The Sun.
London, England, 1854-12-07 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBkR 7, 1854.

NAVAL AND MILITARY INTELLIGENCE.

The Neptune, 120, Captain Hutton, sailed yesterday
for Queenstown, to embark the 72d Highlanders, and
detachments of other regiments, after having shipped
about 100 tons of Ordnance stores for the seat of war.
She will only proceed as far as Malta, and then return.
The crew of the Rhadamanthus, steam-troop-ship,
arrived in the Dockyard last night from Woolwich.
They are to be turned over to the Dee, steam-vessel,
which is to be employed in the conveyance of ma-
chinery between the different dockyards. The Dee's
own crew are to be paid wages and granted leave of
absence.

Dee, 6, paddle Lieutenant Commander Smith, got
up steam alongside her berthing hulk at Portsmouth
yesterday morning, to prove boilers and machinery.
The Cumberland, hired steam transport, sailed to-day
for Balaklava, with her cargo of houses for the troops in
the Crimea.

A party of seamen have been sent out to the Neptune,
120, at Spithead, to assist in navigating her round to
Cork, to embark troops there for the Crimea.

APPOINTMENTS.

Lieutenants William H. Wright (1853), from the
Conway flag-ship, at Cork, to the St. George, 120, at
Devenport ; Edward S. Meara (1854), recently serving
in the Phcenix screw steam sloop, to the St. George; the
Hon. W. B. de Blaquiere (1844), to the Conway, vice
Wright.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

THE COMING SESSION.
( From the Daily News. )
There appears to be now no reason to deubt that a
fierce onslaught will be made upon Ministers as soon as
the Parliamentary Session opens. It is rather curious
that those who are preparing to make this onset should,
whie ringing the changes on the phrase, " Coalition
Ministry," be contemplating a coalition for the purpose
of assailing it. The " independent Liberals" are ex-
horted to coalesce with Mr. Disraeli for the purpose of
driving the " Coalition Ministry" from office. To such
practical inconsistencies do the slaves of words expose
themselves. In the abstract there is nothing necessarily
wrong about a " Coalition Ministry." With the excep-
tion of the short-lived Ministry of the Duko of Welling-
ton, we have had hone but coalition Ministries for the
last thirty years. George Canning's Ministry was a
coalition of the Whigs and liberal Tories. Earl Grey's
Ministry was a coalition of the Cauningites and the
was a coalition of the Eldon Tories and
Whigs who had stood aloof from Canning. Sir Robert
Dilly. Lord Derby's party
embraced the ci-devant Canningite Lord George Ben-
tinok and the other Whig Corn-law recusants. The
the Peel'ssixMinistryinsides of the Derby
truth is, there is no party at present in existence that
does not number in its ranks " waifs and strays" that
have originally appertained to other parties. To call a
Ministry a `° coalition'' is to say nothing ; the question
is, whether that coalition be an honourable or a dishon-
ourable one.

Nevertheless the emphasis laid by the adversaries of
the present Ministry upon the phrase " Coalition
Ministry," evinces considerable skill in the low art
of political manceuvrmg. The present Ministry is
made up of two distinct sots.,Q of
:matti , who Vt.:ones
time were arrayed in orgame. hostility--to
other. iA notion prevails in many quarters that the
two parties, though brought into such close juxta-
position, have not yet amalgamated. Upon this
assumption a calculation is made that an attack con-
centrated upon one of the parties may be joined in by
many who are friendly to the other ; and that the party
left unassailed, if they see the storm run high, may be
disposed to throw their obnoxious colleagues overboard
like so many Jonahs. It happens that the Peelite section
of the Cabinet have so managed matters as to lay them-
selves more opea at this moment to a rough attack than
their colleagues. The Ministerial sins of omission or com-
mission—real or imputed—which at this moment render
many of the supporters of the Government disposed to
revolt from them, are all connected with the manage-
ment of the war. Now the Peelites, as they are called,
have contrived to monopolise among themselves almost
every post that gives a minister real influence in the
management of the war. Lord Aberdeen is First Lord of
the Treasury, and Mr. Gladstone Chancellor of the Ex-
chequr ; the Duke of Newcastle i 3 at the head of the
War Department, and Mr. Sidney Herbert Secretary at
War ; and Sir James Graham is First Lord of the Admi-
ralty. The Peelites have no right to be surprised, or to
complain, if, having thus taken into their hands a mo-
nopoly of the direction of the war, they are also expected
to monopolise the responsibility.
It is no time to blink these circumstances, or to allude
to them in circuitous and delicate phrase. Their possible
consequences are so momentous, that they, and all their
possible consequences, ought to be deliberately looked in
the face, and fearlessly canvassed. In common with the
great Dolts of the country, we have no part or interest in
the Administration as at present constituted. Like the
great bulk of the people, we accepted it at first because we
nowhere saw a more eligible combination of statesmen ;
and even at this day we do not see where a better Ministry
is to besot among existing public men. We believe that
we apes the sense of the country when we say that
though there has been much in the past conduct of the
war to complain of, we would prefer seeing the neces-
sary improvements in its management made by the men
now in office, than risk the embarrassments that might
result from a change of Ministry at such a critical
period of the nation's history. At tie Caine time, though
we would rather avoid such a ticklish experiment, we
have that entire confidence in the patriotism and good
sense of Englishmen, and that fixed faith in the high
destinies of England, which would make us regard what
is called a " Ministerial crisis " with very little alarm,
should the conduct of Ministers render it inevitable.
We say. "the conduct of Ministers," for we feel con-
vinced that their fate is in their own hands. Two things
only are requisite to ensure their hold of office against
say assailants :—concci, I and strictly 'honourable con-
duct towards each other among themselves ; and an
honest determination to prosecute the war with their
utmost energy to the only termination that is consistent
with Elbe honour and interests of the State and the wishes
of the people. Concord and honourable conduct towards
each other—for there can be no doubt that incompati-
bilities, more or less important, still exist araeng them,
notwithstanding they have been so long associated in
office. Let them come to a frank and fair understand-
ing as to how far they are at one in their objects. If
they can agree upon the vigorous prosecution of a com-
mon policy, let them continue as they are : if there are
any dissentients from the voice of the majority among
then, let these dissentients retire without endeavouring
to embarrass their colleagues. Determination to prose-
cute the war with the utmost energy to an honourable ter-
mination—for any resolute policy can only degrade the
country in the eyes of the world, and involve it in future
troubles.

It is indispensable to the continuance of Ministers in
office, that they meet Parliament with that frankness
which can only result from perfect unanimity among
themselves, and a resolution to do and dare everything
for the assertion of the national honour and interests.
The people are intensely excited, and at times rash and
inconsiderate words nay be spoken, and rash and in-
considerate men may push themselves into a prominence
that is not their due. But in the main the prevailing
excitement is of a high and even a holy character. It
is one that prepares men to make sacrifices of all kinds
for the attainment of the object placed before thew. It
is one which if appealed to by a statesman of a high-
minded and honourable ambition, with faith in his
own principles and purposes, in that tone of command
natural to men born to take the lead in great emer-
gencies, will carry him triumphantly over all the petty
opposition of party and faction. The nation is tho-
roughly wound up for a great effort, and only wants a
leader worthy of the occasion. Who of our present
Ministers will take upon him to chastise the flag-
ging spirits of his comrades, and inspire them with
the resolution to remain the foremost men of Eng-
land at this inspiring moment ? If nsne of them are
prepared to do this, they may rest assured that the
country will look about for other leaders, and they may
also rest assured that circumstances will create the men
who are wanted.

We have no connexion with, no interest in, any
party but the universal nation ; aud, if we had, we
would feel it to be our duty to throw all such consi-
derations to the wind at a moment like the present.
We have no iinterest in Ministers, or any section of
them, except in so far as they may show themselves
worthy of the occasion, and able and willing to steer
the helm of state in the present storm. But we have no
animosity towards any of them, and are prepared to
support them, if they will.,enable us by their conduct to
do so. We have urged upon the people the expediency
of meeting Ministers in a conciliatory spirit, notwith-
standing all that is passed and gone. We now urge upon
Ministers that it is their duty to meet the public more
than half way. There ought to be on the part of Minis-
ters no affectation of mystery—no attempt at conceal-
ments. We do not mean that councils about to be
carried into act should be garrulously told, in order that
foes as well as friends may hear. But we do insist upon
the most complete explanation of what has been done ;
upon a frank confession of mistakes and shortcomings ;
upon unequivocal indications that there shall be no room
for complaint of tampering with principles or lack of
vigour in the future. We would rather see action than
listen to talk ; but if an irresolute and temporising
policy on the part of the Government shall call for
criticism, we have no fear that the most unreserved
discussion can lead to anything but ultimate good.

AUSTRIA. AGAIN.
(From the Daily News.)

A. morning contemporary published yesterday what
purports to be an abstract of the treaty concluded be-
tween Austria and the Western Powers. We place little
faith in this abstract. The journal in which it appears
has been rather notorious of late for its readiness to give
publicity to the most false and absurd reports upon
slender or no authority. In addition to this, there is a
precision in the details of the statement very remote from
the vagueness which would be likely to characterise such
accounts, as could escape by the indiscretion of officials,
of the tenor of a treaty which is not, we believe, to be
ratified till the 15th. There is, moreover, something so
radically and incurably bad in what is alleged to be the
purport of the fourth article of the treaty, that we will
not believe any English Minister can have given his
sanction to it, until the publication of the document
may place the shameful fact beyond dispute.
The tenor of the fourth article is said to be : "Eng-
land ri.nd France pledge themselves that the territorial pos-
sessions of the Emperor of Austria shall, under all cir-
cumstances, remain undiminished." England has sanc-
tioned the diminution of the territories of the Xing of
the Netherlands. England did not interfere when one
Sovereign in alliance with it—Louis Philippe—was
stripped of all his territories. Why ? Because Eng-
land respected in every other people that right to choose
their own ruler and form of government which our fore-
fathers successfully asserted at the revolution of 1688,
and again on the accession of George I. England gua-
rantees the integrity of the Ottoman Empire against
foreign aggression ; but England sanctioned and sup-
ported the Greeks when they shook off the Ottoman
yoke. In like manner England might consistently
pledge itself to delend the Austrian Government and
State against the aggressions of Russia or any other
foreign power. But for England to pledge itself " that
the territorial possessions of the Emperor of Austria
shall, under all circumstances, remain undiminished,"
would be at once a base sacrifice of the rights of the
people, a gross violation of one of the first principles of
justice, and a cowardly desertion of its hereditary policy.
t For England to pledge itself that "the territorial poa.

sessions of the Emperor of Austria shall, under all cir-
cumstances, remain undiminished, is to undertake to
lend resistance, when called upon, to put down any at-
tempt on the part of the Hungarians or Italians to re-
assert their liberties. By what means could England
fulfil such a pledge? Would an English Government
send troops to fight against Italians or Hungarians in
arms to assert their liberties ! Would an English Par-
liament vote a subsidy to hire troops to fight for the
Emperor of Austria in such a cause ? Would the Eng-
lish people tolerate a repetition of the unutterable base-
ness of the statesman who caused Mazzini's letters to be
opened, and who, by imparting their,contents to the Nea-
politan Government, made himself accessory to the murder
of the Bandieri ? We will not believe that any English
Minister has been base enough, by taking such a pledge,
to yield himself up as a tool to a despot " under all cir-
cumstances." We will not believe that any English
Minister can be such a fool as to expect that an English
Parliament or the English people would tolerate such
baseness on his part. A true English Minister, if in-
sulted by a request that he should take such a pledge,
would quietly answer that England had put down in-
surrection in Ireland without asking the aid of Austria,
and that Austria must not expect, aid from England
should insurrections occur in any part of its dominions.
He would go on to say that the English people, having
exercised the right of deposing a Sovereign who sought
to trample on the national convictions and will, could
not with common decency interfere to prevent any other
people from following their example. England's prin-
ciple and practice are to abstain from stirring up insur-
rections by intrigues in any neighbouring State ; to ab-
stain from all interference between nations and their
rulers when in controversy or at war with each other ;
and to recognise the de facto rulers of every nation as
long as they maintain their place—believing that the
national will is the cu2ly. legititeate tenure-a 9.
Trernment.

We repeat that nothing short of the prrAuction
of the treaty can convince us that any English
Minister can have been guilty of setting his nand to such
a pledge. If the statement that the treaty with Austria
contains such a pledge is false, Government ought not
to lose a moment in disabusing► the •public mind. Every
moment that they allow the assertion to remain uncon-
tradicted will be turned to account by their enemies to
arouse a spirit of hostility to•wards theta. If unfortu-
nately the charge is true: tley may prepare to encounter
such a storm of nationa:i indignation as has rarely burst
upon the devoted hes.as of a Ministry. Our hopes are
sanguine that ultir:iately the story will only add one to
the long list of ridiculous and mischievous canards to
which the Tines has of late given currency. But should
it, contrary to our expectations, prove true, the early
publicity given to the terms of the treaty can only
be attributed to tha treachery of the Austrian
Government : that Government will, after seducing
our Ministers to give such a pledge, have hastened to
degrade them in in the eyes of the English people by
proclaiming their abandonment of the principles of the
English constitution.