The Sun.
London, England, 1827-12-10 00:00:00

" classical recollections," it is too early in the day
as yet to estimate their cost; but that they will run
away with all the promised savings we have no
doubt; and are fearfully apprehensive besides that
they will larrri...‘ly increase our financial embarrass-
ments. In Scripture it is asked, " What King go-
ing to war does not first calculate the cost ?" In
England, it may be answered, there are King's Mi-
nisters who go to war first, and calculate the cost
afterwards. hi private life such conduct would not
be deemed either wise or prudent; nor can it in
public affairs, that we perceive, be deemed one jot
the more so.—Morning Herald.

In the absence of intelligence respecting the ul-
terior measures of the Turkish Government, the
public journals of London and Paris have directed
their attention to the conduct pursued by the Ca-
binet of Vienna during the late discussions at Con-
stantinople. Unquestionably, the natural disposi-
tion of the Sultan to reject the terms of pacification
between him and his revolted provinces, as dictated
by the Allies, derived support from the refusal of
Austria to participate in the Treaty of London.—
That refusal, however, does not, in itself, furnish
ground of serious distrust of a Cabinet, whose
anxiety to preserve the peace of Europe cannot be
doubted. Russia had a community of religion to
stimulate her in the work of preserving the Greek
population from destruction—Great :Britain had
local and commercial interests to compel her decided
interference for the same object—and France partook
of similar motives. 'Without imputing, however,
the separate line of policy pursued by the Cabinet
of Vienna to a horror of rebellion under all circum-
stances, and to a dread of any example of suc-
cessful resistance to even barbarian authority,
it may be well conceived that the establishment of a
separate political existence for the Morea and the
islands could not be specially acceptable to the Em-
peror of Austria. That Sovereign, by the posses-
sion of Venice, may probably feel that he has suc-
ceeded to the pretensions of the Venetian Republic
—pretensions which ;in the event of the dismember-
ment of the Turkish Empire, might not unreasona-
bly be preferred, and which, if admitted, would give
some maritime importance to Austria. The inti-
mate union of the great Continental Powers for the
conservation of the tranquillity of Europe, known as
the Holy Alliance, had practically lost its activity
even before the death of the Emperor Alexander,
but it was obviously broken up by that event.—
Austria, then, more or less reverted to her natural
jealousy of Russia, and would, therefore, on political
grounds, have probably preferred the depopulation
of Greece to the interference of Russia for its
independence. The basis, therefore, of the Treaty
of London, had no attraction for the Cabinet
of Vienna, and it cannot be matter of surprise that,
until the measure of absolute armament had been
adopted by the contracting parties, no very earnest
persuasion should have been exerted at Constanti-
nople by the Austrian Minister, to overcome the
reluctance of the Grand Seignior. The battle of
Navarin must, however, have presented one of two
alternatives to the consideration of the Austrian Ca-
binet; either to compromise the existence of the
Sultan, by encouraging desperate resistance ; or to
preserve his empire, with little diminution of real
power, by advising his submission to reason and
necessity. Those who are best acquainted with the
character of the Austrian Prime Minister can enter-
tain little doubt as to the course which his sagacity
will recommend, or that he will on this, as on former
occasions, regulate his diplomatic proceedings with
reference to a policy, conservative, and not destruc-
tive, of the general tranquillity.—New Times.
Our attention has been called to an article in the
last number of the Edinburgh Review, in which an
attempt is made to defend the unprincipled Coalition
of Whigs and Tories in the existing Administration.
Within the limited space to which we are restricted,
we cannot fully expose an elaborate article of twenty
pages. We must be content; therefore, to give a
general description of its character, and to verify that
description by reference to a few of its more remark-
able arguments and averments. The article is en-
tirely worthy of the cause it supports. 'We do it no
more than justice when we declare that every asser-
tion it contains is a flagrant falsehood, and every ar-
gument an impudent sophism. The work, in short, at-
tests its author; it is quite unnecessary for us to name
him. Our readers will be satisfied that the above cen-
sure is not too severe when we have exposed to
their view a few samples, taken almost at random,
from this monstrous bulk of mendacious effrontery.
The falsehood is here repeated for the thousandth
time, that the recognition of the South American
States, and the check given to the Holy Alliance
by this and other`developements ofßritish policy,
were the work of Mr. Canning, acting in these in-
stances, in opposition to the principles of his prede-
cessor, notwithstanding that it is notorious to all
the world, and was repeatedly and solemnly declared
in Parliament by Mr. Canning himself, that on
entering the Foreign Office he found the line of
policy to be pursued by England in relation to these
affairs distinctly chalked out for him, and fully ex-
pected by all the European Powers, in consequence
of express communications which had already been
made to them by the Marquis of Londonderry. This
exploded falsehood is once more advanced, for the
purpose of chewing how natural was the approxima-
tion between Mr. Canning and the Whigs. The
next falsehood we shall hold up to public scorn
seems to have been vented for two purposes,
which are somewhat inconsistent with each other:
first, to depreciate the value of Mr. Peel's services;
and secondly, to show that the Ministry, of which
he formed a part, and the Opposition, had become
so nearly assimilated, that any possible union or
intermixture of any portions of either ought not to
excite surprise or disgust. For these purposes it is
asserted, that the improvements in the constitution
of Juries, and the Acts to simplify and amend the
criminal law were introduced by Mr. Peel in pur-
suance of principles which Sir Samuel Eamilly and
Sir J, Macintosh had &early recommended to the
favour of the Legislature. This, in the sense in which
it is -intended, is notoriously false. There is a sense,
indeed, in which it may be said to be true. The
principle of improvement was professed and acted
upon by each of these three very daer,ent persons.
No other sia;iilarity can be alledged between the
practical measures of Mr. Peel, and those recom-
mended by- the two 1.4.714 Lawy_eravve have named..
than that which may with equal reason be alledged
between the most ignorant empiric and the most
skilful physician who succeeds him in the treatment
of the same patient. The common object of both
being the improvement of health, however different
the means employed, the physician if called in last
may be said to follow in the steps of the quack who
preceded him; just as truly as Mr. Peel can be said
to have followed in the steps of Sir S. Romilly or Sir
J. Macintosh, to whose proposed alterations nothing
that he has done or attempted bears the slightest re-
semblance. Another falsehood is, that the Ministry of
Lord Liverpool was divided into two parties—tire Li-
beral and the Illiberal. There was, in fact, no such
division among them, nor, except upon the single
subject of the Catholic Claims, any division what-
ever. It is
.trne, as the article tells us, that the
Whigs when in opposition dfd all in their power to
propagate this erroneous opinion throughout the
country and with this view fawned occasionally upon
certain Members of the Cabinet ; but it is equally
true that this fawning was constantly repelled during
the political life of Lord Liverpool by those to whom
it was directed, as grossly calumnious in its import
—and constantly despised by the country,as basely in-
sidious in its design. We have nowglanced at a few of
the falsehoods of this article, which relate to the state
of parties previous to the coalition. There is another,
more monstrous, if possible, thanany of the foregoing,
relative to the character and intentions of parties in
Parliament soon after the coalition had been effected,
" The Ministers who had resigned," we are told,
" sunk gradually into a kind of watching opposition
—a corps of observation. The writer, not content
With having asserted so much that is untrue, asserts
in this instance what is plandY impossible. How,
we should be glad to learn, could the Ex-Ministers,
let their determination to oppose be ever so strong'