The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-18 00:00:00

discussion upon the Hon. Member's motion, but would
be unwilling t ) go on with it unless he had some
specific knowledge of the nature of the resolutions.
Mr. DISRAELI said no doubt he would be able to

induce the lion. Member to vote for the first resolution.

—(A laugh.) As regarded the other resolutions,
before he asked the House for any division, he would,
in detail and specifically, let the House know what was
the nature of them.
DANISH ARMISTICE.

Mr SANDARS asked the Noble Lord the Secretary

for Foreign Affairs if it were true that the Danish Go-
vernment bad refused to renew the armistice of the 10th
of July last ; and if so, whether the Noble Lord con-
sidered as a natural consequence the renewal of the
blockade of the Prussian ports of the Baltic and the
Elbe? It bad been stated in the public papers that the
Government had consented to an extension of the
armistice on certain conditions, and he wished to know
if this statement was correct; and if so, what were the
conditions and the time to which the extension went?
Lord PALMERSTON said the armistice continued
virtually, although the specific period for which it was
contracted had expired ; but it could not be removed by
either of the contracting parties without six months'
notice. Her Majesty's Government had proposed to
continue that armistice for six months.—(H( ar,
bear.) There were some objections to that
on both aides, and on the 16th (~f this month he
had received a communication from the Danish Minister
intimating the willingness of the Danish Government to
renew the armistice, on condition that all parties should
concur in acknowledging that armistice. The parties
whom the Danish Government required to be consent-
ing parties to the promulgation of the armistice would
be Prussia and the Central Power of Frankfort.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that upon Thurs-
day, the 11th day of April next, and every alter-
nate Thursday following, orders of the day have
precedence of notices of motions. His Lord-
ship then read a statement to show that since
this rule had been established in previous sessions the
Government had absolutely taken fewer days out of the
hands of private Members than they had done before.—
(Hear, hear.) All be asked, therefore, was that this
rule should be adopted after Easter.
The motion having been put,
Mr. HUME said that the Noble Lord had read a state-
ment which told more for than against him.—(Hear.)
All that he desired was, that independent Members
might have an opportunity of laying before the House
the demands and the views of the General body of the
people.—(Hear, hear.) If the Noble Lord could not
grant all he asked, he might surely concede half r day,
and allow that on the open days the Government should
come in pari passu with independent Memberi and take
their chance and their turn in the order on which all
stand upon the paper. Perhaps no man in the House
had less personal interest in the matter than himself,
and his only ()Eject was to promote the public interest.
Mr. FORBES supported the amendment of the Hon.
Member for Montrose. He thought that the Noble
Lord had had sufficient allowance already.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the Hon. Member
for Montrose had altogether mistaken his (the Noble
Lord's) proposition. He did not think that it would de-
prive Members of any privileges, and it would give the
opportunity to Government of forwarding many Bills
which would otherwise have to be postponed.
Mr. DENISON thought the effect of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Montrose's motion was to give individual legis-
lation a priority over Government legislation. Now of
all legislation individual legislation was the worst.
Mr. SPOONER would support the amendment if it
were pressed to a division. He hoped the Noble Lord
would give them the benefit of orders of the day, if he
did not let them tske notices.
Mr. M. GIBSON said Thursdays at the beginning
of the session were better worth having to an inde-
pendent Member than Thursdays at the end, but they
I were not less valuable to Government at the end
than at the beginning, for Government could keep a
House where an independent Member could not, and
therefore he said, as one who had some interest in the
matter, he hoped they would have the Thursdays at the
beginning f the session.
Sir GEORGE GREY did not agree with the Hon.
Gentleman in thinking Thursdays were of no more
value to Government at the beginning than at the
end of a session. The object of having
those days set apart for Government was to
enable them to get their Bills sent up to
the other House of Parliament at the earliest possible
period; and if they were refused the Thursdays at the
beginning of the session, of course that object could not
be attained.
Mr. HUME would do all he could to preserve the little
opportunities that remained to independent Members for
bringing on their motions, and he should divide the House
on the question.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 3B
Against it l4O
Majority against the amendment --102
On our admission to the gallery we found
Mr. DISRAELI speaking, who said that he certainly
thought with the Hon. Member fur Montrose, that this
was an abbreviation of the privilege of the independent
Members of the House, and a complete circumscription
of the rights of the representatives c f the people. if the
motion was persevered in, he should certainly take the
sense of the House.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the system had worked
well, and the division just taken showed the sense of the
House upon it.
Mr. HUME said that he had observed that since 1840
there had been a great increase of arrears towards the
end of the session, and in no year greater than during
last session. The custom had evidently worked badly,
and ought to be amended.
Sir H. H. INGLIS, not being one of those who bad

any wish to live and die otithe floor of the House,
would support the proposal of the Noble Lord. He
thoaght that there was sufficient time wasted in speak-
ing i❑ this House to satisfy the appetites cf any assem-
bly in the world.
Sir 11. PEEL did !Kt think that there was too much

time given to independent Members. He bad been rather
tempted to vote with the Noble Lord opposite, by hear-
ing him say that it was the intention of Government to

take all important measures of legislation under their
charge. That sentiment was rather at variance with the
Noble :Lord's opinions on former occasions. When
he (Sir R. Peel) recollected the time that had
been given to the discussion of the measure
regarding tenant-right which had been brought on last
session, he did not think that individual legislation was
very successful. He had been rather amused at hearing
the Secretary of State talking of the advantage of having
the Wednesdays, when they could not be counted out;
and of the importance which the Right Hon. Baronet
attached to the circumstance. On the whole he was
disposed to give a reluctant assent to the motion of the
Government.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ... ... 143
Against it ... ... 47
Majority _ . . —96

The motion was therefor. carried.
AUSTRALIAN COLONIES GOVERNMENT BILL
ADJOURNED DEBATE.

On the order of the day being read for resuming the
debate on the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. SCOTT rose to move that the second reading of
the Bill be postponed until further papers on the subject
be laid on the table of this House. He said, being
( f opinion that the House ought to give to the Austra-
lian colonies fundamental laws similar to those of our
own country, he could not consent to the Bill being read
a second time. He did not think we should long retain
those colonies if institutions so entirely different from
those which we ourselves enjoyed were continued in them.
In France and the United States this principle had
worked badly, and he could not understand on what in-
ducement the Government bad adopted it with regard to
the Australian colonies. The Bill which was now before
them continued on the existence of one Chamber of
Legislature in those colonies. Now the Government—
every member of it, so far as he understood—and all the
colonial governors, had expressly declared their settled
convictions that one Chamber of Legislature was not
sufficient to ensure the careful consideration of those

laws by which any considerable community was to be
or ought to be governed. Universal experience bad
shown that the reliance upon the wisdom of one
body of men was quite insufficient to ensure
sound conclusions for the direction of a colony.
A true and fair illustration of 'what such a state of
things in this country, would be to suppose that 230
Members of this House were nominees of the Govern-
ment, mad forced to vote as Government pleased:
such was the state of government in Australia.
One Chamber had no precedent there was not a
single precedent in history for one chamber. looking
back from the time of Mr. Pitt's Bill, down to the date
of the present papers which were laid before the House.
It was much more likely to continue quarrels between
the Chamber and the Government, by having one
House instead of two. He could give more instances than
one of the danger which had arisen in our colonies
from the over-anxiety of a single Chamber to pass
laws. By this Bill, however, they granted the colony
one Chamber, but it went even farther than that, for it
gave the colonists the power of adopting whatever go-
vernment they thought fit. Nothing was more
calculated to create discontent in the colony,
and he therefore hoped the House would
amend the Bill at once, and assimulate the Government
of i the colony to that of the mother country.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies had
stated that certain persons in this country who re-
presented the settlers in New South Wales, expressed
their satisfaction with one Legislative Chamber, but
the general opinion in the colony was that there
ought to be two Chambers, and, therefore, their
representations must have been incorrect.—(Hear.)
He thought the measure had been undertaken without
due consideration, and he therefore opposed the second
reading of the Bill, and would move that the second
reading should be deferred till further papers were pro-
duced on the subject.
Mr. LABOUCEIERE supported the second reading
of the Bill. He believed that it was the wish of the
rpopulation of the Australian colonies to legislate for
themselves, and not to have any constitution ready cut
and dried sent from this country for them, and as a
proof of that, be might refer to the opinion expressed
by Sir Charles Fitzroy.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

REMAINS OF A TEMPLARS' CHURCH NEAR HOL-
BORN.—At a recent meeting of the Aram°logical As-
sociation, on the Bth inst., Mr. Lynch communicated a
description of remains of the ancient church of the
Knights Templars and other early buildings situate
behind the house of Mr. Charles Griffith, near Middle-
row, Holborn. He also exhibited one of five antique
green glass flasks, found in excavating on the site.—
Budder.