The Sun.
London, England, 1868-12-22 00:00:00

MR. LAYARD'S RETURN.

Mr. Layard was also returned without opposition for
Southwark. In thanking the electors he contended that the
present Ministry was the most democratic, and the House
of Commons of the present day the most democratic, and was
proud to acknowledge that years ago he had advocated
the claims of Mr. Bright to office, and now he was only
too happy to see that the right hon. gentleman was a mem-
ber of the present Government. Of this he was certain—
that Mr. Gladstone would carry out the great principles
he had already advocated, if allowed to do so by the
Tories. With regard to public expenditure, of one thing he
was certain that the expenditure of the War Office must be
decreased besides those of other departments. Reduction
of taxation must be thb great aim of a Liberal Govern.
ment. And with regard to another question, viz., the ex-
penses of election, he could assure his supporters that a
measure would be introduced in Parliament respecting it.
With respect to the labouring classes, he was certain that
unless their dwellings were improved and made comfort.
able intemperance would not cease. Regarding the Eastern
question, which was one he took a great interest in, he
was decidedly in favour of non-intervention. Let Maho-
medans and Christians settle their own differences ; do
not let us interfere. What he contended for was justice
for all classes. Let there be no religious distinction.
Let the Turks resist intervention by all means, as England
would resist improper interference with her power. In
answer to a question, the right hon. gentleman said he could
not say what was the intention of Mr. Gladstone with
regard to the appropriation of the revenues of the Irish
Church, except that they were not to be for religious pur-
poses.

SETTLE AT ONCE THE ALABAMA

CLAIMS.

(From the Anglo-American Times.)

Our Paris correspondent settles the Alabama
claims in the off-hand way usual with people who
have no responsibility—" Pay," or say "You won't."
Could we all thus manage our little difficulties
lawyers would have less to do, for the questions
would come to a sort of toss up. There are, how-
ever, very intricate points involved—of equity, of
precedent, as well as of international law. An
American correspondent of a London paper, under
the delusion held so generally in both countries,
alludes to theßritish claims outbalancing the Ame-
rican claims, and instead of the settlement being
likely to end in a transfer of gold from the British
to the Washington Treasury,John Bull's coffers may
be replenished at the expense of Uncle Sam. This
implies the delusion that either Treasury can be
benefited by the settlement ; the fact being exactly
the reverse, for whatever may be the gains.of in-
dividuals and companies, all the money will go into
private pockets at the national expense. Out of the
taxes of the United States, British subjects will be
reimbursed for damages sustained through the ac-
tion of the fleets and armies of the United States, so
far as the Commission allows, and American citizens
will be reimbursed out of the British Treasury for
losses through privateers like the Alabama, which
can be shown to have been fitted colt from British
ports owing to the negligence of
.the British Govern-
ment. It is possible, when the people on both sides
begin fully to realize that those will gain who have
profited most by the war, they will be the less eager
for this settlement. The more so, as we maintain
that the public have already paid. It will take a year's
hard work to adjudicate on the claims alone, which
our correspondent says " Pay,",or " Don't ;" and,
when they are settled, the most important precederit
of international law ever made will be established.
It is this principle which is the real matter of mo-
ment to both nations, more especially to Eng-
land. Pope says, "Fools rush in where angels fear
to tread ;" and in tbis Alabama case we actually
saw a nation rush exulting into. au act which
was suicide to itself. There could not be a more
disastrous precedent against England than the pre-
cedent made by England in the case of the Alabama.
Richard Cobden, in the letter we publish to-day,
alludes to this ; but the marvel is that'it was only
such men as he who saw it ; and even now English-
men generally are but beginning to be aware of the
necessity of obliterating, by ample restitution, a
precedent likely to be so disastrous to England.
Still it does not follow because there is more glass
in the house of the man who commenced throwing
stones that it would be wise in him whose house
has less glass to reject the other's overtures and
offers of payment, urging his loss as ample reason
for keeping up the practice. Indeed, this, as an
act of madness, would be a fit sequel to the estab-
lishment of the precedent itself. Mr Reverdy John-
son, in his speech at the anniversary dinner of the
French Hospital and Dispensary, in effect observed
—many newspapers here and in America thought
they had discovered some insuperable impediment
to a settlement upon '.fair, just, and honourable
terms. But it was all, thank God ! a delusion. Al-
though his friend Lord Stanley and himself had not
been reticent in relation to their negotiations, they
had not told everything, and the art of guessing had
not been very successfully resorted to. Not desir-
ing to lead astray, he might be pardoned for adding
--without stating what was its nature, or what
impediment there was, if any—that with the suc-
cessor of Lord Stanley, who shared in the spirit
of his predecessor—a spirit which animated himself
—there was not the most distant expectation, and
he hoped that no one would endeavour by a report
to the contrary to cause a fall of five per cent. in
either English or American Consols—there was not
the most remote possibility that the friendship be-
tween the two countries would not be fixed upon a
firm and enduring basis. He would therefore warn
other nations—for whom his heart beat as warmly
as it did for England—not to be guilty of the folly of
entering into a contest with England and America."
If the check does come it will be on the other side,
not on this, when Columbia will cap Britannia's
folly. Notwithstanding the censure passed on the
American Minister for misrepresenting American
feeling towards England, we do not hesitate to as-
sert, and as strongly as possible, that there has been
a general response throughout America to the Eng-
lish overtures cf friendship. This reactionary fit
is but the receding wave of an incoming tide, and
although Mr. Johnson may be now abused, perhaps
even recalled, while we do not believe it, yet he is
but in advance of his country's sentiment. If
these people who assume to represent the working
men of London had been trying to do something
to cause a reaction in his Excellency's favour, they
could not have hit on a better expedient than that
they have devised; and if the Times were really his
friend, it would begin to abuse him. Then there
would be seen a sudden change of front in America,
for there is an instinctive dread in the nation of
any American who has the misfortune to receive
the approbation of the Times. Mr. Coningsby's
letter and his Excellency's reply have been pub-

dished, and furnished matter for comment to nearly
all the daily papers, but we have nothing to add to
what we last week said in condemnation of the ex-
traordinary course pursued by the self-styled repre-
sentatives of the London working men. There is,
however, a little obscurity noticed by the Star in
Mr. Johnson's statement of his introduction to Mr.
Laird. Was it Mr. Laird himself who requested
the introduction, or was it Mr. Roebuck to whose
entreaties Mr. Johnson yielded? The Minister's
words, in his reply, are—" The allegations which
you mention as having been made in the United
States in regard to myself arose from my having
sat at the banquet given to me in Sheffield with
Mr. Roebuck, then a member of Parliament and
au invited guest, and for having consented at
his request to be introduced to Mr. Laird, a
member of the past and the present Parliament,
at a banquet given to me at Liverpool, who
was also an invited guest, and for taking when
he offered it, his hand, and because of my continu-
ing efforts to cultivate friendly feelings between
the people of this country and my own." This
leaves us under the impression that Mr. Johnson
consented to the introduction at the request of Mr.
Laird ; although the version of the story given in
America was that Mr. Laird hung back, sensible of
the awkwardness of his position, and evidently feel-
ing it painfully, when Mr. Johnson voluntarily
came forward and proffered his hand iu a manner
so cordial as to set him at once at ease. There is
nothing absolutely contradictory in the two stories,
for Mr. Johnson might have been acting on the
previously conveyed request of Mr. Laird, and on
the fixed idea in his mind of a general reconcilia-
tion—a reconciliation in rapid progress between the
North and South. There has been a stand-up
fight ; the North won, and terribly punished the
enemy while suffering severely herself ; the fight is
over, the questions raised are all but settled, and
the new historical phase has been entered. Mr.
Johnson's ideas, and our own are identical, which
may be simply interpreted in the motto of the Pre-
sident Elect, " Let us have Peace." We have
had wrangling enough, fighting in the field, fight-
ing in the forum, fighting in the Cabinet, and fight-
ing in the Press—aye, even fighting in the pulpit.
We are weary of the folly, yet we cannot allow an
Ambassador of peace to settle his mission without
having a shy at him, and the only argument
that those can use who desire to check the
reviving spirit of friendship is, that England
behaved maliciously and foolishly towards the
United States, but they back from the logical
conclusion of their own argument, which is—that
therefore the United States should behave mali-
ciously and foolishly towards England, not doing
evil that good may come of it, but evil that evil
may be the fruit. This is the most appropriate
season for forgiveness, and let America—if she de-
sires to do a great act, and one worthy of what
she claims to be as the most Christian, the most in-
tellectual, the freest, and best educated among us-
tions—show that she is beyond .dispute the most
magnanimou:,, for she has unquestionably a deep
injury to forgive, which, if she forgives will be what
no nation has ever done before. Noblesse oblige
is true of all communities as well as of individuals,
for the man who professes high honour and purity
cannot maintain that character while indulging
in rowdyism, and he is tried occasionally by hard
tests; so it is with nations, for we cannot assume
the magnanimous and the grand without something
magnanimous and grand in our actions. That
nations can act like vicious fools is alas, too evi-
dent ; let the Union show that they can also act
with a wise conciliation, forbearance, and forgive-
ness.