Yesterday week, too late for our last impression, Lord Malmes-
bury gave way about the amendments to the Scotch Reform Bill proposed by Lord Beauchamp, but gave way in a peevish and fretful speech, in which he bitterly complained of the conduct of the Liberal Peers who had left their seats on the previous night as a protest against what they called the breach of faith of the Government. He read a note from Mr. Disraeli to prove that the Prime Minister, in talking of the question as virtually settled, alluded only to the business of the House of Commons, and did not mean in the least to commit the Lords, and explained that he gave way now only to save time, and not in the least as an admission-that any engagement was made. Lord Russell de- ferkled himself, saying that the Duke of Marlborough had never offered to adjourn the question on the ground that there had been a misunderstanding, but had seemed inclined to take them by surprise. Lord Beauchamp and the Duke of Montrose were both in a pet, Lord Salisbury interposed as peacemaker to remonstrate against these high words, and said the Lower House ought to discuss the delicate question hinted at so indignantly by the Duke of Montrose, " whether Mr. Disraeli told a falsehood " or not ; the Loa Chancellor, Lord Granville, and the Duke of Argyll each had his fling, when Lord Derby rose and expressed his bitter shame and regret at the "personal virulence " and " persevering misrepresentations" of his opponents. He had never in his life heard anything so "ungenerous and insulting" as the cheer with which the Liberals greeted Lord Malmesbury's announcement of his intention to yield. On the whole, it was a very ill sort of squabble, in which no one shone, unless it were Lord Salisbury,— Lord Derby least of all.
