The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-08 00:00:00

THE WAR IN NEW ZEALAND.

o'cicck.

Sir F. :,31ITH said to, morrow he should ask the Unier
Secretary tor War whether ho would have any objection
to lay on the table a return of the number of officers and
men who had lest their lives in iNt•sv Zealand.
VOSTAGE TO A.US i. RALIA.

Lord A. CtilLitChILJL asked the Secretary to the Tree-
Bury if he would have any objection to lay upon the table
of the house a copy o: the Doke of Argyil's letter to the
Treasury, dated the 2.,d day of September, 1866, with re-
ference to the compulsory pre-payment of letters to Aus-
tralia ?

Ivir. F. PEEL said there would be no objection to lay a
copy of the document on the table.
TURNPIKE GATES.

Mr S. WESTERN asked the Stcret,ry of State for the
Home Department whether it was his intention to introduce
a Pleasure founded upon the reconimendati,ns contained
in the report of the select committee appointed to
inquiry into toe expediency and practicability of abolishing
turnpike gates; and, if not, whether he would consent to
leave out of the Continuance Act those trusts that are free
from debt ?

Mr BARING said that it was not the intention of the
Government to bring in any bill during the present session.

POLICE PAY.

Sir W. MILES asked the secretary to the Treasury
whether he had as yet submitted a case to the law officers of
the crown as to the legality of the deductions made
from the one-fourth paid by the Treasury to-
wards toe pay and clothing of the county and
borough police, as regards the two items, viz.,
the payments made by the said county and borough police
towards the Superannuation Fund, and fines imposed upon
the sail county and borough police for misconduct ; and if
hat decision the law officers of the Crown had
arrived. _ _

so, at Wb

Mr F. PEEL said a case wa3 submitted to the law
offi-.;ers.

THE HORTICULTURAL SO,JIETY.

Sir W. GALLWEY asked the First Commissioner of
Works whether certain arcades and galleries, until lately in
the possession of the liensingtrn Royal Horticultural
Society, were about to become property of the State ?
Mr W. CO WPER. said a deed of conveyance was being
executed, but was not yet finished. The property never
belonged to the Royal Horticultural Society. They were
the property of the Commissioners of the Exhibition of
1862.

NZW ZEALAND.

In reply to an lIoN. MEMBER,

Mr. CARDWELL said they hod no further intelligence
from New Zealand. Ail they had was the telegram. The
wail had not yet arrived.

THE VOTE OF CENSURE—THE ADJOURNED
DEBATE.
On the order of the day for the resumption of the ad-
journed debate being road,
Mr LAYAILD said he never rose under a more painful
sense of the respoasieility that devolved upon him than he
did that evening, because it would bccomo his duty
to justify the acts of one of the departments of the
Government, with which ho, perhaps unworthily,
was connected. He should have, in the course
of his remarks to vindicate the character of a statesman
who had taken his lace in history, and one the olject of
whose deeds has teen to add a lustre to the annals of his
country. Against that noble lord in the course of this
debate garbled extracts—he would not say falsified ex-
tracts—had been brought. (Cries of Oh, oh.")
He hoped hon. gentlemen would wait until
he had failed to prove his assertion, because there
would be plenty of time then to cry " oh, oh." The
right honourable gentleman the member for Buck-
inghamshire, in the course of his observations in bring-
ing forward the motion. had referred to early portions of
the negotiations, but in acquitting himself of his task, it
would be his duty to fill up the intervals the right hon
gentleman bad passed over. The hon. gentleman then
proceeded to narrate the whole of the negotiations on the
Danish question, beginning as early as those of 1848, which
eventually led to the treaty of 1852, which he stated was
not one of guarantee, but was one in the interests of peace.
Ho could not assent to the principle laid down the other
evening by the hon. member for Rochdale, because he
felt that his principles, if carried out, would lead to the die-
niemberment of Switzerland. In considering the ques-
tion with a view of arriving at a right conclusion, it
would be necessary to discover who were the principal
actors in transactions in which the Doke of Augustenburg
was concerned. Who, he would ask, advised the
Duke of Augustenburg to accept the compro-
mise at that time offered him ? Who, he would
ask, advise'' him
to resign his right, and whose name ap-
peared so frequently in the Dano-German papers ? Why,
1-1. von Biemark. (Cheers from the Opposition side.) Who,
in addition to this, did all he could to forward the same
object—why de Beust ;
and yet these two persons were
M.
new doing their utmost to set aside the established
succession in Schleswig-Holstein. When Lord
Russell came into office he found the Schleswig-Holstein
matter already in a very complicated state, and on search-
ing the records of the Foreign-office seven folio
volumes of despatches were found, and the language of
Earl Russell, which
wag now so much found fault with by
the other side of the house,
was almost identically the same
as already existed in these despatches. In those despatches
(cries of order, order) --

Lord R. CECIL rose to order. He did no think it was
competent for the hon. member to read from despatches
whioh were not before Parliament.

The SPEAKER ruled that the despatches could not be

read.

Mr LAYARD then continued, and said that although
he could not read an extract from those despatches, yet ho
felt be could refer to them, and he therefore said that t it se
the
seven vol urues nearly all the t erms used by Earl Russell were
to be found. The hon. gent eman then went on to defend
the course adopted by Earl Russell, and contended that in
all the steps he had taken in order to br ng the
he iilc powers to amity and peace they had bean taken
in concurrence with France, and he utterly denied that the
despatch, which had been so much corummted on as having
been written at otha by Earl Russell under Ger-
man influence was consistent with the facts. Such
he assured the house was not the case, as the despatches
were written in L ndon before he went to Gotha. The
proposals in that despatch were accepted by France and
p, u.sirt, but refused by D.:ri mark, and had they been ac-
cepted, they would have tended to a proper settlement of the
Schleswig-Holstein difficulty. The hon. gentleman then
read quotations from th.,, sp-ech of Lord Palmer ston
in order to show that Fraitce and Russia were as mu h re-
ferred to in the event of aggrei-ion in D irk as

ever Fangland was. The honourable gentleman then pro.
ceedeid to read extracts from the correspondence, to show
than Earl Russell had not used the threats th o tad been
attributed to him, and he denied that that noble lord had
ever lost one favourable opportunity of offeri mediation,
even when the Diet was threatening cation. The
noble earl had been accused of sad tell g Denmark
in negotiations, but honourable members, if they
read the blue-book aright, must come to a
different conclusion. Then, again, it had been said that
Earl Russell had launched his noble friend Lord Wodehouse
to Copenhagen, but at whose suggestion was he sent
from England, not certainly at the instance of this coun-
try, but at the instance of Russia, and he utterly denied
that Earl Russell had ever asked the King of
Denmark to do an illegal act, such as had been imputed to
him by hon. gentlemen opposite. There was a de-
spatch written by the noble earl of the most important
nature, which had been generally misunderstood,
it was not a war despatch, but one wiafeh, was hoped would
preserve peace. It was not addre _e
...esee to France alone, but
also to Russia, Sweden, Ausaaja)-
and Prussia, and he con-
tended that as all the othe, powers to the treaty mad refused
to fulfil it, England was released from the necessity of
going to war. The hon. member for Horsham stated on
Tuesday night that England went into the Conference de-
claring she woulsi support the independence and integrity
of Denmark; but this she never did, for even Denmark
admitted the- they went into the Conference without any
regard to the basis of 1851 or 1852. he right hon. gen-
tleman opposite said by way of complaint that her Majesty's
Government hat' proposed in the Conference the line of the
Schlei, and that it was made without the co-operation of the
ambassador of Russia. But it hon. members would turn
to the record of the Conference they would find Lord Cla-
rendon stating in two of the protocols that that proposal
was not solely the proposal of her Majesty's Government,
but that it was brought forward with the co-operation of the
neutral Powers. Baron Bruanow consented to support the
proposal, and said that he was prepared to go into the Con-
ference on the basis of 1852, but if that basis were found to
be untenable, he would support the like of the Schlei. Lord
Russell had been accused of brealting his promise with re-
gard to the line of the Schlei ; but what the noble lord said
was that he would not pro-aose an) other line but that of the
Schlei, not that he woeild not make another proposition,
which was an important distinction. (Hear, hear) What
would that house or the country have thought if the noble
lord had said., " I will make no proposal for arbitration ; let
them go to war." Why, that was a step in the way of
peace. The proposal was unfortunately refused by Denmark,
Austria, and Prussia, and war ensued. He must refer to
another statement of the hon. member for Horsham, because
he believed that there never had been a speech made in that
house which had shown a greater disregard for dates.
(Laughter, and " Hear.") The hon. member stated that
he had heard Lord Russell say in the other house that
within twenty-four hours he had again made an offer to
France to go to war for Denmark. [Mr FrrzuERALD sig-
nified dissent.] The hon gentleman must not contradict
him—(laughter)—he was afraid he was pressing him too
tight. When the hon. member made that statement he
(Mr Layard) interrupted him, and said it was not the case ;
and the hen. gentleman said, "I heard the Foreign Secre-
tary say that the French Government had declined to go to
war for Denmark." He (Mr Layard) had to state ihat there
was not the slightest foundation for that. When the Con-
ference met, the Emperor of the French spontaneously
stated why France could not give her support to Denmark
at that time. He had shown that Lord Russell had not used
threats, but that the language he had used had been uni-
tormly used by France—that he had not been unnecessarily
meddling, and that he had supported the honour of this
country, and had throughout shown an ardent desire to
maintain peace. (Cheers.) He now came to a very im-
portant matter. The right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr
Disraeli) stated that a cha ige of language had taken place
oa the part ct France in the autumn of last year, and he
attributed that change of language to two reasons—first, to
the way in which France had been treated in the Podsh
question; and, secondly, the refusal to accept the Congress
proposed by the Emperor. His right h n. friend the mem-
ber f r Stroud, in his very able speech, h-.d ventured to
gra,,ple with the right hon. gentleman on the question of
Poiand, and had shown that that policy had been forced
upon the Government by the House of Commons—(hear,
hear)—and that the G .vernment had acted in complete
c•mtormity with the decision of the house. Then, again,
with reference to the speech of the hon. member for Hers-
ham, who bad referred to despatches of Feb. 18, Feb. 21,
and Feb 27, would the house believe that not one of the
dates of these desi.,atches was correct ? That part of the
speech was a complete and absolute mystification. The
tesp itch of Feb. 27 only existed in the hon. member's ima-
gination, and the other two despatches had nothing to do
with this particular question. (Cheers.) But what were the
facts ? The debate on Poland took place on Feb. 27, On
March 2 Lord Russell wrote the first despatch, and he sug-
gested to the French Government—not in the strong terms
of the motion, but in more courteous terms—the spirit of
the address of the hon. member for King's County. (No,
no,) Let the hon. member who cried " No" refer to the
despatches. The hon. member for Horsham, on the occa-
sion of the debate on Poland, reminded the house that be
had seen an illustrious Polish patriot, who hoped that some-
thing would be done for Poland. fie (Mr Layard) knew
that illustrious patriot. But why was the promise held out
to him at the time? Because hon. gentlemen opposite thought
they would embarrass her Majesty's Government. (No, no,
and cheers.) The right hon. gentleman opposite had declared
that there were only two lines of policy to be pursued with
regard to Poland—viz., that Poland sh uld be made an in-
dependent kingdom, or that the Poles should be declared
free. The resolutions of the hon. member for King's County
were war resolutions, and the right hon. gentleman oppo-
site objected to them, and recommended they should be
withdrawn, in order that they 11 ight be emasculated, [Mr
DISRAELI—I recommended hint to withdraw the resolu-
tions.] The noble lord at the head of the Government was
willing to have a discussion, but hon. members opposite
objected, The hon. member for King's County said he was
ready to proceed with the resolutions; but where were the
right hon. gentleman and the hon. member for Horsham
when the division took place ? Why, to use a word which
had become almost classical, they " skedaddled." (Laughter
and cheers.) But what was the fact ? The fact was that the
hon. member for King's County was betrayed, and the
illustrious Polish patriot was betrayed also, (Cheers.) He
(Mr Layard) knew the history of that transaction. That
illustrious Polish patriot was led to believe that the Con
servative party were going to support him, and he be-
lieved that Poland was going to be restored by war. But
the fact was that the whole thing was got up to embarrass
her Majesty's Government. When they found the country
was not for war, they skedaddled. (Laughter and cheers.)
Then the right hon. gentleman said that in the answer
given to the proposition for an European Congress the
Emperor of the French, whom he called his peculiar triend,
had been offended ; but did not the right hon. gentleman
himself use more offensive language when he accused the
Emperor of the French of having abandoned an old ally
and a people who had freely shed their blood in support of
his dynasty. Such language, which was a reflection on the
honour of the Emperor as a sovereign, and on his humanity
as a man, was infinitely mare discourteous than anything
which had been written in Lord Russell's despatch. (Hear,
hear,) He had listened in vain to the speeches of hon.
members opposite for any clue to the policy they intended
to pursue. He had heard much about the honour of Eng-
land and peace ; but the country would not be satisfied with
such vague words. (Cheers.) He should be glad to hear
how her Majesty's Government could have cted otherwise
than they did. He had only heard of two suggestions; the
first was that made by Earl Grey, that in the month of
January this country should have sent 25,000 men to the
Dannewerke ; the other was that her Maje-ty's Goverrement
should have observed a total abstinsnce from interference.
With regard to the first proposal, would any reasonable man
have thought of sending 25,000 men to Denmark, in the
depth of winter ? That was a proposition too vague and
chimerical for consideration. There was one passage in the
speech of the right hon. member for Stroud which deserved
attention; that part of it which drew a distinction between
interference ana intervention. With regard to interference,
ho was as much opposed to it as the hon.member for Rochdale
or the hon.member for Birmingham; but mediation in fevour
ot peace is a matter of duty. (uheers.) And any Government
having the opportunity of bringing about peace, but who re
fused mediation for the purpose, would be deserving not of
praise, but of execration. (Cheers) He wished to make one
more reference to the speech of the hon. member for Hor-
sham, When it was objected to hon. gentlemen opposite
that they did not bring forward a motion before the Confer-
ence met, the hon. member for Horsham exclaimed, "How
could we pronounce an opinion, or bring forward a motion,
when the papers containing the despatches were only laid
on the table at the end of March ?" Now, so far from that
being the case, the papers were presented the let day of
March. (Loud cheers upon the Ministerial benches, and
cries of " no, no" on the Opposition benches.) Therefore,
the statement of the hon. gentleman was most reckless.
(Renewed cries of "no, no" from the Opposition benches.)
There was a difference of a whole month between them, and
ample time was allowed for bringing forward a motion.
Mr BAILLIE—They were not distributed until the 20th.
Jr LAYARD—The correspondence only ended at the
beginning of February —a he answer from Vienna was not
received until then—and the papers were in the hands of
members at the beginning of March, From the right hon.
member for Berks it was impossible to obtain any definite
idea of his policy. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gen' leinan
was too much versed in the mysteries of politics to commit
himself. (Cheers.) But, looking round to the men of that
party who had not the art of the right hon. gentleman,
Why, the one amongst them who was
what did they say ?
most cheered was the right h ,n. member for Huntingdon
(Gen. Peel), He would not stop to ask whether that did not
confirm the various suspicions floating in the political world
—(laughter and ironical cheers)—but the right hon. gentle-
man, having begun his speech by declaring he waa no par-
tisan, Went on to remind the house that two years ago,
in an aster dinner speech, he had spoken of the maculation,
"degradation," and every other anon—(laughter)—which
had belL,llen this country in reference to D-ntnark. Ana
then the right hon. gentleman, being at the end of his
tether, and having completely exhausted his own vocabu-
lary, had recourse to the columns of the morning Standard,
where alone he could have found language so choice, and
branded us as tog mouthed bullies who sneaked off on the

first show of danger. (Ironical cheers and laughter.)
The hon. member for Bradford (Mr W. E Forster) quoted
one part of the gallant general's speech, in which he spoke
of the tarnished honour of England ; but there was another
part of the speech, in which he said that, if such things had
happened in common life, the greatest coward would have
rushed forward to protect the weak, without even asking
what was the cause of quarrel—and then, added the right
hon. gentleman, he saw no reason why the Foreign-office
should not have acted in Zhe same spirit. Well, what was
that but a war policy ?—(Ministerial cheers)—and a war
policy of the very worst kind, because it was founded upon
sentiment, and not upon right. (Loud cheers) That was
the policy of the right hon. gentleman, who .vas 10.04
cheered by every member on the benches opr2;lte. (Re-
newed cheers.) Who did they
next I::.es up to advocate a
peace p licy ? Why, of all mea
the world, the noble lord
the member for Stamfe,._
ironical cries 'a a (Lcird It. Cecil.) (Laughter, and
" of the Hear, hear.") If there was any member
house who had used strong language in favour of
Denmark, it was the noble lord (Cheers.) The noble lord
was a man of great power, and if it were not that he was in
the habit of showing an unfairness towards his political op-
ponents that went beyond the privilege of partisanship —the
noble lord would be a very great man in that house, and he
had no doubt he would be so in future time. But he would
ask the house whether the noble lord had ever made so bad
a speech as on the other night—(laughter)—and the reason
was because he aavocated a cause in entire opposition to his
own sentiments. (Hear.) The hon. member for Rochdele
said there was no difference between the gentlemen sitting
on that and on the other side of the house. But now, t eally,
VMS there no difference ? The hon. gentleman in the course
of his very able speech admitted that the trade of the country
had made more progress within the last 25 years than in an 3
hundred years preceding. Well, had the right hon. gentle-
men sitting upon these benches no hand in producing that
marvellous progress? —(cheers)—had they not, by availing
themselves of the ability of the hon. member himself, given
to this England of ours some beneficent legisla ion?—
(renewed cheers)—and had not gentlemen on the benches
opposite taken a tone which must be especially distasteful to
the hon. member on the vital question of America? (Cheers.)
Why, if gentlemen opposite had been upon those benches,
we should have been at war with the United States. (Cheers
and loud cries of "No, no," from the Opposition benches,)
See how they were committed as regarded America ? He
and others saw around that house anxious faces, who were
waiting for the overthrow of the Government, because they
knew that the moment the gentlemen opposite came in the
rams would go out of Liverpool. (Loud cries of " No, no,"
from the Opposition benches.) Why, almost the highest
legal authority of the party had committed himself in that
house to the policy of the rams. (Cheers.) The hon. gen-
tleman continued—Let me ask what great crime has Earl
Russell committed to authorise the house to eject the Mi-
nistry from office ? I do not mean to say that mistakes may
not have been committed—(Opposition cries of " Hear,
hear")—still Ido not admit any. But who is there that
has had to carry on a long and difficult negotiation that has
not had to say, on looking back, that something there was
which might have been done better? (Ministerial cheers.)
I boldly say that, during the whole of these negotiations,
my noble friend has done his utmost to preserve the mode-
ration of Europe, and that any mistake which he may have
made is infinitesimally small compared with the great policy
which he had carried out. (Cheers.) Talk of lowering the
just influence of the country I I will tell you what has
lowered its just influence. It is the speeches we have heard
from the other side of the house, telling foreign countries
and foreign Governments that we are humiliated—telling
them, while actually touting y ur own nest, that an Eng-
lish Ministry can be base, dishonourable, and cowardly.
(Loud cheers.) 'Tis that which lowers the just influence of
England in Europe. (Renewed cheering.) You may con-
demn the Ministry, but, let me entreat of you, don't degrade
the country. (Great cheering.) You say you simply mean
a vote of want of confidence; then, if that be so, withdraw
this resolution (Cheers.) Remember, your resolution de-
clares that the great info nee of the country has been
lowered, and remember, if it is carried, that that will be
branded upon the records of P rliament for all time. (Great
cheering.) But I utterly and entirely deny that the just in-
fluence of the country has been lowered, and I look forward
with confidence to the verdict of the house and the country
upon the question. (Cheers.) I can't believe, after the state-
ment which I have made-1 can't believe, after showing
ho.. Lord Ruseell has been misrepresented and misunder-
stood, how unjustly he has been abused—l canaot believe,
I say that the house or the country will condemn a Minis-
ter who has laboured beyond all other men with truth and
sincerity, and, in spite of taunts and threats, has success-
fully laboured, throughout a period of un. quelled difficulty
and danger, to preserve to th a country the ines•imable
blessings of peace. (The hon. gentleman resumed his seat
amidst loud and prolonged chi- ering )
Mr HARDY said he did not wonder that gentlemen
opposite should have received with cheers the first
defence for the Government despatches. (Cries of " No,
no," in the Ministerial benches ) It was not his intention
to revert back to the early period of 1848, as in his opinion
the origin of the present controversy dated from Septem-
ber, '62. On the 24th of September in that year Lord
Russell gave the German Powers to understand that he
would support them in their contest with Denmark, and
then later in the year the noble lord gave advice to Denmark
which directly induced the issue of the letters patent. The
correspondence with Mr Howard fully established that. But
the hou member who had just spoken had charged his right
hon friend the member for Bucks and his hon friend the
member for Horsham with retisquering the correspondence.
Well, he challenged that statement, and asserted that it wan
utterly unsupportable. if any passage had been misquoted
why had not the hon member corrected it at the tre ment
But no, with that subtlety and cunning for which he was
distinguished. (Shouts of "Oh, oh," from the Ministerial
benches drowned the rest of the sentence.) The extracts
read were perfectly correct and complete in themselves, and
were such as to convey the whole tenor of the despatches,
And, with regard to their tenor and bearing, the hon gen-
tleman had taken very good care not to allude to what had
fallen from gentlemen sitting on his own side of the house.
The hon member for Rochdale said of our diplomacy—" It
was anarchy—it made us the disgrace of Europe." And so
also the right hon member for &mud (Mr Horeman). No-
thing could xceed the strength of his language with respect
to this diplomatic correspondence. But . hat right hon gen-
tleman had taken a most extraordinary course upon the
question. The right hon gentleman said the Opposition
was responsible for what had taken place, and that they had
allowed the time to pass by when they ought to have inter-
fered. And then the right hon gentleman, with a humility
which was almost touching, declared that even he—the
sense-carrier of both sides of the house—(laughter)—had
been neglecting his duty—(renewed laughter)—that even
he, in common with an apathetic Parliament, had been
negeecting his duty. (Much laughter.) Why, there never
was a man in that house fitter to have brought forward the
question of Denmark. The right hon gentleman could
not have compromised any one but himself; for one so
isolated, one so independent, had never occupied a seat in
Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Any one who remembered the
bitter language which had fallen from the right hon. gen-
tleman with respect to the occupants of the Treasut y bench
knew that he was not shy in attacking a Ministry. (Re-
newed cries of Hear, hear.) And no-v, to turn to the hon.
member the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. -I beg to
tell the hon. gentleman that the papers relating to this
question were not delivered to members at the commence-
ment of March. [Mr. LATARD dissented.] Why, upon
the 18th of March the noble lord at the head of the Foreign.
office himself gave the reason why they had not been
produced. (Opposition cheers.) The hon. gentleman the
Under Secretary has had his attention called to the mat-
ter. I gave him the opportunity of correcting himself, but
he would not be corrected. (Opposition cheers.) Upon the
18th of March, Lord Ellenborough wished to bring forward
his motion, and what did Lord Russell say ? "1 do trust
the noble lord, upon grounds of public policy, will adjourn
the discussion until all the papers are before your lordships."
(Loud cheers from the Opposition.)

Mr LAYARD (interrupting)—l did not say the papers
were in the hands of members on the Ist of March.

Mr HARDY—The hon. gentleman (Mr Layard) has
used language with respect to gentlemen on this side of the
house which does no credit ei her to him or the Government.
which he represents. (Cheers from the Opposition.) And
now, when the hon. gentleman is convicted of a mis-state
ment which he made in the hearing of the house—when he
used those words—l am surprised that hon. gentlemen who
sit by should have allowed him to make his calumnious
statements. (Cries of "Order, order.")
Mr LAYARD—I rise to order. I move that the words
just used by the hon. gentleman be taken down. (Hear,
hear, Order, order, and cheers.) I alluded to the words
" calumnious statements." (Hear, hear, and cheers.)

Mr HARDY (to the Speaker)—lf I am out of order, I
shall hear from you, sir. (Cheers by the Conservatives.)

The SPEAKER-- I here does not appear to me to be
anything out of order.
Lord PALMERSTON then rose, and was received with
cheers by the Ministerial party, and loud and vociferous
cries of " Order" from the opposite side of the House, He
said—l rise to order. I apprehend that it is a fundamental
rule governing the debates of thii house that motives are
not to be imputed to hon. gentlemen. (Enterruption ) I
appeal to you, sir. (Oh, oh, atd much opposition by the
Conservatives.) When a member attributes to another that
that ho m-Lkes caluminous statements

An. HON. MEMBER—The speaker has decided tha.
he has made a statement not out of order.

Lord PALMERSI'ON essayed to make further remarks,
and continued tor several momenta gesticulating to the
house. The deafening cries of " Order'' from the Conser-
vatives, however, quite drowned the voice of the noble vis-
count. At length, on sitting down, he said that "calumny
does impute motives, viz., that he distorted the truth."
Mr. DISRAELI, whose rising was the signal for com-
plete silence in the house, and who was at first quietly
heard, said—l rise to order also—to speak on the point
of order. I understood, having listened to this debate, that
the hen. gentleman the Under Secretary of State charged
gentlemen on this side of the house with falsification.
(Hear, hear, and loud cheers by the Conservatives.) Gen-
tlemen on this side of the house, conscious that they did not
merit that charge, and not wishing to disturb the order of
debate, were contont, when the time arrived, to reply, in
terms befitting an accusation of that kind, and in a sense
which every gentleman in Europe would think fit—(inter-