The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-05 00:00:00

been interrupted, as we are consoled to remember
they were interrupted very frequently, with excla-
mations half of incredulity, half of indignation. It
may confidently be asserted that had the views of
Mr. BRIGHT and Mr. BRIGHT'S associates influ-
enced the councils of England at any period in the
past history of our country, England would cer-
tainly not be what she is now, the wealthiest, the
most powerful, and the most free among all the
world's great Constitutional Governments. If Mr.
BRIGHT'S policy had triumphed only as recently as
the time immediately prior to the outbreak of that
.last war with Russia in the Crimea—how
very different now would have been the
political situation of Christendom ! The member
for Birmingham would, of course, exultingly echo
the ejaculation! He would remind us that there
would in that contingency have been saved 100,000
lives and £100,000,000 of money ! True—we
should undoubtedly so far have economised both
blood and treasure ; but how would matters have
stood on the other side of the balance-sheet? The
Autocrat of all the Russias would, during these last
six years, either have been menacing the peace of,
or dictating laws to, Europe from the Dardanelles!
It is a monstrous untruth to assert, as it has been
for some time the fashion to assert, that the war
with Russia has effected no political or social ad-
vantage whatever, that it has resulted merely in
the destruction of so many lives and in the squan-
dering of so much treasure. Although Sebastopol
was only half-taken at last, although the Crimea,
at the termination of hostilities, was entirely eva-
cuated by the Allies, although Russia even then
was not constrained to pay down one farthing of
indemnity, it were simply a wilful perversion of
the truth to assert that the Allies were not perfectly
and pre-eminently successful in carrying the design
for which that sanguinary and expensive war was
commenced! That design was—not the conquest
of Russia—not the occupation of the Crimea—not
the capture of Sebastopol—but the overthrow, the
extinction, the utter destruction and discomfiture
of that Russian policy, the accomplishment of
which would have been (six years ago—but for the
Crimean war) the establishment of the Russian
Autrocrat as the lord paramount of Europe at Con-
stantinople.
One of Mr. BRIGHT'S most cherished aspirations
appears to be that of complacently beholding, and
even encouraging, and actually exulting over the
territorial aggrandisement of empires governed by
potentates altogether despotic and irresponsible.
It was in this spirit that he deprecated the war of
which we have been speaking. It was in this
spirit that five sessions back he talked so very
grandiloquently about the "Angel of Death flap-
ping its wings," and gave utterance to a great deal
of similar rhodomontade—preferring, above all
things, at that moment, that instead of spending
so much money and shedding so much
blood to prevent the CZAR from carrying out his
designs against Turkey, and, through Turkey,
against Europe, we should have quietly and
amiably looked on while that little project was
being conducted to a successful issue by the AUTO-
CRAT. Consistently with these poor little white-
livered views, the member for Birmingham now
maintains in the British House of Commons that
the projected annexation of Saysy to France is one
of the most natural, almost one of the most desirable,
things in the world—that it is essentially in itself
(and regarded from all points of view) one of the
most reasonable projects of annexation ! Viewing
the scheme as it relates to Sardinia, Mr. BRIGHT
remarked on Friday evening that " he did not be-
lieve Sardinia would be sensibly weakened or
changed if the transfer took place." At which the
House of Commons—even this House of Commons
which has just consented to swallow a one-sided
commercial treaty negotiated with the power-
ful French EMPEROR in the name and on
behalf of England by a Peace-at-any-Price Ple-
nipotentiary—the House of Commons could
not refrain foom uttering derisive cries of " Oh !
oh !" Viewing the project again in its bearing
upon the Savoyards themselves, Mr. BRIGHT re-
marked, on Friday, that "he had heard from per-
sons of high authority that the inhabitants of
Savoy had not only no objection to the transfer,
but would prefer being annexed to France." Again
the House of Commons—even the present Treaty-
swallowing House of Commons—responds with
fresh cries of "Oh ! oh !" Judging, we don't know
how far, from his own feelings of loyalty, but cer-
tainly in a way that evidences a very mean esti-
mate of human nature, Mr. BRIGHT observed, on
Friday, that, "for his own part, he would not give
much for the loyalty of some people in other coun-
tries besides Savoy if he could promise them to
double the value of the landed property of their
country." Again cries of "Oh ! oh !" from the
House of Commons. But the loudest of all these
outbursts of scorn and indignation was reserved for
that astonishing avowal of the member for Birming-
ham—when, having remarked that "he did not
wish the Government to give the slightest counte-
nance to the transaction, but on the other hand he
would not ask them to offer it the slighest opposi-
tion, because such oppostion would be futile, and
they could not possibly prevent the annexa-
tion of Savoy, although they might em-
broil England with France"—Mr. BRIGHT
actually went the length of exclaiming,
" Rather than this should happen, perish Savoy !"
Nothing need be added to the cries of " Oh ! oh !"
with which the House of Commons greeted this
astounding ejaculation. Mr. BRIGHT'S remarks
upon the proposed annexation of Savoy to France
may be commended to general consideration with-
out one syllable of commentary beyond this—That
a peace-at-any-price policy appears to involve far
more than the sacrifice of a round £1,000,000 for a
treaty with Imperial France in a year of deficit—
far more than an income tax, in other words, a war
tax of £10,000,000 in a year of peace to the same
end—it (involves with this, above this, beyond
this, the despicable sacrifice of the Duty, the
Glory, and the Honour of England !

It was stated in the House of Lords the other
evening by the Earl of SHAFTESBURY that not
more than two per cent. of the lower orders in Lon-
don ever attended a place of worship. The praise-
worthy experiment made by the noble lord and
other well-meaning individuals of preaching on
Sundays in the metropolitan theatres was attacked
by the very pious Viscount DUNGANNON, who, in
his veneration for the Word of GOD, maintained
that an act of desecration was committed by read-
ing prayers in a place intended for public amuse-
ment. We heartily concur with the Archbishop of
CANTERBURY in his declaration that, in his opinion,
the theatre was consecrated by divine service being
held within its walls, rather than that religion suf-
fered from the unwashed and ill-clad being present
to hear the Word of God preached in a building
which had not undergone the ceremony of sacerdotal
benediction. Where, did the Apostles preach ?
Why, wherever they could—even in the wildernesF,
where multitudes flocked to hear them. Has not
Christ said For where two or three are gathered
together in my name, there am i in the midst of
them." What will Lord DUNGANNON say to this?
It is not the place that sanctifies the deed, but the
good intention that glorifies the Word of God.