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

THE SUN, LONDON, VIESDAY4 EVENINO, JUNE 12, 1860.

man opposite was scarcely acting in the most open and
generous manner. The noble lord on 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 us
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. gcntlpman 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had now withdrawn the bill.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 no 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 peoplewould have received this year
with gratitude they would reject next year with disdain.
The party opposite, as well as members on that side, had
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
in this 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.d oors agitation. (Hear.) Hon. gentlemen said that
the people were indifferent on the subject of reform—that
in his mind was 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 instructions to the committee which
stood upon the paper—penned for, but to obstruct the bill ?
(Cheers, and " 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
cut of doors he believed it would not be regarded with either
respect or credit. What was their position in respect to this
reform quest ion ? 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 ? lion. 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
each—(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 tlimem-
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 meetingat the York-
shire Stingo. (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 noble 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 ? He 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 was the house going to 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
when the people would be satisfied with much less than
they would be eventually if the settlement of the question
wore postponed ? He knew the time had gone by for
discussing the measure ; 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 will 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 home 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 cettle 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 be withdrawn, considered that the announce-
ment made that evening by his noble friend (Lord J.

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 lateness of the ses-
sion and the unpopularity of the measure itself. (Hear.)
More than a month had been lost at the commencement of
the session in introducing the bill in March 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 2€l 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 an 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-
le presentations—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 to
have—and for a few moments ho 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 seine revelations as to the history of the
Reform Bill. in that Reform Cabinet there was only one
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 they were 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 he
(Mr. Horsman) thought it his duty to pursue with respect
to that measure. He had avoided this session taking any
part in these 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
• hon. 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 he gave it in public, and he
thought it was not becoming in the hon. gentleman whose
services to his party had bean less constant and less labori-
ous than his, to sneer at what he did. But since he 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 redused 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. He 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 the session, it can be passed in an autumn sitting,
and in 1860 we shall meet under the new constituencies."
Well, the bill was rejected, and 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 trway 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 reform, 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 fingers 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 Providenc ,3 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 g tve 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. The 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-
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 he permitted to
say, that of all the men—and he 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 for 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. gentleman had a bill of his own, which was
heralded I hro•igh 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 tettlement 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 ready 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 140 could to carry it oat.

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 unen-
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 he 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 had 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 one 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 hon. 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. lie 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. He 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 ho felt certain that
neither the one nor the. other could facilitate the object he
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 and 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 hon. gentleman was not discrediting
the constituticn ; he was only illustrating that great prin-
ciple of it which enables and allows every man to promul-
gate his opinions. But I will tell you who it is that dis-
credits the constitution. It is discredited when leading
men—when Ministers of State—promise what they do not
wish to perform—(cheers)—when they concede what they
think is dangerous—(cheers)—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 only,
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
man 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 admirer of the representative of
war abroad. (Hear, hear.) They cannot understand the
principle by 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 done 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 thanked the noble lord for having at last
adopted a simple, straightforward, common-sense course.
He believed that the country would much rather that he
tinned his attention to the reconstruction of our rotten gun.
boats than to the reform of our rotten boroughs. (Hear.)
Mr. W. E. DUNCOMBE submitted that there had never
been the slightest desire on the part of the public for the
bill, or the slightest belief in its necessity. The only pur-
pose for which it had been brought forward was to serve a
party purpose. He regretted to find that the noble lord en-
tertained some idea of making another attempt either next
session or at some future time, and he hoped that he would
reconsider the matter before he again determined OR 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 would 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 gave 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 Cora-
l:WAS. For his own part he felt himself unable to discharge
satisfactorily the trust which had been reposed in him by
his constituents until he clearly understood the real cha
ratter 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.
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.
_ _

The SOLICITOR. GENEJLA Li moved the second read-
ing of this bill, lie 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 the seven bills, ac-
cording to its province, proposed among other things, such
an amendment of the law as would assimilate the law in
Ireland to that in England. Such an assimilation Was pa.,
fectly practicable, and had received the assent of persons
thoroughly acquainted with the state of the law in the two
countries. This was not the first occasion upon which the
question of consolidating the criminal law had occupied the
attention, of Paktarnent. The hen, 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
the population and circumstances of both countries. The
hon. and learned gentleman then referred to the various
acts of Parliament which had been passed since the 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
incorporate 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 ctmtain 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 tie Solicitor-
General on the lucid history he had given of the successive
steps that had bees 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 preserved 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 thoright 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 ♦ery 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 over
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. M'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 the 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 Solicitor to the Mint was 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 procoed
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 bringin 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.