The Sun. — London, England, 1860-07-31 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. NEW PEER. Lord CLYDE took the oaths and his seat as a peer of the realm. The noble lord was introduced by the Duke of Argyll and Lord Longford. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Burnham Tidal Harbour and Railway, London, Chatham, and Dover Railway (Metropolitan Extension) Bills, were read a third time and passed. MAYNOOTH. Viscount DUNGANNON presented a petition against the Maynooth College Bill. The petition prayed that as £30,000 had been granted lately to the college, no further steps be taken with respect to the bill. THE CHANCERY COMMISSION. Lord ST. LEONARDS gave notice that on Friday next he should call the attention of the house to the report of the Chancery Commissioners. THE SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY. The Earl of lIALMESBURY again brought on the sub ject of the arrangement of the South-Western Railway to construct a double line of rails from Dorchester to Southampton when the receipts reached a certain amount. The noble earl contended that the company had repudiated the agreement they had entered into, and it was their duty to show that their receipts had not for three years in suc cession reached the sum agreed upon. He hoped the Government would urge upon the Board of Trade the necessity of compelling the South-Western directors to carry out the agreement in all its integrity. Earl GRANVILLE, who spoke in a very indistinct manner, was understood to defend the conduct of the direc tors, and to state that there was no legal complaint against the company. They were bound by the Act of Parliament to construct a.double line of rails when their receipts reached a certain sum, but the sum S had never yet been reached. Some months ago a very careful examination of the ac counts took place, when it was found the sum had not been reached. The subject was now in course of negotiation between the company and theßoard of Trade, and interviews between the directors and the president of that department would take place next Thursday, and until that time no thing could be done. He must, however, inform the noble earl opposite that the authorities of the Board of Trade felt they had no ground of complaint against the directors of the South-Western Railway Company. He felt certain that in the e vent of the company seeing it was for the public good that the double line should be laid down it would be done,but as far as compelling them to do so against their inclination, the Government had no power. After a few words from Lord WYNFORD, Lord STANLEY of A LDERLEY said he thought no one had a right to complain: of the conduct of the South- Western Railway Company, until it had been clearly shown their receipts had amounted to the sum agreed upon for the eonstruction of the deub!e line, and they had re fused to carry out the provisions of their act of Parliament. The Earl of MALMESBURY rose, but was met with loud cries of " Order, order." The LORD CHANCELLOR said there was no ques tion before the house, and the clerk at the table proceeded to read the orders of the day. AFFAIRS OF ITALY. The Marquis of NORMANBY then rose to move for copies or extracts from the despatches from her Majesty's Minister in Tuscany in 1855, 1856, and 1857, referring to the cendition and administration of the Roman States. He said it was not in consequence of any initiative of his that this subject was now brought before their lordships ; but an hon. member of the other House of Parliament had moved for certain despatches which were addressed to him (Lord Normanby) when he was Minister at Florence, by the secretary of Legation, at that time unofficially residing at Rome. He had no doubt that the hon. gentleman's intention was to show upon undoubted authority that the allegations of the continual misgovernment of Rome were exaggerated, and with that view the hon. gentleman could not have taken a better course than to rely upon the great powers of observation of his friend Mr. Lyons, guided as they were by an accurate and impartial spirit. But there was another question, distinct from that one, although equally important, which was involved in the papers he now moved for. That question was, what effect upon the character and influence of this country might be produced by this sort of Ministerial assertions of alleged facts which were vented with somewhat of levity, and which Europe afterwards seemed to combine in declaring to be unfounded. The declaration which was made in 1856 by the noble lord then and now at the head of her Majesty's Government in favour of the Roman republic of 1849 had within the last few months been made the subject of much comment by several eminent French publicists, in a way that was much to be regretted. He would now briefly ex plain the character and substance of the papers for which he moved, as showing the effect of that declaration, At that time Mr. Lyons was residing at Rome, entirely in an unrecognised position, and any diplomatic affairs to be transacted there must have been referred to the minister at Florence ; but in order that he (the Marquis of Normanby) might co-operate advantageously with Mr. Lyons, it was necessary that there should be no doubt in the minds of those who administered the Roman Government as to the object which the English Government had in view, and they should be assured that the object which the English Govern ment sought was the amelioration, not the overthrow, of the Roman institutions ; in short, that it was reform, and not revolution. When, therefore, he (Lord Norrnanby) found that high ministerial authority had made the impression in Italy that we sympathised with the cause of revolution he felt that the efforts of Mr. Lyons and himself were baffled. Everyone who read the papers he now referred to would see that very soon after the first interview of Mr. Lyons with the minister of the Papal Government in May, 1856, some thing unpropitious occurred. Mr. Lyons saw Cardinal An tonelli on the 6th May, when he had to communicate to him, on the part of hi s noble frlend opposite (the Earl of Clarendon) his impression as to what had passed at the Congress of Paris. No doubt Mr. Lyons executed that task with great tact, and, in obedience to his instructions, brought forward the subject in the most mild and moderate tone ; and no doubt he was heard with the most courteous attention. But at that time neither Mr. Lyons nor Cardinal Antonelli was aware of the declaration made by the Prime Minister of England on the 6th of that month, that " Rome had never been better governed than during the absence of the Pope." It could hardly be sup posed that, in using such a phrase in public, some allusion was not made to the very peculiar circumstances under which that absence took place. The absence of the Pope from Rome at that period, in 1848 and 1849 ; was caused by the murder of MR constitutional minister on the steps of the National Assembly. He (Lord Normanby) well remem- bored the effect produced at Paris, when that assassination was announced in the French Constituent Assembly. Even M. Bixio, an Italian and a revolutionist, expressed his hor ror and indignation. Such were the circumstances under which the Pope left Rome ; yet that event had met with the approbation, as it seemed, of at least one of her Majesty's ministers. However, Mr. Lyons did not again see Cardinal Antonelli until the 24th of that month, May, 1856. He then stated that the excitement had been much increased by what had passed in the British Parliament. Mr. Lyons soon found the effect of it. On the 30th, when Cardinal Antonelli again saw 31 r. Lyons, his tone was completely different. Mr. Lyons stateel in his despatch that "on my endeavour to bring to acle finitc issue the question whether or not the papal government within a reasonable time, would or could undertake to adopt any reforms at all, the cardinal became almost entirely si lent." It was, therefore, not unfair to suppose that the cardinal's silence was the result of the communication to him of what had passed in England. At the same time he (Lord Normanby) was himself endeavouring to obtain from the Papal Government concessions of a similar chaMeter. He had had some interviews with a friend of his, not offi cially connected with Rome, but having great influence there, and he had then had every reason to suppose that a favourable consideration would be given to what he (Lord Normanby) had always thought the most important point to belurged, namely, that the Consulta of Finance should have a deliberative voice. But when he again addressed his friend on the subject the reply was, " How can we ex pect these reforms when the head of your Government holds up as a model for imitation a system which we believe to b• inconsistent with the security of life and property ?" Such was the effect caused by that declaration in Parliament of the noble lord at the head of the Government. Now he (the Marquis of Normanby) happened to be her Majesty's minister at Paris in 1849, and he re ceived from M. Drouyn de I'Huys, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, and from M. de Tocqueville, who suc ceeded him, a communication of all the documents which bore on the conduct of the French expedition to Rome, and showing not only the exemplary behaviour of the French troops in Rome, but the real character of the Government which had been overthown there. Within the last few days his own recollection of the matter had been confirmed by M. Drouyn de I'Huys, whom he had consulted on the subject. The result of a close investigation made by the French Government at that time was communicated not only to all the foreign ambassadors at Paris, but brought to England by M. Drouyn de l'Huys when he was appointed ambassador here, and also communicated to the noble earl opposite (Earl Granville). He (the Marquis of Normanby), had therefore every reason t , oB ‘ . 'plaese that any illusion which the noble viscount kr i tactston) niio-Ti.t have entertained in 1819 as to the real character of that7upublic had been dispelled. But to his ast • (flus linlent • , seven years after that, in 1856, those illu sions seemed to have been revived with increased force. He (Lord Norm a the noble viscount had had no personal communication with (Lordut e for some time, having accepted from his noble friend th e pest of ; i ntim) under Lord Aberdeen's Go vernment,mister at Florence. But he had g roat witnessed the very conduct created all over the con tinent of Europe by th e with reference to those etr transactions. her M a jesty's Govern mentunwar- rantable statement made by the noble Viscount had been . The re flected upon in foreign putlications of extraordinary merit, and M. de Montalc'a i b er t, than who m literary there was no more sincere supporter of II nglish institutions, had thought fit in his introduction to a wt irkirkonthe Pontifical Sovereignty (by the Bishop of Orlean s ) it ) comment ver y s trongly on that flagrant abuse of speech b: r the Prime Minister of Engla n d. And M. de Tocqueville, rho was peculiarly liberal in hi a opinions, and whohad no , share in the origin of the , expedition, and whom he saw almost every day in that year, expressed his astonishment at the manner in which Lord Palmerston had expressed his disbelief of such a mass of fedi as wore brought before him, and still considered as worthy of his praise the Roman republic, which WAS defi cient in all the first duties of a good Government. He could only say in conclusion, that he submitted his motion to the house on the simple ground that the papers already pre sented to Parliament did not give an accurate impression of the truth, and by the omission of any allusion to this inci dent would create an impression unjust alike to Mr. Lyons himself and the Roman Government, inasmuch as there would remain no trace of the fact that it was a consequence of a natural feeling of irritation arising from what they deemed an insult that they were less disposed to listen in time to any suggestions for a favourable consideration of the administration of the affairs of the Roman republic. The noble lord concluded by proposing his motion for the production of despatches. Lord WODEHOUSE said there would be no objection to giving the papers, but their lordships were perhaps not suf ficiently aware that the circumstances to which his noble friend referred did not occur in the present year or last year, but in 1849, and that the speech of Lord Palmerston was delivered in 1856. These matters had nothing to do with the political events of the present day. His noble friend said that these matters had some connexion with the despatches of Mr. Lyons, but he was quite at a loss to dis cover such connexion. The motion would lead their lord ships to suppose that it had reference to a large mass of correspondence, but it in fact only included two despatches which related exclusively to the speech delivered by Lord Palmerston in 1856. He would not weary their lordships by going into an explanation of what took place in 1849 and 1856 ; but he might mention that the statement of Lord Palmerston was based on the official reports of her Majesty's consul at Rome. The noble marquis said that being at Paris he knew what was the real state of things at Rome better than the British consul ; but when the papers were laid before the house their lordships would be able to form a correct opinion upon that point. After a few words from the Marquis of NORMANBY in reply the return was agreed to. COAST OF AFRICA, &c., ACT AMENDMENT BILL. This bill went through committee pro forma, and was re ported with amendments. CROWN DEBTS AND JUDGMENT BILL. This bill passed through committee. ' The following bills were advanced a stage without dis cussion :—Smithfield Markets, &c. (committee) ; Prisons, Scotland (committee) ; Registration of Births, Ste., Scot land (third reading) ; Title to Lands, Scotland (report of amendments) ; Conjugal Rights, Scotland (committee) ; Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act Amendment (com mittee) ; Highways South Wales Bill ; Manchester Cathe dral Church ; Felony and Misdemeanour ; Postage (Army and Navy). The Party Emblems (Ireland) Bill passed through com mittee. Medical Act Amendment (1858) ; Highway Rates Act Continuance Bills were read a third time and passed. The Police and Towns Improvement (Scotland) Aci Amendment Bill passed through committee. COUNTY CORONER'S BILL. This bill passed through committee. STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES BILL. After a short discussion, in which the Lord Chancellor, Lord Dungannon, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and Lord Chelmsford took part, The LORD CHANCELLOR put the question that the standing order be suspended, and declared that the non contents had it. The bill was consequently lost. The house adjourned at ten minutes to eight o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Forest of Dean Central Railway (No. 2) Bill was read a third time and passed, and the Duke of Norfolk's Estate Bill was read a second time. On the motion of Mr. C. FORSTER, the following was agreed to :—" That standing orders 89, 170, anal 204 be suspended ; and that it be an instruction to the committee of selection, that they have power to appoint the committee on the Caithness Roads (No. 2) Bill, with leave to the com mittee to sit and proceed to-morrow; that the evidence on the Caithness Roads Bill of this session be referred to th• committee." SYRIA. Mr. RICH gave notice that on Friday next, on the mo tion of the adjourament of the house until Monday, be would draw the attention of the house to the disturbances in Syria, as well as the despatches on the subject which had recently been received. In reply to Mr. B. OSBOnNE, Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had stated some time ago that a commission would be sent to Syria, and it was c msidered by her Majesty's Government, as well as the Executive at Paris, that some representative from the English Government should form a part of that commis sion, and accordingly Lord Dufferin was selected to occupy that position. There would be a council of the five great Powers of Europe on the subject. MARITIME TREATY WITH FRANCE. Mr. LINDSAY asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he would lay upon the table of the house the cor respondence which had passed between this country and the Government of France in regard to a maritime treaty with that country ? Lord J. RUSSELL said it would not be advisable to produce the correspondence in question at present. NATIONAL FORTIFICATIONS. In reply to Sir D. L. EVANS, Mr. S. HERBERT said that the subject of the national fortifications would be again brought on as soon as possible, DISEMBODIMENT OF MILITIA. Sir H. STRACEY asked the Secret" , of State for War why the rule of disembodying militia regiments according to the order in which they were embodied had been de parted from in the case of the Norfolk Artillery ? Mr. S. HERBERT said there was only one rule in re gard to the matter, and that was the benefit of the public service, in conformity with which the War-office had acted as regarded the corps in question. GRAVES OF ENGLISH SOLDIERS AT SEBAS- TOPOL. Mr. H. SEYMOUR asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the British Government had au thorised the appointment of an agent at Sebastopol to watch over the graves, at a fixed salary ; whether such salary had been paid by the Government, and to whom, and through whom ; and, if so, why no agent had hitherto been there for that purpose ? Lord J. RUSSELL said that there had been some cor respondence on the subject with the Russian Govern ment, and the accounts received from the latter were mos satisfactory. SYRIA. On the motion of Mr. KINNAIRD, an address for a copy of the correspondence relative i o Syria (in continua tion of papers already laid before Parliament) was agreed to. EUROPEAN FORCES INDIA BILL—NATIONAL FORTIFICATIONS. On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned de bate, on the motion for going into committee on the European Forces India Bill, Mr. HORSMAN said that he had given notice of a question relative to the subject of the national fortifications to the noble lord at the head of her Majesty's Government, and that nobb lord was not in his place. (Gries of " Order, order.") The SPEAKER explained that the hon. member was out of order. A question was before the house altogether different from that to which he addressed himself. Mr. HORSMAN said he would put himself in order, and conclude by moving that the house do now adjourn. He repeated that he had given the noble lord (Palmerston) notice of his motion, and considering the importance of the question—a question to which the national mind was most anxiously directed—he certainly thought the noble lord should have been in his place to answer his (Mr. Horsman's) question. He believed the general impression at the conclusion of the debate last week on the subject of the national fortifications was, that it would have been one of the first subjects brought forward this evening, instead of which there were several other questions on the paper which had precedence, and which were likely to occupy fur some time the attention of the house. The question of na tional fortification had derived additional importance from what the noble lord said the other evening in bringing this matter forward ; and he might state that he (Mr. Horsman), and he believed the majority of the house, fully concurred in what had fallen from the noble lord on that occasion. (Hear.) He thought, under the circumstances, that what the noble lord stated would have been followed by a course of action which the public safety demanded. (Order.) • The SPEAKER again called the hon. member to order. The circumstance of the hon. member having given notice of a question to a Minister of the Crown did not entitle him to ask that question when an order of the day was laid before the house. Lord PALMERSTON expressed his regret that he had been detained later from the house than he expected that afternoon, but he was in his place before the order of the day was moved, though the honourable member (Mr. Horsman) did not perceive him. He was as anxious as that hon. member to come to a decision on the subject of the national fortifications, but the house was engaged in the consideration of a question of considerable im portance. He appealed to the hon. member and his friends to assist him on the present occasion in for warding the public business, so as to enable them to expe dite the discussion of the question to which ho (Mr. Hors man) referred, by discontinuing the opposition to the regu lar order of the business of the house. (Hear.) Mr. lIORSMAN said that under the circumstances he would not press his motion, and the subject then dropped. The debate was then resumed by Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR on the following motion : " That it be an instruction to the committee that they have power to make provision therein that all appointments to military commands in India (the commands in chief abaci excepted), and all staff appointments, whether military, naval, or medical, bo vested in the Governor-General in Council and other constituted authorities in India." H e said his remarks would be certainly brief, as he had no wish to prolong the discussion. His hon. friend who moved this amendinent and hiniself were of opinion that it was not right that a Governor-General of India should hold office on such terms as that it should be in the power of the Sec- retary of State for India at any time to transfer the power of the Governor-General to the Commander-in-Chief or to the Ho se Guards. It did not appear to him, if the Secre tary of State wished that power to remain, that he would entertain any objection to this amendment. The interference of the home Government with that of India had led to the greatest evils. The Affghan war itself was undertaken in opposition to the views of all Indian experience. Another question, that of annexation, was one which had been en tirely supported by the home Government. He should sup port the proposal for instructions moved for by his hon. friend, and he earnestly hoped that the Secretary fe4, India would consent to its adoption. Col. SYKES said he wished to correct a misrepresenta tion which had been made of what he had said the other night on a particular point. He had written one or two letters on the subject to the papers, but no notice had been taken of his communications. What he said was that the sth Dragoon Guards had refused to charge the rebels in Ireland in 1799. What he was represented to have said was that the Guards had joined the rebels. As this statement had led to some remark on the part of that gallant corps, ho wished to set himself right on the subject. The simple proposition at present before the house was whether the Government of India, civil and military, was to be placed under the Secretary of State for India, or was to be shared by the Secretary for War and the Horse Guards. A very strong opinion on the subject had been delivered by Mr. Willoughby. Equally positive were the opi nions of Lord Elphinstone and Mr. Freer. The opinion of Mr. Freer also was in favour of a centralised authority. There could not be complete control in the Governor- General if it was participated in by the Commander-in- Chief and the military authorities at home. Soon after the passing of the India Government Act the Duke of Cam bridge had made a demand fir the transfer of authority over the Indian army to the Horse Guards, though that depart ment was already overwhelmed with business. This was very properly resisted by Lord Stanley, then Secretary of State for India, and he rejoiced to know that the noble lord still entertained the same opinion. After alluding to the disasters of Cabul, the hon. and gallant gentleman described the efforts made under Sir George Pollock to retrieve those disasters, and the steps which he took to quell the dissatis faction then existing in the army. He was only enabled to do this by a knowledge of the prejudices and supersti tions of his troops. Had the same tact and consideration been shown prior to the late mutiny, that mutiny would never have been heard of. He had proof of this in the cor respondence which took place with respect to the events at Umballah. It was most essential that the authority should be retained in the hands of the Governor-General. At pre sent there were 4,980 British officers in the local army. These must all die off in the course of nature; and all that patronage would be thrown into the hands of the Horse Guards, as well as the appointment of the commander-in chief, the generals of division, adjutants, quartermasters general, and inspectors of hospitals. At present 145 offi cers of the line were employed on the staff. Had the army been under the Horse Guards the whole of those vacancies would have been filled up, and a proportionate increase of charge made to the Indian revenue. (Hear, hear.) The proposed change would give rise to repeated collisions be tween the Governor-General and the officers of the army in India, who would receive orders direct from home, and act independently of the Governor-General. Much had been made of the bugbear of two armies. This was not so. They were all under the authority of the Queen, though not under the direct authority of the Horse Guards. It would be as rea sonable to say that the marines and the regiments of the line at home formed two armies. It was only a question whe ther the royal orders should be sent to India through the Horse Guards, or through the Secretary of State for India. If faith were kept with the officers of the Indian army, amalgamation would be impossible. Sir C. WOOD said that the hon. and gallant gentleman had put a construction on the act which no one ever dreamt of before. It was not at all proposed that there should be any reduction of the native army. The hon. member for Poole was quite mistaken in his views as to the origin and effect of the Affghan war. In each of the three cases of policy which his hon. friend said had been condemned by the Go vernment in India and forced upon them by the home Go vernment, it was the policy of the Government in India that had been carried out. In other cases their policy had been rejected, and he had himself stopped the annexation of Oude when it had been recommended to him. Mr. H. SEYMOUR had said "condemned by Indian statesmen." Sir C. WOOD—If his hon. friend refused the name of statesmen to the Governor-General and Council of India he had not a word more to say on that subject. Perhaps his hon. friend would exclude from the name of statesmen all those who did not agree with himself. (Laughter.) With regard to the changes which it was said the bill would effect, there was not a word in it to show that it would ope rate those changes. The staff appointments were necessa rily made by the Government in India. They were made upon the recommendation of the Commander•in-Chief. The bill made no alteration in that respect. There were indeed certain officers of the Queen's army sent out to India, but he contended it was most beneficial to India that such appointments should be made. If that had not been the case, India would have been deprived of the services of such men as Lord Clyde, Sir H. Rose, Sir W. Mansfield, and Sir Hope Grant, and nothing would be so detrimental to the Queen's service in India as anyproposition which would deprive India of such experienced men as these. He there fore believed that the proposition of his hon. friend, if ope rative at all, would prove mischievous, and if inoperative it would be unnecessary. Mr. RICH would recommend his hon. friend to withdraw his instruction, and allow the discussion to be concentrated on the proposition of the hon. member for Ayrshire. Sir E. COLEBROOKE seconded the recommendation, and hoped the house would support the appeal of the hon. member for Ayrshire. His right hon. friend must be very simple if he thought they would be caught by the statement that the bill contained nothing on the subject of the ap pointments, when the quarrel they had with him was that it did. (Hear.) Mr. MILNE S then allowed his instruction to be negatived without a division. Sir J. FERGUSSON then rose to move " that in the opinion of this house it is inexpedient to proceed further with legislation respecting the European troops in India until the whole plan of the Government for the regulation of the military force of that country shall have been sub mitted to the consideration of Parliament." He believed that the proposition of the right hon. gentleman now before the house was but part of a gigantic scheme of centralisa tion, which had for its object the transferring from Calcutta to London the transacting of all the business of India. Much of the Indian business might be well and usefully transacted here, but he did not think that the army or the civil service of India could be appropriately managed out of India. In this question were involved the questions of the stability of our Indian empire, the renown of their arms, the fame of England, and the future welfare of both Eng land and India. In deciding upon this question the house was bound to consider the mode of recruiting for the Indian army, how they could best promote the efficiency of the army in India; they were bound to consider the financial questions involved in the proposed change, and also the effect it might have on the national safety. But above all they were bouxd to consider what plan the Government proposed to substitute for the system about to be swept away, and which had worked well for so many years. He did not believe the Parliament would have ever conferred such extensive powers on the Secretary of State for India if it was believed that they were not to be consulted on the changes which it was proposed to make in the government of that country. Heretofore the Governor- General and Council of India exercised supreme command over the civil and military authoilties of India. Colonel Durrand, a member of the Council in India, said that if they stripped the Governor-General of the command of the army he would no longer possess that respect and authority which it was so desirable he should possess in the eyes of Asiatic nations, and that the late events in India proved the expe diency of having distinct armies and systems. He should ask the house to consider this as a question of finance, and the Government had previously to introducing this change consulted a very eminent actuary for the purpose of ascer taining what additional expenses would be required, and papers had been presented to the house showing the com parative expenses of the system, and he pointed out that the expenses of the Queen's troops in India would be much greater than those of :the local army, and the result was that an army of 80,000 would cost £460,000 a year, and if only one-third were Queen's troops it would cost £lBO,OOO a year. But he (Sir J. Fergusson) should confess that he saw no necessity for maintaining so large a force in India as 80,000 European troops. In the plan proposed by the Government the house must be prepared to sanction a very large increase of expenditure, but after all the great ques tion was as to the efficiency of the army. It was said on the one hand that the troops got less efficient by the climate, and on the other hand that , hey got acclimatised. He be lieved that in both these arguments there was some truth ; but he believed that the men who had lived there for some years knew better how to take care of themselves than those who had just arrived out. Two years ago the Indian army had been quoted as the perfection of organisation, and what could have occurred in the meantime to work such a change in public opinion as to wipe away all recollection of their great services ? There could be no doubt that the staff in India had been promoted much more by merit in the company's service than in that of the Queen. That was necessarily an important paint in considering the ques tion of military effic:cncy. One great advantage of main taining. a local army in India was that it ensured the ser vice of officers specially trained for the duties they had to perform. The Indian army was thus commanded by men who knew India, and who looked to the country as the scene of all their advancement. He (Sir J. Fergusson) ven tured to submit that if this bill passed, the house were en titled to know how the Government proposed to deal with the question of guarantees, and unless some plan were laid upon the table, the house were fairly entitled to demand further time for consideration. (Hear, hear.) .The Go vernment asserted that events which had occurred since the 10th of August last had induced them to change their minds in reference to the maintenance of a local army, but long before the 10th of August they must have been cogni sant of every fact connected with the discontent which had manifested itself in the Indian army. The two letters !';'' THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING; JULY 31, 1866. which contained the gravest charges in reference to the mutiny were dated ` .. the 14th and 18th of May, and must have been in the hands of the Secretary for India before he made his speech o a the 10th of August. Sir C. WOOD said the fact was that they were not in his possession at that time. Sir J. FERGUSSON admitted that if the right hon. gentleman was not in possession of those letters they might have afforded materials for a change of opinion ; but they were insufficient to justify the sweeping change which had been made. The blue-books were full of the state ments of the men in reference to the grievance of which they complained, and they all stated the same thing, viz., that they did not wish to stand out against any law, but that they denied there was any law which required them to transfer themselves to the Queen's army. Out of the whole 30,000 only 10,000 had accepted their discharge, and 2,500 of those had since been re-enlisted. The honourable baronet proceeded to quote letters from Sir J. Lawrence, Sir H. B. Frere, and Sir J. Outram, upon the importance of maintaining a local European army in India, and said the strong objection he had to proceeding further with the present bill was the total absence of any plan by which the house could learn what it was the Government really contemplated. (Hear, hear.) Mr. T. BARING seconded the motion. The SPEAKzu at once put the question. Sir J. ELPHINSTONE rose to address the house afterit had been put, and was informed that ho was too late. The house then divided— For the amendment 5O Against it Majority Sir J. ELPHINSTONE then moved the adjournment of the house. (Oh! oh !) His object was to make a persona' explanation with respect to an observation which had been attributed to him, and which he found had given pain. That observation was to the effect that he had been on board ship with 22 officers, on their way to India, 20 of whom could not write their own names. He (the hon. member) never questioned a newspaper report ; for he thought they were very much indebted to the reporters, not only for the accu racy with which they gave their speeches to the world, but for the material improvements which they so often intro duced. (Loud cheers.) What, however, he wished to state was that of the 22 officers, 20 could hardly write their names ; and to that statement he adhered, for it was literally true. The fact was that in times gone by large sums of money were paid for substitutes when regiments were or dered for India; and the men who thus went out were ge nerally very illiterate. The army was now in a very dif ferent position; but still the officer who went out to India after he had become accustomed to society in this country, was not the man that identified himself with the natives. (Hear, hear.) Ho (the hon. gentleman) could assure the house that he had most unwillingly taken part in the op position which had been offered to the bill ; but he had done so because he conscientiously believed it to be a most dangerous, improper, and unconstitutional mea sure to attempt to force such a change upon the house in its present half-informed condition, and at such an unusually late period of the session. (Hear, hear.) Col. KNOX seconded the motion for the adjournment. Sir E. COLF,BROOKE had intended to address the house before the division, but after the able speech of the hon. member for Ayrshire, to which her Majesty's Govern ment had not ventured a reply, he did not feel it necessary to do so. He was perfectly well contented with the progress they had made as evidenced by the division that had just taken place—(cheers)—and he trusted that hon. members who had joined in the opposition would be equally ready at the next stage. By pursuing that course—by urging their opinions firmly and respectfully upon this house, they would leave her Majesty's Government little to boast of. Henceforward they would not be able to appeal to the enor mous majority by which they carried the second reading. (Hear, hear.) Sir H. WILLOUGHBY spoke to express his opinion, and not for the purpose of delay. He regarded the bill as one calculated to unsettle much, and to settle nothing. Never had the house been taken more by surprise. Ho could not conceive why the Secretary of State had not taken counsel with his council before introducing a measure of so much importance. It had been said that the European army in In dia did not exist, but reckoning the men on their passage it was not less than 17,000 strong. He could not help think ing that there still existed a great deal of the old jealousy which there used to be of the late company, but the question was wholly different. It was not as if the point in dispute were whether there should or should not be a royal army in India. Under any circumstances the army must be the army of the Queen ; for it could be nothing else. (Cheers.) The sole question was whether it was not better to localise a certain portion of that royal army ? Viewed as a matter of reasoning, it seemed to him that the argument was ten to one in favour of the affirmative issue. It was proposed to double the European army of England by a stroke of the pen, and it appeared to him to be a very serious constitu tional question, what might be the effect of bringing up so large a portion of our armed force in a despotic country, beyond the direct influence of the House of Commons. Al ready the question who was supreme in the army was in equilibrio. At the present moment it was balancing itself, like a dancer on a tight rope with a pole, between the Com mander-in-Chief and the Secretary at War. So far as he could see, the power seemed to be in one, and the responsi bility in the other. For instance, in the years 1856-8, 686 commissions were gi ren away by the Commander-in-Chief. Those commissions would represent a money value of £3Bo,ooo—an amount of patronage altogether unexampled. A list of all appointments was no doubt handed to the Sec retary of State, but there could be no doubt that the power of making them resided altogether in the Commander-in- Chief ; and be would ask the house if it was prepared to double that enormous patronage ? (Hear, hear.) All the faults of the local army of India might be traced to the sys tem. If the authority of the colonels was deficient, it was only through their having been thwarted by the Comman der-in-Chief. There could be no doubt that all the evils which existed in connection with the local force could be easily corrected, and the 25 regiments would then become as efficient as any other in her Majesty's service. He could not conceive what possible interest Ministers could have in the bill. The right hon. gentleman was doing all this upon his own authority. He trusted that these discussions would have no ill effect upon Indian. affairs; but it was remark• able that the dictum of the noble lord upon a former occa sion had been acted upon by the soldiers, and a mutiny had took place in consequence. Indian history abundantly proved that troops of the line had been disarmed by native soldiers. These, however, were unpleasant moments in military history ; and the house was much too wise to form a system upon such isolated cases. There was an absolute necessity, in his opinion, of protecting the authority of the Governor-General in India. It was with the deepest pain that he (Sir H. Willoughby) had read some portions of the correspondence which the right hon. gentleman had placed upon the table of the house. Nothing was more dangerous than the expressions in some of the letters which had been addr eased to the Commander-in-Chief, without consulting the Governor-General. On May 11, 1859, Gen. Lord Clyde wrote to the Commander-in-Chief a despatch, containing the passage, "I admit I have not much influence ; " and again he said, " The whole of the Indian officers are dis contented." Did the house think that India was to be go verned in that way ? The Commander-in-Chief should not be empowered to make appointments in India without con sulting the Governor-General. All despatches also should pass through the hands of the Governor-General, as being the responsible Minister of the Crown. He asked would it be possible for any Governor-General to govern India if the Commander-in-Chief of the day could make disparaging comments upon large bodies of men without his knowledge? Let them take care to place the government upon a right basis. Let them take care there is not a distrust of able men. He (Sir H. Willoughby) would not have produced that despatch. But further, he would ask how it could be sup posed that the Indian revenue could support an army of 100,000 men ? They had raised the taxation in four years ' to £37,000,000. The military expenditurehad beenraised suc cessively from £8,000,000 to £11,000,000, then £14,000,000 to £20,000,000. How could India afford to pay .Z 20,000,000 for an army ? The expense of the transport of troops was an additional item to this outlay. Mr. Wilson had further been much struck with the attention paid by local officers to the affairs of India, as contrasted with that of the Queen's officers. It was also an established fact that localised regi ments stood the action of the sin better than European troops. He was not arguing this as a party question. (Hear, hear.) But this he must say that no one had yet ventured to say how two armies were to be amalgamated ; one of which existed by a system of purchase, the other with a system of promotion by seniority, with a vast mass of pro vident funds, amounting to £1,000,000. He warned the house that they would soon find that the question of the finances of India was a question of the finances of the empire. (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I rise to speak on the question which is before the house. The hon. member for Portsmouth has moved the adjournment of the house; the hon. baronet who has just sat down has not said a word about the adjournment, but he has spoken on the general question, whilst he has endeavoured to preclude us from discussing it at all. My hon. friend behind nae (the member for Lanark, Sir T. Colebroke) has said that he will leave it to the country to judge between the proceedings of the Government and the proceedings of those who are en deavouring to oppose this discussion. The hon. member for Portsmouth has boldly declared that those proceedings of delay are intended for no other purpose than to defeat the bill. Now that strikes at the root of our constitutional institutions. If there be one principle more than another on which our constitutional institutions are founded, it is this, that, after full. discussion, and after full opportunity has been given for the statement of opinions, the decision of the majority ought to be considered as binding on the mino rity. If the decision of the majority is not to be considered binding on the rest, there is an end to our constitutional in • stitutions. In countries where such institutions are new, minorities often h a ve rec o urse to violence. We are now wit nessing a p rocee di ng similarin principle—(hear , hear) . — because the minority, c o n scious as they must be that their arguments cann o t p reva il over th e majority, are resorting to every device which the forms of the house enable them to take ad van t age o f f or t h e purpose of stopping and defeat inogusbe to ydeoloany,etuht to atwbhyie4g. h r t u h ra ey en a t r . e not able re4llY a proceed able to induce th e h ing the object of wtialt has been boldly and frankly avowed by the hon. member forPortsraouth, and which may be left for the country to decide upon. But I venture to say that it is impossible for the House of Commons to discharge its constitutional functions if this system is to be persevered in on every occasion in which a minority thinks proper. All I can say is, that we will not submit to be coerced in this manner so long as health and strength remain to us—(chears) —by what I must call a factious—(hear, hear)—proceeding on the part of a minority, I trust the hon. member for Portsmouth will not put us to a trial of this sort, but that he will withdraw his motion in order that the house may enter into a discussion of the question before it in the regu lar course. According to the strict rules of the house hon. members ought to speak to the question. The question be fore the house is whether the house shall adjourn, and I certainly think that those who speak should give reasons for the adjournment. But I trust the hon. member for Portsmouth, who always acts with fairness and generosity in debate, and who always shows great ability and know ledge of the subjects on which he wishes to bring his genius to bear, will feel that it is more conducive to the dignity of the house, and more consistent with the course of Parlia mentary proceedings to let us go into committee on the bill. (Cheers.) Sir J. ELPHINSTONE said that he had no intention of taking any unconstitutional course. But the delay in fur nishing papers, and the way in which the question was brought before the house, was such as to render hon. mem bers unable to discuss the question in any other way. He begged to withdraw the question of the adjournment. The SPEAKER said he might take the liberty of saying, on the question of the adjournment, that the hon. member for Portsmouth would have agreed to the withdrawal of the motion at once, had he been aware that there stood imme diately afterwards a motion which he was then about to put to the house, upon which he might have spoken. Sir J. ELPHINSTONE said it was from misappre hension of the forms of the house that he had taken the course he had adopted. Mr. MALINS opposed the bill, and entered into a care ful analyses of sections 19, 23, and 25 of the Indian Govern ment Act,' for the purpose of showing that it was the inten tion of the Legislature that the government of India should be by the Secretary of State in Council. By the course pur sued Sir C. Wood had violated the act, and he hoped that the house would not sanction a precedent fraught with the the most dangerous consequences. - - Col. SYKES defended the officers of the European In. dian army from the charge of incompetency, and quoted a long list of illustrious names to show that in ability and soldierlike qualities they were not inferior to officers of the line. Mr. VANSITTAItT supported the bill. Col. DUNNE did not object to the bill, but wished for some explanations as to the amalgamation of the armies in India and at home. Sir C. WOOD said he was glad to hear the opinions of the hon. and gallant colonel. He contended that he could not ask the Council to discuss the details of a measure to which they were opposed; but when it had received the sanction of Parliament no doubt they would give it their best attention. Colonel HERBERT supported the measure, on the ground that it would not affect the patronage of more than nine regiments, the patronage of the whole of the local army remaining, as now, in the hands of the Governor- General. After some observations from Mr. PARKER and Mr. TORRENS, the house went into committee on the bill. On clause 1, Mr. HENLEY objected to the proviso. The right hon. gentleman said he was not for a moment disposed to impute that her Majesty's Government were disposed, in bringing in the bill, to break faith with the officers and men of the local European army in India; but undoubtedly the men had been harshly and unjustly treated, and he therefore begged to move that a proviso be added to clause 1, " That the provision made for sons of persons who have served in India, and the advantages as to pay, pensions, allowances, privileges, promotion, and otherwise secured to the military forces of the East India Company, by the act of the 21st and 22d years of the Queen, shall be maintained respec tively in any plan for the reorganisation of the Indian army, anything in this act contained notwithstanding." Sir C. WOOD was glad to hear the right hon. gentleman give credit to her Majesty's Government for not having any intention of breaking faith with the officers and men of the European local army in India ; and as a guarantee that they had not, he begged to say that he accepted with cor diality the proviso proposed by his right hon. friend. The clause, as amended, was then agreed to, and the house resumed. Sir C. WOOD stated that the bill would be resumed to morrow, and the third reading on Monday. THE SENIOR MEMBER OF COUNCIL (INDIA) BILL. This bill was read a•third time and passed. SUPERANNUATION ACT (1859) INDIA BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION (INDIA) BILL. This bill was also read a third time and passed. EAST INDIA STOCK, &c., TRANSFER BILL. On the motion of Sir C. WOOD, the house resolved it self into committee, and he moved a resolution by which certain duties now performed by the establishment of the Directors of the East India Company are in future trans ferred to and are to be discharged by the Bank of England. Mr. VANSITTART asked what was expected to be the saving effected by this transfer. He understood the num ber of directors was to be reduced from twelve to six ; would the right hon. gentleman state what the saving would be ? Sir C. WOOD said the transfer would not in any way affect the directors, it merely transferred duties in respect of the payment of the dividends from the East India direc tors to the Bank of England. The resolution was then agreed to, and the house re. awned. ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION, &e., BILL. The house then proceeded to the consideration of the amendments of this bill. Mr. D. GRIFFITH moved a clause, in pursuance of which clerical members of the commission should not vote on questions relative to the increase of the emoluments or revenues of the bishops or capitular bodies. The clause was opposed by Sir G. C. LEWIS, and upon a division was negatived by a majority of 202 to 28. Mr. AYRTON then moved an amendment, to the effect that the surplus funds of ecclesiastical property in the me tropolis should be devoted to the removal of religious desti tution in the metropolis. Mr. ROEBUCK moved the adjournment of the debate, owing to the lateness of the hour (12.40). Sir G. C. LEWIS opposed the motion on the ground that many hon. gentlemen would not consider it a late hour, and the subject had been fully discussed. After a few words from Mr. D. GRIFFITH, the house divided upon the clause moved by Mr. AYRTON, which was lost by a majority of 62, there being 51 for, and 116 against. The bill was then ordered to be read a third time. POOR RELIEF, &c. (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was read a third time. FORTIFICATIONS AND WORKS. _ _ On the order of the day for the house going into oom raittee on this bill, Lord PALMERSTON said that this bill should be taken the first thing on Thursday. AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was read a third time. lONIAN ISLANDS MARRIAGES BILL. This bill was read a third time. The Lords' amendment to the Burial Grounds (Ireland) (1856) Amendment Bill, and Criminal Lunatic Asylum Bill were considered and agreed to. SALE OF GAS AMENDMENT BILL. The bill was read a second time. The house adjourned at a quarter past two o'clock. LONGEVITY IN A LUNATlC.—JamesCoyle,a patient at St. Patrick's (Swift's) Hospital, Dubl.in, died on the 17th inst. in the 106th year of his age. He was admitted May 28, 1802 1 in his 48th year, and was for upwards of 58 years an inmate of the institution.—Lancet. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pills.— Inflammations of Sensitive Parts, Piles, Fistulas, and such like painful diseases may, without consulting any one, be presently relieved and ultimately cured, by the proper and diligent use of this cooling and healing Ointment ; whose action should in such cases be assisted by judicious doses of Holloway's Pills. Ere many days have elapsed the anxious patient will experience a wonderful degree of ease from this treatment. Doubts and fears will soon disap pear, and the sufferer will bless the day on which he first applied these remedies. They are equally suitable to both sexes, all ages, and any climate ; nor is their efficiency im paired by the long keeping. Their action on the frame is soothing, safe, and certain. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—Perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs, refreshing sleep, and f unc ti ona l regularity restored, without medicine, purging or expense, to the most disordered or enfeebled by Du Barry's delicious health re storing Revalenta Arabica Food, which removes indiges tion (dyspepsia), habitual constipation, flatulency, di m s_ rhcea, dysentery, nervousness, biliousness, fevers, sore throats, catarrhs, colds, noises in the ears, rheumatism, gout, impurities, eruptions, hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleepness, acidity, palpitation, heartburn, headache, debi despondency, cramps, spasms, nausea, and lity, dropsy, sickness, sinking, flts, cough, asthma, bronchitis, con sumption, epilepsy, paralysis, also children's complaints. Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate and perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, 'disappointment, and expense may be avoided by using Du Barry's Fcod which, at a few pence per day, saves 50 times its cost in other remedies, removing effectually, without purging, constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, bilious and liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew Uro, MD., F.R.S., Dr Ilarvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Dr. Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spu rious and injurious imitations offered under a variety of false pretences. Nevill's imitations aro prohibited by the high Court of Chancery under a penalty of £5,000 against Alfred 11-oper Nevill and his agents ; and the pretences that Nevill has a patent for Arabica Food and that Du Barry's are connected with such patent aro utterly false. No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, ontheseal and wrapper. Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article must expect to be distrusted in all others. Packe..l in tins 11b. 2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 6d. ; 51b. Ils.; 121 1 ,1, 241 b. 40s. The 121 b. and 241 b. canisters iwi bent carriage free on receipt of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Ca., 77, Re gent-street, London; Fortnum Mason, and Co. ; 60, grci,cechnrch-street ; 4, Chaapaide; 63 a n d 150, Ox ford -street ; 33 0 4 0 451, otrand ; 49 an d 60, Bishopsgate street ; Ratty, 160 Finsbury Pavement ; Phillips and Co, tea-dealers; Petty, Wood, and Co., King Vxlittanirstreet, City; at 127, High Holborn; and alraroCers. TEE THAMES EMBANKMENT. The select committee appointed to consider the best means of providing for the increasing traffic of the metropolis, by the embankment of the Thames, have considered the matters to them referred, and have agreed to the following report : " Your committee beg leave to report to the house that they have carefully considered several well-devised plans for the embankment of the Thames, which have been brought before them, and that they have received much valuable evi dence on the subject. In connection with the matter referred to them your committee considered it necessary to inquire into the line proposed for the low level sewer about to be made by the Metro politan Board of Works, and they find that if that sewer were carried under the Strand and Fleet- ' street, an amount of injury would be caused to the trade and property of the district which it is scarcely possible to estimate; whilst during the progress of the works the traffic along those great thoroughfares would be seriously impeded. Your committee have found that the various engineers who have submitted their plans, have recognised the importance of con structing the low level sewer along the foreshore of the river and within the embankment. Your committee have ascertained by evidence that the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the Thames Conservancy Board, are of opinion that the em bankment of the Thames would be a great improve ment both to the metropolis and to the river, and your committee entirely concur in this opinion. Your committee, therefore, after careful considera tion of the whole question, have agreed to the fol lowing resolutions : " That the embankment of the north side of the Thames from Westminster Bridge to, or nearly to, Southwark Bridge would afford a desirable mode of improving the banks and bed of the river, and facilitate the construction of the low level sewer along the foreshore ; while a roadway on the em bankment would greatly relieve the crowded thoroughfare. " That by the construction of docks inside the embankment wall, wharfingers and other persons engaged in business along the river would in most cases derive increased facilities for conducting their various trades and occupations. " That the statements made to the committee with regard to the probable cost of the proposed embankment vary considerably, ranging from a minimum of £400,000 to a maximum of £1,500,000 according to the nature and extent of the plan, but these estimates include the cost of the low level sewer; and there is reason to expect that a large proportion of the total first cost would be repaid by works of a productive character. " That as in 1861 the Bd. and id. duties upon coal, and the ; Id. duty upon wine which were im posed and continued by Parliament for the purpose of public improvements in the metropolis will cease, your committee recommend that they be renewed for a limited period, and that the whole or part of the cost of the Thames embankment be made a first charge upon them.' " The legislature having already entrusted to the Metropolitan Board of Works the main drainage of the inetropolis, and armed them with powers to deal with the foreshore of the river in connection there with, your committee recommend that the construc tion of the embankment be also confided to them. " For this purpose your committee suggest that the above-mentioned duties be placed at the dis posal of that board for a limited period, and that the guarantee of the Imperial treasury be likewise afforded them, according to the provisions con tained in the 21st and 22d Vict., c. 104, s. 6. " Your committee are of opinion that it would be most difficult to estimate before the works are com pleted the amount of damage that might be occa sioned; they, therefore, recommend that power be given to ascertain, after the completion of the works, the amount of compensation that may be due. " That while your committee consider the em bankment of the south side of the Thames forms a necessary part of any complete scheme for the im provement of the river and the metropolis, yet is of less urgent necessity than that of the northern side. 'CHARGE OF CRUELT v AGINST A SCHOOLMISTRESS. Yesterday afternoon Mary Alien, a decent looking female, 40 years of age, described in the charge-street as a schoolmistress, residing at No. 8, Parry-place, Gravel-lane, Southwark, was brought before Mr. Maude, at the Southwark Police-court, charged with cruelly assaulting and ill-treating Caroline Lefevre, a child eight years of age, entrusted to her care to bring up and instruct. The court was densely erowded, and soon after the prisoner had been placed in the dock the child was brought forward. A green shade covered her eyes, and on that being removed the whole of the upper part of the face exhibited one mass of bruises ; in fact, the eyes were so much inflamed that the poor child could with difficulty distinguish any object before her. She was examined by the chief clerk as to the nature of an oath, which she explained satisfactorily, but she appeared in such terror of the prisoner that the magistrate ordered the child to be removed to another room, while he examined persons who could give him sonxe insight into the circumstances. Thomas Williams said—l work at Messrs. Sad ler and Ross's, mustard manufacturers, Great Guild ford-street, Southwark. I reside near the place where the prisoner has for some time lived. I know her to be an• old brute, as I have frequently heard of her cruelty to this poor child. I have seen the latter go out for beer with her eyes blackened, and when I asked the child how it was caused she said that she had fallen against a chair. This morning I saw her again in a deplorable state, her face and elbows bleeding, and I stopped her and 'asked her how that had occurred. She commenced scream ing, and she told me she could not tell me as she was afraid of the prisoner. I then took her to the station-house, and showed he r t o th e i nspector, who caused the prisoner to be apprehended. Mr. Maude—Do you know anything of the child? Witness—l understand she has a stepmother, who has placed her with the prisoner as a drudge, and that the cruelty has been going on for several months. Mr. Maude—Has the poor child a father living ? Witness—Yes, sir, and he is in court. Mr. Maude—Let him come forward, then. A hearty-looking man here stepped forward, and on being sworn, said—l am a labourer at Messrs. Barclay's. Caroline Lefevre is my child, and she is eight years of age. She lives with the prisoner, who keeps a school. Mr. Maude—How long has she lived with the prisoner ? Father—Between two and three years. She sleeps there, and lives with her entirely. Mr. Maude—How often have you seen the child ? Father—About twice a•month. The last time I saw her, prior to this, was ten days ago. She never made any complaints to me. Mr. Maude —Have you sees the shocking state the child is in to-day ? Father—Yes, sir. I beard that the prisoner had ill-used her yesterday, and this morning I went to take her away, when I found her in the station house. Mr. Maude—Ts there any one in court who wit nessed any of the brutal assaults on this poor child ? Eliza Mole, a married woman, residing at No. 9, next door to the prisoner —She keeps a school, and has a great many children to take care of for the neighbours. I know the child Caroline Lefevre, and about 13 months ago I recollect being informed that the prisoner ill-used her, but I was afraid to sad• anything to the prisoner. I also heard the child scream one day, and one of the neighbours told me she had been a naughty girl. Mr. Maude—Have you ever seen the prisoner beat the child ? Witness—Yes, sir, last Wednesday I saw her beat the child about the head with a cane until the nose bled, when the prisoner took her to the sink in the court and washed her face. Yesterday morn ing I was at my door, when I again saw the child, and her face and neck was in such a frightful state that it nearly made me sick. I spoke tothe neigh bour opposite about the child, and she told me she had fallen against the bedstead in the night. I did not believe her. I have heard noises in the pri sonar's house at fi ve an d s i x i n th e morn i ng —chairs and tables falling about and screaming, as if a man and his wife were quarrelling. I have mentioned that to my neighbours. Mr. Maude—Have you ever mentioned it to the police ? Witness—No, sir, I was afraid. I send a little boy to her school but she never ill-used him. Alice Hill—l live near the prisoner , and have seen her beat the child two o r three times d ur i ng the last month. She used a cane for that purpose in a most unmerciful manner. It was a Prisoner—lt was not a whole cane. split cane that I used. G___ ? e w o a r s ge pa J s a s m in e g s Euplmore, a very intellig en t l ad, said the court yesterday afternoon, when I saw the child bleeding from the face a n d back of the head, and the prisoner washed the blood off at the sink. A little while prior to that I saw the prisoner beat the little girl o ver th e he a ' With a cane. She struck her with the hook end al hard as she could. (Sensation.) Elizabeth Lloyd, a young woman living ii the next court, said---I have been told by my little sister that the prisoner has cruelly beaten the child, and I have seen her covered wish bruises, but she has been afraid to tell me how they came there. Yesterday I went and informed the father. Mr. Thomas Evans, surgeon, High-street, South wark, said—l was called to the police station to see the child last evening. I stripped her, and. found her literally covered with wounds and braises. Mr. Maude—Can you form any judgment as to how the bruises were caused ? Dr. Evans—l think they were probably caused by a cane. The wounds are dirty, and have been neglected. Mr. Maude—Are any of them of long standing then ? Dr. Evans—Yes. I should think some of the wounds have been open ten days. (Sensation.) I perceived such marks all over the body, besides, the child's person has been generally neglected. She is emaciated, and I think that she has been deprived of sufficient nutritious food. Mr. Maude (to the prisoner)—Have you any questions to ask this gentleman ? Prisoner—No, sir. She had her food with my sel f ; that's all. Mr. Maude —Let the child be brought in now. Stop, I'll ask the father a few questions. To the father—Do you pay anything for the child's keep and instruction ? Father—No, sir. When I sent her to the pri soner it was as a kind of companion. Mr. Maude—i understand from the witnesses that you were told yesterday of the prisoner's vio lence towards your child. Why did you not act then ? It was your duty. Father—l left it all to my wife. I told her to go and look after it, as I had to go to my work. Mr. Maude—But it's your own child, and you should not have left it to the mercy of such a woman as the prisoner. You should have looked after her yourself. The poor child was here again brought into court, and placed in the witness-box. She was evidently afraid of the prisoner. She said the marks on her elbows were caused by a fall. 011 being partially stripped, her back and all the upper, part of her body ex hibi ted one black mass o f bruises, striking horror into the breasts of every person in the court, the prisoner excepted. She stood sullen, and looked down. Mr. Maude (to the child)—l suppose you were afraid of the prisoner, just now; were you not? Child—Yes, sir. Mr. Maude—Don't be afraid of her now. take care of you. Answer the question lam about to put to you truly. How were those bruises dons ? Child—With a cane, sir; by the prisoner. Mr. Maude—Did ever your father or stepmother come to see you? Child—Yes, sometimes ; but I never told thou' , as I was afraid of my governess. Mr. Maude—What meals do you have ? Child—Sometimes I have sop, milk and bread, and a little meat and potatoes. Mr. Maude—Do you have as much as you can eat? Child--Yes, sir ; as much as I wish. Mr. Maude—Has the prisoner done anything to heal your wounds ? Child—Yes, sir; at dinner time she putointraent on my eyes, head, and arms. Mr. Maude—But you have very bad sores 011 your elbows. How were they caused ? Child—About a week age I was playing Wit l , / , the mat, when she called out, "Leave that alone. Because I did not do so as quick as she liked, ell e took a hot fiat-iron from th e fi re an d pu t i t on ref arms. (Murmurs and sensation.) Mr. Maude (to Dr. Evans)—Have you examined those wounds—what is your opinion of then P Dr. Evans—l think they are burns. The poor child has been so grossly neglected that I can barn; distinguish. On clo se exam i nat i on—They s r caused by burns. Prisoner—That was done accidentally. She woul d not let the mat alone. Mr. Maude (to the child)—What was the prisoner doing when she burnt you in that manner ? Child—She was ironing something, sir. Mr. Mende (to the prisoner)—Have you evidence t o b r i ng f orward on your behalf ? Thie t a very serio us case , an d unless you can show til you did n o t cause th ese wounds and bruises on t h e child, I must send you to another tribunal. Prisoner—l have no witnesses at present, sir,b tit . 0 if you will adjou rn th e case I shall have time consult my friends. Mr. Maude—l shall certainly give you that e f; portunity, as the charge may assume a very seri o aspect towards yo u . H ere i s a poor c hi ld put u n do , your care to protect an d instruct, and instea d doing so you ar e c h arge d w i t h not only neglect' :t it, but grossly and cruelly ill-using it. If true, is one of th e mos t b ruta l cases that ever cam e , fore me. I shall remand you until a future ulii r and at the same time I mus t remar k t h at th e fat'.. o , has not done hi s d u ty, an d to prevent hi s corat!` ce mising the c ase I s h a ll bi n d hi m over to pro the child. The prisoner was then remanded. COUNTRY MARKETS. COLCIIESTEIt —Jur Y 28. There was a rather larger supply of wheat. and busill A el : was not brisk, at late rat es . Spring coin. id but Ow slow. to • Wheat, white 6os to 654 ' Beans, Mazagan..37o L i" 0 red 54s to 58s Middle tO & small 40s to 7 - to 4 0 ° Barley 2Bs to 32s Whit e peas 38 i AI Oats 26s to 2Es G re y,. 40 s to " 1111.--JVLY 27. Le trade rulei slow, a t the el f : t sorts had a tendency t°_: o l spring cor n , w ith pr i c es reported. Yeas, Partridge 42s t• ,fi 449 White 42s to A A: Boiling 428 to i n"'; Dun 37s to T A Beans, Tick to "5: Harrow Ticks 39s to 4 ; Mazagan .. 370 to CHELMSFa A fair supply of wheat ; thi rencies of last week, but best vance. Very little doing in s, late. Large foreign arrivals r Wheat, white 41s to 61s I red 48s to 55s I Barley 38s to 48s Chevalier 42s to 52s Grinding 32s to 37s Malt Chevalier 64s to 69s Oats 32s to 41s YORK—JULY 28. di et A small supply of wheat from the farmers, yihich i c o ts a fair demand, at is to 2s over th e l as t week's pricer.""gl scarce, with a firm trade, Beans were in small supplY/r o , commanded full rates. Very littl e b ar l ey and quotations unaltered. 28s to el Wheat, red . 58s t o 62 s 1 O a t s White do .62s to 65s Beans shown to - u ..48s to I Barley .32 s t o 35 s Peas ...—s to 0 Malt, 68s to 708 per qr. ; rye, 39s per qr. ; 'flour, 4 2 f/ 44s per sack. KIRK. We had very sintll aup. for wheat, barley, and oa per qr. Wheat Barley Oats First.... 50s Od 37s Od 29s °d Second.. 598 Od Od 32s Od Third .. 618 Od Od —s Od LLDY—JITLY 28. plies of grain to-day, and prit its improved, say from 6d to ,''' THE MALLS. MAILS DUE. Australia, Ceylon, and Mauritius (via South ampton) .. .. .. .. • • • • Au g' 10. 4. Do. (via M arse ill es ) Aug. Bahamas and Havana (via New York) .. .. A ug. , 2 ' Canada, &c. (via Londonderry) .. .. .. Aug. 1. Cape of Good Hope, &c... .. .. . „ Aug. ‘ , l ' China, Penang, and Singapore ( v i a S' amp t on ) A: 11 g. '',,, Do. ( v i a M arse ill es ) Overdu e. Gibraltar (via Southampton) .. India (Calcutta), Ceylon, &c. ( v i a Southampton) Aug. '' Do. (via Marseilles) Aug .y -- 411: ~ India (Bombay), (via South am pt on ) .. .. u g Do. (via Marseill es ) .. . . Lisbon, Brazils, Buenos Ayres, &c. • • .. Aug. 1 ' Lisbon, Vigo, and Oporto Aug.l. Malta, Egypt , and Aden (via Southampton) .. Aug, 2. Do. (via M ar seilles) .. Overdue' United States, California, &c. ois Cork) „., A ug , 2. Western Coast of Africa, Madeira, Teneriffe .. A ug , 10. West Indies and Pacific, Carthgena, Cuba, &c. A ug . li• ~1 :. 1 • t ' BIRTHS, lIIRDv.—On the 25th inst., at 5, Porehester-terrace 0 1/ 11° sington-gardens, the wife of Lieut.-Colonel C. P - LuiDSA,Y.— w A fni t afet 4shoo9efn' 2 R B t u h t Rutland -gate, t d . : g t a h t e e , wife the 0 fH:lnr.. Jae. Mrs. FCarhartole: Hardy, of a daughter. P AgLihitir shire, . h y_ e , 'Charles P.' Stevens,sq F.R.C''' STEVENS.—On the 27th inst, publisher, Oxford, of a sou. at Biggleswade, Bedfort, of a daughter.- 2 .f MARRIAGES. GRYNN—KING.—On the 26th inst , at St. George's !. -- er Albeover-smarle-street,, Archibald picead G i u ll n y n . , inst., of Taunton S°„ ll2 of set, to Eliza'beth, o n ly d aug h ter of Henry King : MORISON-- VIIITUE.—On the 28th inst., at Waltonl: Thames, James Cotter Morison, E sq ., to Frances fi r laide, eldest daughter of George Vi r t ue , E sq ., O a tlal park, Surrey. DEATHS. Aitcu.—On the 27th inst., at Basingstoke, Sarah As °ll ! ornhill, widow of the late John Arch, Esq., of C Lon( l ° - " P aged 87. CARPENTER.—On the 24th inst., at Froxfiold, Wilts CD therine, widow of th e l a t e M a j or F ranc i s C arpen t e r, Foot,. aged 80. HAMMOND.—On the 24th inst., at Ashley Hall, Sia °ll4 Join Hammond, E sq ., aged 1. MAUNSELL.—On the 251 h inst., the Van. William • Maunsell, Archdeacon of Limerick, aged 78. Lugs the 30th i ns t., a t S y d en h am, Mr. Taylor, formerly of Botesdale, Suffolk, aged 93. WILLOUGHEY.—On the 27th inst., at Brighton, car. Willoughby, Bengal Artillery, aged 29. LONDON : Printed and Publi s h e d by MIIRDO Y 0171412: of No. 112, Strand, Print er , a t Th e B un Office, N° . e i Strand, in the Precinct of th e S av oy, in the coun t / Middlesex, Tuesday, July 1, 1860. 3 I 1 •••,.;'• • -• ~ ~'~~ d 11, tl it 41