hide Matching Documents

The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.

Document Max. Freq Min. Freq
The Daily Dispatch: May 13, 1863., [Electronic resource] 1 1 Browse Search
The Daily Dispatch: July 23, 1864., [Electronic resource] 1 1 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Your search returned 2 results in 2 document sections:

The Daily Dispatch: May 13, 1863., [Electronic resource], The late debate in the British Parliament. (search)
would be most improper and dangerous, considering the character of the subject, to continue the debate on the present occasion. He must express his regret for the language of the honorable member from Sheffield. Mr. Peacock said it was very inconvenient to discuss a question of such importance without having more authentic information than a newspaper correspondence. He therefore moved an amendment for the production of all the official correspondence relating to the matter. Mr. Newdegate denounced Mr. Roebuck's language. Mr. Layard deprecated a continuance of the discussion, and hoped that the House had confidence enough in the Government to leave the matter in their hands. With regard to the conveyance of the mails the question had not been fairly represented to the merchants, who had requested that a mail agent should be placed on board vessels carrying mails to Mexico, or that they should be relieved of the obligation of carrying them lest they should be likely
The Daily Dispatch: July 23, 1864., [Electronic resource], article 1 (search)
the whole opposition side defending the remark. Finally, after an apology from Mr. Layard, the debate proceeded, and at its close, Mr. Hennessey, amidst great cheering, recalled a case in which Lord Palmerston himself used the term "calumnious" towards Mr. Layard, some years ago, and the Speaker, on that occasion, ruled the expression in order The debate was renewed on the 8th amidst great excitement, the principal speakers being Osborn, Walpole, Palinerston, and Disraeli Mr. Newdegate, at the solicitation of Lord Palmerston, withdrew his amendment, and Mr. King lake proved his as already given. The result was — for Disraeli's motion, 295; against it 313.--Overwhelming chores from the Ministerial side greeted the announcement. On the same evening, in the House of Lords, Lord Malmsbury moved a resolution similar to Disraeli's, and made a speech denunciatory of the foreign policy of the Government. He regretted that Lord Derby was unable to be present, owing to il