that it should be withdrawn. But Lord Palmerston
said he should fix the bill for next Thursday, and then
the house might say what should be done regarding it.

On Friday, July 6, Sir JOHN SHELLEY inquired
whether, after the allegations made in petitions respecting
the Conduct of the Police, the government would
grant an inquiry?—Sir GEORGE GREY was not prepared
to say that the petitions afford sufficient ground for
inquiry. "With regard to the general allegations
which have been made, provided it does not imply any
condemnation or preconceived judgment against the
police—which, I am bound to say, information I have
received leads me to believe would be most unmerited—
I have not the slightest objection to have those allegations
submitted to a searching investigation." The
topic was further prosecuted at different times, on
motion of form.—Mr. DUNCOMBE urged an inquiry not
by commissioners of police, but by a government
commission.—Mr. BENTINCK objected to the exciting
remarks of Mr. Duncombe respecting what may happen
on Sunday.—Other members took part.—Mr. DUNDAS
defended the police, as an eye-witness: he described
the people in Hyde Park as "canaille," and hinted
that nothing will "frighten a mob more than the crash
upon the pavement of the trail of a six-pounder."
—Subsequently Mr. ROEBUCK called Mr. Dundas to
account for this suggestion, as unfit for the house of
commons and unworthy of an English gentleman; and
at a later period Mr. Dundas apologised.—Sir GEORGE
GREY renewed an assurance that the inquiry he
contemplated should be satisfactory both to the house and
to the public.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON requested Lord John Russell
to explain his conduct with reference to the recent
Conferences at Vienna. He desired to know how it
was that, after having agreed to the Austrian proposals
for peace, as stated by Count Buol, Lord John Russell
retained his place in a government pledged to cripple
Russia, when those proposals were rejected?—Lord
JOHN RUSSELL described his own course in the
negotiations at Vienna, and his exertions to discover the
views of Austria; and recapitulated the Austrian propositions,
in which he concurred, and which he thought
would give, not a certainty, but a very fair prospect of
the duration of peace. No doubt, the statement of
Count Buol was in the main an accurate statement.
Lord John had told Count Buol that his instructions
from London would lead him to suppose that the
Austrian proposals would not be accepted, but that his
own opinion was that they ought to be, and might be,
accepted; and he promised Count Buol that he would
do his best to put these propositions in such a light that
the Austrian government might hope for their adoption.
On his return from Vienna, those propositions were
deliberately considered by the cabinet. Everything
Lord John stated had due weight, and was fairly placed
in opposition to the disadvantages of such a peace.
The government came to the conclusion that the peace
proposed would not be a safe peace, and that they could
not recommend its adoption. It was not correct to say
that the Emperor of the French was disposed to accept
the terms. Before he knew the decision of the English
government, the Emperor had determined to change
his minister and to reject the Austrian proposal, as not
affording a sufficient foundation for peace. Mr.
Gibson had asked why Lord John continued in the
government which rejected his counsel: but as a
plenipotentiary, it was for him to submit to the decision of
his government; as a member of the cabinet, it was his
duty to consider the circumstances of the time—the
failures of himself, and of Lord Derby to form a
government that promised stability—the attacks to
which Lord Palmerston himself was exposed, for no
other reason than that he held a place of authority.
Now though, out of office, he might have given every
support to his noble friend, he felt that his resignation
would have increased the instability of administration,
and would have been considered the symptom and
precursor of other changes. Within the cabinet, it is
the duty of the minority to yield to the majority, if
there be a majority and a minority; for an individual
to defer to the sentiments of the cabinet in general, and
to leave it to the house of commons to decide whether
or not they are to be trusted with the conduct of public
affairs.—Mr. COBDEN blamed Lord John Russell for not
having followed the example of M. Drouyn de Lhuys,
and for having, by showing that he had surrendered his
judgment, struck at the basis of confidence in public
men. He affirmed that the war is odious in France,
citing as a proof that the Emperor had not dared to
propose an extraordinary levy of troops; and he urged
the hopelessness of the siege of Sebastopol. In the
course of his speech, Mr. Cobden declared that he
would infinitely rather see a government formed of
members from the other side, and take the hazard of
the "change"—"I look back (he said) with regret on
the vote which I gave on the motion which changed
Lord Derby's government. I regret the result of that
motion; for it has cost the country 100 millions of
treasure, and between 20,000 and 30,000 good lives."—
Lord PALMERSTON defended his colleague from the
astacks of Mr. Cobden, and vindicated his conduct.
With regard to the object of the war, which Mr. Gibson
said he should be at a loss to explain, Lord Palmerston
could tell him that there is not a peasant in England
who does not comprehend the objects of the war. Denying
that he had ever talked of going on a crusade to
sever Hungary from Austria and expel the Russians
from Poland, he declared that all the speeches of the
members for the West Riding and for Manchester
would not break the manly and determined spirit of the
people, whose determinations the government had only
fulfilled in rejecting the Austrian propositions. He
supposed it is meant he should infer that when next a
vote is proposed which shall have a tendency to remove
the government from their places, it will have Mr.
Cobden's support. Thus he will be voting to place in
power a set of gentlemen who, to judge by the language
they have held in that house, are as determined to carry
on the war with vigour and energy as the present
government.—Mr. ROEBUCK joined in the censure
bestowed upon Lord John Russell, but turned upon Mr.
Gibson for questioning the necessity and objects of the
war.—Mr. Disraeli commented on the extraordinary
revelations of the Minister, and revived the charges of
ambiguous language and uncertain conduct, which
events, he said, had established.—Sir GEORGE GREY
replied to Mr. Disraeli; and with a few words from
Lord GODERICH, the subject dropped.

On Monday, July 9, Sir B. HALL stated, in answer to
Colonel Smyth, that it was not the intention of government
to go on with the Public Health Bill this session,
but to continue the present bill for another year.

In answer to a question from Sir J. Pakington
respecting the Riot in Belgrave-square on Sunday, Sir
GEORGE GREY replied, it was hardly necessary for
him to say that he had given no orders to withdraw the
ordinary protection of the police from Belgrave-square
and its neighbourhood on that day. The whole damage
was caused by what appeared to be a sudden impulse
on the part of the crowd. The whole mischief was
committed in a quarter of an hour, and before the
police could come up the rioters had disappeared.—The
subject was resumed at a later part of the evening by
Mr. ADDERLEY, who said the mob was composed
entirely of boys, but they were countenanced by others
who ought to have known better. He complained,
however, that not a policeman was to be seen on the
spot till after the mischief was done, when the police
appeared in force enough to repel a hostile invasion.—
Sir GEORGE GREY said the statement of the hon.
gentleman agreed pretty much with his own information,
except that the police were certainly there in their
ordinary force. He agreed that the conduct of the
respectable part of the crowd was very discreditable to
them, and he believed that, instead of aiding, they had
obstructed the efforts of the police. Some prisoners
were taken, but more might have been apprehended if
the inhabitants had acted with the police.—Colonel
PENNANT, after adverting to the gallant conduct of
Admiral Sir G. Seymour, who was severely wounded in
resisting the mob, asked if the inhabitants of the
neighbourhood would be justified in banding together
for self-defence next Sunday?—Sir G. GREY said every
precaution would be taken to prevent a repetition of
these scenes next Sunday, and the police would be