The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-23 00:00:00

shows that his character for indiscreet courage has
not been unjustly earned. (Rear, hear.) nut,
gentlemen, although the Prime Minister chose to
put it on a personal altercation of that kind, though
he talks a great deal about divisions in our party,
he may depend on it that the memory of the coun-
try is much better than his own, and that they have
forgotten nothing of what has happened in the
interval from 1832 till now, and that they never
would think of placing on the same level the long,
consistent, useful, and honourable career of the one
with the erratic, the volatile, and the fitful lead-

ings of a pilot, eloquent, indeed, and full of genius,
but trimming his casual sails to every passing
breeze, and subsisting on the changes and impulses
of the transient hour. (Cheers.) But if we must
find some issue other than that, and if we go from
the speech of the Prime Minister to the speech

which he has advised her Majesty to deliver from
the throne, I must say my wonder is infinitely
increased. We are told that this dissolution has

taken place in order that the country may consider
the state of the country. That is all the informa-
tion you are given ; and the question you are asked
is, what is the state of the country ? The Prime
Minister thinks that the firebrand, for such it is, of

a dissolution and general election is to be cast
abroad, people taken from their avocations, and trade
injured, in order that the country at large may
consider the state of the country. (Hear, and ap-
plause.) Not a word about the Reform Bill. You
could not have discovered from that speech that
there had been a Reform Bill, but we are told
that the country is to consider its own state,
because two Ministries have successively lost

the confidence of the House of Commons. Gentle-
men, I say that that is as unsatisfactory an expla
nation of the grounds on which this dissolution has
taken place as ever proceeded from a Prime Minis-
ter of this country. (Cheers.) But, gentlemen.
the two questions we have to consider are, first, the
merits of Lord Derby's Reform Bill ; and, second,
the merits of Lord Derby's Government. In the
first place, as regards Lord Derby's Reform Bill, I
do not know that there can be much doubt about
the answer to be given to it, for I know nobody
that is in favour of it, not even Lord Derby himself
—at least, I have never heard him say so—and cer-
tainly neither in his speech in the House of Lords,
nor in the Queen's speech, is there any indication
given of that kind. The truth is, that having been
defeated on this question of a Reform Bill they
throw it to the winds. They have nothing to say
for it themselves; their friends have nothing to say
for it ; and having admitted that they brought in a
measure for which they did not care, or which they
did not dare to stand by, they now come fo dissolve
Parliament on some other issue which they have
not explained. They introduced a Reform Bill,
but it was a bill that had not one feature of reform
in it. It was a retrograde bill from beginning to
end. (Cheers.) It was a bill that could have uo
effect but to increase the power of the lauded pro-
prietors and of the aristocracy, and to diminish the
popular element; and here you have the reason
why, when this was found out, there was so little
said in its favour. Why, the bill was simply this
—the 40s. freeholders were to be put out of the
county because they were the popular element in
the county ; a £lO occupancy was to be given to
counties, without providing for residence or a dwell-
ing-house on the subject, which would have
enabled landed proprietors with tenants at will to
have made just as many votes as they had acres
yielding £lO a-year, and.these all out-voters, resi-
dence not being required ; and having done that in
the counties the bill introduces a £2 property fran-
chise in the burghs without requiring residence,
and you see how that would work in the smaller
burghs, and how many persons could thereby
acquire a vote ; by this means the Carlton
Club could have bought up, I believe, a very
large proportion of the burghs of England. That
bill, gentlemen, has met with its righteous fate. It
is in vain to tell us about coalitions and factious
movements ; it was a bill of such a nature as never
could have been read a second time in a reformed.
House of Commons. (Applause.) It would have
been great treachery to the whole principles of true
representation if the House of Commons had ever
permitted that bill to go into committee. (Ap-
plause.) But it has gone "to the tomb of all the
Capulets," and we shall never hear of it again ; but
the question still remains, what are we to do ? Are
we to have a Reform Bill? I think we must.
(Cheers.) After expressing his desire to sec the
question of Reform settled " when the sea was
calm, and the 'weather was fair," Mr. Moncreiff
went on to say :—" In December last, addressing
my present constituency at Leith, I went back to
the Reform Bill of 1854, and suggested it as being
probably as fair a solution of our difficulties as any
other. I think so still. I think a £lO occupation
franchise for the counties, with residence—for that
is indispensable—and a £6 occupancy franchise in
the burghs, world be a fair, reasonable, useful, and
beneficial extension." (Applause.) After some
further remarks on the Reform question the hon.
and learned gentleman proceeded As to the
second issue, what are we to say about Lord
Derby's Government ? Is there anything in his
Government which it is so important to preserve
that Parliament should be dissolved in order to ask
the opinion of the country in regard to it ? The
truth is that there is a very important question
connected with that. It is not whether we are to
have Lord Derby's Government or not, but whether
we are to have any Government which, in this free
country, really deserves to be called a Govern-
ment Are we to have this system of petty expe-
dients from day to day—a little support picked up
here, and a little support picked up there, and no
general principle laid down, or, if laid down, never
adhered to ? I believe that the country has long
grown tired of that kind of game. They see great
questions at issue; they see that great measures
are required, and they want a Government with
boldness enough to propose such measures, and with
resolution and self-reliance enough to stand by their
measures when proposed. (Applause.) Now, we
all felt when the Derby Government came in that
it deservedZas certainly it required, a deal of gentle
consideration—(a laugh)—and it got it. But, at
all events, coming in in that way, and trusting to
the leniency of their opponents, we might at least
have expected that they would have been reason-
ably moderate, quiet, and polite in their language.
Now, I must say, I have seen and heard with an
astonishment I cannot express the kind of vitupe-
ration which has been going on of late in this quar-
ter against what they call factious combination and
factious coalitions, and all manner of imputations
and improper motives launched at some of the best
and greatest men of this country; and for what ?
Why, because the Liberal party, who have always
supported Reform, thought proper to oppose a Re-
form Bill produced by a Government representing
those who themselves had always opposed it.
(Hear.) That is the great crime which we have
committed, and we are told that this is a factious
combination. But who are these gentlemen who
complain ; and how did they get into their present
position ? (Hear, hear.) It was the Conspiracy
Bill on which Lord Derby's Government came into
power, and yet they all voted for the first reading
of that bill ; and, moreover, I think Lord Derby in
the House of Lords encouraged Lord Palmerston
very strongly to bring in the Conspiracy Bill.
That was a question on which there was room for
difference of opinion, and there were about 100
gentlemen on the Liberal side of the house who
did differ from the measure on grounds which were
quite intelligible ; but the Conservatives supported
the bill on the first reading, and they came down
to the house on the second, and I will just tell you
what I saw. Mr. Milner Gibson made a speech of
great power, 'which was cheered loudly by those
who took the same view as himself and had voted
against the first reading, but it was received with
unanimous silence by the Opposition up to a par-
ticular period of the debate, when suddenly-
cheers began to surge • from below the gang-
way and above the gangway, and at last,
when Mr. Walpole got up to support Mr. Milner
Gibson's motion, there was a shout from the
Opposition which rent the roof, as if a sudden con-
viction had flashed on their minds as by electricity,
and they had for the first time seen all the iniquity
of the Conspiracy Bill, and all the merits of Mr.
Milner Gibson's motion. Now, there was no diffi-
culty in understanding that. (Hear, hear.) They
made a combination for the moment—which,
of course, was not factious—with Mr. Milner
Gibson and the 99 Liberals, and so obtained the
rests of Government. But it is not for them—l
say it is very ungrateful of them—to speak of fac-
tiousness, for if we may- not combine with Mr.
MilnerGibson and Mr. Bright I do not know on what
principle they found means to do so. (Hear.) But
the question is how is the Government to be carried
pona?tthyo tlhunion
elementsbelievejon there is only one way, and that is
by r
of theof a
Liberalstrong Government, party.
andthalt
see it nowhere else; but I trust that, however that
may be, the country will no longer allow its states-
men to degrade the high position of conducting the
affairs of this great and free country into a mere
miserable game of political chess." (Cheers.)
A vote in favour of the two candidates was
unanimously carried, as was also a vote of thanks
to Mr. Cowan the retiring representative.

It is said in a letter from Vienna that in a recent
sitting of the Municipal Council of Pesth it was proposed,
in the event of war, to form a corps of volunteers at the
expense of the city.

A letter from one of the principal vine-growers
near Apernay says :—" I am sorry to inform you that on
the merning of the 18th all the Vineyards in Champagne
were cut up by a sharp frost. There does not remain for
the present one. eighth of a crop, and the result will be a
great failure for the year. We are not yet out of danger
for the remainder, and cannot be before the middle of next
month."