The Sun. — London, England, 1854-05-30 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESJ)AY EVENING, MAY 30, 1854. orm the Court of Chancery. (Hear, hear, hear.) We wanted to bring in measures to reform the Court of Chan cery, and the noble lord and his friends opposed. They said, " You are going to reform the Court of Chancery upon the eve of a dissolution of Parliament; this must ne ver be." (Hear, hear.) But the good spirit and high feeling of the house rendered that opposition futile, and enabled us to carry those important measures which had been introduced by Lord St. Leonards in another place. (Hear, hear.) Now, I ask the house, was not the reform of the Court of Chancery a most important object ? (Hear, hear.) The country is indebted for that measure not to the distinguished statesman opposite, but to the Govern ment which from the first moment he opposed with every artifice of faction. (Hear.) And I ask the house, suppose the reform of the Court of Chancery had not been accom plished by Lord Derby, would you by this time have had that object achieved by the Government of "all the ta lents"—this Government which makes such enormous pro feasions, and accomplishes such alight results? (Hear, hear.) Look at the distinguished and gifted beings before me —what have they done at all equal to the establish. ment of a militia on the voluntary principle and to the re form of the Court of Chancery? There was another mea sure which we proposed and did not succeed in carrying, and which is very appropriate to the discussion of this evening. (Hear, hear.) There were certain vacant seats, occasioned by the disfranchisement of certain boroughs, which, year after year, had never been filled up. The Go vernment of Lord Derby came forward, and made a large, and enlightened, and liberal proposition to thishtt ru s our. They laid down a principl e which the noble lord . f has since adopted f o r hi s o wn Reform Bill. (Hear, h ear.) They said that you should give those forfeited se ats to grea t counties which were not su ffi ciently re presented, and they proposed to give them to the West Riding of Yorkshire and to Lancashire. (Oh, oh, and laughter.) How were we opposed ? We were opposed with all the sanctimonious rhetoric of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hoar , and oh. oh.) He said, " God forbid that you should ho per mitted—a Government upon sufference—to introduce a measure of Parliamentary reform. This Government must possess much stronger proofs of the confidence of the house before we allow the seats which have been taken from St. Albans and Sudbury to be appropriated to the intelligence and population of the north of England. (Hear, hear.) No; you must wa it. You must have a Government that you have confidence in." I suppose that the vision of a perfect reformed Government passed before the prescient and pro phetic glance of the right hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Yet what have you got in th e way o f Parlia mentary reform from " the Government of all the talents ?" (Laughter.) Would you have been suffering much,if Lan cashire and Yorkshire had been more fully represented? Yet there, in the political dusthole, lie Sudbury and St. Albans still, while the Government is unable to deal with the other tainted seats which have been brought before the house to-night. (Heat) Well, then, says the noble lord, "You brought forward financial measures and failed." It is true that we brought forward financial measures which we , could not carry, but we did that which I think it was our part to do—which will always be my part, at least when I have the misfortune to propose measures and fail ; for I will never be a minister upon sufferance. (Cheers.) What was the conduct of the present Government with respect to those financial measures? (Hear.) Tak 3 the great and leading features of those measures—take the declaration on our part that there should be a difference recognised in the imposition of the income tax between permanent and pro fessional incomes. That was a point upon which the noble lord declared his conviction that it was a most dangerous principle of finance. (Hear, hear.) Yet, what did he do ? he became a member of a Government which intro (heed and carried a graduated income tax—a measure which could only be passed on the pretence that it was an ultimate measure, and that matters would be so arranged as that the income tax, after a certain period, should no longer be levied. But what are you now doing? Why, you have a war, and you raise your principal supplies for carry ing on that war by a graduated income tax—that most pernicious • and dangerous of all financial propositions. (Hear, and a laugh.) Yet the assertions of a principle in our financial scheme, which was but a principle of justice could not be tolerated by the noble lord—who yet became a member of a Government by which a graduated income tax was introduced and passed. (Hear.) Well, sir, what did the noble lord next? Under what circumstances did he allow himself to join that Government? The noble lord had said before that he made a verygre, t sacri fie°. He parted from the colleagues who had an his life been faithful to him, to take into his bosom those ancient foes who had passed their lives in depreciating his talent, and decrying his eminent ability. The noble lord, I may say, broke up the very being of that great historic party, the confidence of which ought not to have been less precious to him than the favour of his Sovereign. (Hear, hear.) What did he do this for ? Not from any spirit of faction, not from any spirit of political jealousy, or of political envy of Lord Derby, or any one else—(hear, hear) —but because ho was devoted to great principles, and resolved to carry great measures—the great measure of education, for example— to carry great measures of education. That was his reason for breaking up an ancient and an honourable party, con nected by association with the glory of this country. There were other great measures which were not so pressing —the reform of this house, for example, and the accom plishment of the religious lib er ty o f th e coun t ry. (H ear. ) Well, we know what happened to that great scheme of Government which the noble lord brought forward last year. I do not know whether it was defeated or with drawn. I believe it evaporated while the noble lord was making his exposition of it to the house. (Hear, hear.) So wise and statesmanlike wan that measure—so amply did it justify the confidence which was reposed in its author, that I believe it never was brought under formal discussion and deliberation in this house. But the noble lord, who is a man of inexhaustible resources, rallies on the question of education this year, and tries his great' scheme in one part only of the United Kingdom. (Hear, hear.) That scheme has been ignominiously de feated in this house, of which he is the leader. (Hear.) Well, sir. the noble lord, who has been for three years, as I have already said, besieging the House of Commons, and who took,. nevertheless, the whole of last year to mature a measure on the subject of Parliamentary reform, has brought forward such a measure during the present session. What caused the failure of that measure? (Hear, hear.) I believe that the noble lord must look for his opponents must probably among those new allies with whom he now concerts. (Hear, hear.) We witrieised the emotion of the noble lord when he had to come forward in the House of Commons, and to announce the relinquishment of his favourite scheme. (Hear.) Seine were inclined to treat that ebulition with indifference, or with mockery—(oh, oh) — and some to attribute it to the lower feelings and senti ments of our nature—(loud cries of " oh, oh")—I was not. (Hear.) I expressed at the time what I sincerely felt, and reflection has never for a moment made me regret. (Hear.) I could easily understand how a person of the noble lord's temperament might be so affected, and I felt that the tune of Parliament was raised and elevated by it than the re verse. (Hear.) But I cannot forget—at least, when the noble lord attacks me as he has to-night—that he has made that measure one of the reasons for the strange and equi vocal position which he now occupies in the Government of her Majesty. (Hear.) There was still another measure which might have induced him to linger at his post, but with reference to which he met last Friday night with the mdst signal and complete discomfiture. I was asking—when I made the few remarks, which I little thought would lead to this discussion—l was asking what prospect the Govern ment had when they introduced, or promised to introduce, these bills, of being able to carry them through Parliament. hear.) I might ask the noble lord further, what are the relations now existing between him and the Government of which he is a member? (Hear, hear.) All the great measures to which he made what I admit were costly sa crifices, have been defeated, yet the noble lord still retains - his post. (Hear, hear.) The most eminent statesman of this country—one of the oldest and most experienced members of this house—one who has been thrice Secretary of State, Secretary of State in each department, and who was Prime Minister of England for a long time—one who is associated with the memory of a great principle, believed by large bodies of the people of this country, and who was the leadec-of a noble historic party—without a department, condescends to accept subordinate office, under one who is not only a Minister not entitled to the confidence of the country —(immense cheering)—but who was his ancient and inveterate political opponent, and whom, only four years ago, he rose and denounced in this house—he talks of "connivance" now—as a "conniver" with foreign con spirators— (hear, hear)—and now the noble lord comes down and tells me that this vote the other night, which he admits was an overwhelming defeat, was caused by my being false to the principles which I profess in this house. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord said that I pretend to be an asserter of the claims of the Jews to political equality with the other subjects of her Majesty, and that I have made that a convenient political scheme—that when the occasion suited me I went out, and did not vote, and when on the occasions I found it convenient to vote against it, lalid not hesitate to do so. (Hear, hear.) Now I gave to that statement of the noble lord the most un equivocal and most unqualified denial. (Hoar, hear.) I deny that I ever a b sented myse l f a t any per i o d of my life from any division in which the rights of the Jews were concerned. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord, who is the leader of the House of Commons, and who ought not to make such a statement of any man—least of all of me—on such a subject, ought to have informed himself better before he made such a statement. (Hear, hear.) Suppose I were to get up and say that the noble lord had made Parliamentary reform a mere political convenience. (Hear, hear)—that when it suited him he matte it convenient to quit the h ouse an d no t vote at al l , and t h at when i t su i ted him also, he would have to give a vote against it. (Hear.) Perhap s I coiourable e. mi ght, without much ingenuity, make out a very But I ase of that kind against the noble lord. (Hear.) the noble shouldlord acorn to do it. (Hear.) I am convinced that with res pect to sincere in the opinions which ho professes ag.ainA the Parliamentary reform, and that if he voted by Lord Derby'sme asures of Parliamentary reform introduced he was bound 0 gov ernment, it was because he felt that which he wished :o t by his obligations to those principles can make no coloiirt successful. But the noble lord hear.) I repeat that le case a4ainst me. (Hear, division in which the right s absented myself from any s of the Jews were concerned, and if I voted aeaiust the other night, I tell the noble lord that I do not conbsill which would have benefitted the tj?.at I voted against a bill , v i t but I voted against a bill which I believed would have e g reater injury to the Jew than any other measure that(liZe.eegver been brought forward. I will say no more. I will and surprise that the gentleman profeszslinregss my sorrow Catholic religion in this house should have deeme d ' Ron:L con sistent with their duty and their interest to eniiirttatvhat measure. (Hear.) I am confident they never vote more likely to injure them in the opinion of tOgreettat body of the people of this country—or having a stronger weaken their own posivrtioenli,,thsiarn, t l li b e e v l o ie t v e e wl t i h ich t tendency to the gave that night. (Hear.) the noble lord had no c ommun ication, in dir . ect for indirect, with the Roman Catholic body, onler t _ dintgheorcwoavdthuat bill. (Hear.) I am quite convinc ed . h have recommended it. I eta co nvinced t _t e hatg y entlern en n ot noble lord had their acuteness must have seen th a t h_ some other object, besides benefiting t_hehEatolmnaany have e h b ol e i e c n s or the Jaws, in bringinj in that bill. W the object, it is not for me to inquire; brit I have my own opinion upon it. And I believe that the noble lord was _ aeLced 8.)1ely influence by counsellors who hare already his position, and who will net rest from their end ay: ine. nrs until they have permanently sullied his illustrious n This I tell the noble lord. I have endeavoured to vindi cate myself from the attack he made upon ma. A nd I must repeat—because the subject is one upon which I Jo not wish to be misunderstood—that the noble lord was never more mistaken—unintentionally, no doubt—than when h e says I ever left the house when a question which concerned the claims of the Jews was under its consider ation. (Cheers.) Sir GEORGE GREY ; I wish I could believe that the course which has been taken upon this occasion was calcu lated to elevate the tone or the character of this house. (Hear, hear.) I certainly had hoped, from the tone of the observations made by the hon. and learned member for Stamford, that the withdrawal of these bills would not have been made the occasion for party discussion, or for acrimo nious debate—a debate which cannot lead to the decision df the house, uppon any of the questions put in issue by the right hon. gentleman opposite. The tone of the lion, and learned gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger) was such as became the occasion, and after the discussion had been carried on for some time in the same spirit, and in the same tone. evincing a desire upon the part of the house to put an end to the corruption out of which these bills had arisen, the right hon. gentleman got up, and made a violent and un provoked attack upon my noble friend the member for the city of London—(hear, hear, no, no, and some confusion) — who, upon that question, had no opportunity of replying, but who did reply, when the question for the withdrawal of the next bill came to be put, in obedience to the order of the house, in a tone of moderation which afforded no gratification whatever for that further attack which the right hon. gentleman has made, with that vehemence of manner and of gesture and with that acrimony of tone and of language, of which he has unfortunately, in past times, given us so many examples. lam not going to follow the right hon. gentleman into an examination of the measures which he calls assaults upon the constitution. I rise in con sequence of the taunt which he has thrown out against my noble friend for occupying the position he does, and for giving to the Government of Lord Aberdeen the benefit— and a great benefit it is—of the high position which he oc cupies in the estimation of the country and of this house - position which, I am sure, none of the invectives of the right hon. gentleman can inthe least degree impair. The right hon. gentleman has accusal my noble friend of throwing over his colleagues, and of a tenacity in clinging to office, to which I think his past life is the best answer. (Cheers.) I trust that, when the right hon. gentleman has been as long In Parliament, and as long before the country as my noble friend, he will be held in as great esteem as my noble friend is now. I can only say that my noble friend did me the honour of consulting me, as one of his former colleagues, when the present Government was formed, and that his acceptance of his present position in that Government had my .hearty, and sincere, and cordial concurrence. I felt —and I believe others of his late colleagues felt the same thing —not only that he would shrink from the public duty which he owed the country, if he allowed any private feeling to interfere with his taking a share in the Govern ment, but that in consenting to take that share he would be rendering an important service to the country. When the right hon. gentleman talks of separation from his col leagues, it is fair to refer to the uniform support which those colleagues have generally given to my noble friend and to the Government of which he is a member ; and when he says that the Government of Lord Aberdeen does not possess the confidence of the country, I say it is most degrading to the party of which the right hon. gen tleman is a member to make these assertions night after night, and to shrink from putting them to the test by ap pealing directly to the house. (Hear, hear.) Colonel PEEL—I trust the house will allow me to say a. few words. Unaccustomed as lam to take part in its discussions, sitting always upon this side of the house, and entertaining Conservative opinions, which render it impos sible for me to give my support to the present Government, I never will be a party to these attacks, made to weaken their power to carry on the war. So far from thinking they have been guilty of connivance or credulity, I, for one, give them my entire support in everything connected with the war; and both in their financial measures and in every other necessary arrangement, they may rely upon receiving every assistance from me. (Hear, hear.) . The question was then put and agreed to. On the motion to withdraw the third bill (that for King ston-upon-Hull), Lord J. RUSSELL said, I very much regret that there should be any necessity for my addressing the house again, but after the charges which the right hon. gentleman has made, and the assertions in which he has indulged him self with respect to my conduct, I feel I cannot be altogether silent when I have an opportunity of replying to the asser tions he has made. Let me say, however, in the first place, that if I have done the right hon. gentleman any wrong with respect to his absenting himself from voting, or to any vote given by him on the subject of Jewish rights, I heartily regret having fallen into any error on the subject. I could refer to a division [so we understood] at which he was not present, according to my memory, upon the subject, but 1 do not wish to enter into that kind of controversy. I am quite persuaded that the right hon. gentleman in tended to servo the cause of the Jews in the course that he has taken, and I therefore will not enter into any dispute on that subject. (Hear, hear.) But when he accuses me Of factious opposition to Lord Derby's Government, and attacks me for taking part in the present Government, I must be allowed to question the facts on which the right hon. gentleman relies, and to deny the inference that he has drawn. (Hear, hear.) He accuses me of ma ki ng a factious opposition to Lord Derby's Government, and of founding that opposition on the Militia Bill. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, far from founding it on the Militia Bill, 1 did not seek the support of any of the party to which I belong on the subject of that bill. (Hear, hear.) I came, with much deliberation, and after much doubt, to the con clusion that that measure was not a good measure, that it was a far inferior measure to that which I had introduced, and I voted against the second reading, stating at the same time that I should take no part in the committee. (Hear.) I adfered 'to that determination, and so far from having, as the right honourable gentleman has said, perti naciously opposed the measure in committee, I took no further part in the proceedings than making a single ob servation on a question which arose in the course, of the discussion ; and upon one occasion, when there was only a majority of fourteen with respect to an essential part of the bill, I purposely absented _myself from the house, and did not give my vote. (Hear.) But what I did ob ject to wa4the new principle stated and started by Lord Derby—that, not having the confidence of the existing Parliament, he would not appeal to a new Parliament ; and that, for a period of ten or eleven months, he proposed to carry on the Government without the confidence of the house. (Hear.) I objected certainly to that course, and Lord Derby was himself at last obliged to confess that the Parliament must be dissolved as soon as the business could be disposed of which it was absolutely necessary to get through. Never was there so unconstitutional a prin ciple, founded as that which was at first avowed by Lord, Derby, and till that principle was disclaimed in both I houses of Parliament I denounced, as I had a right to de nounce, his ministry as a ministry standing upon uncon ' stitutional grounds, and I declared that they were bound either to have the confidence of the House of Commons or not to remain in office. But the right hon. gentleman says, with regard to the course I took at that time, that I constantly opposed his Government. Sir, I did not often attend the house at that .time; sometimes I voted with them, and that at times when they were in considerable difficulties ; sometimes I voted against them. But I mast tell the right hon. gentleman that that which injured the Government of which he was a principal member was their own conduct. (Cheers.) It was .the manner in which they carried on the Government of the country—it was the mode in which they attempted to obtain a majority in Parliament which destroyed - confidence in them and finally ruined their power. (Loud cheers.) Well, but says the right hon. gentleman, I opposed his plan of finance on the ground that it made a difference in the impost between different sources of income. (Hear.) Sir, I did state that I had doubts upon the subject, and that the proposi tion was entirely new. Sir, I took no part in the de bate by which his Government was overthrown; but when it was overthrown, a serious question offered itself to my mind, and I was obliged to give a deci sion upon it. The question was—having taken a part in connection with other parties in the overthrow of that Government, whether or not I could take a part in the Government which was about to be formed. I do not hesi tate to say that if I had thought a Government could have been formed, either by myself or by other parties, without a junction between different parties in politics, which Go vernment could hope to be strong in the confidence of the House of Commons, I would rather that the Government should have been formed of one party only, than that the Government should be formed of different parties who had not hitherto worked together. Bat when I came to consider the position in which I might be placed, should her Ma jesty—which from some intimation I received I had reason to think might be the case—should her Majesty have sent for me to ask my advice on that occasion, could I form a Government which was likely to obtain a permanent ma jority in the House of Commons? Could Lord Aberdeen, with the assistance of Sir R. Peel's friends, have formed such a Government? Lord Aberdeen thought that was impossible. He has frequently declared to me he thought that was impossible. The Government' of Lord Derby had - just been defeated, after every means had been taken— means, upon the character of which I will not now enter —but after every means had been taken to secure a majo rity, that Government was not able to command a majo rity in the House of Commons. Was I then to contribute to bring Parliamentary Government into discredit ? (Loud cheers.) Was it not my duty, by every means in my power, to enable Lord Aberdeen to form a Government which would have the confidence of the House of Com mons ? (Loud cheers.) Sir, on this subject I did not act alone. I did not betray, nor desert, nor surrender the confidence of that great party with which was associated (Great cheering.) My right lion. friend who has just spoken has given his testimony to the fact that I did not desert them ; and I may add, that the man whom I naturally went to consult on that occasion, was not one who bad con stantly been my enemy—one in whom I had no political confidence—the man whom I went to consult was my Lord Lansdowne—(cheers)—and I found with him a right hon. friend of mine, as distinguished for his talents, as distin guished for his character, as any member of this house or of his party. I mean Mr. Macaulay. (Cheers.) I think I betray no confidence when I state what passed on that occasion. I asked Lord Lansdowne, supposing that Lord Aberdeen has a summons from her Majesty to form a Go vernment, whether he thought that I could be a member of the Cabinet with Lord Aberdeen—whether he thought it was myduty so to do. 'We discussed numerous contingen cies, and Lord Lansdowne ended 'by declaring that in his opinion it was my duty—a duty which I owed to the pub lic, to accept office under Lord Aberdeen. Mr. Macaulay expressed his opinion still more strongly. He said, " I know you are not afraid of responsibility—(loud cheers)--- but you never incurred a more awful responsibility than you will incur, if you do not lend your utmost assistance to form a Government on the present occasion." (Hear.) Sir, I consulted others—l consulted my sight hon. friend who has just spoken—and they were of opinion that it was my duty to form a Government which would unite the Whig party with the party of the remaining friends of Sir Robert Peel, who were then ready to accept office under Lord Aberdeen. (Hear, hear.) With regard to Lord Aberdeen, I must say that I have always been in habits of private friendship. I respected his public character; and when I had occasion to speak of his conduct in the Foreign office, in the administration of Sir R. Peel, I said that, though opposed in some respects to his administration, I could not find any occasion on which the honour or the inte rests of this country had evet been sacrificed by Lord Aber deen. (Cheers.) Such was my public testimony to his con duet a time when I was opposed to him. The right hon. Minister of I.' ) man chooses to say that at the time when I spoke of my noble friend the present Home Secretary as not being the Minister I f u Austria, or the Minister of Russia, or the did declare that a Prussia I alluded to Lord Aberdeen. Sir, I made no such sons in this country , 8 allusion ; I meant no such allusion ; but I spite of the whispers of a coterie of per sons I thought my formed chiefly, I believe, of foreign and not as tl noble friend. had acted as the Minister of England, and as such I defendePhlitinister of any foreign power, sentiment to this present hour . Policy. Sir, I retain that my noble friend, as Foreign Minister, cheers,) I think I very highest point, the interests thi s country; and as s of erlia uphold, to the • question was this• n". I defended him in 1849, so I would defend (Re newed cheese.) But the as I thought, it was impossible to form a Ministry 'co i n; Whig party—if it was impossible to formaposetief the composed of those who followed Sir R. Peel—if it was nis u tr n y wise, if not impossible, to leave the Government in the hands of's party which had not the confidence of the House of Commons, and which, in my opinion, did not deserve to have that c onfidence--(cheers)—there remained the ques tion whether those men who had acted together on the that for some years has divided Parr greatest question i amenf—l allude to the question between protection and free trade—whether the men who concurred on that ques tion might not be able to concur on other questions, and 'enter office together. To many of my former colleagues I office was not proposed; to 1501)40 of them ollice Was pro posed, and declined. But with regard to all of them— having acted with them through all my life—l felt sure that if there was formed a firm Government—if these par ties saw what they considered as a liberal course, adopted. —if they saw that liberal course tempered with that mode ration which had always characterised the Whigs as a party, and which was acknowledged and declared to be so by Mr. Burke—if they saw that these principles were the principles of Lord Aberdeen's Government—then, whether they held office or no themselves, no consideration would prevent them from as heartily and as willingly supporting the Government as if they had themselves a part in it. Sir, I have not been deceived in the hopes which I anticipated. I do, indeed, form part of an Administration, from which most of them have been excluded. The administration of Lord Aberdeen is formed, in great part, of those with whom he formerly acted. Since the Government has been formed, on all the general principles of domestic government we have been agreed. I cannot of course pretend, after what has passed to-night, that we have been generally suc cessful in the measures that we have proposed. But I think we are engaged at present in an extremely difficult task, apart from any measures of reform in Parliament — of alteration of oaths—Of dealing with corrupt practices at elections. Should I come to be of opinion that the conduct of the war cannot be safely left in the hands of the present Government—that the Government can not carry on the war with that vigour which makes war successful, and by which peace can alone be rendered safe and honourable to this country—l shall cease to be a member of the Government. But, considering that to be the immediate, great, and pressing question to this coun try, no taunts of the right hon. gentleman shall make me leave the post which I at present occupy— a post which, God knows, is one of far more labour and anxiety than of pleasure, profit, or emolument. (Loud cheers.) Unless I were convinced that the present Government is more likely than any other which can be formed to carry - on the war with success and to finish it by an honourable peace, I should cease to be a member of the Government. But as long as I remain under that impression, I trust that the house and the country will give a fair interpretation to my conduct. (Cheers.) I rely upon this country, knowing that, while most enlightened on general questions, yet it is occasion ally apt to be misled, now as in formar times, with regard to the conduct of public men, yet I rely upon the justice of this country, which has hardly ever failed in the end to construe rightly the actions of public men. (Loud cheers.) Mr. B. OSBORNE—Sir, I am convinced that the senti ments which fell from the hon. and gallant member for Huntingdon (Colonel Peel) have expressed the sense of the house upon those numerous matters which have been dragged into this debate—as Sancho Panza used to drag in his proverbs—by the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire, and I shall not attempt, after the speech of the noble lord the member for London, to follow that right hon. gentle Man through all those topics. A proper time for that will no doubt arrive, when I shall be able to show the house and the country that the statements of the right bon. gentleman are not so exactly correct as they would appear to be on his showing. But the right hon. gentleman—who has been, to uce his own expression, coined for the occasion, the Finance Minister of this coun try—has risen in his place and given an unqualiied and unconditional denial to an assertion of the noble lord with respect to a measure on which he is supposed to entertain sincere convictions. I think the right hon. gentleman had better refresh his mind previous to giving these unequi vocal contradictions. What are the facts of the case ? I shall not dilate on the right hon. gentleman's observations with respect to divisions—l shall not dilate upon the right hon. gentleman's studied silence, except upon one occasion —on what he calls his peculiar and mysterious feelings. We have seen the right hon. gentleman lurking, like a guilty spirit,' about the lobbies of this house while the de bate was proceeding. I have seen him myself when, to do him justice, he came down to vote for the Jews. But there was an occasion ; we find that in 1849 the right hon. gentleman was absent. That, however, might have passed. I should not have presumed to make a great point of his mere absence. But what will the house say when they find that the right hon: gentleman, who gives such an un qualified denial to the assertion of the noble lord, that on one occasion the right hon. gentleman, notwithstanding his peculiar and mysterious feelings on the subject, voted against, the bill ? (hear, hear.) I shall be happy to re fresh the right hon. gentleman, who is usually so accu rate, upon this subject. It was in 1850, on a motion that the house should pledge itself in the following session to take into its serious consideration the form of the oath of abjuration as it affected the Jews, with a view to relieve them from the disabilities under which they laboured. That was a pretty distinct motion for the right hon. gentleman to vote against—ho who complained that the Jews had not a form of oath to themselves—who insisted that Christianity was under such great obligations to the Jews that they ought to enter Parliament in a way peculiar to themselves. And yet upon that question the ayes were 142 and the pees were 192 ; and among the " noes" is to be found the name of the Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli. (Hear.) If the right hon. gentleman has strong feelings upon this subject—which I donbt—(cheers)-1; is bound to come down to the house and introduce dmeasure himself for the emancipation of the Jews. But how stands the case? He denies that he was ever absent from a division on the Jewish question. I have proved that he was not only ab sent. on one occasion, but that on another he actually voted against the measure. (" No," from Mr. Disraeli.) If this —(holding up " Hansard ")—is a misprint, then I retract —if it is not, then the right hon. gentleman has been mis informed in giving the denial he did. (Laughter.) I say to hit - e, in conclusion, if he wishes his name to be as dear to the country as he lately told the gazing public the noble lord's was, he had better not again hazard such rash asser tions as this. (Laughter.) Mr. DISRAELI—I do not mean to go again into this ar gument; but I must say at once that I never did absent myself frOm the house to avoid the Jewish question. The honourable gentleman has referred to one division in which my name does not appear. It is sufficient for me to say that, at that time, owing to a severe indisposition, I was absent for some time from Parliament. (Cheers.) Of course that was not what the noble lord meant to charge against me. His charge was, that I left the house to avoid the vote. With regard to the other point to which the honourable gentleman has alluded, it is impossible for me to rebut the charge without going back to the period. Mr. OSBORNE (reaching forward the volume)—Hand the right honourable gentleman the book. Mr. DISRAELI—I do not want to see the book. (Laugh ter.) It is easy for gentlemen to laugh, but that does not alter the facts of the case. I remember that at a morning sitting the question was discussed, and there were some twenty divisions, and I voted, I think, on every occasion with the noble lord; bat there were some cross divisions, when, it is possible, I may not have voted with the hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Admiralty. I remember very well there were a great number of divisions, and there was one resolution moved, I think, by Vice-Chancellor Sir Page Wood, that Baron Rothschild should now be ad mitted to take the oaths at the table. To that I objected, and, with the noble lord, I voted against the motion. I cannot be sure of the particular vote, but of this I am sure, that if the matter be investigated, what I have stated will be found to be substantially correct. (Cheers.) Mr. WALPOLE—I do not rise to interfere in this dis cussiOn, but I wish to make an observation on one or two points. The first is with regard to the last observation made by thehon. gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty. I have not looked through the division lists, but having watched pretty closely, and taken my share in all the dis cussions on this question, I think I may say, from recol lection, that the vote of my right honourable friend, to which the hon. gentleman alluded, was with reference to the question whether Baron Rothschild should thou take his seat in the house. (No, no.) I cannot be sure of the exact occasion; but I am bound to say this, whatever may have been the actual division, I know, certainly, that no one in this house is more sincere than my right hon. friend in his desire to obtain for the Jews admission to this house. I know that, in private as well as in public ; and though I have been opposed, and unfortunately shall bo always, I am afraid, opposed to my right hon. friend on this question, yet I know and am bound to declare that if there is one thing more than another for which my right hon. friend is entitled to the respect of both sides of the house, it is for the manly and honourable way—(cheers) —b. which he has come forward in the support of the Jewish race ; and I am bound to say that, if it were not for the manly support which he has given to that question, his position, if he had consulted his own interests, would have been higher—if it could possibly have been higher— than the position which he now occupies. (Cheer's.) But his friends have lost confidence in him because he stood by his principles, though they do not agree with him on that particular point, and they never will withdraw their confi dence from him if he pursues his course in the same manly and honourable way which he has hitherto done. (Cheers.) The other point on which I wish to make an observation is with reference to a sentiment which fell from the noble lord. The noble lord said that the reason why he opposed Lord Derby's Government was because that Government had acted in a manner which was unconstitutional, and in a different way from that in which any Government had previously acted in the history of this country. The noble lord, I think, will bear in mind the first debate which took place after Lord Darby's Government came into power. On that occasion I made is few remarks, pointing out the pe culiar position in which we stood. It was acknowledged that we had not a majority in the house at that moment ; and I said then what I say now, that the reason why Lord Derby was in power was, first, because the noble lord opposite had resigned ; and second, because ,there was no other party strbng enough to take the reins of power except the party of Lord Derby. I remember that I added—and I thought the observation was acquiesced in and approved of by the noble lord—that if the house had no confidence in Lord Derby's Government they might bring that question to a vote, and that it would be for us to consider, in case we were defeated on that vote, whether it would be incumbent upon us to resign office, or to take the sense of the country by a dissolution. I am sure I added that Lord Derby and his colleagues had no interest in remaining in power for a single moment, unless they had the confidence of Parliament. But I stoutly contended that the question of confidence had never been put to the house ; that we had pursued our measures, and that we had obtained majorities on every important occa sion ; that we were therefore doing nothing contrary to the constitutional responsibility of Ministers—that we were acting from a sense of what was due to Parliament and to the country ; and that we had no intention of holding office in any other manner than as the constitution prescribes. I believe the noble lord and his colleagues thought, down to the very time when the vote of Parliament was recorded against us, that it was a doubtful question whether we had the confidence of Parliament or not. Whether or not we deserved the confidence of Parliament during the limited period we remained in office, whether we conducted our selves in a manner that has or has not been beneficial to the country, history alone will determine; but this house, P think, will say that we walked in the paths of the constitution, and that the charge which the noble lord has brought against us is a charge which we have not de served. (Cheers.) Mr. BRIGHT—I shall not detain the house for many minutes. The discussion has bean more lively than it has been for some time past in consequence of the encounter between the noble lord and the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire. I will not say who has had the best of it, though I think the noble lord has not como out of the discus sion without soma scars. (Cheers and laughter.) I agree en tirely with what the noble lord says as to the motives with which he took office under Lord Aberdeen. Nothing that has happened, or can happen, will make me believe but that the noble lord accepted office from the influence of motives which were highly honourable to him. At the same time it is impossible to disguise the fact that the elements of the Government were such, and to this day continue such, as to prevent th e formation of a Government that can act for the welfare of the country. I recollect an ingenious gen tleman, and one too who was a great friend of the noble lord, expressing his opinion that the present Government would get on admirably if they only avoided politics. (Laughter.) And that is the course which the Govern ment has pursued. One great question has been settled— a question which had for years divided parties in this • country—l mean the question of free trade, and all those questions that turned upon it, Koh all related 0 the repeal , of taxes whenever there was a surplus. Accordingly, on all such questions as those the Government succeeded ad mirably in their administration, because thero was no dif ference of opinion in the Cabinet ; the questions had been thoroughly settled, and the Ohmic - 11er of the Exchequer, in the last session, and even in the present session, had, upon the whole, been very successful. Ido not refer to those measures which have been so much talked of in the City, but on all questions that relate to taxes taken off or taxes imposed. On all these subjects the Chancellor of the Ex chequer was the salvation of the Government ; and as far as his measures have been tubmitted to the house this ses sion, he has carried them by large majorities. But on all other matters the Government has been unable to advise, or to lead, or to control the house. (Cheers.) It is clear that the noble lord, who by courtesy is called the leader, does not lead this house, and the house does not follow him. (Laughter.) The legislative measures, which he has offered to the house have not been accepted in a friendly spirit, though many of them are good measures, they have, unfortunately, been kicked out by large majorities. With regard to the last measure of the noble lord which was rejected—the Oaths Bill—l agree entirely with the noble lord. I thought the bill he introduced an admirable bill—of course, putting aside my own particular objec tions to oaths of all kinds. lam amazed that any mem ber sitting on this side, of the house should have voted against that bill. (Cheers.) I think it is a discredit to their intellect and judgment. The oath which the noble lord proposed to substitute appeared to me to include everything which the most greedy lover of swearing could wish to be included in it ; but, notwithstanding, it is true that the bill was thrown out. The noble lord cannot, then, in any sense in which the term was bestowed upon his pre decessors, be considered as the leader of this house. (Cheers.) But if the Government of Lord Aberdeen, which I have no doubt was formed on the most patriotic principles—if the noble lord who, Ihave no doubt, entered that Government with - the most honourable views, finds, after seventeen months' experience, that it is a failure—if he finds that the whole promises which were held out with regard to what was to be done in Parliament for this coun try by a union of men who had hitherto been separated in politics— if all these promises have failed, then I am not sure if it is not the duty of the noble lord and his collea gues—who are, doubtless, as patriotic now as they were sixteen months ago—to form other combinations, which may be more successful.' (Cheers and laughter.) The right hon gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire has made a -fair defence of his Government, I must say, though I voted against him when his budget was overthrown, and when the ministry, of which he was so distinguished a member, fell—yet I gave my vote, and I have never con cealed my feelings either in public or in private, with great reluctance, not because I thought the budget of the right hon. gentleman was fair in itself; but because I did not see in the then circumstances of the country auy direct ad vantage that would result from the overthrow of that Go vernment. But the Government was overthrown, and the first adverse vote was followed by their resignation of office. But if the right hon. gentleman bad only been reckless enough to involve this country in a labyrinth of interminable negotiations, or in negotiations which were only terminable by ,the calamity of a war that were more interminable still, the right bon. gentleman might have been Chancellor of the Exchequer at this mo ment. (Cheers.) On the theory of the noble lord, the majority of 19, by which the Government of the right hon. gentleman was overthrown, was not more decisive than that which threw out the late measure of the noble lord; but if they had involved us in war—if they had undertaken the responsibility of this great calamity—it would then have been the duty of Government, and the noble lord would himself have said, As you have got us into this war, you must get us out of it if you can—you must take the respon sibility of the war on your own shoulders. That is the con dition to which we are driven. We have a Government which is far from advising, or leading, or posseesing the confidence of the House of Commons ; and lam extremely sorry for it, because many of their measures aro wise and just; but still they tell the House of Commons that it is absolutely necessary they should remain in office, because they have involved this country in war, and that it is very inexpedient in the present state of things that they should quit the service of the Sovereign. (Cheers.) Well, I do not say there is no force in this argument, that when men have involved the country in war, it is fit that they should have the responsibility of conducting it. But see what a pernicious principle that is to advance in the House of Commons. Because, let a Minister be ever so reckless, ever so unprincipled, ever so unpatriotic, yet by a course of concealed and misunderstood diplomacy, let him involve this country in difficulties with a foreign country, and then we are told thatethe majorities of this house go for nothing —that reform bills, corruption bills, oaths bills, settlement bills—all that in ordinary times were thought necessary , for the welfare of the country—all these are to go for no thing now—we may not be able to pass a single measure except those which have reference to the imposition of taxes—but as we have led this. country into a war, Parlia ment must support us, and all other measures must be de ferred. (Loud cheers.) Sir, I have a liberty to speak on this question because I have from the first denounced the course which the noble lord has pursued, and which has ended by involving us in war. Lord. Stratford de Redcliffe in Constantinople, and the noble lord and his colleagues in this house, have led us into these difficulties, and it now appears that not only legislative measures, but our very Parliamentary system itself, is to be the sacrifice. (Loud cheers.) Ido not want the noble lord to resign. I do not want Lord Aberdeen to resign. No man has ever heard mo say a single word against Lord Aberdeen. I believe that if that noble lord had been at the head of a Cabinet partaking in his own views we should have had no war. (Hear, and laughter.) And from all I have seen of Lord Aberdeen since he took office, I have never seen but that ho is as liberal in all matters of internal policy, and in all the measures which he is incline .1 to lay before the house and the country, as aay other member of the Cabinet. Be lieving, as I do, that this war is unnecessary and unjust, and fearing that while it threatens to undermine and de stroy the constitution of Turkey, it is likely to destroy also the constitution of this country, I cannot think thl.t the question which has been raised between the hon. gentleman and the noble lord is as onesi.led as some members on this side of the house appear to think. (Cheers.) I confess, look ing to the future, T can gee nothing clearly defined as to the foreign policy of this country. We are engaged in a war for objects on which the Government has never yet conde scended to enlighten us, and as to the terms on which peace is to be procured no one has any idea—we have an ally who was denounced by members of the present Cabinet not more than 18 months ago, and who is in possession and will shortly be in possession, of no fewer than four Euro pean capitals—Paris, Rome, Athens, and Constantinople. (Hear, hear.) And seeing that all this has been brought about what I believe to be the mistaken and mischievous policy of the noble lord and his colleagues, I see no ground for the noble lord calling for the confidence of this house, or for the continued support and approbation of the country. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. PAKINGTON—I do not rise for the continuance of this debate, though I agree with the hon. member for Manchester that the noble lord had come out of it but not without scars. (Cheers.) I shall not, however, continue the discussion, but, as a member of Lord Derby's Govern ment, I am content to leave the question where it is— thanking my right hon. friend the member for Bucking hamshire for the able, spirited, and, I think, triumphant vindication of the Government of which we were members. (Loud cheers.) I must say that I think a - very small por tion of the house will agree with the hon. and gallant member for Huntingdon, who spoke of the attacks made upon the noble lord. I think that all who heard, and all who may read this debate, will feel that the attacks were from the noble lord himself—(cheers)— that the attack was made by the noble lord, not only on the Government of Lord Derby, but upon my right hon. friend personally, in consequence of his having made, in language temperate, but which the occasion justified, some observations on the extraordinary position in which the noble lord and his Government were placed, having abandoned half their measures, and being defeated on the other half. (Hear.) I think the country will feel the full force of those obser vations which have fallen from the hon. member for Man chester, that the noble lord and his Government nosy condescend to stand in a position, with respect to every question which now arises, which the noble lord appre hended might come in 1852, and which he thought was deserving of con sider ation, whether the Parliamentary ill here leave the duel - between the noble lord and my right hon. friend, in which I think that the hon. me mber for Manchester is right in saying that the wounds h ave been sustained by the noble lord. into discredit of this by it. country was w brought was not in d anger o f b e i ng My immediate object in rising— nd I must request the attention of the house to that object—is to make some ob servations upon this ungenerous, unjust, and absolutely unfounded language of the hon. Secretary for the Achill ralty—(hear, hear)—with regard to the personal conduct of my right hon. friend , Mr. Disraeli. The house is always just in personal qu estions, and I mu q uite sure that the y will not now refuse their attention to the few words which lam about to say to them--not arguments of mine, but appealing to unanswerable facts with regard to the charge which the honourable Secretary for the Admiralty has endeavoured to cast upon my right honourable friend. I hope that honourable member is is his place. Tho division to which the honourable gentleman referred took place on the fth August, 1.850. The motion submitted to the house was this : " That the Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild is not en titled to vote in this honse, or to sit in this house during any debate until he shall take the oath. (" No. no ; that is the amendment.") Honoureble gentlemen will be kind enough to be patient. I can easily understand they may be very sorry to have this little phantom that has been raised upset—(no, no) ;—but if they will do me the favour to listen to me I will undertake to show that I am right. This was the motion • submitted to the house, and this was the main subject of discussion "That the Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild is not entitled to vote in this house, or to sit in this house during any debate, until he shall take the oath of abjuration in the form appointed by law." Upon that motion an amendment was moved. I found that at least three divisions upon the general question took place, and tho last was upon a motion made—l apprehend resulting from the failure of the first motion submitted to the house—the motion ultimately was this : " That this house will, at the earliest opphrtunity in the next session of Parliament, take into its serious consideration the form of the oath of abjuration, with a view to relieve her Ma jesty's subje c t s p ro f ess ing the. Jewish religion." The house divided, " Ayes, .142 ;" " noes" against this proposition binding the house to a given proceeding in the next session , of Parliament—" Noes, 106;" and amongst the noes I find the name of my right hon: friend the member for Bucking hamshire. The house will observe that the motion against which my right hon. friend recorded his vote was not a motion for their admitting the Jews to Parliament—not a motion oven then relating to the state of Baron Lionel de Rothschild—but a motion pledging and binding the house to entertain this subject in the next session of Parliament. Well, sir, I have already stated to the house that this divi sion took place on the sth August, 1350. Will the house now permit me to read an extract from a speech which was de livered on that day—that very same morning --by my right hon. friend near me (Mr. Disraeli). My right hon. friend spoke at considerable length. Of course I will not trouble the house with more than an extract bearing upon the point upon which I am now speaking. My right hon. friend found fault with the course which the noble lord's Government had taken upon the subject of the admission of Jews to Parliament. My right hon. friend then pro ceeded in this language. lam very sorry to see that some hon. members are not attending. (There was some con versation going on in the house.) I think in a spirit of fairness they ought to do so. I must beg the attention of the house to the exact language, which I am about to read. On the sth of August, the day of the division, this was the language -of my right hon. friend—" I have, I may add, when the question before the house has been the re moval of the disabilities now in discussion, given the mea sure for such removal my unhesitating and unvarying sup port. I have, indeed, been sometimes accused of not ac companying the exercise of my suffrage with an expression of opinion on the subject itself. That accusation has, if I remember right, been renewed to-day. I remember that the - noble lord at the head of the Government did, not in a very generous, certainly not in a very constitutional, way, last year remind me that my vote was a silent vote. Sir, if I thought that anything which I could say would have tended to accomplish an object dear to my heart as to my s convictions, my vote would net have been a silent one ; but inasmuch as I believe that my opinions upon the subject are not shared by any member on either side of the house, I thought that it was consistent both with good sense and good taste that after once unequivocally expres sing the grounds on which my vote was given, I should have taken refuge in silence, which at least would not of fend the opinions or the prejudices of any hon gentleman on either side. The opinions I then expressed I now re tain. They are unchanged ; and were it not presumptuous to speak of our opinions as being immutable, I would ex press my belief that they are unchangeable." (Opposition cheers.) Now that speech was delivered on the day on which the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty has charged my right hon. friend with having voted adverse to the admission of Jews. The honourable gentleman the Secretary for the Admiralty also used an expres sion which I believed he meant for a quotation from the language of my right honourable friend when he spoke of his peculiar and mysterious opinions." I be lieve that I am right in stating that the word " mysterious" was never used by my right hon. friend—(hear, hear) — and that he gave a public contradiction to it. It is need less for me to say more. lam not surprised that my right hcn. friend should not have condescended to answer in de tail such an attack so made. But justice should be done. I think that the extracts I have read, made from a speech delivered on the day on which the vote in question was given, must show conclusively to the house whether or not upon that occasion my right hon. friend meant to give a vote at variance with opinions and with conduct from which it has been my fate, like my right hon. friend the member for Midhuret (Mr. Walpole) always to differ, but which have been adhered to by my right hon. friend the member for Buckinghamshire with a decision, a boldness, and an honourable consistency which, I believe, has tended to win him the confidence and regard of all men, whether they differ-from him or not. (Cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I do not wish, sir, to enter in any degree into the controversy of this debate, and I - am glad it has fallen to my lot to offer the few words I have to say by way of explanation to the house at a time when the heat, which was at the moment certainly considerable, has, in a great degree, cooled down. It seems to me that, in a controversy of this kind, hon. gentlemen can differ, and, no doubt, conscientiously differ, even on that question which I had thou g ht so clear—the question which was the assailant and which the defender in this Passage of arms—and that is a warning to me not to enter, without necessity, into the discussion. I will therefore confine myself to au endeavour to set straight, in a temper, I hope, of perfect calmness, one or two points which it appears to me do not stand quite correctly before the house. I think my right hon, friend the mem ber for Midhurst did not state with accuracy the position assumed by the government of Lord Derby at the out set of his Administration, or the circumstances which gave rise either to the position or the objections to -the Government in that house. He stated, very truly, that an agreement was come to that the necessary business of the session should be wound up, that Parliament should be dissolved, that a new. Parliament should be called before the close of the year, and that the judgment of that Par liament should bo invited with regard to the question of confidence or no confidence in the Administration of Lord Derby. I don't mean to say that he stated the whole of these points, but he must be understood to advert to them when he says that was a perfectly constitutional basis for a Government to stand upon, and in that I perfectly agree with my right hon. friend ; but he will allow me to remind him, I hope without any kind of acrimony, that that was not the original profession with which Lord Derby as sumed office. The profession with which Lord Derby as sumed office, and the declaration which fell from him in the most explicit terms, was to the effect that what wo had to do was, not to consider whether the Government that had been formed was supported by the confidench of a majority of . tho House of Commons concurring with him in political opinions, but, on the other hand, a totally dif ferent matter—namely, whether the time was not. come to set aside the, discussion of political and party questions, and to apply the-attention of the Parliament to what Lord Derby then, I think, described as questions of useful prac tical reform on which no difference of party need prevail, and which would find employment for the Government alike whether it had or had not the confidence of the House of Commons. That was the original declaration upon the strength and upon the terms of which the Go vernment of Lord Derby, by the mouth of Lord Derby in' the House of Lords, proposed to administer the affairs . of this country. To that, undoubtedly, objection was taken, and Lcannot be surprised the noble lord the member for the city of London felt great objections to such a proposal. Intima tions wore made with which, I have no doubt, many hon. members now present are acquainted, which led to a diffe rent state of things; but the Government did come to what, may be called. an understanding in Parliament. A declara tion was made, both in this and the other house, which went clearly to the effect that, the businessof the session was to be wound up, that a new Parliament was to be called, and that the opinion of the House was to be taken upon the want of confidence in the Ministers. Ido not think that the right hon. gentleman was quite justified in his reference to the " sanctimonious eloquence' of the Chancellor of the Exche-, quer, and I think his own conscience may give him a-little, twinge on that subject. The " sanctimonious eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer," as he calls it, was exer cised for a particular purpose. When a distinct under standing had been come to by a majority of Parliamenta-I am not speaking -of any breach of faith on the part of Lord Darby's Government—but when a distinct understanding had been come to by a majority of the house to effect the necessary business to which the session was to be confined, they were perfectly entitled to protest against the under taking of that which was no part of the necessary sessional business, but, as the right hon. gentleman has described it to-night, a spice and specimen of Parliamentary reform. It was against that portion of the operations of the Govern ment of Lord Derby that the "sanctimonious eloquence" was used, and, sanctimonious as it was, it had the effect of persuading a very large majority of the house not to take my step towards hampering the Government of Lord Derby or towards impeding the fulfilment of its engagements, but of confining it entirely to the discharge of that necessary business. (Cheers.) The other point upon which I wish to touch is in reference to what has fallen from the hon. gen tleman the member for Manchesterr I should be very sorry indeed that a misstatement so important as that into which he has, no doubt, unintentionally fallen, shoald, after having been made in the presence of a member of the Go vernment, go fm th . to the country without any contradie lion or explanation—l mean that misstatement which wag, no doubt, founded entirely upon a misapprehension of the language which was made use of by my noble friend the member for the city of London. The hon. gentleman the member for Manchester said—l don't quote his words, but I hope I shall represent their effect clearly—" The noble lord admits that, for all legislative purposes, the Government have lost the power of guiding the House of Conimons, but he makes a claim of this nature, that, although the'Go vernment have lost the confidence of the Parliament for the business of legislation, yet, inasmuch as the Government have likewise succeeded in involving the country in a dan gerous war, the House of Commons must hold itself de barred from its right to withdraw its confidence in the Government, and its tenure of office shall - be prolonged from this period until the war is finally settled." Such a doctrine! as that undoubtedly never fell—l will not say from the lips of the noble lord—bat I never heard doc trines so absurd propounded by any hon. gentleman, how ever little noted or distinguished in this house. To make an announcement that any gentlemen who have got posses sion of offiCelsave nothing to do but to involve the country in a war, and then to say they shall thereby acquire a lease of power which shall last until that war is concluded, really implies a height of impudence and folly to which, I think, no one 'yet gave his assent. The doctrine of my noble friend was, if I understood him rightly, of a different character entirely. (" Hear, hear," from Lord J. Russell.) He stated that in many measures of ordinary legislation it was undoubtedly true we had failed during the present session of Parliament in persuading the House of Commons to adopt our view, but, he said, there were other questions of extraordinary magnitude, which at this period trans cend all questions of ordinary legislation ' • ho did not say that those were matters upon which the House of Com mons had no right to pronounce—that those wore matters upon which the House of Commons had no right to give their confidence or withhold it—what he said was, there were great questions connected with peace, and war which were now the direct and primary questions which threw all others into the shade, and with respect to those great primary questions the House of Commons had not thought fit to withdraw its confidence from the Government, but had, upon every occasion, given the most un mistakeable support to the policy of the Government in the shape of a triumphant majority. I hope, Sir, I have made it perfectly clear to the hon. member, and to the house that the doctrines of my noble friend are entirely different from what the hon. member supposed them to be, and I join with him in protesting against a supposition that we were capable of propounding or entertaining such a notion as he then described. With regard to a hostile review of the measures of a former Government, than which I know that nothing can be more invidious in members of an existing Administration, my noble frieml, as it appeared to me, confined himself in a tone and temper the most calm and dignified to saying as little with reference to that question as was absolutely extorted from him by the attack. No such necessity is incumbent upon me, and I shall, therefore, not enter upon the subject. But I may, perhaps, with great humility and great deference to the hon. gen tlemen who have spoken, be permitted to say that I do not think the case of legislative impotence has been so fully made out against the Administration of Lord Aberdeen. Tho Administration of Lord Aberdeen has held office just one session and a-half. The session of the present year has been a session in which there has been an extraordinary disturbance of the public mind. If we are told in the House of Commons that we have not been able to make that progress with legislative measures that might have been anticipated, and might have been desired, I think it is fair that those who so exercise the office of critics should recollect what• is the effect of a European war upon the mind of the nation and the disposition of Parliament itself. (Cheers.) I think that those who naturally enough are disposed to impute this want of progress to the Government should go back to the period of former wars, and should see what amount of progress in pacific legislation has been made by strong Administrations in periods when the public mind was once excited, absorbed, and exhausted by the necessity of the efforts for war. But, if I may be permitted. to advert in defence of ourselves to the last session of Parliament, I do not think there will be found a recent session in which a greater number of substantial and important measures' were brought forward and successfully carried. (cheers.) .I am sure, sir, I am the last man who has any reason or any dis position to complain of the hon. member for Manchester as to what he has said, but I am bound to appeal to his sense of justice when I say I think what he stated is not a strictly accurate or true d es C r ipti on o f th e oc currences of last session. He will remember that measures of great political import ance and difficulty, such as that relating to the Canada Clergy Reserves, and that measures of great complication of detail s , such as that relating to the government of India, were introduced and carried through Parliament during the last session and I think I can further appeal to him , when I sa y that I do not at this moment recollect a single case of an important first-class bill which was withdrawn from the House of Commons or the House of Lords during last year with one exception, namely, the Education Bill of my noble friend the member for the City of London, which was withdrawn for the simple reason that it was impossible to bring it into discussion until we had overpassed the limits of an ordinary session, exhausted the patience of the house, and made it absolutely necessary that some recreation should take place. These matters ought not to be men tioeed otherwise than in self-defence, but I trust it is not improper to mention them ; for, after all, it is impossible to separate, in a question of this kind, the question of the credit of the Government from the question of the credit and character of the House of Commons. It was the feeling of the Howie of Conlon that enabled the government last year to conduct the legislative business of the country, and if, during the present year, the results have been different, I appeal to your sense of justice to wait a little, to consider whether it is owing to carelessness, or neglect, or want of competence, or whether it is owing to that profound change which seems to pass upon the temper of the people and which passes upon the temper of the Legislature, which you may trace every night in every discussion of the house, when the) energies of the country have been drawn upon for a tremendous external struggle, and when the means so ap plied have been diverted from peaceful purposes, as in for mer years they have been, but which in future years God grant they may never be again. (Loud cheers). Lord HOTHAM said that, having been intrusted with some important petitions to present, he should consider it his duty to present them, notwithstanding the bill was to be withdrawn. They were from a solicitor, a merchant shipowner, and other highly respectable persons at Hull, disclaiming all knowledge of bribery there, and praying to be expunged from the schedule. He also had another peti tion to present, signed by 400 persons connected with the port and town of Hull, who declared that by proclamation the commissioners had promised that those who should give evidence should be protected from all consequences whatever, not only of a penal character, but all disabilities ; that in consequence of that assurance they had given their evidence without hesitation or restraint; they therefore conceived that a compact had been entered into between themselves and the commissioners, which had been repu diated by the bill ; they declared that such a proceeding was contrary to the first principles of English justice, that no individual' ought to bo condemned without a hearing, and they therefore prayed to be allowed a hearing by coun sel at the bar of the house. The order of the day for the second reading of the Kings ton-upon-Hull Bribery Prevention Bill was then discharged, as were also the orders of the day for the reading of the Ma'don an l the Barnstaple Bribery Prevention Bills. THE EXCHEQUER BONDS (6,000,0001.) BILL. Upon the order of .the day for the second reading of this bill, Sir H. WILLOUGHBY urged the absolute necessity of taking some precaution that securities created under this bill should not be converted into permanent funded debt without the authority of Parliament. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, this subject was a very large and complicated one, and in his opinion, the powers intrusted to the person who held his office required the deliberate conside ration of the house. He did not anticipate the necessity of creating funded debt ; but he could not give an unconditional - pledge, inasmuch as it might be the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to create debt without the sanction of Parliament. After some remarks by Mr. Hume, Mr. Thornely, Mr. Williams, Mr. Glyn, and Mr. Henley, tho bill was read a second time. Ther resolutions already agreed to in committee of ways and means were brought up, and reported to the house. EXCISE DITTIES. The house then went into, committee on the Excise Duties Bill. Several additional clauses were brought up, and the bill, as amended, was ordered to be reported. INCOME TAX (No. 2). The Income Tax (No. 2) Bill, as amended, was consi dered by the house, and ordered to be read a third time on Thursday. s _ CONSOLIDATED FUND (8,000,0001.) The Consolidated Fund (8,000,0001.) Bill was read a third time, and passed. CUSTOMS DUTIES (SUGAR AND SPIRITS.) On the motion that the Customs Duties (Sugar and Spirits) Bill be read a second time, Mr. RICARDO said, the bill had only been that day delivered at twelve o'clock, anti as a discussion was ine vitable, he hoped the opportunity would be given of having one on the subject. He understood the resolutions before the 'house were in possession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he made his financial statement ; but that right hon. gentleman had made no reference to the circumstance, and therefore the trade were taken by sur prise. He hoped, therefore, the bill would be postponed until after Whitsuntide, to give an opportunity for consi dering these resolutions. _ Mr. WILSON - stated the views of.the Government upon the subjects to which the bill related, and explained its details. He justified the adoption of a new scale of wali ties of sugar, and detailed the reasons why the Govern ment intended to prohibit the refining of sugar in bond, and the regulations by which bonded refineries were to be come free refineries. He then explained the course pro. posed to be pursued with respect to drawbacks, which be came necessary on the prohibition of refining in bond. The Government, he said, had been asked to permit the use of sugar and molasses in breviaries ; but, after mature consideration, it was found utterlyiMpossible, consistently with the interests of the' revenue, to allow either sugar or molasses to be used in breweries. Lastly, ho stated the alterations made, in the way of compromise between the refiner and the importer, regarding time and rate of duty, in the original same with reference to foreign refined and foreign raw sugars. A long discussion ensued, chiefly as to the day when the bill should be committed. The bill having been read a time, 'The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed that it should be committed on Friday. Mr. MOFFAT moved to substitute " Friday week." He argued against the bill, protesting against the re arrangements made id it as unjust. The amendment was negatived. • STAMP DUTIES EEL. The Stamp Duties Bill was read a second time, after some objections raised by Mr. Hadfield, Mr. Vance, and Mr. Hume. OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL. The house having gone into committee upon this bill, The CHAIRMAN put the 26th clause. Sir J. PAKINGTON hoped the noble lord would eon sehtto-the postponement of the discussion upon the bill, as the clause under their notice was a very important one, with referbnce t6 - which several-hon. members had •given notice that it wns their intention to propose amendments. Mr. GOULI3I7RN concurred _in the wish that the dis cussion should be postponed. • Mr. EWa.RT also urged upon the noble lord tho expe diency of deferring the discussion. Lord J. RUSSELL expressed his readiness to comply with the suggestions which had just been made, and moved that the bill should be postponed until Thursday next. The motion was agreed to. PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL. This bill paSsed thron,gh committee pro forma. . DUBLIN CARRIAGES. This bill was read a second time. MEDICAL GRADUATES (UNWERSITT.OF LONDON) BILL. On the order for going into 'committee on this bill, Mr. 3110 WBRAY moved that it be an instruction to the committee to have power to extend the provisions of the bill to the University of Durham, which was agreed to. Lord PALMERSTON said this bill dealt with part of a large question, an arrangement of the medical profession. The question had engaged the attention of the Govern ment, but it had not been possible hitherto to prepare a measure so satisfactory to the profession at large as to justify them in proposing it to. Parliament. But he had lately had communication with the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, and he was told that great hoyes were en tertained that a comprehensive measure might be sug gested satisfactory to the public and the great body of the medical profession ; he therefore advised the house not to deal with the matter this session. He must give a negative to the committal of the bill. After some observations in support of the bill from Mr. Bell, Mr. Thornely, and Mr. Mowbray, the committee was deferred for a fortnight. The Ecclesiastical Courts Bill was read a second time. Other bills were forwarded a stage, the Stannaries Court (No. 2) Bill being withdrawn. SCHOOLMASTERS SAL ARIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. The LORD ADVOCATE rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the salaries of parochial school masters of Scotland. He saw no reason to be discouraged in this question by the result of tho vote of the other evening. The bill which he now sought :to introduce would simply continuo the conversions of 1828 down to and including the 11th November 1855. The people of Scotland now saw - that the real difficulty in the way of an education scheme was not a religious difficulty, but the peculiarly- mclasive privileges of the Established Church ; and it might be depended upon that the people of Scot land would• not long tolerate that exclusive principle. If public opinion did &A remove, it it would sooner or later fall by the force of public experience. It had been said that this measure was concocted for the benefit of the Free Church party, but a more unfounded and inexcus able statement was never made: Mr. C. BRUCE did not rise to oppose the introduction of the bill, but regretted it was li►nited to November, 1855. Because on the expiration of that term the ques tion would be again reopened by the Government, and with the same amount of success, he hoped, as attended their late attempt. -He should regret very much that an attack -was going to be renewed against a system which had done so - much good for his (Mr. Bruce's) country. If the hon. and learned gentleman had introduced two addi tional clauses—one, to dismiss those schoolmasters who were no longer worthy to fill their situations, and another, to pension off those who wore no longer able to perform their duties, it would have been a measure for which Scotland..would have been grateful. As it was he did not mean to oppose the lame And halting measure which he had introduced. Mr. DUNLOP thought the people of Scotland had a strong claim upon the sympathies of the people of England in support of their parochial system . of edueation, which they now wished to make national. They and also a strong claim upon their justice, because it was the votes of the English members that had created the division which now afflicted the Church' of Scotland. Attempts wore now' made to afford some compensation by the establishment of these national schools c and he hoped the time would come when they would accomplish this object. He cordially supported the bill. Mr. C. BRUCE denied that he had said that the mea sure which had been lately defeated had been introduced by the*Lord Advocate in concert with the Free Church; but there could be no doubt that the members of that Church had zealously combined to promote its success. Mr. KINNAIRD thought that the people of Scotland were deeply indebted to the'Lord Advocate for the anxious wish he had manifested in that matter for the promotion of their best interests. After a few words from Mr. FORBES and Mr. W. LOCK HART, Mr. NEWDEGATE said he believed that ho, as an English member, had only done his duty in opposing the bill of the Lord Advocate. It should be borne in mind that it had been stated that that was to be the forerunner of a scheme of national education for England. Leave was then given to bring in the bill. ADJOURNMENT OVER THE " DERI3Y-DAY.” On the Motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, it was ordered that the house at its rising to-morrow (this day) should adjourn till Thursday. The house adjourned at one o'clock. . - CHARGE SUSPECTED MURDER OF AN OLD WOMAN BY HER DAUG HTER. —Yesterday a very decently-dressed woman, named Ane StevenS, aged 36, was brought up by Sergeant Battersby, 4 D, and placed at the bar of Marylebone police court, before Mr. Broughton, charged on suspicio n o f h aving caused the death of Elizabeth Preston, her aged mother.; at 7, William-street, Mary lebone-lane.--The prisoner was remanded for a week. FOUNDERING AT SEA.—The Earl Balcarres, a 1,600 ton ship, belonging to the Messrs. M`Leod, of Leaden hall-street, City, was on her homeward passage, having a valuable cargo of Indian produce and a large number Of officers and invalids from the Queen's and Company's forces from Bombay on board. The voyage was prosper ous until previousto rounding the Cape, where she en countered a frightful hurricane, in which she was did masted, and in the height of the gale a large vessel, sup poped to be an Indianian, was seen from the Balcarres to fall over and immediately go down with all hands. The gale subsiding, the Balcarres was carried under jury spars to Mauritius, where she roilttecli her arrival may now be daily - looked for, ~~ couNtRY MARKETS. C HELMSFORD --MAT 26. An average supply of wheat on offer to-day, but 119 trade was heavy. Prices •must be qd ls to 2s little below tho se of last week. In spring uote corn al s o but 1 0 business, was transacted. Prices to-day were as follow :—Wheat white, old 6 0 7 5 6 s bv 0 1 to 84s Od, new 66s to 84s ; red, old 54s to 80s, new , BJs ; barley, 27s to 35s ; chevalier, 33s to 38s ; grin cur 210 to 33s ; malt, 71s to 75s ; chevalier, 74s to 78s ; oats,;; 26s to 33s ; peas, partridge, 40s to 45s ; white, 47s to 'AD boiling 51s to 6Js ; dun, new, 40s to 42s ; beans, tick,' to 44s ; Harrow ticks, 39s to 47s ; Mazagan, 40s to 44% COLCHESTER —MAy 27. The wheat trade dull, and, excepting for finest sample s, _ is per qr. less m oney h as b een taken. In spring corn Pu change in value. Prices to-day were as follow :—Wheat, white, 76s to 88 ', ; red, 72s to 84s ; b ar l ey, 3 4s to 380 ; oats, Ms to 33s ; 136° : Mazagan, 42s to 44s ; middle and small, 46s to 50s ; pee " , white, 56s to 60s ; grey, 42s to 445. Official Statement of the Quantities of Corn in the port of London, from the follotviv the 22d to the 27th May, both inclusive. , &0., receif el is ports, fr°s3 • • .4 1:1 362 - 570 134 - - 461 - 844, 40 , 2801 Di I 0 g 1 ,53 P 4 P 4 Colchester Harwich Leigh 140 101= 160 68, 80 91' KIRKCALDY-MAY 27. Here to•dap we had small supplies of wheat and 9 316 but small of barley. Sales slow. Wheat is to 2s per .4r;' and oats 6d per qr. lower. Barley sold at fully last dal rates. Wheat. Barley. I First Second Third 6os Od 35s Od Oatmeal, per bag of 2801bs imperii Oats. - I Beahs., . 39s 6d I Os ' „ 0 ., 37s 6d I Os !,,; 35s Od 1 00 - " [al, 48s Od to 52s Od. COAL MARKET.—MAY 29. Prices of Coal per ton at the close of the market :--- s. d. Wallsend, to. Howard's Howard's West Hartley s. ,: Netherton 20 0 fretton 19 Redheugh Main 16 0 19 9 Russell's Hetton 18 3 Tanqeld Moor Butes 18 3i Stewart's - 9 Walker Primrose .........16 3 Heugh Hall l7 South Kelloe -17 9 0 Tees l9 6 Hilda 17 o,Thornley l7 Hodley - 3 Riddell l7 3;Cowpcn 11•• 20 Braddyll lB 31 • Wallscnd, &c. SEABORNE MAILS. (N signifies that the mails aro sent from the General Post- 0(6 el by the night—and M by the morning —despatch.) Day when m ade ti, From Wild COUNTRIES. . in General Post- Port du= in 1010. Office, London.° Dispatchea. America(byßrit.pack)N Every Friday .... Liverpool . Each a pe America (by United Ste. packet) ..........N America (by U. States .......... Liverpool .. MAY - packet) ..........N • • ...... Southampton Australia (via South ampton) May 4 .... • .... • Southampton June 4 . Ditto (via Marseilles) N M ay 8 Doter „ I June 4 Ditto (via Cape of (food H -. !lops) .......... .Njune 1.. Africa (West Coast)..Nind of the month . Plymo u th • ••• ,Trunueeerealti 6' A1exandria..........11 'B, 9, 24, & 30 of m. Dover Alexandria 4th & 20th of mon. Southampton Bahamas Al 17th of the montl,lSodtharupton Belgium Daily I Dover May 1 , Brazil • • M i9th of the mo n th.. S ou th ampton J un e Buenos Ayres..., '9th of the month.. Southampton May Cape of Good Hope ..N 14th of the month Plymouth Cape of Good Hope ..N 14th of the month. Southampton Cape de Verds ......N 14th of the month Southanipton Ceylon (see India) Cey10n..............N 14th o f th e month • • • MAY 20 S ib Channel. Isles Mon ~Weti.,&Frid. Southampton ! To. Chill— • ... ;„ —ld 2d & 17th of mo u th S on th ampton 'June China (see India) Constantinople 7,8,17,2 i,&27 of m. D0ver..,... Constantinople •4th It 20th of mon Southamptoii, Cont. of Europe M & N Twice daily Dover Twlceo . 7 Egypt (see India) France M& N Twice daily.... • Dover ....., wiced" Gibraltar .. • M' 4, 7,17, 20, 27 of in ; Southampton (MAY 26 Greece (see India) Greytown .... • • •...111 2nd & 17th of mon. southampton Mal ; 16 Hambnrgh.,N,Tuesday& Friday London Havannah .. M 2nd of the month Southampton June . ' Holland ...• ..... M. Daily...." Dover ....• !Daily Honduras ...... 11 1'17th of the mo n th . Southampton 'June 16 India (viaSouthampt.)M 4th & 20th of mon. Plyinuth JuneA India (via Marseilles)M Bth&2lth of month Dover ...... lonian Wei (see India) 7, 17, & 27•0 f mon D0ver....... A Ireland .... & kiTwice daily Holyhead Tede%idif Li5b0n.......• • • • • • . M;7, 9, 17, & 27 of m. Southampton May 26 Madeira 9th of the month Southampton 'June 16 Madeira ............N 23d of month..... Plymouth ....June. 6 Malta (see-India) Malta 7,17,19,27, 30 Om. Dover ...... May 20 Mauritius (see India) • • Mauritius 114th of the month . • • Mex(co AI 2nd of the month. Southampton June.l • . Naples .• • • N sthltb2sthofnion. Dover ~ ....IMaY New Granada .. 2d& 17th of month Southampton .May New • By private skip ... Various port- tuncer , ‘"7 - Papal States F tlilsth2'qhoflnon, D over Mo'l Peninsula hi 7 th 17th28tholmon. Southampton May 7 Peru .. ... .....Ml7d & 27th of mon Southampton 'MAY I Port Natal il4 at of the month Plymouth .. Sicily sthisth2sthortnon,lDover .....• May ! Tugcany 5 t 1115( h/Atholinon, Dover May Venezuela . lll2d t 17th of - nonth Southampton ,MAY-' Van Diemen 's Land (see I • - Australia) .. . West Indies .• • • „2r2d & 17th of month SouthamptenlJuna 1 * When any of these date.; fall o i a Sunday, the MIN will be despatched on the following day. with the exceptien of the India Southampton), and the Malta, both of which will be despatched ""' day preceding. [ADVERTISEMENT.]--Holloway's Pills for Invigorati l l the Weak, and Strengthening the Debilitated, --Thy 0 wonderful and efficaci ous pill s are t h e only mediCinnf adapted to invigo ra t e wea k ene d constitutions, pers ons..,," low and nervous h a bit s , or t h ose who are suffering fr 9"; bad digestive organs, or those whose health has becoul deranged by bilious affections, disordered stomach, o r liver complaints. Those affected with coughs, col u P asthma, or sho r t ness o f b reat h , should have recourse el these invaluable pill s , as th e i r m i ghty powers Will we found a certain and efficacious remedy for all these colf plaints, imparti ng , a t th e same time, strength, new li f e ' vigour, and buoyancy of spirits to the afflicted, and iiiV r ci be taken with p er f ec t sa f ety at any period of life.-- S°! by all druggists ; and at Professor Holloway's establior ment, 244, Strand, London. . [ADVERTISEMENT.I—Du Barry's Deli c i ous Revalen° Arabica Food invariablyrestores health, without me dicine , inconvenience, or expense, as it saves 50 ti mes it s cost_ , I t T other remedies. We extra c t a f ew out of 50,003 0%1 monials of cures, which had re s i s t e d a ll me di c i nes. Cure No. 180.—" Twenty-five years' nervousness, constiputvi indigestion, and debility, from w hi c h I had suffered gr ey misery, and which no medicine could remove of relieve' have been effectually cured by D u B arry ' s food i n a Tell, short time.—W. B. Reeve, Pool Anthony, Tiverton. Cure No. 4,208.—" Eight year s ' d yspeps i a, n ervousnot debility, with cramps, sp asms and nausea, have, beee effectually removed by D u B arry ' s delicious food in a veL-' short time.—Rev. John W. Flavell, Ridlington Rector?' Norfolk.' Cure No. 1,784—" N ot expected to l i ve elf days longer. I waG cu re d b y D u Barry's admirable 1.0,5. A u —Magdalena Purvi s , M o ff a tt , Scotland. " Cure • 51 ; 416. —" Fifty years' indescribable agony from dysPeP s ' - ' nervous , aess, asthma, cough, con s tip a ti on , fl a t u lency spasms, sickness at the stomach and vomitings, have b een removed by Da Barry's excellent Food.—Maria Wortham, Ling, near Diss, Norfolk." Cur e No. 3,90',..1 " Thirteen y ears ' cough, indigestion, and gene — t debility have been removed by Da Barry's excelleti Focd.—James Potter, Athol-street, Perth." Cure No. 81.--" T wen t y years ' liver complaint, 0 disorders of the stomach and rierves, have be e perfectly cured by D u B arry ' s Revalenta Arabia .... Andrew Frazer, Fladdington, East Lothian." " Trevag,l er ; Gulval, near Penzance. Feb. 20th, 1851.—Eighteen/ear! nervous debility, violent palpitation of the heart, throe Bing of the temples, violent pains in the left side and boes! , shortnes s o f b rea th, coughs, numbess of the e xtreiniti e :a cramps, spasms, flatulency, retching, and suc h gener a weakness, that I was constantly f ear f u l o f falling whel'i-,0 my legs ; all these symptoms h ave b een remove d by Barry's excellent Food.—Mary Gilbert."—ln canisters' suitably packed for_all climat es , an d w ith f u l l i nstruc tion s —llb., 29. 9d. ; 21b., 4s. 6d. ; 51b., 115. ; 121 b., 2 , 1 25 ' 0 ' super-refined, 11b., 6s. ; 21b.; 11 s. ; 51b., 2?.5. ; 101.13., ,2 The 101 b. and 121 b., carriage f ree , on post office or der • Barry du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, Lond°!“ Fortnum, Mason, an d Co., purveyors to her Majesty , P ie- . cadilly ; also at 68, Cornhill 60, Gracecharch-stre et ' 330 and 451, St ran d , 6 3 ands 150, Oxford-street ; Charing-cross ;4, Cheapside. BIRTHS. OF A SON. On the 24th inst., at Nantes, the wife of R. KirklAt rici4 Howat, younger of Mable, Kirkcudbrightshire• ihe tricr w On the 27th inst., at 24, S ac k v ille•street, Piccaulivt wife of Henry Hardinge, M.D. OF A DAUGHTER. On the 25th inst., at 28, Regent-squ are, th e w ife of Forteseue, Esq., of Middle Temple, barrister-at - lin' e , On the 25th inst., at 92, Guildford-street, Russell - El" - the wife of W. Burnie, M.D. MARRIED. At St. George's, Hanover-square by the Rev. George nob' Earle Welby, the Hon. Montague P eregr i ne Bartle, "sole brother of the Earl of Lindsey, t o F e li c i a Eliza b e tha, surviving daughter of the Rev. John Earle Wei l l' Hareston, Leicestershire. Cor der / On the 27th inst., at St. J o h n ' s, Notting-hill J. u°' Esq., to Julia Ann, wid ow o f Heathfield Tupper, tors and only daughter of W. G. Clarkson, Esq o f poet° commons, DIED. lOn the 24th inst., at Vi o le Aia° ;-cottage, Bridge of Miss Eliza M..Ro ome , d aughter of the late Major- G e n Frederick Roome, of the Bombay Army. .05 ° On tho 15th inst., on board the Ripon, on the 1 )3 ,,,i A., home from Alexadria, the Rev. W. G. Tupper , li d o° Trinity College, Oxford, warden and chaplain of the no r of Charity, Soho, youngest son of the late Martin TuPr - Esq., of New Burlington -street. On the 26th inst., at Newmarket, Captain E. F ribliej- Meynell. On the 22d inst., at 13, Gayfield-square, Edinbe;3o Miss Eliz a b e th Dick, daughter o f th e l a t e Rev. Dr- sbo Dick, mini s t er o f the Trinity College Church, Ed i n burg aged 91. LONDON: Printed an d P u bli s h e d b y MURDO Yu 1 1 2, 40 of No. 112, St ran d , P r i nter, at Th e S un Office, N°• i t of in Strand, in the Precin c t o f th e S avo y, • the cowl - Middlemen Tuesday, May 30, 1854. PSOM g the OA rain will leav - "In at Ersc 1 ONDO TUILWA will arrive at ai General Man yoRK, 131,at4,4. :a pt,Director'onsl file Per on Debei annum. %sa e . • on-Tyne. 144 : 0 1,, , to,ettnl t t:Ersn: Ica, ta:isi:.citssaoatien,ua.:,:t:::,( j g o ainst " j c , v Law s l MADDI loi , 'who ate , -. ancellor Si ; 314 's-ion, 111,I r ' le luded from i the claims. Dated bitted this 26 CHART es'..-----------.;:i rilreaocel3,i( t.: i STEAM i and asm;,, e ate al their'mrews t. r t, 00 the 21 „ 3 ` 140 5, Conn t,,Ne to Con: ourthen of hi Ackw 0 , Vfill load and o ' 'lnd fr.:l2ht a' ilnys Ofileel:,l .... tW] S HON ailw a generdl , 11 _ 3 , in th ` L a' l 3 , enlai 4, „, or ded at the alnllias i t, at ran fl sc(l cha IND'S Itteh ard In e s Fuller Poes ot Const 'RITIE,A Psiit •, t Ps x j a nd e Perl - as FAM qbt and ans b'l'l3 is a pin to om : I : l( Mgat Wh tile ,teadily 'mg, and hai CAPP q t . L J. W attillratifeEsMSl of L. Part Every ittZO:AeuS ~_ sU~ tr1:1'114:1.1 eiea e 8 I , A t ..nt? tc IN F tit)!,fterDfi hoc pro tlt! p r I t Zhe Pre m atelopwer u wly o p ro u. , /1 t "Qlziu ms ll I,, ° lies St; 1,0,Z1,)e-cotu r t 11E apd Ir e i l, : Jun e text, 14t.0Tlerad ~ I ~'~GAI for ' t ' i t the sal ( e ~ le e at e con h 1S C a li . ttst n i tr eaty . „' et 4 gqllt t N, ° ,, n , 1 tor nmiin vEry t " l bear ah 1 11 a , or fil try nott i ? Rill 14 etion tl eet *ad e *ad iz ,n; tlettlo7. Depa 184 185 185 185 185 FIRE Ara, arn n 311.0 A co x ON