THE GREAT REFORM DEBATE.

Otago Witness, Issue 398, 16 July 1859, Page 5

THE GREAT REFORM DEBATE.

From the Nonconformist is extracted the following racy notes of the proceedings of each evening during the progress of the Reform Debate, which terminated in the defeat of the Derby Ministry :—: — THE riRST NIGIIt's DEBATE. — MARCn 21ST,

MONDAY.

At length we come to the main struggle of the session — that struggle which is understood to involve the fate of the Cabinet or the dissolution of Parliament. We make no apology for passing over unnoticed the comparatively unimportant proceedings of Thursday and Friday, and selecting for description that which will most interest our readers — the first night's debate on the Ministerial Reform Bill. Considering the profound apathy with which, it is still alleged, the question of Parliamentary Reform is everywhere regarded by the people, the signs of animation both in the House, and in the lobbies, agreeably disappoint expectation. True, there is no turbulent or threatening mob in Palace-yard — but the muster in Westminster Hall is considerable, and the corridors and lobbies are thronged. Within the House appearances arc after the same fashion. Every bench is occupied, both the members' galleries are filled, and quite a crowd of honorable gentlemen, who can find no sitting room, stand at the bar. The murmur of conversation sways to and fro like the noise of heaving billows, and the preliminary business is got through without exciting any attention. Lord Derby is present in the peers' box, and the American Minister, Mr. Dallas, occupies his oft-frequented seat in the gallery for distinguished strangers. When the petitions have been presented, the questions asked, and the notices given, the clerk is bidden to read the orders of the day, the first of which is, Bill for the Representation of the People — second reading. Mr. Disraeli immediately moves that the bill be now read a second time ; whereupon Lord John Russell, on the opposite side of the table, rises to move his amendment.

The noble lord was in tolerable good feather on the occasion. He had brought his lady and little boy down to the House with him, and thejr doubtless looked down upon him with pride from the ladies' gallery. He was once again in his old place as the leader of the Liberal party ! He was conducting bis hosts to certain victory. He saw before him a notdistant pricmership. He had, moreover, to handle a subject with which, more than any other, he has identified his name and fame. How could lie fail of catching the inspiration of the moment ? He did catch it. He was argumentative, animated, we may almost add, impassioned. The noble lord's elocution was never elegant. There is no grace in his gestures. He advances and retreats with tiresome uniformity, and seems quite undecided whether to put his hands on the table before him, or beneath his coat-tail behind him. But his countenance lights up as his soul warms, and his voice gradually acquires a tone of impressiveness. The noble lord, however, did not elicit any remarkable demonstrations of enthusiasm. He has few personal friendships in the House— and although his leadership of the Liberal party may be acquiesced in, it is not much liked. He kept pmty closely within the limits marked out for him' by his amendment — made no promises — sketched no programme — did the work which the immediate occasion required — and that was all. His peroration was dignified — the last sentence of it was touching — but throughout his speech the prominent idea appeared to be, not so much what was due to the people, but what the antecedcnU and reputation and future prospects of Lord John Russell demanded. He was listened to with marked respect, but with no warmer feeling.

The moment the noble lord had resumed his seat, and the amendment had been read from the chair, up started Lord Stanley, and without preface plunged into the heart "of his speech. We could not but regret his occupying such a position as that into which the necessities of kinship, office, and party have dragged him. Lord Stanley, however, is just the man to lead on a forlorn hope. lie is proud, manlj;, unflinching— lie is also logical, nervous, sometimes eloquent. Whatever of philosophy can be made available for the defence of a -weak position, he can command. His arguments are always thoughtful. His sentences are always compact. And he has character, which is more than can be said of all the members of the Cabinet. As he read his speech — for the noble lord usually reads on great occasions— the House paid him the most respectful attention. Sir E. L. Bulwer sat at his bide, making an ear-trumpet of bis hand, r and listening with rapt satisfaction. Lord Stanley took his stand on the Ministerial measure and defended every portion of it, not as abstractedly the best measure that could be framed, but as practically the best measure that could be passed. He treated Lord John's amendment as meant to designate want of confidence in the Government, and loftily accepted this issue. Still, the noble member for King's Lynn was not happy, nor effective. As a written speech, it was destitute, of course, of those points which extempore debate never fails^ to supply— its personalities were too studied— the arguments to which it gave an answer had many of them not been broached — it was intellectual — it was powerful but it was not impressive. The noble lord, however, was thoroughly animated throughout, and although lie did not keep up the sequency of the debate, he did not diminish its interest."

The artillery has spoken— great battles, we believe, usually commence with a cannonade. And now there is a general retreat towards dinner, and the fire of small arms commences. The rush towards the door, however, is somewhat checked by the rising of a tall youn^ man, with his hair parted down the middle" fashionably dressed, and having a somewhat rakish air. He is Mr. Sturt, one of the members for Dorsetshire, He occupies a place on the third row behind the Treasury Bench, and therefore, may be naturally expected to defeud the measure. Not a bit of it ! He rises to denounce it for not meeting the iust expectations of the people. There is a rollicking candour in his strain of easy going remark which is highly amusing. " People say," he observes, " that county members are deficient in expansive intellect— l am a county member —and I have inked with the class a good deal for some weeks past— and 'pon my word I begin to be of that opinion too." Roars of laughter were elicited by this frank confession. But the hon. gentleman manfully stood by the working classes as worthy of being admitted within the pale of citizenship— only he meant to vote for the second reading of the bill, which, he thought, by altering some provisions, lez\ mg out others, and adding others, might be converted into a passable measure.

Viscount Bury completed the " ringing out," a task, as he good-humouredly remarked which, however disagreeable, must fall to the lot of some one. He retained about sixty members for his audience, and could not be expected to make a very lively stir amongst vacant benches. He very unequivocally condemned the bill. Then up got Mr. Ker Seymer, a fluent, sensible, and rather ineffective speaker, to deliver a rapid defence of the main principles of the bill— a defence which bavin* been well prepared was not particularly apropos of anything that went before. Mr. Salomons made a few neat observations in support of the claims of the working classes— and Mr. Liddell, in a namby-pamby speech, argued, with Lord Stanley, that they must be admitted discriminately, and not as a body, to the privileges of citizenship.

Sir Charles Wood, now that the House began to refill, came forward to support Lord John's amendment. There is something in the right hon. baronet's manner which is not

agreeable. We do not refer now to his jerking delivery, which makes his intermittent loquacity tiresome to the nerves, but to the singularly self-satisfied tone, dashed Avith ill temper, which pervades all his great efforts. He is however a practised debater, tolerably skilful offence, and an adept in the unscrupulous use of any party weapon upon w Inch he can lay bis hand. The idj.itity ol" suffrage, proposed by the Bill, came in for his uncompromising hostility, as paving the way to equal electoral districts— and he advocated a lowering of the borough franchise, but in a strain that indicated more fear of the people, than trust in them. We agree, however, with Sir Charles, that the Bill restores the worst evils which existed before the Reform Bill of 1832. Mr. Horsman followed. Mr. Ilorsman is plainly a disappointed man. His face shows it— his manner betrays it. Mr. Horsman, who once aspired, we believe, to lead the advanced section of the Liberals, and whom the selection of Mr. Bright to fill that post (so far as relates to the question of Parliamentary Reform) seems to have soured, obtained uproarious cheers from the Ministerial benches, by deliberately stepping out of the ranks, and breaking his Aveapon in the face of the enemy. The right hon. gentleman is like an elephant in battle— very destructive to those who are before him if he can be got to moA'e forward— if not, very mischievous to those abreast of him. lie wants to go into committee on the bill. He says, you can make quite a liberal measure of it, with slight alterations. It is plain that both he and Lord Stanley prepared their speeches in ignorance of each other's intentions. The one sternly guard over everything of consequence— the other assumed that everything of consequence might be changed, without changing the Government. Does Mr. Horsman speak the sentiments of the men of Stroud? We shall see. So will the right hon. gentleman.

Mr. A. Mills was thoroughly conservative. Mr. Knatchbull Hugessen and Mr. Newdegate rose together. There were loud calls°for Newdegate, as it was well understood that he intended to oppose the ministerial measure. The former, however, having caught the Speaker's eye, declined to give up his chance. He spoke sensibty, and very decidedly against the bill. Then Mr. Newdegate, noways loath, was stirred up by the calls of the House. He regretted, of course, having to part company with his friends— but the measure was too radical for him— he could not put up with a £10 occupancy county franchise. Lord It. Cecil croaked the close of the night's debate — in characteristic hostility to the working classes — and Mr. Wilson moved its adjournment.

SECOND NIGHT. — TUESDAY, 22ND.

The excitement of the great Reform debate was not by any means exhausted on Monday: Tuesday witnessed as crushing a throng both in the House and about it, and even a more brilliant display of talent. The unusual length of the discussion makes it impossible that we should notice every speaker. We can only sketch the more prominent features of, each night's proceedings, and of these we are unable to give any more than the barest outline. We must pass over, therefore, Mr. Wilson, Secretary to the Treasury under the Aberdeen and Palmerston administrations, who opened the discussion on Tuesday night. On questions of finance, he is always listened to with respect ; on the larger questions of national and constitutional policy, he commands but little attention. He exhibit no large grasp of mind— he has no graces of style or elocution. His matter and his manner are alike dry and anpolished. His reasoning against the bill, however, was close and cogent— and he declared his intention of voting for the resolution.

lie was followed by Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton. Of the right hon. baronet's oratorical powers we need say nothing. Nobody can read his speeches without being brought, for the time being, under a spell of fascination. He is a careful writer. On special occasions it is pretty clear that he elaborates every sentence. Ilonce, he does not excel in an impromptu statement or reply. lie requires time and solitude. But a dozen hours will suffice. At the end of that interval, he will produce, not in writing merely, but in energetic and (for the most part, we should imagine,) memoritcr speech, a brilliant review of the preceding night's debate. Sir Edward abounds in life. You can scarcely tire of hearing him. There is generally a foundation of strong, manly, common sense in bis oratorical efforts, upon which he builds an imposing argument, relieved by the most striking illustrations, and sparkling all over with epigrammatic points. And he delivers his studied speeches with an exuberance of animation — too exuberant, indeed, for the highest effect. Thus it was with him on Tuesday night. He held the house in rapt attention for nearly two hours. The supporters of the ministry were frantic in their cheering, especially at the close of the speech. Considering his position, namely, that he had to defend an indefensible measure, he achieved a great success. But the gist of his defence was to this effect : — " Look to yourselves, you of the middle class! This measure confirms your monopoly of political power. You cannot share it with the working classes without losing your own ascendancy. Our appeal is made to your selfishness."

We pass over the dinner hour, and come at once to Mr. Sidney Herbert. A very different man, indeed, to Sir E. B. Lytton — he excites far less admiration, but he wins far more sympathy. More conservative, we suppose, than the right hon. bart. in his political and ecclesiastical creed, he is more liberal in his feelings. He is strong intellectually — but the show of his strength is more than half concealed by delicate sensibility. Few men produce in the minds of antagonists so powerful a yearning to come to an agreement with him if possible. He spoke admirably on this occasion. His candour, his frankness, his geniality, set off the vigour of his criticism. We cannot, of course, subscribe to his opinions. We do not desire to see a small Reform Bill passed— nor do we believe in the statesmanship of attempting it. But if such were our opinion, we must say that we should want no happier nor better exponent of it than the Right Hon. Sidney Herbert. He meant to vote with Lord John Russell, if obliged to go to a division, but he earnestly counselled ministers to take back their bill, and bring in another which would carry into effect the advice of the two seceding members of the Cabinet.

The Solicitor- General closed the second night's debate. Sir Hugh Cairns, of course, defended the bill in a speech of great length and considerable power. We dare say, moreover, he spoke his own convictions, for he is high in his conservatism. But ho did not appear to us equal to himself on this occasion. There was a fretfulness and ill-temper in his tone which contrasted disagreeably with the good-humour of the preceding speaker. He was more powerful in finding or making holes in other people's coats, than in attracting admiration towards his own. He forgot somewhat the courtesies of debate — especially towards Lord John Russell. All that he said might have been true enough, but as it assailed the motives of an old and eminent statesman, it certainly did not become him to utter it. On the whole Sir Hugh did not increase his reputation by his speech on the Reform Bill. For power it will not bear comparison with the speech on Lord Eilenborough's despatch with which he established his fame some twelve months ago.

THIRD NIGHT. — THURSDAY, 24TH.

Mr. Milner Gibson commenced the third night's debate on Thursday. The House was not up to its previous mark of excitement. Mr. Gibson is always logical — seldom impressive. He is a fair debater, but he seldom hits hard. His weapon is the foil, not the

broadsword. His characteristic is skill rather than strength. He makes neat points— clever rather— but he only pricks his opponents, leaving heavier armed men to rout them. The gist of his speech was to the effect that no Keform Bill was so revolutionary as a bad one. Then followed in succession Mr. Adderley and Mr. HeacJlam. Mr. Bentinck, the worthy leader of the ultra-tory section ; the immovable and unchangeable squad of squires ; now caught the Speaker's eye. He is a heavy-looking man, but competent enough to hit hard occasionally. He meant to support the Bill, but he did so with evident reluctance. It is too democratic for his cordial approval. After the intervention of two or three speeches from quiet, unpretentious members, Mr. Fox rose, and was very fairly received, as, indeed, he always is. The clear flow of his rhetoric, the music of his voice, the masculine force of his arguments, and the breadth of his views, place him up among the orators of the day. But Mr. Fox begins to feel the infirmities of age. The fire within him does not readily kindle, nor, when it does, does it burn long. He nobly defended the working classes. 0 Mr. Hope bored the House until it would tolerate him no longer. With Mr. Bernal Osborne the life of the eveniug's debate commenced. When on the Opposition side of the House, the gallant member for Dover is commonly a happy and effective speaker. He Avas so emphatically on Thursday night. He dealt out several strokes of witticism which told immensely. His description of the " fancy franchises,"' as " the political millinery of Downing street" — his roasting of Lord Stanley for quoting Mr. Hollyoak as an authority, and his derisive exposure of Mr. Ilorsman's singular position, were admirable as well as amusing. And the conclusion of his speech was generous, for he paid a well-merited compliment to Mr. Disraeli for the very able manner in which he had discharged the functions of leader of the House.

Mr. Walpole carried forward the debate in a speech which, however men may differ from him in opinions and conclusions, must raise him very high in the esteem of the country. He commanded, we need hardly say, profound attention. His object, of course, was, in the strict sense of the word, Tory ; but he displayed in the pursuit of that object much liberality of feeling. His analysis of the measure, looking at it as he did in the light of his own principles, was very masterly. He besought Ministers to take their bill back and amend it ; if they would not do that, he thought Lord John's amendment would be quite legitimate, though unusual; but he deprecated a dissolution in the present complicated affairs of Europe, as particularly dangerous.

Mr. Bright rose after Mr. Walpole, and moved the adjournment of the debate. It was now half- past 1 1 o'clock, and the hon. gentleman's energies are never improved by having breathed for several hours the stifling atmosphere of the House. The call upon him to proceed, however, was general, and he obeyed it. His voice was rather husky— and, perhaps, his tone was less impassioned than on some occasions — but his speech was not the less, but more, impressive in consequence of its quiet and moderation, lie dealt with the bill, not as it affects political parties in the House, but as it may be expected to affect the country—not as it may chance to touch the interests of the moment, but of all future time. He spoke far more in the tone of a statesman than any of his detractors, and proved that the changes for which he had laboured were Conservative in the sense of the prayer read in the House daily — tending to " knit together the hearts of all persons and estates v ithin this realm." The debate was again adjourned.

FOURTH NIGHT. — FRIDAY, 25m

Friday. Is the debate to close to-night ? Has anything been arranged between the leaders of the contending parties during the day ? Is treachery afloat, and will this great contest go off like last year's debate on the Ellenborough despatch, without even a division? Some say " Yes"— some "No !" The utmost uncertainty prevails. There is much animated discussion in the lobbies, while within doors the main debate wearily and languidly drags its alow length along. We really cannot endure your prosiness, Sir Stafford ! We cannot, indeed ! We know it of old. And what is it all to prove ? — simply this, that the Bill brought in by. her Majesty's Government to settle upon its future basis " the representation of the people," is a measure without principles — a body without a back-bone — a huge agglomeration of details, every one of which may be easily altered in committee. Mr. Cardwell is more sensible ; but although he fakes a definite position against the bill, and makes it good by sound argument, he cannot rally the now jaded House. Far less can Mr. Dent, Mr. Packe, or Lord Harry Vane. Who will step forward to awaken drowsy attention ? Who will re-people those vacant benches? Not Mr. Stuart Wortley. Ordinarily he is heard with interest, but the present is a case that defies all ordinary efforts. At length the magician appears. Lord Palmerston rises. Now then, the secret, if there be one, will come out. The noble lord was unusually jaunty. He began by saying that he meant to give his hearty support to Lord John's amendment. Loud cheers from the Opposition greeted this announcement. He congratulated the House on the progress towards agreement which had been made since the commencement of the debate — and he anticipated that if they went on a little longer at the same rate, they would end in unanimously accepting the resolutions. He then proceeded to show how very small a measure of Reform would satisfy him. At length, he disclosed unmiatakeably the cloven foot. He had supported Lord John's resolution with a view to force the present Government to accede to it and carry it into effect ; and he claimed for Lord John the gratitude of her Majesty's Ministers, for providing them with so opportune a means of escape. Then in a vein half irony, half condescension, he went on to conjecture the future course of the Cabinet. "Kesign ! No ! they will not resign ; Ido not want them to resign ; I condemn them to keep their places. Dissolve! The concurrence of this House will be necessary to , its own dissolution ; are the Government likely to gain it ? Withdraw their bill! No! they would, of course, go on with it. No ! they need make no declaration that they would adapt the measure to the resolutions ; the majority would do that." Mr. Whiteside replied to the noble lord — replied effectively — indignantly repudiated his advice— and fastened on him the charge of being the sole author of the present confusion in Italy. So ended the week's discussion.

FIFTH WIGHT. — MONDAY, 28TII.

The fifth night of the debate — Monday — presented somewhat of a contrast to the first. There might be about four hundred members present, but the spirit of the House flagged, and its animation had evaporated. Mr. Edwin James opened with a smart speech of nearly an hour's length, delivered from the third bench from the floor, below the gangway just behind the seat usually occupied by Mr. Bright. He spoke with great freedom and self-posses-sion, and not without considerable force, and he adapted his observations with remarkable skill to the style of oratory most acceptable to the House. He made a lapse or two for which he got laughed at, but he also made one or two very telling hits. His remarks on Mr. Disraeli's "Arundel" illustration were capital, and his exposure of the scheme of voting papers was timely and useful. On the whole it was a good speech, but did not succeed in rousing the House. He was followed by Mr. Beau° luont, a new member, whose small, thin voice, and high pitch, contrasted rather unfavourably for him, with the stentorian lungs of Mr James. It was a flat affair— Lord Elcho did not add to the interest of the evening's pro-

ceedings—he is foppish, conceited, and tiresome — and, although Mr. Ellice commanded the respectful attention of the chiefs, neither did he, by his defence and amplification of the contents of hi 9 celebrated letter, infuse fresh life into the pervading dullness. Upon his resuming his seat, a throng of members started to their feet, amongst Avhom was Sir James Graham. It was uncertain Avhich of them had caught the Speaker's eye, and as he left the chair for tea, it remained doubtful till his return, when he called upon Mr. Moncton Milnes. Mr. Milnes accordingly rose, but his first sentences Avere drowned in loud and reiterated cries of Graham. He persisted, hoAvever, and enjoyed his reAvard. He is a pompous speaker, and as feeble as he is pompous. He was endured for about ten minutes and then put down by clamour to " DiA'ide." Again there Avere general calls for Graham, and, at length, the right hon. baronet, vrho, for some time past had been busily putting his notes in order, rose and addressed the House.

Sir James has a thin voice, scarcely audible at times— but, as he enunciates very clearly, and speaks very deliberately, the defect is not so noticeable. He occupied his usual place, on ' the Ministerial side of the House, just beloAv the gangway. He spoke for an hour exactly. He Avas listened to with hushed attention. As soon as it Avas knoAvn that he Avas on his legs, members flocked in from every corner of the building. Sir James's speech was the speech of a veteran, experienced, and far-seeing statesman. True Conservatism he identified Avith progress— resistance to changes demanded by expanding wealth, prosperity, and intelligence, Avas revolutionary. He dissected the Ministerial bill, and shoAved it to be violently democratic in every one of its principles— he sketched the kind of measure Avhich the country wanted, and came near to John Bright's standard. He Avas averse to the ballot — but no proposal, he said, had grown so rapidly into favour of late years. He claimed admission to the franchise for the working classes — asked for a rating suffrage, limited by two or three years' residence. In a Avord, he restored the question before the House to its proper position, as a ' question Avhich concerns the people far more than parliamentary parties.

Sir John Pakington followed Sir James Graham, and spoke with unwonted spirit. After dealing somewhat roughly Avith Lord John Russell and his resolution, which he described as, " on the highest authority," unparliamentary and irregular, he turned to Lord Palmerston, aad administered to the noble lord as severe a castigation as it has been his lot to receive for many a day. He showed np the noble viscount's profession of forbearance, as surpassing in "coolness" anything that ever fell from his lips. He spurned the noble lord's advice Avith indignation. He said the house might pass the second reading of the bill, or might pass the resolution ; but if they should pass the resolution they would not have the bill. The ministry had to consider their own self-respect and honour — they Avere not there to do the bidding of Lord Palmerston. This is unquestionably the only honourable position for the Government to take. If the House refuses their measure they can either resign or dissolve— either Afould be better than to submit to the degradation recommended them byLord Palmerston. The motion for the adjournment of the debate Avas made by Mr. Gladstone — and, from what passed on the question of adjournment, it is plain that the House will not divide until Friday night. Well ! spite of its Aveary length, it has been an extraordinary exhibition of oratorical talent.

SIXTH MIGHT. — TUESDAY, 29TH.

On Tuesday it will hardly be matter of surprise that the House Avas crowded early in the afternoon, for every one anticipated from the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) a masterly contribution towards the ultimate solution of the qnestion. The pleasure, howeA'er, of listening to his flowing and sonorous periods was certainly, on this occasion, greater than the profit. Parliamentary Reform is evidently not one of those questions upon Avhich Mr. Gladstone can exhibit his peculiar force. He did not seem to apprehend the solemnity of the crisis. He Avas playful Avhen, we think, he should have been deeply serious. He touched several of the incidents of the debate with a light hand, bringing them together in an elegant strain of raillery, to slioav that the sentiments of the House upon the question were not so divided as the hostile array of parties Avould indicate. He selected for his main-topic the usefulness in our representative system of the small boroughs, which, he assumed, had given the country its long succession of educated statesmen. He commended the wisdom exhibited in the Government measure in regard to <the redistribution of seats, but concurred in the objections which Avere taken against it by Lord John Russell's resolutions. But he contended that the surest way of giving early practical effect to those resolutions would be by not insisting upon them in their present form, but by alWing, the bill to pass into committee. The drift of his speech Avas in favour of settling the question off-hand, and he seemed to imagine that this could be achieved best by the agency of the present Government. The right hon. gentleman spoke for about fiVe hours to a profoundlj' attentive house, but when he resumed his seat, Aye much question if a single member could have been found to thank him for having relieved his mind of a single difficulty. This Avas the only great speech of the night —the only one Avhich stood out from the rest in prominent relief. The remainder of the night Avas occupied chiefly by the laAvyers, Avhy threAV no neAV light on the subject, although they heaped upon it an abundance of Avords. We must be held excused, if in reference to a discussion which has already been overshadowed by events of still vaster importance, Aye decline to folloAV them.

SEVENTH NIGHT. WEDNESDAY, 30TH.

The seventh and last night of the Reform debate was opened by Mr. Dv Cane in support of the bill. Sir Robert Peel made one of his dashing speeches against it, and certainly galvanised the discussion into temporary life. Then followed a longish list of mediocrities. Mr. Henley rose about ten o'clock, and certainly he is not usually reckoned a vivacious speaker. But his exceptional position as one of the seceding Ministers claimed and obtained for him a respectful hearing, and he showed himself more sagaciously Liberal than any of his quondam colleagues. Mr. Roebuck next rose. He Avas pointed— he Avas original— and he was, as he almost always is, mischievous from sheer egotism. Midnight approached, and the excitement became intense. Mr. Disraeli saAv that his turn: was to come. He rose, and spoke for two hours. The tone of his speech led us to anticipate that the minds of Ministers had been made up to a dissolution, in case of defeat. He spoke carefully, conciliatingJy, but with becoming spirit. There was, perhaps, less brilliance than usual, but a deeper pervading sense of responsibility. It was clear that he did not regard himself as a Minister standing at bay. He was too calm for that. But, after all, it Avas far less successful as a defence of his measure, than as a damaging attack on his foes. He Avas particularly severe, and, as Aye thought, happy in his characterisation of Lord John Russell. His peroration was dignified, and evidently addressed to the country rather than to the House. Loud and prolonged cheering greeted the right honourable gentleman Avheu he resumed hi 3 seat.

And now the critical moment was come. Strangers we're ordered to Avithdnrvv. - Upwards of six hundred members assembled within a House which cannot comfortably accommodate above one-half of that number, to hear- the Suestiou put. The members filed off into ieir respective lobbies. The usual excitement attended the return to the House of the

respective tellers. The paper on which the result was inscribed was handed to Lord John Russell — and a Tociferous cheer went up to the roof. The division was — For the resolution, 330. Against it, 29 I—Majority in favour of the resolution, and against Ministers, 39. Again the House resounded with triumphant shouts long drawn out — and there was a rush to the door. The House had said " No " to the question, " That the words proposed to be left out" — namely, "this Bill be now read a second time" — "stand part of the question." It was next put that the resolution be adopted, when Mr. Wyld moved his amendment in favour of the" Ballot. In vain was the hon. member implored by Mr. Berkely, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Bright to desist from his ill-conceived and ill-timed attempt. In vain was he assured that he was damaging a cause he professed to serve. He persisted with pig-headed obstinacy, and drove the principal advocates of the Ballot out of the House in sheer disgust. The result Avas, that out' of about 250 members pledged to the Ballot, only ninety-eight voted in its favour, while 328 votes were recorded against it. Lord John Russell's resolution was then put, there were several Noes, and it seemed as though there would be a third division, but it did not come off. Mr. Disraeli then quietly moved the adjournment of the House to Monday, and the great Reform Debate, one of the greatest in modern times, was concluded.

THE SUBSEQUENT EXPLANATION.

On Monday afternoon the avenues to the House were choked with excited spectators. The House itself was well filled before four o'clock. At the usual hour for commencing business, Mr. Disraeli rose, and announced the determination of the Cabinet, prefacing that announcement with a lengthened explanatory speech. They would not resign. They "would not go on with the bill. They held themselves absolved from their Reform pledges. They would appeal to the country. Lord Palmerston was nonplussed, but made the best of his defeat. He would offer no obstruction to a dissolution. Mr. Bright applauded the decision as a wise and constitutional one. Lord John Russell thought the dissolution unnecessary, and immediately produced the heads of his Reform Bill. There was a prolonged and desultory conversation, and at lengch Mr. Disraeli announced that he was in hopes of being able to prorogue the House on the same day on which he would otherwise have moved its adjournment for the Easter holidays ; that the elections would take place at the end of the month, and that the new Parliament would he called together about June or July ; but certainly not to discuss another Ministerial Reform Bill.