Sir, in making the very usual Motion that the order of the day for the Second Reading of a Bill be read, for the purpose of its being postponed, I am about to adopt the unusual course of making some explanation of the reasons why I propose to take this step. It is due to the House, after what has taken place upon the subject of the Bill for the Amendment of the Representation of the People in England and Wales, and due especially to those hon. Members of the House who are earnestly desirous of a further amendment of that representation, that I should explain the reasons why I am about to propose to postpone the second reading of that Bill, which stands for the 13th of March, to another day. The House will recollect, that when Parliament assembled, it was considered as most probable that we might soon be involved in hostilities, though no certainty upon that subject could be affirmed. Her Majesty was pleased, in addressing this House, to recommend to our consideration the further amendment of the state of the representation of the people, and Her Majesty was graciously pleased to say, "In recommending this subject to your consideration, my desire is to remedy every cause of just complaint, to increase general con- fidence in the Legislature, and to give additional stability to the settled institutions of the State." It was in conformity with that recommendation of Her Majesty that on the 13th of February I moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the purpose of amending the representation of the people. I will not enter now—it is no part of the subject of to-day—into the merits of that Bill; but I may say that, having introduced it, I fixed a day for the second reading of that Bill at an interval when I thought the House might be able to give its attention to the subject. I did not say, however, that that day was positively fixed for the second reading—of course I reserved to myself the discretion of naming another day; but soon after that day was fixed, the hon. Baronet the Member for East Kent (Sir E. Hering) gave notice of a Motion for an Amendment on the second reading of the Bill, to the effect that in the present state of our foreign relations the proceeding with that Bill for the Amendment of the Representation would be inopportune. I did not know at the time what was the hon. Baronet's object in giving that early notice, but it certainly seemed as if his notice was rather in hostility to the Government than to the Bill itself, for there was nothing in that Amendment which seemed to imply a disapproval of the Bill. However, Sir, after a short time had elapsed, Her Majesty's Government had seriously to consider what their own course should be, and whether it would be convenient for the House to proceed with that Bill upon the day which I mentioned. Now, Sir, there are two considerations upon this subject to which I beg to call the attention of the House—one is the state of public business, and the other the state of our foreign relations at the present time. With regard to the state of public business, I conceive that it is our duty, the duty of the Government, after the announcement we have made, and in the state of our foreign relations, as shown by the despatches which have been laid before Parliament, to ask, in the first place, for all the supplies which we might think necessary for the public services at the present time; and, in the second place, to obtain those ways and means by which we should ascertain how the State will be best able to defray the expenditure which may be called for. With regard to the first of those requisites, the House has shown such willingness to vote the supplies which have been stated to be required, such a devotion to the public ser- vice, that there has been no difficulty on that subject, and no time has been taken up greater than is necessary for that purpose. With regard to the second point, it has yet to be ascertained—for it will only be on Monday night next that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will state the views which the Government entertain of the present state of the finances of the country, and the measures which he thinks are necessary to the public service and the maintenance of public credit. Such, therefore, will be, next week, the state of public business; and it seems to imply that the Bill for the Amendment of the Representation of the People could hardly come on on the 13th of March, consistently with the object of obtaining both the supplies necessary for the public service and the ways and means necessary to defray the increased expenditure. But, although the Bill might not come on upon that day, it would be certainly in our power to fix a day somewhat later upon which the second reading might be proceeded with. But here I have to ask the attention of the House to that which must, in all probability, be our position with regard to our foreign relations when that day should arrive. I can hardly think I am revealing any secret to the House—for it has been announced in the public papers these two or three days—that, at the end of last month, a messenger was sent to the Court of St. Petersburg with despatches from the Governments of England and France, relating to the occupation of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia by Russia. For a very long period that occupation has been acquiesced in, with a view of carrying on negotiations by which their evacuation might be made a stipulation of a treaty of peace. These negotiations, unfortunately, after a very long period during which they have been carried on, have led to no result; and the Conference at Vienna has positively declined the only terms upon which the Emperor of Russia declares himself ready to treat. We could, therefore, no longer permit this wrongful occupation of the territories of Turkey by Russia to be continued; and the Governments of England and France have therefore signified to the Emperor of Russia that they shall consider his continued occupation of those Principalities beyond a certain period, necessary for carrying that evacuation into effect, as equivalent to a declaration of war. Calculating, then, the time which is necessary for the trans- mission of these despatches to St. Petersburg, and supposing that the Emperor of Russia, having already declared that he will listen to no terms other than those which he himself has laid down, continues firm to that determination, his negative answer will reach this country in about twenty-five days from the time when the message was sent; and, therefore, towards the end of this month it would be the duty of the Ministers of the Crown to bring down a message to the two Houses of Parliament from Her Majesty, declaring in the usual terms that the relations of peace between this country and Russia no longer exist. If such be the probable, and, I am afraid I must say, the almost certain course which events will take, I think Her Majesty's Government cannot be wrong in deciding that, at this particular moment, when such a message is either on the eve of being brought down, or is under discussion, or has been actually delivered, it would be hardly possible to deliberate with due consideration on a measure relating to a question of such extent and importance as the amendment of the representation. I cannot but think that, such being the case, it will be better to postpone the consideration of the Reform Bill to a future day:—but when I say to a future day, I entertain a hope that, when that day comes which I shall propose to fix for the second reading, there may then exist such a state of affairs as will enable the House calmly and deliberately to consider the Bill. On the other hand, it would be the height of imprudence if I were to say that, on the day which I shall name, the business must infallibly come on, even though a state of things were to arise which would make it highly desirable again to postpone the Bill to a further future day. I, therefore, Sir, can only ask this House to give me the power of fixing a day on which I can proceed with the Bill, of course leaving it still in the power of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Kent, or any other Member of the House, then to interpose any objection to its further progress which he may think fit. I have already stated I do not think that a condition of war should, in itself, be a sufficient reason for not proceeding with the consideration of any subject of this sort. I will only say that the postponement which I shall propose will enable the Government to mature and introduce the Bills for the amendment of the representation in Scotland and Ireland before the second reading of the Bill for England. The day on which I propose to proceed with the Bill for England and Wales is the day immediately following the Easter holidays—for it would be obviously inconvenient to take up such a measure only a few days before the Easter holidays, for it to be laid down again and the discussion interrupted during that interval—and I propose, therefore, now to fix the second reading of the Bill for the Amendment of the Representation of the People in England and Wales for Thursday, the 27th of April next.

rose to express his deep regret at the course which Her Majesty's Ministers had thought proper to pursue upon the present occasion. He thought it was right the House and the country should know the precise position in which they stood with respect to this great question. The noble Lord had referred to what had taken place in an earlier part of the Session; but he (Sir J. Shelley) also begged to recall to the recollection of the House what the noble Lord said on a former occasion, when he was subjected to a pressure in reference to this question. The House would recollect that the noble Lord then stated that the best time for introducing a measure to amend the representation of the people was when the public mind was quiet, and not agitated upon the subject; but on the night on which he introduced the Bill, in answer to what fell from the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Liddell), the noble Lord declared that there was nothing in the present state of public affairs, even supposing we were at war, which should serve as a reason for postponing a measure of this kind. Well, then, he wished to know what had occurred since to induce the noble Lord to postpone the Bill? But that was not all; last year the noble Lord pledged his word that Her Majesty's Ministers, in the course of the present Session, would introduce a Bill for the reform of the representation of the people. That promise, coming as it did from a man of character and consistency, was believed and confided in by the country; but now the noble Lord came forward at the last moment, within seven days of the day on which he had originally proposed to proceed with the second reading of the measure, and informed the House that its further progress must for the present be postponed. What had occurred since the introduction of the measure to induce the noble Lord to break the promise of himself and his Colleagues? He (Sir J. Shelley) feared that the professed postponement of the Bill till after the Easter holidays really amounted to a virtual abandonment of it. Such, at all events, was his opinion of the course which the noble Lord had pursued; and he did think the House and the country had some right to complain, and were entitled to ask the noble Lord whether it was really his intention to take the sense of the House upon the Bill in the present Session. Nobody seemed to object to the principles of the measure. The noble Lord had very truly said that the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Kent did not refer to the merits of the Bill itself, but merely set forth that the present was not a proper time for going into the question of Parliamentary reform. There could be only one reason, therefore, for the refusal of the noble Lord to proceed with the Bill, and that was, because he was afraid of being placed in a minority if he pressed the Bill to a division. Now, he would take the liberty of saying that it was the duty of the noble Lord, after the pledges he had given, to proceed with the Bill, let the consequences be what they might; but should the noble Lord persist in breaking all the promises he had made to the House and the country, it would be difficult to believe that the whole thing had not been a sham from the beginning to the end, and that the reformers of England had not been completely bamboozled by Her Majesty's Ministers. He was afraid there was no one now on the Treasury bench who felt so strongly upon the measure as to be willing to run the risk of being put into a minority. For one, he could only say that the decision of this question now rested with the people of England. There were principles in the Bill which the reformers of the country had hailed with great satisfaction. It did not, indeed, go far enough for some of them; but it was—not a step—but a stride in the right direction, and those who had advocated the cause of an extension of the franchise for years, could scarcely, he thought, be satisfied with what would be universally regarded as a virtual withdrawal of the measure. When he was told that there had been no excitement in favour of this Bill, his reply was that the excitement and agitation should have come from the other side. If it was true, as avowed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that a large portion of the nation objected to the principles of the Bill, why did they not get up public meetings against it? He could tell them, that if they had done so, they would have seen plenty of excitement displayed in its favour. It seemed to him, however, that the country, unlike the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Ministers, had pursued a straightforward and dignified course. The people had shown confidence in the Government, and had never doubted for one moment that the noble Lord would fulfil the pledges he had given. For his own part, up till yesterday, he firmly believed that the noble Lord would move the second reading of the Bill on the 13th instant, and he never supposed for an instant that the noble Lord, after all that had occurred, would give up the measure, in order to avoid being placed in a minority in that House. Did the noble Lord imagine that the country would be satisfied with so trivial and paltry an excuse as that? If the noble Lord was afraid of being placed in a minority by those Members whom the Bill deprived of their seats, why did he hesitate to appeal to the country, and ask their opinion upon the subject? The mere circumstance of a majority of the House being opposed to the Bill, if that should prove to be the fact, ought not to be a sufficient reason for the noble Lord refusing to press the Bill to a division, because he could appeal from the majority of the House to the majority of the country. It could not but be supposed that there were hon. Members in the House who had spent a great deal of their money and their time in obtaining their seats in the House, who, seeing that the Bill proposed to disfranchise their constituents, would oppose it with all their might; but their opposition ought not to make the noble Lord waver in the performance of his solemn pledges to the subject of Parliamentary reform. He (Sir J. Shelley) was assured that the conduct of the noble Lord on this question would have a tendency to shake the confidence of the country in Ministers of the Crown, whoever they might be. In the name of the reformers of England, he wished some Member of the Government to say whether or not they really intended to proceed with a measure for reforming the representation of the people? Was it their intention, in fact and in truth, to proceed with this Bill immediately after the Easter holidays, without setting up any excuse about war, or any other subject which had nothing to do with this question? The country anxiously awaited an answer to that question.

said, it was not his intention to have trespassed upon the attention of the House, but he must ask leave to make a few remarks, in consequence of the observations which have fallen from the noble Lord. The noble Lord, in the explanation which he had just offered to the House, stated that he did not know what intention he (Sir E. Dering) had in placing the Resolution of which he had given notice upon the paper. Now, he was extremely anxious that the object of that Resolution should be clearly understood. So far from having any desire to obstruct the progress of reform, there was no man in that House who was more ready or more willing than himself, at the proper time and opportunity, to consider in a liberal spirit a large and—provided it be sound—he cared not how comprehensive a measure of Parliamentary reform. But the object of the Resolution of which he had given notice was this—to draw the attention of the House to the time at which and the circumstances under which that question was about to be introduced to their notice. The objections which he entertained to the Bill would be equally applicable to any other large measure, of whatever character, that would be likely in its progress through the House to give rise to serious and violent differences of opinion. He should bring forward his Resolution upon public grounds alone; and he wished it to be distinctly understood that he brought it forward as an independent Member, totally unconnected with either of the great political parties in that House. He might add that he felt greatly encouraged to persevere in the course which he had considered it his duty to pursue in consequence of having ascertained beforehand that that course was strictly in accordance—whatever his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) might say—with the voice of public opinion both within and without the walls of that House. It might, perhaps, be convenient to the House that he should take that opportunity of stating, that when the noble Lord moved the second reading of his Bill, it was his intention to move as an Amendment a Resolution to the same effect as that of which he had already given notice.

apprehended that the statement of the noble Lord the Member for London would be received in the country with mingled feelings of satisfaction and regret. With satisfaction that the country would be saved the irritation and discord which must necessarily accompany the discussion of a measure so important as Parliamentary reform; for, although he believed it was generally admitted on both sides of the House that the greatest apathy existed on this subject, yet it was idle to suppose that a subject so closely affecting all classes and all interests could fail to produce that excitement which we all professed so much to deprecate:—with regret that the Government of this country, with all the importance and dignity which ought to belong to it, should so trifle with Parliament and the country. For it must be remembered there was a wide difference between an agitation produced by itinerant demagogues and an agitation of which Her Majesty's Ministers condescended to place themselves at the head. This Reform Bill was the result of that compromise of principles which, in Government phraseology, was termed coalition. The tone of the speech of the noble Lord in introducing his Reform Bill was almost that of a funeral oration. The Bill had lain in State now for nearly three weeks. Its obsequies had taken place that night. The noble Lord the Member for London had attended as chief mourner, and probably the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton would assist as mute at this mournful ceremonial. The only way of accounting for this new system of postponement was, that the Government were aware that, like a spinning-top, if they stood still they must fall. If their proposing the most important measures, and proposing them advisedly, and then withdrawing them on the most trivial grounds, were the principles upon which Her Majesty's Government intended to proceed then no wonder that in their projected Reform Bill they had endeavoured to make appeals to their constituents few and far between, and to make themselves as irresponsible as possible to public opinion.

Sir, I am induced to trespass upon the attention of the House for a few moments, in consequence of the speech which has been addressed to it by the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley). Sir, I believe I have been a reformer quite as long its lie. I believe I have had opportunities of observing the conduct of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London much more nearly, and much more closely, than the hon. Baronet ever had; and if he will permit me to use the privilege of age and experience in giving him any advice upon the present occasion, I would say that if he values the cause of reform—if he really wishes practical success to reform measures, and not merely to make them themes for declamation and agitation—if he wishes to see those measures carried into effect, let him follow the guidance of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, who has been our captain, and has led us to victory in many a well-fought field, and who I believe to be not wavering or dissenting on the present occasion, but cautious and judicious. I confess, for my own part, so far from agreeing with the hon. Baronet that the cause of Parliamentary reform has suffered by the course intimated by the noble Lord, my belief is that no policy could have been imagined more fatal to that cause than if the question had been forced upon an unwilling House of Commons, or forced prematurely upon an indifferent and reluctant public by the noble Lord on the present occasion. Sir, the people of this country are desirous at the present moment of uniting heart and hand in prosecuting a far greater struggle than any in which England had yet been engaged; and, I must add, that I believe this House, faithfully representing the feelings of the country, is not disposed to seek for occasions of party differences which might weaken the Government in the great struggle in which we are about to engage with a foreign Power, but at the outset of this formidable contest is inclined to believe that the duty devolves upon it of presenting united counsels, and a serried front to the nations of Europe, which are closely watching our actions. I have seen it stated in the newspapers that, in conversation upon one occasion, the Emperor of Russia said he had no fear of the power of England, because he believed that what he was pleased to call a bourgeoise House of Commons would never support the Government in a great and patriotic course of action in foreign policy. I think the demeanour of this House and the country will soon convince him of his mistake. Sir, upon that ground I heartily rejoice at the course which the Government have pursued with reference to the question of Parliamentary reform. I think they are right not only to postpone the Bill upon the present occasion, but I think they would act extremely wrong if they pledged themselves to bring it forward at any time, or under any circumstances, when their sense of public duty may tell them that, as conscientious men, they would not be discharging their duty to the Crown and to the country by introducing it to Parliament; and I hope that no taunt or sneer will drive them from that which I hold to be the course of public duty—namely, not for any minor considerations—not for any considerations of an unworthy description—in the least to waver from the position of judging of events as they arise, and not to commit themselves prematurely to any course which, when the time came, might be contrary to their sense of public duty. We are told we are on the eve of a war. It is true there is yet a possibility that war may be avoided, and if so, one or two months hence may be a very proper time to proceed with the consideration of the Reform Bill; but my anticipation is very different. I am afraid that before the 27th of April we shall be involved in an arduous and severe contest; and therefore my opinion is that it would be a most unwise course to urge the Government to proceed with the Bill at that time. One word more, and I have done. The hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster seemed to call upon the country to agitate upon this question. My belief is, that the country is too sensible and patriotic to adopt any policy of the sort. Sir, they know very well that this is not a time for internal dissensions of any kind; and I will say that, although I believe there is a great body who would like to see a practical and well-devised scheme for improving the representation of the people, yet this House, as at present composed, is, I believe, in the opinion of the country, a fair representative of its opinions, and fitted to be entrusted with the conduct of its affairs, either in peace or in war. There is, therefore, no reason whatever why we should, at all costs and hazards, urge upon Government this question of Parliamentary reform. I will conclude, Sir, by saying, that I, for one, am content to leave the question with entire confidence in the hands of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. I think the course he has recommended is a wise and patriotic course; and I hope that neither he nor any other Member of the Government will be induced to give a pledge of any kind which may in the slightest degree embarrass that free action and that liberty to judge of events as they arise, which Ministers of the Crown ought always to possess, but especially at such a time as the present.

observed, that, whatever might be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), and whatever disappointment might be felt by the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley), he told both hon. Gentlemen, and the House as well, that the course taken by the noble Lord was no more than he expected. He had witnessed so much vacillation on the part of the noble Lord, that he had no doubt, though the noble Lord would not tell them so, that he had now only carried out the intention he entertained from the very first day of introducing his Bill. He believed, though of course the noble Lord would not tell them so, that the measure was nothing but a hoax—

"Parturiunt montes; nascetur ridiculus mus."

There sat the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, who had, in the course of his political career, promised a variety of things, though no one as yet had ever witnessed anything he had done which had been of the slightest good. The country would feel gratified in one respect with the statement the noble Lord had made tonight, inasmuch as they would feel convinced that he was afraid to bring his measure forward. The noble Lord's own seat depended upon it; and, however he might be supported now by hon. Members opposite, should that day arrive—though he (Colonel Sibthorp) believed it never would—when the Bill of the noble Lord should pass, then would come the time for those whom the noble Lord thought his friends to stick it well into him.

said that, representing as he did a constituency which, he believed, no one supposed to be backward in the cause of reform, he felt it his duty to state his belief that the country would be gratified at the course the noble Lord had taken; and he must further say, that he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (though he was sure the hon. Baronet did not intend it) had used language in reference to that noble Lord which was most ungenerous, and which must have occasioned pain not only to the noble Lord, but to those reformers who had been so long accustomed to confide in him. He thought no one could have looked at the noble Lord while he was speaking without observing that there was a struggle going on in his mind between what was due to his personal honour and the pledges he had given to the House, and what he must necessarily yield to a stern sense of public duty. The noble Lord had been blamed in former times for exhibiting too much moral courage, and a famous person had said of him that he was at all times ready to undertake anything at a moment's notice. But in the present case, however much the noble Lord might feel that his personal honour was engaged, He could not control the force of circumstances, nor urge public opinion beyond a given point. If the Government had said that in spite of all resistance they thought they could bring the Bill to a fair and successful termination, he should have been prepared to give them a humble but hearty support; but, unless they were prepared to say that, he thought they did wisely in postponing the Bill. The House ought to feel that the noble Lord, in postponing the Bill to the period he had named, was influenced by this motive—that, when the united efforts of the four Powers had failed to curb the ambition of Russia, and vigorous action became necessary, the great duty of the country was first to accomplish that object, and afterwards to turn its attention to such internal reforms as might be necessary. In and out of the House he found this opinion prevailing, and for himself he should be exceedingly sorry to use one language there and another out of doors in order to pander to some low feeling of popularity. It was all very well for hon. Members to wish to stand well with their constituents; but they had a higher duty to perform, and they must be prepared occasionally to sacrifice something of popularity to what they felt the great interests of the country demanded. They must not forget—and it was an important point in the consideration of the question—that in asking Members to agree to the second reading of this Bill, they were calling upon many to sacrifice themselves upon the altar of public duty. Some Members were asked to agree to the disfranchisement of boroughs with which they had long been connected; others, to the partial disfranchisement of the places they represented; and there was a third class, and these might be said to be on a bed of down, with whom the only difficulty would be as to the election of a third representative. Upon these, and other points, Members would be called upon to express their opinions on the second reading of the Bill, to which opinions they would stand committed, and this, if the measure was not to pass, for no practical object. For his own part, he should have no hesitation in tomorrow tendering his resignation to his constituents and asking them to re-elect him, even after the expressions he was now using; but this was not a desirable position to place either hon. Gentlemen or the country in, Reformers had also to consider, if the Bill was forced on, what was the chance of carrying the measure? There was a powerful minority against it on the other side of the house, and it would doubtless meet with much resistance in the other House. They had the declaration of the noble Lord who ranked very high as a reformer, that the present was a most inconvenient time to proceed with a measure of this kind. The chances were, then, that by pressing on the measure, as his hon. Friend (Sir J. Shelley) suggested, they would only be forcing a delusion on the country. The question was, not whether they should have a Reform Bill or not, but simply whether this was the proper time for bringing it forward. Under these circumstances, he thought the decision to which the noble Lord had come, was wise, correct, and expedient.

He did not object to the postponement of this Reform Bill—in his opinion, to have persevered in that Bill at the present juncture would have been dangerous and unwise—but he did object to a course of conduct on the part of Her Majesty's Government by which the country had been excited and misled. He thought the explanation they had that evening heard from the noble Lord was humiliating and discreditable to Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord had said nothing which, in his mind, could save himself or the Government from this dilemma—namely, that if the Reform Bill ought not to be persevered in, it ought not to have been introduced. Her Majesty's Ministers had laid on the table a Bill which had excited the hopes and the fears of large classes of the people, and he held that they were not justified as a Government in so submitting that Bill to Parliament unless they had been prepared to press it forward with all the weight and with all the influence which the Government of the Crown could use. The noble Lord had told them that night that he postponed this Bill on account of a message which had been sent to the Emperor of Russia. Would the noble Lord tell the House that on the clay when he moved for leave to introduce this Bill he did not contemplate sending that message to the Emperor of Russia? Was there any one respect in which the position of Parliament, the position of the Government, or the position of the country was different that day from what it was on the day upon which this Bill was introduced? The noble Lord had said that this Bill ought not to go forward, because we are on the point of war. Had the noble Lord forgotten what he himself said on a former evening upon this very subject? Had he forgotten that he told the House that the very first effect of an approaching war would involve increased taxation—that increased taxation required increased confidence on the part of the people towards their representatives—and that, therefore, this was the time above all others pre-eminently fitted for a Reform Bill. How did the noble Lord reconcile the language of that day with the language which they had now heard? He was sorry to say that he thought the conduct of the Government had been such as greatly to impair in the eyes of the country the position which it was most desirable they should occupy at such a moment of public excitement and at such a critical conjunction of affairs. He believed that by the weak and vacillating conduct of the Government they had involved us in a war with Russia. [Hear, hear!] He would not shrink from adopting the opinion which he believed could be demonstrated and proved, that the timidity and vacillation of the Government had mainly led to the war with Russia. That was proved by the papers which had been laid upon the table of the House; but the Government must admit—the noble Lord himself had this night admitted—that they (the Opposition) who dissent from the policy of the Government, had met them in a patriotic spirit. They thought them right in the vigour at which they had at last arrived, and they were willing unanimously to support them in the war they were about to enter on. But this policy required unanimity, and made it most important and desirable that they should act as one man in facing their enemies; and he thought it rendered the conduct of the Government gravely reprehensible, that they had endeavoured to agitate the country and Parliament by a measure upon which they knew it was impossible for unanimity to exist. The Government had only proposed two measures of importance this year. One of these measures they had now postponed, and with the other it appeared they dare not proceed. The one was this Bill to amend the representation of the people, and the other a Bill affecting deeply some of the most grave constitutional questions and some of the most important constitutional guarantees for the religious liberties of this coun- try. Such was the present position of the Government. He repeated, he did not object to the postponement of this Bill; on the contrary, he thought the Government would have been deeply reprehensible had this Bill been persevered in; but he could not refrain from expressing his strong and emphatic condemnation of their conduct in bringing forward a measure which, if it ought not to be persevered in, ought never to have been introduced.

said that he, for one, had heard with deep regret the determination of the Government to postpone this Bill, because he feared it might excite in the minds of the people a suspicion that they wished to give up the measure altogether;—but he had sufficient confidence in the noble Lord and the Government to which he belonged, to think that they could not be guilty of that which was charged against them. They could not, consistently with their character as public men, ever again hold up their heads if they had introduced this Bill as a mere sham and delusion. He believed they were sincere, and it was because He believed that they were sincere that he had given them his hearty support in the measure they had introduced. He would not say that the reasons they had urged for postponing this Bill appeared to him to be sufficient; but he was not on that account to declare that they were not at liberty to determine the period at which, in their opinion, it was most convenient to proceed with the measure, provided they allowed plenty of time, in dealing with it before the end of the Session. It was to be expected that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side should rise and say they approved of the postponement of the Bill; but for progressive reformers—for those who desired to see the grounds of discontent removed from among the people of this country—for such men to throw doubts into the public mind with regard to the intentions of the Government, was really too bad. The hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster spoke of the reformers of England. What did he know of the reformers of England? He (Mr. Hume) thought He knew as much of them as he did; and he could only say that every communication he had had from the country spoke favourably of the Bill as a whole. There might be points which, when it came into Committee, might be modified; but, looking to it as a measure which gave a share of representation to large classes of the people, which—bringing them with- in the pale of the Constitution, tended to remove discontent—he said, this appeared to him to be a large and comprehensive measure. Every man who sat in that House as a reformer ought to embrace, and not find fault with it. He would not form so base an opinion of the Government as to think they would not apply their whole force to carry it through a second reading. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington), that if they were not determined to go through with it, they ought not to have introduced it. Having introduced it, with all the obligations which the Government had incurred, and after the speech of the noble Lord upon that occasion, he never could form such a base opinion of them as seemed to have been formed by some who called themselves reformers. He advised all such men to pass from the ranks. He could guard against those who called themselves his enemies, but not against those who called themselves his friends. Though it should be lost—though the Government should be placed in a minority upon this question—it would only tend to rouse the spirit of the country in its favour. He wanted no agitation. The people had perfect confidence in the Government, that after two years' promises, after having brought in a measure so beneficial and so good, they would give a fair chance of carrying it through with success.

said, he had risen after the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) to express his entire dissent from the conclusion which, with great self-complacency, but, as it seemed to him, without any sufficient reason, the right hon. Baronet had formed of his own conduct and that of obis party under the present circumstances of affairs. The right hon. Gentleman had claimed for himself and his Friends credit for the highest patriotism; and on what grounds? Because, he says, he and those who act with him had offered no opposition to voting large and increased estimates to carry on a war into which, as he (Sir G. Grey) believed, the Government had been inevitably dragged—not by their vacillation, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, but, as he (Sir G. Grey) thought, by the determined ambition of the Emperor of Russia. What, then, was the patriotism of the right hon. Gentleman? Was it that he and his party were willing to put these additional ways and means to carry on a war which he believed would be a struggle of a most serious character, and the termination of which no man could foresee, into the hands of a Government which, he says, is weak, timid, irresolute, and vacillating? And did the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, think that he and his party are patriotic in allowing this Government to continue in power and to carry on the war. Why, if the right hon. Gentleman and those who sat near him really entertained that opinion of the Government, it was their duty to take the sense of the House of Commons, and to use their best endeavours to place those means in the hands of men not characterised by those grave defects which would incapacitate a Government from carrying on a war with effect. But, if the right hon. Gentleman did not entertain these opinions, or, if entertaining them, he shrunk from this test, then he (Sir G. Grey) thought it anything but patriotic to get up night after night to make insinuations against the Government, the only effect of which would be to depreciate its efforts, to weaken its hands, and to lessen it both in the opinion of this country and of Europe. He believed that these opinions were not shared by the country; that, on the contrary, they thought the Government had acted with caution and prudence, and with a sincere desire of avoiding war and maintaining peace in the negotiations which they have carried on; and he further believed that they were prepared to confide in their ability to act with vigour and efficiency in carrying on the war if they are forced into it. He thought that the Government had taken a wise, prudent, and judicious course in postponing this measure. He did not concur with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that, after the pledges given by the Government, and after the general expectation that they would introduce a measure for the improvement of the representation, it would have been wise in them to have refrained from laying such a measure before the country. He could understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to see no change in the representation, and that they regretted the Government should have brought in a measure of this character. But he did not share those feelings and objections; and, he said, that any Government would have been to blame which had pressed such a measure upon the consideration of the House, and had refused to postpone any measure pending in Parliament which could interfere with the vigorous prosecution of the war. He was content, for one, that the decision upon this subject should rest in the hands of the Government. He asked for no pledge that this measure shall be forced on during the present Session, irrespective of any circumstances that might arise. He thought that the course which the Government had taken upon this subject deserved the increased confidence of the country, for it proved that they would not prejudice the real interests of the country by pressing on the Bill at a moment when those interests might be thereby damaged. They had been told that his noble Friend had pursued a course injurious to his personal honour. He could not see that his noble Friend's personal honour was in question. Any pledge given by bins or by the Government to bring in a measure on this subject could not have been given in such absolute terms, either as Ministers of the Crown or as Members of this House, as to debar them from the exercise of the duty of considering whether and at what time they ought to submit a measure of this importance to Parliament. He could only say that, in his opinion, the personal honour of his noble Friend had been best consulted by his taking that course which, as a Minister of the Crown and as a Member of this House, he believed to be most conducive to the interests of the country. That course had been taken by his noble Friend, and his conduct would entitle bins to the renewed confidence of the country.

having read the Motion,

said: Sir, I wish to make an observation or two before this Motion is agreed to. I do not clearly understand the reasons of the noble Lord in favour of this Motion, which, however, I shall certainly not oppose. I understood the noble Lord to say that the supplies had been granted by all parties in this House with a facility and spirit very commendable; and therefore I conclude, when the noble Lord made his statement in introducing this Bill of projected Parliamentary reform, he had, of course, calculated all the circumstances connected with supply which could affect its second reading. But though the noble Lord had taken into consideration the time necessary for granting supply, I now understand him to say that he had not taken into consideration the time necessary for voting the ways and means. That appears to be one of the reasons why the noble Lord thinks it expedient to postpone the consideration of the second reading of this Bill of Par- liamentary reform, which was fixed for the 13th of this month. It certainly appears somewhat strange that the noble Lord should have omitted to take into calculation the time necessary for voting ways and means, as well as granting supply; yet that appears, so far as I could follow the noble Lord, the most efficient argument adduced in favour of his change of operations. The noble Lord, in estimating the time for these financial operations, could hardly have supposed that so small a space would have been required for supply as turned out to be the case; for I think the noble Lord himself voluntarily expressed his satisfaction with the conduct of the House of Commons in this behalf, and I am sure every Gentleman present will agree that supply was never voted with more alacrity. I know I myself attended yesterday morning at an unusually early hour for supply, in order to lay one or two matters before the consideration of the Committee, and I found half a million had been voted in the time I was taking off my great-coat and walking to my usual seat on this bench, by which I lost the opportunity of making those remarks. Therefore, when the noble Lord made up his mind to come down to the House and propose a great project, when he estimated the time which must elapse before the decision of the House upon its merits could be taken, he could hardly have supposed that voting supply would have taken so short a time as it did; and it therefore would appear that the noble Lord did not take into his calculation the necessity of the House considering ways and means as well as supply. I do not know whether the noble Lord will find as great facility with the ways and means as he has with supply, but I own I am rather alarmed at the intimation the noble Lord gives us of what awaits us next Monday. But a second reason given by the noble Lord is also, in my mind, of not so satisfactory a nature as, for the sake of the noble Lord, I could have wished. The noble Lord says we are still negotiating with the Emperor of Russia. The noble Lord was, of course, aware of that when he introduced the Bill on the 13th of last month. The noble Lord then, of course, calculated the time which would necessarily or probably elapse before these negotiations could be brought to an issue, as well as the time that would be required by the House of Commons to vote supply and ways and means. Now, I want to know why the noble Lord having these means of forming an estimate of the time necessary, and having for its purpose more experience than perhaps any Member of the House—why the noble Lord took the step he did, of introducing this measure, of fixing a day for the decision of the House on the second reading when it appears, from the reasons which the noble Lord has offered us to-day, he was not justified in the course which he then took, and is, consequently, obliged to postpone for a considerable period the time when the decision of the House of Commons can be asked on this measure, and when he declines—very wisely declines—to pledge himself that even on that distant day the decision of the House of Commons shall be demanded. I cannot help thinking, looking to the very great importance of the subject—looking also to the peculiar circumstances in which we find ourselves involved—it would have been better if the noble Lord, having come to the decision that it was advisable to postpone this measure, had met us openly at first, and told us that circumstances did not justify him in bringing forward so soon as he intended a measure of Parliamentary reform; that he felt himself pledged to introduce a measure of that kind as soon as circumstances admitted it—but that, until he clearly saw he had the power and opportunity of proceeding with the measure, he would not detail to the House the scheme of reform which he meant to introduce. I think that would have been the wisest and most discreet course for a Minister to have taken, because, Sir, we must remember that this is a question which has not been hastily taken up by the noble Lord and his Colleagues. It is mow for several years that the noble Lord, as Minister, or in a position almost as eminent, has been announcing to the House and to the country that he intended to propose a further reform of the House of Commons. The noble Lord had the advantage, as First Minister, of proposing a measure for the reform of Parliament. It was laid on the table—not a single objection was ever made to it by any Gentleman who sits on this side of the House—indeed no opportunity was ever given to us of discussing that measure. Well, a considerable time has now elapsed, and we have on the table another measure of Parliamentary reform which has no resemblance to the one introduced two years ago; though the noble Lord cannot allege that, in consequence of the opposition at that time, or the criticism which it elicited, the measure he now offers is so different in character from its predecessor. Again we are in a position in which there is at least a prospect of the second Reform Bill of the noble Lord not being proceeded with. It is postponed to a distant day. Its projector announces that even he will not pledge himself on that distant day to bring it forward. Its projector may be perfectly justified in the course which he has taken, but in my opinion he ought never to have brought forward the measure in detail, if he did not see a fair prospect of advancing it. The House should consider this point—Is it for the public advantage that a Minister of the country should always be laying siege, as it were, to its constitution? It is a very fair thing for a Member of the House of Commons, who thinks there ought to be great changes in the State, to bring forward his ideas by way of Motion in this House. He generally gets defeated by a considerable majority. He renews his efforts from time to time. If public sympathy is sluggish, his project sleeps; if circumstances allow him to bring it forward with more advantage, his project advances; it may in time be crowned with success. He carries on a constitutional and not a dangerous agitation. The greatest evil which he has to encounter—the very greatest misfortune he has to experience—is, perhaps, for the House to be counted out, as it once was counted out on Parliamentary reform itself. Such a course operates in no manner injurious to the public; but it is a very different thing when a Minister announces that he is an agitator against the institutions of the country. The noble Lord may be perfectly right in his views on this question—not that I am entering now in any way into the merits of his measure—but it is a great disadvantage that a Minister of England should be avowedly one who disapproves of the institutions of the country, and does not change them only because he has not the power. Whatever may be the merits of the measure of the noble Lord, or of any other measure on the subject which may be introduced by any other Minister or Gentleman, one great advantage in the Constitution is, that it is a thing settled. We live under a Constitution, of which the essence of its excellency is, that it is something which is established. Now, I want to know what has been the position of the House of Commons—of the reformed House of Commons—when for the last four or five years the most eminent man in our assembly, justly possessing the confidence of a great party in the nation, has announced that he disapproves of the character of this institution of the State; that be disapproves of its elements, of the materials of which it is formed; that he thinks measures should be passed which should greatly change its character, which should greatly affect its influence—who yet is unable to pass his measures, and nevertheless remains Minister of the country. There are a great many Gentlemen in this House who, like the Member for East Kent, who addressed us to-night, are, they tell us—and we have no reason to doubt them—sincere and conscientious reformers, but who think it an inopportune season to deal with the reconstruction of Parliament when we are engaged in a war which may be a war of magnitude. I will not now discuss that topic. If ever there should be an opportunity, we shall discuss it on the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, though I confess I am not very sanguine that the speeches intended to be made on that subject will ever, Sir, be addressed to you. But consider the effect. If the policy recommended by the hon. Member for East Kent be right—and unquestionably it is one supported, if not by a majority, by large numbers in this House (that is evident from the tone of this discussion)—look at the position in which the noble Lord has placed the House, by introducing his measure in detail to us, and, at the same time, not being able to carry it forward. Now, Sir, our supplies have been voted with a feeling of unanimity to which the noble Lord, I think in a very proper tone, did justice, but which the right hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House cavilled at, with, I think, less correct feeling. But, Sir, whatever may be the fortune of this war, we shall not be wise men if we suppose, as in some quarters is flippantly supposed, that it is to be a brief war—that its end is to be accomplished in a moment. It is more prudent to suppose that we are about to embark in a severe, and even a protracted struggle. All men agree that it is wiser to prepare for such a contingency. Well, Sir, no Ministry, not even a Ministry as favoured as those who sit on the bench before me, can suppose that year after year they can proceed with a war of this character always with success, always with enthusiasm on the part of the people, always with ready and generous sympathy on the part of the House of Commons, even on the part of their opponents. There will be moments of gloom, despondency, and discontent. There may be—which God forbid!—there may be disaster. There may be moments when it will be difficult to appeal to the House of Commons for support. You may not have political parties with the same spirit which now animates them. You may have near divisions on questions of increased or new taxation. The Ministry may carry an unpopular tax, or continue an unpopular war, by a very narrow majority; and then, when the people of this country come to look at the majority of twenty, perhaps, which doubles the income-tax, or reimposes the soap duty, they will say, "Here are twenty fellows, eighteen of whom ought not to have seats in the House of Commons; here are twelve in schedule A, here are six in schedule B; these are the supporters of the Government;" the very men whom they have denounced, and marked, and branded as persons unworthy of public confidence; and it would be added, "Yet these are the men who are carrying on war with the Emperor of All the Russias; these are the men who are inflicting these colossal imposts on the people of this country." The weight of such circumstances should alone have made the noble Lord hesitate before he introduced his measure in detail, and should certainly make him hesitate before he makes up his mind to relinquish it for ever. In my mind, it would be of advantage that the House of Commons should decide upon this scheme. I know the noble Lord has already stated that he himself sees no objection to proceeding with a measure of Parliamentary reform in a time of war, and of all wars, the one most opportune for Parliamentary reform is, according to the noble Lord, a Russian war. Those are admissions which have been generously and voluntarily offered to us by the noble Lord. I am, therefore, to suppose that the noble Lord will find it his duty—difficult as it is to imagine such an event—some day to propose the second reading of this Bill. But the noble Lord will, of course, be in some degree influenced by the sentiments of his chief supporters. I have listened to them to-night with some dismay; and if the noble Lord can extract from the expression of their opinions any harmony of feeling to guide him in what, I admit, is a most difficult conjuncture—and if any man in the House is equal to the task, the noble Lord is he—he will accomplish greater results almost than he has ever yet achieved. For contrast the support which he has received to-night from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey), with that which has been authoritatively pronounced, on the part of English Radicals, by the patriarch of reform, the hon. Member for Montrose. The right, hon. Member for Taunton tells us he is for postponement, but the only thing he more particularly wishes is entire withdrawal. That, I infer, would be the policy recommended by the right hon. Member for Taunton. The Member for Morpeth, who read an unnecessary lecture to my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), has sung in the same note as the Member for Taunton—that there is nothing in the world more prudent than postponement, except giving up the Bill's altogether. What says the hon. Member for Montrose? If the Bill is given up, he exclaims, its projectors are abased—they cannot hold up their heads on the Treasury bench again—their character is lost for ever; but he knows them so well, his confidence in them is so unbounded, that he is an certain, come what will, on the 24th of April we shall have the second reading of this Bill, as that he is now sitting in his wonted seat in the House of Commons. But these very expressions of the hon. Gentleman must prepare the Government for what awaits them, if on that day, which he deems impossible may occur, the Reform Bill should not be read a second time. Sir, I cannot congratulate the Government on the prospective condemnation of the hon. Gentleman's amiable credulity. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth has just, according to his wont, delivered some sententious dogmas to the House for the guidance of their conduct. The right hon. Gentleman will not hear of statesmen placed in the situation of the noble Lord, as leader of the House, being influenced in these great matters of State by what are called feelings of personal honour. The right hon. Gentleman says, "A statesman is to do that which he believes best for the country, and he is not to be hampered by feelings of personal consideration, arising out of pledges which he may have given, and representations which he may have made;" and the right hon. Gentleman reproved those Members of the House who referred to a feeling of private honour as one which ought to bind the noble Lord in the circumstances in which he stands. I will not enter into a controversy upon one of the finest points of ethics; but when the right hon. Gentleman lectures the House so freely, has he forgotten that only within, I may say, a few days the Prime Minister of England, in another place, excusing and apologising, as it were, for the conduct of the Government in introducing this Bill, said it was impossible not to introduce it, for the Ministers were bound to do so as a matter of honour. Sir, I am always ready to recognise the eminent position of the noble Lord, and ready to defer to his opinion, as that of one of the guiding spirits of the Ministry; but, if only as a matter of courtesy, some credit is due to the public declaration of the First Minister, and when I read, authoratively declared to us, the declaration, that the Government, in introducing this Bill, were influenced by a feeling of personal honour, I think the lecture which we have received from the right hon. Member for Morpeth is both unauthorised and misplaced. This declaration, Sir, made by Lord Aberdeen in another place reminds me of one point which I cannot leave untouched, because it has considerable reference to the subject before us. What were the conditions upon which the present Government was formed, according to the present Prime Minister? What was—to use a word which is not English, and is, perhaps, used too often here—what was the political programme of the existing Administration? The noble Earl, when, a little more than a year ago, he acceded to office—it is very remarkable, and this is an occasion on which the country should be reminded of it—announced that his Government was formed on four great principles—the extension of free trade, which has not been extended; the maintenance of peace, which has become a state of war; the principle of public education, to be secured by the production of a great legislative measure, which great legislative measure we have not had; but this we have received from Her Majesty's Government—opposition to the only educational measure which has been introduced into the House; and lastly, and above all, a large measure of Parliamentary reform. When that large measure of Parliamentary reform may be carried, I pretend not to foresee. Some may be as sanguine as the hon. Member for Montrose; others, on the contrary, may be as hopeful as the right hon. Members for Taunton and Morpeth. But one thing, I think, is pretty well as- certained, that, notwithstanding the Emperor of All the Russias, before April elapses the question will, at least, be set at rest, and we shall know whether the House is to be reconstructed, or whether we are to continue as at present, assisting in the government of the country with nearly a sixth of our Members held up to the public by Ministers as men not entitled or qualified to exercise the office of representatives of the people. So much for the great principles on which the Government of my Lord Aberdeen was founded, and so much for the four large measures that were to be introduced. This, the Reform Bill, was the last to which the supporters of the Government seemed to cling; and they had a right to believe that this was a promise which would be fulfilled, because representations were made to their followers not in slight and ordinary terms, and because expectations were held out to the country not of a trivial character. We are told now that wars and rumours of wars are the sufficient causes for the present Government not fulfilling this their positive and most important pledge. But, remember, at the time when war, and even invasion, was deemed to be instant and impending, this promise of reform was repeated, this pledge was renewed, and Members of the present Cabinet even went to the hustings when appointed to office, and at the same time dilated on the terrors of invasion and the blessings of reform. Remember, also, that at the time when the present Government was constructed, we were told that it was framed on a principle of enormous personal sacrifice—that men descended to occupy posts inferior to their previous situations, and even inferior to their own opinion of their own talents. We were told then that there were extreme difficulties in bringing together a band of highly-gifted patriots, sacrificing all selfish considerations on the altar of their country—so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example, and the President of Public Works could meet together in council to consult for the welfare of their country. But a great principle did bring them together—Parliamentary reform—so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was concerned, in a Conservative sense, and so far as the President of the Board of Works was concerned, in a form that would satisfy the disciples of Bentham and of Grote. This was the talisman that bound them all together; this, the pervading influence, which allowed elements, apparently so dis- cordant, to work in harmony for the advantage of the country. But the spell seems to have evaporated, though it is the only condition to which we are indebted for enjoying, at this moment, the administrative abilities of the First Lord of the Admiralty. At a time when we have two considerable fleets, when we have penetrated the mysteries of the Euxine and are about to break the ice of the Baltic, it is a satisfaction to recollect that, if Lord Aberdeen had not agreed to bring forward a large measure of Parliamentary reform—not a wise measure, not a moderate measure, but a large measure of Parliamentary reform—then, for aught we can see, the energy, the experience which distinguish the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would not have been enlisted in the service of his Sovereign and his country. Sir, these considerations I offer for the consolation of Parliamentary reformers. I fear they can hardly hope to have their measure, but there has been some magic in the name. Under that standard, at least, those have enlisted who, I have no doubt, will contribute to the greatness of the country and the glory of Parliament, They, at least, have been led by that phrase to form a coalition Government, and their supporters must he satisfied that, though the "large measure" which they looked forward to with so much eagerness cannot be passed, still if the phrase had not been circulated, the Ministers who have disappointed them would not now be sitting on those benches.

Sir, it is not necessary for me to add anything to the statement which I made before, with a view to explain that statement. But the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down does seem to call for some observations from me, because it was a criticism, ingeniously framed, which yet left himself entirely uncommitted—it had no sort of bearing upon the question before us. And it seems really to have been intended for no other purpose than to display his own ability. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) may, I think, gather a lesson of wisdom from the performance of his right hon. Colleague. The right hon. Member for Droitwich was far too explicit. He said that Her Majesty's Ministers were unwise in bringing forward the question of Parliamentary Reform at all, and he condemned them entirely for so doing; he declared also that their weakness in negotiation had brought on war, and that they had thus proved themselves unfit for conducting the affairs either of our foreign or domestic policy. In answer to this, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) says, promptly and naturally, why do you not move a vote of want of confidence? But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire avoided any such difficulty—he avoids the humiliating confession that he thinks Ministers utterly unfit for conducting either our domestic or our foreign affairs, and yet that he is afraid to brave the risk of moving for their exclusion from the posts they now occupy. No, Sir, the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire has treated this question with more skill. He indulges in general comments upon the observations which have fallen from different Members, but he satisfies himself with flowing periods—with the utterance of sarcasms, which please his supporters, and leave him and them altogether unfettered. The right hon. Gentleman somewhat resembles the poet of whom it is said that—

"He fagotted his notions as they fell,

And if they rhymed and rattled, all was well."

The right hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth stated, that I need have no regard to my personal honour on this question, and that the noble Lord at the head of the Government declared, on the other hand, that this was entirely a question of personal honour. Sir, I conceive that both meant the same thing. My right hon. Friend said that I should not oppose any regard to my personal honour to the well-understood interests of the country—my noble Friend at the head of the Government declared that not only was this a question connected with personal honour, but that it was also connected with the interests of the country. Sir, I should be ashamed of myself if I were to prefer a concern for my own personal reputation to that which I understood to be for the interests of my country. But it seems to me that the character of the men who rule this country—whether they be at the moment in office or in opposition—is a matter of the utmost interest to the people of this country, and that it is of paramount importance that full confidence should be reposed in their character. It is, in fact, on the confidence reposed by the people in the character of public men, that the security of this country in a great degree depends. In treating of this question, the right hon. Gentleman alluded to an opinion of mine, that the fact of the State being at war was not in itself a decisive reason against the consideration of measures relating to the representation of the people. Sir, I conceive I am fully justified in that opinion, because there have been two great measures connected with representation—connected with disfranchisement—conducted by two great Ministers in the midst of two great wars. In 1706 Lord Somers, a statesman of the highest and most deserved reputation, introduced a measure which was not only a measure of disfranchisement—which not only disfranchised 107 out of 152 Members returned for Scotland—but he thereby excited the utmost provocation in a whole nation, and caused for a time a state of great discontent throughout a great portion of the United Kingdom. A century later, Mr. Pitt, then Prime Minister, introduced a measure by which, out of 1300 Irish representatives, 200 were disfranchised, and he also thereby caused great discontent in that portion of the United Kingdom. At the former period, Marlborough was conducting his campaigns in Flanders; at the latter, Napoleon was fighting the battle of Marengo. Yet these great Ministers did not think these wars a sufficient reason for not introducing those great measures affecting the state of the representation. Sir, the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) asks me to give him some further explanation as to what will be the course I shall take in the month of April. Sir, I shall give him no other explanation than I have given. The hon. Gentleman shall not hear from me any attempt to explain to him further, or to satisfy him in respect to my intentions or my views. The hon. Gentleman says that this proposition of Parliamentary reform may have been, and that he believes it is, altogether a sham on my part. Sir, if that declaration had come from my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose—the true representative of those reformers who agree with him in opinion—I own I should have felt deep mortification; but, coming from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster, who has no right to speak in the name of the reformers, I feel utter indifference towards such an imputation. The hon. Baronet, perhaps, does not know that I conducted propositions for reform a long time before he could take any part in public affairs; that for ten years I proposed reforms of the representation in opposition to a man of no less genius, and eloquence, and varied powers than Mr. Canning; that, in 1831, the Government to which I belonged were twice defeated on their propositions of reform; and yet, in 1832, a large measure of reform received the assent of Parliament and the Crown, and was accepted by the country. Why, Sir, after having fought these battles of reform, does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster think that he has a right to treat me—[Cheers]—or that my conduct will, in the slightest degree, depend upon any question he may put, or on any taunt he may throw out? I can assure the House that I approach the subject now—that I shall approach it at any future time—with the deepest anxiety to promote the welfare of the country at large. I believe that the addition of large masses of intelligent, independent, and honest men to the constituency of this country will be a great strengthening of our institutions. When I opposed the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose in 1848, thinking that that was not a fit time for proposing large plans of reform, I thought, at the same time, that the temper, the moderation, and the good sense which were shown by the people of this country in the year 1848, demonstrated to the conviction of any man who attended seriously to the spirit of the people at that time—demonstrated that large classes of the people who yet had no votes were fit for the franchise, and that by being brought within the pale of the representation they would confer a benefit upon our institutions, whenever the House of Commons should set itself seriously to consider the question of adding to the electoral body. Those views I still entertain, and, entertaining them, as I said before, it will be with the deepest sense of their importance that I shall proceed to resume the consideration of this measure.

said, he should deeply regret if the House did not afford him an opportunity to explain. He begged to assure the noble Lord that he had expressed himself very ill if he had been supposed to impute to the noble Lord in any way that, in introducing the Bill, he had intended a "sham" upon the country. What he said was this, that unless Ministers persevered with their measure, he feared the impression would go abroad that it was never anything else than a sham, but he added that he himself did not believe that, and he would now entreat the noble Lord to persevere with the second reading.

Allow me to ask one question. Perhaps I misunderstood the noble Lord—but is it intended to proceed with the second reading on the very day the House meets after the Easter holidays, for that would be exceedingly inconvenient?

No; if the House meet on Monday, the second reading will stand for the Thursday following.