The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-06-11 00:00:00

ploted. ~Marshal Valliant is expected on Tuesday
next at Turin.

According to reliable information, the Prince-
Regent of'Prussia has accepted the proposal of
the Emperor Napoleon for a meeting during the
Prince's stay at Baden Baden. Other German
princes are also.expected to be there.

Prince Petrulla, the Neapolitan Minister at
Vienna, has received, by courier, an autograph letter
front his Sovereign. In .thir letter his Majesty
engages himself solely—first, to call to his council
men enjoying public confidence; second, to recon-
stitute a government for guaranteeing ' the faith-
ful and conscientious execution of the laws, as
well as the suppression of abuses;. third, ;to pro-
claim a general amnesty. His Majesty hopes
that in consideration of these guarantees, Euro-
pdan diplomacy will no longer refuse to interfere
in. his favour against the Revolution.

The Austrian Ambassador and Princess Met-
ternich have been invited to pass one week from
Sunday next with their Imperial Majesties 'at
Fontainebleau.

The Jourrier de Paris has received a first adver-
tisement for an article upon the liberty of coali-
tion by working men.

The latest reports from the French prefects
dwell upon two subjects, as especially calling for
flap attention of Government—the probability of a
bad harvest, and the really fearful stagnation of
trade. It is stated that 6,000,000 sterling is
about to be borrowed for further improvements
of the city of Paris..
The Horse Guards have decided that the infantry
reinforcements, under orders for Indini shall
,be
furnished with a light drab suit of clothing fit
for wear in India.
The directors of the Union Bank have issued a
circular, in which they deny that they have
recovered any amount of the Move,- of which the
Bank was defrauded by Pullinger through infor-
mation obtained from the committee of the Stock
Exchange, though; they have received from other
information about £lO,OOO.

It is reported that the calonelcy of the Fuiliers
Guards will be conferred on Lord Clyde. • •
Mr. Humphrey Brown, formerly of the Royal
British Rank, and ex-M.P.', for Tewksbury, died
on Wednesday. . . , :

AGAIN, and yet again, $d feel called on to recur
to the tedious and almost 'intoletab/e subject of
" the little Reform Bill." It never was intended
to. do any good, and we dare. say it ,has ~already
done a great deal more harm than its originat.ors
contemplated as *among things probable, or even
possible, In this respect, however, it is only
another added to the endless list of well-known
illustrations of the ttite remark that one piece of
mischief leads to another and another, until. the
evil becomes overwhelming. The Reform pre-
tence, upon which the' present 'Ministry climbed
into office, was hollow. They were compelled,-
in order to keep up • appearances, to bring in a
Reform Bill-=and it too, when at length it came
forth, was a Mischievons siidin: They must still
keep up their game, however, and nialirtain a show
of earnestness in pressing the measure onwardsibld
their insincerity is palpable. The embarrassment
produced by the effective exposure .of their crafty
devices has now broUght matters to a climax, the
resolution of which perils their very existence as a
Cabinet.

To night in all probability the Matt& Will be
so far determined. 'The issue involves the fate of
"Reform," perhaps for some considerable time to
come, arid,- also; the continuance of the Whigs in
office, or, perchance, Et dissolution of Parliament.
If the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair
should in the end be carried, to the greal relief
of Lord JOHN -RUSSELL, it will still be found
impossible to get the Bill carried through thi9
Session; but yet the issue of the case would in
that event be considerably changed. Although
, there is tict finle new to secure the passage of
the, Dili tins Session; Ministers may save their
consistency in appearance-arid we regret to say
that that is all they care for—by getting it sent
into committee.

What is the position occupied by the Con-
servative party in reference to this unfortunate
Bill ? We have over and over again proved that
they are not responsible for the culpable delay
that has occurred ; art 4 yet they have undoubtedly
supported the amendments Made by the ministe-
rialists on the motion for going into Ccrnimittee.
Is not this evidence of a guilty participation
after the fact ? By not opposing the second
reading they dttecled to the principle of the Bill,
and, a Committee of the *hcie House being the
proper time and form for the discussion of de- j
tails, why do they vote for amendments which
have for their object to delay that procedure ?
Having agreed to the principle, why do they not
reserve their objections to matters of detail until
the Speaker has left the chair and the House is
in committee ? Was their apparent acceptance of
the principle a sham—a cowardly trick; simply
because they dare not go to the vote ? Or was it
consistent with a conscientious determination to
support that principle—on which all parties are
agreed—and to offer no factious opposition to the
progress of the nieasnre towards that stage
wherein its practical details may be best tested
and adjusted ? In the outset, before ansstering
these questions, let us ask, why should not the
great Liberal Conservative party be deemed as
sincere, Ito say the least of it, as the Whigs
themselves, in their professed adhesion to the
principle of sound and constitutional reform ?
Are not Lord DERBY and Mr. DISRAELI as
fully committed to the principle of reform
as Lord PALMERSTON and Lord JOHN RUSSEL ?
Is there anything in the antecedents of the lead-
ers of either party to justify a priori the suspicion
that the Conservative leaders are one whit less
earnest for the principle of Reform than the pre-
sent Whig leaders ? Has Lord PALMERSTON, the
leader of the present Cabinet, been all his life
such an enthusiastic Reformer that, as compared
with Mr. DISRAELI, the professions of the former
on this subject are entitled to command our faith,
while they would justify us in the rejection of
those of the latter? What has Lord PALMERSTON
ever done for Reform ? Nothing. What has Lord
J. RUSSELL done for it since 1832 ? Nothing.
Has he ever urged the subject to any practical
hearing except as a party-cry, when he
sat in the cold shade of the opposition
benches ? Has he not, in office, always
and invariably, belied his pretensions and pro-
mises made in opposition ? Everybody knows it.
Why then should they claim any preferential
title to credence' over Lord DERBY and Mr.
DISRAELI ? Why, the latter were driven to take
the matter of Reform out of their hands, and
nobly took it up in a prompt and business-like
manner, and would have speedily procured the
enactment of a useful Reform Bill, had those
factious Whigs not conspired with the ultra-
Radicals, for mere party purposes, to thwart their
goOd intent. In truth, then, so far as probabili-
ties inferred from antecedents can go, we say
that we have no choice in selecting the Liberal
Conservatives as the more likely friends of true
Reform, as it is called—or as it more properly
ought to be designated the amendment and exten-
sien of our present system of Parliamentary
representation. Why, then, should any ono
doubt them ?

It is all important in considering this subject
to understand what we mean by saying that the
Opposition has agreed to the principle of reform.
The only reform principle upon which all parties
are agreed, is that the present system requires
some rectification, ane that the franchise ought
to be extended to persons who do not 1107/
possess it. That is all. Does it follow from this
agreement in principle that there ought to be the