The Sun. — London, England, 1863-05-16 00:00:00

IY.L . PERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS.--Last Evening. The LORD CHANCELLOR, took his seat on the woolsack at tt se usual hour. THE VIADUCT OVER LUDGATE-HILL. The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's against the proposed rail• way viaduct over Ludgate-hill. Lord CHELMSFORD also presented petitions to the same effect. He regretted the petitioners had not considered this subject before the bill authorizing the oinstruction of the viaduct had come before the house. The only question that now remained was, whether the powers given by the bill could be stayed. Lord HARRIS said he considered the railway would be a great public convenience, and as nearly four millions of money had been spent in bringing it to the Surrey si le of the water, it would be a very serious matter to alter the provisions of the measure. After a few words from Lord WonEnotsE, Lord REDESDALE said that, although the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway had powers to make the viaduct, they did not intend to continue the line beyond Earl-street, Blackfriars, at present from want of capital, and they had now a bill before Parliament for the purpose of raising capital, and for further powers. It was of course a very important question as to what the house could do with regard to the powers already granted. It ought not to be dispos3d of in a conversation at a moment's notice. It would be advisable that the committ, e on the bill should know the opinion of the house upon the point. The subject then dropped. DUCHY OF CORNWALL MANAGEMENT BILL. On the motion of the Duke of NEWCASTLE, this bill was read a second time, and it was agreed to take the dis cussion on going into committee on Friday, June 5. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Bristol and Exeter Railway Bill was read a second time. The Hammersmith and City Railway, Inverness and Perth Junction, and Morayshire Railway bills ware read a third time and passed. DENMARK. The Earl of ELLENBORO UGH rose to ask whether the Government were prepared to produce any lurther correspondence upon the questions of Holstein and Schles wig, and especially whether they could communicate any representations which may have been made to the Danish Government by those of Austria and Prussia relative to the proclamation of the King of Denmark, dated March 31, 1863 . The noble earl said it was now two years since he bad brought the subject under the consideration of their lordships' house, and the question yet remained in anything but a satisfactory state. He thought it was the duty of their lordships to look ahead, in order that they might be in a position to meet the difficulty ; and that being their duty he was extremely anxious to have as much in formation as the Government could give him. During these two years the Governments had been in negotiation, yet the result of all was, that no approximation of parties had been produced, but increased differences between the parties had arisen. He would place a few facts before their lord ships as to the present position this country held with re gard to Denmark. Denmark was divided into four parts, namely, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Duchy of Holstein, the Dnehy of Schleswig, and the Duchy of Lemberg. Within one month after the breaking out of the re - volution in 1848 an insurrection broke out in the Duchy of Schleswig. The insurrection broke out on the 24th March, and on the 16th April, in direct contravention of the law of the German Confederation of 1853, the Prussian Diet de clared that unlessSchleswig were evacuated, the Danes were to be driven out of it by force. The motive was simply an ambitious desire of power, and that ambition was clearly exemplified by the longing to possess a navy, though it was well known that Germany had no superfluity of means for anything of that kind. The noble earl, after criticising the subsequent acts of the Prussian Diet at some length, pro ceeded to criticise the change of opinion on the part of Earl Russell with regard to the admission of the representatives of Schleswig to the Danish Reichsrath (or Parliament). The authorities clearly showed that their admission was simply an act of concession on the part of the Danes. The Danish people, however, viewed with astonishment the proposed separation of Holstein, which would then stand in the same relation to Denmark as Luxemberg did to Holland, and greatly reduce the strength of the kingdom. The noble earl also condemned the idea of farming a budget by votes from the four different assem blies of Denmark, Holstein, Schleswig, and Lauenberg. He hoped to see a better state of things shortly, and that her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with France, would at once declare that Denmark, having been once brought within European diplomacy, should remain, and that no act of innovation would be permitted. If that were properly understood by Prussia, there wou'd be no more difficulty in the matter. A conference upon that question had been spoken of, and he only hoped that if the noble earl (Earl Russell) should attend it, he would appear in a more con genial character than he had of late assumed ; in other words, that he would stand up to defend the weak against the strong, and assist Denmark to triumph over the machinations of those who for 15 years past had been con spiring against her integrity and independence. Earl RUSSELL—Before I answer the questions of the noble earl I must offer a few observations on the very sin gular speech which he has delivered, and the extraordinary doctrine which he has laid down for the guidance of her Majesty's Government. The noble earl has treated of the questions at issue between Denmark and Germany. With regard to many parts of his speech —as to the proceedings which took place in theyears 1807 and 1813—it is quite un necessary for me to make any remarks. But with regard to what has occurred of late years between Germany and Den mark, as I have taken a part in some of those transactions, I may offer explanations which may correct some of the statements of the noble earl. So long as I have looked at this question it appears to me that both Germany and Denmark— both the Germans and the Danes —having the recollection of former collisions and of the employment of force, have both fallen into et rors of conduct, and have made demands which in the one case ought not to be persisted in, and which in the other refer to acts which ought to have been performed. It has always appeared to me that the Diet of Germany and the Governments of Austria and Prussia—and more espe cially Prussia—in asking for a common Constitution for Denmark, and in requiring that that Constitution should have certain conditions involved in it—did ask for an inter ference in Danish concerns which it would have been dan gerous for Denmark to allow. But, on the other hand, lam of opinion that Denmark has made certain promises and en tered into certain engagements, and that the King and the Government of Denmark are bound to fulfil those promises and comply with those engagements. Therefore, while I thought that Germany was quite wrong in her demands, I thought Denmark was likewise wrong in not fulfilling the Promises she had made. Well, the noble earl, to my surprise, states a doctrine which I have seldom heard from a member of either house of Parliament. The noble lord says that there were diplomatic engagements taken by Denmark, these engagements being that Schleswig was not to be incorporated with Denmark, and that the German subjects of the Sove reign of Denmark should have the enjoyment of the same rights as the Danish subjects of the same Crown. The noble earl says he disapproves those diplomatie arrangements, although they were solemnly agreed to, and although the Emperor of Austria now truly says that the Austrian troops were withdrawn from Holstein and other Danish territory on the ground of these engagements. Yet the noble earl asserts that these engagements ought not to be fulfilled. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said that rules which might ba applied to individuals were of very doubtful appli cation in diplomatic arrangements. Earl RUSSELL —The noble earl certainly said he trusted that if any new arrangements were made these diplomatic arrangements would be altered. 'Now it appears to me, look ing at this question in a simple manner, and with the lights which ordinary men bring to its consideration, that those arrangements ought to be observed. The noble earl may take a higher and more sublime view of this matter ; but those being the engagements taken ley Denmark, I thought that the King of Denmark was bound in honour to fulfil them. With regard to any advice which I had to give, it could only be, under the circumstances I have described, of the nature of a compromise. It is clear that the engage 'bents with regard to the Constitution are of so extremely e°n 'Plicated a nature that both parties have much to corn ofl4 et against each other. I have locked to the possibility ea y's ra4K ing ROM. practical arrangetltnt. The noble earl ' and ailrB truly, that in 1861 I pioposed that Schleswig should send re presentatives to the Diet at Copenhagen. I did not propose, as he says, that the Diet of Schleswig should be left perpetually in such a state, but I maintained that the King of Denmark had no rg • ht to alter the Assem bly without the consent of the Assembly itself. That pro posal met the reception which the noble earl has mentioned. It met with the assent of Russia, but not of France. My belief is that the French Government, b.avi ng found that neither Austria nor Prn as i a, nor atnhyogfhtht eiterusernelleas:tSotates, would agree to the arrangement, thought pur sue it any further. There being, then, so little agreeneet on the part of the non-German Powers, and so great a dis agreement on the part of the German Powers, that plan had no chance of success. Our plan of an arrangement of 1862 I proposed as a plan which I thought then, and think still, would maintain the integrityrand independe nce o f Denmark and would have reconciled Denmark to Germany. That it would have reconciled Denmark to Germany I have no doubt, because, although it would not have given all that Germany and many other P owers with which I confer re asked, yet Austria and d , werePrusstling to consent to that ar rangement. With regard to the altered proposal, it did not seem to me that it contained any provision that would hav e trenched on the independence o f Denmark. With regard to Holstein and Lauenburge the Danish Government admit that they formed part of the Germ an Confederation, and that being so they have a right to separ ate Diets. There, then, only remains the question of S c hleswig. What I pro posed was that Schleswig should be united to Holstein, which the people of Schleswig had repeat edl y asked, and which has also been demanded by a part o f Germany ; that there should be an entirely separate Diet; and that the le gislation and votes of money should be kept separate. It has (Yet votes of been said that, seeing how difficult it often is supply from one house, it must be much more° ;et to get them from fou r h ouses . B u t th e no bl e ear l (= ire, as the -Danish statements omit„ that which I proposed—that there should be a Budget —a general ordinary Budget—voted for ten years. The assem blies being brought toget her 'Mader agree ment, and the Germans being satisfied ) the probaben y is that this Budget would be voted for ten years without or position. Unfortunately, i , is entirely is the competeno f members to say whether they will adapt such a plan r reject it. If they thought it imported any danger to the independence of Denmark they would do quite right to reject it ; but, at the same time, they must consider that Germany is entirely united upon the subject. In the Prussian, in the Austrian, in the Saxon, and in other popular assemblies there is but one voice—that the German subjects of the King of Denmark aro oppressed, that they are suffering the deprive sion of privileges which they ought to have, and that it is a disgrace to Germany that they should be so treated. lam not of opinion that it is wise for any country to give to any other country power to interfere in its internal con cerns. But with that question I have nothing to do. It was quite competent for the King of Denmark to say in 1850, " I will have no interfereuce," but he did not do so ; and what I say, and what I venture to think, is that, hav ing made engagements, it is only just tlaet . the Danish Go vernment should keep them. That is the utmost extent to which I go, although there are things which may be said with regard to the German subjects of the King of Den mark. For instance, if there be a village in which the people complain that they have no church in a hich they can listen to services in their own language, and no school in which their children can be taught their own German lan guage, it is only fair that:the houQeholders who think that a grievance should be able to send a petition to the Sovereign, and ask that the grievance should be redressed. But, accord ing to the laws which prevail, not more than three persons can venture to sign a petition, and it is impossible, there fore, for a larger number to ask the sovereign for redress. The German subjects also complain that, while the press is free in Denmark, the Government dare not allow them to read German papers. With regard to these subjects it has always appeared to me the interest of the King of Denmark and the Danish Government that Germans and Danes should be treated alike, that both should have the same rights and privileges, and that both should be covered by the protection of equal laws. That is the utmost claim which the Germans have a right to make, but I know that they have asked for a great deal more. Then comes that difficult question whether, Germany finding the rights of 7 German subjects in Holstein are not regarded by the Danish Government, the German Confederation have a right to proceed to execution. A more serious question can hardly be raised. With regard to Schleswig it is an inter national question. Austrian Prussia, and the German Diet say that Demark has made certain treaties and diplomatic arrangements with regard to Schleswig, hether Denmark has done so or not, and, if she has done so, how far those arrangements can be modified, and in what manner, so as to preserve the peace of Europe, is an international ques tion upon which the influence of the cabinets of France, France, Prussia, and Sweden may be usefully exerted. But for England to declare that she will not permit an act of execution in Holstein by the German Confederation is to set at defiance the solemn aot by which the German States are bound together, and to commit an act of international violence the like of which I have never heard. That is what the noble earl invites us to do. He invites us to interfere in this question betwee; Germany and Denmark by force of arms, and to go to warkr the purpose of preventing Ger many carrying into effect laws which every State of Ger many declares to be the undoubted right of the Confedera tion to enforce. There are two things, as I have already said, which must be admitted. With regard to the laws of the German Confederation the German Confederation itself is the true judge, and with regard to the engagements be tween Germany and Denmark, whatever they may be, the King of Denmark is bound in honour to observe them. It appears that those two maxims ought to be our guide, and that we ought not to profess to interfere with the laws of the German Confederation with regard to execu thin. I was sorry to hear the noble earl give some countenance to the notion which prevails in some of the States of Germany, happily not the most important, that the engagements, protocols, and treaties of 1850, 1851, and 1852 should be set aside, and the treaty of succession to the crown of Denmark should be held invalid, and that we should revert to the state of things in 1846. I know that he does not took at the subject in that view. He only looks at it with the view of getting rid of the treaty of 1852, made under the Administration of the noble earl who I see oppo site. [The Earl of Derby.—" Not made, signed."] I be lieve it was prepared and arranged by my noble friend Lord Palmerston when he was Foreign Secretary, and signed under the Administration of the noble earl. The noble earl who first spoke wishes to get rid of that treaty with a view of making a better position for Denmark. But Olden burg and other States wish to get rid of the treaty with the view of making a better position for Germany. I am for maintaining that treaty and not destroying it, either for the benefit of Germany or Denmark. (Hear.) I am sure the best position for any English Government to hold is to maintain and adhere tiareaties which have been made—not advancing upon this dangerous and question able path of denying to Germany rights which fairly belong to her, but endeavouring in any difficulties which may arise rather to look to peace and conciliation than to the extreme issue of war. (Cheers.) The Earl of DERBY—Before I make any observations— and they shall not be many—on what has just fallen from the noble lord, I think it only due to him that I should take , the earliest opportunity of withdrawing the imputation , which it may be thought I had thrown out when, on the first day of the session, I imputed to him that he had gratuitously and without sufficient cause interfered for the purpose of settling the question of Schleswig-Hcl stein. I had at that time no means of information beyond those furnished by the public papers; and I certainly was not aware of the length and elaboration of the diplomatic correspondence which had taken place, nor how entirely the noble earl's interference was justified by the consent which the different Powers had given. (Cheers.) But having said that, I must confess I listened with some anxiety to the answer which the noble lord would make to the tempe rate, clear, and judicious statement of my noble friend, and I cannot but concur with him in thinking that the noble lord's original conception of the duty of this country, of what was required by policy as well as by justice towards the two parties were much more accurate than those which, apparently under the pressure of circumstances, he adopted at a later period. (Cheers.) I concur with my noble friend in thinking that the propositions offered by the noble -lord in 1861 were such as either party, without sacri fice of honour, principle, or policy, might very well have adopted; and, with the exception of Russia's opinion as to the guarantee, he had full c incurrence in the propositions he was making. Russia, with the exception of France, had the least direct and personal interest in the solution of the question. The noble earl says we had not the sanction of France. Now, lam not aware that there is anything in the papers laid before Parliament to indicate in the slightest de gree any other objection on the part of France than that same objection taken by Russia to the particular item of the gua rantee. (Hear) Let me say at once that there is one point on which I entirely agree with the noble earl—namely, that we have no right to interfere with the exercise within its own bounds of the power of the German Confederati n ; and, on the other hand, that the King of Denmark is bound, not with the solemn obligations of a treaty, but is bound in honour and required by a sense of justice and of policy, to carry into effect those engagements into which he entered in 1851-2 Keith regard to other portions of his dominions. (Hear, hear.) Whether it was politic or not to admit the interference of any foreign country—the interference of the Germanic Federation with regard to that portion of his do minions held by him as a member of that Federation, I do not pretend to discuss. It may have been impolitic; but the promise having been given, I do say that Denmark was bound in honour strictly and fairly to fulfil that promise. (Hear, hear.) It is a matter to be considered hereafter what charges of failure to carry out this promise, what charges of want of intention to do so, the noble earl can bring against Denmark. (Cheers.) lam greatly mistaken if there does not exist a distinction which the noble earl has failed to draw with regard to these engagements. In the case of Holstein, where the King of Denmark exercises his rights subject to a certain supervision and jurisdiction on the part of the Federal Diet, the Diet has a right to inter pose, and, if its rights be interfered with, to carry out what is called Federal execution. But if I rightly understood the noble earl, the engagements which he referred to were en gagements, not entered into with the Federal Diet, but en gagements made severally with Austria and Prussia. (Cheers.) The German Federal Diet was no party to these engagements, and consequently has no right to enforce them. (Hear, hear.) lam not asserting that Austria and Prussia would not have such a right; I speak at present merely of the Federal Diet. But that is a dis • tinction which is not immaterial when we come to consider a portion of my noble friend's speech which has been greatly misrepresented—of course, through being misunderstood— by the noble earl opposite. The noble earl represented my noble friend as having said that, if the Federal Diet at tempted to carry into execution any portion of those rights of the infringement of which they now complain, it would be the duty of this country not to permit such execution, although in vindication of their own Federal Diet, but by the extreme measure of war, if necessary, that we should impose a prohibition. I did not understand him to hold that language. (Hear, hear.) What my noble friend did say was that if, in consequence of the difficulties now arising, Russia and France are agreed with us as to the course required by right and justice, we_ought not to per raafogirat—itrinetoottphthpereeospeFiintel,ndoenorfaolt Diet, for they have nothing to do with it, but Austria and Prussia, against law and right, and and my noblee t n h fim e je o r t d h k, er threePowers, vio interpose l t a o tion of its rectly that such a state of things this country and th. o in r k rights ; Bard with indifference. (Cheers,) I will t various phases which this question argued rzotc o gu o q l dui into nottteo c t o rhe r e : it t as passed through, or the various negotiation s to which since the year 1851 ? Why, have been the real difficulties in the has led. But what the teei w n ayof any settlement difficulty has been the obstinate refusal of Holstein, backed up by a secret un derstanding with th e G erman Powers, to consent t 4) any practicable arrangement. (Hear, hear .) Conciliatory p. , positions positions have been mad e by D enmark, and these have been discussed or entertained by Holstein, but have been met with a fixed determination doggedly to lay down principles from which it would not depart, and adherence to which ren dered any agreement between the parties absolutely The first proposal was that there should be a Constitu tion common to both countries, a common representationand THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 16, 1868. a common deliberatite Asserably, and thaterran ge tn e nt was absolutely refused. - H9lsteih infoimeci thaworld-that r under no circutastandea would she consent to such a proposal, and even under the monstrous proposition which was put for ward on the part of Germany, that the three duchies Hol stein, Schleswig, and Lauenberg, being in the aggregate considerably less than the division of Denmark Proper, should yet have each an equal numerical share in the repre sentation of the country, and should be able not only to control their own affairs absolutely, but actually to exer cise an administrative and controlling power over the in ternal affairs of the kingdom of Denmark Proper. What was the next declaration of Holstein ? It was only the other day that the Estates came to the determination that no arrangement would be satisfactory which did not recognise the- ancient indissoluble union between Schleswig and Holstein. But that union has been practically abolished for a considerable period, and in those particular engagements to which reference had been made, it was recognised that that union did not exist, and that it eould net be sought to be re-establ:shed. (Hear, hear.) Yet that union, the dissolution of which formed a main point in the diplomatic negotiations of 1851, and which was affirmed by all the Powers, was declared by the Estates of Holstein to be the one condition without which it would be impossible to come to any practical or amicable arrange ment with the kingdom of Denmark under any circum stances whatever. (Hear, hear,) The King of Denmark, finding it impossible either by means of an united Parlia ment cr by separate legislation to come to any terms with this Assembly of Holstein, made up his mind to a great sac rifice on the part of Denmark; and, although he did not admit the extent to which the Federal Diet pressed their claims over the administration of Holstein, he yet consented, for the purpose of doing away with any pretence which could be made for interference with the rest of his domi nions, to give to Holstein all, and more than all Holstein herself had asked, with the exception of the union with Schleswig, and all, and more than all, the German Powers, on the part of Holstein, had demanded. He gave to Hol stein a complete autonomy, exclusive administration within its own territory, control over its own budget, power over its own laws ; and though by so doing he materially weak. . sued the collective power of Denmark, he consented to this course for the purpose of showing that, as far as Holstein was concerned, he had gone even beyond those demands with which it was ent.tled to expect compliance. (Hear, hear.) In doing so, however, he was careful to press this point, that beyond the limits of Holstein the Federal Diet had no more right to interfere with Denmark in the administration of its internal affairs than any other Power in Europe. (Cheers.) It is as Duke of Holstein that the King of Denmark is subject to the control of the Federal Diet,. and, as regards Schleswig and Denmark Proper, he is as independent a Sovereign as the Sovereign who sits on the throne of these realms. (Cheers.) As far as the Federal Diet is concerned it clearly has no locus standi; and when' all the claims of Holstein are satisfied, for the Federal Diet to interfere with the other pordons of the Kingdom of Den mark would be a piece of gratuitous impertinence. (Cheers.) I do regret that mero nytu and spontaneously the King of Denmark did not take upon himself to remove, by the power which he possesses, any just, reasonable cause of complaint which the inhabitants of Schleswig may have against the administration and m de of carrying on the government, but the question is, to what extent have the grievances been carried ? What demand is there which has not been com plied with ? In what respects has the King of Denmark violated any engagement he bad entered into ? The main engagements were two—first of all that Schleswig should not be incorporated with the kingdom of Denmark; and, secondly, that the Danish and German subjects should be treated on an equal footing. My lords, it is not to be denied that Schleswig has been made a stalking horse for the ambi tion of Germany. (Hear.) It is not to be denied that there has been a considerable immigration into Schleswig; that a considerable number of German settlers, amounting to nearly one-half of the population, have settled themselves there; and they demand equal laws and equal justice. The points involved are really comparatively trifling when you look at the enormous and important consequences that may result from any serious misunderstanding in regard to them. They amount to this—that in one village there are a cer tain number of Germans, in another, a certain number of Danes, and in a third a mixed population —one where the German element prevails, another in which the German and Danish elements are equal; and up to the present time the King of Denmark has not been able to arrive at a solu tion of the difficulty as regards education in the schools or service in the churches with respect to the language of Germany. There is no other charge against the King of Denmark than that he has not been able to solve that difficulty, expressing his readiness to do his utmost to solve it. Are yru, then, to compel him to enter into an engagement, which, in his opinion and in the opinion of his subjects, amounts to a vitiation of the inte grity and a dissolution of the monarchy ? (Hear.) The original proposition of the noble earl was very just and rea sonable. He repudiated the union between Schleswig and Denmark ; he repudiated the extravagant claims for equal representation in favour of small minorities ; he repudiated any right of interference with regard to Schleswig, except so far as the engagements of the King of Denmark in 1851 were concerned, and I entirely concur with him in his policy, but where was it ever laid down in the engagements of 1851 —or (although it might be contemplated that Schleswig was never to be incorporated with Denmark) was it not assidu ously and carefully notified that Schleswig should not be separated from the kingdom of Denmark ? Had not the King and people of Denmark a perfect right to say, "We consent, to obviate embarrassment, that Schleswig shall not be incorporated with Denmark r being, as it were, like Hanover with this country, bound together by no other tie than that of the Sovereign ; but when you call on the King of Denmark, without the most pressing reasons, still fur ther to weaken and dissolve his monarchy by a complete separation of Schleswig, you call upon him to do that which you have no right to do—an act of no less singular injustice than impolicy. (Hear, hear.) The integrity of the mo narchy of Denmark is a matter of vital importance to this country. She is a small country, but a country with the most resolute, determined, honest, and honourable popula tion, She is a country in which there is a large, perhaps the largest amount of personal and political freedom of any country in Europe, next to our own ; and she is a country, moreover, well. disposed to England. Whatever interrup tion of that friendship there may have been from time to time, we may hope that a tie recently formed may connect us still more closely together. (Cheers.) She has interests, feelings, and affections with thin country, and email as she is, yet the character of her people, great power in compa rison with her population, and her geographical position on the map of Europe, in case of an European war, would render her an important ally, even for England. It then, an act of policy as well as justice, when ambitious Powers are pressing Denmark, to protect her from aggres sion ; and though, God forbid the last extremity should be forced upon us, yet on a question whether the Danish mo narchy should be destroyed and its integrity frittered away, and, still more, be placed by collateral means and indirect influences as a dependency of the German Federation, there is no alternative not preferable on the part of England, on the ground of policy as well as justice, to such a consequ, nee as the dissolution of the monarchy or its dependence en the German Confederation. On that ground I do deeply lament that the noble earl has departed from his original proposi tion. I feel certain that with a firm attitude held by us in concurrence with Russia, and as I believe with France, we should have shown the German Powers that, though not dis posed to withholding anything from their just rights, we are not content to allow with impunity any unauthorised or un called for aggression on the liberties of Denmark. (Cheers.) Lard WODEHOUSE thought that, if Denmark was bound to fulfil her engagements, Germany was also bound in honour not to place insurmountable obstacles in her way, (Hear, hear.) After a few words from the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH in reply, Earl RUSSELL said it would not be convenient to pro duee the papers asked for just now, but at an early date they would be forthcoming if desired. TELEGRAPHS BILL. This bill was read a second time. FURIOUS DRIVING. The Marquis of WESTMEATH moved for a return of the number of persons killed and maimed within the Me tropolitan and City Police districts within the last twelve months, by persons driving vehicles at furious rates in the public thoroughfares. From 1858 to 1861 there had been 30 persons killed, and 130 maimed in the City district; and 140 killed, and 1,457 maimed in the Metropolitan dis trict ; and he thought something ought to be done. Pecuniary fines, which were paid by the drivers' masters, were clearly useless.—Agreed to. CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL. This bill was read a third time. AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES BILL. This bill was read a third timo. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (IRELAND). The Commons' amendments to this bill were agreed to. CITY OF DUBLIN RAILWAY BILL. Lord TALBOT DE MALAHIDE complained that this railway would be a great disfigurement to the City of Dublin, and moved that the evidence taken before the com mittee be printed. Ater some discussion tho motion was negatived. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OP COMMONS —Last Evening. The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock. PETITIONS. By Mr. MuNDY, from the archdeacon and 174 clergy men of the archdeaconry of Derby in favour of the closing of public houses on Sunday, and against the sale of Sunday newspapers, the running of trains and steamboats, which required a great amount of labour on the Sabbath, and thus led to its desecration; Sir 11. STRACEY, from Great Yar mouth, against the closing of public-houses in the Sabbath; Mr. PEASE and Mr. BRIGHT, in favour of the closing of the closing of public-houses on the Sabbath, his GoVernment to suspend diplomatic relations with our Government ? THE REPORT ON THE SHANNON. Colonel FRENCH asked the Secretary to the Treasury, when Mr. Bateman's reporc on the Shannon would be laid upon the table of the house ? Mr. F. PEEL replied that it had been presented to the Treasury, and would be printed and circulated in a few days. CHALMERS' TARGET. Mr. A. TURNER asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the principle upon which the " Chalmers Tar get" was constructed was not the same as the plan furnished by Mr. John Clare, jun., per Admiralty order, dated June, 1855, on the 25th June, 1855; and if the prin ciple upon which the Erebus, Terror, Thunderbolt, Warrior, Black Prince, Resistance, Defence, Achilles, Hector, Va liant, Minotaur, Northumberland, &c., were constructed was not the same as the plans furnished by Mr. John Clare, jun,, the 9th and 16th July, 1855, as published in Parlia mentary papers moved for by Mr. Maguire, 3d March, 1863, developing the mode of placing timber between metal as a non-conductor of vibration ? Lord C. PAGET replied that he answered a similar question the other day. The Admiralty could not take upon itself to decide whether a piracy or not had been corn • witted. The Court of Queen's Bench had decided that the patent had not been infringed. SUEZ CANAL. Mr. D. GRIFFITH asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether the despatch from the Turkish Government, pro hibiting the compulsory employ went of forced labour on the Suez Canal, which had obtained publicity, was au thentic; and, if so, whether her Majesty's Government would support the Sultan in carrying that object into effect ? Lord PALMERSTON said it was well known that Egypt constituted part of the Turkish empire, and was un der the sovereignty of the Sultan. Enforced labour had long been the practice in Egypt, but recently the Sultan and the Pasha had resolved to put an end to it. (Hear, hear.) The Government entirely approved of this resolve, and would give it their entire support. (Hear, hear.) The independence of Turkey has been guaranteed by the five great Powers, and he did not therefore apprehend that France or any of the other Powers could possibly object to the abolition of enforced labour. ROMAN BRIGANDS AND THE NEAPOLITAN STATES. Sir G. BOWYER asked the First Lord of the Treasury what were the proofs of a statement that there exists at Rome a committee of no less than 200 persons by whom bands of murderers were organised, and sent forth into the Neapolitan territory to commit every sort of atrocity; and whether he would lay upon the table any official correspon dence or other documents in support of that statement ? Loid PALMERSTON replied that ho had no positive proof that the statement he made the other evening was correct, but he had every reason to believe that it was based upon facts. He had no documents to lay on the table. From time to time he was in the habit of receiving infor mation about men and things in various parts of the world —(hear, hear)—but if he were to state publicly the names of his informants, he should know as little about such matters as the hon. baronet himself. (Laughter.) But he could on this occasion adduce an authority from whom the hon. baronet could easily obtain information with re spect to the doings of the Bourbon committee sitting at Rome. On Monday, the 3d of the present month, a cer tain father, Conchi, preached at Rome by request of the Archbishop of Naples, before the ex-King of Naples, hia Court, and a large Bourbon congregatzon. The priest reproached the assemb y with making promises of money to and issuing inflammatory ad dresses among . ignorant and . excitable people, in order to induce them to commit acts of pillage and murders in Southern Italy, whilst they would net furnish the smallest coin for the relief of the poor of the Imperial city. (Hear, hear.) If the hon. baronet would communi cate with Father Conchi, no doubt he would obtain the most accurate information with respect to whom the Bour bon Committee sitting at Rome consisted, the aims it had in view, and the system they did not hesitate to enforce. (Hear, and laughter.) TAXING THE CHARITIES OF IRELAND. Mr. BLAKE, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intended withdrawing Resolution 18 in Ways and Means, relative to imposing legacy duty on bequests intended for charitable purposes in Ireland ; and, if not, on what day after theWhitsuntide recess he would be likely to move the said resolution. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that as the Government had withdrawn its proposed plan to impose the income tax on English charities, they did not intend to persevere with it in regard to the charities of Ire. land. (Hear, hear.) result anticipated by Lord Elgin, and a result which had greatly exaspekated the _Chinese Government against Eng land. The almost necessary cons quench of opening up 600 miles of a river for trade was to come into collision with the rebels ; for during a time of civil war it was almost impossible to say to which party the territory belonged. This country had undertaken to give protection to life and property in China, and to protect certain spaces round the treaty ports, such as Shanghai and Ningpo. This protec tion extended over an area of 30 miles round Shanghai, Since the spring of 1862 this country had been in constant conflict with the rebels at Shanghai and Ningpo. He wished to call attention especially to the case of Ningpo, which had been captured by the rebels in the autumn of 1861. In May, 1862, the British forces recaptured the town. Soon after, Consul Harvey discovered that England had never obtained a legil settlement for trade in Ningpo; and it also appeared that Admiral Hope, on hearing of the fact, wrote a letter full of alarm to Mr. Bruce, and request ing his attention to the matter. While this state of things was going on, Captain Dew, under the pretext of protecting a settlement which this country did not legally possess, brought his vessels up the river, and placed them in the line of the enemy's fire. They were soon struck by a num • ber of balls which had been fired from the guns oftherebels. The" assault was resented, and for five hours shots and shells were fired into that town. One of the evils arising from the sites which had been originally granted for the purpose of allowing foreign merchants and traders to erect warehowes and dwelling .houses, so that they might live apart from the Chinese, was that since the civil war broke out an enormous number of the Chinese population fled to these places for protection, which gave rise to frequent collisions and reprisals. Remonstrances were frequently made by the Imperial Government at Pekin with regard to the dis turbances which took place in these settlements, but Mr. Bruce always disclaimed interference on the part of the Chinese Government with these sites, as he asser ed they were " f x-t erritoz ialised." He believed that the joint pro tectorate of England, France, Russia, and the United States was likely to produce the most serious evils, by making China the theatre of foreign intrigue. He had no wish to defend the cause of the foreign traders in China; but what he said was that, if the only justification that could be offered for the naval and military occupation of China was the obtaining facilities for trade, then, if the Chinese were left to themselves and the question of politics was not mixed up with it, they would give us every facility for quietly and peaceably carrying on our trade in that country, as was the case under the old East India Company, The int rchants were not satisfied with the rules and regulations laid down for trade. (Hear, hear.) The question of indemnity figured very largely in every budget ; but, so far from our being recouped for the expenses of the war, we had to pay the indemnity in the increased taxation imposed by China on her trade in order that she might be able to pay the indemnity. They had heard a great deal about the expedition to China, and when application was made to the Home Government to permit our officers and men to engage in it, it was described as a very unusual re quest. He thought it was, and felt a rry that Capt. Osborn and he picked men who were with him should be engaged in such a service. (Hear, hear.) He complained of these men wearing her Majesty's uniform, all but the crown on the button, in the service of China, which, with other matters, were very irritating and annoying to the home service. The Foreign Enlistment Act had been carried out with rigour, and in a manner offensive to the people of England, against honest English traders. Their goods and their premises had been infested with spies under the powers of the En listment Act, but why, he asked, had its provisions been set aside by a Royal proclamation in favour of the Emperor of China. (Hear, hear.) No doubt our stake in China was great. It was a struggle for supremacy in that - quarter • but our success would depend on the means we employed for carrying out our efforts. (Hear.) He would not say whether we had or had not violated neutrality, or that we had or had not kept our promises; but he asserted that sooner or later all those matters must be brought before the search ing tribunal of public opinion, before a clear and abso lute verdict could be given in our favour. (Hear, hear.) Unless we changed our policy, that civilisation we wished to give to the Chinese would be advanced by a blood-stained path, and those efforts which promised blessings and plenty would carry irritation and discontent into the hearts of a naturally industrious and peaceful people. (Hear, hear.) Mr. H. BAILLIE said our military force in China cost this country a million per annum, which was equal to a penny in the pound on the income tax ; and the question they had to consider was, whether that money was wisely and judiciously expended—to ascertain what end and ob ject was to be gained by all these desultory naval and mili tary operations in China, and what were the views and in tentions of her Majesty's Government with regard to it. - The right hon. gentleman referred to the occupation of China by the French, observing that it was difficult to un• derstand the object of France in inaugurating a crusade against the Taepings. Some persona attributed it to reli gious motives; and if the Tappings had incurred the hatred of France on account of their fanaticism, they had no less incurred the hatred and hostility of the Anglo-Indian opium merchants by their vigorous and successful prohibi tion of the use and consumption of that pernicious drug. Both felt aggrieved, but what cause of complaint her Majes ty's Government had against the Taepings he had yet to discover. However, things had come to such a pass that they were actually engaged as partisans in the bloody war which was now raging in China. Lord Aberdeen was said to have dragged the country into a war with Russia. Well, the same Government being in power now which was in power in those days, it was doubly the duty of the house to take care that England was not dragged into a war with China, the ultimate consequence of which, so far as ex- pense was concerned, no one could foresee. It certainly was not a little remarkable that the noble lord, who was such a champion of nationalities, should now be engaged, in conjunction with France, in propping up a Government in China which was obnoxious to the great majority of the population. He denied that the Taepings were the worthless multitude which they had been sometimes de scribed. It was true the war had been marked by great bar barities, but the barbarities were common to both sides, and were only such as had characterised the warfare of the Tar tar race from the commencement of their history. Where, however, the inhabitants submitted to the government of the Taepings no devastations were perpetrated.. Upon that point they were in possession of the evidence of British mer chants who had travelled over the whole country in posses sion of the Taepings. It was impossible for any one to sup pose that our operations on the coast of China could ewer • cise any influence upon the result of the contest ; and if that were so, it became a question whether they were not doing more harm than good, even as regarded the commerce of England, by interfering at all in the matter. It appeared to him that her Majesty's Government had placed themselves in a false position, and that, in their anxiety to preserve the commerce of England, they had got into a difficulty out of which they could neither advance nor recede. No other hon. member rising to address the house, the Speaker put the question, which was negatived without a division. On the main question, that the house resolve itself into committee of supply, being again put, Mr. COBDEN rose and said—Sir, during the course of my experience in this house I have never encountered such an occurrence as that which has taken place this evening. (Cheers.) An hon. member opposite brings forward a most important question—a question to which he has devoted con siderable labour, and which ho has stated with considerable ability. (Hear.) There were undoubtedly many hon. gen tlemen prepared to take part in the discussion which, with good reason, they imagined would arise ; and so, after the hon. member had been followed by the hon. member for In verness, it was naturally expected that some answer would be made by the hon. member representia 3 - the Government to the observations of those hon. members. I think that not merely a due regard for the ordinary routine of our pro cedure, but that common respect which was due to the hon. members themselves, ought to have induced the hon. gen tleman to make some reply to the very important statement which was laid before the house. (Renewed cheers.) I consider this question of China, whether viewed from its commercial or political aspect, to be one of the most grave and perilous that can come before us. (Hear.) The forms of the house will not allow us to continue tho discussion now, and I can therefore only repeat my astonishment that the Government had acted in the way they did this even ing. (Loud cheers.) Mr. H. SEYMOUR concurred in the sentiment of est°. nishment just expressed by the hon. member for Rochdale. Such a scene he had never witnessed since he had had the honour of a seat in that house. (Cheers.) It was the firm conviction of many persons in the country that the expedi tion of Capt. S. Osborn had for its ultimate object the con quest of China; and yet, in respect of a question so grave and so elaborately treated, they were not to be favoured with any explanations on the part of the Government. In his opinion the hon. members opposite had been treated with the grossest disrespect—(hear) —and he hoped that the question would be very speedily before the house again. (Cheers.) Lord NAAS said he had been 15 years in the house, and he never recollected such an cecurrence as that which had taken place that evening. (Cheers) The question of China was perhaps the most important of all the questions likely to occupy Parliament during the present session ; but it was now made apparent that, if the Government thought fit to disregard the ordinary forms of the house at any time, it was open to them to deprive members of the opportunity of discussing the most important questions. As it was no doubt exceedingly disappointing that the subject should be treated in such a way, he begged to give notice that he would take an opportunity of again calling attention to it, and the Government must not complain if for the purpose he interposed en a supply night. (Cheers.) Mr. WHITE said that when so scanty a house was pre sent to hear one of the most important questions discussed that could be brought forward in Parliament —when they found themselves with only an audience of some ten ora dozen members—(cries of "No, no," from hon. members on the benches below the Ministerial gangway) —on an occa sion of such interest, it really Was not surprising that the debate collapsed. (No, no.) Personally, he greatly de plored that the Government had made no reply to the state ment of the hon, member opposite; but, at the same time, when such general apathy was shown towards the question, he did not think that their conduct upon that occasion ought to have been visited with so severe a measure of wrath. Mr, LAYARD desired to say a few words in explanation, If his enthusiastic friend the hon. member for Poole (Mr. H. Seymour) had looked at the notice paper, he would have seen that he was precluded by the forms of the house from immediately repl)ieg to the statement of the hon. members opposite. On the paper there were no less than four notices with respect to foreign affairs, and then there came another notice with regard to China on the part of his hon. and gal lant friend the member for Aberdeen (Col. Sykes). He therefore, very naturally, did not wish to preclude himself from the opportunity of speaking in reply to those other notices, which would have been the case had he risen im• mediately after the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Thalllie) He must say he thought the observations of hon. members were most unfair towards hims2lf, and that if the debate was prematurely closed it was their own fault. Mr. S. FITZGERALD said his hon. friend the Under- Secretary for Foreign Affairs was under an entire misß p prehension ; for it would have been perfectly competent for him to have addressed the house with respect to each of the several notices referred to by him on the question of going into committee of supply. (Hear, hear.) However, he was very glad that it was owing to a misapprehension that the discussion had ended as it had, and that it was not owing to what bore the appearance of a contempt for the feelings and opinions of members of the house. (Hear, hear.) Colonel SYKES said that if his hon. friend the Under- Secretary had looked at his notice he must have seen that it referred to papers which were included in the notice of the hoe, member for Northumberland, and that would have superseded the necessity of his addressing the house at all with respect to that notice. He must say, as an indepen dent supporter of the Government, that he could not but regret the effect which the occurrence of that evening would have upon their reputation throughout the country. (Hear, hear.) Sir H. VERNEY reminded the house, in defence of the Government, that the practice was for the Minister to reply at the end of all the motions. (Cries of "No, no; ques tion.") In regard to the main subject, he believed that the atrocities of the Chinese Government were nothing in com parison to the frightful conduct of the Taepings, who over ran districts of the country and devoured it like locusts. The only means of restoring tranquillity and order was by supporting the Imperial Government. The motion was then agreed to. The house went into committee of supply pro forma, and immediately resumed. THAMES EMBANKMENT (NORTH SIDE) BILL. This bill, as amended, was considered and agreed to. LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES CONTINU ANCE BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. VACCINATION (IRELAND) BILL. This bill, as amended, was considered and agreed to. SALE OF MILL SITES, (IRELAND) BILL, This bill was read a third time and passed. STATUTE LABOUR, ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill was committed pro forma. STATUTE LABOUR ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) TRANSFER BILL. This bill passed through committee. FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. BRAND (for Sir R. Peel) obtained leave to intro duce a bill to amend the laws relating to fisheries in Ireland. PIER AND HARBOUR OR ,ERS CONFIRMATION BILL. Mr. M. GIBSON moved that the select committee on the Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation Bill, so far as it re. lates to the piers at Llandudno and Rhyl, be appointed by the committee of selection, in the same manner as in the case of a private bill. The motion was agreed to. The house adjourned at a quarter-past 8 o'clock. PACKET SERVICE. On the motion of Mr. LYGON, a return of tenders for performing the packet service between Dover and Calais and Dover and Ostend since Jan. 1, 1863, was ordered. M Monday, t BRAZIL. r. POLLARD_ BRAZIL. gave notice that on State for F ore i gn Affairs whether the Brazilian Minister had not dem an d ed his he 18 t 1 ; ho should as k th e U n d er Secretary of passports, and had been directed by CIRCASSIAN TRIBES. Viscount RAYNHAM asked the First Lord of the Trea sury whether her Majesty's Government were award of certain outrages that had recently been committed by Rus sian troops on the Circassian tribes of the Eastern shores of the Black Sea, with which were -combined an insult to her Majesty—and, whether her Majesty's Government were prepared to support those clauses of the Treaty of Paris which provide for the-free navigation of the Black Sea in the cases of certain vessels which were about to trade with Circassia. Lord PALMERSTON replied that the Government had received no report of the alleged outrages; but ao many gross acts had been committed by Russian troops in various parts of the world that no doubt the facts stated by the noble lord were correct. (Hear, hear.) No question with respect to the navigation of the Black Sea had arisen since the treaty of Paris, and he apprehended that it was too clear to lead to any misconstruction of its terms. WHITSUNTIDE IHOLIDAYS. ADJOURNMENT OF TEE HOUSE. Lord PALMERSTON said it would no doubt tend to the convenience of the house if he stated that he intended to move on Tuesday that this house at its rising that even ing adjourn until the Thursday week following. According to the usual practise the house would not meet on Wed nesday next; he apprehended therefore, it would not be worth while to meet on Thursday next in order to adjourn the house after another night's sitting. (Hear, hear.) SUPPLY —REGIMENTAL QUARTERMASTERS. Sir F. SMITH, on the motion for going into Committee of Supply, rose to bring under the notice of the house the necessity of improving the condition of the regimental quartermasters of the army; and to move for correspon dence relating thereto. The Marquis of HARTINGTON could not promise any alteration of the present system, bat had no objection to produce all the papers, save such as it would be improper to lay on the table in accordance with the regulations of the service. After a few words from Col. OuNNE and Sir J. FERGUS. SON, the motion was withdrawn. CHINA. Mr. LIDDELL rose to call the attention of the house to events in Cbina, with a view of obtaining an expression of opinion from the house upon the course of policy pursued in that country, and to move a resolution. He had taken up the question as an act of public duty, because he felt that the time was come when that house ought to review what had occurred in China--when they ought to inquire and scrutinise closely what was now going on in China, and to gravely and deliberately weigh the responsibility which he thought necessarily attached to our position in that country. It was a long time since they had had a China debate in that house, and • during that interim very groat events had occurred in that country. There was a great and growing interest felt in that country in matters relating to the conduct of our foreign affairs, and we had adopted, as a general principle—which had met with the approval of the country—non-•intervention as far as possible, We had pur sued it towards America, but not so in China. There we had pursued a totally different policy, and had actively inter fered in the internal affairs of a friendly State by force of arms, to prop up a weak and corrupt Government against the efforts of its own subjects, who were bent on subverting it; and that in behalf of a Government that we had done more to weaken and degrade than any other nation in the eyes of its own subjects. The hon, member then read ex tracts from the despatches of Consul Meadows and Mr. Parkes in support of the opinion that the Government of China was effete and corrupt, also citing the acknowledg ments of Prince Kung to the same effect; and he next pro ceeded to describe the progress of the rebellion. He admit ted he was sceptical as to the cause of the rebels being in any way connected with the cause of the Taepings. All that he desired the house to recognise was, that the rebel lion was an established fact of 11 years' standing, and that the rebels had held Nankin, the ancient capital of the em pire, for ten years. In 1853 they organised a most re markable military movement. They marched two armies from Nankin against Pekin, which was 1,600 miles dis tant, and had those two armies been able to form a junction, Pekin, in all probability, would have fallen into their hands, He knew it was a very difficult task, after all that had been said and written on the subject of the rebels, to get up in that house and attempt to justify their conduct. Well, he did not intend to do so further than to remind the house that China had been in a state of chronic anarchy, and that civil war was ever accompanied with dreadful scenes of bloodshed and rapine. Besides, it must be remembered that one of the most disgraceful features in the Chinese character was their disregard of human life. However, it was important to consider what was the feeling of the rebels towards the English. The hon. member read ex tracts from the despatches of Consul Meadows, Mr. Parkes, and Consul Harvey to prove that originally, at all events, their desire was to cultivate the most friendly relations with the English. If a change subsequently took place in that feeling, it was attributed to our conduct towards them ; but at the same time he must say, that throughout the whole of the blue book he did not find a single instance recorded of the Taepings having intentionally injured British life or property. In their advance upon Shanghai, to which they were induced partly by the language of the u..iseionaries, and partly by the promise of exp:eted treasure, they were mowed down by English guns planted on the walls of the town, and it was that circumstance which sowed the first seeds of hosti • lity towards the English in th 3 minds of the rebel popula tion. The hon. member then proceeded to argue that an ad vance up the river Yang-tee was entirely premature, as long as the rebels were in possession of the country along the banks ; and that a ccording to t h e a d miss i ons o f our own cop suls.an im mense increa se h a d t a k en place, in consequence, in the illegal traffic carried onin the district, This was the very THE SIEGE OF PUEBLA. The Moniteur publishes the following report o General Forey to the Minister of War : " Cerro San Juan, April 2, 1863. "Monsieur le Marechal,—My general report o: the 2d ipst. will have informed your Excellency of the progress of the works of the siege of Puebla up to the 29th of March. "I had fixed upon that day for the attack upon Fort San Xavier, and I have now the honour to send to your Excellency the details of that opera tion. "Fort San Xavier is defended on its western side by a bastion, on the north by a curtain, on the east by a half-moon covering the entrance to the town side, and on the south by an irregular bastion. These works, forming a continuous enceinte, sur round a vast construction which comprises a Peni tentiary connected with the Convent of San Xavier. The whole of this solid structure has a length of 180 metres, and a width of 80 metres. It contains three inner courts and various outhouses. The approaches were covered by accessory defensive works, and flanked by numerous works still intact. The defence therefore was easy, and the internal arrangements allowed it to be made to the last extremity. It was indispensable to get possession of this great obstacle. Our engineering works had brought us up quite close to it. The fire of our artil lery had destroyed its batteries. It remained for the infantry to do the rest. " Confident in the vigour and energy of my troops, I did not hesitate to order the assault. The Ist battalion of Foot Cbasseurs and a battalion of the 2d Zouaves formed the attacking columns, in dependently of two battalions from the trenches. I entrusted the execution of this important operation to General Bazaine, who, accompanied by his Staff, took the command of the trenches at 1 p.m. At 4 p.m. all our batteries opened a heavy fire on the Penitentiary, which destroyed its outworks. At 5 p.m., at a given order, our fire ceased. General Bazaine, placed in - the fourth parallel, gave the sig nal. Repeated shouts of Vivo l'Empereur' re sponded to it, and the first column, issuing forth from the trenches, advanced at a charge against Fort Xavier, scaled the parapet, and forced an en trance. The enemy was for a moment disconcerted, but in a few minutes a hail of bullets was sent from the crenellated walls, terraces, and windows upon our men. The Mexicans at the same time opened some masked guns from behind the barricades; a field battery placed in front of Fort Carmen also opened fire against us, as did also all the other forts, but this deluge of grape did not stop the advance of our troops. The second column soon followed the first, and forced an entrance into the Peniten fiery,. The garrison, which consisted of about 700 men, made a show of resistance. For the first time, the Mexicans felt the points of our bayonets.; they gave way before the impetuosity of our attack. Driven from story to story, from room to room, some succeeded in escaping, many fell, the rest were captured. Trains had been laid in various parts of the building, but owing to the energy of Captain Barillon, of the Engineers, they were not fired, and no damage was done. "The enemy, finding that we had got possession of the Penitentiary, attempted to retake it. A re serve of 2,000 Mexicans advanced to the east front, but the Chasseurs and Zouaves who had taken possession of the first storey of the building received them with so well sustained a fire that they were compelled to fall back behind the barricades in the town. The enemy still kept up a heavy fusil lade, which lasted till half. past 7 o'clock. " The loss of the enemy was serious, as the interior of the building was full of dead bodies. We cap tured three mortars, one field piece, and a quantity of ammunition, with 200 prisoners, including two colonels and eight other officers. " Our officers and men deserve the highest praise for their courage and discipline during the fight. " FOREY, Commander-in-Chief." La Patrie publishes the following : ". The official reports of the recent military events in Mexico reached Paris yesterday. They confirm the information already received from various sources of the attack and capture of the city of Puebla. Ac • cording to our private advices, our troops, at the latest date, were in possession of the town, with the exception of two forts, against which the attack was not to be directed, as the occupation of all the other positions of the enemy rendered thesurrender of those forts inevitable. Despite the supplications of the inhabitants, the Mexican garrison, commanded by General Ortega, had resolved to withstand the siege, and the resistance it made, according to the reports of those who took part in that desperate struggle, was as energetic as it was courageous. Street by street, house by house, our soldiers, inspired by that heroic ardour which is common to them, had to fight their way. The streets were barricaded, the houses, coated with earth, formed so many forts, against which our artillery was obliged successively to direct its fire. Thanks to the skilful plans of General Forey, and to the maintenance of order daring the advance of the besiegers, whose zeal it was at times necessary to restrain, our losses have not been, happily, in proportion to the difficulties which arose at every step. The artillery, under the able direction of its brave Colonel, recently promoted to the rank of General, spared its fire as much as possible, as wcll to prevent the destruction of the most populous portion of the city, where the in' offensive inhabitants had sought shelter, as ° economise in some measure his ammunition, whic h had been procured at great cost of conveyance. The precision of aim remedied in some degree the rela. dye want of shell and shot, and the part played 11 the artillery in this sanguinary combat deservea,in this point of view, the highest praise. Let ne hasten to add that General Laumiere, of the Artil' lery, whose death had been reported, is ° DI Y wounded. He was struck by a bullet in the fore head, and, though the wound is serious, no fears °i a fatal issue were entertained when the last de' spatches left. This is the only general officer wil ° has been wounded. Among the superior officer* one colonel only received a slight wound in t he shoulder. The number of prisoners taken b y our forces is considerable. Our officers, actuated b 1 that generous spirit which always animates theft endeavoured to avoid as much as possible the c u r, sion of blood in the houses which fell int o their hands. Nevertheless, it was found necessary to` blow up many of the houses, which had been tra i l; formed into so many fortresses, and to bury tu. r defenders inside, who held out to the last, in th ruins. Tne composition of the garrison of Pe el/ has again corroborated the assertions of all t he cer o i respondence which represented the nisic ri , t/ re . the Mt;xican population as favourable to O'er pean intervention. The Mexican fhig, or ratio the flag of Juarez, counted among its d efende deserters from General Prim's army , 0 : lishmen, Americans, and a great number a o t mopolite soldiers, which the European con tinen ce provides in all adventurous wars. Th e preeen to of these various elements explains in Per t o , P unexpected resistance which has been made. to sengers who left Vera Cruz by the last steam er of the opinion that in the week which would in h° s , the departure of the courier the complete 001 %0 tion of Puebla must have taken place, and that '1)0 inhabitants, protected against the mercenaries 0, had joined General Ortega's army, must h alo ; ceived ceived our troops with cordial hospitality." „ ie . The account given in the Con stitutionnel 10 Su'. what vague, and is much more brief. It saYe :-. ; e e " The courier from Mexico has brought g101.1;cr news. Since the commencement of April the troops had gained a footing in Puebla, an d, leas town was not yet completely in our hands, a- r • our troops entered it on the 31st of March,,oftefor, victoriou3 assault, and were every day rnak i g ro 1 ther progress. They entered the city on t hen ic ot west side, and on the 3d of April advanced r i g n sce o the fortified redoubt in the centre of the town' for, to attack it on two sides at once. The veri cite c ol tified works of Morelos, Carmen, San Pa blo, others others had surrendered ; the first fi re of ree' - t ot having ceased, it n o l o n g er seemed dOllbtfU3 Etly the complete occupation of the town would fil l° O f follow, and consequently lead to the sarren° Forts Lorte and Guadaloupe." COUNTRY MARKETS. LIVERPOOL—MAY 15. atiet la ; At this day's market there was rather a sniit' l n ire. ante of the trade, and wheat met with a slow prices in favour of buyers. Oats were not de o o l Oatmeal was scarce. Barley and peas were fuliftoble's, Indian corn hardly so brisk, but full prices om 0 ,410 6 New Egyptian beans rather dearer, and in bette! Flour at former quotations, and more business (10,136 --- WAKEFIELD—MAY 15. „FS A fair show of wheat at market to-day, but 00r/0 done was limited, at about last week's rates. 13 steady. Other articles unchanged. Averages for the week : 1 ul Wheat 2,441 qrs., at 4Bs '" --s ° t a d Rye — 36 6 9 , 2 1 - 8ar1ey.......... 152 Pea 5........... 10 Oats 2O - Beans STAMFORD—MAY 15. tar . 58 P White wheat, 45s to 50s ; red, 44s to 48s Pe 34s pet.. 4 Barley, malting, 36s to 428; grinding, 32s 41 s ~„sr Oats, 22s to 263 per 24 stone. Beans, old, ." qr. ; new, 38s to —s. CORK—MAY 15. The following were the quotations this 1 n0r1i,, 11 .14_,, to wheat, —s Od to Os 01; white, 9s Od to —sOd IP Od to Os Od ; oats, 8s 6d;to Os Od. ; black do., Os Od. EXETER—MAY 15. 64 0 4 ,51 I Wheat, white 6s 3d to 6s 4d Barley. ....... 9d to,,v" Ditto red .6s Od to 6s 3d Oats .. ..... r ßarr Flour, fine, 35s to 366 ; seeonds,,34B to -"Or" t 3 es CATTLE. .ota to ",a Fat beef, p 1080 d to 1186 d Ewes, per lb •• • • 701 Pork carcases, 7s Od to 8s Od Wethers, d 0..• to+ Lamb, p to -- d Fat calves, do.. v Rough fat, 3id per lb. BRISTOL SUGAR—MAT 15 ' tat tj . l t e, The languid tone which characterised the wa rite sticfrd close of last week continues to mark its operations'as to lo". though importers have made s concessions%l 3ll b l e ep come forward sparingly, and the sales have small extent. Refined goods are a slow sale, and Pl' 6 ,1, 6d per cwt. lower. Jamaica rums bring 28 9 d to ,7° Demerara is Gd to is 7d per proof gallon. Prices of Coal p C e O r A T L on R A , d. t ARKET. * rite' the dose of the In— 0, ' 6 "Walla 11('" s Haswell ...... . .... $ Hartlepool ..... 6 T r i m d on Hartlepool ,. 16 H e tt on ....... • 6 0 Tanstall ~, ••.15.. 0 Cassop .. Heugn Hall ........ A, 31; sold, 26. ttle (e iji b g next Wednesday vet • ill not attend the nig- Byass's Bebside West Hartley ...15 3 Carway and Duffryn Malting . 19 6 Eden Main l4 9 Walls End. li silos .... 15 9i Ships at market By a general resolution, Derby-day) the merchants w Foreign Mail Packet Vst" c . 1 9 ' MAILS DUE. 1 4, Aunralia and Mauritius, via Southampton" '''''' 4. drazil and Cape Verds, b Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and r S ac t: ' vyiaßArlitairssheilles ..• .... • JO 0, China, Penang, and Singaiore, via SoutharaPO sal 4. via Marseilles Falkland Islands .......... T oy i ,, • • .... Gibraltar, via Southampton India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via ............. :10,111. via Marseilles.* sl, India (Bombay), via Southampton ......... • :101, . via Marseilles ....... 11 .......... Portugal.... ............................. , pas.otl• Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton ..• 1 3. via Marseilles ...... 1 1 A ne t. e . i . e . n F ov . ..r a f f Newfoundland .• Oporto and Vigo U. S. and British N. America, by .... by U.S. packet_•,;' t :o 1 0, W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and L T y en C e a r n iff a e d . ia . n . ............ • .1741, Bahamas, via New York ................... " •. pio , Mexico .... " gal ' ............. Fat' , All parts of West Indi es , i nc l u di ng Chia' 1 California, and Briti s h C o l um bi a . ......... •. . ta fv„ [ADVERTISEMENT.I—HoIIoway's Ointnien' - t beP - utr, Chest Complaints.—The propriety of ciisturbillg.-03/oieso and vascular system in pulmonary maladies b , 0 1 7 0'jjel r° ing internal medicines , was long questioned bel ° ' of r e O f uiliti t Holloway was enabled ' to prove the practice- - rt age t i l e t ! ltig over-gorged lungs and restoring their net 'pith driv ill AC- d o external means. Ills Ointment, thoroughlY„, o st P the walls of the chest twice a day, gives the n'''"„ o glA r e; and comfort in influenza, acute and chronic c ';, et :,,0 0 .4 1t chitis, pleurisy, stitches in the side, shorts t his and palpitation. The weakest may safely tri - hoPt ffuf and will find that they have not staked th e lime ;00' 1 uncertaiuty, or frittered away most valuable -Ole less or injurious experiments. Moderato doses° Pills are sometimes advisable. _ _ ______---- C. Births. le BARING.—On the 14th inst ,at 1, Chester - P DO' Fre d ' Baring, of a daughter. . ro. g e CosENs.—On the 15th inst., at Clapham - Pi irk ' tilL f Cosens; of a son. te r f el 3 FESTING.—On the 13th inst , the wife of g PO' It M.A., of &daughter. g e nts SUDLOW.—On the 13th inst., at Charlton) Sudlow, of a son. C o li n M l L y A a N r : si . I C HOLI k ThomastEL ECY.—arrohneley,—On the at / 3 ' • salie St. Quentin,Rsl(l - Esq., of Sans So • uei, near Nap . , at A; C,P,' WALT ` ON—CLEVELAND —0 the 14th 1110" es+ ..to Ea'" JP" kirk, Yorkshire, Thomas n Walton, Esq. , /3 y le/ to Lizzie, fourth daughter of the Re v ' lielir rector of the parish. .13 ei Deaths. j otb- I Hove, Thomas T. Cattley, BORRER 1 ,4 or, .—On the 14th in P k lis fan . 1.16 inst., at a y sol Borrer, ' , Esq,, aged 73. ol ifto CATTLEY.—On the 'deice) to ~ 0 1 1 Esq.,.E dau gh ter s (3 ci Cn , ° s t o ic nh 6 f e e l u t .dh6lei_6l2.lotaal3. e t re:66:, g o ' e 13 , 10 il 10-1011:.. 13th inst , at his rest Hon. Robt. Curzon, third of A CURZON.—On the 14th inst , at Yarhsits-parx4stlV Oard Curzon, aged 90. iwa, EDGELL.—On the 14th • tat 21 Cadegan-6 la' Edgell, Esq., B ins t., ! , ag ed 9• 00 I 0 FARNELL encher of GraY's -inn , uod 0° ' TRC,EeonB.tL, On the 15th inst., at A..° aged 61. e rete wort . h 11 ) --enry Parnell, Esq solicitor, ,totor ~ onetoa, . MAY I St . On the 14th inst at 2 Burton 'str eet ' m May, Esq., at an a va garlbOrOligo John's --. 11 0 4 n M ;he l6th"inst: :It Marlborough. 9 6 :7 '-r°t" J tin s-wood, John Treble, Esq. , 9g° °' 02, London : Printed and Publis hed by IVlLlA''' nf Ace. 1 4 „, of No. 11 Strand, Printe r, at he 2, cotiO" Strand, in the Precinct o f the Eiavoy , Middlesex.—Saturday , Alai 10 , 16°3' • r .=_~„~