The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-23 00:00:00

MR. MONCREIFF, M.P., AT LEITH.

Mr. Monereiff, M.P. for the Leith district of
burghs, addressed his constituents in the Council
Chamber, Leith, on Monday afternoon. The Pro-
vost of Leith presided.
Mr. MONCREIFF, after some preliminary remarks,
adverted to Lord Palmerston's defeat on the Con-
spiracy Bill, and his going out of office,
.and to the
ungenerous, unfounded, and ungrateful criticisms,
as he considered them, that had been made
of his administration after his downfall by.many
of those who were attracted towards him in the
days of his prosperity. I think of Lord Pal-
merston, in 1858, he said, exactly as I thought
of him, and the country thought of him, in 1857.
I know no respect in which his character or his
claims on public confidence have altered since then.
I think Lord Palmerston was a great, a vigorous, a
patriotic, an indefatigable minister. I think he has
laid this country under obligations that they will
never forget, and I believe that when the history
of this century comes to be written the three years
of his administration will stand out as among the
most brilliant in the annals of the reign of Queen
Victoria. (Cheers..) We have been told that Lord
Palmerston lost the confidence of the Liberal party
because he truckled to France. On the Conspiracy
Bill, no doubt, there was fair room for difference of
opinion, but when I am told that the minister lost
the confidence of the Liberal- party because he
truckled to France,l think his whole life is a sufficient
refutation to such an accusation as that. I think
that, recollecting through how many storms he had
piloted the ship of the State ; recollecting that from
the French Revolution, in 1830, through all the
European convulsions that have taken place, it
was his strong arm that kept us safe ; re-
collecting that not only had he surmounted the
difficulties of the Crimean war, but after peace had
been concluded he, with a firm and unrelenting
grasp, tied France, reluctant as she was, to the
letter and spirit of the treaty—(cheers)—consider-
ing that these things were not a year old at the
time that this event happened,l say that to tellsme
Lord Palmerston, whose name was and is through-
out Europe the terror of the tyrant and the hope
of the oppressed, lost the confidence of the Liberal
party because he truckled to France, is a charge
that bears refutation on the face of it. (Loud
cheers, and slight hissing.) But we are told that he
did not carry out in his Government liberal mea-
sures, and in particular that he did not carry out
Reform. Well, I must say that remark comes very
ill from gentlemen who did all they could to pre-
vent his doing so, from those who defeated him in
1857 and sent him to the country upon the Can-
ton business, and who, before the session of
1858 was three weeks old, again defeated him
and turned him out of office. Is it very consistent
in them to say--We turned you out of office in 1858
because you did not bring in a Reform Bill, and
you could not bring in a Reform Bill because we
turned you out of office P Why, Lord Palmerston
never had the opportunity of bringing in a Reform
Bill. He promised to do so, and you may depend
upon it—for he is not in the habit of forfeiting his
pledges—if he had remained in office that pledge
would have been fulfilled, and_it is not for those
who prevented the possibility of his fulfilling it to
doubt its fulfilment. Gentlemen, it was Lord Pal-
' merston's praise that, taking the helm of affairs in
the darkest hour which Britain had seen since the
revolutionary war was terminated on the field of Wa-
terloo, he left his country in a state of repose, both
as regards foreign and home politics, so profound
that there was not one single question of import-
ance or one single danger looming in 'the distance
which caused the pulse of the nation to beat one

throb higher. So far am I from sympathising in
the observations which have been made against
Lord Palmerston, that I fairly own I consider the
downfall of his Government as a great national
misfortune. (Laughter.) Not that I think it neces-
sarily a national misfortune for the Whigs to go
out of office, and possibly if that had been all it
might not have been a matter for us to lament over,
because the cool breezes of the Opposition benches
are often very salutary to health. Mr. Moncrieff
proceeded to state three reasons for regretting the
downfall of Lord Palmerston :—First, that narrow
majorities had been the great weakness of every
Government in this country since 1835, and that
Lord Palmerston's majority, had the party adhered
to him, was larger than any Minister had had since
the time of Lord Grey, and that majority gave Par-
liament the opportunity of dealing with social,
sanitary, educational, and other questions that. had
been knocking fruitlessly at the door of Parliament
for many years past; second, that the accession of
a weak Government , had shaken to pieces one of
the most sacred principles of the constitution— ,
namely, Ministerial responsibility—a principle
altogether lost sight of when they found a Go-
vernment sitting with its hands folded, asking
what measures they would be allowed to pass.
and even passing measures which they had before
stated that as Christians and men of conscience they
must oppose to the end of their political life; and,
thirdly, the breaking up of the Liberal party—an
evil which he hoped would yet-turn to good, and
that when Parliament met again in February the
events that had taken place since Lord Palmerston's
Government went out of office wouldonly have had
the effect of cementing more closely together those
who were really at one as to the opinions they en-
tertained. After adverting in indignant terms to
the manner in which Lord Canning had been treated
in reference to the Oude Proclamation, and making
some remarks on the Scotch bills of the session,
Mr. Moncrieff took up the subject of Reform, and
asked what leader they were to be called on to
follow in this matter. Is it, he asked, the Derby
Government ? I think it very likely Lord Derby
will propose a Reform Bill, but if I am asked to
follow Lord Derby as my leader in Reform I must
plainly say I can have no confidence in the party
that he leads on any such question, for if there is
one distinctive feature of that party more than
another it is this, that they believe the democratic
element was carried too far in 1832, and I cannot
see how they can conscientiously believe that carry-
ing it further will be of advantage, unless they shall
come to be of opinion that an extension of the
franchise would probably increase their own
strength. That may be, and I admit the difficulties
Lord Derby's Government are in. They cannot
carry out their Conservative notions, forthe country
has outgrown them, and they cannot be looked upon
as leaders of the Liberal party, or followed with
confidence on the question of Reform. Well, then,
am I to swear allegiance to the new philosophy—
(laughter)—that philosophy that was propounded
the other day at Birmingham, which was diluted at
Manchester, which was, discarded at Edinburgh ?
(Cries of "No," loud cheers, and hisses.) lam not
prepared to do anything of the kind. lam not pre-
pared, so far as I understand its tenets—and I
tried to comprehend them—to follow them. I
am not prepared to introduce the ballot from
France ; I am not prepared to introduce electoral
districts and Parliamentary representation from
America ; I am not prepared to embark on any
crusade of jealousy against the aristocracy and the
House of Lords. (Hear, and cheers.) lam not
prepared to think the House of Commons a pack
of ingenious political swindlers, who have no ob-
I jeet but injustice, and no motive but the love of