The Express.
London, England, 1862-05-17 00:00:00

for Foreign Affairs of the Mexican governuient, for the pur-
ae of :...lading e. convention for the satisfaction of the
British corus. (Hear, bear.) My noble friend at the head
of the Foreign Department considen be will be
quite prepared to lay the papers connected with
the tmosectious in Mexico upon the table of the home,
and that being the case, perhaps the hon. gentleman the
member for Horsham (Mr. Fitzgerald), who has given notioe
of a motion on this subject, will consent to postpone that
motion.
Mr. FITZGERALD wished to know whether they might
expect the papers to be laid on the table within • short
time?
Lord PALMERSTON -Yea, I should say so.
SEIZURE OF THE ORWELL STEAMER.
Mr. C. HEIN-PINCE wished to ask the Under-Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs whether be was aware that, on the
3rd day of May, 1861, a tribunal at Naples decided that the
owners of the Orwell steamer were entitled to oomposeation
from the Italian government for the seizure of their vessel
by the Gal-obsidians ; and whether he would forthwith lay
upon the tilde a copy of the judgment of that tribunal!
Mr. LA YARD said he was not aware that any such judg-
ment bad been prouounoed by a tribunal at Naples, but be
would make inquiries and inform his hon. friend of the
result.
PROCEEDINGS AT COURTS-MARTIAL
Mr. (YBRIEN asked the Secretary of State for War whe-
ther it was the intention of the government to take any
measures for altering the system of instituting and conduct-
ing prosecutions at courts-martial
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that, in reply to the question of
his hoe friend, he begged to say it was not the intention of
the government to propose any alteration of the law with
respect to the system of conducting prosecutions at courts-
martial. lie apprehended the hon. member's question was
founded upon the proceedings at the late court-martial at
Dublin. He thought it rather precipitate that they should
amend the constitution of those courts from the details of
one single case. If they were to decide in that manner, it
must be admitted that trial b 7 jury would not escape, as
there were notoriously many improper verdicts by nines
which it was the duty of the Home Secretary to rectify.
Supposing the error admitted in the present case, even
that would not afford any conclusive reason for an
alteration of the act. Redid not know precisely the exact
evil it was proposed to remedy, or what was the exact
remedy it was proposed to apply, but he would be quite
ready to give the subject every consideration.

TEli WESTMINSTER IMPROVEMENT COM-
MISSION.

Upon the motion for going into committee of supply,
Sir W. GALLWEY rose to move fur a select committee
to inquire into the double appointment of Sir E. Pearson
and Mr. Tice, 11. P., to the chairmanshipof the Westminster
Improvement Commission, and for copies of conespondeoce
between the First Commissioner of Works and the Im-
p rovemmt Commissioners and the Dean and Chap-
ter of Westminster, Mr. Tice, nod Sir E. Pear-
son relative to these appointinenta. The hon. member
said that on the 17th July Mr. Cowper had authorised hiss
(Sir W. Gallwey) to convey to Sir E. Pearson his decided
mtentiou of nominating him to the office of chairman of
the COMMillSiOn' and that on the following day he would be
officially appointed. Acting under the instructions of the
right hon. gentleman he bad made the intimation to Sir E.
Pearson. On the ?sd of August the First Commis-
sioner wrote a letter to Sir E. Pearson requesting him to ao-
cent the chairmanship of the Westminster Improvement
Commission, and on the following day Sir Edwin accepted
the office. From that moment the First Commissioner
could not withdraw the nomination without in some degree
affecting the charmer of the gentleman appointed. Sir E.
Pearson, bevies metered on the duties of his office, received
an the 7th of August a letter from the First Commissioner
intimating that he was distressed to film he could not give
affect to the ietsatios be bad exposited, but assuring him
that the ebony in the appointment reelected in no way upon
his ohmmeter, but arca from a &eke to infuse new blood
into the commission. He added that it would be a thank-
less and laborious task, and that Sir L Pearson would de-
rive no advantage from the appointment, except coming
out of it with a apothem reputation. (Hear, hear.) The
honourable member then referred to the valuable
services which Sir Edwin had rendered to the old commis-
sion, from the chairmanship of which he retired in 1852,
and stated that the gentleman who had month, been sub-
stituted for him, the hon. member for Bath, held no Ices
than sixteen different appointments. (Laughter.)
Mr. COWPER, in reply to the statement of Sir W.
Gallwey, gave a brief history of the Westmiaster Improve-
ment OOMMISIIiOO, and a narrative of the circumstances con-
nected with the meditated appointment of Sir E. Pewee.
and the actual appointment of Mr. Tite to be chairman of
the commission, believing, he said, that the former was not
a proper person to fill the office, and stating the reasons
(not affecting his moral character) upon which this
was founded. He denied that there had been a double ap-
pointment.
Mr. TITE read the correspondence which bad passed be-
tween Mr. Cowper and himself in justification of their re-
spective shares in the transaction.
Mr. MACAULAY took exceptions to the explanatory
statement of Mr. Cowper, whose proceedings, he thought,
had left a stigma upon Sir E. Pearson, and ought to he
placed in a proper light by an inquiry. He moved towered
the motion by substituting, for the word " double," the
weeds " circumstances connected with."
This amendment was seconded by Mr. NEWDEGATN, bet
meld not be put in point of form.
After some observations by Mr. BLut,ne,
Lord PALMEB-STON thought that Sir W.
GaUwey,
his object was to vindicate his friend Sir E. Pearson, bed
attained it. No imputation had been cart upon that gen-
tleman. Mr. Cowper, when he found there were parties
adverse to his appointment, would have been wrong if he
bad persevered in his intention. A select committee, he
observed, had really nothing to inquire into, there having
been no double appointment.
Mr. ADDERLEY made a few remarks, and the hones
divided upon the motion of Sir W. Ciallway, as originally
worded, which was negatived by 139 to 128.
MINISTERIAL REPLIES.

Mr. LAYARD, in answer to questions, said—lt was
doubtful in what way the persons engaged on the Sues
canal were employed. The reports were very contra-
dictory, and there was therefore coosidersble difficulty in
ascertaining the true state of the case. The matter stood
in this way. By the concession granted by the Vicero of
Egypt to the company, at the bead of which wasy M.
Lampe, it was stipulated in the original agreement of
January, 18.36, that the person. employed to labour on the
canal should never consist of more than one-fifth part
Europeans. This was done in order to prevent the influx
of a large number of foreigners. The concessionaires con-
sidered that, inch being their engagement with the Viceroy,
the had • right to rail on him to furnish them with labour.
InJuly, 1856, the Viceroy issued • kind of decree, in which
he engaged to furnish workmen to the company. There
were various stipulations contained in that decree providiog
for the paymeet of those persons, that they should be pro-
perly aired for, that they should be housed, and that hoe-
petals should be provided for them, and
ththeir
for some time
comfort and
welfare properly guarded. It appeared at
those persons were paid by the company, and that such pay-
ments were at first made in advance. Even then many of
them worked unwillingly, and • large number having ob-
tained the pay ran away. The company then determined
not to pay in advance, but at the end of the labour. That
course was adopted, and went on for some time, until them
was reason to believe that the payments on the part of the
contractors had ceased altogether. I must, how-
ever, say in justice to M. Lessejr, that that was
denied by him. However, her Majesty s government had
certainly received reports that last year the contractors no
longer paid the men themselves—that the payments were
made partly by the sheiks of the village. from which the
men were brought, and further that •
amount of that labour was furnished by the Viceroy him,.
and this labour was passed to the account of the Pacha,
who was very largely interested in the works as one of the
principal shareholders. That statement is again denied. It
was on the one hand asserted, and denied on the other, but
it was admitted that the contractors had entered into agree-
ments with Greek firms at Cairo and elsewhere to furnish
labour, and that these Greek firma called on the Pacha to
furnish the men, for whom they received • certain amount
per head. No doubt such a state of things led to great ex-
egeses. It was quite certain that they laboured against
their will. They were torn from the villages, and • great
emoted of misery and suffering was Inflicted on the population.
The noble lard (Lord Henry Sooty) had stated that some of
them walked 100 mike to receive their miserable pay.
When it wee remembered that they only worked for
one month, and that they received only sixpence per
day, and had to walk 100 miles to get Its.,
it was easy to conceive that it was not very agreeable to
them. Ile regretted to say that many of them came a much
greeter distance than 100 miles ; for Mr. Colfinhoun stated
that be had sees at the first cataract boats full of people being
sent down to work at Suez, who had been taken from their
villages at harvest and seed time, great misery to themselves
and their families being thus occadooed. The noble lord
had stated that the company admitted they employed
26,000 persons, but that they denied they em-
ployed 40,000. It was, however, quite clear that
if they employed 26,000 they in reality employed
more than 40,000, because, as the labourers were employed
for • month only, and came from great distances, there must
be more than an equal number to replace them ; conse-
quently, about 50,000 were torn from the population at one
time for these works. He could only Ray that this state of
things was greatly to he deplored, and was likely to bring
great distress said waterlog apes the country. He would
not go into the political bearings of the question. A. far
as the work itself was concerned, at present it was nothing
more than • mere service. Although only one-fortieth pert
of the work had been executed, more than one-fourth of
the capital bad bees expended.
OUR PUBLIC HICPENDITURE.
Mr. AYRTON celled attention to the manner in which
the charge for the civil services are increased, and asked
whether it is expedient to make any cheese in the mode
of conducting buglers, to enable the house to ex-
ercise a more effectual supervisioe over the progress of
measures which teed to that blefellie. He complained
that the hones had no sufficient opportunity to consider
the acts of the goveremeet, which led to public expos-
diture before the emery was voted ie supply. The house
WIIA thus oornenitted to 111116•01• S of which it did not foresee
the magnitude and ultimata eoessquencee. He adverted to
examples which illustrated and exefirmed his obOicties.
Under the present system I:ll.7irseed directing things to
to be done, the charge* be out of monies ideals par
liament may afterwards th fit to vote. (Jotter the