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

MEETING OF PARLIANENT.

(From the Derbyshire Courier.)
Now that the meeting of the new Parliament is
about to take place, the actual position of parties is
engaging the attention of the public. It appears
to be admitted on all hands that the returns have
been very different from that which was generally
expected. Mr. Bright and his party must be
considerably surprised to find that the country has
manifested a degree of supineness and indifference
to his war cry of liberty which they had never
imagined possible. Lord Palmerston and Lord
John Russell must be disappointed at the very little
enthusiasm which has been shown throughout the
country in support of their views. Ministers must
also have seen with no little astonishment the
success which has attended the efforts of their
friends in various quarters where such succet3
could be little expected.
Accordingly the Times, which has all along
blamed Ministers for dissolving Parliament, now
turns round and declares that Lord John Russell's
resolution was "as mere a blunder as any tyro in
politics could commit in a moment of rash confi-
dence." " What in the name of common sense," it
asks, "of Cocker, and of all that is calculable,
what has been gained by this precious Resolution ?"
" The responsibility of all that has followed dates
from the first declaration of war—Lord J. Russell's
resolution." "What, then," the Times proeeeds to
inquire, " has this resolution done ?" "So far as
regard's the balance of parties it has given Lord
Derby 26 seats or 52 votes in a division. This is
so much gain, and is not to be explained away.
We cannot help looking back to the very hard-
fought battle, on a very definite issue, which Lord
Derby lost by 39 votes, and with that recent
instance we cannot but think Lord Derby has
every reason to rejoice with a gain of 52 votes on a
division.
So Lord Derby, says the Times' writer, may well
pray "that Lord John may always direct and con-
found the politics of the Liberal cause." So we
are further told that Lord John " has shelved for
this year Parliamentary Reform," that "the whole
year has been lost to the country," and so the
conclusion of the matter is that nothing has been
gained but a " moral lesson" for Lord Palmerston
and Lord John Russell.
"A year," said our King Charles 2d, "is h good
deal out of a man's life," and the country will be
inclined to think that the " loss of a year," the loss
of money, loss of character to our Parliamentary
system, and loss of patience at this petty, paltry,
political strife, is " a good deal" to pay for a moral
lesson to those promising young Statesmen, Lord
John Russell and Lord Palmerston.

In the meanwhile the representatives in the pub-
lic press of the contending parties are casting up
their accounts, and analysing the return lists of
members. The Ministerial paper, the Morning
Herald, divides the new members into 306 sup-
porters of Lord Derby, 107 of Lord Palmerston,
148 of Lord J. Russell, 28 of Mr. Bright, and 65
independent members. A carefully drawn up list
published in The Sun`gives 299 Ministerialists and
356 Liberals ; and by this computation the Liberal
majority which in 1857 was 98, is reduced in the
present Parliament of 1859 to 57, that is the Mini-
sterialists have gained 41 votes.
The fact of upwards of 100 members of the new
Parliament being new men must, however, be taken
into account, Till some great division has taken
place it is impossible to estimate correctly the exact
shade of political opinion of a great part of these
new members.

• Till such a division takes place the opinions ex-
pressed out of doors by politicians of various shades
of party deserves some attention.
Sir John Ramsden stated at a great meeting
of his supporters at Leeds, on Monday last, that
he was prepared to contradict the rumour that he
had been selected by the Opposition to move a
vote of want of confidence in Ministers, in the
second week of the session. "No such proposition,"
said Sir John, " has ever been made to me ; and if
it were I should decline it ; and for this reason,
that I consider that the member of the House of
Commons who takes upon himself to propose to
Parliament to dismiss a Ministry, in order to justify
such a course should be able to assure the House of
Commons that he sees his way to the founda-
tion of a more lasting and. stronger Govern-
ment. I must say," added Sir John, " with the
deepest regret, that in the present divided state of
our leadership, I do not see my way to any such
result." Sir John here speaks, as we think, to the
point. If Ministers do wrong turn them out, if
you can, but do not try to turn them out with one
only motive,—that of getting yourselves in.
But a more remarkable speech is that of Mr.
Roebuck, at Milford. The honourable member for
Sheffield generally speaks out, and on this occasion
he was evidently in the humour for telling " his
friends" and the country a bit of his mind. "We
shall be called upon about 7th June," says Mr.
Roebuck, " to decide whether or not the English.
Parliament will put faith in the present Govern-
ment, or that which is looming in the future." And
what, he asks is this coming Administration ? "It is
that which I have seen," he says," for 26'years ever
combining with the most violent professions of
public policy, mid regard for the public interest, the
most intense consideration for private emolument."
" Shall we have," he proceeds " Lord Palmerston
or Lord Derby for Prime Minister ?" " I shall be
found," he says " when the oppositioncomes, in the
camp of the people of England, and that camp I
sincerely believe to be opposed to Lord Palmer-
ston." " What," he asks, ",am I, an independent
member, to de, who have to chose between one side
or another ? I say that the least mischief may
come from not changing the Administration, and
what is more, I believe we shall succeed in prevent-
ing that change." " I say,—for God's sake—don't
chose Lord Palmerston."

There can be, and Mr. Roebuck evidently intends
that there shall be, no mistake about this. Mr.
Roebuck is still a "Liberal," but he will not be a

member of the Whig tail, whether Lord Palmerston
or Lord John be the head.

- Weznay turn to another public declaration, that
of ' Mr. Bright, made, at Birmingham, to a meet-
ing of non-electors. A more trumpery affair than
this last Brummagem speech of Mr. Bright can-
not be conceived. In the first place; as Mr.
Bright pretends to be a man of peace, and won't
fight either on public or private grounds, he ought
to be decently civil in his language. We suggest
to i Mr. Bright, that in speatling of Lord Derby
" as that great public malefactor,' he makes use of
language which he dare not use in Parliament, and.
which he ought to be ashamed, as either a man or
a gentleman, of using, even if he were ready to
take the responsibility of such language—which he
is not ready to do.
i But this is merely a want of good taste and
right feeling. Mr. Bright's speech is altogether
a shallow and puerile affair. We make allowance,
indeed, for his being a disappointed man. He
meets the non-electors of Birmingham—he tells
them, "in evil times," the !country has refused to
accept Mr. Bright as its guide, philosopher, or
friend. The English people think Mr. Bright an
unsafe guide, an unsound philosopher, and a,
dangerous friend. And so Mr.ißright has fallen
upon evil times. The fact is, Mr. Bright is
degenerating into a mere demagogue pure and
simple. He abuses the English. Parliament for
keeping up the Corn Laws—it being a well known
fact, stated by Adam Smith, the Apostle of Free
Trade, that the protective system in this country
originated with the body to which Mr. Bright
belongs, and to which he owes everything—the
trading community in the towns. He tells the
people that they now condemn the great war with
France, when he knows that the people, at the
time of the war, were enthusiastic supporters of
that war. He tells the people that theb better
rretshen-
tative system, which has succeeded
any that ever existed in
hbee its faultsan
is people all
" a form and a farce." Meh ng
war. As
what they may—had bectohme ewEleirttllF better than.
wish to remain neutral in
t et
fact, present
act,he doubts the
Mr. Bright cannot_
profession.
h
He abuses the Church,
Dissenter;n but he abuses also
the rifle club
sincerity
which
ia
naturalo f
the militia, the yeomanry,
dEnglish.movement,
and in fact everything manly.an . From
tbe whole tenor of his speech it might be supposed
pFofe
vr Bright and Mr. Roebuck had not an idea
that i . the
in a
in common. Everything in Mr. Bright's address
leads to the conclusion that, except the 700 non-
electors of Birmingham and Mr. Bright himself,
everybody, every institution, and every feeling in
England, is corrupt and rotten.
~ England," said Mr. Roebuck on Saturday last,
~ is now at the very apex of civilisation—she is the
Sheffield,
torch of liberty. All that is great and liberal in
upon'AsthEen
the government of mankind has emanated from
England."
England," ,"susnayesf
my
member for
" I
oSheffield,eolodk, '
existence, and to her welfare,
and the consideration
Of her well-being, I would sacrifice my existence."
Mr. Roebuck, though an advanced Liberal, is also
an Englishman in feeling and in' practice. But
here is Mr. Bright, because the country will not go
with him at this present moment in extending the
franchise to such a class of Englishmen as he
thinks and hopes would secure to him the emolu-
ments of office and enable him to govern the country
in his own particular way, ready to scold like a
woman, and vilify all those institutions which have
conferred on him every advantage of position ion which
he bas attained. Mr. Bright must learn to bear
with his country, if it will not take him exactly at
his own prewsterous estimation.