The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-30 00:00:00

LLOYD'S SHIPPING-(THIS DAY.)

LONDON, June 10.—Wind this day at Noon, N.W. ;
light pleasant breeze, and fine, but cloudy at times.
COWES, June 29.—Wind, W.S.W. Arrived—Adelaide,
from Akyab; George, La Gnayra, and sailed for Ham-
burgh.
PLYMOUTH, June 29.—Wind, N.W. Arrived—Har-
monie, from Memel. Sailed—Champion, for Australia ;
Zeehond (Dutch brig-of-war), on a cruise. Off Port—
Sarah Ann, from Launceston, V.D.L. ; Sir G. Anderson,
from Calcutta.
FALMOUTH, June 29.—Wind, N.W. Arrived—Amor,
from Veneros ; Julia, Sourabaya ; Stockholm, Samarang,
'
for Norkiobing, master sick ; Heinrich, Rio Grande ; Ida,
do., for Gothenburgh ; Agamemnon, Porto Rico ; Indefa-
tigable, Venice ; Challenger, Palermo. Sailed—Marchio-
ness of Douglas, for Quebec; San Jose, Barcelona. Off
Port—Rosario, from Bilboa, for Liverpool ; Preciosa,
Santos, for Hamburgh.
GLOUCESTER June 29.—Arrived—Vulture, Quebec.
LowEaroFT,June 29.—Wind, S.S.W. Arrived—Jyl-
land (s s), from Nykiobin.
HAnwicif. June 29,—Wind, S.S.W. Arrived—Nep-
tune, from Ostend.
BRISTOL, June 21—Wind, W. Arrived—Bunyn-
stuck, from Havannah ; Benbena, Smyrna. Sailed—.
Tommy, for Demerara; Lyra, Jamaica.
SWANSEA, June 29.—Wind, N. Arrived —Pascoe
Greenwell, from Cuba. Bailed—Jane Irene, Barcelona.
HULL, June 29.—Wind,
N.W. Sailed—Revel, for
Memel.
SHIELDS, Juno P.—Wind,
Arrived—lsland-Queen,
Alicata ; Plof, Krageroe.
QUEENSTOWN, June 28.—Wind, E.
Arrived—Emulous,
from Earbadoes ; Kathleen, St. Androw,s. Sailed—Char-
lotte, for Calcutta.
BONCHURCH (Islo of Wight), Juno head-board,
with the name " Ocean" upon it, has been picked up here.
The Emma sailed from Shields, April 23. for Dart-
mouth and Constantinople, and has not since men hoard
of ; but her boats, galley, and top of skylights, &c., were
Massed, April 27, the Knock Light distant 8 miles, y the
Forgat-me.Not (smack), of Dover.
INDIA, CHINA, AND AUSTRALIAN MAILS.—The G.
vernment have postponed the departure of the Candik
from Southampton with the India, Chins, and Australian
mails, from the 4th to the 6th of July. The Marseilles
portion of the mails will accordingly be made up in Lon-
don on the 10th, Waved of the Bth proximo.

IMPERIAL PAHL lAM ENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (CANADA) BILL,
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
The Earl of DERBY said it now became his duty to
state the grounds upon which he ventured to urge the
suspension of this measure, at least for the present ses-
sion, the importance of which, not only to this particular
colony, and the North American colonies generally, but
to the colonial interests of this great country, could
hardly be exaggerated. He had to apologise, in the first
place, for taking the somewhat unusual 'course of taking
this step on the present stage of the bill, and not on the
second reading. His apology was that the bill had been
read a second time on a day when it was not customary
to introduce a bill of any very great importance, and had
therefore omitted to look into the votes. He thought it
would have been more convenient and usual if, when a
bill was important, the noble lord who had charge of it
stated the intentions of the Government with regard to
it, and explained its principal provisions to the house.
In the present instance, however, the noble duke (New-
castle) confined himself to simply moving the first read-
ing of the bill, and even on the second reading he be-
lieved he had not called the attention of the house to its
objects and provisions. That was certainly not in ac-
cordance with the usual practice, and though this might
not be of importance in ordinary cases, yet, when
they came to a question which fundamentally destroyed
the constitution of one of their most important colo-
nies—which would do away with one of the most im-
portant safeguards of the monarchical element in that
constitution—which had been established in 1791,
and confirmed after the solemn and deliberate con-
sideration of Parliament in 1840 when her Ma-
jesty's Government dame to the determination of pro-
posing a measure which would destroy one of the most
important portions of that constitution, he thought it
would have been more becoming if upon moving the
first reading of the bill, the noble duke stated the views
of the Government, and called the attention of the house
to the subject. But that was not all. A noble friend
behind him had, on the second reading of the bill, called
the attention of the noble duke to the fact that there
were some despatches from the governor of the colony,
and from the colony itself bearing directly on the ques-
tion about to be discussed. *Now these papers the noble
duke had never laid on the table, although they were
most material to the discussion of the question, and even
after that notice of their absence had been given, the
noble duke persisted in taking the second reading.
These were the reasons which justified him in objecting
at this stage to the further progress of the bill. He
had now before him the papers which had been produced.
The first was a short despatch from Lord Elgin, dated
July 1, 1853, written on forwarding an address from the
Legislative Council, remonstrating against the proposed
change in the constitution. Another was a despatch,
dated the same day, but not received till the 18th of
July, being a counter address from the House of Assem-
bly in favour of the change. There were also the reso-
lutions in detail of the House of Assembly, with the divi-
sions which took place on the resolutions on which it
was intended that the bill should be founded. They con-
tained also a letter from Lord Elgin, stating his objec-
tions to the measure, but at the same time recommend-
ing that it should be passed. All these despatches were
in possession of the Government before the 18th of
July, 1853. The noble duke said that these papers were
laid before the House of Commons last year. That was
strictly true—that was, a portion of them were—the
address of the Assembly, and the counter address of the
Legislative Council. But the opinion of Lord Elgin
and the resolutions of the House, of Assembly were not
laid on the table of the House of Commons. If all these
papers had been laid before the House of Commons by
the authority of the Crown, then indeed it might be said
that notice had been given to Parliament. But they
were not spontaneously produced by the Government,
but on the motion of the hon. member for Manchester—
an independent member of the house. Now, could this
be taken as an indication of the views of the Govern-
ment ? But- when were these addresses laid before the
House of Commons? On the 20th of August, two days
before the prorogation, they were printed and laid on
the table of that house, and yet upon this the noble
duke was prepared to justify the retaining of these papers
from July 11, 1853, to June 16, 1854—(hear, hear)—
and then producing them, not of his own accord, after
the second reading of the bill. (Hear, hear.) He had
a right to complain that the Government had withheld
these despatches till the other house of Parliament was
overwhelmed with business, and kept their intentions
in the dark on a question which had a vital bearing
on the legislation of their colonies. (Hear, hear.) He
wished to say nothing offensive to the noble duke
—they had something of that the other evening
- and it would not be his fault if it occurred again.
Still he did not ask them entirely to reject the bill ; but
he did ask them to postpone it until another session, so
that the opinion of both houses of Parliament, of the
country, and of the colony itself might be deliberately
taken and truly ascertained. He begged to move that
the bill be committed on that day three months.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE did not complain of the
course adopted by the noble earl in opposing the bill
now instead of on the second reading ; but, on the other
hand, he could not admit that he had himself acted im-
properly ie laying the bill upon the table sub sitentio,
seeing that he had followed the ordinary rule of their
lordships' house. He would admit that ho had been in
error in not placing the papers sooner before them, but
he had been under the impression that they had been
presented to both houses, instead of being only pre-
sented to the House of Commons. The reason he had
not laid the draft before their lordships was because his
object was only to pass a permissive bill, and not to
adopt the draft measure ; and he did not therefore think
it necessary or right to produce the proposed measure.
The arguments of the noble earl might have been appro-
priately followed by a motion f)r the total rejection of
the measure ; but he did not believe a mere adjourn-
ment was at all necessary, for the subject had already
been carefully considered by the people of Canada. The
noble earl had observed that this bill was in the
sane direction as 'previous measures ; and he quoted
two, namely, the Compensation Bill and the Clergy
Reserves Bill. Now, as to the former of these, what-
ever might be said against its principle, which he
did not defend, he defied any one to prove that -it
had not been carried out in accordance with the strictest
principles of justice; and with a due respect to the law
and sovereignty of this country. (Hear, hear.) With
respect to the Clergy Reserves Bill, the noble earl had
made an extraordinary mis-statement ; for he said that
the first step that had been taken since the passing of
the bill had been for the secularisation of those reserves.
He was enabled, however, after an interview both with
Lord Elgin and Mr. Hinckes, to give the strongest de-
nial to that statement. (Hear, hear.). With respect to
t'ee dream of the noble earl, he must also deny that the
bill would have the slightest effect in weakening the as-
sociation of the colonies with this country. (Hear.)
After a few words from Lord St. Leonards, the Earl
of Harrowby, and the Earl of Derby,
Their lordships then divided—
For the b►ll
Against it
Majority
The bill then pp sad through committee.
The house adjourned at ten minutes after nine o'clock.

63
39
-24

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The house resumed at six o'clock. •

NEWSPAPER STAMP.

Mr. LUCAS asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether the Government had arrived at any decision in
reference to the newspaper stamp qestion, witE the view
of carrying.out the declared opinion of that house?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, as he
understood the question put by the hon. gentleman, it was
whether the Government at the present time intended to
bring in any bill to give effect to the resolution which was
come to by that house upon the motion of the right hon.
gentleman the member for Manchester (Mr. Milner Gib-
son). The Government were not prepared to bring in such
a bill ; and it would perhaps save the hon. gentleman some
trouble if he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) now stated
that, when they were prepared to do so, the Government
would take care to give notice of their intentions.
POSTAGE BETWEEN ENGLAND AND FRANCE.
Mr. H. BARING asked the Secretary of the Treasury
if he could hold out any expectation of a diminution in
the present exorbitant rate of postage charged between
this country and France?
Mr. WILSON said that communications had taken place
between the Post-office authorities of this country and the
French Post-office, with the view of securing a considerable
reduction in the postal charges, but nothing definitive had
been done on the subject. The negotiations had not, how-
ever, been formally broken off, and the matter might still
be said to be in a state of suspense.

TREATY BETWEEN AUSTRIA. AND TURKEY.
Lord D. STUART wished to ask the noble lord the Pre-
sident of the Council whether any treaty or convention
had been signed between Austria and-the Porte with re-
gard to the occudation of the principalities of the Danube
by Austrian troops ' • whether, in that case, such treaty had
been communicated to her Majesty's Government ; and
whether the noble lord had any objection to lay it
upon the table ? He would also beg to ask whether the
intelligence that had been freely circulated in London by
organs which were generally well informed, to the effect
that Russia had accepted what was called the ultimatum
of Austria, had been confirmed, and whether the retire-
ment of the Russian troops from Silistria and from the
Danube was, according to the information received by her
Majesty's Government, the consequence of any understand-
ing that had been come to on the subject ?
Lord J. RUSSELL—In answer to the first question of
my noble friend, I have to say that her Majesty's Govern-
ment has received information that a convention has been
signed between Austria and the Sublime Porte for the oc-
cupation of the Danubian principalities by Austrian troops
in any case, either whether the Russian troops shall have
quitted the principalities, or whether they shall seek to
remain there—that is to say, if the Russians have volun-
tarily left the principalities, the Austrian troops will oc-
cupy them ; and if the Russians should refuse to quit the
principalities, the Austrian troops will enter those princi-
palities, for the purpose of driving them out. (Loud cries
of "hear, hear," and a laugh.) That is the effect of the
treaty; but we have not at present an official copy of the
convention which has been signed, and therefore I cannot
promise yet to lay it upon the table of this house. With
regard to my noble friend's second question, which relates
to any intelligence that has been received by her Majesty's
Government with respect to the Emperor of Russia having
consented to the ultimatum of Austria, I have to state that
no official information of that nature has been received by
the Government. The last time that I saw the Austrian
Minister he informed me that no answer had yet been re-
ceived at Vienna; and I suppose, unless subsequent infor-
mation has arrived, that no answer has yet been received.
Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY—I wish to ask the noble lord if
this country is any party to the convention which he states
has been concluded between Austria and the Porte?

I;;,iJ:ia:SSELL-It is a convention between iustria
luta the korte, and this coutry is not a party to it,