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

THE SUN.

.THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 1859.
The judicious bottleholder has upon the occasion
of this last fight for-the Championship acted—just
for once---somewhat injudiciously! How—we
shall disetiss presently. But, first of all, one pass-
ing glance at that wonderful little hero—" the man
what won the Fight." He presents at the tri-
umphal close of it all, the usual appearances. The
victor here again is the very one who appears after
all to have been the most seriously punished. After
seven distinct rounds, ending with an unmistakeable
victory over his antagonist, he can scarcely see day-
light—this vaunted 'conqueror. The vanquished,
on the contrary, appears at the conclusion as fresh
as at the commencement, without a scratch, un-
breathed, and ready for anything. And so the
battle ends (according to custom) with the unfor-
tunate winner of the match seated, in a
decidedly groggy condition, himself knocked
out of all recognition, breathing hard, but
triumphant to the last, upon the knee of his chief
supporter, his " noble friend" the judicious bottle-
holder.

But coming back to that very point from which
we started, after' all that has been said and done,
it turns out that for once, at any rate, the judicibus
bottleholder has acted, as we have said, in this re-
cent fight.for the championship rather injudiciously.
While thp match was going on—at about the fourth
or fifth round—there was an outcry raised at what
appeared' at the time to be decidedly foul
play on his part. When eventually the
sponge has been flung up and the victory
decided 'in favour of his man, the conduct
of this worthy is taken more seriously and deli-
berately 'into consideration. The facts, however,
speak plhinly enough for themselves. His own
words are conclusive in the matter. It is
against him with pretty general concurrence. And
he is left at the close of the proceedings chewing the

immortal straw derisively in the corner of his
mouth, with an inextinguishable air of virtuous

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
dignity, 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 on, 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 PArmEßsToN,uttered by Lord DERBY upon that
occasion, the noble leader (nominally) of the Opposi-
tion said yesterday afternoon, " I haye 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 supposition 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 ? I am quite 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; bu

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. lam confident,
therefore, that the belief in' the dissolution which

as 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 in. 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

he table of the house by her MAJESTY'S Govern-

ment.

Against those extraordinary re:marks, the First
Lord of the Admiralty protested, on the Monday
night following, in a speech worthy of a Minister
of the Crown--a speech worthyorf a high-minded

and high-spirited English gentLetnan.

" There

was a passage in the speech of the noble viscount,"

said Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, on the 28th of

March, " which he (Sir.. Jonav) heard with
astonishment and disapprobation--he meant that
passage of his speech in which hci 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 Haase of Commons,

and that concurrence shall be reused. (Cheers.)
That was the language of the- no;ble viscount, but

it was language which he should riot have expected
to hear from one of his long experience and standing

•
--(cheers)—for it was language which he con-

sidered to be wanting in due respeTt to the Crown
and a violation of its prerogative." (Oh, and cheers.)
Thosewere the bold, manly, indignant words uttered
as long ago as last Monday week Fat Lord PALMER-
STON'S presence, in the douse of Commons,
by Sir
JOHN PAKINGTON. Not in some mysterious "other
place," by some mysterious other person, who must
be n ameless according to the etiquette of Parliament!
What Lord DERBY said on the Monday following
(namely, this last Monday) in r eference to those
extraordinary remarks which had. been uttered by
Lord PAL3fERSTON upon the subje ct •of any possible
intention of the part of Her MAirAsTY's Ministers

to dissolve Parliament, was simply as follows: "The
Noble Viscount," said Lord DERBY 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 yiscount has found that doctrine. It has
always been held to be the constitutional prerogative
of the Crown, when and'where it pleased, -to dis-
solve Parliament, and since the memorable year of
1784—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 expressed by Lord PALMERSTON. What
Lord PALMERSTON said we have now revived to
public recollection. By his own words let him be
judged. They are given here by us 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,
just 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 what 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 of Liberalism,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
JOHN RUSSELL'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 Minisfry 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 yon 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, GRAILUIr
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 them a little ashamed, although in heart

they still cling to them quite as much as the Tories t
It is a question of Parliamentary tactics, in fact,
whether, with all these boroughs voting against r 4.
him, any Minister can disfranchise as many
of them as he ought, and give the seats
the populous towns and counties. On this

point it is for these towns and counties

to speak out. They may be assured that the petty
boroughs 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.
Wealth and -population must ask much more and

must get it too, before we have a settlement.
The other demand, the Ballot, is one on which.:
the voice of the country may be efectually raised,,