The Press. — London, England, 1858-06-05 00:00:00

516 his opinion, should be immediately resi)onsible to Parliament. General PEEL admitted the importance of the subject, and the expediency of defining the respon- sibilities of public officers ; but the several duties and responsibilities of the two War Departments were clearly defined ; he had never found any difficulty in discovering what they were. He could not agree with the proposal that they should be both placed under a single responsible Minister. At present the discipline, government, and patronage of the army were exercised by the Crown through the Commander. in -Chief, and he pointed out the evils which would ensue if these functions were to be conferred upon a Minister responsible to Parliament, who must change with every Administration. He must, therefore, oppose the resolution. Lord A. VANE TEMPEST believed that that house would not sanction the placing the army under a single military man, and considered that it would not be safe to place it under the control of a civilian, although zviis he knew arose from the double govern ment of the army. The best course, in his opinion, was to assimilate the administration of the army to that of the navy. Mr. HORSMAN observed that this was no longer a military question, affecting as it did the heaviest item of our expenditure. Within the last few years there had been a great change in the public feeling towards the army; it inspired a greater sympathy and a desire to improve its adinsnistration. The changes in 1855, it was admitted, had increased the efficiency of the military system, and Captain Vivian asked the house to extend the changes somewhat further. Efficiency depended upon responsibility; but the present system, which was the worst form of double government, did nut attach responsibility where it ought to attach. It was acknowledged that it was unsatisfactory. There was a general desire to apply a remedy, and he was not aware of any person of experience and authority who had lent the weight of his name in opposition to that proposed in the resolution. Mr. BUTLER-JoassxotiE supported the motion. Divided responsiblity was, he said, the worst thing that could happen, especially in military affairs. Mr. S. HERBERT denied that there was at present a divided responsibility in the army. He thought there was too much consolidation, but not a divided responsibility. The Secretary of State for War was responsible for everything the Commander-in- Chief did ; he was the supreme authority, and his responsibility was complete. He thought that the abolition of the office of Commander-in-Chief and the placing the army under a civilian would be revolting to the popular instinct of the country. He blamed the abolition of the office of Master-General of the Ordnance, to whom, he thought, should have 'been left the immediate control of the materiel of the army. He could not support the motion. Lord PALMEUSTON could not concur in the resolu tion. As our militag system now stood, everything which regarded the civil service of the army was un ler the Secretary of State for War, and the Commander-in.Chiel had the sole management of its discipline. If we could not have, as in other countries, a Minister of War to be the paramount authority, the present system was the only one that' could be properly established, and the line of separa tion of the duties and responsibilities of the two departments was suffici3ntly defined. He doubted whether the two offices could be merged into one consistently with the public interests. A civilian could not be placed at the head of the army, an the habits of a military man did not fit him, by a general knowledge of public affairs, to be a member of the Cabinet. He objected to a Board, as not being a good instrument of administration. The result was that the present arrangement, in his opinion, was that which, upon principle, it was most e.tpedient to maintain. Upon a division, the motion was carried by a nar row ms.jorily or 2, the numbers being —ayes, 100 ; noes, 104. THE SUEZ CANAL. Mr. ROEBUCK called attention to the subject of the Suez Canal, and moved a resolution that the power and influence of this country ought not to be used in order to induce the Sultan to withhold his assent to the project of making a canal across the Is'.hmua of Suez. He observed that, although the subject of the motion was only a canal, it was bound up with the honour and interests of' England. He believed that honour had been sacrificed in this transaction ; that the power and influence of England had been employed to induce the Sublime Porte to refuse its assent to the making of this canal. He argued, first, that facilities of transit from one part of the earth's surface to another were for the benefit of mankind at large ; secondly, that a canal across the Isthmus of Suez would facilitate intercourse between Asia and Europe ; and the conclusion from these premises was inevitable, that such a canal was fur the hap piness cf mankind. Mr. GRIFFITH moved, as an amendment to Mr. Roebuck's resolution, to add : THE PRESS, JUNE 5, 1858. That, in any course that this house may sanction, in furtherance of the construction of such canal, it is expe- dient that care be taken that the despotic powers of the Egyptian Government he not allowoi to be made use of by toe promoters of such project to obtain the required labour from the " fellah" at an inadequate remuneration, by compulsory means, so as to produce the effects of slavery under the guise of paid labour. He argued in support of the motion. Mr. STEPHENsON pointed out the physical and moral difficulties in the way of forming the canal, which, owing to the two seas being upon a dead level, would have no current, and would be in fact a ditch. In his opinion, it would be a most abortive under akiug. Mr. S. FITZGERALD opposed the motion. He denied that the opposition to this scheme originated, as Mr. Roebuck hail alleged, in a base and selfish spirit on ►he part of this country. Mr. Roebuck had assumed that the project would facilitate inter course ; but Mr. Stephenson had shown that it would not add to the existing means. He urged that a canal through a foreign country, that could be easily closed, would be a very precarious channel of com merce. But there were, he observed, important political considetations involved in the scheme, which had guided the policy of the late Administra tion, and it was impossible to deal with the matter on commercial grounds alone. Mr. M. GIBsoN wished for copies of all the com murications with other countries upon this subject, in order that the house might understand clearly what policy the Foreign office had been pursuing. Lord Par.mEasToN said the most charitable view he could take of the scheme, the most innocent light in which he could view it, was that it was one of the greatest bubbles ever attempted to be imposed upon the credulity and simplicity of the people of this country. His firm opinion was that, although it would be a bold thing to say that, at a great sacrifice of money and human life, the canal might not be cut, as a remunerative enterprise the scheme was neither more or less than a bubble. Mr. J. Ewkirr spoke in opposition to the motion. Mr. GLADSTONE observed that the point before the house was not whether it should sanction a bubble scheme, or any scheme at all, but whether it should protest against the political influence of this country being used for the purpose of preventing the making of this canal ; whether it should put an end to an illegitimate opposition to the scheme. If this was a bubble project, let the bubble be allowed to burst. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER asked what evidence there was that the power and influence of this country had been used to induce the Sultan to withhold his assent' He knew of no undue control so exerted on the part of the present or any former Government, and before a resolution of this kind was adopted there should be something in the shape of evidence. The consequence of passing this reso• lution would be that the project would appear to be sanctioned by the house, and he thought it would be most unwise on its part to lend itself to the approval of a project at best of a doubtful nature. The motion had been brought forward without authority, and if the house adopted the resolution it, would fetter itself in its future course. Lord J. Russr.f.i. observed that it had been argued that this was a bubble speculation, that the difficulties in the way of making the canal were almost insuper- able, and that the Turkish Government, for reasons of its own, employed all its efforts against it Ad mitting all this, did it not follow that there was no need of the power and influence of England in the matter? He should vote for the resolution. Mr. DRUMMOND considered that the canal was in tended to bar our access to India by that route. Mr.Bßrnur pressed for the correspondence referred to by Mr. Gibson. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER promised to give an answer on the subject on Wednesday. After a few remarks by Sir J. ELPHLNSTONE, and a reply by Mr.RoF.aucfc, the amendment of Mr. Griffith was negatived, and the house having divided upon the original motion, it was negatived by 290 to 62. On the order tor the third reading of the Church Rawl' Abolition Bill, a discussion arose on a motion by Mr. DRUMMOND that the debate be adjourned, which was negatived upon a division. Mr. IfttmE then moved that the house do adjourn, which was likewise, upon a division, negatived. Ultimately the debate on the motion for the third reading was postponed until Tuesday next, Mr. SOTHERON ESTCOURT, on the part of the Govern ment, conceding a morning sitting for the purpose, and the house adjourned at twenty minutes to three o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—WEDNEsnay. Mr. W. Wilks having presented a further petition, Mr. M. GII3SON moved that he be discharged from custody. Mr. G. CLIVE skid, as far as lie was concerned, he cheerfully cousented to the liberation of Mr. Wilks, declaring at the same time that there was not ono word of truth in the charge of partiality on the partl , either of himself or the committee. Mr. WALPOLE thought the house must be satisfied that Mr. Clive was eonspletely exonerated from the charges of corruption and of undue partiality, and, as these charges were now withdrawn (as he Wnderstood the petition), and the petitioner bad expreveed Ina regret that they had appeared in his paper,tite re tractation was now full and corroptete, Mr. Wilks was ordered to be diewhorged from [Me of the Sergeant -at-Ar ms , cm payment of hi 4 fees. custod y MEDICAL BILLS. The first three orders of the day were roe - the second reading of the Medical Practitioner*Bkeih r Medical Profession and Medical Corporatices Bill' and the Medical Profession Bill, and the debreeruponi the first unavoidably extended to and embraced tint others. Mr. CovrrEn, in moving the second reading of 'lie: first-named bill, explained its principle and details. Mr. BLACK, who was hostile to all the three bills,. having missed the opportunity of calling for a.division at this stage, and the bill having been road a second time, moved to defer its committal for six months. Mr. BRADY supported the bill. Mr. WALPOLE, premising that all the bills con. tained principles worthy of consideration and of adoption, and that the subject was encumbered with difficulties, said he thought the best thing lie aouba do was to point out the evils and anomalies, and the. remedies required, and to consider how far those provided in the several bills were sufficient ;. and this led him to a critical examination of the diree bills, and to a comparison of their objects anti. provisions. He concluded by laying down cerniiit leading principles which, in his opinion, should pith: legislation in this matter, and recommended that the bill immediately under discussion should be. made the basis of a measure that would meet the objects which all had in view. For this purpose he offered to prepare clauses to be introduced into the bill in committee. Ultimately, after a long diicussion, the amendment was withdrawn, and the bill was ordered to be com mitted on the Bth of June. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then postponed the second reading of his bill, the Medical Pro'ession and Medical Corporations Bill, and the other bill was withdrawn by Lord ELeno. PROPERTY QUALIFICATION. The adjourned debate upon the order for goin; into committee upon this bill was resumed by ➢lr. RENTINcK, who objected to the principle of the bill, but his chief objection, he said, was that it was. part and parcel of a Reform Bill, and that it was not fair to call upon the house to deal with only a portion of such a measure. He justified the reten tion of rti property qualification, in the absence of which, he observed, there was no reason why any ntm►ber of bankrupts might not obtain admission into the house. He cited the recorded objections of leading members on both sides of the house to the abolition of this qualification, including Lord Pal merston, Sir G. Grey, and Mr. Henley, and moved to defer the committee for six montl►s. Mr. K. SEYMER, looking at the example of Scot• land and the working of the principle of non-qualifi cation there, and believing that our qualification laws. were really a snare, while they were nugatory Tor theirintended object, supported the bill. Mr. Ditummorin said he regarded this as the first attempt to separate power from wealth, and if pro perty was dissociated from power, it would be im possible to preserve it. Sir G. LEWIS said the view he took of this mea sure was diametrically opposite to Mr. Drummond'.. The real security for the social position of the mem bers of that house, in his opinion, consisted in the power of coming forward as candidates, and sub mitting to the ordeal of an election. The substactial property qualification for a seat in that house wouid, after the passing of the bill, remain as it was; while pitfalls, and those objections which were a scandal to their proceedings, would he removed. tlr. NEWDEG TE said he was not prepared to reverse the votes which he had given in favour of the maintenance of a property qualification as requisite for admission to seats in the house. He knew not what reasons might actuate her Majesty's Govern ment in the course which they seemed inclined to take, but he was sine of this, that the members of this house, who have for years voted in support of a property qualification, and who suddenly and for no assigned reason reversed their votes, would have an awkward explanation demanded of them by their constituents. The hon. member for Dorsetshire has argued, that because the Scotch members are not required to have a property qualification, therefore none ought to be required of the members for England and Ireland, and he has alluded to the Scotch one pound nous as a peculiarity of that country which currency reformers think should be extended to England. He ( Mr. Newdegatel was not about to argue whether we ought or ought not to have one.pound notes in England, but he begged his hon. I Wit x4l , fl !cl to b a 3 a is e- ii ese F 6"3 a .11 illl 1 . 1 1114 )1 Ire E iii si S, IP' id •st •pi It' I• :111 h . pi 'pi ie• le d de .111 Oh ae ith ti hi e. Ala 010 .of a •ao th sti ,an In th( wh (H .egi 1 atir ear tl '1 wh red 1101 /1 y • nal Kir our inei 1 tile] not the the] A dan the and • eh,. any hav Ito ti 0 -Par 1 4eus. .eori oar of for in the 1. QI 1W from on a in tt