The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-26 00:00:00

NG, JUNE 26, 1868,

frequently occurring ?" wouf,l Mr. Disraeli mention
half-a-dozen, say ? In what foreign Court was the name
of England "a name of suspicion ? , Lord Russell, he
maintained, had preserved the peace o.f Europe in the
Danish and American wars, when the Conservative party
did everything they could to involve the country in war;
and, provoked by the loud denials of the Ministerialists to
this sweeping statement, Mr. Layard launched into a sharp
attack on Lord Stanley's foreign policy.
Mr. COCHRANE retaliated that Mr. Disraeli's langusge
was absolutely true, and described the results of Lora
Russell's " meddle and muddle" policy.
Mr. GLADSTONE protested earnestly against the strain
of this and other orations which Mr. Disraeli was in the
habit of making to similar sympathetic audiences. These
inflated eulogies of himself and sweeping condemnations
of his opponents were part of a system of which Mr. Glad-
stone remarked that it must bo more damaging to the Go-
vernment than to its opponents. He refused to allow Mr.
Disraeli to take refuge in the pretext that it was only the
general foreign policy of the late Cabinet which he had
attacked, for during a great part of that administration
Lord Clarendon had frequently been consulted on foreign
affairs, and had been charged with an important mission.
On this and on other occasions Mr. Disraeli had done his
best to injure Lord Clarendon, but on each occasion it
was in the teeth of direct and emphatic testimonies by
Lord Derby to Lord Clarendon's public services.
Lord STANLEY brought the controversy to an end
by a brief defence of the acts of his foreign administration
impugned by Mr. Layard, particularly in regard to the
Alabama claims, the Spanish claims, the Luxembourg
guarantee, and the Cretan insurrection.
In Committee of Supply, Mr. HADFIELD made his
annual motion for the reduction of the Regium Donutn,
but, yielding to the advice of several Irish Liberal mem-
bers, he did not press it, but allowed the vote to be taken
in its entirety.
A number of votes in Class VII. of the Civil Service
Estimates were agreed to, as well as a vote of £300,000 on
account of the Packet Servica Vote.

The house then took up the Corrupt Practices Bill.

On clause 5 a third or fourth discussion of the main
principle of the bill was raised by an amendment of Mr.
Craufurd, to retain the jurisdiction in the hands of the
house, instead of transferring it to two Judges.

Mr. HARDY'S reply to the proposal was a very distinct
intimation that as the GoiTernment considered the transfer
of jurisdiction the essence of the bill, they would hardly
think it worth while to go on with it if the change were
made. This was repeated by the Solicitor-General, who
argued that the house had really parted with the power
when it consented to allow election petitions to be tried
under statute, and dwelt on the importance of a local
inquiry.

The amendment was supported by Mr. Sandford, Mr.
Wykeham-Martin, Mr. Denman, Mr. Paul, and others.
Mr. MILL argued in favour of a preliminary local in-
quiry by a revising barrister at the public expense ; and
Mr. CHILDERS, admitting the importance of a local

inquiry, suggested that it should be confided to a barrister
who would collect evidence, and lay it afterwards before
a select committee, which should have the power of de-
termining whether the election were void or not.
Mr. lIIBBERT, who was generally favourable to the
bill, replied that Mr. Childers' plan would double the ex-
pense.

Mr. LOWE pointed out as arguments against the pre-
sent tribunal that it was composed of men liable to suspi-
cion of political bias, and that it sacrificed the advantages
of prompt and local inquiry. In favour of it there was but
one—the importance of retaining the jurisdiction in the
hands of the house—to which he replied that the house, as
a body, had long ago parted with it. The only fault he
found with the bill was tho selection of two judges to try
these petitions, preferring that they should bo referred to
the whole body of the judges. . .

Sir R. PALMER and Sir G. GREY wore in favour of re-
taining the present tribunals with amendments, and Sir
Roundell looked for the cure of corruption to the encou-
ragement of a healthier public opinion.
Lord AMBERLEY and Mr. T. CAVE made some observa-
tions to an impatient house, and on a division the amend-
ment was rejected by a majority of 20-178 to 158.
A lengthened squabble on the question of adjournment
followed. A motion by Mr. Bouverie to report progress
was defeated by 201 to 68, and Mr. Esmonde, though there
were loud protests from all sides, next moved that the
Chairman leave the chair. In the course of a somewhat
heated conversation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
charged Mr. Gladstone with obstructing the bill by voting
for reporting progress, which drew an angry reply from
Mr. Gladstone. More than an hour was wasted in this
conflict, and in the end the further progress of the bill was
adjourned until Monday.
The Irish Reform Bill was read a third time and passed,
and some other orders of the day having been forwarded a
stage, the house adjourned at 10 minutes to 2 o'clock.