at once. The whole heart and mind of the
nation was divided between the Baltic and the Danube.
—After some observations from Sir J. Pakington and
Mr. Macgregor, Lord John Russell expressed his
gratitude for the manner in which his statement had
been received, and the motion for adjournment was
agreed to.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, having laid
the financial balance sheet on the table, made an
explanatory statement respecting the Revenue of the
Year now Closed, the Condition of the Public
Balances, and the Unfunded Debt. An examination of
the balance sheet would show that there was an increase
of £749,000, on what he had estimated on the 6th of
March, but this did not arise from any substantial
change of circumstances, one portion of the excess
arising from income tax, and the question being only
one of the time of money arriving at the Exchequer,
and the other portion was from the Customs revenue,
from an exceptional cause—the anticipated reduction of
the tea duties. The excess of income over expenditure
was £3,524,000; on the 6th of March he had estimated
the surplus at £2,854.000, but for reasons which he
showed, he proposed that the present surplus should be
taken at £3,000,000. The result was satisfactory, as
indicative of the condition of trade and industry, and of
the people, the more so that trade must have suffered
some contraction, or at least retardation of progress, by
political events. Moreover, last year we had remitted
£2,600,000 of taxes and laid on others; but while the
former operation, that of relief, had entirely taken
effect, the receipts from the latter had only partially
come in. He then adverted to the state of the public
balances, and said that on the 5th April, 1853, there
was in the exchequer £7,859,000, while on the same
date in 1854 there was £2,778,000, or a decrease of
£5,081,000, and he showed how this sum had been
applied, in part of a much larger amount, in paying off
funded debt, advances for public works, and reduction
of the unfunded debt. He entered into an explanation
on the subject of the deficiency bills, in order to remove
the false impression on the minds even of well-informed
persons, that these represented the accommodation given
by the bank to the government, and proved that
they were a mode of showing when certain charges
became effective. He stated that, having taken legal
advice as to his competency to do so, he had taken
measures for regulating the mode of issuing these
bills, and thereby, instead of the amount being
£5,800,000, it had been reduced, up to the preceding
day, to £2,800,000, subject, moreover, to a cash deduction.
Under the present extraordinary circumstances he
thought that this amount ought to be reduced, which in
other times might not be necessary, but he reiterated that
it was this last sum only which represented the amount
of bank accommodation, and that the larger sum was
but a matter of account. There was nothing more
erroneous than the supposition that the demands of government
had tended to restrict the means of the London
money market, the exact contrary, as he shovved, being the
case; the disbursements of the government having added
to the loanable capital of the country £8,000,000, while
what had been withdrawn was, up to yesterday,
£2,129,000. He next disposed of a belief that there was
some unwritten compact with the bank, made in 1844,
to the effect that demands were not to be made on the
bank in regard to the deficiency bills, and stated that
there was on the contrary, a full and carefully drawn
agreement, providing that if there were a diminution
of the public balances below what was usual, the bank
was to have a claim on the government for interest,
and if there were an excess, the government would
have a claim to share the profit. He then went to
the consideration of the unfunded debt, and stated
the amount of Exchequer bills which government was
allowed to issue at £17,774,000. and the actual issue at
£16,600,000, so that they were short of the maximum
they were entitled to issue by the sum of £1,174,000.
He expected to have to make no further demand tor
authority, and probably might not even have
to issue all that had been granted. He referred
to the satisfactory state of public credit, which
he illustrated by reference, first, to the price of
public securities here in comparison with that of
foreign securities; and, secondly, to the price of our
funds now, as compared with what it had been in former
times. In years of peace, and not of extraordinary
distress, Consols had gone much lower than they had
been at the close on the preceding night, namely 88¼.
He made a similar comparison in the case of Exchequer
bills. He closed his statement by summing up the
points he had sought to establish, namely, that the state
of the revenue was satisfactory, that the demands of the
government on the bank ought not to inspire fear, that
there had been no diminution of commerce in
consequence, that the unfunded debt was moderate in extent,
and that public credit was in a state which might well
make us feel thankful, considering the existing
circumstances. He moved that the balance-sheet should lie
on the table.—After some comments by Mr. Disraeli,
Mr. T. Baring, and Mr. Laing, the motion was agreed
to.—The house then adjourned for the Easter recess.

PROGRESS OF BUSINESS.

House of Lords —March 27th.—Royal Message respecting
War with Russia.

31st.—Address in reply to the Royal Message.

April 3rd.—Her Majesty's Answer to the Address—Church
Building Acts Amendment Bill read a second time, and
referred to a Select Committee—Testamentary Jurisdiction
Bill committed.

4th—Bills of Exchange Bill read a second time.—Chimney
Sweepers Bill referred to a Select Committee.

6th—Arbitration Law Amendment Bill read a second time.
—Scottish Rights, Lord Eglinton's motion withdrawn.

7th.—Unauthorised Negotiations with Foreign Powers,
Lord Campbell's Bill read a first time.—Testamentary
Jurisdiction Bill read a second time.

10th.—Real Property Conveyance Bill read a first time.

11th—Scotch Bankruptcy Bill read a second time.—House
adjourned to 27th inst.

House of Commons.—March 27th.—War with Russia, Royal
Message—Settlement and Removal Bill, debate on second
reading adjourned to 28th April.—Church Buildings Acts
Continuance Bill reported.—High Treason (Ireland) Bill reported.
—Ministers Money Bill reported.

28th.—Holyhead and Dublin Mails, Mr. Herbert's motion
negatived.

29th—Episcopal and Capitular Estates Bill, debate on
second reading adjourned to 8th April.

30th.—Messrs. Sturgeon's Petition not received as irregular.
—Income Tax Bill passed.

31st.—Address in answer to the Royal Message.

April 3rd—Bribery Bill in committee.

4th.—Hay Contract, Mr. Osborne's explanation—Dublin
University, leave to bring in a bill refused to Mr. Fagan.—
Criminal Conversation, leave given to Mr. Bowyer to bring in
a bill.—Slave Trade, returns ordered.

5th.—Middlesex Industrial School Bill read a second time.
—Public Libraries, leave refused Mr. Ewart to bring in a bill.
—Property Disposal Bill, debate on second reading adjourned.

6th.—Mr. Stonor's case—Railway Management, leave given
Mr. Cardwell to bring in a bill.

7th—Oxford University Bill read a first time.

10th—Railway Traffic Bill read a second time—Colonial
Clergy Disabilities Bill in committee.—Ventilation of the
House, Mr. Spooner's motion for an experiment agreed to.

11th.—Postponement of the Reform Bill, Lord John
Russell's statement.—Public Balances, Chancellor of the
Exchequer's statement.—House adjourned till the 27th inst.

The Declaration of War with Russia was published
in the London Gazette of the 28th ult. It is as follows:
—"It is with deep regret that her Majesty announces
the failure of her anxious and protracted endeavours to
preserve for her people and for Europe the blessings of
peace. The unprovoked aggression of the Emperor of
Russia against the Sublime Porte has been persisted in
with such disregard of consequences, that, after the
rejection by the Emperor of Russia of terms which the
Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of the French, and
the King of Prussia, as well as her Majesty, considered
just and equitable, her Majesty is compelled, by a sense
of what is due to the honour of her Crown, to the
interests of her people, and to the independence of the
States of Europe, to come forward in defence of an ally
whose territory is invaded, and whose dignity and
independence are assailed. Her Majesty, in justification of
the course she is about to pursue, refers to the transactions
in which Her Majesty has been engaged. The
Emperor of Russia had some cause of complaint against