The Sun.
London, England, 1856-10-03 00:00:00

---
LONDON, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1356.

The forthcoming Presidential election continues
to attract the attention of all parties in the
United States, and deservedly so. We cannot
conceive a more important question than that
now at issue between North and South. It is
one on which not only the stability of the Federal
'Union, but the welfare, happiness, and respecta-
bility of the entire population, and the position
which they shall henceforward occupy in the
opinion of the rest of the world, completely de-
pends. No compromise is now practicable. The
planters have, by their own conduct, rendered a
crisis inevitable. They have set their fortunes
upon a cast, and must stand the hazard of the
die. The Free-seilers have hitherto displayed
remarkable forbearance. They have virtually
connived at an abominable system, which
in their souls and consciences they abhor.
red t This was for the sake of " expediency," a
matter to be respected when no vital principle is
at stake, but which seldom accomplishes the
object aimed at. In such matters injudicious
concessions only provoke fresh aggressions. A
stand must 1,0 taken somewhere, and it is better
to do so in the first instance than to wait until
the opposing party have gained strength and con-
fidence from previous success. The Free-soilers
now completely realise this great fact, and per-
ceive that the contest has been rendered far more
arduous in consequence of the efforts made to
avert it.

It is well that their eyes are at length fully
opened—that they have become, even at the
eleventh hour, cognisant of the real nature and
magnitude of the question. We cannot for a
moment conceive that 25,000,000 of freemen,
active, energetic, and determined, will suffer
themselves to be dictated to by 300,000 slave-
holders, encumbered with ten times their number
of the coloured population held in compulsory
bondage. Should they do so they will be un-
worthy of their Saxon origin, and but little better
than the actual slaveowners. They will practi-
cally be regarded as aiders and abettors in the
atrocious system, for the " domestic institution "
could not last a single month without their
sanction.

Should FREMONT be elected all will be well.
They will gain a peaceful triumph, which will
insure all that they could desire. But if
BUCHANAN be chosen, tben indeed will be the
tug of war. It may, and probably will,
be neces-
sary to cut the painter, and sever the connection
with those who are determined to maintain an
unwarrantable ascendancy per fas alit nefas.
Such a step must necessarily be
attended with
serious difficulties and great temporary inconve-
nience. But the planter:i will be the only suf-
ferers. The North will eventually profit by the
ChaDge, and the very intimation that it may take
will be sufficient to bring the would-be
place
oligarchs to a true sense of their real position.
But at present, as we have stated, there is
no possl
•bility of any compromise. The contests
rests between FitEMONi and BUCHANAN, and it

is a mockery and delusion to suppose that
there is the slightest chance either for FILL.
MORE or any other party. His supporters
are trying the old Whig game of coming b tween
parties, and governing by obtaining a 1-istance
fr.om either side, according to the nature of the
question under discussion. But tha dodge is
now exploded. The juste milidtt has lost its power.
The Free-soilers may regard every man who is
not with them as against them. Far better that
the Whigs should openly array themselves
under the black banner of slavery, and vote
directly for BUCHANAN and the extension of
"the domestic institution," than that they
should strive to divide and weaken the Northern
strength by drawing off the lukewarm and the
time-serving.

The Southerns tolerate no such divisions.
They insist on unconditional support, and bring
their mild " persuasives," in the shape of " tar
and feathers," cow-hiding, or, in important cases,
the gallows or the stake, into operation. Theiis
is indeed a tyrant majority, that makes no allow-
ance for conflicting opinions. It is not
sufficient to offer no active opposition, or to
keep quiet. Every man who does not go the
whole hog is subjected to an inquisitorial and
searching examination, and if his views do not
prove satisfactory he may think himself fortu-
nate if only sentenced by the self-constituted
judges to perpetual exile. There has been are-
cent instance, in which the absence from a meet-
ing to reward Mr. BROOKS, for his ruffianly and
cowardly assault on the venerable Mr. SUMNER,
was considered sufficient to justify a peremptory
order for the banishment of the absentee.
The Southerns have shown their unflinch-
ing resolution to act on geographical distinc-
tions. And if the Northerns wish to meet
them on equal ground, they must show them-
selves equally determined. There can be no
halting between two opinions—no striving to
show fair faces to parties so diametrically op-
posed. The old fable details the contempt ex-
cited both in birds and quadrupeds by the attempt
of the " bat " to take advantage of his doubt-
ful conformation, and to array himself on
the stronger side. The transatlantic Free-soilers
should profit by the salutary lesson, and
decide on a bold and manly course one
way or the other. They saw the odium
incurred by CLICQUOT in consequence of
his despicable and pretended neutrality, and
they may be certain that their own position will
not be a whit better--(it could not well be worse)
—should they succeed in dividing the Northern
strength, and thereby giving the victory to
BUCHANAN.

Peace has brought, in its wake, to Europe
A sanguinary coup d'e tat in Spain.
A Marianne conspiracy in France.
A grand defensive armament in Sweden.
A Neuchatel rising in Switzerland.
A Pro-Muscovite rebellion in Montenegro.
A yet darker display of cruelty in Naples.
A Ministerial crisis in Denmark.
A Russian aggression in the Isle of Serpents.
And, together with all these beatific conse-
quences of the ever-infamous and despicable Pa-
risian Compromise with the Autocrat—a pompous
display of subservieney to the CZAR on the part
of the Anglo-French Allies, the like of which the
world has seldom witnessed since the fabled days
when the tributary kings, clad in ermine and
purple, and crowned with golden crowns, were
harnessed to the imperial car of SESOSTRIS.

It is a fitting sequel, all this, to the late preci-
pitate evacuation of the Crimea by the United
forces of England, France, Turkey, and Sar-
dinia. A simultaneous retreat from before the
even then unconquered northern forts of Sebasto-
pol, effected by these four most formidable Allies,
at the very time when Kars was held by the
Russian troops under MOURAVIEFF, while Aus-
trian mercenaries still kept in undisputed posses-
sion the coveted prize of the whole contest (the
territorial HELEN of the modern siege of Troy),
the twin Danubian Principalities ! No marvel,
after this most " lame and impotent conclusion"
to tie War, that results like those above enu-
merated should so soon signalise the charazter of
the mean diplomatic hocus-pocus of the Paris
Plenipotentiaries. No wonder that more recently
there should come evidences of scorn towards
Great Britain in particular, as painfully glaring
and notorious as those manifested—on the' one
hand by a royal pigmy like the King of NAPLES,
and on the other by a giant offspring of her own
(flesh of her flesh and bone of her bone), the
United States of North America. Here BOMBa
returns an insolent refusal to her ultimatum—
BOMBA to whom Punch gave the derisive advice at
the outbreak of the late War, that, in regard to
the attitude he (BoainA) should assume in the
midst of the European contest, ho had better by
all means get under the bed, but that at any
rate he had better get out of the way ! Here, in a
totally opposite direction, her MAJESTY'S Ea voy is
c)elly compelled by the "powers that be," at
Washington—(in Yankee phraseology)—to absqua-
tulate ! Mr. CRAMPTON sent to the right-about
by the American Government ! Lord CLAREN-
DON'S arguments pertly pooh-poohed by the Nea-
politan ! Such being the magnificent sequel of the
war against Russia by the united legions of Eng-
land, and France, and Turkey, and Sardinia ! A
war " drifted into" by a craven and bunglinc,
diplomacy—a war impotently commenced, im-
potently carried oat, and impotently concluded.
As O'CONNELL used often to exclaim--Thank you
for Nothing! says the Gallipot. S.), surely, may
all of us, Gallo-Anglic, or Anglo-Gallic Monoma-
niacs—we who have been "dreaming, doting" over
the fanciful belief that England and France, once
united, might dictate terms to the whole—ex-
claim, as the poor Liberator used to exclaim so
often—Thank you for Nothing! Never was there
such a bubble as this credulity of the political
omnipotence of France and England when
united. Not, it is true, but what we still
believe in that great damaged day-dream !
Not but what we still believe in it, that
is to say, with France and England acting
together in real earnest ! Which they have not
been doing at all—positively and absolutely have
not been doing at all, from the first moment to
the last moment of the grand sham-battle with
the armies of the Russian Autocrat. Did not
Lord RAGLAN declare most distinctly to very
credible witnesses—before setting out for the seat
of war—that not a shot would be tired in anger ?
Was not that the intention of the British Go
verumeat when they sent their military and
maritime armaments into the Black Sea—as they
afterwards sent their grand unparalleled fleet into
the Baltic under the command, not of a DRAKE,
hut of a Goose ? Was not every detail in regard
to our warlike arrangements botched from begin-
Ning to end ?—infantry and cavalry—the medical
department and the commissariat ! Was not
Balaklava a blunder—and Inkermau a surprise—
and the Redan a defeat ? Was not Kars wilfully
allowed to be starved into submission as affording
a loop-hole of escape to the so-called dignity of
Russia ? Has the cowardly attack upon the sehiepr-
wbereenckaevdencrgeed
?wof the " Tiger," off Odessa, ever
Has the infamous Massacre of A

Sinope 7 Has the cold- blooded assassination at
Hango-Udd 7 Has Turkey ever been allowed from
first to list the luxury of any one just reprisal 7
Have the Allies (who were dragged into the War
by the wanton aggressions of the late CZAR)
secured to themselves for all their terrible expendi-
ture of blood and gold even the shadow of the shade
of an indemnity? Behold, then, the fruits (ashes
to the very core) of this disgrace ful Peace, of this
most discreditable and despicable Compromise
And, beholding them—fling your caps in the air,
0 men of England (ever toiling and over-taxed)
to the popular cries of the Day—" Huzza to his
Royal Highness 1" " Viva l'Empereur des
Francais!' "Hail " to the newly-crowned
" Anointed of the Lonp," the young Czar ALEX-
ANDER

The United Kingdom Alliance will not fail for
want of publicity. They first succeeded in gaining
from the Edinburgh Review an article, all whose
arguments are entirely in favour of their theory,
though finished off with some becoming apprehen-
sions for the Budget. Next they got the ear of
the Times, which took much the same course,
saying everything for the object of the Alliance,
and only providing the usual loophole for escape ;
the need of escape soon came, for the Beer Act
had to be repealed or altered, and, that being the
popular wish, of course our contemporary would
not dishonour its name ; so the Alliance was for-
gotten, or ignored, as we suppose we are now to
say. The last appearance of this Society was but
the other day—the Society being appellant, and
Lord STANLEY respondent. The Society applied
to his Lordship to honour them with his presence
at their usual meeting, which is to be held at
Manchester on the 22d, and his Lordship replied
with eight reasons for declining to do so. The
letter of his Lordship rather invited a reply to his
reasons, and, of course, the Secretary, Mr. P OPE,
having such an invitation from a Lord, gladly
joined issue, and the eight reasons were met by
eight answers. Lord STANLEY rejoined under
eight heads again, and Mr. POPE, of course, could
not be so wanting in respect to the heir of DERBy
as not to reply again under the same number of
divisions. Our readers will not, we suppose, wish
us to present them with several long columns of
small print, but they may not dislike a brief
notice of this friendly, and, we must acknowledge,
well-conducted conflict.

Lord STANLEY draws a strong line of distinc-
t ion between the Temperance Societies, which
rely on moral suasion only, and the Alliance which
aims by legislation to put down the sale of intoxi-
cating drinks. The former he cordially supports.
To the latter he has his eight objections. The
object of the Alliance we take to be the prohibi-
tion, by act of Pailiament, of the retail sale of
intoxicating drinks. Lord STANLEY objects to
wealthy law-makers legislating respecting the en-
joyments of the poorer classes ; he thinks that a
desire so strong as to expend nearly '7O, 000, 0001.
annually in its gratification would lead to the
evasion of any law, with all the demoralising con-
sequences of evasion ; that, as things are, it would
be unjust to close the rural public-houses espe-
cially, the recreation, however indefensible, being
the only one the labourer has ; that the revenue
could not afford to lose some 20,000,0001., nor
oould it replace the loss by direct tax ation ; that
self-control is what should really be encouraged,
but that prohibition rather incites to resistance
than otherwise ; that it would be impossible to
define intoxicating substances—would tobacco and
opium, dm, be included ? that the suppression of
the traffic, without prohibiting possession also,
would not be sufficient, and the latter would be
impossible without unbearable intrusion on domes-
tic privacy ; that every attempt at coercion dis-
credits the exertions of those who aim at the same
end by moral means.

Mr. POPE, in reply, states that it is wished to
obtain such an overwhelming pressure of public
opinion in favour of suppression as shall render
it the act of the many, and not that of wealthy
legislators only ; that the desire for strong drink
is unique, and that the trade in it does not re-
spond to the ordinary laws of political economy ;
that because the rural population have few amuse-
ments, it does not follow that what they have
should be poisoned by strong drink ; that the
revenue question might be left to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer ; and that during the tem-
perance movement in Ireland under Father
MATHEW the revenue gained more by 90,000/.
on other articles than it lost on spirits ; that
laws against gambling, stealing, &c., do not in-
crease the desire to do the forbidden things ; that
the case of tobacco, opium, and other stimulants
could be dealt with if necessary ; that though the
law in America may be partially evaded, yet
crime has diminished 75 per cent. where it is
in operation ; and that moral force is not enough
for the world as it is.

These, iu brief, are the original pleas and coun-
ter-pleas on the issue of suppressing all traffic in
intoxicating drinks. The further debate on them
is little more than reinforcement of the original
ideas. To look at the controversy as a whole, the
strength of Lord STA NLEY lies in the unfitness of
legislating on what may be a great moral and
social evil, but is not properly an injustice to
another. The strength of the Society's Secretary
in proving, as well as he can, that selling intoxi-
cating drinks is an injury to a man's neighbour.
Indeed on this the whole controversy appears to
us to hinge. If selling spirits be really similar to
other nuisances prohibited by law, it would be the
business of the Legislature to devise a law which
should be effectual—at least as much so as laws
are generally. The laws against theft, as we too
well know, fall very far short of attaining their
object ; yet no one thinks of dispensing with them
because he must lose his pocket-handkerohief if
he walk pretty leisurely, looking at the shipping,
perhaps, over London-bridge. The question,
therefore, is—Can the gin-shop-keeper and the
spirit merchant be classed with those who violate
their neighbours' rights ? It would be impossible,
we think, to answer this question in the affirma-
tive.

It cannot be pretended that the seller violates
the purchaser's rights. He sells him an article
capable, like innumerable other articles, of a
wrong or a right use. Vast numbers, it is true,
will use it improperly, and the seller who should
seduce another to do so, might be amenable to
law, indeed is so now ; for he would not long
retain his licence. But volenti non fit injures, is
a maxim fundamental in law, where the party is
of age to know all consequences ; and, as Lord
STANLEY observes, to depart from it would open
the widest field to civil and religious persecution.
It would authorise us to interfere by force of law,
if a man, in our opinion, injured others by in-
ducing him to believe a wrong creed, or to
in a hurtful pleasure.

But does the seller violate the rights of the
purchaser's neighbours ? Surely it is not the
seller, but the purchaser, who does that. The
seller does not wish to make the buyer drunk,
boisterous, violent, and a street nuisance. It is
not, in the actual state of society, an advantage
to him to do so. If the buyer abuse in this way
his right of purchase, and if the nuisance become
intolerable, the law protects us against the Brun,