The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-26 00:00:00

contemporary libels the Ministers, and libels the'
teople of England, when he says that the nu-
nerical majority of the electoral bodies are fa
:ourable to a clumsily constituted democracy.
In those places where intimidation could not be
resorted to without effect, and where the numerical
majority prevailed, we have seen few men re-
:urned not favourable to the Constitution. On
'he contrary, the influence resting for support on
:ntimidation, for which he contends, was every-
where exerted to procure the return of met,
hostile to Reform, and who, if they had their
vay, would drive the people to Revolution. B\
whom, we repeat, have the Whigs been sup
ported throughout ? Is it not notorious that
hey have been enabled to carry Reform, and to
)btain a majority in the present Parliament, no.
ny the rich, but by the middle classes, and more
particularly by the Dissenters? If the rich are
;n the right and the middle classes in the wrong,
.hen Ministers are enemies to the Constitution.
and every good man ought to abhor them. The
doctrine of our contemporary, by making the
numerical majority of electors in the wrong and
the rich in the right, is a manifesto against Mi-
nisters, a manifesto against the Reform Bill, and
Reformers. Ministers have abandoned the en-
lightened men, and betaken themselves to the
gnorant numerical majority, the haters of the
Constitution, the lovers of a clumsily constituted
democracy. They are, in that case, traitors to
the Crown and traitors to the Constitution.
Our contemporary says—
" The Chronicle asks us, ' Why should it be presumed
hat the more humble voters are less biassed in favour of
ha Constitution than the rich ?' Only because we know
it to be the fact ; and it is very hard upon us, when wt
.re called on to presume that men are enlightened now,
because they may perhaps he enlightened many years
pence, that we are nut to presume the existence of feeline,
which no man can fail to observe are actual and present."

Our contemporary must mean, by bias in
favour of the Constitution, a bias for patronage
and extravagant expenditure ; for, with respect to
the bias in favour of a legitimate constitutional
policy, the last elections show that the numerical
majority were enlightened, at least right, while
the rich were in the wrong. We contend, then.
that the power to intimidate, by supplying the
rich with a substitute for desert, has a tendency
to confirm them in the delusion that they can
dispense with the good opinion of their fellow-
citizens, and to deprive the Reform Bill of it,
power to make rich and poor concur harmo-
niously for the public good. The rich, as well
as the poor, require the presence of a motive.
But to retain the numerical majority, or at least
a great part of them, in a forced dependence on
the rich, is to weaken the motives of the rich to
stand well in the good opinion of their fellow-
citizens, and consequently to diminish the sa-
lutary influence of the Reform Bill. What we
said as to the difference between the Peers and
he electors as to responsibility is so far true,
that, with the exception of the anomalies re-
tained (the small boroughs), the voters are sup-
nosed to be all who are qualified to vote, and
identified in interest with the nation. If suffi'
ciently numerous to be identified in interest
ith the rich, to say that they are responsible
is merely saying that the nation is responsible
to itself.—Morning Chronicle.

The Constitutionnel contains a valuable do-
cument on the military force of Russia. In some
introductory observations that Journal observes.
" that it is principally on the exaggerated idea
of its military force that the Russian Cabinet
founds the success of its political negotiations,
ind it has been so much the more easy for it
to gain credit for this idea in Europe, as it ha-
been favoured by the party of the foreigner.
But in the age of publicity in which we live.
such errors cannot last—such manceuvres canno.
long succeed; the press of France and Eng•
land has already done much to reduce to its
just value this military power, which has been
•ermed colossal, and it has succeeded in weaken-
ing the sentiment of fear which absolutism was
fond of encouraging, with a view to check the
progress of European liberty. To the informa-
tion which we have already published with this
object, we hasten to add a document which we
have just received from abroad, and of which
we can guarantee the accuracy. This publica-
ion appears to us the more a propos; as the
,iffairs of Turkey assume a character of the
utmost gravity." We shall, on a future day,
insert this document at length. At present we
shall merely notice the results. After giving in
detail the division and position of the Russian
army, the document proceeds to give the effec-
tive of the army. " The Russian army," it
observes, " thus divided and spread over the
vast territory of the empire, would seem, at first
sight, to have an immense effective, and this,
perhaps, is one of the motives of the erroneous
belief which has long existed in Europe.
We can affirm, that the numerical situation
of which we are about to offer the expose,
is the most exact which has yet reached
France since the Revolution of July." The
effective may be thus stated in results :—The
total of the infantry 315,800; cavalry 73,920 ;
artillery, sappers, and pioneers, 35 000 ; thirty
regiments of regular Cossacks 15,000 ; in all,
439,720. " And yet," says the document,
this number ought to be considered as much
too high, on account of the incomplete state of
the regiments, of which several, we are assured,
are only entered by way of remembrancer, not
having received any recruits since the last wars.
It is notorious at St. Petersburgh, that in case
of an European war, Russia could scarcely form
an army of 80,000 men in a state to cross the
frontiers. The campaigns of Turkey and Poland
have not only exhausted the forces of this vast
empire, but have also obliged the Emperor to
occupy Wallachia and Moldavia militarily, and
to keep up an army of occupation in Poland.
Hence the best-informed Generals, such as
Paskewitsch, Geismar, Pallier), &c., frequently
say that the Polish Revolution has been doubly
disastrous for Russia, in depriving it of the
concurrence of the Polish army, and in obliging
it to keep a Russian army in Poland, which
would break out again into insurrection if this
army were to withdraw." We take credit to
ourselves for having been among the first to en-
deavour to dispel the notion of Russia being a
formidable Power. It is not ; and the more it
extends its territories, it will be weaker. Nations
are not powerful in a military sense because
they possess a large territory ; for of two nations
of thirty millions, the one inhabiting a country of
moderate extent, and the other spread over an al-
most boundless surface, the former is incomparably
more powerful than the latter. Thus, for instance,
supposing even the revenue 'of Russia larger than
that of Austria, the latter Power being able in a
tew days to bring its whole force to bear on a given
point, while the other cannot for years move an
army from one part of the Empire to another (tu
say nothing of the expense of moving).. Austria
oiust be many times stronger in a military sense
than Russia. Even Prussia could at a short
notice bring into the field 300,000 men, three
or four times, the force which Russia could