The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-05-15 00:00:00

THE DAY'S NEWS.

In the House of Lords yesterday, Lord Wode-
house, in reply to the Marquis of Normanby, con-
sented to lay on the table any papers of which
the Government might be in possession relative
to the expedition of Garibaldi to Sicily. On the
motion of the Earl of Hardwieke, it was agreed
to order a return of the gunboats built by contract
since 1832, the names of the contractors, and the
present condition of the vessels. A number of
bills were advanced a stage.
In the House of Commons, yesterday, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to Mr.
Baines, said that, in consequence of the illness of
Mr. Rowland Hill, it was not intended to procced
this session with the Newspaper Conveyance Bill.
' Mr. Cardwell said that the Government had
turned their attention to the collections of money
being made in Ireland chiefly, as well as in other
part° ,P ior tne use of the Sovereign
of the Papal States, and would take steps to put
a stop to the proceeding. The House then went
into committee on the Refreshment Houses and
Wine Licenses Bill.

The Liberal party, who cared nothing about
the mischiefs which the breaking-up of Lord
Derby's Administration last year was sure to
produce—and which it has produced, both in our
domestic and foreign interests—now, when the
Administration of Lord Palmerston is again
threatened, pretend that, " under existing cir-
cumstances abroad, a change of Government

would hardly' be conducive to the interests of
this country." These very circumstances, how-
ever, stand prominently forth among the reasons
which render. such a change really desirable.
They are circumstances which endanger the
interests of this country infinitely more than did
those of a year ago, when Lord Derby's Govern-
ment was so factious:y upset ; and we are
decidedly of opinion that nothing would tend so
effectually to secure the safety of England. under
the evidently impending storms of Continental
Europe, as a strong, high-principled Conservative
Ministry. " The Earl of Derby," they tell us,
"is hostile to the Emperor of the French. He is
partial to Austria—not friendly cu eardinla—
and, whatever he may think of the King of
Naples, will not approve of insurrection in his
dominions." There is, of course, just as much
truth in this as it suits a party-purpose to put
forth. Lord Derby is certainly anything but
" partial" to the Emperor of the French ; and in
that he shows a great deal of true English feel-
ing, and good common sense. But, though not
" partial," he cannot, with any truth, be said to
be " hostile to the Emperor." Doubtless he is
" hostile "- to his aggressive and disorganising
policy ; and for this very reason he must be a
much safer Prime Minister for England, at such
a time, than LOrd Palmerston can possibly be,
with his notorious partiality for so dangerous an
adventurer as Louis Napoleon. Lord Derby's
conduct to Austria and to Sardinia, when he was
the head of the government of this country, only
last year, completely contradicts the charge of his
being unduly partial to the one, or in anywise
unfriendly to the other. That his lordship should
"not approve of insurrection" in the dominions
of the King of Naples, is, we dare say, perfectly
true. But surely this were no fault., Surely no
First• Minister of the Crown would be justified in
approving of insurrection in the dominions of a
Sovereign with whom his country was in friendly
relations p As to the question of " whatever he
may think of the King of Naples," it is most
satisfactorily answered by Lord Derby's well
known aversion to all despotism, and by the face
of his having, when in power, availed himself ti
every opportunity to discourage and denounce it
Judging, indeed, from what we already know ant
have experienced of Lord Derby as the head of I
Government, there is every reason to believe tha
his restoration to that high and responsible posi-
tion, at the present conjuncture, would b(
eminently " conducive to the interests of thi
country."
The more, reasonable of the Ministerial journal,
now publicly acknowledge that the House ci
Lords are at perfect liberty to reject a Bill fcr
the repeal of the paper duty if they think pre
per,—that is, that they have an unquestionabl.
constitutional right so to do, if, in their judg
meat, it is an undesirable measure in the present
circumstances of the country. " The Lords,'
says one of the organs of Lord Palmerston;
" have not the power to impose taxes. Neither
can they alter a money bill when the Commons
vote a subsidy to the Crown. But it would b(
absurd to call upon the Lords for their assent tf
an Act of Parliament, unless the Lords had th
power to grant or refuse that assent. The'
undoubtedly have that power. But it is obviousl.