so framed by throwing the whole question once
more open for discussion before a select committee.—
Mr. DUFFY reiterated some of the objections which had
been urged by Mr. Lowe against the bill.—Mr.
WILLIAMS also opposed the measure.—After some
vindicatory remarks and explanations from Mr. J. BALL, the
motion was agreed to, and leave given to bring in the
bill.—Lord J. RUSSELL afterwards obtained leave to
introduce a bill amending and remodelling the laws
now in force respecting the disposal of waste lands
belonging to the crown in the several Australian
colonies.

On Friday, May 18, Mr. F. FRENCH asked Lord
Palmerston if he could give the house any information
respecting the likelihood of Lord Dundonald's Plans
being adopted by the country. He might now add that
Lord Dundonald was prepared by the end of June to
demolish every Russian fort in the Baltic, at an expense
to the country that should in no case exceed £200,000.
He wished to know therefore when Lord Palmerston
would give the Earl of Dundonald an answer as to the
adoption of his plans.—Lord PALMERSTON said that the
more Lord Dundonald's plans were considered, the
greater did the difficulties in the way of carrying them
into execution appear, and he must add that he was not
prepared to state when the plans would be adopted.

Mr. FERGUS called attention to the misstatement that
had been promulgated respecting the age and services
of the Late Captain Christie. Attributing the authorship
of those statements chiefly to Mr. Layard, he
inquired whether the hon. member had received and
noticed the communication from Captain Christie's
relatives correcting his assertion?—Mr. LAYARD deprecated
the renewal of personal altercations such as had
before arisen on similar topics. With respect to Captain
Christie, he declared that his own personal observation,
combined with the testimony of other authorities, had
led him to the conviction that that officer was unfit for
the duties assigned to him as harbour-master at Balaklava.
—The character of Captain Christie, and the
substantiality of the personal charges brought by Mr.
Layard against him and others, were warmly discussed
by Sir J. Pakington, Mr. Bright, Sir J. Graham, Mr.
Roebuck, Admiral Berkeley, and Mr. Otway.

The adjourned debate on the motion for going into
committee on the Scotch Education Bill was resumed
and concluded. On a division the motion was carried
by 149 against 142.

On Monday, May 21st, Lord PALMERSTON,—in reply
to several queries from Mr. S. HERBERT, who intimated
that the course which himself and his friends would
pursue with regard to Mr. Milner Gibsons's Proposed
Motion depended upon the answers,—said that the
government did not consider the means of pacification
exhausted—that Austria was still furnished, under the
consent of the allies, with the means of bringing about
a peace; the conferences were suspended, but not
closed; and that the most favourable consideration would
be given by the government to any propositions made
through Austria by Russia for a pacific purpose, although
they would never consent to any terms of peace which
did not satisfy the house, and secure the objects of the
war.—Mr. GLADSTONE remarked that the replies just
given conveyed the assurance that negotiations had not
yet ceased, and under these circumstances urged
Mr. Gibson to postpone his motion. Having been
interrupted in the course of his remarks by Mr. Roebuck
on the point of order, Mr. Gladstone concluded by
moving the adjournment of the debate.—Mr. S.
HERBERT intimated his intention of opposing Mr. Gibson's
motion, if then urged to a division.—Lord H. VANE, as
the intended seconder of the motion, also expressed his
persuasion that a postponement would be discreet.—
Mr. DISRAELI said, that before the motion was withdrawn,
the house had a right to expect a more explicit
statement from the government as to their intentions.
He attributed the postponement which was now in
prospect to some mysterious and sinister operations of
the prime minister.—Lord PALMERSTON justified his
conduct as having been uniform and consistent throughout.
When the conferences were suspended he laid a
record of the proceedings before parliament as a matter
of right, but had always declined himself to invite a
discussion on them, because the result might have been
to shut the door to all further hope of peace. But, at
the same time, he could not shirk such a discussion,
which involved the question of confidence in his
administration. His wish for delay at any time arose
from no apprehension that the debate might be
inconvenient to the government, but that it would be
prejudicial to the country. All chance of a negotiation
being brought to a successful issue must be destroyed if
that house took the management out of the hands of the
executive, and prescribed beforehand the basis on which
they should treat, and the conditions on which peace
could be accepted.—Mr. BRIGHT, on behalf of the peace
party, disclaimed all partisan associations, and all
indirect objects, their single purpose being to obtain an
honourable peace.—Mr. ROEBUCK contended that
nothing either in the circumstances that had occurred
or in the ministerial speeches that had been made, gave
any new complexion to affairs since Mr. Gibson first
announced the terms of his motion; which, accordingly,
he saw no reason for postponing.—The Marquis of
GRANBY wished to know distinctly whether any new
propositions for peace were now offered or under
consideration?—Lord J. RUSSELL recapitulated the incidents
of the last conferences in which he took part, and
adverted to the communications that had subsequently
been exchanged between the Russian envoys and the
representatives of the western powers. Austria, he
remarked, still declared that the means of pacification
were not exhausted, and had shown herself throughout
the negotiations willing to act with the allies, but
reluctant to propose terms which would involve her in
actual hostilities with Russia. As matters stood, he
expected that Austria would make some final propositions,
which, if rejected, must terminate the conferences;
and if accepted, would re-open the negotiations
under far more favourable auspices than heretofore.—
After some further discussion, Mr. GIBSON consented to
postpone his motion until after the Whitsuntide recess.

On Tuesday, May 22, Mr. WISE moved a resolution,
expressing the opinion of the house that a complete
revision of our Diplomatic Establishments should be
carried into effect, according to the recommendation of the
select committee appointed in 1850 to investigate the
subject of official salaries. He supported his motion by
citing numerous authorities, and adducing many proofs
to show that, under the existing system, an extravagant
outlay of public money was accompanied by a disgraceful
neglect of the duties which ought properly to be performed
by the envoys and consuls who represented Great
Britain in different parts of the world.—The motion was
seconded by Mr. EWART.—Lord PALMERSTON admitted
the serious importance of the subject, but contended
that many of the faults charged in times past against
the diplomatic functionaries of the country had ceased
to be applicable. On this point he enlarged at much
length, insisting that the country was well represented
by its diplomatic servants. He concluded by stating
that at a cabinet council held but a few hours previously
measures had been taken for the purpose of establishing
as a rule, that all candidates for the public service should
undergo an examination into their fitness and ability.—
After some discussion, Mr. WISE intimated his intention
of withdrawing the motion, but Mr. H. BAILLIE
insisted on a division, in which there appeared—For the
motion, 112; against, 57.

Mr. BERKELEY moved for leave to bring in a bill
enacting that the votes at elections in Great Britain and
Ireland should be henceforth taken by Ballot.—The
motion was supported by Mr. Fielden, Mr. Gordon,
Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Bland, and Sir J. Fitzgerald; and
opposed by Lord Seymour, Mr. Bentinck, and Lord
Palmerston.—On a division it was negatived by 218
against 166.

On Thursday, May 24, Mr. DISRAELI moved his
resolution on the subject of the Policy of Government
Respecting the War. It was as follows:—"That this
house cannot adjourn for the recess without expressing
its dissatisfaction with the ambiguous language and
uncertain conduct of her Majesty's government in
reference to the great question of peace or war; and
that, under these circumstances, this house feels it a
duty to declare that it will continue to give every