cases, where the bribery had been systematic, general,
and almost universal, and the case of Harwich. It
was very inexpedient, he thought, to issue such a
commission upon a supposed notoriety of corruption, and
to go back for nine or ten years.—After some
observations from Mr. T. Duncombe, Mr. Roebuck, and
others, the motion was negatived by 137 against 95.—
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thereupon moved that, as inquiry
was refused, a new writ should issue for the borough.
—Mr. BRIGHT thought that, under such circumstances,
notice of the motion should be given. He moved that
the debate be adjourned.—After a discussion of a somewhat
desultory character, both motions were
withdrawn, and notice was given by Mr. Duncombe of a
motion for the issue of a writ.

On Friday, April 2nd, Lord JOHN RUSSELL intimated
his intention, on Monday, of putting some questions
to the government respecting the intended Dissolution
of Parliament, some expressions of Lord Derby having
created an impression that the government had changed
its intention in this respect.—The CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER saw no necessity for delaying until
Monday to reply to the question of the noble lord.
His noble friend at the head of the government never
contemplated any change of intention with regard to the
dissolution. Without saying at what precise period it
might be thought advisable to recommend a dissolution,
it was the intention of the government to resort to a
dissolution as soon as the measures necessary for the
public service and the good government of the country
should be disposed of, and assemble a new one within
the present year, and in such ample time that the
opinion of the new parliament might be taken on the
policy of the present administration.—Mr. HUME hoped
that the government would go one step further, and
specify the measures they deemed it necessary for the
public service to pass before the dissolution.

On Monday, the 5th, Mr. OSBORNE renewed the
complaint of the want of distinct explanations of the
Plans and Policy of the Government. He called upon
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to afford some more
clear and distinct ideas upon this subject than the vague
declarations hitherto made. The country had no
guarantee what were the measures which the government
might not think "indispensable for the good
government of the country." The course they were
pursuing, in endeavouring to evade this question, was
not one which the people would think worthy of a
British ministry.—Lord J. MANNERS said the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had repeatedly declared the
course which the government intended to pursue, and
there was no discrepancy between his declarations and
those made in another place. If the combined
opposition thought they had a majority in that house, let
them appeal to it, and the government would not shrink
from the issue of a general election, being anxious, as
soon as the necessary business was transacted, to abide
by that constitutional test. So long, however, as the
opposition did not exercise the power which they boasted
they had, they ought, in justice to the country, to
discontinue this course of interruption, and to allow the
necessary business of the country to be conducted.—
Mr. ROEBUCK asked why the question was not brought
to an issue by the direct vote of that house. He charged
the government with being in office on false pretences,
and he took as an example the conduct of their leader
in that house, who had fastened upon the late Sir
Robert Peel, pursuing him night after night; he had
assumed office as the great Protectionist chief, and he
(Mr. Roebuck) appealed to the house whether there
had ever been so remarkable a difference of opinion as
that of Mr. Disraeli in opposition and in office. He now
said "the country will decide;" but what would it
decide? The question of protection? No; it was to
decide " upon our policy." But what was that policy?
Had Mr. Disraeli been thus vague in oppposition? Oh,
no. He had ridden to power on the back of the
protectionists, with the cry of "protection," but now it
was "our general policy." This shuffling course was
highly mischievous for various reasons, and especially
because it created in men's minds a low opinion of the
morality of public men. He called upon Lord John
Russell, for his own character and for the sake of the
country, to bring this question to a settlement.—Mr.
ADDERLEY complained of the unfairness of these
attacks upon the government, which were as
inconsistent as they were groundless.—Mr. C. VILLIERS, on
the other hand, taxed the government with want of
candour and sincerity. The country, he observed, from
one end to the other, asked what they were going to
do.—Mr. HENLEY wished to know what the other side
wanted. The country was under no mistake as to
what the government meant by their declarations in
both houses. They had changed no principles; but
whether a party could carry out all its principles
depended, not upon themselves, but upon the country.—
Mr. S. HERBERT, with reference to the assertion that
the progress of necessary business had been impeded by
the interruptions of the opposition, observed that there
had not been a single division adverse to the government,
and that there never had been such an amount
of public business transacted with so little criticism.
He was, however, satisfied with the arrangement made,
that the question of protection or free trade should be
determined by an appeal to the country as soon as
the state of public business would permit.—Mr. MOORE
believed the repeal of the corn laws had inflicted great
injury in Ireland, but that his countrymen did not
expect a return to protection, and that the Irish people
had irrevocably determined that Lord J. Russell should
never again hold office.—Sir J. TYRELL charged the
opposition with attempting to misunderstand the government
explanations. He thought that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer deserved a "crown of glory" for the
mode in which he had demonstrated that the agriculturists
had a better claim on the ground of justice
than on that of protection.—Mr. P. HOWARD dwelt
upon the short-comings of government, whose measures
had nearly all been prepared by their predecessors, whose
parliamentary explanations had been evasive, and who
had given to certain inquiries answers calculated to
promote religious strife.—Mr. NEWDEGATE declared
that the protection societies throughout the kingdom
had given their confidence to Lord Derby because they
believed him sincere, and because he was the minister
most likely to promote a happy understanding between
the protectionists and those with whom they differed.
He defended the policy of Lord Derby in regard to
dissolution, and commended him for not submitting to
Mr. Cobden's dictation.—Sir R. H. INGLIS declared his
conviction that the government had no intention of
protracting the session; but if the house continued to
interpose delay in the transaction of the business of the
country, the blame of a deferred dissolution would not
rest with ministers.

Mr. HUME called the attention of the house to the
State of the Ionian Islands, descanting upon the
conduct of Sir H. Ward, the manner in which the
elections were influenced by his government, the
suppression of the liberty of the press, and the number of
persons banished without trial. He expressed a hope
that an end would be put to these tyrannical
proceedings, and that the people would be permitted to
enjoy some of the benefits of the constitution they were
promised.—Sir J. PAKINGTON said, that although he
was not prepared to justify in every particular every act
of Sir H. Ward, he would say that he had done his best
to preserve the just authority of the crown under
circumstances of great difficulty and embarrassment. He
detailed the facts of several cases to which Mr. Hume
had alluded, and in reply to the call made by him upon
the present government to recall Sir H. Ward, said such
was not the intention of her Majesty's government, who
considered that Sir Henry had endeavoured honestly to
do his duty.—Mr. F. PEEL considered that the
observations of Mr. Hume had been fully and satisfactorily
answered by Sir J. Pakington. He hoped the government
would not consent to send out a commission to
inquire into the rebellion of 1849, as proposed by Mr.
Hume, which would not be attended with any advantage,
while it would convey a very grave censure upon Sir
H. Ward. Having paid much attention to the subject,
he was of opinion that Sir H. Ward had entitled
himself to the gratitude of the Ionian people, and to the
approbation of that house; that it was owing to the
energy and ability of his administration that peace and