind ; and people are amazed
that a notion so natural and so excellent, should not have
occurred before. That is eminently true of Mr. Under-
Sheriff Anderton's project for a grand National Festival, to
cement and strengthen the existing friendship between the
people of France and England. As soon as the idea was men-
tioned, we wondered—everybody wondered—that it had not
occurred to somebody before. It instantaneously struck the
public mind; and there was a general response to it. It
was seen and acknowledged, on all hands, that a more felici-
tous notion never entered the human mind. Subscriptions
poured in and so did the names of persons of theho
w highest
respectability, both in the City and the West-end, wre
desirous of giving their sanction to the scheme by being en-
tered as members of the committee.
The Times, in the plenitude of its mortification that an-
other illustration has been afforded to England and Europe,
of the fact that it has lost the power it once exercised over
the public mind, represents the invitation about to be given.
to foreigners, as not the invitation of t e pheople. e Times
knows full well that in this it grievously and grossly misre-
presented the facts of the case. It is eminently a rational
movement. Go where you will among the people, and you
hear the idea spoken of in terms of the highest commenda-
tion. If here and there you meet with a dissentient, you
will find, on inquiry, that the reason of his disapproval is of
a personal kind. He is iu some way Cr other, in connection
with this project, a disappointed man.
There has been a great amount of jealousy imported into
the matter. We could, without difficulty, name some dozen
persons who have sought to defeat the project, because it
originated with others, and they therefore could claim no
credit in the business. But in despite of all their efforts,
chiefly secret, to defeat Mr. Under-Sheriff Anderton's felici-
tous scheme, that scheme will meet with success. The Times,
as we have already remarked, knows this, and thus tries, in
the conclusion of its article, to account for that success on
other grounds than those of the merits of the project. " As
soon," says that journal, " as the project has gone so far,
_public men are solicited, and cajoled into a quasi patronage
of a project which they may think never so ill-timed, but
they adopt the necessities of their position and submit. So

it works on to its fulfilment, until at length a whole nation is
hustled into the adoption of a measure which they do not
approve,,simply lest it might be supposed that they are show-
ing disrespect to those whom they most wish to honour."
This is miserable. Surely, no one will expect that we
should give a serious answer to such utter twaddle. To what
straits must our contemporary be driven for something to say
against the National Festival, when he is obliged to resort to
anything so feeble as this !—Morning Advertiser.