The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-28 00:00:00

spIRIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

The Times has a leader on the application by Sir Robert
Collier to issue a warrant against the Ex-Governor of
Jamaica. Our contemporary believes that Sir Thomas
Henry acted properly in refusing the application. If it
was proper that General Nelson and Lieutenant Brand
should be tried for the murder of Mr. Gordon, it was
equally proper that Mr. Eyre should be arraigned upon
the charge. If there was no prim 4 facie case against
them, there was no primd facie case against him. The
grand jury of Middlesex refused to find-a true bill against
General Nelson and Lieutenant Brand, and Sir Thomas
Henry deferred to their judgment by refusing to commit
Mr. Eyre. Had he acted otherwise the result would
have been nugatory, and his decision leaves it open
to the prosecutors to prefer a bill before another
grand jury if they should think it desirable. But Sir
Thomas Henry's judgment ought to be accepted as
conclusive. In the first place some weight must be
attributed to the act of the Jamaica Legislature, to which
we have not yet referred, in passing a Bill of Indemnity
for the transactions occurring in the suppression of the
insuri ection. We do not pretend to say that a Colonial
Legislature can completely cover all acts committed within
its jurisdiction. But, except in the last extremity, its
proceedings ought not to be incidentally set aside. We
cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. If we
concede to a colony the rights of self-government, subject
only to that approval or disapproval of specific acts which
remains vested in the Crown, we must not withdraw
isolated cases from its jurisdiction, and if we inter-
fere at all it must be only to consider the propriety
of modifying or suspending, through the Crown, the
self-government which has been conceded. This is a
principle which will not be denied if it be weighed
in relation to a colony such as New South Wales or
Victoria, where no question of race arises. But, secondly,
the conclusion of the grand jury in the case of General
Nelson and Lieutenant Brand was just. Without averring
that the death of Mr. Gordon was in all respects within
the definition of justifiable homicide, it cannot be denied
that it was excusable homicide. A consideration of the
circumstances of the case, a candid acknowledgment of
the extreme difficulties of Mr. Eyre's position, a mere
arithmetical comparison of the numbers of the white
and coloured inhabitants of Jamaica, must compel
this moderate aonclusion. That Mr. Eyre acted un-
advisedly may be admitted ; that he was unable
to free himself from the contagion of local terrors
and the vehemence of local feeling, is plain.
For these, which are political offences, he has been judged
and has suffered. But the charges of personal animosity
against Mr. Gordon and of bloodthirstiness against the
coloured population of Jamaica are due to a wild reaction
against Jamaica whites, equally indiscriminating and
equally culpable with the arrogance of the dominant race.
Those who would make Mr. Eyre a murderer provoke
those who would make him a hero, and both classes must
be condemned by Englishmen who Eke in him only a man
who swerved from the ideal height of unimpassioned
serenity under circumstances of great difficulty.

For the sake of the really conservative principles of
society and government, the Daily _News could have
wished that the conduct of Mr. Eyre in Jamaica had been
fairly submitted to a judge and jury. Not that the
opinion of the twelve wisest men that could be found
could alter the facts imperishably recorded in the report
and evidence of the Royal Commission, or that the charge
of the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's
Bench could, be surpassed as an exposition of the
law. But there are only too many of those
amongst whom we have daily to live and work who
regard government merely as power, and obedience as a
necessary submission to tyranny—who have no conception
of legitimate and responsible authority on the one hand,
and cheerful, rational obedience on the other. Three
years ago we might have been excused for believing that
such persons were only to be found in the lower orders of
society--those who had been unfortunately deprived of the
advantages of instruction and training ; but the spirit of
the mob, whether in fustian or broadcloth, whether
tyrannously exacting or servilely yielding submission, is
always the same, and that spirit is fed and stimulated
when a man, authorised to act in the Queen's name, is
seen complacently presiding over the extremest forms of
outrage, and—still more astonishing—instead of being
punished for the worst crime that a ruler can commit, is
welcomed home as one of the saviours of that society which
he has attacked in its most sacred principles. The Daily
News, in conclusion, trusts that this will be the last time
it may be called upon to refer to Mr. Eyre or his doings

The Post warns us not to forget that the Ministry, how-
ever little changed in its personnel, is not, and cannot be,
the same Ministry under whose auspices was carried the
Reform Bill of 1867. True it is that Mr. Disraeli was
confessedly the life and soul of Lord Derby's Cabinet, but
who shall say how much the personal influence of the
Premier contributed to the success of his lieutenant ! Who
can gauge that influence ? Who can tell how much per-
sonal affection for Lord Derby availed to soften internal
dissension, to promote unity at the council board, and to
reconcile the stubbornness of ancient Toryism to the more
pliant and more advantageous policy of graceful conces-
sion ? If Mr. Disraeli is to continue in power there must
he more concession, more leaning towards those Liberal
principles which command the sympathies and support of
men by whose aid his majorities were obtained last year.
Upon the various great questions of the day the new Pint
Minister must endeavour to pursue such a policy as will
still conciliate to himself a portion of Radical sup-
port without detaching the bulk of his Conser-
vative followers. This, however, will be less easy
now that the protecting aegis of Lord Derby is no
longer at hand. On the Irish Church question, for in-
stance, it is hardly possible that Lord Cairns could become
a prominent member in any Administration which was
prepared to weaken the influence or to assail the position
of the Irish branch of the Establishment. If not com-
mitted to the very fullest extent to the old " No surrender"
cry, and the m..-.intenance of what is called " Protestant
ascendancy," the late member for Belfast must recall
many speeches and recant many opinions before he can
reject the principles or refuse the appeal of the Rotundo
Protestants. But the declaration of such a policy on the
part of the Government would unite the Liberal hosts
against the Disraelites, and would render Ireland more
than ever a difficulty to the Administration.

The Standard contends against the allegations of the
Radical papers that while the Earl of Derby has been
throughout a Conservative, Mr. Disraeli has forsaken his
principles. If Lord Derby have been loyal and consistent,
how can Mr. Disraeli have been the reverse? There are
so-called Reforms, of course, which strike at the very root
of Tory principles. Of this number are all those which
involve those doctrines of a loose morality and a vicious
political economy now so much in favour with a certain
school of Liberals. But there is no necessary con-
nection between Toryism and an artificial system
of representation, or an exclusive enjoyment of
the franchise by a single class, or the retention
by corrupt constituencies of privileges they have mis-
used. In a word, Toryism means the conservation
of institutions, not of abuses ; of principles, not of their
perversions. Let this be borne in mind when the policy of
Mr. Disraeli's Cabinet comes to be unfolded before the
nation ; and by this standard let it be judged. As we
shall never he found willing to betray one Tory principle,
or to consent to one violation of public right or political
morality in deference to popular clamour or class interests,
so we shall never consent to quarrel with a Tory statesman
because he refuses to interpret Toryism by Liberal parodies
of it, or to accept every duty which Liberal malice would
assign to him—because he refuses, in defending what is
clearly untenable, to imperil what is clearly sacred and
right.

The substitution of Lord Cairns for Lord Chelmsford as
Chancellor of England would seem at first sight, the Star
observes, to be entirely advantageous to Mr. Disraeli's
Government. It is absolutely so, as far as mere vigour in
debate and authority on questions of law are concerned.
Lord Cairns is certainly a much abler man than Lord
Chelmsford, and his superiority is especially marked in the
business of parliamentary debate. But there is at least
one great question which the Government must take
up, on which they must pronounce an opinion be-
fore even this session has gone far, and in regard
to which the co - operation of Lord Cairns seems
likely to ;prove anything but an advantage. We
allude to the question of the Irish Church. It is utterly
impossible that the new Government could tide over even
the first month of its existence without making some de-
claration in regard to the Irish Church ; and unless Mr.
Disraeli has wholly forgotten the views expressed by Lord
Cairns less than a year ago on this subject, or Lord Cairns
is prepared to unsay all that he then so emphatically said,
and to declare that his deliberate exposition of British law
was a mere illusion and blunder, we are driven to conclude
that the elevation of the noble and learned lord to the
declaration woolsack is simply a
andaration of war against the whole
Liberal party of this the other island.
The Herald has an attack upon the hon. member for
Birmingham. What is the useofpreaching peace when
no one thinks of war ?
Granting
that we made some
more blunders in opinion, and prophecy, during the
American war, we cannot see what claim that gives to the
Americans at the expense of England.
ine 1,10 not desire
t) revive any old quarrels, or to retort,lr.. Bright's
soirit, upon Mr. Bright's clients. But we may fairly plead
party wasir, likely
that, even if we were ignorant as to which
to survive the struggle in Atr.erica, the only
which has ever been proved against the ruling 'elna°srsasnee
liagland, we shalcd an ignorance with all the leaA'er ofAmerman statesmen themselves. if we ever believed
the South were legally right in desiring separa-
tion, we were guilty of believing no snore than Northern
statesmen themselves have held. If we ever hesi-
t:..ted as to the right of the North to put ihm
the South by fovea of arms, we but shared
the weakness of Abraham Lincoln and of some of the
patriots in America. No evidence whatever has
g v. 21-1 by Mr. Bright that English ignorance was the
cause of any injury to America. Yet, unless there was
such injury, what object can there 1):, in repeating, for a
Luedredth time, the old taunt against the English upper
classes ? It should be sufficient satisfaction for Mr. Bright,
that the influence of his better nature was such, even
over these besotted aristocrats, that they consented to
remain neutral, when they ought to have had, by Mr.
Bright's shewing, so many reasons for openly espousing
the weaker side. To bring up perpetually these old con-
troversies is but a poor evidence of one's zeal for peace.
We venture to say that Mr. Bright's speech on Wednes-
day night will do more to inflame such prejudice as the
Americans have against us, and to defer a pacific settle-
Tent of the international differences, than the most
,ele,nt attack which any Englishman could make upon