The Sun.
London, England, 1868-01-30 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sits,—Within a few short weeks it will be- exactly
one year since I commenced a series of letters to
you, with the query " What will Lord Derby do ?"
I showed to you clearly that there was uo reason
why we were not to have a Reform Bill from a so-
called Tory or Conservative Government. I recalled
to your memory and the memory of your readers the
great, useful, and substantial reforms that had been
carried in days of yore by our present illustrious
chief. At the end of the session I pointed out what
Lord Derby had done ; I showed the good and use-
ful Reform Bill he had carried for the second time
in hid life, only 35 years (a brief period historically
speaking) after the former one ; and •I wound up
my letters by proving mo.-A incontestably that Lord
Derby is no Tory aLer all, but a genuine old WThig,
of the Grey, Lgusdowne, and Althorp school, and
is true, even to this day, to the principles in which
he was brought up. Indeed, for my own part, Ido
not at all believe Lord Derby entertained (or that
he holds now in 1868) in 1867 at all different
opinions while he was advocating the Reform Act,
which in less than a twelvemonth from the present
time will have become the law of the land, to those
Liberal opinions which be espoused, with language
which was considered such a perfect masterpiece of
oratory, in 1831 and 1832, when he was advocating
" the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill."
These were the days of our noble Premier's youth.
He was, at any rate, quite a young man at that
time.. How many of us feel boys again, and think
of our Virgil, our Horace, our Juvenal, the Greek
Plays, our Euclid; and other rich stores of learning
which we have been compelled, unfortunately, to
lay upon the shelf for many and many along weary
year, when the words come back to our memories,
"That dangerous young innovator and revolu-
tionist, :Mr. Secretary Stanley." There, is,c.ertainly
a quotation from Horace which is by no means ap-
plicable. to our noble Premier. He cannot with truth
say, " Non sum quails eram." On the contrary,
his motto might, in good truth, be "Semper eadem."
Now I proceed to the main question of my letter,
which -id to inquire whether there be any resem-
blance between the Liberal measure carried by the
Tory Government of 1867 and those Liberal mea-
sures carried by its father and grandfather, those
old defunct Tory Administrations of 1829 and 1846,
so long descended to the tomb of all the Capulets.
Physiologists and naturalists tell us that there are
no two peas, no two gooseberries, -or even two
grains of sand on the sea shore exactly alike. How
much less are two human beings exactly alike. Let
a child or other descendant resemble a father, grand-
father, or other ancestor ever so much, yet, never-
theless, when you come to examine both carefully
together, how wonderfully marvellous is the differ-
ence between the individuals. No two of Nature's
productions are ever quite the same. Precisely the
same is it in the political world. No two Adminis-
trations are, or ever have been, altogether alike ;
nor any two great Liberal measures. I therefore
now proceed to show how totally different is the so-
called apostacy of Lord Derby and the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to the so-called apostacy of those
late great and immortal men, the one the greatest
warrior the world almost ever saw, one of our
greatest, if not by far the greatest, statesman Eng-
land ever possessed.

I think I can now prove how completely the con-
version of Peel and Wellington from extreme poli.
tical Protestantism to being advocates for Roman
Catholic Emancipation, and, later still, from being
Protectionists to Free-traders, differs, and is at
variance from the so-called apostacy of Lord Derby
and Benjamin Disraeli, from being anti Reformers
in 1866 to being Reformers and carrying a good
and substantial Reform Bill in 1867. Sir Robert
Peel, from his earliest infancy down to the period of
his apostacyin 1828 and 1829 (in carrying the total
repeal of the Test Act in the first-named year and
granting Catholic Emancipation the year following),
had been brought up in a school of exclusive of
more than ultra-Tory. The Duke of Wellington,
independently of the Tory school in which he had
been educated, belonged to the profession of arms,
which, in the rod-of-iron reign of that well-mean'ng
and conscientious but, in many respects, most mis-
taken and narrow-Mindei Monarch, King George
111., was quite enough to account for his being, as
we all know him to have been, a most rabid Tory.
Now, albeit the great change in these two illustrious
and wonderful men in 1829 and 1846 respectively,
and the two gigantic measures of reform and ad-
vancement which they carried, in the two above-
named years, were, I most firmly believe, the result
of honest conviction, entirely emanating from efforts
of most laborious and most painstaken industry, of
having thoroughly investigated the
opinions in
which they had so conspicuously held for so many
years ; and, moreover, .when they surrendered on
becoming convinced that they could no longer with
honour or conscience retain the same; nevertheless,
it was an utterly new phase in their political exist-
ence. Whether got at honestly or dishonestly, one
thing is absolutely certain, " a change came over the
spirit of their dream," and, of course it was, and as
a matter of history ever will be, open to all
politi-
cians and political economists to question the honesty
and integrity of those great changes.
But with Lord Derby the case is totally different.
He was brought up in a school as entirely and com-
pletely Liberal as Sir Robert reel had been in a
school completely
Tory. For the first 35 years of
his life Lord Derby bona fide belonged to the Whig
and Liberal party, and was for three years and a
half a leading member of that celebrated old Whig
Ministry headed by the late Earl Grey, the so-
called Father of Reform. Earl Grey's Pet was his
universally well-known name in those ancient days
of yore. Even if he did emigrate at the mature age
of 35 from his native land of Liberalism to the
colony of Toryism,
we can only regard his rallying
at the ripe age of 68 to Liberalism in the light of a
weary traveller and emigrant who, having heaped
up riches in the colony to which he had gone out as
a settler in his prime, now returns to the land of
his nativity to enjoy the riches of his well-earned
labour. Or Lord Derby's political career might be
compared (assuming his change from Whig to
Tory in 1834 was to have been most deeply
lamented) to a beautiful sunrise in the charming
months of May or June, when nature puts forth her
bloom, which inspires the mind with joy and grati-
tude towards the Maker and Giver of all things,
yet towards day changes to a miserable wet noon
and afterdoon, by which the mind becomeS'as much
depressed as it had before been elevated ; neverthe-
less, a lovely evening sets in, and a magnificent
sunset closes the day, and we are inspired with the
same feelings of joy, gratitude, and happiness at
the snit of the departing day as we were at the
aurora and sunrise of the new-born and incoming
day. • As a friend of mine remarked to me little
more than 15 years ago, in the days of the first
Derby Government (my friend herein alluded to is
an ultra-Liberal), when speaking of the present
Chancellor of the Exchequer, " lie is a vile Tory,
kilt never mind, he is a man of great ability ; he
began right (alluding to the fact of his having
stood for Marylebone in 1833, in favour of annual
Parliaments and universal suffrage), and he will end
right." As regards Lord Derby, it may be said,
passing from the future to the past tense, and
assuming the Reform Act of last session to be the
last great political act of his laborious and well-
spent life, which, however, I earnestly trust and
pray it may not be, for the good of the country,
he began well and he has ended well.—l remain,
Sir, your faithful servant,
A LOVER AND OBSERVER OF HISTORICAL
DATES AND FACTS.
January 24, 1868.

Commodore Edmonstoue, C. 13., Superintendent
of Woolwich Dockyard, attended by Mr. Francis J. Lory
and Mr. Charles W. Co'e, Paymaster and Assistant Naval
Secretaries, yesterday inspected her Majesty's iron screw
steam storesbip Industry, at Woolwich, engaged in parti-
cular service; and mustered the crew on the occasion of
their being turned over to the command of Navigating
Lieut.. Charles J. Polkiughorno, who has taken up the
command of that ship, the term of service of Navigating
Lieut. E. C. T. Youel having expired.

A Shepton Mallet butcher advertises to sell on
Saturdays a singlo pound of good fat mutton at fid., and a
pound of good gDgligh Pacwa at 01

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT—(This Day.)

OLD COURT.
STABBING A SAILOR.
James Morelli was indicted with stabbing James
Endell.

The two men were sailors, and the quarrel, in
which both took part, took place in the vicinity of
the Sailors' Home.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and he was
sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.

THE ALLEGED PLOT TO ASSASSINATE THE KING OF

PRUSSIA.'

Gustav Victor, a German, .was charged with
obtaining money from his Excellency the Prussian
Ambassador in London by false pretences. On
the Bth of January the prisoner Victor came
to t':e EMbls3y an -1. raid -he had a secrete
to tell, but that he was in a destitute condi-
ti.►n. Baron Seinnithals was communicated with,
and when the prisoner called again on thc 10th of
January he sail that a conspiracy was in progres2.,
and that a man named -Emerick was going to
Berlin to assassinate the King of Prussia, and he
hid Orsini bombs in his possession. -Every time
Victor came he asked fur money. Victor was told
.that if his information was correct he would receive
an adequate reward.
The whole story was a tissue of falsehoods, - and
the prisoner was given into custody, and after being
examined at Bow-street was fully committed for
trial.

The jury had not returned their verdict when we
went to press.

NEW COURT.
OBTAINING MONEY BY FALSE PRETENCES.

James Foxwell was to-day tried before the Com-
mon Sergeant, charged with collecting various sums
of money under false pretences: ' The prisoner, it
was alleged by the prosecution, taking advantage
of his temporary connection with the City Press
newspaper, went round to different gentlemen re-
siding in the ward of Viutry, and represented to
them that it was proposed to collect subscriptions
in aid of the sufferers by the explosion at Clerken-
well, on the 13th of December, to be called the
City Press Fund. The prisoner went to a gentleman
named Gilbert, and told him he was a reporter
for the City Press, and then informed him that
various gentlemen had given subscriptions. The
prisoner showed a list of subscribers, and then he
(Mr. Gilbert) gave him a sum of money, believing
it was to go to the fund the prisoner had represented.
lle next called upon Mr. Green and Mr. Ponder,
and made similar statements, and from each of
whom he received money. Mr. Collingridge, the
proprietor of the City Press, said the prisoner was
only casually engaged ou one occasion to report
a meeting of the ward of Vintry, and
was not what he had represented himself,
a reporter engaged on the City Press. With re-
spect to the fund of which the prisoner talked about
he (Mr. Collingridge) know nothing whatever. No
such fund was ever in contemplation in the City
Press office, and the whole of the representations
of the prisoner were false.

The matter was brought under the attention of
the Lord Mayor by Mr. Collingridge and M. De
Jersey, who denied that any person was engaged
to collect funds for the Clerkenwell sufferers. The
prisoner, however, after this wrote to the Lord
Mayer, but the result of the matter was that the
prisoner was taken into custody charged with ob-
taining money under false pretences, and fully
committed for trial.

Mr. Pater, in his defence, contended that there
was no fraud whatever on the part of the prisoner,
but the most that could be made of the matter was
that there had been some misunderstanding on the
part of those gentlemen who had contributed the
money, as the prisoner never represented that he
was collecting for the City Press Fund, but that he
was a reporter for the City Press, and that as he
had reported the proceedings of the Viutry Ward-
mote meeting he thought it would be a good oppor-
tunity of collecting a fund to be devoted to
the sufferers by the Clerkenwell explosion.
The prisoner collected, he said, about £7, but
it was not handed over to• any person, but, on the
contrary, had been spent by the prisoner, upon
whom, when taken into custody; only sixpence was
found.

The Common Sergeant said the whole question
for the jury was whether there had been any false
representation in the matter. They had heard what
had been said by the prisoner's counsel, and also the
evidence given by the witnesses, and now they
would have to say was there any ground for the
charge of fraud against the prisoner.
The jury were deliberating on their verdict when
it was intimated to the Court that there was a wit-
ness who had not been called. This person was
the ward beadle, who, on getting into the witness-
box, stated that the prisoner had also told him that
he was collecting for the City Press, and that the
moneys, as they were collected, were paid over to
Mr. Collingridge as treasurer, and that when the
sum rose to £2O it would be paid over by that gen-
tleman to the Clerkenwell Relief Fund,
The jury found a verdict of guilty, and he was
sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. •