The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-11 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1858.

The Palmerstonians have " screwed their cou-
rage to the sticking place," and not the less
readily, because they are enabled to fight under
false colours and to discharge their envenomed
shafts from behind what ought to be a neutral
shield. Mr. CARDWELL has consented to become
the tool of the party, ready to do their dirty work,
and doubtless for a suitable con-si-de-ra-tion in
future, should he succeed in replacing the quon -
dam " First Lord of the Jokery" for the Earl of
DERRY 1 But although the Sabbath-day conspi-
rators have obtained such an ally, it does not by
any means follow that they can ensnare the really
Liberal members of the House of Commons, or
induce them to stray into the palpable trap. It
is true that the terms of the motion are cunningly
framed to catch doubtful votes ; that it cau-
tiously abstains from expressing any opinion upon
the policy of any proclamation which may have
been issued by the Governor-General in relation
to Oude. But nevertheless it is to all intents and
purposes a deliberate vote of censure intended
to lead to a Ministerial Crisis. There are few
professing Liberals, no disinterested or unpre-
judiced persons, who can be deluded by the flimsy
mask under which the real object is attempted to
be screened, not concealed. The intent is obvious.
Indeed, the indecent exultation of the organs of
Lord PALMERSTON in the Press renders the motive
too painfully notorious to admit of doubt or
difficulty.
But will the Government suffer themselves to
be thus bamboozled, even in the event of a
hostile vote. We do not believe that the reso-
lution can be carried. On the contrary, it ought,
and we believe will, be rejected by a very decided
majority. But it is right to be prepared on
every point, and to determine beforehand the

°p 18 to be adopted in the event of an untoward
result. There is nothing in the resolution ap-
_ Proving of the confiscation of the entire soil of
Oude, or of ustl •
ng the onus on innocent persons,
of proving
a negative before they can be permitted
to retain the estates that haci
for a series of ages
been in the possession of their ancestors.
every man
stors. It is a
thatuilt has been
wise principle of the British law,
must be deemed innocent until his g
established by unexceptionable evidence.
But
Lord CANNING has reversed the rule. He treats
every man as if he was guilty, leaving it for him
to establish his innocence to the satisfaction of
military commissioners—men who, though they
might not willingly do wrong, are still not well
qualified to weigh conflicting evidence, and might
possibly be actuated by a technical sense of guilt,
such as our own police and detectives feel.
W. have said that the real question at issue is

Lord CANNING's policy. If the House disapproves I
of that policy it cannot support the resolution.
The Government could not permit such a course
to be taken without suggesting a change, or at
least hinting that every consideration should be
shown to the parties before turning them on the
"wide, wide world,." Had they adopted the pro-
clamation, it would have indeed produced most
prejudicial effects, and encouraged to further
resistance not merely those who are still in arms
against us, but many who have hitherto remained
neutral, but who may be driven to despair
by the notion that they are to be deprived
of all their possessions, and subjected to all the
privations and sufferings of the most biting
poverty.
The affirmation of Mr. CARDWELL'S (I) motion
would be attended with very untoward results so
far as India is concerned, but it would not lead
to a change of Ministry until the several constitu-
encies had the opportunity of recording their
suffrages, and indicating their opinions on the
factious vote against the Government, which has,
in truth and fact, been the most liberal the nation
has known for a series of years.

The constitution of a new party in the House
of Commons has not only surprised, but created
consternation in the old leaders of the family
cliques. Lord PALMERSTON cannot yet under-
stand why the malcontents should not still be at
his beck and call, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL thinks
that his mull on the Oaths Bill ought to make
them his very obedient humble servants. BLit
they are made of flesh and blood, and it would
be impossible that they should not feel the ill-
treatment they have personally endured,and the in-
solent negligence displayed towards measures which
they had deeply at heart. So far as they were con-
cerned it signified little whether Lord PALMER-
STON or Lord DERBY was at the head of the
Cabinet, or whether Sir G. C. Limns or Mr.
Disrt.AELl propounded the financial scheme. They
would not accept office were it offered them, nor
would they get it if willing to take it. There
were too many who had friends willing to be
provided for, and anything from a governor-
generalship or a copying clerkship had a gaping
expectant watching for the windfall. The
appointment of Mr. WILLIAM COWPER'S brother-
in-law to the Treasurership of the Kent County
Courts, opened their eyes. It was to Lord PAL-
MERiTON what the Spanish marriages were to
Louis PHILIPPE. It proved the thorough an d
unmitigated selfishness, or rather " nepotism" of
the Minister, and paved the way for his irrevo-
cable downfall.

The establishment of a fourth party in the
House of Commons, with whipper-in, and
all the adjuncts of a party, is a great
fact that must exercise a material influence
ou the future Government of the country.
Hitherto we had Derbyites, Russellites, and Pal.
merstonians—the former being about as numerous
as the two others combined. But there were
from 150 to 200 Liberals who could turn the
scale on any question, if duly organised and
prepared to act together. But there was a
want of discipline. Like HARRY Gow, each
man fought for his own hand or his own peculiar
hobby, and his fellow was rather pleased to see,:
him snubbed, in place of resenting the insult to
the most numerous section—next to the Derbyites
—of the representatives.
These Right Honourable and Honourable
Gentlemen will no longer give the tacit or implied
assent of the veteran Viscount, that he is their
recognised and chosen leader. Nor will they adopt
the "Small JOHNNY" who so frequently " upset
the coach." They will act in accordance with their
own judgments, looking to "measures rather
than men," and striving to obtain that
which is best for the community at large.
Mr. FOSTER will henceforward be an im-
portant personage in the lobby, and it requires no
extraordinary power of vaticination to predict
which of the Liberals will take the question of
the spoliation of Oude and the confiscation of the
properties of its inhabitants.

The House of Commons is very reasonable.
Last night it actually nominated a committee to
draw up reasons to be sent to the House of Lords
—reasons for disagreeing with their amendments
to the Oaths Bill. It is very polite of the Lower
House ; very constitutional no doubt, or Lord J.
RUSSELL would not be the mover in the business.
Bat, for what earthly purpose except civility, any
person could propose to send reasons to those who
have resisted all reason on this subject for this five-
and-twenty years we are at a loss to conceive. The
reasons on the merits of the question are no bet-
ter now than they have always been ; there is
but one other reason; that has, indeed, been
growing in strength with each session, and
with each of the thirteen Bills sent up to their
Lordships,—th© inconsistency, namely, with
all reason, of the Lords resisting, year after year,
the voice of the nation, and the votes of the
Commons. This argument was of course stronger
when this bill went up than it ever was before.
The Lords, however, indicated their opinion of its
strength, not by yielding, but by mustering a
larger majority against the poor Jews, the Com-
mons, and the country, than ever.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL cannot, we imagine, be
very sanguine of success. He asserts, with some
appearance of truth, that we have now a Govern-
ment hostile to religious liberty. The Lords in
office, whom this question chiefly concerns, are so
with, he says, one exception ; but in the Com-
mons the exceptions the other way are notorious
and influential. Neither Lord JOHN RUSSELL nor
Lord PALMERSTON ever made the Jewish Disa-
bilities a government question; and in the govern-
ment of the latter the defection of a noble lord, a
member of the Cabinet, seems to have embol.
dened the then half yielding Peers to throw out
the bill. At most, the difference between the
Government of Lord DERBY and the Go-
vernment of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, is that
the former opposes religious liberty in this ease,
and that the latter would risk nothing for it.
On all questions of religious liberty which are
agitated at the present day—Church Rates, for
ffi,„
instance—Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in o, would
concede no more than Lord DERBY. Indeed, we
know, from his own lips, that the Constitution,
the Lords, the Crown, and the Church itself, are
all bound up with the continuance of Church
Rates
TR
BELTHozrdLLJ.
RRICHARDRo
handed
seating over toßon
Sirar
theu Bsbusiness
of
but which is to secure that object without bring-
CHILD by some, process, not exactly described,
ing the Commons again into collision with the
Law Courts. Sir RICHARD assured the House
that the course he should recommend would
not require the House to overrule by
the strong hand, and to set aside the
authority of the ordinary Courts of Law. If so, it
is a pity we did not know of it before. To UP,
however, the sight of the House of Lords setting
aside the authority of the House of Commons is
quite as revolting as that of the Commons over-
powering the Courts of Law. Law is such a per-
verse thing that in many of its decisions it may
be anything but the judgment of the whole coun-