The Sun.
London, England, 1868-09-29 00:00:00

SPIRIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Times is glad to find Lord Napier confirming the
statement of Mr. Blandford that the Gobazye and Kauai
are on friendly terms, and will unite to keep in order the
restless, turbulent tribe of petty princes with which Abys-
sinia is cursed. There is no reason now why the country
should not enjoy more repose and security than it has
enjoyed since Theodore first raised himself to undisputed
supremacy. The Times had feared that when the
British force left Abyssinia these two chiefs would
fly at each other's throats, and every small chief
seize the opportunity for plunder and oppression.
We cannot, indeed, agree with some of our French critics
that England could have been held responsible for this
undesirable state of affairs, or that, having gone into the
country against our will, we ought also to have remained
there against our will. Indeed, the views of these gentle.
men were of a kind calculated rather to create amuse-
ment than to command respect. When the Expedition
was at length reluctantly resolved on, they indig-
nantly and clamorously maintained that, on the
paltry, transparent pretext of releasing half a dozen
obscure citizens, " perfidious Albion " was about to seize
Abyssinia in the jealous hope of counteracting French
influence in Egypt. Yet when " perfidious Albion,"
having the tempting prize actually in her grasp, resolved
to forego it, these very critics asserted no less vehemently
that to leave Abyssinia a prey to intestine wars and
anarchy would he an act of cruel, cold-blooded selfishness,
disgraceful to a civilised nation. Although we cannot agree
with our French friends that England would have been
responsible for anarchy, yet we rejoice to find the coun-
try has not suffered. The favourable state of affairs is
mainly due to Lord Napier's diplomacy. The Times then
refers to the state of affairs in India, and thinks it a sub-
ject for congratulation that his lordship is going out there.
Although the disturbances on the Huzara frontier may be
magnified into unnecessary dimensions by the military autho-
rities, yetthere are certain signs in the Indian horizon which
may possibly indicate the slowly-coming storm ; and, if so,
it will be no slight satisfaction to us at home to feel that
we have on the spot a pilot of Lord Napier's experience
and skill, more especially if by that time he has secured
the advancement to which his services and worth so fully
entitle him, and to which the country would gladly
call him.

In referring to the boasting of Sir Stafford Northcote on
the administrative ability of the present Government, the
Post compares the different members to those who would
probably succeed them in a Liberal Ministry. It would '
be a public gain were Sir Stafford himself replaced by the
Duke of Argyll. We may safely leave our readers to
judge for themselves between the present Prime Minister
and him whom the public voice designates for his successor.
If the two were to be judged on their past characters of
Chancellors of the Exchequer, Mr. Disraeli, who never
paid serious attention to financial duties, but left them
to be performed by the Financial Secretary of the
Treasury, would not stand a moment's comparison with
the brilliant and laborious financier who was the master-
mind of economy and made revenue grow as if under the
enchantment of a wizard's wand. The present Chancellor
of the Exchequer is a. diligent, acute, and thoroughly
honest public servant. His party could not supply a better;;
but it will not be said, when a change of Government
may happen, that Mr. Childers would be an inferior
successor of Mr. Ward Hunt. Lord Clarendon or Lord
'Kimberley could worthily take Lord Stanley's place, and
Lord De Grey follow the Duke of Abercorn. Lord Hart-
ington and Mr. Cardwell have no reason to fear com-
parison with Sir John Pakington and the Duke of
Buckingham ; and the appointment of Mr. C. Fortescue
to the Secretaryship of Ireland would be a decided advan-
tage. We will not further pursue minute comparison ;
suffice it to add that in Mr. Lowe, Mr. Goschen, Mr. VT. E.
Forster, and Mr. Stansfeld, the Liberal party possess
others of administrative capacity which will not be doubted.
The preceding remarks will chew, we trust, that we do
not judge harshly or uncharitably the members of the
present Administration. We are entitled to speak freely
of its weak points. The Duke of Richmond is, as every-
one knows, what is called in the counties a good man of
business, and a thoroughly amiable and respectable man
in addition. He was fitted for the post of nominal Prime
Minister, which modesty or devotion to Mr. Disraeli is
understood to have led him to decline ; but he is not the
right man in the right place at the head of the Board of
Trade. It must be frankly said that no change from the
present Vice-President of the Council could be for the worse.
We have reserved to the last the leader of the House of
Lords. It is, to say the least, incomprehensible how Mr.
Disraeli could have assigned that high function to Lord
Malmesbury, after eagerly—indeed, uncourteously—dis-
pensing with the services of Lord Chelmsford, on the plea
of strengthening the debating power of the Government in
the House of Lords. It will indeed be national matter of
congratulation when the leader of the Government in the
Upper House is again the highly-cultivated and able Lord
Granville.

The Herald says: Not the least remarkable feature in
the Rachel-Borrodaile inquiry is the extraordinary way in
which it has affected the journalistic mind. The trial
lasted till too late on Friday night to suit such weekly
journals as are obliged to go to press early, and hence on
the day when the end of the investigation was made
public, the Saturday Review came out with an article in
which acquittal was assumed as certain, by an ingenious
theoriser who had probably finished his lucubration some
time before the facts he was criticising had secured a convic-
'Con. Apropos of Madame Rachel, however, the Times has
ventilated ideas more remarkable even than those of the
Saturday Reviewer. Does our contemporary mean to tell
us that Madame Rachel, or any one in her position, is
legally " compelled" to produce evidence ? And would
not the policy of allowing a prisoner to produce just such
evidence "as might suit his case" be at least doubtful ?
Above all, how does it become "perfectly clear"
that be should not be compelled to produce any
evidence at all, unless he can give " what may
suit his case?" Even if we construe this to mean
such evidence as he himself can give, why should he
be relieved from the necessity of proving important facts
by the testimony of disinterested witnesses, who would
speak with far greater weight than himself ? Take a charge
of murder. A prisoner in the dock might swear to an alibi
with the utmost solemnity, and by continental practice
might be cross-examined upon it in a way which might
either sustain or destroy it. But he would assuredly be
very ill-advised if he petulantly refused to produce wit-
nesses who could establish it unless he were at liberty to
give evidence on his own behalf, and he would be entitled
to very little sympathy if, being innocent, he were con-
demned in consequence. The Herald is satisfied with the
-verdict.

The Daily News draws attention to a pamphlet in which
" A Democratic Tory" has lately been justifying Mr.
Disraeli's claims to the confidence of his party and of
the nation. There is much in the pamphlet
" Benjamin Disraeli : the Past and the Future "
which deserves careful consideration. In its pages, as
in a divining crystal, the average steady-going Conser-
vative may see to what manner of shore the currents of
the political ocean are steadily bearing him on. "A
Democratic Tory's" estimate of his hero interests us not
so much for its intrinsic truth though it is not
without ita share even of this quality —as for
the light it sheds on the character of those
whose conception of the heroic is here formulated.
We see what the new shool of Conservatives worship,
and we may be sure that their whole moral being will take
its tinge from the object of their veneration. The cardinal
doctrine of this new religion is, that there is no such thing
as principle in politics. The politician and the moralist
occupy entirely different grounds. Mr. Disraeli is com-
mended as possessing the capacity of governing. The
" Democratic Tory" deprecates too much zeal on the part
of Mr. Disraeli's followers, and commends him for his neu•
trality and impartiality.

The Telegraph thinks that if the two volumes of Mr.
Bright's speeches, edited by Mr. Thorold Rogers, which
were published the 'other day, had been issued half a
dozen years ago, they would have been greeted with a
shout of indignation throughout the length and
breadth of patrician England. After the manner
of that model English gentleman who was horri.
fled by some of Brougham's Whig sedition in I
the Edinburgh Review, any fine old. Tory would I
have kicked the two thick packets of Radical
poison down stairs, with the heartiest of Constitutional
imprecations and the full vigour of a squirearchical toe.
For at that time, to such people, Mr. Bright was the
most dangerous man in England. He was a " peace
.man, and as such he imperilled "the balance of power.'
Ile was a Radical, and therefore an enemy of
public
order. He was a friend of household suffrage, and
'therefore of anarchy. Well, the honourable gentle.
man still professes the same creed. Where he was
twenty years ago he is still. It is the squires that
have been coming up to the dreadful incendiary,
and at last they are treading on his heels. Speedily,
perhaps, they will have to complain that he is block•
ing the way, and must beg that he will move on.
Or—stranger things have happened in the recent career of
the great Tory party—they may invite him to lead the
country gentlemen of England, as a mark of their confi.
'deuce in that load of strong Conservatism which lire
always steadied the progress of the great Revolutionist.
Then, with Mr. Bright as the leader of the Tories, and
with Mr. Disraeli as the leader of the extreme Radicals,
the irony of the situation will be complete. Our cont em•
porary then proceeds to compare Mr. Bright's style of
oratory with that of our historical orators, and the result
is in favour of the modern orator. Tories, when they read
his speeches, will be astonished to find, 11917 they agree
.
•
ith
lid - •