Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-05-21
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
FROM Observation-Disclosures.
LONDON, MAY 6, 1853.

OF Ministers in the House OF Commons IN respect
to the income tax This last was trial question OF
Ministerial strength, and, as 1t was carried by The
large majority of seventy-one in house of five
hundred and seventy five members the division may
be regarded as determining the of the Bud
get and the continuance of the present Ministry in
power and place.
Earl GREY originated in the House of LORDS, on
Friday evening, the discussion of the question
"What is to be done with our convicts I" The
Earl of ABERDEEN stated that there are now in the
penal establishments of the country 1852 convicts,
who are entitled, under existing regulations to be
moved to the colonies with tickets of leave; but his
lordship urged that it is literally impossible send
them there and stated that the Government
sdering the expediency of substantially keeping good
faith with Them by diminishing the duration of their
punishment in accordance with the deserts Of individuals
Earl GREY defended the punishment Of transportation
which had been the policy Of the country for two hundred
years The Earl ABERDEEN said that the Government
had yet any decision upon the subject but
that in short time proposition would be laid be-
fore their lordshps which he hoped would be satsfac
tory Lord CAMPBELL declared his belief that the most
dreadful effects would follow the abolition of transpora
ton In his opinion if the thousand convcts alluded
by Lord Aberdeen should instead of being turned loose
in our Streets be sent Australia they would there be
speedily absorbed He did not believe thar the reorma
tory system had the least tendency to make criminals
useful members of society, and il the contemplated
change took place about twenty thousand Of these crmi
mails would be turned loose society He suggested the
coast of Greenland the Falkland Islands penal colo
MES instead of Australia The whole of the discussion,
in which Lords DERBY and LANsDowNE the Duke of New
CASTLE and Earl GRANVILLE took part very inter-
estng and curious showing that the contradictory
opinions upon the subject held in the House Of Lords
The bill for relieving the Jews was opposed, on the
motion for its being read second time by the Earl of
SHArTEsBURY, who urged new arguments upon the
OCCASION but restated all the old ones with additional
quantity of bgotry and intolerance he supported by
the Ear of DARNLEY and HARRowBY, and the Bishop of
SALISBURY The measure was advocated by the Arch
bishop of DUBLIN, the Bishop of ST. DAvIDs and Lords
BRouGHAM and ALBEMARLE. On a division, sixty-nine
peers present and forysix by their proxies voted for
the BILL whilst ninety peers personally and
by their proxies voted against it, defeating the
by a majority of forty-nine. Thus has the
House of Lords set at nough the calmly expressed opn
ion Of the House of Commons and treated with contempt
the wishes of the people But, however long delayed
the will be accomplished The fact is that the
bill has far greater reference the rights of the chris
tan electors than the Jews 1t is the former who
restricted in the choice of their representatives by the
disabilities with which one class of English subjects
burdened The Bishop of ST. DAvIDs suggested that the
bill might have been called "a bill enable the consti
by persons whom they might choose to elect without
reference any religious distinction prevailing among
her Majesty's subjects in the realm The Earl of Al
stated the fact not generally known, that two
hundred years ago the Protector Cromwell sought to
eye the Jews from portion of their civil disabilities
but failed and that exactly hundred years ago
bill removing their disabilities passed both houses, and
received the royal assent; but powerful camor
raised against it out of doors that it repealed the
feated the Jews then, but at that time the prejudice
of DOORS the prejudice has been abandoned
by the people, be embodied in all its force in the House
of Lords.
The four days debate upon the Budget presented
remarkable Of either argument eoquence The
leading men Of the House Of Commons held themselves
aloof and abandoned the field to Of the second
and third rank 1t is that Lord JOHN RUSSELL and
Mr. DsRAEL leaders of their respective parties each
addressed the House, and Mr. CoBDES, chief Of the
Reformers ultra Liberals, also spoke and doubt
upon his speech depended the amount Of the Ministerial
majority for neither pa1y in the House appears have
been quite satisfied to the part he would take. The
consequence was, that Mr. DIsRAELI and his followers
listened with breathess and eager interest to the opening
portion Of Mr.. CoBDES's speech. The in which
the member for the West Riding at the outset complain
ed of the greatly increased expenditure military
ments seemed to indicate intention to oppose the Gov
ernmen ana the hopes OF the Opposon VINO saw IN the
distance q possible victory, accordingly. As Mr.
GOLDEN proceeded express his disapprobation Of
tain parts Of the scheme the Derby sreates cheered
him heartily and hung upon his lips with anxious and
increasing attention At length, however they
deceived and when the honorable gentleman declared
that he would support the budget in all its main features
their counenances and their hopes FELL and their interest
in the speaker subsidized.
Sir CHARLES WooD made very clear and forcibe
speech upon the subject, and Mr. DIsRARLI Aippant
and personal Lord JONI RUSSELL confined himself
to brief summary Of the advantages proposed by the
budget and pointed out the inconsistency the speeches
of the Opposition with the amendment which it professed
House. much greater than the friends Of the Govern
ment expectedan excellent sign; for when votes
flock to the standard Of Ministry than is anticipated
many most favorable conclusions respecting the strength
Of that Ministry may fairly be drawn. The elements Of
good contained in Mr. scheme have gained
preliminary which is very significant Of the tr
umphnnt result Even Mr.: DIsRAELI prefaced his un-
the budget could not be condemned
The proceedings in both Houses Wednesday night
Of merely routine nature Last night Thursday
an extraordinary occurred in the House Commons
An Irish member, Mr. DUrFr, openly charged the Gov
eminent with corruption exercised towards the Irish
members He said " He did not believe that even in
the time Of Wapoe Of the Pelhams more scandaous
corruption existed than he had pracced under his
own eyes IN corrupting Irish members" Such charge