The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1859-06-14 00:00:00

THURSDAY.

Sir J. TRELAWNY obtained leave to bring in a Bil
to abolish Church-rates.

Leave was likewise given to Mr. Griffith to intro-
duce a Bill to regulate the expenses of the office of High
Sheriff; to Mr. Ayrton, a Bill to ritie4 certain Acts
and parts of Acts relating to newspapers, pamphlets,
and other publications, and to printers. typefounders,
and reading-rooms; to Lord Naas, a Bill for carrying
into effect the report of the Commissioners appointed
to inquire into the state of the municipal affairs of the
borough of Belfast. in Ireland ; and • Bill to amend the
Acts relating te the constabulary force in Ireland ; and
to Mr. Black. • Bill to abolish the Miniaters' Money or
annuity tax levied within the city of Edinburgh, parish
of Canonic:de, and burgh of Montrose.
The adjourned debate upon the Address on the
Queen's Speech wax then resumed.
Mr. Serjesnt DEASY, in supporting the amendment
moved by the Marquis of Ilartington, complained of the
constitution and conduct or the Executive authority in
Ireland and of the exercise of the Government and
other patronage there, which had been reganled, he said,
with jealousy and distrust by the bulk of the Irish
people. There were three grounds upon which, he
thought, the vote of want of confidence in the Govern-
'aunt could be maintained and justified : first, their
political antecedents before they came into power ;
secondly, their legislative measures, and the inefficiency
! of their domestic administration ; and thirdly, their
foreign policy.
Colonel DiegsoN supported the Address. He had
not heard, he said, a single valid argument in support of
the amendment ; he justified the course taken by the
Government, which was, lie said, a constitutional one,
and claimed for them a fair trial.
Mr. burr condemned the foreign policy of theGovern-
went.
Mr. S. FITZGRRALD addressed himself to the two
u(eiswto.:nin
mheandt
jgrimotiiintided his refusal of s
confidence he
sai—namely, their failures in domestic administration, and
upon which.
lA
to rd
t11;41:
their ill-success in the management of our foreign rela-
tions. With respect to the former, he reminded the
Derby had assumed the Government, and suggested
House of the difficult circumstances ender which !Anil
that, considering the discordant elements of which the
Opposition was comoosed. the House should be assured,
if the present Ministry were removed from office, upon
what principles the Uoverninelit • ould be conducted,—
whether the schemes of Mr. Bright were to be carried
out. The objection to tile foreign policy of Ministers was
founded, he observed, upon two grounds, that it had not
prevented war; and that they were not sincere in their
pro fession of neutrality, but were inspired by Austrian
sympathies. He contended that it WWI altogether pre-
mature to argue the first in the absence of the official
papers, and lie emphatically denied that there was •
bitiulow of foundation for the other allegation.
Mr. Bawler said he was not about to defend Lord
Palmerston, and hail no facts to convince him that the
Government hail not dim° all in their power to prevent
the war now raging in Italy ; but, as to the neutrality
to which the Government had pledged themselves, lie
wanted to know whether it was real or pretended.
The question applied almost entirely to France. The
increase of our naval force in the Mediterranean, the
high bounties offered for enlistment in the navy, and the
formation of rifle corps were not directed against
Austria; and was it not likely, or even inevitable, that
' these preparations would destroy in the minds of the
French Government and people all confidence in our
pi ofessions of neutrality? There was no reason to
distrust the Emperor of the French; there was no
increased cause of suspicion; yet in Germany the
general opinion was that the Government of England
was disposed rather to aide with Austria than with
France. He WM not disposed to blame the present
Ministers for all this; but he could not confide in a
Government whose neutrality, so far as he had any
active explanation of it, was to be found in continued
and gigantic preparations for war. He did not doubt
that from the next Government there would be the
same professions of neutrality; but, with regard to
France, all classes of the people would feel that there
would be somewhat more of sympathy towards Frames
on the pert of their nioceesore than, astir ash. knew,

was entertained by the present Government. He
believed that with a new Government there would be •
more friendly feeling with France, and that there would
be laid upon the table a measure of reform which it would
be the duty of the House and the people to accept.
But his support of any Government would depend upon
their inesaures and their policy.
Lord AOULKT frankly admitted that the amendment
was a party move, so far as concerned one of its objects
--namely, the turning out the Government ; but lie de-
nied that those who occupied the Opposition benches
were actuated by any motives of personal or political
aggrandizement. Their sole object was to obtain a good
Government for the people of this country, and to pro-
unite the country's welfare. lie admitted that in many
instances the conduct of the present Government me-
rited the approval of the House, but he contended that
generally speaking they had proved their incapacity.
Ile would cordially sumx,rt the amendinent with the
view of replacing the present Government by a strong 1
and sagacious Administration that would carry weight
in the councils of Europe, and command the respect of
the people iii England.
Mr. PALK and Mr. BAITtli supported the amend.
ment. . . _

Mr. LIDDELL objected to a change of the present
Govennuent, who had, in his opinion, fulfilled all their
pledges.
Mr. GEREET did not think • case had been made
out against the Government. Ile saw no reason why
they might not hring in another Reform Bill that would
be likely to raw. With respect to foreign affaira, it
appeared to him that the Government lied studiously
awl honeatly endeavoured to maintain a neutrality.
Mr. CitineuLgr supported the ementhnent. On the
suliject of Reform, he could not leave it, he said, in
the hands of those teat) had opposed Reform all their
lives. . .

Mr. SPOONER replied, in a few words, to FOlllO all.
MOOS made to I by Mr. Baxter and Mr. Bright.
Mr. Holten ‘N olisyreed that, as the Bovernment of
this ~,,,, try by A !sonority iis that 11..11.4! WM. 1.11011111-
lOUs. 1111 l . into:germs* to be per.
milted to sontinue. it we the tirst duty of the new
Parliament to bring the isuystion of confidence to a
sweetly decision, and it behoved then' to ileciile it upon
safe, public ground.. lie could not vote ageing the
ansendmesst.

Mr. K. &puce defended the Government observing
that the failure of their measures was not their fault ;
that it was owing b; the unfair and obstructive wanner
in which they had been treated by the Liheral party.
Ile gave& history of the intestine discords of that party,
which was now said to be united ; but he doubted the
sincerity of this union, specifying various questions
which pressed for decision, and upon which there was a
declared antag ~,, ism in the different sections of the
party, especially that of Reform. He disputed the
opinions of Lord Palmerston as to the foreign policy of
the Government, declaring that he had no sympathy
with Austria ; he did sympathise with Italy, but not
with France and Italy lighting against Austin..
Sir .1. GRAHAM observed that the question before the
House was—Should the present Government he in pos-
session of power with the consent of the majority ? To
that issue he should endeavour to confine his observa-
tions Sir James entered into details relating to
various allegatimis which he had 11111(1C at Carlisle
against the Government, to which Mr. Disraeli referred
in his speech on Tuesday, complaining of the offen-
airs terms in which Mr. Disraeli had conveyed
one of his contradictions. lie then proceeded to
vindicate himself against the effect of Mr. Veymer's
remarks upon the dissensions among the Liberal party' •
and after slightly touching upon foreign affairs, and
approving the policy of the Government in anning the
people of this country, lie expressed a strong condemna-
tion of the late dissolution, pointing out the manner in
which it had risked the national interests.

Mr. WHITESIDE admitted the principles of foreign
policy contended for by Lord Hartingtun, which were
those of Mr. Fox ; he only disputed their application.
He discussed the foreign policy of Lord Palmerston in
1848, a summary of which, in condemnatory terms, he
read in the words of Sir J. Oraham, and which, he con-
tended, was in the teeth ,if the principles of Mr. Pox.
Those principles of non-intervention were right, and
they had Icon violated hy Lord Palmerston in almost
every instance. Such being his policy, the Ouvern-
no•iit sl Id not be changed upon that ground. Mr.
Whiteside amused the House by reading, in conclusion,
the characters which some of the Liberal leaders had
given of each other, congratulating it upon the Ministry
in prospect.
On the motion of Mr. M. Glitno,r, the debate was
again adjourned, and the ROW adjourned at 20
minutest° 1 o'clock.