The Press.
London, England, 1855-06-09 00:00:00

irbt 2112) rog+

LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 9, 1855.

PPSTSCRIPT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FDIDAY.

The Bishop of LONDON moved an address on the
subject of the inadequate provision for burial in the
metropolis. The act of 1852, closing the old burial-
grounds before others were provided, increased the
evil, which demanded an immediate remedy.
Earl GRANVILLE said that the subject was under
the most serious attention of the Government, upon
which the Bishop of London withdrew his motion.
Adjourned at a quarter past seven.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDAY.

On the motion that the house adjourn till
Monday,

Sir W. MOLESWORTH rose to contradict the accu-
sations brought against him of having changed his
opinions. He had been dared to read his speech at
Leeds at the table of the house. He did read two
or three extracts, in which he charged Russia with
endeavouring to embroil France and England, in
the hope that she might in the fray carry off the
prize, and protested against a Russian occupation of
Constantinople.
THE WAR.
The adjourned debate was then resumed by Mr.
SCOTT, who found fault with the silence of the
Government, and thought that much mischief had
been done by the absence of due interference from
the House of Commons. He hoped that some
Ministers would give the candid opinion of the
whole Cabinet on the objects of the war, an opinion
of which the house was ignorant at present.
Sir F. BARING explained that his views in bringing
forward his amendment were to prevent any doubt
on the meaning of the rejection of the original
motion. He objected to Mr. Lowe's second amend-
ment, as committing the house to a particular line
of conduct on a single point, and leaving the rest
untouched. Any dictation by the house of the terms
of peace would be in direct variance with our agree-
ment with France, according to which all terms of
agreement were to be decided in common. What
would be said if France decided upon any particular
point without communicating with England? A vote
on neither of the amendments would show the direct
opinion of the members of the house, and the debate,
with all its length and importance, would end in a
manner which looked like trifling with the country.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, reviewing the speeches
of the debate, said that the Government were ex-
posed to so contradictory a series of accusations that
most of them would fall upon other heads. He
denied, as Mr. Cobden had declared, that the public
feeling in favour of the war was due to the passions
of the populace, and denounced his inconsistency in
making such a charge. Adverting to the ex .Ministers,
who had helped to plunge them into war, and now
embarrassed them in their attempts to carry it on,
he thought the allusion of Sir J. Graham to the
early unpopularity of former wars highly injudicious,
and instanced each of these wars to show the reason
of their unpopularity. Even assuming that no war
could remain long popular with this country, was it
on such principles that a Ministry ought to sacrifice
the honour of the nation'' He asked what would
. be
the effect of such an assertion on the enemy, who
was told only to wait sad hold her own, until