The Press. — London, England, 1855-07-07 00:00:00

NOTICE. An Unstamped Edition of THE PRESS is now pub lished, price sd. A Stamped Edition of THE PRESS, for convenience of transmission by post, is also published, price 6d. The Stamped PRESS will have the privilege of being transmitted and re transmitted by post fifteen days after date of pub lication, instead of seven days, as heretofore, care being taken to exhibit the stamp. Our subscribers are requested to give orders to their newsmen which Edition they desire to have sent them. The Unstamped Edition of Tan PRESS will, under the new postal regulations, be allowed to pass through the post if an ordinary postage-stamp be affixed to the direction. TERMS OF FOR Ebe Vrezo: (STAMPED.) Per Annum .. Half-Yearly .. Quarterly .. .. 41 6 0 .. 0 13 0 .. 0 6 6 Payable in advance. Subscribers are requested to send their Orders through their News Agent; if direct to the Office, accompanied by a remit tance. Advertisements also must have arefereuce or remittance. Money Orders to be made payable to Mr. ALIRED JIVE, 110, Strand. London. TO CORRESPONDENTS. It le impossible to acknowledge the mass of lettere we receive. Their insertion is often delayed, owing to a press of matter, and when omitted, it is frequently from reasons quite inde pendent of the merits of the communication. We cannot undertake to return communications of which we do not avail ourselves. Ccmmunications should always be legibly written, and on one aide of the paper only. If long it increases the difficulty of finding space for them. Whatever is intended for insertion must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer, not necessarily for publics. tion, but as a guarantee of his good faith. Advertisements sent from the country must be accompanied by a remittance or a reference for payment in town. roxi4 LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 7, 1855. POSTSCRIPT. HOUSE OF LORDS.—FRIDAY. The Earl of Derby ny,ved the second reading of the Religious Worshil (No. 2) Bill, on which the Earl of Shaftesbury ;ornplained that it had taken away from his bill all that was of value. A discussion followed, in which the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Brougham, on various grounds, objected to both bills; while that before the house was sup ported by the Bishop of London. Ultimately Lord Derby withdrew his bill, the discussion on which was nevertheless continued by the Bishop of Oxford. Some routine business was then transacted, and the House adjourned at eight o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY. In answer to Sir E. PERRY, Mr. VERNON SMITH stated that offers had been Made by various regiments in India volunteering to serve in the Crimea. These offers had been ac knowledged with thanks, but not as yet accepted. In answer to Captain SCOBELL, Sir C. WOOD said Lord Dundonald's plans, as laid before the Admiralty, were simple and intelligible, and did not require auy personal explanation from the noble earl. In answer to Lord SEYMOUR, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the in &ease of pay to the army was under attentive ccn aideration, but the estimate was not yet prepared. In answer to Sir J. SHEELEY, Sir G, GREY said that when any specific case of alleged misconduct on the part of the police last Sunday was placed in his hands it would be duly in quired into. He had received very contradictory reports on the subject, and was therefore anxious that nothing should be taken as conclusive evidence against the police. He reminded the house of the great facilities for proceeding against the individuals of that body before the legal tribunals and the com missioners of police, and of the heavy penalties enacted against them for misconduct. He was ready to institute a searching inquiry, so long as it did not involve any prejudged case against the police. Mr. T. BUNCOMBE, moving that the house adjourn till Monday, said that any person taking the number THE PRESS. of the police would have exposed himself to a broken head. The inquiry wash purblind one, and if the Government would advise the house to appoint a commission he would say nothing further. Less would not satisfy the people. He repeated the threat of an armed mob in the park, unless the proper steps were taken. Sir G. GREY said that if such inquiry was to be made it should not be pretudiced by statements such as they had just heard. The inquiry he contem plated was not a secret oile, and he pledged himself that it should be conducted in a manner satisfactory to the house and the country. If any attempts at violence were made they should most assuredly be put down. Colonel LINDSAY explained the instructions given to the soldiers brought iko contact with the police, in reference to their i nter f eren ce in the park. Mr. W. J. Fox and Mr. BOWYER made some observations confirming the allegations against the police. After Mr. Benaix had pleaded for the exemption from income tax of office* in the Crimea, Mr. BENTINCK, recurrirt to Hyde-park, deprecated the conduct taken by Mr.,Duncombe. Mr. G. DusnAs testified to the forbearance of the police under great provocktion. Mr. WILLIAMS having added a few words, and Lord PALMERSTON having explained that the field allowance to officers on service would enable them to pay income tax, Mr. ROEBUCK denouncel certain observations made by Mr. Dundas, who hadecommended the use of a six-pounder against the p eople. Such language was not that of a British gen eman. In answer to Sir J. PA4INGTON, Mr. WILSON explained that negotiations for a monthly postal communication with Australia was in progress with the Penidsular and Oriental Steam Company. .. M. Rica objected to grants being made to the widows of officers killed in action, as compensation for the price of their Sommissions. Such grants could not be confin6d to special cases, where the officer was actually killed in action, and the exten sion would involve enormous expense. Mr. HEADLAM complained of the delay in settling this question. Lord PALMERSTON explained that this arose from the necessity of making art angements. Mr. A. STAFFORD read some statements as to the negligent management of the wounded in the Crimea on the 18th, adverting in Strong terms to the conduct of Dr. Hall. Mr. COWAN complained of the abuses of the billeting system in Scotland. Mr. F. PEEL could gide no answer to the state ments of the mismanage rent of the wounded till he had inquired into the particulars ; but from what he had heard he believed our hospitals were fairly managed, and read a letter from Dr. Hall to prove that sufficient preparatioh had been made for the conflict of the 18th. Colonel KNox asked if the proposed addition to the soldiers' pay was to be confined to those serving in the Crimea; as, if so, it would be no inducement to recruits. He recommended a small additional pay to the army generally. Mr. EWART urged the formation of an encamp ment in Scotland, as a remedy for the billeting mis chief. The motion for adjournment was then agreed to. On the motion for going into Committee of Supply a discussion arose on the prevention of accidents by machinery. Mr. M. GIBSON called attention to the conferences at Vienna, respecting which he complained that the house had been imperfectly informed ; that if the proceedings at Vienna had been properly understood, they would have arrived at different conclusions. He quoted Count Buol's declaration that the chances of pacification were never so good as when the British envoy quitted Vienna— the proofs his circular afforded that Lord John Russell was prevented from carrying out those chances by the opposition of his colleagues—and commented strongly on the ill advised rejection of ‘ne last Vienna proposition by our Ministers. He entered into a laboured defence of the conduct of Austria, who had done, be contended, all she ever undertook to do. The course the Ministry had pursued had destroyed all confidence in them, and was calculated to bring signal disaster on the country. Lord Jogs' Russrm denied that we ought to be disappointed at the events of the war. Recounting the difficulties of the question, he believed that the only solution lay in the conclusion of a general treaty, in which all the great nations of Europe should take part ; for which purpose tho co opera tion of Austria was of the highest importance. Coming to the Austrian proposition, he stated that at the outset the Austrian Minister had considered, with those of France and England, that the best terms of peace would be the limitation of the Russian power in the Black. Sea. But there was another solution, which was, to strengthen Turkey. SATURDAY, On this principle the last proposition was founded, which was to give the allies the power of passing the straits under certain circumstances, without granting the same power to Russia; to permit France and England to maintain each two frigates, while Russia maintained six ships-of-the hne. If Russia increased that force, the maritime powers might increase theirs in like proportion. In ad dition, Austria consented to guarantee the in tegrity of the Turkish territory. He certainly thought that such a proposition provided a suffi cient security for Turkey, and he thought so still. He bad stated to Count Buol that his in structions did not permit him to accept these terms, but he engaged to lay it before his Cabinet, and to back it with his own recommendations. That promise he had fulfilled ; the Cabinet had duly con sidered the propositions, and rejected them as not involving a safe peace. The French envoy, like him self, had recommended the propositions to the Em peror, who had rejected them before he knew of their rejection by England. The Austrian Govern ment thereupon declared that it did not think itself bound to declare war against Russia. He then de fended his own conduct in retaining office, saying that if he had quitted it he would have added to the opinion of the instability of our councils, and the outcry against authority. Mr. Comm; made a vehement attack upon this speech, and the conduct it defended. Lord John had been acting all along in contravention of his opinions. He had never fairly stated them until they transpired by indirect means, and had himself seriously impaired that confidence in public men which he professed to serve. He proceeded to impugn the continuance of the war, and professed his utter want of confidence in the Ministers, whom he would gladly exchange for a Ministry taken from the other side. Lord PALmEits•ros warmly deprecated attacks upon public men. He defended the conduct of Lord John Russell, saying that no Cabinet could hold together if its members did not sometimes sacrifice their individual opinions. He then defended the rejection of the Austrian propositions, enlarged on the successes of the war, contrasted the position of Russia at its outset with that which it held at present, and went once more through the events of the war, expecting a glorious termination. Mr. ROEBUCK concurred in the blame attached to the conduct of Lord John Russell. He admitted that members of a Government might sometimes sacrifice their individual opinion, but not on vital matters. He on this ground arraigned the conduct of Lord John from the commencement as unworthy of a statesman, deficient in the proper candour, and yielding his own principles on matters which affected the deepest interests of the country. He then en tered into a defence of the war, comparing Europe with Greece and Russia with Macedon. Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON made some observations on the present position of the Government in its dissensions and uncertainties. Mr. DISRAELI said that the differences of the Cabinet, long suspected, were now proclaimed. Their dissonances showed their effects everywhere—in the Cabinet and in the field—and left the country with the melancholy prospect of a futile peace or of inter minablelhostilities. t He arrayed anew the conduct of Lord John Russell, whom he charged with having misrepresented the feelings of his own Cabinet towards the Austrian Government. Knowing the difference of opinion in the Cabinet, how could millions of Englishmen continue to make unre served sacrifices under its guidance! With the principle of the war undefined, and the means of peace, according to the opinion of a part of its members in its power, the Ministry refused by a frank exposition of its views to make even an at tempt to secure the confidence of th e country, or, having rejected one set of propositions, to state to what proposition they would give their consent. Such was the end of a session so important, of a Ministry that was to effect such wonders, that the interests of a country were to be sacrificed to a Ca binet majority, and an European congress broken up by a cabal in Downing -street. Sir G. GREY defended the Government on the ground that it was utterly uncertain that Russia would have accepted the Austrian proposition, even if it had been accepted by the allies. He denied that the Cabinet was divided, or had exhibited any weakness in its proceedings. Mr. SPOONER went off into the Maynooth ques tion. He complained of the conduct of the Govern ment with regard to his motion thereupon. Lord GODERICE called attention to the statement of Lord John Russell, that the Austrian proposition was to have been an alternative, the rejection of which by Russia was to have been followed by the withdrawal from St. Petersburg of the Austrian Minister. He could not reconcile this with the speech' of Sir G. Grey. Sir G. GREY explained that he had only said that Austria offered no certainty of the acceptance of his proposition by Russia.