The Press. — London, England, 1857-12-12 00:00:00

Lombard-street and to produce a panic. He was for leaving a discretion to the Bank of England. Universal opinion condemned a system which could not be maintained, which, pushed to extremity, would become one of barter. The Government should deal with this question themselves, and not ofer it to a committee. Mr. PHILIPPS did not think that the cause of the present disorder was in the currency, but in natural causes,—the excess of improper speculation, pro moted by the large interest upon deposits forcing up the amount of the fixed capital. The remedy could only be found in the conviction of the com munity of the great truth uttered by the late Duke of Wellington, that high interest meant bad se curity. Mr. ADAMS asked for some indication of the nature of the representations made to the Government to induce them to relax the act. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER reiterated his former statement, that it was not in consequence of any representation made to the Government that the letter had been issued, but they had acted in the matter on their own responsibility, upon the au thentic accounts of the financial position of the Bank. No pressure whatever had been put upon the Govern ment which they could not have resisted with facility, and no person had complained to him that the Bank had refused to discount. The bill was then read a third time, and, with a slight alteration in the first clause, passed. The house adjourned at three o'clock. HOUSE OF LOHDS—THuaso.ty. The Bank Issues Indemnity Bill was read a second time, Lord DERBY observing that he should not move any amendment on the subject; but he thought it would have been better had tne Government proposed to leave a discretion in the hands of the Directors of the Bank of England, instead of fixing an absolute limit : He presumed that Parliament would reassemble in the first week of February; and if the minimum rate of dis count continued, as it must do if the bill passed without alteration, at so high a rate as ten per cent. for twenty• eight days after, it would, he felt sure, be productive of very serious consequences. He would not enter any further into this question ; but he had felt it his duty to call the attention of the Government to the point, and he hoped that if they persisted in retaining this hill as it stood, they would explain their reasons for so doing. - - Lord GRANVILLE, in reply to the Earl of Dun gannon, who moved for copies of all correspondence relating to the transmission of troops for India, said a committee was to be moved for in the other house which would no doubt investigate the whole subject ; and he thought it desirable that, instead of the noble lord's motion being agreed to, that corn. mitte should, when it commenced sitting, call for any papers it might consider necessary. The motion was withdrawn. _ _ Lord CLARENDON, in reply to Lord Powis, gsve the details connected with the assassination of Mr. Sul livan at Lima. _ . Lord MONTEAGLE moved for certain accounts ahowing the circulation and bullion of the Banks of Ireland and Scotland. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—TnunsnAv. Mr. BAntso took the oaths and his seat for Thetford. Returns relating to the demand for additional troops in India, and of the correspondence relating to the conveyance of troops from England, were ordered on the motions of Mr. VANSITTART ar.d Sir J. PAKINOTON. CONVEYANCE OF TROOPS TO INDIA. Sir J. PAKINGTON I will now ask the First Lord of the Treasury the ques tions of which I have given notice—Whether it is true that Lord Strotford de liedeliffe telegraphed to her Majesty's Government that he had obtained a firman from the Sultan for the passage of troops through Egypt to India, and, if so, whet was the date of that communication? Per haps the noble lord will allow me to ask another question, of which I have not given him notice. It is—whether it is within his knowledge that, by the joint iulluence of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe anti M. Thuvenel, the French Am• bassador, a firman was actually obtained from the Pore for the passage of French troops to Pondicherry through Etzypt? I will also ask what was the date of the friendly offer made to her Majesty's Government by the Emperor of the French to porinit British troops to pass through France on their way to India? Lord PALMERSTOII: I will first answer the second question, with respect to the application said to have been made by the British and French Ambassadors for the passage of French troops to Pondicherry. We have no knowledge of any such applica tion, and I do not believe that French troops did gc across Egypt. With regard to the first question, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe on the 30th of June informed the Government by telegraph that he would apply to the Turkish Govern ment to allow troops to pass through Egypt on their way to India if the British Government thought it advisable that that course should be pursued. Ott, the 2nd of July T H PRESS, DECEMBER 12, 1857. he was informed that it was not the intention of her Majesty's Government at that time to send any troops through Egypt; and perhaps I may be allowed to state slimily the reasons. To send a large body of troons, as was then intended to ho sent, through Egypt would have required complicated arrangements, and taken up infinitely more tune than would have been saved. If wo sent, for instance, 5,000 men to Alexandria for the purpose of going through Egypt there would be great difficulty in transporting so large a number of troops across the Desert. When they arrived at Suez, unless there were ample shipping to take them down the Red Sea, there would be a great delay at a place where there would be no possible means of putting them under proper cover. They would also bi c.:_. •-• a et )severe heat in the passage downth3R )1 i mightrender them unfit for service when they art t ved in 1 ndia. More over, as they would have required a very large amount of shipping to be ready at Suez, it would have been quite un pardonable in the Government to have sent them there until they knew that there were sufficient transports at Suez. It would also have been necessary to send them through Egypt in light marching order; whereas, sending them by sea, we were able to send them with baggage, stores of all kinds, and guns. They would arrive in good health, and when landed would be perfectly ready for any • service that might be required of them. There was another collateral reason, which, upon a balance of equal advan tages, would be calculated to turn the scale. lit a national point of view it was of importance in putting down the mutiny that we should do it with our own means in every respect, and that it should not be competent for any foreign nation to say that if it had not been for certain facilities afforded is by friendly powers, which might have been withheld, we should not have been able to accom plish our purpose. Tdo not mean to say that if there had been a great difference in point of advantage in favour of one route over the other such a reason ought to prevail, but when the balance was against the overland passage that considerition was entitled to be taken into account. On the 2nd of October, when the season had moderated, when the great bulk of the troops had been sent, and the Government had occasion to send smaller detachments, the passage of which was more easy, Lord Stratford was desired to ask the formal permission of the Porte and the Pasha of Egypt. The permission was obtained, and in the first place two companies were sent across Egypt to rein force the garrison at Aden. Some artillery and engineers have been sent to Calcutta and Bombay since, and from that time we have been sending detachments or regiments, which are now on their way by that route. The right hon. gentleman asks what was the time when the French Government made their offer of a passage through France. That was on the sth of October, and at that time the bulk of the troops had gone. Although the offer did great credit to the friendly disposition of the French Government, and we are very grateful to them for it, we thought that the difficulties of a land passage, and of landing and reship ping the troops with their arms and baggage, rendered it better that they should go round at once by Gibraltar than pass through France. OATHS BILL. The house having resolved itself into a committee to consider the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, and also to consider the disabilities affect ing her Majesty's Jewish subjects, Lord J. RUSSELL, in moving that the chairman be directed to move for leave to bring in a bill to substitute one oath for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, and for the relief of her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish reli gion, stated the nature of the bill, the chief feature of which was the addition to the oath proposed in his former bill of the words "on the true faith of a Christian," and by a subsequent clause authorising the omission of those words when the oath was ad ministered to one of her Majesty's Jewish subjects. lie did not propose, he said, to alter the Roman Catholic oath. He referred to au opinion of the Attorney-General, that the Act sth William IV. entitled that house to frame a declaration to be taken in lieu of an oath, and suggested that, although the result of an inquiry before a committee was un favourable to this opinion, the decision was arrived at by a small majority, and the question might, if necessary, be revived. Sir F. TRESIGER observed that it had been arranged that there should be no opposition to the introduction of the bill, and that the second reading should be deferred until after Christmas ; but he entreated Lord J. Russell to pause and consider the consequences of a measure which would be a stepping stone to other innovations, to the admis sion of Mahomedans and Ilindoos. He should, he said, resist the measure in every stage, because he believed that., by the admission of Jews to the Legislature, a fatal blow would be given to a prin ciple interwoven with every department of the State. Mr. Dillwyn, Mr. Cox, Mr. Pease, and Mr. Griffiths supported the motion, which was opposed by Mr. Bentinck, Mr. Newdegate, and Mr. Stanhope. Mr. ADAMS reserved his opinions upon the mea sure. Lord J. RUSSELL briefly replied, and the motion was agreed to, the resolution was reported, and the bill was ordered to be brought in. PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (1818) AMENDMENT unit. Mr. COWPER moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend this act. He explained that the object which he had in view was to extend the operation of the original act, so as to render it more available for the 1199 removal of those causes which were known to con duce to mortality. Leave was given to bring in the bill. Slit HENRY HAVELOCK'S ANNUITY BILL. On the motion that this bill be read a second time, Mr. W. WILLIAM% expressed his entire concur rence in the object of the bill, and eulogised the services of General Havelock. Mr. BOWYER declared his conviction that the sum proposed was not sufficient; he contended that the annuity should be continued to the son of General Havelock, who had also distinguished himself, and he gave notice that in committee on the bill he would move an amendment to that effect. Sir C. NAPIER said that General Havelock had exceeded any man he had ever heard of, and declared that he should have been made a peer. Sir H. VERNEY suggested that the services of General Havelock were of a special character, and deserved a most particular recognition on the part of the house. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would reconsider the case, and give a more adequate reward than that proposed by the bill. Mr. CLAY hoped that the regard which was to be conferred on Sir Henry• Havelock was but an instal ment of what was to come. Captain SCOTT believed that the gallant veneral was a poor man, and he thought that the reward for his services should have been far more ample. Sir F. SMITH warmly supported the bill, and gave some details of interest co.inected with the assault on Delhi, with the view to show the desperate nature of the attack : Of the engineers engaged in it, ten fell in the storming party, including the gallant Salkeld, who was first at the Cashmere Gate, and the Lo less gallant Home and Hovenden. All these had been pupils of his (Sir F. Smith), and he need not say that he felt proud of his scholars. The last-named officer, having been only shot in the leg, had written to him with his usual spirit, " I got a brick of a grenadier to lift me on his shoulders and carry me in." I will only mention one fact more to show the desperate and determined nature of this assault. Of the eighteen ladders that advanced with the 2nd column, five were knocked over at the glacis, and of the ninety men who were carrying them, thirty were killed or wounded, and there were not sufficient men to form skirmishers to the ladder party, or to support it. Mr. RICHARDSON trusted that a provision would be made for the family of General Havelock, should he fall in the war. The bill was then read a second time, and the committee was fixed for the next day. The house adjourned at half-past eight o'clock. THE CHURCH AND THE CONSERVATIVE P ARTY. TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS." Sir,—As my letter which you inserted last week does not seem to have been sufficiently clear, I trust you will allow me to say that, whatever my words might " seem " to convey or imply, I certainly do not "labour under that fatal mistake" of wishing the great Conservative party " to adopt the exclusive objects, or identify itself with the peculiar watch words, of any one party in the Church." I quite agree with you that such a " mistake" would indeed be "fatal." The course which the Conservative party should adopt appears to me to be so clear that it seems inevitable—namely, to confer its influence and patronage upon that large and sound catholio body of Churchmen who have no leaning whatever towards either Rome or Geneva. No good Church men or true Conservatives would like to see Lord Derby pursuing a partisan line of policy similar to that of Lord Palmerston, acting under the advice of my Lord Shaftesbury as his Minister for Religious Affairs, in appointing to the thrones of Norwich, Carlisle, Ripon, or even London, such men as those who now occupy those elevated positions. There is this, however, to be said, that the number of Whig clergymen is so very small compared with the vast number of Conservative clergymen. But, in refe rence to such acts as the Burial and Divorce Acts, which are detested by nine hundred and eighty out of every thousand clergymen, the policy and the course of the Conservative party seem perfectly clear. It is to me equally clear that, if the Conser vative party had acted unanimously and determinedly in opposition to those acts, or to those portions of them which are felt to be so unjust to the Church and the clergy, a great deal would have been done towards restoring that unanimity of feeling and action between the Church and the Conservative party which ought to exist, and must exist, before a stop can be put to that course of proceeding which results in so much weakness and injury to both.— Yours very truly, L. S. E. Doc. 9, P 757. THE SPEAKER ha.: appointed Sir Francis Baring, Mr. IValpol€, Sir William Somerville, Sir William Heathcote, Mr. W. Miles, and Mr. Bonham Carter, to form the general committee of elections for the present session.