The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-06-09 00:00:00

"WHO STOPS THE WAY 9"

THAT there has been an unreasonable amount of
delay in the progress of the Reform Bill is a fact
admitted on all hands. There is no question
about it. The leaders of parties on both sides of
the House admit it and denounce it ; the
admission, and its accompanying denunciation,
are caught up and re-echoed from every corner.
Every form and figure of speech have been
employed to give prominence and clearness to
the indisputable truth that the Reform Bill of
1860 has been already all but strangled through
the inexcusable and culpable delay to which it
has been subjected. There is a rare amount of
unanimity among the Commons about this la-
mentable fact. Mr. BRIGHT and Mr. DISRAELI
shake their heads over it. Lord JOHN RUSSELL
and his hydra-headed opponents are agreed
on it. Lord PALMERSTON has made the
exposition and illustration of it the sum and
substance of his maiden Reform speech this
session. There has been delay, and, of course,
somebody is to blame. Here parties fall by the
ears, and mutually accuse each other of having
" done it," with a warmth of feeling that sometimes
threatens to assume the appearance of personal
bitterness and animosity. If a flat denial would
suffice to settle the matter, it must have been the
evil work of that well-known author of all
juvenile peccadillos—nobody ; for everybody dis-
claims even the thought of such a thing. On the
contrary, all parties avow that their greatest
anxiety has been to forward matters as much as
possible, and nothing has caused everybody so
much distress of mind as to have observed
that everybody else has been deliberately and
cunningly devising obstructions and delays
innumerable. More than all this, every-
body is most anxious that, notwithstanding
all that has passed, byegones should be bye-
gones—what has been done amiss must be
amended, and the precious little Bill must, despite
every disadvantage, be licked into shape and car-
ried through, without further unnecessary waste
of time ! Has not the principle of the measure
been agreed to without opposition, and are not all
parties clamorous that the adjustment of the de-
tails should be instantly effected ? Most assuredly.
Strange to say, however, progress seems impos-
sible. Confusion seems to paralyse the promoters,
and, after seeming to have used their utmost
efforts, we find them sticking in the mud—much
about where they were at the outset, or, if any-
thing, deeper and more inextricably embarrassed.
How is this? There must be an explanation
somewhere ; and, were our Whig legislators a
little more candid, it would not require to be
sought for.
There are a few facts patent to all, which may
tend to throw light upon the real nature of the
difficulty, and discover the responsible authors of
the present Parliamentary dead lock. In the
first place, how does it happen that the motion for
going into committee on the Reform Bill did not
come on-for the consideration of the House until
so late a period of the session as Monday last ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL alone can answer truly.
Have not the Government the management of the
business of the House; and is it not the fact thst
they have generally had at disposal all the days
which are usually devoted to private members of
the House ? Was not Monday, the fourth day of
June, the earliest date they could be persuaded to
fix for that motion ? It was so undoubtedly.
But to go back to the second reading. Has it not
been the constant outcry of the Ministerial party
that it was not opposed ? Can it be said, then,
that that was a cause of delay. Was the length
of the discussion on the second reading
unreasonable ? It was carried over some
five or six nights, and certainly Ministers
must be hard driven for a justification
if they pretend to say that the importance of the
theme did not require that amount of considera-
tion. But even granting that less time might
have sufficed, and that there was an unnecessary
delay on that occasion, on whom does the odium
of obstructiveness lie ? It has been stated, and
we believe correctly, that in numbers, and
also in length —in quantity, if not in
quality—the majority of the speeches then
delivered to the House were made by sup-
porters of the Government. We have all
fresh upon our memories the character of that
debate ; and it seems impossible to resist the
general impression that, in the course of the discus-
sion, while the Conservatives confined themselves
to the statement of some great Constitutional
objections to the course adopted by the authors
of the Bill, the members of the " great Liberal
party " distinguished themselves by a display of
minute criticism, and vigilant captiousness with
details, which betrayed something very like a
feeling of terrible consternation. Who, then,
were the obstructives at that stage ? Let us cast
our retrospection another step backwards—to the
commencement of the session. Ministers had
taken office solely for the purpose of introducing
a Whig Reform Bill, and Parliament assembled
earlier than usual to give ample room and verge
enough for deliberate legislation on the subject.
For a whole fortnight nothing was done ; the
Bill was not introduced. Who was then to blame?
Under those circumstances, and in the face of
these notorious facts, it requires no ordinary
amount of effrontery to assert that the all but
fatal delay that has arisen is attributable to the
conduct of the Opposition.
It is further asserted, however, that although the
Conservatives are not responsible for these delays,
they have otherwise taken means to protract dis-
cussion and provoke opposition. But

" Facts are chiels that winna ding."
What are the facts ? Who are the authors of the
amendments to the motion that the House go
into committee ? Who have suggested amend-
ments by which this measure might be ar-
rested and ultimately defeated ? Who proposed
to refer the Bill to a select committee ? Who pro-
posed the amendment which at present obstructs
progress, and on the discussion of which the
House at present stands adjourned? Did not
the author of that very amendment boast that
lie had supported the present Whig Minister in
almost every division for many years ? The
truth is demonstrable that the friends and sup-
porters of Ministers have alone played the part
of obstructives, and on their unfortunate heads
alone should be poured out the Ministe'rial denun-
ciations of factious and unconstitutional
opposition.

The law of the last legislature to punish the sending
of false notices of marriages, births, and deaths to news-
papers is now in force. It provides that "any person
who shall wilfully send to the publishers of any news-
paper, for the purpose of publication, a fraudulent
notice of the birth of a child, or of the marriage of any
parties, or of the death of any person, shall, upon con-
viction thereof, be punished by a fine not exceeding one
hundred dollars."

THE WEIGHT OF BLOWS.—Some of th• English
papers profess to doubt whether Heenan is a liard hitter.
There is a story current that at the Boston Gymnasium,
where they have a contrivance to test the weight of a
blow, the best pupil struck 70 pounds. After a few
days' practice the teacher was able to strike 130 pounds.
Heenan put himself in training there for a short period,
and the weight of his blow was 620 pounds—nearly a
third of a ton! Can anybody tell how hard a horse kicks?

FRANCE.

The French Government have" agreed to permit
the temporary importatiOn, free of duty, at the
three ports of Boulogne, Calais, and Havre, of
samples of British produce and manufacture
transmitted to Paris in connection with the
inquiries now pending for assessing the new
French tariff, in pursuance of the provisions of
the recent Treaty of Commerce.

FRENCH FUNDS.

PARIS, June 8.

3.30 P.M.—The Bourse has been very dull.
Rentes closed at 68f. 20c., or 10e. lower than
yesterday.