The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-23 00:00:00

Dissolu' ion not Resignation ?

The Times asks very pertinently—" Who is to
blame, and who is there to punish? The unsuc-
cessful are ready to punish all the world, and even
themselves, if that is necessary to the general execu-
tion. This is the whole case for Dissolution,
and there is nothing more to be said for it. There
is an obvious inconsistency in this violent wish to
refer the present question to the existing consti-
tuencies when the very ground of the appeal is
an opinion that the constituencies are corrupt
usurpations, with no substantial right to call
themselves the people and to elect the Parliament.
It is impossible to pay a higher compliment to the
existing constituency, and the existing state of our
representative system, than by insisting on an im-
mediate reference to them on any question of import-
ance. Why alter and revolutionise a tribunal which
we regard as the opportune and infallible saviour
of the country ?" And it adds almost with an air
of scorn—" Dissolution, of course, is revolution as
far as it goes. It is equivalent to overturning the
chessboard, turning off the gas, or getting out of a
controversy by creating a riot."
The Ifornmg Post says—" Earl Russell and Mr. Glad-
stone must not deceive themselves. They would lose by
a dissolution, and their loss would be regal ded as o public
gain. The Conservatives, as a party, can have no wish
to avoid a conflict in which they would, as far as we can
see, be certain to increase their strength."
The Law Times says—" There are many considerations
which may well make even so daring a man as Earl Russell
to hesitate before ho adopts such a course. It would be
practically an appeal to the democratic and revolutionary
element, and the threatened invocation to the trades'
unions for assistance would but increase a power already
sufficiently alarming. Moreover, a general election means
the postponement of public business for another year, and
this, at a moment when the flames of war are raging about
us, might in no improbable contingencies be fatal to the
country. Again, it is not usual for a Ministry• beaten by
its own party to dissolve its own Parliament. For these
reasons we do not anticipate a dissolution. Possibly there
may be a reconstruction of the present Cabinet, but mode
probably the Constitutional party, combined of the Con-
selvative-Liberals and Liberal-Conservatives, will take
office with the programme of peace, progress, and consti-
tutional reform."

The Morning Advertiser, after adducing a number of
reasons in support of its argument, observes :—" On all
these grounds we deem a dissolution to be unadvisable.
Mr. Gladstone's Bill has failed to excite much enthusiasm
in the country, and the cry for 'the whole Bill and nothing
but the Bill' will not, in this case, find any response. But
let it be remembered that a defeat, after a dissolution,
would be a final one, and would postpone the cause of Re-
form probably for a dozen years. Let Ministers,' weigh-
ing all these facts, pause before they plunge the country
a second time, in two years into the turmoil of a general
election."

The Morning _Herald says—" We put aside as
altogether impossible the assent of her Majesty to a dis-
solution, or her refusal to accept the resignation of the
Government. Her Majesty's return to the metropolis will
necessarily be followed by an invitation to Lord Derby to
form a Government. If the noble lord declines or fails in
the task, then, and not till then, will the Queen ask the
present Ministers to remain in office, and give them the
power of dissolving Parliament. The trick contrived by
Earl Russell and Mr. Gladstone will, therefore, fail ; but
it does not the less deserve exposure and condemnation."

LATEST BETTING AT THE WEST-END.
2 to 1 agst Colt by Vote of Confidence—lntrigue.
3to 1 agst Mr. Bright's Dissolution.
4to 1 agst Lord Russell's Resignation.
10 to 1 agst Mr. Gladstone's Discretion.