The Press. — London, England, 1858-06-05 00:00:00

544 I desire that the contest which has been carried on for so long a time between the two honees should close in a manner satisfactory to both. I wish Lie noble earl (Lord Lucan) had given us more time to consider the question he has raised ; but I have heard his proposal to-night with anything but a feeling of opposition. The amendment, in its present form, was crude and imperfect; but it contained the elements of a com promise; he thought the house ought to adhere to its amendments, but he would nut exclude the pro spect of a reasonable compromise. Earl GRANVILLE supported the adjournment, which would give time to prepare a conciliatory measure. _ The Earl of DERBY thought if they consented to an adjournment of the discussion it would be liable to misconstruction. They ought to declare tla it adherence to their own views and leave any question of compromise to after consideration. Thtir lordships then divided on the adjournment of the debate ; the numbers were— Content .. Not content .. 80 Mtkjority against the adjournment .. —l2 Lord LYNDHURST then commenced the discussion on the main question, by moving that their lordships do not insist on their amendments to the Oaths Bill. His speech repeated most of the chief arguments he employed in the former debate, the main point being that Jews were excluded from Parliament by the words of an oath never directed against the Jews at all. _ _ Lord DE Ros justified the exclusion of the Jews from Parliament by their refusal to enter the military and naval services of the country. The Loan CHANCELLOR again defended the prin ciple and object of the amendments to the Oaths Bill ; but remarked on the nomination of Baron Rothszliild to the committee appointed to conduct the conference on the bill with their lordships, that if it were a piece of pleasantry it might be forgiven ; but if intended to make a serious impression on the house it bed failed, for it had been received with perfect indifference. He justified the denial of political rights to the Jew, as a measure, not of religious persecution, but of sell defence ; and con tended that the repeated majorities of the House of Commons in favour of removing their disabilities were no more to be considered, because repeated, than the similar majorities in favour of the bill legalizing marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Earl GRANVILLE urged Lord Lyndhurst not to divide the house; the Opposition was not strong enough to bear him through ; but the question bad that night made an immense advance; virtually, be regarded it as settled, by the conciliatory tone and the readiness shown by the Government to offer a compromise. He suggested that Lord Lyndhurst should apply his powers to framing a measure like the one hinted at during the evening, which would settle the question for ever. Lord LYNDHURST, thus appealed to, would nut divide. The motion that their lordships insist on the amendments to the Oaths Bill was then agreed to without a division, and the house adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS-MONDAY. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply to Mr. Headlam, said that the British engineers, Park and Watt, had been released by the Neapolitan Government unconditionally, and that. the Sardinian subjects, part of the crew of the Cagliari, were still detained by that Government. Mr. :IT. GIBSON presented a petition from Mr. W. Wilks, setting forth that he was not the author of the article complained of by Mr. Clive; that the author had misunderstood the statement conveyed to him, and that he (the petitioner) being the re. sponsible publisher of the paper, and having per mitted the statement to appear, unreservedly retracted the imputation of corrupt motives. The petition was ordered to be printed, for consi deration on Tuesday. Ou the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE QUER, it was resolved that Government orders of the daj have precedence upon Thursdays during the remainder of the session. The report of the Committee of Supply was brought up and agreed to, al,er a short conversation upon the subject of the vote for the new Houses of Parliament. THE SPEECH AT SLOUGH. On the order for going into a Committee of Supply, Lord PALMERSTON rose and said that, as the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, on Friday, in his absence, had made an appeal to him, he felt it to be his duty to take the earliest opportunity of answering the appeal. In the speech made by Mr Disraeli on Wednesday before some of his constituents, which bore evidence of studious deliberation, he had stated that Lord Derby, when he took office, succeeded to innumerable difficulties; a statement contrary, he observed, to the declaration of Lord Derby himself, who had said that he found the country in a satis factory condition. Mr. Disraeli had further stated OM the question of peace or war was a question aot i D ou is u r u T i m factory condition 11 1 17 . . lit o f though he knew it was mere ly causcu Lor d c hoodoo IWO the (petition of pews or war Wati a (location not (erred to (con fi scation end t o the eonsejoenees of by important ' private bU4iness, THE PRESS, JUNE 5, 1858. of weeks or days, but of hours. As far as he (Lord Palmerston) was informed, that statement, as re garded our relations with France at that period, was utterly and entirely groundless, and opposite to the truth. Had it 'peen true, and had it been necessary to make it known, it should have been published in that house on the army or navy estimates. He denied that the answer he had given to Mr. Griffith, to which Mr. Disraeli had referred, bore the con struction he had put upon it. Such a statement he considered to be most injudicious and indiscreet on the part of u Minister of the Crown, and calculated to affect the public credit of the country, and to dis turb the commercial as well as the political relations of the two nations. He called upon Mr. Disraeli to explain this assertion, as well as that intrigues had been carried on (by the late Government he sup- posed) to involve Sardinia in a war with Naples for party objects—an assertion he utterly denied. With reference to India, Mr. Disraeli, he said, had been guilty of a libel upon her Majesty's late advisers ; he had accused them or Lord Canning of intending to act upon a policy of unmitigated vengeance and massacre. In speaking of the state of parties in this country, Mr. Disraeli had talked of a cabal on the opposite side of the house in order to upset the pre sent Government. A cabal meant a body few in number ; but he should like to know, he said, to whom Mr. Disraeli alluded when he spoke of in• trigues and cabals. The late Government had acted towards their successors with uncommon forbearance, and he denied that they obtained information on foreign affairs, as seemed to be implied, by unconsti tutional means. He wished to know who the foreign intriguers were who caballed with the late Govern ment to eject their successors—a charge he entirely repudiated. Mr. Disraeli, he remarked, had attacked the press; he (Lord Palmerston) left the press to defend itself ; but when he said that there were some candidates for office under the late Adminis tration who contributed to the press, he (Lord Pal merston) would like to know whether there were none on the other side of the house who had contri buted to THE PRESS for the purpose of getting into office. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, after ex pressing a hope that, in this second encounter, his fate would be less unfortunate than that of a party in a recent duel in France, proceeded to reply seria tim to the objections of Lord Palmerston. With respect to the state of our foreign relations when the present Government mitered upon office, he gave a diffuse explanation of what he said at Slough. He denied that he had stated that we were then on the verge of war, and he did not mean that the late Government bad left affairs in that state. He said that, owing to the truckling and servile policy of the late Government, war might have been an affair not of weeks or days, but of hours, and that by aban doning that policy the present Government bad vin dicated and maintained the honour of the country, while the alliance with France was now as firm and cordial as ever. He repeated what he had said on Friday regarding the affair of the Cagliari, observ ing that Lord Palmerston had taken to himself and his colleagues what he had stated on this subject : The noble lord then travels t) Italy. lie is still han kering on the case of the Cagliari,—that case on which the noble lord was so reserved and so silent when he sat on these benches. (Cheers.) The noble lord grudges us the satisfaction of freeing two of our countrymen whom he had permitted to remain for long months unnoticed in prison, and, at last ashamed of himself and his colleagues, makes an inaccurate statement to-night, which I defy him to prove, by which he wishes to convey that it is not true that these two unfortunate Englishmen had been freed by our efforts and influence. The noble lord is entirely wrong. Both of our countrymen were prisoners when we acceded to office, and the first thing we did was to tele graph to Mr. Lyons, and ta send him to Naples to interfere on their behalf. The noble lord says that Watt was already free, and under the care of the English Consul. But how was he freed, and why, and in what condition? That unfortunate man, in consequence of the treatment he had received and the neglect of the noble lord and his Govern ment—(cheers)—the reason of that unfortunate man, I say, was affected, and upon the application of the English Consul, who behaved throughout with great spirit and humanity, he was permitted to leave his dungeon for an hospital or lazaretto; but on what terms? Why, the moment his reason returned he was to come back to his imprisonment to meet his trial. ( Hear, hear.) As I have already had the satisfaction of announcing, in answer to an hon. and learned gentleman, these English subjects have left their prison without trial and free. (Cheers.) They have quitted Naples without conditions, and yet the noble lord has attempted to state that one of these persons owes his liberation to the influence of the late Govern ment. (Cheers.) That there had been an attempt to embroil Sardinia and Naples, and to excite a war between those two Italian States, which might have been fatal to con• stitutional government in Sardinia, was his conviction. He reiterated also the explanation he had given on Friday regarding India. He denied that by any possible logical construction could he be understood to refer in his speech to any previous policy; he re ferred to (confiscation and to the consequences of a thatlom pmt e p: a , t , o on i tntpi had h e e . o c n to s roassaocre confiscation, which must be v engeance and ri7ls s t er a e d ds e nt ht contrasted aGt ovheern hm t a h ed i n s t c.all policy eLdo r w dt with Palmer r ba ir l l n t e hi cabal, which meant (he had said) a li m i ted body oaf individuals. But he (Mr. Disr ae li ) a l ways under ssotoioradtotreha;t s t o he th te a r t m he me c a o n u t ld a sneoctrethasvoeciey re f n principles tti Hu hli e, ee o vnel s ra u e tept of Commons, aoGinkooeavfdecrtrhnoi temfi criticism srnmetea a t and h mobfia,rli bheiDe e w nr iasiltrn a haep s certain aeaalt siruthuyrhouse. ens insistingda that tn.h deEntering policy o he had biiyetyht hao: there could be no connection or synipathy between Lord Palmerston and his friends and that party. What, he asked, must the country think of the con duct of Lord Palmerston and his co-managers when, although time was so precious, night after night, public business was suspended, in order that they might give vent to their feelings of disappointment and discontent? What be called a cabal, he said, was a body of men who combined not to advocate a policy, but to band together their resources, abilities, and influence to upset the Queen's Government; anti this it was, he added, that made the country look with aversion upon their machinations, and attracted the sympathy of generous minds. Sir G. GREY denied that there was anything unfair on the part of Lord Palmerston in demanding expla• nations of gross imputations of misconduct cast upon the Administration of which he had been the head. The explanations given by Mr. Disraeli, he contended, were inconsistent with those he had offered on Friday, and it was humiliating, he said, to see a gentleman of his talents driven to such unworthy shifts and attempting to explain away indiscretions in such a manner, SirJ. PAKINGTON entered his protest against what appeared to him to be a most unpardonable waste of the public time. He protested, too, against the un fair use made, lie said, of the language of Mr. Disraeli, and bad no hesitation in broadly stating that, in his belief, the passage in the speech at Slough regarding our relations with France when the late Government quitted office was substantially correct. He was in a position and at liberty to say that on more than one occasion the late French Ambassador to this country, Count Persigny, did re• monstrate against the policy of this country, and did state, in plain terms, that if it was not changed it would be impossible for friendly relations between the two countries to continue. Lord J. RUSSELL could not agree that these dis cussions were a waste of thee. When supply was asked for it was the proper time to call for an expla nation of the meaning of imputations made by a member of the Government. He proceeded at some length to endeavour to show that the explanations given by Mr. Disraeli were unsatisfactory. Some remarks were made by Mr. Whiteside, in reply to Lord J. Russell, and by Mr. A. W. Kinglake and Mr. S. Fitzgerald, with reference to the two engineers of the Cagliari, and the subject then dropped. Mr. LINSDAY, referring to the accounts received by the last mail, of American merchant vessels having been fired into end boarded by British ships of war, asked by whose orders the commanders had acted ? Mr. WALPOLE suggested that notice should be given of the question for Tuesday. After some o6tervations by Mr. GRIFFITH and Mr. INGHAM, the house went into a Committee of Supply upon the Civil Service Estimates, when various votes were discussed before the chairman was ordered to report progress. The house then went into committe? upon the Sale and the Transfer of Land (Ireland), Salaries, Scc., when certain resolutions were agreed to. Several bills were forwarded a stage, and, the re maining business having been disposed of, the house adjourned at half-past twelve o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS—TUESDAY. THE SLOUGH SPEECH. The Earl of CLARENDON called attention to the speech recently made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Slough. He alluded first to the statement that when the present Goyernment entered office war with France was not a question of weeks or days, but of hours. For that statement Lord Clarendon declared there was not a particle of foundation, but before their lordships and the country b.e gave it a direct and unqualified denial. At the moment, he quitted the Foreign-office the relations b. tween France and England were as cordial and confidential as they had been at any previous period. It WWI necessary to deny the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it m i g ht be believed in the country, though in London it was at once received as a fiction, and caused no alarm. Lord Clarendon noticed the contradictions between the two defences made by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer in the House of Commons, and the colour lie gave to the departuvu of the French Ambassador from London, though lie knew it WSS inerelY caUSed by imporLaut privuiu business, Lord Gluten(' idyll • th tr( th lat ref th ad tic Pr th de in GI all El ar TI In uu we pr 4 . 0 WI H rat off cal en hal the LS spi Y s 601 drt atll sin the rdi in]] lon cal of col do! his the the the the ha MU am WOI Ma all pia cot toe of th( WI we' th( pn to nie cot he lii SI i tli sta del sill hal Pa 110 ➢i Mai the tin! tree hat too an cut ape exi fro' the tha ind Wit on