The Sun. — London, England, 1860-04-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 20, 1860. Several private bills were read a first time. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented in favour of and against the Wine Licensing Bill ; against the Highway Bill ; in favour of certain alteratiDns in the Attorneys, Solicitors, and Conveyancers' Bill; against the abolition of chnrch rates without an equivalent for that impost ; against the present mode of paying irremoveable power ot of the common fund ; in favour of the total abo l ition ition of church-rates; praying that the jurisdiction of bank ruptcy courts may be extended to county courts ; in favour of a change in the mode of national education; for affording additional facilities to Roman Ca tholic soldiers and sailors to attend places of divine service ; in favour of increased remuneration to medical officers at tending the poor ; in favour of the total suppression of the sale of intoxicating liquors; against legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister, &c. little citadel of freedom that had so long shared with Eng land the honour of having afforded a refuge to the perse cuted and proscribed of other nations—when she had de clared herself ready to send forth her little band of heroes and patriots with a devotion not surpassed in history, to fight for the cause which the great and good of all times had said was the first possession a people should have — was England to stand aloof, to forget her word, to forfeit her honour, and to leave those territories which she had sworn to defend, to be the scene of a tragedy that must darken the age in which we lived, and make the name of England to be dishonoured in after times ? (Conservative cheers.) He knew it would be said we could do nothing without the combination of other Powers. He did not know what communications mi g ht have passed between our Government and that of foreign Powers on that subject, but if we were true to ourselves, we were sure of Prussia and Switzerland, and in the case. of Switzer land, those allies were quite sufficient, with the help of England, not to make, but to prevent a war—(cheers)—for the Emperor of the French would not dare to make a war i in the case of Chablais, for he would be overwhelmed by the public opinion of Europe. In the late war Austria was the wrong-doer, and public opinion condemned her; but in the case of Chablais it was different. France was entirely in the wrong. It was not needed for the security of France ; it was an act of pure aggression, and he was confident that France would not endure that her men, her money, and her commerce should be sacrificed in such a cause. Still it was said that we ran the risk of a war by such a course as he recommended, that war was always terrible and costly, that Chablais was far off, and that it was no concern of England. Those who said so would say that the Rhine was no con cern of England—that Belgium was ne concern of England —and that if the counties of Kent and Sussex were invaded they were no concern to the manufacturing districts of Eng land. (Great cheers and laughter from the Opposition.) Such advice ought not to be listened to. There was a maxim which said that men indifferent to the liberties of others would never defend their own. (Hear, hear.) The inte rests of England were not territorially affected, but her trade and commerce were more than ever affected by the aggrandisement of France. They knew that France would support the Emperor so long as our hesitation made his policy successful ; but we had good reason to knew that she would abandon him if once he were opposed. The question was, should we oppose him in Switzerland, or wait until he had subjugated it, partitioned Germany, overrun Belgium, and had only England left to deal with ? He asked whe ther we should oppose him now, when the voice of all Europe was against him, or wait until Europe, humi liated and disgusted, turned against us ? (Conservative cheers.) He answered that question by saying that no gen • tleman in that house had the right to arrogate to himself the monopoly of a hatred of war, or of a love of peace, and those who had the least right of all to do so were those advocates and supporters of the Emperor of the French, who, he believed, was at this moment the greatest enemy of peace that walked the world. (Conservative cheers.) He (Mr. Horsman) begged to say that there was a state of peace that was even worse than a state of war, and that was the mere adjournment of a war to a more convenient season, when the enemy who was determined to make it might strike with the most deadly effect. (Conservative cheers.) He granted that the Minister who pronounced the word " war" incurred a fearful responsibility, but he incurred a responsibility surely more fearful who, when conscious of impending danger, hesitated to meet it like a man, shrunk from his duty, and in a degenerate and craven spirit be queathed to his country the increasing difficulties of an un settled question, the dangers of which might be aggravated by his timidity, and its disasters increased a thousand-fold by his delay. He did not believe that the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was the man to do that. He lad been called on to conduct the foreign policy of this country at a most critical period, and it was his (Mr. Hors man's) solemn conviction that the next few years, or even perhaps months, might be the most memorable in the his tory of England, and might leave their mark, for good or for evil, on succeeding generations. He had heard speeches from the noble lord in that.house which would indicate that he was not insensible to the danger, and he (Mr. Horsman) felt that in this conjuncture he would not shrink from his duty. (Cheers.) The noble lord bore a noble name—a name associated with the past greatness of England—and he (Mr. Horsman) trusted he would never allow it to go down to posterity linked with the darkest hour of her dishonour and disgrace. (Cheers.) Mr. DUFF considered that this country was not pro perly represented in Paris by Lord Cowley, and suggested that ha should be removed. (Laughter.) Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, I do not quite understand what the purpose of the right hon. gentleman is in the speech with which he has just addressed the house. (Hear.) It is, no doubt, sir, the privilege of the right hon. gentleman to address us upon any point of our foreign or domestic policy. At the same time, it must be recollected that this privilege is accompanied with a deep responsibility; and I must say, I think the right hon. gentleman has not suffieiently weighed the importance of that responsibility when he made the speech which we have heard delivered this evening. For in the first place, I must say, before I advert to the ques tion to which the right hon. gentleman alluded, that while he appeared to be preparing the house for war, while he seemed to be endeavouring to arouse the feeling of this house in favour of a contest against the Government of France, he never laid down what was the object for which that war was to be carried on. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentle man seemed to suppose that Chablais and Faucigny were parts of the Swiss territory, and that the French Govern ment were about to invade that territory and to take posses sion of it, contrary to the rights of Switzerland. Well, whatever dangers we may have to encounter, whatever may be the position of our affairs upon the Continent, that, at all events, is not a fair description of the present state of affairs. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman asks me, what is the present state of the Savoy question, and in order to explain that portion of the subject—for my duty forbids me to go into detail as to what has recently passed and is now passing—l must state that the question of the cession of Savoy by Sardinia to France,'and the question of the neu tralised portions of Savoy, and their relations first to Swit: zerland and next to the great Powers of Europe, are two totally distinct questions. (Hear.) The right hon. gen tleman says that we did not protest against the cession of Savoy to the Emperor of the French. There may be cases in which it is right to protest. Ido not think there are many such cases, but undoubtedly there are some. For in stance—where any treaty has, in our opinion, 'manifestly been violated—such as the case of Cracow. But when we do not think that our interest and honour are so much con cerned as to induce us to take up arms such an occasion is one for a protest. Then there are other cases, such for in stance as that in which the Grand Duke of Tuscany and the late Duke of Modena, protested. They found their territory violated and taken possession of, and another sovereign claiming the right to rule over them. Under these eircum- stances, their interest in the matter not being an inferior one, but finding themselves without the power to recover what they had lost, they very properly protested, merely saying that they did not, admit right in what had been done, and reserving to themselves the right to recover their' possessions if an opportunity should ever be af forded for their so doing. The subject was in that case a very proper one for a protest. But what has been our posi tion with regard to Savoy ? When we first heard of the an nexation, that it was a matter which it Was not at that time intended to carry out, though circumstances might arise that would make such a step be decided upon, We stated that we thought any such transfer would be attended with injuri ous consequences to France and to the general peace and tranquillity of Europe. But we were not entitled to say to the King of Sardinia, "You shall not yield your territory to Franco ;" nor were we entitled tp say to the Emperor of the French, " You shall not accept the territory which the King of Sardinia is ready' to yield to you." So much is that the view of the courts of Europe, that the Emperor of Russia has, through his ambassador said, " It is a matter which entirely concerns the two sovereigns. The Emperor of the French had a right to ask for the cession, and the King of Sardinia had a right to make it ; so that with re gard question." to th e p ure cess i on there can be no further I do not und ers t an d t h at any of the powers of Europe have said so much as we h ave sa i d on this subject. They have considered that th e E m p eror of the French might have this territory if it was yield e d t o him. t Some of them have con sidered it a most injuriou s examp l e a n d pregnant with future consequences of evil ; but th e y hetace not said that th e y entitled to protest on the subject. So f ar t thi n k WC were have acted in conformity not only -with •tile law of nations, but with the general sense of -- the other p owers o f E urope. There is a question of some complication. It has been partly discussed and 'must be further discussed, and which at this moment occupies the cabinets of Europe. In 1815 it was agreed that certain portions of Savoy, viz., Chablais, Faucigsy, and a part of the Genevois, should in case of war between neighbouring powers have all the benefits which belonged to Switzerland itself ; that the kingdom o f Sardinia should have power of withdrawing his troops -through the Valais' and the neutral territory of Swit . zerland ; and that the only military authority which hould b! the tr oops should have power in that . dis trict s of the Swiss Confederation. (Hear, hear.) There has been a discussion, and . some of the despatches on the subject have appeared in the newspapers. There has been a discussion as to the object,4 the particular provision which is contained in the 92d article 4 thetreaty 9f Vienna, and in the guarantee of Switzerland, dated the' 20th of Nov., 1815. The French Government have contended, in more than one very able dispatch, that this provision was in tended for the benefit of the, King of Sardinia, and for the protection of his troops in case of war. It has been con tended on the other side that it was intended for the gene ral benefit of Switzerland ; but whatever be the issue of that discussion, the view which her Majesty's Government takes is that it is a provision which conduces to the general security of Switzerland, and the safety of 'that neutrality which was declared to be a part of the general policy of the European powers. But that being the me, a new question arises, with regard to the change that has lately taken place. The Emperor of the French and the King of Sardinia have lately concluded 'a treaty by an article of which the future possession of parts of Savoy are transferred to 'the Empe ror of the Freneh", lint' ins' declared that the neutral ter ritory is transferred with the same conditions by which it was formerly held by the King of Sardinia. That provision naturally gave rise to demands for explanations, and it has ) been said most frankly ) as I think, by the French Govern . ment and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the King of 1 Sardinia, that the meaning of that article is that the Em peror of the French takes that territory, not merely with the engagements as to neutrality to which the King of Sar dinia was bound, but takes it, to use the phrase of Count Cavour, with obligations of an "efficacious neutrality for Switzerland." (Hear.) In consequence of the transfer by the King of Sardinia to the Emperor of the French, it became a most interesting and most important question how that neutrality is to be efficiently maintained in the sense in _ . - - Which the powers of Europe wish to establish it. (Hear.) But that is a question, let me rem;nd the right hon. gentle man, which is not at all like that of the French Emperor seizing on the territories of an independent state. It is a question upon which you may argue that the change of con dition is such that the neutrality of Switzerland cannot be placed in as secure a position as it was, no matter what pre cautions you may provide ; but that is a question to be care fully examined and considered; and so far from being a ques tion of war, it is one which deserves to be considered by the coolest heads—by men of the greatest experience and of the most mature judgment with regard to the provisions of the treaties which hold the nations of Europe together. (Hear, hear.) Well, sir, there has been no objection by the French Government to the examination of this question. It is in general terms stated in the Treaty of Turin that the Em peror of the French will come to an understanding with the European powers on this subject. The Swiss Confedera tion, through their Federal Council, have asked that there shall be a conference on this subject. The French Govern ment, through their minister here, through their charge d'affaires, have more than once said to me that they had no objection to make to that conference. The powers which may be called to it, the manner in which they should be called, the place where they should meet, and the time at which they should assemble, may be matters of friendly consideration and discussion ; but as to the conference itself, and the principle upon which it should meet—etantely, re conciling the Treaty of Vienna, by which that guarantee was provided, with the present state of things and the treaty lately concluded between the Emperor of the French and the King of Sardinia—to that principle they make not the slightest objection, but declare themselves perfectly ready to enter into it. (Hear, hear.) Therefore I say that it depends not merely on England, nor upon your boastful de claration, that we are at any time ready to go to war. It is necessary, I must observe, that the powers of Europe should be in a certain manner agreed as to the guarantees which they should require, as to the precautions they should take, in order to give Switzerland an effective guarantee for her neutrality. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Of this the right hon. gentleman may be assured, that without speaking of other powers, and what may be their regard for the interests of Switzerland, her Majesty's Government of Great Britain feel the utmost desire to preserve to Switzerland—that free and independent nation, the refuge of the politically proscribed, the old and classical land of liberty—every thing that can guarantee, everything that can secure the maintenance of that independence and that freedom. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman asks me what course we intend to pursue with regard to our treaty engagements with other Powers. That is so general a question that I should be a good deal embarrassed were I to go over several treaties with different parts of Europe, and say what course I should take with regard to each of them. It is enough to say that we have now a very critical question before us ; that we are about to enter, and have half entered, into ne gociations on the subject with the Powers of Europe, namely—with the eight Powers who were parties to the treaty of Vienna. I should, therefore, think it not only unwise, but a dereliction of my duty, to go into further de tails. The right hon. gentleman seems to think that our position is one of disgrace ; that this country is the slave of France, and that we are too cowardly to stand by our guarantees. If that be the opinion of the house the pre sent Government must be unworthy of the confidence of Parliament and the country; and it will be the duty of the right hon. gentleman to call for some more decided line of policy, and to take the management of public affairs out of hands which have made the country a bye-word to the Powers of Europe. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman proposes no such thing as that. He makes a speech to which, as far as I can see, there is no practical end. The right hon. gentleman represented this country, and espe cially all those who were concerned with its manufactures, as being bribed by the advantages to be derived from the commercial treaty. (Hear.) It is not six months ago since I heard the right hon. gentleman allege that wewere complete dupes in that treaty; and that all the benefits of it went to France, and all the losses to England. But now it appears that it is of such advantage to us as to amount to a bribe; so valuable as to induce us to forget the inde pendence of all other nations and the honour of England. I do not think there is much consistency in the arguments of the right honourable gentleman on the point—(hear, hear) —but I am of opinion that while those matters—which con cern the nations of Europe, in whose independence we must take a great interest—while there are other questions regarding the independence of Switzerland and other nations, which, no doubt, require our immediate atten tion, yet I am of opinion the existence of the commercial treaty will be a very great advantage to both France and this country. I think that such commercial relations as those established by this treaty bring nations together, and make men ask themselves when a case of political difficulty presents itself to them—not " shall we sacrifice our hon our ?"—not " shall we forfeit our good faith?"—not " shall we sanction mossures which shall deprive, othe....tions et their liberties ?" but a question such as this—" whether a - solution cannot be found for the settlement of our differ ences by peaceful, but at the same time, conclusive means ?" (Hear.) I believe that alliances between the peoples of na tions are stronger than any which princes or kings can make. (Hoar, hear.) The right hon. gentleman asks me whether we have given any answer to M. Thouvenel's last despatch. The despatch of her Majesty's Government was one stating our reasons for not agreeing with the arguments of the French Government in favour of the annexation. M. Thouvenel did not answer that last despatch, but took no tice that it was not a protest. There was no further argu • ment. We have stated ourcase, we have gone fully into it, and there was no reason for prolonging the discussion. Our opinions naturally differed from those of the French people. They thought—l believe they thought with their Govern ment—that the annexation of Savoy would be of advantage for the defence of France, and were glad to see their Go vernment make a claim to it, and to find that that claim was acceded to by the King of Sardinia. The people of Eng land could not agree with them. (Hear, hear.) With re gard to the future this is not the time to enter into it. If the house leaves us to conduct the negotiations, I trust we shall not be unmindful of the honour of England or of the inte rests of Europe, and that the right hon. gentleman will find when the papers relating to the negotiations are laid on the table that we have acted in a manner that becomes us as English statesmen and as representatives of an important portion of the community of European nations. (Hear, hear.) Mr. CLIFFORD observed that the observations made by an hon. member on Lord Cowley were undeserved. Lord P ALMERSTON—Sir, I am not going to add any thing to what has been said on that subject which. has been dealt with so fully, so ably, and, as I think, so satisfactorily by my noble friend ; but I must advert to those remarks which an hon. member behind me has made with regard to the character and conduct of Lord Cowley, our ambassador at Paris. (Hear, hear.) I must take leave to say, having known the noble lord for many years, having followed his course of duty in the various situations in which he has been placed, and having had the honour to be his superior in office during a time of great difficulty, and when the duties which he had to perform required all those qualities which an ambassador ought to possess—that the attack made on Lord Cowley by that hon. gentleman was founded on a complete mistake, and in the greatest ignorance of the character and conduct of that noble lord, and conveyed as unjust a censure as ever was passed on a meritorious public servant. (Hear, hear.) Lord Cowley has, on all occasions on which he has performed his duty as ambassador from England, combined in a most remarkable degree that spirit of personal conciliation which is so necessary to the per formance of diplomatic duties with the greatest regard to the dignity, the honour, and the interests of his country. (Hear, hear.) There are on the other side of the house right hon. and hon. gentlemen who also have had an oppor tunity of marking the conduct and examining the manner in which Lord Cowley performed his duty, and I am sure they will concur with me in bearing that testimony which he so fully deserves to have borne to his transcendent me rits as the representative of England at one of the most im portant of the foreign courts. (Hear, hear.) Mr KINGLAKE said that a protest was rather an in dication of weakness than otherwise, and he was not one of those who would press upon Government that course. He did not by any means acquiesce in what had been done, but he thought that if a protest had been made by the British Government, it would be just what the French Minister wanted, and he would have construed it as bring ing this qu es ti on t o an en d . H e th oug ht th a t ex i st i ng tlproreroadvt that u s e ae did ts rtoe notFhra France ue justify eo ruigo hr S t a d r ti t ad ] i n gh i a a o a u r r d r e iun n ii d tah e r ia theundg forbidnoble these ticoncuron Sardinia the • cession by her of these territories t,o France, and he thought we had a right to remonstrate wi •th the Emperor of the French for accepting them. The noble lord was in endeav o uri ng t o at t r ib ute to his right hon. friend wrong (Mr. Horeman) inconsistency because he had formerly said that the treaty with France was a bad bargain. It was quito consistent to say that th e t rea t y h a d conciliated many con nected with trade and comme rce , w hil e i t was not generally b e nefieial b e nefieial to the country. Ho wi s h e d t o say a word upon what had bean done by the French Emperor since. The Emperor said he intended to consult the other Powers of Europe, and in pursuance of that declaration a despatch had been written by M. Thouvenel. The noble lord answered that communication with great force, whereupon the French Minister replied that the continuation of the discussion could produce no pr tctical effect. Now, if Eng land was still a great Power, the reply should have been something other than that. He denied that the Emperor of the French had fulfilled his promise. He denied that he had consulted the great Powers of Europe, if this was to be the and of this affair. Then the Emperor said he would con sult the populations of Savoy and Nice, and ascertain their wishes as to the proposed annexation. When the question was first raised they were amongst the most contented popu lations in Europe. He believed there was no question as to the authenticity of the 12,000 signatures in Savoy against annexation with France, and, if they vere to be Soparat ed from Sardinia, in favour of annexation to Switzer;and. In Nice the feeling was still stronger, and five-eighths (Jf the population were opposed to absorptiot in the Fre x,ch em pire. An attempt had been made to gel up a demon Istration in favour of France, but he was inforned by a g antleman who was present that he did not seo on; hat raised to the Emperor, or hear one single cheer fran the •populations upon the entry of the French troops on the Fst of April. On April 2d, a Provisional Governmelt was formed, and that was one of the basest contrivances for shifting the allegiance of a loyal people that was ever reseerted to. The officers were chosen by France, although they were said to be in the Sardinian service, and Cotnt Cavour assured them that their posts should be penman( mt if the people would agree to this annexation. Was tb .ere ever a more cruel abandonment by a Sovereign of a loyal people. Ho actually appealed to their loyalty towa ds 'himself to induce them to renounce their allegiance. But this was not the utmost of the wrong the Emperor of the French had per petrated. He had added the somblante of consulting the populations, whereas anything like flee choice or free elec tion was utterly impossible. That was how the French Em peror had performed his two promises. But there was also a third promise, which was made it very distinct terms, that Chablais and Faucigny and Genevois should be an nexed to Switzerland in case Savoy and Nice were included in the French empire. That promise was made to Lord Cowley on the sth of February, and it w as made on the per sonal word of the French Emperor. And how had it been fulfilled ? He forbore to say anything fi irther, because he learned from the noble lord that it was the subject of nego tiation which he (Mr. Kinglako) hoped would be conducted with a due sense of its immense importance, believing as he did that it involved the neutrality wad integrity of Switzer land, and the independence of Europe for many years to come. (Hear, hear.) THE BANK RETURNS. Mr. Alderman SALOMONS nished to ask the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a ques • tion; but before he did so, it would be necessary for him to say a few words in explanation. On the 19th of January last, when the rate of discount was di per cent., the reserve in the Bank of England was £8,000,000, whereas on last Thursday, when the rate of interest had increased to 8 per cent., the reserve was under £5,000,000. Now, much curiosity had been excited in the mercantile world in con sequence of this great fall in the amount of the reserve, and it was alleged that the cause was the withdrawal of nearly £2,000,000 of notes from circulation. Now, a charge of that description was so disparagiag to the Bank of Eng land, that he felt it his duty, being himself connected with a banking establishment, to place his question on the paper. He wished also to know whether this withdrawal of notes to se large an amount was the effect of a concerted action between parties to keep them out of circulation, and place them in a strong box. Another rumour had been in circu lation that day, that they were again put into circulation, and the question he wished to ask was, whether his atten tion had been directed to the Bank of England return, pub lished in the Gazette of Friday last, in so far as regards a diminution of notes in the hands of the Bank, and an addi tion to those in circulation, and whether he can give any information as to the report that this has not been produced by the ordinary requirements of trade, but by some con certed action on the Bank's reserve, to produce a disturb ance in the currency of the country. SURETIES FOR INCOME TAX COLLECTORS. Sir S. NORTIICOTE, before the right hon. gentleman replied to the question just put, wished to know whether persons who may have become sureties for income tax col lectors at a time when the rate of the income tax was sd. or 7d. in the pound, are liable for any default made by the col lector when the rate of the income tax is 9d. or 10d. in the pound ; and, if they are not, whether in the event of a col lector _making default the taxpayer will be held liable to make a further payment to cover the deficiency. He also wished to know how the Government intended to proceed with the business before the house, and when the Wine Licensing Bill would come on for dismission ? Mr. HADFIELD asked what the right hon. gentleman intended to do respecting inland bonding ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that as regarded the last question, his hon. friend was aware of the position in which the bill then stood, and as soon as it was passed by thq house, which he hoped would be very soon, he would inform him of what were the views of the Government on the subject. With respect to the liabilities of sureties for collectors of the income tax, the house must be aware that the appointment of these officers was not under the control of the Executive Government, but of the local authorities. Nor were the sureties entered into nor the appointments permanent, but had to be renewed every ' year, aid fresh bonds entered into. The liability of sure ties, therefore, extended only for a year, but the question was under the consideration of the Government whether that system should net be altered. He believed it was a question the house would have to consider during the pre sent session, because with respect to the liability of the tax payers in cases where frauds had been committed, it was a very serious question. Then, as to the manner in which the Government proposed to go on with the business, he hoped to have the Customs' Bill in committee by eleven o'clock, and, if not, would proceed at a later hour with the bill, for a repeal of Sir James Barnard's Act, which he did not think would meet with any serious opposition. As to the Wine Licensing Bill, he was net then in a position to move +hu + 44,--Ase of Oho any rpail in nrder to have it . postponed, but he would place it on the paper for Monday, and he would then fix a day for the adjourned debate, as the second reading of the Reform Bill stood for that day. As to the question put by the hon. member for Greenwich respecting the return of the Bank of England, published in the Gazette of Friday last, his attention had been directed to the matter, because in a case where the interests of the whole country were so deeply concerned, it was the duty of one filling his position to see to the cause. The principal facts were very clearly traced out in the papers the honour able gentleman moved_ for, and any one who thought fit to refer to them, could see at once what were the material facts. The cause of the great diminution in the reserve could be seen in the first column of the papers, and was caused by the withdrawal of a number of one thousand pound notes, so that the reserve, on the 11th of April, was no loss than three millions. That diminution, he was bound to say, did not arise from the ordinary requirements if trade ; and as to concerted action, he was not prepared to give an answer. He did not think, however, there was any combination among parties to bring about such a result. In deed, there was hardly any need of concealment, nor of stat ing that it was owing to the operations of a single house of great business and respectability. As to whether it caused any disturbance in the currency, it would be going beyond his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) duty to give any answer on that point, because it would not be becoming in him to say or do anything which would inter fere with the freedom of action of a great mercantile house. Such an establishment may commit a prudent or an impru dent act, which would have the effect of injuring the com mercial interests of the country, but every man was at li berty to do what he pleased with the balances ho had at his banker's. Ho had seen the governor and deputy-governor of the Bank of England, and Mr. Overend, a partner in the great commercial establishment to which he alluded, and who put himself in communication with him. They stated to him all the facts of the case, and their views with respect to its effects on the Bank of England, as well as the public at large, and he certainly did not see there were any grounds for censure. The proceedings of a private commercial house may have been imprudent or injurious ; but it was not for him, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to censure an act which was a private transaction, and in the exercise of a power which every mercantile house possessed, and had a right to exercise. The fact was, that after the crisis of 1857, when the . Bank of England was greatly embarrassed, and put to great inconvenience, and when the law of the land had to be suspended, they adopted a rule which had refer ence to the exclusion of a certain class of traders, in order to prevent such a circumstance again taking place. The parties thus affected by it thought the rule had an injurious effect on them, and that it threw legitimate business from their hands into the Bank of England, but altogether there were grave matters for consideration connected with the whole subject. They went into the whole question of the policy of the present law, but it ought to be said, in justice to the Bank of England, that the authorities behaved with the most perfect propriety. Neither had Mr. Overend the slightest objection to give the matter publicity, because he acted in the matter according to his own judgment and dis cretion. THE NEUTRAL PROVINCES—SWITZERLAND. Mr. S. FITZGERALD said, with reference to the ob servation which fell from the noble lord at the head of the Government, that, the statement of the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs would give satisfaction to the house and to the country, he wished to ask that noble lorcione question. The question he wished to put was, that as the Swiss Con federation required a conference of the European Powers to settle the question of theneutral provinces, no French army should in the meantime be allowed to occupy them ; that until a decision was come to on the subject their neutrality should be perfectly secured. Unless a satisfactory answer was given to that question, he did not believe the statement of the noble lord would be approved of by the country. THE 'COAST-GUARD SERVICE. Sir C. NATI ER rose to call attention to the discrepancy which existed between the Secretary of the Admiralty and himself with respect to the number of men in the coast guard service. Ile put them down at 9,500 men. The offi cers numbered 567, the seamen 9,000 and odd, and the boys 655. Now, the decision of the Maritime Committee was, that 70,000 meS, as a naval reserve, were necessary for the defence of the coast of this country, and yet, in the face of that, the Government had but a few thousand men for that service. The hon. and gallant admiral then referred to those discrepancies in the naval estimates, of which he had on a previous night spoken, and concluded by hoping that the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would give some explanations on the subject. Lord C. PAGE'P was enabled to say that the force being raised for the sea service of the country was progressing in a most satisfactory manner. For the satisfaction of the gallant officer he would inform him that a return had been made by the Comptroller-General of the Coast Guard, that the men at present available for the sea ser vice amounted to 6,862 men and boys. That return ap plied to the Coast Guard and Royal Volunteers. He did not think there was any necessity for alarm, either in this house or out of doors, as to tha failure of thuscherae- for creating a reserve—(hear, hear)—and so far was the progress encouraging, that he was inclined to think there was much reason for congratulation. There was, in the last week, a fair increase in the number of the men. Before that their training ships were not in a state of preparation for the reception of the men, who know very I well they could not come up for training until the blgin- ning of April. They began by enrolling 30 or 40 per week, and they were now enrolling 100 per week ; and if they could only keep up at that rate, they should do very well. He thought it very unreasonable in the hon. and gallant Admiral, to be going on in the complaining manner in which he latterly indulged in his speeches. They had en- tercel no less than 11,000 men in the present year, and there was no difficulty in their getting able seaman. (H ear ) He had been visited daily by gallant officers of the Channel fleet, and they said to him, " Can't you induce Sir Charles Napier to cease making speeches in the House of Commons which are very discouraging to the men ?" He was bound to tell the gallant admiral that his brother officers were of that opinion ; and he did not think that tho continual com- plaints which he was making about the men of the fleet not having sufficient leave were prudent. Whether there was less leave now than , formerly he was not prepared to say but there was latterly a continual system of breaking leave yet., he begged to state to the house that the fleet was never i n a more healthy or more satisfactory state than at the pre sent time. (Hear, hear.) He could assure the house that there had been sad cases of insubordination which arose out of those cases of "leave ;" but as to the fleet generally, he was enabled to say that it was in a most healthy state. The gallant admiral also complained that the petty officers of the navy were insufficient. Now, ho thought that, under the circumstances, it was natural there should be a paucity of petty officers. The sea-going fleet was of course not of a na ture to encourage petty officers to join; but when the fleet came home they entered the Coast Guard service, in which they received encouragement, and he thought that was right. He therefore thought those complaints on the part of his gallant friend were equally without foundation. The gallant admiral would lead the country to believe that the men were overworked. Now that was not the case. Sir C. NAPIE R—l complain of the system, and not of the quantity. • Lerd C. PAGET—The question was, what was the dif ference between system and quantity. He that very day happened to have a visit from a captain of the Channel Fleet, and he bad shown him that the greatest amount of drill during any one day was two hours, and that, taking the week, it did not amount in the average to one hour a day. Now, no one would say that was excessive drill for young men. (Hear, hear.) He believed it was the wish of the gallant admiral to improve the condition of the seamen; but he also believed that the speeches which the hon. and gallant admiral delivered were calculated to do the greatest mischief. With regard to his hon. and gallant friend's re marks in reference to what he (Lord C. Paget) stated last year about ship building, he never made a statement in his life of which he felt it was more his duty to express his opinion than on that occasion. Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR said that it was the opinion of all the naval officers with whom he had had communica tion, that the establishment of naval school ships would prove a most valuable means of providing for the manning of their navy; and he would suggest that twelve such schools be established for: the accommodation of 2,400 boys, and by that course of training they would in a couple of years have four-and-twenty thousand men added to the volunteer force. (Hear.) There was an article in that day's Times on the question, and he really never read an article more to the purpose. The best course would be to know where they were to get young men. He was sorry to see that the estimates did not contain any provision on the subject ; but he thought a supplementary estimate might be added to meet the case; and, if he might be allowed, he would himself bring forward a motion on the subject. He might be called a "landsman" and a "sea lawyer," but he spoke with the best authority upon this subject. He was authorised by the Peninsula and Oriental Steam Packet Companies to state that they made a pro posal to her Majesty's Government, that in the event of any seaman leaving their service and going into the navy, they would not deprive them of their month's pay, but would allow it to go on for the month ; and he was farther in a position to say, with regard to the port of Southampton, with which he was connected, that port would be prepared to pay half the expense of a school-ship, if the Government would pay the other half. (Hear.). It appeared to him that the educational results of such a system to the navy would in 12 months furnish them with a large supply of lads for the navy. One condition of the proposal of the port was, and he thought a fair and reasonable one, that the Govern ment when furnished with lads from those school ships, should charge themselves with the whole of the cost, and refund to the port the expenses it had incurred for the inte rest of the service. Such a course would contribute very much to carry out those experiments successfully, and he hoped the noble lord would take it into his consideration, and prepare a supplemental estimate on the subject. Sir J. ELPHINSTONE looked upon it as the foundation of this scheme that if it were carried on simultaneously, such a course would take away half its difficulty. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned gentleman that it was de sirable the Government should give encouragement to those who proposed their readiness to pay half the expenses, and if, by the system, they could get 5,000 or 6,000 boys it would be very encouraging, He would say ono word on the subject of breaking of leave, which was some proof of an uniumat elate of fooling on the part of the seamen of the fleet. A sailor landed at the Hard of Portsmouth, where he was allowed to got into a labyrinth of vice that was perfectly disgraceful, and had to return to his ship as he could. He hoped the Government would take some resolute step in this matter, and have a proper police to watch where he went and bring him on board if it were necessary. The work of the seamen was trifling, and he ought to be better kept in hand. Mr. WHITBREAD said that when the experience of the first training ship was known they would be able to say what could be done for the boys. Mr. JACKSON here intimated his intention of postpon ing his motion for a general inquiry into the dockyards until Tuesday, in order not to stop supply. SUPPLY. The house then went into committee of supply on the navy estimates. The first vote proposed was one of £174,000 to defray the salaries of officers in her Majesty's naval establishments at home. Mr. WILLIAMS complained of the item of £642 for temporary clerks, which last year amounted to £9l. He ob served, too, that an officer, called an " assistant superinten dent," had been appointed at Portsmouth and Devonport, at a salary of £BOO a year, and one called an "acting ac countant," at Devenport, at a salary of £5OO. These offices did not exist the year before, and there were other appoint ments equally objectionable, considering that they were made for the first time. The whole increase on the vote was £24,700, which, at such a moment, was altogether unjusti fiable. If the house were not so thin, he should certainly divide it upon the vote, but at any rate he hoped to hear some satisfactory explanation on the subject. Sir M. 'SEYMOUR observed that if the officers of the dockyards had asked for assistance, it would be a good ground for giving it to them, otherwise the contemplated step alipeared to be somewhat unjustifiable. Lord C. PAGET said it was true the officers of Ports mouth and Devonport dockyards had not asked for as sistance, but as the number of men in those yards were doubled, and there were many more clerks employed there, it was not reason4ble to expect the superintendents to be equal to their increased duties. Their correspondence was immensely increased, and but for that it was probable they would have been able to prevent the embezzlements which had occurred of late. It was a piece of economy in that point of view; but as the Admiralty felt that an in quiry must take place shortly into the whole question of dockyard management, the board proposed not to make the appointments until aftor the result of the inquiry was known. He proposed therefore that they stand in the estimates for the present, subject to that understanding. With regard to the employment of temporary clerks, he would say that were the business of our dockyards to continue upon its 'present scale of magnitude, it would be necessary to in crease those establishments enormously. He hoped however that much of it would before long cease, and in the mean time the present temporary arrangement had been made. Mr. BRISTOWE and Mr. JACKSON urged that the vote should be reduced by £1,600, the amount of these sa laries; to which Lord C. PAGET assented. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to know how many new appointments would be made under that estimate ; and, if the appointments were made, whether they would be entitled to superannuation ? Lord C. PAGET said that the two assistant-superinten dents were tho only now appointments made in the vote, and the holders of them would not be entitled to superan nuation. - After some conversation, Mr. Alderman SALOMONS inquired upon what princi ple it was that men were discharged from the dockyards, and whether promotion was by serimity oeby ability? Lord C. PAGET said the dismissals and promotions were entirely under the control of the superintendents, who were the best judges of the comparative merits of the men. He must say that there never had been an application to him for promotion in the dockyards, and he was determined that politics should have nothing whatever to do with this department of the public service. Mr. JACKSON objected to the constant changes which took place in the offices of superintendents of dockyards. The plan adopted in mercantile business was not to dis charge a man when he had learnt his duties, but to keep the man and give him increased remuneration. Mr. A. SMITH thought that system was one of the main causes of the inefficiency of that department. Sir J. ELPHIN STONE complained of the want of pro per provision for the services of Presbyterian ministers to officers and men belonging. to that denomination in those departments. Lord C. PAGET said that no application had been made 'to the Admiralty, which, if there had been any large num ber of persons having ground of complaint, ho thought would have been the case. The amendment was withdrawn and the vote agreed to. The next vote was £30,953 for salaries of navy officers and expenses of establishments abroad. Upon the vote of X 1,400,000, Mr. LINDSAY drew attention to die extravagant cost EDINBURGH CITY. Mr. CAIRD moved an address for return showing the number of householders belonging to the different profes sions, trades, and other occupations within the parliamen tary burgh of the city of Edinburgh; the rent, without de duefion of their houses, classifying the rentals into that of £lO and upwards, those at £6 and under £lO, and those under £6, all taken from the valuation roll of the burgh prepared under the Lands Valua tion Act for the year 1859-60 ; the return to be divided into four sections—the first to comprise those classes of householders of whom there are none who occupy houses under £10; the second those classes who occupy houses under £lO, and of which more than one-half are from £6 to £lO ; the third section 'to contain the more skilled labour classes who are not included in either of the foregoing sec tions; and the fourth to contain the less skilled labour classes who are not included in any of the other three sec tions—all the columns to be summed up, and an abstract of the results to be appended.—Ordered. REFORM BILL. Mr. E. JAMES gave notice that he would ask the noble lord the Foreign Secretary whether, on the second reading of this bill, it was proposed to refer it to a select eonfmittee, or whether it would be proceeded with this session. NATIONAL EDUCATION. Mr. HENNESSY asked the Chief Secretary for Ire land if a reply had been given bp the Government to the letter from the Roman Catholic bishops, dated Match 18 , 1860, with reference to national education in Ireland ? Mr. CARDWELL replied in the negative. FOREIGN AFFAIRS. On the motion for going into committee of supply, Mr. TIORSMA.N called the attention of the houso to the state of our relations with foreign powers, and to ask some explanations on the_ subject from the Govrrninent. lle said the affairs of the continent were in a more threatening enclitic:seat the - present time than they were when th 4 session commenced, and foreign states were trembling at the state ii r vv eu la tta i t e is lt they now found th emse l ves pl ace d. Tinder these Dees, he wished for some information on the part 01,f herones , l it a i tery an 'a d idvisers to show that the Governmen i t were cordially united as to the policy which they' intended at this crisis to pursue in order to support the • heneur and interests of England. T h (Hear, hear.) Having referred to the d espa t c h of M omi ting co, o ve u p e trh l o c a o n e d deci th o sta t t h e- e Assuming state ment of that Minister, nextheu question of the annexati on . that that ththataannexa tion was a mere accidental circumstance, it was P an indication _of the policy which the E m the French . proposed to ,pursue— with regard r o to f either, he wished to know what w as the course this Go vernment had determined on in an emergency calculated to affect powerfully all the States of Europe. The hon. 'member then adverted to the statement made by Lord J.!Russell previous to the adjournment for the Easter holidays, and remarked that M. Thouvenel had twitted the 'neble lord that there had been no protest against the annexation. Now, he regretted that there had not been such a protest, for it did not necessarily involve this country in a war against = the policy to, - which it . was opposed. That protest was valuable, as a proof that this country did not acquiesce in a particular line of policy, therefore its not being made in the present case was a political error. There was sufficient to' arouse the suspicion of this country, both in the past and the present, that the Emperor of the French • aittied at territorial aggrandisement. (Hear, and No, no.) There were rumours that Prussia was being . assailed with:a • •view to promote that policy, and that overtures had been made relative to the rectification of the Rhenish frontier, and that a fail:arable issue to France would be rewarded by the annexation of certain minor states. A map of Europe, published in.Faris two years ago, had acquired a new signification in the eyes of Frenchmen, and it sug gested the aggressive policy of the Emperor of tho French. (Hear.) According to that map Lombardy was annexed to Sardinia, changes were effected in Morocco in relation to Spain, but the greatest alterations indicated by that map were in reference to the minor States of Ger many. (Hear, hear.) The latter were apprehensive that by the force of - external influence they world be an nexed to Prussia. He contended that Prtuesia was at that momentthreatened by France,and in this emergencyshe had friend to rely on but this country. If she could not rely on this country, o 'entry, then she would be driven to make her own terms with France, and the result might prove most disastrous to the interests of En England. The independence of Switzer land was a Europeanth question of the first order, and the Swiss had shown usthey were resolute and true to themselves and to Europe. yet they were free, and they had made it known 'that if A th a T ey h lost that freedom it should not be by their own act. t h h ad startled Europe by declaring that if Europe abandoned ,airle.hatin single-handed, own y cause, they were determined that France, rather than would brave the 'colossal power of suffer extinction without a struggle. (Cheers.) They had the spirit of our own poet, who said :—. " This land we from onr fathers have in trust, And to our children we transmit it. This is our maxim, I his our fiat, And God and Nature say that it is just. That which we can perform in arms, .we must. • We read the dictum in the infant's eyes, in the wife's • smile, And at our feet, beneath the silent dust of those that were." 'Ana 'when` Switzerland now appealed t( us that brave is . : , (Continued from our first page ) bounden duty of every one to preserve harmony. That lonic must be either a perpetual obstacle to democratic measures or be summarily swept away, and with it the monarchy and all that was most valuable in our ancient institutions. (Hear.) H.e. did not say this as against the adoption of the measure, but he thought it afforded good grounds for having in the first instance the best possible data and information. _ _ Earl GRANVILLE regretted that no information had been given as to what they were to do in the committee now proposed. He was also sorry that the noble earl (Grey) should have deemed it necessary to rail so harshly against American institutions ; and as to transatlantic rail way legislation, he believed that our early practice in a similar direction had exhibited scarcely more satisfactory results. He did not wish to discuss in detail a bill which was not then before the house, and, therefore, he should only say that the object of the Government was to go as low with the franchise as they could without swamping the existing constituencies. As to the returns, he main tained that they were substantially correct, and the main object of the Government in consenting to go into the .committee was to convince noble lords who were now sceptical of their correctness. The noble earl opposite talked of statistics, but he should like to know what statistics had he himself in 1832, when he was one of the most earnest advocates of the first Reform Bill. Go vernment went into the committee with a sincere desire to give every possible information, but he did not think that much importance would spring from it. He regretted the frame of mind in which the noble earl approached the subject, and feared that his expressions would go far to cre ate that prejudice against the aristocrary which he so much deprecated. He regretted to hear the noble earl expressing his hope that a measure from which his own party in ano ther place had withdrawn all opposition might be delayed for one or perhaps two sessions, and he trusted that the noble earl's hopes would be disappointed. On the contrary, he believed that noble lords would see the necessity of dis posing of this measure whilst the working classes were tranquil and contented, and would thus be able not to weaken but to strengthen our institutions. He should go into the committee to get information ; but ho protested against the idea that the hands of the Government were to be tied up as regarded the Reform Bill during any tine which the committee might think proper to sit. Earl GREY said, as to his responsibility for the bill of 1852, it was right that he should make some explanations. Lord John Russell made the statement which led to the introduction of that measure, viz., that the time had arrived at which the bill of 1832 should be reconsidered—entirely without the know ledge of his colleagues that he was going to make such a statement, and in opposition to the wishes and opinions of most of them, including himself (Lord Grey). He extremely deplored that the noble lord should have made such a statement, and it was with the greatest re luctance that he continued a member of the Government after the statement had been made. He made no conceal ment of his opinion that to disturb the question at all was inexpedient. He never approved of Lord John Russell's bill, but thought it was open to many objections. He knew, too, that it stood no chance of passing, and that the Go vernment itself could not last. But as the chief attacks on that Government were made on the department over which he presided, he thought he could not forsake them at such a moment. He therefore consented that the bill should be brought in, which he now confessed was a generous error on his part. As to the bill of 1832, at that time it was a question of Reform or revolution, which was not now the case. Great caution ought to be observed in extending poli tical power. The arguments by which these measures were supported were capable of being carried further and further till they arrived at universal suffrage. There was a large class of people in this country who looked to their lordships to act wisely and boldly in this matter. There were a variety of considerations inituencing the other house from which their lordships were free. It was believed that if the other house were allowed to vote by ballot on this question, the bill would be rejected by an overwhelming majority. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) It therefore became the duty of their lordships to consider the matter with boldness and with fairness. In conclusion, the noble earl assured the house that he did not move for the committee from any desire to delay the bill when it arrived in that house. The motion was then agreed to, and their lordships ad journed at half-past nine. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Bradford, Wakefield, and Leeds Railway Bill and Widnes Gas and Water Bill were read a third time, _ . of ship building in her Majesty's dockyards as compared with private establishments. This subject had been inves tigated by a committee of the house, and they had pointed out upon a comparison of the cost of certain ships that the cost per ton in her Majesty's yards was 170 s. per ton, whereas the cost in a private yard was only 525. por ton. In other words a ship could be build in a private yard for one-third the sum it cost in her Majesty's dockyard. That was a grave charge which the committee had made against the dockyard department, and required explanation. Lord C. PAGET said that a very careful inquiry had been instituted into this subject, and it had been found that the vessels alluded to had been built in the height and con fusion of the Russian war. The noble lord entered into some details, in the course of which he admitted there was a w ant of system. It had also been discovered that some of the clerks, being overworked, had fallen into error in figures, so that the accounts rendered were incorrect. An investi- gation was still going on. Ho thought that what had al ready transpired showed the necessity of having annual accounts prepared from these departments for the inspec• tion of Parliament. Mr, JACKSON was told by a party connected with the dockyards that the reason there was a difference between the cost in one dockyard and another was that in one there were two masters to every man, and in another one to every ten men. Its had also been informed that it was no use ap pointing committees to inquire into the dockyards, as the authorities always humbugged them. Lord LOVAINE severely censured the manner in which the works were conducted in their dockyards, but ho did not approve of wholesale charges being made against the autho . • Mr. LINDSAY made no charge against anybody, bu only relied on the evidence given before the committee. Lord LOVAINE charged the contractors in their dock yards with being guilty of practices which were much to be deprecated. Mr. JACKSON defended the contractors, who were as honest as any noble lord in England. Sir C. NAPIER thought the way to remedy this evil was to have a proper superintendence and proper salaries to those engaged in the duty. After some further conversation on the question on the various cost of shipbuilding per ton in the English dock yards, and on the discrepancies in the estimates, in which Sir J. Trelawny, Mr. Henley, Lord C. Paget, Sir H. Wil loughby, Sir J. Elphinstone, and Mr. Alderman Salomons took part, Mr. LINDSAY expressed his surprise that so large a sum as £1,400,000 was proposed for defraying the expenses of shipbuilding in their dockyards. He found that the country was charged 170 s. per ton for shipbuilding in the dockyards, while in private dockyards similar work was executed for 525. per ton. He felt that he should not be performing his duty if he did not move that the vote be reduced,—he might say two-thirds, but he would say by £lOO,OOO. Adniiral WALCOTT said there was nothing for which the public were more disposed to liberally vote money than for the purposes of the navy, provided they were satisfied that the money was properly laid out; but when they heard of crippled ships, with no sailing power, they were much dissatisfied. Lord LOVAINE referred to the report of the man who built the gunboats, and said that the very man who built those boats told them in that report that they could not be built for £2 Bs., and that their cost altogether, including their fittings, was £6. After a few words from Mr. LYGON, Sir J. PAKINGTON said he should be unable to sup port the hon. member for Sunderland if he intended to carry his amendment to a division. He was extremely sorry to find that the Government had ignored the proceedings of a committee which had pursued its duties in the most un exceptionable manner. The only notice, in fact, which the Admiralty had taken of that committee was a curt memo randum of the noble duke at the head of the Admiralty, conceived in a very unworthy spirit, and coming from him with the worst possible grace. No man had made more serious charges against the naval administration than had that noble lord. The noble lord had said that £5,000,000 had been wasted by successive boards ; but he had not come forward either to re- assert his accusations or to verify them. Those charges had, however, been refuted by Sir Baldwin Walker, and he very much regretted that the Government should have thought proper to proceed in the manner it had with reference to these estimates. At the same time he thought it highly inexpedient at such a moment as this not to pass a vote which would have the effect of shackling their free action in a most essential matter. Mr. BRISCOE recommended the hon. member for Sun derland to withdraw his amendment. Lord C. PAGET said he could not allow the remarks of the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich, with reference to the Committee on Dockyard Economy, to pass unnoticed. When the right hen. baronet said that the recommendations of that committee had been ignored by the present Board of Admiralty, he could assure the house that some of them were now under consideration, and would eventually be adopted ; one with regard to a new system of examinations. The right hon. gentleman said also, that the tone of the noble duke's memorandum was anything but proper ; but as to that ho (Lord C. Paget) must be permitted to observe that the tone of the report of the committee itself was unjust, and somewhat offensive to the officers of the dockyards. They attributed the evils which they pointed out to a want of zeal on the part of the officers, but ho could find no evidence to support that charge. The committee, in fact, admitted that many of their recom mendations were not founded upon evidence, and one of its members refused to join in the report, which to some ex tent weakened its value. Sir C. NAPIER vindicated the conduct of Sir Baldwin Walker, who, ho maintained, had not as yet made a single mistake. If the Government did not retract the charges whicli they had made against that officer, he ought not to continue to be Surveyor or Comptroller of the Navy. Mr. JACKSON explained that he had received every as sistance from the noble duke at the head of the Govern ment with reference to getting the commission he intended to move for, and that his persisting in his motion would have been productive of great public inconvenience. Mr. MONSELL expressed his hope that the Govern ment would turn their attention to the improvement of the defences of Cork Harbour. Of the enormous increase in the navy and military estimates he did not believe that one shilling was intended to, be expended on the improvement of the safety of Ireland. After a few words from Mr. BENTINCIC, Col, DICKSON said that the want of control over the expenditure of the country produced the impression that the members of that house were incompetent to discharge their duty. When they were told that these ships could hardly go out for six weeks without requiring repairs, it was high time inquiry should take place. It was a question whether the style of ships could not be improved, and in other respects the expenditure of the dockyards be reduced. He should on that ground vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Sunderland. The amendment was then put .and negatived, and the vote was agreed to. On the next vote, £63,686, wages of artificers employed in her Majesty's establishments abroad, Mr.IWILLIAMS objected that many of the items were not given for which the money was required. Sir W. JOLLIFFE said the increase arose out of the Chinese war. The vote was agreed to. • On the next vote of £3,201,434 for naval stores, for building repairs, &c., Lord C. PAGET said he would take that opportunity of making some reply to the important statement of the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire on a previous evening. The right hon. gentleman said that in consequence of the neglect of successive Boards of Admi ralty the stock of timber necessary for ship-building few poses had been allowed to fall far below what it ought to be—that whereas it was formerly the practice to keep three years' supply in stock, for the purpose of thoroughly seasoning it, we now kept only two years' stock, which was insufficient to give properly • seasoned timber. In reply to that statement he might certainly, if he chose to do so, make the same reply to the right hon. gentleman as was made to him by his colleague, the late First Lord of the Admiralty, last year, namely, that that right hon. gentleman only asked for a supply equal to two years' stock last year. But he would not do that; on the con trary, he was prepared to show that two years' stock in hand was now amply sufficient for all practical purposes. The right hon. gentleman seemed to be under the impres sion, derived from the evidence of some of the witnesses be fore the dockyard committee, that ships were built of timber not properly seasoned, and that we ought to have a larger stock. Undoubtedly, if we were to continuo building ships at the rate we had recently done, that might be true. But ho took the average quantity of 60,000 loads of timber per annum for building; that was the quantity he asked for the current year. We had'nearly the same quantity in stock at the commencement of the present year, and we would have the same at its close. In other words they would have two years' stock in hand. Circumstances had very much changed since it was considered necessary to keep up a three years' stock. In those days the use of hard woods and foreign wood was almost unknown. Their great supply was almost confined to English oak, which being purchased on the spot required a longer seasoning. But Italian oak and other fo reign woods were partly seasoned on their voyage to this country. Not less than two-thirds of the whole of the woods used in ship building were now foreign woods, and did not want any seasoning at all. That made one great cause of difference as to the amount of stock required to be kept in 'hand. The right hon. gentleman seemed to think also that a very long time was required for seasoning, but there was a difference of opinion on that point. Mr. Green, one of our largest shipbuilders, said that two years were spite suffi cient for English oak to season, as after that it began to de teriorate. But the right hon. gentleman talked as if the Government had nothing to do but to come to the house and ask for another £lOO,OOO in order to get an additional £lOO,OOO worth of timber. That was not the case—they could not get it. There was not enough of the large sized timber we used to meet a larger demand within one year. (" Hear," from Mr. Henley.) It was, however, very desir able that we should get a more regular and a larger supply from abroad, and ho could state to the right hon. gentle man that the Government was taking steps for that pur pose which it was impossible for him to state In detail. B u t he hoped they would shortly succeed in tkat object. With respect to the green wood, they required very large timbers for the rudder, and it was impossible to get seasoned wood of the size required. They therefore used green wood in that case only. With regard to teak, they had a very large quan in stock, and would add to it this year in propor- R. We were now building four iron-cased ships, and if they were successful wo would not hear much more of line- of-battle ships. He maintained that it would be unwise on our part to increase the number of our ships built on the present model if this system should prevail. Mr. HENLEY said he had given no opinion of his own on the subject when he spoke the other night. He merely quoted authorities in the naval dockyards as to the season. , ing of timber. As to the supply of timber, he relied upon the evidence of the Storekeeper-General, and he found that even the First Lord of the Admiralty estimated the annual supply of timber at 65,000 loads. Ho (Mr. Henley) consi dered that quantity insufficient. Sir B. W a lk er th oug ht ... . . . three line-of-battle ships and three frigates, and four small vessels, ought to be built every year, and the quantity of timber required for them would be 32,000 loads. sow, when you take into consideration the number of additional vessels required, it was obvious that at least 80,000 loads would be required per annum. Ho would not give any opinion as to the seasoning of the timber that would come in, nor would he deny the Government the credit of doing the best they could, but he thought it desirable to have as large an amount as possible of timber on hand, to meet any accidents that might happen. , He did not, however, think that the 60,000 loads would be sufficient. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BENTINCK observed that the price of anchors and chains for some years had not diminished, although in pri vate yards they could be manufactured at one-third the amount of what they cost in Government establishments. The public had been invited to compete for the contract for chains and anchors, but for sevei al years one firm had a monopoly of the work. He thought this unfair. (Hear.) Mr. RTDLEY wished to know whether the Government were of opinion that it was better for the public service to build largo line-of-battle ships of timber, instead of building them of iron, and without any reference to recent improve ments in the science of gunnery ? Sir C. NAPIER asked whether it had ever entered into the heads of the Board of Admiralty how a ship could be managed after her coals had been burned out? Sir W. JOLLIFFE said the estimate last year for steam vessels and gunboats was £500,000 ; for other vessels em ployed in the_service £1,400,000, and he thought the total sum asked for the year was large in proportion to former years. Majority ..... h ou- Mr. LYGON then moved the adjournr.aent ofdeupon which a division took place, when the nue:lA For the adjournment of the house ..... . Against it Majority .... . . . ... A motion was next made that the debate be 0. 1 ... 8 to this evening which was agreed to, a'nd the 1 1 °'''' journed at two , 'clock. BIRTHS. CALDECOTT.—On the 18th inst., at Sneresbroos-, - Caldecott, of a daughter. th e Wit° CLARKE.—On the 16th inst., at Southampton, Captain Clarke, R.E., of a daughter. MARRIAGES. MARSHALL —SNOW.--On the 17th inst., at St. ""'` t ",; Devon, CaptaimEdward Marshall, Ro yal NOY' sstl'l vinia Maitland, second daughter of Thomas SOW, .4" Franklyn. , tir ebt P B.Ftio?l Forest-hi ll, arr C eeo l ss l utt E zi T hsha T ii T li f yee T dsnt L et BE. daughtera. u , 0 n the 18th inst., at Christi.d'oto of s; Fran of eis Edward Pritche i tt, e , tolfedx,,,reseci., DEATHS. urig e ; Am Amos.—On the 18th i ns t., a t Downing College Csiou'as Andrew Amos, Esq., Downing Pref esso r of' the 1 ,3 " England. HOPE.—On the 17th i ns t., at Exeter, C o l on el John l . R.E., aged 64. WOOD.—At Graefrath, Prussia Comman d e r Jame s a ge R.N., son of the late John George Wood, tlsq l 51 tj Se' LONDON : Printed and Published by At URDO N o , of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office' ty 0 1 Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy , in the Q°lls Middlesex, Friday, April 20, 1860. After a few words from Sir M. PETO, Mr. FREELAND asked was any arrangement in pro gress for improving our coal depots, where the fleet might be expected to rendezvous, and for facilitating the means of getting coals on board ship in cases of emergency. To these purposes he thought that a portion of the large sum intended to be expended on foi tificatiens might advantageously be employed. Lord C. PAGET said that no great progress had been made in improving their coal depots, or the means of placing coals on board ship, as, with large crews, the old appliances had been found to answer. There were, however, two clever machines of recent construction on trial, and, if suc cessful, they would be adopted. With regard to the cost of anchors and chains, it was quite true that the Admiralty had but one manufacturer of those articles. Messrs. Brown and Lennox supplied them, and the anchors purchased from that firm were of the cheapest quality. He, however, agreed with the hon member for Norfolk that it might not be unad visable on the part of the Admiralty to consider the propriety of opening the contract to competition. With regard to the cost of the large iron ships in progress of being built, he should briefly state the amount. There were four iron cased ships at a contract of £739,325, the engines £210,1 15, making a total of £949,440, or nearly a million for the hulls and machinery ; six screw sloops of 200-horse power, at a cost of £88,754, and £60,000 for the engines; 12 gun vessels of 80-horse power each, at a cost of £119,255, and ma chinery £19,960 ; 10 gunboats of 60-horse power each, at a cost of £62,382, and £32,235 for machinery. The total, therefore, for hulls was £270,000, and £141,000 for engines. The grand total cost of vessels in course of construction by contract, therefore, amounted to £1,355,807. With the ess ception of the four iron-cased vessels, all the others, 67 in number, were wooden ships. None of these vessels had their boilers so adapted that when the coal was entirely consumed they could be ballasted with water. Sir J. ELPHINSTONE considered the system of test ing cables was perfect, and suggested that the new vessels should be fitted up with smoke-consuming apparatus. Mr. LINDSAY ebjected to the vote on the sill ° ground that they did not get value for their money. an reiterated his charge that the Admiralty paid for chore and cables 100 per cent. higher than they could be obtains(' from other parties in London, quite competent to suPP II articles of equal quality. Ho wished to know whether the coals were supplied by public tender or private contract ? Mr. BRUCE said that public tender was not the best means of getting good coal on moderate terms. The AV miralty ought to employ trustworthy agents. In reply to Mr. BENTINCK, Lord C. PAGET thought, that under the new arrang e " ments the Admiralty would have a good supply of coal!. There was an officer whose duty it was to make a vseekli report on the subject. As to the consumption of smoke , two men were starting upon entirely opposite principles, and until this controversy was settled they could only es: periment on the subject, and they were now fitting tIP " few vessels for the purpose. Admiral WALCOT observed that the sum of £400,0 0° was an enormous sum for coal, and he thought that rstructione Should be given only to use steam when it was necessary. A little more use of canvass would b e both beneficial and economical. In reply to Sir J. PAKINGTON, Lord C. PAGET said that the iron-case ship ordered would be launched in the beginning of July. There Were other ships of that construction contracted for, but he con s " not state at present when they would be ready. The vote was then agreed to. The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the house r e. sum ed. SIR JOHN BARNARD'S ACT, &c., REPEAL Re-s e The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved to second reading of this bill. Mr. BENTINCK moved that the debate be now A s ; journed. He should oppose the further progress of bill at that late hour. The house then divided— For the adjournment Against it Majority —B9 .4 Mr. BOVILL moved that the house do now aslie ll s ' o l He had heard three accounts of the object of this one of which agreed with the other. The principle et ' h s bill was to sanction gambling of the worst description the Legislature. No discussion had yet taken Oise s A as the principle of the bill, and he therefore moved the journment of the house. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL hoped his hon. The learned friend would not persevere in his motion. l i p object of the bill before the house was to repeal Sir . 1 41 Barnard's Act, which involved two principles, One P is relation to wagers, and the other to making transactionsso the funds gambling. Now, the great purpose of the 4 before the house was to get rid of this latter provisl ° o which interdicted transactions in the funds which ~,g , bone fide, and which could not be considered as gasabilits for stockbrokers were dealing with property entrusts them to sell, and which must be considered, in every s ew of the word, as proper transactions to be dealt in. The house then divided— For the adjournment 6O Against it Majority Lord 11. T. TIIYNNE then moved that the debate now adjourned. as Sir J. TRELAWNY complained that by these I . o°- e ce he was prevented from bringing on his motion in refere A to church rates. These divisions were intended to u P the Church Rates Bill. Mr. COLLINS protested against these divisions b eiD6 taken as divisions against the church rate measure. bbl: Mr. MALINS said although he was in favour of the t st yet at that hour of the morning it ought not to be pre ° bile a with. It was always understood that any unoppFe,„e should not be proceed e d w ith a ft er 12 o ' c l oc k at ntgl s ' fl iea The CHANCELLOR o f th e EXCHEQUER %y o re' that that was ev er un d ers t oo d, b e cause, if so, the Go' lie ment could not carry on the business of the countr9.ooo! denounced the attempt of a minority, or rather sinasli tbed of members, to obstruct public business, but after sold net occurred, he thought her Majesty's Government WO be justified in proceeding with the bill. .„ After a few words from Sir Fs K ELLY, the Wl' postponed. The Wine Licenses Bill was postponed till ISIoncla9:0 Se On the motion that the Church Rates Abolition P' read a third time, be il i Lord J. MANNERS opposed it, and hoped t. 14611 baronet would not proceed st ith it at that hour (ii se one) of the morning. He moved that the debate W journed. After a few words from Mr. BENTINCK, to Lord PALMERSTON said he would be willing ot fo his hon. fiend the hon. baronet Tuesday morning 11 the discussion of the bill. (A laugh.) The house then divided, when the numbers war For the adjournment . 131 Against it .. --- 55 0 06 _ . n RATE dire° Lion Door! P4nct ted Us ping colon' %kir' healti tvini remed Inure( The Which of Car 111-eat 13PEI DISE' SYST Arg ritn. Why t they togetl Nett° Cert tofu cbra (liar bilit —D lane, rout droi t iot bltti t tior low Cl ion.- to cl - •Toin Jarro , Mr. .] A' condi Pero! addec Misfit Ti This eim a pith the C leenti T' Barre Cases ithowi venal of foc Age appoi. JOS] A r TE PAT] Z:na et Moat] rehtof are fl, tidbit; tracti and b of nev Ch;t :g rolyt4 TF and p prone, vends thus a BY Medit Ptreet tzoatei S' Fon DI the btqi nat . 1 0 1 . 1( tip tli( . NY; e n bp ] eel Rt. F' ' Q