The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at flee o'clock.
THE ENFIELD RIFLE.
In answer to a question from Lord AVELAND,
Lord ROSSLT said no Enfleld rifles had been
issued to the militia, except such regiments as
have been re-embodied. It was, however, intended
some of the
by the Commander-in-Chief to send
disembodied militia to Hythe for instruction in musketry,
and so soon as the militia had progressed sufficiently to
take care of the weapons, it was intended to issue them to
militia regiments in general.
ENDOWED SCHOOLS.
Lord BROUGHAM said he had already announced his
intention of bringipg forward a measure to remedy the evil
effects of the decision of the Lords Justices; and he should
have done so that evening, but he had learned that the
subject had been taken up in the othei House of Parliament.
The bill he intended to have introduced would prevent liti-
gation, which was at the present moment carried on to
a fearful extent. In one case within his knowledge as
much as £4,500 of the endowed funds had been spent in
a law suit to exclude Dissenters from the administration of
those funds.
Lord LYNDHURST presented several petitions refer-
ring to the subject mentioned by the noble and learned
lord who had just sat down.
Lord REDESDALE said there was some diffi-
culty connected with this subject. It was quite
true that hardship might exist in some cases, but in others
the endowment had been made by Churchmen, who never
intended that Dissenters should interfere in their dis-
tribution.
VEXATIOUS INDICTMENTS BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL moved the second reading of this
bill, the principal object of which was to render it
imperative before an indictment was preferred and a
warrant issued against any person, that the charge should
undergo an investigation before a magistrate.
Lord WENSLEYDALE objected to the bill as =con-

stitutional.
Lord LYNDHURST said, as the subject had been fully
discussed last session., he was surprised that it should be
opposed on that
occasion.
The LORD C entirely approved of the
bill, and thought it ought to pass through all its stages as
early as possible.
The bill was then read a second time and committed, and
ordered to be read a third time on Thursday next.
DEBTOR AND CREDITOR BILL. -
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading
of this bill.
After a few observations from Lord WENSLEYDALE and
the Earl of Powis, the bill was read a second time, com-
mitted, and ordered to be read a third time on Thursday
next.
JOINT COMPANIES WINDING-UP ACT.,
This bill was read a second time, committed, and ordered
to be read a third time on Thursday.
LAW OF PROPERTY AND TRUSTEES' AMEND-
MENT BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY•)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
SWEARING OF MEMBERS.
Mr. Arnott, Mr. I. Butt, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Corbally,
Mx. Blake, &c., took the oaths.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Some private bills were advanced a stage, in conformity
with the sessional order of the late Parliament.

SIR E. LUGARD.
A letter was read from Sir E. Lngard in acknowledg.
ment of the vote of thanks of the house for his services.

THE ADJOURNED DEBATE.

Mr. M. GIBSON resumed the adjourned debate. He
said that he was not in the habit of taking part in what
were called party discussions, and would have preferred to
be called on to speak to some specific act or measure of the
Government, instead of the motion before the house ; but
he felt called on to address the house on the present occa-
sion, when they were required to deliberate as to
which great party should possess the seals of office.
He contended that the amendment to the address was
forced on the house by the course which the Govern-
ment pursued in dissolving Parliament last session on a
question of mere part' politics. He had felt
bound to dissent from the foreign policy of the
noble lord the member for Tiverton, and to that
opinion he adhered ; but at the same me, in dealing
with a question like the present they must look to the
leaders of party, whom they could not separate from party
itself. The object of the dissolution was to enable the
Government to carry more measures of a Conservative
character than could be expected from the late Parliament,
which was of a more Liberal element. He could not see
how the Liberal members of the house could pass a vote of
confidence in a Government like the present under existing
circumstances. He could not help expressing Nine surprise
at the course which he understood his hon. friend the
member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) proposed to
take in supporting the Government, and he did
not consider that he (Mr. Lindsay) was properly
repaying the inhabitants of Sunderland for the enthusiasm
they evinced in returning him in opposition to Mr. Hud-
son. (Hear, hear.) He strongly protested against the
interference of the Executive in effecting the return of par-
ticular members which was attributed to the Government.
He referred to statements made in reference to Ber-
wick, and quoted an article in the Berwick Warder,
which stated that a letter had been received from the
"highest authority," to the effect that the object for
BO ama1e......;-1).1-Abints of the town in question were
blishment of barracks. That °eject lieu obui. - rurateu
by Lord Panmure, on professional grounds, and yet
the announcement in question appeared in print
three days before the nomination. He wished to know if
the gallant and hon. member the Secretary for War pro-
posed any specific vote in the army estimates for the re-
establishment of barracks in Berwick ?
General PEEL—It is not. (Laughter.)
Mr. M. GIBSON—He should like to be informed then if
a letter had been sent such as he described? (Hear, hear,
and oh, oh.) He denied that they were justified in refusing
confidence to the Government with reference to Parlia-
mentary Reform, for though a right hon. member of that
house had promised to introduce a comprehensive and sa-
tisfactory measure of Parliamentary Reform, he did not
think he could do so, with the state of feeling of that party
onwhich the Government depended for support. He alluded
in support of what he stated to the speech recently given at
Ipswich by the Attorney-General, in which he stated that
a large measure of reform was not at present required.
(Hear, hear.) He appealed to the Roman Catholic mem-
bers of the house not to support Government unless they
obtained some specific promise of substantial benefit, and he
called on these hon. members to remember that the Govern-
ment belonged to a party that were only too ready to avail
themselves of the "No Popery cry," to acquire some popu-
larity at the expense of those who were actuated by their
religious convictions. (Cries of " Hear ," and "No no.")
With regard to the war question, he was not one of those
who were disposed to charge the Government with not
being sincere in the opinion expressed on the ques-
tion of neutrality, and he was inclined to wait
until the course of events showed whether they. were de-
termined to act in conformity with their expressions. At
the same time he viewed with pain and distrust
the sympathy the Government were said to en-
tertain for Austria in the pending hostilities, and
with a view to preventing any infringement of the
peace of England that they should put the most favourable
censtruction on the conduct of the French Government
until something occurred to justify them in adopting
a different course. He trusted that they would
adopt the wise course of confining their attention
to domestic affairs instead of having their thoughts directed
to the dangerous question of continental war. (Hear.)
From these considerations he felt bound to support the
amendment.

Mr. LINDSAY—As the right hon. gentleman who had
just sat down made reference to him (Mr. Lindsay) and the
course he was about to take on the present occasion, perhaps
the house would allow him to state the reasons which in-
duced him as an advocate of reform to pursue that course.
(Hear.) He had always voted for reform—he had always
voted for progress and for freedom of religion—and in the
vote which he should feel it his duty to give upon the mo-
tion he conscientiously believed that he should best perform
his duty to the liberal constituency by which he had been
returned. (" Oh, oh," and laughter from the Opposition,
and cheers from the Conservatives.) That was his con-
scientious belief, and he was sure hon. gentlemen would re-
spect his motive when he said it was a high sense of duty
as a reformer that induced him to vote against the amend-
ment. (Ministerial cheers, and laughter from the Opposi-
tion) His right hon. friend read a paragraph from the
Times of a great meeting which he (Mr. Lindsay) addressed,
in which his triumphant return to that house was referred
to as a reformer, and asked what would his constituents
think of the Vote he was now about to give ? Now, it so
happened that in some correspondenc,e he had written to a
political friend abroad about this question of neutrality, and
how it affected British ships—he referred to the state of
political parties in this country, and in the paragraph in
the limes some remarks that he had made in the course of
that correspondence appeared. Some extracts from his let-
_ ter to his friend abroad found their way to the press, had
gone to Sunderland
_which he represented, and appeared in
a newspaper there. He had those extracts in his box, and it
nught be interesting to the house if he read the views of the
leading liberal paper upon the subject of this amendment.
The editor of this paper said, " The matter before the coun-
try now is not one of an abstract character." The editor
of this parr was an advanced Liberal, as thoroughly ear-
nest as his right hon. friend, and he continued :—" It is
plainly this, whether the present Ministry are to be re-
moved from office without any defined accusation or any
sufficient guarantee that their successors will introduce and
maintain a_policy more conducive to the interests of the
eountry. Two questions claimed prominent attention—re-
form and peace. It is soon to be seen whether the Derby
administration have profited by their knowledge of a thorough
determination on the part of the people to have a real and
substantial measure of reform, and if so, whether they will
legislate for the nation rather than for party. They are cer-
tainly entitled to have the opportunity of showing whether
such a change has taken place. A factious amendment on
the address should not be countenanced by independent
liberals. (Conservative cheers.) As to the great question of
if Ministers prove by their acts that they are sincere
pace,
declaration to maintain a strict neutrality, it would
be most injudicious at this time to compel a change in the
ttdroinistration. For these reasons ha had no doubt that a
large number of earnest and independent liberals will act in
accordance with the views represented by one of our own
itiTtelentatives, Mr Lindsay, in the following communica-
Chiueilhe Then came
came the extract from the communication to
without ha referred, and the words which he wrote,
the presv:g any idea that they would find their way to
having done:loh—but he was not at all ashamed of their
Government" This century has not produced a worse
than
_iceeerthat which was destroyed on the Conspi-
racy Bill
few stern, honest atiee cheers—and I believe there are a
the House of Commons who have
no interests but those
mtraloolEttheir country at heart, and who
will resist to the n
If the
presenitivottempt to replace the Whigs
in power.
ent, on the opening of
Parliament, say that they wilivae,rrav
intelligence of the peo are in comparison with
otiraf9tuhgehys
the growing
a bill disfranchising some ofthe srePanaall willandberXintegndin-
ing the franchise, and if they will
have nu reason to dread any hostile attack firutrality, they
and all the hosts they can bring against them°.
from Whigs
the views expressed by a leading Liberal in the north were
England ; they were his views. (Oh.) The e north of
hon, member
for Birmingham was not more earnest for reform than
was. (Oh, oh.) The hon. member sneered—he he
seemed
to think it impossible to get a substantial and satisfactory
reform bill passed by the present Government. But what
Government was it that passed all the great measures of
progress of which we were so proud ? He believed it was the

Duke of Wellington's Government that-passed Catholic
emancipation; it was the Government of; Sir R. Peel that
repealed the corn laws, and it was Lord Derby's Govern-
ment t'tiat admitted the Jews to Parliament. (Cries of
4, Oh, oh," and loud laughter.) In the hands of Lord J.
Russell the Jew Bill was tossed about like a shuttlecock,

that -house being for iciear a the one battledore, and the
House of Lords the other. What reason had he to suppose
that any reform bill brought in by the noble lord would
not inidergo a similar process perhaps for 20 years to
come? The present Government had in her Majesty's
speech pledged themselves to a substantial measure of re-
form—.(" no, no " and hear)—to " a measure of reform
whichnier Majesly:tru,sts will be satisfactory to the country."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer pledged himself on the
part of the Government that he would even this session,
should the house demand it, introduce a reform bill which
would disfranchise many of the small boroughs, and give
a considerable extension of the franchise. That, he be-
lieved, was all they wanted on that (the opposition) aide of
the house
heho dusetdj neustt knownow. when theThehon.
present
rGefvoer Birmingham Government
eeu
said d
give them a reform bill, but if the Whigs came into office
they could get one this year. But could any reform bill be
passed this year, or did any person desire that one should
pass ? Did hon. gentlemen want again to go to their con-
stituents instead of
going grouse shooting ? They knew that
if the Whigs came into office they could not get a reform
bill, and that they could get more early from the present
Government, and more than that, he felt that the Govern-
ment would be able to pass a reform bill through another
place, having a majority there, which the Whigs had not.
That was a great consideration with him, as an earnest
reformer and wishing to settle the question for the well-
being of the people and the constitution also. The hon.
member for Birmingham, in a recent speech of his,
referred to the opinions held by a noble lord, who in
the event of a change of government might be sent for by
her Majesty, or who in any government that might be
formed would hold a distinguished place in the Cabinet.
His hon. friend said that "he was not about to defend the
conduct of Lord Palmerston, or to retract one sentence
which he had ever uttered with regard to him ; and before
they should destroy one government they ought to see
whether they could get a better or a stronger in its place."
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) His hon. friend the member for
Birmingham said that his opinion was unaltered, and that
he would not retract a single sentence he had ever uttered
with regard to the noble lord the member for Tiverton. He
(Mr. Lindsay) did not know whether his hon. friend would
be a member of any government which might be formed ;
he believed that he wished to retain the independent posi-
tion he had hitherto occupied, but he believed the right
hon. gentleman who sat next his hon. friend, and who held
the same opinions, was likely to be honoured with a seat in
the coalition Cabinet. (Hear, hear.) Let gentlemen con-
sider whether a Cabinet so constituted was likely to be
stronger than the present. He need not go back to all that
his hon. friend had said of the noble lord the member for
Tiverton at different times ' • he would only go back to last
session to show what were the views which his hon. friend
held with regard to the noble lord, and as his views were
exactly the same as those of the right hon. gentleman
the member for Ashton, how could that right hon. gentle-
man and the noble lord work well together in the same
Cabinet ? His hon. friend said that he expected that he
should obtain more reform and was more likely to secure
peace from the new Government than from that now in
office, and yet only last session he said, " When the noble
lord came into office he was paraded as a great reformer."
He was paraded now—(loud cheers)—but, continued his
honourable friend, "when he left office, he left nothing
but confusion abroad, and at home nothing had been
done." Did his honourable Mend suppose that more would
be done now than then ? A person like the noble lord was
not likely at his years to change. It was curious that in
the same speech his honourable friend also referred to the
noble lord the member for London, who would hold a dis-
tinguished position, in a new cabinet. His hon. Mend said,
" that the noble lord, too, had been Prime Minister,
and the leader of the great Whig party, with
whom some persons who called themselves Radicals
had dovetailed." They had done so now. (Loud Minis-
terial cheers.) But, continued his hon. friend, " the
spoils of office had fallen to the share of the noble lord and
his immediate Mends." What reason had his hon. friend
for supposing that the spoils of office would be disposed of
now in a different manner ? The noble lord (Palmerston) in-
sinuated the other night that if he were in office he would be
able to keep England out of war. His right hon. friend knew
very well that the noble lord had not been so very great a
peace Minister, and when his hon. friend themember for Bir-
mingham expressed some doubts of the peace policy of the
noble lord at -Willis's Rooms, the noble lord got up and said
that on the question of peace he agreed with the hon. mem
bar for Birmingham. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) His
hon. friend now said that they 'agreed on this question of
peace. If so, the noble lord must very suddenly have
changed his views. Looking back for many years, it would
be found that if the noble lord had not led us into war, he
had at least not kept us at peace. Recollect how the British
fleet was sent into the waters of Greece to obtain the payment
of a magnificent debt of £150; and the war with China
entered into on account of an alleged insult to the British
flag by a miserable lorcha, and the firing of shot and shell
which ensued mowed down thousands of defenceless
people on the pretext of defending the honour of the Bri-
tish flag ; but what became of the honour of England
when it was menaced by an insulting despatch from the
Minister of a foreign Poweri?—(cheers)—and who was it
that vindicated the honour of England ? .Was it the
noble lord or the right hon. gentleman the member for
Ashton ? The noble lord was said to have great sympathy
for Italy, and yet in 1848 Lombardy might have been freed,
for the noble lord had it in his power to do it. (" Hear,
hear," and cheers.) He should like to have an answer on
that point, whether or not it was the case that Austria
offered to evacuate Lombardy, and whether the noble lord
refused to assent to it. (Hear.) If so, was not the noble
lord responsible to a great extent for the war which was
now going on? For the reasons he had stated he considered
ses.r, near"--pas an advocate; orrmorm anutencb;--ro give
his vote against the amendment on which they were to
divide that evening. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) But he
should do so for another reason. The question before the
house was the address to her. Majesty in reply to her speech
from the throne. Now, in the whole course of the debate
not a word had been said of the policy propounded ix her
Majesty's Speech, and they were asked to agree to an
amendment to that speech, although they as Liberals en-
tirely agreed in and could find no fault with the principles
laid down in it. Strict neutrality was arrived at on the
part of the Government, and they stated that they had
done all in their power to preserve peace, and papers had
been offered to the house which would prove that they had
done so. No one on that (the Opposition) side ever affected
to doubt that. Then as regarded rumours about sympathy
with Austria, every effort had failed to show that there was
anything but a rumour on that point ; and was he to give
his vote for destroying a Government from a mere rumour ?
(Loud Ministerial cheers.) He should ill-represent the gen-
tlemen who had returned him by a large majority if he did
so. (Hear, hear.) But the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Stroud had made one or two of the most extraor-
dinary statements he ever heard. He said :—" Her Ma-
jesty informed them that in the differences which had
arisen between continental powers her mediatorial efforts in
the interests of peace had entirely failed. She told them
that war was now raging in Italy, but that her determina-
tion was—and in this her Majesty was loyally supported by
all classes of her subjects—that England should remain
strictly neutral. But she went on to inform them that she had
felt it right in the present state of Europe to add to her naval
forces, thereby disclosing an apprehension that circumstances
beyond her control might unhappily arise to compel reluctant
England to become a belligerent power. All this was well
known, but the authoritative announcement was, perhaps,
one of the most important which had been made by the
Sovereign to Parliament in our day. We had borne a part
in negotiations now concluded, and unless Providence
averted the calamity we might be entangled in the war."
War was raging, and a spark from that conflagration might
reach England, and were her Majesty's ministers to leavd
her Majesty unprotected—(" hear, hear," and cheers)—in
circumstances which the right hon. gentleman said might
be quite beyond their control. 'While he (Mr. Lindsay)
was an advocate of peace and economy, he was also an ad-
vocate, especially at the present time, when war was raging
in Europe, for having the defences of the country in an
efficient state not only to protect England, but to vindicate
her honour, which was of far more importance to her as a
nation, and especially as a commercial nation. (Hear.) The
right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud gave another
reason why he should vote against the Government. He
stated that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had only
appealed to the house not to bring forward this motion, he
should have been disposed to have voted against the amend-
ment. Well, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no op-
portunity of doing so, for the amendment was concocted,
and arranged, and agreed upon by the leaders of the dif-
ferent sections of the liberal party before the right hon.
gentleman was sworn in. (Hear.) The Chancellor of the
Exchequer took the earliest opportunity immediately after
the amendment had been moved, to expound his policy in
what he (Mr. Lindsay) would all a straightforward and
honest speech. (Hear.) And although he did not ask that
the amendment should not be pressed, he said as much
when he declared that he thought the house ought to give
the Government a chance of carrying out the liberal
policy which he had propounded. The house, however,
bring
would not let him have a chance, for fear that he should
id,
session,hin esomeoi
forr. sucht
he
Lindsay)r
eareformsonwould
billowu
ihdia as
vote
he
the
again
did last session. If
he
std
it, est h e hem mem
enoblest
lord
berswfor London had embodied in his resolution were to him un-
an
e:•o a 13l e ; but because the Government had erred with re-
spect
that bill, was that a reason for assuming that they
were unable to bring in a bill which might meet with ap-
proval ? It might as well be said that the noble lord the
because the bill hewas not fit to bring in a Reform Bill,
member for London
erroneous in principle introduced
tuhane in 1854 was even more
of e Reform Bill of the Govern-
lastithsaemssion. believed it was the hon. member
who showed the house that the bill of the
noble lord, m attempting to •
forme nßt
unconstitutional and unsound. But
to minorities, was
w
man say that he would not trust neode lord to bringthe in
would have allowed the noble lord to bring that he
he would allow the Government to do so, in another bill,
had by the dissolution learnt what were Pthellail3*'* as they
feelings of the people with regard to the franeltheeshand
they did not know before, rmd there was every hope that
they, like the Duke of Wellington with regard to Catholic
emancipation, and like Sir R. Feel with regard to the corn
laws, would have ev.deavoured to meet the 'wishes of the
people with regard to a Reform Bill, and if they had done
so they would have been able to pass it rapidly through the
other house, which the Whigs would not be able to do.
For these reasons, and because in this Parliament he saw
no reason for passing a vett of no confidence against the
Government, he should give his vote against the amend-
ment. (Loud Ministerial cheers.)
Mr. S. HERBERT said that he was afraid that those
persons in the house who took offence at the reconciliation
of sections of the Liberal party had found little comfort in
the speech which they had just heard. (Laughter and
cheers.) They on that side of the house were not
unanimous ; there was something still which wa4 a ground
for division in the Liberal ranks. He had hoped to have
got through this discussion without feeling the necessity
of taking any part in it. He was not fond of discussions
on the merits, not of measures, but of men. Hon.
gentlemen opposite would do him the justice to admit
that in the most heated controversies not one word
had ever dropped from him which could • 1 imp y any want
of respect for the party to which they belnnged. He had
always spoken of and freely acknowled4;ed their high quali-
ties, and if in this case he had a Complaint to make it was
not against the party itself, but against those who led it.
Before the dissolution of Parliament the Government had
challenged an issue Olt the ground of confidence. In that
house before the dissolution the Government had said, we
stand on our measures ; we are in a minority, and we won't
carry on the Government by concession to the Liberal ma-
jority. It was, then, measures not men. In the country
the cry was different, it
was men not measures. , The Go-
vernment having • till
that it bad
been iven s challenge could not complain
end of last sesmildontaken up.. In the Queen's Speech at the I
, her Majesty was made to hope that under

the blessing of Providence that dissolution would enable
her to conduct the government of the country under the
advice of a Ministry that possessed the confidence of a ma-
jority of Parliament and the people. The Government said
that they failed with their Reform Bill ; but had that been
the case with no one else ? Had not the noble lord (Lord J.
Russell) brought in a Reform Bill which had not been
carried ? It had been remarked by the hon. member for
Sunderland that the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) brought in
a Reform Bill in 1854, and it failed ; and that he brought one
in before which failed. But those bills were not rejected.
The bill which the noble lord brought in, when he led the
house as a member of the Government of Lord Aberdeen,
was not rejected, but it was the universal feeling of the house
that no Reform Bill could be entertained when the war with
Russia broke out. That bill had been made the foundation

of a great portion of the late Government. It pro-
posed the £lO franchise in counties, and without taking
away any of the credit due to the hon. member for West
Surrey, he (Mr. S. Herbert) believed the present Government
had taken that principle from the bill of the Government of
Lord Aberdeen. Another principle of that bill was the lower-
ing of the borough franchise, which the present Government
had studiously avoided, but which they now hinted that
they would be disposed to do hereafter. Thepresent Govern-
ment, therefore, having availed itself of two of the main
provisions of the bill of the noble lord in 1854, had no right
to lay any stress upon the fact that that bill did not pass
into a law. But there was one great distinction to be
made, the noble lord was a reformer. (Cheers.) He did not
quarrel with the present Government for undertaking to
deal with reform. As the noble lord the member for Tiver-

ton had said, "they took the horse with his engagements,
and knew what they were bound to." Though professed
anti-reformers, therefore, who argued with zeal and ability
against the proposition of the hon. member for West Surrey
until the last moment, they brought in a bill upon that
model. (Hear, hear.) But he preferred not to wait now
for the fulfilment of their promises. He preferred to see
reform in the hands of reformers. It was no easy
matter to carry a Reform Bill ; but there must
always be increased difficulties when either 'of the great
parties in the house did not confine themselves to doing
that which it was their duty, in right of their principles, to
do, but undertook to do business for others. He had been
blamed for saying that there was a special danger in a Re--
form Bill being brought in by the Conservatives ; but he
thought so, becausein the nature of things the Opposition
would think themselves bound to go beyond it. A right
hon. gentleman opposite had said of the late measure of the
Government, " This is a Reform Bill which, if it had been
introduced by Lord Palmerston, and we had been in oppo-
sition, every man of us would have opposed." Some compro-
mise must always be made before such a question could be
settled ; no Government could pass a Reform Bill exactly as
they brought it in ; but if it were brought in by those whose
antecedents were opposed to reform, it would be passed under
protest from those who wished to go further, and they
would not hold themselves bound by the compromise. If, on
the other hand, it were brought in and passed by the Liberal
party, they would be bound by the compromise, and there
would be a prospect of its stability and permanence, which
there could not be in the case of a bill brought in by a Con-
servative Government and passed with the reluctant assent,
or probably the dissent and protest of the Opposition. There
was one measure not brought forward by the Government
but assented to by them, the abolition of the property qua-
lification for members. He remembered that when that was
passed some one asked the Government which point of the
charter they were gob:lg to give next. A practical answer
to this question was given in their Reform Bill, which pro-
posed a sort of electoral districts. If the vote were suc-
cessful he should be glad to see the executive placed in
stronger hands ; and if, on the contrary, the Government
should be in a majority, it would probably command a
wider support. Their numbers on that side could not much
preponderate, but he hoped that if they found themselves
in power, the patriotism and good sense of the country
would come to their aid, and, whichever party were pos-
sessed of authority, he trusted that party would bring to a
successful issue the great questions which press upon them ;
that their various domestic interests might be fully con-
sidered in any reform bill that might be presented, and that
they might be able to restore peace to Europe in a manner
that would show that they in England had not forgotten
that there was a people struggling for liberty. (Cheers.)
Mr. BENTINCK said complaints had been made on the
other side that there was an indisposition on his (Mr.
Bentinck's) side of the house to meet the arguments of hon.
gentlemen opposite, but he held that the reason why the
discussion had languished was that there was nothing in
the arguments of those who advocated the amendment to
call for reply. It was alleged that the Government had
failed in carrying their measures. It was not _ for him to
defend the Government, who were well able to stand up for
themselves—he did not deny that there had been occasions
when he viewed the conduct of Ministers with regret—but
he held that he should be taking a most unjust course, if,
because he had differed from them upon one or two
occasions, he should at once join in the vote proposed by
the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) He should like to know
how the commercial interests of England could be
reconciled with the deterioration of her fleet. With
our naval supremacy our commercial greatness would
cease. Yet, probably, by agreeing to the vote of censure
now proposed a government would be introduced whose
policy would be to destroy that naval supremacy. He
thought this question one of such importance that, before
the house determined upon pursuing any course the result
of which might be a change of ministry a guarantee should
be demanded from those likely to succeed that our national
defences should be maintained in a thorough state of effi-
ciency. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR said the hon. gentleman who
had just spoken had asserted that the arguments advanced
by that (the opposition) side of thehouse containednothing
worthy of reply. He (Mr. Seymour) thought, on the con-
trary, that no reply could be given to the cogent arguments
advanced. What answer had been attempted to the question
why =acknowledged mincaity should occupy the ministerial
benchee,gyUfigie majority was to be found on the opposite
An HON. MEMBER—Are you a mem fry Y (Laughter.)
Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR said, not only were they a
majority, but they had been so since the Government first
held office—that was, if all the sections of the Liberal party
were united. (Laughter.) And he saw no reason why they
should not be united. (Renewed laughter.) It was only in
accordance with constitutional precedents that the majority
of the house should hold the reins of government, and Eng-
land would soon sink into a third-rate power if, forgetting
her constitutional precedents, she allowed a government in
an acknowledged minority to remain in office.
Captain VERNON said he should not have risen whilst so
many hon. members were anxious to address the house, ex-
cept for the fact that he had a little information to give to
gentlemen on the *opposite side, and particularly to the right
kon. member for Carlisle (Sir J. C4raham), and the hon.
member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson); who, indeed, were not
now present in their places, but who he had no doubt would
hear by other means what he had to communicate within the
next 24 hours. The subject onwhich he was about to giveine
formation he should not have considered of much importance
except for the fact of those gentlemen to whom he had
referred having dragged it into the debate by the hair of the
head. It was the case of the Cunard line to which he re-
ferred. The hon. and right hon. gentleman had placed the
matter before the house in an invidious position. The hon.
member for Devonport stated that the contract had been
made contrary to all precedent, and insinuated that it was
made for the purpose of jobbery. The right hon. member
for Carlisle, with that intrepidity of assertion—(laughter)—
for which he was, not without a certain amount of fact,
celebrated, went so far as to say that the money had been
expended in huge, gigantic bribery—a bribery of all the
members for the west of Ireland. The hon. member for
Birmingham talked of a travelling politician, but the right
hon. member for Carlisle had not always sat for Carlisle,
nor had the hon. member for Devonport always sat for
Devonport. It might be that they in the course of their
travels might present themselves at the western side of
Ireland, and if so they would speedily discover that they
were not the men for Galway. The hon. member for De-
vonport had given them to understand that there was no
precedent for that which he had denounced. In 1851 Lord
Jocelyn's committee sat, and of that committee the hon.
member for Devonport was one. The committee was-ap-
pointed to consider the mode of arranging the postal com-
munication with India, and they came to a distinct under-
standing that there should be two lines of postal commu-
nication with India, and that those two lines should not be
given to the same parties. One line was in the possession
of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and the other line
was competed for by the Eastern Steam Navigation Com-
pany. In defiance of the recommendation of the committee
the second line of communication was given to the l'enin-
sular and Oriental Company, and they then had a mono-
poly of the East Indian postal communication, except a
small line held by the East India Company between Aden
and Bombay. They afterwards ceased to hold that line, and
it was then asked for by certain parties, but they, however,
found that it was alrea.dy given to the Peninsular and Oriental
Company. He did not charge this as a job ; but why should
the hon. gentleman charge the present Government with a
job in the Cunard case ? He never recollected hearing that
the hon. member for Devonport was in want of memory ; he
recollected what he heard and saw; and he (Capt. Vernon)
thought that he ought to recollect what he did. Gentlemen
who wanted to get this line from Aden to Bombay commu-
nicated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asked for
an interview, and received the following reply :
" Downing-street, Dec. 8, 1853,
" Sir,—The Chancellor of the Exchequer desires me to
inform you, in reply to your letter dated the 11th October,
but which only arrived in Downing-street on the sth inst. ,
that no intimation has yet been conveyed to him on the part
of the East India Company of their intention to abandon the
line of steam communication between Aden and Bombay,
and in this state of the question he would be much obliged
if, previous to urging an interview with hfm, you would
have the kindness to favour him with an outline of your
views upon the subject in writing.—l have the honour, &c.,
" Thos. Holreyd, Esq." " R. W. WitatitlitAx.
" 70, Cornhill, Dec. 14, 1853.
" Sir,--When the former contracts for the carriage of the
mails in the Eastern seas were about to expire I had hi depu-
tation several times occasion to meet Sir C. Wood, the then
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who invariably stated to us
that the question for the contracts for the carriage of the
mails rested entirely with him as i Chancellor of the Exche-
quer,' and Sir C. Wood exercised that authority by giving
all the contracts for the carriage of the mails to the Penin-
sular and Oriental Company, much to the disappointment
of the mercantile and Indian communities.
" When, therefore, it became known that the East India
commtoinouraereb leenfotr
Company were about abandon the line between Aden and
was now
the mercantile community felt that an opportunity
momneonTfoffered for competition in the Eastern seas, and a
hcearrjaitnragctopuat
thef
packet
r serviceede
for
opinionthe
esta-
blishment of
matter really a line via Trieste. Feeling satisfied that the
an interview rested
with. you, I took the liberty of soliciting
.wham reely to my letter from your secretary,
tie.,ll hady dated the Bth inst., states that no intima-
India Company, of their intention to
steam communication
st
in that state of the betweenquestion,
Aden and Bombay ;and that,
outline of my ' you would be gild to have an
views in l?writing previous to an interview
4c you will, therefore, I am sure, be equally se
myself to find that, without your knowle.e trith
been virtually concluded with thr,,, :"2t, a contract has
Company for the carriage of 11- euinsiilar and Oriental
Bombay of that portion. - lie-tot:teas between Aden and
fndia Company. •)"
giving the pebandoned by the East
ComßanYa :AnnPletemonopoly of the lII'
sular and Oriental
This Information I had from a Mr. WiLiiisioan and China sea&
to the Treasury—(Ministerial cheers)—thni; the Secretary
from what he told me it would appear to be useless
; and
troubling you with my views on this subject, sinceel: in
my
the arrangement to have been concluded a fortnight e stated
therefore just one week before the date of youseersago, and
letter to whiejo. I have alluded, and from which ittarY's
evident that this arrangement has been entered init; quite
unknown to you. I may be permitted to state shortly that
a company has been formed in the City ready to give tlh
public the benefit of an additional route via • Trieste at ae
Wed very superior to that promised by, the Peninsul'ar and
Oriental, viz., 21 days to Bombay, and the memorials in
my possession from the city of London, of Liverpool and