In the Lower House the debate on the Reform Bill was resumed by Sir STAFFORD Noarnearz, who said the bill was a reply to the call of the
country, not an expression of the abstract views of the Government. He held
that all the vexed questions could be settled in Committee and complained that the Opposition did not set forth their views. Mr. CARDWELL said
that the bill did not contain one single proposition that could be elevated
into the dignity of a principle. Mr. -DRUMMOND would support the amendment of Lord John Russell—in Committee ; but they had first to decide the second reading, an expression which produced laughter from both sides of the House. He thought the proper way would be to pro- ceed by resolutions. Mr. Dmcr and Lord HARRY VANE spoke in Oppo- sition, and Mr. PADRE and Mr. J. WORTLEY supported the second readi.
Lord PALMERSTON said he should support the amendment. (Cheers and counter cheers.) He looked upon the bill as most objectionable and
one that the House ought not to accept. The borough and county fran- chise should not be assimilated. There should be a ten pound county franchise. He said that the resolution was not a censure on the Govern- ment, nor would it defeat the bill ; and the Government ought to thank Lord John for bringing the resolution forward as it relieved them from a difficulty otherwise fatal to the measure. Lord John had shown him the resolution before he had submitted it to the House. He then said it was very good, and just the motion that was wanted, and he should give it his cordial and hearty support.
Mr. WHITESIDE made an out and out party speech in support of the bill, drawn out to the usual oratorical length. He praised the speech of
Mr. Horsman, and in a sentence which brought down the the sarcastic cheers of both sides of the House, he twitted that " antiquated Ministry" of which Lord John Russell was the head, for not having produced any Reform Bill at all. England is independent of any particular Minister and looks more to the policy of a Cabinet than to the men who are in it. He denounced Lord Palmerston as the author of all the confusion at present existing in Europe.
The debate, on the motion of Mr. EDWIN JAMES, was again adjourned until Monday.
In the House of Lords Earl St. GERMANS inquired whether in de- clining to produce the papers relating to the Ionian Islands the Govern- ment intended to pass a censure on fir John Young. The Earl of DERBY said, that his sole reason in declining to produce the papers was, that a discussion would not be for the public good. He had no intention to censure Sir John Young, who had acted with great good sense under diffi- cult circumstances.
In reply to Lord CAMPBELL, the Earl of DONOUGEMORE said the Go- vernment felt that some legislation was advisable on the subject of the education of deserted children in Ireland; and that a clause would be in- troduced into a bill now in the other House to remove existing difficul- ties.
A long debate arose on a motion for papers relating to Indian finance by the Earl of ELLENEOROUGH. He complained that the Government had issued Treasury notes, which are equivalent to Exchequer Bills here, that the mode in which it was raised made it a 6 per cent loan, and that this proceeding had disturbed the money market, and had depreciated the Four per Cent Stock, the great stock of the country. The Home Govern- ment should take powers to issue 12,000,0001. instead of 7,000,0001. The Earl of DERBY admitted that the prospects of Indian finance are not so good as they were. In 1860 there would be a deficiency of 11,500,0001., or deducting 1,000,0001. which will be received from England, 10,500,0001. The Indian Government have resolved not to depend entirely on loans, but to raise new taxes on imports and stamps, which would reduce the defi- ciency but that would still render it necessary that a further sum beyond the 7,000,0001., should be raised in this country. Several Peers ex- pressed views of Indian finance, more or less gloomy, and the motion was agreed to.