LYTTON was not surprised at the noble lord thinking
his right hon. friend had made much ado about nothing,
for he believed, in point of chronological order, "Much
Ado about Nothing" came next after the "Comedy of
Errors." He had no objection to accept Monday for his
motion, and suggested that it would better befit the
gravity of the subject if it were taken as a substantive
motion instead of as an amendment on a committee of
supply.—Lord Palmerston assented.—Sir J. WALSH
suggested that as the debate was likely to be adjourned,
Mr. Roebuck should postpone his motion which stood
for the following Tuesday.—Mr. ROEBUCK agreed to the
suggestion, and postponed his motion accordingly.

The motion for the third reading of the Scottish
Education Bill was opposed by Sir J. FERGUSON, who
objected to the measure because it trenched upon the
influence of the church in Scotland. He moved that the
bill be read a second time that day three months.—Mr.
L. HEYWOOD supported this amendment, and a division
took place, on which there appeared—for the third
reading, 105; against, 102: majority, 3. The declaration
of this narrow majority elicited much cheering from
the opponents of the bill, and was subsequently made
the ground for many appeals to the Lord Advocate to
abandon his measure. Many supplemental clauses and
additional amendments were afterwards discussed, some
serious complaints being urged respecting an alleged
conversion, under sudden and mysterious influences, of
a large section of Scotch members on the subject of the
bill. Ultimately a division was taken on the question
that the bill should pass, which was carried by a
majority of 130 to 115.

On Friday, July 13, Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY asked
if it was intended to propose any Supplementary
Estimates, and when?—Sir GEORGE LEWIS said
that the expenditure of the first quarter had been
in excess of the estimates; if it continued at the
same rate the sums already voted would not be sufficient.
It would therefore be necessary to present a
supplementary estimate for a considerable amount, both
for the naval and war departments. In reply to Mr.
Disraeli, he further stated that the government did not
enter into an engagement that it would not raise by way
of loan any further sum until the last instalments of the
loan of £16,000,000 have been paid. But he did not
wish to convey that government entertained any intention
of raising another loan for the service of the year.

Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE made an inquiry respecting
the Commission of Inquiry into the Conduct of the
Police. Sir GEORGE GREY said, it had been determined
to appoint a commission, which would consist of the
Recorder of the City of London, Mr. Stuart Wortley;
the Recorder of Manchester, Mr. R. B. Armstrong;
and Mr. Henderson, the Recorder of Liverpool. It was
thought necessary that a commission should be issued
under the great seal to empower the commissioners to
take evidence on oath.

On Monday, July 16th, Lord JOHN RUSSELL took
occasion to make an explanation respecting his Resignation.
Recent events, he said, having been complicated
and perverted, he wished to place before the house
some account of his conduct in these difficult transactions.
It had been said that he had pledged himself to
use his influence with the government to accept certain
Austrian propositions. This was not true, but it
was true that he did lay these propositions before the
cabinet, and he did so in concurrence with persons of
great weight and authority. He brought those
propositions to London on the 29th of April, and a cabinet
was held, at which they were not adopted,
circumstances having occurred, quite independent of the
merits of the propositions themselves, which made it,
to his mind, impossible to agree to them. With
regard to the merits of those propositions, he justified
the opinion he had first formed of them, believing then
that they might afford the means of combining all the
powers of Europe against the future aggressions of
Russia, and placing Turkey in a secure position. Having
stated the general grounds upon which he had thought
at the time that the propositions might have been
accepted, he went on to show that further knowledge of
the views of Austria as to the obligations imposed upon
her by the treaty of December the 2nd, induced her
Majesty's government to think that it was not worth
while to enter into negotiations founded upon her last
proposition, and, in these circumstances, things
reverted to their original condition, and war must be
continued to obtain the objects for which it was
commenced. It had been made a reproach to him, he
observed, that, in a speech made since his return from
Vienna, he had been in favour of a vigorous prosecution
of the war, or, in the words of Mr. Disraeli, became
"an uncompromising advocate of war." After the
rejection of the Austrian propositions he had no other
course. But it had been said that the house had not
been informed at the time of the fact of these Austrian
propositions. He was not responsible, he said, for that;
it was the duty of the Foreign Secretary to make this
communication; but he thought it was quite right on
the part of the government to abstain from a premature
communication, which would have been unjustifiable
and a dereliction of duty on their part. Mr. Disraeli
and others seemed to believe that there were but two
abstract things to be considered—one peace, another
war. But the government had viewed the matter
differently; they thought peace preferable to war; that
satisfactory terms might be obtained, and that a limitation
of the Russian fleet would furnish a security,
though an imperfect one, that would justify a termination
of the war. When the propositions of Austria
were refused he fell back upon his former opinions, and
from the week ending the 5th of May the cabinet was
as united a cabinet as he had ever known, but the
impression seemed to prevail that, because he had taken
a favourable view of the Austrian propositions, he must
be ever after incapable of serving her Majesty during
the war. He was not of that opinion. Finding,
however, that impressions, founded either upon errors he
had committed, or upon misapprehension and
misrepresentation of his conduct, were so wide and general that
his presence in the cabinet would be disadvantageous,
he had pressed his resignation, which had been tendered
once before. Having taken that course he did not feel
at all discontented at the position in which he stood. He
had acted on what he believed to be for the benefit of
the country, and with a view to the public interests.
He rejoiced to have left sincere friends in the cabinet,
and although there was another class of friends who
were of a different character, he trusted they were few,
and he regarded them with nothing but contempt.

Sir E. BULWER LYTTON then Withdrew the Resolution
of Censure of which he had given notice. He
stated the grounds of his motion at great length. He
reviewed the conduct of Lord John Russell with relation
both to the previous and the existing government,
as well as in the Vienna conferences, contending that
it bore out his resolution, which set forth that the
confidence of the country in the ministry was forfeited by
the retention of the colonial secretary among the advisers
of the crown. Lord John Russell, he contended, had
pledged himself to accept the principle of naval counterpoise,
which was repudiated by the government
generally, and by the public unanimously; and nevertheless
had beguiled the country by a speech advocating the
vigorous prosecution of a war which he must actually
have believed to be unnecessary. This speech he
characterised as evasive and disingenuous, and argued that
it sufficed to destroy all reliance either in the speaker
himself or the colleagues who countenanced and recognised
him. The stigma of insincerity had reached every
member of the administration, and resulted in a degree
of feebleness in the executive which was fraught with
discredit and peril to the country. Neither the resignation
of the colonial secretary, nor the papers lately
published respecting the conferences, had diminished
his conviction that Lord Palmerston and his government
had deserved to lose the confidence of the country.
Adverting to the European aspect of the question, he
contended that the Austrian alliance was little worth
the sacrifices that had been vainly made to secure it.
Returning to the point immediately before the house,
he remarked that the retirement of Lord John Russell,
though it had not cancelled his errors, or retrieved the
loss of credit and the disparagement to their integrity
on the part of the whole administration, had so far
accomplished the object of the resolution which he