The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-30 00:00:00

THE ORWELL.

Earl
eotfaryMAfoLr
FMoEreSigl3nlTAßffYairassikfehdetchoeulndobinlefoeramrlhtihme
wUhnTadhteerinstruetions had been sent to Sir J. Hudson relative
to the seizure of the Orwell by the GaribaldianVolunteers
Lord WODEHO USE said one letter had been received
from Sir J. Hudson on the subject of the compensation for
the seizure of the vessel; but the noble lord was under-
stood to say negotiations were still going en.
THE COURTS OF JUSTICE BILL.
A discussion took place on this bill.
The Earl of DERBY said he hoped their lordships would
not pledge themselves to choosing the site for the new courts
of law till they were quite certain the plan would be carried

out.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, before any active
steps were taken in this matter, two things would have to
be done in the next session of Parliament. The first was
the money would have to be voted; and if that money was
to be taken out of the suitors' fund, that would also have to
be dealt with by Parliament.

The subject then dropped.
APPROPRIATION OF SEATS (SITDBURY AND

ST. ALBANS) BILL.
Earl GRANVILLE moved that their lordships go into
committee on this bill, which proposed to appropriate the
seats in the following manner :—One to South Lancashire,
two to the West Riding of Yorkshire, and one to Birken-
head.
Lord STRATHEDEN said, I move that the bill be
referred to a select committee. I regret that I cannot
catch the arguments of the noble earl who has just sat
down, but I would remind their lordships that the sup-
porters of the Government, and indeed the Government
itself, are not in any way committed to this measure. The
motion for referring the bill to a select committee may he
viewed either as intended simply to arrest it, or as implying
that its details are in want of such an agency to sift them.
In both these lights it is defensible. If viewed in the first
light the lateness of the session is not an argument against
it, but an argument inlfavour of it. The lateness of the
session would prevent a select committee from reporting.
But the lateness of the session renders the committee of the
whole house utterly inoperative. In point of fact it is un-
warrantable to proceed with such a bill at such a moment.
The standing order of the house year by year has given a
formal voice to the legitimate opinion that, after July 25th,
measures ought not to proceed without reasons urgent and
exceptional, and such as, in this case, are well known t 3 be
wanting. It is true that it was read a second time on the
19th. But it was read pro forma only. It now comes be-
fore us for the first time to be discussed, If the opinion
which used to be embodied in the standing order, and which
still prevails, although from temporary circumstances it has
not this year been embodied in it—arrested ordinary bills,
how much more ought it to arrest a plan which, as it alters
the Reform Act, must influence the dignity, prosperity,
and future legislation of the country. It is unjust
to ask noble lords who, from February last, have pa-
tiently attended the business of the house, to compro-
mise their health, to waste their powers, and even sacrifice
their duties, by remaining in town a day after July is
ended. And yet unless the bill is hurried, against all de-
cencyun
iltsatot
swaettl,:uhfiioteiauly.mtonsbesgedu
soas:roopekot
afrsf.rge,
the community,
ohtdtowmae,ugshmAttei hovcauseeocegunnnaai dayst after
hi t a
ti s
afirstthe
result? discussed intoThat,
a
uttanysi
consideration
s notice
euttdui
ltatdroone
bsttaehuonabe injurydiscuss
psertoutpshrs discussion,oai
te
qft
:nt
appropriated;
thfif
00 ol
question
nnhst
ygeoe
how
othnee
before that time he had formed opinions on the subject ; if he
saw the present bill to be impolitic, and felt an obligation to
examine it, inwhat position would he stand ? He would have
to choose between the fatal evil of addressing an impatient
house and the yet more serious calamity of allowing what
he saw to be a legislative error pass unexposed and un-
questioned to the statute-book., Although no member of
the house would shrink from any task which duty urges
on him, the Government are not entitled to place men in
such a difficulty unless necessity controls them. But does
it in this instance? In the other House of Parliament the
bill was read a second time on the 25th February. It
went into committee on the 11th June. Was such an in-
terval inevitable ? It reached this house on July the 11th,
and now, upon the 29th, we are beginning to debate it. Was
that interval inevitable. But, setting that aside, is this bill
forced on at this late period by some popular opinion it
would not be prudent to resist or disappoint ? It is well
known that it has not any popular opinion to support it,

and that the democratic party in the State would applaud
the house if they rejected it. Is the Government engaged
per fas et nefas to advance it ? It is by a course of Minis-
terial defeats that it has gained the form in which it reaches
us. Are the Opposition deeply and irrevocably pledged to
it ? In the other House of Parliament the Opposition have
declared themselves in favour of another project. But is
the public bent upon obtaining it-? Themost distinguished
organ of the general opinion three times advised the Go-
vernment in a friendly spirit to renounce it. Never was a
bill, therefore, which came more thoroughly within the
prohibitory spirit of the standing order, or which it was less
essential to set at nought by proceeding with it. If there-
fore you view the motion to refer the bill to a select com-
mittee as a motion to reject it, on these grounds it is legi•
timate to do so, But if the motion is regarded as a motion
for inquiry, it is far more easy to defend it. • For as
regards the present bill, one thing must be admitted,
namely, that the onus probandi falls not on its opponents
but its advocates. To increase the House of Commons by
four members, so far as the mere numerical addition goes,
by all conversant with the subject is regarded as an evil.
The excess of numbers may disturb and compromise poli-
tical assemblies as well as the privation of them. In the
House of Lords the evils which result from the want of
numbers have been frequently; referred to. In the House
of Commons the reverse of the picture is displayed. It is
usually admitted that before the Irish Union swelled it by
a hundred the assembly was more adapted to the purposes
of business than it is at present. The room in which the
house meets will not accommodate six hundred. And
unless night by night for at least three hours the
usages of Parliament reduced the number present to a
small proportion of the whole, it would be impossible to go
through the clauses of the bills and through the items of
the estimates. No kind of Parliamentary or public incon-
venience has resulted front the want of the four members.
It IZ-teen cOnvingigly "explains that dlrWas'.3-TOCEcon-
stitutional, but accidental number. It was only upon
Irish grounds that the House of Commons was ever car-
ried to that limit ; and it is not on Irish grounds that
this bill can be supported. The questions must therefore
force themselves upon us—Cud bond is the bill brought for-
ward?—what end does it attain I--what advantage does
it furnish ?—what complication does it remedy ?—what
popular demand does it :assuage ?—what interest requires
it? And if these questions have not been answered in
debate, the select committee might dispose of them.
Another ground for the inquiry would occur from the
number of interests and claims to be adjusted. Salford,
Burnley, Middlesex, and Kensington, the Inns of Law,
and Scottish Universities, the London University have
all pursued the gift to be distributed. In 1852, in 1854,
inlgs9cliff in
nerelnBtds of dealing 6m%aetid at
tpinreg withsen t Governments have
offered these vacancies. It
is therefore clear that no strong or general conviction has
been formed as to the proper manner of disposing of them.
And while this is so the claims which it is not proposed to
imperial and general.
, and superior to, those
satisfy may fairly ask inquiry from the legislature before
wby and bye with seats are that doom is finally pronounced. But such inquiry may
bTeheaspkuebducuhpoana
a a
clgraiomunddiatfianrctmiroorme
Ihaveed. So longr power unappro-
printed,
w deve rhavet it
in ou
one of the most fatal and notorious defects of the Reform
adverted. So
as these
to deal
Act. And if you fill them up as it is proposed, you lose
your chance of doing so. What is the defect which I refer
to ? The Reform Acthas no doubt succeeded in ex pressing
the opinions of the country. It has succeeded in forming an
assembly equal in intelligence and station to the work
which comes before it. But it has not succeeded in the third
great function it aspired to, the function of returning to the
House of Commons all those who having sat there, ought to
have a seat in it according to the judgment of the
public and
of Parliament. It can only discharge this function when
you have, as before 1832 you hid, a corrective power in the
State to do what the country wishes to be done, when the
general election happens not to do it. By the judicious
use of these four seats you might perhaps arrive at such a
power; but if you rashly part with them, when no kind of
popular demand asks you so to do, you will not arrive at it
except by increasing the numbers of the House of Com-
mons beyond 658, end this would scarcely ever be regarded
as admissible. But as regards the proposition that the
general elections since 1832 have fallen short of one result
they were intended to accomplish, it is easy to establish it
by referring to a series of distinguished men who since
that epoch hive, for longer or shorter times, been
thrown out of Parliament, while not one could be
considered as excluded by the wishes of the country. Sir
William Molesworth, Lord Macaulay, and Sir Edward
Lytton are sufficient illustrations. They suffice at least
to prove that be a man connected with the Radicals, the
Whigs, or the Conservatives, the support and admiration
of the country are no security for constant access- to the
Legislature in which he has attained them. They suffice to
show that public life is unhappily distinguished from every
other line of effort by the perpetual risk of arbitrary exile.
It was not possible at such a time to explain how that
great anomaly existed, or to what political calamities it
tended. But in order to remove it, it was only necessary
that the public should have some means, after a general
election, of giving force to its opinion. We all know that
if it had these means, neither Sir William Molesworth,
Lord Macaulay, Sir E. Lytton, Lord Carlisle, or Mr.
Cobden would have been for years condemned to all the
evils of inaction. Whatever plan you might adopt—and
some have been suggested—it would naturally occupy the
space afforded by these vacancies. If lam asked by what
arrangement you could remedy the evil, I answer a select
committee is the agency to which alone a question so new
and delicate and grave could be confided. And I express
a firm belief that a select committee of the house would be
a body not unequal to contend with the difficulty of the
problem. But inasmuch as no select committee can ap-
proach the problem for the present, I will revert but only
for a moment to the question, ought the bill to be pro-
ceeded with. It requires much consideration to de•
cide how far it is expedient to transfer power, as the bill
does, from the southern to the northern portion of the king-
dom; to give, as it does, to counties vacancies arising from
disfranchisement of town, and to convert, as it does, seats
which were open to the mass of politicians to seats which
are only open to persons locally connected with them.
But such grave consideration it is not in the power

of the house to grant to all these topics. And
it should never be forgotten that the gratitude the
measure will excite bears no proportion to the
discontent it will occasion. It is allowed that in the
West Riding no strong opinion has been formed as to the
advantage of dividing that constituency. There has been
no apparent movement in South Lancashire in favour of
the gift to be conceded to it. But the Scottish Univer-
sities will receive a blow and disappointment from the
measure. The only consolation you can offer to Burnley,
Kensington, and Salford, is to keep the vacancies sus-
pended. In point of fact it is obnoxious to the interest
which calls out for change in the Reform Act. It may be
sometimes indispensable to offend that interest by stand-
ing still, but it appears to be the height of folly to
offend it by legislation which wants at once the sanction of
the Government and the approbation of the public. If a
general and comprehensive measure of Reform is by-and-
bye presented, the scheme is utterly uncalled for. If it is
resolved to act by isolated measures, that policy will not be
happily inaugurated by a bill which overlooks a problem
entitled to the care of statesmen, and which, from many of
its
may be made use of at a future time to create
among
the body of the people the passions that are most
essential to control and anticipate. On these grounds the
noble lord moved that the bill be referred to a select com-
mittee.
The Earl of DERBY said he hoped he mig
was ht assume it
not the intention of her Majesty's Government to accede
features,
to the suggestion of the noble baron who had just sat down,
that this bill should be referred to a select committee, which
it should be referred to a select commit-
y bill for which there appeared to
would probably report about the middle of August. (A laugh.)
tbneeeeltechsosann this;slrdeannotn Therteheaot
recollect
facts were all plain and undisputed, and
there were no very complicated details to be discussed. It
was a bill of a very plain and straightforward character,
which he thought perfectly well capable of being discussed in
a committee of their lordships' house. He had no fault to find
with the bill, which he thought had been greatly improved in
tof which he was a member in
influence of the right hon.
its progress through the House of Commons by the manipu-
lation it had undergone, and which the Government appeared
t
exemplary patience, The
Exchequer, who until a
short time ago was supposed to be one of the most promi-
nent candidates for one of the seats proposed to be created
by the present bill mo
gentleman
have
nsa2tsluewmraeasonrf.eiihtehec etsubmitted
Chancellored Governmenti oma with
mainly
in
the
of most
h e
by the present b.
They proposed by the bill of 1852 to
l bythe
confer two seats on the West Riding and two on South Lan-
cashire. He had always entertained a very strong preference
for two seats instead of three for counties. But until now
Birkenhead had not risen to the importance it had since at-
tained, and he could not blame her Majesty's Government
for having selected this town for one of the vacant seats.
If, indeed, it were in the contemplation of the Government
to introduce any very large and extensive plan of Parlia-
mentary reform, he should have thought they were acting
rflofotshtiussmallernwiselY in hampering themselves by the introduction
measure. He should then certainly have
thought there was somereason in the complaint of the noble
lord, that by passing this measure they were prevented from
giving due consideration to the claims of other places by
passing a general measure of reform. In the bill of the Go-
vernment with which he (Earl of Derby) was connected,
not only were these seats provided for, but provision was
made for all those places also which the noble lord had enu-
merated, the London University, the Scotch Universities,
and Chelsea and Kensington—only that they were provided
for in a different mode, by subdividing the county constitu-
ency; and he thought the principal claims to representation
were satisfied. It was not the pleasure of the Liberal party

to allow that measure torpass, but he bowed to the determi-
nation to whichthey arrived, and he was perfectly ready to
give his co-operation to her Majesty's Government in pass-
ing the partial measure they had now introduced. He as-
sumed that the Government had no very extensive scheme
of Parliamentary reform to bring forward ; first of all be-
cause he thought that recent experience might have shown
them that small boroughs were not without their use in the
political system of the country, and they might now possi-
bly be glad to find six Richmonds in the field. (Laughter.)
But he was also inclined to suppose that no such scheme
was in view, from the assurance given by—he did not know
whether he might yet call him the noble earl whom they
might shortly expect to have the honour and satisfaction of
seeing in that house, and whom all their lodships on both
sides, he was sure, would be glad to see amongst them.
(Cheers.) That noble lord had expressed his opinion very
candidly that there was no use in bringing forward a mea-
sure of reform unless there was a strong feeling in favour
of it on the part of the public, and he represented very cor:
rectly that there was n 9 such feeling in the country, and
therefore that there was no such temptation held out. He
(the Earl of Derby), formed the conclusion also, not only
from what the noble lord had said but from what he had
done ; for the noble lord had selected that precise moment,
he supposed like another Astreea, disgusted with the follies
and iniquities of the lower world, to leave it, and was about
to rise to a higher, calmer, and, he (Lord Derby) hoped, a
purer atmosphere. (Laughter.) And he could not wonder
that the noble lord, who had devoted so many years and so
much attention to pulling down and building IQ the edifice,
should be glad to take the opportunity of finishing his
work at once by filling up the gaps which had so long de-
formed its beauty by giving the vacant seats to the West
Riding, South Lancashire, and Birkenhead. Of those
places he supposed it might be said that—

Extrema perillos
Justitie, excedens terris, vestigia fecit.
As the bill at present stood he had no objection to offer to
it, and he had no doubt it would give very general satisfac-
Con. Certain alterations he believed would be needed, first
of all to make it English and next to make it sense— Oa laugh)
—and they should be made in committee. Seriously, how-
ever, he did hope that whatever might be the ulterior views
and ulterior wishes of. her Majesty's Government, they had
paused on the subject of Parliamentary reform in the course
they had been pursuing, and that the last few years would
be a warning to the present and all future Gevernments not
to bring forward promises too hastily, nor to pledge the
name of the sovereign to the introduction of any measure
which they did not seriously think they should be able to
carry. Certainly in 1858 he (Lord Derby) had thought
himself bound earnestly and sincerely to apply himself to
the introduction of a measure which he hoped would have
given satisfaction to moderate men ; but that attempt had
not met with the success he had anticipated. Her Majesty's
Government, no doubt with equal earnestness and sincerity,
had also applied themselves to the task, and they had
equally failed. He trusted, therefore, that after the failure of
successive measures, introduced by successive Governments,
it was now clear that no one was under any pledge to deal with
the subject; but that it was one which must be left to the dis-
cretion of each Government to introduce or not as they
thought best, and that no one would be open to any reproach
for abstaining from an attempt to dispose of so difficult and
delicate a question. (Cheers )
Earl GRANVILLE entirely agreed with the noble earl
that it was not desirable to refer the bill to a select commit-
tee. The other house had always objected to adopt such a
course with regard to any measure affecting the constitution,
and though this house was no doubt bound to oppose any
measure affecting the composition of that assembly, if it
seemed to their lordships to be contrary to right principle,
their lordships would otherwise be naturally disposed to re-
ceive from the other house the proposition which it thought
best for filling up the number of its members. Unless,
therefore, the object of the amendment was to procure the
rejection of the bill altogether, it was not likely that any
useful result would accrue from referring it to a select com-
mittee ; and he trusted that his noble friend would with-
draw his proposal. It was very agreeable to her Majesty's
Government to receive the approbation of the noble lord,
and it at least proved them to have been actuated in this
matter by no party motives or intentions. With regard to
the changes which had been made in the bill in the other
house, he must say that they were not after all of a very
grave character, for they merely transferred to the West
Riding the seat proposed to be given to Chelsea and Bensing•
ton. If he had known that the noble earl intended to make
so pointed an allusion to Lord J. Russell, he should have
been tempted to postpone the bill once more till to-morrow,
when he trusted he should have the honour to lead his right
hon. friend into their lordships' house, where he expected he
would xeceive that welcome which was never refused to men
that were eminent in any line of life, and that was most cer.
tainly due to one who had played so great a part in the di-
rection of the affairs of this country, and whose public repu-
tation was combined with so singularly high-minded a pri-
vate character. The noble earl reproached not only the Go-
vernment, but his own and some preceding Governments, for
having introduced reform bills which did not prove success-
ful. He entirely concurred with the noble earl that nothing
could be more unfortunate than lightly to introduce mea-
sures of reform without a reasonable hope and expectation
of being able to carry them. In saying that, however, he
was strongly opposed to any notion of finality ; and he was
far from thinking that it would be impossible to improve
the constitution of the country, or that the franchise might
not from time to time be mostreasonably and justly extended
amongst the working classes of the community. Still he
believed that it would be rash for any Government before-
hand, and without reviewing all the circumstances of the
case, to pledge themselves to a reform bill without having
some probable means of carrying it into law. (Hear, hear.)
Their lordships then went into committee.
Lord STRATHEDEN moved to omit clause 1, but
Their lordships negatived the motion without debate or
• division.

On clause 8,
The Earl of DERBY said he had the greatest respect for
the present Speaker of the House of Commons, whom he
had known for 50 years. Thirty-five years ago he had tra-
velled with him, and the right hon. gentleman bad subse-
quently been a member of a small but select party of politi-
cians who had been known as " the Derby Dilly." (Laugh-
ter.) At the same time the clause left too much to the right
hon. gentleman's discretion, for it made it optional with
him to withhold the writ till before the next general elec-
tion, which was exactly the time when it was most desirable
that it should not be issued. He begged to propose, there-
fore, that the clause should be made to run so that it should
be incumbent on the Speaker to issue the writ as soon as
might be after the passing of the bill.
This amendment was agreed to, and the rest of the clauses
were also passed, with a few verbal amendments.
The Enlistment in India Bill was read asecond time.
The Tramways (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill was read
a third time and passed.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT AMF4NDMENT
BILL.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved the second
reading of this bill, the object of which was to give pre-
cedence to the mayor at all meetings of the borough justices.
Lord WENSLEYDALE opposed the bill, and moved
that it be read a second time that day three months.
Earl GRANVILLE supported the bill, which was op-
posed on the ground that it would create ill feeling amongst
the borough justices.
The Earl of DERBY intimated that on a future day he
should oppose the clause giving trecedence to the mayor.
Upon a division the motion for the second reading was
carried by a majority of 44 to 27.
The East India Civil Service Bill was read a third time.
The Irremovable Poor Bill and the Crown Suits Limita-
tion Bill were severally read a third time and passed.
REMOVAL OF IRISH POOR BILL.

Earl St. GERMANS, in moving the second reading of
this bill, said its object was to mitigate hardships which it
was impossible altogether to prevent. It did not seek in
any way to alter or amend the law, but simply to regulate
the mode in which persons becoming chargeable upon Eng-
lish parishes should be removable to Ireland, His proposal
was based upon the reports of committees which sat in 1855,
1858, and 1859, and to show that this was a favourable time
for diminishing the facilities for the removal of the Irish
poor, he stated that whereas in 1850 there were no fewer
than 77,000 Irish persons landed at Liverpool who were ap-
parently paupers, there were last year only 21 persons of
that description landed.
Lord REDESDALE did not oppose the principle of the
bill, but thought the details would require consideration in
committee.
The bill was then read a second time.
INDEMNITY BILL.
This bill also passed a second reading.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

The reasons of the Lords for insisting upon certain o:
their amendments to this bill were laid upon the table.
Their lordships adjourned at a quarter to 10 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Caledonian Railway (Cleland, &c. Branches) ; Caledonian
Railway (Stonehouse Branch) ; Forth and Clyde Junction
Railway ; Savile Estate ; Westminster Life Insurance
Society (Dissolution) ; West of. Fife Mineral Railway and
Charleston Railway and Harbour Companies.
RATING OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.
Captain JERVIS asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department what were the rules which had been
laid down at the Home-office with respect to recommending,
cr otherwise, commuted allowances towards the payment of
rates for Government property in certain parishes ?
Sir G. C. LEWIS said there was no exact proportion

Mr. H. LEWIS asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department,whether his attention had been called to
the case of Thomas Carter, who was, on Monday the 15th
day of July, brought before Thomas Thorpe Fowke and
Le Merchant Thomas, Esq., at the Hyde Police-court,
charged with being a vagrant and sleeping in the open air
at Oakfield, and who was committed by those magistrates
to Winchester gaol for three weeks, and ordered to be kept
to hard labour for that period; and if so, whether he had
given, or intended to give, orders for his immediate re-
lease ?
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that a letter was written to the
committing magistrate requesting him to furnish the Home-
office with a report of the proceedings in this case, but that
request had not been complied with. He had been written
to a second time, but with the same result; and he (Sir G.
C. Lewis) had directed that he should be written to a third
time