The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-20 00:00:00

to tha information in vindication of it laid before Parlia- such re-appointment had been omitted from this bill, and 1
ment. He thought the policy of that war erroneous and had been made the subject of another measure, which also
dangerous. But this was 20 years ago, and an inquiry ,he should ask the house to read a second time that night.
into that policy was a line which the house, in his opinion, Mr. LOCKE rose to move that the bill should be read a
ought not to pursue. Then, what were the reasons for the second time that day six months. He complained that the
omissions in the information ? Mr. Bright's accusation im- hon. member for Bath had given no explanation to the pro-
puted a crime. But these omissions were no recent discovery, visions of this bill, some of which militated very seriously
and if they deserved censure, how came Mr. Bright and against the principle of local self•government. The endea-
his friends, less than two years ago, to express cons- your was to take from the vestries throughout the metro-
deuce in Lord Palmerston ? The house should lay polls the power which they had hitherto enjoyed, and to
down some principle as to what amount of information . place it in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works.
Ishould be given. Was all to be given, or was the Minister It was, therefore, a question for the house whether that
to have the privilege of omission and suppression ? No man board had discharged the duties for the performance of
would say he ought not ; the question, then, was one of which it was established and whether it deserved the con-
discretion and management. The discretion might be fidence of Parliament. The Metropolitan Board of Works
wrong, the management bad ; but was thehouse to say that was established in the year 1855 to carry out the drainage
a crime had been committed ? The adoption of the motion of the metropolis, and he defied anyone to say what had se
would lead to inconvenient consequences, and the house yet been done towards the completion of that work. If
must push the matter much further. Although he con- they had done literally nothing for the improvement of the
sidered the policy of the invasion of Affghanistan wrong, metropolis they had not forgotten to do something for
and that the information laid before Parliament had been themselves, because they had erected a magnificent palace
somewhat shorn of its fair proportions, he believed that, for themselves in Spring-gardens which would cost from
though the Minister might have acted erroneously, he had £40,000 to £50,000 to the public. He wanted to know upon
acted conscientiously, and he could not vote for the motion. what grounds of public benefit the Metropolitan Board of
Mr. WALPOLE observed that the question was whether Works sought the right of levying rates without the inter-
the discrepancies between the papers laid before the house vention of the vestries.
20 years ago and two years ago being brought to its notice, An hon. MEMBER drew the Speaker's attention to the
Parliament was to shut its eyes to the fact without inquiry. fact that there were not 40 members present. It was found
On this ground he should vote for the motion, except the that such was the case, and thehouse therefore immediately
latter part. I adjourned at 25 minutes after. 12.
Lord J. RUSSELL totally denied the charges of any
criminal intention on the part of the Government, or that
these omissions had been made with a view to deceive Par-
.ament.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

LIVERPOOL-MARCH 19.

After some remarks by Col. DICKSON,
Mr. HORSMAN observed that the question was what I 4
was the rule and principle as to the information which the '
Ministers of the Crown had to present to Parliament on
subjects respecting which it ought to be informed. Mr. !
Disraeli said it was a matter of discretion and manage-
ment; but he contended that it was a matter of confidence
and responsibility—the confidence which the house placed
in Ministers and their sense of responsibility. He com •
plained of the system of secrecy which prevailed, and which
was inconsistent, he said, with the responsibility of the
Government. Two sets of despatches had been laid before
the house, and they differed. The subject had been brought
before the house ; and, being so, they were invited to make
inquiry, and he should vote for the inquiry on principle.
Mr. DUNLOP, in reply, disclaimed the idea of being in •
fluenced in any degree by a feeling of bitterness in bringing
the motion under the notice of the house. He might add
that in compliance with the wish which had been expressed
in the course of the discussion, he was willing to modify the
motion by the omission of the last part of it.
Mr. BAILLIE lamented that the noble lord at the head
of the Government had spoken in disparaging terms of Sir
A. Burnes. One of the last letters ever received from that
gentleman complained of the meaner in which his despatches
had been misrepresented in the House of Commons, and it
was this cireumstance which led him, after that gallant
officer had died in the service of his country, and in a war
of which he disapproved, to move, in 1842, for the produc-
tion of the papers. (Divide.)
Mr. DUNLOP said he wished to leave out the concluding
part of his resolution, and to end at the word "opinion."
The SPEAKER said the motion could neither be wholly
withdrawn nor altered in part without the cOlsent of the
house.

There was rather a thin attendance of both the town and
country trade at this morning's market, and we had but a
limited business doing in wheat, at about the former rates
for most descriptions. Oats and oatmeal slow of sale, but
still at the previous currencies. Ba, ley and peas were also
unchanged. Indian corn held for 37s 3d per qr for mixed,
and 38s 6d to 39s 641 for white, with an inactive demand.
Egyptian beans, is dearer. More inquiry for flour, at an
advance,of 6d on the week.

Mr. BAXTER, in order to raise the issue desired by the
hon. member for Greenock, would move, by way of amend-
ment, that all the words after the word " opinion " in line
7 oflhe resolution be omitted. (Hear, hear.)
Liird J. RUSSELL—I think the resolution without the
concluding words would be lame and imperfect. (Oh, oh.)
The motion as originally proposed by the hon. gentleman
takes a very consistent view, and I shall therefore vote against
the omission of the words. (Oh.)
Mr. BRIGHT—Do I understand the noble lord to object
to the withdrawal of the last words ? Why, the noble lord
at the head of the Government specially argued against
the impropriety of such an inquiry—(hear, hear)—and the
right hon. gentleman who has thrown his shield over the
noble lord objected also. (Hear, hear.) The hon. mem-
ber for Greenock is but acting on the opinions which they
expressed. Ido not think I ever saw a spectacle so re-
markable as that of a leading member of the Government
and a candidate for the Prime Ministership—(hear, hear,
and laughter)—who, after speaking on behalf his colleague,
now rises to object to the withdrawal of part of a resolution
in deference to the opinions of several eminent members of
this house—(hear, hear)—the specific question which was
brought forward remaining untouched.
Mr. DISRAELI—In a motion like that which occupies
us to-night the house ought not, in my opinion, to consider
the convenience of Ministers,but rather the principles which
should guide the action of this house itself. I objected to the
resolution which was brought forward, but it is now sug-
gested that it would perhaps be expedient to adopt a por-
tion of that resolution. In that case the house ought clearly
to understand the character of the proposition. This reso-
lution, which is very well drawn, contains two distinct pro-
poocaa. Opo tne corresponnenec.,........ted,
and to report on the discrepancies, and the other is to in-
quire into the circumstances of its prepaiation 20 years ago,
and what steps should be taken to prevent the same results
in future. I said before that I regretted the matter had
been revived, and after an interval of 20 years that it would
be inexpedient to institute such an inquiry as was proposed;
but I intimated—though I did not formally propose it—
that, without pledging ourselves to any vote as to our
future course, we might examine how these discrepancies
had occurred. (Hear.) If the house is disposed to agree to
that suggestion,' it ought to stop at the end of line four of
the resolution, which would then contain a complete propo-
sition, but the motion made by the hon. member for Mon-
trose would leave the resolution so garbled in language, so
imperfect, and incoherent in sentiment as to lead to a very
unsatisfactory result.
Lord PALMERSTON—I wish to say that I did not
mean to speak disparagingly of Lieutenant Burnes ; I
think, on the contrary, I did justice to his energy, ability,
and to his qualifications. But what I did say was that
Lieutenant Burnes, neither by his position, experience, nor
by the extent of his views, could be quoted as an authority
whose opinions could be set against those of the Governor-
General, who had far more ample means of knowledge,
and was far better able to decide any question of great
national policy. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the motion
made by my hon. friend to cut, mutilate, and garble this
resolution—(laughter)—to commit forgery in respect of part
of it—(laughter)—for it has been held to-night that forgery
consists in suppression, I must protest against it—(oh, and
hear, hear)—and I will state my reasons. When a member
thinks fit to bring before this house a serious motion—for
this motion is a serious one in its intentions—(cheers)—and
when he conveys his proposal in language such as the hon.
member has thought fit to use, and which, tho,ugh he may
have since forgotten, I have not—(hear)—for it was of much
too serious a nature to be dealt with as lightly as he wishes
to do—when a member, I repeat, on full deliberation, has
thought fit to make the sort of motion which he has pro-
posed, it is not becoming or respectful to the house that he
should run away with it, and content himself with snly an
introductory passage, which is of no.value whatever except
as leading to the serious conclusion with which he ends it.
(Cheers.) To inquire into the discrepancies ? Why, the
house knows them. (Hear, hear.) They are in the posses-
sion of every member. (Hear, hear.) If any proposition is
to be submitted to the house at all, it ought to be a resolu-
tion not to inquire into discrepancies which are already
known to every hon. gentleman, but to express an opinion
upon them. It is mere idle trifling to move for an investi-
gation which cannot add to our stock of knowledge, or lead
to any useful result. (Hear.)
Mr. DUNLOP said his motion contained three proposi-
tion. The first was for a report upon the discrepancies be-
tween the two sets of documents; the second was for an
inquiry into the circumstances attending the preparation
and presentation of the despatches in 1839; and the third
related to the precautions which ought to be taken in future
for preventing the mutilation of public papers. He wished
to depart from the third, but the third only, and would,
therefore, have no hesitation in supporting the amendment
of the hon. member for Montrose.
The house then divided—
For the amendment
Against it l5B
Majority ---97
The house then divided on the original motion, when the
numbers were,—
For the motion
Against it ....
Majority against it.... —llO
PRESENTMENT SESSIONS IN IRELAND.
On the motion of Mr. BUTT, leave was given to bring in
a bill for the better regulation of Presentment Sessions in
Ireland.

COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND).
On the motion of Mr. CARDWELL, leave was given to
bring in a bill to enable grand juries in Ireland to increase
the remuneration of county surveyors, and for other pur-
poses.

QUEEN'S PRISON, &c.
Mr. CLIVE obtained leave to bring ill 8 bill for the abo-
lition of contributions by counties for the relief of prisoners
in the Queen's Prison, and for the benefit of Bethlehem
Hospital.

ANNOYANCE JURORS (WESTMINSTER).
Sir J. SHELLEY obtained leave to bring in a bill to re-
peal the acts relating to the nominating and appointing
householders of 'Westminster to serve as annoyance jurors
and to make other provisions in lieu thereof.
RECOVERY OF DEBTS BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. BUTT moved that this bill should be read a second
time.

Mr. VANCE objected to the rccond reading of the bill
and asked that it shotlP....oe postponed until after Easter.
Preparations were made for a division, but none took
Idacty Etio
The motion was agreed to.
METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT
AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. TITS, in moving th this bill should be read a second
time, stated that it was similar to one which he introduced
last year, but the progress of which was stopped by a dis-
cussion as to a re-appointment of debt. The provision as to