The Sun. — London, England, 1859-06-11 00:00:00

DIVERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. THE ENFIELD RIFLE. In answer to a question from Lord AVELAND Lord ROSSLYN said no Enfield rifles' had been issued to the militia, except such regirae.nts as have been re-embodied. It was, however, intended by the Commander-in -Chief to send some of the disembodied militia to Hythe for instruction in musketry, and so soon as the militia had progressed to sufficie them ntly to to take care of the weapons, it wa s intended issue militia regiments in general. ENDOWED SCHOOLS. Lord BROUGHAM said he had already announced his intention of bringing forward a measure to remedy the evil effects of the decision of the Lords Justices ; and he should have done so that evening, but he had learned that the subject had been taken up in the other House of Parliament. The bill he intended to have introduced would prevent liti gation, whieh was at the present moment carried on to a fearful extent. In one case within his knowledge as much as £4,500 of the endowed funds had been spent in a law suit to exclude Dissenters from the administration of those funds. Lord LYNDHURST presented several petitions refer ring to the subject mentioned by the noble and learned lord who had just sat down. Lord REDESDALE said there was some diffi culty connected with this subject. It was quite true that hardship might exist in some cases, but in others the endowment had been made by Churchmen, who never intended that Dissenters should interfere in their dis tribution. VEXATIOUS INDICTMENTS BILL. Lord CAMPBELL moved the second reading of this bill, the principal object of which was to render it imperative before an indictment was preferred and a warrant issued against any person, that the charge should undergo an investigation before a magistrate. Lord WENSLEYDALE objected to the bill as uncon stitutional. L or d LYNDHURST said, as the subject had been fully discussed last session, he was surprised that it should be opposed on that occasion. The LORD CHANCELLOR entirely approved of the bill, and thought it ought to pass through all its stages as early as possible. The bill was then read a second time and committed, and ordered to be read a third time on Thursday.next. DEBTOR AND CI3.EDITOR BILL. The. LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of this bill. After a few observations from Lord WENSLEYDALE and the Earl of Powis, the bill was read a second time, com mitted, and ordered to be read a third time on Thursday next. JOINT COMPANIES WINDING-UP ACT.' This bill was read a second time, committed, and ordered to be read a third time on Thursday. LAW OF PROPER ENT ENT B Y AN TRUSTEES' AMEND - This MILL bill was read a third time and passed. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock. SWEARING OF MEMBERS. Mr. Arnott, Mr. I. Butt, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Corbally, Mi. Blake, &c., took the oaths. PRIVATE BUSINESS. Some private bills were advanced a stage, in conformity with the sessional order of the late Parliament. SIR E. LUGARD. A letter was read from Sir E. Lugard in acknowledg ment of the vote of thanks of the house for his services. THE ADJOURNED DEBATE. Mr. M, GIBSON resumed the adjourned debate. He said that he was not in the habit of taking part in what were called party discussions, and would have preferred to be called on to speak to some specific act or measure of the Government, instead of the motiontefore the house ; but he felt called on to address the house on the present occa- sion, when they were required to deliberate as to which great party should possess the seals of office. He contended that the amendment to the address was forced on the house by the course which the Govern ment pursued in dissolving Parliament last session on a question of mere part' politics. He had felt bound to dissent from the foreign policy of the noble lord the member for Tiverton, and to that opinion he adhered ; but at the same time, in dealing with a question like the present they must look to the leaders of party, whom they could not separate from party itself. The object of the dissolution was to enable the Government to carry more measures of a Conservative character than could be expected from the late Parliament, which was of a more Liberal element. He could not see how the Liberal members of the house could pass a vote of confidence in a Government like the present under existing circumstances. He could not help expressing some surprise at the course which he understood his hon. friend the member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) proposed to take in supporting the Government, and he did not consider that he (Mr. ' Lindsay) was properly repaying the inhabitants of Sunderland for the enthusiasm they evinced in returning him in opposition to Mr. Hud son. (Hear, hear.) He strongly protested against the interference of the Executive in effecting the return of par ticular members which was attributed to the Government. He referred to statements made in reference to Ber wick, and quoted an article 'in the Berwick Warder, which stated that a letter had been received from the "highest authority," to the effect that the object for which the inhabitants of the town in question were so desirous would be effected, namely, the re-esta blishment of barracks. That object had been refused by Lord Panmure, on professional grounds, and yet the announcement in question app e ared in print three days before the nomination. He wished to know if the gallant and hon. member the Secretary for War pro posed any specific vote in the army estimates for the re establishment of barracks in Berwick ? General PEEL—It is not. (Laughter.) Mr. M. GIBSON—He should like to be informed' then if a letter had been sent such as he described ? (Hear, hear, and oh, oh.) He denied that they were justified in refusing confidence to the Government with reference to Parlia mentary Reform, for though a right hon. member of that house had prom ised to introduce a comprehensive and sa tisfactory measure of Parliamentary Reform, he did not think he could do so, with the state of feeling of that party onwhich the Government depended for support. He alluded in support of what he stated to the speech receutly given at Ipswich by the Attorney-General, in which he stated that a large measure of reform was not at present required. (Hear, hear.) He appealed to the Roman Catholic mem bers of the house not to support Government unless they obtained some specific promise of substantial benefit, and he called on these hon. members to remember that the Govern ment belonged to a party that were only too ready to avail themselves of the "No Popery cry," to acquire some popu larity at the eipense of those who were actuated by their religious convictions. (Cries of " Hear," and "No no.") With regard to the war question, he was not one of those who were disposed to charge the Government with not being sincere in the opinion expressed on the ques tion of neutrality, and he was inclined to wait Until the course of events showed whether they . were de termined to act in conformity with their expressions. At the same time he viewed with pain and distrust the .sympathy the Government were said to en tertain for Austria in the pending hostilities, and with a view to preventing any infringement of the peace of England that they should put the most favourable construction on the conduct of the French Government until something occurred to justify them in adopting a different course. He trusted that they would adopt the wise course of confining their attention to domestic affairs instead of having their thoughts directed to the dangerous question of continental war. (Hear.) From these considerations he felt bound to support the amendment. Mr. LINDSAY—As the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down made reference to him (Mr. Lindsay) and the course he was about to take on the present occasion, perhaps the house would allow him to state the reasons which in duced him as an advocate of reform to pursue that course. (Hear.) He had always voted for reform—he had always voted for progress and for freedom of religion—and in the vote which he should feel it his duty to give upon the mo tion he conscientiously believed that he should best perform his duty to the liberal constituency by which he had been returned. (" Oh, oh," and laughter from the Opposition, and cheers from the Conservatives.) That was his con scientious belief, and he was sure hon. gentlemen would re spect his motive when he said it was a high sense of duty as a reformer that induced him to vote against the amend ment. (Ministerial cheers, and laughter from the Opposi tion.) His right hon. friend read a paragraph f rom t h e Times of a great meeting which he (Mr. Lindsay) addressed, in which his triumphant return to that house was referred to as a reformer, and asked what w ould his co nstituents think of the vote he was now about to give ? Now, it so happened that in some correspondence he had written to a political friend abroad about this question of neutrality, and how it affected British ships—he referred •to the se state of political parties in this country, and in the paragph in the Times some remarks that he had made in the course of that correspondence appeared. Some extracts from his let ter to his friend abroad found their way , to the press, had gone to Sunderland, which he represented, and appeared in a newspaper there. He had those extracts in his box, and it might be interesting to the house if he read the views of the leading. liberal paper upon the su bj ec t o f ,this amendment. The editor of this paper said, " The matter before the coun try now is not one of an abstract character." The editor of this paper was an advanced Liberal, as thoroughly ear nest as his right hon. friend, and he continued :—" It is plainly this, whether the present Ministry are to be re moved from office without any defined accusation or any sufficient guarantee that their successors will introduce and maintain a policy more conducive to the interests of the country. Two questions claimed prominent attention—re form and peace. It is soon to be seen whether the Derby administration have profited by their knowledge of a thorough determination on the part of the people to have a real and substantial measure of reform, and if so, whether they will legislate for the nation rather than for party. They are cer tainly entitled to have the opportunity of showing whether such a change has taken place. A factious amendment on the address should not be countenanced by independent liberals. (Conservative cheers.) As to the great question of peace, if Ministers prove by their acts that they are sincere in their declaration to maintain a strict neutrality, it would be most injudicious at this time to compel a change in the administration. For these reasons he had no doubt that a large number of earnest and independent liberals will act in aeceidance with the views represented by one of our own r t acire.sentatives, Mr Lindsay, in the following communica tion; Then came the extract from the communication to without he had referred, and the words which he wrote, the r ut havin i g any idea that they Would find their way to havinge done so. he was not at all ashamed of their Government's than "This century has not produced a worse racy Bill _ cco that which was destroyed on the Conspi vxmenssteryative cheers)—and I believe there are a few stern, men no interests but those iii the House of Commons who have will resist t o theof their country at heart, and who utmost esen a7 attempt to replace the Whigs pr in power. If the Gov on the opening of Parliament, , say that they will ad vance . comparison with the growing intelligence of the people—if they will bring in a bill disfmtichising some ofthesm a llb orn ofthesmallb o roughs and extend ing the frauchise, and if they will m a intain neutrality, they have nu reason to dread any hostile a ttack and all the ?costs they can bring againstthe ir m e t ' m T h h e ese W wer hige e the views expressed by a leading Liberal in the north of England ; they were his views. (Oh.) The hon. member for Birmingham was not more earnest for reform than he was. (Oh, oh.) The hon. member sneered—h e seemed to think it in ipossible to get a substantial and satisfactory reform bill pa seed by the present Government. But what w Government ras it that passed all the great measures of Progress of wil l TeJj we were soproud ? He believed it vtaa the _ Duke of Wellington's Government that passed. Catholic emancipation ; it was the Government of Sir R. Peel that repealed the corn laws, and it was Lord Derby's Govern ment that admitted the Jews to Parliament. (Cries of " Oh, oh," and loud laughter.) In the hands of Lord J. Russell the Jew Bill was tossed about like a shuttlecock, that house being for 25 years the one battledore, and the House of Lords the other. What reason had he to suppose that any reform bill brought in by the noble lord would not undergo a similar process perhaps (for 20 years to come? The present Government had in her Majesty's speech pledged themselves to a substantial measure of re form—(,‘ no no, " and hear)—to " a measure of reform which her Majesyitrusts will be satisfactory to the country." The Chancellor of the Bxchequer pledged himself on the part of the Government that he would even this session, should the house demand it, introduce a reform bill which would disfranchise many of the small boroughs, and give a considerable extension of the franchise. That, he be lieved, was all they wanted on that (the opposition) side of the house just now. The hon. member for Birmingham said he did not know when the present Government could give them a reform bill, but if the Whigs came into office they could get one this year. But could any reform bill be passed this year, or did any person desire that one should pass ? Did hon. gentlemen want again to go to their con stituents instead of going grouse shooting ? They knew that if the Whigs came into office they could not get a reform bill, and that they could get more early from the present Government, and more than that, he felt that the Govern ment would be able to pass a reform bill through another place, having a majority there, which the Whigs had not. That was a great consideration with him, as an earnest reformer and wishing to settle the question for the well being of the people and the constitution also. The hon. member for Birmingham, in a recent speech of his, referred to the opinions held by a noble lord, who in the event of a change of government might be sent for by her Majesty, or who in any government that might be formed would hold a distinguished place in the Cabinet. His hon. friend said that " he was not about to defend the conduct of Lord Palmerston, or to retract one sentence which he had ever uttered with regard to him ; and before they should destroy one government they ought to see whether they could get a better or a stronger in its place." (Hear, hear, and cheers.) His hon. friend the member for Birmingham said that his opinion was unaltered, and that. he would not retract a single sentence he had ever uttered with regard to the noble lord the member for Tiverton. He (Mr. Lindsay) did not know whether his hon. friend would be a member of any government which might be formed ; he believed that he wished to retain the independent posi tion he had hitherto occupied, but he believed the right hon. gentleman who sat next his hon. friend, and who held the same opinions, was likely to be honoured with a seat in the coalition Cabinet. (Hear, hear.) Let gentlemen con sider whether a Cabinet so constituted was likely to be • stronger than the present. He need not go back to all that his hon. friend' had said of the noble lord the member for Tiverton at different times; he would only go back to last session to show what were the views which his hon. friend held with regard to the noble lord, and as his views were e xactly the same as those of t he right hon. gentleman the member for Ashton, how could that right hen. gentle man and, the noble lord work well together in the same Cabinet P His hon. friend said that he expected that he should obtain more reform and was more likely to secure peace from the new Government than from that now in office, and yet only last session he said, " When the noble lord came into office he was paraded as a great reformer." He was paraded now—(loud cheers)—but, continued his honourable friend, " when he left office, he left nothing but confusion abroad, and at home nothing had been done." Did his honourable friend suppose that more would be done now than then ? A person like the noble lord was not likely at his years to change. It was curious that in the same speech his honourable friend also referred to the noble lord the member for London, who would hold a dis tinguished position in a new cabinet. His hon, friend said, " that the noble „lord, too, had been Prime Minister, and the leader of the gr eat Whig party, with whom some persons who called themselves Radicals had dovetailed. They had done so now. (Loud Minis terial cheers.) But, continued his hon. friend, " the spoils of office had fallen to the share of the noble lord and his immediate friends." What reason had his hon. friend for supposing that the spoils of office would be disposed of now in a different manner ? The noble lord (Palmerston) in sinuated the other night that if he were in office he would be able to keep England out of war. His right hon. friend knew very well that the noble lord had not been so very great a peace Minister, and when his hon. friend themember for Bir mingham expressed some doubts of the peace policy of the noble lord at 'Willis's Rooms, the noble lord got up and said that on the question of peace he agreed with the hon. mem ber for Birmingham. (4 , Hear, hear," and laughter.) His hon. friend now said that they agreed on this question of peace. If so, the noble ford must very suddenly have changed his views. Looking' back for many years, it would be found that if the noble lord had not led us into war, he had at least not kept us at peace. Recollect how the British fleet was sent into the waters of Grswee to obtain the payment of a magnificent debt of £l5O ; and the war with China entered into on account of an alleged insult to the British flag by a miserable lorcha, and the firing of shot and shell which ensued mowed down thousands of defenceless people on the pretext of defending the honour of the Bri tish flag ; but what became of the honour of England when it was menaced by an insulting desyatch from the Minister of a foreign Powerl?—heers) ? a nd who was it that vindicated the honour of England :Was it the noble lord or the right hon. gentleman the niember for Ashton ? The noble lord was said to have great sympathy for Italy, and yet in 1848 Lombardy might have been freed, for the noble lord had it in his power to do it. (..‘ Hear, hear," and cheers.) He should like to have an answm" on that point, whether or not it was the case that Ausaiti offered to evacuate Lombardy, and whether the noble lord refused to assent to it. (Hear.) If so, was not the noble lord responsible to a great extent for the war which was now going on? For the reasons he had stated he considered it to be his duty as a calm, thinking man—(laughter, and "hear, hear")—as an advocate of reform and peace, to give his vote against the amendment on which they were to divide that evening. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) But he should do so for another reason. The question before the house was the address to her Majesty in reply to her speech from the throne. Now, in the whole course of the debate not a word had been said of the policy propounded is her Majesty's Speech, and they were asked to agree to an amendment to that speech, although they as Liberals en tirely agreed in and could find no fault with the principles laid down in it. Strict neutrality was arrived at on the part of the Government, and they stated that they- had, done all in their power to preserve peace, and papers had been offered to the house which would prove that they had done so. No one on that (the Opposition) side ever affected to doubt that. Then as regarded rumours about sympathy with Austria, every effort had failed to show that there was anything but a rumour on that point; and was he to give his vote for destroying a Government from a mere rumour ? (Loud Ministerial cheers.) He should ill-represent the gen tlemen who had returned him by a large majority if he did so. (Hear, hear.) But the right hon. gent l e man themem ber for Stroud had made one or two of the most extraor dinary statements he ever heard. He said :—" Her Ma jesty informed them that in the differences which had arisen between continental powers her mediatorial efforts in the interests of peace had entirely failed. She told them that war was now raging in Italy, but that her determina tion was—and in this her Majesty was loyally supported by all classes of her subjects—that England should remain strictly neutral. But shewent on to inform them that she had felt it right in the present state of Europe to add to her naval forces, thereby disclosing an apprehension that circumstances beyond her control might unhappily arise to compel reluctant England to become a belligerent power. All this was well known, but'the authoritative announcement was, perhaps, one of the most important which had been made by the Sovereign to'Parliament in our day. We had borne a part in negotiations now concluded, • and unless Providence averted the calamity we might be entangled in the war." War was raging, and a spark from that conflagration might reach England, and were her Majesty's ministers to leave her Majesty unprotected—(" hear, hear," and cheers)—in circumstances which the right hon. gentleman said might be quite beyond their control. While he (Mr. Lindsay) was an advocate of peace and economy, he was also an ad vocate, especially at the present time, when war was raging in Europe, for having the defences of the country in an efficient state not only to protect England, but to vindicate her honour, which was of far more importance to her as a nation, and especially as a commercial nation. (Hasa.) The right hon. gentleman the member fer Stroud gave another reason why he should vote against the Government. He stated that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had only appealed to the house not to bring forward this motion, he should have been disposed to have voted against the amend ment. Well, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no op portunity of doing so, for the amendment was concocted, and arranged, and agreed upon by the leaders of the dif ferent sections of the liberal party before the right hon. gentleman was sworn in. (Hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer took the earliest opportunity immediately after the amendment had been moved, to expound his policy in what he (Mr. Lindsay) would call *a straightforward and honest speech. (Hear.) And although he did not ask that the amendment should not be pressed, he said as much when he declared that he thought the house ought to give the Government a chance of carrying out the liberal policy which he had propounded. The house, however, would not let him have a chance, for fear that he should bring in some such reform bill as he did last session. If he did, he (Mr. Lindsay) would vote against it , as h e did last session, for the reasons which the noble lord the mem ber for London had embodied in his resolution were to him un answerable; but because the Government bad erred with re spectm,e to that bill, was that a reason for assuming that they last g.et Londonhsbillaemsswo hnhe. was ro re 1191 able to bring in a bill which might meet with ap- P meni va br It might as well be said that the noble lord the because ianiisshtrenoodwobteeuldeifieedttvhedteoinhbiotrilnBsg4inwaaaßeefvoermu more erroneous in principle than the Reform Bill of the Govern menterronewfori3i usweasththate the bill iirclieomf the r noble lord, in attempting to givvotest i o minorities, was uncons titutional and unsound. But would the hon gentle man say that he wou l d not trust the noble lord t ano ther bill on that account ? For th e same reason bring hat hi in would have allowed the noble lord to bring in another bill, he would allow the Government to do so, especially as they had by the dissolution learnt what were the wishes and feelings of the people with regard to the franchise which they did not know before, and there was every hope that they, like the Duke of Wellington with regard to Catholic emancipation, and like Sir R. Feel with re g ard to the corn laws, would have endeavoured to meet the wishes of the people with regard to a Reform Bill, and if they had done so they would have been able to pass it rapidly through the other house, which the Whigs would not be able to do. For these reasons, and because in this Parliament he saw no reason for passing a vote of no confidence against the Government, he should give h is vote against amend ment. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) Mr. S. HERBERT said that he was afraid that those persons in the house who took offence at the reconciliation of sections of the Liberal party had found little comfort in the speech which they had just heard. (Laughter and cheers.) They on that side of the house were not quite unanimous ; there was something still which was a g,round for division in the Liberal ranks. He had hoped to have got through this discussion without feeling the necessity of taking any part in it. He was not fond of discussions on the merits, not of measures, but of men. Hon. gentlemen opposite would do him the justice to admit that in the most heated controversies not one word had ever dropped from him which could imply any want of respect for the party to which they belonged. He had always spoken of and freely acknowledged their high quali ties, and if in this case he had a complaint to make it was not against the party itself, but against those who led it. Before the dissolution of Parliament the Government had challenged an issue on the ground of confidence. In that house before the dissolution the Government had said, we stand on our measures ; we are in a minority, and we won't carry on the Government by concession to the Liberal ma jority. It was, then, measures not men. In the country the cry was different, it was men not measures. The Go vernment having given this challenge could not complain that it had been taken up. In the Queen's Speech at the end of last session, her Majesty erns made tp hope that Under the blessing et! Providence that dissolution would enable her to conduct'. the government of the country under the advice of a Mi-iiistry that possessed the confidence of a ma jority of Parli iment and the people. The Government said that they faile d with their Reform Bill ; but had that been the case with i io one else? Had hot the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) brow ght in a Reform Bill which had not been carried ? It h Lad been remarked by the hon. member for 1 Sunderland tb .at the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) brought in a Reform Bill in 1854, and it failed ; and that he brought one in before whir I. failed. But those bills were not rejected. The bill which the noble lord brought in, when he led the house as a int daber of the Government of Lord Aberdeen, was not rejected, but it was the universal feeling of the house that no Reform Bill could be entertained when the war with Russia broke out. That bill had been made the foundation of a great portion of the late bill of the Government. It pro posed the £lO franchise in counties, and without taking away any of the credit due' to the hon. member for West Surrey, he (Mr. S. Herbert) believed the present Government had taken that principle from the bill of the Government of Lord Aberdeen. Another principle of that bill was the lower ing of the borough :Franchise, which the present Government had studiously avoided, but which they now hinted that they would be dispose d to do hereafter. Thepresent Govern ment, therefore, having availed itself of two of the main provisions of the bill O. the noble lord in 1854, had no right to lay any stress upon titie fact that that bill did not pass into a law. But there was one great distinction to be made, the noble lord was a reformer. (Cheers.) He did not quarrel with the present Government for undertaking to deal with reform. As the vnble lord the member for Tiver ton had said, "they took the horse with his engagements, and knew what they were bound to." Though professei anti-reformers, therefore, who argued with zeal and ability against the proposition of the hon. member for West Surrey until the last moment, they brought in a bill upon that model. (Hear, hear.) But he preferred not to wait now for the fulfilment of their pronrises. He preferred to see reform in the hands of reformers. It was no easy matter to carry a Reform .Bill ; but there must always be increased difficulties when either 'of the great parties in the house did not confine themselves to doing that which it was their duty, in right of their principles, to do, but undertook to do business for others. He had been blamed for saying that there was a special danger in a Re form Bill being brought in by the Conservatives ; but he thought so, because in the nature of things the Opposition would thi nk themselves bound to go beyond it. A right hon. gentleman opposite had said of the late measure of the Government, " This is a Reform Bill which, if it had been introduced by Lord Palmerston, and we had been in oppo sition, every man of us would have opposed." Some compro mise must always be made before such a question could be settled ; no Government could pass a Reform Bill exactly as they brought it in ; but if it were brought in by those whose , antecedents were opposed to reform, it would be passed under protest from those who wished to go further, and they would not hold themselves bound by the compromise. If, on the other hand, it were brought in and passed by the Liberal party, they would be bound by the compromise, and there would be a prospect of its stability and permanence, which there could not be in the case of Lila brought in by a Con servative Government and passed with the reluctant assent, or probably the dissent and protest of the Opposition. There was one measure not brought forward by the. Government but assented to by them, the abolition of the property qua lification for members. He remembered that when that was passed some one asked the Government which point of the charter they were going to give next. A practical answer to this question was given in their Reform Bill, which pro posed a sort of electoral districts. If the vote were suc cessful, he should be glad to see the executive placed in stronger hands ; and if, on the contrary, the Government should be in a majority, it would probably command a wider support. Their numbers on that side could not much preponderate, but he hoped that if they found themselves in power, the patriotism and good sense of the country would come to their aid, and, whichever party were pos sessed of authority, he trusted that party would bring to a successful issue the great questions which press upon them ; 'that their various domestic interests might be fully con sidered in any reform bill that might be presented, and that they might be able to restore peace to Europe in a manner that would show that they in England had not forgotten that there was a people struggling for liberty. (Cheers.) Mr. BENTINCK said complaints had been made on the other side that there was an indisposition on his (Mr. Bentinck's) side of the house to meet the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite, but he held that the reason why the discussion had languished was that there was nothing in the arguments of those who advocated the amendment to call for reply. It was alleged that the Government had failed in carrying their measures. It was not for him to defend the Government, who were well able to stand up for themselves—he did not deny that there had been occasions when he viewed the conduct of Ministers with regret—but he held that he should be taking a most unjust course, if, because he had differed from them upon. one or two occasions, he should at once join in the vote proposed by the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) He should like to know how the commercial interests of England could be reconciled with the deterioration of her fleet. With our naval supremacy our commercial greatness would cease. Yet, probably, by agreeing to the vote of censure now proposed a government would be introduced whose policy would be to destroy that naval supremacy. He thought this question one of such importance that, before the house determined upon pursuing any course the result of which might be a change of ministry a guarantee should be demanded from those likely to succeed that our national defences should be maintained in a thorough state of effi ciency. (Loud cheers.) Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR said the hon. gentleman who had just spoken had asserted that the arguments advanced by that (the opposition) side of the house containednothing worthy of reply. He (Mr. Seymour) thought, on the con trary, that no reply could be given to the cogent arguments advanced. What answer had been attempted to the question why anacknowledgedminority should occupythe ministerial benches, while the majority was to be found on the opposite aid& ofrthe house ? An HON. MEMBER—Are you a majority ? (Laughter.) Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR said, not only were they a majority, but they had been so since the Government first held office—that was, if all the sections of the Liberal party were united. (Laughter.) And he saw no reason why they should not be united. ( enewed laughter.) It was only nr accordance with constitutional precedents that the majority of the house should hold the reins of government, and Eng land would soon sink into a third-rate power if, forgetting her constitutional precedents, she allowed a government in an acknowledged minority to remain in office. Captain VERNON said he should not have risen whilst so many hon. members were anxious to address the house, ex cept for the fact that he had a little information to give to gentlemen on the opposite side, and particularly to the right hon. member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), and the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Wilsonl, who, indeed, were not now present in their places, but who he had no doubt would hear by other means what he had to communicate within the next 24 hours. The subject onwhich he was about to givein formation he should not have considered of much importance exc ept for the fact of those gentlemen to whom he had referred having dragged it into the debate by the hair of the head. It was the case of the Cunard line to which he re ferred. The hon. and right hon. gentleman had placed the matter before the house in an invidious position. The hon. member for Devonport stated that the contract had been made contrary to all precedent, and insinuated that it was made for the purpose of jobbery. The right hon. member for Carlisle, with that intrepidity of assertion—(laughter)-- for which he was, not without a certain amount of fact, celebrated, went so far as to say that the money had been expended in huge, gigantic bribery—a bribery of all the members for the west of Ireland. The hon. member for Birmingham talked of a travelling politician, but the right hon. member for Carlisle had not always sat for Carlisle, nor had the hon. member for Devonport always sat for Devonport. It might be that they in the course of their travels might present themselves at the western side of Ireland, and if so they would speedily discover that they were not the men for Galway. The hon. member for De vonport had given them to understand that there was no precedent for that which he had denounced. In 1851 Lord Jocelyn's committee sat, and of that committee the hon. member for Devonport was one. The committee was ap pointed to consider the m ode of arranging the postal com munication with India, and they came to a distinct under standing that there should be two lines of p ostal commu nication with India, and tha t those two lines should not be given to the same parties. One line was in the possession of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and the other line was competed for by the Eastern Steam Navigation Com pany. In defiance of the recommendation of the committee the second line of communication was given to the l'enin sular and Oriental Company, and they then had a mono poly of the East Indian postal communication, except a small line held by the. East India Company hetween Aden and Bombay. They afterwards ceased to hold that line, and it was then asked for by certain parties, but they, however, found that it was already given to the Peninsular and Oriental Company. He did not charge this as a job ; but why should the hon. gentleman charge the present Government with a job in the Cunard case ? He never recollected hearing that the hon. member for Devonport was in 'want of memory ; he recollected what he heard and saw; and ho (Capt. Vernon) thought that he ought to recollect what he did. Gentlemen who wanted to get this line from Aden to Bombay commu nicated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asked for an interview, and received the following reply :- - - " Downing-street, -Dec. 8, 1853. " Sir, —The Chancellor of the Exchequer desires me to inform you, in reply to your letter dated the 11th October, but which only arrived in Downing-street on the sth inst., that no intimation has yet been conveyed to him on the part of the East India Company of their intention to abandon the line of steam communication between Aden and Bombay, and in this state of the question he would be much obliged if, previous to urging an interview with him, you would have the kindness to favour him with an outline of your views upon the subject in writing.—' have the honour, &c., " Thos. Holrsyd, Esq." W. WILBRA HAM. " 70, Cornhill, Dec. 14, 1853. " Sir, —When the former contracts for the carriage of tha mails in the Eastern seas were about to expire, I had in depu tation several times occasion to meet Sir C. Wood, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who invariably stated to us that the question for the contracts for the carriage of the mails rested entirely with him as' Chancellor of the Exche quer,' and Sir C. Wood exercised that authority by giving all the contracts for the carriage of the mails to the Penin sular and Oriental Company, much to the disappointment ofthe mercantile and Indian communities. " When, therefore, it became known that the East I ndia Company were about to abandon the line between Aden and Bombay, the mercantile community felt that an opportunity was now offered for competition in the Eastern seas, and a moment favourable for carrying out the recorded opinion of the commissioners on the contract packet service for the esta blishment of a line via Trieste. Feeling satisfied that the steam Company, matter really rested with you, I took the liberty of soliciting an interview. The reily,to my letter from your secretary, Mr. Wilbraham, dated the Bth inst., states that no intima tinon.had as yet been conveyed to you on the part of the East in thmateostTrinte of their intention to abandon the line of n o n f i t c h at e io g n u be es t t w io e n T y A ou den wo an ui d d ß be om o b a a d y t ; o a h n a d v t e ha a t n , outline of my views in writing previous to an interview. " You will, therefore, I am sure, be equally surprised with myself to find that, without your knowledge, a contract has B Co o m in p b a a n y y o f f o t r h t a h t e p c o a rti ni o a n g o e f o t f he th l e ine ma a been virtually concluded with the Peninsular and Oriental i b ls an be do t n w e e d en by A th d e en E a as nd t India Company, thus giving the Peninsular and Oriental Compnny a complete monopoly of the Indian and China seae. This information I had from a Mr. Wilson, the Secretary to the Treasury—(Ministerial pe ers ) i 1 morning ; and from what he told me it would appear to be useless in my troubling you with my views on this subject, since he stated the arrangement to have been concluded a fortnight ago, and t h ere f o re just one wee k before the date of y our sCcreeary's letter to whicja I have alluded, and from which it is quite evident that this arrangement has been entered into quite ddi t i n on t he al rou t e City via Trieste, to unknown to you. I ma y be permitted to state shortl y that a comp any give the public at a speed very su p e rior to that prom ised b y the Peni nsular and the benefit ha s been of formedan a Oriental, viz., 21 days to Bombay, and the memorials in 1 my possession from the city of Loudon, of Liverpool and I.IIE SIJN, LOND6N, SATUR,PA.ir EVENING, JUNE 11, 1859. T Manchester, and Halifax, of which I enclose copies, will show the feeling of the trade on the riubject.—l have, &c., " Tilos. HOLROYD. " Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer." How the hon. member could after this say that there was no precedent ffor such a thing as the Cunard arrangement, seemed to him to be wonderful. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for De v onport charged the Government with un duly influencin g the elections. He pronounced to the house a jeremia( I respecting the manner in which he had been treated at Devon Port, and he so depicted his griefs that he (Captain -Vernon) expected to see— " The big Wars rolling down his innocent nose." (Laughter.) He (Captain Vernon) could have mingled his tears in the same bottle, for he had in times gone by can vassed Chatham against the Government, and it might be readily imagined that they had been tarred with the same brush. (Laughter.) In reference to elections, it was the easiest thing in the world to make charges in every possible direction. The right hon. member fer Carlise gave to understand that a large sum of money had been paid by a nobleman on the Conservative side of the house with the view of that money being employed for political purposes. He said at first £20,000, then £lO,OOO, then £5,000, and he did not know whether he had now " shadowed" it away altogether, but at all events the statement left behind it a sting. The right hon. member said that there was an im proper interference with the elections, but did he not know that that which was charged against one side of the house was also charged against the other. The hon. and learned member for Cork (Mr. Sergeant Deasy) when speaking the other night in his excitement " bonnetted" the noble lord the member for London, and the right hon.,member for Carlisle was morally "bonnetted" when he charged the noble earl with subscribing money for the elections. (Laughter.) Similar things to those said of the noble earl had been said of gentlemen closely connected with the noble lord the member for London. The hon. member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) gave them to understand that bribery ex tended among all sorts and conditions of men, but he did not say whether he left out his own particular friends. The bewitching goddess no doubt served out to him a certain amount of poetic justice, and inspired him to - present a peti tion against two of his own immediate relatives for bribery. No doubt a more philanthropic man than the hon. member for Birmingham did not exist, and no doubt the feeling ex tended to his family ; and doubtless when they contributed their specie it was from purely philanthropic motives. The hon. member for Birmingham must be connected with the Humane Society, for he believed he had actually gone to the extent of paying £2O for a cat—a tolerably large sum for a four-legged:mousetrap. (Laughter.) They were all fresh from the hustings; and if ever there was a time when the consti tuencies of kingdom compelled candidates to be explicit and give things their right names, and call a spade a spade it was now ; and doubtless the people of England expected that they should carry out some straightforward measure. lie had been sitting Tor night. « like Patience on a monu ment smiling at Grief "—listening, not to the great ques tion before the house, but to matters about Austria, Ger many, Sardinia, and France, interspersed with attacks and challenges and throwing down of gauntlets, such as might have characterised some Irish parliament when they talked about pistols and paces on the Green. (A laugh.) What was this amendment stripped of its disguise? Why, nothing but a desperate determination on the part of certain gentle men, who had been cooling their heels in the rear of the existing Government, in the hope of once more getting their backs at the warm Treasury fire. (Laughter.) That was the be-all and the end-all of this amendment, the letter and not the spirit of which they were called upon to delude themselves into the belief that they were taking into their serious consideration. They might deceive themselves, but they could not deceive the people. They had too fresh in their recollection the unhappy motion of the member for the city of Oxford, in which he suffered himself to be victi mised by his friends, and sent forward like a scapegoat bleating in expiation of the sins of his party. (Cheers and a laugh.) They had too fresh in their recollection the fac tious amendment of the member for the City of London. They could not be deluded, but could see at once what must be the plain and distinct object of the amendment. He be lieved the thinking part of the community—the intelli gence that guided the commerce and general business of the country—were sick and tired of seeing the great inte rests of the country jeopardised, and, if not sacrificed, at least postponed to the miserable question as to who or who were not to hold office, and be the distributors of patronage (Hear, hear.) There was a feeling growing up throughout the land that England had a nobler destiny to fulfil than to be the mere pasture ground of a political clique. (Hear, hear.) The interests of England and of her people would always be paramount when those names that had flourished in the leading columns of newspapers, and who fancied they were names for history, would be swept from the face of the earth. (Hear, hear.) What was the plain and unmistakeable object of this amendment P Why, the removal of Lord Derby from power. (Cheers from the Op position.) Was it, he would ask, because Lord Derby had neglected reform, as did the administration of the two noble lords, until it served their purpose to reproduce it as a poli tical stalking-horse ? (Cheers.) Was it because he mis managed the foreign relations of the country, as did the noble lord who suffered himself to be cajoled, and flattered, and out-manoeuvred at Vienna, drifting the country into a sanguinary and savage war, as did the administration to which the noble lord belonged ? Was it because he plunged them into a sanguinary war with China, as did the noble viscount, that cost the country much money, and he (Cap tain Vernon)his seat ? (Laughter and applause.) Was it because he submitted to national humiliation, as did the noble viscount, and which, in his turn, cost him his seat ? No, none of these circumstances and misdemeanours could be laid to the charge of Lord Derby. Then what was his crime ? Why, his crime was that he occupied the seat coveted by the noble lord opposite, and which he sought to possess by the filibustering operations of his party. (Cheers.) And who was to be their future leader ? Who was to reign upon the Treasury bench ? " Under which king, Bezonian ? Speak, or die." (Laughter and loud cheers.) Was Tiverton to do suit and service to London, or was London to be dragged at the chariot wheels and through the mud of Tiverton ? (Laughter.) Who was to be egornet apse, and who was to be rex mew Or was the Premier of England in future to be depicted in the imperishable pages of Punch 'as the two Kings of Brent ford, amicably smelling at the same nosegay. (Renewed laughter.) Or was a third member to be introduced in the nishiaeper ofo f E th n e g h le o n n d . m in e t m h b e e g r o f o o d r Birmingham? i e n o g m h i a n m g ? to A h n e d aweasdetheeeriPhreed bntyhoetbhlfieleoorvienßeeet.slriemeebt celebrated Mrs. Malapiop, like Mr. Cerberus—three gentlemen all at once. (Loud laughter.) Poverty made people acquainted with strange bed-fellows ; but was it an impossible vision that would vouchsafe to them the proba bility of seeing the noble lord the member for the City and the noble viscount the member for Tiverton comfortably tucked up under the blanket of coalition, with the hon.. member for Birmingham ensconced between them. " Could such things be, And overcome us, like a summer dream, Without our special wonder ?" What was the bond of union between this chOice triumvi rate ? Was it place ? That was not the vocation of the noble viscount. (A laugh.) Was it war ? That was against every feeling of the hon member for Birmingham. But the noble lord the member for the City of London might be said to have a bias both way!—(laughter)—for whereas he formerly drifted this country into one of the bloodiest wars, he sud denly became peaceful and deserted his party on the motion of the member for Sheffield. (Hear, hear.) What was the bond of union ?—was it the ballot ? Why that was a stink in the nostrils of the noble viscount, though it was a sweet smelling savour to the nose of the hon. member for Bir mingham. (Laughter and cheers.) And here again the noble lord the member . for the City of London might be said to 'have a bias both ways—(hear, and laughter)—for whereas formerly he eschewed the ballot, latterly, under the pres sure of a possible contest for the City of London, he had been induced to look at the momentous question with very modi fied feelings. What was the bond of union ? Was it reform? He believed member mpn t ftb h opgb eetraehormdt Birmingham f,gnmeoorftorlo;uyt Birminghamrtt ta o eth Ne w hvedhe e rnwrc eewholei, uponrpetydalegwnoafief! finality t ohin shwtnteyoearthdiwould wohastshh the hewet induce rdheeehoeujottl upndhhrs.eetie finedxeo induce noblehettl mem beroeoeeL lv f s o o a ir r s y deo w t unt h h h at he had a bias( wasß ebno (Renewed e ways—(loud laughter)— p an air d on p ym ipe ic t , e nhoiwm.hepleaseddlautgohtedarn.)ce He on would the hon. member for Birmingham was pleased to point h ou is t, call on gentlemen opposite, who were Liberals at heart, and not merely of mouth—who were received throughout the length and breadth of the land as the champions of honest Liberalism, to destroy the proposed amendment, which might be the means of bringing into power men whom they "Have learned to know, and knowing to distrust." He called on those gentlemen who at the last election ob tained their seats through the mag,ic potency of the noble viscount's name, and who, deserting him in his utmost need, fled from him like quicksilver—he called on them to recollect why they . did so—and if they forgot he would not forget—and to resist the proposed amendment that might bring his strong indignation back into power. He called on them to band themselves together, and thrust out from them the noble lord the member for the City of London; for if they forgot it, he would not, and he would resist this amendment, that would bring back his strong indignation upon them. He called upon them to recollect the terms in Which the hon. member for Birmingham gibbeted these re markable proceedings—" Where did these conspirators meet—was it in a coal-hole or in a sewer ? Truly a fit re ceptacle for so dirty a transaction." He called on them to recover from the feelings with which they heard these words, and resist the amendment,ithat should bring back his scorn and indignation to power. He called on those on his side of the house, marshalled under the Conservative ranks, to recollect that the amendment was not made against the Conservative Ministry alone, but against the Conservative party altogether, and not to listen to the flattering words of the member for South Wilts, who said he did not find fault with the party, but with those that led the party. When, however, the leaders were attacked , t he p art y was attacked. (Loud cheers.) When they were to be defended they were to defend them from the assault, net of policy, but of party—not by fact, but by a faction. (Cheers.) Let them, then, stand well together, without any hair-splitting —no "letting I dare not wait upon I would"—but let them band themselves together like one man, under the banner of union, consistency, and Conservatism, and stand or fall under its colours. (Loud cheers.) Mr. W. LEATHAM expressed his intention of voting for the amendment. Ho thought the Government ought to have fair play, but he considered they had failed more par ticularly in framing a proper measure of reform. Sir C. LEWIS wished to state to the house his reasons for giving support to the amendment. He admitted that the amendment, involving an expression of want of confi dence in the Executive Government of the country, was of an unusual and extraordinary character, and that persons who were habitually in opposition to her Majesty's Government would hesitate on common occasions in supporting a vote of that description. But it seemed to him that any person who had been in the habit of opposing the existing Government ought not to hesitate on the present occasion in supporting the amendment. That amendment was not proposed spon taneously. It had been forced upon the Opposition by the conduct of her Majesty's Government. When his noble friend the member for the city of London made his motion upon the Reform Bill in the last Parliament it did not, in his opinion, involve a censure on her Majesty's Govern ment. It affirmed certain principles with respect to the con struction of the Reform Bill, in which the Opposition side of the house were unanimously agreed, in which a large number of gentlemen on the opposite side of the house con curred, and to which it would have been competent for her Majesty's Government to have submitted, modifying their measure accordingly. But they did not take that course. They treated it, quite unnecessarily, as a vote of censure ; and they went to the vote on the understanding that the amendment imported a vote of censure on the Government. That vote was supported by a large majority of the late Parliament. Her Majesty's advisers did not acquiesce in that decision. They appealed to the country ; but they did not appeal on the measure of the bill of reform. They ap pealed to the country for a vote of confidence in themselves as an Administration, and the elections did not turn on the merits of the Leforro Bill. They were not decided by the votes whether or not that Reform Bill should be revived in the present Parliament. They were decided by votes of confidence and no confidence in her Majesty's advisers. Hitherto it had been the recognised system, that when an opposition came into office they-continued to act in office upon principles which had governed their conduct in oppo sition. But her Majesty's -present advisers acted' upon a different system. Upon accession to office, they, with re gard to two different questions—namely, the India Bill and the reform question—thought it necessary to saddle them selves with the engagements of their predecessors. With regard to the India Bill, up to the latest hour, up to the very day which preceded their accession to power, they opposed the measure proposed by their predecessors, and the night before their accession to office they divided in great numbers against the bill. Well, upon accepting office they entirely renounced the opinions which they had formed and expressed on the subject, and introduced a bill formed upon the principles of their predecessors, namely, the transfer of the power of the East India Company to ;the Crown. It was a bill which was extravagant in its conception and in execution, which scarcely outlived the day on which it was proposed, and it was speedily abandoned by its authors. But, nevertheless, it embodied the principles of their oppo nents, their predecessors, and departed from their own principles. (Hear.) Then, with regard to the Reform Bill, they acted on similar principles. Having systematically opposed all reform in Parliament, they adopted the obliga tions of their predecessors to propose a reform bill; and we had their measure in the last session of the last Parliament. There was one point adverted to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the first night of the debate. He said he would not admit that any party was to be admitted to have a monopoly of any question, and he added, that with re gard to the Reform Bill he could not admit that the Liberal party was to be exclusively entitled to produce measures of reform. He (Sir Cornwall' Lewis) entirely acceded to the doctrine of the right honourable gentleman, that there was no party in that house that was entitled to claim any such exclusive privilege. But the principle for which he contended was, that that party which had con sistently advocated certain principles on the question of reform was the party which was most fitted to intro duce a measure on the subject, and which was most able to overcome the practical difficulties which necessarily arose with regard to the settlement of such a question. (Hear.) And when the right hon. gentleman referred to some ex amples of former times—when, for instance, he said that the Duke of Richmond and Mr. Pitt, eminent members of the Tory party, had proposed measures on the subject of reform, he would remind the right hon. gentleman that the Duke of Richmond of that day was not only a Whig, but a Whig and—adopting the phraseology of the day—" some thing more ;" and that when Mr. Pitt proposed a measure of reform, he likewise was a member of the same party. What he contended was, that the party who had from the beginning connected itself with the question of reform was better qualified both by its leaders and by its supporters to propose and carry through Parliament successful and prac tical measures of reform. The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to criticise the financial measures of the Govern ment, and contended that nearly all the calculations in their budget of last year had been falsified by the events. He concluded by saying that for these and other reasons he should give his vote in favour of the amendment. Sir J. PAKINGT ON—Sir, I think that the question how any Government has dealt with the defences of the country, ought fairly to be, and, I trust, will be in this case an element in deciding the question of how far that Go vernment is or is not entitled to the confidence of the coun try—(cheers)—and if ever that consideration ought to enter into the decision of such a question as this, I think the pre sent moment is the time, considering the great armaments which are now in progress, and the unusual course which undoubtedly her Majesty's Government have taken in this respect. Before adverting, however, to that part of the sub ject there are one or two points in the discussion which we have heard within the last two or three days to which I would beg very briefly to allude. In the first place I beg to say that I heartily concur with those of my friends on this side of the house who have signified their freedom from any objection to the course which hon. gentlemen opposite have taken on this occasion. lam one of those who complained, and I did so loudly and justly, of the course which the noble lord the member for London adopted in the late Parliament. I make no such complaint now. I think that gentlemen opposite have a perfect right to raise the question in the way they have done, and I confess that I am more disposed to make this concession, after watching this debate, and hearing, as I think, the absolute and complete failure of every attempt to bring any serious charge against the Government. (Cheers.) It is true the noble viscount the member for Tiverton did make an attempt to inculpate the Government and bring certain charges against them; but after indulging in a number of jokes and a certain amount of abuse more suo— (oh, oh, from the Opposition)—when I say abuse, I mean good-humoured abuse, at all events—(oh, oh, and a laugh) —after finding fault in that sort of tone—(hear, hear)—and using a good deal of that sort of language, the noble vis count found himself compelled to abandon the attempt, and to take up the ground which is the only one open to gentle men opposite—that of saying, almost in plain language, "We have nothing to say against you, but we want your places." (Loud cheers.) Now, sir, that is really the ques tion at issue. (Reiterated cheers.) It is a question which I recognise your right to raise, and you have raised itfairly. It cannot be disguised ; and you have been unable to throw any cloud over the obvious character of the vote. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman who has just addressed the house professed to enter into the reasons upon which he supports the amendment, but I listened in vain for anything that could at all alter the character of this motion. I listened in vain for anything that appeared to me to amount to a reason for refusing confidence to the Go'vernment, or for passing anything like a vote of censure upon them. My right hon. friend (Mr. S. Herbert) avowed, I think, in a more open manner than any one else, that he felt the necessity of justi fying such a motion as this by reasons, and he proceeded to give what he no doubt thought were very sufficient rea sons for refusing his confidence to the Government ; but in his case, also, I listened in vain for anything that in my mind justified such a step as that which the Opposition are now taking. The speech of my right hon. friend appeared to me to consist chiefly of a reply to certain arguments that hadbeen used by my hon. friend the member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) and among these arguments the one upon which the right hon. gentleman dwelt the most was the argument which the hon. member for Sunderland had used, founded upon the fact that the present Government had consented to the Jew Bill. But then the right hon. gentleman proceeded to dwell upon what he called a reason for his supporting this vote of want of confidence, which I own appeared to me to be of the most inconsistent and most insignificant character. I allude to that part of his speech in which he referred to attempts on the part of the Government to conciliate and to do justice to our Roman Catholic fellow- subjects. Assuming the truth and accuracy of all that the right hon. gentleman said, and, as far as I am concerned as one member of the Government, I entirely accept it, how the right hon. gentle man could twist that into a reason for a vote of want of confidence I cannot for one moment divine. The right hon. gentleman said it was perfectly right, and he then pro ceeded to make a charge against us, not that we were wrong now—no, he thinks us right now—but that our being right now was attended with the greatest inconsistency, because, said he, this is a party which has always refused liberal concessions to the Roman Catholics, and he illustrated that view by mentioning a vote of this house in the year 1854, when we carried an amendment against a grant proposed by the noble -viscount opposite for Roman Catholic chap lains in gaols ; and the right hon. gentleman argued from the fact that, whatever we may be now with regard to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, it was gross inconsistency and a great change of purpose on our part. (Hear, hear.) So far as I am concerned, I am glad to hear that cheer, because I am now about to make a serious complaint 'of very great injustice to myself personally on the part of the right honourable gentleman in having named me as speak ing upon that occasion. (" No voted," from the Opposi tion.) I beg pardon; the right honourable gentleman said that Sir John Pakington was one of those who spoke on that occasion. (" No, no; .voted.") I hope honourable gentlemen will not interrupt me. On a matter in which I am personally concerned I was not likely to make such a mistake. (Cheers.) lam right in what lam stating. The right hon. gentleman is himself present, and he will correct me if I am in error. He named Sir J. Pakington as having spoken on that occasion, and he then went on to name my self, my right hon. friend near me, and several others, as having voted. (Hear, hear.) Well, I ask every hon. mem ber in this house whether any inference but one can be drawn from his language ? I own I was astonished at what he said—l knew that the charge of refusing toleration to my Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and of having spoken in the sense in which he said I spoke, was foreign to every feeling of my life and to every word that I ever uttered in this house. I confess I could not account for the fact of my language being so perverted ; because every gentleman who heard what fell from the right hon. gentleman must have inferred that I had spoken in the sense of the amendment as being opposed to the concession to my Roman Catholic fellow-subjects which was then proposed. I think I have a right to expect from hilt' that if he referred to me on such a subject as this he should not misrepresent or impute to me that which is so foreign to my nature and to every word that I ever uttered in this house. We have sat together in this house for many years, and have been on friendlyterms; time was when we sat together on the same bench—(cheers and laughter)—and I have always regretted, without ques tioning his honour or his motives, that the course of public events prevented our doing so longer. (Hear.) I think the right bon. gentleman might have recollected that so long ago as the Government of Sir R. Peel I was one of a minority on this side of the house who did not hesitate to rise and ad vocate the liberal policy of Sir R. Peel towards the Roman Catholics. The right hon. gentleman might have recollected that at a more recent date, when the friends with whom I act almost unanimously supported my hon. friend the mem ber for North Warwickshire in voting against the Maynooth grant, I stood almost alone of my party in saying- that I could not concur in that policy, and ix going into the lobby against it. The right hon. gen tleman might have recollected my still more recent efforts in the cause of public education, on which I have never hesitated to avow my desire to extend education to all classes of my fellow-subjects, without any reference what ever to their religious opinions. Having as a public man acted on 'those principles for a great number of years, I was surprised when I heard the charge brought against me to night with regard to my vote in 1854. I had forgotten at this distance of time exactly 'what I said ; I therefore went to the library to consultihe usual' record of our pro ceedings, and I found it was true that I voted for the amendment. (" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) If lion. gentlemen derivesatisfaction from that fact_ . they _ are welcothe to cheer ; but ' I think they will n ot be disposed to cheer when I inform them wha t I ' said on thepccasion. (The right hon. gentleman read an extract froin his speech, to the effect that he wished to make the admission, and to make it broadly; and in a mannerimp ossible to be misunderstood, that he held it to be necessary to provide spiritual instruction for all the inmates of gaols ; that tho minute proposed' by Lord P a l mers ton did not accomplish that object ; that he ob jected, not to the minute of the 'noble viscount itself, but to the shape in which it was proposed', that he objected to the money being distributed amongst Roman Catholic chaplains only, b eca use in many gaols the inmate s m i g ht not be of that religion, but the religion of other dissenting bodies, and that he should have no objection to the minute if the money were distributed amongst all sects alike—(loud cheers.) I might have been mistaken, proceeded the right hon. gentleman, in the vote I then gave. I might have come to an erroneous conclusion, but I hope I have con vinced the house that I am not open to the imputation which the right hon. gentleinan the member for Wilts has conveyed, that I had refused every concession to my Roman Catholic fellow - subjects in the nature o f providing spiritual instruction for them in gaols. (Hear.) I pass now to the accusations which have been directed against her 111Nestra Government, which consist of only two. The one is, that we have failed in our legislation ; the other is, that we have failed iu our foreign policy. Now, anything more futile than the attempts which have been made to support these accusations I have never witnessed. Hon. gentlemen say that we have failed in our Church Rate Bill. Now, I submit to the house that, if there be anything to be complained of connected with that Church Rate Bill it was rather the manner in which it was brought forward. (Loud cheers.) But will any man gravely contend that failure on a Churchßatebill in the late Parlia- ment is to be the ground for a vote of want of confidence now ? (Cheers.) Why, it is manifestly absurd. But there is another bill which we brought forward to which hon. gentlemen have not referred. The noble viscount did not mention it ; and nobody else has mentioned it amongst our legislative failures ; I allude to the bill which was intro- diced by the SoliCitor-General for the transfer of land. (Hear, hear.) That was a subject upon which our prede cessors, either from want of courage or want of ability, have uniformly shrunk—(cheers)—but my learned friend, in the most able manner, in a manner which elicited praise from all sides of the house, and support from every quarter of the house, introduced that bill which lie laid upon the table last session. (Cheers.) That has not been enumerated as amongst our legislative failures. (Hear, hear.) I e.annot proceed further without noticing the exaggerated references which have been made to our Reform Bill. The noble vis count said that nobody out of the Cabinet, with one or two exceptions only spoke In its favour. Now, Ido not deny that there were provisions in that bill to which great exception was taken, both in this house and out of doors. But if the bill were so objectionable, why is it the noble lord was obliged to resort to that irregular resolution as the only mode in which he could hope to obtain a majority in this house ? (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman the member for Wilts spoke of our bill as having been rejected'. I corrected him at the moment. It was not rejected. (Hear.) The noble lord dared not raise the issue. It is notorious that, if the question of the second reading had been taken, the second reading would have been carried. Are there no gentlemen of eminence on the other side of the house at this moment listening to me who in private conversation declared that bill to be a most wise and liberal measure ? I mention no names. Ido not mean to bring up personal charges, but there are those who understand what I mean. . (Cries of " oh," and " ndme," accompanied by loud cheers.) When I say that there were a number of gentlemen on the other side of the house who were prepared to vote for the second reading of that bill, and to support us upon it, but who when they found that a party move had been made and that the bill was not to be considered on its merits said, " The issue is changed ; this is no longer n discussion on the Reform Bill ; it is an at tack upon the Government ; and we must vote with our party"—(cheers)—these are notorious facts, and I will no longer dwell upon them ; but as they are notorious facts I protest against the exaggerated language which has been held about that Reform Bill, which did make great and liberal concessions, and which you know would have passed a second reading had that been the only question before us. (Cheers.) Well, how does the question of reform now stand ? What are your prospects under the coalition, or whatever it may be termed, of which we have heard ? Have we forgotten that the noble lord the member for London went out of his way within a day or two before the dissolu tion ? Perhaps he thought he might make a little politi cal capital at the moment; but he went out of his way to give us a sketch of what his Reform Bill was to be. The next day the noble viscount the member for Tiverton came down to the house, and in his turn went out of his way to declare that he could not approve of such provisions. (Cheers and laughter.) This :'gives us a little insight of what the reform prospects of the new Administration are to be. (Hear, hear.) The last event that occurred was the hon and learned member for Birmingham making a speech in this house last night, when he declared that he might be contented to accept a £lO franchise for counties, and a £5 or £6 franchise for boroughs; very much the same sketch that the noble lord the member for London has given us, and against which the noble lord the member for Tiverton has protested. Now this does not open to ardent Reformers a very clear prospect of what we are to have ; but it does open to my mind a very clear prospect, in the event of a majority supporting this amendment, of what the future Government of this country is likely to be. It opens to me the unpleasant and dangerous prospect of being a Whig-Radical Government, divided and dis tracted among themselves, with the hon. member for Bir mingham sitting on their flank, guiding them in their de mocratic measures, and ready at any moment to trip them up if they do not do his bidding. (Cheers and laughter.) And I think that the hon. member for Birmingham has shown great wisdom in keeping out of this entanglement. (A laugh.) I think he has consulted his own character and reputation m not sitting in the same Cabinet with the noble viscount. (Hear and laughter.) I think that, after what has passed in this house it would not be for the character of the noble viscount nor of the hon. gentleman to sit in the same Cabinet together. lam glad, for the sake of both, to find that it is not likely to happen ; but I think the pro posal before us, as I have sketched it, will be humiliating to the individuals concerned, and dangerous to the interests of the country. (Hear.) Sir, for what is it proposed to pass a vote of want of confidence in the Government ? On what is it proposed to found it ? Is it on our foreign policy ? Now, what part of that foreign policy is it which justifies this vote of want of confidence? We heard a good deal before the dissolution of the case of the Charles-et-Georges. (Cheers from the Liberals.) Gentlemen cheer; but I sup pose that was not a case for a want of confidence, or other wise we should have had a motion on it before this time. (Hear.) Certainly there was no reluctance to attack her Majesty's Ministers, if that was such a bad case. lam re minded that we had a motion on the affair of the Charles et-Georges, but it was a sham motion. It was not an at tack; it was not a motion upon which you dared to take a division, because the merits of the case were against you. (Hear.) Is the attack on our foreign policy in consequence of the case of the Cagliari, in which my noble friend Lord Malmesbury succeeded in doing that which had foiled the late Government for months, and on which my noble friend extricated the English engineers from the dungeons of Naples, and obtained compensation for the injuries they had endured ? (Hear.) No Government ever had more rea son to be proud of their foreign policy than her Majesty's present Government. (Ironical laughter from the Opposi tion.) In a most successful manner my noble friend Lord Malmesbury managed the difficulty connected with that case, and here, sir, let me do justice to the spirit of fairness in hich the right hon. gentleman the member for North Wiltshire this evening alluded to Lord Malmesbury. My noble friend has done his portion of the work of the present Government in a most able manner. (Cheers.) He has been most unfairly and harshly treated—(Oh, oh)—but while I have to complain of the language which the right hon. gentleman the member for North Wiltshire used in respect of myself I thank him for the fairness of his len guage in regard of my noble friend Lord Malmesbury. (Hear.) Well, if you cannot attack our foreign policy on either of these grounds nothing remains but the Italian question. Here Ido complain—and I hope my right hon. friend the member for Stroud is in the house—l do for one complain of the gross and flagrant injustice of proceeding to censure any Government.before you have seen their papers and heard their case. (Hear, hear.) I am not surprised, and I do not complain of my right hon. friend the member for Stroud that he should vote aganist us on this occasion. I think from the course of his political life he is entitled to take that course ; but I wish he had not urged such false and fallacious ground for that vote. I wish he had not come down here and said he would have acceded to the justice of our claim if we had asked him to hear the evidence in our case before the case was adjudged. If that be his plea I claim his vote. (Hear, hear.) We do complain of one of the most flagrant cases of political in justice of which I have ever heard; and it requires the lively audacity which distinguishes the noble viscount the member for Tiverton to ask the house to take the course which, in his speech on Tuesday night, he urged it to adopt. Who was the other hon, member who urged that course ? T4e hon. and • learned member for Cork (Mr. Sergeant Dhasy), who ought to know that no verdict should be given until the evidence in the case has been heard. (Hear.) There is a golden rule in this country, and not less just within this house than outside of it—never to condemn any one unheard. (Cheers.) The noble lord the member for Tiverton has called upon the house to reverse that rule; but I hope new members will not think that any political differences would justify such a gross injustice as to con • demn the foreign policy of the Government in respect of the Italian question before the house is in the possession of the grounds upon which judgment in respect of that matter should be given. (Hear, hear.) I cannot understand why the hon. member for Birmingham is going to vote against us to-night. He is an advocate of neutrality and peace. It was justly remarked by an hon. member this evening that no hon. gentleman had in this debate touched on the lan guage which we bad advised her Majesty to use in the Speech from the Throne. In that Royal Speech our policy in respect of the Italian question is said to be one of neu trality. The hon. member for Birmingham says that his policy is one of neutrality. On what ground, then, can he vote against us ? (Hear, hear.) I think I have a right to complain unless there has been a misrepresentation of what the hon. gentleman said at that ball the other day—(great laughter, continued for some minutes)—l beg pardon, I mean at that meeting which took place in Aimee' es room the other day. (Renewed laughter, and .cheers.) Unless the hon. member is misrepresented, he took occasion to say he would vote against the noble lord the member for Tiver ton governing the country unless he expressed himself an advocate for peace. However, he finds that we are ach o cates for peace, and with flagrant inconsistency he is going to vote against. (Cries of " hear, hear," and cheers. I think the honourable gentleman's views must have under gone some great and extraordinary change, for which I cannot account, if he is sanguine that the best mode of preserving the peace of Europe is to place the foreign policy of the country in the hands of. the noble viscount. Whatever may be the attributes of the noble viscount that belief would not be in accordance with his (Lord Palmerston's) reputation ; and I should have thought that the hon. mem ber for Birmingham would have been the last to give him credit for a peaceful policy. (Hear, hear.) There is another subject which, holding the position in the Government which I do, it is impossible I can allow this debate to close without alluding to—l mean the defences of this country. (Hear, bear.) I think lam justified in repeating what I com menced.by.saying — namely, that if you are think ing of refusingyour confidence to the administration, surely one of the things which you ought to consider is the mode in which we have dealt with this important matter (Hear)'. I feel impelledyerla. afnadministrationtihllde measures ü b adn y edfa s ti eket defences, reluctance sun s e dobof o tyf f thht d ahtmeta u ecy t y ldaosauffse tpinaie; country 11 , skolt u ihfhnb d atae e hvntgeeo t , l o nbbh i esaoo t heav , :asy b tleiif u u ynihe t lpara l sr:vp h otai e v iattua e t. a tuh n Hed t e allude h eharr i o B. house o g s d to the able men whose assistance I have had, and certainly to my right hon, friend the Secretary of the Ad miralty. How was which the la itthatthen te oble viscount made no reference feren (liar ce e to state in government left the navy ? (Hear, hear.) I am not now intending to revive any controversies between those who have hitherto filled the office of First Lord and myself. I. only wish to advert, in justice to my colleagues and myself, to facts which are incontrovertible. This fact, I think, no gentleman oprosite can deny —that whatever may have been the cause—and no doubt various eauses:eontributed to this result—when my Lord Derby's government succeeded to office the effective strength of the royal navy of this country was reduced to a point which it had never reached before, and which I hope to God it will never reach again. (Hear, and cheers.) I had occasion to say before to •night that, 15 months ago, when we came into office, we had only 25 effective line-of-battle ships. Of course I mean ships with engines and screw propellers. It is true there were three more afloat taking in their engines. Therefore, if you like you can compute the entire number as 28 line-of-battle ships. Th at was no t e a position in which the navy of Engladd should have b een placed. It was a .state of things which had neverthe existed before, and which her esty's Governmedito'roted since their time it came into power untie this hour Is this the reaso n w y b tru es e t t en th er e gi m7 to (H r e ed ar r . e ) ss. (Hear.) Is this ve w h hy w ye e u ar w e on to t engines. Without these nbeavyconndaewmrdA?t (tHhiesarmannindecnhtete,ressi.r)haNvirehnatnwis s th ta e th n, Otfhtrhe three line-of-battle ships taking in h t e e d ad on of2B,a s t h h i r p e s ; thee o t tt l fr ti c i a o s s e e , t t h h r e e re e, a a r s e e count t tt th le e c in al s l was the case b (Cheers.) t h l e a e ships, rs we have 40 effective isnian th li s noe a - go d . " Parlia ment 16 mouths ag0 ,,, t0 enable me to redress this state of things. The House of Commons responded liberally to that appeal. The consequence is, that at the end of the present financial year you will have 50 effective line-of-battle ships. (Cheers.) I told you three months ago that we should launch 15 in the course of the present financial year. We have added two more to that number, making 17, which will bring up the total number by the end of the financial year to 50, or double what we found 15 months ago. Is that a reason why we are to be condemned ? (Hear, hear.) If we are to be so condemned by a triumphant faction here —(oh, oh, from the Opposition, with cheers from the Mini sterialists)—do you think the country will respond to such a decision? (Cries of "No, no," from the Mmisterialists, and " yes," from the Opposition.) If ever a Government exposed themselves to attack we have done so. We have assumed as grave a responsibility as any Government that ever held the reins of power. Since Parliament was dis solved—(ironical Opposition cheers)—aye, I know what that cheer means. (Cheers and counter cheers.) Ido not shrink from the issue which it raises. Since Parliament was dissolved the war, which we had exerted every effgt to prevent, and which up to the very last hour we were san mune we should prevent, unhappily broke out. The result was that the ,. Government had to consider how we could best provide for the defence of the countri. We then took a most unusual course. The hon. member for Binning ham spoke of the policy of the Whigs being a feeble and a faltering policy. Well, the conduct of her Ma- jesty's Goverinient on this occasion was at least far from being a feeble and a faltering one. (Hear, hear.) On the responsibility of the Government we took three most im portant measures. We advised the Crown to issue an order in council adding 10,000 men to our naval force-8,000 sea men and 2,000 marines. (Hear, hear.) Another measure we adopted was one adverted to last night by the right hon ba ronet the member for Carlisle—l mean that of offering a bounty to sailors. Having decided on adding 10,000 men to our naval force, we decided on raising those additional men by bounty. The third step was to add no less than 1,300 ship wrights to our dockyards—the measure of our addition being as many as our dockyards could accommodate for convenient, and efficient working. (Hear, hear.) The bounty we offered was very high for a time of peade—higher, I believe, than had ever been offered in time of peace on any former occa sion. (Hear, hear.) lam prepared to vindicate every one of these measures. But I say this is no feeble or tottering policy. (Cheers.) It is either right or wrong. Either we did wisely and prudently consult the best interests of the coun try, or on the other hand we have adopted one of the most reckless abuses of power, or the most extravagant and un justifiable outlay of the public money that ever a Govern ment was guilty of, (Cheer s .) In the one case we ought to be censured and condemned—in the other we are entitled to the thanks of the country. (Loud cheers.) Are we then to be condemned or thanked? and if thanked, what do you mean by coming down here and muttering vague suspicions about our foreign policy ? (Prolonged cheering.) Here is a point on which we are open to attack. We have done either right or wrong. We challenge you upon this issue, and we have we in e heard these put the challenge not only here but out out of doors. (Cheers.) policy?misera l w e pretences about sup posedWlgrapple with us on that point on which we are open to attack. It is be cause you know that we have done right, because we hive done our duty, and that upon this point we are not open to attack. It is true the hon. member for Birmingham did can sure our policy in this respect ; but no one supported him in it. I protest against the statement of the horn. member that this policy was dictated by hostility towards France. I disclaim that feeling altogether. I deny that it means er that it is intended to mean anything like suspicion. I agree with the hon. member that an alliance with France is productive of advantage to the best interests pf both na tions and of the world. Long may that alliance be upheld. But to uphold it intact it is necessary that England should be prepared for events. (Cheers.) The hon. member for Birmingham stands alone, I am sure, in his opinion on this subject. But the right hon. gentleman the member for Car lisle held language upon this subject last night which confess I did not clearly understand. The authority of the right hon. baronet ought to be considerable on this subject, and I should like to know, because I value his opinion, what he meant when he alluded to our policy on this question. With the exception of the gallant admiral the member for Southwark and tLe hon. member for Birmingham, he is almost the only member who has spoken in this debate that has alluded to the unusual acts of the Government in relit. tion to our national defences. The right hon. gentleman said that there might be a public necessity which justified our measures, and he was not prepared to deny that they were necessary. But then he afterwards went on to condemn the bounty as impolitic and imprudent. Will the right hon. gentleman allow me to tell him that these two opinions are irreconcilable the one with the other. If the policy was ne cessary, the bounty was necessary, and I tell the right hon. gentleman that without the bounty, we should not have been able to carry out our policy. The right hon. gentleman fell into some decided errors on this subject in his speech of last night, and one of those errors was his statement that the issue of the bounty would be fatal to the continuous servic e system; for how, said he, can you expect men to enter for continuous service when they know that at any moment a bounty may be offered to them to enter ? Now, I sin., happy to tell the right hon. gentleman that he never fell into a greater mistake. The continuous service system was first begun in 1853, when it was introduced, much , te his honour, by the right hon. gentleman himself. In the first year after it was adopted the average number of men► that entered the continuous service per month was 1,150; in 1855 it fell to 800 ; in 1856 it fell further to 600 ; in 1857 to 400 ; in 1858 it had fallen as low as to an average of 300 per month. The bounty was first offered in May, and I can tell the right hon. baronet how many men entered for con tinuous service during that month. Instead of the number of 300, there were no less than 1,593 men who entered for continuous service, and up to the present time the number of men who have entered for continuous service in June is 477. (Loud cheers:) So that instead of proving the de struction, the bounty has acted as a stimulus to t he con tinuous service system. And now let me tell the right hon. gentleman what was the necessity for the bounty. The house will recollect that when I moved the navy estimates in the course of lasi session, I proposed to raise 5,000 addi tional seamen. During the whole of the month of April under the old system the number of additional seaman that entered the navy, after deducting those who from, various causes retired, amounted only to six. (Hear, hear.) Could we have gone on under such a system as that—(loud cheers) —while there was a war in Europe, and with all the press ing necessity which in consequence arose for the increase of our naval defences ? (Cheers.) We resorted to the bounty, and instead of an increase of six, the increase in the month of May was nearly 3,000, and up to this time the increase is about 4,000. I must here answer an inquiry of the gallant admiral. The proportion of able-bodied sea men who have entered is, in round numbers, about 90 per cent. (" Hear, hear," from Sir C. Napier.) lam happy to tell the gallant admiral something else The entries of landsmen, as they are called, are of the very best descrip tion. Many of them are boatmen, men otherwise accus tomed to the sea ; and I have the best reports from the cap tains of the new ships, that though the crews are of course undisciplined, yet they consist of the finest material and will make the very best description of men-of-war' I men. In answer to another question of the gallant admiral, must tell him that we have now 24 sail of the line, and 12 frigates of the largest class in commission. They are no w divided between the Mediterranean and the Channel. We a re abo u t to increase the Mediterranean portion of them, but that will not affect the general state of things. The gallant admiral also asked if our force now in commission exceeded that of the French. Now, Ido not like comparisons. I would look rather to positive statements. The French are not the only naval power with which we may be called to contend-- r (hear ' hear)—but in answer to the inquiry of the ga lla n t ad - miral, I may tell him that our ships of war in commission are considerably greater than the French. (Cheers.) And that is not the limit to which we intend to go. And now, sir, let me ask the gallant admiral a plain question. What course is he going to take to-night ? (Loud cheers.) Is he going to takethe line of afrank-hearted sailor, or is nor. to take the line of a disingenuous partisan. (Loud and , pro longed cheering.) H e t o ld us th e ot h er n i g h t w ith perfect truth— I agree w ith hi m, an d I am sure th e p u blic 7 04 agree with him—that party questions are nothing ; that all . £8 or £6 borough franchise was nothing when compared °L, importance with the defence s of England. (Loud chee rs ' ) He knows what those defences were when we took office ; he knows what they are know ; and if there is any man in this house to whom, from his language , from his known. opinions —from everything he has said and done in this house —if there is a man to whom I have a right to appeal, in consistency and honour, that he will support the Govern o ment on the groundof what they have done for th e de f e nces of the country, that man is the g allant admiral . (Tremen dous cheering.) Sir, I thank the house for the patience with which they have heard these observations. I hope and trust that the spirit in which they have been spoken will not be misrepresented or misunderstood. I have felt it due .to my colleagues to state the efforts they have made for the defences of England. It may suit your purpose twiner the issue, but the common sense and the common feeling of the country will be against you. It is absurd at a moment when war is raging in Europe—when no man can tell how soon spark may reach this country—it is absurd to say that in judging of the conduct of the Government you will ex elude this subject from your consideration. Hon. gentle men opposite may try to shun it, but the feeling of the country will not allow them. I have done my duty asking the House of Commons to support a government that has made these efforts, and I am indifferent as to the result. If a majority of this house shall vote in favour of the amendment I shall have the satisfaction of feeling that I shall hand over the navy of England.te it — (tremendous cheering)—and I shall have successor in a very different state from that which I four the farther satisfaction of feeling that, whatever party discipline or this house shall support the amendment, party efforts may accomplish in this house if a majority a may with con fidence appeal to the British public from their decin io (Great cheering.) of the Lord J. RUSSELL—I ;must say that the ton e right hon. gentleman who has just sat down is, considering the circumstances i n which we stand, somewhat extra°. rre. nary. Her Majesty's Ministers advised her Majesty to d solve Parliament at a critical time, and in the midst of 101 whether her Majesty's Ministers had or had not the confidence ~,_ of r be 7 e r; portant business, in order to try the question liament and the country. The Parliament thus dissolved, the elections took place upon immediately The representatives returned here proposed put to the test the question which her Majesty's Ministers are ready declared was really the question at issue. They in her Majesty's to declare that they have not confidence Ministers, and in taking this step the right hon. gentlemanright Why, what did the calls us a faction. (Cheers.) le Did he mean the whole country gentleman really expect ? this question. their wisdom was so self to it. Did he mean to say that against them evident that nothing could induce opposition in, country should give but one answer to the question put estimate of his and his colleagues' to have a very high . it be permitted to mew - But I thinkmay superior merits. but the spirit of faction. The right hon. gentleman see hers of this house, e v en if mistaken, to take a different view from that w hi c h the right hon. gentleman expresses with out being II"' expos ed to the charge of faction. Well, the,ri,sgw°: h on . gentleman asks us to bring forward our charge s • arae a I don't hold that it is at all necessary to make any c herge tt . g . whatever in order to establish the validity of thi s of Com words used by Mr. Burke when he said the House but it ment. I thought that question was settled in a few short :none was not only a court competent to criminate, e_ was also a council of weight and wisdom to advise. l e f!t a u t the House of Commons be opinion at this nu in the hands of the present ministers, it is surely a ert y time that the destinies of the country ought not to tent for this house to declare that opinion. (IlesE.) favour of a Mr. S. Wortley in 1812 prGposed an acidn e ss in h administration strong and efficient administration, the to produce their against which he moved had but a weekthey recommend ed. measures, and to state the policy which h consideration that the But that step was justified on t t. e ffairs were not equal to men who were then at the head o are required to act. So the emergency upon which they ebecpla.c.ed_. motion. I confess lam a.l4tle surprised much for the constitutional rule as w to the_ p a r t op th rie e ti an o guage f this J