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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at flee o'clock. THE ENFIELD RIFLE. In answer to a question from Lord AVELAND, Lord ROSSLT said no Enfleld rifles had been issued to the militia, except such regiments as have been re-embodied. It was, however, intended som e of the by the Commander - in - Chief to send disembodied militia to Hythe for instruction in musketry, and so soon as the militia had progressed sufficiently to take care of the weapons, it was intended to issue them to militia regiments in general. ENDOWED SCHOOLS. Lord BROUGHAM said he had already announced his intention of bringipg forward a measure to remedy the evil effects of the decision of the Lords Justices; and he should have done so that evening, but he had learned that the subject had been taken up in the othei House of Parliament. The bill he intended to have introduced would prevent liti gation, which was at the present moment carried on to a fearful extent. In one case within his knowledge as much as £4,500 of the endowed funds had been spent in a law suit to exclude Dissenters from the administration of those funds. Lord LYNDHURST presented several petitions refer ring to the subject mentioned by the noble and learned lord who had just sat down. Lord REDESDALE said there was some diffi culty connected with this subject. It was quite true that hardship might exist in some cases, but in others the endowment had been made by Churchmen, who never intended that Dissenters should interfere in their dis tribution. VEXATIOUS INDICTMENTS BILL. Lord CAMPBELL moved the second reading of this bill, the principal object of which was to render it imperative before an indictment was preferred and a warrant issued against any person, that the charge should undergo an investigation before a magistrate. Lord WENSLEYDALE objected to the bill as =con- stitutional. Lord LYNDHURST said, as the subject had been fully discussed last sess i o n., he was surprised that it should be opposed on that occasion. The LORD C entirely approved of the bill, and thought it ought to pass through all its stages as early as possible. The bill was then read a second time and committed, and ordered to be read a third time on Thursday next. DEBTOR AND CREDITOR BILL. - The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of this bill. After a few observations from Lord WENSLEYDALE and the Earl of Powis, the bill was read a second time, com mitted, and ordered to be read a third time on Thursday next. JOINT COMPANIES WINDING-UP ACT. , This bill was read a second time, committed, and ordered to be read a third time on Thursday. LAW OF PROPERTY AND TRUSTEES' AMEND MENT BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY•) The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock. SWEARING OF MEMBERS. Mr. Arnott, Mr. I. Butt, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Corbally, Mx. Blake, &c., took the oaths. PRIVATE BUSINESS. Some private bills were advanced a stage, in conformity with the sessional order of the late Parliament. SIR E. LUGARD. A letter was read from Sir E. Lngard in acknowledg. ment of the vote of thanks of the house for his services. THE ADJOURNED DEBATE. Mr. M. GIBSON resumed the adjourned debate. He said that he was not in the habit of taking part in what were called party discussions, and would have preferred to be called on to speak to some specific act or measure of the Government, instead of the motion before the house ; but he felt called on to address the house on the present occa sion, when they were required to deliberate as to which great party should possess the seals of office. He contended that the amendment to the address was forced on the house by the course which the Govern ment pursued in dissolving Parliament last session on a question of mere part' politics. He had felt bound to dissent from the foreign policy of the noble lord the member for Tiverton, and to that opinion he adhered ; but at the same me, in dealing with a question like the present they must look to the leaders of party, whom they could not separate from party itself. The object of the dissolution was to enable the Government to carry more measures of a Conservative character than could be expected from the late Parliament, which was of a more Liberal element. He could not see how the Liberal members of the house could pass a vote of confidence in a Government like the present under existing circumstances. He could not help expressing Nine surprise at the course which he understood his hon. friend the member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) proposed to take in supporting the Government, and he did not consider that he (Mr. Lindsay) was properly repaying the inhabitants of Sunderland for the enthusiasm they evinced in returning him in opposition to Mr. Hud son. (Hear, hear.) He strongly protested against the interference of the Executive in effecting the return of par ticular members which was attributed to the Government. He referred to statements made in reference to Ber wick, and quoted an article in the Berwick Warder, which stated that a letter had been received from the "highest authority," to the effect that the object for BO ama1e......;-1).1-Abints of the town in question were blishment of barracks. That °eject lieu obui. - rurateu by Lord Panmure, on professional grounds, and yet the announcement in question appeared in print three days before the nomination. He wished to know if the gallant and hon. member the Secretary for War pro posed any specific vote in the army estimates for the re establishment of barracks in Berwick ? General PEEL—It is not. (Laughter.) Mr. M. GIBSON—He should like to be informed then if a letter had been sent such as he described? (Hear, hear, and oh, oh.) He denied that they were justified in refusing confidence to the Government with reference to Parlia mentary Reform, for though a right hon. member of that house had promised to introduce a comprehensive and sa tisfactory measure of Parliamentary Reform, he did not think he could do so, with the state of feeling of that party onwhich the Government depended for support. He alluded in support of what he stated to the speech recently given at Ipswich by the Attorney-General, in which he stated that a large measure of reform was not at present required. (Hear, hear.) He appealed to the Roman Catholic mem bers of the house not to support Government unless they obtained some specific promise of substantial benefit, and he called on these hon. members to remember that the Govern ment belonged to a party that were only too ready to avail themselves of the "No Popery cry," to acquire some popu larity at the expense of those who were actuated by their religious convictions. (Cries of " Hear ," and "No no.") With regard to the war question, he was not one of those who were disposed to charge the Government with not being sincere in the opinion expressed on the ques tion of neutrality, and he was inclined to wait until the course of events showed whether they . were de termined to act in conformity with their expressions. At the same time he viewed with pain and distrust the sympathy the Government were said to en tertain for Austria in the pending hostilities, and with a view to preventing any infringement of the peace of England that they should put the most favourable censtruction on the conduct of the French Government until something occurred to justify them in adopting a different course. He trusted that they would adopt the wise course of confining their attention to domestic affairs instead of having their thoughts directed to the dangerous question of continental war. (Hear.) From these considerations he felt bound to support the amendment. Mr. LINDSAY—As the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down made reference to him (Mr. Lindsay) and the course he was about to take on the present occasion, perhaps the house would allow him to state the reasons which in duced him as an advocate of reform to pursue that course. (Hear.) He had always voted for reform—he had always voted for progre ss an d f or freedom of religion—and in the vote which he should feel it his duty to give upon the mo tion he conscientiously believed that he should best perform his duty to the liberal constituency by which he had been returne d. (" Oh, oh," and laughter from the Opposition, and cheers from the Conservatives.) That was his con scientious belief, and he was sure hon. gentlemen would re spect his motive when he said it was a high sense of duty as a reformer that induced him to vote against the amend ment. (Ministerial cheers, and laughter from the Opposi tion) His right hon. friend read a paragraph from the Times of a great meeting which he (Mr. Lindsay) addressed, in which his triumphant return to that house was referred to as a reformer, and asked what would his constituents think of the Vote he was now ab out to give ? Now, it so happened that in some correspondenc,e he had written t o a political friend abroad about this question of neutrality, and how it affected British ships—he referred to the state of political parties in this country, a nd in the paragraph in the limes som e remar k s th a t h e had made in the course of that correspondence appeared. Some extracts from his let _ ter to his friend abroad found their way to the press, had gone to Sunderland _which he represented, and appeared in a newspaper there. He had those extracts in his box, and it nught be interesting to the house if he read the views of the leading liberal paper upon the subject of this amendment. The editor of this paper said, " The matter before the coun try now is not one of an abstract character." The editor of this parr was an advanced Liberal, as thoroughly ear nest as his right hon. friend, and he continued :—" It is plainly this, whether the present Ministry are to be re moved from office without any defined accusation or any sufficient guarantee that their successors will introduce and maintain a_policy more co nducive to the inter es t s o f th e eountry. Two questions claimed prominent attention—re form and peace. It is soon to be seen whether the Derby administration have profited by their knowledge of a thorough determination on the part of the people to have a real and substantial measure of reform, and if so, whether they will legislate for the nation rather than for p arty. They are cer tainly entitled to have the opportunity of showing whether such a change has taken place. A factious amendment on the address should not be countenanced by independent liberals. (Conservative cheers.) As to the great question of if Ministers prove by their acts that they are sincere pace, declaration to maintain a strict neutrality, it would be most injudicious at this time to compel a change in the ttdroinistration. For these reasons ha had no doubt that a large number of earnest and independent liberals will act in accordance with the views represented by one of our own i t iTtelentatives, Mr Lindsay, in the f o ll ow i ng commun i ca - C hi u eilhe Th e n came came the extract from the communication to without ha referred, and the words which he wrote, the presv:g any idea that they would find their way to having done:loh—but he was not at all ashamed of their Government" This century has not produced a worse t h an _ iceeer that which was destroyed on the Conspi racy Bill few stern, honest atiee cheers—and I believe there are a the House of Commons who have no inter es ts but th ose mtraloolEttheir country at heart, and who will resist to the n If the presenitivottempt to replace the Whigs in power. ent, on the opening of Parliament, say that they w ili v a e ,rra v intelligence of the peo are in comparison with ot i ra f 9 t u h g e h y s the growing a bill disfranchising some ofthe sre P a naa ll willandberXintegndin ing the franchise, and if they will have nu reason to dread any hostile attack f irutrality, they and all the hosts they can bring against them°. from Whigs the views expressed by a leading Liberal in the nor th were England ; they were his views. (Oh.) T he e north of hon, member for Birmingham was not more earnest for reform than was. (Oh, oh.) The hon. member sneered—h e he seemed to think it impossible to get a substantial and satisfactory reform bill passed by the present Government. But what Government was it that passed all the great measures of progress of which we were so proud ? He believed it was the Duke of Wellington's Government that-passed Catholic emancipation; it was the Government of; Sir R. Peel that repealed the corn laws, and it was Lord Derby's Govern ment t'tiat admitted the Jews to Parliament. (Cries of 4, Oh, oh," and loud laughter.) In the hands of Lord J. Russell the Jew Bill was tossed about like a shuttlecock, that - house being for iciear a the one battledore, and the House of Lords the other. What reason had he to suppose that any reform bill brought in by the noble lord would not inidergo a similar process perhaps for 20 years to come? The present Government had in her Majesty's speech pledged themselves to a substantial measure of re form—.(" no, no " and hear)—to " a measure of reform whichnier Majesly:tru,sts will be satisfactory to the country." The Chancellor of the Exchequer pledged himself on the part of the Government that he would even this session, should the house demand it, introduce a reform bill which would disfranchise many of the small boroughs, and give a considerable extension of the franchise. That, he be lieved, was all they wanted on that (the opposition) aide of the house he ho d use t dj neustt know now. when th e Thehon. present r Ge f v o e r Birmingham Government eeu said d give them a reform bill, but if the Whigs came into office they could get one this year. But could any reform bill be passed this year, or did any person desire that one should pass ? Did hon. gentlemen want again to go to their con stituents instead of go i ng grouse shooting ? They knew that if the Whigs came into offi ce the y could not get a reform bill, and that they could get more early from the present Government, and more than that, he felt that the Govern ment would be able to pass a reform bill through another place, having a majority there, which the Whigs had not. That was a great consideration with him, as an earnest reformer and wishing to settle the question for the well being of the people and the constitution also. The hon. member for Birmingham, in a recent speech of his, referred to the opinions held by a noble lord, who in the event of a change of government might be sent for by her Majesty, or who in any government that might be formed would hold a distinguished place in the Cabinet. His hon. friend said that "he was not about to defend the conduct of Lord Palmerston, or to retract one sentence which he had ever uttered with regard to him ; and before they should destroy one government they ought to see whether they could get a better or a stronger in its place." (Hear, hear, and cheers.) His hon. friend the member for Birmingham said that his opinion was unaltered, and that he would not retract a single sentence he had ever uttered with regard to the noble lord the member for Tiverton. He (Mr. Lindsay) did not know whether his hon. friend would be a member of any government which might be formed ; he believed that he wished to retain the independent posi tion he had hitherto occupied, but he believed the right hon. gentleman who sat next his hon. friend, and who held the same opinions, was likely to be honoured with a seat in the coalition Cabinet. (Hear, hear.) Let gentlemen con sider whether a Cabinet so constituted was likely to be stronger than the present. He need not go back to all that his hon. friend had said of the noble lord the member for Tiverton at different times ' • he would only go back to last session to show what were the views which his hon. friend held with regard to the noble lord, and as his views were exactly the same as those of the right hon. gentleman the member for Ashton, how could that right hon. gentle man and the noble lord work well together in the same Cabinet ? His hon. friend said that he expected that he should obtain more reform and was more likely to secure peace from the new Government than from that now in office, and yet only last session he said, " When the noble lord came into office he was paraded as a great reformer." He was paraded now—(loud cheers)—but, continued his honourable friend, "when he left office, he left nothing but confusion abroad, and at home nothing had been done." Did his honourable Mend suppose that more would be done now than then ? A person like the noble lord was not likely at his years to change. It was curious that in the same speech his honourable friend also referred to the noble lord the member for London, who would hold a dis tinguished position, in a new cabinet. His hon. Mend said, " that the noble lord, too, had been Prime Minister, and the leader of the great Whig party, with whom some persons who called themselves Radicals had dovetailed." They had done so now. (Loud Minis terial cheers.) But, continued his hon. friend, " the spoils of office had fallen to the share of the noble lord and his immediate Mends." What reason had his hon. friend for supposing that the spoils of office would be disposed of now in a different manner ? The noble lord (Palmerston) in sinuated the other night that if he were in office he would be able to keep England out of war. His right hon. friend knew very well that the noble lord had not been so very great a peace Minister, and when his hon. friend themember for Bir mingham expressed some doubts of the peace policy of the noble lord at - Willis's Rooms, the noble lord got up and said that on the question of peace he agreed with the hon. mem bar for Birmingham. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) His hon. friend now said that they 'agreed on this question of peace. If so, the noble lord must very suddenly have changed his views. Looking back for many years, it would be found that if the noble lord had not led us into war, he had at least not kept us at peace. Recollect how the British fleet was sent into the waters of Greece to obtain the payment of a magnificent debt of £150; and the war with China entered into on account of an alleged insult to the British flag by a miserable lorcha, and the firing of shot and shell which ensued mowed down thousands of defenceless people on the pretext of defending the honour of the Bri tish flag ; but what became of the honour of England when it was menaced by an insulting despatch from the Minister of a foreign Poweri?—(cheers)—and who was it that vindicated the honour of England ? .Was it the noble lord or the right hon. gentleman the member for Ashton ? The noble lord was said to have great sympathy for Italy, and yet in 1848 Lombardy might have been freed, for the noble lord had it in his power to do it. (" Hear, hear," and cheers.) He should like to have an answer on that point, whether or not it was the case that Austria offered to evacuate Lombardy, and whether the noble lord refused to assent to it. (Hear.) If so, was not the noble lord responsible to a great extent for the war which was now going on? For the reasons he had stated he considered ses.r, near" -- pas an advocate; orrmorm anutencb; -- ro give his vote against the amendment on which they were to divide that evening. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) But he should do so for another reason. The question before the house was the address to her. Majesty in reply to her speech from the throne. Now, in the whole course of the debate not a word had been said of the policy propounded ix her Majesty's Speech, and they were asked to agree to an amendment to that speech, although they as Liberals en tirely agreed in and could find no fault with the principles laid down in it. Strict neutrality was arrived at on the part of the Government, and they stated that they had done all in their power to preserve peace, and papers had been offered to the house which would prove that they had done so. No one on that (the Opposition) side ever affected to doubt that. Then as regarded rumours about sympathy with Austria, every effort had failed to show that there was anything but a rumour on that point ; and was he to give his vote for destroying a Government from a mere rumour ? (Loud Ministerial cheers.) He should ill-represent the gen tlemen who had returned him by a large majority if he did so. (Hear, hear.) But the right hon. gentleman the mem ber for Stroud had made one or two of the most extraor dinary statements he ever heard. He said :—" Her Ma jesty informed them that in the differences which had arisen between continental powers her mediatorial efforts in the interests of peace had entirely failed. She told them that war was now raging in Italy, but that her determina tion was—and in this her Majesty was loyally supported by all classes of her subjects—that England should remain strictly neutral. But she went on to inform them that she had felt it right in the present state of Europe to add to her naval forces, thereby disclosing an apprehension that circumstances beyond her control might unhappily arise to compel reluctant England to become a belligerent power. All this was well known, but the authoritative announcement was, perhaps, one of the most important which had been made by the Sovereign to Parliament in our day. We had borne a part in negotiations now concluded, and unless Providence averted the calamity we might be entangled in the war." War was raging, and a spark from that conflagration might reach England, and were her Majesty's ministers to leavd her Majesty unprotected—(" hear, hear," and cheers)—in circumstances which the right hon. gentleman said might be quite beyond their control. 'While he (Mr. Lindsay) was an advocate of peace and economy, he was also an ad vocate, especially at the present time, when war was raging in Europe, for having the defences of the country in an efficient state not only to protect England, but to vindicate her honour, which was of far more importance to her as a nation, and especially as a commercial nation. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud gave another reason why he should vote against the Government. He stated that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had only appealed to the house not to bring forward this motion, he should have been disposed to have voted against the amend ment. Well, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no op portunity of doing so, for the amendment was concocted, and arranged, and agreed upon by the leaders of the dif ferent sections of the liberal party before the right hon. gentleman was sworn in. (Hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer took the earliest opportunity immediately after the amendment had been moved, to expound his policy in what he (Mr. Lindsay) would all a straightforward and honest speech. (Hear.) And although he did not ask that the amendment should not be pressed, he said as much when he declared that he thought the house ought to give the Government a chance of carrying out the liberal policy which he had propounded. The house, however, bring would not let him have a chance, for fear th a t h e s h ou ld id, session,hin esomeoi forr. sucht he Lindsay)r ea reformsonwould bill owu ihdi a as vote he the again did last session. If he std it, es t h e hem mem enoble st lord berswfor London had embodied in his resolution were to him un an e:• o a 13l e ; but because the Go vernmen t h a d erre d w i t h re spect that bill, was that a reason for assuming that they were unable to bring in a bill which might meet with ap proval ? It might as well be said that the noble lord the because the bill hewas not fit to bring in a Reform Bill, member for London erroneous in principle int rod uc ed tuhane in 1854 was even more of e Reform Bill of the Govern lastithsaemssion. beli e ved it was the hon. member who showed the house that the bill of the noble lord, m attempting t o • for me n ß t unconstitutional and unsoun d. B u t to minorities, was w man say that he would not trust ne o de lord to bring the in would have allowed the noble lord to bring that he he would allow the Government to do so, in another bill, had by the dissolution learnt what were Pthellail3*'* as they feelings of the people with regard to the fr ane lt h e es h and they did not know before, rmd there was every hope that they, like the Duke of Wellington with regard to Catholic emancipation, and like Sir R. Feel with regard to the corn laws, would have ev.deavoured to meet the 'wishes of the people with regard to a Reform Bill, and if they had done so they would have been able to pass it rapidly through the other house, which the Whigs would not be able to d o . For these reasons, and because in this Parliament he s aw no reason f or passing a vett of no confidence against the Government, he should give his vote against the amend ment. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) Mr. S. HERBERT said that he was afraid that those persons in the house who took offence at the reconciliation of sections of the Liberal party had found little comfort in the speech which they had just heard. (Laughter and cheers.) They on that side of the house were not unanimous ; there was something still which wa4 a ground for division in the Liberal ranks. He had hoped to have got through this discussion without feeling the necessity of taking any part in it. He was not fond of discussions on the merits, not of measures, but of men. Hon. gentlemen opposite would do him the justice to admit that in the most heated controversies not one word had ever dropped from him which could • 1 imp y any want of respect for the party to which they belnnged. He had always spoken of and freely acknowled4;ed their high quali ties, and if in this case he had a Complaint to make it was not against the party itself, but against those who led it. Before the dissolution of Parliament the Government had challenged an issue Olt the ground of confidence. In that house before the dissolution the Government had said, we stand on our measures ; we are in a minority, and we won't carry on the Government by concession to the Liberal ma jority. It was, then, measures not men. In the country the cry was different , it was men not measures. , The Go vernment having • till that it b a d been iven s challenge could not complain end of last sesmildo n ta ken up.. In the Queen's Speech at the I , h er M ajesty was made to h o p e th a t under the blessing of Providence that dissolution would enable her to conduct the government of the country under the advice of a Ministry that possessed the confidence of a ma jority of Parliament and the people. The Government said that they failed with their Reform Bill ; but had that been the case with no one else ? Had not the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) brought in a Reform Bill which had not been carried ? It had been remarked by the hon. member for Sunderland that the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) brought in a Reform Bill in 1854, and it failed ; and that he brought one in before which failed. But those bills were not rejected. The bill which the noble lord brought in, when he led the house as a member of the Government of Lord Aberdeen, was not rejected, but it was the universal feeling of the house that no Reform Bill could be entertained when the war with Russia broke out. That bill had been made the foundation of a great portion of the late Government. It pro posed the £lO franchise in counties, and without taking away any of the credit due to the hon. member for West Surrey, he (Mr. S. Herbert) believed the present Government had taken that principle from the bill of the Government of Lord Aberdeen. Another principle of that bill was the lower ing of the borough franchise, which the present Government had studiously avoided, but which they now hinted that they would be disposed to do hereafter. Thepresent Govern ment, therefore, having availed itself of two of the main provisions of the bill of the noble lord in 1854, had no right to lay any stress upon the fact that that bill did not pass into a law. But there was one great distinction to be made, the noble lord was a reformer. (Cheers.) He did not quarrel with the present Government for undertaking to deal with reform. As the noble lord the member for Tiver- ton had said, "they took the horse with his engagements, and knew what they were bound to." Though professed anti-reformers, therefore, who argued with zeal and ability against the proposition of the hon. member for West Surrey until the last moment, they brought in a bill upon that model. (Hear, hear.) But he preferred not to wait now for the fulfilment of their promises. He preferred to see reform in the hands of reformers. It was no easy matter to carry a Reform Bill ; but there must always be increased difficulties when either 'of the great parties in the house did not confine themselves to doing that which it was their duty, in right of their principles, to do, but undertook to do business for others. He had been blamed for saying that there was a special danger in a Re-- form Bill being brought in by the Conservatives ; but he thought so, becausein the nature of things the Opposition would think themselves bound to go beyond it. A right hon. gentleman opposite had said of the late measure of the Government, " This is a Reform Bill which, if it had been introduced by Lord Palmerston, and we had been in oppo sition, every man of us would have opposed." Some compro mise must always be made before such a question could be settled ; no Government could pass a Reform Bill exactly as they brought it in ; but if it were brought in by those whose antecedents were opposed to reform, it would be passed under protest from those who wished to go further, and they would not hold themselves bound by the compromise. If, on the other hand, it were brought in and passed by the Liberal party, they would be bound by the compromise, and there would be a prospect of its stability and permanence, which there could not be in the case of a bill brought in by a Con servative Government and passed with the reluctant assent, or probably the dissent and protest of the Opposition. There was one measure not brought forward by the Government but assented to by them, the abolition of the property qua lification for members. He remembered that when that was passed some one asked the Government which point of the charter they were gob:lg to give next. A practical answer to this question was given in their Reform Bill, which pro posed a sort of electoral districts. If the vote were suc cessful he should be glad to see the executive placed in stronger hands ; and if, on the contrary, the Government should be in a majority, it would probably command a wider support. Their numbers on that side could not much preponderate, but he hoped that if they found themselves in power, the patriotism and good sense of the country would come to their aid, and, whichever party were pos sessed of authority, he trusted that party would bring to a successful issue the great questions which press upon them ; that their various domestic interests might be fully con sidered in any reform bill that might be presented, and that they might be able to restore peace to Europe in a manner that would show that they in England had not forgotten that there was a people struggling for liberty. (Cheers.) Mr. BENTINCK said complaints had been made on the other side that there was an indisposition on his (Mr. Bentinck's) side of the house to meet the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite, but he held that the reason why the discussion had languished was that there was nothing in the arguments of those who advocated the amendment to call for reply. It was alleged that the Government had failed in carrying their measures. It was not _ for him to defend the Government, who were well able to stand up for themselves—he did not deny that there had been occasions when he viewed the conduct of Ministers with regret—but he held that he should be taking a most unjust course, if, because he had differed from them upon one or two occasions, he should at once join in the vote proposed by the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) He should like to know how the commercial interests of England could be reconciled with the deterioration of her fleet. With our naval supremacy our commercial greatness would cease. Yet, probably, by agreeing to the vote of censure now proposed a government would be introduced whose policy would be to destroy that naval supremacy. He thought this question one of such importance that, before the house determined upon pursuing any course the result of which might be a change of ministry a guarantee should be demanded from those likely to succeed that our national defences should be maintained in a thorough state of effi ciency. (Loud cheers.) Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR said the hon. gentleman who had just spoken had asserted that the arguments advanced by that (the opposition) side of thehouse containednothing worthy of reply. He (Mr. Seymour) thought, on the con trary, that no reply could be given to the cogent arguments advanced. What answer had been attempted to the question why =acknowledged mincaity should occupy the ministerial benchee,gyUfigie majority was to be found on the opposite An HON. MEMBER—Are you a mem fry Y (Laughter.) Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR said, not only were they a majority, but they had been so since the Government first held office—that was, if all the sections of the Liberal party were united. (Laughter.) And he saw no reason why they should not be united. (Renewed laughter.) It was only in accordance with constitutional precedents that the majority of the house should hold the reins of government, and Eng land would soon sink into a third-rate power if, forgetting her constitutional precedents, she allowed a government in an acknowledged minority to remain in office. Captain VERNON said he should not have risen whilst so many hon. members were anxious to address the house, ex cept for the fact that he had a little information to give to gentlemen on the *opposite side, and particularly to the right kon. member for Carlisle (Sir J. C4raham), and the hon. member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson); who, indeed, were not now present in their places, but who he had no doubt would hear by other means what he had to communicate within the next 24 hours. The subject onwhich he was about to giveine formation he should not have considered of much importance except for the fact of those gentlemen to whom he had referred having dragged it into the debate by the hair of the head. It was the case of the Cunard line to which he re ferred. The hon. and right hon. gentleman had placed the matter before the house in an invidious position. The hon. member for Devonport stated that the contract had been made contrary to all precedent, and insinuated that it was made for the purpose of jobbery. The right hon. member for Carlisle, with that intrepidity of assertion—(laughter)— for which he was, not without a certain amount of fact, celebrated, went so far as to say that the money had been expended in huge, gigantic bribery —a bribery of all the members for the west of Ireland. The hon. member for Birmingham talked of a travelling politician, but the right hon. member for Carlisle had not always sat for Carlisle, nor had the hon. member for Devonport always sat for Devonport. It might be that they in the course of their travels might present themselves at the western side of Ireland, and if so they would speedily discover that they were not the men for Galway. The hon. member for De vonport had given them to understand that there was no precedent for that which he had denounced. In 1851 Lord Jocelyn's committee sat, and of that committee the hon. member for Devonport was one. The committee was-ap pointed to consider the mode of arranging the postal com munication with India, and they came to a distinct under standing that there should be two lines of postal commu nication with India, and that those two lines should not be given to the same parties. One line was in the possession of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and the other line was competed for by the Eastern Steam Navigation Com pany. In defiance of the recommendation of the committee the second line of communication was given to the l'enin sular and Oriental Company, and they then had a mono poly of the East Indian postal communication, except a small line held by the East India Company between Aden and Bombay. They afterwards ceased to hold that line, and it was then asked for by certain parties, but they, however, found that it was alrea.dy given to the Peninsular and Oriental Company. He did not charge this as a job ; but why should the hon. gentleman charge the present Government with a job in the Cunard case ? He never recollected hearing that the hon. member for Devonport was in want of memory ; he recollected what he heard and saw; and he (Capt. Vernon) thought that he ought to recollect what he did. Gentlemen who wanted to get this line from Aden to Bombay commu nicated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asked for an interview, and received the following reply : " Downing-street, Dec. 8, 1853, " Sir,—The Chancellor of the Exchequer desires me to inform you, in reply to your letter dated the 11th October, but which only arrived in Downing-street on the sth inst. , that no intimation has yet been conveyed to him on th e p art of the East India Company of their intention to abandon the line of steam communication between Aden and Bombay, and in this state of the question he would be much obliged if, previous to urging an interview with hfm, you would have the kindness to favour him with an outline of your views upon the subject in writing.—l have the honour, &c., " Thos. Holreyd, Esq." " R. W. WitatitlitAx. " 70, Cornhill, Dec. 14, 1853. " Sir,--When the former contracts for the carriage of the mails in the Eastern seas were about to expire I had hi depu tation several times occasion to meet Sir C. Wood, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who invariably stated to us that the question for the contracts for the carriage of the mails rested entirely with him as i Chancellor of the Exche quer,' and Sir C. Wood exercised that authority by giving all the contracts for the carriage of the mails to the Penin sular and Oriental Company, much to the disappointment of the mercantile and Indian communities. " When, therefore, it became known that the East India comm to i n ou ra ere b le en fo t r C o mpany were about abandon the line between Aden and was now the mercantile community felt that an opportunity mom n e o n T f offered for competition in the Eastern seas, and a h c e arr ja i t n ra g ct o p u a t thef packet r service ede for opinionthe esta blishment of matter really a line via Trieste. Feeling satisfied that the an interview rested with. you, I took the liberty of soliciting .wham reely to my letter from your secretary, tie.,l l hady dated the Bth inst., states that no intima- India Company, of their intention to steam communication st in that state of the betweenquestion, Aden and Bombay ;and that, outline of my ' you would be gi l d t o have an views i n l?writing previous to an interview 4c you will, therefore, I am sure, be equally se myself to find that, without your knowle.e trith been virtually concluded with thr,, , :" 2 t, a contract has Company for the carriage of 11- euinsiilar and Oriental Bombay of that portion . - lie -t o t:teas between Aden and fndia Company. •)" giving the pebandoned by the East ComßanYa :AnnPletemonopoly of the lI I ' sular and Oriental This Information I had from a Mr. W iL i i is i o an and China sea& to the Treasury—(Ministerial cheers)—thni; the Secretary from what he told me it would appear to be useless ; and troubling you with my views on this subject, since e l: in my the arrangement to have been concluded a fortnight e stated therefore just one week before the date of youseersago, and letter to whiejo. I have alluded, and from whi c h it tar Y' s evident that this arrangement has been entered init; quite unknown to you. I may be permitted to state shortly that a company has been formed in the City ready to give t l h public the benefit of an additional route via • Trieste at a e Wed very superior to that promised by, the Peninsul'ar and Oriental, viz., 21 days to Bombay, and the memorials in my possession from the city of London, of Liverpool and THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 11, 1859. Manchester, and Halifax, of which I enclose copies, will show the feeling of the trade on the subject. —I have, &c., "THOS. HOLROYD. " Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer." How the hon. member could after this say that there was no precedent for such a thing as the Cunard arrangement, seemed to him to be wonderful. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Davenport charged the Government with un duly influencing the elections. He pronounced to the house a jeremiad respecting the manner in which he had been treated at Devonport, and he so depicted his griefs that he (Captain Vernon) expected to see— " The big tears rolling down his innocent nose." (Laughter.) He (Captain Vernon) could have mingled his tears in the same bottle, for he had in times gone by can vassed Chatham against the Government, and it might be readily imagined that they had been tarred with the same brush. .'(Laughter.) In reference to elections, it was the easiest thing in the world to make charges in every possible direction. The right hon. member fer Carlise gave to understand that a large sum of money had been paid by a nobleman on the Conservative side of the house with the view of that money being employed for political purposes. He said at first £20,000, then £lO,OOO, then £5,000, and he did not know whether he had now " shadowed" it away altogether, but at all events the statement left behind it a sting. The right hon. member said that there was an im proper interference with the elections, but did he not know that that which was charged against one side of the house was also charged against the other. The hon. and learned member for Cork (Mr. Sergeant Deasy) when speaking the other night in his excitement " bonnetted" the noble lord the member for London, and the right hon. member for Carlisle was morally " bonnetted" when he charged the noble earl with subscribing money for the elections. (Laughter.) Similar things to those mid of the noble earl had been said of gentlemen closely connected with the noble lord the member for London. The hon. member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) gave then to understand that bribery ex tended among all sorts and conditions of men, but he did not say Whether he left rut his own particular friends. The bewitching goddess no doubt served out to him a certain amount of poetic justice, and inspired him to a peti tion against two of 11;s own immediate relatives for bribery. No doubt a more philanthropic man than the hon. member for Birmingham did not exist, and no doubt the feeling ex tended to his family ; and doubtless when they contributed their specie it was from purely philanthropic motives. The hon. member for Birmingham must be connected with the Humane Society, for he believed he had actually gone to the extent of paying £2O for a cat—a tolerably large sum for a four-legged:mousetrap. (Laughter.) They were all fresh from the hustings,. and if ever there was a time when the consti tuencies of the kingdom compelled candidates to be explicit and give things their right names, and call a spade a spade it was now ; and doubtless the people of England expected that they should carry out some straightforward measure. He had been sitting for nights "like Patience on a monu ment smiling at Grier—listening, not to the great ques tion before the house, but to matters about Austria , Ger many, Sardinia, and France, interspersed with attacks and challenges and throwing down of gauntlets, such as might have characterised some Irish parliament when they talked about pistols and paces an the Green. (A laugh.) What was this amendment stripped of its disguise? Why, nothing but a desperate determination on the part of certain gentle men, who had been coaling their heels in the rear of the existing Government, in the hope of once more getting their backs at the warm- Treasury fire. (Laughter.) That was the be-all and the end-all of this amendment, the letter and not the spirit of which they were called upon to delude themselves into the belief that they were taking into their serious consideration. They might deceive.themselves, but they could not deceive the people. They had too fresh in their recollection the unhappy motion of the member for the city of Oxford, in which he suffered himself to be victi mised by his friends, and sent forward like a scapegoat bleating in expiation of the sins of his party. (Cheers and a laugh.) They had too fresh in their recollection the fac tious amendment of the member for the City of London. They could not be deluded, but could see at once what must be the plain and distinct object of the amendment. He be. lieved the thinking part of the community—the intelli gence that guided the commerce and general business of the country—were sick and tired of seeing the great inte rests of the country jeopardised, and, if not sacrificed, at least postponed to the miserable question as to who or who were not. to hold office, and be the distributors of patronage (Hear, hear.) There wasa feeling growing up throughout the land that England had a nobler destiny to fulfil than to be the mere pasture ground of a political clique. (Hear, hear.) The interests of England and of her people would always be paramount when those names that had flourished in the leading columns of newspapers, and who fancied they were names for history, would be swept from the face of the earth. (Hear, hear.) What was the plain and unmistakeable object of this amendment ? Why, the removal of Lord Derby from power. (Cheers from the Op position.) Was it, he would ask, because Lord Derby had neglected reform, as did the administration of the two noble lords, until it served their purpose to repjoduce it as a poli tical stalking-horse ? (Cheers.) Was it because he mis noble lord who suffered himself to be cajoled, and fl attered, managed the foreign relations of the country , as did the and out-manoeuvred at Vienna, drifting the country into a sanguinary and savage war, as did the administration to which the noble lord belonged ? Was it because he plunged them into a sanguinary war with China, as did the noble viscount, that cost the country much money, and he (Cap tain Vernon)his seat ? (Laughter and applause.) Was it because he submitted to national humiliatiou, as did the noble viscount, and which, in his turn, cost him his seat ? No, none of these circumstances and misdemeanours could be laid to the charge of Lord Derby. Then what was his crime ? Why, his crime was that he occupied the seat coveted by the noble lord opposite, and which he sought to possess by the filibustering operations of his party. (Cheers.) And who was to be their future leader ? Who was to reign upon the _Treasury bench ? • " Under which king, Bezonian ? yvu Speak, or die." . service to London, or ik,erkLeY r ilf a i tregfecte ihecl iLa i II s d wheels and through the mud of Tiverton ? (Laughter.) Wbo was to be egomet ipse, and who was to be rex meuB ? Or was the Premier of England in future to be depicted in the imperishable pages of Punch as the two Kings of Brent ford, amicably smelling at the same nosegay. (Renewed laughter.) Or was a third member to be introduced in the shape of the hon. member for Birmingham? And was the Pre mier of England in the good time coming to be as described by the celebrated Mrs. Malaprop, like Mr. Cerberus—three gentlemen all at once. (Loud laughter.) Poverty made people acquainted with strange bed-fellows ; but was it an impossible vision that would vouchsafe to them the proba bility of seeing the noble lord the member for the City and the noble viscount the member for Tiverton comfortably tucked up under the blanket of coalition, with the hon. member for Birmingham ensconced between them. " Could such things be, And overcome us, like a summer dream, Without our special wonder ?" What was the bond of union between this choice triumvi rate ? Was it place ? That was not the vocation of the noble viscount. (A laugh.) Was it war ? That was against every feeling of the hon member for Birmingham. But the noble lord the member for the City of London might be said to have a bias both ways— (laughter)—forwhereas he formerly drifted this country into one of the bloodiest wars, he sud denly became peaceful and deserted his party on the motion of the member for Sheffield. (Hear, hear.) What was the bond of union ?—was it the ballot ? Why that was a stink in the nostrils of the noble viscount, though it was a sweet smelling savour to the nose of the hon. member for Bir mingham. (Laughter and cheers.) And here again the noble lord the member for the City of London might be said to have a bias both ways—(bear, and laughter)—for whereas formerly he eschewed the ballot, latterly, under the pres sure of a possible contest for the City of London, he had been induced to look at-the momentous question with very modi fied feelings. What was the bond of union ? Was it reform ? He believed that no power upon earth would induce the noble viscount to go the whole length with the hon. mem ber for Birmingham ; and no power on earth would induce 'the hon. member for Birmingham to stop where the noble viscount stopped, but where, again, he must do the noble lord the member for the City of London the justice to say that he had a bias both ways—(loud laughter)— for whereas formerly the word finality was the prefix to his patronymic, now he was pleased to dance on where the hon. member for Birmingham was pleased to point out, and pipe to him. (Renewed laughter.) He would call on gentlqmen opposite, who .were Liberals at heart, and not merely or mouth—who wore received throughout the length and breadth of the land as the champions of honest Liberalism, to destroy the proposed amendment, whioh might be the means of bringing into power men whom they "Have learned to know, and knowing to distrust." He called on those gentlemen who at the last election ob tained their seats through the magic potency of the noble viscount's name, and who, deserting him in his utmost need, fled from him like quieksilver—he called on them to recollect why they did so—and if they forgot he would not forget—and to resist the proposed amendment that might bring his strong indignation back into power. Ito called on theist to band themselves together, and thrust out from them the imp lord the member for the City of London ; for if they f of it, he would not, and he would resist this amendment, that would bring back his strop indignation upon them, He called toed them to reee.lit the-terms in which the hon, menib s ie Birmixtght6vi , ifbeted these re markable proceeding Where did these conspirators meet—was it ill a coal- eorin a sewer ? Truly a fit re ceptacle for so dirty a transaction." Ile called on them to recover front - 1M - ft clings with which they heard these Words, and resist the amendment,lthat shouldbring back his scorn and indknation to 13ower. He called on those on his side of the hate, inatehulled under the Conservative ranks, to recollect thanhe amendment was not made against the Conservative Miiiistra , i alone, but against the Conservative party altogether, and hot to listen to the flattering words of the member for South Wilts, who said he did not find fault with the patty, lint with those that led the party. When, however, the leaders were attacked, the party was attacked. (Loud cheers.) When, they were to be defended theywere tc [Wend them froth the assault, net of policy, but of party—not by fact, but by a faction. (Cheers.) Let them, then, stand well together, without any hair-splitting —no "letting I dare not wait upoa I would" — bat let them band themselves together like one man, under the banner of union, consistency, and Conservatism, and stand or fall under its colours. ((Loud cheers.) Mr. W. LEXIILA. , te,..., ressed his intention of voting for the amendlient.l : : h'inglati.th.e Government ought to, have fair play, but he considered tEl'6s , had failed more par ticularly in finning a proper measure of reform. • Sir C. LEWIS wished to state to the house his reasons for giving support to the amendment. Ile admitted that the amendment, involving an expression of want of confi dence in the Executive Government of the country, was of an unusual and extraordinary character, and that persons who were habitually in opposition to her Majesty's Government would hesitate on common occasions in supporting a vote of that description. But it seemed to him that any person who had been in the habit - Of 411osing the existing Government ought not to hesitate on the preset enee,; , ---- , T.. -- - ' _,.; the amendment. --"' .......vu la supporti ng fa... . -,-, . nat4mendment was not proposed spore ......eousi• ...c nail been forced upon the Opposition by the Conduct of her Majesty's Government. When his noble friend the member for the city of London made his mail= Upon the Reform Bill in the last Parliament it did not, in his opinion, involve- a censer's pll leer Majesty's Govern ment. It affirmed certain princ;ples With respect to the eon strtictien of the Reform- Bill, in whiCh the Oppo,sitiott side of tha house were Unanimously agreed, in NVIITcia 14 large via number of gentlemen on the onn o site s ide o f the Liense con curred, and to which it womkaave been competent for' her Government to fif t y° -Submitted, Mollifying their measure accolingly. BUt they did not take that course. They treated if, quite un neoessar il y, as a vo t e o f censure; and they wont to the Nye on the understanding that the amendment imported a vete of censure on the Government. That rate was supported by a large majority of the late Parliament. Her Majesty's advisers did not acquiesce in that decision. They aPP.co,led to th e cou f&try ; but they d id not appeal on t measure 'ef the bill, .of reform. Th e y ap pealed fo the co .ry`fol. a vote o f cr n fidence in thems elves as an Adminis on, an d t h e elect i o ns did 114 turn =the merits of the Le orm Bill y / They ' were uot decided by the votes whether or not that Reform Bill should be revived in the present Parliament. They were decided by votes of confidence and no confidence in. her Majesty's advisers. Hitherto it had been the recognised system that when an opposition came into office they -continued to act in office upon principles which had governed their conduct in oppo sition. But her Majesty's present advisers acted upon a different system. Upon accession to office, they, with re gard to two different questions—namely, the India Bill and the reform question—thought it' necessary to saddle them selves with the engagements of their predecessors. With regard to the India Bill, up to the latest hour, up to the very day which preceded their accession to power, they opposed the measure proposed by their predecessors, and the night before their accession to office they divided in great numbers against the bill. Well, upon accepting office they entirely renounced the opinions which they had formed and expressed on the subject, and introduced a bill formed upon the principles of their predecessors, namely, the transfer of the power of the East India Company to ;the Crown. It was a bill which was extravagant in its conception and in execution, which scarcely outlived the day on which it was proposed, and it was speedily abandoned by its authors. But, nevertheless, it embodied the principles of their oppo nents, their predecessors, and departed from their own principles. (Hear.) Then, with regard to the Reform Bill, they acted on similar principles. Having systematically opposed all reform in Parliament, they adopted the obliga tions of their predecessors to propose a reform bill; and we had their measure in the last session of the last Parliament. There was one point adverted to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the first night of the debate. He said he would not admit that any party was to be admitted to have a monopoly of any question, and he added, that with re gard to the Reform Bill he could not admit that the Liberal party was to be exclusively entitled to produce measures of reform. He (Sir Cornewall Lewis) entirely acceded to the doctrine of the right honourable gentleman, that there was no party in that house that was entitled to claim any such exclusive privilege. But the principle for which he contended was, that that party which had con sistently advocated certain principles on the question of reform was the party which was most fitted to intro duce a measure on the subject, and which was most able to overcome the practical diffieulties which necessarily arose with regard to the settlement of such a question. (Hear.) And when the right hon. gentleman referred to some ex amples of former times—when, fbr instance, he said that the Duke of Richmond and Mr. Pitt, eminent members of the Tory party, had proposed measures on the subject of reform, he would remind the right hon. gentleman that the Duke of Richmond of that day was not only a Whig, but a Whig and—adopting the phraseology of the day—" some thing more ;" and that when Mr. Pitt proposed a measure of reform, he likewise was a member of the same party. What he contended was, that the party who had from the beginning connected itself with the question of reform was better qualified both by its leaders and by its supporters to propose and carry through Parliament suecessfill and prac tical measures of reform. The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to criticise the financial measures of the Govern ment, and contended that nearly all the calculations in their budget of laSt year had been falsified by the events. He concluded by saying that for these and other reasons he should give his vote in favour of the amendment. Sir J. PAKINGT ON—Sir, I think that the question how any Government has dealt with the defences of the country, ought fairly to be, and, I trust, will be in this case an element in deciding the question of how far that Go vernment is or is not entitled to the confidence of the coun try—(cheers)---and if ever that considerationought to enter into the decision of such a question as this, I think the pre sent moment is the time, considering the great armaments which are now in progress, and the unusual course which undoubtedly her Majesty's Government have taken in this respect. Before adverting, however, to that part of the sub ject there are one or two points in the discussion which we have heard within the last two or three days to which I would beg very briefly to allude. In the first place I beg to say that I heartily concur with those of my friends on this side of the house who have signified their freedom from any objection to the course which hon. gentlemen opposite have taken on this occasion. lam one of those who complained, and I did so loudly and justly, of the course which the noble lord ,the member for London adopted in the late Parliament. I make no such complaint now. I think that gentlemen opposite have a perfect right to raise the qnestion in the way they have done, and I confess that I am more disposed to make this concession, after watching this debate, and hearing, as I think, the absolute and complete failure of every attempt to bring any serious charge against the Government. (Cheers.) It is true the noble viscount the member for Tiverton did make an attempt to inculpate the Government and bring certain charges against them; but after indulging in a number of jokes and a certain amount of abuse more suo— (oh, oh, from the Opposition)—when I say abuse, I mean good-humoured abuse, at all events—(oh, oh, and a laugh) —after finding fault in that sort of tone—(hear, hear)—and using a good deal of that sort of language, the noble vis count found himself compelled to abandon the attempt, and to take up the ground which is the only one open to gentle men opposite—that of saying, almost in plain language, "We have nothing to say against you, but we want your places." (Loud cheers.) Now, sir, that is really the ques • tion at issue. (Reiterated cheers.) It is a question which I recognise your right to raise, and you have raised itfairly. It cannot be disguised ; and you have been unable to throw any cloud over the obvious character of the vote. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman who has just addressed the house professed to enter into the reasons upon which he supports the amendment, but I listened in vain for ,anything that could at all alter the character of this motion.. I listened in r - S r_7. - - 41 1ingpat appeared to Inc> 4. ar 9 ount to a mason or refusing conn ence to rue .rovernment, or for passing anything like 'a Vete of censure upon them. My right hon.. friend (Mr. S. Herbert) avowed, I think, in a more open manner than. any one else, that ho felt the necessity of justi fying such a motion as this by reasons, and he proceeded to give what he no doubt thought were very sufficient rea sons for refusing his confidence to the Government; but in his case, also, I listened in vain for anything that in my mind justified SuchU step as that which the Opposition are now . . taking. The speech of my right hon. friend appeared to me to consist chiefly of a reply to certain arguments that had:been used by my hon. friend the member for • Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) and among these arguments the one upon which the right hon. gentleman dwelt the most was the argument which the hon. member for Sunderland had used, founded upon the fact that the present Government had consented to the Jew Bill,' But then the right hon. gentleman proceeded to dwell upon what he called a reason for his supporting this vote of Want 'Of confidence, which I own appeared to me to lie of the most inconsistent and most insignificant character. I allude to that part of his speech in which ho referred to attempts on the part of the Government to conciliate and to do justice to our Roman Catholic fellow- subjects. Assuming the truth and accuracy of all that the right hon. gentleman said, and,• as far as I am concerned as one member of the Government, I entirely . accept it, how the right hon. gentle man could twist that into a reason for a vote of want of confidence I cannot for onnmornent divine. The right hon. gentleman said it was perfectly right, and he then pro ceeded to make a charge against us, not that we were wrong now—no, he thinks us right now—but that our being right now was attended with the greatest inconsistency, because, said he, this is a party which has always refused liberal concessions to the Roman Catholics, and he illustrated that view by mentioning a vote of this house in the year 1854, when we carried an amendment against a grant proposed by the noble viscount opposite for, Roman Catholic chap lains in gaols ; and the right hon. gentleman argued from the fact' that, whatever we may be now with regard to our Roman' Catholic fellow-subjects, it was' gross inconsistency and a great change of purpose on ourpart. (Hear, hear.) So fares I am concerned, I am glad to hear that cheer, because' I am' now about to make a serious complaint 'of very great injustice to myself personally on-the part of the right hononrable gentleman in having named one as speak ing upon that occasion. (" No ; voted,"• from the Opposi tion.) I beg pardon; the right 'honourable gentleman said that Sir John Pakington was one of those who spoke on that occasion. (" No, no ; voted.") . • I.hope honourable gentlemen will not interrupt me. On a matter id which I am personally concerned I was not likely to make such a mistake. (Cheere.) lam right in what lam stating. The right hon. gentleman is himself prceent,'and he will correct me if I am in error. He named Sir J: •Pakington as having spoken on that occasion, and he then went on to name my self, frig right hon. friend near me; and several others, as having Voted. (Hear, hear:) Well; I ask every hon. mem ber in this house whether any inference but one Sean be drawn froth his language ? .owrx I was astonished 4t what he said—l knew that' the .ellargp crt refusing toleration to my RoniMi. 'Catholic fellov4-subjecte, - and of ha;7ing spoken din theitingein which he said I spoke; was foreign to every feeling - al - 1N life and to every word' that•l ever uttered in this house. I confess I could not account for the fact of my language being so perverted; because every gentleman who heard what 'fell from the right hon: gentleman must have inferred that' I had spoken in the sense ' of the amendment as being opposed to the concession too my Roman Catholic fellow-subjects which was then proposed. I think I have a right to expect from him that if he referred to me on such a subject as this he should not misrepresent or impute to me 'that which is so foreign to my nature and to every word that I ever uttered in this house. We have sat together in this house for teeny years, and have been on friendlyterms; time was when we sat together on the same bench—(cheers andlaughter)—and I have always regretted, without ques tioning his /Orient- or hia motives, that the course of public events prevented our doing Belanger. (Hear.) I think the right boll. gentleman might have recollected that so long age as the Goterrinierit of Sir R. Peel I was one of a minority on this side of the houee who did not hesitate to rise and ad vocate the liberal policy of Sir R. Peel towards the Roman Catholics. The right bih. gentleman might have recollected that at a more recent date, when the friends with whom -act almost unanimously supported my hon. friend the mem ber for North Warwickshire in toting against the Mayneoth grant, I stood almost alone of my party in saying that I -Omild not concur in that po lic y , and going into the lobby against it. The right hon• gen tleman might have recollected my still more recent 'eff6ffs'in the CatiS of public education,- en w hi c h I ha t . never hesitated to avow my desire to• extend. educati wotilleta. 'all blasigile* of my fellow-subjects; without any referenee man ie eifeit t 6 relig as a p ub ious opinions. Having l l was acted Ohtliose principles ler a great number of ;ears,to surprised when I heard the charge broti"ht 1 t,i,taf.omsgolren at nieht with re and to reY in 18 64 . ArstifiCe of time e±aCtly of our pre *hat I shaid forgotten therefore Went to the library to consult the testa] recur Ceedingri and I found it was true that Opposition.)ted for the amendment: (" Hear, hear . ," from the lf 1?1'?! Oentyir derivelsatisfactiehn fryofilmi nthotatbfeadetisptohseeydatroe ey welcome ,o tr ite, ; tito I think t cheer when I inform them wholrecsatid a the le oe,cas e t o on ; (The e fro h . h t th right hon. gentleman read the admission, an to make it effect that he wished to mA an e oesibleto b emis un derstood,t at broadly, and in a maune rimp h to providespiritual instruction for he held it to be necesea r Y all the inmates of gaols; that the m th i a n t u t .o e b p je r c o t p ; os t e h d at by h L e o o r b d - Palnie rs t on did no t a ccomplish - was proposed; that he objected to jected t not to the m i nu te of the noble viscount itself, but to the shape in which it the money being - d i s tributed amongst Roman Catholic use i n many gaols the inmates might chap l a i ns only,. because not be of th at reli on, but the religion of other dissent ing bodies, and t hat he should have no objection to the minute if the eY were distributed amongst all sects alike—(loud toon cheers.) I migh!: have been mistaken, proceeded the right , the vote I then gave. I might have hon. gentlema n come to an erroneane conclusion, but I hope I have con vinced the house that I am not open to the imputation which the -ight hon. gentleman the member for Wilts has conveyed, that I bad refused every concession to my Roman Catholic fellow-Aubjects in the nature of providing spiritual instruction for them in. gaols. (Hear.)' I pass now to the accusations which have been directed against her Majesty's Government, which consist of only two. The one is, that we have failed in our legislation ; the other is, that we have failed iu our foreign policy. Now, anything more futile than the attempts which have been made to support these accusations I have never witnessed. Hon. gentlemen say that we have failed in our Church Rate Bill. Now, I submit to the house that, if there be anything to be complained of connected with that Church Rate Bill it was rather the manner in which it was brought forward. (Loud cheers.) But will any man gravely contend that failure on a Church Ratebill in the late Parlia ment is to be the ground for a vote of want of confidence now ? (Cheers.) Why, it is manifestly absurd. But there is another bill which we brought forward to which hon. gentlemen. have not referred. fhe noble viscount did not mention it ; and nobody else has mentioned it amongst our legislative failures; I allude to the bill which was intro duced by the Solicitor-General for the transfer of land. (Hear, hear.) That was a subject upon. which our prede cessors, either from want of courage or want of ability, have uniformly shrunk—(cheers)—but my learned friend, in the most able manner, in a manner which elicited praise from all sides of the house, and support from every quarter of the house, introduced that bill which he laid upon the table last session. (Cheers.) That has not been enumerated as amongst our legislative failures. (Hear, hear.) I cannot proceed further without noticing the exaggerated references which have been made to our Reform Bill. The noble vis count said that nobody out of the Cabinet, with one or two exceptions only spoke in its favour. Now, I do not deny that there were provisions in that bill to which great exception was taken, both in this house and out of doors. But if the bill were so objectionable, why is it the noble lord was obliged to resort to that irregular resolution as the only mode in which he could hope to obtain a majority in this house ? (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman the member for Wilts spoke of our bill as having been rejected. I corrected him at the moment. It was not rejected. (Hear.) The noble lord dared not raise the issue. It is notorious that, if the question of the second reading had been taken, the second reading would have been carried. Are there no gentlemen of eminence on the other side of the house at this moment listening to me who in private conversation declared that bill to be a most wise and liberal measure ? I mention no names. Ido not mean to bring up personal charges, but-there are those who understand wat I mean. (Cries of "oh," and " name," accompanied by loud cheers.) When I say that there were a number of gentlemen on the other side of the house who were prepared to vote for the second reading of that bill, and to support us upon it, but who when they found that a party move had been made, and that the bill was not to be considered on its merits said, " The issue is changed ; this is no longer a discussion on the Reform Bill ; it is an at tack upon the Government ; and we must vote with our party"—(cheers)—these are notorious facts, and I will no longer dwell upon them ; but as they are notorious facts I protest against the exaggerated language which has been held about that Reform Bill, which did make great and liberal concessions, and which you know would have passed a second reading had that been the only question before us. (Cheers.) Well, how does the question of reform now stand ? What are your prospects under the coalition, or whatever it may be termed, of which we have heard ? Have we forgotten that the noble lord the member for London went out of his way within a day or two before the dissolu tion.? Perhaps he thought he might make a little politi cal capital at the moment; but he went out of his way to give us a sketch of what his Reform Bill was to be. The next day the noble viscount the member for Tiverton came down to the house, and in his turn went out of his way to declare that he could not approve of such provisions. (Cheers and laughter.) This :gives us a little insight of what the reform prospects of the new Administration are to be. (Hear, hear.) The last event that occurred was the hon and learned member for Birmingham making a speech in this house last night, when he declared that he might be contented to accept a £lO franchise for counties, and a a or £6 franchise for boroughs ; very much the same sketch that the noble lord the member for London has given us, and against which the noble lord the member for Tiverton has protested. Now this does not open to ardent Reformers a very clear prospect of what we are to have; but it does open to 'my mind a very clear prospect, in the event of a majority supporting this amendment, of what the future Government of this country is-likely to be. It opens to me the unpleasant and dangerous prospect of being a Whig-Radical Government, divided and dis tracted among themselves, with the hon. member for Bir mingham sitting on their flank, guiding them in their de mocratic measures, and ready at any moment to trip them up if they do not do his bidding. (Cheers and laughter.) And I think that the hon. member for Birmingham has shown great wisdom in keeping out of this entanglement. (A laugh.) . I think he has consulted his own character and reputation in not sitting in the same Cabinet with the noble viscount. (Hear and laughter.) I think that, after what has passed in this house it would not be for the character of the noble viscount nor of the hon. gentleman to sit in the same Cabinet together. lam glad, for the sake of both, to find that it is not likely to happen; but I think the pro posal before us, as I have sketched it, will be humiliating to the individuals concerned, and dangerous to the interests of the country. (Hear.) Sir, for what is it proposed to pass a vote of want of confidence in the Government ? On what is it proposed to found it ? Is it on our foreign policy ? Now, what part of that foreign policy is it which justifies this vote of want of confidence? We heard a good deal before the dissolution of the case of the Charles-et-Georges. (Cheers from the Liberals.) Gentlemen cheer; but I sup pose that was not a case for a want of confidence, or other wise we should have had a motion on it before this time. (Hear.) Certainly there was no reluctance to attack her Majesty's Ministers, if that was such a bad case. lam re minded that we had a motion on the affair of the Charles et-Georges, but it was a sham motion. It was not an at tack; it was not a motion upon which you dared to take a division, because the merits of the case were against you. (Hear.) Is the attack on our foreign policy in consequence of the case of the Cagliari, in which my noble friend Lord Malmesbury succeeded in. doing that which had foiled the late Government for months, and on which my noble friend extricated the English engineers from the dungeons of Naples, and obtained compensation for the injuries they nag it PrfIVP il ent ever had more rea son to be proud of their foreign . Luau nee I,I7.IJMILyIIi . present Government. (Ironical laughter from the Opposi tion.) In a most successful manner my noble friend Lord Malmesbury managed the difficulty connected with that case, and here, sir, let me do justice to the spirit of fairness in which the right hon. gentleman the member for North Wiltshire this evening alluded to Lord Malmesbury. My noble friend has done his portion of the work of the present Government in a most able manner. (Cheers.) He has been most unfairly and harshly treated—(Oh, oh)—but while I have to complain of the language which the right hon. gentleman the member for North Wiltshire used in respect of myself I thank him for the fairness of his lan • guage in regard of my noble friend Lord Malmesbury. (Hear.) Well, if you cannot attack our foreign policy on either of these grounds nothing remains but the Italian question. Here Ido complain—and I hope my right hon. friend the member for Stroud is in the house—l do for one complain of the gross and flagrant injustice,ef proceeding to censure any Government before you have seen their papers and heard their case. (Hear, hear.) I am not surprised, and I do not complain of my right hon. friend the member for Stroud that he should vote aganist us on this occasion. I think from the course of his political life he is entitled to take that course ; but I wish he had not urged such false and fallacious ground for that vote. I wish he had not come down here and said he would have acceded to the justice of our claim if we had asked him to hear the evidence in our case before the case was adjudged. If that bo his plea I claim his vote. (Hear, hear.) We do complain of one of the most flagrant cases of political in justice of which I have everheard ; and it requires the lively audacity which distinguishes the noble viscount the member for Tiverton to ask the house to take the course which, in his speech on Tuesday night, he urged it to adopt. Who was the other hon. member who urged that course? The hon. and learned member for Cork (Mr. Sergeant Deasy), - who ought to know that no verdict should be given until; the evidence in the case has been heard. (Hear.) There is a golden rule in this country, and not less just within this house than outside of it—never to condemn any one unheard. (Cheers.) The noble lord the member for Tiverton has called upon the house to reverse that rule; but I hope new members will notr think that any political differences would justify such a gross injustice as to con • demn the foreign policy of the Government in respect of the Italian question before the house is in the possession of the grounds upon which judgment in respect of that matter should be given. (Hear, hear.) I cannot understand why the hon. member for Birmingham is going to vote against us to-night. He is an advocate of neutrality and peace. It was justly remarked by an hon. member this evening that no hon. gentleman had in this debate touched on the lan guage which we bad advised her Majesty to use in the Speech from the- Throne. In that Royal Speech our policy in respect of the Italian question is said to be one of neu trality. The hon. member for Birmingham says that his policy is ono of neutrality. On what ground, then, can he Vote against us ? (Hear, hear.) I think I have a right to complain unless there has been a misrepresentation of what the hon. gentleman said at that ball the other day—(great laughter, continued for some minutes) --I beg pardon, I mean at that meeting which took place in Almack's room the other day. (Renewed laughter, an d cheers.) Unless the hon. member is misrepresented, he took occasion to say he would vote against the noble lord th e member for Tiver ton governing the country unless he expressed w sed e hi a m re s a elLa o n_ advocate for peace. However , he finds h " ' n cates for peace, and with flagrant inconsiste, a ncy d h e e h i e s er g s o . ing l to vote against. (Cries of hear, hear, s must have under gonethink the honourable gentleman' cannot account, if he is sanguine some great and extraordinsaryviewthhaatntghee, to place the foreign b f e r st w m hi od e e h o l f preserving the peace of Europe o le viscount viscount. that policy of the country (Lord Palmerston's) ds of belief would notbe in acpyda t h h e at la t s h t e t h o o gi n. v m e Whatever may be the ill att the ribu c t:C a i s noble e l li e ber for Birmingham (Hear, hear.) There is another reputation ; and I shouldouihad him credit for a peaceful policy. nve have th been ught su bject which , holding the position in the Government w hi c h I do, it is impossible I can allow this debate.to l (Hear, bear.) I think lam justified in repeating close without allud in g to— mean the defences of this countrY• , • what I comme n . c ed i by.saymg—naniely, that ifyou are think. i n g of refusing y our confidence to the administration, surel y one of the things which you ought to consider is the mode in wh i c h w e have dealt with this important matter (Hear). I feel impelled by a sense of duty to allude to it, but I have on this ground a reluctance to do so, 'that I shall have to allude to measures taken by myself. I beg, however, that the house will understand that I speak in no boastful spirit s ( H aa n) If the defences of the country have been improved under my administration of the affairs of the navy, I am in debiQd to the able men whose assistance I have had, and certainly 1:9 my right hon, friend the Secretary of the Ad miralty. (I - leaT;) liow was it that the noble viscount made no reference to iht: state in which the late government left the navy ? (Hear, hezi„"•) I am not now intending to revive an 7 controversies between those who have hitherto filled the (Act; of First Lord and my:elf• in justice to 1;:.v colleagues and myt:"l only wish to advert, incontrovertible. "Ilia fact, I think, ..mentleman opr ?r o e to facts which are can deny—that whatevei' Pay have been tilt; doubt various eauses:contribubed to this result—' ,ffective when m y ll Lord Derby's government succeeded to office the t`-` ) a strength of the royal navy of this country was w r9 .c u h e l hope point which it had never reached before, and hi to God it will never reach again. when occasion to say before to -night that, 16 months esorebattle we came into office, we had only 25 effectree and screw _ (ilea; and eh s ee a rs.) I had ships. Of course I mean ships with en in their engines. Therefore, if you like yo h That was not propellers. It is true there were three mglorilueesCaanfloactotivakpuintge the entire number as 28 line-of-battle Ladd a position had never existed things which since the placed. It was a state of y' Government, sin . before, and which her Majest :hour have devoted their in which the navy of Engpsnould have been time it came into power until this Is this why you wont best energies to redress. 11 IQ ( this the reason why we are to trust them? (Hear.) nt we have now, as then, three navy now ? At this women n their engines. Without these be condemned ? line-of-battle ships tak.ing. olf-battle ships. Counting those (Hear and l cheers.) What is the state of the t the three in the other case, I willing to cowl three, as was effective line-of-battle ships, instead of 28, as we have 40 months ago. (Cheers.) I called on Parlia there are 37 effective line was the case 15 ment 15 months ago to enable me to redress this state of things. The House of Commons responded liberally to that appeal. The consequence is, that at the end of the present financial year you will have 60 effective line-of-battle ships. (Cheers.) I told you three months ago that we should launch 15 in the course of the present financial year. We have added two more to that number, making 17, which will bring up the total number by the end of the financial year to 50, or double what we found 15 months ago. Is that a reason why we are to be condemned ? (Hear, hear.) If we are to be so condemned by a triumphant faction here —(oh, oh, from the Opposition, with cheers from the Mini sterialists)—do you think the country will respond to such a decision? (Cries of " No, no," from the Ministerialists, and " yes," from the Opposition.) If ever a Government exposed themselves to attack we have done so. We have assumed as grave a responsibility as any Government that ever held the reins of power. Since Parliament was die solved—(ironical Opposition cheers)—aye, I know what that cheer means. (Cheers and counter cheers.) Ido not shrink from the issue which it raises. Since Parliament was dissolved the war, which we had exerted every effort to prevent, and which up to the very last hour we were san guine we should prevent, unhappily broke out. The result was that the Government had to consider how we could best provide for the defence of the country. We then took a most unusual course. The hon. member for Birming ham spoke of the policy of the Whigs being a feeble and a faltering policy. Well, the conduct of her Ma jesty's Government on this occasion was at least far from being a feeble and a faltering one. (Hear; hear.) On the responsibility of the Government we took three most im portant measures. We advised the Crown to issue an order in council adding 10,000 men to our naval force-8,000 sea men and 2,000 marines. (Hear, hear.) Another measure we adopted was one adverted to last night by the right hon ba ronet the member for Carlisle—l mean that of offering a bounty to sailors. Having decided on ad ding 10,000 men to our naval force, we decided on raising those additional men by bounty. The third step was to add no less than 1,300 ship wrights to our dockyards—the measure of our addition, being as many as our dockyards could accommodate for convenient and efficient working. (Hear, hear.) The bounty we offered was very high for a time of peace—higher, I believe, than had ever been offered in time of peace on any former occa sion. (Hear, hear.) lam prepared to vindicate every one of these measures. But I say this is no feeble or tottering policy. (Cheers.) It is either right or wrong. Either we did wisely and prudently consult the best interests of the coun try, or on the other hand we have adopted one of the most reckless abuses of power, or the most extravagant and un justifiable outlay of the public money that ever a Govern ment was guilty of, (Cheers.) In the one case we ought to be censured and condemned—in the other we are entitled to the thanks of the country. (Loud cheers.) Are we then to be condemned or thanked? and if thanked, what do you mean by coming down here and muttering vague suspicions about our foreign: policy ? (Prolonged cheering.) Here is a point on which we are open to attack. We have done either right or wrong. We challenge you upon this issue, and we put the challenge not only here but out out of doors. (Cheers.) Why have we heard these miserable pretences about sup posed defects in our foreign policy ? Why do younot graPPle with us on that point on which we are open to attack. It is be cause you know that we have done right, because we have done our duty, and that upon this point we are not open to attack. It is true the hon. member for Birmingham did Cen sure our policy in this respect ; but no one supported him uL . it. I protest against the statenent of the hom. member that this policy was dictated by hostility towards France. I disclaim that feeling altogether. I deny that it means or that it is intended to mean anything like suspicion. agree with the hon. member that an alliance with France is productive of advantage to the best interests of both na tions and of the world. Long may that alliance be upheld. But to uphold it intact it is necessary that England should be prepared for events. (Cheers.) The hon. member for Birmingham stands alone, I am sure, in his opinion on this subject. But the right hon. gentleman the member for Car lisle held language upon this subject last night which confess I did not clearly understand. The authority of the right hon. baronet ought to be considerable on this subject , and I should like to know, because I value his opinion, what he meant when he alluded to our policy on this question- With the exception of the gallant admiral the member for Southwark and the hon. member for Birmingham, he is almost the only member who has spoken in this debate that has alluded to the unusual acts of the Government in rela tion to our national defences. The right hon. gentleman said that there might be a public necessity which justified our measures, and he was not prepared to deny that they were necessary. But then he afterwards went on to condemn the bounty as impolitic and imprudent. Will the right, hen gentleman allow use to tell him that these two opinion; are irreconcilable the one with the other. If the policy . was ne cessary, the bounty was necessary, and I tell the right hon. gentleman that without the bounty, we should not have beau able to carry out our policy. The right hon. gentleman felt into some decided errors on this subject in his speech of last night, and one of those errors was his statement that. the issue of the bounty would be fatal to the continuous service system; for how, said he, can you expect men to enter for continuous service when they know that at any moment a bounty may be offered to them to enter ? Now, I am happy to tell the right hon. gentleman that he never fen into a greater mistake. The continuous service _oyster ° was first begun in 1853, when it was introduced, much -to his honour, by the right hon. gentleman himself. In the first year after it was adopted the average numbe r of nuln that entered the continuous service per month was 1, 18e} 1855 it fell to 800; in 1856 it fell further to 600 ; ~ to 400 ; in 1858 it had fallen as low as to an average of 309 per month. The bounty was first offered in May, and I o can n. tell the right hon. baronet how many men entered for t a in f 3 u o or th sezice we d re utn o b fa er r g le t s ha s t t h m an on l th ,s . 93 l ni ns e te n ad of men who have entered for continuous service 2Ln• continuous service, and up to the present time the iluni e b% w o h f o t h en e te n iV c n 1 to the con struction, the bounty has acted as a s . e tell the right hon. 477. (Loud cheers.) So that instead of p us roving the de , Urinous service system. And now let m house will recollect that when I moved the navy estimates in the course of last session, I proposed to raise 5,000 tional seamen. During the wh ole of the month of AP ril addl. that unaer tne oia system the number of additional seaman entered the navy, after deducting those who from Varlould 111_; causes retired, amounted only to six. (Hear, hear.) Co we have gone on under such a system as that—(loud cheers ) —while there was a war in Europe, and wi th all the press ing necessity which in consequence arose fo r the increase of our naval defences? (Cheers.) We resorted to the bounty, and instead of an increase of six, the increase in the month of May was nearly 3,000, and up to this time the increase is about 4,000. I must here answer an in q uir9 the gallant admiral. The proportion of able-bodied sea men who have entered is, in round numbers , about 90 per cent. (" Hear, hear," from Sir C. Napier.) lam hapPY to tell the gallant admiral something else. The en tries of landsmen, as they are called, are of the ver y best descrip tion. Many of them are boatmen, men otherwise accus tomed to the sea ; and I have the best reports from the car tains of the now ships, that though the crews are of course undisciplined, yet they consist of the finest material and: will make the very best description of men-of-war' I m menust .. tell him that we have now 24 sail o f the line, and 12 frigates In answer to another question of th e g allant admiral, of the largest class in commission. They are now divided between the Mediterranean and the Channel. We are about to increase the Mediterranean portion of them, but that will not affect the general state of things. The gallant admiral also asked if our force now in commission exceeded that of the French. Now, Ido not like comparisons. I would:look rather to positive statements. The French are not the XIV naval power with which we may be called to contend -- (hear, hear)—but in answer to the inquiry of the gallant ad miral, I may tell him that our ships of war in commission; are considerably greater than the French. (Cheers.) .t&na that is not the limit to which we intend to go. And new, sir, let me ask the gallant admiral a plain question. W: 11 . 4 course is he going to take to-night ? (Loud cheers.) Is 110 going to talathe line of a frank-hearted sailor or is he going to take the line of a disingenuous partisan. (Loud and pro longed cheering.) He told us the other nig t with perfeoU truth— I agree with him, and I am sure the public will! agree with him—that party questions are nothing ; that an £8 or £6 borough franchise was nothing w hen compared in importance with the defences of England. (Lond_oh a efr e s e .) He knows what those defences were when we . took office he knows what they are know ; and if there is rifyi known in this house to whom, from his langu to in use —if there is a man to whom I have a right ap p eal , that he will support the Govern consistency and honour, opinions—from everything he has saidagand done in this ho merit on the groun of the country, that m an is the gallant admiral. (Trerpen dof what they have done for the defences w ith which they . have heard these o b servati ons. I hop e and dons cheering.) S ir, I thank the house for the patience • trust that the spir it in which they have been spoken will not be misrep resen t e d or misunderstood: I have felt it due -to my colleagues to state the efforts they have made for the defences of England. It may suit your purpose to alter the i ssu e, but the common se nse a nd the common feeling of the ) country will be against you. It is absurd at a moment when '4 , war is raging in Europe—when no man can tell how soe'll a spark may reach this country—it is absurd to say th at j u dging of the conduct of the Government you will ex' elude this subject from your consideration. Hon. gentle men opposite may try to shun it, but the feeling of the country will not allow them. I have done my duty asking the House of Commons to support a government that has made these efforts, and I am i n diff e rent as to the result. If a majority of this house shall vote in favour of the amendment I shall have the satisfaction of feeling that I shall hand over the navy of Englan d f DIY successor in a very different state from that which I found it—(tremendous cheering)—and I shill have the .“--- .4. " 4 h ° ! satisfaction of feeling that, whatever party disci.pline or party efforts may accomplish in this house, if a majority: this house shall support the amendment, I may with ee • fidence appeal to the British public from their decision (Great cheering.) o f the Lord J. RUSSELL—I Must say that the tone right hon. gentleman who has just sat downia, eenai d - eril - 16 deo the circumstances in which we stand , somewhat e - t nary. Her Majesty's Ministers advised her Majeity of solve Parliament at a critical time , and in the raids to portant business, in order t o tr y the question whether her Majesty's Ministers had or ha d not the confidence o f r hoon er liament and the country. The Parliament havill g6 t.r The representatives returned he re proposed imraedia_ . e I t _s ; put to the test the question which her Maj ue thus dissolved, the elections too k p lace upon this cl They are ready declared was really the question at iss ue. her Majesty' s esty's Mi to declare that they have not confidencehitnhon. gentleman Ministers, and in taking this step the rig the whole calls us a faction. (Cheers.) hon. gentleman really expect ? Did he mean .an to the questi country should give but o ne answer was so 1 self to it. Did he mean to say that their wisdom t there evident that nothing could indupeophpoonsiti n g 8 _ but the spirit of faction..gentlemen MM., Why, what did the right to have a very But I think it may be permitted superior merits. if mistaken , to take a different TICK beta of this house, even high estimate right o his and hi . s tte c d oll th ea ra g n e : gentleman expresse h Well, the rig exposed to the charge of faction. ou t being Nowt gentleman asks us to forward our charg es. 'on. to make any eh ri 6 v"' from that wh ich the right hon. in order to establish the validity of this 11U , d a b 't hold that it i s at all necessary au2e w hatever House of (Ana words used by Mr. Burke when he said the but it went. I thought that question was settled in a few_ was also a council of weight and wisdom to advis, If 7 . "; • at this erne a: mons was not only a court competent to criminate,__ ht not to be plaeea time that the destinies of the country ong ly corape • " ters 15 sure the House of Commons be opinion in the hands of the present mi nist er s , u. , ffear.) when tent for this house to declare that opi a nto_ t the administratieop: strong and efficient administration,._, d nan but a week to produce th tr . against which he move Mr. S. Wortley in 1812 prop9sed policy which they recomrqe:cte measures, and to state the .e on a the consideration tn t a l to But that step was justified ead of affairs were not equal So men who were then at h they were required to s o t_ anddress in favour of the emergenc uon wre _ e little ourprieed at the lenguab.. motion.. I confess I aril P , as to the proprietY much far the constitutional rul I ;