The Sun. — London, England, 1859-03-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY)• The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. - CHURCH-RATES RELIEF BILL. A NOBLE LORD gave notice 'that, on the second read ing of the Church--Rate Relief Bill, he should move that it be read a second time that day six months. THIRD READING. On the motion of Lord REDESDALE the Norwich New Streets Bill, and the Victoria London Docks Bill, were read a third time and passed. The Earl of RIPON presented a petition from Boston, praying that Dissenters might be enabled to act as trustees of endowed schools. ELECTRIC TELEGRAPHS. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved for copies of any contracts which may have been made by her Majesty's Government with any individual or company for the con•• atruction of electric telegraphs. As he understood there was no opposition to the returns he should not trouble their lordships with any lengthened remarks, but he thought it. was desirable in any future bills that a clause should be in troduced empowering her Majesty's Government to have the exclusive right, in time of war, or any other public emergency, as long as was required. He thought in any arrangements which the Govtrnment made with telegraph companies, no subsidy should be guaranteed absolutely, and that no guarantee should be given until the line was com pleted, and the subsidy should only continue so long as the line was in working order. The Earl of DONOUGHMORE said the question of elec tric telegraphs was under the consideration of the Govern ment, with a view of ascertaining the best mode of getting them erected wherever they might be required, with the least public inconvenience. Lord REDESDALE thought that guarantees were alto gether objectionable and unnecessary. The effect of any public company succeeding in obtaining a Government guarantee would be that a monopoly would unduly be treated. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. THE VICE-CHANCERY COURTS. The LORD CHANCELLOR rose to ask leave to introduce a bill for the purpose of extending the power of the Lord Chancellor, and of providing better accommodation to the Vice-Chancellors. He believed a scheme was in preparation for erecting new courts on the site of a plot of buildings extending from Carey-street to the Strand, and that it was proposed to take £BOO,OOO from the suitors' fee fund for defraying the ex penses. He did not object to such a scheme, but he felt , a s Lord Chancellor and guardian of the suitors' fee fund, that he must protect it against invasion. He therefore pro tested against any proposition to apply that fund to any other purposes than to those for which it was collected. The bill was read a first time. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY. the SPEAKER. took the chair at four o'clock. NEW MEMBERS. Lord LOVAINE took the oaths and his seat for North Northumberland, and Mr. COLE for Enniskillen. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented, praying for the rejec tion of the Highways Bill ; for an mvestiption into the subject of the Newfoundland fisheries question; for the re jection of the Government Reform Bill ; for the adoption of vote by ballot for members of Parliament; for the aboli tion of church rates, &c., &c. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Shepton Mallet Water Bill was read a third time and passed. Tile following bills were considered and ordered for third reading :—Falmouth Docks and Harbour, Great Western and Brentford Railway, Kirkwall Harbour, Much Wen lock and Severn Junction Railway, Norwich (City) Water, Sunderland and South Shields Water, Wimbledon and Dorking and Epsom and Leatherhead Railways. The Kingston-upon-Thames Gas Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed. The report of the committee on the Red Sea and India Telegraph Company Bill was considered and agreed to. On the motion of Mr. C. FORSTER, the following was agreed to :—That the order, that the Sittingbourne and Sheerness Railway (Working Arrangements, &c.) Bill be committed, be read and discharged. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IN IRELAND Mr. BRADY gave notice that on Friday next he would move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the law relating to the registration of voters in Ireland. EXPENDITURE IN THE DOCKYARDS. Sir J. PAKINGTON said that in consequence of some misstatements which had been made in reference to the ex penditure by Government in the dockyards by the noble lord the member for Sandwich, he begged to give notice that he mould lay before the house a detailed account of the expen diture in question when the navy estimates came again be fore the house. That course was rendered necessary by the misstatements alluded to, in which it had been alleged that during the last 11 years no less a sum than £11,000,000 had not been accounted for as expended in dockyards in a reckless manner. MAIN DRAINAGE OF THE METROPOLIS, Mr. W. WILLIAMS asked the hon. member for Bath, as a member of the Metropolitan Board, what steps had been takon by that board with reference to the main drain age of the metropolis, particularly on the south side of the river ? Mr. TITE, in reply, entered into a statement, from which it appeared that the works had considerably pro gressed, that they would be completed in about four years, and that money was lent by the Bank at 3 per cent. for the completion of the undertaking. POPULATION, &c. Mr. BYNG moved for a return of the population and number of houses, according to the census of 1851, in each of the places named in schedule 1 in the representation of the people bill, and in the parishes of Chelsea, Kensington, and Hammersmith, respectively of the number of persons rated to the poor at £lO and upwards ; and of the number of persons rated to the poor at £6 and upwards in each of the places named in Schedule 1 in the Representation of the People Bill, and in the parishes of Chelsea, Kensington, and, Hammersmith respectively.— Agreed to. INLAND BONDING WAREHOUSES. Mr. HADFIELD asked the Chancellor of the Exche quer, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Govern ment to establish inland bonding warehouses in England and other parts of the United Kingdom ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the subject was under consideration. TITLES TO LANDED ESTATES BILL. The house went into committee on this bill. Mr. SLANEY expressed his approval of the provisions of the bill. Mr. MALINS expressed his strong disapprobation of the bill, which he considered quite unnecessary. Since the passing of the Encumbered Estates Court Bill it appeared, from the statement of the hon. and learned member for Ennis, that there had been only two applications in Ireland for judicial declaration as to title of an estate, and on inquiry into the subject, he found that practically there was only one such application. Therefore, reasoning from the operation of the measure in Ireland, it would be evident that such a bill as the present was not a requirement of the time, and he contended that it introduced a dangerous inno vation into the law of the country to bind the rights of any absent parties by judicial declaration. The insertion of advertisements in a newspaper, and posting placards over an estate, as was proposed, would not provide sufficient safeguards, because it could not be expected that a man would always be looking into such advertisements, or employing agents to see that no placards were put up on his estates to guard against his property being taken pos session of by another party without his knowledge. There was no analogy between landed property and other descrip tions of estates, and any attempt to equalise its facility of transfer would inevitably fail. It was inherently impos sible that they could effect the same simplicity in the trans fer of land as in that of a ship or similar property, and it could not be doubted that at all events it would be many years before the bill could come into practical operation. If, however, the measure did come into operation, that operation would be most mis chievous to the interests of the community. He arrived at that conclusion from his practical experience, and it was his sincere conviction, but if he could be satisfied that he was in error, he would be only too happy to give the bill his support. Mr. HEADLAM supported the bill. The principle of this bill was to impose on the registered owner the onus of proving his title, and though there were difficulties to con tend with in reducing the principle into practice, they were not unsurniountable. (Hear, hear.) The advantages of the measur e f ar exceeded any disadvantages to which it could possibly give rise, and it would introduce a change that would be of great benefit, namely,that they would have an exper i enced conveyancer investigating a title with a greater degree of accuracy than was provided for by th e ex i sting sy ( he ear stem. H, hr.) lie contended th a t th ough the effect of th e bill would be to enhance the value of band, because it would render the title more secure, still the benefits of its provisions were far outbalanced bf,any drawback such as that in question. 3; Mr. BOWYER objected to the bill, because it proposed to create a court whose decrees would affect persons not before it, an anomaly which did not exist in any country in the world. If this bill did not make a bad title a good one, it did nothing, and a person havi ng a bad titl e would - not ge the c ourt, but rel y on nis possession. In the case o f a person having a goo d title, he would not go to the court, so that really the bill in nearly all ca ses would be i noperative. Any person acquainted with the sub j ect must know that it would be quite impossible to render the transfer of land in England as easy and simple as other property. Mr. HADFIELD said there were weighty objections to the bill. Unless they were prepared to give pos session full power over the land, they must parties s u i e n con veyances. The bill would be wholly inapplicablehe on a n a e cases out of 20 to titles in the .northerti in 19 counties, w peculiar holding prevailed, estates being convey ed .. ground rent for ever. The profession gener a_ were of opinion opinion that this bill, so far from lessening, would in crease t the expense of conveyances. Mr. WALPOLE expressed great confidence in the opi nion given by Mr. Maims. But the whole of his objections amounted to this—that it was new to have a judicial decla ration of title, and that the bill would either be inoperative or mischievous. But his learned friend knew that the sys tem of fines and recoveries was no other than a judicial de claration of title. The court proposed, before giving a title, would see that it was properly established, and would hear all the objections before declaring the title. Everybody knew that when a title was carefully examined by a solici tor and a conveyancer there was hardly a case, he believed there w as not a case, o f suc h a titl e having been set aside. The probability was, that where this was done by a court the results would be equally conclusive. But it was said the bill would be inoperative in certain cases, on account of parties not wi s hi ng to come to the court. But, assuming the bill to pass, purchasers would insist on having a judi cial declaration of title, so as to protect them from future disturbance. If the bill enabled parties to keep their title clear when. it was once made clear, it was no objection to say that it would not be generally applicable. It was said there could be no such similarity between land and stock, and shares and ships, as to enable them to be dealt with in the same way. Supposing that a colony were established Where allotments of land were give n to some colonists, shares in railroads to others, and ships to others--would it not be a wise regulation to give all the advantage of being able to register their titles an d a Peas them to others ? An objection had been raised to the bill on t h e ground that it would interfere with. settle ments. But did not the same conditions apply t o money in the funds a nd other investments ? The ob ject was to be able to deal with land without being obliged to give a hi s t or y o f all the marriages, births, settlements, and every for the last 60 years. It was for thing that had occurred their advantage that you should no longer continue !L torn by which it was required that, though a title was inves tigated thi s y ea r, it should be again investigated next year) and that you should dispense with a necessity that could no more be required with respect to land than it was required with respect to stock. The objections of his hon. and learned friend were so 'trifling as compared ith the advantages held out by the bill that he hoped e house would not be carried away by the authority of h's hon. and learned friend to refuse their assent to one of tie greatest improvements in the law which had been pro,i)c sed for the last two centuries. (Hear, hear.) Mr. DEASY said that, having practical experience of the working of the Encumbered Estates Court in. Ireland for the last ten years, he entirely approved of the principle of the present measure, and his only objection was that it did not follow out in ext,enso the measure which had been passed last session for Ireland. The great advantage of that measure was, that when an application had been made to the court, the court made the sale compulsory ; and the sale being effected, that it administered the purchase money. Having the power to distribute the money, the court in Ireland was enabled to compensate persons on whose rights injury had been unintentionally inflicted. He approved of the bill as far as it went, but he believed it would be necessary to extend it before long. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that it was ex tremely gratifying to him to find that the amount of criti cism put forward against the bill by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Matins) was so small, and that the objections made were so easily answered. His hon. and learned friend must have entirely forgotten the existence for ten years of the Encumbered Estates Court in Ireland when he said that this bill was founded on an entirely new principle. His honourable and learned friend remarked that only two applications had been made since the passing of the act of last session for indefeasible titles. Considering that the court had to frame new rules to carry out the act, and considering the time required to bring a title before the court, his surprise was that even two were ready in time to have a declaration of title made. His hon. and learned friend accused him of departing from the report of the commis sioners. He believed that if the commissioners had before their minds what occurred since the report was made—that they would go as far as they had in respect to Ireland—they would not have been indisposed to go as far as he did in the first of these bills. The second bill was recommended by them. The bill did not apply to 'copyholds. No, because copyholds could be registered on the court roll, and although that might not be the best system, it was not desirable to interfere with it. It did not apply to settled estates. Not to settled estates which were not intended to be sold, but where there were trustees with a power of sale it would enable them to come forward to establish a title, and having established a title, they might, by virtu e o f th e i r powers of sale, sell any part of the estate and give an indefeasible title. It did not apply to leaseholders. No, because it was thought better to deal first with the fee-simple estates. But if in practice the measure prove successful, as he hoped it would, he trusted that it would be extended to leaseholds. (Hear.) His hon. and learned friend said they ran a risk of injuring absent parties if they gave an indefeasible title. That objection had been considered when they were framing the measure. His hon. and learned friend referred to a conveyancer who said that in his experience there were very few cases in which the sale of an estate was ultimately prevented in consequence of a defective title. Well, if that was the case when the transac tion was conducted by a private conveyancer, was there not greater security for absent parties when so much publicity was given as would be given under this bill ? In addition to this, the bill allowed any person who thought he had a good interest in an estate, however evanescent, to put a caution on the books of the court, which would ensure him a notice when an application was made to the court. His hon. and learned friend said, and said truly, that there was a differ ence between landed estate and railways or stock. But what his hon. and learned friend had to prove was, not that they were dissimilar, but that they could not be transferred by one and the same means. (Hear, hear.) His hon. and learned friend mistook the effect of the caution. No purchaser who saw a caution on the books would be obliged to look at the deeds. All that he would require was that the caution should be removed, and the moment it was taken off the estate could be transferred. His hon. and learned friend had recourse to what were known as arguments of terror. He said that if there was a flaw in a title it would be exposed before the public, if he went to have it registered. But if a person sold an estate now with a defective title he was liable to be made a party in a suit for specific performance, and it was published to all the world. But was a man who had a good title to be refused a declaration by the Court because another person had a bad title, as to which such a declaration could not be given ? His hon. and learned friend said that if the bill passed the owners of land would use up their eyes in reading the advertisements. There was very little fear of that, for notice would be brought home to the persons interested, and if any persons were afraid of being overlooked they could register a caution, which would insure notice being given to them. His hon. friend the member for Newcastle asked how the bill would affect mineral property. Of course it would be the first duty of the Court to consider the title to the property underground as well as to that above ground. The hon. member for Sheffield asked how the bill proposed to deal with property subject to fee-farm rents. The answer was that any person who came for a declaration of title would have it in a form stating that he was not the proprietor of the land, but of the land subject to 'a fee-farm rent. He was aware that one section of solicitors had not only expressed some doubts about the bill, but published their opinions in a paper which he supposed had reached the hands of many hon. gentlemen. But still a greaternumber of solicitors throughout the country —and gentlemen of large practice—expressed their approval of the principle of the bill. A deputation of the Incorporated Law Society of London, comprising some of the most eminent solicitors of England, were good enough to say to him that their council considered the bill, and approved of its gene ral principle, and they further gave him permission to state that if the House of Commons approved of the bill, its effect on their professional emoluments should not stand in the way of its passing. (Hear, hear.) That was very creditable to these honourable men. He believed that the upright and honourable manner in which the transfer of estates had been conducted by the country solicitors was the reason why the evil of the existing system was not more severely felt. But the Legislature adopted the worst plan for remunerating the solicitors, because; by requiring that they should be paid for the length and cumbrousness of the work, they supplied a motive to them to make the proceedings of a transfer as cumbrous, as intricate, and as difficult as possible. Such an anomaly having grown out of the system itself it was not surprising to find objections to any alterations which would affect their profits. He should be sorry to find that a measure, however useful to the public, should have an injurious effect on them, but he believed the increase of business under the bill would fully compensate the solicitors. But he made provision in the bill that for the business done in the registration of land solicitors should in future be paid, not on the principle of the length or cumbrousness of the proceedings, but on the principle of ad valorem. He thought that principle would be more sound and more safe than the principle heretofore adopted. (Hear, hear.) They did not want what was re quired in Ireland ten years ago, namely, a ready mode of getting rid of encumbered estates. The hon. member for Cork said he would not object to giving this power of granting a title in case of an enforced sale, as the money would remain in court to answer all claims ; but the bill provided for an equivalent security, as there was a provi sion that the indefeasible title should not be granted until after a certain time. The hon. and learned members for Wallingford and for Sheffield had declared the measure would not succeed. Of course it was impossible to predi cate the result, but anticipations of that sort were seldom realised, and whatever might be the result they had the satisfaction of Imo wing that they were following a course which had already proved successful. Lord J. RUSSELL was not one of those who appre hended the danger of property being sold in the absence of the true owners. He believed the statement of the right hon. member for the University of Cambridge was correct, that, in general titles were good ; he would, however, drawa different inferenc e from that drawn by the Solicitor-Gene ral ; he considered the result would be that very few appli cations would be made to the new court. He would wish to know on what grounds it had been determined to erect a new court, with a staff of judges; a constant complaint of late years had been the number of conflicting jurisdictions, but it was now proposed to add a new court. He thought the business might at first have been entrusted to the Court of Chancery, or some of the Courts in Westminster-hall ; if after two or three years it was found the business was too great for the existing courts, the then Attorney or Solicitor- General might fairly come down and ask the house to esta blish a new court. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL had endeavoured to answer all the objections made by previous speakers, but he had not anticipated that of the noble lord ; it was truei that after a certain delay and expense most titles were esta blished, but the evil was, that when it was necessary to deal with the title again the same expense had to be in curred. Of course it was a matter of speculation what the amount of business in the new court would be, but when he introduced the bill he had endeavoured to show why it was necessary to establish a court. The judges of the Court of Chancery were fully occupied in deciding litigious matters, and could not devote themselves to the investigation of titles. The matter had been fully investigated by a com mittee with reference to the Irish court, and the report was unanimous in favour of retaining a distinct court. The proposed salary was the lowest to obtain the service of com petent persons as judges, or rather as judicial conveyancers, which would be a more appropriate name for them. Sir E. PERRY admitted that it was necessary to esta blish a new court, the evidence before the committee clearly showing that none of the existing courts could discharge the new duties. The Master of the Rolls, in his evidence, stated it would be impossible for any of the equity judges to discharge the duties. Mr. MALINS said the. right hon. member for the Uni versity of Cambridge had complained that his arguments against the bill were weak. That might be ; but they were the same as those urged in the report of the commission signed by the right hon. gentleman. The right hon. gen tleman said the idea of barring claimants had been acted on for years, and was as old as the system of making titles by fine and non-claim. That system was found so iniquitous that it was abolished in 1834. [Mr. WALPOLE : Did any person ever lose an e s t a t e under it ?] He knew of se vera l i n hi s but the state ? , n 1 experience. The report of the commission recommended I: a report, title. establishment o f judicial conveyancers, who would report s o ta ne te , however, was r,wsamll payment s a to bepreclu t d e ed gu bi ran th tee eir any title the case of y approved of. Reference had been made to the Ireland, butit wls too oo t in tw enty years n . o judge; some years they would be able to decide how the system had worked. With these _ observations he begged to withdraw the motion which he had made . Mr. CARDWELL sai d it might b e su pp o i e d f rom w h a t m ents of money in the funercill an. said that there were no settle hiss ; whereas f it was very common fora man to provide for SOUTCO, and in doing so h e eneowUnetered none of the diffi cu lti es and children from that which were connected with landed P not the facilities in the case o f the publicertY' Why should to land ? To say that there w ere differences stocks be extended was not a sufficient answer, the re h avingte b en etween the two for ten yea ch h rs court whi ad dealt with in operation The result was landed property with signal success. 120,000,000 had been invested which wo uld not have been invest e d, and the act under which this was done had done more th an almost v t an other act that had been p assed to regenerate s ociety in one part of the kingdom. Aboutfiveyears since anew system was adopted with regard to sh p d s—a kind of property which in volved remarkably minute de tails, an d now ships cou l d be conveyed or mortgaged at a very small expense. It had be en said that the colonists would ultimately adopt the system which prevailed here with regard to landed estates. No doubt, like themselves, the colonists were in the habit of making provision for wives and families ; but that colony would indeed be a curiosity whose love for the institutions of the mother country would lead it to subject itself to all the perplexities and embarrassments which attached to real property in England. (Hear, hear.) There was a growing and a very natural desire among all classes in this country who by industry and economy were enabled to save money to invest in landed property, and land could not be set free for that purpose till parliament had provided some means by which, like funded and other property, it might pass easily from hand to hand. He congratulated the Solicitor- General on having proposed what he believed would prove one of the greatest and most beneficial changes ever made in this country. Clauses 1 to 3 were then agreed to. 111 re pt , to Mr. HADFIELD, The S LIC I TOR-GENERAL said he did ;lot propose to proceed any father that evening, either with that bill or the next on the paper, than the first clause that involved the principle of the measure. The CHAIRMAN then reportedpr!g!fss.___ THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 15, 1850. REGISTRY OF LANDED ESTATES BILL. In committee on this bill clauses 1 to 4 inclusive were agreed to, after which the Chairman reported progress. SUPPLY. The report was brought up and agreed to. WAYS AND MEANS. The report was brought up and agreed to. NAVY ESTIMATES. On the order of the day for going into committee of sup ply on the navy estimates, Mr. W. WILLIAMS moved that these estimates be re ferred to a select committee. The honourable member said he had endeavoured to bring forward this motion when the navy estimates were first introduced, but in consequence of his not being able to obtain a seat in time he was debarred' from taking that course. He had no objection to the number of men proposed, or to the vote for the vic tualling of the navy; but as regarded the estimates gene rally he thought the noble lord the member for Sandwich (Lord C. Paget) had made out a strong case for inquiry. The votes for the navy since the termination of the French war amounted to the astounding sum of £281,000,000, and the estimates now proposed would make up a total of nearly £300,000,000. Did any one believe that with such an ex penditure during that period there had not been mal-ad ministration, seeing that they had now only 29 line-of-battle ships efficient enough for actual war ? The navy of France was a very small one; but the country had learnt to its as tonishment that-its own navy was still smaller, whereas it ought to be large enough to defend it againet all the powers of the world combined. Had the money been all properly expended, there would be at least twenty-five sail-of-the line more than there were. As estimates were proposed in that house, it was impossible to pay proper attention to them. Scarcely had one vote been proposed when they passed on to another. Only the other nighthe left thehouse for a short period to get his copy of the army estimates, and while he was absent four important votes were agreed to. (Laughter.) Now, if these estimates were submitted to such a committee as he proposed they should be, they would undergo a thorough investigation. What he pro posed was, that a committee consisting of five members should be appointed by the Speaker. He had no doubt that, if his proposal were acceded to, efficient men would be selected to condwit the inquiry, and as to the time which would be occupied, he was confident that the whole investi gation might be completed within ten or twelve days. Having compared the present estimates with those of former years, all he could make out was, that every item was doubled, and that some items were more than doubled, as indeed must be the case when the total was £9,800,000. Moreover, the right hon. baronet the First Lord of the Ad miralty had intimated that some additional votes would be required, and these would probably bring up the aggregate to nearly £11,000,000. The expenditure upon the French navy last year was little more thau £5,000,000. How did it happen that France, with half the expenditure incurred in this country, had at that moment a navy superior to their own ? Of the £9,800,000 only £3,500,000 was for the wages, victualling, and clothing of the seamen. All the remaining expenditure came under the head of stores, and so on. If the house would not inquire with regard to the various items, it was in fact useless to have separate votes ; it would be much more intelligible if the Government simply said, " We want £9,000,000," or £10,000,000, as the case might be, " and we propose that amount." He had obtained from persons employed in the dockyards, information to the effect that a great deal of timber was being sold at almost any price, because it had become rotten and unfit for use. The right hon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington) dwelt the othernight upon the fact that there were several ships waiting to be manned. This appeared strange, as the seamen in the navy were in many respects better off than those in the merchant service ; but a distinguished naval officer with whom he had conversed on the subject said he thought one of the princiyal causes of this difficulty was the system of flogging in the navy. Many years ago the right hon. bart. the member for Carlisle reduced the naval expenditure to £4,500,000 ; it continued at that amount for seven years, and the navy was in an efficient state. There were at pre sent 341 admirals, or rather more than an admiral and a half for every ship. In 1846-7, before this extravagant system of increasing the admirals commenced, the number was only 153 ; it had gone on increasing ever since, and the pay of the admirals now amounted to £55,000 per annum. When the right hon. bart. the member for Carlisle was at the head of thenavy there were two generals and six colonels of marines, costing the country £4740 ; now there were 34 generals and 10 colonels of marines, costing the country £24,700. He did not believe there were more than four or five of those officers on board ship. Some were in dockyards where their services were by no means requisite. With regard to the construction of vessels, there was less reason for him now to trouble the house, because Lord C. Paget had, in a very able speech, a few nights ago, conclusively shown that a case existed for inquiry into the state of the navy. He believed that if the system had been adopted of referring these esti mates to a committee of the house, millions of public money would have been saved. The hon. member concluded by moving that the naval estimates be referred to a' select com mittee. Sir H. VERNEY seconded the motion. The only ground of objection, as he understood it, upon which the Government opposed the motion was that the present was a time of considerable change in the navy. He wished to know whether there would be any objection to lay upon the table a statement of the past expenditure in the navy. Even if the right hon. gentleman's objections to a select com mittee might be valid, he did not see what objections there could be to give this information. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY very much concurred with his hon. friend the member for Lambeth in his views, but he doubted whether the reference would not be too wide a one. He took that opportunity of remarking on the unsatisfac tory way in which the estimates were made up. For in stance, in the votes there would be found an item of £178,000 for excess of expenditure over the amount voted in the year 1857-58. Now, the fact was that in that year 1828,000 was the excess of expenditure over the amount voted. He could not understand why these estimates did not appear in the votes of this year. No doubt unforeseen emergencies must from time to time arise, but a due watch ought to be kept over the expenditure of moneys voted. He was afraid this was a function not exercised by the house so strictly as it ought to be, and in order to its discharge an improvement in making out the estimates was desirable. He thought it would be a very useful step to have a com mittee on this subject. Mr. LINDSAY thought that the only effect of the motion before the house would be to take the responsibility of passing the estimates from the shoulders of the Govern ment, and to cast it upon those of a committee upstairs. Colonel SYKES thought it the imperative duty of the house to see its votes duly applied. He found that from 183.5 to the present time the votes for the navy had gra dually increased. In 1832 the vote was £4,245,000. The estimate for the present year was £9,000,000. Thus the votes had more than doubled. Was not that a subject for inquiry, and if not some reason ought to be shown why it was not. And this increase had been accompanied by no similar increase in our naval power. It was not until the year 1855 that there was an actual increase in the number of vessels, and then the increase was only in gunboats. Admiral WALCOTT objected to the appointment of a committee, for it would interfere with the responsibility of the executive, and it would be very expensive, and without any adequate result. He could not but recommend to the house that the Surveyor-General ought to have a seat at the Board of Admiralty; this would enable him to advance his views there, and would in the end prove most bene ficial to the country. The noble lord who addressed the house so effectively the other night fell into one or two errors. He spoke of the San Fioreuzo as a perfect model of a ship. Nowit happened that that vesselwas not finished as a ship, but turned into a screw steamer. Other errors of this kind occurred in the noble lord's speech. Sir F. BARING was convinced that it was desirable for an inquiry to take place into the expenditure on the navy, but he did not assent to any step which took the discussion of these matters out of thehands of the house. On the whole he thought that the estimates should be discussed in the house, and under the supervision of the Government. But there was another reason at the present moment for not de laying the estimates. They had heard statements, not of a very comforting nature, as to the state of our fleet ; and therefore it was expedient that the, means of putting things right should be given to the Government with as little delay as possible. No doubt they would have inquiry, and no one was more anxious for inquiry than himself, for it was not agreeable for past Lords of the Admiralty to hear, night after night, repeated attacks directed against the naval ad , ministration of the last ten years. Sir Baldwin Walker was also, he was assured, most anxious for inquiry. Now, with respect to the charge which had been made of neglect in providing screw liners and of perpetually altering ships, it should be recollected that when that description of ship was first proposed for the navy, there was great diver sity of opinion as to which was the best form. It was some time before the proper form was decided on, and when it was the Agamemnon was produced, and he believed every one would acknowledge her to be a fine ship. It was next pro posed to take the Windsor Castle and to cut her in two, and the Admiralty was laughed at for making the experiment. But the Windsor Castle was launched on the day the Duke of Wellington died, and her Majesty ordered that the ship should be called the Duke of Wellington. That ship, which was then altered at an expense of about £12,000, was now the famous Wellington, the finest screw liner in the navy. Mr. BENTINCK opposed the motion, considering that nothing could be more detrimental to the interests of the navy than to have a committee of inquiry into its manage ment, presided over by the hon. member for Lambeth. Lord H. VANE objected to the motion as relieving the Government of a responsibility which of right belonged, to them. At the same time he must admit that the recent dis cussions in that house respecting the navy had created an immense amount of interest throughout the country. Lord C. PAGET rose merely to disclaim any intention of making any attack on Sir B. Walker. No man had more respect for Sir B. Walker than himself; and, besides, he believed that it was only within a very recent period that Sir B. Walker had the privilege of ordering the slightest alteration in the works. Sir J. PAKINGTON thought that the house would concur with the hon. member for Norfolk and the right hon. member for Portsmouth, and refuse to accede to the motion. He trusted, also, that the .house would remem ber the anecdote told by the latter respecting the Duke of Wellington, as showing that the alterations so much complained of ? sometimes led to good results. The speech of the hon. member for Lambeth had been of a most discursive character, but there was one or two points in it to which he must advert. The hon. member had accused him (Sir J. Pakington) of admitting that he had discovered great maladministration in the dockyards. He had admitted no such thing. What he had said was, that on coming into office he had discovered a gigantic expenditure, and he had appointed a commission, which commission was now busily engaged in investigation, and he trusted that its investiga tions would lead to some very beneficial alterations. There was being prepared a statement of the expenditure of the dockyards for the last 11 years, and when it was prepared he would, of his own accord, lay it on the table. The hon. baronet the member for Buckingham had asked him whe ther he had any objection to giving retrospective inforina lion. He did not mean then to pledge himself, but he could assure the hon. baronet that he had no objection to giving such information, or to inquiry, provided that such inquiry did not impede the public service. The hon. member for Evesham had complained of the supplementary estimates having been introduced in an irregular manner. He begged , to inform the hon. member that the supplemental estimates had been. moved and noticed in the most deliberate and re gular manner. With respect to the statement of the hon. and gallant memb er for Aberdeen, that he (Sir J. Palring ton)' had a d vocated our being without a Channel fleet, he denied that he had ever made such an assertion. On the contrary, he had endeavoured to show that we were by no means badly off in that particular. He trusted that the house would reject this motion the inquiry which he had himself instituted. Considering the great additional amount of duty which was now pressed upon the Admi ralty, it was to be hoped that the house would see the pro priety of leaving its action as unrestricted and unfettered as possible. (Hear, hear.) Mr. B. OSBORNE thought the house was pretty well agreed as to the expediency of sending the estimates to a select committee, but after the serious charges whi c h h a d b e en brought by the noble and gallant lo rd (Lord 0, rage% who, as a British admiral, was in a position to know some - thing of the subject, against a public department of wasting £5,000,000, he, for one, and he thought the house, could scarcely be satisfied with a mere promise from the First Lord of the Admiralty to produce certain papers. He should not be satisfied, and he thought the house should not be satis fied, with anything less than a full inquiry by a select com mittee. Let such a committee be granted, and he (Mr. B. Osborne) would pledge himself to controvert the statements made by the gallant and noble admiral, and to show that however efficient that gallant officer might be upon the water he was a very lame duck upon the land. He would take an instance as proving the exaggerated nature of the noble and gallant officer's statement, the Immortalite frigate. That ship was referred to as one of those upon which the waste charged against the Admiralty in the mat ter of ship-building had been occasioned. Now, what did the house think the cost of the alterations of that vessel had been ? It was true that she had been lengthened 14 feet, and at a cost of just £2OO. The efficiency of the depart ment was prejudiced by the attack which had been made upon it by the noble lord, and he hoped the right hon. gen tleman would grant such a committee as he had suggested. (Hear, hear.) Sir C. NAPIER considered that an inquiry was requisite into many other matters than the estimates as they stood, and recommended his hon. friend to withdraw his motion, which would really be included in the more comprehensive motion of the hon. member for Newport, which would deal with not only the expenditure of the navy, but the constitu tion of the Board of Admiralty itself. At present contradic tory orders were constantly being issued, which occasioned great and unnecessary expense to the country. Mr. JACKSON was quite certain from his experience that the Immortalit6 could not have been lengthened 14 feet at so small an expense as £2OO. If a committee was granted, he believed it would be proved that in many items of naval expenditure there was gross extravagance. Take for instance anchors—eight different qualities of anchors were submitted to the Admiralty for testing, and they chose the worst. They might have the very best quality, viz., Trotman' s anchors, at 255. per cwt., and yet under the pretence of a contract they were paying 755. for the worst. His noble friend (Lord C. Paget) had brought forward charges which he was bound to substantiate. He believed his noble friend could substantiate them—but even if he could not, it was essential for the efficiency of the department, which had been seriously affected by charges of such a nature hanging over it, that a complete investigation should take place. (Hear, hear.) They had had a committee of inquiry upon army contracts, and the house blew what abuses had been proved to exist in that department of the public service, and he had but little doubt if they had a committee that many' Weedons would be found in connection with the Admiralty. If the right hon. gentleman would undertake to grant such a committee he would recommend his hon. friend the mem ber for Lambeth not to persist in his amendment. Sir C. WOOD observed that he was responsible for the lengthening of the Immortalite. She had been lengthened 14 feet, but it was by no means so serious a matter as the hon. member who had just spoken seemed to suppose; for it was only necessary to remove a few bolts, put in a few timbers which were ready to hand, so that almost the whole cost was the labour. He had seen the Surveyor of the Navy on the previous evening, and by him had been in formed that as labour only had to be paid for, it was impos sible that the cost could have exceeded £2OO. Mr. W. WILLIAMS would withdraw his motion if the Government would promise such an inquiry as had been suggested. (Cries of "Divide, divide.") There was no response to the hon. member's appeal, and his amendment was put and negatived. THE MASSACRE OF THE 26TH NATIVE INFANTRY. Mr. GILPIN rose to call the attention of the house to the destruction of the 26th Native Infantry at Ujnalla, on the Ist of August, 1857, as detailed in a work entitled "The Crisis in the Punjaub," by Mr. Frederick Cooper, Deputy Commissioner of Umritzur. He observed that the subject which he was about to bring to the notice of the house formed he believed the darkest page in that em phatically black book the Indian rebellion. The facts there could be no doubt about; for he should confine himself not to the more unfavourable statements of the Indian newspapers, butt, to the account which this Mr. Cooper gave of his own acts. Let it be 'borne in mind that he was not calling in question the acts of a mili tary man. It was no military execution to which he was calling attention. He stood there a civilian calling in ques tion the acts of a civilian—as an Englishman, drawing at tention to acts which as having been committed by an Englishman he blushed for, but which he who perpetrated them unblushingly detailed to the public, gloried in them, and seemed to claim the approbation of the public for them. The regiment whose annihilation—that was the word which Mr. Cooper himself used—he was bringing under the notice of the house had served with great distinction under the English flag on several occasions. The first quotation he should have to make from Mr. Cooper's book was in proof of this. They had served, it appeared, in Affghanis tan, Caboul, Moodkee, Ferozeshah and Sobraon. They were disarmed at Seehar on the Ist of May, 1857. There was no statement of any overt act of mutiny committed by them, but they were disarmed as a matter of precaution. They fled from the cantonments, having killed two of their officers, after they had been fired on by the Sikh levies. Major Spencer, one of the officers killed, was a man of un usual humanity, and he, with a sergeant-major, rushed among the men, who concluded that they were connected with the firing upon them, and they were killed in the panic which ensued. No wonder there was a panic, for Mr. Cooper showed that'a panic could take place among English officers, for he described some English officers rushing into the houses of ladies at Simla, crying out to them to save themselves, for the Ghoorkas were coming ; and one gentleman with a won derful telescope was enabled to discover that the Simla Bank was on fire. The murderer of Major Spencer was well known, his name being given by Mr. Cooper. However, the regiment fled, pursued by the Sikhs. The sepoys had been employed against the Sikhs, as the Sikhs now were against the sepoys, and they were, as it were, natural enemies. The regiment was attacked, and 150 of the men destroyed. The remainder crossed the river, and took refuge on a desolate island, whither they were pursued by Mr. Cooper with a small force. They were under the impression, if not under a promise, that they were to have a fair trial, and they gave themselves up without resistance, no •less than 66 stalwart sepoys allowing one man to bind them. Without a trial, 277 of them were shot, 45 were stifled in a place where they were confined, and 41 were blown from guns at Lahore, and thus in 48 hours 500 human beings were ruthlessly and mer cilessly murdered. He would read the statement of Mr. Cooper • himself, which would bear out the awful history which he had related. The hon. gentleman then read from Mr. Cooper's book to the following effect :—" The 26th Na tive Infantry, stationed under surveillance at Meean Meer, was, as previously narrated, disarmed on the 13th of May last. Whether there had been any preconcerted scheme among the disarmed regiments for a general attempt to escape from their unpleasant position is not known, though it has been generally understood that lots had actually been drawn, and that had the 26th succeeded in any measure, the 16th Grenadiers had engaged to follow in their wake. Some say that the noon-day gun was to be the signal of a general rise. Society, on the 30th of July, was, however, shocked to hear of another foul murder of a commanding officer, Major Spencer, and the rise of the 26th Regiment. Lieutenant Montague White narrowly escaped. He was enticed into the lines by some sepoys, who affected sorrow at the mur der, and was about to dismount, when a warning voice in his ear told him to beware. He galloped off; but not before some hand had aimed a felon stroke at him, and wounded his horse. The sergeant-major was also killed, and the re giment precipately fled ; a dust storm (as was the case at Jullundur when the mutiny arose) raging at the time, favouring their immediate escape, and concealing its exact direction. They were, however, unmolested; and it is feared that the ardour of the Sikh levies, in firing when the first outbreak occurred, precipitated the murders and frightened all, good, bad, or indifferently disposed to flight. From subsequent statements, since taken down, it is con currently admitted that a fanatic of the name of Prakash Singh, alias Prakash Pandy, rushed out of his hut, brand ishing a sword and bawling out to his comrades to rise and kill the Feringees, selected as his own victim the kind hearted major. suffice it to say, that it was reported at midday, on the 31st of July, that they were trying to skirt the left bank of the Ravee ,but had met with unexpected and determined opposition from the Tehseeldar, with a posse of police, aided by a swarm of sturdy villagers, at a ghat 26 miles from the station. A rapid pursuit was at once organised. At 4 o'clock, when the district officer arrived with some 80 or 90 horsemen, he found a great struggle had taken place ; the gore, the marks of the trampling of hun dreds of feet, and the broken banks of the river, which, augmented with the late rains, was sweeping in a vast volume, all testified to it. Some 150 had been shot, mobbed backwards into the river, and drowned inevitably, too weakened and famished as they must have been, after their 40 miles' flight, to battle with the flood. The main body had fled upwards, and swam over on pieces of wood, or floated on to an island about a mile from the shore, where they might be descried crouching like a brood of wild fowl. It remained to capture this body, and, having done so, to execute condign punishment at once." Mr. Cooper went on to state that several mistakes were made as to the direc tion which the regiment had taken, and when the district officer (Mr. Cooper himself) arrived he found that a struggle had taken place between the regiment and the Sikhs. " There were but two boats, both ricketty, and the boatmen =- skilled. The presence of a good number of Hindostanees among the sowers might lead to embarrassment and acci dental' escapes. The point was first how to cross this large body to the main land, if they allowed themselves to be cap tured at all (after the model of the fox, the geese, and the peck of oats). This was not to be done under two or three trips without leaving two-thirds of the mutineers on the, island under too scanty a protection; and able to escape, whilst the first batch was being conveyed to the main bank —nor also without launching the first batch, when they did arrive, into the jaws of the Hindostanee party who in the first trip were to be left ostensibly 'to take care of the horses' on the mainland. From the desperate conflict which had already taken place a considerable struggle was antici pated before these plans could be brought into operation. The translation of the above fable to the aged Sikh Sirdar, who accompanied, and to the other heads of the pursuing party, caused intense mirth, and the plan of operations after this formula elicited general approval. So the boats put off with about 30 sowers (dismounted of course) in high spirits ; most of the Hindostanee sowers being left on the bank. The boats straggled a little, but managed to reach the island in about 20 minutes. It was a long inhospitable patch, with tall grass ; a most undesirable place to bivouac on for the night, with a rising tide; especially if wet, dis pirited, without food, fire, or dry clothing. The sun was setting in golden splendour, and as the doomed men with joined palms crowded down to the shore on the approach of the boats, one side of which bristled with about 60 muskets( besides sundry revolvers and pistols, their long shadows were flung far athwart the gleaming waters. In utter de spair 40 or 50 dashed into the stream and disappeared, rose at a distance, and were borne away into the increasing gloom. Some 30 or 40 sowers with matchlocks (subse quently discovered to be of very precarious value) jumped into the shallow water, and invested the lower side of the island, and being seen about to take pot-shots at the heads of the swimmers, orders were given not to fire. This accidental instruction produced an instantaneous effect on the mutineers. They evidently were possessed of a sudden and insane idea that they were going to be tried by court-martial, after some luxurious refreshment. In consequence of which, 66 stalwart sepoys submitted to be bound by a single man deputed for the purpose from the boats, and stacked like slaves in a hold into one of the two boats emptied for the purpose. Leaving some 40 armed sowers on the island, and feelmg certain that after the peaceful submission of the first hatch (or peck of oats), the rest would follow suit and suit, orders were given to push off. On reaching the shore, one by one, as they stepped out of the boats, all were tightly bound, their decorations and necklaces ignominiously cut off, and under a guard of a posse of villagers, who had begun to assemble, and some Sikh horse, they were ordered to proceed slowly on their journey back, six miles to the police-station at Ujnalla. Meanwhile, the Hindostanees (the geese) had been despatched to the island back in the boats with an overawing number of Tawana sowers ; and it was gratifying to see the next detachment put off safely, though at one time the escorting boat got at a great dis tance from the escorted, and fears were entertained that escape had been prem e dit a t e d. However, by dint of hal looing, with threats of a volley of musketry, the next invoice came safe l y to land, and wore subjected to the same process of spoliation, disrobement, and pinioning. At any moment, had they made an attempt to escape, a bloody struggle must have ensued. But Providence ordered otherwise, and nothing on the side of the pursuing party seemed to go - wrong. Some begged that their women and children might be spared, and were informed that the British Government did not conde scend to war with women and children. It was near mid night before all were safely lodged in the police-station. A drizzling rain coming on prevented the commencement of the execution, so a rest until daybreak was announced. Be fore dawn another batch of 66 was brought in, and as the police-station was then nearly full, they were ushered into a large round tower or bastion. Previously to his depar ture with the pursuing party from Umritsur, the deputy commissioner had ordered out a large supply of rope, in case the numbers captured were few enough for hanging (trees being scarce), and also a reserve of fifty Sikh levies for a firing party, in case of the numbers demand ing wholesale execution; as also to be of use as a reserve in case of a fight on the island. So eager were the Sikhs, that they marched straight on end, and he met them half way, 23 miles between the river and the police-station, on his journey back in charge of the prisoners, the total number of which, when the execution commenced, amounted to 282 of all ranks, besides numbers of camp followers, who were left to be taken care of by the villagers. As fortune would have it, again favouring audacity, a deep dry well was dis coved within one hundred yards of the police-station, and its presence furnished a convenient solution as to the re maining difficulty, which was of a sanitary consideration — the disposal of the corpses of the dishonoured soldiers. The climax of fortunate coincidences seemed to have arrived when it was remembered that the Ist of August was the an niversary of the great Mahomedan sacrificial festival of the Bukra Eed. A capital excuse was thus afforded to permit the Hindostanee Mussulraan horsemen to return to cele brate it at Umritsur; while the single Christian, unembar rassed by their presence, and aided by the faithful Sikhs, might perform a ceremonial sacrifice of a different nature (and the nature of which they had not been aware of) on the same morrow. When that morrow dawned sentries were placed round the town to prevent the ingress of sight seers. The officials were called ; and they were made aware of the character of the spectacle they were about to witness. Ten by ten the sepoys were called forth. Their names having been taken down in succession, they were pinioned, lined together, and marched to execution, a firing party being in readiness. Every phase of deportment was manifested by the doomed men, after the sullen firing of volleys of distant musketry forced the conviction of inevitable death—astonishment, rage, frantic despair, the most stoic calmness. One detachment,i as they passed, yelled to the solitary Anglo .Saxon magistrate, as he sat under the shade of the police station performing his solemn duty, with his native officials around him, that he (the Christian) would meet the same fate ; then as they passed the reserve of young Sikh soldiery, who were to relieve the executioners after a certain period, they danced, though pinioned, insulted the Sikh religion, and called on Gungajee to aid them ; but they only in one instance provoked a reply, which was in stantaneously checked. Others again petitioned to be allowed to make one last salaam' to the Sahib. About 150 having been thus executed, one of the executioners swooned away (he was the oldest of the firing party), and a little respite was. allowed. Then proceeding, the number had arrived at 237, when the district officer was informed that the remainder retused to come out of the bastion, where they bad been imprisoned temporarily a few hours before. Ex pecting arush and resistance, preparations were made against escape; but little expectation was entertained of the real and awful fate which had fallen on the remainder of the muti neers—they had anticipated by a few short hours their doom. The doors were opened, and, behold I they were nearly all dead I Unconsciously, the tragedy of Holkar's Black Hole had been re. enacted. No cries had been heard during the night, in consequence of the hubbub, tumult, and shouting of the crowds of horsemen, police tehseel guards, and ex cited villagers. Forty-five bodies, dead from fright, ex haustion, fatigue, heat, and partial suffocation, were dragged into light, and consigned,in common with all other bodies into one common pit, by the hands of the village sweepers. One sepoy only was too much wounded in the conflict to suffer the agony of being taken to the scene of execution. He was ac cordingly reprieved for Queen's evidence, and forwarded to Lahore, with some 41 subsequent captures, from Umritsur. There, in full parade before the otlaer mutinous-disposed regiments at Meean Meer, they all suffered death by being blown away from the cannon's mouth. The execution at Ujnalla commenced at daybreak, and the stern spectacle was over in a few hours. Thus, within • forty-eight hours from the date of the crime, there fell by the law nearly 500 men. All the crowds of assembled natives, to whom the crime was fully explained, considered the act ' righteous ' but in complete ; because the magistrate did not hurl headlong into the chasm, the rabble of men, women, and children, who had fled miserably with the mutineers : they marvelled at the clemency and the justice of the 'British." This was the statement he (Mr. Gilpin) had to bring before the house, which he was sure would thrill the heart of every lion. member who heard it, and no one, if that statement was correct, but would wish to say that he had no part in those atrocities. According to military law, he knew that ' the punishment of mutiny was death. Now, he had many friends who were military men, and he had taken the trouble to ascertain from them what was the usual course in reference to mutiny. He had in his hand an extract of a letter frotm a Polish officer who served in the Hungarian war of independence, who said that " the execution of the 26th Native Infantry as detailed by Mr. Cooper was such a cannibal affair that he was glad it was not directed by a military man ; that such deeds would be a stain on any army, it was wholesale murder, inhumanand unjustifiable. More than this, Sir F.-Currie, recently chairman of the East India Company, and now a member of the Indian Council, speaking of these acts, called them a cruel mas sacre. He (Mr. Gilpin). had looked into the accounts of the recent war in Hungary with reference to mutiny, and he found that a Hungarian regiment mutinied, killed their major, cast his body to dogs—a court-martial pardoned the men and punished the officers. Again, a Wallachian regi ment, during the struggle in' Hungary, where all the pas sions of those engaged were strongly excited, and where as many atrocities were committed by the Austrians as had been committed by the Sepoys, mutinied : they were sur • rounded and disarmed, and by sentence of a court-martial ' ordered to be decimated. Mr. Cooper would no doubt have executed them all. They were marched to the place of exe cution, and their sentence was about to be carried out, when an order arrived granting them a free pardon, and they re turned to their duty, and ever afterwards remained true and faithful. He had little further reference to make to Mr. Cooper. He had never heard of him until his book was put into his hand, and he had unfortunately read it. He would now take leave of him, recommending him to build a pyramid of skulls in imitation of his great rival Tamer lane, and with his Christian feelings he would no doubt inscribe on the ghastly structure the words, " Non noble Domine." It was, however, due to Mr. Cooper to quote what had been said by persons above him. Here was the approval of Sir John Lawrence, which he (Mr. Gilpin) could not believe was given with a full knowledge of the facts. Sir John Lawrence said, " I congratulate you on your success with the 26th Native Infantry; you and the police acted with great energy, and have done well by the state." There was another letter which, looking to the cha racter of the hon. gentleman who wrote it, gave him (Mr. Gilpin) deep pain, for if such was the spirit in which Bri tish power was exercised in India no wonder that there had been a rebellion in that country. Mr. Montgomery wrote to Mr. Cooper to the following effect :—" All honour to you for what yob. have done, and well done ; it is a fea ther in your cap for ever. The executioners, the Sikhs, should leave a good round sum given to them. If there are any stragglers send them to me. You have done enough ; but we want a few here as an example to our troops. Three of the regiments have been shaky, but I do not think they will go now ; I wish they would, for they are a nuisance, and not a man-of them will escape if they do." If there was any meaning in the language of Mr. Montgomery, he wanted 2,000 men to flee, in order that he and hi s soldiers might have an opportunity of murdering and butchering them. It was a common and not unnatural feeling that these atrocities were exceptional in India, and he had been asked why he did not let the matter rest, and a noble lord who had much to do with India had said to him, " Let the matter rest—the less that is said about it the better." His (Mr. Gilpin's) answer to the question why he brought this forward was this. It was not that he claimed any par ticular character for humanity ; but he appealed to the Government, represented by the noble lord whose head and heart were now so full of India—he appealed to the noble lord to declare on the part of the Government that they had no sympathy with such atrocities. Such a declaration would do more towards the consolidation of our power in India than any number of troops. Those 500 men had trusted to the honour of England and had been deceived, and he called on the noble lord to declare that such a deception met with no approval from him or those who acted with him. They had been told of the interest which that house felt in the successful teaching of Christianity to the heathen, but he would maintain that one such atrocious act as this would create more undying hatred in India towards this country than all your missionaries multiplied a hundredfold could undo in a century. As he believed that a throne could not be established on injustice, and as he wished the throne of the Queen to be established in the hearts of her subjects in India, as it was established in those of her people here, he wanted a declaration from the noble lord that that throne should be established in justice, and on the prinCiples of truth, justice, and humanity. General THOMPSON said that much conversant as he was with public debates, it had been.his boast that he could follow any man. But he could not follow this statement, he could not add a word to what had been said by his pacific friend, except by adding a few more facts. Neither he nor his hon. friend were present, and the only ground on which they could go was the evidence of the public papers, to which. they appealed. Her gathered from them what had been stated by his hon. friend. The regiment in question was disarmed. It had been stated that small bodies of men could be destroyed by the hostile population, and an order was given that these men should be sent out in small bodies. He did not charge the Government of India with this, but those who usurped all the power of the Government. The men were sent to indiscriminate slaughter. It had happened to him (General Thompson) to be present when an infuriated populace broke in and attempted to murder a number of pri soners, of whom he was one. A quarter-master of the Horse Artillery, drew his sword and cried out, " Let us have a tussle for life ;" and the men seized on brickbats, staves, and anything they could lay their hands on, as anyone, the Speaker—(laughter)—and he (General Thompson) would have done, m order to have a tussle for life. In this case there came a man armed with the power of the magistracy to hound on the Sikhs to murder. The honourable and gallant general went on to say that last session, when he spoke in that house of the murder of the Princes of Delhi, he had a glimpse of hope that the man by whom that act was committed might perhaps have been suffering at the time under the infliction of insanity; and so he charitably hoped, that the same might have been the case in this affair, and that England and mankind might thus be clear of this stigma, if it could be proved that the wretch (for so he could not avoid calling him) had acted under a deprivation of reason, and was not responsible for his acts. He now waited to see who would stand up and defend this horrid massacre. He had read that when the massacre of St. Bartholomew occurred in France, there was one officer who, when he re ceived the King's orders, replied, "Your Majesty has here many brave soldiers and faithful subjects, but not one exe cutioner." He (General Thompson) must now say that he was sorry to wear epaulettes since they had been worn by hangmen, and he had declined the Speaker's invitation to dinner because he did not wish to wear them, at least until after some time had intervened to sweeten them. (Murmurs.) It was true that there was one officer of the rank of major who had boasted that he hanged several sepoys with his own hands, and tied the rope himself. Lord STANLEY—Sir, I have no reason to complain of the course which the hon. member who brought on this discussion has taken, and I cannot help regretting that the honourable and gallant general who followed him has thought fit to mix up with what is a serious and painful subject statements taken from old newspapers, of which there are nd proofs, and whioh, if proved, are utterly irrele vant. It is impossible to deny that the transactions to which reference has been made are such as cannot be heard of or read of, even at this distance of time, without deep pain and regret ; and I will go further, and I will say that that pain is greatly increased by the tone and the spirit m which those traiisactim have been described both, IA the despatches written at the time and in the book subsequently published by Mr. Cooper. There is a tone of flippancy, and an air of levity, there is an appearance of exultation at that great sacrifice of human life—a sacrifice of life made not in the heat of action nor after a judicial process — which are utterly at variance with good taste and good feeling, and which, after making all allowance—and great allowance must be made—for the circumstances of the time and place, it is impossible not to blame. But what the house has to consider is, not the style in which Mr. Cooper has written of those transactions, but the circumstances under which they occurred. Now what were those circumstances? The regiment in question, tho 26th Native Infantry, was stationed at Meanee--!disarmed, I admit, only as a measure of precaution, but still disarmed under strong suspicion of intended mutiny and placed under restraint. It remained under restraint for about six weeks. On the 30th of July an attempt was made, which is described in the papers which had been alluded to. It has been said in vindication of that attempt that it was merely • an effort on the part of those troops to escape, and that that effort was prompted by a species of fear, because they were afraid of being sent away in small parties, and knowing that the population of the country was hostile to them, they apprehended that their being so sent away would be their inevitable destruction. Now I apprehend that is simply a mistake in fact. It is quite true that at a later period these disarmed regiments were sent away in small parties, but no such sending away had taken place at the time when this outbreak arose, and escape, therefore, is not the term to apply to the movement which took place. It must be remembered that these single movements of mutiny, which possibly might have escaped the reach of justice, were yet the escape of a large body of men who unquestionably were prepared to resist force by force, and to escape from the place where they were kept under surveillance, which would in fact be an attempt to cut their way through any force that might resist them. It is undoubtedly the case that at the time these troops were disarmed ; but any one who knows India knows that arms are not difficult to obtain, and probably they would have been obtained if these troops had succeeded in making their way to any great distance. I say, therefore, that these men were not mere fugitives—they were insurgents against the British Government. (Hear, hear.) And where were they going ? Why, at that time Delhi was not taken. (Hear, hear.) It was in the very crisis of the rebellion. Every man of them who had reached those districts where the war was going on in Hindostan and Central India, would have gone to swell the ranks of the insurgents, and to add to that already enormously disproportionate force which was arrayed against the Imperial Government. Why, then, I say, that whatever may have been the in spiring motive at the time of this outbreak, it was impos sible to consider it but as a mutiny, an insurrection at a most critical time. Well, then, it is said that the Sikhs fired upon those troops before the murder was committed. Now we have not, and probably never Shall have, any full and circumstantial evidence of what occurred at that time, but we know that an outbreak actually took place on the 30th of July, and it was only reasonable and probable to suppose that, under the circumstances, an English officer being present at no great distance, any attack made by the Sikhs upon those men was an attack provoked by a previous outbreak on their part. But then was this outbreak a mere blunder from panic, and from an instinct of self-defence ? If that be the case, how came those two European officers to be murdered as they were ? It may, of course, be said that the murder of Major Spencer was the work of an in dividual only, but we do not find that there was any at tempt amongst the others to give up that individual, or take part against him in any way, and ,I cannot myself discon nect them from the crime. But, admitting that the mur der of Major Spencer was an individual act, the other officer was enticed into the line by some of the men, who offered to show him the body of Major Spencer, and then when he was brought amongst them and m their power, an attempt was made to take his life, and he very narrowly escaped. The object in that case could not have been to get rid of an inconvenient witness, or to resist any immediate danger, for at that time there was no immediate danger to which they were exposed. These appear, if we can judge from the in sufficient evidence we have, to have been premeditated and atrocious murders, and the acts of the regiment. I will not dwell on the painful scenes that ensued. It is unfortunately true that out of 700 men nearly 500 suffered death, some on the spot, and some afterwards at Lahore. Sir J. Lawrence, then chief commissioner, ordered some of these executions, or gave his sanction to them ; and hero I will remark that he did not give them his sanction in ignorance of the true nature of Mr. Cooper's acts. The facts undoubtedly were known to him at the time, because Mr. Cooper had related them in more than one despatch, and he expressly states in a despatch to the Government of India that " Mr. Cooper deserves much credit for his exertions." Lord Canning, in a despatch of the 11th September, " highly commends the energetic measures taken for the capture. and disposal of the 26th N. I." We have it then that every authority in India regarded this punishment as inevitable—that the command ing officer and another officer had been murdered, and need lessly murdered by these men; that the object or at least the result of their escape, would have been that they would have joined the insurgent force elsewhere, and that a severe examyle appeared to be necessary in order to prevent similar risings elsewhere. Reference had been made to the note addressed to Mr. Cooper by Mr. Montgomery. I agree with the hon. member that it is couched in hasty language, and language probably such as would not have been deliberately employed ; but I submit that whatever vindication the case allows of is furnished by the terms of that communication, because in that note it appears, as indeed we know from other sources, that there was at the time at or near Lahore, stationed in various parts of the Punjaub, a large force of troops of the same character, and similarly disarmed and placed under restraint, exposed to the same temptation, and not unlikely to yield to that temptation. Probably, there fore, the feeling of Sir J. Lawrence and those who were there in command was that a severe and signal example in flicted upon those who first rose against the British Govern ment, might prevent similar outbreaks among these regi ments, and in the end be the means of saving more lives. (Hear, hear.) I have now endeavoured to state that which I apprehend may be fairly stated in vindication or in pal liation of the course which was taken. I cannot but wish —and I state in this my sincere conviction—that this indis criminate execution should not have taken place, but that some selection had been made, and some punish ment short of death inflicted on the mass of those con cerned; but it is one thing to wish an act of this kind had not been done, and it is another to pass a formal censure upon it. It was only by great exertions, by signal examples, and by inspiring terror as much as by employing force, that Sir John Lawrence saved the Punjaub ; and if the Punjaub had gone, all India would have gone. (Hear.) Sir John Lawrence has declared this act to be allowable; the Gover nor-General has confirmed his opinion ; and taking all these circumstances into consideration, and remembering that we at this distance of time and place, are hardly fair judges of the feelings of men engaged in such a struggle, I hope the house do not say approve—but pass over this trans action with that silence which is sometimes the most judi cious comment that could be passed. (Cheers.) NAVY ESTIMATES. The house then went into committee of supply on the navy estimates. The first vote, namely, £142,957 for the Admiralty-office, after a few words from Mr. WILLIAMS and Sir C. NAPIER, was passed. On the second vote, being £186,057 for the Coast Guard Service and Royal Naval Coast Volunteers, Sir C. WOOD expressed his opinion that measures should be taken to secure the services of these men as a reserve, being the most valuable and steadiest men in a ship's com pany. When the coast guard was transferred to the Admi ralty they took 8,000 men the first year, and the following year they took a vote for 9,000. That they were right in increasing this class of men as much as possible was clear from the fact that the commission for manning the navy recommended this force to be increased. This year there was substantially no increase in the number of seamen and reserve in the coast guard. He hoped there was no inten tion to interfere with this most valuable reserve of seamen, and that the force would be increased to 12,000 men as soon as.possible. Sir J. PAKINGTON did not dissent from the policy which the right hon. gentleman had just laid down. If he had made the increase this year it would have been only a nominal increase. There were now 700 or 800 less in the coast guard service than were voted. Sir C. NAPIER observed that though it had been said that some ships had been commissioned they had in fact been manned by men who had volunteered from the coast guard ships. Sir J. PAKINGTON said it was true a few men had been allowed to volunteer from the coast guard ships, but they were very few. They had manned two ships of the line and two frigates recently with a rapidity which was very uncommon. Admiral DUNCOMBE observed that if they were 700 or 800 short of the coastguard service, they were not making much progress in the object they sought, to render it more easy to man the navy. Mr. CALDWELL said there was no difficulty in filling up the coastguard service, which seamen looked forward to with ambition. He trusted that when the First Lord of the Admiralty brought the question before the considera tion of the house, they should find that he proposed to fill up the coastguard to the full number of 12,000. Mr. CORRY explained that the crews of the revenue cutters were formerly taken from the coast guard on shore. Now they were manned from the coastguard afloat, and the number actually on shore was as great as it was last year. That number was complete, but the coast guard afloat was 720 short. Sir J. ELPHINSTONE said that the evidence taken before the commissioners showed that the coastguard volunteers were not likely to be a force on which much per manent reliance could be placed, and that the better part of them would probably be absorbed into another force which the commissioners proposed to create. Mr. W. LINDSAY had come to a different conclusion. It was true that the volunteers were not to go more than 100 leagues from the shore, but there were many services in which they would be able to supply very important aid. Still there was one great defect in the volunteer system—out of 7,000 men not more than 4,000 or 5,000 attended the drills. Sir J. PAKINGTON said that one •seventh did not ap pear when they were called upon. He thought that with some slight encouragement a very fine class of men, called " wreckers," who at present were idling about the coast, might be made very efficient crews for the gunboats. Sir J. ELPHINSTONE had omitted to state that the establishment of the volunteer force had been productive of very good effect by accustoming sailors in the north to the discipline of men-of-war. Mr. CARDWELL was of opinion that when it was well understood that the old system of impressment would not be again resorted to there would be no limit to the number of volunteers that the country might obtain. It would, how ever, be better to discuss the whole subject on another occa sion, and in a more formal manner. (Hear.) The vote was then agreed to, and the chairman reported progress. MUTINY BILL. On the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, Mr. COWAN, who had a notice on the pape r w it h regard co billeting, said that when he contrasted the experience of the last three months with what had taken place under the late Government, he should be acting most ungraciously if he pressed his motion, especially as the increased remune ration proposed to be given to innkeepers would remove a great part of the grievance. (Hear, hear.) General PEEL said that when the innkeeper was called upon to provide a hot meal to men on the march it was in tended to add an additional 2d. to the all owance, making it thus is. Aid. (Hear.) He hoped that the hardship which had hitherto been experienced would in a great measure cease ; for several respectable private persons had agreed to build barracks in London, in Edinburgh, and other towns, and to take in any number of recruits at the rate of 4d. per n i g ht. He had no doubt that the arrangements which would be made in the course of the present year would be found to give perfect satisfaction ; or, if they did not, he should be happy tolhear any furth er suggestions on the subject. Xr, F, JAMS bore totirout9 the extremely kind and courteous manner in wl Lich the gallant general had always received those who had . had representations to make to him. Mr. BLACK corroboi -ated the remarks of the last mem ber ; and expressed an opinion that the proposals of the gallant general were y . ier. .e'•etly just and fair. ( Hear, hear.) Mr. BOVILL, having c tilled the attention of the house to this subject about two ears ago, wished to express the gratitude felt by those per sr ins who had been aggrieved by the old system. After a few remarks froi n Sir W. CODRINGTON and. Mr. CRAWFORD to the same pi u port, The SPEAKER left the c air. In answer to Sir W. C( ID RINGTON, Gen. PEEL said that vat. h every desire to adopt the pro posal that the payment sb .ou ld be made by the billetmaster, it had been found necessary to postpone any alteration in that respect till it had b eon seen how the new system would work. The clauses of the bill w ere then agraad, to without amendment. AfARINE ML TTINY BILL. On the motion for con Lmittii ig this bill, Sir C. NAPIER expressed an opinion thra a system of ship courts-martial should be ei ltablished, and that the cap tain should not be present durin, g punishment Q.l. In making this remark he did not wish it to .be thought than t the amount of flogging at present in the navy was at all excessive. Sir J. PAKINGTDN said that ithe subject was under the consideration of the .3oard of Admiralty. The bill was then passed throug; h. committee. CO UN TY COURT S BILL. This bill passed thrc nigh committee. REMISSION OF PENALTIES BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. PETITION OF RIGHTS BILL. This bill was read a second time. AFFIDAVITS BT COMMISSION, &c., BILL. This bill was read a second time. . EVIDENCE BY COMMIS Si ON BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. The house adjourned at a quarter to, one o'clock. POLICE INTBLLIGENCE.--March 14. GUILDHALL.—James Davies, described as a beerseller of 16, Stephen-street, Tottenham-court road, was charged, on suspicion, with stealing a gold watch and chain from Eliza. Thompson, of Albion -buil dings, Bartholomew-close. Mrs. Thompson said—My husband is Mr. Charles Thompson, of Finsbury, but I have not lived with him since 1853. On •Saturlaay last, my landlady, Josephine Price, who keeps several houses of the kind which I frequent, as I .am on the streets, took me to a wine-collar in James's-street, Oxenden street, where lin et three thieves. I there saw the prisoner, who got into a cab with me to go to 6, Albion-buildings. We called at several public houses, where we had something to drink. He said he was good for half-a-sovereign, and my land lady told me to tak - ,e him home with me. I had my watch and guard ,safe when I got into the cab, and when I got home the scar vant asked me where my watch was, and I missed it then for the first time. After some further evidenct 3 had been given, Sir R. W. Carden said— I have heard quite enough of this case; as there i. s no evidence to show that the prisoner had the watcl t, or that this woman did not pawn it. I discharge t the prisoner. Prosecutrix—Will you postp 'one the case till to morrow, sir, so that my , solicitor. may attend ? Sir R. W. Carden—lf you c to get further evi dence you can bring your solicit' n here, and charge the prisoner again. Mr. Hope—l am now i nstrt acted, on behalf of this young man, to apply for to summons against this woman for perjury. Sir It. W. Carden—l cant tot grant you a sun ions under all the circumstances.. Prisoner—lf this gets intt the papers, sir, it will be the min of me unless I alai allowed to prosecute this woman. . _ Sir R. W. Carden—Are you a married man ? Prisoner—l am, sir. Sir It. W. Carden—Then 37c 'lir conduct is only the more disgraceful, and I h ope your wife will give you a severe lecture for acting as you have done. ______ M . r. Hope—The wife is pre ;sent, sir, and although the prisoner has been in discr( ;et his conduct has not been criminal. Sir R. W. Carden—lf he will get into such com pany he must expect to get into the papers. It is only what he deserves. The case is dismissed. BOW-STREET.—Mr. Iffaynes, the solicitor, whose name is included with those of John Gibson Bennett and others in a bill of indictment for con spiracy to defraud, obtain ed at the Middlesex Sessions by the informer Tho mas Stowell, attended, accompanied by his solicito rs, Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, to put in bail for his a ppearance to take his trial. Mr. Lewis, jun., addressing the magistrate, said, —Sir, I attend here in order to put in bail on the part of Mr. Haynes, against whom a most infamous charge has been made behind his back by a notorious common informer, who has hims elf been several times convicted. Mr. Haynes has brought his sureties with him, gentlemen of the highest re spectability, and he is anxious to enter into recog nisances, because, though there has. been a refusal to grant a warrant, Stowell has obtained a certifi cate which would enable him to apprehend Mr. Haynes. Stowell, who occupied a seat at the "attorney's table, here stood up and said, " That : ain't true. No warrants was refused. They warn't a applied for." Mr. Lewis, jun.—lt is exceedingly unpleasant to be told that one's statements are untrue. This man is the prosecutor in the case, who is we 11 known to be a common informer, and who has nol long been out of prison. I say that he is not a person who ought to occupy a seat in the attorney's box, and that gentlemen ought not to be subjected to the humiliation of sitting beside him. _ Mr. Jardine (to Stowell)—l really don't know what business you have there. Stowell—l am clerk to an attorney, Mr. Govett. Mr. Jardine—Have you a note from him autho rising you to act for him ? Stowell—l ain't got one to-day. I showed one on Saturday in another case, and I can get one in half an hour. lam not here as solicitor to-day ; am prosecutor in the case. Mi.. Lewis, jun.—This is not a box for prosecuto rs. Mr. Jardine (to Stowell)—You have no business there ; you must leave immediately. Stowell then proceeded, unwillingly and veal slowly, to gather up his papers, muttering comme - nts , all the while. One of the officers of the court ;ap proached him for the purpose of expelling him, rind he gradually gave way without being actually pushed out. He continued all the while to ;ad dress to the magistrate observations on the case, mixed with expostulations with the officer, whom he requested " not to hurry him, as he was a-goi ng as fast as he could." As the door of the attorne ys' box closed behind him he wound up by saying that he should not object to the bail. The whole of this scene had a most ludicrous effect, and created mu ch diversion among the auditory. Mr. Lewis, jun., then continued his observations on the case. The indictment charged Mr. Hay] ies with having conspired with the Bennetts to defraud various persons by representing themselves as the' British and Foreign Ear Infirmary. Mr. Haynes was a most respectable solicitor, and his only con nection with the Bennetts was that of attorney o.nd client. This absurd charge was preferred by Stowell, in conjunction with a man against whom Mr. Haynes was conducting a prosecution on the part of the Bennetts. The prosecution against Mr. Haynes was an infamous proceeding, got up by in famous persons. Mr. Haynes was, of course, most anxious to bring the matter to an issue by having the charge investigated at once. Mr. Haynes was then bound over in his own re cognizance of £lOO and two sureties of £5O each to appear to the indictment. CONTINUED ILLNESS OF MR. COMMISSIONER HOL ROYD.—The leave of absence granted by the Lord Chan cellor to this learned and much esteemed gentleman expires on the 15th of this month'; but it is to be regretted, from his continued painful and distressing indisposition, that he will be unable to resume his sittings. The Lord Chancellor has granted two months' further leave of absence. The learned commissioner is at present at Brighton. BIRTHS. CHAMPION.—On. the 13th inst., at Woolwich, the Wife of • Major Champion, R.A., of a daughter. Emas.—On the 13th inst., at Blackheath, Mrs. Edward W. Ellis, of a son. • NORTHCOTE.—On the 13th inst, at 31, Gordon-street, Gordon-square, W.C., the wife of Stafford H. Northcote, Esq., of a son. _ . _ TREMENHEERE.-0 11 the 14th inst., at 3, Dean. street, Park-lane, Mrs. Hugh Seymour Tremenheere, of a daughter. MARRIAGES BACON—WARNER.. - -On the 12th inst:, at St. Paul's, Co vent-garden, Mr: Thomas• Bacon, of Newmarket, to Annie, eldest daughter of the late Mr. Robert Warner, of the Bedford Hotel, Covent-garden. GRANT—LAT.--On the 10th inst., at St. Bride's, Fleet street, Daniel Grant, Esq., of Warwick-road, and Upper Clapton, and Ludgate-hill, to Eliza Ann, only daughter of Daniel Lay, Esq., of Hackney. DEATHS. ARNOLD.—On the 13th inst., at Park Lodge, Upper Syden ham, Elizabeth, widow of the late W. Rowland Arnold, of the South Sea House, aged 64. BOYCOTT.—On the 13th inst., in St. James's square, K. Digby Boycott, Esq., aged 28. DE MORGAN.—On the 13th inst., at 51, Upper Seymour street, Mrs. C. De Morgan, aged 41. KING.—On the 13th inst., at Woodside, Stone, near Dart ford, the Yen. Walker_ King, Archdeacon of Rochester, aged GO. MACINNES.—On the 12th inst., General Maclnnes, of Hampstead, aged 80. PARKER.—On the 11th inst., at Shirburn Castle, Hug - 11 Lupus Parker, seventh son of the Earl and Countess of Macclesfield, aged three years and a half. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of ,the Savoy, in the county of Ni4cliesex, Tueglay, Karel), 16, 1869, ten De r] n( re in lie n wit I`. tob Mesa Will bless bu, Mr. ~ shell Sheff Lee Live! bui Man e Brist Thi reel, Chines under five g( for bb The best e CI The tracte is cap lower in the Pende T" Ca With Capita be ore] holder E I) epc Pheatic ,ehairn 'ePut3 - of 1 Rtr WiMat Lora 1 Patrick b 01i `.ear-A -, pia . oh n E tteute t 4 cobert aeoi ßlu b . Co. ' 4 enry Rai shit rranciE Mal Joseph Der CONSui 1410 //qE XA.NE lAOgEI SOLI( 01 DO ant DRY r Uni eon] Dry ing CaB: Inoi 1 .11 the ( Cee( the 4 PPlica Offi Pay to J Esc The Ha' Bel AN PER. COPAI Copaib B atne ti In al' trial WI on ce ac their it 1 38.) Street,' c ure fo U lcers, Pri ce 2 To b B treet, Order,daily 1 ON E ;''~`'`~r.r Maidi