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

IMPERIAL PARL IAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—YESTERDAY. ) LORD CIIANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at Ave o'clock. ritIVATE BUSINESS, The 'Wycombe Railway, and the Folkestone to Barham Dawns Road. Bills were read a second time. _ The Aberystwith and Welch Coast 12ailway, Deaf and - Dumb Poor Asylum, Kent Water, and Newry and Armagh Railway 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 Houses of Parliament. The noble marquis then entered into the subject of proclamations, and was understood to say that although Colonel Fantoni had been removed, there was still some doubt about the suppression of the inhuman proclamation. He 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. (Hear.) He would have no objection to give the noble marquis such despatches as he had relative to the subject. With respect to the proclamation of Col. Fantoni, what he stated was that as soon as it was made ho 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. He had been told that it was never intended to act on the proclamations, which had been issued more to terrify than anything else. EDUCATION. The Bishop of OXFORD moved for the production of any correspondence with the committee of Privy Council On Education, or memorials to 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 the Council had thought was exaggerated. Earl GRANVILLE said there were no such papers in the possession of the Government. Ho 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 a tangible form before their lordships. Earl GRANVILLE said ho could not mention the r re cise 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 Kinnaird, stated that he had no official information as to the alleged application of torture to Alex. Zamoyaki 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 STRATFORD 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, &c. 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 ho had any objection to lay upon the table of the house the correspondence which might have arisen be tween Captain Cowper Coles, of the Royal 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 the public rates ; of the number of interments annually in the ground assigned to the Church of England and the Nonconformist communities reFpec 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. 0' 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 3d 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 ficient. 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 he 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 the British 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 that 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 cu merely the ordinary duty. Her Majesty's G 4 eroment hod approved of the convention, and it war thathoped t h at the convention will fulfil the expectations were entertained of it. CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS IN IRELAND. Col. when the re u D'eN,I N ' E a,ked the Chi e f S eere t ai y f or I re l an d et —lll s of convictions at the Curragh Court-house gaid Petty 5 e ,,,. --'°" in Kildare in Ireland, ordered b the house, would b e laid upon the table ? y Sir R. PEEL said the sensed on the 28th returns in question were pre ult, On the motion for N , and were ordered to ELSO N MONUMENTbe printed. g oi ng into committee of supply, Admiral WALCOTT drew the attention of the Chief Com missioner of bate oard of Works to the i ncomp l ete s t a t e i n which the base of ß the Nelson 'Monument was still s u ff ere d to remain. PAPER MONEY Mr. H. BAILLIE moved an a d dreaß r agreement entered into by the Government of i Copy of the tho Bank of Bengal, for the issue of paper ia with Sir C. WOOD said it was not intended t o 111 interfere with thi existing arrangement. THE NELSON MONUMENT. Mr. CO WPER, in answer to the hon. and gallant ra ,, a _ her (Admiral Walcott) who had brought the subject before the h:use, said that en order had been given in 1858 to Sir E. Landseer for the cimpletion of the lions for the base of the statue. But he supposed in this, as in other cases, they could not always command genius, and perhaps the distinguished, artist to whom the work was entrusted was studying the habits of lions—(laughter)—and he bad been seen frcqeently in the Zoological Gardens. (Renewed laughter.) The consequence was that they m i g ht look f sward 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. Ile refer • red to the partition of Poland, and quoted the words of Lord Macaulay in reference to that political event, in which he dPsignated it like teari ng a living man limb from lim b . lie th e n went, in detail, through the different steps that had been taken by Ruesia to denationalise Poland sub soquent to the partiticn, and in violation of the treaty of Vienna ; notwithstanding which the feeling of nationality it the.. minds Of the people of Poland was undiminished. In the conferenc which took place between the great powers of Europe prior to the Treaty of Paris in ISM, Lord Clarendon me lived an assur ance on the part of the Emperor of Eassi I : hat certain in stitutions would be granted and certain things 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 gays 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 his 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. Unfortunately, that was not the case; there was a national antagonism between the Russians and the Poles. Recent events were greatly to be lamented ; but he 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 be 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 hoped, 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 sooner or 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 discussion was continued by Mr. Hennessy, Sir H. Verney, Mr. M. Milnes, and Mr. G r iffi t h. _ . _ _ 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 the description 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 Roads, and to the feats 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 int 6 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." He 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 into 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 sameprinciples. We should be ashamed of ourselves if we were to be led by pre- ♦ious opinions, or if, by a desire to adhere strictly to plane and opinions which at a former period have been enter tained, we were to shut our eyes and close our cars 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 are questions involving great expenditure and great outlay, and an outlay and expenditure which the Government ought not to undertake without having weer tained beforehand, as far as experiment can ascertain it, that that which they are about to do, and which they call upon Parliament to furnish the means of doing, will bo really effective for the purpose for which it is intended. lam not I surprised that the public in general should have been struck with the encounter in the American waters, not having turned their minds attentively to the que s tio n as t o .h e d egree to I which iron plating is proof against cannon shot, and the i 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 tho 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 • cl'isions at which we could safely arrive. Take one instance, which has been adverted to by ono 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 to 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 less resistance, though it goes further and straighter, preserves its velocity longer, and at i a distanc e is more eff e ctiv e . B u t th e so lid s phere—the solid ball_ realer out of a smooth-bored gun, starting with K ia.sh ed initial ve ' oc i ty, a nitial v e ' oc ity, d oes not get t h at ve l oc ity dirai • bc.ing a greater moat:on-IPo certain limit of distance, and, the momen tumund of velocity and weight, strikes with shot. (C heers T , Ti within 300 or 400 yards than the rifled car.fully made viously entertaind. b :t v a o t is one instance in which experiments altered the opinion which was pre y triedto,r3esiet shot. That has been tried, the power of the arraZear.) Well, then, with respect to and very successful) target representing the sides of the Warrior, at a very s h 4 or a t i ziee d a istance—some 300 or 400 yards, or less-200 yards, it has been found that the largest shots we are now Z a t t bit of using have not succeeded in piercing the targe. Thehaa naturally led the Government for conclusion to which the public mind has Bor ne e t e i xPeriments have sadlyato rived that l an Y r by a knowledge of what took place in the America n But that which happened there, :though a lesson7ma t e i : way, is also a warning in another; because it not only shows us what armour will do, but whiq 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 ment were hollow shots; and it is well-known that hollow shots will nct make that impression on armour which solid shots are enabled to produce. On the other hand, though the Monitor and Merrimac were well 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 sunffoe,amteodr,eobveecra,utshee, bdeeinckgsvwereyreloswo in the water and confined below , they had not sufficient air, when the action began; and, 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 hot tom. (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 gay 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 foun I 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. Tho 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 fit for sea. In the course of the next year two other iron ships will be afloat and fit for 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 bo built next year. Besides all this, four other iron ships are ordered, and are in progress of construction, and ten ders are sent out for the construction of a ship on the cupola system, which I believe will turn out most effectual 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 size., 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 bo 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 great 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 be spent on the forts. (Hear, hear.) Well, Ido 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 are 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 let been enabled accurately to ascertain what would be the best description of fort to be constructed. The contract simply relates to the foundations, and undoubtedly, if the house I thought some delay would be advisable in regard to proceed ing with those foundations—there is only one quarter in i which a large amount of work is already laid down—that 1 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 workmen 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 for a time, until this 1 question can be more fully, deliberately, and calmly cowl 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 pure 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 Eitimate laid before Parliament. More time was found to be 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 muse 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 the 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 those oielarovdmseeeiebnfi before f b reot l rsw e e, h a to he n : e n htm u oe ir, sus tu i e hlsy s pe; yet a hnw t l dto d hfuoe t l h rd i e atn n htl bioinrnt think would be f or P ar li amen t e a fir t t i period which i ooldlwholly to theirdiscontinue they tion, and to what extent they would think it desirable to de vote a portion of the terminable annuities to the rapid con struction of floating batteries for the purpose of our coast defence. That fleeting 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 their machinery in order, th ey would, in all probability be as effectual, for the purpose of which 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 ght of armour and the c w a e s i e g d h s t h o i f p g s un . s A in li t m he it c i a s se se o t f t a o t s h h e ip ee e i which has to float. The whole weight of a ship's armour and guns included must THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 5, not be greater than the weight of the water which she dis places. If it were greater the ship would go down. Now, there is no such limit to the weight of guns or means of de fence which you can employ in the case of forts, because it is obvious you may have in connexion with a fort any thick ness of rampart or bastion you please, and any weight of guns you can work. But it is said that it would take seve ral thousand trained artillerymen to man these forts. 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 is to a great extentper formed by what arc termed handspike-men, and two trained artillerymen to a gun aro 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 militia—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 would 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 have no doubt we shall have a gun of the same sort, and it is 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. We 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 ships simply cased with 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 -lihe, and would not stand in need of the cleansing which iron-bottomed ships would require. It must also be borne in mind that line-of-battle ships, such as those now existing, can bo 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 are 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 dono more rapidly than you could construct a vessel liko 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, anil 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 l:l)Bes, 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 in acceding to the 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 vessels,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-battle 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 tho vote of credit tor 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 three-decker is about to be cut down. 14he will be either fitted upon. Captain Coles's cupola plan, or, at all events, she will be plated.: Mr. OSBonNE—For harbour defence ? Lord C. PAGET—For Channel defence. Our line-of- battle ships are very superior to this Monitor or Merrimac, and they will be fit, nut 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. At this moment, if we chose—if it were necessary—we have 20 line-of battle ships that we believe would make very efficient plated ships for the defence of our coasts. It is said that the Americans in the course of a few months plated this Monitor, and we in this counts y are behindhand ; but supposing we were at war to-morrow, do you suppose we could not put forward our energies and create Monitors by 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 , talks of timber ships. Now, I think there is a great confusion among the public in re gard to this question of wooden and iron ships. It is thought that because these iron-plated ships are imper vious to shot, the whole navy should be built of iron. But nothing is more vulnerable than an iron ship, unless it be iron •plated. Small iron ships, with merely an iron skin, such as the Himalaya, and vessels in the merchant navy, are the most vulnerable of all. If a shot strikes them it splin ters the iron, and is fatal to the crew on board. Fcr that reason and others, it is very undesirable that wo should give up building ',small wooden vessels for the protection of our commerce. If the house should deem it necessary that a larger sum shouldbe appropriated to the navy, all I can say is, that no opposition will be offered by the Admiralty. Sir. J. PAKINGTON asked what draught of water those vessels worild draw ? Lord C. PAGET4l; . belief is that they will draw about 26 feet. Sir 111. PE ro asked whether it was the intention of the Government to discontinue the building of wooden vessels altogether. Lord C. PAGET—To a very great extent. There will be scarcely any building of wooden vessels at all. Sir. F. SMITH congratulated the Government upon the determination doubtedthey had arrived at, but Mr. L INDS AY thepropriety of referring the subject to the Defence Commission.ppriety After some further debate, in which Mr. Crossley, Mr. Monsell, Lord V. Tempest, Sir J. Elphinstone, Sir J, Hay, and other hon. members took part. the motion for going into committee of supply was put and negatived, and Mr. Os borne's motion became the original question. Mr. BENTINCK then moved his addendum, which was opposed by Sir G. LEWIS, on the ground that no portion of the money already voted for fortifications was left to be ap propriated to the building of iron-cased ships, or any other purpose. With a view to meet this objection, Mr. BENTINCK altered his amendment by the insertion of the words, " not already expended or appropriated." Lord I'AL MERSTON said that the amendment as altered would not pledge the house to any decided action. Mr. CROSSJ.4I4X thou& it would entail 102 addition to 1862. 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 form— Ayes 74 Noes l3 Majority 6l The motion 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. ASSIZE INTELLIGEACE. 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 plaintiff; Mr. Lush, Q.C., 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 wl.ich Miss Walrond, tho 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 of testimony 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. The parties had evidently been on terms of intimacy, and the whole case would, in all probability, have to depend 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 fir a moment wish to im pute anything like perjury for the defence, but he thought the ladies acted under a misapprehension of what had oc curred. " Mr. Arnold said that after such circumstantial evidence as he had just heard from Lady Walrond and her daughter it was quite imposs' ble 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 January appeared some humorous verses on the case, headed " Arma 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 fan c y t o a wee spinster's dog, driving constantly in the wee 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 wee 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, k ept 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 the story. The dog, neither better nor worse than his fellows, remained ab solutely dumb. The magistrate, more puzzled than 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 he 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, I, Louisa Brown, give you, John Snooks, this dog'—would such a statement have quieted the magisterial doubts, and, if not, why not ? 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 these 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 Ort." The plaintiff's' attorneys hereupon wrote to the edi tor of the Post 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 case, 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) N ew , it is not the custom of respectable journals to g i ve u p 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 ser i ous allegations against Miss Wal rond. We refused to give his letter, on the ground that a court of justice was the proper place for his statement, and not our colu mns. In another i ns t an ce we abstained from printing a letter from J. G.,' assigning as our reason that we could not be responsible for publishing statements of so personal a character against the client of the firm who have addressed us, un l es s the author chose to au t henticate 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 looked upon the letter as possessing only an amus i ng Spinsters and th e i r Idols,' character, such as might be attributed , f or instance to the , witty ballad, ' Arms Canernque,' which appeared on this very subject i n l ast wee k's Punch, and we c ons id ered it, therefore, fairly entitled to the publicity it sought." Upon this the present action was brought. Mr. M. Chambers, in opening the case for the plaintiff, admitted that the report was fair, but urged that the letter was not a fair comment on the report, and dwelt very much upon the phrase "ma applied to the plaintiff, and in tured dog f anc ier" sisted th at t h e s cope of the lett er of " A Looker.on" was to impute to his client that she was a dog stealer. He had no doubt there were gentlemen of the highest honour and character connected with the Morning Post, and he thought it was a pity they had not inserted sows anode. Even at the present moment he was willing to accept it ; but if it ivas refused, of course the ease must go on. Chief Jirticc , Erle, lookin7 at the counsel for th e defendants, asked if the case could not be arranged. Mr. Lush said that his clietils could say no more than they had al - eeady said-01:4 t they never meant to make any imputation upon the lady, and that the letter was mere humorous comment and banter upon a report which was admitted to be fair. Chief Justice Erle observed, that it was quite in telligibie to any lawyer what the counsel for the plaintiff wanted. [lt was understood to mean an apology and nominal damages.] Mr. Lush could say no more than he had done. The case then went on. An attorney's clerk was called to prove the pub lication of the alleged libels ; and this was the case for the plaintiff, Mr. Lush, in cross-examination, elicited that the plaintiff, Miss Walrond, was not in court, and was about to ask some other questions of the witness, when Mr. Chambers objected that the witness could only know anything as the attorney for his client, and the communications were confidential. _ _ Mr. Chambers, in summing up the case for the plaintiff, pressed that the letter did not give a fair version of the report, in regard especially to the magistrate's decision, which he said was in favour of his client. Mr Lush then addressed the jury en behalf of the defendants, and ridiculed the idea that the alleged libel was likely to do the lady any real injury. His clients had fromthe first declared that they had no deeign to make any imputation upon her. The scope of the letter they had published was to call attention to a case they deemed worth noticing; and if it was a ridiculous case it was the fault of the ladies in bringing it forward. Both the ladies were commented upon, and there was no imputation on the moral character of either. There was nothing more than mere humorous banter, which could do no harm to either of them, which had not already been done by their appearing before the public in such a case. It was admitted that the report was fair, and therefore no action could be maintained for it, The comments upon it were equally fair, and so far from the object being to make any imputation upon the plaintiff, the scope of the letter was the very reverse. It was argued that the magistrate in the former case was wrong in holding that there had been any dog stealing, and the fair inference was that the magis trate would have been wrong in so holding in the case of the plaintiff. There was nothing libellous, and, even if there was, there was no real damage. Chief Justice Erle, in summing up the case to the jury, said that they were to determine the question whether the letter was a libel, and he was bound to tell them that a publication might be libellous, although it imputed no moral offence or miscon duct, if it tended to bring the plaintiff into ridicule and contempt, and make her position in society less pleasant and comfortable. The lady probably occu pied a certain position in circles of society in which the Morning Post was supposed to have a consi derable circulation, and which, to her, might be the world, just as to mercantile men, who never moved much in drawing-rooms, the City or the Exchange might be the world, and the question was whether these publications tended to lower her position in such society, or make her position uncomfortable. The whole letter was conceived a little in the spirit in which ladies might be supposed to write of one another. (Laughter.) The tone throughout was rather against the plaintiff, who was spoken of as the " tall" spinster, whereas her opponent was called the "young" spinster—(laughter)--a very marked distinction, made still more invidious by the phrase " failing human admirers of the male sex." (Great laughter.) The scope of the letter seemed, more over, to be dissatisfaction with the magistrate's decision in favour of the plaintiff, and showed a dis position to suggest that it ought to have been against her. It was contrasted with the decision in the other case, and the argument appeared to be that, as the man had been convicted in the former case, she ought to have been convicted in this. Then there was the phrase "dog fancier," and, if the scope of the letter was to hold the plaintiff up to ridicule, it did not matter whether or not there was any charge of dishonesty or perjury. No doubt it was important to maintain the liberty of the press. But all the members of society had their rights, and it was important that these rights should be maintained. One most important right to which they were entitled was the protection of that place and position and estimation in society which fairly belonged to them. Now, if a newspaper violated this right, then the almost om nipotent power of the press must be controlled by the law. If redress was demanded and refased (as it had been in this case), then the appeal lay to a jury. The jury, then, must consider whether the alleged libel tended to hold this lady up to ridicule, arid was such as to make her uncomfortable in society—that is, such as would make, not an over sensitive, but a rational and sensible person less comfortable in society. If se, they should find for the plaintiff, with such damages as they thought 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 tho 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. Serjeant 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 tlae 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 in ordinary cases, and when they have passed they can re-enter the line of rails, there being just as much room to pass and repass as if no 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 proje - A 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 he 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 inriowuseroomWhen full there is ample room for each passengers to walk up and down without motionln the utmost incommoding and a other. They have an ease of regula rity of speed that cannot to givesa tisfaction. There is an absence of loi t erin g and furious driving , without the possibility of the re 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 Westminster •road." (Dated Nov. 8, 1860.) This report, which was produced in eviden ce on the part of th e prosecution (to show the com pli c ity of the vestry), states the nature of the tramway, and the ground on which it was sanctioned by the vestry, vestry havinc , adopted th e re p o rt and resolved to sanction the tramway, on the 13th of March, 1861, a contract was entered into between the vestry and Mr. Train within three m on th s, and he indemnified by which he was to complete th e l ay i ng down of the tramway them ag ainst all indi ctments or actions for l a yi ng it down, and als o against the expenses of re movingit if he s h ou ld b e requ i re d so oa do. Thend replacin g tramway Was completed in September, 1861, and the trains began to run. In November, 1861, this indictment 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 made liable, as h aving voted in favour of the reso lutions sanctioning the tramway. The Lord Chief Justice said the resolu'ions and proceedings of the vestry would speak for them selves, and their legal effect, together with all questions of law which might arise, would be re served for the Court. Mr. Loh eborved that the liability of each de- Pendant would be very important with a view to responsibility for costs, as each of them might be . severally liable for th e cos t s o f the prosecution it they were fond guilty. The necessary tormal proof having been given, Mr. Boviil, 3n cross-examination, elicited that there had been a petition from the parish signed by 11,500 persons in favour of the tramway. Mr. Chambers objected that this could not be stated until the petition had been regularly proved. Mr. Davin thereupon produced the petition (a huge document), and desired to know if he should have all the names read. (Laughter.) Mr, Chambers required proper proof of the peti tion, and if his, learned friend proposed to make any use of it he must put it in evidence. Mr. Bovill—At all events, let it lie on the table. (Great laughter.) Mr. Chambers asked if there had not been a peti tion against the scheme. The witness said there had been two, and he pro duced a wretched-looking sheet of pAper, which he said was one of them. Mr. Bovill thereupon held it up, amid roars of derisive laughter and cheers, evidently in favour of the defendants; of which Mr. Chambers complained; and The Lord Chief Justice desired that such manifes tations of feeling on one side or the other should be repressed, as unsuited to a court of justice. Mr. Chambers elicited that there was another petition, signed by 400 persons, against the scheme. Witnesses were then called on behalf of the pro secution as to the nature of the tramway, and the objections made against it, as interfering with the traffic and causing danger to the public. Mr. Bovill, however, elicited from the first of the witnesses that the carriages were extremely com fortable to ride in, and had advantages for the pas sengers therein. This was not disputed, but the substantial question in the cause was whether or not the tramway caused danger or difficulty to the general traffic of the public. On tnis question a vast number of witnesses on both sides were in attend ance to be examined. The objections stated by the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution were—that it was not possible to keep the flanges level with the road ; that the stone part was worn away, while the iron flanges re tnained; that thus the repair of the road would be interfered with, and that it would not be safe for traffic, the level of the surface constantly varying; and the action of wheels passing from the iron flanges off on the lower and softer materials, tending to make deeper cuts and ruts in the road, and thus wear it more away. Mr. Greig, Clerk of the Peace for the County of Surrey,?the prosecutor, was one of the first witnesses called. He said he prosecuted not in his public but in his private capacity. The tramway ran along the front of Surrey-lodge, the official residence of the Clerk of the Peace. There were 16 ft between the edge of the road (on his side of it) and the tramway. Driving from Westminster-bridge, on his proper side, he almost always found it necessary to go on the tramway, and his wheels clung to the flanges, so that it was difficult to get off; going in the other direction, towards London-bridge, he crossed the tramway at right angles, and he always suffered from severe wrenches. He had not had any acci dents himself, but he had seen traces of accidents. He had seen cabs, &c., damaged with their wheels off, on the sides of the tramway. Mr. Bovill objected to this. How did they come there P The Lord Chief Justice asked if the witness had seen the accidents occcur. The witness said no; nor could he state that they had arisen from the tramway. His lordship said he could not take the evidence. The witness stated he had known horses to slip on the tramway. Mr. Bovill—Have you seen them ? The witness said he had heard the horses' feet slip while in his carriage, and had felt them slip and, become restiff. The witness went on to say that he considered the tramway "at times dance' rous and always inconvenient," to the general traffic. Cross-examined by Mr. Bovill—The witness said he considered the chief source of danger was the clinging of the wheels to the flanges. Asked if he ever knave the wheels cling to the iron gutters at the sides of the city streets, he said he was not forced always to go into the gutters ; he had found no danger from them. As to the horses being rese tiff, he admitted that horses did not at first lik what they were not used to, but they became in time more or less accustomed to it. Asked as to jolts, whether he did not know of terrible jolts all about town, he said he did not know of four suc cessive jolts; and, besides, some jolts were legal. (Laughter.) Mr. Bovill—And we say that these are legal, you know. Then as to holes, &c., the witness ad' mitted that they were to be seen on other roads, but not so much on a continuous line. The wate r collected all along the sides of the rails. The case occupied the court until the close of its sitting, and will probably occupy all to-morrow (Saturday). COUNTRY 11ARKE1 S. LIVERPOOL—APRIL 4. We had to-day a fair attendance of local dealers and millers from the country, and, with a moderate inquiri , wheat sold at about last Friday's rates. Flour met a very good demand, and at a reduction of 6d to Od per barrel• Oats and oatmeal difficult to move, and prices as of late. The same may be said of beans and peas. Indian corn a t firmer prices. WAKEFIELD-APRIL 4. Business here remains very dull, and sales can only be 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 I Barley. ... 3s 9d to 4 s 4d Ditto new .0s Od to Os Od Oats 2s 9d to 3s Od Flour, fine, 43s to 4Gs ; seconds, 41s to —s per sack. CATTLE. -- --- Fat beef,p score,9s6d to 10s6d Ewes, per lb .... 61d to 7d Pork carcases, 9s 6d to lOs 6d Wethers, d 0...... 7 d t o 71d Lambs, per lb —d to —d Fat calves, d0...6d Ito 6d. Rough fat, 3d per lb. BRISTOL SUGAR-AnuL 4• There have been some arrivals of Havannah, Brazils, Bahia, and Demerara, The sales during the week have been small, at prices about 6d lower than those current at the date of our last report. FOREIGN MAIL PACKET LIST. MAILS DUE. AuK,ralia and Mauritius, via Southampton April Is' via Marseilles ... April 1 2 ' Brazil and Cape Verds, by British packet. April G. Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena April 4 ' China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton April 4: via Marseilles April W. Falkland Islands Gibraltar, via Southampton April 4' India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton April 4, -- • via Marseilles April 1, , . India (Bombay), via Southampton April 10 ' 'I . via Marseilles April ' Lisbon April l• Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton April 4. via Marseilles April 4. Newfoundland .. April 2. Oporto and Vigo U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet April 2. , by - U.S. packet . by Canadian packet April *z W.C. of Africa, M- adeira, and Teneriffe April 10. Bahamas, via New Y or k Apri il l 28. 10. Apr Mexico All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru ' 1 April 14. California, and British Columbia.. The King of Prussia addresses his Generals in Berlin one day, and his words arc in print in London the next. The latest improvements on magnetic action have rendered tblo and many other results undeviating. For instanc e , H e rring , magnetic brushes ; in restoring grey hair to its natural colour and in eradicating the agony of tic doloreux and nervotlo headache. N.B.—Counterfeits are being made. Offices, 32 ' Basinghail-street, London. ANNESLEY.•-• On the 2d B i n l s l t t T,}alt Eversley-cross, the Wi fe of the Hon. W. B. Ann e sley, of a daughter. S. " kENEL—On the 2d inst., at Tunbridge-wells, th e Hon. Mrs. Blakeney, of a son. VIVIAN.—On the 2d inst., at 23, Rutland-gate, the 1 -I ° 2l ' Mts. John Vivian, of daughter. WHEBLE.—On the 2d inst., at Bulmershe Court, the Lady Catherine Wheble, of a son. MARRIAGES. BULL—KELLOCK.—On the 3d inst., at St. Budock, Johli Bull, Esq., of Boslawiek, Cornwall, to Sarah, daughter of the late Lieut. Kellock, STOTZ—COLE.—On the 2d inst., at St. John's, HackneYl Mr. John F. A. C. Stotz, of Bishopsgate - street withi tt, to Tryphena Eliz a b e th, eldest daughter of Alfred Jam Cole, Esq., of Cannon-street west. DEATHS. CAPES.—On the 3d inst., at Upton-park, Sl oug h, J os eph Capes, Esq., aged 68. CROSS,— On the 3d inst., su dd e nly, in Southampton-build ingq' Mr. B. R. Cross, o f that place and Kentish-town , aged 62. 31( . NTErrir.—On the 2d inst., at Inverleith House, Edin burgh, Mary E m ma Monteith, eld e st daughter of the law Alexander Earle Monteith, Sheriff of Fiteshire. Ross.—On the 3d inst., at As on Abbotts H ouse, A y l e e bury, Admiral Sir James C lark Ross, aged 62 . RUSSELL.—On the 2 d i nst., at Sumner -place, Onslosv square, Bromp ton , Colin Do Lacy, the youn ges t c hild of William OHnowthaerd3dßiusnsste.,ll,aLt L.D„ aged 18 months. Bath, William Sabine, Esq• aged 75. SMYTIIE wife of Lieut. -Col. Smythe, an d last surviving child of Shropshire, Mary, .—On the 2d inst. , at Hilton, Rear-Admiral Deans, of Cheltenham, aged 36. LONDON : Printed and Published by JOHN CHAPIAN: o f N 0.112, Strand, Print er , at THE SUN Office, No. 11 /, Strand, in the Preci nc t of the Savoy, in the County a XididlOOQZ,...4ltlirdaYi April 5, 1562, , 1 u ii• - • issi glio tiol Nal ' 113.d tor Pre, of an e or of tl of 61 Vr, v Z.ow plot of t tile oini ; 27th Lcrl Zrol eom Ishar and rialtn 13 tatt Pa aliO y t &pp() 0 list A lopes been, legr , dog ( kise