The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-11 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1856.

It is an extraordinary, but undoubted fact,
that the English Government is always the last to
receive important information on matters in which
it i$ concerned. There is not a single person
throughout the length and breadth of the land
who doubts that Mr. CRAMPTON has been sum-
marily and ignominiously dismissed by the PIERCE-
MARCY Cabinet from the position which he had
previously occupied, as representative of the
QUEEN of Great Britain to the Government of the
United States, but Lord CLARENDON has no
official intelligence whereon to act. The
American journals are not only unanimous
respecting the painful occurrence, but are
filled with elaborate arguments as to the
probable results when the matter becomes gene-
rally known on this side of the Atlantic. " What
will they say in England ??"—is the question most
anxiously canvassed in every part of the
Union. Some fancy that we shall swallow
the unpleasant leek with edifying humility, and
be only anxious to induce Messrs. PIERCE and
MARCY to nominate a new Minister and new
Consuls, whom they would be willing to
receive. Others do not reckon quite so largely
on English forbearance. They recognise the
reckless insolence of their own Government, but
still think that, because the respectable citizens
condemn the electioneering " dodge," we should
make no corresponding movements, but should
retain DALLAS, although CRAMPTON has received
his "walking paper." A large proportion of the
electors—for whose most sweet voices President
PIERCE has made so great a bidding—naturally
anticipate a total suspension of diplomatic inter-
course, and are; already speculating upon the pro-
bable consequences thereof, while so many vexata
qucestiones are still under discussion.
These are the leading divisions ; but as to the
minor_ sections into which the country is split
their name is "legion. Unfortunately, those who
think right, are apathetic and indifferent, and will
take no trouble to impress their views on the
Cabinet or the people. They think that we
should submit to the arrogance and hauteur of
those who, they declare, do not represent the
opinions of the better class of citizen,.
But, in
are by no means so satis.
such cases, " sayings "
factory as " doings," and we should greatly prefer
a nzodieum of action, to any possible amount or
speaking er writing. England has, as we have
already explained, gone to the utmost length of
her tether. She has offered every honourable
explanation and apology, if there had been any
unintentional injury. The arnertde was ample and
complete, and those who have refused to receive
it as such, have placed themselves in a false posi-
tion—far worse than England would have been
in if all that has been alleged against Mr. CRAMP-
TON could be clearly and unequivocally established.

It is said that Mr. MARCY has been compelled,
malgre to acknowledge the completeness of
the defence put forward by Lord CLARENDON to
the unwarrantable imputations which he had pre-
viously raised. But the :canvassing exigen-
cies required a victim, and therefore, while ad-
mitting that there was no cause of complaint in
reference to the enlistment question, personal
objections are raised against the qaondam, British
Minister. " We have no proof—abuse the op-
posite attorney," is a well-known instruction from
pettifogging litigants to their counsel. In
the present instance, however, the parties
are enabled to add serious injury to the
unwarrantable insult. They have treated

Mr. CRAMPTON, and other English gentlemen,
as convicted criminals, on the most tainted and
worthless evidence, and seem to think that we are
patiently to acquiesce in the grievous wrong thus
inflicted on meritorious public servants.
But at the very moment when they were acting
so stringently towards Great Britain and its re-
presentatives, they supplied a powerful illus-
tration of their own laxity and indifference.
Never was there an instance in every re-
spect so remarkable of " blowing hot and
cold" at the same time. Just when Mr.
CRAMPTON'S expulsion had been resolved on,
there was the official recognition of the Envoy
from the piratical Government of the buccaneer
WALKER, He had been guilty of all that was
alleged, but could not be proved against Mr.
CRAMPTON. He was himself enlisted in the
United States, and seduced his companions to
violate that "fundamental law" of the Republic
on which such stress has been laid. Their
cherished neutrality was indeed seriously violated
by his proceedings, but in place of condemning
they recognise him at the very crisis of his fate,
when without that aid he must have fallen, and
tacitly sanction and connive at the fitting out of
"Filibustering" expeditions in his favour. They
have put forward conflicting pleas, and thus de-
liberately exposed themselves to the danger of
being tossed on the horns of a very unpleasant
dilemma. The simultaneous movement in such
opposite directions was altogether owing to the
electioneering exigencies. Some voters might
be caught by the recognition of WALKER, others
by the insult to England, and both must have
their price, notwithstanding the imputations to
which the candidate President must thereby be
exposed.
Our course, at all events, is clear. As
we have already stated we have not offered,
and must not submit to, any insult. The official
intimation of the expulsion of Mr. CRAMPTON
must be the signal for the departure of Mr.
DALLAS ; and we must be prepared to act de-
cidedly and energetically in repelling any aggres-
sion on States under the British Protectorate,
whether it be offered by sympathising freebooters
or by American Citizens, by WALKER'S gang, or
the Army or Navy of the United States Govern-
ment.

The country, it is to be hoped, will know how
to appreciate the gross neglect of Parliamentary
duty of which the House presented last night so
signal and farcical an example. When hon. mem-
bers display so little regard for the great interests
confided to them, and such gross disrespect to
our representative institutions, there can be no
valid reason for surprise at the approaches that for
years, and more especially of late, have been made
towards a system of bureaucracy. Ministers have
contrived to diminish the time allotted for motions
by private members to one night in the week ;
yet, notwithstanding this, curtailment, so lax is
the attendance that, no matter of what importance
to the welfare of the country motions of this kind
may be, they have in general no difficulty, if they
feel so inclined, as they often do, to stave them
off by a count-out. Occasionally, it is true,
motions are introduced on these evenings suffi-
ciently crude, unimportant, or malapropos to ex-
cite no great regret for their untimely fate ; but,
as a rule, the country is the worse for the exer-
cise of this Ministerial dodge. Motions that may
have but little chance of being carried may have
reference to measures of pressing necessity, or
embody principles which require only the ventila-
tion afforded by debate to meet with the accept-
ance of the country, and ultimately be adopted
by the Legislature.
We say nothing of the egregious lack of self-
respect the non-attendance of which we complain
so markedly displays. Members must be sup-
posed to know beat their own worth, but we
must enter our solemn protest against a practice
which lays the axe to the root of our representa-
tive institutions, exposes them and us to contempt
abroad, and is the source of infinite mischief at
home. The evil has really reached such a pitch
that longer silence would be a betrayal of duty
on the part of an independent public journalist.
Last night, as the reader may have already
inferred, was one of the few nights for private
members. On the list of motions stood Mr.
HEYWOOD'S motion for a select committee for
the advancement of science Sir ERSKINE
PERRY'S resolutions respecting the Law of
property as it affects married women, and Mr.
CHAMBERS' motion for a select committee on the
law of Artistic Copyright—all motions of public
interest and importance, and to which hon. mem-
bers were bound to give their presence and atten-
tion. A perusal of the debate on Mr. HEYWOOD'S
motion will show how they discharged their duty.
When the hon. member sat down, not more than
29 members were present ! A count-out was
attempted. Then the fun, miserable as it was,
commenced. Some twenty individuals rushing in
from the lobby, the smoke-room, and the kitchen,
averted the catastrophe, and demonstrated the
truth of the aphorism, nemo repente turpissimus
est. Unable as yet to reconcile their 'cep-
sciences to an utter neglect of duty, they
undertook the task of being within hail,
and ready to respond, on an emergency.
The fine practical character of JOHN BULL ac-
quired a fresh lustre at their hands. The raw
material they were ready to work at. But science
in the abstract, bah ! that was their aversion.
So instead of listening to Mr. HEYWOOD, and
countenancing his motion by their presence, they
talked, like the practical philosophers they arc,
of Ascot and locomotion in the lobby, experi-
mented on combustion and the virtues of nieo-
Gana in the smoke-room, and only regarded with
less interest the chemistry of the gridiron than I
the savoury result on the steaming trencher and
beneath the sacrificial knife in the kitchen. The
tones of the warning bell reach their ears. Off dash
the Lobbyites as if on a start for the Cup. Away
fly odoriferous Havannahs to the bosoms of unin-
sured and much enduring' gentlemen in black,
while tight-neckclothed fathers of families are to
be Witnessed in the agonies of asphyxia, from mis-
placed confidence in the inossiferous qualities of
a morsel of hurriedly bolted chop. The bell
ceases to riug
"all in to begin ;" the House is
counted, and
no sooner counted, than back
Honourable Members repair to their cheer-
ful Studies—just as at 13
ICHARDSON'S ono
set of performers returned to the platform
a oeielabourinss booth the
in front, or slipped into
teonacaedr:y
ou the perfor-
leavingthe re-
moment their teaoskrnpeavansy
only with this
re-
mainder of the
mance to its legitimate conclusion,
important difference, that the latter only left
the stage when their part was played. Perhaps it
is undignified in us to complain, superfluous to
insinuate that tutnblers and mountebanks, dra-
matic roarers, et id genus ainne set members of
Parliament a lesson they are not honest enough
to follow. The present House of Commons, we
admit, is a great Farce, and has proved itself a
very expensive one, by no means to be laughed
at. Our indignant protest, however, is not in-
tended so much for hon. members as for the
country. We aro heavily weighted, and are
being more and
_more so, in a very close

race with young and vigorous competitors,
and our social condition is not of that description
which can be contemplated with pleasure. There
might have been a full attendance of Members
when motionslike the abovewere to be introduced.
As a people we are no great things at science,
while it is to science we are to lodk for that sus-
tained energy, that top speed and endurance,
necessary to carry us successfully through. Yet
last night—we'll say no more about last night.
Let the facts speak further for themselves. One
thing we must do, and that is, inquire how long
are these nineteenth century praise-GOD-BARE-
BONES to go on unchecked ? Is there never to be
a dissolution ?

How long will the Lords fight the Commons,
and keep the key of the people's House ? The
Jew question is now become one of simple wilful-
ness, and we wonder any man could he found to
inflict a long speech on the House of Commons
upon its merits. That House has settled it again
and again in the ways which Lord JOHN RUSSELL
would permit. His vanity alone prevented the
House from taking the course the Lords have
adopted in the case of Life Peerages, and deciding
the whole affair by a resolution, as they might easily
have done, that the Jew should take the oath in the
form binding on his conscience. 14 however, the
Lords are pertinacious this time, we trust the
House of Commons will show their Lordships that
they can do without them. If they pass the bill,
adding again the objectionable words, the House
of Commons ought at once to assert its posi-
tion. We should say, let the Commons hold
over the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, and if the
Lords continue their insulting wilfulness towards
the people's representatives, let the Commons
drop that bill for the session. If they do, in all
probability common sense will at no distant period
deprive their Lordships' House of their much-
prized honour of being the final court of appeal,
and with infinitely better reason than the Lords
deprive the people's House of a member elected
by one of the largest popular constituencies in
the kingdom. If it be somewhat of a liberty with
the Lords for the Commons to let in Jews with-
out their leave, we submit it was an equal
liberty with the prerogative of the Crown
to keep out Life Peers by a mere resolution. The
object sought by both Houses is good ; but one
has as good a right as the other to settle techni-
calities by a resolution. Technicalities, we say ;
because no one pretends that the half-dozen words
in dispute were a part of an anti-Jewish Act of
Parliament. It will, we think, however, be to
the last degree discreditable to the Lords if they
continue longer so undignified a contest. The
Commons have taken a decided stand ; the busi-
ness belongs to them. The Lords have shown
their wish in the affair ; but it is unseemly in
them to do more than check hasty legislation-
Hasty it could not now be called, after so many
years ; and to remain in annual conflict with the
nation is not, we submit, the constitutional posi-
tion for the Lords.

We do not know tkat it has been mentioned,
but on one point unwisely dwelt upon in some of
the speeches, we may remark, that probably no
educated Jew now deems our LORD to have been
an impostor. The educated Jew is a Unitarian,
and in many cases has as high an opinion of the
moral character of our LORD as a Unitarian or a
Deist, both of whom easily enter the House,
though he refuses to consider Him the founder
of his faith. It is not right that men in
a position to become members of Parliament
should be held answerable for the bigotry or
fanaticism of the illiterate of their community,
and it should ba remembered that they have
always shown all respect to the religion of the
country. All the theological members in the
House, we wish they were fewer, would assent
that on the point in question a Unitarian did
not hold " the true filth of a Christian"—if not
what means their pet A thanasian Creed ? It is
high time, however, to efface the last stigma of
intolerance from our representation.