The Sun. — London, England, 1859-06-08 00:00:00

in respect both to foreign and domestic policy. (Heir, hear, and Oh, oh.) Th e hon. member concluded by reading the address to her Majesty, in reply to her most gracious speech. Sir J. ELPHINSTONE seconded the motion. He believed that her Majesty's Government would carry out the administration of public affairs with efficiency ; and he believed that the attitude of neutrality assumed by this country at the present time was one that was dictated by wisdom. (Hear, hear.) He felt bound to deprecate any thing like parsimony, in reference to the naval arma ment of the country, which he contended should be placed in a state of the most perfect efficiency, and whatever might be the cost of carrying out that object, it would be found eventually to be the most economical. (Hear, hear.) He concurred fully in what had fallen from the hon.• mover of the Address, and he thought that it would be injudicious to attempt to deal with the question of reform during the present session. The Marquis of HARTINGTON said he rose to move an amendment to the Address, and contended that he was sustained by precedent in the course he pursued. He wished by the present amendment, to raise the question as to whe ther the Government enjoyed the confidence of the house and the country, and he trusted that if the vote arrived at were adverse to Government, that it would be accepted by them in a proper and constitutional spirit, as indicating that confidence was not reposed in them. He did not consider that the antecedents of the Government since their itccession to office justified their retention of power, and the Reform Bill which they introduced failed to satisfy public feeling, had the effect of displeasing some members of Go vernment itself. The resolution of the noble lord, the member for London, having been affirmed by the house, he _thought that such being the case it was not constitutional for the Government to continue at the head of affairs. (Hear, hear, and No, no.) He was not actuated by any factious spirit ; but he contended that the Government should not have accepted the decision of the house as a vote of censure. It was neither wise nor patriotic on their part to have dissolved Parliament at a time when the state of foreign affairs rendered such a proceeding more perilous. With regard to the Reform Bill introduced by Government, it was not a mea sure that secured the sympathy and approval of the Con servative party. (Oh, oh.) He repeated that statement, and in support of it he drew attention to the fact that several Conservative members repudiated the measure on the platform, or at all events did not make it the basis of their appeals to their constituencies. He denied that, in making the present motion, there was any party motive; and he would observe, with reference to party, that the great Liberal party were not so divided among themselves as was supposed, but that they were ready to co-operate in any course of policy that was7calcu lated, in their opinion, to promote the interests :of the country. He now begged to move that the following words be added to the address :—" We beg humbly to submit to your Majesty that if-is essential to the satisfactory result of deliberations, to the securing the success of our coun- as, and to the facilitating the dis Charge of the high func tions of your Majesty, that your Majesty's Government should possess the confidence of this house and of the coun try, and we deem it to be our duty respectfully to represent to your Majesty that such confidence is not reposed ix your Majesty's present Government." (Loud and long-continued cheering.) Mr. HANBURY said he rose to second the amendment which had been so ably proposed by the noble lord the member for North Lancashire, and in so doing he ventured to observe that he was not actuated by any feelings of per sonal vanity in assuming the prominent position in which he now found himself. He thought the challenge thrown down by the Government at the close of the last Parlia ment should be fairly taken up, and that the question at issue was fairly and legitimately raised by the amendment. It was the universal opinion that the noble lord who guided the helm of foreign affairs knew as little of foreign diplo macy as he cared about the correct spelling of his attaches. (A laugh.) It seemed to be the opinion of all who heard the speech of the noble lord (Malmesbury) in another place, that it was characterised by hesitation, vacillation, and am biguity of purpose. How strong a contrast it presented to the words that fell from the noble viscount (Palmerston) ! With regard to the noble earl at the head of the Govern ment, his opinions, expressed in the other house at the close of the session, greatly differed from the views that fell from his lips a few days afterwards at the Lord Mayor's banquet. It was most important that England should have at the head of affairs at the present moment a Minister who was thoroughly acquainted with foreign diplomacy, so as to entitle this country to the respect of foreign Powers, which we had now somewhat lost. Could the Liberal party place any confidence in these men? He did not believe that any true Conservative could do so. He protested that the party now in power were no longer entitled to the namo of Con servative, and that hon. gentlemen who supported them would be carried down to posterity as followers of Lord Derby. As to hon. gentlemen on his own sine of the house, they advocated liberal measures because they believed in them, and they were the true Conservatives. If they believed that at a crisis of paramount importance the Government ought to be firmly united and composed of a Liberal Admi • nistration, they would, by voting for the amendment, tell the present Government that the country and the House of Commons had no confidence in them, and that the public interests imperatively demanded that they should resign their offices. (Hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose amid loud cheering. He said,—Mr. Speaker, I find no fault with the coursetaken by the noble lord and his friends. I think it one advantageous to the public service, and advantageous to the country, especially in the state in which we at present find it. I think it of great advantage that we should know whether the advisers of her Majesty possess the confidence of Parliament,. and I think that we have given very satis factory evidence of the sincerity of our opinion by the step which we advised her Majesty to take in dissolving the late Parliament. (Hear.) But I would observe that when the noble.lord talks of the precedent of 1841 as being identical with the position and conduct of the` present Ministry, he will, on examination and reflection, find a very considerable difference between the two cases. (Cheers.) It is true Lord Derby, from a sense of duty, advised her Majesty to dissolve the late Parliament; he succeeded to office under circum stances of great difficulty; the late Parliament was assembled under the influence of his predecessors and opponents; it is well known that he counted in it but a comparatively small number of supporters. (Hear.) But what was the conduct of the Ministry that dissolved the Parliament of 1841? They dissolved a Parliament that had been elected under their own influences—(cheers) —they dissolved a Parliament of their own friends; and the resolution Sir R. Peel felt it his duty should be moved by way of amendment on the meeting of the new Parliament was authorised by very different circum stances from those at present existing, and certainly met a different fate to that which awaits the amendment moved by the noble lord. (Cheers.) Why, sir, it was made a just reproach to the Ministry of Lord Melbourne, of which the noble lord the- member for the city of London was the leader in that house, that it reintaned on these benches year after year, for two *hole years, after it . had received a signal de feat in 1839, and in.continued and. continual minorities, yet neither appealed to the country nor resigned office ; and when it did appeal to the country it was on a vote of censure carried in its own Parliament by those who had-been origi nally its own supporters. Was that the position of the. Go vernment of Lord Derby ? True, our measures were not successful, and this is not surprising when they were brought forward in a Parliament of which only one third were our supporters. I doubt whether any measure could have been brought forward, however matured, however adapted to the circumstances with which they were intended to cope, that would have been successful in a Parliament so constituted. We knew our measures could not be carried; and it was a just reason for advising her Majesty to appeal to the coun try under the circumstances. Now, sir, I think I have suc cessfully shown that the circumstances in which Lord Mel bourne was placed in 1841 were very different to those now a PPealed to as a justification for the course taken by the noble lord. But I repeat that Ifind no fault with the course so taken. I have shown my sense of it by rising immedi ately to reply to the accusations, and I assure the noble lord and the house that I do so from a sense of the importance of t his question, and the conviction that it ought not to be left unnecessarily in suspense. (Hear, hear.) It is of the highest j uaPortance to the public interests that this question should be immediately decided; and I hope my rising'at this mo ment at once to meet the charges made by the noble lord and his friends, that the house will be enabled to divide on itto night—(great cheering)—and thus settle at this momentous crisis which party indeed possesses the confidence of Par liament. (Cheers.) I entirely reciprocate the sentiments expressed by the noble lord and his friends, and I beg to say, if we are defeated, the Government by which we are succeeded shall receive from us a fair and constitutional support. (Cheers.) But the decision ought not, at this crisis, to be delayed for four-and-twsnt y hours—(cheers)—and, as the noble lord and his frien ds thought it the proper cours e no t t o l ose a moment in chal lenging the propriety of our being on those benches, so do I impress on the house the importance of not unnecessarily losing a moment in coming to the decision. (Cheers.) Now, sir, what are the grounds on which the noble lord and his friends seek to establish the want of confidence h says this house ought to feel in her Majesty's Government ? Per, though it may be in the power of a majority of the house to come to a resolution without' a reaeOn, still the noble lord must feel that .a decision of 'that kind, would lose all moral weight. The 'noble lord on the present occasion, no doubt acting on the best advice, has really opened all the grounds on which a resolution expressing a want of confidence ought to be moved. Well, Ido not think the failure of our mea sures in :several instances in the late Parliament is a fair ground on which to rest a want of confidence on the part of the present one. (Cheers.) Looking at the circumstances under which we acceded to • power, and to which I have already referred, it was because we were unsuccessful in carrying our measures in the late Parliament that we ad vised an appeal to the country. If, therefore, the present Parliament decides on giving a fair and constitutional hear ing to any measures we may bring forward, it will be quite l uulvceesary for this house to vindicate the charge against us of not having been able to pass our measures in the last. (Cheers.) But the noble lord says that, having been unable to Pass our measures, we counselled a dissolution of Par liament,—a course constitutional, the noble lord admits, but most reckless and unwise. With all deference to'the noble lord and his friends, I think that is rather begging t ile question. Whether the dissolution was reckless and unwise is a conclusion far the present Parliament to form. The noble lord and his friends admit that there were two - courses open to us after the resolution of the noble lord (j. Itussell)—we might have resigned our offices or taken the al ternative we ultimately adopted. Ido not think, in a co nstitutional sense, we were bmind to resign our offices On being defeated in a Parliament not assembled under °ur auspices. It is a matter of notoriety that the last house was filled with those belonging to that educated class '(laughter and cheers) —that highly favoured Whig con nexion, who are the hereditary opponents of the political Party we profess to represent. (Cheers.) I cannot see ow the course we advised her Majesty to take ! 4tll be called unwise or reckless. There is nothing in a dissolution of Parliament which the great A t I iberal prty should look upon with jealousy and mi strnst, do not know whether the stctions of that party who sit below the gangway are of opinion that dissolutions of Parliament are always to be deprecated. (Cheers and laughter.) That distrust of the people I thought was confined to the educated classes. (Cheers.) I know the noble lord the member for London never hears of a dissolution of Parliament but he rises to condemn it; and that is per fectly in harmonywith the political views of the party—the educated party—to which we are indebted for the Septennial Act. (Cheers.) But I was not prepared to hear that all the re-combined sections of that party are of opinion that fre quent dissolutions of Parliament are unwise and reckless. (Cheers.) But lam very glad the noble lord, in the manly and promising speech he has made (hear, hear) has limited his objections to the dissolution and its policy, and has not condescended to intrude upon the house that trash of which we have heard so much with regard to the conduct of the elections, the corruptions of the constituencies, and the com pacts with foreign powers and hierarchies. (Cheers.) Per haps the noble lord thought the subject had been exhausted by .a master. (Laughter.) Perhaps he thought if he had, without sufficient examination, indulged in such statements, he might have been liable to the replies that followed them. (Hear, hear.) Now Parliament has met lam glad to find that this question is, at least, discussed in the spirit of gentlemen—(hear, hear)—with high party views and on broad constitutional principles. There was a statement that came from a great authority, and which I know exercised considerable influence on the public mind, far it was made at a very apropos moment, when it was supposed it would have great influence on the borough elections. I was at that time very much engaged, and probably read the public prints with more haste than I ought to have done, but I read that statement because I took an interest both in the locality where it was made and the individual who Made it. In reed it)... it I did mistake the speech which appears to have been made by a distinguished member of this house for that of the young gentleman he was introducing to his constituents. (Great laughter and cheers.) When I read that charge upon the Ministry which I was told was to be the basis of a vote of want of confidence in Parliament, and which was made with out the slightest foundation and with a bitterness which seemed to me to be perfectly gratuitous—(hear)—l naturally said young men will be young men. Youth will be, as we all know, somewhat reckless in assertion, and when we are juvenile and curly—(laughter)—one takes a pride in sarcasm and invective—(laughter)—one feels some interest in a young relative of a distinguished member of this house, and though the statements were not very agreeable to her Ma jesty's Ministers, I felt that lie was a chip of the old block. (Great laughter and cheers.) I felt—and I hope my col leagues shared in the sentiment—that when that young gentleman entered this house, he might, when gazing upon the venerable form, and listening to the accents ofbenignant wisdom that fell, and aleiays fall, from the lips of the right hon. gentleman the member for Carlisle— (laughter)—he might learn how reckless assertion in time might mature into accuracy of statement, and howbitterness and invective, however organic, can be controlled by the vicissitudes of a wise experience. (Laughter and cheers.) Yet the state ments made in that speech of the right hon. gentleman have been circulated in every form, and for a time have been credited in every quarter in this country. The public have really believed that a corrupt Administration has been obtaining returns from the hustings by the vilest means, and for the most infamous purposes. (Hear, hear.) They have believed that the allowance to innkeepers for the billeting of soldiers—(laughter)—was absolutely in creased at the arbitrary will of a War Minister, in order to bribe the publicans to vote for Government candidates —(laughter)—though every gentleman in this house must be perfectly aware that their predecessors had passed the act by which that increase of allowance was constitutionally made, and that the increase had been for some time in opera tion. (Hear.) The public did believe that barracks were builtand contracts given, when contracts were never entered into and when barracks were never built. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The public really did believe that my Lord Derby had subscribed—had boasted, to use the language of the right hon. gentleman, of having subscribed £20,000 to a fund to manage the elections. (A laugh.) Lord Derby has treated that assertion with silent contempt. (Cheers.) All the other assertions made at the time have been answered in detail, and therefore I suppose he thought the time would come when he could leave it to me to say for him, what I do say now, that that statement was an impudent fabrication. (Loud and repeated cheers.) But what are all these con • tracts with innkeepers to the compact with the Pope ? (Laughter.) Why, next to nothing. It is not an agree • able duty to have to listen to statements made until Parlia ment meets by Privy Councillors, by men who have filled the highest offices of State, and, for aught -I know, who may be about to fill high offices of State, but upon which the moment Parliament meets every one is silent. (Hear, hear.) Neither the mover nor the seconder of this great indictment of want of confidence condescends oven to men tion them. (Hear,) And yet the charge is a weighty one. Is it true that Lord Derby has entered into any compact or understanding with any hierarchy in this country, or with any agent of any foreign Prince, to influence the elec tion of our own country ? These are statements which ought not to be made by persons of eminence without some examination. (Cheers.) I state, in a manner the most unequivocal and unequivocating, that there has been no compact of that kind—(hear, hear)—and that the support that was given in many instances to the members on this side of' the house at the late general election by our fellow subjects professing the Roman Catholic faith was given, not only without compact and without conditions, but was given without even communication with her Majesty's Go vernment. (Cheers.) And I take it for granted that those who supported us under these circumstances, as the other subjects of her Majesty, had formed their own fair opinion, right or wrong, on public men and on public policy. But it seems that the civil and religious liberty granted to the Roman Catholics; especially with the aid of the noble lord, means civil and religious liberty to vote for Whigs and to support Whig candidates. (Laughter and cheers.) The mo ment a British or Irish subject professing the Roman Catho lic religion votes fora. Tory, it is quite clear that gentlemen opposite meditate again the revival even of those penal laws, for the repeal of which they assume so much credit to them selves. (Laughter-and cheers.) Now, I have touched upon the two grounds upon which this vote of want of confidence recommends itself to the house—this vote of want of con fidence in the unusual form of an amendment to the Ad dress in answer to the gracious Speech from the Throne. First of all, it is said that in many instances our measures failed in Parliament; but that was the very ground upon which a new Parliament has been called upon to assemble. (Hear, hear.) Secondly, it is said that we advised her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, which, in the opinion of the noble lord, was an unwise and reckless measure ; but that, in fact, is the very question at issue. And now what are the other Founds ? What has occurred since the dissolution to justify this amendment of the noble lord ? The conduct, it is said, of our foreign affairs. It appears that the negotiations which were in progress when the late Parliament was dissolved have proved unsuccessful, and that war between some of the Powers of Europe has ensued. As far as I could collect the meaning of the noble lord—though I must say he showed considerable diplomatic ability himself in the shadowy manner in which he framed that part of his indictment—there is, no doubt, some foundation for his statement ad invidiarn that we had been unsuccessful in the management of our foreign rela tions, that our negotiations, which had been undertaken to avert war, had not preserved peace. The noble lord and his friends have a right to the opinion or the suspicion that our conduct of our foreign relations since the commence ment of this year have not been carried on and conducted with ability; but, surely, the grounds upon which an opinion on that subject should be formed are the ample documents which I am about immediately to lay upon the table of the house. (Cheers.) Surely the noble lord, although he is a party man—and I do not honour' the noble lord the less because he is a party man, for I look upon party as the best security for our Parliamentary govern ment and for our public liberty—(hear, hear)— surely the noble lord as a party man will not lay it down as a prin ciple that he and his friends, even if he had a majority, should decide upon negoliations without reading and study ing the documents which can alone inform him. (Cheers.) Would the noble lord, as a party man, say that success is the only test of ability in negotiation, and that the Govern ment that has failed in the conduct of a negotiation to avert war is not worthy to conduct the affairs of this country ? (Hear, hear.) Is that the principle which the noble lord Thewould in swisetrutphoan? is. t heelibriesktehne outonl yinenEeurleeftp,eahnadepbroebenabvlyeriyt recently preceded by another war. It is only four years since a war to o k p l ace, not betgreaieep, two of our allies, but between er t there u i this ou nt country and negotiations a military Power—Russia. Were prevent war e w r ar esp ? on ( s H ib e i a li r t .) Was not the stake infinitely greater toen n proportionately increased wh en it was our own en immediat y e action that was at stake, an d our o im portantwn question of peace o r war th at was at issue (Hear, the h ear .) Well, I want to kno w w h o were thenthe Ministers. We were not responsible for those negotiations. (Hear.) The Government at that time was n o t a G overnment it :a minority. That was not a Government formed of men of inferior abilities and of deficient experience. (Hear, hear.) On the contrary, it was presided over by a wise and cele brated European statesman, Lord Aberdeen, who had him self assisted in the construction of those famous treaties of 1815, of which we hear s o much now-a-da ys. He had for arY a distinguished statesma n w h o h a d in the service of the Cro wn , an d hfilisledFothreeighnigSheecertet offices had been ambassador at great Courts. Who is to be your Foreign Secretary I don't know, but a very distinguished man indeed is my Lord Clarendon. You had, then, Lord Aberdeen and Lord Clarendon, men of admirable ability and experimice, to conduct your negotiations. But had you nobody else? (Laughter.) Why,there was the noble lord the member for Tiverton, who, like Coriulanus, showed his wounds yesterday, and is an avowed candidate for power. He is of opinion—as some others are toe—that he has some knowledge of foreign affairs, and he takes every opportu nity of intimating that he is the only man who can wage war or preserve peace. Lord Aberdeen and Lord Clarendon had the assistance of the member for Tiverton. I will say nothing of the noble lord the member for London, because his experience as Foreign Secretary is but limited. (Laugh ter.) Well, what did the member for Tiverton, and Lord Aberdeen, and Lord Clarendon do in the way of negotiation is so really not yet forgetten in England. prevent the war? Why, the shame of those negotiations State paper of Vienna is not yet You had greatentirely blotted out of the consciousness of the people of • (Loud cheers.) you had a majority me exertionnoParliament; and ; (Cheers.) The advantages, this country. i and you signally failed , stake to urge you y t e o t and experienced statesu you had a still greater responsibility, and (Cheers.) You had somethingy weret o y ou increase had yourwiswise utterly discomfited. our poor means to preserve peace more than we had with numerous and fairly ambitious, frut i You had an Opposition negotiations that Opposition did not n the midst of your , of want of confidence nor bring forward votes Propose cunning embarrass the public service. (Loud cheers.) resolutions to We aided you in your difficulties, and supported truly. (Cheers, and a cry of No.") Is tyhoeu heartily and murmur "No ?" I defy any man to be re any one can during that war in which we brought for 'rig an instance forward a single tion to embarrass you; and whenby your generalmisgovern ment and misconduct of the war there arose a pic out cry which called for your fall, it was a member u on own side of the house who struck the blow, and itwayse4 the votes of several sections of the Liberal party th a t you - were ejected from office. (Cheers.) So much, th en, for the third ground on which this vote of want of confidence is rested. I think I have shown the house that that ground cannot be urged with plausibility even to the public of Carlisle, which believes in compacts with the Pope, and which Credits the most monstrous assertions, if they are only circulated on high authority. There is still one more ground on which the noble lord rested the vindication of the line which he no is ' taking, and that is the failure of our late measure for the amendment of the representation of the people, and the ground consequent on that failure—of our insufficiency to deal with the question of Parliamentary Re form. It is unnecessary that I should attempt for a moment to vindicate the measure which we brought forward in the last Parliament,, but I will state one fact , no t u p on m y own on authority, but the authority of men of the highest scien tific character, not connected with politics nor with parties, whose only object in their researches is to establish and promulgate truth—and that is that our measure,woßld least have increased the constituent body by not less than 500,000, being absolutely a larger addition - than was made by the Reform Bill of 1832. There were great objections to details, but still upon matters no doubt of importance, urged against that measure. was said, for instance, that it would disfranchise county freeholders living in towns, that it would enable votes to be given by papers, and other objections were made to it. Admitting, for the sake of argument, that these propositions perfectly deserved the condemnation they received, have no propositions to amend the representation of the people been coupled and connected .with propositions which were equally unsuccessful and equally condemned ? (Cheers.) Why don't we hear pf them ? Why are we always told of our unhappy proposal to disfranchise freeholders and to give votes by papers ? The noble lord the member for the city has been in office almost all his life—he has had a monopoly of this question of re form—he has been -handling it and fumbling it as long as I can remember. He has brought forward bills twice un successfully. He proposed at one time—lie, the great patron of the working classes—to disfranchise all the free men in England. (Hear, hear.) Why should not that proposition be urged as a reason for no longer entrusting him.with the preparation of a Reform Bill? (Cheers.) In one bill he introduced a proposition hostile to the principles on which representative Government is esta blished, and alien to the spirit of the constitution—repre sentation by minorities. If there ever was a proposition re ceived with universal condemnation that was it. Why should not that disqualify the noble lord from meddling with this question again? The noble lord, who cannot for a moment tolerate government by a minority, within my memory sat on these benches, and led this house in an avows vj minority, resting entirely on the counsel and sup port which he received from Sir R. Peel. The noble lord, whois so constant in his denunciations of government by a minority, himself proposed to change the English constitu tion, and give representation to minorities. (Cheers.) I sup pose he is the only person who.can be entrusted with the preparation of a Reform Bill, because the other noble lord, the member for Tiverton, does not like the subject. (Laughter.) . It is 'one to which he does not conceal his dis- inclination. We, who, at least, have prepared and intro duced a measure which would more than have doubled the constituency of the kingdom, are never to be allowed to give our opinions on a measure of this kind, while the noble lord who scarcely conceals his opinion that all Parliamentary Reform is a bad thing, and who tells you that if you are to have it you shall have as little as possible, is the popular candidate for the command of what we were told yesterday are now " the united sections of the Liberal party." (Laughter.) I congratulate the hon. member for Birming ham on the lamb-like manner in which he abdicated those portentous opinions which a while ago flighted the island from its propriety. (Cheers.) I have now gone through the five grounds on which the noble lord and his friends rest heir care for a verdict of want of confidence in the Minis- try. I have shown that the arguments founded oz the failure of many of our measures in the last Parliament is one which should rather be urged in favour of a verdict of confidence from this Parliament, because, as it was in consequence of the late Parliament not sanctioning and supporting our measures that a new Parliament was called, we have a right to count upon the constitutional confidence of the Horse of Commons in that respect. I have shown to the house that the charge founded upon the " unwise and reckless mea sure of dissolution" rests on no substantial foundation. and I have shown incidentally that the charges which, dur ing the recess, have been industriously bruited about as grounds for requiring a public investigation, and for pass ing a vote of want of confidence, are fabrications, without a tittle of evidence, and are entirely undeserving the credit of any sensible man. I have, I hope, shown the house that to pass a vote of 'want of confidence in us because our nego tiations have failed to preserve peace would be so flagrantly and manifestly unjust, when you have no documents on which you can found an opinion, and when those documents will immediately be in your hands, that gentlemen opposite cannot rest their vote upon that ground. I think I have shown the house also that if our unfortunate treatment of the question of Parliamentary Reform disqualifies us for the confidence of the house, the noble lord our predecessor in that enterprise is not more entitled to confidence upon that subject, and that the other noble lord, his rival or his col league—l know not which—is not entitled to the confidence of the house upon that question in the slightest degree ; while the hon. member for Birmingham by his prudent re tirement from public is now entirely out of the question. (Cheers and a laugh.) Raving made these observations in reply to the noble lord the member for North Lancashire, I hope that the house will not think it intrusive if, before I sit down, I venture to say something upon the character of the gracious Speech, and upon the intentions of the Govern ment. There are two main topics in that Speech which greatlyinterest—thoughperhaps at this moment not equally —the public mind. The first is with regard to the policy which we shall pursue in our foreign relations, and the next is with respect to the question of Parliamentary Reform: Now, the gracious Speech, and the address which has been moved with so much ability by my hon. friend behind me, clearly and unequivocally state our policy with respect to the first subject. We have endeavoured in every possible manner to preserve peace. I shall be happy and 1 - eady when the time arrives, and when the papers are in the hands of hon. members, thoroughly to vindicate the conduct of the Government on that head. (Cheers.) I challenge inquiry, and all I ask is, that the house shall not decide upon a question so momentous in the absence of all docu ments, and when it is impossible that any one can speak with any general satisfaction ; and if I make one or two observations upon the point it is only because the subject has been introduced and enforced by the noble lord, and be cause I wish to correct one or two most erroneous impres sions which appear to exist. I retain, then, the opinion which I expressed in the late Parli amen t, that the vote at which the house arrived on the resolution of the noble lord the member for London had a serious influence at that mo ment on our negotiations. (Cheers.) I shall be able to prove it, but I only allude to it now in vindication of myself because the noble lord the member for North Lancashire has introduced some observations upon it. I said at that time, and I repeat now, that that vote destroyed all autAority on the part of the Government of this country as a Govern ment; but it did not destroy all our influence with the Em peror of the French at that time, because, although as the mere Government of England we had no authority, we yet did represent a principle which greatly regulated the con duct and influenced the feelings of the Emperor of the French. The Emperor of the French was governed at that moment, and had been, and generally is, by public opinion. The opinion of France was against war • the, opinion of England, which he esteems only next to that of France, was against war; the opinion of enlightened Europe, I may say, was against war. Therefore, though our authority as a Mi nistry had ceased, yet, representing that principle of public opinion which the Emperor recognised, our representations were still listened to with respect, and upon that ground, notwithstanding the vote which the house came to, we still could influence, as we did influence, the conduct of the Em peror of the French. (Hear, hear.) BUt as regards Austria, from whom neither the noble lord nor ourselves anticipated at that moment the immediate mischief, she was not at all influenced by public opinion. With Austria we entirely ceased to have any authority, being a Government con demned, and she laboured under the conviction—no doubt a most unjust conviction, though, so far as negotiations were concerned, it operated as a positive fact—that our imme diate successors would be a Ministry favourable to war, and to war directed against herself. Therefore it was that Austria, not caring any longer for the influence of the English Ministry, whom she looked upon as a dead body, and caring nothing for public opinion, took the rash and unfortunate step which every one must now deplore. (Hear, hear.) In this sense, then, I contend that I was perfectly justified in the statement which I made, and it will be seen at the proper time, in the course of future dis cussions, 'that it was a perfectly authentic statement. (Hear.) The house will allow me also to notice one more point, which is personal to myself. It has been charged against me that on the eve of a dissolution of Parliament I made a statement respecting the then state of our negotia tions and prospects, and that I expressed an opinion which, was still favourable to peace notwithstanding that the war then was more than imminent. Now, I beg to state to the house—and I dare say the circumstance may easily be re called to many gentlemen who were members of the late Parliament—that it so happened that a few moments only before I rose to make that statement a telegram arrived from Lord Cowley, which was immediately forwarded to me here, informing us that the Emperor of the French had entirely adopted the principle of disarmament before the Congress, which was one which Austria had insisted on as the foundation of a satisfactory settlement. And not only that, but that Count Walewski had that moment tele graphed to Sardinia, urging her, in a manner which he felt she could not resist, to accept the same principle. Was I not justified, then, under the circumstances, in assuring the house that there was still a prospect of peace before us ? (Hear, hear.) Was I net further fortified in that assurance when, the next day, a telegram arrived from Sardinia, accepting that proposition, which it was supposed to be im possible that she could agree to 3 (Cheers.) Having failed in those negotiations—and, as I hope I may say, with no discredit or dishonour to our counsels—what is the course that we have pursued ? We have adopted the principle of strict and impartial neutrality—(cheers)--we have endea voured to act in the spirit of that principle, and it would be impossible to offer a shadow of proof in favour of the oppo site statement, that in the course which we have adopted and the counsels we have given we have ever had either an Austrian or a French bias. (Cheers.) And I believe that the sincere feeling of both those Powers, irritated as they must be by the position in which they find them selves, is to do us complete justice upon that subject. But .of course, though the policy of strict and impar tial neutrality is demanded by the interests of this country, and is, I am sure, sanctioned by the public voice, we have felt it our duty to place the Sovereign, by her com mand at sea and by the completion of her armaments, in such a position that her authority will be felt and fully re cognised. fleetswi3wcmw friendlyoeooahug n iarrwicchbr Powers, ;a n e entb, dftandrea.rteorclithaemar restoration ahrm C sspt teetihahtroo, than imoenerwbeaagseraantehnsitbxowictll) experience watching iho l fmegmei n m tnhaeehke yav a naev i e securities events, osi g r t nftan a sttn i eioet n fdahroteo tfnretme t hhbcr h o oalelaeoaaeuy:ntsstrwytsitaiiii intentionseiynnnhgtt iughanlaa t e, fghtd continued o oaacftep s ni he tn e ntndheed, increased ortedfufarovtryonbsan taeyl.comingeuur fostering harnhe d oatigeesfl h o oa r nt e e, N e sv o ii r n i s ci c sha i o o u lul s ern t fg ha oer e n iitg n i a t s pa w op a l i s ne.yn i . n e p ff e r m d; a e n r uodt t i ass m u e pt s o: p ( C o s h e e e that s. ) T country is an m y the means by which it should be carried out, I will again repeat that it is only by an examination of the ample evidence to be laid before you that you can form an adequate and fair opinion. And, notwithstanding the party character of this motion, I do not feel that a vote of want of confidence can ever be arrived at against any Ministry in this country when the documents in explanation of their policy, and which are promised in her Majesty's gracious Speech, have not been laid before the house. (Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, will treat with little reserve of the other principal topic referred to in the gracious Speech, Parliamentary Reform, although it may not be so interesting on account of the course which we have intimated we intend to pursue with regard to it. I say at once that it is the opinion of her Majesty's Government that it is impossible during this session. satisfactorily to deal with that subject. (Hear, hear.) Of course, the language of the gracious Speech is different from that which, according to the practice of this house, can be used by a servant of the Crown; but I now take no refuge in ambiguous phrases, telling the house that if certain business of great urgency can be disposed of we think that there is a chance of dealing with the great question of reform this session. We are of opinion That there is no such chance, and if that be considered by any gentleman as fair ground for censuring the Govern ment we are ready to meet that issue. (Hear.) If it really be the opinion of grave and responsible statesmen in this house that in the p rese nt condition of this country, in the m on th of June , with measures of finance of the gravest character with measures connected with the de fence and armament to be brought forwar take that view and give a decision us w t t a rash and reckless engagement to deal withlve can ente!in o Parliamentary re form, I shall be immenselyof Parliamentary the question . of the country of . the greatest urgency • e with them rthesephoonusisbeilitotyadoofpdtedaulir tel a hn s s fet t eer nh o e. astonished s uit (Cheers.) ice our e ht d l oel ; jebo b rdesi u un. t)t duty i issue s to dictated ß o u u ur r teo recommend by n y o mn althougheen ntds tem perate Counsels and goodsck:s any way wish to shrink,g the with this question. (Hear, hear.) asyado viri p es r lei e cir s s e t n h t e session, nob lelowrde thedo not in Now, even although it Ina of the Crown, from the THE SITN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, 3 UNE 8, 1859. ber for the city, I must say, as I have said before, that I can not admit that the question of Parliamentary reform, or any great question which oug,ht to be dealt with in this coun try, can become part or parcel of any political monopoly. (Hear.) Ido not recognise the convenient dogma, now cir culated, that great questions interesting this country, and more especially its domestic condition, are to be touched and treated only by one particular favoured, even though edu cated section. (Hear, hear.) I think it would be very dangerous to this country that we should adopt the prin ciple that any party which can be called to the administra tion of affairs should consider themselves shut out from dealing with any great question of public interest. If they are, they are unfit to sit upon this bench of severe responsibility, and must take office under conditions inju rious to the public service and the public interest. Ido not want to enter into an historical disquisition upon the jus tice of this favourite theory of the noble lord ; but I do not find that in history Parliamentary reform has been the par ticular privilege and property of the educated section. I know very well that Mr. Pitt did not belong to the, edu cated section—(laughter) —but he was a Parliamentary re firmer. The Duke of Richmond was, I think, not one of the educated section, but he was a Parliamentary reformer. I know many other illustrious men who at different times within the last eight years have given their opinions in Parliament upon this subject, and very few of them have belonged to the educated section. (Renewed laughter.) I admit that the educated section has during the present cen tury had a very fine opportunity of dealing with this ques tion, of which they availed themselves with great policy and adroitness. I give them credit for the manner, for the statesmanlike manner in which they dealt with it, but I do not acknowledge their monopoly. Ido not acknowledge the peculiar privilege whi c h th e e d uca t e d sec ti on i s so ready to assert. I observe, also, that until very recently the edu cated section has not, since 1832, shown any very great en thusiasm on the subject. (Laughter.) I think that the other sections of the Liberal party, which I suppose are not to be considered educated sections, have shown much more sincerity on the subject than the educated section itself. (Hear.) I say that we have a full and fair right to deal with this question, and what is more, I believe that as a party we can deal with it more advantageously even than the education section. (Hear, hear.) I need not vindicate the measures which her Majesty's Government brought in last session in comparison with the measures of the noble I lord. That I have done; but I must say this for her Ma jesty's Government, that they do not consider them selves bound by the measure which they brought for ward in the last Parliament a bit more than the noble lord considers himself bound by the measures which he has in troduced. (Cheers.) We all know that the subject is one of immense difficulty. I cannot agree with the noble lord (the Marquis of Hartington) when, in exception to his ge nerally temperate and sensible remarks, he seemed to deny that Parliamentary reform could become a - matter of com promise between CoritervatiVe and Liberal opinions. No measure of Parliamentary reform can be passed, or ought to be passed, which is not a compromise between Conser vative and Liberal opinions. (Hear, hear.) Of course, it is very easy for a demagogue to say, " This is the only scheme of Parliamentary reform that I will agree to," be cause he does not want it to pass, and never thinks it will pass; but those who deal with the question like men of practice, and who, like the noble lord the member for the city and his friends, means to pass m easures , cou ld never tolerate the principle laid down by the noble lord the mem ber for North Lancashire, that Parliamentary reformer any other great measure should not be a compromise between Conservative and Liberal opinions. (Hear, hear.) The happier the compromise the more successful will be the measure ; and the great aim of whoever is to carry it must be to bring forward a large, including, and satisfactory measure which, on the whole, the great parties in the State will agree ought to pass. In dealing with this question last year we dealt with great boldness with the question of the county suffrage. It is very well to deride our labours, but I believe that the country takes a view of them very different from that which the noble mover of the amendment has been instructed to express to-night. I believe that the country does justice to the large measure which we proposed with regard to the county franchise, and recognises the diffi culties which we had to deal with. I know that more than once it has been described in the great popular organ of which hon. gentlemen opposite are very proud when it says anything to their praise as the most enormous concession that was ever made, and therefore the contemptuous lan guage which it is • convenient to adopt in this house will never receive the sanction of the country. The question of the county franchise had been frequently and maturely discussed in this house. We made a proposition, and we met many objections which we thought might be urged to it, by countervailing ptoposals, modifying and mitigating its application. However you may object to them, they were, after all, only conditions mitigating or modifying our origi nal proposition. The question of the borough franchise was not in that condition of maturity. Until the last great de bate, that question has never been grappled with in this house. It has never been brought forward by persons of any eminence, nor has it at any time attracted or com manded much attention. Well, in that direction we pro ceeded very cautiously, as you must do with that part of a subject for which the public mind is not so ripe as for the other. By our measure we proposed to introduce the middle classes to their share of the county constituency, and the working classes to their share of the borough con stituency by means of a variety of franchises. I am per fectly ready to admit on the part of the Government that that proposition was not favoured by the house, nor was it sufficiently favoured by the country to be one upon which we can insist. The question of the borough franchise must be dealt with, and it must be dealt with with reference to the introduction of the working classes. We admit that that has been the opinion of Parliament, and that it has been the opinion of the coun try, as shown by the gentlemen who have been returned to this house. We cannot be blind to that result. We do not wish to be blind to it. We have no prejudice against the proposition. All that we want is to assure ourselves that any measure that we bring forward is one required by the public necessities and will be sanctioned by public ap probation and support ; and therefore we are perfectly pre pared to deal with that question of the borough franchise and the introductian of the working classes by lowering the franchise in boroughs, and by acting in that direction with sincerity ; because, as I ventured to observe in the debate upon our measure,' if you intend to admit the working classes to the franchise by lowering the suffrage in boroughs you must not keep the promise to the ear and break it to the hope. The lowering of the suffrage must be done in a man ner which satisfactorily and completely effec is your object, and is at the same time consistent with maintaining the in stitutions of the country. So, I maintain, that not merely with regard to the borough franchise, but with regard to the whole question of the redistribution of seats, we are not bound by the proposition which we made last year, any more than the noble lord must be bound by the several pro positions which he has made. (Hear.) I have two mea sures of the noble lord, which are perfectly distinct as re gards the distribution of seats ; one in which I find group ing, and in the other absolute disfranchisement.' I find in one a scale of disfranchisement totally different from that one which the noble lord promulgated upon the eve of the general election. Why are we, in dealing with this ques tion, to be precluded from the same freedom and the same Parliamentary privilege as the noble lord and his followers? On the contrary, sir, I maintain that we are perfectly free to deal with this question as we think is best for the country. It is in our opinion best for the country that a measure of Par liamentary Reform should be brought forward which is of as conclusive a character as human circumstances will admit of. To obtain that result it must meet all those fair demands 'which are now recognised, and which the opinion expressed by the general election has stamped withpublic approbation. I say nothing as the form in which that public sentiment may be developed. Of course, I will not speak in detail of a measure not now to be brought before the house ; but I claim for her Majesty's Government the right to deal Ncr',' E h the question of Parliamentary reform, not fettered or 'ham pered by the proposition which they made in tio.e last ses sion, any more than the noble lord has been by his own proposals, but to deal with it in a large, liberal, and con clusive manner. (Hear, hear.) I have ventured to touch on all the points on which the noble lord the member for North Lancashire has based his grounds for a vote of want of confidence. I think I have shown to the house that they are flimsy, and feeble, and illusive—that the noble lord has not entered into that detail or established those principles that could justify this new Parliament in coming to so grave a decision. I have ventured to point out to the house the principles on which our foreign and domestie policy are established. Our foreign policy will continue to be founded on peace as the great principle we mean to encourage, and our domestic policy on the principle of progress. (Cheers.) Upon these principles our policy will rest, and we ask from this new House of Commons nothing but constitutional confidence. (Cheers.) We do not pretend to possess, and we do not aspire to posses s , th e obedience of disciplined legions, who, to use the expression of an eminent Liberal, are ready to vote that black is white to support the Go vernment. (Hear, hear.) That is not the kind of support we seek to obtain ; but we believe that we do possess the constitutional confidence of this house, and that it will not take the earliest opportunity, on groun d s so frail and flimsy as have been stated, to consent to adopt one of the gravest amendments that can possibly be offered, viz., an amend ment on the answer to her Majesty's gracious Speech, and which declares that the house has no confidence in the ad visers of the Crown. Nov, sir, after this fmnk.and full analysis of our views, and this explicit declaration of the policy that we intend to pursue, and on which our measures will be founded, let me ask the house, what does this end in? It ends in a personalquestion. (Cheers and counter cheers.) I do not object to that. I do not pretend for a moment that in Parliament we should avoid such questions. It is possible that our policy may be a sound policy, but that those who are carrying it on are incompetent, and therefore I admit that the personal question is a fair ground to take up on a vote of want of confidence. (Hear, hear.) I will not, there fore, shroud myself and colleagues under our measures or our policy; I will meet the objections which may be raised on the ground of personal efficiency. (Hear.) This is neces sarily and naturally the most delicate and embarrassing thing which a man can be called on to do ; but we have to do many things in this house that are embarrassing, and to meet many difficulties that are delicate, and I will not shrink from this the most difficult part of the fluty which I have to discharge. (Cheers.) In old days, in the good old times, I should have had no difficulty in judging who were our rivals and who were to be our successors. (Hear.) I might look to the bench opposite and there see the noble lord the leader of the Opposition and the distinguished colleagues of his former Administration and his present cares, and without any great personal arrogance, and without any intrusion of personal and egotistical pretensions on the part of myself and my colleagues I might carry on some comparison be tween the two bodies, with reference to the noble lord's late administration and his late acts, his general conduct and his final failure. (Cheers.) I might, as they did in those days, say the best I could for ourselves and the worst for them. (A laugh.) But then we no longer live in those good old constitutional times. I hardly know who are our rivals, still less do I know who are to be our successors. (Hear.) If it is the noble lord and his friends I might con trast his policy with ours, his failures with ours, and make out a ease upon which the house might adjudicate. (Hear.) But then the noble lord, who lives not in the good old days of constitutional rivalry, but in the days of reconciled sec tions—(a laugh)—will tell the house, " You cannot judge • of my resources by the gentlemen who are sitting near me;. others will come to their aid, and by their unquestioned abilities, and their varied experience, and with the bright evidence of their triumphant careers I shall form an Admi nistration which will put you out, as the glorious sun does a farthing rushlight—(laughter)—and the whole country will immediately see that they have a strong government, entitled to their indulgence." (Cheer s .) Th ere i s a l so the nmembers of I wsebeethere have noble lord bel ow the gangway. 'Let me l oo k below the gang way. [Lord J o h n R ussell here took off his hat and bowed, amid en t cheersem brs and been servants of th e C rown, and who I know are taking a very active sh are i n meet i ngs and proceedings out of the house. In th e d ays o f our youth Willis's Rooms were managed by pat ronesses. (Laughter.) The distinguished assemblies that met w ithi n those walls were controlled by a two o g of and frequently moste emi nent admixture of dowagers and youthful beauties—young reputations and worn celebrities—and it was at once the pride of society and the object of ambition for all to enter. (Laughter.) Now Willis's Rooms are under the direction of patrons, and there are two of those patrons below the gangway. (Laughter.) Th e y are the noble lord the meipber for the City of London and the right hon. gentleman the member for North Wiltshire, who have signed the vouchers for the new contract. (Laughter.) They are two of the most eminent statesmen who are to form this strong Go vernment before whose celebrity we are to be extinguished. We have some experience of those great statesmen. We know how the noble lord conducts negotiations. - (Laughter.) We know how the right hon. gentleman conducts war. (Laugh ter.) You say that we have failed in our negotiations, and that we cannot be trusted in the event of possible war. Will the noble lord and the right hon. gentleman help you much ? (Cheers and laughter.) I cannot presume to pursue the research. There was a time when I thought the burn ing eloquence of the hon. member for Birmingham might have been, heard on the Treasury bench ; but he seems to me to have yielded up those claims which once were vindi cated with that uncompromising eloquence that all admire, and some fear. (Hear.) Ido not know whether, if we were at war, the hon. member for Birmingham would pursue it with the same vigour with which he engages in domestic questions at home. (Hear.) lam not yet satisfied where the materials of that Government that is to conduct negotia tions with such ability, and prosecute war with such efficiency, are to be found. (Hear.) With regard to this side of the house, I can only say with sincerity and truth —and I am sure 1 speak the sentiments of all my col leagues—that I have never for a moment put forth any per sonal claims to stand in the way of others, taking their places on this bench, more willing and more able to advo cate the views of their party and to serve the Queen. (Hear.) I say for myself and for my colleagues that we should not for a moment consider it a personal sacrifice, but that we should rather consider it our personal duty to retire from the positions we fill in the Government if any gentlemen on this side care to challenge them and to fill them. (Hear, hear.). I have at all times been so anxious to see the efficiency of the public service studied and the interests of a great political party, the existence of which I believe to be advantageous to the country, pre served, that I have ever been ready to waive my own per sonal claims. (Hear, hear.) As to charges against our incompetency, so far as the other side of the house is con cerned, I have not yet good evidence that it would be sup plied to the satisfaction of the country. (Hear, hear.) So far as this side of the house is concerned, rivals may arise, and I have only to say that if worthy they will be most cordially received and supported. (Hear, hear.) No doubt it is much to be regretted that from the great dislocation of parties in this country, and the peculiar state of things that has obtained in this house the area of selection for the public service is mere limited than we could desire. But that is not the fault of the party who fill these (the Mini sterial) benches. Whatever may be the fault of the Tory party, it is not a federation of great families. (Cheers.) The Cabinet of Lord Derby, whatever its faults, was not established on an exclusive basis. (Cheers.) Wherever there was ability it was recognised, and if all could not be placed in the positions they were competent to fill, every one on these benches was conscious that men were preferred because they were thought to be worthy the offices con ferred upon them. (Hear, hear.) If, then, there is no ground to believe'that any body of men on the other side of the house are more competent to carry on affairs or ready to take our places, and if on this side of the house the state of feeling be what I have described, and that competent men are ever sure to be cordially received and supported, I am not sure that the country would gain much by the return of noble lords and hon. gentlemen opposite. (Hear, hear.) I have seen for a long time a tendency in this house to in crease the area from which individuals may be selected for the publicservice. The more you settle these long contro verted questions which have foryears embarrassed the legis lation of this house, the more you will remove the obstacles to that great result. If this question of a reform of Parlia ment were settled—and after all it is a question on which all men may agree, with few exceptions—l see no obstacle any longer to an expansion of the area from which indi viduals may be selected for the service of her Majesty's Government. On this side of the house there is no preju dice of the kind which may have prevented many a worthy member from filling his proper place under an educated section. Provided we are agreed on the main line of policy the only object we desire on these benches is that the ablest men on all sides may be so employed, and the tendency of our legislation for many years has been to remove those difficulties—often only conventional difficulties—which pre vented the adoption of that more increased area of selection to which I have adverted. I hope in the course of time, if we are so deficient, as we are by our rivals, known and un known, that others may be attracted to our standard by the recognition of their merits, feeling they are dealing with a party who repudiate that exclusive principle which may prevail in other quarters. I trust, therefore, the house will not hastily adopt the amendment which has come from one who, though I wish to speak of him in terms which his first effort in the house to-night fairly deserves, represents exactly that limited and exclusive party who made the federation of great families the only source from which the public service might be recruited. (Cheers.) The course they have taken to -night has been, I think, a too eager one. I think it would have been as well if they had paused and taken another/ occasion than the Address to the Crown. But Ido not complain of it, and on this ground. It is of paramount importance at this moment that the decision of this house should not be delayed. (An ironical cheer.) I speak with the most solemn conviction of the truth of what I have stated. I know that when I adverted to that sub ject at the beginning of my observations there were some mechanical cheers from some unknown quarter. (A laugh.) All. I can say to the individual, or individuals, from whom those exclamations escaped is that they are at least relieved from the great responsibility which rests on the advisers of the Crown. It is of paramount and vital importance that the decision of this house should not be delayed, if possible, for four-and-twenty hours. (An ironical laugh from the Opposition side, answered by counter-cheers.) Why should you seek to delay it Woes not every member of this house fully comprehend the issue ? It is not merely for the ad vantage of the public service ; it is for the advantage of the kingdom and for the best interests of the Crown and of Europe that this question should be settled, and settled immediately. (Cheers.) If it is decided against us, I shall accept the decision without a murmur. If I sit on those (the Opposition) benches, I shall give our successors, and my colleagues will do the same—l am sure I may answer for all who honour me with their confidence in this house =we shall give to our successors—provided they pursue, as I feel sure they will, a constitutional course on home affairs, and with respect to foreign affairs evince all that zeal and devotion which even the immediate circumstances of the hour require —that support which every patriot is proud to afford the Ministers of the country when a great emergency prevails. (Cheers.) But if, on the other hand, this new Parliament shall be of opinion that the amendment which has been brought forward to-night is not one that is just, or justified, on us will remain, both as regards our domestic, but especially as regards our management of our foreign relations, as great a weight, as grave a duty, as awful a re sponsibility as ever devolved on the shoulders of any Go- vernment ; but from that duty and from that responsibility, however grave and however awful, we do not slirtnk. (Loud and long-continued cheers.) Viscount BURY supported the amendment. The, Govern ment had put into the mouth of her Majesty tb'e expression of a hope that the dissolution would be suck as to give her the benefit of the counsels of a Ministry which possessed the confidence of the house and the co ;retry. That was the challenge thrown down, and they -ad a right to take it up. For himself, he disclaimed all party motives and feelings whatever in the matter, brst he wished that the question might be brought to an eP:rly issue. (Hear, hear.) SCENT IN THE HOUSE. [When the nob",e lord resumed his seat there was a dead silence, and n° non. men:ll)er showed any outward " sign" of the slightv,i inclination within him to speak. The Speaker, after solemn pause—during which Lord John Russell exbfoited much anxious restlissness—then proceeded to `.•ead the address, and subsequently the amendment. Lord John Russell now started from his place, and with a hasty step moved from his seat below the gangway to that occupied by Lord Palmerston, in Opposition, exactly facing the Ministerial bench. Seating himself by the noble lord, he conferred with, and apparently took counsel from him, and then hurried back to his seat. Silence still prevailing, and no hon. member showing any " sign" to speak, the noble lord again hastily left his seat, and proceeded to one of the back Opposition benches, where he first pulled one member by the button, and then another, but none would speak. A titter now ran through thehouse, which was entirely denuded of her Majesty's ministers—not one of them being at this time in his place—and Lord John being unsuccessful, returned again to his place, where he tried Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and that learned gentleinan, amidst the titter which had now swelled into a downright laugh, rose to the rescue. The scene excited much curiosity and speculation, indicating, it was supposed, a disposition in some quarters to bring the questions in issLe to a division without further.discussion.) Mr.MELLOR accordingly rose, and prevented an abrupt termination of the debate. He condemned the dissolution of the late Parliament, contending that even the language which the Government had advised her Majesty to use in addressing the Parliament that day showed the unjustifi ableness of the dissolution. He had been returned by a large constituency mainly to say on their parts that they had no confidence in Lord Derby's Government, and to op pose it. He had no confidence in the fine promises which had just been made to the house as to a new Reform Bill. Even if the Government were sincere in those promises, their new Reform Bill would most probably be no better than their late Reform Bill, which was condemned by every one in the house that was not a member of the Government. It was impossible to abstain for any length of time from giving the verdict of want of confidence contained in the amendment, and he for one should gladly go into the lobby to record his vote against the Government at the earliest possible moment. Some minutes having elapsed, during which no honour able member appeared desirous to address the house, Mr. HUGESSEN length rose. He said that he had come down with very little idea of speaking on the import ant subject under debate; but the singular silence which prevailed on theppposite benches—a silence which afforded one of the best proofs of the compact nature of the body— compelled him to perform the somewhat difficult task of folowing speakers who had advanced arguments whichhad as yet been unanswered, and of endeavouring to add to the proofs which had been adduced of the incapacity of Ministers—an incapacity which, although they were not ready to admit, they were so slow to deny. (Hear, hear.) Upon a subject of such gravity as a vote of confi dence or no confidence in the Government he believed that the country would not be satisfied unless the eminent statesmen who occupied a leading position in that house explained the reasons which actuated them in the vote that they were about to give. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer,in his defence of the Ministry, had attacked the gentlemen who sat opposite, and had denied as an impudent fabrication the report that Lord Derby had subscribed £20,000 to a certain Lind for elec tioneering purposes. He was glad to hear the denial, but the country was not by such a disclaimer to be cheated out of its conviction that means had been resorted to at the last election which had not been had recourse to on former oc casions. The Government were very m uc h m i staken if they thought that this subject was to pass away in oblivion, for he believed that before many weeks elapsed there would be statements made by men of greater influence than him self which would carry conviction to the b reasts of the auditors. With regard to the dissolution he look e d u p on it as an act of positive ingratitude—ear, and " Oh! oh I") — for an amount of forbearance had been exhibited by Parlia ment towards the Government which was almost unpre cedentqd in English history. It was because he believed the Government were not worthy of the confidence of the house that he would vote for the amendment of the noble lord, and he might say th a t th e penal dissolution which had been inflicted on the house was of itself sufficient to deprive glom of confidence in the Government. (Hear.) Sir C. NAPIER would leave those who wished to get into office and those who wished to retain office to discuss the amendment before the house. He would speak of a more important matter—the defences of the country. (A laugh.) He was glad to find that the naval force of the country was to be increased, and that the report of the Naval Commissioners was to be acted upon. He was glad a l so t h at the G overn ment had i ssue d their proclamation offering the bounty to seamen, though he regretted. that, as yet, it had not produced the desired result. They had not yet been able to get more than 3,000 men, and he contended that the bounty ought to have been offered long ago. Of the 3,000 men who had been got,. not above 7f per cent. were seamen. He re commended the Government to issue another proclamation setting forth, that in the event of war, the bounty would be given to the seamen who were now employed. He be lieved that France had at this moment a larger force in commission than we had. The First Lord of the Admiralty shook his head at this statement. He hoped that the right hon. baronet w id be able to show the house the numbe of ships in commission in both countries, so that our naya. strengt. , . as compared with that of France, might be accu rately known. The First Lord of the Admiralty ought to tell the house at once what the prospects were of our being able to maintain a much larger fleet than we had at present. There was said to be an engagement or understanding be. tween France and Russia ; and the house ought to have some information from the Government as to the state of the Russian fleet at present, in reference to the possibility of a movement in the Baltic as the war developed itself. We had the means of manning 12 sail-of-the-line with our coastguard and c3ast volunteers, but we had not at the pre sent moment ships to put them into. He admitted, how ever, that that was a part of the service to which we ought not to have recourse, except in the greatest emergency. The hon. and gallant admiral cited the remarkable speed with which the great bulk of the French army was recently con veyed from. Marseilles to Genoa, as belying the taunt that the French made bad sailors. It was worth the while of the Government to bear that fact in mind, because it went to prove that in the event of a war with France we should have to contend against an enemy who knew his business perfectly well. If the Russians sent a fleet to sea—which they usually did every summer—if they sent 16 or 20 sail of-the-line into the North Sea, the funds, which went down the other day at the mention of a secret treaty between France and Russia, would fall twice as much as soon as it was known the Russian fleet had set sail. If the Govern ment had not men enough in the dockyards let tkem enter mere, so as to get a strong fleet prepared, and then every person would feel secure, and satisfied that Government were doing all they could do. After the hon.' and gallant member sat down there was a short pause, and cries of " Divide" continued on the Ministerial benches. Mr. J. :WILSON said it was not necessary for him to justify the bringing forward of the present motion, because it had been admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself that it was not only a fair and proper motion, but that, under all the circumstances of the case, it was a necessary motion. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the state of the finances, there was no doubt that the lastpublic accounts represented that they were in a comparatively flourishing condition. He was prepared to show, on the contrary, not only that that was not the fact, but that, during the past year, the Government had been pursuing an exceedingly dangerous course. They had, in fact, reversed the financial policy of their predecessors by allowing nearly three millions of direct war taxation upon income and tto perty to expire, while fhqi had retained" three millions of indirect taxation upon tea and sugar, which ought to have been allowed to expire. He condemned the conduct of the Government in relation to the Cunard 'contracts, which they had renewed, contrary, he said, to the regulations in force, and contrary to the recommendations of the committee who had sat upon the subject. He hoped that the Government would give some explanation on this subject before the de bate closed, as the rumours in circulation were very detri mental to the reputation of the Executive. Amidst loud cries of " Question, question," the hon. gentleman proceeded to say that it was the question when he could show that the expenditure of the country last year was a million more than was anticipated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He hoped the course the Government was about to pursue would be a course of strict ne u t r ality, and more strict than their actions and expressions would lead ono to believe. Mr. D. SEYMOUR said the question now at issue was not the duty on Irish spirits, the merits of the west coast of Ireland, the distance between Cork or Galway and Liver pool, or the subsidies of rival lines of steamers—(cheers) — and he protested against the course which the hon. member for Devonport had adopted in occupying the time of the house with such paltry details. (Oh, oh, and Hear, hear.) Were they or were they not at that moment deciding ihe fate of a powerful Ministry and the dearest interests of the country ? He (Mr. D. Seymour) was an independent member of that house. (Oh, oh, and laughter.) Yes, he repeated it fearlessly, an independent member. (Renewed laughter.) He had goxe down to a great constituency, without hereditary or other influence, but addressed himself simply to the question of reform, and upon that question he had been sent to this house. (Cheers.) He had come here unpledg,ed, but de termined in his heart of hearts to support that which he believed would best conduce to the interests of reform. The question had been asked to-night, where was the Solicitor- General ? Could anything be more absurd. The Solicitor- General was an eloquent and distinguished man, and he was too good a lawyer not to know that it was not for those who had to prove a negative to speak first, but that the onuspro bandi rested upon those who, in a crisis like the present, met the Government with a resolution such as that now be fore the house. (Cheers.) He protested against the here ditary leaders of the Liberals assuming that he and other gentlemen on that side of the house who held the same in • dependent opinions—(oh, oh, and laughter)—were prepared to follow them like a flock of sheep across the floor of the house. (Loud cheers.) The noble lord the member for Tiverton and the noble lord the member for London said that the Government of the Earl of Derby were not entitled to the confidence of the house and the c ountry; and not withstajiding the Government pled ge d th emse l ves i n th e Speech from the Throne, and through the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night, that they were prepared to bring in a substantial and honest measure of reform next session, those noble lords cried, " Out with them, without a trial and without fair play"—(shouts of Oh ! from the opposition ; met by cheers from the Ministerial benches). The Govern ment of Lord Derby had made certain promises relative to the question of reform, and had been true to them. They had laid a bill upon the table which recognised the great principle of giving to the intelligence of the country a greater share in the representation. (Oh, oh, and cheers.) He did not mean to say, as an independent Liberal—(oh) — that he was satisfied with the details of that measure, but certainly it recognised the principle for which he contended, and the Liberals were offered more by the Government than they were by gentlemen on their own side of the house, If, however, the Government did not propose to give enough,,what were Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston pre pared to give? (Cheers.) He hoped the noble lords, be fore asking him as an independent member—(ironical cheers and laughter)—to give an unfair, un-English, an d f ac ti ous vote—(cheers)—would redeem their conduct by putting their issue upon a constitutional and intelligible basis, and telling the house how far they were prepared to go them selves. (Cheers.) He must say that he sympathised deeply with the noble lord the member for London--(a laugh)— who, in his present position, reminded him of the lines of Moore—. "One morn at Eden's crystal gate A Teri sat disconsolate." (Loud laughter.) If, then, the noble lord were admitted within the gates of office, would he give them a good Re form Bill ? Unless the leaders of the Liberal party were prepared to answer that question in the spirit in which he had put it, he for one should give his vote heartily and sin cerely to the Government. (Cheers, cries of. "oh 1" and laughter.) sir. LAING could not help thinking that a change of ministry would be more likely to entertain that alliance or good understanding with France which he believed to be the keystone of the permanent peace of Europe, and essen tial to the true interests of/civilisation. He therefore could not hesitate to follow his old leaders on the old principles of reform, peace, and non-intervention. (Cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON, who was received with cordial cheering, said—Sir, I think if any man could doubt whether the motion of my noble Mend, calling on the house to ex press their want of confidence in the Government, be justi fied by the situation of the Government, the course of the debate this evening would afford him the most conclusive proof that it is so justified; for how can the house have confidence in a government and a party who have no con fidence in themselves ? (Cheers and laughter.) How can the house have confidence in the Government of a party who, boasting as they do of their numbers, cannot find more than one advocate who will dare to come forward on this occasion, lito far as the debate has yet proceeded, to defend their cause, and whose silence upon this occasion is like letting judgment go against them by default—(cheers)—and is the most conclusi ce avowal that they are not deserving of the confidene of the house? (Cheers.) Sir, I admit that if one champion alone was to fight their battle—if the rest of the army were so timid sr so weak and powerless that they could not dare to enter the arena—they made a good choice in their champion. qi Pergarna dextra defendi posset, no doubt the right hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been sufficient But those who heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have felt that if the rest of the Government had nothing to say in opposition to the amendment which had been moved, that speech, eloquent as it was, and full of agreeable jokes and disagreeable reflections upon one and another, was wholly insufficient on this occasion to meet the motion which had been made by my noble friend so ably, and so well seconded by the hon. member for Middlesex. I must say that I think it the most extraordinary spectacle that, has ever occurred in the history of Parliament that a Go vernment, charged in the face of Parliament as being un deserving of the confidence of Parliament and of the coun try, should have sat silent as they have done on this occa sion. (Hear, hear.) You 'would have thought that man after man would have risen on that side, that even the few remaining members of the Cabinet, deserted though they forward u d u ot which h is greatar arraigned ed mu be by two of their most respected and distinguished ePre th ss e ed co col leagues,iationto wdeofuelndastand justify illhav by the motion of my noble friend. (Ch eers But, sir,it seems that they are most anxious to concl e this debate. They entreat the house to take them upon trust, for argu ment we have not been called upon to hear from them ; they have nothing to S for themselves , except, 4 , For . Heaven's sake, let the debate be as let short as possible ; us come to a division to-night, for we have got our friends up. (Laughter.) Do not talk about our conduct—the less said about it the better ; for Heaven's sake do not discuss our motives, but come to the vote, and then afterwards, if we have the majority , y ou may talk abo u t them as much as you like." (Cheers and laughter.) Well, this is a very ewe matter to be disposed of in that light and airy manner. The question is, whether the administration of one of the greatest countries in the world is or is not deserving of the confidence of Parliament and the country ? That is not a question at any time to be dealt with in that light and easy manner in which it is dealt with by the gentlemen on the other side ; but least of all is that question to be so treated at a moment when the flames of war are raging in Europe ; when no man feels certain how far this country may or may not, under the guidance of those who at present rule, be involved in it; I say, when great European interests, and great British and national interests are at stake, I thick it is disgraceful for a Government to decline self-vindication. (Cheers.) Now, I say that upor . i every ground the house ought to come to the vote that is proposed. I think the manner in which the Government was formed—l think the course which the Government have pursued—l think their mistakes and de faults in domestic legislation—l think their errors in foreign policy—l thihk the course they took in regard to the dissolution—l think upon all these grounds the house is justified in withholding from them that confidence without which a Government cannot and ought not to exist. (Cheers.) Sir, Ido not like to revert offensively , to the events connected with the formation of the Govern ment ; but upon this occasion I must speak out. I say they came into office by a Parliamentary the manoeuvre — (cheers)—by a manoeuvre justifi ed, perhaps, by ordinary tactics of party, but which wa s not a foundation upon which they could claim the confidence of the country. There were a certain number—l believe nearly one hundred members—of the liberal party who differed with the govern ment then in regard to that bill aga inst conspiracy and mur der. I lamented that they took a different view from that which the government had adopted, but they had a right to take that view, and with the opinions which they enter tained they perform ed a public duty by voting against the introduction of that bill. But what was the conduct of the gentlemen opposite ? Did they disapprove of that measure ? Did they not, on the contrary, in this house andin the other house urge the government - to bring it forward—and did they not, on the motion for the introduction of the.bill, to a man, vote with the government for laying that bill upon the table ? (Cheers.) Then afterwards, when they saw a divi sion in the liberal party—when theY , found that a large Pn - tier of the liberals oppos e d th e measure —then, yielding to that desire fur office whi c h I d o not in itself blame, but which they should not mak e a reproach to those who may now oppose them, they abandoned their own opinion (Ilear)—they voted against a bill which they had represented to be necessary for the honour of the country and for the maintenance of a good understandin g with a great neigh bouring country, and by that manoeuvre they obtained office. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, I say their origin was bad. (Loud cheers.) It was not creditable to th b om as a party, and they ought, I think, to h ave felt more gratitude than they have . at different ti mes expressed for the forbearance with which those who were driven into opposition have abstained from twitting them with those circumstances. (Hear, hear.) Then, when they had got in in that way, what was the conduct of the gentlemen on this side? Did we harass them with any vexatious and factious motions? On the contrary, they professed to stand in a minority the House of Com mons ; when the noble lord (Derby) mine in, he admitted in his place in the House of Lords that the Government of which he was the head was supported only by a minority in this house ; and if the Government under those circum stances have been. able to support its existence so long, that simple fact is a proof that they had been treated with for bearance. least,they take when up su i e n h a de G fe o re v (Hear, h ear.) A Government standing so can not by possibility pursue their own course or act upon their n a w d;t op m m e i as ons ur . es hi ' But, e opinion of the majority, they ought, if they be a"Govern mentenrncemteentdo the deserving by their capacity the confidence of the country, to frame measure s which will carry into eff e ct th e great principles they have adopted from their opponents in a manner acceptable to public opinion. In this, unfortu nately, the present Government did not succeed. There were two great matters upon which they had to introduce bills. There was the transfer of the Government of India to the Crown, and the reform of the representation of the people in this house. They adopted the transfer of the Government of India from the Company to the Crown, although out of office they had opposed it. They had up to the last moment resisted that transfer; but in office they immediately adopted it. (Hear, hear.) This was very lendable, no doubt, because, being in a minority, the only consideration of their existence was that they should submit, in great measures, to the will of the majority. But then so unfortunate were they in devising and framing the measure which should carry out that great ar rangement, that the measure they proposed was met with universal ridicule, and was withdrawn without the slightest hesitation, and another substituted in its place. That second measure, undnobtedlv, at last pissed th e h ouse w ith consi derable alters ions ; I;ut I may be allowed to think that that second measure, although framed on the pattern of that which we had introduced, was less wall adapted for working the system introdmced. Their first measure of legislation thus utterly and entirely failed. Then they had to deal with another great question—Parliamentary Reform. Out of office they were opposed to the carrying of a measure which, in offi ce , th ey un d ertoo k to propose. They had been anti-reformers, but, feeling that a Government resting on a minority must adopt the principles of the majority, they became parliamentary reformers and produced their bill. Those who had watched the progress of the India Bill fore told that the Reform Bill would be an equal failure. It is sometimes said that men will not fail twice in the same way, that they must have the means of juding of public opinion, and will introduce a measure which, with some modifica tions, will be acceptable to the majority of the house. But they produced a measure which not one man of the Cabinet thought deserving of being passed into a law. (Cheers.) There was hardly a member on the other side of the house who did not find fault with the measure. (Hear, hear.) At last came the resolution proposed by my noble friend, which was calculated to redress two at least of the leading defects of the measure. That was carried by a majority sufficient to prove thatthe bill could not be carried through its different stages. There was a second failure in regard to an important matter of domestic legislation. When I see a Government in the course of twelve months trying their hand at two important measures, in both of which they failed, I think it is not assuming too much to say that it is not a Government in w hi c h the house can place confi dence in regard to legislation at home. (Cheers.) Then what was the course they pursued on that occasion ? They treated the resolution as a vote of censure. But they had no right to do so. It was a vote of censure upon a measure, but not upon them, except in so far as it is a censure en a Government to say that a measure is not fit for the adoption of the house. (Laughter.) They said they had but two courses to choose—resignation or dissolution I contend there was a third course, which it was their duty to have pursued. Being a Government resting on a minority—being a Government avowedly dependent upon the acquiescence of the majority, the condition of their existence was to shape their course in accordance with the opinions and feelings of the majority. They ought to have withdrawn their bill us they did their India Bill, and have brought in another, framed on principles which the debates had shown to be in accordance with the general opinion of Parliament; and if they had done so, that bill would have passed ; and at this moment, in all probability, it would have been the law of the land. (Cheers.) It was said of them we cannot repeat twice a course which we have once ventured upon. They had made two mistakes. They were not prevented from making a second mistake, because they had made the first. To be twice in the wrong they did not object, but to be twice in the right was repugnant to their feelings. (Cheers and laughter.) It was said that I had taunted them, and told them what they ought to do. Why, are they men or are they children ? (Laughter.) It might be a very good argument for a naughty child to say, " I won't do it, because you tell me." But as men, as statesmen, as governors of a great country, dealing with a great an d i m p o rtant question, to say they will not do what is right because one of their opponents has told them to d o it in a manner they perhaps might not quite like—(laughter)—men who can argue in that manner are not fit to be entrusted with the government of a great country. (Cheers.) Then they dissolved, and I should like to know how many men in the house approved of that dissolution. j. am not speaking of the personal in convenience to which members on both aides were exposed, but of the position in which the dissolution placed the Go vernment of this country in a great crisis. (Cheers.) Many things have happened which clearly show that whatever other gifts the Government might possess, they did not possess the gift of prophecy. (Laughter.) If they had poked with statesmanlike eyes to the condition of Europe, and the condition in which Europe might be before' Par liament could assembl e again, they ought not to have tle prived themselves df its assistance, and they ought not, without the consent of Parliament, to have increased the establishments of the country. Nothing but the most abso lute necessity could have justified them in depriving them selves of the assistance of Parliament. I say that the course they pursued was an unconstitutional course, because to add materially to the military or naval establishments of the country when Parliament is not sitting, unless such increase is called for by some overruling necessity, is not in accor dance with the principles of the constitution (Cheers.) What the overruling necessity was we have not heard to night, because they keep their secret to themselves. No member of the Government had risen to explain what was the imminent danger which required the increase of our establishments whilst Parliament was not sitting to give its sanction to that increase. (Cheers.) Ido not find fault practically with what has been done. (Ministerial cheers.) But I find fault with them for placing themselves in a con dition which obliged them to act in that manner, and with out any necessity, and in opposition to their duty. (Cheers.) We are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a delay of even 24 hours in our decision will produce some unknown and awful peril. Now if a doubt existing on the mind of foreign governments as to whether - her Majesty's Government has or has not the support of Parliament may produce such awful results, how came it that the Go vernment thought themselves justified in sending away Parliament and placing themselves for six weeks or two months in that situation when peril must arise to the great interests of the country ? (Cheers.) No doubt the position in which it stood before was not calculated to give strength to the Government with regard to our foreign relations, because a Government that exists upon sufferance and is liable to be overthrown from week to week cannot expect foreign Go vernments to enter into negotiations with them with the .confidence :that their policy will be pursued by their suc cessors. (Cheers.) I say, considering the position in which they were, if they had brought in another Reform Bill it would have been much better for the interests of the coun try than the total absence of Parliament, and the more than doubt that must have existed in the mind of Europe as to whether the Government had the support of Parliament and the country. What was the• issue they put before the country ? They declared that they dissolved Parliament because they had not the support of the majority, and it must have remained doubtful whetherithe election would give them the majority which they had not, and whether such a majority would be returned as would give stability to their tenure of office. I say that such a dissolutian was a culpable proceeding. (Cheers.) It was a sacrificing of what might have been great public interests for the purpose of obtaining a few votes at the different hustings. The right hon. gentleman spoke with great levity of the charges which had been made against the Government for the irre gular proceedings which have taken place at the elections. I am not going to enter into that question now, but I will venture to tell him that before any great length of time has passed there will be plenty of evidence of the fact. (Cheers.) If the Government showed themselves unable to carry on the domestic legislation of the country, much more so have they shown themselves in the management of our foreign relations. (Cheers.) It is said that we must not &press an opinion on that point in the absence of blue books, but there is sufficient evidence before us to tell the story. We know the outline of what has passed. I have no doubt the Government did what they thought best calculated to prevent the war, but my opinion is that the course which they pursued brought on the war. (Cheers.) Their great notion was that the danger of war arose from France and Sardinia—that if they held language hostile to France and Sardinia, and patronising t owar d s A us t r i a , there would be • f was that no war. Up to the very last moment their belle .es and if they could only threaten France with hostilities, ' breaking intimate to Europe that in the event of a Nr u ar sti peace out they would be found on the side of A and " Oh, would be preserved and war prevented. (Cheers, hilst holding that oh.")' They ought to have known forw war ; but at the language that Austria had decided was talking of moment when the right hon. gen tleman conduct of Austria, and the the dignified and conciliatory suspicious conduct of Sardinia, th a t summons was on its way to Sardinia which the afterwards noble lord at the head of the at the Mansion-house was obliged to declare Government a week re ndered Austria criminal. (Hear, hear.) It is plain they were ignorant of the state of affair s —that they were uninformed as to what was going on— that they were underl int a delusion, and believed the danger the a, be imminent on part of France and Sa r di n i a and war to and that there was n o danger on the part of Austria. If they ha d known what was go i n g at onVienna, and the inten ti on s of the h Austrian Government, they wou ld have held there had different language. If been a Government gR e sing the confidence of Parliament, and resting on P °- s Icannot but believe that theof its support, use firm and temperate language would have i n d uce d Austria to abstain f r om that act of aggression which. in the opinion of the head of the Government, converted Austria into the condition of a cr i m i na l. (Cheers.) I cannot persuade myself that a Government which was actuated by statesmanlike views and carried with it the support of the country, would not have been able to prevent the outbreak of the war. (Cheers) These things lead me to the conclusion that the Government is not entitled to the confidence and support of Parliament with regard to its foreign relations any more than with respect to its domestic concerns. We are told we ought not to lose a moment in coming to a decision. Now, whose fanit is it that so much delay has taken place Y Why did not the dissolution take place a week earlier and the Parliament reassemble sooner than it has done? The question for decision is, whether the electors have or have not given a majority to the Government, and I contend that the course which we are now pursuing is the manly and constitutional course. The appeal to the country was to determine whether the Government possessed its . eot dance. We should be failing in our duty and disa t pr re rm the expectations of the country if we sat lsilen lief isd allowed judgment to go against us by defan My be that the v er di c t w ill be against the Government, but v hat ever it may be the question ought to be settled. It isnot the constitution ►that in accordance with the p rinciples of o we its existence to the suffe ran ce the Government should