Matto net Vroutilittgo in Varlituutut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF FHB WEEK.

HOME OF Loans. Monday, July 16. Lord Raglan and Lady Raglan's Annuities Bill read a first time—Deficiency Bills ; Lord Monteagle's Motion—Religious Wor- ship; Lord Shaftesbury's Bill remitted to the Select Committee—Endowed Schools (Ireland) Bill read a third time and passed—Youthful Offenders Bill read a third time and passed.

Tuesday, July 17. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Bill reported—Pub- lic Libraries and Museums Bill read a second time—Coal-Mines Inspection Bill read a second time—Lord Raglan and Lady Raglan's Annuities Bill read a second time. Thursday, July 19. Scotch Education ; the Lord Advocate's Bill thrown out on second reading—Religious Worship ; Lord Shaftesbury's Bill recommitted—Dwel- ling-houses (Scotland) Bill read a third time and passed—Crime and Outrage Act Continuance Bill read a second time.

Friday, July 20. Law Reform ; Lord Lyndhurst'e Question—Scotch School- masters; the Duke of Bucclench's Question—Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Bill read a second time—Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Bill read a third time and passed.

SOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, July 16. Lord John Russell's Resignation ; his Statement—Sir E. Lytton's Motion withdrawn—Merchant Shipping Act Amend- ment Bill read a third time and passed—Stage-Carriage Duties Bill committed— Leases and Sales of Settled Estates; the Lord Chancellor's Bill read a second time —Schools (Scotland); Mr. W. Stirling's Bill thrown out by 84 to 65—Dissenters' Marriages Bill read a third time and passed.

Tuesday, July 17. Public Health; Sir B. Hall's Bill withdrawn—Baron Roths- child; Report of Committee brought up—Sebastopol Committee; Mr. Roebuck's Motion of Censure; debate adjourned—Maynooth; debate adjourned for three

months.

Wednesday, July 18. Standing Orders; Report of Revision Committee—Episco- pal and Capitular Estates; Lord Blandford'e Bill withdrawn—Dwellings for Labour- ing Classes (Ireland); Sir W. Somerville', Bill in Committee—Convention with United States Bill read a second time.

Thursday, July 19. Sebastopol Committee ; Mr. Roebuck's Motion of Censure disposed of by the " previous question." Friday, July 20. Government of the Principalities; Mr. Layard's Question—In- structions to Lord John Russell; Mr. Disraeli's Question—Metropolis Local Ma- Bill read a third time and passed—The Turkish Loan Convention; Reso- giag=opted by 189 to 132—Maynooth Report ; Select Committee to inquire into, granted—Convention with United States Bill read a third time and passed—Ab- soonding Debtors (Ireland) Bill read a third time.

TIME- TABLE.

The Lords. Hour of

Hour of

The Commons.

Hour of Hour of

Meeting. Adjournment.

Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday Sh Oh 60m Monday th .(se) lb Om Tuesday Sb 811 16m Tuesday Noon .... lh Om

Sb .(se) lb 80m Wednesday Resitting. Wednesday Noon .... Sb 65m Thursday Sh .... Sh 45rn Thursday 4h .(m) 3h Om Friday Sh .... 8h em Friday 4h .(ns) ih Ortn.

Sittingsthie Week, 4; Time, 9h 60m — this Bunion, 95; — 198h 30m

SIR EDWARD LyrroN's MOTION.

When the first order of the day was read on Monday, Lord Join; Res- SELL availed himself of the opportunity to announce that he had resigned office, that the Queen had accepted his resignation, and that he only held his post until his successor was appointed. With that declaration he would have rested satisfied, were it not that recent events had been so perverted by malice as to render a statement of them necessary. Count Buol's circular was generally correct in stating that Lord John had promised to use any influence he might possess to procure the accept- ance of the Austrian proposals. He had so promised in conjunction with the French and Turkish Ministers for Foreign Affairs. Those proposals Lord John brought with him to London on the 29th April; on the 30th, there was a Cabinet Council; and at that Council those propositions were not adopted by the Government, Circumstances arose in the course of the discussions, independent of the merits of the propositions themselves, which made it appear to the mind of Lord John impossible to urge their acceptance. With regard to the merits of the propositions, Mr. Disraeli had alleged, that bad they been received the country would have been convinced there was no great issue at stake which would justify the con- tinuance of the war. But Lord John explained that it was because the

Sittings this Week, 13; Tiine,47b 25m — this Session. 128; — 844k 23m

war was necessary, and the peril of Turkey so great, that he had been the bearer of propositions that would being all the great Powers of Eu- rope, out of Russia, to combine their efforts in war, and give security to

TuArey. He- had previously objected to the principle of counter- poise ; but when he found it was enforced by the declaration of Austria

that she would make it an ultimatum, and after the conclusion of a treaty enter into a defensive alliance with France and Great Britain, to prevent and resist any future aggression on the part of Russia against Turkey, then he felt there would be a security for Europe, scarcely attainable un- less Austria be our ally. The despatch in which Lord Clarendon re- jected those propositions was written on the 8th May ; and on the 16th, Lord Westmoreland wrote a despatch stating that the Austrian Govern- ment conceived they had fulfilled the treaty of December 2, that they should only propose to the Conference some plan of limitation, and if that were rejected, break up the Conference and retire. Lord Westmoreland

and the French Minister were instructed not to debate these propositions —" less favourable to the Allies" than the propositions proposed by M.

Drouyn de Lhuys and Lord John Russell—and therefore since the 19th May we reverted to that condition of things when it is necessary to carry on the war to obtain a solution of the third point. So far the first part of his conduct. The next charge against him was, that in his speech on Mr. Disraeli's motion he appeared as the " uncom- promising advocate of the war." But what else could he possibly be ? What other means, except by a prosecution of' the war, were there of ob- taining a solution of the third point ? The only questions discussed in that debate were the Russian propositions, neither of which contained the elements of peace. That the House was not informed of the Austrian proposals is true, but for that the Foreign Secretary was responsible. It seemed to Lord John, however, that the Government was quite right in not then making any announcement that Austria would not interfere by force, because it would have been unjustifiable to state prematurely, or before it could be known through other channels, that the immediate de- cision of Austria was not to propose an ultimatum, and that Russia there- fore could at once send her forces to the Crimea. There cannot be con- ceived a greater dereliction of duty than the premature declaration of that conclusion of negotiations with Austria. It did not rest with the Go- vernment to discuss the subject ; they were forced into a discussion ; but

on the 24th May there could be no hesitation as to the result of those ne-

gotiations. Mr. Disraeli seemed possessed by a notion that there are two abstract things—peace and war—and that a person must always be either for one or the other ; but her Majesty's Government had no such views. They proposed a plan of limitation of the Russian fleet ; in itself it was an imperfect security, but Government were right in thinking that

with such a security peace would be preferable to war. Peace is de- sirable at all times, war is desirable at many times. On the lot May terms might have been proposed at St. Petersburg which would Iead to peace ; but when they could not be proposed, he naturally fell back into the position in which he had been from the commencement of the war ; and the advice he gave on the 24th May to prosecute the war, he would give still. Since the 5th May the Government has been as united as any Government he has ever known.

Lord John next referred to his conduct in replying to Mr. Gibson's question, stated that he could not have done otherwise than own the part he had taken, and insisted that the proposals he had brought home were totally different from those of Russia, which Mr. Gladstone had thought contained the elements of peace. He could not see the logic of the pro- position that because he assented to the Austrian proposals in the first days of May, that therefore he was incapable of serving her Majesty during the war. Lord John narrated his connexion with Lord Palmer- ston'a Government : the application made to him when the Ministry was first formed ; his subsequent acceptance of the Colonial Office • how,

when he returned from Vienna, he offered to resign, but was persuaded to remain by Lord Palmerston ; how a few days ago he again tendered

his resignation, and how it was again declined. He went on to say that when he found the impression was wide and general that his presence in the Cabinet was not consonant with the carrying on of affairs with that advantage which he intended to afford his noble friend, he hesitated on longer, refused to listen to any argument, and begged Lord Palmerston would recommend her Majesty to accept the resignation.

"And now, Sir, let me say that, having taken that course, I do not feel that I am at all Xiscontented with the position in which I stand. I see no reason to be so. In the first place, I have acted always for what I believe to be the benefit of the country. I have thought over these questions again and again with a view to the public interest, and I have advised that which I have considered expedient for the country, and I have refrained from advising that which was disapproved, or rather, I should say, that which did not ob-

tain the concurrence of those who generally held the same views as myself, and who were acting with me in the same Administration. I have felt that

in the position which I have occupied at various times I have found many true and attached friends ; and I must say that, towards them, beginning with the members of the Cabinet which I have left, I have every reason to thank those friends for their confidence and support. Others there certainly are of a different class— Those you make friends And give your hearts to, when they once perceive The least rub in your fortunes, fall away Like water from ye, never found again

But when they mean to sink ye.'

Some there are of that class—I trust but few—with respect to whom I can only say that I regard them with contempt. With regard to public affairs, it has been my fortune, far beyond my deserts, to carry, or assist in carrying, measures which have promoted civil and religious liberty, which have tended to the promotion of the moral and religious welfare of my country. I say, Sir, that I have had that good fortune, far beyond my deserts, and that is a satisfaction of which I cannot be deprived. That in the course which I have pursued, and in the positions which I have at various times filled, I should have been slandered and calumniated is a circumstance at which I ought to feel neither surprise nor dissatisfaction. There have been men whom I have known, and among them I cannot but recollect my dearly-loved friend Lord Althorp, whose only ambition it was to steer clear of office, and who when he held the highest offices in the state only aspired to descend from them, and yet I have known him calumniated as seeking place. I have seen but lately a gallant and a skilful soldier calumniated. I mean the great and humane Lord Raglan, who was slandered and persecuted even to the very verge of the grave. I say, therefore, that I can feel no dissatisfaction and no surprise at being myself thus calumniated, but if I bad to balance my political account with my calumniators I could say to them that I have been able to promote by measures which I have seen adopted the welfare and ad- vantage, the liberty and prosperity of my country, and in doing so I have met with many warmly attached and excellent friends—men of a nature as noble as that of any men who have ever taken part in public life ; and I have this satisfaction, that, whatever errors I may have committed, what- ever mistakes I may have made, I have always endeavoured to satisfy those friends and my own conscience ; and, therefore, I have no reason to be dis- satisfied with the result at which I have arrived, even if that result should be for ever to exclude me from any voice in the management of affairs. Whatever, therefore, may be the result of the motion of the honourable Ba- ronet opposite, I have no desire that it should be postponed, and I am most willing that he should have the full opportunity of making any charges against me which he may think necessary in support of the views which he entertains. To these observations, Sir, I can only add that I am satisfied to abide by the decision of the House."

He moved that the orders of the day be postponed.

Sir EDWARD LYTTON said that the course taken by Lord John, while it transferred the victory without a struggle to the general patriotism of the House and the people, also justified him in making a charge against a man so eminent and a Government "so justly entitled to the indulgence of compassion." Here was a statesman, who, when he had by his soli- tary, and sudden, and unparalleled desertion broken up a Government, was selected to go to Vienna and report honestly on the necessity of war. He returns, and it is suspected that he is inclined to make peace on the terms of Austria. To dispel those suspicions he vindicates the rupture of negotiations and the continuance of the war, leading the House to believe that here was a statesman " thoroughly in earnest for the war." But at that moment came the publication of the circular of the Austrian Minis- ter, in which Count Buol states that the noble Lord was not only in- clined to peace upon the terms proposed, but that he had actually pro- mised to lay before his Government those definite proposals for peace. Thus thinking peace both possible and honourable, he joined with his col- leagues in urging the sacrifice of the best blood of England in war he deemed no longer necessary. And what made his conduct still more "dis- ingenuous" was, that on the 6th June, when Sir James Graham alluded to the report that the Emperor of the French had proposed the Austrian terms to the English Government, Lord John left the country under the impression, which he knew to be erroneous, " that our illustrious ally would have accepted terms which the loftier spirit of the noble Lord and the united chivalry of the Cabinet disdained." " Now, mark the inconsistency which accompanies this want of candour. On the 16th of July what was the noble Lord's excuse for the preference of peace ? That Russia was so powerful. On the 24th of May what was his excuse for the preference of war ? That Russia was so powerful ! The ex- cuse for peace and the excuse for war were literally the same ! Again, what, on the 6th of July, was his apology for suppressing his sentiments and stilling his conscience ? That to tell the truth would damage the Govern. ment. What was his apology for destroying a Government a few months ago ? That he could not, as an honest man, suppress his sentiments and still his conscience. Why, Sir, did he think that this mockery of our com- mon sense could be endured ? Did he think that the English Parliament could accept, and that Christian people could indorse a bill drawn upon hu- man life under fraudulent pretences ? Either war is necessary, and any terms of peace hitherto proposed would have been futile and dishonouring, or not. They who think war is necessary have alone the right to call on the country for every sacrifice of its treasure and blood. But can the ordinary excusers of Cabinet compromise justify the responsible statesman, who was intrusted to negotiate peace, in feeding the flames of war with the very olive branch he brought back from his mission ? I declare that I speak more in sorrow than in anger. What ! is it you, whose genius and labours have so _honoured your name that we feel every stain on it as a national calamity— you, who have taken from the people of England power and dignity for twenty years—you, then still holding office as Minister of the Crown—is it you who would call upon your countrymen to send their children to un- necessary slaughter, and advise your Sovereign to jeopardize her sceptre rather than endanger the feeble and rickety thing that you call a Govern- ment, of which you told us that we ought to be more tender because it had lost the favour of the people ?" (Cheers.) How could our councils be other than unstable, how could there be war in earnest, or peace in earnest, how could public men be otherwise than distrusted while Lord John remained in the Cabinet ? By approving such a peace, the Government ceased to be the men who could ever animate the oountry to war. "'But there were reasons that made the peace impracticable,' says the noble Lord. Does that refer to the rejection by France ? Well, that invites another consideration why he ought not to have continued in office. The noble Lord had placed us in di- rect variance from our ally. The Emperor of the French rejected the Austrian proposition, and dismissed the Minister who favoured it. The no- ble Lord recommended that proposition, and the Government retained him. The Emperor of the French declares Austria bound by her engagements to share in hostilities against Russia ; the noble Lord, in the very teeth of Lord Clarendon, maintained that Austria is excused from those engagements. Thus, on the gravest questions, not only past but prospective, you had in your Cabinet, up to Friday last, a statesman in whom Russia sees her excuse, Austria a justification, France a dissentient from her policy, and England the condemnation of her war—while he deserts what he approves for her peace." (Cheers.) Sir Edward continued to argue at great length that he did not mean to let Lord John Russell stand alone in any censure the House might convey ; that Lord Palmerston, by not inviting Lord John to resign, shared the re- sponsibility of his conduct,—that he thought disunion of no consequence so long as it could be concealed. Lord Clarendon had followed a manly, straightforward, English course throughout ; but he represented himself, while Lord Palmerston represented the Cabinet. If he heartily concurred with Lord Clarendon, how could he heartily approve Lord John si Not one letter from Lord Palmerston to Lord John appeared in the correspondence. Why did he not extend the publication beyond the strict rules of routine, and insert some of those admirable letters he no doubt addressed to the per- plexed conscience of his noble friend ? Sir Edward laid down the doctrine that Austria would be a useful friend but a bad ally, because she would be sure to break up the Anglo-French alliance, and her accession to the West- ern Powers would enable Russia to say that France and England alone had vainly tried to curb her ambition. Before announcing that he should with- draw his motion, as all that he could desire was accomplished, except the mere party object of replacing one Government by another, he asked whe- ther the Government is united now ? "Is Lord Clarendon the spokesman for the entire Cabinet ? I should like to hear what other members of the Government say who have not expressed their opinions on the nature of the war or the principles of peace. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition and counter-cheers from the Ministerial side.) What says the Chancellor of the Exchequer? What says the First Lord of the Admiralty ? All united ? Yes ; but you said the same thing in the month of May, when you own that your councils were divided, when Lord Clarendon did not represent the entire Cabinet—and you will pardon me if for the present I suspend my be- lief." (Cheers.) Mr. Bouvnaus explained that his name had been connected with a re- cent transaction in a manner that had given him the deepest pain ; that it is the reverse of the truth to say that he, on behalf of colleagues not in the Cabinet, had told Lord Palmerston that rather than oppose Sir Ed- ward Lytton's motion they would resign. He avowed a strong political and personal attachment to Lord John Russell ; he believed in his sa- gacity, integrity, and honour, and he should be unworthy of his friendship if in the first hour of Lord John's adversity he was among those who disappear in adversity.

" My part in the transaction was simply this,—I was aware that there was a strong impression among many of my colleagues that the sense of the country and the sense of the House were so strongly opposed to my noble friend that it was idle to contend against the motion of the honourable Ba-

ronet. ("Hear, hear!" and laughter.) I was aware that a representa- tion to that effect was likely to be addressed, either to the noble Lord at the

head of the Government, or to my noble friend himself. I refused to be a party to any such representation, on the distinct ground of my personal at- tachment to my noble friend ; but at the same time I stated that, as a friend of the noble Lord, I was ready—however painful the duty might be—to con- vey to him what I own I then admitted, and what I now admit, was the ge- neral impression, both among my colleagues and among the Members of

this House wills whom I conversed. (Laughter and ironical cheers from the Opposition.) I thought that, in pursuing that course, I acted as a true friend of the noble Lord." (Renewed laughter and cheers from the Oppo- sition.)

Lord PALMERSTON charged Sir Edward Lytton with making a speech full of inconsistencies and contradictions, While Lord John's statement

that a few days after his return from Vienna he thought the Austrian

plan impracticable was yet ringing in Sir Edward's ears, he went on arguing as it the contrary were the fact ; and besides making that ground- less charge he repeated it against the Government. He also said that Lord Clarendon was the organ and exponent of his own opinions. Did Sir Edward believe that ? If he did, he was grossly ignorant ; if he did not, he was deliberately insincere. He said that these changes of Go- vernment expose us to the ridicule of Europe.

" Why, Sir, there might be a change of Government that would render us still more the ridicule of Europe—(" Hear, hear ! " and a laugh)—if a man

like the honourable Baronet were to fill a high situation in it. The honour- able Member, however, wants to know whether Lord Clarendon spoke and wrote the opinions of the Government. I tell him that Lord Clarendon did speak and write the opinions of the united Cabinet. I say that I also have expressed the sentiments of the united Cabinet; and I defy the honour- able Baronet, or any one of those who sit by him, to quote any word of mine, uttered either within this House or out of it, that does not tally with those despatches written by Lord Clarendon to which the honourable Baronet alludes."

Sir Edward taunted the Government with having sacrificed a victim, and then condemned them for not having accepted Lord John's first offer of re- signation. Denying the first charge, Lord Palmerston accepted the reproach meant to be conveyed ip the second. " We did not sacrifice my noble friend. I did decline to receive his offer of resignation made upon the Monday ; and even on the Thursday, when he told me, ' I have made up my mind to re- sign my situation,' I replied, that it was for him to judge—that the question had assumed a shape so peculiarly personal to himself that I could not pre- tend to give him my advice as to the course which he should pursue ; but this I said to him, that if upon reflection he thought it would be better for him to stay in, I should be prepared to face the motion of the honourable

Baronet opposite with the Government as it then stood, and that I should stand up and vindicate the conduct that he was ready to adopt. Therefore, I say, there was no sacrifice of a victim. . . . . I beg to tell the honourable Baronet that there is no division of opinion in the Cabinet—that we are,

every one of us, animated by the same determination to carry on the war with all the vigour that the resources of this country will enable us to ex- hibit, until we shall have accomplished a peace at once safe and honourable, and one which shall secure to us those objects for which the conflict was undertaken."

Sir Edward said his charge was directed against the whole Government. " Well, then, here we are, ready to meet the honourable Baronet and his followers face to face ; but he declines the encounter. And after the exhibi- tion—the lamentable exhibition—which he has just made in this House, I think the country will not be very eager to expose itself to that European

ridicule which, according to the honourable Baronet's own statement, would attend that change of Government which it was the avowed purpose of his resolution to effect." (Cheers.)

Mr. Diansmi began a long speech by taking Lord Palmerston to task for replying to Sir Edward Lytton's " admirable " speech—" expressed in language the noble Lord cannot command "—by a sort of "reckless rho- domontade " unworthy of the gravity of the occasion, and of the respect due to an eminent colleague who had just quitted his companionship. Passing from this theme he dwelt on the remarkable circumstances that have attended all these negotiations. Last session, a speech from Lord John Russell, accusing the Emperor and Ministers of Russia of fraud, caused secret and confidential transactions to be revealed which had been

kept from the House. This year, a speech of the same noble Lord, ex- citing the passions of the country to war, has brought forth the circular of

an Austrian Minister, referring to circumstances also concealed from the House of Commons, and antagonistic to an effective prosecution of the war; showing that at the very time these Ministers were inducing the House to believe they were ready to engage in an internecine struggle, they were in secret and confidential communication with Austria, in order to recommend and carry through Parliament an arrangement totally op- posed to the policy which in this House they recommended. Six weeks ago, "having good information on the subject," Mr. Disraeli said he de- sired the House to express an opinion on the " ambiguous language and uncertain conduct" of the Government. The terms of that motion were described as vague. It became therefore necessary to make them more specific. But he never would consent to attack an individual member of

the Cabinet, and as Lord John had retired, and it was intended to apply to the whole Cabinet, it would be necessary to draw up the resolution in different language. There is no member of the Cabinet who is not en- tirely. identified with the policy of the noble Lord.

"I express my opinion, that it is necessary for more than two or three members of the present Government to rise in their places and favour us

with their opinions upon those great questions of foreign affairs and peace -and war which now occupy our attention. I have reason to believe that the views which the noble Lord brought from Vienna were favourably received, not merely by a majority, but by the whole of his colleagues, and that no- thing but circumstances which they did not anticipate, and difficulties which suddenly arose, prevented the plan of the noble Lord being cordially and unanimously adopted. I do not make that statement without due authority. I make it with the same conviction that I spoke six weeks ago of the am- biguous language and uncertain conduct of the Government, the truth of which subsequent events have already justified. I make it with the convic- tion that, even before this session of' Parliament terminates, evidence of that statement will be in the possession of the House."

Mr. Disraeli commented, in a sarcastic tone, on the mysterious with- drawal of Lord John from office ; pointed out that Lord Palmerston, pledged to stand or fall by his noble friend, did neither ; and hinted that he. had dexterously availed, himself of Mr. Bonverie—the devoted, the "candid" friend—to extricate himself from the difficulty. That a per- son so eminent as Lord John Russell, bearing a weight of such accumu- lated responsibility, should evade all discussion by retiring from the pub- lic service, and that the First Minister should then get up and tell us it is " much ado about nothing," is really more intolerable than trifling. Questions of this kind should not be met by the "patrician bullying of the Treasury bench." It is not fitting that Lord Palmerston should at- tempt to atop discussion by language which Mr. Disraeli would not use an unparliamentary epithet to describe, but not language which he ex- pected "from one who is not only the Leader of the House of Commons —which is an accident of life—but who is also a gentleman." (Great cheering.) Lord Palmerston wanted the House to believe that certain circum- stances occurred during a particular week that rendered it impossible to adopt the policy recommended by Lord John. Everybody knows what those circumstances were—the Emperor of the French would not listen to the arrangement. Had it not been for the difficulty thrown in the way by France, the Cabinet would have accepted the propositions brought from Vienna. ("No, no !" from the Treasury bench.) Would some of Lord Palmerston's colleagues speak on the subject? "No, no !" won't do. The only inference to be drawn from Lord Palmerston'a speech was, that had France not objected the terms would have been agreed to.

Lord PALMERSTON rose to explain. He had stated the very reverse of -what Mr. Disraeli imputed to him. He had said, "that the language of Lord Clarendon in those despatches, which is invariably adverse to such proposition, was the language, opinion, and sentiment of the whole of the Cabinet, and of himself in particular."

Mr. Dememi persisted in his statement—further alleging that for a

brief space both Governments agreed to the terms ; that for at least a day they were accepted in London—[Lord Rentavityrosr—" No !"]—and ex- pressing his profoundest conviction that what he stated on "the highest authority" was the "authentic truth." Finally, he recapitulated his accusations, and declared in his last sentence that Lord Palmerston had shown that night, "by his language, and by the tone of his mind, that if the honour and interests of the country be any longer intrusted to his care, the first will be degraded, and the last will be betrayed." (Loud cheers.) Mr. ROEBUCK continued the debate ; accusing Lord John of " forgetting his .duty to England, to that House, to, truth, and to honour" • accusing him of "practising a deceit" upon the House, and accusing Lord Pal- merston " as a participant in the deceit" ; and confessing that he had been led to change his mind, and vote against Mr. Disraeli, by Lord John's speech on the 24th May. Mr. Roebuck said he wanted to know "who are the traitors now in the Cabinet ?" What are the opinions of Sir George Lewis, Sir George Grey, Sir Charles Wood ? We have a divided Cabinet. Before the motion for inquiry into the state of the army before Sebastopol, it was thought we had an united Cabinet. That inquiry was agreed to; three right honourable gentlemen left the Cabinet —" and the moment theyleft, it turned out they were the Peace party !" Now Lord John Russell turns out., to be a Peace Minister; and his con- duct is such as to shake the confidence of the world in the whole of poli- tical society.

Sir GEORGE GREY considered it beneath any member of the Govern- ment to defend against Mr. Roebuck's groundless charges those opinions he had expressed in the Cabinet. But the opinions of the Cabinet are expressed in Lord Clarendon's despatches. There never was a time when the Government were prepared to accept the Austrian proposals. At the close of the discussions in the week ending the 7th May, it was the unanimous decision of the Cabinet that the interests and dignity of the country required the, rejection of the Austrian proposals. Mr. GLADSTONE addressed the House for the purpose of showing that an early opportunity must be afforded of returning to the question in or- der that we may obtain a clearer understanding of the relations between England, France, and Austria; than we possessed at the time of the last debate; when the House decided against the conclusion of peace on terms acceptable to Russia, towards which Lord John Russell's proposal closely approximated.

The motion was withdrawn.

Mu. ROEBUCK'S RESOLUTION.

Mr. ROEBUCK moved the resolution of which he bad given notice-

" That this House, deeply lamenting the sufferings of our army during the winter campaign in the Crimea, and coinciding with the resolution of their Committee, that the conduct of the Administration was the first and chief cause of the calamities which befell that army, do hereby visit with severe reprehension every member of that Cabinet whose counsels led to such disas- trous results."

In a preface to his speech, Mr. Roebuck bespoke consideration on ac-

count of feeling himself unequal to the task, and he referred with expres- sions of thankfulness to the consideration that he had met with from the members of the Committee, and particularly from Lord Seymour. He corrected a misstatement that the resolutions passed in Committee were carried by the casting-vote of the Chairman, Mr. Roebuck. Lord Sey- mour stated that he concurred in the resolutions as a whole, but he could not vote for the condemnation of the conduct of Lord Raglan, and it was this that!determined his vote. Thus the Report of the Committee ex-

* pressed the opinions of the Committee as a body. In passing, Mr. Roe- buck paid a tribute to the great qualities of Lord Raglan.

He drew attention to the Report of the Committee, reading passages to support the bill of indictment, the heads of which were—that Ministers did not prepare for the war when it was imminent ; that when they sent the expedition to the Crimea they provided no reserve of force • that they in- trusted the management of the war to persons utterly incapable of perform- ing the task assigned to them ; that they ordered the expedition to the Crimea without obtaining sufficient information as to the resources of the enemy ; and that they did not provide sufficient land-carriage or medical attendance. He made it a particular charge against Lord Palmerston, as a great error, that he took no provision in respect to the Militia. He enlarged upon the position of the army—confined, overworked, doing the work of roadmakers—the fact of over-work implying that the numbers were not sufficient. He revived the accusation, that during the whole of the period from the end of August to the middle of October several members of the Cabinet were absent—Lord John instructing the population of Gloucestershire, the Home Secretary nowhere, the President of the Board of Works shining somewhere in Scot- land. They sent out the troops armed as they were thirty years ago—[Sir Ds LACY Everts—"Some,not all"]—" Brown Bess " in the hands of one- fourth of the army—[Sir DB LACY Evetis—" One-fifth" Well, if one—" man were so armed it was the fault of the Administration.'

In considering the conduct of that Administration, Mr. Roebuck divided the Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen into three parts, one containing Lord Aber- deen and the Duke of Newcastle ; the second containing the important mem- bers of the Cabinet, Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell, Sir James Graham, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Sidney Herbert ; and the rest, whom he considered as the "mere herd, following like sheep where the others led." He admitted that they were " insignificant," but their insignificance could not shield them. If there was one man who really discharged duty conscientiously it was the Duke of Newcastle, and he was made the scapegoat,—discharged from office, and sent into the wilderness for the sins of his colleagues. Sir James Graham made ships too large when small ships were wanted in the Baltic ; and it was no satisfaction to Mr. Roebuck that he had gone out. "I am glad that a man who has done wrong is out of office; but what I want is that all who have done wrong should go out." General PEEL moved the "previous question." He showed that the House had not the means of judging the expedition to the Crimea. All the evidence showed that the best chance of taking Sebastopol was by a coup•de-main ; the expedition was planned for that purpose, and hence the want of many appliances that would otherwise have been taken with the expedition. The General admitted that the means were insufficient ; and if the coun- try ought not to enter into a little war, still less ought it to enter into a great war with little means, or to send out a larger force than it had re- serves to keep up. Bat the blame cast upon individuals, who did the ut- most to perform the duties of their office, was- unjust and now that Lord Raglan is gone, they will feel the difficulty of appointing a successor. Ge- neral Peel believed his end to have been accelerated by the insinuations and charges made against him. "The very idea of an army in the field being accompanied by a host of newspaper reporters, upon whose statements the Government are called upon every day to institute inquiries into the conduct of the men in command of the troops, and who are constantly throwing out insinuations against those who have undertaken the most responsible duties, is most absurd. Well might Sir John Burgoyne say that the expedition to the Crimea was altogether an exceptional case ; and I am perfectly satisfied myself that many instances could be given to show that the interference of this House and of, the press has had a most injurious effect." Lord ROBERT CECIL seconded the amendment.

A somewhat desultory debate ensued, the interest in which was greatly decreased by the result of a subsequent night's debate. The amendment was supported by the Marquis of GRANBY, Mr. Lowe, and Sir Joni( WALSH.

Mr. LOWE showed how correct he had been in declarhes that there Co- mittee could not take the whole subject under copsideration ; since it could not discuss the share which the French Government had in origin,. sting the expedition, without endangering the French alliance. After having caused the retirement of so many Ministers, Mr. Roebuck now wanted to drive others out of office; and Mr. Lowe wished-to know how many ostraciscaa ,tiould satisfy the honourable and learnechgestisman before he thought-lint the administration of affairs would be pleced on a satisfactory and honourablelooting ? Mr. GORDON was defending the Administration of Lord Aberdeen, his father, but was obliged to break off through finding that he could not sufficiently command his feelings to do justice to, the arguments. - Colonel Anent found he could not, as a matter of form, move the amendment he had placed on the paper ; but he vindicated the Crimean expedition in a. speech. Mr. CONOLLY and Mr. ManornE supported Mr. Roebuck's motion from a desire to punish Ministers who had betrayed the best interests of their country.

There was then a pause, the House expecting some member of the Go= vernment to rise. None did so, and Sir JAMES GRAHAM,- glancing at the silence of Ministers, briefly showed that the Committee whole apPoint- ment he'had resisted, had not done, and could not have done, justice to Lord Aberdeen's Government, or to Lord Raglan. Commenting on the in- completeness of the Report, he announced that, he could not vote for the "previous question," as he felt bound not to Shrink from the direct decision of the House upon the question whether or not Lord Aberdeen's Govern- ment had been guilty of the alleged misconduct and deserved severe re- prehension. Lord Sevrioun said he could not see the utility of reckoning up the errors of the past; the great object of the inquiry was to guard against error in future. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON attacked Ministers for sheltering themselves under the "previous question" ; and, insisting that the evidence before the Committee was complete, called upon the House to do its duty. Nothing but a sufficient force and a "moral, cer- tainty of success ' could have justified the expedition to the Crimea : Ministers had neither.

Sir CRADLES WOOD maintained that the " previous question" was a proper mode of meeting the charge. The mouths of Ministers are closed with respect to every transaction involving our Allies. The inquiry is inconclusive, and the answer to the charge must be incomplete. Mr. Roebuck's proposition was not a fair and proper one to submit to the House of Commons.

A conversation arising as to the adjournment, Lord PALMERSTON hoped that the House would come to a decision that night; but ultimately the debate was adjourned until Thursday. The resumption of the debate on Thursday was preceded by the pre- sentation of petitions from Birmingham and Bradford, by Mr. ROEBUCK, and one from Totness by Mr. OTWAY, praying that Ministers might be impeached. Mr. GASKELL opened the debate with a speech directed against Lord Aberdeen, as the person responsible for the disasters in the Crimea. He should vote for the original motion. Thirteen other Members took part in the ensuing debate, and it was prolonged until half-past two o'clock. The report of the speechea, most of which were of unusual length, occupies no less, than twenty-six co- lawns of close print in the leading journal. . miss The ATTORNEY•aRNREAL elaborated, with great minuteness, the argu- ment that it was unfair to censure Lord Palmerston and the members of his 'Cabinet for transactions that took place anterior to the formation of his Government. He pointed out that Mr. Disraeli and 'his friends had

•

sought the cooperation of Lord Palmerston when Lord Derby tried and failed to form an. Administration ; that when Lord Palmerston came into office, nothing was heard on all sides but adhesion ; and he argued that, to uses lawyer's phrase, the Opposition were " estopped" from going back to transactions that occurred before the present Ministry was formed. He showed that Mr. Roebuck, by the praise he had bestowed on the Duke of Newcastle, Mr. Sidney Herbert, and Sir James Graham, had absolved them from censure, to direct the full force of it upon Lord Palmerston. And why ? Because he is the Prime Minister of England; because Mr. Roebuck, acting in alliance with gentlemen opposite, brought forward the motion for a party purpose, and wanted to upset the Govern- ment. Would the Opposition have supported a motion striking at him, had they formed a Government with the aid of Lord Palmerston ? No; and he appealed to them as men of candour not to treat this as a mere party question. All they had asked of the present Government was that the war should be prosecuted with and he triumphantly asked whether that Government had not done their duty in that behalf? Mr. WHITESIDE spoke at extreme length, replying to the argumenta of the Attorney-General, the Marquis of Granby, and Sir John Walsh ; and directing his chief attack upon Lord Palmerston—who, of all the mem- bers of the late Administration, was the worst. Mr. Whiteside argued that the Opposition were not " estopped," because the awful revelations of the Sebastopol Committee were subsequent to Lord Derby's negotia- tions with Lord Palmerston. The Attorney-General did not touch the subject matter of the discussion, the evidence and report of the Com- mittee, which contained express and positive condemnation of the late Government. Lord Palmerston, as a member of that Government, was as responsible as any one. He rested his case on the doctrine of Minis- terial responsibility, which he enforced by citations from the speeches of Mr. Ponsonby and Mr. Fox, and the writings of Mr. Macaulay. Lord Joan RUSSELL said he accepted the constitutional doctrine of Ministerial responsibility, and he hoped Lord Palmerston would not ac- cept the excuse made by the learned Attorney-General—that Lord Pal- merston was Secretary of State for the Home Department when the ex- pedition to the Crimea was conceived and sent on its mission. There was, however, a.question of justice, and one of policy—what the justice of the case requires, and what decision should be come to with a view to the general interests of the country. And, looking at it as a ques- tion of justice, he could not but remark the manner in which Mr. Roebuck had brought it forward. He asked the House to exclude from office almost every man distinguished for carrying measures of Liberal policy, to exempt none but men who were opposed to Catholic Emancipation. And how did he bring his motion forward ? Did he keep within the limits of accuracy ? He charged the Government with being absent from their poets while the army was dwindling away. Now some only of the members of that Govern- ment were absent between the 12th August and the 17th October. Was it before the 17th October that the army was perishing of cold and hunger ? The honourable gentleman knows it was not. He applies that which is true i l\ with regard to oneperiod to another period, to which the application is false ; and thus,-for the - of justice—of pure justice—he endeavours to make a charge against the inistry of Lord Aberdeen. (Cheers.) He exonerated the Secretary for ar, the Secretary at War, and the First Lord of the Ad- miralty, yet he held that the other members of the Government were re- sponsible for the ill performance of duties that were well performed by them. But he evidently delights in casting charges on anybody, and in- dulging that abundance of vituperation inherent in his nature. "I am con- stantly disappointed when listening to the honourable and learned gentle- man's speeches. He begins with a very strong exordium. He places in the strongest light, in the most forcible language, and with the greatest effect, the argument upon which he is abbot to dwell, and he ends with a very ad- znirable peroration; but, with regard to the argunient itself, which should come in the middle—with respect to the proofs with which an accuser should always be abundantly prepared—in short, with regard to the substance of the speech itself, the speech of the honourable and learned gentleman is always entirely wanting. (Cheers.) There are the beak and talons of the bird of prey, but the inside is nothing but straw. (Cheers and laughter.) Such was the speech of the honourable and learned gentleman the other night." Lord John said he had looked to the precedents, and it was not in that manner that Mr. Ponsonby and Lord Porchester brought forward the charges arising out of the Waleheren expedition. Examining the nature of the inquiry conducted by the Committee, Lord John showed that from its very nature it was, and must be, incomplete, be- cause they could not inquire how there came to be a deficiency of force with- out inquiry into the conduct of France ,- and although he would have pre- ferred a direct vote on the motion, he admitted that there were good Parlia- mentary grounds for moving the " previous question." Passing from the great question, he submitted a long defence of those who ordered the expe- dition. He' id this by repeating the reasons and statements rifted in pre- vious debates. The army was sent out to defend Constantinople ; but when the Russians unexpectedly retired from before Silistria, it became necessary to do something with the Allied army. Having all the information that .could be obtained on the subject, the expedition to the Crimea was resolved upon. Had it riiicceeded in taking Sebastopol, peace would have been se- cured. That has not happened ; for it is the fortune of war that we cannot be sure of events of this kind ; but it was a chance worthy. of the risk. Lord John here defended himself from the accusation of depreciating the Duke of Newcastle. He was conscientious, laborious, and a man of sound judgment, but he had "not sufficient authority in his office" to carry on so great a war with the vigour required. He enlarged, in conclusion, on the inconveni- ence that would result from depriving the country, by agreeing to this mo- tion; of the Berl-jets of so many eminent men ;- from interfering with plans in progress, and damping the spirits of those who are to succeed; and quo- ting from a speech by Mr. Canning when he had left the.Ministry after the Waleheren inquiry, he echoed its conclusions, that he could not consider what has happened "as synonymous with national disgrace and pregnant with national ruin." (Cheers.) Mr. Batson defended Mr. Roebuck, acquiesced in the report of the Se- bastopol Committee, and insisted that the House were bound to take pro- ceedings wen it. The motion was evidently directed against Lord Pal- merstonand the existing Government, because Mr. Roebuck had ex- cluded three members of the late Government, by his high-flown com- pliments; and if Lord John Russell had escaped, it was because when he found that his confederates were going to be captured he turned king's evidence. (" Hear, hear .1 " and laughter.) Mr. Bright then turned upon Lord Palmerston, against whom he inveighed on account of his warlike Propensities; upon the ignorant and profligate press, in obedience to whose dictates Ministers had ordered the expedition to the Crimea, quot- ing the-words et Rossuth—" a poor exile who has not 50001. a year "— -ti?'slaawthat. Ministers might have known the expedition would fail ; and hinting that a clamour had been got up in the press to drive Lord John

from his convictions, and cause the rejection of the Austrian terms. But there had been also a cabal against him within doors.

"The noble Lord made a reference to it in his speech, and I confess that I sympathized with him in the expressions which he then used. I should like to know where the ten or a dozen subordinates of the Government met.

(Cheers.) Was it up-stairs ? Was it down-stairs ? (Laughter.) Was it in the cellar sacred to Guy Fawkes ? (Renewed laughter.) Was it in a sewer ?—(Loud laughter)—for there it certainly should have been, if it was intended that the locality should harmonize with the objects of the meeting. (Renewed laughter and cheers.) I aln told that there were civil- ians there and lawyers—civilians trembling for their places—lawyers in ter- ror lest the death of some judge should find them sitting on that [pointing to the Opposition] side of the House. (Laughter and cheers.) It was a saying of the late Lord Stowell, speaking of the effects of ambition, that ' ambition breaks the ties of blood and forgets the obligations of gratitude.' Here we have men who owe to the patronage and favour of the noble Lord their partial emergence from Parliamentary obscurity, and they have joined in this disreputable and contemptible cabal against him." (Loud cheers.) Returning to his attack on Lord Palmerston, he assailed him for his speech on Monday night—" and what a speech it was I "—accused him of rejoicing that he had got rid of an ancient rival ; and referring to and eulo- g the conduct of the Prime Ministers be had seen—Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell, Mr. Disraeli—and appealing to the House, said they would find in each of those cases, "something to admire and applaud, while they will find in the conduct of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton that at which they are humiliated, and that which they must necessarily con- demn." (Loud cheers.) Mr. Bright said he should support the original motion as a vote of want of confidence in Lord Palmerston.

Sir DE LACY Evers said he thought the results of the inquiry were of the highest importance, but it is a mistake to look upon them as only affording materials for sweeping censure. He characterized Mr. Roe.: buck's motion as impolitic, but at the same time he could not consent to give the subject the go-by by means of the "previous question " ; and although Lord Palmerston had not shown the energy his supporters ex- pected, yet he had considerable confidence in his spirit and determination; and could not concur in a vote that would precipitate him from power. In a discursive speech, Sir De Lacy touched on the "exaggerations" re- specting the sufferings of the army; the defective preparations for the war ; the delay in organizing the Turkish contingent; the defective mode of recruiting ; the delay in raising the Foreign Legion ; and the non-em- ployment of the Queen's troops now in India. We have met with no disaster ; we have not yielded an inch of ground; and although the war has been carried on with uninterrupted success, yet the slightest check is magnified into a great disaster. Be earnest ; and if the Russian Govern- ment persevere in the unequal contest, he is sanguine in his hopes of a total break-up of the Russian empire. Captain GLADSTONE opposed and Mr. Muicrz supported the original resolution.

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT, on the same ground as Sir Janies Graham, said he must vote against the "previous question." He entered into a de- tailed consideration of the nature of the inquiry to show its incomplete- ness—putting, with varied illustration and method, the arguments of his late colleagues—showing, as in the instances of the defective arming of the troops, the short supply of food, the diminished number of men under arms last December, the want of a reserve, and other allegations, that it was not correct to state, as is the fashion, that all the assertions made in the winter are proved by the Committee. He pointed out, too, that the- Committee could not possibly judge whether the Government had suffi- cient information, because much of the inforthation obtained was of a secret character, and they took no evidence on the subject. He showed, quoting the evidence, that the Government had not sent out the army without a thought of a reserve ; in answer to Sir John Pakington, that no army would ever move, if it never moved until it had a "moral cer- tainty of success" ; that the press could not have dictated the invasion of the Crimea, for it was determined in June—six weeks before the dicta- torial article in the Times was written that public opinion was in favour of invading the Principalities, when the Government determined on the expedition to Sebastopol ; and that if they adopted Mr. Roebuck's reso- lution they were bound to reflect on the effect that proceeding would have on the army.

Sir GEORGE GI= elaborated the argument that Mr. Roebuck pressed the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility beyond its proper limits, when he attempted to fix a special responsibility upon individuals, and to cast a censure upon Lord Palmerston for acts whiCh occurred antecedent to his Government. The Government would not take shelter under the "pre- vious question" ; for if the previous question, were negatived, they would meet that resolution by a direct negative. Mr. EDWARD ELLICE (Coventry) said he should vote for the previous question; Lord Joins MANNERS took an opposite course.

Lord PALMERSTON pointed out the total inapplicability of Mr. Roo- buck's motion. Mr. Roebuck paid a tribute to the conscientious manner in which the late Secretary for War, the late Secretary at War, and the late First Lord of the Admiralty, performed their duties, and then directed his censure to other members of the late Cabinet, who had not the duty charged upon them of- administering the war—condemning them for their share of responsibility in the good conduct of the members more immediately responsible. The great man at the head of the French em- pire has refuted the prophecies that the cordial union between this country and France would be impaired—prophecies which may have led Russia to her aggressions, coupled, perhaps, with the language and conduct of the Peace party in this country. An effective blow had to be struck ; a pro- longed blockade of the Russian harbours would have led to a protracted struggle ; our soldiers could not be sent wandering through the vast steppes of the interior of Russia ; the Crimea was the centre and soul of the Rus- sian power in the Black Sea, and there was the blow to be struck. The charge of inadequate preparation is unfounded ; misfortunes had occurred through circumstances beyond the control of man ; the Duke of New- castle did everything that man could do to despatch an army more rapidiy and perfectly organized than any previously sent from this country ; Militia regiments were embodied as fast as they could be put into barracks' —by the end of December, there were 38,000 men under arms, and 18,000 men have been given to the regular army since the war began. So little had the conduct of the Cabinet Ministers, not engaged in the war de- partments, been thought part of the case, that they had not been called before the Committee ; and the charge that they were absent from their post at any time is untrue : there were always enough in London to form

a Cabinet Council, and Lord Palmerston was always within three hours' journey. The people of this country do not care for these party squab- bles ; they do not care which party is in power ; their minds are fixed upon a war from which there is no retreat but through victory; and in spite of all little interruptions from these motions, Ministers would feel it to be their duty to second the most deliberate, conscientious, and heart- felt determination that ever animated a great and powerful people.

Mr. Dimino, unwilling to trespass at that late hour, amplified the argument against the "previous question" ; accused Lord Palmerston of misrepresenting the Sebastopol Committee to have performed its duty in a crude and fraudulent spirit ; launched at Government reproaches for having wasted time in Scotch Education bills, which its own members in the House of Lords would not put forward; glanced at influences new to his experience which had excluded Lord John " from that perpetual bench " which Lord Palmerston had so long adorned ; accused Lord Pal- merston of trepanning eminent men into his Cabinet, and then obliging them to leave it by breaking his pledge; repeated some of Sir De Lacy Evans's complaints anent recruiting, &e. ; and blushed for the issue to which the House was coming, as one which could confer honour and credit upon no body of men.

Mr. B4OEBUCa replied with great brevity, reasserting the logical appli- cability of his motion to "the crime" of Lord Palmerston.

The House then divided on the previous question—" That that [Mr. Roebuck's motion] question be now put "—and the numbers were—Ayes 182; Noes 289 ; majority 107. The announcement was received with "load cheers" from the Minis- terial benches.

SCOTCH EDUCATION.

The second reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill was moved in the House of Lords on Thursday, by the Duke of ARGYLL ; who described the nature of the bill, and made an appeal to the House in its behalf, ad- mitting at the same time that he could not insure for the measure any great amount of party influence or support.

The Duke of BUCCLEUCH, objecting to the omission of specific provision for religious teaching, and to the proposed Board of Education, and urging that the bill would destroy the parochial system, moved that it be read a second time that day three months. In this course he was supported by the Earl of EGLINTON and the Earl of HADDINGTON ; while Lord PASMURE, although he foresaw the fate that awaited the bill, defended it, and Lord &Leninism, unwilling to oppose the second reading, objected that it would render education unpopular in Scotland by connecting it with the idea of compulsion, and urged the Government to withdraw the The Duke of ARGYLL assented to the suggestion ; but the Duke of RICHMOND insisted on dividing the House; when, the supporters of the measure voting with the majority, the second reading was negatived by 86 to 1.

EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES BILL.

The order of the day for going into Committee on this bill having been read, the Marquis of BLANDFORD said he felt that it would be impossible to carry it this session, and he should therefore withdraw it. He sug- gested that the Government should maturely consider the whole subject, and be prepared with a plan for next session. Sir GEORGE GREY pro- mised that there should be an inquiry into the proceedings and principles of administration of the Ecclesiastical Commission, with a view to the revision of the constitution of that body.

The order was discharged.

MAYNOOTIL

On the reading of the order of the day for resuming the adjourned de- bate on Mr. Spooner's motion respecting the Maynooth grant, late on Tuesday night, Mr. FAGAN moved that the debate be again adjourned. This was opposed by Mr. Spool...ma, and negatived by 97 to 88. Mr. Kum was more fortunate. He moved the adjournment of the debate to that day three months, and his motion was carried by 93 to 90—a result that caused considerable cheering and laughter.

MR. GLADSTONE AND LORD MONTEAGLE.

Lord MONTEAGLE moved for copies of all correspondence between the Governor and Daputy-Governor of the Bank of England and the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the departure from antecedent practice in paying the dividends, as introduced in April 1854. From the commencement of the Consolidated Fund in 1785, the practice was for Government to strike a balance between the amount in the Exche- quer and tho amount of the dividends due, and then to give the Bank of England deficiency bills for the whole amount of the deficiency. By the change of April 1854, however, Government only gave deficiency bills for the amount that would probably be called for, so that a sus- pension of the payment of dividends became possible. Earl GRANVILLE said he certainly never really conceived the feeling of a buffer in a railway train till he found himself acting in that capacity session after session, in the long-continued collisions between his noble friend and his right honourable friend the late Chancellor of the Ex- chequer. Chancellors of the Exchequer passed away, but his noble friend, immortal and unchanged, remained to wage this battle with most perfect good humour and courtesy to the unfortunate buffer who stood before them. (Laughter.) The old course appeared to be devoid of common sense : Government bor- rowed from the Bank money which it was physically impossible for the Bank to pay, and gave to the public accounts the appearance of a deficiency which i did not exist, and paid interest for money that was not wanted. The course taken by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was this—he ascertained what was the largest sum ever called for on any one day, and over and above that he gave a large margin, and then issued deficiency bills for the amount thus arrived at.

Lord Granville rather objected to producing the correspondence ; but pressed by Lord Morrasais and the Earl of DERRY he gave way, and the motion was agreed to.

Iltaorr RoviscHum.

The Report of the Committee to inquire whether Baron Rothschild's seat for the City of London had been vacated, in consequence of the con- tract for a loan of 16,000,0001. made with the Government by Rothschild and Sons, was brought up by Mr. Walpole on Tuesday. The Report stated that the Committee had completed their inquiry, had received evi- dence, and heard counsel on the part of Baron Rothschild, and had come to the conclusion that there was no contract on the part of Baron Roths- child within the view and intention of the statute.

Ordered to be printed, with the short-hand writer's copy of the argu- ments of counsel

STANDING ORDERS.

Some debate occurred, at the Wednesday sitting, on the Annual Re- port of the Select Committee for the Revision of the Standing Orders, brought up by Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE. The report recommended that for the future no Members, locally interested, should be members of a Committee on an opposed bill. He moved the adoption of that recom- mendation. Mr. Srooziza, Mr. DAviza, Mr. Itsolrumixorr, and other Members, opposed the motion, alleging that it would be inconvenient. Mr. BOUVERIE, Mr. SOTHERON, Mr. DERDES, and others, agreed with the report. It was carried by 80 to 57.