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

R2PRESENTATION OF EDINBU.RGII,

Mr. Black, who solicits re-election by the city of
Edinburgh, and Mr. Moncrieff, who withdraws from
the Leith burghs to offer himself for the city, held a
meeting with the electors in the Music-hall there on !
Wednesday. The Lord Provost presided.
Mr. BLACK at some length vindicated the resolu-
tion of Lord John Russell, on the ground that it
was of essential importance to decide first on those
principles which gave a character to the whole
bill. Had it, he said, been thrown out on the
second reading, seeing it contained some good
clauses, then the opponents of the measure might
have been censured for objecting to reform and. to
what was good in the bill. On the other hand,
had they permitted it to go into committee to be
discussed clause by clause, it would only have been
a waste of time. If the Liberals and the Ministry
each continued firm to their principles, it must
have been thrown out at last or abandoned by the
Ministry after weeks or months of fruitless wrang-
ling. The Reform Bill of 1832, supported by an
undivided Ministry and with a majority of more
than a hundred at their back, was retained strug-
gling its way through the House of Commons from
the 15th of June to the 22d of September, though
at last agreed to by a majority of 109. Well, then,
what would have been the fate of this bill with a
majority against it ? The resolution of Lord John
Russell was not only the most convenient for the
House of Commons, but ought to have been con-
sidered the most favourable for the Ministry them-
selves. The main principles were brought forward
to be tested at once, and the decision upon them
was most remarkable. On the Opposition side of
the-House there was a unanimous opinion against
them, and on the Ministerial side of the house, ex-
cepting the Ministers themselves, no man spoke in
favour of them. In short, I never saw a more
unanimous opinion expressed than on that occasion
against the principles of the bill which were struck
at by Lord John Russell's resolution. From the
course the Ministry adopted they must have made
up their minds that if they were in a minority they
would either resign or dissolve the Parliament.
They did dissolve ; and who is responsible for all
the unnecessary turmoil in the country, and the
serious injury to trade, and the dangers arising
from the threatening state of affairs in Europe ?
Had the Ministry yielded as they ought to have
done to the unequivocally expressed opinion of the
House of Commons, there needed to have been no
dissolution. Lord J. Russell's resolution was carried
by a majority of 39 ; the second reading of the Edin-
: burgh Annuity Tax Bill by a majority of 40. (Cheers
and hisses.) There is something curious about this
majority of 39. I sometimes amuse myself with
. .

analysing the divisions on important questions ; on
this I found there was a majority of 17 among the
Scotch members—(cheers)—but these were neutral-
ised by the Irish members, who gave a majority of
16 to the Ministry, a number of the Liberal
Catholic members voting contrary to their usual
policy. (Hear, hear.) What could have been the
cause for this ? Is it possible that this ultra-
Protestant Ministry, the men who have uniformly
resisted even the just claims of Catholics and Jews,
could have resorted to any unworthy promises and
compliances to secure a few votes ? (Hear.) Had
there been no Irish members in the house, the
English and Scotch would have given a majority of
55 ; and if all the Liberal members had voted, as
they ought to have done, the majority would have
exceeded 100. (Cheers.) Bat it is one of the
reproaches brought against the Liberal party, and
not unjustly, that they are a rope of sand—that
they have no cohesion. With this they were
taunted again and again from Ministerial benches.

The fact is, we are-too independent ; every man
must follow his own individual notions. The Tory
party are a compact, well-disciplined army. We
are made up of different clans and volunteers, every
one thinking he has a right to fight for his own
hand, sometimes on one side, sometimes on the
other. The consequence is, although we are the
majority, we are generally beaten, just as a dis-
jointed army, especially if under discordant leaders,
are sure to be discomfited by well-disciplined troops
under leaders acting in concert. There is often a
clamour raised against " party men," but, gentle-
men, let me tell you there is a large and a powerful
party against you, and unless you can form a party
larger and more powerful you must submit to
their rule. It is not the members of Parliament
who are alone to blame for this disorderly state of
your troops; the constituencies are not altogether
guiltless. They sometimes speak slightingly or
reproachfully against a member because he joins
with others of similar sentiments who are generally
acting under the same leaders. They taunt him
with being a party man. Gentlemen, I make
bold to say that I am as independent as any
man in the House of Commons, or any man in this
room—(cheers)—and I consider it my duty to act
In all great questions with that party who are the
supporters of Liberal measures, and I will act under
any leader who secures the confidence of that party,
and in so doing I am convinced I shall promote the
best interests of the country. (Cheers.)
Mr. MONCRIEFF, after an eloquent reference to
the past struggles for reform made in the city of
Edinburgh, said—Gentlemen, her Majesty's Mini-
sters, in a great crisis of public affairs, in a position
both at home and abroad of very considerable
anxiety, have recommended her Majesty to dissolve
Parliament—to dissolve it before it has run more
than two years of its course. The cause of this
dissolution is an adverse vote of the House of
Commons ; and, according to constitutional prin-
ciple, the dissolution must mean an appeal from the
vote of the House of Commons to the opinion of the
country. There is, therefore, a question asked
which the country is expected to answer, and that i
question must be a weighty and important one. I
heard Mr. Disraeli say that so critical was the state
of our foreign affairs that even our debating his
Reform Bill had weakened the friends of the
Government. And yet there is a question which
the country is expected to answer, so pressing and
so momentous that, notwithstanding the state of
our foreign relations, her Majesty's Ministers have
advised the Crown to take the sense of the people
upon it. Gentlemen, upon former occasions when
a dissolution took place under such circumstances,
the question sent to the country was a very clear
and distinct one. In 1831, when another Reform
Bill was rejected, the sense of the country was ap-
pealed to on the clearest of all issues, and it gave
the clearest of all answers ; and in the same way
in 1857, when Lord Palmerston appealed to the
country from the vote on the China war, there was
no doubt as to what the question was which the
country was asked, and there was as little doubt as
to its answer. But here, when I turn to the first
thing that we must attend to in such a case, and ask
what is the question which the country is to answer,
I declare I am totally at a loss. If I look to the
account given of it by the Prime Minister in his
speech, where I should have expected to find it, I find
that the question which he was most anxious about
was whether he or Lord John Russell had been the
most liberal, useful, and consistent politician. Gen-
tlemen, if that were the question, I suspect the
country would have very little difficuty in giving
it an answer. (Cheers.) I should say that for the
Lord Stanley of the Reform Bill of 1832—the
Conservative Premier of 1859 with I suppose the
repeated cheers of all the survivors of that House
of Lords who did not assemble to oppose that
Reform Bill in 1832--to put such an issue certainly