The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-02 00:00:00

be regarded as one to be distinguished with a white
mark. There was a sanguinary stain arising from
the 'blood of French citizens profusely shed
by the hands of the military which
can never be eradicated, and which will
IQave a page in the national history which
every well-wisher of the EMPEROR would desire
to see expunged from the national annals.
If the pardon of the illustrious convict be intended

as the indication of a resolution to pursue adifferent
course, it will be very acceptable, but the single
act will not be sufficient, it must be followed by a
steady course of liberal Government, and if that
be the case, we, and we believe all our contem-

poraries of every shade and variety of political op

nion will be willing to accord the impartial praise
which may be fairly merited.

Editors may certainly do what they will with their
own, and therefore no man may quarrel with an
editor who sees fit to exclude facts and arguments
which oppose his own views, but which he knows
not how tp answer. We indeed prefer for ourselves
the opposite course. The more clever a communica-
tion in opposition to our own opinions—the better the
arguments—the weightier the facts—the more re-
spectable the writer—so much the more gladly do
we give it space in our columns. Of course, we can-
not waste our space on inferior or ill-bred writers,
but the measure of the writer's good sense, ability,
and knowledge, not his hostility or otherwise to
our opinions, is the measure of our readiness to hear
him. Each editor must, however, judge for him-
self, and it is not for us therefore to censure the
Times for refusing such a series of important facts,
furnished by a public man of such standing as the
Hon. HENRY BERKELEY, as those to which we gave
a place yesterday, because our contemporary de-
clined to insert them. To be sure, they completely
refute the statement made in that journal a few
days ago, in an elaborate article on "The American
Elective System," in which it was asserted that we,
here, are ignorant of the real object of the Ballot in
America—" that the Ballot is an expedient adopted
not to ensure secret but rapid voting ;" and it is
added, "that it is the coarse sieve the constituency
must periodically be run through, not its shield
during the process, but English speakers on the
subject always represent the sieve as a screen."
Mr. BERKELEY'S letter conclusively shows that
such is not the opinion of public men
in the United States themselves. Rapid voting is
an incidental and great advantage of the Ballot,
but the secresy and the independence it secures is
proved to have been the reason of its universal
adoption in the Free States.
We commented but a short time back on one of
the most important of the letters from America, that
from Mr. Anderson, and need not now, therefore,
advert to the statements of many others which cor-
roborate his statements. The public should, how-
ever, be aware that it must not look to our great
contemporary for effective replies to its mistate-
ments of facts respecting the Ballot. On that
subject at least it exercises a conservative censor-
ship over letters addressed to it, even at times when
news is not over plentiful, and when the writers
are men followed by two hundred members of the
British house of Commons, provided those letters
are in support of the Ballot, and that these facts
and arguments are not easy to disprove. Or, to
use its own figures just referred to, the
Times is a " sieve" in which all communications
" are shaken," and which those too conclusive in
favour of the Ballot will not pass, and consequently
the Times' sieve becomes an efficient "screen" to its
arguments against the Ballot. Very judicious, we
are sure. Its delicate, tender arguments do need
careful protection against rough transatlantic facts
which would hardly leave them even their clever
and plausible phraseology. Nothing like a ertbrum
expurgatorium to guard political orthodoxy.
It is interesting, certainly, to see this fear of
facts regarding the Ballot, in our contemporary.
We have noticed it in respect to its intelligence
from Australia and New Zealand also. They have
often stared all of us who have to read Australian
papers and correspondence, in the face, yet we never
find them in the quotations of our contemporary

from the papers of these colonies. When the
standing order is, leave out facts recommendatory
of the Ballot, but if abuse of it, in the obscurest
colonial newspaper, [can be found, use the scissors
at once. 'When such is the order, we may be sure
the facts are of more weight than any other argu-
ments. If counsel should wish the jury to listen
to his eloquence only, and to be indifferent to the
evidence, we should all question what the verdict
would be if the facts were suffered to come out.

We gather a favourable omen from this suppres-
sion of facts on the Ballot. It shows that they will
not suit the purpose of those who, for what reason
we know not, are inveterately opposed to it. When
facts are dreadede—sinc they will make themselves
known in time—the inference is that when they are
known they will carry the day.
Our contemporary is, we fancy, in great fear of
Mr. DISRAELI. He is not a red-tape man, and
however horrible red tape may be at the Horse
Guards, at Weedon, or in Government offices, it is
excellent, of course, in politics. The mischief in the
present case is that the course the Chancellor of the
Exchequer will take on the Reform Bill cannot be
predicted as one might predict what an old Major
or Colonel would do. There is great fear, it seems
lest the hon. gentleman may seriously contemplate
raising a basis for Conservatism as broad as the
peasantry and operatives of the country. Mr.
DISRAELI has shown in his works a strong faith in
the power of the aristocracy to get and keep the
good will of the peasantry. Give the counties
members in proportion to population, they would
then outvote the towns. But the county population
is perfectly manageable by the landed interest ;

therefore, taking population as the basis of repre-
sentation (though it implies universal suffrage) it
would be the safest thing for Toryism.

The worst is, according to our contemporary, that
the Whigs could never sanction such a scheme.
That there would be a row, an upset perhaps, and
perhaps a dissolution. In the meantime, in the
midst of all the hubbub, Tories would be coolly and
complacently pointing to their great advances upon
anything offered by the Whigs; while the Whigs
must patriotically fold their togas around them, and
stand with old Roman dignity to witness the ruin
of the Constitution, and to see insulting Tories in-

stalled in office for a yet longer reign. The prudence
of Lord DERBY is however the hope of our contem-

porary. We will not hazard such a rash and dim-
gerous game ; whatever his Chancellor of the Ex-

chequer may dream of. Well, of one thing we

may be pretty sure that Lord DERBY and Mr.

DISRAELI understand each other pretty well, and
the Editor of the Times is not likely to be offered a

seat in the Cabinet.

Observing the invidious comments of one of our
morning contemporaries with regard to the ap-
pointment of the Rev. HENRY GOODWIN, to the
Deanery of Ely, we are bound to state that the
nomination of that gentleman has afforded, we
believe,
acquired higher
general satisfaction. No man has
a
higher University honours than Mr.
Goolywis. He has been an earnest, devoted
parochial rajuiater, an able preacher, free in=