The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-16 00:00:00

RIGEL WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

I's DAY—Morn., 13 min. aft. 3—Even., 32 min. aft. 3
To-Iluattow —Morn., 5; min. aft. 3—Even., 13 min aft 4

who saved the Derbyite Government, But for

his unexpected appearance they would have been
past praying fvr. If we are to believe the asser-
tion of the Post, that the Government depends
" not upon the favourable opinion of the public
out of doors—not upon the possession of a ma-
jority within the walls of Parliament—but upon
the success of a very clever and artful trick,
which Lord JOHN Russm, in concert with the
small section of extreme Radicals, has had the
ingenuity to devise and the temerity to
attempt to play." We can understand the
extent of the fury that has betrayed these journals
into such indecent and ridiculous demonstrations.
It was intended that the Indian question should
be made the pretext for a factious vote, and that
all parties calling themselves Liberals, without
reference to the interests either of Great Britain
or Hindostan shoull combine, in order to deprive
Lord DERBY of once, in order to place Lord
PALMERSTON therein. Now, we may ask, what
proof is there respecting the state of public feeling,
either amongst the community at large, or the in-
dependent members of the Legislature? Whatever
may be the opinions of the Post, it may be as-
sumed that Lord RILMERSTON does not command
the undivided allegiance of the Liberal party.
Nor are they by any means disposed to obey the
orders of the quonlarn Tory Minister—the col-
league of SIDMOUTX, PERCIVAL, LIVERPOOL, and
CASTLEREAGH ! ! 1 As we recently explained, there
are many sections of the Liberal party. Lord
JOHN RUSSELL is the recognised leader of the
pure Whigs, and he would perhaps command as
large a following as Lord PALMERSTON himself,
more especially were he disposed to tender a large
and comprehensive measure of Parliamentary
Reform for general acceptance. The Radicals aro
ranged under the respective banners of Messrs.
ROEBUCK and BRIGHT, and most unquestionably
the member for Birmingham would prefer Lord
DERBY to Lord PALMERSTON. Indeed he has
openly avowed the fact, and spoken of the latter
as the " worst possible Minister for the country."
Nor is Mr. ROEBUCK that thick and thin adherent
who would per fas aut nefas vote for Lord PAL-
MERSTON whether right or wrong or attempt to
e lablish a political dictatorship perhaps :
where, then, wo repeat, is the majority ?
The Derby ites outnumber the Palmerston-
ians two to one. And if the Premiership
rested between these two noblemen we venture to
assert that the present Premier would receive the
larger number of votes in the House, and a still
greater proportion of the electors of the United
Kingdom.

The Post expresses its surprise that "a man
like Lord JOHN RU6SELL, who is par excellence a
Constitutional Statesman, and a Constitutional
writer, proposes a course of proceeding which
would, in express terms, deposit the entire govern-
ment of the country in the House of Commons !"
Why, it is because be is a Constitutional Statesman
that ho has acknowledged that " the people is the
only legitimate source of power." Why should
not the proposer of the modern Magna Chariot—
the Reform Bill—recognise the democratic ele-
ment ? Why should he connive at the various en-
croachments that have recently been made against
its legitimate authority, or reduce its power
to a mere veto, without allowing it to initiate
anything unsanctioned by the Crown or its
advisers ? The blatant bellowings of the Post
only prove that the shaft has struck home—that
the " galled beast winces" under the unexpected
blow.

Lord JOHN' has produced in 1858 a ROLAND fur
the OLIVER. of 18 52. If L'rd PA LM EASTON
caused the overthrow of his Administration in the
former year, he has prevented, or retarded the
accession to office of his rival six years later. It
is a fair quid pro quo, and every unprejudiced
and disinterested person will acknowledge the
poetical justice of the retaliation.

But were the Government so antirelj dependent
on this intervention—WAS Lord JOHN RUSSELL,
indeed, their protector and guardian ? We be-
lieve not. We are satisfied that the Government
of India Bill, incomparably superior as it is to
that previously- before the house, would, with
some slight variation in the details, which could
not at all affect the stability of the Cabinet, have
been carried by a decisive majority. If Mr.
DISRAELI promptly aceedel to the recouainenclation
of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, it was because he recog-
nised its propriety—because he would have acted
in that very manner but for the course previously
adopted by his predecessor, and his knowledge of
the character of the opposition, to which he
[night be subjected. He did not wish to
ignore the popular supremacy, or to deprive
the majority of the chosen representatives of the
weight to which they are fairly entitled. He
does not seek to establish a virtual despotism, or
to insist on the initiative, in every instance, being
vested in her MAJEsiy's Ministers. But while
he gives them fitting weight in both Houses, he
will maintain the dignity of his office unimpaired,
and be no more a Minister on sufferance than any
of his predecessors for the last twelve years.

On the 3d December, 185 i, her MAJESTY was
advised by Lord PA LuEnsToN to say to both
Houses of Parliament—" Your attention will be
called to the laws which regulate the representa-
tion of the people in Parliament, with a view to
consider what amendments may be safely and
beneficially made therein." The promise was dis-
tinct and unequivocal—why has it not been
ful-
filled ? There have been two opportunities ; it
might have been done during the short indemnity
session, just as Mr. DISRAELI, in a manly way at
least, laid his India Bill before the House for con-
sideration during the recess. It might have been
done again, and ought to have been, on the very
first day of the re-assembling of Parliament for a
session. Why was it not ? Why was it put off till
after Easter ? Why was a QUEEN'S advised pro-
mise, deliberately made to the kingdom through
its representatives, not fulfilled at Christmas—not
fulfilled before Easter ? and therefore an oppor-
tunity left for a now Ministry to say, " We were
no parties to the promise, and therefore we must
leave her MAJESTY and Lord PALMERSTON to settle
the matter as best they can."
Mr. T. DUNOOMBE, it seems, is naturally a little
jealous for the honour of her MAJESTY and her
ex-Premier. He wishes to give the Noble Lord an
opportunity of showing what the strange business
of a Queen's Christmas promise to be fulfilled after
Easter referred to. He will ask the Noble L )rd
to-night " whether he would have any objection, in
the present position of Parliamentary Reform, to
lay upon the table of the House a copy of the Bill
for the amendment of the laws relating to the re-
presentation, referred to in the speech from the
Throne at the commencement of the present
session ?"

" Whether ho has any objection !" Why, what
objection in the world should he have ? He will
of course, thank the 11)n. Member for Finsbury
for giving him the opportunity ; he will be but too
glad to favour the
House with his own views onßeform. At his advanced age, his experience is
too good to be thrown away. He is a Reform
NESTOR for us. He has seen three generations of
Reform-propounding men,
and now lives with the
fourth. Oh, YES ; he will gladly tell to the youths

of fifty, and the lads below that age, what three- legal or even morally equitable " finding " is
score years and-fOurteen can teach them on Reform. also quite-satisfactory ; and it appears incontro-
" Any objection ?" Certainly not. What he , vertible that an English gentleman, without any
had promised by the lips of Royalty was worthy court-martial, or any inquiry in which he has had

to be a Royal promise. No German silver—no
electrotype—no plated article. No, but some-
thing altogether genuine—something which the
nation would hail as an obvious improvement in
the method of creating faithful Commons for her
MAJESTY'S and the people's service—something so
precious that it has been carefully locked up in
impenetrable secresy—a treasure too valuable to
be vulgarised by every one's knowledge of it ;
especially not to be irreverently handled by the
Hon. Member for Bucks during the six weeks'
Christmas holidays.
There be, indeed, in these evil times, sceptics
whose faith is limited by sight. They have seen
no Bill, and so they believe there is none ! They
pretend that we had nothing before Christmas
because there was nothing—nothing before Easter
because there was nothing. They deny not only
the existence of reforming intentions, but even of
a paper draft which should pass for them. They
will have it_ that Lord PALMERSTON would have
given us his Reform Bill first of all things if he
had had one ready in his desk. They (sceptic-
like) insinuate that it was intended after Easter,
but for the unlucky French and CLANRICARDE
blunders, to have substituted India for Reform,
and to have renewed the promise for 1859 !
A faithless generation it is, indeed ! Just so,
there were some who at the elections last year
laughed at the idea of "PALMERSTON and Reform"—
laughed over our " joking premier" and reform, as
if Reformers must needs be sour faced monks or
Puritans, and have nothing to do but to chant
litanies. Why can't we reform in fun without
making fun of Reform ? What is there so melan-
choly in shuffling the electoral cards a little ?
However, to-night will, doubtless, put all to rights.
Lord PALMERSTON wilt not, as some predict, be
out of the House when the question should be
put ; nor will he evade it, or joke about it. He
will be most happy to oblige the House, if the
House wishes to see his long-ready Reform Bill,
and loud cheers will almost overcome the feelings
of the veteran Reformer, PALMERSTON.

Lieut. TORCKLER, late of the Bengal army, has
forwarded to us, as he has done to some of our
contemporaries, a pamphlet detailing the wrongs
to which he has been subjected, and urging his
claim for redress on the East India Company,
while it still exists. His statements are, of course,
entirely eas parte, yet they are so completely sus-
tained by documentary evidence, that it is not
easy to disbelieve their substantial, perhaps their
entire, correctness. We think it only fair, there-
fore, as journalists, to advert to his pamphlet, and
ask those to whom he appeals, to explain, or to do
him justice. The Lieutenant's name was wrong-

the opportunity to answer his accusers face to
face, has been deprived of his commission, and
after ten years' service sentenced to 701. a year,
and to the stigma of a sentence of death against
him remaining on the records without the publi-
cation of its being null and void. Unless the
East India Company can publicly justify their
proceedings in the case of Lieut. ToucKLER, they
cannot do an act of more imperative justice than
to restore him to the position he ought to occupy,
and to reimburse him to the extent of his losses.
He appears to have had but one thing against him
—" he had uo interest."

fully, as he has shown, unless his statements be
refuted, erased from the Army List of the East
India Company in 1832, not for any crime, but
on account of certain disputes, which L)rd CO3l-
- who examined into them, declared to
be so trivial that he merely ordered him to join
and do duty with another regiment ; while the
Board of Control declared " that he was the
victim of a gross conspiracy in his regiment, and
more sinned against than sinning," or words to
that effect.
That there was some such conspiracy, seems,
prima facie, almost certain from the proceedings
at a Court-martial held on the Lieutenant in an-
other case. The facts which gave rise to it we

give in his own words :
" Five officers of the regiment (whom I now re-
frainen st p
to
or e
send
nt
toi ruin 1.1
them
n aancdh
challenge
stigma-
se ae
tniesaerlmyea.lllowf
atshe
from naming, the grave having closed over
pmro),vocko
They referred my challenge to the commanding
officer, who openly encouraged their schemes on
account of my having preerred very serious
charges against him for a breach of the regulations
of the service in several instances. My friend was
compelled at his peril to withdraw the challenge.
Being then ordered to join and doduty with •th the
48th Regiment, and feeling that I could not do so
without first clearing myself of the dishonourable
imputations unjustly cast upon my character by
these officers, I put loaded pistols •in my pocket,
and went to the house of the principal (my junior
officer), for the purpose of obtaininit, if possible,
his signature to a paper which I took with inn,
exonerating me from those imputations. That
officer refused to receive or peruse the paper, but
ordered me to leave his house, and called upon his
servants to turn me out, employing the most in-
sulting and opprobrious terms in English and Hin-
dustani. All this did not provoke me to produce
my pistols, or commit any act of violence. I
calmly persisted in demanding his signature to the
paper, and refused to quit the house without it.
He then attempted to shoot me with a pistol,
which, he admitted on the trial, he had kept
primed and loaded several days expecting a hostile
visit from me. He admitted, too, that, up to that
time, I had not touched, assaulted, threatened, or
provoked him by word or gesture beyond refusing
to quit his house without the satisfaction required ;
that I bad not produced my pistols, and that he
did not know that I was armed and able to defend
myself. His pistol missed firs. Some irregular
firing then took place, but there was no blood shed.
He made two more attempts to shoot me, once his
pistol again missed fire, aril once it flashed in the
pan. I fired two shots at random, as the direction
they took proved. It was proved on the trial that '
I was an expert marksman, and yet, at six paces
(only half the usual duelling distance) I did not
kill or even wound the man whom I was falsely
charged with firing at with intent to murder him.
He acknowledged, too, that he know that the only,
lawful mode of protecting himself when he appre-
hended his life to be endangered, was to exhibit
articles of peace against me, but he preferred to
taking the law into his own hands, and was at least
as criminal as I, if not more so. He was not, how-
ever, brought to trial in consequence of my supposed
conviction. He continued in the service and rose
to the rank of Colonel : but although he thus
escaped the hands of human justice, and did not
scruple to perjure himself on the trial in order to
insure my conviction, divine vengeance overtook
him at last. He was murdered by some mutinous
sepoys iu June last, at Begum Gunge, within a
short distance of Sultanpore, in Oude, the very
spot where, eight and twenty years before, he at-
tempted to murd.r me."
The Court-martial on this case is proved by
documentary evidence to have been so infamously
conducted, that its proceedings were declared null
and void ab initio. The Deputy-Judge-Advoca‘o
was his personal enemy ; he took the written and
folded votes of each officer secretly, and declared,
without any ono present knowing hth w e er his
vote was correctly represented or not, that it
was against the prisoner. The same secrecy
was practised in regard to the sentence ; and the
possibility—nay, even the probability of foul play
was so strong, that the h 1
v o e transaction was de-
dared, as we have stated, null and void. Never-