The Sun.
London, England, 1858-01-22 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY, JAN. 22, 1858.

There are already indications of an approach-
ing storm. The tempest will be directed against
the right of sanctuary which Great Britain has,
and we hope and believe, ever will maintain in-
violate. The atrocious attempt at assassination
which fortunately failed, so far as the intended
victim was concerned, although many innocent
injured, has afforded a
persons were seriously
pretext for the onslaught. But it is a well
known legal maxim that " hard cases make bad
precedents." It is not therefore bemuse a few
criminals have abused the privileges afforded to
them, that Great Britain should abandon the
hospitality invariably displayed to every fugi-
tive. We are not to punish thousands
of innocent, and we may add estimable persons,
because a few have disgraced themselves, and
thereby afforded a pretext for casting discredit on
the place where they found shelter and protection
in their utmost need.

We want no new law. Those already in force
are quite sufficient for any probable, or even pos-
sible emergency. If there be crime, it can and
will be punished, on due proof before our consti-
tutional tribunals. A conspiracy
to commit a
crime in France will be dealt with as severely as
if it took place in this country. The offence
has been perpetrated here, and here it should
be expiated. If there be evidence to'
inculpate any parties in England, they will
be arrested and committed for trial, Convicted,
and punished. But we will not act on the
•uspicioui doubts of persona who believe that they
can sustain untainted positions by harshness and

despotism, if the French EILPNItOIt, or the
French Courts, have not adequate grounds against
any refugee for improper acts committed in this
country. We shall not bestow the slightest consi-
deration on mere unsupported "charges." Let

the witnesses be sent over ; the expense
will not be very great, nor will there
.
be any sacrifice of dignity. It is in
the American Courts that we should wish
to see the Filibusters prosecuted ; and in those of
France, any French offenders (if there are such,
which we doubt) against the safety of England.
Then let our tribunals dispose of the indictment.
The principle is fully appreciated. There neither
is, nor can be, any doubt on the subject. To re-
fer to an ancient but antiquated platitude—" the
matter lies in a nutshell." If there be sufficient
evidence, the matter can be proved as easily in
England as in France. If not, the parties whom
—according to our constitutional theory—we are
bound to consider innocent until they are proved
to be guilty, must be guarded from any unfounded
or improper accusations.
An influential morning contemporary, one who
speaks not save on sufficient ground, has ventilated
the subject. The clear-headed Editor did not do
so without an inkling of that which was looming
in the future. He had ample grounds whereon
to found his observations, and where we find
certain principles dogmatically laid down, it is not
difficult to conceive that there is something in
the background which will be brought under
operation whenever the proper time arrives.
Now it may be well that Lord PALMERSTON
and all his coadjutors, and also every advocate of
" Germanism," no matter what may be his or her
position, should thoroughly understand the state
of public opinion on this interesting subject. V% e
shall neither tolerate misconduct on the part of
the refugees, nor lend ourselves to unfounded sus-
picions on the part of any other Government. If
there be guilt it can or ought to be proved before the
party is punished. The verdict must be pronounced
in this country by an English jury before an
English judge. We shall never consent to act
without adequate proof. M. LEDRU RoLLIN
claimed such a trial, and was not merely willing,
but anxious to meet the test. But his accusers
were not equally willing. They could prefer
charges—could bolster them up on evidence that
no experienced advocate would think worth an
observation. No such things could influence Eng-
lishmen. We repeat what we have repeatedly
put forward, the English law is quite sufficient
to meet any case of criminality that may arise.
Even the parties accused will be satisfied that they
have had a fair trial, and their accusers cannot
complain of any deficiency on the part of the
tribunals. It is their part to prove their case ;
and when that is done our national courts will not
be wanting in the performance of their duty.

Lord PA.LMERSTON is not to have it all his own
way in his India Bill ; nor is the Company itself.
The Company is endeavouring, very skilfully in
Leadenhall-street, but not quite so adroitly at the
London Tavern, to have a word with Parliament
and the people, before either can commit them-
selves to an expression of opinion on the forth-
coming Government proposals. The notable Mr.
CRA.WSHAY, he of foreign policy notoriety, has
been put forward to rant and declaim much in the
style in which he talked so big amongst the coal-
pits about impeaching Lord PALMERSTON ; but
finding his indictment respecting the Russian war
ignored by the nation, he hopes he has now got a
fling at his enemy, and that he may just vex and
harass him a little. It is somewhat singular that
Lord PALMERSTON'S natal year coincides with that,
.4 _IC Maxi-Tu.!' in which
tilted his own India Bill for that of the great Whig
orator and statesman ;—Mr. CRAWSKAY and the
Hon. Directors may have some little faith in
astrology ; greater men than they have had it
pretty strongly ; they may think the present Pre-
mier kora with the birth of a Board of Control,
and of a scheme designed to give perpetual
osistence to the Honourable East India Company ;
and they may imagine that the stars will forbid
Lord PALMHB,STON at last to overthrow PITT'S
ingenious device.

Things, however, are in a very different pcsitiou
to what they were in the good old days, when
GEORGE 111. was King. There is no Lord
THURLOW irritated by exclusion from the Cabinet,
having back-stairs access to the SOVEREIGN, and
imposing upon a narrow-minded and thoroughly
arbitrary ruler the belief that Ministers wanted
to master the Throne—that they intended so
to strengthen themselves by the new patronage,
as that they, not he, would reign—and the fore-
most of those Ministers, too, a man whom he
hated with the relentless animosity which the
Opposition knew full well how to use. Lord
PALMERSTON, though not so acceptable as a MEL-
SOURNE or a RUSSELL, has yet, considering his
previous misdemeanours, done very dutifully
the behests of Germany, and he must, we should
think, be on very comfortable terms with his
SOVEREIGN just now. The Royal marriage, and the
splendid marriage portion alone, must have done
much for him. The East India Company,
besides, is not so great a corporate personage as
it was seventy-three years ago. It has been
clipped and trimmed so many times that, in
1853 it had to fight hard to retain a name
and status at all. It has become an object
almost of eontempt, perhaps unjustly so; be that
as it may, it is looked upon, at least the Directors
are, as lucky men for getting hold of 5001. or
1,0001. a year for doing next to nothing, and for
possessing the privilege of a large patronage.
Even the latter is, however, now much curtailed
by the institutioa of competitive examinations.
The three great dangers for Mr. Fox, an arbitrary
Monarch, an intriguing Court slanderer, and a
Company in the plenitude of all its power, are all
wanting in PALMERSTON'S case.
What we suspect to be almost as little to Lord
PALMERSTON'S taste as to that of the Company, is
the spread of the opicion embodied in the amend-
ment carried by such an overwhelming majority
at the London Tavern last Tuesday. If the
Company were unlucky in seeing their noisy
advocate, CRAWSIIIY, so completely beaten, Lord
PALMERSTON will wish his India Bill further if the
people everywhere combine Reform for England
with Reform for India. Here is the popular
amendment on Mr. LEWIN'S motion that the cure
for India's ills was to increase the powers of the
in the opinion of thaendm
Esst India Company itsee iretiDngitctiosrs :de
—sira"bTlehtaot
obtain a responsible form of administration for
India, instead of the present double government ;
and also such a reform of the representative system
as will ensure an effectual Parliamentary
control over the Indian authority." Our friends
cf the daily and weekly press, whose creed is
PAL3IERSTON and PALMERSTON only, will find it
not very ea,sy;to pooh, pooh, the latter half of this
resolution. They feel there is something in it.
It is best perhaps at present to let it alone, to
bind Mr. CRAWSIIAY over to provoke no more
Popular contests, and to refrain from arguing
against what only is far the better for his attacks.
Opposition there will most certainly be, but

possibly like Fox, Lord PALMERSTON may carry
his Bill -through the Commons by about the same
large majorities--a hundred or more-.-which the
great ora tor also commanded. The Lords and
the people will be his trouble, though in very
different woys. His recent appointments seem
intended to conciliate the aristocracy—to show
them that su.^•h antecedents as morals or capacity
have nothing It-.o do with appointments for India,
whether military or political, in the case of the
order ; they ought to see, on the eve of this India
Bill, that, if they pass it, the electric telegraph
will frequently carry through the ocean-depths the
all-important messy 'e, " Take care of Dowß."
The Lords are told by what speak proverbially
"louder than words, " that the government of
India by the Crown direct, means, its govern-
ment by the Ministry direct ; that the Ministry
means the aristocracy ; and that the fat places of
the Indian Administration, civil and military,
will be the reward of the hereditarily great.

The country, however, fear just this question
of patronage. There maybe, And there are, other
important considerations, and: difficult ones too ;
but the bugbear in Fox's day is the bugbear still.
It is made also a little more frightful by the
representation that not only are the aristocracy
to gain, but that the middle classes are to lose in
proportion. Much cannot be said for a system
which hitherto has placed the Indian patronage
in the hands of men as thorough nepotists in
their way as the aristocracy would be ; but a
goad deal may be said against a system which
can hazard Crimean mismanagement by wholesale
in India; aid which, by placing incompetency in the
highest, because the best paid posts, can jeopardise
the lives and the property of thousands. Much,
too, may be justly said against;enabling a Minis-
ter to purchase electoral support by offering
Indian appointments to the sons of active men in
the smaller boroughs.
We think, therefore, it may be laid down as
an axiom, that the transfer of Indian patronage
to the Crown ought to be accompanied by an
equal transfer of effective power to the people.
Representative Reform is the only safe condition
of increasing Government patronage. If the India
House check is to be withdrawn, the popular
check must be made more efficient. If the power
of the Government is increased, that of the people
ought to be increased too. Lord PALMERSTON
probably never thought of the connection between
the abolition of the East India Company and vote
by ballot, triennial Parliaments, and enlarged con-
stituencies. They have, however, the closest
connection, and we trust it will be fully appre-
ciated ere long. Indeed, we know of no adequate
answer to the objection of increasing the Crown
patronage, but that the power of the people is
capable of equal extension. A thorough Reform
measure would trim the balance even, and would
do much to prevent the reign of favouritism and
incompetency in India.

LATEST NEWS.