The Press.
London, England, 1858-06-05 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JUNE 5, 1858.

That, in any course that this house may sanction, in
furtherance of the construction of such canal, it is expe-
dient that care be taken that the despotic powers of the
Egyptian Government he not allowoi to be made use of
by toe promoters of such project to obtain the required
labour from the " fellah" at an inadequate remuneration,
by compulsory means, so as to produce the effects of
slavery under the guise of paid labour.
He argued in support of the motion.
Mr. STEPHENsON pointed out the physical and
moral difficulties in the way of forming the canal,
which, owing to the two seas being upon a dead
level, would have no current, and would be in fact
a ditch. In his opinion, it would be a most abortive
under akiug.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD opposed the motion. He
denied that the opposition to this scheme originated,
as Mr. Roebuck hail alleged, in a base and selfish
spirit on ►he part of this country. Mr. Roebuck
had assumed that the project would facilitate inter-
course ; but Mr. Stephenson had shown that it would
not add to the existing means. He urged that a
canal through a foreign country, that could be easily
closed, would be a very precarious channel of com-
merce. But there were, he observed, important
political considetations involved in the scheme,
which had guided the policy of the late Administra-
tion, and it was impossible to deal with the matter
on commercial grounds alone.
Mr. M. GIBsoN wished for copies of all the com-
murications with other countries upon this subject,
in order that the house might understand clearly
what policy the Foreign office had been pursuing.
Lord Par.mEasToN said the most charitable view
he could take of the scheme, the most innocent light
in which he could view it, was that it was one of the
greatest bubbles ever attempted to be imposed upon
the credulity and simplicity of the people of this
country. His firm opinion was that, although it
would be a bold thing to say that, at a great sacrifice
of money and human life, the canal might not be
cut, as a remunerative enterprise the scheme was
neither more or less than a bubble.

Mr. J. Ewkirr spoke in opposition to the motion.
Mr. GLADSTONE observed that the point before the
house was not whether it should sanction a bubble
scheme, or any scheme at all, but whether it should
protest against the political influence of this country
being used for the purpose of preventing the making
of this canal ; whether it should put an end to an
illegitimate opposition to the scheme. If this was
a bubble project, let the bubble be allowed to burst.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER asked what
evidence there was that the power and influence of
this country had been used to induce the Sultan to
withhold his assent' He knew of no undue control
so exerted on the part of the present or any former
Government, and before a resolution of this kind
was adopted there should be something in the shape
of evidence. The consequence of passing this reso•
lution would be that the project would appear to be
sanctioned by the house, and he thought it would be
most unwise on its part to lend itself to the approval
of a project at best of a doubtful nature. The
motion had been brought forward without authority,
and if the house adopted the resolution it, would
fetter itself in its future course.
Lord J. Russr.f.i. observed that it had been argued
that this was a bubble speculation, that the difficulties
in the way of making the canal were almost insuper-
able, and that the Turkish Government, for reasons
of its own, employed all its efforts against it Ad-
mitting all this, did it not follow that there was no
need of the power and influence of England in the
matter? He should vote for the resolution.
Mr. DRUMMOND considered that the canal was in-
tended to bar our access to India by that route.
Mr.Bßrnur pressed for the correspondence referred
to by Mr. Gibson.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER promised to
give an answer on the subject on Wednesday.
After a few remarks by Sir J. ELPHLNSTONE, and
a reply by Mr.RoF.aucfc, the amendment of Mr. Griffith
was negatived, and the house having divided upon
the original motion, it was negatived by 290 to 62.
On the order tor the third reading of the Church
Rawl' Abolition Bill, a discussion arose on a motion
by Mr. DRUMMOND that the debate be adjourned,
which was negatived upon a division.
Mr. IfttmE then moved that the house do adjourn,
which was likewise, upon a division, negatived.
Ultimately the debate on the motion for the third
reading was postponed until Tuesday next, Mr.
SOTHERON ESTCOURT, on the part of the Govern-
ment, conceding a morning sitting for the purpose,
and the house adjourned at twenty minutes to three
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—WEDNEsnay.
Mr. W. Wilks having presented a further petition,
Mr. M. GII3SON moved that he be discharged from
custody.
Mr. G. CLIVE skid, as far as lie was concerned, he
cheerfully cousented to the liberation of Mr. Wilks,
declaring at the same time that there was not ono

word of truth in the charge of partiality on the partl,
either of himself or the committee.
Mr. WALPOLE thought the house must be satisfied
that Mr. Clive was eonspletely exonerated from the
charges of corruption and of undue partiality, and, as
these charges were now withdrawn (as he Wnderstood
the petition), and the petitioner bad expreveed Ina
regret that they had appeared in his paper,tite re-
tractation was now full and corroptete,
Mr. Wilks was ordered to be diewhorged from [Me
of the Sergeant-at-Arms, cm payment of hi 4
fees. custody