Frhutrs unit runhing inVarlinnaut

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Houss OF LORDS. Monday, March 28. The State of Europe; Lord Malmes- bury's Answer to Lord Clarendon—Manor Courts (Ireland) Bill read a third time and passed.

Tuesday, March 29. Juries in Civil Cases ; Lord Campbell's Bill throWs out— Vexatious Indictments Bill reported.

Thursday, March 31. Vexatious Indictments Bill read a third time and passed —Evidence by Commission read a third time and passed.

Friday, April 1. The Ministerial Crisis ; Lord Derby's Statement.

Horn OF COILKONS. Monday, March 28. Representation Bill; Debate again adjourned.

Tuesday, March 29. Representation Bill; Debate again adjourned.

Wednesday, March 30. Trial by Jury (Scotland); Mr. Dunlop's Bill read ass- cod time—Law Ascertainment; Mr. Dunlop's Bill read a second time—Bank- ruptcy and Insolvency; Lord John Russell's Bill referred to a Select Committee-. Admiralty Court ; Mr. Hadfield's Bill read a second time. Thursday, March 31. Repreeentation Bill ; Debate concluded, Lord J. Russell's Resolution carried by 330 to 291. Friday, April 1. No sitting.

Trra RtpumersTATtoN DEBATE.

What promised to be another week of debate opened on Monday night First, Mr. GWEN STANLEY withdrew his indiscreet notice of motion. Then, in reply to Mr. DARBY GRIFFITH, Mr. Dlintaraa said that in the course of the debate he should indicate the policy and explain the course of her Majesty's Government. They have placed before the House a measure they recommend. Those who do not like it may vote against the second reading. If the bill goes into Committee, Government will listen with that "candour that becomes" them to any amendments ; and if the opinion of the House is contrary to their opinion they will act in the manner they think their duty justifies. Mr. EDWIN JAMES renewed the debate. lie imparted to it some life, for the moment, but no novelty ; his speech, save and except the per- sonal parts of it, going over, with some effect, the points which call up. the strongest objections from all parties. Mr. BEAUMONT, though an old follower of Lord Palmerston declined to follow him on this occasion. Mr. Beaumont did not see that reform is wanted, and thought the reso- lution of Lord John Russell was a trap. Lord ELCHO made a discursive speech against the resolution, as a party move. It included a defence of" Lord Grey from an attack by Mr. James, and an argument against the Annuity tax bill, for which he was called to order. Mr. ELLiez declared his intention of voting for tho resolution, although he had doubts re- specting it, because it might be regarded out of doors as a party move. He objected to many things in the bill; he should have condemned it at once, had it not been that it led to the hope of a settlement, and con- tained some things he approved. If the bill were rejected, Government must resign or dissolve ; he for one should offer no factious opposition to a dissolution but he should throw on the Government the conse- quences of a continued agitation of the question. Colonel Sawn argued that the Government might accept the resolution as an instruction to the Committee. Mr. LOCKE supported the resolution, and Lord Anoranrus Vera TEMPEST opposed it. Cries for Sir James Graham arose, but Mr. MONCKTON MILNE% who was up, went on, and briefly gave reasons why he should support the resolution—it enunciates a truism. Sir JAMES Gaeneoz was the next speaker, and he distinctly stated that he did not rise to reply to Mr. Manes. Xis speech was directed en- tirely to the "situation." When he introduced the bill Mr. Disraeli used a word that grated on the ears of Sir James Graham—he said the statesmen of 1832 treated the subject "empirically." Perhaps Mr. Disraeli meant that it was an experimental measure, and if so, it must be regarded as a successful ex- periment. For one Sir James would gladly have accepted it as final, but he had ceased to think finality a tenable position. Lord Stanley said that the first care of Reformers should be to make further reform un- necessary, yet in the same speech he showed that the bill violated" his own canon, by telling the House that identity of suffrage would afford an easy way of disfranchising the small boroughs. In 1852 Lord Derby came in to stem the tide of democracy. But what has occurred within the last month? Lord Derby's party and Lord Derby opposed the ten pound county franchise. New Lord Derby has deliberately proposed that change, and as a counterpoise has proposed to disfranchise the borough freeholders. The real dangers of an extreme democratic change arise from manhood suffrage, the ballot, and equal electoral dis- tricts. The identity of the suffrage once established, a single turn of the hand in a rash moment reduces it to manhood suffrage. Your electoral districts are now unequal, but by all sound logic the moment you have identical suffrage your electoral districts ought to be equal ; and the process of making them equal is shadowed forth in the borough boundary commission. And if the tonversion of unequal into equal electoral districts be easy the conversion of voting papers encased in envelopes into the ballot will be easier still. Turn to another branch of the subject. The bill was conceived with not too much sagacity, but with the avowed intention of passing it. Here Sir James read an extract from de Tocqueville's work upon the ancient rigime to show the danger of remodelling the whole constitution according to the rules of logic and abstract principle instead of endearoluing to amend it piecemeal. Frightful spectacle ! That which is an excellence in a writer is often a great defect in a statesman, and the same things which have fre- quently led to the production of beautiful romances may lead to the issue of great revolutions.' A A simpler measure would have been safer and more effectual. Coming to the technical question before the House Sir James described his share in it. He had been prepared to vote for the second read- ing when Lord John conferred with him on the subject. Sir Hugh Cairns said that it was unprecedented to move a resolution with reasons. Unpre- cedented ! Why, when Sir James entered Parliament the practice constantly occurred of moving resolutions upon the second reading, not even germane to the bill about to be discussed. It is a new doctrine to say that a resolution germane to the matter shall not be moved. The resolatim. of Lord John affords the Government an opportunity of withdrawing the bill. Ministers must consider what is due to their honour, but the House Intretsilo its duty. "I do not think that lever saw in this House greater unanimity extend- ing to both sides than is exhibited against the principle of this bill-- (Aears); nor, well considering all the elements of which this House is com- posed, more disposition now, in this Parliament, immediately, in this ses-

sion to pass a bill, which would command the sympathy and support of the

country. (Cheers.) My belief is, that at this moment a Bill taking the common point of departure the ten-pound franchise, lowering to a consider-

able extent the borough departure, prohibiting the payment of travelling

expenses, multiplying polling-places, disfranchising within moderate limits the smaller boroughs, and enfranchising with strict impartiality the larger counties and larger cities, would command the support of a decided majority Qf this House." (Cheers.)

The municipal franchise would be :a good franchise for Parliamentary elections.

Next Sir James considered the bill. There were two imperfections in the Reform Bill of 1832. One was that the 10/. franchise was not sufficiently elastic, the other that the boundaries of boroughs were fixed by a royal commission. Yet both are about to be repeated. He argued strongly against the disfranchisement of the borough freeholders—" the salt of the

county constituency; " and then he spoke of the working classes. The

immediate object and the operation of that Bill was the transfer of power to the middle classes; but I consider it a most dangerous doctrine to- hold that the classes below them do not take a deep and real interest in the question of reform. The working classes may appear indifferent to it ; but there can be no more dangerous error than to suppose they have not this question at

heart. I have already quoted De Tocquerille as to what preceded the French Revolution; I will read another passage from him, because it is directly to the point. He says,— " When the poor and the rich have hardly any inteiests in common, no Common grievances, no common occupations, that darkness, which hides the feelings of one from the other, becomes inscrutable, and the two may live for ever side by side without fathoming each other. It is curious to see in what strange security those who occupied the upper and the middle stories of the social edifice lived together up to the last moment when the Revolution broke out, and to hear their ingenious disquisitions on the virtues of the common people, their gentleness, their attach- ment, their innocent amusements, up to the moment when 1793 was at their door— o sad spectacle, ridiculous and terrible I ' "

"Far be it from me to use a passage like that in the spirit of intimida- tion. I use it with a very different feeling. I wish the House not to disre- gard that historical experience, not to forget that solemn warning. I do not believe that the admission of a portion of the working classes to the electoral franchise can any longer be refused with safety." "I may allude incidentally to the statement we have heard in the course of the debate, that the bulk of the taxes are paid by the upper classes. I repudiate that doctrine altogether. It is only necessary to mention six articles; they shall be sugar, tea, coffee, malt, tobacco, and spirits. These six articles pretty nearly cover the interest of the National Debt, and the duties upon them are paid chiefly by the working classes. On the ground of taxation, there- fore, they are entitled to the suffrage ; on the ground of aucient usage they are entitled to it ; and on the ground of their admitted character and eon- duet, such as the Chanoeller of the Exchequer Allows to exist on their part —on the ground of their growing wealth, their growing intelligence, and their increasing numbers—they have a fair claim to a larger share of the national representation. In short, let me regard this question in what light I may, I come back to the conclusion that a considerable increase of the

working classes in the election of Members of Parliament for cities and bo- roughs is most expedient., most just, and most necessary." (Cheers.) Sir

Edward Lytton had asked—" Has the time come when it is safe to accept The counter principle that political power should begin to descend to the working classes ? So challenged, I do not hesitate for a moment to say that the time has come when political power should begin to descend to the work- ing classes." Admitting that no object has made such progress as a demand for the ballot—" I am not a convert to it"—Sir James showed how voting

Sir JOHN PAKIIVOTON, who showed great warmth of temper, ques- tioned the propriety of the resolution as a matter of order. A far higher authority than his own had said it was unparliamentary and irregular. The House was pledged to consider the question of Parliamentary re- form, and yet they were asked to violate that pledge. They were met by a resolution intended to overthrow the Government. The only course that could have been properly taken was to meet the bill by a di- rect negative. Lord John had moved the resolution because he thought the bill a safe and moderate measure. His course is as ungenerous as it is irregular. The Government took office with an avowed minority, yet Lord Palmerston boasted of tho forbearance they had received from their opponents. The Government has nothing to thank him for in this respect. Did he remember "the Cardwell plot" ? Lord Palmerston's claim to credit for forbearance surpasses for coolness anything that ever fell from his lips. The Government has honourably fulfilled its duty. Three Governments failed to fulfil their pledges—Lord Palmerston had not oven prepared his bill. " We have introduced a reform bill, but the noble viscount did not redeem his pledge." He spoke in a. tone of arrogance unusual between gentlemen. Had he been advised to take the course he supseo sted to the Government he would have spurned it with indignation. What he said about a dissolution of Parliainent—{that it depended as much on the House as the Govern- ment]—was an attack on the prerogative of the Crown. The tone of his speech made it impossible for the Government to accept his advice. The

resolution wag drawn for rejection—it is an offensive resolution. The Opposition have taken a factious curse; they may pass the resolotioe, but if so they will not have the bill. "We do not sit here to do the

bidding of the noble viscount." 'Sir John concurred in the censure passed by Sir Hugh Cairns upoo Lora John Russell. "We want A little

more of this plain speaking." The people "find loo great a tendency in public men to think of themselves and their own advancement, and, too little dispoeition to consider the welfare of the country," Sir John wound ' ,up his speech by an argumentative defepeo of the bill.

papers would facilitate intimidation and end in a demand for absolute se- cresy. Not ten days earlier the House had by common consent struck voting papers as utterly indefensible out of a bill relating to municipal elections ! Sir James objected to the savings bank clause—what would be said if it were reauired of a Peer or a Commoner that he should have a ba- lance of 60004 at his banker's before he could vote in either House ! If the Government did not think it consistent with their honour to take the reso- lution and proceed with the bill, he would not take any factious course to impede a dissolution. But "a day of heavy reckoning will come in the next Parliament, and within my memory no such responsibility was ever incurred by any Executive Government." If the Government consider the carrying of the resolution eqoivalent to a rejection of the measure, he thought the resolution the milder course of dealing with them—" they must meet their fate." The House must do its duty, and he should vote for the resolution and, if necessary, against the second reading. (Cheers.) Mr. Gr..tos•rorie moved tho adjournment of the debate. Sir Gnome- z GREY called attention to the statement of Sir John Pakington that "the highest authority" had described the course pursued in moving the resolution as irregular ; and asked the Speaker, the highest authority in that House, to give his opinion on the proceeding. Sir Joust Paxioo- TON said he did not refer to the Speaker, but to the highest and best authority out of doors, and he had heard that, although irregular, still as the resolution was germane to the bill, it would not be competent for the Speaker to refuse to put it. The SPEAKER confirmed the statements of Sir James Graham as to former practice' and declared that in point of order and regulority it is not possible to take exception to the form of the proposed resolution. Sir GEORGE Loons seemed to desire some pledge that the dobate should be closed on Tuesday. There were cries of "Hear, hear ! " and "No, no !" Several Members said they wanted to speak. Mr. Dia- Rama said he thought there was an indisposition to close the debate on Tuesday. He was ready to close it, but he should not press for its ter- mination.

Early on Tuesday evening Mr. DISRAELI expressed a hope that the debate would be adjourned until Thursday, and terminated on that night.

The debate was resumed by Mr. Gladstone, and his speech may be re- garded as the main contribution to the discussion for that evening, slime no other speaker of great mark rose after him.

Mr. GLADSTONE remarked that there had been a singular coincidence of opinion on all sides with respect to the great question of Parliament- ary Reform. Opinions lie within moderate and reasonable limits and afford a hope of an early and a satisfactory settlement. There is no dif- ference traceable to differences between political parties, and it is to be regretted that they were ranged in hostile debate with a division before them which would estrange those by whose united efforts alone is satis- factory settlement could be come to. Now as to the form of the reso- lution. This is the first occasion in which a resolution has been moved on the second reading of a bill the purport of which refers to portions of the measure that might be dealt with in Committee. If not irregular, therefore, it is a novelty, and an inconvenient novelty. It has been said that Lord John Russell had made a factious motion. That is not de- served. While Lord Palmerston recommends the Government to take tho resolution and proceed with the bill, Lord John Russell trusted that not only the resolution would be carried, but the bill would be rejected. These declarations from the two ?rent exponents of the resolution do not indicate a deeply-laid plot for a joint attack to be followed by the occu- pation of place. Sir Hugh Cairns had, by a rhetorical inadvertence, spoilt an effective speech by dropping words reflecting upon Lord John Russell, and Mr. Gladstone hoped that Sir Hugh would express his regret. Now, if we could have a strong Government Mr. Gladstone would have been induced to vote for the resolution • but he found only a limited agree- ment and he saw that after carrying the resolution the Opposition would pursue separate courses. The Government are responsible for the embarrass- ment because they did not take the wise advice of Mr. Henley and Mr. Walpole. But that is past. The Government are responsible for the bill, and the House for what it does in respect of the bill. The Government have a claim upon the House and nothing should be done except what is absolutely necessary to intercept the progress of the bill. Mr. Gladstone pictured the failures of preceding Governments greatly to the amusement of the House. "In 1&51 my noble friend, then the first Minister of the Crown, approached the question of reform, and commenced with a promise of what was to be done twelvemonths afterwards. In 1852 he brought in a Bill,. and it disappeared, together with the Ministry. In 1853 we had the Ministry of Lord Aberdeen, which commenced with a promise of reform in twelvemonths time. Well, 1854 arrived ; with it arrived the Bill, but with it also arrived the war, and in the war was a reason, and I believe a good reason, for abandoning the Bill. Then came the Government of my noble friend the member for Tiverton, which was not less unfortunate in the circumstances which prevented the redemption of those pledges that hail been given to the people from the mouth of the Sovereign op the Throne. In 1856 my noble friend escaped all responsibility for a Reform Bill on ac- count of the war ; in 1656 he escaped all responsibility for reform on ac- count of the peace—(/owl laughter and eheertng)—ia 1857 ho escaped that inconvenient responsibility by the dissolution of Parliament • and in 1868 he escaped again by. the dissolution of his Government. (Zimmerf laughter and cheers)." This series of events strengthens the misgivings of the people that the House is reluctant to deal with the question, makes it more hazardous to interpose obstacles, and requires the progress of this hill to completion. Now the Government have announced that if the resolution be passed their bill cannot proceed. They may be right or wrong, but that is their view. And therefore the question is whether ths bill should go into Committee, or not go into Committee. What is the Bill ? He concurred in nearly everything that has been said against it. "I cannot be a party to the disfranchisement of the county freeholders re- siding in boroughs. I cannot be a party to the uniformity of the franchise. I cannot be a party to a Reform Bill which does not lower the suffrage iP boroughs. (Cheers.) I may go a stop further' and say it appears to mo that the lowering of the suffrage in boroughs is the main purpose of having a Reform Bill—(Opposition cheers)—and that unless we are to have that lowering of the suffrage it would be better that we should not waste our time on this subject." (Cheers.) He was bound also to say that he ap- proved of that portion of the bill relating to the redistribution of seats. Ire understood Lord Palmerston to approve of it. [Lord Palmerston assented.] The question of redistribution of scats is full half the measure. The bill of 1854 would have gone to the dogs, because it proposed extensive disfran- chisement. Here Mr. Gladstone went into a defence of the small boroughs. They are the means of supplying the race of men who are trained to can; on the Government of the country, the masters of civil wisdom, like Mr. Burke and Sir James Macintosh. Mr. Pelham, Lord Chatham, Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Canning, Sir Robert Peel, all first sat for small boroughs. 11 there is to be no ingress to the House but one, and that one the suit rages of a large mass of voters there will be a dead level of mediocrity. The extsa• sion, the durability of our liberty, is to be attributed, under Providence, to distinguished statesmen introduced to the House at an early age. But large constituencies will not return boys' and therefore he hoped the small boroughs would be retained. These facts form a reason for ping into Com- mittee. What practical advantage does Lord John propose from his resold- tion. He could carry his views in Committee; but if he pressed Ida resolu- tion many who agree with it will vote against it. Lord John says be proposed it to avoid misconception but he has not escaped cavil. If the resolution hal not been moved Lord John and his friends would have been the "mnste.r:o. the situation." If the resolution were not passed they would arnin b jects they seek. But if they passed the resolution the next step would, not rest with them. Mr. Bright talked of "huddling up" the bill, digging a hole and burying it. Now there is no huddling up—" we are not going to vote upon it by ballot"—" the only ground for fear in connexion witethe subject is that the agitation should be prolonged." The resolution can have no other effect than that of retarding a settlement of the question. They should consider, in looking to consequences, not the interest of the Govern- ment, but of reform itself. The question of the fate of the Ministry has been pushed too far. Mr. Walpole's picture of Lord Mahnesbury as the mediator of Europe' for instance, was too warm in its colouring. It is not the question of the Government, but of reform. A dissolution would be an evil, a resignation would not contribute to the settlement of the question. It is now in the hands of the House ; its further postponement they would have to regret ; admitting there is no combination, a majority would be a misfortune to all except Mr. Bright, who has said that he does not wish the matter to be settlei now. There is a golden opportunity, the House should not let it slip. Mr. Gladstone would not be governed by any other considera- tion than the simple one—what course will most tend to settle the question. He should, therefore, give his vote neither to the Government nor to party when he voted to negative the resolution of Lord John Russell. (Cheers.) At the end of this speech Members rushed out in herds, and the suc- ceeding speaker Mr. Moncrieff, was for a time inaudible, Mr. MoN- CRIEFF justified the course taken by Lord John Russell. Mr. ROBERT PALMER entertained the most material objections to the bill, but he should vote against the resolution and for the second reading. Mr. WESTHEAD and Mr. COLLIER supported Lord John's course, while Major EnwAnns and Sir JOHN Wiessii appeared on the other side. Mr. OWEN STANLEY explained that he gave his notice of motion because it seemed that the Government were disposed to abdicate their functions, and he withdrew it because it became useless when Mr. Whiteside said the reso- lution of Lord John was a motion of no confidence. Mr. MACAULAY made a long speech in defence of the provisions of the bill. Mr. HARDY, an "official speaker," took the same line, and he was answered and smartly corrected by Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD. The adjournment of the debate was moved by Mr. Du CANE—Mr. Cox and a host of Radical Members protesting against the attempt to close it on Thursday.

The resumption of the debate on Thursday, the closing night, was pre- ceded by "personal explanations." Lord ELCHO said he had defended Sir Hugh Cairns from the censure addressed to him in consequence of his remarks on Lord John Russell. Lord Elcho did so because he thought the language used did not affect the private honour of Lord John Rus- sell. Sir Mimi CAIRNS explained that he had used the words "politi- cal aggrandizement," meaning thereby the political importance that at- taches to a person who successfully assails a Ministry ; and that what he meant by "private advantage" was that Lord John would obtain a dis- tinctive advantage if he could contrive to unite the sections of the Oppo- sition, even only for a time. He had no intention to suggest any 'motive approaching to what is sordid ; and no one could be more pained than he was at supposing the words were so used or understood. Lord JOHN RUSSELL remarked that he had sought no explanation. He had been willing to accept either the statement of Mr. Hardy that Lord John sought to replace himself at the head of the Liberal party, or the ex- planation of Mr. Gladstone that the words were used by rhetorical inad- vertence. He also felt that if Sir Hugh had used the words in an offen- sive.manner he was injuring himself. After what Sir Hugh had said, Lord John was perfectly satisfied. "I have always admired his abilities, and I trust that the talents which he has displayed both at the bar and in Parliament may lead him to that eminence for which they so admirably fit him." (Cheers.) Shortly after this explanation, Lord PALMERSTON inquired whether the debate would finish that night. Mr. DISRAELI said he was ready ; and the cries of "Divide" showed that the House was willing. When Mr. Du Cane renewed the discussion it was, therefore, foreseen that its protracted existence was nearly at an end. With this in view, and with the sort of implied understanding that the time between the renewal of the debate and tile division should be occupied mainly by the lesser gods, it was not unnatural that the discussion was rather dull. Mr. Du CANE made a good Ministerial speech. He was immediately followed by Sir ROBERT PEEL on the other side. Sir Robert kept the House laughing for an hour before dinner by his witticisms. He had sat there "for seven nights almost without any solution of continuity." We who sit here in the vicinity of the gangway have been positively bewildered. Conserva- tives—Mr. Henley, Mr. Walpole, and the burly junior Member for Dor- setahire, had expressed almost Radical opinions. He put a simple question—" Where are we ?" Might he ask Mr. Disraeli to tell the fate of the bill, or "the fashionable novelist opposite" "what he will do with it ?"

"The noble Lord the Member for the City has been taunted from that (the Ministerial) side with a combination with the honourable Member for Birmingham. That, certainly, would be a very singular combination ; but we have seen combinations not less extraordinary in this House ; and, if you refer to the back of this Bill, you will see the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer coupled with that of General Peel. (Laughter and cheers.)

Thus Sir Robert rattled through the personal topics of the debate, and concluded by calling on the House to stand fast by the principles of the Liberal party and carry the resolution by a great majority.

Mr. GASKELL, Mr. EGERTON, Mr. COBBETT, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. WYVILL, Mr. HODGSON, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. GREENALL, and Mr. WALTER all de- clared that they should support the Government, but not one of them re- garded the bill as unobjectionable. On the other side Mr. BLANEY, Mr. WESTERN, and Mr. GILPIN, supported the resolution.

The debate now took a new character of interest. Mr. HENLEY de- livered a speech against the bill and expressed his intention of voting for the second reading. The bill contains many objectionable provisions, but it is desirable that the question shall be settled and settled this year. The resolution will do no good and he should vote against it. The ob- jectionable and dangerous provisions of the bill can be amended or struck out in Committee.

"Our constitution, I believe, has afforded more liberty and greater security for life and property than any other in history. I don't want to see it changed ; I want, if I can, to amend it, but in the old way and by the ex- tension of the advantages which it at present possesses. My objection to the Government Bill is, that it goes in a different direction altogether. There have boon philosophic minds at work on it who wanted to make a new con- stitution instead of improving the old one. My idea of a Bill is one that shall improve what we at present possess, and I hope that when we go into Committee we shall give that character to this Bill." (Cheers.) Mr. ROEBUCK said the two great objects the House should have in view are the extension of the suffrage to the working classes and the distribution of electoral bodies. The bill will not give satisfaction to the working classes. If power be given to the majority they can have no interest in misusing it. The working classes have made England what she is ; give them power, they will exalt not depress you. That is why they should be invested with power. Then as to the means. Mr. Bright thought no good could be got from the bill, Mr. Roebuck thought otherwise. Mr. Bright is a great orator, but not a great statesman ; if he had combined the two he might have ruled the country. How can the bill be rendered most serviceable ? Can it be left in the hands of the Government ? Shall we be thrown upon the tender mercies of Lord Palmerston assisted by Lord John Russell ? Lord Palmerston is not a Reformer. In office he was the greatest monopolist Mr. Roebuck ever saw. He ought never to return to power. Lord John reminds Mr. Roebuck of a Chinese lady's foot " which has been so swathed and bound that, although it is to the owner's eye fair and beautiful to look upon, it does not help her onwards. The noble lord's mind, Sir. has been so swathed and bound by party considerations that it is unfit for the task of ruling this great country.' He thinks nobody can govern the country but the Whigs, that England is a Whig appanage. We can get a better Government. Until the Liberal party is united Mr. Roebuck would rather have weakness on the Treasury Bench, than the arrogance and insolence of Lord Palmerston. The Reform Act of l832 has made the House independent ; admit the working classes and aristocratic predo- minance will be destroyed. The people will govern themselves, and they will be better governed. If Mr. Disraeli would frankly say that he would in Committee accept a 6/. borough franchise, Mr. Roebuck would vote for the second reading; if not it would be more humane to put the Minis- try out of their agony at once. "If the gentlemen opposite are prepared so to alter their Bill as to gain all the noble lord intends, except the transference of political power' I ask him why he will not accept their Bill ? No doubt, Sir, the noble lord thinks he can govern this country better than gentlemen opposite. I have no doubt that is his feeling. It is a very natural one, and I dare say that the noble lord might retort upon me, that I believe that I could govern the country better. I at once acknowledge that I do believe it. (Great laugh- ter.) I have no doubt that I shall never be tried, and therefore my estima- tion of myself in that particular will never be falsified." The House was now full ; midnight was near ; and the excitement of the situation grew every moment. Mr. DISRAELI, the last speaker, rose after Mr. Roebuck, and for two hours pleaded for his bill. He described it as founded on three great principles—extension of the suffrage, the bill will add 400,000 voters to the constituency ; the enfranchisement of large communities not represented ; and the maintenance of thespresent borough system. These are the principles of the bill—" all the rest is matter of detail"—it should be discussed in Committee ; but he would not pledge himself to defer to any determination of the Committee. The House is in favour of the principles of the bill--(" .21-o, no !")—and yet they were asked to adopt a resolution upon points of detail which had been thrust into their hands. It was said the bill disfranchised free- holders. It does nothing of the sort ; but the mover of the resolution had disfranchised voters by the thousand in 1832, and had proposed to disfranchise 50,000 freemen. Mr. Disraeli gave a long history of the ten pound county franchise pro- positions ; told Lord Palmerston that the Conservatives had once saved him on that question ; and reproached Lord Palmerston for not having last ses- sion extended the same courtesy to the Government of Lord Derby when it was hard bested by Mr. Locke King. Mr. Disraeli went into the long story to show how 'impracticable it would have been to have proposed a twenty-pound franchise. If he had done so the struggle would have taken place on that point. As to the borough franchise Lord Palmerston has a complete respect for the ten-pound franchise. Mr. Disraeli knows all the tricks that can be played with it, how it can be managed. It would have been feeble, a dan- . gerous, and a foolish policy to have proposed a twenty-pound county and six-pound borough franchise. Lord John Russell is for admitting the work- ing classes' how he has not explained. Sir James Graham is pledged to the municipal franchise, and as the two were clearly conspirators in drawing up the resolution it is an irresistible inference that Lord John is pledged to the political programme of Sir James. Now in what does Mr. Bright's pro- gramme exceed that of the confederates ? Mr. Bright would not decline to act with the noble lord. There are open questions in all cabinets; "and practically speaking, on the programme, I see no reason whatever why the honourable Member for Birmingham should not be adopted as a trusted and honoured colleague of the right honourable gentleman and of the noble lord." What Mr. Disraeli could not reconcile was the mild Conservatism of Lord Palmerston and some distinguished colleagues of Lord Aberdeen "with the avowed, the determined, the advanced, almost the flagrant po- licy of the confederates of Mr. Bright." Mr. Disraeli declaimed against democracies, which have their parasites as well as aristocracies, eulogized our mixed constitution, and defended the provisions he had made in his bill for the representation of interests, insisting that among those admitted were the working classes. He made a personal attack upon Lord Palmer- ston for his speech, and upon Lord John Russell, for living in an atmo- sphere of combinations and cunning resolutions when he is out of office. He said that by bringing forward this untoward motion and by sneering at Lord Malmeabury, at a moment when -negotiations are pending, when an awful responsibility rests on the Minister, when Lord John's constituents implore the Chancellor of the Exchequer for "peace," Lord John bad not only em- barrassed the Government but injured the public service. The Government thought they had secured peace. "I thought the time had arrived when I might have come down to this House and told them that the dark dis- quietude which for three months has hung over Europe had entirely passed away. But for this untoward and unhappy motion of the noble lord that might have been." (Ironical cheers and counter cheering.) Mr. Disraeli terminated his speech by glorifying the deeds of the Derby Administration, and making some unintelligible allusions to a dissolation. The Government had been sustained in all its arduous struggles, by a con- viction of the justice of the people of England ; and were sustained by it at

,

that moment • amid all the manoeuvres of Parliamentary intrigue and all the machinations of party warfare." (Loud cheering.)

It was now a quarter to one o'clock, and the Speaker having put the question, the House proceeded to a division. The greatest excitement prevailed in all parts of the House. Upwards of 600 Members were present ; a considerable number of distinguished persons occupied the seats assigned to visitors on either side of the entrance behind the bar and the gallery immediately over the clock ; while both the Speaker's and Stranger's Galleries were crowded with an excited audience. Up- wards of twenty minutes were consumed in taking the division, and as the moment for announcing the mcault approached, the exeitement rose to the highest pitch. The great bulk of the Members as usual, on return- ing from the division lobbies, resumed their places on either side of the chamber, but a large number of them had assembled in a dense crowd at the bar. At length the tellers made their appearance, and then there were cries of" Order, order !" and "Bar, bar !" As the tellers took their places, it was seen in an instant on which side the majority lay, and as they advanced to the table a vociferous cheer, in anticipation of the ac- tual result, rose from the Opposition side.

The question put was, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question." The numbers were—Ayes, 291; Noes, 330; majority, 39.

As the numbers were announced, the House again rang with a tri- umphant shout from the Opposition benches. It will be perceived by the division that 621 Members were in attendance—a number unprece- dented, except on an extraordinary occasion, such as this.

When the Speaker put Lord John's Resolution, Mr. WYLD moved an amendment touching the Ballot. But he was assailed by Mr. BERKE- MET, Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. Grasoar, and implored to withdraw it. Mr. Wrui, however, persisted; several friends of the Ballot left the House, and the amendment was negatived by 328 to 98. After this Lord John Russell's resolution was carried, and on the mo- tion of Mr. DISRAELI the House adjourned until Monday.

THE CONGRESS.

The Earl of CLARENDON asked for information on the state of Europe. Already great loss has been sustained by the paralyzing uncertainty that has prevailed. "It. is idle to suppose that war has not been seriously contemplated," and more idle to suppose that when once begun war can be kept within prescribed limits. Against a war between Austria and France public opinion has been expressed with unprecedented unan- imity.. England stands in a position to be useful to all parties. He was therefore glad to hear that Lord Cowley had been sent to Vienna, and sent, as he understood from the newspapers, with no full powers. The Government was right in not committing itself to -any distinct proposi- tion. Lord Cowley is believed to have brought back satisfactory assur- ances, and if so, it is impossible he should not have been met in a corres- ponding spirit by the Emperor of the French. "If Austria has agreed to a congress, we may infer that she is prepared to make some concession to the public opinion of Europe. In her present con- dition, with her vast military preparations, and relying as she does on the spirit and patriotisn of Germany, she can well afford to do so without the slightest taint upon her honour or the smallest danger to her interests. Then, my lords, I think we may feel confident that the peace of Europe will not be disturbed, because every shadow of a pretext for war will then have been removed." He asked for any information Lord Malmesbury could give respecting Lord Cowley's mission. The Earl of MALMESBURY said that Lord Cowley was sent to Vienna "without any official instructions whatever," or, as Lord Malmesbury said in obedience to a hint from Lord Derby, conveyed in a whisper, with "no instructions of an official character.' He left Paris perfectly intimate with all the ideas and Views of the French Government on what is called the Italian question." "He ascertained that there were points on which by the good offices of England the French. and Austrian Governments might be induced to agree.' While he was away from Paris, the French and Russian Governments entered into communica- tion with each other ; it was "with the consent and approbation of France" that Russia proposed the Congress of the Five Powers ; and our Government signified its assent in anticipation of the Russian pro- posal. The Governments are not agreed on the details of the subject, nor the .composition of the Congress. But it is the opinion of the Go- vernment to which Lord Malmesbury belongs, that "the Italian states should, one and all, have an opportunity given to them of expressing -their opinion in some way or other, upon the subjects which will be there discussed." And such declarations have been obtained from Aus- tria and Sardinia as must prevent any breach of the peace, except from "some untoward and nearly impossible accident."

. . ITN/onion. or JURIES..

Lord CAMPBELL brought a bill into the House of Lords to dis- pense with unanimity in juries ; to provide that they shall have refreshment and all needful accommodation, and that when they can- not agree after six hours' deliberation a verdict of nine shall be taken. On Tuesday he moved that it should be read a second time. As early as Henry III. unanimity was not required in juries, but in the time of Edward I. unanimity was required and the Sheriff was directed to keep a jury sine eibo et petu until they agreed. The number 12 was taken because there were 12 Apostles, 12 Prophets, 12 Judges, 12 Tribes of Israel, 12 months in the year, and 12 Csesars. Formerly jurymen were freeholders, but the latest qualification, under Sir Robert Peel's act, required them to -live in houses with seven windows ! Blackstone said that if juries did not agree they were to be carried about from town to town, and oral tradition added carried to the confines of the county and shot into a ditch. Now great inconvenience arose from requiring unanimity. Mr. Hallam described it as a "preposterous relic of barbarism " ; the Common Law Commission of 1830 recommended a verdict of nine; the House of Com- mons had sanctioned a bill for Seathind in accordance with that recom- mendation; Mr. Justice Erie, formerly an opponent of the change in England, and Mr. Justice Crowder, agreed with Lord Campbell's propo- sal. He mentioned several instances in which juries had to be discharged because they could not agree. Lord LYNDHURST opposed the change. The bill would alter one of the oldest of the fundamental laws of the kingdom. Lord Campbell's plea- santry about carrying juries to the confines of the county and throwing them into a ditch is quite erroneous and not sustained by any law or any law book.- his own experience Lord Lyndhurst demonstrated that the inconvenience Occasioned by the law is slight. In not more than one case in five hundred are the jury discharged. Even in Wales, while Lord Lyndhurst administered justice, not one case occurred of a Jury being discharged for holding out Lord Lyndhurst apologized for want of physical vigour to give distinct utterance to his opinions and arguments.

Earl Onalavrmm supported the bill. The Loan CHANCELLOR took many and serious objections to its provisions. It was strongly supported by Lord CaAiswortni and Lord Kramsnows'

r and opposed by Lord

. WENSLEYDALE. On a division the motion for the second reading was negatived by 23 to 7. THE WEDNESDAY Seem°.

The Wednesday sitting was devoted to business and not to talk. Two bills introduced by Mr. DUNLOP were read a second time. One, the Trial by Jury (Scotland) Bill, proposes to amend that institution. In all cri- minal trials North of the Tweed, a jury consists of fifteen persons, and a majority returns the verdict. In civil cases, from 1815 to 1854, a jury of twelve was required to give an unanimous verdict. That was found inconvenient by the Scotch and contrary to the old usage, and an act passed by Mr. Dunlop in 1854 provided that a majority of three-fourths should return a verdict after deliberating for six hours. Mr. Dunlop's new bill reduces the hours to three.

The second bill, Law of Ascertainment Bill, provides a now machinery for ascertaining the law of one of the three kingdoms upon a trial taking place in the court of another. -A ease is to be transmitted by the court trying the cause to the court whose opinion is desired, and that the latter court, after hearing counsel, should transmit its opinion. The Somerrou- GENERAL said that the clauses of the bill would have to be carefully scrutinized in Committee, as the effect of some will be to give the House of Lords powers in colonial cases it never before possessed.

On the motion of Lord Joss RUSSELL, his Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill was referred to a Select Committee, because it has been very much altered in detail.

A bill to throw open the Admiralty Court to general practitioners, brought in by Mr. HADFIELD, was read a second time.