The Sun.
London, England, 1856-04-26 00:00:00

41•- vte-14, I r;7?`

7,17
•
.1 •
I. .
„Iktort-A,
?v.
• Aritt: 4ZI A...,
=7.
• A, '. -ao
, : •
--,
.2> '!
Ito
-
„Its/ VAIS
Si'
4.0 R 0 IT• (l3
./
Wed'
„ tib'CV

[PRICE 4D. STAMPED 51>

SIR PETER LAURIE AND THE PEACE.

(Front the Morning Advertiser.)
When Queen Caroline, wife of George the
Fourth, came to England to claim her rights, her
Majesty who, though; a very injured woman, was
very far from a virtuous one, was the heroine of
the mobs that paraded London, and forced all to
shout and light up for her. One of these mobs, if
our memory serves us, collected in Hanover-square,
iu front of the Earl of Harewood's. His lordship
was summoned to the balcony to give three cheers
for her Majesty: His lordship complied with the
best possible grace, took off his hat, bowed to the
people, and cried at the very top of his voice,
" Hurrah, my boys, the Queen for ever, and may
all your wives be like her !"
Sir Peter Laurie has euggeSted to our recollec-
tion this little historical incident, having lately
been calling, at a Common Hall, in a most uncom-
mon manner, for cheers for the French Emperor.
The occasion for this manifesto or manifestation
from Sir Peter, was, strange to.say, a meeting held
in the City to opppse what the Cabinet have the
face to call their Corporation Reform Bill. That
occasion, of all others, was seized by Sir Peter for
declaring that ha was delighted with the peace, and
very much obliged -to the Emperor of the French
for having imposed it on us !
To Sir Peter's unbounded satisfaction at the
peace we" have nothing whatever to say. If Sir
Peter is pleased that our men and millions have
been lavished to damage the prestige of England,
and patch up a truce for Russia), he is at liberty to
do so. There is no accounting for tastes, and Sir
P. Laurie's has,-at all events,• the merit.-of singu-
larity. But, setting aside his pacific gusto, Sir
Peter's enthnsiaana r -the. Emperor of -the,Freneh
seems as much out of place as season.
Why was Sir Peter at the meeting ? Was it not
to fight tooth and nail against the Corporation Re-
form Bill ? Was it not to denounce with all his
strength the pernicious principle of centralisation ?
Was it not to uphold, as the palladium of our
liberties, municipal rights and privileges ? We
rather fancy it was.
;\, ow, the Cabinet of Lords, and Lord Palmerston
especially, are, as well as Sir Peter Laurie, admirers
of his Imperial Majesty. Nay, they not only ad-
mire, but they serve him, and they imitate him—
when they can.
His Imperial Majesty is the very incarnation of
the principle of Centralisation, and Lord Palmer-
ston's Government clutches every opportunity for
pushing centralisation in England. The base of his
Imperial Majesty's system is his secret police and
gendarmerie, and Lord Palmerston is trying to foist
his police and gendarmerie upon the country. In
his Corporation Reform Bill, Lord Palmerston
again obsequiously apes his Majesty ; the Emperor
distrusting and detesting Corporations, and putting
them down in France. He has taken from them
•the election of their mayors, and elects those mayors
himself. He has forced his Court of Cessation to
dto:de that only such Municipal Councillors
as his Prefects choose shall be voted for. And, if
his Majesty is happily spared to reign many years
in France, he will certainly have nominated every
member of every municipal body in it. The Bri-
tish Government, therefore, which Sir Peter Laurie
opposes with all his might and main, is applying to
London the system of the Emperor whom Sir
Peter so cordially applauds.
But, perhaps, Sir Peter Laurie will say that the
Imperial regime is good enough for the French,
though not good enough for the English. If Sir
Peter will not say so, probably he thinks so, and
a very great number do say so. This, though a
compliment to the French Emperor, is marvellously
like a downright insult to the whole French people.
It declares to Frenchmen, in so many words,—
"We are vastly superior to you ; we can govern
ourselves—you cannot ; you are not fit for liberty ;
you aro slaves and.wear wooden shoes.' "
Those who think and talk in this way talk also
of the "French Alliance." They are nervous be-
yond measure at the bare idea of endangering "the
happy • union." But what is that alliance, and
what are the securities for the " happy union" in
question ? Is the alliance of England with one man
or with thirty-five millions ? With a great race
and a great land, great in name and fact for cen-
turies, or the accident of a day, or rather of a
night, that got possession of power by conspiracy,
and only retains it by force ? The French Empe-
ror is not the French people, and the servile adu-
lation of the Emperor in England is felt by the
people as an insult. It is that which endangers
the alliance. A " happy union" must be one of
affection as well as of common interest ; and no
union can be happy or lasting with France which
is based on colAempt for -the rrench. They:We,
beim' free before, and they *ill.l,e-free again, .and
there are strong proofs that they resent now, and
may seek to avenge then, the gross affront expres-
sed, or implied, that they are not fit for freedom.

THE FALL OF KARS.

(From the Times of this day.)
The fall of Kars will become the subject of re-
newed discussion on Monday next. It is a proof
of the deep impression which this disaster has made
that the memory of it survives even the conclusion
of peace and the restoration of the lost territory.
It is the plausible argument of many persons that
no good can come of examining into events which
are past and gone. Kars cannot be saved, the
campaign of Mingrelia cannot be refought by any
debates in Parliament or any inquiries at Chelsea.
Why, then, it may be said, resume a fruitless dis-
cussion which cannot change events, and may only
degenerate into an angry and tedious controversy?
But the common sense and right feeling of the
country have strongly pronounced against such
reasoning. For the sake of the future—for the
honour of Cie men who bore s part in the unavail•
ing struggle, and who are only now to bo restored
to their country and friends—let us have a full
examination even of past events and disasters,
which are ROW irremediable. Justice demands such
a course, and no shortsighted seeking for imme-
diate results should induce the country to err from
it. It is evident that the alleged reasons for the
fall of Kars may be divided into two heads. The
first relates to the corruption of the Turkish autho-
rities, the want of due preparation for a campaign,
and the neglect of General Williams by the Bri-
tish Ambassador. The second has to do with
affairs subsequent to the investment of the place,
the obstacles said to be opposed. to Omar Pasha,
the bad choice of a point of operations, and the
supposed treachery of the commander at Erze-
roum. We have before given an opinion that when
Mouravieff had invested the city, when summer
was passing away, and provisions were already
running short at Kars, all efforts would probably
have been unavailing for a rescue. The place was
virtually lost, and, though mistakes may have been
committed which subsequent criticism can expose,
we ought not to seek the causes of the calamity in
the period immediately before its occurrence. How-
ever all parts of the history will receive a due
examination ; it is better, therefore, once more to
recur to the earlier events, and point out the de-
pendence of each incident on those which went
before it.
The first months of General Williams's service
in Armenia were passed, as we all know, amid the
insolence and of the Turkish officials, who
wore not checked in their shameful course by any
remonstrances on the part of those who should
have supported the British General. Into the re-
lations between the Commissioner and Lord Strat-
ford de Redcliffe it is not our purpose again to
enter. Enough has been said on the subject to
enable the public to form a judgment with accuracy.
The reports current on the matter have been fully
confirmed by the blue-book lately published. It
may be taken for granted, then, that for some reason
on which we cannot speculate General Williams in-
curred the dislike of the British representative at
Constantinople—the man who from his position and
his long residence in the East could most effectually
aid him or hinder him in his endeavours. The
tacit acknowledgment of Ministers, of political par-
tisans of
personal acquaintances, has fully admit-
tad the unworthiness of the Ambassador's conduct,
and there is nothing more to be said on the subject.
All that remains is to inquire what influence this
neglect had on the actual results of the campaign.
It is, of course, natural to say that the disputes
complained of took place in the winter which pre-
ceded the siege, and that for some time before Kars
was invested the interchange of angry despatches
had ceased. But we think that such a defence will
not bear examination. General Williams arrived
in Armenia in September, 1854. At that time the
Turkish army was entirely disorganised. Five
battles had been lost within seven months by a
succession of incapable and profligate commanders.
The soldiers were without pay, without clothing,
often without food. The. Russians were known to
be making great efforts for another campaign. Men
and materials were brought not only through the
Caucasus, but from Astrachan to the western ports
of the Caspian. It will not be supposed that for
what General Williams had to do there was too
mush time. We know that in this rich and civi.