The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-24 00:00:00

directly withdrawn, withdrawn evasively by a tardy
concession on the part of the noble Marquis, that
the previous question should be agreed to. Yet one
can't help remembering after this " most lame and
impotent conclusion," that the resolutions submitted
to the Upper House yesterday by Lord NORMANBY
were of a nature so apparently threatening that
they had actually constrained Lord COWLEY to
hasten over from the Paris Embassy for the pur-
pose of ensuring their effectual rejection in Parlia-
ment. His Excellency might very well, as it
happens, have left his defence entirely in the hands
of Lord GRANVILLE! The vivacious President of
the Council having, with an evident relish for the
task, taken Lord NoßmANnz's propositions literatim
et seriatim, and carefully dissected them with a
keen edged scalpel of ridicule. Anyone who can
really appreciate the art of an adept in pok-
ing fun, will enjoy a cursory glance down
the cruelly satiric comments of Earl GRAN-
VILLE upon the Marquis of NORMANBY'S
ingeniously involved, and delightfully abstract, and
exquisitely circumlocutory resolutions. Resolu-
tions declaring in so mauy words "That while the
House fully recognised the necessity of a private
correspondence between the Secretary of State
and her MAJESTY'S representatives abroad, it
was of opinion that all facts of interna-
tional importance ought to be made matter of offi-
cial correspondence, and as such, to remain on re-
cord for the use not only of the Government of
the day but of their successors in office, to be pro-
duced to or withheld from Parliament by the
Ministers of the Crown on their responsibility ;
also, that the absence of any such record, more
' especially if such private correspondence is re-
ferred to in public despatches,' is injurious to the
public service, unjust alike to the Foreign Mini-
ster who made the communication and to official
colleagues at home, and calculated to withhold
important matter from the full and free control of
Parliament." As a series of abstract propositions,
they cannot, of course, be gainsaid—in the
abstract. But it so happens that our English Par-
liament is not precisely a conclave of the one-eyed
philosophers of the Flying Island of LEMUEL GuL-
LIVER. We are not yet worshipping Mumbo Jumbo
in the Mountains of the Moon. We are not abstrac-
tions, living in the midst of abstractions. These
appear to have been the kind of conclusions ar-
rived at by the House of Lords last evening. And
so—Lord NORMANBY'S resolutions fell through, the
house taking into consideration instead the " pre-
vious question." And so—Earl COWLEY may re-
turn again in peace to his position at Paris as her
Majesty's Ambassador.

" Like a door on its hinges, sir, all motion but no
progress," was the criticism we once heard on the
eloquent declamation of a great popular orator who
advanced, however but little, the cause he discussed.
And, subtracting the eloquence, this criticism would
serve well as a description of the debate of last
night on the so-called Reform Bill. Hon, members
talked all the evening, but the only advance made,

if advance it can be called, was Sir G. C. LEWIS'
defence of the Government returns. Mr. EDWIN
JAMES was retained by himself to attack them, but
he certainly did not make out much of a case. At
any rate, the Home Secretary showed that the in-
structions given and the persons applied to must
secure as great accuracy as could possibly be ob-
tained in any such returns. Our readers will
not thank us if we enter into details which,
if they have a taste for them, they can find
more fully in the speeches of the two members re-
ferred to ; but we are bound to say that if accurate
returns are a serious object in the discussion of the
bill, we do not think those of the Government
could be substantially amended. Errors will of
course occur, but there seems not to be the shadow
of a doubt that the Government desired an honest
return, and took the most efficient means to se-
cure it.

It is said that the bill pleases no one—that it
has no title to the name of a Reform Bill—that it
omits what real reformers most desire—and grants,
in boroughs, a franchise at least 40s. lower than
Tories like. Well, all this may be true, and yet
be no reason why the bill should not be passed.
We assuredly cannot allow that it deserves the title
of a Reform Bill ; but take it for what it is—it
offers something—something in the direction of Re-
form—something important, otherwise the pledged
opponents of Reform would not make such wry

faces at it. We cannot see, therefore, the common
sanse er consistency of professed Reformers in any
way obstructing the bill. Hence we are gratified

to observe that Mr. MASSEY has been compelled to'
withdraw his motion, assigning as the reason that
he had not in his simplicity supposed its success
could be regarded by the Government as fatal to the
bill. Mr. MASSEY may also have an eye to a meet-

ing convened at Salford, to which he must have
rendered some account not perhaps very pleasant to

We cannot see on what pretext the House should
waste longer the country's time over the second
reading when it has been agreed that there is to be
no division. If the principle of franchise exten-
sion in counties and boroughs is not to be opposed,
why not hasten into committee and discuss details
there. There will, doubtless, be quite enough found
to occupy the time of the House in committee in dis-
cussing whether we shall have a 6 or £8 franchise,
whether any " fancy franchises" are to be added—
[to the lodgers franchise that expression can hardly
be applied, and we expect neither side will object]—

whether the rate-paying clauses shall - stand,
whether constituencies shall have the option of
the Ballot, and whether many a borough shall
stand in the schedule which will de-
prive it of one member. Singularly enough
it does appear that the test of population which Lord
JOHN has taken as the reason for partial disfran-
chisement does leave the Whigs many more borough
members than they would retain by the test of the
number of electors. The latter seems so much
the more natural, so obviously in favour of giving
most numbers where there was most intelligence,
that it appears unaccountable how a Whig lord
could prefer number of persons merely, to num•
ber of persons competent to elect under his own
franchises, unless it had. appeared that the
-Whig
boroughs would be the greater losers by the more
rational process. We must hear the other side,
however.

We join heartily in Lord PALMERSTON'S wish
that Thursday night should bring this unmeaning
and tedious debate to a c!ose. It will be a bore to
us all if protracted further, and the parties who do
it will be regarded by the public as factious parti-
sans. And we gather from Mr. DISRAEL I'S re-
marks that, while wishing to preserve the course
open for his followers, he would himself prefer to
get to real work—to get into committee.

The conference of ministers of religion yesterday,
at the Whittington Club, on the Ballot, was a good
idea. They were even more appropriately invite d
to consider this subject than on a former occasion
to give their experience and thoughts on the Corn-
laws. It was a difficult thing for persons who had
not studied the subject, which the majority of minis-
ters had probably not done, to say how much of