The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-08 00:00:00

critical moment the expression of opinion by the two
Houses of Parliament, and the sense of firmness which
would animate, as he could see from the organs of pub-
lic opinion, every man in this country, in Parliament
and out of Parliament, the expression of that firmness
of opinion—and he did not wish to insinuate a doubt as
to the feeling of the Government--would not be without
considerable weight. He did not wish to encourage
feelings of hostility, but he thought it would tend to
effect a settlement of the question, and if that were not
effected it might lead to a general war, such as, thank
God, had not taken place since 1815. Under the cir-
cumstances, however, rather than incur the least pos-
sible risk, he would beg permission of their lordships to
withdraw his motion.
Earl FITZWILLIAM was desirous of asking his
noble friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether
a document, a copy of which he held in his hand, was
believed by his noble friend to be authentic, and whether
it was in the possession of the Government ? It was
dated from St. Petersburg, the 14th (26th) June. It
said that ever since his Imperial Majesty had occupied
the throne of his fathers, the maintennnce of the holy
obligations had been the object of his care ; and it con-
cluded with these remarkable words :—"lf, through
stubborness and blindness it desired the contrary, then,
calling God to our aid, we shall leave him to decide
between us, and, with a full assurance in the arm of the
Almighty, we shalrgo forth to fight for the orthodox
faith." This was a most extraordinary document, and
he was desirous of knowing whether her Majesty's
ministers bad reason to believe it to be authentic or not?
The Earl of CLARENDON had only to say that her
Majesty's Government had received the document from
her Majesty's minister at St. Petersburgh. It was for-
warded without comment, as having been published on
the day on which it was sent ; and they had no further
information on the subject. lie believed there were one
or two points in which the translation had not been very
accurate, in the copy to which the noble earl had re-
ferred. The concluding words, which he had read, "we
will go forth to fight for the orthodox faith," he believed
should be rendered, "we will go forth in defence of the
orthodox faith." He believed, generally speaking, how-
ever, that the copy to which the noble earl had referred
was correct. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of MAMESBURY would like to be
assured that the Government would do all they could to
prevent the proposed discussion in the other house on
Monday next. If the Government would give an assur-
ance he should be satisfied.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said it was impossible to
give an assurance. All that they could do was to exer-
cise any influence which they possessed, and they would
do their utmost. (Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE—And if that in-
fluence should fail, I Am to be at liberty to bring on my
motion here at the same time.

SOAP DUTIES BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this
hill,

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said when this bill
was first brought into the House of Commons, it formed
part of a great system of finance, prospective for the next
seven year, founded altogether on the supposition that
th• happy state of peace which had lasted for the last 40
years would continue. Since that time great changes
had taken place, and at this moment the English fleet
had been joined to the French fleet at the mouth of the
Dardanelles, and it was not improbable that year might
occur. They had likewise a fleet, not so large a one as
he could have wished, but a considerable fleet, assembled
at Spithead for the defence of the coast of this country,
because if an action were to take place at the mouth of
the Dardanelles, it must be obvious that a Russian fleet,
with troops on board, might be at the mouth of the
Thames, and therefore the circumstances were altogether
different f-om those under which the repeal of this tax
was proposed. 'Under these circumstances he thought it
expedient that Parliament should hold its hand at the pre-
sent time. The noble earl (Aberdeen) had said it was not
expedient at the present moment that he should enter into
our relations with Russia. If he could not see daylight
as to the ultimate result of the negotiations in progress,
surely that was a reason for postponing the third read-
ing of this bill, which was for repealing a tax of material
assistance to the revenue, every shilling of which they
might want. He thought the bill ought not to be read
a third time till the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
could enter into a full statement of our affairs with
Russia, and he moved that the bill be postponed for a
fortnight. _ _

The- Earl of ABERDEEN said it was his earnest hope
that no such resource would be required. But if unfor-
tunately he should be mistaken in that view, and the
very greatest calamity that could befal this country
should be imminent, he did not think it was the duty of
the Nouse of Lords to interfere and prevent the relief
which would be afforded to the people by the repeal of
these duties. And if it should so happen that this coun-
try should be placed in a state of war, the House of
Commons would undoubtedly provide the necessary
means for carrying it on.
The Earl of DERBY altogether differed from the
noble earl as to the relative positions of the House of
Commons and the House of Lords. The noble earl
must admit that on that (the Opposition) side of the
house they had given ample proof in the course of the
present session that they were not disposed to refuse
such taxes as the House of Commons thought proper to
repeal, or to impose such taxes as the House of Com-
mons thought proper to impose. But he altogether con-
curred in the view of the noble earl, who had brought
this question under their notice, that at a time when to
say the least of it, war was in a state of painful suspense,
it was their duty not to put themselves in collision with
the House of Commons, but to pause, and not to take
an irreversible step by depriving this country of an
amount of revenue which he believed amounted to some-
thing like 400,0001. a year.
The Earl of ABERDEEN-1,200,0001.
The Earl of DERBY—Then of course the case was
infinitely stronger. Under the most favourable circum-
stances the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not expect
a surplus of more than 280,0001., according to his last
statement, and was it wise to sacrifice 1,200,000/. of
revenue at such a juncture; was it not prudent to keep
it in hand in order that the House of Commons might
have a further opportunity of judging whether they
were now in such circumstances that they could afford
the relief. He apprehended the best course would- be to
postpone the third reading of the bill for ten days, or a
fortnight, or three weeks.
The bill was then read a third time and passed.
Their lordships then adjourned at ten minutes past
Seven o'clock.

ROUSE OF OOMMONS-(YESTERDAY.)
RUSSIA AND TURKEY.-31r. LAYARD'S
MOTION.

Mr. LAYARD said—l wish to state the terms of the
motion of which I have given notice for to-morrow. They
are as follows ,—" That an humble address be presented to
her Majesty, humbly to submit to iher Majesty that this
house has heard with deep concern that the Emperor of
Russia has announced a policy and adopted measures which
threaten the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and pray-
ing her Majesty that she will be pleased to direct that the
fullest information on this subject be laid before this house
as soon as is consistent with the public sen.lee." I wish
to say a few words on a matter personal to myself. The
motion of which I have given notice was fixed for to-
morrow. I received a note yesterday afternoon from the
noble lord the member for London, asking me to put it off
until Monday. I was not able to return an answer until
this morning. To my surprise, I was in the house yester-
day without my knowledge, for I find it stated in the
votes " that Mr. Layard's motion was deferred till Mon-
day the 11th." Unless some good reason is shown for de-
ferring my motion, I shall go on with on the day which
has been assigned for it by her Majesty's Government. I
must say it seems to me scarcely fair that an independent
member should be treated in this way.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—With re-
ference to what has fallen from the hon. gentleman, I have
to say that I am not able to give him any specific informa-
tion. Ido not know by whose direction or authority, the
notice of postponement of the motion of the hon. gentle-
man was placed in the paper. I can, however, assure him
that whatever has been done has been done with perfect
" bona fides," and under the impression that he had con-
sented to the arrangement. My right hon. friend the First
Lord of the Admiralty and myself are both in a position
to state that the arrangement had been made with the con-
sent of the hon. gentleman, and whatever has been done
has been done in perfect good faith, and with no intention
to interfere with the liberty of the hon. gentleman as an
independent member of the house.
Mr. LAYARD—I should like to know by whom the
notice of postponement was placed on the paper. If the
Government will show good reasons for my doing so, I will
postpone my motion until Monday.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I under-
stood the ground stated for the postponement was' one
which the hon. gentleman had recognised as a legitimate
one, viz., the indisposition of my noble friend the member
for London. I believe it would be inconvenient to him
to come down to the house to-morrow, and that being so,
I thought the hon. gentleman had agreed to the postpone-
ment.

Mr. LAYARD—I shall not hesitate to put off my
motion until Monday. It is or ly this that I complain of
—that before my answer was received the notice of post-
ponement had been given which has placed me in a false
position.

Mr. DISRAELI—I saw with great surprise this change
in the order of the business of the house, not having been
informed that the hon. member for Aylesbury had given
any notice of postponement in the house yesterday, and it
appears to me to be an arrangement of the business of the
house by the Government which requires some explanation
on the part of her Majesty's Ministers. What security
have we for the orderly conduct of the business of the house
if notices of motion which have been given are withdrawn
on the part of members who aro not themselves present and
who have not given their sanction to that course ? There
is also an alteration in the business consequent on the
assumption that the hon. member for Aylesbury had con-
sented to this arrangement ; I mean that the committee on
the India Bill should be first on the paper. I understood,
not three minutes ago, that a motion similar to that of the
hon. member for Aylesbury had been postponetV at the
request of the Government in another place. The reason
for postponement in that place could not have been the
indisposition of the noble lord the member for London.
(A laugh.) I think that as this is a question of an impor.
tance which cannot be surpassed, there should be a clear
xplanation of the matter, and some reason given to both