The Sun.
London, England, 1854-12-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 20, 1854.

the contest, recollecting with sickening apprehen-
sion the wonderful ingenuity of agents and cora-
mittee-men in multiplying strictly " legitimate ,
expenses" to a very formidable sum total ; while
few men, who had nothing to dread so far as
they were personally concerned, might reasonably
deprecate the excitement and turmoil of a general
election. Under the existing circumstances of the
country, Ministers made the most of all these va-
rious matters, and the result was that they ob-
tained the above-mentioned majority of 39 in a
House of 443, or rather, including tellers and
Speaker, of 448 members—an unusually large
attendance before Christmas—there being 241 for,
and 202 against.
One delusion that prevailed, and which cer-
tainly appeared to rest on a tolerably solid foun-
dation, was removed during the evening. The
Duke of NEWCASTLE had, when first introducing
the measure, spoken of 15,000 troops as the num-
ber about to be raised. As a great concession,

he agreed to reduce the number to 10,000, and
complained that it did not lead to the withdrawal
of the opposition, as the 10,000 had been as
strongly objected to as the 15,000. Now, Lord
PALMERSTON last night told us that the number
was unlimited, or limited only by the sanction of
that House. The limit was only to the number
who may be within the kingdom. On the other
hand, the Duke of NEWCASTLE insisted that none
were to be employod within the country at all, and
he was far from desiring that the Crown should

possess the power."
These are matters to be thought of during the
recess, and we trust that, when Parliament re-
assembles:on the 23d of January, Hon. Gentle-
men may be made aware of the error they have
committed in passing a bill so recklessly hurried
through both Houses, without an opportunity
being afforded of learning the state of public
opinion thereon, or ascertaining the deep-rooted
objections that exist against this new and very
obnoxious phase of " Germanism."

" JOHN BRIGHT AT HOME."

A pretty row indeed there was last Monday in
the great metropolis of cotton-spinning, and with
Jon BRIGHT, M.P., as the guilty cause. Guilty,

not because he wrote a letter to an individual

meant for the public—he and Lord JouN RUSSELL

are allowed that style of statesmanship—nor be-
•luse he attended a meeting called to show that
Manchester would not countersign his letter : he

had a right to be heard in defence of his views ;
but guilty because, according to his own showing,

he who defends himself, or rather he who enlists

others in his own defence, is responsible for a]

;he consequences. Our worthy Friend has no

escape. We indeed always thought the greater
part of his celebrated letter little better than in-
genious sophistry. But its author does not think
so. Ho told the meeting he was prepared to de-
fend its statements, one and all. Well, then, in
this letter JoHN BRIGHT explicitly casts the " re-

sponsibility" of the present War " upon those
who expressed opinions favourable to IL" NICHO-

Les, the disturber of the peace, was innocent,

although his invasion of th'e provinces was "im
politic and immoral." Those who would not be
borne down by " immoral" ambition, those who
called in allie3 to sustain them under the pres-
sure, they and their helpers were the guilty
authors of the War Transfer the scene to Man-
chester, -write Manchester Merle. for 'Russians,
and JOHN BRIGHT and his staff of Leaguers for
the SULTAN and his Allies, and, minus the bullets
and bayonets, it is the very thing over again.
On Mr. Joins. BRIGHT and his friends, who would
not succumb to any invasion of his right to pub-
lish what opinions lie pleased, who chose rather
to provoke a continuous uproar and battle lasting
as many hours as that of the Alma, rests all the
responsibility of a great public and disgraceful
Manchester brawl.
We would add, however, that but for his own
letter we should have commended the Hon. Mem-
ber. We censure him not on our principles, but
on his own only. On those principles, if he re-
membered them, he did what he condemns
in others. But the truth is, his English heart
was better than his Quaker creed. We honour
him and his friends for it. It was indecent, it
was un-English, it was Czar-like, for a large meet-
ing to make one single man's opinions the object
of their assembling and animadversion, and then
to refuse him a hearing. To silence the assertion
and defence of opinions by brute noise and vio-
lence was quite of a piece with defending the
creed of the Greek Church in Turkey by Russian
bayonets, and by putting down the SULTAN in
his own palace. It was worthy of the Lord of
Siberia, and the flogger of the nuns tit Minsk.
But, then, Mr. JOHN BRIGHT must not play fast
and loose with his arguments. If non-resistance
was good for the SULTAN, then it was not
good for our Friend to resist the riot, albeit i❑
silence, for " precisely thirteen minutes ;" and
still less the thing for him to defy the meeting
to greater wrath and uproariousness by " having
his say out" to the League gentleman and the
reporters. Lambs and doves, those pretty em-
blems of peace and love, often fulfil their emble-
matic duties rather queerly. We have all seen
the one butt at, and the other peck, their fellows
in anything but the gentle poetic style ; and it
would really seem as if the sect which holds itself
bound to " testify" to non-resistance and peace
principles could not avoid a sturdy fight now and
then ; and, despite its creed, was compelled to
vindicate the old Horatian maxim, that even " if
you turn out Nature with a pitchfork, in she'll
come again." The Quaker of the Russian letter
fought like a Turk at Silistria in its defence. His
motto seemed to be duke et decorum est pro literis
ntori.

The meeting, to be sure, got itself into rather
an awkward plight. It had a resolution and an
amendment before it. Both of them very good,
too, in their way. Both might have been passed
without inconsistency in words. It was quite
true that the " citizens of Manchester did not, as
a body, concur in the views of Mr. BRIGHT's let-
ter ;" everybody knew it, and Mr. BRIGHT knew
it. It was also true that the citizens generally
desired that "the War should be carried on with
the utmost vigour." Again, all Manchester and
all England would agree with the amendment,
that Mr. BRIGHT exercised an " undoubted right"
in publishing boldly his opinions, and that to
" censure him, even by implication, for so doing,
would be unfair, tyrannical, and unjust." The
opposing parties were, therefore, each required
to vote against what they believed, if one of
them were determined to beat the other. Tho

ite wamaseiid
resolution
allm ig hmight
e I
ahvaev ea
gre includeded that t
ho-
nourable to defend opinions, honestly held,
though they happened to be unpopular ; yet,
that nearly all Manchester was opposed to the
opinions thus honourably maintained. But no ;
a fight there was to be, and a regular fight there
was ; not, however, like those glorious battles
about -which Mr. Btuoux and Manchester fought.
Tthis one, at least, was a drawn battle. The
originators of tho fight, however, were not so
easily satisfied; they adjouriied'to the old League