The Sun.
London, England, 1858-03-03 00:00:00

THE LATE MINISTERIAL DEFEAT.

The circumstances of the country are, in, many respects, critical;
and in none more so than in its external relations. Painful miscon-
ceptions have arisen with the Government of that faithful and
powerful ally, who, in so many instances, has proved his good feel-
ing and fidelity to this country. Believing that a cordial alliance
between England and France is equally conducive to the interests of
both countries, I shall express my hope and conviction that by mea-
sures, at once firm and conciliatory, these causes of misunderstand-
ing may be speedily and entirely rair.ved.
ft the country will heartily support the Queen's Government at
this conjuncture, a result so desireable for the peace and progress of
Europe will be greatly facilitated. Believe me, yours sincerely,
Grosvenor gate, Feb. 26, 1888. B. DISRAELI.

BUCKS COUNTY ELECTION.—The follow-
ing gentlemen have signified their determination to promote
by all constitutional means the REELECTION of the Right Hon.
BENJAMIN DISRAELI as member for the county of Buckingham,
and trust the electors generally will give him their hearty and
earnest support :
Barrington, the Hon. Percy, Westbury Manor
Bent, John, Esq., Wexham Lodge
Bernard, Thomas T 3 ringham, Esq., M.F., Winchedon Priory
Broadhead, Rev. George, West Wycome
Box, Philip, Esq., adclive
Chandos, Marquis of, Wotton
Cooper, Sir Astley Poston, Bart. Gadebridge
Clayton, Rice Richard, Esq„ Hedgerley-park
Cameron, Donald, Esq., Hampden House
Chetwode, Rev. Geo., Chilton nous'
Cartwright, Colonel Henry, M.P., Ov-ng Ranee
Chester, Rev. Anthony, Chieheley Hall
Du Pre. C G., Esq., 5I.1) , Wilton-park
Drake, Thomas Tyrwhitt, Esq., Shardeloes
buncombe, P. D. Pruncefort, Esq., Briekkill Manor
Dauncey Philip, Esq., Little Horwood
Evett, Rev. Themas,.Prestwood
Fuller, Benjamin, 1 sq., Chesham
Francklin, John. Esq., Dinton
Greases, iildmun Esq., HavershaM
Higginson, Lieutenant-General G. P., Great Marlow
Bonnier, Colonel, Stockgrove
Harvey, Hobert, Esq., Langley-park
Harvey, Robert Bateson, Esq., a angley-park
Hall, lielieral, M.P., Weston Colville
Hamilton, Captain, -Thame-park
Hale, John, Esq., Chesham
Ilibbert John Nembhard, Esq., Chalfont-park
Hoare, Joseph, Esq., Wendover
Knox, Colonel Br. wnlow, M.P., London
Lowndes, William, Esq, the Bury, Chesharo.
Lowndes, W. Selby, Esq, Whaddon Hall
Lowndes. E. Selby; Esq, Winslow
Lovett, Philips Cosby, Esq., Liseombe
Lowndes, William, Esq, jun , The Bury, Chesham
Lowndes. R. W. Selby, Esq, Bletchley
Lucas, Major, Newport Pagnel
Lovett, Moses, Esq, Aylesbury
Mansell, John Christopher, Esq, Cosgrove Hall
Morgan, George, Esq, Biddlesden
Newman, John, Esq., Brands House
Nugent, Sir George. Bart, Hill-street
Freed, W. Rockwell, Esq, 'fyringham
Pennington, William, Fern Acres, Fulmer
Strz Hon, J. Locke, Esq, Turweston
Stone, W. F Lowndes, Esq, Brightwell
Stone, John, Esq, Westb. urne-terrace
Stone, Edward, Esq, Wotton, Underwood
Turner, Samuel, Esq, London
Vyse, Colonel Howard, Stoke-place
keham, Herbert, Esq, Tyt• isrhg
Williams, Rev James, Tring-park.
Committee-room, deorge Hotel, Aylesbury, March 2,1859.

(Front the Times.) -48
The debate of Monday evening forms a new and
important scene iu what we must prondunce a
strange political drama. Hera are a dozen Eng-
lish gentlemen of extraordinary powers and address
who have passed their lives, some rather long ones,
in the face of society, at the head of affairs, on the
grandest arena in the world. Such men are com-
monly supposed to be able to take care of them-
selves, and to require little sympathy of the
milder wee and scarcely even candour. In this
instance they have been laid under serious imputa-
tions, affecting even their courage and patriotism,
and have been visited, with the heaviest penalty
their country could inflict on the worst or weakest
Minister. Now, suppose such men to be really
innocent of the charge, it might be expected that
the truth would flash out at once, that the victims
of calumny would speak trumpet-tongued ; that
they would immediately, with one consent, stamp
every act and circumstance of the affair ou the
minds of all within hearing, even while the false
charge was hovering over their heads, and before
it could descend. If such men can justify them-
selves, who, indeed, can ? Are men who for many
years have proved themselves capable of governing
this empire, and controlling far and wide the des-
tinies of mankind, to descend to posterity or the
tomb like the feebler victims of private aspersion ?
Is Lord Palmerston, is Lord Clarendon, no better
than the poor creature whose character for honesty
has been slandered away at a tea-table.? Seriously,
to judge from the last month, one might almost
"suppose so. Or, if this solution be impossible, one
might suppose these pillars of the Sate suddenly
seized with that monomania not uncommon in the
dangeryi.uni
"
weaker sex at a certain age, when they purposely
incur suspicion in order to render themselves
objects of intetest, and refuse to be exculpated,
that some day they may be heroines of a grand
justification. Never did innocence come out so
surely and so slowly. Substaetiatly, in the eyes of
aegels, if they take interest in such matters, thesemen are more than guiltless of the charges brought
against them. They have acquit-ed themselves
nobly. May we always have rulers as alive to the
character and honour of their country ! They have
thrown back every base iusinuation, every ill
construction, in the face of their accusers. But
why did all this remain to be done ? Why need
.such men be driven to the shils of the virago who
stuns a lane with the proofs of her integrity 1 Why
was the suspicion ever incurred I Why not re-
moved at once ? It is true, all candid teen must
confess-Ave give in our unreserved adhesion,—
our late Ministers did take instant and effectual
steps to represent to Napoleon 111. and his Minis-
jtsearsloutshye
wnaitthurwehiocfh ourwe guard ‘ ri,
siEgvhielitlt:ewl ofstao see no reason
the
eassugg
d by
and
assassination,
it ought
be taken, as it has been taken, on its own merits.
folly l l
soy ofa l anyter, attemptaltering
our
lawsto a s restrictto
p ri to, c the
ed impossibilityo n
suspicion
suggested taonddoruebcotgnthiaset
the
enocptoornisetiyr.a'c'y
Frenchthe actual
Government,attemp t at
andthat tt
Have we not now subscribed all that is required of
us ? But where the need of so much pother ? There
ought to have been none.
It has taken a whole month to eliminate the
truth ; but a truth there now is, as substantial, as
distinct, as undeniable, as confessed, as the pre-
cious result of the chemist's long toil, after earth,
air, fire, and water have contributed their several
ordeals. . The truth is, Walewaki's despatch ought
to have been answered without a day's delay more
than was unavoidable, and with another despatch
precisely the same in form and kind. The reasons
assigned by Lord Clarendon and others for
not answering it
,may serve to show the diffi-
culty and delicacy of the task, but they prove no
more, and what are Foreign Ministers and diplo-
matists made for but to surmount, not to avoid,
difficulties of this sort ? It is too evident that one
fatal idea ran through all that was done on our
side. That was to manage the difficulty without
meeting it face to face ; to do it quietly, privately,
irregularly, and irresponsibly, as between one man
or one household and another, not as between
nation and nation. It was not so done on the other
side. The French Government made a public,
direct, and very bluff appeal to our ktountry to do
something, the immense difficulty of which none
knew better—none had tatter reasons for knowing
—than the very persons who made it, who corn- ,
mended it to be made, who wrote it, who laid it
before the British Minister. Merely to enlighten
the authors of the appeal on the difficulty of
modifying our law of asylum, anticipating con-
spiracy, tacking suspicion, nipping euterprises in
the bud, and banishing marked characters from our
sheres, would be a waste of instruction verging on
the burlesque. Yet this was all- that was done—
well done, done with spirit and. ability, no doubt ;
but it was all. The French dovetail was utilized,
promulgated to all the world, made national capital,
accompanied and interpreted by manifestoes, to
sober English judgment very similar in tone, from
Ministers of State, high functionaries about the
person of the Emperor, public bodies, and military
officers speaking in behalf of their regiments. We
quite concede to Lord Claret:doe, arid, we must add,
to Lord Derby, that in order to make allowance for
the language of these manifestoes we ought, if
we can, to put ourselves in the position of the
French. But that does not alter, or hide, or
diminish the fact that tb.prodigious ' national
es
demonstration was made, and that it was sanc-
tioned, pointed, and thrust home A
to England by a
despatch read to our Foreign Minister, and pub-
lished in the llloaiteur. Hardly could we imagine
an appeal from one nation-to another which more
required to be met with at least the same
gravity and solemnity as those with which it was
made. In private life it is net permitted to a man
to meet an open appeal otherwise than by an open
response ; and all attempts to whisper it off would
place a man in an uncomfortable position. So it
must be in the dealings of one State with another.
But this idea of privacy, of management, in-
directness, personal interpretation, and hiding the
difficulty frem one's own eyes, pervades the whole
affair. Lord Clarendon takes the French despatch
sentence by sentence, and endeavours to prove that
it really presented no point for denial or objection,
and that it was not meant to give offence. As a
fact, it did give offence, we may say in round terms,
to the whole British nation. did too, in
ion. It this,
spite of that truthfulness and
careful weighing of
statements ascribed to it by Lord Clarendon, and
in spite of that peculiar exactness and clearness of
phraseology claimed by the French press for all
their public documents. But who ever said that it
was meant to give offence ? Is it likely that, when
the Emperor and his Ministers were requiring us
to make or administer our laws with a viewtohis
personal safety and secure dominion, they would
go out of their way to give us unnecessary Offence ?
Very few offences are meant to give offence. They
are generally for purposeswhich would be imperilled
by offence, and which are best attained without
rousing suspicion or resentment. Most of the
crimes that come before our courts would be done
not only under chloroform, but even with the con-
sent of the victims, if that were possible. Orsini
did not mean to offend. He meant to kill. Who
wants to offend those whom he robs or defrauds,
those whom he slights, those whom he Puts wholly
out of the question, and wishes never to think of ?
Here was a series of manifestoes, confessedly at the
expense of the British people, injurious to the
character of their institutions, and even touching
their security. Is it necessary to inquire
whether
offence was intended I Yet Lord Clarendon
makes
it all turn on that question ; and, to settle It, has
recourse to the private, ex parte Interpretation, of
the man he had to deal with—the French Anab.osa-
dor. Persigny was quite sure Walewski
meant
no offence ! Why, then, not reply at once in a
despatch not meant to offend I But the French
Minister earnestly deprecated a despatch
that
mieht possibly give offence. Of course, they y de-
precated a public reply of any sort, unless .:
it came
in the form of acquiescence. It Was a great coup
for such men to deliver such a despatch at the
Court of St. James and meet with no reply. They
had good reasons to avoid a controversy, But here
was the fatal error into which these clever novices
in diplomacy drew our long-tried veterans. They
acted publicly themselves, and made us act pri-
vately. Unfortunately, they found in Lords Pal_
merston and Clarendon two men who, though de-
voted servants of their country, forgot Ou this
occasion that they were the Ministers of a great
and constitutional Government ; that they had to
deal not merely with a Minister or an Emperor,
but with nations ; that it was an affair of public
act, not personal intentions, and that when a mes-
sage of the gravest interest was once despatched to
England, and written on the page of history, the
nation that received it was as good a judge of its
actual force as the Minister who had sent it.
Writing on behalf of the British people, and of
those constitutional principles which have been
impressed upon us by
a thousand warnings, we can
only regard this affair,, on the adfirlslon of the late
Government, as a fresh proof Of the necessity of
prompt, direct, open, and constitutional action

(Prom the Times.)
In the House of Lords on Friday last, when
Lord Campbell postponed the second reading of the
Law of Libel Amendment Bill, Lord Lyndhurst
suggested that " the noble and learned Lord should
take advantage of the postponement to make the
Bill more extensive in its operation.”—a remark
which was accepted with thanks. We trust we
may entertain a hope from these observations that
the justice which it was proposed to extend to the
press in the discharge of its professional duties will
be measured still more liberally than was at first
designed, and, that the able advocacy of Lord
Lyndhurst will be given to our claims upon the
consideration of the Legislature.
The public has been already made acquainted
with our position in this matter. It is expected of
the newspaper press that it shall furnish the country
with true and faithful reports of all public proceed-
ings, and especially of all debates and speeches
bearing an important public character. This duty
is performed by the agency of gentlemen whose
skill and accuracy are often made the subject of
admiration, and the whole community is thus en-
abled, infinitely to its advantage, to take a share, as
it were, in every great or interesting discussion.
All that Mr. Disraeli or Lord Stanley, for instance,
may presently have to say to their constituents will
be heard, through the instrumentality of trained
reporters, in every corner of the country, and the
views and intentions of the new Ministry will be
placed freely before the public as soon as they are
expressed. This duty, however, we can only under-
take at our own proper peril. If it happens on any
occasion that a public speaker utters words.defama-
tory of another person, .and that person should
think fit to demand redress, it is competent to him,
as the law now stands, to bring an action against
the journal containing the report, although the re-
port may be true, faithful, free from any suspicion
of malice, and published simply in the performance
of a recognised.professional duty. Iu one case only
are we protected—that of the reports of proceed-
ings in a court of justice ; in all the rest, however
plainly innocent we may be, we are exposed to
penalty for the sayings of others. Lord Campbell's
hill propoied to extend our immunity to reports of
proceedings in Parliament, and to give us also
partial protection in the case of certain other meet-
ings, carefully defined. For these intentions we
repeat our acknowledgments, but that the opera-
tion of the act may be rendered more eater sive
without damage to any interests whatever we must
sincerely maintain.
We are prepared to put aside all special claims
in this matter, and to leave the question to be
aigued on the broad grounds of public interest
alone. We need not insist on the fact that the
system of reporting is beneficial to the community.
No one would think of controverting the point.
Even a man who makes a dead set at the
Times desires and expects that we should report
his speech in full, and publish to the world the
character he gives us. This is a function of our
profession which all men concur in esteeming,
and it supplies, indeed, the best corrective—if any
such element should be thought wanting—of any-
thing like an overbe iring influence on the part of
the press itself. Our own opinions are not the
only opinioniewhich are read in our columns. If
we differ from Lord Derby, the reader has only to
turn the page over, and he will find Lord Derby
speaking for himself. If he chooses to con the
debates and skip the leading articles, he can do so.
if he is struck with the comments upon any public
proceedings he has nothing to do but to refer to
the report, and he at once becomes qualified to test
our judgment by his own. Besides, the very fact
that we already stand protected in one instance,
and that it is designed to protect us in others, suffi-
ciently shows the recognition which the system re•
ceives. But between the cases thus privileged and
others the difference is oily one of degree. Admit-
ting that the proceedings in a court of justice and
the debates in Parliament are of more consequence
in this respect than ordinary transactions, yet there
are very many instances besides in which this agency
of the press is of the greatest importance. Even
Ministers now-a-days make speeches of something
like official interest at meetings not of an official
character. Probably we shall see some examples in
the course of a few days, and during a Parliamen
tary recess it is common enough for leading states-
men to communicate with the public on occasions
which would hardly fall within the rigorous defini-
tions of Lord Campbell's Bill. Apart from these
more signal specimens, many transactions of the
utmost importance to the welfare and progress of
society are conducted through public meetings and
speeches made public property through this func-
tion of the press.
These considerations are so plainly sound and
reasonable that nobody, we think, would be found
to gainsay them. If we rightly understand Lo
Campbell's persuasions in this matter he is deterred
from giving greater latitude to the provisions of his
bill, not by any injustice attaching to our claims in
the abstract, but by apprehension of the abuses
which might ensue. If any journal could justify
the publication of any matter upon the plea that it
was a true report of what was spoken at a public
meeting there would no longer be any hold on the
possible excesses of the press, for anybody might
call or pretend to call a meeting and seoure immu-
nity for a blasphemous, seditious, or defamatory
publication by pretending to speak it, or getting it
spoken beforehand. This, we presume, has been the
view taken of the consequences which might be en-
tailed. In reply we beg to represent what we have
already avowed—that we are willing to have the
bona fide character of our proceedings estimated
and tested at every successive stage. With the
principles involved in Lord Campbell's definitions
we are perfectly prepared to close, and stand or
fall by the true lawfulness and publicity of the al-
leged occasion. ft would be bard, we think, to
prove to the satisfaction of a judge and jury that
such a meeting as that imagined above was a lawful
public meeting. Surely it could not be difficult to
detect any collusion or trick, and to sweep away in
au instant any pretexts founded on inch a sham.
We have no objection to accept the onus of proof.
We are willing to be called upon for demonstration
I of our genuine and recognised professional position
in any case. If any report appearing in our
columns is made a subject of prosecution, we should
not reclaim against being asked to prove not only
that the report is true and devoid of all malice,
but that the occasion on which the reporter
attended was a public occasion, a lawful occa-
sion, and an occasion where this agency of the
press was fairly and naturally to be expected.
Lawfulness or non-lawfulness is an issue which a
Court would surely not have much difficulty in try-
ing, just as they may try the malice or non-malice
of any particular publication. We do not believe
that it would be possible for any journal to turn
this protection to bad purposes with impunity.e
Although this country is proud of its press, and we
hope with some reason, there is never a disposition
to countenance it in anything like licence ; indeed,
the good taste and good sense of the public furnish
the best possible safeguards against abuse. We are
ere
for any im-
munity or latitude in
not asking, be it always remembered,
giving expression to opinions
of our own. For all that we say on our own autho-
rity we accept all possible responsibility, but when
we are merely lending our columns to others in
order that they may speak, too, we think we should
be relieved.from all obligation except that of pro-
fessional good faith, We cannot but hope that

A I3OT
M n.
day.--On Sunday afternoon two boys
of the namec of
Birkin, residing at Old Radford, a village a mile from
Nottingham, were playing at a game called " wicket"
‘lhen the elder youth threw a stone at the wicket, behind
which was his younger brother, a lad five years of age.
The stone hit the mark, and then rebounded and came
iu contact liith the lad's side, near the region of the
heart. The boy instantly expired from the force of the ,
blow. He was immediately conveyed home, and surgical
assistance procured, but life could not be restored.