The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-30 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 30, 1854.

of taxes whenever there was a surplus. Accordingly, on
all such questions as those the Government succeeded ad-
mirably in their administration, because there was no dif-
ference of opinion in the Cabinet ; the questions had been
thoroughly settled, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in
the last session, and even in the present session, had, upon
the whole, been very successful. I do not refer to those
measures which have been so much talked of in the City,
but on all questions that relate to taxes taken off or taxes
imposed. On all these subjects the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer was the salvation of the Government ; and as far
as his measures have been submitted to the house this ses-
sion, he has carried them by large majorities. But on all
other matters the Government has been unable to advise,
or to lead, or to control the house. (Cheers.) It is clear
that the noble lord, who by courtesy is called the leader,
does not lead this house, and the house does not follow
him. (Laughter.) The legislative measures, which he has
offered to the house have not been accepted in a friendly
spirit, though many of them are good measures, they have,
unfortunately, been kicked out by large majorities.
With regard to the last measure of the noble lord which
was rejected—the Oaths Bill—l agree entirely with the
noble lord` I thought the bill he ihtroduced an admirable
bill—of course, putting aside my own particular objec-
tions to oaths of all kinds. I am amazed that any mem-
ber sitting on this side of the house should have voted
against that bill. (Cheers.) I think it is a discredit to
their intellect and judgment. The oath which the noble
lord proposed to substitute appeared to me to include
everything which the most greedy lover of swearing could
wish to be included in it ; but, notwithstanding, it is true
that the bill was thrown out. The noble lord cannot, then,
in any sense in which the term was bestowed upon his pre-
decessors, be considered as the leader of this house.
(Cheers.) But if the Government of Lord Aberdeen,
which I have no doubt was formed on the most patriotic
principles—if the noble lord who, Ihave no doubt, entered
that Government with the most honourable views, finds,
after seventeen months' experience, that it is a failure—if
he finds that the whole promises which were held out with
regard to what was to be done in Parliament for this coun-
try by a union of men who had hitherto been separated in
politics— if all these promises have failed, then I am not
sure if it is not the duty of the noble lord and his collea-
gues—who are, doubtless, as patriotic now as they were
sixteen months ago—to form other combinations, which
may be more successful. (Cheers and laughter.) The right
hop gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire has made
a fair defence of his Government, I must say, though I
voted against him when his budget was overthrown, and
when the ministry, of .which he was so distinguished a
member, fell—yet I gave my vote, and I have never con-
cealed my feelings either in public or in private, with great
reluctance, not because I thought the budget of the right
hon. gentleman was fair in itself; but because I did not
see in the then circumstances of the country any direct ad-
vantage that would result from the overthrow of that Go-
vernment. But the Government was overthrown, and the
first adverse vote was followed by their resignation of
office. But if the right hon. gentleman bad only been
reckless enough to involve this copntry in a labyrinth
of interminable negotiations, or in negotiations which
were only terminable by the calamity of a war that
were more interminable still, the right hon. gentleman
might have been Chancellor of the Exchequer at this mo-
ment. (Cheers.) On the theory of the noble lord, the
majority of 19, by which the Government of the right hon.
gentleman was overthrown, was not more decisive than that
which threw out the late measure of the noble lord ; but
if they had involved us in war—if they had undertaken
the responsibility of this great calamity—it would then
have been the duty of Government, and the noble lord would
himself have said, As you have got us into this 'war, you
must get us out of it if you can—you must take the respon-
sibility of the war on your own shoulders. That is the con-
dition to which we are driven. We have a Government
which is far from advising, or leading, or possessing the
confidence of the House of Commons ; and I am extremely
sorry for it, because many pf their measures are wise and
just •, but still they tell the House of Commons that it is
absolutely necessary they should remain in office, because
they have involved this country in war, and that it is very
inexpedient in the present state of things that they
should quit the service of the Sovereign. (Cheers.) Well,
I do not say there is no force in this argument, that when
men have involved the country in war, it is fit that they
should have the responsibility of conducting it. But see
what a pernicious principle that is to advance in the House
of Commons. Because, let a Minister be ever so reckless,
ever so unprincipled, ever so unpatriotic, yet by a course
of concealed and misunderstood diplomacy, let him involve
this country in difficulties with a foreign country, and then
we are told that the majorities of this house go for nothing
—that reform bills, corruption bills, oaths bills, settlement
bills—all that in ordinary times were thought necessary
for the welfare of the country—all these are to go for no-
thing now—we may not be able to pass a single measure
except those which have reference to the imposition of
taxes—but as we have led this country into a war, Parlia-
ment must support us, and all other measures must be de-
ferred. (Loud cheers.) Sir, I have a liberty to speak on
this question because • I have from the first denounced
the course which the noble lord has pursued, and which
has ended by involving us in war. Lord Stratford de
Redcliffe in Constantinople, and the noble lord and his
colleagues in this house, have led us into these difficulties,
and it now appears that not only legislative measures,
but our very Parliamentary system itself, is to be the
sacrifice. (Loud cheers.) I do not want the noble lord
to resign. I do not want Lord Aberdeen to resign. No man
has ever heard me say a single word against Lord Aberdeen.
I believe that if that noble lord had been at the head of a
Cabinet partaking in his own views we should have had no
war. (Hear, and laughter.) And from all I have seen of
Lord Aberdeen since he took office, I have never seen but
that he is as liberal in all matters of internal policy, and in
all the measures which he is inclined to lay before the house
and the country, as any other member of the Cabinet. Be
lieving, as I do, that this war is unnecessary and unjust,
and fearing that while it threatens to undermine and de-
stroy the constitution of Turkey, it is likely to destroy also
the constitution of this country, I cannot think that the
question which has been raised between the hon. gentleman
and the noble lord is as onesided as some members on this
side of the house appear to think. (Cheers.) I confess, look-
ing to the future, I can see nothing clearly defined as to
the foreign policy of this country. We are engaged in a war
for objects on which the Government has never yet conde-
scended to enlighten us, and as to the terms on which peace
is to be procured no one has any idea—we have an ally
who was denounced by members of the present Cabinet
not more than 18 months ago, and who is in possession and
will shortly be in possession, of no fewer than four Euro-
pean capitals—Paris, Rome, Athens, and Constantinople.
(Hear, hear.) And seeing that all this has been brought
about by what I believe to be the mistaken and mischievous
policy of the noble lord and his colleagues, I see no ground
for the noble lord calling for the confidence of this house,
or for the continued support and approbation of the country.
(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON—I do not rise for the continuance
of this debate, though I agree with the hon. member for
Manchester that the noble lord had come out of it but not
without scars. (Cheers.) I shall not, however, continue
the discussion, but, as a member of Lord Derby's Govern-
ment, I am content to leave the question where it is—
thanking my right hon. friend the member for Bucking-
hamshire for the able, spirited, and, I think, triumphant
vindication of the Government of which we were members.
(Loud cheers.) I must say that I think a very small por-
tion of the house will agree with the hon. and gallant
member for Huntingdon, who spoke of the attacks made
upon the noble lord. I think that all who heard,' and all
who may read this debate, will feel that the attacks were
from the noble lord himself—(cheers)—that the attack was
made by the noble lord, not only on the Government of
Lord Derby, but upon my right hon. friend personally, in
consequence of his having made, in language temperate,
but which the occasion justified, some observations on the
extraordinary position in which the noble lord and his
Government were placed, having abandoned half their
measures, and being defeated on the other half. (Hear.)
I think the country will feel the full force of those obser-
vations which have fallen from the hon. member for Man-
chester, that the noble lord and his Government now
condescend to stand in a position, with respect to every
question which now arises, which the•noble lord appre-
hended might come in 1852, and which he thought was
deserving of consideration, whether the Parliamentary
system of this country was not in danger of being brought
into discredit by it. I will here leave the duel between
the noble lord and my right hon. friend, in which I think
that the hon. member for Manchester is right in saying
that the wounds have been sustained by the noble for 1.
My immediate object in rising— nd I must request the
attention of the house to that object—is to make some ob-
servations upon this ungenerous, unjust, and absolutely
unfounded language of the hon. Secretary for the Admi-
ralty—(hear, hear)—with regard to the personal conduct
of my right hon. friend, Mr. Disraeli. The house is always
just in personal questions, and I am quite sure that they
will not now refuse their attention to the few words
which I am about to say to them--not arguments of
mine, but appealing to unanswerable facts with regard
to the charge which .the honourable Secretary for the
Admiralty has endeavoured to cast upon my right
honourable friend. I hope that honourable member is
in his place. The division to which the honourable
gentleman referred took place on the zah August,
1850. The motion submitted to the house was this :
" That the Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild is not en-
titled to vote in this house, or to sit in this house during
any debate until he shall take the oath. (" No, no ; that
is the amendment.") Honourable gentlemen will be kind
enough to be patient. I can easily understand they may
be very sorry to have this little phantom that has been
raised upset—(no, no) ;—but if they will do me the favour
to listen to me I will undertake to show that I am right.
This was the motion submitted to the house, and this was
the main subject of discussion : "That the Baron Lionel
Nathan de Rothschild is not entitled to vote in this house,
or to sit in this house during any debate, until he shall -
take the oath of abjuration in the form appointed by law."
Upon that motion an amendment was moved. I found
that. at least three divisions upon the general question took
place, and the last was upon a motiou made—l apprehend
resulting from the failure of the first motion submitted to
the house—the motion ultimately was this : " That this
house will, at the earliest opportunity in the next session
of Parliament, take into its serious consideration the form
of the oath of abjuration, with a view to relieve her Ma-
jesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion." The house
divided, "Ayes; 142;"
," noes" against this proposition
binding the house to a given proceeding in the next session
of Parliament—" Noes, 106;" and amongst the noes I find
the name of my right hon. friend the member for Bucking-
hamshire. The house will observe that the motion against
which my right hon. friend recorded his vote was not a
motion for their admitting the Jews to Parliament—not a
motion even then relating to the state of Baron Lionel-de
Rothschild—but a motion pledging and binding the house
to entertain this subject in the next session of Parliament.
Well, sir, I have already stated to the house that this divi-
sion took place on the sth August, 1850. Will the house now
permit me to read an extract from a speech which was de-
livered on that day—that very same morning —by my right
hon. friend near me (Mr. Disraeli). My right hon. friend
spoke at considerable length. Of course I will not trouble
the house with snore than an extract bearing upon the
point upon which I am now speaking. My right hon.
friend found fault with the course which the noble lord's
Government had taken upon the subject of the admission
of Jews to Parliament. My right hon. friend then pro-
ceeded in this language. I am very sorry to see that some
hon. members are not attending. (There was some con-
versation going on in the house.) I think in a spirit of
fairness they ought to do so. I must beg the attention of
the house to the exact language, which I am about to read.
On the sth of August, the day of the division, this was
the language of my
ion rig before the house has been the ht hon. friend—" I have, . I may
when the quest
re-
moval of the disabilities now in discussion, given the mea-
sure for such removal my unhesitating and unvarying sup-
port. I have, indeed, been sometimes accused of not ac-
companying the exercise of my suffrage with an expression
of opinion on the subject itself. That accusation has, if I
remember right, been renewed to-day. I. remember that I
the noble lord at the bawl of
the Gtovernniont did, not in

a very generous, certainly not in a very constitutional,
way, last year remind me that my vote was a silent vote.
Sir, if I thought that anything which I could say would
have tended to accomplish an object dear to my heart as to -
my convictions, my vote would not have been a silent
one ; but inasmuch as I believe that my opinions upon the
subject are not shared by any member on either side of the
house, I thought that it was consistent both with good
sense and good taste that after once unequivocally expres-
sing the grounds on which my vote was given, I should
have taken refuge in. silence, which at least would not of-
fend the opinions or the prejudices of any hon gentleman •
on either side. The opinions I then expressed I now re-
tain. They are unchanged ; and were it not presumptuous
to speak of our opinions as being immutable, I would ex-
press my belief. that they are unchangeable." (Opposition
cheers.) Now that speech was delivered on the day on
which the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty has charged
my-right hon. friend
.with having voted adverse to the
admission of Jews. The honourable gentleman the
Secretary for the Admiralty also used an expres-
sion which I believed he meant for a quotation
from the language of my right honourable friend when he
spoke of his peculiar and mysterious opinions." I be-
lieve that I am right in stating that the word " mysterious"
was never used by my right hon. friend—(hear, hear)—
and that he gave a public contradiction to it. It is need-
less for me to say more. lam not surprised that my right
hon. friend should not have condescended to answer in de-
tail such an attack so made. But justice should be done.
I think that the extracts I have read, made from a speech
delivered on the day on which the vote in question was
given, must show conclusively to the house whether or not
upon that occasion my right hon. friend meant to give a
vote at variance with opinions and with conduct from
which it has been, my fate, like my right hon. friend the
member for Midhurst (Mr:Walpole) always to differ, but
which have been adhered to by my right hon. friend the
member for Buckinghamshire with a decision, a. boldness,
and an honourable consistency which, I believe, has tended
to win him the confidence and regard of all men, whether
they differ from him or not. (Cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I do not
wish, sir, to enter in any degree into the controversy of
this debate, and I am glad it has fallen to my lot to offer
the few words I have to say by way of explanation to the
house at a time when the heat, which was at the moment
certainly considerable, has, in a great degree, cooled down.
It seems to me that, in a controversy of this kind, hon.
gentlemen can differ, and, no doubt, conscientiously differ,
even on that question which I had thought so clear—the
question which was the assailant and which the defender
in this passage of arms—and that is a warning to me not
to enter, without necessity, into the discussion. I will
therefore confine myself to an endeavour to set straight,
in a temper, I hope, of perfect calmness, one or two points
which it appears to me do not stand quite correctly
before the house. I think my right hon. friend the mem-
ber for Midhurst did not state with accuracy the position
/assumed by the Government of Lord Derby at the out-
set of his Administration, or the circumstances which
gave rise either to the position or the' objections to the
Government in that house. He stated, very truly, that an
agreement was come to that the necessary business of the
session should be wound up, that Parliament should be
dissolved, that a new Parliament should bo called before
the close of the year, and that the judgment of that Par-
liament should be invited with regard to the question of
confidence or no confidence in the Administration of Lord
Derby. I don't mean to say that he stated the whole of
these points, but he must be understood to advert to them
when he says that was a perfectly constitutional basis for
a Government to stand upon, and in that I perfectly agree
with my right hon. friend ; but he will allow me to remind
him, I hope without any kind of acrimony, that that was
not the original profession with which Lord Derby as-
sumed office. The profession with which Lord Derby as-
sumed office, and the declaration which fell from him in
the most explicit terms, was to the effect that what we
had to do was, not to consider whether the Government
that had been formed was supported by the confidence of
a majority of the House of Commons concurring with him
in political opinions, but, on the other hand, a totally dif-
ferent matter—namely, whether the time was not come to
set aside the discussion of political and party questions,
and to apply the attention of the Parliament to what Lord
Derby then, I think, described as questions of usefil prac-
tical reform on which no difference of party need prevail,
and which would find employment for the Government
alike \ diether it had or had not the confidence of the
House of Commons. That was the original declaration
upon the strength and upon the terms of which the Go-
vernment of Lord Derby, by the mouth of Lord Derby in
the House of Lords, proposed to administer the affairs of
this country. To that, undoubtedly, objection was taken, and
I cannot be surprised the noble lord the member for the city
of London felt great objections to such a proposal. Intima-
tions wore made with which, I have no doubt, many hon.
members now present are acquainted, which led to a diffe-
rent state of things; but the Government (lid come to what
may be called an understanding in Parliament. A declara-
tion was made, both in this and the other house, which went
clearly to the effect that the business of the session was to be
wound up, that a new Parliament was to be called, and that
the opinion of the House was to be taken upon the want of
confidence in the Ministers. Ido not think that the right
hon. gentleman was quite justified in his reference to the
" sanctimonious eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, and I think his own conscience may give him a little
twinge on that subject. The " sanctimonious eloquence of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer," as he calls it, was exer-
cised for a particular purpose. When a distinct under-
standing had been come to by a majority of Parliament—l
am not speaking of any breach of faith on the part of Lord
Derby's Government—bat when a distinct understanding
had been come to by a majority of the house to effect the
necessary business to which the session was to be confined,
they were perfectly entitled to protest against the under-
taking of that which was no part of the necessary sessional
business, but, as the right hon. gentleman has described it
to-night, a spice and specimen of Parliamentary reform. It
was against that portion of the operations of the Govern-
ment of Lord Derby that the "sanctimonious eloquence"
was used, and, sanctimonious as it was, it had the effect of

persuading a very large majority of the house not to take
-any step towards hamperins, the Government of Lord Derby
or towards impeding the fulfilment of its engagements, but
of confining it entirely to the discharge of that necessary
business. (Cheers.) The other point upon which I wish to
touch is in reference to what has fallen from the hon, gen-
tleman the member for Manchesterr I should be very sorry
indeed that a misstatement so important as that into which
he has, no doubt, unintentionally fallen, should, after
having been made in the presence of a member of the Go-
vernment, go fel th to the country' without any contradic-
tion or explanation—l mean that misstatement which was,
no doubt, founded entirely upon a misapprehension of the
language which was made use of by my noble friend the
member for the city of London. The hon. gentleman the
member for Manchester said—l don't quote his words, but I
hope I shall represent their effect clearly—" The noble lord
admits that, for all legislative purposes, the Government
have lost the power of guiding the House of Commons, but
he makes a claim of this nature, that, although the Go-
vernment have lost the confidence of the Parliament for the
business of legislation, yet, inasmuch as the Government
have likewise succeeded in involving the country in a dan-
gerous war, the House of Commons must hold itself de-
barred from its right to withdraw its confidence in the
Governmeht, and its tenure of office shall be prolonged
from this period until the war is finally settled." Such
doctrine as that undoubtedly never fell—l will not say
from the lips of the noble lord—but I never heard doc-
trines so absurd propounded by any hon. gentleman, how-
ever little noted or distinguished in this house. To make
an announcement that any gentlemen who haie got posses-
sion of office have nothing to do but to involve the country
in a war, and then to say they shall thereby acquire a lease
of power which shall last until that war is concluded,
really implies a height of impudence and folly to which, I
think, no one yet gave his assent. The doctrine of my
noble' friend was, if I understood him rightly, of a different
character entirely- (" Hear, hear," from Lord J. Russell.)
Ho stated that in many measures of ordinary legislation it
was undoubtedlytruewehawdhifeahileadt dtuhrisingpetrihoedpresent
session of Parliament in persuading the House of Commons
to adopt our view, but, he said, there were other questions
of extraordinary magnitude,
trans-
cend all questions of ordinary legislation ; he did not say
that those were matters upon which the House of Com-
mons had no right to pronounce—that those were matters
upon which the House of Commons had no right to give
their confidence or withhold it—what he said was, there
were great questions connected with peace, and war which
were now the direct and primary questions which threw'
all others into the shade, and with respect to those great
given
thet the
Government m ost u
n
primary questions the House of Commons had not thought
ht to withdraw- its confidence from, the Government,
a
oe rhi toyn..
m I e
ra hho
epre: Si
I
n t o
lbsuistsahka:albleupsuopnpeervtertyo tolicce pasiootilicy of
ear
the house that the doctrines of my noble friend are entirely
different from what the hon. member supposed them to be,
haveil the
madesha i t of
perfectly a triumphant
and I join with him in protesting against a supposition
that we were capable of propounding or entertaining such
a notion as he then descri bed. With regard to a hostile
review of the measures of a former Government, than which
rknow that nothing can be more invidious is members of
an existing Administration, my noble friend, as it appeared
to me, confined himself in a tone and temper the most
calm and dignified to saying as little with reference to that
question as was absolutely extorted from him by the attack.
No such necessity is incumbent upon me, and I shall,
therefore, not enter upon the subject. But I may, perhaps,
with great humility and great .deference to the hon. gen-
tlemen who have spoken, bo permitted to say that I do not
think the case of legislative impotence has been so fully
made out against the Administration of Lord Aberdeen.
The Administration of Lord Aberdeen has hold office just
one session and a-half. The session of the present year
has been a session in which there has been an extraordinary
disturbance of the public mind. If we are told in the
House of Commons that we have not been able to make
that progress with legislative measures that might have
been anticipated, and might have been desired, I think it
is fair that those who so exercise the office of critics should
recollect what is the effect of a European war upon the
mind of the nation and the disposition of Parliament itself.
(Cheers.) I think that those who, naturally enough are
disposed to impute this want Of progress to the Government
should go back to the period of former wars, and should see
what amount of progress in pacific legislation has been made
by strong Administrations in periods when the public mind
was once excited, absorbed, and exhausted by the necessity
of the efforts for war. But,
if I may be permitted to advert
in defence of ourselves to the last session of Parliament, I do
not think there will be found a recent session in which a
greater number of substantial and important measures were
brought forward and successfully carried. (Cheers.) lam
sure, sir, I am the last man who has any reason or any dis-
position to complain of the hon. member for Manchester as
to what he has said, but I am bound to appeal ishis sense
of justice when I say I think what he stated is not a strictly
accuratoor true description of the occurrences of last session.
He will remember that measures of great political import-
ance and difficulty, such as that relating to the Canada
Clergy Reserves, and that measures of great complication
of details, such as that relating to the government of India,
were introduced and carried through Parliament during
the last session, and I think I can further appeal to him,
when I say that I do not at this moment recollect a single
case of an important first-class bill which was withdrawn
from the House of Commons or the House of Lords during
last year with one exception, namely, the Education Bill of
my noble friend the member for the City of London, which
was withdrawn for the simple reason that it was impossible
to bring it into discussion until we had overpassed the limits
of an ordinary session, exhausted the patience of the house,
and made it absolutely necessary that some recreation
should take place. These matters ought not to be men-
tioned otherwise than in self-defence, but I trust it is not
improper to mention them ; for, after all, it is impossible
to separate, in a question of this kind, the question of the
credit of the Government from the question of the credit
and character of the House of Commons. It was the feeling
of the House of c9/1112a0118 that enabled the Cieverunzent lad

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.

The house having gone into committee upon this bill,
The CHAIRMAN p:tt the 26th clause.

DUBLIN CARRIAGES.
This bill was react a second time.

COAL MARK
Prices of Coal per ton at tt
e.

MT.—MAT 29.
,he close of the market :--
Wallsend, &c.

Howard's West Hartley

Wallscind, &o.

Hilda
17 0
Hodley 17 0
Riddell l7 3
Braddyll lB 3

year to conduct the legislative business of the country, and
if, during the present year, the results have been different,
I appeal to your sense of justice to wait a little, to consider
whether it is owing to carelessness, or neglect, or -want of
competence, or whether it is owing to that profound change
which seems to pass upon the temper of the people and
which passes upon the temper of the Legislature, which you
may trace every night in every discussion of the house, when
the energies of the country have been drawn upon for a
tremendous external struggle, and when the means so ap-
plied have been diverted from peaceful purposes, as in for-
•mer years they have been, but which in future years God
grant they may never be again. (Loud cheers).
Lord HOTHAM said that, having been intrusted with
some important petitions to present, he should consider it
his duty to present them, notwithstanding the bill was to
be withdrawn. They. w ere from a solicitor, a merchant
shipowner, and other highly respectable persons at Hull,
disclaiming all knowledge of bribery there, and praying to
be expunged from the schedule. He also had another peti-
tion to present, signed by 400 persons connected with the
port and town of Hull, who declared that by proclamation
the commissioners had promised that those who should
give evidence should be protected from all consequences
whatever, not only of a penal character, but all disabilities;
that in consequence of that assurance they had given their
evidence without hesitation or restraint ; they therefore
conceived that a compact had been entered into between
themselves and the commissioners, which had been repu-
diated by the bill ; they declared that such a proceeding
was contrary to the first principles of English justice, that
no individual ought to be condemned without a hearing,
and they therefore prayed to be allowed a hearing by coun-
sel at the bar of the house.
The order of the day for the second reading of the Kings-
ton-upon-Hull Bribery Prevention Bill was then discharged,
as were also the orders of the day for the reading of the
Malden and the Barnstaple Bribery Prevention Bills.
THE EXCHEQUER BONDS (6,000,0001.) BILL.
Upon the order of the day for the second reading of this
bill,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY urged the absolute necessity of
taking some precaution that securities created under this
bill should not be converted into permanent funded debt
without the authority of Parliament.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, this
subject was a very large and complicated one, and
in his opinion, the powers intrusted to the person
who held his office required the deliberate conside-
ration of the house. He did not anticipate the
necessity of creating funded debt ; but he could not give
an unconditional pledge, inasmuch as it might be the duty
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to create debt without
the sanction of Parliament.
After some remarks by -Mr. Hume, Mr. Thornely, Mr.
Williams, Mr. Glyn, and Mr. Henley, the bill was read a
second' time.
The resolutions already.agreed to in committee of ways
and means were brought up, and reported to the house.
EXCISE DUTIES.
The house then went into committee on the Excise
Duties Bill. Several additional clauses were brought up,
and the bill, as amended, was ordered to be reported.
INCOME TAX (No. 2).
The Income Tax (No. 2) Bill, as amended, was consi-
dered by the house, and ordered to be read a third time on
Thursday. -
CONSOLIDATED FUND (8,000,0000
The Consolidated Fund (8,000,0001.) Bill was read a
third time, and passed.
CUSTOMS DUTIES (SUGAR AND SPIRITS.)
On the motion that the Customs Duties (Sugar and
Spirits) Bill be read a second time,
Mr. RICARDO said, the bill had only been that day
delivered at twelve o'clock; and as a discussion was ine-
vitable, he hoped the opportunity would be given of
having ono on the subject. He understood the resolutions
before the house were in possession of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer when he made his financial statement ; but
that right hon. gentleman had made no reference to the
circumstance, and therefore the trade were taken by sur-
prise. He hoped, therefore, the bill would be postponed
until after Whitsuntide, to give an opportunity ior consi-
dering these resolutions.
Mr. WILSON stated the views of the Governmenbupon
the subjects to which the bill related, and explained its
details. He justified the adoption of a new scale of quali-
ties of sugar, and detailed the reasons why the Govern-
ment intended. to prohibit the refining of sugar in. bond,
and the regulations by which bonded refineries were to be-
come free refineries. He then explained the course pro.
posed to be pursued with respect to drawbacks, which be-
came necessary on the prohibition of refining in bond.
The Government, he said, had been asked to permit the
use of sugar and molasses in breweries ; but, after mature
consideration, it was found utterlyimpossible, consistently
with the interests of the revenue, to allow either sugar or
molasses to be used in breweries. Lastly, he stated the
alterations made, in the way of compromise between the
refiner and the importer, regarding time and rate of duty,
in the original scheme with reference to foreign refined
and foreign raw sugars.
A long discussion ensued, chiefly as to the day when the
bill should be committed. The bill having been read a
time,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed
that it should be committed on Friday.
Mr. MOFFAT moved to substitute " Friday week."
He argued against the bill, protesting against the re-
arrangements made in it as unjust.
The amendment was negatived.
- STAMP DUTIES BILL.
The Stamp Duties Bill was road a second time, after
some objections raised by Mr. Hadfield, Mr. Vance, and
Mr. Hume.

Sir J. PAKINGTON hoped the noble lord would con-
sent to the postponement of the discussion upon the bill,
as the clause under their notice was a very important one,
with reference to which several hon. members had given
notice that it was their intention to propose amendments.
Mr. GOULBURN concurred in the wish that the dis-
cussion should be postponed.
Mr. EWART also urged upon the noble lord the expo-
diency of deferring: the discussion.

Lord J. RUSSELL expiessed his readiness to comply
with the suggestions which had just been made, and moved
that the bill should be postponed until Thursday next.
The motion was agreed to.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL.
This bill passed through committee pro forma.

MEDICAL GRADUATES (UNIVERSITY OF •
LONDON) BILL.
On the order for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. MO WBRA.Y moved that it be an instruction to the
committee to have power to extend the provisions of the
bill to the University of Durham, which was agreed to.
After some observations in support of the bill from Mr.
Bell, Mr. Thornely, and Mr. Mowbray, the committee was
deferred for a fortnight.
SCHOOLMASTERS SALARIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The LORD ADVOCATE rose to move for leave td
bring in a bill to regulate the salaries of parochial school-
masters of Scotland. He saw no reason to be discouraged
in this question by the result of the vote of the other
evening. The bill which he now sought to introduce
would simply continuo the conversions of 1828 down to
and including the 11th November, 1855. The people of
Scotland now saw that the real difficulty in the way of
an education scheme was not a religious difficulty, but the
peculiarly exclusive privileges of the Established Church ;
and it might be depended upon that the people of Scot-
land would not long tolerate that exclusive principle. If
public opinion did not remove, it it would sooner or later
fall by the force of public experience. It had been said
that this measure was concocted for the benefit of the
Free Church party, but, a more unfounded and inexcus-
able statement was never made.

After a few observations by several hon. members, leave
was given to bring in the bill.
ADJOURNMENT OVER THE "DERBY-DAY,"

On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, it was ordered
that the house at its rising to-morrow (this day) should
adjourn till Thursday.
The house adjourned at one o'clock.

s. d,

Netherton 20 01/letton l9 0
Redheugh Main 16 0, Russell's Hetton 18 3
.
Taufield Moor flutes 18 3; Stewart's l9 0
Walker Primrose .... ..... 16 3 Hough Hall . 17 9
South Kelloe 17 9
Tees l9 0
,Thoruley 17 6
Birchgrove Graigola 25 0
Cowpen 2O 3

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—Du Barry's Delicious Reva lenta
Arabica Food invariablyrestores health, without medicine,
inconvenience, or expense, as it saves 50 times its cost in
other remedies. We extract a few out of 50,000 testi-
monials of cures, which had resisted all medicines. Cure
No. 180.—" Twenty-Ave years' nervousness, constipation,
i&ligestion, and debility, from which I had suffered great
misery, and which no medicine could remove or relieve,
have been effectually cured by Du Barry's food in a very
short time.—W. B. Reeve, Pool Anthony, Tiverton."
Cure No. 4,208.—" Eight years' dyspepsia, nervousness,
debility, with cramps, spasms and nausea, have been
effectually removed by Du Barry's delicious food in a very
short time.—Rev. John W. Fla,vell, Ridlington Rectory,
Norfolk.' Cure No. 1,781—" Not expected to live six
days longer. I Want cured by Du Barry's admirable food.
—Magdalena Purvis, Moffatt, Scotland." Cure No.
51,416.—" Fifty years' indescribable agony from dyspepsia,
nervousness, asthma, cough, constipation, flatulency,
spasms, sickness at the stomach and vomitings, have been
removed by Du Barry's excellent Food.—Maria Jolly,
Wortham, Ling, near Dias, Norfolk." Cure No. 3,900.
" Thirteen years' cough, indigestion, and general
debility have been removed by Du Barry's excellent
Focd.—James Potter, Athol-street, Perth." Cure
No. 81.--? Twenty ' years' liver complaint, with
disorders of the stomach and nerves, have been
perfectly cured by Da Barry's Revalenta Arabica.—
Andrew Frazer, Haddington, East Lothian." " Trevagler,
Gulval, near Penzance.- Feb. 20th, 1851.—Eighteen years'
nervous debility, violent palpitation of the heart, throb-
bing of the temples, violent pains in the left side and back,
shortness of breath; coughs, numbess of the extremities,
cramps, spasms, flatulency, retelling, and such general
weakness,. that I was constantly fearful of falling when on
my legs ; all these symptoms have been removed by Du
Barry's excellent Food.—Mary Gilbert."—ln canisters,
suitably packed for all climates, and with full instructions
—llb., 2s. 9d. ; 21b., 4s. 6d. ; 51b., lls. ; 121 b., 225. ;
super-refined, lib., 6s. ; 21b., lls. ; 51b., 225. ; 101 b., 335..
The 101 b. and 121 b., carriage freo, on post office order.
Barry du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, London;
Fortnum, Mason, and Co.,purveyors to her Majesty, Pic-
cadilly ; also at 68 Co;nhill; 60, Gracechurch-street ;
330 and 451, Strand, 63 and 150, Oxford-street ; 55
Charing-cross ;4, Cheapside-
[ADVEßTlSEMENT.]—Holloway's Pills for Invigorating '
the Weak, and Strengthening the Debilitated.—These
wonderful and efficacious pills are the only medicine
adapted to invigorate weakened constitutions, persons of
low and nervous habits, of:those who are suffering from
bad digestive organs, or those whose health has become
deranged by bilious affections, disordered stomach, or
liver complaints. Those affected with coughs, colds,
asthma, or shortness of breath, should have recourse to
these invaluable pills, as their mighty powers will be
found a certain and efficacious remedy for all these com-
plaints, imparting, at the same time,-strength, new life,
vigour, and buoyancy of spirits to the afflicted, and may
be taken with perfect safety at any period of life.—Sold
by all druggists ; and at Professor Holloway's establish-
ment, '244, Strand, London.