ry absolutely required. Mr. Disraeli had given this promise,
and, notwithstanding, sought to appropriate to county constituencies
the four borough votes of which other constituencies had been penally
deprived. The speech of Mr. Gladstone was received with enthusiasm by
the house, and his amendment, "That the house do pass to the order of
the day," was carried by a very large majority. That this was purely
a party movement of Mr. Gladstone was soon made evident enough, for he
assisted the government soon after in carrying a bill for giving New
Zealand a constitution; and he himself brought in a measure termed "the
Colonial Bishops' Bill."

Various motions were brought under the consideration of the house, but
were received with impatience, and all further attempts of government
to prolong the session by inducing the house to entertain bills, were
fruitless; all were bent upon one object,--that of bringing to an issue
before the country the question of the re-imposition of a tax upon corn.

FOREIGN POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.--OUTRAGE ON MR. MATHER AT FLORENCE.

The impatience of the house for a dissolution did not prevent it from
discussing the foreign policy of the government. It was considered that
Lord Malmesbury had shown a sympathy for despotic states, and had by
his diplomacy played into-the hands of Austria, and the petty tyrannical
Italian governments. Lord John Russell brought his lordship's conduct,
as well as the policy of the government, before the house on the 14th of
June.

In the last chapter, our readers were informed that a young English
gentleman of moral excellence and high culture, the son of a patriotic
and influential gentleman of the county of Durham, named Mather, was
wantonly cut down in the streets of Florence by an Austrian officer.
Lord John Bussell exposed the conduct of Lord Malmesbury in this affair,
and was ably supported by Lord Palmerston. The government suffered much
in reputation, both in the house and throughout the country, from this
debate. Their defence was extremely feeble, while the attacks of the
opposition glowed with indignant eloquence. Probably at no period of
party strife did the two great parties in the house appear more
strongly contrasted than during that debate. Lord John Russell and Lord
Palmerston spoke with exceeding force, and uttered sentiments worthy of
British patriotism and British statesmanship. Mr. Disraeli, on the
other hand, spoke with an apathy, wher