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

held by one or two members' upon this side of the house when they spoke of the ministers as if they were but a few days in office, and asked that they should have a fair trial. But we have given them a fair trial. They have been more than a year in office, and we have seen and considered the measures which they have brought forward. But before I refer further to those measures let me say a few words with respect 'to the manner in which they had entered office. I think I am justified in doing thi s , because I found that the resolution, which I had the honour to move and the satis faction to carry in the last Parliament, has been styled by many ofthe ministerial candidates at the late election a fac tious resolution. (Ironical cheers.) As far as I can discrimi nate, I should say if any member or body of men in this house bring forward a motion which they believe calcu lated for the public good, however mistaken they may be, it may be called a party motion, but it can hardly be styled a factious motion. On the other hand, those who oppose a measure of which they approve, for the sake of party in terestso are, I think, much more deserving of the epithet faction. Now what was the mode in whibh the ministers came into office ? A bill was proposed by the noble vis count the member for Tiverton when he was at the head of the Government, which bill was suggested by the noble earl now First Minister. That bill when brought forward was supported by a speech of great ability mule by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I remember that my right hon. friend the membkr` for Ports mouth, from whom I had the misfortune to differ, told me on that occasion that he was convinced by the statements and arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the propriety of that measure, which was looked upon as neces salty to maintain friendly relations with France. Subse quently, however, that verymeasure was made the occasion of defeating the then Government, and with it the bill itself,: which right hon. gentlemen opposite and their Party had so warmly advocated. Well, I say that conduct more factious—conduct more treacherous on the part of those who succeeded to office—can scarcely be conceived. (Opposition cheers, and cries of " Oh, oh," from the Minis tonal benches.) From what the Chancellor of the Exche quer said, you would suppose that it was nothing but Asti• nate prejudice or party violence that caused the rejection of some of the Government measures. But was that so ? In respect to the India Bill their course was exceedingly simple and plain to common understandings. Her Majesty's Go vernment having refused to accept the bill brought in by my noble friend, introduced one of their own, which was so fanciful, unpractical, so strange and new in its provisions, that it was ridiculed both inside and outside of this house. In respect to their Reform Bill, which was equally fanciful and inefficient in its provisions, having ',studied the ques tion of reform for a great number of years, I trust I may be allowed to express my thoughts upon that question. I consider that there may be three kinds of a Reform Bill in troduced. The one may be a measure which shall diminish popular power; the other rimy be.a measure so complisated in its provisions at to leave the number and character of the constituent body somewhat in the position in which they already stand ; the third kind may be a plain, prac tical measure, which will add to the popular power, and thereby , increase the strength of the House of Commons. Now the Reform Bill introduced by the Government was, I consider, a measure having much of the first character, and somewhat of the second, but none at all of the third. It was a measure which, if passed in the shape in which it was originally framed, and if it had - been in operation for 10 or 2 0 years, would by that time have much diminished the Popular strength which ought to be represented in this 'louse. (Ironical cheers and laughter from Ministerialists.) It would certainly have had the effect of taking away a great Part of the Liberal element in counties, and of returning Men to Parliament who would never be found voting for anything that tended to increase the civil and religious liber ties of the country. The measure, too, was one calculated to create some 30 or 40 Old Serums. (Cries of Oh, oh.) My belief is, that if the bill had passed in its then shape, it Would have gone far to repeal the Reform Act and the power of the people to send representatives into this house. Now, that is the measure which we are blamed for defeating. For nly own part, next to the satisfaction I feel in having taken a large share in carrying through the original Reform Act, is the satisfaction I experience in having assisted in defeating so objectionable a measure. (Laughter.) Well, I now come to that measure of the Government which I consider most Perilous, and which the right hon. gentlemen on the Minis terial bench ought to consider to be one that exposes them to great responsility—l mean the measure of the dissolu tion. Her Majesty's Ministers chose to dissolve Parliament at a time when war was impending in Europe, and was look e d upon by every person as one not of weeks only, but even of days. For my own part, I thought that there could be but one excuse for that dissolution, and that was the very peat objection which her Majesty's Ministers stated they had to the lowering of the franchise in counties. The noble lord the Secretary of State for India declared that it would destroy the influence of the middle classes. The right hon. baronet the Secretary for the Colonies, in a speech of great force and eloquence, said it would place capital and property at the disposal of impatient poverty and uninstructed num bers. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex chequer said that if the borough franchise were lowered, You would have a House of Commons which would be ready to sanction every extravagant expenditure, but would never Consent to grant the taxes necessary to meet that expendi ture—which would enter recklessly into war, and yet would be afterwards prepared to agree to an ignominious peace. These are verry grave considerations, and I can easily ima gine that a ministry which entertained such apprehensions should put it to the country whether it would sanction a Measure which they believed to be fraught with such great national calamities. But, to my infinite surprise, I find that now that Parliament has again assembled her Majesty's Government state that they have no objection to this very changes (Hear, hear.) Then, I say that there was no ex cuse for the dissolution. (Hear, hear.) If they were satis fied that they could adopt the substance of the resolution Which I brought forward, or of that proposed by Mr. Stuart Wortley, or that it would be possible for them to agree to a reduction in the borough franchise, say it was their bounden duty to their Sovereign, to Parliament, and to the Country, to announce that they were prepared to effect such s settlement of the question, and not to dissolve Parliament and.,, subject themselves to the dangers which they incurred: But the right hon. gentleman (the First Lord of the Admi ralty) _takes credit to the Government for having assumed the responsibility of adopting measures for the augmentation of our naval force without the consent of Parliament. That might be very well if the necessity for such an aug mentation arose suddenly during the usual Parliamentary recess ; but when I remember that the absence of Parliament Was their own act—(hear) —their merit is counterbalanced, and d more than counterbalanced, by their guilt in dissolving rarliament under the circumstances of the time. (Hear, hear.) They could have no other object in the dissolution than to strengthen their own party, and I contend that in that re aped their conduct was entirely inexcusable. I come next to the consideration of their management of foreign affairs. The right hon. gentleman claims great credit for them on account of the mode in which they settled the question of the Cagliari. Now, I remember perfectly well what oc curred in that case. An hon. gentleman in this house asked a question with regard to what had been done in the matter, and the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the . Exchequer stated in reply that the question had been brought to a conclusion by the preceding Government ,• and while he Showed no very great feeling for the English engineers, he impressed immense satisfaction that no uncivil words had ceen used by the Government towards the late King of Na lea. There the subject would probably have remained !lad not my noble friend the member for Tiverton said that the question had not been concluded. The right hon. gen tleman was pressed to take some further measure upon the subject; and then, indeed, at the suggestion of this house, the Government, promptly enough, and, I must say, ably enough, adopted the necessary steps and obtained the re lease of those engineers. (Hear, hear.) But that only shows, among other things, the danger of leaving the management of our foreign relations in the hands of Ministers at a time When Parliament is not sitting. (Hear, and a laugh.) The next question which arose during the recess was that of the Charles et Georges. The right hon. gentleman is very triumphant because we did not move any vote of censure on the Government, and I must say I think that in that case We showed great forbearance—(hear, hear)—because lan uage more unbecoming a British Minister than that used upon the subject by Lord Malmesbury I never read. It was not a question on which we could have advised Portugal to _go to wa r ; that was quite clear ; but the advice which we had to offer might have been of a more manly character, such as it would have been more becoming of us to give and more becoming of Portugal to accept. I come now to t hat most serious question—the outbrea k of the war in I taly. I have no doubt that the efforts of h er Ma j est y 's Go ' .. ernment have been unceasing for the preservati on of p eace ; and I am m yself inclined to believe that it would not have been possible for any Government to prevent a war between Austria on the one side and France and Sardinia on the other. (Hear.) But before I go into that question I cannot help noticing the reference which has been made by the light hon. and learned gentleman the Attorney - Gene ral for Ireland to certain events that took place in the year 1848. The right hon. and learned gentleman seemed to be rather Unwilling that the house should fix its observation on the merits or demerits of the Government, and therefore he tra velled over the occurrences of past years forthe purpose appa nsntly of diverting attention from the question whether or not the Government are now entitled to the confidence of this Rouse. He resembled a bird which has a nest in the grass and which in order to keep it concealed from some intruder nutters about, picking up a straw in one place and chirping some wild note in another. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. and learned gentleman attacked the conduct of my noble friend a n d that of the Government over which I had the honour t o preside because we did not accept an offer made by Austria in the year 1848 to withdraw from Lombardy. B u t.th e right hon. gentleman seems to have forgotten one part of the transaction. At that time not only was Milan and the greater part of Lombardy free from Austrian troops, but Venice was in the hands of its own inhabitants, who had shaken off the Austrian yoke. (Hear, hear.) They had de clared their independence, and they were read y to maintai n , ; and the proposal made to the Government of Great Bri tain was that we should interfere not only to dispose of Lombardy, but also to pliei an Austrian Archduke in autho rity over Venice. Now, I ask, how could the British Govern tient, which had no immediate concern in those transactions, interfere to destroy the independence of Venice, in order to increase in another part of Italy the territories of the King of Sardinia ? (Hear, hear.) For my part it has always appeared to me that one of the foulest transac tions in European his tory is the transference of Venice tc Austria by the treaty o f Campo Formio ; and that is also, I believe, the opinion of Count de Montalembert, who stated in the pamphlet Which was lately prosecuted that English diplomacy can be reproached with nothing so bad as the betrayal of Venice t o Austria under that treat. I say that this transaction Ras only second in infamy to 'the partition of Poland ; and let it be remembered that the proposal made to us in the Year 1848' was that we should assist in restoring in Venice t he Austrian domination. And now with regard to the pre tit state of Italy. We have on on e side the treat y of 1815, Filch gives Venice and Lombardy to Austria. But Austria IS not entitled under that treaty to any other part of Italy. ?dud d ha s s h e confined her rule to that territory ? Far from In the very year 1815 she made a treaty with Naples that the King of Naples should not introduce any kind or io rin of Government in Naples different from the Govern ment which was established in the Italian possessions of Austria. At a later time she occupied the Roman States ; 4 ae occupied Tuscany, with respect to which kingdom I will say a word presently. And, according to a letter Zichlressed to me by a vary eminent Italian, it appears by d ue archives of Turin that the Austrian Minister was so :ermined not to allow any improvement in the Govern. _ _era of Italy that, being asked if the King of Naples should ° A i his own accord grant a constitution to his subjects what that would do, the answer of the Austrian Minister was pa:she would make war against the King of Naples. Now, T ill state what happenedin Tuscany. In 1849 the people of Tuscan had been led by the wild demagogues, the fol 'vers. of Mazzini, to proclaim a republic, but the people restored at their will the Grand Duke. They appointed a Zoizisional Government, and sent a delegation to the Grand e to say that they were ready to receive him, but they 63I Pected him to govern by a constitution. He gave them a y a l entee, and answered by letters, copies of which I have V in t", and by a proclamation, that he would return to th„leti card ; that he thanked those who restored his power ; thi-t he meant to govern according to the constitution, and a constitutional monarchy was what he intended to -B‘ablsh in the Grand Duchy. It was alread drawn, and the G i rard Duke, who was a mild Sovereign, y would have hjmaalf governed according to the constitution • but at that 1 time a division of the Austrian troops marched into Tus cany; the promise to govern according to the constitution was violated, and from that time until the flight of the Grand Duke the other day there has been no government by constitution. These are the things that have aroused the resentment of the Italian people against the Austrian Government. It is not, as the hon. gentleman who moved the Address seemed to imagine, that Austria holds her pos • sessions just as her Majesty holds her different colonies. - There has been an attempt from 1815 to the present day by Austria to govern the whole of Italy, to make the Italian Sovereigns her viceroys, and make the laws conformable to the will of the armies of Austria. That is the case of Italy on the one hand ; now let us see what is the case of Sar dinia on the other. Sardinia established at a late period her own free constitution. She might .have been satisfied with establishing her own freedom, her own law, her own free assembly, her free press, her liberty of conscience, such as I believe is unexampled in other parts of Italy; but she has not been satisfied.. The temptation was natural, but cer tain it is that for the last seven or eight years men coming from other parts of Italy presented addresses to the King and his Ministry, praying for the liberty and independence of Italy, urging Sardinia to be the defence of her freedom ; and the consequence was that in every part of Italy, in every state, in the Roman States, in Naples, in Tuscany, the people became attached to Sardinia, and they looked to Sardinia as their liberator. The temptation might have been great, the enterprise glorious, but it was quite impossible for Austria to consider these as other than pro voking attempts to destroy her power in Italy. The pre tensions, according to my mind, were unfounded on both sides, but they were more detestable on the part of Austria, because she had attempted to destroy liberty and extinguish freedom of thought, while the effort of Sardinia was in the direction of independence and liberty. She went, however, beyond her natural duties, and she had no right to do its she had done—to receive recruits and conscripts from other states. Well, at a moment most fortunate for Sardinia she obtained the support of France. At what moment she ob tained it I cannot tell, but from the time she obtained the promise of the support of France her conduct became less regulated by her international duties, and she proclaimed more openljk her sympathy with the sorrows of Italy ; and from that time it could not but be that, relying on the sup port of France, there would be a contest of arms between Sardinia and Austria. I am satisfied that neither my noble friend the member for Tiverton nor myself since the end of last session have done anything to increase the danger of war. On the contrary, we have said everything that could be favourable to the maintenance of peace. I certainly doubt myself whether, under the circumstances, her Ma jesty's Ministers would have been able to preserve the peace of Europe; and it had become obvious that the day must arrive when those powers must contest in arms. (Hear.) I come now to the question as to what our policy should be. Everybody is for neutrality and maintaining peace, but I , own I have no confidence that the present Government will be able to maintain peace. In the first place a deliberate speech was made by Lord Derby on a most solemn occa sion, when he was to declare the policy of the Govern - ment, and he said, "if war breaks out, whatever may be the consequences, our neutrality, as long as it lasts, must be to a certain extent an armed neutrality—(Minis terial cheers)—enabling us to take part on that side, whatever it may be, which the honour, interests, and dignity of the country may indicate as best deserving of our support." (Ministerial cheers.) Well, but if Lord Derby intended peace, why take part with either? (Cheers.) There was war between France and Spain in 1823, and Mr. Canning declared neutrality, and it was pre served to the end. There was war in 1848, and the Go vernment declared neutrality, and it was preserved to the end. Why should wo suppose—because it seems to be a supposition—that when we are fully armed we should in quire what state it is which the honour, the interest, and the dignity of the country requires us to join ? (Cheers, and cries of " no, no.") I know that a few days afterwards Lord Derby denied that such was his meaning—(Ministe rial cheers)—but it was true. No man expresses himself with greater precision than Lord Derby, and what can be the meaning of words of that kind ? No doubt it was right we should be sufficiently armed in our own defence, in order that when our mediation and good offices are asked we should say what are the terms which appear to us fitted to the circumstances of the times and likely to make a lasting peace. I can well imagine the Government of this coun try, in the full possession of the confidence of the house and the country, giving such advice as would be listened to, and that the two parties, weary of bloodshed, would be glad to make terms; but I do not expect that such terms would be accepted by the present Government. (Oh, oh, and cheers.) I declare at once my belief that the Govern ment are not disposed—l take it from the words of the Un der Secretary of State—to maintain that intimate alliance with France on which everything depends. (Oh, oh.) I understood him to find fault with that intimate alliance. (Hear.) My noble friend did not say that we ought not to be on the most friendly terms with Austria, and I am sure he meant no such thing. We ought to be on friendly terms with Austria; but depend upon it we shall have no weight in the councils of France, unless we are prepared to con sult the honour and dignityofFrance, as well as the honour and dignity of England. (Cheers.) Those questions are not only unpleasant, but almost impossible to debate in this house. Some gentlemen think the Earl of Derby the perfection of wisdom, and the Earl of Malmesbury very nearly so. That is not my opinion. I consider, from all I hear, that the alliance with France is very muchweakened, and that we have not that weight in Europe which the Government of this country ought to have ; therefore I think we ought to have such a change in the Govern ment as would give it proper weight. (Cheers.) I should wish, not only that our neutrality should be re spected, but that our voice should be listened to in the counsels of Europe ; and for that purpose I shall vote a want of confidence in the present Government. Then, sir, with regard to the question of reform, I for my part having seen what the late measure of the Government was, am not dis posed to wait till the month of February next in order to see some other measure in which we shall have similar coun terbalances intended to take from the people on one hand what is conferred on the other. What I wish to see is a sound measure, if I do not say in the present session —(hear, hear)—still I say in the present year. I know of no reason why a Reform - Bill should net be passed in the present year; and my belief is that it would be a great advantage to the public welfare to have a bill for the amendment of the re presentation of the people disposed of singly and separately, and that in the usual session of Parliament other important questions of supply, of taxes, and of the budget might be considered in their ordinary course. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the question of reform, an hon. gentleman asked me a question about details, and, what seemed to me a little unfair, he who never was a reformer till this year, asked me, who have been a reformer for more years than I like to say, to condescend, as the Scotch say, on particulars. The reply that I gave in the last session of Parliament seemed to me a very fair outline of a measure of reform. What would be the exact extent, must of course, until the present Govern ment disappears from the scene, depend upon the Govern ment which is t 6 succeed it. As soon as such a measure can be framed, and questions relating to the navy disposed of, I think the bill ought to be introduced. I must notice the appeals made by the First Lord of the:Admiralty. I am quite willing to admit that in the administration of that de partment, by the additions he has made to the strength of the navy, he deserves the utmost praise. (Hear, hear.) I wish, however, that he had not mixed up the account he has given us of the state of the navy with so much lauda tion of himself, or so much reproach of his predecessors. (Laughter.) I think the Government acted rightly and as the occasion required, and I hold that the manner in which the right hon. gentleman has conducted his depart-. ment gives him a claim to the gratitude of the coun try. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, with reference to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to my noble friend who proposed this amend- Plent, I must say that I think his attack was very gratuitous and unfounded. The right hon. gentleman says that the noble lord represents a' combination of great families, and gives this as a ground why the amendment should not be adopted. 'lf the argument had been used in 1759 it might have had its application, but I cannot conceive that any one would undertake the formation of a Ministry at this time who would not admit men of talent from whatever part of the house-or the country they may come. (Hear, hear.) I stated to my constituents that there were bodies of men in the country who had been instrumental in all the great political changes that have taken place. I instanced the tw o ho tehteheqru gentlemen ti on look u a f f t o ra t l h i f Whig party, an d th e par t y o f Si r R o b er t P ee l , an d a p ar ty religious advanced ociuusa alit liberty, a p e nri of f o , n co sra Catholic ho n a If aethisfree tradeah a ho and dt a to n ha d e, repeal of the corn laws, you will find these men acting to gether, and by a majority carrying those measures which the present Government and the party • opposite have always opposed. (Hear, hear.) In 1831 they did their utmost to ,oppose reform in Parliament. Th e rig ht h on. and learned gentleman who spoke last night referred to a phrase used by me, borrowed from Mr. Fox—" a miserable monopolising minority." I had forgotten the phrase, but it recalls to my, - mind the time when the Parliaments of Ireland were pro perly designated by those words. I remember when it was said that it was impossible to allow the Roman Catholics the possession of rights which they might fairly claim, and when even giving a silk gown to an eminent Roman Catho lic barrister was a piece of liberality which was to be looked on with dread. I quite agree with my right hon. friend (Mr. S. Herbert) that it is a good sign to see Roman Catho lics returning a Conservative to Parliament, when the com plexion of their • opinions calls for such a representative, 'because it tends to break down those lines of separation and ill.wlliby which per Sons of different religions in Ire land were formerly separated. (Hear, hear.) There was a phrase of mine, which being misreported gave offence to some of the members of the Roman Catholic communion— it was in a speech of mine in the City, in speaking of the affairs of Italy, when I was stated to have said that the Austrians maintained in Italy an oppressive government and a "benighted religion;' these were not my words. What I said was, that they had maintained an oppressive go vernment and a benighted rule, and it will be seen that I was not speaking of religion. Forthese reasons I think the house will be fully justified in coming to a vote of want of confidence in the present Government. They have had a year to introduce measures which not only have not met with the approbation of parliament, but which the, great majority of th e country thought were not deserving of ap probation. Their weiht in the councils of foreign powe rs is not such a s t o give his country the influence it ought to wield; and it is supposed, dlbelieve justly, that the Government is partial in the present It is a ques tion whether the person theat t pient contest. , head of the Government deserves to be there, and whether he is fitted to preside over thelcouncils of this g rea t co at a time of try diffi culty. I am told that th e noble lord for 32 m i nu tes enter peculiar tained another assembly w ith an course, and which he afterwards account of my political as a sort of political address. (Laughter .) in a pamphlet the speech or the pamphlet, but I observediter I never read had this Parliament met than new that no sooner directed against me. I have a fair right, therefore, jests were I will not occupy 32 minutes, for I will na rfore, though Occupy more of that n oble lord are to be at this time Prim e Ministerons Eng land. The noble lord is a great orator, he f; peaks in of Eng most perspicuous language, but that most perspicuous the lan guage conceals poverty of thought—(oh, oh, and laughter) —he is very quick in forming opinions, and exceedingly ready in coming to a wrong decision—his charact er is marked by levity of mind and instability of principle. (Re newed cries of "oh, oh," and laughter.) It is my opinion therefore that 'a man who, in difficult times, aspires to the direction of affairs, ought not to have these qualities belong ing to him. I cannot understand a man who at one time declares that a lowering of the borough franchise will be destructive, and at another time, very soon after, is ready to grant it; who at one time declares that the admission of Jews to Parliament would be against his conscience, and at another is ready to admit them. ( Cheers, and oh, oh. ) I cannot understand' a man dissolving Parliament in 1852, when some men said that protection starved the people, and others said that free trade would ruin the whole farming interest, who puts it before the electors to decide in favour of the one system or the other, and who says " If you decide in favour of free trade I will be as stout a free •trader as the best of them ; only let me be minister, and I am indifferent to principles." (Cheers, and oh, oh.) In such a man I feel no confidence, and I should be glad to see him re moved. (Loud cheers.) Mr.ROBBUCK said, intend, Sir, to oppose the amend went.. I hope the house will allow me for a few moments to state the grounds upon which I g-routitl my decision. Sir, the house has been treated during the many nights of this debate with gentlemen's descriptions of one another--(a laugh)—and the conclusion to which , I have come is, that neither party deserves a good character. (Loud laughter.) But I have to determine on this occasion what I think the best to be done for my country: (Ministerial cheers, and cries of "Oh.") Does anybody on this side of the house say "No !" I am called upon to give an opinion and I have to decide what is best for my country. T, want to know, if you turn out the present Administration, whom you will let in, and then I have toinquire whether those let in will be better than those turned out. Cheers.) That, Sir, is a very plain issue, and upon that lam called on to decide. The first question I ask myself is, what are the circumstances in which I am called on to decide between the two contending parties—and it is not simply what is the condition of Eng land, but what is the condition of the world. (Hear, hear.) Why, at this time one great part of Europe is suffering all the horrors of war. Two of the greatest nations of Europe are pitted against one another on the small plain of Nor thern Italy, and I have to ask whether in this state of things I think it wise to deprive England of her present Govern ment in order to establish another. This is a perilous ques tion, to the consideration of which I come absolutely trem - bling. (Cheers and laughter.) I hear a laugh. ' Ido not much admire that man's state of mind who can come to the consideration of a question like this without some emotion. The emotion which I have is one of fear, for I fear for my country. Upon our decision to-night may rest great con sequences. (" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) If Ibe wrong—if the house be wrong, evil may follow, and we know how important an opinion is when on that opinion great results may turn. Therefore I am not ashamed to say that I look on this matter with fear and trembling. It may excite the risible faculties of the gentlemen who have not those faculties under the control of their reason, but:lthink that a just, honourable, rational man would say I am quite justified in being trembling and afraid. (Hear.) I have much to ask myself. If I turn out the present Government who is to come in ? We know that this side of the house has determined upon the noble lord the member for Tiverton and the noble lord the member for London. I, who have had the happiness of sitting for a long time by the side of the noble lord the member for the City of London, have been very much in the way 'of learning his political opinions. (Cries of "Oh, oh," and "Hear, hear.") Does anybody sup pose that I have not learnt his political opinions? (Hear.) I am sure the noble, lord will not object to that statement. I am not going to allude to private conversations—(hear, hear)—but sitting, as I have sat, a very careful watch upon the proceedings of the noble lord, I cannot but have felt that he does not hold opinions in common with the noble lord the member for Tiverton. lam told that in every Go vernment there must be a compromise of opinion. (Hear, hear.) Oh, yes, "hear, hear,"—a compromise of opinion, but not a compromise of principle. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord the member for Tiverton has never shown himself a thoroughgoing reformer, but I have always supposed that the noble lord the member for the City, although he does not go as far as I go, is a good reformer. The two great questions upon which we must judge the merits of these two noble lords upon this occasion are, first, reform, and next, the foreign policy of the country. The noble lord has spoken out of one who was formerly his colleague, and I will speak out about the noble lord the member for Tiverton. I say that, before the country, I am justified in asserting that that noble lord is no reformer; and what I have to ask myself is, have I a right to expect from him the reforms which I can obtain from the party now in power? (Cries of " Yes, yes ;" " No, no," and laughter.) The right hon. gentleman opposite has told us that he is now prepared to bring in a substantial Reform Bill—(hear, hear)—and I am told on this side that that is a conversion. Have I not lived to see many conversions ? (Hear, hear.) Have I not lived to see the noble lord here (Lord John Russell) and the noble lord there (Lord Palmerston) converts to free trade ? (Hear.) But I am told that we cannot expect any good from gentle men opposite. Now, in his youth, the noble lord and the party to which he belonged fought the great question of Catholic emancipation, but by whom was that mea sure passed ? By the party opposite. (Oh, oh I and cheers.) Ido not praise that party for so long with standing the claims of the Catholics. I think meanly of their ability for not having come to a right conclusion before; but they did come to a right conclusion, and they carried Catholic emancipation, which had been advocated by the noble lord, but which he could not carry. After Catholic emancipation was obtained the noble lord and his friends proposed the reform of P&rliament. They were op posed by the party opposite ' • but how was that measure carried ? By the uprising of the whole people of this coun try, and by a quiet civil revolution. And I say again that if reform be left in the hands of the two noble lords I am quite sure that they will quarrel—(a laugh)—and if they do not the Hpuse of Lords will oppose them. Now, Sir, gen- ' tlemen opposite will, .I am sure, bring in quite as good a bill as was ever concocted by the noble lord. (Hear.) I feel quite certain of that, because adversity is a great teacher. (Hear.) Gentlemen opposite have been returned to this house upon an understanding very different from that of the old Tory party. (Hear.) There is no longer an old Tory party. They are a Reform party, spite of themselves, and if they obtain a majority to-night we shall have a good Reform Bill propounded by the right hon, gentleman which will easily be carried through the House of Lords. Therefore, I say that the house will receive from the party opposite quite as good a Reform Bill as it will get from the two noble lords, and that it will be certain to be carried through the House of Lords. But lam told that they are to have additional support. It is to be a triumvirate. The hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham is to lend his aid to this composition Cabinet. If that hon. gentleman were in this house what he is out of it. (Hear.) If he spoke as boldly here as he does upon the platform at Bir mingham—(loud Ministerial cheers)--I should have much greater faith in his efficiency and on the effect which he would produce upon the Cabinet ; but at Birmingham he roars like any lion and when he comes here he is a!sucking dove. (Renewed cheering.) Therefore, I say that the ad dition of the hon. gentleman to this composition. Cuhi.et will not be of any great advantage to the people of Eng land. It is said, however, that whatever advantage we may desire from the Cabinet opposite in the way of reforms they will be unable to keep the peace in Europe. But into whose hands are we about to give power ? (Hear.) The noble lord the member for Tiverton is I suppose the person who has the office upon this occasion. That noble lord has not been very successful in his endeavours to keep the peace. (Hear.) I want to know why he wont to war with China. (" Question !") I have no doubt it is a very disagreeable question. I want to know why he went to war with Persia? that question has never been discussed. (Hear, hear.) More than all, sir, I want to know why the noble viscount truckled to the Emperor of the French, and dragged England in the dirt ? (Cheers.) The noble lord was ejected from office on account of that, and what has happened within the year to whitewash him ? It was not merely this house, it was the universal voice of the country which condemned him ; and when I raised my voice against the insolence of France the noble lord turned his insolence on me. (A laugh.) But what was the result? Why, that by the very Parliament which had been called together under the delusion of the name of Palmerston—by that very Parliament he was within a year hurled Ifrem power, and the people of England backed up the Parlia ment. (Hear, hear.) And this is the man who has kept the world in combustion ever since he has been in power ; this is the man to whom we are going to confide the keep ing of the peace of Europe. (Hear, hear.) I want to know whom the noble lord is about to bring with him. Are we to have the benefit of the great abilities of the late President of the Board of Control (Mr. Smith)) ? (Ministerial cheers.) Are we also to have the benefit of the great intelligence of the right hon. gentleman who governed our colonies (Mr. Labouchere) ; and are we, more than all, to have the ad vantage of the splendid abilities of him who nearly ruined the navy of England ? (Renewed cheering from the Minis terial benches.) But there is balm in Gilead. lam told that this is to be a composition Cabinet, and possibly the three right hon. gentlemen whom I have named will be kept out of it. If so, does any one believe that the Cabinet will be in power for a quarter ? Will not the divisions thus created be far more dangerous to the continuance of the Administration than anything which can happen to the present one ? Ido not mean to flatter gentlemen opposite. I do not think very well of them—(laughter)—but of this I am sure, that we can compel them to give us much more than we can obtain from the noble viscount. You (ad dressing the members upon thefront Oi.position bench) will go into office, but you will not be there a week without bickering and confusion—(Ministerial cheers)—and in the midst of all your trouble and confusion England will be for gotten. (Renewed cheering.) I have seen that happen before. Poor England I (A laugh.) Gentlemen laugh, but under the rule of that bench I have seen her reduced to such a condition that all patriotic hearts trembled for the result. Their policy tended to ruin the people of England, and when they were turned out of office men slept more quietly in their beds. (Cries of " Oh, oh I") This statement is, I have no doubt, somewhat unpleasant to those who sit on this side of the house ; but, sir, my duty calls upon me to decide, and in the present trying state of things I have to ask myself what decision it is at which my duty calls upon me to arrive. (A laugh.) There seems to a very curious tendency to risibility on this side of the house. (Renewed laughter.) Laughter, however, often marks emptiness of head—(hear, hear)—and I can only assure hon. gentlemen that I look upon the question under discussion as a •most serious one. I cannot, therefore, deal with it as a laughing matter, for I have to consider what is best for the welfare of my country. (A laugh.) That statement may again excite the cacchidation of hon. gentlemen on this side of the house, still the question remains, what is it that my duty compels me to do ? (Hear, hear.) It compels me to take this course—namely, to support the Government, not because I deem them that which I should wish an Admmis- tration to be, but because they are better than any Government by which they can be replaced. (Hear, hear.) I have had considerable experience how for 26 years of the Parliamentary government of this country. When the Reform Bill of 1832 was passed it was stated that we were about to get out of the.old track of being ruled by the great families of the kingdom. Such has not hitherto been the case, so far as this side of the house is concerned. (Hear, hear.) But I must say for hon. gentlemen opposite that they have cast about to find ability, and in the attainment of that object they have not asked how a man was born or to whom he was related. (Hear, hear.) From 1832, how ever, up to the present hour there has been upon this side of the house a constant,and careful exclusion from office of everything that is termed plebeian. (Hear, hear.) The real Government of this country has been confided to a certain small number of hands, all drawn from a certain small number of families. (Hear.) I may be told that this state of things has come to an end. When that is the case I shall rejoice, and when I see it I shall believe it. (Cheers and laughter.) No, I have no faith in sudden conversions of this description. The same feeling of exclusion which has hitherto narrowed down the Government of the Whig party to the smallest possible amount of brains still, I believe, continues to exist, and, as I am of opinion that the real welfare my country reqttires en- t e a ll n i d g e n a e e whereverw idely e en larged tended c p u ri t nc e ip f le t s henet of g te ove of s r e n cu m r e e n i t n , may be found, I intend to oppose the amendment which has been moved by the noble lord the member for North Lancashire. (Cheers.) The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, who on rising was loudly cheered, spoke as follows :—At the close of the third night of this debate it becomes my duty to endeavour to examine —with that conciseness which the importance of the subject renders possible, and which the hour of the night (20 minutes after 12) reminds me is expedient—the charges that have been brought against the Government which this amend • ment is intended to include, and to consider the arguments ch b o ordinary dischargingwhldifficultythose h l a o t er lord, e proposed the amendment —and to whose candour and ability u g n e tdy s a n r o e ms intrusted u e p a p n o ;t om e The noble lord who noe this side of mt repeat,haeoymr housetba importance teah hwes entereduaefbs aj have te f ec a i n t i loteofodf the es which in his opinion disentitled the bearsatisfactionmotion, enumerationtestntestimony—the. os onpfi ekchhaheteura knowing,onrrgdea TEE SIT, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JIJNE 1859: Government of her Majesty to the confidence of , the House of Commons. That enumeration was, with more or less consistency, followed up by the leaders of the party to which the noble lord belongs. I must, however, except from the category the noble lord the member for London, who to night broached a theory which has, at all events, the merit of novelty. He has told us that upon the discussion of a motion of want of confidence you need not go into any rea sons at all. (Hear, hear.) That is a maxim which, he says, he has gathered from the writings of Burke, and which he contends is unquestionable as a constitutional view of the privileges of the House of Commons. Now, I must, in the first place, beg leave to ask what, if that be so, was the meaning of the cry which was raised on Tuesday last when my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer invited the house to proceed without delay to a division on this question ? Why was it that we were then told by the noble lord the member for Tiverton that the subject ought to be fully discussed ? (Hear, hear.) I shall in the next place, if the house will allow me, take the liberty of read ing a few lines from a statement Which was made by a public man on the' occasion of a' vote of want of confidence having been proposed on the assembling of a new Parlia ment. The statesman to whom I allude said, " I do not find fault with the vote, the motion is quite regular," but he added, " When I say this, I say it is with them as with all depositories of power in this country ; there should be rea sons given for such a proceeding. As a Sovereign is not justified in appointing a Minister from mere caprice, so neither is the House of Commons justified by a mere con sciousness of power in setting aside appointments which have been made by the legitimate exercise of the prerogative of the Crown." (Hear.) These observations were made when the Ministry of. Lord Melbourne was met on the as sembling of anew •Parliament by a motion of a want of con fidence, and the statesman who made them was the noble lord who sits there (pointing to Lord J. Russell--(cheers) —and who to-night has instructed us in constitutional learning out of the writings of Burke. (Hear.) Now, re serving for a few moments the enumeration of the charges to which I have adverted, let me briefly examine the grounds on which the followers of the two noble lords opposite give their support to the amendment beforc the house. And first let me allude to the speech of the gallant admiral the mem ber for Southwark, who spoke early in the debate. He did not give us very precisely to understand what course he meant to take, and, exercising that discretion which in a commander is the better part of valour, declined altogether to argue the question, saying he preferred leaving it to be dealt with by those for whom it possessed some interest. (Hear.) He then proceeded to make some observations with respect to naval affairs, to compliment my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, and to tender him advice, the value of which I have no doubt he duly appreciated. (A laugh.) We have next the hon. member, for Devonport (Mr. Wilson), who told us some scrap of news which he hadpicked up during a visit to Paris, the rest of his speech being a free libation of what he, no doubt, intends to make upon the budget, and a charge which he deemed it his duty to bring against the Government with respect to the sale of old stores. (Cheers and laughter.) Next comes the hon. member for the Wick burghs (Mr. Laing), whom I am glad to see again in this house. (Hear, hear.) He said he should be glad to vote with the Government, but that he thought he could not, as a matter of personal hon our, act in opposition to the party with which he sat, and to which he nominally belonged. He added that if he were obliged to allege a reason for the vote which he was about to give he should find one in connection with the foreign policy of the Government, and that reason was that if we drifted into war We should not,, under the auspices of her Majesty's present advisers, be found upon the side of France. (Cheers.) Then we have my hon. and learned friend the member for Cork (Mr. Sergeant Deasy), who looks upon this question in an Tush point of view —(a laugh) —in every sense of the word. The Government, he asserts, are unpopular in Ireland, and he therefore intends to vote against them. But what, let me ask, is the proof of this alleged unpopularity ? (Hear.) Is it to be found in the fact that at the late elections in Ireland where there is an extended suffrage in the counties and in the boroughs they have had the good sense for the first time since the passing of the Reform Bill to return a majority of Conservative members to Parliament? (Hear, hear.) That is a fact which, to my mind, does not appear to prove the justice of the proposition which my hon. and learned friend has laid down. (A laugh.) It is the one, however, which is satis factory to him, and he therefore intends to vote , for the amendment. I now come to the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud, and the reason which he assigned for the vote which he is about to give is even of a still more singular character than that which I have just mentioned. He says he does not desire to pass a vote of want of confi- - dence in. the Government, but that the point to be con— sidered is whether they have efficiently conducted the nego tiations which have preceded the breaking out of war, the papers with respect to which have not as yet been laid upon the table of the house. " Now," argues the right hon. gen tleman, "if the Government had, instead of meeting the amendment on the broad ground of want of confidence, come down to the House of Commons and said, our foreign policy remains to be considered ; the materials for pronounc ing a judgment upon it are not yet before you; we, there fore, implore you to pestpone this discussion for a fortnight until you have had an opportunity of acquiring the neces sary information on the subject before arriving at a decision with respect to it"—if they had taken that course, I should have voted with them, but now that they have thought proper to take the more straightforward course which they have adopted I cannot give them my support. (Cheers.) I now come more directly to the chimps made against the Government by the noble lords the members for Tiverton and the city of London. The noble lord the member for Tiverton goes to the fountain head. He says, "I begin at the ofattapcokrrep (H sinear.)the circumstances beginning, cum tacesunanddermwyhfiicrhst you uoucnd came into power." " You voted," he says, " for the first reading of the Con spiracy Bill, and then you o vofed against the second read ing ;" and the noble lord says ho never alluded to this cir cumstance before, but feels compelled to do so now. The noble lord has derived certain advantages -from not having referred to this subject before, and one of these is, that had he mentioned it in the late Parliament, he would have found there was very little sympathy with such a discussion. The noble lord, however, in now bringing the subject for ward, shows that he labours under certain difficulties as to the facts of his case. (Hear, hear.) But I have to ask the noble lords opposite, before they charge this side of the house with inconsistency on that question, to settle a little business with a right hon. gentleman who sits beside them —I mean the right hon. member for North Wilts. (Hear.) That right hon. gentleman voted for the first reading of the Conspiracy Bill, and then voted against the second read ing. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord the member for Tiverton says he can have no confidence in any one who could do that. Now, if the noble lord presses the right hon. gentleman, perhaps he may get from him satisfactory reasons for the course he took. But I mention it because I think these side attacks on his co-patriots are hardly in accord with that knowledge of the world which the noble lord is known to possess, and do not augur very favourably for the concord of the future Cabinet. (Hear.) Now, as regards the course taken by the Conservative party on that occasion, I must say that the noble lord does not seem to be aware of the circumstances as they occurred. The Conser vative party, speaking through my right hon.friend,who was the leader of the party, when they voted for the first reading of the Clpispiracy Bill, expressly stated that they disap proved of the conduct of the Government in not answering thedespatch of the French Minister—(hear) —and that when the time came for the second reading, the Ministers of the Crown would be called on to justify their proceedings with regard to the Bill, and the fact that the despatch had not been answered. (Hear, hear.) The Government was warned of what would take place. The second reading came, and the noble lord at the head of the Government said the dispatch was not only not answered, but could not be answered. (Hear, hear.) In these circumstances, the Conservative party had no alternative but to oppose the bill. (Hear.) It was not, however, the Conservative party who turned out the Government on that occasion. The noble lord had forfeited the confidence of his own. party, and the verdict which they gave was approved by the country. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord might well have drawn a veil over that transaction, but instead of doing so he has again justified the course which he took, and has shown to his new party that he has abandoned nothing, and repented of nothing during the time be has been sitting on those (the Opposition) benches. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord told us that he had exercised the greatest forbearance towards the Government during the last session. I have no doubt the noble lord has persuaded himself into that belief, but we consider that we are indebted to him for no forbearance whatever. (Hear, hear.) We all remember the motion made against the Government before they were long in office—a motion supported by the noble lord in this house, and proposed by a near connexion of the noble lord in another place. (Hear.) It is true that the motion never came to a division, but that did not arise from the forbear ance of the noble lord. (Hear. ) But let me advert to another circumstance. When the noble lord was in office, the hon. member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King) proposed his bill for the reduction of, the, county franChise, and the noble lord opposed it and voted against it. The bill was renewed when the present Government was in power. Every word of the bill was the same, though the title was altered ; and the noble lord, on the ground that the figures in the bill were printed in italics, said he would support the second reading s and by doing so defeated the Government. (Hear.) But, if the noble lord chooses to go over division lists since the present Government came into office, he will find that there were nearly 40 divisions taken against. the Government, and that they certainly did not originate with the Conservative side of the house. (Hear.) The next charge of the noble lord against her Majesty's Ministers related to the Government of India Bill. He says that when in opposition we voted against the India Bill for transferring the Government of that empire to the Crown, and that when in office we brought in a bill to effect that object. Now, the Conservative party opposed the India Bill when it was brought in by the Government of the noble lord on the ground that while the rebellion was raging it;was not a proper time to make an experiment of that kind. The house, however, affirmed the bill by a majority of 150. Lord Derby soon after acceded to office, and on the first occasion of his ap pearing in his place in Parliament he stated that, as the House of Commons had decided by so large a majority against the East India Company, that company was weak ened, ii not destroyed, and that it was impossible to delay legislation on the subject any longer. (Hear, hear.) But, then, Says the noble lord, it was, after all, my bill that was carried, and any credit you have is credit derived from my handiwork. I must demur to that view of the case. I dare say that in the 10 bills relating to India there were formal matters the wording of which was identical ; but the house will recollect that the great points in controversy were the Council,—who were to be the councillors, what was to be their number, what their tenure of office, what should be their pay, their powers, and their duties. These were points with regard to which the bill of the present Govern ment differed from that of the noble lord, and on nearly all of them the noble lord voted against the Government in a minority. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. baronet the mem ber for Carlisle addressed himself to the subject of the ad ministration of the affairs of India, and found fault with the noble lord the Secretary for' India for asking a loan of £7,000,000, which did not turn out to be sufficient. Now, it will be recollected that when my noble friend applied for that loan he mentioned that the annual financial statement had not arrived from India, and that it was impossible for him to say. whether the loan he asked for would be suffi cient to meet the exigencies of the the case. (Hear, hear.) But the right hon. baronet spoke of the reorganisation of the Indian army being thrown over to a commission, and said the servants of the Queen differed as to theright course to be taken. Now, he contended, that it was a wise thing on the part of the Indian Government, who could not be supposed to be cognisant of all that it was desirable to know on a military question like that, to send the matter before a commission, in order to obtain their advice, and he was able to state that now there was no difference of opinion among the servants of the Crown, and that his noble friend was prepared to submit to the house a measure for the re-organi sation of the Indian army. (Hear, hear.) But in the ease of a motion of want of confidence questions like these were to be decided very much by comparison, and he asked the house to compare the administration of the affairs of India now With what it was under the Government of h tdia that pre ceded the present. (Hear, hear.) They challe.yed gentle men opposite to say whether they could compai.e the state of Indian affairs now with that which exist°, 4 . under the preceding Government of India? (Hear, hear.) The next charge of the noble lord is, that we brought in a form Bill. I admit that if these matters are to be judged of by comparison, the noble lord is free from any such charge. (Cheers and laughter.) •But then he says, " Your Bill was not approved of ; no person thought for a moment of agree . ing to its provisions." Now, I will mention one person who did approve of the measure, and that was the noble lord him self. (Laughter.) He gave to the bill a considerable degree of approbation. There were, he said, fancyfra achises which he thought very good. It proposed to extend the county franchise, and he praised it for so doing, though he thought perhaps, that we went too far. (A laugh.). 'With regard to the transfer of seats, ho added, some persons talked very largely, but he thought the bill pursued a very safe course. As to the borough franchise, he said he had been ofopinion for a long time that a £lO franchise would he the best ; but now he thought this amount might be reduced, though ho did not venture to declare what reduction he would make. The only subject uponwhich the noble lord found real fault with the bill was as to the borough freeholders—a quebtion which might easily and properly be dealt within committee. (Oh, and hear.) The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Sidney Herbert) bas expressed the greatest surprise that any one should think it possible for the Government to lower the borough franchise, and says that it was always stoutly maintained that this could not be done. I deny that the Go vernment ever maintained anything of the kind. (Oh.) I hear a gentleman express a doubt upon that subject, some one probably who was not present at the discussions which occupied the last Parliament. Now, I, who can recall those discussions with considerable distinctness, remember that I myself said, because I was authorised to say it, that that subject, like every other point in the bill, was one which might be treated in committee, and properly ought to be treated there, and I compared it with the course taken by the noble viscount, who only justified his vote for the bill of the hon. member (Mr. Locke King), on the ground that he could alter the amount, the italics, in committee. (Cheers.) But don't take what I said. What did the First Minister of the Crown state in his place elsewhere upon the same sub ject ? He said before the dissolution that if the question had been between a £lO and an £8 suffrage in boroughs, the mat ter would not have been difficult of arrangement. These were the views of the noble lord (J. Russell) upon this bill. But now I will tell him what we objected to in his treat ment of the Government. We complained that, going to the extent we did in the bill which we introduced—a bill in which the noble lord could find so few faults, and those so easily remediable in committee—he shduld yet combine with those who found fault with it on an entirely different matter, and to a much greater extent than himself—should combine with those from whom he so greatly differed and place the Government in a minority, not on the second reading but upon an „abstract resolution. (Cheers.), We were willing to submit to the country whether that was a wise, patriotic, and statesmanlike course ; and if the verdict of the country were to be taken upon that question I should not have the slightest doubt about the answer. (Hear.) But then the noble lord—and this is his last charge respec ting domestic affairs—sayS, "Your dissolution of Parlia ment was unwise and reckless." Well, I rejoice in this moderation of tone as compared with what the noble lord said before the dissolution. Then he declared that it was impossible ; it could not be done ; the supplies would be stopped ; Parliament would not allow a dissolution. But at present it is only unwise and reckless. Now, I will not ask the noble lord again whether, after the new alliance he has formed, it is wise to make what are really indirect at tacks upon those who are acting with him. Let us examine the opinion of the right hon. member for Birmingham, who now agrees with the noble lord in voting for this amend ment. He has given us his opinion on the subject of the dissolution : " It is impossible (he said) to come to any other conclu sion. than that the Governmenthave taken the course which, acting upon the well known rules of what is understood to be the constitutional or Parliamentary practice of tb country, they were bound to take. (Hear.) I entirely prove of the course which the right hon. gentleman anr% his colleagues have taken. It is, I think, a wise course '„, th e em ergency with which they have to deal." (Cheers.). Well, is the hon. member for Birminc ‘ h am m i ng . to vote against the Government upon the noble lord's charges, including that of the dissolution ? 1 2.. nit I need not go beyond the words of the noble viscount h: tm „if . He has declared that the state of parties in the I `..tst Parliament was unsatisfactory, that its continuancewa's undesirable, and that an amendment has been propose() which may possibly remedy the existing evil. Well, 1 1 ask how all these advan tages could be gained except by the dissolution. These, I think, exhaust the charges 8 4 7 6 a.inst the Government upon their domestic policy. I dors,t know whether I am right in calling them charges. Statements of that kind, made in support of a vote of want, of confidenee, were surely never called charges before. ( T teru., hear.) But, from the Govern ment measures whiCk have failed I might appeal to those which have passed, or which were pending and are ready to be resumed; to the conduct of the Government with re gard to the national defences; I might point to the effi ciency of the army, and more especially of the ordnance, to the energy with which every part of the Administration has been carried on ; and I think I may say with confidence that on these subjects, at all events, the. Government has the confidence of the country. (Cheers.) Now, I come to that which no doubt is of the greatest importance—our fo reign policy. A great part of the observations on this sub ject have naturally turned upon the present state of affairs in Italy. But before touching upon that I must turn aside to deal with charges made' against the Government in ano ther place by the right hon. baronet the member for Car lisle. Don't let any one suppose that I am going to re open at this stage of the debate any of the personal charges which the right hon. baronet brought forward on the Car lisle hustings. I think, however, as we pass on, it may be desirable, as merchants say, to "take stock" "of these state ments. First, we had the charge relating to the Secretary at War and the binding of soldiers. That statement we know has been cpulogised for, and is not to be mentioned again. Next, tnere is the statement respecting the Admi ralty and my right hon. friend the First Lord. That also has been apologised for and retracted, and I therefore say nothing about it. Then, thirdly, we' have the rumour of election subscriptions, as to which I may say no one ever supposed that the right hon. baronet was doing more than repeating a statement which he had heard or read in the reports of the day. We have next the statement about the packet service at Galway, which met with a contradiction on the first night of the debate. Next comes the statement as to what is called the Roman Catholic alliance, which the right hon. baronet fortified by reading a letter said in the newspapers to be% from a Roman Catholic bishop in the north of England, but I saw within a week afterwards that that letter was declared by the bishop to be a forgery. (Cheers and laughter.) Number six charge re lated to the barracks at Berwick, which has also been put out of the question. All this was the rubbish gathered out of the kennel of calumny which runs through every town during the time of an election. (Cheers.) 'I am now going to refer to a statement affecting the national honour, and which I think transcends all the others. The right hon. baronet was First Lord of the Admiralty not many years ago. He was accustomed, I apprehend, to consider the course taken by our cruisers abroad, and the rights which they exercise with regard to ships of foreign nations. Well, when he was commenting on the foreign policy of the Government at Carlisle, he affected to doubt whether the honour of the country was safe in the hands of the pre sent Foreign Secretary, and this was the instance he gate to the 'unsuspecting people of Carlisle : "With reference to the slave trade a question arose be tween the United States of America and England. The slave trade cannot be put down upon the high seas unless the flag supposed under suspicious circumstances to be carrying slaves is visited by the British cruisers. That right of visit has from the very commencement of our efforts to put down the slave trade been exercised upon the high seas ; and what did this champion of the honour of England do ? Why, in a single personal communication with the Minister of the United States, he remonstrating against this accus tomed right of visit, it was renounced and abandoned by Lord Malmesbury ; and this champion of the honour of England did on that occasion renounce a right, a maritime right, on the part of England, which every Foreign Minister for the last 30 years has not hesitated to uphold. Now, so much for this champion of the honour of England in the person of Lord Malmesbury !" Every hon. member must admit the gravity of the charge, and two reflections occur to me upon it. The first is that if this were an accurate charge deprivation of office would not be the proper punishment. The second observation is that if any other person besides the Foreign Secretary deserves punishment, it would be a statesmen of experience and of weight in the house who knew all this, who sat in the last Parliament, and who never informed the House of Com mons of the injury which had been done to the honour of the country. (Cheers.) This was not a rumour, but a matter depending upon statements made in the other house. A knowledge of everything that had been done had been communicated 'to Parliament in consequence of inquiries. What was the case ? So far from Lord Malmesbury giving up the right of British cruisers to visit ships under suspici ous circumstances, that is the very right which he has con tended for, and which the United States has conceded. (Cheers.) The fact may be briefly stated. There was great irritation on the part of the United States as to the proceed ings of some of our cruisers off the Island of Cuba. A cor respondence passed between the two Governments. Mr. Secretary Cass, the American Foreign Minister, after some preliminary corrth3pondence, stated that under suspicious circumstances, neither he nor the country which he represented would quarrel with such of our cruisers as might exercise the right of visit. Lord Malmesbury thereupon consulted the proper legal authorities ; he found that was the right which we claimed and desired to exercise; he closed with. Mr. Secretary Cass upon his own statement, and without any further ill-feeling or controversy the question was arranged upon that basis. (Hear.) All this was told to the other house. The right hon. baronet was for many years a colleague of Lord Abar • deen, than whom no minister has ever taken a warmer in terest in this question. 'What did Lord Aberdeen say ? He said, " I have seen the letter of General Cass ; I think it reasonable and proper; it gives up what I have I always conj e tended contended for." But he added. ", the on l y thing o to is that there should be any idea allowed to go abroadthat the right of search gene rally"—that is to say, the right of search not under su spicious circumstances—" has been given up ; it is impossible it can have been given up, be. cause I abandoned it 'myself 20 years ago, and it has not been claimed since." (Cheers.) I do not, of course, sup pose that the right hon. baronet invented the story which he told to his constituents ; but what I complain of is, that a statesman of eminence and weight should, upon a subject involving the honour of England and affecting the general character of a minister of the Crown, have made so grave a statement without taking the trouble to procure correct in formation. (Cheers.) I think this exhausts the chapter of anecdotes at Carlisle. (A laugh.) I do not dwell any longer upon them. Only one fact remains, and it is,.that not one of those anecdotes has been found upon examination to be correctly stated—(hear) —and I can only congratulate the worthy electors of Carlisle upon the statements upon which they have returned their distinguished member to Parlia ment. (Cheers and laughter.) I come now to the subject more immediately before the house --the foreign policy of the Government, especially in relation to the war now raging in Italy. The noble lord who moved the amendment candidly stated that, not having seen the papers which the Government are about to produce, he was not in a position to discuss the question of our foreign policy. In that he has not been followed by some of those who act along with him. The noble lord the member for Tiverton and the hon. mem ber for Devonport have said that they have information enough without waiting for papers to express their opinion upon the foreign policy of the government. I think we have in their observations two remarkable instances of the inconvenience of discussing this question in the absence of those papers. The hon. member for Devonport makes a grave charge against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He says that on the 26th of February last the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated to this house that the Government had reason to believe that the Roman States would shortly be evacuated by the French and Austrian troops, and that with the consent of the Papal authorities. The hon. member tells us he has been in Paris, that he does not think there was any foundation for that statement, and that he has reason to know that at the Tuileries and at the Foreign office in Vienna it created great surprise. He also cora plains of another statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that "under these circumstances" Lord Cow ley had proceeded - on a mission to Vienna. I have no ! means of knowing f rom w h om in Paris the hon. member ' derives his political information—(a laugh) , —but if the hon. member, being in Paris, had referred to those sources of information to which one might have thought he could have had recourse--if he had looked at the ifoniteur, the Government paper, he would have found that on the 27th of February, by authority, there was in serted in the Moniteur a statement almost in words the same as that made by the Chancellor of the 'Exchequer in regard to the evacuation of the Roman States. I.say he would have found the statement inserted by authority in the Ifoniteur, and in addition to that I am able to inform him that that statement was made in this house in consequence of a direct communication from the French Ambassador in London. (Cheers.) I think, therefore, the hon. member will agree with me in thinking that upon that subject there could not have been much surprise felt at the Tuileries. (A laugh.) Then, with respect to the Foreign-office at Vienna, when the hon. member reads the papers which will be laid upon the table, he will find that for some days before the date T have given, the authorities at the Foreign,-office had received a communication from the Papal Government, and that they had stated to our Miniiter that they were pre pared to communicate with Lord Derby. There could not, therefore, have been any great surprise on the part of the Foreign-office at Vienna. So much, then, for the hon. member for Devonport. But the statement of the noble lord the 'member for Tiverton is much more serious. The noble lord told us that in the course of the negotiations, up to the last moment, "the belief of the Gov, eminent was, that if they conld only frighten France from hostili ties by holding it out to Europe that in the event of war breaking out they would be found acting on the side of Austria, peace would be preserverl, and war would be avoided. I think," he added, "a threat to either side, that any contingency of war was to , involve England as an ac tive party in the contest was wrong and imprudent, the more especially when it was launched at a proud, warlike, and independent nation, who must have understood what was meant, and would doubtless have resented it." I have no doubt the noble lord believed all this ; but I can assure the house that there is not a shadow of foundation for that statement. (Cheers.) Nothing ever passed during the ne gotiatons which could in the remotest degree be construed into a threat to France that in the event of war breaking out we should be found acting on the side of Austria. Let the house remember that the noble lord is a states. man of eminence, and one whose eminence is known over the whole continent. (Hear, hear.) A statement of this kind, therefore, ought not to have been made unle. - ,, e there was an accurate foundation for it within the kr"ow ledge of the noble lord. (Cheers.) Such a statement even though it be correct e d in thi s h ouse , must d o ir;ischief when it goes abroad, and is read abroad ; becans-, nex t t o the threat of w ar , any prou d , war lik e nationCu dislike to have it said i n an assembly of ts' ..vo - 'd most is 'kind that it .had been threatened with war. (Hear.) ow,ask' you upon what ground is it that you'propose Go vernment with regard to its foreign to censure the ~olicy on the Italian question ? It must be e ith er , out; orit must be, secondly, b ecau —fir st , '',,ecause war has broken -ski the negotiations havenot been conducted with energy and • w i t l be, thirdly, becaus e s i nce th e • i earnestness; or it must war has broken out the Go vernment has acted in Borns. endanger this country. r manner likely to prejudice or 13 it on the first ground,—that the war has broken out ? T . has disposed of that qr he noble the member for London _Leaden, for he has very fairly ad mitted that he did 1;0 think of anybody could have prevented this war breakin; out. Is' it on the second ground—that the negotiations have not been conducted with energy and earnestness ? negotiations How are you to judge of that without the you have before you ? (Hear, hear.) Just observe : dad the gracious Speeech from the Throne ; you , have Ir A ? t the Address so far as it goes, and you are about to thank 7r ier Majesty for the intimation-that the papers relating to thrJ negotiations in question, and showing how great has b er m her desire to preserve the peace of Europe, will be laid afore you; and then, by way of amendment, you censure the Government for the conduct of those negotiations be fore you have had the information on which you might be expected to found that censure. (Cheers.) Well, sir, is it on the third ground, because anything has been done since the war to complicate or compromise this country with foreign Powers ? Sir, the course taken by the Go vernment is clear and distinct. It does not rest upon a verbalstatement. The Government have issued a procla mation not merely for this country but for foreign Powers. It is couched in clear and distinct terms, and affirms the perfect and complete neutrality of this country. Is there any reason to doubt the sincerity of that proclamation? The noble lord the member for the city of London says there is. He says that LordiDerby made a speech in an other place, and the noble lord read that speech and com mented upon it. I will notice the noble lord's comments on the speech, but I will not notice his comments on the character of Lord Derby. (Cheers.) The noble lord is an eminent biograPher, and he has shown that he is no mean proficient in sketching character.. But there is one ingre dient necessary to every successful sketch of character, and that is, that the biographer shall be impartial, and that he should be placed in circumstances that ensure his impar tiality. (Hear.) Now Ido not think it is the time for the noble lord to sketch the character of a statesman when he wished to dislodge that statesman' and assume his place. (Cheers.) The noble lord knew that the construction he put upon Lord Derby's speech had been denied by Lord Derby, and that the true construction had been assigned by Lord Derby. I think, therefore, it would only have been fair if the noble lord had read the construction which the author of the words himself put upon them. Lord Derby in his speech at the Mansion-house said : " That noble lord (John Russell) supposes me to have said that I thought it the duty of England to maintain a posture of armed neutrality, in order that we might take the part of whichever of the belligerents we believed was in the right, and he adds that from the manifest partiality we have shown for Austria, there .can be no doubt on which side we are prepared shortly to draw the sword. Now I take the liberty to say here, thus emphatically and publicly, that nothing could have been further from our view. What I did say was this,—That we intended to maintain a strict neutrality; but that when a million or more of men were in. arms, when war was not only imminent, but in actual existence, and that moreover in Italy and on the shores of the Mediterranean, it was incumbent on and actually necessary for us, looking to the great interests we havo involved there, looking to our great possessions, and the military position we occupy in that quarter, that we should be in such a state as to defend those possessions and preserve the British flag and British arms from the possibility of insult amid any of the contingencies that might arise. And I said this, not that we should maintain that armed neutrality for the purpose of joining this or the other of the parties with whose quarrels there is nothing in our national interests or national honour that calls for our interference." I say that this was a clear and distinct declaration of neu trality, and neutrality not in the sense assigned by the noble lord the member for Tiverton, who talked of the neutrality of this country as long as the war was confined to Italy, but an absolute neutrality for every contingency that we can either see or speculate upon. (Cheers.) The hon. mem ber for Birmingham has a different objection, and I now come to his ground for voting for the amendment of the noble lord the member for North Lancashire. The hon. member says " It is all very well to declare a neutrality, but look what you are doing. You are strengtheiing your army, increasing your militia, enrolling volunteer rifle corps, and adding greatly to your navy and seamen." The effect, he says, is to make the French look suspiciously upon you and to peril our alliance. I do not think it can be said that because we do not expect Austria to attack us we must therefore really expect France to attack us ; but I am glad we have got this charge ; it is worthy the consideration of this house, and for this reason. According to the hon. member the French alliance ought to be drawn closer, and that which perils the alliance is the icnrease of our arma ments and the strehgthening of our fleet. What is the consequence ? The alliance with France, according to the hon. member's theory, can only be drawn closer by the re linquishment and reduction of our armaments. (Cheers.) It is a strong term—the disarmament of England—but using it to denote the comparatively defenceless state of our shores, and remembering what took place two years ago under a Ministry which I need not name, I say that the observa tions of the hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham convince me that, as his support is admitted to be necessary to the new Government, the condition of that support must be the disarmament of England. (Loud cheers.) But now you talk of neutrality to the Government. Lot me ask a question. What is the neutrality of the noble lord the member for Tiverton ? (Hear, hear.) Here I must begin by correcting, I am sure an unintentional, but still serious misrepresentation which has been made by the right hon. member for North Wiltshire and the noble lord the mem ber for London. They said, adverting to what fell from my hon. friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that something fell from him that had the appear ance of depreciating or speaking lightly of the French alliance. Now, there is not the shadow of a ground for such a statement. (Hear, hear.) What fell from my hon. friend was that, speaking of the Almack's meeting— the meeting at Willis's-rooms--of which we have heard so flinch, he said that no man valued more than he did the French alliance, but he added that he found the noble viscount at the meeting declared in favour of neutrality, but, above all things, the interest of this country was to preserve the alliance with France. The observation of my hon. friend—and a well-founded one, I relieve—was, why did not the noble,lord say it was the interest of this country to preserve the alliance with both countries, and thus exhibit a real neutrality ? (Hear.) What can foreign nations think of saying in one breath we desire neutrality, and in the next breath that above all things necessary for this country is the alliance with France ? (Hear.) I will will not stop at Willis's Rooms ; but the noble viscount at Tiverton, if rightly reported, speaking of the position of Austria in the out of said the north tihf of Austriata Italy north of Italy, where her position, b e it goo d or bad, is gua vamenpe, sa by ran the de end d y e t f h t e h p e u y b e li ar c law of dri E and Italy left entirely to the Italians, every cne would 7 re joice. I want to know how a declaration of that kind con sists with, and how continental nations can take it to be consistent with, perfect neutrality (Hear.) Suppose, for instance, Lord Derby had said—(cheers)—that if Austria succeeded in driving the Sardinians out of Lombardy and Venice it would be a matter of rejoicing, w hat would have been said then of the neu t ra li ty of Government ? (Renewed cheers.) That is not my construction of those words. There is a statesman who of all others should be competent to form an idea of the effect of language of this kind on Italy; he is not c onnec t e d w i t h us upon this side of the house; he has been for many years a coile ague of the noble lord oppo site, and he is an ex p er i ence d diplomatist in the affairs of Italy —I mean, of course, Lord Normanby. What has he said within the last day or two ? His opinion of that declara tion at Tiverfon is that the man who made it is a dangerous man to be a Minister of England. (Loud cheers.) But the neutrality of the noble lord the member for Tiverton is well known. He was neutral in 1848, when he was Foreign Minister. He then acted consistently with his notions of neutrality I will not go into a review of those occurrences, but will only say a ny who reads the blue-books relating to them must come to the conclusion that if in 1848 there had been any nation upon the Continent sufficiently powerful and disengaged to enter upon a war against us the course w hi c h the noble lord took would have furnished ample reasons and justification for a war. (Cheers.) I know this was made the subject of debate in this house, and that the noble lord defended himself, stating that all he did was in the interests of peace and freedom, and was not intended to promote war. I firmly believe that that is his opinion, but that is just the danger. (H ear .) It is just because the noble 4 lord thinks that in the proceedings which he too k in 8, when be was neutral, he was only promoting freedom in a harmless and peac e f u l way, and because Ibel ieve lookupon these are his firm and i n g r ained sentiments, that him as a dangerous Minister. I believe, that if the noble lord were now to do one tenth-part of what h e did in 1848, 12 n months were over. (Cries of Divide, we should have this country involved war before The right and cheers.) right hon. member for Sou th Wilts (his. S. Herbert) in his speech to-night—the courteous tone of which I gladly re cognise, and the interest of which I need scarcely say was felt by every one onboth sides of the house—gave us some d e t a ils with regard to the circumstances under which per sons can change their opinions ; and he also showed what one sometimes sees even in the ease bf the most clear-sighted and impartial men—how they can overlook the applicability to themselves of the rule which they prescribe for others. In that speech, after having. plentifully --I do not say too plentifully —supplied us with quotatione from the speeches of almoit every one on this side o t the house who has spoken in times past, or in times present, on the subjects under discussion—after supplying us even with division lista for the purpose of •testing the acts and opinions of hon. mem bers--=the right hon. gentleman fell foal of my bon. friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and of my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland, beeauEe they had done exactly what the right hon. gentleman (lid tlu-ougb.- out the whole of his speech—because they had read the opinions of statesmen, members of this house with reg ar d , to the foreign policy of the noble memb er for Tiverton. S'ow, I desire to refer to the opinions of statesmen:with regard to the policy of that noble lord merely for the pur ixee of showing that upon a subject exactly similar to that Which we are now discussing, they expressed their dissent from the views entertained by the noble lord upon foreign Policy. Why do I think it desirable that the house should boar this circumstance in mind ? ANgood many speakers on the other side have stated that their great desire is to see a strong Government formed, and that, therefore, they support the ainendment. The right honourable member fo r Wi lts has told us that a Government must be either strong within, or strong from its support without; and I wish the house to consider whether, with regard to the composition. of a Government, there can be any weakness to compare with that arising from the dissen sion of its own members ? It 1... as been shown to you, and therefore I need not undertake the task, with regard to those who are now said to be the leaders of this movement originating on the other side, and who must be looked to in a greater or less degree as the components of any Govern ment that may be formed, that they differ from the noble member for Tiverton* nivel this great, this all-important question of foreign poliey. I want to know, then, what prospect of unanimity tb_ere is in a Cabinet so constructed. The right hon. membe . e for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), the right hon. member for Wilts, the hon. member for Birming ham, and the right b on. member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson) have all disapprov, ed in the strongest terms that policy which we have 7 :io reason to believe the noble member for Tiverton has surrendered, or intends to surrender, and which therefore he will be bound to carry out the moment he is in office.. (Cries of "Divide," and cheers.) The right hon. merdber for Radnor (Sir C. Lewis) endeavoured to jus tify the, amendment, and the hon. member for Devonport (Mr- 'Wilson) seemed to be under the apprehension that I sholldd be disposed to give it a hard name. Sir, I have no intention. The noble lord who proposed the amend ment stated most frankly and fairly that he admitted it to be a party motion. I will go further, and I will say that I believe it to be perfectly legitimate as a party, mo tion, and that it would not have been made if it had not been deemed necessary as a party motion. (Cheers.) We are fallen upon anxious and upon critical times. I see among statesmen opposite who samnort this amendment many who have borne the weight` and responSibility of office, and he among them must indeed be a bold man ,who, at a crisis like the present, would desire for the mere 'sake of office to resume that weight and that responsibility. But the favourable construction which I put upon the objects of this amendment I demand in return for the Goveinment against which it is directed. The hon. mem ber for Birmingham has spoken of the pleasure or the pain with which an interchange of parties from one side of this house to the other is usually attended. Sir, if personal ease and satisfaction alone were concerned, those who sit on these benches might well hail with pleasure the change of power which is sought to be effected by this amendment. But there is in this country—and I do not claim it as a monopoly for any one set of public men—a higher and a stronger feeling than the mere desire for personal comfort and personal qualification ; end that feeling is a sense of public , duty and a desire for the public welfare. Sir, we be hete that we have. under circumstances of great disadvantage, conducted, and are able to conduct, the internal affairs of this country not without ability, and not without success. We believe that the course we are pursuing, and intend to pursue, with regard to our foreign relations is that which can alone preserve to England the inestimable blessing of peace, which can render her unassailable and unlikely to to be assailed by any act of foreign aggression, and which can enable her to labour in her opportunity to secure to other States the blessings which we value for ourselves. (Cheers.) We believe that this policy, so essen tial to the honour and prosperity of this country, would be marred and thwarted by a transfer of power at this moment into the hands of the noble viscount. And it is because we believe this that we cheerfully and readily meet the amendment which the noble lord has proposed, and await with confidence and contentment on this great field the verdict of the House of Commons. (Loud and continued cheering, amid which the hon. and learned gentleman re sumed his seat.) An How. MEMBER below the gangway on the Ministerial side then rose to address the House ; but the general cries of " Divide 1" with which he was greeted were so vehement and so persevering that he was compelled to desist from his attempt. The SPEAKER then put the question that the follow ing words be added to the Address in answer to her Ma jesty's Speech, viz. :—" We beg humbly to submit to your Majesty that it is essential for the satisfactory result of our deliberations, and for facilitating the discharge of your Majesty's high functions, that your Majesty's Government should possess the• 6onfidence of this house and of the country ; and we deem it our duty respectfully to submit to your Majesty that such confidence is not reposed in the present advisers of your Majesty." (Cheers.) The house divided, when the numbers were— For the amendment Against it Majority against the Government .. This announcement was received with renewed, vocife rous, and prolonged cheering. Lord J. Russell rose from his seat and took his place on the front Opposition bench next to Lord Palmerston amidst great laughter and ironical cheers from the Ministerial benches. The noble lord good humouredly bowed and laughed, but did not long retain his seat, and Mr. George Bowyer, who had taken posiession of the noble lord's place below the gangway, was obliged to give it up again, to the general merriment. As soon as the Speaker had officially declared that the "Ayes had it." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER advanced to the table and said—Sir, I move that this house at its rising adjourn till this day at twelve o'clock, and perhaps the noble lord opposite will by that time be prepared with the report of the committee on the answer to the Address. Mr. Tingessen handed to the clerk the names of the com mittee to be appointed to prepare the report, among which those of Lord Palmerston, Lord J. Russell, and Mr. Sidney Herbert elicited loud ironical cheers from the Ministerial benches. The name of Mr. Milner Gibsen was received with still louder shouts, followed by general cries of " Bright, Bright 1" from the same quarter. The motions for the appointment of the committe e , an d ;he adjournment till this day were agreed to. Mr:SOTHERON ESTCOURT obtained leave to bring in a bill for the better adniinistration of Criminal Justice in Middlesex. Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the Galway Harbour and Port Act, 1853, • The House then adjourned at twenty . minutes past two. THE NAVY. The steamship Gibraltar, having embarked in the London Docks from Woolwich, a heavy amount of shot and other war stores, is under orders to call at the Arsenal to-day to ship her powder in readiness for departure. The sailing transport Alciope has been chartered by Government for the conveyance of war stores from Woolwich. _ The smallpox has made its appearance on board the screw steam sloop Falcon, 17, at Plymouth. Two cases hare been sent to the hospital. The paddlewheel steam sloop Firebrand, 6, arrived at Plymouth on Thursday morning. She is destined to sound from the Land's End to Gib raltar, preparatory to laying down the electric cable. The screw steam troopship Himalaya, repairing at Keyham, will be ready for sea about the 19th instant. The screw steam guardship Exmouth, 90, Capt. Robert S. Robinson, arrived in Plymouth Sound yesterday morning, accompanied by an SO-gun ship, reported to be the Cressy, and a corvette, all black. Her Majesty's ship Neptune is commissioned. A Russian line-of-battle ship, a three-decker, is at S pithead still. Cip!.. R. B. Watson, C. 8., has been appointed Captain-Superintendent of Sheerness dockyard, vice Capt. John C. Fitzgerald, deceased. • The following appointments were made yester day at the Admiralty :—Capt. the Hon. J. W. S. Spencer, to the Topaze, commissioned; Capt. R. Lambert, to the Scylla, commissioned ; Capt. R. B. Crawford, to the Sidon, commissioned ; Capt. J. Corbett, to the Scout, commissioned; Lieut. W. J. Grubbe, to the Dauntless ; and Lieut. C. D. Sanders, to the Cressy. THE AUSTRALIAN AND BOMBAY MAILS. The Peninsular and Oriental Company's screw steamship Ceylon, Captain R. W. Evans, with the heavy portion of these mails, arr i ve d a t Southamp ton yesterday at 4 p.m. She left Alexandria on the 28th ult., Malta the 31st, and Gibraltar the sth inst. During the voyage the Ceylon spoke three of the Company's steamships—viz. the Panther , M a y 31, in lat. 35.47 N., long. 13.35 E. ; the Pera, June 7, lat. 40.24 N., long 9.29 W. • an d the Tagus, 9 th, 70 miles south-west. Ushfint. On the sth, 40 miles east of Gibraltar, she spoke the American ship Arzae. The Russian three-decker Cesarewitch, Captain Stoffregen, left Cadiz on the 25th ult. for Cron stadt. The British merchant steamers Euphrates (Cap tain Milburn) and Rhone (Captain Glover) had arrived at Gibraltar, the former on the 29th ult. from Liverpool, and the latter on the Ist inst. from London. The captain of the Spanish steamer Ligero, arrived at Gibraltar, saw a Spanish schooner off Tarifa on the 31st ult., apparently abandoned. ott reaching Algeciras he reported the circumstance t the authorities, who despatched the war steamer Vigilante to the place, and she took the vessel iatt tow to Algeciras. She proved to be the Corso , laden with flour, from S an t an d er. Th e Corso wens run ashore on the beach at Algeciras, and carjo discharged. [A DvERTI stmExT.---liolloway's Ointment and POLL.'" The New Disease.—The weekly report of the Regiers r- General states :—‘, A slight decrease in deaths from we r latina, but no diminution in those from diphtheria." .Is this not melancholy intelligence, when experience he 3 11 proved Holloway's remedies not only to be a certain cure i 31 all cases, but a sure means of preserving those attendant oi diphtheric patients from contracting the disease. Inn: . merable testimo n i a l s are daily received extolling their I) servative no less th an th e i r curative virtues and strstil the ening prop er ti es. They stop the i n fl amma tion and heal ulcerations ; at the same time that they arrest the constitu tional fever, they restore order to the system, yet effectually cast out all nox i o us matters g e nerated by an d silently this dreaded diphtheria.