saying—“The right honourable gentleman has shown that he is neither a Derby-_ite_ nor a Russell-_ite_. Then what _ite_ are you?” Sir James replied, “It is true I am not a Derby-ite, nor a Russell-ite: Dr Lonsdale asks what ‘ite’ I now am. I _have_ been a Peelite; but am now resolved not to bind myself in the fetters of any party, but will do my best as a private member of Parliament, OR IN ANY SITUATION WHICH IT MAY BE IN THE PLEASURE OF THE CROWN TO CALL UPON ME TO FILL.” We ask again, when was this equalled? Had Sir James and the Doctor arranged this little scene beforehand? Sir James said not a word, having been kindly not asked a word, on the subject uppermost in the mind of the country—the insolent and dangerous machinations of Popery against our civil and religious liberties; but on the subject of Reform, he declared stoutly that he had been dissatisfied “with the new Reform Bill introduced by the late Whig Government;” that the Reform Act of 1832 (for which he claimed a large share of credit) “was marked by great imperfections,” and “a revision of the measure was indispensable.” The new Reform Bill ought “to disfranchise decayed boroughs, and extend the franchise to large communities not at present enjoying it.” And, “with respect to cities and boroughs, it appeared to him that residence and rating should be the legitimate foundation of any future extension of the suffrage.” Sir James then bade high for popular favour; but, as we showed in our April number,[15] he is necessarily opposed, in his attempts to unsettle the Reform Act, to some of the greatest Whig supporters of the late Government; one of whom, Earl Fitzwilliam, declared in his place in Parliament, since the accession of Lord Derby, his strong disapproval of Lord John Russell’s recent Reform Bill—adding, “It will not do for the Government to be thus continually tampering with constitutional rights.” As the English borough elections went on, notwithstanding the Ministers succeeded in a great number of instances in which they attacked Liberal seats, they appeared to have suffered no inconsiderable losses; but they displaced numerous staunch and able supporters of the late Government, as well as several of the Radical members. One of the Liberal papers (the _Daily News_) of the day on which we are writing, following the tristful example of the _Morning Chronicle_ in respect of its Peelite friends, mourns over the following victims:—Mr Bernal, Mr Greene, Mr Horsman, Sir Edward Buxton, Mr Hardcastle, Lord Ebrington, Lord Duncan, Mr W. J. Fox, Mr Anstey, Sir John Romilly, Sir William Somerville, Colonel Thompson, Mr D’Eyncourt, Mr George Thompson—to which he might have added a long catalogue of others; and may now greatly increase the list—Sir George Grey being a host in himself! and thus concludes: “Still, even with these losses, our ranks are crowded; and we shall give Lord Derby battle, with no fear as to where will be the victory.” This, however, was said on the 21st July,