The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-06 00:00:00

ment, but have left the leading business of opposi-
tion to their hangers-on, ready, no doubt, to take
advantage of any success. No one can say that the
late Government has originated any factious oppo-
sition to the present, for they have originated
nothing at all.
Two bills affecting the Constitution of the colony
are before the house—one to shorten the dura-

tion of Parliament from five to three years, and
another to limit the number of office-holders who
may sit in either house. The former is not opposed
and is ripe for the third reading, which, by clause

in the Constitution Act, requires to be cairied by a
full majority of both houses. It was for want of
that that it lapsed in the last session. In the other,
Ministers propose to limit the number of office-
holders who may hold seats in either house to ten.
At present there are seven Cabinet Ministers, and
one—the Vice-President of the Board of Land and
Works—is not in the Cabinet. They propose two
more—the President of the Sewerage and Water
Commission, who has always, by the mere accident
of election, enjoyed a seat, and a new Commissioner
of Mines, the great interest of the country. This
will lead to considerable discussion, as the house is
very jealous of official members. There is another
bill of a similar character, brought in by a
private member, to "secure the independence of
Parliament," somewhat similar to the Govern..
ment Bill, but which embodies the vulgar
jealousy against the legal profession, by making
the accepting of a fee from the Crown a ground of
exclusion. It seeks to place the barrister on the
footing of a contractor, and proposes to enforce
observance by a penalty of £2OO. I do not think it
will create a P arlianzentum indoctum, even if car-
ried, as the bar will for the most part forego the
fees for the sake of a seat. There is also a bill, in-
troduced by the same member, to repeal the pen-
sion clause of the Constitution Act giving pensions
Ito retiring Ministers, not exceeding £4,000 to all
at any one time, on the same terms as the English
statutes. The other bills introduced and to be in-
troduced are not of a political complexion. There
is, however, a resolution in favour of paying mem-
bers, which was rejected last session. It is not
unlikely to pass the Lower House. On the whole,
I think the legislation of the session will improve
the working of the Constitution. A house of 78
members more equally representing the country is
a great improvement on the present house. Two
years have served very much to disorganise the
house, and had it lasted five years it would.
have been impossible for any Ministry to
carry on the Government. The coming dissolu-
tion will Rot be a day too soon. The exclusion of
place-holders, except certain specified Ministers,
will put an end to an anomaly which now exists of
one member holding an office under the Crown who
has managed to keep both his place and his seat
through four successive Ministries, in spite of a
minute of the Haines Ministry requiring the un-
conditional support of every office holder on pain of
dismissal. Some moderate indemnity to member
is necessary to enable distant constituencies to elect
men whom they know, and who are connected with.
their constituents. At present 41 out of the 60 aree
Melbourne men.

LORD DERBY AND MR. T. DUNCOMBE.

We are requested to publish the following cor-
respondence :

"Knowsley, Dec. 31, 1858.
"Dear Sir,--In a correspondence which has been pub-
lished in almost all the papers of yesterday by Lieut.-Col.
Dickson (with what propriety at the present moment I do
not stop to inquire), I find the following paragraph in a let-
ter from you to him :—' No officer's commission is safe
when, to screen the neglect on the part of others, that com-
mission is unscrupulously assailed by the favoured influences
of Grosvenor and St. James's squares.' May I ask if by
this last expression it is intended to convey an impression
that I had any part in the transactions to which it refers t'
I hope that I may receive from you an unequivocal nega-
tive. Indeed, my only reason for asking the question is,
that considering my near relationship to Lord Wilton,
I can put no other construction on yeur allusion to the
influences of Grosvenor and St. James's squares.' Other-
wise I should have been most unwilling to believe that
your ideas and mine of what is due from one gentleman to
another should be so widely at variance as that you should:
feel yourself justified in attributing to me gratuitously, and
without the slightest shadow of evidence, participation in
proceedings which, whether rightly or wrongly, you cha-
racterise as ' unscrupulous.' Ofthose proceedings the out,:
information I possess is derived from a 10 minutes' eonver-
sation with General Peel, a few days before the date ci
your letter, when he felt it to be his duty to communicate to
me, as the head of the Government, the decision he had
formed and the course he had pursued in reference to a case
with regard to which I was in such entire ignorance that I
either had never heard or had utterly fcagetten that there
was any question pending between Lord Wilton and Colo-
nel Dickson.

" I can readily imagine that you did not intend your let-
ter to Colonel Dickson to be made public, but if it conveys
the impression to which I have referred I am quite sure
that your sense of gentlemanlike feeling will lead you to
make the contradiction as public as has been, by no act of
yours, the imputation itself.
" I have the honour to be, dear Sir, yours faithfully,
"T. S. Duncombe, Esq., M.P." " DERRY.

" Cambridge-terrace, Jan. 1, 1859.
"Dear Lord Derby,—l have the honour tof acknowledge
the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date, and in reply to
your question—whether in the sentence of a letter addressed
by me to Colonel Dickson on the 11th of last month I in'
tended to convey an impression that you had any participa'
tion in the proceedings to which it refers—l can unequivo'
cally assureyou that I did not, and I think, if you will reed
the paragraph complained of in connection with my previous
remarks upon the Court of Inquiry, you will at once acquit
me of any such intention or desire to give you pain.
"When I alluded to' Grosvenor and St. James's squares
that I had the Prime Minister' in my mind Ido not dealt
and, therefore, somewhat in my opinion resemble the Court
of Inquiry, which, from what I hear from those who wit'
nessed its extraordinary proceedings, led them to auppos°
that its object was more to gain the influence and favour of
those distinguished localities than to do justice to one whose
commission, I still maintain, has been unscrupulously as'
sailed and unjustly withdrawn. If, however, I have, in nil
published letter to Colonel Dickson, expressed myself env
biguously and given you pain, I much regret it, and yell
are at perfect libery to make public this correspondence.
"As to the propriety of the unhappy moment when the
letters in question have appeared in the papers, I must not be
held responsible for their publication, as I can truly assure
you that no one more sincerely deplores the loss of your
lamented relative than I do, from whom I had through lif°
universally received regard and kindness.
" I have the honour to be, dear Lord Derby, faithfully
yours, "T. S. DUNCOMBE.,

" The Right Hon. tho Earl of Derby, &c., Knowsley."

" Knowsley, Jan. 2, 1859. ,
"Dear sir,—While I thank you for the friendly tone of
your explanatory letter of yesterday, and for your unequr
vocal assurance that you did not intend to impute to Joe
any participation in proceedings which you so strongly con'
demn, I am compelled to say that I cannot look upon 0
as entirely satisfactory, foryou admit that in the expression
used you had ' the Prime Minister' in your mind, 904
that you meant to convey that 6the object of the Court °',
Inquiry was more to gain the &your and influence of those
distinguished localities, Grosvenor and St. James's squares'
than to do justice.' Surely you cannot fail to perceive fistst
this conveys an impression that I had some personal interest
in the decision of the ease of which I knew nothing, and that
my favour and influence, as a Minister, were to be pr°.
pitiated by taking a particular course, irrespective of the
demands of justice. I feel confident that the Court ei
Inquiry (I do not even know how it was composed) never
allowed such an idea to enter the minds of its members, and
I cannot but think that on reflection you will yourself
feel that any allusion to my name and position in reference
to this matter was gratuitous and uncalled-for. AS'
however, I am not fond of referring personal questions
the newspapers, I shall, while thanking you for the per
mission to make our correspondence public, decline to aye'
myself of it, and shall leave the matter in your hands, is
take any step or ;none at all, as your own sense of honour
may dictate to you. I am gratified by the terms in which
you refer to Lady Wilton, and you are aware that I whollY
acquitted you of any share of responsibility for the tiles
selected for the publication of these papers.
" I have the honour to be, dear sir, yours faithfully,
" T. S. Duncombo, Esq., M.P." 66 DERBY.

" Cambridge-terrace, Jan. 3, 1859.
"My dear Lord Derby,—As I consider (after the publ.
cation of my letter to Colonel Dickson, and the inferencl
that may possibly be drawn from it) your disclaimer of 9.P
knowledge of the composition or proceedings of the COO
of Inquiry so hononrable to yourself that it would be
just to you in your position to leave the matter in any 5014
of doubt, I will, with your leave, by return of post, take
upon myself the publication of our entire correspondence!,
as, in consideration of Colonel Dickson's interests, I con'
not with propriety make public my own individual expliv
nation of your personal complaint.
it I have the honour to be, dear Lord Derby, yOlO
faithfully, " T. S. DuNcomsE.
" To the Right Hon. the Earl of Derby, &c."

" Knowsley, lan. 4, 1859.
"My dear Sir,—l cannot, of course, object to your Pub;
lication of our correspondence, if you think that the DO
mode of removing the erroneous impression which yof
letter of the 11th appeared to me to convey. It must, hoar
ever, be distinctly understood that in disclaiming any po:
ticipation in the course taken either by Lord Wilton or ill'
Committee of Inquiry I do not adopt your views respect.
ing it, nor impute any impropriety to either one or el
other.

" I am dear sir, yours faithfully,
"T. S. Duucombe, Esq., M.P," " DE.11331-•