The Sun.
London, England, 1860-01-24 00:00:00

the 2d of October last to thebankrupt. The amount
of that lot of goods was L7B 2s. 6d., but we never
received the money.
Cross-examined—We had other transactions with
the bankrupt, but he paid for all those goods.
Mr. Robert Sievers Cunningham said—l am
agent to Messrs. Patterson and Co. of Birmingham,
electro-plate manufacturers. I founda box of goods
at the warehouse in Savage-gardens which had been

th• time. The assaults were repeated from time to
time until the Bth, when Humphries was lost. He

struck him with his fists, and kicked him violently
after he was down. Humphries did not resist him.

Humphries showed witness his left side. He was
was black and blue from the blows received, and
the bruises extended from the armpit all down his
side. His eyes were blackened, and witness saw
him spitting lumps of blood. He complained in his
hammock of pains in the side. Had often heard him
say to the prisoner, " For God's sake don't murder
me." He appeared in a very weak state.
By Mr. Hall—He was a strong, hearty man
when he joined the ship.
Witness—On the Bth of December Humphries
was with me. We were reefing the main topsail.
I was in the slings of the main topsail yard, and
Humphries was on the lee side of the yard, sitting
on the footrope. It was between 8 and. 6 o'clock at
night. The prisoner was close alongside at the
time. I heard the prisoner say to Humphries,
" You son of a —, lay down on the deck"—
meaning go down, at the same time kicking him in
the face with his boots. He was standing up, and
Humphries was sitting down. Humphries got into
the maintop rigging, and descended as far as the
top, but could not get further down in consequence
of the rope stays or steps being crowded by other
seamen in advance of him. The prisoner followed
him down, kicked him again, and forced him on to
the backstays, the ropes at the back of the steps or
ladder, by which a man can descend by his arms,
there being no foot-rest. He told the prisoner he
could not go down faster, owing to the men before
him. While he was hanging on to the backstays
I saw the prisoner strike him in the face, upon
which he slid down the ropes.
By Mr. Hall—The backstays are not the usual
mode of descending. The ladder is;always preferred,
of course.
Witness—While Humphries was going down
hanging to the ropes, I saw the prisoner take the
backstays and shake the ropes till the deceased
slipped down to the crane line, which caught him
in the crutch, and I then saw him fall back over-
board with his heels up in the air. The prisoner
was shaking the stays all the while. There was a
heavy sea, the wind was blowing hard, and the ship
was lying over very much, so that Humphries fell
clear of the deck into the sea. The pace of the ship
might be about seven or eight miles an hour. I
considered that he fell from the stays in conse-
quence of the prisoner shaking the ropes. I saw no
effort made to save him, although I heard after-
wards that the chief officer threw a lifebuoy over.
The ship was not stopped, and shortly after the
pace was increased by the maintopsail being mast-
headed. When I got down to the deck I heard a
cry that a man was overboard, but the course of
the ship was never altered. We were going N.N.E.
I had a conversation with the prisoner about
Humphries on one occasion afterwards: I said the
poor fellow was gone, and I did not know how soon
it might come to my turn. He said, " The
was no sailor, and I calculated to drown him any
how before getting to London." When the de-
ceased went overboard I should say we were a thou-
sand miles from New York—about off the Banks of
Newfoundland. I never saw the body of Humphries
after he fell. The crane line was about 25 or 30
feet from the deck. The vessel might have been
brought to.
The witness was cross-examined at great length.
the only material points being,—l do not remember
at what part of the ship we were standing when
the conversation with the prisoner took place, or
what was the date. It was during one afternoon
watch. I said what I did because the death of
Humphries was the talk of the ship, and I was in
fear of the prisoner myself the whole voyage. There
was no ill-feeling between us, but he was a man I
dreaded. Humphries was about my height (about
5 feet 6 inches), but stouter and heavier. When he
was struck with the belaying pin the blow took him
in the face, and he went down at once. I saw him
in the next watch, and his face was much swollen.
I could not give any cause for his ill-treatment. I
did not inquire about it—such things would not be
allowed. There were other seamen who witnessed
the death of Humphries. Fox was the name of
one. There were Bob and Tom—but I do not know
the other names of the men. It was during the
second or third night-watch that the first assault
took place. I cannot say which for certain, al-
though I may have said it was the second. I was
walking the deck at the time, and it occurred at the
fore part of the deck. The prisoner came up to
Humphries and said something which I did not
hear, and the blow followed directly. I can't say
if Humphries said anything. After being knocked
down he got up and walked away. I never said
anything to the captain about the prisoner hav-
ing shaken the stays. I was as much in fear of
him as I was of the prisoner. I might have
said something about the mysterious disappearance
of Humphries, because it was a mystery to some,
although not to me. I did not say anything
about it till I gave my evidence before the Con-
sul. The prisoner forced Humphries on to the
backstays by orders which he was bound to obey.
The backstay rope is as thick as a man's arm. I
did not cry out, " A man overboard," lest the pri-
soner should serve me in the same way. I believe I
could shake the stays myself if the ship was in the
same position as it was in then. The ship got to
London the day before New Year's Day.
Re-examined—When I got ashore I sought out
the relatives of the deceased, and informed them of
what had taken place. I saw his brother the first
night we were in London, and told him that the
second mate was the instigator of his being thrown
overboard ; but I did not then describe the wa3 in
which it was done. I mentioned it on the 2d of
January, when we went to the Consul. The prisoner
had often threatened me.
By Mr. Hall—About 20 minutes or half-an-hour
after the man was overboard the crew were mus-
tered to see who was missing. There was some
doubt as to who the man was. I did not hear any
inquiry made about it before we were mustered.
Daniel Fox, also a citizen of the United States,
and one of the seamen of the Devonshire, gave
similar evidence. He first saw the prisoner and
Humphries together on the night of Nov. 30, when
the prisoner called him out of the galley, knocked
him down, and " booted" (kicked) him. I cannot say
if Humphries had any right to be in the galley. He
said, "I beg your pardon, sir, if I am doing wrong."
I cannot say whether he had any business to be in
the galley. It is not usual for the men to go there,
but he might have been a friend of the cook.
As he lay on the deck the prisoner raised his foot
and stamped with the heel of his boot on Hum-
phries's face. Witness corroborated the testimony
of the previous witness as to the prisoner's general
illusage of the deceased, and gave a similar ac-
count of the assault on the Ist of December and
of the catastrophe of the Bth, adding that when.
Humphries was hanging in the back-stay the pri-
soner laid hold of the back stay with his left hand
and struck the deceased with his right. He then
shook the back-stay, which was slack, as it always
is on the lee side when the wind is abeam. It was
owing to the shaking of the line, the weak state of
the man, and the effect of the blow that he fell into
the sea. The witness continued,—l heard a cry on
deck, " A man overboard." I did not repeat it.
As far as I could see no effort was made to save him.
The ship was not hove to, but continued her course,
going at a rate of about eight knots an hour. As a
seagoing man all my life, I am of opinion that the
ship might have been hove to. If that had been
done, and if the man could swim, he might have
caught the life-buoy, got aboard, and been saved.
After a while the prisoner said to me, " I thought
you told me it was No. 2 Shoeblack that fell over-
board ?" That was a nickname given to one of the
boys. I said it was "London," which was a nick-
name of Humphries. I had not spoken to the pri-
soner about it before. Some time afterwards I
heard him say, "I have sent No. 5 Shoeblack dish-
ing, and I'll send some more of them before we get
to London." He used to call Humphries " No. 5
Shoeblack." I never mentioned it to the captain,
for I was afraid of my own life ; I was afraid of the
pair of them—captain and mate. I had seen the
prisoner illuse the others. Men might have been
found to man the lifeboat. I heard several of them
say they would go.
Cross examined—Could not say whether' Hum-
phries was an awkward sailor ; had not seen enough
of him. lie could go aloft very well. Had never
been struck or threatened by the prisoner. Heard
several ask who was overboard, but did not answer,
being afraid. About a quarter of an hour after
the occurrence the maintopsail was hoisted, and
when we came down the crew were mustered
to see who was missing. After mustering, several
said it was " London." I did not say so till the mus-
ter showed who it was. It was before the muster
that the prisoner asked if I had said it was; "No. 2
Shoeblack." I don't think the men near us could
hear, as they were hauling up a bunting. The night
we came on shore in London Shepherd and I went
to look for Ilumphries's relatives, and found his
brother Robert. We told him his brother had been
ill treated and thrown overboard. I told him about
the second mate shaking the backstay, but I did not
hear Shepherd mention it. I told several persons,
but only about the backstay to one. I forget who
that was. When the backstay is slack I could shake
it with a mao on, or with 50 men, if they could get
on. The crew consisted of 20 men and four boys. I
was afraid to say at the muster who was missing,
because it might lead to inquiry, and if I hallooed
they would find out what I knew about it, and one
of them might give me a slight push some day if
they found me in a similar position. I was in fear
of them both.
Re-examined—Shepherd and I talked of it to-
gether, but only when there was no one to hear us.
The first thing Shepherd said to me about it was,

supplied to the bankrupt on the 22d of October
last. I had previously seen the same box of goods

at the bankrupt's premises in Noble-street, the
value of those goods was £B4. He .had other goods,
which makes our claim under the bankruptcy £92.
Cross-examined—The only other transaction was
for a few things for his own use, for which he paid.
Mr. Richard Buck said,—l am agent to Messrs.
Cooper and Goodman. I received the seven cases
of guns at the railway station, and then went to the
bankrupt's office. I scarcely looked at the person
I saw there, but I believe it was the bankrupt. He
afterwards called at my office, and told me which
was his pay-day, when if I called I could have a
cheek. I afterwards called with the invoice, and

asked for the money, end the person I saw said
that was not his agreement with Mr. Cooper. I gave
that person the order to get the goods. I do not
know the bankrupt when I see him. We have
never been paid for those goods.
Mr. Robert White said,—l am agent to Mr.
John Pig, of Leicester, manufacturer of elastic
fabrics. On the 14th, 17th, and 30th of last No-

vember a quantity of goods, amounting to £33,
were sent to the bankrupt's order, and on the

Ist and 15th of September last a further quantity,
making our claim against the bankrupt £203. I
found the whole of the goods delivered on the 15th
of September (within three months of the bank-
ruptcy) at Savage-gardens.
Cross-examined—We had other transactions with

the bankrupt. If the amount were small the terms
were cash ; if otherwise, bills. All the former goods
have been paid for, either by bills taken up or run-
ning. The latter will go into the Bankruptcy
Court as they fall due. During the last two years
he has bought goods of us every month, for which
we have received of him upwards of £l,OOO. He
paid the bills as they became due. I never had to
ask him a second time for the money until this last
transaction. He always paid in a fair, businesslike,
and honourable way, the same as other people.
Mr. Thos. Willis said—l am managing warehouse-
man to Messrs. Turner and Co., of Leicester,
manufacturers of indiarubber webbing. On the
13th of September last, and the 17th of November
following, we sent up to the bankrupt about
950 yards of elastic webbing, and on Friday last
I saw these identical good at the warehouse in
Savage-gardens, in two cases, marked "S. L." I
also saw another case, containing 900 yards, which
we supplied in the previous month of August. The
amount of our debt is £5OO.
Cross-examined—We never received any money
for these goods. We have received some hundreds
of pounds of the bankrupt in respect of goods sup-
plied in other transactions, extending over several
years. I was not aware he was getting similar
goods from other firms in Leicester, or I would not
have supplied him with the last lot of goods. On
all the eases I saw at Savage-gardens there were
private marks known to me, indicating the number
and length of the pieces in each case, and from
which firms they respectively came.
Mr. David Whitehead said—l am traveller and
manager to Messrs. Whitehead and Co., Leicester,
elastic web manufacturers, and went to Savage-
gardens on Friday last, and saw there a case of
goods marked " S. L." which we supplied to the
bankrupt on the 27th September and the 28th
November last, the amount of value being £56 ss.
7d. and £4l Bs. 6d. The amount of our claim against
the bankrupt is £250. We have not been paid one
penny for these goods.
Cross-examined—l do not think we have had
£lOO of his money on other transactions. I will
not swear that we have not had £4OO, because I
really forget what the amount is.
Police-constable 114 said,—l have been on duty
in Basinghall-street during the last 12 months, and
have frequently seen St. Losky, who had a ware-
house on the ground floor at No. 42. During the
three months prior to the Bth Dec, last I often saw
goods taken in there, and on those occasions St.
Losky hes close the shutters and left them so for
several days, until he came again to take them
away. He never employed any one to help him
except the carman. I never saw any clerk or por-
ter there. I have seen goods taken in and the shut-
ters put up as early as one o'clock in the day, St.
Losky's name was on tha door. I was never inside
his warehouse, but as I have passed I have seen a
few bales on the floor, but nothing like the ordinary
appearance of business.
Mr. Sleigh inquired if the bankrupt was ever
seen there oz those occasions, and upon receiving
an answer in the negative, objected to the evi-
dence.
Mr. Metcalfe said this was not only a charge of
fraud against the bankrupt, but one also of con-
spiracy against him and St. Losky, and as the
goods had been traced to Basinghall-street it was
essential to show in what manner they found their
way to the warehouse in Savage-gardens, in order
to establish the joint dealing between St. Losky
and the bankrupt. In a charge of conspiracy that
which Was evidence against one party was evidence
against every one accused.
Mr. Sleigh said the charge against the bankrupt
was for obtaining goods within three months of his
bankruptcy by means of false pretences,. and no-
thing could be received as evidence which took
place in the absence of the bankrupt. It might
turn out that the bankrupt had been made the vie-
tim of St. Losky, in which case it would be
monstrous to admit evidence under cover of such a
charge, and so procure his conviction upon testi-
mony that could not otherwise ba received against
him.
Alderman Salomons said the policeman's evi-
dence was very vague, and he could not see of
what service it could be to the prosecution, as
there were many respectable warehouses in the
city where goods were delivered, rebranded, and
sent away immediately.
Mr. Metcalfe then put in the bankrupt's examina-
tion before the Commissioner since the case was
last heard in this court, to show the amount of
assets.
Mr. Sleigh objected, and stated his reason for
so doing was, that in a recent case in which he
applied to have the bankrupt examined, the Com-
missioner most emphatically said he would never
be a party to the examination of a bankrupt while
a criminal charge was hanging over him, and
where the object was to use his own evidence
against him.
Mr. Metcalfe said the examination took place
with the bankrupt's consent, and was confined
solely to a statement with regard to the good debts.
Knowing the charge against him in this court he
most carefully abstained from cross-examining him
upon any matters which might prejudice him with
regard to the criminal charge. The statement he
wished to put in was merely to show that the good
debts were under £5O, with the exception of one of
£B9 from a person to whom the bankrupt said he
owed a much larger sum, and a person named
Marles, in America, whose debt to the estate was
alleged to be £l,BOO ; but the bankrupt was not
sure that it was a good one, although he had heard.
it was. His liabilities, he said, were £6,000.
Alderman Salomons said it was his duty to com-
mit the bankrupt for trial, and if he wished to say
anything he might do so, but that whatever he
might say would be used in evidence against him.
The bankrupt said he had nothing to say, but he
would leave his case in the hands of his counsel and
public justice.
After some conversation about bail,
Alderman Salomons said he wished to do his duty
strictly and at the same time with a due regard to
mercy to the bankrupt. He shorld therefore steer
a middle course, as he considered this case mate-
rially strengthened, by increasing the bail to two
sureties in £5OO, and the recognisance of the defen-
dant (the bankrupt), in double the amount.

BOW-STREET.—A young man. who gave the
name of George Dower, although described in the
warrant as E. C. Stevens, was charged with the
wilful murder of James Humphries, a seaman, on
Board the American ship Devonshire, on the Bth of
December last.

The proceedings were taken under the Extradi-
tion Act, and the prisoner was apprehended by
Toi ewk nor,Ey lying
gt
ohee
pwoaprlraarn. t - ouffiee carp,
poena
rbeoda
ar d h b
uti s
35yearsvessel,
onf age, under the middle size, and described himself
as second mate of the ship Devonshire.
Mr. Phillips attended as solicitor for the prosecu-
tion, and Mr. Cooper for the defendant.
The signature to the warrant by Sir G. C. Lewis
having been formally proved by Mr. O'Brien, the
second clerk,
Henry Shepherd deposed that he was a native
of New York, at present residing at 12, Prince's-
square, St. George's-in-the-East. Was an able
seaman on board the American packet Devonshire,
which sailed from New York on the Ist of Decent-
bor last, bearing the flag of the United States.
Capt. Thomas Anderson was the first officer, and
the prisoner was second mate. He remembered a
man named James Humphries sailing with him.
He was not an able-bodied seaman, but acted ee an
ordinary man. Saw him first on the 30th of
November, the night before sailing. He was on the
first or second night-watch. Saw the prisoner
strike him the first day the ship left port. He struck
him in the face, and knocked him down with a be-
laying.pin—a wooden instrument about 15 inches
long and about an inch and a half wide, used for
tightening the ropes. Humphries was on watch at

THE. SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 24, 1860.011

AND 1118 CONSTITUENTS.

that it was a scandalous thing for the second mate
to ill treat the man so, and then thlow him over-
board.

Mr. Phillips said that though the warrant was
made out against E. C. Stevens, the prisoner had
never gone by that name.
Mr. Hall could understand how the mistake
arose. No doubt, a person of that name had been
engaged and entered, but failed at the last moment,
and the prisoner was substituted for him without
altering the register.
Mr. Phillips said that was the fact.
Mr. Hall said it did not matter, as the prisoner's
identity was clearly established.
Mr. Cooper had witnesses to produce, and should
apply for a remand to secure their attendance.
Mr. Hall accordingly remanded the prisoner.
General Campbell, the United States' Consul for
London and its dependencies, attended to watch
the proceedings.

THE HON. W. F. CAMPBELL, 111. P.,

[The following is a more extended report than that which
appeared in our first edition of yesterday.]
A public meeting was held at the Three Cups Hotel, on
Saturday, to hear the Hon. W. F. Campbell on political
affairs.

In the course of his speech, Mr. CAMPBELL referred to
his motion upon Portugal in August last. Although it had
not come forward at such a time or in such a manner as to
rivet, their attention, he would not shrink now from ex-

plaining to them briefly in what views it had originated.
Responsible as he was to them for the prudence of every
step he took in the House of Commons, they knew as well
as him that, at the fall of the late Government, the rela-
tions of Great Britain and Portugal had been seriously
compromised. As a maritime constituency they knew,
also, that for many years this country had employed a
squadron on the coast of Africa, at the cost of half a million
pounds a year, for the repression of the slave trade. In 1850,
on an attempt to induce the House of Commons to withdraw
the squadron, they refused, with zeal if not with unanimity,
to do so. In 1858, when an attempt was made to induce
them to control it by instructions, with still greater zeal
and a much larger majority, they declined to control its
operations or to limit its activity. The leading statesmen
were irrevocably pledged to its continuance, and the nation
could not now recede from that lino of policy to which the
squadron was essential. The Portuguese dominion on the
eastern and western coasts of Africa occupied the terri-
tory from which slaves were unfortunately furnished. Un-

less, therefore, Portugal abetted the exertions of our
squadron by instructing the Governor-General of Angola
on the one side and the Governor -General of Mozambique
upon the other, to do their utmost to support it (and many
means were open to them), it was nothing but a useless
drain upon the finances of the empire—it was nothing but
a mischievous and inexcusable withdrawal to distant and
deadly climes of ships, of seamen, and officers, who, in
other regions of the globe, might be defending our safety
or adding to our influence. To keep up a squadron to
watch the coast of Africa, with Portugal upholding it,
might be good sense, and wisdom, and humanity ; to
keep up a squadron in those waters, with Portugal im-
peding you, was a wanton sacrifice of life, and un-
repaid expenditure of money, and a departure from
all the views which prudence dictated to empires. To
bring the authority of Portugal to bear on the Governor-
General of Angola and the Governor-General of Mozam-
bique, British influence and British exhortation were per-
petually required. And if any state of things occurred to
silence British exhortation and lock up British influence, do
what the squadron might, the slave trade would continue.
The transaction so painfully associated with the vessel
Charles et Georges rendered it impossible for Britain to hold
towards Portugal her wonted language on this subject until
Parliament had interfered with such a motion as he offered.
Britain would have only courted the reply from any go-
vernment at Lisbon, "we did discountenancethe slave trade,
we did instruct the viceroys as you asked, we did oppose our-
selves to France, who wanted our negroes ; we did execute
our laws. You did not give us even countenance in peril
which you forced us to incur, and we will not again, without
new encouragement and new security, incur it." The mo-
tion was designed to offer that encouragement and furnish
that security on the part of the House of Commons, which
had a right to speak for the community. It appeared to be
so calculated to the Minister of Portugal; to Mr. Lyons
M'Leod, our well-known consul from Mozambique ; to Mr.
Charles Buxton, who came down to the House of Commons
to support it ; to that distinguished individual whose talents
were now devoted to restore our Indian finance. The Op-
position were prepared to acquiesce in it. The Government
through more than one channel, had engaged to give it their
support ; and although the state of the house (there being
scarcely 40 members present) induced him not to speak,
the practical result would have been gained—and this was
all .he aimed at—had not a member of the Cabinet taken a
part which, if ho ever became acquainted with this subject,
he would no doubt regret to the latest day of his existence.
Mr. Lyons M'Leod had made a calculation that if our squad-
ron lost the active sympathy of Portugal, to render it
effectual 13 more ships would be required, at a new cost of
two hundred and fifty thousand pounds per annum. Such
was the burden which he (Mr. Campbell) had desired to
avert ; but which Sir George Grey decided to impose upon
the public. In the same spirit, and on the same night, he
insisted, with headlong haste, trampling on all the forms
and usages of Parliament, on sending down commissions of
inquiry to Wakefield and Gloucester, which could have no
result except that of adding to the general taxation of the
country. Reflecting over that night, he (Mr. Campbell)
had comp to the conclusion that Sir George Grey, wearied
by a long course of Parliamentary attendance, and weighed
'down by the burden of a too responsible department, had
come to the House of Commons with a general idea that two
motions wore before him, but one ought to be carried
and the other thrown out, and that in the hurry of the
moment he supported what he meant to have opposed, and
opposed ,what ho meant to have supported. On no other
ground could he (Mr. Campbell) continue to regard him
with that esteem and admiration which he had felt for him
before, and which he knew was generally shared among the
party ho belonged to. As regarded organic change, on
which at present so much apathy existed, he would only
state his general opinion as to the line we ought to follow ;
and he did so with the greater ease, because in August last
Mr. Cobden had anticipated what occurred to him about it.
In August last, at Rochdale, Mr. Cobden had lent his great
authority and eloquence to the position that, the best mode
of operating on the Reform Act of 1832 was to renounce am-
bitious schemes, and to touch separately, one by one, the
parts of that great system which required correction and
improvement. In support of his idea Mr. Cobden quoted the
expression of the late Mr. O'Connell to the effect that when
you had a doorway which would scarcely admit a gig and
horse, it was not a prudent thing to lay down as a principle,
that you would never enter it without a dozen waggons all
abreast of one another. So, too, he might have added, it
would not be a practical proceeding to refuse to enter a har. -
bour which would only float a brig, unless you were allowed
to do so with a fleet of line-of-battle ships. But setting
metaphor apart, experience was ready to convince all im-
partial minds that the attempt at large and comprehensive
legislation on Reform had been fairly tried and met with
uniform disaster. The well-known Mr. O'Connor tried it
in 1848, but his scheme had no support from any order of
society. Mr. Hume attempted it in 1849, in 1850, and in
1851, but he found nothing to respond to him except aver-
sion in the House of Commons, and indifference in the
people. Lord John Russell attempted it in 1832. In ten
days afterwards the ship, of which he had been the able
pilot, foundered. In 1854, the Earl of Aberdeen, blind to
all these lessons, rushed upon a similar experiment, and
met a similar repulse, although not at once subversive of
his Government. In 1859, the Earl of Derby, untaught by
these impressive antecedents, advanced a comprehensive
scheme, and sacrificed his Government amidst the loudest
marks of reprehension. Impenetrable that man must be to
all the past could teach him who, in cold blood, defied the
voice of Mr. Cobden, after its sagacity and truth had been
so curiously verified. Not that Mr. Cobden was the only per-
son of distinction who had anticipated the point for which
he was contending. The Prime Minister himself in 1857,
just before the general election, gave utterance to the same
idea, and declared himself in favour of occasional reform as
preferable to large bills which were not framed to reach the
statute book. For the real truth was, that large ambitious
projects of reform were neverlikely to be carried. He would
pant out a few of the impediments which met them. To
begin with such schemes involved, or were thought to in-
volve, an instant dissolution. When a dissolution was im-
pending the power of the Houseof Commons, as a delibera-
tive body, was suspended, because:its members were all en-
gaged in other scenes. And what could bemore unjust or
more irrational than to suspend its power and take away its
function at the very moment that you asked it to decide
upon a question which involved the fall or preservation of
the empire? Tt was natural for Parliament to feel shocked
at the position they were thrown into, and to discountenance
the measure which they were not enabled, in point of fact,
to weigh. Beyond this, when a Government propounded a
large and comprehensive measure of Reform, no one fancied
for a moment that it expressed the views or had the appro-
bation of its authors. And Parliaments were not disposed
to swallow measures which they felt certain were regarded
with distrust, if not with scorn by the very cabinets who
offered them►. But further still, an Opposition knew that
by defeating a large and comprehensive measure they would
overthrow the Government. Their whole art and ingenuity
and power were therefore naturally strained to ascertain its
faults and to exaggerate their consequences. The only
change which we had yet succeeded in engrafting on the
act of 1832 was an extension of the Irish franchise in 1850,
introduced as a separate reform, debated without faction,
and carried that year through both Houses of Parliament.
Experience was therefore clear before our eyes as to how
success might bs obtained and how failure might be courted.
If no other circumstance disqualified the Government to
alter the Reform Act by ons large and final blow, their re-
luctance to adopt the ballot would appear to do so. If the
ballot were denied, in any measure which affected to dispose
of the whole question, the body of the electors who desired
it would be in a worse condition then they were at present.
But although he was in favour of occasional reform, it did
not follow upon that account that he was less ready than
the patrons of ambitious echemes to gig e effect to the
mature opinion of the people. Universal suffrage might