If, in 1852, this bill had been rejected by a majority of the House of Commons, Lord John might either have remodelled it, so as to meet the more obvious objections, or have again introduced it, without alteration, for the consideration of another parliament. But it was not rejected by the House, and its merits were never thoroughly discussed throughout the country. It was, as we have said, introduced at a time when the Whig ministry were obviously in the death throes, and in February of that year they tendered their resignation. The bill accordingly fell to the ground before judgment could be pronounced upon it. The public at large seemed to care nothing about it. There was no enthusiasm manifested at its introduction, and no disappointment expressed at its withdrawal. The scheme, therefore, of 1852, was not only untried but uncondemned. Nothing had occurred that could reasonably shake the confidence of the deviser in its prudence, correctness, or aptitude for the necessities of the country; unless we are to suppose that he felt somewhat disappointed by the exceedingly cold and indifferent nature of its reception. That, however, could not be taken as any distinct criterion of its merits. We are not to suppose that Lord John Russell, in framing that bill, merely looked to the popularity which he and his party might attain thereby, or the future advantages which it might secure to them. We are bound, on the contrary, to assume that he, being then Premier, and in the very highest responsible position, was acting in perfectly good faith, and had embodied in the bill the results of his long experience and observation. Now, mark what follows. In 1853, he again pledges himself to introduce a measure for the amendment of the Parliamentary representation; and redeems his pledge by bringing out, early in 1854, a measure totally different from that which he recommended in 1852! The great points of difference are these: By the one, the boroughs were to be preserved, and in some cases enlarged; by the other, they are to be disfranchised to the amount of sixty-six members. The bill of 1852 maintained the distinction between town and county qualification—that of 1854 abolishes such distinction. The first proceeded upon the plain principle that majorities alone were to be represented—the second, in special cases, assigns a member to minorities. In short, the two bills have no kind of family resemblance. They are not parallel, but entirely antagonistic schemes; and it is almost impossible, after perusing them both, to believe that they are the productions of the same statesman.