The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-06 00:00:00

" Withdraw," principally from the Opposition side of the
house.
For adjourning the debate • 79
Against it 95

Majority,

On our return to the gallery, we found
Sir T. D. ACLAND on his legs, who, observing that
" least said soonest mended," moved that the house should
adjourn.

Mr. LABOUCHERE believed that an adjournment at
that moment would be most prejudicial to the interests of
he country, and not creditable to the house. Charges of a
grave character had been made against the late Board of
Admiralty, which. as it appeared to him, it behoved gentle-
men opposite to answer, and against the committee that
had sat upon the subject, which were, he believed, most
undeserved. (Cries of " Question !" and " Divide !") He
was anxious, however, that the question should not be
stifled, and ho thought it would be undesirable, after what
had occurred, to get rid of it by adjournment.
Sir B. HALL denied that the committee which had in-
vestigated this subject had been actuated by any party
motives. The committee represented gentlemen of every
shade of political opinion, and yet their report had been
unanimous. He was prepared to defend their report in
every particular, and he objected to the question being
shelved by the adoption of the motion of the hon. baronet.
Lord PALMERSTON thought that there were two
points, at least, on which there could be no difference of
opinion. One was, that after the course which the debate
had taken, there must be very considerable discussion on
the subject, and the other was that it was impossible that
that discussion could take place then (two o'clock in the
morning). He therefore thought that the house would do
well to adjourn the debate. (Cries of "Divide !") An appeal
had been made to the Government to give a day for the
discussion, but it was impossible, owing to the pressure of
public business, that that could be done. On Tuesday next,
however, the motion of chief interest appeared to be that
of the hon. member for Cambridgeshire, upon a question
certainly of not very pressing importance—the malt duty.
(Oh!) He would therefore suggest that the hon. baronet
who had proposed the adjournment should arrange with
his hon. friend to give up Tuesday next to this debate.
Mr. DISRAELI could understand that the course of the
debate had not been so satisfactory as had been expected
by hon. gentlemen opposite. There was great complaint
now that the statements made must be answered, but there
had been no such complaint on the other side when a state-
ment was made past midnight—(hear)--by the hon. mem-
ber for Reading, with the moral conviction upon the part
of the hon. gentleman that no answer could be given to
him at that hour, that his manifesto of spitefulness would
remain unanswered, and that not a single member of the
late Government would have the opportunity of replying
to him. (Hear, hear.) For himself he should not coun-
tenance any attempt to evade the discussion of the main
question ; and if hon. gentlemen opposite pleased to sneak
out of the position in which they had placed themselves,
he could only say that upon his side he challenged a deci-
sion upon the resolution which they had proposed.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY, amid cries of "oh!" and "divide !"
said it was unfair to say that he or his friends were desirous
to " sneak out" of the question; but it struck him as most
extraordinary that the right hon. member for Droitwich
should first move the adjournment of the debate, with the
view, as he said, of fully discussing the question, and then
should vote against it.
Mr. BALL declined complying with the request of the
noble lord to postpone his motion on Tuesday next. He
considered it by no means an unimportant motion.

----The house divided on the motion for an adjournment,
when the motion was negatived unanimously, the numbers
being—
For the adjournment 0
Against it
Mr. J. PHILLIMORE then moved the adjournment of
the debate.
The house divided—
For the adjournment 7O
Against it 9B

Majority

28

Mr. DRUMMOND moved an amendment to the original
resolution, to the effect, that, referring to the select com-
mittee, it appeared that during the administration of every
Board of Admiralty its patronage and influence had been
used and exercised for political purposes—(cheers)—and
that the report of the Chatham Election Committee stated
that there was no instance of an election in that place not
terminating in favour of the Government candidate.
(Opposition cheers.)
After a few words from Mr. OSBORNE,
Lord D. STUART again moved that the debate be ad-
journed.
Lord PALKERSTON expressed his regret that this
eqhua
re sat icot
en r had
and
been
dignity
broughtity of forwa
rd at
e required all,
divi-
sion on the question should take place at that hour and
under present circumstances. He therefore hoped gentle-
men opposite would allow the debate to be adjourned and
taken up next Tuesday. (No, no.) It was quite clear
that a division that night would not conclude the debate.
Sir J. PAtINGTON—Then let a division take place,
and let those who wish to resume the debate afterwards
do so. (Hear, bear.)
After a few words from Mr. E. BALL and Mr. PIGOTT,
Mr. HILDYARD said, the motion was brought on at
a late hour, when it could not be decorously and properly
discussed ; and, although the hon. mover was urged not to
persist in bringing it on at so late an hour, he persevered
in doing so, and therefore it was right the house should
now dispose of the matter. (Hear, hear.)
The house divided, when the numbers appeared
For the adjournment of the debate 64 ,
Against it

Majority 34 -
Mr. PIGOTT still urged the adjournment of the debate,
and

After some words from Sir W. JOLLIFFE,
Mr. C. BERKELEY moved as an amendment that the
other orders of the day be read.
Mr. BANKES said that the amendment could not be
put, as there was an amendment already before the house
—that of the hon. member for Surrey. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON said, if hon. gentlemen opposite
agreed to adjourn the debate—(No, no) —he had no doubt
that the noble lord, the leader of the house, would endea-
vour to fix a day for its resumption. (No !no !)
Mr. DISRAELI had now no objection to accede to a
motion for the adjournment of the house, and should re-
gard the carrying of that question as a virtual defeat of
the original motion. (Cheers.)
Mr. H. KEATING contended that the late hour on
which the question was brought forward was produced by
the hon. members on the other side, who spoke against
time on the factory proposition. (Ministerial cheers.)
Lord J. MANNERS denied the accuracy of that state-
ment—(Opposition cheers)—but, at all events, he thought
a question affecting the interests of a large number of the
working classes entitled to a full discussion. (Hear.)
Mr. HILDYARD moved that the house do adjourn.
The house then divided :
For Vie adjournment lOO
Against it 59

Majority
The house then adjourned, at 20 minutes to 4 o'clock.