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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESJ)AY EVENING, MAY 30, 1854.

orm the Court of Chancery. (Hear, hear, hear.) We
wanted to bring in measures to reform the Court of Chan-
cery, and the noble lord and his friends opposed. They
said, " You are going to reform the Court of Chancery
upon the eve of a dissolution of Parliament; this must
never be." (Hear, hear.) But the good spirit and high
feeling of the house rendered that opposition futile, and
enabled us to carry those important measures which had
been introduced by Lord St. Leonards in another place.
(Hear, hear.) Now, I ask the house, was not the reform
of the Court of Chancery a most important object ? (Hear,
hear.) The country is indebted for that measure not to
the distinguished statesman opposite, but to the Govern-
ment which from the first moment he opposed with every
artifice of faction. (Hear.) And I ask the house, suppose
the reform of the Court of Chancery had not been accom-
plished by Lord Derby, would you by this time have had
that object achieved by the Government of "all the ta-
lents"—this Government which makes such enormous pro-
feasions, and accomplishes such alight results? (Hear,
hear.) Look at the distinguished and gifted beings before
me —what have they done at all equal to the establish.
ment of a militia on the voluntary principle and to the re-
form of the Court of Chancery? There was another mea-
sure which we proposed and did not succeed in carrying,
and which is very appropriate to the discussion of this
evening. (Hear, hear.) There were certain vacant seats,
occasioned by the disfranchisement of certain boroughs,
which, year after year, had never been filled up. The Go-
vernment of Lord Derby came forward, and made a large,
and enlightened, and liberal proposition to thishttrus
our.
They laid down a principle which the noble lord .
f
has since adopted for his own Reform Bill. (Hear, hear.)
They said that you should give those forfeited seats to great
counties which were not sufficiently represented, and they
proposed to give them to the West Riding of Yorkshire and
to Lancashire. (Oh, oh, and laughter.) How were we
opposed ? We were opposed with all the sanctimonious
rhetoric of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hoar, and
oh. oh.) He said, " God forbid that you should ho per-
mitted—a Government upon sufference—to introduce a
measure of Parliamentary reform. This Government must
possess much stronger proofs of the confidence of the house
before we allow the seats which have been taken from St.
Albans and Sudbury to be appropriated to the intelligence
and population of the north of England. (Hear, hear.) No;
you must wait. You must have a Government that you
have confidence in." I suppose that the vision of a perfect
reformed Government passed before the prescient and pro-
phetic glance of the right hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.) Yet what have you got in the way of Parlia-
mentary reform from " the Government of all the talents ?"
(Laughter.) Would you have been suffering much,if Lan-
cashire and Yorkshire had been more fully represented?
Yet there, in the political dusthole, lie Sudbury and St.
Albans still, while the Government is unable to deal with
the other tainted seats which have been brought before the
house to-night. (Heat) Well, then, says the noble lord,
"You brought forward financial measures and failed." It is
true that we brought forward financial measures which we ,
could not carry, but we did that which I think it was our part
to do—which will always be my part, at least when I have
the misfortune to propose measures and fail ; for I will
never be a minister upon sufferance. (Cheers.) What was
the conduct of the present Government with respect to
those financial measures? (Hear.) Tak 3 the great and
leading features of those measures—take the declaration on
our part that there should be a difference recognised in the
imposition of the income tax between permanent and pro-
fessional incomes. That was a point upon which the noble
lord declared his conviction that it was a most dangerous
principle of finance. (Hear, hear.) Yet, what did he do ?
he became a member of a Government which intro-
(heed and carried a graduated income tax—a measure
which could only be passed on the pretence that it was an
ultimate measure, and that matters would be so arranged
as that the income tax, after a certain period, should no
longer be levied. But what are you now doing? Why, you
have a war, and you raise your principal supplies for carry-
ing on that war by a graduated income tax—that most
pernicious • and dangerous of all financial propositions.
(Hear, and a laugh.) Yet the assertions of a principle in
our financial scheme, which was but a principle of justice
could not be tolerated by the noble lord—who yet became
a member of a Government by which a graduated income
tax was introduced and passed. (Hear.) Well, sir, what did
the noble lord next? Under what circumstances did he allow
himself to join that Government? The noble lord had said
before that he made a verygre, t sacri fie°. He parted from the
colleagues who had an his life been faithful to him, to
take into his bosom those ancient foes who had passed
their lives in depreciating his talent, and decrying his
eminent ability. The noble lord, I may say, broke up
the very being of that great historic party, the confidence
of which ought not to have been less precious to him than
the favour of his Sovereign. (Hear, hear.) What did he
do this for ? Not from any spirit of faction, not from any
spirit of political jealousy, or of political envy of Lord
Derby, or any one else—(hear, hear) —but because ho was
devoted to great principles, and resolved to carry great
measures—the great measure of education, for example—
to carry great measures of education. That was his reason
for breaking up an ancient and an honourable party, con-
nected by association with the glory of this country.
There were other great measures which were not so pressing
—the reform of this house, for example, and the accom-
plishment of the religious liberty of the country. (Hear.)
Well, we know what happened to that great scheme of
Government which the noble lord brought forward last
year. I do not know whether it was defeated or with-
drawn. I believe it evaporated while the noble lord was
making his exposition of it to the house. (Hear, hear.)
So wise and statesmanlike wan that measure—so amply
did it justify the confidence which was reposed in its
author, that I believe it never was brought under formal
discussion and deliberation in this house. But the noble
lord, who is a man of inexhaustible resources, rallies on
the question of education this year, and tries his great'
scheme in one part only of the United Kingdom.
(Hear, hear.) That scheme has been ignominiously de-
feated in this house, of which he is the leader. (Hear.)
Well, sir. the noble lord, who has been for three years, as
I have already said, besieging the House of Commons, and
who took,. nevertheless, the whole of last year to mature a
measure on the subject of Parliamentary reform, has
brought forward such a measure during the present session.
What caused the failure of that measure? (Hear, hear.)
I believe that the noble lord must look for his opponents
must probably among those new allies with whom he now
concerts. (Hear, hear.) We witrieised the emotion of the
noble lord when he had to come forward in the House of
Commons, and to announce the relinquishment of his
favourite scheme. (Hear.) Seine were inclined to treat that
ebulition with indifference, or with mockery—(oh, oh)—
and some to attribute it to the lower feelings and senti-
ments of our nature—(loud cries of " oh, oh")—I was not.
(Hear.) I expressed at the time what I sincerely felt, and
reflection has never for a moment made me regret. (Hear.)
I could easily understand how a person of the noble lord's
temperament might be so affected, and I felt that the tune
of Parliament was raised and elevated by it than the re-
verse. (Hear.) But I cannot forget—at least, when the
noble lord attacks me as he has to-night—that he has made
that measure one of the reasons for the strange and equi-
vocal position which he now occupies in the Government of
her Majesty. (Hear.) There was still another measure
which might have induced him to linger at his post, but
with reference to which he met last Friday night with the
mdst signal and complete discomfiture. I was asking—when
I made the few remarks, which I little thought would lead
to this discussion—l was asking what prospect the Govern-
ment had when they introduced, or promised to introduce,
these bills, of being able to carry them through Parliament.
hear.) I might ask the noble lord further, what are the
relations now existing between him and the Government
of which he is a member? (Hear, hear.) All the great
measures to which he made what I admit were costly sa-
crifices, have been defeated, yet the noble lord still retains
- his post. (Hear, hear.) The most eminent statesman of
this country—one of the oldest and most experienced
members of this house—one who has been thrice Secretary
of State, Secretary of State in each department, and who
was Prime Minister of England for a long time—one who
is associated with the memory of a great principle, believed
by large bodies of the people of this country, and who was
the leadec-of a noble historic party—without a department,
condescends to accept subordinate office, under one who is
not only a Minister not entitled to the confidence of the
country —(immense cheering)—but who was his ancient
and inveterate political opponent, and whom, only four
years ago, he rose and denounced in this house—he talks
of "connivance" now—as a "conniver" with foreign con-
spirators— (hear, hear)—and now the noble lord comes
down and tells me that this vote the other night, which he-
admits was an overwhelming defeat, was caused by my
being false to the principles which I profess in this house.
(Hear, hear.) The noble lord said that I pretend to be
an asserter of the claims of the Jews to political equality
with the other subjects of her Majesty, and that I
have made that a convenient political scheme—that when
the occasion suited me I went out, and did not vote, and
when on the occasions I found it convenient to vote
against it, lalid not hesitate to do so. (Hear, hear.) Now
I gave to that statement of the noble lord the most un-
equivocal and most unqualified denial. (Hoar, hear.) I
deny that I ever absented myself at any period of my life
from any division in which the rights of the Jews were
concerned. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord, who is the
leader of the House of Commons, and who ought not to
make such a statement of any man—least of all of me—on
such a subject, ought to have informed himself better
before he made such a statement. (Hear, hear.) Suppose
I were to get up and say that the noble lord had made
Parliamentary reform a mere political convenience. (Hear,
hear)—that when it suited him he matte it convenient to
quit the house and not vote at all, and that when it suited
him also, he would have to give a vote against it. (Hear.)
Perhaps I
coiourable e. might, without much ingenuity, make out a very
But I ase
of
that kind against the noble lord. (Hear.)
the
noble shouldlord
acorn to do it. (Hear.) I am convinced that
with respect to
sincere in the opinions which ho professes
ag.ainA the Parliamentary reform, and that if he voted
by Lord Derby'smeasures of Parliamentary reform introduced
he was bound
0 government, it was because he felt that
which he wished :ot by
his obligations to those principles
can make no coloiirt successful. But the noble lord
hear.) I repeat that le case a4ainst me. (Hear,
division in which the rights
absented myself from any
s of the Jews were concerned,
and if I voted aeaiust the other night, I tell the
noble lord that I do not conbsill
which would have benefitted the tj?.at I voted against a bill
,vit but I voted against
a bill which I believed would havee greater injury to
the Jew than any other measure that(liZe.eegver been brought
forward. I will say no more. I will
and surprise that the gentleman profeszslinregss my sorrow
Catholic religion in this house should have deemed 'Ron:L
con-
sistent with their duty and their interest to eniiirttatvhat
measure. (Hear.) I am confident they never
vote more likely to injure them in the opinion of tOgreettat
body of the people of this country—or having a stronger
weaken their own posivrtioenli,,thsiarn, tllibeevloietveewltihicht tendency to
the gave that night. (Hear.)
the noble lord had no communication,indir.ect
for indirect,
with the Roman Catholic body, onlert_ dintgheorcwoavdthuat
bill. (Hear.) I am quite convinced. h
have recommended it. I eta convincedt_tehatgyentlern en not
noble lord had
their acuteness must have seen that h_
some other object, besides benefiting t_hehEatolmnaany
have
ehboleiecns
or the Jaws, in bringinj in that bill. W
the object, it is not for me to inquire;
brit
I have my own
opinion upon it. And I believe that thenoble lord was _aeLced
8.)1ely influence by counsellors who hare already-
his position, and who will net rest from their end ay:ine.
nrs
until they have permanently sullied his illustrious n
This I tell the noble lord. I have endeavoured to vindi-
cate myself from the attack he made upon ma. And I
must repeat—because the subject is one upon which I Jo
not wish to be misunderstood—that the noble lord was
never more mistaken—unintentionally, no doubt—than
when he says I ever left the house when a question which
concerned the claims of the Jews was under its consider-
ation. (Cheers.)
Sir GEORGE GREY ; I wish I could believe that the
course which has been taken upon this occasion was calcu-
lated to elevate the tone or the character of this house.
(Hear, hear.) I certainly had hoped, from the tone of the
observations made by the hon. and learned member for
Stamford, that the withdrawal of these bills would not have
been made the occasion for party discussion, or for acrimo-
nious debate—a debate which cannot lead to the decision
df the house, uppon any of the questions put in issue by the
right hon. gentleman opposite. The tone of the lion, and

learned gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger) was such as became
the occasion, and after the discussion had been carried on
for some time in the same spirit, and in the same tone.
evincing a desire upon the part of the house to put an end
to the corruption out of which these bills had arisen, the
right hon. gentleman got up, and made a violent and un-
provoked attack upon my noble friend the member for the
city of London—(hear, hear, no, no, and some confusion)—
who, upon that question, had no opportunity of replying,
but who did reply, when the question for the withdrawal
of the next bill came to be put, in obedience to the order
of the house, in a tone of moderation which afforded no
gratification whatever for that further attack which the
right hon. gentleman has made, with that vehemence of
manner and of gesture and with that acrimony of tone and
of language, of which he has unfortunately, in past times,
given us so many examples. lam not going to follow the
right hon. gentleman into an examination of the measures
which he calls assaults upon the constitution. I rise in con-
sequence of the taunt which he has thrown out against my
noble friend for occupying the position he does, and for
giving to the Government of Lord Aberdeen the benefit—
and a great benefit it is—of the high position which he oc-
cupies in the estimation of the country and of this house -
position which, I am sure, none of the invectives of the right
hon. gentleman can inthe least degree impair. The right
hon. gentleman has accusal my noble friend of throwing
over his colleagues, and of a tenacity in clinging to office,
to which I think his past life is the best answer. (Cheers.)
I trust that, when the right hon. gentleman has been as long In
Parliament, and as long before the country as my noble
friend, he will be held in as great esteem as my noble friend
is now. I can only say that my noble friend did me the
honour of consulting me, as one of his former colleagues,
when the present Government was formed, and that his
acceptance of his present position in that Government had
my
.hearty, and sincere, and cordial concurrence. I felt
—and I believe others of his late colleagues felt the same
thing—not only that he would shrink from the public
duty which he owed the country, if he allowed any private
feeling to interfere with his taking a share in the Govern-
ment, but that in consenting to take that share he would
be rendering an important service to the country. When
the right hon. gentleman talks of separation from his col-
leagues, it is fair to refer to the uniform support which
those colleagues have generally given to my noble friend
and to the Government of which he is a member ; and
when he says that the Government of Lord Aberdeen
does not possess the confidence of the country, I say it is
most degrading to the party of which the right hon. gen-
tleman is a member to make these assertions night after
night, and to shrink from putting them to the test by ap-
pealing directly to the house. (Hear, hear.)
Colonel PEEL—I trust the house will allow me to say
a. few words. Unaccustomed as lam to take part in its
discussions, sitting always upon this side of the house, and
entertaining Conservative opinions, which render it impos-
sible for me to give my support to the present Government,
I never will be a party to these attacks, made to weaken
their power to carry on the war. So far from thinking
they have been guilty of connivance or credulity, I, for
one, give them my entire support in everything connected
with the war; and both in their financial measures and in
every other necessary arrangement, they may rely upon
receiving every assistance from me. (Hear, hear.) .
The question was then put and agreed to.
On the motion to withdraw the third bill (that for King-
ston-upon-Hull),

Lord J. RUSSELL said, I very much regret that there
should be any necessity for my addressing the house again,
but after the charges which the right hon. gentleman
has made, and the assertions in which he has indulged him-
self with respect to my conduct, I feel I cannot be altogether
silent when I have an opportunity of replying to the asser-
tions he has made. Let me say, however, in the first place,
that if I have done the right hon. gentleman any wrong
with respect to his absenting himself from voting, or to any
vote given by him on the subject of Jewish rights, I heartily
regret having fallen into any error on the subject. I could
refer to a division [so we understood] at which he was not
present, according to my memory, upon the subject, but
1 do not wish to enter into that kind of controversy. I
am quite persuaded that the right hon. gentleman in-
tended to servo the cause of the Jews in the course that he
has taken, and I therefore will not enter into any dispute
on that subject. (Hear, hear.) But when he accuses me
Of factious opposition to Lord Derby's Government, and
attacks me for taking part in the present Government, I
must be allowed to question the facts on which the right
hon. gentleman relies, and to deny the inference that he
has drawn. (Hear, hear.) He accuses me of making a
factious opposition to Lord Derby's Government, and of
founding that opposition on the Militia Bill. (Hear,
hear.) Now, sir, far from founding it on the Militia Bill,
1 did not seek the support of any of the party to which I
belong on the subject of that bill. (Hear, hear.) I came,
with much deliberation, and after much doubt, to the con-
clusion that that measure was not a good measure, that it
was a far inferior measure to that which I had introduced,
and I voted against the second reading, stating at the
same time that I should take no part in the committee.
(Hear.) I adfered 'to that determination, and so far from
having, as the right honourable gentleman has said, perti-
naciously opposed the measure in committee, I took no
further part in the proceedings than making a single ob-
servation on a question which arose in the course, of the
discussion ; and upon one occasion, when there was only
a majority of fourteen with respect to an essential part
of the bill, I purposely absented
_myself from the house,
and did not give my vote. (Hear.) But what I did ob-
ject to wa4the new principle stated and started by Lord
Derby—that, not having the confidence of the existing
Parliament, he would not appeal to a new Parliament ;
and that, for a period of ten or eleven months, he proposed
to carry on the Government without the confidence of the
house. (Hear.) I objected certainly to that course, and
Lord Derby was himself at last obliged to confess that the
Parliament must be dissolved as soon as the business
could be disposed of which it was absolutely necessary to
get through. Never was there so unconstitutional a prin-
ciple, founded as that which was at first avowed by Lord,
Derby, and till that principle was disclaimed in both
I houses of Parliament I denounced, as I had a right to de-
nounce, his ministry as a ministry standing upon uncon-
' stitutional grounds, and I declared that they were bound
either to have the confidence of the House of Commons or
not to remain in office. But the right hon. gentleman
says, with regard to the course I took at that time, that I
constantly opposed his Government. Sir, I did not often
attend the house at that .time; sometimes I voted with
them, and that at times when they were in considerable
difficulties ; sometimes I voted against them. But I mast
tell the right hon. gentleman that that which injured the
Government of which he was a principal member was their
own conduct. (Cheers.) It was .the manner in which
they carried on the Government of the country—it was
the mode in which they attempted to obtain a majority in
Parliament which destroyed-confidence in them and finally
ruined their power. (Loud cheers.) Well, but says the
right hon. gentleman, I opposed his plan of finance on the
ground that it made a difference in the impost between
different sources of income. (Hear.) Sir, I did state
that I had doubts upon the subject, and that the proposi-
tion was entirely new. Sir, I took no part in the de-
bate by which his Government was overthrown; but
when it was overthrown, a serious question offered
itself to my mind, and I was obliged to give a deci-
sion upon it. The question was—having taken a part in
connection with other parties in the overthrow of that
Government, whether or not I could take a part in the
Government which was about to be formed. I do not hesi-
tate to say that if I had thought a Government could have
been formed, either by myself or by other parties, without
a junction between different parties in politics, which Go-
vernment could hope to be strong in the confidence of the
House of Commons, I would rather that the Government
should have been formed of one party only, than that the
Government should be formed of different parties who had
not hitherto worked together. Bat when I came to consider
the position in which I might be placed, should her Ma-
jesty—which from some intimation I received I had reason
to think might be the case—should her Majesty have sent
for me to ask my advice on that occasion, could I form a
Government which was likely to obtain a permanent ma-
jority in the House of Commons? Could Lord Aberdeen,
with the assistance of Sir R. Peel's friends, have formed
such a Government? Lord Aberdeen thought that was
impossible. He has frequently declared to me he thought
that was impossible. The Government' of Lord Derby had
- just been defeated, after every means had been taken—
means, upon the character of which I will not now enter
—but after every means had been taken to secure a majo-
rity, that Government was not able to command a majo-
rity in the House of Commons. Was I then to contribute
to bring Parliamentary Government into discredit ? (Loud
cheers.) Was it not my duty, by every means in my
power, to enable Lord Aberdeen to form a Government
which would have the confidence of the House of Com-
mons ? (Loud cheers.) Sir, on this subject I did not
act alone. I did not betray, nor desert, nor surrender the
confidence of that great party with which was associated
(Great cheering.) My right lion. friend who has just spoken
has given his testimony to the fact that I did not desert
them ; and I may add, that the man whom I naturally
went to consult on that occasion, was not one who bad con-
stantly been my enemy—one in whom I had no political
confidence—the man whom I went to consult was my Lord
Lansdowne—(cheers)—and I found with him a right hon.
friend of mine, as distinguished for his talents, as distin-
guished for his character, as any member of this house or
of his party. I mean Mr. Macaulay. (Cheers.) I think
I betray no confidence when I state what passed on that
occasion. I asked Lord Lansdowne, supposing that Lord
Aberdeen has a summons from her Majesty to form a Go-
vernment, whether he thought that I could be a member
of the Cabinet with Lord Aberdeen—whether he thought
it was myduty so to do. 'We discussed numerous contingen-
cies, and Lord Lansdowne ended 'by declaring that in his
opinion it was my duty—a duty which I owed to the pub-
lic, to accept office under Lord Aberdeen. Mr. Macaulay
expressed his opinion still more strongly. He said, " I
know you are not afraid of responsibility—(loud cheers)---
but you never incurred a more awful responsibility than
you will incur, if you do not lend your utmost assistance
to form a Government on the present occasion." (Hear.)
Sir, I consulted others—l consulted my sight hon. friend
who has just spoken—and they were of opinion that it was
my duty to form a Government which would unite the
Whig party with the party of the remaining friends of
Sir Robert Peel, who were then ready to accept office
under Lord Aberdeen. (Hear, hear.) With regard to Lord
Aberdeen, I must say that I have always been in habits of
private friendship. I respected his public character; and
when I had occasion to speak of his conduct in the Foreign-
office, in the administration of Sir R. Peel, I said that,
though opposed in some respects to his administration, I
could not find any occasion on which the honour or the inte-
rests of this country had evet been sacrificed by Lord Aber-
deen. (Cheers.) Such was my public testimony to his con-
duet a time when I was opposed to him. The right hon.
Minister of I.')
man chooses to say that at the time when I spoke of
my noble friend the present Home Secretary as not being
the Minister
IfuAustria, or the Minister of Russia, or the
did declare thata
Prussia I alluded to Lord Aberdeen. Sir, I
made no such
sons in this country, 8
allusion ; I meant no such allusion ; but I
spite of the whispers of a coterie of per-
sons
I thought my formed chiefly, I believe, of foreign-
and not as tl
noble friend. had acted as the Minister
of England,
and as such I defendePhlitinister of any foreign power,
sentiment to this present hour. Policy. Sir, I retain that
my noble friend, as Foreign Minister,
cheers,) I think I
very highest point, the interests this country; and as
soferlia uphold, to the •
question was this• n".
I defended him in 1849, so I would defend (Re-
newed
cheese.) But the
as I thought,
it was impossible to form a Ministry 'coin;
Whig party—if it was impossible to formaposetief the
composed of those who followed Sir R. Peel—if it wasnisutrny
wise, if not impossible, to leave the Government in the
hands of's party which had not the confidence of the House
of Commons, and which, in my opinion, did not deserve to
have that confidence--(cheers)—there remained the ques-
tion whether those men who had acted together on the
that for some years has divided Parr
greatest question i-
amenf—l allude to the question between protection and
free trade—whether the men who concurred on that ques-
tion might not be able to concur on other questions, and
'enter office together. To many of my former colleagues I
office was not proposed; to 1501)40 of them ollice Was pro-

posed, and declined. But with regard to all of them—
having acted with them through all my life—l felt sure
that if there was formed a firm Government—if these par-
ties saw what they considered as a liberal course, adopted.
—if they saw that liberal course tempered with that mode-
ration which had always characterised the Whigs as a
party, and which was acknowledged and declared to be so
by Mr. Burke—if they saw that these principles were the
principles of Lord Aberdeen's Government—then, whether
they held office or no themselves, no consideration would
prevent them from as heartily and as willingly supporting
the Government as if they had themselves a part in it. Sir,
I have not been deceived in the hopes which I anticipated.
I do, indeed, form part of an Administration, from which
most of them have been excluded. The administration of
Lord Aberdeen is formed, in great part, of those with
whom he formerly acted. Since the Government has been
formed, on all the general principles of domestic government
we have been agreed. I cannot of course pretend, after
what has passed to-night, that we have been generally suc-
cessful in the measures that we have proposed. But I
think we are engaged at present in an extremely difficult
task, apart from any measures of reform in Parliament—
of alteration of oaths—Of dealing with corrupt practices at
elections. Should I come to be of opinion that the
conduct of the war cannot be safely left in the hands
of the present Government—that the Government can-
not carry on the war with that vigour which makes
war successful, and by which peace can alone be rendered
safe and honourable to this country—l shall cease to be a
member of the Government. But, considering that to be
the immediate, great, and pressing question to this coun-
try, no taunts of the right hon. gentleman shall make me
leave the post which I at present occupy— a post which,
God knows, is one of far more labour and anxiety than of
pleasure, profit, or emolument. (Loud cheers.) Unless I
were convinced that the present Government is more likely
than any other which can be formed to carry -on the war
with success and to finish it by an honourable peace, I should
cease to be a member of the Government. But as long as I
remain under that impression, I trust that the house and
the country will give a fair interpretation to my conduct.
(Cheers.) I rely upon this country, knowing that, while
most enlightened on general questions, yet it is occasion-
ally apt to be misled, now as in formar times, with regard
to the conduct of public men, yet I rely upon the justice
of this country, which has hardly ever failed in the end to
construe rightly the actions of public men. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. B. OSBORNE—Sir, I am convinced that the senti-
ments which fell from the hon. and gallant member for
Huntingdon (Colonel Peel) have expressed the sense of the
house upon those numerous matters which have been
dragged into this debate—as Sancho Panza used to drag in
his proverbs—by the right hon. gentleman the member for
Buckinghamshire, and I shall not attempt, after the speech
of the noble lord the member for London, to follow that
right hon. gentle Man through all those topics. A proper
time for that will no doubt arrive, when I shall be able to
show the house and the country that the statements of the
right bon. gentleman are not so exactly correct as they
would appear to be on his showing. But the right hon.
gentleman—who has been, to uce his own expression,
coined for the occasion, the Finance Minister of this coun-
try—has risen in his place and given an unqualiied and
unconditional denial to an assertion of the noble lord with
respect to a measure on which he is supposed to entertain
sincere convictions. I think the right hon. gentleman had
better refresh his mind previous to giving these unequi-
vocal contradictions. What are the facts of the case ? I
shall not dilate on the right hon. gentleman's observations
with respect to divisions—l shall not dilate upon the right
hon. gentleman's studied silence, except upon one occasion
—on what he calls his peculiar and mysterious feelings.
We have seen the right hon. gentleman lurking, like a
guilty spirit,' about the lobbies of this house while the de-
bate was proceeding. I have seen him myself when, to do
him justice, he came down to vote for the Jews. But
there was an occasion ; we find that in 1849 the right hon.
gentleman was absent. That, however, might have passed.
I should not have presumed to make a great point of his
mere absence. But what will the house say when they
find that the right hon: gentleman, who gives such an un-
qualified denial to the assertion of the noble lord, that on
one occasion the right hon. gentleman, notwithstanding
his peculiar and mysterious feelings on the subject, voted
against, the bill ? (hear, hear.) I shall be happy to re-
fresh the right hon. gentleman, who is usually so accu-
rate, upon this subject. It was in 1850, on a motion that
the house should pledge itself in the following session to
take into its serious consideration the form of the oath of
abjuration as it affected the Jews, with a view to relieve
them from the disabilities under which they laboured. That
was a pretty distinct motion for the right hon. gentleman
to vote against—ho who complained that the Jews had not
a form of oath to themselves—who insisted that Christianity
was under such great obligations to the Jews that they
ought to enter Parliament in a way peculiar to themselves.
And yet upon that question the ayes were 142 and the
pees were 192 ; and among the " noes" is to be found the
name of the Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli. (Hear.) If
the right hon. gentleman has strong feelings upon this
subject—which I donbt—(cheers)-1; is bound to come
down to the house and introduce dmeasure himself for
the emancipation of the Jews. But how stands the case?
He denies that he was ever absent from a division on the
Jewish question. I have proved that he was not only ab-
sent. on one occasion, but that on another he actually voted
against the measure. (" No," from Mr. Disraeli.) If this
—(holding up " Hansard ")—is a misprint, then I retract
—if it is not, then the right hon. gentleman has been mis-
informed in giving the denial he did. (Laughter.) I say
to hit-e, in conclusion, if he wishes his name to be as dear
to the country as he lately told the gazing public the noble
lord's was, he had better not again hazard such rash asser-
tions as this. (Laughter.)
Mr. DISRAELI—I do not mean to go again into this ar-
gument; but I must say at once that I never did absent
myself frOm the house to avoid the Jewish question. The
honourable gentleman has referred to one division in which
my name does not appear. It is sufficient for me to say
that, at that time, owing to a severe indisposition, I was
absent for some time from Parliament. (Cheers.) Of
course that was not what the noble lord meant to charge
against me. His charge was, that I left the house to avoid
the vote. With regard to the other point to which the
honourable gentleman has alluded, it is impossible for me
to rebut the charge without going back to the period.
Mr. OSBORNE (reaching forward the volume)—Hand
the right honourable gentleman the book.
Mr. DISRAELI—I do not want to see the book. (Laugh-
ter.) It is easy for gentlemen to laugh, but that does not
alter the facts of the case. I remember that at a morning
sitting the question was discussed, and there were some
twenty divisions, and I voted, I think, on every occasion
with the noble lord; bat there were some cross divisions,
when, it is possible, I may not have voted with the hon.
gentleman the Secretary for the Admiralty. I remember
very well there were a great number of divisions, and there
was one resolution moved, I think, by Vice-Chancellor Sir
Page Wood, that Baron Rothschild should now be ad-
mitted to take the oaths at the table. To that I objected,
and, with the noble lord, I voted against the motion. I
cannot be sure of the particular vote, but of this I am sure,
that if the matter be investigated, what I have stated will
be found to be substantially correct. (Cheers.)

Mr. WALPOLE—I do not rise to interfere in this dis-
cussiOn, but I wish to make an observation on one or two
points. The first is with regard to the last observation
made by thehon. gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty.
I have not looked through the division lists, but having
watched pretty closely, and taken my share in all the dis-
cussions on this question, I think I may say, from recol-
lection, that the vote of my right honourable friend, to
which the hon. gentleman alluded, was with reference to
the question whether Baron Rothschild should thou take
his seat in the house. (No, no.) I cannot be sure of
the exact occasion; but I am bound to say this, whatever
may have been the actual division, I know, certainly, that
no one in this house is more sincere than my right hon.
friend in his desire to obtain for the Jews admission to
this house. I know that, in private as well as in public ;
and though I have been opposed, and unfortunately shall
bo always, I am afraid, opposed to my right hon. friend
on this question, yet I know and am bound to declare that
if there is one thing more than another for which my right
hon. friend is entitled to the respect of both sides of
the house, it is for the manly and honourable way—(cheers)
—b. which he has come forward in the support of the
Jewish race ; and I am bound to say that, if it were not
for the manly support which he has given to that question,
his position, if he had consulted his own interests, would
have been higher—if it could possibly have been higher—
than the position which he now occupies. (Cheer's.) But
his friends have lost confidence in him because he stood by
his principles, though they do not agree with him on that
particular point, and they never will withdraw their confi-
dence from him if he pursues his course in the same manly
and honourable way which he has hitherto done. (Cheers.)
The other point on which I wish to make an observation
is with reference to a sentiment which fell from the noble
lord. The noble lord said that the reason why he opposed
Lord Derby's Government was because that Government
had acted in a manner which was unconstitutional, and in
a different way from that in which any Government had
previously acted in the history of this country. The noble
lord, I think, will bear in mind the first debate which took
place after Lord Darby's Government came into power. On
that occasion I made is few remarks, pointing out the pe-
culiar position in which we stood. It was acknowledged
that we had not a majority in the house at that
moment ; and I said then what I say now, that the
reason why Lord Derby was in power was, first,
because the noble lord opposite had resigned ; and
second, because ,there was no other party strbng enough
to take the reins of power except the party of Lord Derby.
I remember that I added—and I thought the observation
was acquiesced in and approved of by the noble lord—that
if the house had no confidence in Lord Derby's Government
they might bring that question to a vote, and that it would
be for us to consider, in case we were defeated on that
vote, whether it would be incumbent upon us to resign
office, or to take the sense of the country by a dissolution.
I am sure I added that Lord Derby and his colleagues had
no interest in remaining in power for a single moment,
unless they had the confidence of Parliament. But I stoutly
contended that the question of confidence had never been
put to the house ; that we had pursued our measures, and
that we had obtained majorities on every important occa-
sion ; that we were therefore doing nothing contrary to the
constitutional responsibility of Ministers—that we were
acting from a sense of what was due to Parliament and to
the country ; and that we had no intention of holding office
in any other manner than as the constitution prescribes. I
believe the noble lord and his colleagues thought, down to
the very time when the vote of Parliament was recorded
against us, that it was a doubtful question whether we had
the confidence of Parliament or not. Whether or not we
deserved the confidence of Parliament during the limited
period we remained in office, whether we conducted our-
selves in a manner that has or has not been beneficial to
the country, history alone will determine; but this house,
P think, will say that we walked in the paths of the
constitution, and that the charge which the noble lord has
brought against us is a charge which we have not de-
served. (Cheers.)
Mr. BRIGHT—I shall not detain the house for many
minutes. The discussion has bean more lively than it has
been for some time past in consequence of the encounter
between the noble lord and the right hon. member for
Buckinghamshire. I will not say who has had the best of it,
though I think the noble lord has not como out of the discus-
sion without soma scars. (Cheers and laughter.) I agree en-
tirely with what the noble lord says as to the motives with
which he took office under Lord Aberdeen. Nothing that
has happened, or can happen, will make me believe but that
the noble lord accepted office from the influence of motives
which were highly honourable to him. At the same time
it is impossible to disguise the fact that the elements of the
Government were such, and to this day continue such, as
to prevent the formation of a Government that can act for
the welfare of the country. I recollect an ingenious gen-
tleman, and one too who was a great friend of the noble
lord, expressing his opinion that the present Government
would get on admirably if they only avoided politics.
(Laughter.) And that is the course which the Govern-
ment has pursued. One great question has been settled—
a question which had for years divided parties in this •
country—l mean the question of free trade, and all those
questions that turned upon it, Koh all related 0 the repeal ,

of taxes whenever there was a surplus. Accordingly, on
all such questions as those the Government succeeded ad-
mirably in their administration, because thero was no dif-
ference of opinion in the Cabinet ; the questions had been
thoroughly settled, and the Ohmic-11er of the Exchequer, in
the last session, and even in the present session, had, upon
the whole, been very successful. Ido 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 tubmitted 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 introduced an admirable
bill—of course, putting aside my own particular objec-
tions to oaths of all kinds. lam 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
hon 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 auy 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 country 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 bon. 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 posseesing the
confidence of the House of Commons ; and lam extremely
sorry for it, because many of their measures aro 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 thatethe 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.) Ido not want the noble lord
to resign. I do not want Lord Aberdeen to resign. No man
has ever heard mo 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 ho is as liberal in all matters of internal policy, and in
all the measures which he is incline .1 to lay before the house
and the country, as aay 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 thl.t the
question which has been raised between the hon. gentleman
and the noble lord is as onesi.led as some members on this
side of the house appear to think. (Cheers.) I confess, look-
ing to the future, T can gee 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 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 nosy
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
ill 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 lord.
into discredit of
this
by it.
country was
wbrought
was not in danger of being
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 Achill-
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 mu quite sure that they
will not now refuse their attention to the few words
which lam 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
is his place. Tho division to which the honourable
gentleman referred took place on the fth August,
1.850. The motion submitted to the house was this :
" That the Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild is not en-
titled to vote in this honse, or to sit in this house during
any debate until he shall take the oath. (" No. no ; that
is the amendment.") Honoureble 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 tho last was upon a motion 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 opphrtunity 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 oven 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, 1350. 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 more 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. lam 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 right hon. friend—" I have, I may
add, when the question before the house has been the 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
the -noble lord at the head of the Government 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 s convictions, my vote would net 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
hcn. 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 Midhuret (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 au 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 be called before
the close of the year, and that the judgment of that Par-
liament should bo 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 wo
had to do was, not to consider whether the Government
that had been formed was supported by the confidench of
a majority of. tho 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 useful prac-
tical reform on which no difference of party need prevail,
and which would find employment for the Government
alike whether 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
Lcannot 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 did 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 businessof 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 Parliamenta-I
am not speaking -of any breach of faith on the part of Lord
Darby's Government—but 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
my step towards hampering 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, shoald, after
having been made in the presence of a member of the Go-
vernment, go fm th . to the country without any contradie-
lion or explanation—l mean that misstatement which wag,
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 Conimons, 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
Government, and its tenure of office shall- be prolonged
from this period until the war is finally settled." Such a
doctrine! as that undoubtedly never fell—l will not say
from the lips of the noble lord—bat 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 have got posses-
sion of offiCelsave 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.)
He stated that in many measures of ordinary legislation it
was undoubtedly true we had failed during the present
session of Parliament in persuading the House of Commons
to adopt our view, but, he said, there were other questions
of extraordinary magnitude, which at this period trans-
cend all questions of ordinary legislation ' • ho did not say
that those were matters upon which the House of Com-
mons had no right to pronounce—that those wore 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
primary questions the House of Commons had not thought
fit to withdraw its confidence from the Government,
but had, upon every occasion, given the most un-
mistakeable support to the policy of the Government
in the shape of a triumphant majority. I hope, Sir, I
have made it perfectly clear to the hon. member, and to
the house that the doctrines of my noble friend are entirely
different from what the hon. member supposed them to be,
and I join with him in protesting against a supposition
that we were capable of propounding or entertaining such
a notion as he then described. With regard to a hostile
review of the measures of a former Government, than which
I know that nothing can be more invidious in members of
an existing Administration, my noble frieml, 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, be 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.
Tho Administration of Lord Aberdeen has held 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.) .I am
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 to his sense
of justice when I say I think what he stated is not a strictly
accurate or 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-
tioeed 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 Howie of Conlon that enabled the government last

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 were 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 bo 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
Ma'don an l 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, tho bill was read a
second time.

Ther resolutions already agreed to in committee of ways
and means were brought up, and reported to the house.

EXCISE DITTIES.

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. s _

CONSOLIDATED FUND (8,000,0001.)
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, anti as a discussion was ine-
vitable, he hoped the opportunity would be given of
having one 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 for consi-
dering these resolutions. _

Mr. WILSON-stated the views of.the Government upon
the subjects to which the bill related, and explained its
details. He justified the adoption of a new scale of wali-
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 breviaries ; 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, ho stated the
alterations made, in the way of compromise between the
refiner and the importer, regarding time and rate of duty,
in the original same 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 id it as unjust.
The amendment was negatived.
• STAMP DUTIES EEL.

The Stamp Duties Bill was read a second time, after
some objections raised by Mr. Hadfield, Mr. Vance, and
Mr. Hume.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.

The house having gone into committee upon this bill,
The CHAIRMAN put the 26th clause.
Sir J. PAKINGTON hoped the noble lord would eon-
sehtto-the postponement of the discussion upon the bill,
as the clause under their notice was a very important one,
with referbnce t6-which several-hon. members had •given
notice that it wns their intention to propose amendments.
Mr. GOULI3I7RN concurred _in the wish that the dis-
cussion should be postponed.
• Mr. EWa.RT also urged upon the noble lord tho expe-
diency of deferring the discussion.
Lord J. RUSSELL expressed 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 thron,gh committee pro forma.
.
DUBLIN CARRIAGES.
This bill was read a second time.
MEDICAL GRADUATES (UNWERSITT.OF
LONDON) BILL.

On the order for going into 'committee on this bill,
Mr. 3110 WBRAY 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.
Lord PALMERSTON said this bill dealt with part of a
large question, an arrangement of the medical profession.
The question had engaged the attention of the Govern-
ment, but it had not been possible hitherto to prepare a
measure so satisfactory to the profession at large as to
justify them in proposing it to. Parliament. But he had
lately had communication with the Colleges of Physicians
and Surgeons, and he was told that great hoyes were en-
tertained that a comprehensive measure might be sug-
gested satisfactory to the public and the great body of the
medical profession ; he therefore advised the house not to
deal with the matter this session. He must give a negative
to the committal of the bill.

After some observations in support of the bill from Mr.
Bell, Mr. Thornely, and Mr. Mowbray, the committee was
deferred for a fortnight.
The Ecclesiastical Courts Bill was read a second time.
Other bills were forwarded a stage, the Stannaries Court
(No. 2) Bill being withdrawn.
SCHOOLMASTERS SAL ARIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The LORD ADVOCATE rose to move for leave to
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 tho 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- mclasive 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 &A 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:

Mr. C. BRUCE did not rise to oppose the introduction
of the bill, but regretted it was li►nited to November,
1855. Because on the expiration of that term the ques-
tion would be again reopened by the Government, and
with the same amount of success, he hoped, as attended
their late attempt. -He should regret very much that an
attack -was going to be renewed against a system which
had done so-much good for his (Mr. Bruce's) country. If
the hon. and learned gentleman had introduced two addi-
tional clauses—one, to dismiss those schoolmasters who
were no longer worthy to fill their situations, and another,
to pension off those who wore no longer able to perform
their duties, it would have been a measure for which
Scotland..would have been grateful. As it was he did not
mean to oppose the lame And halting measure which he
had introduced.

Mr. DUNLOP thought the people of Scotland had a
strong claim upon the sympathies of the people of England
in support of their parochial system. of edueation, which
they now wished to make national. They and also a strong
claim upon their justice, because it was the votes of the
English members that had created the division which now
afflicted the Church' of Scotland. Attempts wore now'
made to afford some compensation by the establishment of
these national schools c and he hoped the time would come
when they would accomplish this object. He cordially
supported the bill.
Mr. C. BRUCE denied that he had said that the mea-
sure which had been lately defeated had been introduced
by the*Lord Advocate in concert with the Free Church;
but there could be no doubt that the members of that
Church had zealously combined to promote its success.
Mr. KINNAIRD thought that the people of Scotland
were deeply indebted to the'Lord Advocate for the anxious
wish he had manifested in that matter for the promotion
of their best interests.

After a few words from Mr. FORBES and Mr. W. LOCK-
HART,
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he believed that ho, as an
English member, had only done his duty in opposing the
bill of the Lord Advocate. It should be borne in mind
that it had been stated that that was to be the forerunner
of a scheme of national education for England.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
ADJOURNMENT OVER THE " DERI3Y-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.

. -
CHARGE SUSPECTED MURDER OF AN OLD WOMAN
BY HER DAUGHTER.—Yesterday a very decently-dressed
woman, named Ane StevenS, aged 36, was brought up
by Sergeant Battersby, 4 D, and placed at the bar of
Marylebone police court, before Mr. Broughton, charged
on suspicion of having caused the death of Elizabeth
Preston, her aged mother.; at 7, William-street, Mary-
lebone-lane.--The prisoner was remanded for a week.
FOUNDERING AT SEA.—The Earl Balcarres, a 1,600
ton ship, belonging to the Messrs. M`Leod, of Leaden-
hall-street, City, was on her homeward passage, having
a valuable cargo of Indian produce and a large number
Of officers and invalids from the Queen's and Company's
forces from Bombay on board. The voyage was prosper-
ous until previousto rounding the Cape, where she en-
countered a frightful hurricane, in which she was did-
masted, and in the height of the gale a large vessel, sup-
poped to be an Indianian, was seen from the Balcarres
to fall over and immediately go down with all hands.
The gale subsiding, the Balcarres was carried under jury
spars to Mauritius, where she roilttecli her arrival may
now be daily-looked for,