The Sun. — London, England, 1861-07-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS—YESTERDAY. The LORD CHANCELLOR. took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. ENDOWED SCHOOLS. Viscount DUNGANNON gave notice that on the 19th instant he would draw the attention of their lordships to this subject, and move for certain returns in connection with the same. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a second time .—Hawick Police Improvement, Colne Valley, and Halstead Railway, Hatfield Chase :Warping and Improvement, South Staf fordshire Railway, Great Halstead Railway, Great Western Railway, and Bolton Corporation. The following bills were read a third time and passed •--- Bognor Railway, Manchester and Milford (Aberystwith Branch) Improvement, and Greetwell District Drainage. ROMAN CATHOLIC PAUPER CHILDREN. The Earl of WICKLOW presented a petition from Essex in favour of affording additional facilities for the education of Roman Catholic children in workhouses. THE DUKE OF MODENA. The Marquis of NORMANBY gave notice that on Monday next he would draw the attention of the house to certain aspersions which were current relative to the Duke of Modena. These aspersions were stated in the House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was appealed to by certain persons interested in vindicating the character of the Duke of Modena to bring forward this subject. He would also move for the produc tion of any extracts from despatches forwarded from the accredited minister of this country in Central Italy. Lord BROUGHAM considered it would conduce more effectively to the vindication of the Duke of Modena if the subject were to be brought forward in the house where the alleged aspersions were made, and not where the right hon. gentleman who made them had no opportunity of defend ing himself. (Hear, hear.) The Marquis of NOR.MANBY made some explanation, which was inaudible. Earl GRANVILLE considered that the noble marquis was out of order. The Marquis of NORMANBY stated that the opinions of the noble and learned lord (Lord. Brougham) would have been entitled to some consideration if they were the same which he entertained 10 years ago. Lord BROUGHAM attempted to address the house, but the confusion arising from these irregular proceedings was so great that he could not be heard. The subject then dropped. SUBDIVISION OF DIOCESE BILL. Lord LYTTELTON moved that the house go into com mittee on this bill, and vindicated the measure from the objections raised to it by the Episcopal Church. The Bishop of LONDON bore testimony to the care which the noble lord bestowed on this bill, and the discus sion which had been elicited would produce good results, but that result was not embodied in this bill. He thought i t would be more advisable to postpone the measure until next session, for there would be no chance at hat period of the bill being passed by the other house. The bill proposed to give powers to the Ecclesiastical Com mission to which he could not give his sanction, and, with all respect for that body, he thought the powers conferred on it were too extensive. He did not fear any thing from discussion in the other house, and he ad mitted that some improvements were introduced into the bill. He was, however, one of those who were opposed to the multiplication of bishops; he strongly objected to the frequent interference with the governing powers of the Episcopate, and referring to Winchester, London, and other great sees to show how efficiently their affairs were administered, said he could discover no advan tage in dividing such large sees. He thought, in proceed ing with this bill at present, they would be interfering with future useful legislation, and he drew atten tion to the fact that the bill was founded on the general recommendations of the commissioners, but on no particular recommendation. He considered that what was required was not to multiply the number engaged in the administration of the Church, but to increase its working power. He contended that the deans of the Church should be placed in a position of greater power, which would render them more efficient. What was required w is a reformation of the ecclesiastical law, in illustration of which he adverted to the length of proceedings in ecclesiastical trials. Lord OVERSTONE joined in the earnest request:wh!ch the right reverend prelate (the Bishop of London) had made to withdraw the present bill. Lord LYTTELTON replied, and called the attention of their lordships to the ample discussion which the bill had received, and he declined to accede to the request of the right rev. prelate to withdraw it. The Duke of MARLBOROUGH defended the bill, and asserted that the discussions which had taken place on the subject proved that the general impression in Parliament was in favour of the bill. However, if there was an im pression on the mind of the noble lord (Lyttelton) that the bill would not pass the other house this session he thought he should not pledge the house to its provisions by pressing it forward on the present occasion. The Duke of NEWCASTLE said he thought the ends which the noble lord had in view were more likely to be served by the withdrawal of the bill. Lord EBURY said there was no chance of the bill passing this session, he did hope that the n-,ble lord would consent not to proceed any further with the bill for the present. The Earl of MALMESBURY also recommended the noble lord to withdraw the bill. Earl GRANVILLE said that as every peer who had spoken in the debate had opposed the bill, either entirely or in part, he would join the appeal which had been made to the noble lord not to press the motion on that occasion. Lord LIFFORD said he hoped the noble lord would press the bill to a division, assuring him that he would support him if he did so. Lord LYTTELTON declined to withdraw the bill. Their lordships accordingly divided, and the numbers were— Contents Non-contents Majority against going into commit tee —57 LANDED PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT, &c., (IRELAND) BILL. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved the second reading of this bill, which empowered landlords to borrow money as a charge on the estate, for the purpose of im proving the dwellings of the labourers. The bill had not been opposed in the other house, and he presumed it would not be opposed by their lordships. The Earl of DONOUGH MORE agreed that it might be advisable, in special cases, to enable landlords to borrow money for improving the dwellings of the labourers, but he hoped the bill would not be drawn into a precedent. He should not oppose the second reading of the bill. Lord MONTEAGLE b'tving said a few words, The Marquis of BATH said this was a question which Government ought to take up. Act after act was passed on this subject, and no one knew what the law was. Lord WESTMEATH had objections to the bill, but he was not going to opiose it in form. Lord TALBOT de MAL All IDE said, no doubt if power to raise money was used wisely and judiciously much good might be done. Lord DUNGANNON said, from what he had seen he doubted that this bill would be appreciated by the lowed classes in Ireland. He do u bt e d that the cottage s would be kept in repair unless that duty fell upon the landlord. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE having replied, the bill was then read a second time. OFFICERS OF RESERVE (ROYAL NAVY). BILL. Their lordships went into committee on this bin. Clause 1 was agreed to. On clause 2 being proposed, Lord HARDWICK E moved, as an amendment, that officers in the merchant service should undergo the same examination, and before the same tribunal, as midshipmen in the navy. The Duke of SOMERSET said the amendment merely pro posed that which could bo done by orders and regulations, and it was objectionable to make such matters part of an Act of Parliament. He was anxious not to excite the jealousy of the officers of the navy, but on the other hand he was desirous of obtaining the services of the men of the mercantile marine ; and he, therefore, thought the bill should be worded in terms as general as possible. The exa miners of the masters of the mercantile navy were as stringent as those of the Royal navy. It was true that gunnery did not form a part of the exercise, but was that necessary ex cept for the purpose of qualifying men for the Royal navy ? He had no fear that there would be any difficulty in induc ing them to learn gunnery, and that if the bill were passed in its present form, that they would be found willing to come forward as members of the reserve. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said he agreed that it was inexpedient to do anything that would fetter the discre tion of the Government, and he was, therefore, surprised that the bill should be brought in at all, inasmuch as suffi cient power existed in the hands of her Majesty to effect that which the bill aimed at creating. He was, however, glad to see the measure brought forward, because it was an indication of the intentions of Government to make provi sion in time of peace for a war which he (the 'Earl of Ellen borough) had always considered inevitable. It was not, however, sufficient that preparations should be made for readiness at the end of the first six months of such a war, but that everything should be in readiness and prepared to meet an enemy within the filet six days of the war. For whenever war did come it would be after a long period of preparation, and with every essential for immediate action. It was necessary, therefore, to educate the mercantLe offi cers for service in a time of war, otherwise they would be of no use when called ueon to give their aid. They might know navigation, but, practically speaking, that knowledge was of little importance. What was required of them was a knowledge of gunnery, and a knowledge of steam and its management. Then when they were competent in th ese respects, and could do their d u ty as officers, let them have rank as officers, and be respected as such. (Hear, hear.) To commit the care of a great man-of war to a man who had previously been in the habit of managing a 500 ton sailing ship only, would be an act of insanity deplorable to contemplate. (Hear, hear.)e Royal The real of such effic,ers would be in commanding th Naval Coast Volunteers—those who were never to be re. quired to go beyond 300 miles from the shore. There were now in commission 110 gunboats, which would require 220 officers and 5,500 men, but not one of them was yet obtained. Such however were the boats in which he would place these volunteers and officers, and they would be able then to do real and practical service to the nation. He should be sorry to see anything done to hurt the feelings of the officers of the navy. It could be easily so managed that at the same time due preparation was being made in time of peace for any sudden emergency that might arise; still no offence should be given to either one or the other branch of the ser vice. Unless some such provision was made in time of peace, he did not know what extent of calamity might not befal us. (Hear.) The amendment was then negatived without a division, the clause was agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be re • ported. The house then resumed. THE CORK INFIRMARY BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed, and The house adjourned at 20 minutes past eight o'clock, HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Metropolitan Railway (Improvements, &c.) Bill was read a third time and passed. The Glasgow (City) Life Assurance, &c., Company Bill was considered and ordered to be read a third time. PAROCHIAL AND BURGHS SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) No. 2 BILL. The house went into eommittee on this bill. A long discussion took plaee in reference to the maximum salary of schoolmasters. In the clause relating to the subject, the LORD ADVOCATE proposed that the maximum should be £6O. Mr. BOTIVERIE moved, as an amendment, that the sum be fixed at £7O. The amendment was agreed to. Clause 3 was amended and agreed to. Clause 4 was struck out. Clause 5 was agreed to, after it had been amended. Clause 6 was struck out. On clause 7, Mr. DUNLOP moved an amendment to the effect that two members of the examining body be Fellows of the Educational Institute of Scotland. The LORD ADVOCATE could not consent to the pro posed amendment. - Mr. DUNLOP said perhaps the addition of the words "being graduates of the University" would remove the objection of the Lord Advocate. The LORD ADVOCATE said if the subject was post poned until the bringing up of the report, he would see what could be done towards admitting the practical teach ing element into the body of examiners. The suggestion having been agreed to, the amendment was withdrawn. At the end of the clause an amendment was proposed by Mr. Mumn, that one of the members of the examining board be a Professor of Divinity, or a deputy nominated by him. The committee divided on the subject, when there ap peared— Ayes Noes Majority The clause was then ordered to stand part of the bill. Clause 8, as amended, was agreed to. On clause 9, Mr. BLACK moved that all the clause after the word " Scripture" be omitted from the bill. He had not been a party to the compromise that had taken place on this bill, and therefore he claimed the right to do as he pleased. He considered this to be the greatest point in the bill, and as he altogether objected to tests, he thought it unfair to press upon others. (Hear, hear.) Heconsidered the tests alto gether dangerous, and therefore he moved the omission of the words. The LORD ADVOCATE appealed to the hon. member to withdraw his amendment, as it might seriously endanger the bill. Several other members expressed their disapprobation of tests generally. Mr. BLACK said he was pleased that so many gentle men agreed with him, but he regretted they would not vote with him. Very unwillingly he would withdraw his amendment. The amendment was then, by leave, withdrawn. The LORD ADVOCATE proposed that the following declaration should be taken by schoolmasters previous to their entering office :—" That I will not exercise the func tions of the said office to the prejudice or subversion of the Church of Scotland as by law established, or the doctrines and privileges thereof." Mr. BLACK strongly objected to the amendment, and a discussion followed. The LORD ADVOCATE said he would rather give up the bill altogether than withdraw his amendment. The proposition was agreed to. The LORD ADVOCATE moved that at line 28, the f Mowing addition be made to the clause :—" and the Wilful contravention by any schoolmaster of the said declaration shall be considered and dealt with as neglect of duty under the provisions of the said recited act, provided always that it shall not be competent to insist in any pro ceedings against any schoolmaster for such contravention without the consent of her Majesty's Advocate being first obtained, on a representation to him by the heritors of the parish, and after such inquiry as he may think necessary." The proposition was objected to, and, after some conver sation, the Chairman, on the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, reported progress. WHITE HERRING FISHERIES BILL. The house went into committee on this bill, and in the course of the discussion the LORD ADVOCATE said it was the intention of the Government to appoint a commission to inquire into the whole subject. The whole of the clauses, after some amendments had been made, were agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be reported. The sitting was then suspended. The house resumed at six o'clock. NEW WRIT. Mr. BRAND moved that a new writ should issue for the election of a representative for the city of Durham, in the room of Sir W. Atherton, who since his election had ac cepted the office of her Majesty's Attorney-General. GLOUCESTER ELECTION. Mr. 11. BERKELEY gave notice that on, that day week he should move that a new writ should issue for the city of Gloucester. THE MEMBER FOR CLONMEL. Mr. SCULLY asked the First Lord of the Treasury had the hon. member for Clonmel offered to resign his position as one of the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury, upon the ground that Irish interests had been disregarded by the present administration, and had such offer been fin ally accepted; and if so, had the vacancy so created been filled up, or was it intended to fill it, and when? (A laugh.) Lord PALMERSTON—I am very sory to say that my hon. friend to whom the hon. gentleman has alluded has resigned the office which he held as one of the Lords of the Treasury, and with great regret I have rec9mmended the crown to accept the resignation. With regard to the reasons which induced my hon. friend to send in his re signation, the hon. and learned gentleman knows full well that nothing is so unparliamentary as to impute motives to any one. (Hear, and laughter.) If the hon. and learned gentleman wishes to have a statement of the grounds upon which the resignation was tendered, he had better apply to my hon. friend himself. The office will be filled up, and it is still open to hon. gentlemen. (Laughter.) BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL. In reply to Mr. HADFIELD, Lord PALMERSTON said, as the Bankruptcy and In solvency Bill involved legal considerations, he could not name any day for bringing it on till the law officers of the Crown were in the house, which he trusted would be very shortly. It was the intention of the Government to proceed with the bill; but of course no day could be fixed, for the reason he had stated. COMMISSIONS IN THE ARMY. Sir H. STRACEY inquired of the Under Secretary of State for War whether there was any intention of reward ing those gentlemen whose names had been specially brought to the notice of the Commander-in -Chief, for the great pro ficiency they had exhibited at the examinations for direct commissions, by bestowing on them commissions without purchase. Mr. T. G. BARING replied that there was no intention of appointing any of those gentl e m en who passed the 'without exa mination to commissions purchase. THE WAKEFIELD WRIT. Major EDWARDS asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was the intention of the Go vernment to carry out the promise made by him (before the second division on Saturday last, on the question that the debate on the Wakefield writ motion be adjourned), to the effect that if the house re-affirmed its former decision the Government would not oppose the issue of the writ. Sir G. C. LEWIS said the offer which he made to the house upon the occasion to which the hon. gentleman referred was not accepted by the house, and hon. members must be aware that it was not in his power to control its decision. When the motion of which the hon. gentleman had given notice came on for discussion the government would state the course they intended lo take in the matter. RATES UPON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. Colonel ROWLEY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, upon what grounds he had declined to recommend to the Lords Commissioners of the Trea sury the payment of rates assessed on Government pro petty in the parish of St. Nicholas, Harwich, similar pay ment having been granted to other parishes in which Government property is situated. Sir G. C. LEWIS stated that the grounds upon wnich he recommended that the pa 3 meat should be made in the parish in question was that the propc rtion of Government property to the rest of the rateable property of the parish did not appear to him to bring them within the rule which the Treasury applied to these cases. BURIAL AND CEMETERY ACTS. Lord ENFIELD moved that an address be ?resented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to appoint a royal commission to inquire into the operation and effect of the several burial and cemetery acts in reference to the incumbents and mir tigers of parit her THE Sl7ll LONDON, WEDNESDAY :EVENING, and districts in England and Wales, and to the amount of and mode of compensation, if any, to be provided for the loss of fees or other rights and privileges occasioned to them by the closing of churchyards and burial grounds under the said acts. Mr. WESTHEAD seconded the motion, showing that the clergy had suffered materially by tho change which had taken place. Mr. HADFIELD objected to the words speaking of com pensation. He moved as an amendment that the resolution be confined to the districts within the "Bills of Mortality," and that the words relating to compensation be left out. Mr. NEWDEGATE contended that it was never in tended that the alterations which were made some years ago in reference to intramural burial grounds on sanitary con siderations should deprive the clergy of the emoluments which were necessary to their maintenance. Sir M. PETO supported the motion, believing that there was £40,000 a-year in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Cora mission which was applicable as compensation to the clergy in question. Sir G. LEWIS said that the Act of Parliament which closed the burial grounds gave powers to parishes to provide parochial burial grounds, and gave the incumbents the same rights in reference to them as they had over the church yards. There was, however, no doubt that many clergymen had suffered by the change ; but he was not prepared to ad mit that burial fees were a part of the endowment of the church, or for the maintenance of the clergy. They were a remuneration for a special service, and if those services were not performed no claim for compensation arose, and it was unnecessary to issue a commission, the fact of the issu ing of which would affirm the principle of compensation, to which no fund was applicable, or could be properly created. Mr. WHITESIDE argued that the Legislature having done a practical injustice, was bound to repair it. Mr. ROEBUCK said that the profits of turnpike roads had been much diminished by railroads which were sanc tioned by Parliament, and no compensation had been given to the lessees of the tollz., and that was a parallel case to this, in which no compensation had been given. After some further discussion Mr. HADFIELD withdrew his amendment, and on a division the motion was nega tived by 59 to 48. POLAND. Mr. HENNESSY, on rising to call attention to the re cent events in Poland, with reference to the treaties of 1815, and to move for copies of certain despatches, said he had endeavoured to make his notice as comprehensive as pos sible, including not only the Eastern question but the whole foreign policy of the Government. It was impossible to touch upon any branch of foreign policy, more particularly upon anything relating to the Eastern question, without finding that our ignorance of everything relating to Poland was a barrier in the way of our arriving at the truth. There were two principal points to be considered—the partition and the incorporation of Poland—and it was to the incor • poration chiefly that he wished to direct attention. Public opinion in England seemed to be under the impression that in showing sympathy for the Poles we should have to deal with the three great Powers, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, among whom Poland was originally divided; but that was not the case. In 1814 one of the first subjects discussed by the allies was Poland. Russia was then desirous of making a Russian province of part of Poland, but Lord Castle reagh not only recognised fully the justice of the claims of the Poles, but was also fully alive to the importance of making of Poland a strong barrier to the west of Russia. In 1815 both England and Austria, however, seemed to have held opinions different to those they entertained the year before, but Russia still continued steadfast to her former policy. The treaty of Vienna stipulated that the civil rights of Poland should be maintained, that the nationality of Poland should be preserved, that the com mercial system of Poland should be continued, that the Diet should be summoned every two years, and a bud get laid before. them every four years, that no Russian official should hold office in the administration of Poland, and that the rights of the Catholic and the Eastern Greek Church should be preserved. It was alleged by Russia that these conditions were broken by the Poles when they rose in insurrection in 1831. The treaty of Vienna was the title-deed by which Russia held Poland, and be defied any friend of Russia to maintain that the trusts of that deed had been broken by the Pales before they were broken by Russia. The Poles rose in insurrection to defend their rights from the breaches of the treaty committed by Russia. The statement of the Poles to that effect had never been denied by any Minister in that house. We were, however, in total ignorance of what the conduct of England had been in regard to these events of 1831 and 1832. Many hon. members had asked over and over again for copies of the despatches which passed between the Courts of St. James's and St. Petersburg, but none had succeeded in getting them. He hoped the Foreign Secretary would not now re fuse to produce them. Russia then incorporated Poland, and the Emperor addressed the Poles in a speech at War saw, telling them that he did so as King of Poland no longer, but as Czar of Russia. Austria at that time was friendly to the Poles, and even during the insurrection assured them of her support if the other great Powers would join her. The French Government, at the suggestion of Austria, not only took up the case of Poland, as Austria had done, but addressed a despatch on the subject to the British Government. He hoped this despatch would be furnished by the noble lord, but M. Louis Blanc, in his " Ten Years," gave the reply of the then Foreign Secretary of England to Prince Talleyrand. In this despatch his lordship stated t bat the object of the note presented to him by the French Ambassador was " to induce the British Go vernment to interfere in concert with France in the affairs of Poland, for the purpose of stopping the effusion of blood, and of procuring for the country a political and national existence." This course, the noble lord said, his Majesty I refused to take on account of the frank and amicable rela tions existing between the courts of St. Petersburg and of St. James, being also of opinion that the time had not arrived for adopting the proposals then made "against the will of a Sovereign whose rights are incontestable." He (Mr. Hennessy) hoped for the credit of Eng land that this despatch was not genuine. What ! Talk of the rights of the Czar over Poland as being incontestable, those rights resting upon a treaty every important part of which bad been violated in the face of Europe I The proposal of France must have been to establish Poland as an independent and a self-existing Power, and the noble lord's despatch, if correctly set forth by M. Louis Blanc, appeared to recognise and to advocate the treaty of Vienna, for it declared " that his Majesty will insist upon the maintenance of the political existence of Poland as established in 1815, and of her national insti tutions." So far with regard to the years 1831-2. Since that time the Polish question had undergone some phases. In 1841, he believed the Russian Government issued ukases still further pressing on Poland. But the event of the greatest interest to the country since 1831 was the Crimean war. Now, he was informed that the Austrian Government told us at that time that they were prepared and were most anxious to re-establish Poland, and actually asked the allies for a contingent of 100,000 men for the purpose. France approved of the policy, but what did England do ? An HON. MEMBER here moved that the house be counted, but as, including incomers from the library and smoking-room, 40 members were found to be present, 'Mr. HENNESSY resumed—He said that we were with out information as to the language held by the English Go vernment at the time of the Crimean war with regard to Poland. But some time ago Mr. Nassau Senior made known a report of some remarkable conversations, one of which took place in May, 1854, with a General Sharnofski, who said : . . . . " I have reason to believe that Austria is thinking seri ously of reconstructing Poland. Ever since she joined with Russia in the partition of Poland she has felt Russia press ing more and more heavily on her. I have lately seen a letter from Bourqueney to a friend of mine in Paris, in which he says that the Cabinet of Vienna proposed to join England and France, on condition of their lending them selves to restore Poland." He hoped that her Majesty's Government would to-night give them some information with reference to this subject. The intimate alliance existing between England and Russia before the Crimean war might to some extent account for the extraordinary conduct of England. In 1850 the Mar quis of Lansdowne said that upon some, of the important questions which then agitated Europe, and more especially affected the interests of the north of Europe, the community of feeling, sentiment, and action between the two countries was as perfect as at any period of their history. The pre sent Foreign Secretary made similar remarks. He said,— " There is no week passes that my noble friend is not in communication with Russia with respect to points of policy on most important subjects, on which the two Powers are fully agreed." . • • No wonder, under such circumstances, when the Crimean war gave England such an opportunity that England neg lected it. But it might be said, was it an English question , at all? That was a very narrow ground to take ; but he would call attention to the increase of the military expendi tureocrtontahoietf od t ne h a e i r u P w o c ie cu r h s op o f f opl E oa nl u Europe a a aE n d lveef o nt f b E i ny n gt Lordhl Eland dh half-and-half l f Castlereagho-n n and-half and the Treaty of Vienna she was intended to be a barrier to Russia. The truth of what the first Napoleon said was remembered, that if Russia destroyed Poland England would lose India. The action of Poland in the Vest would check Russian encroachments and w in allth e the East. s t a t e s T m h e a n t was the opinion of Lord Castlerea g h of his day. And from the time Poland estroyed an ex traordinary increase took place in the smilitarydestroyed of Europe and England. The committees t to 1820 inquired into the ex p endit ure , in their reports r laid don't]. the principle that, as a rule , the expense of the mili tary armament of England should not exceed £5,000,000 a-year ; and up to theperiod when Poland was incorporated into Russia a reduction of the military estimates took pl ace year by year. After that incorporation, the estimates, mili tary and naval, began to increase, not merely in England, but on the continent of Europe also. An increase in one country led to an increase in others. The lesson that had been taught them by this rivalry of the European Powers was one they ought to take to heart ; and they could traee it to the effect of the incorporation of Poland with Russia, and the removal of the great Western barrier to that Power. Again, how had that measure affected the commerce of England ? That inference was not lost sight of at the time; but a few years afterwards, in Sept., 1842, it was said : "One of the fundamental conditions on which the king dom of Poland was constituted and handed over to Russia was the freedom of commercial intercourse by land and by water throughout all the provinces which had formed a part of that unfortunate State before the first partition. Car tel treaties, commercial prohibitions, frontiers hermetically sealed against the ingress of merchandise and the egress of men, and allj.he machinery by which jealous States protect what they call their interests, formed no part of the system of government which was promised to the several portions of Poland. But in defiance of stipulations Russia has now advanced the strict cordon of her prohibitive system to the furthest western limits of the Emperor's dominions." English goods were once admitted into Poland with a duty of 5 per cent. ; now they were practically prohibited, and were so at the period mentioned. What was the loss to the commerce of England by the prohibitory laws of Russia in Poland? It was calculated at £1,000,000 per annum. But that calculation did not take into account what would have been the effect of the free trade policy England adopted 15 years ago. Poland was one of the great corn growing countries of Europe; and the free trade policy of 1845-46-47, had much increased that loss of £1,000,000. But that was not all. Russia prohibited the export of corn from Poland so strictly that the production was diminished. In many places it was not grown, because it was not allowed to be sent out of the country. Russia did this to develope the resources of other portions of her corn-growing dominions. The interest of England went beyond the preservation of treaties ; and she had had several opportunities of support ing Austria and France in procuring the independence of Poland ; but England had purposely evaded those opportu nities, and they now saw the state of Poland. He did not wish to encourage revolution. He did not regard this as a revolutionary question in the slightest degree ; it was rather Conservative. If the preservation of the faith of public treaties was Conservative so was the question of Poland ; if the preservation of the ancient traditions of a kingdom, and, above all, if the preservation of right against despotic force and truth as opposed to fraudulent diplomacy, was Conservative, so was this question. He asked the noble lord to give him the despatches that passed between the Govern ment of England and that of Russia in 1831 and 1832. He had said that England had been to blame throughout the whole of this business. When Lord Clarendon touched the Polish question he did it damage. Lord Aberdeen and others rather injured it. But the Minister who had from the beginning to this hour done the most against Poland was the present Premier. It might surprise the house to be told that when other great Powers were anxious to assist Poland the noble lord stepped in and prevented them. Had he himself heard such a statement some time ago he should have been surprised also. But this session he had seen what he thought should lessen the confidence the country reposed in the noble lord. He had seen him rise in his place and lose his temper when accused by one of his own supporters of falsifying Sir A. Barnes' despatches. Proofs as to the Po'ish question were thickening; he asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to supply the links that were wanting. He particularly asked him to give the correspond ence between France and England in 1831 and 1832 ; and any between France, England, and Austria relating to Po land at the time of the Crimean war. He also wished to ask whether a circular letter addressed to the Cabinets of Europe, in April last, by Prince Gortschakoff,was authentic ? He did not ask the noble lord to produce it ; he knew the answer would be the stereotyped one, that it referred to recent events in Warsaw, and that it would be inconvenient to give it. He only asked, therefore, whether the circular was authentic ? Having said so much of the past history of the question, he would now ask the house whether the recent events in Poland and the present attitude of the people did not justify some consideration of the subject? If England was a party to the oppression of Poland, if England did not avail herself of the oppor tunities there had been for giving Poland its in dependence, did not these facts justify the house in showing that country some consideration ? Some members of that house seemed to have a fear of Russia, but if an independent kingdom of Poland was formed it would be a curb upon Russian ambition in the East and Russian intrigues in Europe. Probably on another occasion some member of greater influence and position than himself would make some important motion on this subject. If they did not he should himself take that course. At present ha confined himself to moving that an address should be pre sented to her Majesty, praying her to direct that certain correspondence, which took place in the year 1831 and 1832 with reference to Poland, should be laid on the table of the house. (Hear, hear.) Mr. M. MILNES—I rise to second the motion of my hon. friend opposite. I need hardly say that there was much in his speech with which. I by no means agree; but in the substantial part of it—viz., as to the importance of from time to time directing the attention of this house to the condition of Poland, I entirely concur. No one feels more than Ido the impolicy of interfering captiously with the administra tion of foreign countries, even if it be wrong; but if treaty rights are to be respected we have certain responsibilities with reference to the condition of Poland which we cannot altogether set aside, and certain duties to perform which we cannot altogether neglect. That the independence of Poland formed a substantial part of the Treaties of Vienna, and that if those treaties are to be appealed to at all that independence must be respected, are facts upon which it is not necessary to expatiate ; but at this moment I think it would be well if the great Powers of Europe who rest so much upon the treaties of Vienna would remember that if this question of the independence of Poland is to remain ' unsolved, and if such as outrage as the destruction of the ' Republic of Cracow is to continue unremedied, it is impos ' sible for those Powers with an unfaltering voice to ask France or any other Power to respect those treaties. If we are, as it is said, upon the eve of great changes ; if French ambition, not, perhaps, so much that of the Emperor as of the nation, is likely to lead that country to endeavour to recover its natural frontiers, I cannot see how England could be called upon to assist those Powers in protecting what they consider their legitimate rights, unless they each do what they can to remedy the infractions of the treaties , which have taken place. I cannot agfee with my hon. friend that the conduct of England towards Poland has been such as he has described. The question of the nationality of Poland has always excited deep and permanent interest in the minds of the people of this country—(hear)—a singu larly permanent interest, considering how little intercourse there has been between the two countries, and how little material interest we have in the fortunes of Poland. There was, however, about - the disruption of Poland in the last century a culd-blooded immorality which shocked the con science of Europe, and the feeling of which, despite the great events which have since occurred, the shock of the French Revolution, the wars of the Empire, and other im portant and stirring movements, remains now as strong, and perhaps stronger, than it was when that act of spolia tion was committed. The interest which is taken in the affairs of Poland is entirely disproportioned either to the political importance of that country or to the political con tingencies which might occur upon its disruption, because it rests upon a deeper basis than anything connected with political circumstances. The events which have lately oc curred at Warsaw have greatly shocked the people of Eng land, because we thought we had reason to believe that the Government of Russia under the new Sovereign would do nothing to shock the opinions of the nations of Europe. We saw the Emperor of Russia engaged in one of the most noble and, at the same time, one of the most difficult opera tions that have ever been undertaken by a Sovereign—de termining, almost in the face of a hostile aristocracy, to liberate hie people from serfdom. I only wish that that Sovereign could be made sensible of the feeling of deep dis appointment which was shed over this country when we saw that while with one hand he was labouring in this great and glorious work, with the other he was striking cruel blows of physical force upon the defenceless population of Poland. All that we can do is to implore the Sovereign and rulers of Russia to remember that the great social questions which they are agitating do in a certain degree require for their settlement the moral confidence an i the moral assent of the people of Europe. Russia is no longer separated as she used to be from the rest of Europe. Every day by railways and other means she is brought into closer physical contact with oiler European nations, and it will be impossible for her to maintain much longer the sort of almost Chinese exclusion which at one time separated her from the rest of the world. ' The Russian Government, enlightened and w ell informed as it is, cannot fail to perceive that the one question which is now agitating the public mind of Europe is that of the orderly direction of the national spirit of peoples. They must see what an effect the feeling of nationality produced in Italy, and what results it is slowly working out in Ger many. In the face of that feeling of nationality, rising even in places where it was supposed to be extinguished or o eer laid by other intellectual processes or moral feelings, can the Russian Government suppose that any good is to be done with Poland, which has maintained that feeling un broken and unehattered through such a series of years, except by in some degree recognising and regulating it ? If there is one country which owes more than another to national feeling it is Russia. When the events of our time become the history of the world, the defence of Sebastopol by the Russian nation and the Russian army will be re corded as one of the most glorious instances of national feel ing and national sacrifice which have ever been witnessed. Let not, therefore, the Russian Government, which owes so much to that feeling, believe that it can, with the appro bation and assent of Europe, continue and keep down and utterly destroy the national feeling of Poland. There is no reason why these nationalities should be antagonistic or re pulsive, or why one should lead to the destruction of the other. On the contrary, if they are to be properly recog nised, and duly regulated, they may be advantageously united and prove a source of strength where now there is only weakness. (Hear, hear.) Lord J. ItUSSELL.—I cannot say that I am surprised that the hon. gentleman should have brought forward the question of Pelanll. (Hear, hear.) It is a country which, after all its vicissitudes, has preserved its national spirit, which must cause every one to respect it. At the same time, by some unhappy fate, it seems impossiVe—almost impossible—that she should be able to unite her scattered provinces under one Government, and with a national Go vernment of their own. The hon. gentleman has alluded to various points in the history of Poland. It seems that there hasbeenalways something which has prevented the recogni tion of an established Government — of the independence of Poland. One might have thought that the first Napoleon, who disturbed so many countries, who gave away provinces and crowns, that he might have thought it an object of ambi tion worthy of his great powers and extended fame to re store Vas, national existence of Poland. We know well that his opinion was, that, although he might raise a legion of Poles yet that as Russia, Austria, and Prussia were all possessors pf Polish provinces, it WO beyond even his JULY 3, 1861. power to hope to establish permanently an independent Government of Poland. The honourable gentleman has alluded to the period of the Congress of Vienna. I must say I think that everything that could be done by British diplomacy was done by Lord Castlereagh at that time. It is evident that Lord Castlereagh wished, when Europe was to be reconstructed, that Poland should rise from her ashes, and should again possess an independent Government. We may observe, in the correspondence of the time, that when the Emperor Alexander I. expressed a wish that there should be a kingdom of Poland, and that he should be the possessor of it, Lord Castlereagh always said he desired the independence of Poland, but that he could not conceive that that independence was consistent with Poland being placed under the dominion of the Emperor of Russia. Whatever Lord Castlereagh, with the assistance of France and Austria might have done, was completely thwarted and set aside by the event of the landing of Napoleon from Elba. From that time all the Powers of the Continent began again that work which they thought they ha I carried to a com pletion the year before. Their whole attention and their most mighty efforts were devoted to checking the ambition of Napoleon, and to confining within due limits the power of France. At that time, therefore, the independence of Poland was not thought of, and I must say that although there was a wish, as was shown by the articles of the Treaty of Vienna, that the Polish people should have cer tain liberties, and certain privileges, that wish has been very imperfectly accomplished by the terms of the treaty which was agreed to. It was agreed that Poland should be united to Russia by a constitution—that she should have national institutions and national representation, but it was said in a subsequent part of the article that those national institutions and that national representation should be given by Russia, by Austria, and by Prussia in the manner which those Governments should think most suitable. That, of course, left a very wide scope for interpretation, but beyond that there was a feeling which acted from that time, and which is acting at the present time, namely, that while the Emperor Alexander I. wished to retain his power ever Poland, at the same time he wished to grant to Poland large privileges and to make it, at all events, a flourishing province under the name of the Kingdom of Poland, but the general feeling at St. Petersburg, the seat of power, was that Poland ought not to be indulged with privileges more large and more liberal than were granted to Russia. The consequence of these opposite feelings was that to which the hon. gentleman has alluded. The hon. gentleman has said that the Treaty of Vienna was violated. Ido not wish to enter upon that question. We are certain of this, that dissensions between the Government of Russia and the people of Poland broke out into insurrection and civil war, and a conflict was for some time carried on. At the termination of that contest the Emperor of Russia set about, not to utterly incorporate Poland with Russia so as to abolish the name of Poland, but he did deprive the Poles of the privileges which they had hitherto enjoyed. He deprived them of a national representation—of anything like representative institutions, and of a national army, which had hitherto been their greatest pride. Russian in stitutions were imposed upon them, and many grievous wrongs were suffered by them. (Hear.) During the administra tion of Earl Grey my noble friend who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, addressed several despatches to the Russian Government. The hon. gentleman asks for those despatches. They were written 30 years ago, and I don't think there can be any public injury arise from giving those despatches. (Hear, hear.) The house will then see that my noble friend contended that the Treaty of Vienna was still to be carried out in its true spirit; that by its spirit Poland ought to have a separate constitution, and the house will see how it has arrived that the Govern ment of Russia has put forward a species of right of con quest, and assumed the right of abolishing all the privi leges of Poland under the treaty. The hon. gentleman, alluding to a subsequent period, has said that England had declined the task of reconstructing Poland, and that, there fore, she was guilty of contributing to the evils which Poland has suffered. I do not think that charge is justified by anything that has occurred. The hon. gentleman will see that to the partition of Poland Great Britain was a stranger, and my belief is that if, at the time of the Crimean war, it had been proposed to restore Poland with all her former provinces, both Austria and Prussia would, in all probability, have joined Russia to prevent the accomplish.. meat of such a plan. (Hear, hear.) Now, as to this ques tion, I must say I hope the house will consider what is be coming the dignity of this nation, and what is the duty of the British Minister mho is to represent it. There are Powers with whom you may hold most friendly communi cation, even with respect to their own internal arrange meats, but with regard to Russia, as I have said en former occasions, I cannot believe that any representation we could make upon the subject of the Russian Government in Po land would be met in any other way than by a declaration that the Government was conducted in the best manner, and that the advice of England respecting it was quite out of place. If that be the case, would it become us to make use less representations ? Is there anyone who will say that we ought to interfere further—that we ought either by our selves or by endeavouring to form alliances with other Powers to break with Russia—to make war, in fact, with Russia with the view of establishing the independence of Poland ? I will not go into general principles, nor will I enter upon a consideration of the evils that would be caused by a principle of constant interference, but I will only say that I think, with regard to Russia, that it would lead to a disastrous war, and, in the present situation of Poland, I do not believe that her independence can be achieved by such means. And therefore, whatever may be our sympathies for Poland, I believe her interest points to tranquillity, and to petitions and requests for a more liberal form of Government, and for institutions similar to those granted at Vienna, and not to any hardened insurrection against the power of Russia. I believe, moreover, the confidence of Poland would be en tirely misplaced if she expected that any of the Powers of Europe would join her in such an attempt. Still, looking to a distant period, one cannot btu think that for a people endowed with so much courage, and which has so long kept alive the holy flame of national existence, a time is reserved when she may recover her ancient glory, and take her place among the nations of Europe. A matter to which my hon. friend the member for Pontefract has alluded gives us en couragement with regard to this subject. Within a very few years we have seen great changes in several of the nations of Europe in the direction of representative constitutions, of greater freedom of person, greater freedom of the press, and greater encouragement of those powers which bad Govern ments take away, and which good Governments are delighted to see their subjects enjoy. (Hear, hear.) Russia has made a step in that direction. The Emperor of Russia, with great boldness as well as with great liberality, has declared that within a period of two years the institution of serfdom shall be completely abolished. One cannot but think that modifica tions will be consequent on this great organic change ; and that if, as seems to be the case, constitutional and represen tative governments are to prevail in France, in Italy, and in Germany, in Russia also the germs of representative go vernment will at length take root, and finally grew up into a healthy plant. One cannot but think that in Russia also these advantages of free communication of thought, and of guarantees for personal liberty will be acquired by the im proved and enlightened condition of her nobles, and by the popular spirit which will grow up when nobles and serfs will no longer be placed in antagonism. Whenever a change of that kind takes place in Russia the feeling will no longer prevail which is now entertained by nearly every Russian— a feeling of jealousy towards Poland, and a desire that she should not have privileges and liberties which are totally denied to the en:4in to which he belongs. But while I look forward hopefully to the future history of Poland, I em convinced that any hasty, premature intervention on the part of this country would be neither justifiable nor wise. I cannot say that I wish to maintain any relations with Russia but those of a friendly nature, and from the extended relations of ccmmerce between the two countries, I believe it is for the interest of both that, they should remain on amicable terms. It is not, as I conceive, either for our own interests, or for the interests of Poland that we should be continually making representations to Russia with regard to her mode of government. I offer no opinion with re gard to the institutions which have lately been given to Poland, but they are institutions which seem to me to de rive all their au.hority, and to depend for the spirit in which they are to be administered upon the will of the Emperor— (hear, hear)—as they are all to depend for their existence upon his pleasure. Still, it is impossible that district and provincial councils and municipal bodies can continue to act and be elected without effecting improvements in the condition of the people, and indeed the most patriotic Poles have of late years turned their attention to national objects under the guise —I will not say under the disguise, because I believe their efforts in that direction are genuine —but 'an der the guise of agricultural improvement. The amend ments which must thus be accomplished in the condition of the people by the promotion of knowledge and of education will all tend to the progress of the nation, and, therefore, while I do not think any active co-operation on our part would be wise, I believe Poland, so far from being destined to political extinction, will by a gradual and peaceful course of enlightenment, at length resume her place among the nations of Europe. (Hear, hear.) Sir H. VERNEY said the speech to which the house had just listened was the most hopeful sign for Poland which he remembered in the course of a long Parliament tary experience. That the spirit of that nation was ad mirable had been shown by the late events at Warsaw, when, instead of flying to arms, the population tranquilly exposed themselves to be shot down, desiring no more glo rious fete than to suffer for the independence of their country, and, by their martyrdom, to attract the sympathy of the nations of Europe. While nothing could be more dangerous than to allow themselves to be deceived by any expression of opinion in that house into the belief that Englsnd would rush into war for their sake, the Poles should never forget that in any peaceful efforts for the establishment of their liberties England and France would gladly co-operate. Mr. WHITE could not join the hon. member for Buck ingham in his exuberant eulogy of the noble lord's speech, which he must say abounded in the feeblest platitudes that could be uttered on a great question. From that speech one moral was to be gathered—viz., that if a grcat Power were guilty of any enormity or atrocity its conduct would not provoke a protest from this country , D es p atches were freely written respecting the late King of Naples, re peeting Greene, Turkey, Brazil, Spain, and Portugal; but when a great Power was concerned a remarkable reticence was observed, which induced people out of denrs to think that our Government was prepared to interfere in the wrong cause and at the wrong time, and very reluctant to do it for 1 the right cause and at the right time. Mr. SCULLY, while concurring in all the generous sen timents which that debate had elicited, wished that those who gave utterance to them on behalf of a distant country would not refuse to practise them nearer home. He trusted the Poles would not be induced, in consequence of that dis cussion, to place themselves in collision with the great Powers which now ruled over them, because if they did so they would find that they would receive no support from ' England beyond a few spirited speeches. It was true, as the noble lord said, that the Czar was acting nobly in libe rating many millions of serfs, but that act of enfranchise ment extended to Russians, not to Poles. In this country we had a most liberal Government, which did everything liberal for England, but which did not assist in removing the oppressions under which the sister island laboured. Ireland was an exact parallel to Poland, with this only dif ference, that it was a very much worse case. (Laughter.) When he had been requested to advocate the cause of Poland in that house, he had asked those who made the request to come down there and see the reception he would meet with in attempting to bring forward the wrongs of Ireland, and they would find that the grievances of any country in the world would awaken a better response than thos, , of Ireland. When 250 destitute human beings were turned out upon a bleak mountain side, and their charac ters blasted, an inquiry in their case was denied. If hon. gentlemen were sincere in the generous sentiments they enunciated on behalf of foreign nations, they would surely place a couhtry which was under their own rule upon an equality with the rest of the kingdom. Lord PALMERSTO N—As the despatches now moved for are those which I myself wrote when at the Foreign office, I wish merely to take the opportunity of saying that I entirely agree with my noble friend in respect to their production. I then entertained the opinion which the British Government of that time entertained and expressed as to the course which the Government of Russia adopted towards Poland ; and that opinion, couched in terms befitting the relations then subsisting between England and Russia, was that the course so taken was a complete and decided viola tion of the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna. (Hear, hear.) I agree with my noble friend that it is impossible for anybody who has any admiration for high national qualities for patriotism, endurance, love of liberty, not to admire the Polish character. And it is equally impossible for anybody who has any sense of wrong not to lament those misfortunes which have befallen the Poles from the time of their first partition down to the present moment. (Hear.) That partition was a gross violation of national right. (Hear, hear.) The stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna were broken almost as soon as concluded. (Hear, hear.) The British Government, upon every occasion on which it was called on to pronounce an opinion, or on which it thought it c ould pronounce an opinion usefully, declared that to be its view. And when the hon. gentleman (Mr. White) says that the English Government interferes in some cases by opinion and advice, and does not interfere in others, I must tell him that the English Government inter feres in proportion as it thinks it can do so usefully--(hear, hear)—that when it thinks its opinion may prevail it ex presses it in the form which it believes the most likely to prevail. But when the Government feels that its opinions will not be attended to, and that the result will be that it will either have to submit to a refusal or to ask the country to take up arms—an appeal which the Government knows full well the country would not answer---why, prudence, and even the interest of the parties concerned, would lead it not to exasperate where it is unable to convince. (Hear.) The hon. member who made this motion thinks the Bri tish Government has neglected several opportunities when it might, in conjunction with other Powers, have restored Poland to independence. Why, the occasions to which he alludes were occasions on which war must have been made ; and I ask any gentleman present whether, in the course of his memory, any period ever arose in which he believes this country would have been induced b enter into an European war for the emancipation of Poland, how ever much we may have sympathised with her wrongs, and desired to see her independence re-established. (Hear.) Take the Crimean war. During that war we were engaged in operations which had the security of Turkey for their object, and all the military and naval resources which England and France could command were directed to the Crimea and the Black Sea. Had we sent any of the forces which were engaged in those operations to Poland, we might have failed in accomplishing that for which we had undertaken the war, for a most important considera tion in naval and military operations is the concentration of your forces to one point. (Hear, hear.) Therefore it is manifest that it would have been extreme folly to attempt warlike enterprises in two such distant quarters, even if we had the means of doing so. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gen tleman thinks that Austria would have been a willing and powerful ally at that time for the emancipation of Poland. Does the hon. gentleman remember that Austria, supported and encouraged by Russia, committed the greatest viola tion of the Treaty of Vienna perpetrated by any of those three countries ? (Hear, hear.) 1 will take the liberty of saying that perhaps the greatest violation of a treaty that has ever taken place in the history of the world was that which occurred in the case of Poland—(hear, hear)—be cause there were three Powers who undertook by treaty to support and defend the independence of the republic of Cracow, and yet those trustees and guardians of that re public combined to destroy that independence, and to in corporate the republic itself with the empire of Austria. (Hear, hear.) I do not think the case was a hopeful one for our getting the assistance of Austria to achieve the independence of Poland ; but, be that as it may, we were engaged in another country, and we had not the means, even if this country had the will, to embark in such an operation. I concur with my noble friend in thinking that ' a nation which, under such a long course of oppression, has resisted all attempts to destroy its national spirit must be destined, some day or other, for a better fate ; but if the object of the hon. gentleman was to induce the Government to takenaore active steps than are involved in the expression of opinion, I would say, in the first place, that I do not think we should be supported in such a proceeding by the people of this country, and, secondly, that the Government are not prepared to ask the country to make those sacrifices and engage in those operations by which alone active mea sures for such a purpose could be brought to a successful issue. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HENNESSY said his object had been to obtain information. He would not presume to give the Govern ment advice, but did he venture to do so, the last advice he should think of giving them was to interfere in the manner they had done in continental affairs. The motion was then agreed to. CHAIN CABLES AND ANCHORS IN THE MER. CHANT SERVICE. Sir J. ELPHINST ONE, in rising to call the attention of the house to the report of the select committee which sat last year on chains and anchors, observed that all the state ments he had made in moving the appointment of that com mittee had been borne out in evidence. It was proved, in the first place that the cables supplied to ships belonging to her Majesty's service were seldom or never found fault with. They were subjected to tests so very effectual that on very few occasions were they discovered to be defective. It was proved by the evidence of manufacturers that the state of matters was so bad that nothing but an authorised com pulsory test would be of any use. It was proved that a very large proportion of cables were made of inferior material and workmanship. No less than 821 per cent. of those brought to Liverpool to be tested failed under a comparatively light pressure. At Sunderland, where there was a test, the cables were of a better quality. All the chain cable manufacturers concurred in the necessity of a proof. So bad were some of the cables that an instance was mentioned in which a cable broke by simply falling out of a cart in which it was being conveyed along the street. A great number of most inef fective chains were manufactured and sold with forged cer tificates. Iron in Staffordshire not fit for any other purpose was manufactured into chains which were principally used for small vessels, of which sem ethinglike 1,000 were wrecked on our coasts every year. Yet no inquiry took place as to the soundness of their ground tackle. The chain which swung the coals out of the mines was subjected to a test, and if that chain broke and a coal miner was thereby killed, the owner would be found guilty of manslaughter; but it' a coal brig were lost from the defective nature of her ground tackle, no inquiry took place, and there was a very con siderable annual loss of most valuable lives, which was due to defective cables. It might be said that it was not the duty of the Government to prescribe in what manner ship owners should furnish their ships ; but Government did interfere where human life was concerned ; and there were various ways in which, without going too far, the testing of chain cables might be placed in thg category of Government interference. The committee came to the resolution that good grounds had beeen laid by the evidence before them of the absolute necessity of public tests, and especially that all vessels employed in the conveyance of emigrants or Govern ment stores should be obliged to furnish themselves with tested cables. The committee were unanimous intheir findings. Pub lic companies—such as dock companies—might safely be in trusted with some supervision in this matter. A ship could now procure a cable which would hold her under any ordi nary circumstances of wind and weather of a cheaper descrip tion than those which ships were formerly supplied with, the weight of the one cable being much less than the other. His object on the present occasion was not to force on the Government any abstract resolution, but simply to find out whether it was their intention, with such a mass of evidence before them, to take up and deal with this question. He know the difficulties which attended the efforts of private members in endeavouring to pass a bill on such a subject, or be should have undertaken the task himself. When the matter was of so much importance to the country in every respect, he thought it was the bounden duty of Her Majesty's Ministers to take it up and make it a Government measure. Admiral WALCOTT, as a mexuber of the committee, cor dially concurred with his hon. friend as to the necessity, propriety, and imperative duty of the Government in taking measures to satisfy themselves that all vessels leaving the ports of this country, especially those carrying pass engers , were properly supplied with anchors and chains duly tested by proper authorities. Mr. M. GIBSON said the hon, baronet had succeeded in eliciting a great deal of valuable inforraati n on the sub jest of the chains and anchors supplied to merchant vessels through means of the committee for which he had moved last session, and in calling the attention of the Ishipovater. LOIS DON : Printed and rublished by IaURDO YOUNG, 01 • No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TIIE SUN ()Mee, No. 112,Strand , in the Precinct of the Savoy, In the County of Middlents , Wedneschiy, July 3, isu, of this country to the great importance of having cables and chains in use which had been adequately tested he had done a very good service. He had read over some of the evidence, and he agreed in the main with the opinion to which the committee appeared to have come. He would read the mean recommendation of the committee. They stated " that although they cannot overrate the advantage of hav ing the chains of every vessel subjected to a test, they are unwilling to recommend that the test should be made com pulsory." Now, in that lay the whole question. If he were a shipowner, he should certainly desire that every chain cable he used should be properly tested to see what strain it would bear ; but if the plan of the hon. baronet were car ried out—if the test were made compulsory—contrary to the recommendation of his own committee, a very great deal of inconvenience and expense would be occasioned to ship owners, and it would be necessary to have at the various ports throughout the country Government officials to see that the cables and anchors of •exti . xy ship were properly marked. Then, where was this suPeriision to end ? There must be some limit. If the Government were to test the anchors and chains, why not also the masts and spars ? (No !) Where one vessel went to sea with a defective anchor or chain, many were provided with defective spars and masts. (No !) It would be necessary, therefore, first to inquire what proportion of wrecks were caused by defective anchors and chains, and what by bad masts and spars. He believed that very few wrecks in proportion were caused by imperfect chains and anchors. It was said that the anchors and chains of men-of-war rarely failed. But they were made much heavier than those in the merchant service, and it could not be intended that merchant vessels, wi h their small crews, should carry these heavy anchors and chains. He should say that, as a rule, merchant vessels were sup plied with anchors and chains that were too light. All the service that could be rendered in a matter of this kind the hon. gentleman (Sir J. Elphinstone) had performed by call ing public attention to this subject. He doubted the policy of any legislative measure, and thought that the committee had come to a wise decision when they recommended Parliament not to subject the chains and cables of merchant vessels to any compulsory test. He thought it would be very impolitic to place any such resolution on their Journals as that it was the duty of the Go vernment "to insure that all sea-going vessels, espe cially those employed in the carriage of passengers, shall be sufficiently suppliedwith anchors and chains properly tested as to strength and workmanship." He must, therefore, ask the house not to agree to the motion. Mr. BENTINCK wished to bear testimony to the ability and energy with which his hon. friend (Sir J. Elphinstone) had brought this matter before the house. (Hear, hear.) The importance of this subject had, he thought, been un derrated by the President of the Board of Trade, who had not controverted the statement that a large proportion of wrecks on the coast were caused by defective anchors and cables. He believed it had been shown that a large loss of life might be averted if the Government took the requisite precautions, and upon them, therefore, rested the respon sibility of whatever loss of life might be attributable to this cause. It was proved that 821 per cent, of the chains in use that were tested at one of the seaport towns failed under a smaller strain than they ought to bear. On the coast with which the right hon. gentleman was best acquainted. hun dreds of light colliers had nothing but their anchors and chains to trust to in a gale, and went ashore like a snowdrift if their chains and anchors failed them. The professional evidence was all one way. It established that a great loss of life took place on the coast of England, owing to the de fects of anchors and chains, particularly the latter, and that there was but one way for the Government to take the matter up—namely, by making the test compulsory. The right hon. gentleman altogether rested his case on the fact that the committee did not recommend that the test should be compulsory. He (Mr. Bentinck) had in the committee opposed this paragraph of the report, believ ing that the committee, in hesitating to recommend the compulsory test, were shrinking from a responsibility that they were bound to undertake. (Hear, hear.) So long as the Government, with the evidence they had before them, refused to deal with the question, he considered that they would be responsible for the casualties and loss of life which occurred from the badness of chains and anchors. The right hon. gentleman said that the proposal would entail inconvenience to the shipowners. " Inconvenience" seemed to be an odd word to use under the circumstances. If it was inconvenient for the shipowners to submit to regulations by which anchors and chains might be tested, it was a much greater inconvenience for men to be drowned and ships to be lost in consequence of the want of good anchors and chains. The right hon. gentleman proposed to leave the matter to the shipowners, but that was exactly the present state of affairs; and it was because the shipowners were too short-sighted and indifferent that the hon. member for Portsmouth called upon the Government to make up for their want of energy, foresight, and humanity. The house had just been told that merchant ;vessels, being short handed, could not carry the same anchors and chains as men-of-war ; but the question was not the weight and pro portion of the anchors—it was the defective character of the chains and the systematic frauds practised by a great num ber of chainmakers in this country. The honest chain makers, being damaged to a certain extent by these fraudu lent proceedings, desired to have some regulation estab lished, by which the work of the honest man might be dis tinguished from that of the fraudulent dealer. A large amount of life and property was annually sacrificed in con sequence of this fraudulent system, and all the evidence went to show that the evil might be averted by the adoption of some plan of compulsory testing ; and he had heard nothing from the right hon. gentleman to justify the Government in saying that they considered themselves exonerated irons any responsibility in not attempting to deal with the fraudu lent practices, which led annually to great loss of property and life. (Hear, hear.) Lord C. PAGET thought that the hon. member for Nor folk had not dealt fairly with the observations of the Pre sident of the Board of Trade ; for, instead of saying that the matter was of trivial consequence, the President of the Board of Trade acknowledged the importance of the subject, and stated that he was glad that the mem ber for Portsmouth had brought it under the considera tion of the house. What the President of the Board. of Trade objected to was, that the Government should take on themselves the entire responsibility of testing anchors and cables for the merchant service. If they did so they must test those articles, not only when they were new, but after they had been used for a certain number of years, so that it might be ascertained that they were in good working order. He agreed with his right hon. friend in thinking that if the Government interfered in this sort of way with, the trade of the country they would have the shipowners in a body complaining that their liberty of action was tram melled and controlled by the Government of the day. (Hear.) No one was a better judge of what the shipowners thought of interference on the part of the Government than his right hon. friend. Not long since the Merchant Ship ping Act provided various regulations with respect to passenger vessels, and the Government had never ceased to hear from the shipowners that that was an undue inter ference with private trade, and a great inconvenience to the shipowners without any public advantage. If the Govern ment were to undertake to test anchors and chains, they must supervise other matters and see that all vessels had proper pumps, masts, and sails. He was extremely glad that this subject had been brought before the house, because he trusted the discussion would induce underwriters not to insure ships which were not properly found. (Hear.) Sir M. SEYMOUR was at a loss to understand how such a test as that proposed by the hon. member for Portsmouth. could be applied as he desired, and he should therefore be unable to support the view which he advocated. Mr. HASSARD hoped the hon. member for Portsmouth would press his motion to a division. Sir J. ELPHINST ONE thought it hard that the Govern ment seeing that restrict' ons were imposed in the case of mills and other various descriptions of machinery, in the safe working of which human life was involved, should refuse to provide similar safeguards in the case of chain cables. The motion was then negatived without a division. DERRYVEAGH EVICTIONS. Mr. BUTT moved a resolution,—That having regard to the papers laid before this house in relation to the evictions which have recently taken place on the lands of Derry veagh, in the county of Donegal, the nature and extent of those evictions, and the allegations as to the causes by which they are said to have been produced, it is expedient that a full and efficient inquiry should be instituted into all the circumstances attending these transactions. In sup port of the motion he repeated details of the transaction which were brought before the house in a recent debate. Mr. CAR DWELL reiterated the arguments he had em ployed on that occasion. That, he observed, was a motion for inquiry with a definite object—to remove Mr. Adair from the commission of the peace, which the house rejected. The present motion was likewise for an inquiry, but not with a view to any result, nor was any statement made as to its object. He could not advise the house to agree to this motion, or to do otherwise than adhere to the opinion it expressed the other night. Mr. M. 0' Ferrall, Mr. Maguire, Mr. Monsell, Mr. Scully, and Mr. W. Forster spoke in support of the motion. Lord PALMERSTON observed that Parliament, pos sessed as it was of large powers, ought to be very careful in the exercise of them, and not overstep the bounds pre• scribed by the constitution. He held that it would be a most outrageous abuse of tho power of the house to inter fere with the private transactions of individuals and the actions of men within the limits of their legal rights. The only object of the proposed inquiry was the exercise by Mr. Adair of an unquestioned right of ejecting his tenants. It he had exceeded his legal power, the tenants had their remedy by process of law. It was, however, admitted that he had acted within the limits of his rights, and no proper ground had therefore been laid for inquiry. Mr. BUTT having replied, the house divided— For the motion 23 Against it Majority —6s The motion was therefore lost. Mr. CARDWELL obtained leave to bring in certain Irish bills, and Mr. PEEL brought in a bill to make arrangements as to the disposal and management of property belonging to the University of Edinburgh. Certain bills were forwarded a stage, and the house ad journed at five minutes past one o'clock.