The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-21 00:00:00

pliment the great party opposite upon the mode they
had decided to adopt with respect to the bill ; instead
of meeting it in a fair and open manner by moving
its total rejection. He said the Government lad been told
that the course they were pursuing with respect to the bill
was like that of an architect who proceeded to build a
palace room by room without any perfect or defined plan.
He could not see that ; he thought it was like a person
wlao bad built a farm. A careful person would first con-
struct his farm-horse, and then he would set about putting
np his farm buildings. He argued that the question of the
extension of the franchise was sufficiently disconnected
from that of the redistribution of seats to admit of legisla-
ting upon them separately. Adverting to the use which
had been made by the opponents of the bill, of what he
termed the class argument, the hon. member deprecated
the comparison instituted between classes in the course of
the debate as fraught with danger, and he urged the house
to accept the proposal on the ground of its moderation,
warning them, at the same time, that if they did not they
might find themselves, at no distant date, in the position of
being obliged to concede a much larger measure.
Mr. GREGORY said that the verdict of the country
would be that the battle on the bill was going sorely against
the Government. Up to that time no answer had been
given, because none could be offered, to the speeches of
Lord Stanley and Sir H. Cairns ; but instead they had had
erratic discharges against anything and everything but the
amendment. One speaker had suggested that if the Go-
vernment were defeated their proper course would be a
dissolution of Parliament ; but such an infatuated course
would be met by an Address to her Majesty stating that
the Parliament was perfectly prepared to deal with the
question of reform when it was fairly and frankly submitted
to them. It was a painful reflection that Ministers began
the session with a working majority of 65 ; and now if they
were water-logged with the present bill it was not the
fault of Parliament. He characterised the proposal as a
spectre, a phantom, a mere outline, and on the manner in
which it was filled up depended whether it should develop
itself an angel or a monster. He had no objection to the
admission of the working classes, but only to the proposed
manner of their entry. The franchise proposed was a mere
brick-and-mortar one—blind and indiscriminate in its ex-
tent. It was not even what the working classes desired,
for in all their periodicals and speeches they con-
demned the "occupation" qualification. In this view he
concurred, and therefore he would have preferred the bill
of Mr. Clay, the member for Hull, embracing an educa-
tional franchise. The measure of the Government, more-
over, was intended solely for the admission of a class, and
he contended that safeguards, which the measure did not
provide, were requisite to prevent their preponderance.
Mr. YOUNG (Solicitor-Geaeral for Scotland) defended
the measure, which, he said, contrasted favourably with
Lord Derby's bill of 1859, and with the opinions then ex-
pressed by some of the most eminent leaders of the Con-
servative party. He granted readily that the bill was not
proposed as a remedy for bad government—the country
did not suffer from that. But such was really not the
point. The question was that of good self-government ;
and without the popular element there was no guarantee
for the prosperity of the country. So long, then, as men
who through their intelligence and industry were fit to
exercise the franchise remained excluded, however good
the Government might be, it was not self-government
with respect to them. True, there might be ground for a
difference of opinion as to the limit to be fixed, and he
might be asked, Why prescribe a£7 occupation ? But the
house was not invited to affirm the £7, or any other par-
ticular sum. That was a matter to be settled in committee ;
and the house was only requested now to affirm the prin-
ciple that a reduction of the franchise was necessary. He
justified the method of proceeding adopted by the Govern-
ment as the only one which was open to them, seeing that
they must know what the body created was before they
could see about the distribution of power.
Sir STAFFORD NORTIICOTE criticised the views of
Mr. Layard relative to the position of the working classes.
He denied that their influence had diminished since 1832.
If anything, from the spread of education, the higher rate
of wages, and the increase of culture and intelligence
among them, it had increased, until now they exercised no
inconsiderable part in the formation of public opinion. He
maintained that the Government could not possibly have
had a more favourable concurrence of circumstances than
the present for dealing with the question. If they were
asked whether by this amendment they meant to express
confidence, or not confidence, in the Government, the in-
terrogation was unnecessary. But as regarded the ability
of the Government to effect a settlement, they had a fair
right to say that the course of the Ministry was not such
as to entitle them to confidence. They had not dealt with
so great a question in such a way as to command faith.
Neither did their arguments inspire confidence. No men-
tion was made by them of means being adopted to put
down the corruption which was known to exist, or of any
endeavour to mitigate the evil of making members the
mere delegates of their constituents. On the contrary, the
measure would rather aggravate those evils. He entreated
the Government fairly to consider the position in which
they were placed, and to remember that, by voting for the
amendment, hon. members did not express any opinion on
the matter of the extension of the franchise.
Mr. COLERIDGE was very unwilling to intrude himself
on the attention of the house, but ho was very desirous to
say a few words to explain how it was that some of the
Liberal members sitting on that bench, although they felt
strongly against the course the Government pursued, and
censured the conduct of individual members of that Go-
vernment, yet were determined to support the bill and the
course of that Government against the amendment of the
noble lord the member for Chester. It was the more
important he should do so, since the speech made last night
by the noble lord the member for Iladdingtonshire. That
noble lord, so far as he confined himself to a defence of the
accusations made against him, was perfectly entitled to de-
fend himself against them. It was no business of his (Mr.
Coleridge's) to complain as long as he confined himself to a
survey of his own character and conduct. But when he
improved on the old story of Diogenes, and holding up a
lantern to those benches near him, where it would appear
he found nothing that was praiseworthy until he turned the
glass fully on himself and there saw an honest man—
(laughter)—it was time to enter on some explanation. As
he said before, so long as the noble lord defended himself
he was right, but when he said to honest and independent
men that they were false to their political convictions in
voting against what they knew to be right he was entirely
in error. He for one protested as strongly as words could
do against so unjust an imputation. (Cheers.) He was in-
clined to believe that many of the wrongs which the
noble lord conceived ho had to endure were the result of
an over-heated imagination. (A laugh.) He (Mr. Cole-
ridge) should vote against the amendment, because he
believed it was ill-timed, badly constructed, and if car-
ried would not tend to settle the great question now under
discussion—(hear, hear) —but rather create vexatious de-
lays and a long postponement of a final settlement.
(Cheers.) He did not say that was the object the noble
lord had in view, but it would be the result. (Cheers.) He
disclaimed anything in the shape of a personal imputation
against the noble lord, but he would take the liberty of
saying that he never stated in that house that ho was in
favour of an extension of the franchise. (Hear, hear.) On
the contrary, somewhere or another it was pointed out in
that house by an hon. member—and the noble lord did not
deny it—that he did not desire reform. (Hear.) The
noble earl must be aware that if his amendment were
carried the whole question would be once more at sea.
(Hear.) He must be aware that if the Government stood
by this measure, as no doubt they would as men of
honour, and were defeated, they must go out—(loud
cheers from the Opposition)—and the whole Liberal party
be broken up. (Continued cheers from the same quarter.)
All those assertions were not far-fetched, but direct cer-
tainties, and the inevitable result of his amendment.
(Hear, hear.) He would not say if the noble earl
in proposing it contemplated those results, nor did he mean
to assert that he had not a right to do so. All he should
assure him on his own behalf was, that he was not pre-
pared to be a party in bringing about such a state of things.
(Hear.) The noble earl in bringing forward that amend-
ment, looked around for a supporter, and certainly he could
not have got a more powerful supporterthan the noble lord
opposite, the member for King's Lynn. (Hear.) He was
the best judge that counsel ever had the good fortune to
himselfE ea t
ro,
hear,"so me measureand“x
practise under. The speech delivered on that occasion
was the best he ever made ; but in doing so ho pledged
0a,tu500.,7 indefinite time. (Cries
of
He (Mr. Coleridge)fully
gave the noble lord credit for
old adage--when forwhat he.swaide;n hebut ho could
not help
remembering
the ge..h
were his companions, and saw himsurrounded saw wh
o
were
Nh
certain
0
right hon. gentlemen—men of thehighest honour no doubt,
but whose opinions on reform were well known to the
country (Cries of " Hear, hear.") There was the right
hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire, the
right hon. and gallant general the member for Hunting-
don, the right hon. gentleman the member for Hertford-
shire, and his (Mr. Coleridge's) hon. and learned friend
the member for Belfast. When the noble lord talked of
reform, of course he meant the same reform as they advo-
cate, and that it would be one of reduced suffrage, but
rather tighter, and limit it beyond anything that could be
done on their side of the house. (Hear, hear.) It had been
said during the debate, and one or two gentlemen pointed
iotus
et
ftf that
to
,a strictly sspf
oche koifn
et hs
ue
ffaima
ge amendmenta
ldl4i
thn otth
eptlieudegse-
tion of reform in the manner it had been dealt with for the
last 30 years. Suppose it were so, were hon. gentlemen
opposite prepared to embark on such a course as that, or
were they prepared to vote for the amendment in that
sense ? (Hear, hear.) Did they intend to deal with it in
that sense ? If they brought in a Reform Bill, was it to be
such a measure as had been brought in, and founded on the
same principles as those on which reform was introduced
during
uantaheerysttionhotedenlweashetdy3o years ? (Hear, hear.) If not, then he
ditoiwnag s
stoh, they
avoted e oy
oru theght t
o amendment,
tell the
e a
house,nd
if they were in earnest, why it was they took upon them-
slleleveeosutlod reject
etlhpethmienaksiunrs theywere taking measure of Govekg an
Government. (Cheers.)
rs.)
dangerous course. (Cheers.) It was an unwise course,
because the question of reform was not a
question they
would like to deal with. They could not deal with it with
any success in the face of a powerful Liberal opposition.
Now, having said so much, ho did not mean to disguise
from the house that he entertained certain positive objec-

tions to the ccurse taken by the Government. (Cheers from
the Opposition.) He would argue the matter fairly, and
was very much surprised at those ironical cheers. (Cries
of No, no.) He repeated that he had positive objections
to the course pursued by the Government, and they could
be better summed up than they had been by the noble lord
the member for King's Lynn. Those objections must have
arisen in the mind of anybody the moment he was told the
measure was to be dealt with, not as one single bill, but
piecemeal. (Hear, hear.) He admitted that the objections
to that mode of proceeding were unanswerable, but under
the circumstances of the case, and having a choice of dif-
ficulties, the Government very wisely took that course
which presented the least. (Cheers, and cries of No, no,
from the Opposition.) That was his deliberate opinion,
and under any circumstances a difficulty must have arisen
with regard to the question of a redistribution of seats.
Those at this side of the house were of opinion that a fran-
chise of £7 in boroughs, and £l4 in counties was a right
and proper limit to which the franchise should be reduced.
They thought that, as a matter of fact, that would give
them the men who ought to have a vote, and it must not
be forgotten that if the redistribution of seats would have
an effect on the franchise, the franchise would also have
an effect on the redistribution of seats. (Hear.) Then it
was said the chief ground on which this question of the
fitness of the working classes for the franchise was sup-
posed to stand was a speech which had been misunderstood
and misrepresented ; and the charges brought by one
hon. member had been answered by the hon. member for
Westminster with an ability to which he (Mr. Coleridge)
made no pretence. Then it was said if the franchise were
given to the working'classes, the use they might make of
it must, of course, be more or less a matter of conjecture;
but conjecture might vary according to the character and
nature of the man who made it. For his part, judging of
what the enfranchised classes since 1832 had done, he
couldsee no ground for gloomy anticipations. He asserted,
to the great credit and honour of the English aristocracy,
that in the early part of this century they had, to adopt the
words of Mr. Pitt, "saved England by their courage and
Europe by their example." (Hear,and cheers.) But he said,
nevertheless, taking the last 34 years, during which the
popular element of the Constitution had greatly increased
—the constituency at the same time increasing in force and
numbers, and in weight and influence—nothing to surpass
or equal it could be named in any assignable period. He
hoped hon. gentlemen would bear with tiim in saying that
the leaders of their party had been pretty consistent and
constant in their vaticinations, but it did not please Provi-
dence in its wisdom to bless them with a true race of pro-
phets. (Cheers and laughter.) He did not believe for a
moment in anything like a semblanoe of danger to the
great party opposite or to the great interest which they re-
presented. He had said elsewhere—and as it did him no
particular good, he might repeat it there—that he believed
a wiser, a nobler aristocracy than that of England never
existed upon earth. (Cheers.) Their wealth, their educa-
tion, their high honour, their great sense of justice, made
them, whenever they pleased, the true leaders of the people.
But now and then, chiefly, he believed from ignorance—
(cheers and laughter)—he was sure hon. gentleman would
not think he meant anything offensive—he meant igno-
rance on the particular subject matter they had to deal
with—he meant the feelings and interests of the classes
not belonging to them—made them now and then
legislate unkindly, just as the working classes, if they
were legislating exclusively for them would now and then
do them injustice. (Hear, hear.) But at the same time,
that there was anything like a desire of the governing
classes, or any desire for their overthrow on the part of
the working men, he believed to be " like the baseless fa-
bric of a vision," and an idle tale. (Hear, hear.) It was said,
and with some severity, that it was not so much the
people they were afraid of as those who would lead the
people. (Opposition cheers.) He did not pretend to speak
of persons with whom he had no acquaintance ; but, cer-
tainly, as far as he could judge, it appeared to him that the
one class of apprehension was as groundless as the other.
Did hon. gentlemen opposite suppose that those who sat
on those (the Liberal) benches could not see the beauty
and the dignity of the many forms of social life to which
they were supposed to be hostile? Did hon. gentlemen op-
posite suppose they had no imagination? Did hon. gentle-
men think they had never read history? Did they think
they had no sentiment, which, on the only occasion on
which he had addressed that house, he had said was a very
different thing from sentimentalism—(hear, hear)—and
whatever :cynical gentlemen in their sublime wisdom
might say or think, had always counted, and would always
count, as there were hearts and feelings among men, as a
great power in the affai►:s of men. Did hon. gentlemen op-
posite think they were blind to the charms of association,
or deaf to the voice of tradition ? He told hon. gentlemen
opposite they were not deaf to the voice of tradition. They
cared for those things as much as hon. gentlemen opposite
cared for them. They wished to preserve what hon. gen-
tlemen opposite wished to preserve; but they thought that
could best be done by satisfying the just demands of the
people, by showing confidence in them, by inviting them
in large numbers within the gates of the Constitution, at
which they were now knocking to be admitted. (Loud
cheers, and cries of " Hear, hear") Guard; if they pleased,
the grace of freedom by them :jesty of the law; but he said
it was hon. gentleman opposite who were the true revolu-
tionaries, and not those who sat on his (the Liberal) side
of the house. (Hear, hear, and cheers from the Minis-
terial side of the house.) Honourable gentlemen opposite
rejected the moderate demands for popular advance, and
instcsad of deepening the channel and widening the banks
of the stream, they would drive it up and hem it in until
the accumulated weight of its waters would break down
the puny barriers, and bear with them destruction instead
of fertility. (Enthusiastic cheers.)
Mr. lIORSMAN—I have listened, in common with all
the house, to the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman
with interest and admiration. (Hear, hear.) There has
been throughout that speech an earnestness of tone and a
clearness of reasoning, combined with frankness and gene-
rosity of spirit, which must constrain even those who do
not agree with his opinions to acknowledge the ability and
force with which he has expressedhimself ; at the same time
I must regret to have perceived that the speech of the hon.
and learned gentleman was a condensation of all the ar-
guments which have marked the speeches of the Govern-
ment members from the first day of the discussion until
now. If, it is said, you are not a supporter of the Govern-
ment Bill you are not a true Reformer. Now, I protest
against any Government Bill being put forward as a test
of any man's opinion on Reform. (Laughter and cheers.)
We are living in an age opposed to all tyrannical and arbi-
trary proceedings, and I object to any Minister taking a
bill out of his box, and saying, " Here is my standard of
liberty, every man who conforms to it I regard as a brother,
and every man who rejects it shall be excommunicated as
an impostor." We know the days when there was a domi-
nant Church, which condemned all who did not belong to
it, and denied them the character of Christians. We know
that historians tells us that, in the days of the Common-
wealth, the Fifth Monarchy-men passed two resolutions.
The first was that Saints should govern the world; and
the second was—" We are the Saints." (Laughter.) Now
the arguments and language we have heard in this debate
is another example of the tendency of history to repeat it-
self. The hon. and learned gentleman's speech has not
been marked by the illiberal tone and the intolerance,
which, if the occasion occurred, would amount to persecu-
tion, that has characterised much which has fallen from:the
opponents of the amendment. The Government are arro-
gating to themselves a monopoly of political zeal and
virtue, and are heaping the most odious imputations on
those who have been associated with them, who have made
the advancement of Liberal ideas the labour and love of
their lives, who have gone through the ordeal of sacrifice
for their principles, which many of those now professing
Liberal opinions have not been called on to face, and who
only ask for themselves that liberty of judgment which I
always understood to be the first and most sacred principle
of the Liberal party. (Hear, hear.) I was pleased when I
saw the hon. and learned gentleman rise to address the
house, for 1 was sure he would address himself to the mea-
sure of the Government and grapple with the amendment.
Fairly and courageously he has adverted toboth these sub-
jects, and if he has not succeeded it was from no lack of
ability, but from the difficulty of the task. (Oh, oh.)
My hon. and learned friend in dealing with this question
had a twofold task to discharge. He had first to show that
the suffrage of the bill of the Government was in itself de-
serving of our support, and then he had to show that the
bill, as part of the policy of the Government, was also de-
fensible, and was not open to the objections made to it by
the amendment. How has he addressed himself to those
two points ? He began with the suffrage bill, and he tells
us that the noble lord urged three objections to the mea-
sure. Now it was strange that, when there is one obvious
and frequently-urged objection, and one never answered
yet, that the hon. and learned gentleman should evade
that, and shculd raise up, encounter, alai demolish three
other objections which were really never urged. What
has been objected to is the principle on which the reduc-
tion in the suffrage has been made. We say the reduction
is in a downward direction on the principle of numbers.
(Hear, hear.) This,is an argument which has never been
met, but which has always been evaded. We sayalso that
the same necessity now alleged to justify the lowering of
the franchise from £lO to £7 would, on the same pressure,
take it down from £7 to £l, and from £1 still further
down. (Hear, hear.) We tell you that there is no resting
place in the £7 franchise, and that, therefore, on that
' principle the bill is really a measure which offers no ground
of settlement until you arrive at universal suffrage.
(Cheers.) The same objection was made to the bill of the
hon. member for Leeds, and it has never been answered.
When we urged it against the bill of the hon. member for
Leeds, we were ridiculed and denounced, but since then
we have had electoral statistics which show the truth of
our statements that by that bill the existing constituencies
would have been swamped. The Government admit that,
and, drawing back, will not give the same suffrage as that
contained in the bill of the hon. member for Leeds. My
hon. and learned friend says one of our objections to this
bill is, that the working classes aro unfit for the franchise.
Now, that is an objection which certainly I have never
urged. I have always said precisely the contrary. I have
had meetings with the working classes for many years—
meetings of electors, meetings of non-electors, and mixed
meetings of electors and non-electors. I have often ad-
dressed them, but in no speech I ever made did I over utter
a word that by any amount of ingenuity can be construed

into any disparagement of them. My objection to the prin-
ciple of this bill is consistent with the opinions which I
have ever entertained since I entered public life. I have
been told that I am inconsistent in my opinions on this sub-
ject. Now, it so happens that 30 years ago, at the very
time I stood on the hustings, I encountered obloquy because
on this subject I would not profess the opinions of the pro-
gramme of the Liberals. On various occasions I encoun-
tered opposition, and on the day of the declaration of the
poll a riot took place where many of my voters were in-
jured. It is a curious thing I happen to know that within
these five years on two occasions on the part of those who
were anxious to convict me of insincerity, parties have
gone down to Cumberland and groped through all the
speeches which I have made for 30 years back in order to
fix the charge of inconsistency upon me ; but the answer
they have given to those who employed them was, that
having made the most diligent search they could not find
ono single opinion I ever uttered about the House of Lords
or Commons in the slightest degree at variance with the
course lam now pursuing. One discovery they did make.
They discovered that after I had been 17 years member for
Cockermouth and had lost my seat, the constituency pre-
sented me with apiece of plate ; and they said as I was then a
Liberal and had now ceased to be a Liberal I should return
that piece of plate. (A laugh.) I answered that if they
found out one single sentence in any speech I ever made
which would convict me of inconsistency I would return it
the next day to those who bad presented it to me. (Hear,
hear.) There is one comfort, sir, which my friends and
myself have under all the charges which are brought against
us. They have various circumstances to comfort them. But
I have one substantial consolation. Ours has been the
fate not only of great men before us, but of those whose re-
putation is at this moment of particular value ; and I am
going to give the house an instance which, 1 think, will be
peculiarly significant. It so happens that the constituency
I have the honour to represent has been represented before
I was connected with it by very eminent men ; and one of
these eminent men, of whom the constituency has reason to
be proud, was Lord John Russell, who represented Stroud
for some years. Now it does so happen that Lord John
Russell is another evidence of the fickleness and injustice
with which Reformers may be treated by those who call
themselves their best friends ; and he can bear testimony to
the fact that with a section of the reformers of his own con-
stituency he was very frequently in the hottestwater. I was
a member of this house when he made that memorable
speech called the "Finality" speech, and which was treated
with an injustice and political indignity we must look back
to now both with regret and shame. But on that occasion
it did so happen that the constituencies which were
then most prominently before the public connected with
the Reform question are those also which have an un-
happy prominence at this time. When he made that decla-
ration I remember Mr. Charles Buller got up and in almost
unparliamentary language accused him of bad faith ; Sir
William Molesworth made it the subject of an address
to his constituents at Leeds, and through them to
the Reformers of all England ; then, as now, Leeds
and Birmingham were the two centres of Reform agita-
tion, and took a prominent part in endeavouring to ex-
cite popular opinion against the member for Stroud. (A
laugh and cheers.) I want just to show the house what oc-
curred on that occasion. The Spectator was at that time
the organ of the advanced Liberal party, and in giving an
account—l must say a very unfair account of the speech of
Lord John Russell—it commented upon it in these words :
" And they will not stand alone. There are indications in
various parts of the country that the Russell declaration
will bring forth goad fruit. The council of the Political
Union of Birmingham, we understand, have addressed their
brother reformers of Stroud to require from him who mis-
represents them in the People's House the resignation of
his hitherto convenient seat Last Tuesday Lord J.
Russell declared that the intent of the Reform Bill was to
give the landed interest' the ascendancy in the Legislature
of the country, and added, still think that a preponder-
ance in favour of that interest tends to the stability of the
general institutions of the country.' The phrase general
institutions' is not remarkable for elegant precision, but
taking along with it the eulogistic word stability,' we
learn that it was intended to express a preference for the
political ascendancy of the squire and farmer class. . . . If
the South Devonshire squirearchy do not return Lord John
at the next election they will be ungrateful ; but what will
the Reformers of Stroud say to their member ? . • . . The
Political Union of Stroud, having taken into consideration
the address of the Birmingham Political Union relative to
Lord John Russell's qualification as a representative of his
present constituents, passed a resolution declaring his lord-
ship an unfit person to represent the borough of S troud in
Parliament."
Why do 1 read these extracts? It is to ask gentlemen on
this side of the house whether they do not now look
back with regret and shame to the injustice with which
Lord John Russell was then treated, and whether it
ought not to teach them some charity to those who are
now suffering similar imputations. (Cheers.) Lord
Russell has lived to rebuke and shame those by whom he
was then assailed and aspersed, and I have that faith in
the justice and generosity of the English public that I be-
lieve the noble lord who has moved this amendment and
his friends will equally have justice done to them notwith-
standing the imputations so unjustly cast upon them.
(Cheers.) I will detain the house very shortly. My hon.
and learned friend referred to the circumstances in which
this Reform Bill was introduced. He said it was necessary,
and that it was inevitable. Now, let us for a moment in-
quire how far my hon. and learned friend was right in that
statement. What are the circumstances to which my hon.
and learned friend referred? In the autumn of last year
we have been told by some members of the Cabinet that at
the very first Cabinet meeting held after Lord Puhnerston's
death this question of reform was considered. What are the
circumstances under which it was considered? The Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department told usthe other
night that the Cabinet found that at the election the great
majority of the Liberal members had pledged themselves
to reform on their election. My noble friend the member
for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) showed last night that
that was not quite accurate. But what was tile character
of those addresses? Some one has, I understand, been
lately collecting all the addresses of the Liberal members
at the last election ; but if they had collected those of 1859
and printed them in parallel columns they would have pre-
sented a remarkable contrast. The dissolution of 1859 was
on the question of the reduction of the borough franchise
and consequently the address of every Liberal member
contained a specific pledge to the advocacy of a £6 franchise,
But the dissolution of 1865 took place under very different
circumstances. The Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, speaking on this matter, told us distinctly that Govern-
ment did not go to the country on reform. He said they re-
ferred that question to the country, and when the country
answered they would be guided by circumstances. The Li-
beral members took their cue from the right hon. baronet, and
instead of pledging themselves to a specific reduction of the
franchise they spoke of reform in general terms, and left
themselves open to deal with it according to circumstances.
What were those circumstances? They know very well so
long as Lord Palmerston was Minister they never would be
asked to support a large and comprehensive bill, because
they knew he would consult the feelings and opinions of
the public generally, and not take counsel with the member
for Birmingham. (Cheers.) Thus, under these circum-
stances, the Government determined to undertake the ques.:
Lien of Reform. They had before them a letter written by
my noble friend the member for Haddingtonshire, who had
given notice to move for a commission. They determined
to deal with Reform, and having taken that determination
they determined to institute an inquiry, and with what re-
sult? They were so surprised that, if lam not misin-
formed, they sent back the statistics to be revised by the
clerks; they really could not believe that they showed an
accurate state of things. Am I misinformed on that point ?
I had it on good authority, which I can state, if necessary,
that the Government was so surprised at the effect of the
returns that they could not believe them. [The Chancellor
of the Exchequer here said they had been sent back for a
reason which did not reach the gallery.] The point is not
a very material one ; but I believe the Government were
taken wholly by surprise at the nature of the returns. Last
year we were all told that some 12 or 15 per cent. of the
working classes would be admitted to the franchise of the
bill of my hon friend the member for Leeds ; and it was
found by these returns that they number 25 or 26 per cent.
of the town constituencies already. Well, the Government
determined on introducing a bill dealing with the suffrage
alone, and a paragraph in the Queen's Speech showed that
that was their intention; but when we came to the discus-
sion upon the Addss my right hon friend the member for
Kilmarnock (Mr. nouverie) objected to that part of their
policy, and stated in very strong terms that this side of the
house of Commons would not be satisfied with a mere mea-
sure of that character. My right hon. friend's speech on
that occasion rather astonished this side of the house, and
it appears also to have terrified the Government. T hey in-
stantly modified their policy. It has boon supposed that
the noble lord who moved this amendment and those who
support him were parties to the demand of the right hon.
member for Kilmarnock for a more comprehensive bill.
Now, I am not aware that any ono member on this side
who supports the amendment of the noble lord has at any
time expressed a desire for a large and comprehensive mea-
sure of Reform. (Ministerial cheers.) My right hon. friend
the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered a speech to
which, if it were at an earlier hour in the evening, I should
wish to refer, and in which ho made a charge against
me,
that Lord Russell, of course under a raisapprehension,al so
repeated—viz., that I was now against a fragmentary
measure of Reform, although I had voted for it on former
occasions, and flat I now wanted a largo and comprehen-
sive measure. Now will the Chancellor of the Excilitheeqiu. elr
have the goodness to tell me upon what occa,siehnave
ever
or any one who supports this ainendment2
He cannot
asked for a comprehensive measure of Reform
Kilmarnock, indeed, asked for it, but we
never
a'osit the
anything of the kind. We watched with greattctuhrei
demyand
of the right hon. member for mention any such occasion. The right hon. membersked ffoorr
effect of what was going e;:"1, and we saw tha
calculated
very much to embarrass the Governor... N-4-ies to that em-
has embrrrassed them, but we were no pas - take one
barrassment. It was open to the Government to
of two courses—either to stand to their policy of bru_
ing in a simple Franchise Bill, or to abandon that line and
Vvreakgnow that it
introduce a bill dealing both with the franchise and with
imarfa,notck
the redistribution of seats. Either of those lines of action

they might have adopted, and either would have boon de-
fensible or at least intelligible, and if defeated upon either
they might have been defeated wihout discredit. But they
chose to pursue a third course. They said, "We will give
you a large scheme, of which we will show you a part, and
you must commit yourselves to that part before you have
seen the whole." That was only a transparent device, but
of course it offered an opening to the right hon. member for
Kilmarnock and those who concurred with him to come
back and vote for the Government. Yet I think their re-
turn has been rather dearly bought, because, although
their votes may save the Government from defeat, still they
can only carry the division with the aid of those votes by
a narrower majority than any Government was ever satis-
fied with before. (Cheers.) And, under such circumstances,
their victory must be more damaging and more humiliat-
ing tha,n;any defeat could have been if they had taken a
more direct and manly course. (Cheers.) Sir, the Govern-
ment changed their policy, and then it was that the amend-
ment of the noble lord the member for Chester came in. If
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adhered to the Suf-
frage Bill, ho would have heard no objection from us on
the ground that he did not also deal with the redistribu-
tion of seats. (" Oh !" and cheers.) I beg to tell my right
hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I am
only now stating what is consistent with the course which
I have all along pursued ; and I will make that clear and
intelligible in a moment. What we should have done would
have been this :—lf the Government had introduced and
adhered to their simple Suffrage Bill, we the supporters of
the noble lord's amendment, would have discussed that bill
upon its merits. We have discussed it as we discussed
the bill of the hon. member for Leeds last year.
It would have been a small scheme, but so far as
their policy was concerned, it would have been perfect and
complete; but when without any demand or any objection
on our part they change their policy, and say, "We will deal
also with the distribution of seats," then we said, "As you
are going to deal with a larger scheme we ask to see it."
(Hear.) That was the ground on which the noble lord moved
his amendment. The ground was put in a very simple way
by the noble lord who seconded the amendment, who asked
what would you say to an architect who offered to build
you a room as part of a house without letting you see the
plans or estimates for the whole building. Your reply
would be " you are not sincere ; you do not intend to
build it all." Ministers say that they do not understand the
amendment, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will
give me his attention for a moment I think that I can make
it intelligible. Lord Stanley said, "Why should you deal
with reform upon different principles from those on which
you deal with (finance—why should you take part of the
scheme, and ask the house to agree with it, without your
submitting the whole scheme ?" Now, in this house there
is nothing like dealing with great authorities. In this house
we aro slaves to authority, and on any grave question of
this kind, if any one whom we respect as an authority has
enunciated a particular doctrine we respect and abide by it.
On the motion for the repeal of the malt tax an eminent
financial authority used these words. He said, " This is an
attomptto commit the house to conclusions while the house
has not in its possession the means of judgment, and the
only effect can be to fetter,the future action of the house,
and to create embarrassment and disappointment." Now
those are wise words, and they were uttered on the 18th
April, 1866, on the motion for the repeal of the malt tax,
and the great authority by whom they were uttered was
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Opposition cheers.) I
ask him does he understand the amendment of the noble
lord, for the amendment is based on his own words that I
have just read? My hon. and learned friend (Mr. Cole-
ridge) addressed himself to another point of the case with
groat force and effect and in the spirit of truth, with which
we all agree. He said, " This is a party question ; remember
what you are about ; you will break up your party; you
will bring in the gentlemen on the other side of the house;
that is the result which I cannot myself keep out of sight, and
I will not take the responsibility of any such proceeding.
Now. we must remember that ever since the Reform Act the
Liberal party has consisted of two distinct sections, a mode-
rate and a more advanced section—and although the mode-
rate section has, during the greater part of that time, out-
numbered the others in the proportion of three or four to
one, it has never on any question attempted to fetter the
free action of the more advanced section, whose freedom of
action has brought them into cohesion with successive Li-
beral Administrations, and overthrown more than one Go-
vernment. Tho Government of Lord Aberdeen was over-
thrown by a motion of the hon. member for Sheffield, sup-
ported by hon. gentlemen opposite, and supported by what
I may call the flower of the old Whig party. Only three
years after that the Government of Lord Palmerston was
outvoted on the China question, on the motion of Mr.Cobdcn,
supported by gentlemen on the other side of the house,
who were Mr. Cobden's great supporters on that occasion ?
The two most eminent and illustrious names in that division
were that of the noble lord at the head of Government, and
that of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
But my hon. and learned friend says " You must take care
what you aro about; you ought not to bring forward a ques-
tion in which you have the support of the opposite party,
for it may lead to a change of Government, and that is to
be deprecated." It does so happen that when Lord Palmer-
ston was outvoted, on the motion of Mr. Cobden, seconded
by the President of the Board of Trade—(hear)—the debate
was a remarkable one, it was a remarkable division, and it
had a remarkable result. But what it was most remarkable
for was a speech that was delivered by no less a person
than my righthon.fricnd the President of theßoard of Trade.
The right hon. gentleman (the President of the Board of
Trade) then told his friends that they were not the less to
vote for the amendment because it was supported by hon.
gentlemen opposite, the great majority of the Conservative
party ; and he went on to say that the motion of the hon.
member for the West Riding expressed the views which he
bad always entertained throughout his private life; and the
right hon. gentleman then went on to show the manner in
which independent Liberal members had been treated. He
told the house there had been a meeting of the Liberal party
lately at the residence of the noble lord (Palmerston), and
he read the report of it in the public newspapers,for it seemed
now to be the fashion to publish the reports of these private
political meetings. Ho said the meeting was remarkable
more for the absence of certain eminent political men than
for those who attended ; for amongst the names he did not
see those of Lord Russell and many of his immediate friends.
He should like to know what pledges were given, or induce-
ments held out, and he felt bound to make this statement
because he felt that many members for the sake of saving a
Ministry would give their votes not in accordance with
their convictions. The right hon. gentleman then referred
to the disagreeable pressure that had been put on hon.
members to induce them to change their views as of a cha-
racter that could only be put on voters at some provincial
contested elections in order to compel them to vote in this
or that direction; and he concluded by saying that hon. gen-
tlemen were at liberty,with due regard to the public interest,
to pronounce their convictions on the motion of the hon.
member for the West Riding. I am only reading all this to
show how in these days hon. gentlemen now deny to us the
liberty and freedom of action they themselves adopted on
that occasion. Those gentlemen were, no doubt, acting
conscientiously, but we are now called dirty conspirators.
Was not the charge of conspiracy brought against them ?
In the list of the names of the Liberal party who voted on
that occasion among the most eminent were those of Lord
R. Grosvenor and Sir Francis Baring. They repudiated
the charge of being conspirators, and the latter said he
never came to a vote with more personal pain or after
more anxious inquiry, but he never gave a vote with
a clearer conscience, and if the time came over again
he would do the same thing. Two years later the
same kind of thing occurred. The Conspiracy Bill
was brought forward, the motion against it came from this
side of the house below the gangway, and was supportedby
the other side, and Lord Palmerston was ejected from office.
I want to know how it was that this was done, and why
we should not now be allowed the same liberty of action.
Hon. members had on that occasion imputations cast upon
them for the course which they took, and they now cast
the same sort of imputations against us. I want now to say
one word as to the amendment of my noble friend. We are
told the issue is changed, that this is not a question of reform
but a vote of want of confidence in the Government. Now
the Government have it in their power to convert any ques-
tion they like into a vote of want of confidence, and the hon.
and learned member for Belfast said the other evening that
the Government might even make a motion for the adjourn-
ment
of the house into a vote of want of confidence. But in
those cases the Government must show their supporters that
the occasion is one which renders that course necessary and
legitimate. 'We all remember, with reference to the amendusto
-
ment of my noble friend, what occurred the day previo
the recess. My noble friend said ho brought forward his
amendment in no unfriendly feeling to the Government, and
he was anxious not to embarrass them ; and he said if the
Government would give in substance what they did in spirit,
and produce the whole scheme of reform which they had only
seen in part, he would gladly withdraw from the opposition.
But my right hon. friend the Chancellor of tho Exchequer
was not only immovable but defiant, and ho changed
amendment into a vote of want of confidence, the differ-
ence of opinion being simply this, whether the bill for the
redistribution of seats which ho had prepared should be
laid before the house a day before or a day after the second
reading of this bill. Was there over so narrow and so need-
less a basis for a vote of want of confidence? The right
hon.gentleman said, first we can show you what you want,
but won't do it ; you shall only have that sight when the
bill shall be no sooner produced than withdrawn till next
session. (Cheers.) But even then the noble lord was anxi-
ous to explain to the Government and the house that a vote
of want of confidence is not what he meant, and he expressed
his sincere respect for the noble lord at the head of the
Government, and his concurrence in the policy of it ; and I
must say, although I feel strongly as to the manner in which
the question of reform was revived immediately on the death
of Lord- Palmerston, because I believe it has been against
the wishes and feelings of this country—(cheers) still, as
to the general policy and proceeding of Government since
it came into office, I have seen many things to approve and
commend, and nothing justly to condemn. If the Govern-
ment had been tried by a vote of want of confidence on
their general policy they would have been supported on this
side of the house, and there would not have been a single
defaulter. (Hear, hear.) Was it wise of them to raise a false
: e on the ono question on which there were so many dif-
"' opinion as reform, in reference to which they
ferences
'he policy of the most popular minister of
were revez,.ing

stages.
The house adjourned at two o'clock.

later days, and in a parliament elected under his auspices ? '
I SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURN
But I will ask again, is this question of reform a particularly
favourable one on which to take a vote of want of confidence?
Is it not one on which all members of the Liberal party are
treading on dangerous ground ? We cannot shut our eyes
to the fact that the question of reform is now practically in
the hands of the same Government who during the last 14
years have produced a series of reform bills, every one of
them containing a £5 or £6 franchise, and all based on the
repeated, unqualified assertion that the working classes
were wholly excluded from the franchise. (Cheers.) But
the statistical returns lately presented to the house show
that has been a mistake, and that 26 per cent. of the pre-
sent constituencies are of the working classes. (Cheers.)
Does not that convict the Ministers of having been legis-
lating carelessly, thoughtlessly, rashly, and dangerously ?
(Loud cheers.) Does this constitute on their part a claim
to our confidence ? And as they have leapt in the dark,
are we to leap in the dark also ? The error being dis-
covered, the Government admit that a £6 franchise
would swamp the existing constituencies, so they add one
pound that they may postpone the process for a few
years ? But what does the Chancellor of the Exchequer
say ? He says individually he has no objection to the £6
franchise. He is prepared to accept it with all its conse-
quences. Although he does not press it upon us now it is his
sincere opinion that no practical inconvenience could pos-
sibly arise from allowing the working classes to be the
majority of the whole of the constituencies. I gather now
if my right hon friend were out of office next year, and was
to vote according to his opinions, that the friend of house-
hold suffrage or those of a more extended suffrage need
not despair of his support. This may be very fine and very
courageous, and it may be very sound and wise, But it is
not the opinion of Parliament or the country, and does not
establish any fresh ground of confidence. I have no con-
fidence in the measure, and I have still less confidence in
the means that have been resorted to to force it upon a re-
luctant Parliament. I must say I see with regret a Minis-
ter of the Crown joining, assisting, and encouraging that
agitation. I must say that such a course is unprecedented
—that when a minister of the Crown has laid upon the
table an important public measure which stands as the first
measure to be considered after the recess, and which is
deserving of claim and dispassionate consideration—l say
it is unprecedented in the history of parliament that that
Minister should go down to the provinces—(cheers)—
and endeavour to excite agitation in favour of his own
bill. (Renewed cheers.) I do not express my regret
with any desire needlessly to hurt the feelings of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer—(laughter and cheers)—
but I think it is still more without parliamentary pre-
cedent that the leader of the House of Commons should
go down into the provinces and make a speech to the dis-
paragement of the house of which he is a distinguished
member. (Cheers.) Now such proceedings may excite a
temporary enthusiasm, but lam sure that that enthusiasm
is dearly purchased by the loss of dignity and influence that
must follow when he resumes his place in the house. (Cheers.)
I must say that the right hon. gentleman is also unfortunate
in the illustrations he has employed when he described the
position of the Government, for he said we have broken down
our bridges and we have burned our boats. Well, sir, but
these are the acts of desperate men. (Cheers.) They are
not usually such as to inspire confidence. They are usages
of war, of aggression, of conflagration, and desperation.
(Cheers.) Why is the peaceful object of the Government
to carry a reform bill to be associated with such appalling
images? How is it that in a time of such profound tran-
quillity, when Ministers have succeeded to an inheritance
of peace, when there is an absence of party strife or political
passion; how is it, I say, that their position is so perilous,
so critical, that the ministry should go into the provinces
and become agitators ; and that in the flights of an excited
imagination they should describe themselves as political
desperadoes, and all this as a ground for claiming our con-
fidence ? (Cheers.) I can only say let those in whom they
inspire confidence follow the ministers whose position is
described by broken bridges and burnt ships. I prefer, for
my part, the guidance of those whose mission is more peace-
ful, whose language is more assuring, who can contemplate
great constitutional changes with the calmness of. states-
men, and who can win the confidence of the country by
appeals to reason, leaving to others the more exciting arts
of agitation, and trusting for success to the goodness of
their cause, the purity of their motives, and the grateful
sympathy and support of an approving country.
Mr. BRIGHT moved the adjournment of the debate,
amid cries of " Go on, go on."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
they had arrived so near the hour of midnight, and consi-
dering the protracted length of the debate, he did not
think they could press any hon. gentleman who wished to
address the house to proceed at that hour. He thought it
would be for the convenience of the house if something
like an understanding were come to as to when the debate
was likely to terminate ; and whether the right hon. gen-
tleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) was prepared to express any
opinion on the subject. He hoped that on Monday or
Tuesday they would come to a decision on this important
question. (Cries of " Friday, Friday.")
Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, I am willing to use any influence
I may be presumed to possess towards the regulation of a
protracted debate like this upon an important subject. I
have always sincerely desired to keep in view two objects
—the one was, to secure, as far as I could for both sides of
the house, a fair and free discussion ; and the other was,
when that discussion was obtained, to facilitate the pro-
gress of public business, even if I disapproved of the mea-
sures of the Government. (Cheers.) Now, there is no
doubt that the discussion upon the amendment of the
noble lord has been protracted for a considerable period—
but I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will
admit that the subject is one of vast importance—and
though not wishing to say anything the least discourteous
to the right hon. gentleman, I must remind him that there
is in this debate a peculiarity which has given it this pro-
tracted character, and may probably be extended beyond
that period which was at first anticipated. (Cheers.) The
house will recollect, and it is but fair to the noble lord who
moved the amendment, as well as to those gentlemen who
support it, to bear the fact in mind that that this debatewas
adjourned during the recess in a peculiar manner to
another place.: (Cheers and laughter.) The consequence of
that operation, upon which I wish at present to make no
comment, in its effects on the debate in this house has been
that a great many speeches must be answered which were
not made in the House of Commons. (Cheers.) The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer will admit that not contented with
the usual speech of Ministers in introducing a measure, not
contented with the ordinary expositoryspeech in his placte
in Parliament, he took the opportunity of visiting the county
palatine, where he made no less than six speeches on I
subject. (Cheers and laughter.) Under any
should not think myself entitled to make speechescir.the position
amount. We on this side of the house are not Da
d as my name
of the most favourable mortals before as,
and
of this expect
it been mentioned frequently in the courseb rao
to
expect
it willnot perhaps be thought unreasona cu
to that
before it terminates. (Cheers and lauog
coin
that the house will allow me to makLietrf.
,sanding powers,
be opened on Monday by an e.i.;:toos of opinion, seldom
hoebdseerbvaatetiwonilsl
who, whatever may be our di:tddhig
havefuel to
beent h
made
enters into
hitnetro.)aFdrenbinateoowinithnauouls.=s
honour me with their
to me not only by gedsiltblP wshorche
but by some accounts from the
nthinignk; that this debate will be
but perhaps by that time
heccoonnnficehldueedeneceedpbpeaynedmitfeririedn_dsoyn:Povt:
we may be ableirinonform some estimate as to the period of its
ghter.) Under these circumstances the
conclusion.
right hon. gentleman will agree with me that it will be
necessary, nin order to ensure the termination of the debate
-at some reasonable period, that we must all of us be pre-
pared to make some sacrifices. All cannot expect on this
motion tte opportunity which I am sure all would enjoy.
(Laughter.) But still I think that on Monday evening
shall be able to see how the debate is proceeding, and
7e should certainly hope that before the end of the week
we may see its termination. (Cheers and laughter.)
The debate was then adjourned till Monday.
EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS BILL.
This bill was recommitted, and, after some discussion,
Mr. AYRT ON pointed out that by the wording of the
clause, while the comptroller was rendered ineligible to sit
in the House of Commons he might have a seat in the
House of Lords, and suggested that the phraseology should
be altered so as to prevent any member of either house
from holding that office.
Mr. CHILDERS accepted the suggestion.
At a quarter to two the CHAIRMAN, on the motion of Sir
G. BOWYER, reported progress.
The Local Government Supplemental Bill passed
through committee.
The Art Bill was read a third time, and passed.
The Prosecution -Expenses Bill, as amended, was con-
sidered and agreed to.
The Lords amendments to the Cattle Sheds in Burghs
(Scotland) Bill was agreed to on the motion of Mr.
WALDEGRAYE LESLIE.
On the motion of Mr. LOWE leave was given to bring in
a bill to indemnify William Hamilton Forsyth, Esq., from
certain 'penalties to which he may be liable for sitting and
voting as a member of the House of Commons while hold-
ing the office of standing counsel to the Secretary of State
for her Majesty's Council in India.
The bill was introduced, and passed through all its

We regret to announce the sudden death of Sir
Frederick Roe, well kno;:•n for many years as chief magis-
trate of the metropolitan district. He died very suddenly
yesterday, in the 67th year of his age: Ho was appointed
a police magistrate at Marlborough-street in 1822, and
chief magistrate at Bow-street in 1832. Ho resigned in
1839.

rADVERTISEMENT.I—HoIIoway's Pills.—These pills aro
bettor for strengthening a debilitated constitution than any
other medicine in the world. Persons of a nervous habit
of body, and all who are suffering from weak digestive
organ; or whose health has become deranged by bilious
affections, disordered stomach, or liver complaints, should
lose no time in giving these admirable pills a fair trial.
Coughs, colds, asthma, or shortness of breath are also
within the range of the sanative powers of this remarkable
medicine. The cures effected by these pills are not super-
ficial nor temporary but complete and permanent. They
are mild as they aro efficacious, and may be given with
confider ce to delicate females and young children.

TIMES.—The news from the continent which we
have to announce to-day will, if substantiated by
subsequent advices, be received by all classes in this
country with unfeigned regret. Within the last few
days the hopes that peace would be preserved have
become strong and general. The scruples of the
Prussian King, the natural abhorrence of his people
from a policy which would tend to imbrue their
hands in the blood of their kindred, the position.
taken by Bavaria, Saxony, and the other minor
States, and, not least, the reproof , which the Prus-
sian pretensions had met with from the enlightened
opinion of Europe, gave reason to believe that the
more aggressive Power would be restrained fronl.
violence. But now an act which may possibly lead
to open strife has, 're are informed, come from the
uarter whence it was least expected. Austria seems
unable to to be consistently prudent. After bringing
the world to her side by the comparative justice of
her cause and the moderation of her language, she
throws away these advantages, and hastens to place
herself in the wrong. Far more important than the
immediate settlement of Schleswig-Holstein is the
maintenance of peace, and if Austria be co German
to
stand on the defensive in the name of Germ
liberty and the rights of the Confederation, the,
question of the Duchies may be settled peoac friendeably at
lY
some future time under the advice f
to.
Powers. But an unaccountable fatality seems
at
urge the Court of Vienna to take the wrong step Horst
,
the most critical moment. If the Emperors wo
enemies had been at his ear, they could hardly have
given him more evil advice than openly to threaten,
his adversary, and to seem to precipitate a contest:
And yet this, it is said, he has-done. We are told
that at a Council held yesterday- at Schonbral
the Emperor and Count Mensdorff, against' 1
is added, the advice of some other. Ministers, re'
solved to withdraw Count Karolyi, the A11at,63,3
Ambassador, from Berlin, and this decision having
been made known to M. de Werther, the Prussian
Ambassador at Vienna, it was expected that he wo
te
take his departure immediately. The immedia
cause of this rupture is said to be that Count Menisi;
dorff, after receiving the Prussian answer, of tci
15th, telegraphed a repetition of the Austran, e;
mand of the 7th, and received a fresh refusal °he
Thursday. A Council was then held, and t•ft
opinion of the Emperor and his Minister being
favour of the bolder course, it was adopted.
fear this act must be looked upon as seraethui2o
more than one of those suspensions of diplorn.a4;o
intercourse which are usual when Courts or natr,,f
are irritated with each other. The withdrawa'
the two Envoys is also, if we are correctly informed'
to be followed by a military movement win r.
world will regard as made in anticipation of fa.
An order was to 'be despatched to the Genes,lt°eiv
cer commanding the Austrian troops in I-lois
ordering him to fall back through Hamburg 3,736
Hanover, leaving only a few companies in 'iv
Duchy. There will be naturally a tendencTi.t. goo.
If we find that Austria abandons the
great importance to this last piece of achy
puchy of
she occupied, and leaves it open for the advanc'
the Prussians, people will conclude that the ).111f Per
ror purposes some military movement binise tirike
that he feels certain that Prussia is about to 5 in.
a blow. It may be that the latter reason basked
fluenced him. We have more than once reinar the
that the dangerous point in this' dispute were it
isolation of an Austrian corps in a position where
might be easily overwhelmed. Such
might be too much for the virtue of an arebit,l_ern.
Minister. Count Bismark has been able Plii"qhbe
to treat Austria as if she were at his mercY -11,_
Duchies, and the consciousness of this tended I.A.e
us,
crease Austrian irritation. Whether it be roof
an
trio, has received what she thinks to be proe' of
intended attack, or withdraws her unprotected Armythe
Corps in order to be herself able to Mau r° ent
offensive, it is equally certain that the abandon a teitiPt.a_...
of Holstein—if it actually takes place—will. because
to be an act in anticipation of war, and wl
fltiio
general alarm. A few days will better de---,--Ot the
course of this unhappy dispute. We hope and
Emperor will not allow his counsels to be swaie
anger, and that time will be given for reflection
earl
the efforts of peacemakers. It may be that, v! he
with the violence and subterfuges of Prusstbat
desires to bring matters to a crisis, believing !„0,
the boldest course is the safest and the most ace.
ful. But every one will be disagreeably rerninne'sien
the rashness which hurried Austria into an iliVatbere
of Piedmont seven years ago. At that time 'rip
were not wanting active friends of peac,eL ,d if
course of events might have been notably altrc,,r" ' de.
Austria had remained on the defensive, ano
Oared that her sole purpose was to defend her Our
rights as guaranteed by treaties ; but from the 11%0
that the Austrian army crossed the Ticino the ,0%
was lost. Even if an attack on the Holstein li°4 t
were imminent, it would be better to leave to
Bismark the dishonour of such an outrage, the al f;
cess of which would bring no discredit on the sin, pa
Austrian force thus overwhelmed. Wet ax Prussian
to think that, whatever the temptation, heo
Government would hesitate to seize the duchY whin,
the Austrians held it. There are limits t titer 011
tempt which the most high-handed; cel_
show towards the public law of Europe, esPeeet
ally when it is under the guardianship of a great
military power. Although we cannot but an
ues-
pate a greate increase of the difficulties of this
Lion from the imprudent action of the Tian
Government, we do not by any means 100
/ler°
the peace as broken, or war as inevitable. de
is, happily, a great' distance between diplonatia
rupture and actual hostilities. The act of
will probably be followed by an increase of arin„
ments and a concentration of forces by the two er,,
Conn
ponents. There will be fresh despatches and roan,,
accusations and recriminations. .But as long
blood has not been shed, there is no reason W
spair of a settlement. It becomes, therefore, tiT
duty of humane and conscientious statesmen b°t,l
ii,, Germany and elsewhere to be more energet'
than ever in dissuading these wrong-headed WO:
from the course on which they seem to hal"
entered.