Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-24 00:00:00

THE DAY'S NEWS,

In the House of Commons, yesterday, Mr.
Spooner postponed his motion respecting Maynooth
until Tuesday, and Sir J. Trelawney postponed his
motion for going into committee on the Church Rate
Bill for a week. Mr. Black myvvd__
-which Mr. Cumming Bruce moved as an
amendment that it be read a second
time this day six months. A long debate
ensued, in which Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Horsman,
Mr. Stewart, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Cowan, Mr.
H. Bailie, Sir W. Dunbar, Mr. F. Scott, Lord Elcho,
Mr. Bright, and others took part. Upon a division,
the amendment was lost by a vote of 216 to 176, and
the Bill was read a second time. Mr. Gregory
moved the second reading of the Poor Relief
(Ireland) Bill. A debate ensued, which was
adjourned.

The Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday morning
delivered judgment in the case of the Rev. Alfred
Poole respecting confessional practices. The Arch-
bishop said he was of opinion that the proved and
admitted allegations afford good and reasonable
cause for the revocation of his license, and that the
Lord Bishop of London has exercised a good and sound
discretion in revoking the same, and he is further of
opinion that the course pursued by the appellant is
not in accordance with the rubric or doctrine of the
Church of .England, but tending to produce
most serious mischief to the course of morality and

religion.
The Paris correspondent of the Post says, in con-
sequence of representations made by M. Cavour, the
French Government consents that Piedmont and the
other Italian states shall be represented at the
Conference. It is said that Austria accepts the
Conference. The Paris correspondent of the Daily
News believes that the cabinets of London, Berlin,
and Vienna feel agrieved at the wording of the note
of the Moniteur in which the new Congress is
announced.

Mr. Bowyer has given notice, in the House of
Commons, that, to-morrow, he will put questions as
to what powers will take part in the Congress, and
whether Sardinia will join it.
Seventeen of the Nepolitan exiles arrived at
Bristol yesterday morning from Queenstown. They
were welcomed by the mayor and town council, and
an immense number of the inhabitants. The exiles
left for London in the afternoon.
A meeting of working men was held in the Con-.
cert Hall last night to consider the Government
Reform Bill. Mr. Lawrence Heyworth, lately
M.P., presided. From the outset of the proceedings
it became evident that an organized Tory or Orange
Opposition to the expected condemnation of the bill
was about to take place. A resolution was moved
condemnatory of the bill, tier which an amendment
was proposed by Mr. Parsonage, clerk of St. John's
Church, and a very stormy, noisy, and confused dis-
cussion followed. Scarcely any speaker on either
side was heard throughout, so incessantly were
hissings, groanings, cheers, and counter cheers sus-
tained, Some of the interruptions were peculiarly
piquant, and to unconcerned listeners highly amusing.
Finally resolutions were carried condemnatory of the
Government Bill, along with a petition in favour of
residential manhood suffrage, vote by ballot, more
equitable apportionment of representation to numbers,
and shortened duration of parliaments.
At the meeting of the West Derby Board of
Guardians, yesterday, a discussion of the usual char-
acter took place in reference to the appointment of
a porter, and ended in a metier). of Mr. Smith's being
carried, appointing a pauper, u.amed Camidge, to the
office, at a salary of £l2 a Year, with second class
rations.

THE REFORM BILL DEBATE,

THERE is nothing like calm discussion for the
thorough understanding of any great public questiOn
whether of morals or of politics ; and the Reform:
Bill debate which is this week occupying the almost
undivided attention of the House of Commons, will
do more to enlighten the public mind on the impor-
tant subject of Parliamentary representation, than
all the flood of platform declamation upon it which
has been deluging the country, more or less, for some
months past. " Truth cannot be found," it has been
said, "without some labour and attention of the
gml the thoughts dwelling a conbidcrfiblv time

upon the survey and discussion of each particular."
Such, then, is the process to which the question of
Reform in Parliament is now being subjected.
Hitherto—that is, out of doors—it has been all little
more than mere declamation—plausible and passionate
haranguing of the profanum vulgus. Of course, in
such a ease, but one side of the question was brought
out. And there can be no more delusive, no more
mischievous way, of operating on the common mind,
with respect to any great public matter upon which
it can be excited. " A plausible, insignificant word,
in the mouth of an expert demagogue," it has been
truly said, "is a dangerous and dreadful weapon."
And in no wise is it more so, than as perverting the
mind from the sober truth of the question. One of
the greatest enemies of truth is prejudice ; and no
prejudice is more inveterate than that of party,—
which is just what there is always most to be appre-
hensive about, when any great political subject is
declaimed upon for objects of party popularity.
It was well remarked by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in
opening the debate on the Government Reform Bill,
that " there can be no question of graver importance
to us, and to our children to the latest posterity, than
the measure which is now placed upon the table,—
a question so important that I think it is not wrong
to urge upon the House to consider every step they
take—not to be blind to the importance of every
movement they make, and to consider well before
they advance in what may turn out to be a wrong
direction." No sounder advice than this, as far as it
goes, could possibly have been given to the House,
on an occasion • like the present. In what-
ever direction they may go, on such a
question, it will be difficult, if not impracticable,
to retrace their steps. If it unhappily be a wrong
direction, yet so long as it conveys political power—
however injuriously it may prove to be—they will
find it no easy matter, perhaps not possible at all,
to withdraw what has been conferred. Well, there-
fore, might Lord JOHN urge them so earnestly " to
consider every step they take, and not to be blind to
the importance of every' move that they make."
For, we repeat, there can be no drawing back.
And if it should " turn out to be a wrong direction "
that has been taken, a wrong course that has been
pursued, the evil of it may indeed, not improbably,
be felt " to the latest posterity."

Of course there has been a very furious onslaught
upon the ministerial measure. Not only have many
of the leading Opposition members denounced it, but
it has fallen also under the ban of even Conserva-
tives, here and there, hitherto the supporters of the
present Administration. Mr. NEWDEGATE has been
a prominent and noteworthy instance of this,—only
he fulminated his wrath against it in the spirit of an
anti-reformer ; although, as such, his opposition
will, no doubt, tell against its success. But notwith-
standing the Bill is thus condemned on all sides, and
the amendment Lord JOHN RUSSELL has moved
virtually amounts to the passing upon it a sentence
of condemnation, there has yet been evinced a
desire that it should not be summarily rejected. If,
however, it be resolved, as the amendment pro;
poses, " that this House is of opinion that it is
neither just nor politic to interfere, in the manner
proposed in this Bill, with the freehold franchise, as
hitherto exercised in the counties in England and
Wales ; and that no re-adjustment of the franchise
will satisfy this House or the country which does not
provide for a greater extension of the suffrage in
cities and boroughs than is contemplated in the
present measure,"—we scarcely see how the second
reading of it could ever be reconcilable with such a
resolution. Yet Sir CHARLES WooD, while sup-

measure might not be passed by the present Govern-
ment, even if the amendment should receive the
sanction of the House." It is true that he was not
so sweeping in his condemnation of it as his con-
federate Lord JOHN was. Still the resolution he
supported speaks for itself, and contradicts such an
idea, one would think, most completely.
The general view which Sir CHARLES WOOD took
of this measure, would appear to have had some
effect upon the House, if not in favour of the second
reading of the Bill, certainly against Lord JOHN
RUSSELL'S amendment. Mr. HORSMAN described
this feeling very forcibly and clearly. Having
expressed his doubts both as to the propriety and the
expediency of the course which Lord JOHN has
taken by the amendment, he said that these doubts
had been considerably strengthened by Sir CHARLES
WOOD'S view of the case. For "he has found it
necessary," he proceeds to say, " in order to support
the course which he pursues, to represent this Bill
as one respecting which Parliament has no choice
but to accept or reject it in its present form, with
no power to modify or amend it. Now," con-
tinues the hon. member, "if that were the case,
I believe that on this side of the House there would
not be two opinions as to its immediate rejection ;
but I do not see what advantage is to be gained by
our encouraging a notion which so much exaggerates
the authority of the Government in this House, so
depreciates all our own powers and functions, and is
so entirely •at variance with our every-day Parlia-
mentary practice." This view of the matter appears
to have met with some hearty responses on both
sides of the House ; and if there is any chance
whatever for a second reading of the Bill, it is only
on that ground,—that, namely, of the House taking
it into its own hands, and making it, in Committee,
a measure after its own mind, if not also, in some
degree at least, after the mind of the country.

The debate has brought out in great prominence
the fact—already well known —that the Liberal
party, as a body, are opposed to the Government
measure, for various ostensible reasons, though
probably, in the main, for but one real reason ; while
the Conservatives are many of them averse to it
through an apprehension of its anti-Conservative
tendencies. Of course there are exceptions to this,
as to all rules. One of the most notable, that
of Mr. HOESMAN, on the first night of the debate,
we have already alluded to : another was that of Mr.
SIDNEY HERBERT, on the second night, who declared
that with every disposition to go into Committee on
the Bill, he considered its principles, which the
Government had pledged itself to maintain, so
vicious, that he should be obliged to support the
resolution of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, as pointing out
the precise objections he had to the measure. With
this feeling so evidently predominant, its daom is
doubtless sealed.