"Sir, there is another subject which the right hon. Gentleman touched upon somewhat tenderly, and which appeared just at the end of the Speech from the Throne."

This was the gravamen of the charge against us

"It certainly appears to me as if Her Majesty's Ministers had gone through all the topics upon which they thought Parliament would expect to be addressed, and that then some Member of the Cabinet said, 'Is there nothing forgotten? We have not left out Mexico, have we? No, there it is. There is also a passage about China and Japan. I cannot think of anything that is omitted.' But at last some ingenious Member of the Cabinet perhaps said, 'There is one subject forgotten there is the Reform of Parliament; we must put that in.'"-[3 Hansard, clii. 100.] Now, my Lords, all this was founded on the circumstance of Reform being the last paragraph in Her Majesty's Speech, and that occurring on the 3rd of February, our Bill was laid on the table on the 28th of the same month, and was then ready for discussion, the House having disposed of the question with regard to the navy. But the noble Earl

said, with his usual humour

"The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), 'Now fitted the halter, now traversed the cart, And often took leave, but deemed loth to depart.'' But earlier in his remarks, the noble Earl said

"The right hon. Gentleman seemed as unwilling to touch on that subject (Reform) here as the Cabinet were in putting it into the Speech. Heaven knows how it has fallen into their charge!"

Well, be that as it may, we know at least how it was taken out of what a Member of the other House the other day, with great courtesy of expression, called our "dirty and unhallowed fingers." But I will tell the noble Earl how it was that it fell into our hands. Our predecessors had on more than four separate occasions pledged the faith of the Crown that such a measure should be submitted to Parliament; and because in endeavouring to carry that pledge into effect they had so completely bungled and mismanaged the whole question that they could come to no conclusion at all, that they left everything in confusion and the whole country in an agitation on the subject of Reform, we sought to put an end to that state of things by a fair, an honest, and a conscienciously-framed measure, proposed with an earnest intention to fulfil

The Earl of Derby

"I do not see that there is any subject which the Government intend to bring forward that will furnish them with any excuse for delay in this matter.... If the Government have made up their minds to introduce a Reform Bill, let them lay it on the table. I will give no opinion on a measure of that kind until I see what it proposes to do.

There is every disposition in this House to wait their time; but they must not be putting off the subject. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Bright) I am afraid, will hardly be able to restrain his impatience. : . They have given a pledge in this matter, and they are bound to perform it."[3 Hansard, clii. 102.] That was the language of the noble Earl in 1859, in breathless haste calling for the introduction of a finished Reform Bill Α ready for discussion by Parliament. month-one little month-was too much

to give after the opening of the Session. It was the bounden duty, so he urged, of the Government to have their scheme ready, and, having it ready, to lay it before the Legislature at once. Well, the noble Earl is now at the head of the Government, and I do not gather that they have their measure ready. I infer from this speech that they have not yet made up their minds what their measure shall be. If the fact be otherwise, they certainly have done themselves great injustice, because they say that "inquiries are now going forward with reference to the right of voting in the election of Members to serve in Parliament," and that "when that information is complete the attention of Parliament will be called to the result thus obtained," &c. Now, my Lords, the Government are proceeding either without information, or with the intention of making the information they may procure square with their foregone conclusions; or, again, they may be gifted with a superhuman prescience which enables them to know infallibly beforehand what will be the precise result of these inquiries; whereas we poor ordinary mortals must be content to wait until all those promised statistics are laid before us which are to prove the wonderful skill and dexterity of the Government in framing a measure in anticipation of the information on which it is to be founded. Well, my Lords,

ner in which his own Bill was met, and that makes it necessary for me-though I should otherwise have postponed my remarks on this subject to state that I entertained very grave and solid objections to the Bill, which made it impossible for me to agree to the second reading. My first objection to the noble Earl's Bill was that it took away a right that had been enjoyed, not only from the time of Henry VI., but from the very earliest time of our Parliamentary history-namely, the right of freeholders in cities and boroughs to vote for the counties in which they have their freeholds. That right was an essential part of the Constitution so essential, in my opinion, that when the late Earl Grey told me it was very likely that a provision would be introduced in the House of Lords into the great Reform Bill, taking away from freeholders the right of voting for the counties they resided in and confining them to vote in boroughs, I told Earl Grey that if the Bill came down with that alteration I should consider it so vitiated that I would myself move in the House of Commons that the Reform Bill, with all its good and great provisions, should be rejected. THE EARL OF DERBY: May I ask the noble Earl was this always his view as to the value and importance of retaining that provision ?

EARL RUSSELL: There was another provision in the noble Earl's Bill which proposed to restore nomination boroughs. According to the Reform Act many of the smaller boroughs, in which there were ten or twelve voters, were enlarged by £10 voters, so that they contained 300, 400, or 500 electors, whereby a certain independence was introduced which enabled the constituencies to send men of their own opinions to Parliament. Now, the noble Earl's Bill had a provision by which freeholders of counties would have voted for those boroughs. Besides this, there was a further provision, which would have operated in some degree as a revival of the old nomination boroughs-the provision that these votes might be sent by post, so that any noble Lord or right hon. Gentleman in some distant country might send by post the votes of 300 or 400 tenants, who never went near the place, and thus carry the election. That struck me so much that I stated my objection to a Gentleman who sat near me when the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed his measure to the House of Commons, that Earl Russell

these provisions, with the absence of any adequate extension of the franchise to persons occupying houses under £10 a year, made the Bill so bad that it was impossible to support it. The noble Earl, when first Minister of the Crown, introduced two measures-one a Budget imposing a very large tax upon houses, and another a measure for the Government of India. I consider they were both exceedingly bad measures, and both were rejected by Parliament. But much worse was the measure which the noble Earl introduced under the name of a Reform of Parliament. I objected to that Bill, and I stated my objections fully and fairly. That Bill was defeated by no underhand proceeding, but by open and fair opposition. As to the objections raised by the noble Earl to a measure of Reform, because it might be regarded in the light of a stepping-stone to other more extensive reforms, I have only to say that the late Mr. Hume said the same of the Bill of 1832, and voted for it on that ground. But though Mr. Hume said he intended to go much further than the Bill of 1832, that did not prevent the late Lord Grey and his Colleagues from carrying that important measure; should the fact of the same being said now prevent the present Parliament from carrying a measure commensurate with the requirements of the time.

nor

VISCOUNT MELVILLE expressed an opinion that the Government had treated Governor Eyre most harshly and ungraciously. By his energy and firmness Governor Eyre had saved the colony. The Secretary for the Colonies, it was true, had written a most proper letter to Jamaica, promising that the names of those who had so ably assisted Governor Eyre in suppressing the rebellion should be brought under the favourable notice of the Horse Guards. But what followed? The Governor had actually been rebuked for having adopted severe measures in the exercise of his duty. It was impossible to say what would be the result of this unworthy conduct on the part of the Government. It really seemed as if the noble Lord had turned to the right and left to see in what direction the several parties set their faces, and then to have acted as the policy for the moment dictated. It had been well said by a noble Lord who had preceded him, that if a late noble Lord had still been at the head of the Government the idea of censuring Governor Eyre would not have been entertained for a moment.

That noble Lord would have spurned the proposal of recalling Governor Eyre. He would, on the contrary, have supported him to the last, and not even dreamt of pursuing a line of policy calculated to degrade the country in the eyes of the world. So far from censuring Governor Eyre, the Ministry should have tendered him the thanks of the country. It grieved him beyond measure to think that the Governor's conduct, under most trying and difficult circumstances, should now be subject to review by men who never knew what danger was.

Question put, "Whether the said words shall be there inserted?"-Resolved in the Negative.

Then the original Address was agreed to, and Ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.

The LORD REDESDALE appointed, Nemine Dissentiente, to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES-Appointed. SUB-COMMITTEE FOR THE JOURNALSAppointed.

APPEAL COMMITTEE-Appointed.

House adjourned at a quarter past Eleven o'clock, till Thursday next,

half past Four o'clock.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House, went up to attend Her Majesty :And having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at a Quarter before Four of the clock; and several other Members having taken and subscribed the Oath :

PRIVILEGES.

Ordered, That a Committee of Privileges be appointed.

OUTLAWRIES BILL.

Bill "for the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," read 1°; to be read 2o.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Rules, Orders, and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons relating to Public Business, 1866.

VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS. The Sessional Orders being moved according to custom, on the Order

"That the Votes and Proceedings of this House be printed, being first perused by Mr. Speaker, and that he do appoint the printing thereof; and that no person but such as he shall appoint do presume to print the same,"

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN said, he had a suggestion to offer on the subject. The House was aware that in the heading of the Votes the days of the week to which they referred were printed in Latin. He thought the time had come when an alteration should be made in this respect. The matter might not be of much importance; but it was rather inconsistent that while the heading of the Votes, and the hour and day to which the House adjourned, and in the Notices the days of the week and month, were in English, in the Votes the days of the week and the months should be in Latin. There ought to be at least uniformity in the printing of their proceedings. There was a time when all legal proceedings were printed in the Latin language, but a hundred years ago that was changed. He knew it was in the power of the Speaker to direct the alteration which he suggestednamely, the printing of the headings in English; but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not be disposed to change the present system without an expression of the wish of the House.