The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-15 00:00:00

CONTRACT FOR WHEAT.

Department of the Comptroller for Victualling,
Somerset-house, 11th June, 1859.
THE. COMMISSIONERS for EXECUTING the
OFFICE of LORD HIGH ADMIRAL of the UNITED
KINGDOM of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, DO
HEREBY GIVE NOTICE, that on THURSDAY, the
23d instant, at Half- east One o'clock, they will be ready
to treat with such Persons as may be willing to CONTRACT
for supplying and delivering into her Majesty's Victualling
Stores at Deptford,
WHEAT
When to be delivered—Half in a fortnight, and the
remainder in a fortnight afterwards, or earlier if preferred
by the party tendering.
Tenders may be made for the whole or any portion of the
wheat.

Their Lordships reserve to themselves the power, when
the tenders are opened, of contracting either for the whole,
or for such part thereof only as they may deem fit, or for a
greater quantity, or of not contracting for any, and also an
unlimited power of selection.
A proportional part of the price per bushel of wheat will be
paid for any weight exceeding 80 lbs per bushel.
Samples (not less than two quarts), must be produced by
the parties tendering.
The samples produced by persons whose tenders are not ac-
cepted, are requested to be taken away by them immediately
after the Contract has been decided. _ . . _

No tender will be received unless made on the printed form
provided for the purpose, and which may be obtained on ap-
plication at the said office.
Particular attention is called to the recent modifications of
the conditions of contract, which may be seen at the said office.
No tender will be received after Half-past One o'clock on

the day of treaty, and It will not be reqUired that the party
tendering, or an agent on his behalf, should attend at the
Office on the day of Contract, as the result of the offer received
from each person will be communicated to him and his pro-
posed sureties in writing.
Every tender must be addressed to the Secretary of the
Admiralty, and bear in the left-hand corner the words " Ten-
der for Wheat," and must also be delivered at Somerset-
house.

LORD MAL3LESBU.RI7 AND AUSTRIA.

(From the Times.)

We recognise to its fullest extent the force of the
verdict which has just been pronounced by the
Lower House of the Legislature. Beyond all doubt,
any such decision is sufficient to overturn any Go-
vernment, to substitute one set of Ministers for
another, to banish one political party from power,
and to set up another in its place ; but it does not
deprive the Queen of her legitimate prerogative.
According to the Constitution of England the Queen
has as much right to confer titles and dignities of
honour upon whom she may choose as the House of
Commons has a right to say that this or that poli-
tical party must be removed from office because
they have ceased to enjoy the confidence, or rather
have been unable to obtain the confidence, of the
representatives of the people. The Sovereign may
exercise her prerogative unwisely, but that is quite
another question, subject to fair argument, and to
the reasonable 'comments which any public act per-
formed by the Queen may naturally call forth. Now,
it seems that at the present time, just as the Derby
Ministry are about to vacate their offices, it has been
resolved that the Garter shall be bestcwed upon
Lord Derby himself, and that the honour of
G.C.B. shall be conferred upon Lord Malmesbury
and Sir John Pakington. This decision has given
rise to a certain amount of discontent among the
more intense Liberals, but we really think this
discontent unfounded. The courtesies of political
life and the exigencies of the public service are
quite in accordance upon this point. A public
career must have its prizes, or the nation will be
.the worse served ; and these prizes must not be
confined to the barren tenure of office for a few
years or months, if we would secure the services of
our highest nobles and most opulent gentlemen.
To such persons the not very generous stipend
which we assign to our ministers of State can con-
stitute no inducement for taking upon themselves
the cares and anxieties of the great Parliamentary
struggle. We cannot turn them all into Peers at
the termination of their tenure of office, for many-
of them are t'eers already, and to others the dis-
tinction of the Peerage may be too great a reward.
Is it not a fortunate thing, then, that it should be
in the power of the Sovereign to confer upon them
certain honorary distinctions on which they set a
great value, but which can have no influence upon
the course f subsequent political events, and which
cost the nation not one shilling ? If there are any
persons who believe that to the country it would
be a matter of indifference that the richest and most
influential persons in private life should keep aloof
from a. public career because it could hold forth no
glittering inducements in aid of their patriotism,
from that opinion we would very respectfully dis-
sent. The history of pre-revolutionary France and
the actual history of the United States may furnish
us with illustrations of the dangers which arise
from keeping in political obscurity those men who
in 'the absence of Heaven-born statesmen are the
natural leaders of a country. England must break
with'all her traditions before we can arrive at such
a conclusion as this.

Why, then, should not the Sovereign confer the
honour of the Garter upon the Earl of Derby ?
Certainly, it, is no business of ours to compose the
eulogy, or rather to write the honorary epitaph,
of a Minister whose public acts we have felt it
our duty so earnestly to oppose upon many occa-
sions. It is not, however, to be denied that Lord
Derby is the leader of one of the great political
parties of the country. More than once, and during
very momentous times, he has been the chief
director of our public affairs. Even now and for
some sixteen months he has been—we speak of
subjects—the principal person in the State. With
reference to the point of which we are speaking
we do not care to criticise his acts. It is sufficient
to state that he enjoyed the confidence of his
Sovereign, that he commanded a majority in the
House of Lords, and that if he has at last been
ousted from power by a majority of the House
e
of Commons, that majority has been a narrow
:SuorfelyEnsgulea.hnd,ais accordingmeannt,itledtoany m to the
re
one Surely
distinction t i n
conferction wn
phoi h
iimt m airn
ul esatisoee hi
to
honoraryyn
Lord Derby
it mustst
Hibs i
e he said
lintehaagto
andhe hashis
not been grasping.should princely
be
fortunerem e
remembered have
ed that, removed
if from the appetencies of vulgar ambition) but it
detract somewhat from his disinterestedness, they
also constitute express claims in themselves for
these considerations him indeed,
According to custom, this honour is conferred
members of our own Royal Family,
uponsuch
thean honorary distinction as the Garter.
Sovereigns, and upon the high nobles
of the land. No matter what the acts of a warrior
upon foreign
or the counsels of a statesman may have been,
unless he had inherited or had won his way to a
ihnigvehstrahnikmiwn
itthhethe Peesryamghe,olist
ohfatshinsodtibgntyeeinrual to
Will
iasn
greatny
obto df
aoybn
ivnl eidtnytsuch
s to say that in Lord Derby there
entitlestho G ar
their m? to
nbae
dp
enrolledlahaney ebde unioneinnaa
themo fo nhgpi
the
l pc sc it ion
serviceog nh t sa nae dsf
greater and more pru-
, dent statesman he might have remained Premier of

England ; bat surely he has done enough to earn
this distinction if he desires to possess it. The fact
that Lord Derby is now a Knight of the Garter
can have no effect upon the public servi
He has received his reward—the very reward which
he had selected for himself. No man can know
better than Lord Derby the value of the services
which he has rendered to the State. He was a great
ornament to the House of Commons ; he is a great
ornament to the House of Lords. The reward which
he has coveted and which he has obtained is—an
ornament. Can anything more be said?
As to the distinctions about to be conferred upon
Lord Malmesbury and Sir John Pakington the
case is not quite so clear: Thus much, however,
is certain—that the honour about to be bestowed
upon them has lost much of its claim upon public
respect since the abuse of it at the conclusion of the
Crimean war. Lord Malmesbury may have been
the dupe of French Diplomacy; Sir John Pakington
may never have soared above the regions of corn-

moiiplace ; but surely they are as meritorious public
servants as the Chelsea warriors who were honoured
with the distinction of the Bath! It will surprise
many that Sir John Pakington, occupying as he
does the respectable position of an English country
gentleman, should have desired so unsuitable a
mark of his Sovereign's favour. But, after all, he
knows best. If
_he is willing to confront the little
ridicule of the matter, why should we be wiser for
him than he is for himself ? The transactions at
Dover are so fresh in the public recollection that
Sir John Pakington must make up his mind to wear
his blushing riband with corresponding embarrass-
ment in his ingenuous countenance. After a time
the riband will remain and Dover be forgotten, and

then it will be well with the new Lord
14Ialmesbury can scarcely be said to have obtained
any social advancement—political advancement is,
of course, out of the question—by his acceptance of
this somewhat questionable distinction. Yet why
should we grudge it him ? If he has done nothing
great, he has obtained nothing great. Some of the
arguments which applied in Lord Derby's case will
apply also in the case of Lord Malmesbury,
although, of course, in a far lesser degree. If the
Queen is pleased to bestow such a mark of distinc-
tion upon a nobleman who has served the State
somehow or other for sixteen months, why make a
fuss about such a trifle ?