the noble Lord who, after all, had come forward with no policy, but with a compromise which might be justly called paltry, and in such a course he saw no safety to the country.

Mr. Mackinnon then moved a Resolution," That, in order to obtain a safe and effective reform, it would be inexpedient and unjust to proceed further with the proposed legislative measure until the House has before it the results of the Census of 1861." He urged various objections to proceeding with the Bill, as well as the indifference of the country, even of the working classes, towards it, insisting upon the danger of lowering the franchise, so as to import into the borough constituencies a large number of operatives whose organization might be easily rendered available for political objects.

Sir G. Lewis observed that the speech of Mr. Mackinnon must have been intended to be delivered on the second reading of the Bill, on a motion to defer it for six months, and he declined to follow him into arguments often urged and often answered. The postponement of the Bill till the Census had been taken would render legislation upon this subject next session impossible; and the results of the Census would have no bearing upon the borough franchise, the main subject of the Bill, nor would they affect the relative position of the boroughs in respect to population. If the House had the option, it would be better, in his opinion, to adopt a Census when there was no prospect of a Reform Bill, and no useful object could be gained by delay.

After some further discussion, in which Sir H. Stracey, Mr. Gregson, Mr. Barrow, Sir F. Gold

smid, Mr. Bovill, Mr. Baines, and Sir M. Farquhar took part, the debate was adjourned. On the order of the day being read for resuming it on the 7th of June, a new impediment occurred.

Sir J. Fergusson rose to move that the debate be adjourned. After adverting to the tardy progress of this Bill, and the growing dislike to it even among the supporters of the Government in that House, he observed that his object was to endeavour to delay the discussion of the English Bill until the Irish and Scotch Bills were considered pari passu, or the representation of the whole United Kingdom could be dealt with simultaneously. He urged the embarrassing results of passing only one of these Bills, and of dealing with the three countries in a different and exceptional manner. He reminded the House that Scottish members of the Liberal party had strongly objected to what they termed the piecemeal legislation of the late Government on this subject, and of the extreme difficulty of moving amendments in the Irish and Scotch Bills unless the three Reform Bills were taken together, and this great question was treated in a comprehensive, and not a fragmentary manner.

This motion was seconded by Colonel Dickson.

Sir G. Grey said he could not understand how the adjournment of the debate could assist the object which the mover and seconder of this motion professed to have in view. He pointed out what he considered mistakes and misapprehensions into which Sir J. Fergusson had fallen, and, addressing himself to the amendment of Mr. Mackinnon, he expressed his surprise that, after the House had

affirmed the principle of the Bill, an attempt should be made to change the issue before the House, the Census having nothing to do with that principle--namely, the franchise. The moving an adjournment of the debate was a dilatory and obstructive course, merely in order to interpose a further obstacle to the progress of the Bill, and he hoped the House would not encourage the attempt.

Lord J. Manners repelled the charge that the Opposition had been actuated by a desire to obstruct the Bill by procrastination and delay. The fault, he said, was not theirs, nor that of the House of Commons; the blame attached to Her Majesty's Ministers, who had shown that they did not regard the reform of the representation as an object of paramount importance. The country, in his opinion, would be grateful to Sir J. Fergusson for having so pointedly called its attention to the anomalous position in which the Government had placed the public business.

Mr. Watlington, admitting the necessity for the introduction of a measure of reform by the Government, said, there appeared, in his opinion, so much doubt as to the effect which this Bill would have upon the constituency, the statistical information was so defective, and the importance of accurate information was so great, that he hoped the Government would withdraw it. He assigned reasons for not confiding in Lord J. Russell as a guide, or in Mr. Bright as an adviser on the subject of Reform.

Some general debate followed, in the course of which the opponents of the Bill entered into a variety of topics involving the merits

of the measure, while the supporters of Government charged the other side with wilfully interposing obstacles for the purpose of causing delay.

The Lord-Advocate understood the argument of Sir J. Fergusson to be, that there should be but one Bill for the three countries, and that, this being an English Bill, none ought to be passed; but he thought, on the contrary, that every effort should be used to pass the English Bill; and if there was not time to pass the other bills this Session, they could be introduced early the next; the objections conjured up against this course were mere bugbears. The House could not discuss all the three Bills in committee pari passu, but might help the Government to settle the details of the English Bill, and there might then be time to pass the other Bills this session. He proceeded to defend the Bill, and especially the concession made to the working classes, ridiculing the idea that it would open the floodgates of democracy as a delusion.

Mr. Whiteside remarked that the question was, whether the Government, having proposed a measure consisting of three parts, containing together a scheme of Parliamentary reform, and letting it remain in the same position for several months, were at liberty to make two of the parts disappear. Why, he asked, had three Bills been introduced? No doubt, because it was necessary to settle the whole question and deal with the entire representation at once. In this the Government were quite right; but if so, they were quite wrong in withdrawing two of the Bills and proceeding with only one. He could understand their insisting upon pressing all the Bills, or

withdrawing all and postponing legislation till another time, but he could not understand their reason for dropping two of the Bills and endeavouring to squeeze through the English Bill in the month of June.

Mr. Bright thought there could be little difference of opinion as to the object of this discussion. The real question was not, whether the House would wait till the Census had been taken, or until the Irish and Scotch Bills could be discussed, but whether it was willing, during the present Session, to pass any measure of Reform. The views of the leader of the Opposition did not, he believed, materially differ from those of Her Majesty's Government on this question, though he had been unable to persuade his followers to pursue a course which he was prepared to take himself. The subject of Parliamentary Reform had been recommended from the Throne, and votes had been given in that House in favour of reform; yet the other side still resisted even so moderate a measure as this, which proposed to open the door to 300,000 or 350,000 in the United Kingdom, or one in twenty of the men now excluded; and no one could say that this concession would be perilous to the Constitution. It had, however, been repeatedly asserted during this discussion, that the admission of this number would give up the representation of the country and the power of Parliament to a class altogether unworthy of the trust an assertion which, having had ample means of knowing the wishes, opinions, and character of the working classes, he strenuously denied, and could disprove by evidence. From a se

ries of calculations, he estimated that the annual income of the working classes derived from wages was 312,000,000l., and the aggregate income of all the other classes was only 1,000,000l. more; but the former had not a single member to represent them in that House, nor a voice in the choice of a member to speak their opinions as to the amount of the taxation, or the mode in which it was laid on the shoulders of the people. As to this Bill, his opinion was that, though he should have wished it to go further, if the franchise were brought down to 6l. it would fix the point just where a man might hope by frugality and industry to bring himself within the line, and therefore would be the greatest benefit to the working classes. As to the distribution of seats, the Bill touched only the fringe of the question.

Sir H. Cairns observed that the speech of Mr. Bright, appropriate enough to the third reading of the Bill, had never once approached the question at issue, which well deserved the attention of the House. If the Government thought proper to adopt the course of introducing a measure to amend the representation in the shape of three separate Bills, they might dispose of them all in one Session, or defer the whole to another; but the Bills were so connected together that they could not be severed without creating serious difficulties and embarrassments. If the House went into Committee upon the English Bill, they should be sure that they had materials for discussing its details. The amount at which the borough franchise had been fixed depended upon the accuracy of the data assumed by the Government; but he stated grounds

ment.

For the adjournment € 248 Against it . 269

Majority for Govern

But though the Ministers thus far succeeded in defeating the impediments to the progress of their Bill, it became every day more and more evident that the prospect of passing it into a law during the present session was hopeless. The general apathy which prevailed on the subject throughout the country, the want of agreement among the various sections of the Liberal party in Parliament, and the pressure of the business which it was imperatively necessary to get through before a prorogation could take place, made the difficulty of carrying the Reform Bill through all its stages in both Houses, manifestly insuperable. Public expectation and rumour had, therefore, prepared the minds of all persons for the course which on the 11th of June the Government found it necessary to adopt, viz., the withdrawal of their Bill. Upon the order of the day being read for resuming the debate on Mr. Mackinnon's motion it occasioned no surprise when Lord John Russell rose to make the announcement which all parties were prepared to hear. The noble Lord began by observing that it was impossible for the Government to accede to the amendment moved by Mr. Mackinnon (to defer legislation till the results of the Census could be obtained), which would postpone a Reform Bill to an indefinite time, and he trusted it would not be persisted in; but he had a further statement to

the recent division, that 250 members desired the postponement of this Bill during the present session, the Government had thought themselves bound seriously to consider the position of this question and what was their duty to the House and the country. If they were not of opinion that they could succeed in carrying the Bill through both Houses during the session, it would be idle and culpable to go into Committee, this being the 11th of June, and there being 60 or 70 amendments to be discussed, which must take considerable time; and there were other important questions, supplies for the China war, and for fortifications, which must be considered during the passage of the Reform Bill through the Committee. Then the question arose, whether the extraordinary measure might not be resorted to of prolonging the session; but the Government were of opinion that there was not that earnest demand which would justify them in taking such a course, and they had come to the conclusion that it was not their duty to proceed with the Bill this session. They were persuaded that a reduction of the borough franchise was required for the future safety of the State and the improvement of the representation, and it was their intention at the earliest opportunity to introduce another Bill. He was not, he said, discouraged when he recollected that other measures of importance had had more than once to be postponed. The first Reform Bill had been successfully opposed, but no one would now think of restoring the disfranchised boroughs; and in the same way he was convinced that