been stated by Lord John Russell; that a great change had taken place in the Government of this country, and a great minister, whose administration had been misunderstood and misrepresented, had been, therefore, summarily dismissed.

Lord Dudley Stuart considered the change in the composition of the ministry, by the removal of a colleague on the most paltry pretences, a lamentable one. He was convinced that it had been a foregone conclusion to get rid of Lord Palmerston-an event which would not, in his opinion, conduce to British interests.

Sir Harry Verney thought that upon the facts as stated, the Cabinet were justified in the removal of the ex-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. B. Osborne, after adverting to the condition of the north of Ireland, observed that he had not heard with any satisfaction the explanations between the two noble Lords. He deemed the removal of the late Foreign Secretary a great national loss; but he could not entirely approve of the manner in which he had spoken of the recent transactions in France.

Mr. Roebuck said, that looking at the critical state of this country and its colonies, and of foreign Europe, it was a time to scan narrowly the power and capacity of those who were charged with the Government. The Foreign Secretary had been summarily dismissed; the right arm of the Ministry had been cut off, and what was left? Deficiencies were patent in various departments of the State, especially the Admiralty and the Colonial Office, which had created discontent in the colonies; and with respect to the law, there had been mischievous peddling changes, but

there was a want of a presiding mind.

Mr. Napier drew attention to the outrages in the north of Ireland, the result of a desperate confederacy against life and property, with which the ordinary powers of the law were unable to contend.

Mr. Roche deplored the crimes which disgraced his country, arising, he said, out of the land question, but he could not consent to recur to coercive measures. He adverted to the necessity of a Reform Bill for Ireland, and to the objectionable mode of conducting Irish business in the House.

Mr. Disraeli treated the reasons assigned for the removal of Lord Palmerston as unsatisfactory. He had never severed the policy of that noble Lord, which he thought a pernicious one, from that of the Cabinet. Was it their present policy? If so, he would rather it should be administered by the late Secretary, whom all recognized as an able man, than by any other person. He complained of the frequent, unnecessary, and unusual introduction of Her Majesty's name into the explanation of Lord John Russell, whereby he relieved himself of a responsibility which he should have been the first to adopt. He criticised the manner in which the projected amendment of the Reform Act was announced in the Royal speech, professing, on behalf of his party, a sincere desire to receive the proposition without prejudice; but if he found that, under the name and guise of a Reform Bill, it was only a measure to re-construct the House so as to favour the predominance of some political party, he should offer it his determined opposition. He noticed a strange omission in the speech from the throne. Last year the country

had been agitated by the aggression of the Pope and the letter of Lord John Russell, who had denounced it as part of an organized conspiracy against the Protestant liberties of Europe. What had been the fate of the Bill which the noble Lord had introduced in order to repel that aggression? It had been treated with contumely; the law had been set at nought as flagrantly in England as in Ireland. There was no notice of this subject in the Queen's speech; yet the country had a right to know what were the intentions or present opinions of the Government with respect to it. There was another omission in the speech-the diffi

culties of the cultivators of the soil, which, if not sympathized with, ought at least to be noticed. Upon this topic Mr. Disraeli dilated, appealing to a very recent admission of Mr. M'Culloch, that the peculiar burdens upon the land entitled that class to countervailing duties, as a compensation, and depicting in dark colours the sufferings and the perils which he ascribed to our past commercial legislation.

After a long and discursive speech from Mr. Grattan about Irish affairs, Lord J. Russell made some explanatory remarks upon particular passages of the debate. The motion was then agreed to without a division.

of the ministerial scheme. The noble Lord commenced his speech by observing that with reference to the satisfactory state of this country, in its home and foreign relations, he thought the present was a more proper time for considering this subject than when the country was in a state of agitation and excitement. After a brief exposition of the principles upon which such a measure should be based, and adverting to the importance of the functions performed by that House, Lord John noticed the prominent features of various schemes of Parliamentary reform that had been proposed antecedent to the Act of 1832, and explained the main objects contemplated by that great measure, namely the disfranchisement of nomination boroughs and the enfranchisement of large towns then excluded from the representation. It was not then intended that there should be no boroughs with small constituencies. He thought it would be extremely unwise, and that it would destroy the balance of the constitution, to say that only counties and large cities and towns should enjoy the franchise, excluding small representations. In regard to disfranchisement, therefore, the present Bill proposed to disfranchise only in cases of proved corruption, and by another Bill he should propose to make a considerable change in the mode of inquiry into cases of corruption, whereby, upon an address of the House, founded even upon common fame, it should be lawful for the Crown to appoint a Commission, clothed with the same powers of inquiry as those which had been so effectual in the case of St. Albans. In respect to the extension of the franchise, the grounds upon which

the present measure proceeded were, first, that the Reform Act, in requiring a 101. qualification for household voting, had placed the suffrage rather too high; secondly, -and this consideration had great influence upon his mind-the growing intelligence of the people. He proposed, therefore, to reduce the household qualification to 5l. rated value, which would add a great number of persons to the constituency, to whom he was persuaded the franchise might be safely intrusted. He did not propose to change the general constitution of the county qualification, but he thought that if persons with a qualification of 201. a-year rated value were entitled to sit on juries, they could not be unfit to be intrusted with the county franchise. It was proposed, likewise, to reduce the qualification derived from copyholds and long leases from 10l. to 5l., and to give the county franchise to persons paying 40s. a-year assessed taxes who lived without the limits of a borough, and who were now excluded from voting. There had been an outcry, Lord John observed, against small boroughs, founded upon a false assumption that all such places were infected with corruption, whereas many were not liable to this reproach, which did attach to certain large towns. But it was said, not only did the influence of property prevail in such small boroughs, but that in some cases it approached the character of direct nomination. In order to remove this reproach, it was proposed, in the case of boroughs having less than 500 electors, to add thereto neighbouring places, and as most of these small boroughs were situated in agricultural counties, the general

balance of interests established by the Reform Act would not be disturbed. Upon the subject of a property qualification for members, he retained the opinion he had last year, and he had introduced a clause in the Bill repealing all the Acts since the Act of Anne by which property qualifications were required. It appeared to him, also, that the state of the oaths taken at the table of the House was not such as could be consistently maintained. This Bill, therefore, proposed to alter these oaths, and in one of them he had not inserted the words "on the true faith of a Christian." The Bill would further provide that, upon a change of offices held under the Crown, vacation of the seat and re-election should not be required. The noble Lord stated the few slight alterations he contemplated with respect to Scotland and Ireland. Although he did not propose to alter the county franchise in the latter country, he did propose to reduce that for cities and boroughs from 81. to 5. In conclusion, he observed, that the question of franchise was not dissociated with that of the instruction and education of the people, and he was convinced that, if in another session of Parliament the House should take into consideration the means of establishing a really national system of education, it would confer one of the greatest blessings the country could receive.

Mr. Hume did not receive the Bill in a very favourable manner. He complained of several omissions in the scheme, and especially that the subjects of the ballot and of triennial Parliaments were evaded. Sir J. Walsh reproached Lord J. Russell with again tampering with the institutions of the country, after having carried a comprehensive measure of reform that was to

obviate the necessity of further changes. These inroads upon the constitution he believed would either reduce this country to a democratic republic, or disable that House from fulfilling its proper functions.

Mr. H. Berkeley thought the noble Lord's Bill, though it would not be altogether approved, would be generally agreeable to the country. He ought, however, to have given voters a protection at the polling places by adopting the ballot.

Mr. P. Howard spoke generally in favour of the measure.

Sir R. Inglis protested against the meditated alteration of the oath of abjuration—a matter utterly unconnected with the subject of Parliamentary reform, and he trusted that the House would not sanction this part of the Bill.

Mr. Bright said, although he disapproved of some portions of the measure, which fell short of what the country expected, still there were other portions which would give some degree of satisfaction to large classes. He regretted that Lord John had not, by the ballot, taken out of the hands of employers the power of influencing the employed. He thought the county franchise, reduced to 201., still too high, and urged that the principle of disfranchisement should have been carried further, that larger constituencies should have additional representatives, or that new constituencies should be created.

Mr. Baillie pointed out what he considered the defects and deficiencies of the Bill, which would prevent, he thought, its becoming a permanent measure, or securing the confidence of the great body of sincere Reformers. The present Ministers must bear all the responsibility of this attempt to