The Press. — London, England, 1856-07-05 00:00:00

5, 1856. roccainis in ,parliament. HOUSE OF LORDS—.MONDAT, Juxa 30. OATS or ♦BJUBATION AMENDMENT BILL. The Earl of DERBY moved for permission to dis charge the order for the third reading of this bill, fixed for Thursday. The noble earl complained of the misconsuuction the measure had been subjected to, as well as the spirit of hostility and defiance it had been met with in the house. It was a measure essentially conciliatory ; and, although he withdrew it, his conviction remained that it was the only mode of abrogating the obsolete oaths. SUBSCRIPTIONS BY THE EAST INDIA COMPANY. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE asked whether the 5001. lately subscribed by the East India Company for the French Inundation Fund was to be provided from the public revenue of India, and whether the Home Government would exercise any control over similar appropriations of that revenue. The Duke of ARGYLL stated that the subscription was a vote of money from the revenue of India, and had been duly sanctioned by the President of the Board of Control. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH remarked that the mere concurrence of the President of the Board of Control could not make the grant legal. Under the act of 1833 the directors of the East India Company were legally converted into mere trustees of the pro duce of our Oriental empire on behalf of the public generally, receiving in exchange for their old pro prietorship an annuity, partially guaranteed by the Imperial Government But it we, not to this con tribution of 5001. he so much objected, as to the immense expenses frequently incurred by the directors : What would their lordships think of a Secretary of State of this country, on the examination of the cadets at Send bust or at Woolwich, inviting f irty or fifty officers to go down, undertaking to pay all their expenses, and giving them a inagniticeut dtuner ou their arrival? Would the Howie of Commons tolerate an estimate of an expense incurred for such a purpose? Their lordships knew. they would not. Her Meje-ty's Ministers, at the commence ment of the late war, thought it expedient to inaugurate that war by a grand dinner at the Reform Club, at which the naval department was most especially exalted ; but he apprehended that the expense of that dinner never ap peared in the naval estimates to be paid for by the country. Neither would the army estimates, he ventured to say, include the expense of the dinner to be given by the Secre tary of War to Sir William Codrington, on his return from the Crimea. It was not for the benefit of the Government of India that these expenses should be incurred. The service of that Government was not the object of such ex penditure. But the Court of Directors seemed to be of the same opinion as Louis XIV., and appeared to conceive that "they were the State." He earnestly entreated the Government to consider whether a bill ought not to be forthwith brought in to establish an independent auditor for the ac counts of the East India Company : It was really ton bad that 23,000,0001. should be ex pended year after year without any independent audit what ever—with no audit but that which was under the control and influence of the very persons by whom the money was expended. Their lordships would not be acting honestly towards the people of India unless they adopted a different course. He therefore did trust that the Government would not allow this session to pass without introducing a bill for the purpose of putting an end to that most inju rious system. The subject then dropped. THE LATE CAPTAIN THOMPSON. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, in reply to Lord Malmesbury, stated that measures were being taken, partly by the War-office and partly in another manner, to assist the family of Captain Thompson. AFFAIRS OF ITALY. Lord LYIVDHURST rose and said: A short time since I asked my noble friend the Secre tory of State for Foreign Affairs whether he would lay on the table of the house the correspondence which was un derstood to be going on relative to the affairs of Italy. Since that period my noble friend has on two separate oc es4ions stated that correspondence was going on with the Courts of Naples and other European powers upon the affairs of Italy. As far as Naples is concerned, that cor respondence is. I presume, at an end, and I fear is at an end without any satisfactory result. I form that opinion from what has been passing at some recent trials, which hive disclosed proceedings of a most scandalous nature ; ▪ ich as, for instance, ministers of religion being stripped of their religious dress and threatened with imprisonment, ald threatened with the infliction of lashes unless they eansented to give evidence against the accused. Looking at the whole course of these proceedinga, they appear to be s mere duplicate of those which took place upon the trial of Poerio, of which my right hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford has given so graphic a de scription. Ily lords, it appears to me, as far as I can col lect, that the whoL• Government of Naples is at the hands of police agents, spies, and informers. and I begin to de spair of the state of things in that country. I beg to ask ray noble friend, whether he is prepared to lay upon the table oopies of any correspondence which may have passed between this Government and the Government of Naples ~-~ '~ p re ri co S. and other European powers with respect to the affairs of Italy ? - -- - The Earl of CL/RENDON replied : My lords, I cannot at present inform my noble and learned friend whether it will be in the power of her Majesty's Government to lay upon the table the corre spondence to which he has alluded. That correspondence, as respects Naples, has not yet been brought to a close. We have not received any answer to a despatch communi cated by her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with that of the Emperor of the French, to the Neapolitan Government. The King of Naples was absent from Naples at the time. He returned for a few days, and I have reason to believe that while he was in Naples he ordered that an answer should be returned. That reply will be probably communicated in a few days through the Neapo litan Ministers in London and Paris. That answer has not, however, been received, and until it is, and until the Government determine what steps it may be necessary to take in respect to that answer, my noble friend will under ' stand that it would be premature to lay it upon the table. With respect to the correspondence between this and other Governments on the affairs of Italy, it is perfectly true that her Majesty's Government have offered their opinion and advice to those powers, in whose occupation a certain prtion of the Papal territory has been; but I do not know that the object that my noble and learned friend has at heart is likely to be served by producing that corre• spondence at present. The only result would be to check that friendly and confidential communication which is now going on, and from which some good may be expected. Your lordships must be aware that to create the state of things which would render the withdrawal of those foreign armies safe must be a work of some time. I can therefore only hope that my noble and learned friend will accept my assurance that nothing that can possibly be done by her Majesty's Government has been or will be ne glected to procure the cessation of that foreign occupation. I believe that the Governments of France and Austria both desire to withdraw their troops from the Papal terri tory, and that the Papal Governments are not indisposed to give their assent to the withdrawal of those troops as soon as a small military division arrives which the Pope is now organising. Lord LYNDHURST : Will my noble friend lay the answer of the Neapolitan Government upon the table u soon as it arrives ? The Earl of CLARENDON :- Until I see the nature of the reply T cannot give an answer to my noble and learned friend; but he can take an opportunity of repeating his question. The Joint-stock Companies Bill was read a third time and passed. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MoNDAI. GREECE. Lord PALMERSTON, in reply to Mr. James Macgre gor whether the Government were prepared to lay on the table of the house the correspondence respect ing the relations between this country and Greece which had taken place subsequently to that already laid before Parliament exteAding to May, 1854, said that there were no particular questions pending be tween this country and Greece during the period to which the question related. A great many reports of what was called in foreign lanknage " brigandage" had been received, but there waa no question pend ing requiring papers to be brought torward. NATIONAL GALLERY SITE BILL. Lord PALMERSTON, in reply to Hr. Spooner, said the Government would not proceed with the National Gallery Site Bill, at all events for this session. He should move that the order for the second reading be discharged. The order was then read and discharged. DESTRUCTION OF THE FORTS ISMAIL ♦ND REEL Lord PALMERSTON, in reply to Colonel Dunne whether any information bad been received of the destruction of the forts of Ismail and Reni, said that the Government had no positive information In the subject ; but he believed that the Russians con ceived themselves at liberty to destroy the works alluded to ; though he should hardly think they would deem it worth while to (1 , 3 so, for the only result of such a proceeding would be to impose on the Turks a certain expense for re-establishing the forts when they came into possession of the ceded territory. IRISH MILITIA. Lord PALMERSTON, in reply to Mr. Davison whether any particular time had been fixed for the disembodiment of the Irish militia, said that the period of their disembodiment in different parts of the country should be made to coincide as far as possible with the commencement of agricultural operations. PURCHASE OF COMMISSIONS. Mr. PEEL, in repl to Major Reed, said' that the commission of inquiry on the system of purchase of commissions in the army was sitting and carrying on its investigations. APPELLATE Lord PALMERSTON, in reply to Sir J. Graham, said he intended to fix. the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill tor Monday next, and the Testamentary Juris diction Bill for next Thursday. BISHOPS' Lord PILILERSTON in reply to Mr. Gregson. stated that no general enactment legalising the re tirement of prelates would ba introduced, but that a special bill would be brought in enabling the Bishops of London and Durham to retire, according to a wish they bad signified to that effect. AMERICAN ENLISTMENT QUESTION. On the order for going into a Committee of Supply, Mr. W. Brown, Mr. Cheetham, Mr. Ewart, and Mr. Spooner, appealed to Mr. G. H. Moore, under the peculiar circumstances in which our rela tions with the United States now stood, not to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice that evening. Mr. MOORE declined to adopt the suggestion, and proceeded to move, by way of amendment to the order, the following resolution That the conduct of her Majesty's Government, in the differences that have arisen between them and the Government of the United States, on the question of enlistment, has not entitled them to the approbation of this house. The hon. member for Mayo then undertook to prove—first, that the neutrality law of the United States had been grossly and deliberately violated by persons acting with the approbation of her Majesty's Government ; and, secondly, that her Majesty's Government had contemplated and sanctioned the violation of that law. Upon the first point he insisted that Mr. Crampton had only performed the duties indicated to him by Lord Clarendon, and had acted upon an interpretation of the American law sanctioned by the earl, but directly contrary to the opinion of an eminent American lawyer previously consulted. It was true that Lord Clarendon had de precated all violation of the neutrality law ; but the whole question turned upon the interpretation of the law. In the correspondence with the American Go. verninent Lord Clarendon furnished Mr. Marcy with such an explanation of the American law as proved there could have been no violation of it. Yet Lord Clarendon—after receiving the opinion of this eminent American lawyer consulted by Mr. Cramp ton, which clearly laid down that not only was the person enlisted punishable by law, but the person who enlisted, hired, or retained him with the intent to be enlisted was also punishable by law, whether the person hired or retained went abroad or not—on the 12th of April wrote to approve of Mr. Crampton sending agents first to ascertain the dis position of the people, and then to inform any favorably disposed of the terms her Majesty's Government offered for recruits and the places to which they should repair to be enrolled. Mr. Crampton had been enjoined to conceal nothing front the United States' Government; hut conceal ment, he (Mr. Moore) contended, was the very key stone of the whole proceeding. While Mr. Cramp ton was away in Canada perfecting his plan of enlistment in the United States, and engaged in drawing up memoranda and instructions for bis agents, bis secretary, Mr. Lumley, was giving explanations to Mr. Marcy denying all participation in these illegal proceedings, and assuring Mr. Marcy that Mr. Crampton's visit to Canada was only to pre vent an infraction of the treaty between the two countries. After the trials of the agents, when the complicity of Mt. Crampton was made fully known to Lord Clarendon, he not only did not express the smallest disapprobation of Mr. Crampton's proceed ings, but justified them, and argued that he had not violated the law. The English people could not ob ject to the course taken by the American Govern ment, or to the manner in which they had vindicated their own honour. The American Government had dis missed Mr. Crampton, and for this disgrace her Majesty's Government found relief by writing letters to say "they were gratified that their assertions that they did not intend to violate the neutrality laws or the sovereignty of the United States bad been unre servedly accepted by the President," which was not the fact. The issue of the whole affair was very simple. Lord Clarendon had been engaged in a petty intrigue—as he always was—and he had been found out—as be always would be; and in this case be had brought discredit not only on his own character, but on the people and the Crown of this country. The house bad now to decide a simple question of right and wrong. Mr. BELLEW seconded the resolution. The ATTORNEY - GENERAL said the Government were charged with having infringed, first, interna tional law, and, secondly, the municipal law of the United States. Now, the American law permitted its citizens to engage in a foreign service, and did not prohibit its subjects when beyond the boundaries from enlisting in such service. But the persons intended to be enlisted in the present case were not American citizens, in the proper sense of the term, but British subjects who had emigrated to America, and political refugees from Europe, and if these men desired to leave the United States, provided the municipal law of the States way► not violated, they could be received into oar service without any in fraction of international law. But it was said that men were enlisted on the American soil, contrary to the law of the United States. This, howilver, A