The Press.
London, England, 1854-05-13 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

a spirit existed at this moment for suppling the wants of
the poor in this respect greater than had ever existed
before. The evil, he believed, would be much more Wee-
twiny remedied by such efforts than by grants of public
money, and he mentioned several facts in corroboration of
this conviction. Asto schools, he reminded their lordships
that the State had not neglected the duty of providing a
good and sound education for all classes. Last year
21t0,000/. had been granted for this purpose, and it might
perhaps be wise to increase this amount. At the
same time he admitted the difficulty of establishing a
system of united education ; but, in the absence of such
system, the Committee of Privy Council was doing as
much as possible. Ludcr all the circumstances, as the
resolution would not be productive of any practical result,
he suggested that it should be withdrawn.
Earl NELSON suggested that a commission should
be appointed to inquire into the means of remedying
spiritual destitution.
The Bishop of OxvoßD recommended the noble
mover to withdraw the resolution, which he observed
pointed to a wrong quarter for relief. He was con-
vinced that they could not, with propriety or advan
tage, ask for grants from the public funds for
strengthening, enlarging, and developing the Church
of England. What the Church of England really
wanted was increased liberty of adapting itself to
the spiritual necessities of the people.
The Bishop of Sr. DAVID'S concurred in this re-
commendation.

After a few words from the Earl of CIANCARTY, the
motion was withdrawn.
EXPENSES OF THE WAR.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGR on Thursday called
the attention of the Peers to the enormous expense
incurred in the transport of troops to the East, as
shown by the recent votes in the House of Commons.
The sum thus voted exceeded by a large sum what
the charge would be for the conveyance of a like
number of persons and horses round the Cape, and
all the way to India, at the passenger rate. He
asked the Government to lay upon the table the de
tails of this extraordinary expenditure, and to state
the manner in which it was intended to pay the
troops in Turkey, and what means had been adopted
for moving the army from place to place?
The Duke of NEWCASTLE deprecated such ques-
tions, as calculated to unfold our military plans to
the enemy. With regard to the details of the expen-
diture complained of, he would come under no dis-
tinct promise at present. The expenditure in many
instances could not be furnished. It had not all
been incurred, but at the proper time every explana-
tion would be given. With regard to the payment of
the troops, 255,00) sovereigns and 5,000 in silver had
been sent out, ready to be converted into whatever
currency may be found most convenient.
The Earl of MALMESBURT inquired whether any
despatches had been received from Admiral Dundas
on the subject of the bombardment of Odessa?
The Duke of NEWCASTLE answered that despatches
had been received. He recapitulated some of the
facts already known, adverting particularly to the
outrage upon the flag of truce. As the war pro-
gressed, means would be taken to communicate in-
formation through the Gazette.
The Earl of MaLKEsstiaY expressed his surprise
at finding the cause of the attack assigned to the
outrage on the flag of truce. If that outrage had
not taken place, would Odessa have been left un-
assailed ?
The Duke of NEWCASTLE declined to communicate
what the instructions were which were issued by the
Government as to the conduct of the war.
The conversation then dropped.
UNAUTHORISED NEGOTIATIONS.

The second reading of the bill for prohibiting un-
authorised negotiations with foreign powers was
moved on Tuesday in the Peers by Lord CAMPRNI.L.
The noble lord cited in support of his measure the
dicta of sundry authorities upon the law of nations,
and pointed to the example of the United States, by
whose code the acts he designed to prevent were
punished by fine and imprisonment. The provisions
of his bill were less severe; but after referring suc•
cessively to the deputations sent by the Irish insur-
rectionists to M. Ledru Rollin, by the city of London
Corporation to the President of the French, and by
the Society of Friends to the Czar, he submitted
that, although the motive might sometimes be good,
the acts themselves were inexpedient, and ought to
be prohibited.
Lord LYNDHURST opposed the bill, questioning
whether many of the acts which came within its
scope could be considered offences against the law
of nations. Many proceedings of undoubted benefit
would also be prevented by its operation, as an
instance of which he mentioned the interference
lately made by British subjects on behalf of the
Medial.
The Earl of SHAFTEsaraviconcurred in condemn-
ing the measure. There were many cases in which
British subjects must feel hound in conscience to at-
tempt an interposition, and could not be prevented,
except by an act of intolerable tyranny.
The Earl of Ellenborough, the Bishop of Oxford,
and Lord Beaumont having spoken,

437

The Earl of ABERDEEN admitted that there were
some reasons shown for the bill, but, as it required
very extensive modifications before it could be made
a working measure, he recommended Lord Campbell
not to persist in pressing it upon the house.
The Marquis of CIANKICARDF: joined in that recom-
mendation, believing that no practical evil had been
proved to exist of sufficient gravity to call for such a
measure.

After a few words from Lord Buot•onim,
Lord CAmpnEt.i. replied, restating the considera-
tions on which the bill was founded, and refusing to
withdraw it.
A division was called, but none took place, the bill
being read a second time, and ordered to be referred
to the committee, now sitting, on common-law proce-
dure.

THE GUN-BOAT SQUADRON.
Mr. KENNEDY inquired on Tuesday whether both
the admirals in command of our fleets had not asked
earnestly for gun-boats ; and whether Admiral
Napier had not asked for iron gun-boats to meet
those of the Russians, which were made by a house
in Liverpool? Did not Scott Russell offer to pro-
vide in a few weeks the craft wanted ; and had not
the Admiralty refused to provide iron boats, and or-
dered wooden boats to be built and bought, which
wooden boats would draw twelve feet of water, instead
of five, like the iron boats ?
Sir J. GRARAN replied:—
" I really hope the house will pardon me if I exercise
some discretion in answering this question. (' Hear,
hear,' and cheers.) It will not be possible to conduct the
war if we are to say what requisitions are made by the
admirals on different stations with respect to what they
require—(Hear, hear)—and much less might an answer to
be given as to what propositions have been made by a
articular house with regard to contracts. All I can say
is that the strength of Russia in gun-boats in the Baltic is
formidable, and that her Majesty's Ministers have taken
every precaution to meet that formidable force, and I have
every reason to believe that the commerce of Great Britain
in the Gulf of Bothnia will be protected by every possible
means."