The Sun. — London, England, 1860-08-10 00:00:00

IMPERIAL I 'AIILIAMENT. HO USE OF I,9IiIS—(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. Lord CLYDE was present in the house this evening. His lordship occupied one of the front seats on the cross benches. THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK. The Archbishop of YORK took the oaths and his seat on his elevation to an Archbishopric. The right rev, prelate was introduced by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London. EUROPEAN FORCES (INDIA) BILL. On the motion tinat this bill be read a first time, The Earl of RLLE NBOROUGH said he distrusted this bill altogether, and therefore he most strenuously ob jected to it. He had objected to the bill as it applied to officers, and another of his objections was that he had great doubts as to whether the bill, as it at present stood, did not altogether extinguish the local army while it extin guished the power by which that army was raised. It was usual when such extensive alterations were contem plated to introduce some proviso declaring all such things as had been done before the power was extinguished should hold good. He thought such a precautionary enactment ought to be introduced into the bill. The Duke of ARGYLL did not think that the bill had that effect. Of course, the objection of the noble earl could be met by an amendment. After a few words. from the LORD CHANCELLOR, th bill was read a first tima. ECCLEF3IASTICAL COMMISSION. Earl GRANV ILLE moved that, with regard to the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill, on account of various ques tions rela tiny to the management of episcopal estates, and to the securir l g regular incomes to the bishops, and an in cieasingstu-plus to the common fund havinglong been.under consideration, and the final settlement hitherto delayed, whereby the proceedings for the enfranchisement of many churc'a leaseholds have been already protracted to an extent injurious to those concerned ; and as these matters are treated and determined in a manner which has secured general approval, the circumstances which render legislation on the subject of the said. bill ex pedient are of such real urgency as to render the im mediate consideration of the same necessary. The motion was agreed to. _ _ Earl GRANVILLE then moved the second reading o the bill. The Earl of DERBY said as it was thought desirable that this bill should pass this session he should not oppose it, but he thought the 11th clause, which affected the vest ing of certain property permanently in the hands of the commissioners, ought at all events to be postponed. After a few words from several noble lords, the bill was read a second time. THE RIFLE VOLUNTEER CORPS BILL. This bill went through committee. INDUSTRIAL MUSEUMS (SCOTLAND) BILL. The amendments to this bill were brought up and agreed to, and the bill was read a third time. TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed, with some verbal amendments. GUNPOWDER, &c., BILL. The bill was read a second time. The Census (Scotland) Bill and Corrupt Practices Pre vention Act (1854) Continuance Bill then passed through committee. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Earl DERBY asked the noble earl opposite whether he would to-morrow move a resolution as to the urgency of passing other bills, as it would be very important that such a resolution should be moved in order that the necessity of such urgency should be considered previously to some noble lords leaving town. Earl GRANVILLE said it would be impossible to move such a resolution with reference to bills to come up from the Commons, and with reference to which urgency might be required. Earl DERBY asked whether the noble earl would give notice with reference to those bills to-morrow. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that doing so would give rise to two discussions, one on the motion and another on the bills. The subject then dropped, and the house adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) AUDIT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE. Sir F. BARING moved the following :—" That the ap propriation and audit of the moneys voted for the Civil Ser vice Estimates are insufficient and unsatisfactory, and re • quire early amendment." The right hon. baronet said did not bring this motion for the purpose of complaining of the Government, but in order to induce the house to record their opinion on the subject. The house was aware that the report of the select commit tee on public moneys had stated that the present system of auditing the accounts was defective, and made certain re commendations in order to remedy that state of things. The audit of the army and navy estimates was satisfactory, but when they came to the civil service estimates they found the case quite different. In that department they had a board which was indepettent of the Government, holding office like judges for life, and invested with very large powers. In the miscellaneous estimates over IS ,000,000 was expended without being audited by the commissioners. The right hen, baronet proceeded at son length to point out the existing defects in regard to the audit of the civil service estimates, and again urged on the house the propriety of placing his motion on their records. Mr. LAING said that in reality the difference between the right hon, baronet and the Government was a very small one. After the report of the select committtee on public moneys, there could be no doubt that the audit de partment required improvement. (Hear, hear.) On the principle therefore they were agreed, but there were prac tical difficulties which had to be surmounted before im provement could be effected. The accounts of the army and navy services were reckoned up at the end of each financial year, while several of those of the civil service were remaining over• for a considerable number of years. Mr. WILLIAMS supported the amendment, and con tended that under the present system there was no security of the public money being honestly expended. After some discussion, Sir G. LEWIS said he did not see how the Government could oppose the amendment, nor was he aware of any in superable difficulty in making the improvements necessary at the audit office. Ultimately the amendment was agreed to without a division. CHARITABLE COMMISSIONERS, &c. (IRELAND). Mr. HASSARD called the attention of the house to the constitution of the Board of Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland ; and he asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he could and would take measures to insure the attendance of a quorum of such Commissioners at reasonably frequent periods, so that busi ness could be transacted ? Mr. CARDWELL said that he would adopt the neees • nary steps in regard to this master. FINA.NCiS OF INDIA. Sir C. WOOD gave notice to move, on Monday, in com mittee of the whole house, to enable the Secretary of State for India to raise a sum not exceeding three millions for the service of the Indian Government. Sir C. WOOD then moved that on Monday the house should resolve itself into committee to consider the expe. dieney of raising that amount.—Agreed to. In answer to Mr. J. B. SMITH, Sir C. WOOD stated that arrangements were in progress for obtaining some concession of territory from the Nizam of Hyderabad ; and that as soon as possession of the land was obtained the necessary steps would be taken for im proving the navigation of the river Godavery. THE FERMANAGII GRAND JURY. Mr. GRIFFITH asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether 12 out of the 23 grand jurors of the county of Fer managh had lately signed and presented an address to Chief Justice Monaghan, repudiating some advice which he had given in his charge against party emblems and banners, by the use in such address of the following terms, " that they firmly believe that, unless owing to the remarks of his lord ship, no possible collision could occur between parties of different creeds of this county," and that " his lordship's strietetres would only lead to a more determined stand upon their legal rights on the part of the Protestants, and to an aggravated idea of moral injury on that of their Catholic fellow-countrymen ;" whether at Londonderry and Ennis killen Orange flags had not been hoisted and party tunes played by the bells of the churches during the presence of Chief Justice Monaghan and Baron Hughes at the duties of the assize ; and, if so, whether in the opinion of Govern ment, gentlemen who could offer such an address to ajudge of assize, and thereby encourage such party proceedings on a judicial occasion, have shown themselves to be fit to be entrusted with the commission of peace in Ireland ? Captain ARCIIDALL moved the adjournment of the house, in order to make a statement on the subject. He thought the rebuke which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Griffith) had received the other night from Lord J. Russell Would have satisfied him for the rest of the session; but it' aPpeared that the hon. member's desire for notoriety was still operating. As having been foreman of the grand jury opt Permanah, he wished t o s t a t e w h a t h a d really taken place. ?Shwas ono o f th e emst peaceable coun ti es i n I re l an d . Altintheiapiinci pal officers of the county were Roman Catholics, including the clerk of the crown, the chairman of the quar ter sessions, the inspector of prisons, and the deputy-in tog spector-general of Constabulary, ether withßoth the judges of assize, ially a staffs, wore also Roman Catholics. Th 0 ugh essent cmarzetstant county, the county of Fer managh had never officers having been seleetteyd quarrelled wi r th those appointments, the the „ r t . '. efficiency, not on ae• coaut of their religion, tomesement of Chief Justice m en ighan it apeared that the were few in number, an d light. Tie said it was saisfa.ctor s o u f ch a state g investigation elsewhere,a of thin,s , s at that time of the year, while erimmeds Passed off with perfect character were undergoin g serious found that the 12th of July had H e peace and quietness, no party feeling h ad been exhibited. No insult had been given to the Roman Catholics, and , et this was the occasion when Chief Justice Monagh„ had selected to tell the Protestants of Fermanagh that though they had kept within the letter of the law, they had acted contrary to its spirit by the exhibition of certain flap— with which they had nothing whatever to do. On that occasion he (Captain Archdall) had felt it his duty, as fore man of the grand jury, to make a few observations to the judge in court, assuring him that there had been no inten tion to insult or wound the feelings of the Catlpilics. His lordship replied that although there might not have been such intention, the course pursued would undoubtedly have that effect. The grand jury felt that the remarks of his lordship were likely to be of a very injurious charac ter, and they consequently drew up an address which was signed by twelve of their number. The rest would have signed it, but they thought his observations in court as foreman were sufficient. The Orange flag had been hoisted on the church some days before the judges arrived at Enniskillen. The bells of the church had been rung without his knowledge. He thought that the grand jurors would not have done their duty if they had not remon strated with the judge on the effect of his remarks. Mr. CARDWELL said he would not enter at length into this discussion—the more so as there was a bill already in the house which dealt with the subject, on which hon. members might make such observations as they chose. He would answer the questions put to him as far as he could He had no official information as to what passed on the oc casion in question. He had only the same information as other members possessed, and the statement now made to the house by the foreman of the grand jury. As far as he knew, it was not the intention of the Government to take any such steps as had been suggested in connexion with this occurrence. As to whether party tunes were played subsequently, he had official information. What took place was this—a flag had been hoisted on Walker's monument, which was most properly taken down by the mayor. That was all the information he possessed. The motion for adjournment was then withdrawn. THE PAPER DUTIES. _ _ Mr. BRIGHT gave notice for to-morrow, on the motion for adjournment till Monday, to put a question to the Chan cellor of the Exchequer on the sibject of the excise duties on paper, and to call attention to the present position of the house with regard to that question. (Hear.) SPAIN. Mr. Id. BAILLIE asked whether any application had been made to admit Spain to the rank of a first-rate power ; and, if so, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to withheld its consent so long as the Govern ment of Spain continued to tolerate the slave trade, and systematically to disregard its treaties and engagements with this country ? Lord J. RUSSELL--I am not aware that Spain has herself made any application, or expressed ()facially any desire, to be admitted as a first-rate power with the five great powers of Europe, which are usually so denominated. But the Government of France has expressed an opinion that it would be desirable that Spain should be added to those five powers. Upon that proposition or suggestion, the Government of Austria, or rather the Emperor of Aus tria, has answered that he would have no objection to see Spain one of the great powers, but that such a step ought not to be turned into a precedent for the admission of any other power. The Government of Prussia, on the other hand, has expressed an opinion that it would be injurious to the protestant states of Europe, if the balance in an as sembly of five powdrs were altered by admitting another Roman Catholic power amongst them, and that if that were done it would be desirable that Sweden also should be ad mitted. (Hear, hear.) Now upon that it fs to be consi dered that Spain, Sweden, and Portugal signed the original treaty of Tienna ; and I think it would not be desirable, if Spain and Sweden were admitted, that Portugal, which has always entertained some jealousy with regard to Spain, should be excluded. If this were done, there would be eight powers instead of five. But we must also consider that Sardinia is a very thriving and flow ishhag state— (cheers)—and Sardinia would, no doubt, put in her claim ; and if that were the case, there would be nine powers in stead of five. (Hear, hear.) Considering, however, that since 1815, or somewhat later, the consent of these five powers has upon the whole, with two intervals certainly, very well preserved the peace of Europe, which I imagine was the object of the Congress of Aix• la-Chappelle in mak ing this arrangement--I own it appears to me very unde sirable that we should change the present state of things in that respect. At all events I can assure the hon. gentle men that during the recess her Majesty's Government will not consent to any change in the existing arrangement. (Hear.) PROPOSED CONSUL AT LYONS. In answer to Mr. BAZLEY, Lord J. RUSSELL stated he was very unwilling to in crease the public charge for the consular service —(hear, hear)—and for the present certainly he should not advise the appointment of a British consul for Lyons. MANUFACTURE OF ARTILLERY. Mr. BERKELEY asked whether the Low Moor Com pany (ironfounders in Yorkshire) were making smooth bored guns for her Majesty's Government, and for what purpose. ; the same company having made cast-iron guns, to be afterwards streagthened by Sir W. Armstrong, how many had been made, how many had burst upon trial or failed, and how many had succeeded ? Did guns made by Colonel Wilmot on nearly the same plan in Woolwich Arsenal succeed ? Was not the Secretary of State for War aware that guns made after the same plan had been adopted and were perfectly successful in France, and if not placed actually on board ship, were ready stacked for that purpose, both at Cherbourg and Toulon ? Was ho aware that the Russians had adopted that gun, and were at the present time manufacturing it in Liverpool P Mr. S. HERBERT was understood to say that the Low Moor Company were making guns, 68-pounders and 32- peunders, for the use of the navy. Those guns would pro bably never be displaced by any rifled guns that could be made. (Hear, hear.) Upwards of 300 cylinders had been made for the purpose of beiug strengthened with iron hoops. Of those five had been tested ; three had burst ; and that number bursting the Government had thought that there must be something defective in the manner in which they had been hooped. They had therefore resolved to wait for further inquiry into the mode of hooping, with the view of strengthening them more effectually; and he had no doubt they should succeed in doing so. With respect to the other questions, Colonel Wilmot had hooped a gun male by one of the great founders ; it showed considerable strength,but burst at 391bs. pressure. He ought to state that specimen guns were tried to destruction, in order to ascertain what pres sure they would bear. As to the last two questions, the hon. gentleman had information which he had not. There cer tainly were guns stacked at Toulon and Cherbourg which the Fr s enchGovernment had so little confidence in that they had not placed them in ships, and did not intend to do so, but in fortresses. He might state that there was doubt whether wo did not over-try our guns, and apply too severe a test. The powder used here was very much stronger than the powder used abroad. That question had to be considered; and it was very.possible that guns might stand the test applied to them in France, and not stand the test applied here. The Russians had not adopted the gun referred to, but they had in use a gun made at Liverpool by the Mersey Company, which was a wrought-•iron gun. FORTIFICATIONS (PROVISION FOR EXPENSES) BILL. On the motion for the second reading of this bill, Mr. E. JAMES moved as an amendment that, before pro ceeding further with this bill, it is desirable that this house should be in possession of further information as to the en' ire cost of the construction and efficient maintenance of the sea defences, and the proposed land fortifications, distinguishing the expenses necessary to be incurred by the country in re spect of such proposed sea defences and land fortifications. The amount proposed to be expended was so enormous that the Government ought to furnish further information be fore the bill was read a second time. Its object was to con firm the expenditure of two millions of money on the ferti lisations mentioned in the schedule. He would not trouble the house with the details of this expenditure, but would rather take their sense on the question whether further in formation was not required. There was very great differ ence of opinion as to whether land fortifications were de sirable, Some • great authorities were of opinion that the noble lord ought to have applied the amount asked for in sea defences. It would appear from the report that a sum of £11,000,000 was proposed to be expended on the construc tion and armament of the fortifications, but not a word was said upon that to which his amendment pointed—the cost of the efficient maintenance and manning of these fortifications. It appeared that about £6,000,000 of the £11,000,000 was to be expended on the sea defences, dockyards, and arsenals, and £3,000,000 on the land defences. The report stated that about 68,000 men would .be required for the efficient maintenance and manning of these fortifications. Taking the cost of each man at £6O a year, they had an ex penditure of £3,000,000 a year for the maintenance of the fprtifications. (Hear.) The report asked for £150,000 to buy land for a central arsenal at Cannooli-chase. They fur ther said that the defences of Woolwich might cost £700,000, which was as much as to say that they might cost three or four times that amount. Now his complaint was that they were called on to vote these enormous sums of money with. out having got from the Government any distinct statemeni as to the ultimate limit of the cost, and he thought the House of Commons would be stultifying themselves if they voted 12,000,000 without having the most remote idea of the extent of the expenditure. He therefore called on the Government to give the house something like accurate and precise information on this point. (Hear.) Sir C. NAPIER seconded the motion. They had already spent 11,500,000 on the works at Portsmouth and Ply mouth, and the £2,000,000 now askee for would go but a small way towards the completion of the fortifications men tioned in the report of the commissioners. The commis sioners classed the fortifications of Portsmouth under five heads. The first related to the defences of the harbour and its entrance. Now there was not a waterman at Ports mouth who dial not know that by taking up the buoys and marks of the harbour, it would be impossible for the pilots themselves to run a fleet into it. (Hear, hear.) It was excessively narrow and shallow. (Hear, hear.) A three decker could rot 7 , 1114 her guns in, and of what use would she be with her guns out ? Some of their vessels were now built 350 feet long, and he had no hesitation in saying that the smallest mistake in turning the helm would run ships of that kind on shore. (Hear, hear.) You would no more think of taking out a three-decker with guns in than you would of flying in the air. Again, you had only to create a fog at the mouth of the harbour, and no vessel could get in or out. (Hear, hear.) But it appeared frozn the evidence of the report itself that even with the for tification of Portsmouth east and west complete, it TEE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST 10, iB6O. - would be impossible to prevent a ship running eight or nine knots from passing all the batteries. If that were so, the enemy's vessels could anchor in the Solent out of the reach of your guns. (Hear.) An enemy daring enough to do this would land in the Isle of Wight, and from the Isle of Wight they could command, not only Portsmouth Harbour, but the batteries which commanded Portsmouth Harbour. He had the map of the commissioners in'his hand—a very pretty one it was—and any member on either side of the house could look and learn that what he said was correct. (Hear.) With the Armstrong or Whit worth guns it was difficult to strike a ship, but it would not be difficult to strike Portsmouth or Plymouth. When Sir Francis Baring was First Lord of the Admiralty, at a time when the British fleet had been get up at great ex pense, he wrote to say, " Come home as fast as you can— we don't want a fleet ;" and then the fleet was well officered and manned ; it was reduced to a mere nonentity. But the Government soon saw the mistake they had made, and they again got up a small Channel fleet. At that time he (Sir C. Napier) thought it his imperious duty to wait on Lord Derby in order to point out to him the weak state of our fleet. The consequence was, a better fleet was got up, and a lucky thing it was we did get it up, for we were over taken by the Russian war. But in an evil hour Sir C. Wood, when he .was First Lord of the Admiralty, came down and told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that fleet must be paid off. That was done and a fine fleet was sent to the winds. Well, the Whigs were turned out and the Tories came in. Sir 3. Pakington, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, said, "This won't do—we must get up our fleet again," and the very self-same ships which had been com missioned before had to be again put into commission, at a cost of something like £lOO,OOO. Sir J. Pakington deserved great credit; he was obliged to get up a fleet with a great deal of trouble and to give a bounty. We had now a fleet respectable in every point except as regarded petty officers. We had ten sail of the line at the present moment, which were about making a show at Portland. But he wanted to know what we were going to fortify against? It was impossi ble this country could be invaded except by France and Russia combined, but so long as we kept up a superior fleet, France would not have a proper force to invade this coun try. It might be possible to suppose that France would make a dash at Portsmouth or any other of our harbours; but France must have a fleet concentrated at Cherbourg or some other point. But supposing that to be possible, had we not better go to Portsmouth and launch 250 gunboats and 10 blockships we had there; let them be anchored where we were now going to erect stone batteries. That would be only ship against ship, and France would have to come with a fleet of gunboats and blockships, and we should be just as well able to defend our shores by this means, which we had already at hand, as by building stone batteries. France had an army of 500,000 or 600,000 men. We had no such army, and probably never would, so we must trust our defences, as we did before, to our fleet. We had abundance of ships; why not take them out, and then we should have our country in a perfect state of defence. Suppose an enemy had command of the sea, he must bring over with him a number of mor tars and Whitworth guns. He must not come to attack us as we did in the Baltic, where we had no mortars. Let the French fleet assemble at Cherbourg, with transports to bring over troops to this country ; let us send our fleet to attack them, and every man would tell us that with Arm strong and Whitworth guns we should be able to destroy every ship in the harbour of Cherbourg. At Cronstadt they had 2,000 guns which were protected by a want of water, for there was not so much water in that harbour as those large ships would draw, and with our Whitworth and Armstrong guns we could sweep the whole harbour of Cronstadt from one side to the other. But as to the works we were going to execute, they were the most absurd things that ever were known, If the French chose they could land their troops on any part of our coast they liked ; but we might depend upon it they would fight for London only, and our fortifications at Portsmouth or elsewhere would be of no use. Mr. Tierney once said in the House of Com mons, "With a full exchequer and a well-manned navy, I would defy the world." (Hear, hear.) He (Sir C. Napier) said the same. If Louis Napoleon was serious, did they think he would wait for three years till those fortifications were ready ? He (Sir C. Napier) did, then, humbly beg the House of Commons and the country to think well before they went to this absurd expense—an expense which no one in his senses would think of incur ring. Ho counselled the Government to turn their attention to the mannintr of the fleet as the best and only safe means of putting the country in a proper state of defence. (Hear.) Mr. S. HERBERT expressed his gratitude to his hon. and learned friend the member for Marylebone for the brevity ho used in introducing the question. The hon. and learned member wished to know what sum was proposed to be taken for land defences as contrasted with sea defences. The works proposed to be constructed at once would cost from first to last about 5 millions, of which sum 2f millions would be required for land, and 2f millions for sea defences, but at the same time it was questionable whether some of the land defences, such as those at Dover, ought not more properly to be included as soa defences. With regard to the maintenance of the works, he might state that the cost of maintaining the works at present erected amounted to about a quarter per cent. per annum of the original outlay. Of course the new works would involve an addition to the standing army of the country, but the addition would not be very considerable. With regard to the remarks of the hon. and gallant member for Southwark, it was unneces sary to attempt an elaborate reply, as the assertions of the gallant admiral were so contradictory that one entirely answered another. The whole idea of his hon. and gallant friend appeared to be that the fleet was never to be used as a means of offence, but was to remain a purely defensive force, and that the whole power of our navy was to be wasted in defending the arsenals and dockyards. (Hear.) As to the expense of the fortifications at Portsmouth, he believed that £1,120,000 would be required for the coast defences, and £BOO,OOO for those on land. The estimates of the commission had, however, been purposely made large to cover contingencies. Colonel DICKSON objected to the expenditure for land defences, on the ground that they were entirely unneces sary, except in case of a successful invasion, which he thought was perfectly illusory. The subject was not one upon which they ought to pay regard to expense, but their object should be to place at the service of the country the largest available army and artillery. He deprecated the mode in which theyoyal commissioners had conducted their inquiry, and expressed a strong opinion that too great pro minence had been given to the sea defences of the country. It was ridiculous to suppose that a sum of £2,000,000 would adequately provide for the defence of the country as suggested by the commissioners, and he was afraid that even £20,000,000 would be short of the mark. He ap pealed to the noble lord at the head of the Government not to mislead the house, and wished to know whether any reliance was to be placed on the peaceful pro fessions of the Emperor of the French; and if so, why at this particular period the defence of the country became a question of Buell extreme urgency. The political position of Europe was ♦ery different now from what it was in the time of the first Napoleon. No one master mind swayed the destinies of the continent ; but, on the contrary, it was generally admitted that the first man who wantonly disturbed the peace of Europe, would render himself the common enemy of mankind. (Hear, hear.) His own opinion was that the best way to provide for the de fence of the country was to increase the standing army. As they increased in wealth, and their colonies became more itnportant, and looking at the state of the world, it would be necessary for them to increase their army, and therefore it was .to be expected that their estimates would be proportionately, increased, but the fortifications in ques tion ought not to make any very large addition to their estimates. An addition of £600,000 would be sulleient to provide for 20,000 men, but he thought 10,000 or 15,000 men additional, with a small quantity of militia regularly trained, together with the militia reserve and the volun teers, would enable them to bring a large and powerful army into the field at a moment's notice. (Hear.) The hon. and gallant member reminded the house that an in vasion could not take place without some intimation of that kind being immediately known to the Government, when there would bo ample time for preventing it and of throw ing up hasty Part hworks on those points of the coast which might be hafaded. (Hear.) Ho thought it would have been better to have had half a dozen entrenched camps at diffe rent parts of the country, instead of one, as at present, at Aldershot. (Hear.) Lord ELCHO said he wished to tender his best thanks to the noble lord at the head of the Government for the course he had thought it right to pursue in reference to this question, and he hoped the noble lord would not be induced to relax in his purpose of putting the country in a thorough state of defence by the carping criticisms which the measure now before the house had undergone. (Hear.) The inhabi tants of this peace-loving land had for the last 12 months been organising and drilling themselves till a volunteer army of 138,000 men had sprung into existence. (Hear.) That movement had met with the approval of the Queen and of all classes of her subjects. (Hear.) The hon. and gal lant gentleman opposite (Col. Dickson) seemed to imply that it was the result of a panic, but he (Lord Elcho) utterly fepudiated any such idea. Col. DICKSON said he wished to explain that what he stated was not that it had arisen from a panic, but that the feeling had grown up from the injudicious fostering by high authorities of that idea. Lord ELCHO continued. Ha could assure the hon. and gallant gentleman that the volunteer movement was not the result of a panic—(hear, hear)—but it arose from a deep sense of shame that a country like this should be liable to panics. (Haar, hear.) Not that there was any immi nent danger of an invasion by France, or Russia, or any other continental power, but from a belief that in the event of such being attempted this country was not in that state of preparedness that it ought to be in. They had been liv ing in what he might term a "fool's paradise,' and so far from being able to repel, the state of the country was calcu • lated to invite, invasion. (Hear.) The volunteer movement was, therefore, the result of a feeling that prompted many to distrxst an alliance as a means of protection to this coun try, and theidetermined that England should rest in secu rity not on the forbearance of any foreign potentate, but on her own inherent strength alone. (Hear.) He believed the volunteers were determined to go on and persevere in the movement till the country should be placed in a thorough state of defence. (Hear ; hear.) The cause which had led to the organisation of the volunteer force and the feeling iu reference to it, bore strongly on the question under discus sion, and the same feeling wMch had led the people to vo lunteer ought to lead the horse to support the Government, and induce them to pursue that course which competent authorities had decided was necessary to give this country that feeling of security whici all so much desired. (Hear, hear.) The objection to the measure had come from pro fessional and amateur professional men—the hon, and gal lant admiral the member for Southwark had urged the house to decide that nothin; would be so good as an effi. cient navy, but the hon. and gallant member opposite (Col. Dickson) had advocated a standing army. The hon. and learned member for Marylohme had come out in a new cha racter, viz., that of engineer, and had stated to the house that these defences were unnecessary. Mr. E. JAMES said he had done nothing of the sort. He had only asked for information relative to these pro posed works, and the expense of them. Lord ELCHO said if the hon. and learned gentleman's motion did not imply it, there was not much point in it. He (Lord Elcho) hoped the Government would persevere with the measure. He believed the Emperor of the French wished to be on good term with this country, and the best way for him to support the letter which he had lately written was to express his readiness to join this country in any course that humaiity and justice might point out with regard to Syria, and in endeavouring to build up a strong power in Italy. (Hear, hear.) He wished to see England so strong that she could say that no one should interfere with Italy, and that the Italians should manage their own affairs. (Hear, hear.) If the Emperor of the French in tended to pursue that course, it would be the duty of Eng land to join him, but they must not forget the aggressive tendency of the French people, and they should be on their guard. The empire that commenced with peace had been engaged in bloody wars, and they must not forget the recent absorption of Savoy and Nice. (Hear.) He considered the measure before the house, if carried out, would give strength to the country, and therefore he should cordially support it. Capt. JERVIS wished to ask the hon. and learned mem ber for Marylebone what was the meaning of his resolution. The simple question for the consideration of the house was whether or not they would keep up with the progress of science in reference to engineering and defence. If the hon. and learned member wanted to know the sum total of each work he would find it in the report, or if he wanted the sum total of all the works he would see it in the report, which gave fully all the details required. (Hear.) Mr. MONSELL was surprised to hear the noble lord be low him spook of the former debate as one of carping criti cism. of the measure before the house. Every hon. member wished to see the country placed in a proper state ofdefence, but at the same time they wished to know whether the sys tem proposed had been brought forward on sufficient autho rity or not. (Hear.) That he maintained was the real ques tion, and which the hence was capable of deciding. The hon. and gallant member for Harwich on a former occasion expressed his dissent to the fortifications at Portsmouth, yet voted for the motion. Captain JERVIS said he did not vote at all. Mr. MONSELL said every military man of experience in the house had spoken against the land defences. The hon. and gallant member for Chathara (Sir F. Smith) had spoken serengly against the Portsmouth defences, but he had not the courage to support his opinions by his vote. All the dis tinguished, men connected with the engineers and artillery were opposed to the proposed plan of the Government, and that ought to have considerable weight with the Go vernment before they proceeded further with it. He con tended that there was no injustice in their ask*. the Government to take a little more military evidence before they proceeded to act upon the report of the commission. Let the Government show that their proposals were really for the defence of the country, and the house would no doubt be ready to vote double the money that was now asked. But the commissioners had evidently not paid that attention to the details which artillery officers would have done. For instance, they contented themselves with merely giving an estimate for the 2,500 guns which they proposed to mount, and which they thought would cost £500,000 ; but they said nothing about ammunition ; whereas 300 rounds of ammunition for each gun (and the proper number would be 500) would cost not less than £1,250,000. (Hear, hear.) Great stress had been laid upon the report of the military committee ; but he believed every one would agree that the aggregate opinion of a number of military officers collected together under the presidency of his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief was of less value than the independent evidence of any one of them examined separately would have been. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the Government would not expend any money upon the land fortifications without at least further investigation. (Hear, hear. ) Sir DE L. EVANS should not have addressed the house but for a remark which had fallen from his right lion. friend who had just sat down. His right hon. friend said that every military man in the house was opposed to the measure. Mr. MONSELL—Every military man that had spoken. Sir DE L. EVANS—WeII, it came to pretty much the same thing. (A laugh.) Now as he (the gallant general) was the humble individual who had proposed the commis sion, it would be extraordinary if he did not to a certain extent support its recommendations. On the day that the present Government came into office he went into the War-office in Pall-mall, and stated that he had two motions which he intended to propose. He was told that the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State would not return from Wiltshire till the Ist of July. Accordingly, on that day he went again and told the right hon. gentleman what his two motions were —namely, a motion for the abolition of purchase in the army (lo which he certainly looked for the right hon. gen tleman's support), and a motion for the appointment of a commission to examine into the whole subject of national defences. Tho right hon. gentleman requested him to put both of them off until he had had an opportunity of consult ing his noble friend at the head of the Government. That request was repeated several times, until at last, on the 25th, he (the gallant general) would wait no longer. The right hon. gentleman then told him that the Government were entirely of the same opinion as to the national de fences, and that they would recommend her Majesty to appoint the commission. With regard to the appointment of the commissioners he agreed to a certain extent with his right hon. friend (Mr. Monsen) ; and thought that though there were some excellent men upon it, there were others who might have been replaced by men of more authority. He agreed that-the artillery portion of the question seemed to have been almost entirely forgotten, and indeed he might remark that on many other occasions the valuable assistance that artillery officers would be able to afford had been overlooked. There was indeed one very clever officer on the commission—a very able man and a great astronomer, too, but then that gallant gentleman had never seen an enemy. In a word he (Sir De L. Evans) could not but feel that a great mistake had been committed in not placing upon the commission some eminent artillerists who had had experience of actual warfare. (Hear, hear.) Looking over the report, however, he must say that it seemed to him to be the product;on of men of sense s and to be entitled to the support of the house. The Secretary for War hod stated that though the Government intended to carry out its general features they would deviate from some of its details, as they had done, for instance, in substituting five towers or works for the eight proposed by the commis sioners to be constructed on Portsdown-hill. Under all the circumstances of the case he (the hon. and gallant member) should give his support to the second reading of the bill, and he must say that he did not see any great advantage in the house proceeding to criticise the minute details of the scheme. (Hear, hear.) Sir F. SMITH said the hon. and learned gentleman who had proposed the amendment had in the papers on the table all the information for which he asked. If, however, he had framed the resolution differently, and had proposed to omit for the present the land fortifications, he had no doubt that the hon. gentleman would have obtained the support of the house. (Hear, hear.) For his own part he could not imagine any greater absurdity than the works on Portsdown Hill. In the event of a war, works could be thrown up in a fortnight sufficient to de fend the heights against an enemy, and at a tenth of the expense now proposed. (Hear, hear.) Let the Govern ment spend the money for which they had obtained the vote of the house upon the sea fortifications, and let them, at all events, take further evidence before they proceeded with those on the land side of Portsmouth. Let them ask the opinion of men like Lord Seaton—men who had com manded armies, and he was quite sure that they would give up fur the present the works on Portsdown Hill. As for the sea defences, they could not be begun too soon, or carried on too rapidly. (Hear.) Mr. B. OSBORNE thought the noble lord the founder of the volunteers—(cheers)—he meant the term as a compli • ment—(hear, hear)—had been rather unfair to his hon. and learned friend the mover of the amendment. The report of the commissioners was obviously imperfect, and the evi dence upon which the house was called upon to act was excessively scanty. He (Mr. Osborne) had asked the noble lord the other night why this important subject had been only introduced at the end of the session; and the noble lord, while he managed to choke off the question, had se dulously evaded any attempt to give it an answer. Why was this scheme not brought forward till August, the Government having had the report of the commission in their hands since February ? Another question ho should like to ask was, why, when this question was brought for ward, was the Chancellor of the Exchequer always absent? There was his right hon. friend the member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson), who in 1858 brought forward a plan for cutting down, the estimates altogether, when this question of national defence was brought forward always cut his stick. (Laughte r .) Th e no b le lord opposite had tendered h is thanks to the no bl e l ord at the head of the Governmen t tor proposing the expenditure of these nine millions. He (Mr. Osborne) was inclined to tender hint his thanks also, but for a different reason, for in the present temper of the house, he believed that if th e no bl e lord were to propose to erec t a China - wall round London the house would agree to it. It was easy to see how these panics were created. Cabinet ministers got up and made speeches: calculated to create panics. In the course of the day aps mphlet had been put into his hands by a general officer of distinction—Sir Diu, can Macdougal—on the French plan of invasion and the de fences of Great Britain, from which the house would see the way M which panics were created. Sir D. Macdougal said, "The revelations I am about to make will show the neces sity of no time being lost in calling i:ato operation the ele ments of our national defences. A committee of French officers have worked out a special plan. for the attack of Lon- don, a copy of extracts from which was placed in the hands of one of our ministers in October." He should like to ask if this were true, because if it were that would make a mate rial difference in his vote. The pamphlet went on to say the plan was to take London in 1863, and to stop in it for three days. But what did the gallant general say of the plan of the commission? He said, " Instead of expending enormous sums of money on fortifications of dockyards and arsenals, I maintain that all that is necessary is to place them in a state of security against a coup de main." The Government, however, were going to build forts en Ports down Hill. Now, after the speech of the gallant member opposite (Sir F. Smith), who was one of the most distin guished engineering officers in the country, he thought they ought not to hear anything more about carping criticism. But they were talking about estimates. Let the house remember what estimates were. The estimate for erecting that building was £750,000; it had cost three millions. The estimate of the China war at the beginning of this session was £850,000. It was now three millions. Sir John Burgoyne, before the commission, gave an opinion decidedly hostile to these land fortifications, and every criticism that had been written by either foreign or English generals had been given against the plan of the commission. He thought the house ought to pause before they involved themselves in a ruinous expenditure in land fortifications which the evidence given before the commis sion told them were of no avail, and which engineering offi cers in the house told them were not called for ; and he did not think the house ought to be satisfied with the Prime Mini ster getting up and joking away the objections. They were a House of Commons sitting there to control the expendi ture. It was all very well talking about the responsibility of Government. What would be done with the Government if at the end of five years it was found that the money had all been wasted ? Why just nothing at all. Engineering officers recommended the erection of the martello towers, and the house supported the Minister who proposed them. Some millions were spent on them, and they were found to be utterly useless. He had always drawn a distinction be tween land fortifications and fortifications of the seaboard, and he thought the house and Government ought to pause before they committed themselves to the expenditure of millions of money for land fortifications. Sir M. PETO said they had heard from no person who was competent te give an opinion any approval of this scheme of the Government ; and the hon. and gallant mem ber for Chatham, than whom no one was more capable of giving an opinion, said that the defences at Portsdown Hill might be constructed in fourteen days, which had always been his (Sir M. Peto's) opinion. He thought the course Government should have pursued in this matter should not have been simply that of taking such a report as that of the defence commission, but they should have had the evi dence of all the first men in the country, and upon that evidence they should have presented a complete scheme for the fortification of all the arsenals and all the other points which demanded attention at their hands. They should not have asked for a sum of money for defences which were acknowledged to be incomplete. While he had been in the house he had seen the greatest evils produced from their voting sums of money with out their having proper estimates and plans. Wherever fortifications had been attempted, nothing had been executed worthy of the confidence of the country or of the engineering profession. The house would readily vote any sum that might be shown te be necessary, but there was no reason for haste. Let the Government prepare a matured plan before next session, and it would be cheerfully - voted. It was agreed both by military and civil engineers that a sufficient defence of earthworks might be constructed in a few days. We were now spending a million and a half in ships that were to be shot-proof. If they were found to answer, there would be a large expenditure on that class of ships; and this was another reason for not incurring this large outlay on land fortifications. A sum of £155,000 was asked for a great central arsenal. Such a sum ought not to be voted without a proper estimate. There was no oc casion whatever for precipitancy. He was told that the only thing now doing in Cherbourg dockyard was the re pair of Prince Napoleon's yacht ; and he believed that in our dockyards there were three times the number of men that were employed in all the French dockyards. ,Mr. WHITE said the impression out of doors was that this matter had been brought forward to divert the atten tion of the people from the infringements of their rights in another place, and to cloak the pusillanimous conduit of the Government in regard to that infringement. (Hear.) The most wasteful expenditure had been going on at Dover, Alderney, and elsewhere, especially on the south coast. An artillery officer expressed the opinion that £lOO,OOO had been wasted on the Sussex coast. At Littlehampton a fort had been built on a boggy soil. At Shoreham and New haven the batteries were so built that the guns would not work; and every one knew that hey were of no use. The Secretary for 'War had misquoted the opinion of Napoleon as to fortifications ; what he really alluded to was field works, in which he said there had been no improvement for 2,000 years. The measure of the strength of any fortification was only that of its weakest part, which was sure to be found out and assailed by an enemy. He had such confidence in the people that ke believed no evil result would follow from an invasion. Noble lords appeared to fear the people more than they did French invaders. He did not believe that our institutions would be imperilled by putting arms in the hands of the people. They would be prepared to defend everything that was valuable in the constitution. Before voting this sum for fortifications, the Government ought to have fully developed the militia force and given greater encouragement to the volunteers. In the last war we had as many as 470,000 volunteers. Till these mea sures were taken he certainly should object to the vote now proposed. There had been a dominant party in this coun try known for their anti-Gallican and absolutist tendencies. That party might again come into power, and by furnish ing them with these fortifications the present Government would only give theta tke means of indulging their aggres sive propensities. Lord PALMERSTON—I had hoped that after so de cided a manifestation of opinion on this subject as was given on a recent occasion, we should not have been led into a renewed discussion. 'We have heard the greatest possible diversity of sentiment on the present occasion, and if it be the fact that " Truth is one and error is infinite," I might compare the settled opinions of the Government in this matter with the diversity of the views entertained by the various members who have addressed the house. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Liskeard complained of delay on this subject, and he also complained of me for having brought the matter forward myself ; but I thought this was an imperial and not a departmental question, and that, as such, it was one which the head of the Government ought to submit to the house. The member for Finsbury took a different line, and complained of the precipitation with which we had brought this matter forward— (laugh ter)—and that we had no definite plan. But so far from having brought it forward precipitately, we did so only after repeated examinations, and, so far from not being .a definite plan, we have brought forward that which is a de finite plan —a plan of great detail. It is curious to see the different views which the different members take in this matter. All, however, think defences necessary. (Hear, hear.) The member for Limerick - , although he began by saying that we might trust the friendship of foreign Powers, and that there was no possible danger of a hostile attack upon this country, yet, towards the conclusion of his observations he admitted that some additional force was necessary, only he preferred ad ditional troops rather than fortifications. It is curious to see the diferent views which members take according to their various lines of thought. Military men would have us to add to the regular army, forgetting that that would be, perhaps, as expensive as these fortifications ; and it would have to be renewed year after year. (Hear.) It would compel us, moreover, to keep up an unnecessarily large military establishment in the time of peace. My hon. and learned friend the member for Southwark is for ships. He says that, if we will give him ships enough, he will an chor off Portsmouth and off Plymouth, and that, whatever may happen, our interests in these parts of the world shall be safe. Then come the lawyers. (Laughter.) They have been modest. (Laughter.) They have not stated their recipe. (Hear, heals.) But I suppose they would meet the enemy with an injunction—(laughter)—or issue against him a writ of ye exeat regiso—that is, not go out of his own leingdom. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now, these may be mighty good notions ; but I think that the majority of those who listened to the debate of the other evening will be inclined to think that after all permanent defences are the cheapest and the most effectual for the purpose. We have been told that we :might as well at tempt to surround the island with a Chinese wall. (Hear, hear.) But we do not pretend to fortify the whole of the coasts of our island ; it would be absurd to think of it; but only those vulnerable points—those dockyards and arsenals which are the cradle of thelnaval power of this country, and which, if destroyed, would place u at the mercy of any power which has the means of arm ing a feet for sea. It is said that we might defend them against the sea, but it was not necessary to defend them on the land side. But they must be defended at whatever point they could be attacked upon. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend has told us that nothing is stronger than its weakest part. I thank the hcri. gentle man for teaching me that word. (Laughter.) If you protect them by sea, we must protect them by land also. Every body admits that it is impossible to prevent a landing being effected on our shores, three or four hundred miles of our coast being available for that purpose. One of the argu ments against these fortifications was their inefficiency, and we were told that we ought to fortify London. But what does this imply? Does it not involve the admission that a landing is possible ? The member for Pillsbury tells us that the requisite earthworks could be constructed in a fort night. But these fieldworks must have a sufficient force behind them before they can be made available, and nothing could prevent a large force in such a case from overpower• ing a small fctrce. What we want, however, is works of that permanent nature which will enable a small body of men to hold out against a larger body of men at least for some time. (Hear, hear.) No man who understands the history of war, and who has a knowledge of fortifications, will tell me that our defences, as they now exist, are cap able of resisting a superior force. But the great objections which have been raised to-night to the proposal of the Go veanment, was to the works which it is proposed to con struct for the defence of Portsmouth. Well, now, I would ask any man who understands the destructive power of shells whether they could not be thrown from Portsdown- k 1• • 01 bite Portsmouth, if the former position should be taken by an enizny ? How many thousand yards between Ports down-hill and Portsmouth ? Why, an enemy in possession of Portsdown-hill could to a certainty take Portsmouth. There are, however, a class of persons who say that an enemy in possession of Portsdown-hill could not damage Portsmouth with round shot. Well, but the damage to be done would not be by round shot, but the damage to be done would be by shells—(hear, hear)—which they could easily throw into the dockyard from that place. Mr. OSBORNE—How are they to get there? Lord PALMERSTON—I am astonished, I must say, at the opinions entertained by some gentlemen upon that point. Why, unless Portedovrn-hill were impregnable, an enemy might land to the eastward or to the westward of it. But from conversations which I have had with expe rienced men, Portsdowrt-hill is at this moment absolutely a weak point. We are, however, told that the apprehension is the result of a panic. Now, my opinion is, that if we have not sufficient naval strength to defend Portsmouth, we should not fail to fortify Port sdown-hill. We are told that our panic was founded upon a suspicion of the designs of a neighbouring Power; but it is no such thing. The proposal is not founded upon any particular distrust of any nation, but upon the deliberate opinion that this great country ought to be in a condition at all times to defend its vulnerable points, and that the more we are in a position to repel attacks, the greater will be the security for the con tinuance of peace. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman who spoke last night said that the Government is distrustful of the people. Now that is a strange accusation to make, seeing that they had already 130,000 volunteers into whose hands the Government have put arms, and they will be doubled in number in the course of the next twelve months. (Hear, hear.) Well, now the object of the fortifications is, that with a small number of men behind them you can de fend the dockyards, and liberate the rest of your force to take the field. (Hear, hear.) My right bon friend the Se cretary of State for War said to-night that if you have not those fortifications, you must have a vastly increased num ber of men to defend your dockyards, so that, in fact, their construction would be an economical application of those resources of the country. (Hear, hear.) I trust the house will not reverse, or in any way impair the vote which passed the other evening, and that if my hon. and learned friend insist upon going to a division, that the house will show they are systematically and deliberately of opinion that it is necessary to defend the country, and that the proposed works should be constructed, and in as short a time as possible. The house then divided on the amendment that it is necessary the house should have further information as to the cost of the sea and land defences before proceeding fur ther with the bill, and the numbers were— For the amendment Against it 143 Majority against —lll The bill was then read a second time. SUPPLY.—THE ORDNANCE MAP. On the motion. that the house resolve itself into a corn• mittee of supply, Sir S. M. PETO moved " that it is expedient to discon• tinue the Ordnance Survey on the 25-inch scale till the sur• vey on the 1-inch scale shall have been completed and pub. Hailed." Mr. 5. HERBERT said it would perhaps shorten the discusssion of the question if he were to state what the Go vernment proposed to do. His hon. friend appeared to mis take the object of the 25 or of the 6-inclisurvey. It was one thing to constract a map, and another to make a cadastre. The latter was the object of the 25-inch survey. He did not see why this expenditure should be in the army esti mates at all ; because it would certainly be valuable as affording facilities in courts of law, and for the valuation of estates, a purpose for which the 1-inch scale was insufficient. By the introduction of machinery for stamping, and other machinery, he thought the cost might be considerably les. sened, and that the 25-inch scale would be little more costly than the 6-inch, while it would be more effective for its purpose. The 25-inch contained the 6-inch scale, to which it could easily be reduced, whereas the contrary process was not possible. The Government proposed to discontinue this year the opening of any new ground, whether upon the 6or upon the 25-inch scale. They wanted all their force this year for military surveys. They proposed, therefore, merely to finish the survey of the counties which had already been begun, and which were, he believed, the four nor thern counties. It had been proposed to commence the sur vey in the south of England this year, and to work on to the north, but that plan the Government proposed now to arrest. Between this and next year the Government would have time to consider the question, and Parliament could pronounce a deliberate opinion as to whether the survey on the large scale should be proceeded with, and to what ex tent. (Hear, hear.) After a short discussion the amendment was withdrawn, and the house went into committee of supply. The first was a vote of £100,440 for the maintenance of the royal parks and pleasure grounds. Sir J. V. SHELLEY objected to the vote,- as it had been understood it was not to be proposed. The vote was withdrawn. THE GALWAY MAIL CONTRACT. Mr. S. LAING, in rising to propose the next vote, which was fat the Galway packet service subsidy, said the subject was one of considerable importance and interest, and as no tice had been given to oppose the motion, it might be pro per he should state the precise position of the Government with respect to it. A contract was entered into on the 21st April last year, by the late Government, with a company called the Atlantic Royal Mail Steam-packet Company, for the conveyance of the mails across the Atlantic. That con tract was duly signed, sealed, and executed between the re presentatives of the company and those of the late Govern ment. It was in the usual form, with the exception of one circumstance, to which he should advert, viz., the introduc tion of the words " out of moneys to be voted by Parlia ment," in specifying the subsidy to be paid to the company. The contract in question excited, a good deal of interest at the time, and on the reassembling of Parliament it excited considerable discussion in that house, but no resolution was brought forward for the purpose either of confirming or in validating it. On the motion of the Government, however, a select committee was appointed to investigate the mat ter, together with other mail contracts, in reference to the mode in which they should for the future be carried out. That committee entered into a lengthened investiga tion, and ultimately, with regard to the Dover contract, recommended that the money should not be voted. On the question of the Galway contract, however, the com mittee made two propositions, but in neither of them did they offer any recommendation as to the withholding of the money. No proceedings having been instituted, there fore, during the last session of Parliament that deterred them from the undertaking, the company entered into con tracts for building four large steamers, at a cost of £480,000, which had now been nearly got ready. One wai already per forming the service between Galway and America, another was launched and would be ready to start at the beginning of next month ; the third would also be ready next month, and the fourth was in a state of considerable forwardness. Just before the contract commenced an arrangement was proposed, to which he might advert, for the transfer of this service to the Canadian Government. The transfer fell to the ground, not being sanctioned by her Majesty's Govern ment ; for though it was felt to be of importance as concili • ating the interests of Canada, which had to a great extent been overlooked, in the original arrangement, yet, in going into the details of the proposed transfer, they were found to involve so much new matter, such as the substitupon of screw for paddle ships, the times of their arrival and sailing, and the penalties, as to render it substantially almost a new contract. The Government, moreover, felt themselves so pledged to the house not to grant new contracts of this kind without public competition, that they were unable to give their sanction to it. In dealing with the aalway Company, therefore, there was this simple statement of facts. There was a contract beyond doubt legally binding, and a commit tee of the house had repOrted without making any recom mendation affecting its validity. The company themselves had thereupon entered into engagements involving an ex • penditure of half a million of money, and they were in a position, so far as the Government knew, to carry out their undertaking. There could be no decisive ground for break ing the contract, because the company might be a few weeks more in getting their four vessels ready. If the con tract was to be broken, it should be broken on some broader ground than that; and under those circumstances he ima gined every one would be of opinion that the Government had no other course before them than to fulfil the obligations they had entered into. Mr. BOUVERIE opposed the vote, urging that by the terms of the contract the subsidy was dependent on the sanction of Parliament, and it was postponed last year for the purpose of inquiring into the facts ; and therefore the house had a right to deal with it as they should think fit. The expenditure was a needless one, as there was already a contract with the Cunard line to perform this very postal service, ' He had felt it his duty to investigate this subject of the paid-up shares, and had moved for a return, which had been laid upon the table of the house, and which hon. gentlemen would do well to consult. It would be seen that the company had nothing whatever to do with two of the ships which the hon. member Tor Galway described as le longing to them, they having been, in fact, mortgaged to two clerks of a London capitalist to guarantee a current account. (Hear.) - Up to that time it we; a bubble company, perfectly incapable of performing what it had undertaken. Tho new ship new on its voyage between America and Galway had been mortgaged to the builders for the full of its value, or rather it had not been paid for at all. He could not understand Lord Derby's conduct except on poli tical grounds. The date of the contract was April 21, and on the 19th of April Parliament had dissolved. He did not scruplo to say that this was an election job on a gigantic scale. (Hear, hear, and Oh, oh.) The whole of the evi • dance warranted him in saying so. The house ought there fore to refuse to ratify and fulfil such a contract. It would be cheaper and better to pay off all th e s h areholders than t o fulfil the contract, for the share ca p ital w as only £500,000 , whereas they would have to pay them £546,000 during the next seven years. Mr. 'Wr H ITESIDE said the right hen. gentleman had made 1 a charge of this kind last year, but failed then from the same cause that he failed now —he forgot the facts by which hi s allegations could be substantiated. He was asked why Lord Derby signed this contract. He answered, because he was the First Lord of the Treasury. But it seemed that it was wrong for the prime Minister to do what it was perfectly right for a Secretary of the Treasury to do. He referred to the case of the European and Australian Company's contract, which was entered into by Mr. Wilson, and which he described as worse than this Galway business. In the passage from Galway there was no instance in which the vessel had failed. As to Lord Derby having done all this—as to taking up this subject on the eve of an election—that was an entire delusion, for the subject had been under consideration for the 10 or 12 years. An American gentleman then said— " Give the matter to me, for you'll never get it carried out to the advantage of Ireland." But was it not a most irra tional argument to say that the communications to Ireland should be carried past that country, instead of being brought, as they ought to be, direct to Ireland ? As re garded the contract itself, the sum was moderate, and it was of great importance to Ireland to have speedy commu nication with a country which to Ireland was more impor tant than to any other country in Europe. When the line from Galway to Belfast was completed the journey could be made in three hours or less, and that would be a great ad vantage to the linen trade of the north of Ireland, to say nothing of other matters. There was no corruption in the agency, as he ascertained it to be in operation. The matter had been legally inquired into, and £l,OOO were proved to have been given, but the verdict was not worth one far thing. Mr. Lever had certainly shown great activity in the matter, but he did not know very much of Ireland. The real fact was, Ireland was entitled to the contract, and a more wise decision could not be come to than that which would establish the communication between Ireland and America, inasmuch as it was the most rapid, most desirable, and best and safest communication that could be between England and the United States. (Hear, hear.) Mr. CRAWFORD was anxious to say a few words, with a view of drawing the attention of the Government to a point which had considerable weight with him in the committee upstairs. The contract was dated the 12th of April last year, and by its conditions the company bound themselves in the sum of £20,000 by way of sti pulated forfeit if their ships should not be ready. He thought Ireland had a right to obtain the contract if she could get it in fair competition ; but, as the question now stood, he should give his vote for the £60,000 proposed in the esti mates. Had the contract been dependent upon the decision of Parliament, such decision should have been taken before the company got to work and incurred expense. He should, however, give his vote for the sum of £60,000 now proposed. Sir F. BARING regretted that the chairman who pre , sided over the eommittee upstairs was not now in the house, as he could throw much light upon this matter. He was not at all surprised at the speech which the right hon. and learned gentleman opposite had made in favour of the com munication between Ireland and America, as the most pre ferable one; but if the contract should not be kept, he hoped Government would at least put it up to competition, and then let Galway and other plaCes come in and put in their tenders for it. That would be all fair, and he should have no objection to see Ireland have her fair chance in the com petjtien. Re thought, however, that faith ought to be kept with the company to whom promises had been given, and who had given guarantees to carry the contract out. (Hear.) Thera ought to have been on the part of the late Govern ment the greatest care that all the parties should have been heard, but they had heard that, that had not been the case. There had been no strict inquiry, as was promised by Lord Derby. There had not been even the usual inquiry. (Hear.) The effect of the words introduced into the contract had been to warn parties that Parliament might object to the contract, and the parties had so understood these words. He quite admitted that there was a difficulty in the case, inasmuch as Mr. Lever had handed over his interest to an other company, and there might be innocent shareholders, but he could not hold that that precluded Parliament from dealing with the subject. There was, however, a most important principle involved, because it was the duty of Parliament to look sharp and keep contracts clean There might be inconvenience to parties, but if Parliament could not interfere, how could it prevent jobbing ? Mr. DISRAELI thought the right hon. gentleman the member for Portsmouth could not accuse him as having prevented discussion. He assented to the introduction of the words, the special language in the contract, which had been alluded to, but he had no intention that this subject should be decided upon other grounds than its general merits of benefit to Ireland. (Hear, hear.) The arrange' ment was long and well considered. The decision was mature one—that it was for the welfare of the country and of the kingdom at large that the arrangement should be entered into. Nor could he agree that the terms of it were improvident or unusual. The right hon. gentleman the member for Kilmarnock said it had been carried out nn' usually ; but that statement was directly in opposition to the evidence of Mr. Stevenson before the select committee , to the effect that that business was always left in the hand of the financial secretary of the Treasury. That was not altogether the fact, although it was nearly so for some years past, and that result had produced great and general dissatisfaction. It was on such an occasion that the Prim e Minister examined the whole of the papers presented to him, but those which related to the understanding wit h , the Canadian Government we re a b sen t. Th e rec ord a that understanding at the Treasury was extremely Impel' feet, but, however that was to be regretted, he maintained that a better arrangement could not be made. The pry' ciple of competition in reference to these contracts WO subject to some modification, and a certain amou nt of discretion respecting them was vested in the Go vernment. (Cheers, and cries of " Oh.") Well, if they could show' that exorbitant and improvident .terms bad been conceded, the contract w ,uld be open to censure an that ground ; but they could not. Then with regard to the corrupt motive of the Government. The charge wee made in loud terms, but did not on that account possess strength, for it could be disproved by this simple fact that the Treasury minute was signed on the 27th of Februarl , before a dissolution of Parliament was even dreamt of. (Cheers from the Conservatives.) In support of the con tract he had received a memorial from eminent merchant s and bankers of London, headed with the name of Rothr child, and not only from London, but from the whole com mercial community of the United Kingdom. This wil e the corrupt proceeding which they were charged wit h having entered into to promote their own political ends' So far from that it was fully approved, as he had shown , by the whole commerce f the country. There was, how ever, a great deal of jealousy in certain places against Irish enterprise in any shape, but while Southampton received £600,000 in subsidies, and Liverpool hundreds of thousands , distant Galway ought not to be envied this contract, and the conduct of the late Government ought not to have been impugned. (Cheers.) Mr. ROEBUCK said Mr. Bouverie had accused some body of corruption. As he (Mr. Roebuck) had negotiated this contract, he must have had something to do with it, and the other party connected with the bargain was Lord Derby. There was a disgrace attached to an unfounded accusation, and there was a cowardice in it. He bad never heard of Mr. O'Malley Irwin or saw him till in the court of justice, and that person h a d no thi ng t o do win"- the contract. The committee divided at two o'clock, and the numbers were— For the vote 145 Against it Majority —lO6 The Chairman was then directed to report progres 6 and the house having resumed, he obtained leave to oil again. The Consolidated Fund (£10,000,000) Bill was read second time. The Industrial Schools Act (1847) Amendment Bill W read a third time and passed. The Titles to Land (Scotland) Act (1858) Amendmen t Bill passed through committee, and was reported, wit h amendments, to the house. The Land Loan and Enfranchisement Company's M t ; 1860 (Mistake Rectifying) Bill was read a third time d passed. The Attorneys, Solicitors, and Certificated Conveyancer ° Bill was, after a short discussion, postponed to this day. THE CONJUGAL RIGHTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill was read a second time, it being agreed that tvre clauses should be struck out in committee. THE RAILWAYS ACT, IRELAND (1851) AIIIEND• MENT BILL. The Lords' amendments were considered and agreed to. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL. This bill as amended was considered. THE METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL. The adjourned debate on the consideration of this bill was resumed, but the feet of there being less than 40 mem bers present being called to the attention of the Speaker/ the right hon. gentleman counted the house, and as °nit 12 members wero present, the house was adjourned at 25 minutes to 3. BIRTHS. • DORLING.—On the 7th inst., at Epsom, the wife of Mr Dorling, of a son. REEV ReevE.—Oof a n the 7th inst., at 29, Athermarle-street, Mae e, son. Woon.—On the 9th inst , at 35, Charles-street, Berkeley' squ are, the lady of d au ghter. Majsr-deneral Robert ir oo d, of a MARRIAGES. COTTON—READ. —On the Bth, }'net., at St. George's, Hal" over- square, Henry Morten - Cotton, Esq., of Ecclestou" square and Chancery-lane, to Emma Harriet, t h e fifth daughter of Francis Read, Esq., of Upper Belgrave place, Pimlico: WILKI NsoN—HANBURY.—On the 6th inst., at St. Paul' s Church, K n i g ht s b r id ge, Lieutenant-Colonel Henry °' Wilkinso n of the Scots Fusilier Guard s , t o the Hon. Louisa Catherine Bateman Hanbury, youngest daughter of the late and sister of the present Lord Bateman. DEATHS. CARLHANN.—On the Bth inst. at EastWickham, Chevalier Samson Cahlmann, of 13, Austin -friars, Consul-General of Saxe-Weimar, aged 66. IMPEY.—On the 6th inst., at her residence Barrington Cottages, East Brixton, Fanny, relict of Admiral Impflt aged 70. MORGAN.—On the Bth inst., at Harefield-grove, Stephen Morgan, Esq., aged 81. Nicol.—On the Bth inst., in Eccleston-square, Margar Dyce, wife of William Nicol, Esq., M.P. LONDON: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun 3ffice, No. 11 2 , Strand, in the Preoinot of the Savoy, in the count/ 1:4 Middlesex, Frichy, Augiiat 10, 1866 are I With o r tt Cock of In ; E A Ta' addr, gin Nvh Ver MT clia Sidi Del sup gre may the led of ( poo' acre an Port Maj etre( the Con irri; S. and COD.I eat`a only then in II ix th from cent atan of 1; only final sun lion Will Sir flelo ltbou ni 4 111 16 for t: .Fll tau, Cess ~and 2 Se tire ( TI Rini LIFE Pc Whit do n Pi teetl Mi Ahei 'red ve r y Tasu ttie I le: ta. A Pie( .