The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-07 00:00:00

immortal straw derisively in th:, corm): d his
mo-ath, with an inextinguishable air of Tirtuons

indignation.
Yesterday, in point of fact, the nominal leader
of her Majesty's Opposition, the noble lord the
member for Tiverton, yesterday of all the days in
the week, upon a wretched Wednesday—Lord PAL-
MERSTON rose with an admirable assumption of can-
dour, mingled with a bearing expressive of wounded
dikii4y, for the purpose of offering to the house a
few personal explanations. He had been accused of
unconstitutional conduct in questioning the prero-
gative of the QUEEN to dissolve Parliament, et
cetera. Something to this effect had been said with
respect to his conduct, where and by whom he was
not, according to the rules of the House, at liberty to
specify—and so forth. As it happened that all this
had been said, if possible yet more strongly,
yet more pointedly, directly and accusingly in that
very House, not in the mysterious " other place,"
but within the walls of the House of Commons by
a right hon. gentleman sitting habitually on the
other side of the table immediately opposite the
noble lord— there was no possible necessity of
course for all this elaborate ambiguity and
circumlocution. But let that pass—The noble
lord, to return to his ingenious preamble,
had been accused, and so op, by " a
person whose authority in this country is consider-
able." As we don't happen in journalism to be re-
stricted to all this Parliamentary periphrasis—let
us say at once, plainly, that the noble viscount
alluded, of course, to the words which fell on Mon-
day evening in the House of Peers from the lips of
the noble earl the First Lord of the Treasury,
during the delivery of his masterly Ministerial
statement. Alluding to those remarks in reference to
Lord PALmEßsToN,uttered by Lord DERBY upon that
occasion, the noble leader (nominally) of the Opposi-
tion said yesterday afternoon, " I have been accused
of unconstitutional conduct in questioning the pre-
rogative of the QUEEN to dissolve Parliament when
her advisers may think fit, and upon whatever sub-
ject they may deem it right to dissolve"—adding
thereupon these remarkable words—" Now, Sir, I
never said anything that could bear that
construction." Tolerably plain speaking, that
But now, having weighed the words well for just
exactly what they are worth—let us turn back to
what the noble lord really did say upon the occa-
sion referred to, namely, when, upon Lady-day
last, he spoke of the rumoured possibility of a dis-
solution. And let us then see how far Lord PAL-
MERSON was yesterday justified in declaring,
" Sir, I never said anything that would bear
that construction." Having, upon the 25th of
March, during the course of his extremely arrogant
—not to say insolent and intemperate—speech in
reference to the position of the Cabinet in regard
to the country and in regard to Parliament ; having
in language of unprecedented, if not even unparlia-
mentary, haughtiness, " condemned " Ministers to
keep their places—Lord PALMERSTON went on
to speak as follows. These, remember, being
the ipsissima verba " Well, then, it is
said they may dissolve." He had pre-
viously discredited, in the intolerable manner
above alluded to the aupposition that Ministers
would resign. He now added in regard to the
rumour of the dissolution—" Well, I have no
greater faith in their dissolving. (Laughter.) In
the first place, to. dissolve Parliament at the pre-
sent moment implies something more than the will
of Government. The concurrence of the House
would be necessary to its own dissolution. The
state of business is such that it would, be necessary
to have other votes in supply, to have an appropria-
tion act, to have a ways and means act, to make pro
vision for certain Exchequer Bonds that fall due in
June—all these operations will require the hearty
concurrence of the house. Are they assured of
obtaining that concurrence lam qnite ready to
admit that on occasions when the contest is be-
tween two political parties on a question of foreign
relations, of peace or war, or a question on which
the Government and a majority of this house may
disagree, it is perfectly constitutional that they
should appeal to the country, and it is perfectly
right that the majority who may have censured or
disagreed with them should nevertheless render
aid to an honest appeal to the country on the point
in dispute. But that is not the present question. I
ask why the Government -should throw the
British constitution to be scrambled for
at every hustings in the kingdom ? Is
that the course which a Conservative
Government would think it their duty to pursue ?
I. do not think they would if they could, and I do
not think they could if they would. (Cheers and
laughter.) Ido not as yet believe that if that was
their intention that this House would not be wiser
than they. We do not feel stronger than they
might feel the duty of Parliament and Govern-
ment towards the constitution of the country; but
I believe that this House would not lend its aid
to a course which it thinks would be injurious to
the institutions of the country. I am confident,
therefore, that the belief in the dissolution which
has been so much bandied all over the town by mem-
bers of the Government, high and low, is only an
attempt to renew that which was done last year. It
is only a vain threat for the purpose of influencing
members." Those were exactly the words that on
Friday evening, the 25th of March, ' fell from the
mouth of Lord PALMERSTON is reference to the
rumour of a possible dissolution of Parliament, in
the event of the refusal by the House of Commons,
not of the Reform Bill, but of the candid and dis-
passionate consideration of the Reform laid upon
the 'table of the house by her MAJESTY'S Govern
ment.

Against those extraordinary remarks, the First
Lord of the Admiralty protested on the Monday
night following, in a speech worthy of a Minister
of the Crown—a speech worthy of a high-minded
and high-spirited English gentleman. " There
was a passage in the speech of the noble viscount,"
said Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, on the 28th of
March, " which he (Sir JOHN) heard with
astonishment and disapprobation—he meant that
passage of his speech in which he referred to the
possibility of a dissolution. (Cheers.) He could
construe that passage in_ no other way than as an
attack on the prerogative of the Crown—(cheers)—
for the language of the noble viscount was—You
shall not dissolve Parliament : we the House of
Commons, will prevent you ; you cannot dissolve
without the concurrence of the House of Commons,
and that concurrence shall be refused. (Cheers.)
That was the language of the noble viscount, but
it was language which he should not have expected
to hear fizom one of his long experience and standing
—(cheers)—for it was language which he con-
sidered to
.be wanting in due respect to the Crown
and a violation of its prerogative." (Oh, and cheers.)
Those were the bold, manly, indignant words uttered
as long ago as last Monday week in Lord PAL3IER-
STOWS presence, in the House of Commons, by Sir
JOHN PAKINGTON. Not in some mysterious "other
place," by some mysterious other person, who must
be nameless according to the etiquette of Parliament!
What Lord DEr.BY said on the Monday following
(namely, this last Monday) in reference to those
extraordinary remarks which had been uttered by
Lord PALMERSTON upon the subject of any possible
intention of the part of Her MAJESTY'S Ministers

to dissolve Parliament, Was simply as follows: "The
Noble Viscount," said Lord DERLY in the midst of
his Ministerial Statement, "The Noble Viscount went
on, and in the heat of argument, in the heat of debate,
I presume, used an expression which I certainly
should not have expected from one who has had a
long acquaintance with the constitutional historY
of the country. He went to say Parliament would
not permit us to resign, and Parliament would not
permit us to dissolve. I should like to know where
the noble viscount has found that doctrine. It has
always been heldto be the constitutional prerogative
of the Crown, when and where it pleased, to dis-
solve Parliament, and since the memorable year of
1781—which the noble viscount would have done
well to remember, for the attempt was followed by
disastrous consequences which recoiled upon the
heads of its authors—there has been no attempt to
interfere with the prerogative of the Crown to
dissolve Parliament when and for what reason it
thought fit." That was the statesmanlike repudia-
tion by Lord DERBY of the unconstitutional
opinion 4xpressed by Lord PAL3IERSTON. What
Lord PALMERSTON said we have now revived to
public recollection. By his own words let him be
judged. They are given here by as verbatim et litera-
tim. There can be no possible misapprehension as
to what it was the noble lord really did say—there
are his very expressions ! Expressions, most arro-
gant, most insolent, most intolerable—words enun-
ciating a doctrine directly infringing upon the pre-
rogative of the Crown. And—because such—
reprobated in burning words of indignation, in
the House of Commons by the First Lord of the
Admiralty, and in the House of Peers by the First
Lord of the Treasury. Altogether, we do not think
the noble viscount has gained much by his Personal
Explanations. Altogether, we do still remain of opi-
nion that, the Judicious Bottleholder has for once,
jest for once in a way, acted, to say the least of it
—rather injudiciously.

An unfair attempt will be made to mystify the
Liberal constituencies. Your vote is asked, it will
be said, on Lord DERBY'S Reform Bill—aye or no ?
Lord DERBY and Mr. DISRAELI have not said so.
On the contrary, the former has declared that he is
now free from any special pledges as to particular
proposals or measures ; and the latter has not even
adverted to Reform in his address to his constitu-
ents. It became perfectly obvious, from the lan -
guage of Conservatives themselves in the course
of the debate, that the great stumbling-block of
disfranchising the freeholders must be removed. It
would have been removed in committee, had the Bill
been permitted to get there. It is pretended, in-
deed, on the other hand, that the present Govern-
ment would not introduce another Reform Bill.
This is simply absurd. No Government could
either continue in, or assume office, without doing
it. The subject has been too deeply stirred to be
tossed into the waste-basket. It must be settled,
and promptly too. With the Parliament soon to
be elected no Ministry could escape a vote which
would at once overthrow them if they did not
proclaim their Reform policy.

We maintain that Ministers, whether they com-
mit themselves to such language or not, have asked
the country for its instructions. They were not
disposed to take those of Lord J. RUSSELL, and with
good reason. His proposals might have been
considered by them in committee, and very likely
would have been adopted at the wish of their own
supporters. But they were put forward just in the
offensive form which compelled them, in self-
respect, to support what they must have seen to be
their error. The resolutions were proposed
as substitutes for the motion that the
bill "be now read a second time." We may be
mistaken, but we imagine the Ministry are not
deterred by false pride from asking the country
what it really wishes. The subject of Reform has
now been discussed before it for seven long nights
in Parliament, most points of importance have
been raised, and it is for the electors to give their
verdict on all the counts, and for Ministers to
give effect to the verdict.
We shall be told that this would be a very un-

dignified course for a Ministry to take, but it is,
really, equally undignified for Ministers•aspirant
to do, virtually, the same thing. The noble mover
of the resolution has equally thrown the whole
question before the country. The difference be-
tween ►hat Lord JOHN RUSSELL could carry, and

what would be carried through the present

Ministry is, we fear, very small indeed. Lord
JOHN in office has always made very Liberal
speeches, followed by very petty proposals, and
even these, of late, he has rarely carried. His power
in the house, like that of PALMERSTON'S, seems to
have vanished. On the grand test ofLiberalism,a very
large majority of the Liberals always vote against
the noble lords ; and they will do so next Tuesday,
should Mr. BERKELEY be lucky enough to retrieve
his false step on Mr. WYLD'S motion. In Lord
JOAN ItussELL's position, he was bound, quite as
much as Lord DERBY, to give definiteness to the
appeal to the country—an appeal which he well
knew was highly probable. He did nothing of the
sort. The Ministry, therefore, ask aloud which
set of men will you have ? But they also tacitly
ask, what is it you want at our hands ?
Be all this as it may, Parliamentary Reform is
the matter submitted de facto to the country, and
all attempts to hide away that plain fact will be
unscrupulously dealt with by the nation. Reform
will be the subject on every hustings, and the topic
of every election meeting. If, then, the country
wishes for a settlement, now is its time: It must
return such a majority for the points it thinks most
important, as shall decide the course of any Minis-
try whatever ; such a majority as shall enable the
present Ministry to say to the crusty old Tories, "You
see what.you must concede—remember 1832, remem-
ber 1846, and do it at once, and with a good grace;
refuse longer, and you will only exasperate to in-
creased demands."
What shall these demands be ? We should say
the two on which the least was said in the House.
A much lower suffrage is now conceded by all ;
there will be little fight about that. We care little
for the difference between the RUSSELL, GRAHAM,
HENLEY, and BRIGHT parties on this point ; and
what they all unite to demand, and unite they
will, of course must be accepted. What was not
mentioned, was the REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS
and the BALLOT. In regard to the former, the
question is, simply, can it be accomplished ? The
Whigs, for their own purposes, crushed in 1832 a
host of petty landlord boroughs, of which events
have made atm a little ashamed, although in heart
they still cling to them quite as much as the Tories
It is a question of Parliamentary tactics, in fact,
whether, with all these boroughs voting against
him, any Minister can disfranchise as many
of t'aem as he ought, and give the seats to
the yopulous towns and counties. On this
point it is for these towns and counties
to speak out. They may be assured that the petty
boroug'as will fight hard for what they have got.
The difference between Lord JOHN'S offer on this
point and that of the Government is insignificant.
Wealtl and population must ask much more and
must gi 't it too, before we have a settlement.

The ol 'her demand, the Ballot, is one on which
!e voice of the country nzay be effectually raised.

The small boroughs are, perhapsfor the most part
favourable to it. A member for a small borough
has been its firmest advocate this session. The
counties are all eager for it; though,.unfortunately,
for the very reason that they most need it, they darn
not vote for it. The larger towns are, probably,
unanimous for it. Ireland and Scotland confessedly
want it. It is abundantly practicable to send
considerable majority of members pledged to de-
mand the insertion of the Ballot in any Reform
8i11.,, For ourselves we would give little for any
• measure without it. What we ask is a bill, not to
place the election- of our representatives in the
hands of landlords, lawyers, and stewards, or. in
those of manufacturers and millionaires, but in
those of the electors themselves. And we affirm of
every candidate, be he Whig or Tory, or what-
ever' he may, if he can look the electors in
the face and tell them he will not vote for the
Ballot, he tells them, in all but direct language,
that he cannot trust them, and they ought in reply
to tell him by their votes—that they will not trust
hint. We would not ourselves vote for any can-
didate who refused the Ballot, and do not see how,
at the present crisis, any well advised Liberal could
do it. Two additions are needed to the Act of
1832—more electors, and more independent elec-
tors—extended suffrage and the Ballot. These
must be the demands of IBi9.

Sir CHARLES WOOD last night made a severe on-
slaught on his successor in office, respecting a state-
ment made on bringing forward the:Naval Estimates
some weeks since. The right hon. baronet speedily
discovered the magnitude of the error into which
he had been betrayed, and found that he had
" caught a Tartar,!' with whom he had not the
slightest possible chance in any conflict that might
take place. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON not only re-
peated and proved his assertions, but materially
strengthened them. He clearly pointed out that
ha "had spoken by the book," and that "if he had
erred in any respect, it was on the side of courtesy."
That was the head and front of his offending,
which so grievously excited the wrath of his pre-
decessor. On succeeding to office he did not find
the navy in a proper and adequate state
for the defence of our coasts and the protec-
tion of our commerce. He was, therefore,
compelled to ask for a large sum, in order that it
might be brought to such a state of efficiency as
would maintain the maritime supremacy of Great
Britain, and prevent the possibility of our well-won
laurels being torn from our brows, or even in any
degree tarnished. There can be no doubt that the
efficiency of the navy was not kept up to the
mark while Sir CHARLES WOOD was First Lord.

Although it was an imperative duty to make him

self fully acquainted with the position and pro-
spects of the French navy, he seems to have totally
neglected that very important point, and it was
not until after Sir JOHN PAXINGTON had been
some months in office that he was enabled to obtain
the information which ought to have been placed
on record in the office.

But Sir CHARLES WOOD not merely neglected his
but he absolutely deceived the House.
We do not for a moment insinuate that it was a
suggestio falsi, but it came very near the suppressio
yeri. It was, at all events, a palpable want of
candour, when two years since, in 1857, he took
credit for ships then building as a portion of the
available maritime resources of the country,
although these very ships have not as yet been
launched. He must have known the actual force
then ready for duty, and must be convicted of
gross negligence in only demanding an additional
sum of £70,000 in order to supply the deficiency.
It was, as Sir JOHN PAKINGTON truly declared,
to fall " greatly short of the duty which he (Sir
C. WOOD) owed to his country.".

The " submission " of Sir BALDWIN WALKER
proves beyond the possibility of doubt the positive
and relative inadequacy of our naval forces
at the time of the last change of
Ministry. If Sir CHARLES WOOD had efficiently
discharged the trust confided. to his hands, the
Surveyor of the Navy would not have been com-
pelled to remonstrate with the new First Lord on
the defective state of our maritime forces, and im-
plore the addition of several line-of-battle ships.
That request was not disregarded. having satisfied
himself, as he was bound to do, that it was founded
on incontrovertible facts, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON
proposed an addition to the estimates, not for
£70,000, but for £1,000,000, the result whereof
will be to add no less than twenty•six powerful
men-of-war to the navy, and to restore England to
the position which she should never for a single
moment have relinquished, or suffered to have been
imperilled.
If the accession of Lord DERBY and his col-
leagues to office produced no other benefit save that
which has occurred. in the Admiralty, it would be
sufficient to render it highly acceptable to the
nation. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON has well and
faithfully performed the arduous task imposed on
him by the carelessness and negligence of his pre-
decessors. He has shown himself to be the best
First Lord that England has seen for many years.
He clearly perceives the course which he is bound
to follow, and he does not shrink from it, in order
that his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
may be spared some trifling inconvenience. No !I
He has entered into the feelings and wishes of the
community. He has determined that it shall not
be his fault if Britannia does not continue to
" rule the waves," now and evermore. The state
of the navy under the past and present regime
must not be lost sight of by voters at the coming
election. It is not merely a question between
Lords DERBY and JOIN RUSSELL, but also between
PAKINGTON and WOOD, MALMESBURY and CLAREN -
DON, DISRAELI and CORNEWALL LEWIS. Can there
be any comparison between these parties ! 'We think
not. It has been said that the diligence displayed,
so greatly out of the red-tapist line, is because the
Administration is weak, and could not afford to give
the slightest opening to its opponents. Tf that be
so—if that, indeed, be the cause of the zeal and
energy exhibited in every department, we can only
say that it would be well for England if it had
always a weak Government, and not one which,
in fancied strength, could afford to disregard im-
perative duties, and to snub and insult every inde-
pendent member who ventured to exhibit an
inconvenient interrogatory, or to appear restive
under the despotism which was attempted to be
established.

Their Royal Highnesses the Duchess of Cam-
bridge and the Princess Mary, attended by Lieut.•-Colonel
H. Purves, honoured Lady Truro by their company at din-
ner last evening, at her ladyship's residence in Eaton-
square. ,A distinguished circle was invited to meet the
royal guests. A large party assembled at -a later hour at
the invitation of Lady Truro.

_ -
The Duke and Duchess of Manchester arrived at
their inall,iion in Great Stanhope-street on Tuesday from
Kimbolton Castle.

The Marquis of Lansdowne received a large party
at dinner last evening, at Lansdowne House.

The Earl .of. Chesterfield has left town for
Brighton, where his daughter, the Lady Evelyn Stanhope,
is now staying.

The Earl of Sefton and Sir George .Worabwell
left London on Monday for Paris, en route to Rome.
The Earl and Countess of March have arrived in
town. The noble earl has taken a residence in Lowndes-
square for the season.