and desultory debate ensued, embracing almost every
topic connected with the policy of the new administration.
—Mr. OSBORNE maintained that the house
ought to grant neither money nor men to a government
in which it had no confidence.—Mr. COBDEN insisted
that the house was bound to bring the present parliament
to a close by constitutional means, in order that
the question of free-trade or Protection might be
brought to a conclusion.—Lord John RUSSELL observed
that there were two questions—one the constitutional
question, the other as to the commercial policy of the
last ten years. With regard to the first, the present
government, he thought, had taken a course for which
there was no precedent in our constitutional history, and
for which there was no ground in the maxims and rules
of the constitution. They proposed to go on to the end
of the session, upon the assumption that they were in a
minority; in November or December parliament might
be dissolved, and they were to meet the house of
commons again in February. The pretence put forward by
the present ministers, that it was a surprise to them to
be called to take office, which nothing would have
induced them to do but the pain of seeing the Sovereign
without advisers, was, he contended, a false pretence,
since it was totally inconsistent with their conduct last
year, whilst the majority in favour of Lord Pahnerston's
motion consisted chiefly of members and supporters of
the present government. Having proposed to take an
extraordinary course—that of carrying on the government
for eleven months without the confidence of that
house—they sought to cover their conduct by every kind
of false pretence. Lord John then proceeded to the
second point—the hazard to which our commercial policy
was exposed—and after justifying his own views towards
the agricultural interest, and reviewing the supposed
plans of the government for modifying or revising the
general taxation, he insisted that the country was entitled
to know the issue it was to try; that if he and his
friends showed forbearance, they ought not to be treated
with contumely or in a supercilious manner. The Earl
of Derby, he added, had tried to raise another issue,
which he had no right to raise; he alleged that he was
minister in order to prevent the outbreak and encroachment
of democracy. But it was by the policy which
had been of late years pursued, whereby the people had
become more attached to the constitution and to
constituted authorities, and less desirous of change, that
democracy could be effectually met.—The CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER said that Lord J. Russell had
declared that there were two questions before the house.
He would. remind them, however, that the question was
much simpler—it was the first motion of the newly
constructed opposition, a motion for stopping the supplies.
Upon that question the government intended to divide.
He charged Lord John Russell with faction for forcing
his successor, instantly on his accession to office, to do
that which he had himself declared unadvisable.
Commenting upon Lord John Russell's sudden change of his
policy upon a subject of such immense importance, he
reiterated that all the precedents his lordship had cited
applied to condemned governments. In reference to
the Chesham-place meeting, he said, that had Lord
John Russell confined it to his "friends" (those who
voted with him on the militia bill for instance) nothing
might have been said to an assembly for mutual
consolation; but Lord John Russell had asked his enemies,
those who had perpetually made him uncomfortable,
and to them he had announced, that to please them he
would change his policy, and would be ready to convert
an oligarchical into a broad-bottomed ministry. After
further retort upon Lord John Russell, he repeated that
this was a motion to stop the supplies.—Lord John
RUSSELL: "There is no such motion before the house."
—Amid much excitement reference was made to Mr.
Bernal, who stated that the only motion before the
house was the original motion for the vote of men.—
Lord John RUSSELL and Mr. CARDWELL (to whom the
Chancellor of the Exchequer also referred) having
severally disclaimed any idea of refusing the vote of men,
the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER expressed pleasure
that, on second thoughts, both had seceded from Mr.
Osborne, and proceeded with his reply, asserting the
good intentions of government, and denying that its
course was unconstitutional. Why was he to assume
that Lord John Russell could command a greater number
of followers than themselves? He believed himself
perfectly justified in the course he was taking. Nothing
had occurred to shake his confidence in the good sense
of the house of commons, or to induce him to believe
that any good measure brought forward by government
would be rejected, nor would he condescend to speak as
a minister existing by sufferance. If Lord John Russell
acted in the factious spirit of the convention to which
reference had been made, he did not believe he would
have the support of the house. Answering that part of
Lord John Russell's speech which referred to Lord
Derby, he explained expressions in that speech which
he said Lord John Russell had stooped to misinterpret,
and he concluded with a glowing eulogium upon the
Premier.—Further observations were made by Mr.
Bright, Mr. W. Miles, Mr. Cayley, the Marquis of
Granby, and Colonel Thompson; and Mr. OSBORNE
having intimated that he had no intention to divide the
house on the estimates, the vote of men for the army
was agreed to.

On Monday, the 22nd, Mr. SCHOLEFIELD asked the
Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the government
intended to acquiesce in the decision of the judges in
the case of the "Queen, v. Publishers of the Household
Narrative of Current Events," and if not, what
course the government meant to pursue with regard to
other publications issued under similar circumstances?
—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the case
had been referred to the law officers of the crown, who
would confer with the late law officers, and when he
was informed of the result of their opinion, he would be
able to give an answer to the question.

On the order of the day, for going into a committee of
supply, Lord John RUSSELL took occasion to make
some observations on the Ministerial Explanations which
had been given since the Monday preceding. "I was
then anxious," he said, "to ascertain (considering the
position of the government) the policy they intended
to pursue, and the measures they proposed to bring
forward in the present session. I was told that, as they
were in an acknowledged minority in the house, they
could not bring forward any measure with regard to our
commercial policy. I was also told, that they intended
to bring forward measures of considerable importance,
which would have led to a session of the usual length.
It struck many members of the house, during the debate,
that this course was so unusual, that it ought not to be
acquiesced in. It would not have been unusual, if we
had been asked for the forbearance of the house, in
consequence of the new government being in a
minority, or if we had been told that they would bring
forward measures in which they were in a majority;
but to claim forbearance as a minority, and confidence
as a majority, appeared to me to involve a great
contradiction. At the close of the debate on Monday evening,
being unwilling to come to any vote to limit the
supplies, or to declare any resolution adverse to the
government, I asked the right honourable gentleman,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the government,
between that and Friday evening, would
reconsider the course they intended to pursue. It
appeared to me to be a fair and conciliatory question,
and was certainly intended to prevent any angry debate
or adverse vote of the house immediately on the
formation of a new government. The right honourable
gentleman did not seem to take it so, and only
answered by taunts and sarcasms. On Friday, a statement
was made by the right honourable gentleman with
regard to the course which the government meant to
pursue, which was somewhat ambiguous; but I heard
from others that a statement had been made elsewhere
by the noble lord at the head of the government,
which indicated clearly the course which the government,
of which he is the chief, intended to pursue. I
understand that the noble lord did not complain of the
question which was put to him, to which I was no
party, as to the view he took of the present state of
affairs. He stated (and I think he was right in so
stating) that he would not bind himself or the government
to cause a dissolution of parliament at any
particular moment, as there might be circumstances