The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-13 00:00:00

not drop before the ettelitleu of the house W 45 talloil to
the eteileiNe dieerepaney that exieted litivni6t4 the Oftitn,
meat of the noble lord Vale evenieg end that which ha
bad made on a former occasion. In describing the sub.
stance of Count Buol's circular, he (Sir J. Walsh) had
at that time referred to the fact that Count Buol stated
that be was prepared to submit an ultiigatum to Rus-
sia, founded on the proposals which he had laid before
the noble lord ; that lie was prepared, if these proposals
were adopted by England and France, to lay them be-
fore Russia in the shape of an eitiezetire, and to make it a
cases belli if Russia should refuseto accept it; and that the
noble lord gave his full adhesion and approval to these pro-
posals, end agreed to press their adoption upon his Govern-
ment with all the influence lie possessed. The noble lord,
however, in the statement with which he had favoured
the house to-night had entirely omitted to notice these
material cireurestances which identified him personally,
in the eyes of Europe, with the acceptance of these pro-
positions, and merely observed in a sort of cursory man-
ner, that of course, as a matter of courtesy to Austria, it
followed that lie should not reject and refuse them ; that
they were submitted on his return to the Cabinet, and
that the Cabinet rejected them. Ho (Sir J. Walsh)
thought the important point as regarded the noble lord
was that, according to the statement of Count Buol, he
had identified himself personally with the proposals
which had been made ; that he had agreed to support
and had given his whole adhesion to them ; and that, when
lie had requested either to affirm or to deny the correct-
ness of Count Buol's statement, ho had acknowledged its
accuracy in the most comprehensive terms. That was a
most material difference, and he should be unwilling that
the house, many members of which might have been ab-
sent when the noble lord replied to his question, should
take their impression from the extremely slight and soft
statement with which the noblelord had favoured the house
this evening. Before he sat down he might address a
few observations with reference to the two motions of
which notice had been given. It was perfectly true, as
had been suggested, that the motion of the hon. and
learned gentleman the member for Sheffield and the hen.
baronet the member for Hertfordshire were so similar in
character that they involved the same considerations,
and, no doubt, there would be some inconvenience if
they were both pressed simultaneously on the attention
of the House. It was very probable, considering the
magnitude of the question and the importance and com-
prehensiveness of the subject which would be opened by
I the motion of the hon. baronet, that the debate upon
that motion would be adjourned. What was the pre-
sent position of the house with respect to this question
of foreign policy ? His right lion, friend the member
for Enclinghamshire brought forward his motion be-
fore Whitsuntide. That motion bore upon the state of
things existing at that time ; there was an adjourned
debate, Whitsuntide intervened, the negotiations were
brought to a close, and all the important changes took
place which resulted from the close of the conferences.
The papers were `quite ready at that time to be sue
mitted to the consideration of the house, and they ought
to have been enabled to form a conclusion on the com-
plete state of things. The motion of the hon. member
for Portsmouth was, therefore, nugatory, and conveyed
no expression whatever of the real sentiments of the
house upon this important question. Two quesCees
would now be raised by the motion of the hon. baronet
the member for Hertfordshire—first, a question involv-
ing the individual character of the noble lord the mem-
ber for the city of London as a statesman, and the
claim which he would hereafter have on the confidence
of the house and the country. Considering the import.
ance of the position tilled by the noble lord in that
house as well as in the country, that question was by
no means a light one. (gear.) But there was another
question not less important. It appeared clearly from
the statements which had been made that there had
been two parties in the Cabinet of the noble lord, one
inclining to the acceptance of the last Austrian pro-
position and another against that acceptance. Ho pre-
sumed that, as those propositions had been rejected, the
noble lord at the head of the Government had supported
that side of the question. Still it was a most important
question to decide whether he was right or wrong in re-
jecting those Austrian propositions and prosecuting the
war. (Hear.) That was the real question of peace or
war as it now stood before the house, and it was a sub-
ject of so large a nature, embracing so many considera-
tions, that he did not think it could be determined in the
course of one evening. He put it, therefore, to the hon.
and learned gentleman the member for Sheffield whether
it would not be desirable to make some arrangement by
which his motion should not interfere with the progress
of the debate on the motion to be brought forward by
the hon. baronet the member for Hertfordshire ?

Mr. ROEBUCK—The house will probably consider
that I ought to make some statement after the appeal
which has been made to me. (Hear.) I believe that
the question about to be proposed by the hon. baronet
the member for Hertfordshire is really one of the most
important that can be submitted to the house. (Hear.)
I think that the two questions ought not to be before
the house at the same time; and, therefore, if the de-
bate should be adjourned on Monday I shall accede to
the wish of the house and postpone the motion of which
I have given notice. I have only one object in view,
and I believe that I shall best attain my object by adopt-
ing that course. (Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL —After what the hon. baronet
the member or Radnorshire has stated, I must say that
nothing which I have said this evening is at all inconsist-
ent with the answer which I gave upon a former oc.

Mr. HUTT inquired of the Government whether the
circular of Count Buol was among the papers to be laid
on the table of the house ?

Lord PALMERSTON—I don't think that that cir-
cular is in the possession of her Majesty's Government.
The papers were then ordered to be laid upon the
table.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Sir J. FERGUSSON asked the indulgence of the
house while ho made one effort more to defeat a measure
the passing of which he should much deplore. The pre-
amble of the bill, in the first place, cast a slur upon the
Church of Scotland, into whose charge the schools had
been committed, which drew from its members a strenu-
ous opposition to the bill. It was to the efforts of the
Church in Scotland that the successful education of the
people was owing, and its members disapproved the
mode of Government by a central board in Edinburgh,
the religious qualifications of the members of which
were not tested. If they could secure a certainty that
the schools could be conducted upon Presbyterian prin-
ciples he might feel justified in withdrawing his opposi-
tion, but the most important powers were given to the
leoard—the power of examining schoolmasters, of depri-
vration and censure, of forcing the ratepayers to erect
sialsools, and of taxing them for their support. Such
powers ought not to be given to a board when there was
no stecurity that it would be composed of members be-
longing to the church. He therefore moved as an amend-
ment, that the bill be read a third time that day three
months.
Mr. HEYWORTH also opposed the bill,
Upon a division, the numbers were-
-.6.F0r the third reading lO5
A.gamst it lO2
Majority --3
The announcement of the numbers was received with
loud cheers:.
The bill was then read a third time.
On the Ir4ORD ADVOCATE proposing an additional
clause,
. Mr. HAD,FIELD appealed to the Government whe-
ther they woo Id persist in the bill after such a decided
expression of tbe opinion of the house, and when se-
veral members who had hitherto supported the bill had
just voted again: et it.
Mr. W. LOCKHART made the same appeal, and
said three members representing the largest communities
in Scotland, and w ho had formerly supported the bill,
had just voted agahrst it.
Mr. G. DUNCAI said he was one of the members
referred to. Ile had .all along supported the bill, but he
was now reluctantly o bliged to vote against it, because
he found that the bill converted the Scotch burghs into
mere taxing machines, as it gave the general board a
power to compel the erection of a school, whether the
people in the locality th ought it was necessary or not.
Mr. A. HASTIE said the bill was introduced as a
national measure, and be hailed it with delight. It then
degenerated into a Presbyterian measure, and though he
regretted the change still he could support it, for he was
aware that Presbyterians in Scotland constituted 90 per
cent, of the population. But now it had become a mere
sectarian system, which no denomination in Scotland
could accept except the Established and the Free Churches,
and he was reluctantly constrained to oppose it.
Alter some further discussion,
Lord PALMERSTON said his opinion on the merits
of this measure was not changed, though some hon.
members—actuated, he supposed, by pressure from
without—had changed their opinions at the eleventh
hour. He proposed, therefore, to go on with the bill.
Au amendment by Mr. DUNLOP, to take away the
control of the Presbyteries of the Established Church
from the religious teaching of the schools, was carried
by a majority of 117 to 80.
The house then divided on the question that the bi
do pass, when there appeared—
Ayes
Noes

130
115
Majority for the bill -15
The bill wits accordingly passed amid some cheering
row the Government benches, and laughter from the
Opposition.
TENANTS' INPIZOVEMENT COMPENSATION

I(IRELAND) BILL.
The corny nittee on this bill was then resumed.
On the 15th clause,
Mr. HO RSMAN moved that the chairman report
progress, mad ask leave to sit again.
Mr. MA.LINS wished to ask the noble lord at the
head of the Government a question. A rumour had
reached him, which he could not believe, that a certain
number oC Irish members had waited upon the noble
lord and intimated that the retrospective clause in this
bill, which had been rejected by a majority of 36, must
be restored ; and that the noble lord, under pressure,
had ag.reed to support a motion for its restoration. He
could not believe that sueh a bargain had been made,
but he took the liberty to ask whether there was any
truth in ti ie report.
Lord P ALMERSTON said a certain number of Irish
members I lad waited upon him and told him they were
anxious t( ) restore the clause which had been restored,
and wishod to know if he would support them. He
told them. that as he bad voted for the clause before he
would certi tinly vote for its restoration ; but there was
no bargain or pressure in the case.
In answi ,r to Mr. S. FITZGERALD and Col. DUNNE,
Lord PALMERSTON further explained that the
clause he meant to support was that proposed by the
Governor ent--not by Mr Sergeant Shee. Some of the
deputatic in did remark that members of the Government
were abs. nit on the last division, and he replied he had
occasion to remark on the absence of certain members