The Sun. — London, England, 1860-06-12 00:00:00

THE SUN,' LONDON, TtitSDAYMtVgNING, JUNEtiI, 1861 Under tt Lese circumstances, with great satisfaction, he would irithdrre w his amendment. (Hear, hear.) Mr. DISRAELI—I think, sir, that her Majesty's Go vemra( nit have taken a wise and not undignified course to. night. (Hear.) It was much better, under the circumstances in whiich the house finds itself in regard to the progress of public business, that the Government should make up its mind to adopt the course now proposed rather than have allowed the house to go into committee and have wasted more valuable time without coming to any satisfactory re • suit. The Government would only have prevented what they will now find themselves able to do, viz., carry on the business of the house with more rapidity and with greater unanimity on both sides. I would not have touched upon the Reform Bill now about to be withdrawn had not the noble lord made some allusions to this side of the house which I cannot readily pass by. (Hear, hear.) But I beg the noble lord and the house to recollect that if this bill is withdrawn it is not from any successful opposi tion, or any opposition of any kind—(oh, oh)—any op position of any 'kind which has been offered to a real bona fide amendment of the representation of the people. (Laughter.) The bill has not succeeded because the, Go vernment has this year been encumbered with an immense mass of public business of a character which rendered it impossible for any Government in the face of it to carry a bill like the Reform Bill through the house; and, sir, as there have been complaints on both sides of the house of delay, I may be permitted to observe that the real cause of the delay has been the Government undertaking matters of such importance and encumbered with such details that it became physically and morally impossible to carry the measure which they have now so wisely . withdrawn. Of course, in the heat of debate, some imputations have been dealt out on both sides ; but I am new saying that which I take literally to be the state of the case, becatre I believe it would have been impossible for the Government to have carried on the business of the country had they persisted with this measure. The Government had other engage ments which rendered the further progress of the bill im possible. I shall not enter in detail into the policy of the noble lord's bill ; but with reference to the principle laid down by the noble lord, as to the necessity of the admission of the working classes in some degree to the franchise, I would remind the house that that has never been a subject of controversy. What we have disputed has been the means of carrying out that object; and as far as I can read the public opinion or follow the course of intellectual inves tigation, I cannot help thinking that before the house is again called upon to consider this question, means more satisfactory for settling the question will be found than what I may be permitted to call the coarse and vulgar expedient of the degradation of the ffanchise. (Opposition cheers.) I would therefore say, on the part of the gentlemen on this side of the house, that while they see with perfect approba tion the course which the Government has taken with re gard to this measure, we also conceive that they acted in a spirit of perfect honour and propriety to the house. We give them credit for being actuated by a sincere desire for the public welfare, and an anxiety for the public service, and I can assure them that they may expect from this side of the house every help and assistance in carrying on the public business, and that consideration which is due to a Govern ment, and especially to the noble lord, who has sacrificed much that was dear, and honourably dear, to many of its members. (Hear, hear.) Before I sit down I have to ask the indulgence of the house for a few moments, while I explain a personal matter. If it merely concerned myself I should not take this opporhinity of alluding to it ; but it concerns the feelings of another hon. member, and it concerns mat ters which are generally interesting to all members of this house. The hon. member for Birmingham stated the other night that . I had entered into a compact with some one on his side of the house to introduce a Reform Bill something like his own, that was to say one with under a £lO franchise. The statement circulated very freely, but like others in which I have been concerned, I did not think it necessary to take any notice of it, but when the hon. member for Bir mingham was about to found an argument on it, I took the liberty of interrupting him and informing him that he la boured under a complete misapprehension. It appears that the gentleman whose' name had. been mentioned, and who was not in hisplace when I interrupted the hon. member, was under the impression that I stated I had had no com munication whatever with him, and that the whole state ment was unfounded. I should be glad at all times to re move a false impression; and as this is probably the last time we shall this year have anything about Parliamentary Am form (a laugh), I trust I shall be allowed a few moments whilst I clear away this one, which intimately concerns the relations betweenthe individual who for the time being may have the leadership of this house and its other members, upon which ever side of the house they may sit. When I was in that position it was often my duty, as well as plea sure, to be of service to gentlemen on both sides, and I see a great many gentlemen on the benches opposite with whom I have often been in communication, and I trust they will admit that on all occasions they received from me every possible courtesy. (Hear, hear.) Amongst others, I re. ceived more than one visit in Downing-street from the gen tleman who now represents Sunderland. It was no secret appointment ; he can:o to me on a subject of great impor tance, and I may say that he came to me because I was leader of the house--that was the fact. I did what I could for him in the matter respecting which he came, which was of the greatest importance, referring, as it did, to con traband of war, at a time when hostilities had just com menced between France and Austria. Now, it so hap pened that when he came a newspaper was lying on the table which contained an official, that is to say an opposi i'ion official announcement, that a vote of want of confi deuce was about to be proposed against her Majesty's Go vernment on the ground that they were throwing over par liamentary reform, and should therefore be opposed by all conscientious reformers. Well, the hon. member for Sun derland called my attention to this paragraph, and said that for his part he did not agree with the proposed motion, nor did he believe that a vote of want of confidence was one that the house would agree to. He added that there were a great many independent members on his side of the house who did not approve of it any more than he did, and when he spoke to me I cannot say that there was anything con fidential in our communications, but with just so much dis cretion as prevented their degenerating into gossip, I replied to him, as I always speak to gentlemen every night, in that spirit of free and candid intercourse which I trust will always exist amongst mem • hers , of this house, who will never forget that they are not only members of parties, but also an assembly of gentle men ; and I said that if he meant there was to be a vote of want of confidence because there was not to be a Reform Bill that session, there might be, but that it was not our in tention finally to throwover the measure. On a subsequent occasion the hon. member said to m e , "Ic in assure you there is a feeling of great dissatififaction on the part of a great many members of the house ; and that if you can only say that Government isnot going to throw overthe measure, but mean to deal with it another time, such declaration - would have an exceedingly good effect." I replied that it was totally impssible for me, or any Minister, to say, ex cept in Parliament, what was to be the policy of Govern ment—that the policy of Government must be stated in my place in Parliament; but this I added, " You may depend upon it we do net mean to bring forward another Reform Bill this year ; nor are we going to reject the measure alto gether. We do not consider ourselves bound by the bill which the house has rejected, but hope still to deal with the question in a satisfactory manner, an as you say many members of .the house want to be satisfied before they vote want of confidence as to what is to be our course, you may take it for granted that before the vote is come to I will state what would be our course of policy, so that nobody shall vote in ignorance." I believe that the hon. member for Sunderland had confidence in what I stated, snd I can not understand what imputation could be cast on his hon our for wishing to have a clear understanding on so im portant a subject. He was not the only Liberal member to whom we were often indebted whilst in office for a candid and liberal support. There can be nb doubt but that 'he texertel himself amongst his friends ; and as to what took place between him and me, it was only what may. take place between persons similarly situated every day. I think that the conduct of the hon. member for Sunderland was perfectly parliamentary, honourable, and straightforward. I stated that in a letter, when he was attacked last year; but as the matter has now been brought under the notice of Parliament, I thought I would take this notice of it in my place. I take it for granted that the feel ing of the house in such matters is the same as my own, and that there is no desire to put a bar against frequent communication between the leader of this house and the members on either side. They do not, I trust, mean to sanction it as a rule that the leader of the house for the time being is to treat all members who may be politically opposed to him with the greatest reverence, pr to look upon the conduct of the hon. member for Sunderland as any thing:hat proper and parliamentary. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BRIGHT—The right hon. gentleman has referred to a matter which he mentioned in his speech the other night, but the ri g ht h on . gen tl eman w ill remem b er that I did not introduce the topic for the purpose of attacking either hi m or the hon. member for Sunderland. My o bj ec t b Was merely to show the right hon. gentleman that when his party w as • m power they contemplated an extension of the it was understood suffrage the a d m i ss i on of 500,000 new voters. I also said that he had intimated to a gentleman on this side df the house that he was willing to go as far as the bill we are now discussing . ghtlao I merely wished to show how consistent the ri l g e entleman was then, and I can only lament hew consistent is his conduct this year. But leaving this matter aside, which after all is not of very - great importance— eauarn)—the noble lord the mem ber for London has made aynsurpriouncement which possibly has not taken the house b and eisc•-whnerdeiftlerent quarters of but which will be re ceived with very different feelings ho a it will be the house. Down here, received with deep regret. (Loud cries oi I do not rise for the purpose of blaming theanT'obhleearlOrdEfuort the course he has taken, or the Governm ent for having cur red with him. I know that this hou se i s note s th p e e e c i b a - t place in the world for getting through busine ss , when nearly half its members do not like the business at all. The right hon. gentleman wishes it to be believed that during what occurred in the last few weeks neither he nor his friends offered any opposition. That was a d ar i ng statement, seeing what we have seen of late in this house. (Cheers.) There has certainly been a great deal of adroit ness in the oppucition. Some gentlemen opposite first placed the census objection on the paper, when a member on this side, not wishing to be defrauded of—l will not say an act of wisdom which thirty years ago he had been unwise enoug h to originate. The moment that the member for Rye put his notice on the paper, the member for Berwick was so hustled, and bullied, and coaxed, that finally he was obliged to withdraw his notice. (Laughter.) Somehow or other it was managed that the amendment should be moved by the hon. member for Rye, bnt the gentlemen opposite brought down all their forces to support him, and then they turn round and say, " It's all the fault of the hon. member for Rye." Why, the • hon. member for Rye never carried anything in this house down to the present moment. (Laughter, and cries of" Smoke.") No, he did not carry even that; his efforts all ended in a bottle of the offensive article. (Laughter.) On the contrary, I venture to assert that when it was known that the hon. member for Rye had determined to oppose, it added greatly to the chances of success for the Ministerial measure in the estimation of all shrewd calculators. (Continued laUghter.) But the right hon. gentleman opposite says, that as to the question of improving the political condition of the working classes there is no difference of opinion, only that he does not want what he is pleased to call a coarse and vulgar method of enfranchisement. The public, however, will judge the right hon. gentleman and his friends from the fact that from no supporter of the bill has come the abuse of that class of the people who live in houses of under £lO annual value. Therefore, although the right hon. gentleman says he is on a par with the noble lord, all people out of doors will conclude that there is a wide gulf between the noble lord, who expresses confidence in the working classes, and the right hon. gentleman's friends, who say that to enlarge thejranchise would be to hand it ever to poverty and pas sion, and leaving us as the alternative of government only the choice between debauchery and crime. (Hear, hear.) But I suppose that, like a tree or an orchard, we cannot ex pect more than a given harvest in a given season, and that we must rest satisfied with what has already been done this year. Looking backwards, however, to the course of this session, I think that people out of doors will be greatly dis satisfied with the course which has been taken to-night. I am dissatisfied—and I trust I may say that no one has de voted more time or more labour to the furtherance of re form, or has looked forward to its success with more en thusiasm—l am disappointed ; and if I do not assail the Government it is because I feel that it would be unjust to attack them for difficulties for which they are not en tirely responsible, and to denounce them for not doing that which they found themselves wholly unable to do. But, on looking back over the session, we shall find that it has not been a session altogether without result. We hay e cleared away 400 obstAcles to ;the industry of this country by the reformation we have effected in the tariff. (Hear.) I say that that is a matter of great consequence; that a few years ago it would have marked the session in which it took place as a great session, and would have ren dered almost immortal the reputation of the Minister who effected it. But we have had more, we have had the treaty with France. (Cheers, dissent, and cries of " Ques tion," from the Opp sition.) Gentlemen opposite will by and by believe that treaty to be a desirable instrument, as I believe it to be. Perhaps I may be allowed to make I one or two observations respecting that treaty. There has been a studied attempt in this house, in another place, and in at least one influential journal, to represent that there is no good faith at Paris, that nothing has been done, and that all the enthusiasm which has been raised throughout the country has been so much enthusiasm thrown away. Now I beg to refer them to the authority of gentlemen who have just returned from Paris; indeed I could refer them to higher authority to show that nothing could exceed the good faith and honour of the French Government, and that the French Ministers are endeavouring earnestly to carry out the details of the treaty. I have the best reason for be lieving that the duties levied on British goods will be much below the maximum, and I have the authority which is in the world best qualified to express a reliable opinion for saying that the convention will, when completed, exceed the most sanguine expectation of its friends. (Cheers.) I do not know whether hon. gentlemen opposite consider.this night to be a night of triumph. I do not see much exulta tion, and I think that many of them would have preferred to have had this bill fairly considered and in the main passed. (Considerable cheering from the Opposition.) I do not think they have been much terrified by the exagge rated colours inwhich the working classes have been painted, and I fully expect that between this and next winter they will rather regret that the bill has not been passed. (Hear, hear.) The bill was a moderate one, a very reasonable one. (Loud cries of "hear, hear," from both sides of the house.) When you first heard it described 'you all thought so. (General cries of " Yes," one or two Noes.") Yes, I undertake to say that you have been much encouraged in your opposition by the conduct of a few gentlemen on this side of the house. (Hear, hear.) I am told that there are same here who think it time we should have a sound Whig Government, from which all foreign element should be eliminated, meaning, of course, the Chancellor of the Ex chequer and my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade. Now, allow me to tell these gentlemen that a sound Whig Government, chosen in the old Whig manner, is just as extinct an animal as that often described bird the dodo, (Loud laughter.) You may see some re mains of it, as Professor Owen can show you the head, and I suppose a foot, but you will never see that sort of govern ment again, in my opinion—(laughter)—and 'really if we are to sit on one side and call ourselves a liberal party I think the sooner we get rid of these old party definitions the better—(hear, hear)—and we should endeavour in the conduct of affairs in Parliament to act rather in a more in genuous and more open and fair manner to the Government of the country than has been' done by some of those who call themselves the followers of the Whig party. (Hear, hear.) Then I say that although hon. gentlemen opposite do not appear to exult, I think I see reason to exult that this bill has been withdrawn rather than that it should have gone into committee and been mangled so that its authors would hardly have known it. It would not have settled the question, and it would have been no advantage to the coun try to pass it. I have said over and over againthat I believe it is not worth while doing anything upon this question un less you do so much as Wl:flake a substantial change in the direction which so many of your countrymen wish, and such as shall leave men no strong excuse for, at an early period, asking you to proceed further. That is my policy with regard to this question, and I think you will admit it is a wise policy. (Hear, hear.) Therefore I am very glad the Government have proposed to withdraw the bill rather than that they should have gone into committee and sub mitted to have a £6 franchise made into an £8 franchise, which would in my opinion appear the most childish, and to the great body of the working classes to whom you are making some advances would have been one of the most pernicious and insulting offers that Parliament could have made. (Hear.) The noble lord the member for the City of London has referred to some of the ques tions which are coming on, but there is one to which he has not referred, and that is one affecting the conduct of this house with regard to its control over the taxation of the country. Now, I hope that if the House of Commons determines that this session will have no measure of reform for itself, that at least it will not allow anything to be done that shall impair its powers and alter its inherent right over the taxation and finances of this kingdom. (Cheers ) I hope that if we are about to shut out the people, we shall not consent to let in the peers. (Renewed cheers.) I hope that the course you take with regard to this bill is not an indication that you are willing in any degree to let down the character and power of this house with regard to those questions on which the pUblic look up to you, and have done for generations and centuries, more necessarily than to either of the other branches of the State. The noble lord, as I understand, has given a pledge that at an early period whether in November—(oh, oh)—or in February— (oh)—that is, at the first time when Parliament shall meet, that the Government of which he is a member will again introduce a measure to amend the representation of the people. Now, I am of opinion that this determination, and the discussions which have taken place; will breed throughout the country much thought upon this question and probably may produce some healthy action. (Hear, hear.) I hope that during the winter—between this time and the time when we shall meet again —such of us as may meet again —that there will be expressed throughout the country a firm and wise opinion with regard to the course which Parliament should take in the coming session. (Hear, hear.) Why should not hon. members opposite en tertain more liberal views ? (A laugh.) An hon. gentle man near the gangway laughed, but if this were the time, I could easily show him that all our legislation of which we have reason to be proud during his life and mine—legisla tion according to what we term liberal views —(cheers)—has been opposed by the party with which he is connected— (cries of a No, no," and " Hear")—and has been supported uniformly by the party with which I am connected. (Cheers.) Well, if it be be so in the past, why not so in the future ? (Hear.) We may be as right in these questions as on those previous questions. Look at the condition of our people. That great measure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has passed this year—the reform of the tariff—is but a por tion of the great work that has been going on for 20 years —(hear, hear)—and yet I will undertake to say that that great work, completed within 20 years, has done much for the people and poor of England in giving them the comforts of life and some taste of independence. (Cheers.) I saythat this has done more than all the party contests, party triumphs, bloody wars, extensive conquests, martial renown and historical glories you have had for more than a century past. (Loud cheers.) Now what I want is that the house should always consider the great body of the people. The peers, the rich, the powerful, can always take care of them selves and never suffer, unless it may be for a tithe, in great political convulsions, which we all hope may never visit our country. Look at the condition of the great body of the people—their intelligence, their morality, and their independence—and you find written in characters which you cannot mistake the real truth with regard to the go vernment under which they live. (Hear, hear.) I say then that the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one laden with blessings to the great body of the people — (cheers)—and if the House of Commons would at the same time, whilst so much good physically was being conferred u p o n them —if in the same session it could have shown its confidence in them by offering them this moderate extension of . the suffr age which the noble lord proposed, I think it wouldtult have been s a id i n a f ter times that there ha d b een no t sessionotfhtheeaPooadrliitarin ad given of Enoiand comparable to that of 1860 l for given to the people, and tor the binding effect which its legislation had had between the great body of the people and the three estates of the realm. (Loud cheers.) Mr. NEWDEGATE begged to say, whatever had been he course pursued by other hon. members, he for one had never given his approval to the bill of the Government for the amendment of the representation of the people. He re joiced in the course taken on the Opposition Side of the house in carefully discussing the provisions of the bill on the second reading. In wishing to reduce the county fran chise to £lO, the hon. member for Birmingham's sole ob ject was to keep the majority of the people subject to an in adequate representation—to declare them represented by the peers, and then, it the peers exercised an undoubted privilege with respect to taxation, the hon. member assailed them most bitterly. Theghon. gentleman (Mr. Bright) had said the hon. member for Rye had never carried any mea sure in that house. The hon. member for Rye certainly never prepared a reform bill, and also maps illustrating its working, or had circulated such a measure throughout the country, and then when the question of reform came before the house, had failed to submit the bill so prepared to the consideration of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) His object in rising, however, was to declare that if the county franchise was reduced in the manner proposed by the present bill or to any great extent, the county constituencies would never rest satisfied with the inadequate representation at present allotted to them, but would insist upon the right of the majority of the people to a larger portion of representation in Tanliament. (Hear.) Mr. E. JAMES said he must confess that the speech made by the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks contrasted very gracefully end strongly with the speech made by the noble lord at the head of the Government on the occasion of the right hon. gentleman introducing his Reform Bill. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord (Lord Pal merston) had said that the then Government should not withdraw their Reform Bill, and that they were bound to proceed with the bill, for they had taken the Government with all its engagements. (Hear.) He did not wish to make any comment on the funeral oration on the fall of the bill which had been spoken by the noble lord the member for the City of London, but if the bill should want an epi taph to be inscribed on the stone where it lay, there was one he remembered reading in the elegant extracts when he was a boy : " If so soon that I am done for, I wonder what I was begun for." (Laughter.) He thought the Fires would form a very apt inscription in memoriam on this short-lived child. (Renewed laughter.) The noble lord (Lord J. Russell) was told very early in the present year by some hon. members that the introduction of the bill would be its certain destruction during the session. He thought that Ministers had in curred a very serious responsibility by its withdrawal. (Hear.) In justice to hon. members on the Opposition benches it might be said that the bill had been introduced in such a form—was such a mere skeleton of a constitu l tional measure—that in bringing forward amendments they could not fairly be charged with obstructive and unneces sary delays. There was no registration provided by the bill, although the bill of the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks contained clauses of registration. He (Mr. James) had called the attention of the Government to the fact, and the answer he received was cold, official, bureaucratic, whigocratic—(a laugh)—it was that at the proper time, the Government would introduce another mea sure to provide for registration. After that answer he saw at once the bill could not possibly pass. (Hear, heer.) If the measure had passed in August there would have been no election until 80, and if a dissolution had taken place afterwards, they would have had twenty-five seats disfran chised without any member being returned for the new con stituencies. He could not consider the taking the census was any ground for postponing the bill. The Go: eminent had taken ipon themselves a serious responsibility in with drawing it. If they had followed his advice with regard to registration—advice which was given out of pure benevo lence—(laughter)—and then had had the courage and energy to go on with the measure, he felt sure it might have been carried. (Hear, hear.) Mr. D. GRIFFITH contended that hitherto the subject of electoral reform had not been treated in a general and comprehensive way. They had never had, at any period, so favourable an opportunity as the present one for the in troduction of a real Reform Bill. But the noble lord had not been consistent in the principles upon which he had at various times attempted to deal with the question. In 1852 he had introduced a bill founded upon very different prin ciples to those which were adopted in 1832, announcing that the disfranchisement of existing constituencies should no longer form part of his plan, but when in 1854 he again approached the question, he had proposed another measure of disfranchisement. If the principle of 1852 was good, how was it that the noble lord abandoned it in 1854 ? and how was it that the great authority upon reform, who introduced a large and comprehensive measure in 1854, could ask the confidence of the house and country when he produced a measure so limited and faulty as that which was now to be withdrawn ? No one would deny that the house represented every section of pub lic opinion, and there being no pressing grievance to remedy, he thought they might take time for full and fair consideration before legislating upon the subject of Parliamentary reform. What the noble lord had this year proposed was an extension of the franchise without any check whatever, - and he (Mr. Griffith) contended that in any extension of the suffrage to the working classes they ought to provide an equivalent compensation to the upper classes. Lord FERMQY said in the very few sentences which he wished to address to the house he should ni,t attempt to follow the previous speaker, nor should he follow the right hon. gentleman the leader of the Opposition, upon the question between himself and the hon. member for Sunder land, nor did he mean to follow the hon. member for Bir mingham in his discussion of the sincerity of the Emperor of the French, the advantages of the French treaty, and the merits of the budget which had been altered in another place, but should confine his observations to the immediate question before the house—the withdrawal of the Reform Bill by the noble lord. But the character of public men and political parties ought to be dear to every member of the house, and he must say he heard the announcement which had been made that evening with feelings of dis appointment —nay, with feelings of dismay, because if ever there was a Government, and if ever there was a House of Commons, whose only mission appeared to be to carry a Reform Bill for England, they were her Ma jesty's present Government and the present House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) He had not been able to dis cern in any of the reasons given by the noble lord any goad and sufficient ground for the withdrawal of the bill. What had been the history of the government with regard to this question of reform ? They came into power on the express and clear understanding that they were the only parties in the country who were willing and at the same time able to carry a reform bill through that house of par 'lament, and that—and that alone—was the ground upon which they entered office. Now the noble lord gave as his first reason for withdrawing the bill the time of the session at which they had arrived ; the next ground was the Chi nese war and the necessity of voting the estimates for car rying it on ; then he gave as a reason the state of the na tional defences; and finally, he wound up by implying— more than saying —that there was a want of enthusiasm in the country which compelled him to withdraw it. (Hear, hear.) Now, with regard to the late period of the session, whose fault was it that they had arrived at the month of June without the bill having got into committee ? (Opposi tion cheers, met by taunter-cheering from the ministerial bonehes.) Parliament assembled this year much earlier than usual, as they all thought for the express purpose of enabling the government to carry out their pledge on the subject of reform, and he, in common with many others, had been led to expect that the first day of the session, or at all events before the close of the first week, the bill would be introduced. But what took place ? On the second day he believed it was after parliament met they were told that the Reform Bill was not to be brought in for a month, then it was further postponed for a fortnight, and again the bill was not to be brought forward until an auspicious day— that day of fair auspices being the Ist of March. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) Here then was a loss of two months —(no, no)—well, of at least six weeks—and by whom was it caused ? By the government. (Cheers from the opposition.) The noble lord, though he had not actually said it, had implied that the delay was owing to the hon. gentlemen opposite. Now in candour he (Lord Fermoy) could net say tnat any proposal or amendment hai been brought forward by the other side of the house, which could fairly be characterised as unanswerable on suchen important subject. No question could possibly arise that was more likely to give rise to long discussions and important motions than aßeforra Bill, and hon. gentlemen opposite were perfectly justified in giving notice of questions which they considered of mo• ment in reference to the principle of representation on going into committee. He must say, then, that the house was perfectly free from any charge of wasting time, and the ar gument of time fell to the ground, when it was remembered that this, which was to have been par excellence the reform, had lost six weeks at the commencement of the session before they brought in their bill. (Hear.) Then as to the Chinese war and the defences of the country. He did not see any reason why they should not provide for the Chinese war and the defences of the country, and for a Reform Bill also. (Hear.) At all events this was no sufficient reason why a Gover.iment pledged to a Reform Bill, as the pre sent Ministry were, should abandon that pledge, seeing that the Chinese estimates might be as well submitted, and the defences of the country as well provided for by hon. gentle men opposite as by those who now filled the ministerial benches. (Cheers.) Again, as to the want of enthusiasm con the part of the country on the subject, the noble lord had, as he always did on such occasions, favoured the house v sundry chapters of constitutional history, and reminded t] Lein that in the several cases of Catholic emancipation, the Re form Bill, and free trade, when the principle of those n iea sures was onee carried ty a majority of that house, they were certain to triumph. He would ask the noble lord did those measures triumph by being abandoned by their own pro moters ?—(Opposition cheers)—yet such was the coin': IC the noble lord took in the present instance. How could they expect enthusiasm in the country when the very mei 1 who came into power for the express purpose of carryin g for ward a bill for improving the representation of the I?eople, abandoned it as soon as they experienced the slightest op position? (Cheers.) At the same time, after the sp t ech of the noble lord on Monday night, the right hon. man opposite was scarcely acting in the most open and generone manner. The noble lord en that occasion made a declaration which carried dismay to the minds of Many members of the Liberal party ; and when he said let us go into committee and endeavour to arrive at some sort of a franchise, the real meaning of which was, " I am not tied to anything; if you won't have a £6 franchise let its agree to an £8 franchise, but let us adopt the rating test." That was a declaration which carried dismay to the minds of many on that side of the house, but which ought to have induced hon. gentlemen opposite to go into committee on the bill. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman said that he and his party were reformers and sincere reformers; here then was an opportunity of showing it? He would tell the right hon. gentleman that he would never again have the chance of getting a Reform Bill that would be so agreeable, or at all events so little disagreeable to his party, as the present bill. But the right hon. gentleman and his friends, instead of accepting the offer of the noble lord, had refused to go into committee. If he (Lord Fermoy) were the hon. mem ber for Birmingham and desired to agitate the country, he should be delighted that the right hon. gentleman had re fused that offer, and doubly delighted that the noble lord had now withdrawn the bill. This was so settlement of the question, notwithstanding what had been stated by the hon. member for Rye (Mr. Mackinnon) and the right hon. gentle•. man opposite. What the people would have received this year with gratitude they would reject next year with disdain, The party opposite, as well as members on that side, had 1 admitted reform in Parliament to be necessary, yet they refused to go into committee to determine how far that reform should go—they refused to go into committee to pledge themselves to a £6, or an £B, or any other franchise, and to say to what extent the parliamentary institutions of the country required reform. (Hear, hear.) Mr. B. OSBORNE—Though he had not been so fortunate as to collect the tenor of the hon. member for Devises' ob servations, still he gathered from their mournful tone, that, if not a mute, the hon. gentleman was a sincere mourner on the present solemn occasion. (A laugh.) But the hon. member, at all events, paled in contrast to the hon. and learned member for Marylebone, for it was evident to every one that the hon. gentleman was somewhat of a merry mourner, and that, differing from his noble colleague in this respect, he did not regret the premature dissolution of the bill. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. B. Osborne) could not agree with the hon. and learned member, that any discredit at tached to the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) for giving up the bill; and thought that the criticism of the hon. and learned member was as unjust and ungenerous as that of his noble colleague the other member for Marylebone. (Hear, hear.) His noble colleague was somewhat astonished, he said, the other night at the attack of the right hon. gentlemen oppo site upon the noble lord. He (Mr. Osborne) was much more astonished to hear the attack which the noble lord the member for Marylebone had just made on the noble lord the Minister for Foreign Affairs—(cheers)—and he must say he did not think the house would be disposed to endorse the opinions of either of the members for Marylebone in the present instance. He could not subscribe to the opinion that the noble lord (J. Russell) was responsible for the abandonment of the bill. (Ministerial cheers.) If respon sibility attached anywhere it was to the conduct of the house inthis matter. The hon. member for Rye had got up to-night and in a somewhat jaunty manner declared that he was the man who killed cock robin—(cheers and laughter)—and then he proceeded to congratulate the house on what he called the settlement of the question. He (Mr. Osborne) could congratulate neither the house nor the hon. gentle man on this settlement. (Hear.) He had come down to hear the question put that the hon. gentleman's amend ment should be withdrawn. But the hon. member entered into a history of a similar motion brought forward by him in 1831, and which he said he brought forward because he was a devoted and consistent follower of the noble lord's. Now, if he mistook not, the hon. gentleman was not a de voted and consistent follower of the noble lord's in 1831; but, on the contrary, voted on every occasion against the noble lord's Reform Bill. (Cheers.) But the hon. member was then member for Lymington, one of the boroughs in cluded in schedule B of that bill, and he could understand the hon. gentleman moving under those circumstances that the bill should be postponed until the census was taken. He had, however, no such ground of complaint now—for Rye was not included in the list of boroughs that would be interfered with by this bill ; but it appeared that the hon. gentleman was so deeply enamoured of his first love that nothing could prevent him from interposing this ridiculous motion. on every opportunity, though it had no more to do with the subject than the speech of the hon. gentleman opposite. (Cheers, and laughter.) They had heard to-night something of the dignity and wisdom of the proposed course. He (Mr. Osborne) considered that the noble lord had discharged his duty with dignity, but he very much questioned the wisdom of the house in the course they were taking. What were they in point of fact doing? They were doing nothing but offering a premium for out of 'doors agitation. (Hear.) Hon. gentlemen said that the people were indifferent on the subject of reform—that inhis mind vas not a theme for congratulation, forit showed that the people had no sympathy with the present House of Commons. (Cheers.) What were all the motions for post ponement—all the infAruutitnis to the committee which ' stood upon the paper—penned for, but to obstruct the bill ? (Cheers, anti " No.") There had been no fair stand-up fight on the question. The second reading had passed not sub silentio—for that was impossible—for they knew the power of talk in that house was enormous—(laughter)—but it had passed without a fight. The bill had not been defeated, but had been got rid of by a species of political assassination— by administering small doses of adjournment—(hear, hear) —and now in the month of June, the bill not having got into committee, and there being no chance of its going into committee if all the obstructive motions on the paper were persisted in, the noble lord the member for Marylebone com plained of the noble lord the Foreign Secretary for dropping the bill. (Hear.) The noble lord (J. Russell) had no other course—but it became that house to consider, and to consi der seriously, the position in which it had placed itself—for out, of doors he believed it would not be regarded with either respect or credit. 'What was their position in respect to this reform question? The right hon. gentleman, the leader of the Opposition party, said in 1859, when speaking in sup port of the Reform Bill of the late Government, and depre cating further postponement—" that for 15 years reform had been a Parliamentary question, and that for 10 years it had been a Ministerial question. That five times it had been announced as a Cabinet measure, and five times it had been promised in the speech from the throne," and yet in 1860 they were doing what they did in 1359, defeating the Re form Bill by delay. He thought it was calamitous for the party that the right hon. gentleman opposite had brought in a reform bill at all, but having done so he regretted that it was so summarily rejected, and thought its rejection most unfortunate. (Opposition cheers.) , He was inclined to think that the right hon., gentleman opposite was right in the course he took in relation to the Reform Bill and the late Government, and that he was most unfortunate in the way it was met by the party now in power. (Hear, hear, from the same quarter.) But what had been the position of the question since ? Hon. gentlemen opposite were recent con verts to reform—for everybody was a reformer now—the only question was as to the pace and who should drive the ctoach—(hear, hear, and laughter)—but hon. gentlemen opposite by whom this measure was first brought forward, did they even so much as hint at any opposition to the principle of the bill ? The right hon. gentleman the mem ber for Droitwich was the first to complain, and he 'did so very much in the spirit of Sir Fretful Plagiary. His com plaint was that there was nothing in the bill to complain of. The right hon. gentleman the leader, it was true, objected that the bill would swamp property and intelligence, but he supported the second reading, and the bill was allowed to pass the second reading 'without a division; and now they had all these pretexts for amendment, which were too transparent to deceive anybody except the noble lord the member for Marylebone, and he would no doubt change his opinion the next time he went to a meeting at the York shire Stings. (Laughter.) He was of opinion that the people of England, so far from being dissatisfied with the course taken by the noble lord (J. Russell), would sym pathise with his position—though he 'did not think they would very much sympathise with the position in which the great body of the House of Commons stood. (Hear.) "An open foe might prove a curse, But a pretended friend was worse." (Hear, hear.) What was the language used in reference to this reform bill by the nobler lord the leader of the Con • servative party in another place ? He said, " I am of opinion that it is highly inconvenient and dangerous that from session to session a question of this importance and interest should be perpetually kept dangling before the legis lature and the country." (Hear, hear.) And he added that, without pledging-himself to the details, he would give the subject his attention with an honest and earnest desire not to trifle any longer with this great and important ques tion. (Hear, hear.) But what had the party opposite been doing all this session but trifling with this great and impor tant question ? Ile had quoted the declaration of the noble lord the leader of the Conservative party in the other house. What was said by the leader in the House of Commons ? "Was Parliamentary reform," he asked, "a subject to be left to faction, to be dealt with in times of excitement, and to be settled, not by the reason, but by the passions of the people ?" What vas the house goingio do now ? Were they going to allow that passion and not reason of the peo ple to settle the question ? (Hear, hear.) Could there a time more fit to pass a reform bill than the present, a time w'aen the people would be satisfied with much less than they would be eventually if the settlement of the question were postponed ? He knew the time had gone by for discussing the mer4ure ; nor was it his intention to do so, but this he would say, if the house, were content thus from year to year to shuffle off the question with pretexts and delays that deceived no man in or out of the house, the time might come when, with a bad harvest, and discontent raging both at hone and abroad, they might be called upon to pass a Measure that was really not influenced by the reason but the passion of the people. (Cheers.) He was surprised that the Conservative party, with such a fair offer as had been made by the noble lord to settle the ques tion in a way so conformable to the tenets of their own political creed, should not have eagerly accepted it and assisted in passing the bill, and thus enabled the House of Commons to show that they were really consistent in their desire to settle the question. (Hear.) Mr. HORSMAN, though it had long been obvious that the bill must bo withdrawn, considered that the announce ment made that evening by his treble friend (Lord J . , Aini. sell) was none the less pleasing that it was unexpected. It was not necessary for the hon. member for Birmingham to seek to hide the causes of that withdrawal. The reasons for 'Withdrawing the bill were two—the late/was of the sea- sion end the unpoirttlarity of the nteasuro itself. (Hear.) More than a month had beat laat at the commencement of the session in introducing the bill in Math instead of January. The bill, when it made its appearance, created great disap- pointment—it pleased nobody. The most vehement speeches against it—the strongest outpourings of wrath— came from behind the Treasury bench. And not only that, but having at the last trial of strength a bare majority of 21, there were no less than 70 amendments of which notice was given by gentlemen on the ministerial side of the house. The noble lord said there were 70 amendments— the fact was there were 90 altogether, of which 70 were from the ministerial and N from the opposition side of the house. That fact showed the general feeling of the house on the one side and on the other; and if he might be per- mitted by way of parenthesis to express an opinion, it was that there was one section of the house to whom the bill was entirely unpalatable. It was not dreaded by gentle men on the other side of the house, who were not returned by the democracy but in spite of it, but those who had the most dread of the bill were those members with aristocratic leanings whose constituencies would be rendered democratic by the bill. When art attempt was made, as was made by his hon. friend near him, to fasten the responsibility on one side of the house which attached to all, to represent the hostility to, this bill as hostility to all reform, he must say the house ought to interfere, and if they. were to get rid of the bill itself, they ought to get rid of all the delusions and hypocrisy connected with it. (Opposition cheers.) And when he saw to-night the seed sown of a new crop of mis representations—when he saw those who had now become bankrupts because they had been trading in bad bills of re form—when he saw them scolding and warning those whom they had in vain sought to control, he said they ought Jo have—and for a few moments he would take—the oppor tunity of settling one or two short accounts of the past be fore they had another reform bill. He did not wish, unless reference had been made to it, to allude to the past history of reform ; but he might say, now that ho really did that, not as regarded the past, but for the sake of the future, the house ought now to take stock of its condition, especially as his hon. friend near him had endeavoured to pin the noble lord to produce another reform bill in the autumn. Now, the house and the country had lately become familiar with the whole history of this reform agitation. It origi nated in the mistaken belief in some politicians that be cause the Reform Bill of 1832 gave strength and popu larity to the Liberal party, therefore, when that party was no longer popular, it had nothing to do but to resuscitate the cry of reform for its leaders to be borne once more on the shoulders of the people to power. That, he was afraid, was the origin of the Reform Bill of 1852. They had lately had some revelations as to the history of the Reform Bill. In that Reform Cabinet there was only ono reformer of the sincerity of whose motives they asked no explanation. But he thought these revelations of the past ought to guide them for the future. It became the public to know how gentlemen reconciled it to their 'personal honour, in an almost unanimous Cabinet against Reform, still to make themselves parties to a Reform Bill. We now learned it, did not stop there. Two years afterwards those same gentlemen who had been alarmed by the very moderate Reform Bill of the noble lord in 1852 made themselves once more parties to another measure so much larger that it was difficult to -understand how it could emanate from the same body. No Minister had yet made the same revelations with regard to the bill of 1854 that Lord Grey had made with re gard to the bill of 1852. When theywere made they would form probably a curious addition to the history of the bill of 1854. He wished to call attention to the blunders of those who had been teaching them on this question. Ought they not to have known that the failure of the bill of 1852, the failure of the much larger bill of 1854, and the failure of the agitation for a still larger measure of reform—that the failure of all those efforts proved that the people drew a distinction between the real Reform Bill of 1832 and the artificial Reform Bills brought in afterwards, that they would not lend themselves to further organic changes the necessity of which they did not see, and the plan of which they did not comprehend and approve; and though there were doubtless great anomalies in our system, they knew that anomalies were not grievances, they would not lend themselves to those rash attempts at further con stitutional changes. They wanted rather to enjoy the blessings they had already. received in quiet and rest, than injuriously and mischievously to agitate for more. But although the agitation for reform was discountenanced by the nation, it was not suffered to drop by those in higher places. Unfortunately the noble lord, the present head of the Government, in 1858 once more raised expectation only to disappoint it; he had almost said to trifle with it. In 1859 the Derby Government succeeded to office and in herited, as they thought, the duty, and certainly the diffi culty, of legislating on reform. His hon. friend the member for Liskeard alluded just now to the bill introduced by the Government of Lord Derby, and to the course which ho (Mr. Horsman) thought it his duty to pursue with respect to that measure. He had avoided this session taking any part in the., reform discussions, because last year he took a course which was painful to him, and which separated him from his friends---(ironical cheers)—after 24 years of more constant and consistent acting with his party than the hen. gentleman who cheered him. For the first time he separated from his friends on that occasion. He did not do so without much thought, without much warning and remonstrance in private before ho gave it in public, and he thought it was not becoming in the hon. gentleman whose services to hie party had beEn less constant and less labori ous than his, to sneer at what he did. But since ho had done so he would allude to what he did on that occasion. When it was made known to him that it was the intention of the party to reject the bill of Lord Derby, he gave his advice by an illustration which had now become familiar. He said the Liberal party had one of three courses to pur sue; it might reject the bill on the second reading, or it might amend it in committee, or it might strangle it by an abstract resolution. He said the two first courses were legitimate, and the third course would be very illegitimate, that it would be discreditable and embarrassing, and on that account he could not vote for it. He showed how it would be embarrassing; he said they would have a narrow division, a reduced party majority, and they would lose a year. (Opposition cheers.) His opinions were recorded ; he had lately referred to them, and he had no occasion now to reproach himself with them. Ho was answered by his hon. friend the member for Birmingham, " You are mis taken; a year will not be lost. A new bill can be intro duced in tho session, it can be passed in an autumn sitting, and in 1860 we shall meet under the new constituencies." Well, the bill was rejected, aud the announcement of the dissolution which followed took the breath out of the mover and seconder of the resolution,. This was again followed by the dissolution, which took away some valuable elements of their partymajority. But when the new Government was formed there was no hurry about the new Reform Bill. The summer session ended without any bill. The autumn passed by, and there , was no sign of a bill. Parliament met very early this session, and though there was but a very small programme, the bill was put off for more than a month. He protested against that delay, but he re ceived no support in that protest from the hon. member for Birmingham. He protested because he thought that, after the course which the house had taken on the question of feform, it was absolutely essential that they should come to some settlement this year. But he found that a great change had come over the dream of. the ardent Reformers who were sitting near him. The secret of the proposed bill had to some extent oozed out, and it had produced tranquillity. There was a great contrast between the chivalry of 1860 and the impatience of 1859. The fact was that both the Government and their supporters found themselves in an embarrassing and awk ward position. They had burned their fingefs by rejecting the bill of their opponents, and they were equally embarras sed in having to support a bill that was no better. There fore the bill was put off till the ides of March, in the hope that by some interposition of Providence it might be post poned to some indefinite period. The appearance of the bill was the bursting of a bubble. It was denounced on all sides. The member. for Bristol said he bad seen several Reform Bills introduced, but this was the worst of all. It was not liberal enough for members on that side of the house, and members on the other side said it was not Conservative. The member for Huddersfield said it gave them nothing but fresh ground for agitation; the member for Edinburgh said it gave them nothing but cause for alarm, and the hon. member for Galway said it was revolutionary; and when they found that the second reading was put off till the 3d of May, and the committee till the ;4th of June, everybody knew that the bill was in effect abandoned, and it had been abandoned to-night. There was only one point of the speech of the noble lord in abandoning it, to which he wished to refer. Tho hon. member for Birmingham tried to fix upon the noble lord a pledge to bring in another bill, and his hon. friend endeavoured to fix on his political opponents in that house that which they ought to un derstand, to acknowledge, and avow to have been the general feeling in the house against the bill. This ques i tion of Parliamentary Reform had been trifled with, and in the course of the present session there had been no satis factory attempt to solve it. And he must be permitted to say, that of all the men—and ho was sorry he was not in his place—of all the men who had been inconsistent on this question, and who was least justified in casting any reproach on the sincerity or zeal of others, that man was the hon. member NI. Birmingham. He (Mr. Bright) had given up every principle, he had falsified every profession, and broken every pledge, in order to support this bill. Two_ years ago the hon. ,gentlem an h a d a bill o f his own, which was heralded through the country with a great flourish of trum pets. They had not seen that bill, but the hon. member had supported a bill from which was excluded every one of the provisions which, according to his own statement, were es sential. This bill gave a£6 rental franchise, but the hon. member said it would give votes to only five per cent. of those who ought to, be enfranchised, and yet he was pre pared to take this as a settlement of the franchise. But the hon. member went further than that. He said to-night he should have been sorry to have seen this bill mangled in committee, and £8 substituted for £6. But what occurred on Friday night ? When the noble lord said he was reedy to accept an amendment on the franchise, the hon. member for Birmingham followed him and said he was a party to that compromise, that it was the best the house could make, and that he, for his part, m ould do all he could to carry it out, But now observe the inconsistency. Upon the question of the franchise he was prepared to accept the £6 rental, which excluded 95 per cent of the unerty franchised, that being one of the questions which affected the poorer classes ; but on the greater question, of the dis tribution of seats, which affected, not the operatives, but the masters, and which would facilitate the admission of his own class into Parliament, on that question he said " I will have no compromise." He must say that his hon. friend was not inconsistent in this, because it was not the first time in the session, that ho had applied the same prin- ciple. Professing to be the peculiar representative of the working man, he had applied the same principle to taxation when he bad the chance of removing the taxes which fell on the operative. In the case of taxation as in representa tion, he had in both instances thrown over the interests of the poor, and advocated the interests of the rich. (Opposi tion cheers.) He believed no man was more sincere and more honest in the advocacy of his views, but there was this peculiarity about him, that unconsciously in questions affecting the education of the poor, the taxation of the poor, and the representation of the poor, wherever it had been a case of the poorer classes on the ono side and the rich land owners on the other, there had never been a more vehement, a more inflexible champion of the poor than \ the hon. mem ber for Birmingham ; but where it had been a case of manu facturers on the one side and operatives on the other, the interests of the masters had been upheld, and those of the operatives trampled upon. (Opposition cheers.) There fore he declined to receive the hon. member in the house as the representative of the working classes. He did not believe the hen. gentleman had their interests at heart. (Opposition cheers.) He had been led to go further into this subject than he intended. He wished to conclude by making one remark on what fell from the noble lord the member for the City. He heard with regret one observa tion which fell from him, which looked very much like a promise, though it did not amount to a promise, that it was likely he would introduce another Reform Bill. He would repeat to him what he said to him last year on the debate on his resolution. Ile warned him that his difficulties would then begin. He told him then that if he could do anything either to promote the reform that he wished or to secure his own position by voting for the resolution he would do so, but that he felt certain that, neither the one nor the other could facilitate the object ho had at heart. And now, said the right hon. gentleman, as to the future, I would address this warning to the noble lord. It is no light thing for a Minister of England to discredit the only free constitution now left in Europe. (Hear.) It is no light thing for a man in such a position as the noble lord to promulgate the doctrine that it is the legitimate function of a statesman and of a minister once in every 20 years to remodel the constitution of his country, and always on the same principle—effecting a new distribution of political power always in one direction, giving less and less influence to intelligence and property, and more and more power to numbers. It is no light thing to promulgate the vital prin ciple that a constitution like that of England can only be expanded in a downward direction. As I concur in the hope expressed that this may be last occasion on which we may have a discussion on reform, I cannot refrain in the interest of the future from saying that we aro now all aware that this bill did not emanate from the people ; that it did not arise from the aspirations of the unenfranchised, but that it arose from official rivalry and ministerial jealousy. It arose from political parties racing alul wrestling with each other for place, endeavouring to outvie each other in bidding for the support of a political minority; that party, as regards its representation of national power, is the least important party in the State, but still it has ruled the Cabinet, it has ruled the House of Commons, and it has ruled the coun try, because its support was a political necessity to Ministers, who dreaded reform very much, but who dreaded expulsion from office a great deal more. The authors of this bill have much to answer for, and I say that the more, because I remember that in the autumn of 1858, when the hon. member for Birmingham was making his tour in the provinces, they and their organs denounced him, because, as they said, he was discrediting'the consti tution. No, sir, the lion. gentleman was not discrediting the constitution ; he wars only illustrating that great prin ciple of it which enables anal allows every man to promul gate his opinions. But I wilt: tell you who it is that dis credits the constitution. It is discredited when leading men—when Ministers of State—premise what they do not wish to perforin—(cheers)—when they conce;le what they think is dangerous—(eheers)—when they deny what they hold to be true—(cheers)—when they pander to an un wholesome appetite, and when they endorse what they despise. (Loud cheers.) Then, and then only do they dis credit and endanger the constitution—then, and then orel.,y, do they arm men of more advanced opinions, and of greater earnestness, with a power that they may hereafter find themselves unable to resist. (Hear, hear.) Sir, that power is resistible only because the hon. member for Birmingham happily does not understand, and does not represent, the opinions of the masses of this country. (Cheers.) There is no man with his powers and with his opportunities, that has so completely failed to excite their sympathies or their enthusiasm. (Cheers.) Sir, they don't understand the principles, of the hon. member. They don't understand a men being the champion of freedom in this country, and the great advocate of despotism abroad. (Loud-cheers.) They don't understand how the great advocate of peace in this country can be a great admirr of the representative of war abroad. (Hear, hear.) They cannot understand the principle lay which free nations are to be absorbed, swallowed up, subjected to despotic powers, simply because the free na tion, the little free state, happens to be but a bad cus tomer, while the larger one may become a great purchaser of Manchester manufactures. (Loud cheers.) Least of all do they wish for a reform of our institutions on the transatlantic model. The masses of this country are sound-hearted and English to the backbone; and, thank God I they are intelligent enough and well-conditioned enough to appreciate the constitution under which they live. (Cheers.) They know that under it they enjoy, politically, socially, and religiously, more freedom, than is enjoyed under any other in the world. They know that the blessing which they thus enjoy was not easily ob tained ; they feel that it ought not to be lightly perilled ; and they know that this house is one of its appointed guar dians. We know, too, and we ought always to remember, that in our hands Providence has reposed a precious trust; and that as we discharge that trust, whether now or at any future time, faithfully, honestly, and righteously, we shall surely be judged. (Loud cheers.) Mr. SLANEY thought that on the whole his noble friend had clone the best be could under the circumstances ; but he humbly hoped that the noble lord's failure on this occa sion would not prevent him from bringing the subject for ward in another session. It appeared to him that by a fusion of provisions contained in the two last bills a satis factory measure might be arrived at; but he hoped the noble lord would in his next attempt fix his borough fran chise somewhat higher. That, with a county qualification of £l5, and some of the franchises out of the right hon. gen tleman's bill, would, in his opinion, make up a measure likely to meet with general approbation. Mr. LONG thanket; the noble lord for having at last adopted a simple, straights:orward, common-sense course. lie He believed that the country' would much rather that tion of our rot ten gun ghs. (Hear.) turned his attention to the reconetr n e: boats than to the reform of our rotte n bel.Tou Mr. W. E. BUNCOMBE subm itted that ere had never been the slightest desire-on the part of the pubi": o for the bill, or the slightest belief in its necessity. The onl>• pur pose for which it had been brought forward was to serve a party purpose. He regretted to lied that the noble lord en tertained some idea of making another attempt Dither next session or at some future time, and he hoped that he would reconsider the matter before he again determined on stop ping the way of useful legislation. Mr. WARNER would not affect any surprise at the fate of the bill; but he regretted that the noble lord should have been compelled by circumstances over which he was sure he (the noble lord) had no control, to adopt the course he had taken ; for he believed that there had never been a session so eminently suited for arriving at a comparatively permanent settlement of the question. No one had a greater interest in having the matter set at rest than hon. gentle men opposite ; because so long as it continued unsettled they would be in the wrong before the country, and it would thus stand in the way to their return to power. He was sorry that the bill had been made a party question, and thought that if hon. gentlemen opposite had devoted half the time to remedying the defects of the measure that they had to obstructing its progress, the house would have been at this moment in a very different position.. The late de bate showed that neither the house nor the country was prepared to deal with the question, and he hoped that any future measure veould not be introduced until it had been well considered, even if it were not introduced at so early a period as next session. One feature of any new bill ought, in his opinion, to be the representation of minorities. Mr. WHALLEY 4 ,.g ave the Government credit for having taken the best course in their power; but within the last few weeks he had felt himself unable to take any lively in terest in the proceedings of the Government, on account of their tame submission to the House of Lords upon a ques tion on which their privileges were vitally affected. He thought the course taken by the Government since the re jection of the bill for repealing the Paper Duty was more worthy of a debating society than of the House of Com mons. For his own part he felt himself linable to discharge satisfactorily the trust which had been reposed in him by his constituents until he clearly understood the real cha racter of his duties. Mr. Mackinnon's amendment was then withdrawn, and the order of the day for going into committee was dis charged. The bill was then withdrawn. T QFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved the second read ing of this bill. He stated that it had already passed through the House of Lords, and that it formed part of a series of seven measures for the consolidation of the criminal law. For no less than 27 years numerous commissions had been engaged in considering the best means of amending and consolidating the criminal law, and these measures were the fruits of their labour. Each of tire seven bills, ac cording to its province, proposed among other things, such an amendment of the law as would assimilate the law I r eland to that in England. Such an assimil a ti on was n per fectly practicable, and had received the assent of persons th o roughly acquainted with the state of th e l aw i n the two countries. This was not the first occasion upon which the question of consolidating the criminal law had occupied the attention of Parliament. The lion, and learned gentleman said it was now proposed by these bills to amend the law both as it regarded England and Ireland, and the framers of the measures with that view had taken into consideration thy population and circumstances of both countries. The hon. and lefirned gentleman then referred to the various acts of Parliament which had been passed since tho year 1832 for the amendment and improvement of the criminal law, and after giving a history of the various commissions which had been issued for the purpose of making further inquiries into the operation of the criminal law, said that it had been the intention and effort of the commissioners to incvrporate into these bills all that was desired by the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Dublin, who had paid great attention to this matter. If it should be found that the bills did not contain everything that was material to render them perfect, still he hoped objections would not be interposed which might have the effect of de laying the passing of them this session, a matter which it was desirable should be accomplished after the various ex periments which had been made, and the long labours which had been spent upon them. The hon. and learned' gentle man concluded by moving the second reading of the bill. Mr. WHITESIDE having complimented the Solicitor- G eneral on the lucid history ho had given of the successive steps that had been taken in the improvement of the criminal law, proceeded to complain that amongst the pre sent measures the punishment and procedure bills had been withdrawn. The next point to which he wished to allude was the provision against the conspiracy to murder. He thought it had been settled that the punishment of death was to be taken away from every crime except the actual taking of human life, but here he found it reserved for con spiracy to murder and for various other offences. He sub mitted whether secondary punishments should not be sub stituted in cases where death did not ensue. He objected also that their former definitions of murder were omitted, but he had no hesitation in saying that, subject to the im provements which might be made in committee, it might be expedient to pass these bills. On the question of mercy he thought that a conference with the Lords might smooth away every difficulty. Even if the noble viscount did not carry the Reform Bill, he would in passing these bills have the satisfaction of passing measures which were really use ful to the country. Mr. COLLIER was willing to accept these bills, and would give his best assistance towards improving them in committee. Mr. M'MAHON thought there were good reasons why this bill should be referred to a select committee. A' great deal of money had been expended on this and other similar bills. He had looked through these bills, and he thought he could satisfy the house that it would be a very serious thing to give them a second reading. By one provision of the present bill the definition of murder or manslaughter extended to killing any person, whether he was a subject of ' her Majesty or not. If the house adopted that clause, then it followed that killing a person abroad—a foreigner—not in the dominions of her Majesty would be murder. Now, there was an English captain at present joined with Garibaldi, and if he should be taken prisoner he must be sent ever here, and this country would be asked to find a bill against him at the Old Bailey, and we should be called upon to hang him. There was another case. It was said that a great number of his (Mr. 111‘Mahon's) country.. men were going to some part of Italy, who might have to fight against the King of Sardinia ; and sup pose some portion, of them were taken, they must be sent over here. They would thus be dealing with persons who were not subjects of the Queen, and it would be the whole story of the Conspiracy to Murder Bill over again, and they would be continually troubled with prosecutions of that kind. There was a clause also in the bill which re cognised an offence hitherto utterly unknown to the law. That clause related to a person levying a distress commit ting an assault upon whom constituted a criminal offence, and the offender would be tried at quarter sessions, at which some of the nicest points of law would have to be argued. He would call the attention of tho house to another very strong violation of settled principles. In the Coinage Bill there was a provision that in all cases of prosecutions under that bill, the Soli c it or t o th e Mi n t lwas instructed to see that all the expenses should be borne the same as for felo nies, which violated every rule that had hitherto prevailed in criminal proceedings. He trusted, therefore, that the house would safely consider that the safer course would be to refer those bills to a select committee, which would be able to consider not only these bills, but those which the late Attorney-General for Ireland brought before the house. Mr. AYRTON complained that there was no key to the manner in which these bills had been prepared, and it was impossible to know what parts of the bills were amendments of the law, and what were parts of the law as it now existed. They were endeavouring to consolidate the law, and yet in these bills there was a considerable repetition of various clauses in the existing statutes. They should have before the house, in one form or other, a statement of the existing state of the law as applicable to those proceedings, so that as they went through the bills in committee they should be able to form an opinion upon the subject. Mr. W. EWART thought that in many cases the cer tainty,of punishment would be secured by giving a smaller punishment than was now often awarded for offences. He was glad to see the Government were taking a step in ad vance on this important subject. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that after tne dis cussion which had taken place, It would not be necessary for him to do mere than to give an assurance to the house that these bills would be vigorously and earnestly proceeded with. (Hear, hear.) The bill was then read a second time. The Malicious Injuries to Property Bill was read a second time. The Coinages Offences Bill was read a second time. The Accessories! and Abettors Bill was read a second time. The Forgery Bill was read a second time. The Larceny, &c., Bill was read a second time. The Criminal Statutes Repeal Bill was read a second time. The Highways, Roads, &c., Bill was read a second time. ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION BILL. On the motion of Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR this bill, which stood for a second reading, was withdrawn, and leave was given to introduce another bill in its stead. The Tithe Commutation Bill was read a second time. The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill was read a second time. The Caledonian and Crinan Canal Bill was read a second time. TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was read a second time. After a long and stormy discussion, it was agreed that the bill should be committed on the evening of Friday next, with the understanding that if the house could not proceed with it on that evening, it should stand for 12 o'clock on Tuesday week. The Masters and Operatives Bill was read a third time and passed. The Councillors of Burghs and Burgesses (Scotland) Bill passed through committee. The Leasing and Improving Lands (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. CRIMINAL LUNATICS. Sir G. C. LEWIS obtained leave to bring in a bill for the better care and custody of criminal lunatics. The other orders were then disposed of, and the house Adjourned at ten minutes to two o'clock. THE 111.411L5. MAILS DUE. Australia, Ceylon, and Mauritius (via South- ampton) .. Overdue. Do. (via Marseillds) Overdue. Bahamas and Havana (via New York) July 4. , . Canada, &c. (via Cork) .. June —. Cape of Good Hope, &c. .. July 1. China, Penang, and Singapore (via S'ampton) June 18. Do. (via Marseilles) June 12. 'Gibraltar (via Southampton) • • • • • • Juno 10. India (Calcutta), Ceylon, &c. (via Southampton) Juno 18. Do. (via Marseilles) June 12. India (Bombay), (via Southampton) .. June 10. Do. (via Marseilles) Lisbon, Lisbon: Brazils, and Oporto June 11. Malta, Egyt, and Aden (v ia So uthampton) .. Juno 10. D o. ( v i a M arse il les) June 20. United States, California, &c. (% is C or k) .. J une 21. Buenos sto Ayres, res, &c.. Z . ; 5 2 .. 0 Western Coast of Africa, Madeira, Teneriffe .. June 10. West Indies and Pacific, Carthgeun, Cuba, &c. June 14. BIRT HS. BIDDULPII —On the Bth inst., at 22, Chester-square, the w ife of Colonel T. DT. Biddulph, of a son. DUCKWORTH. — On the Bth inst., at Wear House, near Exeter, Lady Du c k worth, of a daughter. RICKARDS.--011 the 10th i ns t., a tEpsom, the wife of E. ,T . Rickards, Esq.) of a son. MARRIAGES. GOODWIN--PORTEL—On the 6th inst., at the parish church of West Ham, Essex, Edward John Goodwin Esq., of Canon-;•ourt, Wateringbury, Kent, to Mary "no/ Youngest daughter of the late Henry Porter, Esq., of Maidstone. W AR D — WALLBACII.—On the 9th inst., at St. Joint's, H ackney, Chas. Parker Ward, Esq., of Trinity-square, Southwark, to Marie, second daughter of Louis Wall bach, Esq , of Stuttgart, Wurtemberg. DEATHS. B EARDMOD.E.—On the 9th inst., at 3 ) Addiscomhe Villas, Croydon, Joshua Beardmore, Esq., late of Boxmoor, Herts, aged 73. BURRO .—On the Bth inst., at St. Leonard's-on-Sea, Ed mund Burrow, Esq., of Granville-place, Blackheath aged 59. BUTLER.—On the Bth inst., John Butler, Esq., of Cam bridge-street, Hyde-park. SIMPSON.—On the 6th inst., James A. Simpson, Esq., of Mmtague-place, Russell-square, and 21loorgate-street, aged 65. - - - WIIICHCORD.—On the 10th inst., at Maidstone, John Whicheord, Esq., aged 70. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, , Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of Kidcllesur, Tuesday, June 12, 1860.