writs were moved in consequence of the acceptance of
office by Lords Newport and Galway.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had introduced the
New Reform Bill as a minister of the Crown, in
pursuance of the speech from the throne; and as he did
not think that, as an individual member, he should be
able to carry it, he would move that it be read a second
time that day three months. He would not, however,
preclude himself from bringing forward, if he should
think proper, a general resolution upon reform and
extension of the suffrage.—Mr. HUME regretted that
Lord John Russell had taken such a course.—Mr.
WILLIAMS was glad that such a bill had been
abandoned.—Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE complained of the
condition in which the question of reform was left, and
urged upon Lord J. Russell to bring in a bill which
would satisfy the country. Was such a question to be
left to an anti-reform government?—Mr. Grantley
BERKELEY's opinion was that Lord John Russell had
done quite right in withdrawing the bill. The motion
was then agreed to.

On the order of the day for the second reading of the
St. Albans Disfranchisement Bill being read, Sir G.
GREY said that he would leave the bill in the hands of
the government.—Mr. WALPOLE accepted the care of
the bill.—Mr. Jacob BELL pleaded against the
disfranchisement of the borough, and, by way of showing
that St. Albans was no worse than other places, went
into a minute description of the dishonest practices
habitual with election agents. He urged the alteration
of the bribery laws, which, he considered, were defeated
by their own severity; and he moved the adjournment
of the debate, expecting, he said, a petition from St.
Albans. No seconder of the motion appeared.—Mr.
HUME complimented the government on their having
taken up the bill, and urged them to pursue the purification
of the constituencies.—Sir De Lacy EVANS also
thanked the government for adopting the bill, and
hoped he should have their support when moving the
disfranchisement of Harwich. The bill was then read a
second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday.

On Friday, March 12th., Lord John RUSSELL
announced that he did not intend, as a private member,
to press on the Parliamentary Reform Bill of the late
government; but hinted that he might probably move
a resolution pledging the house on the subject of the
extension of the franchise. The Bribery Prevention
Bill he hoped to proceed with.

Mr. WALPOLE, on the part of the government
moved the second reading of the St. Albans
Disfranchisement Bill, which was agreed to after an ineffectual
opposition on the part of Mr. BELL only, whose amendment
fell to the ground for want of a seconder.

The Personal Estates of Intestates Bill passed
through committee.

On Monday, March 15th, Sir J. PAKTINGTON (in
reply to a question put by Mr. J. Wilson, with reference
to the Sugar Duties,) said that, as a member of a
government in an acknowledged minority in that
house, it was his duty to take the course best suited for
the object in view—the relief of West India distress;
and as there was nothing in the case of the sugar duties
which should make it an exception to the policy which
her Majesty's government had avowed their determination
to pursue—not unnecessarily to press upon
Parliament during the present session questions which
it would be better to reserve for another Parliament—
it was not his intention during the present session to
bring forward his motion. The opinions he had
repeatedly expressed upon this subject had, however,
undergone no change, but her Majesty's ministers had
determined that this question, like others of a similar
nature, ought to be reserved for a future Parliament.

In reply to a further question, Sir John stated that
the reduction of duty which was to take place on the
5th of July, would not be interfered with.

In answering a question by Mr. Adderley, Sir J.
PAKINGTON said he had thought it his duty to send
out a despatch by the present mail, pressing upon the
Legislative Council at the Cape of Good Hope to take
the legislative ordinances sent to the colony into early
consideration.

Mr. C. VILLIERS rose to make an inquiry of her
Majesty's ministers as to the policy which the present
government intended to pursue for the regulation of our
Foreign Commerce , and especially that portion engaged
in supplying food for the people. The country, he
observed, had been more perplexed by the information
which had been furnished upon this subject than if it
had received none. It wished to know whether, and in
what way, and how soon, her Majesty's present ministers
were prepared to bring forward the policy they had
advocated when in opposition, in order that it might be
relieved from suspense. He said that the change of
ministry had inspired an apprehension of a change of
policy, which would disturb all the material interests of
the country; peace and comfort had given place to
uncertainty and alarm. Even if the people were
indifferent to privileges which had rendered their condition
so prosperous, that house should not be silent, but
should tell them that the precious gift was about to be
taken from them. He asked the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, therefore, to make a candid and open
avowal of the intentions of the government upon the
subject of their policy in relation to foreign commerce,
and especially whether they meant to reimpose a duty
upon foreign corn.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
though he questioned the reality of the alarm and
distrust to which Mr. Villiers had referred, was ready to
respond fairly and frankly to his challenge. Casting a
retrospective glance upon the course he had taken with
respect to the question of Protection—which, he said, he
had distinctly declared, as an abstract question, was no
longer to be considered in that house until an appeal
had been made to the country—he observed that her
Majesty's present ministers believed that very great
injustice had been done to the agricultural and other
interests since 1846, and that it was desirable, for the
benefit of all classes, that this injustice should be
redressed. But they were not pledged to any specific
measures, and though he would not, to gain popularity,
propose in a future Parliament a moderate fixed duty
upon corn, yet he would not, to avoid bluster, give it as
his opinion that such a duty was one which no minister
under any circumstances ought to propose; but the
proposition should not be made until the verdict of the
country had been obtained. He then announced the
measures which the government proposed to bring
forward—namely, first, the bill already introduced for
the disfranchisement of St. Albans, in conntxion with
which he should hereafter explain the intention of
the government with respect to the distribution of the
vacant seats; secondly, Chancery reform; and, thirdly,
a measure for the internal defence of the country.
Having thus explained the course of ministerial policy,
he called upon Lord J. Russell to explain with equal
frankness the principles upon which the new opposition
was to be conducted, in which Sir James Graham and
Mr. Cobden were to be auxiliaries; and he concluded by
declaring that he and his colleagues trusted to the
sympathy of the country, which he was convinced would
support them in their attempt to do their duty to their
Sovereign, and in their resolution to baffle the
manÅ“uvres of faction.—Lord John RUSSELL said he was
glad of an opportunity to obviate the misrepresentations
which had been made upon the subject, by stating the
reasons why the late ministers, who would have been
worried out of office, had resigned. Having given
these explanations, he adverted to the unusual, if not
unconstitutional, attempt of the present ministers to
conduct the government with a minority in that house.
A question was asked, "What is to be the price of the
food of the people?" and the house was told that next
February they might learn something about it, but at
present the mouths of the ministers were closed. The
same with colonial and other questions, respecting which
Mr. Disraeli with the word "frankness" upon his lips,
had given no explanation whatever. Lord John then
described the policy of the late government, under which,
he observed, the country had flourished in an
unexampled degree, avowing his belief that there never was
a system which had conduced more to the benefit of the
country than the commercial policy commenced in 1842.
If this policy was maintained, the country would, he
said, continue to flourish; but it could not be suspended,
it must be active and progressive. The course proposed