people, that " any event in the slightest degree affecting Her Majesty's feelings must at the same time call forth the warm and cordial sympathy of the whole people. We rejoice," said the noble Lord, "in any circumstance which can add to Her Majesty's happiness. We regret that even the slighest cloud should for a moment overshadow her. We cannot, then, withhold the fullest tide of our sympathy and the expressions of our loyal affection at a moment when Her Majesty is visited by an affliction the very deepest which has yet befallen her, an affliction which involves all the purest, dearest, and deepest affections of our nature. I am satisfied that your lordships will give a cordial and ready support to the Address of Condolence."

Viscount Palmerston was the mover of the Address in the House of Commons. He said:

"It is the usual lot of royal families, that mothers and daughters are separated at an early period of the life of the children. Marriage takes the daughter to another land from that inhabited by the mother, and, although that separation in no degree diminishes the strength of natural affection, yet, nevertheless, the habitual separation in some degree mitigates and prepares the more perpetual separation which the course of nature may bring about. But that has not been the case in the present instance. From the earliest infancy of Her Majesty, the mother and daughter have been perpetually together, and their daily intercourse has been that of mutual affection and reciprocal confidence. To the care

and attention of the late Duchess of Kent we owe, in a great degree, that full development which we so much admire, of those great and eminent qualities by which our Sovereign is distinguished; while, on the other hand, the affectionate care of the Sovereign has enabled her to repay, by her kindness and attention, those advantages which the mother was able to confer in the earliest years of her Daughter's existence. Therefore, it is natural that this blow, however in the ordinary course of nature, has come upon Her Majesty with great and intense pain, and I am persuaded that this House will discharge a satisfactory duty in conveying to Her Majesty, by the Address I now propose, the expression of their respectful condolence, their devoted attachment and loyalty to the Crown, and the deep interest which they feel in everything that affects the happiness of Her Majesty in her domestic circle."

Mr. Disraeli seconded the motion, paying a tribute of respect to the Queen, as well as to her august mother. He added:

"For the great grief which has fallen on the Queen there is only one source of human consolation-the recollection of unbroken devotedness to the being whom we have loved and whom we have lost. This tranquil and sustaining memory is the inheritance of our Sovereign. It is

generally supposed that the anguish of affection is scarcely compatible with the pomp of power, but that is not so in the present instance. She who reigns over us has elected, amid all the

splendour of empire, to establish her life on the principle of domestic love. It is this-it is the remembrance and consciousness of this which now sincerely saddens the public spirit, and

permits a nation to bear its heartfelt sympathy to the feet of a bereaved throne, and whisper solace even to a royal heart."

The Address was voted nem. con.

Mr. Bentinck remarked that, although the pretence for the Bill was that its object was to extend the county franchise, its practical effect would be to inundate the rural districts with an urban constituency, and import into those districts the corrupt practices of certain boroughs.

Lord Palmerston said there were two things he did not mean to do-one was, to oppose the motion; the other, to argue the subject of the Bill. The first would be discourteous to the mover, and expose him (Lord Palmerston) to the imputation of a change of opinion upon the subject; and he could not enter into a discussion of the reasons why the Government had not proposed to introduce a Reform Bill this session. He could not assent to the amendment, because it would be anticipating a discussion that would properly belong to the Committee on the Bill. There was a time for waiting, it had been said, as well as a time for action. The present session, he thought, was a time for waiting upon this question, and not for action. Believing that measures of reform were of vast importance, and that they ought to originate with a responsible Government and not with private individuals, he regretted that some of his friends had thought it their duty to anticipate the action of the Ministers of the Crown, and they must take upon themselves all the responsibility of the future progress of their measures, allowing the Government to deal with them as they might think it their duty, from time to time, to do.

Mr. Disraeli said that, under the circumstances, he was not at

all prepared to oppose the introduction of the Bill. He was, however, more strongly of opinion every day that, if there ought to be a measure for the reconstruction of Parliament, it should be large and comprehensive. If such a measure could not be passed, the inference was that there was no necessity for it; and, in a measure of such a character, all the responsibility of Ministers was required. He thought the proposed measure would have an injurious effect upon the country, and that the objections urged by Mr. Newdegate were well worthy the attention of the House.

Mr. Griffith having withdrawn his amendment, the motion was agreed to without a division.

The second reading of the Bill being moved on the 13th of March, a general debate took place, after a short introductory speech by Mr. L. King.

Mr. A. Smith moved the previous question, explaining his reasons for taking this course, instead of moving to defer the second reading for six months. The measure, he remarked, could not be considered by itself, apart from its consequences, one of which must be the division of the country, with reference to the county representation, into electoral districts. He pointed out other effects which it would have upon the balance of interests and upon the urban constituency, to the injury, he believed, of Liberal principles. He deprecated the discussion of these reform measures, which, he said, distracted the attention of the House, and diverted it from the regular business of the session.

This motion was seconded by Mr. Du Cane, who thought the

measure more inopportune and uncalled-for than at any former period, and noticed the absence of agitation and indignation meet ings on the subject of reform, notwithstanding the provocative contained in the remark of Lord J. Russell upon the apathy of the country.

Lord Henley drew attention to some effects which the Bill would produce. It would, he said, increase the already enormous and ruinous expense of county elections, which practically limited the choice of the counties while it saddled families with debt and encumbrances; and it would increase the power of the great freeholders and destroy the influence of the smaller. He should, however, vote for the Bill.

Mr. Adderley argued that the question of reform must be treated as a whole or not at all; that the dealing with it in this manner, by isolated measures, was playing with this great question and with the interests of the country. The Bill contained no principle unconnected with the entire question. He admitted that the present county franchise was too high, but this question, which would be a very fair element in a general Reform Bill, would not justify him in voting for this

measure.

Lord Enfield observed that both sides of the House were pledged to some extent to a reduction of the county franchise; the limit was a question open to consideration. He gave his cordial and hearty assent to the second reading of the Bill.

Mr. Hunt opposed the Bill, which, he said, would introduce a town element into counties. The question was too important

to be dealt with in a fragmentary manner, and by the irresponsible hands of a private member. He objected to the Bill, moreover, on the ground of its intrinsic demerits.

Mr. Coningham considered that this treatment of the great question of reform was trifling with it. The bringing forward petty measures of details was bringing the great Liberal party into contempt. He should give no vote upon the question before the House.

Mr. Bristow supported, and Sir L. Palk, Mr. Barrow, and Mr. A. Egerton opposed the Bill.

Sir G. Lewis observed that the House had, on the first night of the session, confirmed by a large majority the decision of the Government, that it was not advisable that they should introduce this session an extensive measure for lowering the franchise in counties and boroughs. Although he felt that there were many advantages in proceeding gradually, still he thought experience would prove that the question of reform could be satisfactorily dealt with only by a more comprehensive measure than that submitted to the House. The "previous question" would not dispose of the Bill. His vote would be given for its second reading; at the same time he was of opinion that the present was not a favourable opportunity for bringing the subject under the consideration of the House.

Mr. B. Osborne supported the motion in a humorous speech. He said he was puzzled by Sir G. Lewis's speech, who admired Mr. King's Bill as much as ever, but thought it had not been in

Mr. Disraeli, referring to the manner in which the Reform Bill of the last session had been treated by the supporters of the Government, thought they could not be censured for omitting the topic in the Royal Speech, and he was not displeased at the omission. Subjects had occurred since the House had met, how ever, which he thought justified inquiry of the Government as to the general state of our affairs and the policy we were pursuing. Secret diplomacy, we had been told, had been abandoned; yet, notwithstanding all this candour on the part of the Government the public mind was more perplexed and bewildered as to our policy. He wanted to know what was our policy; what was the real state of our relations with France? Had we formed, as had been suggested, new alliances, or attempted to form them, and, if so, on what principles? He had always upheld what was called the French alliance with this country: the wisest and most eminent statesmen had been of opinion that a cordial understanding between the two nations was most conducive to the peace of the world, and that it was practicable. But this cordial understanding depended upon two assumptions that France was of opinion that, by the development of her resources, her power would be more securely ensured than by any increase of territory; and that the noble weakness of the French people--the love of glory-would be satisfied, in any international difficulty, by being consulted. But the policy of our Foreign Secretary had been contrary to that of France, and, as France

believed, hostile to her interests. He proceeded to contend that Lord John Russell had pursued a policy in Italy contrary to that of France by supporting the unity of Italy, to which France is opposed. But had he obtained that unity?

"We hear we know, that a powerful French army is strongly entrenched in the centre of Italy. We know that the contemplated capital of Italy is not in the possession of the Italians. In this age of jubilant nationality Rome is still garrisoned by the Gauls. (Laughter.) We know that Venetia is bristling with Austrian artillery and swarming with German and Sclavonian legions. We know that even the King of the Two Sicilies, deprived of his crown by universal and unanimous suffrage, unfortunately followed by frequent insurrections and martial law, is even at this moment in possession of the two prime strongholds of his kingdom. We know that in the south of Italy they have combined the horrors of revolution with the shade of conquest."

"But, granting that unity is obtained, on what terms will the Emperor of the French consent to it? It will not be the moral force of England but the sword of France that will have won it, and, when it is won, the Emperor will come forward as the natural head of the Latin

race, the emancipator of Italy, at the head of a million bayonets. If the Minister sought that unity he ought to have interfered by material force and not by a puerile and declamatory diplomacy.

Then we should have had grateful allies for our reward. Now, either we must fall back