The Sun. — London, England, 1862-04-05 00:00:00

JIM PERIAL - I;ARL lAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—YESTERDAY. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Wycombe Railway, and the Folkestone to Barham Downs Road Bills were read a second time. The Aberystwith and Welch Coast Railway, Deaf and Dumb Poor Asylum, Kent Water, and Newry and Armagh R a il wa y Bills were read a third time and passed. ITALIAN AFFAIRS. Earl RUSSELL laid on the table certain papers relative to Italian affairs. The Marquis of NORMANBY said the papers which the noble earl had just laid on the table would render un necessary one of the questions which he had given the noble lord private notice of his intention of putting. The papers which had just been laid on the table were those moved for on the 17th ult. He would therefore ask whether there would be any objection to lay on the table copies of the official despatches from Sir J. Hudson at Turin and Mr. Bonham at Naples relative to the Neapolitan proclamations which had been the subject of debate in both Houscs of Parliament. The noble marquis Ca , entered into the subject of proclamations, and was understood to say that although Colonel Fantoni had been rem° red, there was still sonic doubt about the suppression of the inhuman proclamation. lie had lately received in formation that an order of the day of a very cruel nature had very recently been issued by another officer. Earl RUSSELL said, of course a minister would not be responsible for everything that took place in all the remote places of the world, (Hoar.) He would have no objection to give the noble marpds such despatches as he had relative to the subject. V,? ith respect to the proclamation of Col. Fantoni, what he stated was that as soon as it was made he certainly had been relieved of his command, and the noble lord had just as much to do with that re moval as he (Earl Russell) had. lie had been told that it 'was never intended to act on the proclamations, which lad been issued more to terrify than anything else. EDUCATION. The Bishop of OXFORD moved for the production of ,vmy correspondence with the committee of Privy Council UL L Education, or memorials w the committee in which are stated the objections of her Ma jesty's; inspectors to the examination individually of scholars as being impracticable as stated in Mr. Singer's examination. The right reverend prelate took the opportunity of making an explanation relative to the num ber of children educated in the country, which the noble lord the President of th 3 Council had thought was exaggerated. Earl GRANVILLE said there were no such papers in -the possession of the Government. He was perfectly satis fied with the rev. prelate's explanation. Earl STANHOPE asked when the final resolutions of the Government on the minute of education would be placed in 4 tangible form before their lordships. Earl GRANVILLE said he could not mention the re rise time when they would be laid on the table, but he could assure the noble lord that there would be no unnecessary delay. The motion of the right rev. prelate was then withdrawn. POLAND. Lord RUSSELL, in reply to Lord Kianaird, stated that h© had no official information as to the alleged application of torture to Alex. Zamoyski at Warsaw for the purpose of extorting evidence. There were contradictory reports on the subject, and he should hope the one which denied the allegation was the more correct. After a few words from Lord STAA.TP OnD DE REDCLIFFE, Their lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock, PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Dartmouth and Torbay Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. The following bills were considered and ordered for third reading :—Bristol and Exeter and Chard and Taunton Railways—Cromford and High Peak Railway (Lease, &c.)—London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway (Enlargement of Stations, &c.)—North Devon Railway and Dock. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented in favour of the reduc tion of the Duty on Fire Insurances, against the Parochial Assessment Bill, against the Highways Bill, in favour of an alteration of the Poor Laws in Ireland, for the Extension of the Treaty of Vienna so as to include Poland in its pro visions, for and against the Scotch Public-house Act, &o. LIGHT DUTIES. On the motion of Mr. J. EWART, a return was ordered showing the total amount received for light duties in the United Kingdom for the years 1856 to 1861, distinguish ing the sea ships from those engaged in the coasting trade. CAPTAIN COLES' SHOT-PROOF SHIELD. Admiral WALCOTT asked the Secretary to the Admi ralty whether he had any objection to lay upon the table of the house the correspondence which might have arisen be- Lwoca, Oat:l.W Cuwpei Golub, or LllO itoyai Navy, and the Board of Admiralty on the subject of his shot-proof shield, inclusive of the year 1855 up to the present time ; likewise the report made on this subject by the late Admiral Lord Lyons, and also that of Capt. Powell, of the Royal Navy, ordered to be carried out on board of H.M.S. Trusty, Lord C. PAGET said that the correspondence in ques tion contained much that it would not be desirable to make public. With regard to the cupola, the plan was origi nally proposed to the Admiralty in 1855. BURIAL ACT, &c. Mr. BRAMLEY-MOORE moved an address for re turns of all moneys borrowed and rates levied under the public Burial Act in every parish in England and Wales where the act had been applied ; of the number of chapels erected and the quantity of land assigned to the use of the Church of England and to Nonconformist commu nities respectively, and the proportionate cost of pro viding the said chapels and burial grounds in each parish paid out of tho public rates ; of the number of interments annually in the ground assigned to the Church of England and the Nonconformist communities respec tively, and the average cost of interment in the said grounds to the yearly parochial rates ; and of the amount of church rates levied in each of the same parishes during the years the Burial Act has been in operation.—Ordered. AUDIT OF JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES. Mr. O'BRIEN asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure during the present session for an official and effectual audit of the accounts of joint-stock companies? TRANSATLANTIC STEAMERS. Mr. SCULLY asked the President of the Board of Trade, when he expected that the returns as to transat lantic steamers, ordered on the 25th February and' id March last, would be laid before this house? Mr. M. GIBSON said with regard to the first question, that it was not the intention of Government to introduce any measure relating to the audit of joint-stock companies' accounts, and they considered the present system quite suf &fent. In reference to the question of the hon. member (Mr, Scully), the returns alluded to were in progress, and when completed would be laid before the house. Mr. O'BRIEN gave notice that after Easter ho would move for the adoption of a more efficient mode of auditing joint-stock companies. CONVENTION WITH MEXICO. Mr. FITZGERALD asked whether the Govern ment had received official information relative to the convention said to have been entered into at Soledad be tween the Allied Powers and the Government of Mexico ; whether theßritish Force had been or was about to be with drawn from the territories of the Republic ; and whether instructions had been sent out to the British Minister ap proving of the terms of the Convention? Mr. LAYARD said the the Government had received official information of a convention, not between the Go vernments of the Allied Powers, but between the commis sioners of the three Powers and the Government of Mexico. It was true that the British forces had been withdrawn from Mexico, with the exception of 100 men out of the ori ginal force. That remainder had been left for the purpose of carrying on merely the ordinary duty. ller Majesty's Government had approved of the convention, and it was to be hoped that the convention will fulfil the expectations that were entertained of it. CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS IN IRELAND. Col. ISUNNE asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when the returns of convictions at the Curragh Court-house and Petty Sessions in Kildare in Ireland, ordered by the house, w„,,,id be laid u p on th e t a bl e ? t sea Sir It. PEEL said the returns in question were pre on the 28th ult., and were ordered to be printed. , TIM NELSON MONUMENT. On the mo tion tor Koing into committee of suppl Admiral WALC OTT y drew the attention of the Chief Com missioner of the which the ard or Works to the incomplete stat e i n the base o N. -n Monument was still suffered to remain, • PAPER mo xxv Mr. H. BAILL IE moved 413 1 N INDIA. fz., rat of I n di a w ith address f or co py o f th e agre emen t entered into by the : the Bank of o Bengal, fr the issu e Sir C. WOOD said it was not i nt „,,P e r_ money in India. the existing arrangement. to interfere with THE NELSON MONUMENT. Mr. COIVPER, in answer to the hon . and ea mem ber (Admiral Walcott) who ha d brou g ht the sitbrettt M the house, said that an order ha d been given in 1868tofory : Bir E. Lndseur for the completion of th e lions for t he ba se the statue. But ho supposed in this, Gain oth er es they could not always command genius, and perhaps t h' s distinguished artist to whom the work Was entrusted was studying the habits of lions—(laughter)—and he had been seen frequently in the Zoological Gardens. (Renewed laughter.) The consequence was that they might look forward to a work of greater perfection than if it had been executed at the time the order was given. POLAND. Mr, DENMAN called attention to the condition of Po land, and moved for papers in reference thereto, He refer • red to the partition of Poland, and quoted the words of Lord "Inca. a y in reference to th a t p o litical event, in whi c h h e e signated it like tearing a living man limb from limb, lie then went, in detail, through the different steps that had been taken by Ruffin to denationalise Poland sub sequent to the partition, and In violation of the treaty of Vienna ; notwithstanding which I the feeling of nationality in the minds of the people . of Poland was undiminished. In the conference which took place between the great powers of Europe prior to the Treaty of Paris in 1856, Lord Clarendon rec , ived an assur ance on the part of the Emperor of Russia that certain in stitution* would be granted and certain • bings done for Poland, and on the faith of that promise, Lord Clarendon made no further demands in reference to Poland. He thought that the Government must be in pos session of papers relating to what had taken place in refer ence to Poland at that convention, and he thought it was not only due to that unfortunate country, but to this coun try, to have those papers produced, to show that English feeling was in favour of the cause of Poland. He then gave a copious narrative of the more recent transactions at Warsaw, dwelling upon the persecutions experienced by the Poles in 1861, and the petty, irritating orders of the Rus sian authorities, and contended that no real attempt had been made by the Imperial Government to give the Poles the in stitutions they so eagerly desired, though he did not know that the Emperor of Russia was acquainted with the acts at Warsaw done in his name. He justified his appeal to the House of Commons in this matter, and moved for the papers he had referred to. Lord PALMERSTON observed that everybody who had turned bis mind to the history of Poland must feel for the Poles great admiration for their qualities and sympathy for their misfortunes. There was no doubt that the stipulation in the Treaty of Vienna that the Poles should have a con stitution, and national institutions had remained till 1830 a dead letter. In that year the Poles thought they had an op portunity of emancipating themselves; the attempt was successful; they were subdued, and the authority of Russia was restored, The Russian Government thought they were then entitled to abolish the constitution which the• Emperor Alexander had given. But this was not a question between that Government and the Poles ; the engagement was con tracted between Russia and the other Powers of Europe, and the British Government thought they were fairly en titled to remonstrate against the abolition of the constitu tion. Our remonstrance was not attended to; nevertheless, this was a grievance of which the Poles might justly com plain. If the organic statute had been fairly carried out, the condition of the Poles might still have been tolerable. 't fortunately, that was not the case; there was a national antagonism between the Russians and the roles. Recent events were greatly to be lamented ; but ho did not see that that house could be a judge between the two parties. At the same time, it was difficult not to express an opinion, and, as an individual member of the house, he thought the Poles had cause of complaint. It seemed to him, however, that a nation in their circumstances ought to consider the effect of any conduct they might bo ad vised to pursue, The revolt of 1830 was intelligible; but in recent transactions the Poles could not feel that they had any fair prospect of obtaining what they sought. Was it wise, then, to adopt that offensive system of demonstrations described by Mr. Denman ? These were acts which could produce no effect upon the condition of Poland, while they were calculated to irritate the Russian authorities. On the other hand, he must say it was totally unworthy of those authorities to have visited with acts of severity and cruelties which nothing could justify these harmless demonstrations. He hopid, and he believed, that these acts had not been sanctioned or even known by the Emperor of Russia, who had appeared to him a kindhearted and benevolent man. As to the future, the Poles should be advised to look at the so cial changes going on in Russia, which must sooneror later lead to the extension of political privileges to the nation, and he should say to the Poles, " Wait for that." At all events, it was not a matter in which this country could wisely or usefully interfere. He was unable to say whether the papers moved for could be produced. The discussiou was continued by Mr. Hennessy, Sir H. Verney, Mr. M. Mibaes, and Mr. Griffith. Mr. DENMAN withdrew his motion. IRON-PLATED SHIPS AND FORTIFICATIONS, Mr. OSBORNE moved a resolution, "That it is expe dient to suspend the construction of the proposed forts at Spithead until the value of iron-roofed gunboats for the de fence of our ports and roadsteads shall have been fully con sidered." He urged, as an apology for the motion, the great importance of the question and the unsatisfactory nature of the answer from the Treasury bench, Sir G. Lewis having held out no hope that the construction of the forts would be abandoned. He (Mr. Osborne), however, did not ask that the works should be at once abandoned ; his mo tion went only to their suspension until the value of iron-roofed vessels had been tested, which he thought was no excessive demand upon the Government. After a rapid review of the question of national defence, and of the discussions upon the propositions of the Govern ment, he read thedescription of the " peculiarly formidable" forts at Spithead given by the Royal Commissioners, which they at the same time admitted would be totally incapable of stopping the passage by iron-clad steamers, He referred also to the letter of Sir Richard Dundas, who had recom mended that an-immediate outlay of money would be more properly expended upon iron steamships. He complained that, after the large sum expended upon Armstrong guns, the armament of the navy was in an eminently unsatisfac tory condition. He adverted to the action in Hampton linorlo, aria to tho &atm of the Merrimac and the Monitor, the invention of which he claimed for Captain Cowper Coles, whose plan had been submitted to our Government six years ago, and quietly put to bed ; but while we were reflecting the Americans had been acting. He insisted that it would be good economy for the Government to forfeit their con tract for the erection of the forts. The motion was seconded by Sir M. PETO, who deduced from the report of the Royal Commissioners, and the evi dence taken by them, an argument against the utility of the forts for the defence of Portsmouth. He regarded the whole scheme, he said, as a gigantic folly. • Mr. BENTINCK considered that the resolution, though it went in a right direction, did not go far enough, and he proposed to add the following words,:—"And that this house will, on an early day, resolve itself into a committee for the purpose of empowering the Government to apply any por tion of the moneys which have been voted for the construc tion of forts to the construction of iron sheathed vessels." Ho was, however, prevented by the forms of the house from moving the amendment. Lord PALMERSTON said—The subject which has been brought under the consideration of the house by my hon. friend and the hon. gentleman opposite is one the import ance of which it is difficult to exaggerate—(hear, hear)—be cause it involves nothing less than some of the dearest and most vital interests of our common country. (Cheers.) Therefore I trust it is unnecessary for me to say that I accept cordially and frankly the assurances which have been given by those who have made this motion and supported it, that they do so in no party spirit ; that they do not propose this as a party question ; that they do not seek to obtain any momentary party triumph; and that they are actuated by a sincere and patriotic desire that that course should be pursued which is most conducive rapidly and efficiently to provide for the defences which are requisite for the inte reAs of the country. (Cheers.) I can assure the house on the part of the Government that they go into the considera tion of this subject upon precisely the same principles. We should be ashamed of ourselves if we were to be led by pre 'flow opinions, or if, by a desire to adhere strictly to plans and opinions which at a former period have been enter tained, we were to shut our eyes and close our ears against facts and reasonings which are entitled to mature reflection, and which may alter previous opinions or confirm them. Those facts and reasonings deserve, and not only deserve but require, the most calm and deliberate investigation. They are not matters which turn on one accidental event, or on the opinion of this or that man, however distinguished by professional knowledge and merit either in the army or navy These aro questions involving great expenditure and great outlay, and an outlay and expenditure which the Government ought not to undertake without having ascer tained beforehand, as far as experiment can ascertain it, that that which they are about to do, and which they cell upon Parliament to furnish the means of doing, will be really effective for the purpose for which it is intended. lam not surprised that the public in general should have been struck with the encounter in the Arneriean waters, not having turned their minds attentively to the question as to the degree to which iron plating is proof against cannon shot, and the extent to which experiments have been made. lam not surprised that the public at large ,should have their eyes opened, and their minds struck, by the conclusions naturally derived from the event which has taken place. But I can assure the house, although it may be unnecessary to do so after the statements and explanations made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, that these matters have occupied the anxious attention of the Government for a great length of time. (Hear.) Experiments have been made in order to test questions of great importance with a view to the con • elusions at which we could safel3 arrive. Take one instance, which has been adverted to by one of my hon. friends—the relative value of rifled cannon and smooth-bored cannon in attacking iron plating. The impression originally was that rifled cannon would be more destructive. But, on the con trary, it is found by careful experiments that within those short distances at which ships are likely to engage the smooth-bored gun is more effective than the rifled gun. When you come i,o think of it, it is natural that it should be so, because a smooth-bored gun sends out a ball with much greater initial velocity than a rifled gun. The shot from a rifled gun, being longer than that from a smooth bored gun, and meeting with loss resistance, though it goes further and straighter, preserves its velocity longer, and at a distance is more effective. But the solid sphere—the solid ball coming out of a smooth-bored gun, starting with greater initial velocity, does not get that velocity died. nished within a certain limit of distance, and, the momen tum being a compound of velocity and weight, strikes with greatert momentum within 300 or 400 yards than the rifled ca yog h eersa That is one instance in which experiments vio I 'Y made h ave a lt ere d t h e op i nion wh i c h was pu lls Y entertained the ns ' - ' - ' w er of the • and very mice, the 1 (Hoar,) Well, then, with respect to arm our to resist shot. That has been tried, of the W arr i c , , a n t lY tried, on a target representing the sides yards, or less-2 00 a \ '''''y short distance—some 300 or 400 t h,t the largest ohoLatwds, indeed—and it has been found not succeeded in piercing' naturally led the Government, f conclusion to which the publi c oi T , by a knowledge of what took placelsd a t t i . : e now in the habit of using have some time past to that has ul suddenly arrived uur, it n w t ate niy Bat that vliich happened th cr e e t,i a l h e g see s;; Pecriielnanen : h o ary: lesson in ono way, is also a warning in another ; bee, ,L, E. THE SUrii, LONDON, si ADAY EVU;NING, APRIL. 5, 1362. shows us what armour will do, but what kind of vessel will not do. (Hear.) In the first place, with respect to the power of that American armour to resist shot, I should say that the great part of the shots fired in the recent engage- moot were hollow shots; and it is well-known that hollow shots will not make that impression on armour which solid shots are enabled to produce. On the other hand, though the Monitor and Merrimac were welt enough adapted for the smooth water in which they had to act, yet those who happened to look at the report which was published as coming from America, would see that the crews of those ships were very nearly suffocated, because, being very low in the water and confined below, they had not sufficient air, when the action began ; and, moreover, the decks were so near the water's edge that, in the case of Ericsson's vessel, the sea, in roughish weather, got over and came down the funnel, so that there was a chance of all going to the bottom. (Hear.) Therefore, it will not do to take these vessels as your model, and when the house is told that they cost com paratively but a small sum, and were completed in a short space of time, I must say that it is not ground sufficient for us to go on with respect to the ships we may construct. (Hear.) My hon. friend the member for Liskeard went through a list of improvements which have taken place in implements of war. He told us about the crossbows, the matchlocks, the flint locks, the percussion locks, the Brown Bess, and the Enfield rifles. No doubt, human ingenuity and the progress of science from time to time make great changes in the implements of destruciion. So for .a long time we were content with sailing ships. Not many years ' ago it was found that a sailing ship was no match for a ship propelled by steam, and then the right hon. baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington) began, with great credit to himself, what he announced as " the reconstruction of the navy"—namely, the substitution of ships pro pelled by steam for sailing vessels. That was a great improvement at the time. (Hear, hear.) Since then other nations have covered their ships with iron sides. We have not failed to follow their exam ple. The Admiralty is busily engaged in doing so. The right hon. baronet led the way by ordering that very splen did ship, the Warrior. On that model the Black Prince was also made, and these are seagoing vessels, which those floating batteries are not. In addition to these, my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has ordered others, and in the course of this year there will be four iron ships afloat and tit for sea. In the course ,s the .eat, year two other iron ships will be afloat and fit fur sea; and by the end of this year, I believe five wooden ships will be plated with iron and fit for sea, and the Achilles, a large ship, is to be built next year. Besides all this, four other iron ships aro ordered, and are in progress of construction, and ten ders are sent out for the construction of a shipon the cupola system, which I believe will turn out most effeetual for coast purposes. (Hear.) Whether it can be made capable of going to sea is another thing, but for all purposes of coast defence we are of opinion that the construction of that ves sel will turn out most effectual. (Hear.) The experiments made on these cupolas are perfectly successful. They have turned out proof against any shot fired against them, and I have no doubt that a ship so constructed will prove to be of the greatest possible value. (Hear.) These things show that the Admiralty is not inattentive to the matter, but has been actively engaged in the work, as far as the means af forded by Parliament permitted, and has already realised some means of defence of this kind ; and other means are preparing which will provide us in the year 1864 with 16 iron ships, of different sizes, but all of a very respectable and formidable character. (Hear.) Then comes the question whether, with respect to the defence of Portsmouth and the anchorage at Spithead, forts or iron vessels are the best. Much has been said in disparagement of the re port of the Defence Commission, but gentlemen seem to forget that the recommendation of that commission was that both forts and floating batteries should be constructed, and that £1,000,000 should be allotted to the construction of floating defences. We felt, in considering the question of the expenditure of several millions of money for the purpose of creating defences for oar chief ports and dockyards, which I humbly think are of great importance, that we were justified, inasmuch as the fixed defences were perma nent works, which would last for a groat many years to come, in dealing with them as improvements of the freehold, and in charging the expense on the freehold for a certain number of years, by means of a loan, or terminable annuities for a limited period of time. We doubted, however, whe ther we should be justified in applying the same principle to floating defences, inasmuch as, however constructed, they cannot be considered as equally durable and permanent with fixed forts. Therefore we omitted to recommend to Parliament to provide for the construction of the floating defences out of a loan, and left them to be provided for out of annual votes. It appears now that it is the opinion of the house that no time ought to be lost in multiplying these floating defences. (Hear, hear.) If we were to follow the advice of the hon. member who has just sat down, and to provide for all commercial ports ships on Captain- Coles's principle, the expense certainly might be very consider able; but probably the hon. member would be content with such a number as would be sufficient for the defence of our dockyards and most valuable ports. Some gentle men have said that it is nonsense to think of fortify ing the coasts to prevent invasion. No one ever dreamt of that, It is obviously impossible. It is said that if you erect forts the enemy would not come near them. but would land elsewhere ; and- that you cannot fortify the coast so as to prevent a landing. Well, all you can do is to take certain valuable points of the utmost im portance, such as the dockyards, and leave the rest to be protected by the army on land, and by the navy. Ridicule has been attached to the Martello towers. I do not believe that they deserve any ridicule of the kind at tempted to be thrown on them. Taking ships as they were when those towers were built, and the modes of warfare then pursued, I am inclined to think that the Martello towers constituted a respectable means of defence. They have now gone by, like Brown Bess and other things, and now the chief use of those towers is to test the power of guns to destroy. One of them has proved a very useful target, and has been employed to the relative value of pro jectiles of different kinds. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) Therefore, the real question, which the House is now con sidering whether it is desirable to suspend for a time, and until a more serious decision can be arrived at upon fuller information, the construction of the forts at Spit head, for the purpose of applying, in the meanwhile, to the construction of iron ships, that amount of money, which otherwise would bo spent on the forts. (Hear, hear.) Well, I do not mean to deny that there is a great deal of plausibility in that recommendation, nor do I at all mean to say that the Government aro indisposed to adopt that course. (Cheers.) The contracts for these forts, as already stated by my hon. friend the member for Liskeard, ' are not contracts for completing the forts. They are contracts for - the foundations up to the level of low or high water as it may be. Indeed, the Government have not yet made up their minds as to what would be the best construction of forts to be built on these foundations. It was thought at one time that a certain thickness of iron-10 inches—would be suffi cient. It was found by experiment that that would not do, and that further power of resistance would be necessary. So far, therefore, from the Government having entered into a contract for the erection of these forts, they have not as 3 et been enabled accurately to ascertain what would bo the best description of fort to be constructed. The contract simply relates to the foundations, and undoubtedly, if the house t thought some delay would be advisable in regard to proceed ing with those foundations—there is only one quarter in Which a largo amount of work is already laid down—that opinion might be acted on; but you would, of course, under those circumstances, have to make amends to the contractor for the loss of time, for the discharge of wbrkmen with whom he may have entered into engagements, and also for the materials provided. (Hear, hear.) Some expense would therefore be entailed by such a course of proceeding, but it might be prudent to incur that expense fora time, until this question can be more fully, deliberately, and calmly consi dered. (Hear, hear.) The state of the matter at present is this :—I proposed to the house the year before last a bill to enable the Government to raise £2,000,000 for the pur pose of erecting dockyard fortifications at Portsmouth and ' Dover. This was a sum, as it were, on account for the pur. pose of beginning and carrying on to a certain extent, as far aS could be effected in the course of that year, the different works specified in the Estimate laid before Parliament. Moro time was found to bo necessary than was then ima gined for the purpose of making accurate drawings and arranging the purchase of land, and, though I am speaking of what took place nearly two years ago, the £2,000,000 which I have mentioned will not be payable for work done until about June or July next. It will, however, be payable at that time for works sanctioned by Parliament, and under taken in consequence of that sanction. Well, it would be our duty in the course of the present session to apply to Parlia ment for further powers to issue terminable annuities to con tinue those works, among which would naturally be the forts proposed to be erected at Spithead. It would, however, be perfectly in order—and, if the house wishes it, there would be no difficulty on the part of the Government— to take this course :—My right hon. friend the Secretary for War has already instructed tho Defence Commission to examine the question as to the utility of those forts, as com pared with floating defences, and as combined with those defences, and has asked them to send in a report on the sub ject, That report will be in the hands of the Government, in all probability, before the lapse of any great length of time. No great expense would perhaps be incurred by desiring the contractor to suspend for a couple of months— say the works in connexion with those foundations which he has laid. When that time has expired we should have to submit to Parliament a bill for the further issue of those terminable annuities, and then it would be for Parliament to decide whether, with the information which they would have before them, they would think fit wholly to discontinue those forts, or to suspend for a longer period their construe tion,a or and of n p dt ti o what extent they would think it d es i ra bl e t o de voteo n floatingof t the batteries e terminable f aannuities the purpose to of u the r apid a r con struction coast defence. That floating defences can be constructed more rapidly than forts there is no doubt, and there is, perhaps, as little doubt that so long as those floating defences were not sent elsewhere—so long as they were available, and had they would, in all probability b e th e ir machinery in or d er, as effectual, for the purpo se o f w hi c h I am speaking., as forts. There is, however, this consideration to be borne in mind with regard to the relative power of forts and iron cased ships. A limit is set to the weight of armour and the weight of guns in the ease of a ship which has to float. The whole weight of a ship's armour and guns included must not be greater than the weight of thewater which she dis places. If it were greater the ship w)uld go dowu. Now, the national debt for the construction of iron-cased ships, and he should oppose the amendment. The house divided upon Mr. Bentinck's amendment in its altered fcrro— Ayes Noes l3 Majority —6l Tho lotion as amended was then agreed to. SUPPLY. The report was brought up and agreed to. Tho other orders wore then disposed of, and the house adjourned at 25 minutes to 2 o'clock. iMPONNISMOINIMMIM-40Mhus,„ ASSIZE IN T_ELLIGEIIV CE. HOME CIRCUIT.—KINGSTON, APRIL 4. CIVIL COURT. (Before the Lord Chief Justice Erie and Special Juries.) WALROND V. LONG AND ANOTHER. This was an action against the printer and pub lisher of the Morning Post newspaper for a libel, the nature of which and of the case generally will be best understood by the simple statement of the case as it arose. The defendants pleaded only "Not Guilty," not justifying the alleged libel. Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Holl were for the plaintif f ; Mr. Lush, QC., and Mr. Hannen were for the defendants. On the 3d of January there appeared in the Post, under the head of the " Westminster Police Court," the following report, which it was admitted was a fair report "Mr. Arnold was occupied the whole of the afternoon in the hearing of a case in which Miss Walrond, the daughter of Lady Janet Walrond, was charged, on a summons, with the illegal detention of a valuable terrier dog, by, Miss Caroline Norton (niece of the Hon. George Norton), whose case was conducted by Mr. Gadsden, barrister. " Mr. Gadsden having opened the case, as afterwards proved in evidence, " Mr. Arnold, both at this and a still further stage of the proceedings, when it became obvious that there would be a conflict onestimony as to whether the dog was a gift, urged that the matter should be placed in the hands of a mutual friend to determine, instead of being pressed before him. "- had evidently been on terms of intimacy, and the whole case wouici, in an proem:am - 7, nave to ri r ena upon the memory of the ladies who claimed the dog; and he thought that if they named any gentleman with whom they were both acquainted, and were bound by his decision, a most satisfactory result could be arrived at. Some con versation took place between the parties, but, as it was found the case could not be arranged, it went on." [The report then stated the contradictory evi dence on both sides, and ended thus :—] " Mr. Gadsden said he did not far a moment wish to im pute anything like perjury for the defence, but he thought the ladies acte under a misapprehension of what had oc curred. _ _ " Mr. Arnold said that after such circumstantial evidence as ho had just heard from Lady Walrond and her daughter it was quite impossible there could be any misapprehension on their parts. They agreed with the complainant that the dog was at first left with them, and next positively proved that the dog was afterwards given to Miss Walrond by Miss Norton, who appeared to have entirely forgotten that fact. The summons was accordingly dismissed." The Miss Walrond here mentioned was the plain tiff in this action. In Punch of the llth'of Tanuary appeared some -humorous verses on the case, headed " "Irma Canemque." And in the Post of the 16th appeared the following, headed " Spinsters and their Idols," which was the first libel sued for. It was in the form of a letter to the editor of the Morning Post. (We omit immaterial passages) : " Sir, —A case was decided on Thursday which really de serves attention, however ridiculous may seem the conduct of the principal parties concerned. A dispute arose between two ' ladies of quality' as to the possession of one of those canine favourites who may be justly termed the ' spinsters' idols,' and are often (failing a human admirer of the male sex) beloved with quite as intense a passion, and striven for with as eager a rivalry as the favoured two legged mortal. . . A tall spinster taking a fancy to a wee spinster's dog, driving constantly in the weo spinster's carriage, and pouring flatteries into the wee young spin ster's ears, at length became possessed of the much coveted little animal, it having been confided to her care during the temporary absence of his mistress. The wee young spin ster, on her return, demanded her dog. The tall spinster refused to give it up. The weo young spinster wrote sev - ral notes and made several attempts to obtain admittance to the presence of the dog and his detainer, but the tall spin ster, keeping watch from an upper window, . . kept the wee young spinster on the safe side of the door. The wee young spinster, irritated at the detention of her pro perty, . . actually summoned her quondam friend to show cause why she refused to return their mutual idol. The tall spinster, accompanied by her mother, obeyed the summons, and appeared in court, swearing that the wee young spinster had given the dog; that she had, in fact, presented it with a formula strongly savouring of the mar riage ceremony, to wit, ' I, Caroline, give you, Harriet, this dog.' The wee young spinster earnestly denied both the speech and the gift, and still clamoured for the idol. The other spinster persisted in her version of thelltory. Tho dog, neither better nor worse than his fellows, remained ab solutely dumb. The magistrate, more puzzlechthan Solo mon when he decided on the experimental order of slicing in two a living object of dispute, dismissed the summons, on the doubt that the young spinster might have given the dog and forgotten it. Now, although this supposition is in the teeth of evidence proffered by the butler of the tall spinster. to the effect that he had been ordered to watch over the safe keeping of the disputed favourite, and prevent its being reclaimed—in fact, to keep the dog in seclusion, like a gentleman who fears a sheriff's officer may tap him on the shoulder as ho sallies out—yet it is not to the rights or wrongs of these ladies I particularly wish to call attention in this letter. If they like to pull caps for the spinsters' idol, let them; but I wish to know why a different measure of justice is meted out to poor and rich, to ladies of quality and persons in fustian jackets. A short time ago a remarkable decision was made. A man, suspected to be a d ogstealer,was seen walk ing in Regent's Park, followed by a remarkably handsome Maltese spaniel. A constable inquired how he became pos sessed of it. The man's reply was that he knew nothing about the dog. The constable listened with incredulity, acted with prompt energy, took the sauntering promenader before the magistrate, and although it was not proved who the dog belonged to, or that it was stolen at all, the fustian jacket was sent to prison for six months, and I presume is in prison now. Now the question is, could that man have satisfied the magistrate by affirming that a lady had given him the Maltese treasure; that, with a solemn formula she had made it his property, saying, Louisa Brown, give you, John Snooks, this dog'—would such a statement have quieted the magisterial doubts, and, if not, why not P The parties in the case decided on Thursday are a niece of the Hon. G. C. Norton, plaintiff (the wee young spinster) and the daughter of Lady Janet Walrond, of Dulford-house, Devon, a defendant already known on a former occasion. I will not ask your readers to consider whether, even sup posing the spinsters' idol to have been really given, and then reclaimed, the merest schoolgirl would not have re turned the animal to her capricious schoolmate instead of affording the absurd spectacle of a public brawl as this ma turer dog-fancier has done ? I leave those ladies entirely out of the pale of inquiry, and I merely repeat the question is the man in the fustian jacket still in prison because a nameless Maltese spaniel ran sniffing at his suspected heels, and could he have cleared himself by any such explanation as has decided this case in fashionable life ? . . . The amount of grief this dog has caused is probably to him a matter of indifference, as, indeed, it is to me; but the ad ministration of justice, even in small particulars, can never be a matter of indifference; and, meanwhile, it is a pity some author does not write a book on dog worship, in imitation of Carlyle's ' Hero Worship,' for it is a very curi ous phase of the human intellect. "A LOOKER ON." The plaintifrs'attorneys hereupon wrote to the edi tor of the cost a letter, in which they characterised the above as "A gross and vindictive libel upon our client, Miss Wal rond, not only seeking to hold her up to public condemna tion, by giving an intentionally untruthful report of the circumstances of the ease, of the evidence adduced upon the hearing of the summons taken out by Miss Norton, and of the magistrate's judgment, and most unwarrantably imputing to Miss Walrond perjury and dishonesty, but also seeking to make her a mark for public ridicule ;" and they demanded the name and address of the author. Upon this the editor of the Morning Post published the following paragraph, which also was complained of as a libel, and formed the subject of the second count in this action. The paragraph, which was in conspicuous type and position, ran thus:-- " 'Norton v. Walrond:—This ease, in which a claim for the extradition of a dog seems to cause in the hearts of two young ladies a fiercer passion and a more certain war than a like demand for two bipeds has raised between Britannia and Columbia, has not been consigned to the oblivion which we think it deserved. It has brought down on our heads an ultimatum from a legal firm, who require from us the name and address of the author of a letter headed ' Spinsters and their Idols,' which was inserted in the Morning Post' of the 7th inst." and characterise it as a gross and vindictive libel upon their client (quoting the letter of the attor neys as above) : , 4 Now, it is not the custom of respectable journals to give up the names which are communicated to them in con fidence, and we shall, therefore, not depart from the este • blished rule. In the next place, we cannot for one moment admit that the letter in question deserves the severe terms applied to it. 'We gave it insertion as a clever and banter ing comment on what everybody regarded as a very absurd proceeding. Nothing could be further from our intention than to permit the publication of anything approaching to a libel on either of the young ladies concerned. Indeed, so careful have we been upon this point that we declined to insert a letter from James Brightwell, a witness in the case, who wished to correct the evidence he had given, and who made furth er serious allegations against Miss Val rend. We refused to give his letter, on the ground that a court of justice was the proper place for his statement, and not our columns. In another instance we abstained from printing a letter from J. G.,' assigning as our reason that wo could not be responsible for publishing statements of so personal a character against the client of the firm who have addressed us, unless the author chose to authenticate them by allowing us to give his name to the public. Hav ing thus proved our good faith and freedom from ill inten tion in the matter, we repeat that we lo oked u p o n the letter Spinsters and their Idols,' as possessing only an amusing character such as might bo attributed, for instance, to the witty ballad, Arma Oane r aque,' which appeared on thi s very subject i n l as t week's _Punch, and we consid ere d i t, therefore, fairly entitled to the publicity it sought," Upon this the present action was brought. Mr. M. Chambers, in opening th e case f or t h e plaintiff, admitted that the report was fair, but urged that the letter was net a fair comment on the report, and dwelt very much upon the phrase "ma tured dog f a ncier" applied to th e plaintiff, and in sisted that the scope of the letter of " A Looker. on" was to impute to his client that she was a dog stealer, lie had no doubt tiure were gentlemen of the highest honour and character connected w ith the .111 w-fling Post, and he thought it was a pity they hid not inserted some amen*. Evert at the I there is no such limit to the weight of guns or means of de- fence which you can employ in the me of forts, because it is obvious you may have in connaxionwith a fort any thick- ness of rampart or bastion you plea, and any weight of guns you can work. But it is said tlat it would take seve ral thousand trained artillerymen to nan these forth. Now, I feel assured my hon. and gallant friend (Sir F. Smith) will not back that assertion, because it is well known that the working of the guns in batteries i 3 to a great extentper formed by what are termed handspike-men, and two trained artillerymen to a gun are quite sufficient. It is not true, therefore, that the whole number of men required to work a gun should be necessarily trained artillerymen, or that men taken from our dockyards and mlitia—men not skilled in the science of artillery practice—could not discharge many of the duties which would be required. In the first place, therefore, the number of trained artillerymen which we should want to man our forts \Quid not be so great as is represented ; and, in the next place, I am convinced that the improvements in guns will keep full pace with the improvements in armour-plates. I am told that the French have already constructed a gun which has pierced their armour-plates. Their iron is, perhaps, not so good as ours ; but they boast that they have a gun which will penetrate armour-plates. I hive no doubt we shall have a gun of the same sort, and itis clear, in my opinion' that, with a view to permanent defence, a combined fixed and floating defence is that which would most completely answer the purpose which we have in view. There is at the same time no doubt that time is a great element in this matter, and that if you can get your floating defences rapidly you had better do that than wait for a long time for your land defences. (Hear, hear.) It ought, however, to form a question for careful consideration whether you should only postpone or abandon these permanent defences, which would, I believe be found to be of great value, espe cially in connexion with floating defences. This, then, is the state of the case. Wo are quite willing to accept the disposition which I think seems to prevail in the house— (cheers)—and to facilitate the more rapid organisation of floating defences. (Hear, hear.) A question arises in con nexion with this subject—the relative advantages of ships built entirely of iron, like the Warrior, with only wood in terposed between two iron skins, and ships such as the five now being constructed, wooden " hips si mply uazuu witu. iron, which admits of two opinions. Each has its advan tages. There is no doubt that a ship with iron ribs, and an iron skin with teak beyond it, and iron plating on the teak, is a much better sea boat than a wooden veseel, be cause the iron ribs will not give way to the same extent as wooden ribs when exposed to the agitation of the sea. Upon the other hand, iron bottoms are liable to get foul, and hitherto no method of securing them from becoming so has been discovered; whereas - wooden vessels may be coppered below the water -line, and would not stand in need of the cleansing which iron-bottomed ships would require. It must also bo borne in mind that line-of-battle ships, such as those now existing, can be more rapidly converted into iron-cased ships than you can build iron ships from the beginning. We have a great many three-deckers and two-deckers of wood which I quite admit aro not competent to meet in action iron ships. It would seem therefore to be the most economical arrangement to convert more of them into iron-cased ships, and that could be done more rapidly than you could construct a vessel like the Warrior or Achilles made entirely of iron. One great change in naval warfare has not, I may add, been adverted to much in the course of this discussion. I allude to the in troduction of large guns sending hollow shot and shells. It is quite clear, as was proved by the fire of the Merrimac on the Cumberland and afterwards on the Congress, that shells sent into wooden ships are most destructive. Now, one great advantage of iron casing is that shells, at all events, will not penetrate it, though solid shot will, and we all know that a shell bursting between decks, as in the case of the Congress, is a missile of a very formidable character. But, be that as it may, what we propose is that, my right hon. friend having already instructed the Defence Commissioners to reconsider their former report, and to state again what, with all the knowledge acquired by the events which hap pened the other day in America, they consider the most effectual method of providing for the defence of the country, we should give notice to the contractors to suspend for the present future works. It would also propose that soon after the recesss we should bring the matter again under the con sideration of the house, lay the whole thing before them, and ask them to say what they think, on the whole, would be the best course to pursue—whether we should include in the terminable annuities a sum for the more rapid and more extensive creation of armour-cased vessels for defensive pur vacs, and whether we should on that account, for the pre sent, at all events, suspend any further operations upon the Spithead forts. (Cheers.) That would be a matter which the house would have under their full consideration. Our only wish, as I am sure it is the wish of the house, is to do that which is best for the public interest. (Cheers.) We have no personal feeling, we have no official feeling, we have no party feeling in the matter. (Cheers.) There can be but one common object among us all, and that object is far too important to be rashly and hastily decided. (Hear, hear.) It requires to be fully and fairly considered, and we are quite ready to go with the house, after the recess, into that full, fair, and calm consideration. (Loud cheers.) Sir J. PAKINGTON complimented Lord Palmerston on having exercised a wise discretion isi uwcUing to tite motion of the hon. member for Liskeard. Mr. LINDSAY objected to referring the question again to the defence commission, who could only be expected to report as they had done before. Sir M. PETO inquired if it was the intention of the Go vernment to discontinue the building of wooden vessela,and transfer the labour hitherto devoted to them to the conver sion of wooden vessels into iron. Lord C. PAGET—I should not have thought it necessary to say anything on this occasion, for I think the house is perfectly prepared to listen to the proposal of my noble friend at the head of the Government—namely, that after the re cess this subject shall be fully and fairly discussed, and that Government shall be prepared with a proposal. (Hear.) My object in rising is to call attention to a statement by my right hon. friend the member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pak ington), that the Government had altogether neglected that part of the recommendation of the Royal Commission which had reference to the floating batteries. My right hon.friend must have forgotten that principally in consequence of the strong recommendation made by the commission in regard to floating batteries, with a view to assist the forts at Spit head and other places, the Government thought it right to convert the frames of five line-of hsttle ships into iron cased ships to be plated as floating defences. The only distinction I know between the proposal of the commission and that carried out by the Government is that, instead of taking a part of the vote of credit for those ships, the Government thought it better to include them in the ordinary estimates for the year. I will only add this, that in deference to the opinion of the house upon that most important matter, which. is growing every day in importance, namely, the question of the defence of our coasts, the Admiralty have taken still further steps to augment our fleet of iron-plated ships without increasing the ordinary estimates of the year. (Hear, hear.) I may tell the house that we have ordered a considerable number of the men who were to be employed in building small vessels to undertake the work of cutting down one or more of our large line-of-battle ships. A tree-decker is about to be cut down. She will be either fitted upoet Captain Colea's cupola plan, or, at all events, the will be plated.: Mr. OSBORNE—For harbour defence ? Lord C. PAGET—For Channel defence. Our line-of battle ships arc very superior to this Monitor or Merrimac, and they will be fit, not only for harbour defence, but for taking their part anywhere on the coast of England. Not only that, but we have under consideration the cutting down of more line-of-battle ships. A; this inothent, if we chose—if it were necessary—we have 20 line-of battle ships that we believe would make very effieent plated ships for the defence of our coasts. It is said that the Americans in the course of a few mut* plated this Monitor, and we in this country are behindWd ; Lut supposing we were at war to-morrow, do you suppose we could not put forward our energies and create Monitors .)y the dozen in a few months? (Hear, hear.) We have given large estimates, and I believe in these estimates we are gradually preparing and adapting our fleet to the wants of the day. The hon. gentleman the member for Sunderland alks of timber ships. Now, I think there is a great conusion among the public in re gard to this question of wooden and iron ships. It is thought that because thee iron-plated ships are imper vious to shot, the whole navy should be built of iron. i But nothing is more vularable than an iron ship, unless it be iron-plated. Small fret ships, with merely an iron skin, such as the Himalaya, andsessels in the merchant navy, aro the most vulnerable of all. If a shot strikes them it splin ters the iron, and is fatal o the crew on board. For that reason and others, it is ver undesirable that we should give up building :small woodervessels for the protection of our commerce. If the housoshould deem it necessary that a larger sum shouldbe appepriated to the navy, all I can say is, that no opposition wil be offered by the Admiralty. Sir. J. PAKINGTOI asked what draught of water those vessels would drav? Lord C. PAGET—M belief is that they will draw about 26 feet. Sir M. PETO asked thether it was the intention of the Government to discontiue the building of wooden vessels altogether. Lord C. PAGET—T a very great extent, There will be scarcely any building °wooden vessels at all. Sir. F. SMITH con4Atulated the Government upon the determination they lit arrived at, but Mr. LINDSAY doubted the propriety (referring the subject to the Defence Commission. After some further °bate, in which Mr. Crossley, Mr.' Monsen, Lord V. Tertest, Sir J. Elphinstone, Sir J. Hay, and other hon. merolm s took part. the motion for going into committee of supply Nis put and negatived, and Mr. Os borne's motion becam the original question. Mr. BENTINCK th l moved his addendum, which was opposed by Sir G . T, L eas, ' on the ground that no portion of, the money already "r(ed for fortifications was loft to benp-, propriated to the bulling of iron-cased ships, or any other purpose. With a view to m e t this objection, Mr. BENTINCK. altered his amendmet by he insert'on of the words, " not already expended o4pproipriatcd." Lord PAL bIERSION said that the amendment as altered would not pledge th house to any decided action. Mr. CROSSlantjAought it would entail an addition to i dir5....,--I,—. ..._ . ----------- i------ vK a '. importent with a view to resp present moment he was Willing to accept it ; but if , fondant would bc it was refused, of course the case must go on. as each of them might be . ' „costs of the prosecution 1£ onsib ty ble tor fer c( ) t s b ts e , , Chief Justice Erle, looking at the eon for the severally . e v were found guelty, defendants, asked if the 'else could not he erranged. 1 eh „ 1 The necessary formal r •oof having been givee, Nix. Lush said that his clienes could say no mein Mr. Be•vill, i n erese _ ext e ruination, elicited that than they had already said—that they never meant -e had been a petition froa n the p arish si g ned b y to make any imputation upon the la d y , and that the thei • , ins in favour of the' tramway. letter was mere humorous comment and banter 11,500 'erst•objected e hers that this could not be upon 'a report which was admitted to be fair. Mr. bit' \i'a i- e a v peiateort had been. regularly proved. Chief Justice Erie observed, that it was q uite in- stated until theren pen produced the petition (a, telligible to any lawyer what the counsel for the Mr. Bovill . te h it.: desired to know it he should in plaintiff wanted. hu g e docnera o: , e,e re ad. (Laughter.) [lt was understood to mean an apology an d ha ve all the nan. e adetired proper proof of the peti nominal damages.] Mr, Chambers e ne e l friend proposed to make any Mr. Lush could say no more than he had done. tion, and if bis lea. t i t in evidence. The case then went on. use of it he must pu , , s, let it lie on the table. An attorney's clerk was called to prove the pub - Mr. Bovill—At all eevent ' lication of the alleged libels ; and this was the case (Groat laughter.) it there had not been a peti for the plaintiff. Mr. Chambers asked Mr. Lush, in cross-examination, elicited that the tion against the scheme., ha 'I been two, and he pro- Plaintiff, Miss Walrond, was not in court, and was The witnese said theres et of paper, which he about to ask some oth er q uestions of the witness, doted a wrotcheci - lo okin g she when said was one of thorn. up, amid roars o Mr. Chambers objected that the witness could Mr. Bovill therepon hole it f r evevict.y entl in favour of only know anything as the attorne y for his client, derisive laughter an u d. chee .t , and the communications were confidential. the defendants; of wPieh Mr. Chambers, in summing up the case for the Mr. Chambers complained; and plaintiff, pressed that the letter did not h manifee give a fair The Lord Chief Juetico el sire that stee , version of the report, in regard especially to the tations of feeling on one side or the other should be magistrate's decision, which he said was in favour repressed, as unsuitedited that' to a court of justicewas another of his client. Mr. Chambers elic the ee Mr Lush then addressed the jury en behalf of the petition, signed by 400 persons, awe inst t ,he seheme. defendants, and ridiculed the idea that the alleged Witnesses were then ,ealled on be. half of the pro nway, and the libel was likely to do the lady any real injury. His secution as to the nature.- of the trete clients had fromthe first declared that theyi had no objections made against iht, as interfee Sing with the The traffic and causing danger to the public; design to make any imputation upon her. scope of the letter, they had published was to cal. Mr. Bovill, however, elicited from the first of the attention to a case they deemed worth noticing ; nilitnsses that the carriage s were extremely pas and if it was a ridiculous case it was the fault of the foe to ride in, and had Advantages for the the ladies in bringing it forward. Both the ladies were sengers therein. This was not disputed,. ut r question in the cause was whethertboe commented upon, and there was no imputation on subetaddial caused danger or difficulty to the moral character of either. There was nothing not the t`Yamw a Y Cc of the public. On tnis question a vas t more than mere humorous banter, which could do general tie,' eitnesses on both sides were in att end _ no harm to either of them, which had not already number of w been done by their appearing before the public in ante to be exa.'nL'led• 6 ,tated by the witnesses on be half such a case. It was admitted that the rep ort was The ob j ectionLl N cere—that it was not possible to, fair, and therefore no action could be maintained of the prosecution fin.- it. The comments upon it were equally fair, keep the flanges levc-o: with the road ;that the stone and so far from the ODieeL tieing to make any part wag worn awa,vo while the iron flanges re imputation upon the plaintiff, the scope of the mained; that thus the pat of the road would ba letter was the very reverse. It was argued interfered with, and tha i would not be safe for that the magistrate in the former case was traffic, the level of the sur e a , ce constantly varying; wrong in holding that there had been any dog- and the action of wheels pa „ e l ig from the iron flanges stealing, and the fair inference was that the magic- off on the lower ?nd softer .materials, tending to trate would have been wrong in so holding in the make deeper cuts and ruts in' the road, and thus case of the plaintiff. There was nothing libellous, wear it more away. and, even if there was, there was no real damage. Mr. Greig, Clerk of the Peace' for the County of Chief Justice Erle, in summing up the ease to the Suitrey,,the prosecutor, was one oft he first witnesses jury, said that they were to determine the question called. He lead he prosecuted not an his public but whether the letter was a libel, and he was bound in his private capacity. The tramway, ran along the to tell them that a publication might be libellous, front of Surrey-lodge, the official res idence of the the although it imputed no moral offence or miscon - C lerk of the Peace. There were 16 ft between duct, if it tended to bring the plaintif f into ridicule edge of the road (on his side of it) and. thie tramway. and contempt, and make her position in society less Driving from Westminster -bridge, on his proper pleasant and comfortable. The lady probably occu- etdo, he almost always found it necessary to go on pied a certain position in circles of society in which the tramway, and his wheels clung to the laangese the Morning Post was supposed to have a consi - so that it was difficult to get off; going in the o ther derable circulation, and which, to her, might be the direction, towards London.bridge, he crossed the world, just as to mercantile men, who never moved tramway at right angles, and he always suffered much in drawing-rooms, the City or the Exchange from severe wren ches. He had not had any acei might be the world, and the question was whether dents himself, but e he had seen traces of accidents. these publications tended to lower her position in He had seen cabs, &ie.-, damaged with their wheels such society, or make her position uncomfortable. off, on the sides of the tramway. The whole letter was conceived a little in the spirit Mr. Bovill objected to this. How did they come in which ladies might be supposed to write of one there? another. (Laughter.) The tone throughout was The Lord Chief Justice aselted if the witness had [ rather against the plaintiff, who was spoken of as seen the accidents occeur. ' the " tall" spinster, whereas her opponent was called The witness said no ; nor ce itild he state ties t [ the " young" spinster—(laughter)—a very marked they had arisen from the tramW El )" .• distinction, made still more invidious by the phrase His lordship said he cou ld not ta.:e the evido slip ence " failing human admirers of the male sex." (Great The w itness stated be had known ho laughter.) The scope of the letter seemed, more- on the tramway. over, to be dissatisfaction with the magistrate's Mr. Bov i ll —Have y ou seen them ? decision in favour of the plaintiff, and showed a dis- The witness said he had heard th n slip e the hor..see' feet position to suggest that it ought to have been slip while in h is carriage, and had felt against her. It was contrasted with the decision and; become r estiff. The witness went on to ail in the other case, and the argument appeared to be that he considered the tramway "at times clang& that, as the man had been convicted in the former rous and always inconvenient," to the general traffiee case, she ought to have been convicted in this. Cross-examined by Mr. Bovill—The witness said Then there was the phrase "dog fancier," and, if he considered the chief source of danger was the' the scope of the letter was to hold the plaintiff clinging of the wheels to the flanges. Asked if up to ridicule, it did not matter whether or not ever knew the wheels cling to the iron gutters et there was any charge of dishonesty or perjury. No the sides of the city streets, he said he was 1 1 1 doubt it was important to maintain the liberty of forced always to go into the gutters ; he had folly" the press. But all the members of society had no danger from them. As to th,e horses being rem e their rights, and it was important that these rights tiff, he admitted that horses die; not at first lik should be maintained. One most important right what they were not used to, but they became he to which they were entitled was the protection time more or less accustomed to it. Asked as , of that place and position and estimation in jolts, whether he did not know of ter.rible jolts a ll society which fairly belonged to them. Now, if a about town, he said ho did not know e l' four sue ; n ewspaper violated this right, then the almost om- cessive jolts; and, besides, some jolts Were legal' nipotent power of the press must be controlled by (Laughter.) the law. If redress was demanded and refused (as Mr. Bovill—And we say that these are leg' 3 , l f it had been in this case), then the appeal lay to a you know. Then as to holes, &c., the witness yr' jury. The jury, then, must consider whether the mitted that they were to be seen on other road 9 ; alleged libel tended to hold this lady up to ridicule, but not so much on a continuous line. The We e and was such as to make her uncomfortable in collected all along . the sides of the rails. society—that is, such as would make, not an over- The case oecumed the court until the close of it; sensitive, but a rational and sensible person less sitting, and will probably occupy all to-morrow comfortable in society. If se, they should find for (Saturday). the plaintiff, with such damages as they thought I she was reasonably entitled to. The jury consulted a few minutes, and then re turned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, one farthing. Mr. Chambers asked the Judge to certify for costs, but His lordship said, the the matter being one 'for the jury, he did not like to appear to differ from their decision, but he would consider of it. THE KENNINGTON TRAMWAY. THE QUEEN V. TRAIN AND OTHERS. This was an indictment against the well-known Mr. Train and a number of gentlemen, members of the vestry of St. Mary's Lambeth, for laying down his iron tramways in the roadway leading from Westminster-bridge to Kennington-park, and mak ing it dangerous to the public. Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Joyce were for the prosecution ; Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Knapp, and Mr. C. Pollock were for the defendant Train; and Mr. Lush, Q.C., Mr. Serjeaut Ballantine, and Mr. Garth were for the other de fendants. The case excited the greatest interest, and the court was densely crowded with inhabitants of Lambeth. In November, 1860, a committee of the vestry recommended the vestry to adopt Mr. Train's proposal to lay down the tramway. In this re port the committee contended that " the vestry have the right to pave the streets and roads of the parish either with wood, stone, or iron, pro vided it does not interrupt the public traf fic or be productive of danger." " That there would be no obstruction to the ordinary traffic, but, on the contrary, the facilities of transit are in creased. The rails are laid down almost at a level with the pavement, and so constructed as to present no ridge of any kind, and the whole surface of the road is Just as available for ordinary traffic as it would be if no line of rail were laid down. Any vehicles passing along can use the line of rails on the side of the road as the drivers may think proper. If they are using the ' rails and overtake the omnibuses they have to move off and keep to the outside, as i n or di nar y cases, and when they have pass •ed they can re-enter the line of rails, there being just as much room to pass and rail had been laid down." The committee also stated that " no danger to the traffic could be ap prehended. The rails are roughed, so as to prevent slipping, and the ridge to contain the sides of the wheels does not project upwards more than five eighths of an inch, while at the same time the lines of rails are kept upon the same level as the surface of the road." The committee then considered the practicability of the scheme, the benefit to the pa rish by its adoption, and the convenience it would be to the parish,winding up thus:—" To the public the new omnibuses will not only prove to be a con venience, but also a luxury. They are very highly esteemed both in America and at Birkenhead, and are very superior to the omnibuses now in use. When full there is ample room for passengers to walk up and down without incommoding each other. They have an ease of motion and a regula rity of speed that cannot fail to give the utmost sa tisfaction. There is an absence of loitering and furious driving, without the possibility of there being any of those dangerous omnibus races that now take place in the streets of London. Indeed, the committee are fully convinced that many of the objections which have been urged against the project will vanish so soon as the first new Omni • _ bus makes its appearance in the Westminsteteroad." (Dated Nov. 8, 1860.) This report, which was produced in evidence on the part of the prosecution (to 'show the complicity of the vestry), stat es th e nature of the tramway, and the ground en which i was sanctioned by the vestry. The vestry having t adopted the report and resolved to sanction the tramway, on the 13th of March, 1861, a contract was entered into between the vestry • and Mr.Train by which he was to complete the lay • e lasing down of the tramway within three months, and lie indemnified ' them against all indictments or actions for laying it down, and also against the expenses of re moving and replacing it if he should be required so to do. T comp leted he tramway was in September, to run. 1861, and the trains bega n 1861, this indictmentln November, was found. A struggle arose at the outset as to the formal proof of the liability of the different defendants who were sought to be m ade liable, as heaving in, . voted favour of the reso lutions sanctioning the tramway. The Lord Chief Justice said the resolutions and proceeding s of the vestry would speak for them selves, and a their legal effect, together with all questions of law which might arise, would be re served for the Court. lkir, Lush co giervecl that the liability cf each de- COUN7 MARKEIS. LIVERPOOL—APRIL 4. We had to-day a fair attendance of local dealers f . 1134 millers from the country, and, with a moderato ingliol! wheat sold at about last Friday's rates. Flour met a vet? good demand, and at a reduction of 6d to 9d per barrel. Oats and oatmeal difficult to move, and prices as of lat e ; The same may be said of beans and peas. Indian COM firmer prices. WAKEFIELD—APRIL 4. Business here remains very dull, and sales can only b ° made at prices the turn lower from last Friday. Fine bar ley fully as dear. Beans, oats, and shelling were rather cheaper. EXETER—APRIL 4. Wheat, white 7s Gd tol7s Gd Barley. 3s 9d to 4s 13 Ditto new .0s Od to Os Gd Oats .. 2s 9d to 3s 01 Flour, fine, 43s to 46s ; seconds, 41s to —s per sack. CATTLE. Fat beef,p score,9sod to 10s6d Ewes, per lb 61c1 to V, Pork carcases, 9s 6d to lOs Gd Wethers, d 0...... 7d to 7it Lambs, per lb —d to —d. Fnt calves, d0...5d atO 6 • Rough fat, 31d per lb. BRISTOL SUGAR—Aruzi, 4. There have been some arrivals of Ilav=nah, Brat ilgo Bahia, and Demerara. The sales during the week 111 been small, at prices about 6d lower than those current 9- the date of our last report. FOREIGN MAIL PAC= MST. MAILS DUE. Australia and Mauritius, via Southampton. Aprsl 1; ' via Marseilles April I °' Arazil and Cape Yards, by British packet. April 6. Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena April 4. China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton April 4, via Marseilles April 13 ° Falkland Islands Gibraltar, via Southampton .. India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton April 4•. via Marseilles April 1" India (Bombay), via Southampton April 1d• ^ via Marseilles April 4 ' Lisbon Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton April 4. via Marseilles April 4. Newfoundland Oporto and Vigo .. April 1. U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet April 2. by U.S. packet n. by Canadian packet April .4,, W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and Tenerillo April l u ' Bahamas, via New York April 1 0, Mexico.. All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru, 1 April 14. California, and British C01umbia............ J The King of Prussia addresses his Generals in Berlin one day, and his words are in print in London the next. 'a te latest improvements on magnetio action have rendered th lo and many other results undeviating . . For instance, llerring ll magnetic brushes ; in restoring grey hair to its natural colour and in eradicating the agony of tic doloreux and nervon g headache. N.B.—Counterfeits are being mad e . Offices, 3% Basinghall-street , London. BIRTHS. ANNESLEY.— On the 2d inst., at Eversley-cross, the of the Hon. W. B. Annesley, of a daughter. BLAKENEY.-011 the 2d inst., at Tunbridge wells, th e Hon. Mrs. blakeney, of a son. VIVIAN.—On the 2d inst., at 23, Rutland-gate, the Son' Mts. John Vivian, of a daughter. WIIEBLE.—On the 2d inst., at Bulmersho Court, the Lad/ Catherine Wheble, of a son. MARRIAGES. BULL—RELLOCK.—On the 3d inst., at St. Budock, Jollo Bull, Esq. ' of Boslawiek, Cornwall, to Sarah, daught er of the late Lieut. KeHuck, R.N. SToTi—COLE.—On the 2d inst., at St. John's, Mane)" , Mr. John F. A. C Stotz, of Bishopsgate-street withiot to Tryohena Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Alfred James Cole, Esq., of Cannon-street west. DEATHS. CAPES.—On the 3d inst., at Tipton-park, Slough, Joseph Capes, Esq.. aged 68. CRoss,— On the 3d inst., su ddenly, in Southampton-build ings, Mr. B. it. Cross, of tnat place and Kentish-toOlt cud 62. MC'NTEITII.—On the 2d inst., at Inverleith House, Ear burgh, Mary Emma, Monteith, eldest daughter of the hito ' a t g i e le d ). l73 u m n o g n es th t months. °I Alexander Earle Mont9ith, Sheriff of Fifeshire. Ross.--On the 33 inst., at at s: 3 e a n th, A ly bb i o ll t i t a s bury, Admiral Sir James Clark Ross, aged 62. RUSSELL.—On the 2d inst., at Sumner-place, OnsloW rallsoaubsien,eA, .s y l s e: I s v qu il a li r a e n , IBHroolluvia)trodnititil,eLini I,DiaeLL.Dae.y, SALINE.—On the 3d inst., aged 75. SMYTHE.—On the 2d inst., at Hilton, Sh ropsh i re, M a ry wife of Lieut.-Col. Sro:the, and l as t survivino•° ch ild of R ear -Ad m iral I.)eaus, of Chult cn b am, aged 36. L OND ON : p r i n ted and Published b y J OHN CH APLIN, of N 0 .112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Office, N O . 1-12 in the Precinct of th e Savoy, in the Co ll " v i St ra nd, ptuicuegfoSt — s4l4ooh 4pril 6, leo, r iN3 t. tift a t 4 -crAe(