The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-21 00:00:00

and diviner attributes of the true poetic idiosyn

cracy.

It is altogether a most amusing spectacle that of
a Paris newspaper declaring the most constitutional
sovereign this country has ever rejoiced in the pos-
session of, to have acted in a manner (according
to this most competent witness) decidedly uncon-
stitutional. The proceeding objected to thus for-
mally by the Siecle is nothing less than the be-
stowal, by the QUEEN, upon the ex-Premier, of
that most noble Order of the Garter, which is
usually only so accorded when, as at the
present moment, there is no vacancy in its roll of
Knights—upon the princes of the blood royal or
upon a foreign sovereign. Remembering that it
has been so bestowed by the fair hand of VICTORIA
upon the Imperial ruler of FRANCE, it certainly
does appear to us somewhat invidious that a French
journalist should take exception to its bestowal
upon any other whom the QUEEN so pleases to
honour in like manner. "In granting to Lord
DERBY the Order of the Garter, especially when
there is no vacancy, which is contrary to all ordi-
nary usages," quoth the Siecle," Queen VICTORIA has
acted in the plenitude of her power." So far, that
. is an admission. It is, then, in her MAJESTY'S power,
and in that power in its plenitude. "But," asks
the Parisian journalist, "has she acted in conformity
with the spirit and traditions of the English con-
stitution ?" The Sleds is dismayed by the extra-
ordinary character of the proceeding, and eagerly
looks about it for the consolation of a precedent.
Looking about vainly for this consolation, it is con-
strained to add with reluctance, in answer to its
own inquiry, " with all the respect we feel for our
gracious ally, we must say that we do not think
she has so acted in the present instance." This is
surely very deplorable. It is a conclusion delibe-
rately arrived at by the Siecle, such as, doubtless,
must carry dismay to the heart of Sir CHARLES
YOUNG, Garter King-at-Arms, if it do not even
bring disquietude to the boson of his august and
beloved SOVEREIGN.
Glancing seriously, however, for a moment at
the objection thus raised by a Paris journal like
the Steele at an act of grace indulged in by her
Britannic MAJESTY, in regard to one of the fore.
most of her MAJESTY'S own subjects—yesterday,
by right of his supreme position as First Minister
of the Crown, the foremost—it does appear to us
in the highest degree indecorous for any foreign
journalist to pronounce any opinion at all upon the
matter—but still more for that journalist to ven-
ture upon the astounding effrontery of designating
that royal act of grace one in any way unconstitu-
tional in its character. Since the first institution
of this highest order of knighthood in the land,
or, for that matter, it may be said with perfect
accuracy, in all Christendom—since the date of its
original institution in the middle of the fourteenth
century, by King EDWARD 111., the bestowal of its
insignia by the ruler of these realms has been
jealously preserved as one of the most treasured of
the royal prerogatives. The three mystic mottoes
variously emblazoned upon the device of the Garter
during the reign of its regal and knightly founder,
indeed, imply, more or less explicitly, the haughtiest
maintenance of this royal prerogative. That even
is one sufficiently obvious explication of the motto
which has come down to this time as the peculi-
arly characteristic inscription of the Order—a '
motto mysteriously implying that each nomination
to the Order by the Sovereign is to pass unques- 1
tioned.

" Shame to him that thinks evil therein,"
"Iloni soit qui mal y penae."
But there were two other mottoes, as we have said,
emblazoned upon the device of the Garter upon
different occasions during the reign of the great
Founder of the Order, King EDWARD 111. And
each of these two other perfectly authentic,
though now almost forgotten inscriptions, pro-
claims the same truth yet more signally and sig-
nificantly. In one the royal donor seems to speak
—in the other the knightly recipient. In both
the words emblazoned upon the garter haughtily
sweep away the temerity of any comment whatever
upon the fact of the bestowal. One—the words it
would seem coming from the lips of the kingly
donor—running thus inexorably—

" It . is . as . it . is ."
The other more enigmatical, but at the same time,
if possible, more solemnly definitive—coming thus
exultantly from the lips of the chivalrous receiver
of the insignia of the Order— •
" Hay, hay, the wythe swan,
BY GODES SOULE I AM TRY MAN I"
From the first moment of its institiution up to this
present hour—there is no appeal against any no-
mination to the Order of the Garter by the British
SOVEREIGN. Whenever bestowed, however be-
stowed, to whomsoever bestowed—it is within the
scope of the prerogative of the SOVEREIGN.
And looking down the grand array of names
inscribed upon the panels of St. George's
Hall, at Windsor, it is impossible not to recognise
as indisputable the truth that that lofty and
jealously-guarded prerogative has been but rarely,
indeed, abused in its bestowal from the days of
King EDWARD the THIRD down to those of our
present most gracious and most constitutional

SOVEREIGN.
Happily, however, while we would here protest
briefly, but indignantly, against these impertinent
comments of the Siecle, upon the nomination by
her MAJESTY of EDWARD GEOFFREY, Earl of
DERBY, to the high and resplendent honour of
being one of the EXTRA Knights of the most noble
Order of the Garter—we are conscious at the
moment of so doing that there is no echo to this
impertinence of the Siecle (however faint) any-
where discernible throughout the whole wide range
of English journalism. Nobly ,has, Lord DERBY
WOll :the blazonry of that supreme order of knight-
hood, and long may he wear it !

To a small extent we belong, and we confess it,
,o a beaten party. With the Conservatism of the
E m 1;
y'S supporters toe could
have,vast bodyof course, ofn Lordo DRsy
; but, on the other
hand, we did not conceal our good feeling towards
the leading members of the late Ministry. We
felt, indeed, that it was a false position for an
avowedly Conservative Ministry to be the Go-
vernment of a nation of which tie vast majority
jE Liberal in, politics—a vastly larger majority,
indeed, than the House of Commons indicates,
elected, as Mr. BRIGHT observed, by bribery or
influence in small boroughs, by coercion in the
counties, and by freedom of voting in the larger
boroughs only. If the party which governs is to
be of the same sentiments as the party which
commands a small nominal majority in the House,
and a very large one amongst the independent elec-
tors and the non-electors, then, no doubt, we ought
to have a Liberal Ministry. But though for this
reason in a false position, it was a fair one,
and one demanding the fairest treatment. The late
Ministry was not to be jerked into office just to
allow Lord PALMERSTON to turn round once or
twice, after his conviction of subserviency to French
dictators, and kick them out again with an India
Bill or a CARDWELL resolution. Neither the house
nor the country would tolerate this. They took
office because no one else could or would ; and
Radicals, at least, were united almost to a man in
refusin-
g to permit any factious dealing with them. ,

In this feeling we fully shared with the great body
of honest Liberals. We also thought with the few
who, as a matter of Liberal policy, held that we
should yet " realise," as a commercial man would
say, more from a Conservative than from a still
professing Liberal Ministry.
We mentioned our principal reasons for thinking
so, while they might be of some practical service ;
and it is gratifying to see that journals most an-
tagonistic to Lord DERBY and his Cabinet are
now quite ready to do full justice to their Ad-
ministration. It is acknowledged that so different
was the courtesy and urbanity of the Leader of the
House of Commons and his colleagues, from what
members had been accustomed to under the cold
shade of Whig leadership, that he and they have
largely increased their popularity in the House,—
that, indeed, it was quite refreshing, and enabled
members to breathe, as it were, freely after the
treatment to which they had so long been subjected.
Their Reform Bill—or rather their indiscreet per-
sistency in retaining two clauses, or principles,
which even their own followers objected to—was
their only serious blunders, and that they were
willing to correct. But on the most important
point of all at the present moment—the decision
and firmness of their foreign policy—there can be,
now, no doubt. If Austria and the German Con-
federation chose to be blind, they must take the
consequences. Lord MALMESBURY was not the
man who led them into the ditch. Nothing could
be plainer, both in January and in April, from the
incendiary address of the French EMPEROR to
the Austrian Envoy, to the belligerent
ultimatum of Austria, than the language
held by our foreign Minister. He warned
Austria most solemnly that the national feeling of
England would not in any case tolerate interfe-
rence in her behalf; and subsequently he pointed
the crack-brained Germans to the English hustings
all over the country, as proof that if they choose to
fight, they must fight without help from us.
But this leads us to the point on which we desire
to fix the attention of our readers. The testing
point with the new Cabinet must be their Reform
Bill. There is no other business, that we are
aware of, in the conduct of which they can surpass
their predecessors, not in Indian Administration,
not in measures for promoting Religious Liberty,
not in Law Reform, not, as we have seen,
in preserving an unflinching neutrality in re-
gard to foreign affairs ; it was on Reform that the
present Ministry ejected the Derby Government,
notwithstanding its willingness to adopt the
wishes of the country when it was assured what
they were,—and it is therefore on Reform that we
must expect the present Ministry to surpass the
late one. If they do not, the country will certainly
ask for what reason they supplanted those who
would have done as well.
On this subject, then, we shall be disposed to
give them, as well as their predecessors, "a foir
trial." The trial relates to two heads—first, the
time; secondly, the extent. Lord JOHN RUSSELL,
who, of course, allow 4 no one to dispute his autho-
rity on this subject, has insisted that either a bill
should be introduced and carried through Parlia-
ment this session, with signal advantage to the poor
grouse ; or that, which might be better, and we
would not deny it, a special session should be con-
vened in the late autumn to pass a Bill. It is for
Lord JOHN, occupying the position which he does,
to prove that these suggestions were not clap-
trap to catch Radicals on the division. He
eon give them effect--we look to him to
do so. And of the two proposals we will
own that we should prefer, were we legislators, the
cool evenings of November to the sultry heat and
the Thames in early autumn. But there must be
no playing fast and loose with what amounts to
promises from men of premier rank, although in a
nominally second position.
A still graver subject is the extent. There are
two principal heads of reform, in regard to which
the late Ministry, and the Ministers expectant,
were equally silent before the late division; on all
others the old ones stood, when they left office, on
a level with the new. We refer, first, 'to the
disfranchisement of small boroughs, with the con-
sequent reapportionment of seats; secondly, the
Ballot. We confess, and every candid man will con-
fess, the difficulty, with so small a majority, of•
throwing away the votes of the small boroughs
by disfranchising them ; still this, subject must
be dealt with; and it should be so dealt with that
the voice of the nation will aid Ministers in com-
pelling the petty boroughs to submit to equity.
It should not be difficult to do this. If the dis-
franchisement be rigidly impartial, showing no
respect of parties, and if the electors be all pro-
vided with county votes, the nation will demand
that they be content to be merged in larger con-
stituencies, and they themselves will feel that the
demand is too reasonable to be opposed.
The Ballot is a yet more important point. It
concerns every constituency. All must wish to be
free, all ought to be free. The absurd pretexts on
which it has been so long opposed must now be
given up. The solemn homilies, and heavy sermons
and importation of fictions from America, by the
Times, and the Whig protests of the leading lords
who are unwilling to part with the mastery of the
county electors, have all been rejected by the coun-
try. Ths great Liberal constituency is a ballot
constituency. No one pretends to deny it. And
as the Government takes office because it says it
represents the majority, it is bound for the same

reason to do the bidding of the majority on so im-
portant a point. Condderably more than two-thirds
even of the members have voted for the ballot;
what would be, then,, the proportion of electors
who would demand it, if these demands were made
by ballot ? Yet not more, we believe, than two

out of sixteen members of the Cabinet have voted for
the ballot. Two-thirds and more of the Liberal

members, two-fifths of all the members, Liberal and
Conservative, are represented in a Liberal Cabinet
by ONE-EIGHTH of these members. Let Reformers,
then, be awake. Ths two must, by popular sup-
port, be made a match for fourteen.

GREAT GLOBE, LEICESTER-SQUARE.—The follow-
ing, among others, have recently visited this exhibition :
Princess Rorsakor and party, Marquis of Kildare and family,
Lord Alfred Paget and family, Lord Campbell, Lord and
Lady Ashley, Sir George Baker and family, Sir Robert
Hamilton and family, Colonel Dixon and party, Colonel
Willoughby
and party, Countess of Harrington and party, Lady
Willoug_hby d'Eresby, Lady Colehurst, Lady Cochrane and
turn to the
:aniejuen, LoaLdsylENlolwNeDrl,Aan.tl
TLandeyPrice.
party, Lady Tuffnell and party, Lady M'Dougal, Lady
following is a list of the
ofeceersB,agoiutnients, and monthly salaries of all judicial
ilii the East Indies, according to a recent re-
Peacock... °use of Commons, viz.:—ln Bengal, Sir B.
Knt., Puisne i
, Amt., Chief Justice 6,94.5 r. ; Sir C. Jackson,
Octooer, 1852, 16,209 , ;
dge, appointed ,Puisne Judge in Bombay in
25:020009:
.. :
AA
II
ri. . . . ,
wi
Ritchie,am. 1
im. d a r 4 hce Sor i
5r3A31,0.,0v1i0
Advocate-General,
saetltelersziGnKeEnn Knt., Puisne
y 3,,
448 Judge,.
Registrar
m r : i
dand Record
T. H. Cowie,
Mr. Henry dolroyd,
el, 1,233 r.; Mr. F. C. Sando,
and Accountant-General,
Sworn
Administrator-General, paid by
Prothonotary, Clerk of the ' P or.
;
3,000 r. i Mr. C. S. Hogg, AdmaiPnr, Clerk of • the Crown,
K.,ee1,200r. ; Mr. H.
Fort St. George—Sir H. Davison, Knt
r T. Ra
xoibntg. G
Officer'D ow
Chief
1,600 r. At
• ted Chief Justice in Bombayilin Feb.,.•efJustice, ap-
poinlBsB, 5 000 •
Sir A. Bittleston, Knt., Puisne Judge 4,16 r . si , r• ,
Sfemeso;ul3tl,
Smith Advocate-General, 2,157 r.; /hr. j.•it. L. T. S.
Solicitor-General, 1,175 r. ; Mr. C. M. Teed, °YB`.l,
*nistrator. Gen Master in
Equity, 525 r. ; ditto, Admi _ 5 eral, 70 Mr. T.
B. Norton, Clerk of the Crown, 52. r. ; mr. 1,.
Orme, D
puty Clerk of the Crown and Examiner, 175 r. In Bombay
—Sir M. A. Sansse, Kilt/ Chief Justice, appointed Puisne
Judge in 1855, 5,000 r. ; Sir M. Arnould, iint.
, Puisne
Judge, 4,166 r. ; Mr. A. J. Lewis, Advbcate-General,
1,600 r. ; Mr. T. P. Bickersteth, Company's Solicitor
1,200 r. ; Mr. T. L. Jenkins, Master in Equity, 5261. !
ditto, Examiner of Insolvent Debtors' Court, 152 r. ; Mr. C'
M. T. Pollock, Clerk of the Crown, 62.5 r. • Mr. W. Brook-
field, Deputy Clerk of the Crown, 175 r. • Mr. T. H. Stan-
don, Administrator-General, 850 r. All these belong to the
English bar, with the exception of Sir M. R. Sausse, who
belongs to the Irish bar