The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-11 00:00:00

informant, so that the House might judge for itself 1
whether theauthority was as unexceptionable as the
Right Honourable Gentleman declared it to be.
But in that secrecy he was certainly justified.
Rau things of a similar description are referred
to, as well by the members of the Government as
of the Opposition, with a like reserve as to the
sources of information. He only st tted that it
came from " no French authority or quarter."
Some guess may possibly be made as to the quiver
from which the shaft was drawn. But, of course,
no party can act on such suspicions. The only
point, so far as Mr. DISRAELI is concerned, being,
was it one to which he might accord implicit cre-
dence ?

Lord PALMERSTON, in reply, repudiated any in-
tention of casting the slightest imputation on
" the honour, candour, or judgment?' of the Right
Honourable Gentleman—all he questioned was his
"credulity." The circumstances referred to by
Mr. DISRAELI, however, elicited the real state of
iffairs. It appeara that when Austria was
coquetting with the Western Powers, and
holding out the strongest expectations of
arraying herself on their side in the just and
necessary contest in which they were engaged,
expectations which, it is needless to say, were
never destined to be realised, she sought to elicit
the intentions of France respecting the course she
would pursue in the event of certain possible events
taking place in Italy. This was not, however, an
assurance that France would not take advantage
of her withdrawal of the Austrian troops to molest
her in Italy. There was a great deal more re-
quired by the Cabinet of Vienna, and assented to
by that of Paris. There was the additional and
very important stipulation that "if Austrian
armies joined those of France and England, and
during the war disturbances should break out in
Italy, whatever French force might be in Italy
should act in concert with the Austrian forces for
the purpose of maintaining, not the Aus-
trian possessions, but the general state of ter-
ritorial possessions in Italy." This makes the case
even worse than had been supposed, for it
might have occurred that France would have been
obliged to defend BOMBA. himself against his justly
indignant subjects. The Convention—for it was
a Convention, not a Treaty, although the distinc-
tion is not very important—was never signed,
inasmuch as Austria never gave the preliminary
and indispensable condition, viz., the alliance
offensive and defensive with the Western Powers
against Russia. It was, therefore, a nudum
pactum, which was completely felled to the ground.
It appears, however, that there was sufficient to
justify Mr. DISRAELI'S assertions, and we may
thank the Right Honourable Gentleman for eliciting
information as to one portion of the price that
was to have been paid for Austrian co-operation,
if that power had thought proper to verify the
anticipations for which she gave ample grounds.
We may, therefore, feel thankful that Austria
never joined our standard, and that she has now
no possible claim to French or English support
in respect to her Italian provinces, or the general
state of territorial possessions in Italy. The dis-
. pute between the Noble Lord and the Right Hon.
Gentleman was something like that respecting the
gold and silver shield in the old fable, where both
had foundation for their assertions, and both were
partly right and partly wrong, each believing
, himself to be accurate in every point.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer last night
nominated certain gentlemen whom he proposes
to serve on the Select Committee to inquire and
report in reference to the proposed renewal of the
Bank Chatter Ac-0. The names are as follows,

viz. :-•

"The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Dis.
raeli, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Glad-
stone, Mr. G. A. Hamilton, Mr. Cardwell, Mr.
Malins, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Hildyard, Mr. Glyn,
Mr. Beckett, Mr. ETankey-, Mr. Stirling, Mr. P.
'Urquhart, Mr. J. L. Ricardo, Sir C. Wood, Mr.
Cayley, Sir F. Baring, Mr. M. T. Smith, Mr.
Wilkinson, and Mr. Fergus."
We cannot say that we are by any means satis-
fied with the constitution of the proposed committee.
It will be seen that many of them are the most
strenuous advocates of the Act of 1844, who are
already committed on its behalf. Sir G. C.
LEWIS has fully expressed his own views in favour
of the Act for a further term of ten years, with-
out change or alteration of any kind. Sir
JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. CARDWELL, Mr. W.
BECKETT, Mr. J. L. Itica.ano, and Sir
CHARLES WOOD, voted in the majority of the
late Committee, that " the laws for regulating the
issues of Bank notes did not aggravate the com-
mercial distress iu England in the year 1847 ;"
and Mr. JAS. WILSON, although one of the most
competent persons to deal with the subject, is
bound to support the views of Ministers. 11,
cannot, therefore, be expected to take that
independent part or lead in the exami-
nation of witnesses by which he so greatly
distinguished himself in 1848, and to
which he owes his appointment as Joint-
Secret try of the Treasury. Mr. FIANK EY, Mr.
WILKINSON, Mr. URQUHART, and, if we are not
mistaken, some of the other Members, have already
expressed their views in favour of the Government
preposition. The committee, as nominated, can-
not be considered as fairly or impartially cansti-
tuted; nor will its decisions carry with them
the weight which the vast importance of
the subject requires. We should certainly
desire to see a greater number of intelligent men
not committed on either side, who may, without
prejudice or bias, judge of the evidence that may
be obtained. Unless there be some modification
the report may be regarded as a " foregone con-
clusion." We trust that the House for the sake
of its honour may scrupulously examine the
claims and antecedents of every Member ap-
pointed to serve, and that the result may be
alike creditable t 3 themselves and beneficial to the
mercantile and manufacturing community, and to
the induEtrious classes generally, whose interests
are so greatly involved in obtaining a circulating
medium adequate to the wants and Exigencies of
the nation.

The Lord Chancellor last night introd aced his
promised measures on the irnportint and int-A.est-
ing subject of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical
Court 4. They relate to three matters, perfectly
distinct in themselves—not having the slight st
connection the one with the other, and there-
fore only joined so far as the tribunals by whieh
they were decided are concerned. First comes
the Testamentary Jurisdiction, on which
there are no less than three measures
pending before Parliament, and the no less im-
portant propositions submitted by the Committ.3e
of the Law Amendment Society. The second re-
lates to matrimonial jurisdiction—a matter on
which prompt and comprehensive legislation is
imperatively required, and the third to Church
discipline. For the present, we shall merely ob-
serve on the first branch, on which we already
expressed our views at some length at the latter
end of last month.
We fear that Lord CRANWORTH'S measure will
not at all times satisfy the country. It is in
every respect inferior to any of those already in-
tretclue9d. In fact, it takes the vary worst points